Reply With Quote
Making you qualify the facts is not spin. You don't even have facts. You just have an assertion and seem unable to link a stat to save your life.
"And no matter what the outcome of that analysis, the results aren't necessarily applicable to the USA, where laws regarding gun ownership are (and always have been) much different than those in Australia."
So your own findings say these stats aren't even applicable to the USA. Brilliant! Move to Australia already.
Making you qualify the facts is not spin. You don't even have facts. You just have an assertion and seem unable to link a stat to save your life.
It says the stats don't apply because the laws are different. I am advocating making the laws the same. You guys are completely ty at critical thinking. , your reading comprehension is weak. Texas and California schools are ing terrible.
And I am not leaving and am going to continue to speak my mind. I am a US citizen and might as well deal with it.
"It's the logical extension from blah blah blah" bull , he said what he said and you altered his words just so you'd have something to joust, just admit it. I didn't go out and buy a gun because someone who ran from a knife caused my pecker to recess into my fat belly. I've had guns my entire life, don't need to jump to the other side when the heat is on, hypocrite. You ers love to proselytize but you certainly don't possess the courage of your convictions.
They do. Laughable because you've never been in that situation. If someone tried to rob your cubicle, you'd likely yourself.Even then I find it laughable that cops might miss multiple times point blank. This isn't Looney Toon's.
They make semi-auto shotguns, Egbert.Oh, and did I buy a semiautomatic? How one Earth is it hypocritical to support a semiauto ban when my constant refrain is that you can do it with a rifle, shotgun or revolver. So go ahead and stay butthurt but I am living the policy I am proposing.
People like you are hilarious, you own a couple of guns so you think that means you can open your mouth around people who know guns. You're like half a , cannot decide to if you're offended by having a in your mouth.
You don't know whether to or go blind. lol
Why can't you understand the other side of that coin, that if I buy 6 SKS rifles in Austin, gun related crime doesn't increase in Austin because I am not a criminal. You think more semi-autos means more deaths, more crime, whatever, yet you disagree that guns have affect on crime. Do you think that the number of guns a person owns affects the odds they will commit a crime with them?
Answer these two questions:
1. Are there more guns owned now than 10 years ago?
2. Is gun crime down from 10 years ago?
Common knowledge bro, no link necessary. And I've repeatedly said I'm not linking the first for the cause of the second.
The laws have and will always continue to be different, it's written in OUR ing cons ution. Continue speaking your mind on a Spurs message board, see how far that gets you with your semi-auto ban.
Still no fact linked? I am not going to make your case for you. That you cannot articulate what you claim is telling.
Nice bait and switch. You still suck at reading comprehension and critical thinking on the old topic.
As for the new topic:
Too bad your conservative jurists led by Scalia do not find gun control restrictions to be uncons utional. This argument was put to bed back during the 90s by SCOTUS.
It's not about YOU. It's about all of us and more guns in circulation means it's easier for criminals to get guns.
I would like to get the discussion on the level of something like https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/173405.pdf but I have come to the point where you guys are intellectually incapable of doing so. You cannot get past semantics and other lame debate tactics but worse the TSA's of the world cannot even get on the level of thought.
That gun crime is down argument is bull . Gun crime in the United States is too high to begin with.
Random mass shootings are up, where nuts gun down people that they don't know.
Adam Lanza, James Holmes, Jared Lee Loughner, Seung-Hui Cho, Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold & Charles Whitman say, "HI!".
still no answer? C'mon, answer the 2 questions.
So because it was too high to begin with negates the fact it's been on the decline?
First is was ban all semi-autos, now you want all guns banned? Because that would be the only way to truly limit the amount criminals could get there hands on. Make up your mind. And drop your guns in the ocean tomorrow, three less guns criminals can get their hands on. Help keep us safe by following your own rules.
Exactly. Gun crimes are a problem in the United States.
You use all these little catchy phrases like "guns in circulation" without ever having the foggiest idea what you're even talking about. What circulation? Is there a gun circulation pool that I am not aware of?
Law abiding folks acquire guns the legal way.
Criminals may as well, or they may steal them. Even if they acquire them legally, they may remove serial numbers.
What circulation are you talking about? It's a mystery.
Wow, you've come to the point to where others are incapable of being at your level intellectually. Are you related to WC?I would like to get the discussion on the level of something like https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/173405.pdf but I have come to the point where you guys are intellectually incapable of doing so. You cannot get past semantics and other lame debate tactics but worse the TSA's of the world cannot even get on the level of thought.
I will have a gun debate with you anytime you like. I will not allow you to have presupposed "facts" that aren't actually facts. I won't allow you to get off on a tangent using those things like you do here. I will require you either defend or attack a premise. You cannot just free wheel your way through a debate, flip flopping on your stance like "I was invaded so I bought a gun" then say "more guns in circulation means more crimes". Actually you can make that 2nd statement because your personal belief is beside the point, you have to provide evidence to support your position and not just demand negative proof. I don't think you could do that, because your entire position here has been to make a baseless claim then challenge others to prove it wrong.
Example: Australia bettered itself in the gun related deaths department by banning certain types of firearms. You later cited websites that debunk that or at least say it's inconclusive. You cannot have it both ways. You just want to win an argument, you don't seem too intent on being factual or right, you just want a gambit that seems impenetrable, never mind that you don't have a game plan past that.
So no, you probably won't get any discussion that's serious because of the things I stated above and because you have lap dogs like CD riding your leg around the forum. No one can take that serious.
Most of those you listed are dead because they killed themselves. That means they had the freedom to do so and the means. That means no one else had the freedom or the means to stop them.
You cannot control 300 million people, you can barely control yourself. When you have a flat tire, is the problem that there are too many nails in the roads or that you didn't have a spare tire? The problem with trying to address sporadic killers is that you don't know who they are, or when they will strike or where. What can you really do? You can be prepared, you an have the ability to mitigate the problem. The alternative is that you can hope that the federal government is effective enough to protect you by passing a slew of laws aimed at stopping suicidal maniacs from acquiring the means to kill a lot of people.
Some of us refuse to be prey, hoping the farmer locked the gates to keep the predators out.
Last edited by DMC; 01-08-2013 at 10:39 PM.
Agreed. So why should law abiding gun owners be punished? Drunk driving is a problem in the United States, should all cars have the device installed so no one can drive if they've had a drink?
A semantic argument about the meaning of the word 'circulation.' I'm not doing it.
Your example is . I posted a study indicating that gun related incidents dropeed at a faster rate post ban in Australia. You posted what you thought was an indication that Melbourne gun crimes were up but obviously did not read your google effort because it also had the Melbourne chief of police stating that gun homicides were down across the country.
This is what I am talking about lame tactics. Now youre just full of .
I have shown studies that indicate that we have similar overall crime rates but a much much higher rate of gun crimes as opposed to the rest of the developed world.
You guys throw out ideological nonsense that is not supported by facts. You still do not even try and substantiate your deterrence claims with anything other than ideas.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
