Yet another nutter with a gun

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

The world is much more complex than that.

Too bad you don't keep that in mind when you trot out your simplistic "just get rid of the guns" twaddle.

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

[Ron 10]

Quote

It has been proven multiple times with facts and links that as long as YOU can enjoy your guns, you do not care about children dying from gun-related crimes like above.

You can't find one single pices of data to support your position.

There are three major differences between us:

1. I bring facts to debunk your positions, you bring emotional babble.

2. I don't wish harm on others to 'win' an online debate: "let's see what you will say when it is YOUR CHILD AND WIFE who are killed by the next Cho"--georgerussia.

3. I keep my word : "No, I just ignore Ron posts" --georgerussia.

Quote

I hope you would like the reply written in your style

This reply has been your style all along... Full of emotion, insults, and devoid of facts.

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

[Ron 10]

Quote

Yet another stupid crime with yet another victim.

Yep... How much do you want to bet that those guns were illegally owned?

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

[Ron 10]

Quote

Drive-through shooting is another kind of crime which is not possible to commit without a gun.

It would also not be possible with a car.

It would also not be possible without criminals.

You want to blame the objects.... But that would be like blaming the car.

Sane people want to blame the person who committed the *crime*.

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

[vanair 0]

Ron,
maybe you missed my post, this greatly supports your stance,
a little long, but read the whole thing. very factual.
van
http://www.davekopel.com/2a/mags/hold_your_fire.htm

[mnealtx 0]

Doesn't matter - if it doesn't come from the Brady bunch, George won't read it.

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

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

You can't find one single pices of data to support your position.

I have provided a lot of links and references to support my position. All you provided so far is pointless babbling and multiple bragging how you allegedly proved me wrong with some completely irrelevant facts and loaded questions. Of course, you never admit your mistakes - you think you are always right.

That is the difference between us:

1. I reply with facts, you reply with babbles and bragging. Here is a typical example of such reply. When pointed out that you deliberately misinterpreted my reply (often by violating the language grammar rules) to achieve your "result", you ignore it - just like your recent reply.

2. I want to protect everyone from crazy idiots with guns. You only care about yourself, and have no issues with other adults and children dying because of those stupid gun crimes as long as you can keep your loved guns. It is obvious you value someone's life much less than your gun, and therefore it would be just fair if you are treated the same way as you treat others.

3. You have no problem writing outright lies which you almost never back up. When you try backing it up, you do so through misinterpretation and loaded questions - which you always refuse to admit even when it is pointed out to you directly.

And this is obvious to every reasonable person around.

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

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

All the criminals who currently commit crimes with guns will stop doing bad things. Plus a few more guys who will feel left out!

Gun crime is more than hitmans and gang wars. It also includes those solving their disagreements in parking lots by shooting, those idiots shooting into air in front of Capitols, and those idiots which cannot lock up their guns from their children and let them shoot each others. Those criminals will very likely stop committing gun-related crimes being unable to find a gun.

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

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

All the criminals who currently commit crimes with guns will stop doing bad things. Plus a few more guys who will feel left out!

Gun crime is more than hitmans and gang wars. It also includes those solving their disagreements in parking lots by shooting, those idiots shooting into air in front of Capitols, and those idiots which cannot lock up their guns from their children and let them shoot each others. Those criminals will very likely stop committing gun-related crimes being unable to find a gun.

Those parking lot disagreements - do they add up to 1% of 1% of incidents? Unlikely even that close.

Still focusing on the tool instead of the crime, I see.

What else can you do?

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Those parking lot disagreements - do they add up to 1% of 1% of incidents?

Why do you need to use loaded questions instead of just acknowledging that you do not know how much of the gun crime committed is "stupid crime" like those described above? You do understand that it may be 1% or it may be 50% or 90%, and that you cannot just guess the number, is it right?

Quote

Still focusing on the tool instead of the crime, I see.

What else can you do?

Ok, let's see:

1. It takes both a criminal and a gun to commit a gun crime, take one out and there is no gun crime.

2. It is pretty clear how to get the gun out of equation - by restricting gun ownership. This is a proven solution which already works in a lot of countries around the world.

3. However some pro-gun people claim that we should focus on criminals instead, i.e. take the criminal out of equation, not a gun.

4. Now it is completely unclear how to take a criminal out of this equation. There is no country which has implemented a working solution for that, and mnealtx already failed to present his ideas how exactly this supposed to work.

Can you?

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

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Doesn't matter - if it doesn't come from the Brady bunch, George won't read it.

Actually it seems like he asks Ron to read it :)

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

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

You want to blame the objects.... But that would be like blaming the car.
Sane people want to blame the person who committed the *crime*.

We are not talking about blame. We are talking about prevention of further crimes like that - and it makes your rant irrelevant unless you can provide a workable solution how to prevent criminals to commit crimes.

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

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Too bad you don't keep that in mind when you trot out your simplistic "just get rid of the guns" twaddle.

Too bad you jumped into another discussion without spending extra ten seconds to read what exactly we were talking about before writing another knee-jerk reply.

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

[vanair 0]

I was talking to Ron, but I ASSUMED everyone on this topic would read it, especially you. I was angry about that lady having to watch her parents die because she was respecting the gun laws. Read it, you might just get it
http://www.davekopel.com/2a/mags/hold_your_fire.htm

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

I was talking to Ron, but I ASSUMED everyone on this topic would read it, especially you.

We already discussed it in past. Hint: there is a nice Search link at the top.

Quote

I was angry about that lady having to watch her parents die because she was respecting the gun laws.

And I'm angry about this 15yo which was murdered by some idiots with guns, about that 11yo which was shot to death by another boy because his supposedly law-abiding idiotic parents did not lock their guns, and about all those shot in school shootings because of easily available guns.

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

[vanair 0]

what link? and please read it, I know it's a little long and dated ,but it has some very surprising conclusions.
http://www.davekopel.com/2a/mags/hold_your_fire.htm

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

....
Still focusing on the tool instead of the crime, I see.

....

OK. It's a matter of crime, not of the tool. Let's see:

Don't ban guns. It's a matter of people, killing people. Not guns. Guns don't kill.

Don't ban texting/phoning/w/cell phones. It's a matter of people. Not cell phones. Cell phones don't cause deadly car crashes.

Clearly.

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

what link?

Search is here.

Quote

and please read it, I know it's a little long and dated ,but it has some very surprising conclusions.

Thank you. When I want to read some NRA propaganda, I already know where to find it.

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

[vanair 0]

it's not NRA propaganda but a study by gun opponents. I'm all for doing whatever works to cut down on violence. But I have an open mind to all potential solutions and not just latch onto a knee jerk reaction.
http://www.davekopel.com/2a/mags/hold_your_fire.htm
and what am I supposed to be searching for?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

....
Still focusing on the tool instead of the crime, I see.

....

OK. It's a matter of crime, not of the tool. Let's see:

Don't ban guns. It's a matter of people, killing people. Not guns. Guns don't kill.

Don't ban texting/phoning/w/cell phones. It's a matter of people. Not cell phones. Cell phones don't cause deadly car crashes.

Clearly.

Quite so. Cell phones don't cause accidents, any more than fast food or GPS devices do. Drivers' inability to be responsible behind the wheel do. Long before we had cellphones, drivers were distracted by the radio, changing tapes or cds, other teenage passengers. I've been driving and had a cell phone since 1995, didn't have any incidents in that time.

And yes, that one person kills another is the concern, not that a gun was used to do it. It's true that some portion of those events become less probable without the gun. It's also true that without the gun, the balance of power typically shifts to the attacker. If you choose to ignore this part of the exchange, you only see costs of guns, and not gains. Might help you believe your argument, but if at the lack of integrity.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

it's not NRA propaganda but a study by gun opponents.

This whole site called "2nd amendment project" and does not really look as a gun opponent site at all. Just look on the front page. The article itself is definitely not neutral - it is obviously pro-gun and filled with various speculations (and yes, we discussed it before).

Quote

I'm all for doing whatever works to cut down on violence. But I have an open mind to all potential solutions and not just latch onto a knee jerk reaction.

Me too. However as you can see, gun owners do not offer ANY solutions at all how to prevent or reduce such crimes to happen. All they have said so far is that we need to "focus on criminals, not guns" - but nobody so far explained how to implement that in real life, so it is not a solution yet.

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

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Those parking lot disagreements - do they add up to 1% of 1% of incidents?

Why do you need to use loaded questions instead of just acknowledging that you do not know how much of the gun crime committed is "stupid crime" like those described above? You do understand that it may be 1% or it may be 50% or 90%, and that you cannot just guess the number, is it right?

Actually, it's your bullshit scenario - you tell me how often it happens. Because I know it's an insignificant number, pulled out of your ass.

Every time a state considered implementing a shall issue CCW law, your kind said that people would shoot each other over the smallest of arguments and blood would fill the streets. And it's never actually happened.

The bulk of murders are felons killing felons, and so removing legal gun ownership in a country that has a few hundred million guns isn't going to accomplish much, other than make citizens reliant on police forces that do not respond to emergencies, but rather show up afterwards to record the damage.

Quote

Quote

Still focusing on the tool instead of the crime, I see.

What else can you do?

Ok, let's see:

1. It takes both a criminal and a gun to commit a gun crime, take one out and there is no gun crime.

Let's look at something more useful.

1. A mugger needs intimidation in order to strong arm a victim into giving up cash. Same for a rapist. (Let's focus on crimes most people care about)

A gun works very well for this criminal. But so does a knife. Or a baseball bat. Or Mark McGuire biceps, fueled by steroids. Someone in high heels isn't getting away. The only chance she has is with a gun. Without that option, the mugger/rapist will be just as successful and rewarded regardless of the tool used. It's about the crime, not the tool. You'll try to resist that truth because your logic relies on it.

Now I know you'll say, just give up your money or your body and you'll be fine afterwards. (thankfully we don't have to take such bad advice). It's noteable that those who fight back do not fare worse than those who don't. Sheep often get killed, esp in our world with 3 strikes sentencing laws.

Quote

2. It is pretty clear how to get the gun out of equation - by restricting gun ownership. This is a proven solution which already works in a lot of countries around the world.

You can cite 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? Outside of a country that just finished a war within its borders, pretty unlikely.

Quote

4. Now it is completely unclear how to take a criminal out of this equation. There is no country which has implemented a working solution for that, and mnealtx already failed to present his ideas how exactly this supposed to work.

The black and white goal is not to eliminate criminals. It's a given that this doesn't happen. You just do your best to mitigate the damage they do. We believe that's done by giving people methods of defense, not leaving them as lambs.

Mind you, I'm 6' and people generally don't want to fuck with me. My girlfriend is less than half my size. She's not going to stop anyone with physical force. I'm not so self centered that I'm going to deny her viable options.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Me too. However as you can see, gun owners do not offer ANY solutions at all how to prevent or reduce such crimes to happen. All they have said so far is that we need to "focus on criminals, not guns" - but nobody so far explained how to implement that in real life, so it is not a solution yet.

Project EXILE, since implemented successfully in many other locations, is a clear example. Stiff sentences for crimes committed with guns. The NRA strongly endorses this.

The Clinton Administration touted the number of people prevented from buying a gun by the Brady Check - hundreds of thousands! Did they tout how many of those people were prosecuted? Nope. The number was pathetic, and it didn't really improve during the Bush Administration. If you know a criminal is trying to buy a gun, shouldn't you do more than deny it and let him find it elsewhere?

So you were saying....yeah, more rubbish. The gun owners might put up with more laws if current ones were actually enforced. But since they're not, it's just more burdens on us, with no improvement with crime.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

I'm 6' and .... My girlfriend is less than half my size.

I suppose it's none of my business.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Actually, it's your bullshit scenario - you tell me how often it happens. Because I know it's an insignificant number, pulled out of your ass.

Why are you so rude? That was you who brought this 1% number into discussion, not me, and now you're claiming I need to tell you something? Get real.

Quote

Every time a state considered implementing a shall issue CCW law, your kind said that people would shoot each other over the smallest of arguments and blood would fill the streets. And it's never actually happened.

I suggest you discuss this with those who allegedly said that. Makes no sense to ask me why someone said anything. I'm not asking you to respond to something Ron said, aren't I?

Quote

The bulk of murders are felons killing felons, and so removing legal gun ownership in a country that has a few hundred million guns isn't going to accomplish much, other than make citizens reliant on police forces that do not respond to emergencies, but rather show up afterwards to record the damage.

1. Somehow people in Europe and other countries live pretty fine relying just on police forces and non-gun ways to protect themselves. I do not see what makes U.S. unique in that matter - i.e. why it wouldn't work here as well.

2. If there are problems with the police, then it is better to address those problems first. Of course, there is no crime-free country, and _some_ crime still will happen, so it is unrealistic to expect a one second response.

3. Some pro-gun cities like Houston, Dallas and even San Antonio (I'm not even mentioning St. Louis, Memphis or Detroit) have much higher violent crime rate comparing to gun-restricted NYC. Baltimore has more violent crime than Washington DC. So pro-gun cities are not really safer as you try to imply.

Quote

A gun works very well for this criminal. But so does a knife. Or a baseball bat. Or Mark McGuire biceps, fueled by steroids. Someone in high heels isn't getting away. The only chance she has is with a gun. Without that option, the mugger/rapist will be just as successful and rewarded regardless of the tool used.

If this was true, it would mean that gun-restricted NYC (where a rapist has much lower chance to encounter an armed victim) should have significantly more rapes and robberies than Dallas and Houston. This is not the case at all. How'd you explain that? How'd you explain that in relatively gun-free Europe there is visibly less violent crime than in USA?

Quote

You can cite 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? Outside of a country that just finished a war within its borders, pretty unlikely.

Each crime requires different measures to lower it. For example more auditing on Medicare would reduce insurance fraud and will have no effect on gun crimes or DUI. Increasing DUI penalty and implementing "sobriety tests" will lower the number of drunk drivers and will have no effect on insurance fraud and gun crime. Restricting guns will lower the gun crime, and will have no effect on insurance fraud and DUIs. Different crimes require different approaches, and while there is no single approach to lower ALL the crime at the same time, focusing on lowering specific crimes works really well.

Quote

The black and white goal is not to eliminate criminals. It's a given that this doesn't happen. You just do your best to mitigate the damage they do. We believe that's done by giving people methods of defense, not leaving them as lambs.

And I believe that's better done by dramatically restricting the possibility for the criminals and to-be criminals to obtain a gun.

Quote

Mind you, I'm 6' and people generally don't want to fuck with me. My girlfriend is less than half my size. She's not going to stop anyone with physical force. I'm not so self centered that I'm going to deny her viable options.

There are viable options which do not involve guns. Besides prevention (which is the best option), there are Tazers, pepper sprays, and other things available. But the main question is how does your GF survived till now? AFAIK it's very tough to get a CCW permit in California (and especially in SF), so if she doesn't carry any, how did she survive till that without this "viable option"? How do those Europeans who are not 6' survive without guns?

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