Gun Crime down in 6 of 8 of Ohio's largest cities after passage of Constitutional Carry (Russia: legal, suburban)

[TomJones123]

Originally Posted by highlanderfil

You're cute to think that you aren't. At least my "agenda and narrative" (for the sake of argument, let's say that's what my opinions are) are just my own. I wouldn't be too sure about you.

Correct, my opinions are rooted in the second amendment.

[highlanderfil]

Originally Posted by TomJones123

Correct, my opinions are rooted in the second amendment.

Not really sure what you're even responding to anymore.

[highlanderfil]

Originally Posted by KathrynAragon

I am just tired out reading this thread.

If only there was something you could do about that...

[TomJones123]

Originally Posted by highlanderfil

Not really sure what you're even responding to anymore.

I wouldnt expecrt you to, your confirmation bias wont allow you to understand.

[highlanderfil]

Originally Posted by TomJones123

I wouldnt expecrt you to, your confirmation bias wont allow you to understand.

Co-opting yet more terms you don't know the meaning of, I see.

For the record - and, clearly, despite what you think - I'm not anti-gun ownership, so even if you were using the term correctly, that bias would not be in play here. I'm pro-responsibility, more stringent background and mental history checks and actual enforcement of gun laws. How's that sit with you?

[memph]

Originally Posted by cheech14

You can't really compare states, though, because people can easily cross borders to purchase guns when laws are not federal.

Why not? I was comparing whether access to guns within the household makes a difference in homicides. The vast majority of homicides aren't "I'm gonna kill someone, let me buy a gun first". It's general a fairly brash decision. With gang violence, they will have guns, purchased illegally, regardless of what gun laws are.

With domestic violence, if it leads to death, it's almost always an abusive male losing their temper, and they would be capable of killing their spouse with a knife, bludgeon or even their bare hands. And if it's an abusive ex husband/boyfriend, the woman would have the chance to buy a gun and even the playing field if the man decides to violate the restraining order.

Also, why are you comparing overall homicide rates caused by all causes to gun ownership rates? Why wouldn't you compare gun-related homicides only to gun ownership rates?

Because there is a case to be made that if someone can't kill another person with a gun, they'll find some other way to kill them.

In Canada, only 3% of homicides are committed using legally owned guns, even though 22% of households have access to a gun, and legal gun owners are 3x less likely to commit a murder than the general population.

[TomJones123]

Originally Posted by highlanderfil

I'm pro-responsibility, more stringent background and mental history checks and actual enforcement of gun laws. How's that sit with you?

As am I and there are enough rules on law abiding citizens at this point. I agree that actual enforcement of gun laws would be key: existing gun laws. My point is go after the criminals and leave non-criminals alone.

[TomJones123]

Originally Posted by memph

Because there is a case to be made that if someone can't kill another person with a gun, they'll find some other way to kill them.

Yes! except when I mentioned that one participant moved the goal posts from gun crime being down, to who does mass shootings with knives and bats? type illogic.

[highlanderfil]

Originally Posted by TomJones123

Yes! except when I mentioned that one participant moved the goal posts from gun crime being down, to who does mass shootings with knives and bats? type illogic.

And now, with the highlighted phrase, you've achieved full BS bingo. Not really sure what this latest lie accomplishes for you though - there are receipts all over the past 11 pages of this thread. I didn't actually bring up knives and bats - you did. All I did was point out back to you that the way gun crime (which is absolutely a term that exists, no matter how much you'd like to convince yourself and try to convince us of the opposite) is different from violence committed with any other potentially lethal weapon is in guns' ability to cause multiple deaths over a short period of time. Otherwise, I agree both with you and memph - if someone really wants to kill someone or at least try to do so, it can be achieved with things other than guns. A gun just makes it easier.

[highlanderfil]

Originally Posted by memph

Because there is a case to be made that if someone can't kill another person with a gun, they'll find some other way to kill them.

When it comes to single-victim murders - sure, you're probably right. (I won't argue that stabbing or bludgeoning someone to death requires a vastly different mental and physical effort than just pulling the trigger of a gun - let's just assume, for the sake of argument that they are equally easy to pull off.) But not when it comes to ones with mass/multiple victims (who account for about 12% of total murder victims - a rather non-trivial number). Furthermore, your odds of running away from or fighting off someone trying to kill you with anything other than a firearm are orders of magnitude better than if a gun is involved.