Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Tinykong]

It's already been established. Multiple studies have found that permissive laws are associated with higher rates of firearm death. It's a fact that you haven't even argued, you've simply just called it irrelevant.

You mean the studies you've posted in this thread that are always questioned and/or shown to be incorrect? Oh, wait, I forgot, we're not qualified to question the results of a study, my bad.

[Svifnymr]

It's already been established. Multiple studies have found that permissive laws are associated with higher rates of firearm death. It's a fact that you haven't even argued, you've simply just called it irrelevant.

States along mexican drug routes have higher crime than states in the frozen north. The "number of laws vs number of deaths" generally has to throw out NH and Vermont. I don't recall off hand if that study also addressed the disparity of gun deaths in heavily regulate cities (NYC, Chicago, Detroit) vs the rest of the individual state which in general has much looser rules. And of course, the laws vs crimes numbers are never so direct as "pass this law, crime goes down 10%" or anything of the sort. Only through severe restrictions do they achieve any movement on the needle.

But mostly, it's the fact that even if a law passes that later is revealed to just be worthless, they rarely retract and instead double down and want to make it harsher to try for some effect. It's especially hard dealing with such rare events as mass shootings with broad reaching laws that affect everyone.

[Zoranon]

It's already been established. Multiple studies have found that permissive laws are associated with higher rates of firearm death. It's a fact that you haven't even argued, you've simply just called it irrelevant.

Your bellowed firearms deaths stat is completely irrelevant. The relevant statistics, as I am sure you know, is the overall murder rate. Which you consistently ignore because it does not fit your biases.

You are getting quite sad with repeating the same lies over and over again.

[Tinykong]

Your bellowed firearms deaths stat is completely irrelevant. The relevant statistics, as I am sure you know, is the overall murder rate. Which you consistently ignore because it does not fit your biases.

You are getting quite sad with repeating the same lies over and over again.

"But people who don't have access to firearms won't kill themselves."

"What about Japan?"

"Different cultural values."

"But you can use Canada as an example for why firearm laws work?"

"La-la-la-la-la."

[Roxinius]

You mean the studies you've posted in this thread that are always questioned and/or shown to be incorrect? Oh, wait, I forgot, we're not qualified to question the results of a study, my bad.

bro phone surveys are totes legit idk wtf you're talking about

[Annoying]

If all you can keep saying is "it's my right", without actually defending why that right should exist in a logical manner, then I'm fairly confident that it won't be a right for much longer.

I don't think it's unreasonable at all to say "it's my right" as a defense. We have a constitution. It grants us that right. Wanting to utilize that right isn't illogical. If we had an amendment that stripped that right, then a supermajority of people would have spoken that they don't want that right anymore.

It's silly to defend why a right that already exists should exist. It's also perfectly reasonable to discuss if we should remove that right. I don't think it's reasonable at all to discuss removing that right in an underhanded way when we have a perfectly legitimate means to remove that right. If you were here discussing the removal of the second amendment, it would be entirely reasonable to want us to discuss why it should exist, but you're not discussing the removal of the amendment. You're arguing "strict gun laws reduce firearm deaths" to which a reply of "they infringe on my 2nd amendment right" is a valid one.

[TZucchini]

Your bellowed firearms deaths stat is completely irrelevant. The relevant statistics, as I am sure you know, is the overall murder rate. Which you consistently ignore because it does not fit your biases. .

Oh, that's right I forgot. Only some firearm deaths are relevant. And of course you get to choose which ones.

Logic.

[ellieg]

Oh, that's right I forgot. Only some firearm deaths are relevant. And of course you get to choose which ones.

Logic.

Can you drop the attitude yet? That's not what he said at all. "overall murder rate". As in every single death. Not just the one caused by fire arms.

[Tinykong]

Oh, that's right I forgot. Only some firearm deaths are relevant. And of course you get to choose which ones.

Logic.

No gun control laws are going to prevent people from killing themselves with a gun. What kind of mental health test are you going to come up with that a person can't just lie to avoid?

[Zoranon]

Oh, that's right I forgot. Only some firearm deaths are relevant. And of course you get to choose which ones.

Logic.

Lumping suicides, murders and accidents together is just rampant dishonesty.

I know well why you do it though, because if you did not all your "arguments" would fall apart completely.

[Tinykong]

Lumping suicides, murders and accidents together is just rampant dishonesty.

I know well why you do it though, because if you did not all your "arguments" would fall apart completely.

Not to mention justified shootings and police shootings.

[TwoNineMarine]

Oh yeah. A sample size of the entire country is spotlight fallacy. That makes complete sense.

- - - Updated - - -



If all you can keep saying is "it's my right", without actually defending why that right should exist in a logical manner, then I'm fairly confident that it won't be a right for much longer.

To protect my family, property, and to defend against a tyrannical government.

Whether you think any of those are likely to happen or important enough to defend with deadly force is irrelevant.

No you are just being a prick lol.

You make it sound like you cant step outside your door without being shot. Then someone starts joking about the idea that gun deaths are actually really low when compared to most every day deaths. You then joke about this and say "ya well if its so rare, why do you need a gun to protect yourself?" You obviously think gun deaths aren't so rare. At that point, having a gun to protect yourself in "walmart" probably isn't that absurd of an idea is it? I just wish youd calm down your smugness. You rub people way the wrong way and no one on the other side will ever compromise with you because of that.

Ah man that's how he "debates" by trying to imply everyone else is stupid and everything you say is false.

Oh right, I forgot, we have a different culture, guns are an extension of a natural right, people can commit suicide with such efficiency with a belt or bleach, crime rates are falling because the amount of firearms in private hands.

- - - Updated - - -



That is weird, what's the point of having laws? Why don't we repeal all laws and mandate firearm ownership to every man, woman, and child in the US?

Repealing a lot of laws wouldn't really have a huge change in violent crime etc in most places. Unless those places are full of crazies that suppress their shit.

I'd be willing to venture that the vast majority of people anywhere in the world have no desire to go murder people or rape people or do any of the other crazy shit discussed on these forums.

Obviously the laws don't work like you think they do or we wouldn't have that shit occurring.

[Tinykong]

Ah man that's how he "debates" by trying to imply everyone else is stupid and everything you say is false.

We shouldn't even be discussing his "highly scientifically processed" opinions because we're not peer reviewed researchers.

[Daelak]

Lumping suicides, murders and accidents together is just rampant dishonesty.

I know well why you do it though, because if you did not all your "arguments" would fall apart completely.

They are all multiple issues within firearm violence. We can have a suicide problem, a homicide problem, and a use of force/escalation problem all at once.

[TwoNineMarine]

We shouldn't even be discussing his "highly scientifically processed" opinions because we're not peer reviewed researchers.

But it's science yo!

[Daelak]

Repealing a lot of laws wouldn't really have a huge change in violent crime etc in most places. Unless those places are full of crazies that suppress their shit.

I'd be willing to venture that the vast majority of people anywhere in the world have no desire to go murder people or rape people or do any of the other crazy shit discussed on these forums.

Obviously the laws don't work like you think they do or we wouldn't have that shit occurring.

So laws aren't an important part of our society operating as is?

[Tinykong]

They are all multiple issues within firearm violence. We can have a suicide problem, a homicide problem, and a use of force/escalation problem all at once.

Sure, but the statistic is being used disingenuously.

[TwoNineMarine]

So laws aren't an important part of our society operating as is?

Like I've said before. Laws are important. But they only stop people who actually don't want to get in trouble. At some point people will say fuck it and do their shit anyways.

Your camp has argued we need more laws because it'll stop this stuff. But it won't. You telling a bad guy he can't have a gun won't stop him. He gives no fucks about your laws. He wants to go murder someone. So you telling him to not own a gun will only get a laugh.

Especially when you try and prevent him from getting a gun in a nation with like 250+ million guns in circulation.

Not going to work.

[Zoranon]

They are all multiple issues within firearm violence. We can have a suicide problem, a homicide problem, and a use of force/escalation problem all at once.

Theoretically yes, but the way PRE is lumping all of those together is misleading and dishonest.

[Daelak]

Like I've said before. Laws are important. But they only stop people who actually don't want to get in trouble. At some point people will say fuck it and do their shit anyways.

Your camp has argued we need more laws because it'll stop this stuff. But it won't. You telling a bad guy he can't have a gun won't stop him. He gives no fucks about your laws. He wants to go murder someone. So you telling him to not own a gun will only get a laugh.

Especially when you try and prevent him from getting a gun in a nation with like 250+ million guns in circulation.

Not going to work.

But my camp (lol) has evidence from other western countries that show exactly that.

Which is why people cry foul to the NRA and firearm manufacturers when they tout their usual lines about firearms. They produce and market firearms at a furious pace because its good for their business at the expense of whatever the amount of people who are affected by firearm violence. They live for the positive feedback loops that fear makes in our country.