So, in a debate with some anti's...need help...

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SilentStalker

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
1,588
Location
Somewhere in the U.S., London, or Australia
I have already given some links from our resources page. Basically, if you have quick access to any and all stats that prove more firearms laws will not work then I want to see them so I can use them in this argument. We are moving and my home computer is in storage. So, I do not have access to my regular material I would use here. I can't believe it only took them an hour to politicize this whole deal. I get tired of having these debates every time something like this comes up to, but if we want to continue to have the right to carry then it is a debate that must be continued.
 
Last edited:
The best time to make a point is when the incident is fresh so none of us should be surprised that people are trying to make a point about gun prohibition as soon on the heels of this shooting.

The Uniform Crime Report shows continuous decline in firearms related violence over the past couple of decades while sales of modern firearms has increased to the point of new companies investing and entering the business. The press has even noted that academic and the government research has shown that these mass shootings don't affect the rate of murders in the U.S. Only rates are relevant in a discussion about murders in other countries since small population countries can't be compared directly to large population countries. Individual absolute numbers are emotionally impactful to point to, but they don't reflect the fact that rates or averages over populations are how analysis is carried out to find fact. Firearms availability is actually more restrictive now than when mass shootings were fewer. California where the murderer came from has some of the most restrictive firearms laws in the country. Oregon where he moved to has UBCs as well.
 
Last edited:
WaPo has a misleading chart and article based on biased selection of UNODC data. WaPo picked firearms homicide rates instead of homicide rates given in the UN report to misrepresent the problem.

While it is disturbing that we are anywhere from 2 to 4 times the overall homicide rate for most of the rest of the developed nations cited in that article, the selection of only firearms homicide rates does not reflect violence or homicide issues in the world where all means of homicide (wrongful killing) are in play. UNODC data reflects the downward trend in homicides in the U.S. with a rate of 6.6 in 2001 dropping to 4.7 in 2012 (last year of data). Canada had a rate drop from 1.8 to 1.6 for the same period of time giving us a homicide rate triple that of Canada, but with a nearly 30% change in the rate downward vs. their 12% decline. Certainly Western Europe's highest homicide rate is 1.6 in Belgium with the other European countries below 1.0. Australia has a rate of 1.1 with New Zealand a 0.9. Chile - 3.1, Argentina - 5.5, Brazil - 25.2!, Peru - 9.6, Venezuela has gone from 32 to 53! Overall homicide rates are far more relevant than firearms rates when looking at international data. Even with that our drop in homicide rate since 2001 is greater than that of Canada over the same period. Repeat, our rate of homicides is falling faster than Canada's and many other nations in spite of the increase in modern firearms purchases in the U.S..
 
Last edited:
We don't need to guess what the impact of strict guns laws are on gun related crimes. We see that in Chicago. Anti's can never explain why, if stricter gun laws are the answer Chicago has the number of shootings it has.
 
TomJ said:
We don't need to guess what the impact of strict guns laws are on gun related crimes. We see that in Chicago. Anti's can never explain why, if stricter gun laws are the answer Chicago has the number of shootings it has.
Click to expand...
Yea, they can -- or think they can. They'll say that it's because guns come from outside the state, like Virgina, or Georgia, or whatever is the popular "fall-guy" state of the time.

I'm not disagreeing that gun prohibitions are a failure, I'm just saying the antis have their excuses lined up & ready to launch.
 
Tommygunn said:
Yea, they can -- or think they can. They'll say that it's because guns come from outside the state, like Virgina, or Georgia, or whatever is the popular "fall-guy" state of the time.

I'm not disagreeing that gun prohibitions are a failure, I'm just saying the antis have their excuses lined up & ready to launch.
Click to expand...

I know you won't admit it, but that argument does have some validity. I'm not supporting Illinois' crazy gun restrictions, but the concept that people are importing guns into Chicago, undermining the gun ban, is not without credibility.

I liken it to "dry counties" and local prohibitions on alcohol. I have family in Georgia where there a many "dry counties." So folks just drive over the county line and buy alcohol. A minor inconvenience. Here in Alaska, many rural villages are dry, but one can not simply drive to the next village, which may be days away by snow machine, and is also likely a dry village. Even still, the villagers sometimes manage to get alcohol, either by smuggling it on commercial flights or making it themselves.

It's not unlike you tell your child "no video games until you get your grades up," so he goes over to Billy's house to play video games. (Which pretty much sums up why gun bans will always fail at their "supposed" goal of reducing crime.)
 
Simply ask the person, "What law would you pass that would prevent this from occurring?"

Poke holes in their proposition. Shouldn't be hard.

Take the offensive (no pun intended) position.
 
I've heard the "guns come from somewhere else argument", and if you think it through it has no validity. If guns come into Chicago from neighboring states, the anti's solution is to ban guns in those states. The criminals who want guns will then get them from states where they are available. If we ban them nationally, they'll get them from other countries, similar to the drug trade. Criminals have, and always will find a way to purchase guns. While the anti's may make their arguments, I can't remember the last one i heard that was not an outright lie, as was Obama's statement yesterday that states with the strictest guns laws are safest, or based on misinformation or nativity.
 
While it is disturbing that we are anywhere from 2 to 4 times the overall homicide rate for most of the rest of the developed nations cited in that article,
Click to expand...

Yes, but...

Reference:

We could go on with this as long as we liked. It's often pointed out that without the top four American cities for homicide -- Washington, Chicago (newly crowned murder capital of the USA), Detroit, and New Orleans, the U.S. would have one of the lowest murder rates in the industrialized world.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the above is a worthless point, but it does serve to provide some perspective that it is NOT the entire US that suffers from the high homicide rate.

If one would like to parse the FBI stats that were referenced in other posts above, one might find many of our States have per capita homicide rates that are quite low.
 
SilentStalker said:
. . . . Basically, if you have quick access to any and all stats that prove more firearms laws will not work then I want to see them . . . .
Click to expand...
If you can get to www.thefiringline.com, we have a "Repository of Reliable Sources and Citations" (or named something similar). I think it's in the "Law & Civil Rights" forum.
 
See also Bookworm's blog post "Five reasons that the benefits that flow from guns far outweigh the risks inherent in guns"
... Instead, my reversal on guns came about because I realized that gun’s are a predicate requirement for individual freedom and security. I’ve created five principles that justify this conclusion. These principles are: (1) Armed citizens are the best defense against the world’s most dangerous killer: government; (2) I am a Jew; (3) I am not a racist; (4) a self-defended society is a safe society; and (5) the only way gun-control activists can support their position is to lie.

I develop each of these principles below.
Click to expand...
 
The Alaskan said:
I know you won't admit it, but that argument does have some validity. I'm not supporting Illinois' crazy gun restrictions, but the concept that people are importing guns into Chicago, undermining the gun ban, is not without credibility.

I liken it to "dry counties" and local prohibitions on alcohol. I have family in Georgia where there a many "dry counties." So folks just drive over the county line and buy alcohol. A minor inconvenience. Here in Alaska, many rural villages are dry, but one can not simply drive to the next village, which may be days away by snow machine, and is also likely a dry village. Even still, the villagers sometimes manage to get alcohol, either by smuggling it on commercial flights or making it themselves.

It's not unlike you tell your child "no video games until you get your grades up," so he goes over to Billy's house to play video games. (Which pretty much sums up why gun bans will always fail at their "supposed" goal of reducing crime.)
Click to expand...

Remember prohibition? Alcohol was contraband everwhere....it was also smuggled everywhere, distilled everywhere, and imbibed everywhere.
Same or similar if guns are banned---maybe worse.
The "guns are smuggled in from ________" argument is De facto true (there is already a black market for them now) but it is really only liberal whine about their inability to establish their mythical utopia in this dimension's reality.
 
What law do we pass that says its illegal to rob banks that will stop bank robbery?

What law do we pass that says its illegal to kill people that will stop somebody from killing people (hands, knife, gun, explosive, poison, etc.)?
 
This FBI stat link covering 1950 to 2013 can't hurt. It shows homicides per 100,000 population cut in half since 1993.

And, in that time frame, guns in Americans hands have more than doubled.

Proving once again that John Lott's 1998 book, More Guns, Less Crime, was prophetic and on the money.
 
The Alaskan said:
I know you won't admit it, but that argument does have some validity. I'm not supporting Illinois' crazy gun restrictions, but the concept that people are importing guns into Chicago, undermining the gun ban, is not without credibility.



I liken it to "dry counties" and local prohibitions on alcohol. I have family in Georgia where there a many "dry counties." So folks just drive over the county line and buy alcohol. A minor inconvenience. Here in Alaska, many rural villages are dry, but one can not simply drive to the next village, which may be days away by snow machine, and is also likely a dry village. Even still, the villagers sometimes manage to get alcohol, either by smuggling it on commercial flights or making it themselves.



It's not unlike you tell your child "no video games until you get your grades up," so he goes over to Billy's house to play video games. (Which pretty much sums up why gun bans will always fail at their "supposed" goal of reducing crime.)
Click to expand...


It's not really Illinois' crazy laws, it's Chicago and cook county. The rest if the state is perfectly sane and our laws are decent.
 
It is a waste of breath arguing with anti-gun looneys. Just give to pro-gun organizations, vote for pro 2A people, and educate friends and family about 2A rights and firearms. Most of the lib morons are not reachable.
 
Tommygunn said:
Remember prohibition? Alcohol was contraband everwhere....
Click to expand...

That is a common misconception. Prohibition didn't ban the drinking of alcohol, it banned most manufacturing and the importation of alcohol. Any alcohol you owned was still legal. Farmers were still allowed to turn their cider apples into hard cider, the California vineyards saw a huge increase in production and sales. Jewish Temples and Catholic churches were allowed to sell wine to their members for "religious" use. Breweries legally sold extract kits and yeast for people to easily brew beer at home. Even hard alcohol was still legally sold through pharmacies as medicine and you could get a prescription from a doctor for a pint of bourbon. Prohibition made alcohol difficult to legally obtain for poor people in large cities. It was still relatively easy to get in rural areas and for wealthy individuals.

The same thing happens with gun laws. Grandfathering of old stock is pretty normal and heavy enforcement and laws are generally found in cities. Enforcement varies wildly from one jurisdiction to another.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top