mnealtx 0
SkyDekker 1,465
QuoteThe point is a gun or any other thing is not responsible for an action.
A gun can't kill anymore than a hammer can build a house.
Already agreed with you on this.
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uhm, no. A crime has not been prevented in either scenario. A crime has not escalated.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uh, yes. A criminal coming up and demanding money is different in escalation than if the criminal had a weapon. Same with defense.
Uh no. A criminal coming up and demanding money under threat of force is already a crime. If the defendant brandishes a gun and the criminal takes off, a crime has still been committed.
If the defendant does not brandish a gun and hands over the money, a more serious crime has been committed.
As you can see, in both circumstances, a crime has been committed. In scenario 1 the crime did not escalate.
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree. But that does not provide proof that crime has been prevented. Which is what the discussion was about.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Study's with prisoners show that THEY say the fear of encountering an armed person changes their behavior. What more do you want? You have the criminals themselves saying it.
Bolding mine. Do you really not get that? Convicted criminals are claiming they were detered from crime? I already agreed it could change their behaviour. We were talking about the prevention of crime.
Ron, I know you are incapable of admitting anything to somebody you consider to be an anti gun idiot. I have agreed with many of your view points. I think I have stated the case pretty clearly that it is next to impossible to prove that guns can prevent crime.
QuoteThere is as much 'proof' to defend your position as their is 'proof' to defend mine.
You want me to prove that it is impossible to prove that guns prevent crime?
Ron 10
QuoteUh no. A criminal coming up and demanding money under threat of force is already a crime. If the defendant brandishes a gun and the criminal takes off, a crime has still been committed.
And
QuoteIf the defendant does not brandish a gun and hands over the money, a more serious crime has been committed.
As you can see, in both circumstances, a crime has been committed. In scenario 1 the crime did not escalate.
Do not make sense.... In scenario #1 you claim a crime has been committed, but in your second scenario you ADMIT it is more serious... So the good guy having a gun DID make the crime less serious.
Which is one of MY positions.
QuoteBolding mine. Do you really not get that? Convicted criminals are claiming they were detered from crime? I already agreed it could change their behaviour. We were talking about the prevention of crime.
They were deterred from some crimes. I don't know who you are going to listen to if you don't want to listen to the very people who commit these acts on why they do the things they do and what prevented them form certain deeds.
If a criminal tells me that he avoids places where civilians might be armed.... I tend to think that is a valid piece of data... You just choose to ignore it.
QuoteRon, I know you are incapable of admitting anything to somebody you consider to be an anti gun idiot. I have agreed with many of your view points. I think I have stated the case pretty clearly that it is next to impossible to prove that guns can prevent crime.
And I know you are incapable of admitting anything to someone you consider a gun nut. I have agreed with many of YOUR view points. I think I have stated the case pretty clearly that it is next to impossible to prove that guns can't prevent crime.
QuoteYou want me to prove that it is impossible to prove that guns prevent crime?
Nope, I want you to admit that you can't prove guns CAUSE crime.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
SkyDekker 1,465
QuoteSo the good guy having a gun DID make the crime less serious.
Which is exactly what I have been saying all along.
Can you now admit that guns do not prevent crime?
QuoteIf a criminal tells me that he avoids places where civilians might be armed.... I tend to think that is a valid piece of data... You just choose to ignore it.
Sure, its great. Except not proof that a crime has been prevented....which is what your original claim was.
Ron, you are continually bending words and arguing in circles. It's getting silly. You wanted me to agree that guns prevent crime, you have now clearly seen that is not the case. I have a hard time believing you are having an honest conversation/discussion at this point.
QuoteNope, I want you to admit that you can't prove guns CAUSE crime.
Never said I could, wasn't part of the original claim you made either. Do you even remember the post that started this discussion? Maybe you should try and find it and stick to that topic.
Quote
Where did I say that the only acceptable defense weapon is a gun? That's YOUR baby, not mine. I refer you back to the threat/use of force.
You're carefully trying to put the equal sign between "victim without a gun" and "unarmed victim". Those are two different things, which I pointed out. Since people are not unarmed in Europe, discussing the situation in other contexts makes zero sense as it would invalidate most of your points.
Quote
No it doesn't. Quit thinking in black/white - some criminals will be/are deterred, others aren't.
...
Not necessarily.
Could you please explain both of those quotes? My thoughts:
1. You're saying that possibility of victim to carry a gun deters some violent criminals.
2. This means that if the gun ownership/carry is banned, those criminals who were deterred at (1) would not be deterred, and therefore there should be more violent crimes.
3. Carrying guns is generally illegal in all European countries I know, and is strictly enforced in most of them.
Applying 1-3 would mean Europe should have less violent criminals deterred, which should result in more violent crime being committed - comparing, for example, to U.S. or Brazil. But it seem not to be the case. So either there is something wrong there, or the real reason is that amount of violent crime depends very little on right to bear arms, and much more depends on other things, having guns irrelevant in the large picture.
Quote
Yeah, whatever. Spin it however you need to so you can feel better about your stance.
Spin?! So you think you were correct when you assumed that the crime was not committed (and therefore prevented) just because a robber didn't take his wallet?
Quote
A bit west of you - Bosnia, Croatia and now Kosovo.
They have kind of permanent war going there, don't they? Not typical European countries, I'd say.
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuote
Where did I say that the only acceptable defense weapon is a gun? That's YOUR baby, not mine. I refer you back to the threat/use of force.
You're carefully trying to put the equal sign between "victim without a gun" and "unarmed victim". Those are two different things, which I pointed out. Since people are not unarmed in Europe, discussing the situation in other contexts makes zero sense as it would invalidate most of your points.
Really? I must have missed the laws being repealed about carrying knives or clubs - can you point them out to me? Pepper spray I'll give you, although it is not as strong of a deterrent as you seem to think it is.
QuoteQuote
No it doesn't. Quit thinking in black/white - some criminals will be/are deterred, others aren't.
...
Not necessarily.
Could you please explain both of those quotes? My thoughts:
1. You're saying that possibility of victim to carry a gun deters some violent criminals.
That is correct, according to criminal statements.
2. This means that if the gun ownership/carry is banned, those criminals who were deterred at (1) would not be deterred, and therefore there should be more violent crimes.
Logically, it should. Correlation does equal causation, however.
3. Carrying guns is generally illegal in all European countries I know, and is strictly enforced in most of them.
Agreed.
Applying 1-3 would mean Europe should have less violent criminals deterred, which should result in more violent crime being committed - comparing, for example, to U.S. or Brazil.
No - the criminals in the US are not the same as in Central Europe are not the same as in BrazilQuoteBut it seem not to be the case. So either there is something wrong there, or the real reason is that amount of violent crime depends very little on right to bear arms, and much more depends on other things, having guns irrelevant in the large picture.
That is correct - it's a CRIMINAL issue, not a WEAPON issue.QuoteQuote
Yeah, whatever. Spin it however you need to so you can feel better about your stance.
Spin?! So you think you were correct when you assumed that the crime was not committed (and therefore prevented) just because a robber didn't take his wallet?
He wasn't robbed - that's my point. If you need to say "it didn't keep the guy from ATTEMPTING it in the first place", then you're spinning to justify your position.
Do some research on 'brandishing' laws to get your answer.QuoteQuote
A bit west of you - Bosnia, Croatia and now Kosovo.
They have kind of permanent war going there, don't they?
More wars have been fought over religion than any other 'cause', I'd be willing to bet.QuoteNot typical European countries, I'd say.
Neither is the rest of Eastern Europe, compared to Central Europe - and both immaterial to the subject at hand.Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Quote
Really? I must have missed the laws being repealed about carrying knives or clubs - can you point them out to me? Pepper spray I'll give you, although it is not as strong of a deterrent as you seem to think it is.
You're not missed them - you're carefully trying to bend the discussion to avoid getting to the statement that the violent crime level does not depend on whether the gun ownership/carrying is legal, and basically having people with guns around does not prevent violent crime in statistically significant numbers.
If pepper sprays, clubs and knives prevent crime as much as guns, then much stricter gun control laws make sense, as they would prevent more crimes like shooting sprees, while pepper spray is still being available for self-defense (kinda hard kill 30 with pepper spray).
Quote
That is correct, according to criminal statements.
Slight correction - according to alleged criminal statements; I didn't see those statements yet, despite all my requests, and now I'm pretty sure you didn't see them as well as you didn't read the study. But anyway.
Quote
No - the criminals in the US are not the same as in Central Europe are not the same as in Brazil
This is what you need to explain. What makes them different, and how much different?
Quote
That is correct - it's a CRIMINAL issue, not a WEAPON issue.
Which basically means that guns do not play any statistically significant role in preventing crimes.
Quote
He wasn't robbed - that's my point. If you need to say "it didn't keep the guy from ATTEMPTING it in the first place", then you're spinning to justify your position. Do some research on 'brandishing' laws to get your answer.
My point was that in this "bus stop" example the crime was not prevented, it was diverted to another person. The crime has been committed at the moment the robbery was attempted. I'd agree that "a robbery was prevented" if he called the police and the criminal was locked up (so he wouldn't be able to rob anyone else for a while), but since he didn't, the criminal was free to go. Therefore he likely robbed someone else,.
Quote
Neither is the rest of Eastern Europe, compared to Central Europe - and both immaterial to the subject at hand.
More than Bosnia though. At least they didn't have a war/genocide on that scale.
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
rushmc 23
HE tries to "bend" the discussion????
Allllllllllrrrrrriiiiiiiigggghhhhhty then
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuote
Really? I must have missed the laws being repealed about carrying knives or clubs - can you point them out to me? Pepper spray I'll give you, although it is not as strong of a deterrent as you seem to think it is.
You're not missed them - you're carefully trying to bend the discussion to avoid getting to the statement that the violent crime level does not depend on whether the gun ownership/carrying is legal, and basically having people with guns around does not prevent violent crime in statistically significant numbers.
Incorrect - I believe I've stated several times that an armed criminal will have an advantage on the persuasion/force continuum. I've also stated several times that a CRIMINAL is not going to care if weapons are banned or not. The only people affected by weapons bans are the law-abiding.
As for the 'guns don't make a difference' part, obviously the bus stop incident disproves your point. In that case, having the gun made the poster higher on the force continuum scale than the robber, preventing the completion of his planned crime.
QuoteIf pepper sprays, clubs and knives prevent crime as much as guns, then much stricter gun control laws make sense,
I guess that's why there's no more violent crime anymore in England, Germany, Japan, etc etc etc.
What? There's still violent crime there? But but but....
IT'S THE CRIMINAL, not the tool. An unarmed victim emboldens the criminal.
Quoteas they would prevent more crimes like shooting sprees, while pepper spray is still being available for self-defense (kinda hard kill 30 with pepper spray).
Kinda hard to kill 30 without a murderer. Same logic. It's the CRIMINAL, not the tool.
QuoteQuote
That is correct, according to criminal statements.
Slight correction - according to alleged criminal statements; I didn't see those statements yet, despite all my requests, and now I'm pretty sure you didn't see them as well as you didn't read the study. But anyway.
Argue it with Wright/Rossi or buy the fucking book yourself - either way, quit whining.
QuoteQuote
No - the criminals in the US are not the same as in Central Europe are not the same as in Brazil
This is what you need to explain. What makes them different, and how much different?
If you don't understand the role that culture has on perceptions and attitudes, then it's no use discussing ANYTHING with you.
QuoteQuote
That is correct - it's a CRIMINAL issue, not a WEAPON issue.
Which basically means that guns do not play any statistically significant role in preventing crimes.
Only when they're used by the intended victim, and a deterrent effect at least upon burglary, based on prisoner interviews.
QuoteQuote
He wasn't robbed - that's my point. If you need to say "it didn't keep the guy from ATTEMPTING it in the first place", then you're spinning to justify your position. Do some research on 'brandishing' laws to get your answer.
My point was that in this "bus stop" example the crime was not prevented, it was diverted to another person.
Conjecture.
QuoteThe crime has been committed at the moment the robbery was attempted.
*A* crime was commited - a FURTHER crime was prevented.
QuoteI'd agree that "a robbery was prevented" if he called the police and the criminal was locked up (so he wouldn't be able to rob anyone else for a while), but since he didn't, the criminal was free to go.
You never answered that question before - what's he supposed to do when the guy turns and runs - shoot him?
QuoteTherefore he likely robbed someone else,.
Conjecture.
QuoteQuote
Neither is the rest of Eastern Europe, compared to Central Europe - and both immaterial to the subject at hand.
More than Bosnia though. At least they didn't have a war/genocide on that scale.
Perhaps - was there a point to it, however, other than to try to denigrate my experiences?
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Quote
Incorrect - I believe I've stated several times that an armed criminal will have an advantage on the persuasion/force continuum.
Criminals always will have advantage over non-criminals - selecting a place and time to attack, striking first - so this is moot point.
Quote
I've also stated several times that a CRIMINAL is not going to care if weapons are banned or not. The only people affected by weapons bans are the law-abiding.
The crime statistics in Europe seems not to support your conclusion. Despite "no-carry" gun laws and criminals allegedly ignoring those laws, the violent crime in Europe still seem to be less than in USA, so overall impact on law-abiding citizens is still positive.
Quote
As for the 'guns don't make a difference' part, obviously the bus stop incident disproves your point. In that case, having the gun made the poster higher on the force continuum scale than the robber, preventing the completion of his planned crime.
Again, crime was not prevented, it was diverted to another person. And this "worked" pretty much the same way as I prevented this crime against myself simply by not being there - no guns were needed.
Quote
I guess that's why there's no more violent crime anymore in England, Germany, Japan, etc etc etc.
What is your point? Are you saying again that if the ban for specific behavior (like carrying guns) does not prevent ALL crimes, then the ban is useless?
Quote
What? There's still violent crime there? But but but....
Such statement could easily backfire - since, as you say, carrying gun prevents violent crimes, I guess that's why there is no more violent crime in TX, right?
Quote
IT'S THE CRIMINAL, not the tool. An unarmed victim emboldens the criminal.
That's what you have been saying all the time, but simple comparison U.S. versus Europe versus Brazil does not support your statement.
Quote
Kinda hard to kill 30 without a murderer. Same logic. It's the CRIMINAL, not the tool.
You're trying word play again. Are you out of arguments?
Quote
Argue it with Wright/Rossi or buy the fucking book yourself - either way, quit whining.
Why should I? You and JohnRich mentioned this report and alleged it supports your theories. None of you so far was able to present it, and none of you actually said you read it themselves, so your statement is moot.
(I have to admit thought that you're one of the few pro-gun who still hasn't falsely claimed that you "provided all facts" as JohnRich and Ron did; kudos to you for that, at least you're being fair.)
Quote
If you don't understand the role that culture has on perceptions and attitudes, then it's no use discussing ANYTHING with you.
Well, this is kinda silly. You made a statement that the difference in crime rate is not because of the guns but because of criminal behavior. This is a major statement, which obviously need to be backed up. If this is all you can back it up, then it's indeed useless to discuss anything, as this is not a discussion anymore.
Quote
Only when they're used by the intended victim, and a deterrent effect at least upon burglary, based on prisoner interviews.
*A* crime was commited - a FURTHER crime was prevented.
Going circles.
Quote
You never answered that question before - what's he supposed to do when the guy turns and runs - shoot him?
Where was this questions asked, and where did he say the guy turned and ran?
Quote
Perhaps - was there a point to it, however, other than to try to denigrate my experiences?
This was the point. Do they have enforced gun ban in those countries you lived?
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuote
Incorrect - I believe I've stated several times that an armed criminal will have an advantage on the persuasion/force continuum.
Criminals always will have advantage over non-criminals - selecting a place and time to attack, striking first - so this is moot point.
That gives them another advantage, yes. Moot point? No. Back to the force continuum with you - and actually READ it this time.
If some 110 lb 16 year old punk says 'gimme your wallet' I'll laugh in his face. If he has a knife, I'm not going to be laughing.
QuoteQuote
I've also stated several times that a CRIMINAL is not going to care if weapons are banned or not. The only people affected by weapons bans are the law-abiding.
The crime statistics in Europe seems not to support your conclusion. Despite "no-carry" gun laws and criminals allegedly ignoring those laws, the violent crime in Europe still seem to be less than in USA, so overall impact on law-abiding citizens is still positive.
That's correct, criminals DO ignore those laws - that's why there's STILL gun crimes and knife crimes in the UK, Germany, etc.... get it, now?
QuoteQuote
As for the 'guns don't make a difference' part, obviously the bus stop incident disproves your point. In that case, having the gun made the poster higher on the force continuum scale than the robber, preventing the completion of his planned crime.
Again, crime was not prevented, it was diverted to another person.
Conjecture - you have no way to know that.
QuoteAnd this "worked" pretty much the same way as I prevented this crime against myself simply by not being there - no guns were needed.
Good for you.
QuoteQuote
I guess that's why there's no more violent crime anymore in England, Germany, Japan, etc etc etc.
What is your point? Are you saying again that if the ban for specific behavior (like carrying guns) does not prevent ALL crimes, then the ban is useless?
That's the EXACT logic you're basing your anti-gun argument on, so why not?
QuoteQuote
What? There's still violent crime there? But but but....
Such statement could easily backfire - since, as you say, carrying gun prevents violent crimes, I guess that's why there is no more violent crime in TX, right?
Nope - there still is. That's why your insistence that gun bans are going to result in less crime is ludicrous.
It's the CRIMINAL, not the tool
QuoteQuote
IT'S THE CRIMINAL, not the tool. An unarmed victim emboldens the criminal.
That's what you have been saying all the time, but simple comparison U.S. versus Europe versus Brazil does not support your statement.
Prove your assertion.
QuoteQuote
Kinda hard to kill 30 without a murderer. Same logic. It's the CRIMINAL, not the tool.
You're trying word play again. Are you out of arguments?
Nope, using your logic - you might ask the Rwandans about that whole 'easy killing' thing, though.
QuoteQuote
Argue it with Wright/Rossi or buy the fucking book yourself - either way, quit whining.
Why should I? You and JohnRich mentioned this report and alleged it supports your theories. None of you so far was able to present it, and none of you actually said you read it themselves, so your statement is moot.
I've read excerpts from it on other sites, which were given you - I believe it was either Ron or Kelpdiver that provided an op-ed from one of the authors.
Bet you didn't read THAT, either.
QuoteQuote
If you don't understand the role that culture has on perceptions and attitudes, then it's no use discussing ANYTHING with you.
Well, this is kinda silly. You made a statement that the difference in crime rate is not because of the guns but because of criminal behavior. This is a major statement, which obviously need to be backed up. If this is all you can back it up, then it's indeed useless to discuss anything, as this is not a discussion anymore.
So, you're saying that the culture you grow up in has NOTHING to do with your outlook on things? Bullshit.
QuoteQuote
Only when they're used by the intended victim, and a deterrent effect at least upon burglary, based on prisoner interviews.
*A* crime was commited - a FURTHER crime was prevented.
Going circles.
Stating truth.
QuoteQuote
You never answered that question before - what's he supposed to do when the guy turns and runs - shoot him?
Where was this questions asked, and where did he say the guy turned and ran?
Bus stop incident, after you said he should have turned the guy over to the cops.
QuoteQuote
Perhaps - was there a point to it, however, other than to try to denigrate my experiences?
This was the point. Do they have enforced gun ban in those countries you lived?
Yup, they do - and the military is still confiscating and destroying weapons 10 years later.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
rushmc 23
IT'S THE CRIMINAL, not the tool. An unarmed victim emboldens the criminal.
Quote
QuoteThat's what you have been saying all the time, but simple comparison U.S. versus Europe versus Brazil does not support your statement.
You mean to tell me that guns jump off of shelves and tables and kill people????"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
You mean to tell me that guns jump off of shelves and tables and kill people????
No, I'm not. Only an idiot would think that by saying "Guns do not kill people" he actually made a point, or even said something worth discussion.
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuote
You mean to tell me that guns jump off of shelves and tables and kill people????
No, I'm not. Only an idiot would think that by saying "Guns do not kill people" he actually made a point, or even said something worth discussion.
Then why do you keep going on about the TOOL, and not the CRIMINAL?
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3740633#3740633
So, "the troposphere is cooling" now equates to 'there's no global warming'?
Weak.
And we all know that when it comes to crime reporting, you have more credibility than the FBI.
Even weaker.
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706