Didn't say the weapons couldn't be used for a good and justifiable purpose. I can also use an Oscar to crack walnuts.
You try very hard to toe the line, and then you get pinched anyway, for not even breaking any rule? Yeah, that can tend to frost my rear end, and I might be a bit cranky about it, in public, for a while.Sometimes it's necessary to suffer a little pain in order that the truth might be shared.
However, if you keep talking about it, I'm going to have to start teasing you.
You wouldn't believe you.
Sure I have. And you've obviously read me enough to know that. Or are you trying to parse your way into some peculiar sense of a point?
We have to have cars. We make owning and operating them as safe as we can within the constraints of that necessity. We don't begin to do that with guns within my country and the outcome is both predictable and needless.
Or, directly on the point, stronger laws and some prohibitions will make mass murder on the scale we find in our churches, schoolyards, concerts, and other public venues appreciably harder to manage. We see the reality of that reflected in the comparative success of every other Western Industrial democracy where that understanding is realized.
Right. The existence and ease of access promotes violence where the guns I'm speaking to are found. That's why in nations where they aren't you don't see the difference in rates made up by some other means.
You said the murder rates were close. They aren't. You want the highest go to where the guns are. It's not about water seeking a level, it's about ease and access.
You're confusing an outlier with the rule. It's like saying cities are gun violence crazy and only looking at Chicago.
Right, you said that service rifles and carbines were "designed to no good or justifiable purpose." Which is interesting, because many of them were designed by innocent people, intended to be carried by innocent people, for good and justifiable purpose. So I don't understand what you're trying to say anymore.
I can drive my car over a murderer who's trying to kill an innocent person. I could chuck volumes of an encyclopedia set.
I just think that nobody has a right to commit a crime.
I'm pretty sure that sentence's not written correctly. Ordinarily I wouldn't ask you to clarify but it's just so long and there aren't any commas so I don't want to draw incorrect inference by accident.
In the hands of civilians. It's an important qualification. The police and soldiers, given extensive training and evaluations, use them for their designed purpose when necessary.
I don't care if Mother Teresa designed the flame thrower you're holding. The weapons and implements I'm speaking to are created with the capacity to kill a great many people in a very short period of time. Nothing they can accomplish otherwise is beyond the capacity of weapons I support, which cannot readily become the instruments of that degree of destruction.
None of those instruments were designed to kill people, let alone a great many people. So we come to the cost/benefit portion of the program and there's no help for the assault rifle proponents there at all.
I'm not sure even most criminals would dispute that.
It had an extra "need" in it and could have used a comma after "that" at least. Probably better as two sentences, but I was balancing other obligations and rushed it.
Yes, I would.
You have now.
lain:And New Zealand had some of the world's strictest gun laws short of an outright ban. I'm not allowed to get a license there because I've expressed the opinion that guns are good for self defense. And the regulations have just been made even stricter.
When you ban trucks...
That which you at without evidence, we are justified in ignoring without reason.
There's no significant difference. You picked a bunch of countries that are favourable to your agenda. If I want to live in safety, I could reasonably choose the US.
I'm not confusing anything. False analogy, false parallel. In New Hampshire, gun control is much less than in say, California. You can even have 'silencers' in NH. But New Hampshire's got a much lower murder rate than California does.
You're guilty of what you've accused me of, writ large. What you're doing is cherry picking. The world round, regardless of every other factor, the data shows plain as day, that the civilian owned guns per capita correlate only loosely with murders, and the coefficient is negative, which means, the more guns, the less murders.
Here are the nations in the world with murder rates at 10 and above (remember that your data has the US murder rate at about half, 5.3, and also remember civilian gun ownership is 120), and with civilian owned guns per 100K ppl in BOLD:
Again, like narrowing to a sentence and losing context.
The parrot thing is deceased. And you keep using the form without appearing to understand how it functioned.
I'm for that too. But the NRA isn't.
New Zealand is changing their laws because they allow the ownership of the very weapons I'm objecting to. The ones that aren't allowed in most of the countries where the murder rate and rates of gun violence are both greatly lesser than they are in nations like mine.
Raised and answered. You need trucks and they aren't designed to kill.
Go search and find it if you want an informed opinion. It's as easy as what I did with murder rates. Compare firearm related deaths among those nations. You won't care for what you discover, if you don't already know. I've done that before and you were around for it. So I'm not interested in working so you can do what you're already trying with solid data on the murder rate bit you got completely wrong.
That's absurd by any rational approach. Five times greater than most of the countries on that list. Three times and change between the U.S. and the second worst on the list.
No. I picked the countries that I knew off hand were Western Industrial Democracies. The ones that more closely compared to us.
Neither of those claims are true. You presented NH and suggested a rule. That's like saying it's raining today at your house so it must be raining, on average, everywhere else.
It's a great, small state with a lower population that doesn't reflect the diversity of the larger nation in most senses. It's an outlier.
The opposite, actually. I've done this before, set out data on states relative to their gun laws. Noted that the same thing we seen in comparing likened nations (Western Industrial democracies) holds true for states, though the impact is lesser, in part because you have contiguous states that allow for purchasing things forbidden next door. That softens the effect, but it's still impressive.
Gun ownership isn't the issue. The sorts of guns that can be owned and laws relating to their use is. Among our close cousins, countries that are most like us, the murder rates and rates of gun violence are impressively lower than they are here, where our laws and restrictions are comparatively lax. The closer you get to our set up the higher your death by firearm and murder rate climbs.
Nope.
The idiots who reckon that Kiwis do not have the right to bear arms?
Like Honduras?
Then you're parsing a longer conversation and I can't help you by going back over all of it. Maybe next time you'll start out early enough.
The right to bear arms needn't reasonably be the right to possess every.
No, in fact I go larger, comparing states to states and nations to nations.
My agenda is to make gun ownership safer and to rid commerce of weapons that aren't necessary to preserve the right, but which facilitate wholesale slaughter with relative ease.
Agreed. But we don't need every sort within a civilian population.
Had there been a ban on semi and automatic weapons there might
Nope.
Sorry, you're not the arbiter of what is and isn't a right.
We know.
