The AR15 IS a weapon of war and IS designed to kill people!!!!!

I already accepted your concession of the points made in the OP..
No need for you to concede further

When you get tired of playing in the sandbox let me know.

 

(Note:I edited out your absurd ad-hom that is unworthy of response.)

No, this is:

For me to post data that "I know" has been "spun/tweaked", would be quite dishonest, wouldn't it? I try not to do that.

(Note:I edited out ANOTHER of your absurd ad-homs, unworthy of response.)
It's not what "I" call a uniform report, it's what the FBI calls it. It is the standard source for crime data used by pretty much everyone who is interested in the topic. From their website:
"The Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program generates reliable statistics for use in law enforcement. It also provides information for students of criminal justice, researchers, the media, and the public. The program has been providing crime statistics since 1930." https://ucr.fbi.gov

(Note:I edited out ANOTHER of your absurd ad-homs, unworthy of response.)
Violent crimes committed per 100,000 people.

(Note:I edited out ANOTHER of your absurd ad-homs, unworthy of response.)
The FBI data is not in doubt by... well... pretty much anyone but you. There are nearly HALF the violent crimes committed now, than 30 years ago. You challenged my honesty when you said I was posting opinion that I knew to have been spun or tweaked. That would be really dishonest, wouldn't it?

The FBI report has little to do with guns. It is about crime. That there absolutely are "more guns" now, as compared to 30 years ago, is a foregone conclusion with further citation unnecessary.

Because "shootings" are a tiny subset of violent crime. When people reference "shootings" in the frame of how guns impact peaceable society, they are not taking into account the rest of the story.

Please note how I have answered you respectfully, and without resorting to childish ad-hom fallacies. If you choose to respond to me further, please do extend the same courtesy.

 

You've let the cat out of the bag now. I thought it was a matter of 'understanding' that kept you off balance but in an attempt at offering you "a way out" of your predicament (with at least some honour intact) I inadvertently scathed your pride even more. Ooops! You must be seething right now.

 

Interesting
And over that same period, did the number of guns in the US increase, or decrease?

 

What is going on in your head? How in god's name can you interpret "knowing instinctually that something has been spun or tweaked" be directed at anything you've originated yourself? That's weird.

 

I already accepted your concession of the points made in the OP..
No need for you to concede further

When you get tired of playing in the sandbox let me know.

 

Well, I would imagine that the number of guns in the US has INCREASED. Data I have says there are 434 million firearms currently in circulation, that the government knows about. Between 1991 and 2019 213 million new firearms were made available to the US market, including domestic production and imported firearms.

More guns, less violent crime.... demonstrably.

 

That is definitely NOT TRUE. I can assume you have little or no contact with the outside world, particularly the population of the world that has been devastated by American treachery.

Stop it RIGHT NOW or you'll be on my 'block list' faster than Froggy can plunk his magic twanger.

You are having grave difficulties grappling with two things:

1). shootings = shootings. Guns .... you know? Shooting ... you know?
2). This one requires a bit more thought and earnestness so I'll start out with a simple example and see if you are up to a "respectful" and "courteous" chat on the subject and if it goes well we can take it further. Otherwise, forget it.

Let's say that I own a gun. Just one. And with that gun, I shoot a person every month. One year = 12 shootings. Correct? Next year I buy another gun. Now I have 2 guns, right?

a). How many shootings must I commit in the new year in order to maintain my average per gun?
b). How many shootings must I commit to increasing my average?
c). And last but not least how many shootings are required for my average to decrease?

*** I remind you that you asked to keep the dialogue 'respectful', 'courteous'.... but most importantly "honest" ... so you're not going talk about knives and punches and rocks and flip-flops and hurling verbal insults, right?

So what are your answers to questions a, b , and c?

 

Given the epistemilogical and logical standards of the left - unquestionably

 

STILL blabbing?

I already accepted your concession of the points made in the OP..
No need for you to concede further

When you get tired of playing in the sandbox let me know.

 

I placed @Thingamabob on ignore after he edited out 90% of my post, only to post yet another ad-hom, even after I called him out on doing that. It appears he cannot discuss the topic without resorting to ridicule and gaslighting, to try to defend his obvious but wholly irrelevant point. I have little patience for that sort of thing.

 

Yeah. I've had him on ignore for some time now.
Like here, he immediately goes off-topic and insists you address --his-- issue, while refusing to address the issue in the topic.
He's been dismissed, he just doesn't have the means to realize it.

 

What is a weapon of war? A firearm, a knife bows and arrows,….?

The AR15 as a weapon of war? What army uses the AR15?… and in what war?

 

Make sure to take them from the criminals and the government first.

 

No one having a gun means government has guns.

He's pro police state.

 

hhmmmm, an AR 15?
Semi auto?
.223 or 5.56?

no, no and no.

a Raven Straight pull, bolt action, 458 SOCOM.
and… No Bayonet Lug. Is this an assault rifle? If so, Why?

btw , legal for civilians in many E U countries.

 

Not the job of gun owners or those advocating for them. Try coming up with a solution other than a police state.

That assertion is falsified by reality. Switzerland has more guns than most other European countries but not more shootings

That doesn't follow.

Or I can just reject your false dichotomy as the logical fallacy that it is.

 

Maybe, but that assumes the deterrent effect doesn't work. As we got more and more nuclear bombs in the world, did the number of nuclear bomb attacks increase?

Assuming that you can actually get rid of all the guns out there, sure to a point. Until the arrow and crossbow bolt shootings increase. No ballistics on them either.

Or more shooting per individual gun.

More than enough laws already exist.

And there is the crux of the problem, not the existence of guns.

 

While I tend towards most of the points overall as you do, all you've done here is create a correlation/causation fallacy. You've not shown that the more guns are the cause of the less violent crime.

 

AND... legal in California.

 

Of course not. You can't count the ducks that didn't quack. What I did show is:

1). There are more guns
2) There is less violent crime

I leave the reader to figure out what that means.

My overall point is that you can't just look at shootings when evaluating the impact that guns have on our society, there are benefits that have to be considered as well.

 

Silliness in the first degree.

And here we have it, ladies and gentlemen. The great ”what-about-ist” smoke screen nonsense. You got lost along the way I see. I’m not surprised. So many gun-culture lovers resort to it sooner or later. Where were we? What were we talking about? Gosh! Switzerland! Look! Look! Why do their guns not go on daily rampages at post offices? At churches? At the road rage? At the drive-by? At kindergartens? At primary schools? At junior high schools? At high schools? At colleges? At universities? At race-riots? At shopping malls? Their guns must be manufactured with an in-built safety device that evaluates the moral judgment of the trigger.

It ain’t the gun but the person pulling the trigger that ”shoots” …. right? The gun itself just lies there waiting for a human to pick it up, load it, take aim, and make it go ’bang’. Well, then it seems very obvious – enormously obvious – that Americans of all the people on this earth should be the last people to have these things called guns in their possession because they’re shooting everything in sight ..... not only in their own country but in virtually every nation upon earth.

So, ”controlling guns” or ”banning guns” IN THE USA is the subject, wouldn’t you say? Isn’t that what we are here to talk about in all of these various discussions about gun control and gun bans?

Do you want to talk about some other country now?

 

why is it that EVERY gun banner on this board and EVERY gun banner in office in the USA is a leftist?

 

Well since you can't back up your claim that more guns equals more violence I guess it can be dismissed.

 

Because of dishonest attempts to avoid arguments? Yeah I agree it's also why they are failures in this issue. People largely aren't gullible enough to accept their BS.