Political Crossfire Forums

[perdidochas]

shrub buster wrote: perd said: "Hmm, my father also had guns, my whole life. Exactly 0 of his three sons has been involved in violence against others or against them. The closest we've come is that my sister-in-law, who works for a DA, had a contract on her life put out on her by a disgruntled person she had filed charges against."

That's too close for me. None of my siblings nor any of my children or my sibling's children have had any bad experiences of the sort and I don't expect them to.

Then my sister-in-law should quit being a DA that specializes, not in violent crime, but in securities fraud. Also, the plot was discovered fairly quickly.

shrub buster wrote: YOu said: "Guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens harm no one. As I said, our NON-GUN murder rate is higher than most European country's total murder rate. If we magically get rid of every gun in the U.S. tomorrow, we still have a murder rate higher than yours."

THat's nonsense and you know it's nonsense. Guns in the hands of lawabiding citizens cause accidents. You don't think the accidents are of any consequence but that doesn't permit you to lie and say what you have said. You might try saying that guns in the hands of lawabiding citizens cause few accidents, in your opinion. Don't keep making mistakes which I have to correct. If you lose all your guns tomorrow you gun crime rate will miraculously drop to zero the following day. Case closed on that one unless you want to waste more of my time arguing the obvious!

The number of gun-related accidents is very small. There were only 730 deaths by gun accidents in 2003. Considering that there are 80 million gun owners, this is a small number. That's a rate of .9 per 100,000 gun owners. In comparison, accidental suffocations kills over 5000 a year. Accidents with guns are, statistically speaking, a non-issue. Most gun owners are careful with guns.

Gun crime, but not total crime. Do you think that most of the people committing gun crime aren't going to switch to other weapons? Yes, totally eliminating all guns would eliminate gun crime, but at what cost?


shrub buster wrote: YOu asked: "What statistics do you have that show that guns produce violence? You haven't shown a lick of proof outside of the gun-control Canada site (which is hardly a choice of unbiased data, it has a bunch of selected data which of course are pro-gun control). Are you not savvy enough to find government sources? Note, I don't use NRA or pro-gun sites, I am intellectually honest enough to know that they won't provide the full story."

Take the link that I furnished. Rebut it if you can. Don't whine to me that you don't like it. I can easily find government sources. They usually end in .gov. I don't consider you intellectually honest at all. I find you unteachable and stubborn and even when I prove something to you, you try to disregard it and go on with your wrongheaded beliefs. Then the rest of the gunners say that I haven't provided any facts. I'm getting sick of it frankly.

Do you understand basic debate? There are different kinds of sources, primary and secondary. Primary sources are those that are directly from the data. I stick to primary sources because they are the most reliable, and least susceptible to corruption by omission. Secondary sources, like the guncontrol site you used, are unreliable. They only give their side of the account, and don't allow for objective decisions. Yes, you provided facts, but not all the facts. I give links that allow the mining of more facts. Lucky Luke is a master at this, and he is intellectually honest enough to provide real sources. I do the same, and it allows for the truth to emerge. Admittedly, we interpret the data differently, but at least the data can be critically examined.

shrub buster wrote: You asked: "Also, how are criminals going to get access to use the guns in my arsenal against me? I keep the guns and ammunition locked up."
If I was a gunner I could show you. I could search you out and come to your front door and when you opened the door I could stick a gun in your face and demand that you take me to your guns. If you didn't cooperate then I would shoot you dead on the spot. I would then search the house for other gunners and shoot them dead on the spot. I would find your wife or know where your wife and kids were at the time and I would wait for them to come home. When your wife came home I would demand that she show me where the key is to your gun safe is and she would get it for me after seeing your cold, dead body on the floor. I would get your guns and then shoot your wife and kids. Then I would take all your guns because that's where the criminal element gets it's guns anyway. From people like you. Sometimes dead people like you. That was a fictional story but it illustrated the point for you. I have no propensity for crime at all.

Talk about far-fetched situations.

shrub buster wrote: You said: "In case you didn't realize this, without ammunition a gun is just a unwieldy club."

If I came to your front door with an unloaded AK47 and pointed it at you and started to make the aforementioned demands, you would change your mind very quickly on your definition of what I was holding in my hands, I assure you! In fact, I suspect that you would experience loose bowel problems.

It depends on how close to me you were. If you were at my door with an AK-74, I'd take my chances at redirecting the barrel. I'd rather die fighting than just sit back and enjoy it.

shrub buster wrote: I would like you to start thinking of taking this conversation to a much more elevated intellectual level. This current bickering back and forth is unproductive and a waste of my valuable time.

Every time I try to turn the debate to a proper debate, you whine and refuse to find evidence to prove your points. Then I resort to other means, and you whine and start to threaten to report me to the moderators. What do you want? Elevated debate involving data, or debate involving ideas that come out of your imagination?

[perdidochas]

shrub buster wrote: lil said: "blackfeet" ??? LOL What kind of wolf is that? Ever seen one up close and personal in the wild? Ever feed one out of your hand? Know what the wolf signifies in native aboriginal legend?

Later man when I have the time.

he was talking about his own heritage. Blackfeet (I've usually heard it as Blackfoot) is an Indian tribe in the Northwest. Lilwolf said that he is of native American descent, and that the wolf is his spiritual persona. I think he knows that the wolf signifies, at least for his tribe.

[perdidochas]

shrub buster wrote: lilwolf- yep, canus lupus for sure and not the coastal variety. I can tell when a person is not bull shi**ing me. You're one of the few people I've talked to who actually know something about wolves and respects them for the beautiful animals they are. They represent family ties in the Kwakiutl tradition. The bounty hunter thing threw me off and pissed me off, I don't mind saying until I understood you better.

I'll look at your link and respond when I have time.

Why would someone being a bounty hunter piss you off? A bounty hunter does a necessary service, which is to apprehend bail jumpers. Do you understand what a bail jumper is? It's a criminal out on bail who chooses to run rather than obey the agreement he signed, and have his court appearance. I can't see how anybody would have anything but thanks and respect for a bounty hunter.

[TNBiologist]

shrub buster wrote: biologist said: "You showed stats from a site that promotes gun-control. How are we supposted to take those seriously? Go back and look at the stats I have posted. I am biased in this debate but my stats are not coming from any pro-gun group. They are coming for a site without an agenda. Please try to us sourses that do not come from pro-gun or anti-gun sites as they will be skewed one way or another. And please learn to use the qoute feature, it will make reading you post much easier on all of us."

I'm going to show statistics from any site I choose to show them from. If you want to rebut theme then do so. Don't whine to me that you don't like the source. I'm not going to look at a bunch of statistics that mean nothing. If you want me to look at something specific then tell me what it is and give a link that takes me directly to it. I don't have time for these games. I will not use the qwote feature because I find it cumbersome. Please stop insisting that I do.

I'm done debating with you om this thread if you refuse show sources most of the time and when you do they come from gun-control/anti-gun organizations instead of unbiased locations.

[lilwolf]

Perd Thanks - Doing my job is not always a fun one either. I have only pulled my gun 11 times and not had to (yet) shoot a bad guy. I have left some knots on peoples haeds though.
It is a necessary evil - this job.

I don't mess with the guys that have speeding tickets and the like but I do go after real hard the guys that have hurt someone. They don't deserve to be on the streets.
I have been knifed 3 times over the years, hit with a baseball bat twice, and attacked with a hedge trimmer once.
I also use a taser and a stun gun. Bith effective but when a pistol is pulled and stuck in the bad guys face - their whole attitude changes real quick.
I do hate the job but someone has to go after these guys. Aside from bail bond guys that work for companies there are only 575 licensed bounty hunters in the US , and only 20 of us do international retrievals.
We are far out numbered but to some people we are dirt and we are the bad guys. But to each their own. I do my job damn good. :) :)

[shrub buster]

lil- Your links are really only drawing the conclusion that more guns equals less crime, or less violent crime. I think that logic is flawed for various reasons, one of which is that societies which have less guns floating around are more peaceful societies. The evidence is undebatable but it is debatable on whetther or not the guns are the cause of either effect. Therefore I think you are left in a position in which you will have to apply yourself to the question in a more concentrating manner to find the answers.

For now I will offer this: With your current war going on there are more people getting themselves guns because they have a paranoia about terrorists attacking them in person or coming into their homes to attack them and their families. A falsely and disingenuously promoted paranoia, I suggest, by the neocons in power to perpetuate their wars of aggression. This now becomes a situation where people who are buying guns are buying them for a unique reason and perhaps they are putting them away in their closets or wherever people put guns and not doing anything with them. It's understandable in the circumstances but still it is because of the propaganda effort and totally unnecessary IMO. The guns will never serve a useful purpose against terrorists.

But more importantly, as time goes on your country may see an increasing negative result from the purchase of all these guns, and I suspect you will. There is no logical reason that I can think of that would reasonably lead one to believe that more guns = less violent crime. I consider it a fantasy which perhaps should be explored in depth here. And I don't mean with screams of protest from the somewhat mentally challenged, I mean intelligent debate from intelligent people with an agenda of finding some truths.

I think both yours and my contributions are causing a little more elevated debate here in the gun contol section. I have noticed that some of the nasty avatars are disappearing and the big gun pictures to shock antigun people have ceased. I suggest that an elevated debating style and an ignoring of the rabble or a condescending toward the rabble will cause that. If only out of sheer embarrassment of their outlandish positions. Of course I am talking about those people on both sides of the debate and mean no insult to any one individual. Your further thoughts?

[shrub buster]

perd said: "Every time I try to turn the debate to a proper debate, you whine and refuse to find evidence to prove your points. Then I resort to other means, and you whine and start to threaten to report me to the moderators. What do you want? Elevated debate involving data, or debate involving ideas that come out of your imagination?"

I would like some sincere responsed to my sincere propositions. Not just the snotty oneliners which you think you can deal out and get results from. Don't bother telling me about debate and what sites I can reference. I have no interest in that. I have an interest in good well thought out rebuttals only.

[shrub buster]

perd said: "Why would someone being a bounty hunter piss you off? A bounty hunter does a necessary service, which is to apprehend bail jumpers. Do you understand what a bail jumper is? It's a criminal out on bail who chooses to run rather than obey the agreement he signed, and have his court appearance. I can't see how anybody would have anything but thanks and respect for a bounty hunter."

You apparently don't understand completely what the title 'bounty hunter' means. You probably know in the case of lil wolf but you jump to your progun hasty conclusions and expect others to understand also. I suggest that you pull in your horns and put your guns to bed and we will continue this debate in a normal and civilized manner.

I hate the concept of killing animals for a bounty. It's a waste of money and a totally incorrect solution to manmade problems. You could say, it pisses me off.

[shrub buster]

biologist said: "I'm done debating with you om this thread if you refuse show sources most of the time and when you do they come from gun-control/anti-gun organizations instead of unbiased locations."

OH biologist, please, please don't go. Your contributions have been so intellectually elevating!

bye

[perdidochas]

shrub buster wrote: lil- Your links are really only drawing the conclusion that more guns equals less crime, or less violent crime. I think that logic is flawed for various reasons, one of which is that societies which have less guns floating around are more peaceful societies. The evidence is undebatable but it is debatable on whetther or not the guns are the cause of either effect. Therefore I think you are left in a position in which you will have to apply yourself to the question in a more concentrating manner to find the answers.

If that was undebatable, this forum wouldn't exist, as we would all agree with your viewpoint. Mexico has almost no legal civilian guns. However, ti has a murder rate of about 4 times ours. Why? It's because presence of guns is not a major factor in murders. There are other variables that are far more important.

shrub buster wrote: <snip> The guns will never serve a useful purpose against terrorists.

Neither is the legally obtained gun a major weapon of terrorists.

shrub buster wrote: But more importantly, as time goes on your country may see an increasing negative result from the purchase of all these guns, and I suspect you will.

I don't think so. I think the conclusion will be that law-abiding citizens with guns is a good thing. Gun carry laws are much less restrictive than they were in the 1980s. Crime is going down. Is it a cause and effect relationship? I honestly wouldn't venture to say. The one thing about it I will say is that having licensed people carrying guns doesn't increase crime.


shrub buster wrote: There is no logical reason that I can think of that would reasonably lead one to believe that more guns = less violent crime.

There is no logical reason that I can think of that would reasonably believe that a disarmed citizenry will be any more protected against crime than an armed citizenry.

shrub buster wrote: I consider it a fantasy which perhaps should be explored in depth here. And I don't mean with screams of protest from the somewhat mentally challenged, I mean intelligent debate from intelligent people with an agenda of finding some truths.

Bring it on.

shrub buster wrote: I think both yours and my contributions are causing a little more elevated debate here in the gun contol section. I have noticed that some of the nasty avatars are disappearing and the big gun pictures to shock antigun people have ceased. I suggest that an elevated debating style and an ignoring of the rabble or a condescending toward the rabble will cause that. If only out of sheer embarrassment of their outlandish positions. Of course I am talking about those people on both sides of the debate and mean no insult to any one individual. Your further thoughts?

Then why aren't you using an "elevated" debating style?

[perdidochas]

shrub buster wrote: lil- Your links are really only drawing the conclusion that more guns equals less crime, or less violent crime. I think that logic is flawed for various reasons, one of which is that societies which have less guns floating around are more peaceful societies. The evidence is undebatable but it is debatable on whetther or not the guns are the cause of either effect. Therefore I think you are left in a position in which you will have to apply yourself to the question in a more concentrating manner to find the answers.

If that was undebatable, this forum wouldn't exist, as we would all agree with your viewpoint. Mexico has almost no legal civilian guns. However, ti has a murder rate of about 4 times ours. Why? It's because presence of guns is not a major factor in murders. There are other variables that are far more important.

shrub buster wrote: <snip> The guns will never serve a useful purpose against terrorists.

Neither is the legally obtained gun a major weapon of terrorists.

shrub buster wrote: But more importantly, as time goes on your country may see an increasing negative result from the purchase of all these guns, and I suspect you will.

I don't think so. I think the conclusion will be that law-abiding citizens with guns is a good thing. Gun carry laws are much less restrictive than they were in the 1980s. Crime is going down. Is it a cause and effect relationship? I honestly wouldn't venture to say. The one thing about it I will say is that having licensed people carrying guns doesn't increase crime. That should be enough reason to allow it.


shrub buster wrote: There is no logical reason that I can think of that would reasonably lead one to believe that more guns = less violent crime.

There is no logical reason that I can think of that would reasonably believe that a disarmed citizenry will be any more protected against crime than an armed citizenry.

shrub buster wrote: I consider it a fantasy which perhaps should be explored in depth here. And I don't mean with screams of protest from the somewhat mentally challenged, I mean intelligent debate from intelligent people with an agenda of finding some truths.

Bring it on.

shrub buster wrote: I think both yours and my contributions are causing a little more elevated debate here in the gun contol section. I have noticed that some of the nasty avatars are disappearing and the big gun pictures to shock antigun people have ceased. I suggest that an elevated debating style and an ignoring of the rabble or a condescending toward the rabble will cause that. If only out of sheer embarrassment of their outlandish positions. Of course I am talking about those people on both sides of the debate and mean no insult to any one individual. Your further thoughts?

Then why aren't you using an "elevated" debating style?

[perdidochas]

shrub buster wrote: perd said: "Why would someone being a bounty hunter piss you off? A bounty hunter does a necessary service, which is to apprehend bail jumpers. Do you understand what a bail jumper is? It's a criminal out on bail who chooses to run rather than obey the agreement he signed, and have his court appearance. I can't see how anybody would have anything but thanks and respect for a bounty hunter."

You apparently don't understand completely what the title 'bounty hunter' means. You probably know in the case of lil wolf but you jump to your progun hasty conclusions and expect others to understand also. I suggest that you pull in your horns and put your guns to bed and we will continue this debate in a normal and civilized manner.

I hate the concept of killing animals for a bounty. It's a waste of money and a totally incorrect solution to manmade problems. You could say, it pisses me off.

That is not what lilwolf does. He "hunts" bailjumpers, not unwanted animals. I don't believe you are reading for comprehension. You certainly didn't read my post beyond the first sentence. I will emphasize the point in my quote above that explained what lilwolf does for a living.

[perdidochas]

shrub buster wrote: perd said: "Every time I try to turn the debate to a proper debate, you whine and refuse to find evidence to prove your points. Then I resort to other means, and you whine and start to threaten to report me to the moderators. What do you want? Elevated debate involving data, or debate involving ideas that come out of your imagination?"

I would like some sincere responsed to my sincere propositions. Not just the snotty oneliners which you think you can deal out and get results from. Don't bother telling me about debate and what sites I can reference. I have no interest in that. I have an interest in good well thought out rebuttals only.

I'm an academic. I deal with debate in certain ways. The way I outlined, which is debating using primary sources whenever possible, and backing up your statements is standard academic debate. Academic debate is NOT a gentle sport. It is ruthless and involves tearing apart your opponents' sources and evidence. However, it is civilized and intellectual. Basically, your version of debate is just putting forth your opinions without backing them up with evidence. That's not debate, that's just baseless opinion.

[shrub buster]

perd said: "If that was undebatable, this forum wouldn't exist, as we would all agree with your viewpoint. Mexico has almost no legal civilian guns. However, ti has a murder rate of about 4 times ours. Why? It's because presence of guns is not a major factor in murders. There are other variables that are far more important."

No, no perd, you have not read carefully and that has caused you to not understand what I said and to jump to your wild conclusions again. I think lil will understand so you could ask him or I will just explain more fully for you. Really perd, you just went ahead and reitterated my statement in your comments about Mexico except you went too far and drew another erroneous conclusion. That conclusion is that Mexico has a high crime rate because it has hardly any legal guns. Does that help?

You said: "There is no logical reason that I can think of that would reasonably believe that a disarmed citizenry will be any more protected against crime than an armed citizenry."

Well I wouldn't state it in those words but there is indeed a reason why I would believe that there would be less violent gun crime if there were no guns and that leads me to suspect that if there were fewer guns then the result could be the same. I will draw the conclusion right now, for what it's worth and to clear the air: If there were no guns in a country then there would be no gun crimes taking place. That is not debatable and I won't entertain any further debate on it!!!! Period!

[shrub buster]

Perd said: "That is not what lilwolf does. He "hunts" bailjumpers, not unwanted animals. I don't believe you are reading for comprehension. You certainly didn't read my post beyond the first sentence. I will emphasize the point in my quote above that explained what lilwolf does for a living."

I'm getting very annoyed with you because you don't seem to want to understand that I didn't know what lil did when I said bounty hunters pissed me off. Why can't you understand that simple concept? Is it because you don't want to apply yourself and read the english language carefully? And furthermore for you ongoing education, we don't call people who hunt people bounty hunters in my country. We call people who hunt animals for money bounty hunters. There is a distinction, and frankly, I am starting to find a few more things about this discussion that are pissing me off.

[shrub buster]

perd said: "Then why aren't you using an "elevated" debating style?"

Right now my excuse is because I am spending all my time answering frivolous comments and correcting misunderstandings. I'm not going to do it wiht you today perd. You don't even want to acknowledge your mistakes.

Later.

[perdidochas]

shrub buster wrote: perd said: "If that was undebatable, this forum wouldn't exist, as we would all agree with your viewpoint. Mexico has almost no legal civilian guns. However, ti has a murder rate of about 4 times ours. Why? It's because presence of guns is not a major factor in murders. There are other variables that are far more important."

No, no perd, you have not read carefully and that has caused you to not understand what I said and to jump to your wild conclusions again. I think lil will understand so you could ask him or I will just explain more fully for you. Really perd, you just went ahead and reitterated my statement in your comments about Mexico except you went too far and drew another erroneous conclusion. That conclusion is that Mexico has a high crime rate because it has hardly any legal guns. Does that help?

I didn't make that conclusion. My conclusion is that there are more important variables in terms of crime than gun ownership. I honestly don't believe that gun ownership either causes or solves many problems. For that reason, it should be legal.

shrub buster wrote: You said: "There is no logical reason that I can think of that would reasonably believe that a disarmed citizenry will be any more protected against crime than an armed citizenry."

Well I wouldn't state it in those words but there is indeed a reason why I would believe that there would be less violent gun crime if there were no guns and that leads me to suspect that if there were fewer guns then the result could be the same. I will draw the conclusion right now, for what it's worth and to clear the air: If there were no guns in a country then there would be no gun crimes taking place. That is not debatable and I won't entertain any further debate on it!!!! Period!

Actually, on reflection, I agree with that exact statement " If there were no guns in a country then there would be no gun crimes taking place." However, this has to include taking guns away from the police and military. After all, the police and military do occasionally commit crimes.

However, I disagree with the similar statement "If there were no LEGAL guns in a country, then there would be no gun crimes taking place."

How are we going to keep EVERYBODY from having a gun in a country, including the criminals (and military and police)? I think that's an impossibility. Therefore, I want the law-abiding citizens to be able to own guns.

[shrub buster]

lil said; "Perd Thanks - Doing my job is not always a fun one either. I have only pulled my gun 11 times and not had to (yet) shoot a bad guy. I have left some knots on peoples haeds though.
It is a necessary evil - this job.

I don't mess with the guys that have speeding tickets and the like but I do go after real hard the guys that have hurt someone. They don't deserve to be on the streets.
I have been knifed 3 times over the years, hit with a baseball bat twice, and attacked with a hedge trimmer once.
I also use a taser and a stun gun. Bith effective but when a pistol is pulled and stuck in the bad guys face - their whole attitude changes real quick.
I do hate the job but someone has to go after these guys. Aside from bail bond guys that work for companies there are only 575 licensed bounty hunters in the US , and only 20 of us do international retrievals.
We are far out numbered but to some people we are dirt and we are the bad guys. But to each their own. I do my job damn good. "

Regardless of your claims that your job is not always fun, which I accept, I perceive that you receive a certain amount of pleasure in telling others all about it. It is closely akin to the propensity for gun lovers to post pictures of automatic guns firing repeatedly or pictures of outrageously large military style weapons. And I notice also that your vocabulary deteriorates to slang when you are in the process of this telling. Ordinarily you would use proper English in your corresponding with me and you would tell me that 'you do your job well.' But please don't think that is the only indication you have given me with that post. Just my personal observations and I hope you don't find them offensive. KNowing what I know about you now, I think you have a very valuable contribution to make here when you are being honest, as you did in the pm to me. I won't betray your confidence or the details of that message.

[perdidochas]

shrub buster wrote: I hate the concept of killing animals for a bounty. It's a waste of money and a totally incorrect solution to manmade problems. You could say, it pisses me off.

Well, it is sometimes the only solution. We have imbalances in our ecosystems, yes, caused by mankind. Sometimes the only way to fix manmade problems is by manmade solutions. Is it the best way, probably not.

So you're against that, what do you feel about sport and/or subsistence hunting?

[cap'n queasy]

britboy wrote: I was watching one of these 'Police Camera Action' programs on telly yesterday .. it had some CCTV footage.

What happened is this guy comes into this convenience store carrying a knife and asks for the cash. She gave him the cash. They he turned and started trying to run out of the store. No way! This woman had used the 'panic' button to lock the store door.

She then calmly picks up a revolver from behind the desk, as this bloke is trying to kick through the door she has locked to desperately get away, and she shot the guy through his spine, and out through the chest. The guy died instantly.

Now the thing was that this show was saying she was a hero, the town had given her a medal, and she was the main deal. The sheriff was laughing about it on telly. She was saying this bravado s**t 'No-one messes w' me or my business'. WHAT??

Now -- I personally would have locked her up for a very long time. This was murder or at best manslaughter. The guy was trying to run away with his stash, he had no intension to cause her any more grief (that night). She forced him to stay there, then blew him away. Now the poor old desperate man is dead. And she has absolutely no fear of facing any kind of punishment whatsoever.

What's your take on this?

He tried to rob her and he got his just desserts. Why should she let him escape with "his stash"?

It wasn't his, it was hers. She has a right to defend her property and she used it. The fault for his death is his own. She is a hero, she took out a robber.