DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Plane on July 06, 2015, 05:16:06 PM
-
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/chicagos-fourth-of-july-rituals-fireworks-gun-deaths/ar-AAcDPOx
Nine deaths , Fifty injuries.
This is more than any state in the south , or north including Illinois if you don't count Chicago.
Last year, 82 people were shot — 16 fatally — over the Fourth of July weekend in Chicago... so the trend is good?
In this article the police are cited for their increased patrolling and their confiscation of dozens of guns.
Is this the effect of the toughest gun control in the nation?
Or are these numbers large just because the city is large?
http://smartgunlaws.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/RGIA-For-Web.pdf
-
Obviously, the people of Chicago need MORE GUNS.
Yeah, that'll work.
Dummy!
And let's blame it on Obama, because he used to live in Chicago and is therefore responsible for all those people getting shot.
-
Obviously, the people of Chicago need MORE GUNS.
Yeah, that'll work.
Dummy!
And let's blame it on Obama, because he used to live in Chicago and is therefore responsible for all those people getting shot.
There seems to be a definite co-relation between tough gun law and energetic enforcement of tough gun law and absolutely nothing at all.
At various times and places the law is tough or lax and the rates of violence is high or low and by picking what is wanted one can prove whatever one wishes.
It is akin to taking credit for the sun rising because you killed a chicken last night.
-
Obviously, the people of Chicago need MORE GUNS.
Yeah, that'll work.
Why would it not?
Everyone who wants to do mayhem seems to have one already.
Giving a criminal another one is not harmful a bit he can't shoot two at once effectively.
So covering Chicago waist deep in guns shouldn't increase violence .
Unless there is one criminal in Chicago who can't get one, there might be one, probably not two.
But giving a gun to a good victim makes him a bad victim, not a criminal.
-
They need to send for sirs to come up to Chicago and go all Charleton Heston on them.
-
They need to send for sirs to come up to Chicago and go all Charleton Heston on them.
If Chicago were populated with clones of Sirs, there would obviously be very little crime , and very good orthopedic health would be common.
I do not know how this solution can be implemented , but I am and Idea man , implementation is not my department.
-
sirs has NEVER deterred any crime. He just likes his dangerous toys, perhaps because they make him feel less wimpy.
But it is still amusing to think of sirs in Chicago, deterring all the Bad Guys.
-
It would work.
Where it has been tried it works right well.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/19/us/in-bid-to-allow-guns-on-campus-weapons-are-linked-to-fighting-sexual-assault.html?_r=0
The key concept is not the idea of a gun fight, it is to excite the cowardice in the perpetrator.
Suppose you were going to steal something out of a box, but the box buzzed like a rattler when you got close, perhaps you would rethink the theft idea.
Suppose you wanted to rape someone , but you find a group of women , you might wait to find one alone, but then word reaches you that one in twenty of these women are packing a trusty Roscoe, you then start thinking about the threat to yourself .
Smart criminals (yes there is such a thing) seek vulnerability.
Stupid criminals have short careers.
-
Plane is right on target yet again.
You see xo, you have it so bassackwards, its quite mystifying. Good gun nuts like me want to avoid confrontation. The LAST thing we want to do is to pull out our roscoes, jump behind a chevy, and start plugging every bad guy we see. It's neither a goal nor function of us good law abiding gun nuts. Nor do we walk down the middle of the street in full bravado, just itching for someone to mess with us, knowing we're packing. We're simply prepared, and even then, nothing can prepare you for such an attack. But at least, we'd have a fighting chance
What we do function as, is to act as a deterrent to bad gun nuts....you know, those that would shoot us in the back of the head, or gun down some innocent youg girl simply walking with her dad in San Francisco. Smart criminals are the ones who are going to avoid the areas we frequent and legally cleared to carry, and instead focus their bad gun nut wrath on those areas that the laws have made so restrictive to law abiding citizens, that its a good bet they can attack without fear of immediate retaliation.
As I've pointed out many a time, I've had my CCW now for over 2 decades, and never once have I had to pull my weapon or even brandish it. But if me, my family, or any loved ones near me were to find outselves under some rare attack, by some bad gun nut, my "uselessness" will be demonstrated as nothing of the sort
-
Do you know the Movie "Dr. Strangelove" ?
I recall the title character expressing frustration that the doomsday device might be a secret, without telling the opposite side about it its deterrent effect is nil.
On a smaller scale it should be well known to the public that a certain percentage of us are armed at any time. It should be common knowledge , so that the criminals know about it.
But not which particular households are equipped, not which persons are packing, this part should be a mystery.
If I were the chief of police I would inflate the numbers , just to make my job easier and better.
-
Agreed.
And is any wonder bad gun nuts will congregate to places like Chicago, DC, NY, LA, or San Fran, knowing how far less likely the law abiding will be able to defend themselves?
-
If you do not want to get shot, stay away from where the guns are.
-
I have no fear of being shot at an NRA event, an IDPA (International Defensive Pistol Association) event, or even a Gun Show. I wonder why that would be. Here's a hint....its not the gun or even # of guns
-
If you do not want to get shot, stay away from where the guns are.
This is very contrary to experience.
How often is a mass murder committed at a gun free zone as opposed to any other venue?
Reverse your advice , it will work better in the real world.
-
There are no guns in my home. There are no guns where I live most of my life, other than cops and guards. I have never seen any gunfights except on TV.
More guns means more people will be shot. You idiots cannot face reality.
-
Speaking of unable to face reality...couldn't help but notice how you had no comeback for having no fear of being shot at an NRA function, which is loaded with "more guns", or the fact that violent crime has been declining in this country, despite more people legally purchasing more guns. You're just going to close your ears & eyes, and keep repeating the same invalidated opinion, aren't you.
Perhaps your error is in trying to lump peoples, in that maybe, just maybe, more BAD gun nuts get shot, with more guns. In which case......that's also a good thing
-
I have no fear of being shot at an NRA function because I will never attend one. Why should I?
I have no reason to go on a safari, as I have seen gorillas at the zoo. For similar reasons I will not be attending any goddamn idiot NRA funtion. What would be the point?
Not to get shot? I have not been shot in in my entire life, it is still quite easy to not get shot. I avoid people with guns.
-
For a language professor, your grasp of context continues as in severly lacking. Then again, it provides excellent deflection opportunities. I never claimed YOU going to an NRA function. The context is quite clear that per your parameters I should be scared shirtless, being around so many guns. I mean, per your parameters, more guns means more people shot....and yet, at not one NRA function, where the place is awash with guns, has anyone yet to be shot. Not so surprising however, the places with the most mass shootings are those desginated as 'gun free zones"
But let's placate your deflection effort......hypothetically speaking, IF (this is a hypothetical, since I'm aware you have no intention on ever going, so you can put that deflection attempt away), simply IF you were to attend an NRA function, would you have an overwhelming fear of being shot?? Seriously?
Here's a clue, it has nothing to do with guns or the # of guns....simply avoid the bad gun nuts, if you don't want to get shot. You'll have nothing to worry about, if surrounded by good gun nuts
-
I would imagine that an NRA meet would be basically an assortment of what I have defined as Useless Gun Nuts. Adults with a childish fascination and a sicko obsession with dangerous toys. Rather like a Comicon, but less amusing and with fewer Klingons.
You enjoy being scared, perhaps.
-
What part of I have no fear of being shot at any NRA event or gun show, did you not understand?
-
It is hard to correct for uncontrolled variables.
But allowing for such imprecision. Every place and every kind of place has a history.
Are you statistically more likely to be shot in a gun shop, or a gun free restaurant?
Are you statistically more likely to be shot in a gun free college dorm or a dorm that allows gun ownership?
Are there other venues that have a lot in common but are different mainly in the level of gun availability?
-
Overall, guns outlive their owners, guns do not die, they do not choose responsible owners. The more guns there are, no matter what sort of crap you make up about gun free zones or whatever, the more there are the more people are going to get shot.
-
As long as its the bad gun nuts, not a problem. And at this point, that's the only factoid that would follow your claim, based on current U.S. trends of violent crime and who dies vs who lives at the hands of a gun
-
Overall, guns outlive their owners, guns do not die, they do not choose responsible owners. The more guns there are, no matter what sort of crap you make up about gun free zones or whatever, the more there are the more people are going to get shot.
You are on your way to getting it!
Guns do not choose owners , they do not choose victims , they do not maintain themselves and with a few very expensive exceptions they do not aim themselves.
What a gun needs , to be involved in a crime, is a criminal.
As long as every violent criminal has a weapon , there is a legitimate need for peaceful people to have equivalent arms.
Gun free zones are dangerous because their gun free nature is fragile, and is most liable to be breeched by a criminal, least likely to be breeched by people who respect the rules, this is an upside down situation, you want the criminal to be less armed and the peaceful guys to be well armed. A gun free zone is an attractive nuisance, bad enough that massacres ever happen why prepare a venue?
-
We need to arm elementary schoolchildren so they can defend themselves.
No more gun free anything.
No more gun free courthouses, airports or airplanes. They are an invitation to disaster.
Prohibiting snakes on a plane is also a bad idea. When cobras are outlawed, only outlaws will have cobras.
We have to STOP this anti-reptilian ideology, nip it in the bud!
-
...and now out comes the bogus Hyperbole card. You forgot to add supprt for Anti-personnel missile batteries at the corners of each school, manned by pre-schoolers of course ::)
-
Cobras do not kill people people with cobras kill people.
The only defense against a bad man with a cobra is good man with a cobra.
This is a public service message of the National Cobra Association.
See our magazine, The Poisonous Reptile Fancier for a full range of snake and Reptile accessories.
-
And the ridiculous irrelevant hyperbole continues. Just a reminder, a firearm will NEVER EVER decide to shoot you on its own, based on some belief its being threatened, not to mention there's no constitutional right to a reptile, of any kind
So, let us know when you plan on returning to rationally debating the issue....if that is at all possible
-
Cobras do not kill people people with cobras kill people.
Nope.
This illustrates an important difference between guns and cobras.
-
The more people who have cobras, the more people will die of cobra bites.
The more guns there are, the more people will get shot.
Simple math is beyond your abilities.
-
Simple logic is apparently beyond yours. What part of guns will never shoot anyone by themselves, do you not grasp? Go ahead, try and pick up a cobra and see if it won't bite you. Now, guess what?...You can pick up a gun a gazillian times, and not once will it ever shoot you.....unless of course you're fully ignorant of a firearm, and decide to pull the trigger while pointing it at yourself. Thankfully, 98% of law abiding gun owners grasp that concept, and only will point it in a safe direction or a specific threat
-
More Americans are killed with their own guns than with their own cobras, and that is a FACT.
It is mostly due to the American Cobra Association has had difficulty finding sponsors, whereas the madness that is the NRA has to beat off gun manufacturers and ammo peddlers with a stick.
-
And more americans are killed in car accidents than gun gun accidents. And that is A FACT. Not to mention Cobras aren't a common item found in this country. Severe lack of manufaturing centers, I would opine. Maybe if cobras joined a union
Any more irrelevent moronic idiocy you wish to spew on this subject?
-
The more people who have cobras, the more people will die of cobra bites.
The more guns there are, the more people will get shot.
Simple math is beyond your abilities.
This is simple like 2+2=22.
It may be true that where there are no guns at all no one would get shot, but the last time we had that situation on this planet we still had plenty of violent death, it simply required a little more personal effort.
The real situation is that practically any gun has potential to be a murder weapon over and over, so the situation is worst when there are only a few guns , and most of them are in the wrong hands, this is the situation most gun control proponents work their best to make happen.
If there were no guns at all , the situation would simply return to the way it was earlier than King Henry IIX. Having guns actually reduced the violence overall, unless the reduction in overall violence from that time is merely a coincidence.
-
There has never been a King Henry IIX.. Henry 8th was Henry VIII. I,II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, XIII, XIV, etc. subtracted numbers are never more than one. Added numbers can go up to III.
You need to review Roman numerals (aka Superbowl numbers).
-
....subtracted numbers are never more than one. Added numbers can go up to III.
Oh , thanks.
I mentioned Henry Number eight because he was wont to wander the streets of London bearing a staff that had a heavy spiked head with a three barreled firearm in it.
Henry was even arrested for being such a suspicious character...King Henry VIII is mostly known for his many unlucky wives, but while he had a love for women, he also had a taste for exotic weapons. According to the stories, one of his favorites was “King Henry VIII’s Walking Staff”—a staff with a morning star at the end that concealed three matchlock pistols. One night, it even supposedly landed the king in jail.
Legend has it that King Henry VIII would sometimes walk around the city with his staff at night to check on his constables. One night, a constable stopped him to question why a man was walking around in the dead of night with such a vicious-looking weapon. The king, unaccustomed to being dealt with in such a manner, struck him with it. The constable promptly arrested him and threw him in jail.
The next morning, the constable was informed that he had arrested the King of England. He was terrified and expected to be executed, but instead King Henry VIII commended him and even gave him a gift for his dedication to duty. Aside from that, the king also allotted a generous allowance of bread and coal to his former cellmates, since his night in jail had been spent without a single candle. Whether or not that actually happened is a matter of conjecture, but it’s a very common story. King Henry VIII’s Walking Staff is currently on display in the Tower of London’s Tudor Room.
http://listverse.com/2014/08/09/10-bizarre-firearms-from-history/
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_59GYpEVAu0U/TRxOWcTGdKI/AAAAAAAAAsM/zXwK6dZTGbE/s400/walking-staff.JPG)http://firearmshistory.blogspot.com/2010/12/combined-firearms-other-weapons.html