“Whosoever shall say, Thou fool in Great Debates, shall be in danger of not getting to post anymore.”
Moderator’s Note: No direct insults outside of the pit, smiling bandit.
Regards,
Shodan
Yeah ! Only indirect ones !
Yes, statistics indicate that crime in general has declined but as with all statistics, there are many ways to interpret the data. What period of time is being talked about, what is the state of the economy during the periods covered (better economy usually equals lower crime), is everything being counted, how are statistics being collected, etc., etc. Statistics related to crime are generally not reliable (see below cite).
Regardless, whether or not the decline we have been seeing in statistics is valid or not, the fact is still that THERE ARE TOO MANY murders, injuries, accidents and thefts related to guns. So getting rid of guns will reduce and eventually, eliminate all gun injuries. As to your reference to strict gun control not reducing crime, that is again, as I have previously mentioned, due to inadequate enforcement of exiting penalties and/or penalties not strong enough.
Did you read all the posts before you decided to jump in here? Did you pass over the previous discussion about your hidden gun being useless if someone came up and whacked you upside your head with something? Or how about the guy comes up behind you, sticks a gun in your back and says raise your hands, slowly? How about the guy with a TASR who uses it on you from behind? What, do you think you live in the wild west, where the criminal is going to walk up to you and say “Draw”? Sheese.
I believe I provide adequate evidence for my statements. If statistics are available and are VALID, I will use them. In other cases, common sense and/or logic will have to suffice. But when someone refuses to accept the statement and says they disagree, then we are at a standoff and there is nothing more for me to say, other than I disagree with you, UNLESS you can produce something valid that shows I am wrong. Do so, and I will reply.
Wow, you sound like a tough guy. I think your childish statement above only serves to prove my point that a gun in hand makes someone feel a lot stronger than they are, both mentally and physically.
Really? I guess I could ask for a cite on this, but I doubt you’d be able to find anything. So I’ll provide you with one that contradicts you’re statement: Cops’ guns no match for gang-bangers’ AK-47s
So? These particular statistics show that the drop in the crime rate is greatest in those states that passed ‘shall issue concealed carry,’ and in adjoining metro areas where it has not been passed showed either no decline or an increase. But like you say, statistics aren’t important, only the fact that concealed carry reduces violent crime.
That’s opinion, not fact. You could as easily say there’s too many deaths related to tobacco, abortions, personally-owned-vehicles, medical practices, baseball bats and any other thing people die from. Or, you could just as easily say there were not enough! (Yawn). So? What else?
So, what? You’re superman, right? And you are going to melt all guns with your x-ray vision all over the world all at the same time, AND destroy all means of making guns AND with your super mind-control make all criminals obey all the laws?
No?
Then how DO you propose to do it? How do you think it can be done?
Well, it can’t. Wake up, we’re tired of your fantasy (but it sure is fun seeing what nonsense you’ll come up with next). Plus, the reference was more than “strict gun control not reducing crime” it was that ***strict gun control causes an increase in violent crimes! ** *
Or did you figure you already know everything and you didn’t have to read the study? Oh, and BTW, this is in practice, not in your vague idealistic theories.
(Yawn) Oh, yes, you forgot about nukes. Concealed weapons are useless against nukes too, and laser-guided missiles. SO WHAT!?
Or maybe they are not so useless if they stop crime without even being drawn, shown or even loaded or even carried because a criminal will avoid you if he THINKS you MAY have a handgun. Why should he bother? Why should he put his life at risk if he doesn’t have to?
Remember, I’m talking statistically established occurrences and you’re talking idealized fantasy. Of course concealed weapons aren’t going to eliminate all crime. NOTHING is going to eliminate all crime. Yes, I read all the posts and dismissed most of them as uneducated drivel and decided to jump in when I had something to say “to combat ignorance.” After reading all your posts (including those where you exclaimed you were through with this thread – too bad you don’t keep your word), I knew where I could work best to combat ignorance. Cecil is right, “It’s taking longer than planned.”
Now why would I think that? Get real. Of course the criminals are not…
Oh…, I get it… When you run out of valid things to say you fall back on personal attacks. I’ve seen that before, in classes of young teens I used to teach. They often resort to that kind of defense, some people never grow out of it.
And the proper spelling is Sheesh, not “Sheese.”
FYI, a criminal will take any advantage he or she or it can to obtain the greatest benefit for the least danger. Except those that are just stupid, and they die quick anyway. A criminal will go for a suspected unarmed target, unguarded, with the greatest assets (we’re talking career criminal here, not a flash-in-the-pan). Concealed carry reduces violent crime, reduces rapes and murders, NOT ONLY because the supposed victim can fight back, but because the criminal has to pick less dangerous or more vulnerable targets if he/she/it want’s to stay alive.
More than anything, you reveal yourself more by what you ignored than what you attacked. You KNOW that gun control (registration, limitation, etc.) has always been a precursor to confiscation, and that confiscation leads inevitably (so far anyway) to tyrrany. You neglected to comment on Hitler’s gun control… My, my. Or in your case, me, me…
That’s “your.” You’re means ‘you are.’
And, more importantly, that is just one instance. Statistically speaking criminals prefer easily concealable guns. Gang bangers aren’t criminals, they are warriors. Some of them even have real assault weapons that fire fully-automatic (even though they have been illegal to possess since 1933), not just the “Clinton version” of dressy semi-automatics that gun haters call “assault weapons.”
Guess you weren’t born when 9-11 happened. That was just a few years ago.
THE COUNTRY WAS ATTACKED!!!
What if the passengers in those planes had personal weapons? What if the pilots or attendants had personal weapons?
A LOT LESS PEOPLE WOULD HAVE DIED!!!
I applaud the bravery of those people who fought back against their attacker in the fourth plane, and lost their lives (they would have died anyway), saving many more lives that would have been lost had that plane reached its destination.
That’s very close to what Hitler said when he disarmed Germany.
I dispise the tyrants that would disarm honest people in the name of "political correctness, saving lives (a lie), or creating safety (another lie).
I dispise the cowards who believe that everyone ELSE should be disarmed because of their own fears. And make no mistake, there is no other reason but fear and cowardice to want to disarm law-abiding citizens.
THOU hast said it.
No. You’re (note proper application of contraction) living in a fantasy world. All guns cannot be confiscated; you can only take the guns from law-abiding citizens, and what kind of rabid gun-hating kook would want to do that? That would only cause MORE gun deaths, since only the criminals, police and military would still have guns! And most of the deaths would be innocents, while today a significant portion of the deaths ARE criminals.
Prohblem solved: There IS no problem.
I’m not going to waste my time replying to most of your (see I type the word correctly this time :smack:) ranting’s because IMO, they are not only nonsensical but also indicate that you haven’t read through the thread with comprehension and understanding. However, I will reply to the statement above, which, again, has already been addressed previously.
People who don’t turn their weapons in, including criminals and/or get caught with them will face very severe sentences, for instance, confiscation of their property and a long time in prison. Those who use their guns after my proposed law has been passed AND kill someone, will face the death penalty. You’re welcome to take your chances. Clear?
btw: you spelled “Prohblem” wrong. It’s “PROBLEM” <snicker>
Maybe it’s only yourself that you’re fooling. We aren’t fooled. You aren’t replying to what you call my “rantings” because you can’t. You know I’m right. You don’t have a leg to stand on.
Your reply was about an issue that wasn’t even in my posts! But, now that you have brought it up again, after it has been shot down so many times, your proposal is just garbage. This is supposed to make a difference?
Clear as mud. So, some people turn their guns in, others go to jail, others face death and the rest go on hoarding firearms, killing people until, and if, they are caught. Sounds like present-day California, which has one of the higher violent crime rates in the U.S.
Like I said. SO WHAT!? It won’t work. It’s been tried in the U.S. and in other countries and it didn’t work then.
Hey, frankly, I think your ranting is not only nonsensical, but it shows that you haven’t carefully read my criticisms of your posts. If it wasn’t so much fun, I’d probably just write you off.
Interesting how you get your jollies. I admit, I can’t type. Big deal. At least I’m not stupid enough to mix up your and you’re.
(Or stupid enough to propose such a juvenile solution to a non-existant problem.)
btw: you forgot to say ‘thank you’ to me for correcting your poor English usage.
Poor little 'ol iamme99 says this is too nonsensical to reply to. He also alludes that it has nothing to do with this thread (or that I didn’t understand this thread). However it was in response to a statement he made on this thread about the prospect of America being attacked being… let’s see…
Puh-leeze?
Oh yes, it’s SO unLIKEly that our COUNTRY would be ATTACKED.
But that’s not important to you. I guess it’s more important that the next time we get attacked we won’t have any way to defend ourselves? Again??
Do you wear a turban? Or a bhurkha? Or do you just act that way?
You started this thread with a bunch of false assumptions and an over-simplistic, sophmoric, moronic proposal. You have continued it with impertinant refusals to comply with ‘rules of order,’ digressions from the line of the thread (which you then accuse others of doing), ignorance of answers you requested, either directly or indirectly, and further displays of your immaturity, illogic, lack of common sense and general pig-headedness.
Whenever anyone came up with any rational, logical or well-researched statements, you ignored their posts and focused on replying to only those things where you thought you could win and then saying things that just invited more criticism.
You are not interested in discourse. You are not interested in truth. You are not interested in fighting ignorance. It seems like all you are interested in is stroking your own ego and putting down other people.
Oh yes, I almost forgot, and being a traitor to your country.
And when will this happen?
You know, if I were the President of the United States, and I wanted to install myself as a fascist dictator, the first thing I’d do is round up all of Americas white, male gun owners…
…and deputise them. I’d ask them to join me in my crusade against lawlessness, and foreign interests. I’d call them “patriots”. They’d make a perfect paramilitary force, and they wouldn’t have the presumed impartialitry or preventive discipline of the military or police. Isn’t that what Mussolini did? Isn’t that what Mugabe is doing in Zombabwe?
It’s just a thought, one I’m not sure of myself. I love guns myself - I’ve fired quite a few - but I get kind of wary when people start considering private ownership of firearms as some kind of safeguard for freedom, when that’s not neccessarily the case. Especially when they start bringing up Hitler. Because I believe that the Nazis’ banning of private weapons was the best thing they ever did. If Germans had had firearms, they just would have used them to kill more Jews.
Boy, I never thought of that! Brilliant!
We should try it with all kinds of other stuff, like cocaine. We could end the drug problem overnight!
Oh wait, that was a convincing argument. I guess I was supposed to say, “I’m not even going to bother responding to that because you’re so stupid and ignorant.” And I can’t pay any attention to statistics, because they are unreliable, so I can’t be convinced by any evidence. Hmmm…
I guess all that is left is accusing my opponents of being paranoid, ignoring their arguments, announcing ahead of time that I don’t intend to debate in good faith, and then pat myself on the back for my brilliance.
Now all I have to worry about is that noise.
Clippety clop, clippety clop…
Regards,
Shodan
Well, yeah. If saying “Prove me wrong,” is acceptable as substantiation for your statements of fact. Too bad it ain’t.
Which, at its root, means, since you have failed to provide a citation to back up your statement, that you do not have valid statistics that support your position - you were attempting to foist off on us your ignorance of the true situation. But hey, you believe it; that should be sufficient for the rest of us.
No, not when there are available facts - and ones that directly contradict your “common sense and/or logic.”
So then. Where is your reply? Several citations directly contradicting your statement that gun crime is increasing, have been provided for you. You have yet to produce anything in support of your statement. You have merely shown us that some folks disagree with current statistical models for gathering crime numbers. I’m sorry, but even “common sense and/or logic” inform us that this in no way supports your claim.
What you are trying to do here is make yourself the sole arbiter of what is, and what is not, a vaild substantiation of one’s opinion. You are utterly failing to argue by the accepted norms, while trying to hold everyone else to a standard which you are tellind us, does not apply to you. “Common sense and/or logic” indeed. You make me laugh.
You aren’t going to be convinced that you are wrong. You prefer to wallow in your ignorance. You prefer to let your own ill-informed opinions shout over the facts of the situtation. So let’s put all that aside for the moment.
Let’s assume you have managed to have the 2nd amendment repealed. Let’s assume you have passed sufficient federal laws superceding all state constitutions which also guaranteed the right of private citizens to keep and bear arms. Let’s assume you have persuaded Congress to enact sufficient laws to completely and totally ban all private ownership of all guns. Let’s assume all this has been sufficiently litigated and the courts have upheld all your new laws. Let’s assume you have receieved your wish. We now are at those crossroads BMalion asked about earlier and you said we’d cross when we got to it.
What do you do to enforce these laws? How are you going to round up all these guns and destroy them? How are you going to coerce criminals to turn in their guns? And specifically, how are you gonna get 'em outta my house?
I see, whilst I was typing, that you have attempted to answer the crossroads question. With a dodge; with an evasion; with a copout. With shit.
Fact is, there are pretty stiff penalties already in place for people who cannot currently legally possess guns and are found with them. Moreso, if they’re found using them in the commission of a crime. I know, you wanna hang these people, or chop off their heads, but c’mon, how about proposing something that might actually prove acceptable to a majority of the public; something that might stand a chance of passing a legal test.
And ya know, it can be shown that capital punishment doesn’t necessarily have a positive effect on violent crime anyway. Of course, you disdain statistics and prefer to eschew cites, so dont’ bother asking me to substantiate that. I’m not willing to make an attempt to meet you halfway, since you have made it amply clear that you adamantly refuse to take even a single step that direction.
Tangent to the subject, here is a CNN story about artillery pieces being used by ski resorts to save lives.
Why only the white men? Why not all the law-abiding gun owners?
How about if it comes from Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto of Japan, advising his superiors not to attack the mainland United States.
“You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.”
Here he refers to the private, civilian ownership of firearms as a direct threat to a military invasion by an outside power, and this eventually delays Japan’s attack on the United States. It seems that private gun ownership deterred the Japanese military from lauching a land based attack on the US mainland.
And out of my house also.
I’m not talking about the penalties after you manage to accomplish the removal of myself and the guns. I mean how are you going to get in here and get them.