Seems somebody at the Miami Herald wants you dead

[glatt]

Originally Posted by theirontower

So this is my question to the people in the thread talking about guns being a direct reason for violence. This is not rhetorical, nor sarcastic. Do you think that violent crimes would have have occured if guns were not available? Do you think that if they had not had the access to firearms that they wouldn't have gone to a knife? Or somthing else?

I think that guns are the most effective weapon that is commonly available. I think that criminals are generally lazy and cowardly people who are emboldened by having a gun instead of another less effective weapon like a knife. Criminals would be more afraid to commit their crimes without that overwhelming advantage over their victims. The only way you can kill me with a knife is if you can outrun me or if you surprise me. Even if you do either of those two things, you still need to overpower me. It's simply more work for a criminal. Criminals are lazy, so they will do it less. It's simple human nature.

I think that violence would still exist without guns, but there would be less of it, and where it did exist, the damage would be less.

[Flint]

But there are guns. So...it's all kind of a moot point, isn't it?

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Flint

But there are guns. So...it's all kind of a moot point, isn't it?

Yup.

[Flint]

:::slowly backs out of thread, trying not to attract any more attention to a meaningless debate:::

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by glatt

I think that criminals are generally lazy and cowardly people who are emboldened by having a gun instead of another less effective weapon like a knife.

I'll agree with "cowardly"; I think "lazy" is less certain, given some of the ingenious criminal schemes that have existed. But by the same token that they may be emboldened by having a gun, they're inhibited by the knowlege that the law-abiding may have them too.

Originally Posted by glatt

Since prohibition doesn't work, the conclusion is obvious.
I think that violence would still exist without guns, but there would be less of it, and where it did exist, the damage would be less.

That's speculation, of course. Even if it were possible, there's no reason to think that depriving a violent man of weapons makes him less violent, nor that they would "do less damage"...whatever that really means.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

So you're suggesting that a particular group - liberals - are responsible for violence in schools Maggie?

They're certainly responible for making it safer for criminals to be violent in *any* victim disarmament zone: school, post office, airliner, etc.

At least with the Flight Deck Officer program we're allowing pilots commanding airliners the opportunity to defend the passengers and crew under their care. The encumberances imposed on those pilots is insane; that any of them take the matter seriously enough to put up all that crap is spectacular.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Aliantha
So you're suggesting that a particular group - liberals - are responsible for violence in schools Maggie?

Originally Posted by MaggieL

They're certainly responible for making it safer for criminals to be violent in *any* victim disarmament zone: school, post office, airliner, etc.
...

You think it's the Liberals' fault, even though conservative policy ensures that more guns are accessable to general public, for criminals to use? Wow, that's some logic you have going on, Maggie.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

These ain't no proper citations? Or does it not fit your world view?

A proper citation enables an interested reader to examine the original study to read how it was conducted and the logic behind its conclusions. "AMA 1974" is approximately as useful as "I live in New York and my name is Smith, look it up in the phone book".

[glatt]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

That's speculation, of course. Even if it were possible, there's no reason to think that depriving a violent man of weapons makes him less violent, nor that they would "do less damage"...whatever that really means.

First off, I never said "Since prohibition doesn't work, the conclusion is obvious." I'll assume you inadvertently included that sentence with my quoted text.

I don't know what you mean by "a violent man." Does that mean "in the midst of a violent act" or "has violent thoughts that he wants to act upon?" If a person has violent thoughts, I think they are more likely to act on those thoughts if they are confident that they will be successful. If they are armed with a gun, they will be highly confident. If they are armed with a less effective weapon, they will be less confident. I think it's very obvious that guns embolden men with violent thoughts to act on those thoughts when they otherwise wouldn't. Not in every case. Not every time. But overall.

Is this speculation? Sure. But so is your position.

edit: And when I say "do less damage" I mean that a gun does more damage than a knife.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

You think it's the Liberals' fault, even though conservative policy ensures that more guns are accessable to general public, for criminals to use? Wow, that's some logic you have going on, Maggie.

It's superior to logic that conflates the three different categories "the general public", "citizens legally entitled to posess firearms" and "criminals".

Disarming the law-abiding will not disarm criminals.


The number of guns in legal hands is not proportional to the number of violent crimes.

[Flint]

It's the formatting that convinced me...

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

A proper citation enables an interested reader to examine the original study to read how it was conducted and the logic behind its conclusions. "AMA 1974" is approximately as useful as "I live in New York and my name is Smith, look it up in the phone book".

You mean a link like this, that you posted, presumably so that we could READ THE LAWS? Which says

The complete Pennsylvania Statutes are not yet available on the web. However, selected portions have been made available and can be accessed by CLICKING HERE. These statutes, though available instantaneously over the web, may not be the current law. Court decisions overturning them, later statutes amending them, and a host of other factors come into play when interpreting them. They are provided here as a resource. They should provide some information about the state of the law. However, a competent lawyer, who from other sources will research the law to insure what is current, should always be employed in matters of importance.

And if you CLICK HERE (above)
you get

PENNSYLVANIA CONSOLIDATED STATUTES
UNCONSOLIDATED PENNSYLVANIA STATUTES

Which, in essence is a list of all the laws of Pennsylvania. So much for reading the laws concerning hanguns, MaggieL. Check your links and sources before you post them.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by glatt

I mean that a gun does more damage than a knife.

Well, that's petitio principi; (question-begging).

But it's also not true. Guns do have more range than knives, but a knife, depending on it's size and how it's wielded, can easily do more tissue damage than a bullet. And a bludgeon can deliver more kinetic energy.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Well, that's petitio principi; (question-begging).

But it's also not true. Guns do have more range than knives, but a knife, depending on it's size and how it's wielded, can easily do more tissue damage than a bullet. And a bludgeon can deliver more kinetic energy.

Yes. Yes. But the million dollar question is "what do you choose to carry, Maggie?"

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by tw

Therefore every spectator in an NFL stadium must be required to carry a concealed weapon as you do. Anyone who does not have a gun will be provided one. Then no crimes would occur. Therefore no deaths would occur. Therefore no players on the field need fear for their life. That is what MaggieL and Urbane Guerrilla both claim. Who believes this and who has real serious doubts?

Tw, I've seen for myself that an armed society is indeed a polite society. I think I know more about it than you ever will. If you are a genuine scientist, tw, rather than a poorly advised crank, undertake the ever-so-minimal research effort of spending six weekends at any shooting range you can get to, learning and doing the rather delicate business of getting your shots to fall within the ten-ring, among dozens of others likewise engaged.

The thing that has always struck me about the people shooting is how very nice, how unfailingly courteous, they are to each other. What's more, it continues after they're done shooting, chatting at car tailgates, yakking over a refreshment (club members, invariably after shooting, might adjourn to the members-only room for a beer), perhaps inviting one another for dinner. And I act just that way on the firing line myself: it seems nearly instinctual that when you are disposing of genuine lethal force, without lethal intent, that your manners become sweet, not harsh; reassuring, rather than otherwise.