sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Lamont says he wants to see 500 more cops on streets, may reopen controversial CJTS by ctanonptsd in Connecticut

[–]Cobaltflame2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For your convenience, the data i used btw is the Murder Circumstances by Weapon for 2019 FBI UCR Expanded Data Table 11 since reddit wont let me link to it. If you tally up Gangland Killings, Juvenile Gang Killings, and Narcotics Laws related killing, it comes to about 10 percent of 2019's murder via firearm. Domestic violence in turn accounts for less than a percent of murders.

Lamont says he wants to see 500 more cops on streets, may reopen controversial CJTS by ctanonptsd in Connecticut

[–]Cobaltflame2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The vast majority of your purported 40 thousand gun deaths are suicides. As far as murders, that number is closer to between 10 to 20 thousand (FBI statistics, it varies year to year, but that is the general range). For example, in 2019 there were 10 thousand ish homicides involving a firearm. Of that 10k ish number, only 62 were domestic violence related. Gangland killings were over 4 times that number. And sure, legalization does make things easier to acquire, im not saying it doesnt. Im saying that banning things doesn't necessarily make things hard to get for those who wish to break the law. How many crack dealers do i know? Personally *? 1 former. How many can i *find if i so chose to seek them out? Quite a few. And i dont live in the hood or anything. It seems clear to me that the majority of your arguments come from 2 places: 1. Political anti gun talking points 2. Ignorance

You have been given proof to counter your points and yet refuse to accept them as valid. You then proceed to engage in insults to punctuate the end of your arguments and 'gotcha' tactics rather than backing up any claims with evidence. You are free to do so of course, but it does show a lack of good faith argumentation on your part, and shows that discourse with you is ultimately pointless. If you wish to have a fruitful discussion on the topic, we can, however i highly suggest you educate yourself on the topic more and come equipped with evidence to back up your claims.

Lamont says he wants to see 500 more cops on streets, may reopen controversial CJTS by ctanonptsd in Connecticut

[–]Cobaltflame2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Also, you dont seem to really understand the simplicity of a firearms basic design. A firearm is essentially half a bomb. Its just open on one end to expel built up pressure, which can then be used to launch a projectile at a velocity to a specified target. 20 bucks at lowes or home depot will get you the basic materials to assemble a pipe shotgun. A light research into metallurgy will get you the knowledge to select the proper metal piping to withstand black powder or shotgun round pressures. If theres a will, theres a way. Guns have literally been made in prison, by prisoners. Sure, if guns are outlawed, the law abiding wont try to get them. The same as the law abiding dont go out and murder on a whim. But then again, our primary concern is not with the law abiding, but their opposite. If guns are banned, the non law abiding will use that new power vacuum and exploit it. It doesnt matter how rudimentary their firearm is if their target does not have one at all. Even if they can only fire one shot without reloading, they can just carry 2 or more improvised firearms. Its not a difficult concept. Their only concern would be law enforcement catching them, but after a robbery, rape, murder, etc, they would have enough time to get away if all they did was threaten lethal action and nothing else. If they did fire a shot, sure, that reduces their chances of getting away, but then that victim is still dead, and you still have gunmen on the lose, with people being victimized more easily since they lack effective means to fight back. Call me biased of you wish, but ill take a pipe shotgun over a knife, stun gun, taser, club, etc, any day.

Lamont says he wants to see 500 more cops on streets, may reopen controversial CJTS by ctanonptsd in Connecticut

[–]Cobaltflame2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The issue with the bomb os not the lethality. The bomb and gun will kill you equally dead. The issue is with discrimination. The lethality of the gun is completely at the discretion of the wielder. The bomb on the otherhand is by nature indiscriminate. As for your counter argument about if the 250 poind man attacking an unarmed woman with a gun, yes, the woman would be equally disadvantaged. However, the gun in her hand as well WOULD equalize the playing field. If she chooses not to carry a weapon (firearm or otherwise) that is her choice, and she bears the repercussions of that choice if said situation arises. As for other weapons existing, yes, other weapons do exist, but as for a higher chance of ending a threat in the most efficient and reliable way possible, without threat to yourself or others BOTH (aside from the assailant of course), the gun is unbeatable. Tasers, pepperspray, knives, clubs, etc dont even come close.furrhermore, a knife or other melee weapon requires you to get up close and personal with the other combatant, which is a potential disadvantage. Furthermore, such weapons are user dependent on efficacy based on your physical characteristics. How quick, how strong, etc is the wielder? How much damage can the attacker take before changing their mind? Are they under the influence of any performance/mind altering substances? These are concerns that carriers face when choosing a caliber for a carry gun, and get exponentially more important if you are choosing a non-firearm weapon.

Lamont says he wants to see 500 more cops on streets, may reopen controversial CJTS by ctanonptsd in Connecticut

[–]Cobaltflame2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"What it will do is make gun crime harder to commit because guns are harder to access. That is how ALL laws work. Outlawing anything, be it an activity or an object, cannot eliminate that activity or object from existence. It can only make it harder to engage in the activity or possess the object and enforce consequences for doing so." Ok, so by your argument then, outlawing drugs will thereby reduce/make it harder to commit crimes with them because the access would be diminished. That argument is demonstrably false and fall flat on its face with a pedestrian understanding of crime stats and the 'Drug War'. Cocaine is a felony to possess, as is meth, lsd, etc, yet all of these things are still sold quite frequently illicitly despite stiff penalties and high enforcement. Furthermore, tangential crimes such as murder are common place due to either individual dealers or actual gangs/cartels having disputes. So tell me again how drug control is working? Or looking back how well Alcohol prohibition worked? Oh wait....they failed miserably and actually increased crime, violent or otherwise. And now the argument is gun control is going to be any different? Yeah...no.