If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ABC Local)   Concealed carry fails in Illinois House. This is good news for gun owners because if they don't pass one in the next few weeks you can carry any gun you want any time you want in the Land of Lincoln   (abclocal.go.com) divider line 331
    More: Cool, Illinois House, Illinois, Chicago Democrat, concealed weapons, gun owners, parliamentary procedures, Brooke Anderson  
•       •       •

7881 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Apr 2013 at 10:56 AM (52 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



331 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-20 01:47:38 PM

Silly Jesus: I love that they are continuing to ignore the real problem out of political correctness.  The problem, Illinois, is a certain culture that exists in your largest city, not the average lawful gun owner.


No, it is the people who follow the rules, obey the law, and fill out the paperwork that are the real extremists and nutjobs.  Catch up on your talking point memos, already, before they kick you off the mailing list.
 
2013-04-20 01:47:39 PM

mizchief: Phinn: Dimensio: Phinn: Concealment is the problem. Open carry is the solution.

Please explain why concealment is a "problem".

Concealment is the preferred mode of carrying for people who like to commit crimes.

The legitimate (i.e., defensive) use of weapons does not require concealment. Also, the open carring of weapons helps prevent aggressive violence by deterring it.

The other school of thought is that if enough people conceal carry bad guys don't know who is and who isn't defenseless so that those who don't wish to go through the hassle of carrying a weapon also get some benefit.


I don't really dispute it. My larger point is not to argue against concealed carry permits per se . It's obvious that permit-holders pose no serious threat of aggression, since the crime rate among them that is the same or better than crimes committed by LEOs. (And that's not even counting all the crimes LEOs commit with the full approval and encouragement of the state, nor all the crimes they get away with because of the complicity of other cops). And the availability of defensive force is increased. So, overall, it's not surprising that shall-issue permitting systems tend to reduce crime, ceteris paribus, relative to blanket gun bans.

My point is that prohibiting open carry is more detrimental to the cause of crime-reduction than is the prohibition of concealed carry.
 
2013-04-20 01:48:18 PM

Fark It: Anderson's Pooper: My take on this is that concealed carry and open carry would both be legal if nothing is passed.

That's exactly what would happen.  I'm pro-gun and I don't want that to happen, I think that guns in public can and should be regulated.


Regulated by people with guns?
 
2013-04-20 01:49:55 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: skozlaw: Plus, it's just a statistical fact that owning a gun increases your odds of being killed by a gun.

Just like owning a car increases your chances of being killed in a car accident!!  That doesn't mean there's not an overwhelming number of benefits to having a car that outweigh that risk.  Your "logic" is idiotic.


No, it's really not.  Gun owners pay more for life and homeowner's insurance because the actuarial tables show that bringing a gun into your home statistically increases the odds of dying a violent death for everyone in that home.

There are a lot of reasons to own a gun, but if someone cites "safety", "protection" or "crime deterrence" that's a pretty clear flag that they don't know what they're talking about.
 
2013-04-20 01:52:19 PM

Tio_Holtzmann: Yes, fark Pat Quinn and fark Chicago straight up the asshole with a chainsaw. Ugh. Central IL lifer, and its pretty rural/down to earth here. However, when you travel and people refer to your state as "the people's republic of Illinois", its goes to show how farked up Chicago is and how much power they wield. It'd be nice to split into two states, say north of I80 and east of 55 to the lake is Chicago; the rest of the state is Reality. If you drew the lines closer so it was easier to commute into shiatcago but live in Reality, I wonder if there would be a population shift.


hehehehehe
the BEST thing which could ever happen is it Chicago/Cook could secede from the State of Illinois.
The State of Cook would have casinos along the lake, with brothels. Pot would be legal.
2 senators and 7 representatives.
heaven on earth
sort of

not like the corruption could actually increase ... well increase much more
 
2013-04-20 01:52:48 PM

skozlaw: enforcerpsu: The restriction of guns only increased homicide by gun, not decreased it

This is also an utterly absurd argument. There is exactly no restriction on travel in and out of D.C. which is a very small area. To argue that a gun ban in one tiny geographical area surrounded by a vast (by comparison) geographical area with relatively few restrictions on the purchase, transfer and ownership of guns caused anything related to guns or gun violence is ridiculous.

You can't say a gun ban failed in one tiny area when that area is completely surrounded by a much larger area with virtually no real restrictions on gun ownership or transport.

While what you're saying might be factually true in the strictest sense, it means nothing other than that you can't ban guns in one tiny area with unrestricted movement in and out of it and expect a positive change to occur.


Actually you can say that.  It's even relatively easy to demonstrate.  In the areas where firearm access for law-abiding citizens wasn't particularly restrictive, the homicide rate was rather low.  In the areas where firearms were banned, the homicide rate is high.  Why?  Because criminals realize that it's much easier to use a firearm in the commission of a crime when there's not much of a chance of them being shot.

This has been shown time and time again - relax firearm laws for law-abiding citizens, homicide rates in that area drop.  Additionally, relaxing firearm laws and/or allowing concealed carry (even in restaurants that serve alcohol) seems to show absolutely no negative impact.

So, what's your argument again?
 
2013-04-20 01:52:54 PM

udhq: No, it's really not.  Gun owners pay more for life and homeowner's insurance because the actuarial tables show that bringing a gun into your home statistically increases the odds of dying a violent death for everyone in that home.


Neither my life insurance application nor my renter's insurance application included questions regarding firearm possession.
 
2013-04-20 01:53:31 PM

ggecko: But hey, I live in the south, you get a gun on your 1st birthday here.


Normally learn how to shoot around 12 years old and take your hunter's safety class.

/miss going hunting with my dad
 
2013-04-20 01:54:26 PM

Dimensio: Schroedinger's Glory Hole: ZzeusS: "If you've ever traveled outside the state of Illinois, you've been in a state that has concealed carry and you probably didn't even notice," said Rep. Michael Unes, R-East Peoria. "But the people who do notice are the criminals."


I just love this quote.
Suck it liberal bed wetters.

And here is your fundamental flaw.  There is no group called "the criminals."  Criminal acts are carried out by any person sufficiently compromised and will use what is available to them at the time.  Less guns available, less crimes carried out with them.  This will not stop Sandy Hooks, this will not stop any specific shooting, but it will reduce the overall available potential for criminal acts to be carried out with simple deadly force, as well as reduce the number of suicides.  Belief in the existence of, and fearing "the criminals" is a lot closer to being a bed wetter.

How exactly, does establishing a "shall-issue" based concealed weapons permit system increase availability to firearms? Are you able to provide statistical data showing that the establishment of "shall-issue" based concealed weapons permit systems increases rates of crime and rates of suicide?


I don't necessarily agree with this legislation as an effective means to reduce the available number of firearms.  I was just responding to the "bed wetter" idea that is popular among the self appointed sheep dogs.  I'm on the apathetic 'we already lost the gun debate' side, and I definitely don't support taking away anything already legally purchased.  The only solution I see is to tell gun manufacturers to GTFO, but that wouldn't make me a viable politician.
 
2013-04-20 01:55:02 PM

Your titties - Do they need sucking: soia: I say, fark conceal carry and issue only an unconcealed carry.  You man/woman enough to carry a gun be man/woman enough to show it

That is AWESOME.  Now, when you walk in to a 7-11 and someone comes in to rob it, he can walk around the store and see who has a gun and knows whom to shoot first, after he pulls out his concealed gun.


They would probably just wait for the guy with a gun to leave before robbing it.
 
2013-04-20 01:56:18 PM

Fark It: There's already a population shift going on, everyone is moving to places that aren't Illinois to escape the taxes and shiatty economy.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois#Demographics
Knock Knock
Who's there?
Reality

(for the reading and logic impaired, Illinois' population has not shrunk. Ever.)
(who knows, maybe the FARK IT was think the population of chicago)
 
2013-04-20 01:59:25 PM
Fark gun nuts are calling those who conducted one of the best operations in recent history Nazis. Nice.
 
2013-04-20 01:59:38 PM

mizchief: Your titties - Do they need sucking: soia: I say, fark conceal carry and issue only an unconcealed carry.  You man/woman enough to carry a gun be man/woman enough to show it

That is AWESOME.  Now, when you walk in to a 7-11 and someone comes in to rob it, he can walk around the store and see who has a gun and knows whom to shoot first, after he pulls out his concealed gun.

They would probably just wait for the guy with a gun to leave before robbing it.


Or cross the street and rob the other 7/11
 
2013-04-20 02:01:39 PM

ronaprhys: In the areas where firearms were banned, the homicide rate is high. Why? Because criminals realize that it's much easier to use a firearm in the commission of a crime when there's not much of a chance of them being shot.


Yes. A firearm they can easily obtain 20 miles east of the ban area and bring back with absolutely no trouble.

Your point again?
 
2013-04-20 02:01:41 PM

Dimensio: I prefer "shall-issue" permit systems to unregulated concealed carry (though I will say that I do not entirely oppose unregulated concealed carry) so long as the training course required includes substantial coverage of laws regarding the use of deadly force. Kentucky law requires that concealed carry courses address the conditions under which the use of deadly force is allowed; I found the instruction to be comprehensive and meaningful.


I don't really need a law to tell me when to use deadly force. If the given situation leads me to believe that me or my loved ones will die otherwise, I use deadly force. Being dead trumps going to jail.

No that being said, I personally would just avoid the situation if at all possible. Killing someone is going to be a huge legal hassle no matter how justified you are. Given the hatred spewing out of the anit-gun crowd these days there is no way in hell I would put myself though that for a random person I don't know.
 
2013-04-20 02:03:33 PM

Dimensio: udhq: No, it's really not.  Gun owners pay more for life and homeowner's insurance because the actuarial tables show that bringing a gun into your home statistically increases the odds of dying a violent death for everyone in that home.

Neither my life insurance application nor my renter's insurance application included questions regarding firearm possession.


You're right, I misspoke.  In some states, it is illegal for insurance companies to collect this information.

But the actuarial tables still place higher odds of death in homes with a firearm, regardless of training or secure storage.
 
2013-04-20 02:03:49 PM

udhq: BraveNewCheneyWorld: skozlaw: Plus, it's just a statistical fact that owning a gun increases your odds of being killed by a gun.

Just like owning a car increases your chances of being killed in a car accident!!  That doesn't mean there's not an overwhelming number of benefits to having a car that outweigh that risk.  Your "logic" is idiotic.

No, it's really not.  Gun owners pay more for life and homeowner's insurance because the actuarial tables show that bringing a gun into your home statistically increases the odds of dying a violent death for everyone in that home.

There are a lot of reasons to own a gun, but if someone cites "safety", "protection" or "crime deterrence" that's a pretty clear flag that they don't know what they're talking about.


You know what is an extremely useful metric for assessing one's risk of experiencing gun crime?

Proximity to a high population density of black and Hispanic males between the ages of 15 and 25.

Insurance companies are legally prohibited from using that criterion to underwrite policies, despite its utility.

Buying a gun is also a useful statistical proxy for having information that one is likely to be a crime victim. People who are threatened buy guns. Even if insurers may use gun ownership to assess risk, the mere ownership of a gun does not cause one to be a victim of crime or other insurable loss.

Also, wet streets do not cause rain.
 
2013-04-20 02:04:07 PM

skozlaw: ronaprhys: In the areas where firearms were banned, the homicide rate is high. Why? Because criminals realize that it's much easier to use a firearm in the commission of a crime when there's not much of a chance of them being shot.

Yes. A firearm they can easily obtain 20 miles east of the ban area and bring back with absolutely no trouble.

Your point again?


You fail at logic and reality is set firmly against you.  That's the point.

Fact - removing restrictions on law-abiding citizens seems to result in lower homicide rates.  Now, not sure about the actual causal link, but the fact is that it continues to happen consistently.

It also seems reasonable that criminals prefer to hunt in areas where law-abiding citizens can't own firearms.
 
2013-04-20 02:06:37 PM

udhq: Dimensio: udhq: No, it's really not.  Gun owners pay more for life and homeowner's insurance because the actuarial tables show that bringing a gun into your home statistically increases the odds of dying a violent death for everyone in that home.

Neither my life insurance application nor my renter's insurance application included questions regarding firearm possession.

You're right, I misspoke.  In some states, it is illegal for insurance companies to collect this information.

But the actuarial tables still place higher odds of death in homes with a firearm, regardless of training or secure storage.


They'd also point out a higher chance of death via vehicles for those who own cars.  As pointed out downthread, benefits outweight the risk.
 
2013-04-20 02:06:48 PM

Fark It: There's already a population shift going on, everyone is moving to places that aren't Illinois to escape the taxes and shiatty economy.


The problem is they take their dumbassed ideas with them and pollute functional cities.
 
2013-04-20 02:07:57 PM

namatad: ROFL

Would this invalidate the need to have a FOID card?
I love the fact that this could overrule any and all chicago laws by default.

/as much as you and I might be against gun ownership, illinois is the ONLY state left which does not permit concealed carry.
/strange but true


Wait, wouldn't "constitutional carry" invalidate Chicago's Firearm Permit?
I have no need for a permit to use my constitutional rights.

LOL
This might be the lawsuit which I have been looking for!!
LOL
 
2013-04-20 02:08:49 PM

udhq: BraveNewCheneyWorld: skozlaw: Plus, it's just a statistical fact that owning a gun increases your odds of being killed by a gun.

Just like owning a car increases your chances of being killed in a car accident!!  That doesn't mean there's not an overwhelming number of benefits to having a car that outweigh that risk.  Your "logic" is idiotic.

No, it's really not.  Gun owners pay more for life and homeowner's insurance because the actuarial tables show that bringing a gun into your home statistically increases the odds of dying a violent death for everyone in that home.

There are a lot of reasons to own a gun, but if someone cites "safety", "protection" or "crime deterrence" that's a pretty clear flag that they don't know what they're talking about.


Where did you get that information?  Because I've never been asked about gun ownership.  Also if guns serve no legitimate purpose, they why do police carry them?  Also..

* Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year-or about 6,850 times a day.(1) This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.(2)

The benefits outweigh the liabilities.
 
2013-04-20 02:11:59 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Where did you get that information? Because I've never been asked about gun ownership. Also if guns serve no legitimate purpose, they why do police carry them? Also..

* Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year-or about 6,850 times a day.(1) This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.(2)

The benefits outweigh the liabilities.


Kleck's work has been thoroughly debunked. The math itself is inherently absurd.

Hardly surprising, though, I should see you posting long-since-discredited crap. I assume you'll flee this thread with your tail between your legs like you did last time I utterly embarrassed you?
 
2013-04-20 02:12:49 PM

ronaprhys: Fact - removing restrictions on law-abiding citizens seems to result in lower homicide rates.


Yea. I'm the one who doesn't understand logic.
 
2013-04-20 02:13:07 PM

udhq: Dimensio: udhq: No, it's really not.  Gun owners pay more for life and homeowner's insurance because the actuarial tables show that bringing a gun into your home statistically increases the odds of dying a violent death for everyone in that home.

Neither my life insurance application nor my renter's insurance application included questions regarding firearm possession.

You're right, I misspoke.  In some states, it is illegal for insurance companies to collect this information.

But the actuarial tables still place higher odds of death in homes with a firearm, regardless of training or secure storage.


What they don't address , however is the cause behind it.  Are those deaths because the people getting the firearm live in a higher crime area, therefore putting them at more risk to begin with (which leads them to getting a gun)?  Or is it being killed by their own gun?  Defending themselves from a home invasion?  Stating that someone with a gun in their home is more likely to be killed by a gun loses some of its validity without the supporting information.
 
2013-04-20 02:13:33 PM

Phinn: mizchief: Phinn: Dimensio: Phinn: Concealment is the problem. Open carry is the solution.

Please explain why concealment is a "problem".

Concealment is the preferred mode of carrying for people who like to commit crimes.

The legitimate (i.e., defensive) use of weapons does not require concealment. Also, the open carring of weapons helps prevent aggressive violence by deterring it.

The other school of thought is that if enough people conceal carry bad guys don't know who is and who isn't defenseless so that those who don't wish to go through the hassle of carrying a weapon also get some benefit.

I don't really dispute it. My larger point is not to argue against concealed carry permits per se . It's obvious that permit-holders pose no serious threat of aggression, since the crime rate among them that is the same or better than crimes committed by LEOs. (And that's not even counting all the crimes LEOs commit with the full approval and encouragement of the state, nor all the crimes they get away with because of the complicity of other cops). And the availability of defensive force is increased. So, overall, it's not surprising that shall-issue permitting systems tend to reduce crime, ceteris paribus, relative to blanket gun bans.

My point is that prohibiting open carry is more detrimental to the cause of crime-reduction than is the prohibition of concealed carry.


I agree with you and think open carry should be legal for permit holders, but also think that in most situations your better off to conceal to save your self the hassle of people freaking out and calling the cops all the time.

Like if i'm just out shopping or something i would prefer to conceal, but when I had my motorcycle riding though the city I would keep it in my leg holster as a lot of guys were getting jumped at traffic lights and getting bike-jacked.
 
2013-04-20 02:13:33 PM

skozlaw: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Where did you get that information? Because I've never been asked about gun ownership. Also if guns serve no legitimate purpose, they why do police carry them? Also..

* Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year-or about 6,850 times a day.(1) This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.(2)

The benefits outweigh the liabilities.

Kleck's work has been thoroughly debunked. The math itself is inherently absurd.

Hardly surprising, though, I should see you posting long-since-discredited crap. I assume you'll flee this thread with your tail between your legs like you did last time I utterly embarrassed you?


That doesn't obviate the fact that firearms are frequently used for self-defense and that they stop crime.  Even the Brady study had a number that completely outweighed the number of homicides.

So, try again.
 
2013-04-20 02:14:53 PM

skozlaw: ronaprhys: Fact - removing restrictions on law-abiding citizens seems to result in lower homicide rates.

Yea. I'm the one who doesn't understand logic.


From what I can see, yep, you are.  Seriously - you've not proposed a single argument here that stands up to even mild scrutiny.
 
2013-04-20 02:17:27 PM

ronaprhys: skozlaw: enforcerpsu: The restriction of guns only increased homicide by gun, not decreased it

This is also an utterly absurd argument. There is exactly no restriction on travel in and out of D.C. which is a very small area. To argue that a gun ban in one tiny geographical area surrounded by a vast (by comparison) geographical area with relatively few restrictions on the purchase, transfer and ownership of guns caused anything related to guns or gun violence is ridiculous.

You can't say a gun ban failed in one tiny area when that area is completely surrounded by a much larger area with virtually no real restrictions on gun ownership or transport.

While what you're saying might be factually true in the strictest sense, it means nothing other than that you can't ban guns in one tiny area with unrestricted movement in and out of it and expect a positive change to occur.

Actually you can say that.  It's even relatively easy to demonstrate.  In the areas where firearm access for law-abiding citizens wasn't particularly restrictive, the homicide rate was rather low.  In the areas where firearms were banned, the homicide rate is high.  Why?  Because criminals realize that it's much easier to use a firearm in the commission of a crime when there's not much of a chance of them being shot.

This has been shown time and time again - relax firearm laws for law-abiding citizens, homicide rates in that area drop.  Additionally, relaxing firearm laws and/or allowing concealed carry (even in restaurants that serve alcohol) seems to show absolutely no negative impact.

So, what's your argument again?


I think one can argue that restrictive gun laws get passed in areas where there is high crime rates and that the cause and effect are reversed, however there isn't much evidence to the contrary that shows increase of crime rates after gun laws are relaxed for citizens. Worst case it has no effect on crime, best case it helps reduce it.
 
2013-04-20 02:18:30 PM

skozlaw: Farkage: [snipped for brevity, man]

If the average held, twenty seven people were the victim of a homicide yesterday in which the weapon used was a firearm. Plus, it's just a statistical fact that owning a gun increases your odds of being killed by a gun.

You're gonna need a lot more anecdotes to make any sort of mathematically sensible argument here.

/ protip: very few people will ever by the victim of a violent assault, which means both that the average person has little reason to fear the homicide-by-firearm statistic and has very little reason to carry a firearm for self defense

// it's almost like the gun debate isn't specifically about you....


If the average held, 118 people died yesterday in car crashes. Plus it's just a statistical fact that owning a car increases your odds of being killed by a car.
 
2013-04-20 02:20:45 PM

Schroedinger's Glory Hole: The only solution I see is to tell gun manufacturers to GTFO, but that wouldn't make me a viable politician.


The fun part is when states pass these restrictive gun laws, but then make exceptions so that the big manufacturers can keep operating in the state so they don't lose the jobs.
 
2013-04-20 02:22:24 PM

way south: Mock26: way south: BigBooper: Fark It: Silly Jesus: I love that they are continuing to ignore the real problem out of political correctness.  The problem, Illinois, is a certain culture that exists in your largest city, not the average lawful gun owner.

"Hurrr, the real problem is the blacks!"

Chicago's ghetto culture is about far more than just skin tone.....

And Chicago's problem with violence is about far more than just guns....

But guns at least allow the residents to fend for themselves where government is failing.
If they go concealed carry its going to be interesting to see how crime rates there repond.

So far as concealed carry bans, if I recall Hawaii and the US territories still have bans on carry and heavily restricted ownership (where its even allowed).
Getting all stats in on concealed carry would be a big win for us on the fringes.

It will be just like anywhere else.  The crimes rates will drop.  Or rise.  Or stay the same.

I expect a drop, but I'm hesitant to say they simply drop or rise more than just change to different kinds of crimes depending on how they are counted. Fewer rapes and assaults, more daylight (absent homeowner) break-ins.

As long as bad people are on the loose the devil will have his due. The point is allowing the good ones a means to keep the bad guys in check.
Fixing the crime problem is going to take work in alot of areas, but concealed carry would allow legal use of an age old stopgap measure.


There really is no correlation between concealed carry laws and crime rate.  Some places with strict laws have high crime rates.  Some places with strict laws have low crime rates.  I do believe that concealed carry laws do have an effect, but that effect is negligible when compared to all the other factors that contribute to crime rates.  Now, that effect is not negligible for the person who does successfully defend themselves with a firearm, and that is why I fully support concealed and open carry laws.
 
2013-04-20 02:22:27 PM

ronaprhys: Even the Brady study had a number that completely outweighed the number of homicides.


Ignoring the fact that you're intentionally dragging me into an argument I wasn't participating in by intentionally misinterpreting my response to another poster....

And? The Kleck study, when his ridiculous math is corrected, finds about 200,000 self defense incidences per year involving a firearm. The NIJ reports that in 2011 there were over 467,000 victims of a crime involving a perp with a gun. In other words, even when you limit criminal victims only to those victimized by a perp with a gun, guns are still used in crimes about twice as often as they're used by citizens to stop all manner of crimes.

But, no, you're right. The completely irrelevant and ridiculous statement that guns are used for self defense across all categories of crime more often than they're used just to kill someone is true.

Pointless... but true.
 
2013-04-20 02:23:10 PM

mizchief: Schroedinger's Glory Hole: The only solution I see is to tell gun manufacturers to GTFO, but that wouldn't make me a viable politician.

The fun part is when states pass these restrictive gun laws, but then make exceptions so that the big manufacturers can keep operating in the state so they don't lose the jobs.


Isn't Magpul actually leaving CO?  And I read something about a company in CT getting ready to do the same, no?

Even telling the mfrs to leave won't work.  Something on the order of 1 firearm per citizen exists at this point.  Plus, firearms are surprisingly durable and manage to last quite a long time with very basic amounts of maintenance.

And making them is easy.  Just ask the French Resistance.
 
2013-04-20 02:23:54 PM

ArkAngel: If the average held, 118 people died yesterday in car crashes. Plus it's just a statistical fact that owning a car increases your odds of being killed by a car.


Both of those things are true.

But what's your point?

ronaprhys: From what I can see, yep, you are. Seriously - you've not proposed a single argument here that stands up to even mild scrutiny.


You honestly believe that you're making sense, don't you?
 
2013-04-20 02:26:23 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: udhq: BraveNewCheneyWorld: skozlaw: Plus, it's just a statistical fact that owning a gun increases your odds of being killed by a gun.

Just like owning a car increases your chances of being killed in a car accident!!  That doesn't mean there's not an overwhelming number of benefits to having a car that outweigh that risk.  Your "logic" is idiotic.

No, it's really not.  Gun owners pay more for life and homeowner's insurance because the actuarial tables show that bringing a gun into your home statistically increases the odds of dying a violent death for everyone in that home.

There are a lot of reasons to own a gun, but if someone cites "safety", "protection" or "crime deterrence" that's a pretty clear flag that they don't know what they're talking about.

Where did you get that information?  Because I've never been asked about gun ownership.  Also if guns serve no legitimate purpose, they why do police carry them?  Also..

* Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year-or about 6,850 times a day.(1) This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.(2)

The benefits outweigh the liabilities.


Yeah, about that 2.5 million number?  Not so much.

 More like 70,000, meaning your gun is 4 times more likely to injure or kill a member of your household than defend against any sort of crime.

Like I said, there a lot of good reasons to own guns.  But "safety" just ain't one of them.
 
2013-04-20 02:27:20 PM

skozlaw: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Where did you get that information? Because I've never been asked about gun ownership. Also if guns serve no legitimate purpose, they why do police carry them? Also..

* Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year-or about 6,850 times a day.(1) This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.(2)

The benefits outweigh the liabilities.

Kleck's work has been thoroughly debunked. The math itself is inherently absurd.

Hardly surprising, though, I should see you posting long-since-discredited crap. I assume you'll flee this thread with your tail between your legs like you did last time I utterly embarrassed you?


I'm starting to think you're mentally unstable.  Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you?  You keep mentioning this fantasy you had of "schooling" me.  Actually, the last time you brought this up, I had to go and look up what the hell you were talking about.  After looking through the old thread, I found out that  you're just a half wit suffering from the dunning kruger effect, and didn't warrant any more attention.  It's more than a little disturbing that you apparently have this delusion that you're my nemesis when in fact, you're entirely benign.
 
2013-04-20 02:28:43 PM

ronaprhys: mizchief: Schroedinger's Glory Hole: The only solution I see is to tell gun manufacturers to GTFO, but that wouldn't make me a viable politician.

The fun part is when states pass these restrictive gun laws, but then make exceptions so that the big manufacturers can keep operating in the state so they don't lose the jobs.

Isn't Magpul actually leaving CO?  And I read something about a company in CT getting ready to do the same, no?

Even telling the mfrs to leave won't work.  Something on the order of 1 firearm per citizen exists at this point.  Plus, firearms are surprisingly durable and manage to last quite a long time with very basic amounts of maintenance.

And making them is easy.  Just ask the French Resistance.


Yep, and many of the more specialty shops are refusing to sell to the police forces of the states passing ban laws.
 
2013-04-20 02:29:32 PM

udhq: BraveNewCheneyWorld: skozlaw: Plus, it's just a statistical fact that owning a gun increases your odds of being killed by a gun.

Just like owning a car increases your chances of being killed in a car accident!!  That doesn't mean there's not an overwhelming number of benefits to having a car that outweigh that risk.  Your "logic" is idiotic.

No, it's really not.  Gun owners pay more for life and homeowner's insurance because the actuarial tables show that bringing a gun into your home statistically increases the odds of dying a violent death for everyone in that home.

There are a lot of reasons to own a gun, but if someone cites "safety", "protection" or "crime deterrence" that's a pretty clear flag that they don't know what they're talking about.


Where did you pick that crap up?
Total falsehood. Insurance rates are unchanged.
Deliberate lie or do you not check the crap you believe? Be honest.

/cannot understand farks who spout lies so easily checked
 
2013-04-20 02:29:39 PM

skozlaw: ronaprhys: Even the Brady study had a number that completely outweighed the number of homicides.

Ignoring the fact that you're intentionally dragging me into an argument I wasn't participating in by intentionally misinterpreting my response to another poster....

And? The Kleck study, when his ridiculous math is corrected, finds about 200,000 self defense incidences per year involving a firearm. The NIJ reports that in 2011 there were over 467,000 victims of a crime involving a perp with a gun. In other words, even when you limit criminal victims only to those victimized by a perp with a gun, guns are still used in crimes about twice as often as they're used by citizens to stop all manner of crimes.

But, no, you're right. The completely irrelevant and ridiculous statement that guns are used for self defense across all categories of crime more often than they're used just to kill someone is true.

Pointless... but true.


It'd be interesting to see all of the stats surrounding your 467K number - having a firearm in the general vicinity of a crime, whether or not it was actually used, seems like how one might actually screw with the numbers.  Secondly, how many of those crimes were drug-related and were criminal on criminal?   That does make a difference, you know.  Do you have any stats that restrict the crimes to only law-abiding citizens?  Also, there are various other studies that are far over your 200K number.

Again - DGUs well outnumber homicides.  That's a very useful number.
 
2013-04-20 02:32:33 PM

udhq: Yeah, about that 2.5 million number?  Not so much.


And you cite a study by an overtly pro gun control group?  How about no.
 
2013-04-20 02:32:57 PM

udhq: BraveNewCheneyWorld: udhq: BraveNewCheneyWorld: skozlaw: Plus, it's just a statistical fact that owning a gun increases your odds of being killed by a gun.

Just like owning a car increases your chances of being killed in a car accident!!  That doesn't mean there's not an overwhelming number of benefits to having a car that outweigh that risk.  Your "logic" is idiotic.

No, it's really not.  Gun owners pay more for life and homeowner's insurance because the actuarial tables show that bringing a gun into your home statistically increases the odds of dying a violent death for everyone in that home.

There are a lot of reasons to own a gun, but if someone cites "safety", "protection" or "crime deterrence" that's a pretty clear flag that they don't know what they're talking about.

Where did you get that information?  Because I've never been asked about gun ownership.  Also if guns serve no legitimate purpose, they why do police carry them?  Also..

* Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year-or about 6,850 times a day.(1) This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.(2)

The benefits outweigh the liabilities.

Yeah, about that 2.5 million number?  Not so much.

 More like 70,000, meaning your gun is 4 times more likely to injure or kill a member of your household than defend against any sort of crime.

Like I said, there a lot of good reasons to own guns.  But "safety" just ain't one of them.


You need to coordinate with your fellow gun-grabbers a bit better.  Skozlaw just put the number at 200K (which is very low, based on other studies).
 
2013-04-20 02:33:02 PM

ronaprhys: mizchief: Schroedinger's Glory Hole: The only solution I see is to tell gun manufacturers to GTFO, but that wouldn't make me a viable politician.

The fun part is when states pass these restrictive gun laws, but then make exceptions so that the big manufacturers can keep operating in the state so they don't lose the jobs.

Isn't Magpul actually leaving CO?  And I read something about a company in CT getting ready to do the same, no?

Even telling the mfrs to leave won't work.  Something on the order of 1 firearm per citizen exists at this point.  Plus, firearms are surprisingly durable and manage to last quite a long time with very basic amounts of maintenance.

And making them is easy.  Just ask the French Resistance.


Or Mexican drug cartels

m5.paperblog.com

www.everydaynodaysoff.com

resources0.news.com.au

Like with any other form of prohibition, you end up with a totally unregulated black market.
 
2013-04-20 02:33:04 PM
I'm picking up a Browning Hi-Power this afternoon, so I'm getting a kick out of these replies.
 
2013-04-20 02:34:33 PM

skozlaw: ArkAngel: If the average held, 118 people died yesterday in car crashes. Plus it's just a statistical fact that owning a car increases your odds of being killed by a car.

Both of those things are true.

But what's your point?

ronaprhys: From what I can see, yep, you are. Seriously - you've not proposed a single argument here that stands up to even mild scrutiny.

You honestly believe that you're making sense, don't you?


Don't think it, know it.  I'm not the one using failed arguments that have been clearly been shown false to argue your point.
 
2013-04-20 02:35:04 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: I'm starting to think you're mentally unstable. Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you? You keep mentioning this fantasy you had of "schooling" me. Actually, the last time you brought this up, I had to go and look up what the hell you were talking about. After looking through the old thread, I found out that you're just a half wit suffering from the dunning kruger effect, and didn't warrant any more attention. It's more than a little disturbing that you apparently have this delusion that you're my nemesis when in fact, you're entirely benign.


Soooo..... is this your weird way of admitting that you have absolutely no response to the actual math in that PDF? I assume if that's the case you're recanting your last post?

And you didn't have to "look anything up". I linked your last complete embarrassment for you when I mentioned it. Like this.
 
2013-04-20 02:36:29 PM

ronaprhys: skozlaw: ArkAngel: If the average held, 118 people died yesterday in car crashes. Plus it's just a statistical fact that owning a car increases your odds of being killed by a car.

Both of those things are true.

But what's your point?

ronaprhys: From what I can see, yep, you are. Seriously - you've not proposed a single argument here that stands up to even mild scrutiny.

You honestly believe that you're making sense, don't you?

Don't think it, know it.  I'm not the one using failed arguments that have been clearly been shown false to argue your point.


Yea when name calling and personal attacks begin it's clear that you have lost the argument.
 
2013-04-20 02:36:40 PM

ronaprhys: Don't think it, know it.


Okay, well, you're nuts and I'm more than confident that it's obvious, so I'm going to go ahead and just let our "argument" stand as it is for the ages to decide.
 
2013-04-20 02:38:46 PM
Has the Fark anti-gun penis envy brigade made it here yet to remind me how small my penis must be because I enjoy firearms?  I always love to read their opinions on the matter.
 
2013-04-20 02:39:25 PM

skozlaw: ronaprhys: Don't think it, know it.

Okay, well, you're nuts and I'm more than confident that it's obvious, so I'm going to go ahead and just let our "argument" stand as it is for the ages to decide.


The ages called. They said you lost. And embarrassed yourself in the process.
 
Displayed 50 of 331 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report