The Brady Campaign has it backwards

pro2A

Hell, It's about time!
#1
The Brady Bunch gives the state of North Dakota a 4 out of 100 rating on gun laws. This is one of the lower grades. To them, ND = Bad.
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

There were TWO murders in North Dakota in 2008 both by stabbing.
Less Murders in ND in 2008 | KXNet.com

Laxed gun laws, less murder... The math doesn't add up in my mind.

But as we all know to a Liberal the facts don't matter :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

BigBob

Registered Member
#2
People act like guns are the only thing that can kill someone. Knives can kill, cars can kill.

Why not ban plastic spoons. I'm sure I can kill someone with one.
 

Merc

Certified Shitlord
V.I.P.
#3
Pro, if you want to start a serious discussion, you never start it with an insult, especially towards a majority of the forum. Also, FYI, North Dakota and South Dakota are two different states.
 

pro2A

Hell, It's about time!
#4
Pro, if you want to start a serious discussion, you never start it with an insult, especially towards a majority of the forum. Also, FYI, North Dakota and South Dakota are two different states.
Whoops :lol: Good catch. I think I just linked the wrong ones here.

Fixed.
 

Tucker

Lion Rampant
#5
The Brady Bunch gives the state of North Dakota a 4 out of 100 rating on gun laws. This is one of the lower grades. To them, ND = Bad.
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

There were TWO murders in North Dakota in 2008 both by stabbing.
Less Murders in ND in 2008 | KXNet.com
The 2008 number is a statistical aberration and I think you know that. It's one-eighth of the annual average over 20 years. There has been no recent change in gun laws in ND that you can claim accounted for the anomaly. And if you really want to play that game, I can find hundreds of places around the world with greater populations and stricter gun laws than North Dakota which have lower gun crime rates.

Laxed gun laws, less murder... The math doesn't add up in my mind.
Of course it doesn't. The correlation you seek to prove is imaginary. The truth is the opposite of what you claim. I can't tell whether you're so blinded by the romanticized notion of guns as the salvation of all humankind that you can't see the obvious, or whether you're willingly playing shady with the figures (like the NRA and right-wing media tend to do) in order to create the illusion of a trend that isn't really there. Either way, tsk.

Here's the real stuff:



Go ahead, twist those numbers up.

But as we all know to a Liberal the facts don't matter :rolleyes:
Facts matter to liberals, just not grossly distorted facts. There's no practical place for those in honest discussion.
 

Jeanie

still nobody's bitch
V.I.P.
#6
People act like guns are the only thing that can kill someone. Knives can kill, cars can kill.

Why not ban plastic spoons. I'm sure I can kill someone with one.
actually, Bob, there have been several studies in the field of Social Psycholgy which have shown two things - a) that the presence of guns makes people more violent; and b) that the further removed a person is from his or her victim, the greater harm they are willing to inflict on said victim, therefore a person is far more likely to inflict harm with a gun than with a knife.
 

Merc

Certified Shitlord
V.I.P.
#7


Go ahead, twist those numbers up.
I can't twist those numbers, but when's the last time you saw a handgun jump out of it's case and shoot someone itself? That poster has one serious problem and it's because it's claiming that guns are the culprits here. Hell, why do we have prisons? We should just send the guns there and let the people walk. They didn't do it, right? I just don't like how people like this make it sound like guns are the total problem when people make up a majority of the gun problem itself. We're blaming guns when we should be blaming people.

actually, Bob, there have been several studies in the field of Social Psycholgy which have shown two things - a) that the presence of guns makes people more violent; and b) that the further removed a person is from his or her victim, the greater harm they are willing to inflict on said victim, therefore a person is far more likely to inflict harm with a gun than with a knife.
Do you have links? I've found that a lot of studies like this tend to actually test people with violent histories which is pretty redundant if you ask me. Showing a violent person something our media equates with violence is obviously going to make them feel violence. Not to mention, what about how our culture portrays guns? How we learn about them? If a person is raised to believe guns cause violence, they're obviously going to sense violence around guns. Just look at how the media portrays guns and I'd say you don't have to pay any scientist to give you the answers.

I don't get how that second part works though. Because they have less connections with a person, they won't stab them? I understand that stabbings are more likely to be considered crimes against people the attacker knows, but how does that prove they want to use a gun? It sounds like you may not have explained too much because it sounds like a stretch.
 

Jeanie

still nobody's bitch
V.I.P.
#8
I've looked for links and have had a hard time finding them. The studies were all in my psych text books.
 

Merc

Certified Shitlord
V.I.P.
#9
I know I sound like a skeptic, I just don't like a lot of those research studies I've found. Hell my psych professor doesn't like a lot of them. I think it has way more to do with how we treat guns rather than the guns themselves.
 

Jeanie

still nobody's bitch
V.I.P.
#10
I know I sound like a skeptic, I just don't like a lot of those research studies I've found. Hell my psych professor doesn't like a lot of them. I think it has way more to do with how we treat guns rather than the guns themselves.
You could very well be right but the problem remains the same, regardless of the root cause. The problem remains that there are far more gun deaths in the U.S. than in other countries, so what do we do about it?

Regarding the second study I mentioned, I believe it has to do with anonymity and removal of empathy. It's analogous to flipping someone off when you're driving down the road, but not doing it when you're face to face with a stranger in a grocery store.

I'll have to dig my textbook out and look the study up, but I believe the method was something to the effect of participants were asked to shock other people, and they administered higher voltage shocks if they could not see the people being shocked, but if they were able to see them they were unwilling to administer higher voltage shocks. Something like that. Then there was an anecdotal story at the end of that chapter about someone making a suggestion to a high-ranking general that the nuclear codes be implanted within the body cavity of a soldier so that the person wishing to access the codes had to first kill that soldier before causing the deaths of thousands of other people, and the general reacted with outrage.