No meaningful conclusion can be drawn based upon the above statement. First off, you don’t mention any specific gun control laws. But assuming you do have some in mind, it could merely be that the laws were toothless. You have in no way established that strict gun control laws can’t be effective.
I disagree with your characterization. I think it’s reasonable to refer to people on my side of the debate as “pro” and people on the other side as “anti.”
But how would you prefer that I refer in general to people who generally support gun control?
Please show me where I stated, in effect, that if the if the Australia example pans out it’s “just a weak example.” Please quote me. TIA.
There is no “general gun control”-there are individual people that support different measures for their own reasons. Assigning a tag and addressing only the tag cuts you off from addressing those individual people and whatever particular measures they may or may not support. It’s a shortcut that is akin to shaking pompoms and yelling “Go Team!”
So I know what your are talking about, can you give me an example of a few “strict gun control laws” which have been passed in the United States? For example, do you consider the Bartley-Fox law to be an example of a “strict gun control law”?
How do I know the difference between a “strict gun control law” and a non-“strict gun control law”?
To be clear, brazil84, I’m not saying you are right or wrong in your contention that gun control laws don’t work, I’m merely saying that the statement you made doesn’t prove anything. If you want to show that gun control laws don’t work, you have to mention specific laws in order to have any kind of meaningful discussion.
Who said there was? Actually, there’s no need for you to answer that question. See, I am interested in discussions where people respond to what I actually say – as opposed to what they wish or imagine I say. i.e. I am not interested in being strawmanned.
In this case, I conceded, in effect, that if the Australia example pans out it would be a solid piece of evidence in favor of gun control. You then insinuated that I said that if it pans out, it would be a “weak” piece of evidence.
Sorry, but I have no interest in playing these sorts of games. This exchange is concluded.
Well nothing proves anything at all. One could list a hundred gun control laws which didn’t work, and someone could point out that they might work if the president or governor held a sack of flour over his head and clapped 5 times before signing the bill into effect.
I’m not claiming that gun control laws have been proven not to work. I’m claiming that based on history, the default assumption is that gun control does not work.
But do you agree curernt gun-related laws in the USA do work well enough?
In reading over your posts, brazil84, you don’t seem to be claiming anything specifically related to gun control laws at all. You allude to US laws and speak of default conclusions, but you present no debatable contentions. Would you care to do so, so we know exactly where you stand?
Way to go with the sledgehammer.
I’m not sure I understand your question. I think that most of the gun-related laws in the United States have little effect on crime. I think that making those laws stricter would have little effect on crime.
So I guess you could say I think the current gun control laws work badly enough. Does that answer your question?
You can’t compare countries with one another. That would be like comparing apples to apples! Or oranges to oranges!
I disagree with you, I clearly stated that generally speaking, and as far as I know, gun control has not worked in the United States. i.e. jurisdictions which enact gun control laws generally do not observe a significant and lasting reduction in gun-related crime which can be reasonably attributed to the gun control law in question.
Therefore, the default assumption is that gun control does not work.
Therefore, if the Australia example “pans out,” it does not establish that gun control does in fact work, but it is a solid piece of evidence in favor of gun control.
If someone cares to post the data from Australia for scrutiny, I am happy to take a look at it.
Ok, now what’s your position?
I guess you advocate fewer laws pertaining to gun use and ownership a that seems to be the only logical direction?
Here’s an interesting bit of data: Firearm related-death rate per 100,000 for the US in 2009: 10.2. For Australia, in 2008: 1.04. In the US, roughly 36% were homicides; in Australia, roughly 8%. Yes, this is only one year, and different years at that, but I am still struck by the discrepancy. I mention Australia because it came up in previous posts, but the link shows similar differences for other first-world countries. I do not pretend to know whether this can be accounted for by different gun control laws, cultural differences, or what. But I think it is ample evidence that a serious, non-partiasan, non-political discussion needs to be had about the problem of gun violence in this country. I am not optimistic about this happening anytime soon.
Precisely. I asked for specifics.
See my last post.
I think the pro gun control crowd should be referred to as “rationals” and the anti gun control crowd as “murderer enablers.”
A specific list of gun control laws which I say did not work? Or specifics as to something else?
Yes.
Lol, that sounds very productive.
No “strawman”:
If someone actually says “I am in favor of gun control” without elaborating as to what type of gun control is being referred to, then(if you actually wish to find out, insterad of just tagging) you might ask them to elaborate. It might just be that what they have in mind doesn’t have jack to do with banning or taking away our guns.