I’m trying to get you to answer yes or no.
By now you know what the question is. I’ve rephrased it several times.
Do I have to go back and gather all your nonsencical comments together to remind people of your hedgeing the subject?
You are trying to make your other statements clear. Why not this ?
It is a legitimate question.And probably the largest concern of “the people”.
Most people have no idea who Kellerman is and couldn’t give a shit.
They want to know how they are going to keep their families safe. How they are going to protect them from street thugs,rapists ,robbers,intruders and such when the police are not there?
One study shows the response time of one police force is 42 minutes IIRC.Kind of a long time to be standing there threatening to scream isn’t it.
Don’t know if my sentence structure is correct or not.
Moderators Why was my last post edited out!?
No side is going to convert the other, that’s for sure, and isn’t the point. Thinking about the issues is the point.
I hope you are not unlucky enough to get shot by some gun-owning citizen who goes nuts under pressure one day. However, if you are, I suggest you hide behind a copy of the 2nd amendment, and find out how much protection it gives you then.
Well, there’s only a .0027% chance of that ever happening. But that’s why I own a gun in the first place: so such a thing will not happen to me or my family for whom it is my duty to protect, as happens 1.7 million times a year to people who were smart enough to have a gun.
The recently-gone-crazy guy originally got one for the same reason as you. Today he had a lousy day, lost his job, wife left him. Now he’s really pissed off, slams a few drinks and looks for an outlet for his anger. Fortunately he has one all ready to hand…
You’re OK, since you have your gun to protect yourself from the other guy with a gun… Looks like we may have a pattern here. Guns breed more guns, like violence breeds more violence.
Since they’re so great, maybe we should just cut to the end and make them mandatory?
Sheesh. Don’t read the thread for a few days and all hell breaks loose. I have a lot to reply to since I’ve been away from the board for several days, so I’m only doing a bit right now.
Yes, it’s true that Hitler wasn’t originally elected to office, however, Encyclopedia.com says:
Whether he was elected at first or not, he was elected to the presidency, and he was supported by democracy. Democracy by itself is no protection against tyranny.
These pledges and justifications sound familiar, no?
Also, Crimson Dufus, Do you think you could make your citations to genuine sources of information? Maybe even somebody who at least pretends to be objective? militia-watchdog.org’s front page proclaims “Research on Far Right Extremism in the United States.” About this site includes this:
Hardly objective when its reason for being is based upon such false and misleading characterizations of the subject matter. Seems they already have their agenda and choose their “facts” accordingly. Sort of like you!
Stoidela:
I was going to restate all the explanations of the militia as used in the 2nd amendment, but it’s already in this thread. Read it before you keep running your mouth. It’s evident that you are the one who does not understand “well regulated militia”.
There was a town in the Carolinas (I think, and I seriously apologize for having no reference) that mandated exactly that, that every citizen of the town had to own a gun. It was a “response” to a town that had done the opposite, that is, to make ownership of a gun illegal (it was, of course, overturned once tried in the courts).
An interesting thing happened in the meantime: in the town where gun ownership was mandatory, crime plummeted to almost zero.
If anyone out there has a reference to this event, please post it (I will search myself).
Originally posted by Wrath
An interesting thing happened in the meantime: in the town where gun ownership was mandatory, crime plummeted to almost zero.
Posted by Deep Thought
Course it did. Instead of going out doing crimes, they all stayed at home playing with their weapons
Does it mention how many got killed?
I’ve owned guns since I was 13 years old. Thats 40 years.
I have not shot anyone. Not even a near miss.Or a far miss for that matter.
I also have never even pointed my guns at anyone.
Why don’t I give up my guns because I haven’t needed to use them??? Cmon you know why.
Because I might have to someday.
In 196_ My Grandparents house (Minneapolis) was broken into and they were robbed and beaten. Before they left one of the SOBs pissed on my bleeding grandfather who was lying on the floor in a pool of his own blood.
Although both survived they were forced to sell their home and neither quite got over the trauma.
Funny how the peaceful actions of the gunless town elicited such a violent response from the gun-law one. This is typical of the insular, fearful, reactive state of mind of the gun-loving section of society.
That’s terrible, unfortunately there will always be scumbags like that robbing SOB at loose in the world.
Just imagine how much worse it could have been if one or both parties had started shooting. A happier outcome as the result of firearms having been involved is not a likely scenario. A massacre followed by a protracted court case for the survivors, maybe.
Thanks for that, Deep Thought, as I wipe the tears from my eyes and the coke I spewed all over my keyboard from laughing so hard. Wheww!! Thank you…
May I suggest you do a search on gun debates on this board, as this horse has been flogged into dust, and arm yourself with a little more fragrant anti-gun rhetoric.
Sheesh…
Wow Deepthought.
You guys just don’t understand. You want everyone to be just as vulnerable as my grandparents???
Thats what will happen.I guess you have to have something up close and personal happen to you to get the picture.
Too bad.
Well let me say this one last thing
That old man must have put up a hell of a fight. He was 5’6’about 120lbs.
The police thought they knew who it was and credited them with about 8 other breakins. This one was the most violent.
There were a few more robberies before they caught them.There were 3 of them. My grandparents did not identify them .Too much stress.
Except for his fists (5’6 120 lbs) he had NO way of defending himself, his wife ,his daughter and his property…
Last thing for me on this one too, I’ve ranted too much already!
I’m very glad they survived the experience. Neither one of us can say what the presence of gun(s) in that situation would have done to the outcome, it could have gone either way.
To recap from 2 days ago. I’m not going to persuade you not to have guns. I hope only to persuade a few to consider getting some professional training to reduce your chance of messing someone up. Maybe yourself. Do not imagine you don’t need training, I know you do.
A pathetic answer to a pathetic, unrelated question. You’ve already pointed out that we shouldn’t rely on what people thought 200 years ago, and now you’re using that same information that you’ve “debunked” to support your case?
I ask for clarification to a pointless, vague question (Hamilton said many things, genius… I don’t memorize his writings), and suddenly I find myself playing Wheel Of Fortune. Can I buy a vowel?
I believe I’ve already implied that I don’t know. I don’t bandy around pointless trivia and pretend that makes me right. When you refer to “the militia”, do you mean the “official militia” or the “unofficial militia”? In your average dictionary, it will provide definitions of both under “militia”.
The “official militia”, that is, the National Guard, would side with the government (if they’re sufficiently disciplined, that is). The “unofficial militia”, that is, all men (originally between the ages of 18 and 45, but has since been expanded to mean all able people… ain’t civil rights grand?) would most likely be STARTING the insurrection, and as such would be siding AGAINST the government (assuming said insurrection is kicked off as a protest against tyrrranical government).
So you’ve come to the insanely false conclusion that the entire pro-gun argument is utterly dependent on what random historical figures said two centures ago. How foolish and simple-minded.
I’ve provided you with an answer twice now. Feel free to act as arrogant and abrasive as you want… it’ll give me a bit of a chuckle.
How elitist. I don’t find his (her?) posts to be confusing in the slightest, even with the less-than-MLA-standard grammar. I find this to be an extremely petty reason to not address someone’s points. Maybe you’d like to actually debunk the CONTENT of his (her?) posts rather than focus on the delivery? After all, we ARE trying to fight ignorance, and you don’t fight ignorance with your nose in the air. A bit of reasonability would be much appreciated.
Do you deny that what your pal said and what you said were in conflict? I made no insinuations… in fact, your explanation (and his) were far more than satisfactory in bringing the whole situation to light.
You DO know what an emoticon is, right? I know, I know, some people use them far too often, and as such their true meaning is obscured. I’ll try to be clearer when I’m being serious and when I’m just trying to keep everything from getting too stale (note the emoticon!)
I made the insinuation of a mistake. Or at least an obscure method of phrasing something. Just because I disagree with you on a single issue, it doesn’t mean I’m going to try to demonize you.
This is an example of how you point out insignificant inconsistencies in someone else’s posts and use that to conclude that his other content is inaccurate. Joe admitted that his example was hardly kosher pages back.
I WAS going to say “been an ass”, but I respect the rules of GD.
You must have proclaimed your supposed intellectual superiority several times in this thread. Who’re you trying to convince, us or yourself? Because let me tell you, you’re doing a horrible job with the former.
Well, for starters, there was that HUUUUUUUUGE listing of court cases that Max was kind enough to clarify for you. You claimed that they were directly related to the issue of gun rights, and it was shown that only a couple were even slightly related.
Of course, I realize that you’re going to simply pooh-pooh this example away, just as you reacted to Max’s post… oh well, beating me head against a brick wall is always good for a larf.
No, I said “the more complex a system, the more likely it is to screw up”. It’s called Chaos Theory.
I apologize if it seemed as if I meant that “because the study was more complex, therefore it is flawed”. I did not. I was just asking Mr. Lambert to keep that in mind when discussing the issue… that is, there’s a big chance that the “conclusions” drawn from the study aren’t as accurate as they could be.
There’s a difference between “How many free-throws a basketball player makes” and the conditions in a household.
One stat needn’t be compared to a another in order to be valid (10 FT’s is still 10 FT’s, even if someone else made 11).
There’s far more complexities going on in a person’s life than there are on a basketball court. How do you measure emotional turmoil or job satisfaction, for example?
Nope. It means that we should study the effects of smoking and cancer more, as has been done. What it DOESN’T mean is that cigarrettes cause cancer… that link would be shown through further examination.
YOU are deciding to stop studying the relation between cause-effect prematurely, when the results are vague and inaccurate.
Because protectice benefits from owning a gun weren’t examined. Do you expect to find a kidney when examining someone’s arm?
Did the study compare the cons of owning a gun with the pros? It did not. As such, concluding that owning a gun is more dangerous, period, is spurious.
Deep Thought…
THANK YOU! Very wise words. Words that are part of the NRA’s policy (well, at least the gist of it is).
It looks like you got your definition of Chaos theory from Jurassic Park, which got it wrong. Chaos theory is not some fancy version of Murphy’s Law. Try http://www.exploratorium.edu/complexity/lexicon/chaos.html
for a definition of Chaos theory.
Your statement is, in any event, wrong. A RAID system is much more complex than a single hard disk, but less likely to screw up.
As they could be if what? Are you trying to say that a simpler study would be more accurate?
I would certainly agree that the results of this study are not, by themselves, conclusive, but that’s because of the complexity of the thing studied, and not the complexity of the study.
Not true. If guns protect from homicide, then, other things being equal, gun owners will suffer fewer homicides. However, they suffered more. Argue, if you will, that all the matching and multivariate logistic regressing that Kellermann did was not enough to equalize all the other risk factors, but if you argue that the study did not measure protective benefits, you are just demostating that you don’t understand the case-control methodology.
(note the emoticon!)