Chicago Gun Ban

[pop 0]

I loved your PM to me. It went something like this:



"you have less brains than a streaming pile of dogshit

How in the hell do you surmise that I should do as you say, I am a disabled veteran, limited funds, a child to raise, a house to pay for, and yet you say crap like that?

Go choke yourself.

You go bounce off the ground from 35 feet and 35kts and tell me how it is afterwards."


Right on man. I now have tons of respect for you and your records...

7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I do not claim o be an expoert in gun powder. But what does that have to do with the gun related death toll in this country?

It was your tangent. When it fizzled out, you want to go back to the old 'so what, it's off topic' response?

BTW, the subject header suggests it's only supposed to be about Chicago.

[dannydan 0]

sad story indeed... How come see didnt turn on the light? She was 49 and probably had or was nearing the use if eyeglasses. I sure wish (hindsight) this Husband (widower) would have assessed His situation better (lack of training).... Needless death for sure!!

[kallend 1,648]

Quote

I am not going to read that, I know more about explosives than you will ever learn, and if wiki claims that gunpowder is an explosive, whoever wrote it needs to remove their heads from their asses.


Do you actually know anything about firearms, explosives, or gunpowder?

BTW try and get gunpowder to explode.

Just try it.

We are not talking about blackpowder either.

That is unless you think gangstas are holding people up with a brown bess musket.

BATFE lists gunpowder an an explosive. Personally I think it's a deflagrating agent since it won't detonate.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[pop 0]

Quote

And legal guns are also used between 400k - 2 million times a year to prevent crime and save lives - I would say the good outweighs the bad.

Mike, lets take a look at this statement and data objectively. What you are saying is that a crime occurs, a gun is used, and the outcome of event is positive. Let’s break that down further. There are actually 3 scenarios that can happen to have a positive outcome

A. Crime occurs, gun is present and used in defense, outcome positive – You gave data on this of 400k - 2 million
B. Crime occurs, gun is present but not pulled out in defense, outcome positive – conveniently this data is missing in your argument
C. Crime occurs, no gun is present by defendant, outcome positive – this data is missing too.

Let’s look further at A. The unknown in this data is what would have happened had the defendant not pulled out the gun, or did not have a gun in the first place. Mike, you and I know both know that a percent of the outcomes would have still been positive even without the use of the gun….we just don’t know what the percent is, but we know it exists.

Also, how come you don’t mention all of the same scenarios, but with a negative outcome. This data is important to look at as well to consider the validity of the one piece of data that you cherry picked.

7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer

[pop 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

A gun is made to safe lives.

Prove to me that guns were invented to save lives, and not take them.

If YOU can prove the null to that question you will have done it yourself.

"I cant prove it".

Your right, you can't.

Talk about taking quote out of context. Holy shit. WEAK!

7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

A gun is made to safe lives.

Prove to me that guns were invented to save lives, and not take them.

If YOU can prove the null to that question you will have done it yourself.

"I cant prove it".

Your right, you can't.

Talk about taking quote out of context. Holy shit. WEAK!

Demonstrating absurdity by being absurd. It appears as though it worked!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,648]

Quote

I am not going to read that, I know more about explosives than you will ever learn, and if wiki claims that gunpowder is an explosive, whoever wrote it needs to remove their heads from their asses.


Do you actually know anything about firearms, explosives, or gunpowder?

BTW try and get gunpowder to explode.

Just try it.

We are not talking about blackpowder either.

That is unless you think gangstas are holding people up with a brown bess musket.

Why don't you enlighten us, with some authoritative cites, about the difference between "gunpowder" and "black powder".

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,648]

Quote

Gunpowder was invented in China c. 1000 A.D. and probably spread to Europe during the Mongol expansion of 1200-1300 A.D., but this has not been proven. The use of gunpowder in Europe was first recorded in 1313. Europeans used gunpowder for cannons, while the Chinese used it primarily for firecrackers. Despite such early knowledge of explosives and their use, China did not pursue the development of weaponry as did the West; ironically, it was through the use of cannons and guns that the Europeans were able to dominate China in the mid-to late-1800s.

In the interests of clarity, when on Dec 27, 2007, I wrote about "some Chinese dude a millenium ago" I was not actually suggesting that guns were invented on the exact date Dec 27, 1007 according to the Gregorian Calendar.

I imagined that anyone with a scrap of common sense would have realized that.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

And legal guns are also used between 400k - 2 million times a year to prevent crime and save lives - I would say the good outweighs the bad.

Mike, lets take a look at this statement and data objectively. What you are saying is that a crime occurs, a gun is used, and the outcome of event is positive. Let’s break that down further. There are actually 3 scenarios that can happen to have a positive outcome

A. Crime occurs, gun is present and used in defense, outcome positive – You gave data on this of 400k - 2 million
B. Crime occurs, gun is present but not pulled out in defense, outcome positive – conveniently this data is missing in your argument
C. Crime occurs, no gun is present by defendant, outcome positive – this data is missing too.

Let’s look further at A. The unknown in this data is what would have happened had the defendant not pulled out the gun, or did not have a gun in the first place. Mike, you and I know both know that a percent of the outcomes would have still been positive even without the use of the gun….we just don’t know what the percent is, but we know it exists.

Also, how come you don’t mention all of the same scenarios, but with a negative outcome. This data is important to look at as well to consider the validity of the one piece of data that you cherry picked.

Feel free to find that data and post it.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[pop 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

And legal guns are also used between 400k - 2 million times a year to prevent crime and save lives - I would say the good outweighs the bad.

Mike, lets take a look at this statement and data objectively. What you are saying is that a crime occurs, a gun is used, and the outcome of event is positive. Let’s break that down further. There are actually 3 scenarios that can happen to have a positive outcome

A. Crime occurs, gun is present and used in defense, outcome positive – You gave data on this of 400k - 2 million
B. Crime occurs, gun is present but not pulled out in defense, outcome positive – conveniently this data is missing in your argument
C. Crime occurs, no gun is present by defendant, outcome positive – this data is missing too.

Let’s look further at A. The unknown in this data is what would have happened had the defendant not pulled out the gun, or did not have a gun in the first place. Mike, you and I know both know that a percent of the outcomes would have still been positive even without the use of the gun….we just don’t know what the percent is, but we know it exists.

Also, how come you don’t mention all of the same scenarios, but with a negative outcome. This data is important to look at as well to consider the validity of the one piece of data that you cherry picked.

Feel free to find that data and post it.

I can’t argue with that rebuttal

7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Gunpowder was invented in China c. 1000 A.D. and probably spread to Europe during the Mongol expansion of 1200-1300 A.D., but this has not been proven. The use of gunpowder in Europe was first recorded in 1313. Europeans used gunpowder for cannons, while the Chinese used it primarily for firecrackers. Despite such early knowledge of explosives and their use, China did not pursue the development of weaponry as did the West; ironically, it was through the use of cannons and guns that the Europeans were able to dominate China in the mid-to late-1800s.

In the interests of clarity, when on Dec 27, 2007, I wrote about "some Chinese dude a millenium ago" I was not actually suggesting that guns were invented on the exact date Dec 27, 1007 according to the Gregorian Calendar.

I imagined that anyone with a scrap of common sense would have realized that.

Well, try being less vague then, professor. When you write something fuzzy about something the Chinese invented 1000 years ago that can propel objects, they're going to read that as gunpowder. It's far more valid assumption than thinking you're talking about a gun 700 years ago. How far would your eyes roll if I talked about what Galileo discovered in the 13th Century?

Once again, you threw out evidence not expecting to be fact checked. And now you're weaseling. You got caught believing that gunpowder was a war tool for the Chinese. Want to tell me how much I'm not paying for gas again too?

[kallend 1,648]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Gunpowder was invented in China c. 1000 A.D. and probably spread to Europe during the Mongol expansion of 1200-1300 A.D., but this has not been proven. The use of gunpowder in Europe was first recorded in 1313. Europeans used gunpowder for cannons, while the Chinese used it primarily for firecrackers. Despite such early knowledge of explosives and their use, China did not pursue the development of weaponry as did the West; ironically, it was through the use of cannons and guns that the Europeans were able to dominate China in the mid-to late-1800s.

In the interests of clarity, when on Dec 27, 2007, I wrote about "some Chinese dude a millenium ago" I was not actually suggesting that guns were invented on the exact date Dec 27, 1007 according to the Gregorian Calendar.

I imagined that anyone with a scrap of common sense would have realized that.

Well, try being less vague then, professor. When you write something fuzzy about something the Chinese invented 1000 years ago that can propel objects, they're going to read that as gunpowder. It's far more valid assumption than thinking you're talking about a gun 700 years ago. How far would your eyes roll if I talked about what Galileo discovered in the 13th Century?

Once again, you threw out evidence not expecting to be fact checked. And now you're weaseling. You got caught believing that gunpowder was a war tool for the Chinese. Want to tell me how much I'm not paying for gas again too?

Absolute rubbish.

The thread was about GUNS, and is about GUNS. Only you seem to think otherwise. The context was always about GUNS.

No-one but you seems to have a hard time figuring it out.

The first detailed description of using "firing cannon" in warfare was in connection with a battle fought in 1126 when the Song army used it against the invading Nuchens. The so-called fire cannon was a tube made of bamboo filled with gunpowder which, when fired, threw a flaming missile towards the enemy.

To be used in warfare in 1126 they had to have been invented earlier than that, unless you think they also invented a time machine a millennium ago.

P.S. AD1126 is rather more than 700 years ago - having a little trouble with your arithmetic today?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

I'm not going to do your homework for you. I've posted the data that I've found and where I've found it. I'd suggest DOJ and UCR statistics, but I doubt they're going to have the specific information you're looking for.

Just an FYI for you - your A and B in the post are both included as DGUs in Kleck's survey. Actually *READING* the data I presented would have shown you that. Again, this shows that you want to argue from emotion and misconception and not facts.

Quote

Let’s look further at A. The unknown in this data is what would have happened had the defendant not pulled out the gun, or did not have a gun in the first place. Mike, you and I know both know that a percent of the outcomes would have still been positive even without the use of the gun….we just don’t know what the percent is, but we know it exists.

The possible results in your scenario range from no harm/no loss up to death. Do you have some sort of point to the question?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[pop 0]

Quote

I'm not going to do your homework for you. I've posted the data that I've found and where I've found it. I'd suggest DOJ and UCR statistics, but I doubt they're going to have the specific information you're looking for.

Just an FYI for you - your A and B in the post are both included as DGUs in Kleck's survey. Actually *READING* the data I presented would have shown you that. Again, this shows that you want to argue from emotion and misconception and not facts.

Quote

Let’s look further at A. The unknown in this data is what would have happened had the defendant not pulled out the gun, or did not have a gun in the first place. Mike, you and I know both know that a percent of the outcomes would have still been positive even without the use of the gun….we just don’t know what the percent is, but we know it exists.

The possible results in your scenario range from no harm/no loss up to death. Do you have some sort of point to the question?

The point is that while this data may be correct, you cant draw conclusions from it. There is nothing in that data that says that the outcome would have been any different in each scenario had the "defendant" NOT had and used a gun. For all we know had the defendant used his head instead of the gun, the outcome would have been the same for each scenario. This 400K-2M is not good data.

7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer

[pop 0]

Just an FYI for you - your A and B in the post are both included as DGUs in Kleck's survey. Actually *READING* the data I presented would have shown you that. Again, this shows that you want to argue from emotion and misconception and not facts.

So why do you omit this data when arguing your point? And I cannot find the data for point C. Could use help on that from your expertise on the subject.

7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer

[kallend 1,648]

Quote

Just an FYI for you - your A and B in the post are both included as DGUs in Kleck's survey. Actually *READING* the data I presented would have shown you that. Again, this shows that you want to argue from emotion and misconception and not facts.

What does quoting Kleck's survey say about you? Kleck's numbers not only defy common sense, they are completely inconsistent with any DoJ analysis.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

"Used his head"

Yup, thar we go agin - if only we wuz SMRT enuf to alredy b out the house when thet robber broke in et 3 am...

What a GREAT answer!! You hear that, all you MILLIONS crime victims each year? All you need to do is USE YOUR HEAD and nothing bad will EVER happen to you!!!

"You can't draw conclusions from it"

Bullshit. You don't LIKE what the data implies.

"This 400k - 2M is not good data"

Then do your OWN survey and refute it. Good luck, VPC and the Brady Bunch has been trying to ever since it came out.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Just an FYI for you - your A and B in the post are both included as DGUs in Kleck's survey. Actually *READING* the data I presented would have shown you that. Again, this shows that you want to argue from emotion and misconception and not facts.

So why do you omit this data when arguing your point? And I cannot find the data for point C. Could use help on that from your expertise on the subject.

The survey didn't ask that question.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Just an FYI for you - your A and B in the post are both included as DGUs in Kleck's survey. Actually *READING* the data I presented would have shown you that. Again, this shows that you want to argue from emotion and misconception and not facts.

What does quoting Kleck's survey say about you? Kleck's numbers not only defy common sense, they are completely inconsistent with any DoJ analysis.

So? You claim your scatter chart is good, when the UCR data shows differently.

Feel free to refute his work - I look forward to reading the paper when it shows up in Criminology

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[pop 0]

Quote

Quote

Just an FYI for you - your A and B in the post are both included as DGUs in Kleck's survey. Actually *READING* the data I presented would have shown you that. Again, this shows that you want to argue from emotion and misconception and not facts.

So why do you omit this data when arguing your point? And I cannot find the data for point C. Could use help on that from your expertise on the subject.

The survey didn't ask that question.

Of course not....that question wouldnt surve the purpose.

7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer

[pop 0]

Quote

"Used his head"

Yup, thar we go agin - if only we wuz SMRT enuf to alredy b out the house when thet robber broke in et 3 am...

Where was this guy's head? (livendive example: http://www.wapt.com/news/14962750/detail.html

How about taht black guy, the expert, who shot himself in the foot, in front of the class, whilke claiming to be an expoert. Where was his head. A gun is not a solution, its a problem.

7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Just an FYI for you - your A and B in the post are both included as DGUs in Kleck's survey. Actually *READING* the data I presented would have shown you that. Again, this shows that you want to argue from emotion and misconception and not facts.

So why do you omit this data when arguing your point? And I cannot find the data for point C. Could use help on that from your expertise on the subject.

The survey didn't ask that question.

Of course not....that question wouldnt surve the purpose.

Since the survey was to establish the amount of times a WEAPON was used to prevent a crime, asking if they DIDNT use a weapon wasn't going to provide useful information.

Feel free to do a survey of your own, however.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

"Used his head"

Yup, thar we go agin - if only we wuz SMRT enuf to alredy b out the house when thet robber broke in et 3 am...

Where was this guy's head? (livendive example: http://www.wapt.com/news/14962750/detail.html

How about taht black guy, the expert, who shot himself in the foot, in front of the class, whilke claiming to be an expoert. Where was his head. A gun is not a solution, its a problem.

Oh, bullshit again.

If you TRULY cannot separate an inanimate object from some idiot's USE of that object, then I'm done talking to you.

Enjoy the Brady Bunch/VPC websites - you'll be right at home.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[pop 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

"Used his head"

Yup, thar we go agin - if only we wuz SMRT enuf to alredy b out the house when thet robber broke in et 3 am...

Where was this guy's head? (livendive example: http://www.wapt.com/news/14962750/detail.html

How about taht black guy, the expert, who shot himself in the foot, in front of the class, whilke claiming to be an expoert. Where was his head. A gun is not a solution, its a problem.

Oh, bullshit again.

If you TRULY cannot separate an inanimate object from some idiot's USE of that object, then I'm done talking to you.

Enjoy the Brady Bunch/VPC websites - you'll be right at home.

Guns make it really simple to kill someone. It works better then beating someone to death with a book, afterall that's what its designed to do. That's why guns are the number one choice of weapon for military and police officers.

7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer