5 Ridiculous Gun Myths Everyone Believes (Thanks to Movies)

Post Reply New Topic

The US is only governed by US law and international treaties the US has signed, so the only people who hold the authority to say the war is illegal is US congress. This makes international law irrelevant. No nation has sovereignty over another nation to declare their war illegal unless it violates international treaties which both nations are bound by.

What post in here is more trollish than your raves about right wing reactionary gun nuts and stupid monkeys? I don't dismiss people as trolls merely cuz they disagree with me, but if I feel like they aren't addressing my points and just simply resorting to personal attacks and raving, then it raises my suspicion. But anyways, now that you've explained what you thought was wrong with my statistics, it's clear that you are addressing it so you should keep it at that.

Gun deaths is a vague term since it doesn't rule out suicide and justifiable homicide (self defense). They are both irrelevant, so the numbers we really need to address are the number of murders committed with firearms and whether or not illegally obtained firearms were used to commit those murders. The vast majority of guns used in crime have been obtained illegally and defensive gun use is 6 times higher than the use of guns in crime:



Also, in the vast majority of incidents where guns were defensively used, no one gets hurt:


Even with the higher level of violent crime the US has compared to other developed nations, guns are still not a big factor to em despite the fact that the vast majority of guns used by crooks are illegally obtained:


You might be surprised to know that the vast majority of violent crimes are committed by a really small minority of repeat offenders. Hell, it's even new to me:


The crack epidemic was an era where crack became big in the states. So that means more addicts, which means said addicts need money to buy crack and property crimes are a common way for desperate addicts to obtain the money to buy crack with. Violence was at an all time high, yet property crimes were on a decline which means it doesn't imply that the violence was mostly done with legally obtained firearms. My response above this one addresses "gun deaths".

The problem isn't "selective interpretation", in fact it's the opposite. Also, a definition isn't an interpretation, so it isn't so much "selective interpretation" as it is "specific definitions". The problem is with vaguely defined terms is that they are intentionally vague so that irrelevant factors aren't ruled out, which skews the statistics by artificially jacking the numbers up. "Gun deaths" is a good example of this statistical skewing.

@AoS: Be careful not to get rope-a-doped into posting and explaining a bunch of stats, only to have them dismissed on a pretext when they don't conform to someone else's reality. I've argued this subject for years, and the most I've ever been able to do with stats is to temporarily move someone off of a specific claim and make them change tacks for a bit, usually to a more emotional angle. Digging into the motives of anti-gun people is usually the more interesting path, most of them will claim to want to save lives by restricting firearms, but when the data does not support that end they mostly won't have any answer for it. I also like to suggest ending the drug war as a more productive outlet for their activist spirit since doing that would save far more lives than banning guns; I don't seem to get many takers though.

Spades, never argue with an idiot. People might not know the difference.

Yeah I know boys, but it was rainy as s**t yesterday and I was bored so I had some time on my hands. I'm not expecting anything more than the type of responses I've gotten so far. It isn't so much getting rope-a-doped as it is slipping his jabs and answering em with crosses and hooks .