It was called “May-Issue”, and in practice it always turned out to be “May Not Issue”, except for people whom the Mayor owed a favor. The police and government will always want a monopoly on weapons, while progressives tell the victims of violent crime that it’s their fault for not eliminating poverty and racism.
My focus here is on preventing deaths. Other violent crime, assisted by the prevalence of weapons that are useful committing crime, is secondary. It’s pretty damn silly to claim that the overall crime rate is not connected with the prevalence of weapons.
Let *me *reiterate your position: The data does not show what you wish it would, so you’re going to handwave it away.
Have you ever been diagnosed with a cognitive deficit? Saving lives is exactly what I care most about here. The problem you’re apparently having is that the only solution you can understand and accept is to get more people armed so they can shoot you back. :rolleyes:
Of course you were, dear, of course you were. :rolleyes:
They (or is it you?) are pretty damn loud about that, aren’t they/you? Here’s a hint: That raving lunacy is all evidence of serious mental health issues, which many of you fetishists agree should prohibit them from access to weapons.
The government is us. The police are part of the government, and part of us. They’re not the enemy. People who disagree with you in a civilized society are not the enemy. Portraying them as such is more evidence of mental health issues.
Um, no, where the hell do you get that from? Now you’re not trying even to be coherent.
As Cecil pointed out in his article about radiation exposure, there’s a finite cost we as a society are willing to pay to prevent loss of human life. Only someone (like yourself evidently) who’s convinced that guns have zero benefits could presume that eliminating guns is a no-cost, all-benefit measure.
Stop putting words in my mouth, Asshole.
Your solution is 180 degrees exactly opposite what I and many others think will work. One of us has to be dead wrong; I believe it is you.
Yes, I was. If you don’t believe me, eat shit and die.
You’re a fine one to accuse anyone else of cognitive disorders or mental illness. In any case, we operate on a simple principle here in the US: you’re judged by what you actually do. If you haven’t committed a felony, you are presumed to be a responsible person with free will.
I once had a [del]pig[/del] police officer threaten to arrest me for jaywalking because I wouldn’t bow and scrape enough to suit him. Or how about Chicago police superintendent Garry McCarthy, who threatened that Chicago police would presume any non-cop carrying a gun was a shooter, permits be damned? Wherever police have a monopoly on weapons, and realize that they’re The Men With The Guns, they inevitably turn into the biggest and best armed gang in town; and the cits can shut up and do what they’re told. And you actually believe that somehow by magic it’ll never happen here? Go ahead, keep thinking happy thoughts- at least until you take a nightstick to the head for “disorderly conduct” (i.e., not kissing ass fervently enough).
The logical outcome of the progressive mindset, put into words more nakedly than they would use.
And this is a prime example of the crux of Hentor’s argument against guns generally and me in particular. If he didn’t have insults he hardly have anything left.
In order to have any debate at all, we have had to assume away things like the constitution and our bicameral leglslative democracy to get to the point where we can even duscuss things like total gun bans (and lets not even talk about how politically impossible any of these things are). And even then we have to move the debate to the pit because the majority of their argument is calling the other side names.
They point out flaws in the best available estimates we have of defensive gun use and say they are unreliable and then fail to provide any estimates of their own so that they can pretend that defensive gun use hardly exists.
They sneer at the soures of information that tell us that legal gun owners commit a disproportionately small percentage of gun crimes and that CCWs commit and even smaller proportionate share of gun crimes without providing any contrary evidence so that they can justify disarming the law abiding population based on crime committed by convicted felons and gang members.
They basically have nothing left but calling names and waving away evidence as not being good enough for their tastes.
So he concludes from “there is some evidence” to mean that I have some airtight proof that gun ? How about you provide a link to my post next time so people don’t have to go searching through this monster thread to find the langauge in context (is your quote function broken or something, you consistently refuse to use it, if I didn’t know better I’d say it was because you like to quote people out of context and set up impendiments to make it harder for people to see the original context).
Yeah, thats a steady decline in suicides, what was the suicide rate in 1995 and 1996. Did suicide rates go up or down from 1996 to 1997? The gun buyback occurred in 1996 and 1997. Suicides increased between 1996 to 1997 despite a drop in the level of gun suicides. How do you explain that if there wasn’t some substitution effect? Was it just a bad year? What about 1998. The gun suicides dropped even more while total suicides barely moved.
in 1995 gun suicides accounted for 22% of suicides. in the period you displayed suicides dropped almost 40%. Suicide rates are obviously falling independently of gun suicides but we never see that break in suicides that you might expect from a gun confiscation that took place over the course of 12 months unless there was some sort of substitution effect.
They were relatively flat from 1996 to 1998. Why wouldn’t the effect of gun confiscation on suicides have an immediate impact? Why does it take several years for the effect of taking aaway the guns on gun suicides to take effect? Or are you overstating your case again based on correlation?
Pfft. Insults again, its all you’ve got.
And how many net lives are saved or lost by taking away guns from the hands of law abiding citizens that you claim flip out and kill up the joint?
Did Hentor show us somewhere that convicted criminals account for only a small fraction of gun murders? I thought he pointed out that it was 57% (mostly to rebutt the evidence we had from palces like Baltimore and NYC where it was closer to 90%). Is that a small fraction? Now add in the underage kids and gangbangers. Now add in the wife beaters, stalkers and people subject to a restraining order. What percentage of gun crime is committed by previously law abiding citizens?
And what percentage of gun crimes are committed by people who had been law abiding up to that point?
Says the guy who shits his pants anytime he thinks of a gun.
Yeah, he does that to me too. I say i am in favor of licensing and registration and have said so since the beginnning but it doesn’t matter, he knows I’m lying about that (I don’t know who he thnks I’m trying to fool by pretending to support licensing and registration but he’s convinced that anyone that supports gun rights at all supports the most extreme version of gun rights.
Damuri, is that your way of acknowledging at long last that the facts are against you? Your repeated JAQ’ing is all you’ve got.
That, and your continued lie about what you stand for in legislation. Your own actions show otherwise, as you’ve been told repeatedly. But you can only resort to your Rain Man act and stroke your trigger for comfort.
I do recognize that you haven’t claimed for several posts now that your side’s stifling of Manchin-Toomey was somehow Feinstein’s fault. Does that mean you can now admit there is no support for that claim, or is that just another masturbatory lie?
Your hand is dropping to your hip right now, isn’t it?
As long as the main benefit you can point to is that ridiculous militia/tyranny fantasy, and as long as countries with effectively zero gun ownership have so much lower murder rates, then yes, the facts will continue to support that premise. If you’d rather that reality be something different, that’s your own fucking problem.
All relevant data, including experience virtually every fucking where else, shows your “belief” to be a stupid, self-comforting lie. The facts are otherwise.
Take it back to Stormfront.
Oh yes, that’s right, unsupervised police departments implemented a totalitarian state here decades ago. What? They didn’t? :eek: The thing you fear hasn’t happened yet? Why not, d’ya suppose?
Your persistent fantasizing is not a sign of mental health.
Just to explore this a little more: What happens if you’re carrying when the rampaging, tyrannical police go after you? Does that mean you successfully repel the attack, perhaps along with the well-regulated militia that will somehow appear by your side? You’ll maybe take out a few of them as a lesson to the rest? Is that what happens?
Or does your weapon simply get your ass kicked at best, and more likely dead? Be serious now. Drop the fantasy and be serious.
Here’s a new gun rights twist- the Bush Doctrine.
If you think your neighbors might be plotting against you, go ahead and shoot them all about 11 times each! Probable problem solved!
"Florida Today reported on Wednesday that attorney’s for William T. Woodward had filed a motion asking for charges against him to be dismissed under Florida’s Stand Your Ground law, which says that gun owners do not have a duty to retreat in the face of an “imminent” threat.
According to officials in Titusville, Woodward had snuck up on his neighbors while they were having a Labor Day barbecue. Police responding to the scene found that Gary Lee Hembree, Roger Picior and Bruce Timothy had all been shot.
Hembree and Picior were later pronounced dead. Blake survived, even though he had been hit 11 times.
In their motion, Woodward’s attorneys claimed that the victims had called him names and threatened to “get him.”
The motion referenced Enoch V. State, which suggests that an “imminent” threat can include something that is likely to occur at sometime in the future.
“I think legally that term has sort of been evolving especially given changes of our government’s definition of ‘imminent,’” attorney Robert Berry, who is representing Woodward, told Florida Today. “It’s become more expansive than someone putting a gun right to your head. It’s things that could become, you know, an immediate threat.”
The court document filed by the defense also cited “The Bush Doctrine,” a foreign policy principle used by President George W. Bush to justify the invasion of Iraq. “The Bush Doctrine” embraces “preventive” or pre-emptive war." http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20130904/NEWS01/309040021/Titusville-slaying-suspect-claims-he-stood-his-ground?gcheck=1&nclick_check=1
(Edited to take out the non-relevent stuff)
SNIP
…“Stop putting words in my mouth, Asshole.”…
SNIP
…“The logical outcome of the progressive mindset, put into words more nakedly than they would use.”
Classic!
Damuri Ajashi, you promised us evidence that people would find alternative methods of suicide. You said that Australia’s experience showed that.
So, do you have any evidence of that or not? It doesn’t get any more simple than that. Yes or no?
So far the actual Australian data has pulled your pants down and laughed at your microphallus.
Castle Rock v. Gonzales is sufficient to demonstrate need, in my opinion.
So you’re going to double down instead of saying “hey, I was wrong”, even after getting your nose rubbed in it. Typical.
The part where you piled a bunch of innuendo-laden idiocy about my ostensible motives and beliefs about gun laws and being armed INCLUDING a statement inquiring how I could possibly find the US’s gun laws reasonable, when in fact in this thread in a response to you I asserted I did not and was comfortable with something much closer to the European model.
You’re also not doing your cause any favors by ignoring refutations that sink your little tirades and pretending they didn’t happen–as happened with both your stupid “Nugent” comparison and with your stupid idea I somehow didn’t like moving more towards European laws in a thread where I advocated that.
I will continue to reiterate as often as needed:
I think more gun laws, registration, training, and licensing are a good thing.
I think there should be limits on the size of personal arsenals to an extent justifiable by “need” in the German sense–hunters and sport shooters should be able to practice their hobbies.
I think I have a moral duty and right to effective self-defense and that qualifies as a “need” as long as I pass the other strict checks I would be willing to put up with–again, Germany works as an analogue for me.
I think US gun laws are both insufficient AND terribly enforced.
If that makes me a gun nut, I submit that I may not be the one who needs a radical perspective overhaul.
WTF are you talking about? I swear, there is a separate conversation going on inside your head that you aren’t sharing with the rest of the world but that you think the rest of us are privy to.
/sigh, Everyone on your side of teh debate wishes you would just shut up so why don’t you do your own cause a favor and let the adults talk.
I haven’t mentioned that the sun riess in the east either, does that mean I no longer believe this? :rolleyes: We had a great debates conversation about this, look it up if you want.
You don’t seem to appreciate the difference between evidence and proof. I provided evidence, I made my argument its right there on this page. You don’t like it but you are not inclined to like anything that doesn’t support your predetermined conclusions. Do you seriously think that there was no substitution effect, that everyone who would have shot themselves int he head just gave up on suicide bevause they couldn’t get a gun? Or are you trying to say that I claimed that EVERY gun suicide was replaced by some other form of suicide?
So how many defensive gun uses do you think occur every year?
Do you still think that having a gun in the house causes you to be three times more likely to be murdered by a gun?
You used to have some integrity but I think you have gotten so emotionally invested in a weak position that you are undermining your general credibility to try and save some face.
Folks, again, the issue is that Damuri Ajashi is incapable of discerning the quality of any evidence. He thinks that if someone tells him something or publishes it on the internet, it is evidence.
I’m capable of figuring out that data on suicides occurring prior to a gun ban doesn’t tell you anything about suicides after a gun ban, dummy.
I’m specifically saying that you said Australia provided evidence for substitution of suicide methods, and that you could provide no evidence for that claim.
I’m quite certain that my depantsing of your evidence is not causing any harm to any reputation that I might have.
Let’s ask someone you might see as relatively impartial. Zeriel, you said that you would like to see Damuri Ajashi provide evidence for his claims. Do you feel that he has done so?
Now that it is completely clear that Damuri Ajashi has no evidence for his assertion on topic #1, I did promise that I would further address his other bullshit. So, here’s topic 2.
This is a nice segue because this topic highlights in particular DA’s inability to discern the quality of evidence. Let me provide the specific quote from DA, from here. [Aside to DA – you would make it easier to quote you with a link if you did not insist on multiquote wall of text posts, you stupid fuck.]
So, DA is asked to provide evidence for this assertion. He links back to a single source, one that I’m familiar with because I already debunked it previously. He just does not read or does not understand. Probably the latter, because, as I’ve noted, he’s really just not very bright.
Here is his source for evidence: Gun Control Restricts Those Least Likely to Commit Violent Crimes: News: The Independent Institute
If you don’t want to click through, it is a post on a website called “The Independent Institute.” If that doesn’t start pinging your radar that there is a fundamental bias at this website, the post appears under a banner that states “The Inconvenient Facts That Expose the Myths of Firearms and Violence.” It’s a right wing blog site.
Beyond being an obviously biased source, here’s the actual meat of the “evidence” that DA is giving us:
“A New York Times study of the 1,662 murders in that city between 2003 and 2005 found that “more than 90 percent of the killers had criminal records.” Baltimore police records show similar statistics for its murder suspects in 2006. In Milwaukee, police reported that most murder suspects in 2007 had criminal records, while “a quarter of them [killed while] on probation or parole.” The great majority of Illinois murderers from the years 1991–2000 had prior felony records. Eighty percent of Atlanta murder arrestees had previously been arrested at least once for a drug offense; 70 percent had three or more prior drug arrests—in addition to their arrests for other crimes.”
-
As I noted before, this is just a guy reciting assertions. There are no cites. He is not working with primary data. He’s making claims, but we have no ability to assess the validity of those claims. This is a problem (see note below for evidence of concern). He claims evidence from a New York Times “study.” He cites police in Baltimore and Milwaukee. He makes claims about Illinois and Atlanta without even saying where he got the information.
-
He has also selected five cities with claims about one or two year periods (except Illinois, where it is five years). This suggests the strong possibility of cherry picking – why are these five cities the best evidence for the claim?
-
The evidence provided by DA is not only flawed, but it doesn’t address most of his own claim. Remember, he made claims not only about the criminal record, but that statuses of dishonorable discharge, addicts (twice for some reason), illegal aliens, the mentally ill all add up to explaining how 90% of murderers would already be prohibited from owning a gun. He has given no evidence to illustrate how often these particular statuses are related to homicide offenders. It’s just his say so that they add up to 90%.
-
I’ve already provided evidence from individuals using direct data sources – one an academic publication from the Journal of the American Medical Association, the second a government publication using data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
These reported that the prevalence of a history of felony conviction among homicide offenders is 42.6% in the former, 53% in the latter.
home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/JAMA_criminal_records_2005.pdf
Rather than an opinion piece from some guy on a conservative blog claiming secondary evidence without even linking to it, these are official publications from people who are directly using specific data sets. The BJS data is nationwide, helping to resolve some of the concerns about selectivity.
- One other interesting thing to note: Among the claims DA’s guy makes in his opinion piece is this: “The great majority of Illinois murderers from the years 1991–2000 had prior felony records.” What is interesting is that the JAMA paper happens to use data from Illinois from the years 1991-2000! Wow! And low and behold, they found the history of felony conviction was 42.6% Is that “the great majority”? Is that why this guy writing this opinion piece does not cite his sources?
DA, your evidence for this is once again shit. You’re just parroting what you’re told, grabbing cites afterwards, and are completely incapable of figuring out if they are valuable sources of evidence.
Who should have had the gun there, and what good would it have done? In your opinion. :rolleyes:
No, I’m going to keep laughing at you for thinking you’ve “rubbed my nose” in anything at all. Typical. 
When you can point to any relevant experience in any other country anywhere else in the civilized world at any time in history that supports your insistence on maintaining your gun fetish, let us know. Until then, the laughter will continue. Oh, yes, the ducking for cover and the calling of police will happen when it needs to, as well.
Yada yada. Fucking *do *something about it, then. Stop deriding those who are trying to address the murder problem and work with them. Until then, your words mean no more than Damuri’s. Stop kidding yourself; it isn’t working on anybody else.
And by “quality of evidence” you mean “things that comport with my preconceived notions are of lesser quality than things that support my preconceived notions especially if the things that contradict my beliefs are said by people who disagree with me.”
You know you don’t have to quote the entire post right? Do you want me to teach you how to do that or do you think you can figure it out on your own? :rolleyes:
Hentor, why don’t you use the quote function again? Is it because you like to take statements out of context?
I think there is a latin phrase for that sort of argument.
How do you explain the relatively level number of suicides in australia despite the dramatic drop in gun ownership. Guns accounted for 22% of all suicides before the buyback. Why wouldn’t the confiscation of almost all guns result in an almost immediate 22% drop in the suicide rate unless there was some substitution effect?
How many defensive gun uses do you think there are every year? Or would youn prefer to pretend that the number is zero?
Does having a gun in the house cause you to be three times more likely to be murdered by a gun?
You’ve already lost the deabte, at this pioint you are hoping to win the yelling match. Your arguments are reduced to the point where we have to assume away political reality and the constitution to give you anything to argue about. All you have left now are insults and impotent rage.
You are effectively arguing that a total gun ban would be worth it because we would reduce suicides.
You can’t prove (I don’t think you even have any evidence) that banning a small little subset of weapons will have any effect on gun violence despite a ten year history of an AWB to look back on.
So we are left talking about a politically impossible, constitutionally impermissible situation where we force everyone to sell their guns to the government and even there you can’t muster any proof that this will dramatically reduce gun murders so we are left with arguing that this politically impossible constitutionally impermissible confiscation of guns is worth it because it will prevent some of the suicides being committed with guns.
I know you’re still butthurt from having fucked yourself in the ass with that retarded attempt at an AWB that blew up in your colon and you’re trying to save face but you’re starting to embarass yourself and people are starting to lump you in the same category (as far as intellect and credibility are concerned) as Elvis.
Most of the board is laughing at you. Normally your stupidity is camoflauged by the fact that progressive positions tend to have the better argument and the better facts but when you undiscerningly accept all progressive positions as gospel you run into situations like this one where you just look stupid.
When Zeriel says that his views on strict liability for gun owners is a bit gun-grabby, he’s not kidding. He is about as anti-gun a gun owner as I have ever run into. The fact that you act like he’s some sick pschopath tells me that you simply consider gun ownership a form of psychopathy.
Of course, dear, of course. 
Perhaps if you’d actually read and understood a little more of this thread instead of throwing tantrums at the thought of your binkie being taken away, you wouldn’t be saying that at this point.
Thick as a brick, this one.