Re: Gun control and rape - The myths and the facts


John P wrote:
> "Phil Smythe" <smytph@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in a message
>
> > You didn't accuse me of just using the word "never", you accused me of
> > claiming "they never happen" ("I only needed one to prove your claim
> > they *never* happen to be wrong"). Your LATER quote of my EXACT words
> > shows this to be CLEARLY WRONG, I claimed that in 2003 they
> > "effectively never" happened.
>
> I completely agree. I was wrong. I quoted your exact words and your were
> able to prove that you prefaced "never" with "effectively". After quoting
> several other instances, I clarified that my confusion on your position was
> caused by the fact that you some times used some manner of "effectively" and
> some times did not. In the end, I pointed out that I understood your
> position to always be "effectively never".
>
> Next.

I did not need to "prove" anything, you needed to "prove" your case,
which you couldn't.

>
> >> Moving on then... At what number might we rise above "effectively" to
> >> become
> >> something more meaningful?
>
> > Pull the other one! I wrote "effectively never" because I meant
> > "effectively never". You chose to claim I said something different.
>
> We're done with that one. Your position is "effectively never"... I get it.
> Now, put *your* reading glasses on and reread the above question. We are no
> longer debating "never" vs. "effectively never" ... I am now asking you a
> new question. I am asking you at what point we get beyond "effetcively" and
> move into a number that you feel represents "meaningful".

Seeing as how there are around 200,000 rapes/sexual assaults in the US
per year you'd need 101 of them to get 0.1%. Is that "meaningful"?
Probably, those these calls are subjective. I based my comment on the
reported 0.0% and that remains effectively never.

>
> There was a clue as to the direction of this question here:
> > Might something as low as 5% still be effectively never in your mind?
>
> > You appear to have forgotten the point of this thread. If, as the data
> > indicates, there is "effectively no" use of guns against rape/sexual
> > assault then strengthening gun laws will not force women into
> > fistfifgts against rapists. Do you agree with this?
>
> No. Anti-gun laws have not shown to be effective in reducing crime. I see no
> valid reason to disarm women, or any other law abiding citizen. I don't
> think it matters how often a woman does or doesn't use a gun to fend off a
> rape. If a man approaches a woman, and she feels threatened and flashes a
> weapon (or even reaches into her purse giving the impression that she MIGHT
> have a weapon) and the guy passes her by without doing anything, for all you
> or I know, a rape was just prevented. I highly doubt this woman would then
> call the police to fill out a report stating that she saw a suspicious guy,
> flashed a gun, and he didn't do anything to her.

Why can't you answer the question? I'll ask it AGAIN. If, as the data
indicates, there is "effectively no" use of guns against rape/sexual
assault then strengthening gun laws will not force women into
fistfifgts against rapists. Do you agree with this?

You make the classic mistake of stating "I see no valid reason to
disarm women" when the US DOJ data indicates 0.0% use of weapons
against rapists. There is no indication of any armed resistance so how
can a disarming occur?

>
> >> Returning to an almost cliche' argument, how many people have used the
> >> fire
> >> extinguisher in their home to stop a fire? If it is a very small
> >> percentage,
> >> do you think maybe we should tell people to stop wasting money on fire
> >> extinguishers?
>
> > Missing the point as outlined above, unless of course that was your
> > intention?
>
> Not really (missing the point). If data shows that in 2003, fire
> extinguishers in homes were "effectively never" used to stop a fire in a
> home, would banning fire extinguishers cause homeowners to battle fires with
> their spit?
>
> Same logic. Equally as pointless.

Thanks for supporting my conclusion. I could have hardly put it better
myself. Why have you spent all this time arguing when you clearly are
of the same opinion as me? The logic you say is pointless is the logic
I debunked with DOJ data. You need to be telling this to the pro-gun
types who just don't get it.

>
>
> > You've been forced to admit that I used "never" in conjunction with an
> > adjective that means I didn't intend a "never" meaning but you still
> > won't withdraw your stupid accusation.
>
> You must have missed about 1,000 or so words of the post you just read.

No mate, I know what has been written, you have had the odd problem in
that regard.

>
>
> > Then WHY did you claim "I only needed one to prove your claim they
> > *never* happen to be wrong" if you knew I had stated "effectively
> > never"? That is disingenuous in the extreme.
>
> I made the statement PRIOR to looking up your quote.
> Remember? *I* looked it up and reposted it here for all of the world to see.
> You pointed it out.
> I agreed that it was in fact there.
> Nothing disingenous there.
> Then I looked further to see why I had it in my head that you had simply
> said "never". I found that you stated it, in different ways, both with and
> without the "effectively" qualifier. Perhaps the source of my confusion, or
> perhaps I simply misread the original text I quoted.
> Nothing disingenuous there either.

Yet despite claiming to have not actually looked at my quote you
reckoned I meant *never* (your asterisks) and when I denied it you came
screaming back with my full words but STILL claiming I had meant
*never*.

I'll spell it out clearly. The ONLY time I used the word "never" was in
conjunction with the modifier "efectively". You say above "*I* looked
it up and reposted it here for all of the world to see" but at that
point you were claiming it was proof of my stating "never".

Let's clarify this once and for all.

On Oct 6 you wrote "You clearly have indicated that your opinion is
that it *never* happens."

On Oct 13 I responded "A CLASSIC LIE. I did NOT claim such an event
"*never*" happens."

On Oct 13 you came back with ""Because the facts show guns have
effectively never been used in rapes, either offensively or
defensively." - Phil Smythe -
Ouch. That's gotta hurt."

So at this point you've accused me claiming I said "it never happens",
I've called that a lie and then you quoted my full sentence containing
"effectively never", but oddly reckoning that has hurt me. Clearly you
still reckoned I had claimed "it never happened" despite the evidence
before your eyes that that was not my claim.

On Oct 16 I responded with "EXACTLY, "effectively never" - Phil Smythe.
That were my exact words and I meant what I wrote." (apologies for
dodgy English).

I also accused you of being "exposed as a total fraud who happily snips
words out of their intended context and tries to make a case based on
that false interpretation." Harsh but true.

On Oct 17 you replied "Phil! How can you claim that the word
"effectively", in my quote of your words, was snipped? You even quoted
my quote of your quote. Your credibility was hurt a bit when you
claimed to have never said never. Lying to the point of saying
something was snipped when it is clearly right there makes you look a
bit wacko."

Firstly, I CAN claim a word was snipped, and that word was "never" and
it was snipped by you. I wrote "effectively never" but you claimed that
my "opinion is that it *never* happens". Note how only "never" made it
into your claim. You simply plucked one word, out of context, and
claimed that was my position.

You embarrass youreself when you say at this point, "Your credibility
was hurt a bit when you claimed to have never said never" when we BOTH
know that I hadn't said just "never". My credibility was fine, yours
was in tatters.

On Oct 17 you were STILL claiming that "never" was my position, "Read
this sentance a time or two until you see the word "never" appear;
"Because the facts show guns have effectively never been used in rapes,
either offensively or defensively." Those are *your* words Phil. You'll
find them posted at the above link under *your* name. Did someone hack
your account and post as you on that day?"

This stupid claim was despite already being told the day before that
what I wrote was "effectively never", not just "never". But that didn't
stop you and you carried on with "So your defense against your own
words is that you never posted them? ... or that "never" doesn't mean
what it means?" As shown above you had ALREADY been told that I had
written "effectively never" and meant "effectively never".

In another post on Oct 17 when I had told you AGAIN that "I wrote
"effectively never" not just "never"" all you come back with is "I
qouted your text, I provided a link to where that text could be found.
How can you claim there was any attempted deception. You weren't even
aware of what you had said until I quoted it for you. So, puffing your
chest and jumping on to your soapbox, you now have changed "I didn't
say "never"" to "AH HA! I knew I didn't say just "never", I wisely
preceded it with "effectively"" .

What a pathetic ramble. You are even claiming that I wasn't aware of
what I had written until you pointed it out. I stated that "I did NOT
claim such an event "*never*" happens." because I knew that to be TRUE.
You then provided my full quote, which supported me, but you were STILL
claiming that I reckoned "it never happened".

Do you know why I "wisely preceded it with "effectively"? Because
THAT'S WHAT I MEANT! I did NOT mean "never", I DID mean "efectively
never" and that's why I wrote it and that's why when you kept
contiually claiming I meant "never" I called you a liar.

>
> > Took you long enough to understand that a claim of "effectively never"
> > cannot be morphed into a claim of "never" just because it suits your
> > cause.
>
> Odd that you didn't bother to quote your own text in your first response.
> I suspect you weren't aware that you had stated it in such a manner. ... or
> perhaps you didn't bother since it didn't suit your cause?

Why should I have to answer to your beck and call every time you
FALSELY espouse my position? I CORRECTLY stated you had it wrong, and
even after you scuttled back and found the word "never" you still
couldn't get it so I had to force you to look, and look again, at what
I had fully written before you finally had no option but to concede
that you'd got it wrong.

So after all this brouhaha about what I was supposed to have claimed I
was, in your opinion, "hurt", "looking a bit wacko", needing to be "a
bit more grown up", "jumping on my soapbox", my "credibility was hurt",
"a lame effort" and others too nmerous to mention all because YOU made
a false claim about what my position was.

God help me if I actually had have been wrong.

.