Another Mass Shooting in the Good Ol' USA

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Your post above doesn't synch with your premise. Your premise is more guns = more violence. Given the per capita stats you provided on gun ownership in the USA, murder and violent crime rates should match or exceed those countries that are "Third World without a strong rule of law."

You also failed to address the lack of correlation between the proliferation of guns in the USA and the rate of decrease in violent crime rates.

Sorry, but the above is not an answer. Not even close.

OK, I should have said that More Guns in a First World Democracy with the Rule of Law = More Gun Violence.

Happy now?

This is an entirely rational and defensible position to take. What's your take on why we have mass shootings more than once a day in this country?

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by whell

...but I appreciate the unbridled display of hypocrisy when you do.

I believe you, because the only thing you appreciate about the opposition's posts is some supposed grounds to attack them.

[whell]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

I believe you, because the only thing you appreciate about the opposition's posts is some supposed grounds to attack them.

So, disagreeing with you is an "attack"? Hillarious!

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

OK, I should have said that More Guns in a First World Democracy with the Rule of Law = More Gun Violence.

Happy now?

This is an entirely rational and defensible position to take. What's your take on why we have mass shootings more than once a day in this country?

It's still a response that doesn't address the info I've provided, nor adequately describes why the data doesn't support your "More Guns = More Gun Violence"
position.

So, if it's "an entirely rational and defensible position to take"' you should be able to provide gun violence or homicide data that supports it, right?

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

It's still a response that doesn't address the info I've provided, nor adequately describes why the data doesn't support your "More Guns = More Gun Violence"
position.

So, if it's "an entirely rational and defensible position to take"' you should be able to provide gun violence or homicide data that supports it, right?

I did long ago in this thread with a graph. Furthermore, I'm impressed by how New Zealand and Australia have dealt with this problem. Why aren't you?

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by whell

So, disagreeing with you is an "attack"? Hillarious!

Snarky word quibble, and laugh at target. Instant and perfect example! Thank-you.

[Chicks]

Whell's World.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

I did long ago in this thread with a graph. Furthermore, I'm impressed by how New Zealand and Australia have dealt with this problem. Why aren't you?

Your graph stands in defiance of the facts. I've provided the facts from FBI/DOJ stats. You provided a graph that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Australia? You're impressed by what they did? Interesting. Here's what the US DOJ had to say about it.

Although gun buybacks appear to be a logical and sensible policy that helps to placate the public's fears, the evidence so far suggests that in the Australian context, the high expenditure incurred to fund the 1996 gun buyback has not translated into any tangible reductions in terms of firearms deaths.

In fact, one of your favorite phrases is "correlation does not imply causation." A Harvard study had exactly that to say about the Australian buyback program:

The authors, however, noted that “no study has explained why gun deaths were falling, or why they might be expected to continue to fall.” That poses difficulty in trying to definitively determine the impact of the law, they write.

Their point: Yes, homicides involving firearms fell, but they were already falling before the buyback program started.

As far as New Zeland:

There are growing concerns about the effectiveness of the reforms, with a 49 percent increase in injuries recorded as a result of firearms crime in Auckland, and rising gang numbers.

"I think the major shortcoming of the gun buyback scheme is that it's failed to get illegal firearms out of New Zealand and away from gangs and gangs don't voluntarily give up their firearms," said National leader Christopher Luxon.

"Each day there's serious firearm crime and it's up at record highs. It's never been this high for over a decade. And so there's a real need for us to fundamentally say, how do we get hold of those illegal guns and get them off gangs and therefore lower gun crime in New Zealand?"

Police records show that nationally, violent firearms-related offences have been increasing in recent years, from 901 in 2018 to 1142 in 2019, 1143 in 2020, and 1324 in 2021.

You're impressed by this info? Whatever...

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Your graph stands in defiance of the facts. I've provided the facts from FBI/DOJ stats. You provided a graph that doesn't stand up to scrutiny...

You still have not offered your view on what is/are the primary factor(s) responsible for the more than daily occurrence of mass shootings in the USA (and firearm deaths being the leading cause of child death) if it is not the unhindered access to firearms.

[Oerets]

Fnish the sentence, " No way to prevent this, until we regulate gun ownership"!

Republicans can complain and criticize giving no solutions other then everybody else is wrong.