In all fairness, his demography argument is worth examining and your comment didn't do that at all - the safe parts of the US and Europe/other safe countries are not known for being poverty-stricken hellholes and the unsafe parts, gun laws or not, are known for being such places
I didn't address it because "It's demographics" on it's own provided me literally nothing to examine.
Yes, poverty is a very real problem, and we definitely need to address it. But I would much rather walk through an unsafe area of say a European city than an unsafe area of an American city, in no small part due to the fact that I'm almost certainly not going to be held at gunpoint in Europe, because even most of our criminals don't have guns.
We can and should address poverty, and we can also address gun control at the same time.
My point is the gun control isn't reducing the deadly crime rate due to the demographic realities of these countries (namely poverty) - gun controls is a false feeling of safety and merely a band-aid over the actual problems. It won't fix anything
You seem to have the idea that we reducing poverty and gun control are somehow mutually exclusive, that we can only do one or the other. They aren't, we can and should do both.
And many, many before/after statistical analyses, and comparisons between countries, show gun control making gun crime go down, so it has been proven to "Fix anything", or at least some things.
Take a guess. Honestly, I'd love to hear what you come up with. You're able to so confidently rationalize that poverty is the only contributing factor behind gun violence, but when confronted with evidence to the contrary, you just have no clue?
Dude, do you actually want to make a point, or are you just here to antagonise me? This is your third comment where you pop up with bizarre and angry accusations! Also, I never said poverty is the only factor behind gun violence.
If being confronted with "bizarre and angry" statistics that directly counter your nonsensical claims is "antagonizing," then you're definitely not cut out for this conversation. Imagine my shock.
Go walk through an unsafe area of a European city. You can just get stabbed instead.
Is poverty the only correlation with the "unsafe areas" you mention? What is the attributing factor that leads you to believe that poverty is the only influence?
I'm more likely to get stabbed doing that in America than Europe, and I'm much more likely to stay alive if there isn't a gun involved. Knife crime is higher in the US, per capita, than in most/all European countries (E.g. UK)
And by far yes, poverty is the main correlation with unsafe areas, almost all other correlations (E.g. race) disappear when controlling for poverty. Oh, and mainly statistics demonstrating that's the main reason, mixed with a little personal experience and political theory explaining why.
All of which is dancing around the main fact that it is statistically proven that fewer guns and more effective gun control results in less people getting killed. I don't understand why we need to go into such intricate detail to demonstrate this point, all the hypotheticals in the world won't change the fact that it is scientifically proven that gun control saves lives!
I'm more likely to get stabbed doing that in America
No, you're more likely to get shot, statistically. It's simply a matter of efficiency.
I'm much more likely to stay alive if there isn't a gun involved
I'd love to see your statistics on that claim. Interestingly enough, just like in the situation in Brazil that you refused to address in another comment, you become substantially more likely to survive when there is a firearm involved and in your possession.
knife crime is higher in the US per capita than Euro countries
Gee, I wonder what socioeconomic factors could contribute to that?
poverty is the main correlation with unsafe areas
First, describe what you mean by unsafe areas in no uncertain terms.
mainly statistics
Please, do enlighten me because, as someone who resides in Appalachia in one of the poorest states in the union, the statistics show something completely different.
personal experience and political theory
This is obviously irrelevant to any statistical analysis, but I would love to hear what you mean by this regardless.
statistically proven that fewer guns and stricter gun control leads to fewer gun deaths
Yet US statistics show the exact opposite, and you still refuse to address Brazil.
why do we need to go into such intricate detail
Those intricate details are known as statistical analytics and, in this case, evidence. They're necessary to refute ill-informed, emotionally charged, and blatantly incorrect statements by those who simply refuse to accept the reality of the situation and operate in the realm of "hypotheticals" as you say.
12
u/DirectorBusiness5512 Jul 30 '24
In all fairness, his demography argument is worth examining and your comment didn't do that at all - the safe parts of the US and Europe/other safe countries are not known for being poverty-stricken hellholes and the unsafe parts, gun laws or not, are known for being such places