Obama wants to bust your balls, and heads for renewing the assault weapons ban - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Ekalektik_1;37130547]Thank you sir. I can't help but notice the Washington Post says Obama isn't interested in a gun ban and wants to explore alternate options first, has that come up in the discussion(s) yet?[/QUOTE] dunno most people aren't really talking about obama's stance because it's fairly neutral, it's just being used as a springboard into the general gun control debate. i like that obama doesn't jump onto the gun banning bandwagon out of fear and i think backing the assault weapons ban is a logical move that doesn't come out of hysteria and media hype

[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;37130560]You get all depressed whenever someone is even remotely ~rude~ I like to imagine while you're giving your winded posts about how it's not nice to be rude you just keep pulling the trigger and nothing happens; then you just break down into tears and curl up into a ball.[/QUOTE] What the hell is your problem?

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;37130599]What the hell is your problem?[/QUOTE] [sp]I think he's just one of those people, shhhhhh...[/sp]

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;37130599]What the hell is your problem?[/QUOTE] Ownederd's whining gets irritating.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;37129845][img]http://i.imgur.com/CBTR2.png[/img] notice how before the firearms control act there was a massive upwards trend in the murder rate. immediately after the control act was passed, murders dropped close to 1969 levels and from the years of 1976 to 1983, the average murder rate was 29.5, 8.8 (per 100k) murders less than there were a year before the Act was passed. graph runs from 1960 to 1983 to show you as much time as possible before and after the Act was passed, while excluding the period in which the Crack Epidemic took place which caused a significant spike in crime.[/QUOTE] I don't get it. What does this prove?

[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;37130628]Ownederd's whining gets irritating.[/QUOTE] there's a specific reason why people are questioning you for being an asshole

[QUOTE=King Tiger;37130629]I don't get it. What does this prove?[/QUOTE] that the firearms control regulations act of 1975 instantly halted a significant upwards trend in murders in Washington DC ie all the people saying gun control is bad because "DC has the most gun control in the country and they have a lot of crime!" are wrong

[QUOTE=Kopimi;37130646]that the firearms control regulations act of 1975 instantly halted a significant upwards trend in murders in Washington DC ie all the people saying gun control is bad because "DC has the most gun control in the country and they have a lot of crime!" are wrong[/QUOTE] But how does that prove the gun control reduced the crime?

[QUOTE=Kopimi;37130646]that the firearms control regulations act of 1975 instantly halted a significant upwards trend in murders in Washington DC ie all the people saying gun control is bad because [b]"DC has the most gun control in the country and they have a lot of crime!"[/b] are wrong[/QUOTE] Well, from what I hear, they still do have a lot of crime.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;37130658]But how does that prove the gun control reduced the crime?[/QUOTE] because immediately after the GUN CONTROL act was passed, murders in the DC area both DROPPED and STOPPED increasing [editline]8th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Kartoffel;37130663]Well, from what I hear, they still do have a lot of crime.[/QUOTE] its probably because of all the salads people eat there i mean, i know there's no evidence to suggest salad is the reason for increased crime in DC but i really hate salad so salad is probably the issue, i mean you said it yourself they have high crime rates

[QUOTE=Kopimi;37130669]because immediately after the GUN CONTROL act was passed, murders in the DC area both DROPPED and STOPPED increasing[/QUOTE] I don't see the connection. Can you prove that less crimes were committed with guns targeted by the ban? Or even with guns at all?

[QUOTE=Kopimi;37130593]dunno most people aren't really talking about obama's stance because it's fairly neutral, it's just being used as a springboard into the general gun control debate. i like that obama doesn't jump onto the gun banning bandwagon out of fear and i think [b]backing the assault weapons ban is a logical move that doesn't come out of hysteria and media hype[/b][/QUOTE] To be fair neither Obama nor Romney have been totally up front on most issues, never mind such a controversial one. What I'm afraid of is if Obama really [i]does[/i] support gun control and gets re-elected, he doesn't have to worry about re-election so he could theoretically pass any legislation he wanted. To the bolded statement, the assault weapons ban comes straight from said hysteria and media hype. I understand restrictions on such things as high-capacity magazines but banning guns that look scary or militaristic doesn't accomplish what the ban sets out to do. If I continue I'll be beating a very dead horse and there isn't anything I can add anyway, I just wanted to get that out of my system.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;37130669] its probably because of all the salads people eat there i mean, i know there's no evidence to suggest salad is the reason for increased crime in DC but i really hate salad so salad is probably the issue, i mean you said it yourself they have high crime rates[/QUOTE] What the fuck does this have to do with [I]anything[/I]

[QUOTE=King Tiger;37130700]I don't see the connection. Can you prove that less crimes were committed with guns targeted by the ban? Or even with guns at all?[/QUOTE] you don't see the connection between a massive upwards trend in crime being stopped, and having crime drop significantly IMMEDIATELY after the gun control act was passed? are you being thick on purpose to prove a point or do you honestly have some sort of issue processing simple trends why would i prove less crimes were committed by guns targeted by the ban/with guns at all? what difference would it make? if it turns out guns were still used to cause SIGNIFICANTLY LESS CRIME would that somehow change the effectiveness of the act?

[QUOTE=Kopimi;37130669]because immediately after the GUN CONTROL act was passed, murders in the DC area both DROPPED and STOPPED increasing [editline]8th August 2012[/editline] its probably because of all the salads people eat there i mean, i know there's no evidence to suggest salad is the reason for increased crime in DC but i really hate salad so salad is probably the issue, i mean you said it yourself they have high crime rates[/QUOTE] It is the salad! I knew it all along! Thank you for confirming my fears. To the bomb shelter!

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;37130718]What the fuck does this have to do with [I]anything[/I][/QUOTE] you're not great with reading/comparisons are you

[QUOTE=Kopimi;37130728]you don't see the connection between a massive upwards trend in crime being stopped, and having crime drop significantly IMMEDIATELY after the gun control act was passed? are you being thick on purpose to prove a point or do you honestly have some sort of issue processing simple trends why would i prove less crimes were committed by guns targeted by the ban/with guns at all? what difference would it make? if it turns out guns were still used to cause SIGNIFICANTLY LESS CRIME would that somehow change the effectiveness of the act?[/QUOTE] You have yet to prove that the gun control was what lowered the crime and not something else.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;37130576] it's just happy wordplay that carefully avoids any legitimate restrictions on your favorite hobby.[/QUOTE] Actually, I've never used a gun and never intend to. And the only reason what I said is "wishful thinking" is because nobody's willing to take the time and money to actually accomplish it. I'm not saying that all the crime will be gone forever (it'd be stupid to think so) but it's hard to argue against the fact that giving criminals less motive to commit crimes would, you know, cut down crimes. I must disagree that regular gun control is a good first step because, again, criminals don't get their weapons legally. See [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Access_to_firearms"]here[/URL], and also the sources sited in that article. also: [quote]wow thanks it only took you an hour to start posting something remotely relevant to the thread jesus christ[/quote] I've been posting in this thread all day, thanks for reading the past 17 pages.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;37130733]you're not great with reading/comparisons are you[/QUOTE] Oh cool ad hominem, maybe I don't get how making up stupid shit about salad helps the argument.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;37130740]You have yet to prove that the gun control was what lowered the crime and not something else.[/QUOTE] ugh like, its so crystal clear that you're being stupid on purpose just to prove a (terrible) point, but i guess if you're going to play that game, you've yet to prove gun control is what caused the high crime rate in the first place (ie giving us a reason not to pass gun control laws) [editline]8th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Zillamaster55;37130759]Oh cool ad hominem, maybe I don't get how making up stupid shit about salad helps the argument.[/QUOTE] or you dont understand simple comparisons [editline]8th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Xenomoose;37130748]Actually, I've never used a gun and never intend to. And the only reason what I said is "wishful thinking" is because nobody's willing to take the time and money to actually accomplish it. I'm not saying that all the crime will be gone forever (it'd be stupid to think so) but it's hard to argue against the fact that giving criminals less motive to commit crimes would, you know, cut down crimes. I must disagree that regular gun control is a good first step because, again, criminals don't get their weapons legally. See [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Access_to_firearms"]here[/URL], and also the sources sited in that article. also: I've been posting in this thread all day, thanks for reading the past 17 pages.[/QUOTE] no, it's "wishful thinking" because you didn't propose anything but abstract theories and happy thoughts that would magically make criminals not commit crime. [editline]8th August 2012[/editline] and once again complaining that criminals will still have access to weapons is moot because like i said in the post that you replied to, civilians will still have guns to defend themselves with

[QUOTE=Kopimi;37130761]ugh like, its so crystal clear that you're being stupid on purpose just to prove a (terrible) point, but i guess if you're going to play that game, you've yet to prove gun control is what caused the high crime rate in the first place (ie giving us a reason not to pass gun control laws)[/QUOTE] First of all, my argument is not stupid. You are using faulty logic based on correlation. I could make this same claim using your logic: The number of Jews in Europe decreased during World War 2. The number of deaths in Europe increased during World War 2. Less Jews means more deaths. Or My father owns a red car. My father had a heart attack. The red car caused my father's heart attack. I never claimed gun control caused high crime rate. I never claimed anything at all in fact. I just wanted to show that your argument was invalid.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;37130759]Oh cool ad hominem, maybe I don't get how making up stupid shit about salad helps the argument.[/QUOTE] That was not so much Ad Hominem as it was some other thing I currently cannot recall. Nice try though. :v:

[QUOTE=King Tiger;37130803]First of all, my argument is not stupid. You are using faulty logic based on correlation. I could make this same claim using your logic: The number of Jews in Europe decreased during World War 2. The number of deaths in Europe increased during World War 2. Less Jews means more deaths. Or My father owns a red car. My father had a heart attack. The red car caused my father's heart attack. I never claimed gun control caused high crime rate. I never claimed anything at all in fact. I just wanted to show that your argument was invalid.[/QUOTE] uh except you can say "the reason the death toll in WW2 increased and the Jews decreased was because Hitler was killing a bunch of Jews" you're looking at a graph that shows immediately after a gun control act was passed during a period of rising murder rates, the murder rate DROPPED and stopped increasing altogether, and you're saying "hm.. i don't know, how do i [B]really[/B] know it was the gun control act.." sorry if you were expecting that to be your endgame argument but there's not much to reply with other than you're purposefully being stupid (or at least i hope for your sake you are), if you look at that graph and with no alternative explanation for the change in murder rate, say "it wasn't gun control" [editline]8th August 2012[/editline] if you were to say "yes but during that period a religion of peace founded in DC gained millions of new members, and the number of new members directly correlated with the falling murder rate", you could say alright, it wasn't gun control it was the religion. right now though you're just being thick on purpose and ignoring the only possible factor in what would otherwise be a massive statistical anomaly in DC's murder rate

[QUOTE=Kopimi;37130874]uh except you can say "the reason the death toll in WW2 increased and the Jews decreased was because Hitler was killing a bunch of Jews" you're looking at a graph that shows immediately after a gun control act was passed during a period of rising murder rates, the murder rate DROPPED and stopped increasing altogether, and you're saying "hm.. i don't know, how do i [B]really[/B] know it was the gun control act.." sorry if you were expecting that to be your endgame argument but there's not much to reply with other than you're purposefully being stupid (or at least i hope for your sake you are), if you look at that graph and with no alternative explanation for the change in murder rate, say "it wasn't gun control"[/QUOTE] I'm not saying that gun control didn't cause the decrease. In fact, I believe it probably did cause a decrease in deaths. However, you can't use that argument to prove it. You said that "the reason the death toll in WW2 increased and the Jews decreased was because Hitler was killing a bunch of Jews". This is a valid argument because there is a clear connection between an increase in deaths and a decrease in Jews. It is a cause and effect relationship. However, this is not what you are saying in your gun argument. You are only showing two correlated events and assuming a link between the two with no evidence to support such a link.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;37130914]I'm not saying that gun control didn't cause the decrease. In fact, I believe it probably did cause a decrease in deaths. However, you can't use that argument to prove it. You said that "the reason the death toll in WW2 increased and the Jews decreased was because Hitler was killing a bunch of Jews". This is a valid argument because there is a clear connection between an increase in deaths and a decrease in Jews. It is a cause and effect relationship. However, this is not what you are saying in your gun argument. You are only showing two correlated events and assuming a link between the two with no evidence to support such a link.[/QUOTE] ugh you are just the worst so what magical argument can you use to prove it [editline]8th August 2012[/editline] apparently it was just a statistical anomaly that immediately following a gun control act, murder in the city dropped significantly and stopped increasing [editline]8th August 2012[/editline] the same way the death rate in WW2 wasn't because of Jews dying despite the [B]obvious[/B] statistics correlating Jews being captured by Nazis and overall deaths in Europe

It is not the "only possible factor" though. I am not familiar with Washington D.C. in 1975. But there could have been other measures enacted during the same period. What if the number of police increased? What if there were programs to combat gang violence? You don't know that gun control was the only thing that could have possibly lowered murder rates.

or the same way that an increased death toll in a starving nation can't be proven to be because of a lack of food despite how obvious it is like i can come up with a million examples of why this is the dumbest shit i've ever heard and even then it wouldn't sufficiently explain why what you said was d u m b

[QUOTE=Kopimi;37130928]ugh you are just the worst so what magical argument can you use to prove it [editline]8th August 2012[/editline] apparently it was just a statistical anomaly that immediately following a gun control act, murder in the city dropped significantly and stopped increasing [editline]8th August 2012[/editline] the same way the death rate in WW2 wasn't because of Jews dying despite the [B]obvious[/B] statistics correlating Jews being captured by Nazis and overall deaths in Europe[/QUOTE] You just answered your own question. There is no magical argument that can be used to prove it because there is not enough evidence. In the WWII example, you gave more evidence that linked less Jews to more deaths.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;37130944]It is not the "only possible factor" though. I am not familiar with Washington D.C. in 1975. But there could have been other measures enacted during the same period. What if the number of police increased? What if there were programs to combat gang violence? You don't know that gun control was the only thing that could have possibly lowered murder rates.[/QUOTE] so find evidence that there was another factor you mong, that's the whole point find the missing link that would have caused the murder rate to go down. the fact that it is "possible" doesn't invalidate the fact that right now, with all of the evidence we have, it was gun control that caused that drop in crime. fucking space aliens MIGHT HAVE come down and snatched up all of the criminals in DC but until you can prove that you should stop talking [editline]8th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=King Tiger;37130959]You just answered your own question. There is no magical argument that can be used to prove it because there is not enough evidence. In the WWII example, you gave more evidence that linked less Jews to more deaths.[/QUOTE] i answered my own question with the answer you said is wrong jesus christ are you a child

[QUOTE=Kopimi;37130954]or the same way that an increased death toll in a starving nation can't be proven to be because of a lack of food despite how obvious it is like i can come up with a million examples of why this is the dumbest shit i've ever heard and even then it wouldn't sufficiently explain why what you said was d u m b[/QUOTE] No, you cannot prove that the high death toll of a starving nation is because of lack of food because, if that is the only evidence, you don't know that starvation is necessarily the thing causing the higher death rates.