NationStates Jolt Archive

Run-in changes lawmaker's stance
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Phillip Morris
Plain Dealer Columnist

It's funny how a gun can in stantly change your perspective on things, make you wish you could rewrite history.

State Rep. Michael DeBose, a southside Cleveland Democrat, discovered this lesson the night of May 1, when he thought he was going to die. That's the night he wished he had that gun vote back.

DeBose, who had just returned from Columbus, where he had spent the day in committee hearings, decided to take a short walk up Holly Hill, the street where he has lived with his wife for the past 27 years.

It was late, but DeBose, 51, was restless. The ordained Baptist minister knew his Lee-Harvard neighborhood was changing, but he wasn't scared. The idle, young men who sometimes hang out on his and adjacent streets didn't threaten him.

He is a big man and, besides, he had run the same streets before he found Jesus - and a wife. That night, he just needed a walk.

The loud muffler on a car that slowly passed as he was finishing the walk caught his attention, though. When the car stopped directly in front of his house - three houses from where he stood - he knew there was going to be a problem.

"There was a tall one and a short one," DeBose said, sipping on a McDonald's milkshake and recounting the experience Friday.

"The tall one reached in his pocket and pulled out a silver gun. And they both started running towards me."

"At first I just backed up, but then I turned around and started running and screaming."

"When I started running, the short boy stopped chasing and went back to the car. But the tall boy with the gun kept following me. I ran to the corner house and started banging on Mrs. Jones' door."

It was at that point that the would-be robbers realized that their prey wasn't worth the trouble. Besides, Cheryl, DeBose's wife, and a daughter had heard his screams and had raced out to investigate. Other porch lights began to flicker on.

The loud muffler sped off, and DeBose started rethinking his gun vote.

DeBose twice voted against a measure to allow Ohioans to carry concealed weapons. It became law in 2004.

DeBose voted his conscience. He feared that CCW permits would lead to a massive influx of new guns in the streets and a jump in gun violence. He feared that Cleveland would become the O.K. Corral, patrolled by legions of freshly minted permit holders.

"I was wrong," he said Friday.

"I'm going to get a permit and so is my wife.

"I've changed my mind. You need a way to protect yourself and your family.

"I don't want to hurt anyone. But I never again want to be in the position where I'm approached by someone with a gun and I don't have one."

DeBose said he knows that a gun doesn't solve Cleveland's violence problem; it's merely a street equalizer.

"There are too many people who are just evil and mean-spirited. They will hurt you for no reason. If more people were packing guns, it might serve as a deterrent.

"But there obviously are far deeper problems that we need to address," he added, as he suddenly seemed to realize he sounded like a gun enthusiast.

They say the definition of a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged. DeBose's CCW application will bear some witness to that notion.

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/phillip_morris/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1179218274175560.xml&coll=2&thispage=1

So apparently, gun control laws which are designed to make us 'feel' safer doesn't really do anything! Wow, that is shocking! I guess the old saying is true When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

I love reality. :D

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/phillip_morris/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1179218274175560.xml&coll=2&thispage=1

So apparently, gun control laws which are designed to make us 'feel' safer doesn't really do anything! Wow, that is shocking! I guess the old saying is true When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

I love reality. :D

"DeBose voted his conscience. He feared that CCW permits would lead to a massive influx of new guns in the streets and a jump in gun violence. He feared that Cleveland would become the O.K. Corral, patrolled by legions of freshly minted permit holders."

How has this changed the possibility of what he said before?

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/phillip_morris/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1179218274175560.xml&coll=2&thispage=1

So apparently, gun control laws which are designed to make us 'feel' safer doesn't really do anything! Wow, that is shocking! I guess the old saying is true When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

I love reality. :D

I would like to put that into perspective a bit: Gun control laws might not work in the USA.

They don't form a problem in any other first world country.

How has this changed the possibility of what he said before?

Still zero.

The fact that a man escaped unharmed suggests to me that actually, gun control is working.

He got away, losing nothing but a little dignity. How exactly would having a gun improve the situation?

Still zero.

Ok maybe his example was a bit exagerrated but still the basic points in it aren't to be completely ignored.

The fact that a man escaped unharmed suggests to me that actually, gun control is working.

He got away, losing nothing but a little dignity. How exactly would having a gun improve the situation?

You do realize that the thugs could've shot him dead and he wouldn't have any chance to protect himself right? Thugs and criminals are cowards, and they only want an easy score. If their targets put up a fight, then they most likely go the other way because suddenly an easy score just became harder.

You do realize that the thugs could've shot him dead and he wouldn't have any chance to protect himself right? Thugs and criminals are cowards, and they only want an easy score. If their targets put up a fight, then they most likely go the other way because suddenly an easy score just became harder.

'Could have' isn't an argument.

You want to make a point based on this one case: fine, let's deal with what happened in this one case. So, I'll ask again; how would having a gun improve the situation?

"DeBose voted his conscience. He feared that CCW permits would lead to a massive influx of new guns in the streets and a jump in gun violence. He feared that Cleveland would become the O.K. Corral, patrolled by legions of freshly minted permit holders."

How has this changed the possibility of what he said before?

The law prohibited law abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons. As a result, only thugs and criminals carry weapons, it's pretty much like shooting fish in a barrel. Now if that law has failed, then not only would the thugs and criminals still have guns, but the law abiding citizens would have guns too, and thus would be able to protect themselves and others from being shot by thugs and criminals.

Yeah... What sort of basis is this to say gun control doesn't work? It's one measly example.
Should we repeal homicide laws just because occasionally people still get murdered? Does anything less than 100% success really entail that a measure isn't working at all and utterly worthless?

'Could have' isn't an argument.

You want to make a point based on this one case: fine, let's deal with what happened in this one case. So, I'll ask again; how would having a gun improve the situation?

He would've had the means to protect himself and hopefully rid the streets of two thugs. Like I said, criminals want an easy score, as soon as they see that their 'score' isn't going down without a fight, they back off.

You do realize that the thugs could've shot him dead and he wouldn't have any chance to protect himself right? Thugs and criminals are cowards, and they only want an easy score. If their targets put up a fight, then they most likely go the other way because suddenly an easy score just became harder.Or, perhaps, they'd shoot first and rob the body later. Rather than run the risk of having someone put up a fight.
Criminals are a lot more trigger happy if they risk facing a gun; just to be on the safe side.

He would've had the means to protect himself and hopefully rid the streets of two thugs. Like I said, criminals want an easy score, as soon as they see that their 'score' isn't going down without a fight, they back off.

You're not answering the question. How could he have 'protected himself' more than he already did, by getting away in one piece, losing nothing at all?

Or, perhaps, they'd shoot first and rob the body later. Rather than run the risk of having someone put up a fight.
Criminals are a lot more trigger happy if they risk facing a gun; just to be on the safe side.

and what makes you think they won't shoot you after they rob you? What makes you think they won't shoot you anyways? I'd rather be the one giving the bullets rather than receiving them.

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/phillip_morris/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1179218274175560.xml&coll=2&thispage=1

So apparently, gun control laws which are designed to make us 'feel' safer doesn't really do anything! Wow, that is shocking! I guess the old saying is true When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

I love reality. :D
Really? That's a universal truth? Have you got any proof beyond this anecdote that gun control laws don't work? And I do mean "do not work in any single country, and has not got the possibility of ever working".

Study shows gun control worked in Australia
Stricter gun controls implemented after the world's worst shooting massacre 11 years ago may have saved 2 500 lives, Australian researchers said on Monday.
http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=2024&art_id=nw20070423092103299C688294

You're not answering the question. How could he have 'protected himself' more than he already did, by getting away in one piece, losing nothing at all?

By shooting at them in self defense. The thug had a gun, he had every right to shoot him, god knows I would. Sure he could've just let him rob him and take his money, but just because you let someone take your stuff doesn't mean he won't shoot you.

http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/azl084v1

Mass murders in Dunblane, United Kingdom, and Port Arthur, Australia, provoked rapid responses from the governments of both countries. Major changes to Australian laws resulted in a controversial buy-back of longarms and tighter legislation. The Australian situation enables evaluation of the effect of a national buy-back, accompanied by tightened legislation in a country with relatively secure borders. AutoRegressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA) was used to predict future values of the time series for homicide, suicide and accidental death before and after the 1996 National Firearms Agreement (NFA). When compared with observed values, firearm suicide was the only parameter the NFA may have influenced, although societal factors could also have influenced observed changes. The findings have profound implications for future firearm legislation policy direction.

One man changed his mind about gun control laws. Therefore all gun control laws don't work.

So, are you a penguin Wilgrove?
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/humor-penguins.gif

Wow, it's 11:13 GMT and we already have yet another gun control thread.

Let the beating commence...

Is this Thursday? I am having a feeling of deja vu! Seems this thread won't stop. Just give everybody their own personal nuke and be done with it!:p

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/phillip_morris/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1179218274175560.xml&coll=2&thispage=1

So apparently, gun control laws which are designed to make us 'feel' safer doesn't really do anything! Wow, that is shocking! I guess the old saying is true When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

I love reality. :D

I fail to see the proof that this situation would have been different if he had a gun. Or would have turned out better than him not getting mugged.

http://olegvolk.net/gallery/d/19024-2/feelsafe.jpg

http://olegvolk.net/gallery/d/19024-2/feelsafe.jpg

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/humor-penguins.gif

I know it was posted on this same page, but no one seemed to get it.

I'm confused. The article clearly states that said muggers had the drop on him. So how would having a gun and obviously going for it have made the situation better except to maybe induce the muggers to shoot him before he could pull it out?

We should obviously train people in the art of knife throwing.

By shooting at them in self defense. The thug had a gun, he had every right to shoot him, god knows I would. Sure he could've just let him rob him and take his money, but just because you let someone take your stuff doesn't mean he won't shoot you.
I'm confused. The article clearly states that said muggers had the drop on him. So how would having a gun and obviously going for it have made the situation better except to maybe induce the muggers to shoot him before he could pull it out?

By shooting at them in self defense. The thug had a gun, he had every right to shoot him, god knows I would. Sure he could've just let him rob him and take his money, but just because you let someone take your stuff doesn't mean he won't shoot you.
I take it we are pretending here that the thug's gun was pretend and/or had no bullet so he wouldn't shoot first or shoot back.

I take it we are pretending here that the thug's gun was pretend and/or had no bullet so he wouldn't shoot first or shoot back.

No, if he had a bigger gun than the mugger it wouldn't matter if the mugger got the jump on him. Duh.






:p

if no guns were ever sold, imported, or mass produced, would anyone have them?

there is one simple gun control that can and does work.
just don't make them.

how many retarded two bit thugee's are gonna know how to make their own, or be able to?

reality is, that more people who own guns are killed by them (not neccessarily their own), then those who do not.

reguardless of who'se hands they may or may not happen to be in.
and places with the lowest levels of gun ownership have the lowest level of deaths by gun violence.

if no one, not even governments, had guns, where would outlaws get them?

nothing is eliminated by outlawing its possession, that's absolutely granted.
banning possession of anything only creates opportunities for politicaly motivated harrassment.

but banning the sale, importation, and above all, production, can and does.

so i vote for the one and only way of preventing the existence of anything that requires someone to make it, if it is something that harmful, and that is, SIMPLY DON'T MAKE IT!

=^^=
.../\...

Study shows gun control worked in Australia

Actually, the study showed that there were fewer deaths. Now, since Australia's murder rate has been falling for decades, irrespective of gun laws, would you not expect that fall to continue. The study also does not say that the rate of the decrease increased (i.e. decreased faster than before).

The article does not say that the rate of gun crime has increased, and that the gun buyback didn't remove many firearms overall (because shooters took the buyback money from their semi-autos, and used it to buy the types of weapons the government was gracious enough to allow people to keep)

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=nr&id=570

In fact, within a year of the 1996 Diktats being rammed through, robbery with firearms had jumped 39% (according to the Sydney Morning Herald, reproduced here http://www.sightm1911.com/docs/guncrimesoars.htm). The same article shows that assaults with firearms had jumped 28%.

how many retarded two bit thugee's are gonna know how to make their own, or be able to?

Can you make your own shoes, or your own house? Obviously the two bit thugees are going to buy their firearms from those who have them, or make them.

but banning the sale, importation, and above all, production, can and does.

Oh yes, because banning the sale, importation, and above all, production of cocaine, crystal meth, ecstasy, and LSD has absolutely succeeded in totally and utterly removing every trace of these substances from society.

Oh my god, gun control laws do not, 100% stop gun crimes? Say it ain't so! I guess that means they dont work at all...

Or maybe, just maybe, one man's anecdotal experience does not speak to the effectiveness at gun control in curbing violent crime overall?

No, if he had a bigger gun than the mugger it wouldn't matter if the mugger got the jump on him. Duh.


I guess he took Quick Draw as a bonus feat.

I guess he took Quick Draw as a bonus feat.

politicians do not get bonus feats. Although he is human and does get the starting bonus at level 1...

I guess he took Quick Draw as a bonus feat.

And if his gun is big enough then the mugger will be intimidated and get slapped with a -5% to hit and -10% dodge.

Or maybe, just maybe, one man's anecdotal experience does not speak to the effectiveness at gun control in curbing violent crime overall?

No, but the evidence suggests that gun control does not reduce violent crime. Sources have already been linked in the thread.

So... if everybody had a gun, then there would be less shootings? Amazing! Sheer Genius! In fact, why stop with just flushing gun control down the toilet, the government should hand out free M-16's on street corners to every passing man, woman and child! By the NRA's logic, this should eliminate all gun violence once and for all!

And how can we put a stop to school shootings? Who would do something as stupid as making sure the deranged students couldn't get their hands a semiautomatic handgun? No, that's just DUMB, obviously. What we need to do is make sure the teachers are packing M4 carbines, that'll stop the threat right away!

And while we're at it, why not apply this tactic to the world peace effort? Screw nuclear non-proliferation, the US should be making as many nuclear bombs as it can and exporting them to every country on earth! Because OBVIOUSLY if EVERY country had a shitload of nukes then there would be NO WAY a nuclear war could ever happen...


Too much gun violence, how do we stop it? Oh, obviously reducing gun restrictions will do the trick. Hm? The building's on fire? Don't worry, I'll just go and put that out by pouring some petrol over the flames...

And if his gun is big enough then the mugger will be intimidated and get slapped with a -5% to hit and -10% dodge.
And have to beat a DC10 check or be stricken with Fear

re: the OP.

If the guy just did what Ted Kennedy and Rosie O'Donnell do, he'd be fine being anti-gun.

Just hire a squad of armed goons to follow you around 24 hours a day, armed with pistols and submachineguns.

And have to beat a DC10 check or be stricken with Fear

Lets face it. If this guys had a gun, the mugger probably would have been so scared that the man he's pointing a gun at might be able to pull a gun out and shoot him before he could pull the trigger that he'd just drop dead from the terror.

for those who believe gun control works go to inner city LA. Hang out near the schools or slums and you will see just how well your laws work. :upyours: :sniper:

(Well mabye you won't see because the thing about a concealed weapon is it is concealed.)

Who would do something as stupid as making sure the deranged students couldn't get their hands a semiautomatic handgun?

Making sure? Is that what the gun control freaks have been doing, because they're doing a pretty crappy job of it.

"At first I just backed up, but then I turned around and started running and screaming."

Rofl, just rofl hehe

Rofl, just rofl hehe

Yes, that was classic. I imagine he shit his pants, too.

for those who believe gun control works go to inner city LA. Hang out near the schools or slums and you will see just how well your laws work. :upyours: :sniper:

(Well mabye you won't see because the thing about a concealed weapon is it is concealed.)

Right, and both sides having guns have totally stopped them from shooting at each other, right? Right?

...oh, yeah...

So, if the dude had a concealed weapon he would have been in a shoot out where the robber already had the drop on him instead of just escaping. The only way that plays out for the senator is if he's a quick draw and a crack shot. Otherwise, running to the neighbor's house seemed like an effective plan.

RO/Kimchi seems to be ignoring some specific questions in this thread, such as, how he wouldn't have gotten shot first if he attempted to pull out a gun instead of run away.

re: the OP.

If the guy just did what Ted Kennedy and Rosie O'Donnell do, he'd be fine being anti-gun.

Just hire a squad of armed goons to follow you around 24 hours a day, armed with pistols and submachineguns.

Famous people have bodyguards, can't imagine why :rolleyes:

Right, and both sides having guns have totally stopped them from shooting at each other, right? Right?

...oh, yeah...

So, if the dude had a concealed weapon he would have been in a shoot out where the robber already had the drop on him instead of just escaping. The only way that plays out for the senator is if he's a quick draw and a crack shot. Otherwise, running to the neighbor's house seemed like an effective plan.

Personally I would rather see the crimanal dead than the victim.

RO/Kimchi seems to be ignoring some specific questions in this thread, such as, how he wouldn't have gotten shot first if he attempted to pull out a gun instead of run away.

Considering that in combat, I've shot people who were already shooting at me, and I had to bring a rifle to my shoulder, and the distance was less than 10 feet, you should pull your head out of your ass.

Having someone at close range with a gun does not make them a magical killing machine. It takes a lot of talent, practice, and most of all, the will to kill.

Lacking any of of those three qualities makes you a target holding a gun.

I can draw and fire my carry pistol in 0.19 seconds, and empty all eight rounds into four separate targets at 15 yards and all of the shots can be covered on each target by your palm. And that's after an elapsed time of 1.7 seconds. I can then reload and fire another eight shots, for a total elapsed time from draw to final shot of around 5.8 seconds.

You were saying?

Considering that in combat, I've shot people who were already shooting at me, and I had to bring a rifle to my shoulder, and the distance was less than 10 feet, you should pull your head out of your ass.

Having someone at close range with a gun does not make them a magical killing machine. It takes a lot of talent, practice, and most of all, the will to kill.
And you assert the Rep was all that?
It seems like he managed to not get mugged without pulling a gun and starting a firefight. I still fail how introducing a gun into the equation could have made it anything but worse.

I also fail to see how a CCW law helps anything. If they don't know you have a gun, how is it a deterrent? If you want to carry a gun on you, it should be exposed at all times.

*gasp* Gun Control Laws doesn't work!
But grammar check does, give it a try next time, k?

Anyway, I hate gun control because my life doesn't include near enough Mexican stand-offs.

And you assert the Senator was all that?
It seems like he managed to not get mugged without pulling a gun and starting a firefight. I still fail how introducing a gun into the equation could have made it anything but worse.

I also fail to see how a CCW law helps anything. If they don't know you have a gun, how is it a deterrent? If you want to carry a gun on you, it should be exposed at all times.

No, I'm not asserting the Senator is all that.

Like I said, he can buy a gun, and even carry it. But it won't magically make him a killing machine capable of defending himself.

CCW makes it a deterrent because the typical criminal can't know who might have a weapon at any time.

It has caused double-digit drops in robberies in most states where CCW has been enacted.

They usually switch to burglary - when people aren't home.

Personally I would rather see the crimanal dead than the victim.

How does that answer anything I said?

Like I said, he can buy a gun, and even carry it. But it won't magically make him a killing machine capable of defending himself.
Then how would him having a gun in this situation have made it anything but worse? At best, it would have given him a false sense of security so he wouldn't have run away screaming and at worst, it would have ended with him mugged and/or shot.

CCW makes it a deterrent because the typical criminal can't know who might have a weapon at any time.
Logic fucking fails. The end. With a law that requires people to carry visible guns, they know who has guns and therefore anyone can be carrying even a fake but realistic looking gun and be safe. As opposed to pretending criminals are going to be discerning and cautious. They are idiots who want to take your money, not supervillains trying to unmask Batman. They are neither particularly cautious nor discerning.

It has caused double-digit drops in robberies in most states where CCW has been enacted.
We've played this game before. You lost.

Considering that in combat, I've shot people who were already shooting at me, and I had to bring a rifle to my shoulder, and the distance was less than 10 feet, you should pull your head out of your ass.

And you were trained with what regiment? For how long? With how much combat experience? With what gun, that is most likely illegal for civilians to carry, so your example is utter bullshit?

Having someone at close range with a gun does not make them a magical killing machine. It takes a lot of talent, practice, and most of all, the will to kill.

Lacking any of of those three qualities makes you a target holding a gun.

He's a fucking baptist minister. I doubt he has an innate WILL TO KILL, as opposed to a street thug which may or may not be churchgoing and would most likely have the advantage in this aspect.

I can draw and fire my carry pistol in 0.19 seconds, and empty all eight rounds into four separate targets at 15 yards and all of the shots can be covered on each target by your palm. And that's after an elapsed time of 1.7 seconds. I can then reload and fire another eight shots, for a total elapsed time from draw to final shot of around 5.8 seconds.

Again, using what gun, with what training, buttsecks, etc, etc... You're not an average citizen. Therefore, your experience and training are NIL AMOUNTS OF USEFUL in deciding whether or not a citizen would be better off with a gun.

You were saying?

I was saying you were ignoring questions because you knew they were right and you were wrong. Now I believe you were ignoring them because you were too busy playing with the cat that lives inside your head, you silly bastard, you..

And you were trained with what regiment? For how long? With how much combat experience? With what gun, that is most likely illegal for civilians to carry, so your example is utter bullshit?

A rifle is slower to bring into action than a pistol. Period.

Your assumption that my training with firearms was initially military is wrong and fallacious in the extreme. While I did serve in the 2/502nd, I was already a competent shot before training.

He's a fucking baptist minister. I doubt he has an innate WILL TO KILL, as opposed to a street thug which may or may not be churchgoing and would most likely have the advantage in this aspect.
Plenty of chaplains have gone on to kill in self-defense. Next?


Again, using what gun, with what training, buttsecks, etc, etc... You're not an average citizen. Therefore, your experience and training are NIL AMOUNTS OF USEFUL in deciding whether or not a citizen would be better off with a gun.

It's a perfectly stock Les Baer 1911. I am largely self-trained (military training, sad to say, is rudimentary at best). I am an above average gun owner, but many gun owners I shoot with are nearly as good - and most of them have never been in the police or military.

Point of fact, in street shootings, shooters who have never been police or military and legally own their firearm have twice the hit rate of felons, who in turn have twice the hit rate of the police.

You were saying?

I was saying you were ignoring questions because you knew they were right and you were wrong. Now I believe you were ignoring them because you were too busy playing with the cat that lives inside your head, you silly bastard, you.

I think you believe I was ignoring the thread because I didn't even get onto NS until near the end of this thread. Saying I'm ignoring it because you think you are right is specious and fallacious.

if no guns were ever sold, imported, or mass produced, would anyone have them?

there is one simple gun control that can and does work.
just don't make them.

how many retarded two bit thugee's are gonna know how to make their own, or be able to?

reality is, that more people who own guns are killed by them (not neccessarily their own), then those who do not.

reguardless of who'se hands they may or may not happen to be in.
and places with the lowest levels of gun ownership have the lowest level of deaths by gun violence.

if no one, not even governments, had guns, where would outlaws get them?

nothing is eliminated by outlawing its possession, that's absolutely granted.
banning possession of anything only creates opportunities for politicaly motivated harrassment.

but banning the sale, importation, and above all, production, can and does.

so i vote for the one and only way of preventing the existence of anything that requires someone to make it, if it is something that harmful, and that is, SIMPLY DON'T MAKE IT!

=^^=
.../\...



and we can all live in loving, peaceful harmony.

YEAH FRICKIN RIGHT! You think Al-quaida is going to lay down their arms? Then, when you have *maybe* (and even THAT is a HUGE stretch) gotten a few other nations to lay down theirs, Al-Quaida and Iran and North korea all have a ball, and they take over, (I don’t know who would end up ahead out of those three, prolly NK) and then they subject us to a cruel, tyrannical dictatorship. To which we respond by rebelling, and fighting them with forks and knives, since the brightest members of the human race have decided that anything else is evil.


Good plan, buddy.

No, I'm not asserting the Senator is all that.

Like I said, he can buy a gun, and even carry it. But it won't magically make him a killing machine capable of defending himself.

CCW makes it a deterrent because the typical criminal can't know who might have a weapon at any time.

It has caused double-digit drops in robberies in most states where CCW has been enacted.

They usually switch to burglary - when people aren't home.

Jesus Shitcock Christ.

You're saying that if, somehow, time had been altered (!?!) and CCW was already widely used in that area, he wouldn't have been attacked at all?

Well there's yer problem.

If all it took was for the possibility of someone to be carrying a gun to deter someone from attacking someone else, then the guy wouldn't have actually had to have gone and buy a gun at all!

So in posting this, do you concede that if the CCW "possibility deterrant" did not prevent this situation from happening, the guy having a gun and doing anything other than running away would've actually endangered him MORE?

Of course you won't concede that! That makes sense. You don't do "sense".

Jesus Shitcock Christ.

You're saying that if, somehow, time had been altered (!?!) and CCW was already widely used in that area, he wouldn't have been attacked at all?

Well there's yer problem.

If all it took was for the possibility of someone to be carrying a gun to deter someone from attacking someone else, then the guy wouldn't have actually had to have gone and buy a gun at all!

So in posting this, do you concede that if the CCW "possibility deterrant" did not prevent this situation from happening, the guy having a gun and doing anything other than running away would've actually endangered him MORE?

Of course you won't concede that! That makes sense. You don't do "sense".

It all depends on him. If he's willing and able to use the gun, yes it would have helped. If he wasn't willing and able, then it wouldn't have worked.

Is there some part of that you don't understand?

A rifle is slower to bring into action than a pistol. Period.

Unless you're not a gun nut that shoots regularly and trains with specific guns, etc etc.

Your assumption that my training with firearms was initially military is wrong and fallacious in the extreme. While I did serve in the 2/502nd, I was already a competent shot before training.

Because you had training, and continued training, and you enjoy shooting guns.

Plenty of chaplains have gone on to kill in self-defense. Next?

List them? Also, while some chaplains are apparently death machines with a will to take a human life at a moment's notice (which you've, in not so many words, told us is a prerequisite to successfully defending yourself with a gun) it's more likely that this one, considering he didn't lunge at the offender and beat him to death with his massive and metal-encased testicles in a fit of rage, and instead "ran away screaming", does not qualify.


It's a perfectly stock Les Baer 1911. I am largely self-trained (military training, sad to say, is rudimentary at best). I am an above average gun owner, but many gun owners I shoot with are nearly as good - and most of them have never been in the police or military.

The training, you've mentioned, is meh. But the combat experience is invaluable in determining whether or not you're able to use a weapon to defend yourself. This means the shooting buddies you hang out with, while are almost as good at hitting paper with earmuffs on in a controlled environment, are most likely severely disadvantaged when it comes to a real life situation.

Point of fact, in street shootings, shooters who have never been police or military and legally own their firearm have twice the hit rate of felons, who in turn have twice the hit rate of the police.

I think that says more for the lack of training the police are receiving than it does for anything else.

I think you believe I was ignoring the thread because I didn't even get onto NS until near the end of this thread. Saying I'm ignoring it because you think you are right is specious and fallacious.

Stop saying fallacious, it's making me giggle..

It all depends on him. If he's willing and able to use the gun, yes it would have helped. If he wasn't willing and able, then it wouldn't have worked.

Is there some part of that you don't understand?

Yes, I understand all of it.

Now, for you.

If he's willing and able to use the gun, that's all well and good.

But if he's NOT willing and able to use the gun, but he's still got it and relies on it for protection rather than running away like he did and should have, it's entirely possible that he would've died.

Get it? Guns do not equal protection. He was fine without a gun.

*complete idiocy snipped out*

Szanth, the police don't have the time, money, or inclination to shoot as often as I do.

I train police as a private instructor as my pastime. They pay me out of their own pockets, because they want to live to see retirement.

The state already pays millions for completely ineffective programs - programs designed by people like you who think that a gun magically makes a policeman Superman who can defeat all felons.

It has everything to do with how you view guns. Are you willing to wield the power of life and death? If not, then a gun is not for you. If you are willing to master not only the instrument, but the decisionmaking and responsibility that comes with making life and death decisions, then a gun is for you.

Training and a fancy police uniform are not enough unless you're willing to wield the power. And the government cannot instill moral character in anyone, no matter how much they spend.

Szanth I have to say this

A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity

That being said...

If he's willing and able to use the gun, that's all well and good.

But if he's NOT willing and able to use the gun, but he's still got it and relies on it for protection rather than running away like he did and should have, it's entirely possible that he would've died.

If he was not willing and able to use the gun, he never would have purchased it in the first place.

Your scenario where he ends up dead is ludicrous on it's face.

Szanth, the police don't have the time, money, or inclination to shoot as often as I do.

No shit.

I train police as a private instructor as my pastime. They pay me out of their own pockets, because they want to live to see retirement.

Good for them.

The state already pays millions for completely ineffective programs - programs designed by people like you who think that a gun magically makes a policeman Superman who can defeat all felons.

Woah, woah - where did I ever say anything - ANYTHING. ANY FUCKING THING that would lead you to believe that I think a gun automatically makes a policeman a good shooter? If you'd actually read any god damned thing I've posted, you'd get the exact OPPOSITE idea! Wow. Huge insight on how you operate here.

It has everything to do with how you view guns. Are you willing to wield the power of life and death? If not, then a gun is not for you. If you are willing to master not only the instrument, but the decisionmaking and responsibility that comes with making life and death decisions, then a gun is for you.

There's a joke in here somewhere, but I'm not funny enough to pull it out.

Training and a fancy police uniform are not enough unless you're willing to wield the power. And the government cannot instill moral character in anyone, no matter how much they spend.

I really wish you would've actually quoted me in this post, because it seems like you ignored about 90% of what I said and focused on only the police part.

Yes, I understand all of it.

Now, for you.

If he's willing and able to use the gun, that's all well and good.

But if he's NOT willing and able to use the gun, but he's still got it and relies on it for protection rather than running away like he did and should have, it's entirely possible that he would've died.

Get it? Guns do not equal protection. He was fine without a gun.

It's entirely possible he would've died w/o it as well. Not having a gun /= protection either.

http://www.timesdaily.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070516/APN/705161813

Law officers have praised a bank customer who pulled his gun and helped deputies capture a gunman who opened fire during a robbery of a Wachovia branch, killing two tellers and wounding two.

Good thing he didn't run into this guy instead.

I really wish you would've actually quoted me in this post, because it seems like you ignored about 90% of what I said and focused on only the police part.

Your posts aren't worth reading, because they contain so much trollish flamebait namecalling. You're on ignore.

Szanth I have to say this



That being said...



If he was not willing and able to use the gun, he never would have purchased it in the first place.

Your scenario where he ends up dead is ludicrous on it's face.

Well, A: Your logic would entail that absolutely everyone that owns a gun is willing and entirely able to shoot it effectively? I don't even have to reply to that for you to look stupid.

And B: Freud thinks EVERYTHING ANYONE DOES, EVER is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity of some form or another. He perscribed cocaine like it was riddlin, saw phallic symbols in everything, and I wouldn't be surprised if he suggested that the action of a gun was sexual in nature and those who are enthusiastic about it are homosexual for the penis. Freud was a crazy fuck. For reals.

It's entirely possible he would've died w/o it as well. Not having a gun /= protection either.

No, it's, um, 100%, 200%, 300% the truth that he not only survived without a gun, but he didn't even get injured. He might've pissed himself, though.

Well, A: Your logic would entail that absolutely everyone that owns a gun is willing and entirely able to shoot it effectively? I don't even have to reply to that for you to look stupid.

My logic was that someone who did not feel they were able to use a gun in self defense would not get a CCW and not carry a gun around.

You seem to be implying that people who know they are not willing or able to shoot in self defense will get a CCW and carry a gun anyway.

Which is more stupid?

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/phillip_morris/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1179218274175560.xml&coll=2&thispage=1

So apparently, gun control laws which are designed to make us 'feel' safer doesn't really do anything! Wow, that is shocking! I guess the old saying is true When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

I love reality. :D

http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/kaffee.gif Figures. Like the Judge that let people-off easy for crimes, and then gets his car stolen and then starts cracking-down.
Really, even if gun control does work in a few other nations (which I'm sure it does), it doesn't work in the U.S. We're simply too big and have too many states to have a law that forbids guns. Even if we did, people would get them anyways. Now I'm not saying you need a gun. You could always A: run away like this fellow did (and it worked), B: give over whatever you had, or C: if you really must risk getting shot, perhaps you'd prefer there be no blood on your hands, and NOT fight back.
If you would, you're not me. Personally I would be happy if those guys were shot. I understand a lot of you folks wouldn't. If you shot someone, maybe you'd feel like you were dishing-out the death-sentance when it wasn't needed, (perhaps) on people who don't deserve it?
Well, guns in the U.S. should be legal, and then you can make your choice. Maybe other nations can control the influx of firearms, but good ol' "America" can't, so at least let everyone have them, not just teh criminals. Concealed would be nice too. Seriously, a criminal would think twice before robbing and/or shooting at you if he thought you might have a .44 Magnum under your coat. http://smilies.vidahost.com/otn/violent/badass.gif

Your posts aren't worth reading, because they contain so much trollish flamebait namecalling. You're on ignore.

I feel so honored to have actually driven him to ignoring me, as opposed to answering my arguments.

No, it's, um, 100%, 200%, 300% the truth that he not only survived without a gun, but he didn't even get injured. He might've pissed himself, though.

The truth is that the Justice Department has shown that you are more likely to be injured if being robbed if you fail to resist by violence.

He was lucky.

My logic was that someone who did not feel they were able to use a gun in self defense would not get a CCW and not carry a gun around.

You seem to be implying that people who know they are not willing or able to shoot in self defense will get a CCW and carry a gun anyway.

Which is more stupid?

No, you're wrong. I'm implying that people feel safer just because they have a gun. This false sense of security leads people to believe they can actually use it if the time comes.

I feel so honored to have actually driven him to ignoring me, as opposed to answering my arguments.

That's because you so full of idiocy. What I liked was your assumption that somehow, without access to a computer until the thread was well along, you assumed that I was involved in the thread and somehow agreeing with your inane arguments by default.

Maybe you need to seek time in a psychiatric facility, for arguing with yourself.

No, it's, um, 100%, 200%, 300% the truth that he not only survived without a gun, but he didn't even get injured. He might've pissed himself, though.

Nice try. Was it possible he could have gotten shot? Yes or no.

No, you're wrong. I'm implying that people feel safer just because they have a gun. This false sense of security leads people to believe they can actually use it if the time comes.

You have evidence of this? Or is just your personal opinion. I just provided an example of someone actually using a firearm when the time came.

The truth is that the Justice Department has shown that you are more likely to be injured if being robbed if you fail to resist by violence.

He was lucky.

No shit he was lucky, they could've just shot him from the car. Having a gun wouldn't have helped in that situation.

I'm fairly certain they encourage tellers and clerks to just cooperate with the robber and give him everything he demands. Got a source for your claim?

You have evidence of this? Or is just your personal opinion. I just provided an example of someone actually using a firearm when the time came.

Actually, there are quite a few defensive uses of guns every year.

According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year -- one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds.

Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self Defense Survey, the defender believed that someone "almost certainly" would have died had the gun not been used for protection -- a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone "probably" would have died if the gun hadn't been used in defense.)

In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first -- disproving the myth that having a gun available for defense wouldn't make any difference.

In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker (and the gun defense wouldn't be called "newsworthy" by newspaper or TV news editors). In 64.2% of these gun-defense cases, the police learned of the defense, which means that the media could also find out and report on them if they chose to.

In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger to the intended victim. (Defenses against a family member or intimate were rare -- well under 10%.) This disproves the myth that a gun kept for defense will most likely be used against a family member or someone you love.

In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was facing two or more attackers -- and three or more attackers in over a quarter of these cases. (No means of defense other than a firearm -- martial arts, pepper spray, or stun guns -- gives a potential victim a decent chance of getting away uninjured when facing multiple attackers.)

In 79.7% of these gun defenses, the defender used a concealable handgun. A quarter of the gun defenses occured in places away from the defender's home.

Source: "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, in The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995


Oh, Szanth, is that a good study?

Let's ask an anti-gun peer reviewer...

Marvin Wolfgang, the late Director of the Sellin Center for Studies in Criminology and Criminal Law at the University of Pennsylvania, considered by many to be the foremost criminologist in the country, wrote in The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995:

"I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of Brave New World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police ... What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. ["Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, published in that same issue of The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology] The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator. ...I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence. The National Crime Victim Survey does not directly contravene this latest survey, nor do the Mauser and Hart Studies. ... the methodological soundness of the current Kleck and Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it. ... The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well."

You have evidence of this? Or is just your personal opinion. I just provided an example of someone actually using a firearm when the time came.

*shrugs* Nope, no specific cases. I wouldn't even know how to search for a case like that.

I do, however, know psychology. You aren't a scientologist, are you?

No shit he was lucky, they could've just shot him from the car. Having a gun wouldn't have helped in that situation.

I'm fairly certain they encourage tellers and clerks to just cooperate with the robber and give him everything he demands. Got a source for your claim?

And "just cooperating" got two people killed and more injured. Good job.

At least you admit it was entirely possible for him to have been shot.

Keck, I just pwned Szanth with evidence that cannot be refuted.

Even the anti-gunners haven't been able to undermine the study.

And "just cooperating" got two people killed and more injured. Good job.

At least you admit it was entirely possible for him to have been shot.

It was definitely possible for him to have gotten shot. I'm surprised the guy ran at him - the article said the car drove past him and stopped three houses away and then the guys got out. What idiots.

"Just cooperating" did turn out bad for that specific situation, but every time I see a CCTV tape of someone getting robbed on America's Most Wanted, Wildest whatevers, Most Furry whatever whatevers, they always emphasize that in a situation like that, resistance is not smart, and it's best to go along with the robber and to get him to leave as soon as possible.

It was definitely possible for him to have gotten shot. I'm surprised the guy ran at him - the article said the car drove past him and stopped three houses away and then the guys got out. What idiots.

"Just cooperating" did turn out bad for that specific situation, but every time I see a CCTV tape of someone getting robbed on America's Most Wanted, Wildest whatevers, Most Furry whatever whatevers, they always emphasize that in a situation like that, resistance is not smart, and it's best to go along with the robber and to get him to leave as soon as possible.

That advice was good prior to 1994. After that, the Justice Department showed stats that indicate that cooperation is an invitation to get killed.

It was definitely possible for him to have gotten shot. I'm surprised the guy ran at him - the article said the car drove past him and stopped three houses away and then the guys got out. What idiots.

"Just cooperating" did turn out bad for that specific situation, but every time I see a CCTV tape of someone getting robbed on America's Most Wanted, Wildest whatevers, Most Furry whatever whatevers, they always emphasize that in a situation like that, resistance is not smart, and it's best to go along with the robber and to get him to leave as soon as possible.

And TV is the way to go.

And this is what the police said about this situation:

"It's certainly commendable," Jefferson County Sheriff's Sgt. Randy Christian said. "It's obvious he played a key role in keeping the guy there until we could get there. It's a great testament of someone willing to take action."

"He kept him from escaping, and he gave deputies time to get to the scene," Bill Veitch, chief assistant district attorney, told The Birmingham News in its moment-by-moment account of the robbery and arrest.

Keck, I just pwned Szanth with evidence that cannot be refuted.

Even the anti-gunners haven't been able to undermine the study.

I thought you blocked me. :p

Yeah, the study's results are interesting. Anyone care to take a crack at them? With something like this it's odd you haven't brought this up in one of the millions of other gun control threads. What's up, Kim? Why wait till now?

That advice was good prior to 1994. After that, the Justice Department showed stats that indicate that cooperation is an invitation to get killed.

*shrugs* I'll take your word for it.

I thought you blocked me. :p

Yeah, the study's results are interesting. Anyone care to take a crack at them? With something like this it's odd you haven't brought this up in one of the millions of other gun control threads. What's up, Kim? Why wait till now?

Defensive gun uses have been brought up in just about every gun thread.

And just as I've said in those threads, as long as there are more defensive gun uses than there are gun deaths/injuries gun possession is a net positive in society.

Try, gun control doesn't work when people can get hold of guns by just driving a little further across state lines. Laws that aren't practically enforceable don't work, whatever they are. It's like having two countries next to each other with open borders, one with freely available drugs, one with drugs banned. When drugs turn up in country two its hardly surprising. The problem is the other states with easily available guns and open borders.



Yeah, the study's results are interesting. Anyone care to take a crack at them? With something like this it's odd you haven't brought this up in one of the millions of other gun control threads. What's up, Kim? Why wait till now?

The fundamental flaw in the study is it makes points about what people believe would have happened, the people involved not being impartial. They have a biased standpoint firstly because they're the type of people who keep guns anyway, and have just faced an attack and made the judgement that they needed to pull a gun. It's a collection of opinions, not facts.

And TV is the way to go.

And this is what the police said about this situation:

"It's certainly commendable," Jefferson County Sheriff's Sgt. Randy Christian said. "It's obvious he played a key role in keeping the guy there until we could get there. It's a great testament of someone willing to take action."

"He kept him from escaping, and he gave deputies time to get to the scene," Bill Veitch, chief assistant district attorney, told The Birmingham News in its moment-by-moment account of the robbery and arrest.

Alright, so we're clear: It's best, when at a job that deals with a constant influx of customers, to carry a gun.

*thumbs up*

Defensive gun uses have been brought up in just about every gun thread.

And just as I've said in those threads, as long as there are more defensive gun uses than there are gun deaths/injuries gun possession is a net positive in society.

Isn't it a bitch to logout and login under all those different names? I don't think I'd put up with it - completely destroys the flow of "reading, reading, reading, click, posting, posting, reading, reading...".


So if you've brought up this study before, what did people in the thread say? I'm curious. The threads last so long, but it seems like, if the study were as jawdropping as you claim, that they would only be 3 pages, max.

Keck, I just pwned Szanth with evidence that cannot be refuted.
I know your kind of evidence - flawed logic and skewed studies.

Even the anti-gunners haven't been able to undermine the study.Which absurd study did you cite this time.

The basic premise of gun control isn't to make anyone feel safer. No one believes seriously that passing a handgun law immediately forces everyone carrying a handgun to throw it away and never carry one again.

Your argument is inherently incorrect.

Yes, the long standing definition about a liberal being mugged is probably true. But were this man mugged in the U.K. by a pipe-wielding soccer hooligan, he'd have STILL wanted a gun. Crime still exists without handguns. People still die without handguns. But BOY does it make it more work, more risk and less potential damage to the community at large if handguns are taken out of the equation.

It's also true that in countries where gun ownership never reached that levels the U.S. has allowed it to get to, murder rates per capita are small fractions of what they are in countries where firearms are commonplace. Yes, the figures are readily available. More guns = more citizens killing citizens. That is a number which cannot be spun.

Passing laws against handguns in some random city isn't going to miraculously end violence, crime or even handgun crime, but by your logic, we should never bother to address the problem. Given a choice, I would like to see fewer people with firearms rather than more people with firearms.

Isn't it a bitch to logout and login under all those different names? I don't think I'd put up with it - completely destroys the flow of "reading, reading, reading, click, posting, posting, reading, reading...".


So if you've brought up this study before, what did people in the thread say? I'm curious. The threads last so long, but it seems like, if the study were as jawdropping as you claim, that they would only be 3 pages, max.

lol I am not RO. Haven't been here nearly as long.

The study simply says that as many as 2.5 million times each year a gun is used in defense of a person or others. The vast majority of which never even involve the gun being fired.

Guns save way more lives than they take.

People still die without handguns. But BOY does it make it more work, more risk and less potential damage to the community at large if handguns are taken out of the equation.

You're talking about what ought to be (passing gun control laws ought to remove guns from a community), lets talk reality. Take the UK, as the British Government have tightened the screws on legitimate shooters, gun crime has only increased.

You should have read the thread, and done some research. Gun control does not correlate, never mind cause, a reduction in violent crime, or even in gun crime.

The basic premise of gun control isn't to make anyone feel safer. No one believes seriously that passing a handgun law immediately forces everyone carrying a handgun to throw it away and never carry one again.

Your argument is inherently incorrect.

Yes, the long standing definition about a liberal being mugged is probably true. But were this man mugged in the U.K. by a pipe-wielding soccer hooligan, he'd have STILL wanted a gun. Crime still exists without handguns. People still die without handguns. But BOY does it make it more work, more risk and less potential damage to the community at large if handguns are taken out of the equation.

It's also true that in countries where gun ownership never reached that levels the U.S. has allowed it to get to, murder rates per capita are small fractions of what they are in countries where firearms are commonplace. Yes, the figures are readily available. More guns = more citizens killing citizens. That is a number which cannot be spun.

Passing laws against handguns in some random city isn't going to miraculously end violence, crime or even handgun crime, but by your logic, we should never bother to address the problem. Given a choice, I would like to see fewer people with firearms rather than more people with firearms.

It's (or at least may be) your first post, it's not allowed to be coherent, sensible, or use less than 3 animated smileys:)

I know your kind of evidence - flawed logic and skewed studies.

Which absurd study did you cite this time.

So you make ad hominems w/o even reading the post and call on others for false logic. Good to know.

lol I am not RO. Haven't been here nearly as long.

The study simply says that as many as 2.5 million times each year a gun is used in defense of a person or others. The vast majority of which never even involve the gun being fired.

Guns save way more lives than they take.

You're jumping a few rungs on the ol logic ladder there. In order for you to prove lives are saved, you have to know how the situation would have ended otherwise, or at least give a reasonable estimation based on facts. All you're doing is speculating.

You're jumping a few rungs on the ol logic ladder there. In order for you to prove lives are saved, you have to know how the situation would have ended otherwise, or at least give a reasonable estimation based on facts. All you're doing is speculating.

I hate having to do this but I gotta. How am I jumping any more logic rungs than the leap from interpreting the 2nd ammendment as an individual right to shoot outs at the O.K. corral? Which has already been done on these boards if not this thread.

I hate having to do this but I gotta. How am I jumping any more logic rungs than the leap from interpreting the 2nd ammendment as an individual right to shoot outs at the O.K. corral? Which has already been done on these boards if not this thread.

Claiming that other people are just as bad doesn't make any difference, your argument is still flawed.

If other people (and I may have done so) have also skipped logic then their points are equally invalid.

Claiming that other people are just as bad doesn't make any difference, your argument is still flawed.

If other people (and I may have done so) have also skipped logic then their points are equally invalid.

Yea, that's why I hate doing that.

That being said however, I still stand by my arguement that gun ownership is a net positive to society. Perhaps I did overreach myself by saying they save more lives, however that is a logicial conclusion based on the shear number of defensive gun uses.

Yea, that's why I hate doing that.

That being said however, I still stand by my arguement that gun ownership is a net positive to society. Perhaps I did overreach myself by saying they save more lives, however that is a logicial conclusion based on the shear number of defensive gun uses.


Perhaps. I never liked the one size fits all policy, seems stupid to think one rule works for every situation. In the UK there are very strict gun laws and I think they benefit us compared to what it'd be like if guns were freely available, but in the USA I'm skeptical about the practicality of introducing similar laws, due to the culture, and the relative simplicity of smuggling.

Perhaps. I never liked the one size fits all policy, seems stupid to think one rule works for every situation. In the UK there are very strict gun laws and I think they benefit us compared to what it'd be like if guns were freely available, but in the USA I'm skeptical about the practicality of introducing similar laws, due to the culture, and the relative simplicity of smuggling.

I would have to agree with you here.

lol I am not RO. Haven't been here nearly as long.

The study simply says that as many as 2.5 million times each year a gun is used in defense of a person or others. The vast majority of which never even involve the gun being fired.

Guns save way more lives than they take.

Coulda fooled me. =)

I agree, the study's results are interesting. I did, however, ask why this particular study was not brought up in other threads, and if they had been, what the anti-gunners had said about it.

Coulda fooled me. =)

I agree, the study's results are interesting. I did, however, ask why this particular study was not brought up in other threads, and if they had been, what the anti-gunners had said about it.

Well, I can't speak for most of the anti-gunners, but CH and TPH simply dismiss it without discussing it. CH usually adds something about the authors parental lineage.

Oh and as for Freud... my second favorite quote of his
Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar.

Well, I can't speak for most of the anti-gunners, but CH and TPH simply dismiss it without discussing it. CH usually adds something about the authors parental lineage.

Oh and as for Freud... my second favorite quote of his

I hate that quote. It's like "My entire life's work has been 'A cigar is a penis. Smoking a cigar is a gay man's act.' Now, with this one fell swoop, I will render my entire life and work utterly useless, reducing it to a resounding 'maybe, maybe not'. I might as well have not said anything, ever!"

Actually, there are quite a few defensive uses of guns every year.

Oh, Szanth, is that a good study?

Let's ask an anti-gun peer reviewer...
And of course:
Self-report surveys of rare events easily lead to huge overestimates of the true incidence of such events, particularly if the event in question has some potential social desirability. Researchers who claim that such survey incidence data are accurate must show how they have eliminated the enormous problem of false positives. Kleck and Gertz do not accept, let alone meet, this burden of proof. Their survey methodology does not ensure a Specificity rate of well over 99%. Attempts to determine the external validity of their estimates only buttress the presumption of massive overestimation. The conclusion seems inescapable: the Kleck and Gertz survey results do not provide reasonable estimates about the total amount of self-defense gun use in the United States.
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Hemenway1.htm
followed by
Hemenway has failed to cast even mild doubt on the accuracy of our estimates. The claim that there are huge numbers of defensive uses of guns each year in the United States has been repeatedly confirmed, and remains one of the most consistently supported assertions in the guns-violence research area.
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/KleckAndGertz2.htm
followed by
Neither side seems to be willing to give ground or see their opponents' point of view. This is unfortunate since there is good reason to believe that both sides are off-the-mark. . . the main shortcomings of the two approaches and some of the keys issues of contention are discussed.
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/SmithT1.htm

Guns are used defensively (including simply stating you have a gun regardles of the truth) in the US every year, but don't pretend the numbers aren't disputed.

Hemenway applied Kleck and Gertz’s methodology to a 1994 ABC News/Washington Post survey in which people were asked if they had ever seen an alien spacecraft or come into direct contact with a space alien. He demonstrated that, by the application of Kleck and Gertz’s methodology, one would conclude that
almost 20 million Americans have seen a spacecraft from another planet and more than a million have actually met space aliens.
:)

And of course:

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Hemenway1.htm
followed by

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/KleckAndGertz2.htm
followed by

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/SmithT1.htm

Guns are used defensively (including simply stating you have a gun regardles of the truth) in the US every year, but don't pretend the numbers aren't disputed.


:)

Impressed, is I.

I would like to put that into perspective a bit: Gun control laws might not work in the USA.

They don't form a problem in any other first world country.

I'd correct that as such...
"They don't form a problem in any first world country" -- removing the word "other".
One doesn't need or even desire a gun in a true civilization.
Where everyone owning a gun is important is places like Africa or the Middle East where the thugs and barbarians and pre-sentients outnumber those who have embraced SENTIENCE -- sentience being a state in which violence no longer is the first or any choice in dealing with the world around oneself.
Unfortunately, such people that resort to violence out being mentally inferior are all across the USA.
"Degenerate scum" being the only polite way to describe those who resort to violence -- especially gun violence.

of course, even the reputable studies show that firearms are used in self defense in the United States hundreds of thousands (and possibly up to a million) times per year.

Every year, hundreds of thousands of reasons to protect our basic right to self defense.

Cthulhu-Mythos;12660700']I'd correct that as such...
"They don't form a problem in any first world country" -- removing the word "other".
One doesn't need or even desire a gun in a true civilization.
Where everyone owning a gun is important is places like Africa or the Middle East where the thugs and barbarians and pre-sentients outnumber those who have embraced SENTIENCE -- sentience being a state in which violence no longer is the first or any choice in dealing with the world around oneself.
Unfortunately, such people that resort to violence out being mentally inferior are all across the USA.
"Degenerate scum" being the only polite way to describe those who resort to violence -- especially gun violence.

So Mexico, South Africa, Russia, Switzerland, Canada, Finland, and the US don't have "true civilizations". Gotcha.

Obviously you don't understand what sentience means.

"I'd correct that as such...
"They don't form a problem in any first world country" -- removing the word "other".
One doesn't need or even desire a gun in a true civilization.
Where everyone owning a gun is important is places like Africa or the Middle East where the thugs and barbarians and pre-sentients outnumber those who have embraced SENTIENCE -- sentience being a state in which violence no longer is the first or any choice in dealing with the world around oneself.
Unfortunately, such people are in the USA.
"Degenerate scum" being the only polite way to describe those who resort to violence -- especially gun violence."---[NS]Cthulhu-Mythos

So, in a true civilization, nobody cares enough about themselves, their family, or anybody else to defend them. In a true civilization, people should be able to harm innocents without opposition. People that love and defend their families are 'degenerate scum'.

Hmmmmm, thank goodness we don't live in Cthulhu-Mythos' wacky little imagination. It's pretty screwed up. Kinda pathetic that such a careless, twisted place is what he/she would actually PREFER.

So, in a true civilization, nobody cares enough about themselves, their family, or anybody else to defend them. In a true civilization, people should be able to harm innocents without opposition. People that love and defend their families are 'degenerate scum'.

Hmmmmm, thank goodness we don't live in Cthulhu-Mythos' wacky little imagination. It's pretty screwed up. Kinda pathetic that such a careless, twisted place is what he/she would actually PREFER.

Notice that most of the places that CM refers to as "pre-sentient" are full of people of color. About half the crime in the US is committed by non-whites as well. Guess there are more "pre-sentient" blacks and hispanics than whites and asians.

You're talking about what ought to be (passing gun control laws ought to remove guns from a community), lets talk reality. Take the UK, as the British Government have tightened the screws on legitimate shooters, gun crime has only increased.

You should have read the thread, and done some research. Gun control does not correlate, never mind cause, a reduction in violent crime, or even in gun crime.
No. I am not. Please do not confuse me with the easily out thought people you might normally deal with.

In that first sentence, I was not talking about "passing gun control laws". I was referring to any hypothetical violent situation. Assuming it was done with a gun or without a gun. Those with a gun aren't as risky or slow to deal death as those without a gun.

Secondly, please define the term "legitimate shooter" particularly as seen in the U.K. Seriously a term I have never heard before. Also, please point me to the relevant data regarding the increase in gun crime in the U.K. resulting from the Home Office's crack down on these people.

Lastly, NRA stats undoubtedly show that there is no drop in gun crime due to the passage of local gun ordinances. As I stated (Please pay attention to the words here.)

-Passage of local gun control laws will not result in an automatic reduction in crime. It does not convince people to get rid of their firearms. It particularly has no bearing on inner city thugs getting rid of their firearms.-

My original posting is not about the viability of a given piece of legislation. It IS, however a rather simple statement that guns make killing humans easier, faster and less risky than killing humans in hand-to-hand combat whether or not you are armed with a bludgeon or a knife. It made no mention of reducing VIOLENT CRIME and in fact acknowledged in terribly specific terms that violent crime would continue. I DID however explicitly cite murder rates in countries without easy firearm access and I note with a certain smug cynicism that you walked around that term and instead replaced it with Violent crime. You are cherry-picking your ideas and altering terminologies here and I'm sorely tempted to write you off as a simple-minded ideologue, but giving you the benefit of the doubt, I am responding.

With the statement that killing humans is for lack of a better term, "Easier" with a handgun than without one, I have stated my preference that there be fewer of them.

Regarding gun control legislation specifically, No piece of gun control legislation has produced the panacea of the complete elimination of violence. Given this lack of outright miracle, the pro-gun voices decry even the ATTEMPTS at placing limits on the availability of firearms as futile, un-American, stupid, and weak. As long as such rhetoric exists, Americans will continue to kill Americans in embarrassing numbers. I will support legislation that begins the process, legitimately of keeping firearms out of the hands of those people who shouldn't have them. Will such legislation work instantly and totally? Absolutely not. Will mistakes be made? Absolutely. Should NOTHING continue to be done because we cannot promise Over-The-Rainbow results instantly? Well. Welcome to America. Population: dumb.

Here's a study that belongs in this thread:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm
During 2000--2002, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force), an independent nonfederal task force, conducted a systematic review of scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence, including violent crimes, suicide, and unintentional injury. The following laws were evaluated: bans on specified firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition, firearm registration and licensing of firearm owners, "shall issue" concealed weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws, zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearms laws. The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.) This report briefly describes how the reviews were conducted, summarizes the Task Force findings, and provides information regarding needs for future research.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/figures/r214a2ta.gif

Knock yerselves out!

So, in a true civilization, nobody cares enough about themselves, their family, or anybody else to defend them. In a true civilization, people should be able to harm innocents without opposition. People that love and defend their families are 'degenerate scum'.

Hmmmmm, thank goodness we don't live in Cthulhu-Mythos' wacky little imagination. It's pretty screwed up. Kinda pathetic that such a careless, twisted place is what he/she would actually PREFER.
Wow. When you take something out of context you go Balls-To-The-Wall, huh?

Secondly, please define the term "legitimate shooter" particularly as seen in the U.K.

Anyone who is using a firearm for any purpose other than committing crimes.

Lastly, NRA stats undoubtedly show that there is no drop in gun crime due to the passage of local gun ordinances. As I stated (Please pay attention to the words here.)

Who said anything about the NRA?

Regarding gun control legislation specifically, No piece of gun control legislation has produced the panacea of the complete elimination of violence.

Who said anything about that, but the lesiglation hasn't even produced a reduction in gun crime, never mind violent crime in general.

I will support legislation that begins the process, legitimately of keeping firearms out of the hands of those people who shouldn't have them.

If this is so, then you're either practicing cognitive dissonance, ignorant of reality, or you don't support gun laws.

I DID however explicitly cite murder rates in countries without easy firearm access and I note with a certain smug cynicism that you walked around that term and instead replaced it with Violent crime. You are cherry-picking your ideas and altering terminologies here and I'm sorely tempted to write you off as a simple-minded ideologue, but giving you the benefit of the doubt, I am responding.

Its you who are cherry picking. Concentrating on murder, and ignoring all other crimes committed with firearms is hardly a legitimate way to advance your argument, especially (in the Australian context), you ignored a pre-existing trend in the murder rate (a decline that had been going on for decades). Now, if after the passage of major gun laws, a pre-existing decline in the murder rate continued, while gun crime over all increased, what conclusion would you draw?

I did not replace terminologies, I know the murder rate has declined in Australia, and has been doing so for decades.

As to the rest of your post, it only confirms what I said, you are talking about what perhaps ought to be, rather than what is (and by extension, what is feasible in the real world)

what are you talking about Puffed? The only context that i am aware of that changes the meaning of what is said 180 degrees is sarcasm.....and the poster made no attempt to make the post known as sarcasm, so one can only assume it is what he/she actually means.

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/phillip_morris/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1179218274175560.xml&coll=2&thispage=1

So apparently, gun control laws which are designed to make us 'feel' safer doesn't really do anything! Wow, that is shocking! I guess the old saying is true When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

I love reality. :D

That is the biggest straw man I've ever seen. I mean, look at it, it's huge! It's like Godzilla or something.

Besides that, why the f*** should I care?

what are you talking about Puffed? The only context that i am aware of that changes the meaning of what is said 180 degrees is sarcasm.....and the poster made no attempt to make the post known as sarcasm, so one can only assume it is what he/she actually means.
Not so good with that whole "words" thing, huh?

Forget it. You're right, I'm wrong. Guns are wonderful. I am an idiot. Sky is green. Jim Carrey is funny. The President is wise.

You win. I cannot even begin to parse what you've said into a cohesive thought.

"Not so good with that whole "words" thing, huh?

Forget it. You're right, I'm wrong. Guns are wonderful. I am an idiot. Sky is green. Jim Carrey is funny. The President is wise.

You win. I cannot even begin to parse what you've said into a cohesive thought."---Puffed Rice

talk about someone not being very good with words. the reason you cannot 'even begin to parse what you've said into a cohesive thought' is because you cannot even form your OWN cohesive thoughts...as clear from your posts that have nothing to do with anything real.

Anyone who is using a firearm for any purpose other than committing crimes.

So there is a popular and wide network of private gun ownership in the U.K? Concealed carry permits, handguns, hollow-point ammunition and the whole thing? You have touched on an area I was utterly unfamiliar with. It was my belief that firearms in the U.K. were few and very far between. I did not know that there was private gun ownership for anything other than the occasional hunter and that most firearms on the island were stored at shooting clubs. I have much research to do now.

If that is correct and gun ownership per capita is comparable to the numbers in the U.S. and their murder rates per capita is as low as it is, it basically ends the debate over firearms ownership for all times.

What about the data about the increase in firearms-related violence after the recent crackdown on those carrying guns?


Who said anything about the NRA?
Me. It's not terribly germain, but the NRA is going to have more data stating the lack of drop in violent crime after legislative efforts than anyone else, so I just mentioned them. Don't allow it to sidetrack the sentence. Replace NRA with CDC or MADD or the NBA or NASCAR whomever you wish to. I readily acknowledge that most statistics will point in that direction and I'd be inclined to agree with them.


Who said anything about that, but the lesiglation hasn't even produced a reduction in gun crime, never mind violent crime in general.
Again, me. It is my statement that the wedge used by pro-gun activists is to point out that there is still violent crime and still gun crime after the passage of legislation. And Duh! The point is that unless you can produce a complete miracle akin to parting the red sea or making pigs fly, violent crime and gun-related fatalities will continue at least in the short-term and largely in the intermediate as well. It is my hope that by ending the process of denying that all efforts at controlling access to firearms are futile, positive change can eventually be seen.

If this is so, then you're either practicing cognitive dissonance, ignorant of reality, or you don't support gun laws.
Don't play games of semantics. You're insulting me. Stated slowly then: I am willing to support legislation which I believe will eventually cut down on the number of firearms related crimes. I am willing to make mistakes along the way. I am willing to try things which may not work. That is what I am willing to do. I am not willing to continue doing nothing, however.


Its you who are cherry picking. Concentrating on murder, and ignoring all other crimes committed with firearms is hardly a legitimate way to advance your argument, especially (in the Australian context), you ignored a pre-existing trend in the murder rate (a decline that had been going on for decades). Now, if after the passage of major gun laws, a pre-existing decline in the murder rate continued, while gun crime over all increased, what conclusion would you draw?
Wrong. It is in fact the only way to advance the argument. By looking at guns and guns alone. And there is the problem where the one side will not hear what the other side is saying. Follow the bouncing ball here. Violent crime is a separate issue to gun crime. While gun crime is inherently violent, violent crime is not inherently about guns. To establish my hypothesis (To whit: countries without the easy access to firearms that we have in the States have a lower murder rate per capita) I focus on... what? Murder.

As I stated above. Pro-gun voices wish to tie violent crime to gun crime which dodges the problem with firearms when viewed as an isolated issue. That being... guns make killing easy. How do I know this? Because countries with less guns have less murder. They do not necessarily have less violent crime. That whole less guns=less murder stat (not trends, just year vs year comparisons, country vs country) I think is pretty compelling.

I did not replace terminologies, I know the murder rate has declined in Australia, and has been doing so for decades.
In fact, you did. My argument was about murder rates in countries without guns, and you rebutted with violent crime rates after gun control legislation. Those are different issues.

As to the rest of your post, it only confirms what I said, you are talking about what perhaps ought to be, rather than what is (and by extension, what is feasible in the real world)
Not so fast. Just because something "perhaps ought to be" but "is not" does not mean it is unfeasible. That's a lack of not only imagination, it shows a conversation-ending deficit of understanding about the Way Things Get Done. That last thought isn't even ludicrous. It's a non-sequitur. And an incorrect one, at that. The notion that since something "is not" it is, by extension un"feasible in the real world"? How would anyone get anything done?

That's your attempt to shut down the debate, but your lack of imagination about controlling access to firearms isn't going to end the pattern of thought and debate about ways to accomplish it. How would we have ended slavery with that idea? How would the U.S. (and Australia) exist as sovereign nations without someone dreaming about a better tomorrow? I have a serious question for you. What do you think the motivation is for wanting to eliminate guns? I get the feeling it's that you think we're a bunch of pants-wetting pansies too stupid to rationalize simple cause and effect and that we are lashing out at guns since guns are all meany-heads. How close am I ? I really want to know why you think we (or... hell.. just me) are so passionate about this.

I really want a better tomorrow. And I do not have all the answers. But that doesn't mean I'm going to let someone else who THINKS they have all the answers (but clearly just relies on "Be quiet and eat your veggies. Daddy knows best. Stop asking so many questions.") shut me down.

As long as you tie all violence to gun violence, you are going to be able to write me off as a loon. And I'll know how short-sighted and unwilling to question your own assumptions that you really are.

talk about someone not being very good with words. the reason you cannot 'even begin to parse what you've said into a cohesive thought' is because you cannot even form your OWN cohesive thoughts...as clear from your posts that have nothing to do with anything real.

How'd that education thing work out for you, huh?

You are not having a debate. You make pointed statements that you believe end the thought, but do not stand up to critical analysis. Bearing that in mind, I have more important things to do than state my case and receive a reply that amounts to "I know you are, but what am I."

Remember. I am an idiot. You are right. You win. I submit. Please... don't respond to this.

I guess he took Quick Draw as a bonus feat.
If he'd have tagged Unarmed, he wouldn't have had any need, though, he could have done a called shot on the eyes of the attackers, and, presuming he had Better Criticals he stood about 60% of a chance to either knock them out or stop them dead.

*edits*

Plus if he'd have had both slots empty with H2H Evade, he could easily have had a high enough AR to avoid being hit other than on a natural 20, which would be a crit and hence polish him off even if he was wearing any armour.

So there is a popular and wide network of private gun ownership in the U.K? Concealed carry permits, handguns, hollow-point ammunition and the whole thing? You have touched on an area I was utterly unfamiliar with. It was my belief that firearms in the U.K. were few and very far between.

Who is talking exclusively about the UK?

Again, me. It is my statement that the wedge used by pro-gun activists is to point out that there is still violent crime and still gun crime after the passage of legislation. And Duh!

Read what I said, I don't expect a miracle, what I was describing wasn't a failure of gun control to totally eliminate violent crime, I was describing a failure of gun control to reduce violent crime. I don't seek a miracle, but some effect would be nice.

Wrong. It is in fact the only way to advance the argument. By looking at guns and guns alone. And there is the problem where the one side will not hear what the other side is saying. Follow the bouncing ball here. Violent crime is a separate issue to gun crime. While gun crime is inherently violent, violent crime is not inherently about guns. To establish my hypothesis (To whit: countries without the easy access to firearms that we have in the States have a lower murder rate per capita) I focus on... what? Murder.

Your hypothesis is meaningless, and the evidence you used doesn't actually prove your point (because it must be understood within a wider context of socioeconomic and cultural issues, and because it does nothing more than show a decades old trend).

If you had read my post, I concentrated on firearms in my evidence (assaults with a firearm increasing). Murder is the rarest of gun crimes, and is usually not committed with a firearm anyway.

If gun control had the effects you attribute to it (it doesn't), then a reduction in violent crime should also be evident, but what the Australian example reveals is that 11 years of more strict gun controls has had no real effect on the murder rates, while other gun crimes have increased.

As I stated above. Pro-gun voices wish to tie violent crime to gun crime which dodges the problem with firearms when viewed as an isolated issue. That being... guns make killing easy. How do I know this? Because countries with less guns have less murder. They do not necessarily have less violent crime. That whole less guns=less murder stat (not trends, just year vs year comparisons, country vs country) I think is pretty compelling.

Did you actually read what I wrote, did you actually read my sources?

Looking at gun crime (even when it is not murder) is relevant to gun control, and gun crime has increased in Australia.

In fact, you did. My argument was about murder rates in countries without guns, and you rebutted with violent crime rates after gun control legislation. Those are different issues.

If you want to discuss murder rates in countries without guns, you should find a country without guns, there isn't one. Australia certainly isn't.

And, as I said before Australia has never had a high murder rate, and it has been falling for decades.

If you want to look at the effect gun control has on murder rates, look at the District of Columbia.

Not so fast. Just because something "perhaps ought to be" but "is not" does not mean it is unfeasible.

Anyone advocating any sort of prohibition (whether it is guns, drugs, booze, porn, or anything) has to show that unlike all the other prohibitions, it is feasible, that it can actually be enforced successfully.

What do you think the motivation is for wanting to eliminate guns?

I don't know. If the motivation is a better world, then you simply don't know what you're talking about.

Historically gun control in free, Western societies has been a matter of politics, a way of exploiting tragedies for political gain. In unfree societies, gun control usually has more dubious motivations (such as racism).

As long as you tie all violence to gun violence, you are going to be able to write me off as a loon. And I'll know how short-sighted and unwilling to question your own assumptions that you really are.

If you are going to accuse me of cherry picking, don't do it yourself. I clearly said that in addition to violent crime in general increasing, gun crime was increasing in Australia. My source says the same thing. Why do you act as though I never said that gun crime was increasing?

Who is talking exclusively about the UK?

Read what I said, I don't expect a miracle, what I was describing wasn't a failure of gun control to totally eliminate violent crime, I was describing a failure of gun control to reduce violent crime. I don't seek a miracle, but some effect would be nice.

Your hypothesis is meaningless, and the evidence you used doesn't actually prove your point (because it must be understood within a wider context of socioeconomic and cultural issues, and because it does nothing more than show a decades old trend).

If you had read my post, I concentrated on firearms in my evidence (assaults with a firearm increasing). Murder is the rarest of gun crimes, and is usually not committed with a firearm anyway.

If gun control had the effects you attribute to it (it doesn't), then a reduction in violent crime should also be evident, but what the Australian example reveals is that 11 years of more strict gun controls has had no real effect on the murder rates, while other gun crimes have increased.

Did you actually read what I wrote, did you actually read my sources?

Looking at gun crime (even when it is not murder) is relevant to gun control, and gun crime has increased in Australia.

If you want to discuss murder rates in countries without guns, you should find a country without guns, there isn't one. Australia certainly isn't.

And, as I said before Australia has never had a high murder rate, and it has been falling for decades.

If you want to look at the effect gun control has on murder rates, look at the District of Columbia.

Anyone advocating any sort of prohibition (whether it is guns, drugs, booze, porn, or anything) has to show that unlike all the other prohibitions, it is feasible, that it can actually be enforced successfully.

I don't know. If the motivation is a better world, then you simply don't know what you're talking about.

Historically gun control in free, Western societies has been a matter of politics, a way of exploiting tragedies for political gain. In unfree societies, gun control usually has more dubious motivations (such as racism).

If you are going to accuse me of cherry picking, don't do it yourself. I clearly said that in addition to violent crime in general increasing, gun crime was increasing in Australia. My source says the same thing. Why do you act as though I never said that gun crime was increasing?
I'm done. You cannot address the issues directly. You are so fixated on the effectiveness of "gun control laws" that when I talk about anything else, you return to the effectiveness of "gun control laws".

Whenever I attempt to recenter the argument and frame my hypothesis in something other then the effectiveness of gun control laws, you... move back to the effectiveness of gun control laws.

There is MORE TO THIS ISSUE THAN THE EFFECTIVENESS OF GUN CONTROL LAWS! You do not see that. To you, the lack of effectiveness means all. It is the single issue it is the only issue and no other issue.

I, however, wish to point out something else. Can I ? nope. "Gun control laws don't work." Yes, I acknowledge. But I'd like to talk about... "Gun control laws don't work." I agree. But just when you look at... "Gun control laws don't work."

CHRIST! It's not a single issue! To you it is... but it's not! And until you're willing to patiently allow someone else to lay out a suggestion of other ways to look at the issues surrounding firearms, you're not having a discussion, you're just ignoring the other voice.

You think you aren't. You are. You are.

And no. You have no idea as to why people dislike firearms. It's never occurred to you to inquire about the deeper motivations of these people and their belief system and you flat out don't care. You're right. Everyone else is wrong. There is no such thing as a gray world. All is black and white. I tried to have a conversation about this. I really did. All you could do was stone-wall me. And you're just not perceptive enough to see it.

Oh, and come to L.A. sometime. That's where I live. Then tell me more handguns in more people's possession is a good idea. Hearing gunfire in the streets. Crime scenes. Fearing every teenager you walk past.

You go ahead and give them your steeley-eyed "I've got a gun, too" glare. Half the corpses in the county morgue were carrying guns when they got hit. Your Wild-West ideals just generate bodies, not safety.

Learn to discuss. Learn to listen. Learn to question. You think you've got it down. And you're wrong.

(snip rant) Learn to discuss. Learn to listen. Learn to question. You think you've got it down. And you're wrong.

And you are willing to show that I'm wrong with what precisely?

Has it occurred to you that I already considered all of the rubbish that you're talking? Has it occurred to you that just wanting a better world is not a point of view? Has it occurred to you that you can't just wish a problem away?

No matter how much you want a better world, it all comes down to what is possible in reality, and in reality, there isn't much we can do about disarming criminals. They have their guns, they have access to more, and they are not giving either up.