That’s kind of the issue with state by state laws presented in the beginning of this thread. Crime rates will be much higher in urban areas, and the gun laws are often different in different municipalities.
Are you happy with 4 to 1, then? It’s actually much harder to kill people with knives than guns, which is pretty much the whole point of the discussion.
They have more poverty, a more dangerous gang culture, bigger problems with what we would call ‘Class As’, and - crucially higher overall levels of inequality and much lower levels of social mobility. All of these contribute to a higher murder rate.
Gun ownership might contribute to the problem, but there is certainly no indication that raising gun control would quarter the murder rate.
My behavior? You started a post to me with this rude post:
and also added this rude attack:
So, you need to improve your courtesy if you are going to criticize others’ without hypocrisy. And Mr. Innocent, Arminius posted this ad hominem at me:
If you’re going to set restrictions on rude poster behavior, you need to follow your own and apply them equally…even to posters you know better like Arminius. If you don’t, your’re not moderating equitably and just moderating for your benefit and that of your friends.
And my primary contribution on these threads have been philosophical. That includes this one and your Spartacus thread. I was staying solely on topic until Arminius came along with his rudeness and nonsequiturs. For some reason, you said nothing about that rudeness I posted above.
This is an unfounded red herring. Almost no “leftists” want to take away all guns. I made that clear in my post. They/we want tighter gun laws to help keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and proven violent. They also want mandatory safety courses for first time gun buyers to prevent accidental gun deaths, as well as the elimination of unneeded automatic killing machines. There is no excuse for anyone to be against this, unless they don’t want reduced gun violence by the mentally ill and/or proven violent and don’t want reductions in accidental gun deaths…and that would be heinous. These laws wouldn’t threaten gun ownership for law-abiding citizens in any way. So, people complaining about them aren’t just being callous; they are whining over nothing. If you do, however, have a problem with those laws, why don’t you actually address them instead of your straw men.
And talk of the tax dollars cost is ridiculous. As I said before, our country spends unneeded billions on defense. It would cost it nothing to spend a pittance on implementing new gun laws. It certainly wouldn’t hurt the rich any. Moneys spend to saving lives every year; is money well spent.
This is unfounded and ludicrous. There are as many authoritarian leftist economists as there are rightist ones. Where exactly do you get your information from? And neither you, nor any legitimate economic study has proven that cost would override the benefits of saving lives through sensible, tighter gun restrictions. If you want to put aside your rightist preaching and provide it, I would love to read it
There are certainly no indications it won’t. Mandatory safety courses for first time gun buyers will certainly help reduce accidental gun deaths by children and adults. Gun checks to help keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and proven violent will most likely help, and it will cost little to the taxpayers and won’t threaten gun ownership by sane, responsible law-abiding citizens.
So, if you have a problem with these laws, please say what they are and why you believe those problems will override their benefits.
Peripheral started to use the word “petulant”. I never even knew it before he posted it at me:
That was an ad hominem, at least a rude behavior.
Then - and because I was not “petulant” - I asked myself whether he had just described himself. Therefore I posted:
That was no ad hominem. I just asked two questions in response to his ad hominem, at least to his rude behavior.
In addition:
I was referring to the topic of this thread and also to the discussion Peripheral mentioned:
Peripheral should accept and heed the friendly advice to stop his rude behavior. It is a friendly advice, although I am not interested in his posts anymore.
The conversation with a troll is too inefficient, too absurd, too nonsensical.
For me the matter is settled.
Arminius last wrote this to me before he ran off in a tizzy:
I guess I can add not-that-honest to “rude” now… 
That was neither an ad hominem nor rude, certainly not as rude as Arminius’ posts. Arminius was being over-sensitive and hypocritical. Also, what educated person doesn’t know the word “petulant?” The decline in education in this world is truly tragic.
Actually, Arminius was being petulant with his snide and petulant responses to my post. And since I wasn’t being petulant, his question–which wasn’t just addressed to himself–was both an ad hominem and rude. Arminius needs to hone his self-awareness.
Whatever the thread topic was, the topic of discussion at the moment was gun restriction laws. Arminius came in with his nonsequiturs completely dismissing the subject at hand. When I tried to return him to that topic, he got all unravelled and upset. I was truly worried about him.
Arminius should accept my friendly advice and try to be more polite, since he gets so unhinged when people return his less-than-polite discourse. If he doesn’t, he should definitely work on his composure; coming undone publicly is so unbecoming. He also should learn how to spell “disinformation.”
I’ll believe it when I see it…
Do you honestly believe that these measures could reduce the overall murder rate by 75%? No doubt you are going to refuse to provide any evidence for this statement again!
I never said they would. I said above: Mandatory safety courses for first time gun buyers will certainly help reduce accidental gun deaths by children and adults. Gun checks to help keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and proven violent will most likely help, and it will cost little to the taxpayers and won’t threaten gun ownership by sane, responsible law-abiding citizens.
I also asked you if you have a problem with these laws, please say what they are and why you believe those problems will override their benefits. So, try not to avoid the question and actually answer it this time.
You can, of course, do the sensible thing and voice your support for those logical and needed gun restrictions, as well.
I was wrong. You aren’t going to refuse to provide evidence. You are going to use your other tactic - pretending that you didn’t say what you actually said. My mistake.
So basically, we are in agreement then - these measures will not quarter the murder rate! Right?
Gun ‘checks’ - what do you mean, exactly?
The only tactic being used is your constantly evading my questions. I had mistaken quarter to mean cut by 25% instead of cut to 25%, so I didn’t think I had said they would cut the rate by 75%. So, are they likely to lower the rate to 25%? probably not. However, they are most likely to lower the rate, maybe even by 25%. And you know exactly what gun restrictions I was talking about. I named them in my last two posts to you:
Mandatory safety courses for first time gun buyers will certainly help reduce accidental gun deaths by children and adults. Gun checks to help keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and proven violent will most likely help, and it will cost little to the taxpayers and won’t threaten gun ownership by sane, responsible law-abiding citizens.
And those “gun checks” are a mandatory waiting period/identity searches to best make sure the buyer is not mentally ill, has a felony record, or a record of violent crimes. If you have a problem with any of these measures, please share them with us. You are of course willing to support them, as well.
You were off by an order of magnitude and we're just glossing over it like your point is still intact? Yeah, I'm much more comfortable with 4 to 1 than I would be 40 to 1, especially since nothing aside from your imagination ties the 4 to 1 figure to firearms.
I imagine you will catch up to us in your murder rate as you catch up to us in ethinic diversity.
I don’t care what you think about anything, up to and including my moderation style. Just consider yourself on notice.
I don’t care about your caring; I’ve still shown when you’ve been hypocritically rude (like above) and when you’ve been completely wrong, like on your Spartacus thread. And if you don’t care about someone pointing out the hypocrisy in your moderation and your need to check your own rude behavior, you aren’t being a responsible moderator.
Talk about an irrelevant red herring. Ethnic diversity is not the issue, gun deaths are. And we are a country plagued by domestic gun deaths, accidental gun deaths, and gun shootings because of lax gun laws making it easy for mentally ill and proven people to buy guns, the lack of mandatory classes on gun safety, and the ridiculous sale of automatic assault weapons used in school shootings.
As I said earlier, we need those waiting periods/identity checks to help keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, and violent. We need mandatory gun safety classes for first time gun buyers. And we need to ban automatic assault weapons nobody needs for hunting or protection. Anyone opposed to those restrictions are just part of the problem.
40 to 1 is the correct figure for those killed by guns. I posted a link, too, if you go back and check.
I have already given my education background many times, if you did not see it, not my problem.
Removing guns won’t stop the deaths. It won’t reduce the killings or mass killings, only ignorant arrogant fools think so.
Attitudes, lack of good education at grade school levels and poor adult supervision , are the true killers. Society kills its own. Remove a tool to kill another will take it’s place and generally it will be worse than it’s predecessor.
Keep the gun laws as they are and work on the true problems, or your way and worse ways to die for the victims will happen. If you do not know of worse and how easy they are to produce and aquire, your education severely lacks.
I quit that other thread due to your ignorance. I probably will give up on you in this thread as well since you seem to be batting a thousand.
You never mentioned your education level on a thread I was on. I will just go on your present refusal, and past and present threads, and keep my low esteem of it. And, for the second time, I never mentioned removing guns; I mentioned enacting needed gun laws to reduce gun deaths. So, your mention of “ignorant, arrogant fools” is adorably ironic…
And you actually want to keep the gun rules as they are without giving any viable defense of that awful position? That means you don’t want waiting periods/identity checks to help keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. You don’t want mandatory safety courses for first-time gun users to help prevent accidental gun deaths. And you also don’t want to ban assault weapons to help prevent mass shootings. That is reprehensible and indefensible. And I know full well how easy it is to acquire guns; that is no excuse for not making them as hard as possible to acquire. The fact you can’t see that confirms my suspicions and esteem of your education. As does your ludicrous notion we can’t address our gun problem and other related problems.
And you quit your other thread because I wickedly debunked and deconstructed your terrible arguments in support of violence, and i revealed your awful “knowledge” of the law. That was due to your ignorance, dear. I am batting a thousand against you, Kris. I’m batting a thousand against all of your erroneous, specious arguments. So, adios, senora, I can’t say I’ll miss you…
I thought this existed already? NICS checks? If it doesn’t, then yes, I’d support them.
As for mandatory gun safety courses, sounds a bit too patronising if you ask me. What would you learn? Not to leave loaded guns lying around the house when you have small kids around?