mnealtx 0 #76 March 2, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteWhy bring up the comparison, then? That was YOUR choice. Why bring up the comparison between murder rates between Germany and the US? That was YOUR choice. QuoteQuoteThat has what to do with the murder rate, perfesser? DaVinci brought up gun laws, and you brought up Switzerland as a paragon of virtue. You figure it out. Mentioning Switzerland is 'bringing it up as a paragon of virtue', now? That's some pretty serious projection, perfesser. Maybe you should talk to someone about that. All you have done so far is show that 1st world countries with stricter gun laws than the US (which includes Switzerland) have far lower homicide rates than the US, that strict gun laws and licensing do not prevent a large fraction of the population from owning guns (Switzerland) and that you have to resort to a 3rd world slum nation (Jamaica) to make the US look good by comparison. Damn...and here I was hoping for that first-time 'relevant comparison' from you, and it turns out to be the same old bullshit. Amazing how first-world status only becomes important when the stats go against you.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #77 March 2, 2011 But, do you have anything to refute his statement? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #78 March 2, 2011 QuoteWhat is the number of illegal guns in the US? (plus a source please, I have been having a hard time finding an estimate for this). ATF says they run traces on about 70k guns a year. Of those, 50k of those involve weapon offenses, many of which are never prosecuted http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/nation/guns/gunpart2.html QuoteGreat motherhood statement. But, what does it mean? Does it mean we should just do nothing? No, but punish ACTIONS not objects. * Would you support a ban on any car with more than 100 hp and limited to 75mph top speed? Think of the benefits in reductions of speeding, accidents, and carbon emissions! * Would you support requiring alcohol interlocks to be put on every car? http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/support-grows-for-alcohol-interlocks-on-cars/ Think of the lives THAT would save!!!!! The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety estimated that in 2007, if anyone with a blood alcohol level of .08 or higher could have been prevented from starting a vehicle, almost 9,000 lives would have been saved. There are about 1 million drunken-driving convictions a year Alcohol-involved crashes in New Mexico are down 30 percent, injuries 32 percent and fatalities 22 percent, he said. How about a ban on pools? Would you support that? In 2004, of all children 1-4 years old who died, 26% died from drowning (CDC 2006). Fatal drowning remains the second-leading cause of unintentional injury-related death for children ages 1 to 14 years (CDC 2005) An estimated 5,000 children ages 14 and under are hospitalized due to unintentional drowning-related incidents each year; 15 percent die in the hospital and as many as 20 percent suffer severe, permanent neurological disability. Also, don't forget that the majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides. ftp://ftp.cdc.gov/pub/ncipc/10LC-2003/PDF/10lc-violence.pdf. And that people with a criminal record are also more likely to die as homicide victims. Cook, Philip J., Jens Ludwig (2000). "Chapter 2". Gun Violence: The Real Costs. Oxford University Press. So unless you are suicidal, or a criminal... Your chances of dying due to gun violence is greatly reduced. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #79 March 2, 2011 QuoteATF says they run traces on about 70k guns a year. Of those, 50k of those involve weapon offenses, many of which are never prosecuted That doens't answer the question. What is the number of illegal guns in the US? Quote* Would you support a ban on any car with more than 100 hp and limited to 75mph top speed? Think of the benefits in reductions of speeding, accidents, and carbon emissions! No Quote* Would you support requiring alcohol interlocks to be put on every car? Yes QuoteThink of the lives THAT would save!!!!! I agree QuoteIn 2004, of all children 1-4 years old who died, 26% died from drowning (CDC 2006). Fatal drowning remains the second-leading cause of unintentional injury-related death for children ages 1 to 14 years (CDC 2005) before we worry about the second-leading cause, let's look at the leading case, which is motor vehicle occupant related unintentional injuries. Since the current laws regarding child seats clearly are not preventing child death, do you agree that we should abolish all laws regarding child vehicle seats and seat belts? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #80 March 2, 2011 QuoteBut, do you have anything to refute his statement? 1. He tries to equate strict gun laws with low murder rates. When DC or Jamaica is brought up in counter, he tries to explain them off by claiming third world status or saying that DC can't be counted because it's a congressional district and not a state. I guess gun laws are somehow different if it's a third world country or a congressional district. He shoots himself in the foot by EMPHASIZING the cultural differences - if his argument was valid, then every place that has strict gun laws would have lower crime. This is obviously NOT the case.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #81 March 2, 2011 Quote* Would you support a ban on any car with more than 100 hp and limited to 75mph top speed? Think of the benefits in reductions of speeding, accidents, and carbon emissions! Now, why would you not support that? Especially since: Quotebefore we worry about the second-leading cause, let's look at the leading case, which is motor vehicle occupant related unintentional injuries. Driving slower would help prevent the #1 leading cause of deaths of children 1-4.... think of the children!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #82 March 2, 2011 QuoteI guess gun laws are somehow different if it's a third world country or a congressional district. In third world countries laws do tend to be more guidelines than laws. There is a significant difference. You have travelled a fair bit, so I somehow doubt you haven't noticed thisbefore. And I can understand that when comparing rates in countries a comparison to DC wouldn't be overly valid. QuoteHe tries to equate strict gun laws with low murder rates. In most cases that appears to be true though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #83 March 2, 2011 QuoteNow, why would you not support that? Because it would take the fun out of racing stock production cars on the track. Why aren't you answering my other questions? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #84 March 2, 2011 QuoteQuoteI guess gun laws are somehow different if it's a third world country or a congressional district. In third world countries laws do tend to be more guidelines than laws. There is a significant difference. You have travelled a fair bit, so I somehow doubt you haven't noticed thisbefore. I've noticed that criminals don't care about the laws world-wide - which is the point. QuoteAnd I can understand that when comparing rates in countries a comparison to DC wouldn't be overly valid. True - but it *is* applicable in a comparison to states, which is how it was used. QuoteQuoteHe tries to equate strict gun laws with low murder rates. In most cases that appears to be true though. *APPEARS* being the operative word. The criminals will still get their guns. Again, Jamaica comes to mind as an exemplar of high crime with a complete gun ban. It's a *CRIMINAL* problem, not an *OBJECT* problem.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #85 March 3, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteI guess gun laws are somehow different if it's a third world country or a congressional district. In third world countries laws do tend to be more guidelines than laws. There is a significant difference. You have travelled a fair bit, so I somehow doubt you haven't noticed thisbefore. I've noticed that criminals don't care about the laws world-wide - which is the point. QuoteAnd I can understand that when comparing rates in countries a comparison to DC wouldn't be overly valid. True - but it *is* applicable in a comparison to states, which is how it was used. QuoteQuoteHe tries to equate strict gun laws with low murder rates. In most cases that appears to be true though. *APPEARS* being the operative word. The criminals will still get their guns. Again, Jamaica comes to mind as an exemplar of high crime with a complete gun ban. It's a *CRIMINAL* problem, not an *OBJECT* problem. None so blind as those who refuse to see. There is a BIG difference between Jamaica and the USA. DC is NOT a state, and never has been. In your absurdly lame attempt to refute my point you can only resort to obviously invalid comparisons.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #86 March 3, 2011 QuoteNone so blind as those who refuse to see. But enough about you. QuoteThere is a BIG difference between Jamaica and the USA. Agreed - Jamaica has a complete ban and the USA doesn't. QuoteDC is NOT a state, and never has been. Cry to the FBI about it - they're the ones that treat it the same as a state for crime stats. QuoteIn your absurdly lame attempt to refute my point you can only resort to obviously invalid comparisons. Like how DC is so different because of Congresscritters and lawyers? Oh, wait - that was one of YOUR arguments. Or maybe how DC crime is caused by VA guns? Another one of YOUR arguments, blown out of the water by the stats. Thanks for proving my point yet again - you've got bupkis.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #87 March 3, 2011 QuoteQuoteNone so blind as those who refuse to see. But enough about you. QuoteThere is a BIG difference between Jamaica and the USA. Agreed - Jamaica has a complete ban and the USA doesn't. QuoteDC is NOT a state, and never has been. Cry to the FBI about it - they're the ones that treat it the same as a state for crime stats. QuoteIn your absurdly lame attempt to refute my point you can only resort to obviously invalid comparisons. Like how DC is so different because of Congresscritters and lawyers? Oh, wait - that was one of YOUR arguments. Or maybe how DC crime is caused by VA guns? Another one of YOUR arguments, blown out of the water by the stats. Thanks for proving my point yet again - you've got bupkis. Comparing apples to lemons is inappropriate and you know it. The US has the most lax gun laws of any western industrialized nation, and the highest homicide rate of any western industrialized nation. All you have are comparisons to third world countries and comparisons of cities to entire states.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #88 March 3, 2011 Like I said...you've got bupkis.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #89 March 7, 2011 QuoteBecause it would take the fun out of racing stock production cars on the track. Get a special license, pass a background check, get insurance, trailer it locked up to the track. You could still have them, we just want "reasonable" restrictions to prevent you from speeding down the road and taking out a buss load of orphans trying to get down to the soup kitchen. QuoteWhy aren't you answering my other questions? You mean this one? Quotedo you agree that we should abolish all laws regarding child vehicle seats and seat belts? I think that if a parent wants to take care of their child, they know better than some un-named person. Next you are going to suggest that kids only wear brand "X" shoes. I think parents have a responsibility to their kids. If they do not live up to that responsibility.... We already have laws to handle that situation. Why pass ANOTHER law when some parents will just ignore the first one? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
