Conquer Club

greenoaks wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

greenoaks wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

greenoaks wrote:Fewer guns = fewer gun-related crimes

FACT

Ok, greenoaks solved the case, everyone. Guess we can all go home now.

the problem is stupid americans wanting to invade other countries because they may have wmd's while their own citizens own weapons of mass destruction


and use them to kill innocent children.

they want to disarm the rest of the world but refuse to disarm the biggest threat to their children - themselves

Sorry for Mets. You had victory in his mind, but then you kept talking...

Your fact is not a fact tho

The Harvard Injury Control Research Centre assessed the literature on guns and homicide and found there's substantial evidence that indicates more guns means more murders. This holds true whether you're looking at different countries or different states.

Symmetry wrote:The number of guns owned by them has increased.

greenoaks wrote:Fewer guns = fewer gun-related crimes

Symmetry wrote:The number of guns owned by them has increased.

Phatscotty wrote:

Symmetry wrote:The number of guns owned by them has increased.

which still fits perfectly into the premise. IE your point is 100% irrelevant

greenoaks wrote:Fewer guns = fewer gun-related crimes

Symmetry wrote:The number of guns owned by them has increased.

which.......still overturns Harvard's findings

Ty

Symmetry wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Symmetry wrote:The number of guns owned by them has increased.

which still fits perfectly into the premise. IE your point is 100% irrelevant

greenoaks wrote:Fewer guns = fewer gun-related crimes

Symmetry wrote:The number of guns owned by them has increased.

which.......still overturns Harvard's findings

Ty

Erm, so my point is irrelevant, and then relevant within the same post?

You're acting odd Scotty.

My point was in answer to your statement that gun ownership has increased to record levels. I nuanced it by pointing out that levels of gun ownership have decreased, while those that own guns possess more.

Symmetry wrote:You're acting odd Scotty.

Phatscotty wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Symmetry wrote:The number of guns owned by them has increased.

which still fits perfectly into the premise. IE your point is 100% irrelevant

greenoaks wrote:Fewer guns = fewer gun-related crimes

Symmetry wrote:The number of guns owned by them has increased.

which.......still overturns Harvard's findings

Ty

Erm, so my point is irrelevant, and then relevant within the same post?

You're acting odd Scotty.

My point was in answer to your statement that gun ownership has increased to record levels. I nuanced it by pointing out that levels of gun ownership have decreased, while those that own guns possess more.

source?

Phatscotty wrote:there are a record number of gun ownership in America today

greenoaks wrote:States with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence. Last year, economist Richard Florida dived deep into the correlations between gun deaths and other kinds of social indicators. Some of what he found was, perhaps, unexpected: higher populations, more stress, more immigrants and more mental illness were not correlated with more deaths from gun violence. But one thing he found was, perhaps, perfectly predictable: states with tighter gun control laws appear to have fewer gun-related deaths.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/ ... z2FGb9aSMF

crispybits wrote:

Symmetry wrote:You're acting odd Scotty.

It's probably the stress of trying to defend a position he knows by now is fundamentally flawed but hasn't got the balls to back down from.

Phatscotty wrote:

greenoaks wrote:States with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence. Last year, economist Richard Florida dived deep into the correlations between gun deaths and other kinds of social indicators. Some of what he found was, perhaps, unexpected: higher populations, more stress, more immigrants and more mental illness were not correlated with more deaths from gun violence. But one thing he found was, perhaps, perfectly predictable: states with tighter gun control laws appear to have fewer gun-related deaths.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/ ... z2FGb9aSMF

Is that true for Illinois (Chicago)? Washington DC?

Illinois bans guns, but you have a better chance of being shot in Chicago than a US soldier does in Afghanistan. About the same with DC, which also outright bans guns. How do you square that with these reports your keep sharing?

Symmetry wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

greenoaks wrote:States with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence. Last year, economist Richard Florida dived deep into the correlations between gun deaths and other kinds of social indicators. Some of what he found was, perhaps, unexpected: higher populations, more stress, more immigrants and more mental illness were not correlated with more deaths from gun violence. But one thing he found was, perhaps, perfectly predictable: states with tighter gun control laws appear to have fewer gun-related deaths.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/ ... z2FGb9aSMF

Is that true for Illinois (Chicago)? Washington DC?

Illinois bans guns, but you have a better chance of being shot in Chicago than a US soldier does in Afghanistan. About the same with DC, which also outright bans guns. How do you square that with these reports your keep sharing?

Guns aren't outright banned in DC. But hey- you're on some kind of maniacal spree of false statements about guns.

Phatscotty wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

greenoaks wrote:States with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence. Last year, economist Richard Florida dived deep into the correlations between gun deaths and other kinds of social indicators. Some of what he found was, perhaps, unexpected: higher populations, more stress, more immigrants and more mental illness were not correlated with more deaths from gun violence. But one thing he found was, perhaps, perfectly predictable: states with tighter gun control laws appear to have fewer gun-related deaths.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/ ... z2FGb9aSMF

Is that true for Illinois (Chicago)? Washington DC?

Illinois bans guns, but you have a better chance of being shot in Chicago than a US soldier does in Afghanistan. About the same with DC, which also outright bans guns. How do you square that with these reports your keep sharing?

Guns aren't outright banned in DC. But hey- you're on some kind of maniacal spree of false statements about guns.

Nitpick all ya want.

isaiah40 wrote:Michigan has already started the morning of the shootings. The senate passed this BEFORE the CT shootings.
Michigan Approves Concealed Weapons In Schools, Churches

Michigan passed a law Friday that will allow the carrying of concealed weapons in previously off-limits areas including schools, churches, day cares and sports stadiums.

The bill cleared the Senate on Thursday, and was approved by the Republican-controlled House Friday, the same day that 27 people, including 20 children, were killed by gunfire at a Connecticut school.

“If you have pistol free zones they are actually mass murderer empowerment zones,” said Steve Dulan, attorney for the Michigan Coalition of Responsible Gun Owners, who represents sportsman clubs throughout Michigan backing the bill.

“If you actually look at the history, even over the past 10 years in the US, you find that maybe all but one mass shooting has occurred in a so-called gun free zone,” he added.

Another provision in the bill eliminates county-controlled concealed weapons licensing boards, having sheriffs assume their duties instead, Click On Detroit reported.

The current law in Michigan prohibited concealed weapons in schools, churches, day cares, hospitals, dorms, casinos and any public entertainment venue that had a capacity of over 2,500 people, according to Petoskey News. Violating the law earned a civil infraction and a $500 fine, as well as a six-month suspension of a concealed pistol license.

The new law allows schools and private establishments to voluntarily stay pistol-free if they choose to, Petoskey News reported, but opponents say it goes too far, Click on Detroit reported.

The bill is now headed to the state’s governor Rick Snyder to be signed, but he told local Channel 4 that is taking a week to review the law’s language, especially in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary school shooting

isaiah40 wrote:And here is a School District in Texas that will allow concealed weapons on school campuses.
Texas School District Will Let Teachers Carry Guns

Phatscotty wrote:"More guns, less crime"]

Phatscotty wrote:Seriously though, what is the deal here? Looks like Soledad O'brian and Piers Morgan are both pushing the narrative that the assault rifle was used? But the assault rifle was not even used. This is exactly what is wrong with our media

NEWTOWN, Conn. – School shooter Adam Lanza carried hundreds of bullets when he shot his way into Sandy Hook Elementary School and used an assault rifle to do most of the killing, authorities confirmed Sunday.