Switch Theme:

Chicago - Crime Rate Drops as Concealed Carry Applications Surge.  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Discussing 2A rights on a forum like this is kinda akin to:









Its the demographics of this website.

Of the parties for whom this 2A issue pertains (read U.S. citizens - not a xenophobe, it is what it is), those for and against are diametrically opposed to the extent the issue will never be resolved until there is Constitutional Carry or out right confiscation.

And for those who dont have a geographic dog in this fight (everybody BUT US citizens), most dont understand the principle behind the Second Amendment as enumerated by (but NOT guaranteed - as it is understood to be a pre-existing Natural Right) the U.S. Constitution and so fail to appreciate the passions aroused.

So, much like the fights pictured above, threads like this go nowhere - but they are fun to watch
   
Made in us
Blood Angel Captain Wracked with Visions






 d-usa wrote:
It was mostly just a swipe at the whole "alcohol kills more people than guns so quit caring about guns and focus on alcohol" thing that pops up in every gun thread.

Those numbers also always include some pretty questionable statistics such as "person died from something liver-related, but they drank in the past, so we should count liver cancer as an alcohol death". Of course pointing out that actual causes of death that list alcohol as the reason results in a number that is lower than the number of gun deaths, and that the vast majority of deaths only have some very flimsy relationship to alcohol and that we might as well do stupid stuff like 'guns cause cancer and we should add those totals' while we are at it. I get that people are passionate about the cause, but posting numbers that are pretty questionable doesn't help anyone. Heck, we might as well post every finding from the Brady Campaign if we are that loose on our standards for research .

Of course that also brings us back to the silliness of the idea that we should not care about one thing as long as there is another thing that may be worse. Alcohol abuse and negligent gun injuries can both be lowered, through legislation and public policy as well as actions by private organizations. People can care about both and they can care about one and not the other, but that doesn't invalidate the other one.

That reminds me, after his death was ruled a homicide was there any more said? Were they trying to have his death recorded as the result of the shooting he survived so his followers could have their martyr?

 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Leerstetten, Germany

Who are we talking about now?
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
 d-usa wrote:
It was mostly just a swipe at the whole "alcohol kills more people than guns so quit caring about guns and focus on alcohol" thing that pops up in every gun thread.

Those numbers also always include some pretty questionable statistics such as "person died from something liver-related, but they drank in the past, so we should count liver cancer as an alcohol death". Of course pointing out that actual causes of death that list alcohol as the reason results in a number that is lower than the number of gun deaths, and that the vast majority of deaths only have some very flimsy relationship to alcohol and that we might as well do stupid stuff like 'guns cause cancer and we should add those totals' while we are at it. I get that people are passionate about the cause, but posting numbers that are pretty questionable doesn't help anyone. Heck, we might as well post every finding from the Brady Campaign if we are that loose on our standards for research .

Of course that also brings us back to the silliness of the idea that we should not care about one thing as long as there is another thing that may be worse. Alcohol abuse and negligent gun injuries can both be lowered, through legislation and public policy as well as actions by private organizations. People can care about both and they can care about one and not the other, but that doesn't invalidate the other one.

That reminds me, after his death was ruled a homicide was there any more said? Were they trying to have his death recorded as the result of the shooting he survived so his followers could have their martyr?


Wellllll....yes and no.

Prosecution would have to prove causation of the death at 73 was the direct result of the injury he received. There is precedence for this, but not very successful for the prosecution. The Court could not reference the prior case - the merit for the homicide case would come strictly from the current medical examiners findings.

More than likely, this was done for political grandstanding.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 d-usa wrote:
Who are we talking about now?


The Reagan assassination attempt that left James Brady in a wheelchair and us stuck with the Brady Bill.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/08/28 16:37:44


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Leerstetten, Germany

Right.

From what I have read it has been ruled a homicide, but that doesn't mean that there will be charges.
   
Made in us
Blood Angel Captain Wracked with Visions






 Spacemanvic wrote:
Wellllll....yes and no.

Prosecution would have to prove causation of the death at 73 was the direct result of the injury he received. There is precedence for this, but not very successful for the prosecution. The Court could not reference the prior case - the merit for the homicide case would come strictly from the current medical examiners findings.

More than likely, this was done for political grandstanding.

My reading of it too

 d-usa wrote:
Right.

From what I have read it has been ruled a homicide, but that doesn't mean that there will be charges.

There doesn't need to be charges filed for his campaign to now declare him a martyr to the cause of gun control

 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Leerstetten, Germany

I think MEs are pretty loose with those declarations. Wasn't Christopher Reeves death also ruled an accident since it was "caused" by his fall (if he wouldn't have fallen he wouldn't have been paralyzed and he wouldn't have gotten the sore that got infected)?
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





IL

I'm worried about sharks with lasers on their heads because once that's achieved guns are rendered pointless.

Paulson Games parts are now at:
www.RedDogMinis.com 
   
Made in us
Veteran ORC







 paulson games wrote:
I'm worried about sharks with lasers on their heads because once that's achieved guns are rendered pointless.


Can we please not talk about fricken sharks with fricken lazer beams attached to their frikken heads?

I've never feared Death or Dying. I've only feared never Trying. 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Leerstetten, Germany

This is all making me very ill-tempered...
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 Ashiraya wrote:
 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
 Ashiraya wrote:

The same goes for sports, etc.



By your logic, rugby, the single greatest team sport in the fething world, would cease to exist overnight.


Given the context, I hoped it would be obvious that I was referring to gunsports.

I see no reason to touch sports that are not involving firearms.


Well, it wasn't clear at all. and even then, in events like the olympic style biathlon, or pistol shooting/clay pigeon shooting, there often times IS a good deal of vetting the person as it's a particular sport with a strict set of rules, the organizing bodies obviously want to ensure that the shooter, judges and all involved will be safe
   
Made in se
Glorious Lord of Chaos






The burning pits of Hades, also known as Sweden in summer

I am done with the topic itself, but I do wonder:

What's with the 'us and them' attitude going on here and there ITT? The tone is really unpleasant. Are guns really such a sensitive topic? We're all friends here, so I see no motivation to sharpen one's points with various thinly and thickly veiled unpleasantries.

I was considering tossing in a dozen or so quotes as examples, but I do not think it will be necessary, and I am not here to point fingers.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/08/28 18:07:10


Currently ongoing projects:
Horus Heresy Alpha Legion
Tyranids  
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

 Ashiraya wrote:
I am done with the topic itself, but I do wonder:

What's with the 'us and them' attitude going on here and there ITT? The tone is really unpleasant. Are guns really such a sensitive topic? We're all friends here, so I see no motivation to sharpen one's points with various thinly and thickly veiled unpleasantries.

I was considering tossing in a dozen or so quotes as examples, but I do not think it will be necessary, and I am not here to point fingers.


Because you are arguing to eliminate my rights when you don't even live here.

-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in us
Last Remaining Whole C'Tan






Pleasant Valley, Iowa

 Spacemanvic wrote:
Of the parties for whom this 2A issue pertains (read U.S. citizens - not a xenophobe, it is what it is), those for and against are diametrically opposed to the extent the issue will never be resolved until there is Constitutional Carry or out right confiscation.


I don't think that's true at all. I mean, sure, there's a fringe minority at either extreme just like with any issue but I don't think a significant percentage of people in either camp fall into "everything's on the table" or "confiscate all guns". I like guns, I think they're awesome. I own some, and I like shooting them because they're loud. I got a muzzle brake for my AK specifically because the reviews said it made the report significantly louder, and it did.

But I think some devices are too inherently destructive to be bought off the shelf. I don't think people should be able to buy Stinger missiles. I'm totally OK with the current restrictions on select fire weapons (and wish my state allowed them if I got the tax stamp). I have a conceal carry permit and my state doesn't require me to show any proficiency with it at all, and I'd be OK if they did require that. I think I'd be OK with universal background checks if it was fast and free.

I think most people are sort of in the middle, is the point.


 Ashiraya wrote:
What's with the 'us and them' attitude going on here and there ITT? The tone is really unpleasant. Are guns really such a sensitive topic? We're all friends here, so I see no motivation to sharpen one's points with various thinly and thickly veiled unpleasantries.


It's not just this thread or this topic, it's cropped up before. It seems when some posters are on the losing end of an argument they pull the "well, you're a foreigner so your point is irrelevant" card, as if ideologies stop at the border, and seem to be wholly unaware of the irony of playing that card on a forum devoted to a British wargame.





This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/08/28 18:19:31


 lord_blackfang wrote:
Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.

 Flinty wrote:
The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





CL VI Store in at the Cyber Center of Excellence

 Ashiraya wrote:
I am done with the topic itself, but I do wonder:

What's with the 'us and them' attitude going on here and there ITT? The tone is really unpleasant. Are guns really such a sensitive topic? We're all friends here, so I see no motivation to sharpen one's points with various thinly and thickly veiled unpleasantries.

I was considering tossing in a dozen or so quotes as examples, but I do not think it will be necessary, and I am not here to point fingers.


I honestly think it is because you advocate limiting or actually taking away a right. Your country may not have that right, and it may not be a right you think others should have, but in the US it is indeed a right. If someone advocated limiting a right you do have and consider a basic guaranteed right, you would probably (hopefully) argue against having that right taken from you. If the folks advocating taking that right were from outside your country and you felt they did not even understand the right and its importance, yet were still advocating for you to lose that right I suspect you may act in a similar manner.

Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings. 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 Ouze wrote:

But I think some devices are too inherently destructive to be bought off the shelf. I don't think people should be able to buy Stinger missiles. I'm totally OK with the current restrictions on select fire weapons (and wish my state allowed them if I got the tax stamp). I have a conceal carry permit and my state doesn't require me to show any proficiency with it at all, and I'd be OK if they did require that. I think I'd be OK with universal background checks if it was fast and free.

I think most people are sort of in the middle, is the point.





Agreed. I think if you honestly look at most political/public issues, MOST of your "Joe Plumber" (to use the Obama campaign thing) American person will actually fall somewhere in the middle on a huge swathe of issues.

The state that I'm in right now is extremely similar on CCW licencing (only the stupid fethers dont accept CC... Cash only, wtf) and while they don't require any courses/proficiency in safe use of firearms, I've been in states where you all you needed was a certificate from an authorized CCW trainer (plus the additional background check/forms, etc) to get a CCW permit. As for the "universal background" check... We basically already have that, and I've no problem with being checked everytime I purchase a new shooting iron. The only caveat that gets trotted around a lot is that "gun show loophole" and personally, if people feel it's that big a deal, I'd propose a system where in order to enter a gun show period would require a NICS check (again, provided it was free), along with additional LEOs around the parking areas to ensure that the illegal transactions don't happen "at the gun show"


But I also see the merit, as in your Stinger analogy of restricting and limiting the availability of C-4/Dynamite and other HE products, as well as M-1 Abrams/ammunition. I don't necessarily agree with limiting/restricting things like M249s, 240B, M60s, etc as even IF you are "allowed" to purchase one (through the requisite forms, and taxes, etc) the cost of them, plus ammo is so prohibitively high already as to make them unrealistic for most people to obtain.
   
Made in us
Veteran ORC







 Ouze wrote:


 Ashiraya wrote:
What's with the 'us and them' attitude going on here and there ITT? The tone is really unpleasant. Are guns really such a sensitive topic? We're all friends here, so I see no motivation to sharpen one's points with various thinly and thickly veiled unpleasantries.


It's not just this thread or this topic, it's cropped up before. It seems when some posters are on the losing end of an argument they pull the "well, you're a foreigner so your point is irrelevant" card, as if ideologies stop at the border, and seem to be wholly unaware of the irony of playing that card on a forum devoted to a British wargame.







Guilty of saying it my self, but it's also kind of funny that it is usually coming from Muricans, whom "Liberate" anyone who doesn't share their values.

Having said that, I will argue against taking guns away from people for two reasons:

A) If someone wants to kill someone, they will do it with a Gun, Knife, feck a Pen will kill someone if used right.
B) Guns are only a tool. A dangerous tool, to be certain, but a tool none the less. People whom don't follow laws will always have a gun if they want one, and taking them out of the hands of law abiding citizens only puts them in danger (Because I don't know about you guys, but calling a cop usually takes an hour or two before they actually get to your house where I live).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/08/28 18:36:48


I've never feared Death or Dying. I've only feared never Trying. 
   
Made in ca
Lieutenant Colonel






 Ouze wrote:
 Spacemanvic wrote:
Of the parties for whom this 2A issue pertains (read U.S. citizens - not a xenophobe, it is what it is), those for and against are diametrically opposed to the extent the issue will never be resolved until there is Constitutional Carry or out right confiscation.


I don't think that's true at all. I mean, sure, there's a fringe minority at either extreme just like with any issue but I don't think a significant percentage of people in either camp fall into "everything's on the table" or "confiscate all guns".



while your post is well written,

there is a SIGNIFICANT amount of, vocal, and well/internationally funded groups and peoples who's stated goal is to do just that... confiscate/ban all guns.

very few gun owners actually want full autos and stingers to be handed out without BG checks, quite a lot of anti gun people want them all banned, most of the middle ground people dont care if they are all banned and wouldnt do anything to stop it.

I have worked closely in the past with anti gun activists, it is 100% the goal of brady types, bloomburg, cukier types and their organizations to ban civilian gun ownership, one step at a time if they have to.

 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Leerstetten, Germany

 Slarg232 wrote:
 Ouze wrote:


 Ashiraya wrote:
What's with the 'us and them' attitude going on here and there ITT? The tone is really unpleasant. Are guns really such a sensitive topic? We're all friends here, so I see no motivation to sharpen one's points with various thinly and thickly veiled unpleasantries.


It's not just this thread or this topic, it's cropped up before. It seems when some posters are on the losing end of an argument they pull the "well, you're a foreigner so your point is irrelevant" card, as if ideologies stop at the border, and seem to be wholly unaware of the irony of playing that card on a forum devoted to a British wargame.







Guilty of saying it my self, but it's also kind of funny that it is usually coming from Muricans, whom "Liberate" anyone who doesn't share their values.

Having said that, I will argue against taking guns away from people for two reasons:

A) If someone wants to kill someone, they will do it with a Gun, Knife, feck a Pen will kill someone if used right.
B) Guns are only a tool. A dangerous tool, to be certain, but a tool none the less. People whom don't follow laws will always have a gun if they want one, and taking them out of the hands of law abiding citizens only puts them in danger (Because I don't know about you guys, but calling a cop usually takes an hour or two before they actually get to your house where I live).


But guns make it significantly easier to hurt people. Which is something that folks sometimes don't really like to admit. Sure, a bad guy can go on a knifing spree or run through a grade school and try to hammer kids to death, but having a gun increases the potential for damage and might be the push to decide to attack.

With that same argument I could also defend myself with a hammer, a rock, or a rusty nail. If I really wanted to try and defend myself I would use whatever tool I had available. But I carry a gun, because a gun makes it a heck of a lot easier to drop a bad guy than any of these other options.

I think sometimes the "it's only a tool" and "guns don't kill people..." talk can make gun owners look silly by ignoring just how big of a factor a firearm really is in a confrontation that includes it. So we need to be willing to admit that a gun can make it really easy to kill someone and that is is a powerful and dangerous tool. Which of course is also the reason we want to be able to have access to them so that we can use them to defend ourselves.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/08/28 19:00:39


 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

think sometimes the "it's only a tool" and "guns don't kill people..." talk can make gun owners look silly by ignoring just how big of a factor a firearm really is in a confrontation that includes it. So we need to be willing to admit that a gun can make it really easy to kill someone and that is is a powerful and dangerous tool. Which of course is also the reason we want to be able to have access to them so that we can use them to defend ourselves.


My Wife is counting on it. I however just want to shoot zombies or at least set them on fire with a flamethrower. Come on the holiday season's coming up, lets have a little fun. WOOSH!

-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Ouze wrote:
 Spacemanvic wrote:
Of the parties for whom this 2A issue pertains (read U.S. citizens - not a xenophobe, it is what it is), those for and against are diametrically opposed to the extent the issue will never be resolved until there is Constitutional Carry or out right confiscation.


I don't think that's true at all. I mean, sure, there's a fringe minority at either extreme just like with any issue but I don't think a significant percentage of people in either camp fall into "everything's on the table" or "confiscate all guns". I like guns, I think they're awesome. I own some, and I like shooting them because they're loud. I got a muzzle brake for my AK specifically because the reviews said it made the report significantly louder, and it did.

But I think some devices are too inherently destructive to be bought off the shelf. I don't think people should be able to buy Stinger missiles. I'm totally OK with the current restrictions on select fire weapons (and wish my state allowed them if I got the tax stamp). I have a conceal carry permit and my state doesn't require me to show any proficiency with it at all, and I'd be OK if they did require that. I think I'd be OK with universal background checks if it was fast and free.

I think most people are sort of in the middle, is the point.


 Ashiraya wrote:
What's with the 'us and them' attitude going on here and there ITT? The tone is really unpleasant. Are guns really such a sensitive topic? We're all friends here, so I see no motivation to sharpen one's points with various thinly and thickly veiled unpleasantries.


It's not just this thread or this topic, it's cropped up before. It seems when some posters are on the losing end of an argument they pull the "well, you're a foreigner so your point is irrelevant" card, as if ideologies stop at the border, and seem to be wholly unaware of the irony of playing that card on a forum devoted to a British wargame.







Same thing happens when the losing side pulls out the tired Chestnut of Stinger missiles as a reason for gun control.

Nobody wants Stinger missiles. A flamethrower though, NOW YOURE TALKIN!
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

Would be interesting to see if there are any laws against flamethrowers. I'd bet you'd be surprised.

-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






New Orleans, LA

 Frazzled wrote:
Would be interesting to see if there are any laws against flamethrowers. I'd bet you'd be surprised.


If I could have a flamethrower, I'd be so happy!

DA:70S+G+M+B++I++Pw40k08+D++A++/fWD-R+T(M)DM+
 
   
Made in us
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot




On moon miranda.

There's no federal laws against flamethrowers, and relatively few states have restrictions on them. In CA they must be licensed by the state fire marshall (this is usually for brush clearing/controlled burns/etc), though illegal possession is interestingly only a misdemeanor and not a Felony.

IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.

New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights!
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.  
   
Made in ca
Lieutenant Colonel






 kronk wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Would be interesting to see if there are any laws against flamethrowers. I'd bet you'd be surprised.


If I could have a flamethrower, I'd be so happy!


flame throwers are completely unrestricted in canada,

I assume its the same south of the border as any hand pumped kerosine pack can be a "flame thrower" and even the ancient greeks and romans had such devices as they are easy to make.


I would love to see a hand held CCW flame thrower made though... mmmm now THERE is a deterrant!

also, easier to aim!

great conversation started at BBQ's when you flash roast the pig in 20 seconds!

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Vaktathi wrote:
There's no federal laws against flamethrowers, and relatively few states have restrictions on them. In CA they must be licensed by the state fire marshall (this is usually for brush clearing/controlled burns/etc), though illegal possession is interestingly only a misdemeanor and not a Felony.


"Hey Ferb, I know what we are going to do today!"

   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Against my better judgement,
 Smacks wrote:

Don't like being drunk? Don't drink
Don't like being tattooed? Don't get one
Don't like being drugged? Don't use them
Don't like having an abortion? Don't get one
Don't like being shot? Err... Oh it doesn't work.

The problem is that for most of those things you have a fair amount of personal choice. Being drugged is a possible exception, but then the kind of drugs people would want to give someone against their will (such as date rape drugs) rightly should be illegal. Abortion could also become "don't like being aborted?" but that might be for another topic.

"Don't like being shot" is clearly different. While you might be doing something to deserve it, it also sometimes happens to people minding their own business out shopping or going to the cinema. And it can be quite senseless and unexpected, people just don't get a say in the matter when it comes to being shot, personal choice is gone. This is actually more extreme than things like car crashes, because on some level the risk of a crash is something people accept when they get in a car, or go near a busy road. The danger is not so hidden.

Remember when I talked about dishonesty and you objected? This is a prime example. You took my post about individual rights to do things, and twisted it to the acts of a third party to try and make your point. That is being dishonest
There is nothing 'dishonest' about it. I was simply pointing out that people who don't like guns can still be shot by them.
It's no better than someone opposed to drinking changing the drinking example to "Don't like being run over by a drunk driver?Err...Oh it doesn't work".
Well it's quite similar, but mine is a little better because I'm not combining two separate things. You could also be shot by a drunk driver. Or run over by someone with a tattoo. This really comes back the same old argument you keep making, which basically goes:

"If you want to control/ban guns, then you need to ban all cars and alcohol too."


Which of course, is just a stupid false dichotomy, and ignores any third option. It also glosses over the fact that I have already conceded that cars are dangerous. I think it's disgusting how many cars there are for so few people, and how many irresponsible and incompetent people end up behind the wheel, and how much resources they waste.

Now you're probably thinking... "So what's your solution? BAN CARS??? Exactly! So leave guns alone". But this is just the same silly false dichotomy as before, and you need to stop making this false argument.

If I want to I can screw your argument anyway, because I am actually in favour of slowly phasing cars out in favour of safer more environmentally friendly and sustainable modes of transport. So ner :p

Also stop calling me dishonest. You're the one who reeled of a bunch or 'rights' like they were all interchangeable. Showing that they're not and why they're not is the honest thing to do. It doesn't matter if being shot, and being rundown by a drunk driver are similar, both are different to getting a tattoo, so your argument about rights was flawed. That's all I really need to show in order to discredit your reasoning.


It almost looked like you'd done an impressive amount of research, until I realized you'd just copypasted one website, which clearly has a dubious pro gun agenda. You could have just posted the link tbh.

Not that any of these statistics really support a conclusion. So what if two thirds of victims are criminals? That still means a third of victims aren't criminals, do they not matter? And 'criminals' is a fairly lose term anyway. It's not like everyone with a conviction is a gangbanger.

A cursory glance through also reveals these gems:
Fact: Only 0.7% of convicts bought their firearms at gun shows. 39.2% obtained them from illegal street dealers.
Haha, and where do illegal street dealers get their guns? I suppose they pull them out their ass?

No wait, further down this question is addressed...
Myth: All four guns used at Columbine were bought at gun shows
Fact: Each of the guns were either bought through an intermediary or someone who knew they were going to underaged buyers. In all cases there was a purposeful criminal activity occuring and the actors knew they were breaking the law.
Ahh I see, so before when you said none of them were bought at gunshows, what you actually meant was all of them were bought (possibly at gun shows) by an intermediary. And then being the responsible gun owners that they are, sold them to kids, who then shot up a school.

Good job this isn't happening all the time...

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Someone who dealt in nothing but conjecture wanted facts, so I duly obliged him
Yes indeed, now we're talking. Although I'm not really sure what arguments you have made that these facts actually support. Thank you for posting your facts though. I'm sure we can refer back to them, and check their validity if ever they become pertinent to the discussion.

I've also collected some facts...

edited by motyak

And as fascinating as your were, they were most definitely not germane to the discussion at hand. If the rest of your post had not been on topic, you would have received a warning.


Like you, I haven't actually checked if any of these facts are true. Indeed I haven't even read them. Someone I don't know did all the hard work for me. But I did copy and paste them from Here like a pro! Some of them might even be relevant to the discussion almost as frequently as yours.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/08/29 04:33:30


 
   
Made in us
Sniping Reverend Moira





Cincinnati, Ohio

I dunno smacks. They might be buying them from the cartels whom our government sold them to.

 
   
Made in us
Legendary Master of the Chapter





Chicago, Illinois

 cincydooley wrote:
I dunno smacks. They might be buying them from the cartels whom our government sold them to.

Or from the black market, or you know from the easily accessible russian mob who operate in the US and often sell weapons. Or you know the other hundreds of crime syndicates. Literally pick one and you might be right.

From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war. 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar





Southern California, USA

So, what can we take away from this topic? That easier access to firearms doesn't necessarily correlate with higher incidence of crime (In the US, of course)? I always had that hunch because I don't think gun control works at what we want it to do. Especially when the government is giving guns to the gangs.

Thought for the day: Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
30k Ultramarines: 2000 pts
Bolt Action Germans: ~1200 pts
AOS Stormcast: Just starting.
The Empire : ~60-70 models.
1500 pts
: My Salamanders painting blog 16 Infantry and 2 Vehicles done so far!  
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: