mnealtx 0
Recommended Posts
kallend 1,635
QuoteQuoteFor you it's all benefit and ignore the costs.
Another lie - I've never said that there are no costs.
Right, you just IGNORE them. Please provide links to the posts where you ever mentioned the costs to society of gun ownership, other than to dismiss them.
QuoteGiven the proven correlation between gun ownership and violent death (Harvard study) and the difference between US homicide rates and those in other western industrialized nations, it seems that the balance between cost and benefit is one sided, on the cost side.
Speaking of "ignoring the beneficial effects"...
Reading problem again? "Balance" includes consideration of both sides.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteFor you it's all benefit and ignore the costs.
Another lie - I've never said that there are no costs.
Right, you just IGNORE them.
Like you do with beneficial effects?
QuotePlease provide links to the posts where you ever mentioned the costs to society of gun ownership, other than to dismiss them.
Feel free to use that handy link up there called 'search' - so simple, even a perfesser can do it.
QuoteQuoteGiven the proven correlation between gun ownership and violent death (Harvard study) and the difference between US homicide rates and those in other western industrialized nations, it seems that the balance between cost and benefit is one sided, on the cost side.
Speaking of "ignoring the beneficial effects"...
Reading problem again? "Balance" includes consideration of both sides.
No, a posting problem - the lack of any mention of beneficial effects in any of your posts threw me off.
I also don't agree with the "proven correlation", since the Kates/Mauser study (also Harvard, since we're namedropping) doesn't come to the same conclusion.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
rhaig 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteFor you it's all benefit and ignore the costs.
Another lie - I've never said that there are no costs.
Right, you just IGNORE them. Please provide links to the posts where you ever mentioned the costs to society of gun ownership, other than to dismiss them.
This is rich. You, just a few posts above, noted that you specifically chose your words to mean exactly what you meant, even though in context others inferred additional meaning.
Yet here, you can't take his statement as a simple statement, but insist that he show where he's mentioned something he's not talking about.
--
Rob
Rob
kallend 1,635
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteFor you it's all benefit and ignore the costs.
Another lie - I've never said that there are no costs.
Right, you just IGNORE them. Please provide links to the posts where you ever mentioned the costs to society of gun ownership, other than to dismiss them.
This is rich. You, just a few posts above, noted that you specifically chose your words to mean exactly what you meant, even though in context others inferred additional meaning.
Yet here, you can't take his statement as a simple statement, but insist that he show where he's mentioned something he's not talking about.
You also having the same reading problem?
I said he IGNORES the costs. He then said "I've never said that there are no costs." Completely consistent with what I wrote - he's never said ANYTHING about the costs, which IS ignoring them.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 1,635
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteFor you it's all benefit and ignore the costs.
Another lie - I've never said that there are no costs.
Right, you just IGNORE them.
Like you do with beneficial effects?
An easily disproven falsehood.
Post #81 I wrote " I acknowledge that self defense is an appropriate use of a firearm. "
Also
www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2709142;search_string=hunting%20self%20defense;#2709142
Quote
QuotePlease provide links to the posts where you ever mentioned the costs to society of gun ownership, other than to dismiss them.
Feel free to use that handy link up there called 'search' - so simple, even a perfesser can do it.
www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=search_results&search_forum=forum_35&search_string=cost+to+society+of+gun+ownership&search_type=AND&search_fields=sb&search_time=&search_user_username=mnealtx&sb=score&mh=25
There is only one, and I don't think it supports your assertion.
Now you prove me wrong if you can. Quote
QuoteQuoteGiven the proven correlation between gun ownership and violent death (Harvard study) and the difference between US homicide rates and those in other western industrialized nations, it seems that the balance between cost and benefit is one sided, on the cost side.
Speaking of "ignoring the beneficial effects"...
Reading problem again? "Balance" includes consideration of both sides.
No, a posting problem - the lack of any mention of beneficial effects in any of your posts threw me off.
Already disproven falsehood.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
rhaig 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteFor you it's all benefit and ignore the costs.
Another lie - I've never said that there are no costs.
Right, you just IGNORE them. Please provide links to the posts where you ever mentioned the costs to society of gun ownership, other than to dismiss them.
This is rich. You, just a few posts above, noted that you specifically chose your words to mean exactly what you meant, even though in context others inferred additional meaning.
Yet here, you can't take his statement as a simple statement, but insist that he show where he's mentioned something he's not talking about.
You also having the same reading problem?
I said he IGNORES the costs. He then said "I've never said that there are no costs." Completely consistent with what I wrote - he's never said ANYTHING about the costs, which IS ignoring them.
your words are well chosen. I didn't say yours were wrong.
You did say he ignores the costs. He said he never said there were no costs. Those 2 statements are perfectly consistent with each other. Then you demand that he produce links to posts where he mentioned the costs. (when you've already stated he ignored them, and he's already stated he didn't say anything about the costs)
so you're asking him to produce something that both you and he have already said (and you've quoted at least twice) that he didn't write anything about.
so no. there is no reading problem on my end. I don't think you have a reading problem. I don't even think you have a comprehension problem. I think you're just being stubborn.
(fictional character dave: I have oranges
kallend: what about the bananas??
dave: I didn't mention bananas!
kallend: show me that you don't have any bananas!!
dave: dude! I didn't say shit about bananas!
kallend: that fucker has bananas! I told you!!
dave: dave's not here man...
}
--
Rob
Rob
kallend 1,635
So you agree with me that mnealtx ignores the costs to society of gun ownership, and that he acknowledged as much. OK.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Kennedy 0
QuoteSo you agree with me that mnealtx ignores the costs to society of gun ownership, and that he acknowledged as much. OK.
Meanwhile you "acknowldge" that benefits exist and then completely discount them. What's the difference. There are costs to society from car ownership, computers, alcohol, and all kinds of things. What's your point?
And if you really want to play word games, riddle me this:
If a recognized benefit is as significant as a recognized cost, and the recognized benefit occurs far more often than the cost, how does a person conclude the total cost is higher than the total benefit?
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
kallend 1,635
QuoteQuoteSo you agree with me that mnealtx ignores the costs to society of gun ownership, and that he acknowledged as much. OK.
Meanwhile you "acknowldge" that benefits exist and then completely discount them.
FALSE
Quote
What's the difference. There are costs to society from car ownership, computers, alcohol, and all kinds of things. What's your point?
I've made my point many times already. You just ignore anything that disagrees with your viewpoint, as you've pretty much admitted in this thread.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
mnealtx 0
QuoteAn easily disproven falsehood.
Post #81 I wrote " I acknowledge that self defense is an appropriate use of a firearm. "
Then by that logic, my saying that convicted criminals should not have guns is acknowledgement of the 'costs to society'.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Kennedy 0
QuoteQuoteMeanwhile you "acknowldge" that benefits exist and then completely discount them.
FALSE
You said self defense (defensive gun use) was an "appropriate" use. Since there are 800,000 to three million DGUs every year depending on your chosen study (best study estimating a bit over two million), I've wondered how the crime committed out weigh crimes prevented and all the other "appropriate" uses, whether you like them or not. If you're not discounting them.
QuoteI've made my point many times already. You just ignore anything that disagrees with your viewpoint, as you've pretty much admitted in this thread.
I'm really wondering what your point is. You say self defense is a good use for guns. Then you say the costs to society outweigh the benefits. Then you say you don't want to deny folks the right to have guns.
So what, you see a problem but don't have a solution?
As to your jab about me ignoring things tha t don't support my point of veiw, you are sadly mistaken. Unlike you, I make it a point to review and consider sources supporting both side. I don't take anything that purports to support my views at face value. You know, like the "so many children die to guns every day" study that counted twenty year olds and felons killed by victims and law enforcement. Or the Kellerman study that claimed a person is 43 times more likely to be killed by his own gun than use it in self defense. Or the Bellesiles book that claimed gun ownership was rare and the NRA was a fraud. You know the one that cost Jim his Bancroft prize and his job at Emory U. Or the press release about how guns are bad because you'll kill your friends or they'll kill you when the FBI study listed "acquaintances" which includes delivery guys, anybody you talk to, and if you're a gang banger it includes enemy gang bangers.
Getting back to costs, yes I acknowledge that guns can be misused. In a society with problems like ours, and violence as common as it is, it's just about inevitable (even islands that outlaw all gun ownership have gun crime). But I've come to the conclusion that they do not do more harm than good, so I support gun rights. The fact that it's a constitutional right encourages me as well. Lastly, since there is no way gun control would stop criminals from getting and using them, I see no point in banning them for everyone.
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
mnealtx 0
Well said, Kennedy.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Kennedy 0
One more story for everyone who's afraid gun owners will be killed by their own guns. Go ahead and google cy waits, parada and see what you get. Somehow, the guy with the gun kept the crazy guy with a knife (A) from hurting anyone and (B) at bay until police arrived to make the arrest.
But if unarmed people will take my gun and use it against me, wouldn't a guy with a knife have a bigger advantage? [/sarcasm]
But if unarmed people will take my gun and use it against me, wouldn't a guy with a knife have a bigger advantage? [/sarcasm]
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Another lie - I've never said that there are no costs.
Speaking of "ignoring the beneficial effects"...
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites