Guns, guns, guns

[drg]

The research you presented proves and shows nothing definitive in regard to the gun control debate at large. This is not an open-and-shut case as most crusaders would have everyone else believe, on either side of the equation.

If it were that easy, it wouldn't be the big debate it is. There is plenty of evidence, studies and research on both sides. I deliberately do not state my position as it invariably ends up inviting personal attacks (you can see they have already been attempted when none of the attemptors even knows what my position is).

I enter these threads knowing what I'm going to see from both extremes and not expecting to change those minds, but rather to encourage openmindedness in others who may be viewing these threads and trying to come to their own conclusions.

Much of what is stated as 'fact' by either side is fraught with so many mitigating and influencing factors that to characterize anything as definitive based on the current state of things is misleading at best, outright deception at worst (and unfortunately the latter is usually the case).

So I return to my original assertion, that availability is a huge factor in gun crime. No guns = no gun crime, and there is no arguing that point. It's a gigantic elephant in the room which RTKBA-extremists routinely ignore. Whether it's attainable -- or desirable -- in the real world is another question entirely.

[CoolHand]

And still no proof one way or another.

Dismiss everyone else's argument as invalid because their data "could" be wrong or biased, and then reply with assertions that have no backing whatever.

You toss that out there, and insist you're right and impartial, and anyone who doesn't agree with you is obviously a closed minded zealot.

Seen that tactic before, in many places, and it reflects your true colors more than you think.

I'm done discussing this with you, 'cause at this point it's just wasted energy. Whatever I say, you will dismiss as "baseless" or whatever, and then reiterate your baseless and unbacked "facts".

There are a great many things I can spend time doing and not accomplish anything, and most of them are a hell of a lot more fun than arguing in circles with an internet troll.

Time for an internet insult:

Never argue with an idiot, they'll drag you down to their level, and then beat you with experience.

Oh, and BTW, No Gun Crime != No Crime At All

That's a straw man, and a damned poor one at that. Just because gun crime is reduced by the absence of guns, in no way indicates that overall crime is reduced. In fact, if you'd read the research that's out there, you will see that many countries with very harsh firearms laws still have very high crime rates. Nevermind the fact that removing guns from the world is entirely impossible.

If we're going to wish for things that can't ever happen, I'd like to be king of all Londinium and wear a shiny hat.

[Lohman446]

You misunderstand the argument. Its not about if you have a right, or want of personal safety.

Its about who you place responsible for it. You place the government (by making laws), and other people (by following said laws) as responsible for it. You shift the obligation.

By being prepared to directly defend it I place myself as most directly responsible for it.

Its exactly what I wrote it is, about how you place responsibility for your obligations. You place it on the government and society, I place it on me.

By you I mean when you made the argument that mine was about safety. My argument was about personal responsibility (for safety), not about which would result in a less safe arrangement. Granted I beleive personal responsibilty leads to better safety, but I never stated that.

[Lohman446]

So I return to my original assertion, that availability is a huge factor in gun crime. No guns = no gun crime, and there is no arguing that point. It's a gigantic elephant in the room which RTKBA-extremists routinely ignore. Whether it's attainable -- or desirable -- in the real world is another question entirely.

The error in the argument is that strong gun laws DOES NOT equal no guns. See the England example you seemed to miss. Strong gun laws equal a disproporinatly armed criminal segment as no non criminal private citizen will own a gun.

[Pacifist_Farmer]

It is also illegal to have handguns (for the most part) in Canada, look at the crime rate up here. The problem areas in Canada are near the border, where guns are smuggled in from the states. So, if you look at a single city, like New York, there surrounded by gun-toting areas, therefore it is quite easy to smuggle in guns.

http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/peopleandsociety/population/population2001/density2001

Perhaps you should look into the population density of your own country, do you think that maybe that has something to do with the issue.

Blaming the US is easy, understanding the fact that most of your gun crimes happen in the places with the highest population densities, which just so happen to be near the US is slightly harder. Way to take the easy route.

(I really wanted to contribute to this conversation in some way)

[Pneumagger]

I think Lohman is trying to point out that you can't control gun violence firsthand... by dealing with guns.
Violence has been around long before gunpowder, and guns simply aid in more efficient service to man's will.
Where there is a will there is a way.

If you want to curb gun violence, you have to disenfranchise the offender, not disable the tool.
One tool that is shown to curb gun violence is stronger punishment and enforcement. If armed petty theft carried a life sentance and there was more patrol... people would not rob others.
This is indirectly why CCW significantly reduces crime... there's a 1/20 chance your victim is armed. Would you rob a bank full of 30+ people when odds are 1 in 20 are carrying?

Personally, I think the world would be much more peacful if we turned the entire middle east into a glass parking lot... But that's a disscussion for another day, if debatable at all.

[michbich]

...
It is also illegal to have handguns (for the most part) in Canada, look at the crime rate up here. The problem areas in Canada are near the border, where guns are smuggled in from the states. So, if you look at a single city, like New York, there surrounded by gun-toting areas, therefore it is quite easy to smuggle in guns.

...

I just wanted to coment on a few things. Handguns are NOT illegal in Canada, you need a hunting FAC (firearm accisition certicicat) and also a handgun FAC to be elligible to buy one. It is time and money consuming. It took me atleast 3 months before getting my hunting FAC.

Also, like it was stated, 98% of Canada's population is within 200kms (120milles) from the border.

You are trying to twist the reality to push your ideas, it's not working.

[drg]

Oh, and BTW, No Gun Crime != No Crime At All

I never claimed such a thing, the only person to bring up such an argument was you. Exactly my point about brain shutdown and reading comprehension. You are reading things into what I said based on what you THINK my position is.

The error in the argument is that strong gun laws DOES NOT equal no guns.

I never claimed it did. You might think I did, but that's your own bias and inability to approach the subject impartially because of your personal position. Again, exactly my point about the inability of RTKBA zealots to think rationally once the subject is broached.

don't sit there and claim I shouldn't be able to own a gun because you fear I'll infringe on your freedoms. If you feel that way then you should consequently feel free to arm yourself.

Did I actually claim that, or did you claim I claimed that, based on your own biases about what "side" you think I am on? Are you being honest in your thinking, or practicing indiscriminate defense based on your own prejudgment?

That this happens in discussions on guns and the 2nd amendment is a prime reason why people are wary of the mindset of gun crusaders. It's not such a stretch to practice indiscriminate defense with your handgun based on prejudgment in real life. And it does happen.

IMO it is something to be vigilant against and that starts with open and honest thought processes in venues such as these where your life is NOT in danger. Training, if you will.

[CoolHand]

I don't have to be impartial.

I've looked at both sides and made my decision (long ago actually).

I fight for what I believe in, if that, in your opinion, makes me a zealot, so be it. Feel free to go pound sand, for all I care.

That's the beauty part about this great nation, we don't gotta agree. We don't have to "build a consensus", we don't have to all get along, and we do not all have to be cute and cuddly fuzzy wuzzies.

You see, I don't need to win the argument, I don't need to build a consensus, I don't need to do anything at all, except stand back and poke holes in their arguments and cast a doubt.

In order for you and your ilk (and I am still up in the air about whether you're a gun hater, or just a troll, but in this instance, I choose to err on the side of whatever is more likely to piss you off ) to get done the things you want to do (whatever it is), you have to have support. You have to build a consensus. You have to have a majority of folks to think like you and get all along for long enough to do whatever it is you want done.

In order for me to keep my freedom, all I need to do is disrupt and disturb you enough that you don't get anything done.

Which of those sounds easier to do?

BTW, I AM a gun lover (as if that were a bad thing ). I hold an FFL, a Federal Explosives License (for class B fireworks), and I am a trained blaster. I enjoy my freedom very much, and I take it very personal when someone thinks they know better how I should run my life.

You can call me whatever names you like, and blather on and on about whatever made up "facts" you want. I'll still be over here in my corner, disturbing your **** just enough to keep you from getting much of anything done, and enjoying my freedom as much as I can.

[drg]

In order for you and your ilk

What ilk is that? Do you have some evidence as to what I actually believe on the subject? I've made some indisputable statements, like no guns = no gun crime. No unfabricated research is going to ever show otherwise, obviously. I have not indicated my personal beliefs on the subject.

You can make it as personal as you like; that's the common tactic when faced with an inability to stand on the merits of one's own position.

You speak of straw men while continuing to beat on your own. You are trying to harrass a figment of your own imagination. You are essentially engaging in a (rather orgiastic) mental masturbation session.

[Lohman446]

I never claimed such a thing, the only person to bring up such an argument was you. Exactly my point about brain shutdown and reading comprehension. You are reading things into what I said based on what you THINK my position is.



I never claimed it did. You might think I did, but that's your own bias and inability to approach the subject impartially because of your personal position. Again, exactly my point about the inability of RTKBA zealots to think rationally once the subject is broached.



Did I actually claim that, or did you claim I claimed that, based on your own biases about what "side" you think I am on? Are you being honest in your thinking, or practicing indiscriminate defense based on your own prejudgment?

That this happens in discussions on guns and the 2nd amendment is a prime reason why people are wary of the mindset of gun crusaders. It's not such a stretch to practice indiscriminate defense with your handgun based on prejudgment in real life. And it does happen.

IMO it is something to be vigilant against and that starts with open and honest thought processes in venues such as these where your life is NOT in danger. Training, if you will.

If the whole basis of your argument is if there was a magic button that could make guns not exist than there would be no gun crime you're an idiot.

Violence and crime against one another does not require a weapon. Of course a gun crime requires a gun. Its ridiculous that this is you're only "argument".

That being said, present a threat to me or my family and it will be met with in a way that will end that threat. Be that a solid side kick to your knee or ankle, a quick punch to your throat or nose, or two .45 slugs to the center of mass. It is my responsibility to protect me and mine, I don't need the government to do it.

Quit trolling, have the guts to make a statement and actually defend it.

[drg]

If the whole basis of your argument is if there was a magic button that could make guns not exist than there would be no gun crime you're an idiot.

Is it the whole basis of my argument? Have I talked about anything else? Did you read what I wrote or did you gloss over it, assuming you know what I was trying to say?

I am not going to repeat it. It's all there. Feel free to discuss it at any time, but it will require losing a whole lot of bias to see it in the first place, apparently.

That being said, present a threat to me or my family and it will be met with in a way that will end that threat. Be that a solid side kick to your knee or ankle, a quick punch to your throat or nose, or two .45 slugs to the center of mass. It is my responsibility to protect me and mine, I don't need the government to do it.

Beat your chest if you like, I suppose. But it's wasted effort, as it is irrelevant. And it does not impress. It's rather foolish, if you ask me.

Quit trolling, have the guts to make a statement and actually defend it.

Do you mean an easily classified (and thus easily attacked) statement? You will get no such thing from me. There is no black or white answer to this issue.

[maxama10]

Saying that no guns = no gun violence would be a fact. I suppose.


Regardless, its a moot point.

not mute

[Lohman446]

Is it the whole basis of my argument? Have I talked about anything else? Did you read what I wrote or did you gloss over it, assuming you know what I was trying to say?

I am not going to repeat it. It's all there. Fell free to discuss it at any time, but it will require losing a whole lot of bias it see it in the first place, apparently.



Beat your chest if you like, I suppose. But it's wasted effort, as it is irrelevant. And it does not impress. It's rather foolish, if you ask me.



Do you mean an easily classified (and thus easily attacked) statement? You will get no such thing from me. There is no black or white answer to this issue.

Congratulations, you are an idiot.

[michbich]

Saying that no guns = no gun violence would be a fact. I suppose.


Regardless, its a moot point.

not mute

It's moo, not moot !!!