Summations Only

Isn't it pretty much the same whether we shoot at foreign nations trying to take American property militarily, or Americans prepare to shoot back at the growing barbarians within the gates?The adjective "poor" seems to mean the barbarians whom America pays $1 trillion dollars in what is now tribute, Welfare.
America pays these people who are holding the largest (and even most smaller inner cities) captive and off limits to Americans because of violence.Shall America now expand their aggression while the Law protects every million Tryvon Martins with the shield of poverty?Take the guns away from that half of society which still recognizes marriage and two parent families as the proper building blocks for good citizenship and the whole suburban community is wide open to home invasion.
Suburbia will be armed only with 911 and a suburban police force of ten men who did arrive fast enough for the Zimmerman case.And, the Black community is NOT just these criminals who expect poverty to excuse their actions when in reality, poverty is the consequence of Welfare.Ninety percent, 90%, of the murder victims are Black people killed by Black men.
Shoukdn't America fix this, not excuse it???Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.

I'm happy to say I'm far from alone in this view of the situation. it's shared by a huge number of very sane Americans.Did I say it looks normal to me? No, it merely looks sensible under the circumstances, and yes, safe, and the main point was that it contradicts all the hysterics about the dangers of guns around children in the hands of people who want to protect them. Under OUR circumstances, therefore, having a few concealed-carry permits among the teaching staff of our schools looks to me to be sensible and possible.Scream and call me names all you want, you UK people don't have the slightest perspective on the American situation anyway. You'd think King George had in mind attacking us again you're so eager to see us disarmed.I heard something the other day that says it for my side, though I'd have to find it again to quote it right. But here's the gist: We don't want guns because we love guns or want to do harm to anyone or love the idea of a gun-toting nation, we want guns because we know there are evil people in this world and they WILL have guns no matter what you do with ours. There ARE evil people in this world. And it isn't us.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

2XWhat Americans had better recognize is that all their cities are now actually and physically controlled and occupied by the same kind of Barbarians who brought down Rome once the free food and free arena games could no longer be distributed using other people's money.We are still considering the 12/21/12 mayan calendar prophecy as the Fiscal Cliff approaches and the possibility of a terrible economic crunch duplicates this Roman experience.America may well see the Million Man inner City masses explode into the unprepared suburbia which is weakly policed and totally vulnerable to the kinds of riots of the '60's that occurred in the urban areas.

That's a cheap shot, onifre, but you got me wondering, what ABOUT getting the good guys in those neighborhoods armed? I DO think that could very well cut down on the crime which usually victimizes people in the same neighborhood. Larry Correia gave concealed-carry instruction for free to thousands of teachers, seems to me he or others could do the same for the people in those neighborhoods who are victimized by the bad guys.

Funnily enough I was talking to my wife about UK level of CCTV and I quite suprised myself when I realised that I feel less safe when I notice there are no cameras about.

This thread has suffered from an artificially maintained irrelevance for quite some time now:

quote:

---

Percy in Message 571 (emphasis added):

​

I thought I'd clarify the topic just a little bit, since my opening post was a bit terse.

​

I wanted to discuss how or if we can reduce gun deaths in the US.

---

Is there really anyone in this world that concerned with how they get murdered? I'll be no happier the day I am stabbed to death simply knowing that I wasn't shot instead.Pushed from a tall building? Nothing comforting there just because it didn't involve a pistol.Neglected in a nursing home? Small comfort that the nurses aren't armed.If we want to give this thread some meaningful new direction, how about we talk about the effect of gun ownership on overall violent crime in generalyou know, the stuff that actually matters?Even worse, relevant alternatives to gun control for reducing violent crime have also been ruled out:

quote:

---

Percy in Message 571:

​

But single motherhood's and welfare's impact on crime is clearly not part of the topic.

---

What gives here? To point out that violent crime is more than just 'gun deaths' appears off-topic. To point out all the alternatives to reducing violent crime that don't involve disarming the populace is also 'off-topic'.So what the hell is on topic, then? Well, apparently it's only the discussions and evidence that favor a predetermined mind set and point of view, all else being banned.If we want to give this thread some new life, we could start by bringing in some relevant topics for discussion and pushing down these silly artificial walls against meaningful worldly-relevant examples and evidence.Or we could let it die...

Not to mention that gun DEATHS are irrelevant anyway unless we know whether the person was the victim of a crime or the criminal being defended against. Also how many wrongful deaths by gun there are in relation to homicides by other means, also how many ATTEMPTED crimes were prevented by the potential victim's possession of a gun, which was the statistic I brought up earlier from Correia's blog post, whom Dr. A dismissed as a "halfwit" out of his abysmal immoral ignorance.

... half witted...That is a pretty good suggestion.
We already know the the police have killed people in self defense.We need to add the citizens to that and get it into the mix of info.Dr A MUST be a little wacky if he doesn't think your point is iumportant to check out.

No, because the halfwit is a halfwit. I was able to discern that by the way that he writes halfwitted things like a halfwit would.

This is the sort of post you do a lot that by all rights should get you suspended but for some weird reason just about never does. Just the usual posturing blathering saying absolutely nothing. You're the halfwit masquerading as intelligent. What a laugh.

Ah, I see. I call someone who is not a forum member a halfwit. You attribute "abysmal immoral ignorance" to me, a forum member, and describe me, a forum member, as "the halfwit masquerading as intelligent".And "by all rights" I should be suspended?Your grasp on the rules of this forum seem to be about as shaky as your grasp on ... well, pretty much everything else.

You're talking about the Monster Hunter Nation website, right? There are plenty of articulate pro-gun advocates out there you can quote, but I'd prefer that people condense the information they gather into their own words, because otherwise I'm responding to something someone else said who's never going to answer, and I can't even be sure that my interpretation of someone else's words is the same as the person quoting them.But anyway, he mentions the Brady Center, so here's a link to a relevant fact sheet from the Brady Center: Comparing the Incidence of Self-Defense Gun Use and Criminal Gun Use. It includes this table and explains that the error people like Mr. Correia are making is comparing results from two different approaches to studying the problem: But no one is arguing that guns are never successfully used for self-defense. The point is that the number of gun deaths is proportional to gun prevalence. What you're offering as a counterargument isn't a counterargument at all, it's just additional relevant information. Even if we assume your counterargument that taking away our guns will leave us helpless before criminals is totally true, it doesn't change the fact that gun deaths are proportional to gun prevalence. Your solution to the crime problem, increasing gun prevalence, will only increase gun deaths. For the sake of making a point let me grant Crash's position that fewer guns means higher crime rates. To most of the rest of the civilized world where life is more precious than money trading higher crime rates for lower death rates would be an excellent tradeoff.But the real reason arming the citizenry isn't an effective crime deterrent is simply because of the nature of crime. The criminal is ready, you're not (the impersonal you). In home defense the criminal has his gun in his pocket or even in his hand, and you have yours locked in a gun cabinet (the safest way to go but totally useless for home defense) or is in a drawer somewhere (potentially much more useful, but if it's loaded then, well, you've got a loaded gun in the house that anyone can find and use).For personal defense when you're out and about you'll be carrying the gun on your person in a holster somewhere, so you now need to get it out without the criminal noticing. And what are the odds that you're actually carrying the gun? After a few years of carrying the gun around with nothing ever happening, how many people actually keep carrying it? Do you take the gun on vacation? Not if you travel by air you don't. Do you take your gun to the beach? Not likely. Now you've got a gun sitting forgotten at home.It is also important to note that guns used to thwart crimes are not often used in the defense of one's life. It is rare when the criminal's intent is murder. The goal is usually robbery, rape, etc. This is why I keep referring to the irony of the gun-lobby argument. They want to arm the citizenry and put everyone's life at greater risk in order to thwart crime whose predominate goal is coercion and theft, not murder. Anyone who believes life is most precious above all else but supports the gun lobby has some serious inner contradictions to work out.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Wordsmithing.Edited by Percy, : Tiny bit more wordsmithing.

Hi Percy, Nuff said?Enjoy.

Percy posts: First off, any statistician worth his or her salt would notice that there is a huge OUTLIER in the data set. This OUTLIER at the top right should be removed from the correlation math.Secondly, the r-squared value is .524, including the hugely effective outlier, or - as they say in stat parlance - this only seems to explain 52.4% of what's going on.Edited by xongsmith, : on Dasher, on Vixen

Now wouldn't it be funny if that outlier had to be on the graph because it was actually the USA?Oops.