Summations Only

Keep lending support to my position that you're motivated by personal animus, by all means. I'm sure Percy is watching.It's not my intent to be a martyr in any way. I'd much prefer if you guys would stop being complete assholes and we could talk about something more interesting. You're the ones insisting that it get personal. And what a surprise, it's all the usual suspects.

I didn't say "Bureau of Prisons." If you thought I did you're proving that you didn't even bother to follow my citation before you said I never made one. I said "Bureau of Justice Statistics", which is the record-keeping body within the FBI, and the national repository for statistical information about crime in the United States. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/You're looking for "homicides by category of weapon, 1975-2011."

Was that so hard?

Crash, once again, you're in effect in a room full of people looking at you funny while you're screaming at everyone else that it's them that's crazy. Think about it. For once.If you keep your focus on the topic and cease all the accusations you'll be making it a lot easier for this thread to focus on the topic. You're by far the biggest offender of the prohibition against becoming personal, and then as people begin increasingly commenting about your behavior you have the nerve to invoke the prohibition against becoming personal? You are unreal.You and CS believe more guns will reduce gun deaths, the other participants believe more guns will increase gun deaths. If you can manage to talk about that instead of about all the offenses you think others are committing then things should go much better.--Percy

Oh, you know, I thought you were Hooah when I replied.Sorry about the crack, that wasn't fair. That was my mistake and I apologize.

Maybe you could point out where I'm "screaming." You're making wild accusations that I'm a paranoid delusional and I'm calmly referring to the objective evidence that leads me to explain these events as I have.But instead of addressing it, you're accusing me of "screaming" and completely ignoring the prospect that you might actually be wrong, and that I might have a better idea of what people have been saying to me on the basis of reading 99% of what gets addressed to me, compared to your (perhaps) 5% or 10%. I think about it every time it's brought up because I think it's important to subject one's own beliefs to skepticism. The reason I keep coming back around to the conclusion that I'm being attacked by a bunch of people with a personal vendetta is, I go back and read what they're saying to me, especially the parts where - as you're doing - they respond to reasoned argumentation with a torrent of personal attacks and accusations. Since they only do it to me and not to anyone else, it seems like a personal vendetta.But since they only do it to me and not to anyone else, to you it looks like something I must be making up. But again, you need to evaluate the possibility that you're the one who's wrong about it. Percy, if you keep your focus on the topic and cease all the accusations you'll be making it a lot easier for this thread to focus on the topic. We're only talking about me, right now, because in Message 1189 and in Message 1068 you declined to respond to any argument I made and instead made wild accusations that I was "screaming" that people were "crazy."But I've not screamed at anyone and I've not called anyone crazy. You're the one who's doing that. And when you decide to stop, and actually address the calm and reasoned arguments I'm posting to you, we can return to the topic. Nobody's stopping you. Again, no, we don't believe that more guns will reduce gun deaths, because again - and please stop misrepresenting me on this point - we believe that there's no compelling societal interest in merely shifting the mode of homicide from "firearm" to something else.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.Edited by crashfrog, : Spelling, elaboration, etc.

Wasn't fair if aimed toward hooah either

See what I mean, Percy? Even my sincere attempts are "interpreted" as personal gibes, some kind of sarcastic assholism, and are replied to with only opprobrium. Theodoric was apparently so angry he couldn't punctuate correctly.And you don't think people are responding out of personal animus to me? I don't see how that can be a reasonable belief. Are you sure you're not in any way wrong, Percy? Maybe it's time you stop considering the very idea as risible and actually take a look at what keeps happening in threads - top to bottom, don't skim, really look at what's being said and if it fits my interpretation - instead of assuming that the crowd is right and I'm wrong.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

No one is disputing that some people in some situations may be safer with a gun than without, but it is the task of government to make decisions regarding conflicting interests. We vote for our chosen representatives at the various levels of government who try to enact laws that are best for the people they represent and for the country overall. It is very common for some laws to affect some people positively and others negatively. Passing a law against private ownership of firearms is not an assertion that no one is ever safer with a gun. It's an attempt to trade off conflicting interests for the greater good. Gun deaths in this country will plummet if such a law is ever passed, and that would be a wonderful thing.But a complete prohibition against private ownership of firearms isn't what most gun control advocates are seeking. That's why they're called gun control advocates instead of gun prohibition advocates.--Percy

equals? Really?You have some real deep seated problems toad boy.Go away.

Hi Crash,There's no need to keep reminding us that you're right and everyone else is wrong and that you're not paranoid. I suggest you stick to the topic.--Percy

In that case you and CS part ways on the issue of whether more guns will reduce gun deaths. The position of CS and of the NRA is that more guns will reduce gun deaths because of their deterrent effect. I naturally assumed that was your position, too, because you keep arguing that there are many instances of successful gun defense that don't make it into the statistics, and because you disputed the statistical best-fit line showing the linear relationship between gun prevalence and gun homicides.I've explained several times why reducing gun prevalence will only shift some, not all, gun homicides to other means, and I see no need to do so again.--Percy

I think it is pretty obvious that the 'reducing gun ownership will reduce homicides' crowd is well aware that they are treating symptoms instead of underlying causes.But it is equally obvious that they don't care, and have such high and irrational fears of guns that they will attempt to infringe upon/ignore the plain-as-day right of the people to keep and bear arms at any cost.I see no reason to keep beating my head; Crash: save your breath; these sheep be lost.

That's correct and we have said many times that crime - that's pretty much all crime - has a root cause in the inequality of society, poverty, education, houseing etc. but we want to treat both the sympton AND the cause because they are related. It has also been pointed out that several of us, far from having irrational fear of guns, actually have used guns and enjoy them. But we also recognise that they are extremely dangerous and must thereefore be controlled. Not banned; controlled. It would help, if you read and understood our position, rather than misrepresent it in this way.

You don't state why you believe guns are a symptom rather than a contributing cause of the high gun death rate in the US, but those in favor of reducing gun prevalence believe high gun ownership rates are a contributing cause to high gun death rates, not a symptom. They are also equally in favor of addressing other contributing causes.But whatever label you give it, symptom or underlying cause, reducing gun ownership rates will still reduce gun deaths, and that would be a very good thing. It is the role of government to find equitable trade-offs between competing interests, in this case the right to life versus the right to keep and bear arms. No right is paramount above all other rights. Those in favor of reducing gun prevalence believe that we must change the balance point between these competing interests so that fewer people die each year.--Percy