SATW

[Xavier_Onassis]

The purpose os a swimming pool is not to kill people.
That is what a pistol is designed to do.

A swimming pool can have many useful purposes. It is idiotic to compare swimming pools with pistols.

I did not say I was not outrages about fools taking care to keep children out of swimming pools. But swimming pools are not what we were discussing. No moron has ever claimed that the only defense of against a bad person with a swimming pool is a good person with a swimming pool.

======================
What I really, really like about SATW is the respect and tolerance shown by the woman who runs the site for all the minority and subgroups in Scandinavia, The Faroes, Oland,  Sami, and so on, each with its own flag and points of view. She talks about each group with respect for their differences and different attitudes. No one is ever blamed for anything, at least not without humor.

[sirs]

And the purpose of a firearm, in the hands of the law abiding, to is to defend life or provide food

Accidents happen.  They can happen with all forms of equipment.  The numer of accidental gun deaths to children is a fraction of a fraction, compared to pool accidents.  Point is, no one has a constitutional right to a pool, and although more children die in pool accidents, I have yet to see you clamor for more pool control

So, when you start proclaiming either....
- the need to register pools
- how registering firearms actually prevents someone from getting shot
- how we need to amend the constitution, as it was designed to do
....all your doing is spouting drivel, and have no credible opinion to stand on

[Plane]

That is not true in any country.  There are too goddamned many guns, and that makes them very easy to get.

The more guns they are, the more people are going to get shot. It is simple logic.

How is it logic at all?

I have been in rooms full of guns, I have been in hunting lodges full of armed men, I have also been in auditoriums and theaters where (in theory) there were no guns.

Why are more people shot in zero gun environments than in Hunting lodges?

I think you need to demonstrate how your logic works , or just quit calling it that.

[Xavier_Onassis]

It is already apparent in statistics, The more guns are present in a country, the more people get shot.

In Western Europe there are few guns and few people get shot. In the US there are guns all over the place and many times more people get shot.

In Japan there are almost no guns and almost no one gets shot.

That is the proof.

[Plane]

It is already apparent in statistics, The more guns are present in a country, the more people get shot.

In Western Europe there are few guns and few people get shot. In the US there are guns all over the place and many times more people get shot.

In Japan there are almost no guns and almost no one gets shot.

That is the proof.

This is a low quality of proof.

This is an example of Post hoc ergo prompter hoc, a logical fallacy.

It also relates to a Chicken and Egg argument .

Where there is a lot of danger , people tend to buy more guns to get relief.

So which happened first , the danger , or the guns sales in response?

Even where there is both many guns and many shooting injuries, like Chicago,most of the guns are not being used irresponsibly. If 10% of the people are doing most of the shooting , then it should be possible to remove better than 90% of the guns from the situation without reducing the number of people injured at all.

This would require of course that you remove the guns from the responsible people first and leave the 10% that is troublesome armed .
   

    Of course , were it possible to remove the guns from the irresponsible first , then each gun removed would be an improvement.

    Unfortunately every gun restriction I have ever heard proposed would have the preponderance of its effect on the Responsible before the irresponsible.

[Xavier_Onassis]

It is EXCELLENT proof.

The problem is that there are already way too many guns, and Americans will continue to use them to shoot one another forever. There is no way to confiscate the guns,  there are too many imbeciles who vote only based on this issue alone, and the problem will never be solved. More guns will only result in more people being shot with guns. The United States is the laughingstock of the world because of these imbecilic obsessions about  guns and a woman's right to her own body. It is rather like Greece, that cannot tax the people who have most of the money, or Saudi Arabia, that insists on prosecuting and executing people for witchcraft and heresy.

[sirs]

You have yet to address Plane's point how still more laws would substantially impact the law abiding....nearly exclusively.  Nor have you answered how registration of guns prevents some thug maniac from shooting & killing innocents.

Ball in your court

[Plane]

It is EXCELLENT proof.

How is it not an example of "Post Hoc, Ergo Prompter Hoc?

http://skepdic.com/posthoc.html

[Xavier_Onassis]

I did not say "still more laws" should be passed. The entire block of regulations should be changed,  with the goal of reducing the number of homicidal maniacs with guns.

You are asking me to predict the future. That is an irrational request.

As I have said many times, I do not expect any changes to be made. I expect the gun murder rate to increase with the increase of guns in circulation. The gun laws that should have been passed in the 1940's were not passed, and a lunatic Gun Nut Culture has sprung up around the mystique of guns. There is no solution. Just as there is no way to end meth addiction.

But more guns will continue to cause more shootings. We shall continue to have an average of one mass shooting per month, or more. And morons will continue to buy more guns which will not stop gun violence. 

All these reports of how some Good Gun Nut saved people from a Bad Gun Nut are simply anecdotes that are used to make gun nuts feel useful, when in fact, they are not and are part of the problem. When they die, their private arsenals will continue to increase the availability of guns and gun shootings. It is inevitable.

If our Congresspeople had been smarter, they could have prevented this long, long ago. But they weren't, and Americans are ever more endangered by gun nuts.

[sirs]

I did not say "still more laws" should be passed. The entire block of regulations should be changed,  with the goal of reducing the number of homicidal maniacs with guns.

THAT'S A GOAL EVEN THE NRA WOULD SUPPORT.  NO ONE WANTS HOMICIDAL MANIACS TO HAVE ACCESS TO GUNS.  Whether you add more laws, or change the block of regulations, how does that not impact the law abiding EXPONENTIALLY MORE that the homicidal maniac??

No one is asking you to predict the future.  What's being asked is how still more laws would not substantially impact the law abiding....nearly exclusively over the homicidal maniac, since we already have laws against them shooting people, or how registration of guns prevents some homicidal maniac from shooting & killing innocents?

And what you try to poo poo as anecdotes, are FACTS that you can't dismiss, I'm afraid.  Exponentially more lives saved, then taken by a gun in this country.  But noting your complete disdain for unborn children, it's no wonder how you could callously discard all those other lives that have been saved with a gun

[Plane]

I expect the gun murder rate to increase with the increase of guns in circulation.

That is an interesting hypothesis .

How well does it predict the past.

If the number of guns in circulation have more than doubled since the election of Bill Clinton, and the number of deaths by gun have fallen by 10%.

Then the increase is a negative 20%.

  As any stockbroker might tell you , the past is no certain predictor of the future, but it is all we have.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The people who bought at those guns recently have not yet died, releasing those guns to the world. The drop in crime is because birth control in the 1960'sd and 1970's prevented the birth of unwanted children, who tend to add to the criminal caste, and since they were not born, their children were also not born.  I am pretty sure that the rate would have dropped EVEN MORE had not guns become an obsession of a particular segment of the population.

[sirs]

And given current trends, with the facts to back it up, I'm confident that areas with more permissive gun laws & CCW's, will continue to see a drop in violent crime, while those locations, that insist on even more regulation and limitations to legal gun use/possession, will continue to see their violent crime go up, since the homicidal maniacs have no intention of following current or new laws bding pushed.  That includes the asinine registration tactic

[Xavier_Onassis]

I am confident that you are simply wrong, and that time will prove you wrong, but you will not admit it.

[sirs]

LOL....and given your track record of being wrong more often then a broken clock, I'm that much more confident thanks to your proclamation     

So.....when do we get to see the grand unveiling of how registration prevents gang members & homicidal maniacs from shooting anyone?