Gun control: the results are in?

Good lord,how many times does this have to be repeated before people get it?

Not many…because you like Stokes continually forget the point here. Now you genius’ argue that since a gun is inanimate and thus cannot harm others unto itself, as is a cigarette. But we know that smoking causes cancer not only to oneself, but to others, of course the person who smokes it had to light it etc. But that hasn’t stopped gov’t enacting laws for the public good to ban it basically everywhere for the public good. Why not guns? Same tired arguments you genuis’ make consistently without fail can be applied to cigarettes, and what do I get apologists, who can only ad hom. And to Stokes if I am ad nauseam here, its because you aren’t understanding simple logic.

Numerous examples of countries where the murder rate has failed to decline after the passage of gun control laws have already been posted.

A correlation to Stokes do you agree with this? This isn’t awfully scientific, remember I posted a economist article which disproved this assertion (also to Nasor) if you don’t look back in the thread. Thus if you stokes agree with this HIGHLY unscientific assertion made by Nasor here, then you agree that the correlation btwn the raising temperatures and the concurrent rise in C02 means that there is global warming. If not then stop being a hypocrite and STFU.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No. That's not what I said. What I said is: "Gun control laws do not reduce crime. Shootings go down, but criminals simply switch to other weapons and the murder rate remains the same." Why don't you try rebutting my actual argument, rather than your fantasy straw-man arguments?

As to cigarettes vs. guns: When people in a society smoke less, people are less likely to get cancer. When people in a society have fewer guns, they are not less likely to be murdered. That’s why anti-smoking laws are not the same as anti-gun laws.

No. Stokes posted an Economist article about how crime was skyrocketing in Britain after they imposed gun control laws. I can't find any Economist articles that were posted by you in this thread. Why don't you tell us what page of this thread it's on, I might just be missing it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What I said is: "Gun control laws do not reduce crime. Shootings go down, but criminals simply switch to other weapons and the murder rate remains the same."

Then by definition the Gun control legislation worked, the amount of GUN crimes went down…yay for shooting ones self in the foot. I seem to remember in the debate that it wasn’t asserted that overall crimes would go down just those dealing with guns. So by definition the laws work.

Why don't you try rebutting my actual argument, rather than your fantasy straw-man arguments?

They are only a straw man to a apologist.

As to cigarettes vs. guns: When people in a society smoke less, people are less likely to get cancer.

And with less guns we get less gun crime, lung cancer will always exist, as will crime but…again the point of these laws is not to eradicate the whole problem just the main cause…try again.

When people in a society have fewer guns, they are not less likely to be murdered.

To my knowledge no one said they would…

Stokes posted an Economist article about how crime was skyrocketing in Britain after they imposed gun control laws.

Oh sorry my bad…the article only proved my point…so the genius shot himself in the foot as usual.

I can't find any Economist articles that were posted by you in this thread. Why don't you tell us what page of this thread it's on, I might just be missing it.

Stop being a drama queen…

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Once again you bring back your insane claim that gun control laws can be ‘successful’ simply by lowering the shooting rate, even if criminals switch to alternate weapons and the over-all murder rate remains the same. You may consider that to be ‘success’, but I seriously doubt that anyone else here will agree with you.

Everyone (but you) understands that the purpose of gun control laws is to lower the crime rate and make society safer. If they don’t do that, they have failed. If gun control laws merely cause criminals to switch to alternate weapons and do not lower the over-all crime rate, they are of no obvious benefit to society. Crime is still just as high, and people aren’t any safer.

No one ever claimed that gun control laws can’t reduce the number of shootings that occur. It’s pretty freakin’ obvious that people will shoot each other less often if there are fewer guns. I don’t think anyone ever asserted otherwise.

The point is that people aren’t any better off with gun control laws; they’re just as likely to be murdered and are not any safer, so gun laws don’t benefit society in any meaningful way. I’m giving up my freedom to own a gun in exchange for…what, exactly? The knowledge that now I’m less likely to be shot but more likely to be stabbed? I’m still just as likely to be murdered. So why should anyone support them?

 

If that's what the law is trying to accomplish, it's a worthless law.

If it prevents murder, great. If it prevents people from using something besides a gun, who cares?

 

Once again you bring back your insane claim that gun control laws can be ‘successful’ simply by lowering the shooting rate,

Its not insane, its common practice, with prohibition to the anti-smoking bans, to anti-drug laws. If this is illogical so are all these laws. Now of course you are bleating out that all crime must disappear in order for the results of gun control to become apparent, yet you call me insane…gotcha.

Everyone (but you) understands that the purpose of gun control laws is to lower the crime rate and make society safer.

In the long run surely that may be a positive consequence but by its own definition gun control controls guns…so STFU and thank you. Stop being a retard (assuming I am insane).

 

If anti-smoking laws don't result in people being healthier, then they are indeed worthless and illogical.

No, I never said that all crime must disappear. I said that the over-all crime rate should be lower, or the laws serve no useful purpose. Please respond to what I post, instead of your straw-man creations.

Right. And I suppose you also think that the purpose of seatbelt laws is merely to get people to wear seatbelts (rather than reducing traffic deaths) and that the purpose of anti-pollution laws is merely to stop pollution (rather than protecting the environment and people's health).

 

But that's where your argument is flawed. There are laws that prevent you from carrying your gun in public, at least without going through the required classes to qualify for a concealed weapon permit, and even then most places of business ban you from bringing them in. So it's basically the same as smoking bans in public places. But you can smoke to your hearts content in your own home, just like you can keep weapons in your home.

 

Your schtick of not reading the posts you're trying to respond to is almost as retarded as you are.

Driving on public roads is a privilege granted by the state because the roads are owned by the state. You can own a car and drive it on your property without licensing, inspection, or registration. Likewise, the state has the right to prevent you from carrying a weapon (or an umbrella, if they feel like it) into a public building that they own.

They do not have the right to intrude into your land, and tell you what you can and cannot do with your property because it impinges upon your happiness and well being. This is a fundamental human right that we are all entitled to, the only prerequisite being a successful transit down the birth canal and survival for long enough to enjoy it. It is NOT a privilege granted by any higher authority, nor can it be removed by any higher authority. It is yours until you die. This right was afforded such a high importance by the Framers of the Constitution that they afforded it its very own Amendment in the Bill of Rights, second only to our beloved freedom of speech.

You see, here in the US, we have a rule book. It's called the Constitution. It tells us what we can and cannot legislate, how we can and cannot run our government, and other such ground rules. Anything that disagrees with the Constitution is null and void before it even goes into effect. Politicians of all political leanings love to pretend the Constitution means things it doesn't, or that it doesn't apply when it does, or that it doesn't exist. But that doesn't mean they're right. They're not. And it's up to us, as responsible citizens, to remind them of this.

 

I respect what you’re saying here, but really this level of argument isn’t even necessary. Since gun control laws have repeatedly and consistently failed to achieve any sort of net positive result for society, the burden is now on the gun control advocates to explain why gun control laws would benefit society here even though they’ve failed to benefit every other society that tries them.

If someone could produce convincing evidence that gun control laws make people safer, then it might be necessary for you to argue that the government doesn’t have the authority to restrict gun ownership – but until someone can produce such evidence, there’s not really any point.

 

Stokes, a fundemental right to own firearms? The government can do whatever it likes in that respect since the constitution only regards "The right to bear arms" rather than firearms specifically.

And morally, I don't see why just anyone has the right to a firearm, just in the same way not everyone has the right to prescription drugs or commercial piloting.

 

So what 'arms' do you think the founders were talking about then?

 

Rifles and guns, most likely. But your current government does not seem to think that M-16's and other assault rifiles count, so clearly the guidelines are followed loosely.

 

If anti-smoking laws don't result in people being healthier, then they are indeed worthless and illogical.

But they do, as a result they are enforced, but remember I am only using smoking as the most commonly known and visible form of partial prohibition. Now as to pertaining to guns we know as you have so testified that gun related deaths go down as a result…now if you look at your questions, and your “logic” you associate gun control with murder control. No…you and your cronies like you do that little game but the purpose of the gun control law (as shocking as this may be) is to control GUNS! I know…this Grade 3 level semantics course is a bit much for your ilk but surely…that’s the point of the law and they work.

No, I never said that all crime must disappear. I said that the over-all crime rate should be lower, or the laws serve no useful purpose. Please respond to what I post, instead of your straw-man creations.

Where is this strawman? Do you even know what a strawman is? Because I am not seeing it, stop being a retard cheerleader and start dealing with your inadequacy. Secondly I know you never said all crime, that’s me exaggerating in a sarcastic tone…maybe you can learn to be human someday and take some of that Preparation H for your mouth. You assert that gun control MUST = less murder, that is not the purpose of the law.

Right. And I suppose you also think that the purpose of seatbelt laws is merely to get people to wear seatbelts (rather than reducing traffic deaths) and that the purpose of anti-pollution laws is merely to stop pollution (rather than protecting the environment and people's health).

The purpose of seatbelt laws as to reduce the amount of unnecessary deaths associated with car accents…but guess what GENUIS the # of car deaths has actually gone up since the law was enacted…so we abandon this law as well, if not…then you should STFU and stop acting like a pseudo that you are.

 

But that's where your argument is flawed. There are laws that prevent you from carrying your gun in public, at least without going through the required classes to qualify for a concealed weapon permit, and even then most places of business ban you from bringing them in. So it's basically the same as smoking bans in public places. But you can smoke to your hearts content in your own home, just like you can keep weapons in your home.

Replace smoking with crack cocaine…now be quiet.

 

You see, here in the US, we have a rule book. It's called the Constitution.

Yes and in that constitution it states something about a militia...as I assume ALL American gun owners are part of.

They're not. And it's up to us, as responsible citizens, to remind them of this.

Tell me Stoky boy why are the demands of the citizens of your country being ignored by those same legislators? You Stokes and your gang of compensators stop being fascists and allow the people the democratic right to enact laws for the majority not the Viagra poping losers who need a gun to feel like a man.

 

Listen, dumb-ass, and try to get this through your head: if gun control does not reduce crime and make people safer, then it is of no benefit to society. Why should anyone support a law that decreases the likelihood of being shot, but also increases the likelihood that of being stabbed, bludgeoned, or otherwise murdered, exactly canceling out the increase in safety that comes from being less likely to be shot? Unless you can show that gun control results in some sort of net increase in public safety, it is pointless. Simply reducing the number of shootings while simultaneously increasing the number of murders with other weapons doesn't accomplish anything useful.

You keep repeating over and over again that “the prupose of gun control is only to reduce gun crime”. Yes, that’s obvious to everyone. I'm not saying that gun control should reduce the number of murders with other weapons. I'm saying that if gun control increases the number of murders with other weapons in a manner that cancels out the safety benefits from fewer shooting, then it's a waste of time.

Say people were dying of a disease, and there is a medication available that combats it. Unfortunately, the medication has deadly side effects that kill a large percentage of users. When you consider a person's decrease in odds of dying from the disease vs. their increase in odds of dying from the side effects, the net result is that a person is no more likely to survive; the side effects exactly cancel out the benefits. Is the medicine effective at fighting to disease? Yes. On the whole, is taking the medicine a worthwhile thing for someone to do? No, you're just as likely to die. Is gun control effective at decreasing gun murders? Yes. Is it a worthwhile thing for society to do? No, everyone is still just as likely to die.

 

Listen, dumb-ass, and try to get this through your head: if gun control does not reduce crime and make people safer, then it is of no benefit to society.

Listen Nasor, using that logic then we should abandon seat belt laws…look its really that simple. You and your fascist friends may try your best to rationalize your positions, but it ultimately does not make any sense, mine does. You even proved me right that gun control controls guns. The rest of the “post” as a useful as your name…teehee. Stop bleating start thinking.

Warning: Graphic Photo...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Edit: I missed this gem of idiocy:

Let’s see what you said here:

Idiot comment #1: . I'm not saying that gun control should reduce the number of murders with other weapons.
Idiot comment #2: I'm saying that if gun control increases the number of murders with other weapons in a manner that cancels out the safety benefits from fewer shooting, then it's a waste of time.

Seems a little contradictory, if you agree with me that gun control is about guns and crimes, why would idiot comment #2 matter? Yes the life of a schizoid…and hemorrhoidal schizoid. So now that not only have you supported my premise for my argument hemorrhoid, you shot your own down. So…now you must agree with me we must BAN SEATBELTS to the fascist idiot mobile we go.

 

What the hell are you talking about? Seatbelt laws reduce the traffic death rate. Gun control laws do not reduce the murder rate. If seatbelt laws didn't reduce the traffic accident death rate, they wouldn't make sense. Seatbelt laws make us safer. Gun control laws don't. That's why seatbelt laws are a good idea, while gun control laws aren't.

Gun control laws have multiple effects. One effect is that the rate of gun murders goes down. The other effect is that the rate of murder with other types of weapons goes up. These two effects (one good, one bad) cancel each other out, leaving people just as likely as ever to be murdered. That’s why gun control laws don’t really do any (net) good. I don’t know why this is so hard for you to understand.

 

What the hell are you talking about? Seatbelt laws reduce the traffic death rate. Gun control laws do not reduce the murder rate.

Net deaths from car accents have been higher since the introduction of seat belts, it obviously does not contribute to the human good if more people are dying now from car accents then prior to the introduction of seat belts. Oh yes but guess what like guns, seat belt laws apply to a narrow spectrum, those dealing with x injuries that seat belts have helped stop, and reducing guns helps reduce the amount of injuries from the use of the gun. But Nasor if more people are dying now from car accents then in the 70’s, why do we have the seat belt? Its this SIMPLISTIC idiotic thinking that makes you look like a hemmorrhoid that you are.

Idiot comment #1: That's why seatbelt laws are a good idea, while gun control laws aren't.
Idiot comment #2: One effect is that the rate of gun murders goes down.

Hmmm…it seems that gun control laws do work if the amount of GUN RELATED CRIME GOES DOWN. The law like the seatbelt law works in tandem although more deaths occur post that does mean the laws aren’t working.

The other effect is that the rate of murder with other types of weapons goes up.

I doubt that killing with knives is as efficient as guns, and those figures are bound to go down if there wasn’t an illegal gun trade. The laws work, it’s the enforcement of the other laws like the black market that generally don’t.

These two effects (one good, one bad) cancel each other out, leaving people just as likely as ever to be murdered.

Seat blets increase safety, drunk drivers decrease it…they cancel each other out genius…think.

I don’t know why this is so hard for you to understand.

I fully understand your position, its not the don’t understand its just plain stupid.