Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Law abiding citizen.....

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I think you misunderstoodm my point, Zap. When gun crimes are removed from a statistic relating to the number of violent crimes, the rate of violent crimes without the involvement of firearms will not change the statistic. What you are attempting to do by saying that the violent crime rate will rise with the banning of guns is to create a probability problem, so to speak. If you can show me your equations that prove this, I will examine them.

    I hope you do not take this as a personal attack, it is merely a critique of your statement.

    -Regards, ryan

    Comment


    • Since Tink's/Ryan's arguement is so weak they can't back it up with proof, I'm going to ignore any statistics they post without said proof and stay in the "common sense" area.

      If you believe in banning guns so passionately, why don't you put a sign in your front lawn or window stating so. A sign stating "I believe guns should be banned" or "This house is gun-free" would suffice. If you can't put it in our lawn or window, then put it somewhere on your vehicle so everyone passing by can see it.

      If you don't believe you should, explain why.

      Now for part 2 of my arguement. Let's say for a minute, I agree with you that firearms should be banned. That I'm so insecure that I think the only two people in my country that should be armed are the government and the criminals.

      Why make it federal law? Just because I believe doing drugs is wrong, doesn't mean I believe they should be illegal. Same thing with guns. Why not leave it up to the individual city, county, or state? (I know, liberals hate that evil "i" word.) That way if I happen to like guns, I can move to a community of like-minded people and if I don't, the same.
      You have no right to not be offended.-Neal Boortz

      Comment


      • Originally posted by NumbersGuy
        I think you misunderstoodm my point, Zap. When gun crimes are removed from a statistic relating to the number of violent crimes, the rate of violent crimes without the involvement of firearms will not change the statistic. What you are attempting to do by saying that the violent crime rate will rise with the banning of guns is to create a probability problem, so to speak. If you can show me your equations that prove this, I will examine them.

        I hope you do not take this as a personal attack, it is merely a critique of your statement.

        -Regards, ryan


        Nonono....do NOT remove the 'gun' crimes....include them as 'violent crimes' (if indeed they qualify as violent and not the mere presence of a gun)


        I think that if you look at violent crimes as being those crimes of violence or threatened violence (not including persons who defended themselves with a gun and committed no crime doing so) regardless of a gun being used, you would find that violent crimes would still increase when guns are banned. Of course, 'gun' crimes (otherwise violent crimes) would tend to go down.
        An impressionable child in a tumultuous world, and they say I'm at a difficult stage... --Meat Loaf

        Professional Stupidity Recognition Technician

        Comment


        • I think that if you look at violent crimes as being those crimes of violence or threatened violence (not including persons who defended themselves with a gun and committed no crime doing so) regardless of a gun being used, you would find that violent crimes would still increase when guns are banned. Of course, 'gun' crimes (otherwise violent crimes) would tend to go down.[/QUOTE]

          I need equations to have a proper and civil debate, Zap. please deliver them to me.

          -Regards, Ryan

          Comment


          • [QUOTE=Centurion44]Since Tink's/Ryan's arguement is so weak they can't back it up with proof, I'm going to ignore any statistics they post without said proof and stay in the "common sense" area.

            A, I am not arguing, I am here to assess statistics. And B, mathematics is defined as the study of patterns. The gun argument provides one of the greatest opprotunities for mathematicians. Math can also be defined as common sense and logic in numbers: example, what are one's chances of landing a heads side of the coin when you flip a coin? Common sense tells us fifty percent: as does mathematics
            -Regards, ryan
            Last edited by NumbersGuy; 12-06-2005, 09:09 PM.

            Comment


            • Knives do not kill over thirty thousand people a year.
              Neither do guns kill 30.000 people a year.

              People kill people.



              That quoted statement reveals much about your thought process.

              and...FWIW...
              I conversed with Kleck several years ago and asked him about his personal thoughts about guns and ownership. Believe it or not, at one time he was an avowed anti-gunner that beleived much like you seem to and he used the same BS arguments. What separated him from the chaff was the fact that he noticed that many of the current statistics were cooked to make them support a current beleif or idea using extremely flawed math and downright lies.

              He had the integrity to collect his own statistics and he was smart enough to realize that hed been duped his whole life.

              Here is a rare example of a mathematician that allowed the facts to change his opinion of a subject that he was very passionate about. ONLY then, did he become "pro-gun" and it wasnt an easy thing for him. He went against the grain and recieved much ridicule from colleages and educated idiots that wouldnt reconize the truth if it hit them in the ***.
              "The American People will never knowingly adopt Socialism. Under the name of "liberalism" they will adopt every segment of the socialist program,until one day America will be a socialist nation without knowing how it happened."

              Norman Thomas

              Comment


              • Originally posted by NumbersGuy
                A, I am not arguing, I am here to assess statistics.
                Fair enough. So, since my odds of surviving a violent attack increase exponentially when I'm armed with a handgun, does that mean you are against the banning of firearms?
                You have no right to not be offended.-Neal Boortz

                Comment


                • Originally posted by NumbersGuy
                  I think that if you look at violent crimes as being those crimes of violence or threatened violence (not including persons who defended themselves with a gun and committed no crime doing so) regardless of a gun being used, you would find that violent crimes would still increase when guns are banned. Of course, 'gun' crimes (otherwise violent crimes) would tend to go down

                  I need equations to have a proper and civil debate, Zap. please deliver them to me.

                  -Regards, Ryan

                  Well, no disrespect to you, but I am NOT a numbers guy. I can do numbers quite well thank you...but more often than not find them to be boring when I know what I will arrive at in the end.

                  Let me give an example. I know engineers who can do days of calculations to tell you what force will act on the end of a 2x4 that is 2' long if you attach it to something with only one nail 3" from either end.
                  ------I don't need those calculations to tell you that the damn thing will swing freely and be unsafe to walk on.

                  What I tried to get across earlier is that while there are statistics out there, and there certainly are ways to manipulate them more toward a person's desired outcome, they really don't change the bottom line.

                  I have heard a common theme among anti gun people. That being if we can save only ONE life it will all be worth it. Those people discount and hold absolute contempt for all of the lives SAVED BY guns.

                  The bottom line is simple. If I were protecting your family against someone drugged and hellbent on doing them harm, would you rather I have a gun...or not?

                  (Ryan, I am not ditching your request...I am just choosing not to go there with you. My argument takes place in a more common sense real world place rather than on a computer or notebook page)
                  An impressionable child in a tumultuous world, and they say I'm at a difficult stage... --Meat Loaf

                  Professional Stupidity Recognition Technician

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by zap

                    I have heard a common theme among anti gun people. That being if we can save only ONE life it will all be worth it. Those people discount and hold absolute contempt for all of the lives SAVED BY guns.

                    The bottom line is simple. If I were protecting your family against someone drugged and hellbent on doing them harm, would you rather I have a gun...or not?

                    (Ryan, I am not ditching your request...I am just choosing not to go there with you. My argument takes place in a more common sense real world place rather than on a computer or notebook page)
                    Its not that someone's life was saved by a gun...its WHO's life was saved.

                    A little (lot...) of elitism is going around when they look at who would have been saved by the absence of a gun and who would have benifited from the presence of a gun.

                    To address your second point, most people considered "anti-gunners" are not, in fact, anti-gun at all.

                    Many of they have firearms, carry pistols for personal protection and shoot quite a lot.

                    However...they are special because they are educated/WASP/in a specific profession (Not LE, Doctors, Lawyers, Banking...)/not "one of those people" ... and are therefore "OK" to have a gun.

                    Its not that they hate weapons. Its not that they don't think guns can be benifical.

                    Its that they don't want "You", whoever "You" is, to have one because "You" aren't one of the real people who matter.

                    You know, the important people...like the guy who says "Do you know who I am?" when you pull him over.

                    He may be a member of the Brady Group...but I'll bet he had a Bill Wilson officer's length .45 under his suit and a Carry permit...

                    After all...he matters.

                    Comment


                    • "Centurion44]Fair enough. So, since my odds of surviving a violent attack increase exponentially when I'm armed with a handgun, does that mean you are against the banning of firearms?"

                      No, I have no opinion either way. Your chances of committing suicide with a gun are many times higher than using one to defend yourself. That's a fact, not an opinion.

                      Regards, Ryan

                      Comment


                      • I have to like your answers that you inserted into the "Statistcally speaking" post. You pretty much summed it up by saying we're talking about guns, as if to say if we outlaw guns, all will be good in the world. The fact is clear you have an agenda against guns, but are unwilling to take a stance against other problems, many of which cause much more damage than guns ever will. If you're that concerned about proximate causes of deaths, guns aren't the major factors. Use your statistical ability and crusade for changes in more areas.

                        So I'm done. I find that arguing with folks like you is a wasted effort. But, I do have to wonder what issue you'll be screaming about next year- maybe the McDonald's Conspiracy [the master plan to make poor people fat].
                        "Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince" - Unknown Author
                        ______________________________________________

                        "That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves." - Thomas Jefferson
                        ______________________________________________

                        “There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. One is by the sword. The other is by debt.” - John Adams

                        Comment


                        • If I say that black people are more likely to have a heart attack in their lifetime than whites? Does that make me racist? No, because it is a fact. I have no agenda, I am not out against guns or gun owners. It seems as if the only time you complain, FNA, is when the statistics offend you.

                          -Regards, Ryan

                          Comment


                          • .I found this on John Lott
                            Phoenix

                            "He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself." ~Thomas Paine

                            Comment


                            • Both sides are wrong.

                              Okay, here it goes.

                              Kleck is wrong because he states the impossible:

                              297,826,299=the number of people in the united states, according to the 2000 Census

                              25=percentage of adults that own a gun.

                              297,826,299*.25

                              74,556,574=number of people who could possibly use a gun in self-defense.

                              2.5 million=Kleck's estimated number of self defense gun uses.

                              .033531....... 2.5 million divided by 74,556,574. (correction of my earlier error; I divided 74,556,574 by 2.5 million)

                              If Kleck's statistic were correct, it would mean that about three percent of all gun owners in a year have used their weapons in self defense.

                              Hemenway is wrong because the NCVS is inaccurate, therefore, both sides are wrong.

                              -Regards, Ryan
                              Last edited by NumbersGuy; 12-07-2005, 12:19 PM.

                              Comment


                              • 74.5 million=number of people who could possibly use a gun in self-defense.

                                2.5 million=Kleck's estimated number of self defense gun uses.

                                29.78=percent of gunowners per year that would have to use their gun in self defense to make Kleck's number truthful.
                                2.5*100/74.5=3.35% How about working on your math a little bit before you tell people they are wrong. Seems that 3.35% of the gun owners out their could very well have used their guns for defensive purposes in any given year.
                                "Respect for religion must be reestablished. Public debt should be reduced. The arrogance of public officials must be curtailed. Assistance to foreign lands must be stopped or we shall bankrupt ourselves. The people should be forced to work and not depend on government for subsistence." - Cicero, 60 B.C.

                                For California police academy notes go to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CABasicPolice/

                                Comment

                                MR300x250 Tablet

                                Collapse

                                What's Going On

                                Collapse

                                There are currently 4622 users online. 319 members and 4303 guests.

                                Most users ever online was 158,966 at 04:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

                                Welcome Ad

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X