NRA to file suit TODAY vs. Chicago

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

There's a reason I rarely argue with Kallend. With the exception of when he's really worked up, his statements and arguments are usually pretty solid.

It's also very boring arguing about the argument, rather than the actual subject, and he much prefers the former to actual substance, esp on the gun topic.

Your assertation that he is always on solid ground is quite false. His common strategy is to claim 'facts' were established in a prior thread and therefore are a given. And again effort is spent debating the truthiness of his prior claims.

When Chicago had an improvement for murders, suddenly it became evidence for him, even though elsewhere he repeatedly points out that single data points have low value. (and with the murder rate shooting up again this year in Chicago, that's not being discussed anymore)

Chicago (and DC) will be providing a lot of interesting data soon as the gun bans are wiped out. Just like with every new CCW state, the tired old predictions about wild west shootouts are here, and once against we'll see that those predictions are BS.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

The strawman you're suggesting is not one he submitted.

No, it is EXACTLY the strawman argument he uses over and over - tying crime to GUN problems rather than CRIMINAL problems.

Quote

That a store full of guns and ammo were insufficient for the shopkeeper to defend himself is factual.

It is factual, but his argument is fallacious. In banned areas, he blames the availability of guns in neighboring non-banned areas for crime (DC crime/VA guns). In non-banned areas, he argues that guns do not prevent crime (Chicago/Dallas crime rate comparisons).

When he's proven wrong, he brings up bullshit stats to try and show how they can't be compared (DC not having a Senator, or the number of Congressmen / lawyers comprising the population of DC).

Quote

There could be many reasons WHY that was the case (you've given two good ones above), but he didn't opine on those so any argument about them is simply arguing with yourself.

Arguing with myself? Hardly.

The reason WHY the store full of guns and ammo was insufficient is because the guns were not in a condition to be used for defense. A gun that is unloaded in the safe with the ammo in another safe doesn't do you a damn bit of good when the criminal kicks in the door.

Chicago's ban on guns for ordinary people to defend themselves is what allowed the crime - they never even had a snowball's chance in hell to fight back.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

There's a reason I rarely argue with Kallend. With the exception of when he's really worked up, his statements and arguments are usually pretty solid.

Blues,
Dave

I'd say "consistent" rather than solid. Ordinarily, he tries to blame crime on the availability of guns ("DC crime due to VA guns"). This time, he's trying to say that the availability of guns failed to prevent the crime. It's a strawman argument that fails on a couple of different points.

a) Sales stock in a gun shop isn't laying around locked and loaded.

b) Given that the gunshop is in Chicago, it's HIGHLY unlikely that the owners were carrying any sort of self-defense weapon.

No, the shop is in Glenwood, as you would know if you bothered to READ THE THREAD before hitting "send". So your ASSumption is quite without foundation.

Second, I didn't make an argument. I simply stated a fact about a shooting in my local gun shop. YOU (and others) are incorrectly inferring an argument I haven't made.

Finally, you REALLY should look up the definition of "strawman". You use the expression incorrectly with great frequency.

...

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

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

The strawman you're suggesting is not one he submitted.

No, it is EXACTLY the strawman argument he uses over and over - tying crime to GUN problems rather than CRIMINAL problems.

PLEASE LOOK UP THE DEFINITION OF "STRAWMAN" AND START USING IT CORRECTLY

Quote

Quote

That a store full of guns and ammo were insufficient for the shopkeeper to defend himself is factual.

It is factual, but his argument is fallacious. In banned areas, he blames the availability of guns in neighboring non-banned areas for crime (DC crime/VA guns). In non-banned areas, he argues that guns do not prevent crime (Chicago/Dallas crime rate comparisons).

When he's proven wrong, he brings up bullshit stats to try and show how they can't be compared (DC not having a Senator, or the number of Congressmen / lawyers comprising the population of DC).

Quote

There could be many reasons WHY that was the case (you've given two good ones above), but he didn't opine on those so any argument about them is simply arguing with yourself.

Arguing with myself? Hardly.

The reason WHY the store full of guns and ammo was insufficient is because the guns were not in a condition to be used for defense.

PLEASE TELL US HOW YOU KNOW THIS. Nothing in any article posted about this shooting makes any mention of the condition of any guns available to the owners.

Quote

A gun that is unloaded in the safe with the ammo in another safe doesn't do you a damn bit of good when the criminal kicks in the door.

Chicago's ban on guns for ordinary people to defend themselves is what allowed the crime - they never even had a snowball's chance in hell to fight back.

AND THE SHOP IS NOT IN CHICAGO. Please RTFA.


You post is so full of errors and misstatements it's hard to respond to them all.

...

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

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

There's a reason I rarely argue with Kallend. With the exception of when he's really worked up, his statements and arguments are usually pretty solid.

Blues,
Dave

I'd say "consistent" rather than solid. Ordinarily, he tries to blame crime on the availability of guns ("DC crime due to VA guns"). This time, he's trying to say that the availability of guns failed to prevent the crime. It's a strawman argument that fails on a couple of different points.

a) Sales stock in a gun shop isn't laying around locked and loaded.

b) Given that the gunshop is in Chicago, it's HIGHLY unlikely that the owners were carrying any sort of self-defense weapon.

No, the shop is in Glenwood, as you would know if you bothered to READ THE THREAD before hitting "send". So your ASSumption is quite without foundation.

Oh, my...a SUBURB of Chicago rather than Chicago proper ... QUITE the difference, professor. Do you have information that they DID, in fact, own handguns that they could have used to defend themselves? (This assumes, of course, that the victims didn't live in Chicago proper, where they could NOT own the aforementioned handguns).

Perhaps you can show me WHERE, in the Illinois state code, that weapons in a gunshop do NOT have to be stored safely and that said weapons were ready to hand and loaded?

Absent the information requested above, your ASSertation that "a shop full of guns and ammunition did them no good" is a bogus argument... like usual when you come into a gun thread.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

There's a reason I rarely argue with Kallend. With the exception of when he's really worked up, his statements and arguments are usually pretty solid.

Blues,
Dave

I'd say "consistent" rather than solid. Ordinarily, he tries to blame crime on the availability of guns ("DC crime due to VA guns"). This time, he's trying to say that the availability of guns failed to prevent the crime. It's a strawman argument that fails on a couple of different points.

a) Sales stock in a gun shop isn't laying around locked and loaded.

b) Given that the gunshop is in Chicago, it's HIGHLY unlikely that the owners were carrying any sort of self-defense weapon.

No, the shop is in Glenwood, as you would know if you bothered to READ THE THREAD before hitting "send". So your ASSumption is quite without foundation.

Oh, my...a SUBURB of Chicago rather than Chicago proper ... QUITE the difference, professor. Do you have information that they DID, in fact, own handguns that they could have used to defend themselves? (This assumes, of course, that the victims didn't live in Chicago proper, where they could NOT own the aforementioned handguns).

Perhaps you can show me WHERE, in the Illinois state code, that weapons in a gunshop do NOT have to be stored safely and that said weapons were ready to hand and loaded?

Absent the information requested above, your ASSertation that "a shop full of guns and ammunition did them no good" is a bogus argument... like usual when you come into a gun thread.

Lame attempt to back-pedal.

Suburbs aren't the city, and have their own government and different ordinances. Chicago's gun laws don't apply in Glenwood, and you have no idea what you are writing about.

I made NO ARGUMENT, I just made a factual statement. You (and JR and some others) immediately knee-jerked in response - as usual.

The only person to produce a straw man (look it up) was you.

...

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

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Second, I didn't make an argument. I simply stated a fact about a shooting in my local gun shop. YOU (and others) are incorrectly inferring an argument I haven't made.

so many comedians this week. Must be the spirit of Carlin.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

The only person to produce a straw man (look it up) was you.

You mean like saying that Washington city is somehow different in regards to crime because the congressional district doesn't have a Senator? Or that it is different in regards to crime because a percentage of the city's population is congressmen and lawyers?

The *FACT* of the matter is that, as your norm, you argue from a dishonest standpoint. The murders being in a gunshop has merry fuck-all to do with the ability of the victims to defend themselves and you damn well know it, or, if you don't, then you have no business TRYING to argue about gun control issues because you have insufficient knowledge of them - your pick.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

The only person to produce a straw man (look it up) was you.

You mean like saying that Washington city is somehow different in regards to crime because the congressional district doesn't have a Senator? Or that it is different in regards to crime because a percentage of the city's population is congressmen and lawyers?

The *FACT* of the matter is that, as your norm, you argue from a dishonest standpoint. The murders being in a gunshop has merry fuck-all to do with the ability of the victims to defend themselves and you damn well know it, or, if you don't, then you have no business TRYING to argue about gun control issues because you have insufficient knowledge of them - your pick.

GET A DICTIONARY AND LOOK UP THE DEFINITION OF STRAWMAN. RIGHT NOW YOU ARE JUST MAKING YOURSELF LOOK DUMB BY REPEATEDLY USING A STRAWMAN WHILE INCORRECTLY ACCUSING OTHERS OF DOING IT.

...

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

[crotalus01 0]

I also do not understand the gun store murder analogy. Yes, is a statement of fact but what is the point?
It is also a statement of fact that there are many instances of the availability of a parachute during a skydive not preventing a fatality...sometimes its all about the timing of your actions.

As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD...

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

I also do not understand the gun store murder analogy. Yes, is a statement of fact but what is the point?
It is also a statement of fact that there are many instances of the availability of a parachute during a skydive not preventing a fatality...sometimes its all about the timing of your actions.

To what analogy are you referring? Who made an analogy?

...

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

[downwardspiral 0]

Sorry professor. You had a point to make as illustrated in the quote below from earlier in the thread. When I asked you to reiterate your point you conveniently ignored it as expected. However, I do credit you for not tell me to go back and reread the thread.

Quote

However, my point remains, a shop full of guns and ammunition did them no good.

So what was your point again?

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The only person to produce a straw man (look it up) was you.

You mean like saying that Washington city is somehow different in regards to crime because the congressional district doesn't have a Senator? Or that it is different in regards to crime because a percentage of the city's population is congressmen and lawyers?

The *FACT* of the matter is that, as your norm, you argue from a dishonest standpoint. The murders being in a gunshop has merry fuck-all to do with the ability of the victims to defend themselves and you damn well know it, or, if you don't, then you have no business TRYING to argue about gun control issues because you have insufficient knowledge of them - your pick.

GET A DICTIONARY AND LOOK UP THE DEFINITION OF STRAWMAN. RIGHT NOW YOU ARE JUST MAKING YOURSELF LOOK DUMB BY REPEATEDLY USING A STRAWMAN WHILE INCORRECTLY ACCUSING OTHERS OF DOING IT.

Bullcrap - you bring the point into the argument so that you can argue against it later to tear down the other side's argument - what is that BESIDES a strawman.

I say again - the fact that the murders took place in a gunshop has merry fuck-all to do with the ability of the victims to defend themselves.

You are either arguing from a dishonest standpoint, or you don't know enough about the principles of armed self defense and the laws that control it to argue the point at all - which one is it, professor?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[crotalus01 0]

Quote

Quote

I also do not understand the RELEVANCE of the gun store murder STORY. Yes, is a statement of fact but what is the point?

It is also a statement of fact that there are many instances of the availability of a parachute during a skydive not preventing a fatality...sometimes its all about the timing of your actions.

To what analogy are you referring? Who made an analogy?

As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD...

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I also do not understand the RELEVANCE of the gun store murder STORY. Yes, is a statement of fact but what is the point?

It is also a statement of fact that there are many instances of the availability of a parachute during a skydive not preventing a fatality...sometimes its all about the timing of your actions.

To what analogy are you referring? Who made an analogy?

Quote

a shop full of guns and ammunition did them no good

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I also do not understand the RELEVANCE of the gun store murder STORY. Yes, is a statement of fact but what is the point?

It is also a statement of fact that there are many instances of the availability of a parachute during a skydive not preventing a fatality...sometimes its all about the timing of your actions.

To what analogy are you referring? Who made an analogy?

???????

You complain of not understanding an analogy, but the only analogy in the thread appears to be the one you made to a parachute. Do you often complain about yourself?

...

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

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I also do not understand the RELEVANCE of the gun store murder STORY. Yes, is a statement of fact but what is the point?

It is also a statement of fact that there are many instances of the availability of a parachute during a skydive not preventing a fatality...sometimes its all about the timing of your actions.

To what analogy are you referring? Who made an analogy?

Quote

a shop full of guns and ammunition did them no good

I guess you should look up "analogy" as well as "strawman" when you get that dictionary.

...

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

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

The only person to produce a straw man (look it up) was you.

You mean like saying that Washington city is somehow different in regards to crime because the congressional district doesn't have a Senator? Or that it is different in regards to crime because a percentage of the city's population is congressmen and lawyers?

The *FACT* of the matter is that, as your norm, you argue from a dishonest standpoint. The murders being in a gunshop has merry fuck-all to do with the ability of the victims to defend themselves and you damn well know it, or, if you don't, then you have no business TRYING to argue about gun control issues because you have insufficient knowledge of them - your pick.

GET A DICTIONARY AND LOOK UP THE DEFINITION OF STRAWMAN. RIGHT NOW YOU ARE JUST MAKING YOURSELF LOOK DUMB BY REPEATEDLY USING A STRAWMAN WHILE INCORRECTLY ACCUSING OTHERS OF DOING IT.

Bullcrap - you bring the point into the argument so that you can argue against it later to tear down the other side's argument - what is that BESIDES a strawman.

I say again - the fact that the murders took place in a gunshop has merry fuck-all to do with the ability of the victims to defend themselves.

You are either arguing from a dishonest standpoint, or you don't know enough about the principles of armed self defense and the laws that control it to argue the point at all - which one is it, professor?

Which argument is that. You are arguing with yourself, as livendive very accurately perceived.

I have made no argument in this thread. I have made an accurate statement about a homicide in my neighborhood in response to post#1 where my name is explictly mentioned. I haven't claimed the incident is "data" in support of any position. I haven't claimed that it shows anything relevant to any other incident or incidents or gun policies. I haven't claimed it is anything other than a true story relating to someone I had met (who was shot dead) in a shop in which I have made purchases.

YOU, OTOH, have made completely unsupported statements about the availability of loaded guns in the Glenwood gun shop and range (yes, there's a range there too, kind of hard to use a range without loaded guns - is that how they do it in Texas?), and YOU made inaccurate statements about the gun laws in Glenwood, a town of some 9,000 people which, for some reason, you confuse with Chicago, a city of nearly 3 Million.

Full name of the place: Glenwood Gun & Pistol Range, 135 E Main St Glenwood IL 60425

...

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

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

completely unsupported statements about the availability of loaded guns in the Glenwood gun shop and range (yes, there's a range there too, kind of hard to use a range without loaded guns - is that how they do it in Texas?),

Provide proof that loaded guns are on the walls of the store. For that matter, perhaps you can show me in the Illinois state law codes where that is allowed, I can't seem to find it.

Looks like another one of your red herrings to me - or perhaps just more proof that you really don't know jack shit about carrying a weapon for self-defense and you're groping for some way to discredit the idea of armed self-defense, as is your normal M.O.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,147]

The ONLY person in this thread to make any claim about availability of loaded guns in the Glenwood gun shop and range is YOU. I don't have to prove anything since I made no claims at all.

As far as herrings are concerned, trying to claim Glenwood (pop 9,000) is Chicago (pop 2.8M) is a pretty good example.

Quote

Given that the gunshop is in Chicago, it's HIGHLY unlikely that the owners were carrying any sort of self-defense weapon. mnealtx, post 74 of this thread

PS Glenwood IL does NOT have a gun ban.

...

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

[rushmc 23]

Quote

The ONLY person in this thread to make any claim about availability of loaded guns in the Glenwood gun shop and range is YOU. I don't have to prove anything since I made no claims at all.

As far as herrings are concerned, trying to claim Glenwood (pop 9,000) is Chicago (pop 2.8M) is a pretty good example.

Quote

Given that the gunshop is in Chicago, it's HIGHLY unlikely that the owners were carrying any sort of self-defense weapon. mnealtx, post 74 of this thread

PS Glenwood IL does NOT have a gun ban.

You seldom give a direct answer to a question.
You relish in some sort of sick word game in a sick attempt to raise yourself above anyone else.

I will have to admit, it is fun to watch

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

The ONLY person in this thread to make any claim about availability of loaded guns in the Glenwood gun shop and range is YOU. I don't have to prove anything since I made no claims at all.

As far as herrings are concerned, trying to claim Glenwood (pop 9,000) is Chicago (pop 2.8M) is a pretty good example.

Quote

Given that the gunshop is in Chicago, it's HIGHLY unlikely that the owners were carrying any sort of self-defense weapon. mnealtx, post 74 of this thread

PS Glenwood IL does NOT have a gun ban.

You seldom give a direct answer to a question.
You relish in some sort of sick word game in a sick attempt to raise yourself above anyone else.

I will have to admit, it is fun to watch

Are you looking in your mirror again?

...

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

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The ONLY person in this thread to make any claim about availability of loaded guns in the Glenwood gun shop and range is YOU. I don't have to prove anything since I made no claims at all.

As far as herrings are concerned, trying to claim Glenwood (pop 9,000) is Chicago (pop 2.8M) is a pretty good example.

Quote

Given that the gunshop is in Chicago, it's HIGHLY unlikely that the owners were carrying any sort of self-defense weapon. mnealtx, post 74 of this thread

PS Glenwood IL does NOT have a gun ban.

You seldom give a direct answer to a question.
You relish in some sort of sick word game in a sick attempt to raise yourself above anyone else.

I will have to admit, it is fun to watch

Are you looking in your mirror again?

Two sqirts of piss is what your opinion means to me now, sorry, maybe just one.

Play your games if you will. I will laugh and enjoy your show

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

The ONLY person in this thread to make any claim about availability of loaded guns in the Glenwood gun shop and range is YOU. I don't have to prove anything since I made no claims at all.

Ah, another kallend hit'n'run.... typical.

Who was it that provided these tidbits about the gun store, then? Some sort of sock puppet? Rogue hacker took over your computer?

"a whole shopful of guns and ammunition"

"a shop full of guns and ammunition did them no good"

"kind of hard to use a range without loaded guns"

Perhaps you can explain how those UNLOADED guns would have been of any use?

So, which is it, professor? Were those guns on the walls loaded, and therefore valid to a discussion regarding self defense? Or, were they in fact unloaded and locked up, and therefore of no use for self-defense and you're talking shit and blowing smoke?

Quote

As far as herrings are concerned, trying to claim Glenwood (pop 9,000) is Chicago (pop 2.8M) is a pretty good example.[/given]

My mistake, as I didn't read your article before making my post.

I'd say it's still pretty small beer in relation to the "DC crime doesn't count because they don't have a Senator" and "DC crime doesn't count because there's a bunch of Congressmen and lawyers living there" whoppers, though.

Quote

PS Glenwood IL does NOT have a gun ban.

Only because Beaver's and Suffredin's proposals were defeated earlier this year - I'm presuming you're not talking about the EXISTING (so called) Assault Weapon ban in Cook County.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

• Quote

[crotalus01 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I also do not understand the RELEVANCE of the gun store murder STORY. Yes, is a statement of fact but what is the point?

It is also a statement of fact that there are many instances of the availability of a parachute during a skydive not preventing a fatality...sometimes its all about the timing of your actions.

To what analogy are you referring? Who made an analogy?

???????

You complain of not understanding an analogy, but the only analogy in the thread appears to be the one you made to a parachute. Do you often complain about yourself?

Actually I complain about myself quite frequently.

Okay, I give in. I cannot compete with your verbal linguistics and knowledge of proper grammer and sentence structure (and likely spelling). So, can you answer a simple question?
What does the story you told about the murder of the gun shop owner(s) you knew have to do with the topic of this thread?
Seriously, I am asking what your post means in context with the subject matter of this thread...

As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD...