Originally posted by eLPresidente
Earlier, you wrote off the fact that over 70% of gun deaths in America are gang-related
No.
Originally posted by SpookyVince
Over 70% of gun crimes are gang related, do you suppose these criminals attained their guns legally?
Likely not. [...]
Did I write it off?
I was agreeing on the fact that a certain part of criminals were acquiring their weapons in an illegal way.
Originally posted by eLPresidente
Interesting how you just rolled over everything else, especially the part about you being IMMORAL or you arguing that deny somebody their LIBERTY is
indeed enhancing LIBERTY.
Me being immoral? Please pinpoint that to me.
About liberty. I think you need some explanations.
Have you got the liberty to drive at 100mph anywhere you want?
Have you got the liberty to go around naked?
Have you got the liberty to insult people?
Have you got the liberty to smack people in the face?
Have you got the liberty to set random things in fire when you please?
Have you got the liberty to get into someone's house, get to the fridge and grab a beer?
Have you got the liberty to be drunk in public?
Have you got the liberty to abandon your dog?
Have you got the liberty to park your car in your neighbor's garden?
Have you got the liberty to get to the football field to help that player?
...
No.
That is because some "liberties" are attacks at others liberties. Some liberties are to be limited in order to ensure that everybody can enjoy their
own part of liberty. If you were truly free to do anything you want, as you want, whenever and wherever, then everybody else has that right too. And
thus everybody else has the right to be as bad as they want to you, your wife and kids, house, car and all the rest.
And obviously you will not accept it. So you will make sure that you are worse than that guy, and do anything you can to stop that guy from doing it
to you in the first place.
Forbidding guns is not more serious than limiting speed on the highway, or putting limits to some behaviors that people can have. It is simply
removing a potential threat from the hands of many. It is reducing the general level of risk.
Originally posted by eLPresidente
Let's start with your 19.5 times higher gun deaths than simliar high income nations. Nobody makes arguments like that, not even Piers Morgan does and
he is a bumbling buffoon when it comes to debate. He makes the arguments in a PER CAPITA, like everybody else does, ask a CRIMINOLOGIST. Of course
guns deaths are more common in a nation where there are MORE GUNS.
Please read. It says the
RATE. What do you think a rate is?
So you agree that in a country with more guns, there are more deaths by guns. Don't you?
Still you refuse to believe that removing guns from the streets (and houses) would reduce deaths?
And you call
me special? Well, excuse me but... I don't seem to get your ... uh... logic?
[Edited to add:]
Besides, it's not "my" 19.5 times higher. I don't make the numbers. Have you read the source linked? I highly doubt it.
edit on 18-1-2013 by
SpookyVince because: (no reason given)