This is why arguing with you is pointless. You are 100% convinced that your assessment of the conditions and causes of the extraordinary amount of violence in American culture are correct, and your solution is the only plausible one.
And preemptively screw you, I feel pretty much exactly the same way about the “carry 100% of the time and a gun safe is just giving a burglar two more seconds to get me before I cap him” brigade.
Are they sure it wasn’t her four-year-old brother? Because those four-year-olds be nasty.
Who said “100%” or anything similar? :rolleyes: And are you actually asserting that the number of killings we have every year is unrelated to the prevalence of a convenient means for committing them?
You’re arguing with your own strawmen, and it’s no wonder you find it pointless. Try actually paying attention and you might learn something.
A very convincing, closely reasoned position there. Congratulations on your perspicacity.
When come back, bring argument.
Are you actually arguing otherwise? Why do some other countries with similar gun laws have much lower murder rates? Why do some other countries with much more restrictive gun laws have much higher murder rates? Why has the murder rate in the U.S. plummeted over the last forty years despite no significant changes in gun laws or ownership? Why is there no correlation between state-level restrictions on guns and state murder rates? Why didn’t the murder rate change in England or Australia following the gun bans there?
The idea that gun laws/gun ownership determines the murder rate requires simply ignoring all the data and how statistics works. Are you going to argue for creationism next, or that global warming isn’t real? It’s on par with that.
Almost nothing that you wrote is correct. It is difficult to be condescending when you are a fucking idiot.
On the contrary, the more superficial (or false, or robotic) your understanding of a position, the *easier *it is to be condescending about it. The desire for the clean, pure joy of self-righteous denunciation is typically incompatible with an interest or ability to grasp complexity or nuance.
I meant successfully or the effectively condescending. Copping a condescending attitude while being patently and obviously wrong is just being a target for mockery and derision.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that from my perspective. I find clowns amusing.
You don’t get to choose your own reality.
I totally agree. That’s why I pointed out that in reality, essentially nothing you wrote is accurate.
You know damn well it is and that you can’t make any headway in forums where statements need to be cited and you can’t respond to facts with yelling about people’s dick size or “if it saves one child…” type nonsense, so here we are with the “guns should be confiscated because someone got shot” thread in the forum where it doesn’t matter.
That wasn’t even coherent.
You forgot “Why do you hate America?”
What? So what percentage of gun murders are committed by people who are lawfully allowed to have a gun? Almost all gun crimes are committed by people who aren’t allowed to own guns.
Yeah, We’re trying to but shitheads like you keep tripping over our feet and proposing retarded things like AWB. If the gun nuts weren’t so justifiably paranoid of you gun grabbers, it might not be such a fucking chore to convince them that the government isn’t trying to confiscate their guns
They’re both constitutional rights, one is explicitly mentioned in the constitution and the other is not. The fact that you have trouble comprehending the comparison because of your personal preferences is really your personal problem.
Glad I could help.
The constitution may not be important to you but you sure make a lot of noise when the parts YOU like are getting pushed back.
I’m pretty sure I use those terms fairly evenly. If you see it differently its probably your myopia acting up again.
You have a tendency to assume your opinions are facts.
We know why he hates America. Because we have a country built on the rule of law and a constitution that he does not completely agree with. You don’t get to pick and choose which parts of the constitution you think counts. You want to infringe on my right to bear arms then you better pass constitutional muster or repeal the second amendment.
There is a difference between infringing on your rights and having a level of gun control in excess of what we currently have.
Where the line is drawn is a question for the government.
Guns are less available – and less common – in most European countries. What do you attribute the difference to?
Americans carry a special mutation on chromosome-28? Americans vividly remember the redcoats of '76, Europeans having forgotten their own tragedies? Do you agree with Charlton Heston that the key difference is that America has “ethnic” people?
Or, it’s just that Europeans are atheists and have never even read the Second [del]Commandment[/del] Amendment?
You’re gonna need a cite for that. You are already aware of the exceptions, I trust. Or at least you don’t want to go there. Please also be aware that the rest of us know your argument is circular - we are talking about the law, not assuming it to be a fact of life.
One more time: You have nothing else to propose. You can only denounce others’ attempts. Conclusion: You don’t want to fix the problem, and you’re lying about saying you do. That’s what the evidence points to.
You’re really not interested in being listened to, are you?
Anything you need explained for you, just ask. You can find a grownup to help you with the big words.
Does that include all of the Second? 
Cut the shit, you’re not fooling anybody.
American society is more violent than our European counterparts. One damning statistic: the US has more non-gun homicides than homicides from all causes in western Europe and Japan combined. I recommend American Homicide Exceptionalism for a detailed look at the subject. It examines and disputes the “instrumentality” theory of American violence- that guns make the US more violent than it would be otherwise. I would say that Europe has fewer guns because it is less violent, not the other way around. When gun violence is vanishingly rare to begin with, banning guns to try to disarm the truly aberrant outliers makes some sense, although it has little impact on career criminals with access to contraband.
In short, you can’t make a violent society peaceful by banning instruments any more than you can make a drunken society sober by banning alcohol.
A few things:
Don’tcha think it’s possible that the gun culture contributes to the broader violence culture here? If your goal really is to reduce violence, where else would be a better place to start (and please don’t say “handwringing”)?
Are you agreeing that the situation in the places you’ve listed is better in terms of violent crime? Great. Now how could we best go about emulating them?
And, even if we accept that “you can’t make a violent society peaceful by banning instruments”, would you at least agree that there will be fewer and less-injured victims if there are fewer purpose-built instruments available to all these inherently-violent “bad guys” you blame?
Not really. There are actually two gun cultures in the US. One is the middle class of responsible, law-abiding gun owners who own guns for hunting, target shooting, collecting and self-defense, and seldom misuse guns. My home state of Minnesota for instance has a homicide rate comparable to Canada’s, and much lower than the national average. The other gun culture is associated with urban poverty; where young punks imagine that owning a gun makes them men, and where people constantly shoot one another over deals gone bad, gang turf, real or imagined slights, jealousy, or armed robbery. If you counted those areas by themselves they would have a gun violence rate of Third World proportions. If guns simply were impossible to obtain there would still be an elevated violence and murder rate.
Damned if I know. But as far as gun control goes, again it’s like a nineteenth-century Temperance crusader looking at the slums and tenements of America’s cities, noting the high correlation of alcohol abuse with crime and poverty and concluding that if only you could get rid of alcohol those problems would diminish or vanish.
Maybe, maybe not. First it’s impossible as a practical matter to eliminate guns (unless nobody wanted them, in which case you wouldn’t have a problem); and second it must be asked how many people are saved from being victims because of guns vs. how many become victims. I realize this is contentious because by definition you can’t know how many times something didn’t happen. But presumably lawfully owned guns have some non-zero utility which would be lost if there were no guns.
There is no difference between infringing on my rights and increasing the level of gun control. The question is whether that infringement is whether that infringement is constitutional. After we have determined constitutionality we can determine whether it is politically feasible or socially desirable.
I am not against more regulation. I have advocated for licensing and registration requirements but an AWB is stupid for a whole host of reasons. It has no measurable effect on gun violence and it gives substance to all the paranoia that gun nuts have about the gun grabbers.
It seems to me that the number of attempted murders might not drop that much. Its just that guns are more lethal than knives (about three times as lethal). So in a gun free society, you would have just as many assaults but fewer actual deaths.
But considering that we have 350 million guns in this country, how do you propose we disarm the criminal populace? I’m not saying it can’t be done but stupid shit like an assault weapons ban isn’t even a step in the right direction, its spinning your wheels.
Its that we have 350 million guns here, we engage in warrior worship in a way that people in other countries do not, we encourage aggressive behaviour and associate violent behaviour with manliness. We have a culture of violence that doesn’t exist in a lot of other places.
Yep and that’s why we call them exceptions.
The readily available statistics are about murder generally rather than gun murders specifically but it seems to be commonly accepted that gun murderers are a representative sample of all murderers.
“Notably, only 15 percent of all Americans have criminal records, yet more than 90 percent of murder suspects have a history of crime. Their criminal careers average six or more years’ length, including four major adult felonies, in addition to their often extensive juvenile records.”
If you add underage youths, wifebeaters and people with restraining orders to the mix. The percentage of murders committed by people who are permitted to own a firearm is relatively small.
How is the argument circular? I am not sure what you are talking about here.
I think this must be the 5th or 6th time I am replying directly to this accusation (from you) by pointing to my support for licensing and registration. Have I been too subtle in making this proposal because, frankly, I thought people around here were getting sick of me bringing it up.
I know it makes your world make more sense if you can conflate the obstructionist mentality of the Republicans with the resistance to stupid laws like the AWB but frankly, you’re the Republican in this scenario.
Apparently elucidator listens better than you do. I think he has noticed my support for licensing and registration which you seem to forget several times per thread.
Of course it includes all of the second amendment. I don’t think the prefatory clause is meaningless.
After Heller, I think the operative clause gives individuals the right to effective self defense and the prefatory clause gives the states the right to arm their citizenry any way they like.