Main > Everything Else
The Clinton gun ban has expired!
TA Pilot:
Wrong.
Debunking of your 97/98% figure
Psst...
Lott wasnt my source.
US DOJ: NSPOF 1996
And in any event, arguing that more people were killed accidentally than in self-defense doesnt create an argument against the efficacy of gun in self-defense -- because the standard of a successful defensive gun use isnt a dead criminal, but a halted crime. In halting the crime, you need not fire the gun.
"Tight regulation" is of the use that some unknown number of people would not have died.
Ah. The old "if it saves one life" argument.
What if that "tight regulation" keeps someone from getting a gun - and then that person dies because he could not defend himself? If "tight regulation" gets credit for saving a life, does that "tight regulation" get the blame for taking one?
If so, where does that leave your argument?
It's true that someone hell-bent on killing themselves or someone else will succeed. It's also true that guns are a convenient and easy way of doing so.
And so, as I asked: what "tight regulation" will stop them?
That's pretty funny!
You thinking it to be funny doesnt in any way affect the validity of the position.
Treat guns like cars? I agree.
[Ballistic fingerprinting is...] Not useless.
Most gun owners don't have your expertise. The average gun owner loads his gun and keeps it in a drawer somewhere and never takes it out for target practice or even to clean it.
Criminals arent average gun owners.
All it takes to alter the ballistic fingerprint of a gun is a few passes of steel wool through the chamber and down the barrel. Suddenly, that fingerprint is useless.
Now, tell me a criminal wont do that.
Buddabing:
--- Quote from: TA Pilot on September 20, 2004, 10:09:30 am ---Wrong.
Debunking of your 97/98% figure
Psst...
Lott wasnt my source.
US DOJ: NSPOF 1996
And in any event, arguing that more people were killed accidentally than in self-defense doesnt create an argument against the efficacy of gun in self-defense -- because the standard of a successful defensive gun use isnt a dead criminal, but a halted crime. In halting the crime, you need not fire the gun.
--- End quote ---
Lott quoted 97/98%. He is wrong. You quoted 97/98%. You are wrong as well, unless you can provide a link to something more concrete.
--- Quote ---
"Tight regulation" is of the use that some unknown number of people would not have died.
Ah. The old "if it saves one life" argument.
What if that "tight regulation" keeps someone from getting a gun - and then that person dies because he could not defend himself? If "tight regulation" gets credit for saving a life, does that "tight regulation" get the blame for taking one?
If so, where does that leave your argument?
It's true that someone hell-bent on killing themselves or someone else will succeed. It's also true that guns are a convenient and easy way of doing so.
And so, as I asked: what "tight regulation" will stop them?
That's pretty funny!
You thinking it to be funny doesnt in any way affect the validity of the position.
Treat guns like cars? I agree.
--- End quote ---
You need insurance, valid inspection and proper registration to drive a car in the vast majority of cases. Your argument is invalid.
--- Quote ---
[Ballistic fingerprinting is...] Not useless.
Most gun owners don't have your expertise. The average gun owner loads his gun and keeps it in a drawer somewhere and never takes it out for target practice or even to clean it.
Criminals arent average gun owners.
All it takes to alter the ballistic fingerprint of a gun is a few passes of steel wool through the chamber and down the barrel. Suddenly, that fingerprint is useless.
Now, tell me a criminal wont do that.
--- End quote ---
A criminal won't do that. Criminals are below average gun owners.
You are smarter than the average criminal.
Link to article.
hunky_artist:
--- Quote from: TA Pilot on September 20, 2004, 09:51:59 am ---Why?
If you're going to treat firearms like cars, then the restrictions will only apply when you use (not transport) a firearm on public property - just like for cars.
--- End quote ---
It wasn't me who made that comment.
However by using the 'getting a car but keeping it on your drive' argument, then you're reducing the gun argument to people who want one but never want to use it.
and i don't think that's what most of the people here are talking about
TA Pilot:
Lott quoted 97/98%. He is wrong. You quoted 97/98%. You are wrong as well, unless you can provide a link to something more concrete.
LOL
So, the only credible source are those you can link, to, huh?
LOL
I'll see if I can find a link.
Meanwhile, tell me how the number of criminals killed defensively is a legitimage standard by which the number of crimes stopped by the defenesive use of a gun can be judged.
I dont recall you addressing this, so...
"Tight regulation" is of the use that some unknown number of people would not have died.
Ah. The old "if it saves one life" argument.
What if that "tight regulation" keeps someone from getting a gun - and then that person dies because he could not defend himself? If "tight regulation" gets credit for saving a life, does that "tight regulation" get the blame for taking one?
If so, where does that leave your argument?
And: what "tight regulation" will stop them?
You need insurance, valid inspection and proper registration to drive a car in the vast majority of cases.
Hardly.
I can own a thousand cars. I dont need a driver's license to own any of them. I dont have to register them, I dont have to insure them. I can park them in my garage, or I can drive them on my land or that of anyone that will allow it. I can do all of these things w/o a license, registration or insurance.
The ONLY time you need to have a license or register/insure a car is to drive it on the road - that is, use it on public property.
If you want to treat guns like cars, then the only time I'll need to have a license, or register the gun, or have insurance, is if/when I USE the gun on public property. Just like a car.
I'm perfectly OK with that.
Your argument is invalid.
Please, show me how.
A criminal won't do that. Criminals are below average gun owners.
Yeaaaaaah.
Convenient argument.
A criminal is smart enough to avoid all the gun control laws out there to get a gun, but he's not smart enough to run some steel woll down the barrel.
Riiiiight.
TA Pilot:
However by using the 'getting a car but keeping it on your drive' argument, then you're reducing the gun argument to people who want one but never want to use it.
Not so.
"Private property" means a lot more than my driveway.
And, the term is "use", not "own" or "have" ot "transport" or even "carry". You can transport a car on the road w/o a driver's license, and w/o registration and/or insurance. So, when treating a gun like a car, you would similarly be able to transport said gun.
What this means is within the car analogy. as long as you have a proprty owners permission (or specific denial of), you can use your gun w/o licensing, etc. You can transport said gun on public property w/o a license, etc.
The only time you'd need a license, etc, is for when you USE it on public property.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version