Argument that decimates the pro gun position
- Thread starter L-Kabong
- Start date
Go read it, you won't get hurt. It's simply a series of arguments via written words.
I don't want you to necessarily give up your guns ohms. I don't want to obliterate the possibility of my having one either. And I am sure that we both don't want a Sandy Hook ever to occur again and we have conflicting notions about the best approach to achieving that.
I assume you're out there, posting, living your life, a real person in the 3D world. This isn't personal, it's an intellectual exercise.
It's true. Sandy Hook elementary is 15 miles from my house and
I have a child in high school in our town and was relieved both to receive emails from the school and get a text from my child that day. But I know proximity to a tragedy doesn't equate with priority in the discussion on a national issue.
Sandy Hook has nothing to do with the average gun crime at all, so that's not even part of this discussion.
What professor jackwagon fails to comprehend is that the homicie rate among nonhispanic whites is about 3 per 100,000, while that of blacks is about 27 per 100,000.
Then he cherry picks place like Germany and says we are 'many multiples about the western average'. The european average is about 2 per 100,000 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate )
It's strictly true that if you pick some of the lowest european nations, then whites here are 3 times higher, but it's also true if you pick gun controlled finland we are about the same, and we are much better than gun controlled eastern europe. The US is a mixture of all of them, and to have as your main argument that they have 2 per 100000 and we have 3 per 100000 on a scale that ranges from 0 to 90 per 100,000 (honduras), well that's really stupid. What else would I expect from a liberal professor, he's paid to to put out the tripe of the religion.
Interestigly the US black homicide rate is about the same as black Africa in places like Congo. That really tells you all you need to know.
What professor jackwagon fails to comprehend is that the homicie rate among nonhispanic whites is about 3 per 100,000, while that of blacks is about 27 per 100,000.
Then he cherry picks place like Germany and says we are 'many multiples about the western average'. The european average is about 2 per 100,000 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate )
It's strictly true that if you pick some of the lowest european nations, then whites here are 3 times higher, but it's also true if you pick gun controlled finland we are about the same, and we are much better than gun controlled eastern europe. The US is a mixture of all of them, and to have as your main argument that they have 2 per 100000 and we have 3 per 100000 on a scale that ranges from 0 to 90 per 100,000 (honduras), well that's really stupid. What else would I expect from a liberal professor, he's paid to to put out the tripe of the religion.
Interestigly the US black homicide rate is about the same as black Africa in places like Congo. That really tells you all you need to know.
From the article:
"But, as with nuclear weapons, we would all be safer if no one had guns â or, rather, no one other than trained and legally constrained police officers."
So I take it the author is for the complete disarming of the entire population. Consequently he loses his place at the negotiating table. Radicals on either side of the argument don't get to have a meaningful opinion. All kinds of weapons, all the time for everyone doesn't work. Neither does no weapons at all.
"But, as with nuclear weapons, we would all be safer if no one had guns â or, rather, no one other than trained and legally constrained police officers."
So I take it the author is for the complete disarming of the entire population. Consequently he loses his place at the negotiating table. Radicals on either side of the argument don't get to have a meaningful opinion. All kinds of weapons, all the time for everyone doesn't work. Neither does no weapons at all.
Disarming the world? Really? Sounds like something you'd hear from a former hippie at Starbucks. I mean that's like like trying to convert a 50 year old crack whore back into a virgin. That genie is already out of the bottle, you can't put it back in. If these guys want to be taken seriously, they have to be realistic and pragmatic.
As I've stated before in differing fashions, violent crime is inversely related to IQ in relatively stable societies.