SkyDekker

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content

    21,691

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    96

  • Feedback

    0%

  • Country

    Canada

Everything posted by SkyDekker

  1. SkyDekker
    If crime was prevented, how did they become criminals?
  2. SkyDekker
    Mike I am very sorry to read of your loss. My condolences and prayers to you and your family.
  3. SkyDekker
    Which is exactly what I have been saying all along. Can you now admit that guns do not prevent crime? Sure, its great. Except not proof that a crime has been prevented....which is what your original claim was. Ron, you are continually bending words and arguing in circles. It's getting silly. You wanted me to agree that guns prevent crime, you have now clearly seen that is not the case. I have a hard time believing you are having an honest conversation/discussion at this point. Never said I could, wasn't part of the original claim you made either. Do you even remember the post that started this discussion? Maybe you should try and find it and stick to that topic.
  4. SkyDekker
    Already agreed with you on this. Uh no. A criminal coming up and demanding money under threat of force is already a crime. If the defendant brandishes a gun and the criminal takes off, a crime has still been committed. If the defendant does not brandish a gun and hands over the money, a more serious crime has been committed. As you can see, in both circumstances, a crime has been committed. In scenario 1 the crime did not escalate. Bolding mine. Do you really not get that? Convicted criminals are claiming they were detered from crime? I already agreed it could change their behaviour. We were talking about the prevention of crime. Ron, I know you are incapable of admitting anything to somebody you consider to be an anti gun idiot. I have agreed with many of your view points. I think I have stated the case pretty clearly that it is next to impossible to prove that guns can prevent crime. You want me to prove that it is impossible to prove that guns prevent crime?
  5. SkyDekker
    Right, but that doesn't have anything to do with this discussion. Uhm, no. A crime has not been prevented in either scenario. A crime has not escalated. I agree. But that does not provide proof that crime has been prevented. Which is what the discussion was about. Right, which is different from proof. Data exists that market rates differ in correlation with fashionable skirt lengths. Doesn't prove it either.
  6. SkyDekker
    I think his starting premise is wrong. I think criminals, like most other people in this world are motivated by greed, by money. His last assertion is impossible to prove, no matter how many books he writes. I agree that the first two are likely.
  7. SkyDekker
    John, do you believe in the causation implied by the author?
  8. SkyDekker
    Problem is they are in jail. So hard to prove they stopped committing crimes. More likely that they shifted to different crime.
  9. SkyDekker
    See, the last one is a bit trickier. I will agree that individuals have used guns to prevent crimes from escalating. See, if a guy with a knife walks up to me and demands money, that would be attempted armed robbery, which is already a crime. If I brandish a firearm and he takes off, I cannot claim that the brandishing of the firearm prevented a crime, at most I can claim I prevented a crime from escalating. I could conceivably agree that some people maybe never committed a crime specifically out of fear for an individual using a firearm. But, that would be next to impossible to prove.
  10. SkyDekker
    I agree, as long as you agree that no gun has ever prevented a crime.
  11. SkyDekker
    You made it about the gun, not the police, so I am asking you. I am not debating Minto saved a life, I am agreeing that he did. I am asking you how to gun features in this. (Since the clear implication in your post is that gun ownership saved a life)
  12. SkyDekker
    And right now the communists in China are saving your ass. Without their loans the US would be completely bankrupt and unable to produce anything or fight any war. When was the last time you sent a thank you note to them?
  13. SkyDekker
    Right, so in some cases it is true, in some cases it is false. Means that the statement as a whole is false. (Or really just far too simplistic)
  14. SkyDekker
    Right, but the interesting discussion is on how people chose their "tools".
  15. SkyDekker
    Nope, just indicating that when holding on to pre-conceived notions you limit yourself.
  16. SkyDekker
    Would the attacker have stopped if a person had started yelling without a gun?
  17. SkyDekker
    If prices dropped, according to the statements above that between cheaper, faster and better only two can happen at the same time, current recorders ahve to be either slower or of lower quality. Apparently it is engineering 101, which would have absolutely nothing to do competition. No different analogy is needed, however I will give you one. 1980 VHS Camcorder $1,599 2009 HD digital camcorder $800 S would you argue that the 2009 camcorder is slower or of lower quality than the 1980 model?
  18. SkyDekker
    Interesting thesis. I have a question for you, how do you square that away with your countries reasoning for invading Iraq? Iraq was one of the most armed countries in the world, yet according to your country, the regime was so oppresive and violent that the (armed) people needed to be liberated. You seem to imply that the jews would not have faced such heavy losses if they had been armed. Yet in Iraq a similar fate overcame an armed populace and got so bad the US felt the need to intervene. Look forward to reading how you explain this inconsistency.
  19. SkyDekker
    Yet, school shootings, mall shootings, multiple cop shootings, church shootings are far more prevalent than the bombing equivalent of each (in North America anyways), which would give some validity to the thought that acquiring guns, ammo and shooting are easier than building a bomb, placing and detonating. My personal belief is that such is the case because firearms are that much easier to get, than bombs are to build.
  20. SkyDekker
    Yet it didn't work......turns out that building a bomb is more difficult than pulling a trigger......which really goes against your point.
  21. SkyDekker
    1975 Betamax recorder $2,495 I'll let you cost a DVR at Best Buy, but it's better, cheaper and faster......
  22. SkyDekker
    Never did agree with this.....Actually I think it is a load of shit.
  23. SkyDekker
    What does that have to do with the fact that a gun does incrase the lethal potential of the average person? (I agree that a bomb would as well, so would chemical weapons...but that's all beside the point) If your argument is that the average murderer would use bombs if no firearms were avilable, I would like to see some form of research that backs that statement.
  24. SkyDekker
    That lady must have been one of them law abiding gun owners.....
  25. SkyDekker
    Funny..... Specially funny since on more than one occasion men have told my girlfriend they don't like fake tits while staring at hers. With a good doctor and the right product it is very hard to tell whether or not they are real or fake. Maybe I'll post a picture of my GF's on the blackberry group, so they can decide..... On the mental issues.....you guys crack me up, bunch of Dr. Phils