Gun Control UK Style

The evidence was presented on the part of yourself. The citing of the phrase "total homicide" when trying to make the case. There would be no reason for the study, wherever and whatever it is, to mention the phrase "total homicide" if homicide and murder are truly synonymous with one another. But such is simply not the case. The only conclusion to be drawn is that incidents of deadly force for legitimate self defense are being counted as well, in a deliberate effort to confuse the issue for those who do not understand the difference.

 

From the paper: "the evidence is now quite strong that RTC laws have led to an increase in overall violent crime"

From the author: "Ten years after the adoption of RTC laws, violent crime is estimated to be 13-15 percent higher than it would have been without the RTC law"

Oops, I can see why you're dodging now!!!

 

Nothing found within the so-called "study" presented on the part of yourself actually amounts to evidence or proof that shall-issue concealed carry laws being implemented in any given state, is directly related to increases in overall crime rates. There is no evidence to be found that those who are comply with the law on legally carrying a firearm in a concealed manner, are committing any of the crimes in a given area. It is nothing more than the causation/correlation substitution theory, to try and suggest that the two are connected to one another, when in actuality there is no evidence of such to be found.

 

Nothing will of course convince you, given your post-truth attitudes. However, we clearly have homicides increasing. We also have violent crime increasing, negating the "its self-defence" dodge. I'm sure you'll continue to hide from the evidence mind you!

 

Factually incorrect. Facts and only facts will serve to convince myself of a particular position. There is no room for drivel, nonsense, emotional rhetoric, or politically motivated opinion pieces.

Despite such apparently being had, there is still no actual evidence to show that those who are complying with the law with regard to legally carrying concealed firearms in public, are responsible for these increases. There is no evidence that those who legally carrying and owning firearms are either directly or indirectly committing these murders or other crimes. All that is has is the causation/correlation substitution fallacy to try and trick the uneducated public into believing that the two are connected, when they are not.

Whether or not it is liked on the part of yourself, the legal concealed carrying of firearms by the public does not have to lead to a decrease in crime rates in order to be legally justified. It is not the job of the public to prevent crimes from being committed, that is tasked to law enforcement exclusively.

 

This. ^^

 

You ignore scholarly research just because it doesn't agree with your position. You don't deal in facts. You deal in dodging evidence.

If you can refer to the research and show that their findings are biased, do so. If you can't then stop blubbering.

I have no opinion on it. I simply refer to the evidence.

 

So-called "scholarly research" is dismissed on the basis of its results being bought and paid for by the ones who provide the funding for the "research" to be conducted in the first place. The peer review process is tainted, flawed, subject to political bias, easily faked, and hundreds of supposedly peer reviewed papers have later been retracted when their flaws were actually brought to light.

For all of the back and forth arguing done on the part of yourself, all of the efforts invested to try and defend the false notion that the peer review process is valid, none of what has been presented on the part of yourself has actually amounted to efforts to prove the claims false. It is pointed out time and time again that there is no evidence to show those who are complying with the laws regarding the legal carrying of firearms in public are committing either murders or crime in general, and yet this point is not argued against by yourself. This suggests it is acknowledged and realized by yourself that the so-called "research" on the matter is factually incorrect, but cannot actually be admitted to on the part of yourself.

It is not evidence being referred to by yourself, it is politically-motivated speculation.

 

I'll end communication with you here. I'm really not interested in post-truth tosh. You hide from the evidence. We both know that.

 

What is likely known on the part of yourself is that no actual response is had for the fact that no actual evidence or substance has been presented on the part of yourself regarding this matter.

 

You sneer at scholarly research. I embrace it as part of an evidence based approach. Your position, as I've mentioned, is as childish as Trump's rants.

 

Are you saying guns should be liscenced like cars?

I dunno about in the UK, but in the US you need a liscence to drive on public property. You can drive whatever/however you want on your own property with no liscence or permit or registration or anything.

Somehow I don't think treating guns like cars is going to solve much...

 

Nope. I said it was very different. One licensing is about maintaining quality of practice; the other should be about reducing prevalence.

Perhaps read the conversation before making me type again? Just a thought....

 

No that load of smoke and mirrors is still denial. The numbers dont lie

 

Not denial, but simple fact. Your refusal to acknowledge that indicates you are either lacking the intellectual development to adapt to inconvenient truths... or are more likely simply lacking in integrity.

 

What is embraced on the part of yourself is politically-motivated opinion pieces, bought and paid for by those who have long made it known to the public that they support restricting private firearms ownership to whatever degree possible, and group-think indoctrination that leaves no room for individual thought or interpretation.

 

This is just repetition of your post-truth outlook. I've already told you that. Please stop boring me with post-truthism. I won't respond again until you make valid comment.

 

Reducing prevalence...

Usually folks say they want to reduce crime.

How do you think liscencing would reduce the prevalence of guns?

 

By allowing unelected officials to arbitrarily deny firearms ownership at their whim, even if the denial is legally unjustified. As has been witnessed in the city of New York more times than can actually be counted.

 

You can play pretend as much as you want. The evidence shows that reduced prevalence means lower violent crime.

Is this a sensible question? You're also asking for repetition. I mentioned, for example, the stupidity in allowing a wife beater access to firearms.

 

Those convicted of domestic violence and those under a personal protective order for domestic violence are prohibited persons under the 1996 Lautenberg Amendment to the Firearm Owner's Protection Act of 1986.

 

There you go! Recognition of the obvious: licensing is used for public safety reason and to reduce gun ownership. We just need it strengthened.

 

Such a claim makes no sense and is devoid of logic. Explain how licensing is used to prevent firearms ownership and possession by those who are already legally prohibited from purchasing a firearm to begin with.

 

That you don't understand public safety argument is tiresomely obvious.

 

The above does nothing but indicates that the laws of the united states are not well understood on the part of yourself. Why exactly such is the case is not presently known. Nor is it of any particular relevance. But it does not change the fact that if one has been convicted of a disqualifying offense, such information is entered into the national instant check system, and they are legally prohibited from possessing a firearm, no matter what avenue was utilized in its acquisition.

Beyond this matter, there is no evidence that licensing requirements serve any beneficial purposes, or would otherwise contribute to the vague, poorly defined notion of "public safety" and whatever such entails. By contrast, the argument could easily be made that public safety is most benefited by lifetime prison sentences for certain violent offenders who pose the greatest risk to society. If certain individuals cannot be trusted with access to firearms, then they are devoid of a legitimate reason for being free in society at large to begin with.