Quote:



Again, you’re missing the point big time.
The citizen who does not wish to carry a gun and does not do so represents no sort of threat to the gun carrier. The reverse is not true for the reasons I listed above. (post #266720)







On the contrary, I fully understand that point; but I respectfully disagree with the way you are driving the point to a conclusion. This is one of those "difference in kind/difference in degree" discussions. You appear to be offering DEGREE arguments, whereas the rest of us are making KIND arguments. Your observations about HOW MANY murders and HOW MANY guns erroneously leads to the conclusion that lots of guns lead to lots of shootings. We disagree. You further contend that if guns were controlled then people would be safer. We disagree. We contend that THE VAST MAJORITY of gun owners are responsible and safe. To argue that responsible people should not be able to own the guns they enjoy is a knee jerk response to misapplied statistics.

We believe that passing laws against guns would simply result in only bad and irresponsible people having guns. And they are the only ones who are likely to shoot people now. So changing the law would not change the degree of safety AT ALL, except possibly for the worse. If a crook thinks you have a gun, he might think twice before he breaks in.. but if he is sure you DON'T have a gun (and he does have a gun) what's to stop him?


Quote:

The stats quoted below show unequivocally and irrefutably that, in terms of intentional homicides, the USA is well over 3 times more dangerous than the UK.
What exactly is your argument? that without the private citizens’ right to bear arms you would not be at 5.4, per 100,000 but somewhere around the Mexican level (10) or higher perhaps?
You may be right, but to my way of thinking it is an argument which defies rationality.



THere is an old saying in business that 90% of your problems come from 10% of your customers. I submit that a relatively small number of repeat offenders are responsible for most of those statistics.

Why? because our system fails to exact penalties for lawlessness.
Why? because the same bleeding hearts who protest guns also protest justice.
Why? Because they don't really believe in absolute right and wrong
why? because they themselves don't want to be accountable
why? because they are reprobate
why? because they value their own opinion more than they value the law
why? because they think they are smarter than everybody else, and not subject to law

...but until they can get the guns away from the gun owners, they are afraid to disregard the law to the degree necessary to shove their point of view down everyone else's throat.

Which is why many people see discussions like this as a power play to change the laws under the guise of "enlightenment" ( But I digress...)

Quote:


But this is not at all what was said, which was that no discussion should be permitted on this subject.





actually, what I tried to say was that the question of whether the right to bear arms exists does not need to be discussed, because the right clearly does exist.


Quote:


If you’re mind is not altered by the weight of factual argument (US intentional homicides per 100,000 of the population vs. those in other western countries), then –I’m afraid for you anyway- there has been little point to the discussion.



are you suggesting that the only valid point that could have been derived from this discussion is agreement with your perspective? And barring that the discussion is pointless? Assuming that the data itself is valid, the conclusion you derive from it is arguably not what you hold it to be. Guns are the secondary player if not tertiary player in the stats. The problem with American Crime begins with a system that is (for a variety of reasons) unable to keep the bad guys off the streets.

Last edited by Pat Marr; 03/12/10 01:08 AM.
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ey71h8ep047758h/AAC12jNM0Hz9Q8zsh5iDeqNHa?dl=0