This should make some gun enthusiasts crazy

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Then why do you keep going on about the TOOL, and not the CRIMINAL?

I am not. I'm discussing gun OWNERSHIP (mostly carrying), which includes gun ownership by both criminals AND law abiding citizens. Discussing guns per se in this context is useless - guns on shelves do not commit crimes AND do not prevent crimes.

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

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Then why do you keep going on about the TOOL, and not the CRIMINAL?

I am not. I'm discussing gun OWNERSHIP (mostly carrying), which includes gun ownership by both criminals AND law abiding citizens. Discussing guns per se in this context is useless - guns on shelves do not commit crimes AND do not prevent crimes.

Neither do owned guns. The owners of the guns are a different story.

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

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

The crime statistics in Europe seems not to support your conclusion. Despite "no-carry" gun laws and criminals allegedly ignoring those laws, the violent crime in Europe still seem to be less than in USA, so overall impact on law-abiding citizens is still positive.

Ignoring your homeland, of course. And ignoring the trends in England since they shifted from few guns to no legal guns.

Quote

Again, crime was not prevented, it was diverted to another person. And this "worked" pretty much the same way as I prevented this crime against myself simply by not being there - no guns were needed.

Not being where? You can avoid ever being in a area where crime happens? No, you can't. The difference between nice and not in the bay area can be 2 city blocks.

You insist the crime was diverted, but you don't know if the criminal shit his pants and decided instead to become a petty burglar instead. And if he did find an unarmed victim to target instead, maybe that person should have armed himself. At least in that state, the person had free will to decide, unlike us Californians.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Neither do owned guns. The owners of the guns are a different story.

'Gun ownership' includes discussing people owning guns, and that's what we are discussing.

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

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Neither do owned guns. The owners of the guns are a different story.

'Gun ownership' includes discussing people owning guns, and that's what we are discussing.

So, you agree that it's not the tool, but the USE of the tool, whether for good or ill?

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

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

That gives them another advantage, yes. Moot point? No. Back to the force continuum with you - and actually READ it this time.

If some 110 lb 16 year old punk says 'gimme your wallet' I'll laugh in his face. If he has a knife, I'm not going to be laughing.

Ok, you are not going to be laughing. What is your point here?

Quote

That's correct, criminals DO ignore those laws - that's why there's STILL gun crimes and knife crimes in the UK, Germany, etc.... get it, now?

Good, at least you admitted that it is not realistic to expect the law to prevent ALL crimes. Do you agree that making some behavior illegal reduces the number of violations, and when the penalty for the violation is increased, there are typically less crimes committed (assuming the decrease is not linear, and the number is still not zero)?

Then the main question is whether there more gun crime than in U.S. and Brazil, or less gun crime? If yes, this means the gun ban works. If no, this means gun ban does not work. That simple.

Quote

Conjecture - you have no way to know that.

Just look on recidivism rates - those include people who went through being arrested, convicted and serving some jail time. This guy wasn't even arrested, just shown a gun for a few seconds. Why would he stop his criminal activities?

Quote

That's the EXACT logic you're basing your anti-gun argument on, so why not?

Not at all. The first time I've seen this argument used by Ron and you here - saying that if gun ban does not prevent all gun crimes, then the gun ban is useless. This is quite silly argument, so I'm really surprised you used it too.

Quote

Nope - there still is. That's why your insistence that gun bans are going to result in less crime is ludicrous.

It will result in less GUN crime, and you acknowledged it yourself. You just claimed Europe has different criminals :)

Quote

Prove your assertion.

See kepldiver's link which compares murder rate Brazil versus U.S. versus some European countries.

Quote

I've read excerpts from it on other sites, which were given you - I believe it was either Ron or Kelpdiver that provided an op-ed from one of the authors.

That's what I'm saying - you did not read the study, you read someone's (who is of course pro-gun) opinion about the study, but you still say the STUDY mentions that. This is hearsay.

Quote

So, you're saying that the culture you grow up in has NOTHING to do with your outlook on things? Bullshit.

No, I'm saying that if you think culture (which is also based on gun ownership being mostly illegal with a few exceptions) is the reason here, you need to prove your point.

Quote

Bus stop incident, after you said he should have turned the guy over to the cops.

Where? Link to the post, please.

Quote

Yup, they do - and the military is still confiscating and destroying weapons 10 years later.

Which means they didn't enforce it before.

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

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Ignoring your homeland, of course.

So despite the provided Google translation of the entire official document you still claim I'm lying?

Quote

And ignoring the trends in England since they shifted from few guns to no legal guns.

I already provided JohnRich with the latest gun crimes statistics available from Home Office when he made similar claims. This statistics showed that the gun crime there was going DOWN. Never heard back from him yet. Maybe you will provide the official information about "trends in England"?

Quote

Not being where? You can avoid ever being in a area where crime happens? No, you can't. The difference between nice and not in the bay area can be 2 city blocks.

Well, you do not have to live in SF or Oakland.

Quote

You insist the crime was diverted, but you don't know if the criminal shit his pants and decided instead to become a petty burglar instead. And if he did find an unarmed victim to target instead, maybe that person should have armed himself. At least in that state, the person had free will to decide, unlike us Californians.

I can't find the recidivism rate for robberies, but from what I remember it was quite high, so I doubt he'd shit his pants just from being shown a gun if some criminals still rob after serving jail time.

Not everyone wants to arm himself, and some of us feel safer when others around are unarmed too. Sounds egoistic? That's exactly how pro-gun lobby sounds.

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

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

That gives them another advantage, yes. Moot point? No. Back to the force continuum with you - and actually READ it this time.

If some 110 lb 16 year old punk says 'gimme your wallet' I'll laugh in his face. If he has a knife, I'm not going to be laughing.

Ok, you are not going to be laughing. What is your point here?

The point that a 110 lb, 16 year old punk is not a physical threat to me - he has no way to force my compliance -until he pulls out a weapon.

Quote

Quote

That's correct, criminals DO ignore those laws - that's why there's STILL gun crimes and knife crimes in the UK, Germany, etc.... get it, now?

Good, at least you admitted that it is not realistic to expect the law to prevent ALL crimes. Do you agree that making some behavior illegal reduces the number of violations, and when the penalty for the violation is increased, there are typically less crimes committed (assuming the decrease is not linear, and the number is still not zero)?

I'll agree it will deter SOME criminals, if you agree that the possibility of a victim being armed deters SOME criminals.

Quote

Then the main question is whether there more gun crime than in U.S. and Brazil, or less gun crime? If yes, this means the gun ban works. If no, this means gun ban does not work. That simple.

It WOULD be that simple, but it's not because you're working on a false assumption.

CRIMINALS DON'T OBEY BANS - that's why they HAVE a gun in the FIRST PLACE.

Quote

Quote

Conjecture - you have no way to know that.

Just look on recidivism rates - those include people who went through being arrested, convicted and serving some jail time. This guy wasn't even arrested, just shown a gun for a few seconds. Why would he stop his criminal activities?

Why would he stop his criminal activities just because he can't get a gun, then?

Quote

Quote

That's the EXACT logic you're basing your anti-gun argument on, so why not?

Not at all. The first time I've seen this argument used by Ron and you here - saying that if gun ban does not prevent all gun crimes, then the gun ban is useless. This is quite silly argument, so I'm really surprised you used it too.

That is the EXACT argument you used on spree killings, if you recall. "None of the spree killers were stopped by gun owners, so owning a gun is useless" - sound familiar? Ron and I used it in reverse as sarcasm, and to prove the point that CRIMINALS DON'T OBEY GUN LAWS.

Quote

Quote

Nope - there still is. That's why your insistence that gun bans are going to result in less crime is ludicrous.

It will result in less GUN crime, and you acknowledged it yourself. You just claimed Europe has different criminals :)

The crime is still occurring, just with different weapons being used by the criminals. Big whoopty shit.

Quote

Quote

Prove your assertion.

See kepldiver's link which compares murder rate Brazil versus U.S. versus some European countries.

So what. Prove your assertion.

Quote

Quote

I've read excerpts from it on other sites, which were given you - I believe it was either Ron or Kelpdiver that provided an op-ed from one of the authors.

That's what I'm saying - you did not read the study, you read someone's (who is of course pro-gun) opinion about the study, but you still say the STUDY mentions that. This is hearsay.

So is every fucking thing you've said in these arguments, and yet we've responded to your points. If you're not going to argue from an honest viewpoint, then let us know.

Quote

Quote

So, you're saying that the culture you grow up in has NOTHING to do with your outlook on things? Bullshit.

No, I'm saying that if you think culture (which is also based on gun ownership being mostly illegal with a few exceptions) is the reason here, you need to prove your point.

Ok - how many people from the Hamptons are members of the Crips/Bloods?

Quote

Quote

Bus stop incident, after you said he should have turned the guy over to the cops.

Where? Link to the post, please.

YOU made the post, do your own damn search.

Quote

Quote

Yup, they do - and the military is still confiscating and destroying weapons 10 years later.

Which means they didn't enforce it before.

Means that you can NEVER have a perfect ban and criminals are STILL going to get guns.

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

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

You mean to tell me that guns jump off of shelves and tables and kill people????

No, I'm not. Only an idiot would think that by saying "Guns do not kill people" he actually made a point, or even said something worth discussion.

Only an idiot would say guns do kill people

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

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

So, you agree that it's not the tool, but the USE of the tool, whether for good or ill?

That's exactly what we are discussing - how the gun availability* and gun ownership** affects violent crime rate, and gun crime rate. We're also speculating what would happen with those rates if laws covering gun availability* and ownership** change either way, like switching U.S. to Europe-like laws or vice versa.

*gun availability does not mean just having guns stored somewhere, it means a) which guns (if any) are available for purchase by prospective owners and on which terms, and b) how easy is it for a criminal to obtain a gun illegally (going to black market arms dealer versus gun theft or straw purchase)

**gun ownership does not cover guns stored on shelves, it means people owning, and possibly carrying, guns - either legally, or illegally.

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

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

So, you agree that it's not the tool, but the USE of the tool, whether for good or ill?

That's exactly what we are discussing - how the gun availability* and gun ownership** affects violent crime rate, and gun crime rate. We're also speculating what would happen with those rates if laws covering gun availability* and ownership** change either way, like switching U.S. to Europe-like laws or vice versa.

We did that experiment already - it was called DC, Chicago, NYC, etc. Didn't make a difference.

Quote

*gun availability does not mean just having guns stored somewhere, it means a) which guns (if any) are available for purchase by prospective owners and on which terms, and b) how easy is it for a criminal to obtain a gun illegally (going to black market arms dealer versus gun theft or straw purchase)

Yuri Orlov doesn't hang out on street corners.

Quote

**gun ownership does not cover guns stored on shelves, it means people owning, and possibly carrying, guns - either legally, or illegally.

The only difference between the two is that only the criminals are taking theirs into places they're not supposed to.

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

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Only an idiot would say guns do kill people

Stating it just like this, and not quoted out of context (like "Guns do kill people in the hands of gun owners") - I agree.

Guns, however, make an ordinary person potentially more dangerous, and capable to do much more damage than he would be able to do otherwise.

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

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Only an idiot would say guns do kill people

Stating it just like this, and not quoted out of context (like "Guns do kill people in the hands of gun owners") - I agree.

Guns, however, make an ordinary person potentially more dangerous, and capable to do much more damage than he would be able to do otherwise.

And the same holds true in defense - which is why police have them, and why some estimates show up to half a million crimes are prevented by armed victims per year. link

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

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

We did that experiment already - it was called DC, Chicago, NYC, etc. Didn't make a difference.

How do you see it didn't make a difference?

Quote

The only difference between the two is that only the criminals are taking theirs into places they're not supposed to.

It won't help them to obtain illegal gun if there is no gun in such place (or if the place is heavily guarded - I haven't heard for a while about someone burglarizing a police station for guns).

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

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

We did that experiment already - it was called DC, Chicago, NYC, etc. Didn't make a difference.

How do you see it didn't make a difference?

Because their crime rates aren't any different than gun-owning cities. Some higher, some lower. Washington DC is the 'murder capitol' of the US about 25-30% of the time, and they had a ban up until this year.

Quote

Quote

The only difference between the two is that only the criminals are taking theirs into places they're not supposed to.

It won't help them to obtain illegal gun if there is no gun in such place (or if the place is heavily guarded - I haven't heard for a while about someone burglarizing a police station for guns).

Show me ONE place that has a perfect ban on firearms - no way for the criminals to get any.

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

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

And the same holds true in defense - which is why police have them,

Indeed. The benefits to society for allowing the police to carry guns are larger than drawbacks. However it is still regulated - I don't think every U.S. police officer can carry any kind of gun, including sniper or machine guns. In Europe not every police officer carries a gun either.

Quote

and why some estimates show up to half a million crimes are prevented by armed victims per year. link

"were prevented" would be the best explanation, as the survey is at least 17 years old. And where does it say about prevented crimes? I read the article, but didn't find it. It mostly talks about "defensive gun use", which may or may not be the same as "preventing a crime", and somehow you used the largest number, where the range provided is 800K-2.5M in five years.

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

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Because their crime rates aren't any different than gun-owning cities. Some higher, some lower. Washington DC is the 'murder capitol' of the US about 25-30% of the time, and they had a ban up until this year.

Really murder capitol of the US? Even Baltimore has higher murder rate for 2008.

Also if I read this table properly, it looks like Houston, TX has higher number of violent crimes than NYC. Are guns not allowed in Houston?

Quote

Show me ONE place that has a perfect ban on firearms - no way for the criminals to get any.

There is nothing perfect in this world - but it does not mean we shouldn't even try.

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

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

And the same holds true in defense - which is why police have them,

Indeed. The benefits to society for allowing the police to carry guns are larger than drawbacks. However it is still regulated - I don't think every U.S. police officer can carry any kind of gun, including sniper or machine guns. In Europe not every police officer carries a gun either.

And what does 'carrying any type of gun' have to do with common crime? Are you going to CONTINUE trying to move the goalposts every time your point gets disproven?

Quote

Quote

and why some estimates show up to half a million crimes are prevented by armed victims per year. link

"were prevented" would be the best explanation, as the survey is at least 17 years old.

So? Doesn't mean the information isn't valid.

Quote

And where does it say about prevented crimes? I read the article, but didn't find it. It mostly talks about "defensive gun use", which may or may not be the same as "preventing a crime"

Read more carefully, then:

"We nailed down that each use being reported was a bona fide defensive use against a human being in connection with a crime where there was an actual confrontation between victim and offender."

Quote

, and somehow you used the largest number, where the range provided is 800K-2.5M in five years.

Again, you need to read more carefully:

"Our results ended up indicating, depending on which figures you prefer to use, anywhere from 800,000 on up to 2.4, 2.5 million defensive uses of guns against human beings -- not against animals -- by civilians each year. "

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

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Because their crime rates aren't any different than gun-owning cities. Some higher, some lower. Washington DC is the 'murder capitol' of the US about 25-30% of the time, and they had a ban up until this year.

Really murder capitol of the US? Even Baltimore has higher murder rate for 2008.

Did I *say* that DC was the 'murder capitol' for 2008? No, I didn't.

Quote

Also if I read this table properly, it looks like Houston, TX has higher number of violent crimes than NYC. Are guns not allowed in Houston?

We've already stipulated that guns don't cause or prevent crimes, so what is your point?

Quote

Quote

Show me ONE place that has a perfect ban on firearms - no way for the criminals to get any.

There is nothing perfect in this world - but it does not mean we shouldn't even try.

So, even though it's proven that the criminals can STILL get guns after the ban, it's better to keep the law abiding at a disadvantage to the criminals.

Yeah, that makes a LOT of sense. NOT.

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

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Are you going to CONTINUE trying to move the goalposts every time your point gets disproven?

It seems to be common illusion of some pro-gun posters - they think if they write ten times that someone's point was proven false, or that they provided "facts and references", it would somehow make it true.

Quote

So? Doesn't mean the information isn't valid.

You'd have hard time proving this information is still valid.

Quote

"We nailed down that each use being reported was a bona fide defensive use against a human being in connection with a crime where there was an actual confrontation between victim and offender."

Yes, I read that, and I found that they did not use "preventing a crime" there. In fact you read the phrase carefully, someone who was caught while committing a burglary and brandished a gun to get out safely could claim "bona fide defensive use against a human being in connection with a crime" as well!

Quote

Again, you need to read more carefully:

"Our results ended up indicating, depending on which figures you prefer to use, anywhere from 800,000 on up to 2.4, 2.5 million defensive uses of guns against human beings -- not against animals -- by civilians each year. "

So where it says about prevented crimes?

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

[crewkeith 0]

this guy seems to think if a law was passed saying no one can have guns the criminals will obey that law. THEY ARE CRIMINALS THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT THE LAWS. THEY DON'T GET THEIR GUNS LEGALLY IN THE FIRST PLACE. A BAN JUST DISARMS LAW ABIDING CITIZENS. DON'T OWN A GUN IF YOU DON'T WANT TO. I DON'T CARE. DON'T TRY TO TAKE AWAY MY RIGHTS. there are plenty of countries that have gun bans, go to one o f those if you are that uncomfortable. i'm done here

The skies are no longer safe

I'm back

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Are you going to CONTINUE trying to move the goalposts every time your point gets disproven?

It seems to be common illusion of some pro-gun posters - they think if they write ten times that someone's point was proven false, or that they provided "facts and references", it would somehow make it true.

Odd - YOU are the one that keeps bringing in more and more things.

What's next? A couple rocket launchers?

Quote

Quote

So? Doesn't mean the information isn't valid.

You'd have hard time proving this information is still valid.

Nope - ball's in YOUR court on that one.

Quote

Quote

"We nailed down that each use being reported was a bona fide defensive use against a human being in connection with a crime where there was an actual confrontation between victim and offender."

Yes, I read that, and I found that they did not use "preventing a crime" there. In fact you read the phrase carefully, someone who was caught while committing a burglary and brandished a gun to get out safely could claim "bona fide defensive use against a human being in connection with a crime" as well!

Of course, the problem there is the START of the paragraph, where he differentiates between defensive use and criminal use.

Or, for that matter, the REST of the sentence where he talks about victim and offender.

Sorry.

Quote

Quote

Again, you need to read more carefully:

"Our results ended up indicating, depending on which figures you prefer to use, anywhere from 800,000 on up to 2.4, 2.5 million defensive uses of guns against human beings -- not against animals -- by civilians each year. "

So where it says about prevented crimes?

Go back and re-read the first bit of the paragraph again. If you forget that easy, write it on your hand so you can refer to it when you get back down to the numbers part.

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

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Did I *say* that DC was the 'murder capitol' for 2008? No, I didn't.

You claimed that "Washington DC is the 'murder capitol' of the US". Since it was not at least in 2008 (which is recent enough to be covered by "is"), your claim is not valid.

Quote

We've already stipulated that guns don't cause or prevent crimes, so what is your point?

My point is that someone in this post claimed that "We did that experiment already" (regarding changing gun availability and that it "Didn't make a difference". He even mentioned NYC there if you can see! So the question is valid, and relevant.

Quote

So, even though it's proven that the criminals can STILL get guns after the ban, it's better to keep the law abiding at a disadvantage to the criminals.

Yes, Houston versus NYC statistics about violent crime shows that despite criminals still being able to get guns, the violent crime rate in NYC per 100K is almost twice less than in Houston. So while it indeed keeps roughly 1/4 of law abiding as disadvantage to the criminals (25% according to this source), it still provides more safety for the overall population.

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

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Did I *say* that DC was the 'murder capitol' for 2008? No, I didn't.

You claimed that "Washington DC is the 'murder capitol' of the US".

I did, did I? Sure about that? Let's go to the replay:

Quote

Washington DC is the 'murder capitol' of the US about 25-30% of the time

Quote

Since it was not at least in 2008 (which is recent enough to be covered by "is"), your claim is not valid.

You were saying?

Quote

Quote

We've already stipulated that guns don't cause or prevent crimes, so what is your point?

My point is that someone in this post claimed that "We did that experiment already" (regarding changing gun availability and that it "Didn't make a difference". He even mentioned NYC there if you can see! So the question is valid, and relevant.

Your info does not disprove my statement. What part of "some higher, some lower" gave you the difficulty?

Quote

Quote

So, even though it's proven that the criminals can STILL get guns after the ban, it's better to keep the law abiding at a disadvantage to the criminals.

Yes, Houston versus NYC statistics about violent crime shows that despite criminals still being able to get guns, the violent crime rate in NYC per 100K is almost twice less than in Houston.

Ok, so? More criminals, more crime.

Quote

So while it indeed keeps roughly 1/4 of law abiding as disadvantage to the criminals (25% according to this source), it still provides more safety for the overall population.

Nope. Sure doesn't. Just means that the victims are prevented from effective means of defense.

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

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Odd - YOU are the one that keeps bringing in more and more things.

You must be kidding.

Quote

Nope - ball's in YOUR court on that one.

Ok, I'm saying this information is outdated, and therefore may not represent current situation. 17 years is significant time to support such a statement. Now it's in YOUR court.

Quote

Quote

So where it says about prevented crimes?

Go back and re-read the first bit of the paragraph again.