Canada's PM Paul Martin plans on banning hand guns

[kallend 2,118]

Quote

Quote

I don't own a gun so there's no possible way a criminal can get an illegal gun from me.

It's your model rocket engines which concern those of us in government the most Kallend, we couldn't care less if you get your Newtonian kicks with namby pamby bullet-firing guns.

My office believes that we should implement a mandatory FRUMP* identification card program with background screening for any citizen who desires to own a model rocket engine sized larger than 'A' and these should be issued on a need-to-own basis.

The risks such unnecessary contrivances pose to our way of life when they fall into the hands of juvenile misfits, including by criminally incentivizing children away from Creationism and towards hard science, outweigh the potential benefits assuming there are some in the first place

* Federal Rocketry Upgraded Motor Permit


Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!

You got me!

All those fatalities from model rockets over the years - wow. (zero, from an estimated 400,000,000 launches)

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[philh 0]

"I see the data differently. It looks to me like more law-abiding citizens need to arm themselves. "
------------------------------------
I guess people see what they want to see.
Ive shown you data showing the Us has the highest number of guns and the highest murder of any western democarcy by a very large margin.
Ive shown you the guns are used offensively in more than 10 to 1 cases.
Ive shown you data that most gun crime is domestic violence not unknown assailants.
Ive shown you data that even when people try and use guns in self defence it doesnt work.
Yet your solution is more guns. amazing
do you actaully have any evidece/data to support your views or is just rhetoric?

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

You got me!

All those fatalities from model rockets over the years - wow. (zero, from an estimated 400,000,000 launches)

Man Disappointed with Penis Enlargement Mails Bomb
STEVENS, Pa. - According to police, Blake R. Steidler, 24, wasn't happy with his penile enlargement surgery, so he created a bomb and mailed it to his plastic surgeon.
The indictment states that Steidler created a bomb using among other things, a jewelry box and model-rocket engine igniter. He mailed the device from Bloomfield, Ohio on February 10th. He then called 9-1-1 in Lancaster County to turn himself in.
East Cocalico Township Police apprehended Steidler after receiving the 9-1-1 call. The package was intercepted by authorities and destroyed. Steidler was charged with using a weapon of mass destruction and a number of other offenses.

[craddock 0]

Quote

Ive shown you the guns are used offensively in more than 10 to 1 cases.

LMFAO No you have not. Your data is a joke at best. Here is a bit if data for you.


"There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU's annually.

Subsequent to Kleck's study, the Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (text, PDF). Using a smaller sample size than Kleck's, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU's annually."

And from the NRA

"studies indicate that firearms are used over 2 million times a year for personal protection, and that the presence of a firearm, without a shot being fired prevents crime in many instances"

and one more

"Gary, Kleck and Marc Gertz, Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun - "By this time there seems little legitimate scholarly reason to doubt that defensive gun use is very common in the U.S., and that it probably is substantially more common than criminal gun use. This should not come as a surprise, given that there are far more gun-owning crime victims than there are gun-owning criminals and that victimization is spread out over many different victims, while offending is more concentrated among a relatively small number of offenders."

I could go on and on but I would start to feel a bit like John R. Speaking of which I am suprised he is not here to help me out.

Quote

Ive shown you data that even when people try and use guns in self defence it doesnt work.

Yes but more times than not it does. I will take that chance. You need not decide for me. If Mr. Kleck's study is correct we have 2 Million Defensive compared to your 1 million Offensive. I can throw numbers around too.

If you don't like our guns you are welcome to stay over there. This was a thread started by a Canadian(who does not like guns) about what he thought was a stupid new handgun ban. You used it as a chance to bash the US.

That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

[kallend 2,118]

Of course, you assume that Kleck was right.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[waltappel 1]

Quote

Of course, you assume that Kleck was right.

Here's what I assume.

People like me, who are pro-gun will latch on to any statistic that supports their position.

Anti-gun people will do likewise.

A very safe assumption, I think.

Walt

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"A very safe assumption, I think. "

Yep.
Not limited to gun discussions either.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[waltappel 1]

Quote

"I see the data differently. It looks to me like more law-abiding citizens need to arm themselves. "
------------------------------------
I guess people see what they want to see.

On that we agree 100%.

Quote

Ive shown you data showing the Us has the highest number of guns and the highest murder of any western democarcy by a very large margin.
Ive shown you the guns are used offensively in more than 10 to 1 cases.
Ive shown you data that most gun crime is domestic violence not unknown assailants.
Ive shown you data that even when people try and use guns in self defence it doesnt work.

You haven't really shown sources of the data so it means nothing to me.

Quote

Yet your solution is more guns. amazing
do you actaully have any evidece/data to support your views or is just rhetoric?

I'm sure I could, like you, come up with some sort of highly-suspect "data" to support that conclusion, but I'm not going to bother.

Here are some sources of data that I would, at first glance, consider credible:

U.S. Dept. of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics
U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reports

I have glanced through those sites. Either of us could selectively grab statistics to support our position but I doubt seriously either of us would be objective about it.

I have an extreme bias in favor of guns. I don't mind saying it. I'm not objective and never will be on that issue.

My guess is that you have a strong bias against guns and will find data and interpret that data to support your pre-determined conclusion just like I would.

Want to waste your time? Go for it. I may even jump in there and do the same.

You can dig through those statistics and conclude that alcohol should be outright banned because of its ties to violent acts.

You could also build a case that all men should be put in jail since we are the onces committing the violent acts, for the most part.

On the topic of guns, I'd rather just keep it simple by eliminating the pretense. This is like a couple of small kids arguing.

"Guns are bad."

"No they're not."

"Yeah they are."

"They are too."

"Not"

"Too"

"Not"

"Too"

...and so on.

Feel better now? There really is no need to resort to BS statistics or even reliable statistics.

Walt

[philh 0]

Thank you craddock for providing some data so we can debate somehting substantial rther than empty rhetoric. After all we dont debate things in physical sciences without evidence nor should we do so in social sciences.
you say the studies I mentioned are a joke but you do not say why.
but I will say why there are problems with kleck. he delibertley misleads. example:kleck quotes hemingway and Miller as saying they "found no significant association between the percentage of suicides with a gun (a valid measure without artifactual association problems) and homicide rates across 26 nations, they found significant associations twice as large when using the Cook measure, and based their conclusions on the latter finding.”
but this is what hemingway and miller themselves had to say:"Kleck is factually wrong. We did find a statistically significant association between the percentage of suicide with a gun and homicide across 26 nations.  This relationship held whether we used the crude homicide rate (significant at 0.000) or the natural log of the homicide rate (significant at 0.001).  This is a main finding of our paper and is shown clearly in Table 2.  The first sentence of the Discussion states: “Results from our simple regressions of 26 developed nations show a highly significant positive correlation between total homicide rates and both proxies for gun availability.”
Now Craddock, you say my studies are a joke but they came from the National Crime Victimization Study. Kleck himself uses data from thsi source , so if they are a joke so are kleck and you have no right to quote him.
The big problem for Kleck is that he does not compare like with like he takes the defensive use of guns found by private surveys and assumes the NCVS massivley underestimates the number of crimes then compares them to the suddenly correct number of crimes derived form what? You guessed it the NCVS study. That is why Klecks finding are so out of sync with other studies that compare like with like.
The Us dept of Justice found between 1987 and 1992 62,000 people defended themsleves with handguns and in the same period criminals used handguns 931,000 times. the FBi's study "Crime In the United States" conducted in 1998, conlcuded 50 people were killed in a gun hoimicde for every one person that used guns in self defence. kellerman found in the New england Jounral of medicine that a having a gun in the home ensured a risk of being murdered 2.7 time higher than not having one. furthermore that you are 21 times more likely to be killed by someone you know than a stranger breaking into your house.
The argument that bannign handguns is akin to banning alcohol or banning cars does not work becuase cars and alcohol can do other thing than harm others. They can bring a great deal of joy into people lives. In fact I advocate legalising all drugs. For those of you that agree drugs should remain illegal i wonder why you favour in contrast the continued legalisation of guns. The difference is guns have only one(with the one exception of sporting use) application: hurting others. Contrast Holland where drugs are tolerated and guns are not , result the US has more thn four times the homicide rate of Holland.
Lastly I am not trying to bash the US just one aspect of US law that i think illuminates a lot about the effects of gun ownership. There are many positive aspects of US society and if someone starts a thread bashing them I will be one to defend them.

[craddock 0]

Quote

Of course, you assume that Kleck was right

Now your putting words in my mouth. That's alright, it's the Liberal way.

That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

[craddock 0]

Quote

you say the studies I mentioned are a joke but you do not say why.

Since what you wrote was almost directly quoting from Hemingway I will just post direct quotes form Kleck. Quite frankly I don't give a shit about getting into this debate with you via a computer. Not to the point of where we are now. I did not post data at first as I Knew it would come to it. Look at all the other studies. Look at the subsequent study sponsored by the Department of Justice in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (text, PDF). 1.5 million defensive uses.

As far as why that NCVS number is so low? You're source of info from Hemingway probably had Klecks response but if I must I'll just quote him since you are damn near quoting Hemingway

""Equally important, those who take the NCVS-based estimates seriously have consistently ignored the most pronounced limitations of the NCVS for estimating DGU frequency. The NCVS is a non-anonymous national survey conducted by a branch of the federal government, the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Interviewers identify themselves to respondents as federal government employees, even displaying, in face-to-face contacts, an identification card with a badge. Respondents are told that the interviews are being conducted on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice, the law enforcement branch of the federal government. As a preliminary to asking questions about crime victimization experiences, interviewers establish the address, telephone number, and full names of all occupants, age twelve and over, in each household they contact. In short, it is made very clear to respondents that they are, in effect, speaking to a law enforcement arm of the federal government, whose employees know exactly who the respondents and their family members are, where they live, and how they can be recontacted."

"It is not hard for gun-using victims interviewed in the NCVS to withhold information about their use of a gun, especially since they are never directly asked whether they used a gun for self-protection. They are asked only general questions about whether they did anything to protect themselves. In short, respondents are merely give the opportunity to volunteer the information that they have used a gun defensively. All it takes for a respondents to conceal a DGU is to simply refrain from mentioning it, i.e., to leave it out of what may be an otherwise accurate and complete account of the crime incident."

"...88% of the violent crimes which respondents [Rs] reported to NCVS interviewers in 1992 were committed away from the victim's home, i.e., in a location where it would ordinarily be a crime for the victim to even possess a gun, never mind use it defensively. Because the question about location is asked before the self-protection questions, the typical violent crime victim R has already committed himself to having been victimized in a public place before being asked what he or she did for self-protection. In short, Rs usually could not mention their defensive use of a gun without, in effect, confessing to a crime to a federal government employee."

Kleck concludes his criticism of the NCVS saying it "was not designed to estimate how often people resist crime using a gun. It was designed primarily to estimate national victimization levels; it incidentally happens to include a few self-protection questions which include response categories covering resistance with a gun. Its survey instrument has been carefully refined and evaluated over the years to do as good a job as possible in getting people to report illegal things which other people have done to them. This is the exact opposite of the task which faces anyone trying to get good DGU estimates--to get people to admit controversial and possibly illegal things which the Rs themselves have done. Therefore, it is neither surprising, nor a reflection on the survey's designers, to note that the NCVS is singularly ill-suited for estimating the prevalence or incidence of DGU. It is not credible to regard this survey as an acceptable basis for establishing, in even the roughest way, how often Americans use guns for self-protection."

And in case you have not seen his response to Hemingway

"THE ILLEGITIMACY OF ONE-SIDED SPECULATION: GETTING THE DEFENSIVE GUN USE ESTIMATE DOWN
Gary Kleck & Marc Gertz *



INTRODUCTION

It is obvious to us that David Hemenway (H) had no intention of producing a balanced, intellectually serious assessment of our estimates of defensive gun use (DGU). Instead, his critique serves the narrow political purpose of "getting the estimate down," for the sake of advancing the gun control cause. An honest, scientifically based critique would have given balanced consideration to flaws that tend to make the estimate too low (e.g., people concealing DGUs because they involved unlawful behavior, and our failure to count any DGUs by adolescents), as well as those that contribute to making them too high. Equally important, it would have given greatest weight to relevant empirical evidence, and little or no weight to idle speculation about possible flaws. H's approach is precisely the opposite--one-sided and almost entirely speculative. Readers who have any doubts about the degree to which H's paper is imbalanced might carry out a simple exercise to assess our claim¾ count the number of lines H devotes to flaws tending to make the estimate too high and the number devoted to flaws making the estimate too low. We submit that the ratio is over 100-to-1, i.e., almost entirely devoted to speculations about why the estimate is too high.

The political function of this advocacy scholarship is clear. While high estimates of DGU frequency do not constitute an obstacle to moderate controls over guns, they constitute the most serious obstacle to advocacy of gun prohibition. Disarming the mass of noncriminal prospective crime victims would, if high DGU estimates are even approximately [Page 1447] correct, result in large numbers of foregone opportunities for uses of guns that could prevent deaths, injuries, and property loss. To acknowledge high DGU frequency would be to concede the most significant cost of gun prohibition. H's paper is an attempt to neutralize concerns about such costs and to provide intellectual respectability for positions identified with Handgun Control Incorporated (HCI), the nation's leading gun control advocacy group.

H has close ties to HCI through two key staff members of HCI's "educational" branch, the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence (CPHV). His closest and most frequent collaborator on gun-related research is Douglas Weil, currently Research Director of CPHV,[1] while H has co-edited a strongly pro- control propaganda tract with Dennis A. Henigan, legal counsel to HCI and CPHV.[2]

H's political intentions and strong feelings are also evident in his overstatements and in the grandiose conclusions he draws from weak or irrelevant evidence and fallacious reasoning. He does not get past his title before making his first overstatement, claiming that he had established, without benefit of any new empirical evidence, that our estimates are too high and that they are "extreme overestimates."[3] He states in his first paragraph that "it is clear that [the Kleck and Gertz] results cannot be accepted as valid."[4] He incorrectly claims that "all checks for external validity of the Kleck-Gertz finding confirm that their estimate is highly exaggerated,"[5] when in fact these checks have repeatedly confirmed our estimates.

DGUs usually involve unlawful possession of a gun by the gun-wielding victim, and sometimes other illegalities as well,[6] a point H does not dispute. Yet, in making the extraordinary and counterintuitive claim that there is a social desirability bias to people reporting their own illegal behavior,[7] H insists that such a desirability bias is not [Page 1448] only plausible, but that it is likely.[8] By the end, without having provided a scintilla of credible supporting evidence, H concludes that our research was afflicted by an "enormous problem of false positives" (persons claiming a DGU who did not have one) and "massive overestimation," flatly stating that "the Kleck and Gertz survey results do not provide reasonable estimates about the total amount of self-defense gun use in the United States."[9] It is an impressive achievement to be able to arrive at such high-powered conclusions without the inconvenience of gathering or even citing any new empirical evidence."

Just the introduction. I don't expect you to have read it all though. Just as I skimmed through your jibberish from Hemmingway. Now please quit asking me to provide more sources.

It should be clear to any reasonable person that while estimates of 2- 2.5 million are most likely on the high side, that the NCVS number is no where near reality. But then again it should not be. That is not what the study was looking for. IE. Total Defensive Firearm use.

That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>Like I've said before, any law-abiding, sane adult should be allowed to own weapons. If they prove they cannot safely own a weapon (say, they shoot themselves in the foot, or shoot their neighbor's house accidentally, or walk around drunk threatening people with it, or allow someone else to commit crimes with them) they should, at the very least, lose that right. Is it sad that they can then not protect themselves with that gun? Yes. But the safety of the rest of society is the larger issue when you have someone who has proven they cannot handle the responsibility of owning a dangerous weapon.

Nicely put. Needs to be restated so here it is again:

"Like I've said before, any law-abiding, sane adult should be allowed to own weapons. If they prove they cannot safely own a weapon (say, they shoot themselves in the foot, or shoot their neighbor's house accidentally, or walk around drunk threatening people with it, or allow someone else to commit crimes with them) they should, at the very least, lose that right. Is it sad that they can then not protect themselves with that gun? Yes. But the safety of the rest of society is the larger issue when you have someone who has proven they cannot handle the responsibility of owning a dangerous weapon"

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Yet your solution is more guns. amazing
do you actaully have any evidece/data to support your views or is just rhetoric?

Over the last 20 years, 46 states have enacted concealed handgun carry laws, allowing ordinary citizens to carry guns in public. According to your way of thinking, that should have created a massive murder spree. But what happened? We are now at a 30-year-low in crime rates, not seen since the 1970's. So there's something wrong with your theory that more guns equals more crime. You should think some more on that.

As to all your gun control schemes, and since you seem to like quoting various studies so much, here is one from me to you:

Here is the most comprehensive study ever done on this subject:

THIS month the National Academy of Sciences issued a 328-page report on gun-control laws. The big news is that the academy's panel couldn't identify any benefits of decades-long effort to reduce crime and injury by restricting gun ownership.

The academy, however, should believe its own findings. Based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, a survey that covered 80 different gun-control measures and some of its own empirical work, the panel couldn't identify a single gun-control regulation that reduced violent crime, suicide or accidents...

Source: New York Post

From the National Academy of Sciences:

Current research and data on firearms, violent crime, and suicide are too weak to support strong conclusions about the effects of various violence-prevention, deterrence and control measures, says a new report from the National Academies' National Research Council.

Source: N.A.S.

After all these decades of trying numerous different gun-control schemes, they still can't say that a single one of them has actually been proven to work!

Go fish.

[philh 0]

Kleck criticses the NCVS survey for being non anonymous becuase the bureau of the census collects the data and has the individuals home address, telephone number etc. Well i have worked for Mori and NOP as a market researcher when i was a student , let me assure you we never ever did a survey without getting these details. In my experience, which involved three years in the business all survey are done in this manner. Moreover if this is a problem for you why do you quote any surveys by the FBI ? surely the same problem should be considered?

Kleck comments"since they are never directly asked whether they used a gun for self-protection. They are asked only general questions about whether they did anything to protect themselves." Again this is standard method in all surveys , its called not biasing the respondent. if you suggest an answer more often than not the respondent will answer in the affirmative. we did an expermient once whereby we aksed respondents two questions and prompted an answer in the affirmative , which we mostly got, the answers were set up to be contradictory. Thats why you dont prompt the respondent. Again standrad methodology in all research.

Klecks critique of Hemingway is pretty bogus. his first line of attack is that Hemingway has too many cases of overstimation of DGU's and not enough under estimation. But if there are more reasons why DGU's are overestimated then why shouldnt hemingway raise them?he then goes on to criticise hemingways political allegiances and motivations. Any scholar knows that its the scholarship that counts not the motivation for it or even the character of the scholar. All of that is entirely irrelvant.

One of Klecks important points is that "DGUs usually involve unlawful possession of a gun by the gun-wielding victim, and sometimes other illegalities as well" now how does this help the case for the US model? If the incidence of Dgu's is higher becuase the guns were illegal or the participant was involved in other illegal gun related activities that would make the gun crime rate even higher than stated. Hardly backing the pro gun case .

Your own comment "It should be clear to any reasonable person that while estimates of 2- 2.5 million are most likely on the high side" well i agree with that. But that didnt stop you actually making the claim eariler in a preivous post you finished your post by asking:
"Do you know that other studies indicate firearms are used (used does not imply fired) over 2 million times a year for personl protection.?"
Did you think then the number was on the high side or did you change your mind. Why didnt you admit then what you say now?

Even if the figure were right it would mean the crime rate was considerably higher than is reported. Again that would hardly back the case for less fire arm controls in the US. Having even higher crime rate than it already does would not bode well really would it? After all , and this really is the crux of the matter; the US has the highest number of guns per person out of any western democracy and the highest homicide rate in the Wetsern world. This is even after the large fall in recent years in Us crime rates. Now i think its pretty damm obivous that the two are connected. No one has suggested any reason other than Craddocks sugestion of 'drastic cultural differences'. well I am still waiting to see what these 'drastic differences" are.
consider these elements:
Political system:multi party democracy
Economic systekm:free market capitalism
Religion: predomiantly Christian but with minorities including, jewish, Hindu, sihk, Atheist, Muslim etc
Ethnicity; predominatly white but with signicnt minorities of black, hispanics , Asian etc
Where am I describing Us or Europe or Australasia or Canada? Of course :all of them, drastic differences? I dont think so, people of all these areas also watch violent American movies, play Grand Theft Auto and listen to Marilyn Manson in droves. Where is the drastic cultural difference? if it exists why are not all levels of crime higher in the US? They are not, only the violent crime, in particular gun crime, are consitently higher. Whats your explantion for that?

[craddock 0]

Quote

Your own comment "It should be clear to any reasonable person that while estimates of 2- 2.5 million are most likely on the high side" well i agree with that. But that didnt stop you actually making the claim eariler in a preivous post you finished your post by asking:

Did you think then the number was on the high side or did you change your mind. Why didnt you admit then what you say now?

What is there to admit. I asked you ""Do you know that other studies indicate firearms are used (used does not imply fired) over 2 million times a year for personl protection.?" What the fuck does it matter what study I believe? Everyother study done on the matter is significently higher. Would it make you feel better if we threw out the high and low and took used the average of the rest?

That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

[philh 0]

"You haven't really shown sources of the data so it means nothing to me."
WHAT ? have you read my posts? i have indeed provided sources.
In fact the whole point of the last sections of our debate is because one of my sources the NCVS is being examined.
your case about the 46 states is irrelevant. the issue I have pointed out is the higher number of guns in the US leads to the high number of homicides s in the US. i have consitently claimed that most homicides are domestic violence. so whether a weapon is allowed to be concealed or not in public is hardly an issue.yes the US crime rate is at a 30 year low , but I have never suggested that gun control is the only way to reduce crime. In fact i have not made any suggestions for US policy as this is a debate about Canadian policy. i bring up the Us for one purpose alone. To show that there is a positive correlation between gun ownerhsip and the homicde rate. The fact is the USA has massivley more number of firearms than similar nations and massively higher number of homicides. This is something Canada needs to consider when making policy.

[kallend 2,118]

Quote

Get off your fucking horse.

Quote

Your own comment "It should be clear to any reasonable person that while estimates of 2- 2.5 million are most likely on the high side" well i agree with that. But that didnt stop you actually making the claim eariler in a preivous post you finished your post by asking:

Did you think then the number was on the high side or did you change your mind. Why didnt you admit then what you say now?

What is there to admit. I asked you ""Do you know that other studies indicate firearms are used (used does not imply fired) over 2 million times a year for personl protection.?" What the fuck does it matter what study I believe? Everyother study done on the matter is significently higher. Would it make you feel better if we threw out the high and low and took used the average of the rest?

Cursing does not strengthen any argument, quite the reverse.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Cursing does not strengthen any argument, quite the reverse.

Especially when it's in written form. A verbal slip relates poorly on the speaker, but can still be a slip. Writing it takes effort to put it out there.

EDIT: 4539176e917239(pi)98472195 chocolate caramel swirl

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[juanesky 0]

Does your comment include random numbers or ice cream?

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

your case about the 46 states is irrelevant. the issue I have pointed out is the higher number of guns in the US leads to the high number of homicides s in the US. i have consitently claimed that most homicides are domestic violence. so whether a weapon is allowed to be concealed or not in public is hardly an issue.

You are wrong on so many points it's hard to know where to start. And I don't have the time to bring you fully up to speed on your education. You're way behind the curve on this issue, compared to many others who have followed gun threads here in the past.

First of all, you claim that more guns = more crime. And then you turn around and say that more people licensed to carry concealed handguns in public is not a problem. That's contradictory.

So what you're really admitting, without realizing it, is that the problem is not the guns - it's the criminals. And that's what everyone here is trying to tell you.

Next, please provide a reference for your claim that most homicides are domestic violence. This also is not true. The large majority of murders are committed by people who are either strangers or "acquaintences" - not people who live together. That comes from the FBI stats.

Quote

yes the US crime rate is at a 30 year low , but I have never suggested that gun control is the only way to reduce crime.

Gun control has never been shown to be the causal factor for any correlation with lower crime rates, as my previously mentioned study reported. Have you forgotten that bit of info already? Or do you just ignore information that doesn't match your beliefs?

Quote

i bring up the Us for one purpose alone. To show that there is a positive correlation between gun ownerhsip and the homicde rate. The fact is the USA has massivley more number of firearms than similar nations and massively higher number of homicides.

Wrong again.

There are countries with no legal guns and few gun murders.
There are countries with no legal guns and lots of gun murders.
There are countries with lots of legal guns and few gun murders.
There are countries with lots of legal guns and lots of gun murders.

And yet you conclude that legal gun ownership is the determining factor in gun murders?

Go fish.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Cursing does not strengthen any argument, quite the reverse.

If you were to read the posting objectively, the rare curse word was irrelevant to the point, and neither weakens it, nor strengthens it. It's just a curse word. What matters is the point he was making, not what choice of a rare word he interjected in the process.

But then, if you want to judge the value of a message based soley upon a count of curse words, that's your choice to make. But it's a poor way to determine the efficacy of an argument. You would do far better to consider the facts and logic being presented.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

Cursing does not strengthen any argument, quite the reverse.

But then, if you want to judge the value of a message based soley upon a count of curse words, that's your choice. But it's a poor way to determine the efficacy of an argument. You would do far better to consider the facts and logic being presented.

wrong - It indicates a loss of composure in providing an argument, a lack of respect for the other, a disregard of whether you care whether the other tunes you out or not. A poor debate tactic in any case.

But it impresses 7 and 8 year boys, and 13 and 14 year olds of all ages quite a bit and makes ones mom proud too. So there is that benefit.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kallend 2,118]

Quote

Quote

Cursing does not strengthen any argument, quite the reverse.

If you were to read the posting objectively, the rare curse word was irrelevant to the point, and neither weakens it, nor strengthens it. It's just a curse word. What matters is the point he was making, not what choice of a rare word he interjected in the process.

But then, if you want to judge the value of a message based soley upon a count of curse words, that's your choice to make. But it's a poor way to determine the efficacy of an argument. You would do far better to consider the facts and logic being presented.

Try that before a judge and see how well, your message is received.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,118]

You are right - it's illegal guns in criminal hands that are the problem.

Like when someone kills their spouse or family member after an argument (which accounts for a large fraction of gun homicides in the USA).

What fraction of illegal guns in criminal hands do you think started out as legal guns in law abiding hands? 90%, 95%, 99%?

Anyhow, the possession of illegal guns by criminals shows VERY CLEARLY that legal gun owners need to clean up their acts to prevent their legal guns becoming illegal ones.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Cursing does not strengthen any argument, quite the reverse.

But then, if you want to judge the value of a message based soley upon a count of curse words, that's your choice. But it's a poor way to determine the efficacy of an argument. You would do far better to consider the facts and logic being presented.

wrong - It indicates a loss of composure in providing an argument, a lack of respect for the other, a disregard of whether you care whether the other tunes you out or not. A poor debate tactic in any case..

2 + 2 = fucking 4

You may not like the way I stated that equation, above, but the curse word I interjected doesn't change the fact that the equation is correct.

And if in reply all you do is complain about the curse word, then you have said nothing to debate the actual topic of conversation. That's the ultimate poor debate tactic.