Re: Dial 911 and die...

Matt wrote:
On Jan 31, 6:01 pm, Magus <n...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Matt wrote:
On Jan 31, 4:58 pm, Magus <n...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Matt wrote:
On Jan 31, 3:14 pm, Magus <n...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Matt wrote:
<snip>
Don't bet, I used to collect stories like this for a book I was going
to do. Never happened, but I have all the stories left. They make for
interesting reading. Still, the question remains .. is this what you
want to decide policy with?
***
You claim a 12 to one ratio, the odds of you supporting your claim are
extremely slim.
Sigh.
Never mind. You idiots will never learn to read, or to debate. You do
deserve
the inevitable swinging of the pendulum. Have a nice day.
Maybe words don't mean the same to you as they do to the rest of the
English speaking world.
You stated "As a side note, however, for each of these, I'm quite sure
we can find a dozen cases in the opposite direction."
You're claiming a twelve to one ratio. I'm saying that the odds of you
actually supporting that twelve to one ratio is extremely slim.
Okay.
If *anyone* could have done so, the anti-rights side would have
published such results already.
Why? Would you listen? Would anyone else listen? Why bother.
Why? Why bother? How about using facts to determine what the problem is
or even it there is a problem, then targeting any solution at the actual
problem.

Amazing. Utterly amazing. Someone takes my OWN ARGUMENT and then
throws it back at me as if it wasn't mine to begin with.


Um... no.

Your argument, such as it was, went:

You: "The anecdotal evidence seems overwhelming."

Scout: "Right, let's stick to anecdotal evidence rather than real facts, after all, we wouldn't want facts to govern policy decisions."

You: "Right. Let's fail to read and be a jerk. Or better yet, let's see what I actually said: "As a side note, however, for each of these, I'm quite sure we can find a dozen cases in the opposite direction. Say, a gun taken away and used against the homeowner, or a shootout in which the homeowner dies. Should we decide policy based on random examples?"

So your argument was that "anecdotal evidence" was overwhelming, Scout said how about using "facts", you make a counter claim of more "anecdotal evidence" and say we shouldn't base policy on random examples. You at no point said "cool, let's use facts" or anything similar.

Based on your later statements, what you wanted/intended to say or thought you said appears to be different than what you actually did say.

If anyone could actually show that gun ownership was a problem they'd be
screaming such news from the mountain tops.

Yep. And if you could find proof that gun ownership was saving
millions of lives, they'd be screaming such from the mountain tops.
But no, we get the original poster who posted anecdotal evidence. Go
back and look. I'll wait.


I make no claims that gun ownership saves millions of lives; I'm not part of that Royal "you"...

And actually, several people have made the claims that guns save millions of lives each year. There have been numerous studies since then trying to disprove those claims--those studies themselves have conclusions of over half a million to nearly three million. I don't maintain references to those studies, but a poster here in TPG by the name of RD does. I'm quite sure that if you asked he'd post the results of the studies.

It was recently reported that there are enough firearms in the USA to
arm nine out of every ten people in the country.

Could be, since there is no accounting of guns (whereas there is of
people), we don't know. You can't prove this statement. Yet, you make
it as if it were a fact.


Um... no, I don't make it as it were a fact. I clearly state that "it was recently reported..."

As for proving that it was recently reported:
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL2834893820070828

And the 2007 survey has pretty much the same results as the 2003 study:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0709-03.htm

Approximately 300,000,000 people in the USA.

More or less, I think its a little higher now. Besides, you are
counting kids, who are not legally entitled to own a gun.


Approximately means "more or less".

Many so-called "kids" are legally entitled to *own* guns. "Kids" can't *buy* guns--18 years of age to purchase a rifle or shotgun, 21 years old to buy a handgun. Even if it's illegal for "Kids" to own a firearm many use them illegally each year.

As of 2007, 0–19 year olds in the USA was 27.4% (male 42,667,761; female 40,328,895)

Call it 30% for easy math, I could recalculate using an adult population of 210,000,000, but all that would show is that there are several million more firearms than needed to arm every adult (age 20+) in the USA.

9/10 of 300,000,000 = 270,000,000 (+/-) guns in the USA.

*Including* suicides there are about 30,000 deaths by firearm in the USA
each year.

If each gun is used only *once* then about 0.01% of firearms are used in
homicides.

Guns in and of themselves aren't the problem.

Of course they aren't. As people are so fond of saying "a gun is an
inanimate object".

"Gun Control" laws are a placebo, they don't address any actual crime
problems, they only affect the non-criminal, and they create criminals
out of the normally law abiding (what was once legal is now illegal).

Eh, the first half of your statement, I'll agree with. The second I
will not.

You don't agree with the part where gun control laws create new criminals?

Those laws do create a new criminal class--and people may unknowingly break the new law because they don't know about it, thus making a normally law abiding person a criminal in the eyes of the Law.

There are many anecdotal stories of such happening.

So, why would the anti-rights side bother claiming that guns are used
more often to harm than to help? In order to justify more "gun control"
laws. Oh wait... isn't that what you were doing? Why, yes it was.

Um, no, it wasn't. Now go back and READ and see what I "claimed".
Please. Then, come back here and state it. In my EXACT WORDS. Not in
your interpretation, not in your fantasies. In my words. C'mon, you
like facts.


OK, that wasn't what you were doing. You actually questioned such advocacy. My apologies for misinterpreting what you wrote.

So why should the anti-rights side bother trying to support their
claims? That would be ACTUAL FACTUAL justification for what they want to
accomplish.

I have no idea what this means, sorry.

But you see, the facts aren't on the anti-rights side, that's why they
lie so much. Lies like "gun-show loophole", "assault weapons", "more
likely to be killed if there's a gun in the home", "I'm quite sure we
can find a dozen cases in the opposite direction...", etc...

None of which I said. You have now gone beyond simply misinterpreting
me, you are now lying about my statements and my position. That is
incredibly rude. No wonder people don't listen to you guys.


Um... I didn't say you said any of that, well, actually the last sentence was yours, however, this is a text forum. The "quotes" are there to highlight words. If you have a way of doing so, other than quotation marks, that is consistent across all news readers I'll gladly use it.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: "Blanks" kill actors
    ... a gun permit? ... All of that has nothing to do with the facts that you obviously DON'T ... number of times firearms were used to stop a crime, ... of a firearm by a law abiding citizen it's just one step further down ...
    (alt.security.alarms)
  • Re: Tchiowas utter ignorance on everything
    ... Wage Law created the Middle Class. ... It's only your sick mind that is dreaming I am. ... I speak facts, you speak ideology. ... They fared worse before the minimun wage law was passed. ...
    (soc.culture.thai)
  • Re: PK says Oink!
    ... Valley -- that is quick to break out a knife or a gun or a broken beer ... is not against the law. ... dangerous as firing a gun. ... my cat, help my wife with her homework, or post to USENET. ...
    (soc.men)
  • Dave Kopels Second Amendment Newsletter December 16, 2008
    ... Dave Kopel's Second Amendment Project is based at the Independence ... Law Review Articles on Articles on Judge Wilkinson's Criticism of Heller, and Pacifism; Newspaper and Magazine treatments of the Media and Violence, Plaxico Burress, de-facto gun bans, the election, and 'Beware the Rahm!'; Blogs on Eric Holder and the Election; Video and Audio on the surge in firearms sales, the Constitution, and local politics, and... ... Egyptian Gun Law; Mumbai; Irish Semi-Auto Handgun ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Dave Kopels Second Amendment Newsletter - February 10, 2009
    ... Dave Kopel's Second Amendment Project is based at the Independence ... Amicus brief in Oak Park Case; Law Review Articles on the Relationship between Guns and Freedom; Magazine articles and short essays on the new administration, 'BEWARE THE RAHM!,' Eric Holder, The Sword & the Tome, the SHOT Show, Kmiec v. Kmiec, IANSA Strikes Again, a new Podcast Series, one on Holder, one on Hillary Clinton, and... ... Armed Nepalese; Pakistani Self-Defense; Uruguayan Gun Control ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
Loading