goose491 0
Quote(JohnRich):In the latest one-month gun turn-in amnesty, British police collected 43,000 illegal firearms, according to the Home Office. That's a lot of guns for a place that isn't supposed to have them any more.
According to this it was 20,000 but what you don't mention in your rush to prove your point is that the amnesty included air guns, antiques replicas and toys. Whoopdee doo. I feel much safer now.
Quote
No... No... No-torious!
My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!
goose491 0
QuoteSo... Guncotrol debate is still here
That's funny... Sort of...
I think it's disgusting really. We are all arguing but getting nowhere. The reason: peeps defending things that are not being attacked... it's bloddy counter-productive.
I would like to take this moment and ask John specifically: "Why do you suppose more people kill eachother each year with guns in America, then in any other similar nation?"
please don't get to hung up on the 'gun' part... I'm just interested in why you all destroy yourselves and eachother so much.
My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!
goose491 0
Quote(Thanks, btw, for cutting out the "In Canada" part of my post that you have quoted... you know, you will become notorious for this sh*t if you keep it up John)
My bad, I just read back and realised I had not made it simple enough. I didnt' type "In Canada"... merely "I don't know about in the States but....."
I can see how you might have, while skimming through, got the wrong idea.
lol
From the very same post... and concerning your IT'S NOT K-MARTS FAULT reply to it... did you see this part or go off half-cocked?
QuoteDoes Moore think the shooting would have been avoided if K-mart didn't stock the rounds to begin with? I don't think him that simple. Think about the first scenes... the Lockheed Martin plant... Does Micheal Moore truly blame the plant for the shooting? No.. but he does kinda doesn't he? Shock value my friend.
Now please, your opinion on segregation of duties... it's comparison to "Hey, it's not my fault!"
My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!
JohnRich 4
QuotePrison population rate (per 100,000 of national population)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - 701
UNITED KINGDOM: ENGLAND & WALES - 141
There are awfully lot bad people in America, one could think - or is it something else?
Your conclusion does not necessarily follow from those facts.
For one thing, the UK has a higher violent crime rate than America. Could that be because they treat their criminals with kid gloves, letting them off easy, instead of putting them in prison? I think it is logical that there is an inverse correlation here.
There are lots of bad people everywhere.
Personally, I'm glad that all of our bad guys are incarcerated. I'd prefer to have them in prison, rather than out on the streets committing yet more crimes. What these numbers say is that if you break the law in America, you are more likely to be caught and punished. It says that we have a relatively good police and justice system. This is a positive for America, rather than a negative.
However, we also have a large number of people locked up for petty drug crimes, like marijuana. And that is very stupid, and inflates our prison numbers.
JohnRich 4
Quote(JohnRich):In the latest one-month gun turn-in amnesty, British police collected 43,000 illegal firearms, according to the Home Office...
QuoteAccording to this it was 20,000...
QuoteNo... No... No-torious!
See here: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crimpol/firearms/index.html
I think you're a bit quick to claim that I am making up numbers out of thin air, without bothering to check the facts for yourself.
You've been proven wrong on these claims so many times now, that you remind me of the fable of "The Boy Who Cried 'Wolf'". In other words, your claims have been proven false so often, they can no longer be given serious consideration.
And the readers will also note that you have fallen to the false debating strategy of attacking the person delivering the message, rather than the substance of the message itself.
JohnRich 4
Quote
Thanks for pointing that out. The readers should know that gun-o-phobia has gone so far in England that they have even outlawed many air guns, replicas and antiques. I even recall a story of a signal cannon being confiscated from a yacht club, which was used to signal the start of boat races. That's the degree of absurdity to which the anti-gun zealots will go, if given the power to do so. You Americans need to decide if you want the United States to follow that extremist path.
QuoteWhat this report is saying is that there is no short term correllation between the UK Firearms (Ammendment) Act 1997, and the illegal use of firearms in the UK.
That's what I'm saying - confisicating guns didn't make gun crime go down. In fact, it went up - dramatically.
Quotethis was refering to the UK and not the US so that any conclusions about the ineffectiveness of US gun law from these UK statistics is invalid?
Not necessarily. When considering new laws, it is useful to examine other places where such laws have already been tried. There may indeed be some differences in culture, etc., that mitigate the lessons to be derived, but it is nevertheless worthwhile to examine the results. And in this case, gun confiscation didn't work.
QuoteWhat you're saying is that gun laws don't work. Period. So followed to its logical conclusion, your "gun laws don't work" idea would mean the deregulation of all firearms, ie no laws at all since they don't work anyway. So legally anybody, that means kids, drug addicts, convicted felons, anybody, could carry an AK47 anywhere they wanted, like schools, shopping malls, bars, government buildings, your house, anywhere. Either that is what you want, or it isn't.
Nope, that isn't what I want. I think that there are some gun laws which are good ones to have. However, the number of those would be fairly small. And the vast majority of gun laws on the books are worthless and should be rescinded.
If drug addicts and convicted felons want to carry around guns, they do it now anyway, despite laws prohibiting it.
As far as private property goes, like malls, bars and homes, the private property owners have the right to ban whomever they want. When Texas first passed its concealed carry law, many businesses put up "No Guns" signs, out of the fear created by the anti-gun folks. But they quickly realized that law-abiding citizens carrying guns don't create problems, and the signs came down. On the other hand, the criminals just love to rob places that don't allow people who have the ability to defend themselves and harm their attackers.
QuoteBut my only interest in this thread is to point out that UK gun law is irrelevant to your argument and to ask you to stop using it.
I think it is relevant. So we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point.
JohnRich 4
QuoteYou're right. This place is crawling with criminals. Why do you think I need a gun?
QuoteYou owning a gun isn't going to make the prison population go down.
No, but it helps to deter those criminals from committing crimes, and it helps citizens to defend themselves from those criminals when they attack anyway.
Look at what has happened in states that have passed concealed gun carry laws:
"Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns", by John Lott and David Mustard.
Abstract:
"Using cross-sectional time-series data for U.S. counties from 1977 to 1992, we find that allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes and it appears to produce no increase in accidental deaths. If those states which did not have right-to-carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders; 4,177 rapes; and over 60,000 aggravated assaults would have been avoided yearly. On the other hand, consistent with the notion of criminals responding to incentives, we find criminals substituting into property crimes involving stealth and where the probabilities of contact between the criminal and the victim are minimal..."
Property crimes are much less serious than attacks on people, so this deterrance and transferrance is a positive change in the crime picture. All because of more widespread guns.
Source:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=10129
JohnRich 4
QuotePleeeeeease comment on my Holocaust comparison. Please John. I want to know what you think about segregation of duties.
I little while ago I used Hitler in a comparison to Sadam Hussein, and the response from several people was that anytime someone brings up Hitler, that it is a sign that they have lost the argument, because they are resorting to extreme examples.
So I wonder where those people are now, when the shoe is on the other foot, with you using Hitler and his extermination camps, as an example of why K-Mart is guilty of something for legally selling ammunition?
QuoteI'd like to see all guns and all gun related items sold only in specific ereas. A gun shop for one.
Since other places that sell ammo do it in compliance with all state and federal laws, how is that going to keep bad guys from getting ammo? All it will do is inconvenience all the good guys. I realize that to many anti-gun folks, that's good enough for them. They want to make gun ownership so difficult that people will be discouraged from doing it. But that's a stupid reason to pass laws in a free country.
QuoteI would present that Kmart need not be in the gun market at all! That it is just a convenient market for them in your country
You are welcome to your opinion, but fortunately, in a free country, you don't get to impose your views upon everyone else. K-Mart complies with the laws to sell ammo, and they are free to determine their own marketing strategy as to which products they want to sell. K-Mart also hired anti-gun celebrity Rosie O'Donnell as their spokesman for a while, and shortly thereafter, they went bankrupt. When they make these kinds of decisions, gun owners choose to shop elsewhere. That's part of the free market too. You might think that their loss of sales from ammo would be minimal, but the loss of customers and the money they spend on other things can be significant. I am completely in favor of companies having the freedom of choice to decide for themselves whether or not to sell guns and ammo. I am against that freedom of choice being removed, as you would do.
JohnRich 4
QuoteGoose491: (Thanks, btw, for cutting out the "In Canada" part of my post that you have quoted... you know, you will become notorious for this sh*t if you keep it up John)
QuoteGoose491: My bad, I just read back and realised I had not made it simple enough. I didnt' type "In Canada"... merely "I don't know about in the States but....."
Thank you for that public apology for falsely accusing me of altering the character of your statement, when I quoted it. Perhaps you will be more cautious in the future about such accusations. Think twice - act once. Lest yee be the one that becomes "notorious"...
billvon 3,006
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>So I wonder where those people are now, when the shoe is on the
> other foot, with you using Hitler and his extermination camps, as an
> example of why K-Mart is guilty of something for legally selling
> ammunition?
I suspect that, after 547 posts, no one is reading the thread any more (besides me, who is reading it to see if it goes south again.) You're right - Godwin's Law states that once someone uses Hitler, they automatically lose the argument and the thread ends. So congratulations! You win and the thread comes to an end.
> other foot, with you using Hitler and his extermination camps, as an
> example of why K-Mart is guilty of something for legally selling
> ammunition?
I suspect that, after 547 posts, no one is reading the thread any more (besides me, who is reading it to see if it goes south again.) You're right - Godwin's Law states that once someone uses Hitler, they automatically lose the argument and the thread ends. So congratulations! You win and the thread comes to an end.
JohnRich 4
QuoteI suspect that, after 547 posts, no one is reading the thread any more (besides me, who is reading it to see if it goes south again.)
Thanks for checking in. Things are staying civil. And messages posted only 3 days ago still have about 200 "viewings", so there are still a good number of people following this thread, even if they aren't contributing.
QuoteYou're right - Godwin's Law states that once someone uses Hitler, they automatically lose the argument and the thread ends. So congratulations! You win and the thread comes to an end.
I'll accept the first part of that congratulations.
goose491 0
Quote
You've been proven wrong on these claims so many times now, that you remind me of the fable of "The Boy Who Cried 'Wolf'". In other words, your claims have been proven false so often, they can no longer be given serious consideration.
What claims? The only 'claim' I had made which was disproved was the KKK-NRA relation. Which, btw, was not a claim but a suggestion made in the movie we are discussing. I presented it as such... and defended it for a few posts as something that should be considered. You might note that I was the first to say I had no proof and that there could possibly be no proof at all. Also, I might add that the point was not proven false. Just ignored and scoffed because it was not proven true. I don't really care either way.
That, and where I failed to realise that weapons firing rounds larger than 7.62mm were being removed from the Iraqi people as oppose to that size. But taking away guns from the Iraqies was part of someone elses argument.
If you really look at my participation in this thread, you'll see you and I are not all that different on the topic of guns... I don't beleive they are the problem. If you haven't figured it out yet... I like guns! I was firing away with the shotty and the 22 this weekend past! I've mentioned several times now that I don't think guns are the problem.
QuoteAnd the readers will also note that you have fallen to the false debating strategy of attacking the person delivering the message, rather than the substance of the message itself.
I'm not attacking you John, but you skew what people are saying in order to debunk them. You have quoted me (partially) several times now, showing my tagname over something I didn't mean. Or ask me to elaborate on something I said, and then take that elaboration as an argument for someting else.
Example: I was asked to prove why I consider Canada to be more muticultural than the States (was that proven wrong?)... I provided an example of comparison... Languages and Religion practiced in both countries... then you come back and say something like: "Why? does speaking another language make people kill?" Or something like that. It's very frustrating, to have to type this threads history just to avoid a new viewer/reader coming in and seeing the words you've put in my mouth and the in the mouth of others.
Again, I mean no personal offense to you John. I commend you on your hard-headedness (
kidding) but on your knowledge and defense of guns and their proper use. Now, to tackle your other reply to me... which btw, was not an answer at all.My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!
Who said it was?
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites