London murder rate rises higher than NY City

Uh huh. Did you not notice that Hemenway did not say that "the evidence proves," or "It is proven that there is a causal relationship between gun ownership and homicide rates," or "It was hard, but we've shown that there is a causal relationship . . ."? That's because he knew better. He was just hoping that you would infer that his willingness to bet a lot of money on his assessment must make him right. Was he successful?

Have you found a study that shows that the level of firearm ownership in an area is not caused by a high level of violence in that area to begin with?

I think that living in high crime areas motivates people to possess guns. What do you think?

 

And off we go again on the gun lobby merrily go round

The arguments brought up by the gun lobby are again just repeats of things that have already been covered and found wanting, we know that and they know that, it’s just that they like to play this stupid game of ‘repeat the bull shit’

Yes we want more study virtually every gun control advocate wants it but traditionally it is the gun lobby that doesn’t that has been covered in detail and at length.

Comparable countries – covered and addressed

What is the alternative suggestions by the gun lobby for the US’s high homicide rate – well it seems to come down to what I call the Murderous American Theory and this again has been covered at length and in detail over thousands of posts.

The Murderous American Theory is that Americans are more murderous than other people and would kill just as many people with other weapons if gun were not available – to the point that it has been argued that a potato is as effective at killing someone as a fully loaded glock. That if someone chooses to commit murder, that person will just as easily kill with a potato than if they had their hands on a gun.

Another twist of the Murderous American Theory is that many gun lobbyists seem to imply that in their opinion that it is not all Americans who are more murderous but that black and brown Americans are inherently more violent, immoral and criminal than other (mainly white) Americans.

Basically both are saying – nothing can be done – controlling guns will not work because people will use potatoes instead and since the ones doing most of the killing are genetically predisposed to violence they would kill just as many people with those potatoes.

As said the gun lobbyists arguments and stance is just plain crap.

 

As I’ve said London has its problems as highlighted by the resent violence in the city, but that has caused a lot of activity, the police have taken action both short and longer term numerous working groups have been set up in several boroughs and local, regional and national authorities have committed funds.

And this is on top of those campaigns and programmes already in place that have been trying to tackle what has been going on in some urban areas due in large part to the Tory policy of austerity.

Again this has been pointed out and covered before and it’s also been explained that many gun lobbyists lean toward the right and think that such publically funded programmes and policies are a waste of time and money, and are more likely to support an ‘austerity policy’ than fight against it.

 

Except they haven't been found wanting. The arguments are repeated because they stand undefeated.

 

Oh I think people will use sawed off shotguns, hunting rifles, knives, etc. before they resort to potatoes or sharpened carrots, don't you. In fact, knives, blunt objects, and fists and feet kill waaaay more people every year than rifles and shotguns combined.

And no, it's not the gun lobby merry-go-round. In order for that to be true, you'd have to stop repeating your silly potato crap. Plus, you'd have to address this, which, despite what you seem to be believing, has not been answered:

Because of the limitations of existing data and methods, no study credibly demonstrates a causal relationship between the ownership of firearms and the causes or prevention of criminal violence.

If you can find a study that credibly demonstrate such a thing, produce it. That way we can get off the merry-go-round. Otherwise the point stands that no study credibly demonstrates a causal relationship between firearms ownership and the causes of criminal violence.

Hemenway has said that he'd “bet a lot of money” and “I think the evidence is very consistent with . . .” and ". . . it’s very hard to say anything is causal.” That's right, he was trying to convince the anti-gun crowd of the "facts" by stating how much he would be willing to bet that they are facts. And of course the anti-gun crowd is viewing his inconclusive remarks as conclusive proof of a point he failed to make.

Now, where's the study that shows that the level of firearm ownership in an area is not caused by a high level of violence in that area to begin with? Got anything?

And just so I don't have to ask you again, do you agree with Meagain's amendment concerning the confiscation of all guns that hold more than six rounds?

 

So what is the alternative suggestions by the gun lobby for the US’s high homicide rate – well it seems to come down to what I call the Murderous American Theory and this again has been covered at length and in detail over thousands of posts.

The Murderous American Theory is that Americans are more murderous than other people and would kill just as many people with other weapons if gun were not available – to the point that it has been argued that a potato is as effective at killing someone as a fully loaded glock. That if someone chooses to commit murder, that person will just as easily kill with a potato than if they had their hands on a gun.

Another twist of the Murderous American Theory is that many gun lobbyists seem to imply that in their opinion that it is not all Americans who are more murderous but that black and brown Americans are inherently more violent, immoral and criminal than other (mainly white) Americans.

Basically both are saying – nothing can be done – controlling guns will not work because people will use potatoes instead and since the ones doing most of the killing are genetically predisposed to violence they would kill just as many people with those potatoes.

As said the gun lobbyists arguments and stance is just plain crap.

 

It’s not untrue about the potato it was said, it was put forward by someone in the gun lobby. Yes to me it is silly and crap but that is the point the gun lobby position is silly and crap, you highlight just how silly it is and continue to do so.

 

It’s incredible and rather hilarious the way that many on the gun lobby side act.

Many questions and criticisms by gun control advocates go unanswered but the minute a small question put by a gun lobbyists seems to have been unanswered and suddenly there is this raging righteous indignation.

Ok so what have I said on the subject its part of the public record you could find out and I wonder why you haven’t.

Thing is that if you read my posts you’d realise that this isn’t just about gun control, I see gun control as one part, a way to lessen harm during a time when more deeper seated problems that make many Americans believe they need guns can be tackled.

 

As I’ve said the position of the gun lobby stance seems to be one of see nothing, hear nothing and do nothing

To repeat what is being ignored - As I’ve said London has its problems as highlighted by the resent violence in the city, but that has caused a lot of activity, the police have taken action both short and longer term numerous working groups have been set up in several boroughs and local, regional and national authorities have committed funds.

And this is on top of those campaigns and programmes already in place that have been trying to tackle what has been going on in some urban areas due in large part to the Tory policy of austerity.

Again this has been pointed out and covered before and it’s also been explained that many gun lobbyists lean toward the right and think that such publically funded programmes and policies are a waste of time and money, and are more likely to support an ‘austerity policy’ than fight against it.

 

Reality Check: Has London's murder rate overtaken New York's?

 

The problem here is that you have taken someone's exaggerated remark that was designed to show you that if guns are banned, people will use other things, and you are milking that remark for all that you think you can get out of it, but there was nothing there in the first place. Knives, blunt objects, hands and feet, etc. are used to murder people four times as much as rifles and shotguns combined. Ban guns, and people will use whatever is handy to commit murder. And even so, you are using 3.5 deaths per 100,000 people per year to justify banning guns, but which guns? I have to ask because, once again, you made a post in answer to that question that failed to answer that question. If you're not the one who made the statement that any gun that holds more than six rounds should be banned, then I have to assume you've never commented on it. So would you like to see all guns that hold more than six rounds confiscated? A yes or no will do.

Background checks are fine, by the way.

Because of the limitations of existing data and methods, no study credibly demonstrates a causal relationship between the ownership of firearms and the causes or prevention of criminal violence. Did you find a study that credibly demonstrates such a thing? If not, then my point that no study credibly demonstrates a causal relationship between firearms ownership and the causes of criminal violence stands. And don't turn to Hemenway for an answer. All he can do is bet a lot of money” and “think the evidence is very consistent,” and say that "it's very hard to say anything is causal.” His inconclusive remarks don't support what you believe they support.

And I assume you couldn't find a study that shows that the level of firearm ownership in an area is not caused by a high level of violence in that area to begin with.

 

Statistics show quite clearly that we are completely correct in every respect.

 

That's exactly what he's doing regarding the potato being used as a lethal weapon. And it wasn't suggested by a gun lobbiest, it was said that without a firearm handy, someone intent on murder could use one and it would in the end be no more or less lethal than anything else that might have been used.

 

LOL do you think I’m a shinking violet, who never gives his opinion if he has one?

I haven’t given an opinion as I don’t have one it’s not my suggestion and not my fight, but you do seem to have strong opinions about it one could even say abrasive – so why are you so opposed to it?

Give me your argument convince me, why do you think it a bad idea?

 

Already covered why go round and around?

So are you saying those lives don’t matter?

If a company sold a faulty devise at what point should there be regulation in place to protect people and get the product recalled? Should it be after one death, a hundred, a thousand, 1 per 100,000, 3 per 100,000? Again when does a preventable death become significant, worthy of something to be done?

In the beginning of the industrial period there was little to no health and safety regulations and many people (including children) died because of it, these preventable deaths were thought of as insignificant by those that owned the factories, sweatshops, mines etc who opposed attempts to bring in regulation - were those workers lives important?

At the time there was a view that since such people were poor and so of little importance then their lives were not important (a similar view was held about slaves).

I get the impression that some gun lobbyists have similar views about those that are die in gun related crime since many of them are criminals, poor and black.

As an aside - in a way the health and safety example is similar to the gun control one in that daily deaths from industrial accidents and conditions cost more lives that incidences where multiple people died at one time but it was the mass deaths that got attention and highlighted the general problem and calls for regulation, just as mass shootings do for the gun debate.

 

For fuck sake this has already been covered numerous times and at length why are you gun lobbyists so dishonest in debates?

TO REPEAT

Honest and rational debate is supposed to be linear – someone presents an argument, the presentation or statement is criticised, then the next step is the person addressing the criticisms or if unable to do so adapting or dropping that argument or taking back the statement.

The problem and reason why so many arguments involving the gun lobbyists her go circular is because many of them are not honest or rational debater’s because while being unable to address the criticisms they refuse to adapt or drop their arguments.

*

The potato example is just indicative of how irrational and frankly unhinged are some of the gun lobbyist’s arguments.

The gun lobby argument is that anything that can kill is equal to a gun - that anything that could kill is as dangerous as a gun so anything that could kill is as effective at killing as a gun.

So knives, blunt objects, hands and feet are all as effect as a gun at killing people and so since you could kill with a potato then a potato is as effective at killing people as an AR-15.

So the argument goes for example that if the Parkland shooter had not had easy access to an AR-15 he would have been able to killed just as many people with a knife, a baseball bat, his hands and feet and yes a potato.

So they go on gun control will not work because even if access to guns is limited people could just kill as many people with potatoes

 

But as I say it is a matter of seeing a problem and then dealing with it or at least trying.

This is what is happening in London, people in the police, governance and elsewhere recognise there is a problem and are thinking of ways of tackling it.

The gun lobby in the US is desperately trying to convince people that there is so problem and (contradictorily) that the obvious solution to the problems wouldn’t work anyway.

Their stance is people are dying let them die.

This is obvious from every single gun thread here and all the gun lobby propaganda their position is irrational and crap.

 

That isn't what happens though.

This is what happens:

a) You guys make a bad argument.

b) We counter with a good argument.

c) You guys counter with an erroneous claim that we are wrong.

d) We counter by conclusively proving that you guys are wrong and we are right.

e) You guys ignore "d" and return back to step "a".

Your argument here is step "e" or "a" from my list above. And here I go with step "b" again:

The statistics are all very clear that gun availability has very little impact on homicide rates.

Well, he certainly could have killed a good number of people with a pipe bomb or pressure cooker bomb.

Mass killings though account for a very small part of the overall homicide rate.

 

No, I think you haven't answered the question of whether or not you want guns that hold more than six rounds to be confiscated. I think even you know better than that.

 

I haven’t given an opinion as I don’t have one it’s not my suggestion and not my fight, but you do seem to have strong opinions about it one could even say abrasive – so why are you so opposed to it?

Give me your argument, convince me, why do you think it a bad idea?

Or does your reply mean you haven't actually got a reasonable or rational arguments for being against it?