Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Except it really isn't working out that way, is it now?
Actually it pretty much is. There are perversions and disturbances introduced by government involvement, but those who produce generally do well, and those who sit around generally do poorly. Which is as it should be. If we want more of the goodness, we should reduce government, reduce taxes, reduce social programs, emphasize individual rights, and enhance private property rights. That releases the creativity of the best and brightest and the good things happen faster and with greater amplitude.
Well, you might need to study WW2 history more in that case. Germany was done after Stalingrad and Kursk, following that, the ending of the war was a just matter of time and more lives. "Lend Lease" helped but it was not the deciding factor. And most was coming in later years. In fact during 1941 when Moscow was on the brink and the Soviet army in disarray, there were hardly any deliveries. If anything, it was actually the British aid in 41-42 that did help, even though still small in amount.
I can assure you that I do know my history. You haven't explained where I was wrong.
Thank you again for your response and the interesting data figures.
What I'm really asking for is your plot that I initially responded to, but with percentage of people who own guns plotted against gun violence. Not just the total number of guns divided by the number of people.
Well... More guns = fewer gun homicides. Kind of hard to argue against that. Facts are facts.
Now, if an increase in gun ownership had the effect of a corresponding increase in gun homicides, we'd be having a different discussion. But that's just NOT the case, at all.
Well... More guns = fewer gun homicides. Kind of hard to argue against that. Facts are facts.
Now, if an increase in gun ownership had the effect of a corresponding increase in gun homicides, we'd be having a different discussion. But that's just NOT the case, at all.
If those increase in guns are confined to a limited number of people, it doesn't really change the argument. If, however, gun ownership on the whole increases, it makes your case stronger.
If some guy in Wyoming, far away from where a lot of gun violence occurs, acquired 2 or 3 times more guns over that time frame, how does that affect what happens at a national level? If there are enough of those people in this country, that could seriously sway the interpretation of the data.
Put another way: how common is the Las Vegas shooter? Have these kind of people increased over time? I don't know the answer to that, and the data you have provided doesn't help me answer that.
Also - even if the data is there, you are arguing that it is a causal relationship. I'm not convinced of the causal link. There are many (mannnnny) factors that contribute to our level of gun violence in the nation. For instance, gun control laws, better policing, education levels, health of economy...you can't just ignore those factors.
For clarification's sake, I am again, not arguing that guns are the problem here. But I'm not convinced that they are not possibly a part of the problem. Especially since the US does not exist in a vacuum - there are a multitude of other examples in this world, and we are an outlier compared to the rest of the developed world. We have a made a conscious decision to be that outlier - but we are still nonetheless an outlier.
I realize that, but I also realize your opinion is wrong. As US gun ownership has increased, gun homicides have decreased. I posted the CDC/CRS data.
Guns are NOT the problem.
Statistics 101. Correlation =/= causation.
That's not a proper reading of the graphs. You're just bending the data to fit your opinion.
You cannot say "increased gun ownership = decreased homicides".
All you can say is that more people own guns, and there are a lot fewer homicides. But there is no proven link between the two.
You are saying there is causation between the two, when in reality, there are so many confounding factors.
Such as.... better law enforcement is taking the criminals off the street before they have a chance to commit gun violence. Or people being more vigilant; more witnesses and ubiquity of cameras make criminals think twice about gun violence. Or more people developing a conscience, or being more educated.
200 years ago, people were dumb and would resolve every conflict with a shootout.
You cannot deny this.... theoretically if guns did not exist, we would have zero gun violence.
We would have knife and fist violence instead.
Well, you might need to study WW2 history more in that case. Germany was done after Stalingrad and Kursk, following that, the ending of the war was a just matter of time and more lives. "Lend Lease" helped but it was not the deciding factor. And most was coming in later years. In fact during 1941 when Moscow was on the brink and the Soviet army in disarray, there were hardly any deliveries. If anything, it was actually the British aid in 41-42 that did help, even though still small in amount.
From Wikipedia;
According to the Russian historian Boris Vadimovich Sokolov, Lend-Lease played a crucial role in winning the war:
On the whole the following conclusion can be drawn: that without these Western shipments under Lend-Lease the Soviet Union not only would not have been able to win the Great Patriotic War, it would not have been able even to oppose the German invaders, since it could not itself produce sufficient quantities of arms and military equipment or adequate supplies of fuel and ammunition. The Soviet authorities were well aware of this dependency on Lend-Lease. Thus, Stalin told Harry Hopkins [FDR's emissary to Moscow in July 1941] that the U.S.S.R. could not match Germany's might as an occupier of Europe and its resources.[24]
Nikita Khrushchev, having served as a military commissar and intermediary between Stalin and his generals during the war, addressed directly the significance of Lend-lease aid in his memoirs:
I would like to express my candid opinion about Stalin’s views on whether the Red Army and the Soviet Union could have coped with Nazi Germany and survived the war without aid from the United States and Britain. First, I would like to tell about some remarks Stalin made and repeated several times when we were "discussing freely" among ourselves. He stated bluntly that if the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war. If we had had to fight Nazi Germany one on one, we could not have stood up against Germany's pressure, and we would have lost the war. No one ever discussed this subject officially, and I don't think Stalin left any written evidence of his opinion, but I will state here that several times in conversations with me he noted that these were the actual circumstances. He never made a special point of holding a conversation on the subject, but when we were engaged in some kind of relaxed conversation, going over international questions of the past and present, and when we would return to the subject of the path we had traveled during the war, that is what he said. When I listened to his remarks, I was fully in agreement with him, and today I am even more so.[30]
I think your hatred of the American principles of individualism, self-reliance, and freedom is coloring your opinion on world history. Without us, Europe would have fallen to the Nazis and a world of tyranny and mediocrity would have resulted. We prevented that. We were the difference maker. But while that was very cool and very true, are primary contribution is that of advancing the example of freedom to the rest of the world. Which is why everyone always wanted to come here, and still does. Although we are regressing now toward statism and collectivism, and will soon resemble the sewer that is Western Europe.
He is actually being 100% factual. Europe was not "saved" by us during WW2. We helped immensely, especially with the amount of equipment and goods we supplied our allies with. Remember two-thirds of all German soldiers and equipment was sent to the Eastern Front of which we played no role. By the time we actually put soldiers on the battlefield at the end of 1942 the German war machine had already ground to a halt and they were already in retreat on the Eastern Front. If anyone deserves credit for defeating the Nazis it is the Soviet Union.
That said, post 1945 the US military and our nuclear weapons did act as a deterrent to further Soviet expansion into Western Europe. So we did quote "save" Europe from the communist but that is another issue entirely.
Like every other gun incident in the last 30 years, politicians will talk about it for 2 weeks, then bury it under the rug.... until the next shooting incident.
Nothing will ever get done. Too many conflicting interests
More gun laws just make politicians look as if they care.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
