19
   

Mom kills her two teens for being mouthy.

 
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 08:11 am
@FBM,
That's funny. The shooting in Chicago is the result of lax gun laws but the shooting in Az can't be attributed to gun laws at all.

I wonder why the murder rate in Pheonix is almost the same as Chicago? Must be the difference in gun laws.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 08:25 am
@parados,
If conceal/carry reduces gun murder then we would expect that the states without conceal/carry would have the highest gun murder rate per population and those with conceal/carry would have the lowest.


BUT...


https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AonYZs4MzlZbdGhycDRPQlN1dTBoMzJWOTk0Uk9DRVE&hl=en#gid=0

And the conceal/carry map
http://www.usacarry.com/concealed_carry_permit_reciprocity_maps.html

Why are Ill and Wi not even close to the highest gun murder rate?

Why does Az have a higher murder rate then Ill?
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 08:35 am
@parados,
parados wrote:
That's funny. The shooting in Chicago is the result of lax gun laws but the shooting in Az can't be attributed to gun laws at all.

I wonder why the murder rate in Pheonix is almost the same as Chicago? Must be the difference in gun laws.
I will always look at it from an INDIVIDUAL PERSPECTIVE, to wit:
when a victim is violently beset with
the depredations of criminals or of animals,
he need not stop to consider what is best for society.
Survival is very INDIVIDUAL.

When a victim of crime is attacked by predators
he has a right to fight back, and to be as successful
as possible, regardless of how the predators
are armed or if thay r UNARMED.
The victim can be killed by UNARMED predators
or by those bearing sharp or blunt weapons.
We know that because it has already happened too many times.


There is only one way that a petite old lady
or a child can defend himself or herself from
violent predators: guns of adequate power
with competent ammuntion. No citizen has the duty
to lay down and submit to murder, for the good of society.

I support "equal protection of the laws" Parados.




David
FBM
 
  2  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 10:00 am
@parados,
parados wrote:

If conceal/carry reduces gun murder then we would expect that the states without conceal/carry would have the highest gun murder rate per population and those with conceal/carry would have the lowest.


BUT...


https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AonYZs4MzlZbdGhycDRPQlN1dTBoMzJWOTk0Uk9DRVE&hl=en#gid=0

And the conceal/carry map
http://www.usacarry.com/concealed_carry_permit_reciprocity_maps.html

Why are Ill and Wi not even close to the highest gun murder rate?


The real question is, if your logic actually held water, why do they have any gun murder rate at all? Could it be that...criminals...have guns there, despite laws prohibiting such?

Quote:
Why does Az have a higher murder rate then Ill?


Did you even look at the stats you posted? Why do NY and MD, with their much, much tighter gun control laws, have much higher rates than AZ? MD's rates are twice AZ's, and both NY's and MD's laws are much closer to what you advocate.

Logic fail. Reload and try again.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 10:29 am
@FBM,
Quote:

The real question is, if your logic actually held water, why do they have any gun murder rate at all? Could it be that...criminals...have guns there, despite laws prohibiting such?

Which logic of mine are your referring to? I never said that conceal/carry affects the ability of criminals to get guns. Lott argued that conceal/carry reduces crime and murder. Do you agree that Lott is wrong?

Quote:
Did you even look at the stats you posted? Why do NY and MD, with their much, much tighter gun control laws, have much higher rates than AZ? MD's rates are twice AZ's, and both NY's and MD's laws are much closer to what you advocate.
For reasons other than conceal/carry. But then I never argued that conceal/carry reduces crime and the stats support that. I only pointed out that Lott's argument is rather silly.

Quote:
Logic fail. Reload and try again.
Go ahead and reload but you might want to try to stick with my actual arguments instead of arguing something I never said.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 02:59 pm
@parados,
Quote:
The real question is, if your logic actually held water, why do they have any gun murder rate at all? Could it be that...criminals...have guns there, despite laws prohibiting such?
parados wrote:
Which logic of mine are your referring to? I never said that conceal/carry affects the ability of criminals to get guns. Lott argued that conceal/carry reduces crime and murder. Do you agree that Lott is wrong?
Lott's point is that criminals know that there is greater danger
of their getting KILLED or grievously wounded on-the-job, if the (angry) victim
is well armed and he knows that it is LEGAL
for him to defend himself by slaughtering those criminals.




Quote:
Did you even look at the stats you posted? Why do NY and MD, with their much, much tighter gun control laws, have much higher rates than AZ? MD's rates are twice AZ's, and both NY's and MD's laws are much closer to what you advocate.
Quote:
For reasons other than conceal/carry. But then I never argued that conceal/carry reduces crime and the stats support that. I only pointed out that Lott's argument is rather silly.
In your lexicon, does "silly" mean a matter of life and death on-the-job ?

Incarcerated felons, during interviews in prison,
have indicated that thay care A LOT whether
thay will survive robberies that thay perpetrate.

Indeed, criminals who took a shot at me,
fled very, very swiftly (after a scream)
when my .44 revolver came out.

parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 07:13 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:


of their getting KILLED or grievously wounded on-the-job, if the (angry) victim
is well armed and he knows that it is LEGAL
for him to defend himself by slaughtering those criminals.

So then why are the 2 states without conceal/carry not the ones with the highest murder rate? Are you arguing that criminals in other states are too stupid to not realize that others might be carrying guns?


Quote:


Incarcerated felons, during interviews in prison,
have indicated that thay care A LOT whether
thay will survive robberies that thay perpetrate.
So let me ask again. Why do the states without conceal/carry have lower murder rates than other states?
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 07:25 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:


of their getting KILLED or grievously wounded on-the-job, if the (angry) victim
is well armed and he knows that it is LEGAL
for him to defend himself by slaughtering those criminals.

Quote:
So then why are the 2 states without conceal/carry not the ones with the highest murder rate?
I understand that
D.C. and Chicago had very dangerous murder rates.
(I am not an expert on statistics.)


Quote:
Are you arguing that criminals in other states are too stupid to not realize that others might be carrying guns?
Re-state your question ?


Quote:
Incarcerated felons, during interviews in prison,
have indicated that thay care A LOT whether
thay will survive robberies that thay perpetrate.
So let me ask again. Why do the states without conceal/carry have lower murder rates than other states?
I don 't know that to be factually true.
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 11:44 pm
I already pointed out two states in which gun control laws are much tighter, but paradoxically have higher gun murder rates than AZ, where restrictions are lighter. The evidence shows that there's no direct causality between having more permissive gun ownership/carry laws and increased murder rates, nor between stricter laws and lower gun murder rates.

Neither do the numbers support the claim that making carrying concealed guns illegal will eliminate gun murders. IL and WI still have gun murders, despite their strict laws. I don't see any reason to expect abolition of gun ownership altogether to be any more effective. Why? The criminals don't care what the gun laws are. They're criminals. The guns are already out there. They will always have access to them, if not from within the US, from south of the border. Making gun ownership illegal will simply make easier targets out of otherwise peaceful citizens.

If someone can figure out how to permanently disarm the criminals first, I'll consider getting rid of my guns. Until such time, no dice.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Feb, 2011 02:03 am

If criminals are willing to ignore the laws against ROBBERY;
if criminals are willing to disregard the laws against MURDER,
HOW can we convince them to OBAY "gun control" laws ?





David
0 Replies
 
IRFRANK
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Feb, 2011 08:01 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
I will always look at it from an INDIVIDUAL PERSPECTIVE, to wit:
when a victim is violently beset with
the depredations of criminals or of animals,
he need not stop to consider what is best for society.
Survival is very INDIVIDUAL.

When a victim of crime is attacked by predators
he has a right to fight back, and to be as successful
as possible, regardless of how the predators
are armed or if thay r UNARMED.
The victim can be killed by UNARMED predators
or by those bearing sharp or blunt weapons.
We know that because it has already happened too many times.


There is only one way that a petite old lady
or a child can defend himself or herself from
violent predators: guns of adequate power
with competent ammuntion. No citizen has the duty
to lay down and submit to murder, for the good of society.

I support "equal protection of the laws" Parados.




I guess that means you support the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Fri 4 Feb, 2011 08:17 am
@IRFRANK,
I do not support the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

I support each country maintaining adequate military defenses.

I support every household maintaining adequate defenses from burglary.

I support each INDIVIDUAL citizen maintaining adequate defenses
from the depredations of criminals and of animals.
http://www.proguns.com/images/used-guns/usedguns247-904/278taurus445.jpg




David
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Feb, 2011 08:36 am
@IRFRANK,
IRFRANK wrote:
I guess that means you support the proliferation of nuclear weapons.


Please don't take this as an aggressive response, but you do know what a 'straw man argument' is, don't you? They're notorious for clouding an issue and preventing progress in a dialog.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Feb, 2011 09:42 pm
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
Quote:
Crime and Self-Defense


* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[12]



* Based on survey data from the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 5,340,000 violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2008. These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders.[13] [14] [15] Of these, about 436,000 or 8% were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun.[16]



* Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]


* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[19]



* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[20]



* A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21]



34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"

40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"

69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22]

0 Replies
 
IRFRANK
 
  2  
Reply Fri 4 Feb, 2011 10:17 pm
@FBM,
Quote:
Please don't take this as an aggressive response, but you do know what a 'straw man argument' is, don't you? They're notorious for clouding an issue and preventing progress in a dialog.


I see a great deal of similarity in the argument that an individual has the right to weapons to defend themselves and a country saying the same thing. Is it not true that the country with the biggest stick makes the rules, just like the bully on the playground. Is this not Iran's argument that they have a right to nuclear weapons as a deterrent against Israel and the US?

You may see this as a red herring, but I see it as the same childish thought of "I just need a bigger rock."

The country with the weapons say Iran doesn't need a deterrent because no one is going to attack them. The police say the public doesn't need their own weapons because they have police protection.

Saying the population would be more protected if there were more guns available is like saying all countries should have nuclear weapons.

Is it not the same argument?

I am sorry if I disturbed your dialog. I guess I don't think it's possible to have a meaningful dialog with gun proponents.
FBM
 
  2  
Reply Fri 4 Feb, 2011 11:32 pm
@IRFRANK,
IRFRANK wrote:

Saying the population would be more protected if there were more guns available is like saying all countries should have nuclear weapons.

Is it not the same argument?


I honestly don't see how it is. Anyway, "the population would be more protected if there were more guns available" isn't quite my argument. I'm saying that guns are already widely available. They don't need to be more widely available. As long as those with criminal intent have access to guns, a wise law-abiding citizen who cares enough about his/her life and those of his/her loved ones would be well advised to own a gun and train in its proper use. You can't back down a gun-toting criminal with a knife, can you?

Quote:
I am sorry if I disturbed your dialog.


No sweat. It's been disturbed for quite a while now. hee hee

Quote:
I guess I don't think it's possible to have a meaningful dialog with gun proponents.


I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't know why you do, unless that can be interpreted as a statement that you've made up your mind and don't want to be bothered by facts. I've posted some very objective and verifiable statistics gathered by experts and I'm, for the most part, employing logic in defense of my point, rather than empty rhetoric. Or, at the very least, alongside it.
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Feb, 2011 03:50 am
@IRFRANK,
Ah, I just noticed that this is your thread. I'll back out if I'm bothering you. My bad. I'm not out to make enemies.
IRFRANK
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Feb, 2011 07:01 pm
@FBM,
FBM, bothering me? not at all. And no chance of becoming enemies. I support the second amendment and the right to bear arms. That said, I don't think that means that all types of weapons should be legal. For one, I do not see the need for the general population to be able to own automatic weapons. I also would hope that many less 'Saturday Night Specials' would be produced. They serve no purpose other than killing. But my feelings on those issues shouldn't necessarily be the law of the land. The ease with which this disturbed woman obtained a handgun shows that they are freely available and in this case, and the shooting in Arizona, made a horrendous crime possible. Was it the guns fault? Of course not, and may have been just as possible with a club or an axe. But at least in Arizona, at least a few less people would have died.

I don't know the answers in all of this, but for myself I wish there were many less guns in our country. I have many friends that have guns and probably carry while traveling with me. They are law abiding people and very responsible and I do not have any trepidation being around them with their guns. Do I feel safer in their company, not necessarily. Do I carry? No. I don't feel a need to. Do I want to take away their guns or rights? No, not at all.

This forum is intended for open, hopefully honest, intelligent discussion about many issues. I would never want you or anyone else to withhold disagreeable comment. I don't. Enemies? Not at all.

My comment after H2O man's post may have been a bit off the wall and as you pointed out - a distraction. His rhetoric gets to me sometimes, unfortunately.

Quote:
As long as those with criminal intent have access to guns, a wise law-abiding citizen who cares enough about his/her life and those of his/her loved ones would be well advised to own a gun and train in its proper use. You can't back down a gun-toting criminal with a knife, can you?


I'm not sure I agree with this. I think it is a big risk to think you can back down a gun-toting criminal with a gun also. I would do about as much as I could to avoid a gun fight, no matter how great my skills were. But hey, if you think otherwise, it's your choice.


FBM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Feb, 2011 09:44 pm
@IRFRANK,
Gotcha. I imagine my previous posts may come across as those of a rabid gun nut to some, but I'm not. I respect your position, and don't think it's actually all that far from mine. I have a couple of friends who are rabid gun nuts, but I just can't work up that much interest in it. I think a lot of the interest I have in this thread comes from my training in philosophy. That is, I sometimes can't resist pointing out logical fallacies and other flaws in poorly-constructed arguments.

That said, I do have a carry permit and have backed down two potential assailants. I don't know if they were armed or not, but I did everything possible to avoid the conflicts before finally being cornered. Once I was alone and the other time I was with my brother, who is blind. On both occasions, the only thing that stopped the bad guys was when I pulled out my handgun. If you look at the stats I posted earlier, that sort of thing is a lot more common than many people seem to think.

When I'm back home, I feel 90% safe in 90% of the places I go 90% of the time. The carry permit and handgun is for that other 10%, as well as target practicing, etc.

Cheers...
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Feb, 2011 10:11 pm
@FBM,
FBM wrote:
Gotcha. I imagine my previous posts may come across as those of a rabid gun nut to some, but I'm not. I respect your position, and don't think it's actually all that far from mine. I have a couple of friends who are rabid gun nuts, but I just can't work up that much interest in it.
I have a gold coin collection.
I wonder whether I am a coin nut with rabies; no frothing at the mouth yet.





David
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Florida grand jury to probe Trayvon Martin killing - Discussion by BumbleBeeBoogie
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/25/2021 at 04:07:38