US Gun Control (Yes, again).

[Edlichbury]

Yes, it's our fault you won't follow the law.

Can you take over for me, then? I've created several graphs, and even more statistics, and even more sources, which all prove that gun control does work, and which are all being ignored, similar to the behavior described by Lord et. al. in his paper about how the intake of information to the human brain is highly determined by previous memories, to the point where people only see exactly what they want to see, in an extreme confirmation bias. Here's the [url=http://synapse.princeton.edu/~sam/lord_ross_lepper79_JPSP_biased-assimilation-and-attitude-polarization.pdf]link.[url]

I can take it for a while. I've cited plenty of statistics, and I don't think it has any effect.

[Edlichbury]

Yes, it's our fault you won't follow the law.

No, it's your fault YOU won't follow the law. If you were to pass a law banning firearm ownership in the united states, you would be in direct conflict with the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution, the supreme law of the land. Therefore, the restriction is an illegal law.

Except the clear implication of the law being in place is that it has already been deemed enforceable. In the hypothetical provided, it's quite clear that they are acting within governmental authority and as such within the law. And never use the Second Amendment as a justification. Rights should be granted on merit of the rights and need for society, not what was codified into a document in the past.

[Uieurnthlaal]

Yes, it's our fault you won't follow the law.

No, it's your fault YOU won't follow the law. If you were to pass a law banning firearm ownership in the united states, you would be in direct conflict with the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution, the supreme law of the land. Therefore, the restriction is an illegal law.

intake of information to the human brain is highly determined by previous memories, to the point where people only see exactly what they want to see.

Well if that ain't the pot calling the kettle black?

If you showed me how after the relaxation of gun control, crime dropped significantly, and how among developed countries, those with more guns are also more peaceful, then I would believe you, and agree that gun control is a bad idea. However, even as you make wild claims about things, you have yet to show me a source that justifies your claims. For example, the data about violent crime in the US actually went against you when I found that crime spiked after the expiration of the gun control law. Or how you thought that crime in the UK was worse than in the US, while I showed you how the UK definition included everything that involved unwanted physical contact, while the US defintion required acts of extreme violence. If you had data to back up your claims, I would believe you. But you don't.
There is a right answer, so we both must acknowledge the conditions that we require to be proven wrong.

[Uieurnthlaal]

Can you take over for me, then? I've created several graphs, and even more statistics, and even more sources, which all prove that gun control does work, and which are all being ignored, similar to the behavior described by Lord et. al. in his paper about how the intake of information to the human brain is highly determined by previous memories, to the point where people only see exactly what they want to see, in an extreme confirmation bias. Here's the [url=http://synapse.princeton.edu/~sam/lord_ross_lepper79_JPSP_biased-assimilation-and-attitude-polarization.pdf]link.[url]

I can take it for a while. I've cited plenty of statistics, and I don't think it has any effect.

On who? On reality, or on them?

[Chernoslavia]

If the police points guns at us, we'll point our guns back at them. If police shoot first, we will shoot back. Its justified self-defense. So if the government tries to take them by force the most practical way so far is to defeat us first, so thanks to your actions you have provoked a deadly battle that would result in fatal casualties on both sides. How progressive!

Except that that's not what would happen, except in an ultraconservative's crazed imagination. What would happen would be that the policeman asks for the guns, if they deny it, then they would use their warrant, and find the gun. If the person refuses to give the gun, then the policeman would inform the person that legal action will be taken. A heavy fine, for example.

Thats not legal action. Please read the constitution and please read it twice. Now, realistically if such order such as confiscating guns (which is also private property) were to take place, id be gone in a split second. My house will be all vacant...empty. I know thousands of places to hide my arsenal, so if I decide not to run, id just tell them that a squad before them already collected my guns.

[Norjagen]

No, it's your fault YOU won't follow the law. If you were to pass a law banning firearm ownership in the united states, you would be in direct conflict with the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution, the supreme law of the land. Therefore, the restriction is an illegal law.

Except the clear implication of the law being in place is that it has already been deemed enforceable. In the hypothetical provided, it's quite clear that they are acting within governmental authority and as such within the law. And never use the Second Amendment as a justification. Rights should be granted on merit of the rights and need for society, not what was codified into a document in the past.

That document, like it or not, is still the supreme law of the land in the United States. If you don't like it, then you need to attempt to repeal the 2nd amendment. The procedures for doing so are very clearly spelled-out. This thread being "US Gun Control," the constitution remains a very important part of the argument.

[The Tripartite Republics of Rome]

Numbers don't lie. Words might, but numbers don't.
I have shown you based on widely accepted statistics that developed countries with less guns, practically as a rule, have less murder. You have, as of yet, failed to disprove any of my sourced claims, or sources.

Your sourced claims mention nothing of what your arguing about. You say ''numbers dont lie'' yeah. That absolutely right, and do you know what those numbers say? That the UK's violent crime rate is 3.5 times higher than America's, same as costa rica's nearly non existant gun homicide rate is significantly lower than Venezuela's gun homicide rate.

You can try and sugar coat the facts however you like, the facts still remain the same: UK has a higher violent crime rate than the US. And that gun crime in the US is decreasing despite gun laws being laxed in 2004.

You ask everyone who argues in favor of gun-control to site sources for their information, and you call them out on it. Yet when you site your own sources, you make like they're the only 'true' source of information. Hypocrite much?

[Chernoslavia]

Your sourced claims mention nothing of what your arguing about. You say ''numbers dont lie'' yeah. That absolutely right, and do you know what those numbers say? That the UK's violent crime rate is 3.5 times higher than America's, same as costa rica's nearly non existant gun homicide rate is significantly lower than Venezuela's gun homicide rate.

You can try and sugar coat the facts however you like, the facts still remain the same: UK has a higher violent crime rate than the US. And that gun crime in the US is decreasing despite gun laws being laxed in 2004.

You ask everyone who argues in favor of gun-control to site sources for their information, and you call them out on it. Yet when you site your own sources, you make like they're the only 'true' source of information. Hypocrite much?

Please re-read my source, thats not what ive said or tried to do. If anyone's being a hypocrite its them.

[Uieurnthlaal]

Except that that's not what would happen, except in an ultraconservative's crazed imagination. What would happen would be that the policeman asks for the guns, if they deny it, then they would use their warrant, and find the gun. If the person refuses to give the gun, then the policeman would inform the person that legal action will be taken. A heavy fine, for example.

Thats not legal action. Please read the constitution and please read it twice. Now, realistically if such order such as confiscating guns (which is also private property) were to take place, id be gone in a split second. My house will be all vacant...empty. I know thousands of places to hide my arsenal, so if I decide not to run, id just tell them that a squad before them already collected my guns.

Well, you wouldn't know when the police were coming. If you were found with a gun, however, you would face legal action, like fines such as $5000, more if you are found with guns worth more than that. About a previous squad collecting your guns, this isn't 1752. The police are more organized than that. Lawbreaking is not as easy as it may seem in your conservative fantasy.

[Edlichbury]

I can take it for a while. I've cited plenty of statistics, and I don't think it has any effect.

On who? On reality, or on them?

On them. Also on the reality that Americans are as a whole not that great at understanding that other countries exist and that we can learn from them.

[Norjagen]

Thats not legal action. Please read the constitution and please read it twice. Now, realistically if such order such as confiscating guns (which is also private property) were to take place, id be gone in a split second. My house will be all vacant...empty. I know thousands of places to hide my arsenal, so if I decide not to run, id just tell them that a squad before them already collected my guns.

Well, you wouldn't know when the police were coming. If you were found with a gun, however, you would face legal action, like fines such as $5000, more if you are found with guns worth more than that. About a previous squad collecting your guns, this isn't 1752. The police are more organized than that. Lawbreaking is not as easy as it may seem in your conservative fantasy.

Because the ban on drugs and the past bans on alcohol totally stopped people from drinking, and reduced violent crime rates.

[Chernoslavia]

On who? On reality, or on them?

On them. Also on the reality that Americans are as a whole not that great at understanding that other countries exist and that we can learn from them.

And what we learned is that legal gun ownership is NOT the source of homicide.

[Edlichbury]

Well, you wouldn't know when the police were coming. If you were found with a gun, however, you would face legal action, like fines such as $5000, more if you are found with guns worth more than that. About a previous squad collecting your guns, this isn't 1752. The police are more organized than that. Lawbreaking is not as easy as it may seem in your conservative fantasy.

Because the ban on drugs and the past bans on alcohol totally stopped people from drinking, and reduced violent crime rates.

False equivalency. Evidence provided previously in this thread already showed gun control laws greatly reduced violent crime rate in many countries and essentially eliminated gun violence as a problem in several as well.

[Vitaphone Racing]

It's obvious the violent crime rate will be higher in the UK; the population density is much greater. Denser populations lead to a higher crime rate, violent and non-violent. Comparing the crime rate of the UK to the whole of US proves absolutely nothing. You can pat yourself on the back for showing that "the numbers don't lie" but in reality you've proved nothing.

[Uieurnthlaal]

You ask everyone who argues in favor of gun-control to site sources for their information, and you call them out on it. Yet when you site your own sources, you make like they're the only 'true' source of information. Hypocrite much?

Please re-read my source, thats not what ive said or tried to do. If anyone's being a hypocrite its them.

Please re-read my source, to understand why you are unable to understand. (Hint: It has to do with confirmation bias).

[Uieurnthlaal]

It's obvious the violent crime rate will be higher in the UK; the population density is much greater. Denser populations lead to a higher crime rate, violent and non-violent. Comparing the crime rate of the UK to the whole of US proves absolutely nothing. You can pat yourself on the back for showing that "the numbers don't lie" but in reality you've proved nothing.

Or maybe because violent crime is defined differently, something that I proved in a thoroughly researched proof on the previous page, to which the anti-gun-control people were unable to understand.

[Norjagen]

Because the ban on drugs and the past bans on alcohol totally stopped people from drinking, and reduced violent crime rates.

False equivalency. Evidence provided previously in this thread already showed gun control laws greatly reduced violent crime rate in many countries and essentially eliminated gun violence as a problem in several as well.

Equal evidence was presented that showed an overall decrease in crime rates in the United States, even as gun ownership increased and gun control laws relaxed.

Also, still haven't argued your way around that pesky constitution.

[Edlichbury]

It's obvious the violent crime rate will be higher in the UK; the population density is much greater. Denser populations lead to a higher crime rate, violent and non-violent. Comparing the crime rate of the UK to the whole of US proves absolutely nothing. You can pat yourself on the back for showing that "the numbers don't lie" but in reality you've proved nothing.

No to mention they ignored the vastly more expansive number of crimes that are labelled "violent" in the UK.

[Asuiop]

Gun control rarely works, criminals and the insane will always get guns. I'm all for background checks, but nothing other than that.

[Edlichbury]

False equivalency. Evidence provided previously in this thread already showed gun control laws greatly reduced violent crime rate in many countries and essentially eliminated gun violence as a problem in several as well.

Equal evidence was presented that showed an overall decrease in crime rates in the United States, even as gun ownership increased and gun control laws relaxed.

Post hoc fallacy. Crime rates were incidentally decreasing for a number of reason that were explained in actual statistics, none of which dealt with guns. One such reason was the demographic shift in the time span as the population aged, which led to less crimes overall, heightened police details, greater emphasis on social programs to combat crime, and steadily climbing incarceration rates and lengths of incarceration. But nowhere did any criminologist suggest "more guns" led to the decline.

[Edlichbury]

Gun control rarely works, criminals and the insane will always get guns. I'm all for background checks, but nothing other than that.

Still proven categorically false by success in other countries.

[Asuiop]

Gun control rarely works, criminals and the insane will always get guns. I'm all for background checks, but nothing other than that.

Still proven categorically false by success in other countries.

What kind of gun control? Background checks? Banning of Guns? Banning of Assault Rifles?

[Norjagen]

Equal evidence was presented that showed an overall decrease in crime rates in the United States, even as gun ownership increased and gun control laws relaxed.

Post hoc fallacy. Crime rates were incidentally decreasing for a number of reason that were explained in actual statistics, none of which dealt with guns. One such reason was the demographic shift in the time span as the population aged, which led to less crimes overall, heightened police details, greater emphasis on social programs to combat crime, and steadily climbing incarceration rates and lengths of incarceration. But nowhere did any criminologist suggest "more guns" led to the decline.

Neither did I. I did, however, state that more guns did NOT lead to more crime in the United States. This differs from the OP's data, which claims that more guns irrefutably leads to more violent crime; an arrogant and flawed conclusion that, as you said, ignores other societal factors.

[Chernoslavia]

Thats not legal action. Please read the constitution and please read it twice. Now, realistically if such order such as confiscating guns (which is also private property) were to take place, id be gone in a split second. My house will be all vacant...empty. I know thousands of places to hide my arsenal, so if I decide not to run, id just tell them that a squad before them already collected my guns.

Well, you wouldn't know when the police were coming. If you were found with a gun, however, you would face legal action, like fines such as $5000, more if you are found with guns worth more than that. About a previous squad collecting your guns, this isn't 1752. The police are more organized than that. Lawbreaking is not as easy as it may seem in your conservative fantasy.

Conservative fantasy?

THIS....IS.....ALASKA!

*leonidus kick*

1. On a serious note...if police are that organized to that particular point, then why arent the streets being clean out from illegal narcotics? Yeah, exactly.

2. Please stop saying legal action because it is obviously not legal action until you can get congress to first legally repeal the 2nd Amendment which isnt practically possible. You'd accuse me of lawbreaking when your actions themselves are illegal.

3. Your starting to sound like the sort of tyrant we're talking about. I hope you realize your further justifying our actions.

4. You'd be surprised of all the hiding spots i've found.

[Edlichbury]

Still proven categorically false by success in other countries.

What kind of gun control? Background checks? Banning of Guns? Banning of Assault Rifles?

Categorical bans, licensing requirements, and overall strict control of the supply. The details are somewhere in this thread as I'm sure someone besides me brought up various countries. As an aside, I personally advocate for a Japanese-styled method of gun control. So if you want a specific debate, that can be the starting point.