LogFAQs > #896578537

Selenara posted...

My point was that those countries did not have a significant problem with gun violence prior to the enactment of gun control legislation. If those countries had similar levels of gun violence comparable to the US and gun control legislation resolved it, you would have a point.

Again, that assertion is baseless - you have no way of knowing if that's true or not. You can't say "Gun control doesn't work in countries that have the same gun crime rates as the US" because there is no comparable country that has gun crime comparable to the US for you to be able to make that statement. In order for your assertion to hold true, there would have to be another developed nation with the gun crime levels of the US that tried tightening their gun laws and discovered that it didn't work.

I am using the best comparisons we have. You can't say "your examples aren't good enough" when there is no better example to work with.

Speaking of which:

Selenara posted...

There are also other countries with more gun homicides than the US:

Sure there are, and none of them are developed nations, so they are extremely poor comparisons for numerous reasons that should be self-evident.

Selenara posted...

You have not even established that this occurred in Connecticut, because the number you gave combined accidents with homicides and suicides.

I already posted a study that estimated that Connecticut's gun laws cut gun homicides by 40%. I'm not sure what more you want from me on that front.

Here it is again if you missed it:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4504296/

Selenara posted...

No, it does not, because you have not established that the gun control laws were responsible for a reduction in gun homicides.

Then let's take a first principles approach to this. Do you agree with each of the following:
1) That states with stiffer gun laws have lower gun crime rates than states with looser gun laws?
2) That countries that have implemented tougher gun laws have seen their gun homicide rates decrease or, where a decrease was already present, seen the rate of decrease go up?

If, as you said earlier, you acknowledge that gun law implementation and lower gun crime are correlated then neither of these should be contentious points. We're ignoring, for a moment, the causal factor in these decreases and simply acknowledging they exist.

If we're in agreement on that, then we're agreeing that tighter gun laws and lower gun homicide rates are correlated. So what's your explanation for that trend? You can't disagree with my argument without putting forward and backing up one of your own - debates don't work like that. If you believe that a third outside factor results in tighter gun laws and less gun crime, I'm interested to hear what it is.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!