This might be the reason why you might want to try gun control, but this doesn't say whether or not gun control works. For starters, you should see this percentage go down if gun control works, but more importantly you would have to see murder rates drop where there is more gun control to truly see if it saves lives.
There are also other issues apart from whether or not it works. Heart disease is the biggest percentage killer in the nation, so does that mean the answer is to control what people eat, when they eat, and how much they eat? And forced exercise?
TS, only a math warlock like you can manipulate the figures and come up with that. For everyone else it's simple. If 70% of murders are committed with guns, controlling guns properly would make for improvement. But you've got all your supposed proofs that this just isn't so. Why don't I believe you?
You look at this number and say "hey, we need to control guns, because this number is so high." When I suggest we should expect to see this number come down in order to justify policies that you asked for because this number is so high, somehow to you this is overly complicated manipulation from a "math warlock" (whatever that is). I can only shake my head.
You go ahead and keep shaking your head and pretending what I say makes no sense. "Improvement" would be a certain reduction in that percentage which is not compensated for by increased knife and blunt object murders. Exactly what they have in England and Australia.
But that's not happening in the US. Remember when I showed you how 68% of murders happen with a gun in California too? How do you explain that? I suppose you could say California gun control isn't good enough, but then you're agreeing with me on that point I have been fighting with you on for years- that state level gun control has no correlation to murder rates.
Well, some states are more affected by their neighbors than others. California is one of them. Plus, as I've told you many times, we don't claim that gun availability is the only factor in violence rates. But you keep forgetting that and going back to these same questions that we've answered many times.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/27/joe-the-plumber-guns_n_5397981.html
ReplyDeleteGun control is needed to curb the homicidal tendencies of gun loons like this.
DeleteThis might be the reason why you might want to try gun control, but this doesn't say whether or not gun control works. For starters, you should see this percentage go down if gun control works, but more importantly you would have to see murder rates drop where there is more gun control to truly see if it saves lives.
ReplyDeleteThere are also other issues apart from whether or not it works. Heart disease is the biggest percentage killer in the nation, so does that mean the answer is to control what people eat, when they eat, and how much they eat? And forced exercise?
TS, only a math warlock like you can manipulate the figures and come up with that. For everyone else it's simple. If 70% of murders are committed with guns, controlling guns properly would make for improvement. But you've got all your supposed proofs that this just isn't so. Why don't I believe you?
ReplyDeleteYou look at this number and say "hey, we need to control guns, because this number is so high." When I suggest we should expect to see this number come down in order to justify policies that you asked for because this number is so high, somehow to you this is overly complicated manipulation from a "math warlock" (whatever that is). I can only shake my head.
DeleteSeriously, Mike, what do you mean when you say, "would make for improvement"? Do you mean this 68% number would come down?
DeleteYou go ahead and keep shaking your head and pretending what I say makes no sense. "Improvement" would be a certain reduction in that percentage which is not compensated for by increased knife and blunt object murders. Exactly what they have in England and Australia.
DeleteBut that's not happening in the US. Remember when I showed you how 68% of murders happen with a gun in California too? How do you explain that? I suppose you could say California gun control isn't good enough, but then you're agreeing with me on that point I have been fighting with you on for years- that state level gun control has no correlation to murder rates.
DeleteWell, some states are more affected by their neighbors than others. California is one of them. Plus, as I've told you many times, we don't claim that gun availability is the only factor in violence rates. But you keep forgetting that and going back to these same questions that we've answered many times.
Delete