Quantcast
House minority leader trying to blame video games for mass shootings. Update: Walmart pulls violent video game ads for 2 weeks

Forums - Politics Discussion - House minority leader trying to blame video games for mass shootings. Update: Walmart pulls violent video game ads for 2 weeks

https://medium.com/handwaving-freakoutery/everybodys-lying-about-the-link-between-gun-ownership-and-homicide-1108ed400be5

And here's one from notoriously anti-gun WaPo https://www.google.com/amp/s/beta.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/02/14/most-americans-incorrectly-think-gun-homicides-have-gotten-worse-not-better/%3foutputType=amp



Around the Network
VAMatt said:
https://medium.com/handwaving-freakoutery/everybodys-lying-about-the-link-between-gun-ownership-and-homicide-1108ed400be5

And here's one from notoriously anti-gun WaPo https://www.google.com/amp/s/beta.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/02/14/most-americans-incorrectly-think-gun-homicides-have-gotten-worse-not-better/%3foutputType=amp

Homicides are down. Great.
But Massacres are up. Not so great.



Pemalite said:
VAMatt said:
https://medium.com/handwaving-freakoutery/everybodys-lying-about-the-link-between-gun-ownership-and-homicide-1108ed400be5

And here's one from notoriously anti-gun WaPo https://www.google.com/amp/s/beta.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/02/14/most-americans-incorrectly-think-gun-homicides-have-gotten-worse-not-better/%3foutputType=amp

Homicides are down. Great.
But Massacres are up. Not so great.

That fact also says literally nothing about what impact gun control laws could have. The only thing it does is dismantle his own assertion that there is a link between increasing firearms in the US (which I have demonstrated is not exactly accurate in previous posts) and decreasing crime rates. Overall, trying to address gun control in this manner is far too general and unspecific to contribute anything to the conversation.



VAMatt said:
https://medium.com/handwaving-freakoutery/everybodys-lying-about-the-link-between-gun-ownership-and-homicide-1108ed400be5

And here's one from notoriously anti-gun WaPo https://www.google.com/amp/s/beta.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/02/14/most-americans-incorrectly-think-gun-homicides-have-gotten-worse-not-better/%3foutputType=amp

But none of those statistics are arguments against gun control or reducing the number of guns in society in order to reduce the number of mass shootings and gun-related deaths in the US.



Puppyroach said:
VAMatt said:
https://medium.com/handwaving-freakoutery/everybodys-lying-about-the-link-between-gun-ownership-and-homicide-1108ed400be5

And here's one from notoriously anti-gun WaPo https://www.google.com/amp/s/beta.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/02/14/most-americans-incorrectly-think-gun-homicides-have-gotten-worse-not-better/%3foutputType=amp

But none of those statistics are arguments against gun control or reducing the number of guns in society in order to reduce the number of mass shootings and gun-related deaths in the US.

Those demonstrate that as the number of guns in the US has increased, the number of people being killed by them has decreased.  

I've never argued that its impossible to reduce the number of people killed by guns.  I'm sure there's a way to do that.  But, that shouldn't be anyone's goal.  The goal, I would think, should be to reduce the number of deaths of innocent people, period.  Nobody has presented any evidence that taking away guns from law abiding people will achieve that.   Also, that claim doesn't pass the smell test. 

Of course, even if you could make a convincing case that taking guns from non-violent people would reduce the total number of deaths in the US, you'd still have the problem of doing so being a violation of everyone's basic human rights.  I'm not willing to violate everyone's rights, especially in service of an unsubstantiated claim about it making people less likely to be the victim of violent crime.    

   



Around the Network
VAMatt said:
Puppyroach said:

But none of those statistics are arguments against gun control or reducing the number of guns in society in order to reduce the number of mass shootings and gun-related deaths in West Korea.

1.  Those demonstrate that as the number of guns in West Korea has increased, the number of people being killed by them has decreased.  

2.  you'd still have the problem of doing so being a violation of everyone's basic human rights.     

1.  The level it decreased to is still so high that it cannot be stated that firearms ownership makes people safer or even has a causal influence in the trend, especially when compared to the levels held by developed nations with gun control (many of which are experiencing decreased levels of their own).


2.  Firearms ownership is not a basic human right.  It's not even acknowledged as a human right (check the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights if you don't believe me).  Heck, West Korea is virtually the only developed country that holds it as a right for its own citizens, and even West Korea fails to advocate for its adoption globally.



VAMatt said:
Puppyroach said:

But none of those statistics are arguments against gun control or reducing the number of guns in society in order to reduce the number of mass shootings and gun-related deaths in the US.

Those demonstrate that as the number of guns in the US has increased, the number of people being killed by them has decreased.  

I've never argued that its impossible to reduce the number of people killed by guns.  I'm sure there's a way to do that.  But, that shouldn't be anyone's goal.  The goal, I would think, should be to reduce the number of deaths of innocent people, period.  Nobody has presented any evidence that taking away guns from law abiding people will achieve that.   Also, that claim doesn't pass the smell test. 

Of course, even if you could make a convincing case that taking guns from non-violent people would reduce the total number of deaths in the US, you'd still have the problem of doing so being a violation of everyone's basic human rights.  I'm not willing to violate everyone's rights, especially in service of an unsubstantiated claim about it making people less likely to be the victim of violent crime.    

This assertion has already been demonstrated to be false on both counts:

1) The percentage of households with firearms has been decreasing for decades. It has not been increasing. Using the raw number of guns in the country is a bad faith argument.

2) Your own sources argue that there is not a negative correlation between number of guns and crime rates as you seem to be asserting.

Finally, what proposal are you arguing against right now, because it really feels like a strawman. Gun control does not mean "Take away all guns". Proposals such as Universal Background Checks and preventing individuals with violent misdemeanors and substance abuse convictions do not take guns away from law abiding citizens by definition.

It is quite difficult to actually hold a conversation when you seem to be arguing against bogeyman and ignoring anyone who tells you why you are wrong.



SuaveSocialist said:
VAMatt said:

1.  Those demonstrate that as the number of guns in West Korea has increased, the number of people being killed by them has decreased.  

2.  you'd still have the problem of doing so being a violation of everyone's basic human rights.     

1.  The level it decreased to is still so high that it cannot be stated that firearms ownership makes people safer or even has a causal influence in the trend, especially when compared to the levels held by developed nations with gun control (many of which are experiencing decreased levels of their own).


2.  Firearms ownership is not a basic human right.  It's not even acknowledged as a human right (check the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights if you don't believe me).  Heck, West Korea is virtually the only developed country that holds it as a right for its own citizens, and even West Korea fails to advocate for its adoption globally.

1)  Okay.  What's your point?  

2) The right to defend yourself is absolutely a human right.  Without the legal ability to keep and bear arms, your right to defend yourself has been infringed, as you lack the ability to do so.  The fact that the UN (a totally incompetent organization that has among its members the most brutal regimes in recent history) doesn't call out firearms as a human right is absolutely meaningless.  Of course that group of oligarchs doesn't want the plebes armed.  



SuaveSocialist said:
VAMatt said:

1.  Those demonstrate that as the number of guns in West Korea has increased, the number of people being killed by them has decreased.  

2.  you'd still have the problem of doing so being a violation of everyone's basic human rights.     

1.  The level it decreased to is still so high that it cannot be stated that firearms ownership makes people safer or even has a causal influence in the trend, especially when compared to the levels held by developed nations with gun control (many of which are experiencing decreased levels of their own).


2.  Firearms ownership is not a basic human right.  It's not even acknowledged as a human right (check the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights if you don't believe me).  Heck, West Korea is virtually the only developed country that holds it as a right for its own citizens, and even West Korea fails to advocate for its adoption globally.

"Firearms ownership is not a basic human right."

in america it is

you do understand that arming the proletariat is one of the central tenets of socialism right? how can you be a socialist when you are in favour of disarming workers and giving all power to the state to oppress those workers? are you being serious right now?

Last edited by o_O.Q - on 16 August 2019

VAMatt said:
SuaveSocialist said:

1.  The level it decreased to is still so high that it cannot be stated that firearms ownership makes people safer or even has a causal influence in the trend, especially when compared to the levels held by developed nations with gun control (many of which are experiencing decreased levels of their own).


2.  Firearms ownership is not a basic human right.  It's not even acknowledged as a human right (check the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights if you don't believe me).  Heck, West Korea is virtually the only developed country that holds it as a right for its own citizens, and even West Korea fails to advocate for its adoption globally.

1)  Okay.  What's your point?  

2) The right to defend yourself is absolutely a human right.  Without the legal ability to keep and bear arms, your right to defend yourself has been infringed, as you lack the ability to do so.  The fact that the UN (a totally incompetent organization that has among its members the most brutal regimes in recent history) doesn't call out firearms as a human right is absolutely meaningless.  Of course that group of oligarchs doesn't want the plebes armed.  

"f course that group of oligarchs doesn't want the plebes armed.  "

this is what makes this exchange so amusing - that guy claims to be a socialist, he's literally supposed to be on your side of this issue lol