Recommended Posts
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuote
I did, did I? Sure about that? Let's go to the replay:
Washington DC is the 'murder capitol' of the US about 25-30% of the time
Did I *say* that DC was the 'murder capitol' for 2008? No, I didn't.
Yes, that's what you said. So what?
Edit: Got it. You probably meant "capital", not "capitol".
Either spelling, you're still wrong.
QuoteQuote
Your info does not disprove my statement. What part of "some higher, some lower" gave you the difficulty?
It does. Statistics shows that some cities with guns banned have reduced crime comparing to those with liberal gun laws.
Nope, sure doesn't. Some have more, some have less.
You *do* realize that there is NO state that completely bans ownership, right?
QuoteQuote
Ok, so? More criminals, more crime.
Why there is more criminals? They should be afraid of guns, shouldn't they?
Some are - some aren't.
QuoteQuote
Nope. Sure doesn't. Just means that the victims are prevented from effective means of defense.
So why the number of violent crimes is LOWER in NYC, where - as you said - "victims are prevented from effective means of defense"?
It's not because of the guns. Or the lack of them.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Quote
I don't recall machine guns and sniper rifles being part of the discussion until YOU brought them up a post or two back, do you?
You brought police which allows to carry guns anywhere, even in countries where regular citizens cannot. I pointed out that even police does not carry any kind of gun, i.e. even for law enforcement the gun ownership is still restricted
Quote
Nope - the onus is on you to prove your claim.
Since you did not provide any evidence that the information from this 1993 study is still relevant in 2010, the study is not considered valid evidence. I see no reason then to further discuss it until we can establish that the study is at least somehow relevant.
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
QuoteQuote
Ignoring your homeland, of course.
So despite the provided Google translation of the entire official document you still claim I'm lying?
No, my claim is you lack understanding.
Quote
I already provided JohnRich with the latest gun crimes statistics available from Home Office when he made similar claims. This statistics showed that the gun crime there was going DOWN. Never heard back from him yet. Maybe you will provide the official information about "trends in England"?
Now you confuse one year as a trend, when you should be looking at 20 years.
Quote
Well, you do not have to live in SF or Oakland.
So you live in the BA and never go to either place? Pretty fucking boring life. Never go to East Palo Alto, former murder capital of the country. Eh, I could go my life without going there. The eastern side of San Mateo isn't anything great, and that's true of a lot of spots along 101. Don't delude yourself - the BA has crime. That you haven't experienced it in your scant years here doesn't mean you never will, or that you can act to guarantee you never will.
Quote
I can't find the recidivism rate for robberies, but from what I remember it was quite high, so I doubt he'd shit his pants just from being shown a gun if some criminals still rob after serving jail time.
In summary, you're making shit up again.
Quote
Either spelling, you're still wrong.
Nope. It's language issue, as I translate all the words I'm not familiar with to Russian, and "capitol" has a completely different meaning (the most relevant being "the top score") than "capital". Ok, I'm admitting I screwed up as I should have checked for possible mistypes and not rely on your exact words.
Quote
Nope, sure doesn't. Some have more, some have less.
You *do* realize that there is NO state that completely bans ownership, right?
So what? We can compare cities, and it is enough to see that limiting gun rights does not mean increase of crime rate.
Quote
Some are - some aren't.
It's not because of the guns. Or the lack of them.
Indeed. So does this mean that you basically acknowledge that guns do little to prevent crime - much less than other factors (like law enforcement activity - I wonder what the crime rate in NYC was before Juliani?), and therefore restricting gun rights will not necessary lead to increase of violent crimes?
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuote
I don't recall machine guns and sniper rifles being part of the discussion until YOU brought them up a post or two back, do you?
You brought police which allows to carry guns anywhere, even in countries where regular citizens cannot. I pointed out that even police does not carry any kind of gun, i.e. even for law enforcement the gun ownership is still restricted
Ok. What the police carry still has no correlation to either criminal or civilian ownership as regards this discussion.
QuoteQuote
Nope - the onus is on you to prove your claim.
Since you did not provide any evidence that the information from this 1993 study is still relevant in 2010, the study is not considered valid evidence.
No - your OPINION is that the study is not valid.
QuoteI see no reason then to further discuss it until we can establish that the study is at least somehow relevant.
Be my guest. You *do* know that the '43 times more likely' Kellerman study - you know, the one that you didn't see anything wrong with - is from 1986, right?
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Quote
No, my claim is you lack understanding.
Please explain.
Quote
Now you confuse one year as a trend, when you should be looking at 20 years.
Did you read the link I provided? It covers 8 years (1998 - 2006) - quite a trend. And why should I be looking for exactly 20 years?
Quote
So you live in the BA and never go to either place? Pretty fucking boring life.
And I'm fine with that.
Quote
In summary, you're making shit up again.
Nobody followed that guy, so nobody KNOWS what we did. This means your thoughts about what he may do are no more valid than mine, and calling mine "shit" would apply to yours as well.
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuote
Either spelling, you're still wrong.
Nope. It's language issue, as I translate all the words I'm not familiar with to Russian, and "capitol" has a completely different meaning (the most relevant being "the top score") than "capital". Ok, I'm admitting I screwed up as I should have checked for possible mistypes and not rely on your exact words.
I always get the two spellings screwed up - I'm equally responsible.
QuoteQuote
Nope, sure doesn't. Some have more, some have less.
You *do* realize that there is NO state that completely bans ownership, right?
So what? We can compare cities, and it is enough to see that limiting gun rights does not mean increase of crime rate.
Ok, so we're talking about concealed carry, now? Because, as I said, NO state completely bars ownership?
In that case:
St. Louis has the highest violent crime rate for '08 per the wiki page. Missouri is 'shall issue' - the state HAS to issue a concealed carry license if no derogatory information is returned from the records check.
Oakland is the second highest violent crime rate for '08 per the wiki page. Unless things have recently changed, California is 'may issue' - the local law enforcement can issue a license or not, dependent upon nothing more than his whim.
Vermont doesn't issue permits at all - the citizenry are free to carry or not as they will. No city in Vermont is listed in the wiki page.
STILL want to try to tie it to guns?
QuoteQuote
Some are - some aren't.
It's not because of the guns. Or the lack of them.
Indeed. So does this mean that you basically acknowledge that guns do little to prevent crime - much less than other factors (like law enforcement activity - I wonder what the crime rate in NYC was before Juliani?), and therefore restricting gun rights will not necessary lead to increase of violent crimes?
Do you admit that guns do little to cause crime, and that restricting gun rights will not necessarily lead to a decrease of violent crime?
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Quote
Ok. What the police carry still has no correlation to either criminal or civilian ownership as regards this discussion.
Mostly agree (some time police guns are stolen and end up being used by criminals, but it is relatively rare event to worth discussion).
Quote
No - your OPINION is that the study is not valid.
Which worth as much as yours that it is.
Quote
Be my guest. You *do* know that the '43 times more likely' Kellerman study - you know, the one that you didn't see anything wrong with - is from 1986, right?
I didn't even see the '43 times more likely' study or whatever. Just wanted to see what would you use as a proof it's not valid, and was amused when you tried to prove that it is not valid by using the number of search hits.
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
Quote
Ok, so we're talking about concealed carry, now? Because, as I said, NO state completely bars ownership?
We have to, as this is the only statistics we have available in U.S.
Quote
STILL want to try to tie it to guns?
That's similar to what I'm saying. I can repeat my point - I do not own guns, and do not plan to, so for me it's the matter of my own safety, not matter of what someone thinks is his or her rights. If I think further restricting guns would make me safer, I'd vote for it. If I think it will make me less safe, I would not.
If restricting guns would prevent incidents like recent shooting sprees AND even keep the same crime rate we have now, the choice is quite obvious.
Quote
Do you admit that guns do little to cause crime, and that restricting gun rights will not necessarily lead to a decrease of violent crime?
No, because it would be harder for criminals and to-be criminals to obtain guns, for example, for shooting sprees. No stolen guns, and no straw purchases (assuming the restrictions are really tough). Of course, some criminals will still obtain them, and the crime will not decrease to zero, but - assuming the restriction is enforced, and the penalty is serious enough - gun-related crime should decrease.
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
rhaig 0
Quotegun-related crime should decrease.
given enough time for gun numbers to decrease (years likely) I see that as a possible outcome. However, violent crime would increase (in my opinion) as the law abiding wouldn't have the option of a firearm for self or home defense. The bad guys would only have to take a beating if their crime failed.
This is one of the problems with the anti-gun/pro-gun arguments. Anti-gunners want a decrease in gun related crimes. Pro gunners want a decrease in violent crime.
you stated "If restricting guns would prevent incidents like recent shooting sprees AND even keep the same crime rate we have now, the choice is quite obvious. "
what if restricting guns decreased crimes that were committed with guns but more crime overall was committed (with knives, clubs, fists rape... violent crimes)?? would the choice then be as obvious?
--
Rob
Rob
rushmc 23
QuoteQuote
Only an idiot would say guns do kill people
Stating it just like this, and not quoted out of context (like "Guns do kill people in the hands of gun owners") - I agree.
Guns, however, make an ordinary person potentially more dangerous, and capable to do much more damage than he would be able to do otherwise.
If that is the direction you go this time then
so does a car
so does a knife
so does a can of gas
need we keep going?
"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
Ron 10
QuoteCan you now admit that guns do not prevent crime?
Based on the data that criminals have said they avoid places where they think people are armed... Nope.
QuoteSure, its great. Except not proof that a crime has been prevented....which is what your original claim was.
Criminals state they avoid committing crimes where they think civilians with guns are... Sorry, by ANY definition that means it does.
QuoteYou wanted me to agree that guns prevent crime, you have now clearly seen that is not the case.
Data has shown your position to be wrong. It is pretty clear you don't care about the data and instead prefer to hold onto your opinions no matter what.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
Ron 10
You have to understand his process to debate you.
1. Where is your data?
Then you provide it.
2. Where is your link?
You say it was a book.
3. I don't have that book therefore your position is false.
But his arguments go like this:
1. I am right, you are wrong.
1. Where is your data?
Then you provide it.
2. Where is your link?
You say it was a book.
3. I don't have that book therefore your position is false.
But his arguments go like this:
1. I am right, you are wrong.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
mnealtx 0
QuoteYou have to understand his process to debate you.
1. Where is your data?
Then you provide it.
2. Where is your link?
You say it was a book.
3. I don't have that book therefore your position is false.
But his arguments go like this:
1. I am right, you are wrong.
Looks about right.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Ron 10
Still waiting BTW:
Proof to back that up? Cause it does not jive with reality.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/02/crimes.disabled/index.html
People with disabilities are 50 percent more likely to be victims of violent crimes than are people without disabilities, according to a government study released Thursday
According to the study, the first of its kind, the violent crime rate was 32 per 1,000 for disabled people 12 or older. That's compared to 21 per 1,000 for the nondisabled for the same age group.
So once again, you don't know what you are talking about.
Awaiting your lame excuse.....
I even included a link that you can click on that proves you have no idea what you are talking about.
QuoteRe: [georgerussia] This should make some gun enthusiasts crazy
***
It depends. For example, if a football player wears expensive jewelry, a criminal would likely to go after him, and skip an old lady in a wheelchair.
Proof to back that up? Cause it does not jive with reality.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/02/crimes.disabled/index.html
People with disabilities are 50 percent more likely to be victims of violent crimes than are people without disabilities, according to a government study released Thursday
According to the study, the first of its kind, the violent crime rate was 32 per 1,000 for disabled people 12 or older. That's compared to 21 per 1,000 for the nondisabled for the same age group.
So once again, you don't know what you are talking about.
Awaiting your lame excuse.....
I even included a link that you can click on that proves you have no idea what you are talking about.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
mnealtx 0
QuoteStill waiting BTW:
QuoteRe: [georgerussia] This should make some gun enthusiasts crazy
***
It depends. For example, if a football player wears expensive jewelry, a criminal would likely to go after him, and skip an old lady in a wheelchair.
Proof to back that up? Cause it does not jive with reality.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/02/crimes.disabled/index.html
People with disabilities are 50 percent more likely to be victims of violent crimes than are people without disabilities, according to a government study released Thursday
According to the study, the first of its kind, the violent crime rate was 32 per 1,000 for disabled people 12 or older. That's compared to 21 per 1,000 for the nondisabled for the same age group.
So once again, you don't know what you are talking about.
Awaiting your lame excuse.....
I even included a link that you can click on that proves you have no idea what you are talking about.
He doesn't understand that a criminal relies on the threat / application of force, either. I've tried explaining it but it's either not 'clicking' for him or he's deliberately misconstruing it.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Quote
given enough time for gun numbers to decrease (years likely) I see that as a possible outcome. However, violent crime would increase (in my opinion) as the law abiding wouldn't have the option of a firearm for self or home defense.
This is one of the problems with the anti-gun/pro-gun arguments. Anti-gunners want a decrease in gun related crimes. Pro gunners want a decrease in violent crime.
We have discussed this during last two pages, and this statement is not supported by:
- Statistics from countries where personal gun ownership/carrying is severely restricted versus U.S.;
- Statistics from U.S. cities where gun ownership or carrying is severely restricted;
None of them shows statistically significant increase in violent crimes, and in a lot of places the violent crime rates are actually lower. Therefore this conclusion is not warranted.
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
Quote
He doesn't understand that a criminal relies on the threat / application of force, either.
No, I just ignore Ron posts.
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
Quote
If that is the direction you go this time then
so does a car
so does a knife
so does a can of gas
so do nuclear bombs and cyanide gas.
What is your point?
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
rhaig 0
QuoteQuote
given enough time for gun numbers to decrease (years likely) I see that as a possible outcome. However, violent crime would increase (in my opinion) as the law abiding wouldn't have the option of a firearm for self or home defense.
This is one of the problems with the anti-gun/pro-gun arguments. Anti-gunners want a decrease in gun related crimes. Pro gunners want a decrease in violent crime.
We have discussed this during last two pages, and this statement is not supported by:
- Statistics from countries where personal gun ownership/carrying is severely restricted versus U.S.;
- Statistics from U.S. cities where gun ownership or carrying is severely restricted;
None of them shows statistically significant increase in violent crimes, and in a lot of places the violent crime rates are actually lower. Therefore this conclusion is not warranted.
right. did you notice I labeled it my opinion? Because I knew you wouldn't agree with it and I don't really care what you think.
More my point was the difference in the desire between the two groups.
--
Rob
Rob
mnealtx 0
QuoteNone of them shows statistically significant increase in violent crimes, and in a lot of places the violent crime rates are actually lower. Therefore this conclusion is not warranted.
Since there are cities in non-banning states that have lower crime rates than cities in banning states, your conclusion is ALSO non-warranted.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
QuoteSince there are cities in non-banning states that have lower crime rates than cities in banning states, your conclusion is ALSO non-warranted.
No, it is still warranted as it states that restricting gun ownership is unlikely to increase the crime level (including violent crime), while it will reduce at least some kind of crime (most shooting sprees).
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteSince there are cities in non-banning states that have lower crime rates than cities in banning states, your conclusion is ALSO non-warranted.
No, it is still warranted as it states that restricting gun ownership is unlikely to increase the crime level (including violent crime), while it will reduce at least some kind of crime (most shooting sprees).
Prove it. Notice the word, "prove". Not your 'opinion', not conjectures.
Proof.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Yes, that's what you said. So what?
Edit: Got it. You probably meant "capital", not "capitol".
It does. Statistics shows that some cities with guns banned have reduced crime comparing to those with liberal gun laws.
Why there is more criminals? They should be afraid of guns, shouldn't they?
So why the number of violent crimes is LOWER in NYC, where - as you said - "victims are prevented from effective means of defense"?
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites