Yet another nutter with a gun

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

You keep saying that...too bad the stats don't support you.

The stats do support that - you're just trying to play your old games like "show me this is because of guns" - which only works with gun owners.

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

[Gene03 0]

Quote

Quote

The terrorist probably wouldn't be scared because he would be dead.

And so will be everyone on the plane once it explodes.
The difference here is that the terrorist _prepared_ to be dead, unlike the most passengers.

Quote

And the terrorist wouldn't be the ones to land the plane back at JFK either - same reason. Dead people cannot fly airplanes.

So the plane would crash too, as the pilots would be dead as well. And what difference this .38 would make?

And that's a risk I'm willing to assume by living in a free society.

“The only fool bigger than the person who knows it all is the person who argues with him.

Stanislaw Jerzy Lec quotes (Polish writer, poet and satirist 1906-1966)

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Homicides were substantially higher 20 years ago, and it didn't happen then.

It takes time. Ammonium nitrate was restricted pretty recently as well, despite having been used for making explosives for quite a while.

Quote

Andy addressed your thoughts on the court reversing itself - something that it's reluctant to do in general, and esp on something it recently ruled on.

I'm not expecting it tomorrow either. At this moment we'd be fine starting just with state laws.

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

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

You keep saying that...too bad the stats don't support you.

The stats do support that

Show your proof.

Quote

- you're just trying to play your old games like "show me this is because of guns" - which only works with gun owners.

"Show me this is because of the guns' IS a valid response when you're using the stat as an argument to further control guns.

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

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

And that's a risk I'm willing to assume by living in a free society.

The problem is that you're willing to assume this risk for all of us, not just for yourself - even for those who prefer not to have this kind of freedom of giving guns to loonies around.

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

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

"Show me this is because of the guns' IS a valid response when you're using the stat as an argument to further control guns.

Then "show me this is because of factors which are NOT related to guns" is equally valid response when you're trying to say that the difference in violent crime is NOT related to gun ownership. Note that your side uses such arguments all the time, like yet another JohnRich's "more guns, less crime" posts.

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

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

I've lived in some of those Oakland neighborhoods. BTW, how exactly do you suggest that everyone avoid them? There will always be the underbelly of society, and those who live near them.

Do not forget that for the most of my life I lived outside USA. And some of the places I lived were more dangerous than Oakland if you just compare the reported crime rates. Somehow I was doing fine without any guns, and so was the majority of the population.

Quote

I'm amazed at the wide range of places you never visit, and the wide range of activities you never participate in.

Extreme tourism is not for me, so no, I do not want to go somewhere when I'd need to have a gun with me to protect myself again all those criminals. It might have been different if I was single with no kids, but since I'm not, my priorities are different, and "trying all new things" is among the very end of them.

Quote

Your notion that your choices will reduce/eliminate the chance of anything bad happening to you sound like the postings we seen from high wingloading newbies. "It won't happen to me, I'm careful."

No, my notion just says that it's not wise to walk around bad neighborhoods in Oakland at night while counting a pack of $100 bills. In such cases even ten guns might not be enough to save you from someone who decides to put a bullet in your head and pick the money from the corpse. In my opinion some of gun owners are overestimating the power of a gun to protect you from a crime.

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

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Scalia (very conservative) and Kennedy (moderate-to-conservative) are both 73. Breyer, age 71, is moderate. I'd call it a 50/50 chance any of them will be replaced by Obama.

It's interesting there is no age limit. I do not know about other countries, but in Russia the Supreme Court (called Constitutional Court) Justice cannot be over 70yo.

Antonin Scalia is the one I'd be happy to see replaced. I read quite a few SCOTUS decisions, and he is the one I typically disagree.

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

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

"Show me this is because of the guns' IS a valid response when you're using the stat as an argument to further control guns.

Then "show me this is because of factors which are NOT related to guns" is equally valid response when you're trying to say that the difference in violent crime is NOT related to gun ownership.

You get a gold star!.

It's not about the guns.
(Info from 2007 "Brady Scorecard" and FBI crime stats)

Quote

Further evidence of the pro-criminal bias appears when comparing Brady scores to FBI violent crime rates. Including the District of Columbia, nine of Brady’s “Top 10” states restricted concealed carry for law-abiding citizens. Brady’s “Top 10” averaged a violent crime rate of 505.1 (incidents per 100,000 population) and a Brady score of 55.5. Brady’s “Bottom 10,” all right-to-carry [RTC] states, averaged a violent crime rate of 380.3––38.2% lower than Brady’s “Top 10”––and a Brady score of 4.1. More interesting is that Brady’s “Top 10” had an average murder rate of 7.0, while the “Bottom 10” averaged 5.5.

Looking at the entire dataset, RTC states averaged a 400.5 violent crime rate in 2007, a 4.9 murder rate, and an average Brady score of 9.7. Non-RTC states averaged a violent crime rate of 525.0 and a murder rate of 6.8; 31.1% and 38.5% higher, respectively, than RTC states. Helmke considers non-RTC states much safer from “gun violence” because they average a Brady grade of 48.6, five times higher than RTC states.

Some might argue that the non-RTC states might have had even worse crime rates without their restrictive gun laws. Between 2001 and 2007, the national violent crime rate dropped 7.4%. During that same time period, RTC states saw a 7.6% rate decrease, while non-RTC states saw a 6.7% drop. Between 2004 and 2007, the U.S. saw a 0.8% increase in the violent crime rate; RTC states saw a 0.7% increase while non-RTC states experienced a 1.2% increase.

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

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Do not forget that for the most of my life I lived outside USA. And some of the places I lived were more dangerous than Oakland if you just compare the reported crime rates. Somehow I was doing fine without any guns, and so was the majority of the population.

Anecdote != data

Quote

No, my notion just says that it's not wise to walk around bad neighborhoods in Oakland at night while counting a pack of $100 bills. In such cases even ten guns might not be enough to save you from someone who decides to put a bullet in your head and pick the money from the corpse. In my opinion some of gun owners are overestimating the power of a gun to protect you from a crime.

Argument by hyperbole - show where any of the gun owners have made the claim that a gun is some magic talisman that deflects all evil, as you describe.

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

[rhaig 0]

Quote

No. If you were a law abiding gun owner in such a "no guns" place, you'd leave your guns behind

I don't shop at those places. I don't spend my money in defenseless victim zones.

--
Rob

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

You get a gold star!.
It's not about the guns.

None of them proves that the difference in crime rate is NOT because of the guns.

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

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Anecdote != data

This is data for me, and I do not care anymore about you.

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

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

You get a gold star!.
It's not about the guns.

None of them proves that the difference in crime rate is NOT because of the guns.

Maybe not for you - the rest of us live in the reality-based community, however.

Still waiting on something besides "I think it's because of guns" from you.

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

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Still waiting on something besides "I think it's because of guns" from you.

It is easy to provide "proof" of the same quality as yours!

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

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Still waiting on something besides "I think it's because of guns" from you.

It is easy to provide "proof" of the same quality as yours!

News reporting about shootings are the same as studies showing a link between familial status/welfare and crime? No wonder you can't come up with any realistic arguments.

You should've read the links.

Maybe you should try something likethis:

Quote

Criminal gangs in the USA have swelled to an estimated 1 million members responsible for up to 80% of crimes in communities across the nation, according to a gang threat assessment compiled by federal officials.
The major findings in a report by the Justice Department's National Gang Intelligence Center, which has not been publicly released, conclude gangs are the "primary retail-level distributors of most illicit drugs" and several are "capable" of competing with major U.S.-based Mexican drug-trafficking organizations.

"A rising number of U.S.-based gangs are seemingly intent on developing working relationships" with U.S. and foreign drug-trafficking organizations and other criminal groups to "gain direct access to foreign sources of illicit drugs," the report concludes.

Oh, wait - THAT doesn't prove your point, either.

Nevermind!

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

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

News reporting about shootings are the same as studies showing a link between familial status/welfare and crime?

No, news reporting about shootings are more valid than something showing a link between familial status/welfare and general crime (which does not indicate how much of this crime is gun-related and therefore is meaningless for our purpose).

Quote

Oh, wait - THAT doesn't prove your point, either.

This does not prove ANY point, including yours.

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

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

No, news reporting about shootings are more valid than something showing a link between familial status/welfare and general crime (which does not indicate how much of this crime is gun-related and therefore is meaningless for our purpose).

AAAAaaand, we're back to the 'the tool is more important than the crime' argument.

Let the rest of us know when you're back from your trip to fantasy land, ok?

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

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Do not forget that for the most of my life I lived outside USA. And some of the places I lived were more dangerous than Oakland if you just compare the reported crime rates. Somehow I was doing fine without any guns, and so was the majority of the population.

I thought your claim was that Russia really wasn't that dangerous?

The vast majority of the US population is doing just fine too. Is that supposed to prove something?

Quote

Extreme tourism is not for me, so no, I do not want to go somewhere when I'd need to have a gun with me to protect myself again all those criminals. It might have been different if I was single with no kids, but since I'm not, my priorities are different, and "trying all new things" is among the very end of them.

Yep...the Olive Garden, Radio Shack, the local BART station - pretty fucking EXTREME, DOOD! And when will you introduce the little ones to the real world? Hopefully before college.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

I thought your claim was that Russia really wasn't that dangerous?

Was it? As far as I remember, we only discussed homicide levels, and I showed you the official statistics and the way they make it.

(and Russia was not the only country I lived in)

Quote

Yep...the Olive Garden, Radio Shack, the local BART station - pretty fucking EXTREME, DOOD!

You might want to discuss it with tsisson, preferably by replying to this post, as I have no idea at all what Olive Garden is (nor I care). And we do not have BART here either.

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

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

AAAAaaand, we're back to the 'the tool is more important than the crime' argument.

No, you're back to your typical way of arguing - making things up, and questioning the opponent by assuming he really said that. Yet another version of "have you stopped beating your wife?" thing.

Some positive news here is that you typically do this when you have nothing else to reply, which is indeed proof.

Quote

Let the rest of us know when you're back from your trip to fantasy land, ok?

Let the rest of us know when you get your brain control back from NRA, ok?

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

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

AAAAaaand, we're back to the 'the tool is more important than the crime' argument.

No, you're back to your typical way of arguing - making things up, and questioning the opponent by assuming he really said that. Yet another version of "have you stopped beating your wife?" thing.

Some positive news here is that you typically do this when you have nothing else to reply, which is indeed proof.

Funny thing is, he carries on doing it as if no-one had noticed.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Ron 10]

Quote

That's what happens if you make things up, and start asking me questions which assume I said those things.

No, that's what happens when you say something and are proven wrong, so you try to change what you said.

Quote

That's exactly what I'm talking about. Show me where I said that they would get pulled over?

Sure, how about right here:

Post # 187 here http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3759817;search_string=drive;#3759817

Quote

Now they need to train. Remember, guns are banned and they cannot just go to a local shooting range ten minute drive. They need to drive far away, so nobody would report a bunch of kids with guns to authorities who'd probably treat it as very high priority. Depending on area it might mean an hour one way drive. Since they do not have an instructor, they need to practice a lot, which means a lot of driving with illegal guns and ammo - with a potential to be stopped for a violation or got into accident (young people tend to have more accidents), and have the guns found by police.

It was bullet point #4 in your, "Yes, because it was very easy for them to obtain guns illegally. However if the guns were banned, things would change dramatically: " BS rambling.

And I pointed out that they were not allowed to have weapons at all. had weapons that were illegal under the 1934 NFA, and had and used EXPLOSIVES on these trips they took.

Once again, you are proven to be 100% wrong and trying to change the subject.... But your own words prove you wrong.

Quote

Indeed it sounds like a typical pro-gun person.

And you sound like the typical anti gun person... Full of emotion and devoid of any facts.... Plus when proven wrong, you just ignore that and continue with your emotional BS.

Another perfect example.

You in Post # 273 of this thread http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=3764071;page=11;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25;:

Quote

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.

I proved you wrong and provided you with a link that proved you once again wrong and asked you to explain in post # 312 of that same thread.... You know the one that said:

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.


Then you said in post# 395, "No, I just ignore Ron posts. "

Which is CLEARLY not true since you are still replying to me. Wrong AGAIN!

You should have said: "I just ignore Ron's posts when he proves me wrong and I can't provide a way to answer without looking silly."

Still waiting for your answer to that BTW....

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

Quote

Tim McVeigh was arrested because he had a gun, not because of the OKC bombing

Half credit....

Quote

Hanger had passed McVeigh's yellow 1977 Mercury Marquis and noticed that it had no license plate. McVeigh admitted to the police officer (who noticed a bulge under his jacket) that he had a gun and McVeigh was subsequently arrested for having driven without plates and illegal firearm possession

He was pulled over for not having a license plate and arrested for both reasons.

And the VIN number of the truck had already been used to identify him:

Quote

By tracing the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) of a rear axle found in the wreckage, the FBI identified the vehicle as a Ryder Rental Junction City agency truck. Workers at the agency assisted an FBI artist in creating a sketch of the renter, who had used the alias "Robert Kling". The sketch was shown in the area. That day manager Lea McGown of the Dreamland Hotel identified the sketch as Timothy McVeigh.

So, like I said.... You get half credit but your answer is not really correct. He was pulled over for not having a plate, arrested for not having a plate and having a weapon... But he would have been identified anyway and arrested at a later point.

BTW.. STILL waiting on you to explain your "people like me" Comment.... Could you just man up and answer?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

Quote

I never knew guns were banned during WWII.

They were banned for the Jews.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334