Liberals Beware!

[Oso]

I just purchased my first firearm in 9 years.

Smith M&P, 9mm medium frame.

it's pretty sweet.

doing the concealed carry class next weekend.

[Black Jack II]

Nice....!!

The socalist state I live in frowns on the CCW. They seem to have a bit of a hard time understanding the Constitution.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

True. However they see nothing wrong with criminals having concealed carry...I have yet to see them do any thing functional to stop them anyway.

[Oso]

yea, been looking at it since early this year. the gunshop owner said he thought it might make pistol of the year for 07.

my girl started going to shoot at the range all on her own a few months back and decided she was going to purchase and carry so we are doing the class together.

she decided on the compact version of the M&P after looking at the Glock and the Taurus Millenium series....LOL, I guess we're Mr. and Mrs. Smith now :p

We've even started talking about building a range in the basement.

[rogue]

Screw conceal carry!:mad: Carry it low and exposed if you want to discourage the low lifes from messing with you.:D

Welcome to the CCW fold.:)

BTW, Keep track of how often you actually carry. I cut back after many trips back to the car when I'd remember handguns were a no-no in certain restaurants.

[Oso]

well, a month or so ago a drug deal gone bad resulted in a kid dead in the street...my street.

and lately, I'm actually seeing drug deals go down at a couple of spots within a 1/4 mile of the house as I drive home.

so, while I haven't owned a firearm of any type since 2001, i'd been feeling it might be time again and then the tale end of 07 ended up being pretty weird around here.

but, yea, in NC, you can't carry anyplace that serves alcohol. plus the usual schools, banks, liquor stores.

[kwaichang]

Guns, Smoking what else is our Government going to take away ??? Oh I know ALL OF OUR RIGHTS. Can you say Heil Hitler or Heil Prez. KC

[Vash]

http://airbornecombatengineer.typepad.com/airborne_combat_engineer/2006/05/mateba_model_6_.html

Attempting to procure one as we speak.

[Oso]

Guns, Smoking what else is our Government going to take away ??? Oh I know ALL OF OUR RIGHTS. Can you say Heil Hitler or Heil Prez. KC

well, smoking in public should be banned. if you want to kill yourself, you should not include others.

but that's the libertarian in me.

[Oso]

http://airbornecombatengineer.typepad.com/airborne_combat_engineer/2006/05/mateba_model_6_.html

Attempting to procure one as we speak.

wierd...but anything in a .454 is worth a pull of the trigger...but the carbine versions are just plain ugly.

I did look at this:

http://www.springfield-armory.com/armory.php?model=24

very sexy, but not at $1100

next on the list is probably a shotgun, Mossberg 500 is just fine.

then probobly the Socom 16 version of the M1A. I like the Socom II version but it's not really worth the extra money after I got to hold both. The 16 will do the trick for a heavy round good to 300 yds.

all of this by the end of the year...just in case we are looking at this come Jan 09:

[Mr Punch]

The socalist state I live in ...I thought you lived in the US? :confused:


well, smoking in public should be banned. if you want to kill yourself, you should not include others.

but that's the libertarian in me.I agree, but I don't see any problem in smokers running smoking areas in bars... my government does. But then I would probably ban smokers from receiving any free health care for lung, heart, stroke or depression problems.

[Oso]

what I hate is having to run the gauntlet of smokers all clustered within 10 feet of the doors on nonsmoking places.

but, I'm irritated when the smoke from the neighbors smoking on their front porch drifts over.

i'm pretty much big on do whatever you want but in no way should your activities affect anyone else in any way. freedom of _______________. is fine till it infringes upon someone elses freedom to live as they wish.

a lot of people around here have the bumper sticker "At least I can still smoke in my car!"

yea...but roll your ****ing window up!

[Mr Punch]

what I hate is having to run the gauntlet of smokers all clustered within 10 feet of the doors on nonsmoking places.LOL, personally I think punching someone blowing smoke at you is self defence! :D


but, I'm irritated when the smoke from the neighbors smoking on their front porch drifts over.I live in apartment and I get irate about that on my balcony... (I don't get angry about pretty much anything, and especially things I can't change, but I just see red about that!) and extremely irate if anyone smokes in front of my daughter (in which case I will say directly).

The freedom of ___________ as long as it doesn't encroach on others' freedoms is the argument that by logical extension brings me to the healthcare conclusion. People smoking and drinking too much puts enormous strain (drinking in the UK costs the health service in excess of 13 billion pounds a year, without counting indirect costs to the infrastructure in general like days off) on my government's budget, thus my taxes, thus my quality of life.

People who want healthcare should have to take a health check to qualify... :D

[rogue]

Oso,
What kind of carry rig are you using? One problem with most full size hand guns are too big for my needs (very concealable and with easy access) so I was carrying a AMT .380 backup in a cross draw but went back to my old Colt Detective Special also in a cross draw.

Here's what I'm looking at now for a daily carry.
http://www.snubnose.info/docs/m642.htm

[NJM]

*insert percieved opinion difference here*

[Shaolin Wookie]

well, a month or so ago a drug deal gone bad resulted in a kid dead in the street...my street.

and lately, I'm actually seeing drug deals go down at a couple of spots within a 1/4 mile of the house as I drive home.

so, while I haven't owned a firearm of any type since 2001, i'd been feeling it might be time again and then the tale end of 07 ended up being pretty weird around here.

but, yea, in NC, you can't carry anyplace that serves alcohol. plus the usual schools, banks, liquor stores.

Sheeyat, legal guns in the street aren't any better than illegal guns in the street. Sad state of affairs, where we modernize a clause in our Constitution, which was drafted to protect Americans in an era where there wasn't stable economics, govt., military, or police, and the threat of invasion was still imminent.

So why do you need a concealed carry permit? 'fraid of Za-Germans?

[Oso]

Oso,
What kind of carry rig are you using? One problem with most full size hand guns are too big for my needs (very concealable and with easy access) so I was carrying a AMT .380 backup in a cross draw but went back to my old Colt Detective Special also in a cross draw.

Here's what I'm looking at now for a daily carry.
http://www.snubnose.info/docs/m642.htm

haven't decided yet.

I've carried a Taurus PT92 in a shoulder rig just fine and used to carry a Star Firestar 9mm in an inside the waist holster...umm, illegally at the time.

I didn't get the large frame, but the medium frame which is bigger than the Star but smaller than the Taurus. I'm not a small person so I'll be ok with this in any rig with the appropriate layer of clothing over it.

[Oso]

LOL, personally I think punching someone blowing smoke at you is self defence! :D

I live in apartment and I get irate about that on my balcony... (I don't get angry about pretty much anything, and especially things I can't change, but I just see red about that!) and extremely irate if anyone smokes in front of my daughter (in which case I will say directly).

The freedom of ___________ as long as it doesn't encroach on others' freedoms is the argument that by logical extension brings me to the healthcare conclusion. People smoking and drinking too much puts enormous strain (drinking in the UK costs the health service in excess of 13 billion pounds a year, without counting indirect costs to the infrastructure in general like days off) on my government's budget, thus my taxes, thus my quality of life.

People who want healthcare should have to take a health check to qualify... :D

yea, sometimes I feel like dragging adults from their cars full of children and smoke and stick their faces in their tailpipes.

it seems like we agree on the smoking thing.

[Oso]

*insert percieved opinion difference here*

to which you are entitled to.:)

[Oso]

Sheeyat, legal guns in the street aren't any better than illegal guns in the street. Sad state of affairs, where we modernize a clause in our Constitution, which was drafted to protect Americans in an era where there wasn't stable economics, govt., military, or police, and the threat of invasion was still imminent.

So why do you need a concealed carry permit? 'fraid of Za-Germans?

because I want to and can legally do so.

[Shaolin Wookie]

yea, sometimes I feel like dragging adults from their cars full of children and smoke and stick their faces in their tailpipes.

it seems like we agree on the smoking thing.

What if they have a concealed smoker's permit? Don't step on their constitutional right to kill their children slowly. It's their constitutional right.

Hell, America was built on the tobacco industry. It's as American, as, I don't know.....guns.


:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Shaolin Wookie]

because I want to and can legally do so.

In other words, you support the production of guns and further distribution. Remember, every gun bought by an upstanding citizen is two more guns bought by a heartless criminal. If you support the machine today, don't be surprised to get a facefull of exhaust tomorrow.

So why involve your girlfriend in gun-usage and ownership, etc.? Does it make the sex better?

[Oso]

well, since I'm sitting here typing from my home, I haven't done that because it would be illegal to do so.

I can think what I want, as you can...for now.

[Oso]

In other words, you support the production of guns and further distribution. Remember, every gun bought by an upstanding citizen is two more guns bought by a heartless criminal. If you support the machine today, don't be surprised to get a facefull of exhaust tomorrow.

So why involve your girlfriend in gun-usage and ownership, etc.? Does it make the sex better?


ok, now you're just being an idiot and offensive. I've never put anyone on my ignore list but congratulations.

[Shaolin Wookie]

Hiding my words is like hiding your gun.

(I don't know what that means, but it sounds like it could mean something).

[Oso]

something wierd just happened with the server...a post I just sent didn't post

why did you change your post?

i decided to not put you on 'ignore' because that would be censorship on my part.
In the words of Happy Bunny: I know how you feel, I just don't care.

If you really are a LEO then perhaps you could offer something to the conversation other than personal insult involved someone you don't even 'know'.

perhaps you would have been brave enough to say that in person were you standing here...


If you had paid attention upthread you would have seen that she took up shooting all on her own...mainly because while I had said that it would be fun to go shoot, I never had that much of an inclination having decided 9 years ago that I didn't really have a need for a firearm. She also brought up purchase and concealed carry.

After some things that have happened in this town, and within a 1/2 mile of the house we just bought in not that great a neighborhood, I've been changing my mind.

At this point in time I can legally do everything I desire to do with a firearm.

At this point in time you can pursue your thoughts and feelings on the matter through your right to vote.

maybe between the both of us we can keep both of those rights.

[Shaolin Wookie]

something wierd just happened with the server...a post I just sent didn't post

why did you change your post?

i decided to not put you on 'ignore' because that would be censorship on my part.
In the words of Happy Bunny: I know how you feel, I just don't care.

If you really are a LEO then perhaps you could offer something to the conversation other than personal insult involved someone you don't even 'know'.

perhaps you would have been brave enough to say that in person were you standing here...


If you had paid attention upthread you would have seen that she took up shooting all on her own...mainly because while I had said that it would be fun to go shoot, I never had that much of an inclination having decided 9 years ago that I didn't really have a need for a firearm. She also brought up purchase and concealed carry.

After some things that have happened in this town, and within a 1/2 mile of the house we just bought in not that great a neighborhood, I've been changing my mind.

At this point in time I can legally do everything I desire to do with a firearm.

At this point in time you can pursue your thoughts and feelings on the matter through your right to vote.

maybe between the both of us we can keep both of those rights.

Can't take a joke, eh? Ah well, not everyone shares the same sense of humor. Drugs are in every neighborhood, and purchasing a gun won't change that. I say, let's just call this one a stalemate for your sake, since you don't want to discuss it.

Gun ownership is a psychological thing, and not much more. It's a power issue; it's a sexual issue; it's a security issue. It's rarely any kind of external issue. Unless you intend to use it (as in military, police, or criminal endeavors), a gun is just a prop that bolsters certain insecurities. (Note: I'm not taking potshots at you on this one, just analyzing the gun's role in contemporary society).

The question is: do you intend to use your gun?

And--will using your gun improve the situation in your neighborhood and give you better personal security? Will it eradicate the gun/drug problem? Or, will it run up a localized arms race?

[yu shan]

Oso

I respect your interest in firearms, I to have this love. I look to inherit quite a collection from my Dad when he passes. Little by little I have been asking him to teach me the proper care and such. Kind of a cool thing to do with your Dad ya know.

Well I guess any area has it`s bad neighborhoods, and I did have a prostitute try to chase me down once on a trip to Asheville. But A`town is like stepping back into the 60`s, with all the long hairs and peace and love, not to mention the smell of burning rope! And your sig other did spark this interest first eh? Anyway, I say get them while you can and hold on tight. Take me to the range next time I`m over.

[The Willow Sword]

And i think its great that you are exercising your 2 amendment rights to bear arms. I personally do not like hand guns and carrying em around on your hip or tucked in your back crack is just silly, this aint the wild fukin west.

Nah i prefer my good ole semi-auto shotgun for home protection. but cool you got a 9mm. The only hand gun that i have fired that i actually liked was a Sig-Saur .40, good action, very accurate. Oh and i was watching History channel the other day and saw the Sharpshooters special they had, made me appreciate my shot gun more and more. Those guys are surgeons with those rifles. One guy threw 8 count em 8 clay pidgeons in the air and got em all before they hit the ground. i also liked the trick shot that other guy did where he sliced the poker card in half at 30 yds. way cool

Peace, TWS

[rogue]

In other words, you support the production of guns and further distribution. Remember, every gun bought by an upstanding citizen is two more guns bought by a heartless criminal. If you support the machine today, don't be surprised to get a facefull of exhaust tomorrow.

So why involve your girlfriend in gun-usage and ownership, etc.? Does it make the sex better?

Can you back that statistic up?

Oso,
You can always have a good clue of who is carrying in the summer. Tank top, 10% chance they're carrying, Hawaiian shirt, 90% chance. :D


And i think its great that you are exercising your 2 amendment rights to bear arms. I personally do not like hand guns and carrying em around on your hip or tucked in your back crack is just silly, this aint the wild fukin west.

That's why I carry something small in a cross draw.;)

[Shaolin Wookie]

Can you back that statistic up?

.lanimirc sseltreah a yb thguob snug erom owt si nezitic gnidnatspu na yb thguob nug yreve, rebmemeR.

I honestly don't see how that's going to clarify the subject, but I'm always willing to back up my statistics.

[kwaichang]

Studies have shown that exercise 30 minutes every day decreasestoo many diseases to list HBP Diabetes improves circulation etc. Maybe our medeling Government should sign a law with mandatory exercise for every one to decrease health care costs?????? but that would decrease insurance and the fat politicians would waaaa waaaaa. FREEEEEEEDOM TO CHOOOOOSE. I can make my own decisions I dont need others to do it for me. KC

[Scott R. Brown]

Here are some proper statistics that WILL clarify the subject:

This is a very detailed and statistic laden report. I have only included the conclusions due to its length.

http://saf.org/LawReviews/SouthwickJr1.htm


St. Louis University Public Law Review
Gun Control Symposium
vol 18, no. 1, 1999: 217


GUNS AND JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE: DETERRENCE AND DEFENSE

Lawrence Southwick, Jr. *


Conclusions:

1) Using deterrence effects of executions found by others, this was extended to justifiable homicides. The result was an estimate of an incentive effect (deterrence) of from 0.4 to 1.4 million fewer violent crimes due to civilian self-defense use of guns. That included from 2,200 to 7,900 fewer murders per year, implying that the murder rate would have been some 10 to 37 percent higher than it actually was had civilians not had guns for self- defense.

2) an expected 10 to 17 percent of civilian victims of violent crime are armed at the time of victimization.

3) ]it was estimated that at least 500,000 fewer crimes occurred due to armed civilians. If Kleck's lower estimates of justified homicides are accepted, the numbers are much larger at more than 2,000,000. This is a deterrent effect; the crimes never occur.

4) direct estimate of the crime reduction due to civilian handguns was made. The regression run was on changes in crime rates as a function of handgun purchases. The result was significant in every case except for rape and the estimated coefficient was negative there as well. It was reasonable to infer that over 740,000 fewer violent crimes occur each year, [Page 244] including 7,300 fewer murders, because of handgun ownership and use by civilians. Again, this is a deterrent effect. Long guns probably add to this effect.

Putting together all of these results, we find that there is a good correspondence among them. They are derived from different approaches, so that correspondence adds credibility to each method. Somewhere around 0.8 to 2.0 million violent crimes are deterred each year because of gun ownership and use by civilians. In addition, another 1.5 to 2.5 million crimes are stopped by armed civilians. There may be some overlap in these two categories because of the ways in which the data are collected, but there are almost certainly some two to four million fewer completed crimes each year as the result of civilian gun ownership. Returning to Figure 1, the numbers of crimes "A. Deterred by Police/Courts/Corrections" are unknown. The numbers in "B. Stopped by Police" are certainly quite low because police usually respond after the crime is completed. The numbers in "C. Deterred by Civilians" would seem to be around 0.8 to 2.0 million. The numbers in "D. Stopped by Civilians" are around 1.5 to 2.5 million. Finally, the numbers in "E. Completed Crimes" are about 3.5 million, based on NCVS data. Without the civilian guns being used to deter and stop crimes, the numbers of completed crimes could well double. It would undoubtedly be the case that increased gun ownership would further reduce crime.

[Scott R. Brown]

The following is an analysis of this paper:

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

"We were able to put together figures for nine European nations that had more than 15,000 firearms owned per 100,000 households, and we also had nine European nations that had less than 5,000 firearms owned per 100,000 households," Kates said.

"What we found was that the first group, with triple the rate of gun ownership, had one-third the homicide rate of the second group."

On the other hand, in Russia--where firearms had been under police-state control for decades--Kates and Mauser found an exceedingly violent society.

Although the Soviet communist regime tried to hide the problem from the rest of the world, the collapse of the Soviet Union exposed the truth: Despite those iron-fisted government controls on firearm ownership--almost no Russian civilians owned firearms--Russia had, and continues to have, by far the highest murder rate in the developed world.

Kates and Mauser write: "In the 1960s and early ’70s, the gunless Soviet Union’s murder rates paralleled or generally exceeded those of gun-ridden America. While American rates stabilized and then steeply declined, however, Russian murder increased so drastically that by the early 1990s the Russian rate was three times higher than that of the United States. Between 1998-2004 … Russian murder rates were nearly four times higher than American rates."

We see much the same thing in Luxembourg, where handguns are completely banned and firearm ownership of any kind is rare. Even though its (lawful) citizens are effectively disarmed, in 2002 Luxembourg had a murder rate nine times higher than in neighboring Germany--where firearms are legal and widely owned.

"Individuals who commit violent crimes will either find guns despite severe controls or will find other weapons to use."

Kates and Mauser point to comparison after comparison that shows no link between gun availability and suicide rates. For example, Spain has 12 times the gun-ownership rate of Poland, yet Poland’s suicide rate is more than double that of Spain. Greece has triple the gun-ownership rate of the Czech Republic--and admittedly more gun-related suicide--yet the overall Czech suicide rate is nearly triple that of Greece. Similarly, Finland has over 14 times the gun-ownership rate of its southern neighbor Estonia, yet Estonia nonetheless has a much higher suicide rate than Finland.

In the absence of firearms, suicidal people simply substitute other means. As evidence, Kates and Mauser point to two powerful examples.

In the 1980s, suicide among teenagers and young adults spiked in the U.S., and many blamed firearm availability for the increase. What they failed to mention was that suicide among young adults was rising throughout the developed world--regardless of gun availability--and in many places was rising far faster than in the U.S.

Among English youth, for example, suicide increased 10 times as fast as among American youth, yet the preferred method of suicide there was car exhaust asphyxiation.

Another tragic illustration involves suicide among young Indian women living on the island of Fiji. When these women marry, often to non-Indian men, they commonly go to live with their husbands’ extended families in less-than-friendly, if not openly antagonistic, circumstances. Perhaps as a result, they have a suicide rate many times higher than that of non-Indian Fijian women.

Guns are unavailable to these women, Kates and Mauser report, but that evidently makes no difference: Many still commit suicide--about 75 percent of them through hanging, and nearly all the rest by poisoning themselves with the herbicide Paraquat.

Giving Guns Magical Powers and Malevolence Toward Man

Another favorite fantasy of the gun haters is that firearms have some mystical power to transform otherwise lawful, peaceable people into murderers and maniacs.

To hear the gun-ban lobby tell the tale, it’s as if firearms were some sort of evil magic charm just waiting for humans to let down their guard so that they, the firearms, could turn the tables on us once and for all.

Firearms, they tell us, will turn family disagreements into shooting wars.
A gun kept in a closet as a defense against intruders, they say, will instead be used against a spouse in a moment of rage.

According to the Violence Policy Center, "the majority of homicide[s] [occur] ... not as a result of criminal activity, but because of arguments between people who know each other."

But as Kates and Mauser point out in their study, "These comments … contradict facts that have so uniformly been established by homicide studies dating back to the 1890s that they have become ‘criminological axioms.’ … [N]either a majority, nor many, nor virtually any murderers are ordinary ‘law-abiding citizens.’ Rather, almost all murderers are extremely aberrant individuals with life histories of violence, psychopathology, substance abuse and other dangerous behaviors."

What’s more, as Kates and Mauser note, a major national, yearlong study on gun murders in U.S. homes between acquaintances found that the most common situation was one in which the victim and the perpetrator "knew one another because of prior illegal transactions."

Read between the lines and you’ll realize what that refers to: Drug pushers murdered by rivals or robbers. Gang members murdered by fellow gang members. Women murdered by stalkers or domestic abusers.

In any of these cases, as Kates and Mauser explain, the perpetrators are "all individuals for whom federal and state laws already prohibit gun possession."

Do Guns Reduce Crime? Or Does Crime Reduce Guns?

Although their data would support such a claim, Kates and Mauser don’t argue in their paper that firearm ownership is the cause of low crime rates in many European nations.

As they write in their paper, "It would be simplistic to assume that at all times and in all places widespread gun ownership depresses violence by deterring many criminals into nonconfrontation crime, [although] there is evidence that it does so in the United States …"

Instead, they maintain, with refreshing candor, that some European countries simply have low crime rates, and because of that, those countries never imposed anti-gun laws. So gun ownership is high, and crime is low--it’s just not necessarily low as a result.

As an illustration, Kates cites Norway: "The reason Norwegians have guns is for hunting. They don’t keep them for self-defense and they don’t need them--they have a low-crime country."

On the other hand, some European nations experiencing high levels of crime subsequently passed anti-gun laws--but those laws failed to have any effect on crime.

"The people you need to control are not going to obey the gun control laws," Kates explained. "And the people you don’t need to control, those are the ones who obey. So what you get is, you get either nothing, or you get worse results, with gun control."

In the final analysis, this paper places the burden of proof squarely on the shoulders of the proponents of anti-gun laws.

For, although higher rates of gun ownership may not necessarily reduce crime in all societies, in no case can it be demonstrated that higher gun ownership rates cause higher crime.

The relationship between firearms and crime may be one of correlation more than causation, but the correlation is a good one: More guns may not always dictate less crime. . . but more guns definitely go hand-in-hand with less crime.
And the advocates of gun bans bear the burden of proving otherwise before imposing more onerous laws.

As Kates and Mauser conclude in their study:

"Whether gun availability is viewed as a cause or as a mere coincidence, the long term macrocosmic evidence is that gun ownership spread widely throughout societies consistently correlates with stable or declining murder rates. Whether causative or not, the consistent international pattern is that more guns equal less murder and other violent crime.

[Scott R. Brown]

More Right-to-Carry.

The number of RTC (Righ To Carry) states is at an all-time high, up from 15 in 1991 to 40 today.

In 2006, states with RTC laws, compared to the rest of the country, had lower violent crime rates on average: total violent crime lower by 26%, murder by 31%, robbery by 50%, and aggravated assault by 15%.

BATF, Crime Gun Trace Reports (1999) National Report, Nov. 2000, p. ix

[kwaichang]

Right to Bear Arms " Give me Liberty or Give me death". I do not smoke but I will fight for your right to choose to smoke or not or to have a weapon or not. The Gov uses fear to intimidate us to their way of thinking and make us conform to what they want. Wake up. KC:D

[Shaolin Wookie]

You've got to take "violent crimes" with a bag of salt. Although statistics may drop in certain categories, they will almost always rise in the field of forcible rape. Plus, whenever you've got a population growing old and decreasing the pool of possible criminals (as in our baby boomers) statistics will always look like they're dropping. All this means is that certain "violent crimes" dropped, while others rose. It's pick and choose. Maybe gang violence decreased and aggravated assault rose.

Or, maybe the criminal world was in a recession....LOL.....or the criminal intelligence factor weighed in (criminals are getting stupider) [http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=2508775]. Or, maybe it's smarter. High-tech crimes are on the rise. Why rob someone at gunpoint when you can steal an identity and milk it for thousands?

Gun availability does not equal crime deterrence.

And, on the flipside:

Gun bans do not equal criminal inactivity (so long as it's not a complete gun-ban). It's like outlawing smoking for cigar-smokers, but not cigarette smokers. What's the point?

Also, most violent crimes are committed by close acquaintances and family. Are you prepared to shoot your friend, brother, uncle, cousin? Is he strapped? Anti-gun control just pushes gun toters to the Wild West mentality.

[Shaolin Wookie]

Right to Bear Arms " Give me Liberty or Give me death". I do not smoke but I will fight for your right to choose to smoke or not or to have a weapon or not. The Gov uses fear to intimidate us to their way of thinking and make us conform to what they want. Wake up. KC:D

They don't need fear. They just schmooze us with guys like Bush, and somehow we don't hold them accountable for it.

Mitt Romney '08! Sounds like a plan!

[Scott R. Brown]

Gun availability does not equal crime deterrence.

And, on the flipside:

Gun bans do not equal criminal inactivity.

It is irrelevant whether the overall crime statistics in total numbers are dropping. Statistics relevant to this argument are based upon per 100,000 population.

Your opinion is emotionally based and not fact based. I come to this conclusion based upon the your willingness to ignore facts and adhere to a view that cannot be scientifically supported by the facts. The posts above are based upon scientific studies, your opinion is based upon what you WANT to occur.

I will re-refer you to this conclusion:

As Kates and Mauser conclude in their study:

"Whether gun availability is viewed as a cause or as a mere coincidence, the long term macrocosmic evidence is that gun ownership spread widely throughout societies consistently correlates with stable or declining murder rates. Whether causative or not, the consistent international pattern is that more guns equal less murder and other violent crime.

[Scott R. Brown]

most violent crimes are committed by close acquaintances and family. Are you prepared to shoot your friend, brother, uncle, cousin? Is he strapped? Anti-gun control just pushes gun toters to the Wild West mentality.

Please refer to the above quote:

as Kates and Mauser point out in their study, "These comments … contradict facts that have so uniformly been established by homicide studies dating back to the 1890s that they have become ‘criminological axioms.’ … [N]either a majority, nor many, nor virtually any murderers are ordinary ‘law-abiding citizens.’ Rather, almost all murderers are extremely aberrant individuals with life histories of violence, psychopathology, substance abuse and other dangerous behaviors."

What’s more, as Kates and Mauser note, a major national, yearlong study on gun murders in U.S. homes between acquaintances found that the most common situation was one in which the victim and the perpetrator "knew one another because of prior illegal transactions."

Read between the lines and you’ll realize what that refers to: Drug pushers murdered by rivals or robbers. Gang members murdered by fellow gang members. Women murdered by stalkers or domestic abusers.

[Shaolin Wookie]

It is irrelevant whether the overall crime statistics in total numbers are dropping. Statistics relevant to this argument are based upon per 100,000 population.

Your opinion is emotionally based and not fact based. I come to this conclusion based upon the your willingness to ignore facts and adhere to a view that cannot be scientifically supported by the facts. The posts above are based upon scientific studies, your opinion is based upon what you WANT to occur.

I will re-refer you to this conclusion:

As Kates and Mauser conclude in their study:

"Whether gun availability is viewed as a cause or as a mere coincidence, the long term macrocosmic evidence is that gun ownership spread widely throughout societies consistently correlates with stable or declining murder rates. Whether causative or not, the consistent international pattern is that more guns equal less murder and other violent crime.


Did they poll Rwanda? The Congo? Iraq?

LOL....

What a fantastic scientific study they have. Clearly you're citing scientific proof.
It's plain as day.

[Scott R. Brown]

Please read my posts more carefully I provided links to the cited material in the original posts.

[Shaolin Wookie]

Please read my posts more carefully I provided links to the cited material in the original posts.

For every study you can find in favor of what you're proposing, I can find twenty to refute it.

Take your statistics like you take your snake oil. Taking it might make you feel better, but it didn't do a **** thing, physiologically, to make you feel better.

[Scott R. Brown]

Right-to-Carry.

The number of RTC states is at an all-time high, up from 10 in 1987 to 38 today.8 In 2004, states with RTC laws, compared to other states, had lower violent crime rates on average. Total violent crime was lower by 21%, murder by 28%, robbery by 43%, and aggravated assault by 13%.9

This is cited from:
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=126

Their own citations for the material are:

8. See NRA RTC fact sheet (within www.nraila.org/Issues/Filter.aspx?ID=003).
9. See FBI, Crime in the United States 2004 (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm#cius) for state crime statistics.

[Shaolin Wookie]

Right-to-Carry.

The number of RTC states is at an all-time high, up from 10 in 1987 to 38 today.8 In 2004, states with RTC laws, compared to other states, had lower violent crime rates on average. Total violent crime was lower by 21%, murder by 28%, robbery by 43%, and aggravated assault by 13%.9

This is cited from:
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=126

Their own citations for the material are:

8. See NRA RTC fact sheet (within www.nraila.org/Issues/Filter.aspx?ID=003).
9. See FBI, Crime in the United States 2004 (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm#cius) for state crime statistics.

Cite me another fact from an NRA website, please. Clearly they don't have a vested interest in the subject.:rolleyes:

[Scott R. Brown]

For every study you can find in favor of what you're proposing, I can find twenty to refute it.

Take your statistics like you take your snake oil. Taking it might make you feel better, but it didn't do a **** thing, physiologically, to make you feel better.

If you can then please do. Your justification for your view only reinforces that your opinion is emotionally based and not based upon fact.

If, as you imply, there are just as many opposing statistics then you cannot support your view that guns are a problem based upon any evidence at all. In which case there is no necessity to ban them. If you cannot prove they are a problem and I cannot prove they are not a problem then there is absolutely no rational reason to ban guns and your opinion is merely emotionalism. Decisions that are based upon emotion are of less overall value than opinions that are rationally based.

[Scott R. Brown]

Cite me another fact from an NRA website, please. Clearly they don't have a vested interest in the subject.:rolleyes:

You will note they use statistics from other sources to support their position as any rationally thinking person does.

Regardless the other information I cited was not sourced through the NRA are scientifically based and detailed in their statistical analysis.

[Shaolin Wookie]

If you can then please do. Your justification for your view only reinforces that your opinion is emotionally based and not based upon fact.

If, as you imply, there are just as many opposing statistics then you cannot support your view that guns are a problem based upon any evidence at all. In which case there is no necessity to ban them. If you cannot prove they are a problem and I cannot prove they are not a problem then there is absolutely no rational reason to ban guns and your opinion is merely emotionalism. Decisions that are based upon emotion are of less overall value that opinions that are rationally based.

Actually, 90% of emotional based decisions are deemed rational by 75% of Americans in 15% of the states that rational deciders have voted (by a 16% margin) as being emotionally based in 17% of 60% of violent crimes 90% of the time.

If I'm emotional, so are you. You're in a state of emotion I like to call "cool, calm, self-assuredness in the face of opposition, granted by citing irrefutable scientific fact that supports my original assumption, so I take it as fact." I like to call this emotion: "Rational ignorance."

[Shaolin Wookie]

You will note they use statistics from other sources to support their position as any rationally thinking person does.

Yes, and according to Russian polls, Putin has a staggering approval rate. How do we know? Putin's cabinet tells us so. Nevermind the fact he runs a mild dictatorship.


Regardless the other information I cited was not sourced through the NRA are scientifically based and detailed in their statistical analysis.

I agree that they are scientifically based in their approach. But that's as far as the "science" of polling and statistical analysis goes. It is "rational" in one sense, in that it seems to make sense.

But I submit: "The Flying Spaghetti Monster is in fact responsible for the marked drop in violent crimes in countries with higher gun ownership ratios. More people have been touched by his noodly appendage."

[Scott R. Brown]

Actually, 90% of emotional based decisions are deemed rational by 75% of Americans in 15% of the states that rational deciders have voted (by a 16% margin) as being emotionally based in 17% of 60% of violent crimes 90% of the time.

If I'm emotional, so are you. You're in a state of emotion I like to call "cool, calm, self-assuredness in the face of opposition, granted by citing irrefutable scientific fact that supports my original assumption, so I take it as fact." I like to call this emotion: "Rational ignorance."

"YOUR ANOTHER" in response to an argument does not provide rational support for the conclusion. It DOES support the conclusion that your opinion is emotionally based. No rational refutation has been provided.

I cited scientific studies to support my position, thus it is more rationally based. At the best you may only refer to me as being LESS emotional in coming to my conclusion than you appear to be in coming to the conclusion you have since my conclusion is based upon verifiable evidence and yours is merely empty opinion.

[Shaolin Wookie]

Or, it points out just how seriously I take your NRA-cited "facts", which is, about as serious as Scientology.

BTW...rationality is highly overrated. Christians are rational. Plato was rational. Aristotle was rational.

I guess it doesn't matter that all of them were wrong....LOL....give me an angry philosopher like Nietzsche, and all's right with the world.

[Scott R. Brown]

Yes, and according to Russian polls, Putin has a staggering approval rate. How do we know? Putin's cabinet tells us so. Nevermind the fact he runs a mild dictatorship.

I agree that they are scientifically based in their approach. But that's as far as the "science" of polling and statistical analysis goes. It is "rational" in one sense, in that it seems to make sense.

Polls are A form of statistical analysis. The evidence cited above is not based upon polls. They are correlations based upon reported facts, NOT opinion based upon what questions are asked and how they are asked. You are comparing apples to oranges here.

[Shaolin Wookie]

Polls are A form of statistical analysis. The evidence cited above is not based upon polls. They are correlations based upon reported facts, NOT opinion based upon what questions are asked and how they are asked. You are comparing apples to oranges here.

No, I'm comparing cow flop to horse****. Either way, it smells bad.

[Scott R. Brown]

Or, it points out just how seriously I take your NRA-cited "facts", which is, about as serious as Scientology.

BTW...rationality is highly overrated. Christians are rational. Plato was rational. Aristotle was rational.

I guess it doesn't matter that all of them were wrong....LOL....give me an angry philosopher like Nietzsche, and all's right with the world.

Your conclusion demonstrates my assertion that there is no basis for banning guns other than it makes you feel good to do so. In which case we may say that is makes many others feel good to own a gun and it is a constitutionally protected right. Therefore, guns should not be banned.

[Shaolin Wookie]

Look, Scott. I read the same report you read. As you cite (I'm just picking one example of many): "...direct estimate of the crime reduction due to civilian handguns was made. The regression run was on changes in crime rates as a function of handgun purchases."[/QUOTE]

There are so many controls and variables thrown out the window, it is impossible to take this study seriously! How can you not see that?

[Shaolin Wookie]

Wait...no...don't tell me. You're the president of the NRA, aren't you?

[Oso]

Scott R. Brown for President!

though I doubt he'd take the job :)

SW, there's not much else I can say that hasn't been pointed out. You have your right to your opinion and until the law changes, I have my right to purchase and carry guns with the proper training and certification which I am doing.

[Scott R. Brown]

I am not even a member of the NRA. You are neglecting that the statics cited by the NRA article are based upon facts cited from other sources. How can you not see that??

I further cited other studies compiled by a lawyer and scientists all of which provide footnotes of their sources and provide a logical and precise argument to demonstrate their conclusion. How can you not see that??

[Scott R. Brown]

The conclusion is, "You believe what you believe simply because you want to believe it."

That is fine, you have every right to do that and I respect that right.

But that is not a basis for taking away the rights and privileges of your fellow citizens.

[Scott R. Brown]

Scott R. Brown for President!

though I doubt he'd take the job :).

I''l take the job ONLY if I am allowed to carry my Glock 17 24/7! :D

[kwaichang]

Screw the data CARRY period who cares if it is lawful or not do it it is our right to bear arms if the Gov tries to take that right away get rid of them. It is all about control you can and you cant that is what all these "carry permits are for" then they will be able to control what is going on and who will have them.
I have seen so many rights ripped away and it continues. These "LAW" makers continue to deprive us of what is rightfully ours FREEDOM. Its going to get worse until we are a Communist or Fascist state hood. If enough Americans join togethor we can win and they cant afford to jail everyone who would do it any way.
Side note: If the parent that smokes is truly the best parent then why cant they have full Parenting custody with the child ?? Because they say you cant what is right with that ??? KC

[Scott R. Brown]

Because I still have eyes? I'll find some "scientific data" to refute your evidence. I have some here on my database here at work, but I'd get hauled off to court if I posted it to the public. I'll find some online sources for you, if I have the time. Hell, I'll get them from an anti-gun, anti-NRA website...that should do the trick.

I will eagerly await your evidence.

In the mean time we may continue our discussion. If we presume that the evidence you provide is as equally compelling as the evidence that I have provided we have the problem of deciding which conclusion most accurately reflects the true conditions.

Since both sides of the argument are vehemently committed to their view we may find it difficult to determine which conclusion reflects the true condition most accurately. Indeed it is probable that no agreement will be reached. If this is the case it cannot be reasonable demonstrated that a society where only the criminals have firearms is a safer society, make no mistake criminals will still have firearms as is demonstrate in Russian, Washington D.C. and other regions where firearms are restricted.

In this circumstance we must err on behalf of maintaining the rights we currently posses. We must accept that the rights guaranteed us by the U. S. Constitution to be the ruling authority. The government may not infringe upon the rights of its citizens to keep and bear arms.

Even if compelling evidence may be presented that unequivocally demonstrates that citizens are safer in a society where only criminals possess firearms, a totally ludicrous proposition to begin with, proponents of firearms control must pass a constitutional amendment in order to infringe on rights the constitution guarantees. This is a nearly impossible task to accomplish.

Any way you slice it you cannot win the argument. Your decision is based upon what makes you feel better and not based upon facts.

[Oso]

Anyone else using Crimson Trace?

http://www.crimsontrace.com/Home/Products/SmithWesson/LG660/tabid/245/Default.aspx

I don't like the idea of hanging something off the end of the frame but $300 plus will take some saving up.

[Yao Sing]

Sheeyat, legal guns in the street aren't any better than illegal guns in the street. Sad state of affairs, where we modernize a clause in our Constitution, which was drafted to protect Americans in an era where there wasn't stable economics, govt., military, or police, and the threat of invasion was still imminent.

So why do you need a concealed carry permit? 'fraid of Za-Germans?

I need the concealed permit to keep from getting busted for carrying my firearm. I'm sure you meant why the need to carry a firearm. :)

So you're thinking personal firearms are only needed to defend from invasion? Do you know that the police have no obligation to protect you from harm? They only catch the bad guys after the fact.

Do you know how long it takes to get a cop to your location when someone is assaulting you? Think they'll get there before your last breath?


Drugs are in every neighborhood, and purchasing a gun won't change that.

Meaning what? Are guns supposed to prevent all crimes now or something? While they won't have any bearing on illegal drug sales they will keep you from being a target of the users looking for fast cash to support their habit.


Gun ownership is a psychological thing, and not much more. It's a power issue; it's a sexual issue; it's a security issue. It's rarely any kind of external issue. Unless you intend to use it (as in military, police, or criminal endeavors), a gun is just a prop that bolsters certain insecurities. (Note: I'm not taking potshots at you on this one, just analyzing the gun's role in contemporary society).

Where are you getting this from? My opinion you're just parroting some BS repot you read somewhere (but I will agree with it being security issue).

And anyone NOT intending (or being prepared) to use it shouldn't be carrying one in the first place. When I carry I fully intend to pull the trigger if needed.


The question is: do you intend to use your gun?

Yes. Does that bother you for some reason? How about if I was in the neighborhood when your mom was being assaulted?


And--will using your gun improve the situation in your neighborhood and give you better personal security? Will it eradicate the gun/drug problem? Or, will it run up a localized arms race?

It's already been proven to improve neighborhoods, improve personal security and has not created an arms race anywhere concealed carry has been legalized.

So tell me, why do you keep thinking gun ownership will somehow stop illegal drug sales? You keep bringing this up but nobody on the pro-gun ownership/concealed carry side makes that claim. I think you need to expand your reading choices.

You're entitled to your opinion but it would be much more tolerable if it was based on real life info and not this clearly illogical anti-gun propaganda.

[rogue]

Anyone else using Crimson Trace?

http://www.crimsontrace.com/Home/Products/SmithWesson/LG660/tabid/245/Default.aspx

I don't like the idea of hanging something off the end of the frame but $300 plus will take some saving up.

I figure if I can't hit something that's 20 feet away a laser sight won't help. :D

[Oso]

lol, yea...besides, i didn't initially see that their current model won't work on mine because of the ambi slide release.


but, still, it's a cool trick.

[Black Jack II]

A lot of peeps try and use the laser sight with the low light, point and shoot methods, under extreme stress the main point is are you going to even notice the beam.:D

Most "social gunfire" self defense situations are from something like seven feet away or less. We are talking h2h range.

[Oso]

good point.

but how can I get to do that evil laugh when the fool looks down and sees the red light on his chest?????????????????? ;)

[yu shan]

Oso

So I guess you missed post #28. I am curious, how much did you spend on this firearm?

[Oso]

sorry bro, I did miss it in all the other stuff.

I paid $510 for it. It lists at $640 and this shop had a sticker on it for $540 but S and I bought both at the same time so he marked them off $30 each.

We'll definitely go shoot the next time you are over.

[Oso]

Well I guess any area has it`s bad neighborhoods, and I did have a prostitute try to chase me down once on a trip to Asheville. But A`town is like stepping back into the 60`s, with all the long hairs and peace and love, not to mention the smell of burning rope! And your sig other did spark this interest first eh? Anyway, I say get them while you can and hold on tight. Take me to the range next time I`m over.

The kid that got killed down the road was killed during a drug deal. He was 14 and the shooter was 18. During the 4th quarter of 07 we had something like 6 homicides...not a lot by big city standards but we're only about 70k.

There have been two gun incidents at the city HS in this time frame as well. One of them with shots fired.

[Shaolin Wookie]

Do you know how long it takes to get a cop to your location when someone is assaulting you? Think they'll get there before your last breath?

Do you think you'll get your gun out fast enough? I doubt it. Are you going to outgun, yourself, a couple of hoods on the corner? I doubt it.


Meaning what? Are guns supposed to prevent all crimes now or something? While they won't have any bearing on illegal drug sales they will keep you from being a target of the users looking for fast cash to support their habit.

WTF city do you live in? Of course it won't. Couple of cops got killed in a mall parking lot about 1 mile down the street from HQ here about a month or two ago on my shift.


Where are you getting this from? My opinion you're just parroting some BS repot you read somewhere (but I will agree with it being security issue).

All weapons protect certain insecurities, and bolster others. It is a sexual thing, in that it's an issue of empowerment and dominance.


And anyone NOT intending (or being prepared) to use it shouldn't be carrying one in the first place. When I carry I fully intend to pull the trigger if needed.

:rolleyes:denananananadenanananadenananana.....Bat man!


Yes. Does that bother you for some reason? How about if I was in the neighborhood when your mom was being assaulted?

She wouldn't need you. Her boyfriend has a concealed carry permit, and he's always strapped. And no, that doesn't exactly make me feel much better either.


It's already been proven to improve neighborhoods, improve personal security and has not created an arms race anywhere concealed carry has been legalized.

LOL......


So tell me, why do you keep thinking gun ownership will somehow stop illegal drug sales? You keep bringing this up but nobody on the pro-gun ownership/concealed carry side makes that claim. I think you need to expand your reading choices.

Perhaps to pro-NRA websites or the Million Mom March? Um...no thanks. I'll take the uninterested and non-partisan viewpoints.


You're entitled to your opinion but it would be much more tolerable if it was based on real life info and not this clearly illogical anti-gun propaganda.

I'm not anti-gun. Guns are valuable tools. They can be used for hunting, military, law enforcement. I just don't think they're valuable tools in the hands of the ignorant and unweeting (criminal and citizen). Sadly, this constitutes the better part of American society. It's no unknown fact that guns, like tobacco, are behind a lot of our political funding campaigns. Their interests, as corporate and political hegemons, are being protected to such a ridiculous level that gun control is getting bashed left and right and overturned left and right, because of this paranoid state agenda.

A gun ban wouldn't be a bad idea, IMO. That, and a cellphone ban.

[rogue]

good point.

but how can I get to do that evil laugh when the fool looks down and sees the red light on his chest?????????????????? ;)

Do what some kid did in my old neighborhood did, just use a laser pointer. I got home late one night and the kid painted my front door. He must have gotten a big laugh when I did a dive over the railing and into my bushes. At least my reactions were good.:D

[Oso]

when I was bouncing in the 90's it became a cool gag to bring a laser pointer in to the bars and tag people with it. I about broke one kids arm when he didn't want to voluntarily surrender it.

besides, I decided I would try to copy The Rock's lifted eyebrow thing combined with a wink and a wry twist to the mouth. ;)

[Shaolin Wookie]

Any way you slice it you cannot win the argument. Your decision is based upon what makes you feel better and not based upon facts.

My decision isn't based on "what makes me feel better", but when I considered your argument last night, I can see that you're probably right on this bolded statement. There probably isn't a way to resolve the issue in my favor.

I would contend that it is the duty of the Constitution to impinge on many "so-called" gun rights, however.

I considered posting some BS from the MMM website, but I concede that you win this argument. I'm not convinced it's a victory predicated on reason, but more on bureaucratic impotence.

[lostdragon]

I just purchased my first firearm in 9 years.

Smith M&P, 9mm medium frame.

it's pretty sweet.

doing the concealed carry class next weekend.

That's just great! :)

[golden arhat]

Sheeyat, legal guns in the street aren't any better than illegal guns in the street. Sad state of affairs, where we modernize a clause in our Constitution, which was drafted to protect Americans in an era where there wasn't stable economics, govt., military, or police, and the threat of invasion was still imminent.

So why do you need a concealed carry permit? 'fraid of Za-Germans?

lol but if anyone actually invaded america they would be royally fuked


forget red dawn it would be like fuking road warrior

[Shaolin Wookie]

lol but if anyone actually invaded america they would be royally fuked


forget red dawn it would be like fuking road warrior

Yes, because it's the hick with an antique remington they all fear....:rolleyes:

[Siu Lum Fighter]

After I was almost killed in a crossfire (a round from a .44 missed my head by a couple feet) during a gang shootout as I was driving up the street, I got really jittery and nervous. I began carrying my 9mm around with me when I knew I was going into a bad area of Oakland.

After a while, I realized that I wasn't really that much safer, and getting caught in a shootout or killing someone, could have it's own drastic consequences. I realized that most gangbangers weren't gunning for me anyway. Being white probably actually helped me more than endangered me. That coupled with my height and nonfearful way of acting around them, didn't make me an easy target in their eyes. If you look scared or nervous, they'll think they can prey on you. If you look like you have something against them, if you act like your prejudiced or judging them, then they'll be more likely to shoot you. Otherwise, there's just no point in carrying around a piece all the time. If you act positively (not naive though) towards people, no matter how twisted and crazy they are, they'll be unlikely to want to just shoot you or rob you.

That brings me to the issue over the whole ego trip of carrying a gun. I began to realize it was really unhealthy of me to think, even for a second, something like, "haha, just try to f@ck with me!! I have the power to kill you if I wanted." That's a lower way of being and, honestly, I think I'd still have a pretty good chance against a thug with a gun anyway. If you're not living in places like Detroit, Watts, Compton, or East Oakland, and your neighborhood is on the fringe of the ghetto or is just slightly ghetto, then it's stupid to carry around a gun all the time. It would be stupider to stay there if it was a really sh!tty area.

If you can't be cool and nonjudgmental with people, and you feel you need to carry around a gun all the time, then, chances are, you're an egotistical punk who's, really, just insecure and on a little power trip with something to prove.

[rogue]

I carry unconcealed when I deliver turkeys and food baskets around the holidays.

[Siu Lum Fighter]

Ya, I'm sure you run into a lot of crazy, coked up grandma's on your delivery route, don't ya, stupid.

[Oso]

wow, i'm amazed at how verbally abusive the anti-gun people are. :rolleyes:

[Scott R. Brown]

That brings me to the issue over the whole ego trip of carrying a gun. I began to realize it was really unhealthy of me to think, even for a second, something like, "haha, just try to f@ck with me!! I have the power to kill you if I wanted." That's a lower way of being and, honestly, I think I'd still have a pretty good chance against a thug with a gun anyway. If you're not living in places like Detroit, Watts, Compton, or East Oakland, and your neighborhood is on the fringe of the ghetto or is just slightly ghetto, then it's stupid to carry around a gun all the time. It would be stupider to stay there if it was a really sh!tty area.

If you can't be cool and nonjudgmental with people, and you feel you need to carry around a gun all the time, then, chances are, you're an egotistical punk who's, really, just insecure and on a little power trip with something to prove.

Let's not project your own immaturity onto others.

I will refer you to post #33 of this thread which is synopsis of this paper:

http://saf.org/LawReviews/SouthwickJr1.htm

1) ..an estimate of an incentive effect (deterrence) of from 0.4 to 1.4 million fewer violent crimes due to civilian self-defense use of guns. That included from 2,200 to 7,900 fewer murders per year, implying that the murder rate would have been some 10 to 37 percent higher than it actually was had civilians not had guns for self- defense.

2) ...it was estimated that at least 500,000 fewer crimes occurred due to armed civilians.

3) ...an expected 10 to 17 percent of civilian victims of violent crime are armed at the time of victimization.

4) It was reasonable to infer that over 740,000 fewer violent crimes occur each year, [Page 244] including 7,300 fewer murders, because of handgun ownership and use by civilians.

5) Somewhere around 0.8 to 2.0 million violent crimes are deterred each year because of gun ownership and use by civilians. In addition, another 1.5 to 2.5 million crimes are stopped by armed civilians.

6) ...there are almost certainly some two to four million fewer completed crimes each year as the result of civilian gun ownership.

7) Without the civilian guns being used to deter and stop crimes, the numbers of completed crimes could well double. It would undoubtedly be the case that increased gun ownership would further reduce crime.

It is clear that due to your lack of maturity YOU should not carry a firearm. The fact that you realize this IS a sign of maturity.

[Siu Lum Fighter]

I'm mature enough to carry around a firearm and know when to use it. So I don't know what it is you think I wouldn't realize you idiot. The only reasons those statistics seem to "even out" the numbers of crimes and shootings is because guns and their rampant use and irresponsible owners have always caused major social problems throughout this country's history.

Have you seen any statistics for places like Japan or Hong Kong where carrying around guns is illegal, period. There are way fewer homicides and that's a FACT. My point is, if you feel like you have to carry around a gun for no good reason, then YOU are the dangerous, crackpot weirdo.

[Scott R. Brown]

I'm mature enough to carry around a firearm and know when to use it. So I don't know what it is you think I wouldn't realize you idiot. The only reasons those statistics seem to "even out" the numbers of crimes and shootings is because guns and their rampant use and irresponsible owners have caused major social problems throughout this country's history.

Have you seen any statistics for places like Japan or Hong Kong where carrying around guns is illegal, period. There are way fewer homicides and that's a FACT. My point is, if you feel like you have to carry around a gun for no good reason, then YOU are the dangerous, crackpot weirdo.

Oh my God are you a complete idiot??

You pretty much state here you are immature!


That brings me to the issue over the whole ego trip of carrying a gun. I began to realize it was really unhealthy of me to think, even for a second, something like, "haha, just try to f@ck with me!! I have the power to kill you if I wanted." That's a lower way of being and, honestly, I think I'd still have a pretty good chance against a thug with a gun anyway. If you're not living in places like Detroit, Watts, Compton, or East Oakland, and your neighborhood is on the fringe of the ghetto or is just slightly ghetto, then it's stupid to carry around a gun all the time. It would be stupider to stay there if it was a really sh!tty area.

If you can't be cool and nonjudgmental with people, and you feel you need to carry around a gun all the time, then, chances are, you're an egotistical punk who's, really, just insecure and on a little power trip with something to prove.

Pardon me for not including Asian statistics in the numerous statistics I have already posted on Europe and the U.S.

As with SW this is an emotional issue for you based upon your own limited understanding of the subject, your own personal issues and your immaturity!

Please demonstrate to me any statical information you can where people are safer when ONLY criminals have guns.

Why do many people study the MA? Because they believe it gives them an advantage in the event they may become a victim of violence. It is the same with those who prefer to carry firearms. The difference is that firearms are the ultimate equalizer. Any anyone with a minimum of skill can protect themselves from anyone else with 50 years of MA training. And it is more economical too. It costs less money and takes less time in training to learn to defend yourself with a firearm.

[rogue]

Ya, I'm sure you run into a lot of crazy, coked up grandma's on your delivery route, don't ya, stupid.

You're close. In some of the homes of these 35 year old grandmas I've seen drugs, guns and some expensive stuff I doubt the residents could afford. And most of the deliveries are in areas with gang and drug dealer presence.

[Scott R. Brown]

Perhaps you chose to ignore these facts:

On the other hand, in Russia--where firearms had been under police-state control for decades--Kates and Mauser found an exceedingly violent society.

Although the Soviet communist regime tried to hide the problem from the rest of the world, the collapse of the Soviet Union exposed the truth: Despite those iron-fisted government controls on firearm ownership--almost no Russian civilians owned firearms--Russia had, and continues to have, by far the highest murder rate in the developed world.

Kates and Mauser write: "In the 1960s and early ’70s, the gunless Soviet Union’s murder rates paralleled or generally exceeded those of gun-ridden America. While American rates stabilized and then steeply declined, however, Russian murder increased so drastically that by the early 1990s the Russian rate was three times higher than that of the United States. Between 1998-2004 … Russian murder rates were nearly four times higher than American rates."

We see much the same thing in Luxembourg, where handguns are completely banned and firearm ownership of any kind is rare. Even though its (lawful) citizens are effectively disarmed, in 2002 Luxembourg had a murder rate nine times higher than in neighboring Germany--where firearms are legal and widely owned.

"Individuals who commit violent crimes will either find guns despite severe controls or will find other weapons to use."

[Scott R. Brown]

See how easy it is to get information when you WANT to know the truth about something instead of mouth off ignorantly just to feel good about your righteous indignation?


The Numbers Speak For Themselves

Despite anti-gun propaganda, the U.S. murder rate is nowhere near that of many other countries.

By John Hay Rabb

Here's a pop quiz for you: Which country in the world has the highest murder rate? If you said the United States, you would be wrong, but your error would certainly be excusable. The incessant drumbeat from the mainstream media and anti-gun groups serves to perpetuate the canard that the U.S. is the bloodiest free-fire zone on earth. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In his article "America: The Most Violent Nation?" researcher David C. Stolinsky shows conclusively that there are a number of countries with higher murder rates than the U.S. This information comes from the United Nations report "The 1996 Demographic Yearbook." The report lists the murder rates in some 86 countries. There are more than 200 countries in the world, and more than 100 did not provide murder-rate data to the U.N. Even so, the Yearbook opens a fascinating window on the failure of gun-control laws around the world.

The connection between murder rates and gun control is quite clear. The vast majority of murders are committed with firearms. Therefore, it is possible to determine if there is any sort of correlation between gun laws and murder rates in selected countries.

Gun laws, like all laws, should be evaluated to determine if they meet accepted measures of success. Gun-control advocates contend that gun laws reduce murders as well as other gun crimes. An examination of this proposition shows conclusively that gun laws fail to reduce murder rates in many countries. Therefore, they fail to meet the fundamental measure of success and should be amended or repealed.

A 1997 Justice Department report on murders in the U.S. shows that our country has a murder rate of seven victims per 100,000 population per year. There are a number of well-known examples of countries with more liberal gun laws and lower murder rates than the U.S. One is Finland, with a murder rate of 2.9. Israel is another example; although its population is heavily armed, Israel's murder rate is only 1.4. In Switzerland, gun ownership is a way of life. Its murder rate is 2.7.

By contrast, consider Brazil. All firearms in Brazil must be registered with the government. This registration process can take anywhere from 30 days to three months. All civilian handguns are limited in caliber to no more than 9mm. All rifles must fire handgun ammunition only. Brazilians may only buy one gun per year. At any one time, they may only have in their possession a maximum of six guns: two handguns, two rifles and two shotguns. To transport their guns, citizens must obtain a special police permit. CCW permits are available but are rarely issued.

Therefore, it should not be a revelation to anyone that Brazil has a thriving black market in guns. Virtually any type of gun is available, for a price. Incidentally, Brazil's murder rate is 19 victims per 100,000 population per year.

In Cuba, Fidel Castro controls every aspect of life with an iron hand, including gun ownership. Castro remembers well how he and his rag-tag armed Communist rebels overthrew the government of Fulgencio Batista and set up a Communist dictatorship. An armed populace is threatening to a repressive government. Still, somebody in Cuba is obtaining guns and using them to murder fellow citizens. Cuba's murder rate is 7.8.

The former Soviet state of Lithuania is now an independent democratic country. But it still retains some vestiges of Stalinism. Lithuania's citizens must obtain a police permit to buy a gun. All guns are registered with the government. Somehow these restrictions are not deterring the criminal element; Lithuania has an unenviable murder rate of 11.7.

Gun control in Mexico is a fascinating case study. Mexican gun laws are simply draconian. No civilian may own a gun larger than .22 caliber, and a permit is required to buy one. All guns in Mexico are registered with the Ministry Of Defense. Guns may not be carried in public, either openly or concealed.

Mexican authorities seem to take a particular delight in arresting and imprisoning unwitting Americans who are not familiar with Mexican gun laws. Americans may not bring legal guns or ammunition into Mexico. Possession of even one bullet can get you thrown in a medieval Mexican prison. The State Department says that at any one time there are about 80 Americans imprisoned in Mexico for minor gun crimes. The State Department even went so far as to issue a special notice to U.S. gun owners, warning about harsh Mexican gun laws. Americans are allowed to hunt in Mexico, but they must first obtain a permit from the Mexican Embassy or a Mexican Consulate before taking their hunting rifles south of the border.

Mexico's murder rate is an eye-popping 17.5. Mexican authorities are fond of blaming the high murder rate on firearms smuggled across the border from the United States. Nonsense. The U.S. has many more personal guns than Mexico, yet our murder rate is far lower than Mexico's. It is Mexico's absurd gun laws that prevent law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves against illegally armed criminals.

Guns are effectively outlawed in Russia. Private handgun ownership is totally prohibited. A permit is required to purchase a long gun. All guns are registered with authorities. When transporting a long gun, it must be disassembled. Long guns may only be used for self-defense when the gun owner is on his own property. By the way, Russia's murder rate is a staggering 30.6.

It is surprising to learn that there is gun trouble in the tropical paradises of Trinidad and Tobago. Here a permit is required to purchase a gun. All guns are registered with the police. In spite of (or perhaps because of) these restrictions, Trinidad and Tobago together have a murder rate of 11.7.

In all fairness, it must be noted that many of the countries with high murder rates have governments and cultures very different from our own. Even so, the fundamental measure of gun-control success still applies. The countries I have discussed, along with many others, have gun laws that are more restrictive than U.S. laws, yet their murder rates exceed the U.S. murder rate. These laws clearly do not meet the fundamental measure of success, which is ultimately to save lives.

What anti-gunners all over the world fail to understand is that people everywhere are basically the same in one important respect. They are determined to protect themselves and their families. If their governments will not allow them to have firearms for self-defense, then they may obtain guns illegally, even at the risk of harsh punishment. It is a natural human response to danger.

Try as they might, Sarah Brady and her bunch will never be able to defeat man's primal instinct to protect himself and his family through whatever means necessary. This fundamental human truth may offer some small measure of comfort to law-abiding gun owners around the world.


I know! I know! Lets not confuse the issue with facts when our FEELINGS on the matter are so much more important!

[Mr Punch]

After I was almost killed in a crossfire (a round from a .44 missed my head by a couple feet) during a gang shootout as I was driving up the street, I got really jittery and nervous. I began carrying my 9mm around with me when I knew I was going into a bad area of Oakland.

After a while, I realized that I wasn't really that much safer, and getting caught in a shootout or killing someone, could have it's own drastic consequences. I realized that most gangbangers weren't gunning for me anyway. Being white probably actually helped me more than endangered me. That coupled with my height and nonfearful way of acting around them, didn't make me an easy target in their eyes. If you look scared or nervous, they'll think they can prey on you. If you look like you have something against them, if you act like your prejudiced or judging them, then they'll be more likely to shoot you. Otherwise, there's just no point in carrying around a piece all the time. If you act positively (not naive though) towards people, no matter how twisted and crazy they are, they'll be unlikely to want to just shoot you or rob you.

That brings me to the issue over the whole ego trip of carrying a gun. I began to realize it was really unhealthy of me to think, even for a second, something like, "haha, just try to f@ck with me!! I have the power to kill you if I wanted." I think it's interesting that after that experience your first thought was that being armed was in some way going to make a difference. That's exactly the kind of situation where carrying a gun is for some people, more likely to get them killed. Point is, you did the only right thing to do: drove on. If you'd had a gun and got it out, thinking you could do something (I don't know what - it obviously wasn't your fight) you'd have been more of a target by far. Another point, in that kind of gunfight where there're already more bullets flying around than targets the chance of stray bullets being the deciding factor is much higher than the chance of your gun being of any use. Last point, unless youre traind for shootouts, the chances of you injuring/killing another innocent bystander in that situation is much higher.

I'm not saying that experiencing what you did shouldn't make you want to carry, but I am saying that I think you're quite right to question yourself about your motives!


That's a lower way of being...It depends. What you said you thought is definitely so, but wanting to defend yourself? Sounds fine to me.
and, honestly, I think I'd still have a pretty good chance against a thug with a gun anyway.Honestly, I think this attitude is more likely to get you killed with or without a gun!


wow, i'm amazed at how verbally abusive the anti-gun people are. :rolleyes:Well, jeez, Mary, I'm really surprised at how buying a gun immediately makes you a sanctimonious politeness nut and causes a complete loss of sense of humour! :p (This is a joke!!! And I've got my hands up as I type! :eek: )


Let's not project your own immaturity onto others.Yeah, or Scott'll project his pseudo-scientific pompous-arsedness onto you. He does have a point though... which is...


It is clear that due to your lack of maturity YOU should not carry a firearm. The fact that you realize this IS a sign of maturity.You quite clearly SHOULD/SHOULD NOT carry a gun!

As an outsider two things strike me about this debate.

1) People get caught up in the politics of it. What I mean is, two adults should be able to agree to it being a personal choice thing. Unfortunately, however, it's a strong one-point voting issue which especially round this time means the ad hominem and the generalisations fly like stray bullets in a gang-banger shootout!

Especially, if someone wants to carry a gun, and then doesn't, and then does... or vice versa, he shouldn't be categorised as anti-gun by 'the gun lobby' or a gun-nut by 'the anti-gun lobby'. It IS important to think about it: it is ALSO important to make sure this stays a state government issue and not central govt. Black Jack is moaning about the state he lives in as if everybody in that state is wrong, morally bankrupt, nuts or whatever, but the fact is: that state has decided (and he's the outsider wanting to impose his will). If you agree with democracy, tough: move state. That should be a strength of the United States. Of course, you have to make sure (lobby: don't just be lazy and choose a pres candidate on limited issue politics) your state-wide and nationwide electoral system represents that.

Although this is a freedom issue of course it has a bearing on other people's freedom. Loonies like Kwai Chang saying he'll fight for his right to bear arms don't help the issue.

2) That study's points about other countries are largely tenuously unsubstantiatable at best, due to lack of restricting variables and basic sociological methodology. America in this case is a very special case. As such,
people pointing at other countries and saying that what applies to America should apply there is pointless, as is people pointing to other countries and saying that what applies there has some bearing on America. There is no evidence to suggest that loosening restriction laws in either of the countries I've lived in would do any good for average citizens. Lobbying to loosen those laws on some vague notion that it's a move towards more personal freedom of choice is also ridiculous. I would (and will when I move back to my country and get active in politics again) lobby to have the laws loosened but for different reasons.

[Scott R. Brown]

What?? You want more???


The bias against handguns

Cathy Young | March 18, 2002

http://www.reason.com/news/show/31897.html

Does domestic gun ownership pose a more serious threat to Americans than foreign terrorism?

That's what New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof seems to be saying in a recent article. Alarmed by reports of a surge in gun sales after Sept. 11, Kristof cites familiar statistics on the perils of guns. Japan, where handguns are practically unavailable, had only 29 gun deaths (both murders and suicides) in 1999, while the United States had 26,800 gun deaths in 2000. England, another country with a strict handgun ban, has higher rates of assault and burglary than the United States but a murder rate only one-sixth of ours.

According to Kristof, ''it is pointless to try to deny the link between more handguns and increased murder and suicide.'' He concludes, ''Our desire to defend ourselves from terrorism by buying firearms will mean, almost certainly, that thousands more Americans will die in the years ahead from gunfire. It's not terrorism, but it should be terrifying.''

Whether handguns are an effective means of defense against terrorism is an open question. (If the next frontier of terrorism is biological and chemical warfare, then the answer is clearly no.) But is the link between handgun ownership and high rates of murder and suicide really that incontrovertible?

Consider, for instance, the fact that our nongun homicide rates exceed total homicide rates in many nations. In 1998, the murder and nonnegligent manslaughter rate in the United States was 6.3 per 100,000 people, and firearms were used in about two-thirds of these killings. Even if we had somehow gotten rid not only of handguns but of all guns, and even if, improbably, none of the killers who used guns would have substituted some other weapon, we still would have been left with 2.1 murders for every 100,000 people - about four times the average annual homicide rate in Japan (0.5 per 100,000) and higher than the homicide rates in Great Britain (1.2) or Sweden (1.4). Obviously, access to guns isn't the only factor.

Consider, too, countries where guns are common and crime is rare. Switzerland boasts a heavily armed population and a thriving gun culture (shooting contests for children are a popular tradition). Yet its homicide rates are comparable to Great Britain's. Israel, where most adults are either on active military duty or in the reserves and almost every home has a weapon, also has a low murder rate, on a par with most of Western Europe.

What's more, more than half of gun deaths in this country (about 55 percent) are not homicides, but suicides. Am I saying that we needn't be concerned if people merely shoot themselves rather than shoot others? No. But in this case, blaming the guns for the deaths is especially dubious.

Curiously, when it comes to suicide, we don't see many comparisons with all those countries that so wisely keep guns out of people's hands - maybe because old gun-crazy America wouldn't look so bad by comparison. In 1996, the suicide rate per 100,000 people was 11.8 in the United States, 13.4 in Canada, 17.9 in Japan, 20.9 in France and 25 in Finland.

While exaggerated claims about the evil of guns generally get respectful treatment in the media, no such attention is accorded to facts which suggest that the case for guns as a means of crime prevention may be more than a National Rifle Association myth. John R. Lott, an economist who is now a senior research scholar at Yale Law School, has published studies that conclude that state laws allowing any citizen with no criminal record to obtain a concealed weapon permit lead to lower rates of violent crime, including murder.

So far, Lott's research has held up well under scrutiny. Yet most of the mainstream media and punditry ignore his findings and scoff at the notion that guns may have benefits.

Gun-control advocates assert that just over 2 percent of handgun homicides are in self-defense and cite studies purporting to show that a gun in the house is more dangerous to the owner than to an intruder. Gun-rights supporters counter that these studies omit cases in which a civilian stops a crime, and perhaps escapes death or serious harm, by firing in the air or merely brandishing a weapon. Estimates of the frequency of such incidents vary widely, from 84,000 to 3.6 million a year.

Obviously, the claims of progun groups about the benefits of guns for self-defense deserve to be treated with caution. But so do the claims of the other side.

[Mr Punch]

You're close. In some of the homes of these 35 year old grandmas I've seen drugs, guns and some expensive stuff I doubt the residents could afford. And most of the deliveries are in areas with gang and drug dealer presence.
LOL, I hear you! The only time I wished I was carrying a weapon in among many many dodgy encounters in the UK was when I was doing a pools round (collecting money for a govt-run football betting syndicate) in an area where probably half the grandmothers were in their 30s!

[Scott R. Brown]

Yeah, or Scott'll project his pseudo-scientific pompous-arsedness onto you. He does have a point though... which is...

Hmm, Let me see...

He as much as admits he doesn't have the maturity, but I am the one using "pseudo-scientific pompous-arsedness"?

And where did you get your Psychology degree from?

Once again a prime example of the pot calling the kettle black it seems!

[Mr Punch]

What?? You want more???
Was that addressed to me? :confused:


In all fairness, it must be noted that many of the countries with high murder rates have governments and cultures very different from our own. Even so, the fundamental measure of gun-control success still applies. The first statement is correct and way over-rides the blatantly subjective second statement, IMO.


What anti-gunners all over the world fail to understand is that people everywhere are basically the same in one important respect. They are determined to protect themselves and their families. If their governments will not allow them to have firearms for self-defense, then they may obtain guns illegally, even at the risk of harsh punishment. It is a natural human response to danger.
So now you are suggesting that breaking the law to obtain a gun (and maybe thus protect yourself at some time in the future by breaking the law further and using it!) is in some way going to keep the peace? It's attitudes like this, especially in regards to other countries where the only data you're looking at is one-issue sociological data from one side, that give the gun-lobby a bad name. The only way to change the law is by, er, changing the law in any society with any claims to being developed.

[Mr Punch]

Hmm, Let me see...

He as much as admits he doesn't have the maturity, but I am the one using "pseudo-scientific pompous-arsedness"?

And where did you get your Psychology degree from?

Once again a prime example of the pot calling the kettle black it seems!Nah. It was a joke.

Not to say I don't think it's valid, mind. Your way of speaking to everyone on this board is high-handed and patronising. Plus your last point about Sil Lum's maturity was funny and very unclear.[/shrug]

I like a laugh! :D

[Siu Lum Fighter]

BLA BLA BLA BLA...the fact is, this society is never going to be completely stable and safe if people are encouraged to carry around firearms. I have lived in crime ridden areas, I'm no stranger to guns and violence. Anyone who thinks, "crime will be prevented if only everyone owned a gun" is a moron.

[Scott R. Brown]

No it was not addressed to you!

You fail to consider that the article cited used statistical information to come to its conclusions. Secondly it is only one of many articles I have posted while no one on the anti-firearm side has posted any data at all to support their argument and neither have you.

To take one or two lines out of an entire argument does not demonstrate the conclusion to be false. You must address the facts upon which the conclusions are based or the reasoning process that led to that conclusion.

[Scott R. Brown]

BLA BLA BLA BLA...the fact is, this society is never going to be completely stable and safe if people are encouraged to carry around firearms. I have lived in crime ridden areas, I'm no stranger to guns and violence. Anyone who thinks, "crime will be prevented if only everyone owned a gun" is a moron.

You have not read any of the information presented very carefully. It is not firearms that commit crimes it is people. If firearms were completely outlawed the violent will carry hammers, screwdrivers, baseball bats, knives, pipes, chains, axes, flashlights, etc.

The problem is NEVER the weapon, it is the person!

[Scott R. Brown]

Nah. It was a joke.

Not to say I don't think it's valid, mind. Your way of speaking to everyone on this board is high-handed and patronising. Plus your last point about Sil Lum's maturity was funny and very unclear.[/shrug]

I like a laugh! :D

I may seem high-handed and this is a criticism I have frequently received. But this is a misunderstanding of how I handle many or most post.

I prefer in most cases to deal with facts and draw conclusions from the facts to determine my position on most things, while, according to the way most people post here, their decisions appear to be based upon social indoctrination and how they FEEL about the topic. It is dangerous when decisions are based upon indoctrination and feelings.

[Scott R. Brown]

Anyone who thinks, "crime will be prevented if only everyone owned a gun" is a moron.

But a circumstance where ONLY the criminals have guns IS safer??

[Black Jack II]

Anyone who thinks, "crime will be prevented if only everyone owned a gun" is a moron.

No one is saying crime will be prevented if everyone owns a gun. But owning a gun prevents a LOT of crimes.

I can point out a number of studies and data but to be honest I am not going to waste my time going into this for the zillionith circle jerk, people I consider knuckle heads will always be knuckleheads and I don't think basic commonsense can be instilled on a web forum.:cool:

[Black Jack II]

Black Jack is moaning about the state he lives in as if everybody in that state is wrong, morally bankrupt, nuts or whatever, but the fact is: that state has decided (and he's the outsider wanting to impose his will).

It is my constitutional right to try and impose my will:D

And yes, when I see a culture in my specific neck of the woods, that in my view has their heads so far up their own ass....I want to change things for the better and trust me Punch, they would be for the better.

[Black Jack II]

Yes, because it's the hick with an antique remington they all fear....

I take it you have not encountered many "hicks" with remington's have you:rolleyes:

In fact I would wager you know very little about the subject matter at hand, nothing real world anyway, just emotional bleeding heart junkmail.

[Oso]

:p at Mr. Punch

[Mr Punch]

No it was not addressed to you!

You fail to consider that the article cited used statistical information to come to its conclusions. I wasn't failing to consider that. As I stated clearly, I question their statistical methodology. Sociology/criminology is famous for dubious methodology, and to a trained scientist like me it's usually dubious as to whether it can ever truly be called scientific. This is not of course a personal attack, and nor is it saying that that report is worthless.


Secondly it is only one of many articles I have posted while no one on the anti-firearm side has posted any data at all to support their argument and neither have you.Nope, guilty as charged. I don't have any data. My argument is largely that such data is worthless on either side. There is reams of data supporting this argument throughout years of criminological research.


To take one or two lines out of an entire argument does not demonstrate the conclusion to be false. You must address the facts upon which the conclusions are based or the reasoning process that led to that conclusion.I wasn't doing that, although I was picking a hole in your conclusion (the following was yours wasn't it?):
In all fairness, it must be noted that many of the countries with high murder rates have governments and cultures very different from our own. Even so, the fundamental measure of gun-control success still applies.I don't see any assessment of the data that shows that the second statement can be concluded from the first. Again, it's the reasoning process I'm quibbling with, and again, it's a point that is well-proven.


I may seem high-handed and this is a criticism I have frequently received. But this is a misunderstanding of how I handle many or most post.If it's a misunderstanding made by many does that not mean that it's a failure in your communication style? I don't know, and I don't intend to make this personal... just seems an obvious conclusion.


I prefer in most cases to deal with facts and draw conclusions from the facts to determine my position on most things, while, according to the way most people post here, their decisions appear to be based upon social indoctrination and how they FEEL about the topic. It is dangerous when decisions are based upon indoctrination and feelings.We've had this out before, Scott: I'm still not sure what makes you think YOU are any more independent of indoctrination or feelings! Just repeating that supposition doesn't divorce you from your environment or upbringing!

So, I refer you again to your conclusion above: what makes you think that 'the fundamental measure of gun-control success' applies over cultural differences? Furthermore, what are you saying is the aim of gun-control? Is it the same in every country (have you studied the recorded arguments in the parliaments of the countries that study has investigated to determine why legislators thought gun control was a good idea?)? Even if overall murder rates are still high or rising, maybe the aim is just to reduce gun death in itself...? May seem a strange aim, but given the number of accidental gun deaths, and bystander gun deaths, as opposed to say, accidental carving knife deaths, or bystander baseball bat deaths, it may be a worthy aim.

It seems to me that your conclusion is based on your socialization, ratehr than sufficient rational, objective science. I'm not saying this is your fault: as I said, I don't think it is a scientifically provable subject, and eventually it must come down to a moral or political standpoint that to some extent must be a priori.


It is my constitutional right to try and impose my will:DAgreed ;)


And yes, when I see a culture in my specific neck of the woods, that in my view has their heads so far up their own ass....I want to change things for the better and trust me Punch, they would be for the better.LOL, how do you know your head isn't up your ass? And why the hell should we trust you?! :p:eek::D OK, I'm joking, but again it's a valid point: IF you believe in democracy it means you are trusting other members of the public to be able to make worthwhile intelligent decisions. Or at least, to elect people who will do so for you, or who will champion electoral system reform to establish some form of collective or at least responsible and worthwhile, intelligent decisions...! That's why gun control is such a pointless political issue. It's single-issue politics at its most cynical and deceptive (i.e. giving people the illusion that what they want is achievable) without really addressing the implications of constitutional rights or the political system.

Me, I don't trust anybody to make decisions for me, but I'd probably prefer to trust a small, constantly researching, well-informed govt to make better decisions than Rogue's 35 year-old grandma about whether she can carry a gun to shoot anyone who comes up the garden path!

The question is, how much control can I get over the govt?! :eek:

[Mr Punch]

:p at Mr. Punch:D
.
.
.

[Scott R. Brown]

I wasn't failing to consider that. As I stated clearly, I question their statistical methodology. Sociology/criminology is famous for dubious methodology, and to a trained scientist like me it's usually dubious as to whether it can ever truly be called scientific. This is not of course a personal attack, and nor is it saying that that report is worthless.

Nope, guilty as charged. I don't have any data. My argument is largely that such data is worthless on either side. There is reams of data supporting this argument throughout years of criminological research.


Well how about reading the reports, demonstrating the statistics that originate from government sources and the U.N. are false and criticizing the methodology instead of just assuming the conclusions to be flawed based upon you scientific training that has not been demonstrated very well in this discussion.

Please demonstrate how these facts have been manipulated in order to falsify the conclusion:

1) All firearms in Brazil must be registered with the government. This registration process can take anywhere from 30 days to three months. All civilian handguns are limited in caliber to no more than 9mm. All rifles must fire handgun ammunition only. Brazilians may only buy one gun per year. At any one time, they may only have in their possession a maximum of six guns: two handguns, two rifles and two shotguns. To transport their guns, citizens must obtain a special police permit. CCW permits are available but are rarely issued. Therefore, it should not be a revelation to anyone that Brazil has a thriving black market in guns. Virtually any type of gun is available, for a price. Incidentally, Brazil's murder rate is 19 victims per 100,000 population per year.

3) In Cuba, Fidel Castro controls every aspect of life with an iron hand, including gun ownership. Castro remembers well how he and his rag-tag armed Communist rebels overthrew the government of Fulgencio Batista and set up a Communist dictatorship. An armed populace is threatening to a repressive government. Still, somebody in Cuba is obtaining guns and using them to murder fellow citizens. Cuba's murder rate is 7.8.

4) Lithuania's citizens must obtain a police permit to buy a gun. All guns are registered with the government. Somehow these restrictions are not deterring the criminal element; Lithuania has an unenviable murder rate of 11.7.

5) Gun control in Mexico is a fascinating case study. Mexican gun laws are simply draconian. No civilian may own a gun larger than .22 caliber, and a permit is required to buy one. All guns in Mexico are registered with the Ministry Of Defense. Guns may not be carried in public, either openly or concealed. Mexico's murder rate is an eye-popping 17.5.

6) Guns are effectively outlawed in Russia. Russia's murder rate is a staggering 30.6.

7) The U. S. Murder rate in 2006 was 5.7

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

So please demonstrate to me how these statistics are incorrect or demonstrate using these statistics that gun control works and the citizens of these countries are safer with their gun control laws.



I wasn't doing that, although I was picking a hole in your conclusion (the following was yours wasn't it?): I don't see any assessment of the data that shows that the second statement can be concluded from the first. Again, it's the reasoning process I'm quibbling with, and again, it's a point that is well-proven.

No it was not my conclusion; it was the author of the article’s conclusion. Stating it is incorrect without evidence to demonstrates it so is poor science isn't it?


If it's a misunderstanding made by many does that not mean that it's a failure in your communication style? I don't know, and I don't intend to make this personal... just seems an obvious conclusion.

It depends upon what my purpose is doesn’t it? If my purpose is to be liked, then yes; if my purpose is to examine the evidence in a rational manner and come to a conclusion, then no. It makes people uncomfortable is when their conclusions are demonstrated to be founded upon feelings, desire and social conditioning and possess with no rational foundation. This creates a condition where they are unable to make a reasonable argument to demonstrate their opinion. As a scientist i am surprised to you do not recognize the signs and symptoms of rational discourse.


We've had this out before, Scott: I'm still not sure what makes you think YOU are any more independent of indoctrination or feelings! Just repeating that supposition doesn't divorce you from your environment or upbringing!

I never claimed I was! However, more frequently than not I am able to demonstrate my opinions are based upon facts. You have not done so. This makes the conclusions I come to more rationally based while yours demonstrate no rational basis. Reason has been demonstrated throughout history to be the more effective means of coming to conclusions and provides for greater overall benefits. Would you rather your Doctor make decisions based upon his feelings or statistical evidence? How about your car mechanic? How about your government representative?

Once again:

Please demonstrate to me ANY factual evidence that demonstrates any society on the planet where citizens are safer when only criminals have guns! You have not done so and you cannot do so!


So, I refer you again to your conclusion above: what makes you think that 'the fundamental measure of gun-control success' applies over cultural differences? Furthermore, what are you saying is the aim of gun-control? Is it the same in every country (have you studied the recorded arguments in the parliaments of the countries that study has investigated to determine why legislators thought gun control was a good idea?)? Even if overall murder rates are still high or rising, maybe the aim is just to reduce gun death in itself...? May seem a strange aim, but given the number of accidental gun deaths, and bystander gun deaths, as opposed to say, accidental carving knife deaths, or bystander baseball bat deaths, it may be a worthy aim.

Once again it is not my conclusion but the author’s. I presented the article for the facts included and not for the conclusion. In order for you to properly and reasonable demonstrate my position is in error you must demonstrate all the evidence I have provided is false and then you must:

Demonstrate that citizens are safer under conditions where only criminals have guns!

And once again;

You cannot do so!

The primary purpose of firearms control is to provide for a safer living environment for the population. This does not occur and you an no one else can demonstrate that any country is safer when only the criminals have guns.

I have provided numerous articles that cite government and U.N. statistics as evidence that countries with gun control are NOT safer and that States with gun control laws are NOT safer. You have done nothing to provide a rational argument to the contrary other than to claim scientific training that you are apparently NOT using to your benefit. It makes one question whether you actually have had adequate scientific training.

You disregard out right government statistical data upon which the articles I have posted are based. A fact is a fact. Russia has gun control, Brazil has gun control their murder rates are higher. Therefore gun control does not demonstrate any greater safety for the citicizens of those countries. Since these are only two examples I encourage you to review the other articles I have posted that make longer and fuller arguments. Poo Pooing the arguments based only upon your “experience” and “training” as a scientist is a decidedly unscientific manner of coming to any conclusion and validating any argument.


It seems to me that your conclusion is based on your socialization, ratehr than sufficient rational, objective science. I'm not saying this is your fault: as I said, I don't think it is a scientifically provable subject, and eventually it must come down to a moral or political standpoint that to some extent must be a priori.

See above!

While social conditioning clearly influences all individuals you have provided no evidence that your opinion is based upon any facts while I have provided numerous facts which you and no one else, so far, are able to refute.

[Mr Punch]

Well how about reading the reports, demonstrating the statistics that originate from government sources and the U.N. are false and criticizing the methodology instead of just assuming the conclusions to be flawed based upon you scientific training that has not been demonstrated very well in this discussion.Reread my posts: I never stated the stats are false.


Please demonstrate how these facts have been manipulated in order to falsify the conclusion:Reread my post: I never claimed they had been manipulated, nor the conclusion was falsified.

I simply and clearly stated about:

In all fairness, it must be noted that many of the countries with high murder rates have governments and cultures very different from our own. Even so, the fundamental measure of gun-control success still applies.

that

I don't see any assessment of the data that shows that the second statement can be concluded from the first.

It lacks the first scientific caveat of establishing a causal relationship. The murder rate is higher therefore gun restrictions have failed is not a valid causal statement. It is a correlation. It cannot be proven due to there being too many uncontrollable variables. It's a simple mistake to make for a junior high school science class. BTW, what is your scientific training?

As the proposer of a supposedly scientific hypothesis, the onus is on you to prove that hypothesis, not on me to disprove it. Basic scientific method.

The UN and US govt's stats on violent death are probably accurate. Attributing this just to gun laws is facetious, specious and flawed.


1) All firearms in Brazil must be registered with the government... The U. S. Murder rate in 2006 was 5.7

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

So please demonstrate to me how these statistics are incorrect or demonstrate using these statistics that gun control works and the citizens of these countries are safer with their gun control laws.Again, you're missing the point. (BTW, it's actually irrelevant whether it was you making those conclusions or the writers of the report.) Can you show me the stated reasons the countries you just mentioned had for tightening gun laws? You keep repeating murder rates like this is some proof. What if the reason for restricting gun ownership was, as I mentioned before, to restrict gun deaths? in which case, general murder rates mean nothing and gun deaths mean everything.

But even then, let's make this simple for you and look at Brazil, a country with one of the most notoriously corrupt police forces in the world: it doesn't matter what the law is if the enforcers of the laws don't care or can't enforce it anyway. That's just one little tiny point to reinforce what I'm trying to tell you about non-controllable variables.


No it was not my conclusion; it was the author of the article’s conclusion. Stating it is incorrect without evidence to demonstrates it so is poor science isn't it?Again: you don't seem to understand basic scientific method: it is you that is trying to prove your hypothesis, so there is no need or possibility of my disproving it. Furthermore, I used logic based on definitions of science and scientific methodology to demonstrate your hypotheses' non-viability. If you can't follow that argument it is because of a lack of sound science.

Add to this that I'm not trying to prove that gun laws improve safety or even decrease gun deaths and never stated that I was, I am just widening the holes in your already pretty stringy argument that any of this is scientifically provable. It isn't.


It depends upon what my purpose is doesn’t it? If my purpose is to be liked, then yes; if my purpose is to examine the evidence in a rational manner and come to a conclusion, then no. No, if your communication style is failing a)you are talking to yourself, and b) it doesn't matter what your purpose is unless you are just writing here to convince yourself, ior reconfirm things to yourself... in which case a private journal may be a better medium.


It makes people uncomfortable is when their conclusions are demonstrated to be founded upon feelings, desire and social conditioning and possess with no rational foundation. This creates a condition where they are unable to make a reasonable argument to demonstrate their opinion. As a scientist i am surprised to you do not recognize the signs and symptoms of rational discourse.I do not recognise the signs of rational discourse as you are failing to offer any. As a scientist, I am not surprised, I am observing. As a scientist I would suggest that your surprise is yet another indication of your letting your opinions cloud your thoughts.

LOL, OK, now I'm ****ing with ya! :D


I never claimed I was! However, more frequently than not I am able to demonstrate my opinions are based upon facts. In your opinion. Which is another basic anomaly that is discussed until at least recognition by first year university science majors. By the way, when the facts you are using are irrelevant to the hypothesis, your opinions have even less weight.


Once again:

Please demonstrate to me ANY factual evidence that demonstrates any society on the planet where citizens are safer when only criminals have guns! You have not done so and you cannot do so! Once again, please quote the part of the post where I claimed that is what I was trying to do. This is a prime example of a straw man.

The rest of your 'argument' is once again repetition, misunderstanding my points and demonstrating a complete lack of basic knowledge of scientific method.


While social conditioning clearly influences all individuals you have provided no evidence that your opinion is based upon any facts while I have provided numerous facts which you and no one else, so far, are able to refute.This sentence demonstrates that your lack of fundamental grasp of grammar may be, in fact, what's contributing to your breakdown in scientific theory, logic, rational thinking and reading comprehension... would you like me to demonstrate why this sentence is complete nonsense? :) Of course, it may just mean that you're up too late...

[Scott R. Brown]

You said:


As I stated clearly, I question their statistical methodology. Sociology/criminology is famous for dubious methodology, and to a trained scientist like me it's usually dubious as to whether it can ever truly be called scientific. This is not of course a personal attack, and nor is it saying that that report is worthless.

I don't have any data. My argument is largely that such data is worthless on either side. There is reams of data supporting this argument throughout years of criminological research.

This implies the conclusion does not follow from the premises which are the statistical data. To disprove the conclusion one must either demonstrate the premises (the facts cited) to be untrue and/or that the conclusions do not follow rationally from the premises. You have done neither. You merely appealed to your authority as a trained scientist. As a trained scientist I would expect you to recognize the foolishness of using an appeal to authority in a rational argument as it demonstrates either lazy reasoning or inadequate reasoning ability.

The cited comment in question:

In all fairness, it must be noted that many of the countries with high murder rates have governments and cultures very different from our own. Even so, the fundamental measure of gun-control success still applies.

This conclusion was not mine it was that of the author of the article. I have already stated that I supplied the article for its statistical merits and not its argumentative merits. I bolded most of the data that I considered pertinent. In some of the above cases I provided an entire article in order provide the full context of the data as it was presented, NOT as support for my argument. I recognize I did not make this clear and I take responsibility for the error.


I don't see any assessment of the data that shows that the second statement can be concluded from the first.

It lacks the first scientific caveat of establishing a causal relationship. The murder rate is higher therefore gun restrictions have failed is not a valid causal statement. It is a correlation. It cannot be proven due to there being too many uncontrollable variables. It's a simple mistake to make for a junior high school science class. BTW, what is your scientific training?

You seem to have missed the earlier post that made that very comment. It has already been mentioned in this conversation that a correlation does not necessitate a causal relationship. Please see post #34 at the bottom.

The relationship between firearms and crime may be one of correlation more than causation, but the correlation is a good one: More guns may not always dictate less crime. . . but more guns definitely go hand-in-hand with less crime. And the advocates of gun bans bear the burden of proving otherwise before imposing more onerous laws.

As Kates and Mauser conclude in their study:

"Whether gun availability is viewed as a cause or as a mere coincidence, the long term macrocosmic evidence is that gun ownership spread widely throughout societies consistently correlates with stable or declining murder rates. Whether causative or not, the consistent international pattern is that more guns equal less murder and other violent crime.

Since there is a “consistent correlation” demonstrated by the evidence, the argument that we are safer when guns are banned is a false conclusion. It is the onus of those who wish to ban guns, and thus violate our constitutional right to keep and bear arms, to demonstrate their proposition. I have provided evidence that reasonably refutes their assertion.

You commented:


As the proposer of a supposedly scientific hypothesis, the onus is on you to prove that hypothesis, not on me to disprove it. Basic scientific method.

You have the onus for proof a bit backwards here.

The question in this discussion is whether or not guns should be banned. Therefore, the onus is on those who wish to ban guns to demonstrate a justification for the taking away of our constitutional right to keep and bear arms. It is the responsibility of those who propose that the presence of guns is a greater danger than the absence of guns to demonstrate the danger overrides our constitutional rights. They have NOT done so. The data presented in the statistics cited above suggests that there is no causal relationship between the lack of the availability of guns and a safer society. THAT is the salient point of the data.


Again, you're missing the point. (BTW, it's actually irrelevant whether it was you making those conclusions or the writers of the report.) Can you show me the stated reasons the countries you just mentioned had for tightening gun laws? You keep repeating murder rates like this is some proof. What if the reason for restricting gun ownership was, as I mentioned before, to restrict gun deaths? in which case, general murder rates mean nothing and gun deaths mean everything.

You are incorrect, what is irrelevant why the countries choose to their tighten gun laws. The tightening of the laws did not lead to fewer homicides; this is demonstrated by the statistics. Therefore, one cannot make the claim that tighter gun laws make for a safer citizenry. This is the position of those who wish to violate our constitutional right to keep and bear arms. I do not need to demonstrate that guns make us safer, although I have provided an article that makes that claim, all I need do is demonstrate that that those who wish to ban guns cannot demonstrate that tighter gun laws make us safer. I have provided information from a variety of sources that creates sufficient doubt. This is sufficient to provide a rational basis for protecting our constitutional right to keep and bear arms.


But even then, let's make this simple for you and look at Brazil, a country with one of the most notoriously corrupt police forces in the world: it doesn't matter what the law is if the enforcers of the laws don't care or can't enforce it anyway. That's just one little tiny point to reinforce what I'm trying to tell you about non-controllable variables.

That is the point!!

You do not have a clear understanding here. It is irrelevant how criminals get guns. What is demonstrated by your argument is that they WILL get guns. Your argument and the data demonstrate that criminals will have access to guns even when law abiding citizens do not. Please demonstrate to me that citizens who do not have guns are safer when ONLY the criminals have guns. This is the onus of those who wish to violate our constitutionally protected rights and ban guns, and it cannot be done. They cannot demonstrate that citizens are safer when only criminals have guns; therefore there is no rational basis for banning guns.


Again: you don't seem to understand basic scientific method: it is you that is trying to prove your hypothesis, so there is no need or possibility of my disproving it. Furthermore, I used logic based on definitions of science and scientific methodology to demonstrate your hypotheses' non-viability. If you can't follow that argument it is because of a lack of sound science.

Add to this that I'm not trying to prove that gun laws improve safety or even decrease gun deaths and never stated that I was, I am just widening the holes in your already pretty stringy argument that any of this is scientifically provable. It isn't.

I have not stated anything was scientific fact, only that the data is factual and from the data certain conclusions may be reasonable drawn.

Once again it is my purpose to demonstrate the hypothesis that we are safer when only criminals have guns is false. I realize I have implied much of the argument and not explicitly stated it, I have done so now.


No, if your communication style is failing a)you are talking to yourself, and b) it doesn't matter what your purpose is unless you are just writing here to convince yourself, ior reconfirm things to yourself... in which case a private journal may be a better medium.

Are you SURE you are a trained scientist. This implies you are able to reason; I do not see much of it here.

Ones PURPOSE is what is MOST important. The measure of a method is whether or not it allows one to accomplish their purpose. A particular method provides a benefit when it allows one to achieve their purpose. Didn’t your scientific training teach you anything other than how to act holier than thou?

You are in no place to know or speculate on what my purpose is or to judge whether my method accomplishes my purpose or not. How arrogant and pompous you are! Could it be you find me pompous because I remind you of yourself? Or are you just projecting onto me your own insecurities. You will note I never initiate personal attacks. I prefer to attack arguments. I do feel free to respond in kind however; when it serves my PURPOSE.

Now it is you who appear to be pompous and using pseudo-psychology, which validates my assertion that you are merely the pot calling the kettle black.

My apparent failing, is merely a failing in your own mind which I am not concerned with. Your issues are your own to deal with, try not to project them on to me or others. Doing so reinforces them and makes them more difficult to overcome. Before you accuse me of more pseudo-psychology feel free to ask your shrink.

It is not up to you to determine my purposes or methods for me. Whether the results are acceptable for my purposes or not is my responsibility NOT yours. Your opinion is not important to me. It is based upon your own prejudices and personal issues of which I am not responsible. You must live with your own self as I do with my self. If you don’t like my method feel free not to respond to my comments. It makes no difference to me or not.

[Scott R. Brown]

I do not recognise the signs of rational discourse as you are failing to offer any. As a scientist, I am not surprised, I am observing. As a scientist I would suggest that your surprise is yet another indication of your letting your opinions cloud your thoughts.

Hmm, interesting! I have not seen any signs of rational discourse on your part. However, I will not pretend to qualify my comment as humor, as you have done.

Once again your comment reflects an inability to understand or reason clearly. Surprise occurs when one expects a specific effect to follow from a cause and that effect DOES NOT occur! It is reasonable to expect one who claims to be scientifically trained to be able to reason well, especially when they use this as a basis for their conclusion instead of providing a reasoned argument to support it. I was surprised because your claim to be scientifically trained was believed by me and I expected one who is scientifically trained to have a greater ability to reason than you have demonstrated. Thus I was surprised! See how easy it is to reason, try it some time you might receive some benefit from it.

I wrote:

While social conditioning clearly influences all individuals you have provided no evidence that your opinion is based upon any facts while I have provided numerous facts which you and no one else, so far, are able to refute.



This sentence demonstrates that your lack of fundamental grasp of grammar may be, in fact, what's contributing to your breakdown in scientific theory, logic, rational thinking and reading comprehension... would you like me to demonstrate why this sentence is complete nonsense? Of course, it may just mean that you're up too late...

LOL!! Come on you have just demonstrated my point once again. You have done nothing but make empty claims while providing no basis for your conclusions. You have supported your worthless statements with nothing more than an appeal to YOUR authority as a trained scientist! LOL!! And yet you presume to instruct ME on proper reasoning?

Are you SURE you are scientifically trained or do you just play a scientist on TV?

[Mr Punch]

LOL, you're really quite deranged aren't you? Hilarious!

I've provided the arguments you've asked for, addressed your points and asked you a few questions in return, and you're just repeating yourself and providing straw men and circular arguments. You're insane, and I'm not going to talk to you any more.

:D

[Shaolin Wookie]

Hmm, interesting! I have not seen any signs of rational discourse on your part. However, I will not pretend to qualify my comment as humor, as you have done.

Once again your comment reflects an inability to understand or reason clearly. Surprise occurs when one expects a specific effect to follow from a cause and that effect DOES NOT occur! It is reasonable to expect one who claims to be scientifically trained to be able to reason well, especially when they use this as a basis for their conclusion instead of providing a reasoned argument to support it. I was surprised because your claim to be scientifically trained was believed by me and I expected one who is scientifically trained to have a greater ability to reason than you have demonstrated. Thus I was surprised! See how easy it is to reason, try it some time you might receive some benefit from it.

I wrote:

While social conditioning clearly influences all individuals you have provided no evidence that your opinion is based upon any facts while I have provided numerous facts which you and no one else, so far, are able to refute.




LOL!! Come on you have just demonstrated my point once again. You have done nothing but make empty claims while providing no basis for your conclusions. You have supported your worthless statements with nothing more than an appeal to YOUR authority as a trained scientist! LOL!! And yet you presume to instruct ME on proper reasoning?

Are you SURE you are scientifically trained or do you just play a scientist on TV?

:rolleyes: Scott, you just cut and pasted an argument. You're not at the vanguard of scientific America.

You're just a pro-gun diehard internet lobbyist pimping the same statistics and report, and NRA-based figures.

I repeat, this does not constitute scientific endeavor on your behalf.;) Unless, of course, you found out who funded the study, who did the study, what their motivations for enacting the study were (not the premise of the study, but why they were doing it--for a client, grade, etc.). Have you held up your half of the scientific method? Or, are you believing it blindly?

[golden arhat]

i really hate that liberal is a by-word for idiot
liberal means forward thinking and open to change and for freedom

we should really get better terminology to describe political opponents


being liberal is a good thing, its like calling someone a pro-democracy supporter as if it were a bad thing


lol :/

[rogue]

Unfortunately Fred, most who call themselves liberals are idiots.

BTW I'm a classical liberal (classical idiot?:D ).

[Shaolin Wookie]

Unfortunately Fred, most who call themselves liberals are idiots.

BTW I'm a classical liberal (classical idiot?:D ).

I agree. I don't call myself a liberal, but conservatives do. It's the one's who parade their party around like a badge of honor that tend to act like idiots.

[Black Jack II]

i really hate that liberal is a by-word for idiot

It did not used to be but because of the current far-left liberal party and the culture at large it sure has become the meaning of late.

[Yao Sing]

Wow, such misinformation.


Do you think you'll get your gun out fast enough? I doubt it. Are you going to outgun, yourself, a couple of hoods on the corner? I doubt it.

I can certainly get my gun out faster than a cop can get there to "save" me thereby increasing my chances of surviving an encounter.


WTF city do you live in? Of course it won't. Couple of cops got killed in a mall parking lot about 1 mile down the street from HQ here about a month or two ago on my shift.

I live in a typical bad neighborhood in central FL. Woke up one night with the crack dealer in the rental across the street shooting at the guys kicking in his front door.

A few weeks ago my neighbor was jumped and stabbed returning from the corner convenience store, the one my wife and I walk to every week (after dark through the shortcut around back) for lottery tickets (recent habit).



All weapons protect certain insecurities, and bolster others. It is a sexual thing, in that it's an issue of empowerment and dominance.[?QUOTE]

A sexual thing ????? Maybe for you. Where do you get this stuff from?

[QUOTE=Shaolin Wookie;835432]:rolleyes:denananananadenanananadenananana.....Bat man!

I was never good at ignoring someone getting assaulted and running away for my own protection.


Perhaps to pro-NRA websites or the Million Mom March? Um...no thanks. I'll take the uninterested and non-partisan viewpoints.

??? You're clearly reading extremely biased propaganda. I don't visit NRA website and such.


I'm not anti-gun. Guns are valuable tools. They can be used for hunting, military, law enforcement.

And??? Is that the extent of the usage list?

There's part of the problem, you have a limited view of a guns application. Do you also think the 2nd Amendment is only applicable to hunting, military and law enforcement?


I just don't think they're valuable tools in the hands of the ignorant and unweeting (criminal and citizen). Sadly, this constitutes the better part of American society.

And here's the rest of the problem. You're lumping citizen gun carry with criminal gun carry. Last I checked criminals were not getting approved for carry licenses.

I've been checked out, as have others here (Oso soon to be) and been deemed fit, competent and trustworthy enough to run around in public with a gun on my person.

Why is it you think clueless idiots are running around with carry permits? It's clear from your comments that your ignorance is the root of your fear of guns. It's the typical "average citizens can't be trusted with guns because they're a bunch of ignorant yahoos" promoted by the truly clueless.


wow, i'm amazed at how verbally abusive the anti-gun people are. :rolleyes:

That's what happens when you don't have a firm position. Resort to verbal attacks when your argument is weak.


The only reasons those statistics seem to "even out" the numbers of crimes and shootings is because guns and their rampant use and irresponsible owners have always caused major social problems throughout this country's history.

Can you back that up with anything? I'd like to read about that if true.


Have you seen any statistics for places like Japan or Hong Kong where carrying around guns is illegal, period. There are way fewer homicides and that's a FACT. My point is, if you feel like you have to carry around a gun for no good reason, then YOU are the dangerous, crackpot weirdo.

Again, a false claim that people are just running around with guns just to be cool yet no evidence to back this claim. I personally don't "carry around gun for no good reason" and I doubt most with a permit do either. In fact I hardy carry at all.

Most of the time I leave it home or leave it in the glove box.

Now, have you ever been to Japan? You do know their mindset is completely different than here in the US of A.

[Shaolin Wookie]

It did not used to be but because of the current far-left liberal party and the culture at large it sure has become the meaning of late.

Far-left? Try down-the-middle.

[Shaolin Wookie]

I was never good at ignoring someone getting assaulted and running away for my own protection.


That's not what your girlfriend tells me.;):D

"Oh baby!"
"Ouch! Watch it where you put that thing!"
"Oh baby!"
"Stop gyrating like that! It hurts!"
"Wait, let me get some protection...I'll be right back!"

[Shaolin Wookie]

Deja vu. Only goes to show how much your position resembles a broken record.;)

The first time, it didn't get to me. But since you posted it again, I think I'm coming around.

[Black Jack II]

Far-left? Try down-the-middle.

Wrong.

Try far left.

[Shaolin Wookie]

It's relativity, my man. You're so far right, the middle looks like it's way off to the left.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I am a liberal, in the sense that I believe that if we don't take care of those less fortunate than us, they will come back to bite us on the butt.
I am conservative in regards to guns, should people have access guns?
Yes, IF they have no prior VIOLENT criminal record AND they have done a gun safety course.
Should they have access to every type of gun?
No.
I don't think anyone needs an HKMP5 or a 50 caliber Rifle, then again, I have seen some vicious woodland creatures around....
:D

[rogue]

I don't think anyone needs an HKMP5 or a 50 caliber Rifle, then again, I have seen some vicious woodland creatures around....
:D

The Barrett M82 is great for bringing down charging deer and quail.:D

[sanjuro_ronin]

The Barrett M82 is great for bringing down charging deer and quail.:D

Thinning out the herd eh?

IT'S COMING RIGHT FOR US !!!!!

[Shaolin Wookie]

I am conservative in regards to guns, should people have access guns?
Yes, IF they have no prior VIOLENT criminal record AND they have done a gun safety course.

:D

This is the issue. You're describing a restriction, but it's impossible to regulate. I think that's what Scott Brown was trying to tell me, and he's correct on that point.

[sanjuro_ronin]

This is the issue. You're describing a restriction, but it's impossible to regulate. I think that's what Scott Brown was trying to tell me, and he's correct on that point.

How is a criminal record check and a safety course impossible to regulate ??

[Shaolin Wookie]

The availability of guns is not dependent on these measures. They only restrict legal access.

[sanjuro_ronin]

The availability of guns is not dependent on these measures. They only restrict legal access.

I don't see why anyone would have issues with people LEARNING how to use a gun before they buy it and people with a violent criminal pass not being allowed to purchase a gun.

[Siu Lum Fighter]

Let's put it simply: More gun control equals less gun crime. DUUUUH!!

Chew on these stats:

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html

[sanjuro_ronin]

Let's put it simply: More gun control equals less gun crime. DUUUUH!!

Chew on these stats:

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html

Not sure what we are suppose to get form that, except not to visit S Africa and Colombia, heck they eve screwed up on the population of Portugal I think.

[Yao Sing]

Deja vu. Only goes to show how much your position resembles a broken record.;)

The first time, it didn't get to me. But since you posted it again, I think I'm coming around.

Sorry, had a connectivity problem and ended up posting it twice. Glad it helped you out though.:p

[Yao Sing]

That's not what your girlfriend tells me.;):D

"Oh baby!"
"Ouch! Watch it where you put that thing!"
"Oh baby!"
"Stop gyrating like that! It hurts!"
"Wait, let me get some protection...I'll be right back!"

Jealous huh?
:D

[Siu Lum Fighter]

Basically what you should be getting out of it is that, out of all of the first world, industrialized nations America has the highest percentage of households with guns and one of the highest homicide rates per 100,000 people, right next to extremely impoverished countries, with third world conditions and internal wars like Columbia, Brazil, the Philippines, and South Africa.

Countries with higher %'s of households with guns (in the 20's, not the whopping 39% of this country) aren't pushing to make automatic rifles legal. Many of those countries have extensive rural areas and frontier land where hunting game is popular. All of this talk about how "we need to make carrying guns legal and easily obtainable for everyone" is foolhardy. There are some jokers on this thread I wouldn't trust with a gun. Especially those of you thinking there's nothing wrong with openly carrying one like this was the wild west.

[Yao Sing]

I don't have a problem with people having an anti-gun opinion but it irks when when that opinion is based on whacko information. Like putting a gun in a person's hand suddenly gives them an uncontrollable urge to go out and kill people.

Or that the average US citizen is to dumb and incompitent to know which end of the gun to point at the target (although our school system is working hard on that front).

I mean if you're going to argue against then at least make some rational sense.

Now I think what the anti-gun crowd envisions, but nobody actually addresses, is a TOTAL WORLD GUN BAN. As in zero gun manufacturing.

Of course that can never happen because the military and police will have to have them (which the anti-gun agree with) and if guns exist anywhere in the world they WILL find their way on to the black market and into the hands of criminals (remember that criminal don't obey the law).

Not only that but guns can be made by hand just as underground weapons have always been fashioned where there is a need.

So that leaves us with the only other option and that's guns for everyone. Anything in between is nothing but trouble for the ones not allowed to own them.

It's all or nothing and it's impossible for the 'nothing' (no guns anywhere, any time, by anyone).

[Yao Sing]

Basically what you should be getting out of it is that, out of all of the first world, industrialized nations America has the highest percentage of households with guns and one of the highest homicide rates per 100,000 people, right next to extremely impoverished countries, with third world conditions and internal wars like Columbia, Brazil, the Philippines, and South Africa.

That nice and convenient but now you have to prove there's a direct relationship between gun ownership and homicide. You see it's the mindset of the people that creates homicides, not gun ownership. Now they may facilitate homicides but the in now way create the will to kill. Get it?


Countries with higher %'s of households with guns (in the 20's, not the whopping 39% of this country) aren't pushing to make automatic rifles legal. Many of those countries have extensive rural areas and frontier land where hunting game is popular. All of this talk about how "we need to make carrying guns legal and easily obtainable for everyone" is foolhardy. There are some jokers on this thread I wouldn't trust with a gun. Especially those of you thinking there's nothing wrong with openly carrying one like this was the wild west.

The wild west was not a result of openly carrying guns, open gun carry was a result of the wild atmosphere? Again you have things completely wrong.

So do you actually think that if open carry was legal there would be wild west type shootouts in the streets?

That's what the opponents of concealed carry said about Florida and guess what, it didn't happen. No gun battles on Main Street.


Again, where is the realistic commentary and logic?

[Scott R. Brown]

LOL, you're really quite deranged aren't you? Hilarious!

I've provided the arguments you've asked for, addressed your points and asked you a few questions in return, and you're just repeating yourself and providing straw men and circular arguments. You're insane, and I'm not going to talk to you any more.

:D

Hmmm, you really do only play one on TV don't you....and apparently not a very good one either. You have provided no evidence what-so-ever. All you have done is blow hot air.


You're insane, and I'm not going to talk to you any more.

Good idea! You will only only keep embarrassing yourself!

[Scott R. Brown]

:rolleyes: Scott, you just cut and pasted an argument. You're not at the vanguard of scientific America.

You're just a pro-gun diehard internet lobbyist pimping the same statistics and report, and NRA-based figures.

I repeat, this does not constitute scientific endeavor on your behalf.;) Unless, of course, you found out who funded the study, who did the study, what their motivations for enacting the study were (not the premise of the study, but why they were doing it--for a client, grade, etc.). Have you held up your half of the scientific method? Or, are you believing it blindly?

Nice try SW! Your massive reasoning ability is way to formidable for me!:rolleyes:

It is NOT a scientific endeavor it is using simple reasoning, which is apparently beyond you and Punch! You can't compete, so stop trying!

[Mr Punch]

You have provided no evidence what-so-ever. All you have done is blow hot air.I have presented logical discourse that it appears your intellectual faculties cannot quite handle. That's OK, don't worry, the world's a complicated place. Your belief in a logic you do not possess is as quaint and amusing as your religion.


Good idea! You will only only keep embarrassing yourself!You should once more, like many Christians, practice what you preach.


























































LOL, and you thought I was being patronizing before! :D

[Scott R. Brown]

I thought you weren't going to talk to me anymore?

Oh well, back to instructing those who refuse to learn!


I have presented logical discourse that it appears your intellectual faculties cannot quite handle.

Yes, your advanced demonstration of non-sense is stunningly complicated to figure out, LOL, but I always enjoy a good challenge. It is unfortunate there is not much challenge in conversing with you!

You are not a very original or clever thinker. IN FACT you are not a very good thinker at all.

It is NOT a "logical discourse" when the support for you comments relies solely upon an empty appeal to your authority as a "trained scientist". You have poo poo’d social statistical methodology based upon you being a "trained scientist" of which you have yet to demonstrate any ability. Then you try to qualify your comments by saying the report is “not worthless” as if your opinion as a “trained scientist” is supposed to mean something when you have provided no support other than an appeal to your authority.

Not to mention when you poo poo statistical social methodology and then state it is not worthless you are essentially stating it is both worthless and not worthless at the same time. This is a contradiction that is not explained or supported with evidence. And yet you have the temerity to instruct others on rational thought, LOL!

Then, you try to redirect the argument to one where those (me), who are defending our constitutional right to keep and bear arms, have to demonstrate why we should be able to keep our rights. You can’t seem to figure out that those who wish to REMOVE our rights are the ones who must demonstrate a compelling reason for doing so. The onus is on THEM! Duh!!!

Then when you get caught in your poor excuse for reasoning you attack others (me) rather than improve your errors.

NOTE:

In a proper argument a conclusion is presented that is supported with evidence.

I started with the conclusion:

“You are not a very original or clever thinker. IN FACT you are not a very good thinker at all.”

THEN I supported it with reasons/evidence why I came to the conclusion.

1) “It is NOT a "logical discourse" when the support for you comments relies solely upon an empty appeal to your authority as a "trained scientist". You have poo poo’d social statistical methodology based upon you being a "trained scientist" of which you have yet to demonstrate any ability. Then you try to qualify your comments by saying the report is “not worthless” as if your opinion as a “trained scientist” is supposed to mean something when you have provided no support other than an appeal to your authority.

Not to mention when you poo poo statistical social methodology and then state it is not worthless you are essentially stating it is both worthless and not worthless at the same time. This is a contradiction that is not explained or supported with evidence. And yet you have the temerity to instruct others on rational thought, LOL!"

2) “Then, you try to redirect the argument to one where those (me), who are defending our constitutional right to keep and bear arms, have to demonstrate why we should be able to keep firearms. You can’t seem to figure out that those who wish to REMOVE our rights are the ones who must demonstrate a compelling reason for doing so. Duh!!!”

3) "Then when you get caught in your poor excuse for reasoning you attack others (me) rather than improve your errors.”

You will observe I did not support my conclusion with an empty appeal to my training as a scientist, my vast knowledge of reason, or my many worthless college degrees. I supported my conclusion with evidence that demonstrates HOW I have come to that conclusion.

See how easy that is?

Now, Practice, Practice, Practice!


That's OK, don't worry, the world's a complicated place.

Actually it is not all that complicated. If you perceive it as such you still have quite a bit of growing up to do!


Your belief in a logic you do not possess is as quaint and amusing as your religion.

Every time you try to be derogatory you end up demonstrating your own foolishness! Since you have not yet presented a reasoned argument for anything you have no basis to criticize anyone. Indeed you have not answered any of my most recent posts with any original or cogent thoughts. You merely continue making derogatory comments absent any formal argument. Many people resort to derogation when they are unable to formulate a cogent argument. This is your pattern of behavior in this conversation. You continue to be free with insults while you are left wanting concerning a rational argument thus reinforcing my conclusion that you are absent effective reasoning skills.


You should once more, like many Christians, practice what you preach.

And you, like most fools, are preoccupied with trying to be clever all the while not realizing you only have Jell-O for brains.

First, no one said I was a Christian. You presumed that. You have confused an in-depth understanding of Christian principles with adherence to the faith. Like I said, your inability to reason is staggering. I wonder how you are able to walk without falling down with such an over-sized, yet apparently useless, head, LOL!

Second of all, your understanding of Christianity is very poor. I recommend you avoid instructing others in topics which you have no knowledge or understanding of yourself. This is yet another excellent example of your failure to reason effectively!

It would also be prudent for you not to instruct others in how to behave until your behavior and attitude have matured a great deal more. Not that you have demonstrated any prudence either. Yet another example of a lack of reasoning ability!

You will find when you have matured enough, IF you mature enough, that you will no longer have the self-centered need to dictate to others how they should behave. You will find it sufficient to observe and correct your own behavior. You have quite a ways to go yet, be patient you may get there if you apply yourself.

This advice also applies to your poor attempt to instruct others in rational thought when you have yet to demonstrate any ability to reason on your own part. It is like trying to teach someone a martial when you have knowledge of the martial arts. You are inadequate to the task because you have little mastery of the topic and any attempt to show off your small ability only demonstrates your ineptitude.


LOL, and you thought I was being patronizing before!

Actually, you are not any better at being patronizing than you are at reasoning. I would say “practice makes perfect” but I cannot characterize your actions as any form of practice, they are more akin to aimless bumbling!

[sanjuro_ronin]

I thought you weren't going to talk to me anymore?

Oh well, back to instructing those who refuse to learn!



Yes, your advanced demonstration of non-sense is stunningly complicated to figure out, LOL, but I always enjoy a good challenge. It is unfortunate there is not much challenge in conversing with you!

You are not a very original or clever thinker. IN FACT you are not a very good thinker at all.

It is NOT a "logical discourse" when the support for you comments relies solely upon an empty appeal to your authority as a "trained scientist". You have poo poo’d social statistical methodology based upon you being a "trained scientist" of which you have yet to demonstrate any ability. Then you try to qualify your comments by saying the report is “not worthless” as if your opinion as a “trained scientist” is supposed to mean something when you have provided no support other than an appeal to your authority.

Not to mention when you poo poo statistical social methodology and then state it is not worthless you are essentially stating it is both worthless and not worthless at the same time. This is a contradiction that is not explained or supported with evidence. And yet you have the temerity to instruct others on rational thought, LOL!

Then, you try to redirect the argument to one where those (me), who are defending our constitutional right to keep and bear arms, have to demonstrate why we should be able to keep our rights. You can’t seem to figure out that those who wish to REMOVE our rights are the ones who must demonstrate a compelling reason for doing so. The onus is on THEM! Duh!!!

Then when you get caught in your poor excuse for reasoning you attack others (me) rather than improve your errors.

NOTE:

In a proper argument a conclusion is presented that is supported with evidence.

I started with the conclusion:

“You are not a very original or clever thinker. IN FACT you are not a very good thinker at all.”

THEN I supported it with reasons/evidence why I came to the conclusion.

1) “It is NOT a "logical discourse" when the support for you comments relies solely upon an empty appeal to your authority as a "trained scientist". You have poo poo’d social statistical methodology based upon you being a "trained scientist" of which you have yet to demonstrate any ability. Then you try to qualify your comments by saying the report is “not worthless” as if your opinion as a “trained scientist” is supposed to mean something when you have provided no support other than an appeal to your authority.

Not to mention when you poo poo statistical social methodology and then state it is not worthless you are essentially stating it is both worthless and not worthless at the same time. This is a contradiction that is not explained or supported with evidence. And yet you have the temerity to instruct others on rational thought, LOL!"

2) “Then, you try to redirect the argument to one where those (me), who are defending our constitutional right to keep and bear arms, have to demonstrate why we should be able to keep firearms. You can’t seem to figure out that those who wish to REMOVE our rights are the ones who must demonstrate a compelling reason for doing so. Duh!!!”

3) "Then when you get caught in your poor excuse for reasoning you attack others (me) rather than improve your errors.”

You will observe I did not support my conclusion with an empty appeal to my training as a scientist, my vast knowledge of reason, or my many worthless college degrees. I supported my conclusion with evidence that demonstrates HOW I have come to that conclusion.

See how easy that is?

Now, Practice, Practice, Practice!



Actually it is not all that complicated. If you perceive it as such you still have quite a bit of growing up to do!



Every time you try to be derogatory you end up demonstrating your own foolishness! Since you have not yet presented a reasoned argument for anything you have no basis to criticize anyone. Indeed you have not answered any of my most recent posts with any original or cogent thoughts. You merely continue making derogatory comments absent any formal argument. Many people resort to derogation when they are unable to formulate a cogent argument. This is your pattern of behavior in this conversation. You continue to be free with insults while you are left wanting concerning a rational argument thus reinforcing my conclusion that you are absent effective reasoning skills.



And you, like most fools, are preoccupied with trying to be clever all the while not realizing you only have Jell-O for brains.

First, no one said I was a Christian. You presumed that. You have confused an in-depth understanding of Christian principles with adherence to the faith. Like I said, your inability to reason is staggering. I wonder how you are able to walk without falling down with such an over-sized, yet apparently useless, head, LOL!

Second of all, your understanding of Christianity is very poor. I recommend you avoid instructing others in topics which you have no knowledge or understanding of yourself. This is yet another excellent example of your failure to reason effectively!

It would also be prudent for you not to instruct others in how to behave until your behavior and attitude have matured a great deal more. Not that you have demonstrated any prudence either. Yet another example of a lack of reasoning ability!

You will find when you have matured enough, IF you mature enough, that you will no longer have the self-centered need to dictate to others how they should behave. You will find it sufficient to observe and correct your own behavior. You have quite a ways to go yet, be patient you may get there if you apply yourself.

This advice also applies to your poor attempt to instruct others in rational thought when you have yet to demonstrate any ability to reason on your own part. It is like trying to teach someone a martial when you have knowledge of the martial arts. You are inadequate to the task because you have little mastery of the topic and any attempt to show off your small ability only demonstrates your ineptitude.



Actually, you are not any better at being patronizing than you are at reasoning. I would say “practice makes perfect” but I cannot characterize your actions as any form of practice, they are more akin to aimless bumbling!

You realize that you attacked him in this past and not his argument, right?

[Scott R. Brown]

You realize that you attacked him in this past and not his argument, right?

If you are referring to this thread, yes, I do! I feel free to respond to attacks with attacks when it suits my purpose.

If you are referring to a thread from the past, I do not make a general habit of keeping track of the past.

[Scott R. Brown]

You realize that you attacked him in this past and not his argument, right?

Oh! I think I misunderstood your post due to what appears to be a typo on your part. Did you mean,

"You realize that you attacked him in this POST and not his argument, right?"

If this is your meaning than you are incorrect. I attacked him AND his argument!

I specifically attacked his claim to have provided a logical argument. Then I identified HOW I did so in the blued section. Perhaps you did not read the post very carefully or do not correctly understand argument. The rest of the post is riddled with further evidence of why I have come to the conclusion he is unable to reason clearly interspersed with derogatory comments.

[rogue]

Let's put it simply: More gun control equals less gun crime. DUUUUH!!

Chew on these stats:

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html

But not necessarily less crime. Several things reduce crime and one of the most important is convictions that result in lengthy prison sentences.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1784623,00.html

[Mr Punch]

You realize that you attacked him in this past and not his argument, right?That's fair enough, that's what I was doing.

But I'm ****ed if I'm gonna read even half of that deranged rambling. The man lives in cut n paste world: he believes that cutting and pasting (in some cases unrelated stats and dubious conclusions) substitutes for reasoning ability. I've pointed out that there is a mass of criminological discussion that hinges around the impossibility of accurate statistical method and because I haven't looked up any of the basics for his benefit and cut n pasted it in chunks small enough for his pin head, he thinks I'm not providing evidence. Typical spoilt sanctimonious lecturing brat wants spoonfeeding.

The evidence would be there if he just looked at the first google page (assuming he knew how to search for things outside his tiny sphere of opinion).

And then he's lecturing about not lecturing to others... most of this insecure halfwit's posts are lecturing someone.

Oh well, back to him for another page of 'the last word'. :rolleyes: :D

[rogue]

Crime rate soars as criminals walk free

Observer investigation reveals Labour failure to halt slide in convictions
David Rose
Sunday May 28, 2006

Observer
The true picture of rising levels of violent crime in England and Wales and historically low conviction rates can be revealed today by The Observer.

An investigation shows that conviction rates for many of the most violent crimes have been in freefall since Labour came to power in 1997 and are now well below 10 per cent. The chronically low figures for convictions come at the same time as reports that violent crime is increasing.

An analysis of Home Office figures reveals that only 9.7 per cent of all 'serious woundings', including stabbings, that are reported to the police result in a conviction. For robberies the figure falls to 8.9 per cent and for rape, it is 5.5 per cent.

The figures show that, 10 years after Tony Blair pledged to be 'tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime', the chances of getting away with rape, robbery, sexual assault or seriously wounding another person have never been higher.

The Observer's analysis presents a fresh political challenge to the new Home Secretary, John Reid, who is struggling to get a grip over a department that he has described as 'not fit for purpose'. The figures show that recorded totals of these types of crime have risen steeply and while convictions have risen a little, they have not kept pace.

The record under Labour is worst for two crimes that arouse deep public concern. Serious woundings have risen by more than half in 10 years to almost 20,000 attacks each year, but their conviction rate has fallen from 14.8 to 9.7 per cent. Nearly 13,000 rapes were recorded by police in the year from April 2004, double the total for 1997, and over the period the conviction rate collapsed from 9.2 to 5.5 per cent. There was, however, a fall in the number of burglaries and the conviction rate for them rose - but only by 0.5 per cent.

The fall in total conviction rates began under the Tories in 1980 and Labour promised, before it won the 1997 election, that it would put this trend into reverse. Despite its failure to do so, Labour's ministers have claimed repeatedly that serious crime has been falling.

The Home Office insisted in a written statement yesterday that 'long term trends show substantial declines in levels of violent crimes'. The former Home Secretary Charles Clarke claimed earlier this year that the main problem society faces is not crime but the fear of it, and he set up a working party to investigate ways of making people believe the official position - that the huge rises in the levels of recorded violent and sexual crime are illusory, the result of more victims having the confidence to go to the police.

But The Observer investigation shows that since 1980, serious woundings have more than quadrupled, and recorded rapes have increased nearly elevenfold.

Last night, the country's top police officers working in the field rejected the claim that these figures did not reflect a real increase in the incidence of such crimes.

Terry Grange, Chief Constable of Dyfed Powys and the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) spokesman on domestic violence and sex crime, who heads a team of more than 20 researchers, said: 'I don't think you can sensibly deny that there is a higher incidence of rape and a more routine use of violence, and also of weapons-based violence where it used to be fists and feet.'

He was backed by another Acpo expert, Leicestershire Chief Constable Matt Baggott, and also by Crown Court judges spoken to by The Observer. According to Baggott, the surge in late-night drinking was exposing young people to higher risks of both physical and sexual violence.

He called for a full debate on this shift in social habits: 'We need to line up the data from the health service with what we get from the police. There is a profit-driven competitiveness around alcohol and one of its consequences is young people becoming victims. We need to begin a fundamental, objective analysis of what has been happening.'

Judges said that serious offences of this type were not only more common, but had become more brutal and degrading. Crown Court judges said that they were routinely hearing horrifying cases that were once so rare that they would have been reserved for members of the High Court bench.

Last week, John Reid, echoing a pledge made earlier by the Prime Minister, promised to 'rebalance criminal justice' in order to 'to make the public feel safe again ... I won't rest until the law and the justice system works for law-abiding people, not criminals.'

However, The Observer's investigation reveals that fewer than a third of the 20,000 people acquitted of serious offences in the Crown Court last year owed their freedom to 'not guilty' verdicts by judges, not juries. Cases were often discharged by judges, usually when the prosecution decided not to proceed - because cases were not ready, because victims or other witnesses withdrew or had been intimidated, or because Crown Prosecution Service lawyers decided that the evidence was 'unreliable'.

The answer, said judges, was not to make sweeping changes in the law to reduce suspects' protections, and hence risk wrongful convictions, but to find ways of getting the CPS and the police to work more closely together when investigating crimes so that the evidence is more watertight.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
0987654321

[Mr Punch]

But not necessarily less crime. Several things reduce crime and one of the most important is convictions that result in lengthy prison sentences.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1784623,00.html
That's a good point. I think stiffening sentences would be a good idea to lessen crime in general.

Murder: life (no parole). Starts in solitary. Chance to get out of solitary with good behaviour. Chance to see a shrink/priest with good behaviour. Chance to socialize with other crims with good behaviour. Chance to exercise with good behaviour. Chance to work (for 'priveleges' like a TV, choice of food, rug, but not for money) with good behaviour. Any infringement, back in solitary.

Owning/selling a gun illegally: 10 years. Same conditions.

Drunk driving: see illegal gun ownership (you have the choice!).

Killing some while DUI: see murder (you have the choice!).

To me it doesn't matter what the medium is (gun, car, poison from your factory...): you break the law and kill someone, you pay.

[Scott R. Brown]

LOL!! You have the context a bit wrong.

I am lecturing YOU on not lecturing others. I did this AFTER you felt the need to lecture me on topics of which you have no understanding. So there is actually a rational basis for my lecturing.

I understand you don't want to read my post. It might mean you will have to face your own inept attempts at reason. Facing reality is hard sometimes.

[Oso]

Can I start charging a toll on this thread?

better yet, on word count?

:D

[Scott R. Brown]

Can I start charging a toll on this thread?

better yet, on word count?

:D

How about just charging those who don't actually say anything?;)

[Mr Punch]

Rogue, the problem in that article is partly down to ASBOs IMO. It's a ludicrous scheme: giving half-hearted judgements for half-defined crimes with no way of enforcement and thus a half-hearted message.

[Oso]

:)
That's a good point. I think stiffening sentences would be a good idea to lessen crime in general.

Murder: life (no parole). Starts in solitary. Chance to get out of solitary with good behaviour. Chance to see a shrink/priest with good behaviour. Chance to socialize with other crims with good behaviour. Chance to exercise with good behaviour. Chance to work (for 'priveleges' like a TV, choice of food, rug, but not for money) with good behaviour. Any infringement, back in solitary.

Owning/selling a gun illegally: 10 years. Same conditions.

Drunk driving: see illegal gun ownership (you have the choice!).

Killing some while DUI: see murder (you have the choice!).

To me it doesn't matter what the medium is (gun, car, poison from your factory...): you break the law and kill someone, you pay.

Murder = Death Sentence - immediately applied by the victim's survivors.

Owning/Selling a gun (define illegally): I think once you own a gun you have a responsibility for that item. What happens with it if you let someone have it is, to an extent, on you. If you sell/give it to someone and they do something bad with it. You effed up in your judgement and are as equally responsible for that action.

Drunk Driving: most states already have a no tolerance stance and I think the rest that don't will soon follow.

Killing someone while DUI = death by car, driven by the survivers of the deceased.

Rape = murder = the same **** thing.

Kill all the rapists and murderers that have been convicted and allowed all appeals so we can actually put more people in jail for a long enough time to possibly get them to correct their behavior.

but, aren't there statistics that show that jail time rarely reforms [passes ball to Scott]

IMO, public flogging and the stockade should be brought back in to fashion.

:)

[Oso]

How about just charging those who don't actually say anything?;)

naw, that wouldn't be fair, now would it? Anyone can say what they want, right?

[Mr Punch]

Owning/Selling a gun (define illegally): I think once you own a gun you have a responsibility for that item. What happens with it if you let someone have it is, to an extent, on you. If you sell/give it to someone and they do something bad with it. You effed up in your judgement and are as equally responsible for that action.Part of the point is I don't need to define illegally. Illegally means not in accordance with the law of the state you live in!

[Oso]

yea, my mistake...my point was that I don't agree with all the definitions of 'illegaly' owning a gun.

[Mr Punch]

yea, my mistake...my point was that I don't agree with all the definitions of 'illegaly' owning a gun.Sure, I knew you were going there... so, the whole point of this dumb argument thread is you're legally within your rights to campaign, lobby, and vote to change those definitions in the place you have legally chosen to live!

[FuXnDajenariht]

Do what some kid did in my old neighborhood did, just use a laser pointer. I got home late one night and the kid painted my front door. He must have gotten a big laugh when I did a dive over the railing and into my bushes. At least my reactions were good.:D


wooow. dude, your paranoid. ;)

[Oso]

Sure, I knew you were going there... so, the whole point of this dumb argument thread is you're legally within your rights to campaign, lobby, and vote to change those definitions in the place you have legally chosen to live!

no, the point was 'hey, i just bought a sweet ass pistol'

i don't know wtf you guys are talking about.


;)

[sanjuro_ronin]

Oh! I think I misunderstood your post due to what appears to be a typo on your part. Did you mean,

"You realize that you attacked him in this POST and not his argument, right?"

If this is your meaning than you are incorrect. I attacked him AND his argument!

I specifically attacked his claim to have provided a logical argument. Then I identified HOW I did so in the blued section. Perhaps you did not read the post very carefully or do not correctly understand argument. The rest of the post is riddled with further evidence of why I have come to the conclusion he is unable to reason clearly interspersed with derogatory comments.

Yes, it was a typo, sorry about that.
You attacked his claim of a "logical argument" by attacking him.

Easier to just make your point about YOUR view.

But to each their own.

[Yao Sing]

no, the point was 'hey, i just bought a sweet ass pistol'

i don't know wtf you guys are talking about.


;)

Nice, but my recommendation is to leave it in the case. Once you put it in your hand half of your brain cells will erode and you will have the uncontrollable urge to run around the neighborhood killing people. :rolleyes:

[Oso]

not my neigborhood...between the rednecks, the ese and the homies, I'm way outgunned.

but that's why the claymore's are set up at the perimeter. :)

[Black Jack II]

Nice, but my recommendation is to leave it in the case. Once you put it in your hand half of your brain cells will erode and you will have the uncontrollable urge to run around the neighborhood killing people.

the above advice sucks...try this one instead.

My recommendation is to enjoy your new autoloader and get in some sweet range time.

That and enjoy your amazing constitutional right my friend.:)

[Yao Sing]

Dude! You left out my sarcastic face and made it sound all serious and stuff. You damaged my character so I challenge you to a shootout on Main Street at high noon. :(

[Shaolin Wookie]

Nice, but my recommendation is to leave it in the case. Once you put it in your hand half of your brain cells will erode and you will have the uncontrollable urge to run around the neighborhood killing people. :rolleyes:

Not only that, but once you take it out the package, it's no longer a collectible.

[Oso]

went to the range today. not too bad for not firing a pistol in over 9 years.

it's a nice weapon to shoot. I need to adjust the sights a bit the next time, seemed to be hitting low and left.

CC class is saturday.

[Oso]

CC class was BORING. We did the NRA pistol safety portion in the morning then the Federal stuff with the info on NC law and lethal force and where to carry.

we did have to 'qualify' by shooting 50 rounds at a target. kinda go/no go and everyone 'go'ed.

fairly wide variety of population in class. couple of housewives, only 1 real redneck.

went back sunday to shoot w/ a bunch of friends. 7 of us all toll. One guy, a new aquaintence, had a bunch of stuff we all shot: a Sig 9mm, some comp .45's, a .357 w/ a 7" barrel. Lot's of fun.

saw this awesome picture just a bit ago: