ReeferMadness Posted January 7, 2016 Report Posted January 7, 2016 Social Darwinism........the Castle Doctrine has been a dictum of legal systems based on English law since the 1600s. omg.... are you posting this from Oregon by any chance? Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
Derek 2.0 Posted January 7, 2016 Report Posted January 7, 2016 These statistics are outdated (produced when crime rates were much higher than they are today) and the methodology for creating them was highly suspect. Statistics called into question by an equally old study. Gun owners grasp these false claims like they claim their 'cold dead fingers' would grip their guns if someone tried to take them. If you're going to own a gun, at least do so without lying to yourself or anyone else why you're doing it. Where did I lie? Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted January 7, 2016 Report Posted January 7, 2016 omg.... are you posting this from Oregon by any chance? No, why? Quote
ReeferMadness Posted January 7, 2016 Report Posted January 7, 2016 Statistics called into question by an equally old study. You didn't even bother to look at the link, did you? It wasn't a study at all, it was a critique of the methodology used in the useless study that has been bandied about by gun "enthusiasts" for a couple of decades now. Meanwhile, there are tons of studies that show that increased gun ownership are associated with increases in homicide and suicide as well as accidental deaths. . A recent meta-analysis of 16 studies examined the relationship between firearms and gun deaths. Gun ownership doubled the risk of homicide and tripled the risk of suicide. This research is bolstered by a national survey that found that a gun in the home was far more likely to be used to threaten a family member or intimate partner than to be used in self-defense. Criminal uses of firearms far outnumber legal defensive uses. The evidence shows that there may be fewer than even 3,000 DGUs annually. In comparison, there are 30,000 gun deaths annually, and many more injuries and shattered lives. The costs of gun ownership unequivocally outweigh the benefits. Gun "enthusiasts" often voice this cartoon-like view of the world where people can be neatly separated into "criminals" and "law-abiding citizens" (If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns). It's a completely ridiculous notion. Consider the case of Veronica Dunnachie. She was, by many gun advocates’ definition, a good gal with a gun. A strident voice for gun rights, she was an open carry advocate, dedicated to expanding the unlicensed open carrying of firearms. In Texas, open carry is currently restricted to long guns; she pushed to include handguns. She frequently attended rallies and protests organized by Open Carry Tarrant County (an offshoot of Open Carry Texas). In a domestic dispute on Dec. 10, she allegedly shot and killed her husband and stepdaughter. In a careful study of the relationships between homicide victims and perpetrators, analyzing data from 1981–2010, Michael Siegel and his colleagues reveal that for every 1 percent increase in gun ownership, there is a 0.9 percent increase in nonstranger homicide. Although stranger homicide does increase slightly as gun ownership rises, the increase is not statistically significant. This indicates that there is no deterrence effect from firearm ownership and that a firearm significantly increases the owner’s chances of killing or being killed by somebody he or she knows. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
Argus Posted January 7, 2016 Report Posted January 7, 2016 (edited) It doesn't mater I think, that is the law as written (and cited) in Texas, which clearly proves your bleeting wrong. It proves nothing of the sort. It proves criminal mischief could be a justification, not that ringing a doorbell and running away constitutes criminal mischief. And no one who shoots a kid running away because he rang his doorbell should be allowed to own weapons. And the shooting was in Oklahoma, not Texas. Edited January 7, 2016 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Derek 2.0 Posted January 7, 2016 Report Posted January 7, 2016 It proves nothing of the sort. It proves criminal mischief could be a justification, not that ringing a doorbell and running away constitutes criminal mischief. And no one who shoots a kid running away because he rang his doorbell should be allowed to own weapons. No, it proves exactly as I said........even a third party can use deadly force, likewise there are provisions for shooting a perp fleeing in the back. You're wrong. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted January 7, 2016 Report Posted January 7, 2016 You didn't even bother to look at the link, did you? It wasn't a study at all, it was a critique of the methodology used in the useless study that has been bandied about by gun "enthusiasts" for a couple of decades now. No, I read it. Meanwhile, there are tons of studies that show that increased gun ownership are associated with increases in homicide and suicide as well as accidental deaths. Sure, but then that simply proves that those that use guns in the commission of crime are more likely to be involved in gun violence themselves.........Shocking really to think that armed drug dealers are more likely to be victims of gun violence Quote
ReeferMadness Posted January 7, 2016 Report Posted January 7, 2016 Sure, but then that simply proves that those that use guns in the commission of crime are more likely to be involved in gun violence themselves.........Shocking really to think that armed drug dealers are more likely to be victims of gun violence This is the way our discussions usually go. I prove you wrong and you dance around. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
Derek 2.0 Posted January 7, 2016 Report Posted January 7, 2016 This is the way our discussions usually go. I prove you wrong and you dance around. I'm not dancing around anything........I fully agree that those involved in gun violence in the United States are more likely to own guns. It should be no surprise that an armed drug dealer is more likely to be involved in gun violence than an average citizen. Quote
ReeferMadness Posted January 7, 2016 Report Posted January 7, 2016 I'm not dancing around anything........I fully agree that those involved in gun violence in the United States are more likely to own guns. It should be no surprise that an armed drug dealer is more likely to be involved in gun violence than an average citizen. Here is a quote from one of my posts above This research is bolstered by a national survey that found that a gun in the home was far more likely to be used to threaten a family member or intimate partner than to be used in self-defense. Either you don't bother reading or you have comprehension issues. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
Derek 2.0 Posted January 7, 2016 Report Posted January 7, 2016 Either you don't bother reading or you have comprehension issues. I did read it (and have before in other threads) and the assertion isn't supported by the actual data (page 16/Table 8) that it claims to make its point from. Quote
Wilber Posted January 7, 2016 Report Posted January 7, 2016 This is the way our discussions usually go. I prove you wrong and you dance around. Derek won't be specific about what he wants, he just throws out straw men like armoured car drivers. You're wasting your time. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Derek 2.0 Posted January 7, 2016 Report Posted January 7, 2016 Derek won't be specific about what he wants, he just throws out straw men like armoured car drivers. You're wasting your time. I think my intention was/is quite clear, and has been for years............In a Canadian context, why do you feel (unlike in Texas) that the transport of insured money warrants armed protection, but individual citizens don't warrant the same level of protection (if they desire it) as bags of money? Quote
Argus Posted January 7, 2016 Report Posted January 7, 2016 No, it proves exactly as I said........even a third party can use deadly force, likewise there are provisions for shooting a perp fleeing in the back. You're wrong. Quote me where ringing someone's doorbell constitutes 'criminal mischief'. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted January 7, 2016 Report Posted January 7, 2016 I think my intention was/is quite clear, and has been for years............In a Canadian context, why do you feel (unlike in Texas) that the transport of insured money warrants armed protection, but individual citizens don't warrant the same level of protection (if they desire it) as bags of money? Because the guards are trained, licenced and supervised, as opposed to ignorant yokels who need to take off their shoes and socks to count past ten. If I read your position right you believe everyone has the right to possess and carry around any kind of firearm he or she wants, and to kill anyone who they don't like for any reason at any time regardless of whether they ever posed any kind of threat to life or property. Is that correct? Like, if someone's playing music you don't like, shoot him, if you don't like someone's hair color, shoot her, if a baby's cries disturb your serenity shoot it, if your neighour's tree drops leaves on your lawn kill everyone living in that house. Have I basically got your position down correctly? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Derek 2.0 Posted January 7, 2016 Report Posted January 7, 2016 Quote me where ringing someone's doorbell constitutes 'criminal mischief'. Are you able to ring someone's doorbell without entering their property? Quote
Argus Posted January 7, 2016 Report Posted January 7, 2016 (edited) Are you able to ring someone's doorbell without entering their property? So standing on someone's property is defined as criminal mischief? So, like, girl guides and boy scouts are legitimate targets if they come around selling cookies or chocolates, right? Edited January 7, 2016 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Derek 2.0 Posted January 7, 2016 Report Posted January 7, 2016 Because the guards are trained, licenced and supervised, as opposed to ignorant yokels who need to take off their shoes and socks to count past ten. In British Columbia, they receive the "training course" through my private gun club....they are nothing more than armed security guards.. Contrasted with CHL/CCW holders in the States that require a similar course through the County/State. If I read your position right you believe everyone has the right to possess and carry around any kind of firearm he or she wants, Sans a court order preventing them from doing so, yes, Americans have that right. and to kill anyone who they don't like for any reason at any time regardless of whether they ever posed any kind of threat to life or property. Is that correct? Nope. Like, if someone's playing music you don't like, shoot him, if you don't like someone's hair color, shoot her, if a baby's cries disturb your serenity shoot it, if your neighour's tree drops leaves on your lawn kill everyone living in that house. Have I basically got your position down correctly? Nope. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted January 7, 2016 Report Posted January 7, 2016 So standing on someone's property is defined as criminal mischief? No, trespassing. Quote
Argus Posted January 7, 2016 Report Posted January 7, 2016 Nope. Nope. Nope!? What if they, like brush against you as they're walking on he sidewalk? That's assault, man! Surely that gives you the right to shoot them down! Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted January 7, 2016 Report Posted January 7, 2016 (edited) No, trespassing. Gee, isn't that a completely different word? I don't remember the law saying you could murder people for trespassing. Apparently, even states with 'stand your ground' laws frown on that sort of thing. http://www.cape-coral-daily-breeze.com/page/content.detail/id/536811/Man-convicted-of-murder-sentenced-to-life-in-prison.html?nav=5011 Edited January 7, 2016 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Derek 2.0 Posted January 7, 2016 Report Posted January 7, 2016 Nope!? What if they, like brush against you as they're walking on he sidewalk? That's assault, man! Surely that gives you the right to shoot them down! It does constitute assault, so yeah. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted January 7, 2016 Report Posted January 7, 2016 Gee, isn't that a completely different word? I don't remember the law saying you could murder people for trespassing. Apparently, even states with 'stand your ground' laws frown on that sort of thing. http://www.cape-coral-daily-breeze.com/page/content.detail/id/536811/Man-convicted-of-murder-sentenced-to-life-in-prison.html?nav=5011 I already provided you the Texan laws on use of force, which include trespassing. Quote
Wilber Posted January 7, 2016 Report Posted January 7, 2016 I think my intention was/is quite clear, and has been for years............In a Canadian context, why do you feel (unlike in Texas) that the transport of insured money warrants armed protection, but individual citizens don't warrant the same level of protection (if they desire it) as bags of money? So armoured car crews are armed so everyone should be armed. Got it. I stand by my original assessment. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Argus Posted January 7, 2016 Report Posted January 7, 2016 It does constitute assault, so yeah. So you're saying you gun rights guys have the same kind of mentality as the crips and bloods? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.