DaGimp 0 #26 January 24, 2004 QuoteGuns are bad anyone else think that this is how it should have read?? Guns are Bad MmKay"Professor of Pimpology"~~~Bolas Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #27 January 25, 2004 QuoteThe Brady Bill was passed in 1993. Look at these statistics on the US Department of Justice web site: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm Correlation does not necessarily equal causation. So with all these plummeting gun crime rates, I guess we don't need any more new gun laws. Right? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #28 January 25, 2004 QuoteHow about this one: Myth No. 6 — Republicans Shrink the Government That's completely off-topic for this thread. Perhaps you should start your own thread, if you want to bash Republicans. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #29 January 25, 2004 Quote Correlation does not necessarily equal causation. Yet, this is exactly what people try to argue to prove that Concealed Carry laws deter crime. I guess we're either both right or both wrong, depending on how you look at it and which side you're on. Unless, you actually look at the facts. Then I'm right and you're wrong. quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #30 January 25, 2004 QuoteQuote Correlation does not necessarily equal causation. Yet, this is exactly what people try to argue to prove that Concealed Carry laws deter crime. Not necessarily. It could be that all they are saying is that since crime has gone done in states that passed concealed carry laws, it cannot be said that more guns on the street in the hands of good citizens has caused any massive negative problems. And it it is not causing problems, then there is no reason not to allow people to carry guns for self-defense. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 191 #31 January 25, 2004 QuoteQuote The government wants to say things like the Brady Gun Control Law are making a difference, but they aren't. Some maximum security felons I spoke to in New Jersey scoffed at measures like the Brady law. They said they'll have no trouble getting guns if they want them. Bull shit. Thus speaks the voice of ignorance. You have the basis for a standpoint regarding parachutes, and none at all for firearms. If you are unfit to own firearms, that's your problem - so long as you eschew any contact with them. I do, however, begrudge you the right to inflict your limitations upon me. Speak not of what you know not. Blue skies, Winsor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,679 #32 January 25, 2004 QuoteQuoteHow about this one: Myth No. 6 — Republicans Shrink the Government That's completely off-topic for this thread. Perhaps you should start your own thread, if you want to bash Republicans. No - it's from the same source quoted in the original post, quite on-topic, provides context... 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
Douva 0 #33 January 25, 2004 QuoteUnless, you actually look at the facts. Then I'm right and you're wrong. That's always fun to say, but what "facts" do you back the statement up with? Quit telling us to research it when we have clearly shown that our research suggests gun control laws have little discernible effect on gun crime. The way a debate works is that you present your own evidence; you don't ask your opponent to do your research for you.I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #34 January 25, 2004 Winsor -- This tactic is beneath you. I would expect such a statement from someone of lessor reasoning, but not yourself. From you I would expect a counter statement that could be backed up with some data. I provide you with a link to a year by year breakdown of gun related crime as published by the U.S. Department of Justice and the best counter you can provide is to call me ignorant? Shame on you.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Douva 0 #35 January 25, 2004 QuoteQuote Correlation does not necessarily equal causation. Yet, this is exactly what people try to argue to prove that Concealed Carry laws deter crime. I guess we're either both right or both wrong, depending on how you look at it and which side you're on. Well, that being the case, crime rates are either declining because of concealed carry laws or in spite of them, but regardless, there is no evidence to suggest that concealed carry laws are increasing crime, so what is the problem?I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #36 January 25, 2004 It appears as if the concept of humor is lost on you. From now on, if you're confused as to whether something is made as a statement of fact or a joke, look for the little winky face (). This typically indicates a joke may have just been told.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #37 January 25, 2004 QuoteThat's completely off-topic for this thread. Perhaps you should start your own thread, if you want to bash Republicans. QuoteNo - it's from the same source quoted in the original post, quite on-topic, provides context The subject is not "myths by John Stoessel". It's about guns - look at the title of the thread. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 191 #38 January 25, 2004 QuoteWinsor -- This tactic is beneath you. I would expect such a statement from someone of lessor reasoning, but not yourself. From you I would expect a counter statement that could be backed up with some data. I provide you with a link to a year by year breakdown of gun related crime as published by the U.S. Department of Justice and the best counter you can provide is to call me ignorant? Shame on you. Your stance is unworthy of debate. I would no sooner attempt to sway your conviction than I would engage in a serious theological discussion with a Moonie. I find the propensity of ovine personalities to inflict their insecurities upon others to be roundly repellent, and will not lower myself to dissuade them of such. I do not presume to impose limitations upon you. You support limitations upon my freedom consistent with your ignorance. Shame on you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 191 #39 January 25, 2004 QuoteIt appears as if the concept of humor is lost on you. From now on, if you're confused as to whether something is made as a statement of fact or a joke, look for the little winky face (). This typically indicates a joke may have just been told. Emoticons are often used in atypical fashions - yours was sanctimonious. You were neither joking nor in the right. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallRate 0 #40 January 25, 2004 All threads are open to hijack, except for the women's only forum...women just seem to be humorless sometimes. FallRate Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Douva 0 #41 January 25, 2004 QuoteIt appears as if the concept of humor is lost on you. From now on, if you're confused as to whether something is made as a statement of fact or a joke, look for the little winky face (). This typically indicates a joke may have just been told. So if you were joking when you said you were right and we were wrong, does that mean you were actually admitting we're right and you're wrong, or were you simply uttering words that had no meaning?I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #42 January 25, 2004 Quote So if you were joking when you said you were right and we were wrong, does that mean you were actually admitting we're right and you're wrong, or were you simply uttering words that had no meaning? I was joking and I was pointing out that depending upon your point of view, it's possible to draw two different conclusions based on the same evidence. From lookng at the evidence on the DOJ web site and from -my- point of view, I'm right and you're wrong. I'm almost certain that looking at the exact same evidence and from a different point of view, you're right and I'm wrong. What's so difficult to understand here?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #43 January 25, 2004 Quote Your stance is unworthy of debate. I would no sooner attempt to sway your conviction than I would engage in a serious theological discussion with a Moonie. I see, it's far easier to elevate yourself to some lofty position above it all. Ok. Us swine will do just fine without you. BTW, if it's unworthy of debate, then why did you even respond in the first place? Just to take the cheap shot and run away? Tsk, tsk.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 191 #44 January 25, 2004 QuoteQuote Your stance is unworthy of debate. I would no sooner attempt to sway your conviction than I would engage in a serious theological discussion with a Moonie. I see, it's far easier to elevate yourself to some lofty position above it all. Ok. Us swine will do just fine without you. BTW, if it's unworth of debate, then why did you even respond in the first place? Just to take the cheap shot and run away? Tsk, tsk. If you want to come up to speed on the subject, you are welcome to enroll in my next class. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #45 January 25, 2004 If you're holding class on-line somewhere, I'd love to sit in. I'm afraid I can't do a commute to the east coast though.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pds 0 #46 January 25, 2004 QuoteQuoteThat's completely off-topic for this thread. Perhaps you should start your own thread, if you want to bash Republicans. QuoteNo - it's from the same source quoted in the original post, quite on-topic, provides context The subject is not "myths by John Stoessel". It's about guns - look at the title of the thread. lemme guess... your a republican topic-nazi? lol. no such thing as off topic here john. thread creep is like kudzu. but i am guessing it was not the off topic that bothers you but simply the percieved republican bashing. am i right?namaste, motherfucker. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sdgregory 0 #47 January 25, 2004 QuoteQuote Correlation does not necessarily equal causation. Yet, this is exactly what people try to argue to prove that Concealed Carry laws deter crime. I guess we're either both right or both wrong, depending on how you look at it and which side you're on. Unless, you actually look at the facts. Then I'm right and you're wrong. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! WHATEVER! WHATEVER! Association as Causation! Both wrong! Look at the date of the release of Blue M&M's and look at the trends. You will see a direct correlation to the decrease of violent crime there. Red dye gives cancer but blue dye causes a hieghtened sense of euphoria and M&M's has sold MORE M&M's since the Blue came out and THAT my friends is why gun violence is down! Everyone is too happy with Blue to care! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Deuce 1 #48 January 25, 2004 QuoteShame on you. Paul, you're Catholic? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #49 January 25, 2004 QuoteQuoteCorrelation does not necessarily equal causation. Yet, this is exactly what people try to argue to prove that Concealed Carry laws deter crime. I guess we're either both right or both wrong, depending on how you look at it and which side you're on. Unless, you actually look at the facts. Then I'm right and you're wrong. Couldn't decide on the best place to reply and drop this in, but here looks good. Unless you have a more sound and indepth approach to the topic than John Lott had in More Guns, Less Crime, I have to wonder what facts you are referring to. The man looked at every county in every state in the country. He checked their crime rates relative to passage of local concealed carry and right to carry legislation. Guess what? Regardless of timeframe [which means regardless of federal law changes] crime rates dropped after passage in just about every spot, and stayed consistently lower than counties without CCW and RTC. You have "facts" better than that, quade?witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #50 January 25, 2004 Quotelemme guess... your a republican topic-nazi? No. Quoteno such thing as off topic here john. Incorrect. This thread is about guns. Talking about republicans and the size of government, in a thread about guns, is off topic. Quotei am guessing it was not the off topic that bothers you but simply the percieved republican bashing. am i right? Bzzzt. Wrong again. As evidence thereof, you should note that I suggested he take that subject and start his own new thread if he wanted to discuss it. That can hardly be construed as me trying to suppress the subject. You really should cease with the guessing. It makes you look bad when your guesses are always wrong. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
