• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Ho hum, another day, another mass shooting in the US.

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
Look at what you are claiming. You want individuals to submit to mental health screenings before being licensed to carry a weapon. Yeah, i don't need to prove it when you are a shining example of a person who wants what is outside government authority.

On what basis are you declaring it outside the government's authority? You realize law enforcement already gathers mental health PHI on folks, depending on the state and situation?
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
I don't understand how this explains you citing Turkey's all-cause homicide rate from 2012...
It was the newest i could find quickly though i think it was higher in 2016. You suggested that the other developed nations did not have a problem with homicide. This means that 4.3 would be the acceptable amount of homicide. I would think that people killing other people is a problem. And people killing people with gins is a problem. You seem to have some line of acceptable amount of killing.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
Does poverty have an effect on crime?
Does the U.S. have poverty? Great let's work on that.
Generally in public policy analysis countries that are comparable in socioeconomic status are compared to each other, rather than comparing completely disparate countries.
If you are acknowledging that poverty plays a role then why not focus on poverty?
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
:shrug: I don't know how. We're talking about public policy. You don't make public policy based on anecdote. You base it (or rather, should base it) on robust, large data sets analyzed statistically.
You suggested that an individual was not safer with guns in the house because of a statistical truth. This was an error in logic.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
:rolleyes: Why in the world would you need to support your claims with evidence? Silly me.

The data I cited supports my conclusions. This is why I cited it. If you want to dig into it and actually discuss specifics, then do so.
Yet it also supports my conclusions. Funny that.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
On what basis are you declaring it outside the government's authority? You realize law enforcement already gathers mental health PHI on folks, depending on the state and situation?
Outside the authority because the government cannot force someone to choose to give up their right to privacy in order to access their right to keep and bear arms.
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
It was the newest i could find quickly though i think it was higher in 2016. You suggested that the other developed nations did not have a problem with homicide.

No, that's not what I said. Please go back and read. You moved the goalpost from gun violence to homicide by all causes.

This means that 4.3 would be the acceptable amount of homicide. I would think that people killing other people is a problem. And people killing people with gins is a problem. You seem to have some line of acceptable amount of killing.

We will never eliminate all killing. Agreed? Does that mean we should implement no policies to reduce killing, since it will never be zero? If your answer is no, then you should see that your line of reasoning here is silly.

I also thought you insisted on looking at multiple years of data? One year is enough for you now?
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
Outside the authority because the government cannot force someone to choose to give up their right to privacy in order to access their right to keep and bear arms.

They can and already do depending on the state and circumstance. Public safety must be balanced with other rights.
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
You suggested that an individual was not safer with guns in the house because of a statistical truth. This was an error in logic.

Not an error in logic, a statistical fact. The fact that some specific individual may be safer does not erase the broader trend. We should base public policy on trends, not outliers.
 

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
Yet another one to add to the RF trend that 90% of fallacy claims are fallacious, and are, in fact, purely an error of the person claiming them.

I wasn't talking about your position, I was describing what I meant by 'systematic attempts at demand reduction'. Context, my friend, is important ;)

In other words a strawman. So stop bringing it up.

Reducing the spread of AIDS and hepatitis while reducing the number of dirty needles on the streets and creating access points for medical professionals to help addicts into treatment certainly does help, and not just the addicts.

It's not working for San Francisco where needles and feces are littered on the streets.

You mean Amsterdam that is far, far safer than almost all American cities of which large sections are even worse 'narco-states'?

Not according to that article.

Anyway 'securing the borders' won't stop the above anyway, as 40 years of evidence demonstrates it has minimal effect on the drug trade.

Strawman alert. Nobody said stop. I said reduce. If you continue to strawman and misrepresent I will block you.

If you want to avoid the above, then needle exchanges, and investment in treating addicts will get you much more for your money.

Nope, it just enables weak people to remain weak and helpless.

The number of drug addicts in the US with draconian penalties and massive anti-drug budget is much higher than in any other Western country. Strangely enough, these countries spend less on drug wars and more on harm reduction.

BS
 
In other words a strawman. So stop bringing it up.

Might want to check the meaning of strawman as you have clearly failed to understand the concept ;)

It's not working for San Francisco where needles and feces are littered on the streets.

It does in many places where you provide a well funded harm reduction strategy which SF doesn't have.

Not according to that article.

Well if we look at actual reality rather than empty claims, it would be around the 92nd most violent city in America.

The murder rate in Amsterdam = 2.3 per 100,000

St louis = 66
Baltimore = 55
Detroit = 39
New Orleans = 39
Chicago = 24
USA overall = 5.3

What counts as a problem in European cities would be a runaway success story in most American ones.

Nope, it just enables weak people to remain weak and helpless.

Strange that countries which pursue harm reduction strategies have much lower rates of drug use than America then


Again, if you look at actual reality rather than empty claims you can see that opiate use in America is 800% higher than in Holland

List of countries by prevalence of opiates use - Wikipedia
 

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
Might want to check the meaning of strawman as you have clearly failed to understand the concept

Nope I have a clear understanding which is why I have called you out on it. I mentioned securing the border to reduce guns and drugs. You ran away with a WoD strawman expecting me to defend it.

It does in many places where you provide a well funded harm reduction strategy which SF doesn't have.

What places? Because SF gives away free needles.

The murder rate in Amsterdam = 2.3 per 100,000

Murder is not the only indicator.

Strange that countries which pursue harm reduction strategies have much lower rates of drug use than America then

That's because they ignore the problem instead of fighting it.

Again, if you look at actual reality rather than empty claims you can see that opiate use in America is 800% higher than in Holland

Again it's easy to report lower numbers when Holland ignores personal drug use. Ignoring the problem doesn't mean it goes away.
 
Nope I have a clear understanding which is why I have called you out on it. I mentioned securing the border to reduce guns and drugs. You ran away with a WoD strawman expecting me to defend it.

Unfortunately you have completely missed the point so are continually tilting at imaginary strawmen.

I was pointing out that interdiction doesn't work. "Securing the borders" is interdiction. WoD is interdiction. They don;t work for the same reasons that I explained.

Again it's easy to report lower numbers when Holland ignores personal drug use. Ignoring the problem doesn't mean it goes away.

Netherlands Country Drug Report 2019 | www.emcdda.europa.eu

:facepalm:

I give up.
 

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
I was pointing out that interdiction doesn't work. "Securing the borders" is interdiction. WoD is interdiction. They don;t work for the same reasons that I explained

Again a strawman. You said that it doesn't work because it won't stop drugs and guns. I never said it would stop. I said it would reduce the amount coming in.

Your placing a strawman by saying that I think securing the borders will stop drug and guns from coming in.


I never said stop.

I said reduce.

Your misrepresenting my argument in place of a false argument and trying to get me to defend the misrepresentation.

That is a strawman by definition son.


I give up

You should because you've done nothing or misrepresent and provide falsehoods.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
We could call it 'quits' for a fortnight or so?

Ummm....... but that would be about another 500 gun killings, gun manslaughters and gun murders. None of them suicides, you could add about 900 to that figure if you include suicides.

:facepalm:
 
Again a strawman. You said that it doesn't work because it won't stop drugs and guns. I never said it would stop. I said it would reduce the amount coming in.

Your placing a strawman by saying that I think securing the borders will stop drug and guns from coming in.


I never said stop.

I said reduce.

Your misrepresenting my argument in place of a false argument and trying to get me to defend the misrepresentation.

That is a strawman by definition son.

You could even secure the border like Britain by building a giant sea around your country and it would do **** all like having a sea around Britain does **** all to stop the drug trade.

With mile after mile of border and coast with millions of people and millions of tons of trade coming and going you can't stop enough to make any practical difference.

For someone so keen to cry about strawmen and misrepresentation, you are pretty adept at misrepresenting. Haven't even mentioned guns for a start. I can't be bothered correcting you again though son as your reading comprehension is not the best.
 

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
For someone so keen to cry about strawmen and misrepresentation, you are pretty adept at misrepresenting. Haven't even mentioned guns for a start. I can't be bothered correcting you again though son as your reading comprehension is not the best.

I said guns and drugs.

You tried to misrepresent it as just the WoD.

You can't be bothered to correct because there is nothing to correct. Other than your own misrepresentations.
 
Top