Man, 73, kills robber holding shears to wife's neck

[shanek]

Originally posted by Thanz
As I (and others) have tried to point out to you, the argument does not transfer to fire insurance or extinguishers. You are comparing apples and automobiles.

And as I have pointed out each and every time, I am not comparing the two; I am just applying your logic to a different situation. Just because someone deliberately straps on a gun every day doesn't mean they're any more fearful of the potential results than someone who buckles their seat belt each time.

And you keep ignoring the costs of owning a firearm vs. fire safety equipment.

No, I don't. I addressed that.

It is not a fair comparison, no matter how many times you say it.

You are free to explain why it isn't.

I disagree, and really, you should as well. Wouldn't a better measure be the number of times a gun is needed for defense, rather than the number of times it was used?

I would agree, as long as you can tell me how we can determine, in situations with no gun involved (at least for defense), whether or not the victim having a gun would have made a difference. But even if you could, that would only make the occurances of such a situation more likely, not less. As it is, with DGUs we know for a fact that the gun was useful for defense.

What break ins are those that guns wouldn't help you? Richard G seems to think that as long as you have an arsenal everything will be fine.

This is another lie. He has already given at least two instances—being in the shower and making love—as being cases where he would be defenseless in the case of a break-in should it happen at that particular time.

And again, the argument does not transfer to fire insurance. And I have answered the question.

Saying that the logic does not apply does not constitute an answer unles syou explain why, which you have not done.

You have given no reasons to back up your assertion that my sense of security is in any way "false".[/qutoe]

Saying "It can't happen to me" is a quintessential example of a false sense of security!

[quote]Saying that other people didn't expect to get robbed does nothing to refute my arguments for my own sense of security. Your blather boils down to "no one is safe!" which is certainly fear mongering.

No, it isn't. It's simply a statement of the truth. Absolutely no one has a 100% guarantee of not being a victim. And if you think that you do, then you haven't properly evaluated your risk, which can only lead to a false sense of security.

Always with the insults. I have explained this already as well.

No, you haven't. You weaseled out of it. You did not explain how you are justified in applying your own personal situation to others, which is exactly what you were doing.

Please. Are you really saying that the odds of someone being in a car accident are equivalent to the odds of someone needing a gun for defense? Even you should realize the falseness of this assertion.

Even you should realize how dishonest you're being. The comment had nothing to do with probabilities; it has to do with what goes through someone's mind when they take an action like wearing a seatbelt or a gun.

[more of Thanz's evasions deleted]

Splitting hairs, and you know it.

I'm not splitting hairs. It's an important distinction. I mentioned that you did not consider the costs in the assertion of yours that I was responding to (which is true) and you made out like I was saying you hadn't covered the costs at all. That's not splitting hairs; that's just exposing your mischaracterization of my comment.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek


Doesn't matter. You used the words "what you wrote" in a response to me. It doesn't matter what post of yours I responded to; you made a comment about something that I wrote. If you misspoke, just say so, but stop weaseling.


I'm done with you. I've tried to explain, I even double checked the sequence of posts to make sure my memory wasn't faulty.

I still don't understand what your problem is, or what exactly you are saying I am misstating or ignoring. I don't really care. I'm just posting this as a courtesy so that you don't waste your time expecting me to respond. This isn't about content, it is about tactics. I get enough argument with the hopelessly emotionally invested at my job.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
Use of caps is generally CONSIDERED SHOUTING WHEN USED IN THIS SORT OF FORUM. Italics are generally considered a means of emphesis.

That is just so completely dishonest it's despicable! I did not capitalize entier sentences. I only capitalized individual words, which any reasonable person would concluse was emphasis. Italicizing an entire sentence can be seen as shouting, too!

[Geez, I knew I'd regret getting involved in another gun debate. The staggering levels of immaturity levelled at me are always mind-boggling.]

Okay, here's the exact same thing again, using italics instead of caps. The content is the same, so it makes no difference to me, but if it does to your pedantic little mind then so be it. Here goes:

If you did, you would know that you cannot take away my freedom because of the actions of someone else, you cannot take away my freedom because of how many or even most other people would behave, and you cannot take away my freedom because of what you think I may do in the future. If you do, then we just don't have anything called "freedom" anymore.

You are out of excuses. Now respond to the above, please.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek


That is just so completely dishonest it's despicable! I did not capitalize entier sentences. I only capitalized individual words, which any reasonable person would concluse was emphasis. Italicizing an entire sentence can be seen as shouting, too!

[Geez, I knew I'd regret getting involved in another gun debate. The staggering levels of immaturity levelled at me are always mind-boggling.]

Okay, here's the exact same thing again, using italics instead of caps. The content is the same, so it makes no difference to me, but if it does to your pedantic little mind then so be it. Here goes:

If you did, you would know that you cannot take away my freedom because of the actions of someone else, you cannot take away my freedom because of how many or even most other people would behave, and you cannot take away my freedom because of what you think I may do in the future. If you do, then we just don't have anything called "freedom" anymore.

You are out of excuses. Now respond to the above, please.

Whoops. You slipped this in just before being put on ignore so I'll respond once for old time's sake. Just go to my original response and substitute the caps for italics. I did respond. I won't be making that mistake again though.

You sure you couldn't have figured that out on your own?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
I'm done with you. I've tried to explain,

No, you haven't. You haven't done one single thing to clarify what you meant when you said "what you (meaning me) wrote."

I still don't understand what your problem is,

You made a statement about something I wrote. The only post of mine that I could see that fit your description was the response I made to Thanz. You said you weren't talking about any discussion with Thanz. Ever since then, I have been trying to get you to simply tell me what post of mine you were referring to when you said "what you (meaning me) wrote." You kept going on and on and on about what you said to other people, but that just doesn't have anything to do with what I asked you.

You said something about what I, shanek, wrote. All you have to do is point to the post of mine that you were referring to. It's as simple as that. You don't have to go reviewing threads, or talking about side discussions, or whatever. What post of mine were you referring to in that one sentence? That's all I want to know. If it isn't that post of mine to Thanz, which is the only one that I can see fits the description, then which one is it?

This isn't about content, it is about tactics. I get enough argument with the hopelessly emotionally invested at my job.

:rolleyes:

Just point to the post, Suddenly. Point to the post of mine you were referring to when you made that statement. That's all I want. And I don't see why that's such an unreasonable request.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
Whoops. You slipped this in just before being put on ignore so I'll respond once for old time's sake. Just go to my original response and substitute the caps for italics. I did respond. I won't be making that mistake again though.

You sure you couldn't have figured that out on your own?

Oh, so now you're saying you would treat caps the same as italics? Geez...

Oh well. Good riddance to bad rubbish. I really have to worry about the mentality of someone who puts people on ignore just to avoid telling them which post of theirs he was talking about.

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


One last time, Dick: Have you seen what's wrong with the cartoon?


Enlighten me..............What's wrong with the picture??????

[Thanz]

Originally posted by shanek
And as I have pointed out each and every time, I am not comparing the two; I am just applying your logic to a different situation.
And again, the logic doesn't apply because you don't buy fire insurance everyday and you don't carry around a fire extinguisher either. If either of those were true, I would agree you were living in fear of a fire. And you WERE comparing DGUs to fires in making your point.

I would agree, as long as you can tell me how we can determine, in situations with no gun involved (at least for defense), whether or not the victim having a gun would have made a difference. But even if you could, that would only make the occurances of such a situation more likely, not less. As it is, with DGUs we know for a fact that the gun was useful for defense.
And in all of those situations was a gun NEEDED for defense?

No, it isn't. It's simply a statement of the truth. Absolutely no one has a 100% guarantee of not being a victim. And if you think that you do, then you haven't properly evaluated your risk, which can only lead to a false sense of security. Now this is some twisted logic. I can only feel a real sense of security if I am 100% safe? As you say, no one is 100% safe. And if no one is 100% safe, those with a sense of security must have a false sense of security. If they don't have a sense of security, they must be living in some degree of insecurity or fear, which may drive them to buying a gun to try and reduce (but not eliminate) that feeling. So, shanek, are you saying that everyone either has (a) a false sense of security or (b) they are living in fear?

Or is it more reasonable for someone to have a realistic sense of security based on their own factors? I have listed several of the factors that give me my sense of security, and you have not refuted any of them, yet somehow you have labelled it as false. Why? Is it simply because of the "analysis" you posit above?

Even you should realize how dishonest you're being. The comment had nothing to do with probabilities; it has to do with what goes through someone's mind when they take an action like wearing a seatbelt or a gun.
You compared the rates of fires to the rates of DGUs as the basis for your statement, but now comparing rates is irrelevant? Do we only compare rates when you feel like it?

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Zep


Zep----have you ever actually been in a situation where your life was threatened by an armed individual??

I've found that people who have....law enforcement,survivors of violent assaults by armed assailants....men who've been in combat.....................They just don't come across like you do with all this bravado about how tough they are and how they could easily handle a dumb criminal because they're smarter & faster than they are.

Most of them would describe the experience as somewhat humbling. They don't talk about what badasses they are. They talk about how scared they were. How they'd do whatever it takes to save their lives.

I've been in several life-threatening situations myself. (Not involving somebody threatening my life) and I can still remember
the way I felt. Your mouth feels like cotton.....you feel your heart hammering away because of all the adrenalin that's pouring into your system. Your trying to stay calm and think rationally but it's difficult because part of you is thinking you might not survive the day........

I think Zep---if you actually found yourself unarmed facing a man with a knife...who knew how to use it...............you'd s**t your pants and find yourself fervently wishing you had a gun........................

[shanek]

Originally posted by Thanz
And again, the logic doesn't apply because you don't buy fire insurance everyday and you don't carry around a fire extinguisher either. If either of those were true, I would agree you were living in fear of a fire. And you WERE comparing DGUs to fires in making your point.

You pointed that out before, and in response I came up with the seat belt analogy, pointing out that a person can do things out of habit or custom without actually being in fear at that point. I don't go thinking, "Oh, geez, I might have an accident, I'd better put my seat belt on" every single time I get into the car. And yet, I do put my seat belt on every single time. It's a habit, and a good one to be in. I imagine the same might be the case with people who carry guns; they're just in the habit of having their gun with them. I wouldn't say they were living in fear any more than those who put on their seat belt every single time they get in the car.

And in all of those situations was a gun NEEDED for defense?

A gun was effective for defense. I'm not sure what you mean by "needed," but the effectiveness is really the only thing worth considering.

Now this is some twisted logic. I can only feel a real sense of security if I am 100% safe?

No, you can only feel a real sense of security if you realize you are not 100% safe. That way, you at least have a more realistic assessment of the dangers.

So, shanek, are you saying that everyone either has (a) a false sense of security or (b) they are living in fear?

No, but you seem to be saying exactly that. If taking a simple precaution against something, no matter how remote the possibility, is "living in fear," then the only sense of security someone might have would have to be false. I, of course, reject that.

Or is it more reasonable for someone to have a realistic sense of security based on their own factors? I have listed several of the factors that give me my sense of security, and you have not refuted any of them,

Of course not; I have only refuted your application of that conclusion to everyone else.

You compared the rates of fires to the rates of DGUs as the basis for your statement, but now comparing rates is irrelevant? Do we only compare rates when you feel like it?

You're getting more and more dishonest by the minute! YOU, not me, brought up what was going through someone's mind when they took an action; that was the very thing you used to differentiate carrying a gun from having fire insurance. The seat belt example had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with rates, but what goes through someone's mind when they take a safety precaution. My point is that the rates, risks, and everything else don't even enter the person's mind when they buckle a seat belt or strap on a gun; it's a habit, something they just do. I have pointed this out to you several times, and you have ignored it each time.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by shanek

You pointed that out before, and in response I came up with the seat belt analogy, pointing out that a person can do things out of habit or custom without actually being in fear at that point. I don't go thinking, "Oh, geez, I might have an accident, I'd better put my seat belt on" every single time I get into the car. And yet, I do put my seat belt on every single time. It's a habit, and a good one to be in. I imagine the same might be the case with people who carry guns; they're just in the habit of having their gun with them. I wouldn't say they were living in fear any more than those who put on their seat belt every single time they get in the car.
I will admit that your seatbelt example makes a whole lot more sense than your fire insurance example. And, I do have my own biases to work out. I do not see how strapping on a gun can be put in the same league as putting on a seatbelt. Guns are inherently more dangerous than seatbelts, which are defensive only.

In any event, I will modify my "fear" statement. I think that the need that people in the USA seem to feel for guns for personal protection is way overstated. There are those who may need a gun, but I feel that there are many more who do not. I see the the need as evidence of an irrational fear. Are they all living in fear? No. But I believe that a number of them are. I also happen to think that Richard G is one of them - and you will note, that is the person that I directed the "fear" comment to.

No, you can only feel a real sense of security if you realize you are not 100% safe. That way, you at least have a more realistic assessment of the dangers.
I didn't say that I was "100%" safe. I said that the odds of someone pointing a .357 in my face were astronomically small, and I then pointed out my reasons for it. You claimed that my reasons were irrelevant and that I had a false sense of security. Either back this up or admit that you were wrong.

No, but you seem to be saying exactly that. If taking a simple precaution against something, no matter how remote the possibility, is "living in fear," then the only sense of security someone might have would have to be false. I, of course, reject that.
I again point out that my comment was directed at Richard G and his constant obsessing. You extrapolated that to everyone else, and I have argued with you about that. But the original comment was directed at Richard G.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Thanz
I will admit that your seatbelt example makes a whole lot more sense than your fire insurance example. And, I do have my own biases to work out. I do not see how strapping on a gun can be put in the same league as putting on a seatbelt. Guns are inherently more dangerous than seatbelts, which are defensive only.

Okay, fine; but don't you think someone who is in the habit of putting on a gun every day as part of his routine is doing so with the same consideration as someone who puts on his seat belt every time he gets into a car?

In any event, I will modify my "fear" statement. I think that the need that people in the USA seem to feel for guns for personal protection is way overstated.

Much, much better.

There are those who may need a gun, but I feel that there are many more who do not. I see the the need as evidence of an irrational fear. Are they all living in fear? No. But I believe that a number of them are. I also happen to think that Richard G is one of them - and you will note, that is the person that I directed the "fear" comment to.

But it was still a generalized statement. Never mind, though; you've sufficiently modified the claim.

I didn't say that I was "100%" safe. I said that the odds of someone pointing a .357 in my face were astronomically small, and I then pointed out my reasons for it.

Your statement that prompted my response was, "Third, my life revolves around my family and work. I do not find myself out late at night, or in shadier neighbourhoods, or in other situations that may be more condusive to violence." The clear implication here is that you think that such a lifestyle places you out of harm's way. That's just unrealistic. Even at work, even at home with your family, you are a potential victim. Realizing that does not mean that you're "living in fear," no matter what precautions you take against it.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by shanek

Your statement that prompted my response was, "Third, my life revolves around my family and work. I do not find myself out late at night, or in shadier neighbourhoods, or in other situations that may be more condusive to violence." The clear implication here is that you think that such a lifestyle places you out of harm's way. That's just unrealistic. Even at work, even at home with your family, you are a potential victim. Realizing that does not mean that you're "living in fear," no matter what precautions you take against it.
Well, I do think that my lifestyle does put me more out of harm's way than other people. If I were partying everyweekend and wandering the alleys downtown, that would be a riskier lifestyle in terms of potential violence and finding a .357 in my face. I did not say that I believed I would never be a victim, I said that the odds were very small. You'll note that despite my small hose, boring lifestyle and busy street I still have a home alarm system, so I do take some precautions.

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Thanz

I will admit that your seatbelt example makes a whole lot more sense than your fire insurance example. And, I do have my own biases to work out. I do not see how strapping on a gun can be put in the same league as putting on a seatbelt. Guns are inherently more dangerous than seatbelts, which are defensive only.

In any event, I will modify my "fear" statement. I think that the need that people in the USA seem to feel for guns for personal protection is way overstated. There are those who may need a gun, but I feel that there are many more who do not. I see the the need as evidence of an irrational fear. Are they all living in fear? No. But I believe that a number of them are. I also happen to think that Richard G is one of them - and you will note, that is the person that I directed the "fear" comment to.

[B]
I didn't say that I was "100%" safe. I said that the odds of someone pointing a .357 in my face were astronomically small, and I then pointed out my reasons for it. You claimed that my reasons were irrelevant and that I had a false sense of security. Either back this up or admit that you were wrong.

[B]
I again point out that my comment was directed at Richard G and his constant obsessing. You extrapolated that to everyone else, and I have argued with you about that. But the original comment was directed at Richard G.


How would you determine who needs a gun? What about the people in the original post. He was just hanging around his house. He was 73 years old and more than likely....this situation had never come up before.........

In his entire life....he's probably never needed a gun.......until some thug broke into his house and put some shears to his wife's throat.....

Since this is a sceptics board and most of us don't believe in psychics.........how do we predict in advance....if a situation will occur where we will NEED a gun.

Who should determine that need....You......or do we let the individual decide?

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Ralph

How would you determine who needs a gun? What about the people in the original post. He was just hanging around his house. He was 73 years old and more than likely....this situation had never come up before.........

In his entire life....he's probably never needed a gun.......until some thug broke into his house and put some shears to his wife's throat.....

Since this is a sceptics board and most of us don't believe in psychics.........how do we predict in advance....if a situation will occur where we will NEED a gun.

Who should determine that need....You......or do we let the individual decide?
This post simply illustrates what I see as the overstating of the need for guns. This person needed one - therefore we all need one? That doesn't make sense, yet that is the message that posting these anecdotes sends.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by shanek


Not to mention the more extreme cases where the robber shoots you anyway to keep you quiet.

I wonder what Mr. M would tell potential rape victims? Just give the guy what he wants and let him rape you?

Les pommed des terres et l'oranges yet again. We're talking about burglars, not rapists.

But even if we were talking about rapists, two points:

Rapists don't just go up to someone in the street and say, "I'm going to rape you," before raping them in full sight (so a would-be hero can come along with a gun, assuming the victim hasn't already pulled a 'quick draw'). They usually target women, alone, and in their houses.

More often than not, you don't even get a situation where the rapists don't know their victims. More rapes involve the victim knowing their rapist. You will find that guns are rarely useful in a rape situation.

Of course, you'll dream up a scenario where guns are the ONLY solution to rapes- but then, you live on planet shanek, not Earth.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Thanz
Well, I do think that my lifestyle does put me more out of harm's way than other people. If I were partying everyweekend and wandering the alleys downtown, that would be a riskier lifestyle in terms of potential violence and finding a .357 in my face. I did not say that I believed I would never be a victim, I said that the odds were very small.

But your clear implication was that you wouldn't have to worry about it. By the way, your alarm system won't protect you when you're home.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Thanz
This post simply illustrates what I see as the overstating of the need for guns. This person needed one - therefore we all need one? That doesn't make sense, yet that is the message that posting these anecdotes sends.

Thanz, no one is saying that every single person needs a gun. Stop spewing out that strawman. All we are saying is that each individual should decide for himself whether or not he has a gun.

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Thanz

This post simply illustrates what I see as the overstating of the need for guns. This person needed one - therefore we all need one? That doesn't make sense, yet that is the message that posting these anecdotes sends.

That's the point I'm trying to make. Nobody can forsee the moment when they might need a gun. You're free to decide that you may NEVER need one. Nobody's forcing you to buy one.

If however you find yourself in the situation where you DO need a gun.....and don't have one---well.....this is one time you may not get to learn from your mistakes.

I think we should allow the individual to make those decisions
Are you suggesting the man shouldn't have had a gun in this case???

I think it's important to realize that most US gun laws only allow the use of a firearm if your life (or anothers)is in IMMINENT DANGER.....

I absolutely agree there are many situations where a gun wouldn't help. There are many situations where less lethal method is appropriate....but there are also going to be situations where a gun is the best....and possibly the only thing that will save your life.

I don't think there's any state who's gun laws would say that a man wasn't justified in using a gun against a man holding a knife to someones throat and only an idiot would think he could simply pull out a baseball bat to solve the problem.......

[The Fool]

Originally posted by shanek


Thanz, no one is saying that every single person needs a gun. Stop spewing out that strawman. All we are saying is that each individual should decide for himself whether or not he has a gun.

So what to do about the deaths and injuries shane? Nothing? Or just the usual assurances that people are all going to (somehow) be good and cautious and sensible with thier guns....or some other fairytale scenario. Thats the usual answer isn't it shane? Do nothing and magical forces will make everything better?

yep, that sound good....keeps the undertakers in business and retains your warm fuzzy feeling of liberty at the same time.

I'm not going to bother pulling your position apart much more as you will invariably "clarify" your previous posts.....well, maybe just one more then eh? Would you please clarify how "each individual should decide" excludes homicidal maniacs? want to go back and "clarify" that into your post? Unless you support the availability of guns to unstable people your previous post is just a pile of parrot droppings isn't it shane....time to fire up the clarification engine......

[shanek]

Originally posted by The Fool
So what to do about the deaths and injuries shane? Nothing?

I never said that; in fact, I've said just the opposite on many occasions, and you know it. So this is just more dishonesty.

People must be held responsible for their actions.

Or just the usual assurances that people are all going to (somehow) be good and cautious and sensible with thier guns....or some other fairytale scenario. Thats the usual answer isn't it shane? Do nothing and magical forces will make everything better?

No; in fact, that has never been my answer, except in the minds of anti-freedom bigots like you.

I'm not going to bother pulling your position apart much more

You haven't pulled it apart at all. You've just spouted strawman arguments.

Would you please clarify how "each individual should decide" excludes homicidal maniacs?

Certainly. Homicidal maniacs have forfeited their rights and so it is reasonable to stop them from carrying firearms...after their guilt has been established in a court of law, that is. I've said this on numerous occasions. But you'll probably ignore this again, as you always do.

Unless you support the availability of guns to unstable people your previous post is just a pile of parrot droppings isn't it shane....

More blatant dishonesty. Again, people who initiate force or fraud against others forfeit certain rights of theirs. But you have to make sure that they really have forfeited their rights. That's where you get that whole due process/innocent until proven guilty stuff.

[Richard G]

There were 28,163 gun deaths in 2000 (United States) , only 776 were accidental. 16,586 were suicides, and 10,801 were murders.

Now.....do the math. 90 million gun owners, 270 million firearms. I don't have a calculator handy, but the number of deaths versus gun owners and guns is a fraction of one percent.

More people die in automobile accidents every year. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (United States) reports 41,471 fatalities and 3,192,000 injuries, for the year of 1998. What do you want to do about that?


Your an alarmist blowing your argument way out of proportion Fool. Here are stats for leading causes of death in the U.S. http://www.the-eggman.com/writings/death_stats.html More people die from septicemia (blood poisoning) than firearms.

Pay attention, all those firearms statistics include gang warfare, self defense shootings and criminals killed by police. So most of those killed are actually bad guys. (And who cares about them eh? I know you do)

[The Fool]

Originally posted by shanek


I never said that; in fact, I've said just the opposite on many occasions, and you know it. So this is just more dishonesty.

People must be held responsible for their actions.



No; in fact, that has never been my answer, except in the minds of anti-freedom bigots like you.



You haven't pulled it apart at all. You've just spouted strawman arguments.



Certainly. Homicidal maniacs have forfeited their rights and so it is reasonable to stop them from carrying firearms...after their guilt has been established in a court of law, that is. I've said this on numerous occasions. But you'll probably ignore this again, as you always do.



More blatant dishonesty. Again, people who initiate force or fraud against others forfeit certain rights of theirs. But you have to make sure that they really have forfeited their rights. That's where you get that whole due process/innocent until proven guilty stuff.

ooops, more clarification from Shanek....So your position now includes "homicidal maniacs" Its good to see you adopting some of my gun control policies shane, there's hope for your political career yet.......anyway, now you have "clarified" your position to include "Homicidal maniacs"....but only the ones that have been caught. You must be happy for the ones at large to be able to get handguns? seems like more "clarification" may be needed...how about 17 year olds, do they get guns in fairyland?

And Shane...I'm not affected by name calling so you can give it up. Also your suggestion that I may be motivated in my opinions by a secret desire to shoot my wife...I really don't mind you spewing that sort of rubbish, its water off a ducks back...just don't squeal like a baby when I call you a doofus for it ....deal?

[BTox]

Originally posted by The Fool


Or just the usual assurances that people are all going to (somehow) be good and cautious and sensible with thier guns....or some other fairytale scenario. Thats the usual answer isn't it shane? Do nothing and magical forces will make everything better?

Not to hijack this thread but dang if this statement is not applicable to the situation in Iraq...

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Richard G
There were 28,163 gun deaths in 2000 (United States) , only 776 were accidental. 16,586 were suicides, and 10,801 were murders.

Now.....do the math. 90 million gun owners, 270 million firearms. I don't have a calculator handy, but the number of deaths versus gun owners and guns is a fraction of one percent.

More people die in automobile accidents every year. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (United States) reports 41,471 fatalities and 3,192,000 injuries, for the year of 1998. What do you want to do about that?

Tired old argument dick....most people die of old age so should we not be concerned with any other causes?? There's quite a bit I would like to do about road deaths and gun deaths...you want to ignore gun deaths and hope they go away, I imagine your views on road deaths are similar?


Your an alarmist blowing your argument way out of proportion Fool. Here are stats for leading causes of death in the U.S. http://www.the-eggman.com/writings/death_stats.html More people die from septicemia (blood poisoning) than firearms.

same tired old argument used for a second time in the same post...got any originals dick?



Pay attention, all those firearms statistics include gang warfare, self defense shootings and criminals killed by police. So most of those killed are actually bad guys. (And who cares about them eh? I know you do)
How did you spot they were bad guys Did they have black hats on?

Anyway, I don't want to take up anymore of your time, you probably have to rush off and play soldiers with the militia and discuss how the UN is going to invade america....Lol, Do you practice much? I would suggest you practice marching in single file with your arms in the air, If the "free militia" ever saw combat thats what the result would be..... got the basement full of ammo and canned beans ready? Militiamen, don't you just love em:D

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Ralph



Enlighten me..............What's wrong with the picture??????

The terrorists are armed with boxcutters.

Obviously, if guns were allowed to be carried by passengers on the plane, they wouldn't be using boxcutters, now, would they?

We've seen from the 9/11 attacks that the terrorists don't care about human life. They probably would not have bothered warning people, knowing they would be armed, they would have just started shooting. Leaving a nice empty plane to run into buildings (with little possibilty for a Pennsylvania scenario).

Dick lives in a world where, if terrorists are somehow foiled once by passengers carrying guns, future terrorists will say, "hmm, better not try that again". That would be because Dick is deluded like shanek.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Richard G
There were 28,163 gun deaths in 2000 (United States) , only 776 were accidental. 16,586 were suicides, and 10,801 were murders.

Now.....do the math. 90 million gun owners, 270 million firearms. I don't have a calculator handy, but the number of deaths versus gun owners and guns is a fraction of one percent.

More people die in automobile accidents every year. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (United States) reports 41,471 fatalities and 3,192,000 injuries, for the year of 1998. What do you want to do about that?

Tired old argument dick....most people die of old age so should we not be concerned with any other causes?? There's quite a bit I would like to do about road deaths and gun deaths...you want to ignore gun deaths and hope they go away, I imagine your views on road deaths are similar?


Your an alarmist blowing your argument way out of proportion Fool. Here are stats for leading causes of death in the U.S. http://www.the-eggman.com/writings/death_stats.html More people die from septicemia (blood poisoning) than firearms.

same tired old argument used for a second time in the same post...got any originals dick?



Pay attention, all those firearms statistics include gang warfare, self defense shootings and criminals killed by police. So most of those killed are actually bad guys. (And who cares about them eh? I know you do)
How did you spot they were bad guys Did they have black hats on?

Anyway, I don't want to take up anymore of your time, you probably have to rush off and play soldiers with the militia and discuss how the UN is going to invade america....Lol, Do you practice much? I would suggest you practice marching in single file with your arms in the air, If the "free militia" ever saw combat thats what the result would be..... got the basement full of ammo and canned beans ready? Militiamen, don't you just love em:D

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Richard G
There were 28,163 gun deaths in 2000 (United States) , only 776 were accidental. 16,586 were suicides, and 10,801 were murders.

Wouldn't that mean you are statistically more likely to shoot yourself or an innocent bystander then a criminal? Doesn't sound like very good risk management to me.

Now.....do the math. 90 million gun owners, 270 million firearms. I don't have a calculator handy, but the number of deaths versus gun owners and guns is a fraction of one percent.

So you think 28k+ deaths annually is a worthwhile sacrifice for the benefits that level of gun ownership brings to society? What are those benefits again?

More people die in automobile accidents every year. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (United States) reports 41,471 fatalities and 3,192,000 injuries, for the year of 1998. What do you want to do about that?

The national transit system also saves lives to a much greater degree than firearms do. If I had to ban one or the other, I would chose guns.

Pay attention, all those firearms statistics include gang warfare, self defense shootings and criminals killed by police. So most of those killed are actually bad guys. (And who cares about them eh? I know you do)

Homicide is homicide, whether the victim is a nun or a thief. It's still illegal and wrong.

The FBI keeps track of justifiable homicides seperately. Why don't you tell us how many were reported in 2000?

[The Fool]

Originally posted by BTox


Not to hijack this thread but dang if this statement is not applicable to the situation in Iraq...

I've no doubt it would. Shanes usual libertarian (anarchist) line is applied to everything, without regard to individual circumstances....its the "principle" that is all important. So it probably is applicable to Iraq or anything else if you are talking about the tragedies that can occur when "principle" replaces sanity.

[BTox]

Originally posted by The Fool


I've no doubt it would. Shanes usual libertarian (anarchist) line is applied to everything, without regard to individual circumstances....its the "principle" that is all important. So it probably is applicable to Iraq or anything else if you are talking about the tragedies that can occur when "principle" replaces sanity.

That's not what I had in mind. I was reminded that this was/is the attitude of those opposed to the action in Iraq:

"Or just the usual assurances that people (read Saddam) are all going to (somehow) be good and cautious and sensible ....or some other fairytale scenario....
Do nothing and magical forces will make everything better?"

[The Fool]

Originally posted by BTox


That's not what I had in mind. I was reminded that this was/is the attitude of those opposed to the action in Iraq:

"Or just the usual assurances that people (read Saddam) are all going to (somehow) be good and cautious and sensible ....or some other fairytale scenario....
Do nothing and magical forces will make everything better?"
This isn't the old "for us or against us" argument? If you don't support the invasion of Iraq you must be a hussein supporter? Or is it suggesting that there were only two alternatives, invasion or do nothing? Or in the case of the gun debate the tired old line that if you don't support the "absolutely no restrictions" position you must be advocating a total ban?

anyway, as you said, I apologise to richard for hijacking....Hussein has enough threads of his own:D

[shanek]

Originally posted by The Fool
So your position now includes "homicidal maniacs" Its good to see you adopting some of my gun control policies shane,

Oh, get over yourself! That has been my position since day 1. And I am not adolpting your policies as your policies prevent people from owning guns even if they have done nothing to forfeit their rights. Like the others, you're just going for some cheap brownie points.

You must be happy for the ones at large to be able to get handguns?

How are you going to stop them from getting handguns?

how about 17 year olds, do they get guns in fairyland?

17-year-olds, being minors, would legally need a parent's permission.

And Shane...I'm not affected by name calling so you can give it up. Also your suggestion that I may be motivated in my opinions by a secret desire to shoot my wife...

I never said that at all! STOP LYING!!!

(And it's not name-calling to call a liar a liar! There's been way too much of that going on on this forum, and I'm sick of it!)

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
We've seen from the 9/11 attacks that the terrorists don't care about human life. They probably would not have bothered warning people, knowing they would be armed, they would have just started shooting. Leaving a nice empty plane to run into buildings (with little possibilty for a Pennsylvania scenario).

Terrorists don't like direct confrontations. They like surprise attacks. If they thought they would meet armed oppositions from the passengers, the extreme likelihood is they wouldn't have tried it at all.

[pathetic name-calling deleted]

[shanek]

Originally posted by The Fool
libertarian (anarchist)

This is another blatant lie and you know it. You have no integrity at all.

[Tricky]

Two more "bad news" stories from today's local paper.
An off-duty Dallas police officer visiting Houston for the holidays accidentally shot his wife while they were in bed, said Harris County sheriff's homicide detectives. (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2258145)

...and
A woman was shot to death early Friday after she and a friend tried to rob three men they met while cruising along the Westheimer strip, Houston homicide investigators said. (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2257243)

Interestingly, in the second story, the person who was killed was the gun owner, the would-be robber, whereas the killer was unarmed. It seems very likely, though, that if the woman had not owned a gun, she would not have tried to rob three men.

Sorry. No "good news" stories today.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by shanek

This is another blatant lie and you know it. You have no integrity at all.


Shanek has called The Fool a liar, so the debate is now considered over with the victory going to Mr. Fool.

Congratulations and I wish you the best of luck on future endevours.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tricky
Two more "bad news" stories from today's local paper.
An off-duty Dallas police officer visiting Houston for the holidays accidentally shot his wife while they were in bed, said Harris County sheriff's homicide detectives. (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2258145)

So, this means, what, we should disarm police officers?

A woman was shot to death early Friday after she and a friend tried to rob three men they met while cruising along the Westheimer strip, Houston homicide investigators said. (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2257243)

Sounds to me like she's just reaping the responsibility for her actions. A would-be robber and potential killer has been put down, and apparently by her own stupidity, and the would-be victims are safe. How is that bad news?

Interestingly, in the second story, the person who was killed was the gun owner, the would-be robber, whereas the killer was unarmed.

"The killer"? Who was the killer? She was killed when the gun discharged, so the only sense in which someone is "the killer" is the one who was wielding the gun, which means the killer was armed. But the story really makes it clear that one of the victims was struggling with her when the gun discharged, so I don't think you can call anyone "the killer" in this scenario.

It seems very likely, though, that if the woman had not owned a gun, she would not have tried to rob three men.

And you're basing this on what, exactly?

[shanek]

Here's some good news:

Gun used for protection stops murder suspect (http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/O/OK_FUGITIVE_CAUGHT_HERO?SITE=NCGRE&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT)

An Arkansas man knew his parents were in trouble long before they faced down an Oklahoma murder suspect on an East Texas road.

Samuel Peebles Jr. had seen the "Most Wanted" photos of Scott James Eizember. He knew someone had tried to call Eizember's former girlfriend from his mother's cell phone.

He also knew what Eizember did not - that Dr. Samuel and Suzanne Peebles never traveled without a gun. They kept it for protection.

After feigning injury and gaining access to the couple's van, he said, Eizember pulled a gun and forced the couple to drive south "toward Mexico, where he said he wanted to go."

He also made a call on the Peebles' cell phone - to his former girlfriend in Depew, Okla., the woman law officers believe he was stalking, Peebles Jr. said.

Eizember was suspected of killing A.J. and Patsy Cantrell on Oct. 18 to use their home to watch the neighboring home of Kathy Biggs' mother.

Meanwhile, the younger Peebles said his father tried to reason with the couple's abductor. He finally persuaded Eizember to let him stop to use the restroom along a rural road in East Texas.

That's when the doctor grabbed the .22-caliber pistol his wife kept in the driver's side door panel.

He fired four shots, three of them striking Eizember, Peebles Jr. said. The fourth was a misfire.

Eizember lunged at Peebles, overpowering the 5-8, 180-pound doctor, his son said. Peebles Sr. broke his thumb when he jammed it into Eizember's gun in an attempt to prevent it from going off.

The suspect beat the doctor in the head with his gun so hard the gun broke, authorities said. The suspect then turned on Mrs. Peebles and beat her.

Authorities caught up with a wounded Eizember about 10 miles away. Angelina County Sheriff Kent Henson said Eizember confessed to the slayings as well as the abduction of the Peebles.

The Peebles were treated and released at a Lufkin, Texas, hospital and spent a day recuperating at a hotel before returning home, their son said.

He called them heroes.

"We are so happy to have them coming home," Peebles Jr. said. "This is going to be one of our greatest Thanksgivings."

I guess it's a good thing for these people they were "living in fear" (according to Thanz)...but I guess they should have just taken the "good" advice of just going along with what their abductor wanted, right? After all, he had already killed; the homicide must have just been out of his system, right? No, they weren't in any real danger. They could have just taken him to Mexico and been back home for Thanksgiving, right?

Or should these innocent people have been sacrified to the god of crime statistics? Is it just okay to let them die because other people are doing bad things with guns?

What do you gun control advocates say? What should these people have done?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by shanek
So, this means, what, we should disarm police officers?
I recall it being said (by Richard, I think, but I may be mistaken) that a gun was no danger to a responsible gun owner. Well who should be more responsible than a law officer?

But no, it is just another statistic in the "good news - bad news" battle. Such a story would be unlikely in England, since few peace officers carry guns.

Originally posted by shanek
Sounds to me like she's just reaping the responsibility for her actions. A would-be robber and potential killer has been put down, and apparently by her own stupidity, and the would-be victims are safe. How is that bad news?
If anything, it shows that owning a gun is not the most important thing in defending yourself. And it is bad news because a person is dead who probably wouldn't be if she didn't have a gun. I'm not quite so willing to wish death on anyone who commits a crime.

Originally posted by shanek
"The killer"? Who was the killer? She was killed when the gun discharged, so the only sense in which someone is "the killer" is the one who was wielding the gun, which means the killer was armed. But the story really makes it clear that one of the victims was struggling with her when the gun discharged, so I don't think you can call anyone "the killer" in this scenario.
If two people are struggling with a gun and one is killed, then the other is the killer. I am not saying murderer or even hinting that it was unjustified, but he obviously got the better of the confrontation. To say otherwise would be to suggest that it was an intentional suicide.

Originally posted by shanek
And you're basing this on what, exactly?
Common sense, mostly. Surely you're not suggestiong that two women would take on three men if the women didn't have a gun? You think they would try knives? Martial arts? Be sensible, Shanek.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tricky
I recall it being said (by Richard, I think, but I may be mistaken) that a gun was no danger to a responsible gun owner. Well who should be more responsible than a law officer?

Unfortunately, the article doesn't give us enough details to properly speculate. I can tell you that modern handguns DO NOT spontaneously discharge even when struck. Something had to have made it discharge. They don't just go off.

If anything, it shows that owning a gun is not the most important thing in defending yourself.

A gun is a tool. Just because a hammer is not the most important thing in building a house does not mean that it doesn't play an important role.

And it is bad news because a person is dead who probably wouldn't be if she didn't have a gun.

And her actions leading up to it had nothing to do with it? You don't think she'd be alive today if she hadn't decided to rob them?

I'm not quite so willing to wish death on anyone who commits a crime.

It has nothing to do with "wishing death." It's about responsibility. She initiated force on others; in the process of the others defending themselves, she was killed with her own gun. She brought it on herself.

Besides, if "a person is dead who probably wouldn't be if she didn't have a gun" is the criteria, then why is the first story bad news? The wife survived and is in fair condition.

If two people are struggling with a gun and one is killed, then the other is the killer.

I'm not going to bother to point out the obvious problems with that...Instead, I'll just point out that since the man in this case is the killer, and the gun was the instrument of the woman's death, then for the moment the killing took place at least, the man was, by definition, armed.

But the truth is that you don't even know if he had his hands on the gun. So calling him a "killer" is quite specious, especially since the woman initiated the confrontation.

To say otherwise would be to suggest that it was an intentional suicide.

Why do you see those as the only two possibilities?

Common sense, mostly.

Which throughout the ages has proved to be neither common nor sensical. As bad of a record as Common Sense has, how can any skeptic cling to it?

Surely you're not suggestiong that two women would take on three men if the women didn't have a gun? You think they would try knives? Martial arts? Be sensible, Shanek.

YOU are the one who is not being sensible. You are drawing conclusions about women you know nothing about, conclusions which require information that just isn't provided in the story. That is NOT being sensible.

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


The terrorists are armed with boxcutters.

Obviously, if guns were allowed to be carried by passengers on the plane, they wouldn't be using boxcutters, now, would they?

We've seen from the 9/11 attacks that the terrorists don't care about human life. They probably would not have bothered warning people, knowing they would be armed, they would have just started shooting. Leaving a nice empty plane to run into buildings (with little possibilty for a Pennsylvania scenario).

Dick lives in a world where, if terrorists are somehow foiled once by passengers carrying guns, future terrorists will say, "hmm, better not try that again". That would be because Dick is deluded like shanek.

I think Richard's trying to make the point that the solution to gun violence isn't banning guns. The problems come from who has the guns.

I think someone mentioned that non US citizens aren't allowed gun permits. The terrorists weren't US citizens and if they had guns....it certainly wouldn't have been legally.

I think that if we decided to allow guns aboard domestic flights it's not unreasonable to make sure that those who have them......have the legal right to do so......

I don't know if you noticed or not..........since 9/11-------very few planes have been hijacked.

Why do you suppose this is?

Do you think maybe it's because 9/11 changed the game and people will no longer sit quietly and be victims? They may fight back now since a highjacked plane is no longer a matter of a flight to some marxist or islamic rathole and some orders for pizza.

People will fight back now and that's the last thing that terrorists and criminals want to see.

How about those ARMED skymarshalls......Do you think maybe the fact that they may have to confront a guy with a gun might act as a deterrent?????

You don't usually see haedlines like "Flight 707 was NOT highjacked because the terrorists couldn't figure out how to deal with the Skymarshall" .

Deterrence doesn't make headlines but the anti-gun advocates refuse to accept this.

Personally--If I had to get on a plane I'd have no problem sitting next to Richard. If he has a CW permit I doubt if he has any history of violence crime. He's been photographed,fingerprinted,
and had a thorough background check. He sounds like he's been properly trained,knows basic gun safety and doesn't do stupid things like sweeping people with the muzzle or putting his finger on the trigger. .....I'm sure he owns a quality handgun that as Shanek mentioned--they cannot go off accidentaly......I don't think it's likely he's going to go postal and start shooting.

In the unlikey event that your "indefensible situation" occurs........I 'd prefer having him on the plane as opposed to some anti-gun individual who confuses reality & TV and is armed with a cricket bat.....

[Ralph]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


Homicide is homicide, whether the victim is a nun or a thief. It's still illegal and wrong.

The FBI keeps track of justifiable homicides seperately. Why don't you tell us how many were reported in 2000?

And your specific solution to these homicides would be what?????????

[Tony]

Originally posted by shanek


This is another blatant lie and you know it. You have no integrity at all.

The Fool isnt lying Shane, he is really just that stupid and ignorant. That is what you can expect from a person who thinks islam is a race.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tony
The Fool isnt lying Shane, he is really just that stupid and ignorant.

That would imply that he has never been told that libertarianism ≠ anarchy. As I have explained the difference to him on several occasions, this can only be a deliberate prevarication. I know you shouldn't conclude dishonesty when ignorance will suffice, but ignorance can only go so far.

[Tony]

Originally posted by shanek


That would imply that he has never been told that libertarianism ≠ anarchy. As I have explained the difference to him on several occasions, this can only be a deliberate prevarication. I know you shouldn't conclude dishonesty when ignorance will suffice, but ignorance can only go so far.

I stand corrected. If you have already educated him as to the difference, the only conclusion is that Fool is a bigot.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Don't be a hero (http://www.brooklinepolice.com/safety/page2.html#robbery)

Don't resist or endanger your safety (http://www.snc.edu/security/tips.htm)

Give the person what they want (http://www.safetyandsecurity.bcit.ca/Security/PersonalSecurity/armed_robbery.pdf)

Take no action that would jeopardize the safety of you, your employees or customers (http://www.ottawapolice.ca/en/help_us/robbery.cfm)


Translation: Don’t worry about thinking for or defending yourself when mommy gubmint can do it for you.

I thought people had the right to obey unjust laws. Why are you advocating for unjust and fascistic laws while degrading people who hold on to the same ideal you claimed to hold Mr Manifesto?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland


I guess I have underestimated just how big those cornfields really are.

There are so many things wrong in this post I cant even be bothered to point them out. Go away you tiresome, pig ignorant fool. Although maybe I shouldn't say that, you are such a big man with your gun..

Instead of making ad hom attacks, why dont you explain why he is wrong?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Tony



Translation: Don’t worry about thinking for or defending yourself when mommy gubmint can do it for you.

I thought people had the right to obey unjust laws. Why are you advocating for unjust and fascistic laws while degrading people who hold on to the same ideal you claimed to hold Mr Manifesto?

Don't make me use the rolleyes icon, Tony.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Ralph


How about those ARMED skymarshalls......Do you think maybe the fact that they may have to confront a guy with a gun might act as a deterrent?????


How many times do you suppose one has to make a certain statement before it sinks in? A statement like, "I don't have any problems with law enforcement people carrying weapons, just every civilian, especially on planes". I imagine it's lots of times. I've already said it nearly half a dozen times in this thread and it still hasn't sunk in yet.


Personally--If I had to get on a plane I'd have no problem sitting next to Richard. If he has a CW permit I doubt if he has any history of violence crime. He's been photographed,fingerprinted,
and had a thorough background check. He sounds like he's been properly trained,knows basic gun safety and doesn't do stupid things like sweeping people with the muzzle or putting his finger on the trigger. .....I'm sure he owns a quality handgun that as Shanek mentioned--they cannot go off accidentaly......I don't think it's likely he's going to go postal and start shooting.

In the unlikey event that your "indefensible situation" occurs........I 'd prefer having him on the plane as opposed to some anti-gun individual who confuses reality & TV and is armed with a cricket bat.....

Yes, but on a plane? Honestly, how credulous do you have to be to believe that people carrying guns on a plane are going to do the right thing. Maybe this should go to a vote.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by shanek


Terrorists don't like direct confrontations. They like surprise attacks. If they thought they would meet armed oppositions from the passengers, the extreme likelihood is they wouldn't have tried it at all.

[pathetic name-calling deleted]

Or, as you suggest yourself, they'd open fire on passengers without warning. Surprise attack, see?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Don't make me use the rolleyes icon, Tony.

You could just answer the question (for once).

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Yes, but on a plane? Honestly, how credulous do you have to be to believe that people carrying guns on a plane are going to do the right thing.

Not very, considering they did exactly this before the gun ban. Or have you uncovered any instances of passenger misuse of guns yet?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Or, as you suggest yourself, they'd open fire on passengers without warning. Surprise attack, see?

This just shows how ignorant you are. Look at the tactics of terrorists and you'll see that they just don't do this. Their surprise attacks end up blowing themselves up. And if you're blown up, you can't fly a plane into a building.

Terrorists DO NOT engage in direct confrontations, and that is what opening fire on anyone is.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by shanek


This just shows how ignorant you are. Look at the tactics of terrorists and you'll see that they just don't do this. Their surprise attacks end up blowing themselves up. And if you're blown up, you can't fly a plane into a building.

Terrorists DO NOT engage in direct confrontations, and that is what opening fire on anyone is.

This just shows how ignorant you are. Currently, terrorists in the US can't bring guns on planes. Also, the playing field has changed after 9/11. A seperate thread has been opened on the subject. You may as well argue there.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by shanek


Not very, considering they did exactly this before the gun ban. Or have you uncovered any instances of passenger misuse of guns yet?

You're the one with the argument, it's up to you to supply the evidence. Otherwise, I could easily turn this debate around and say "Guns cause AIDS. Everyone with AIDS has owned a gun. Have you looked up the AIDS/gun ownership statistics yet?"

[The Fool]

Originally posted by shanek


Like the others, you're just going for some cheap brownie points.

Your such an easy target they are bound to be cheap, they are in oversupply. Whenever people point out your regular about turns and backslides on the tripe you post you whine about "brownie point scoring" Lol....




I never said that at all! STOP LYING!!!


ok doofus...lets take this a step at a time ok...then you can rewrite(clarify) your previous posts to attempt to weasel out of it...

you posted the following...

really have to worry about the mental stablility of someone who would automatically leap to such a conclusion...It's as if they're saying that's what they would do in such a situation, and they're extrapolating to the rest of the population.

I was talking about domestic violence....your post was making the cheap suggestion that I would participate in domestic violence. This is one of the reasons why debate with you is pointless shane. You have selective memory.... So how about you cease the childishness and perticipate in debate with the grownups. Tantrums and uppercase frenzies are doing you no good at all.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Tony


The Fool isnt lying Shane, he is really just that stupid and ignorant. That is what you can expect from a person who thinks islam is a race.
sigh...poor Tony...ok at the risk of derailing the thread. I am perfectly aware that Islam is a religion. I called you a racist a long time ago because of your racist statements towards arabs...as usual you could not understand what i typed and because those arabs were also Muslims you accuse me of confusion??? Anyway. I'm sure shane is glad of your support in this thread, he can obviously be judged by the company he keeps.....Lol, shane and Tony, what a team.... All he needs is Lucianarchy to join the club to help him with his support of astrologers and reading sunspots to predict the future.....Lol

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Ralph


And your specific solution to these homicides would be what?????????

Strict gun control and nationwide firearm registration. Plus better regulation of firearms dealers, no more "lost" weapons that somehow end up in the hands of mass murders, like John Lee Malvo. Any dealer that can't keep track of his inventory deserves to have his license revoked, fined and possibly jailed.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by shanek


Not very, considering they did exactly this before the gun ban. Or have you uncovered any instances of passenger misuse of guns yet?

Shanek the pinhead has me on ignore, but someone should point out him that hijackers are passengers too.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
This just shows how ignorant you are. Currently, terrorists in the US can't bring guns on planes.

When did I ever say they could?

Also, the playing field has changed after 9/11.

When did I ever say it hadn't?

A seperate thread has been opened on the subject. You may as well argue there.

If you exhibit the same dishonesty, use of strawmen, and evasion that you do here, I think I'll pass.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
You're the one with the argument, it's up to you to supply the evidence.

No, YOU are the one making the argument. But apparently you don't want to argue honestly. I have been asking you questions, questions that you REFUSE to answer. It is NOT up to me to supply evidence since YOU are the one who isn't answering the questions put to you.

YOU are the one saying bad things will happen if we let just anyone carry guns on planes. I've provided you with a timeline where anyone could do just that and asked you to provide examples. You MUST do this if you want to support your claim. And you're running from it.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by shanek

YOU are the one saying bad things will happen if we let just anyone carry guns on planes. I've provided you with a timeline where anyone could do just that and asked you to provide examples. You MUST do this if you want to support your claim. And you're running from it.

Shanek the pinhead has me on ignore, but someone might want to check this timeline of signifigant hijacking's for ones involving armed passengers.

1958 First Cuba to U.S. hijacking

1960 The first US to Cuba hijacking

1968: The first Arab-Israeli hijacking, as three members of Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) hijack an El Al plane to Rome. Diverting to Algiers the negotiations extend over forty days. Both the hijackers and the hostages go free. This was the first and the only successful hijacking of an El Al flight.

1970: PFLP gunmen attempt to hijack four aircraft simultaneously. They succeed on three and force the planes to fly to the Jordanian desert, where the hijackers blow up the aircraft after releasing most of the hostages. The final hostages are freed in exchange for seven Palestinian prisoners.

1976: The Palestinian hijack of Air France Flight 193 airliner is brought to an end at Entebbe Airport, Uganda by Operation Entebbe: Israeli commandos assault the building holding the hijackers and hostages; they kill all the Palestinian hijackers and free 105 mostly Israeli hostages; three passengers and one commando are killed.

1977: A Palestinian hijack of a Lufthansa airliner Landshut during its flight from Palma de Mallorca to Frankfurt is ended in Mogadishu when German commandos storm the plane. Three hijackers are killed and 86 hostages are freed. The hand of German Red Army Faction is suspected. The pilot is killed.

1978: Two Arab guerrillas seized a plane in Cyprus. Egyptian commandos flew in uninvited to try to take the plane. Cypriot troops resisted and 15 Egyptians died in a 45-minute battle.

1981: A Pakistan International Airlines jet is hijacked and taken to Kabul, where one passenger is killed before the plane flies on to Damascus; the hostages are finally released after 13 days when the Pakistani Government agrees to free fifty political prisoners.

1982: Palestinians take a EgyptAir plane and fly it to Malta. 59 people die when Egyptian commandos storm the aircraft.

1984: Lebanese Shi'a gunmen hijack a Kuwait Airways flight to Tehran. The plane is taken by Iranian security forces.

1985: Lebanese Shi'a gunmen divert a TWA flight from Athens to Beirut with 153 people on board. The stand-off ends after Israel frees 31 Lebanese prisoners.

1986: 22 people are killed when
Pakistani security forces storm a Pan Am flight at Karachi, carrying 400 passengers and crew after a 16-hour siege.

1990: Hijackers seize a plane from the People's Republic of China which later crashes as it tried to land in Canton killing 128 people.

1994: Four Islamic GIA terrorists seize Air France Flight 8969 plane in Algiers. It is flown to Marseilles where French commandos storm the plane, killing the hijackers. 170 passengers survive.

1996: Ethiopian Airways Flight 961 crashed into the Indian Ocean near a beach in the Comoros Islands after hijackers refused to allow the pilot to land and refuel the plane. 125 passengers die and 50 survive. This is only the third incident in which there were survivors of a passenger jet intentionally ditching into water.

1999: Kashmiri militants hijack an Indian Airlines aircraft and divert it to Kandahar. After a week-long stand-off India agrees to release three jailed Kashmiri militants in exchange for the hostages. 1 hostage shot dead and his body thrown on the tarmac as a "warning attack"

1999: All Nippon Airways Flight 61 is hijacked by a lone man. He kills the pilot before he is subdued.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


Shanek the pinhead has me on ignore, but someone might want to check this timeline of signifigant hijacking's for ones involving armed passengers.

1958 First Cuba to U.S. hijacking

1960 The first US to Cuba hijacking

1968: The first Arab-Israeli hijacking, as three members of Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) hijack an El Al plane to Rome. Diverting to Algiers the negotiations extend over forty days. Both the hijackers and the hostages go free. This was the first and the only successful hijacking of an El Al flight.

1970: PFLP gunmen attempt to hijack four aircraft simultaneously. They succeed on three and force the planes to fly to the Jordanian desert, where the hijackers blow up the aircraft after releasing most of the hostages. The final hostages are freed in exchange for seven Palestinian prisoners.

1976: The Palestinian hijack of Air France Flight 193 airliner is brought to an end at Entebbe Airport, Uganda by Operation Entebbe: Israeli commandos assault the building holding the hijackers and hostages; they kill all the Palestinian hijackers and free 105 mostly Israeli hostages; three passengers and one commando are killed.

1977: A Palestinian hijack of a Lufthansa airliner Landshut during its flight from Palma de Mallorca to Frankfurt is ended in Mogadishu when German commandos storm the plane. Three hijackers are killed and 86 hostages are freed. The hand of German Red Army Faction is suspected. The pilot is killed.

1978: Two Arab guerrillas seized a plane in Cyprus. Egyptian commandos flew in uninvited to try to take the plane. Cypriot troops resisted and 15 Egyptians died in a 45-minute battle.

1981: A Pakistan International Airlines jet is hijacked and taken to Kabul, where one passenger is killed before the plane flies on to Damascus; the hostages are finally released after 13 days when the Pakistani Government agrees to free fifty political prisoners.

1982: Palestinians take a EgyptAir plane and fly it to Malta. 59 people die when Egyptian commandos storm the aircraft.

1984: Lebanese Shi'a gunmen hijack a Kuwait Airways flight to Tehran. The plane is taken by Iranian security forces.

1985: Lebanese Shi'a gunmen divert a TWA flight from Athens to Beirut with 153 people on board. The stand-off ends after Israel frees 31 Lebanese prisoners.

1986: 22 people are killed when
Pakistani security forces storm a Pan Am flight at Karachi, carrying 400 passengers and crew after a 16-hour siege.

1990: Hijackers seize a plane from the People's Republic of China which later crashes as it tried to land in Canton killing 128 people.

1994: Four Islamic GIA terrorists seize Air France Flight 8969 plane in Algiers. It is flown to Marseilles where French commandos storm the plane, killing the hijackers. 170 passengers survive.

1996: Ethiopian Airways Flight 961 crashed into the Indian Ocean near a beach in the Comoros Islands after hijackers refused to allow the pilot to land and refuel the plane. 125 passengers die and 50 survive. This is only the third incident in which there were survivors of a passenger jet intentionally ditching into water.

1999: Kashmiri militants hijack an Indian Airlines aircraft and divert it to Kandahar. After a week-long stand-off India agrees to release three jailed Kashmiri militants in exchange for the hostages. 1 hostage shot dead and his body thrown on the tarmac as a "warning attack"

1999: All Nippon Airways Flight 61 is hijacked by a lone man. He kills the pilot before he is subdued.

ok, I just had to quote this in case Shane claims it doesn't exist...

shane??? anyone out there??? still waiting for your response regarding your calling me a liar.... I've quoted the post you deny saying....any thoughts on how you are going to make it go away yet???

crickets chirping.....

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by shanek


When did I ever say they could?
When did I ever say that you ever said they could?


When did I ever say it hadn't?
When did I ever say that you ever said it hadn't? Wheeeeeee!



If you exhibit the same dishonesty, use of strawmen, and evasion that you do here, I think I'll pass.
You never debated before you found the internet, did you? It's traditional for people to supply arguments to support your case. That's what I'm doing when I bring up terrorists bringing weapons onto planes and the playing field changing post 9/11. It's not dishonest, evasive, or using strawmen. It's debate.

Something you're not used to. Well, not as much as hearing the sound of your own voice, anyway.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


Shanek the pinhead has me on ignore, but someone might want to check this timeline of signifigant hijacking's for ones involving armed passengers.

1958 First Cuba to U.S. hijacking

1960 The first US to Cuba hijacking

1968: The first Arab-Israeli hijacking, as three members of Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) hijack an El Al plane to Rome. Diverting to Algiers the negotiations extend over forty days. Both the hijackers and the hostages go free. This was the first and the only successful hijacking of an El Al flight.

1970: PFLP gunmen attempt to hijack four aircraft simultaneously. They succeed on three and force the planes to fly to the Jordanian desert, where the hijackers blow up the aircraft after releasing most of the hostages. The final hostages are freed in exchange for seven Palestinian prisoners.

1976: The Palestinian hijack of Air France Flight 193 airliner is brought to an end at Entebbe Airport, Uganda by Operation Entebbe: Israeli commandos assault the building holding the hijackers and hostages; they kill all the Palestinian hijackers and free 105 mostly Israeli hostages; three passengers and one commando are killed.

1977: A Palestinian hijack of a Lufthansa airliner Landshut during its flight from Palma de Mallorca to Frankfurt is ended in Mogadishu when German commandos storm the plane. Three hijackers are killed and 86 hostages are freed. The hand of German Red Army Faction is suspected. The pilot is killed.

1978: Two Arab guerrillas seized a plane in Cyprus. Egyptian commandos flew in uninvited to try to take the plane. Cypriot troops resisted and 15 Egyptians died in a 45-minute battle.

1981: A Pakistan International Airlines jet is hijacked and taken to Kabul, where one passenger is killed before the plane flies on to Damascus; the hostages are finally released after 13 days when the Pakistani Government agrees to free fifty political prisoners.

1982: Palestinians take a EgyptAir plane and fly it to Malta. 59 people die when Egyptian commandos storm the aircraft.

1984: Lebanese Shi'a gunmen hijack a Kuwait Airways flight to Tehran. The plane is taken by Iranian security forces.

1985: Lebanese Shi'a gunmen divert a TWA flight from Athens to Beirut with 153 people on board. The stand-off ends after Israel frees 31 Lebanese prisoners.

1986: 22 people are killed when
Pakistani security forces storm a Pan Am flight at Karachi, carrying 400 passengers and crew after a 16-hour siege.

1990: Hijackers seize a plane from the People's Republic of China which later crashes as it tried to land in Canton killing 128 people.

1994: Four Islamic GIA terrorists seize Air France Flight 8969 plane in Algiers. It is flown to Marseilles where French commandos storm the plane, killing the hijackers. 170 passengers survive.

1996: Ethiopian Airways Flight 961 crashed into the Indian Ocean near a beach in the Comoros Islands after hijackers refused to allow the pilot to land and refuel the plane. 125 passengers die and 50 survive. This is only the third incident in which there were survivors of a passenger jet intentionally ditching into water.

1999: Kashmiri militants hijack an Indian Airlines aircraft and divert it to Kandahar. After a week-long stand-off India agrees to release three jailed Kashmiri militants in exchange for the hostages. 1 hostage shot dead and his body thrown on the tarmac as a "warning attack"

1999: All Nippon Airways Flight 61 is hijacked by a lone man. He kills the pilot before he is subdued.

Gosh... The weapon most commonly used is a gun... How about that.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by shanek


No, YOU are the one making the argument. But apparently you don't want to argue honestly. I have been asking you questions, questions that you REFUSE to answer. It is NOT up to me to supply evidence since YOU are the one who isn't answering the questions put to you.

YOU are the one saying bad things will happen if we let just anyone carry guns on planes. I've provided you with a timeline where anyone could do just that and asked you to provide examples. You MUST do this if you want to support your claim. And you're running from it.

You are the one who claimed there was a golden age when passengers were allowed to bring guns on planes, and there was little or no misuse. Even looking at this golden age is pointless, because a lot has changed since the early 70's. In fact, a lot has changed since 11/09/01. You have supplied no evidence to back this claim.

You did this once before. You claimed (on page 6):
More and more, people in the security field are realizing that the whole "just give them what they want" advice is really, really bad.

I replied:
Really. Tell me where these 'more and more' people are.

I'm still waiting.

You are the one who evades. You are the one who is dishonest. You are the one who is running.

[Richard G]

Only one of those hi-jackings happened in the U.S. None of the hi-jackers were U.S. citizens. And none of the hi-jackers had CCW permits.

We are talking about U.S. citizens with permits carrying. Permit holders have had extensive background checks, AND mandatory training. Everyone else goes through the same strip search we have now.

Those hi-jackings were succesfull because there was no one armed on board to thwart them. There have been no succesfull hi-jackings of El-Al Airlines (Israels) since the 60s, when they began to put armed soldiers, and pilots on every flight.

[Tricky]

Let's get back to the original purpose of this thread. Guns in the news. Here's some more news. (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/2259073)
PORTLAND, Ore. -- A man suffering from dementia shot and killed his wife and another man before putting the gun to his head and pulling the trigger at a care center where they all lived, police said Saturday.

The three were residents of the memory care unit at the Alpine Court assisted living center in Eugene, and the two victims also suffered from dementia. Investigators were trying to determine how Kykendall got a gun.
Okay, Richard. Your turn. Find us another current "good news" gun story.

[Richard G]

Ok.

Robber was shot after firing first
http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/fortwayne/news/local/6629317.htm

A liquor store employee who was not scheduled to work shot and killed a would-be robber late Monday after the robber first fired a rifle, a store employee who witnessed the shooting said.

[shanek]

Originally posted by The Fool
ok, I just had to quote this in case Shane claims it doesn't exist...

shane??? anyone out there??? still waiting for your response regarding your calling me a liar.... I've quoted the post you deny saying....any thoughts on how you are going to make it go away yet???

crickets chirping.....

You ARE a liar. And most of those cases happened AFTER the gun ban, so what does that tell you?

Anyway, as I've said to you THREE TIMES already, your claim was about passenger misuse, not hijackings.

Stop weaseling and answer the question...if you can.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
When did I ever say that you ever said they could?

When did I ever say that you ever said it hadn't? Wheeeeeee!

Right here:

This just shows how ignorant you are. Currently, terrorists in the US can't bring guns on planes. Also, the playing field has changed after 9/11. A seperate thread has been opened on the subject. You may as well argue there.

You made those statements to show how "ignorant" I am. That can only mean that you're claiming I said otherwise.

It's traditional for people to supply arguments to support your case.

Which is what I am asking you to do. Stop weaseling.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Gosh... The weapon most commonly used is a gun... How about that.

Even after the gun ban... How about that.

Besides, NONE of these are examples of passenger misuse. They are all premeditated hijackings. Try again.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
You are the one who claimed there was a golden age when passengers were allowed to bring guns on planes, and there was little or no misuse.

I made no such claim, you liar! I pointed out that there was a time when anyone could bring a gun on the plane, and asked YOU to come up with examples of passenger misuse, which you MUST do to support your position! Since you're waffling and trying to place the burden of proof on me, I can only conclude that you have no such support for your assertion.

You are the one who evades. You are the one who is dishonest. You are the one who is running.

Talk to yourself much?

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by shanek


Even after the gun ban... How about that.

Besides, NONE of these are examples of passenger misuse. They are all premeditated hijackings. Try again.

I wonder how a hijacking could not be considered passenger misuse of a gun?

[Ralph]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


Strict gun control and nationwide firearm registration. Plus better regulation of firearms dealers, no more "lost" weapons that somehow end up in the hands of mass murders, like John Lee Malvo. Any dealer that can't keep track of his inventory deserves to have his license revoked, fined and possibly jailed.

How do you define "strict gun control" When I obtained my CW permit I was fingerprinted & photographed. ...all on file with FBI I had to undergo an extensive background check. ANY history of violent crime--even a parking lot fight as a juvenile.......no permit. ANY drug or alcohol related offenses within the last five years.....no permit. Even if I come out squeaky clean....if the police chief....for ANY reason.. doesn't want to issue me a permit---he doesn't have to.The gun I purchased is registered....if it gets used in a crime---they'll be able to trace it back to me.


What other specific measures would you recommend that would reduce
the # of gun related deaths???

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


How many times do you suppose one has to make a certain statement before it sinks in? A statement like, "I don't have any problems with law enforcement people carrying weapons, just every civilian, especially on planes". I imagine it's lots of times. I've already said it nearly half a dozen times in this thread and it still hasn't sunk in yet.



Yes, but on a plane? Honestly, how credulous do you have to be to believe that people carrying guns on a plane are going to do the right thing. Maybe this should go to a vote.


I've tried to keep my comments in line with the original post. I think the point was that sometimes the use and possesion of a firearm can have a positive rather than a negative outcome.

When somethings posted that you don't want to address....you take the thread in a different direction..........usually in the general vicinity of Uranus.

Let me try explaining my post in a different way so that you can understand what I'm trying to say.


My post had NOTHING to do with whether or not law enforcement officials should be armed. I never suggested you said they shouldn't be. My point was a gun can be a very effective deterrent against terrorists & criminals.

Maybe a little quiz will help you understand.

If you're planning on hijacking an airliner who are you most likely to be worried about.

A.....a man who feels terrorist attacks are "indefensible" and he should just comply----even though they might be planning on killing him.

B.......A sky Marshalll

C.......A Sky marshall with a cricket bat.

D.....A sky marshall with a boxcutter.

E.....A sky marshall with a gun.


Personally--If I'm on a plane with an ARMED skymarshall and ARMED pilots......I don't feel the need for passengers (inc me) to be armed. You have.several armed trained professionals on board who can probably do that better than I can.

When I leave the plane though...........they're not coming along.


Question 2..........

You've found out you can make a pretty good living robbing the residents of a nearby retirement community. You're biggest threat is what????

A.....A 73 year old man who feels being robbed by thugs is "indefensible" and he should just comply........even though they may try to kill him.

B.....A 73 year old man with a cricket bat.

C..A 73 year old man with a boxcutter.

D.....A 73 year old man with a loaded 12 gauge pump shotgun.


Guns are very effective equilizers. They're what allows a pilot to overcome terrorists armed with boxcutters. They're what allows the elderly to overcome thugs who think they're "easy pickings".


If you disagreewith my point------that guns AREN'T effective deterrents to terrorists & criminals......then just say so & state why you feel that way rather than twisting the meaning of everything you don't agree with...............

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Ralph

What other specific measures would you recommend that would reduce
the # of gun related deaths???

Do that at the federal level for all gun purchases and ENFORCE it!

I would have no problem lifting the assault rifle, high-capacity magazine, etc bans if the cost of entry to ownership was more signifigant. Ammo should be tightly regulated as well.

The problem currently is that the regulation of gun sales is so lax its trivial for fencers and runners to make large anonymous purchases and then resell them to criminals. The enforcement is also so lax that gun stores are rarely punished for ignoring existing regulations.

If the above didn't make a signifigant dent in gun crime and fatalities (at least 50% after several years), I would endorse a total ban of all non-sporting and automatic weapons.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Richard G
Ok.

Robber was shot after firing first
http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/fortwayne/news/local/6629317.htm


Not quite what I asked for, Richard. Remember I said current? This was dated Wed, Aug. 27, 2003. More than three months old. The one I quoted happened within the last two days.

As I said, I can match your good news stories at least ten-to-one with bad news stories, and I probably wouldn't have to go outside of Texas to do it. (Admittedly, my previous post was from Portland.)

[Richard G]

As I said, I can match your good news stories at least ten-to-one with bad news stories, and I probably wouldn't have to go outside of Texas to do it.

Yes, I was the first to point that out. Its because many times a crime is prevented with no shot fired. In those cases, the crime was only attempted, and no shooting takes place. Not a very flashy headline.

Here are some more, dated....from October 2003.

Little Rock, Ark., man saved his own life late one night when three people broke into his house. Upon seeing the intruders, Eric Penny rushed into another room to retrieve his pistol when one man fired a rifle in his direction. Unhurt, Penny returned fire, striking all three. The armed assailant was shot in the head and later died of his wounds. His two alleged accomplices, who fled the scene after being shot, were located at a nearby medical clinic. (Arkansas Democrat Gazette, Little Rock, AR, 06/16/03)

Gardnerville, Nev., home-owner shot and killed a man who broke into his home. According to police reports, Walter Francis Hetrick of Antioch, Calif., broke a window next to a door at 11:24 p.m. and then entered through the door. Charles Cryderman heard someone breaking in and called police. The homeowner, armed with a .357-cal. revolver, then shot the intruder when he entered his home. Douglas County Sheriff’s investigator Mike Biaggini said that a man protecting “his castle” against someone committing a felony such as home invasion and burglary is allowed to defend himself. “He was in fear of his life,” Biaggini explained. “His whole family was there.” (The Record-Courier, Gardnerville, NV, 08/06/03)

It was not the first time R&R Jewelers of Oklahoma City, Okla. had been robbed. When an armed man demanded money from storeowner Larry Rowell, he complied and gave the miscreant some cash. But then the robber turned to the diamond display case. In the ensuing exchange of gunfire Rowell was wounded in the chest and the robber was killed. (The Daily Oklahoman, Oklahoma City, OK, 06/18/03)

A 76-year-old Chicago man was making his usual stop at the local gas station when things went very wrong. Charles Smith, a 27-year army veteran, was getting back into his car when he felt a gun at the back of his head. “Start the car and get out or I will kill you,” was all the teenager, later identified as Blannie Hanes, said. Smith complied, but then confronted the teen from the passenger window, showing his .380-cal. pistol. When Hanes extended his gun, Smith fired, fatally striking the carjacker in the chest. (Chicago Sun Times, Chicago, IL, 04/24/03)

When a masked bandit tried to hold up a San Dimas, Calif., convenience store, he was shot dead by the clerk who kept a handgun behind the register. It was later revealed that the robber, who pointed what looked like a .357 revolver at the clerk, was actually holding a BB gun. During the investigation, an officer of the San Bernardino Sheriff’s Department said, “I think it’s apparent at this stage of the investigation that there were self-defense issues.” (Inland Valley, Ontario, CA, 06/16/03)

When a man came to his door asking to use a phone, an elderly Beaver Valley, Ariz., resident did not expect what would happen next. The visit suddenly turned deadly when the man pulled a knife on homeowner Ray Freisen, demanded his wallet and car keys and then tied him to a chair. Freisen was able to free himself and retrieve his gun, but not before the intruder stabbed Freisen’s wife. In defense of his wife, Freisen shot the home invader several times, killing him. By the time medical personnel arrived, Annie, Freisen’s wife of 53 years, had also died from her wounds. (Payson Roundup, Payson, AZ, 07/01/03)

A would-be robber had the bad fortune of choosing the wrong restaurant to rob when he was shot and killed by an employee at the Oriental Express restaurant in Laurel, Md. Prince George’s County police spokeswoman Cpl. Tammy Sparkman reported that a man entered the restaurant about 9:30 p.m., drew a gun, demanded money and grabbed a restaurant worker. Upon seeing a coworker held at gunpoint, another employee, armed with a gun, ran out of the restaurant’s kitchen and fatally shot the robber. (The Washington Post, Washington, DC, 07/14/03)

David Ronald Washington, the alleged Memphis, Tenn., “cat burglar” tied to a string of residential burglaries, was killed during an altercation with a homeowner. Washington, who had crept through a window, came face to face with the resident who shot him during the ensuing struggle. The burglary spree began in early May, and despite stepped up patrols by police, they were unable to catch the criminal. Burglary Bureau Maj. Billy Garrett said, “I hate for someone to lose their life, but for all of those innocent victims out there … they don’t have to worry about this particular guy.” (The Commercial Appeal, Memphis, TN, 06/16/03)

[Zep]

Originally posted by Ralph
Zep----have you ever actually been in a situation where your life was threatened by an armed individual??

Not against a gun. Our laws actively work AGAINST that situation. Not that armed hold-ups don't happen here, because they do, but it is infrequent. So infrequent that we feel perfectly comfortable going about our daily lives anywhere without having to check that we have our guns strapped on before we leave the house. We have no particular fear of this here!

I've found that people who have....law enforcement,survivors of violent assaults by armed assailants....men who've been in combat.....................They just don't come across like you do with all this bravado about how tough they are and how they could easily handle a dumb criminal because they're smarter & faster than they are.

Most of them would describe the experience as somewhat humbling. They don't talk about what badasses they are. They talk about how scared they were. How they'd do whatever it takes to save their lives.

I agree - no-one who has seen combat or been under fire is going to play John Wayne stuff. If someone threatened me with a gun, neither would I. But the original story at the top of this thread was about some dumb-ass thief threatening someone with a 4in pair of shears (that would be about the size of a small kitchen knife). In such a situation, I would definitely rate my chances as good of taking on the guy with a bat and breaking a few of his bones. That's not bravado on my part, just weighing up the situation realistically.

I've been in several life-threatening situations myself. (Not involving somebody threatening my life) and I can still remember
the way I felt. Your mouth feels like cotton.....you feel your heart hammering away because of all the adrenalin that's pouring into your system. Your trying to stay calm and think rationally but it's difficult because part of you is thinking you might not survive the day........

So have I, although not facing a firearm. Yes, I was scared as {fill in the blank}. But I was not irrational.

I think Zep---if you actually found yourself unarmed facing a man with a knife...who knew how to use it...............you'd s**t your pants and find yourself fervently wishing you had a gun........................

And you would be wrong. I would not be my usual carefree self in such a situation, but as I said previously, I have confidence in my own abilities up to a point. Facing a guy with a knife is NOT at that point - I'm resourceful and aware enough to be able to make a good account of myself under such circumstances. I doubt I would walk away without a scratch, but I've been known to hurt people...

Furthermore, I do not intend to let the fear of such a situation dictate that I carry a gun just in case. There are many much more likely mishaps that might happen to me instead.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Richard G

Yes, I was the first to point that out. Its because many times a crime is prevented with no shot fired. In those cases, the crime was only attempted, and no shooting takes place. Not a very flashy headline.
Yes, and many times a potentially tragic gun incident happens but is not reported. Children playing with gun which discharges, but no one is hit. Woman threatened on freeway by gun-waving driver (this one happened to my sister). Drive-by shooting hits no one. Stray bullet found in wall.

You simply cannot assume that most unreported gun uses are "good stories".

As for your "good news" stories, here is an edit of them.


Little Rock, Ark., 06/16/03

Gardnerville, Nev.,08/06/03

Oklahoma City, OK, 06/18/03

Chicago, IL, 04/24/03

Ontario, CA, 06/16/03

Payson, AZ, 07/01/03

Washington, DC, 07/14/03)

Memphis, TN, 06/16/03


They are from all over the country and none is more recent than August while one was seven months old. I am impressed with your ability to dig these stories out. Either you are doing a lot of Googling, or you are using some canned "good gun news" site. (If the latter, you really ought to link it.) All of my stories have come from my local newspaper, have been linked, and they are no more than a few days old. And I'm not even looking every day.

I still contend that gun news which features successful defensive use of a gun by the gun owner are vastly outnumbered by tragic incidents, and I am prepared to defend this with current news items.

[Tricky]

Todays news from Philadelphia includes:
Homicide investigators said they were investigating a South Philadelphia street shooting that left a young couple dead this week as a possible murder-suicide. (http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/states/pennsylvania/cities_neighborhoods/philadelphia/7372001.htm)

and

Two North Philadelphia men were shot and killed over the Thanksgiving holiday after arguments with acquaintances, police said yesterday. (http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/states/pennsylvania/cities_neighborhoods/philadelphia/7372002.htm)

Sorry. No "good news" gun stories

[Tricky]

Four people were killed and five others were wounded in a series of unrelated incidents in an unusually violent weekend in the District and Prince George's and Montgomery counties. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9050-2003Nov23.html)
Only three were gun deaths. Some were only woundings. And there was one knifing. And it was "unusually violent".

But sadly, no "good news" gun stories.

[Richard G]

Heres an aricle by John Lott discussing the slant, and under reporting of beneficial gun use. He sources all of his data and research in his book. (you'll have to buy it for more detail)http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33410

Also noteworthy, the FBI, and justice department keep statistics on deaths by firearms (around 25,000 each year) , they do not keep statistics on defensive gun use. (estimated to be over 2 million incidents each year).

[Tricky]

Police are asking for the public's help in identifying suspects in a drive-by shooting in Carson that left one young woman dead and another seriously wounded. (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-briefs30.2nov30,1,6836436.story?coll=la-headlines-california)
But still no "good news" gun stories.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Richard G
Also noteworthy, the FBI, and justice department keep statistics on deaths by firearms (around 25,000 each year) , they do not keep statistics on defensive gun use. (estimated to be over 2 million incidents each year).
I'm betting they also do not keep statistics on lots of non-defensive but non-fatal gun usages too, estimated (by me) at two gazillion incidents a year.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tricky
As I said, I can match your good news stories at least ten-to-one with bad news stories,

Now, now, you wouldn't be falling back on your refuted idea that the frequency of reporting relates to frequency of occurence, would you?

[Ralph]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


Do that at the federal level for all gun purchases and ENFORCE it!

I would have no problem lifting the assault rifle, high-capacity magazine, etc bans if the cost of entry to ownership was more signifigant. Ammo should be tightly regulated as well.

The problem currently is that the regulation of gun sales is so lax its trivial for fencers and runners to make large anonymous purchases and then resell them to criminals. The enforcement is also so lax that gun stores are rarely punished for ignoring existing regulations.

If the above didn't make a signifigant dent in gun crime and fatalities (at least 50% after several years), I would endorse a total ban of all non-sporting and automatic weapons.

I have no problem at all with most of what you're saying. A gun dealer who "loses" guns is a criminal & belongs on the list of those who should NOT have access to firearms.

I think you're overestimating the role that dishonest gun dealers play though. Get rid of all of them overnight and I doub't you'll see a 50% reduction in gun crimes.

Most of what I had to go through to get a CW permit actaully applies to most of the country. A few states have looser laws (Like Vermont--no permit--open carry allowed--yet a very low gun crime rate) but most of what you're suggesting is allready being done.

I'm afraid we'll wind up in the gun ban situation you mentioned.

Automatic weapons are allready banned. I'm the nicest guy in the world---but nobdy's going to sell me an automatic weapon...not legally anyway.

Which other SPECIFIC non-sporting firearms do you feel should be banned????????

[The Fool]

Originally posted by shanek


You ARE a liar. And most of those cases happened AFTER the gun ban, so what does that tell you?

Anyway, as I've said to you THREE TIMES already, your claim was about passenger misuse, not hijackings.

Stop weaseling and answer the question...if you can.
Shane, I'm talking about your lowlife accusation regarding domestic violence....remember? Changing the subject won't make it go away....You get off on calling everyone a liar but what do you do when you are caught red handed???? you run away.... You deny saying it, I quoted it, you now ignore it....brave man.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by shanek


I made no such claim, you liar! I pointed out that there was a time when anyone could bring a gun on the plane, and asked YOU to come up with examples of passenger misuse, which you MUST do to support your position! Since you're waffling and trying to place the burden of proof on me, I can only conclude that you have no such support for your assertion.


You still haven't told me which security firms say that giving people what they want is a bad idea. I wonder why that is?

Keep stalling.

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Zep


So you admit that facing a man with a knife might be a little risky........even though you stated your a pretty big, strong guy.

If you have your doubts......how can you expect a 73 year old man to defend himself against a man holding what amounts to a knife to his wife's throat.

A "little 4 inch knife" is is capable of killing someone.

I still think that in this situation......a gun was best choice..............

[The Fool]

Originally posted by shanek


Now, now, you wouldn't be falling back on your refuted idea that the frequency of reporting relates to frequency of occurence, would you?
shane, sometimes your double standards are breathtaking....What about your favourite study, the silly phone poll anecdote collection of defensive gun use stories....you parade that thing around regularly...quite happy to relate frequency of reporting to frequency of occurance when the anecdotes are to your liking eh?

[Tony]

Originally posted by The Fool

sigh...poor Tony...ok at the risk of derailing the thread. I am perfectly aware that Islam is a religion. I called you a racist a long time ago because of your racist statements towards arabs...as usual you could not understand what i typed and because those arabs were also Muslims you accuse me of confusion??? Anyway. I'm sure shane is glad of your support in this thread, he can obviously be judged by the company he keeps.....Lol, shane and Tony, what a team.... All he needs is Lucianarchy to join the club to help him with his support of astrologers and reading sunspots to predict the future.....Lol

Yet more of your lying. I have NEVER said anything racist about arabs. Try again retard. Does Jedi Knight need to return to put you in your place again?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by shanek
Now, now, you wouldn't be falling back on your refuted idea that the frequency of reporting relates to frequency of occurence, would you?
Yup. As I recall, you unsuccessfully tried to refute it. You tried to make me prove the number of stories were an accurate representation of reality, rather than even trying to show that they weren't. My claim is merely that more "bad news" gun stories are reported than "good news" stories, a claim which I have supported with actual news stories. If you wish to counterclaim that this is because of media bias, then it is you who must support that claim.

The title and first post of this thread were an attempt to show, by news stories, that guns are good. Now, by news stories, I'm attmpting to show that this position is not supported by Richard's own choice of proof. Hoist by his own petard.

[shanek]

Originally posted by The Fool
Shane, I'm talking about your lowlife accusation regarding domestic violence....remember?

No, I don't. I remember you lying and say that I had done so, but that was just a lie. I was referring to the mentality of someone who just assumes that others would suddenly become murderers just because they have a gun; something that was backed up by evidence by another poster. But your bigoted little mind just refuses to see it that way.

Kind of like when you said that Libertarianism is anarchy, after having been told several times in other threads why it is not.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
You still haven't told me which security firms say that giving people what they want is a bad idea.

ANY security firm worth its salt will tell you it depends on the situation. For a bank robber, for example, the teller absolutely should give him what he wants; no more, no less. This is because there are other measures in place (security cameras etc.) to deal with the issue.

As for you being assaulted, well, read what one security expert has to say about it:

http://www.defendu.com/questions/quest12.htm

As I see it you have these possible responses:

Stop like a deer in the headlights and give him what he wants. Await your possible murder since your credit cards are worth more to the criminals if they aren’t reported stolen within the first 24 hours. If he lets you live, feel crummy that you enabled a predator to continue his career of preying on more innocent citizens.
Immediately turn and RUN – I mean sprint – away from the scene as soon as you have an inkling of trouble. Studies from LAPD show that even trained officers will lose a runner who can keep going for 200 yards or more. Get to a safe place and call 911. One caveat here, most likely your "flasher" will have an accomplice who is probably walking behind you and closing in on you. Your escape path should be at a right angle away from your attacker to avoid running into the second, unseen partner.
Quickly step off the sidewalk behind the cover of an automobile while drawing your licensed Glock Model 26. Challenge the attacker verbally with a loud, "STOP, DON’T MOVE!" If he stops, retreat from the situation and call 911. If he attacks you, keep focused on your front sight and fire two shots into the center mass of the target. Retreat and call 911.
Get cable and stay home at night.

And you never did answer me as to what a woman facing a rapist should do. Should she just give him what he wants?

[shanek]

Originally posted by The Fool

shane, sometimes your double standards are breathtaking....What about your favourite study, the silly phone poll anecdote collection of defensive gun use stories.

That's just another lie of yours. As I and many others have pointed out to you, that wasn't what Kleck's study was at all.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Tony


Yet more of your lying. I have NEVER said anything racist about arabs. Try again retard. Does Jedi Knight need to return to put you in your place again?
Firstly...I strongly advise you to think carefully before you consider going down the same track as Mr Knight. If he "put me in my place" I wonder what place that would be?....I'm here and he's not. So who put who in "their place"?

Ok....Never said anything Racist about Arabs eh??

Firstly, Racism....that would be something like the belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others. So if you make comments of the type "all Arabs are...." lets see what a 2 minute search on "tony" and "arabs" turned up.

These snippets are from various posts of yours....



They exhalt religion and race over the individual. They are quasi-fascists.

The arabs living in palestine do have an inferior culture

they are religious fanatics that kill in the name of god.

the arabs in palestine are muslim fanatics


I couldn't include some of your stuff Hal has deleted for being "grossly offensive" maybe that was about Arabs too?

And lastly, Apoligies again to richardg about the off topic posts but I do tend to get pestered by tony.... He gets upset when reality bites him on the arse.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tricky
Yup. As I recall, you unsuccessfully tried to refute it.

I DID refute it, by pointing out that you have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to support your assertion. It's time to be a skeptic, Tricky.

You tried to make me prove the number of stories were an accurate representation of reality,

Which you must do, since you're the one making the claim.

rather than even trying to show that they weren't.

I don't have to. YOU are the one making the claim. It is up to YOU to back it up. Why are all of you gun control people turning this around? Is it because you really cannot back up your assertions?

My claim is merely that more "bad news" gun stories are reported than "good news" stories,

Which is meaningless unless that ratio matches actual occurences in real life, as you just admitted.

If you wish to counterclaim that this is because of media bias,

That's not my claim at all. I'm just wanting you to prove your assertion that comparing the ratios between these stories gives us an accurate assessment of how often they're occuring in the real world.

The title and first post of this thread were an attempt to show, by news stories, that guns are good.

Which has NOTHING to do with the ratio of bad stories to good. We only need ONE to show that guns can be useful for self-defense.

[Tony]

Originally posted by The Fool


They exhalt religion and race over the individual. They are quasi-fascists.

The arabs living in palestine do have an inferior culture

they are religious fanatics that kill in the name of god.

the arabs in palestine are muslim fanatics



Only a simpleminded retard (there are lots of them here, see the thread about the judge wearing the Halloween costume) like you would interpret those comments as being racist against arabs. However, to your credit, I don’t think that is true, most likely you interpret them as being racist because you are transposing your own prejudices on me (the same could be said for the posters on the judge thread). Yet another possibility could be that you have been so intellectually beaten down by the PC nazis that you can no longer make an accurate assessment of real racism. Instead you knee-jerkingly label any controversial statement about the “minority” du-jour as “racist”.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by shanek


That's just another lie of yours. As I and many others have pointed out to you, that wasn't what Kleck's study was at all.
It was not a collection of anecdotes?...I was not collected by phone?

And I notice you have run away from your domestic violence assertions, still claiming you did not say it? want me to quote it back to you one more time... It seems to me that you now use the word liar in virtually every post. It's becoming somewhat of a fetish..... Can I expect an apology for the domestic violence cheap shot any time soon? or is ignoring it still the plan? Brave guy Shane, brave man indeed.

[shanek]

Originally posted by The Fool
It was not a collection of anecdotes?...I was not collected by phone?

It was an examination of several other studies that had already been conducted. The methodologies were examined, the bad data was thrown out, and the results published.

And I notice you have run away from your domestic violence assertions, still claiming you did not say it?

I have clarified it to you twice. That you don't even acknowledge the clarifications just further solidifies your bigotry and dishonesty.

It seems to me that you now use the word liar in virtually every post.

Because you have told a lie in every post.

Can I expect an apology for the domestic violence cheap shot any time soon?

No, because it is a lie of yours that I ever made it.

[crackmonkey]

Seriously - why do you guys bother? Shane seems to be impervious to logic altogether.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by shanek
I DID refute it, by pointing out that you have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to support your assertion. It's time to be a skeptic, Tricky.
My assertion is that there are more most gun news is bad news. I have supported it. You have done nothing to refute it.

Originally posted by shanek
Which you must do, since you're the one making the claim.
I am making no such claim. I am merely reporting the news. If you wish to say that the news is not an accurate reflection of reality, that is your claim, which you have steadfastly refused to support.

Originally posted by shanek
I don't have to. YOU are the one making the claim. It is up to YOU to back it up. Why are all of you gun control people turning this around? Is it because you really cannot back up your assertions?
I have backed up my assertions with numerous recent examples. Richard has backed up his assertions with a few, often non-recent examples. You have backed up your assertions with zilch.
Originally posted by shanek
Which is meaningless unless that ratio matches actual occurences in real life, as you just admitted.
I do admit it. You must also admit that "good news" gun stories are equally worthless, since there is no evidence that they represent reality. In fact, why do you even bother to read the news if you feel it is such a poor representation of reality?

Now I'm going to try to say this simply, so you can understand it.

If "good news" stories can be used as evidence that guns ownership is a good thing, then "bad news" stories can be used as evidence that gun ownership is a bad thing.

Originally posted by shanek
That's not my claim at all. I'm just wanting you to prove your assertion that comparing the ratios between these stories gives us an accurate assessment of how often they're occuring in the real world.
I'm not making that assertion, although it seems likely, barring some strange conspiracy to keep good gun news out of the newspaper. It is you who are making the assertion that the ratio of these stories is meaningless. Richard has attempted to support this assertion by linking an article that "good news" gun stories were underreported, yet it failed to even address the cases where "bad news" gun stories were underreported. That is like a headline that screams, "FLU VACCINE KILLS THREE".

Originally posted by shanek
Which has NOTHING to do with the ratio of bad stories to good. We only need ONE to show that guns can be useful for self-defense.
I have never claimed that guns were not useful for self defense. My claim is that (if newspaper stories are any indication) guns incidents are more likely to result in bad outcomes than they are in good. I stand by that claim.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Ralph

So you admit that facing a man with a knife might be a little risky........even though you stated your a pretty big, strong guy.

Sure! Risky for the other guy! But the reality is that, here in Australia, such a situation would be an extreme rarity anyway. But I'm beginning to be concerned about where YOU come from if you believe you have dress to expect such violence daily... And this is precisely the issue I raised earlier in this thread - is your neighbourhood THAT violent? Really?

If you have your doubts......how can you expect a 73 year old man to defend himself against a man holding what amounts to a knife to his wife's throat.

OK, let's get this straight. The thief was attacking the wife, not the man. The man had the gun, not the wife. She jumped out of the way and THEN the man shot at the thief. Looks like the man wasn't silly enough to try and shoot the thief while he still held the wife, and she did all the action-hero stuff by jumping out of the away...while she was unarmed, I note. The thief did not let her go just because the man had a gun (was he using the wife as a shield perhaps?).

Anyway, once she was out of the way, jumping or even pushed, the thief was left alone with a just small knife. As I said previously, if it were me in this situation, I would have dealt with this guy face-to-face no problems without using a gun. Plus I'd be willing to suggest that a 4-iron golf club would have been a useful persuader even in the hands of a 73 year old man.

A "little 4 inch knife" is is capable of killing someone.

Most combat soldiers can kill quite efficiently with their bare hands. Or car-keys. Or a pencil. Oh, I see! The only solution you can see is having a bigger and louder weapon! OK, I get it. So, why aren't bazookas standard issue for retired folk??

I still think that in this situation......a gun was best choice..............

So now you are admitting that there was actually a choice! Well, that's progress anyway. What were the alternatives you considered?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tricky

My assertion is that there are more most gun news is bad news. I have supported it. You have done nothing to refute it.

That is not what I am claiming to ahve refuted. I am just refuting the notion that this effect tells us anything useful.

I am making no such claim. I am merely reporting the news.

Well, you must think there is some use to it, otherwise why bother to go through the trouble of collecting all of these stories? You made a clear implication, and now you've insulated yourself from having to support that insulation while clearly propagating it.

I do admit it. You must also admit that "good news" gun stories are equally worthless, since there is no evidence that they represent reality.

The frequency in which they occur is worthless, yes, but their existence itself, as I have stated several times already, proves conclusively that there are occasions where a gun is useful for defense.

If "good news" stories can be used as evidence that guns ownership is a good thing, then "bad news" stories can be used as evidence that gun ownership is a bad thing.

Not at all. The situation is much more complex than that. As far as the idea that guns are not good tools for self-defense, the "good news" stories support that regardless of how many "bad news" stories there are.

I'm not making that assertion,

But then:

My claim is that (if newspaper stories are any indication) guns incidents are more likely to result in bad outcomes than they are in good. I stand by that claim.

Wait a minute—I thought you just said you weren't making that assertion! Make up your mind, will you?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by shanek
That is not what I am claiming to ahve refuted. I am just refuting the notion that this effect tells us anything useful.
Then you must agree that the predicate on which this thread was founded is useless.

Funny, you never seem to have the same objection to "good news" stories. Let's see you rake Richard over the coals for posting news stories, eh?
Originally posted by shanek

Well, you must think there is some use to it, otherwise why bother to go through the trouble of collecting all of these stories? You made a clear implication, and now you've insulated yourself from having to support that insulation while clearly propagating it.
In order to make the point that an occasional news story about the defensive use of guns does not mean that in the whole, gun ownership is good. By using the same tools as the originator of this thread, I debunk his use of them.

Originally posted by shanek
The frequency in which they occur is worthless, yes, but their existence itself, as I have stated several times already, proves conclusively that there are occasions where a gun is useful for defense.
The statistics of gun use are not worthless, although they are incomplete, on both ends. That guns are occasionally useful for defense has never been seriously questioned. What is questioned is if that occasional use in society outweighs their detriment to society. Now perhaps you might argue the libertarian position that it doesn't matter about the "good of society", so long as individual rights are preserved. If so, I differ with you here.

Originally posted by shanek
Not at all. The situation is much more complex than that. As far as the idea that guns are not good tools for self-defense, the "good news" stories support that regardless of how many "bad news" stories there are.
If a single case of gun use for self defense was counterbalanced by a million murders, would you then agree that guns were a good tool for self-defense? A thousand? A hundred? What is the cut-off point for you to agree that guns do more damage than good?

Originally posted by shanek
Wait a minute—I thought you just said you weren't making that assertion! Make up your mind, will you?
What part of
Tricky said
(if newspaper stories are any indication)
do you not understand? Richard has used news stories to indicate guns are good. I have presented opposing news stories. The playing field is level here, Shane. If you want to call fouls, then call them on both teams.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by shanek

I have clarified it to you twice. That you don't even acknowledge the clarifications just further solidifies your bigotry and dishonesty.

what is the point......you have not clarified anything. You have simply ignored the statement since you made it....

Here it is again

I was talking about domestic violence towards women and how guns make this more deadly, to which you said... And I quote word for word....


I really have to worry about the mental stablility of someone who would automatically leap to such a conclusion...It's as if they're saying that's what they would do in such a situation, and they're extrapolating to the rest of the population.

so shane? where are these "clarifications"?? because as much as I drag you back to this statement again and again you have simply denied you did it and then try to ignored it ever since....come on shane, no need to be a coward.

Your "clarification" cleverly left out the "thats what they would do in such a situation" which is where you suggest I want to commit domestic abuse....you are a low piece of goods shane, at least Tony doesn't try to deny what he says.....
anyway...I'm done with you. Pointless exercise debating aything with Mr Selective memory.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Tony


Only a simpleminded retard (there are lots of them here, see the thread about the judge wearing the Halloween costume) like you would interpret those comments as being racist against arabs. However, to your credit, I don’t think that is true, most likely you interpret them as being racist because you are transposing your own prejudices on me (the same could be said for the posters on the judge thread). Yet another possibility could be that you have been so intellectually beaten down by the PC nazis that you can no longer make an accurate assessment of real racism. Instead you knee-jerkingly label any controversial statement about the “minority” du-jour as “racist”.

And people will read what you wrote and make their own Judgement Tony....

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tricky
Then you must agree that the predicate on which this thread was founded is useless.

Funny, you never seem to have the same objection to "good news" stories. Let's see you rake Richard over the coals for posting news stories, eh?

I've explained this to you several times. If you don't get it by now, you're hopeless.

The statistics of gun use are not worthless, although they are incomplete, on both ends.

Incomplete statistics are worthless.

That guns are occasionally useful for defense has never been seriously questioned. What is questioned is if that occasional use in society outweighs their detriment to society.

No, what is being asserted is that other people misusing guns somehow means we should take the right to own guns away from the people who aren't misusing them, to the extent of saying they should DIE by having their means of defense taken from them. Regardless of how many people lie on either side of that, it is complete insanity.

What part of

do you not understand?

I understand it perfectly...I understand that your conclusion assumes that the frequency of newspaper stories are indicative of the frequency of occurence in the real world, and that's what I've spend all of these posts refuting!

[Richard G]

The statistics of gun use are not worthless, although they are incomplete, on both ends. That guns are occasionally useful for defense has never been seriously questioned. What is questioned is if that occasional use in society outweighs their detriment to society.

Well said. That is the root of the matter isnt it? And it only took us 360 posts to dig it out.

I'm convinced for the good. There are more firearms than people in the U.S., and almost half of the U.S. population owns them. Yet deaths as a result of firearms are only 25,000 annualy, most violent offenders becoming a victim of their chosen lifestyle. Thats a drop in the bucket. (when put into perspective)

Competitve shooting, and hunting are other outlets of gun ownership, each with benefits of their own.

A final line in the sand to be drawn in the sand against a run away goverment is an immeasurbly immportant benefit.

I think the largest benefit is upon the mind. A heavy dose of morality, and responsibility that builds character comes with responsible gun ownership. (no, giving guns to crooks aren't won't make them the pope :) )

What bothers me most, (slightly off topic), are violent repeat offenders that the justice system keeps putting back onto the street. Keep reading, not just those firearm related news stories gone bad, but any related violent crime carefully, and you will find most are ex-felons who should never have been out of prison to begin with.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by shanek

I've explained this to you several times. If you don't get it by now, you're hopeless.
Nope. You've never explanined to me, or anyone else, why you find anti-gun news items worthless but have no problem with pro-gun news items. What explanations you have given have been not just worthless, but illogical.
Originally posted by shanek
Incomplete statistics are worthless.
Got a red hot flash for you Shanek. All statistics are incomplete. Only a total census of people/events/news_items can be true. You have to evaluate the sampling techniques. I have not seen you make any believable case for news stories being sampled incorrectly. So don't believe them, if you choose. But don't turn around and give credence to similarly poor sampling from other sources.
Originally posted by shanek
No, what is being asserted is that other people misusing guns somehow means we should take the right to own guns away from the people who aren't misusing them, to the extent of saying they should DIE by having their means of defense taken from them. Regardless of how many people lie on either side of that, it is complete insanity.
Really? Even if it is shown that more die by having their means of defense so universally available? Why is it you chose not to respond to my previous question?
Tricky asked
If a single case of gun use for self defense was counterbalanced by a million murders, would you then agree that guns were a good tool for self-defense? A thousand? A hundred? What is the cut-off point for you to agree that guns do more damage than good?
I really want to know. At what point (for you) does the common good outweigh the individual right to own guns. Is there any such point?

Originally posted by shanek
I understand it perfectly...I understand that your conclusion assumes that the frequency of newspaper stories are indicative of the frequency of occurence in the real world, and that's what I've spend all of these posts refuting!
And yet you've spent not a moment trying to show why you think they aren't indicatave of the real world, but numerous moments (and posts) demanding that I prove that they are.

Ask yourself this then. Why must Richard go to news items all over the country and use months-old articles, most of which are not what you would call headline news, to compete with the articles that I can pull out every day from local newspapers? Does your keen analytical mind find the suggestion that there might actually be some tiny parcel of truth in the suggestion that bad gun incidents are more frequent than good ones? If not, then you must show some reason why you believe such a massive cover-up to be happening.

I submit that you have not refuted a thing, but only voiced your own whiny, impotent objections.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by shanek


ANY security firm worth its salt will tell you it depends on the situation. For a bank robber, for example, the teller absolutely should give him what he wants; no more, no less. This is because there are other measures in place (security cameras etc.) to deal with the issue.

As for you being assaulted, well, read what one security expert has to say about it:

http://www.defendu.com/questions/quest12.htm



And you never did answer me as to what a woman facing a rapist should do. Should she just give him what he wants?

:roll:

So that's the 'more and more' security people is it? Not the police, but a group calling itself 'defend university' which says (http://www.defendu.com/questions/quest009.htm):

I know the policy to which you refer -- several convenience store employees have been fired after refusing to comply with a store robbery. This is a huge change from 15-20 years ago when robbery-plagued convenience and liquor stores hired "troubleshooters" or "loss prevention officers". I knew one of these troubleshooters. He was assigned to trouble spots with a large convenience store chain. He is one of the toughest guys I know. A former biker, his job was to send a message to the bad guys in the area that this particular store was off limits. His weapon of choice was a sawed-off, double-barreled coach gun. With the new policy of total compliance, however, I feel the stores have encouraged more lawlessness. Now people walk out of stores with 30-packs of beer (it’s called a "beer run") with impunity.

You're a sad, saaad man shanek.

As to rape, that's a different story. The last thing the woman should do is comply. The same safety officer that briefed me on hold ups recommended that women punch, kick and scream as much as possible to get attention. How useful is a gun in a rape situation? Does the rapist approach the woman slowly, drooling, wearing a t-shirt that says, "YES! I'M A RAPIST!"? Didn't think so. As I said earlier in this thread, guns aren't terribly useful.

"Defend University". That's great. I should bookmark that site.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Seriously - why do you guys bother? Shane seems to be impervious to logic altogether.

I don't know why everyone else does, but I find shanek's lunacy amusing.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Ralph



I've tried to keep my comments in line with the original post. I think the point was that sometimes the use and possesion of a firearm can have a positive rather than a negative outcome.

When somethings posted that you don't want to address....you take the thread in a different direction..........usually in the general vicinity of Uranus.

Let me try explaining my post in a different way so that you can understand what I'm trying to say.


My post had NOTHING to do with whether or not law enforcement officials should be armed. I never suggested you said they shouldn't be. My point was a gun can be a very effective deterrent against terrorists & criminals.

Maybe a little quiz will help you understand.

If you're planning on hijacking an airliner who are you most likely to be worried about.

A.....a man who feels terrorist attacks are "indefensible" and he should just comply----even though they might be planning on killing him.

B.......A sky Marshalll

C.......A Sky marshall with a cricket bat.

D.....A sky marshall with a boxcutter.

E.....A sky marshall with a gun.


Personally--If I'm on a plane with an ARMED skymarshall and ARMED pilots......I don't feel the need for passengers (inc me) to be armed. You have.several armed trained professionals on board who can probably do that better than I can.

When I leave the plane though...........they're not coming along.


Question 2..........

You've found out you can make a pretty good living robbing the residents of a nearby retirement community. You're biggest threat is what????

A.....A 73 year old man who feels being robbed by thugs is "indefensible" and he should just comply........even though they may try to kill him.

B.....A 73 year old man with a cricket bat.

C..A 73 year old man with a boxcutter.

D.....A 73 year old man with a loaded 12 gauge pump shotgun.


Guns are very effective equilizers. They're what allows a pilot to overcome terrorists armed with boxcutters. They're what allows the elderly to overcome thugs who think they're "easy pickings".


If you disagreewith my point------that guns AREN'T effective deterrents to terrorists & criminals......then just say so & state why you feel that way rather than twisting the meaning of everything you don't agree with...............

First of all, you've fallen into the usual trap that the 'guns for all' advocates fall into: the apples and oranges comparison. A sky marshall is a trained specialist, serving a specific purpose. A 73 year old (or most average citizens) is not.

Second of all, if you think that burglars go into houses that are occupied with a view to confrontation, you are also wrong. In fact, justifiable homicide (where a gun is used to kill an intruder) is rare compared to the number of people who die because of the abundance of arms:

More kids, teenagers and adult family members are dying from firearms in their own home than criminal intruders. When someone is home, a gun is used for protection in fewer than two percent of home invasion crimes.[2] You may be surprised to know that, in 1999, according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Report, there were only 154 justifiable homicides committed by private citizens with a firearm compared with a total of 8,259 firearm murders in the United States.

Source: Million Mom March (http://www.millionmommarch.org/facts/issuebriefs/gunhome.asp) (figures quoted are cited)

So what we can see is that it isn't worth having a gun around overall on the off-chance that you can shoot an intruder with it. That gun you have for intruders is more likely to kill your wife, your friend, or one of your kids.

Richard's anecdote at the beginning of this thread only goes further to support this. The man who shot the intruder nearly had a tragedy on his hands. If the shot had left the intruder a little less wounded, there's a pretty good chance his wife would be dead. That's why police say don't play the hero (but not 'Defend University... pffffft!).

Guns in the hands of specialists in certain environments (such as a plane) can be effective against terrorists. Guns in everyones' hands are not effective against criminals.

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


First of all, you've fallen into the usual trap that the 'guns for all' advocates fall into: the apples and oranges comparison. A sky marshall is a trained specialist, serving a specific purpose. A 73 year old (or most average citizens) is not.

Second of all, if you think that burglars go into houses that are occupied with a view to confrontation, you are also wrong. In fact, justifiable homicide (where a gun is used to kill an intruder) is rare compared to the number of people who die because of the abundance of arms:



Source: Million Mom March (http://www.millionmommarch.org/facts/issuebriefs/gunhome.asp) (figures quoted are cited)

So what we can see is that it isn't worth having a gun around overall on the off-chance that you can shoot an intruder with it. That gun you have for intruders is more likely to kill your wife, your friend, or one of your kids.

Richard's anecdote at the beginning of this thread only goes further to support this. The man who shot the intruder nearly had a tragedy on his hands. If the shot had left the intruder a little less wounded, there's a pretty good chance his wife would be dead. That's why police say don't play the hero (but not 'Defend University... pffffft!).

Guns in the hands of specialists in certain environments (such as a plane) can be effective against terrorists. Guns in everyones' hands are not effective against criminals. \

The man "nearly had a tragedy" because one of those "burglars who never entered occupied homes" doesn't seem to have read your "facts". There was no sky marshall or other trained professional around to help him.

He DIDN'T have a tragedy becuase he had access to a gun & knew how to use it.

As usual you ignored the point of the thread----the fact that guns are a deterrent and PREVENT crimes and quoted stats that don't take that into account.


I'll ask you what I asked Yeti..........what specific measures should be taken to reduce the death toll???

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by shanek


And if anyone goes around advocating sword control, I will fight just as vigorously for the right to keep and bear swords.

(BTW, I seem to recall reading that Japan tried a bit of sword control once, and it didn't work out quite as well as they had planned...)

No idea what all that's in response to, but y'know, good luck and all that...

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Ralph
\

The man "nearly had a tragedy" because one of those "burglars who never entered occupied homes" doesn't seem to have read your "facts". There was no sky marshall or other trained professional around to help him.

He DIDN'T have a tragedy becuase he had access to a gun & knew how to use it.

As usual you ignored the point of the thread----the fact that guns are a deterrent and PREVENT crimes and quoted stats that don't take that into account.


I'll ask you what I asked Yeti..........what specific measures should be taken to reduce the death toll???

He may well have not had a tragedy- if the burglar was inclined to kill people at the drop of a hat, he wouldn't be mucking around holding shears to peoples' necks, now, would he? Especially if the people in question are in their 70's. If he really was on a kill-crazy rampage, he would have killed them first and looted them later.

As to how the death toll should be reduced (and what have I told you about the question marks? You only need one, not three- don't be such a 'mark-hog), I've already answered that question. In this thread. And, I hate to say it, but I'm getting bored with repeating myself. Go fish it out for yourself.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
blah blah blah whine whine whine insult insult insult

Your complete inabilty to address the source's arguments and instead resort to ad hominem attacks has been noted.

I've looked around a lot of security sites and the only time I see ANY of them recommend that you "give him what he wants" in such an occasion is when he is armed and you are not.

As to rape, that's a different story. The last thing the woman should do is comply.

Ah, so you DO agree that in some cases compliance is a bad thing. Progress!

The same safety officer that briefed me on hold ups recommended that women punch, kick and scream as much as possible to get attention.

Oh, yeah, that'll really stop your average rapist.

How useful is a gun in a rape situation?

On many occasions, it has proved to be very, very useful.

http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles/ayoob65.html

In a Los Angeles case, the rapist grabbed a woman on the street and was forcing her to the ground and attempting the rape when she drew her miniature Freedom Arms .22 Magnum, shoved the muzzle into his chest, and inflicted a swiftly-fatal contact wound. The sympathetic District Attorney’s office ruled the shooting itself a justifiable homicide, and allowed her to plead guilty to a misdemeanor with no time served for illegally carrying a concealed and loaded handgun.

Of course, the victim doesn’t need to wait for the rape to begin, either. One of my graduates faced a rapist who had broken into her home while she was at work. She drew her licensed SIG .380 and ordered him to halt. He came toward her. She shot him in the wrist. He disobeyed her command again, and this time she shot him in the center of the chest, ending the matter decisively. He died from the wound. The grand jury refused to indict her, effectively ruling the death a justifiable homicide.

Another of my female graduates wasn’t able to get to her gun when an evening of drinking with a man she liked enough to bring home turned into date rape. She managed to get out of his arms on a pretext, and grabbed her Smith & Wesson .22 revolver. She ordered him to leave. He lunged at her in a rage, obviously about to take the gun and turn it against her, and she emptied it into him. He staggered into an outside hall and died. This, too, was ruled a justifiable homicide. Neither of these killings resulted in a lawsuit.

Review the above. Six women. Four rapes prevented. Six very possible murders prevented. Four dead attackers, and two crippled for life as a result of their own vicious misadventure. Only one of these six women criminally charged, and she, finally acquitted. There are lessons here.

It's even useful to those who don't carry firearms:

http://www.ohioccw.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1140

In 1966 the police in Orlando, Florida, responded to a rape epidemic by embarking on a highly publicized program to train 2,500 women in firearm use. The next year rape fell by 88 percent in Orlando (the only major city to experience a decrease that year); burglary fell by 25 percent. Not one of the 2,500 women actually ended up firing her weapon; the deterrent effect of the publicity sufficed." (Congressional Record, 99th Cong., 2d sess., January 30, 1968, p. 1496, n. 7)

Does the rapist approach the woman slowly, drooling, wearing a t-shirt that says, "YES! I'M A RAPIST!"? Didn't think so. As I said earlier in this thread, guns aren't terribly useful.

Ignore reality all you want; it doesn't change it.

(Note to Tricky: do you see now why the good story/bad story comparisons are invalid? There is a direct claim here that guns aren't useful in defense against a rapist. The "good news" stories refute this, and the "bad news" stories do nothing to support it.)

The bottom line is, you just think it's somehow better for a woman to be raped and end up dead in an alley strangled with her own pantyhose than for that same woman to explain to the police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


He may well have not had a tragedy- if the burglar was inclined to kill people at the drop of a hat, he wouldn't be mucking around holding shears to peoples' necks, now, would he? Especially if the people in question are in their 70's. If he really was on a kill-crazy rampage, he would have killed them first and looted them later.

As to how the death toll should be reduced (and what have I told you about the question marks? You only need one, not three- don't be such a 'mark-hog), I've already answered that question. In this thread. And, I hate to say it, but I'm getting bored with repeating myself. Go fish it out for yourself.
What are you --a mind reader?????????..........."Come see the amazing Manifesto the Magnificent..........watch him read the minds of criminals and accurately predict their behavior!!!!!!"


Sometimes---even after complying and handing over the money...the victims are murdered. If I knew for a fact that
all they wanted was my TV...they're welcome to it. Most people don't have the luxury of being able to read minds as you do.

I've followed this thread from the start. I haven't seen you offer any specific solutions to the problem of gun violence.

You're good at criticizing, your great at taking threads in another direction, and you pick more cherries than a migrant farm worker.

I haven't seen any solutions though. Not surprising since you don't have any..........

[Thanz]

Originally posted by shanek

But your clear implication was that you wouldn't have to worry about it. By the way, your alarm system won't protect you when you're home.
First, I don't worry about to any significant degree.

Second, why wouldn't my alarm system protect me when I am home? Are you assuming that it is not on when I am home? Also, the most important part of the alarm system is the sticker you put in the window and the sign you put in your garden. If a criminal knows there is an alarm system that is monitored remotely, they are far more likely to skip you house and move to an easier target.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Thanz
Second, why wouldn't my alarm system protect me when I am home? Are you assuming that it is not on when I am home?

And what do you do once it's triggered? Wait for the police? How long does that take? Three minutes? Five? You don't think an assailant could kill you or at least do you tremendous harm during that time?

How does the alarm system protect your from this?

Also, the most important part of the alarm system is the sticker you put in the window and the sign you put in your garden. If a criminal knows there is an alarm system that is monitored remotely, they are far more likely to skip you house and move to an easier target.

Or it could be that the alarm sign is a signal to the thief that you have something worth stealing. If he thinks he can get in and out before the cops get there, he might well go for it. Houses with alarm systems, with the signs out front, get broken into all the time. As I said, you have a false sense of security.

BTW, since you're so into signs, why not stick one in your yard that says, "ATTENTION CRIMINALS: We are for gun control. WE OWN NO FIREARMS"?

[Tricky]

There is what could possibly be called a "good news" gun story in the local paper today.
A Baytown man was shot and killed early Saturday when a bystander caught him breaking into cars at a southeast Houston apartment complex, police said. (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2262325)

Oddly, the "hero" who bravely defended the property of others is not stepping forward to identify himself. As we all know, car theft should be punishable by death, with a single private citizen being judge, jury, and executioner.

Still, a "bad guy" died and people's property is safe. I guess that counts as good news, though this cannot be counted as an example of a gun used in self-defense.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Ralph

What are you --a mind reader?????????..........."Come see the amazing Manifesto the Magnificent..........watch him read the minds of criminals and accurately predict their behavior!!!!!!"

Then why do you think he didn't kill the people in the house straight away, instead of giving them the opportunity to get a weapon?

Sometimes---even after complying and handing over the money...the victims are murdered.
According to you, anyway.

I've followed this thread from the start.
Wouldn't know it to read your posts. I haven't seen you offer any specific solutions to the problem of gun violence.
Guess yer gonna hafta go back and read the thread again.


You're good at criticizing, your great at taking threads in another direction, and you pick more cherries than a migrant farm worker.

I haven't seen any solutions though. Not surprising since you don't have any..........

If you spent less time abusing punctuation marks and more time reading, this debate could progress a lot further.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by shanek

I've looked around a lot of security sites and the only time I see ANY of them recommend that you "give him what he wants" in such an occasion is when he is armed and you are not.

Then let's see the links. Unless, of course, you're talking out of your butt.


Oh, yeah, that'll really stop your average rapist.
You've demonstrated how much knowledge you have of crime numerous times in this forum. Not much. You seem to think that passengers carrying guns on a plane is a good idea. You think that people being held up in their house should try to open fire. You ignore the fact that very rarely to guns work against criminals. Which brings me to...

http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles/ayoob65.html[/url]

From the same link:

Consider the case of People of California v. Inez Garcia. Some years ago, Ms. Garcia was raped in an apartment by multiple attackers. After they had left, the hysterical victim armed herself with a .22 rifle and staggered into the street. She soon encountered a couple of the perpetrators. When one of them reached for his knife, she shot him dead. She was criminally charged
(my italics)
So... How did the gun prevent this pack-rape from happening? Oh, it didn't. Well, never mind, we'll just ignore that. We'll also ignore the statistics that say that guns only prevent 2% of home invasions. Is 154 stopped home invasions worth 8000 deaths? In the shanek world, maybe.


It's even useful to those who don't carry firearms:

http://www.ohioccw.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1140
Your knowledge of statistics shining through again. You can't draw any conclusions from a change in a single year. Statistics can be a very clumsy weapon in the wrong hands. Talk to your maths teacher before you try to use them again.


The bottom line is, you just think it's somehow better for a woman to be raped and end up dead in an alley strangled with her own pantyhose than for that same woman to explain to the police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.
Shanek doesn't use strawman arguments. Nope. Nosiree.

[Mr Manifesto]

Oh, nearly forgot. From backwoodshome link:

In a Los Angeles case, the rapist grabbed a woman on the street and was forcing her to the ground and attempting the rape when she drew her miniature Freedom Arms .22 Magnum, shoved the muzzle into his chest, and inflicted a swiftly-fatal contact wound. The sympathetic District Attorney’s office ruled the shooting itself a justifiable homicide, and allowed her to plead guilty to a misdemeanor with no time served for illegally carrying a concealed and loaded handgun.

No citation. Yet there was a citation for the case that I quoted in the previous post. Any reason why that was?

[Thanz]

Originally posted by shanek

And what do you do once it's triggered? Wait for the police? How long does that take? Three minutes? Five? You don't think an assailant could kill you or at least do you tremendous harm during that time?

How does the alarm system protect your from this?
I am saying that an assailant probably won't bother sticking around to get caught once the alarm goes off. you seem to be thinking that some guy is going to break into my home, ignore the alarm and then specifically go after me and my family? This only applies to two categories of people - they are either crazy or they are specifically there to do me or my family specific harm. I don't have any enemies, and I am not afraid that my house will be targeted by some psycho.

Or it could be that the alarm sign is a signal to the thief that you have something worth stealing. If he thinks he can get in and out before the cops get there, he might well go for it. Houses with alarm systems, with the signs out front, get broken into all the time. As I said, you have a false sense of security.
Would he? Or do you think it far more likely that he will go to one of my neighbours where he doesn't have to put up with an alarm system? Alarm systems are cheap - it is not a signal that I have the crown jewels inside. Criminals want to break in, steal some easily convertible things (electronics, jewellery, or any cash they can find) and get out. They are not going to pick my small house with an alarm system on a busy street if they can pick a bigger house, on a quiet street, without an alarm, two blocks away. As I said, I have a realistic sense of security.

BTW, since you're so into signs, why not stick one in your yard that says, "ATTENTION CRIMINALS: We are for gun control. WE OWN NO FIREARMS"?
Do you actually think this is clever? That this is some kind of witty retort? :rolleyes:

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
[handwaving and usual dishonest tactics removed]

(my italics)
So... How did the gun prevent this pack-rape from happening? Oh, it didn't. Well, never mind, we'll just ignore that.

Bu, the gun did prevent another attack on her and her possible murder after running into the perps again. Well, never mind, we'll just ignore that.

We'll also ignore the statistics that say that guns only prevent 2% of home invasions. Is 154 stopped home invasions worth 8000 deaths? In the shanek world, maybe.

And we'll just ignore the fact that there is no reason to believe that all or even most of those 8000 deaths would be prevented by gun control legislation. Is employing a tyrannical measure that has been shown not to work in the past just to placate the irrational fears of many people worth 154 lives? In the Mr. Manifesto world, maybe.

Your knowledge of statistics shining through again. You can't draw any conclusions from a change in a single year.

Once again, you lie because you're caught out. You have completely disregarded even the existance of this sentence:

Five years later Orlando's rape rate was still 13 percent below the pre-program level, whereas the surrounding standard metropolitan area had suffered a 308 percent increase.

FIVE years, not one.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
No citation. Yet there was a citation for the case that I quoted in the previous post. Any reason why that was?

What does the citation have to do with anything? And don't you think anything of the fact that she had to plead guilty to a misdemeanor just for possessing the very instrument that saved her from rape?

I mean, what was that prosecurity saying—that it was okay for her to use it, but not okay for her to have it in the first place? Does this make sense to anyone???

[shanek]

Originally posted by Thanz
I am saying that an assailant probably won't bother sticking around to get caught once the alarm goes off.

Probably not. Maybe even usually not. But not 100% of the time.

Would he? Or do you think it far more likely that he will go to one of my neighbours where he doesn't have to put up with an alarm system?

I guess it all depends on whether or not he feels the extra value of the stuff he would get from your house as opposed to your neighbors makes it worth the risk.

Alarm systems are cheap

But they do require a good credit rating, which means you will have to have bnought stuff on credit in the past, which means that you should have some nice stuff.

Do you actually think this is clever? That this is some kind of witty retort? :rolleyes:

No, it's a question. Why don't you answer it?

[Thanz]

Originally posted by shanek

Probably not. Maybe even usually not. But not 100% of the time.
Will having a gun deter the assailant? Probably. Maybe even usually. But not 100% of the time.

Get it, shanek? Not being 100% safe does not mean that I have a "false sense of security". They are not equivalent.

I guess it all depends on whether or not he feels the extra value of the stuff he would get from your house as opposed to your neighbors makes it worth the risk.
And what about what I have told you would give you this impression? Was it the fact that I have the smallest house in a good neighbourhood? Was it the the busy street I live on?

The robber doesn't know if I have good stuff or crap. My house, being small and on a busy street, is high risk/low reward for the robber even before we get into the alrm system. The alarm should be the straw that breaks the camels back. Why break into my house when neither of my two neighbours have alarms? Or where there are larger non-alarmed homes a 2 minute walk away, on a quieter street?

But they do require a good credit rating, which means you will have to have bnought stuff on credit in the past, which means that you should have some nice stuff.
They require me to have the ability to pay $25 a month for monitoring. I must be Daddy Warbucks or something.

No, it's a question. Why don't you answer it? I didn;'t answer it because I thought it was a stupid rhetorical questions, but if you really want to know, I don't think that I'll be putting up that sign.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


I don't know why everyone else does, but I find shanek's lunacy amusing.

Not nearly amusing as your hypocrisy, and definitely not as disturbing as your hatred of freedom and personal independence.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Thanz

Will having a gun deter the assailant? Probably. Maybe even usually. But not 100% of the time.

And I am not claiming that it will. I am claiming that, since it probably will and usually will, it makes no sense to take that option away from people by force. Let them decide for themselves.

Get it, shanek? Not being 100% safe does not mean that I have a "false sense of security". They are not equivalent.

No; but not being realistic about your risk certainly does.

And what about what I have told you would give you this impression?

Nothing; I'm just answering your question.

The robber doesn't know if I have good stuff or crap.

The robber can get pretty good indications, though.

They require me to have the ability to pay $25 a month for monitoring. I must be Daddy Warbucks or something.

I can pay more than that per month, but I still wasn't able to get an alarm system because of my credit, which is actually not really bad.

I didn;'t answer it because I thought it was a stupid rhetorical questions, but if you really want to know, I don't think that I'll be putting up that sign.

Why not?

[Thanz]

Originally posted by shanek

No; but not being realistic about your risk certainly does.
And you haven't told me anything to support your assertion that my sense of security is not realistic.

I can pay more than that per month, but I still wasn't able to get an alarm system because of my credit, which is actually not really bad.
When I got mine I don't think that they even did a credit check. I think that they are either on direct withdrawal from my account or they charge my credit card (my wife pays the bills, so I am not sure which). How did your credit pooch the alarm deal?

Why not?
I don't need a reason to not put up a sign in my window - you need to provide me a reason to put up the sign in the first place. What benefits would your sign give me? Why should I go through the effort to put it up?

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

Then why do you think he didn't kill the people in the house straight away, instead of giving them the opportunity to get a weapon?
[b]
According to you, anyway.
[b]
Wouldn't know it to read your posts.[b]
Guess yer gonna hafta go back and read the thread again.

[b]

If you spent less time abusing punctuation marks and more time reading, this debate could progress a lot further.

In other words......you really don't have anything to offer in the way of specific solutions to reduce all this gun violence.

When it comes to criticism or dredging up stats you're never at a loss for words. When it comes to providing solutions though.....all you can do is criticize my punctuation.......

C'mon Manifesto.....give me some ideas beyond vague generalities or things we allready do like allowing guns on planes or not allowing everybody to have guns.

Try not to get too upset over my punctuation. I'd hate to have to add you to my list of "people who shouldn't be allowed to have guns"...........

[Ralph]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


Do that at the federal level for all gun purchases and ENFORCE it!

I would have no problem lifting the assault rifle, high-capacity magazine, etc bans if the cost of entry to ownership was more signifigant. Ammo should be tightly regulated as well.

The problem currently is that the regulation of gun sales is so lax its trivial for fencers and runners to make large anonymous purchases and then resell them to criminals. The enforcement is also so lax that gun stores are rarely punished for ignoring existing regulations.

If the above didn't make a signifigant dent in gun crime and fatalities (at least 50% after several years), I would endorse a total ban of all non-sporting and automatic weapons.

Still waiting for a reply on this...........

What specific non-sporting guns should be banned?????????.....

Anybody else have any suggestions?????

Mr Manifesto possibly........................

[shanek]

Originally posted by Thanz
When I got mine I don't think that they even did a credit check. I think that they are either on direct withdrawal from my account or they charge my credit card (my wife pays the bills, so I am not sure which). How did your credit pooch the alarm deal?

They just said my credit wasn't good enough. They were going to do the automatic withdrawl. I went through three different alarm companies, and they all ended up the same thing.

I don't need a reason to not put up a sign in my window - you need to provide me a reason to put up the sign in the first place. What benefits would your sign give me? Why should I go through the effort to put it up?

Well, if you're right about gun control, then it should be an announcement that your house is a place where gun deaths aren't going to happen. You would be standing by your principles. Does that not mean anything?

Or are you actually afraid of something bad happening if you put that sign up?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Ralph
Still waiting for a reply on this...........

EvilYeti doesn't answer questions. Give him time, and he'll be whining about how he's already answered you and he doesn't have to do anything else; of course, he won't actually point you to any of his alleged previous answers...

[Thanz]

Originally posted by shanek

Well, if you're right about gun control, then it should be an announcement that your house is a place where gun deaths aren't going to happen. You would be standing by your principles. Does that not mean anything?
This is really rich. There is no smiley here, so I guess you are actually serious. Well. I also stand against the death penalty, for gay marriage and against kicking puppies. I don't have any signs proclaiming those principles. It would be an announcement that there will be no state-sanctioned deaths, gay marriage bashing or puppy kicking in my house. Somehow, I haven't felt the need to announce any of those, just like the fact that I don't own a gun.
Or are you actually afraid of something bad happening if you put that sign up?
Actually, yes. I'm afraid that my friends and family will see it when they come to visit and ask "Dude - why do you have that stupid sign in your window?"

[Ralph]

Originally posted by shanek


EvilYeti doesn't answer questions. Give him time, and he'll be whining about how he's already answered you and he doesn't have to do anything else; of course, he won't actually point you to any of his alleged previous answers...

Yeah....now that you mention it...that seems to standard procedure for all the critics here.................Easy to be a critic......coming up with solutions is a little tougher...

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Thanz

This is really rich. There is no smiley here, so I guess you are actually serious. Well. I also stand against the death penalty, for gay marriage and against kicking puppies. I don't have any signs proclaiming those principles. It would be an announcement that there will be no state-sanctioned deaths, gay marriage bashing or puppy kicking in my house. Somehow, I haven't felt the need to announce any of those, just like the fact that I don't own a gun.
[B]
Actually, yes. I'm afraid that my friends and family will see it when they come to visit and ask "Dude - why do you have that stupid sign in your window?"


Have you considered the fact that if you live in one of those "gun free" cities like London or Chicago for example......you may as well put out a big sign saying "No weapons here".

You've given criminals a government guarantee that while their victims might have things like golf clubs and cricket bats..........they will NOT have firearms........

It makes life a lot easier if you don't have to take those things into account............

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Ralph


Still waiting for a reply on this...........

What specific non-sporting guns should be banned?????????.....



Sorry, the sheer volume of noise on this thread makes it difficult to follow everything.

Assuming stricter gun control didn't work, I would like to see all semi-automatic weapons banned.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by shanek


EvilYeti doesn't answer questions. Give him time, and he'll be whining about how he's already answered you and he doesn't have to do anything else; of course, he won't actually point you to any of his alleged previous answers...

Hey shanek, here's a real simple question I bet you won't answer.

Are you retarded?

[Ralph]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


Sorry, the sheer volume of noise on this thread makes it difficult to follow everything.

Assuming stricter gun control didn't work, I would like to see all semi-automatic weapons banned.

So you have no objection to a Winchester bolt action .308 rifle.
That's first choice for a lot of police & military snipers. It's a very effective device for killing people.

What about a 12 gauge pump shotgun????..........You can do far more damage with one of those than with a semi-automatic
9 mm handgun. A few minutes with a hacksaw and it's just about as concealable too.

You're still leaving some very deadly weapons out there for the consumer. I really don't think this will result in a 50% decrease in gun deaths.

I don't think the criminal element will pay much attention to the ban at all.

As far as as all those suicides go----they generally only use one shot anyway so banning semi-autos won't have much effect here either.

You also mentioned you'd only ban non-sporting guns. There are plenty of semi-automatic rifles & shotguns that are made for sporting purposes. Are those allowed?????

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Ralph



Have you considered the fact that if you live in one of those "gun free" cities like London or Chicago for example......you may as well put out a big sign saying "No weapons here".

You've given criminals a government guarantee that while their victims might have things like golf clubs and cricket bats..........they will NOT have firearms........

It makes life a lot easier if you don't have to take those things into account............

How about a 50 pound compound bow with a deer arrowhead?

Nice can of Mace?

Maybe even a crossbow?

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Ralph

So you have no objection to a Winchester bolt action .308 rifle.
That's first choice for a lot of police & military snipers. It's a very effective device for killing people.

Sure, but 4 out of 5 gun homicides are with an automatic handgun. So the .308 is obviously not as popular for murder as the handgun.

What about a 12 gauge pump shotgun????..........You can do far more damage with one of those than with a semi-automatic
9 mm handgun. A few minutes with a hacksaw and it's just about as concealable too.

Really? Its easily possible to kill 18 people in under 2 minutes with a Beretta, plus the reload time is only a few seconds. You know of a pump shotgun that can beat that?
A compact handgun with spare magazine can be concealed in a small purse or shorts pocket. You know of a sawed off shotgun that can do that?
And again, 4 out 5 gun homicides are with an automatic handgun.

You're still leaving some very deadly weapons out there for the consumer. I really don't think this will result in a 50% decrease in gun deaths.

4 out 5 gun homicides are with an automatic handgun. You do the math.

I don't think the criminal element will pay much attention to the ban at all.

If they are unable to purchase weapons and ammo from gun stores and/or grey market dealers, or pay the high cost for black market munitions, it won't matter.

As far as as all those suicides go----they generally only use one shot anyway so banning semi-autos won't have much effect here either.

Don't really care about suicides. If the gun nuts what to blow their own brains out with their hollowpoints, I say more power to 'em.

You also mentioned you'd only ban non-sporting guns. There are plenty of semi-automatic rifles & shotguns that are made for sporting purposes. Are those allowed?????

There is absolutely no good reason that a sporting (i.e. hunting) weapon needs to be semi-auto. If you can't hit and kill or at least seriously incapaciate your game with one shot, you are either a lousy shot or using the wrong caliber weapon. Individuals that "need" automatic weapons to hunt are pathetic, wannabe losers. Not sportsmen.

And before you bring up competative shooting with automatic weapons, I could care less about that. You can still competitvely shoot with single-action firearms. Hell, in the olympics they use pellet guns!

[Ralph]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


There is absolutely no good reason that a sporting (i.e. hunting) weapon needs to be semi-auto. If you can't hit and kill or at least seriously incapaciate your game with one shot, you are either a lousy shot or using the wrong caliber weapon. Individuals that "need" automatic weapons to hunt are pathetic, wannabe losers. Not sportsmen.

And before you bring up competative shooting with automatic weapons, I could care less about that. You can still competitvely shoot with single-action firearms. Hell, in the olympics they use pellet guns!

I think you meant semi-automatic handguns not automatic handguns. There's a big difference.

If by some miracle this ban you're suggesting actually worked and people had a hard time getting a semi-automatic handgun----what's to stop them from going out & getting a shotgun instead.
Or will they just say "dang---I'm going to have to go back to using a golf club or a cricket bat now".

You'll see the same # of deaths.....it was just a different choice of weapon.

You can kill a lot more than 18 people in 2 minutes with a 12 gauge shotgun. Once again---I think people watch too much TV.
I know Rambo & Arnold can kill off a whole platoon of men armed with automatic rifles with only a handgun but it doesn't work this way in the real world.
It might be easier to conceal but as far as killing power goes.....not even close.

I'm sure there will also be plenty on non-semi automatic handguns available for those who still prefer a legal concealed weapon. (sawed-off shotguns are allready illegal)

I really don't see your ban resulting in a 50% reduction in gun deaths....

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by shanek


Bu, the gun did prevent another attack on her and her possible murder after running into the perps again. Well, never mind, we'll just ignore that.


:roll: Because calling the police wouldn't have done the same thing. No, in the Wiiiiiiiild West, only a gun solves that kind of problem.


And we'll just ignore the fact that there is no reason to believe that all or even most of those 8000 deaths would be prevented by gun control legislation. Is employing a tyrannical measure that has been shown not to work in the past just to placate the irrational fears of many people worth 154 lives? In the Mr. Manifesto world, maybe.
Hmmm... Is it possible that they would have been prevented... because they involve a gun..?

The US's homicide by guns sticks out like a sore thumb compared to other countries. While countries like Australia and the UK struggle to get 1 per 100 000, the US easily gets 3. The US's non-gun murder rate is also higher. While people seem to like killing as the solution to their troubles in the US (well... look at your solution for pack rape. In fact, death-by-gun vigilantism seems to be a big winner with you) there is no denying the death rate would go down, probably by at least 2 in 100 000, with stricter gun controls.

Not right away, of course. You have to get rid of the masses of existing guns, first.
Now... How many lives could've been saved if the US had gun laws like the UK and Australia? 2 in 100 000 out of 300 mil is... 6000! More than 38 times the number of people who were killed lawfully by guns!

Click here (http://www.aic.gov.au/conferences/other/graycar_adam/2000-11-csf.pdf) for graph showing declining rate of firearm homicides. Compared to you-know-who.

Finding UK figures is a little trickier, especially given that the UK is divided into a million different countries, but I believe the firearm homicide rate is in the double figures, meaning it won't be 1 in 100 000. Compared to you-know-who.


Once again, you lie because you're caught out. You have completely disregarded even the existance of this sentence:



FIVE years, not one.

I notice the data is not provided. So we can take the word of "Richard G's for concealed carry" that the incidence of rape was "still" 13% (instead of being a downward blip) while the surrounding area around Orlando was 308%, with no figures provided to show how they came to that figure.

Shanek. Gun creduloid.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Ralph


In other words......you really don't have anything to offer in the way of specific solutions to reduce all this gun violence.

When it comes to criticism or dredging up stats you're never at a loss for words. When it comes to providing solutions though.....all you can do is criticize my punctuation.......

C'mon Manifesto.....give me some ideas beyond vague generalities or things we allready do like allowing guns on planes or not allowing everybody to have guns.

Try not to get too upset over my punctuation. I'd hate to have to add you to my list of "people who shouldn't be allowed to have guns"...........

I tell you what. If I quote what I've already said on this thread the solution for gun deaths, will you promised not to post on this thread again? I say this because I'm doing your research for you, and your stupidity (in this instance) is holding up the debate.

So, I'll quote it... but you forfeit the right to post again (or at least be taken seriously again) on this thread.

Deal?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by shanek


What does the citation have to do with anything? And don't you think anything of the fact that she had to plead guilty to a misdemeanor just for possessing the very instrument that saved her from rape?

I mean, what was that prosecurity saying—that it was okay for her to use it, but not okay for her to have it in the first place? Does this make sense to anyone???

No citiation=possibility of apocryphal story. Didn't they teach you that at St Andrews?

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Ralph

I think you meant semi-automatic handguns not automatic handguns. There's a big difference.

I (and others) frequently use the terms interchangebly. By "automatic" I mean the weapon is capable of chambering a round from the magazine without manual action on the users part.

If by some miracle this ban you're suggesting actually worked and people had a hard time getting a semi-automatic handgun----what's to stop them from going out & getting a shotgun instead.
Or will they just say "dang---I'm going to have to go back to using a golf club or a cricket bat now".

a. Handguns open up a whole realm of crime that is simply not possible with a shotgun, not matter how cut down it is.
b. I would much rather have disgruntled employees with cricket bats and golf clubs than hi capacity handguns. It curbs the amount of mayhem they can cause.

You'll see the same # of deaths.....it was just a different choice of weapon.

If you really think you can butcher dozens of people with a golf club as easily as a handgun you need your head examined.
If golf clubs are so effective, why don't you carry one as your CCW?

You can kill a lot more than 18 people in 2 minutes with a 12 gauge shotgun. Once again---I think people watch too much TV.

I shoot you in the brain with a 9mm hollowpoint bullet and you are going to die. With an 18 round mag. I could kill 18 people in under twenty seconds easy, add a few seconds to swap magazines and I could kill 54 people in a minute no problem.
A typical tactical shotgun will hold 5-8 rounds PLUS have a signifigant reloading period where you are vulnerable to attack. AND the ammo is bulky and hard to hide. I can carry a compact handgun and 50+ rounds in spare magazines in the pockets of my dockers.
Still think a shotgun can keep up?
But since you are so hung up on shotguns, lets set a legal limit of 2 cartridges per weapon max. Ban the pump guns too. A real sportsman doesnt need more than 2.

It might be easier to conceal but as far as killing power goes.....not even close.

Then WHY are 4 out of 5 homicides commited with a handgun, if its such a lousy murder weapon? Why are the gang bangers carrying glocks instead of a Bennelli or Spas-12? Do you really think criminals which are going to use ANY GUN they can get their hands on are picking ineffective weapons? Get real.
A handgun is the ultimate combination of portability and lethality. You know this yourself of course, as thats what you carry as a CCW!

Why do you pretend otherwise?

I'm sure there will also be plenty on non-semi automatic handguns available for those who still prefer a legal concealed weapon. (sawed-off shotguns are allready illegal)

Like what, a flintlock pistol?

I really don't see your ban resulting in a 50% reduction in gun deaths....

That's your opinion, I happen to disagree. The statistics from countries that have restricted handguns would seem to disagree!

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Ralph

Have you considered the fact that if you live in one of those "gun free" cities like London or Chicago for example......you may as well put out a big sign saying "No weapons here".

You've given criminals a government guarantee that while their victims might have things like golf clubs and cricket bats..........they will NOT have firearms........

It makes life a lot easier if you don't have to take those things into account............
Really? Now can you show me that Chicago and London have more of a crime problem than a city that has guns like Detroit? If life is so easy for the criminals in those cities, they would flock there, wouldn't they? So how about backing this up?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
:roll: Because calling the police wouldn't have done the same thing.

No, it wouldn't have.

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html

Besides, as I said to Thanz, how long does it take the police to show up? 3 minutes? 5? That amount of time can make the difference between life and death.

No, in the Wiiiiiiiild West, only a gun solves that kind of problem.

More of your relying on movies for facts. The truth is, the "wild" west was one of the most peaceful times and places in history.

[invalid cross-cultural comparison deleted (and this guy insults MY education!)]

I notice the data is not provided.

It is clearly referenced on the site, you liar!

Shanek. Gun creduloid.

Mr. Manifesto: lying bigot.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by shanek


No, it wouldn't have.

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html

Boy, are you scraping the bottom of the barrel now. Kasler clearly has the legal knowledge of a Shanek. The case didn't demonstrate that the police don't have to protect the people, it means that you can't hold the State liable if they fail to do so.


Besides, as I said to Thanz, how long does it take the police to show up? 3 minutes? 5? That amount of time can make the difference between life and death.
Not in the case you cited. The rape had already been committed. The shooting was purely for revenge- a point you keep overlooking.



More of your relying on movies for facts. The truth is, the "wild" west was one of the most peaceful times and places in history.

[invalid cross-cultural comparison deleted (and this guy insults MY education!)]


This is as close as I've come to using the rolleyes icon in quite a few posts. I was using "Wild West" as a figure of speech. Please- think before you post. You only make yourself look stupid when you feebly take every chance you can get for a point.


It is clearly referenced on the site, you liar!

I trust that you aren't referring to, "Congressional Record, 99th Cong., 2d sess., January 30, 1968, p. 1496, n. 7", because that report was written in 1968- only two years after the defence training was done in 1966. I seriously doubt the report had data on incidences of rape in 1973.

So, maybe you'd like to show me this reference?


Mr. Manifesto: lying bigot.
You're the one who has so much trouble with even the most reasonable gun-control measures. You even think that passengers should be allowed to carry them onto planes- as long as the airline approves, of course. If, by bigot, we mean 'unreasonable and intolerant', I'd say you fit the bill better than I do.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Thanz

Really? Now can you show me that Chicago and London have more of a crime problem than a city that has guns like Detroit? If life is so easy for the criminals in those cities, they would flock there, wouldn't they? So how about backing this up?

Um, Detroit has gun control legislation. you must be 21 years old, have a valid permit, and pass a background check to purchase a firearm. They even did a buy-back:

http://www.freep.com/news/locway/guns10_20000710.htm

BTW, there's kind of a telling quote here:

One of those who wants to turn in his gun for $50 cash is Melvin Altimus of Oak Park. "There's so much violence out there, I just want to get rid of my gun," he said.

Hmmm...kind of puts a new light on the whole who's-living-in-fear argument, doesn't it? Also takes a stab at the Americans-want-guns-because-there's-so-much-violence argument as well.

Oh, and what were they doing this to prevent?

He said he is not aware of any murders in public housing this year. Last year, there was a suicide involving a gun and a fatal stabbing, he said.

But, no matter...I'm sure many would-be burglars turned in their guns for $50 and decided to live in peace, right?

[Thanz]

Originally posted by shanek


Um, Detroit has gun control legislation. you must be 21 years old, have a valid permit, and pass a background check to purchase a firearm. They even did a buy-back:
Ooops. My mistake about Detroit. Although, this does not seem to me to be what I would call onerous gun control legislation. It is not banning guns - just setting up what appear to be reasonable requirements. Tell me though - did crime increase after the legislation and buy back?

Hmmm...kind of puts a new light on the whole who's-living-in-fear argument, doesn't it? Also takes a stab at the Americans-want-guns-because-there's-so-much-violence argument as well.
Hmmm... One quote from one guy. Yep, completely destroys any kind of argument one may have. That clever let's quote one guy argument is hard to defeat.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Thanz

Ooops. My mistake about Detroit. Although, this does not seem to me to be what I would call onerous gun control legislation. It is not banning guns - just setting up what appear to be reasonable requirements. Tell me though - did crime increase after the legislation and buy back?


I don't see how we can tell anything either way:

Although crime in Detroit's public housing complexes is declining, the commission's executive director, John Nelson Jr., said getting 429 guns off the streets is still important.

429 guns? In a city of how many? Or are they going to say, "We'd like to see how effective our buy-back is... Can you restrict any firearms offences to just the housing block? Thanks."

The gun buyback is part of a national HUD initiative. This year, about 60 communities have had buybacks that have brought in 16,000 guns. Twenty more communities have scheduled buybacks, and others are seeking HUD funding, said HUD spokesman David Egner.
16 000 guns? In a country with up to 96 guns per 100 persons (http://www.obv.org.uk/europe/eu20030702a.htm)? Drop in the ocean. Anyone who uses this data to say that buybacks cause an increase (or decrease, for that matter) in crime is a total shanek.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Thanz
Ooops. My mistake about Detroit. Although, this does not seem to me to be what I would call onerous gun control legislation. It is not banning guns - just setting up what appear to be reasonable requirements. Tell me though - did crime increase after the legislation and buy back?

No idea; haven't looked.

Hmmm... One quote from one guy.

There are more quotes in the article. Clearly he's not the only one who feels this way.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Anyone who uses this data to say that buybacks cause an increase (or decrease, for that matter) in crime is a total shanek.

And anyone who claims I said that is a total liar.

[Ralph]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


That's your opinion, I happen to disagree. The statistics from countries that have restricted handguns would seem to disagree!
Yeti.....have you any experience with firearms. Most people who do---don't interchange the terms "automatic" & "semi-automatic".

Also--if you're arguing that a handgun is more lethal than a shotgun----you're just plain wrong.

This "Brain shot"you mention..................you're getting this from TV where someone goes flying sideways across the room, a handgun in each hand, and kills 20 people before he hits the ground.

Try this.

Set up a human sized carboard target. Roughly color in the area a brain would occupy.

Stand 20 feet away.....not 20 yards......just 20 FEET.

Get out your handgun......take your time and aim carefully.

If you hit the brain area one shot in three.....I'll be amazed.

Now try the the same thing with a moving target.

Now try it with a moving target that's also armed & trying to kill
you.

I doubt if you'll hit it even once.


Now substitute a 12 gauge pump shotgun loaded with buck-shot.
Close your eyes, point it in the general direction of the target,
and tell me what happened.

I agree that handguns are more concealable. That's why gangbangers like them. Since they can't legally have a gun they really need to keep it hidden.

They haven't had to go out & get shotguns because they STILL HAVE THEIR GLOCKS.............They didn't bother turning them in.
Big cities like NY,Chicago, and LA have essentially banned handguns. Honest citizens can't have them. The gangbangers still do. They ignored the ban for some reason.



Also----I never said a golf club was more lethal than a gun. One of the anti-gun proponents said that.

I was suggesting that if you were able to get hanguns off the street---criminals would simply choose another type of gun that wasn't banned before they'd use a golf club.


Also-----just what do you want banned????????..........First you said "non-sporting guns". (and you'll open up a whole can of worms trying to define "non-sporting").

Then you said ban "semi-automatics".

Then you said ban "handguns"..................which is it???????

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Thanz

Really? Now can you show me that Chicago and London have more of a crime problem than a city that has guns like Detroit? If life is so easy for the criminals in those cities, they would flock there, wouldn't they? So how about backing this up?

Brattleboro Vermont........loosest gun laws in the country-----no permits required -- open carried allowed.....


Chicago, Illinois........LA Calif.............very strict gun laws....handuns essentially banned.

I'm not going to bother looking up the stats. I'm reasonably certain there's a lot less gun-related crime in Brattlboro than in LA or Chicago..............

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Ralph

Yeti.....have you any experience with firearms. Most people who do---don't interchange the terms "automatic" & "semi-automatic".

I've been a firearms scholar most of my life, I know how the terms evolved and have been used currently and historically. Automatic refers to both the full and semi variety.

Here's an experiment you can try if you don't believe me, call up a local firearms dealer that carries handguns and ask if they have any ".45 automatics" in stock. They will answer yes. Now ask them if the gun is fully automatic or semi-automatic. They will answer semi-automatic. Now ask them if the producer of the weapon sells it as a .45 automatic or semi-automatic. He will answer "automatic". Do you understand how the word is used yet?

I understand you are trying to paint me as a ingnoramus in order to win the debate; its not going to work. You are going to have formulate some kind of argument based on facts and logic, sorry.

Also--if you're arguing that a handgun is more lethal than a shotgun----you're just plain wrong.

In terms of single-shot performance, yes a shotgun is more lethal.
But when you combine the added range, portatbility, increased ROF and decreased reloading time (which you of course ignore) the handgun wins soundly. This is relfected in the large majority of firearm homicides being committed with them.

Stand 20 feet away.....not 20 yards......just 20 FEET.

Get out your handgun......take your time and aim carefully.

If you hit the brain area one shot in three.....I'll be amazed.

Well prepare to be stunned, as I practice indoors with an airsoft pistol and can easily hit a six-inch target 20 out of 20 times at that range.

You must be one hell of a lousy shot!

Now try it with a moving target that's also armed & trying to kill
you.

I doubt if you'll hit it even once.

Except if I miss with a handgun I can compensate and fire again in less than a second. Not so with a pump shotgun. I could easily get off 3-5 shots, while compensating, in the time you could get off one and chamber a new shell.

Now substitute a 12 gauge pump shotgun loaded with buck-shot.
Close your eyes, point it in the general direction of the target,
and tell me what happened.

Unless the barrel of the weapon was pointed directly at the victim, most of the shot is going to miss resulting in some minor flesh wounds. In order for a shotgun to be effective you have to point it right at the perp, or you are gonna miss. Its not magic.

I agree that handguns are more concealable. That's why gangbangers like them. Since they can't legally have a gun they really need to keep it hidden.

So don't you think we should restrict the sales of handguns to make it more difficult to get them? Instead of the current scenario where crooked dealers can buy trunkloads at gun shows and then ferry them to the ghetto?

They haven't had to go out & get shotguns because they STILL HAVE THEIR GLOCKS.............They didn't bother turning them in.
Big cities like NY,Chicago, and LA have essentially banned handguns. Honest citizens can't have them. The gangbangers still do. They ignored the ban for some reason.

Doesn't matter, all the gun runners have to do is make big anonymous purchases in other states with lax laws then ship them over to the cities. You have heard of interstate commerce?

I was suggesting that if you were able to get hanguns off the street---criminals would simply choose another type of gun that wasn't banned before they'd use a golf club.

And maybe they wouldn't be able to do as much damage with a less-efficient weapon?

Also-----just what do you want banned????????..........First you said "non-sporting guns". (and you'll open up a whole can of worms trying to define "non-sporting").

I didn't say I wanted anything banned, that was only a last resort if stricter gun control didn't make a signifigant dent in the number of annual fatalities.
If you don't understand what kind of weapons are appropriate for game hunting, that's ignorance on your part and not my problem. I would be happy to answer any questions your may have, however.

Then you said ban "semi-automatics".

No need for them in a sporting context. If you can't hit and incapaciate your game with one shot you have no business hunting.

Then you said ban "handguns"..................which is it???????

Uh, 99%+ of the handguns in the US are of the automatic variety, so when I said ban "semi-automatics" that would include the vast majority of handguns in circulation today, wouldn't it? Deductive reasoning and logic doesn't come easily to you, does it big guy?

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Ralph

Brattleboro Vermont........loosest gun laws in the country-----no permits required -- open carried allowed.....

Chicago, Illinois........LA Calif.............very strict gun laws....handuns essentially banned.

I'm not going to bother looking up the stats. I'm reasonably certain there's a lot less gun-related crime in Brattlboro than in LA or Chicago..............
Do you really think that a small town in Vermont (Brattleboro Population: 12,393) is really a good comparison for major metro areas like Chicago and LA? Find me something equivalent and I will listen. But to compare a small town with a city more than 100 times its size is ludicrous.

[Ralph]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


Uh, 99%+ of the handguns in the US are of the automatic variety, so when I said ban "semi-automatics" that would include the vast majority of handguns in circulation today, wouldn't it? Deductive reasoning and logic doesn't come easily to you, does it big guy? Uh..no......I think you'll find automatic handguns are a rather scarce item. If you can find one----I can assure you that you cannot legally own one.

You still haven't clearly defined what we should ban. 'Semi-automatics".......does that include semi-automatic rifles & shotguns??

Should we ban all handguns....incuding single shot target pistols?

I hate to keep harping on this but even a small shotgun has more stopping power than a large handgun......never mind a .22.


Just because a handgun isn't a semi-auto doesn't mean it can only be a flintlock.

How about a handgun with a hand operated toggle to reload the next shell from a 10 round magazine.

It's concealable----it has a large capacity mag.......but it's not a semi-auto..................

"Big guy"........I love it......when we start the naming calling that usually means you're starting to realize your arguements are weak.

Next thing you know you'll be criticizing my punctuation........

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Ralph


Next thing you know you'll be criticizing my punctuation........

Now that you mention it... an elipse usually only has... three dots...

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Thanz

Do you really think that a small town in Vermont (Brattleboro Population: 12,393) is really a good comparison for major metro areas like Chicago and LA? Find me something equivalent and I will listen. But to compare a small town with a city more than 100 times its size is ludicrous.

Fair enough. Let's compare Burlington Vermont (pop. 38,453)
with another New England city.......that's only HALF it's size.

Central Falls RI (pop 18,928).(RI has VERY strict gun laws btw)

You really need to see both these cities first hand to appreciate the difference. Burlington's a typical Vermont city---very picturesque----people are very nice----and it has an extremely low violent crime rate. Even though you can stroll around the city with a gun on your hip.

Central Falls on the other hand looks more like a little piece of the South Bronx. It's unofficially referred to in some circles as the "Heroin Capitol of Rhode Island".

Violent crime is common here.....area hospitals see lots of gunshot wounds, stabbings, drug ODs......

I wouldn't walk through this city in the DAYTIME.....even with a gun........


Obviously there's more going on than population size.

Do you think that just MAYBE the problem of gun violence is more due to some other underlying factors related to WHO LIVES THERE and WHAT THE LIVING CONDITIONS ARE LIKE rather than the gun itself.

After all.....the drug problem doesn't exist because of heroin. It exists because some people are drug addicts.

We've made heroin illegal.....but addicts don't care. They still will try to get heroin. As long as there's a demand...someone will be willing to supply it....and they won't care about any bans.

What if you were able to destroy the heroin supply overnight.
Do you think all the addicts will just go out,buy a suit, and get a job at the bank?????.....They'll just find another drug to use & abuse. Our "war on drugs" hasn't worked & neither will a "war on guns".

Instead of directing our efforts at banning heroin (or guns)--lets focus on the individuals responsible for the problem.

How about diverting some of the money being spent on the "war on drugs" and funnel it into treatment programs for addicts.

I've seen addicts who sincerely want to get clean get hustled in & out of a detox an 3-4 days because the money ran out.

How about having the police having more time to focus on crimes of violence rather than arresting pot smokers.

How about making more room in the prisons by getting rid of drug possesion inmates and imposing longer stiffer sentences on people who commit gun-related crimes.........

"Banning guns" is a simplistic solution to a complex problem.
All it does is deprive law-abiding citizens the right to defend themselves........

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Ralph

What if you were able to destroy the heroin supply overnight.
Do you think all the addicts will just go out,buy a suit, and get a job at the bank?????.....They'll just find another drug to use & abuse. Our "war on drugs" hasn't worked & neither will a "war on guns".
Ok, NOW I get it. Owning guns is like a heroin addiction. You can no more give them up than a heroin addict can go cold turkey. This finally makes perfect sense - you gun nuts just need treatment. Well, they say half the battle is admitting that you have a problem........

[Tony]

Originally posted by Thanz

Ok, NOW I get it. Owning guns is like a heroin addiction. You can no more give them up than a heroin addict can go cold turkey. This finally makes perfect sense - you gun nuts just need treatment. Well, they say half the battle is admitting that you have a problem........


You gunophobes just dont get it, its about FREEDOM.

Why do have such a negative view of it?

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Thanz

Ok, NOW I get it. Owning guns is like a heroin addiction. You can no more give them up than a heroin addict can go cold turkey. This finally makes perfect sense - you gun nuts just need treatment. Well, they say half the battle is admitting that you have a problem........ Uh no----you don't get it.
Addiction is a complex physiological disease. I enjoy target shooting so in that sense I'd consider my gun ownership to be a hobby. It just so happens that the same tool that I use for my hobby makes an effective device for self defense.
My comparison with heroin was simply to point out that banning things isn't always the answer to a problem and that people who want them will be able to get them.....banned or not.


Are you suggesting that I'm a gun nut?

Don't you think that's being prejudiced?

There's about 90 million gun owners in the US. Are they ALL nuts in your overly simplistic and very prejudiced way of judging other people?

Are you suggesting that some guy who goes out duck hunting with a shotgun & his buddies a few times a year is a nut??????

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Thanz

Ok, NOW I get it. Owning guns is like a heroin addiction. You can no more give them up than a heroin addict can go cold turkey. This finally makes perfect sense - you gun nuts just need treatment. Well, they say half the battle is admitting that you have a problem........ Mr Manifesto defined "gun-nut" as someone who carries 24/7.

I'm not even close to that so by his definition----I'm not a gun nut.

How would you define "gun-nut" and in your view of things----where do you cross the line from "gun-owner" to "gun-nut"????

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Thanz

Do you really think that a small town in Vermont (Brattleboro Population: 12,393) is really a good comparison for major metro areas like Chicago and LA? Find me something equivalent and I will listen. But to compare a small town with a city more than 100 times its size is ludicrous. You said you'd listen if I gave you a comparison between similar sized cities.

The city in the "loose gun laws" state was actually twice the size of the city in the "tough gun laws" state.

Like all the other critics, rather than addressing this point-----you avoid the issue and start ranting about gun nuts & heroin addiction.

I guess you didn't really want to listen and consider that gun bans might not be the answer to the gun-violence problem.

[The Fool]

Well my view would be that carrying a gun 24/7 would be a fair indication.... I'm not talking about "handle a gun every day of my life" I'm talking about RichardG level "gun always strapped on or within reach 24/7" I consider that sort of behavior a bit bizarre at the least and at worst an indication of paranoid delusions of danger.

Anyway....gun nut, control nut....who cares. We are all gun control advocates. Its just a question of how much control.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Ralph
I guess you didn't really want to listen and consider that gun bans might not be the answer to the gun-violence problem.
Well at least you can see there is a gun violence problem unlike some of the "head in the sand" posters. The next step would be for me to say that I agree with you that gun bans are not the answer. I have never advocated banning anything. I can, however, plainly see the difference in the levels of gun related deaths between the united States and other countries, what is the difference between these countries? Maybe the sheer number of guns in circulation? Just maybe?

[Ralph]

Originally posted by The Fool

Well at least you can see there is a gun violence problem unlike some of the "head in the sand" posters. The next step would be for me to say that I agree with you that gun bans are not the answer. I have never advocated banning anything. I can, however, plainly see the difference in the levels of gun related deaths between the united States and other countries, what is the difference between these countries? Maybe the sheer number of guns in circulation? Just maybe?

I do think that the sheer # of guns out there is part of the reason a ban wouldn't work. It's just physically impossible to get them all out of the wrong hands.

Guns have always been a part of US culture...for better or worse.

Up until the 30's you could walk into a hardware store & buy a Thompson sub-machine gun.

The problem is...guns are not that hard to make. We can control who has F-15s because they are big, expensive, and hard to make. Guns are small,cheap, & relatively easy to make.

I've read about gun bazaars in Pakistan where you can buy a fully automatic AK47 made out of scrounged parts and scrap in some open air shop that doesn't even have electricity.

I'm sure a decent machinist with the right tools would have no trouble making a nice part time income for himself in his spare time.

Physically getting rid of guns will be as difficult as getting rid of heroin is.......

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Ralph


I do think that the sheer # of guns out there is part of the reason a ban wouldn't work. It's just physically impossible to get them all out of the wrong hands.

Guns have always been a part of US culture...for better or worse.

Up until the 30's you could walk into a hardware store & buy a Thompson sub-machine gun.

The problem is...guns are not that hard to make. We can control who has F-15s because they are big, expensive, and hard to make. Guns are small,cheap, & relatively easy to make.

I've read about gun bazaars in Pakistan where you can buy a fully automatic AK47 made out of scrounged parts and scrap in some open air shop that doesn't even have electricity.

I'm sure a decent machinist with the right tools would have no trouble making a nice part time income for himself in his spare time.

Physically getting rid of guns will be as difficult as getting rid of heroin is.......
At one time in our histories (Australia and America) we were both frontier nations awash with firearms, now there is a difference. Australia just does not have anywhere near the number of guns lying around. If you want to get a blackmarket handgun in australia (and you certainly can) you have to know the right people and you need a couple of thousand dollars, even for a crappy .32. The average pub yobbo who might fancy the Idea of a saturday night special down his pants does not have that sort of money....lack of supply has driven the price up, and driven yobbos out of the market.

Why did America not go the same way? Probably because there was no drive to change the situation. Any politician who suggested doing something about it would have been out on thier arse in no time Ousted by people who claim your forefathers wanted the general population to have fifty handguns each (gross exaggeration for rhetorical effect).....The NRA is still full time on this activity. So my answer would be...start now, given a collective will it can happen. Its a big job, there are millions of these things floating around. There is only one reason why there is a glut of cheap handguns available to anyone and everyone.....because they exist. Get rid of them.

[Tony]

Originally posted by The Fool

So my answer would be...start now, given a collective will it can happen.

Fortunately, the "collective will" in favor of a gun ban is small and impotent. For some weird reason most Americans want to preserve the constitution and the freedoms therein. Ill be doing my part to preserve and expand constitutional freedoms by joining the NRA.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Tony


Fortunately, the "collective will" in favor of a gun ban is small and impotent. For some weird reason most Americans want to preserve the constitution and the freedoms therein. Ill be doing my part to preserve and expand constitutional freedoms by joining the NRA.

Well tony, you are consistant anyway....would you like me to sit you on my knee and read you my post? Would that help your comprehension levels? Please show me anywhere in my last post, or any other post of mine where I have talked about banning guns....I am talking about your country being awash with handguns. If you must have a handgun for personal defence or target shooting or whatever.... and are willing to meet safety, security and background check requirements, exactly how many damn handguns do you need ? If everyone in america tried to pick up all the guns you would each need a wheelbarrow to carry them. That is why any nutjob can buy one in a bar for five bucks...

If your answer is "I can have 100 handguns if I like, 'cause I'm free" why can't you drive at 100mph "'cause your free"? Bad luck Tony, you obey your states gun laws.... If they vary the current restrictions, you will obey, otherwise "cause your free" may not apply for too long.

[Tony]

Originally posted by The Fool


Well tony, you are consistant anyway....would you like me to sit you on my knee and read you my post? Would that help your comprehension levels? Please show me anywhere in my last post, or any other post of mine where I have talked about banning guns....

Irrelevant, you might have reasonable and good intentions, others don’t. Look at the situation in Chicago; gun registration and the intentional red tape attached to owning a gun have effectively banned ownership. If you think the anti-gun lobby is only interested in registration, you're a fool.

I am talking about your country being awash with handguns. If you must have a handgun for personal defence or target shooting or whatever.... and are willing to meet safety, security and background check requirements, exactly how many damn handguns do you need ?

It doesn’t matter and it's none of your business.

If your answer is "I can have 100 handguns if I like, 'cause I'm free" why can't you drive at 100mph "'cause your free"?

But I can drive 100 mph, all it takes is additional pressure on the gas pedal. Of course it is against the "law", but I have about as much respect for the law as I do for Saddam Hussien.

Bad luck Tony, you obey your states gun laws.... If they vary the current restrictions, you will obey, otherwise "cause your free" may not apply for too long.

If I really wanted something, the "law" wouldn't keep me from getting it.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Tony


If I really wanted something, the "law" wouldn't keep me from getting it.

Shouldn't there be music playing in the background when you say this....and a horse and a sunset to ride into?

[Tony]

Originally posted by The Fool


Shouldn't there be music playing in the background when you say this....and a horse and a sunset to ride into?

Perhaps, but I've never ridden a horse. Would a Ferrari be sufficient? ;)

http://www.motorsnippets.com/cars/graphics/ferrari_logo.jpg

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Tony


But I can drive 100 mph, all it takes is additional pressure on the gas pedal. Of course it is against the "law", but I have about as much respect for the law as I do for Saddam Hussien.


Just some friendly advice from a pro. No matter how convincing or sincere they seem, the cops can't make a deal in most jurisdictions. That "you will be better off if you tell us" stuff is just a ploy to get a confession so they don't have to spend too much time collecting evidence. Wait to see a lawyer and remember that only the DA can make a deal.

Just keep asking for a lawyer. Make sure you are specific. Just saying "I think I need" or some such won't cut it. Be explicit. Say "I want a lawyer. I do not wish to answer questions." Any ambiguity will likely be construed against you.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Suddenly

Just some friendly advice from a pro. No matter how convincing or sincere they seem, the cops can't make a deal in most jurisdictions. That "you will be better off if you tell us" stuff is just a ploy to get a confession so they don't have to spend too much time collecting evidence. Wait to see a lawyer and remember that only the DA can make a deal.

Just keep asking for a lawyer. Make sure you are specific. Just saying "I think I need" or some such won't cut it. Be explicit. Say "I want a lawyer. I do not wish to answer questions." Any ambiguity will likely be construed against you.
And above all, don't call them fascists.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Suddenly


Just some friendly advice from a pro. No matter how convincing or sincere they seem, the cops can't make a deal in most jurisdictions. That "you will be better off if you tell us" stuff is just a ploy to get a confession so they don't have to spend too much time collecting evidence. Wait to see a lawyer and remember that only the DA can make a deal.

Just keep asking for a lawyer. Make sure you are specific. Just saying "I think I need" or some such won't cut it. Be explicit. Say "I want a lawyer. I do not wish to answer questions." Any ambiguity will likely be construed against you.

Would you recommend he attempt to shoot it out? Surely shooting it out would demonstrate to the court your commitment to Constitutional freedoms? wouldn't that count in your favor?

[Zep]

Originally posted by Tricky

And above all, don't call them fascists. Porcine references, and references to their parental legitimacy, also do not play well in such scenes. In fact, it's probably a good idea to leave most adjectives and adverbs out of it altogether.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Zep
Porcine references, and references to their parental legitimacy, also do not play well in such scenes. In fact, it's probably a good idea to leave most adjectives and adverbs out of it altogether.
Well, perhaps a few adverbs. "Very" is a good one, as in, "I'm very very sorry, sir." Also "ever" as in "I won't ever do it again."

[DavidJames]

"And above all, don't call them fascists."

I would, however, be sure to discuss with them your belief when it's appropriate to use deadly force against the police (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29681&highlight=deadly+force+tony)

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by shanek


And anyone who claims I said that is a total liar.

Geez, you love to think you're being persecuted, don't you? I was responding to Thanz, not you. And the fact of the matter is, cherry picking data to suit one's arguments is your MO. Hence, 'to be a shanek'.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by The Fool


Would you recommend he attempt to shoot it out? Surely shooting it out would demonstrate to the court your commitment to Constitutional freedoms? wouldn't that count in your favor?

Oddly enough, no. In my experience the police generally do not appreciate this. Some do appreciate those that run, as there are a few cops that like to drive fast with their siren on. However, it is advisable to try to be caught in a public area. Rural cops generally consider it a tradition to beat the crap out of runners. Avoid those.

My favorite was the guy that ran, and when the cops caught him and were beating the crap out of him, he was flung onto the car hood, denting it. So they charged him with destruction of police property. Fortunately, these cops were morons and thought that beating up a runner was perfectly legal.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Tricky

Well, perhaps a few adverbs. "Very" is a good one, as in, "I'm very very sorry, sir." Also "ever" as in "I won't ever do it again."

Really works in some contexts. "I really want to talk to a lawyer" isn't too bad. "I really think that you are facists like Saddam Hussein for arresting me" won't play in most parts. Unless they have a sense of humor and think you are joking.

I would definately advocate politeness. Liberal use of "sir" is a good idea. Just remember that their job is to stick you in prison, so avoid discussing the reason they arrested you. No matter how careful or smart you think you are this will turn out to be a confession.

[Tricky]

For those who think I am cherry-picking the local news, here is a genuine good-news gun story from today's local paper.
Store owner with gun stops robbery attempt (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2266353)
A woman shot two of the three men who tried to rob her plumbing business north of downtown, police said.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Ralph
You said you'd listen if I gave you a comparison between similar sized cities.

The city in the "loose gun laws" state was actually twice the size of the city in the "tough gun laws" state.

Like all the other critics, rather than addressing this point-----you avoid the issue and start ranting about gun nuts & heroin addiction.

I guess you didn't really want to listen and consider that gun bans might not be the answer to the gun-violence problem.
Geez, perhaps I should make more liberal use of smilies in my posts. My previous post was satire - although I see it did get you and tony all riled up.

Anyway, if you read my posts in this thread you will see that not once did I say that guns have to be banned. I said that the perceived need for guns in the USA is way overstated. That the attitude towards guns that is part of your culture is part of the violence problem, not the solution. What needs to change is people's attitude toward guns, and unfortunately I don't see that happening. People like Richard G and Tony act as if you are taking away their children if you mention anything related to gun control.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Suddenly


Oddly enough, no. In my experience the police generally do not appreciate this. Some do appreciate those that run, as there are a few cops that like to drive fast with their siren on. However, it is advisable to try to be caught in a public area. Rural cops generally consider it a tradition to beat the crap out of runners. Avoid those.

My favorite was the guy that ran, and when the cops caught him and were beating the crap out of him, he was flung onto the car hood, denting it. So they charged him with destruction of police property. Fortunately, these cops were morons and thought that beating up a runner was perfectly legal.

Did they get transferred to Cincinatti?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Suddenly


Just some friendly advice from a pro. No matter how convincing or sincere they seem, the cops can't make a deal in most jurisdictions. That "you will be better off if you tell us" stuff is just a ploy to get a confession so they don't have to spend too much time collecting evidence. Wait to see a lawyer and remember that only the DA can make a deal.

Just keep asking for a lawyer. Make sure you are specific. Just saying "I think I need" or some such won't cut it. Be explicit. Say "I want a lawyer. I do not wish to answer questions." Any ambiguity will likely be construed against you.



:D

[Tony]

Originally posted by DavidJames
"And above all, don't call them fascists."

I would, however, be sure to discuss with them your belief when it's appropriate to use deadly force against the police (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29681&highlight=deadly+force+tony)


What do you think would happen if I did? Are you advocating that police should attack someone for expressing a political opinion? What is your point in bringing this up?

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Tony



What do you think would happen if I did? Are you advocating that police should attack someone for expressing a political opinion? What is your point in bringing this up?

Maybe not attack, but if you piss them off they will break out the code book and see what all they can charge you with. A misdemeanor can turn into a felony in a hurry in these situations.

In some areas you will get that along with a severe beating. Your injuries will be evidence for further charges of "resisting arrest." Best to be polite.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Suddenly

In some areas you will get that along with a severe beating. Your injuries will be evidence for further charges of "resisting arrest." Best to be polite.

That's when I call the ACLU and win a lucrative lawsuit for free speech violation.


But I think you bring-up a good and disturbing point, that potential for abuse of power is the very reason I despise the police. It’s also the reason I think the police system needs to be radically reformed.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Tony


That's when I call the ACLU and win a lucrative lawsuit for free speech violation.

Good luck proving that. Your word against the "noble police officers that risk their lives every day to protect us, like on one fateful September day ..." You'll win that one. I'm sure someone that confesses to having no respect for the law would never assault a police officer. They must be lying. I'm sure the jury will believe you simply called them facists that should be shot and since they beat you for no reason give you a big fat award.

Yep. Just make sure you get paid in cigarettes, because a police brutality lawsuit isn't a defense to the 34 felonies they charged you with.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Suddenly

Just make sure you get paid in cigarettes, because a police brutality lawsuit isn't a defense to the 34 felonies they charged you with.

And porn mags. We can always use more porn mags. I MEAN THEY! Not we! They! :cough: Look over there!

[Tony]

Originally posted by Suddenly

Good luck proving that. Your word against the "noble police officers that risk their lives every day to protect us, like on one fateful September day ..." You'll win that one. I'm sure someone that confesses to having no respect for the law would never assault a police officer. They must be lying. I'm sure the jury will believe you simply called them facists that should be shot and since they beat you for no reason give you a big fat award.


So you advocate the use of trumped-up charges to silence political speech?

Why should I respect a law and its enforcers that don't respect me? If what you say is true, that just provides more reasons for not respecting the law.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Tony


So you advocate the use of trumped-up charges to silence political speech?

First of all, that paragraph you cite has nothing to do with trumped up charges; it just points out that you would have a very hard time carrying your burden in a civil case against the officers. However, lets ignore that small problem and get to the substance of your remarks.

Yes Tony. When I say that certain things happen and that it would be wise to take measures to prevent them, I am advocating those things. Just like when I advise women friends of mine not to walk alone and naked through dark alleys at night I am "advocating" rape. When I counsel friends not to buy low-lying property near streams I am "advocating" flooding. If I suggest that my mom lock her car door at the mall I am "advocating" theft.

You get the idea?



Why should I respect a law and its enforcers that don't respect me? If what you say is true, that just provides more reasons for not respecting the law.

The law respects you. Occasionally the enforcers do not respect the law. What I say encourages skepticism about whether police are being truthful, or whether they are taking shortcuts, etc. It doesn't justify rejecting the whole concept of law. The law is the very thing that keeps others from killing you just because they don't like you. The whole objection is that the police sometimes ignore the law. To remedy that by eliminating the law seems pretty silly. Sounds like an excuse for poor behaviour. "The cops break the law, so I should too." Come to think of it, it sounds similar to the whole "science doesn't have all the answers" argument I get from my church-going freinds.

Respect for the police is one thing, a thing that is good. Blind faith and assuming that the police never lie or do anything bad is not a good thing, rather a very foolish thing. Cops are human, they make mistakes and act poorly now and then. Only a fool would go out of their way to provoke such a response.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Suddenly


First of all, that paragraph you cite has nothing to do with trumped up charges; it just points out that you would have a very hard time carrying your burden in a civil case against the officers. However, lets ignore that small problem and get to the substance of your remarks.

Yes Tony. When I say that certain things happen and that it would be wise to take measures to prevent them, I am advocating those things. Just like when I advise women friends of mine not to walk alone and naked through dark alleys at night I am "advocating" rape. When I counsel friends not to buy low-lying property near streams I am "advocating" flooding. If I suggest that my mom lock her car door at the mall I am "advocating" theft.

You get the idea?
[/B]

Just making sure, but if that is indeed the case, why do you use it to taunt me?

The law is the very thing that keeps others from killing you just because they don't like you.

I disagree. The law never stopped anyone from doing anything illegal. The threat of force and punishment is (in theroy) what keeps people from killing me. Even that isnt enough, if someone really wants to kill me, for any reason, they are going to try. When that happens, its up to me to protect myself, so much for "law".

Sounds like an excuse for poor behaviour. "The cops break the law, so I should too."

Thats not what Im saying. Why should I respect law I dont agree with? If people respected the law throught our history we would still have slavery.

Respect for the police is one thing, a thing that is good.

Why is it good?

Cops are human, they make mistakes and act poorly now and then.

And this is precisely why they don’t deserve respect or the power they wield. A cop is just a low-life government official with a badge and gun.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Tony


Just making sure, but if that is indeed the case, why do you use it to taunt me? Not taunting you. I was mocking you. Your suggestion was absurd and borderline offensive.

I disagree. The law never stopped anyone from doing anything illegal. The threat of force and punishment is (in theroy) what keeps people from killing me. Even that isnt enough, if someone really wants to kill me, for any reason, they are going to try. When that happens, its up to me to protect myself, so much for "law". That "threat of force and punishment" is pretty much what law is. No, it is not perfect.


Thats not what Im saying. Why should I respect law I dont agree with? If people respected the law throught our history we would still have slavery. By respect, I mean recognizing the validity. This doesn't keep you from trying to change laws you see as unjust, through legal means.

Slavery in the U.S. was well on its way out when the civil war forced the issue. Other countries simply outlawed it. This wasn't "disrespect" for the law, rather the natural evolution of society, where laws reflected the beliefs and desires of those it governs. Disrespect for the law did not end slavery, except that the south's disrespect for where those laws were headed through legal process arguably did cause a pretty nasty war.

Why is it good? Again, respecting the office's legitimacy. Police are charged with a task that requires them to act in ways that certain individuals may disagree with. People have differences of opinions and respecting the officer's duty and right to make decisions prevents bloodshed and every little thing turning into a riot.

And this is precisely why they don’t deserve respect or the power they wield. A cop is just a low-life government official with a badge and gun.

Why must there be perfection? There will be no perfection under any form of government, and to dismiss it on that grounds does ring quite similar to the person that rejects science because it can't answer anything.

If you don't like the social contract as a whole you are perfectly free to leave. Otherwise you are soaking up benefits (national defense, roads and such) without accepting the burdens, such as living within the law. Having to live together with others is a problem that never goes away, and the main sign of civilization is that this can be done by agreement rather than by violence. The only problem is that sometimes people have to do things they don't want to, or maybe don't agree with. This is still more efficient than having a violent confrontation for every little problem, which without law is exactly what happens.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Suddenly
Not taunting you. I was mocking you. Your suggestion was absurd and borderline offensive.

Same thing. Why don’t you answer the question? It’s pretty sick to condone and celebrate abuse of power and police brutality.

Slavery in the U.S. was well on its way out when the civil war forced the issue.

That’s not the point. Citizens and abolitionists where dis-obeying the law by helping slaves reach freedom. Without those people lobbying and advocating against slavery, it would never have ended.

Again, respecting the office's legitimacy.

I'll never respect anyone's legitimacy to have undue influence over my life. And I'll never respect the tool of an oppressive law.

Why must there be perfection?

There doesn’t have to be perfection, but when people's lives and rights are at stake, the standards and accountability have to be extraordinarily high. A cop would need a demonstrable and extraordinary reason to kidnap a person, now they can pretty much kidnap you for any reason.

If you don't like the social contract as a whole you are perfectly free to leave.

There is no social contract, and as an alleged skeptic it is beneath you to perpetuate this un-American myth.

Having to live together with others is a problem that never goes away

I dont need the law to keep me from stealing and attacking people, and besides that's not the law im talking about.

[daenku32]

What's a Gun? Who decides what is a Gun?

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Tony


Same thing. Why dont you answer the question? Which question? Why I responded the way I did? I thought your accusation that I advocated police misconduct was really stupid, thus my examples of your analysis in circumstances that illuminate the absurdity.

That’s not the point. Citizens and abolitionists where dis-obeying the law by helping slaves reach freedom. Without those people lobbying and advocating against slavery, it would never have ended. Have any proof that illegal activity was necessary? Lobbying and advocating against slavery is not disrespecting the law, it is as I suggested, respecting the law w/r/t how laws are to be changed. The real disrespect was the south's wanting out when that process was seemingly not in their favor. This disrespect was an atempt to preserve slavery, not end it.

I'll never respect anyone's legitimacy to have undue influence over my life. And I'll never respect the tool of an oppressive law. I doubt anyone disagrees with this. This is a long way from disrespecting all law, however. It sounds like a dangerous position dressed up in terms to make it sound noble. It would seem you find things "oppressive" simply if you don't agree with them. Such a position makes all government, except by universal agreement, impossible. Such a position is not reasonable, as the world has these things called "other people" in it, and their wants and desires sometimes clash. Either we fight it out, or try to reach agreement. Civilization has decided on the latter. Feel free to find someplace to try to start one based on the former.

There doesn’t have to be perfecting, but when people's lives and rights are at stake, the standards and accountability have to be extraordinarily high. A cop would need a demonstrable and extraordinary reason to kidnap a person, now they can pretty much kidnap you for any reason. A "kidnapping" is by definition an illegal act, so if a cop detains a person for legal reasons it isn't kidnapping. They need probable cause to arrest and detain. The must be able to show this by evidence. That probable cause exists to link one to a crime is "extraordinary" in that it doesn't happen often without reason.

There is no social contract, and as an alleged skeptic it is beneath you to perpetuate this un-American myth. When accusing someone of not being a skeptic because you disagree with what they say, you may want to try to support your statement with some sort of argument or evidence. Otherwise, you do nothing but make people giggle at the irony.

Plus, in disproving the philosophical construct, you may want to emphesize why exactly it is "un-American."


I dont need the law to keep me from stealing and attacking people, and besides that's not the law im talking about.
Well, there's a new argument. Now I have no clue what you are talking about.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Suddenly
Which question? Why I responded the way I did? I thought your accusation that I advocated police misconduct was really stupid, thus my examples of your analysis in circumstances that illuminate the absurdity. [/B]

This question:

Just making sure, but if that is indeed the case, why do you use it to taunt me?

If you dont advocate police brutality, why did you use it to taunt me?

Have any proof that illegal activity was necessary?

How else did the Underground Railroad get slaves to freedom? Why are you being obtuse, you damn well know that people were engaging in illegal activity by getting slaves to freedom and harboring them in their homes.

The real disrespect was the south's wanting out when that process was seemingly not in their favor. This disrespect was an atempt to preserve slavery, not end it.

This is irrelevant.

It would seem you find things "oppressive" simply if you don't agree with them.

That's a convenient way for you to dismiss my position.

Either we fight it out, or try to reach agreement.

Id rather fight it out, every gun-"control" advocate and every gun rights and constitutional freedom advocate can have a battle. Wanna bet who will win?

Sometimes you have to fight for your freedom.

A "kidnapping" is by definition an illegal act, so if a cop detains a person for legal reasons it isn't kidnapping. They need probable cause to arrest and detain. The must be able to show this by evidence. That probable cause exists to link one to a crime is "extraordinary" in that it doesn't happen often without reason.

Besides the semantics of "kidnapping", this doesn’t address my point.

When accusing someone of not being a skeptic because you disagree with what they say you may want to try to support your statement with some sort of argument or evidence.

The burden of proof is on you, where is the evidence of this social contract?

Otherwise, you do nothing but make people giggle at the irony.

The irony is all your's. You're the one invoking the myth of the social contract, not me.

Plus, in disproving the philosophical construct, you may want to emphesize why exactly it is "un-American."

It's a fascistic notion of forcing people to be subservient to society. If that’s not un-American, nothing is.

Well, there's a new argument. Now I have no clue what you are talking about.

What constitutional right and what unjust and tyrannical policy has the conversation in this thread generally revolved around?

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Tony


If you dont advocate police brutality, why did you use it to taunt me? It wasn't taunting. It was the same as if I told you to lock your door when you park your car ouside a mall. There are causes and effects. The whole thing was a bit of a joke based on your statement that you do not respect the law.

How else did the Underground Railroad get slaves to freedom? Why are you being obtuse, you damn well know that people were engaging in illegal activity by getting slaves to freedom and harboring them in their homes. You are contending that this was the activity that changed the laws. I don't see the connection. The law was changed by people voting for anti-slavery candidates, the south saw the writing on the wall and then the war. For someone that likes to scream strawman you sure take liberties when painting someone else's position. First I advocate police misconduct. Now I'm denying that people broke laws regarding slavery. Perhaps I should have just took a page from your book and just claimed "Strawman" and said no more.


This is irrelevant. Not really. It is the other side of the coin. The south disrespected the law w/r/t how laws are changed and caused a war. If you want people to only follow laws they agree with, this is the sort of thing that happens.

It would seem you find things "oppressive" simply if you don't agree with them.

That's a convenient way for you to dismiss my position. I haven't seen any indication this isn't true, and it seems to follow from your position. I'm not dismissing your position, I'm tryuing to figure out what it is.

Either we fight it out, or try to reach agreement.

Id rather fight it out, every gun-"control" advocate and every gun rights and constitutional freedom advocate can have a battle. Wanna bet who will win? Nobody? The funeral home owners? Shooting everyone that disagrees with you doesn't work, it's called living in a civilized society. There are plenty of places that do things the way you like, it is just that America isn't one of them.

A "kidnapping" is by definition an illegal act, so if a cop detains a person for legal reasons it isn't kidnapping. They need probable cause to arrest and detain. The must be able to show this by evidence. That probable cause exists to link one to a crime is "extraordinary" in that it doesn't happen often without reason.

Besides the semantics of "kidnapping", this doesn’t address my point. You said " A cop would need a demonstrable and extraordinary reason to kidnap a person." Above I said this is already true and explained why. It completely addresses your point.

When accusing someone of not being a skeptic because you disagree with what they say you may want to try to support your statement with some sort of argument or evidence.

The burden of proof is on you, where is the evidence of this social contract? The "Social Contract" is a philosophical construct that describes the relationship between citizen and state. Various philosophers have used this model. The idea being that there is an exchange of people and benefits between the state and citizen, that accepting benefits obligates one to accept the burdens. This type of contract is common in law, there is no need for signed papers or such for a contract. If you accept a benefit with the understanding you will shoulder the burden, you agree to the social contract.

This is nothing new in this thread. There is my evidence. There is no conclusive proof, as it is just a philosophical model.

Otherwise, you do nothing but make people giggle at the irony.

The irony is all your's. You're the one invoking the myth of the social contract, not me. When I make definite statements, I back them up. You made a definite statement that the "social contract" was a myth. You gave nothing to back that up.

If you had simply said that you saw no evidence for a social contract, or that you disagreed with the philosophical model, then your current position would have some merit. You did no such thing. You said:

"There is no social contract, and as an alleged skeptic it is beneath you to perpetuate this un-American myth."

So back it up with something.


Well, there's a new argument. Now I have no clue what you are talking about.

What constitutional right and what unjust and tyrannical policy has the conversation in this thread generally revolved around?

As far as I can tell it has revolved around 1) use of anecdotal evidence and 2) The strawman that anyone that advocates any gun regulation must want a total ban.

Perhaps you should point out the particular law you don't like, as well as argument for why you should be justified in ignoring it? You aren't doing so well in this general argument about your right to ignore laws just because you disagree with them. Perhaps you should stick to specifics.

[shanek]

Originally posted by The Fool
Well at least you can see there is a gun violence problem unlike some of the "head in the sand" posters.

Really? Who has been denying this?

Or are you just lying again?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Geez, you love to think you're being persecuted, don't you? I was responding to Thanz, not you.

About something I had posted. But weasel away; I'm sure those on your side will gladly ignore your imrpoprieties as you always seem to do for each other.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
Good luck proving that. Your word against the "noble police officers that risk their lives every day to protect us, like on one fateful September day ..." You'll win that one.

Aren't most police cars and interrogation rooms fitted with video recorders now? Seems to me that would be an awfully hard thing to refute.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek


Aren't most police cars and interrogation rooms fitted with video recorders now? Seems to me that would be an awfully hard thing to refute.

I wish. Not in rube junction they aren't.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by shanek


Really? Who has been denying this?

Or are you just lying again?

Read richardG's posts, gun deaths are apparently insignificant and not worth being concerned about.

Do you ever get sick of using "liar liar pants on fire" to shore up your insecurities? You would need to remove your head from another orifice before the sand would be a viable alternative.

We must never forget that your cult believes the holy constitution must always be applied absolutely, no rule or regulation may vary its origional pure purpose....Unless, of course, its one of your rules or regulations. people's rights to bear arms shall not be infringed, except, except, except......as long as they are only your "excepts" you are happy are you not?

[shanek]

Originally posted by The Fool
Read richardG's posts, gun deaths are apparently insignificant and not worth being concerned about.

That is not what I've derived from reading them, but I'll let Richard speak for himself on this one. I've never heard him voice that idea directly, though, so unless you can quote a specific example I have to conclude that this is another one of your strawmen.

We must never forget that your cult believes the holy constitution must always be applied absolutely,

Another lie. I've mentioned problems with the Constitution several times. (Do you really think I'm okay with the 16th Amendment, for example?)

Unless, of course, its one of your rules or regulations.

Examples?

people's rights to bear arms shall not be infringed, except,

Where have I made any exceptions to this other than the normal waivers and forfietures, under conditions codified in the Constitution, that would apply to all sorts of other rights?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
I wish. Not in rube junction they aren't.

The ironic thing about this is, when they were getting ready to implement this in Charlotte, a lot of the Charlotte police got all up in arms about it. A lot of state troopers made a similar stink when the state implemented this in highway patrol cars. So, I guess that whole "If you're not doing anything wrong you've got nothing to worry about" argument only applies to us civilians, huh?