former Iraq soldier, private investigator and jail guard shows who's boss.

[murf]

Forum Sponsor

LOL!!! ALMOST PEE'D MY PANTS! HAHAHAHA!

There are no carry laws in Detroit, that's why it's such a **** hole. Only criminals who have (and carry) guns illegally are going to hold you up for your wallet. If he was just going to shoot you anyway (no witnesses), wouldn't you rather have a gun to defend your life? How about if a passer by had a gun and saved your life? That's why we need carry laws, for LESS (illegal) guns on the street

LOL

^^ this.

Michigan's concealed carry law is "shall issue," meaning that anyone 21 or older may obtain a license to carry a concealed pistol, so long as the person is not prohibited from owning a firearm, has not been found guilty or been accused of certain felonies or misdemeanors within a certain time period, and has completed state-approved firearms training

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Michigan

 

[D23]

For those claiming to want to save lives their agenda or motive for more gun control becomes highly suspect when ignoring other "preventable" deaths (because gun control prevents deaths right?) of much higher magnitudes just because it would inconvenience them.

What is their agenda then if it's not to reduce firearm deaths?

How is it suspect?

How does the fact that vehicles kill people trump firearms kill people?

You answered yes to the first question. If we remove all vehicles, our way of life ends with massive starvation and the collapse of a nation. that's the only answer.

You answered no to the second question. If we removed all firearms our way of life goes on with one less thing that ends lives to not worry about. Doesn't matter if it's not the #1 killer. It can be the #5000 killer for all I care. It's gone and we go on. That's the only answer there too.

It's not a contest which kills more.

Do you want Full blown Aids or inoperable cancer? **** the links and statistics.

Should we be pro cancer wackos because Aids?

 

[Rob MacLennan]

To the tune of approximately 2 million successful self defense incidents per year in the US (the anti's really don't like that statistic....)

And the 'pros' really don't like dealing with the flipside of that little statistic; namely the per capita incident rate of crimes involving guns, when compared to a country like Canada. It's a telling point that one of our biggest firearms problems is caused by our proximity to the US.

 

[jc100]

Snobike: A random dial survey is the most accurate way of conducting a non-biased survey. Nearly everyone has a phone....random numbers do not discriminate by gender, race, economic status or region. It simply means the authors made sure their stats weren't skewed by anything, it's good practice for this sort of thing. This is the same protocol as is used for major clinical studies/epidemiological studies.

 

[Snobike Mike]

Snobike: A random dial survey is the most accurate way of conducting a non-biased survey. Nearly everyone has a phone....random numbers do not discriminate by gender, race, economic status or region. It simply means the authors made sure their stats weren't skewed by anything, it's good practice for this sort of thing. This is the same protocol as is used for major clinical studies/epidemiological studies.

You missed my point. A survey is not irrefutable proof of the conclusion that it states. It is simply querying people to answer a set of questions, which of course without knowing the questions, often which are loaded (your sponsor bias "problem"), the answers to which are provided by people who at best are given very little time to think about their responses. Furthermore, their responses at best give you their impressions, not an educated, considered, researched response (for most respondents, of course you may actually dial and get a response who is in fact a subject matter expert on the questions being answered).

Certainly the conclusions presented by 2 studies by 2 very different bodies who most likely don't have a lot of sponsor bias, are at least worth careful consideration by those who are for more controls. Of course that would mean they'd have to put aside their emotionally charged agenda's which doesn't exactly suit them very well.

 

[jc100]

So did you actually read the study..it was from Harvard by the way. The way the study was structured was designed not to be biased.

 

[jc100]

Also look at the studies...yours and mine. The one I posted was specifically looking at the question of guns for self defense.

 

[Snobike Mike]

What is their agenda then if it's not to reduce firearm deaths?

How is it suspect?

How does the fact that vehicles kill people trump firearms kill people?

It is suspect because they want to reduce firearm deaths and yet firearms deaths are no where near the largest or even near the top of preventable deaths. So the question is why so much time/effort/money/rhetoric to push gun control when there are so many others they could chase?

You answered yes to the first question. If we remove all vehicles, our way of life ends with massive starvation and the collapse of a nation. that's the only answer.

Now you are deflecting.....whether you die by firearm, car, motorcycle, you are still dead. Cars have only been around for about 100 years, how did the human race make it up to around 1900 without them? Your answer is definitely not the only answer.

You answered no to the second question. If we removed all firearms our way of life goes on with one less thing that ends lives to not worry about. Doesn't matter if it's not the #1 killer. It can be the #5000 killer for all I care. It's gone and we go on. That's the only answer there too.

Nope, that is not the only answer and there simply is no way you can uninvent the firearm so you can't remove them and have life go on.

It's not a contest which kills more.

It is if you are looking to save lives because you'd go to the problems that cause the most deaths and work to resolve them.

Do you want Full blown Aids or inoperable cancer? **** the links and statistics.

Should we be pro cancer wackos because Aids?

I think the key word is "preventable".......

 

[Snobike Mike]

Also look at the studies...yours and mine. The one I posted was specifically looking at the question of guns for self defense.

And you got telephone answers for what people "think" or "feel".

How about this quote/source (read the whole thing but I've bolded a few critical points):

Source: National Safety Council
Marvin Wolfgang, Director of the Sellin Center for Studies in Criminology and Criminal Law at
the University of Pennsylvania, considered by many to be the foremost criminologist in the
country, wrote in that same issue, "I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among
the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of Brave New World, I would
eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police ... What troubles
me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have
provided an almost clearcut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I
have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal
perpetrator. ...I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and
this research. Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was
used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the
data collected. We do not have contrary evidence. The National Crime Victim Survey does not
directly contravene this latest survey, nor do the Mauser and Hart Studies. ... the methodological
soundness of the current Kleck and Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it. ... The Kleck
and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they
examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I
cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and
have done exceedingly well."
So this data has been peer-reviewed by a top criminologist in this country who was prejudiced in
advance against its results, and even he found the scientific evidence overwhelmingly
convincing.

 

[RockerGuy]

Its official...
... gtam is now Canadian gun nutz. Get off tafb, they might arrest you simply for logging on to this site

Sent from my tablet using my paws

 

[jc100]

And you got telephone answers for what people "think" or "feel".

How about this quote/source (read the whole thing but I've bolded a few critical points):

You didn't actually read it did you? It's explained quite nicely in the paper. Very interesting conclusions, you should have a look.

Also...why do you keep harping on about wanting to ban all those other things when it's been pointed out to you by D23 exactly why gun control is on the radar. Weak arguments.

By the way, read some of the cases in the paper...they are quite funny, like the one where the 50 year old fires his legally owned gun into the ground near two people standing outside his apartment as he suspects they might do something....or the one where the panel of judges deem that 50% or more of the self defense gun actions from legal carry/owned individuals would actually be illegal.

Shocking no? Hilarious yes!

 

[D23]

It is suspect because they want to reduce firearm deaths

Wow, what a horrible thing they want to do!

Now you are deflecting.....

You don't really know what that means.

Nope, that is not the only answer and there simply is no way you can uninvented the firearm so you can't remove them and have life go on.

Very good. You can't uninvent them. Well I guess everything you also said must be correct because that's right. Once something has been invented it can't be uninvented. How can you not remove them exactly? Do they become one with the owner? Will the owner die if it's removed? Do all firearm removals end in death?

It is if you are looking to save lives because you'd go to the problems that cause the most deaths and work to resolve them.

That may be how you do things. I have a feeling doing two or more things at a time is probably not your forte but that's why we have a department of health and safety staffed with post grade 10 graduates who can do more than one thing at a time. Their job is to address all health and safety issues that adversely effect us. Not pick one and do nothing about any other until the one is resolved.

So, if you had a son/daughter and they developed some sickness, you would tell them, sorry, but cars kill more people that what you have does so I'm just going to let you die?

Only a sociopath thinks that way Mike.

I think the key word is "preventable".......

Yes, gun deaths are preventable. 100 percent of gun deaths wouldn't have happened if the trigger didn't get pulled.

I can't talk to you anymore Mike. I tried but you are too far out there.

 

[Snobike Mike]

Wow, what a horrible thing they want to do!

You cherry-picked what I said. Anyways, if you see a group putting so much effort, time and money into controlling something, when there are other areas they don't pay any attention to yet have much higher preventable death rates you have to ask what is the agenda/political motivation for doing so?

Very good. You can't uninvent them. Well I guess everything you also said must be correct because that's right. Once something has been invented it can't be uninvented. How can you not remove them exactly? Do they become one with the owner? Will the owner die if it's removed? Do all firearm removals end in death?

So you propose confiscation of legally owned property? You say you are not an anti but your suggestions are a complete contradiction. And I have provided numerous study references by all kinds of major organizations (none of whom were the NRA) that contradict your position.

That may be how you do things. I have a feeling doing two or more things at a time is probably not your forte but that's why we have a department of health and safety staffed with post grade 10 graduates who can do more than one thing at a time. Their job is to address all health and safety issues that adversely effect us. Not pick one and do nothing about any other until the one is resolved.

You are broad-brushing my position and avoiding my questions about why so much focus on guns and so little on examples such as vehicles/motorcycles/alcohol which kills 5-30 times more people than legally owned firearms.

So, if you had a son/daughter and they developed some sickness, you would tell them, sorry, but cars kill more people that what you have does so I'm just going to let you die?

Now you are the one really grasping (and your argument is a complete red-herring to the crux of this discussion). We're talking about whether or not gun controls will have material effect on gun deaths/violent crimes and I'm also asking the question of why so much focus on legally owned guns which have relatively low death rates compared to many other. If you were here making the case for gun control, car control, motorcycle control, alcohol control etc etc as a complete package, well then we might have something to dig into, but you are not, you not unlike most anti's focus only on one thing and ignore others.

Yes, gun deaths are preventable. 100 percent of gun deaths wouldn't have happened if the trigger didn't get pulled.

And yet the question still remains as to how more controls on law abiding citizens would materially reduce any such deaths.

I can't talk to you anymore Mike. I tried but you are too far out there.

Oh well, nice chatting with you.

Cheers.

 

[jc100]

Hey Snobike..I see a solution. If laws change then statements like "lawfully owned" etc could all become null and void. So following your logic you should be fine with that since you have such a healthy respect for the law.

Here's an example:

A law is passed such that it is no longer legal to posess "X". A person with "X" is now no longer legally allowed to have "X".

There.

By the way...I really don't understand your logic on quite a few things...again you're still harping on about other things that kill...and there are organisations that continually look at reducing those deaths as much as they can. We're not discussing those though. Do stay focussed.

 

[FiReSTaRT]

A law is passed such that it is no longer legal to posess "X". A person with "X" is now no longer legally allowed to have "X".

Well, a legal gun owner would go through the system and either win or peacefully hand in the newly prohibited device. It has happened in the past and there were never issues with recovering the newly prohibited firearms (except for the legal battles, of course). On the other hand, that gangbang...I mean "unfortunate urban youth, from a poor background" will just keep his device whether it's legal or not.

 

[jc100]

Well, a legal gun owner would go through the system and either win or peacefully hand in the newly prohibited device. It has happened in the past and there were never issues with recovering the newly prohibited firearms (except for the legal battles, of course). On the other hand, that gangbang...I mean "unfortunate urban youth, from a poor background" will just keep his device whether it's legal or not.

Point taken...Mike just seems very hung up on the word "legal" whcih can change its meaning if a law changes.

 

[Snobike Mike]

Point taken...Mike just seems very hung up on the word "legal" whcih can change its meaning if a law changes.

For which you just proved one of the very things that your unloved NRA is "worried" about which is the confiscation of currently legally owned property that for which said owners and property have done no one any harm because some anti thinks they are "scary" and "dangerous" and therefore 25 percent of the US population shouldn't have them.

 

[Snobike Mike]

By the way...I really don't understand your logic on quite a few things...again you're still harping on about other things that kill...and there are organisations that continually look at reducing those deaths as much as they can. We're not discussing those though. Do stay focussed.

If you can let me know what logic you don't follow I'm happy to respond.

And in terms of reducing firearms deaths, I have provided a mountain of evidence that at a minimum clearly indicates that more gun controls do not equal less firearms deaths.

 

[Snobike Mike]

Well, a legal gun owner would go through the system and either win or peacefully hand in the newly prohibited device. It has happened in the past and there were never issues with recovering the newly prohibited firearms (except for the legal battles, of course). On the other hand, that gangbang...I mean "unfortunate urban youth, from a poor background" will just keep his device whether it's legal or not.

Bingo. The problem ain't the guns, it's the criminals and well, they don't follow laws.

 

[jc100]

If you can let me know what logic you don't follow I'm happy to respond.

And in terms of reducing firearms deaths, I have provided a mountain of evidence that at a minimum clearly indicates that more gun controls do not equal less firearms deaths.

..and I provided you evidence that the "self defence" argument doesn't hold...and that many "self defence" events may actually be illegal acts. You still only spout common rhetoric and deny any common logic.

Forum Sponsor