Starrfall on 22/2/2008 at 20:10
Quote Posted by a flower in hell
I try to derail the thread to stop argument and I get into another argument. I can't win!
Hey you places your bets you takes your chances sister!
heretic on 22/2/2008 at 20:14
Quote Posted by Thirith
Do you have any further information on this? It strikes me as overstatement, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise by some evidence.
Like I mentioned earlier, while violent crime is dropping in the states it is rising in the UK. There is a direct correlation with this rise in violent crime and tighter firearm restrictions.
"You are now six times more likely to be mugged in London than New York. Why? Because as common law appreciated, not only does an armed individual have the ability to protect himself or herself but criminals are less likely to attack them. They help keep the peace. A study found American burglars fear armed home-owners more than the police. As a result burglaries are much rarer and only 13% occur when people are at home, in contrast to 53% in England."
(
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2656875.stm) From the BBC
catbarf on 22/2/2008 at 20:46
Quote Posted by Thirith
Catbarf, you may want to check the setup for your visual/cognitive input: the colour depth seems to be set to 1-bit. You may want to consider setting it to 32-bit, or at least 8-bit greyscale
So, why ban guns entirely? Isn't that just as one-bit? Why not have restrictions on their purchase, as has been already suggested here multiple times?
SubJeff, you say that I lack the ability to discern, yet suggest a complete ban on firearms?
Swiss Mercenary on 22/2/2008 at 21:10
Quote Posted by catbarf
SubJeff, you say that I lack the ability to discern, yet suggest a complete ban on firearms?
You also seem to lack the ability to discern that he
isn't suggesting a complete ban on firearms.
You can add illiteracy to your lack of color perception.
catbarf on 22/2/2008 at 21:49
Quote Posted by Swiss Mercenary
You also seem to lack the ability to discern that he
isn't suggesting a complete ban on firearms.
Just going by what I see (
http://ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1706422#post1706422) here.
Quote Posted by Swiss Mercenary
lack of color perception
Look up what a bit is, please. I can't stand broken metaphors.
Now, going under the premise that he
isn't suggesting a complete ban, the question remains: Why is heavier restriction necessary? Evidence exists for gun control leading to lower crime rates. There is also evidence for the contrary. So what motivation is there for having heavier restriction?
Thirith on 22/2/2008 at 22:11
Quote Posted by heretic
Like I mentioned earlier, while violent crime is dropping in the states it is rising in the UK. There is a direct correlation with this rise in violent crime and tighter firearm restrictions.
"You are now six times more likely to be mugged in London than New York. Why? Because as common law appreciated, not only does an armed individual have the ability to protect himself or herself but criminals are less likely to attack them. They help keep the peace. A study found American burglars fear armed home-owners more than the police. As a result burglaries are much rarer and only 13% occur when people are at home, in contrast to 53% in England."
(
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2656875.stm) From the BBC
Sorry, that's an opinion piece, and as such it doesn't go very far to convince me. Surely there must be better evidence out there.
a flower in hell on 22/2/2008 at 22:20
The book that was posted earlier here, "More Guns, Less Crime" has a mountain of research and data on the subject. While I'll agree that it's certainly written from the perspective of those who support gun rights, it's also accurate and as unbiased as raw stats can be.
heretic on 22/2/2008 at 23:08
Quote Posted by Thirith
Sorry, that's an opinion piece, and as such it doesn't go very far to convince me. Surely there must be better evidence out there.
Flower beat me to the punch again, but just to add: You will never catch me trying to convince you or anyone else of anything. I only (at times) try to lead you or others to the fact that those in the opposition of our viewpoints are often just as valid and informed.
TTLG's groupthink is alive and well, and is a detriment to any reasonable discourse. I can't be the only one here that is pleasantly surprised by the occasional worthwhile debates that occur here from time to time.
The_Raven on 22/2/2008 at 23:14
You're not, that's one of the main reasons I like it here so much. The relatively small number of regulars doesn't hurt either.
mopgoblin on 22/2/2008 at 23:29
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
You and catbarf have been coming out with some the most ridiculous nonsense seen on TTLG since 2001. I just cannot be bothered to argue with such idiocy. All the sensible people on here see it. You, of course, cannot.
To me it seems more like you have trouble dealing with anyone who attacks your arguments, but does not take a strong position on the issue itself. You can't bring yourself to back down on the "guns are bad simply because they have destructive power" point, even though it's inconsistent with the implications of your "What are cars designed for?" post. Since you're not up against a strong ideological position here, you don't have the opportunity to dodge the issue by attacking some other point. When you can't find a way to attack the opposing arguments, you start attacking the people behind them instead.
