Why does anyone NEED an assault rifle?

[KimGordon67]

@Kim The most active conservatives on this thread represent the fanatical death throes of an outdated culture, like fundamentalists who think evolution is satanic brainwashing, I don't think you're ever going to budge them on anything so why waste the time?

I dunno ... it's more fun than watching S398 of Survivor?

 

[Hypoxia]

Also, this statement: "You are in NO DANGER whatsoever from the law abiding gun owners in this country." is a ... something. I don't think an oxymoron. A tautology, maybe. Obviously, the second a gun owner injures/kills someone with their gun (not in self defence), they stop being 'law-abiding' and become a criminal. So that's just a meaningless statement.

And if new laws curtail their firearms-owning addiction, will they comply with said laws, or go outlaw? Lemmee think on that...

Of course we're all criminals anyway. So many laws, so many possible violations...

I probably don't commit many infractions at home, but when I'm out and about, watch out! It's like, vegans only eat animals they can't see. Law-abiding citizens only abide by laws they bother to notice. Don't y'all try to tell me you drive strictly legally all the time. I know better.

 

[BotanyBoy]

@Kim The most active conservatives on this thread represent the fanatical death throes of an outdated culture,

Oh that's cute.....you think US gun culture is outdated and in it's final death throes???

LOL

 

[My I]

And finally, in an article featuring the very same chart you just pulled, "These measures also suggest Americans are more likely to die from gun violence than the combined risks of drowning, fire and smoke, stabbing, choking on food, aeroplane crashes, animal attacks, and natural disasters."
Admittedly, that's all gun violence, not just 'assault rifles', but I think you're dramatically over-estimating the risk posed by yoghurt.

As with Coach, it's a really good idea to read your data properly before you throw them out there to putatively support your argument ... when you actually have data, that is.

Clearly you misunderstood why I posted that chart. Read the title of it. Guns are the leading cause of death? Seriously?

 

[KimGordon67]

Clearly you misunderstood why I posted that chart. Read the title of it. Guns are the leading cause of death? Seriously?

No one in this thread has said that - how is it germane to any of this discussion?

 

[KimGordon67]

Clearly you misunderstood why I posted that chart. Read the title of it. Guns are the leading cause of death? Seriously?

Also, maybe YOU should read the title - it says A leading cause of death, not THE leading cause of death. It's a good idea to check that things actually say what you're saying they do.

 

[KimGordon67]

Clearly you misunderstood why I posted that chart. Read the title of it. Guns are the leading cause of death? Seriously?

... and you're still over-dramatising the homicidal tendencies of yoghurt.

 

[My I]

Again with the random stats - where's your evidence to support these statements?

Where is YOUR evidence to refute them? You keep questioning anything I post but you can't provide a single fact of your own.

We can all sit here and post statistics all day long and compare all the stats based on different parameters and the only correlation you will find between guns and crime is that there is no correlation. There are countries with high gun ownership that have low crime rates, there are countries that have strict gun control that still have high crime rates and vice versa. The same can be said for individual states and cities in the US.

Stop blaming inanimate objects and punishing the innocent and fix the real problem. You people can't wrap your brains around that simple concept so all you can do is is argue over statistics and resort to name calling.

And you are not even from this country so what's it to you? You HAVE your perfect world free of guns and free of crime and mass murder right? Well, except when someone blows up an airport or a train station. Or drives a truck into a crowd then jumps out and starts stabbing people. But, hey, at least no one got shot, right? 'Cause being blown to bits or hit by a truck is more acceptable than being shot, right?

But the British constitution gives you the RIGHT to tell US how to live, doesn't it? I thought the Canuckians got their rude behavior from the French. Maybe I was wrong.

 

[My I]

Also, maybe YOU should read the title - it says A leading cause of death, not THE leading cause of death. It's a good idea to check that things actually say what you're saying they do.

18th out of a list of 50 very vague causes is leading?

 

[KimGordon67]

Where is YOUR evidence to refute them? You keep questioning anything I post but you can't provide a single fact of your own.

We can all sit here and post statistics all day long and compare all the stats based on different parameters and the only correlation you will find between guns and crime is that there is no correlation. There are countries with high gun ownership that have low crime rates, there are countries that have strict gun control that still have high crime rates and vice versa. The same can be said for individual states and cities in the US.

Stop blaming inanimate objects and punishing the innocent and fix the real problem. You people can't wrap your brains around that simple concept so all you can do is is argue over statistics and resort to name calling.

And you are not even from this country so what's it to you? You HAVE your perfect world free of guns and free of crime and mass murder right? Well, except when someone blows up an airport or a train station. Or drives a truck into a crowd then jumps out and starts stabbing people. But, hey, at least no one got shot, right? 'Cause being blown to bits or hit by a truck is more acceptable than being shot, right?

But the British constitution gives you the RIGHT to tell US how to live, doesn't it? I thought the Canuckians got their rude behavior from the French. Maybe I was wrong.

I'm not the one making the claims - it's up the person making the claim to support it. That's how debate works. When I make claims, I do back them up with evidence. You, on the other hand, appear to just be pulling numbers out of your bum.

I don't think anyone's ever blown up one of our airports or train stations, and I don't remember any incidents involving trucks and crowds either.

I'm not blaming inanimate objects - I'm blaming the culture that goes along with the high level of ownership of those objects, and the assumption that this is some sort of inalienable 'right'. You're the one who's trying to imbue guns with the ability to lower crime.

 

[My I]

... and you're still over-dramatising the homicidal tendencies of yoghurt.

And you're still over-dramatising sarcasm.

 

[KimGordon67]

18th out of a list of 50 very vague causes is leading?

That's some pretty next-level back-pedalling.

 

[KimGordon67]

And you're still over-dramatising sarcasm.

But you make it so EASY. You really just can't admit when you've read something the wrong way, can you? You might find that doing that actually improves your ability to debate points coherently.

 

[My I]

I'm not the one making the claims - it's up the person making the claim to support it. That's how debate works. When I make claims, I do back them up with evidence. You, on the other hand, appear to just be pulling numbers out of your bum.

I don't think anyone's ever blown up one of our airports or train stations, and I don't remember any incidents involving trucks and crowds either.

I'm not blaming inanimate objects - I'm blaming the culture that goes along with the high level of ownership of those objects, and the assumption that this is some sort of inalienable 'right'. You're the one who's trying to imbue guns with the ability to lower crime.

I have posted stats. In this thread and others. YOU choose not to accept them as valid. That leaves the burden of proof on YOUR shoulders. So prove them wrong. Oh, you can't be arsed to do that? You don't have time? Then how about addressing the basic point of this thread that all you liberals want to keep diverting away from? Don't even know what it is do you?

 

[KimGordon67]

But here, handily summarised, is the evidence to support the claim that high levels of gun ownership increase homicides rates, if you control for other variables. The important take home point: "And the increase in overall homicides was driven by an increase in gun-related homicides — homicides that didn't involve guns didn't significantly increase as gun ownership did. In other words, more guns meant more homicides, particularly gun homicides." (Source - which links to the various actual research studies.)

Happy now? I'll except some equally rigorous counter-evidence at any moment.

 

[My I]

But you make it so EASY. You really just can't admit when you've read something the wrong way, can you? You might find that doing that actually improves your ability to debate points coherently.

And again you want to use a trivial point to discredit everything I say. Yes I misread the title. It is still wrong. 18th on the list does not make it a leader. especially on a vague list like that.

 

[KimGordon67]

I have posted stats. In this thread and others. YOU choose not to accept them as valid. That leaves the burden of proof on YOUR shoulders. So prove them wrong. Oh, you can't be arsed to do that? You don't have time? Then how about addressing the basic point of this thread that all you liberals want to keep diverting away from? Don't even know what it is do you?

What stats where? I asked you if you were standing by the gun lobby rubbish as 'valid' and you refused to answer. As I said at the time, I'd check into their data more deeply if you were presenting it as 'valid' - I took your deafening silence as a 'no'.

 

[My I]

But here, handily summarised, is the evidence to support the claim that high levels of gun ownership increase homicides rates, if you control for other variables. The important take home point: "And the increase in overall homicides was driven by an increase in gun-related homicides — homicides that didn't involve guns didn't significantly increase as gun ownership did. In other words, more guns meant more homicides, particularly gun homicides." (Source - which links to the various actual research studies.)

Happy now? I'll except some equally rigorous counter-evidence at any moment.

This from YOUR source:

"There is actually no simple correlation between states' homicide rates and their gun-ownership rates or gun laws," VerBruggen wrote. "This has been shown numerous times, by different people, using different data sets."

 

[KimGordon67]

And again you want to use a trivial point to discredit everything I say. Yes I misread the title. It is still wrong. 18th on the list does not make it a leader. especially on a vague list like that.

You also misread the risk of choking on food vs gun death.

And other stuff ... there's just no real logic to your use of evidence at all, when you do use, and a bunch of unsubstantiated numbers otherwise.

 

[KimGordon67]

This from YOUR source:

Jesus wept - the article cites that as the original 'source' of what people think about gun violence ... and then goes on to utterly refute that claim. Did you actually READ it? It's longer than the first paragraph.

 

[KimGordon67]

Honestly, I give up - it's like arguing with a 9 year old with ADHD.

(Apologies to anyone with ADHD - I'm sure you get my point.)

 

[My I]

What stats where? I asked you if you were standing by the gun lobby rubbish as 'valid' and you refused to answer. As I said at the time, I'd check into their data more deeply if you were presenting it as 'valid' - I took your deafening silence as a 'no'.

Maybe you should go back and read the WHOLE thread. There is another thread from the last few weeks where I posted stats and sources over and over and people like you posted stats with completely different parameters and then called me a liar.

As for standing by the gun lobby stats, why are they less valid than the ANTI-gun lobby.

And again you assume that I "refused" to answer you. I have a real life and don't have the luxury spending all day every day answering every ignorant twat's loaded questions. There are times that I may not even get online for anything for two or three days at a time. But when I do I am expected to see and answer every single one of YOUR posts?

Who the fuck are YOU that my world is supposed to revolve around?

 

[KimGordon67]

Maybe you should go back and read the WHOLE thread. There is another thread from the last few weeks where I posted stats and sources over and over and people like you posted stats with completely different parameters and then called me a liar.

As for standing by the gun lobby stats, why are they less valid than the ANTI-gun lobby.

And again you assume that I "refused" to answer you. I have a real life and don't have the luxury spending all day every day answering every ignorant twat's loaded questions. There are times that I may not even get online for anything for two or three days at a time. But when I do I am expected to see and answer every single one of YOUR posts?

Who the fuck are YOU that my world is supposed to revolve around?

'People like me' aren't me.
We discussed the gun lobby data at the time you posted. You apparently couldn't get anything more reliable because conspiracies, and there endeth that discussion. So I never really understood if you were standing by the gun lobby data or note ... hence I have no fucking idea whether those are the 'stats' you're referring to or not.

I don't post stats from anti-gun lobby groups. I post peer reviewed research, or discussions that link to peer reviewed research. (Or stats collected by clearly reliable sources.)

 

[My I]

Jesus wept - the article cites that as the original 'source' of what people think about gun violence ... and then goes on to utterly refute that claim. Did you actually READ it? It's longer than the first paragraph.

LOL That quote was from near the bottom of the page. Not the first paragraph. You should give up. You have contributed NOTHING of any value to the discussion except attempted character assassination. You STILL can't address the basic point of my original post and this entire thread, even though I have repeated it a dozen times. And none of this concerns you anyway, so SOD OFF.

 

[KimGordon67]

LOL That quote was from near the bottom of the page. Not the first paragraph. You should give up. You have contributed NOTHING of any value to the discussion except attempted character assassination. You STILL can't address the basic point of my original post and this entire thread, even though I have repeated it a dozen times. And none of this concerns you anyway, so SOD OFF.

Ah - no. That quote is from the third paragraph. The article goes on for a few screens beyond that.

And I really don't think you're in a position to be calling people out for 'character assassination'. I'm only pointing out that your strident assertions are a little problematic when they're based on fundamental misunderstandings of the evidence on which you're relying, and then followed up by your refusal to admit that you did misunderstand something.