Semiautomatic guns in Australia

It's hard to cure cancer when proven therapies are illegal to be studied.

Speaking of which

Hot take: Medical marijuana as backdoor legalization is all good. People who think it's something we should take super serial as anything other than tertiary therapy options are super ****ing annoying. Pot doesn't cure cancer. Stop

So, there are roughly 300M people in US and 9 gun related deaths/100,000, so unless my math is wrong that means 27,000 gun related deaths/yr. do we believe that stat is even correct?

Also, according to that graph there is already almost 300M guns in the US. Does gun control involve reducing this current number? Or just reducing future output?

Just ban and buy back all semiautomatic weapons like Australia did. Easy.

Is it a lie that pot has anti-tumor properties, and has shown to suppress cancer cells in various environmental settings?

Sure, then you can get a drop in homicide that:

1) Was smaller than the drop in the USA
2) Was happening already before that law
It's not a lie that those things exist, but it's a lie that those things mean it can cure cancer.

Uhhhhh gun deaths dropped dramatically and immediately when Australia banned guns. Predictably you have no idea what you're talking about.

And homicides did not move nearly as much. Come on

Are we literally debating the usage of 'can' vs. 'could'?

I think we SHOULD be taking it more seriously:

- It has compounds that bind to naturally occurring receptor sites all over the body
- There are people who use hemp oil (concentrated pot) in lieu of radiation/chemo who then entered remission

Cancer sucks and as humans we are really bad at solving it, so why shoot down something hopeful, safe, and backed by science?

Right, there was a massive decrease in gun suicides and only a very significant decrease in gun homicides. Thousands of lives were saved. 59% Decrease in gun homicides and 66% reduction in gun suicides.

Drops that were happening before the ban and happened in the USA in similar or larger amounts.


Are you just trolling here, because I remember you claiming to be a libertarian not too long ago.

not even trying to cockblock your proposal, as I don't think it's crazy, but I would expect this to be less effective here. The murder centers of the US are all densely populated urban areas... DC, Chicago, New Orleans, etc etc. Highly gang related, and weapons largely acquired through non-legal means. Contrast that with say, New Hampshire, which is bottom in the US in terms of gun murder rate, and a relatively lax stage when it comes to firearms. i.e. it's basically Canada.

Also, you'll see a lot of opposition to "semiautomatic" bans.. those encompass all the most popular pistols, such as glocks.

So then the US can further reduce its huge gun death problem by banning guns. It's great that crime rates are generally falling but we can drastically reduce the amount of violence in America by implementing strict gun control.

I do have libertarian tendencies but I don't see why advocating for gun control is inconsistent with that.

We can also greatly cut down deaths by ending the drug war, which has the added benefits of adding and protecting rights instead of stripping them away.

Sure, it will take a lot of effort and time to get something like this accomplished. We will probably have to wait for a lot of the fear-driven Republican morons to die and become increasingly irrelevant as they lose political power.

ikes,

I do have to say that you're technically "right" that gun violence is down since the nationwide peak in violent crime in the 80s, and if you isolate the last 20 years you catch the tail end of the decline before finding a steady gun death rate over the last ~ 15 years. I would challenge you to demonstrate that the decline you cite is proof that gun proliferation does not lead to gun violence, given that over any relevant sample compared to the rest of the world, AND on a state-by-state basis, the correlation is VERY strong between gun deaths and gun proliferation (Harvard School of Public Health Study). I would also point out that gun ownership on a per household basis has declined since 1975, which to my mind simply muddies the picture since gun violence both peaked and declined during that per household decline (which is interesting though probably explained by the independent explosion in violent crime in this country dating from approximately 1970 to 1990, during which time I continue to be amused in the relative dearth of recorded incidents of gun ownership preventing violence, but that's a digression).

In any case, the at-least-15-year-long steady rate of gun DEATHS - just deaths - per year is the one I pointed out above - something like 12,000 deaths per year (with increasing suicide by gun rates). You can throw in something like 25,000 additional injuries per year.

Thus, I dare say, your STATS are not a remotely strong argument against gun regulation or argument tending to demonstrate that gun violence is somehow becoming a smaller problem along with decreasing crime.

A simpler argument would just be that as crime decreases, gun violence does not over the last ~ 15 years.

There's also the point that pre-planned active shooter situations have been rising in frequency for almost a decade, which indicates that this problem is in fact not remotely solving itself.


On the topic of BANNING ALL THE GUNS ZOMG CONSTITUTION, you will note that I did not remotely argue for a ban on all firearms, so your point about that is plainly not relevant to my posts, at least, or to my position.

On the point that defining assault weapon is super hard yo,the trope that the term "assault weapon" is meaningless is not true. There is no way you do not know to what I refer, not only because their use in mass shooting is de rigueur, and because their military heritage and design is completely beyond dispute, but because functional definitions abound. Take the assault weapons ban of 2013 definition (it is long, and detailed). Take the relatively simple "every AK and AR variant in the world" definition. I do not need to provide a 300-product long specific list for you to know what I am talking about.

Not only that, but the reality is that the only people who have a semantic problem with this term are the people who want to argue that specific technicalities between various AR models make some ARs actually "assault weapons" and others not. This fundamentally breaks down to "wait, how many people AM I allowed to kill with my people-killing-designed-weapon before it's an assault weapon? There's gotta be a minimum below which it's all good right? Right? Constitution?" The only reason we engage in this particular part of the debate is that by selecting out specific design features, numerous obviously-designed-to-be-deadly-to-multitudes weapons can be removed from the definition via fake and irrelevant design technicalities. For example, some AR-15 variants do not have selective-fire. Many gun rights advocates would have it that these AR-15s are not assault weapons at all. This is specious in the extreme. Just as I am not burdened with the obligation of providing a specific product-by-product list, I am not required to demonstrate that every single facile and specious technical argument is wrong.

You would think the burden would be on gun rights advocates in a world where:

1. On a state-by-state basis, more guns = more gun deaths;

2. On a country-by-country basis, more guns = more gun deaths;

3. On a state-by-state basis, strict gun regulation CORRELATES (not causes - correlates) with fewer gun deaths; and

4. the purported greatest country on Earth suffers from multiple-victim shootings literally almost on the daily and happens also to be the only country in the first world that cherishes gun ownership in this manner.

But it's not, apparently. That does not make sense, and is suicidal on the national scale. I'll stop here for now, but I really, really, really want to get into the Constitutional issue as well. The tropes surrounding the Second Amendment are extremely facile and transparently idiotic, for the most part, and I honestly do not think most gun rights advocates understand what those arguments actually are. Perhaps that'll be another post.

How does it not hold up? Compared to any other comparably developed country, the US has significantly more gun-related homicides per X number of people. Maybe there is more than one reason for that, but you can't possibly tell me that the abundance of guns isn't a huge ****ing part of it.

sure, then you need to explain what those other things are. Because the number of guns per person in the usa has gone up for the past few decades, but all types of crime have dropped (including gun violence)

Nah, see, that's a perfect example of the kind of thing you sometimes get pilloried for in Politics. It is technically "true" that if you select a specific sample, you can say that gun violence has dropped. Here, you select "the past few decades," because the first 3 - 4 years of that period supports your point. But you neglect to point out that for ~ 15 years gun deaths and gun incidents have held almost perfectly steady, which while not completely UNDERMINING your position, is an ENTIRELY different scenario than the misleading scenario you present.

That's bogus, you shouldn't do that.

Hoya-

1) Proving a strong correlation between guns and gun deaths is not exactly rocket science. It's not a strong argument.
2) I didn't say you wanted to ban all guns, but plenty of people do. You hadn't made it clear one way or another or what exactly you want to ban.
3) I'm quite aware of what an assault weapon is. The point is the definition is dumb, arguing that it is existent like you are is missing the point. The definition made guns banned based on a ludicrous set of factors that did absolutely nothing to keep anyone safe.
4) When the constitution is involved and you're trying to take rights away from the people, the burden of proof should always be on you. Suggesting anything else is absurd.

I don't really got time for anything else, but cool talk.

man

who was sitting around and thought "You know what SE needs? MORE POLITICAL POSTING. That'll improve the forum real strong!"

exactly which people were clamoring for this ****

I'm pre-emptively calling for Hoya to self-ban a week in penance for his sins.

Truth be told numerous FACKERS wanted politics out of the FACK and in a different thread, and mod PMs concluded we'd give it a try, so here we are, in a thread entitled Politics that is designed to give you precisely what you want: less political posting in threads you like to read.

Should probably re-mod me imo.

Your claim of 3-4 years for the entire change is bogus. Homicides are down 10% since 2005 as well.

Most frustratingly, even if we granted everything you just said as true we get: gun deaths no change with # of guns up. That STILL directly contradicts that correlation argument. If you're going to argue that I'm being dishonest, you should do it with a tight argument instead of this ****.