When violent crime sky rockets, there will be no guessing as to what policies are to blame.
Quoting to show what the next quote is replying to.
You mean like right now in blue controlled States and cities?
Here is your qualifier of the argument.
I am completely ignoring the analogy you tried using.
I'm in a blue state with good strict gun laws and the lowest gun deaths per Capita. Your feels though.
Quoting to show the qualifier imposed above, basically blue vs red, this is where deaths period enters the argument. Then we get the following straws, herrings and them pesky shifting goals.
You mean the State with the most lax gun laws (Vermont) so few gun deaths? Notice it's gun deaths and not murders?
So blue state/cities policies. Which is what I thought you were arguing at first. You reply with the most lax gun laws (policies) resulting in gun deaths. You then decide to pivot to murders qualifier.
You are counting justifiable self defense killings along with murders and suicides. They are not the same thing.
Deaths are deaths.
Wouldn't justifiable self defense killings constitute violent crime? Anyway you are adding more qualifiers here. Suicides and justified killing.
Like I said, those numbers don't differentiate between lawful and legal killings in self defense and defense of others and suicides. Let me know when you get an accurate list.
Adding more qualifiers, now we have lawful and legal killings, and defending others.
Suicides would fall under bad policies since it would require mental health spending.
Nope, facts are facts and legal shootings and suicides are included in those inaccurate numbers by the CDC. You are not entitled to your own (false facts).
You said blue states/cities.
I am really quoting all of this a writing any of this because I am trying to figure out what your whole argument is.
Gun deaths are deaths. Why are these false facts?
Yes, deliberately inaccurate numbers even though they could include legal self defense numbers and suicides, but they don't.
Kinda like dying of or dying with, facts matter.
Why are you trying to parse it down to categories?
Sorry i hurt your feelings. It's not an accurate representation, why would i bother? Red states will always have more legal self defense shootings. Try to get me an accurate graph.
I think you will find this is not accurate. Why are you even referring red?
Legal self defense (deaths not shootings) adding yet again another qualifier to your argument.
I think you will find that the VAST majority of legal self defense shootings would come from law enforcement not arms bearing citizens.
Haha, of course you won't do it.
It's a 100% accurate representation of gun deaths by state.
And since you can't rub your two brain cells together, I'll lay it out for you.
Suicides far out number any legally justified self defense shooting count. The disparity between those two is just gonna be enormous. And I would wager illegal gun activity out numbers self defense shootings by far as well.
And since self defense laws vary by state, that's a variable that you'll have to present as well, not just gun ownership laws
I'll wait for your data thats not the CDC's false data, 🤣
Just seemed appropriate to quote.
We all know this information will not arrive. It is not in his MO.
Bullshit, most deaths by firearm are suicides, a substantial portion are legal and justifiable deaths. The CDC deliberately doesn't differentiate the numbers even though they easily could. You want to use the CDC numbers even though they're demonstrably inaccurate and you even admit it. Get some real facts.
First word says it all, it is bullshit.
Most deaths by firearms, a substantial portion is legal and justifiable? This would definitely be violent though.
You tried to use the CDC report as a trump card in this thread. It didn't work since even yourself admitted that it doesn't include relevant material in the debate. People have a right to defend themselves, other people and property with a firearm. The CDC report deliberately omits this information. Deal with it.
I mean you are just shifting everything around.
Relevant material to the debate, you are so confusing it is hard to even know what you are trying to debate.
[ad_1] For the first time in more than a decade, the United States Supreme Court will be reviewing a Second Amendment case that could change the landscape when it comes to gun right laws in this country. On Monday, the Supreme Court agreed to review a law in New York that sets extremely stringent
patriotgunnews.com
The case involves a New York law that restricts who can carry a handgun in public for self-defense.
www.cbsnews.com
If you can't take your firearm out of your house it's pretty tough to use it to defend yourself and your family.
What are you so scared of?
It must be very difficult to be afraid of moving around in public without a firearm.
You really seem scared of population density.