christelsabine 1 #51 January 26, 2007 Woah! JohnRich, on which campaign are you to save the world? Reading your posts it seems, you're somehow living in the past - or perhaps having troubles to accept the presence. Man, take a break. dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nick 0 #52 January 26, 2007 JohnRich you said: QuoteYou're ignoring the whole thrust of this thread. You did ban guns, and gun crime has gone up anyway Where in the stats that you posted did it say that gun crime has gone up? One of the links you quoted said "Firearm offences have fallen significantly, by 14% in the year up to September 2006, which amounts to 1,642 fewer incidents." Yes gun crime in some areas of crime has gone up but across the board is must has gone down, if not then you are going against one of your own sources!!!! Nick Gravity- It's not just a good idea, it's the LAW! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nick 0 #53 January 26, 2007 QuoteI ask because some the headlines in the OP look like cherry picked stats. As i've shown from all of the linked reports they are all cherry picked stats!! Nick Gravity- It's not just a good idea, it's the LAW! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nick 0 #54 January 26, 2007 He's obviously on a campaign to legalise guns in England, we all need them over here given the evidence the JohnRich has provided, maybe the US should invade us and show us how we should do things. Nick Gravity- It's not just a good idea, it's the LAW! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #55 January 26, 2007 QuoteGuns were banned to reduce gun crime. John, you are willfully lying to people - and I can prove it to them. We've been over this exact same conversation before, several times in fact. It really is getting tiresome. Frankly, I'm fed up with repeating myself to simply get the same old nonsense back from you time and time again, so here's the link to my post call you out last time round: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2330215#2330215 And it really is time someone came up with that catchy song... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #56 January 26, 2007 QuoteThe ban you refer to was for a specific reason and was a result of a particular crime - you know this as we've discussed it before but you continually choose to ignore it. Why? The ban wasn't a wasted effort as to my knowledge a similar incident hasn't happend since. I can't think of a single reason why the gun ban would prevent such an action in the future, though. A person so inclined would be just as capable of holding, then killing a classroom full of small children and one female teacher. Could use a knife, could probably do it with bare hands. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #57 January 26, 2007 No, Nick, not easy like that: Since I'm on that site, he desperately is trying to convince the world outside the US that life only is possible if you're equipped with a hand gun hanging down your hip (John Wayne style), or over your shoulder/back side (Chuck Norris style) - even he never saw the world outside the US (as per his own admission!). Just accept (him) it like it is. Like a prehistoric rock. dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Red_Skydiver 0 #58 January 26, 2007 QuoteQuoteThe ban you refer to was for a specific reason and was a result of a particular crime - you know this as we've discussed it before but you continually choose to ignore it. Why? The ban wasn't a wasted effort as to my knowledge a similar incident hasn't happend since. I can't think of a single reason why the gun ban would prevent such an action in the future, though. A person so inclined would be just as capable of holding, then killing a classroom full of small children and one female teacher. Could use a knife, could probably do it with bare hands. Most people couldn't kill with their bare hands or stick a knife in someone. Most people are not that way inclined. Killing with a gun however is a bit easier - not that I've done it - but it requires less physical strength and you don't have to get up close and personal. The vast majority of people over here were and are fine with the ban of 97 so what's the problem? Edited to add: Yes there may well be one lunatic who will knife a classroom full of kids next week. If the ban hadn't been introduced however there would be more guns available in society for someone to get there hands on easily and perhaps 2 or 3 classrooms would be massacred. The ban was introduced though.... so there may well be a parent with a screw loose who beats up a teacher with his fists instead of shooting him. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #59 January 27, 2007 QuoteThe ban you refer to was for a specific reason and was a result of a particular crime - you know this as we've discussed it before but you continually choose to ignore it. Why? Because you're wrong. Some people saw it as a way to prevent law-abiding people from going nuts and shooting schoolkids. However, most perceived it as a general crime prevention measure too. QuoteThe ban wasn't a wasted effort as to my knowledge a similar incident hasn't happend since. The school shooting was an extremely rare thing in the first place, which hadn't happened in decades, if ever. Therefore, just because another one hasn't occured in ten years since guns were banned, does not constitute proof that the gun ban has prevented such things. No conclusions can be drawn from such facts. Anyone can still obtain a gun and use it for the purpose now. We're just fortunate that no one wants to. QuoteFor your information even before the ban it was not possible for anyone owning a gun to use it against another person to defend their property so we have not been deprived of the right to defend ourselves. I've made no such claim. QuoteYes it is obvious that if a criminal wants to obtain a gun today they can, anything is possible no matter what laws are introduced. In other words, you agree with me that the gan ban is a failure at preventing criminals from committing gun crimes. QuoteThat doesn't mean we all want to rush out and buy our own weapons though. I don't want one and to my knowledge I don't know anyone who does. I've made no such claim. Why do you keep raising these strawman arguments? Just because everyone doesn't want to own a gun, doesn't mean it is a good idea to take them away from those law-abiding people that do. QuoteThe only person bothered about the fact guns are banned is you John. Wrong again. Strike three. You're out! Quoteit doesn't affect you so why do you keep bringing it up? Is there some forum rule that says we can't talk about anything that happens outside our own country? Why does that bother you? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #60 January 27, 2007 QuoteQuoteHow can you know for sure it was a wasted effort? This is an assumption you're making. So in that sense I'm not ignoring what your saying - I'm trying to point out an area you're giving little regard. Guns were banned to reduce gun crime. Gun crime has continued to escalate anyway. If that is your idea of proven success, then I don't think I can have a reasonable discussion with you. When can you ever have a reasonable discussion with anyone John? When they agree with you? I didn't once mention a proven success. I DIDN'T MENTION A PROVEN SUCCESS. Ok? I mentioned a mild point of view; a suggestion to think aboutand as usual you twist it to feed your obsession - but hey, it's not every day you get to speak to somebody as damaged as yourself John. Despite your endless battle to further the cause of gun ownership, your it's own worst enemy. And not everyone who doesn't see eye to eye with you is your enemy John. Maybe some people are willing to make the effort to highlight things you're unable to see. Because the only other alternative would be to slap your head repeatedly until you see sense. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #61 January 27, 2007 QuoteJohn, you are willfully lying to people - and I can prove it to them... here's the link to my post call you out last time round... Ah yes, you're so-called proof, which consists of the opinion of just one man. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Red_Skydiver 0 #62 January 27, 2007 QuoteQuote QuoteYes it is obvious that if a criminal wants to obtain a gun today they can, anything is possible no matter what laws are introduced. In other words, you agree with me that the gan ban is a failure at preventing criminals from committing gun crimes. Why do you fail to see the reason for that particular ban even when it's been explained to you again and again? I agree that certain criminals (drug dealers for instance) can still get their hands on a gun if they want one and if they have the right connections. The reason for that particular gun ban however was not to prevent such criminals from getting hold of a gun. The reason for the ban was to prevent law abiding gun owners from suddenly "losing it" and using their weapon in acts of crime. It also removed the weapon making it impossible for it to fall into the wrong hands (such as can happen if the home was burgled, or if it's not locked away correctly, or if another family member decides to take it discreetly etc). Yes gun crime has increased but if the ban hadn't occured it would have increased at least at the same rate ... likely at a higher rate. What exactly would you like to see happen? Would you like the ban to be reversed? If it was what affect do you think (if any) it would have on gun crime? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mr2mk1g 10 #63 January 27, 2007 For God's sake John, that's not just someone's opinion; that's an official statement by the head of the government department responsible for drafting, introducing and passing the legislation in question! It's a statement made in formal response to a written question in the House of Commons. Do you even grasp how seriously such a statement is taken in English politics? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #64 January 27, 2007 QuoteYes gun crime has increased but if the ban hadn't occured it would have increased at least at the same rate ... likely at a higher rate. "Likely"? You think it's a good idea to confiscate people's property based upon the hope for a "likely" outcome? Personally, I think before citizen's property rights are trampled upon, that some solid proof should be required that it's actually going to accomplish something useful. Let's face it, your Parliament acted like a lynch mob. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #65 January 27, 2007 QuoteFor God's sake John, that's not just someone's opinion; that's an official statement by the head of the government department responsible for drafting, introducing and passing the legislation in question! Uh-huh. That doesn't mean that he speaks for everyone. It just means that it's his personal opinion, based upon politics. President Bush said there were WMD's in Iraq. Does that make it true? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Red_Skydiver 0 #66 January 27, 2007 QuoteQuoteJohn, you are willfully lying to people - and I can prove it to them... here's the link to my post call you out last time round... Ah yes, you're so-called proof, which consists of the opinion of just one man. So many people are telling you the same thing John. It's time to wake up. Has there been one person from the UK agreeing with you? How many have disagreed? Compare the numbers. What does that tell you? I don't want a gun. I don't know anyone who wishes to own/carry a gun in the UK. I've never seen one outside of the military. I don't need one. If we were allowed to carry them I bet there would be a heck of a lot more gun crimes around and a lot more poeple shot dead and injured. The ban was introduced for one reason only... as previously explained time and time again..... and it worked, it removed the guns it was intended to remove and so far (fingers crossed) has prevented a repeat performance.....nobody has said it could not happen again, but with less guns than there would have been the chances are reduced ... no matter how slightly, they are reduced. At the time of the ban it was the right decision. Society changes over time however. There are other reasons for the amount of gun crime we are seeing now and nobody expects gun crime to disappear because of one ban that happend 10 years ago... except you of course. Rather than whinging about how one of our laws has been "ineffective" why not address the real problem and offer a solution? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites vortexring 0 #67 January 27, 2007 Why is it, when faced with proper debate, you become rather outspoken and irrational John? Swiss clocks on the hour? Cuckoo? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Red_Skydiver 0 #68 January 27, 2007 QuoteQuoteYes gun crime has increased but if the ban hadn't occured it would have increased at least at the same rate ... likely at a higher rate. ..... Personally, I think before citizen's property rights are trampled upon, that some solid proof should be required that it's actually going to accomplish something useful. What property rights? This isn't America... perhaps that is something you are forgetting. We do not have any rights here in the UK we have freedoms which is slightly different. Rights entitle you to something but we don't have that. Our freedoms allow us to do what we like providing it doesn't break any laws that exist. So Parliament CAN introduce such laws such as the ban on weapons. Not that anyone was complaining anyway... except you of course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Red_Skydiver 0 #69 January 27, 2007 Quote Incorrect. My position is that banning guns does nothing to prevent gun crime. There is a difference. I'm not saying that a ban encourages more, just that it does nothing to stop it. Gun crime occurs completely independent of, and despite, gun laws. We all know that. Nobody is disagreeing with you on this point (as far as I know). It's your insistance that the 97 ban has had no affect whatsoever and it was a complete waste of time that we disagree with. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mr2mk1g 10 #70 January 27, 2007 Jesus John, you really don't have a clue what went on in Parliament in 96/97 do you. You are talking utter drivel. Not only is that statement from the very architect of the legislation in question, and the Minister in charge of the department responsible for drafting it, but it represents in a simple, concise sound-bite, what the whole of the newly elected Government was saying throughout months of Parliamentary debate on this subject. Christ do you even understand the principle of Government we have in this country? We don't have a President. Blair is not Bush! What his Ministers say in Parliament is not just their personal opinion. Crash course in UK Politics John because you evidently need it. We are not a Republic headed by a President. We have a Parliament, we have a Government and we have a Cabinet. Parliament is controlled by the Government and the Government is headed by the Cabinet. The Cabinet is made up of Ministers, the above quote being from one of them. The Prime Minister is but one of those Ministers – hence his title; an Anglicised version of the Latin phrase "primus inter pares" or "first amongst equals". When a Cabinet Minister answers a Parliamentary question on behalf of the Government he does so as the mouthpiece for the whole Government. We have a principle of Cabinet responsibility which means that if Charles Clarke responds to a Parliamentary question in the above manner, he is speaking for Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Robin Cook, David Blunket etc etc etc, - the whole of the Cabinet; ergo, the whole of the Government. The bottom line is, the Government pushed the 97 legislation through based on similar statements to that linked to above. The Government repeatedly said that their proposals were not meant to have anything to do with run-of-the-mill gun crime. It's not just one man's opinion – it's what the Government were intending to do, simple historical fact as found throughout hundreds of volumes of Hansard. There is reality. And then there's what what went on in your head. The two are seperated by one hell of a divide. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Red_Skydiver 0 #71 January 27, 2007 QuoteQuoteYes gun crime has increased but if the ban hadn't occured it would have increased at least at the same rate ... likely at a higher rate. "Likely"? You think it's a good idea to confiscate people's property based upon the hope for a "likely" outcome? Errr yes.... that is what usually happens. Laws are made with certain intentions but as we can't travel in time we assume a likely outcome..... unless you know of a better way. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites downwardspiral 0 #72 January 27, 2007 John is just trying to pull the wool from the eyes of the sheeps that are Americans. I'm sure he doesn't really care about the gun ban in the UK other than it serves as a good example of wasted time and money. Yet many still continue to keep their eyes closed once the wool is removed. Even going so far as to clutch at the wool as if it were a security blanket that keeps them safe from the boogie men residing in the closet and under the bed. At one time a group of people got really upset about their guns being taken away from them. They decided the rights to own firearms, free speech, fair taxation, and religion were freedoms worth fighting for. They DIED for those rights. Yes the same rights we (Americans) enjoy today. How can any American sit there, on their hands, and watch as our rights are impeded little by little every day just so we can all have the perception, the illusion, of being safer?www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Red_Skydiver 0 #73 January 27, 2007 I get it now, I think .... don't know why I didn't see it sooner. John doesn't give a crap about the 97 ban over here, he is just clutching at anything that can influence people in america to fight for their right to bear arms, right? He's trying to use our example to highlight what could happen over there if your right is eroded. Is that right John? If so the example you have chosen and your argument are pretty weak. There has to be a better way to get support. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #74 January 27, 2007 QuoteI get it now, I think .... don't know why I didn't see it sooner. John doesn't give a crap about the 97 ban over here, he is just clutching at anything that can influence people in america to fight for their right to bear arms, right? He's trying to use our example to highlight what could happen over there if your right is eroded. Is that right John? If so the example you have chosen and your argument are pretty weak. There has to be a better way to get support. Why do something that doesnt work to begin with and removes a constitutional right? Pretty simple. Besides, I wanna keep my new Armalite M15A2"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NCclimber 0 #75 January 27, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAnd while we're at it, let's compare the number times private citizens used guns to defend themselves against criminals, for those time periods. Nice try. Are you saying that violent crime would be EVEN HIGHER in the USA without guns? Not even John Rich claims that! Besides, whose data would you use? I was just countering one tangential sidebar with another. Well, since you have no actual data, it's about all you could do. You do have a knack for asserting a lie and making it sound plausible. Tsk, tsk. Pretty smarmy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next Page 3 of 15 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
mr2mk1g 10 #63 January 27, 2007 For God's sake John, that's not just someone's opinion; that's an official statement by the head of the government department responsible for drafting, introducing and passing the legislation in question! It's a statement made in formal response to a written question in the House of Commons. Do you even grasp how seriously such a statement is taken in English politics? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #64 January 27, 2007 QuoteYes gun crime has increased but if the ban hadn't occured it would have increased at least at the same rate ... likely at a higher rate. "Likely"? You think it's a good idea to confiscate people's property based upon the hope for a "likely" outcome? Personally, I think before citizen's property rights are trampled upon, that some solid proof should be required that it's actually going to accomplish something useful. Let's face it, your Parliament acted like a lynch mob. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #65 January 27, 2007 QuoteFor God's sake John, that's not just someone's opinion; that's an official statement by the head of the government department responsible for drafting, introducing and passing the legislation in question! Uh-huh. That doesn't mean that he speaks for everyone. It just means that it's his personal opinion, based upon politics. President Bush said there were WMD's in Iraq. Does that make it true? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Red_Skydiver 0 #66 January 27, 2007 QuoteQuoteJohn, you are willfully lying to people - and I can prove it to them... here's the link to my post call you out last time round... Ah yes, you're so-called proof, which consists of the opinion of just one man. So many people are telling you the same thing John. It's time to wake up. Has there been one person from the UK agreeing with you? How many have disagreed? Compare the numbers. What does that tell you? I don't want a gun. I don't know anyone who wishes to own/carry a gun in the UK. I've never seen one outside of the military. I don't need one. If we were allowed to carry them I bet there would be a heck of a lot more gun crimes around and a lot more poeple shot dead and injured. The ban was introduced for one reason only... as previously explained time and time again..... and it worked, it removed the guns it was intended to remove and so far (fingers crossed) has prevented a repeat performance.....nobody has said it could not happen again, but with less guns than there would have been the chances are reduced ... no matter how slightly, they are reduced. At the time of the ban it was the right decision. Society changes over time however. There are other reasons for the amount of gun crime we are seeing now and nobody expects gun crime to disappear because of one ban that happend 10 years ago... except you of course. Rather than whinging about how one of our laws has been "ineffective" why not address the real problem and offer a solution? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #67 January 27, 2007 Why is it, when faced with proper debate, you become rather outspoken and irrational John? Swiss clocks on the hour? Cuckoo? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Red_Skydiver 0 #68 January 27, 2007 QuoteQuoteYes gun crime has increased but if the ban hadn't occured it would have increased at least at the same rate ... likely at a higher rate. ..... Personally, I think before citizen's property rights are trampled upon, that some solid proof should be required that it's actually going to accomplish something useful. What property rights? This isn't America... perhaps that is something you are forgetting. We do not have any rights here in the UK we have freedoms which is slightly different. Rights entitle you to something but we don't have that. Our freedoms allow us to do what we like providing it doesn't break any laws that exist. So Parliament CAN introduce such laws such as the ban on weapons. Not that anyone was complaining anyway... except you of course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Red_Skydiver 0 #69 January 27, 2007 Quote Incorrect. My position is that banning guns does nothing to prevent gun crime. There is a difference. I'm not saying that a ban encourages more, just that it does nothing to stop it. Gun crime occurs completely independent of, and despite, gun laws. We all know that. Nobody is disagreeing with you on this point (as far as I know). It's your insistance that the 97 ban has had no affect whatsoever and it was a complete waste of time that we disagree with. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #70 January 27, 2007 Jesus John, you really don't have a clue what went on in Parliament in 96/97 do you. You are talking utter drivel. Not only is that statement from the very architect of the legislation in question, and the Minister in charge of the department responsible for drafting it, but it represents in a simple, concise sound-bite, what the whole of the newly elected Government was saying throughout months of Parliamentary debate on this subject. Christ do you even understand the principle of Government we have in this country? We don't have a President. Blair is not Bush! What his Ministers say in Parliament is not just their personal opinion. Crash course in UK Politics John because you evidently need it. We are not a Republic headed by a President. We have a Parliament, we have a Government and we have a Cabinet. Parliament is controlled by the Government and the Government is headed by the Cabinet. The Cabinet is made up of Ministers, the above quote being from one of them. The Prime Minister is but one of those Ministers – hence his title; an Anglicised version of the Latin phrase "primus inter pares" or "first amongst equals". When a Cabinet Minister answers a Parliamentary question on behalf of the Government he does so as the mouthpiece for the whole Government. We have a principle of Cabinet responsibility which means that if Charles Clarke responds to a Parliamentary question in the above manner, he is speaking for Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Robin Cook, David Blunket etc etc etc, - the whole of the Cabinet; ergo, the whole of the Government. The bottom line is, the Government pushed the 97 legislation through based on similar statements to that linked to above. The Government repeatedly said that their proposals were not meant to have anything to do with run-of-the-mill gun crime. It's not just one man's opinion – it's what the Government were intending to do, simple historical fact as found throughout hundreds of volumes of Hansard. There is reality. And then there's what what went on in your head. The two are seperated by one hell of a divide. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Red_Skydiver 0 #71 January 27, 2007 QuoteQuoteYes gun crime has increased but if the ban hadn't occured it would have increased at least at the same rate ... likely at a higher rate. "Likely"? You think it's a good idea to confiscate people's property based upon the hope for a "likely" outcome? Errr yes.... that is what usually happens. Laws are made with certain intentions but as we can't travel in time we assume a likely outcome..... unless you know of a better way. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #72 January 27, 2007 John is just trying to pull the wool from the eyes of the sheeps that are Americans. I'm sure he doesn't really care about the gun ban in the UK other than it serves as a good example of wasted time and money. Yet many still continue to keep their eyes closed once the wool is removed. Even going so far as to clutch at the wool as if it were a security blanket that keeps them safe from the boogie men residing in the closet and under the bed. At one time a group of people got really upset about their guns being taken away from them. They decided the rights to own firearms, free speech, fair taxation, and religion were freedoms worth fighting for. They DIED for those rights. Yes the same rights we (Americans) enjoy today. How can any American sit there, on their hands, and watch as our rights are impeded little by little every day just so we can all have the perception, the illusion, of being safer?www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Red_Skydiver 0 #73 January 27, 2007 I get it now, I think .... don't know why I didn't see it sooner. John doesn't give a crap about the 97 ban over here, he is just clutching at anything that can influence people in america to fight for their right to bear arms, right? He's trying to use our example to highlight what could happen over there if your right is eroded. Is that right John? If so the example you have chosen and your argument are pretty weak. There has to be a better way to get support. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #74 January 27, 2007 QuoteI get it now, I think .... don't know why I didn't see it sooner. John doesn't give a crap about the 97 ban over here, he is just clutching at anything that can influence people in america to fight for their right to bear arms, right? He's trying to use our example to highlight what could happen over there if your right is eroded. Is that right John? If so the example you have chosen and your argument are pretty weak. There has to be a better way to get support. Why do something that doesnt work to begin with and removes a constitutional right? Pretty simple. Besides, I wanna keep my new Armalite M15A2"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #75 January 27, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAnd while we're at it, let's compare the number times private citizens used guns to defend themselves against criminals, for those time periods. Nice try. Are you saying that violent crime would be EVEN HIGHER in the USA without guns? Not even John Rich claims that! Besides, whose data would you use? I was just countering one tangential sidebar with another. Well, since you have no actual data, it's about all you could do. You do have a knack for asserting a lie and making it sound plausible. Tsk, tsk. Pretty smarmy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
