It not about a "gun culture," but a "death culture."

[Quetzal]

Already answered it....No, because you can not guarantee the result, it is a question based upon platitudes & wishful thinking.

That may be, but one thing can almost be guaranteed. The statistics could not foreseeably get worse.

 

[Quetzal]

The data shows that my foresight is spot on for crime deterrence. The data also shows that the liberal gun control model only hurts legal gun owners....your model currently is making the body count go up.

You cannot prove that gun legislation contributes to gun crimes. You can play games and assume that it "could have been stopped". But that is nothing short of... what words did you use... wishful thinking.

 

[rocketman]

You cannot prove that gun legislation contributes to gun crimes.

No more than you can prove that gun legislation has curbed gun violence.

You can play games and assume that it "could have been stopped". But that is nothing short of... what words did you use... wishful thinking.

Wishful thinking yes...that is how I described your fantasy of cutting gun crime in half with useless gun laws.

 

[rocketman]

By making that affirmation do you also agree that if those laws were instantly revoked, we would see no change in the statistics?

I believe that the numbers would remain about static but, you will never know based on a "what if" scenario any more than you can guarantee the crime stats would drop with harsher gun laws.

 

[Quetzal]

I believe that the numbers would remain about static but, you will never know based on a "what if" scenario any more than you can guarantee the crime stats would drop with harsher gun laws.

Interesting perspective, I don't agree but I can't argue with it (without going further away from the op).

 

[rocketman]

That may be, but one thing can almost be guaranteed. The statistics could not foreseeably get worse.

How can you guarantee anything? on what basis? this is just as speculative as revoking drunk driving laws would immediately mean more drunk drivers.

 

[Quetzal]

No more than you can prove that gun legislation has curbed gun violence.

Wishful thinking yes...that is how I described your fantasy of cutting gun crime in half with useless gun laws.

What I find interesting if that you discredit determent (both with firearms and drunk driving) as a reliable method to control people. But you believe everyone carrying would deter people from murdering people. Why is that?

 

[rocketman]

What I find interesting if that you discredit determent (both with firearms and drunk driving) as a reliable method to control people. But you believe everyone carrying would deter people from murdering people. Why is that?

The death penalty is a punishment that liberals say does not deter crime yet, now we hear liberals speaking of laws & punishment as deterrents, the sane of society wish that you liberals would land on a decision & stick with it...either laws & punishment deter crime or they don't, I say they don't for the most part, people who decide to break the law will do it no matter the consequence. I also find it interesting that liberals are all for more laws to inconvenience the law abiding yet, are ardently against enabling law abiding people to defend themselves against the criminal element...even promoting it as the deterrent . Maybe if liberals start educating criminals on bullying & harassment they will stop...:chuckle:

 

[elohiym]

Exactly.

There are, of course additional statistics on deaths that would further define this culture as a pronounced "culture of death".

http://www.poodwaddle.com/clocks/abortion/

Yes, I agree. Abortion is an example of doctors committing murder under color of law. Abortion was not counted in the study I shared in the OP claiming 400,000 doctor caused deaths each year. Those were deaths attributed to negligence and, sadly, too many people believe abortion is legal.

 

[Quetzal]

The death penalty is a punishment that liberals say does not deter crime yet, now we hear liberals speaking of laws & punishment as deterrents, the sane of society wish that you liberals would land on a decision & stick with it...either laws & punishment deter crime or they don't

Ones views of laws and their impact does not have to be universal across the board. There are a lot of laws I agree with and a lot of laws I do not agree with. There are some laws that I think deter criminals and some that don't. This inconsistency of thought in regards to laws as a whole is not exclusive to liberals. If you want to talk about the death penalty as a law, we can in another thread, but that is not what we are talking about here.

I also find it interesting that liberals are all for more laws to inconvenience the law abiding yet, are ardently against enabling law abiding people to defend themselves against the criminal element...even promoting it as the deterrent .

I think of it differently. Think of how stupid the average person is. Now, remember that half the population is below that. I do not want those people carrying firearms. I do not believe all individuals are capable of making life/death decisions on the fly.

 

[elohiym]

Why would that *low number of victims merit any infringement on the right of millions to bear arms? There is presently a misplaced focus by some on the law abiding "gun culture," when they should be focused on the "death culture" that creates murderers who will kill with a knife if they can't get a gun.

Cause you know, a low number of abortions is acceptable to you right?

No amount of murder is acceptable to me. That is why I don't focus on the guns but focus on the death culture that breeds murderers who will use knives and other things to commit murder.

Why would a low number of abortion victims merit any infringement on a woman's right to privacy?

A woman's right to privacy is not the right to murder another person. The law in the majority of states and federal law recognize a fetus as a person, and for that reason have fetal homicide laws. It can't be true that it's murder if a stranger kills her unborn child but only the mother exercising her right to privacy if she goes to a doctor to have her unborn child killed. A right to privacy isn't a license to commit murder or allow someone to murder another in your care.

Would you be okay with abortion if there were only about 20,000 per year in the USA?

Abortion is murder. I oppose murderers and their evil deeds.

What are you doing about knives? Over 12% of the people murdered in 2014 were killed with knives.

 

[elohiym]

I think of it differently. Think of how stupid the average person is. Now, remember that half the population is below that. I do not want those people carrying firearms. I do not believe all individuals are capable of making life/death decisions on the fly.

Bigotry?

 

[Quetzal]

Bigotry?

Judging people based on their ability to make critical decisions when wielding a weapon that is intended to kill things? Sure, I'll take that.

 

[rocketman]

Ones views of laws and their impact does not have to be universal across the board. There are a lot of laws I agree with and a lot of laws I do not agree with. There are some laws that I think deter criminals and some that don't. This inconsistency of thought in regards to laws as a whole is not exclusive to liberals. If you want to talk about the death penalty as a law, we can in another thread, but that is not what we are talking about here.

No, this is as good a thread as any to discuss the use of the death penalty as the deterrent to using a gun in the commission of a crime. How does that strike you? Why punish the law abiding when we can just end the lives of criminals when they commit a crime with a gun?

I think of it differently. Think of how stupid the average person is. Now, remember that half the population is below that. I do not want those people carrying firearms. I do not believe all individuals are capable of making life/death decisions on the fly.

That is not your decision to make when considering someones "rights" now is it. Would you also say the stupid should have to pass a test to vote also? I mean their poor decisions have given us the likes of Obama, Carter, and other presidential nightmares, maybe we should also take that right from the citizenry...or people that say stupid things publicly, like that Black Lives Matter outfit that is inciting people to shoot cops, maybe we should limit the right to free speech as well, words are dangerous too. Do you see a problem yet?

 

[Arthur Brain]

The data shows that my foresight is spot on for crime deterrence. The data also shows that the liberal gun control model only hurts legal gun owners....your model currently is making the body count go up.

I don't get your point here. Regardless of whether laws actually work as a deterrent, how is any responsible person being "hurt" by laws set in place?

 

[elohiym]

Not necessarily. Guns are owned for self-defense but also for national defense (think "Red Dawn").

We have the biggest and most powerful army on Earth for national-defense. Making the need for a citizen militia virtually zip.

Our military is spread throughout the world and couldn't stop lightly armed thugs (without guns!) in hijacked planes from destroying the World Trade Center complex and damaging the headquarters of the defense system. Thousands died. It remains true that there are powerful nations with formidable armies opposing the U.S.; they have nuclear missiles pointed at U.S. cities; they conduct espionage against U.S. targets; they have the means, if not the plans, to invade the U.S. A well armed citizenry as a deterrent to invasion stands as a valid point, in my opinion.

Also, as part of its practical and necessary use in agriculture, a gun can be used for self-defense against dangerous animals.

That is true, but almost none of us work in agriculture. So there again, the need for people to have guns is still miniscule.

What are the acceptable needs to have a gun in that miniscule context, in your opinion?

Interestingly, in Douglas county Oregon where the recent school shootings occurred, many of the people work in agriculture. All around Roseburg and throughout the county you can see sheep and cattle grazing, massive vineyards and timber being grown and harvested. The area's economy depends significantly on agriculture.

And anyway, no one is proposing eliminating all public ownership of guns. Only effectively regulating it.

Regardless, the focus on guns seems irrational. I'm skeptical.

I don't claim the murders are acceptably low, just that there is a misplaced focus that the low numbers don't justify.

I very much doubt that the families of those killed by those unregulated citizens with their guns would agree with you.

Perhaps. The families of those killed by those unregulated citizens with their knives would likely agree with my point.

An argument can be made that eliminating gun ownership would sacrifice human lives.

Even if it could, no one is suggesting the elimination of gun ownership.

Yet. It's a gradual process. Some of us realize that.

Inventing silly labels like "death culture"

It's an appropriate label for a culture so driven by a fear of death.

... and trying to blame everything on the poor and on ethnic minorities will not only do nothing to minimize gun deaths, but would very likely intensify the problem of gun deaths in the U.S. by it's refusal to even address the problem reasonably and realistically. Not to mention that it's a proposition based on bigotry and a contempt of people rather then on reason and a desire to actually save lives.

I'm not doing that.

Was poster Quetzal just doing that?

 

[Quetzal]

I'm not doing that.

Was poster Quetzal just doing that?

Nope, just stupid people. It was more of a literary device than an actual affirmation but we can roll with it anyway. I wouldn't expect you to notice the difference.

 

[Quetzal]

No, this is as good a thread as any to discuss the use of the death penalty as the deterrent to using a gun in the commission of a crime. How does that strike you? Why punish the law abiding when we can just end the lives of criminals when they commit a crime with a gun?

Wrong, it is only a punishment if they use a gun to kill someone, a very specific sort of crime, you see.

That is not your decision to make when considering someones "rights" now is it. Would you also say the stupid should have to pass a test to vote also? I mean their poor decisions have given us the likes of Obama, Carter, and other presidential nightmares, maybe we should also take that right from the citizenry...or people that say stupid things publicly, like that Black Lives Matter outfit that is inciting people to shoot cops, maybe we should limit the right to free speech as well, words are dangerous too. Do you see a problem yet?

I hate that right, I really do. It is outdated and its original purpose is no longer relevant. That is my opinion, I don't expect it to change anything. But if I had it my way and if I had a magic wand to make all guns go away from the general populace unless they underwent intensive training/investigations, I would in a heart beat.

 

[elohiym]

Nope, just stupid people.

Your focus on guns is irrational.

It was more of a literary device than an actual affirmation but we can roll with it anyway.

Equivocate if you want.

I wouldn't expect you to notice the difference.

Charming.

 

[Quetzal]

Your focus on guns is irrational.

...go on. I am sure you have more to say.