Recommended Posts
rhaig 0
QuoteQuoteare you stating that you believe a gun ban would lower violent crime by 25% simply by eliminating gun crime?
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.
so you believe the criminals that turned in their guns, and/or can't find another criminal to buy guns from, are just going to stop committing all violent crime? Is that correct? Just trying to be clear on your idea.
--
Rob
Rob
vanair 0
Hi guys,
New voice here, read this, a little long but very interesting
http://www.davekopel.com/2a/mags/hold_your_fire.htm
A man with a gun is a citizen, A man without a gun is a subject.
New voice here, read this, a little long but very interesting
http://www.davekopel.com/2a/mags/hold_your_fire.htm
A man with a gun is a citizen, A man without a gun is a subject.
Quote
so you believe the criminals that turned in their guns, and/or can't find another criminal to buy guns from, are just going to stop committing all violent crime?
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. *
Quote
The various resistance movements did not fight back with hugs and teddy bears. They used firearms and explosives.
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. *
rhaig 0
Quote
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).
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).
I didn't realize you were such a study on criminology. Wait, this is all conjecture isn't it....
In any case, we won't ever be able to prove either side of this argument. So until then, I'll call you and your ilk "gun grabbers" or "hoplophobes" or "members of the million moron march" (not so catchy, though I like the alliteration) and you can call us whatever you want.
I promise not to ever force you to own a gun.--
Rob
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. *
Ron 7
QuoteSo after you bragged so much how you "proved me wrong",
Didn't brag about it... I did it and it is here for all to see.
QuoteIt'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.
You mean by proving your positions to be incorrect and using facts and data to back up our positions and destroy yours?
At least I didn't wish your family to die like you did mine
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
Ron 7
QuoteI 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).
There you go trying to obscure instead of just admitting you were wrong.
And yes... you clearly were wrong....Again it is here for everyone to see.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
Shooting kills 15-year-old girl, wounds 3 others
Yet another stupid crime with yet another victim.
Yet another stupid crime with yet another victim.
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
Quote
At least I didn't wish your family to die like you did mine
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. *
QuoteShooting kills 15-year-old girl, wounds 3 others
Yet another stupid crime with yet another victim.
Agreed another stupid crime.
QuotePolice said the shooting happened Sunday evening at an apartment complex. A car with four men inside pulled into the courtyard and several shots were fired.
Sounds like gang bangers ... hardly anything that resembles law abiding citizens. Yes guns made their crime easier to commit, but are we to believe that they would be at home hugging their teddy bears if there was a gun ban?
Try not to worry about the things you have no control over
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuote
Except for you, yes - you're only worried if it's GUN crime, remember?
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.
Too bad your 'solution' doesn't work - the stats show that.
QuoteQuote
You have? Well, by all means, point them out to me, where you asked that exact question all those times.
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.
I never claimed to have a solution to violent crime - that's YOUR strawman, George.
QuoteQuote
And ESPECIALLY point out where I've said I'd do nothing about crime or criminals - I *REALLY* want to see those posts.
You're again pretending in form of question that I said something which I didn't. Lame.
Funny, you never claim it's lame when YOU do it over and over and over again.
QuoteEveryone 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.
And yet ANOTHER mention of your strawman. Sorry, ain't playing your game.
QuoteQuote
Oh, now we're talking about countries? How about you come back to the USA, George.
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?
USA isn't Europe. We're talking about US laws, not Europe's. Feel free to start another thread for that.
Of course, the Euro bans don't prove your point, either, since they aren't preventing the gun crimes like you say they will - you know, that whole comparison to the Singapore drug ban.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
mnealtx 0
That's exactly what he thinks.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Quote
Yes guns made their crime easier to commit,
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?
Quote
but are we to believe that they would be at home hugging their teddy bears if there was a gun ban?
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. *
When faced up against superior fire power, sometimes it is better to fade into the background in order to live to fight another day. Plus most of these countries you mentioned had underground resistance movements which did their parts towards helping the allies defeat the enemy. The various resistance movements did not fight back with hugs and teddy bears. They used firearms and explosives.
Try not to worry about the things you have no control over
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites