Gun Crime down in 6 of 8 of Ohio's largest cities after passage of Constitutional Carry (purchasing, cars)

[TomJones123]

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.

Originally Posted by highlanderfil

Lots of mass stabbings or baseball bat beatings happening daily, are there?

Originally Posted by highlanderfil

And now, with the highlighted phrase, you've achieved full BS bingo.

As I said, once again junior.

[highlanderfil]

Originally Posted by TomJones123

As I said, once again junior.

Selective quoting yet again, pops? Why not tell the whole story?

Originally Posted by TomJones123

There really is no such thing as "gun crime"...however, there are crimes like murder, assault, armed robbery that can be carried out with a gun, baseball bat, knife, etc...these crimes committed with the use of a firearm still dont make them gun centric, but it sure fits a narrative.

Originally Posted by highlanderfil

Lots of mass stabbings or baseball bat beatings happening daily, are there?

[cheech14]

Originally Posted by tribecavsbrowns

Why don't you try it, and see if you get different results? It doesn't seem to me that the odd case of, say, stabbing a person to death with a pencil should make a material difference in this type of analysis.

I shouldn't have to prove someone else's claim. I'm just saying that it makes no sense to include all homicides as it relates to gun ownership rates when all homicides obviously aren't caused by guns in the first place. It's hard to believe that fact was entirely ignored or missed in the claim.

[cheech14]

Originally Posted by TaxPhd

No, not at all. Its simply that what cheech14 presented isn't an anecdote. It's a non-occurrence. It's something that didn't happen. Assuming that what was presented was factual, it only serves to establish that no gun was owned by cheech14, and no violence has yet been experienced. But no causal relationship between the two can be drawn.

If the opposite were true, if some sort of causal relationship could be drawn, we'd be flooded with Government and academic research studies showing numbers of people that don't own firearms, and have never experienced violence. We don't see that. I'll leave it to you to come to a meaningful conclusion as to why.

Let me ask you a very simple question: Do you think that a person who regular carries a firearm is more or less likely to be in a situation in which the firearm is ultimately used than someone who doesn't carry a firearm?

[KathrynAragon]

Originally Posted by highlanderfil

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

LOL I saw what you did there.

But, but, but it's just interesting enough to keep reading it. I mean, barely but here I am.

[cheech14]

[quote]

Originally Posted by TaxPhd

"Saved" isn't really part of my discussion here. If you'll review what I said, I'm talking lawful use of guns in self defense. If you want to describe that as "saves," OK.

Then it's even more complicated because what is lawful changes all the time, and laws themselves can be flawed and actually lead to violence that otherwise wouldn't have occurred. See "Stand Your Ground" laws.

While Americans be be quite violent, I'm not sure that we are uniquely so. But what I will argue is that in many ways, the United States is a very different country.

Yes, we're- as far as I know- the only country that doesn't care when its kids are murdered. Maybe it's not a tendency to violence that is the issue, but a pathological lack of empathy and reason.

Violence (both gun and non-gun) is prevalent in inner city areas in the US in a way that is uncommon in other developed nations. Our legal and criminal justice systems are different. We have a very large population of heterogeneous people - a condition not universally shared by other countries.

What a weird thing to say. First, violence in US suburban and rural areas is also much more common than it is in other developed nations, so I'm not sure why you're specifically singling out urban areas. Second, the US is hardly the only nation with a heterogeneous population. You seem awfully close to just saying the US is violent because of diversity, and surely you wouldn't engage in that old trope.

Instead of comparing the US with other countries around the world, a much more reasonable comparison would be to compare locations in the US with lax gun control laws, versus other areas in the US with strict gun control laws. At least it would be starting with the same endogenous factors - something that is necessarily missing in any comparison between countries.

Plenty of studies have done this already. The overwhelming number of them have reached conclusions you're not going to like.

[highlanderfil]

Originally Posted by KathrynAragon

LOL I saw what you did there.

I don't think I was particularly subtle about it. We Russians have a saying, something about mice who kept pricking themselves, crying in pain, but refusing to give up trying to chew through a cactus plant (or something loosely translated to that effect). Seems that particular wisdom spans continents.

[TaxPhd]

Originally Posted by cheech14

Let me ask you a very simple question: Do you think that a person who regular carries a firearm is more or less likely to be in a situation in which the firearm is ultimately used than someone who doesn't carry a firearm?

I can only answer the question for me personally.

I regularly carry a firearm. The only way that firearm will be used is if someone else places me in a deadly force situation and I need it to defend my life, or the life of someone else whom I have the responsibility to defend (or if I am at the range practicing with it).

Is that acceptable to you, or would you find it preferable if the law prevented me from possessing the means with which to defend myself?

[cheech14]

Originally Posted by TaxPhd

That's not an argument that I'm making.

However, an argument that I would make is that if you ever find yourself on the verge of being murdered, you will likely wish that you had a gun, or some other meaningful weapon with which to defend yourself.

Gun ownership is uniquely personal. If you don't want to own one, I would never try to compel you to do so. I would just ask for the same consideration from you, and that you don't try to prevent me from owning one.

Or I could be wishing the US wasn't so lax on gun control or I never would've been in that situation to begin with.

I'm not arguing against you owning a firearm. I am against pretending like their aren't serious consequences for massive gun proliferation in America. Guns seem to be an unhealthy part of too many identities in America rather than just practical tools of self-protection.

[highlanderfil]

Originally Posted by TaxPhd

Is that acceptable to you, or would you find it preferable if the law prevented me from possessing the means with which to defend myself?

I think I'm starting to figure why you gravitate so eagerly and willingly to buzz words such as "straw man". When one utilizes a rhetorical mechanism as often as you do, one of necessity wonders if there's an "official" name for it. Literally not one post in this thread advocates for taking away your guns. But gun nuts tell on themselves way too easily by inadvertently conceding that reasonable gun control is impossible, so to them any argument "against guns" becomes an all-or-nothing one.