The Supreme Court May Finally Do Something Right!

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by DanaC

As can be evidenced by their reluctance to shoot fellow, armed criminals ?

Uh... dead criminals are:

A. a Good Thing
B. a Bad Thing

Check one. No trying to fudge about wild shots and innocent bystanders hit; that really amounts to incontrovertible evidence of the badness of criminals overall, does it not?

Really, DanaC. That you posted such a posting indicates you do not really know. Now do you have the remotest clue why I think the Left is the habitation of the stupid?

[Radar]

As can be evidenced by the sharp reduction in crimes in the states that have adopted concealed carry permits, especially when compared to states that have strict gun control laws like California, New York, or territories like Washington D.C.

http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba246.html

Originally Posted by NRA-ILA

The number of RTC (Right to Carry aka concealed permits) states is at an all-time high, up from 15 in 1991 to 40 today.9 In 2006, states with RTC laws, compared to the rest of the country, had lower violent crime rates on average: total violent crime lower by 26%, murder by 31%, robbery by 50%, and aggravated assault by 15%

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactShe...=206&issue=007

This information is verified on the American government's BATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms website.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/ycgii/1999/index.htm

[Radar]

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/factsheets/read.aspx?ID=18

The FBI reports that the nation’s total violent crime rate declined every year between 1991-2004, to a 30-year low in 2004, and that it has risen slightly in the last two years. By comparison, the most recent Bureau of Justice Statistics crime victim survey found that “at the national level crime rates remain stabilized at the lowest level experienced since 1973,” when the first such survey was conducted.

The FBI’s data show that since 1991, when the violent crime rate hit an all-time high, and 2006, total violent crime has decreased 38%, murder 42%, rape 27%, robbery 45%, and aggravated assault 34%. During 2004-2006, total violent crime was lower than anytime since 1974. For the last eight years, the murder rate (fluctuating between 5.5 and 5.7 per 100,000 annually) has been lower than anytime since 1965. Studies by and/or for Congress, the Congressional Research Service, the Library of Congress, the National Institute of Justice, the National Academy of Sciences, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have found no evidence that “gun control” reduces crime.

http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline

http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=406797

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Oh, now there's a telling rebuttal.

You've proven yourself immature, ignorant, pro-crime, pissy, and still pro-genocide even after confronting an example of how to be better than that, and firmly in the camp of the stupid. All these sins are aggravated by antigun opinions, which you'd rather hold than be right.

Get ahold of yourself.

[Shawnee123]

You told me! I'm so ashamed, now that I see the errors in my ways. If I had known, all those years ago, that there existed enlightened people such as you I never would have honed my opinion through my experience. I would have waited for you to provide this desperately needed illumination. I'm sure there is a special hell for non-violent trouble-making pacifists such as me. Lucky for the surely right masses, is it not?

Nanny nanny boo boo.

[Radar]

When they can't deal in facts, reason, or logic, they use insults. How typical and childish.

[Shawnee123]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Oh, now there's a telling rebuttal.

You've proven yourself immature, ignorant, pro-crime, pissy, and still pro-genocide even after confronting an example of how to be better than that, and firmly in the camp of the stupid. All these sins are aggravated by antigun opinions, which you'd rather hold than be right.

Get ahold of yourself.

Originally Posted by Radar

When they can't deal in facts, reason, or logic, they use insults. How typical and childish.

"They" do, don't they? Shameful!

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Well, to begin the enlightenment process with, pacifism isn't a philosophy that will sustain you in all circumstances, whereas my nonpacifism is. I'm using "my" only for convenience; I don't presume to own it, just to profess it.

My philosophy of Life And How To Do It doesn't make me die if I am lethally attacked. If a pacifist is lethally attacked, either the pacifist or the pacifism must die on the spot. It is not so with my nonpacifist, albeit plenty peaceable, martial-arts-influenced sort of lifeway. Remember what happened to Spexxvet when he tangled with Radar and me and Bruce over guns -- his pacifism disintegrated and he got stared down by about everyone in the Cellar. He's been quite silent on anti-rights anti-gun attitudes ever since. I guess a mind blown really is a mind shown. I do hope he's taking karate classes or something. They helped me be a good man, so surely they might do something for him.

You did right to be ashamed of that which is shameful. [Yes, your sarcasm is lost on me, for I pursue worthier things, and I think you should too. ] Now do better.

First on the guns-and-freedom reading list, oh, let's take for convenience this genocides chart from the JPFO and the page around it; and this article is really key to a full understanding of why some people are so very unenlightened about, well, people who don't want to get murdered and believe the best way is to rely upon one's own powers. The Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership are a fascinating bunch; I've been very impressed with them.

I know, I know; some people would think that's a sign they wouldn't ever read any of their writings ever -- but they do themselves a horrible Oedipus-style blinding if they take that attitude. How well do you see the light if you're blind?

[Shawnee123]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Well, to begin the enlightenment process with, pacifism isn't a philosophy that will sustain you in all circumstances, whereas my nonpacifism is.

It will sustain you in the circumstances that matter to you. My pacifism will sustain me in circumstances which are important to me.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

I'm using "my" only for convenience; I don't presume to own it, just to profess it.

My philosophy of Life And How To Do It doesn't make me die if I am lethally attacked. If a pacifist is lethally attacked, either the pacifist or the pacifism must die on the spot. It is not so with my nonpacifist, albeit plenty peaceable, martial-arts-influenced sort of lifeway. Remember what happened to Spexxvet when he tangled with Radar and me and Bruce over guns -- his pacifism disintegrated and he got stared down by about everyone in the Cellar. He's been quite silent on anti-rights anti-gun attitudes ever since. I guess a mind blown really is a mind shown. I do hope he's taking karate classes or something. They helped me be a good man, so surely they might do something for him.

You did right to be ashamed of that which is shameful. [Yes, your sarcasm is lost on me, for I pursue worthier things, and I think you should too. ] Now do better.

First on the guns-and-freedom reading list, oh, let's take for convenience this genocides chart from the JPFO and the page around it; and this article is really key to a full understanding of why some people are so very unenlightened about, well, people who don't want to get murdered and believe the best way is to rely upon one's own powers. The Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership are a fascinating bunch; I've been very impressed with them.

I know, I know; some people would think that's a sign they wouldn't ever read any of their writings ever -- but they do themselves a horrible Oedipus-style blinding if they take that attitude. How well do you see the light if you're blind?

I thank you for your well thought post, seriously. I guess I get upset because of the basic argument that "we" are wrong and hopelessly doomed, whereas I might think you are wrong but I don't see you burning in the eternal hell of misunderstanding of all that is right and true, either. I also believe in your right to carry your damn guns, whether I like it or not. Conversely, I can believe that there is something inherently wrong with guns, and be disheartened that most others don't see it that way.

I won't wow you guys with article after article protesting too mucheth; I don't have the brains or the patience to do so. Yes, I respond emotionally; that is who I am. It is neither right nor wrong. My opinions come from somewhere, where is not important nor relevant...but I'm not exactly an uneducated "all butterflies and lollipops" thinking individual. I feel that having my opinions, such as they are, should not automatically lump me into you and Radar's "Camp For the Criminally Stupid." And my apprehensions about guns in our society hardly make me a criminal who hopes everyone dies at the hands of evil.

So, we'll just agree to disagree, no?

[DanaC]

Uh... dead criminals are:

A. a Good Thing
B. a Bad Thing

Or C. irrelevant to the point I was making.

My point is, that the criminals with guns do not seem to be put off from shooting other criminals because the other criminals have guns, so why would law-abiding people carrying weapons put them off?


As for the rest of the post which you directed my way: you, sir, are arrogant and pompous.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Or C. irrelevant to the point I was making.

Not irrelevant. It's a choice between being an easy victim or being able to defend yourself.

Originally Posted by DanaC

My point is, that the criminals with guns do not seem to be put off from shooting other criminals because the other criminals have guns, so why would law-abiding people carrying weapons put them off?

Criminals do seem put off from shooting other criminals unless they have a way to outnumber them or otherwise have an unfair advantage. This is why they are criminals. Criminals don't want a fair fight. They know they can't outnumber regular citizens and they can't plan properly how to victimize someone if they don't know whether or not they have a gun.

When a criminal steals a car, he doesn't try to think of how he can get past the best security system, he looks for the car that doesn't have one. He looks for the houses that are easiest to break into. He looks for the person who looks like an easy target. This is why in states that have carry permits, crime (especially murder) has dropped dramatically.

Originally Posted by DanaC

As for the rest of the post which you directed my way: you, sir, are arrogant and pompous.

I'm sure you feel that way about a lot of people who happen to be correct when you are not. To be fair, it's easy to feel confident when you know you're right and the other person is wrong; especially when dealing with someone who is as consistently wrong as you. I'm not defending UG though. UG is wrong far more than me, and maybe as much as you on political matters, especially when it comes to foreign policy.

[DanaC]

I'm sure you feel that way about a lot of people who happen to be correct when you are not.

Not in the least. My assertion that UG is arrogant and pompous has nothing to do with whether he is correct or not. Nor has it anything to do with the fact that he disagrees with me. There are plenty of people in this forum with whom I disagree vehemently, and regardless which of us is 'right' or 'wrong' I would not accuse them of arrogance or pomposity. It is UG's manner which is arrogant and pompous.

To be fair, it's easy to feel confident when you know you're right and the other person is wrong; especially when dealing with someone who is as consistently wrong as you.

I see. Well that's that then. I have been deemed consistently wrong by the arbiter of all that's right.

[Radar]

I'm just saying, in most discussions we've had you seem to side with those who want to blow up Jews because they live on land that wasn't stolen, but which their ancestors happened to live on. You seem to be anti-gun. And if I remember correctly, weren't you supporting socialism?

In my personal opinion, you're on the wrong side of all these issues. I'm sure there is something we must agree on. I just don't know if we've broached that subject yet.

[DanaC]

The fact that you believe me to be on the wrong side of those issues does not make me stupid or beneath contempt; this is the subtext (if indeed something can be so explicitly stated and still remain a subtext...) of Urbane Guerilla's post.

That you 'know' you are right and hold that notion with such vehement conviction is a little worrying. Yes, you are right, I am a socialist. I hold my political convictions close to my heart. I am not lacking in intellect and that intellect has led me to the stance I take. In my more selfish, and arrogant moments I fancy that I know I am right. I recognise, however, that mine is but one opinion amongst many.

You are right and all who take a contrary view are wrong, possibly stupid, and certainly misguided. My friend, grow a little humility.

[DanaC]

Ok Ug. You win. You are without doubt the most impressive intellectual and I cannot even begin to touch your arguments. Capitalism wins over socialism again and I am in awe. I will of course be sure not to tangle with you on this field again.

Incidentally, it is less your tone I was complaining about than your manner....or should that be manners? I was raised to believe that civility costs nothing.


[eta] btw, at what point did this become a debate between capitalism and socialism? we were I believe talking about guns?