Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 51 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,178 Year: 5,435/9,624 Month: 460/323 Week: 100/204 Day: 0/16 Hour: 0/1


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House Gun Control

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gun Control
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3212 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


(2)
(1)
Message 9 of 310 (668947)
07-26-2012 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Jon
07-25-2012 7:42 PM


Yes, it is evident based on context, but it has also been argued that we already have our militia: the National Guard
Sure. Except what happens when it's the National Guard that we all need to protect ourselves from?
Do you think it is going to make a hill of beans difference what the 2nd Amendment states if individual citizens are defending themselves against the National Guard or the US Military. At that point federal and even state legislation is a moot point. Not that I think this will ever happen.
The purpose of the 2nd Ammendment was to allow the individual citizen the right to have weapons for the protection of himself and his loved ones through militias and the like against any future tyranical powers that could possibly take away his 'God-given' freedoms. That is most likely what the framers and ratifiers of the Consitition and Bill of Rights intended.
Certain gun enthusiasts have taken this freedom to a whole new extreme wanting very few if any restrictions on highly lethal weaponry (automatic and semi-automtic machine guns, unlimited ammo and weapon stashing, high capacity magazines, etc) that no 18th century patriot could dare imagine much less advocate.
Regulation of firearms does not mean taking away your right to bear arms any more than restricting people from incite fear and violence without just cause (i.e. yelling fire in a crowded room when there is no fire or saying there is a bomb on a plane or bus when there isn't one) takes away from your freedom of speach. All inalienable rights require a certain amount of qualifiers and controls to protect other people's freedoms and allow for public safety.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Jon, posted 07-25-2012 7:42 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Jon, posted 07-26-2012 6:51 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied
 Message 12 by Buzsaw, posted 07-26-2012 7:17 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied
 Message 13 by crashfrog, posted 07-26-2012 8:27 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3212 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


(1)
Message 90 of 310 (669060)
07-26-2012 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by crashfrog
07-26-2012 8:27 AM


only to say that unfortunately for you the Second Amendment constitutionally prohibits disarming the American people in the name of public safety.
So why the differentiation between automatic machine guns and semi-automatic machine guns. According to your reasoning everyone citizen in the country should be able to strap on an uzi or carry around an M-16, just in case they need it to protect themselves from our tyranical government.
It's precisely because something like an AR-15 approaches a military level of effectiveness that the Second Amendment protects its ownership.
And a fully automatic machine gun or sawed off shotguns is even one step better. Why restrict one and not the other. Your reasoning for discreminating between the two does not make any sense. There are already restrictions on the 2nd ammendment which do not allow the average citizen to own military or military-like weaponry. The question is what do we consider 'arms' protected by the 2nd ammendment, not should firearms be regulated at all.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by crashfrog, posted 07-26-2012 8:27 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by crashfrog, posted 07-26-2012 5:44 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied
 Message 93 by jar, posted 07-26-2012 5:46 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied
 Message 99 by Artemis Entreri, posted 07-26-2012 7:02 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3212 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


(2)
Message 96 of 310 (669070)
07-26-2012 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by crashfrog
07-26-2012 5:44 PM


So why the differentiation between automatic machine guns and semi-automatic machine guns.
It's a common misconception, I guess, that the military fights wars by spraying a million bullets all over the place with no regard for accuracy. This is the misconception that causes you to think that "according to your reasoning everyone citizen in the country should be able to strap on an uzi or carry around an M-16".
I am in the military crashfrog. I understand all too well about accuracy and precision in a firefight. However, your statement does not answer the question of why we should differentiate between fully automatic and semi-automatic weapons in the 2nd Ammendment.
And a fully automatic machine gun or sawed off shotguns is even one step better.
Well, I guess you should write a letter to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and tell them that they're fighting wars all wrong, and that we should be sending our boys and girls shotguns and hacksaws instead of M4's (which, incidentally, has replaced the M16 nearly universally in the Army, and has no fully-automatic firing mode.)
Again, you have no understanding who you are talking to and you are speaking out of ignorance. Our standard weapons in the Navy on our ships for force protection are the M-16, M-14, M-9 (9mm) and Mossberg 500 shotgun. There are other small arms used but these are the most common. The M-16 is used on many ships now as well and for force protection watches ashore, it is also the standard weapon for the SEALS as well as the other services. It can be used in the fully auto or semi-automatic modes depending on the situation. We use the M-14 in the semi-automatic mode for quick bursts of fire in close quarters. We use the M-9 for our quarterdeck watches and as a backup on other force protection watches topside. The shotgun is use to clear rooms and small spaces at close ranges.
M-16
M14
Mossberg Shotgun
There are already restrictions on the 2nd ammendment which do not allow the average citizen to own military or military-like weaponry.
That's inaccurate,
It is not inaccurate. You are restricted from owning a fully automatic machine gun without a registration with the ATF and a background check and in 13 states automatic machine guns are illegal no matter what.
and again, the Second Amendment isn't a protection of your right to hunt or shoot trap, it's a protection of your right to pose a credible threat to an invading military or a despotic government
If you read my posts you would have realized I actually stated that.
Message 9
Me writes:
The purpose of the 2nd Ammendment was to allow the individual citizen the right to have weapons for the protection of himself and his loved ones through militias and the like against any future tyranical powers that could possibly take away his 'God-given' freedoms. That is most likely what the framers and ratifiers of the Consitition and Bill of Rights intended.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by crashfrog, posted 07-26-2012 5:44 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by crashfrog, posted 07-26-2012 7:48 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3212 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


(1)
Message 97 of 310 (669071)
07-26-2012 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by jar
07-26-2012 5:46 PM


Re: on automatic firearms
As I mentioned to you over in the Colorado thread, it is legal to have fully automatic firearm but I need to have a full criminal background check, current finger prints registered and purchase a tax stamp for each firearm. I also need to agree to having the weapon kept in a safe and have the tax stamp for that firearm with it during transportation and agree to allow the BATF to enter my home for inspection and verification that the terms and conditions are being met.
Correct, here are all the restrictions and conditions:
1. Be a US Citizen at least 21 years old
2. Be of sane mind (hmm that is questionable
3. Not an abuser of drugs or alcohol
4. Have never been convicted of a felony
5. Pay a $200.00 Federal Transfer Tax on each weapon purchased. (This is a one-time tax, not a yearly tax)
6. Fill out BATF Form 4 and submit to ATF. This involves getting a Signature of the "Chief Law Enforcement Officer" in your area signifying that he has no knowledge that you will use your weapon for anything other that lawful purposes
7. Have your fingerprints/photographs taken and submitted to BATF with the above application.
So you can own these weapons but only under certain conditions and regulations.
Also, it is illegal in 13 states to own any type of automatic machine gun no matter what (and in 6 of which unless your a licensed class arms dealer) . This seems to an issue in which states rights directly contradict the the 2nd Ammendment in the strictist letter of the law.
Now do you honestly think you can carry that machine gun around with you in public. No, I think not, no matter how much you invoke the 2nd ammendment. Is that not a restriction on your right to 'bear arms'.
Should we mention any type of arms i.e. bazookas, grenade launchers, samaria swords, and the like? The 2nd Ammendment in fact does not say 'firearms' but 'arms' which has a much broader meaning.
See how we can twist the 2nd Ammendment to our own individual interpretations. It is up to the goverment and ultimately ourselves as to how we define our own laws including our individual rights.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by jar, posted 07-26-2012 5:46 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by jar, posted 07-26-2012 6:51 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3212 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


(1)
Message 100 of 310 (669077)
07-26-2012 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Artemis Entreri
07-26-2012 7:02 PM


per the definition of machine gun, I think it has to be fully automatic to be a machine gun.
You are correct, I mispoke. An automatic rifle is a machine gun and a semi-automatic rifle is not.
I understand how those ignorant about his topic could get confused in the case of a Gatlin gun (a really fast semi-auto) that is often mistaken for a fully automatic firearm.
I believe the original gatling gun was semi-automatic as it required a human to hand crank it. However, modern military gatling guns are fully automatic as they do not require manual actions to refire once the trigger is pulled.
Though there is no such thing as an "assault weapon" either, and that never stops the anti-gunners from pretending there is.
Agreed. "Assault Weapon" is an ambiguous term. And no I am not an anti-gunner. Just a realist. I believe in the right to bear arms but am concerned about how much and what type of 'arms' we need to bear.
I am more in favor of enforcement of the laws we already have rather than restrict innocent law-abiding citizens.
Agreed. However we did have a law that restricted large capacity magazine and the like. I also believe that we need to close loop-holes in gun registration and background checks.
what do you mean by sawed-off? do you mean a shorter than 18" barrel? Or do you mean a modified shotgun with a barrel that has literally been sawed?
My point is that why do we regulate some firearms and not others. I am not advocating an outright ban on semi-automatic weapons. I do though advocate a restrictions on high-capacity magazines and the like. The whole gun regulation is issue is chalk full of problems that need to be fixed.
Is that rifle a civilian hunting rifle or a "military-like high powered sniper rifle"?
Both. Again, it is a subjective matter to determine what 'arms' should the average citizen be able to "keep and bear'. Should they be able to carry a concealed sub-machine gun in a movie theater or the like. Where do we draw the line?
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Artemis Entreri, posted 07-26-2012 7:02 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by crashfrog, posted 07-26-2012 7:56 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied
 Message 111 by Artemis Entreri, posted 07-26-2012 9:10 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3212 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 102 of 310 (669080)
07-26-2012 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by jar
07-26-2012 6:51 PM


Re: on automatic firearms
Now do you honestly think you can carry that machine gun around with you in public.
Not today but during my lifetime, sure you could, and I really hope it will be true once again during my lifetime.
I'm actually a strong supporter of unlimited open carry, and wish it were legal to open carry all over the US.
The big reason that I favor open carry is that I really believe that would help change the current caricature of gun owners. In a half century, including period when I carried openly, period when I concealed carry, times when I did not carry, I have yet to shoot anyone; even those that needed shooting.
That is all we need is everyone carrying around there personal uzis.
Can you really speak for everyone and say that anyone should be able to carry a machine gun. How do you when the next average citizen is going to snap. And with a machine gun in there hands that could potentially be a blood bath. We have enough problems with handguns and rifles without bringing in machine guns into the mix.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by jar, posted 07-26-2012 6:51 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by jar, posted 07-26-2012 7:54 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3212 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 105 of 310 (669083)
07-26-2012 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by jar
07-26-2012 7:54 PM


Re: on automatic firearms
I'm not against some restrictions but I have nothing against everyone openly carrying even an Uzi (not all that reliable) and I have no idea now when the next average citizen is gonna snap and drive a car into a crowd.
I personally would favor stronger training and certification for carrying a firearm (even an Uzi) but even stronger training and certification before being allowed to drive a car.
Good point about the car. Maybe I am just a little wary and nervous about the average joe blow carrying a machine gun into Walmart. Of course Israel military members and police wear there rifles everywhere on and off duty.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by jar, posted 07-26-2012 7:54 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by jar, posted 07-26-2012 8:17 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3212 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 106 of 310 (669084)
07-26-2012 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by crashfrog
07-26-2012 7:48 PM


However, your statement does not answer the question of why we should differentiate between fully automatic and semi-automatic weapons in the 2nd Ammendment.
Because there's a public safety interest in doing so, and merely differentiating between different types of weapons does not infringe the Second Amendment. Why would it?
My point exactly. I have been alluding to this entire thread. I think we were just speaking past each other. So the question is should we or should we not restrict semi-automatic weapons in any way. I am kind of wavering on this issue.
I definately think they should be more regulated in that the gun-show loopholes should be closed and all gun ownership should require background checks and registrations. To me I do not think that in any way restricts your right to own guns, but just to reduce the chance they fall into the wrong hands.
I never said that it wasn't. In all honesty, DA, I don't see why you even bothered to post. What do you think you actually contradicted me about?
It just seemed to me that you were preaching to me about how I should contact the JCOS about how we are not using shotguns and other non-machine gun weaponry. Maybe I just missed your point. This thread and the preceding one have led down a long and windy path.
Besides I enjoyed posting pictures of the Navy firing weaponry. Sorry a little service envy as it seems everyone only equates the Army and Marines with small caliber weapons and forgets about the Navy
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by crashfrog, posted 07-26-2012 7:48 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by crashfrog, posted 07-26-2012 9:09 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3212 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


(1)
Message 107 of 310 (669086)
07-26-2012 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by crashfrog
07-26-2012 7:56 PM


Why should I be concerned if someone is carrying a concealed submachine gun in a movie theater if they have no intent to use it? If they intend to use it there, that's already against the law. How is the public safety served by restricting the rights of gun owners who won't ever commit mass murder with their firearms?
We are taught in the military about the 3 sides of the deadly force triangle : opportunity, capability and intent. In force protection cases we use this to determine whether we should use deadly force in a situation (this was adopted from law enforcement sources). In the case above all that is missing is the 'intent'. Both capability and opportunity already exist. However, with more powerful weaponry, the capacity to kill many more people than with a non-machine gun exists. Therefore, public safety outweighs the neccessity for a person to carry a machine gun. Again the rights of one person do not outweigh the rights (the right to live) of anyone else. Just a point to ponder.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by crashfrog, posted 07-26-2012 7:56 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by crashfrog, posted 07-26-2012 9:20 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3212 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 109 of 310 (669089)
07-26-2012 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by crashfrog
07-26-2012 1:57 PM


Re: Inclusive
Oni, there's no "training" for that. The training that police and military personnel get is how to shoot what you're aiming at, how to keep the gun clean, under what circumstances you can be armed etc. That's all the training my wife received that had to do with firearms. There's no point in the training where they say "ok, these are the guys you need to shoot; these are the guys who look like they need to be shot but shouldn't be." There's no training for that - you have to use your own inherent judgement. There's no training in the world that will tell you whether the unfamiliar shadow in your living room is your son or an armed robber - that's something you have to determine yourself in that situation.
That is not actually true in the Navy, at least. We recieve deadly force training as part of our force protection training. Nearly every duty day (about once a week) we go over some form of force protection training. But you are correct in that you can't train for every possible scenario. We do train in the different types of situations we can possibly encounter, low flying aircraft, approaching boats with weapons embarked, mobs on the pier, etc. We are trained on when deadly force triggers are reached.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by crashfrog, posted 07-26-2012 1:57 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3212 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


(1)
Message 113 of 310 (669106)
07-27-2012 1:01 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by crashfrog
07-26-2012 9:20 PM


No, of course not, but having specified that the weapon is being carried by someone who doesn't intend to fire it, I don't see how the right to life of anyone else in the theater is being infringed. And if someone does intend to kill a theater full of people then the means by which he's chosen to do that is largely immaterial.
I think what a lot of people want to do is chase down a rabbit hole where we equate capability with intent, but I think that's a mistake, and that's what leads us to the absurdity that even a completely naked human being has the capability to kill, by the use of nothing more than one's hands or feet, and therefore if capability is the same as intent, all human beings have the intent to kill at all times.
I am not equating capability to intent. I specifically dilleneated in my last post the three sides: capability, intent and opportunity. What I am saying is there is a greater capacity (not intent) to do harm to more people with a machine gun than with a pistol in one incident. The issue here is increased ability to cause more harm at one whak so to speak. If thousands are carrying machine guns or submachine guns (both are fully automatic, just difference in size) than there is an increased chance that a mass shooting can take place, simply by the increased capacity to do harm (shooting hundreds of rds per minute vice 20-30 at the most with a manual or semi-auto).

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by crashfrog, posted 07-26-2012 9:20 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by crashfrog, posted 07-27-2012 7:25 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied
 Message 118 by Jon, posted 07-27-2012 9:53 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3212 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 115 of 310 (669123)
07-27-2012 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by crashfrog
07-27-2012 7:25 AM


Is there? Stipulate that both weapons are loaded to the same capacity - you need at least one round per person you wish to harm - and I don't see that either weapon is much more dangerous than the other. Jared Lee Loughner killed six in Arizona with nothing but a Glock handgun - loaded with 33 rounds. They took him down as he reloaded, so forcing mass murderers to reload more often seems like a winning legal strategy. And I don't think the Second Amendment protects high-capacity magazines, as I've said.
And if Jare Lee Loughner was shooting a fully automatic machine gun in a stadium. How much easier and faster would it be for him to take out say 50 people than it would for a manual firearm or even a semi-automatic before someone or a group of people could 'possibly' take him out so to speak.
I don't see how seven rounds in a submachine gun is inherently more dangerous than seven rounds in a handgun.
Only because there is an increased speed of successively firing rounds out of the chamber thus making it more difficult for someone to overcome that person.
A "hundred rounds per minute" is a rate, not a capacity, and if your weapon holds only seven rounds by law, it's an entirely theoretical one.
Agreed. When I said having a greater 'capacity', I meant a greater 'capacity' to hurt more people in one incident not the actual round capacity of the gun.
All of this is, again, mostly to agree with you.
Agreed.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by crashfrog, posted 07-27-2012 7:25 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Artemis Entreri, posted 07-27-2012 8:47 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied
 Message 119 by crashfrog, posted 07-27-2012 10:46 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3212 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 139 of 310 (669239)
07-28-2012 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by New Cat's Eye
07-27-2012 3:31 PM


Re: Inclusive
Do you think the prevalence of guns is part of the cause of mass killings?
Yes, see the below maps and you tell me what these statisitics tell you.
-The United States has the highest gun ownership rate in the world an average of 88 per 100 people. That puts it first in the world for gun ownership and even the number two country, Yemen, has significantly fewer — 54.8 per 100 people
The US is at the top of the rank of number of homicides per 100,000 people in developed (first-world) countries, as high as 5.52 cases, or almost doubled the second follower Finland and
and the 21st of all the 196 countries of the world just slightly lower than Mexico and the Philippines .
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-27-2012 3:31 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by cavediver, posted 07-28-2012 11:31 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied
 Message 145 by xongsmith, posted 07-28-2012 1:37 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3212 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 168 of 310 (669310)
07-28-2012 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by xongsmith
07-28-2012 1:37 PM


Re: Inclusive
DA - could you label the plots next time? I had to go into peek mode to find out that the one above was labeled suicide by gun rate and the one below was your rate of gun homicide you were trying to portray???
I apologize, should have labled them better. Thanks.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by xongsmith, posted 07-28-2012 1:37 PM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3212 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 169 of 310 (669312)
07-28-2012 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by cavediver
07-28-2012 11:31 AM


Re: Inclusive
Correct, I cannot provide causation but can make a strong claim that as the per capita rate of gun ownership increases so does the homicide rate . Developed countries with low gun ownership generally have lower homicide rates and vice versa.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by cavediver, posted 07-28-2012 11:31 AM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by anglagard, posted 07-29-2012 6:28 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024