Thoughts on the Trump assassination attempt

Author: TheUnderdog

Posts

Total: 167
Topic's author
#121
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
The homicide rate in America is 40 times higher than the European Union. Why do you think that is?
I'm not sure, but I can do a proof by contradiction for why gun laws are not the reason.

Lets say we assume that gun control laws are the reason why the EU has less homicide than the US.  If this was true, then the homicide rate in the EU would have been a lot higher before the gun laws vs now.

Australia implemented very strict gun laws in 1994.  Did it reduce their homicide rate significantly?  No.  Sweden did something similar in 1996.  Did their homicide rate fall?  No.  Their homicide rates were much lower than America's before their stricter gun control laws.

So to claim that gun laws are the reason for the EU's homicide rate being much lower is incorrect.
Topic's author
#122
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Moozer325
Almost every other country with better regulation has lower gun violence rates, and they significantly dropped after the policies were implemented.
The Non American West (NAW) does have much lower homicide rates than the US, but this was true to a very comparable extent even before their gun control laws got stricter.

From 1995 to 2006 (when these laws were put into place) the gun violence rate has dropped by 59% and suicides involving guns have dropped by 65%. 
I would need a source for this.  I thought their homicide rate was basically unchanged due to the laws and they kept their laws; there was no sunset provision in place.
#123
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 5,455
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
The homicide rate in America is 40 times higher than the European Union. Why do you think that is?
Your chances of being a victim of a violent crime are also significantly lower. Kind if a stupid argument. 

"Please ban guns so criminals don't die as much and we can have as much violent crime as europe"

You can't walk around Munich at night without getting mugged, but in America you might get shot if you step to me
Topic's author
#124
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
@wylted

I don't like a lot of the things you said, but we agree on guns.
#125
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@TheUnderdog
Australia implemented very strict gun laws in 1994. 
Um, Australia has very few gun homicides and they are not part of the EU.

America has 15 murders per 100,000

Europe has 2


Topic's author
#126
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Um, Australia has very few gun homicides and they are not part of the EU
Sure, but we are splitting hairs.  The Non American West (NAW) does have a lower homicide rate than the US and they have stricter gun laws, but they also had comparably low homicide rates before their strict gun laws, so it's not fair to say less guns leads to a less homicide.  That's like saying if I get a cup of salt water and leave it out in the sun to evaporate the salt water, then less salt water means less salt.
#127
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@TheUnderdog
so it's not fair to say less guns leads to a less homicide. 
It’s absolutely fair and appropriate to equate the number of guns to the number of homicides. Less guns has consistently meant less homicides 

#128
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@WyIted
Your chances of being a victim of a violent crime are also significantly lower. 
What are you talking about 

Please ban guns so criminals don't die as much and we can have as much violent crime as europe"
Oh ya, criminals are all being killed by vigilantes in the U.S. 

You can't walk around Munich at night without getting mugged, but in America you might get shot if you step to me
You’d probably shoot yourself in the foot. Don’t you think muggers would recognize how poor you are and not waste their time on you?

The United States has 6.4 murders for every 100,000 people.

Germany has .82, less than 1 per 100,000

#129
SocraticGregarian96
SocraticGregarian96's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 123
0
2
3
SocraticGregarian96's avatar
SocraticGregarian96
0
2
3
"We are the only advanced country with this kind of gun violence” No we are the only advancec country that has GUNS and GUN RIGHTS. That why we’re better.

"50,000 people are killed by gun violence each year” 2,408 babies die by abortion per day, thousands of chronic illnesses (which RFK talks about), and 1 by ALL rifles. Stop the farces that rifles are killing the country, and that killing a baby is a human right. And that a rifle almost killed Pres. Trump, when it was the media that pushed propaganda.
#130
SocraticGregarian96
SocraticGregarian96's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 123
0
2
3
SocraticGregarian96's avatar
SocraticGregarian96
0
2
3
Let’s take a poll: Say " Trump " if you support him, and “BIDEN" if you support him. (or RFK/other 3rd party candidates)

#131
Moozer325
Moozer325's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 1,186
3
2
8
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
3
2
8
-->
@TheUnderdog
but they also had comparably low homicide rates before their strict gun laws, so it's not fair to say less guns leads to a less homicide. 
But the gun homicide rates went significantly down when the measures were implemented. You can’t deny that.
Topic's author
#132
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
It’s absolutely fair and appropriate to equate the number of guns to the number of homicides. Less guns has consistently meant less homicides 
This is like saying that if you leave a cup of salt water in the sun to evaporate, then less salt water = less salt.  The salt (people that want to murder with guns) aren't going away.  Only the water (people with guns that don't want to murder with them) would go away with a total gun ban.


Topic's author
#133
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@SocraticGregarian96
Let’s take a poll: Say " Trump " if you support him, and “BIDEN" if you support him. (or RFK/other 3rd party candidates)
RFK.  He wants to cut the military budget in half.
Topic's author
#134
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Moozer325
But the gun homicide rates went significantly down when the measures were implemented. You can’t deny that.
Intentional homicides (per 100,000 people) - Sweden | Data (worldbank.org).  Sweden implemented strict gun control measures in 1996 and their homicide rate didn't fall significantly because of it.  

So this opinion you have is very unresearched.
#135
SocraticGregarian96
SocraticGregarian96's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 123
0
2
3
SocraticGregarian96's avatar
SocraticGregarian96
0
2
3
-->
@TheUnderdog
"Intentional homicides (per 100,000 people) - Sweden | Data (worldbank.org).  Sweden implemented strict gun control measures in 1996 and their homicide rate didn't fall significantly because of it.  So this opinion you have is very unresearched.” Exactly. Also, lets say gun homocide did drop, so would self-defense cases. And the criminals that have guns would keep their guns anyway, and then we’d be exactly where London is.


#136
Moozer325
Moozer325's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 1,186
3
2
8
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
3
2
8
-->
@TheUnderdog
Okay fine, it didn’t work in Sweden, but it did work in Austria, New Zealand, The United Kingdom, Canada, Japan etc. 

The evidence shows it works more then it doesn’t. But even if there was a good chance it didn’t work, the measures can’t hurt right?

The biggest problem they could cause was making some impatient people mad, so why not try?
#137
Moozer325
Moozer325's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 1,186
3
2
8
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
3
2
8
-->
@TheUnderdog
Here a source for Australia. If you need more, I’m happy to provide.

Topic's author
#138
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Moozer325
The evidence shows it works more then it doesn’t. But even if there was a good chance it didn’t work, the measures can’t hurt right?
The measures harm this nation if they don't significantly reduce the homicide rate because they unjustly tread on liberty.  If the law forced everyone to wear orange shirts every Monday, then nobody gets harmed by that law.  That doesn't mean it's a good law because it treads on freedom pointlessly.  Wearing an orange shirt every Monday should be strictly optional.

I read the source.  I looked at charts A and B.  In chart A, the firearm homicide rate(FHR) was falling before the gun control and falling slightly faster after the gun control.  Also, the non firearm homicide rate (NFHR) fell a little bit in that study as well (chart B).  It's widely believed that gun control laws effect the firearm homicide rate, but nobody believes gun control laws would reduce the non-firearm homicide rate.  But both homicide rates went down, so it's safe to assume that some other policy that happened in 1996 caused this to happen.  Otherwise, the FHR would have fallen and the NFHR would have been virtually the same.
#139
SocraticGregarian96
SocraticGregarian96's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 123
0
2
3
SocraticGregarian96's avatar
SocraticGregarian96
0
2
3
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Guns? Sure. But other countries have knife violence instead. And we are the first advanced country with thee kind of gun rights too.
#140
SocraticGregarian96
SocraticGregarian96's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 123
0
2
3
SocraticGregarian96's avatar
SocraticGregarian96
0
2
3
It’s not the weapons, it’s the people. 
#141
SocraticGregarian96
SocraticGregarian96's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 123
0
2
3
SocraticGregarian96's avatar
SocraticGregarian96
0
2
3
Thoughts on the RNC? 
And do y’all think that Biden will be replaced? 
#142
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@TheUnderdog
This is like saying that if you leave a cup of salt water in the sun to evaporate, then less salt water = less salt.  The salt (people that want to murder with guns) aren't going away.  Only the water (people with guns that don't want to murder with them) would go away with a total gun ban.
Where did you get this weird analogy from? Did you make that up yourself?

What happens when the people who own guns snap and decide to go on a rampage? Like the guy who shot over 500 concert goers in Las Vegas.

We are trying to get rid of guns that are designed for war. Not weapons for hunting or personal protection.
#143
Tidycraft
Tidycraft's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 135
0
2
4
Tidycraft's avatar
Tidycraft
0
2
4
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
All Americans know how to do is make war all aver the world
Topic's author
#144
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Where did you get this weird analogy from? Did you make that up yourself?
Yes; anyone that wants to murder won’t turn in their guns; only some people that don’t want to murder will turn in their guns.

What happens when the people who own guns snap and decide to go on a rampage?
People don’t just snap.

But it is collectivist to ban AR 15s for 20 million people because one of them decided to do a mass shooting.  Before you defend collectivism, here are more examples of collectivism: Islamaphobia, racism, sexism.  It is not acceptable to judge the group by the individual whether it’s with Muslims or owners of the most popular rifle in the nation!  

We are trying to get rid of guns that are designed for war.
Every gun at some point (even the rifle) was either a weapon of war at some point or was more powerful than a prior weapon of war.

But you seem to have the belief that human life is priceless (you would believe if gun control saves just one life, then it’s worth it no matter the treading on liberty) simply because you believe human life is priceless.  This is a belief you have not thought through.

If human life was priceless and the government believed human life was priceless, then the government can force every single household to adopt as many children as they can afford if it saves just one life.

You will save tens of thosands of CHILDREN'S lives by forcing peolle to adopt chimdren.  That does not mean we should force people to adopt.

 This means innocent human life is not priceless, not even the life of a child.

#145
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@Tidycraft
America saved the world from the Axis powers.
#146
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@TheUnderdog
People don’t just snap.
Ya, they do. The Las Vegas shooter for example


#147
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@TheUnderdog
But it is collectivist to ban AR 15s for 20 million people because one of them decided to do a mass shooting.
One? You are not being honest 

#148
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@TheUnderdog
Every gun at some point (even the rifle) was either a weapon of war at some point or was more powerful than a prior weapon of war.
Don’t be a moron. Think like an adult. Weapons of war weren’t always cable of mass murder. Now they are. The Founders expected us to adapt to that reality.
That’s why they made the Constitution amendable 

Topic's author
#149
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Ya, they do. The Las Vegas shooter for example
He had issues beforehand.  I don't think he just snapped.

But it is collectivist to ban AR 15s for 20 million people because one of them decided to do a mass shooting.
One? You are not being honest 
It might be 100.  If there are 20,000,000 AR 15 owners in the US and 100 of them commit a mass shooting, then it's collectivist to take AR 15s away from the 19,999,900 AR 15 owners that didn't murder.

Don’t be a moron. Think like an adult. 
It turns out enough actual adults agree with legalizing AR 15s for me to think like a libertarian adult.  I believe in freedom if you aren't harming anyone else significantly and are old enough (and the vast majority of AR 15 owners don't), you believe in reducing unwanted pain even if it means you are going to have to institute some level of collectivism.  Our morality is different, and I respect yours and I hope you respect mine.  We are both anti Trump, for instance; I don't think he is pro LUSHOOTY and you don't think he's AUP.

Weapons of war weren’t always cable of mass murder. Now they are.
Also, a man is capable of beating his wife up.  As long as he doesn't do that, he can look like John Cena and have all that destructive power and it's fine.  The vast majority of AR 15 owners aren't going to murder (just like the vast majority of Muslims aren't going to be terrorists).  Just have freedom!  The counterargument you might make:

Muslims are people, guns are not
Muslims and AR 15 owners are both people.  Owning an AR 15 and being muslim are choices.  Should someone be banned from making a choice because a small portion of people in their group use that choice to do something bad?  No.  I apply this for Muslims and AR 15 owners; the left pities Muslims for being brown and view AR 15 owners are strong and scary, so they operate on their feelings.

The Founders expected us to adapt to that reality.
On one hand, you say this.  On the other hand, you trash the founding fathers for owning slaves.

That’s why they made the Constitution amendable 
That doesn't mean it should be amended.
#150
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@TheUnderdog
He had issues beforehand.  I don't think he just snapped.
Not true. You need to go back and educate yourself. If he truly had issues beforehand, how did he buy all those assault weapons?