Unarmed versus Armed Victims

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

All those have been used to kill people... FAIL

I'm waiting for news reports when someone has been murdered with a seatbelt!
Then we will count the numbers, and see what has been used more often to murder versus to save - a gun or a seatbelt.

You do realize how many people do DIE because they DONT have a seatbelt right???

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

Perhaps maybe you should have noted the words "perhaps" and "maybe" in that message (#113), which would have indicated to you that it wasn't a direct attribution, but rather perhaps maybe more of a rhetorical question to make a point.

So let me make it straight. If I make up something like "perhaps maybe you should stop going to gay bars and truck stops looking for some homosexual encounters" is this fine with you because it uses the words "perhaps" and "maybe"? After all, it is not a direct attribution, but rather perhaps maybe more of a rhetorical question to make a point. Can you confirm this is indeed the case?

It's funny how often my detractors here try to use homosexuality against me. Some of you guys sure seem to think about that an awful lot. Hmmm...

And once again, you ignored the context of the rhetorical questions, in order to take personal offense to them. You sure are the sensitive type. But you've done much better lately at avoiding the use of the "lie" word.

And it's also quite ironic and hypocritical how you tried to use something a moderator said to accuse me of violating some rule, and here you are in this message doing exactly that.

You're ruminations are quite humorous and entertaining, but unfortunately carry no convincing arguments.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Once again you've shown yourself unable to keep up with the context of the discussion.

Really??? You want to point out where exactly we discussed telephones, seat belts and reserve parachutes in this thread before you introduced them a few posts ago?

And you're saying it's me "unable to keep up with the context of the discussion"? This is just LAME.

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

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Really??? You want to point out where exactly we discussed telephones, seat belts and reserve parachutes in this thread before you introduced them a few posts ago?

And you're saying it's me "unable to keep up with the context of the discussion"? This is just LAME.

You missed it again! I just got through saying; "This was all about you not needing a tool to keep yourself safe."

And that was after you said; "I feel more safe than you - because I do not depend on a tool (which may fail) for that.'

Good gosh, you can't even remember something that was said just 13 minutes ago, in mimicry to your own statement!

Did you use to get a check mark on your report card in that box for "Doesn't listen well or pay attention"?

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

You do realize how many people do DIE because they DONT have a seatbelt right???

My point was that it is stupid to compare guns with seat belts just because both a gun and a seat belt can be used to protect their owner. An important difference is that guns can also be used (and have been used) to commit violent crimes, which is not the case for seat belts.

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

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

both a gun and a seat belt can be used to protect their owner.

Thank you. That didn't hurt so much now, did it?

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

You missed it again! I just got through saying; "This was all about you not needing a tool to keep yourself safe."

It was very clear that me and Amazon were talking about guns, and not about reserve parachutes or telephones. You introduced them while jumping into our discussion and - as usual - started speculating about them.

You even went as far as accusing ME to being "unable to keep up with the context of the discussion". Do you really know what "context" means? Do you really understand that context of this discussion was about guns, and not telephones or reserve parachutes?

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

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

both a gun and a seat belt can be used to protect their owner.

Thank you. That didn't hurt so much now, did it?

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Thank you. That didn't hurt so much now, did it?

A classic example of quoting out of context by a quoter out of context.
I wonder if anyone is surprised by that?

PS. If that's all you can reply, your position must be very weak.

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

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

You're ruminations are quite humorous and entertaining, but unfortunately carry no convincing arguments.

You didn't answer my question.

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

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

PS. If that's all you can reply, your position must be very weak.

Ditto.

[billvon 3,058]

George, John - cut it out.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

George, John - cut it out.

Oh come on.. wheres mine.. I have been getting ole George stewing in his borscht

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Washington, DC violent crime rate 1437.
Then, right next door you have Alexandria, VA, violent crime rate 230.
So, tell me again how the gun laws account for the violent crime, George?

See, you can only "prove" your point if you go to heavy cherry-picking.

Alexandria is directly adjacent to Washington DC - it's also within the DC metropolitan statistical area, so it's ENTIRELY valid as a comparison.

Quote

Alexandria, VA: 140K people, 60% whites, 20% blacks.
D.C: 600K people, 35% whites, 55% blacks.

Now what about Baltimore, MD which have much closer population type and density to D.C. than Alexandria?

With a population of 634549 and 10080 violent crimes (FBI UCR 2008), the city of Baltimore has a violent crime rate of 1588/100k.

Quote

So, you're claiming that the gun laws in Oakland are materially different than LA or SF?

No, I'm claiming they are the same across CA, and therefore your choice of Oakland instead of LA or SF is a cherry-picking - as usual.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Alexandria is directly adjacent to Washington DC - it's also within the DC metropolitan statistical area, so it's ENTIRELY valid as a comparison.

Not at all. Alameda is directly adjacent to Oakland - and the crime rate there is significantly lower.

Quote

With a population of 634549 and 10080 violent crimes (FBI UCR 2008), the city of Baltimore has a violent crime rate of 1588/100k.

Which is more than in DC.

Quote

So, you're FINALLY admitting that it's cultural/societal issues and not the mere presence of guns that has an effect on crime? There's hope for you, yet.

That's what you claimed all the time, but failed to prove every time unless you really cherry-pick your only two examples (Oakland and DC).

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

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Alexandria is directly adjacent to Washington DC - it's also within the DC metropolitan statistical area, so it's ENTIRELY valid as a comparison.

Not at all. Alameda is directly adjacent to Oakland - and the crime rate there is significantly lower.

Wow, imagine that... societal issues having an effect on crime!!

Quote

Quote

With a population of 634549 and 10080 violent crimes (FBI UCR 2008), the city of Baltimore has a violent crime rate of 1588/100k.

Which is more than in DC.

So?

Quote

Quote

So, you're FINALLY admitting that it's cultural/societal issues and not the mere presence of guns that has an effect on crime? There's hope for you, yet.

That's what you claimed all the time, but failed to prove every time unless you really cherry-pick your only two examples (Oakland and DC).

Yeah, nobody but me, sociologists, Congress, the FBI, etc etc etc - damn, George...you're just too smart for all of us.

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

[Rstanley0312 1]

Quote

>Second, alchol is leagal and DUI is illegal . . .

Right. Just as guns are legal but carrying them in public (often) is illegal.

---> NOT TRUE i know you said "(often)" but I would say that you can say "Often" either way.

The most common argument on the gun topic involves two sides:

1) "I think guns out in the public are dangerous, and I want them restricted!" "You can't just carry them around; what if someone goes nuts and kills lots of people?"

2) "I carry a gun all the time and it's always fine." "My gun never shot anyone." "You're a gun-o-phobe who can't handle guns, so your opinion doesn't count." "I need to be able to carry a gun so I can protect myself."

I've heard a similar argument played out late at night at the DZ:

1) "You can't drive, you've had WAY too much to drink!" "You could kill someone!"

2) "I'm fine; I drive like this all the time." "I'm not going to hurt anyone." "You can't handle your liquor so you wouldn't understand." "I need to drive home; it's not safe for me to just sleep here." "I have to be at work tomorrow."

In both cases the issue is similar - is it OK to restrict someone's (non-harmful) activities just in case he might harm someone while doing them? In both cases, advocates argue vehemently that they won't hurt anyone, and other people should butt out.

Except you are talking about doing something illegal and you are also talking about soeone doing something under diminished capacity.

There is a reason you canot carry in to a bar.

Again..... you are making a big stretch.

Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com

[Rstanley0312 1]

Oh and George.... I guarantee a seatblet has been used in a murder and so has a fire extinguisher.... I saw it all on CSI

The argument about the tools is valid. If you want an example that is more closely related.... how about knives. They are useful tools but I bet they have been used in self defense and in murder. Does that mean I cannot carry around my pocket knife anymore? Should we make that illegal?

Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com

[billvon 3,058]

>Except you are talking about doing something illegal . . .

Right, in both cases. In a great many cases, it's illegal to drive drunk AND it's illegal to carry a handgun in public.

Does that mean it's wrong to carry handguns in public?

[Bolas 5]

Right and wrong are too subjective...

Quote

Now, the world don't move to the beat of just one drum,
What might be right for you, may not be right for some.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[masterrig 1]

Anything can and probably has been used to take a human life. Hammers, belts, screw-drivers, pipe wrenches... you name it and somewhere, some time it's been used to kill someone. It all depends on who's hands that item is in. Guns are no different. We have the right to keep and bear arms. We have the right to attend a class and be licensed to carry that gun. How many times have you heard of a licensed gun bearer in trouble because of mis-using his firearm? The one's I worry about are those who are not licensed to carry a firearm, have criminal records and 'intend' to use that firearm for no good. I like the fact that I am licensed to carry a gun and should the time arise (I really don't look forward to it) I can protect myself, my family or an innocent 3rd. party. You and everyone else, have the right to choose not to carry a firearm. Trying to lump together all possessers of firearms is generalizing and I think, out of fear.


Chuck

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

George, John - cut it out.

Oh come on.. wheres mine.. I have been getting ole George stewing in his borscht

now now, you can't add another check to your tally of receiving impotent warnings - maybe if I took a seatbelt and strangled a doberman with it I could get one. Oh wait, you can't murder someone by misusing a tool like a seatbelt.... my bad

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,058]

>maybe if I took a seatbelt and strangled a doberman with it I could get
>one. Oh wait, you can't murder someone by misusing a tool like a seatbelt . . .

You can't murder a dog, either. Now if you strangled a dobleman . . .

[rehmwa 2]

~~

now I have to go look up another new word....


edit: I found nobleman, and dollyman - I can't murder them with a seatbelt though, I understand. Apparently, it's impossible to misuse a seatbelt for that purpose.

Maybe if we added some scary looking extensions on it so it appears "threatening" - then we can try to pass a law forbidding seatbelts.

Or, I could glue a gun to the seatbelt and then strangle the nobleman........that might work.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

If I take away all the bullets, and then pistol whip someone to death........

does that count?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants