Guns Used.....cont

[Blind groper]

Seth

Do you not see how ridiculous your arguments are?

Anecdotes are meaningless because they so often represent freakish events - not the normal things that affect people. For every case of an armed citizen thwarting a robbery, there are numerous cases of husbands shooting wives dead, simply because they have access to guns.

You are still sticking to Lott lies in your arguments. Sorry, Lott has been shown up as a charlaton.

On other nations not being free......
Wrong. Going by the declaration of the United Nations Human Rights, the USA is not free because it fails to create a situation where ordinary people can gain access to a good education and to good medical care. By that standard, Americans are still slaves, and people living in Britain, Canada, New Zealand and Australia are free.

[Blind groper]

I think a lot of this applies to certain people at both extremes of this debate.


Seems it's a rare person who (or a rare event when someone) changes their beloved bias in view of data.

I hope, FBM, that you will give me credit for actually quoting data, rather than sheer opinion.

[FBM]

I do. I'm not sure we draw quite the same conclusions based on those data, though. I'm way too moderate for either of the most intensely held standpoints in this debate, I think.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Seth

Do you not see how ridiculous your arguments are?

No, he doesn't read them either.

[Seth]

Seth

Do you not see how ridiculous your arguments are?

No, but I see how ridiculous your arguments are.

Anecdotes are meaningless because they so often represent freakish events - not the normal things that affect people. For every case of an armed citizen thwarting a robbery, there are numerous cases of husbands shooting wives dead, simply because they have access to guns.

Prove it. I say that for every case of a husband shooting a wife there are thousands, or tens of thousands of defensive gun uses that you never hear about.

You are still sticking to Lott lies in your arguments. Sorry, Lott has been shown up as a charlaton.

So you say, but then again you're wrong, so who cares what you say?

On other nations not being free......
Wrong. Going by the declaration of the United Nations Human Rights, the USA is not free because it fails to create a situation where ordinary people can gain access to a good education and to good medical care. By that standard, Americans are still slaves, and people living in Britain, Canada, New Zealand and Australia are free.

The United Nations does not dictate what freedom is. Never has, never will.

[Seth]

I think a lot of this applies to certain people at both extremes of this debate.


Seems it's a rare person who (or a rare event when someone) changes their beloved bias in view of data.

I hope, FBM, that you will give me credit for actually quoting data, rather than sheer opinion.

Except you're not quoting actual data, you're merely parroting bogus numbers and cherry-picked bits of information that support your biased viewpoint.

[Blind groper]

Except you're not quoting actual data, you're merely parroting bogus numbers and cherry-picked bits of information that support your biased viewpoint.

Deep sigh.

The numbers are not bogus. The information is not cherry picked. When I say that my country has one fifth of the murder rate of the USA, that is a real number and no cherry picking.

When I say that NZ has more per capita violent crime but one fifth the murder rate, that is a solid datum. Add to that the solid datum that 50% of all US murders are with hand guns, and the USA is the only western nation with widely available hand gun ownership, the conclusion is clear. Regardless of whether you, Seth, like it or not.

[Seth]

Except you're not quoting actual data, you're merely parroting bogus numbers and cherry-picked bits of information that support your biased viewpoint.

Deep sigh.

The numbers are not bogus. The information is not cherry picked. When I say that my country has one fifth of the murder rate of the USA, that is a real number and no cherry picking.

Merely disingenuous and deceptive.Who cares what your country does, you're all unarmed slaves.

When I say that NZ has more per capita violent crime but one fifth the murder rate, that is a solid datum.

Deceptive pettifoggery. What you refuse to acknowledge is that legally armed citizens can thwart or prevent ALL TYPES of crime, violent and otherwise, often (if not actually usually) merely by being present in the hands of the potential victim. That's WHY your violent crime rate is so high. Criminals know their victims will not be armed and cannot kill them. Instead, they are trained by their government to submit and surrender, bend over and take whatever some violent criminal wants to do to them, up to and including rape and murder, because it's "safer" for everybody that all law abiding citizens (and no criminals) be disarmed.

Add to that the solid datum that 50% of all US murders are with hand guns,[/quote]

So what? Millions of people every year are NOT victimized by violent criminals because of handguns. The right of a law abiding person to be armed for self defense is inviolable and shall not be infringed, regardless of whether he carries a knife, a club, a handgun or a semi-automatic sporting rifle with a 30 round magazine.

and the USA is the only western nation with widely available hand gun ownership, the conclusion is clear.

The conclusion is fallacious because the number of handguns in the US has little to do with the number of handguns in the hands of criminals, who even manage to get hold of them in NZ.

It's also fallacious because you imply that if there were fewer handguns in circulation, which necessarily means fewer handguns in the hands of the law-abiding, because they are the ONLY ones who will obey such laws, there will be fewer murders. This is false because the actual data shows exactly the opposite. In every place where there are MORE guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens, there is substantially LESS violent crime (including murders), and vice versa; where there are FEWER guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens (like Chicago) there is MORE violent crime and MORE murders.

These facts demonstrate that your conclusions emanate from your rectal orifice and nowhere else, and are worth exactly what the rest of what comes out of your asshole is worth.

Regardless of whether you, Seth, like it or not.

You engage in duplicitous, mendacious pettifoggery and obfuscation, nothing more. I've heard it a million times and you're still wrong.

[Blind groper]

In every place where there are MORE guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens, there is substantially LESS violent crime (including murders), and vice versa; where there are FEWER guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens (like Chicago) there is MORE violent crime and MORE murders.

The only place where I have seen figures to that effect is in the writings of John Lott who is, as shown in my earlier reference, a charlaton. Chicago, for example, has heaps of guns, and especially hand guns, which leads to heaps of crime. The thing is that they are bought in places outside Chicago, but as long as hand guns are readily available, having to travel to a different county to buy them will not slow down their use by criminals.

On the other hand, if you compare western nations, the fewer hand guns there are, the fewer murders.

Seth, you have no data to support your assertions. Only the opinions of your own self. You merely reflect ideas that stem from right wing, redneck gun lovers, with nothing to support them.

[Seth]

In every place where there are MORE guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens, there is substantially LESS violent crime (including murders), and vice versa; where there are FEWER guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens (like Chicago) there is MORE violent crime and MORE murders.

The only place where I have seen figures to that effect is in the writings of John Lott who is, as shown in my earlier reference, a charlaton. Chicago, for example, has heaps of guns, and especially hand guns, which leads to heaps of crime. The thing is that they are bought in places outside Chicago, but as long as hand guns are readily available, having to travel to a different county to buy them will not slow down their use by criminals.

The simple thing that you seem unable to comprehend is that all those guns in Chicago are ILLEGALLY POSSESSED BY CRIMINALS, and there are almost zero guns LEGALLY POSSESSED by law-abiding citizens with which they can defend themselves against the armed criminals. This is precisely WHY the crime rate is so high in Chicago. Innocent citizens are helpless sheep before the criminals because they are denied the tools they need to defend themselves.

Since it is impossible to absolutely and completely get rid of guns, including handguns, in the United States (or anywhere else for that matter, including NZ and the UK) it will always be true that where guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns, and the innocent, law-abiding citizens will be at the mercy of violent criminals of every stripe because they are forbidden the arms they need to protect themselves.

It doesn't matter how many murders there are, each and every murder is committed by an armed criminal, and each and every victim has an unalienable and absolute right to be armed so that they have the ability to defend themselves effectively should they be the target of violent criminal victimization. Criminals will always find a way to kill someone if they want to do so. They will use a bat, or a brick, or any other object that can be turned into a weapon, and each potential victim has a right to be better armed than their attacker so that they can decisively thwart or terminate the threat.

Disarming victims (law abiding citizens) does absolutely nothing to disarm criminals, because criminals don't obey gun control laws, nor do they obey laws that forbid them to violently victimize others using whatever weapons come to hand. The ONLY alternative to keep law abiding citizens safe is to respect their inherent, natural, unalienable right to carry arms sufficient to terminate any such threat effectively.

Your idiotic presumption is that if handguns were banned, criminals wouldn't be able to get them. Perhaps, in a utopian world, this would work, but criminals would find other weapons to kill with and the victims STILL have a right to be better armed than their assailant, which means, in particular, handguns, which are the single most effective deterrent to violent criminal victimization that exists. The reality is that any criminal, anywhere in the world, who wants to kill badly enough can obtain a handgun, even in the UK or NZ. That's a simple fact that you cannot deny. That being the case, it is the right of EVERY law-abiding citizen to carry those arms they deem necessary and appropriate for their own personal defense against armed criminals, whether they be armed with machetes, baseball bats, or handguns.

[MrJonno]

No one has a 'right' to self defence period, its legal in restricted circumstances and thats it

[Gawdzilla Sama]

No one has a 'right' to self defence period, its legal in restricted circumstances and thats it

I will defend myself in deadly situations. People who don't like that shouldn't be there.

[FBM]

No one has a 'right' to self defence period, its legal in restricted circumstances and thats it

Nobody has the right to defend themselves? What the fuck lunacy is this? A zebra can't kick back at a lion? Have you totally lost your shit, dood?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

No one has a 'right' to self defence period, its legal in restricted circumstances and thats it

Nobody has the right to defend themselves? What the fuck lunacy is this? A zebra can't kick back at a lion? Have you totally lost your shit, dood?

I think he went all Seeth there for a moment.

[FBM]

No one has a 'right' to self defence period, its legal in restricted circumstances and thats it

Nobody has the right to defend themselves? What the fuck lunacy is this? A zebra can't kick back at a lion? Have you totally lost your shit, dood?

I think he went all Seeth there for a moment.

Again.