freethefly 6 #51 December 21, 2007 QuoteAnd these facts you state come from....? Hopefully not the Kellerman studies that have been disproved over and over... Dept. of Justice http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/overview.htm"...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vpozzoli 0 #52 December 21, 2007 Quote *yawn* You still have a point...somewhere...right? My point is quite clear. It's that you're invariably failing to respond to anything but instead keep diverting the discussion with non sequitur interjections. But that's OK, you still serve your purpose, as the good Professor has kindly pointed out. Cheers, Vale Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #53 December 21, 2007 Quote Quotemnealtx has also previously posted DoJ dta on where criminals get their guns. When did I post that? I don't recall posting the 300k / year data you claim - at least not that I can recall. Reading, reading! Try again. I could find it in the archive - I expect you can too!... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #54 December 21, 2007 Quote>Could it just POSSIBLY be a cultural issue (gangs/drugs/lack of respect for >the law/lack of responsibility) and not an availability issue? I believe it is, and that's the point that Moore makes in his movie. I think we, as a culture, see guns as symbols of virility, power and control; witness how armed criminals/policemen are represented in popular media. Once the gun appears, the person holding it "wins" whatever dispute is going on, and indeed this is portrayed as a common and indisputable means of controlling any situation. . The Brits, Candians, Australians ... all watch the same movies and the same TV shows as we do. Yet they manage to have gun homicide rates that are a fraction of ours. Culture is a lame excuse.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #55 December 21, 2007 QuoteAnd these facts you state come from....? Hopefully not the Kellerman studies that have been disproved over and over... So you keep claiming. You trust the NRA propaganda machine too much. This book is interesting: www.mlscommunication.com/... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #56 December 21, 2007 QuoteThe Brits, Candians, Australians ... all watch the same movies and the same TV shows as we do. Yet they manage to have gun homicide rates that are a fraction of ours. Culture is a lame excuse. There's a hell of a lot more to the culture that someone inhabits than what they see on TV & Movies. TV & Movies probably don't have much to do with it. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #57 December 21, 2007 QuoteQuoteThe Brits, Candians, Australians ... all watch the same movies and the same TV shows as we do. Yet they manage to have gun homicide rates that are a fraction of ours. Culture is a lame excuse. There's a hell of a lot more to the culture that someone inhabits than what they see on TV & Movies. TV & Movies probably don't have much to do with it. Are you claiming that (US) Americans are just plain nastier people than those other nationalities?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #58 December 21, 2007 QuoteQuoteThe Brits, Candians, Australians ... all watch the same movies and the same TV shows as we do. Yet they manage to have gun homicide rates that are a fraction of ours. Culture is a lame excuse. There's a hell of a lot more to the culture that someone inhabits than what they see on TV & Movies. TV & Movies probably don't have much to do with it. You have (I think) pointed out before from what part of our culture the "data" our dear professor likes to use, comes from."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #59 December 21, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteThe Brits, Candians, Australians ... all watch the same movies and the same TV shows as we do. Yet they manage to have gun homicide rates that are a fraction of ours. Culture is a lame excuse. There's a hell of a lot more to the culture that someone inhabits than what they see on TV & Movies. TV & Movies probably don't have much to do with it. You have (I think) pointed out before from what part of our culture the "data" our dear professor likes to use, comes from. Another inane reply. You have something against data from the US DoJ?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #60 December 21, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThe Brits, Candians, Australians ... all watch the same movies and the same TV shows as we do. Yet they manage to have gun homicide rates that are a fraction of ours. Culture is a lame excuse. There's a hell of a lot more to the culture that someone inhabits than what they see on TV & Movies. TV & Movies probably don't have much to do with it. You have (I think) pointed out before from what part of our culture the "data" our dear professor likes to use, comes from. Another inane reply. You have something against data from the US DoJ? No, but use it at a high level to make you point. You argue against the cultural point yet you (purposefully I think) ignore an important aspect of the data that has been brought up on this thread already."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #61 December 22, 2007 Quote Considering who kills who, the "criminal" appears to be the least of the problem. Best arm against those you knowWink National Murder Reduction Program (NMRP): Two free handguns with each marriage license, tax incentives for businesses that encourage employees to pack iron at all times, and tax deductions for armed families "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,112 #62 December 22, 2007 >The Brits, Candians, Australians ... all watch the same movies and >the same TV shows as we do. Culture != movies and TV shows. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #63 December 22, 2007 Quote Quote *yawn* You still have a point...somewhere...right? My point is quite clear. It's that you're invariably failing to respond to anything but instead keep diverting the discussion with non sequitur interjections. But that's OK, you still serve your purpose, as the good Professor has kindly pointed out. Cheers, Vale I proposed that cultural issues and not the availability of guns drive crime. If you disagree, then disprove it.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #64 December 22, 2007 Quote The Brits, Candians, Australians ... all watch the same movies and the same TV shows as we do. Yet they manage to have gun homicide rates that are a fraction of ours. Culture is a lame excuse. Really? If it's not cultural issues, then why does DC, with a gun ban, have the highest crime rate in the country? Why *DOESN'T* Switzerland have a high crime rate, with their militia weapons kept at the house?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #65 December 22, 2007 Quote Quote Quote *yawn* You still have a point...somewhere...right? My point is quite clear. It's that you're invariably failing to respond to anything but instead keep diverting the discussion with non sequitur interjections. But that's OK, you still serve your purpose, as the good Professor has kindly pointed out. Cheers, Vale I proposed that cultural issues and not the availability of guns drive crime. If you disagree, then disprove it. You really should prove that your claim is true first. "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #66 December 22, 2007 I can prove availability DOESN'T drive it. Violent crime continues to be high even in places with gun bans (DC) and in the metropolitan areas vs. rural areas (DOJ stats). I suspect that much of the increased crime in metro areas is due to gang/drug influences, but cannot statistically prove it. Also shown in DOJ stats is that a weapon is used in a relatively small percentage of violent crime (25% in the DOJ 2005 stats). If weapon availability was the driving force behind violent crime, I would expect that percentage to be much, much higher.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #67 December 22, 2007 QuoteQuoteAnd these facts you state come from....? Hopefully not the Kellerman studies that have been disproved over and over... So you keep claiming. You trust the NRA propaganda machine too much. This book is interesting: www.mlscommunication.com/ I have gotten none of my information from NRA webpages - sorry. Oh, I forgot to mention - I've not been an NRA member since high school except for one year, a couple years back. You evidently have no problem with accepting VPC propaganda, though. I'm still curious why information from a medical association is supposed to be so accurate, however - perhaps another one of your Appeal To Authority ploys?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #68 December 22, 2007 QuoteI can prove availability DOESN'T drive it. Violent crime continues to be high even in places with gun bans (DC) and in the metropolitan areas vs. rural areas (DOJ stats). I suspect that much of the increased crime in metro areas is due to gang/drug influences, but cannot statistically prove it. Also shown in DOJ stats is that a weapon is used in a relatively small percentage of violent crime (25% in the DOJ 2005 stats). If weapon availability was the driving force behind violent crime, I would expect that percentage to be much, much higher. Proving that availability DOESN'T drive gunkill rates is sufficient proof, as far as I'm concerned, at least for this discussion. Forget the DC example. It's too easy to shoot down. The DC bans didn't reduce availability because guns are "streaming in" from other states. You're just begging for a national ban. Rates of weapon use in violent crimes don't support your claim either (BTW, we're talking about gunkills, not gunviolence). Perhaps the 25% figure is due to choices made by the criminals and not due to availability. Prove that gun availability and murder rates do not rise and fall together. "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vpozzoli 0 #69 December 22, 2007 Quote Quote Quote *yawn* You still have a point...somewhere...right? My point is quite clear. It's that you're invariably failing to respond to anything but instead keep diverting the discussion with non sequitur interjections. But that's OK, you still serve your purpose, as the good Professor has kindly pointed out. Cheers, Vale I proposed that cultural issues and not the availability of guns drive crime. If you disagree, then disprove it. And there you go again. The good thing about a circular argument is that you never run out of replies. Notice I didn't say unique replies. Vale Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #70 December 22, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Quote *yawn* You still have a point...somewhere...right? My point is quite clear. It's that you're invariably failing to respond to anything but instead keep diverting the discussion with non sequitur interjections. But that's OK, you still serve your purpose, as the good Professor has kindly pointed out. Cheers, Vale I proposed that cultural issues and not the availability of guns drive crime. If you disagree, then disprove it. And there you go again. The good thing about a circular argument is that you never run out of replies. Notice I didn't say unique replies. Vale Then stop replying - I've already restated myself several times to try to make my point clear. If you can't counter the argument, then it's time to stop arguing just for the sake of arguing. You tried to divert the discussion to handgun murders, which I refused to respond to - so WHO was diverting the discussion, again?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #71 December 22, 2007 QuoteProving that availability DOESN'T drive gunkill rates is sufficient proof, as far as I'm concerned, at least for this discussion. Forget the DC example. It's too easy to shoot down. The DC bans didn't reduce availability because guns are "streaming in" from other states. You're just begging for a national ban. Actually, I believe the DC example is a good one. IF the availability of weapons in neighboring states drive crime in DC, then it would ALSO drive crime in those same states - definitely NOT the case, as DOJ stats show. QuoteRates of weapon use in violent crimes don't support your claim either (BTW, we're talking about gunkills, not gunviolence). Perhaps the 25% figure is due to choices made by the criminals and not due to availability. Prove that gun availability and murder rates do not rise and fall together. It does support it, with my change of point to include all violent crime. Obviously, you can't have a gun murder without a gun (as I'm sure the anti's will come along and "inform" us of).Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #72 December 22, 2007 So it's settled, right? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #73 December 22, 2007 Quote So it's settled, right? It's still being argued - c'mon in and say your say!Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #74 December 22, 2007 QuoteQuote The Brits, Candians, Australians ... all watch the same movies and the same TV shows as we do. Yet they manage to have gun homicide rates that are a fraction of ours. Culture is a lame excuse. Really? If it's not cultural issues, then why does DC, with a gun ban, have the highest crime rate in the country? Why *DOESN'T* Switzerland have a high crime rate, with their militia weapons kept at the house? Check the homicide rate in Switzerland, especially in the big cities like Berne.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #75 December 22, 2007 QuoteQuote The Brits, Candians, Australians ... all watch the same movies and the same TV shows as we do. Yet they manage to have gun homicide rates that are a fraction of ours. Culture is a lame excuse. Really? If it's not cultural issues, then why does DC, with a gun ban, have the highest crime rate in the country? Why *DOESN'T* Switzerland have a high crime rate, with their militia weapons kept at the house? Back to DC again? The most untypical city in the entire USA. A city with guns readily available to anyone who can drive across a bridge into Virginia. If your poster child for guns is DC, it shows that you have a pretty piss-poor case to make.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
