• 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!

The Problem Of Bad Facts About Guns

S

suncowiam

Well-Known Member
Twilight Hue said:
Ended? Is that an ironclad guarantee?
Click to expand...

Obviously, it will not have completely ended, but the goal was achieved by dramatically reducing gun violence.

UK also has a similar achievement from gun control because of a mass murder.

The point really was that countries enacting and enforcing strong gun control was successful at reducing gun violence.

But if you're only argument is because of the use of the word "ended," then I think you're missing the point.
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
suncowiam said:
Facts about semi-automatic versus automatic firearms is a don't care.
It doesn't matter for the sake of arguing gun violence.
Click to expand...
It matters when people purposely mis-use a term
so as to make guns seem even more frightening.
As the 1994 bill was described, it didn't affect guns
that lawmakers claimed. Designed to dupe, eh.
 
S

suncowiam

Well-Known Member
Revoltingest said:
It matters when people purposely mis-use a term
so as to make guns seem even more frightening.
As the 1994 bill was described, it didn't affect guns
that lawmakers claimed. Designed to dupe, eh.
Click to expand...

I could care less about the definitions of gun. If you can point something at me and kill me in an instant by pulling a trigger, then that is more relevant to me.

Your argument is really about politics. One side defined something to its advantage. The other side disacknowledged the definition for its own advantage...

Is this really about facts? If not on guns, both sides do the same thing over it's political ideologies and talking points.
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
joe1776 said:
It's good enough for me. What you choose to believe or reject is up to you.
Click to expand...
That speaks to the problem I'd hoped to address
in this thread, ie, that there's much bad info about
guns out there. This leads to bad policies, eg,
NPR's apparent advocacy for the 1994 law.
 
S

suncowiam

Well-Known Member
Revoltingest said:
That makes it more difficult to discuss public policy
regarding different kinds of guns. But OK.
Click to expand...

My point is, it doesn't matter concerning gun violence...

The public policy should address all guns, but the liberals' hands are tied because of the second amendment. So they nit-pick on the definitions of guns to try to achieve anything.

So, this isn't a debate over gun-violence.

It's a debate over gun definitions, which usually does nothing to solve any "gun" violence.

The fact is. Other countries have successfully enforced state-wide mandates on ALL GUNS to dramatically reduce gun violence. That is a fact.

So if you want to continue to debate gun definitions, then I'm out and I'll let you do your thing... Good luck with your definitions.
 
S

suncowiam

Well-Known Member
Revoltingest said:
So would you regulate curios, relics, single shots,
semi-autos, full autos, long guns, & handguns all
the same?
Click to expand...

If you can point any of things at me and kill me in an instant?

Then yes.

The definition that I care about regards the term "violence." What is the effectiveness of lethality concerning each of types of guns represent.

The second amendment fails to provide a measure of effective lethality allowed for self-defense.

No body needs a weapon that can kill 20 people in minutes to defend themselves. The essence of defense provided by the second amendment has now allowed the power to effectively kill its citizens in mere seconds.

So, to reiterate, the only definition I care about concerning guns, is its effective rate of killing other citizens.
 
joe1776

joe1776

Well-Known Member
Revoltingest said:
That speaks to the problem I'd hoped to address
in this thread, ie, that there's much bad info about
guns out there. This leads to bad policies, eg,
NPR's apparent advocacy for the 1994 law.
Click to expand...
I'm not interested in NPR's advocacy for the 1994 law. I think you're just diverting attention away from the essential problem.
 
Last edited:
Estro Felino

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
Let's talk about facts:)

In almost all states, they really annoy teenagers preventing them from drinking alcohol.
Asking for ID..there are strict controls.

In my country they don't really care...even middle schoolers can manage to buy some vodka or grappa at the store...there is anarchy, as for alcohol.
But at least in my country they don't sell weapons to anybody. You need a license to buy a weapon.
That license is not easy to get: medical, psychological expertises and training, that's what you need.

So...isnt it a bit contradictory?
Drinking some vodka does not kill you.
Being shot while you are at school by someone who bought a weapon: that is what kills you.

These are facts.
 
Last edited:
sun rise

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
The NRA and thus the right is totally against allowing serious studies about the problem. Of course they know what the studies will reveal so they oppose having them in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top