billvon 3,116 #51 March 12, 2009 > where 46 states issue concealed handgun permits to law-abiding > citizens, regardless of the size of their penis. And at the same time this >is happening, crime rates are at a 40-year low. True. This would never happen in Alabama, for example. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #52 March 12, 2009 QuoteRe: flusspirat In regard to your crime numbers, the FBI stats show 16,137 murders for 2004 - your number appear skewed. His number actually reveals quite a lot. It shows that he gets his gun violence numbers from anti-gun organizations, which count suicides in with murders as "gun violence". That's the kind of games they play to try and artificially inflate the size of the problem, and scare people into accepting their ideas. And he swallowed it, hook, line & sinker. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #53 March 12, 2009 Quote> where 46 states issue concealed handgun permits to law-abiding > citizens, regardless of the size of their penis. And at the same time this >is happening, crime rates are at a 40-year low. True. This would never happen in Alabama, for example. This kind of response is beneath your intellect, billvon. Really. I guess you just can't control that little liberal inside you, screaming to get out. No one said that there is zero crime here. Just that it's at a very low rate, despite the fact that there are people carrying guns everywhere. Nothing is perfect. Not even tight German gun laws. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #54 March 12, 2009 Quote Too bad that in a previous thread "Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban" you stated VERY CLEARLY that you consider accepting the nutter's own word that he or she is not a nutter to be quite acceptable. It is more acceptable than the alternative, where privacy rights are eroded along with gun rights, and people would avoid seeking medical attention for fear it will lose them their guns, jobs, and other rights. (and how many deaths would THAT cause?) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #55 March 12, 2009 >I guess you just can't control that little liberal inside you, screaming >to get out. Oh, he's not screaming to get out. He's already out there - and he has no problem with people owning guns in the US. But the claims made by the pro-gun lobby are often absurd, and remind me of all the claims by the pro-marijuana people about how much tax money, clothing and food legal marijuana will provide. In this case, the claim that had this been the US, it could have been ended "when people obtained and brought guns to counter the student" are, unfortunately, provably inaccurate. >Nothing is perfect. Not even tight German gun laws. Nor loose Alabama laws. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #56 March 12, 2009 QuoteIn this case, the claim that had this been the US, it could have been ended "when people obtained and brought guns to counter the student" are, unfortunately, provably inaccurate. How so? Aren't police "people that obtained and brought guns to counter the student"?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #57 March 12, 2009 Read through this thread Did anyone actually post what the current laws are? I read that the firearms used were "legally" owned by his parents, but remember having been told by a friend of mine in Germany that he had to keep his weapons in a locked facility at the shooting range. That seems in conflict with the "parent had them at home" argument. What are the laws (I did find some in German... but my German isn't good enough to read legal German) And.... why did he go back TWO YEARS later? I hate psych stuff. It just doesn't make sense. I like order and logic. Things like this just amaze me. It's sad that someone gets THAT crazy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #58 March 12, 2009 QuoteQuote Too bad that in a previous thread "Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban" you stated VERY CLEARLY that you consider accepting the nutter's own word that he or she is not a nutter to be quite acceptable. It is more acceptable than the alternative, where privacy rights are eroded along with gun rights, and people would avoid seeking medical attention for fear it will lose them their guns, jobs, and other rights. (and how many deaths would THAT cause?) It's good that you admit that we could do a better job of preventing nutters from committing mass shootings than we do right now. I seem to recall John Rich writing some months back that a few mass murders were a small price to pay for his freedom to play with his toys.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #59 March 12, 2009 QuoteQuoteRe: flusspirat In regard to your crime numbers, the FBI stats show 16,137 murders for 2004 - your number appear skewed. His number actually reveals quite a lot. It shows that he gets his gun violence numbers from anti-gun organizations, which count suicides in with murders as "gun violence". Explain how shooting oneself is not violent death.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,588 #60 March 12, 2009 It took me awhile, but I think I finally figured out one of the gun debate chasms. Some folks would rather make the system what they think is reasonably safe, and accept the occasional individual failure as a problem, but the cost of a system they agree with. Others basically mistrust systems, and see their ability to protect themselves from the failures in the system as more important than the system's strength. Which is why the occasional gun massacre in a country with strong gun laws is proof to one crowd that gun laws don't work, and the occasional gun massacre in a country with weak gun laws is equal proof to the other crowd that the lack of laws is the problem. It's very much a perception thing, and y'all don't tell me i'm wrong, let me be impressed with my incredible insight for at least an hour, 'mkay? I don't think it's an easy chasm to bridge, because it goes to emotions and feelings of security, which are very deep inside most people. Wendy W. There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #61 March 12, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteRe: flusspirat In regard to your crime numbers, the FBI stats show 16,137 murders for 2004 - your number appear skewed. His number actually reveals quite a lot. It shows that he gets his gun violence numbers from anti-gun organizations, which count suicides in with murders as "gun violence". Explain how shooting oneself is not violent death. The difference here is a harm to society issue. Suicide, although illegal, typically does not endanger others. If guns weren't available, knives would work; if no knives, 20g of tylenol... or 50g...; If no tylenol, a rope or a motorcycle or a car or a "no pull." Once someone is committed to go forward with that plan, it's violent regardless of how it's done. But it's not necessarily a threat to society (likewise I don't think intentional deaths while skydiving should be counted against the sport) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #62 March 12, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Re: flusspirat In regard to your crime numbers, the FBI stats show 16,137 murders for 2004 - your number appear skewed. His number actually reveals quite a lot. It shows that he gets his gun violence numbers from anti-gun organizations, which count suicides in with murders as "gun violence". Explain how shooting oneself is not violent death. The difference here is a harm to society issue. Suicide, although illegal, typically does not endanger others. If guns weren't available, knives would work; if no knives, 20g of tylenol... or 50g...; If no tylenol, a rope or a motorcycle or a car or a "no pull." Once someone is committed to go forward with that plan, it's violent regardless of how it's done. But it's not necessarily a threat to society (likewise I don't think intentional deaths while skydiving should be counted against the sport) Pretty convoluted logic you have to use to make a gun suicide not violent. I wonder if the ER doc can tell the non violent shootings from the violent ones by examining the victim.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #63 March 12, 2009 Quote It took me awhile, but I think I finally figured out one of the gun debate chasms. Some folks would rather make the system what they think is reasonably safe, and accept the occasional individual failure as a problem, but the cost of a system they agree with. Others basically mistrust systems, and see their ability to protect themselves from the failures in the system as more important than the system's strength. Which is why the occasional gun massacre in a country with strong gun laws is proof to one crowd that gun laws don't work, and the occasional gun massacre in a country with weak gun laws is equal proof to the other crowd that the lack of laws is the problem. It's very much a perception thing, and y'all don't tell me i'm wrong, let me be impressed with my incredible insight for at least an hour, 'mkay? I don't think it's an easy chasm to bridge, because it goes to emotions and feelings of security, which are very deep inside most people. Wendy W. Actually. I think you're quite correct. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #64 March 12, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Re: flusspirat In regard to your crime numbers, the FBI stats show 16,137 murders for 2004 - your number appear skewed. His number actually reveals quite a lot. It shows that he gets his gun violence numbers from anti-gun organizations, which count suicides in with murders as "gun violence". Explain how shooting oneself is not violent death. The difference here is a harm to society issue. Suicide, although illegal, typically does not endanger others. If guns weren't available, knives would work; if no knives, 20g of tylenol... or 50g...; If no tylenol, a rope or a motorcycle or a car or a "no pull." Once someone is committed to go forward with that plan, it's violent regardless of how it's done. But it's not necessarily a threat to society (likewise I don't think intentional deaths while skydiving should be counted against the sport) Pretty convoluted logic you have to use to make a gun suicide not violent. I wonder if the ER doc can tell the non violent shootings from the violent ones by examining the victim. You did read the bolded part, right? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #65 March 12, 2009 Quote Stupid argument. The law abiding aren't going to be trying to kill someone - that's why they're called LAW-ABIDING. Apparently the Alabama shooter was law abiding until yesterday.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #66 March 12, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Re: flusspirat In regard to your crime numbers, the FBI stats show 16,137 murders for 2004 - your number appear skewed. His number actually reveals quite a lot. It shows that he gets his gun violence numbers from anti-gun organizations, which count suicides in with murders as "gun violence". Explain how shooting oneself is not violent death. The difference here is a harm to society issue. Suicide, although illegal, typically does not endanger others. If guns weren't available, knives would work; if no knives, 20g of tylenol... or 50g...; If no tylenol, a rope or a motorcycle or a car or a "no pull." Once someone is committed to go forward with that plan, it's violent regardless of how it's done. But it's not necessarily a threat to society (likewise I don't think intentional deaths while skydiving should be counted against the sport) Pretty convoluted logic you have to use to make a gun suicide not violent. I wonder if the ER doc can tell the non violent shootings from the violent ones by examining the victim. You did read the bolded part, right? Sorry, I now see that you agree that shooting oneself is indeed "gun violence". Are you aware that the suicide rate is very well correlated with the rate of gun ownership?If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #67 March 12, 2009 QuoteSorry, I now see that you agree that shooting oneself is indeed "gun violence". Are you aware that the suicide rate is very well correlated with the rate of gun ownership? And all skydivers are suicidal, too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #68 March 12, 2009 QuoteQuoteSorry, I now see that you agree that shooting oneself is indeed "gun violence". Are you aware that the suicide rate is very well correlated with the rate of gun ownership? And all skydivers are suicidal, too. No. No more than all pilots or all drivers who turn on cruise control at 70mph, all motorcyclists or even all people who cross a busy street. In each case you commit to an action and if you don't follow through correctly you may well die. But that's not suicide.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #69 March 12, 2009 QuoteQuote Stupid argument. The law abiding aren't going to be trying to kill someone - that's why they're called LAW-ABIDING. Apparently the Alabama shooter was law abiding until yesterday. You're the telepath - you're supposed to be telling US who's going to twist off at some point in the future. Quit laying about and get on with 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 #70 March 12, 2009 QuoteAre you aware that the suicide rate is very well correlated with the rate of gun ownership? Yeah, all those suicides by gun in Japan are quite distressing.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #71 March 12, 2009 QuoteQuoteAre you aware that the suicide rate is very well correlated with the rate of gun ownership? Yeah, all those suicides by gun in Japan are quite distressing. Yes, Jerry has no idea what the concept of correlation is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #72 March 12, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote Too bad that in a previous thread "Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban" you stated VERY CLEARLY that you consider accepting the nutter's own word that he or she is not a nutter to be quite acceptable. It is more acceptable than the alternative, where privacy rights are eroded along with gun rights, and people would avoid seeking medical attention for fear it will lose them their guns, jobs, and other rights. (and how many deaths would THAT cause?) It's good that you admit that we could do a better job of preventing nutters from committing mass shootings than we do right now. I seem to recall John Rich writing some months back that a few mass murders were a small price to pay for his freedom to play with his toys. You're going to have to help me out here and explain where I admitted such a thing. I said quite the opposite - if we make going to the shrink an offense that mandates giving up your firearms or not working in critical jobs, then people will stop going, and those who could otherwise have been helped will not, and will instead kill themselves or others. That's not progress, and I believe would far exceed the small number of cases that might be prevented. Good to know you're a fan of rights intrusions like the Patriot Act. Anything to save a single life is good, right? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #73 March 12, 2009 Quote> Nothing is perfect. Not even tight German gun laws. Nor loose Alabama laws. And that's because gun laws have no bearing on the prevalence of nuts who commit massacres, as these two current examples so aptly illustrate. QuoteIn this case, the claim that had this been the US, it could have been ended "when people obtained and brought guns to counter the student" are, unfortunately, provably inaccurate. What stopped the German shooter? Men with guns. When he encountered armed policemen, he knew his murderous spree was finished, and police shot him dead. What stopped the Alabama shooter? Men with guns. When he encountered armed policemen, he knew his murderous spree was finished, and he took his own life. It might be nice if more armed men were available to confront mass murderers much sooner. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #74 March 12, 2009 News:Strict German gun laws fail to prevent school shooting Germany will face pressure to re-evaluate its already tough gun laws in the wake of today's school shooting near Stuttgart, in which at least 16 people have died, including the teenage gunman. The country already has some of the strictest gun laws in the world. Handguns are only on sale to those aged 18 or over, with heavier weapons restricted to those over 21. No weapon can be purchased legally without a firearms ownership licence, which is only available after personal checks. None of this appears to have prevented a 17-year-old former pupil of Albertville school in Winnenden from going on the rampage...Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/11/germany-school-shooting-laws Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #75 March 12, 2009 QuoteI seem to recall John Rich writing some months back that a few mass murders were a small price to pay for his freedom to play with his toys. And a few skydiving fatalities each year are a small price to pay for our freedom to skydive. Are you willing to give up your freedom to skydive, in order to save a few lives from parachute and operator malfunctions? Are you willing to give up your freedom to drive a personal motor vehicle, in order to prevent 40,000 traffic fatalities per year? Are you willing to give up your freedom for armed self defense and sport, in order to try and stop mass murderers? What other freedoms would you sacrifice in vain and ineffective attempts to save a few lives? Each death is a tragedy. The loss of freedom is an ever greater tragedy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
