Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1081
|
|||
|
|||
"Guns! Guns! Guns!" chortled Clarence
"dave weil" wrote in message ... On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 03:05:23 +0100, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote: On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 18:37:17 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy" wrote: Thank you for admitting that gun control does not stop crime and only hurts innocent people. You, Bubba Bubble Blow, man of mangled, eyes with furtive and nose with broken, upon me your oggle, pigsome and plentywide, affixed now as your bubble-tongue babbles. Gug-bubble gun gug, you say, and smack do you your bullet-shell rattle upon my ammunition chastity belt. No gun gug naughty! is your torment as you nappy-shuffle against me, water pistol love-plastic cocked and potent. Tooth of bits and grin of piano smash, entwined you make we become, and yours, I am yours, goggle google gummy goops. Rubbing myself. What s(he) said... Finally your intellectual equal. |
#1082
|
|||
|
|||
"Guns! Guns! Guns!" chortled Clarence
"dave weil" wrote in message ... On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 18:37:17 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy" wrote: "dave weil" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 18:01:17 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy" wrote: I don't like restrictions that only harm innocent people and do nothing to stop crime OK, I'm finished with this topic. It' clear that you have no intention of keeping an open mind... Thank you for admitting that gun control does not stop crime and only hurts innocent people. Wrong answer. With your level of education and erudition, I can see how you'd come up with that though... You gave up what else am I supposed to conclude, especially in light f the fact that what I said about gun control is true. BTW, when in all this conversation was YOUR mind open? |
#1083
|
|||
|
|||
"Guns! Guns! Guns!" chortled Clarence
"Girth" wrote in message ... "Michael Mckelvy" wrote: Q: If guns should be legal, why not machine guns and rocket launchers? In the case of machine guns they used to be legal. Do you think machine guns should be legal *now*? I suppose a case could be made that a rocket laucher is overkill for self defense. Please explain why a rocket launcher is overkill for self defense : Collateral damage. Correct!! Well done!! Here... have a banana. OK, another one. Imagine that machine guns are legal in the US, and many criminals do carry them when committing burglaries. What should the sensible home owner do then? Minefield of course. -- S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t |
#1084
|
|||
|
|||
"Guns! Guns! Guns!" chortled Clarence
"dave weil" wrote in message ... On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 18:01:17 -0700, "Michael Mckelvy" wrote: I don't like restrictions that only harm innocent people and do nothing to stop crime OK, I'm finished with this topic. It' clear that you have no intention of keeping an open mind... What am I supposed to be open to? Repealling the 2nd Ammendment? Touchy, feely legislation that only affects the law abiding? How about you show me any factual evidence that any gun control does anything to curb crime. |
#1085
|
|||
|
|||
"Guns! Guns! Guns!" chortled Clarence
Dormer ambled:
GeoSynch was making a racist comment? Hmm.. hard not to take offence at that, but perhaps Geosynch didn't realise that I'm black. Do you take offense whenever 'lil Georgie calls someone 'chimp boy'? Not if they have the intelligent of a chimp, no. There, there Geo. Nice banana for you! Ooga-booga. Do you wear those pimp shoes to keep your knuckles from scraping the ground? GeoSynch |
#1086
|
|||
|
|||
"Guns! Guns! Guns!" chortled Clarence
Dormer goes out on a limb:
OK, another one. Imagine that machine guns are legal in the US, and many criminals do carry them when committing burglaries. What should the sensible home owner do then? Why, they should do what Brits do - break out the bumbershoot and go chase after the machine-gun-wielding burglar! GeoSynch |
#1087
|
|||
|
|||
"Guns! Guns! Guns!" chortled Clarence
"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message ... Girth wrote: Oily Tartlet wrote: Why even The Devil himself wrote here that he had been robbed at gunpoint! I was. And if I'd had a gun, it wouldn't have helped--unless I wanted to kill them as they ran away. The idea is to pull the gun on them *before* they rob you. In the socialist mindset, we are all potential victims who are unable to stop anything. They come up with a scenario about a robbery. You say you have a gun. They come back with a scenario where they have their gun to your head. You come back with martial arts or combat training. They come back with a dozen armed felons wielding guns. I've had this exact same discussion here in this group with someone who tried this tactic. It was as full of holes then and I don't think the world has changed much in two months. Last I checked, it hadn't. as Jeffrey Snyder says in FIGHTING BACK: Crime, Self-Defense, and the Right to Carry a Handgun : "Permit holders need concern themselves with only one thing: protecting themselves from a sudden, violent assault that threatens life or grievous bodily injury. Rape, robbery, and attempted murder are not typically actions rife with ambiguity or subtlety, requiring special powers of observation, great book-learning, or a stint at the police academy to discern. When a man pulls a knife on a woman and says, 'You're coming with me,' her judgment that a crime is being committed is not likely to be in error." "Police, by contrast, do not carry arms solely for the purpose of defending themselves, but also for the purpose of enforcing the law. They deliberately inject themselves into potentially dangerous and violent situations, responding to calls for assistance, investigating crimes, intervening in domestic violence, and making arrests." The police have much wider duties and responsibilities than civilian concealed carry weapon (CCW) permit holders do. As a result, opposing CCW laws because police receive greater weapons training or requiring civilians to receive the same training as police officers is unwarranted. (Snyder's article also points-out that police mistakenly kill roughly 300 innocent victims per year versus around 30 per year by civilians.) Additional Sources The NRA's viewpoint on right to carry laws. Handgun Control Inc.'s Carrying Concealed Weapons - Questions & Answers and Concealed Weapons, Concealed Risk. One attorney's opinion why carrying a handgun in public may not be for everyone, but it is a right that government ought to respect. A brief, but informative history of concealed-carry laws, the motives behind early handgun licensing and registration laws, and misconceptions regarding concealed carry are discussed. The Florida Department of State - Division of Licensing, concealed weapons/firearms reports on CCW holders. The Texas Department of Public Safety, arrest information for Texas concealed handgun license holders. Concealed carry statutes at gunlaws.com. Additional concealed carry statute information by state from packing.org. |GunCite Home| Last Updated: 7/27/2003|GunCite Home| Is a Gun an Effective Means of Self-Defense? Summary Contrary to myth that using a gun in self-defense is more likely to result in injury or death to the victim or innocent bystanders and fail to successfully thwart the crime rather than the criminal, the evidence, as opposed to selective anecdotes, suggests the opposite. (Of course this doesn't mean that all people should have a gun, or a gun should be used in all life-threatening situations.) Discussion Florida State University criminologist, Gary Kleck, analyzed data from the Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey (1992-1998). Describing his findings on defensive gun use, in Armed: New Perspectives on Gun Control, New York:Prometheus Books (2001), Kleck writes: "In general, self-protection measures of all types are effective, in the sense of reducing the risk of property loss in robberies and confrontational burglaries, compared to doing nothing or cooperating with the offender. The most effective form of self-protection is use of a gun. For robbery the self-protection meaures with the lowest loss rates were among victims attacking the offender with a gun, and victims threatenting the offender with a gun. For confrontational burglarly, attacking with a gun had the second lowest loss rate of sixteen self-protection measures, bested only by another mode of armed self-protection, threatening the offender with a nongun weapon." (p. 291) "[W]hile defensive gun use is generally safe, it does not appear to be uniquely safe among self-protection methods as data from earlier NCVS data suggested. Nevertheless, there does not appear to be any increase in injury risk due to defensive gun use that counterbalances its greater effectiveness in avoiding property loss." (p. 292) Kleck summarizes the effectiveness and risks of victim self-protection measures, gleaned from NCVS data, in this table. Are the lower rates of injury and property loss with defensive gun use simply due to the victims having a more favorable set of circumstances than non-gun victims? Perhaps the criminals failed to surprise gun defending victims giving them time to ready their weapons. Kleck responds to this speculation by writing: "These data indicate that victims who use guns for self-protection actually face less favorable circumstances than other victims, and that the post-self-protection injury rates for defensive gun use, low though they are, may still be misleadingly high compared to tother self-protection measures because victims who used guns faced tougher crime circumstances. More dangerous situations apparently prompt victims to adopt more dangerous self-protection measures. Two pieces of information available in the NCVS support this view. First, victims who used guns were substantially more likely than victims in general or victims using other self-protection measures to face offenders armed with guns - 32.7 percent of victims who attacked the offender with a gun, and 21.8 percent of those who threatened the offender with a gun, and 21.8 percent of those who threatened the offender with a gun, faced offenders with guns, compared to only 6.8 percent of all victims who used self-protection measures, and 2.2 percent of all victims. Second, victims who used guns were more likely to face multiple offenders - 33.2 percent of victims who attacked offenders with a gun and 34.5 percent of those who threatened with a gun confronted multiple adversaries, compared to 20.6 percent of all those who used self-protection measures, and 6.2 percent of all victims. These findings are consistent with the view that crime circumstances likely to appear more dangerous to victims are more likely to push victims into using guns. They are contrary to the speculation that crime outcomes are better for gun-wielding victims merely because other circumstances of the crime made successful outcomes more likely." (pp. 291-92) Further supporting his contention Kleck writes: "The simple percentage table results concerning robbery completion and injury rates are, however, supported by more sophisticated multivariate analysis of NCVS robbery incidents. In a logistic regression analysis, Kleck and Miriam Delone ("Victim Resistance and Offender Weapon Effects in Robbery," Journal of Quantitative Criminology 9 [1993]: 55-82) found that robbery victims who used guns in self-protection were significantly less likely to either be injured or lose their property than victims who used any other form of self protection or who did nothing to resist. This was true even when controlling for other characteristics of the robbery situation that could influence the effectiveness of defensive actions, such as the number of robbers, the number of victims, whether the robbery occurred in a private place, whether it occurred when it was dark, whether the robbers were armed, the age and gender of victims, and so on. Thus, there is no support for the speculation that gun defenders do well merely because of other advantageous crime circumstances associated with defensive gun use." (pp. 293-94) Appearing to contradict Kleck's assertions are the pre-self-protection injury rates. 27% percent of victims were injured prior to taking any self-protection measures, but only 5% of gun-defenders were injured prior to taking their actions. However, "injuries are less common in gun robberies than in nongun robberies... Analysts typically attribute the lower injury rate among gun robbery victims to their lower rates of resistance. Although this is part of the explanation, gun robbers are also less likely to attack or injure their victims, even controlling for resistance. Further, since resistance often follows injury, it is not clear that the resistance-injury association indicates that resistance provokes robber attack. To the extent that injury precedes resistance, one cannot entirely explain the lower injury rates of gun robberies by less frequent victim resistance... Murder of the victim is more likely in gun robberies than non-gun robberies." (Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997. pp 238-39. [numerous citations omitted]) Regardless of whether gun-defenders faced easier circumstances or not, as Kleck concludes, defensive gun use is often an effective form of self-defense. Nowwhere in their minds is it possible to actually defend yourself as that is counter to their ideas of personal responsibility and power. Of course not the governement is supposed to provide all that. Liberals never cease to be confused, the government that can't run wars becuase they are senselsess killing and that shouldn't be allowed to kill murderers is supposed to defend you from them when the liberals won't vote enough money for adequate police forces in the first place or when there's a need to cut money from a budget, where's the first place they want to cut? |
#1088
|
|||
|
|||
George quacking on gun control
Dormer dallied:
Home burglaries in the U.S. where the homeowner is home are exceedingly rare because as robbers have stated, they fear an armed homeowner more than they fear being caught by the police. Getting your head blown off so only parts of it remain, dangling from tendrils, is something that happens fairly often in America. Define "fairly often" limey puke! GeoSynch |
#1089
|
|||
|
|||
George quacking on gun control
Girth wrote:
"GeoSynch" wrote: It's usually amusing to watch the intellectual dishonesty Trevor trafficks in. Sometime back, he made an incredulous statement of death row inmates who were innocent and therefore wrongfully scheduled for execution. When I asked to substantiate the ridiculous numbers he had cited, he said he would but he never did. The figure that is usually mentioned in unbiased high quality media is approximately 5% of civilians killed on death row were wrongfully convicted. Prove it. GeoSynch |
#1090
|
|||
|
|||
George quacking on gun control
Dormer spun:
It's usually amusing to watch the intellectual dishonesty Trevor trafficks in. Sometime back, he made an incredulous statement of death row inmates who were innocent and therefore wrongfully scheduled for execution. When I asked to substantiate the ridiculous numbers he had cited, he said he would but he never did. The figure that is usually mentioned in unbiased high quality media is approximately 5% of civilians killed on death row were wrongfully convicted. Prove it. I should say, not those killed, they would never admit to that - those exonerated from death row. In other words, no proof to substantiate your ridiculous claims. Why am I not surprised? GeoSynch |
#1091
|
|||
|
|||
George quacking on gun control
Dormer spun himself silly:
It's usually amusing to watch the intellectual dishonesty Trevor trafficks in. Sometime back, he made an incredulous statement of death row inmates who were innocent and therefore wrongfully scheduled for execution. When I asked to substantiate the ridiculous numbers he had cited, he said he would but he never did. The figure that is usually mentioned in unbiased high quality media is approximately 5% of civilians killed on death row were wrongfully convicted. Prove it. I should say, not those killed, they would never admit to that - those exonerated from death row. In other words, no proof to substantiate your ridiculous claims. Why am I not surprised? You are so full of crap I can't be bothered. Yep, you're just like Trevor, alright. When challenged to prove the veracity of your ludicrous claims, you look around for the nearest exit. Sorry to inform you, ol' chap, but you're the one who is full of it. GeoSynch |
#1092
|
|||
|
|||
George quacking on gun control
Girth wrote:
"GeoSynch" wrote: All figures are /1000 people. Assaults Murders Burglaries US 7.98 0.05 7.48 Australia 7.22 0.02 22.35 Hey! Look! Nobody has guns at home! Gheez that's a high figure for robberies. That's one out of every 44 people per year. Nasty. Trevor's proud of his vulnerable position when it comes to getting robbed by criminals. Home burglaries in the U.S. where the homeowner is home are exceedingly rare because as robbers have stated, they fear an armed homeowner more than they fear being caught by the police. Getting your head blown off so only parts of it remain, dangling from tendrils, is something that happens fairly often in America. -- S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t |
#1093
|
|||
|
|||
George quacking on gun control
Girth wrote:
"GeoSynch" wrote: It's usually amusing to watch the intellectual dishonesty Trevor trafficks in. Sometime back, he made an incredulous statement of death row inmates who were innocent and therefore wrongfully scheduled for execution. When I asked to substantiate the ridiculous numbers he had cited, he said he would but he never did. The figure that is usually mentioned in unbiased high quality media is approximately 5% of civilians killed on death row were wrongfully convicted. -- S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t I don't know percentages, but since the advent of DNA testing, a significant number of people convicted of first-degree murder and scheduled for execution have been exonerated. Bruce J. Richman |
#1094
|
|||
|
|||
George quacking on gun control
"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message ... Girth wrote: "GeoSynch" wrote: It's usually amusing to watch the intellectual dishonesty Trevor trafficks in. Sometime back, he made an incredulous statement of death row inmates who were innocent and therefore wrongfully scheduled for execution. When I asked to substantiate the ridiculous numbers he had cited, he said he would but he never did. The figure that is usually mentioned in unbiased high quality media is approximately 5% of civilians killed on death row were wrongfully convicted. -- S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t I don't know percentages, but since the advent of DNA testing, a significant number of people convicted of first-degree murder and scheduled for execution have been exonerated. Bruce J. Richman Interesting new book coming out from Mark Fuhrman on one little county in Oklahoma that has been generating the majority of that states death sentences. He said in an interview that he would be oppose to the death penalty if can't be done better than these guys are doing it. |
#1095
|
|||
|
|||
George quacking on gun control
Girth tries to gaze beyond his navel
I'm not going to tie your shoelaces for you. You ain't even capable of reaching down to tie your own shoelaces. Oh yes I am. Prove it! GeoSynch |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
WTB: Audiomobile MASS 2012 or other 12" subs | Car Audio |