Sfdebris.net

Admiral X wrote:Even with mass shootings, violent crime (as in all violent crime) has been steadily declining since 1978.

Violent crime taken as a whole has been on the decline. But mass shootings themselves have remained at a steady rate since the 80s and have become more deadly over time. Funny how in order to make a case you have to look at as broad a category as possible, and can't actually focus on the statistics of the specific violent crime in question.

TGLS wrote:America, the land where the means to kill dozens of people is legal, but the means to get high carries multi-year sentences...

It's funny because the "War on Drugs" helps to illustrate how pointless a gun ban would be, and how it would actually make things more dangerous for everyone, especially the normal, law-abiding person. Incidentally I also happen to be against the "War on Drugs."

Wild_Kraken wrote: Violent crime taken as a whole has been on the decline. But mass shootings themselves have remained at a steady rate since the 80s and have become more deadly over time. Funny how in order to make a case you have to look at as broad a category as possible, and can't actually focus on the statistics of the specific violent crime in question.

What's funny is how intellectually dishonest it is to focus solely on gun crime considering that it's violent crime that's the problem. It also helps to illustrate that this isn't about saving anyone's lives of making people safer for you or anyone else who makes that type of argument. Which, I have to say, it really helps to illustrate the difference in attitude considering that as someone who is very pro-gun is very much "violence as a last resort," yet some of the very anti-gun types here are very pro-violence in how they've been acting like cheerleaders for antifa. Says a lot.

Admiral X wrote:

Wild_Kraken wrote: Violent crime taken as a whole has been on the decline. But mass shootings themselves have remained at a steady rate since the 80s and have become more deadly over time. Funny how in order to make a case you have to look at as broad a category as possible, and can't actually focus on the statistics of the specific violent crime in question.

What's funny is how intellectually dishonest it is to focus solely on gun crime considering that it's violent crime that's the problem.

This is an incoherent and self defeating position. You can absolutely target specific areas within a category. If you took this line of reasoning "it's not the part, it's the whole" into pretty much any other field the absurdity is undeniable. Imagine a world where the aggregate rate of disease was declining, but instances of one disease, let's say cancer for the example, were not only staying steady over time, but killing more people. No one could ever take the statement "What's funny is how intellectually dishonest it is to focus solely on cancer considering that it's disease that's the problem" seriously.

But, for the sake of argument, let's have a thought experiment where I agree with you. The problem is violent crime in aggregate and not any subset of violent crime like, for example, mass shootings. Based on the statistics, with a declining overall violent crime rate and a steady mass shooting rate, eventually the point will be reached where there is no longer an appreciable decline in the overall violent crime rate since all other violent crimes will essentially be zero against the unchanging rate of mass shootings. Basically, the decline in violent crime can't and won't continue forever so long as any subset of violent crimes within it remains steady. So even with your worldview that violent crime as a whole is the problem, you'll eventually need to tackle mass shootings in an effective way that works to prevent them if you want to continue the decline in all violent crimes.

Maybe by not othering political opponents and advocating violence against them. But my point still stands - by taking this line of reasoning, you are showing that this is not and has never been about saving lives or otherwise keeping people safe.

Admiral X wrote:Maybe by not othering political opponents and advocating violence against them. But my point still stands - by taking this line of reasoning, you are showing that this is not and has never been about saving lives or otherwise keeping people safe.

Ah yes, advocating methods that have been shown to reduce the amount of deaths and injuries is exactly what someone who doesn't care about reducing deaths and injuries does. Kind of like how if someone doesn't care about movies, they go see movies every week. Or how someone who doesn't care about their health will typically exercise, eat right, and follow their doctor's advice on how to be healthy.

Also, your point doesn't stand because it was incoherent and based on a flawed premise.

What's funny is how intellectually dishonest it is to focus solely on gun crime considering that it's violent crime that's the problem.

It's not intellectually dishonest to focus solely on gun crime in a thread about guns. More generally, it's not intellectually dishonest to focus on gun crime when its rate stays steady while other violent crimes decline. It is in fact to be expected that if all or most other areas within a category follow a trend that the focus would shift to those areas that aren't following the trend. And as explained in the second paragraph of my previous post, a post that you didn't respond directly to (wonder why that could be ) if trends continue, there will be nothing left but gun violence in the category of violent crimes to focus on.

It is very arguable that the decline in violent crime is due to reduction of lead in the environment and an increase in abortion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_and_crime_hypothesis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized ... ime_effect

LittleRaven wrote:The first casualty of the new law.

Nice bait and switch.

Wild_Kraken wrote:

Admiral X wrote:Even with mass shootings, violent crime (as in all violent crime) has been steadily declining since 1978.

Violent crime taken as a whole has been on the decline. But mass shootings themselves have remained at a steady rate since the 80s and have become more deadly over time. Funny how in order to make a case you have to look at as broad a category as possible, and can't actually focus on the statistics of the specific violent crime in question.

It drives me nuts seeing all of this and how quiet the collective voice is that speaks up about the problems within the America that give rise to people deciding that a good way of finally becoming famous and getting the attention they crave, or to vent their existential bitterness and resentment is to kill a bunch of people.

You take away guns and that impulse will continue, and to go on about how it might still reduce the body count is to completely miss the point being made that if you find and deal with that issue you cut down on it as a whole no matter what implement is being used.