Anyway, no matter what the anti-gun nuts wish was the case, this is a non-starter. I know they hate the 2nd amendment like a misogynist hates the 19th amendment, but it's apart of the country and it won't change. Why not keep the conversation on something relevant instead of constantly focusing on non-starters?
They have all the raw numbers. These morons are just getting it wrong. I guess you have never done any research so you don't know that the CDC still has numbers on pretty much everything except how many people a year are shot by cops. No one blocked that reporting, the cops just told congress to go **** themselves.
My original statement was true and as I said, we would keep going in circles no matter what links were posted, you've proven me correct on that as well. Keep in mind I'm a gun owner. So I'm not anti gun, but that doesn't mean I'm going to lie about the dangers.
Yo dog Looks like Lance Corporal Semantic is up in the hizzy to defend mass shootings and try to refute the causal connection between guns and shootings, which is holding steady at 100%...which is not increasing at least! I look forward to not reading any of your posts and mocking you from a position of moral and logical strength every 16 hours for a few hours till the next time we do this in a few months. Luv u Casey.
http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...e_the_risk_of_homicide_accidents_suicide.html "A study from October 2013 analyzed data from 27 developed nations to examine the impact of firearm prevalence on the mortality rate. It found an extremely strong direct relationship between the number of firearms and firearm deaths. The paper concludes: “The current study debunks the widely quoted hypothesis that guns make a nation safer.” This finding is bolstered by several previous studies that have revealed a significant link between gun ownership and firearm-related deaths. This international comparison is especially harrowing for women and children, who die from gun violence in America at far higher rates than in other countries. Gun advocates often retreat to an “it could never happen to me” mentality. Behind such horrifying statistics are numerous heartbreaking tragedies, such as Zina Daniel, a woman from Illinois who was killed by her abusive ex-husband, or Caroline Sparks, who was only 2 when her 5-year-old brother accidentally killed her with his Crickett rifle. "If we examine data from within the United States, the odds aren’t any better for gun owners. The most recent study examining the relationship between firearms and homicide rates on a state level, published last April, found a significant positive relationship between gun ownership and overall homicide levels. Using data from 1981–2010 and the best firearm ownership proxy to date, the study found that for every 1 percent increase in gun ownership, there was a 1.1 percent increase in the firearm homicide rate and a 0.7 percent increase in the total homicide rate. This was after controlling for factors such as poverty, unemployment, income inequality, alcohol consumption, and nonhomicide violent crime. Further, the firearm ownership rate had no statistically significant impact on nonfirearm homicides, meaning there was no detectable substitution effect. That is, in the absence of guns, would-be criminals are not switching to knives or some other weapons to carry out homicide. These results are supported by a host of previous studies that illustrate that guns increase the rate of homicides. The evidence against firearm ownership becomes even stronger when suicides and accidents are included in the analysis—guns make both much more likely and more fatal. There can be nothing closer to a consensus in the gun debate than this point. Indeed, every single case-control study ever conducted in the United States has found that gun ownership is a strong risk factor for suicide, even after adjusting for aggregate-level measures of suicidality such as mental illness, alcoholism, poverty, and so on."
What is your response to the 6-7 different sources that have already been posted in the last 30 minutes even if they are not exactly what you requested? Why don't you bring something substantive to the table instead of arguing over semantics and what ANOTHER poster may have meant. This is a mark of a man who has no ideas, no compelling arguments, and no facts. You have lost this debate. Thanks for trying. You know what it appears statistics are also a non-starter to you and your fellow gun nuts. Statistics aren't relevant according to you. You've also lost this debate. You guys make it way too easy.
The liberal tard platoon in full force. Congrats on not reading my posts you have been quoting for months that I ignored. Not knowing basic definition of scientific terms like order of magnitude isn't semantics, it's just being a dumbass. Now excuse me, the other tard squad is trying to flank me to I have get my M249 up. Incredibly easy. Go read my posts after sandy hook. family accidents= all accidents or it is semantics. Genius.
The problem is people like you don't even understand what the debate even is, so it's not surprising that you'd utterly fail yet think you did well. It's not a debate over if guns can hurt their owners, it's not a debate over if guns can hurt others. Obviously guns can hurt people, but that's not really relevant. It's a constitutional right to own them, so it doesn't really matter that one could hurt themselves if they own their gun irresponsibly. It's a right, no different than your right to free speech or your right to vote. If that scares you, feel free to leave. It's a part of America that has always been and isn't going anywhere. If I showed studies that a large percentage of voters were uninformed, would that be a solid argument against taking away the right to vote?
"For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home." http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check
Once you acknowledge that guns do more harm to society than it helps, I feel a lot more people will be wiling to give up the 2nd Amendment. You may be steadfast in the sacred 2nd amendment, but a significant portion of 2nd amendment supporters incorrectly think that guns are keeping them safe when it's the other way around. This basic misconception about guns is still believed by a significant number of conservatives (as evidenced by this thread). I think correcting people's beliefs will make them more receptive to a gun buyback program, which worked in Australia. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2012/08/02/did-gun-control-work-in-australia/
I think once people realize that voting and free speech does more harm to society than it helps, I feel people will be willing to give it up.
with the advent of metal 3D printing, the liberal fantasy of "getting rid of guns" is just that they will continue to be ubiquitous, and everyone needs access to them for self preservation
It's pretty funny actually. In the abortion debate, some argue that a woman should have the right to kill her child before it's born then the same people come to this thread seeking to remove rights from the people not directly related to killing of children for fear that indirectly children might be killed as a result of that right.
I know you believe that the right to own a weapon is as sacred as free speech and the right to vote, but the majority of the people in this country/world do not. There are varying levels of sacredness. And one amendment, which may or may not even be interpreted correctly at this moment, which was created in an era where firearms were not nearly as dangerous, AND which contributes to 30 thousand lives lost annually in America is not one that I consider holy. The developed world has progressed from barbaric guns, it's time for America to do the same.
I don't agree with your sentiment or the touting of 3D printing as a rebuttal to the "fantasy" of a thirty year legislative trend; but you reminded me of a really great documentary,"Print the Legend," I saw a few weeks ago on Netflix. Certainly recommend watching it if you haven't already.
Sorry, but you're wrong. I know you might not feel that way, but there's a reason it's addressed in the 2nd amendment and not much later on like universal voting rights.....something viewed as less important. Anyway, you are pretty out of touch with America so that's why I suggested earlier that you move to a country more in line with your values. In America repeal of the 2nd amendment is and will always be a non-starter. Someone with your unhealthy obsession and fear of guns would very likely be more happy elsewhere, so you should look into it.
There's also the false argument that pro-gun people don't care about shooting victims and that pro-choice people don't care about aborted babies. Or that severely restricting abortions or firearm ownership isn't going to be met with severe pushback or remedy the problem. And besides all that, there's the argument of precedent, and liberty and individual rights versus public safety. I occupy a lonely space on the Nolan Chart: I'm still pro-choice and pro-firearm ownership. I don't own a vagina or a gun...but I know plenty of decent people that do. Some even have both and I don't presume to speak for them or take rights away from them, even if I don't always agree with them.
I'm in the same boat, I'm pro choice and pro gun. I'm fine with those who don't have abortions and don't choose to own guns, but it's super annoying when they try to evangelize. I'm generally against anyone who thinks it's a good idea to take away the rights of the people.
Surprisingly enough I've been called liberal on this board but I'm neither pro-choice (Except in cases of Rape, Incest, or Death of the Mother) or anti gun. We need to realize that not everyone needs a gun and stronger regulations need to be put place. Also some of the guns out there that are legal in certain areas should not be.
