Quite so. I left the Second Ammendment discussion, came back when I realized my last post had a bad link, and then I asked a question in this other aspect of the thread.
Well, it was not really a thought at all. Merely a question.
Well, if you will read the post instead of getting all huffy, you’ll notice that I did not propose this at all. I did not imply this. I did not even fantasize about it. All I did was ask if any amount of training would be sufficient in your mind to make an average citizen qualified to carry a gun. Mind you, I did not ask how much training would people have to go through before you would be ok with allowing them to carry guns. I simply asked a technical question. It is a simple question. It does not have to imply any support for CCW on your part. It was certainly not intended to trick you. Of course, you are free not to answer if you want.
Well, to be blunt, we do both live on the same planet. A little curtesy goes a long way in allowin the experience to be pleasant.
If you go and do a search on “criminal psychology” + “reasons why people become criminals”, or + “crimes of opportunity”, what you’ll get back is a bunch of links to books and university courses. Sorry. I cannot provide a link to information that you’d need, well, except the one I provided which doesn’t seem to work for you. If you really think crime theory is out to lunch, research the subject but just saying that it doesn’t make sense or doesn’t mesh with your view of things, well, shrug sorry, I’m not going to be turned into an apologist for modern criminal psychology. And that ultimately is why I’m choosing not to continue the discussion. Not because
but rather that you want me to teach/prove everything I post. Sorry, not going to happen. This is, IMO, just a message board, and it is interesting to learn new stuff, at least that’s what I get from it. If somebody wants to come on here and lie their ass off to “win” the debate … yahoo for them. Not my way of doing things. I’ll post what I know, correct any errors/myths that I see, post links when available and/or applicable research material, learn what I can, and that’s that. Again, not sure what is in it for you.
Sure am I glad I didn’t say that firearms don’t cause a great deal of damage. If I did state this, although I can find no occurance of such, I was wrong.
I don’t think you get the concept of Great Debates. You are expected to back up your arguments here, not just make blithe assertions. If you want to argue that restricting handguns will do no good because criminals will just switch to knives in massive numbers, backed up only by some vague notion of “criminal theory” that you have obviously suited to your agenda, and then suggest that I do your research for you, you’re not going to get too far here.
Way to take things out of context. You made the disingenous argument that knives do almost as much damage as guns, and I made the counter-argument that guns are a much greater threat than knives. So now you’re gonna take one sentence that was written in that context, and claim I’m making up a strawman position for you that guns don’t cause damage. OF COURSE I don’t believe you said that.
Are you in the habit of asking questions without thinking?
I did read your post, and you are the one who is getting “huffy”.
And I didn’t SAY you did. I said you didn’t think your question through. To say that private citizens ought to be granted the same powers as the police, so long as they have equivalent training, is to say that we can have all police powers with appropriate training. You clearly have implied that if I concede that police should have guns, that I must concede that private citizens should have guns if they have equal training. Do you understand that your argument can imply something without you having actually stated that particular thing? You can backpedal all you want, but your gist was obvious.
Look, pervert - you’ve made some good points in this thread, and I thank you for contributing to the discussion, but I’m not interested in playing little “baiting” games, under the guise of you asking an “innocent” question.
I think you should have stayed out of the thread when you said you were leaving. You made some really good points before, but now your feigned innocence and feigned indignation are just annoying. I don’t believe I have personally insulted you in any way. If you think I have, then email the moderator. I’m through with you now.
Blowero I think you may feel frustrated by the dimness(?) of your opponents in this thread but your off-hand dismissal of both glitch and pervert, (who, if I may add, asked a legitimate question) is starting to hint at, how shall I say, blatant arrogance? You’ve put up some good stat’s, which I think were quite debatable, especially when seen from both sides of the street. But now it appears that everything has been settled, and you’re the arbritrator of what’s worthy for discussion. I’m sorry that this thread is apparently going to end this way.
Except that no one but you has been saying that. The fundamental power of the police is the societally-granted authority to seek out, arrest, and detain criminals. Allowing properly-trained citizens to carry firearms (whether open carry or concealed carry) does NOT grant them this authority; it merely gives them access to another means of self-defense (which they may only lawfully use when faced with an unavoidable lethal threat). Your position that concealed carry equates to giving private citizens police powers is logically fallacious.
You’re turning it around. Pervert said, in effect, “If you say it’s OK for the police to have guns, you have to say it’s OK for private citizens.” I disagree. (He’s trying to go back on that now, but it’s pretty obvious that’s what he was getting at.) The reason the police may have guns is because they are granted the authority to have guns; it’s NOT just because they have training. Pervert thinks it’s just because they are trained, but it goes beyond training, to the fundamental principle that the police are granted certain powers by the people, to enforce the law. Having firearms training does not make one a policeman, and therefore does not entitle one to a gun under the same principle by which a policeman is entitled to a gun. Clear now?
That wasn’t my position. My position was that IF one contends that equivalent training entitles a private citizen to a thing that the police have, merely by virtue of that training, then the natural extension of such reasoning is that private citizens would be entitled to every thing the police have, so long as they receive equivalent training. Please try to read more carefully - thank you.
I disagree. I think you are the arrogant one, and are obviously biased by your emotionally-charged political views on the matter. I have not declared myself the “arbitor” of anything; I simply do not wish to take part in anyone’s shameless promotion of his self-defense class, which is BTW a complete hijack of the topic. I am perfectly entitled to opt out of that.
I’ll back up my arguments; however, I also have to defend the underlying theory behind then forget it. Some people here are okay with debating ideas/arguments and not the supporting theories because we can’t all be doctors, lawyers, criminologists, ballistic experts, biologists, astrophysicists, etc, others can only be satisfied with endless cite, cite, cite. The only time the theory is important is when the theory itself IS the arguement. So, for example, if an arguement was “Is astrology true?” then I’d expect plenty of links showing whether the underlying theory of astrology is true. Also as previously explained, if you want a link pointing to criminal psychology 101 online, I cannot find one.
By the way, I’m not new to Great Debates. I’ve been involved in many good debates here, and I’ve opted out of debates before when it degenerates into “cite, cite, cite” or “I don’t agree with that theory, but I won’t propose another accepted one other than my own view of the world, and I’ll just assume yours is wrong”. You don’t need to go to many threads to see either or both attitudes. It is why I don’t involve myself in too many “Great” Debates anymore. I thought this one might be different because of the first few pages, there were the usual statistics thrown around but some generally interesting stuff and thoughts about the 2nd amendement.
Anyway, at the end of the day, we cannot agree on the ground rules, and it is no big deal, I’m not losing out on anything, and I’ll make the assumption that you don’t think you are either. C’est la vie.
If you decide that you want to argue ideas and what those ideas mean, let me know, we both might learn something. Until then, I should get back to shamelessly plugging my self defense school. :rolleyes:
I think what people like Blowero might be missing in the overall scheme of things is that there tends to be overwhelming support for CCW laws if you look at it State by State. Regardless of how the 2nd ammendment or the actual desires of the people are twisted or contorted, in the end the will of the people should rise above the rest of the political and theoretical muck.
I understand that Blowero is attempting to argue the point solely on logic and fact and he may the “most” correct debater here factwise. (May be.)
Debates such as this will always come to an emotional road block where the debater with the most cites or facts may not always be able to break through. I think that is where his frustration lies.
Those of us who consider the facts, the cites, the real world, with our own beliefs and emotion are probably going to present a more balanced viewpoint. Blowero, I think you need to take into consideration the strong feelings of the supporters of such ideas. To disregard someones passion on such a topic deflates the potential strength of your position in their minds.
Found some hard copies of my data sheets (I wasn’t even looking for them, isn’t that always the way?). Not trying to re-open this or anything but I did say I’d look for them and post some relevent stats.
Knives and Firearm wounds:
From a medical study by Wilson and Sherman, 1961
The importance of discounting suicides in firearm lethality studies:
From the CDC study of the years 1993-1998 (I’ve adjusted the formatting from the original to make it easier)
A study by the Canadian Department of Justice used two US studies Shneidmann and Farberow (1961) and Card (1974) to reach this conclusion with regards to suicides:
Wrong. In every state with concealed carry, violent crime has gone down as soon as the law was implemented. Permit holders have not shot random folks, and have indeed drilled bad guys when needed.
Emotional arguments may be fun, but they fade in the harsh light of facts and reality.
I don’t know the statistics for how many people support CCW laws, and we haven’t gotten into that up to this point. I think the reason we haven’t brought it up is because it’s not really relevant. We do not live in a direct democracy. For example, even if the majority of people wanted to, say, put all homosexuals in concentration camps, it’s not going to happen just because a majority want it. We elect legislators, who in turn make the laws. I have said over and over in this thread that if individual states want to allow guns, and they have the votes in the legislature to do so, then that is their prerogative.
I appreciate your understanding, but I’m not contending that I have a monopoly on facts. As I said, some people made some really great points earlier which really challenged me on the subject. But now it seems to be deteriorating into a “Let’s all talk about how super guns are” thread, which would be more suited for IMHO or MPSIMS.
I don’t believe that for a second. As you may have guessed, I am quite passionate in my disdain for guns. But I have gone to great lengths to try to present logical, unemotional arguments. Had I resorted to the level of arguing from emotion (and believe me, it would be very easy), the pro-gun folks would undoubtedly have a field day with me. Honestly, what kind of debate could we have if we just go back and forth with “I hate guns” - “I love guns”. That’s just silly.
You’re right - there is a large faction of Americans who are emotionally attached to their guns, and you have to realize that most of the civilized world sees them as extremists. Try visiting Europe or Japan, and ask an average person on the street how they feel about Americans and their guns.
I don’t think the theory is wrong, I think YOU are mis-applying it. I’m sorry, but you aren’t going to find a professor of criminal science anywhere on the planet who will contend that crimes of passion and/or crimes of opportunity do not exist. You’re not presenting a valid theory, you’re just making up your own, and I’m calling bullshit on that.
You’re right - and this thread has gone on way too long anyway. All the other anti-gun people dropped out a long time ago; I’m just stubborn. And apparently, gun enthusiasts are even more stubborn than I am.
My first advice remains valid, rather than making decisons or making comments based on lack of information you should inform yourself first.
Crimes of passion or crimes of opportunity are types of crimes not reasons for criminal decisions. Crime theory explains why people make a criminal decision.
A crime of passion is a crime commited while under an emotional impulse. It is more of a legal term or criminal justice term then one dealing with criminal psychology. There was a theory called Lombroso’s (1872) criminals of passion theory. One of the four classes of criminals he devised. Anyway, currently a crime of passion would fall under the biological model.
As for crimes of opportunity, the only place opportunity comes into criminology is with Differential Opportunity Theory (by Cloward and Ohlin back in the 60s) which states, briefly, that there is a relationship between criminal behaviour and the availability of criminal gains that are not available to that person by legal means. It is considered part of both the principle of choice and rational choice models.
All that money I paid in tuition wasn’t a total waste afterall.
That should be main not only. Opportunity plays an element in other theories within criminology as well. Many of them replaced by differential opportunity. Sorry for the error.
You take your shots your going to take your shots back, and if you can’t then you shouldn’t be slinging them in the first place. You accuse me of being in error and/or intellectual dishonesty, you offer no proof, that you seem to love so much, that I’m commiting either. Before you do something like that you should be absolutely sure that you can back it up by knowing what you’re talking about.
[QUOTE=pervert]
So, after this 96 hour course, do you think an average person is trained sufficiently to carry a gun?
[QUOTE]
96 hours? Here in Wisconsin police officers receive only 40 hours while in the academy, and a minimum of 6 hours refresher per year. 96 hours for anyone is over the top.
Have fun with your “I love guns” circle-jerk. :rolleyes: