Re: Guns possessed by citizens and the State


ozarkheart@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> On 4 Sep 2005 03:00:02 -0700, "Phil Smythe" <smytph@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >ozarkheart@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >> On 1 Sep 2005 04:39:40 -0700, "Phil Smythe" <smytph@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >ozarkheart@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >> >> On 31 Aug 2005 07:19:37 -0700, "Phil Smythe" <smytph@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> >Sorry, but it DOES, whether you like it or not. You clearly have no
> >> >> >idea how the bureaucracy works.
> >> >>
> >> >> that's right - the bureaucracy works to disarm the good citizen,
> >> >> making them easier prey for the criminal. Cetanly makes one wonder
> >> >> whose side they are on, eh?
> >> >
> >> >Notably you CONTINUE to ignore the FACT that the violent crime rate is
> >> >LOWER now than when the guns laws were beefed up.
> >>
> >> And you continue to ignore the fact that crime rates did not decrease,
> >> in fact generally increased for 6 years after your muvh touted gun
> >> control law,
> >
> >Not at all, you simply didn't like my response.
>
> Because your response implies that the 96 gun control law cause the
> decrease in crime. Please explain the 6 year increase...

Pre-1996 rates of assault and roberry were INCREASING. As guns only are
involved in about 4% of these incidents a lowering of gun crime cannot
lower the overall level immediately as you seem to naively assume.
Like explaining things to you, these things take time. You might even
glance beyond 2001 to CURRENTLY AVAILABLE DATA for 2004. I like what I
see, and as it shows violent crimes lower than in 1996 so should you.

>
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > That fact invalidates
> >> >your continued mantra of the good citizen has been made easy prey.
> >>
> >> So you do believe that an armed citizen is as easy to violate as an
> >> unarmed citizen.
> >>
> >> phil illogic.
> >
> >Wrong again, I said NOTHING of the sort.
>
> So who is an easier victim: An unarmed citizen or an armed citizen?

tpg tactic number 29, the false dichotomy. Pose a question that allows
for one of only two possible responses while IGNORING all other
factors. A derivative of the "have you stopped beating your wife"
question.

Two standrad responses. 1) ignore it as it is clearly unrealistic or 2)
throw one back, eg "Is a citizen at more risk from someone armed or
someone unarmed?"
>
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >IF
> >> >good citizens had been made easy prey as you claim then why hasn't any
> >> >political party tapped into this and tried to reverse gun laws? I'll
> >> >tell you why, because any party espousing a relaxation of gun laws
> >> >would get slaughtered at the polls.
> >>
> >> So you have a lot of people who trust 'big brother'. That is a scary
> >> thought. But not uncommon.
> >
> >Nice try, but no dice. I do notice that you share one thing with most
> >pr-gunners, a level of fear. Usually its 300lb rapists attacking gun
> >less 90lb women, this time you appear so scared that another nation
> >might not share your beliefs that you only comback is to try an
> >belittle them. It only belittles you.
>
> I believe in freedom: And I certainly do fear a person, or nation,
> that would take away my freedom.

Well hurrah! What a stirring speech. If you equate gun restrictions
with the taking away of freedom then no wonder you live in fear and are
probably so scared you feel you need a gun for protection.

.

Relevant Pages