Gun control vs Entrpreneurialism

In summary we have one pro-gunner comparing gun control with global warming and another convinced that the US is not a developed country.

Hmmm, wonder why they struggle with the evidence?

 

Can you find one piece of research that says gun control decreases death or crime rates?

 

e.g. Fleegler, E. W., Lee, L. K., Monuteaux, M. C. et al. (2013) Firearm legislation and firearm-related fatalities in the United States, JAMA Internal Medicine, E1–7.

 

The only bit that Anti Gun Advocates can really push is trying to promote that gun control works because it prevents prohibited persons from obtaining firearms.

So an analysis of that is in order, I worked as an undercover Police Officer (Detective) in Anti Gun New York City, with extremely strict gun control, you can't touch a gun without hard to obtain licenses, yet, the recent scandals in the pistol license division, show Police Officers were selling concealed carry gun licenses to CRIMINALS, prohibited people.

To continue, where were most criminals obtaining firearms ? From Drug dealers, a black market, of all manner of stolen merchandise, undercover Police Officers would network and arrange to buy from these Dealers and then obtain arrest warrants based on the buy evidence.

If you point only at actual crime, gun control advocates do, as a reason to have gun bans and reduce crime or shootings, it seems reasonable, however, gun control did not reduce crime in New York City, since a symptom is not the disease, and treating a symptom does not affect the disease.

If someone fractures an ( upper ) arm,
( humerous ) you give the patient a pain medication, that is not a cure, the pain is reduced, the fracture must be reduced, the bone set in place and immobilized, so it can heal.

Crime prevention is the same, it is important to actually affect Criminals and criminal behaviours in order to affect crime, something gun control never accomplishes.

Every study I have ever read on gun control has too many fuzzy variables made up with inserted numbers, intangibles that are impossible to predict with available data.

Gun control advocates tend to ignore facts they do not like, guns are actually useful for hunting, target shooting, personal defense, and this actually happens as evidenced by easily viewed security videos on you tube.

Finally, the dishonesty of the gun control movement is the most odious, to discount actual evidence of trained observers that stands in Court as evidence, this is called "anecdotal" when first hand accounts are not merely anecdotal.

You can use verbosity to promote gun control and call it science, use terms as Robust and Empirical process, peer review, as well as the sources, A.M.A. C.D.C. etc. yet even those studies admit they show an incomplete picture as far as a causal relationship between firearms and crime, ie criminal behaviours and availability of firearms.

Do more guns equal more crime ?
No, proof ?
Millions of licensed gun owners are not committing crimes, and when you do something these gun control studies do not show, most crimes are committed by people with long criminal histories beginning in youth, petty crimes and ascending to major crimes, these people are already prohibited from legally acquiring firearms and are not purchasing firearms at your local gun store.

 

When confronted with evidence that gun control works, you'd hope to see a counter which refers directly to alternative evidence. But what do we get? Whinge and tabloidism., designed only to ignore the evidence.

 

What evidence ?

You have admitted your final goal is a complete ban on firearms, you live in U.K. and have nothing to do with hunting or firearms in general, so anything you present is extremely biased towards that goal, legal term, "Hostile Witness" you could care less about people's need to defend themselves or their homes, and how do you accomplish this ?

Neatly dismiss any accounts of successful defensive gun use, use University level language, quote sources of information you consider adequate, yet on close examination do not stand scrutiny since those peer reviewed studies are reviewed by Anti Gun Advocates, a case of a Fox guarding the Hen House and putting another Fox in charge of Security, truly ludicrous.

Simple example, a small revolver in reserve, is often instrumental in saving the life of the law abiding citizen carrying it.
Gun control adocates debate that this is rare, the gun will be taken away and used against its owner, even though factual accounts, Police reports prove otherwise.

Truth is if gun control was so effective, it's advocates could promote it on it's own merits and not need to use deception and diversionary tactics.

 

Just given an example, leading to your tabloidism. No need to play pretend.

This is a blatant fib. How do you think you're going to be effective with such dishonest tactics?

Rather than whining, try and actually refer to the evidence. Can you refer to research which concludes gun control is ineffective? A reference will suffice!

 

My own experience as a Police Agent and the experience of others in similar lines is proof enough, as well as thousands of Police reports and news reports.

 

I didnt ask for tabloidism. Provide a reference. Also please apologise for deliberately misrepresenting my position.

 

You mean you speaking against hunting, and saying you have no use for firearms ?
And using that as criteria for your stance is not correct ?

Your definition of Tabloidism is one I am unfamiliar with, the Sun, Enquirer are Tabloids, fiction laden Journals, and I never read or even touch them: with headlines such as; "Bill Clinton was really an Alien from outer space and not eligible for the
Presidency !"

You always discount and dismiss any Pro Gun sources presented in any case.

 

None of which refers to that I "admitted your final goal is a complete ban on firearms". I have never made any such claim. You are deliberately fibbing, demonstrating the impotence of your argument.

That surprises me as you're completely reliant on it. It refers to the use of single experience to make general claim. It is vacuous.

You can't even refer to one piece of credible research that rejects the effectiveness of gun control. Pathetic.

 

Not nearly high enough.

My mistake. Yours too.

All mass shootings except the Giffords' shooting have occurred in gun-free zones. That is a Liberal idea. How do you expect gun control to work when there are 300 million guns in this country and we can't keep anything criminals want from being smuggled into this country? Murder rates have been going down for many years. While mass shootings in some other countries have gone down, their overall violent crime rate has gone up; that is a reality that Liberals love to ignore.

 

Golly. Can you refer to a country with a higher prison population per 100,000 than the US?

We know that the research finds higher gun control and lower homicide rates go hand in hand. Doesn't fit with your argument does it now?

 

Can you name another country that has so much compassion for criminals? If they need to be in prison, they should be in prison; it's not a numbers competition.

The homicide rate was dropping without going nuts with gun control. Other countries have imposed severe gun control, but got rising violence rates in return. Human nature is not swayed by wishful thinking.

 

No statements have been made pertaining to political beliefs and ideologies on the part of myself. You are simply being disagreed with on the basis of the inability of yourself to engage in proper articulation of a point, and the obsessive, bordering on religious fixation demonstrated pertaining to the notion of the empirical analysis approach by economists being a valid method of study and review.

 

Why do you think the US has such a high prison population relative to all other countries?

It's certainly the case that there are numerous non-firearm variables at play. Bit obvious.

 

True, a ridiculous comment doesn't need ideology.

 

Then the statements being made on the part of yourself are in the pursuit of entertainment rather than actual debate or discussion?

 

I haven't said something as idiotic as the US isn't a developed country. I've merely referred to the evidence, as usual

 

It is not idiotic to state something that is fact. The united states is not a first world or developed nation. It possesses the illusion of being such, but it is not. Unemployment rates, illiteracy rates, homelessness and poverty rates, illegal immigration, widespread lack of rule of law and disregard for the rule of law, institutional corruption of politicians holding office, and crippling national debt that can never be repaid, are all hallmarks of a nation that is neither developed, nor first world in its nature.

 

I haven't the inclination to respond to drivel. Sorry. Have a good day in that bubble of yours.

 

Is anyone present in the discussion able to offer a rebuttal and demonstrate that the united states does indeed qualify as being a first-world, developed nation?

 

Australias homicides have been trending down for ages pre or post gun bans is a furfy.

You cant argue a gun ban will do nothing to stop mass killings but will increase crime, it either has an effect or it doesn't. But if your argument is that it wont have the political effect my opponents say but it will have the effect I would like to argue it has, you are just a partial muppet.

IMO the biggest change from port arthur came from the culture around guns not the actual gun ban itself.

This notion that we have become a more violent nation since the gun ban is just a repeated misinformation, repeated and repeated and repeated until you have people believing it regard off truth.

http://crimestats.aic.gov.au/NHMP/1_trends/

Violent crime more generally.

https://aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi359

 

Which other countries?

 

Not developed countries