Knife Control

[Chris]

Mono: see I told you guns are more powerful than knives!

Expert: no one was arguing otherwise

Mono: Gotheem!

[Spurminator]

See: Roe v. Wade

Roe v. Wade has no authority over London, England.

What has happened to the murder rate in London since 1997, Chris?

[TDMVPDPOY]

carrying a knife around is 2000 fine down here...

[monosylab1k]

you’re just virtue signaling for dead kids

END ABORTION NOW THINK OF THE DEAD KIDS

[Expert]

It's reasonable and appropriate to use results in both cities to show a trend, particularly when the trend is about a difference in rate vs. raw numbers.

How is this different than what I did? 30 deaths, guns or knives = 30 deaths. You have to speculate it would be higher with guns, but there's no data to support that. It wasn't higher when guns were legal. In fact, the year prior to the gun ban, there were 139 murders. It would be 13 years before that annual number ever got that low again, hitting 204 deaths in 2003. Now it's climbing up again with 130 murders last year and on pace to beat that this year. Are these deaths better because they are largely knife related? Were there scores of stray bullets killing innocent civilians prior to the ban of 1996?

You said "gun related fatalities."

Yes. They chose guns.

[Expert]

you’re just virtue signaling for dead kids

END ABORTION NOW THINK OF THE DEAD KIDS

Ever consider how old you are when you act out like that?

[monosylab1k]

Ever consider how old you are when you act out like that?

the irony

[Expert]

the irony

That doesn't answer the question. You're no spring chicken yourself.

[monosylab1k]

That doesn't answer the question. You're no spring chicken yourself.

when i’m your age i sure as won’t be searching for personal information on people on message baords, that’s for damn sure. I’ve already outgrown that , you old ass got.

[Spurminator]

How is this different than what I did? 30 deaths, guns or knives = 30 deaths.

You are using raw numbers instead of rate to compare two cities, for one, and that's a fundamental statistical error. Further, you are speculating that the murder is a given regardless of the weapon of choice.

You have to speculate it would be higher with guns, but there's no data to support that. It wasn't higher when guns were legal. In fact, the year prior to the gun ban, there were 139 murders. It would be 13 years before that annual number ever got that low again, hitting 204 deaths in 2003. Now it's climbing up again with 130 murders last year and on pace to beat that this year.

1996 was an outlier at 139.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_..._1990-2017.png

Furthermore, you're not accounting for population growth (again, this is where raw numbers are flawed). The homicide rate in 1997 was 2.5, and it was consistently in the 2's for years prior except for 1996 (1.9). In 2009, it dropped below 2 and has not gone above that since.

130 murders is a rate of 1.5. That's a significant drop and it has a long way to go to get to pre-1997 numbers.

I'm not saying it's because of the gun ban, necessarily... I'm saying it's silly to argue that the recent homicide wave is a result of the 1997 gun ban, because the data doesn't support that.

Were there scores of stray bullets killing innocent civilians prior to the ban of 1996?

Why would it have to be scores to make a difference? If you really believed that the weapon doesn't matter (which you seem to acknowledge you do above), then the mere risk of a single stray bullet killing someone would be enough to swing the argument in favor of knives.

[spurraider21]

I'm sure your dad would be proud that you are getting rid of a sentimental hand me down for David Hogg.

my desire to have a gun-free home once children are in the picture existed before 2018 tbh

Ask any cop why they carry a gun. See if they talk about sense of security. Since you don't carry and really know nothing of it, you have no idea so you're left to speculate.

why would my not carrying mean i'd have to speculate what a cop's answer to that question would be? don't see how those interact

Does your spare tire give you a sense of security and if so, is that why you have one?

yes, it does. i've had to use spare tires on multiple occasions, so it's justified. i don't know of any safety concerns associated with owning a spare tire... let alone enough safety concerns to outweigh the utility of a spare tire

[Expert]

why would my not carrying mean i'd have to speculate what a cop's answer to that question would be? don't see how those interact

You'd have to speculate why anyone would. You cannot rely on personal experience (which you'd likely dismiss as anecdotal evidence).

yes, it does. i've had to use spare tires on multiple occasions, so it's justified. i don't know of any safety concerns associated with owning a spare tire... let alone enough safety concerns to outweigh the utility of a spare tire

So the reason you have a spare tire is so you'll feel better?

Don't get sidetracked with comparing a gun to a tire where safety is concerned. Stick to the concept of "sense of security" vs "ability to respond". If a sense of security can be false, then it's not the same as ability to respond, as that cannot be. It either is or it isn't. A sense is a sense, justified or not.

[spurraider21]

You'd have to speculate why anyone would. You cannot rely on personal experience (which you'd likely dismiss as anecdotal evidence).

So the reason you have a spare tire is so you'll feel better?

Don't get sidetracked with comparing a gun to a tire where safety is concerned. Stick to the concept of "sense of security" vs "ability to respond". If a sense of security can be false, then it's not the same as ability to respond, as that cannot be. It either is or it isn't. A sense is a sense, justified or not.

the ability/potential to respond is essentially the same as the sense of security. the difference is i've actually used spare tires after a flat/blowout. have you shot somebody in self defense?

[monosylab1k]

I remember that one time my son found my spare tire and accidentally blew his head off with it.

[Expert]

You are using raw numbers instead of rate to compare two cities, for one, and that's a fundamental statistical error. Further, you are speculating that the murder is a given regardless of the weapon of choice.

The populations are similar according to USA Today. It's their report, not mine.

1996 was an outlier at 139.

The 12 years after were outliers too I suppose.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_..._1990-2017.png

Furthermore, you're not accounting for population growth (again, this is where raw numbers are flawed). The homicide rate in 1997 was 2.5, and it was consistently in the 2's for years prior except for 1996 (1.9). In 2009, it dropped below 2 and has not gone above that since.

130 murders is a rate of 1.5. That's a significant drop and it has a long way to go to get to pre-1997 numbers.

I'm not saying it's because of the gun ban, necessarily... I'm saying it's silly to argue that the recent homicide wave is a result of the 1997 gun ban, because the data doesn't support that.

It would be silly. That's why I am not making that argument. I am saying the gun ban didn't stop people from killing each other at a high rate. If you take away the guns, they are left with knives. If you take the knives, they'll find another way.

Why would it have to be scores to make a difference? If you really believed that the weapon doesn't matter (which you seem to acknowledge you do above), then the mere risk of a single stray bullet killing someone would be enough to swing the argument in favor of knives.

You're saying after the fact that it matters. After the fact is known (31 deaths vs 32 deaths, knives/guns) one is preferable over the other because of stray bullets? Dead is dead. It doesn't matter which killed them. That's my point. Of course guns are inherently more effecting at killing people than are knives, and if you want to throw in a mass shooter as a fall back for that, go ahead. I've conceded already that fact. However, it's not better that 30 people are dead from knives than having 30 people dead from guns, except in feeling better about it not being guns. There's no real difference. Speculation about stray bullets is just that.

[Expert]

I remember that one time my son found my spare tire and accidentally blew his head off with it.

Was it just above your waistline?

[monosylab1k]

Was it just above your waistline?

[Expert]

the ability/potential to respond is essentially the same as the sense of security. the difference is i've actually used spare tires after a flat/blowout. have you shot somebody in self defense?

I suppose the military needs to spend more time instilling a sense of security in soldiers instead of arming them and teaching them to kill with high tech weaponry.

So you carry the tire so you can use it, or because it makes you feel better about having it?

If a cop never shot someone in self defense, they are only carrying the gun for a sense of security? Do you recognize the difference between having an ability and having a sense of an ability?

Example: Tony Parker had the ability to drive into the paint and score at will. Tony still has the sense of that ability, but he lacks that ability. If he had the ability, the knowledge of it != sense of it. One infers knowing (evidence) the other infers feeling (no evidence).

[spurraider21]

I suppose the military needs to spend more time instilling a sense of security in soldiers instead of arming them and teaching them to kill with high tech weaponry.

So you carry the tire so you can use it, or because it makes you feel better about having it?

If a cop never shot someone in self defense, they are only carrying the gun for a sense of security? Do you recognize the difference between having an ability and having a sense of an ability?

Example: Tony Parker had the ability to drive into the paint and score at will. Tony still has the sense of that ability, but he lacks that ability. If he had the ability, the knowledge of it != sense of it. One infers knowing (evidence) the other infers feeling (no evidence).

given that guns are more likely to accidentally injure the owner/family of the owner than to be used in self defense, i will stand by my comment that they deliver a sense of security far more than they deliver security

the ability is largely just hypothetical

[boutons_deux]

given that guns are more likely to accidentally injure the owner/family of the owner than to be used in self defense, i will stand by my comment that they deliver a sense of security far more than they deliver security

the ability is largely just hypothetical

and the actual, actuarial security of a gun-owning household is reduced due to the presence of gun(s) (avg gun fellator owns 9 guns).

That's why Repugs block doctors, ostensibly concerned with health of patient and its household, from asking if there are guns in the house.

[Expert]

given that guns are more likely to accidentally injure the owner/family of the owner than to be used in self defense, i will stand by my comment that they deliver a sense of security far more than they deliver security

the ability is largely just hypothetical

Guns aren't more likely to do anything. Their owners are more likely.

Stats can say what you want depending on your study group selection. The NBA league average for 3pt% is just above 36%. Fortunately for teams, the league average doesn't factor in to how well they are shooting. The same is true for gun safety.

Hypothetical?

I cannot believe you own a gun, knowing that you could die at any moment if the gun goes off the reservation.

[Expert]

and the actual, actuarial security of a gun-owning household is reduced due to the presence of gun(s) (avg gun fellator owns 9 guns).

That's why Repugs block doctors, ostensibly concerned with health of patient and its household, from asking if there are guns in the house.

It's not the doctor's business if you own a firearm. Can they ask if you drive a car, what type of car, how fast do you drive, etc...?

Their job isn't to guard your well being. It's to provide medical care if you need it.

[monosylab1k]

Guns aren't more likely to do anything. Their owners are more likely.

still using that age old semantics argument.

[spurraider21]

still using that age old semantics argument.

yeah, i didnt think that was worth addressing tbh

[Chris]

still using that age old semantics argument.

That's not semantics