Topic: Gun free zone - page 19. (Read 21968 times)
He "disproved" your arguments only in his mind. That's why FirstAsshole doesn't share.
Funny story: He went into the research intending to prove how bad guns were for society.
Give it a read: http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493636
Give it a read: http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493636
Regardless of his motives, it's his results that count. Study up on them.
Yes. Maybe I dug deeper than you. I'm sure on the surface, the results fit your agenda, so you didn't dig deeper.
That seems a reasonable conclusion.
Funny story: He went into the research intending to prove how bad guns were for society.
Give it a read: http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493636
Give it a read: http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493636
Regardless of his motives, it's his results that count. Study up on them.
Yes. Maybe I dug deeper than you. I'm sure on the surface, the results fit your agenda, so you didn't dig deeper.
That seems a reasonable conclusion.
Funny story: He went into the research intending to prove how bad guns were for society.
Give it a read: http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493636
Give it a read: http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493636
Regardless of his motives, it's his results that count. Study up on them.
Yes. Maybe I dug deeper than you. I'm sure on the surface, the results fit your agenda, so you didn't dig deeper.
Funny story: He went into the research intending to prove how bad guns were for society.
Give it a read: http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493636
Give it a read: http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493636
Regardless of his motives, it's his results that count. Study up on them.
Yes. Maybe I dug deeper than you. I'm sure on the surface, the results fit your agenda, so you didn't dig deeper.
Funny story: He went into the research intending to prove how bad guns were for society.
Give it a read: http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493636
Give it a read: http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493636
Regardless of his motives, it's his results that count. Study up on them.
Funny story: He went into the research intending to prove how bad guns were for society.
Give it a read: http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493636
Give it a read: http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493636
Regardless of his motives, it's his results that count. Study up on them.
Funny story: He went into the research intending to prove how bad guns were for society.
Give it a read: http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493636
Give it a read: http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493636
But in mentioning this in the way you did, you really outdone yourself. Just couldn't resist pushing your own agenda, even after posting a very sincere and fundamental message by Morgan Freeman, pointing to the very core of the problem. And you, in a most sickening way, used this piece of information in another sad attempt to get your pathetic and flawed point across.
With every post you make you reveal yourself to be the most insidious of fundamentalist there is.
With every post you make you reveal yourself to be the most insidious of fundamentalist there is.
Yeah, fucking fundamentalists, wanting to protect innocent life using the most effective tool to do so in existence...
Oh yeah keep on pushing that agenda, couldn't care less, but I'm just making sure that the twisted irony of using a quotation about the media using a tragedy for their own end, and simultaneously using a tragedy as a means to shove those flawed ideals in someones face once more, is not lost on you.
And I'm sure you'll have another semi-clever reply exactly missing this point and focusing on something that happens to suit your agenda.
My "agenda" is saving INNOCENT lives, rather than CRIMINALS' lives. No more, no less.
I should hope so. Given this admission from you, then please be sure to analyze any data you use in defense of your position regarding guns objectively. You can start with data provided by John Lott.
The Osaka School Massacre took place on June 8, 2001, at Ikeda Elementary School, an elite primary school affiliated with Osaka Kyoiku University in Osaka Prefecture, Japan.
At 10:15 that morning, 37-year-old former janitor Mamoru Takuma entered the school armed with a kitchen knife and began stabbing numerous school children and teachers. He killed eight children, mostly between the ages of seven and eight, and seriously wounded thirteen other children and two teachers
This week there was also a school attack in China too. A knife-wielding maniac slashed 22 children at a kindergarten. Not a single child died. Do you really think that upgrading the tools available to killers is a good idea?
I also don't think you want to bring up Japan (Japan has very strict gun control, though not as strict as Singapore). In 2006, there were 2 gun related deaths of any type in Japan, a country of about 130 million. By contrast, in the US, there were 642 fatal firearm accidents in 2006. In addition, there were about 30,000 homicides involving gunshot wounds.
The point is that banning of weapons will not stop these kinds of massacres. We live in a dangerous world and taking away a person's right to self defense will not make it safer.
I don't see how anyone can tell a victim of a crime that they do not have the right to protect their body's using the most efficient method possible, a firearm. For example, I don't see how anyone can tell a woman that has been raped that she does not have the right to carry a firearm.
Where do you get your 30,000 homicides from gunshot wounds in 2006? In 2009 there were only 11,493 firearm homicides according to the CDC.
I like the WSJ's database on homicides in the United States.
http://projects.wsj.com/murderdata
----- Edit ------
You know Singapore is very interesting. It has a civilian homicide rate 0.3 per 100,000 people of but a state homicide (execution) rate of 1.4 per 100,000.
Sorry, I was including gun-mediated suicide in cases of homicide which is pretty questionable. There are about twice as many firearm-related suicides as there are firearm-related homicides. Suicide is quite different from homicide. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that suicide has a high failure rate and the use of a firearm vastly increases success probability.
The Singaporean execution rate used to be that high during the 1990s. However, it has dropped a lot in recent years. In the last few years, it has been closer to 0.4 per 100,000. Most of that is just our drug laws. 30 grams of cocaine = swinging from a rope if caught in possession.
So, let's expand this, shall we? You think that people who advocate the non-aggression principle are so aggressive you wouldn't trust us with a plastic knife?
I think it has something to do with your use of aggressive and confrontational language. Also, the recurrent violent imagery in your posts.
It is hard to believe someone is spreading a peaceful message when every third word they use refers to violence.
(I could easily be perceived as aggressive too, but I never claimed to be otherwise. After all, I support extremely aggressive gun control laws.)
I am adding Equilux to my ignore list for not contributing anything of value, and for deliberately misrepresenting good people to make them look bad and provoke them.
well, in germany there are no gun dealers behind convinience stores. getting an illegal firearm is not a trivial thing for most people.
Been shopping for an illegal firearm recently, have you? Or how do you know that it's not easy? (Which I never claimed, by the way, just that it could be done.)give me a break, i just read 140 posts and didnt intend to do it again, so i just asked. honestly, i think the people advocating NAP are a crowd so aggressive....well, i wouldnt trust bitware, rudd-o or you with a plastic knife...
So, let's expand this, shall we? You think that people who advocate the non-aggression principle are so aggressive you wouldn't trust us with a plastic knife?
I suppose you think people who advocate women's rights are misogynists, and that abolitionists were racists?
I don't know where you got that from, I really don't. Typical fornit logic, I guess. I say, "Oh, look, this 20 year old broke a law that was supposed to keep him from having guns. Shame laws only work if you're law-abiding." You hear, "We should give the kids guns." LOLWUT?
Yeah, her not having guns would have meant he didn't get her guns. Would it have meant he didn't get any guns? No. And if you think he couldn't have gotten guns somewhere, think again. If you want a gun, you can find one, and the dude behind the convenience store doesn't do background checks.
Yeah, her not having guns would have meant he didn't get her guns. Would it have meant he didn't get any guns? No. And if you think he couldn't have gotten guns somewhere, think again. If you want a gun, you can find one, and the dude behind the convenience store doesn't do background checks.
well, in germany there are no gun dealers behind convinience stores. getting an illegal firearm is not a trivial thing for most people.
give me a break, i just read 140 posts and didnt intend to do it again, so i just asked. honestly, i think the people advocating NAP are a crowd so aggressive....well, i wouldnt trust bitware, rudd-o or you with a plastic knife...
but not having any firearms in the house would have worked in both cases.
btw: did you really advocate that the kids themselves should carry firearms?
I don't know where you got that from, I really don't. Typical fornit logic, I guess. I say, "Oh, look, this 20 year old broke a law that was supposed to keep him from having guns. Shame laws only work if you're law-abiding." You hear, "We should give the kids guns." LOLWUT?btw: did you really advocate that the kids themselves should carry firearms?
Yeah, her not having guns would have meant he didn't get her guns. Would it have meant he didn't get any guns? No. And if you think he couldn't have gotten guns somewhere, think again. If you want a gun, you can find one, and the dude behind the convenience store doesn't do background checks.
but not having any firearms in the house would have worked in both cases.
btw: did you really advocate that the kids in school themselves should carry firearms for protection?
btw: did you really advocate that the kids in school themselves should carry firearms for protection?
Yes, this most recent incident was perpetrated using his mother's legally obtained weapons. CT laws prohibit people under 21 from possessing firearms. He was 20.
Shame that laws aren't magic, isn't it? Telling someone "no" only works if they're willing to listen.
Shame that laws aren't magic, isn't it? Telling someone "no" only works if they're willing to listen.
i would just like to add that bringing up the winnenden massacre as an example that this kind of situations can also occur when private firearms are prohibited is extremely weird. the shooter used one of his fathers legally owned firearms, who could obtain it legally as a member of a gun sports club.
there where several killings with very similar circumstances in germany over the years and the fact that gun sports is still a bit of a tradition in parts of the country is basically the only reason the laws are not stricter by now.
there where several killings with very similar circumstances in germany over the years and the fact that gun sports is still a bit of a tradition in parts of the country is basically the only reason the laws are not stricter by now.
But in mentioning this in the way you did, you really outdone yourself. Just couldn't resist pushing your own agenda, even after posting a very sincere and fundamental message by Morgan Freeman, pointing to the very core of the problem. And you, in a most sickening way, used this piece of information in another sad attempt to get your pathetic and flawed point across.
With every post you make you reveal yourself to be the most insidious of fundamentalist there is.
With every post you make you reveal yourself to be the most insidious of fundamentalist there is.
Yeah, fucking fundamentalists, wanting to protect innocent life using the most effective tool to do so in existence...
Oh yeah keep on pushing that agenda, couldn't care less, but I'm just making sure that the twisted irony of using a quotation about the media using a tragedy for their own end, and simultaneously using a tragedy as a means to shove those flawed ideals in someones face once more, is not lost on you.
And I'm sure you'll have another semi-clever reply exactly missing this point and focusing on something that happens to suit your agenda.
My "agenda" is saving INNOCENT lives, rather than CRIMINALS' lives. No more, no less.
Here's what even the most insane of violent criminals sees when he looks at a school in the U.S. and almost the whole rest of the world except Israel=A DEFENSELESS KILLING FIELD.
The sky must be orange in your perverse world, where up is down, back is front, and evil is doubleplusgood.
Jump to: