• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Las Vegas Shooting

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
None of it is giving me any trouble. It's a simple argument. Too simple. Why are you ao certain it would work? What guarantee can you give that it would lower murder rates? Chicago and DC have very strict rules, and they the highest murder rates in the country.

Bottom line: Your proposal won't work.
For DC and Chicago, you have your causation backward: their gun laws are a response to high murder rates, not the other way around. You wouldn't say that a medicine causes illness just because you see sick people taking it, would you?

Also:

- none of the gun laws in the US are that strict, even in these cities.
- a single city would be fighting an uphill battle when you can freely - and legally - buy a gun just outside the city limits. Gun control really has to be implemented on a national basis to be effective.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
The point is, your not going to stop people from killing one another. No matter what you do. It's a fact of life.
That's where you're wrong.

We can't get the murder rate to zero, but without guns, fewer people kill. The country-by-country stats bear this out.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
The people holding them have nothing to do with it.
This is as asinine as saying that being for strict vehicular licensing and safety regulation, both in user competency and restrictions on unsafe vehicles, has nothing to do with the person behind the wheel.
Of course gun regulation is for the people, not the guns.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
For DC and Chicago, you have your causation backward: their gun laws are a response to high murder rates, not the other way around. You wouldn't say that a medicine causes illness just because you see sick people taking it, would you?

Also:

- none of the gun laws in the US are that strict, even in these cities.
- a single city would be fighting an uphill battle when you can freely - and legally - buy a gun just outside the city limits. Gun control really has to be implemented on a national basis to be effective.

It still doesn't explain countries like Russia, Brazil, and Mexico. They have strict national gun laws with much higher murder rates.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
That's not entirely true. Maybe on the short term, but not on the long term.
No, on both the short and long term: restricting availability of firearms, particularly so-called "defensive" weapons like handguns, lowers no only the rate of firearm deaths, but also the overall murder and suicide rates.

Argue that your guns are worth the cost if you want - that's a value judgement. But don't argue that there's no cost.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
A tiny country of less than 5,000 has a massive per capita murder rate because of a single murder, and this is supposed to mean their gun control laws aren't effective? Yes, this is misleading.

We can agree to disagree on this.
 
Top