georgerussia

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. *

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. *

They made it possible. Drive-through shooting is another kind of crime which is not possible to commit without a gun. By the way, do you know how many of this type of crimes are committed in Canada? This is a loaded question, which assumes there are only two possibilities - either hugging teddy bears, or murdering children. The world is much more complex than that. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

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 deny whatever you want - the truth is obvious for everyone. You also do not care of children dying because of negligence of some stupid gun owners like that because it might restrict your rights to own a gun. So this is promising that you started worrying that something like that might happen to your family as well, and therefore maybe some extra restrictions are worth considering. I suggest you make a donation to Brady Campaign to prevent gun violence, who work hard to make sure at some day in future our grandmas will not be killed like by yet another gun "owners". I hope you would like the reply written in your style * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Shooting kills 15-year-old girl, wounds 3 others Yet another stupid crime with yet another victim. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Quote yet, a criminal faced with the threat of a possibly armed victim (concealed carry states) wouldn't consider not doing crime (or so I constantly hear from the gun-banners). If I understood you correctly, you're saying that a criminal would not commit a crime if his victim may be possibly armed? Is that what you said? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

In this scenario (which is kinda far away from genocide, you're talking about resistance/guerrilla warfare) do you think it makes any difference whether the guns are illegal or not, and whether those movements used legal or illegal explosives? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

There are several types of criminals. For those who are "professional criminals" - i.e. depend on crime to provide for their life style, it depends on penalty. If it is significantly more severe than the penalty for a crime itself (like mandatory life sentence for carrying versus 5 year probation for a crime), and there are financial awards for those who turn them in, some may decide that it does not worth it, and switch to another types of crime (like insurance fraud). For those who are "unintentional criminals" - like those idiots shooting into the air in front of Capitol or shooting someone in a parking lot during the argument - being law abiding citizens, they wouldn't have access to guns. Such crimes are spontaneous, so being unable to acquire a gun quickly will pretty much eliminate this type of crime (next morning they'd sober up and be glad for that). And for those to-be criminals who decide to commit their only crime and die afterwards (like Cho) - a significant number of them would not be able to obtain guns illegally at all (lacking the necessary knowledge and connections), and some would be caught or turned to authorities in this process. Some indeed would get through, but I would expect this number to be significantly less than now. That's where I believe the reduction of violent crime would come from. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

You might also consider what happened to the population of Czech Republic, Poland, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Norway, Baltic countries and Belarus/Ukraine territories. All of them had guns, did it really help? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

No, "everyone else" a.k.a. gun owners seem to worry about crime except the gun crime (as concentrating on gun crime might lead to the undesired consequences). I believe gun controllers worry about all crimes, including the gun crime. They just understand that one can only address one problem at a time, and that generic concentration on "making this world better" is waste of time, as nobody succeed in it except imaginable Jesus. Why do you think so? Just because Brady campaign didn't address it in their mission? Same way one can say that NRA considers underage sex or insurance fraud not important - there is nothing in their mission about it. It looks like that until you understand that during WWII the genocide mostly happened _outside_ Germany - on territories which were not affected by 1938 law. And Kristallnacht happened _before_ WWII. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I was asking about guns being banned during WWII. This war started in 1939, and included much more than just German Jews (as others were not affected by this law). I guess you're mixing all Jews together, including those who were not affected by the 1938 Nazi law at all, because they did not live in Germany. Most German Jews were imprisoned or left the country before the WWII started. Talks, talks.. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

So after you bragged so much how you "proved me wrong", and I have proven that you just lied multiple times by assuming that I said things which I did not (what about "would be stopped"?), you're now trying to hide this fact by claiming a PA? You may be right, but know what? Me and people like me still can buy a gun! So do you now think more gun restrictions are needed? Donate here! It's not the fact you disagree with me, it's the way how you and mnealtx are doing that - by asking loaded questions most of the time. Your links did not prove the assumed situation would not happen. Yet again you claim to have something proven which in fact is not. While English is definitely not my first language (in fact it is fourth), I have never heard of such interpretation of present indefinite. So if someone said "I believe in God" in past, you're interpreting it as the person now must believe in God for the eternity because there is zero reference to time frame??? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Probably even more. The numbers for gun school shootings for Europe are roughly 1/4 to 1/8 of U.S. depending on how you count it. And gun shooting is obviously a gun-related crime, so a 25% drop (from 40% to 15%) seems to be a reasonable guess. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

No, I'm just smart enough to understand that there is no magic bullet which would reduce ALL crime at the same time, and for example the measures taken to reduce drug trade will not reduce insurance fraud. Different crimes require different measures, and this one is good enough for reducing gun crimes. When we need to address other crimes, we will think of other solutions. Sure. Post #133, when we discuss exactly that - a gun crime, which needs a criminal and a gun to happen. You accused me of concentrating of a gun instead of a criminal, and you were explicitly asked to tell us how exactly are you going to concentrate on criminal? You did not provide an answer. And a second one is the post you just replied to (#135), and AGAIN you did not reply. You're again pretending in form of question that I said something which I didn't. Lame. Everyone else, however, can see this post, and two following posts, and see themselves how exactly are you going to fight the violent crime by concentrating on criminals instead of guns. It is pretty obvious now that you have nothing to say on that matter. Why are you afraid of comparing statistics which show the rates in countries where guns are restricted with the USA? You have something to hide? It was all you provided, and it was worth that much. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I blame both parties too, but honestly who should he blame? He already inherited that mess, and his action didn't make it worse. In 2005 it was already too late. We all know bills do not pass overnight, and being signed into law in a year it would do nothing as the bubble was already there, and large enough. He should have tried to pass this bill in 2002 (and you can ask him why he didn't) They're politicians - what else would you expect? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

This means that if we get rid of most gun crime, we will reduce violent crime rate at least 25% - definitely something worth fighting for. Even pro-gun JohnRich considered a 25% reduction significant enough to create a topic. A reasonable person would agree that even 10% violent crime reduction is worth fighting for. I already asked you several times - how exactly would YOUR fight violent crime by concentrating on criminals (or on crimes)? And so far your answer is that you will not. Where exactly the stats do not show that countries which dramatically restrict gun ownership have same or more violent GUN crime than USA? You claimed that "stats don't agree with me" so many times, and have never provided any data! Got it - you have no ideas how to do it. Then you might want to shut up about "criminals", because you have no idea how to get rid of them, and can only blame other solutions without providing your own. You must be very proud of yourself! * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

You probably forgot, but we're discussing here how gun restriction would affect the gun crime rate, especially shooting sprees and stupid random shootings. You're however constantly trying to shift it to "how would gun restriction affect general crime", to assume that since it will not affect all the crime, then restricting guns (grenades, nuclear bombs) makes no sense because the amount of other crime (like insurance fraud, forged checks, public urination) will stay the same, or even go up. I agree - for the gun crime to happen we need both a criminal, and a gun. Now, I have an idea how to get a GUN out of this equation (which of course is not 100% proof, but it works in other countries and I see no reason why it wouldn't work in USA). However I have no idea how to get a CRIMINAL out of this equation, and therefore I do not discuss it. If you have any, please enlighten us. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

This one makes me wonder if he is charged for battery or he's a victim of battery? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

You're provided links to irrelevant study, which provided no evidence for your opinion as it mixes all crimes together, while we were explicitly talking about GUN-related crimes. I never said a gun ban would reduce the amount of drunk drivers or insurance fraud, but you still provide studies which count ALL crimes, including those which are not gun-related. Most of those crimes I posted, however, would unlikely happen if guns were not available - i.e. "a gun owner went crazy" type of crime. Neither are you. Looking through your posts they still have it. You might want to call them and demand it to be shipped back (and charge them for those decades!) :) * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I was asking about guns banned during WWII. Which, as you probably know, started in 1939. I'll wait for the answer from Ron, but as far as I know there was only one law restricting weapons to Jews - a "German Weapons Act" of March 18, 1938, which is a year and half before WWII. By the way, this law actually _relaxed_ weapon regulations in Germany (for non-Jews of course). I'm too lazy to find the text of the law, but from what I remember it removed all the regulations related to rifles, which were regulated before. It is always a good idea to double-check the thread before writing a reply on assumption that your opponent is ignorant and does not know basics. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

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

This is a typical example of your "proven to be wrong" - assuming that I said something (when I didn't), and then "proving" this to be not true. Are you saying that in that piece I said that they WOULD be stopped? This is so remote that I cannot imagine someone would even consider it. Dude, you're so amazingly full of yourself even when you're so obviously wrong that it makes me wonder how would they give you a gun permit? When I go emotional, I'll say something "let's see what you will say when it is YOUR CHILD AND WIFE who are killed by the next Cho". Again, you made up something, assumed I said that, and then proved it wrong - so you proved yourself wrong. I did not say people in wheelchairs are not attacked at all - what I said is that "if a football player wears expensive jewelry, a criminal would likely to go after him, and skip an old lady in a wheelchair." This, if you don't understand, discusses probabilities in a hypothetic situation, and the only way I could be wrong here is if you prove that this probability is ZERO. Which you did not. Good. Now read what I said, and compare it with what you tried to prove. It is obvious to everyone that you are providing proof that people in wheelchairs got attacked (nobody denied that), and their chance to get attacked is higher (assuming all other things the same, nobody denied that either). This study, however, does not compare football players wearing expensive jewelry (which is very considerable fact here - as the reward is higher), and therefore is useless to prove anything related to discussion. And yet another lame example. Do you understand what "present time" mean, and did you check the date? Did it say "I will ignore all future posts of Ron?" Is English your native language? I should have said that "I just ignore Ron's posts which are full of questions based on his made-up assumptions, and let him fight against yourself". * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

No, you're back to your typical way of arguing - making things up, and questioning the opponent by assuming he really said that. Yet another version of "have you stopped beating your wife?" thing. Some positive news here is that you typically do this when you have nothing else to reply, which is indeed proof. Let the rest of us know when you get your brain control back from NRA, ok? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Was it? As far as I remember, we only discussed homicide levels, and I showed you the official statistics and the way they make it. (and Russia was not the only country I lived in) You might want to discuss it with tsisson, preferably by replying to this post, as I have no idea at all what Olive Garden is (nor I care). And we do not have BART here either. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

No, news reporting about shootings are more valid than something showing a link between familial status/welfare and general crime (which does not indicate how much of this crime is gun-related and therefore is meaningless for our purpose). This does not prove ANY point, including yours. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *