Laci, thanks for reminding us of what's wrong with your arguments. But let's consider the Boston University study. When there are more guns, more homicides are committed with guns? Well, gee, that would mean so much, except that there's no correlation among the states with regard to homicide, period, and gun laws. See, you and your fellow gun control freaks care only when someone is murdered by a gun. To me, it's more important how many are murdered, not what method is used.
For all of Laci's mocking of people for being "too stupid to understand", it is quite remarkable that he doesn't seem to get how putting the words "firearm related" in front of something makes it a subset of that thing. About two years ago when I challenged him on the gun to murder correlation, and how all their studies use "gun death" or "gun homicide" he came back with three links that were still "gun deaths". This was in response to me saying "all you have is gun deaths", and he says "nuh-uh" and provides links to a bunch of gun death studies.
Just like the one time he quasi answered my challenge to him on Miller (that the court looked at the gun instead of the man and his relationship to the militia), he gives me a quote where they were looking at the gun- confirming my point!
Laci calls anyone stupid who disagrees with him, but when he's challenged on a point of logic or history, he never answers it, proving himself to be full of hot air.
Laci, your study doesn't link gun ownership to homicide, as you claim. It links it to firearm related homicide. Was that deliberate on your part, or do you confuse the two as being the same?
It's simple. The US has the highest murder rate of all the developed countries. We also have the most guns per capita of developed countries. Most murders are committed with guns, about two-thirds.
One cannot reconcile those facts without concluding that we desperately need stricter gun control in The US.
Yes, we can acknowledge the facts, while at the same time recognizing that gun control won't work here, wouldn't have the effect that you claim, and is fundamentally against the American character.
We can also recognize that the facts aren't exactly as you present them, since the homicide rates of the nations you've selected are all so low that any difference is huge in terms of percentage, but not that big in absolute numbers.
Love the way the professor(?) justifies needless death. These deaths are just numbers to the NRA professor(?). Gun control has worked in America, just look at the change in the gun laws in the old West.
Mike, for one, this statement isn't true because the CIA lists Mexico and South Africa as Developed Countries. Second, what does this say about your argument that you have to exclude most of the world? Perhaps "development" is the key to murder rates. Third, we've shown you statistically how murder rates are not linked to gun control. Yes, the USA had higher murder rates than western Europe, but you have never shown how changing gun laws would alter that. You also make the same gun control argument with suicides, even though those same countries have higher suicide rates than the USA.
Ah, no reply from the fake professor NRA Greg. I'd love to here your explanation how gun control had no effect on killings in the old "Wild West" of America.
And what laws? The only things I can think of as examples are Tombstone banning carry within the town. They didn't ban guns, just stopped carry for a while because they were having too many shootings.
If memory serves, the banning of carry only served to bring the issue to a head, and it was the removal of the criminal element that eventually brought peace to the town.
We have whole cities that banned handgun ownership, and there is no correlation with gun control and crime. Mike calls Chicago and DCs attempts at gun control "pitiful"- half measures that are useless because the rest of the country doesn't do the same. But you are saying there is quantitative evidence of gun control working in the wild west because towns prohibited carry only, during a time of widespread constitutional carry, zero background checks, and you can freely buy anything you can afford. So where's the evidence. You say you have it, why not share?
Laci, thanks for reminding us of what's wrong with your arguments. But let's consider the Boston University study. When there are more guns, more homicides are committed with guns? Well, gee, that would mean so much, except that there's no correlation among the states with regard to homicide, period, and gun laws. See, you and your fellow gun control freaks care only when someone is murdered by a gun. To me, it's more important how many are murdered, not what method is used.
ReplyDeleteFor all of Laci's mocking of people for being "too stupid to understand", it is quite remarkable that he doesn't seem to get how putting the words "firearm related" in front of something makes it a subset of that thing. About two years ago when I challenged him on the gun to murder correlation, and how all their studies use "gun death" or "gun homicide" he came back with three links that were still "gun deaths". This was in response to me saying "all you have is gun deaths", and he says "nuh-uh" and provides links to a bunch of gun death studies.
DeleteJust like the one time he quasi answered my challenge to him on Miller (that the court looked at the gun instead of the man and his relationship to the militia), he gives me a quote where they were looking at the gun- confirming my point!
Laci calls anyone stupid who disagrees with him, but when he's challenged on a point of logic or history, he never answers it, proving himself to be full of hot air.
DeleteAnd you say this with your own poster slogan...
ReplyDeleteLaci, your study doesn't link gun ownership to homicide, as you claim. It links it to firearm related homicide. Was that deliberate on your part, or do you confuse the two as being the same?
It's simple. The US has the highest murder rate of all the developed countries. We also have the most guns per capita of developed countries. Most murders are committed with guns, about two-thirds.
ReplyDeleteOne cannot reconcile those facts without concluding that we desperately need stricter gun control in The US.
Yes, we can acknowledge the facts, while at the same time recognizing that gun control won't work here, wouldn't have the effect that you claim, and is fundamentally against the American character.
DeleteWe can also recognize that the facts aren't exactly as you present them, since the homicide rates of the nations you've selected are all so low that any difference is huge in terms of percentage, but not that big in absolute numbers.
Love the way the professor(?) justifies needless death. These deaths are just numbers to the NRA professor(?).
DeleteGun control has worked in America, just look at the change in the gun laws in the old West.
Mike, for one, this statement isn't true because the CIA lists Mexico and South Africa as Developed Countries. Second, what does this say about your argument that you have to exclude most of the world? Perhaps "development" is the key to murder rates. Third, we've shown you statistically how murder rates are not linked to gun control. Yes, the USA had higher murder rates than western Europe, but you have never shown how changing gun laws would alter that. You also make the same gun control argument with suicides, even though those same countries have higher suicide rates than the USA.
DeleteAh, no reply from the fake professor NRA Greg.
DeleteI'd love to here your explanation how gun control had no effect on killings in the old "Wild West" of America.
Let's take a look at this evidence of gun control working in the old west. What statistics/study are you referring to?
DeleteYou study up, then get back to me when you know what you are talking about, not my job to do your homework.
DeleteAnd what laws? The only things I can think of as examples are Tombstone banning carry within the town. They didn't ban guns, just stopped carry for a while because they were having too many shootings.
DeleteIf memory serves, the banning of carry only served to bring the issue to a head, and it was the removal of the criminal element that eventually brought peace to the town.
We have whole cities that banned handgun ownership, and there is no correlation with gun control and crime. Mike calls Chicago and DCs attempts at gun control "pitiful"- half measures that are useless because the rest of the country doesn't do the same. But you are saying there is quantitative evidence of gun control working in the wild west because towns prohibited carry only, during a time of widespread constitutional carry, zero background checks, and you can freely buy anything you can afford. So where's the evidence. You say you have it, why not share?
DeleteProhibiting open carry to lesson gun violence is a gun control measure, and it worked.
DeleteThat's right, the history of the old wild west only concerned one town. So you study up also, and get back when you know what you are talking about.
ReplyDelete"just stopped carry for a while because they were having too many shootings."
Gee, sounds like gun control to me.