Yet another nutter with a gun

[georgerussia 0]

  Quote

So in summary, you cannot cite a single example where a nation with the established gun base like that of America has been successfully transformed into a essentially gun free society.

No, this was not your question. You asked for "an example where there was a ratio of 1 gun per person where they then successfully removed them from the equation and crime (not gun crime) went down markedly?"

And I pointed out that removing guns is supposed to lower down GUN crime, not all crime. Therefore your question was based on a wrong assumption, pretty much of "could you cite an example when a country where everyone got guns would have significant drop in all crime (not violent crime)?"

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[rhaig 0]

yes, but as I've said before, gun rights people see the presence of guns as lowering violent crime, and gun banners see removing guns as lowering gun crime. gun crime is a very specific subset of violent crime. It cannot be said that when one goes down, the other will also. This is why agreement on that topic will never be met. The argument is not on the same set of ideas.

take a gun away from a criminal and there are a few possible courses he might take. one of those was stop committing crimes. Other options include acquiring an illegal weapon, using an alternative, but still legal weapon (club or knife), or committing a type of crime that does not require a weapon.

Also as has been stated, it's more the social patterns of violence that are the problem. So I wouldn't expect that the theoretical criminal in the above paragraph will equally choose no crime vs crime. Social patterns don't change that simply.

--
Rob

[kelpdiver 2]

  Quote

  Quote

So in summary, you cannot cite a single example where a nation with the established gun base like that of America has been successfully transformed into a essentially gun free society.

No, this was not your question. You asked for "an example where there was a ratio of 1 gun per person where they then successfully removed them from the equation and crime (not gun crime) went down markedly?"

And I pointed out that removing guns is supposed to lower down GUN crime, not all crime. Therefore your question was based on a wrong assumption, pretty much of "could you cite an example when a country where everyone got guns would have significant drop in all crime (not violent crime)?"

no, that was exactly the question. Ron points out the guns are here and they're not going away, so pretending that making them harder to get will make criminals use them less is idiocy. You've asserted they can be removed, but since it's never been done, we can't take you very seriously.

[georgerussia 0]

  Quote

yes, but as I've said before, gun rights people see the presence of guns as lowering violent crime, and gun banners see removing guns as lowering gun crime. gun crime is a very specific subset of violent crime. It cannot be said that when one goes down, the other will also. This is why agreement on that topic will never be met. The argument is not on the same set of ideas.

There is no evidence that presence of guns lowers violent crime, and the statistics actually shows otherwise. But NYC case shows that good police enforcement together with gun restrictions indeed lowers the violent crime.

The problem with a violent crime committed with guns is that damage may be (and often is) much higher comparing to if the same crime was committed with other means (like knife or baseball bat). Take Cho as example - would he be able to kill so many people during his massacre using a knife?

  Quote

take a gun away from a criminal and there are a few possible courses he might take. one of those was stop committing crimes. Other options include acquiring an illegal weapon, using an alternative, but still legal weapon (club or knife), or committing a type of crime that does not require a weapon.

Indeed. Assuming that at least some would stop committing crimes, it would already lower the crime. Some also would be caught in sting operations while trying to acquire illegal weapons (which would be harder with no straw purchases, no legit purchases through corrupt dealers and no 300K stolen guns a year). So indeed the gun crime will be lowered dramatically, and "stupid gun crime" would likely be down to a pretty much zero.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

  Quote

no, that was exactly the question. Ron points out the guns are here and they're not going away, so pretending that making them harder to get will make criminals use them less is idiocy. You've asserted they can be removed, but since it's never been done, we can't take you very seriously.

It has been done several times in Europe (after a yet another war). Anyway, there is a lot of possible implementations - from "grandfathering" with prohibiting any kind of transfer of ownership to mandatory surrendering them in 30 days with a like $10K fine (and/or jail time) for everyone who refused after that. Out of that fine, $5K is going to be paid to a whistleblower, completely anonymously. Like this.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[kelpdiver 2]

  Quote

  Quote

no, that was exactly the question. Ron points out the guns are here and they're not going away, so pretending that making them harder to get will make criminals use them less is idiocy. You've asserted they can be removed, but since it's never been done, we can't take you very seriously.

It has been done several times in Europe (after a yet another war). Anyway, there is a lot of possible implementations - from "grandfathering" with prohibiting any kind of transfer of ownership to mandatory surrendering them in 30 days with a like $10K fine (and/or jail time) for everyone who refused after that. Out of that fine, $5K is going to be paid to a whistleblower, completely anonymously. Like this.

Good luck with that, Comrade.

[JohnRich 4]

  Quote

mandatory surrendering them (guns) in 30 days with a like $10K fine (and/or jail time) for everyone who refused after that. Out of that fine, $5K is going to be paid to a whistleblower, completely anonymously.

Oh, that would be a wonderful society in which to live, where citizens who haven't done anything to harm anyone are rounded up and thrown in jail, with neighbors all snitching on each other. Yeah, that sounds like my kind of ideal society (sarcasm). Oh, and what about that pesky little Constitution that says that you cannot take a man's property without justly compensating him for it? How long do you think this scheme of yours will last when the gun confiscation squads start getting shot at every day during their round-ups, by citizens who refuse to comply? Yes, this is a wonderful idea you have. And it just goes to show how far-out whacko your gun stance is. It's impossible to take you seriously if you actually think that this plan is a good idea.

[georgerussia 0]

  Quote

Oh, that would be a wonderful society in which to live, where citizens who haven't done anything to harm anyone are rounded up and thrown in jail,

You already live in such society where citizens who haven't done anything to harm anyone are rounded up and thrown in jail. Well, maybe they just bought or sold some illegal drugs, maybe they drank too much before driving home on suspended license without insurance, or participated in some illegal gambling - but they didn't harm anyone!

  Quote

Yeah, that sounds like my kind of ideal society (sarcasm). Oh, and what about that pesky little Constitution that says that you cannot take a man's property without justly compensating him for it?

When the guns are illegal, it is irrelevant. I have never heard the DEA to pay compensation while seizing illegal drugs from someone. I see no reason to compensate for illegal guns either. For those voluntarily surrendered, however, it makes sense to pay compensation. Not a big real.

  Quote

How long do you think this scheme of yours will last when the gun confiscation squads start getting shot at every day during their round-ups, by citizens who refuse to comply?

Are you saying that those "law-abiding gun owners" are only going to abide the laws they like, and as soon as there is a law they don't like, they're going to use violence to oppose it by committing crimes against the government employees whose duty is to uphold the law?
This doesn't sound at all like a law-abiding person!

  Quote

It's impossible to take you seriously if you actually think that this plan is a good idea.

I'm not expecting YOU to take me (or anyone else who screams about their pro-gun stance in every post) seriously.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[Ron 10]

  Quote

Why do YOU buy guns? Only for hunting when hungry?

Actually... I don't hunt. So you have killed more than I have. I have punched lots of holes in paper and blasted lots of clays.... It seems only you have killed with a firearm.

  Quote

Yep, I bought a gun. Like many others did and still do. Even aliens.

Do not tell me that every gun shop is working properly and according to law requirements. THAT would be a lie.

What I am saying is either:

A. You lied to make it seem way to easy to buy a gun in the US.

B. You participated in a federal crime.

Now, since you have claimed you only have guns to hunt... and that you have changed your story at least once (First you said you used a credit card, now you say you used cash).... I think it is "A".

  Quote

"And in every single case the weapon didn't do the shooting."

That's a punchy argument?? It needs little brain to realize it's just moronic.

What is moronic is blaming an item for the acts of it's owner.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

  Quote

I know it's a long word, pretty hard to read, but at least you should have tried instead of reverting to cherry-picking only those words you understand.

Maybe you should admit that you screwed up instead of lame attempts to back up?

It seems your English needs work.

  Quote

And I'm not denying that. As I said, it's my fourth language basically acquired six or so years ago, so I'm not claiming proficiency

Sure you are.... And not very well.

  Quote

Let those without sin cast the first stone. You are not.

Yet you are not either and you hurl stones all over the place, and your accuracy is not very good.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

  Quote

So why aren't those drive-through baseballings happening in Europe

You asked a stupid question and I AGAIN answered in a way that proves your position is weak... Don't blame me.

And I can only guess you don't have drive through "baseballings" in Europe since Baseball is not that big in Europe.

  Quote

Please provide proof that they are going up.

Been provided OVER AND OVER AND OVER... You just ignore them.

  Quote

I knew you'd have nothing to say. So much for "providing facts".

I have provided more than you.... And mine have proven every idea and comment of yours wrong.

But you don't seem to let facts influence your opinion.

Go fish

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[georgerussia 0]

  Quote

Maybe you should admit that you screwed up instead of lame attempts to back up?

Unlike you - who keeps skipping 3rd time in a row the relevant example of your own screw-ups - I admit when I do. This is not the case though.

  Quote

It seems your English needs work.

Look on yours first. You claimed that a phrase "with a potential to be stopped for a violation or got into accident" mean "they should have been be stopped" (and even went so far as claiming you "proved me 100% wrong"). This is also despite the obvious rationale that in any subjective matter nobody can ever be 100% right or 100% wrong, and it is just brazen to claim that.

You also claimed that a phrase "I just ignore Ron posts" mean "I will ignore Ron's posts forever" because it does not contain any reference to a time frame. And you repeatedly ignored my questions whether the phrase "I believe in God" according to you should mean "I will always believe in God" following the same rule.

It seems your English needs work.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[Ron 10]

  Quote

After so many explanations you still cannot understand that you can only prove something which happened/happening

Yet that little factoid of yours has not stopped you from making claims that are not backed and you can't provided data to support.

  Quote

To make it easier for you to grasp, you cannot prove that if you were in VA tech with your gun, you would stop Cho. And nobody can prove that you wouldn't either.

Yet you have made the claim that it would not help.... and that is a claim you cannot back.... Yet you keep making it.

  Quote

You only provided proof that the guns were banned for German Jews well before WWII

Wrong again: "A concentration camp (Konzentrationslager, KL or KZ) was a camp which was designed to exploit the labor of prisoners, rather than to exterminate them, although the majority of prisoners eventually died from execution, starvation, disease or exhaustion. In Germany before 1939, concentration camps mainly housed Jews and political enemies of the Nazi regime"

Notice the 1939 date in there? BTW thats the same year Germany passed the laws forbidding Jews from firearm ownership..... You fail again.

  Quote

This is not about blame, this is about prevention

Your attempting to ban gun crime by banning the item is like you trying to ban drunk driving by banning cars... It IS relevant, you are just unable to argue your way out of it without looking foolish so you decree that it is irrelevant.

Sorry, your arguments are just getting worse.

  Quote

Everyone else apparently does not consider it worthy.

Got proof to back that up? Or are you just trying to change reality to fit YOUR view?

Again, you can't argue a position so you just claim it is not important.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[georgerussia 0]

  Quote

You asked a stupid question and I AGAIN answered in a way that proves your position is weak...

This is a reasonable question for which you didn't even provide an ANSWER. Yet again you already claimed that you "proved" something. So naive.

  Quote

And I can only guess you don't have drive through "baseballings" in Europe since Baseball is not that big in Europe.

Guns are not that big in Europe either, and definitely are much harder to find comparing to baseball bats (which are legally sold). This does not explain anything.

  Quote

Been provided OVER AND OVER AND OVER... You just ignore them.

I have NEVER seen a valid proof that the violent crime rate in UK is going up. You are saying you provided it? Reply with a link to your post where you did it. You can't? Then you didn't provide it, you just lied about it.

  Quote

I have provided more than you.... And mine have proven every idea and comment of yours wrong.

What you _provided_ is just brazen bragging and groundless claims like above. Everything else is just your lies.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[Ron 10]

  Quote

Unlike you - who keeps skipping 3rd time in a row the relevant example of your own screw-ups - I admit when I do. This is not the case though

You have not once admitted you were wrong... you just try to change what you said.

The facts are here for all to see.

  Quote

You also claimed that a phrase "I just ignore Ron posts" mean "I will ignore Ron's posts forever" because it does not contain any reference to a time frame. And you repeatedly ignored my questions whether the phrase "I believe in God" according to you should mean "I will always believe in God" following the same rule.

I have ignored them... Since it is irrelevant and just a lame attempt to try and weasel out of your obvious mistake.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[georgerussia 0]

  Quote

Yet that little factoid of yours has not stopped you from making claims that are not backed and you can't provided data to support.

Well, reasonable people understand that it is not possible to prove a hypothetical situation, and they typically do not ask for a "proof". Those who do are either completely unreasonable, or are trying to score lame points.

  Quote

Yet you have made the claim that it would not help.... and that is a claim you cannot back....

Lame point.

  Quote

Notice the 1939 date in there? BTW thats the same year Germany passed the laws forbidding Jews from firearm ownership..... You fail again.

Good for you. Now do you remember that I was explicitly talking about DURING WWII? Of course you do - that's why all the time you're providing information about things which happened BEFORE WWII!

  Quote

Your attempting to ban gun crime by banning the item is like you trying to ban drunk driving by banning cars... It IS relevant, you are just unable to argue your way out of it without looking foolish so you decree that it is irrelevant.

An attempt to reduce gun crime by reducing guns works very well in Europe and NYC. It is foolish to argue otherwise with all the facts being presented.

  Quote

Got proof to back that up?

"I have already proven you're wrong! You just do not have balls to admit it!"

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[JohnRich 4]

  Quote

You already live in such society where citizens who haven't done anything to harm anyone are rounded up and thrown in jail. Well, maybe they just bought or sold some illegal drugs, maybe they drank too much before driving home

You're a laugh a minute. Now owning a gun is equivalent to doing crack cocaine, or driving drunk.

  Quote

When the guns are illegal, it is irrelevant. I have never heard the DEA to pay compensation while seizing illegal drugs from someone. I see no reason to compensate for illegal guns either.

So you think drug crimes shouldn't be crimes. But because they are, you want to punish gun owners the same way, and make the government "abuse" even worse. Yeah, that's really taking the high road.

  Quote

Are you saying that those "law-abiding gun owners" are only going to abide the laws they like, and as soon as there is a law they don't like, they're going to use violence to oppose it by committing crimes against the government employees whose duty is to uphold the law?

When the government starts violating the constitution in the manner which you propose, then yes, they should start getting shot. That's the whole purpose of the 2nd Amendment. Fortunately, no one in charge of government is whacko enough to try and implement your ideas, so it shouldn't be necessary.

  Quote

I'm not expecting YOU to take me (or anyone else who screams about their pro-gun stance in every post) seriously.

Well, no one else is going to take you seriously either. For one thing, a simple search will show that I don't scream about pro-guns in every post. So you're just plain wrong, and that's plain for everyone to see. That's the good reason everyone has not to take you seriously.

But by all means, please blabber on. It shows the world what the gun-control folks would really do to us if they could have their own way.

[Ron 10]

  Quote

So naive

Yes, you claiming you have proven anything is naive.

  Quote

Guns are not that big in Europe either, and definitely are much harder to find comparing to baseball bats

Yet, you have more gun crime in Europe than baseball bat crime.... And Guns are supposed to be hard to get and baseball bats are easy....

So, your own position is getting weaker and weaker.

  Quote

What you _provided_ is just brazen bragging and groundless claims like above. Everything else is just your lies.

Gee, that's just what I said about you.... Funny, you can't even come up with an original retort.

It's like debating a 3rd grader talking to you.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[georgerussia 0]

  Quote

I have ignored them... Since it is irrelevant

No, dude, this is relevant. You claimed that a phrase "with a potential to be stopped for a violation or got into accident" mean "they should have been be stopped" (and even went so far as claiming you "proved me 100% wrong"). This is also despite the obvious rationale that in any subjective matter nobody can ever be 100% right or 100% wrong, and it is just brazen to claim that.

You also claimed that a phrase "I just ignore Ron posts" mean "I will ignore Ron's posts forever" because it does not contain any reference to a time frame. And now you are saying that my questions whether the phrase "I believe in God" according to you should mean "I will always believe in God" following the same rule is irrelevant, and that is why you ignored it? This is extremely lame attempt to admit your failure, which is obvious to everyone.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[Ron 10]

  Quote

Well, reasonable people understand that it is not possible to prove a hypothetical situation, and they typically do not ask for a "proof". Those who do are either completely unreasonable, or are trying to score lame points.

Yes, YOU started the whole lame provide your proof argument. I just played it against you since you were unable to provide any, yet you demanded it from others.

  Quote

Good for you. Now do you remember that I was explicitly talking about DURING WWII? Of course you do - that's why all the time you're providing information about things which happened BEFORE WWII!

I guess you thought all laws just stopped right at some date prior to WW2? If you can't see how laws that prevented Jews from owning guns prior to be rounded up like cattle are not related..... WOW you are obtuse.

Your getting even lamer.

  Quote

An attempt to reduce gun crime by reducing guns works very well in Europe and NYC. It is foolish to argue otherwise with all the facts being presented.

Except your "facts" don't actually exist except in your mind.

  Quote

"I have already proven you're wrong! You just do not have balls to admit it!"

Funny, I think the exact same thought about you.... Except I don't lie.

Of course you don't know what an Olive Garden is yet you seem to think you are an expert on everything else.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[georgerussia 0]

And as usual, you only answered with rants and claims and did not provide any proof you said you did.

Where is your proof that the gun crime in UK is going up as you claimed here that you provided "OVER AND OVER"? I explicitly requested it, and you replied to everything in my post except this request. So you're admitting that you lied, and that you did not provide anything like that.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[Ron 10]

Yawn!!!!!

You just keep getting worse.

I do wish you were honorable enough to keep your word.

"I just ignore Ron posts"--georgerussia

Cause it is clear you are unable to admit you are wrong and don't know what you are talking about.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[rhaig 0]

  Quote

I'm not expecting YOU to take me (or anyone else who screams about their pro-gun stance in every post) seriously.

explain it to me then. I'm pretty reasonable, and have even admitted here when I've misinterpreted statements made by others.

What I see you proposing is a society where all you have to do is rat someone out and the gun collection squad will go busting down their doors in full riot gear. (because after they start getting shot at, they'll start treating gun confiscations as hostile events)

--
Rob

[georgerussia 0]

  Quote

You're a laugh a minute. Now owning a gun is equivalent to doing crack cocaine, or driving drunk.

That was you who introduced the criteria "haven't done anything no harm anyone". A drunk driver by this definition is fine unless he harms anyone. So are drug dealers - if two grown-up adults do a drug deal, how does it harm anyone else? How does illegal gambling, which you conveniently skipped?

  Quote

So you think drug crimes shouldn't be crimes.

This is your speculation.

  Quote

But because they are, you want to punish gun owners the same way, and make the government "abuse" even worse. Yeah, that's really taking the high road.

If the law making gun ownership illegal passes (which is the hypothetical situation we are discussing), owning guns will be as illegal as owning drugs now. Why should be any difference there?

  Quote

When the government starts violating the constitution in the manner which you propose, then yes, they should start getting shot.

So why do we have Supreme Court and all those procedures in place if you think it is completely fine for people to start shooting everyone trying to enforce any law which you think is against Constitution? And how do you know that YOUR interpretation of Constitution is correct? Do you have a legal degree at all (esp. in Constitutional law?)

  Quote

Well, no one else is going to take you seriously either. For one thing, a simple search will show that I don't scream about pro-guns in every post. So you're just plain wrong, and that's plain for everyone to see. That's the good reason everyone has not to take you seriously.

I didn't say you do. Read what you reply to before claiming something like that.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

So you're admitting you lied? Good!

And I wish you took some English classes where they would explain you what "present indefinite" means, and that a phrase like "I believe in God" or "I do not read dropzone.com" describe _current_ situation, do not mean a promise and say nothing about future (which may change tomorrow).

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *