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

[Curious George]

Rights have to be balanced with public safety, which is the first point we covered. Gun control does save lives. Again, see the multiple studies I've cited.

Yes it reduces the number of homicides slightly (but statistically significantly). We have been over this. Are you suggesting that the equivalent decreases are not seen in years prior to gun control measures?

 

[Curious George]

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

Yet you can find gun crime and gun homicides in all of these countries still. But i am more worried about the number of crimes and the number of homicides than a specific subset.

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 have nothing against implementing policies that reduce killings and crime and do not infringe on a fundamental right.

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

Sure you can look at multiple years for that country.

 

[Curious George]

Claim, no evidence. Funny that.

Lol, are you claiming you did not provide evidence? I am saying your evidence supports my claim.

 

[Curious George]

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

Well that is different all together. If you want to use that case line then all you need to do is overcome strict scrutiny. Be my guest and make your argument. Just remember an important government interest and the law must be narrowly tailored to fit that important government interest.

 

[Curious George]

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.

It was an error in logic. Simple as that.

 

[Left Coast]

Yes it reduces the number of homicides slightly (but statistically significantly). We have been over this. Are you suggesting that the equivalent decreases are not seen in years prior to gun control measures?

I'm suggesting (actually, just outright stating) that you've shown zero actual evidence for anything you've claimed about gun control's effectiveness. Any plans to start?

 

[Curious George]

Walk and chew gum. We can do both.

Again only where chewing gum is allowed. If you want to support gun control within the authority of the government go right ahead. Meanwhile start walking with me and focus on the root issues.

 

[Left Coast]

Yet you can find gun crime and gun homicides in all of these countries still.

Again, the question: does a policy have to be 100% effective to be a good idea? You said no at first, but now you say this. The fact that gun crime doesn't reduce to zero is not a reason to conclude it doesn't work.

But i am more worried about the number of crimes and the number of homicides than a specific subset.

Crimes and homicides happen for a variety of reasons. Policy tends to need to be focused, there are no magic panacaeas. So we focus on the largest piece of the pie, which here is homicide by gun.

I have nothing against implementing policies that reduce killings and crime and do not infringe on a fundamental right.

We've been over this. Rights come into conflict in society. You aren't an autonomous island unto yourself. Your rights must be balanced with my rights.

Sure you can look at multiple years for that country.

Again, I wait with baited breath for your cited evidence and what conclusions about gun control can be drawn from it.

 

[Left Coast]

Lol, are you claiming you did not provide evidence? I am saying your evidence supports my claim.

Then it's your job to show how. Jesus this is basic.

 

[Left Coast]

Well that is different all together. If you want to use that case line then all you need to do is overcome strict scrutiny. Be my guest and make your argument. Just remember an important government interest and the law must be narrowly tailored to fit that important government interest.

I've been making the argument all along. Public safety requires us to remove the ability of homicidal people to commit homicide, as much as possible. Taking away access to firearms is an obvious example.

 

[Curious George]

I'm suggesting (actually, just outright stating) that you've shown zero actual evidence for anything you've claimed about gun control's effectiveness. Any plans to start?

I will make you a deal. If I provide citations for number of homicides/gun homicides and show that no precipitous decline in fact occurred and that any decline was slight, albeit statistically significant, then you admit that all your research supports my view.

Agreed?

 

[Left Coast]

It was an error in logic. Simple as that.

No, it wasn't. You misread what I said. The fact that you indivdually smoke every day for 50 years and don't get cancer doesn't mean that smoking doesn't greatly statistically increase your chances of getting cancer .

 

[Curious George]

Then it's your job to show how. Jesus this is basic.

And I have been. You have just chosen not to listen.

There is no great decline. Certainly not one that would suggest a reduction from our current homicide rate to that of UK's or Australia's. If you want to make a significant dent in murder you are barking up the wrong tree.

 

[Curious George]

No, it wasn't. You misread what I said. The fact that you indivdually smoke every day for 50 years and don't get cancer doesn't mean that smoking doesn't greatly statistically increase your chances of getting cancer .

You cannot even see the problem with what you said. If you meet a black person are they more likely to be a criminal?

 

[Left Coast]

I will make you a deal. If I provide citations for number of homicides/gun homicides and show that no precipitous decline in fact occurred and that any decline was slight, albeit statistically significant, then you admit that all your research supports my view.

Agreed?

Not necessarily. I'd want to know what kind of gun control was implemented, and I want to know what's "slight but statistically significant." You know what statistical significance is, right? If we're talking about hundreds or thousands of lives saved, that doesn't support your view.

 

[Curious George]

Getting shot infringes on the rights of the person who's shot.

Shooting someone is a specific act that enables us to criminally charge an individual.

Would you restrict all freedoms for a statistical reduction in a specific crime?

 

[Curious George]

Not necessarily. I'd want to know what kind of gun control was implemented, and I want to know what's "slight but statistically significant." You know what statistical significance is, right? If we're talking about hundreds or thousands of lives saved, that doesn't support your view.

Yes, I know what statistical significance is. Do you?

How much of a reduction would you want to see to merit infringing on a fundamental right?

 

[Left Coast]

You cannot even see the problem with what you said. If you meet a black person are they more likely to be a criminal?

Silly analogy. Surely you know that our criminal justice system is racially biased?

I made a very simple claim, supported with evidence. Statistically, you are less safe owning a gun than not. Yes, there are safer and less safe ways to own a gun. All gun owners are not going to suffer a gun-related injury. Fair?

 

[Left Coast]

Yes, I know what statistical significance is. Do you?

Yep.

How much of a reduction would you want to see to merit infringing on a fundamental right?

I don't accept the premise of the question because we don't agree that unlimited access to firearms is a fundamental right. If a policy saves hundreds or thousands of lives, that's worth quite a bit to me. You?

 

[Curious George]

Silly analogy. Surely you know that our criminal justice system is racially biased?

Yes, I am well aware of faults within our criminal justice system. That is not what I asked. You cannot say things like you are less safe owning a gun, anymore than you can say things like you are more likely a criminal if you are black, or a rapist if you are male or not as apt at math if you are a woman. These are errors in logic.

I made a very simple claim, supported with evidence. Statistically, you [people] are less safe owning a gun than not. Yes, there are safer and less safe ways to own a gun. All gun owners are not going to suffer a gun-related injury. Fair?

*addition is mine.

This manner of thinking is problematic. Statistical truths do not apply to the individual.