Gabby Giffords Gun Violence Initiative

[Yossarian]

like the Brady Campaign, suggest.

Ah yes, the Brady people. Let's see how their suggestions work. They like laws that lower gun ownership:




But what does that lead to? More violent crime?




What was the impact of restricting guns? Maybe you can share some helpful data from the palces with strict gun control, like Chicago and Washington to help your case?

According to the government the Assualt Weapons ban had no impact on crime: http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?re...=10881&page=96

How about in schools? Have bans help there?

[bUU]

Still nothing worthwhile to contribute Yossarian?

Gun control opponents ... have to actually propose solutions to the problems that have been raised. Just whining about the proposals others are making, without proving that the have proposals of their will actually result in significantly fewer tragedies, will invariably be considered an attempt to assert their personal preference.

[Yossarian]

Still nothing worthwhile to contribute Yossarian?

Sure, what is the problem you want to address? The issues may be different for "mass shootings" versus the general carnage that occurs within certain demographics or geographies.

So let's start with that. Crime rates are reaching historic lows: http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012...oric-lows?lite

Since we are moving toward historic crime lows while right to carry laws and gun ownership increases, you have to identify what it is about that trend that you want to change.

[Gregg]

Gun supporters just stating their conclusions doesn't contribute much.

If supporting evidence is given with the conclusion then yes, I believe it does. I gave you (the proverbial you) an example of high capacity magazines a few pages back. I stated exactly how I had arrived at the conclusion that banning them would make no difference whatsoever in the carnage level of a mass shooting. If someone had arrived at a different conclusion the logical course of action would be to compare methodology, find and correct any errors and then use that information to draw a new, and presumably better, conclusion. No one came forward. Either no one cares about the subject or the conclusion was correct based on the evidence given so any possible retort was rendered moot.

[bUU]

Sure, what is the problem you want to address?

A question rife with the kind of feigned ignorance that demonstrates the abject disrespect for perspectives that you don't want to deal with.

If the way things are now were good enough, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

If supporting evidence is given with the conclusion then yes, I believe it does.

Evidence supporting their own criteria, not the criteria I outlined. So, no - I believe it does not.

It sure is easy for gun control opponents to win the game when they make up the rules themselves, though, isn't it?

I stated exactly how I had arrived at the conclusion ...

And if that rationale met the threshold I outlined earlier, then it wouldn't still be a matter of discussion whenever this issue is brought up. What you truly need to come to understand is that your rationale, within the boundaries and premises that you impose on the argument, are inadequate in the context which you're trying to express them (i.e., as a resolution to the valid concerns by reasonable people who disagree with you about gun control). I think opponents of gun control are their own worst enemies when they try to justify their positions with self-serving defenses in the context of self-defined criteria.

[Yossarian]

not the criteria I outlined.

Just so we are clear, what is that criteria? I looked back but I don't see what you are talking about.

[creaker]

Sure, what is the problem you want to address? The issues may be different for "mass shootings" versus the general carnage that occurs within certain demographics or geographies.

So let's start with that. Crime rates are reaching historic lows: http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012...oric-lows?lite

Since we are moving toward historic crime lows while right to carry laws and gun ownership increases, you have to identify what it is about that trend that you want to change.

I think one would need show a connection between the two - more people own and carry smartphones as well, but I would not immediately attribute a drop in violent crime rates to it.

Added: then again - ability of people to dial 911, take pictures and video - I wonder if smartphones are attributable to a portion of the drop?

[Yossarian]

I think one would need show a connection between the two - more people own and carry smartphones as well, but I would not immediately attribute a drop in violent crime rates to it.

Agreed, but that is the starting correlation. There is likely a lot more to the analysis, but that's what I want to see- the analysis.

[ApatheticNoMore]

It's almost certainly not the cause, too many other good theories of why violent crime has dropped. But then neither is guns being around the reason the crazy mass shootings have increased.

[bUU]

Just so we are clear, what is that criteria? I looked back but I don't see what you are talking about.

With respect, I cannot see how you could have read my earlier comments without having read that. With respect, go back and read my replies, and get the answer to your question that way.