How many guns?

[waterwizard]

Originally posted by juiblex
Therefore, unless you wish to back up your claims and continue this discussion, i dont see the point of me spending what little free time i have being the only person willing to do some research on it in the pursuit of intelligent conversation. My mistake, i wont bother you again. 

Heaven forbid we should insult your superior intelligence. 

Why don't you get through high school first, and live in the real world a while?

 

[Gabriel]

Why gun control works
<!-- end head --><!-- deck --><!-- end deck -->
<HR SIZE=1>
Posted: November 8, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern

[font="Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times"][font="Palatino, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times, serif"]<!-- byline --><!-- end byline --><!-- copyright -->©&nbsp;2002&nbsp;WorldNetDaily.com <!-- end copyright -->[/font]<!-- begin bodytext -->Gun enthusiasts aggravated with liberal gun-control politicians in Washington and the states need to understand that they who seek to stifle your constitutional right to keep and bear arms are only interested in your safety. It's true. We all realize that deep down our politicians care about us and don't want to see us gunned down in our prime, leaving behind loved ones who depend on us for nurturing, livelihood and parenting. So it's important for as many of us as possible to support gun-control initiatives designed to disarm law-abiding Americans – you know, because they make us safer and because they're so successful. The socially responsible site Kentucky Coalition to Carry Concealed has compiled some persuasive reasons why gun control works so well. After all, reasonable people know that police officers in New York City, Chicago and Washington, D.C., need to carry firearms because total gun bans in those cities are so effective. And isn't Washington, D.C.'s <I>low</I> murder rate of 69 people per 100,000 due to strict gun control, while Indianapolis' <I>high</I> murder rate of 9 people per 100,000 due to a distinct lack of gun control? It's true, isn't it, that statistics showing high murder rates justify more restrictions, while statistics showing increasing murder rates after strict gun control is imposed are "only statistics." Yes, gun control has an exemplary record of achievement in public safety. Everybody realizes that the more helpless you are, the safer you are from those who mean you harm. That's why a woman who is strangled is morally superior to a woman holding a smoking gun with a dead rapist at her feet. There is also much to be said about the various experts who trumpet gun control – experts like the New England Journal of Medicine, which of course is filled with as much authoritative gun advice as Guns &amp; Ammo is with theses on heart surgery and bowel resections. And naturally, gun control is legal because the Second Amendment – ratified in 1787 – doesn't refer to "the people," it refers to the "National Guard," which was created in 1917, 130 years later. That's because the National Guard – partially funded with federal tax dollars, stationed on bases owned by the federal government, using federal weapons and vehicles, and bearing uniforms with "United States" nametapes – is a "state militia." We must also realize that gun rights are also not constitutionally protected. That's because these constitutional phrases – "the right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," and, "the powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people" – all refer to individuals, while "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is a collectivist, states-only right. And really, what's the big deal anyway? Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to the national defense, which is why the armed forces have hundreds of thousands of them. Besides, gun control is necessary because of the rash of school shootings. After all, in the 1940s, 50s and 60s, you could buy a gun almost anywhere, including through the Sears and J.C. Penney catalogs, with no background check, no forms to fill out, no fingerprinting and no waiting periods – when there were no school shootings. Without gun control, how would Americans have known that firearms are so complex that special training is needed to operate them, yet are so simple to use that murder is made easy? All guns must all be eradicated because, as gun control proponents have taught us, ordinary people in the presence of a gun turn into slaughtering monsters, but revert back to normal when guns are removed. Guns <I>cause</I> violence, you see, which is why so many mass murders happen at gun shows. Finally, gun control must be enacted because, we are told, "most people" support it. Like they supported slavery at one time, too.
<!-- end bodytext -->[/font]

 

[waterwizard]

Another word from this lower life form:

Originally posted by juiblex
true enough, however, this piece of mere prediction here does not agree with the raw data i have given you, and considering you have given me nothing to show me otherwise in return, i believe your statement is meaningless and not worth arguing.

This was not a "prediction".&nbsp; It is history. And certainly not meaningless.&nbsp; Did you even research it?

I went back and read your "raw data" again and it is more speculation than real data.&nbsp; It looks good on paper, but rarely does it apply to real life.

Considering you have not replied to any other section of my post indicates that you have nothing left to say that you can back up with facts. I spent a lot of time doing that research, and im always disappointed when people do not appreciate the time i have taken to do it and dont post anything other than assertions.

You can check the facts anytime you&nbsp;wish.&nbsp; Predators go after the weakest prey..i.e. unarmed people.&nbsp; I don't know how much clearer it can be.&nbsp;

Therefore, unless you wish to back up your claims and continue this discussion, i dont see the point of me spending what little free time i have being the only person willing to do some research on it in the pursuit of intelligent conversation. My mistake, i wont bother you again.

Just what do you want?&nbsp; As I said in my previous post, you need to finish your schooling and go out&nbsp;and experience the real world, then come back and see if you still feel that way.

&nbsp;

I dont believe this means we shouldnt try. By this logic we should abandon all law, because people are still going to break it regardless.

Take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, and the predators will have a field day.&nbsp; Refer to my post about Prohibition.&nbsp; IF you can squeeze it into your busy schedule, study it.&nbsp; We senile&nbsp;old geezers will wait.

 

[Gabriel]

Originally posted by waterwizard
Another word from this lower life form:




This was not a "prediction".&nbsp; It is history. And certainly not meaningless.&nbsp; Did you even research it?

I went back and read your "raw data" again and it is more speculation than real data.&nbsp; It looks good on paper, but rarely does it apply to real life.




You can check the facts anytime you&nbsp;wish.&nbsp; Predators go after the weakest prey..i.e. unarmed people.&nbsp; I don't know how much clearer it can be.&nbsp;



Just what do you want?&nbsp; As I said in my previous post, you need to finish your schooling and go out&nbsp;and experience the real world, then come back and see if you still feel that way.

&nbsp;


Take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, and the predators will have a field day.&nbsp; Refer to my post about Prohibition.&nbsp; IF you can squeeze it into your busy schedule, study it.&nbsp; We senile&nbsp;old geezers will wait.

&nbsp;

 

[aaron]

Originally posted by juiblex
Therefore, unless you wish to back up your claims and continue this discussion, i dont see the point of me spending what little free time i have being the only person willing to do some research on it in the pursuit of intelligent conversation. My mistake, i wont bother you again.&nbsp;

I want to thank you for participating in this discussion. Unfortunately you are one of the only ones on your side of the argument. That makes things much harder. You see, in a debate you are trying to convince the other side to see it your way. So here you have to do more work than everyone against you put together. Yes it does make it hard, but that is the way it is.

 

[juiblex]

Heaven forbid we should insult your superior intelligence.

i never said anything about your intelligence, that is what you have read in to my posts, and if you choose to think that i feel i have something over you simply because i disagree with you and could be bothered to do some research, then so be it.

Why don't you get through high school first, and live in the real world a while?

you think me naive. how typical. perhaps you shouldnt make assumptions about my experience based on my age. i am aware of my surroundings, i understand what is happening around me, politics, literature, the church, i choose to keep myself informed. but i guess that doesnt count for much considering im plagued on discussion boards by the fact that im 16, and therefore can know nothing.

i dont claim to know it all, im no God. But dont ignore my views simply because i dont.

This was not a "prediction". It is history. And certainly not meaningless. Did you even research it?

you had no empirical facts which even suggested that this situation applied to the gun-control issue, and i had something to show otherwise. therefore you were making an assertion, and because this assertion was set as a hypothesis for the future, it makes it a prediction.

I went back and read your "raw data" again and it is more speculation than real data. It looks good on paper, but rarely does it apply to real life.

some was speculation, certainly not most. and there was more fact and reality in it than you offered me in your arguments. at least i tried.

Take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, and the predators will have a field day. Refer to my post about Prohibition. IF you can squeeze it into your busy schedule, study it. We senile old geezers will wait.

your post about Prohibition proved nothing. it was speculation and had no factual basis.

aaron:

I want to thank you for participating in this discussion. Unfortunately you are one of the only ones on your side of the argument. That makes things much harder. You see, in a debate you are trying to convince the other side to see it your way. So here you have to do more work than everyone against you put together. Yes it does make it hard, but that is the way it is.

thankyou aaron. thats nice to hear, and i didnt really need clarification on how a debate works. but thanks anyway.

and i think this will be my last post on the subject. im not interested in fueling any persecution complexes on these boards.

 

[sunshine]

forgive me, in no way I mean to sound disrespectful but....why are you Americans so obsessed with guns??? it seriously baffles me. I read somewhere that there are more guns than people in the USA. not sure if that's true, but even if it comes close....wow. I'm not saying that in Canada we don't have shootings or crime, but the whole issue of owning guns here seems so much less of a "big deal" than in the States. I only know one person who owns a gun, and his is for hunting (something I don't quite understand, but hey, that's me)

all I have to say is *thank you Lord I live in Canada*

 

[Gunny]