Tulsa police: Multiple people shot at medical building

Is Mexico uncivilized?

Where do you get "the majority of Americans want strict gun laws.", from? If that were the case, the anti-gunners in Congress wouldn't ***** foot around so much.

 

Why? lol
I already sourced this in this thread, and you have responded to it!
And so far you are conceding to those numbers since you're not being able to dispute it.

 

Mexico isn't on the same level of a modern western civilized society like the US, Canada, EU.
You're free to compare the US with that far more poor, corrupt, drug invested nation.

I've already posted that source. It's a poll. And congress has been corrupted by lobby groups who spend millions to get the weakest gun laws possible. Everybody is aware of this. Rather dumb, at this point of the conversation of you to play you're not aware.

 

Are you saying those brown people can't meet the same standards as white folks?

In the poll, was 100% of all US citizens polled?

 

Hasn't mexico been around longer than the US? Oh yeah I remember the last time you tried to peddle this BS and it worked out just as well. I get it mexico doesn't count, you only count countries that have numbers you can fudge.

 

Dispute what? I posted the actual statistics. The firearm deaths rates declined the same amount the 15 years previous to the NFA as the 15 years after. What is there to dispute?

You still can’t establish any causal relationship based on those facts.

 

are you saying <<insert lie>>

relevant?

 

It didn't decline the same amount. I posted the numbers saying so.
You're free to post the numbers to prove your point.

 

Relevant because unless 100%of the citizens of the Republic have been polled, you can't say that 80% of the citizens want more gun control.

 

Oh really? The thing is that people have been making polls by asking some 10,000's of people about a certain subject and are perfectly able to prove that this is how everybody thinks. It's in the department of statistics. Very scientific and a very basic concept. Are you not aware of such simple things or are you that desperate when losing the argument that you even find the need to play this dumb?

It's the latter, aint it?

 

I did. Exact rates the 15 years preceding the NFA and for the 15 years after.

 

Are you calling for a referendum?

 

I posted the figures proving Australia was 4.5 times safer compared to the US and went to 11 times more safe. You are claiming the rates stay the same. I asked you to prove it. You are not posting any figures proving your point, so you are conceding to my claim.

 

No I did not claim the rates stayed the same. You are claiming standing on your head and burping jelly beans is responsible for earning 2.5 million dollars. It’s plain silliness to claim “A” caused something to happen when the same thing happened previous to “A” and after “A”.

This is why people who think critically will never take you seriously. You haven’t thought critically.

 

You claimed "Exact rates the 15 years preceding the NFA and for the 15 years after." but so far are refusing to prove your point by posting the numbers of it.
I proved otherwise by posting numbers. It's as simple as that. So you either are going to prove your point or you are conceding.

 

I posted the numbers.

 

I asked again and again to post them numbers. And suddenly you claim you already did so. Right,... and what post would that be?

 

You are free to actually read my posts. I posted it in direct response to you. Asking you to re-post content you posted to me isn’t a valid argument for me to use. It isn’t for you either.

 

Read the posts where I quoted you with the PF quote function and responded.

 

you only posted numbers in post 595 how the homicide rates in specifically Australia dropped before and after 1996.
I agree. They fell, and they kept on falling. And I add: It did not happen in the US, where they mostly stalled.
I posted the numbers showing Australia was ones around 4.5 times more safe and went to 11 times more safe.

Australia became more safe compared to the US, because they put in strict gun control policies and buy back programs.
And the US did not. And you are conceding by not being able to dispute these facts.

 

You are using strawman arguments. I HAVE NEVER CLAIMED THE US RATE FELL THE SAME AS AUSTRALIA.

I have consistently pointed out the idea the NFA caused the firearm homicide rate to drop in Australia is pure nonsense. For two reasons. First, the rate in Australia fell as much or more BEFORE passage of NFA than after. Second, the firearm homicide rates fell in the US as well after passage of Australian NFA (though I’ve NEVER claimed the fall was equal, that’s your STRAWMAN).

Both FACTS above exclude us from claiming a causal relationship between NFA passage and firearm homicide rates dropping in Australia. You have NO evidence of a causal relationship. All evidence which I have provided excluded a causal relationship.

Your argument is that standing on your head and burping jelly beans can cause you to earn 2.5 million dollars. It’s patently absurd.

 

So you are not contesting at all that
1) the drop before the NFA was about equal in Australia and in the US.
2) after the NFA the drop continued in Australia while it stalled in the US.

I use this to prove that the strict gun policies work. While you casually ignore point 2.


And I add:
Your idea that the NFA wouldn't matter because it was dropping anyways: is false.
The US shows that a drop can end if you do not make additional policies.
Australia made additional policies AFTER the NFA to make that drop on going.
The US did nothing and the drop never really continued.

 

No. The drop in firearm homicides in the US and Australia prior to the NFA are not even correlated.

In the late 1950’s and early 1860’s the firearm homicide rate in the US was about 2.5/100,000. When Kennedy was assassinated there was a push for gun control. So in 1968 the US passed law that prohibited commercial sales of firearms by an unlicensed dealer. Previously, you could buy guns from Sears catalogs and have them delivered to your house with no background check or any prohibition. Felons could buy guns prior to the 1868 law. Children could buy guns prior to the 1868 law. Mentally ill could buy guns prior to 1968. Anyone could sell guns commercially to anyone prior to the 1968 law.

That law also ended interstate transfer of firearms without going through an FFL. It also ended importation of many “weapons of war” and cheap handguns that were being used in many crimes.

After passage of this law in 1968, the firearm homicide rate skyrocketed to an astounding high of 7.1/100,000 in 1993.

So, using your logic I have just PROVEN that prohibiting felons, kids, and the mentally ill from buying firearms INCREASES firearm homicide rates. I have PROVEN that prohibiting sales of firearms by any but licensed dealers INCREASES firearm homicide rates. I have PROVEN that decreasing the supply of weapons of war and cheap handguns INCREASES firearm homicide rates.

LOL

 

Correlated or not, they rate went down by the same amount. And where the US stalled, Australia kept on going down... due to their policies.

It was already going up prior to 1968.
And that gun law is like hearing an obese person say it's cutting back on a snack while the amount of food being consumed is still way to much.
The NFA banned guns in Australia on a massive scale. Brining them on par with all the other modern western nations countries excluding the US.
In the end, the US is the only modern western nation with sky high gun related crimes, and the only nation having very weak gun laws.. even with that 1968 law put in.

And that is proving strict gun policies work.

 

No. Prior to NFA the firearm homicide rate was skyrocketing in the US and falling drastically in Australia. No correlation. Do you know what correlation means?

You have claimed the drastically decreasing rate in Australia prior to the NFA is irrelevant. Now you want to argue increasing rates prior to 1968 in the US are relevant. You need to try and be more intellectually consistent and not change your argument midstream. It makes you and your argument look disingenuous.

You have proven nothing. Before you can prove anything you must explain why rates were falling in Australia prior to the NFA and why the NFA did not result in more decrease after passage than before.

If you have proven anything then I have proven that denying guns to felons increases firearm homicides. I have proven denying firearm sales to the mentally ill increases firearm homicides. I have proven not allowing children to buy firearms increases firearm homicides. I have proven that only allowing federally licensed dealers to sell firearms increases firearm homicides. I have proven decreasing the supply of firearms most used in crime increases firearm homicides. I have proven decreasing access to military arms increases firearm homicides.