DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Great pic on gun control

Discuss all you want.

Perfect.

The meme is stupid. Glad they put that in the pic!!!

check out the chart on this article.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2...wer_deaths.html

I'd like to see all other deaths and violent crimes plotted against that.

Simply saying that gun control equals fewer gun deaths doesn't really do much for me.

Sure it does. You have a whole continent of Australia as proof.

I'm for responsible gun ownership, but when you and others goes "need more proof" the proof is out there already, the facts are in.

Are you're doing is back pedaling.

Stabbing are up in the countries with limited/complete ban on guns.

But the death rates have dropped. Because it takes more effort to kill somebody using melee weapons.

At this point, your basically saying "I know my chances of survival are higher when no guns are involved, but I really like my guns"

Just say you like guns. When you guys start making all these other arguments, it really doesn't hold much water at that point.

Actually from what Google tells me. Homicide rates are on the way down even with gun ownership going up.

According to the Australian government’s own statistics, a number of serious crimes peaked in the years after the ban. Manslaughter, sexual assault, kidnapping, armed robbery, and unarmed robbery all saw peaks in the years following the ban, and most remain near or above pre-ban rates. The effects of the 1996 ban on violent crime are, frankly, unimpressive at best.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk...ter-a-massacre/

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/19/world/us-australia-gun-control/

http://www.businessinsider.com/australia-gun-control-shootings-2015-10

Homicide and suicide rates dropped after 1996 law and buyback program.

You guys arguments basically boils down to "it still happens, so it doesn't matter the rate"

So that means everybody on this board is ok with making heroin legal, since it doesn't matter the laws, people are gonna do it, right?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/man-hurt-ohio-stabbing-suspect-regrets-killing-36270168


My guess is a gun would've prevented this.

Too bad a gun caused this:

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2016/01/12/police-teen-mistaken-intruder-shot/78672506/

We can go back and forth supporting our sides. Makes no difference to me.

I like guns.

Yeah, I read that earlier today. Was going to post it in a different thread (the one where I posted about the florida mom shooting her daughter) but obviously, I didn't.

Of course, I thought about posting this as well:

http://concealednation.org/2016/01/mom-defends-children-against-three-armed-invaders-killing-one/

My dad pointed a gun at me when I snuck out of the house one night when I was about 14. He knew I had snuck out, and pointed it at me to scare me. He did a pretty good job. He let me know years later it wasn't loaded.

It's amazing how Illinois has a low gun death rate in that chart. It makes me question their method for putting the chart together.

Always, always, always know who (or what) you are pointing your gun at. Always.

I know a person that, several years ago, heard a noise in the driveway. A car. This guys son was supposed to have been home, and in bed - and in fact HAD been.

The car woke the dad up. The door into the house shutting made the dad get a phone and gun, and tucked into the dad's bedroom corner, by the door. The dad was thankful for the fact that he saw his son walk by the door. The dad was thankful he didn't shoot first, but waited to see what was going on.

My understanding is the son was thankful also.

That's why my next purchase is a pump shotgun. Unless I have a deaf burglar in my house, they'll hear.

I have a pump shot gun. Benelli Nova. My deer gun. Nothing but slugs through it since I've had it.

It seems to me that a lot of the less populated states are to the left, and the more heavily populated states are to the right.

100 gun deaths in California in a minuscule percentage, but it is a far higher percentage in say, South Dakota.

I don't know if that is the biggest factor, but it sure seems like the less populated states are to the left of the graph, (worse) and the more heavily populated states are to the right. (better)

There are a few less populated states on the right, Rhode Island, Hawaii, and Connecticut, but most are more populous states. Plus, states like Maryland, (1st) Connecticut, (4th) and so on, are states with higher average incomes.

I'm sure that there are a lot of factors and causes that contribute to the overall statistics.

Also, it merely quantifies "gun deaths", and doesn't remove suicides (which they themselves state account for 60% of all gun deaths)....and, of course as they state themselves - correlation does not equate causation.

Not to mention that I see nothing on how they arrive at their 'Gun Death Rate Rank', which really amps up the visual skewing.

Achmed said Who needs guns

I have a Super Nova for duck and goose hunting. It is a fantastic weapon.

My gun is terrible. I can't hit anything with it, not even my hunting dog.

Georgia, Florida, Texas, and North Carolina are all in the top 10 in population in the United States.

It always cracks me up when gun nuts hear the phrase "gun control", they think it means "no guns for anyone at any time no matter what".

For most people (including Obama), "gun control" means tighter regulations on getting guns. Background checks, closing loopholes, etc. It doesn't mean you can own them but someone should due some due diligence on getting them.

If gun owners are as responsible as everyone says they are, then they shouldn't have problems with making it a bit more difficult to get and weed out the problem people.

That's gun control. I don't see why responsible gun owners have any problems with this idea.

My problems with gun control:
1. Rights are taken slowly. They already do a backround check. Constantly making it more difficult to get guns will only harm those that seek to legally buy guns.
2. This does absolutely nothing to prevent criminals from getting guns. If they seek to own them illegally, they will seek to buy them illegally.
3. My right guaranteed by the Constitution says, 'Shall not be infringed'.
4. The laws currently in place and these new executive orders have not and will not do anything to prevent gun crime. We'd be better off if the federal government pursued legal penalties for illegally selling, buying, or possessing a gun, and penalties for using one of those guns in a crime.

It seems to me that a lot of the less populated states are to the left top.

100 gun deaths in California in a minuscule percentage, but it is a far higher percentage in say, South Dakota.

I don't know if that is the biggest factor, but it sure seems like the less populated states are to the left of the graph, (worse) and the more heavily populated states are to the right. (better)

Further, suicides are not factored out. The 5 states with the highest suicide rates are Wyoming, Alaska, Montana, New Mexico, and Nevada. Notice how they are also among the "worst" on this chart?

http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/suicide-20-states-with-highest-rates/

I see where London has just added 600 more Armed Police Officers to its ranks today. Oh dear, I thought guns were bad and unnecessary!

Many of you should read this, and understand why no one takes the "if you do one thing..." defense seriously.



Source

I've brought up logical fallacies before to Erik and others in the past.

Here's what typically happens.

They don't respond for a couple days.

Then a new thread on the same topic pops up, and they do the same thing over again.

Rinse and repeat.

I find a logical fallacy with your supposed logical fallacy. If you assume that because A happens, then B won't happen, without any proof, aren't you doing the exact same thing in reverse?

Let's take the 4th Amendment for example. At the founding of this country, you would need a search warrant for a house, someone's mail or other communications, and to search someone's person. Now, the NSA collect data from phone calls, emails, and probably every electronic communication of our lives. Police just have to knock and batter down your door, especially when going after a suspected drug dealer. 'Stop and Frisk' was the policy in NY, and probably will be again soon. It's just as wrong to believe A won't lead to Z because you don't want to see the possibilities.

Wrong again. Huh, Swish?

nope.

Ha! More excuses for you guys being wrong and getting your heads handed to you when you face common sense replies.

If the Government tells me a new 10 percent tax to help the poor(A) is only temporary and will be ended in one year, Common Sense tells me it won't ever end.(Z)

So lets not do "A" because "Z" will happen is Logical but its no Fallacy!

Still doesn't make sense. You still get to own a gun just like your 2nd amendment allows. Why is a more comprehensive background check an issue if it does weed out a potentially mentally unstable or criminal buyer? Is there some reason why you need one faster?

And no, not all gun sales require background checks such as many gun shows, etc. Some states require it...some don't. Gee, I wonder where a criminal might go to get an easy gun with no background check in place?

Finally, you're right. The executive orders do nothing to stop criminals that already have guns and probably won't stop those who want one in the future. There are just too many of them out there.

What I don't understand...if all of you gun owners are SO RESPONSIBLE with your guns...How do criminals get them in the first place?

Something doesn't add up.

Background checks as they stand today are comprehensive enough to weed out the mentally unstable and the criminals. The problem isn't that they're not strict enough, it's that those responsible (government employees) for updating the database are incompetent. How is adding even more data for them to deal with going to benefit anyone?

People that can buy guns do so for the people that can't all the time. Walk around a Cabela's checkout in their firearms department, there has to be 100 warnings that buying a gun for someone that can't is a federal offense, and it probably happens a lot.

I don't have a problem with more thorough and longer background checks except that putting more restrictions on gun buying seems to also go along with more restrictions of usage and carrying. Sure, make me wait 2 weeks to buy, but I want more freedom to carry, not less.

If I want to legally protect myself from a gang of thugs at the mall, at a minimart, or just while I'm walking to Target I can't (mostly because I can't carry into the store itself). That's my beef. They're going to carry everywhere they go regardless. That's the risk they take, sure, but I took classes, got the ID cards, have the permit, bought legally, and I don't have a criminal record. The state should trust me (well, more than they do now).

I really don't disagree with you at all. But it seems your issue is more with business owners and their rights of personal property than the government.

It's actually the businesses and property owners themselves who prohibit people from carrying in their stores, malls, movie theatres, etc... So now it's a question of the rights of property owners verses gun owners in this instance.