I have said repeatedly said I am in favor of stricter gun laws, including a total ban on semi automatic and automatic weapons, but continue on with your standard debating tactics of arguing against something you imagine somebody said and calling everyone a racist who disagrees with you.
Mass killings are a problem in the US, but the larger problem is the overall homicide rate. No innocent person should be murdered, period, regardless of their race or level of wealth/poverty.
Republican and Democratic policies have led to increased levels of poverty and crime in all disadvantaged communities, black communities obviously the worst hit. After 8 years of Obama, blacks are significantly worse off than they were. Education and job opportunities are the only way out of poverty, which is where the focus needs to be and sadly isnât. Itâs much easier to give people welfare checks and food stamps and hope they solve the problem themselves.
Seems like youâve changed your tune, because you argued before on this thread against gun control
If you believe the overall homicide rate is the problem, well, guns in general are the problem, as over two-thirds of all homicides in the US are gun homicides.
Ah yes, the tired old Sidney tactic of trolling through years of posts to try and conjure up some inconsistencies, the sure sign of a beaten docket.
There is no inconsistency in anything I have said on the subject of mass murder attacks and guns, you are simply too dimwitted to comprehend the points being made.
But he is dealing in stats, so i think @Julio_Geordio did a fine job.
Of course socio-demographic factors are critical. However more stringent laws mean more stringent laws for everyone. So it would certainly be a good starting point.
Then you have a 25 year plan on a socio-demographic basis to develop a different outlook for people who are kids now.
He did in his hole do a fine job, which is why he hasnât responded to my making shit of his argument in my second response. Stats can be very misleading, unless you can break them down and do critical analysis. Exclude suicides and the conclusion is actually the opposite of what he argued, states with the most lenient gun laws have actually the lowest murder rates. Suicides account for 2/3 of gun deaths and are twice the murder rate.
In fact, the National Review 2013 study (which all of these arguments are based on), broke the data down further into suicides and murders and had this to say about nine states that rated high in the total gun deaths*: âthese states had too few homicides to calculate a reliable rateâ.
The solution to gun related murders is get violent criminals off the streets, much stronger laws and sentencing for illegal gun sales and much stricter background checks on legal gun purchases.
*Alaska, Idaho, Maine, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, New Hampshire, Vermont and Wyoming".
No surprise there, as you have no interest in an argument backed by evidence, but believe any old shit based on something a lad you met in the pub told you.
I understand perfectly what Julio said and why it is wrong. Lenient gun laws do not lead to higher gun murder rates in the US, in fact itâs the opposite. Washington DC has strict gun laws by US standards and the gun murder rates are the highest in the country by far. The states with the most lenient gun laws have the lowest rates of gun murders.
Julio was not aware that 80% of gun deaths involving white people are suicides. This makes shit of his argument, as we know gun laws have no effect on suicide rates. Australia has implemented strict gun laws and yet itâs suicide rate is still the same, Ireland has essentially the same suicide rate as the US. Take guns away and people find other means to kill themselves.
Unless you think murder is morally or legally equivalent to suicide, which clearly it isnât.
Because suicide rates in the US, where gun ownership is high, is comparable with western European countries where gun ownership is considerably lower. Japan has one of the highest suicide rates in the world, and close to zero gun ownership.
