Recommended Posts
Bolas 5
QuoteQuote
Resticting or banning access to an item just because it can be used illegally, or to harm oneself or others sets standards for scary laws: anything that can be used for "bad" can be banned or restricted.
Restricting access to items which have a high chance to be used illegally has been common practice since ancient ages. Unfortunately that's the only choice available in our imperfect world, which more or less works.
Ah legacy thinking: "We've always done it like this..." to which I generally respond "and it's never worked right..."
There's always a better way if people take the time to find it.
Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuote
You keep going on and on and on about the GUNS, and not the criminal - YOU do the math (so to speak).
So you at least admitted that I did not make the claim you accused me to make. Good.
I never made the claim that you made an exact quote saying that, hence my use of the word "paraphrase". Wrong (yet) again.
QuoteQuote
No, I said it was a paraphrasing of your argument. You *do* know the difference between 'paraphrase' and 'direct quote', right?
So you admitted that I did not say that, and this is just your interpretation of what I supposedly say? Good. No reason to comment your interpretations either.
*My* interpretation? No, it's pretty obvious to everyone else, too.
QuoteQuote
Go back and re-read post 78. Nice bit of tapdancing to try to make it about how common the crime you claim is, though.
Here is post 78, and a simple search wouldn't find even the word "common" there.
So please show my post where I claimed "leaving the gun on the seat of their car' to be stolen" to be so common, or admit that you made this up.
Sure thing, once you quote the post that you said John made.
QuoteQuote
Seeing as how that is in a reply to YOU, I think it's pretty obvious who I was replying to, George. Any more deflection gambits you want to try instead of responding?QuoteSo here's the question and answer:
Me: Do you have evidence (not your thoughts) about how many gun owners report gun theft out of total thefts?
You: Just off the top of my head? The "black market gun dealer" that you keep bringing up springs immediately to mind. The fact that you think criminals are going to obey a gun ban and respect gun-free zones is another. The fact that you think MY gun somehow is a threat to you is yet another, and there's plenty more.
Yeah, about that - here's the ACTUAL post:
***
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now could you please answer my question? You indeed claimed that regarding gun theft I'm "arguing from a WHOLE LOT of preconceived notions that just aren't true.". If you just thought I'm wrong, this wouldn't make my arguments not true - you could have only said that you do not agree with me. But since you claimed that my arguments are not true, I assumed you have facts to back it up - which seems like you do not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just off the top of my head? The "black market gun dealer" that you keep bringing up springs immediately to mind. The fact that you think criminals are going to obey a gun ban and respect gun-free zones is another. The fact that you think MY gun somehow is a threat to you is yet another, and there's plenty more.
QuoteSo who is deflecting?
Looks like that would be...YOU.
QuoteQuote
No, I'm saying that your posts made it obvious you had a pre-determined conclusion.
I only started posting about guns pretty recently, after reading through a bunch of JohnRich "polls" and some discussion, so you indeed made pretty significant impact about it, even though you do not acknowledge it.
Yes, of course, because EVERYONE who's sitting on the fence comes into a gun thread talking about how private gun owners didn't stop spree killings.
Not.
QuoteQuote
Not an answer. Try again.
Only when you ask a real question, and not another made-up thing like "Why am *I* supposed to protect YOU, George?". If you consider this a valid question, please point out to exact post where I said that you are supposed to protect me.
You have already claimed you don't own a gun and you want to prevent me from owning one, even though you claim *mine* is ok. So, answer the question - why do you expect someone else, anyone else, to protect YOU, when you won't do it yourself?
QuoteQuote
So prove it works - stats don't support it.
Post #103
Stats still don't prove it. Try again.
QuoteQuote
Other than the fact that your grand idea to keep the lumpenprole in line directly violates their enumerated First and Second Amendment rights, you mean?
I do not see how it violates 1st amendment.
Religion.
QuoteFor 2nd - it can be either repealed (amendments have been repealed in past), or SCOTUS can overturn Heller, saying that only militia can have weapons (no need to repeal anything this way).
Ain't gonna happen, sorry - for one, the right is independent of the militia, and two, the citizenry ARE the militia.
QuoteQuote
That's idiotic - but matched up pretty well with most of your other 'ideas'.
Wow! So after saying so much about how should we concentrate on criminals and not on tools, you're finally saying that making more TOOLS available to law abiding citizens is idiotic idea? How come???
For one, because of Brady bunch idiots using the same bullshit arguments you have. For two, area-effect weapons like grenades aren't standard infantry issue, although they supplement it.
QuoteQuote
Again, why do you think they won't just start shipping guns along with the drugs?
Because if the ban is enforced, the demand will go down.
Yeah? How's that working for drugs, so far?
QuoteQuote
You're saying it's because of the guns, wouldn't that mean there should have been more shootings because it was 'so easy to get them'?
No, I'm saying that unless you're trying to prove there were none, I do not see how is it relevant.
Invalid argument, answer the question.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Quote
Ah legacy thinking: "We've always done it like this..." to which I generally respond "and it's never worked right..."
to which I generally ask "so could you show us a proven way how it should be done instead"? It is always tempting to claim that the way it is done is wrong, but you would probably agree that it is not that constructive.
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
Quote
*My* interpretation? No, it's pretty obvious to everyone else, too.
What is obvious? Are you saying now that you quoted my exact words?
Quote
Sure thing, once you quote the post that you said John made.
So you admit you made things up, and just have no guts to acknowledge it honestly. Fine with me this way too, however you will be treated the same way since now on.
Quote
Yeah, about that - here's the ACTUAL post:
Now could you please answer my question?
And the question was "Do you have evidence (not your thoughts) about how many gun owners report gun theft out of total thefts?" - which you conveniently skipped as it would make things obvious.
Quote
So, answer the question - why do you expect someone else, anyone else, to protect YOU, when you won't do it yourself?
Because I pay taxes which pay for law enforcement, DHS, Army and so on. Nothing is perfect, bu so far worked very well both in Europe and here. Even in gun-restrictive NYC it worked too!
And you probably forgot that the majority of Americans do not own guns, so it's not just my unique position.
Quote
Stats still don't prove it.
You must be kidding. Ok, prove it.
Quote
Ain't gonna happen, sorry - for one, the right is independent of the militia, and two, the citizenry ARE the militia.
That's what current SCOTUS said, splitting at 5/4. One replaced Justice may change the whole picture.
Quote
For one, because of Brady bunch idiots using the same bullshit arguments you have.
I understand why. It is the easiest way to prove that some TOOLS need to be restricted even though it is CRIMINAL who commits a crime.
Quote
For two, area-effect weapons like grenades aren't standard infantry issue, although they supplement it.
Why are you concentrated on a TOOL like grenade instead of CRIMINAL?
(Grenades aren't standard infantry issue in U.S. Army? Interesting)
QuoteQuote
Because if the ban is enforced, the demand will go down.
Yeah? How's that working for drugs, so far?
Because the key word here is "enforced", not "ban".
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
Bolas 5
QuoteQuote
Ah legacy thinking: "We've always done it like this..." to which I generally respond "and it's never worked right..."
to which I generally ask "so could you show us a proven way how it should be done instead"? It is always tempting to claim that the way it is done is wrong, but you would probably agree that it is not that constructive.
Not totally worng, but there is always room for improvement and trying new things and you can't find new ways without trying new things.
The funny thing about wanting proof is you hafta be willing to experiment.
Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.
Andy9o8 2
QuoteNews:
TV Star Warned Over Waving Knife At IntrudersSource: http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Showbiz-News/Myleene-Klass-Knife-Warning-Marks-And-Spencer-Model-Warned-Over-Waving-Kitchen-Knife-At-Teenagers/Article/201001215518164?lpos=Showbiz_News_Carousel_Region_3&lid=ARTICLE_15518164_Myleene_Klass_Knife_Wa
Celebrity mum Myleene Klass is "aghast" after being warned by police for waving a knife at teenagers who entered her garden.
The TV star and Marks & Spencer model was in her kitchen, with her daughter upstairs, when she spotted people peering into her window just after midnight on Friday. She grabbed a knife and banged the windows before they ran away.
Hertfordshire Police officers warned Klass she should not have used a knife to scare off the teens because carrying an "offensive weapon" - even in her own home - was illegal...
It's nice to see that some countries have accomplished what America is trying to do.
In America, we treat junior high and highschool students with the audacity to defend themselves the same as their attackers, suspending both or sending them to alternative learning environments.
Unfortunately most jurisdictions still condone adult violence when self defense is presented as an excuse.
Seeing countries which treats its adult citizens the same as our children gives me hope that we can have paternalistic world where violence of any sort is not tolerated, regardless the reason.
Although I may be unable to do much, we let our children vote at 18 and they've had plenty of experience in how the world should work. In a generation or two we'll be just like the UK, except without the silly accent and no Union Jack.
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuote
Sure thing, once you quote the post that you said John made.
So you admit you made things up
Nope, didn't say THAT, either.
Quoteand just have no guts to acknowledge it honestly.
But enough about what you attributed to John.
QuoteFine with me this way too, however you will be treated the same way since now on.
As if you've done anything BUT evade to begin with?
QuoteAnd the question was "Do you have evidence (not your thoughts) about how many gun owners report gun theft out of total thefts?" - which you conveniently skipped as it would make things obvious.
Wrong, again:
QuoteDo you have evidence (not your thoughts) about how many gun owners report gun theft out of total thefts? I didn't find anything like that in ATF reports.
Quote
Do you have evidence of the number of gun owners that 'left it on the seat of the car' to be stolen?
Didn't skip it, just responded to it with a question - do you have the data for 'left it on the seat' yet, or would that make it obvious that you were slinging more bullshit?
QuoteQuote
So, answer the question - why do you expect someone else, anyone else, to protect YOU, when you won't do it yourself?
Because I pay taxes which pay for law enforcement, DHS, Army and so on.
The police have NO responsibility to protect you, sorry. Your other 'protectors' are invalid, sorry - we're talking about criminals.
QuoteNothing is perfect, bu so far worked very well both in Europe and here. Even in gun-restrictive NYC it worked too!
Which is why NYC has a lower violent crime rate than every city in pro-gun states, right? Oops...stats don't agree with THAT, either.
QuoteAnd you probably forgot that the majority of Americans do not own guns, so it's not just my unique position.
Yeah, you keep saying that, but can't prove it.
QuoteQuote
Stats still don't prove it.
You must be kidding. Ok, prove it.
Already did - remember the discussion about New Orleans, Oakland, etc? Sorry, the stats don't support your assertion.
QuoteQuote
Ain't gonna happen, sorry - for one, the right is independent of the militia, and two, the citizenry ARE the militia.
That's what current SCOTUS said, splitting at 5/4. One replaced Justice may change the whole picture.
First, a case would have to reach the court challenging Heller. Don't hold your breath, waiting.
QuoteQuote
For one, because of Brady bunch idiots using the same bullshit arguments you have.
I understand why. It is the easiest way to prove that some TOOLS need to be restricted even though it is CRIMINAL who commits a crime.
Can't have a crime without a criminal.
QuoteQuote
For two, area-effect weapons like grenades aren't standard infantry issue, although they supplement it.
Why are you concentrated on a TOOL like grenade instead of CRIMINAL?
Because someone that strongly agrees with the Brady idiots asked me a question about it.
Next stupid question?
Quote(Grenades aren't standard infantry issue in U.S. Army?Interesting)
Grenades are issued as supplements to their primary arm, not in place of same. I know that YOU don't understand that, but someone ELSE might.
QuoteQuoteQuote
Because if the ban is enforced, the demand will go down.
Yeah? How's that working for drugs, so far?
Because the key word here is "enforced", not "ban".
No, the key is "how's that working" - it's not.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
mnealtx 0
You forgot the sarcasm tag.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Quote
Not totally worng, but there is always room for improvement and trying new things and you can't find new ways without trying new things.
Agree. Restricting gun ownership dramatically may be one of those new things to try
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuote
Not totally worng, but there is always room for improvement and trying new things and you can't find new ways without trying new things.
Agree. Restricting gun ownership dramatically may be one of those new things to try
Been there, done that, didn't work - that's why Heller came about.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
QuoteQuote
Why are you concentrated on a TOOL like grenade instead of CRIMINAL?
Because someone that strongly agrees with the Brady idiots asked me a question about it.
Next stupid question?
Thank you for all the respect you show to the opponents. Don't expect any meaningful reply from me anymore.
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
rhaig 0
Quote
No, the reason I asked for the number of gun _owners_ is because gun owners vote. Houses do not vote, nor do guns, so it is hard to estimate effect on voting.
So far the only numbers I have seen were 25% of adults (1997 data), and 80M, quoted anywhere without a single reference to the source.
so you agree that making up qualifications is silly. (like my made-up 1 house full of 8 voting gun owners)
--
Rob
Rob
Quote
so you agree that making up qualifications is silly. (like my made-up 1 house full of 8 voting gun owners)
I already agreed that hours/gun numbers are pretty much meaningless for my purpose of estimating the total number of gun owners.
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
rhaig 0
but you still believe making up qualifications is still useful for discounting numbers that don't agree with your ideas?
--
Rob
Rob
Quote
but you still believe making up qualifications is still useful for discounting numbers that don't agree with your ideas?
No. But it is useful to show why the number of homes is not something useful to consider when we need to get the number of gun owners.
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
Quote
....
my point was that there exist Europeans that wish they had better access to firearms in Europe.
How many *Europeans* do you know? You've been in Europe when, last time? From which European countries are the *existing Europeans* who told you that?
Jesus Christ, how many times did I ask these sh*t question on which I never received any proper answers?
And, Europe is quite large, btw.
dudeist skydiver # 3105
rhaig 0
well, if you read my original post, you'd see that I answered all of your questions with the exception of when.
you'll also notice that I acknowledge the small size of the sample I'm citing.
so untwist your knickers and stop being so damn defensive.
and I chose my words well. "there exist Europeans ..." implies there are 2 more more. Since my first post (that you clearly didn't read) cites one that I spoke with, and I know (unmentioned of one more), that qualifies as 2 or more.
you'll also notice that I acknowledge the small size of the sample I'm citing.
so untwist your knickers and stop being so damn defensive.
and I chose my words well. "there exist Europeans ..." implies there are 2 more more. Since my first post (that you clearly didn't read) cites one that I spoke with, and I know (unmentioned of one more), that qualifies as 2 or more.
--
Rob
Rob
mnealtx 0
QuoteDon't expect any meaningful reply from me anymore.
When did you start?
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuote
....
my point was that there exist Europeans that wish they had better access to firearms in Europe.
How many *Europeans* do you know? You've been in Europe when, last time? From which European countries are the *existing Europeans* who told you that?
Jesus Christ, how many times did I ask these sh*t question on which I never received any proper answers?
And, Europe is quite large, btw.
And you evidently know ALL of them well enough to say that NOBODY wants better access to firearms - amazing!
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
QuoteQuoteQuote
....
my point was that there exist Europeans that wish they had better access to firearms in Europe.
How many *Europeans* do you know? You've been in Europe when, last time? From which European countries are the *existing Europeans* who told you that?
Jesus Christ, how many times did I ask these sh*t question on which I never received any proper answers?
And, Europe is quite large, btw.
And you evidently know ALL of them well enough to say that NOBODY wants better access to firearms - amazing!
What silly reply is that?
I'm talking for my country/continent same way like you do. And I duly doubt you know every single one of your countrymen in need for firearms ...
That shot was off target, Mikey.
dudeist skydiver # 3105
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote
....
my point was that there exist Europeans that wish they had better access to firearms in Europe.
How many *Europeans* do you know? You've been in Europe when, last time? From which European countries are the *existing Europeans* who told you that?
Jesus Christ, how many times did I ask these sh*t question on which I never received any proper answers?
And, Europe is quite large, btw.
And you evidently know ALL of them well enough to say that NOBODY wants better access to firearms - amazing!
What silly reply is that?
That shot was off target, Mikey.
No it wasn't - you were ragging on HIM for saying that some Europeans wanted better access and implied that he didn't know what he was talking about.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Quote
....
What silly reply is that?
That shot was off target, Mikey.
No it wasn't - you were ragging on HIM for saying that some Europeans wanted better access and implied that he didn't know what he was talking about.
Yep. Something wrong with that?
dudeist skydiver # 3105
So you at least admitted that I did not make the claim you accused me to make. Good.
So you admitted that I did not say that, and this is just your interpretation of what I supposedly say? Good. No reason to comment your interpretations either.
Here is post 78, and a simple search wouldn't find even the word "common" there.
So please show my post where I claimed "leaving the gun on the seat of their car' to be stolen" to be so common, or admit that you made this up.
So here's the question and answer:
Me: Do you have evidence (not your thoughts) about how many gun owners report gun theft out of total thefts?
You: Just off the top of my head? The "black market gun dealer" that you keep bringing up springs immediately to mind. The fact that you think criminals are going to obey a gun ban and respect gun-free zones is another. The fact that you think MY gun somehow is a threat to you is yet another, and there's plenty more.
So who is deflecting?
I only started posting about guns pretty recently, after reading through a bunch of JohnRich "polls" and some discussion, so you indeed made pretty significant impact about it, even though you do not acknowledge it.
Only when you ask a real question, and not another made-up thing like "Why am *I* supposed to protect YOU, George?". If you consider this a valid question, please point out to exact post where I said that you are supposed to protect me.
Post #103
I do not see how it violates 1st amendment.
For 2nd - it can be either repealed (amendments have been repealed in past), or SCOTUS can overturn Heller, saying that only militia can have weapons (no need to repeal anything this way).
Wow! So after saying so much about how should we concentrate on criminals and not on tools, you're finally saying that making more TOOLS available to law abiding citizens is idiotic idea? How come???
Because if the ban is enforced, the demand will go down.
No, I'm saying that unless you're trying to prove there were none, I do not see how is it relevant.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites