Guns bad...case closed

[Seth]

It is easily possible to pass laws that mostly keep guns out of criminal hands. 23 out of 24 western developed nations have already done it, very successfully.

Which fails to explain Paris and a dozen other European terrorist attacks (or more, going right back to the Bader Meinhoff gang and the Red Brigade) doesn't it? And then there's Port Arthur...

The method is tried and proven.

Proven to be completely ineffective, yes.

It is just that corrupt law makers in the USA, who receive money from gun manufacturers, are bribed too well to do the right and proper thing.

Lie.

[Seth]

States like California and Massachusetts will go for it and the Supremes will not stop them. In 20 years Seth will be stuck in Colorado to enjoy his guns at the current level.

You mistake denial of certiorari for a favorable ruling. Here's a clue: it's not. It's just denial of certiorari. The Court can take up another case that better addresses the issues any time it likes, for example, a case that argues that banning semi-automatic rifles interferes with Congress' (or the Governor of the state's) ability to call the Unorganized Militia to duty, which happens to be true. That makes such bans entirely unconstitutional, but that particular issue has not been forwarded...yet.

[Blind groper]

Which fails to explain Paris and a dozen other European terrorist attacks (or more, going right back to the Bader Meinhoff gang and the Red Brigade) doesn't it? And then there's Port Arthur...

Nothing ever works 100%. Terrorists in Europe get their guns elsewhere, and struggle to do so. As witness the guy who attacked on a London underground with a 3 inch knife! Despite his best efforts, his victim lived.

Seth,
If a terrorist wants guns, he will get them. Witness the IRA which operated in a gun ban area, and still ended up with a lethal arsenal. However, the big advantage of a gun ban area is that ordinary people do not go around with hand guns in their back pocket.

More guns mean more violent crime and more homicides. NZ has a quarter the per capita violent crime of the USA, and Australia even less. Banning guns cuts violent crime and saves lives.

[Seth]

Which fails to explain Paris and a dozen other European terrorist attacks (or more, going right back to the Bader Meinhoff gang and the Red Brigade) doesn't it? And then there's Port Arthur...

Nothing ever works 100%.

Ain't that the truth. Of course it would be nice if your plan would work more than 0.0004 percent of the time, but it doesn't.

Terrorists in Europe get their guns elsewhere, and struggle to do so.

Struggle to do so? On what evidence do you base this ass-ertion?

As witness the guy who attacked on a London underground with a 3 inch knife! Despite his best efforts, his victim lived.

And if he or the police had been packing a pistol he might not have been injured at all and one more jihadi would have gone to paradise and saved the public a shitload of money trying and incarcerating him...only to let him go a few years later to do a better job because the fuckwits in England think it's not nice to stick a needle in some terrorist's arm and put him down.

Seth,
If a terrorist wants guns, he will get them.

Bwahahahahahah!

That's what I've been telling you for years now. So will criminals.

Witness the IRA which operated in a gun ban area, and still ended up with a lethal arsenal.

Indeed.

However, the big advantage of a gun ban area is that ordinary people do not go around with hand guns in their back pocket.

That's not an advantage, that's an utter falsehood and complete failure of logic and reason, particularly since the more law-abiding people that do so here in the US, the lower the crime rate goes.

More guns mean more violent crime and more homicides.

Liar. You yourself admitted long ago that the number of guns in a society has no effect on crime. While you're still wrong, because it does in fact have an effect on crime...it causes it to go down when the guns are possessed by law-abiding citizens...the simple truth is that more guns, less crime. It depends entirely on who has the guns, not how many of them there are.

NZ has a quarter the per capita violent crime of the USA, and Australia even less. Banning guns cuts violent crime and saves lives.

[/quote]

Not really. Australia's violent crime rates went UP after the gun ban, and NZ still experiences both violent crime and violent GUN crime despite its draconian anti-gun laws, which proves that you are wrong in confusing correlation with causation...again...for the umpteenth time.

You have admitted that the number of guns in a society does not affect crime rates and now you're flip-flopping twice in one post. Unbelievable.

[Blind groper]

The number of guns in a society does not affect overall crime rates. Correct. But it does affect the worst kind of crime, called gun crime. That is what I am talking about.

Shoplifting is not nice, but it is way less harmful that pulling out a gun to hold up a liquor store, which may lead to someone getting shot. That is the harm of guns. Not overall crime rates, but the rate of serious crimes.

Both NZ and Australia have violent crime rates a quarter or less compared to the USA on a per capita basis, while having about one fifth the number of guns. More guns means more serious crime. More guns NEVER means less crime. That is a fallacy perpetrated by Lott and Kleck, who write stuff pandering to the gun nutters in order to make lots of money.

I have quoted a number of studies produced by reputable researchers in very well regarded universities, that show more guns increases homicides and serious crime. Your response, Seth, saying it is lies, is totally unconvincing. I will always regard something said by a Harvard researchers as being more credible than something said by a person who worships the gun.

On criminals versus terrorists.
There is a big difference. The terrorist is not afraid of being caught and locked up, or shot by police. The criminal is.

Terrorists do whatever they have to, to accomplish their evil goals. Criminals do not carry guns if that means they will be arrested and go to prison. Criminals in NZ and in Australia, in spite of your assertions Seth, rarely carry guns. They may have a gun hidden at their home base, but they do not carry it with them, except rarely. This is not my opinion, but something that police records show clearly.

In fact, the rarity with which police in NZ encounter guns is such that NZ police do not routinely carry guns at all. Why should they when the criminals they deal with do not carry guns, either?

[Seth]

The number of guns in a society does not affect overall crime rates. Correct.

Thank you for confirming that important and gun-ban-destroying fact. The rest of your argument is merely false propaganda. Nothing more need be said about it.

[Blind groper]

Seth, you are the proverbial ostritch with its head in the sand. You either call reputable studies lies, or ignore anything you do not like. Hiding from facts that you find unpalatable do not make them go away.

[Seth]

Seth, you are the proverbial ostritch with its head in the sand.

No, I am a rational person and a speaker of truth.

You either call reputable studies lies,

Because they aren't reputable and they are lies.

or ignore anything you do not like.

I only ignore your ignorant and universally fallacious claims in which you almost always confuse correlation with causation without the least bit of actual evidence to back it up.

Hiding from facts that you find unpalatable do not make them go away.

Right back atcha, dude. What's really important is that when you do it, you kill other people, not just yourself, whereas I at the very least am prepared to protect them.

[Blind groper]

Seth

Quite the reverse.
It is attitudes like yours that cause the USA to have the highest murder rate in the western world. It is attitudes like yours that kills 10,000 people every year through preventable murders.

[Seth]

Seth

Quite the reverse.

Nope.

It is attitudes like yours that cause the USA to have the highest murder rate in the western world. It is attitudes like yours that kills 10,000 people every year through preventable murders.

There's your cherry-picking bullshit again. You're wrong, and a liar.

[Tero]

In 2015 Gallup estimated that 41% of households had a gun.

All these guns and nobody to shoot. Must be because they keep the guns at home. Almost none of the crime happens there, except for ghettos. Solution: carry all the guns all the time.

I don't think it's going to do much.

[Seth]

In 2015 Gallup estimated that 41% of households had a gun.

All these guns and nobody to shoot.

Plenty of other stuff to shoot.

Must be because they keep the guns at home.

Yes, yes it is.

Almost none of the crime happens there, except for ghettos.

Not really true, but then again not really relevant.

Solution: carry all the guns all the time.

Exactly correct.

I don't think it's going to do much.

Ah, but it demonstrably already does much to ensure public safety.

[Tero]

Michigan Woman unaware that shoplifters making a getaway did not pose a threat to her, requiring her to shoot
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/12/michiga ... ody-again/

[Seth]

Michigan Woman unaware that shoplifters making a getaway did not pose a threat to her, requiring her to shoot
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/12/michiga ... ody-again/

She didn't shoot the shoplifters, she shot the tire of their car, which is a perfectly reasonable method of apprehending a criminal trying to escape in a car if the circumstances make it safe (for others) to do so, and although I don't know about Michigan, in Colorado a citizen has the right to use "reasonable and appropriate physical force" to apprehend a person who has committed a crime in their presence, which includes both felonies and misdemeanors. The police do it all the time. The only real question is whether or not the specific circumstances actually placed others at risk, which is not axiomatically true. If she knew her target, knew what was beyond her target and knew that her round would not endanger others, then she committed no crime.

Now, was it prudent of her to do so? No, because in this day and age there are too many radical anti-gun prosecutors and judges who are willing to call anything involving a firearm "too dangerous" to be permitted, which is not what the law says.

But she plead "no contest" and thus forfeited her right to be heard by a jury because, I'm quite certain, the prosecutor threatened her with unwarranted felony charges and threatened to jail her for many years in order to coerce her into this plea bargain, something that should be flatly forbidden (which is to say plea bargains). You either committed a crime or you did not, and plea bargaining is merely a convenience for prosecutors to clear their dockets and claim "wins" (as in this case) when they have cases that are likely to lose at trial.

One should ALWAYS opt for a trial, not a plea bargain. If you have the law on your side, go before a judge. If you have reason on your side, go before a jury.

[Tero]

Stuff happens, when you go to a bar. Or a Waffle House. With your gun.
http://gawker.com/mississippi-waffle-ho ... 1745179885