London murder rate rises higher than NY City

LOL so you can only have one view on one thing ant any one time, are you that mentally limited?

Again off you go on a tangent – I was talking about how you seem to think in terms of either or, your implied that EITHER people can tackle smoking OR they can tackle the gun issue BUT not both.

You reply with something completely different and not related - LOL I’ve had more coherent conversations with 7 year olds.

As to the 6 rounds thing I’ll repeat - I haven’t given an opinion as I don’t have one it’s not my suggestion and not my fight, but you do seem to have strong opinions about it one could even say abrasive – so why are you so opposed to it? Give me your argument convince me, why do you think it a bad idea?

Sorry but it seems to me that you don’t seem to have any rational or reasonable argument against MeAgain’s suggestion.

Please if you have one give it.

 

Sorry mate but please what are you on about?

LOL look man, I keep listening but you seem to becoming increasingly unhinged – calm down take a deep breath and try and explain your thinking in a clear and coherent way.

Again it seems to me that you don’t actually have a counter argument to the ‘potato thing’ and it seems to me that the reason you are telling me to ‘let it go’ is because you know you don’t have a counter argument.

 

To me that just seems like gun porn all that stuff about silky smooth folding stocks, hard semiautomatic action and deep flash suppressing….LOL

Well it’s clear you are into that stuff deeply passionately into that stuff, nudge nudge wink wink….but its fine if that’s what turns you on.

But it’s not the kind of thing I’m into….look if you have found other consenting adult to discuss these things with, I’m not going to judge but I’m not going to join in.

If you want to discuss things I’ve raised well that’s fine.

 

Any gun kept at home or place of work (including businesses that involve guns) would have to be held in a secure manner (eg safe or other secure locking system). People that didn’t have an approved system would not be allowed to own a gun.

ALREADY COVERED. You only really need to read the posts as I go on to say

If a person loses or has their gun stolen, and it is shown that they did not show due diligence in securing their weapon they would be subject to a heavy fine and/or banned from owning a gun.

Any guns would have to be presented for inspection 6 months after purchase then again one year after purchase and then every five years after that. Not presenting the gun would mean losing the owner’s gun license and being banning from owning a gun. If the gun has been lost or stolen and that has not been reported that would result in heavy fine and/or custodial sentence.

LOL it’s how many (if not most) laws work through deterrent, the fear of getting caught, in this case someone could not use the safe but if they don’t and the gun is stolen then they would be subject to a heavy fine and/or banned from owning a gun and if they try to cover up the robbery it will result in a heavy fine and/or custodial sentence.

Another means of curtailing irresponsible actions is through education, teaching people that it is better for themselves and others if they act responsibly, that to drink and drive isn’t good as it can result in the injure or death of people, that if a gun is left unsecure and is stolen it could end up resulting in the injure or death of people.

 

Scary. I thought the US is already worst.

 

The criticisms of his views are without merit. And those criticisms have been addressed.

The reason why he keeps debunking bad gun control arguments is because people keep posting bad gun control arguments.

Statistics are very clear that gun availability has little impact on homicide rates.

The reason for not doing it is: there is no justification for doing it.

Abolishing civil rights for no reason isn't a good idea.

His posts are perfectly coherent. The counter to the potato nonsense is all the statistics that show that gun availability has little impact on homicide rates.

 

From forum guidelines

As often stated this is not a bulletin board it is a place to debate politics.

For that reason cut and pasted articles or links [including video] should be used sparingly and more as a way to highlight a persons viewpoint rather than as a replacement for a persons viewpoint.

People that consistently post articles or links without comment may find their posts removed.

 

Memory problems, Balbus?

You said: "If a company sold a faulty devise at what point should there be regulation in place to protect people and get the product recalled?"

You were hopelessly trying to compare a gun with a defective device. So I tried to explain to you the difference between a gun and a defective device. Apparently it went over your fuckin' head. So I'll try again since patience is one of my virtues. Products aren't recalled because people misuse them; they're recalled when a defect in their mechanism causes harm to the user. I used automobiles as an example to show you how your argument fails, but your limited comprehension prevented you from making the connection. I hope I've cleared that up for you because that's my intent. Hopefully you'll now see that, with defective products, the intent of the user is not the issue, and that with guns, the intent of the user is the issue. Is that now . . . simple enough for you?

 

Okay, so your position on whether or not all guns that hold more than 6 rounds should be confiscated is: I can't tell you how I feel about that because I don't want to. I can accept that.

I have no trouble coming out and saying that it's fuckin' ridiculous. It's based on hysteria.

 

Funny. You're attributing the potato comment to everyone even though it was just one poster who mentioned it. The poster who mentioned it did so to illustrate the stupidity of people who believe that, in the absence of a gun, people won't commit murder. And now you're trying to convince readers that a person (you) who continues to wave the potato comment around like a kid with a new toy is not the unhinged one. Good luck with that, but the damage is done.

 

Because of the limitations of existing data and methods, no study credibly demonstrates a causal relationship between the ownership of firearms and the causes or prevention of criminal violence. You seem to be under the impression that there is a study that demonstrates such a causal relationship. You haven't provided one, which means that your proposal here is based on hysteria rather than reason.

You might even think about pointing us all in the direction of a study that shows that the level of firearm ownership in an area is not caused by a high level of violence in that area to begin with? That would help to support your opinions about gun inspections and other such nonsense.

 

The same thing could be said about most of the things we believe in. From a philosophical standpoint, it may be impossible to show causation, but if I jump off the top of a tall building, I'd expect to make a large splash on the pavement below because that's what's happened to people in similar situations in the past. In the social sciences, causation is particularly problematic because of the numerous variables to take into account. Multivariate regression analysis is one way of doing that, and of measuring the strength of linear relationship between an independent variable and a dependent variable. It can never show causation, but it can show strong or weak association. To make valid inferences about causation, we'd probably need controlled experimentation, which in the case of guns and homicides would be a practicable impossibility.

But all this is beside the point. We started with a claim by Toggle that there was no correlation--no statistical relationship--between gun availability and violent crime. I think the Harvard studies demonstrated that that is not true. This line of debate reminds me ever so much of the debate between Young Earth Creationists and scientists over the age of the earth or human evolution. Creationists sometimes say that the scientific view is obviously wrong because the scientists even admit that it is tentative and refutable, which science always is.

 

Interesting. What could be done to avoid the splat part. Get rid of the tall building? You'd find a bridge or cliff. Stifle the desire to jump? Channel it to strictly curbs or low stoops? I think the problem would ultimately be a person's desire to splat, and if they want to, there's not much that's going to stop it.

 

How 'bout putting me on suicide watch in a straight jacket in a padded cell, or rushing out with a big net before I hit the ground? How practical are those as suicide prevention measures? The point is, there might be a variety of intervening variables that could avoid the predicted outcome. But if those variables are controlled for, the result will happen. Ceteris paribus, as economists like to say. As has been said so often, it's extremely difficult to control homicidal tendencies. But if we make it more difficult for the homicidal to obtain weapons that inflict mass murder efficiently we might make a dent in the problem. In the real world, the availability of firearms does seem to be associated with homicidal violence, suggesting that firearms control might be a promising strategy.

 

Unless you can show that the high level of gun ownership in an area is not the result of a high level of crime in the same area, then it is true that high levels of crime is the cause of higher levels of gun ownership.

As far as the Harvard studies go, the best that Hemenway could salvage from them in the way of something conclusive is to state that he'd “bet a lot of money,” and that he “thinks the evidence is very consistent,” and ". . . it’s very hard to say anything is causal," which is not conclusive at all!

In other words, he tried to convince his listeners of the "facts" by stating how much he would be willing to bet that they are facts.

So, where's the study that shows that the level of firearm ownership in an area is not caused by a high level of violence in that area to begin with?

 

Sorry, I don't own an AR-15. I did mention folding stocks, but I'm afraid you're the one who's now fixated on the silky smoothness of the things, if in fact they're smooth (that could all be in your mind--fear will do that to a person). I'm not going to say that you have an unreasonable fear of silky smooth things, but if you have an unreasonable fear of especially-smooth stocks, it's a pretty sure bet that you see more in them than any normal person does. This doesn't make you a bad person. It just means that you suffer from an irrational fear of smooth stocks. But you can rest assured that even a silky smooth stock doesn't increase the lethality of a rifle.

You might think about submitting a proposal that would compel gun manufacturers to rough up those especially-smooth stocks with sand paper before shipping them; ya know, to make them not silky smooth and such a temptation unto man. But odds are, nobody is going to give a fuck about your fear of silky smooth stocks. My guess is that if you really sat down and thought about it, you'd find that your obsession is more about silk than stocks . . . or silk stockings!

 

Studies that used cherry-picked data to produce a fraudulent result.

A negligible dent, since gun availability has very little impact on homicide rates.

No. In the real world gun availability has very little correlation with homicide rates.

 

London Homicides:



NYC crime rate's are at the lowest levels since reliable records started being kept, so if it's accurate that London has a higher homicide rate, it'd be because of an very sharp decline in NYC crime, rather than increased murders in London.

Crime in New York City Plunges to a Level Not Seen Since the 1950s

 

Where did defective cars come from all of sudden?

Wow you are all over the place

That was in relation to your suggestion that 3.5 people per 100,000 homicides wasn’t significant and the implication that they could be ignored, the question being when does a death become significant

While you were replying with the car statement to the thing about you seeming to think in terms of either or, you implying that EITHER people can tackle smoking OR they can tackle the gun issue BUT not both.

As I’ve said can you please try and concentrate and be a bit more coherent, going backwards and forward and answering things completely out of sequence make rational discussion very difficult.

NO I wasn’t again can you please and at least try and read the post?

So again - You seemed to be saying that you thought gun related homicides were insignificant I was asking when for you did a death become significant.

But why would you do that – it wouldn’t fit in with what was being said it would have been a compete tangent.

 

OK well I’ll try and make sense of this

I’m not sure products are recalled if people misuse them? Are you talking about tobacco? If so that’s not misuse a cigarette is mean to be smoked. If it is tobacco then regulation and education are probably the best means of tackling it.

So when is the harm in your view significant enough to do something 1 death a 100, 1 in 100,000 more than 3.5 in 100,000?

Sorry but you seem to be complicating things rather than ‘clearing them up’ what do you mean? In what way does the used car example help your argument?

I mean in the UK all cars used or otherwise are covered by loads of laws and regulation to make sure they are safe and have to pass a yearly test to show they are (or be scrapped). Same with drivers there are loads of laws and regulations covering them from having to pass a test to get a licence to following the Highway Code.

This has all been covered before numerous times.