Clownburner 0 #101 December 11, 2007 QuoteI am talking of people dieing of gunshots and that it is more prevalant when more guns are available. I knew you would be one never able to admit to that. I'm perfectly willing to admit that people cannot die of gunshots unless there are guns. Are you willing to admit that no amount of gun control laws will affect criminals, since they are willing to break the law? The problem is that the guns aren't the cause of violence. That's like saying spoons make people fat. In Rwanda, when there wasn't enough guns or ammo for the slaughtering they wanted to do, they used machetes.7CP#1 | BTR#2 | Payaso en fuego Rodriguez "I want hot chicks in my boobies!"- McBeth Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,384 #102 December 11, 2007 Quote Fact remains that when more guns are available, more people die of gunshots. A simple statement that those on the pro-gun side are never willing to admit to. And a couple simple facts the anti-gun side won't admit: - Outlawing guns doesn't make them cease to exist. - Cops can't protect citizens; They can only apprehend a criminal after he has committed a crime. A citizen must defend himself."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Clownburner 0 #103 December 11, 2007 Quote- Cops can't protect citizens; They can only apprehend a criminal after he has committed a crime. A citizen must defend himself. In fact, it's been proven in court that the police do NOT have a duty to defend or protect individualized citizens. I always liked the saying "Remember when seconds can mean the difference between life and death, the police are just minutes away."7CP#1 | BTR#2 | Payaso en fuego Rodriguez "I want hot chicks in my boobies!"- McBeth Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #104 December 11, 2007 A large majority of the nearly 800,000 murders committed in Rwanda during their tribal massacre in 1993 were done by machete. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,123 #105 December 11, 2007 QuoteAnd a couple simple facts the anti-gun side won't admit: - Outlawing guns doesn't make them cease to exist. - Cops can't protect citizens; They can only apprehend a criminal after he has committed a crime. A citizen must defend himself. Perfectly willing to admit that. Guns will always be around. Though, the less they are around, the less people die of them. One of the side effects of registration and licensing in Canada is that amunition is much harder to come by, since you have to be licensed and registered in order to buy amunition. It makes it significantly harder for the criminals to get their hands on it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #106 December 11, 2007 Quote One of the side effects of registration and licensing in Canada is that amunition is much harder to come by, since you have to be licensed and registered in order to buy amunition. It makes it significantly harder for the criminals to get their hands on it. How much do they need? A mugger could use a single box of 50 for his entire criminal career. Or if he's a good actor, doesn't need a single bullet, just has to convince the victims that it's not worth finding out. Canadians are flooding over the borders right now to buy goods against the cheap dollar. You don't think they have access to ammo there? The restriction in ammo hurts non criminals much more, as it discourages practice. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #107 December 11, 2007 Quote One of the side effects of registration and licensing in Canada is that amunition is much harder to come by, since you have to be licensed and registered in order to buy amunition. It makes it significantly harder for the criminals to get their hands on it. Yes, but have gun crimes declined since the introduction of the registry? No, they have not. Canada's lower murder rate is a product of a cultural difference between the US and us; while it is fair to argue that gun laws contribute long term to that culture, it is not legitimate to argue that the lack of availability to guns (or ammo) have any real effect upon the level of violence. Even the enormous socialist weasel himself, Michael Moore, made the point that we have the guns, we just don't use them on each other as much. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,123 #108 December 11, 2007 QuoteYes, but have gun crimes declined since the introduction of the registry? No, they have not. You are right they haven't. But, you still need your license to buy the amunition. (as a side note, the Chiefs of police value the registry, still haven't quite figured that one out.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,123 #109 December 11, 2007 QuoteCanadians are flooding over the borders right now to buy goods against the cheap dollar. You don't think they have access to ammo there? The restriction in ammo hurts non criminals much more, as it discourages practice. Sure they do, it is getting it back over the border that is harder. I don't see how the license would be a restriction on ammo? (I do understand the general hesitation in licensing, even if I don't agree with it) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #110 December 11, 2007 QuoteQuoteNope, not a fact at all, unless you cherry-pick your examples. The fact is, there are places with: 1) Lots of guns, and lots of murders. 2) Lots of guns, and few murders. 3) Few guns, and lots of murders. 4) Few guns, and few murders. The examples are all across the spectrum. Thus, one cannot logically conclude that more guns causes more murder. If you're making this claim based upon suicides, then you should be aware of studies that show that people who decide to kill themselves will do so by any means available. Removing guns does not reduce suicide. Take Japan, for example, where hardly anyone owns guns, yet their suicide rate is much higher than in the U.S. I am talking of people dieing of gunshots and that it is more prevalant when more guns are available. When I said "murders", I was talking of gun murders, since that's what we're talking about here. The fact remains: you're wrong. There is no consistent correlation between gun ownership levels and gun crime levels. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #111 December 11, 2007 QuoteQuoteYes, but have gun crimes declined since the introduction of the registry? No, they have not. You are right they haven't. But, you still need your license to buy the amunition. (as a side note, the Chiefs of police value the registry, still haven't quite figured that one out.) So you admit then that registration and licensing are worthless in reducing gun crime. Yet you like those laws anyway. This is classic anti-gun stuff - because even if it only affects the law-abiding, they're still in favor of it! Some chiefs of police favor it, others don't. A government study has shown the registry to be a worthless expensive boondoggle. And the government has pledged to scrap the whole thing. But hey, the anti-gun folks still love it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,123 #112 December 11, 2007 QuoteWhen I said "murders", I was talking of gun murders, since that's what we're talking about here. The fact remains: you're wrong. Except I wasn't talking about murders. John it is extremely hard to have any kind of discussion with you when you are constantly twsiting things around. It also greatly deminsihes anything valuable you may actually have to say. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,123 #113 December 11, 2007 QuoteSo you admit then that registration and licensing are worthless in reducing gun crime. I was talking about the Canadian registry, not Canadian licensing. See, my post above this. When you keep twisting things it is next to impossible to have any kind of discussion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #114 December 11, 2007 QuoteQuoteWhen I said "murders", I was talking of gun murders, since that's what we're talking about here. The fact remains: you're wrong. Except I wasn't talking about murders. John it is extremely hard to have any kind of discussion with you when you are constantly twsiting things around. It also greatly deminsihes anything valuable you may actually have to say. You said; "dying of gunshots", which I took to mean murder, since murder is the most common problem associated with guns, for which people want to enact gun-control. If that wasn't a correct interpretation, then you should have explained yourself better. If you're talking about suicides, then you must have missed my response to you in message #97, where I addressed that subject directly to you. Go back and read it again. So just who is it that is "twisting things around"? You use deceptive code-words instead of communicating clearly, and ignore what I've already told you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #115 December 11, 2007 QuoteQuoteSo you admit then that registration and licensing are worthless in reducing gun crime. I was talking about the Canadian registry, not Canadian licensing. See, my post above this. When you keep twisting things it is next to impossible to have any kind of discussion. Okay, strike "licensing". The comments otherwise, remain the same. The registry is worthless, didn't reduce crime, and even the government recognizes that and has pledged to scrap it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,384 #116 December 11, 2007 Here is a new wrinkle: The gunman's death has been ruled a suicide. Apparently, after the woman's rounds knocked him down, he finished himself off. http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/12/autopsy-colo-ch.html And an unflattering bit of info about the woman's career as a police officer (last paragraph): http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071211/ap_on_re_us/church_shootings"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #117 December 11, 2007 Quote There is no consistent correlation between gun ownership levels and gun crime levels. Sure there is. There were zero gun crimes in the 15th century and gun crime levels have increased dramatically since the middle of the 16th century. If all guns suddenly disappeared from existence, gun crimes would become a thing of the past. Note there would still be murders and other crimes that are currently committed with guns with some regularity, they'd just involve different weapons. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,123 #118 December 11, 2007 QuoteYou said; "dying of gunshots", which I took to mean murder, Then that is where the confusion came from John. When I wrote dying of gunshots (and I am really not sure how you can see a code word in there) I meant dying of gunshots. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,123 #119 December 11, 2007 QuoteNote there would still be murders and other crimes that are currently committed with guns with some regularity, they'd just involve different weapons. The interesting question is if that "conversion rate" would equal 100%. Would ALL the same crime and murders still happen but by other means? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #120 December 11, 2007 QuoteQuoteNote there would still be murders and other crimes that are currently committed with guns with some regularity, they'd just involve different weapons. The interesting question is if that "conversion rate" would equal 100%. Would ALL the same crime and murders still happen but by other means? I doubt it. I'm guessing murders would remain fairly constant, but armed robberies would probably decline. The dipshit gangsta kids wouldn't have a 9 to substitute for a lack of bravado, but anyone who truly wanted to kill someone would still find a way to do so. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pop 0 #121 December 11, 2007 QuoteFive killed in Colorado Springs. Armed guard in the church shot, killed gunman. looks like in the end the dip shit ended his own life. http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/11/colorado.shootings/index.html7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #122 December 11, 2007 QuoteQuoteYou said; "dying of gunshots", which I took to mean murder, Then that is where the confusion came from John. When I wrote dying of gunshots (and I am really not sure how you can see a code word in there) I meant dying of gunshots. Better include any cases of lead poisoning too, then. John, you should know better - of course they include suicides whenever they can - it makes their arguments much better by being deliberately obtuse. It allows for 120% inflation of metrics - beautiful shit for statistics. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #123 December 12, 2007 NO - what this indicates beautifully is that a loonie with a gun can kill a bunch people BEFORE any response is possible. A loonie deprived of a gun cannot do that. Your argument is absurd.... 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
kallend 1,623 #124 December 12, 2007 QuoteQuoteYou said; "dying of gunshots", which I took to mean murder, Then that is where the confusion came from John. When I wrote dying of gunshots (and I am really not sure how you can see a code word in there) I meant dying of gunshots. John Rich is just cherry picking data to attempt to make a case. The data ARE absolutely clear - more guns per household maps to a higher gun death rate.... 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
kallend 1,623 #125 December 12, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteNote there would still be murders and other crimes that are currently committed with guns with some regularity, they'd just involve different weapons. The interesting question is if that "conversion rate" would equal 100%. Would ALL the same crime and murders still happen but by other means? I doubt it. I'm guessing murders would remain fairly constant, but armed robberies would probably decline. The dipshit gangsta kids wouldn't have a 9 to substitute for a lack of bravado, but anyone who truly wanted to kill someone would still find a way to do so. Blues, Dave Suggest you go to the FBI UCR and take a look at violent crime rates across the various states, and compare with the prevalence of gun ownership.... 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
