why anyone wants an "assault rifle"

On a related note, a research compilation working across 15 different research studies showed:
- A gun in the home leads to 3 TIMES HIGHER suicide rate
- A gun in the home leads to 2 TIMES HIGHER homicide rate.

Something not surprising for most thinking people.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
14,912
Of course, the gun apologists will say that is correlation (because of high crime societies) not causation. All those home owners got guns to protect themselves not kill people. :rolleyes:
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2008
Messages
15,679
Location
Studio City, CA
On a related note, a research compilation working across 15 different research studies showed:
- A gun in the home leads to 3 TIMES HIGHER suicide rate
- A gun in the home leads to 2 TIMES HIGHER homicide rate.

Something not surprising for most thinking people.

if that were true, shouldn't you just leave them alone? Sooner or later the gun owners would kill off themselves since gun sales have gone up.

You couldn't even detect an illogical statement, just sad. More people chose guns as a means to kill themselves, therefore having a gun would have a higher suicide tendency? Ha Ha Ha

Those have a gun would have a high chance of being in a gun fire compare to those have not? Ha Ha Ha. so as those having a hammer have a high chance of killing with it than someone without a hammer. Do you really need statistics for this conclusion? WOW, how much did that research cost?
 
Joined
Oct 25, 2006
Messages
560
Those have a gun would have a high chance of being in a gun fire compare to those have not? Ha Ha Ha. so as those having a hammer have a high chance of killing with it than someone without a hammer. Do you really need statistics for this conclusion? WOW, how much did that research cost?

So ... just to restate what you have just told us:
- More guns leading to more violence and death is such an obvious thing that it is laughable.
- Therefore more guns = more violence and more death.
- Since you have stated that, the converse must also be true - that fewer guns would lead to less violence and death.

So what you have just stated is that the way to reduce the US standing as most violent 1st world country is to reduce private gun ownership.

Interesting.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
14,912
- Since you have stated that, the converse must also be true - that fewer guns would lead to less violence and death.
Painfully obvious logical fallacy. No more need be said.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,533
Location
Illinois, USA
Painfully obvious logical fallacy. No more need be said.

Oh obviously ... but surprisingly less so than what mudsling posted.

The reality is that while I might accuse you of falling back on GOP talking points (and you accuse Thrasher of the same, and D'Artagnan of EU-centric mindset, and so on) ... at least we can all discuss, albeit occasionally heated and entrenched.

Mudsling, however, would be kicked out of preschool for his absolute inability to articulate anything. And once you decipher his horrific linguistics, there isn't any 'there' there.

So rather that worry about anything he says, I just restated his points. So ... just playing.

And as I have said - personally I don't believe that most people jump from the conclusions of the study to 'ban all guns' - at least not most mainstream Americans. It should be the starting point for a discussion - because it is readily apparent that what we are doing isn't working, so therefore what SHOULD we do. And we should NOT accept 'do nothing' - because that isn't good enough.

We live in a country where it is harder to get on a plane than to buy a gun, where it is harder to buy cold medicine than to buy a gun. And that should make absolutely no sense to any reasonable person.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
14,912
You can call dte many names txa (negativistic child springs to mind immediately) but you can't call him "reasonable" :sneaky:
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,721
You can call dte many names txa (negativistic child springs to mind immediately) but you can't call him "reasonable" :sneaky:

Actually when he isn't sticking to 'neo-con talking points' I have always found him one of the most fun people to have a chat with even when we totally disagree (and I would like to think he would say the same thing about me when I am not hyper-reactionary about certain topics ;) )
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
14,912
I have a question for all you Yanks. How is the term 'arms' actually defined and could it be re-defined? Your constitution doesn't mention 'guns', does it; just 'arms'. Perhaps you should start there!!
 
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
12,805
Location
Australia
I have a question for all you Yanks. How is the term 'arms' actually defined and could it be re-defined? Your constitution doesn't mention 'guns', does it; just 'arms'. Perhaps you should start there!!

bear-arms.jpg
 
Joined
May 3, 2008
Messages
615
I have a question for all you Yanks. How is the term 'arms' actually defined and could it be re-defined? Your constitution doesn't mention 'guns', does it; just 'arms'. Perhaps you should start there!!
In many respects, that's already the gambit being played when they go after assault rifles (or what have you). They limit the types of guns/weapons that are constitutionally protected without violating the letter of the law, even if they're pissing all over the spirit of it. It's actually a fairly reasonable compromise if only the gun control folks negotiated in good faith instead of their slippery slope tactics as amply demonstrated a few posts back.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,533
Location
Illinois, USA
In many respects, that's already the gambit being played when they go after assault rifles (or what have you). They limit the types of guns/weapons that are constitutionally protected without violating the letter of the law, even if they're pissing all over the spirit of it. It's actually a fairly reasonable compromise if only the gun control folks negotiated in good faith instead of their slippery slope tactics as amply demonstrated a few posts back.

Again, you are not demonstrating policy, just a few select samples some of which are more than 20 years old. As I said, the current GOP / NRA position is indistinguishable from saying that they would rather have a room full of dead babies every week than allow the gun-show loophole to close. Because THAT is the outcome of their tactics.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
14,912
the more you talk, the more ignorance you show, but does it make you less ignorance if you talk less, txa?
 
Joined
Oct 25, 2006
Messages
560
Again, you are not demonstrating policy, just a few select samples some of which are more than 20 years old. As I said, the current GOP / NRA position is indistinguishable from saying that they would rather have a room full of dead babies every week than allow the gun-show loophole to close. Because THAT is the outcome of their tactics.
Oh cmon. If 15 minutes of targetted google (I was already aware of several of the quotes since, apparently unlike many others I actually pay attention to what's said) produced 3 posts worth of wall of text from prominent lefties from government and media, to try to say it's some sort of smoke screen is either psychosis-level denial or flat-out dishonesty.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,533
Location
Illinois, USA
Back
Top Bottom