Recommended Posts
Richards 0
QuoteUnfortunately, I think that the same people wanting to eliminate guns are in living situations where they are highly unlikely to ever have to deal with immediate threats.
That is a big part of the problem. The gun-ban advocates should put their money where their mouth is and try to live in a bad area, and have to come home alone at night on a subway and then walking through an unlit area without bodygaurds to get a little perspective on the matter.
QuoteFor example, Rosie O'Donnell supports gun control--at least for everyone but her bodyguards. Diane Feinstein would gladly take away everyone's right to own a gun except for her. The list goes on.
The elite have never expected the rules to apply to them, just to us sheep who are supposed to be submissive.
Hey Rosies on TV so she figures must know better than the rest of us.
juanesky 0

rehmwa 2
QuotePedophiles ignore rape laws, should we disregard rape laws altogether?
I don't see JR stating that robbery and murder and assault laws should be revoked....

the analogy is that some men rape, therefore all men should have their penis removed
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
QuotePedophiles ignore rape laws, should we disregard rape laws altogether?
Please explain your reasoning.


Walt
SkyDekker 1,465
QuoteAt least two people so far don't think that idea is as obvious as you make it out to be - they've voted that they think gun laws do stop criminals.
You yourself have stated that gun laws DO stop criminals. You yourself have stated that you believe that laws allowing concealed carry stop or at least lower criminal activity.
(If you meant something more specific than just general gun laws, maybe you should have reflected that in your poll)
QuoteI see that you haven't been doing your reading assignments once again. The answer is in the story. Go do your homework. Don't bother trying to intelligently debate the subject, if you're not going to read the background story. That's 10 demerits. Now go to your room.
Speaking of intelligent dabate...
It goes towards the availability issue I then highlighted after that. gun control advocates claim that when you lower the availability of guns, you lower the number of "illegally obtained guns" as well. It is harder to steal "legal guns" when there are far fewer places to steal them from.
Which lead to:
QuoteWhat was available "was the overriding factor in weapon choice," the report says.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Right, which is what gun control advocates have been saying all along.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What this means is that no matter what you ban, the criminals will always still get whatever is available to commit their crimes. So, even presuming that a ban is successful, all you've accomplished is to cause a crime to be committed with, say, a .45 instead of a .38. Yeah, that's a great accomplishment...
They will still get what is available indeed. Gun control advocates generally agree with that. Less guns available, less gun crime is what they would say. Not an ellimination of crime. But, you would have to agree that a drive by knifing would likely result in fewer deaths than a drive by shooting.
vpozzoli 0
QuoteNot one of your best polls John. By the very fact they shoot Police its obvious that they ignore gun laws. On the other hand how many Police haven't been shot because there were gun laws in place? There might be thousands of potential cop killers who decided that they wouldn't shoot at the police as it would be breaking the law.
Careful with that reasoning lest he digs up some stats that show that more cops have been shot somewhere or other since some gun law or other has been enacted thus irrefutably "proving" that fewer guns actually "cause" more cops to be shot.
![[:/] [:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png)
Vale
Likewise no law has stopped a teenager from drinking however, it may have made more dificult for some to get wasted everyweekend.
JR is against any gun control law because he says that they don´t stop criminals from getting guns. It may not stop all criminals, however it will make it harder so overall it is a good thing. In spain you can get a gun however since there is not that many it is much harder to get one. Most of the criminals do not have one.
Your analogy is a good one, however getting a gun is optional, havinga penis is not.
SkyDekker 1,465
QuoteStrangely enough, you of all people bring this topic..........
Are you trying to say something? We all know that you don´t have what it takes to say that face to face, but came on, you are hidding behind a keyboard, what is the worst that can happen, getting banned again?
No class Juanesky, no class at all.
JohnnyD 0
juanesky 0
QuoteQuoteStrangely enough, you of all people bring this topic..........
Are you trying to say something? We all know that you don´t have what it takes to say that face to face, but came on, you are hidding behind a keyboard, what is the worst that can happen, getting banned again?
No class Juanesky, no class at all.
Well, for someone studying phsycholgy and says the following:clicky
I don't think that professing this has any class at all, and I bet the majority thinks the same.

QuotePedophiles ignore rape laws, should we disregard rape laws altogether?
I love this argument/analogy because it really isn't a good one. I do realize you are not from the US so I'll see if I can explain.
The right to bear arms is written in the US Constitution. The right to rape is not. That being said.... if a law is going to exist that infringes on a constitutional right then shouldn't it have the effect the law was intended to have?
QuotePedophiles ignore rape laws, should we disregard rape laws altogether?
No. Obviously we should ban dicks.

--------------------------------------------------
JohnRich 4
QuoteJohn,
was right to pick up on that turn of phrase: "What was available "was the overriding factor in weapon choice," the report says."
So the report defended gun shows. It then really promotes the notion that banning guns will reduce was is available.
You can't go on and claim he should read through the long version of the report just to find evidence to contradict his viewpoint, one supported by the summary viewpoint YOU wrote. The burden of clear editing and presentation falls on you.
He didn't have to read the long pdf version to find his answer. It was right there in the synopsis, taken from the short version of the report, under the capitalized heading "WEAPON CHOICE":
...all but one were obtained illegally, usually in street transactions or in thefts. In contrast to media myth, none of the firearms in the study was obtained from gun shows.That's way I think he doesn't even bother to read the basic background info before he knee-jerk reacts and opens his mouth to criticize. Because his answer was in plain slight, and he didn't seem to recognize that. I prefer to debate with people who have taken the time to read, digest and think about the info. I'm not here to babysit people and spoon-feed them.
I didn't write the synopsis - those are straight quotes from the beginning of the Force Science News article. That's why I indented and italicized them. Copyright law prohibits me from posting the entire article - that's why I have a link to it, so that everyone can see for themselves. Thus, you can hardly claim that I'm trying to hide something or interject some kind of bias in my reporting.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites