isn't it obvious that having a gun around during an argument will increase the likelihood of murder?

Author: n8nrgmi ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 12
  • n8nrgmi
    n8nrgmi avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,002
    2
    2
    3
    n8nrgmi avatar
    n8nrgmi
    if it's true that the gun increases the likelihood of murder during an argument, then why do gun nuts insist that having guns around makes no difference in the murder rate? 

    also, look at the major english speaking countries, USA, UK, canada, and australia (you can also look at the developed world, too)... they all have the same nongun homicide rate. but when u look at gun homicide rate, the usa is wildly out of sync. it's noteworthy, that the usa has half the world's guns while havin only four percent of the world's population.

    so we go back to the simple example, having a gun around during an argument. of course having guns around increases the murder rate... to say anything else denies the obvious example, and ignores the science. now, i'm sure folks will continue to ignore why there isn't a wildly out of whack nongun murder rate in the usa. but the simple fact remains, that if the usa just has a bad person problem and not a gun problem, there would be wildly out of whack non-gun murders too. (to be sure it's possible that folks just prefer to use guns instead of other weapons... but this is still too far fetched, cause if it's true, there should still be non-gun murders wildly out of whack)

    what non sense and non answers do ya'll gun nuts have to answer with?
  • SirAnonymous
    SirAnonymous avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 3,192
    3
    7
    10
    SirAnonymous avatar
    SirAnonymous
    --> @n8nrgmi
    May I humbly suggest that calling people nuts, telling them that they're denying the obvious and ignoring the science, telling them that you already know their answers will be nonsense, talking down to them, and making it clear that you are unquestionably right and that they are unquestionably wrong is only going to entrench people in their positions and shut down productive dialogue before it even has a chance to start? I'm not trying to be rude in any way, but if you're trying to change minds, the tone of your OP ensures that you will fail.
  • MisterChris
    MisterChris avatar
    Debates: 42
    Forum posts: 2,354
    5
    9
    11
    MisterChris avatar
    MisterChris
    This is like blaming car crashes on the multitude of cars. Yes, there is a correlation. No, that does not translate to banning all cars. 


  • Intelligence_06
    Intelligence_06 avatar
    Debates: 55
    Forum posts: 1,832
    4
    7
    11
    Intelligence_06 avatar
    Intelligence_06
    --> @MisterChris
    I agree. We might take it to another level where we ban people straight because people commit crimes.
  • SirAnonymous
    SirAnonymous avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 3,192
    3
    7
    10
    SirAnonymous avatar
    SirAnonymous
    --> @Intelligence_06
    That's a good idea! Now why didn't anyone think of that before?
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 9,783
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @n8nrgmi
    what non sense and non answers..

    And non arguments from the OP. Nice rant though.
  • Dr.Franklin
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Debates: 32
    Forum posts: 8,880
    4
    7
    11
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Dr.Franklin
    doesn't it make sense that when you have a pool in your yard, your chances of drowning increase
  • ILikePie5
    ILikePie5 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 6,928
    3
    5
    9
    ILikePie5 avatar
    ILikePie5
    Having a lot of dihydrogen monoxide in your house increases the risk of death due to dihydrogen monoxide poisoning
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 3,729
    3
    3
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @n8nrgmi
    Weapons effect is a scientifically established principle.


14 days later

  • n8nrgmi
    n8nrgmi avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,002
    2
    2
    3
    n8nrgmi avatar
    n8nrgmi
    ya'll are just ignoring why there isn't a wildly out of proportion nongun homicide rate in the usa. totally stupid arguments

    also, do ya'll think having a gun around during an argument doesn't increase the liklihood of murder? totally lacking common sense if that's what u think. 
  • n8nrgmi
    n8nrgmi avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,002
    2
    2
    3
    n8nrgmi avatar
    n8nrgmi
    also, having a gun around when a person is suicidal has been proven to increase the liklihood they will kill themselves. why wouldn't having a gun around during an argument increase the liklihood that a person would kill another person? 
  • n8nrgmi
    n8nrgmi avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,002
    2
    2
    3
    n8nrgmi avatar
    n8nrgmi
    You liberals freak out about guns. If you have a swimming pool or a bathtub, that’s more dangerous to neighborhood kids than a gun is. Kids under age 14 are much more likely to die from drowning than from firearms. So why this crusade against guns, but not against bathtubs and pools?
    Your numbers are basically right, but only because young children routinely swim and take baths but don’t regularly encounter firearms. But look at the picture for the population as a whole: Over all, 3,600 Americans drown each year, while 36,000 die from guns (yes, including suicides). That’s one reason to be talking more about gun safety than about pool safety.
    Note also that a backyard pool isn’t going to be used to mug a neighbor, or to invade a nearby school. Schools don’t have drills for an “active pool situation.” And while some 200,000 guns are stolen each year, it’s more difficult to steal a pool and use it for a violent purpose.
    Moreover, we do try to make pools safer. Many jurisdictions require a permit for a pool, as well as a childproof fence around it with self-locking gates. If we have permits and safe storage requirements for pools, why not for guns? What’s wrong with trying to save lives?
    also the argument that pools cause more deaths, often implies that guns dont have a causation element in causing murder. it's implied that the gun just happens to be used to cause murder. but the whole point of the data i've been spittin, is that guns are cause causation... having guns around increases the liklihood of murder. there's no rational way around the data. ya'll too stupid to debate properly.