The correlation between guns and mass murders

This is data from 2018, but vibise is not wrong in her claim.


The top 10 states with the most violent crime rates:

1. Alaska - red
2. New Mexico - blue
3. Tennessee - red
4. Arkansas - red
5. Nevada - red
6. Louisiana - red
7. Alabama - red
8. Missouri - red
9. South Carolina - red
10. Arizona - blue

Now to be fair, there are more "red" states than "blue" states.

 
This is data from 2018, but vibise is not wrong in her claim.


The top 10 states with the most violent crime rates:

1. Alaska - red
2. New Mexico - blue
3. Tennessee - red
4. Arkansas - red
5. Nevada - red
6. Louisiana - red
7. Alabama - red
8. Missouri - red
9. South Carolina - red
10. Arizona - blue
Sorry, doesn't pass the smell test when Illinois, NY and Cali are not there.
 
You can think it fantasy as it happens I guess.
No, it really is a fantasy to think that everyone with a gun would suddenly agree that the government was evil and needed to be taken down, and that they would actually succeed against all the other private citizens who also have guns and don't want you to take down the government. The only way such a thing might succeed is if everyone with a gun was of one mind about taking down the government. But if there was that much unanimity about it, then the government would long ago have fallen by the voters. As I said before, there are no guarantees in life - only chances. And the chances do not favor having lots of guns around, because whether they are needed for a revolution or not, they are guaranteed to provide lots of gun crime, as we have already seen. So it is a question of whether you go through life in an underground shelter to protect from nuclear fallout, or you take your chances outside and live your life to the fullest.

No doubt voting is the way to handle it, but that ignores what people are saying about the state of voting in this country.
People are saying all sorts of things about voting. They always have. Be more specific, and how trusting the voting process ignores what they are saying.

You brought up slavery and any cross examination should not be construed as supporting slavery. You blew it all off and shirked responsibility.
Where did I "blow off" cross examination? Let's review. In response to appeal to the wisdom of the founding fathers, I made the point that the founding fathers also codified slavery in the constitution. You then said: "Like the Old Testament? What about the New where Jesus uses slaves as examples?" In an effort to figure out how this is any kind of response to me, I asked "You are not seriously supporting institutional slavery, condoned by the US government, are you?" That is not "blowing off" your remark. It is asking for clarification on what you intended to prove by that remark. Was it to show that the founding fathers had wisdom in codifying slavery? Or was there some other point. Was it that Jesus was just as bad in his support of slavery. If you insist I will address that directly. Jesus mentioned slavery because it was a fact of life at that time. He in no way supported it or urged his followers to codify it into law. So, no. Jesus was not as bad as that. Even the Old Testament is focused most of all on leading the chosen peopled out of slavery. Nowhere in the Old or the New Testament is slavery every extolled as a good thing. It is more often described as an evil, as when describing the Jewish experience under Egypt. But that is quite a bit off topic, because today no decent person anywhere in Christendom supports codifying slavery into law and enforcing such laws. But the founding fathers did. So did a lot of other people at the time. The founding father were not terrible. They were just a product of their time. I don't blame them. But we are not limited like they were. We have come to realize that slavery is bad. And we will also come to realize that have a saturation level of guns is also bad. It may take some time, and I don't expect to see it in my lifetime, but I think it is inevitable.

Again you are opposed to a young female gun rights to protect herself from home invaders. That is all we need to know
If there were a way to give a gun only to a young female living by herself and being stalked by a former boyfriend or other such dangers, without allowing guns in the hands of people like the shooter who killed 5 and injured 12 in Colorado Springs on Nov 19th, or the one who killed 5 in La Plata, Maryland on Nov. 4th, or the one who killed 8 in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma on Oct. 27th, or the one who killed 5 and injured 3 in Raleigh, NC on Oct. 13th, or the one who killed 5 in Baytown, TX on Oct. 5th, or the one who killed 5 in McGregor, TX on Sep. 29th, then I would be all for it. Unfortunately we don't have the ability to set a policy that would produce this outcome. If you think you know a way of doing that, by all means share it.l
 
Biden is by far the worst authoritarian to ever get elected...
An authoritarian is not just someone whose policies you happen to violently disagree with. That does not make him an authoritarian. Biden himself is not very popular, but if you look at his policies, they are in fact popular. He may not be very effective as a President, but he is no authoritarian.
 
No, it really is a fantasy to think that....
You can keep plugging in your fantasy projections, it's just a waste of your time.
People are saying all sorts of things about voting. They always have. Be more specific, and how trusting the voting process ignores what they are saying.
I don't talk much with people who try to act like there is no voter fraud. You can argue with yourself.
Where did I "blow off" cross examination? Let's review. In response to appeal to the wisdom of the founding fathers, I made the point that the founding fathers also codified slavery in the constitution. You then said: "Like the Old Testament? What about the New where Jesus uses slaves as examples?" In an effort to figure out how this is any kind of response to me, I asked "You are not seriously supporting institutional slavery, condoned by the US government, are you?" That is not "blowing off" your remark.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
If there were a way to give a gun only to a young female living by herself and being stalked by a former boyfriend or other such dangers, without allowing guns in the hands of people like the shooter who killed 5 and injured 12 in Colorado Springs on Nov 19th, or the one who killed 5 in La Plata, Maryland on Nov. 4th, or the one who killed 8 in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma on Oct. 27th, or the one who killed 5 and injured 3 in Raleigh, NC on Oct. 13th, or the one who killed 5 in Baytown, TX on Oct. 5th, or the one who killed 5 in McGregor, TX on Sep. 29th, then I would be all for it. Unfortunately we don't have the ability to set a policy that would produce this outcome. If you think you know a way of doing that, by all means share it.l
You keep coming up with these crazy stories that are irrelevant to me. Perhaps you need to look at the poster you are quoting.
 
I don't talk much with people who try to act like there is no voter fraud. You can argue with yourself.
Oh, there was voter fraud. There always has been. No election has ever been perfect in the history of this country. But all the officials responsible for election security, both Democrat and Republican, agree that the amount of voter fraud was not sufficient to change the outcome in any of the major races, and was probably one of the most secure elections in history, despite the protestations of the pillow guy and the former President.
 
Oh, there was voter fraud. There always has been. No election has ever been perfect in the history of this country. But all the officials responsible for election security, both Democrat and Republican, agree that the amount of voter fraud was not sufficient to change the outcome in any of the major races, and was probably one of the most secure elections in history, despite the protestations of the pillow guy and the former President.
If I wanted the MSM rundown I can just read CNN or something.
 
your link was wiki - not evidence - usatoday - liberal trash fake news

Dude, did you even actually read my post? The link for the data was from USA Today. Then I added a link that is to a map of the USA showing which states are red and which states are blue, not crime data.

Good grief. I mean, at least pay a LITTLE attention here.
 
It's not a question of belief, it's a question of trust.

Again, someone asked for a link. I gave a link to USA Today. You don't believe it. Whatever. You're welcome to whatever beliefs you have, but evidence has been provided as requested.
 
Again, someone asked for a link. I gave a link to USA Today. You don't believe it. Whatever. You're welcome to whatever beliefs you have, but evidence has been provided as requested.
Again, it's not a question of belief it's a question of trust.

You can keep saying "you don't believe" till next semester, I still don't trust your source and I won't believe what I don't trust. Call it a personal problem I guess.

Crime by cities is a valid measurement of crime. Cities generate the great majority of crime. And that applies to every state, regardless of political colors, as if that even matters. Just a silly narrative.
 
That would be idle speculation. It is unlikely the founding fathers could fully appreciate the nature of modern weapons, or the nature of modern society in anything less that some number of years. Their opinion on such matters, assuming we could ask them, would be no more valuable than asking a middle-schooler of today.
You pretend to speak for "founding fathers"?

How quaint. So on Thanksgiving day all the men went out and shot fresh meat to prepare the thanksgiving feast.

Why are your assumptions relevant? Are your opinions more valuable than a middle-schooler's??
 
Back
Top