JohnRich 4 #26 April 5, 2007 Quotehow 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. So you want us to believe that people who are willing to commit murder, the most hideous of all possible crimes, punishable by exeuction, are somehow deterred because of minor gun laws that can get you less than a year in jail? "Yeah, I'd really like to kill that friggin' cop, if only I didn't have to lie on form 4473 to buy a gun!" That's ridiculous. Anyone who has the mindset to kill a police officer, will be deterred by nothing. Just read the chilling details in the report about the psyche of the street drug dealers who have committed these capital crimes. It's frightening, and it's clear that they have no regard for any laws. Not even murder, and especially not the more minor gun-control laws. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #27 April 5, 2007 QuoteYou 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. Sigh. I've already explained that. I was referring to gun-control laws, not laws which allow gun freedom. Gun-control laws do not stop criminals. Gun freedoms for law-abiding citizens, on the other hand, is a good thing. I'm growing weary of you not paying attention, and making me explain myself twice. QuoteThey 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. Yep, that's whay the say. But they're wrong. There is no correlation between gun ownership rates and gun crime rates. Examples run in both directions. QuoteBut, you would have to agree that a drive by knifing would likely result in fewer deaths than a drive by shooting. Only if you presume that gun-control is actually effective at making criminals switch to knives instead. And there is no such evidence for that happening. You keep promoting fairy tales... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #28 April 5, 2007 QuoteJR is against any gun control law... Another incorrect presumption. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #29 April 5, 2007 QuoteInteresting to see that 40% of the cop killers included in this study were trained in the military. Congratulations for actually reading further down into the study. However, you still got it a bit wrong. The actual quote is: "Nearly 40% of the offenders had some type of formal firearms training, primarily from the military."That just means that of all the types of formal training, military service was the largest category. So the "military" portion is only some fraction of that 40%. It does not mean that the entire 40% had military training. Other types of formal gun training could have come from private or commercial gun clubs, for example. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #30 April 5, 2007 QuoteWith each link I click I am repeatedly left wondering why terribly written and entirely unsupported crap that certainly would have gotten me "The Speech" from my freshman composition teacher is continuously regurgitated in these forums as if it were some sort of gospel. Ahh, that's nice - the generic criticism. They're so safe, warm and cuddly, because no one can claim you're wrong, since there's nothing to address, and you don't have to bother defending yourself, or risk looking bad. Why don't you write down some specifics, in perfect diction, and then I'll try and address them for you. Do you dare to get off the sidelines like an unruly sports fan, and get onto the playing field? But meanwhile, as long as you hide behind inspecific generics, you don't deserve any of my time. Or, since it offends your composition teacher so much, you could just skip the thread and not read it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #31 April 5, 2007 QuoteSigh. I've already explained that. I was referring to gun-control laws, not laws which allow gun freedom. Oh I read the last time you amde that mistake. You were commenting on others who had voted in your poll. I gave you a possibility as to why. Hard to tell what you really mean when you say one thing, but really mean something else. QuoteYep, that's whay the say. But they're wrong. Ahh okay, so the report is right when it agrees with your opinions and wrong when it doesn't agree with your opinions. QuoteOnly if you presume that gun-control is actually effective at making criminals switch to knives instead. No assuming that gun-control would reduce the available number of guns for thefts. There is some evidence that happens, as in countries with strict gun control laws tend to have lower crime rates. (and I agree that many more vriables are at play, but in the end the above is true) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #32 April 5, 2007 QuoteHe 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. If I'm a gun controller and I read this, what I see is that crooks get guns wherever they easily can, and one of the two methods listed is theft. So if I ban citizens from having them, that method disappears. That's really not the conclusion you wanted made, but it's sitting there in plain sight, based on your own argument. Given a choice of convincing the sheep that guns shows are bad or private gun ownership is bad, which will they choose? If you want to be serious about this advocacy business and not just dick around, you have to think about what you're writing. Otherwise you're as valuable to the cause as the militia nuts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #33 April 5, 2007 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. __________________________________ Not so much breaking the law but, the sentence for killing a cop is stiffer. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #34 April 6, 2007 Quoteassuming that gun-control would reduce the available number of guns for thefts... I've highlighted the part of your statement that makes it false. That's just another anti-gun fairy tale. "The number of firearms required to satisfy the crime market is minute, and these are supplied no matter what controls are instituted... There is no case, either in the history of this country or in the experience of other countries, in which controls can be shown to have restricted the flow of weapons to criminals or in any way reduced armed crime." - Metropolitan Police Superintendent, Colin Greenwood, West Yorkshire, England, 1996. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #35 April 6, 2007 QuoteIf I'm a gun controller and I read this, what I see is that crooks get guns wherever they easily can, and one of the two methods listed is theft. So if I ban citizens from having them, that method disappears. See my message #34. So you're in favor of a wholesale confiscation of every gun in America? Yeah, that'll be real easy... What about the social philosophy that this punishes 99.9% of gun owners who are good guys, for the vain hope that it will stop the .1% of bad guys from using guns? Do you feel that's a fair way to treat a free society of overwhelmingly responsible people? "The greatest danger of bombs (and guns) is in the explosion of stupidity that they provoke." - Octave Mirbeau (1850-1917), French journalist, author. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #36 April 6, 2007 Quote .... What about the social philosophy that this punishes 99.9% of gun owners who are good guys, for the vain hope that it will stop the .1% of bad guys from using ..... Source for that statement, pls? "99,9 percent of gun owners are good guys..." ??? How do you know that? A simple fact is: The more guns are around/available, the more will be used to kill. Period. You seem to fight the battle of your life. Enjoy and have fun. It just looks ridiculous. dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #37 April 6, 2007 Quote A simple fact is: The more guns are around/available, the more will be used to kill. Period. fact is a bit of a strong word since I have never seen evidence backing up the claim. I agree it seems a logical point. In fact, seeing as you stated it is a simple fact, it shouldn't take long for you to find evidence backing up your claim. edited to add: BTW I'm the kind of person that can be swayed by facts and evidence and IMHO so far the antigunners and anti Johnrichs would rather argue from an emotional stand point than to actually provide convincing data of their position. So show me the money and I'll show you the kwan. yes I know I'm picking on your usage of a word rather than arguing the content. You don't have to say it. I'm a bastage. www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #38 April 6, 2007 QuoteQuote A simple fact is: The more guns are around/available, the more will be used to kill. Period. fact is a bit of a strong word since I have never seen evidence backing up the claim. I agree it seems a logical point. In fact, seeing as you stated it is a simple fact, it shouldn't take long for you to find evidence backing up your claim. Have you compared the US gun homicide rate with that of the rest of the western world?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #39 April 6, 2007 yep QuoteConclusions Firearm death rates vary markedly throughout the industrialized world. Further research to identify risk factors associated with these variations may help improve prevention efforts. http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/27/2/214.pdf edited to add: These folks didn't find it such a simple fact. Now see me, raise me, call me, or fold. Either way show me the money! www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #40 April 7, 2007 QuoteQuoteIf I'm a gun controller and I read this, what I see is that crooks get guns wherever they easily can, and one of the two methods listed is theft. So if I ban citizens from having them, that method disappears. See my message #34. So you're in favor of a wholesale confiscation of every gun in America? Yeah, that'll be real easy... What about the social philosophy that this punishes 99.9% of gun owners who are good guys, for the vain hope that it will stop the .1% of bad guys from using guns? Do you feel that's a fair way to treat a free society of overwhelmingly responsible people? "The greatest danger of bombs (and guns) is in the explosion of stupidity that they provoke." - Octave Mirbeau (1850-1917), French journalist, author. What's the word for a 747 flying over your head? Whoosh just doesn't get it done here. (no real need to reply - I'll be out of the civilized working world for the next week) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #41 April 8, 2007 You know what? I just wasted over 45 minutes creating a well thought out, fact based post that cited sources and commented on counter arguments. I just deleted it. You want to know why? I already know what you'd say in response, and that all my effort would be wasted on you. In reality, nothing related to crime is a "simple fact," no matter how much you want it to be. Perhaps stating that "crime happens" would qualify as a simple fact. Not much else is, if anything. I'm going to give you a little assignment. I'm not going to do it for you because I've already shown you the numbers and it had no effect or you spouting falsehoods. I think that perhaps if you do the basic research yourself, you might understand. Maybe. Look up the number of guns in the USA. Look up the number of gun owners in the USA. Look up the number of murders, rapes, robberies, and assaults committed with guns in the USA. Now, take those numbers, and consider the fact that we know the vast majority of felonies are committed by persons who have committed many other felonies, and compare them to each other. For guidance, you might consider that the state of Florida did a study on its citizens who had concealed carry permits, and found that the incidence of crime committed by those people was far lower than the general population. In fact it was very similar to the rate of criminal activity was approximately that of law enforcement officers.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #42 April 8, 2007 You might consider your own little "whoosh" there. Answer one question for me, if you can. What prohibition has ever managed to prevent people who desire and item from getting their hands on that item? drugs? Nope alcohol? Nope guns? Nope secret information? Nope radioactive substances? Nope Have you got one? I sure can't think of any. Now if you're wondering how this is relevant, you might consider that ever if every gun in America were made illegal, that would not stop crimes from being committed with guns, it will not stop crimes from being committed without guns, and it would not stop criminals from obtaining guns. This statement is borne out in countries that have tried this very thing.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #43 April 10, 2007 well? Should I assume thats a muck? www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
