U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-29-2009, 05:24 PM
 
Location: Northglenn, Colorado
3,689 posts, read 9,254,348 times
Reputation: 944

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by american joe View Post
The NRA uses stooges like you and your money to sell more guns. Bow down and worship the almighty gun. Trial by jury?--more anti-American liberal crap. Gun worshipping vigilantes know best who should live.
I am not a member of the NRA, but am a pro-rights advocate in my own right. I own one personal firearm, what would you call me?


How about if we are going to take away peoples right to a firearm, that we take away every amendment that gives other freedoms. Should we repeal a womans right to vote? how about reinstate segregation? Ohh...... and to hell with it, lets just repeal the whole damn bill of rights. Afterall the government knows better than any private citizen right?


Listen, as much as you do not like the fact that law abiding civilians have the opportunity to protect themselves and others through the private ownership of firearms does not mean you get to strip the rights of the majority of Americans so you feel all warm and comfy, Just as much as There is no reason for the restricting of rights of any other person of any ethnicity or sexuality.

 
Old 01-29-2009, 05:27 PM
 
Location: Northglenn, Colorado
3,689 posts, read 9,254,348 times
Reputation: 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by american joe View Post
Cowards love guns.
You are full of contradictions arent you. I will start examining every post you make, and point out when you start crossing what you said. And in another Anti-Rights thread you spewed these words. Then come in here and well.... say exactly what you said you were not saying


"Absolutely not. All of you have completely missed the point. Take your time to actually read what is said: "not all gun owners are cowards"..."
 
Old 01-29-2009, 06:27 PM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,616 posts, read 11,064,818 times
Reputation: 3717
Talking "A Short Story"

Quote:
Originally Posted by american joe View Post
There have been alot of statistics cited by gun-lovers in this forum supporting their cause. Here's the real bottom line:

WASHINGTON, April 26 (UPI) -- States with high rates of gun ownership have the highest firearm death rates, an analysis by a U.S. non-profit group found.

WAIT!!! This just in: states with the highest number of licenced cars also have the highest numbers of speeding tickets/capita issued by the States' HP!

States with the highest number of kids also have the highest number of high school dropouts / graduates / kids on meth / girl basketball stars.

Everyone who'se EVER eaten carrots will die!

Ain't stupid stats wonderful?

BTW, I looked first at the so-called stats, and then, wait for it, the web site. (IANSA the international voice against gun violence) Guess what, boys? This is the....

INTERNATIONAL ACTION NETWORK ON SMALL ARMS

....a quiet little group working relentlessly with the UN to do what? Do I need to tell you?

Let's just do a mini-quick review of some of what's on this very informative web site (you should check it out, under the heading of "Know Thine Enemy". You know, the enemies of a free republic?


"Ammunition control is included in the UN small arms process. It was included in the definition of 'small arms and light weapons' in the report (http://www.iansa.org/un/documents/GGE_small_arms99.pdf - broken link) of the 1997 UN Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) on small arms. But ammuntion was not included within the scope of the 2005 UN Instrument on Marking, Recordkeeping and Tracing. Partly in response to this, the UN established a GGE on surplus ammunition, which will meet during 2008."


or...

"94 governments have responded to the UN Secretary-General's call for states' views on an Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). Leading up to the 20 June deadline for submissions, IANSA members around the world intensified their campaigning efforts to ensure maximum participation by governments in the UN process. These efforts have been rewarded: the rate of government responses is far higher than usual for UN consultations and the majority of submissions support the need to take into account impacts on human rights and humanitarian law when approving arms transfers."

Ahhh yes, our liberty-loving world governmentalist UN friends! Let's give them the big hand they deserve, shall we?


The Violence Policy Center in Washington used data from 2005 -- the most recent available -- from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The five states with the highest per capita gun death rates -- Louisiana, Alaska, Montana, Tennessee and Alabama -- had a per capita gun death rate far exceeding the national per capita gun death rate of 10.32 per 100,000.
Louisiana had the highest rate of gun death, 19.04 per 100,000 and has household gun ownership of 45.6 percent.

Close, but check out what was REALLY good old Number One, with the most outrageous gun laws, but one of the lowest rates of gun crime incarcerations! Why didn't you mention this fact, AmJoe? Too conflicting?

#1 District of Columbia: (3.8% gun ownership) murder rate 31.2
#2 Alaska: (57.8 go) mr: 20
#3 Louisiana: (44% go) mr: 19.5
#4 Wyoming: (60% go) mr: 18.8
#5 Arizona: (31% go) mr: 18

Note: all my revisions to the incorrect numbers AmJoe quotes are from the highly unbiased statehealthfacts.and also swivel.com, not some dedicated anti-gun website. All numbers are in firearms deaths per 100,000 or % of adult the population owning firearms.

Note also that many anti-gun sites routinely pump up their biased numbers by including as "child deaths" those resulting from purposeful gang indoctrination activities. any idiot understands that, absent guns, the cute little disadvantaged duffers would simply go at it with homemade spears, pitchforks, knives of course, gasoline-filled wine bottles, old baseball bats, etc.


AJ said: Alaska had a gun death rate 17.49 per 100,000 and household gun ownership of 60.6 percent. Montana had a gun death rate of 17.22 per 100,000 and 61.4 percent gun ownership. Conversely, states with the lowest levels of gun ownership had the lowest levels of gun death rates.
Hawaii has a household gun ownership of 9.7 percent and a gun death rate of 2.20 per 100,000. Massachusetts has 12.8 percent rate of gun ownership and a gun death rate of 3.48 per 100,000. Rhode Island has a household gun ownership of 13.3 percent and a gun death rate of 3.63 per 100,000, the researchers said.

#47 New York: (18%go) mr: 5.1
#48 New Jersey: (12.3 go) mr: 4.9
#49 Connecticut: (4.3 go) mr: 3.0
#50 Massachusetts: (3.1 go) mr: 3.0
#51 Hawaii: (2.8 go) mr: 1.7

Impressive, but only a selective viewing.

So how about these states? (Same source as the above stuff you provided, BTW)
GOR (gun ownership rate) / GVR (gun violence rate:

South Dakota: 56.7% ownership / 7.9% gun violence rate

Nebraska: 38.6% gor / 8.1% gvr

Wisconsin 44.4% gor / 8.1% gvr

Iowa 42.8% gor / 6.1% gvr

Minnesota 41.7% gor / 6.0 gvr

Ooops! (MUST be bad data, eh?)

Well, I could go on, but you'd have to accept this info, and I've no idea yet if you will.

And then there's the good old Assault Weapons Bill, which sunsetted a few years back because it did nothing to reduce crime. Nada. But why quibble over facts, eh? Let's re-introduce it because we don't like "assault-styled" rifles, and can't see why any normal person would. BTW, why would anyone like a silly lacross ball or a "curling stone" either? Let's ban 'em while we're at it. And F350s (they should ALL be driving Prius's, even if they need to pick up a half-ton of hay or take their 5 kids to a soccer game with all their gear, some coolers and assorted other stuff?

So what? Those are all just irrelevant details! Just like the FBI's Annual Uniform Report on Crime Statistics! (You can't really trust them, you know, especially when they tell you violent crime has dropped in states allowing "Concealed Weapons Carry", and that the AWB had no effect. Drat! Let's get out those good old UN numbers again and yell for a while!)


Federal Bureau of Investigation - Uniform Crime Reports

Or, finally, there's those darned University studies, especially the ones started by a guy who initially hated guns and "knew" that they cause crimes. He being intellectually honest and an accredited scientist, had to go and completely reverse his thinking, and now has written a book to that effect. Guess how he's treated by the folks who don't like guns. They used to love him; now they hate and deride him. Any real surprise? I didn't think so. Anyhow, here he is: John R. Lott!

(Interview from the very liberal U. of Chicago. Drat again!)

Interview with John Lott, author of More Guns, Less Crime
Question: What does the title mean: More Guns, Less Crime?


John R. Lott, Jr.: States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes. Thirty-one states now have such laws—called "shall-issue" laws. These laws allow adults the right to carry concealed handguns if they do not have a criminal record or a history of significant mental illness.
Question: It just seems to defy common sense that crimes likely to involve guns would be reduced by allowing more people to carry guns. How do you explain the results?

[SIZE=1]John R. Lott, Jr. is a resident scholar at American Enterprise Institute (http://www.aei.org/scholars/scholarID.38/scholar.asp - broken link). He was previously the John M. Olin Visiting Law and Economics Fellow at the University of Chicago Law School.[/SIZE]
Lott: Criminals are deterred by higher penalties. Just as higher arrest and conviction rates deter crime, so does the risk that someone committing a crime will confront someone able to defend him or herself. There is a strong negative relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate—as more people obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates. For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3 percent, rape by 2 percent, and robberies by over 2 percent.

AmJoe continues: On a worldwide basis, the US has the highest rate of gun ownership and by far the highest rate of of gun deaths among industrialized countries. (http://www.iansa.org/documents/GunDeathRates.pdf (broken link)).

(My underline above to highlight the erroneous statement, which was, BTW,...)

ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE. As I warned both my kids when they went to colleges (especially since most college profs are flaming liberals):

"CONSIDER THE SOURCE"


In this case, again, it's iansa!

AJ: There is a direct correlation between a country's gun ownership rate, and its gun death rate. (higher the ownership, higher the death rate).


Wrong again, but an even catchier little bumper sticker philosophy would be:

The more egregious and restrictive the country's gun laws, the higher the violent crime rate.

Here's the aboslute proof. Do read about the gun control legislation and related overall gun murder rates:

The Numbers Speak For Themselves (gun control and murder rates of assorted countries)

..in America [7/100k] (Brazil [19], Lithuania [11.7], Cuba [7.8] , Russia [30.6] (!!!!!!!), Mexico [17.5]. BTW: Guns are effectively outlawed in Russia. Private handgun ownership is totally prohibited. A permit is required to purchase a long gun. All guns are registered with authorities. When transporting a long gun, it must be disassembled. Long guns may only be used for self-defense when the gun owner is on his own property.


And yet you say...

More guns, less crime? ridiculous

I can't wait to see the gun-lover rationalization for these basic facts.
So.. there we are! BTW, I took over 1.5h to go back and read your stuff, and to research and asssemble mine. I assume you'll do the respectable thing and, if you need to, review my findings. If you choose to accept that I'm NOT lying, and that these are facts (which they are), then I have three questions for you.

Q1: Which reports are more factual and believable to you? Yours or mine?

Q2:
Are you aware that the UN has an anti-gun ownership agenda? Stated and proven (as in iansa's basic tenets and agenda, as stated on the website you so generously provided for us all to check on?

Q3: Do you at least consider the sources I've provided to be unbiased regarding firearms and crime?


Well, you "couldn't wait", so I made this relatively short in comparison to the available stats that support my side of the argument. Just know that if this were a face-to-face debate, where you couldn't "rabbit-hole", and where the audience would start chanting "Answer the Question! Answer the Question! Answer the Question!" until you "answered the questions", you'd be roundly and soundly defeated.

Unless of course you agree with my rather convincing information. Thanks for listening!



Last edited by rifleman; 01-29-2009 at 06:47 PM.. Reason: typos
 
Old 01-29-2009, 07:00 PM
 
Location: NW Nevada
13,340 posts, read 10,909,247 times
Reputation: 12290
Quote:
Originally Posted by american joe View Post
Cowards love guns.
ARRRRG, scewered by another rapier wit. En garde. oui oui. LMFAO! Is this where I'm supposed to defer to your superior intellect? Your rational and inarguable points? Still waiting on that....ummm (thats my Obama impression,,like it?) Thanks fer the giggles pard.....happy trails. Lol like I said...these hoplophobes...daffy as outhouse rats Oh, and by he way Joe..."tough" is prerequisite where I live. na na folks don't last long. Git er' doooone by golly........

Last edited by NVplumber; 01-29-2009 at 07:06 PM.. Reason: added emphasis to point...
 
Old 01-29-2009, 07:57 PM
 
Location: NW Nevada
13,340 posts, read 10,909,247 times
Reputation: 12290
Just for grins lets break the type of person, with a negative view of firearms owners, down in terms of personality type. Now, the anti gun side likes to attack firearms owners as "cowards", "having feelings of inadaquecy", etc etc ad nauseum. Now, from where I'm standing being called a coward DOES kinda stick in my craw. I kinda think that the type of person that would classify we gun owners this way is, in fact, a coward themselves and is attempting to "compensate" for this fact by slinging around verbal abuse, and professing lofty ideals of non violence. When one of we firearm carrying "cowards" comes across a badly mauled newborn foal in the back stretch what do we do. Hmmm, well we jumps out of the truck or off our horse, and we goes to doctoring. (IF the very upset mare lets us) Maybe we have a stock of banymine in our diddy sack so we dose up the critter and asess the damage. Can we sew it up? If we can we do....if we can't...well we do what must be done and put the poor critter down. It's a hard thing to do...but we do it because we must. The act of a "coward"? What does the gun hating , name calling, lofty and enlightened person do...hmm probably NOTHING because they don't have it in them. They would not have been anywhere near a situation like this to begin with. Don't have the sand. Yet they throw around words like "coward" and "murder" like they really have a clue.. Gimme a break...............
 
Old 01-29-2009, 08:06 PM
 
Location: Ohio
1,008 posts, read 640,290 times
Reputation: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by american joe View Post
Cowards love guns.

I take it you have absolutely zero respect for American war heroes, such as Alvin York who lead an attack (with 7 other men) on German machine gun positions in WW1, taking over 125 prisoners and capturing several machine guns. He was an avid hunter and shooter back in his native Tennessee, where he learned to stalk, shoot, snipe, track, etc.

It'd have been better if he had never used guns before, right? He was a coward for enjoying the use of guns, right?


It saddens me that I have friends who have taken an oath to defend the rights of folks like you to insult people who love freedom and wish to exercise their Constitutional and God-given rights.

If you hate the Constitution so much, then move to a country where the only rights you have are those given to you by the General Secretary of the Party. Try China!
 
Old 01-30-2009, 12:08 AM
 
Location: vagabond
2,631 posts, read 4,832,743 times
Reputation: 1300
Quote:
Originally Posted by american joe View Post
Cowards love guns.
actually, in my direct experience, most cowards are afraid of guns (that is kinda the point). i can't claim that all of them are though, since that would be dishonest, logically fallacious, and a symptom of a small mind. kinda like the post i'm quoting.
 
Old 01-30-2009, 09:14 AM
 
Location: NW Nevada
13,340 posts, read 10,909,247 times
Reputation: 12290
Quote:
Originally Posted by stycotl View Post
actually, in my direct experience, most cowards are afraid of guns (that is kinda the point). i can't claim that all of them are though, since that would be dishonest, logically fallacious, and a symptom of a small mind. kinda like the post i'm quoting.
Verily this post has much merit and ,despite it's short content in words, speaks volumes. Blanket statements (such as the one that has caused this stir) are dangerous when attempting to make any point worthy of consideration. To be fair, I have run across folks in my life that were armed and had no business being so.( most of these were members of "armed security" that I had to deal with when I worked for the military as a civilian contract worker). I have not, however, seen anybody issued a CCW that was of this same character. The instructers herebouts, are pretty good at weeding out the wannabes and the SO requires a stringent qualification standard from the same.It is interesting how vehement many of the anti gun folks are in their views.. Amusing at times, and kinda scary overall. If folks like them were given free reign to govern us all it would liken to a blind man trying to land a pasenger jet.
 
Old 01-30-2009, 10:01 AM
 
Location: Eden Prairie, MN
432 posts, read 1,406,490 times
Reputation: 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by SandyCo View Post
I am all for responsible gun ownership. It sometimes seems, though, that the most irresponsible people are the ones who own guns. A few of them are even drug addicts and alcoholics; these are the ones who shoot off their toes (or worse) when they forget to take all of the bullets out of the gun before they start cleaning it.

I would never have a gun in my house when my children were growing up. Even if they're gun savvy, what about their friends? I don't think that testosterone, alcohol, and guns are a good mix, either.

Guns can also give a person a false sense of security. You may not be as invested in learning other forms of self defense.

Once you've drawn a gun on someone (an intruder, for example), you can't change your mind. You have committed yourself to the possibility of violence. If you have a pistol, and he and his accomplice both have guns, you're now out gunned. What do you do? Say "sorry"?

I also have no problem with certain types of guns being outlawed. Do you really need an M-16 to go hunting? Automatic machine guns only have one purpose - to kill lot of people in as short an amount of time as possible. No, I don't want my neighbor owning a gun like that.

I think there should be an I.Q. test that a potential gun owner has to pass before he or she is allowed access to firearms. That will probably never happen, as the "right to bear arms" is such an ingrained part of American culture, but it would definitely solve a lot of problems! I think there should be "intelligence control" combined with a small amount of gun control.
I like the I.Q. test idea,but remember that criminals can be smart and skillful,too!

No matter how much gun control we have in the United States,it would never completely prevent criminal(s) or ignorant people from getting their hands on it.
 
Old 01-30-2009, 10:10 AM
 
Location: NW Nevada
13,340 posts, read 10,909,247 times
Reputation: 12290
I learned the word "hoplophobe" in my studies of the late great Jeff Coopers many musings on the subject at hand. The term was ( I believe) coined by him. I have found it useful, but credit must be given where it is due. RIP Jeff. You ARE missed! Rifleman brings up many pertinent points. Debate has been degenerating lately due to the "snarkyness" of some comments. Nice graphic emphasis by the way......hits the mark and does your screen name credit
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top