This should make some gun enthusiasts crazy

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

George: If he had indeed given him his money, and was lucky enough not to be injured/killed by not giving any resistance, do you think this would make it more, or less likely for the criminal to repeat the crime?

Less likely comparing to what? In this story the criminal was not turned to the police, was not even hurt. He was just told to go away - not quite a resistance for someone committing armed robberies. And since he still needs money - he didn't get any here, right - he obviously went to find another victim.

Quote

Also, why argue a situation where no guns are present at all? This is not reality, and except for a very few exceptions, guns can be obtained illegally just about anywhere.

I'm pretty much sure that none of school shooters, and only one recent spree killer would be able to obtain guns if they really weren't routinely available (meaning if there was ban, which was enforced).

Quote

To pretend that it is possible to make widespread areas and numbers of people completely unable to get a gun, is a waste of time.

I have seen it working. While it is not possible to prevent everyone from owning a gun, even most criminals still wouldn't get one. The reason is that if they got caught during theft or pickpocketing, it's three to six with possible parole for the first time offense, but if they have a gun during crime (even unloaded, or even a single ammo with no gun at all), it is now six to fifteen without parole, and one will experience some heavy torture in Russian police (some really mean stuff, not just waterboarding) to turn in the arms dealer as well. And for a law abiding citizen five to ten is pretty good reason not even to try get one. And for those non-criminals wanting to start spree killing - they do not even know where to get one, as illegal arms dealers do not post ads in newspapers.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Not having a gun does not mean you're helpless, it is culture thing. If you were born and grew up in a country without guns culture, it's very likely you'll feel fine without one. Having a gun does not mean you're not victim - Mixon killed four COPS in Oakland, who not only carried guns, but were apparently more proficient in their usage comparing to average Joe. I guess for some people having a gun might make it worse than not having one, as they might end up in the situation they'd never be if they didn't have a gun.

Guess what... you are yacking about getting rid of something that IS a part of THIS culture.Ok so we get that they scare you and you think no one should have them

You grew up in a country where only the government had all the guns... That really worked well for the people that Stalin and his successors sent to Siberia by the millions now didn't it.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Then perhaps you should quit stating your OPINION as if it were fact.

I wonder if you ever read this, and stop explaining to me what I am writing?

Quote

We *did* find the facts, and presented them.

So where are they? This is a baseless claim. Point them out.

Quote

No, you whine about how I think that my opinion is better, when I've never said that. I *have* said that I'm much more conversant on the FACTS surrounding this area of discussion. The conversation in the couple of gun threads you've entered have proven this out.

First, I'm not whining, I'm explaining (while my application is rebuilt in background), and having fun. Your opinion that you know more about stuff means nothing to me as well. As I said, you can think whatever you want, just don't expect me to follow your thinking.

Quote

"You'd be alive as well if you just gave him your money, as he was not trying to kill you." - stated as a fact.

"No, I'm just pointing out that your assumption that three of you would be dead if you didn't have a gun is definitely groundless. " - stated as fact.

Dude, fact is "something done, having actual existence or actual occurense". Something which might have happened is in the best case educated guess.

Quote

It wasn't until AFTER I called you out on it that you backtracked and started talking about how it was 'just your opinion'.

Backtrack?! I had to repeat you something you seem to not understand before.

Quote

You were given stuff from NRA-ILA and KABA in the other thread - that wasn't acceptable because of the website it came from.

This is not proof (and you do not consider such things as proof when you asked me or Kallend). Nice logic.

Quote

When Brady starts publishing stats on defensive uses, let me know - I'd LOVE to see it. They still use Kellerman's "43 times more likely" statistic that has been debunked over and over again.

Well, YOU may consider it "debunked" - this, of course, means nothing to others.

Quote

The fact that several spree killings WERE stopped by concealed carry holders disproves your point. What you claim as a 'fact' is, in fact, another of your OPINIONS.

No, they were not STOPPED. At least two of them has finished already as the guys were leaving, and in one case having no more ammo. Which I pointed out to you, and you preferred to ignore.

Quote

You're not going to find ANYONE dispute that spree killers are most 'effective' in places where their prospective victims are disarmed. Your labeling of Federal LAW and military REGULATIONS as "excuses" only serves to further prove that you have no intention of learning, as you claim.

No, at this moment I can assure you that I have no intention of learning anything gun-related from you. Your posts are one of the reasons I'm now thinking gun control indeed makes a lot of sense.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[crewkeith 0]

he obviously went to find another victim..... or he went home cleaned the crap outta his drawers confessed his sins and cleansed himself of his wicked ways.... not likely but don't state absolutes when you have no idea.
you don't get it do you. by being sheep you attract the bad wolves. if this had happened in Colorado instead of Nevada i would have pulled up my shirt tail when i saw him approaching. open carry has a lot of intimidation power. he would have seen i was armed and left at that point. or he would have tried to rob me any way. doubtful. Nevada has open carry laws i am not familiar with. if everyone is armed people would be a lot more polite. i don't start fights or arguments because if a fight broke out it has no choice but to be a life or death situation

BUT I'LL BE DAMNED IF I AM GONNA BE A HELPLESS VICTIM
i'll leave that for you

The skies are no longer safe

I'm back

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Guess what... you are yacking about getting rid of something that IS a part of THIS culture.

Well, segregation was part of this culture quite recently too, so just being a part of the culture doesn't mean it has to stay forever. I would also speculate that not everyone in Brady bunch is from Europe, or the DC or NYC legislators are, so apparently they also miss this "culture" part.

Quote

Ok so we get that they scare you and you think no one should have them

The question is, who should? You would likely agree that not just everyone (nuts? felons? underage?) should have them either, and I would agree that it would be stupid to have army and police without guns, so at least someone would have them, and the question is, who should? And since I'm not going to own guns, I'm comparing the benefits versus drawbacks of having guns (and people carrying them) around me, and our family gonna vote as the result of this comparison.

Quote

You grew up in a country where only the government had all the guns... That really worked well for the people that Stalin and his successors sent to Siberia by the millions now didn't it.

At this moment a lot of people still had guns, especially outside cities. After all, a civil war ended just recently, and it was obvious the next war is ahead. This, however, didn't help. Even when Checnya and Ingushetia regions were deported after the war, almost every family there had guns. The government has more than just guns, they have authority, and they're smart not to target everyone at the same time. And when they do target everyone (like happened with Chechnya), they use military force. Your guns are useless against tanks.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Incorrect. You make the presumption that the criminal is a rational actor, when such is not the case.

I wonder if this is something you have proof (that this is not the case), or you're just stating your opinion?

Quote

The criminal is concerned with having a means to COERCE compliance. A criminal that already has a gun isn't going to get rid of it and carry a stick, just because the victims in that area are unarmed.

What are the risks of him being arrested with a gun here in US, how more severe a sentence is ? In Russia the penalty for just having a gun is much larger than for most nonviolent crimes, so it would be stupid for a criminal to do their "business" with a gun unless they intend to use it.

Quote

That's a common fallacy that the anti-gun crowd brings up - the 'vigilante' scenario. The *fact* is that concealed carry holders are taught that the gun is a LAST resort, not a first one, and that they are held to a higher standard in regards to de-escalating potential situations because of it.

I wonder how well this training works.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Then perhaps you should quit stating your OPINION as if it were fact.

I wonder if you ever read this, and stop explaining to me what I am writing?

Maybe you should have put that at the top of your 'opinion' posts, then.

Quote

Quote

We *did* find the facts, and presented them.

So where are they? This is a baseless claim. Point them out.

Plenty of references in the other thread - feel free to google them up.

Quote

Quote

"You'd be alive as well if you just gave him your money, as he was not trying to kill you." - stated as a fact.

"No, I'm just pointing out that your assumption that three of you would be dead if you didn't have a gun is definitely groundless. " - stated as fact.

Dude, fact is "something done, having actual existence or actual occurense". Something which might have happened is in the best case educated guess.

Should've put your disclaimer in there, then, or written it in a way that was non-assertive.

Quote

Quote

It wasn't until AFTER I called you out on it that you backtracked and started talking about how it was 'just your opinion'.

Backtrack?! I had to repeat you something you seem to not understand before.

No disclaimer, assertive statement...see above.

Quote

Quote

You were given stuff from NRA-ILA and KABA in the other thread - that wasn't acceptable because of the website it came from.

This is not proof (and you do not consider such things as proof when you asked me or Kallend). Nice logic.

Yes, George... the NRA made ALLLLL that stuff up and arranged it with the FBI and small-town newspapers to cover for them.

Quote

Quote

When Brady starts publishing stats on defensive uses, let me know - I'd LOVE to see it. They still use Kellerman's "43 times more likely" statistic that has been debunked over and over again.

Well, YOU may consider it "debunked" - this, of course, means nothing to others.

Google would have kept your foot out of your mouth here, too.
" Results 1 - 10 of about 3,230 for kellerman '43 times more likely' debunked. (0.28 seconds) "

Quote

Quote

The fact that several spree killings WERE stopped by concealed carry holders disproves your point. What you claim as a 'fact' is, in fact, another of your OPINIONS.

No, they were not STOPPED. At least two of them has finished already as the guys were leaving, and in one case having no more ammo. Which I pointed out to you, and you preferred to ignore.

How do you know they 'had finished already'? How do you know that the other wasn't going to get more ammo?

That's right, you DON'T. Another one of your OPINIONS that you try to state as fact.

Quote

Quote

You're not going to find ANYONE dispute that spree killers are most 'effective' in places where their prospective victims are disarmed. Your labeling of Federal LAW and military REGULATIONS as "excuses" only serves to further prove that you have no intention of learning, as you claim.

No, at this moment I can assure you that I have no intention of learning anything gun-related from you.

No skin off my nose - someone else that CAN learn might read the threads and pick up what you can't, however.

Quote

Your posts are one of the reasons I'm now thinking gun control indeed makes a lot of sense.

You never thought anything different - that was apparent from the start. Did you think you were fooling anyone?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

You make the presumption that the criminal is a rational actor, when such is not the case.

Can you elaborate? It sounds as though you are claiming that criminals are inherently unable to act rationally, at least during the commission of a crime. If that is what you mean, upon what evidence do you base your assertion? If that's not an accurate interpretation of your assertion, can you please clarify?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Incorrect. You make the presumption that the criminal is a rational actor, when such is not the case.

I wonder if this is something you have proof (that this is not the case), or you're just stating your opinion?

Certainly - if your assumption were true, there would be no crimes with sticks, knives or anything else in places like DC, Chicago, NYC, because the victims are all disarmed.

Since that is NOT the case, your assumption is false on it's face.

Quote

Quote

The criminal is concerned with having a means to COERCE compliance. A criminal that already has a gun isn't going to get rid of it and carry a stick, just because the victims in that area are unarmed.

What are the risks of him being arrested with a gun here in US, how more severe a sentence is ? In Russia the penalty for just having a gun is much larger than for most nonviolent crimes, so it would be stupid for a criminal to do their "business" with a gun unless they intend to use it.

This isn't Russia. You're operating under a lot of pre-conceived notions that may no longer be valid.

Some states have extra penalties if the crime is committed with a gun - I don't *believe* that all states have passed them, but I could be mistaken on that.

Quote

Quote

That's a common fallacy that the anti-gun crowd brings up - the 'vigilante' scenario. The *fact* is that concealed carry holders are taught that the gun is a LAST resort, not a first one, and that they are held to a higher standard in regards to de-escalating potential situations because of it.

I wonder how well this training works.

Well enough for the police to trust the trainee to carry a gun in public.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

You make the presumption that the criminal is a rational actor, when such is not the case.

Can you elaborate? It sounds as though you are claiming that criminals are inherently unable to act rationally, at least during the commission of a crime. If that is what you mean, upon what evidence do you base your assertion? If that's not an accurate interpretation of your assertion, can you please clarify?

Certainly - I'm basing that on George's claim that "Response provokes appropriate counter-response, and if you have regular people without guns, a lot of criminals will also be without guns. If you have regular people with guns, a lot of criminals will be also with guns."

Given that criminals use guns/knives/other weapons in areas that their victims are unarmed, it proves that the criminals are not rational actors in that regard, else they would have disarmed to a similar level as their victims.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Amazon 7]

Quote

And when they do target everyone (like happened with Chechnya), they use military force. Your guns are useless against tanks.

Its hard to drive a tank when the tank drivers head makes such a nice target from hundreds of yards away.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Its hard to drive a tank when the tank drivers head makes such a nice target from hundreds of yards away.

Quite hard to imagine tank _driver_ head outside the tank while he's driving. During the war it was typically the tank commander's head which was out. Well, maybe it's different in U.S. tanks. But nevertheless, this also happened during war, I just finished a new book about 1945 Berlin campaign. Snipers and fausts were two problems during the campaign, but usually the next thing followed the shot, the tanks and artillery bring down every \thing in the nearest hundreds of yards where a sniper could theoretically be. He mentioned flamethrower tanks were especially effective in this matter.

Another thing from Chechen campaign was that a lot of people just couldn't shot - after all, they would be shooting just other citizens who had nothing personal against them - they just got orders. So no, I don't really believe in a bunch of gun owners fighting the government nowadays.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

And when they do target everyone (like happened with Chechnya), they use military force. Your guns are useless against tanks.

Its hard to drive a tank when the tank drivers head makes such a nice target from hundreds of yards away.

Gotta refuel / reload / take a dump sometime...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

And when they do target everyone (like happened with Chechnya), they use military force. Your guns are useless against tanks.

Its hard to drive a tank when the tank drivers head makes such a nice target from hundreds of yards away.

Gotta refuel / reload / take a dump sometime...

Yup... but even when tooling down the road.. the drivers heads in the T-72 is out.. just under the main gun..and the commander... easy.

I dont think their flame throwers would be very good out where I would be engaging them from..and trying to find me in cover as the thing is careening into a ditch... I don't think so. Precision fire can do a LOT to demoralize those wishing to impose tyranny.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Given that criminals use guns/knives/other weapons in areas that their victims are unarmed, it proves that the criminals are not rational actors in that regard, else they would have disarmed to a similar level as their victims.

I'm fairly certain there hasn't been enough information offered to determine the players' respective statuses w/r/t rationality.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Maybe you should have put that at the top of your 'opinion' posts, then.

So far you were the only one who had problem recognizing this, so I'm afraid you'll have to just remember it.

Quote

Plenty of references in the other thread - feel free to google them up.

So much for "facts and references". Don't mention them anymore, "google them up" is not a fact nor a reference.

Quote

Should've put your disclaimer in there, then, or written it in a way that was non-assertive.

I'm writing my posts in assumption that people know what fact is, and those who don't know how to check the dictionary. Therefore they would be able to understand that when you say what someone would do in that situation is just a guess, and therefore no disclaimer needed.
Actually it makes me really wonder, as starting learning English six years ago I should have known English much worse than you do.

Quote

No disclaimer, assertive statement...see above.

You might try to apply the same rules you're applying to my posts to your own. They're written in pretty much the same way.

Quote

Yes, George... the NRA made ALLLLL that stuff up

I probably should have been more specific. Your merely claim that "You were given stuff from NRA-ILA and KABA in the other thread" is not a proof that you indeed gave stuff until you provide a link which indeed showed that you gave stuff to me. This is what I was referring to.

Quote

Google would have kept your foot out of your mouth here, too.
" Results 1 - 10 of about 3,230 for kellerman '43 times more likely' debunked. (0.28 seconds) "

Well, if you consider this a relevant method, and 3000 results is enough, you now have to admit that Bush did 9/11 (19.5 million results), and Americans didn't land on the moon (21 million results). Now we finally know the Truth!

Quote

How do you know they 'had finished already'?

Because the guys were leaving, one even tried to drive away.

Quote

How do you know that the other wasn't going to get more ammo?

Because this is a speculation. Same way you can speculate that they were going to go home and commit suicide, like some others did, or just go home, like Jing Hua Wu. The point is that they were not STOPPED by the people with guns, they were stopped by circumstances, and were going to leave the place.

Quote

That's right, you DON'T. Another one of your OPINIONS that you try to state as fact.

Dude, please, open a Webster dictionary, and read what "fact" means. I even gave a direct link in previous post. You're making yourself look silly.

Quote

You never thought anything different - that was apparent from the start. Did you think you were fooling anyone?

You can believe whatever you want, I don't care. And while I did though different, now this indeed surprises me.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Certainly - if your assumption were true, there would be no crimes with sticks, knives or anything else in places like DC, Chicago, NYC, because the victims are all disarmed.

You somehow missed the point. Are sticks, knives or anything else also banned in DC, Chicago and NYC? Is carrying a stick there illegal?

Quote

This isn't Russia. You're operating under a lot of pre-conceived notions that may no longer be valid.

I'm using it as example where the gun ban actually works, and explaining you how it works, and why.

Quote

Some states have extra penalties if the crime is committed with a gun - I don't *believe* that all states have passed them, but I could be mistaken on that.

The way I read what you say is that there is no penalty for a criminal who just carries a gun with him if it's not used. Then indeed there is a good reason to carry it, just in case. I bet things would change dramatically if this alone would give a criminal mandatory six to fifteen without parole.

Quote

Well enough for the police to trust the trainee to carry a gun in public.

My question was like, do they do any psychology testing? Are there periodical exams? How does this training works, and how easy ("well" was a wrong word here) is it to pass?

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

No, I'm *NOT* saying that. Quit trying to put words in my mouth, for once.

So what are you saying then? We're discussing people murdered in sprees, so your point "murder is murder" would only be valid if the same person, who died in spree, would die the same day of another reason.

Quote

So, you're scared of a spree murderer killing you with a GUN, and not a spree murderer killing you with a knife or club like back in the old country.

How about worrying more about the killer and less about the tool he chooses?

The ability of a single murderer to kill multiple people GREATLY depends on the tool he choses. Give him a knife - he'll kill one or two. Give him a gun - he'll kill 30. Give him a nuclear bomb - he will kill hundreds thousands. So we need to worry about both.

Quote

Speaking of stupid points...

Exactly - but it was YOUR stupid example.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

This isn't Russia. You're operating under a lot of pre-conceived notions that may no longer be valid.

I'm using it as example where the gun ban actually works, and explaining you how it works, and why.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Russia
It's working so well that the murder rate in Russia is 3-4X that of the US, and Moscow is by far the worst city in Europe. And if you go back to when the 'official' crime rate was like the US, it was when no one had any rights and you lived under an oppressive, failing government.

But this sort of delusion is hardly surprising for someone brazen enough to try to defend Kellerman's 43:1. Or to insist that a knife wielding mugger, in a land of 3 strikes laws, is always going to leave his victims alive to ID him.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Russia
It's working so well that the murder rate in Russia is 3-4X that of the US, and Moscow is by far the worst city in Europe.

Three issues here.

First is that their statistic is too old. Nov 2009 statistics (sorry, Russian only) says that 2009 "homicide" rate is ~15K, excluding December - i.e. twice less.

Second, and more important - in Russia "murder" and "attempted murder" are put into the same statistics category as you could see on page 3 - the line with 14978 -11.3 says "murders and attempted murders". Unfortunately MVD does not publish separated statistics, and this makes it quite useless in comparison.

Third, there are also classification issues. "Murder" in Russia includes the following:
- Intentional murder (article 105);
- Murder committed by mother when she kills her newborn (article 106);
- Murder in the state of affect (article 107);
- Murder when you fight against someone who attacked you first, and you exceed what the judge considers "reasonable defense" (article 109);
- Not intentional murder (article 110). Includes a lot of things. For example, recent fire in Perm killed 150 people, and there were 400 people inside the club. The fire inspector which signed up the club permit is now charged with 150 counts of non-intentional murder (which will add 150 to the statistics). It also includes drivers who run over a pedestrian, or killed another driver in a crash - Leading to suicide (article 111). Yes, it is also here.

All those things make it into the "murder" statistics. I wonder how many of those do not count in the murder statistics in the USA?

And of course if you still think it is related to guns, how would you explain Brazil there - which apparently has pretty of guns?

Quote

And if you go back to when the 'official' crime rate was like the US, it was when no one had any rights and you lived under an oppressive, failing government.

As you can see, even the rate which includes attempted murders is quite close right now. Nineties were quite wild in Russia, surviving the day was indeed something to be happy about. Things, however, change.

Quote

But this sort of delusion is hardly surprising for someone brazen enough to try to defend Kellerman's 43:1.

LOL. I don't even know what is "Kellerman's 43:1". If you read the posts, you'll see that was brought by mnealtx, who claimed it was "debunked", and I was interested to see his arguments, hoping to at least see some actual facts produced by him. His "fact" was really funny though. I never thought you can "prove" something to be true by just typing it in Google and counting the number of pages repeating the same phrase. 1,000,000 lemmings can't be wrong? You bet.

Quote

Or to insist that a knife wielding mugger, in a land of 3 strikes laws, is always going to leave his victims alive to ID him.

Same mugger on a third strike may as well shot his victims from behind - it is easier, less risky and more reliable than using a knife - in which case carrying would make no difference.

And, as I said, my concern is not muggers. My concern is people like Cho and Jing Hua Wu.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[crewkeith 0]

i tell ya what since we are not trying to change russia in any way why dont you leave the good ole USA just the way you found her. or go home if you dont like it

The skies are no longer safe

I'm back

[crewkeith 0]

i would love to stay and continue this hoax of a conversation but tandems show in 25 min. go skydive

The skies are no longer safe

I'm back

[rhaig 0]

Quote

So how many cases can you refer to when some "law abiding citizen" with a gun, who was not a cop, came to rescue someone being clubbed or stabbed by a loony? Compare it with just the number of murders, you'll get probability.

but isn't one of the favorite arguments of the anti-gun lobby "but if more gun control would prevent one crime, isn't it worth it?" So if someone carrying their handgun concealed would prevent just one crime, isn't it worth it?

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/noframedex.html

Quote

According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year -- one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds.

--
Rob

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

but isn't one of the favorite arguments of the anti-gun lobby "but if more gun control would prevent one crime, isn't it worth it?"

I think that is actually one of the favorite strawman arguments of the pro-gun lobby.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Can you elaborate? It sounds as though you are claiming that criminals are inherently unable to act rationally, at least during the commission of a crime. If that is what you mean, upon what evidence do you base your assertion? If that's not an accurate interpretation of your assertion, can you please clarify?

You can never assume that anyone will act rationally. Ever.

Assuming a criminal actor will act rationally while in the commission of a crime is a bad idea.

--
Rob