Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,810 Year: 3,067/9,624 Month: 912/1,588 Week: 95/223 Day: 6/17 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gun Control III
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 134 of 1184 (829183)
03-04-2018 8:03 AM


I think ill probably most likely kill around 50 or 60, Jesse Osborne declared in his Instagram group chat. If I get lucky maybe 150.
Six days later on September 28, 2016, using his father's .40-caliber pistol Jesse Osborne killed his father at home, then killed 6-year old Jacob Hall and wounded two other children at the Townville Elementary School in Townville, South Carolina. His gun jammed after just 12 seconds.
Jesse hadn't wanted the pistol. What he really wanted was his father's Ruger Mini-14 semiautomatic rifle, much like an AR-15. But it was locked in his father's gun safe.
Making weapons of war unavailable does make a difference.
Source: Inside an accused school shooter’s mind: A plot to kill ‘50 or 60. If I get lucky maybe 150.’
--Percy

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 135 of 1184 (830132)
03-22-2018 8:46 AM


Scientific American on Guns
The October, 2017, issue of Scientific American ran the article More Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows (original title in the print version was Journey to Gunland). I'm not sure why the link works - usually Scientific American is very restrictive about what they make available online.
The article's main point is that guns make people less safe, not more, something we knew already but that is hotly contested by gun advocates who cite their own studies. This article discusses the conflicting studies and also includes many other details, most of them familiar, but it helps to keep repeating them. The article doesn't provide references to studies, but in most cases I was able to track them down and provide links.
  • At a gun range the author fires a gun for the very first time. "In seconds I went from feeling nervous, even terrified, to exhilarated and unassailable - and right then I understood why millions of Americans believe guns keep them safe."
  • Firearm assaults are 6.8 times more frequent in states with the most guns versus those with the least.
  • People with firearm access at home are twice as likely to be murdered.
  • The CDC is the primary funds source for injury research and is blocked by Congress from backing gun research.
  • Data do not matter to a great many people. It's how they feel that counts.
  • A 1993 study by Arthur Kellermann found that a gun in the home increased the odds of a murder threefold: Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home
  • Owning a gun can change behavior. Quoting from the article:
    quote:
    Researchers posit that even if keeping a gun at home does thwart the odd break-in, it may also change the gun owner's behavior in ways that put that person and his or her family more at risk. The fact that you have a gun may mean that you do things you shouldn't be doing: you take chances you shouldn't otherwise take; you go to places where it's really not safe, but you feel safe, says David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. This added risk may overpower any protective effects.
  • The NRA is against laws requiring secure gun storage.
  • The presence of a gun in the home results in a fivefold increase in suicide: Suicide in the Home in Relation to Gun Ownership
  • Garen Wintemute, physician and gun violence researcher at the University of California, Davis:
    quote:
    "There is really uniform data to support the statement that access to firearms is associated with an increased risk of firearm-related death and injury."
  • Gun advocates argue that the higher prevalence of guns in areas of higher firearm-related death and injury is a reaction to increased crime, not a cause of greater violence. This argument fails because increases in all kinds of violence do not result in increased gun purchases.
  • While guns are not a cause of violence, and violence begetting violence occurs independent of guns, the presence of guns makes violence worse.
  • The 1995 survey of 4997 Americans by criminologists Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz at Florida State University (Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun) projected 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year.
    But the government NCVS (National Crime Victimization Survey) of 55,000 households and over 100,000 individual respondents concluded only 65,000 defensive gun uses per year.
    And a Harvard study led by David Hemenway (The epidemiology of self-defense gun use: Evidence from the National Crime Victimization Surveys 2007—2011) used NCVS data to focus on crime victims and found defensive gun use occurred in less than 1% of the cases.
    Why the much higher rate of defensive gun use found by Kleck/Gertz than by the NCVS data? The article speculates:
    quote:
    Kleck and Gertz's survey and the NCVS differ in important ways that could help explain the discrepancy between them. The NCVS first establishes that someone has been the victim of an attack before asking about self-defense gun use, which weeds out yes answers from people who might, say, wave their gun around during a bar fight and call it self-defense. Kleck and Gertz's survey could overestimate self-defense use by including such ambiguous uses.
    Naturally Kleck and Gertz defend their results and strongly criticize Hemenway and the NCVS. My own personal assessment: 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year is absurd on its face. Whatever the specific reasons for the Kleck/Gertz result, obviously their survey has problems.
  • The NRA attributes the 41% drop in crime rate from 1996 to 2015 to the increase in guns, but what has actually increased is the number of people who own multiple guns. The number of people and households who own guns has actually dropped.
  • A January 2017 study (Evaluating the Impact of Florida’s Stand Your Ground Self-defense Law on Homicide and Suicide by Firearm) found that Florida's Stand Your Ground Laws resulted in a nearly 25% increase in homicides.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by NoNukes, posted 03-22-2018 7:43 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 137 of 1184 (830170)
03-23-2018 5:31 PM


Baby Steps on Gun Control Research
The instructions accompanying the omnibus spending bill that Trump signed today includes this sentence:
quote:
While appropriations language prohibits the CDC and other agencies from using appropriated funding to advocate or promote gun control, the Secretary of Health and Human Services has stated the CDC has the authority to conduct research on the causes of gun violence.
No funding was budgeted, but at least it's progress.
Source: Is the return of government gun research near?
--Percy

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 138 of 1184 (830330)
03-27-2018 8:45 AM


Repeal the 2nd Amendment? Seriously?
In my list of necessary actions promoting gun safety, the last and least likely was modification or repeal of the 2nd amendment. A surprising opinion piece appeared in today's New York Times by former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment. It's time.
As I argued a couple years ago in the predecessor thread, after a couple centuries the Bill of Rights now contains a few anachronisms. Soldiers are no longer billeted in private homes. A threshold of a matter of "twenty dollars" is ridiculously small for a right to trial by jury. "Well regulated Militias" have almost ceased to exist, those that do do not at all resemble the militias imagined by the 2nd amendment, and men no longer provide their own guns when joining the military. It's time for the 2nd amendment to go.
Vehicular deaths are often compared with gun deaths because they're roughly equal in this country, but we not only compare poorly with other countries on gun deaths, but even on car deaths. Check out this table, numbers taken from Wikipedia:
CountryGun Deaths per 100,000Vehicular Deaths per 100,000
Mexico11.2312.3
United States10.4510.6
South Africa8.325.1
Finland3.254.8
Switzerland3.013.3
France2.835.1
Israel2.093.6
Canada2.056.0
Turkey1.958.9
Norway1.753.8
Portugal1.587.8
Greece1.529.1
Sweden1.472.8
Italy1.316.1
Denmark1.283.5
Belgium1.246.7
Australia1.045.4
Germany1.014.3
Ireland0.84.1
Spain0.623.7
Netherlands0.583.4
United Kingdom0.232.9
Japan0.064.7
We not only suck at gun safety, but even vehicular safety.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Typo.

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by ringo, posted 03-27-2018 1:22 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 141 by Faith, posted 03-27-2018 9:09 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 152 of 1184 (830452)
03-29-2018 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Faith
03-27-2018 9:09 PM


Re: Repeal the 2nd Amendment? Seriously?
Faith writes:
The problem with a table like that is that particular areas in the US have a lot more gun deaths because they are crime-ridden areas, inner city areas where the statistics are enormously high. To include those statistics really doesn't give an accurate figure for the nation as a whole.
You don't think Mexico City has a higher gun death rate than the rest of Mexico?
You don't think Johannesburg has a higher gun death rate than the rest of South Africa?
You don't think Helsinki has a higher gun death rate than the rest of Finland?
You get the idea, but to spell it out, many, many cities around the world, not just those in the US, have what you call "crime-ridden areas, inner city areas".
Those aren't the areas where the second amendment is held in high esteem either,...
First, the difference between those on opposite sides of the gun control debate is not in their degree of reverence for the 2nd amendment. If you ignore those at both extremes then I think the rest of us mostly agree. None of us think weapons of war belong in the hands of civilians. None of us think the high gun death rate in the US is tolerable. None of us think just anyone should be allowed to own guns. None of us think guns should be completely unregulated.
We all revere the Bill of Rights, but as I've described before, the passage of time has rendered a few bits of it anachronistic, and one of those bits lies in the 2nd amendment.
...they are just violent criminals whose guns are mostly illegal anyway.
They are human beings making their way the best they can in the circumstances they've been dealt, just like you.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Faith, posted 03-27-2018 9:09 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Faith, posted 03-29-2018 7:30 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 155 of 1184 (830457)
03-30-2018 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by Faith
03-29-2018 7:30 PM


Re: Repeal the 2nd Amendment? Seriously?
Faith writes:
Yes I don't think those foreign cities have a crime area the way some of our cities do.
Well that's a pretty weird thing to think, that foreign cities don't tend to have higher crime rates and sketchy areas the same as American cities. Why would you think something as weird as that? Wasn't it you who repeated the fake news claim that Muslim no-go zones were scattered all across Europe? Oh, yeah, it was you, Message 571 in the The 2016 United States Presidential Election thread.
Perhaps you could show me otherw2ise.
You want evidence of the obvious? Sure. Here's some information about crime/sketchy areas for some typical western cities:
  • Mexico City: Highest crime borough is Iztapalapa, about which Wikipedia says, "Crime is also a major problem, with much of it related to drug trafficking and poverty." Image of Mexico City slum:
  • Johannesurg, South Africa: Image of Johannesburg slums:
  • Paris, France: Banlieues of Paris are high crime rate areas about which Wikipedia says:
    quote:
    However, since the 1970s, banlieues increasingly means, in French of France, low-income housing projects (HLMs) in which mainly foreign immigrants and French of foreign descent reside, in what are often called poverty traps.
  • Toronto, Canada: Waterfront is by far the most dangerous area in the city.
  • Lisbon, Portugal: Image of Lisbon slums:
  • London, England: The Lambeth area has by far the most homicides.
  • Berlin, Germany: Image of slums:
  • Naples, Italy: Image of slums:
  • Barcelona, Spain: Image of Barcelona slums:
  • Buenos Aires, Argentine: Image of slums:
Yes criminals are human beings too, and yes I could conceivably have had the kind of experiences that made me a criminal too. So what?
It is not "So what?" It is, "There but for the grace of God go I."
That doesn't change the fact that there is such a thing as people who live by violence and murdering other people, who are fairly called "criminals," and by the grace of God I don't happen to. So what?
It is not "So what?" We are all human beings and products of our environment. Should not our greatest concern be for those who have not been the beneficiaries of gifts that are in reality mere happenstance and serendipity?
So apparently you don't think there is sufficient disparity in the population density of different parts of a state to make your statistics questionable?
As you say, math is not your strong point, but go ahead, explain why non-uniform population densities of countries make gun death rates by country a questionable basis for comparing the gun death rates of countries.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Remove erroneous image of London slums.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Faith, posted 03-29-2018 7:30 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Faith, posted 03-30-2018 11:50 AM Percy has replied
 Message 159 by caffeine, posted 03-30-2018 5:30 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 162 of 1184 (830468)
03-30-2018 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Faith
03-30-2018 11:50 AM


Re: Repeal the 2nd Amendment? Seriously?
Replying to your last two messages to me...
Replying to your Message 156:
Faith writes:
Images of slums,...
In Message 153 you said, "I don't think those foreign cities have a crime area the way some of our cities do," so I showed images of slums which are sources of crime. Slums are typically found in cities.
...no mention of crime statistics there.
Here is proof that the level of crime in most cities I listed is greater than for the country as a whole, just like here in America (source: Numbeo Crime):
City, CountryCity Crime RateCountry Crime Rate
Mexico City, Mexico76.7957.92
Johannesburg, South Africa87.7383.52
Paris, France56.1247.94
Toronto, Canada36.6241.64
Lisbon, Portugal28.9731.00
London, England57.5245.91
Berlin, Germany40.6438.48
Naples, Italy67.2646.28
Barcelona, Spain46.1432.77
Buenos Aires72.8872.55
In most cases the city crime rate is higher than the country crime rate, just as here in the United States, where there are also a few exceptions. For example, New York City has a lower crime rate (47.7) than the country as a whole (56.66), but most US cities have a higher crime rate than the country as a whole. This is true of most cities around the world.
ABE: Correction, high crime rates are mentioned for London and Mexico City and Paris, and Toronto's waterfront is said to be "dangerous" but I still doubt the incidence is anywhere near ours,...
Crime rates vary widely around the world, as much because of anything real as because of differences in statistical gathering and analysis techniques. Here's Crime Rate by Country. And here's the list of the cities I provided before ordered by crime rate, except this time I've included a number of the larger American cities:
City, CountryCity Crime Rate
Lisbon, Portugal28.97
Toronto, Canada36.62
Berlin, Germany40.64
Barcelona, Spain46.14
New York, United States47.7*
Dallas, United States50.0*
Los Angeles, United States54.19*
San Francisco, United States54.41*
Paris, France56.12
London, England57.52
Phoenix, United States64.38*
Naples, Italy67.26
Philadelphia, United States69.10*
Houston, United States71.64*
Buenos Aires72.88
Mexico City, Mexico76.79
Chicago, United States77.35*
Johannesburg, South Africa87.73
I've put asterisks in the final column to mark the US cities so they stand out. The US cities seem to be scattered evenly around the table. It would seem that your sense that the incidence of crime in foreign cities is nowhere near ours is incorrect.
...and most aren't gun deaths either. Paris is all foreigners too, and I'm not sure how that fits into this.
Paris is a very multi-cultural city, but still 9.1 of the 11.7 million people (77%) are of French birth. But New York City is pretty close to Paris at 81.8%. Only 60% of the population of Los Angeles was born in the United States, making it more international than Paris.
Isn't the subject gun deaths?
Yes.
Instead you seem to be on one of your rants against me personally for some reason.
You replied to my Message 138 about gun deaths by claiming in your Message 141 that the reason was because "crime-ridden areas, inner city areas" are more common in the US than elsewhere:
Faith in Message 141 writes:
The problem with a table like that is that particular areas in the US have a lot more gun deaths because they are crime-ridden areas, inner city areas where the statistics are enormously high.
I have now shown your assumption that American cities have higher "crime-ridden areas, inner city areas" than foreign cities to be false. Therefore that can't be the reason that American cities have more gun deaths. It must be because American cities have more guns.
Back to the current message:
I know Mexico City is big on crime, drugs mostly I believe, rather than poor people in the slums, and crime areas LIKE OURS means gun deaths.
Again, that American cities have more gun deaths because of "crime areas LIKE OURS" turns out to have been based upon your false premise that crime rates in American cities are higher than foreign cities.
But what do I know since you didn't deal with the question.
I quoted what you said before replying precisely to it.
I explained my thinking about disparity in population density at the start of this topic (Message 143). I'm sure you disagree but you haven't said how yet.
I think you said one accurate thing in that message: "I'm not very good at math." Your example of New York City was poorly chosen since it has a lower crime rate than the rest of the state. It also likely has a lower gun death rate than the rest of the state. The gun death rate in New York City is very low (couldn't find definitive numbers, but the murder rate is 2.7, which is probably mostly guns), while in New York State it is 4.4 (a little more than half are suicides).
Replying to your Message 157:
Faith writes:
Sure I can feel sorry for criminals, and especially for their victims who also live in those areas and don't commit crimes. It's utterly irrelevant to the topic but you are on a rant, as I said, trying to find something to accuse me of.
I was responding to where you said in Message 141, "Those aren't the areas where the second amendment is held in high esteem either, they are just violent criminals whose guns are mostly illegal anyway."
But I do wonder if you would say the Mafia are "just making their way the best they can?"
We are a product of our environment. The Mafia's a funny example since they no longer have much influence, but were you raised in a Mafia family you would be Mafia, just as were you raised in a Muslim family you would be Muslim. Were you black and raised in the inner city with an absent father, poor education and lack of opportunity and options, the odds that you would be in trouble with the law by age 20 would have been much higher. Had that been your life instead of the one you actually led, would it have right to dismiss you as a "violent criminal"?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Faith, posted 03-30-2018 11:50 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Faith, posted 03-30-2018 6:05 PM Percy has replied
 Message 179 by Faith, posted 04-02-2018 4:54 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 164 of 1184 (830470)
03-30-2018 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by caffeine
03-30-2018 5:30 PM


Re: Repeal the 2nd Amendment? Seriously?
Thanks for the correction. Must have been a bad cut-n-paste of the image URL. The image of London slums I found wasn't of Lambeth, I'll see if I can track it down later. But whether I can find the image or not the point still stands. Most cities have their sketchy areas. This quality is not unique to American cities as Faith was trying to claim.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by caffeine, posted 03-30-2018 5:30 PM caffeine has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 165 of 1184 (830471)
03-30-2018 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Faith
03-30-2018 6:05 PM


Re: Repeal the 2nd Amendment? Seriously?
Faith writes:
Had that been your life instead of the one you actually led, would it have right to dismiss you as a "violent criminal"?
I didn't "dismiss" anybody. You are making things up I didn't say.
Since I quoted your actual words, it isn't possible that I made up things you didn't say. Here are your words from Message 141 again:
Faith in Message 141 writes:
Those aren't the areas where the second amendment is held in high esteem either, they are just violent criminals whose guns are mostly illegal anyway.
You referred to people living in such areas ("crime-ridden areas, inner city areas") as violent criminals.
I was speaking objectively and descriptively by calling criminals criminals. You are getting so PC you can't even follow a conversation. And if I were a violent criminal of course it would be right to CALL me a violent criminal. Sheesh.
You weren't calling a violent criminal a violent criminal. You were calling people who lived in those areas violent criminals.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Faith, posted 03-30-2018 6:05 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Faith, posted 03-30-2018 6:50 PM Percy has replied
 Message 178 by Faith, posted 04-02-2018 3:50 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 169 of 1184 (830482)
03-31-2018 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by Faith
03-30-2018 6:50 PM


Re: Repeal the 2nd Amendment? Seriously?
But you've used the excuse that you were misunderstood on a side-point to focus on that and are completely ignoring the points about the topic. Do you now understand that:
  • Your assertion that foreign cities do not have "crime-ridden areas, inner city areas" like American cities was wrong.
  • Your assertion that American cities have higher crime rates than foreign cities was wrong.
  • Your assertion that American cities are unique in the world for having higher crime rates than the country they're in was wrong (in a couple of ways).
Thus your assertion that higher gun death rates in the United States are due to higher crime rates in our cities than in foreign cities is wrong.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Faith, posted 03-30-2018 6:50 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 170 of 1184 (830483)
03-31-2018 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by Faith
03-31-2018 6:07 AM


Re: religiosity and guns
Faith writes:
I still agree with ICANT. Unbelievers never get it right.
What about the opposite position, that regarding guns believers never get it right. How should the difference be settled? Maybe by discussing the facts, something conspicuously absent from your posts?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Faith, posted 03-31-2018 6:07 AM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 172 of 1184 (830504)
03-31-2018 5:49 PM


Ted Nugent Goes on Hate Filled Tirade
On the Joe Pags radio program NRA board member and conservative rocker Ted Nugent spewed hate at the Parkland school activists. Taken from these articles, not necessarily in the order on the broadcast:
quote:
They...have...no...soul.
...
They’re actually committing spiritual suicide because everything they recommend will cause more death and mayhem. Guaranteed.
...
The dumbing down of America is manifested in the cultural deprivation of our academia that have taught these kids the lies, media that have prodded and encouraged and provided these kids lies. I really feel sorry for them because it’s not only ignorant and dangerously stupid, but it’s also soulless.
...
To attack the good law-abiding families of America when well known predictable murderers commit these horrors is deep in the category of soulless. These poor children, I’m afraid to say this and it hurts me to say this, but the evidence is irrefutable, they have no soul...These children can't be critical of any of the propaganda that they're fed and that's just sad.
...
The level of ignorance goes beyond stupidity. Again, the National Rifle Association are a bunch of American families who have a voice to stand up for our God-given Constitutionally-guaranteed right to keep and bear arms. We have no blood on our hands. No NRA member have ever been involved in any mass shootings at all, in fact the National Rifle Association is the lone organization that has taught firearm safety in schools, and for law enforcement, and for military, and for children's organizations and family organizations around the country for 100 years. So once again, this poor pathetic individual [Emma Gonzales] is a liar.
Concerning the accuracy of Nugent's claim that no NRA member has ever committed a mass shooting, the NRA becomes very narrow in their definition of a member when it comes to murders. When claiming membership numbers they count every magazine subscriber and course taker, but when there's a murder suddenly the roles shrink to just card carrying members. Adam Lanza (Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in NewTown, 26 murdered) had a number of NRA certificates for training and safety courses.
The NRA claims around 5 million numbers, and I'll use that number even though it might be inflated. There are 162 million males in the US (mass murderers are invariably male) of whom 75% are adults, for a total of 121 million. Let's also subtract the over-65 population, which is 13% or 21 million to arrive at 100 million males between the ages of 18 and 65. Of the 5 million NRA members 40% are women, so that means 3 million are men. So there's only a 3% chance that any mass murderer could be an NRA member.
As to Nugent's claims that the outspoken victims of Parkland are "soulless", could he please explain how he knows this and how did it happen? Did they have souls before the murder spree? If so, did they lose their souls immediately after the murders, or only after they spoke up? When they lost their souls, are those souls judged at that point and sent to heaven or hell, or do they remain in limbo until the original owner dies? If the soulless body repents and joins the NRA, does the soul return from limbo and reenter the body? How do we recognize those with no souls? What about the traditional belief that everyone possesses a soul throughout their lifetime?
One more question: Ted, do you have an economic stake in guns?
Gee, Ted, turns out you do! I haven't seen your TV show, but judging by the sponsors it looks to be all about guns. Boycott the sponsors of Nugent's Spirit of the Wild TV show. They're listed at the website, but also here for convenience:
  • Advanced Offroad Trailer
  • Alpine Innovations
  • Better the Hunt
  • Bushnell
  • Cannon Feeder
  • Clenzoil
  • Cold Steel Tactical
  • Dead Ringer
  • Excalibur
  • Freedom Mobility
  • Morrell Targets
  • Mossy Oak
  • NRA Carry Guard
  • Primos Hunting Calls
  • Shadow Hunter
  • Ted Nugent Ammo
  • Walker's Game Ear
  • Western Rivers
  • Yeti Coolers
Why do I have a feeling that almost no one here patronizes any of these companies?
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Coragyps, posted 03-31-2018 6:21 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 194 by Percy, posted 04-08-2018 7:53 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 180 of 1184 (830569)
04-03-2018 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by ICANT
04-02-2018 1:34 AM


Re: Problem
ICANT writes:
Religion does not fix anything. In fact it usually makes a mess out of things.
You and other here point out many times all the bad things that have been done in the name of religion.
The worst part of that is I have to agree many bad things have been done in the name of religion.
Good.
But none of those people were followers of Jesus.
Sure they were. You think no one doing "bad things...in the name of religion" were followers of Jesus? Followers of Jesus are acknowledged sinners, and sins run the gamut from white lies to murder to supporting Trump.
Even though many may have claimed to.
Ah, I see you have your own special definition of a follower of Jesus. Can I assume that "has done bad things" means one isn't a follower of Jesus? So in your eyes a follower of Jesus commits no sins?
But they can not point to Jesus doing any of those things.
Ah, another part of your special definition of follower of Jesus: someone whose only sins were ones Jesus committed himself.
The only time He could possibly have been accused of doing something bad was when He chased out the money changers from the temple because they had made His house a den of thieves.
So one can only be a follower of Jesus if the only sin one has committed is overturning the tables of the money changers.
You may now commence denying that you said what you just said.
Mod writes:
Are you saying that since god is imaginary
God is not imaginary He is real. Where did you get such an idea?
God is not real but imaginary? Where did you get such an idea? Books by ancient nomads don't count.
Mod writes:
religious people are being taught that they are the highest authority?
I don't know what religious people are being taught.
Oops, as a teacher of religious people you must be dissembling (hint: that's a sin, presumably one Jesus didn't commit).
I do know that a lot of people are being taught they are no more than a worm.
No kidding. What are the criteria for comparison?
They just evolved from a lower life form.
What criteria separate lower from higher?
Because of their teaching they have decided they are their own boss and no one can tell them what to do or not do.
So you're arguing that people are concluding that because they "are no more than a worm" and "just evolved from a lower life form" that they are "their own boss and no one can tell them what to do or not do." How does the conclusion follow from the premises?
So we have come to the point in history that taking a life is nothing.
Not sure, but are you maybe returning to the topic here? irregardless, again, how does this conclusion frollow from the premises?
If life is worth nothing then there is nothing that is important.
The logic seems okay, but you haven't shown that "life is worth nothing," especially from the perspective of people, who in general the world over seem to value life a great deal.
You just live and then you die.
That's a harsh way of putting things, but true.
You might as well enjoy the trip between your birth and death as there is nothing else.
Where in anything you said above did you show that people are caused to believe there is "nothing else"?
So just take what you want and don't worry about the consequences.
I've heard jail is an unpleasant place - are you sure you want to advise people to "just take what you want and don't worry about the consequences"?
Mod writes:
or you had something in mind I can't decipher.
The only thing I had in my mind are that there are people who have decided they are their own god. No one can tell them what to do or not to do.
A lot of TV preachers seem to have this problem.
...laws don't mean anything.
Oh, you mean Trump.
You want be a celebrity, no problem. Just get a AR15 find a crowded place and kill 40 or 50 people then kill yourself. You will be remembered for many years to come. At least you will have made a mark in history.
You deserve an award for rambling all over the place. So let me make sure I've got the logic straight here. People are being taught they're on the same level as worms and evolved from lower life forms, this causes them to think they're their own boss and that taking a life is nothing, therefore there is "nothing else" and life should be enjoyed with no worry about consequences, which leads to people who think they're their own God, so for the sake of celebrity they commit mass murder. Do I have that right?
Mod writes:
Almost like there was some reason for that.
Well knives, fists and feet, clubs and hammers kill a lot more people that the so called assault rifles.
Way to completely miss the point. You should have asked yourself why there are no efforts to ban knives, fists and feet, clubs and hammers. Could it be because no person with a knife, even a hundred knives, has ever killed 58 and wounded 851? Has any person with a knife ever even killed 17 and wounded 17? The 2014 Kumming knife attack in Japan that killed 31 and wounded 140 was carried out by 8 perpetrators, which is 4 killed and 18 wounded per perpetrator. How many might they have killed and wounded had they been armed with AR-15s?
And does an AR-15, a weapon of war, have any use beyond killing people and providing recreation for gun nuts? Can you use an AR-15 to slice onions? Hammer a nail? Knit a sweater? Walk to the store?
Mod writes:
ICANT writes:
Nor has anyone suggested we go back to the horse and buggy days to save lives.
Probably because it wouldn't save lives.
Why wouldn't getting rid of automobiles save lives.
You're again missing the point. Automobiles provide transportation, AR-15s kill people. We can't get rid of automobiles without having a massive negative impact on the economy and quality of life, something that would in itself cause a great deal of loss of life. But eliminating AR-15s and the like would have a minuscule economic impact but eliminate many mass murders.
Plus the safety of automobiles is moving in the right direction, while the safety of firearms is not:
The safety of automobiles is decreasing recently with increased distractions (mainly cellphones), but safety should resume increasing with increasing employment of crash avoidance systems. Would that efforts to improve gun safety were as ambitious.
I never heard of anyone being killed by two wagons running together.
Here's a list of horse and buggy accidents of the type that the horse and buggy era endured, many resulting in death. Getting kicked by a horse would become more common, too.
Mod writes:
That's a piece of pedantry that's no longer particularly relevant. What someone calls the weapon, doesn't change the weapon.
But the masses don't know the difference in an assault AR15 and a semi-automatic AR15.
Why does a civilian need either one?
At least 50% of the households in America has at least one gun in the house.
You are like way off. While personal gun ownership is up because more people own multiple guns, household gun presence is down and declining, about 30% right now:
For those households still with guns, the irony is that the guns decrease their safety. Those in households with guns are more likely to be shot.
But if there was a need for more households to have weapons in their homes the 3% of owners who own half of the weapons would share with their neighbors.
Anticipating the apocalypse, I see.
Mod writes:
That wouldn't work, and it hasn't worked. Furthermore: It's not like Hitler's private militia were waving bananas around.
But the people could not resist as Hitler had confiscated all the weapons the public had from everyone that was not loyal to him. Confiscation of weapons is the first step to taking over a country from the inside.
You're repeating a false Ben Carson claim (Ben Carson Nazi Gun Claim Wrong). There was no Nazi confiscation of guns during their rise to power. After WWI the allies imposed a gun ban on German citizens that wasn't much enforced. Gun restrictions were loosened in 1928 before the Nazis rose to power. The Nazis issued a new gun law in 1938 that loosened gun ownership restrictions a great deal more.
Hitler rose to power in the economic and political chaos after Germany's WWI defeat. He was the populist leader of the Nazi party when the German people voted them into power. Once at the head of government Hitler took advantage of circumstances, worsened by the burning of the Reichstag, to turn the German government into a dictatorship.
If all weapons were confiscated in the US with only the police and military holding all the weapons.
Then gun deaths in the US would decline precipitously.
It would not be hard for a dictator to come along and get a majority of those armed people on his/her side and remove the weapons from all the police and military personal not loyal to the group and there would be no resistance to the government.
How does a dictator just come along? I think you've been watching too many silly movies.
Ask the people in Iran why they don't rise up and change their government? They tried a few years back but had only a few weapons and the US would not supply them with weapons and because of that thousands were slaughtered.
You mean the 2009 election in Iran? 36 were killed according to Wikipedia.
Mod writes:
Exactly. And anybody who takes up arms against them finds out why that doesn't really work all that well.
You are talking about the civil war now. That was a whole different ball game.
Civil war and revolution are two different things.
As I said it would take 38 states to ratify a constitutional change to remove or modify the second amendment. That means it would only take 13 non ratifying states to block the change.
This is true.
How come it's the most religious who most strongly advocate implements of death?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by ICANT, posted 04-02-2018 1:34 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by ICANT, posted 04-05-2018 9:22 PM Percy has replied
 Message 303 by ICANT, posted 09-29-2018 6:52 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 181 of 1184 (830572)
04-03-2018 11:58 AM


The Russians are coming! The Russians are coming!
From today's Washington Post: Russian bots are tweeting their support of embattled Fox News host Laura Ingraham. Here are the first few paragraphs:
quote:
Embattled Fox News host Laura Ingraham has found some unlikely allies: Russian bots.
Russian-linked Twitter accounts have rallied around the conservative talk-show host, who has come under fire for attacking the young survivors of the Parkland, Fla., school shooting. According to the website Hamilton 68, which tracks the spread of Russian propaganda on Twitter, the hashtag #IstandwithLaura jumped 2,800 percent in 48 hours this weekend. On Saturday night, it was the top trending hashtag among Russian campaigners.
The website botcheck.me, which tracks 1,500 political propaganda bots, found that @ingrahamangle, @davidhogg111 and @foxnews were among the top six Twitter handles tweeted by Russia-linked accounts this weekend. David Hogg and Laura Ingraham were the top two-word phrases being shared.
Wading into controversy is a key strategy for Russian propaganda bots, which seize on divisive issues online to sow discord in the United States. Since the Feb. 14 Parkland shooting, which claimed 17 lives, Russian bots have flooded Twitter with false information about the massacre.
Through their bots Russia is taking advantage of the gullibility of the average American to increase divisiveness and encourage belief in absurd conspiracy theories. The most absurd (I think) was the "Hillary Clinton is running a child sex ring out of a pizza parlor" conspiracy theory, yet a lot of people still believe that one.
In this case the bots are increasing acceptance of all these things that are not true:
  • There is broad support for Laura Ingraham's attack on David Hogg.
  • There is a great deal of antagonism toward the Parkland shooting victims.
  • The Parkland shooting was just another mass murder hoax perpetrated by anti-American elements determined to take away everyone's guns.
Anyone who believes any of the above is a rube.
--Percy

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 182 of 1184 (830583)
04-03-2018 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by Faith
04-02-2018 3:50 PM


Re: Repeal the 2nd Amendment? Seriously?
Faith writes:
You can quote someone's actual words and still get it wrong.
And you can imply things that aren't true, as you're doing here.
In Message 163 you said, "You are making things up I didn't say." But I cut-n-pasted what you said, so it isn't possible that I made it up. Anyone can see that just by reading the thread.
In your Message 141 you said was that people living in what you called "crime-ridden areas, inner city areas" did not hold the 2nd amendment in high esteem, that "they are just violent criminals." It's kind of hard to deny, it's right there in that message in black and white.
But that was a side-point, which you're focusing on to distract from your truly serious errors. Do you now understand that:
  • Your assertion that foreign cities do not have "crime-ridden areas, inner city areas" like American cities was wrong.
  • Your assertion that American cities have higher crime rates than foreign cities was wrong.
  • Your assertion that American cities are unique in the world for having higher crime rates than the country they're in was wrong (in a couple of ways).
Thus your assertion that higher gun death rates in the United States are due to higher crime rates in our cities than in foreign cities is wrong.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Faith, posted 04-02-2018 3:50 PM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024