Guns

[vampire]

Nonesense, as already noted a large reason that Louisville's numbers are worse than NYC's is due to the DUI manslaughter issue, which is a social ill completely unrelated to the presence or lack thereof of weaponry. If I could seperate that out of both cities stats I would, and I would wager that would result in a lower violent crime rate for louisville.  4 out of 100K is a tiny difference, easily overtaken by the (likely much) higher incidence of alcohol related vehicular mansluaghter around here.  I'm not saying that it's somehow better to die from a drunk driver than from an armed mugger, but the statement above implies that Louisville's crime rate is higher as a result of privately owned guns, which is not the case.

Since you started to twist the truth and blame me for your references. I am done with you.

You tried to prove that CCW reduce crime and failed miserably. I said multiple times that guns have no effect on crime. Stop putting words in my mouth that I haven't said .

[1714829403]

1714829403

[1714829403]

1714829403

[1714829403]

1714829403

[1714829403]

1714829403

[TheBitcoinChemist]

Dude, please.  I'm not stupid.  i was comparing to your Toronto reference, not against NYC.

MY REFERENCE? WTF?? References Toronto and blames me? Wow.

{facepalm} Really, dude?  Do I need to go back and quote you?  I mentioned Toronto first, but you were certainly the one that implied that Toronto was more diverse than Louisville.

It wouldn't be hard for NYC to be challenging Toronto's crime stats.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=90086.msg1049484#msg1049484

Nice try, this one's your's.

edit: since I've been to Toronto multiple times, I kinda had a feeling that its more diverse than Louisville.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Toronto#Cultural_diversity

Also there are lot of eastern european slavs in Toronto that were counted as white, a lot of them don't speak English and live in their communities. Same as Brighton Beach in NYC.

[TheBitcoinChemist]

Nonesense, as already noted a large reason that Louisville's numbers are worse than NYC's is due to the DUI manslaughter issue, which is a social ill completely unrelated to the presence or lack thereof of weaponry. If I could seperate that out of both cities stats I would, and I would wager that would result in a lower violent crime rate for louisville.  4 out of 100K is a tiny difference, easily overtaken by the (likely much) higher incidence of alcohol related vehicular mansluaghter around here.  I'm not saying that it's somehow better to die from a drunk driver than from an armed mugger, but the statement above implies that Louisville's crime rate is higher as a result of privately owned guns, which is not the case.

Since you started to twist the truth and blame me for your references. I am done with you.

You tried to prove that CCW reduce crime and failed miserably. I said multiple times that guns have no effect on crime. Stop putting words in my mouth that I haven't said .

Of course you didn't say it, you implied it.  Do I need to define the term for you?

[TheBitcoinChemist]

Since you started to twist the truth and blame me for your references. I am done with you.

Okay, go ahead and click that ignore button every time your worldview is challenged by actual facts.  It really is the best way to protect yourself from the cognative dissonance.  Really, I understand.

[vampire]

Since you started to twist the truth and blame me for your references. I am done with you.

Okay, go ahead and click that ignore button every time your worldview is challenged by actual facts.  It really is the best way to protect yourself from the cognative dissonance.  Really, I understand.

What was the fact?

[vampire]

Of course you didn't say it, you implied it.  Do I need to define the term for you?

Implied? That's putting words in my mouth. I clearly said that guns have no impact either way.

[vampire]

Dude, please.  I'm not stupid.  i was comparing to your Toronto reference, not against NYC.

MY REFERENCE? WTF?? References Toronto and blames me? Wow.

{facepalm} Really, dude?  Do I need to go back and quote you?  I mentioned Toronto first, but you were certainly the one that implied that Toronto was more diverse than Louisville.

It wouldn't be hard for NYC to be challenging Toronto's crime stats.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=90086.msg1049484#msg1049484

Nice try, this one's your's.

edit: since I've been to Toronto multiple times, I kinda had a feeling that its more diverse than Louisville.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Toronto#Cultural_diversity

Also there are lot of eastern european slavs in Toronto that were counted as white, a lot of them don't speak English and live in their communities. Same as Brighton Beach in NYC.

Sorry, you referenced my post from: July 24, 2012, 11:32:50 AM

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=90086.msg1050525#msg1050525

Yours July 24, 2012, 12:06:10 AM:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=90086.msg1049484#msg1049484


12:06AM is earlier than 11:32AM


edit: I think we're done with the argument for now, we're heading over into the name calling territory.

/chill out

edit2: i can't even read now. but referencing toronto was ridiculous in the first place.
edit3: i am out of here for now. /bans myself

[myrkul]

You tried to prove that CCW reduce crime and failed miserably. I said multiple times that guns have no effect on crime. Stop putting words in my mouth that I haven't said.

People carrying guns may not have much effect in stopping crime, but they sure do stop criminals.

Armed citizen:
http://lasvegas.cbslocal.com/2012/06/25/14-year-old-phoenix-boy-shoots-armed-intruder/

Rely on the police:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

Hmm.... Yeah, I think I'll stick with the armed citizen approach, thanks.

[TheButterZone]

But, but... {tyrannical pro-criminal safety advocacy here}!

[myrkul]

But, but... {tyrannical pro-criminal safety advocacy here}!

His response last time I used this argument was "The police aren't there to protect you, they enforce the law. You want protection, call the national guard".

 

[TheButterZone]

But, but... {tyrannical pro-criminal safety advocacy here}!

His response last time I used this argument was "The police aren't there to protect you, they enforce the law. You want protection, call the national guard".

 

That actually makes sense, but with a darker meaning, given Warren v DC and all the "police aren't required to protect anyone at all" cases. Police can and often do choose to enforce undeniably (unless you love dancing in blood) unconstitutional laws such as "gun control" that does nothing but keep criminals alive and well and innocent victims defenseless to be murdered, raped, and maimed with impunity.

The National Guard was called out to provide protection during the last major civil rights struggle, integration/desegregation. I hope they do the same to put tyrannical evil fucks like Bloomberg, Booker, Emmanuel etc... in their constitutional place, when they inevitably end up in contempt of SCOTUS and surround themselves with their respective jurisdictions' almost universally tyrannical police brass, a few tyrannical line officers, and heavy weaponry to resist the US Marshals serving the arrest warrants.

[FirstAscent]

(I was once a Green, then I grew up)

Based upon this choice of words, I suspect what you mean is that at one time you thought it was trendy to be green, but didn't actually educate yourself on the science of ecology, ecosystems, and the environment, and then just got tired of what you decided was a fad, and declared yourself something else.

Oh, no.  I was never one for fads.  I was a hardcore greenie as a teen, my father was quick to make fun of me and my views.  If your father was a wise man, eventually you will start to echo him also.

I suspected something like this. It's just as I said. A hardcore "greenie" as a teen would be because it was cool and all that - not because you actually learned anything about ecology, ecosystems, etc. Feel free to prove me wrong, but I suspect you can't, because if you could prove me wrong with accurate knowledge regarding the subject, it seems unlikely that you would have then just "grew up" as you described it. One doesn't learn scientific knowledge, biology, ecology, and so on, and then just unlearn it for the sake of growing up.

[myrkul]

I suspected something like this. It's just as I said. A hardcore "greenie" as a teen would be because it was cool and all that - not because you actually learned anything about ecology, ecosystems, etc.

What are you doing pushing your idiocy on this thread? Don't you have a thread specifically for educating us on the dangers of the market system to the environment? Get to it.

[FirstAscent]

I suspected something like this. It's just as I said. A hardcore "greenie" as a teen would be because it was cool and all that - not because you actually learned anything about ecology, ecosystems, etc.

What are you doing pushing your idiocy on this thread? Don't you have a thread specifically for educating us on the dangers of the market system to the environment? Get to it.

Character studies of the individuals debating are interesting. Understanding their motivations, their level of knowledge, their reasoning, their mindsets, etc. is worthwhile. I do it with you as well. For example it was interesting that you attached some degree of credence to cryptoanarchist's recent conspiracy theory.

But you're right, I really should get back to that thread regarding the dangers of market systems to the environment. Thank you for the shove in the right direction. You're not all bad and dumb.

EDIT: However, Neal Stephenson's latest book and a '60s Japanese gangster film are competing for my attention currently, so the environmental thread may have to wait a little longer.

[TheBitcoinChemist]

(I was once a Green, then I grew up)

Based upon this choice of words, I suspect what you mean is that at one time you thought it was trendy to be green, but didn't actually educate yourself on the science of ecology, ecosystems, and the environment, and then just got tired of what you decided was a fad, and declared yourself something else.

Oh, no.  I was never one for fads.  I was a hardcore greenie as a teen, my father was quick to make fun of me and my views.  If your father was a wise man, eventually you will start to echo him also.

I suspected something like this. It's just as I said. A hardcore "greenie" as a teen would be because it was cool and all that - not because you actually learned anything about ecology, ecosystems, etc. Feel free to prove me wrong, but I suspect you can't, because if you could prove me wrong with accurate knowledge regarding the subject, it seems unlikely that you would have then just "grew up" as you described it. One doesn't learn scientific knowledge, biology, ecology, and so on, and then just unlearn it for the sake of growing up.

No, I can't prove you wrong, but I didn't do it because it was cool, it certainly wasn't anywhere near where I grew up.  I honestly believed the b.s. at the time, it just took a little bit of research into the real physics in question before I started to realize I'd been a tool.

[FirstAscent]

I honestly believed the b.s. at the time...

So you didn't actually learn any real science then? That's as I thought. When you're ready, real science within the fields of ecology and biology are available to you. Truly a shame. I hope when you converted to a non-greenie, it wasn't due to the brownlash put forth by the libertarian think tanks, which don't actually do science. I hope you're aware of their true nature. Are you? Do you know of Frederick Seitz? How about the Oregon Petition? Are you familiar with the libertarian think tank known as the Heartland Institute, and their sham of a publication entitled "Environment and Climate News"? Do you know that its editor is not qualified for the title, since he is in fact a lawyer for property rights and has absolutely no actual credibility within the fields of ecology and climate science? Are these types of organizations and their publications where you "furthered" your education? I'm fully prepared to address how you came about your "seeing the light", so to speak, if you're willing. There truly is no limit to the depths we can go, all with verifiable sources.

I'm sincerely sorry for the thread derail, but if you wish to volunteer comments within your debate about your graduation from being green, then be prepared to address what that really means.

[TheBitcoinChemist]

I honestly believed the b.s. at the time...

So you didn't actually learn any real science then? That's as I thought. When you're ready, real science within the fields of ecology and biology are available to you. Truly a shame. I hope when you converted to a non-greenie, it wasn't due to the brownlash put forth by the libertarian think tanks, which don't actually do science.

No, I was a Democrat for another 15 years or so.  It takes time to really overcome a lifetime of programming by what passes for education in this country.  Thank God & Tim Berners-Lee for the modern Internet & what it has become.  While there is as much misinformation available as truth, given enough time the truth filters through.  So yes, the older I get the more libertarian I become.  Like the old soviet saying went, 'if you're not a communist at 20, then you have no heart.  If you are still a communist at 40, then you have no sense.'

 I hope you're aware of their true nature. Are you? Do you know of Frederick Seitz? How about the Oregon Petition? Are you familiar with the libertarian think tank known as the Heartland Institute, and their sham of a publication entitled "Environment and Climate News"? Do you know that its editor is not qualified for the title, since he is in fact a lawyer for property rights? Is these types of organizations and their publications where you "furthered" your education? I'm fully prepared to address how you came about your "seeing the light", so to speak, if you're willing. There truly is no limit to the depths we can go, all with verifiable sources.

First, no I not aware of any of these references.  Second, they were not likely an influence on my journey.  Feel free to make your case as to why I should care about the qualifications or lack thereof of any of these institutions or persons, but it would have zero bearing on my own reasons for becoming libertarian.  Ironicly, I surpassed my own father on the conservative scale some time ago, as he is as anti-gun as anyone I've met here.  Looking back, it's a bit surprising how completely different a mature adult can be to his younger, ignorant self.

I'm sincerely sorry for the thread derail, but if you wish to volunteer comments within your debate about your graduation from being green, then be prepared to address what that really means.

Perhaps you should start another thread for that, and I'll follow.

[FirstAscent]

Perhaps you should start another thread for that, and I'll follow.

Fair enough. I might start another thread. Back to guns.

[myrkul]

Indeed, back to guns.

First, a little Ice-T on a Sunday afternoon:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-GwIbyp4xBU

And now, some maths:
Mass shootings, in chronological order:

    1966
    Charles Joseph Whitman kills his mother and his wife, and the following day climbed a clock tower at the University of Texas and picked off passers by with a sniper riffle. 15 dead and 31 injured. Charles was shot and killed by Austin police.

    1997
    Luke Woodham slit’s his mother’s throat and entered Pearl High School in Mississippi with a rifle. 3 dead and 7 injured total. As he fled the scene he was confronted by vice principal Joel Myrick who had retrieved a handgun from his trunk, and was roaming the school looking for the killer. Myrick apprehended Luke without firing and held him until authorities arrived. Investigators later learned that Luke intended to go to Pearl Middle School next.

    1997
    Satanist Michael Carneal opens fire on a small prayer group killing three and injuring 5 before being tackled by another student.

    1998
    Andrew Wurst takes a pistol to a middle school dance, killing a teacher and wounding 3 others. James Strand, a local merchant, apprehended Andrew with a shotgun without firing and held him until authorities arrived.

    1999
    Eric Harris, and Dylan Klebold kill 13 people and wound 24 at Columbine High School in Littleton Colorado. What many people do not know is that Columbine high school had an armed security guard on staff who stayed outside while the attacks when on, and once police arrived they stood outside the library while execution style murders happened right inside.

    2002
    Peter Odighizuwa takes a semiautomatic handgun to Appalacian Law School in Grundy Virginia. He kills 3 and injures 3, starting with the dean. Three students, Mikael Gross, Ted Besen, and Tracy Bridges, all retrieved handguns from their cars and apprehended him without firing.

    2007
    Seung-hui Cho opened fire inside the West Ambler Johnston Hall of Virginia Tech. Authorities apprehend the boyfriend of one of the victims. Meanwhile Cho walks over to Norris Hall and opens fire two hours later. 33 dead in all.

    2012
    Also in Aurora, Colorado, convicted felon Kiarron Parker entered the parking lot of a church and opened fire. He killed one person before being shot and killed himself by another member of the congregation who was carrying concealed… but you didn’t see that story on the news.

    2012
    And now this recent attack. James Holmes goes into a crowded movie theater in Aurora, Colorado and opens fire with an AR-15 semi-automatic assault rifle. 12 people were killed, 59 were wounded, making this the largest mass shooting in US history.

Average deaths in incidents where the shooter was apprehended by the police: 18.25
Average deaths in incidents where the shooter was apprehended by a proactive citizen: 2.2

Thanks to the folks over at the Silver Circle movie for the heads-up, and all the stats.

[nimda]

Ball's in your court, gun control. Here's my guess:
"That data is somehow irrelevant"
"Sure, but those are mass shootings. What about when a guy gets drunk and shoots his friend in an argument?"
"But having more guns will increase the number of shootings by a factor of nine, so more people will die overall"
"Stricter gun control will remove guns from the hands of mass shooters too, reducing the number of shootings by a factor of nine"

So now that I've laid out my straw-men, I encourage the gun-control side to be creative and not use one of the above arguments.

Play ball!