There is nothing wrong with my sources. What sources would you prefer I use? The pro gun control sites with their bias and lies?
The cognitive dissonance required to claim anti-gun sites are biased and liars, while pro-gun sites aren't, is genuinely mindboggling and should kind of be a big red flag there
If my source is lying about the linked item, please feel free to refute the information provided. Simply saying "it's untrustworthy" is not conducive to an interesting debate. "Attacking the source" is simply bad debating. And before anyone goes "but you did it" I provided links that showed where everytown has been caught lying with their numbers.
Attacking the source isn't bad debating? It should kind of be the cornerstone of debate, given that if your source is bad the information you're working off is bad.
If you want me to go on specifically about your sources, you linked a reddit comment (???) a "foxnation" website that links to a blank page with "coming soon" written on it, learnaboutguns.com a website literally partnered with the NRA (that gives no sources) and Thetruthaboutguns, which isn't a straight nra mouthpiece as far as i'm aware, has a long and storied history of
misleading and abusive practices and pretty much only really exists in the space it does to create a pro-gun narrative through cherrypicking. It's a blog, not exactly something with incredible journalistic integrity.
You also... didn't link to where people had been "lying about their numbers" you posted a bunch of links showing that incidentally like... three guys who advocate for stronger gun control were involved in crime tangentially linked to guns, or in one case used a gun in a criminal way. Not only is that pretty much a useless point to bring up (Ignoring that you generalised it) because it doesn't actually matter or impact on the discussion at all, but it's kind of a snapshot of your point of view in this discussion, which seems more concerned with point scoring and grandstanding than having an evidence based discussion
Why? In my state, there are NO state imposed gun laws. Noneski. You do not even need a permit to carry concealed anymore. Yet, last time I checked, we have the third or fourth lowest rate of any type of crime involving firearms. That includes everything from robberies, to even yes, assault and attacks on people.
I'd question which state you live in then, since as far as i'm aware that's....
just completely untrue? Nothing i've been able to find has indicated that any state with no state imposed gun control laws is anywhere near the top 10 states with the lowest gun deaths
I mean, realistically, what would even cause that? Why would more access to guns decrease gun crime? If we're subscribing to the myth that owning a gun makes you safer and less likely to be the victim of a murder/robbery/ect there's still a crime comitted by the person before you whip your own gun out and action hero them to death, so there logically shouldn't be less crime.
I mean, factually, the states with the
lowest amounts of gun control have the highest amounts of gun crime so the idea that your state could be a standout utopia seems kind of suspect to me, especially considering the things that raise crime rates (high poverty, ect) not being present in a state shouldn't account for the jump in gun crime that occurs when a state has no gun control vs when it does
And as much as anyone who brings this up gets called a psycho or conspiracy nut or whatever, the 2nd was also intended as a check on the govt so the people can defend themselves from any leaders who might go the more oppressive dictator route. I hope with all my heart that something like that never need be done though of course.
It seems kind of outdated then, since beyond empowering domestic terrorist things like the oklahoma bombing, waco, and the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge- it's just impossible to actually do that. It's useless because there's no way a group of people with guns is ever going to be able to fight against the government/the military and warfare/politics/modern life has advanced so far past the historical context of that law that it's completely obsolete. No one is going to grab their musket and join the union against the south anymore, that kind of thing just can't happen with the way the world is built politically, socially and economically
As much as I don't believe it, it might be the case as it is with drugs. I don't remember which country specifically but they made I think all drugs not illegal and in turn that lowered overdoses and drug use in general by a landslide. (Maybe Peru or Brazil?)
I think what you're thinking of is the idea of decriminalisation and creation of things like needle sharing programs ect, or Portugal's system. That's not just making all drugs legal and going at it, that's just changing policy so having/taking drugs is a health issue rather than a crime (drugs are still illegal, and selling them ect is still a crime). Combined with their strong social safety net of a universal income and changed policies of rehabilitating addicts rather than locking them up (Putting them into rehab, weening them off the drugs ect) they've been pretty effective in treating addiction