Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "National Walkout For Gun Reform Hits 3,000 Schools Across The US" video.

  1. " semi auto weapons are easier to obtain than handguns," Most handguns are semi auto.
    14
  2. Lock your daughter up in a padded room then. Life had dangers, you take a risk simply leaving your home. Reality is your chances of being murdered by a gun is very very very small. And depending on where you live almost zero.
    11
  3. "Then why do you gun lunatics need a gun everywhere you go for protection??" Why do you lock your doors? Why do you wear a seat belt? It is a layer of protection. I own four guns and ever shot them at anyone. I never had to use it. I never had to use my seat belt. I never had someone try to break into my apartment. But I still lock my door and wear my seat belt. It is nice to have. At the same time I do not live a life of fear like you do. Not to be rude by reading your comments you seem to be living a constant life of fear. You should seek help for that. Life is not that dangerous.
    9
  4. It is a Trojan Horse for more guns being banned. When they ban the AR 15 and another shooting happens they will push for more.
    8
  5. Waste of time. When looked at objectively gun violence is not a major problem in the US. Is it a problem? Yes. But so are traffic accidents, cancer, HIV, rape, etc. All problems but not major. We should find ways to alleviate them, but that requires intellectual discussions, not knee jerk reactions.
    6
  6. Good question. The CNN town hall debate was the complete opposite of that. People on the right are looking to engage in it to a degree. But right now the left isn't. This is why they are parading children as opposed to having an actual discussion. To me one of the reasons why Trump won is because we are not having intellectual discussions. There was a time in the 90s we did, but right now we aren't and it is disturbing.
    5
  7. " Every other study disproves his. " Not true because many variables are involved here. Let us look at something very simple. If you were to compare the murder rate of the UK to the US you will see the US has a murder rate that is 5 times higher than the UK. You may point to gun laws but if you were to remove all gun murders from the US the murder rate in the US will still be 2 times higher than the UK. At that point you have to be 100% honest and realize other factors are at play. What John Lott did was factor in those variables. For example, he removed gang murders because that is an issue of gangs, not guns. As a whole other nations face gun violence as well. It is incredibly difficult to do a side by side comparison at that point and Lott submitted a legit study, that you can read and criticize if you want, showing that the US arguably does not have a gun problem compared to other nations. That is my point.
    4
  8. I call them ignorant.
    4
  9. Kirk Perkins, one girl said it was easier to by a fully automatic than it was to make weekend plans with friends. That is a very high level of ignorance.
    4
  10. Deven Murray, magazine limits don't work as magazines are designed for quick reloading. Look at the VA Tech shooter, he had a 10 round magazine and a 15 round one.
    3
  11. troye cara, it is one thing to honor them, I have no problem with that. But to use these kids for political gain is sickening. They should be seeing a counselor but are paraded around pushing anti-gun rhetoric on purely emotional stance. "Would you not be horrified if nothing was done after the murder of innocent children? " Tragedies happen. What exactly should be done? No one has proposed anything that will stop these shootings 100%, and the left have not proposed anything to reduce them. "this kind of thing simply doesn’t happen nearly as often in other countries as it does in the U.S" Arguably it does as John Lott pointed out. " lack of common sense gun control " It isn't "common sense" as there is an argument to begin with. " I mean of course these students are using their voice to prevent this from ever happening again! They are scared to go their fucking schools! " Schools have never been safer, and our society has never been safer. But tell me, what "common sense" law would stop these shootings?
    3
  12. Bradley Smith, you are the one living in fear. I am walking home tonight, alone, without a gun because I am not allowed to have one on campus. Am I scared? No. Why? Because the world is much safer than what you think. I feel bad for your daughter living in a life of fear because of you.
    3
  13. " Thanks but I don't live in fear" Meanwhile you said this " I'm tired of her living in fear" Why does she live in fear? Because of you as a parent. Kids gain their habits from their parents. "but it would be much safer without the mass of guns" Arguably that is not true. Many stats show that.
    3
  14. "You literally just linked a well known Neo Nazi site" And this is why Trump won. When someone comes with contradicting information you call them Nazis. What was wrong with that source? I bet you cannot say.
    3
  15. sagely Demonologist, you are going to get that here. They have nothing legit nor intelligent to say on this issue so they will use ad hominem attacks. I asked them what was wrong with your particular sources and they will not respond meaning they will not even read it.
    3
  16. Reality is most people don't care. This is not going to gain traction.
    3
  17. MrMikehunt87, rape is an action. The gun is the object. Banning the object keeps it out of law abiding citizens' hands. I will not commit rape nor murder, so why should I not be allowed to own a gun? Without or without a gun I will never commit rape nor murder? You see the point? The action is banned which we support, banning the object only harms people who won't commit the illegal action.
    2
  18. Deven Murray, the VA Tech shooter used two hand guns and killed around 30 people.
    2
  19. The AR 15 is a Trojan Horse for a gun ban. You set the standard by banning that gun. After that happens another shooting will occur with a different gun where politicians will say "well, it wasn't with an AR 15, so banning that gun worked, we just have to ban others".
    2
  20. Mr. Trigger, many schools already have armed teachers with zero incidents and it has shown to be far cheaper than arming guards. Also, look up the video of Herman Cain and Bill Clinton discussing healthcare in 1994 and compare it to Bernie Sanders having a similar conversation with a hair salon owner from Texas during the Cruz vs Sanders debate on healthcare. If you can't see the difference I will lay it out for you, but in all Clinton was willing to have a discussion on issues, Bernie Sanders doesn't. Bernie is a major front runner for the democrats right now. That is a problem.
    2
  21. "The stats show more guns equals more gun violence.." This is highly debated. For over the past 20 years the number of guns in the US has increased while gun violence has dropped. Many schools already have armed teachers with zero incidents. You can be shot in the street at random. Your daughter is living in fear and you need to correct that by giving her actual facts that 1. These shootings are very rare and hardly happen 2. Guns are not dangerous But again, you said that more guns equals more gun violence. That is arguably not true, and also very vague. Did you know that more cars means more traffic accidents?
    2
  22. fl00fydragon, well regulated means well prepared. Learn constitutional law.
    2
  23. " My daughter is NOT fearful because of my actions.. I tey to convince her that the chances are slim." I doubt it. " But everyday at school, they stay behind locked doors, they go through monthly drills, and they hear about school shootings. " Every day? Really? That is the fault of your school than. You should talk to your school. Even at that monthly drills are not bad, they are a safety net. But again, talk to your school. Also, school shootings are rare. How is your daughter hearing about them that often? "You gun owners place our kids in this position." How? None of my guns are a threat. So you are blaming gun owners fro criminals' actions? There are over 300 million guns in the US. What are your suggestions? "And now you're arguing that European countries have more firearm deaths" I said more mass shootings, arguably. "You people can't be reasoned with. " Then give me your solution. What is your solution? Lay me out your ideas. All I hear so far from you are complaints.
    2
  24. Doron Beer, not true. John Lott released a study showing that.
    2
  25. Katherine Voegtlin, what was wrong with those sources? Right now you are pulling a logical fallacy. Until you can break down how it is wrong no one should take you seriously.
    2
  26. " look up "Breitbart + Neo Nazi" in Google and check at least the first two pages." How about you explain it to me Cenk. Why are you telling me to Google it? Should I Google Ben Shapiro's opinion on it? Even at that, what makes these particular articles wrong?
    2
  27. Bill Anderson, for over 20 years gun violence have been decreasing while guns have been increasing. That includes the removal of the "assault weapons" ban.
    2
  28. Schmidty, it isn't "common sense" as there is an argument to begin with. Also, the AR 15 is not a "military weapon".
    1
  29. I support their freedom of speech, and I can use my freedom of speech to criticize them. It goes both ways.
    1
  30. "If the florida shooter went to that school with 8 bullets in a pistol instead of an ar 15 and smoke grenades. 17 people would not have died. " Well, again, the VA Tech shooter showed otherwise. But let us say it did lower the number of deaths from 17 to say 10. When another mass shooting happens what is your next step? Ban hand guns? Be honest here.
    1
  31. Interdimensional Steve, the federal army cannot attack people. If it did it would be attacking the states which will create a civil war dividing our country and army. At that point it will be the people against state and local governments where our weaponry is comparable to there's.
    1
  32. troye cara, the media and leftist politicians are using these kids for political gain. They should be receiving counseling but instead are being paraded around. You have one kid saying it is harder to make weekend plans with friends than it is to purchase a fully automatic. No one on the left or the media calls her out on that false statement (unless she has crappy friends), and if you do than you get labeled a child murderer. The CNN town hall "debate" was a joke. You had one kid saying she cares more about the NRA representative's kids than they do. You had another saying when he looked at Rubio he was looking down a barrel of an AR 15 and saw Cruz. You had the crowd booing Rubio instead of letting him speak and calling him and the NRA representative child murderers. You have kids saying "you are either with us or against us". They are using children as puppets for political gain. It is sickening. Instead of talking about the objective facts they are using appeal to emotions. To say their lives are in danger is false. Violent crime is dropping in the US has has for over 20 years. This should be presented to this children as fact because it is. Also, there are many kids who disagree with these protestors but are not heard or seen in the media. Ben Shapiro discussed this. You had the kid whose question was denied by CNN. What about the majority of children who simply did not care? What about the majority who did not march or walkout? They seem content and don't feel their lives are in danger. As for background checks, we have them. Unless you commit a crime and gone through due process you are allowed to buy a gun. We don't live in the world of minority report. As for a psychological test, one, you can fake those. Next, that is vague. By definition I have mental problems by seeing a therapist. However, I am not a threat to anyone. I own four guns and will never shoot anyone. However, you want to create a system that will deny me my rights even though I have never posed a threat to anyone. Now you may argue this individual should not have had a gun due to FBI visits, and that is fair. But how will that stop other shootings? How would that have stopped the Vegas shooting? You talk about bump stocks, so instead of 50 people he kills 40? Now what? With Sandy Hook that guy stole his guns from his mother. How do you stop that? We have laws on the books. And you say what you propose is "sensible", but in reality they are debatable making them far from sensible. "factually mass shootings do not happen as often in other countries" John Lott in his most recent book released a study showing that mass shootings do happen in other countries. I encourage you to read it. Not saying he is correct, but if you are going to have a passionate discussion on this, and claim you ideas are "sensible", you should view the other side's analysis. Until you do I will have to be blunt, you are not knowledgeable enough to have an opinion on this topic. I am critical of Lott's work as I read it, and I will be one of the first to admit he has a bias. But he does bring up legit points and it does show that stats and how other countries fact problems as well and how there are many variables to this topic. "It’s common sense gun laws because they are common sense." It is "common sense" to you because you know very little about the issue to begin with. You later wrote " banning assault rifles, " What is an "assault rifle"? That is very vague. We had an "assault weapon" ban in the past. We removed it in the 90s. You know what happened? Gun violence dropped. Now many factors accounted for that, but you have to accept that trend. You talk about bump stocks when only one mass shooting involved it. And again, if that reduced the deaths from 59 to 49, what have you solved? Also, if you get your bump stock ban (which, BTW, I support) and your assault rifle ban (which again, is vague), and another mass shooting happens, then what? What is your next step? The VA Tech shooter killed around 30 people with two hand guns. I bet you did not know that. This is not to be rude by it is "common sense" to you because you know very little about the issue. You are very ignorant on it so this seems like a very basic problem with a simple solution when in reality it isn't. I know you have not read John Lott's study, I know you have no idea that there is no legal definition of an "assault weapon", I know you did not know what types of guns the VA Tech shooter used.
    1
  33. " but getting money out of politics so that way the NRA would not be able to buy politicians to be in their favour." I will comment separately on that. Money in politics is simply a symptom of a disease. That is a government of too much power. Even at that I bet you support unions and Planned Parenthood donating money to politicians? I bet you support people giving $27 to Bernie and TYT giving him free air time?
    1
  34. troye cara, to add, saying "common sense" is dismissing the other side of the argument. When you cannot create an argument you than you dismiss the other side.
    1
  35. troye cara, a lot of people are pushing to reduce violence (that has been dropping for over 20 years), they just have different ideas. I support allowing teachers to be armed with restrictions, they don't. When I disagree with them they will refer to people like me as child murderers. The NRA pushes for a safer society, but these kids want to disband the NRA and want to prevent them from donating money to politicians that also want a safer environment. I am all for a rational, and intellectual discussion on the issues. But what these kids are doing is silencing their opposition. The media is as well by handing behind these kids. I have seen interviews with them and I find them to be ignorant on the topic. What new laws do they want? And how would it stop these shootings? And what is wrong with the opposition's ideas? They never get into details. That is the issue. Again, one girl said it was harder to make weekend plans with friends compared to buying a full auto rifle. Another compared Rubio to Cruz who committed the shooting. How can your have an intellectual discussion with people like that? When that one kid felt that Rubio's idea is supporting mass murders of children, that is sickening. Rubio wants to provide a safer environment as well, his ideas are just different. "If it takes you say 10 minutes to make plans with your friends, I am positive there have been people who have been able to purchase a gun in that time. " She said fully automatic rifle which requires an extensive background check, waiting period, and those guns are expensive. She did not say guns, she said full autos. Do you even listen to what they say? It was Emma Gonzalez who made that statement. I actually listen to what these kids say. " And I highly doubt that a sane person would label you a child murderer for disagreeing with that" But these kids are. Emma Gonzalez told Dana Loesch that she "will support her two children the way she will not". Emma literally said that Loesch does not support her children because she has a different idea in how to approach the gun violence issue. That was during the town hall debate. " but at the same time the teens knew damn well that the NRA representative and Rubio weren’t going to do jack shit for them" What makes you say that? This is why I am critical of these kids and you. Their ideas are different but valid with numerous evidence in place supporting it. Why do you think they are not going go to do "jack shit" for them? Give evidence. Give your reasoning. Booing them is silencing them, not debating them. When you silence your opponent you do so because you don't have an argument. "They feel they are in danger because a school shooting can happen to any school. " A shooting can happen anywhere, what's your point? If you are so scared than live in a padded room. But look at the facts. Shootings are on a decline and these shootings happen in gun free zones. You have to consider that. But reality is that you take a risk no matter where you go. But if you feel schools are that dangerous than ban schools and push for home schooling, or place large fences around them with on entry point. If you view schools to be that dangerous than do that. Why are you not pushing for that? "pointing out some very irrelevant things like the fact that the Virginia Tech shooter used handguns" It is a relevant point. You remove the AR 15 there are a plethora of other guns to use. "You seem to believe you’re much more knowledgeable on this topic than I am and maybe you are" Based on how you did now know what Emma Gonzalez said I will say I do. I actually listened to these speeches. The fact you feel schools are that dangerous makes me question how much you know. Again, why not fence in schools with one entry point? " Like there was something terribly wrong in 2012 when a classroom of first grade children were murdered and nothing happened in terms of prevention and gun control. " What law would have stopped that? "If you disagree that literally nothing is wrong than I have no interest discussing with you. " I am not downplaying the tragedies, I am showing you what the reality is. These are two shootings in a span of 5 years. And what new law would have stopped these? Tell me. Give me details. Saying "more gun control" is not an argument, you need details. " why not narrow that down to a ban on semi-automatic guns?" The vast majority of guns are semi auto. Also, they are not hard to make. At that point you are hindering law abiding citizens from owning guns.
    1
  36. troye cara, tell me, what new law would have stopped this shooting and Sandy Hook? Please tell me with details. If you can't than maybe you will see where I am coming from. Crying for "more gun control" is not an argument, you need details.
    1
  37. The young ones should be seeking counseling, not being paraded around like puppets by the media. Also, why aren't the "young ones" who support guns being advertised? Ben Shapiro has many examples of them.
    1
  38. FastDamone, look up Kelo vs City of New London. The SC has ruled incorrectly in the past.
    1
  39. Bradley Smith, I had to do fire drills and tornado drills when I was in school. How about we ban people from living in tornado alley and place fire departments right next to schools? How about we stop science experiments that involve Bunsen burners?
    1
  40. Bradley Smith, I was taught in school not to get in cars with strangers. How about we just lock our kids in padded rooms?
    1
  41. D N, that still exists in many places. In my hometown people leave their keys in their cars.
    1
  42. TheFallinhalo, this kid is living a life of fear because her parent is not teaching her that life is not that dangerous. These active shooter drills are common in schools. We practice code red drills in schools because the are safety nets just in case something happen. Statistically this person's daughter will never face a mass shooting in her life, let alone in school. But one should be prepared. Just like building fires are dropping, but we still have fire drills. Just like we teach kids what to do if someone is in an accident and bleeding, it is to prepare them for these situations if they happen. So no, they don't gain the "habit of getting shot" by parents, they gain the fear due to being ignorant due to poor parenting. I don't live in fear, and even if new gun laws were to be passed I would never give my up. I don't fear for that as none of them are registered. I am just giving an intelligent counter point. In reality I hardly carry my gun on me as over 90% of the time I am on a college campus or public school. I still don't live in fear. Our country does not have the most gun deaths. Canada has gun deaths. Several other countries have more mass shootings than the US including Finland, Norway and France. I have never been in a place where a mass shooting occurred in the US. I also do not worry about being shot in public. You are the one who is scared of an inanimate object.
    1
  43. "Where's your own honesty? 5 times down to 2 is a massive cut in the murder rate." I agree, but our rate still will be higher. I will admit that it is easier to kill with a gun, but even if you pass a magical gun law that removes all gun murders our rate will still be higher. So again, you have to be 100% honest and admit that other factors are at play and not just guns.
    1
  44. Leinja, people call John Lott a fraud because he pushes research that others oppose. And when they can't counter it they call him a fraud. I am seeing the same out of you. What is wrong with his study? Calling him a fraud with zero evidence just solidifies his points and makes me side with John Lott even more. At least he releases his methods and sources.
    1
  45. FastDamone, who debunked his stats? As with Leinja, unless you can break down how he is wrong, or where you disagree with him and why, you are just solidifying his views.
    1
  46. joe cunningham, I live in the US and never experienced a mass shooting either.
    1
  47. To add on John Lott, I am not saying what is released is 100% correct, or settles all gun debates, or that the other side cannot develop a point. What I am saying is that there are many ways to look at this issue. One can do a legit analysis on the stats to come up with various results. That is because many variables are at play. It is similar in economics when Robert Reich used the CPI inflation and said wages have been dropping, but looking with PCE and GDP deflator standard wages have actually gone up. Both sides have legit points. My point is that there is a lot to this issue. If you are going to have a strong opinion on it you have to view both sides and you have look at the issue from all angles. Dismissing Lott's work by calling him a "fraud" with zero justification is not doing that and makes your opinion irrelevant at that point.
    1
  48. Leinja, I read that article. Here are some flaws "However, when scholars study these mass shootings, they frequently exclude terrorist attacks from the analysis, for much the same reason Lott excludes burglaries and gang violence: the motivations are different. When researchers use a more appropriate set of criteria," What is the "more appropriate set of criteria"? This article never explains that, and why it is appropriate. "As Table 3 on page 7 (pictured below) clearly demonstrates, the increase in aggravated assault for county level data is statistically significant, yet is not bolded by the authors like all the other statistically significant findings. In statistics, a result is usually considered significant if there is a less than 5 percent chance that the result is due to random chance, meaning it has a “t-statistic” greater than 1.96. A significant result in turn means that the authors of a study can put a higher degree of confidence in their finding. As the table below shows, the “stat” for the “post-law trend” for “Assault” (highlighted with a red box) has t-statistics of 2.8 and 2.25 for the general and specific model respectively. Further, the result itself is a positive number, indicating an increase in assault." The article have their standard of "significant" where the paper has their own. This is a debatable issue in statistics and neither side is incorrect. The paper bolded murder with a t-stat of >7 where the article is talking about a t-stat of around 2. It comes down to what they deemed to be "significant". " Also in 2003, Lott supported (and initially co-authored) a paper appearing in the Stanford Law Review by Plassman and Whitley that also appeared to support the more guns, less crime hypothesis. Again, Donohue proved that their results were based on coding errors, undermining the authors’ central claim." Mistakes happen, what's their point? "However, what Lott repeats in public is quite different from what his report actually shows. While Lott’s public statements equate gun-free zones with areas that prohibit concealed carry, his mass shooting report expands the gun-free zone definition to include areas where Lott feels it might be difficult to obtain a permit or where there might not be many permit holders despite being able to legally carry. Indeed, Lott admits in the report that more than six mass public shootings in the past six years have occurred in areas that legally allow citizens to carry their firearms, a direct contradiction of his public statements." Nothing wrong with his definition as pushing more gun laws makes it more difficult for law abiding citizens to buy and carry guns. It is in line with the idea that gun free zones are targets for mass shootings. If you hinder the ability for law abiding citizens to possess a gun you increase the chances of a shooting, arguably. "However, while it is true that campus guards were unarmed, Lott’s claim that concealed carry was prohibited is definitively false. Public colleges in Oregon are prohibited from banning guns on campus, thanks to a 2011 state court decision. The Umpqua Community College student handbook also expressly states that there is an exception to the prohibition of firearms “as expressly authorized by law or college regulations.” This includes concealed carry permits." In order to have a CCW in Oregon you have to be at least 21. That eliminates the vast majority of the student body making it essentially a "gun free zone". Lott has a legit point here as well. I can go on but you get the point. You see what I did? I quoted the article and gave my viewpoints. I did not just say "thinkprogress is a bias cite and thus a fraud". I gave examples.
    1
  49. Leinja, to add, being a "free market cheerleader" and a "climate change skeptic" is not an argument against something when it comes to an issue of guns. If your dentist was a "free market cheerleader" but was great and their job, would you not trust them to work on your teeth? Also, I support the free market and as a scientists I am skeptical of all the climate change alarmist. There are legit arguments on those sides of the issues as well. Labeling him as those things is not an argument but a logical fallacy. Also, with that article, they never mentioned was was in the book. They only dug up his past. And in doing so they never showed how he was a fraud, they only show where they disagree with him. A great example is the Oregon campus shooting. Having to be 21 to possess a firearm eliminates gun possession for most of the student body. And one can argue that the shooter could have thought that the campus was a "gun free zone".
    1
  50. Leinja, so in all. What Lott points out is not bad information, he has a legit point. The thinkprogress cite, even though I feel it is a very bias source, has a legit point as well. But you have to be 100% honest, thinkprogress is just as bias as John Lott. But remember, I quoted them and pointed out where I disagreed. I did not just claim they were a "fraud". Notice the difference? And to add, I am able to think for myself.
    1
  51. Leinja, I mentioned John Lott to give a counter viewpoint. I later wrote "To add on John Lott, I am not saying what is released is 100% correct, or settles all gun debates, or that the other side cannot develop a point. What I am saying is that there are many ways to look at this issue....." I admit that Lott has a bias. I admit that what he presents has shortcomings. But at the same time so does everyone else on this issue. There are many variables involved. Lott gives his viewpoint which is legit in many ways. To simply call him a fraud is to complete dismiss him and silence him when his viewpoint is just as strong as others. But at the very beginning I admitted he has shortcomings. It was not when I was met with a controversial figure. You can read the comment thread, I posted that comment before you posted your link. " And you did the same thing when we talked about climate change on the other Secular Talk clip, implying that there is a serious controversy inside the scientific community whether human action is the driving force behind the current trend of global warming. Which is untrue, of course. " That is a different topic in itself, but in short, due to the 2nd law of thermodynamics humans do play a role. However, climate change has occurred for over 4 billion years, so how much of a role is in question. And if it is even a threat is in question as well. These topics are very complex with many variables which is why there is a large debate to begin with. Your problem is this, you are taking a strong side on the stance when I am taking a moderate approach that leans in one direction. I admit shortcomings due to the complexity and I admit I am not an expert (in climate change I am a scientist so that plays a role). Thus I do not take a strong stance on the issue. I have my opinion and can justify it, but again, it is my opinion. And I, at the very beginning, admitted my sources and ideas have shortcomings and are not that simplistic. Again, read the comment thread.
    1
  52. Ok, now on to your points. On that literature, that was not peer reviewed and is the equivalent of a blog site by Harvard. Harvard has many of these which I have read and posted before in talking about other issues. For example, they have writings in support of the free market. But I bet you will deny those based on previous comments. For example, I posted a link from Harvard talking about how people need to stop the CEO to worker pay ratio. That is a free market approach. Do you agree? You seem to be against the free market. However, members of Harvard support it. That aside. With that report there are other factors that influence homicide. Simply looking at the UK and the US the US has a murder rate of around 5 times that of the UK. However, if you remove all gun murders from the US the US still has a murder rate of twice that of the UK. At that point you have to be 100% honest and admit other factors are at play. Next, the sources they cite are all over the place. On point three they cite a source that grabs data from 1988-1997 when gun murders were at a peak in the US. This is 10 years after the DC hand gun ban of 1976 where after that passed murders spiked in DC. Looking at just those years has shortcomings. Also, you had the assault weapon ban during that time as well thus it is arguable there were stricter gun laws. On the first study it says "None of the studies can prove causation and none have completely eliminated the possibility that the association might be entirely due to reverse causation or omitted variables". It also states "International.......in countries with more firearms........higher risk for homicide,....." I expanded by saying "This result is primarily due to the United states, which has the highest levels of household ownership of private firearms,....., and the highest homicide rates." That is saying that the US is an outlier that skews the results. And as I showed you by simply comparing the UK and the US the US has a much higher murder rate as a whole even with gun murders being removed. Also, factcheck has an article on that source as well. This is not so say their data is not important nor irrelevant. It is to say that there is a lot more to it that they even admit it has shortcomings. I strongly encourage you to read these articles like I am and not take them on face value. You will learn a lot more and will be able to think for yourself.
    1
  53. https://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/violent-crimes-and-handgun-ownership/ There is that link.
    1
  54. Leinja, anyone who says "more guns equal more violence" or "more guns equal less violence" I cannot take seriously if that is all they go off of. There is a lot to the issue. Even when it comes to Harvard I will dismiss it. It is a vague statement that needs details.
    1
  55. Optimus Fine, Norway, France and Finland have more mass shootings.
    1
  56. The Majestic Spider, John Lott released a study showing that other developed nations like Norway, France and Finland have a higher rate of mass shootings and more deaths. Also, there are many ways to resolve the issue that does not involve gun laws. For example, prior to the buyback program by Australia gun violence there was dropping. The gun law had nothing to do with decreased gun violence.
    1
  57. Optimus Fine, John Lott released a study showing they did. He published it in his most recent book where you can read and criticize all you want. I doubt you will knowing the common nature of the people on this comment section, but you can.
    1
  58. https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/sorry-despite-gun-control-advocates-claims-u-s-isnt-the-worst-country-for-mass-shootings/ https://www.dailywire.com/news/27401/democrats-say-america-worst-western-country-mass-hank-berrien
    1
  59. Katherine Voegtlin, 2/3 of those gun deaths were suicides. Suicide is a separate issues. Japan and S. Korea have a higher rate of suicide than the US despite stricter gun laws. Fact is there is a lot to these stats you are ignoring. As John Lott showed you can do a legit analysis and show that the US is not even in the top 10 in mass shooting rates. Also, the CDC showed that guns saved over 500,000 lives.
    1
  60. Ignar, so you cannot come up with a legit criticism of someone's sources and thus call them retards? I will walk away knowing who is in the wrong here.
    1
  61. Killer of Gems, the issue is that the CDC is not the organization to do gun violence study. It is the "Center for Disease Control and Prevention". Where in that title suggests that gun violence is to be studied? That is similar to asking NASA to do research on mental illness.
    1
  62. Killer of Germs, your politfact article cites Gun Violence Archive which waters down the definition of a mass shootings to 4+ being injured. It does cite other sources as well. That article does not cite John Lott's study either. As a whole here is the reality. This issue, like many others, have many variables attached to it. Just citing guns is very shallow and vague. Do a simple comparison of the UK and the US. The US has a murder rate of around 5 times higher than the UK. Now if you were to remove all gun murders from the US it will still have a murder rate 2 times higher than the UK. At that point one has to be 100% honest and say other factors are at play. This is not to say we do not have a gun problem, we do. It is to say that 1. It is not as severe as what others make it to be 2. Making blanket statements of new guns laws is not an argument in a complex issue 3. Other methods besides attacking guns need to be strongly considered if not implemented.
    1
  63. "The reason for gun violence decreasing is unclear at best, but some reasons include: More police officers, Police using modern computers to detect and stop crimes before they happen,...." I agree 100%. Now apply that to gun violence and mass shootings. Realize that other factors at at play. It isn't just guns. That is the main problem I have here, the left are pointing at guns and ignoring the plethora of other issues here.
    1
  64. As for Breitbart, many sources, including Secular Talk, has many flaws. I have heard Kyle give false information constantly. My point is that you have to be able to point it out. What about this article the OP posted was wrong? Now if a source is constantly wrong that is one thing, like TYT. But one example with Breitbart and Nazis, and considering how Milo does not work for them, is not strong enough to dismiss them this quickly.
    1
  65. Killer of Gems, just because Lott worked for Fox News and received funding from the NRA does not mean his study is unreliable. He is a gun rights supporter and the NRA will support him in that. Does it mean he is not bias? No. One should always be skeptical of everything out there. But to immediately bring it up as such is similar to how the right calls climate change science bias because it is funded by the government. Is there a level of truth there? Yes. But how much one cannot say, and it cannot be grounds for dismissal. In comparison, these kids are being paraded by anti-gun individuals, do we immediately dismiss them? It goes both ways. "I agree that gun violence is not just the only kind of violence here, but it is the one being discussed in the comments and what was discussed in the video at hand. While it is always good to remind people that gun violence isn't the only thing to focus on, in this instance it does nothing more than distract people from the topic at hand." It isn't distracting people. It is showing there are other other variables at play. If a gun murder occurred during gang activity is that an issue of guns or gangs? If there weren't any gang activity occurring than would that gun violence occurred? As for the UK and US murder stats these are very simple numbers you can find with FBI stats for the US and murder stats for the UK. Usually I don't tell people to just "Google it", but you can these stats and they are very easy numbers to find which is why I used it as a simple example.
    1
  66. Optimus Fine, that will require you to dig deeper. He published the information in his book. I am not saying what he released is 100% correct, nor that it is without flaws. It shows how complex the issue is and one can argue that other nations have it worse.
    1
  67. " Guns make suicide easier dont you think?" I agree. But suicides is a problem of suicides, not guns. How about we push to help the person, not ban guns from people. "There’s also weapon mishandling, accidental discharges " And? Accidents happen. Accidents are also rare. Nothing is ideal. There are car accidents. How about we ban driving and leave it for only public transportation. The gun show loophole is a myth. "Did you know 86 kids have died from guns" How many were gang related? How many were suicides? Remove those and what do you have? How many were targeted murders where other methods would have easily been used? You are saying guns are the issue when in reality there are many variables involved. Why does someone commit suicide? Why don't you want to help them?
    1
  68. Majority of students do not support this march either. Tally the number of students and those who actually participated. In reality these students who marched are in the minority.
    1