It just gets better and better for gun owners

[Seth]

With about 3 times the murder rate in the gun-happy USA compared to NZ or Oz, I know where I prefer to live...

Fine by me, but the next time some soccer hooligan slices your throat with a broken beer bottle, don't come whining to me that you couldn't defend yourself effectively.

[Seth]

You do have enough good sense to empty it first, yes?

To the people who got killed, it was a 100 percent certainty..

Yes, and the reality of it is experienced by a lot more people on a per population basis in the country made "safe" by privately owned bang bang sticks than in those that don't rely for the safety of their lives on them.

Your desire to feel safe (you aren't actually safe at all) does not include the right to disarm me and make me a helpless victim of a violent crime.

And don't bother with citing exceptions. I heard your bullshit too many times already.

And yet you cannot refute a single example I cite.

That's why I only get to read your rubbish any more unless someone else quotes you or I choose to look into a post of yours in a thread that is unlikely to to be more vomit about lolbertardianism or guns. We have statistical variations too, as well as gangs, drug trading gangs, differences between rural and urban areas, and differences within urban areas, and differences between states and so on.

Yup. And you have gun crime and murder and assault. How is it, do you believe, that your desire to feel safe by disarming all law abiding citizens (you do know that such laws do not disarm criminals) gives you the right to force others to be helpless victims of whatever crimes might occur? Sounds pretty fucking selfish to me.

[Seth]

It would be really nice if Seth would do a course on practical statistics, so that he could actually understand what we are talking about.

I know more about statistics than you do, that much is perfectly clear.

However, since this is not, has never been, and never will be a statistical argument, your tripe is nothing more than irrelevant red herring fallacies stacked to the moon.

[JimC]

With about 3 times the murder rate in the gun-happy USA compared to NZ or Oz, I know where I prefer to live...

Fine by me, but the next time some soccer hooligan slices your throat with a broken beer bottle, don't come whining to me that you couldn't defend yourself effectively.

The next time?

How come I don't remember the last time, or the second last time, or...?

[Seth]

With about 3 times the murder rate in the gun-happy USA compared to NZ or Oz, I know where I prefer to live...

Fine by me, but the next time some soccer hooligan slices your throat with a broken beer bottle, don't come whining to me that you couldn't defend yourself effectively.

The next time?

How come I don't remember the last time, or the second last time, or...?

You wouldn't, it was a previous life...

[JimC]

[Blind groper]

However, since this is not, has never been, and never will be a statistical argument, your tripe is nothing more than irrelevant red herring fallacies stacked to the moon.

And there is absolute 100% proof that you, Seth, have no understanding of statistics. The whole issue is one of statistics and probability. The fact that you fail to understand that very, very simple point shows that you do not understand statistics.

[JimC]

However, since this is not, has never been, and never will be a statistical argument, your tripe is nothing more than irrelevant red herring fallacies stacked to the moon.

And there is absolute 100% proof that you, Seth, have no understanding of statistics. The whole issue is one of statistics and probability. The fact that you fail to understand that very, very simple point shows that you do not understand statistics.

To be fair to Seth, it is possible that he could understand it, but rejects any statistical input when it comes to decisions about individual rights...

Not that I'm saying he actually does understand it...

[pErvinalia]

However, since this is not, has never been, and never will be a statistical argument, your tripe is nothing more than irrelevant red herring fallacies stacked to the moon.

And there is absolute 100% proof that you, Seth, have no understanding of statistics. The whole issue is one of statistics and probability. The fact that you fail to understand that very, very simple point shows that you do not understand statistics.

Yep.

[Hermit]

To be fair to Seth, it is possible that he could understand it, but rejects any statistical input when it comes to decisions about individual rights...

He said as much more than once, but then he should be consistent and stop trying to dish up Lott's cooked statistics when he feels it suits his general drift. "I can use statistics whenever I like, but yours are irrelevant" is not what I would describe an indicator of an honest debater.

[Seth]

However, since this is not, has never been, and never will be a statistical argument, your tripe is nothing more than irrelevant red herring fallacies stacked to the moon.

And there is absolute 100% proof that you, Seth, have no understanding of statistics. The whole issue is one of statistics and probability. The fact that you fail to understand that very, very simple point shows that you do not understand statistics.

No, it's not. You refuse to acknowledge the injustice of apportioning an individual's ability to defend himself according to some statistical argument. You say that because you ban guns, "handgun murders" are lower there than here, which is a statistical argument. This is true as far as it goes, but what you refuse to acknowledge is that by disarming everyone, you also obviously disarm those persons who might, or who actually demonstrably did need a handgun to protect themselves. And using the law to disarm law-abiding citizens does little to disarm, or dissuade violent criminals from victimizing people.

As I pointed out earlier, in 2011 there were 61 murders in NZ, more than half of which were committed without any weapons other than hands an/or feet! By disarming everyone, you failed to disarm the murderers of those 36 people, didn't you? Each one of those individuals had an absolute right not to be murdered, and an absolute right to defend themselves effectively against someone who would attempt to murder them. Your country's policies however completely disarmed them leaving them with only their own hands and feet with which to defend themselves, which obviously were not up to the task, so they died because of your hoplophobia.

Would any or all of them been saved if they had been armed? There is no way to tell. But what we do know, with absolute certainty, is that whatever tools or skills they had with which to defend themselves were entirely inadequate to the task of keeping them alive.

What your statistical argument says therefore is that it is better that those 61 people be helplessly murdered than that anyone, specifically them, be permitted to carry any kind of defensive arms at all, much less the most efficient and effective deterrent/defensive weapon ever invented: the handgun.

You have assigned those 61 persons a tiny fraction of the right to self defense to which they are entitled, based on your selfish, self-serving, abusive, dismissive and utterly morally reprehensible statistical calculus that says that their lives are worth nothing as compared to your discomfort with an armed citizenry.

That's what fucked-up socialism gets you...respect for one's rights only so long as it's convenient and acceptable to the majority. If it's not, then fuck you and your rights, and your life, and the lives of your wife and children, because you don't matter at all, only the statistics matter and you're just acceptable collateral damage in the impossible quest for a gun-free society.

Fuck you, fuck your system, and fuck your piece of shit socialist cesspool of majoritarianism.

Over here my right to effective self defense is not parceled out to me according to what some fuckwit who knows nothing about statistics, crime, or justice thinks is the right thing to do. I get to defend myself with lethal force when and if it becomes necessary to do so, and my right to be armed for that purpose cannot be infringed because someone else might commit a crime or act negligently with a gun. The government has to wait until I actually do something wrong before stripping me of my rights.

Not you, you're a fucking slave to your masters in government and you have to do whatever they tell you to do because you have no way to resist them.

Enjoy your chains, slave-boy.

And I'll remain a free citizen, armed and responsible for my own safety and the safety of others.

[Seth]

However, since this is not, has never been, and never will be a statistical argument, your tripe is nothing more than irrelevant red herring fallacies stacked to the moon.

And there is absolute 100% proof that you, Seth, have no understanding of statistics. The whole issue is one of statistics and probability. The fact that you fail to understand that very, very simple point shows that you do not understand statistics.

To be fair to Seth, it is possible that he could understand it, but rejects any statistical input when it comes to decisions about individual rights...

Precisely correct. You don't get ten percent of your right to life, you get it all, or you get nothing. That's how rights work.

Your right to be armed for self defense is as indivisible as your right to life, all or nothing, and it doesn't matter if some other person abuses their right to life, or their right to effective self-defense because your rights are not predicated on everyone else's proper use of their rights.

In that respect, you are sovereign to yourself.

[Seth]

To be fair to Seth, it is possible that he could understand it, but rejects any statistical input when it comes to decisions about individual rights...

He said as much more than once, but then he should be consistent and stop trying to dish up Lott's cooked statistics when he feels it suits his general drift. "I can use statistics whenever I like, but yours are irrelevant" is not what I would describe an indicator of an honest debater.

I use statistics to refute bogus statistical lies told by BG and others. He says "more guns, more crime." I prove that there are more guns and less crime, which refutes his claim. Statistics however has no place in the defense of one's human rights, so in the end it doesn't matter if "more guns, more crime" is actually true, because MY right to lawful self-defense cannot be diminished just because someone else misused a firearm.

If that means that more people get killed, well, that's an argument for letting them be armed for self defense, which is exactly what the concealed carry movement is all about and exactly what the results of our 30 year experiment in "more guns, less crime" has incontrovertibly proven. More guns, less crime...less and less crime as time goes on and more and more people legally arm themselves and provide for their own defense rather than sitting helplessly by waiting for the police, who, when seconds count, are only minutes away.

[JimC]

However, since this is not, has never been, and never will be a statistical argument, your tripe is nothing more than irrelevant red herring fallacies stacked to the moon.

And there is absolute 100% proof that you, Seth, have no understanding of statistics. The whole issue is one of statistics and probability. The fact that you fail to understand that very, very simple point shows that you do not understand statistics.

To be fair to Seth, it is possible that he could understand it, but rejects any statistical input when it comes to decisions about individual rights...

Precisely correct. You don't get ten percent of your right to life, you get it all, or you get nothing. That's how rights work.

Your right to be armed for self defense is as indivisible as your right to life, all or nothing, and it doesn't matter if some other person abuses their right to life, or their right to effective self-defense because your rights are not predicated on everyone else's proper use of their rights.

In that respect, you are sovereign to yourself.

I disagree, but I accept you have a deeply held belief which trumps all other considerations...

[Seth]

However, since this is not, has never been, and never will be a statistical argument, your tripe is nothing more than irrelevant red herring fallacies stacked to the moon.

And there is absolute 100% proof that you, Seth, have no understanding of statistics. The whole issue is one of statistics and probability. The fact that you fail to understand that very, very simple point shows that you do not understand statistics.

To be fair to Seth, it is possible that he could understand it, but rejects any statistical input when it comes to decisions about individual rights...

Precisely correct. You don't get ten percent of your right to life, you get it all, or you get nothing. That's how rights work.

Your right to be armed for self defense is as indivisible as your right to life, all or nothing, and it doesn't matter if some other person abuses their right to life, or their right to effective self-defense because your rights are not predicated on everyone else's proper use of their rights.

In that respect, you are sovereign to yourself.

I disagree, but I accept you have a deeply held belief which trumps all other considerations...

In what way, specifically, do you disagree? Are you saying that your rights are apportionable? That you may be permitted only 45% of your free speech rights, or 76% of your right to life, or 22% of your right to vote?