Printable View
Yay :D
Of course I have no idea how you would attack societal problems that lead to violence, but hell it sounds nice doesn't it?
Raise the standard of living? media shift to influence mass culture?
What would you have to do to American culture to stop people from killing eachother?
But the thing is, you can't prove that without doubt Gun Control laws haven't done anything. Because you don't have a control group to see what society would be like without the gun control laws.Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
It's ok to say "crime rates are still rising" and "gun related deaths are still rising". But how can you possibly prove that without gun control these figures wouldn't be worse? There are WAY more factors relating to crime than just how legal guns are, but with that said, how can you prove that controlling that factor has absolutely ZERO affect.
I think he means you should only be allowed to own a gun if you're sexually inadequate. Better sell that bullet mold of yours!Quote:
Originally Posted by 680x0
On the other hand, you can look at other countries that do have tighter gun restrictions than the US, and see that they have much lower gun crime rates. Is this because people there are naturally more friendly or something? Remembering all the screwed up violent people I knew growing up makes me doubt this.Quote:
Yes, just as the US CDC could find no correlation between laws restricting firearms and firearm related crimes. The Assault Weapons Ban and almost every piece of major firearm legislation in the past century has zero effect on crime or murder rates. Either we need a magic wand that makes firearms shoot tissue paper hearts, or we attack the societal problems that lead to violence.
One could argue that the United States is this control group :pQuote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
Or certain areas of the Middle East...
If you could turn back the clock, you might be able to enact some gun control that could actually lower murder rates. But I honestly think it's too late to pass any law would keep guns out the hands of criminals :(
And you clearly cant prove they have done something.Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
But really all you're saying is that nothing can be proved definitively, and isnt that the truth?
Maybe if we had some sort of portal where we could go into an alternate dimension that didnt enact the handgun ban and then we could compare it, we could, but in the absence of that, you have to deal with the evidence you have.
What you're saying is basically unreasonable.
Oh hell yes. It's just like owning an expensive car. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by 680x0
Quote:
Originally Posted by MVS
Quote:
originally posted by arjue at some time
Im piss d ans
8 beers a nd a wfe rums nad scoch and cocks
Not arrests for having guns, dipshit. Gun crimes. I'll make it very clear for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
Gun murders have increased since gun control was iplemented in England.
Why does that irk you so much?
You're so pissy, do some reasearch of your own and let me know how it goes.
Arizona:Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
Legal to carry a gun visibly in your car/can get a CCW permit few restrictions or gun control.
7.0 Murders per 100,000 Inhabitants.
Washington DC.
Illegal to carry a gun concealed, strict registration requirements for ammunition and other firearms, and prohibitions on the possession or carrying of weapons at homes and workplaces. semi-automatic firearms/,military-style assault weapons banned
48.0 Murders per 100,000 Inhabitants
But cockface, those figures would only mean something if you could isolate gun control as the only variable. If you're that fucking stupid you can't realise that, it's your own fucking problem.
England banned handguns in 1996. Gun crime rose 40% in the following four years.
YOUR FUCKED UP LOGIC:
Guns were banned but gun crimes are still going up, that must mean gun control is worthless.
NON-FUCKED UP LOGIC:
Those statistics neither prove or disprove gun control is good legislation.
The only way those statistics would mean a thing is if you made a mathematical model that factored in the probable natural increase in gun crime and couple of other factors. As they stand, they mean fuck all. As I said before, how do you know that gun crimes wouldn't of risen 60% or 100% without gun control?
Hypothetically,
In 1996 there were 2000 gun crimes,
in 2000 there were 2800 gun crimes.
Now what if the natural increase in gun crime was 60% per 4 anum.
In 2000 there would probably be 3200 gun crimes.
Now correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't 2800 less than 3200? I'm no fucking statistician or actuary; it'd be more complicated than that. But you get my drift.
Is that supposed to impress me?Quote:
Originally Posted by MVS
That's like saying:
If I squeeze an orange, I get 20 mls of juice.
If I crush an apple, I get 50 mls of juice.
Therefore crushing is a more effective method than squeezing to get juice.
It's literally like comparing fucking apples to oranges.
Arizona and Washington D.C. are very different places. They have completely different socio-economic landscapes, different cultures, location, law enforcement, et cetera. The difference in prevalance of murders could be from so many different factors it's not funny. Society is so incredibly complicated and yet your basing the difference in murders on ONE factor.