Does that mean you came to the conclusion that guns are good for society, and and a natural right that cannot be limited? If so, i didn't see that anywhere?Sorry for repeating facts - they do prove to be stubborn things.
"A natural right that cannot be limited"? Nature only exists in the United States? And only since 1791? Lol, read the Supreme Court decision known as Heller .... or don't. Btw, I must have missed the class where they taught "everything WT posts is a 'fact'" (all evidence to the contrary ...)
Does that mean you came to the conclusion that guns are good for society, and and a natural right that cannot be limited? If so, i didn't see that anywhere?Sorry for repeating opinions - they do prove to be stubborn things.
Fixed it for you
Does that mean you came to the conclusion that guns are good for society, and and a natural right that cannot be limited? If so, i didn't see that anywhere?Sorry for repeating opinions - they do prove to be stubborn things.
Fixed it for you
you must've missed the class too . . . :-)
Does that mean you came to the conclusion that guns are good for society, and and a natural right that cannot be limited? If so, i didn't see that anywhere?Sorry for repeating FACTS - they do prove to be stubborn things.
Fixed it for you
you must've missed the class too . . . :-)
Fixed it back to correct your misconceptions and errors.Since you state things emphatically, without any citations of support - you seem to assert your arguments are just fundamentally true-er...because you state them with conviction? Unfortunately for you - today is the day I picked to shoot holes in your error - both of you are asleep at the wheel (and just because you really want your error and misconceptions to be true - sadly is not enough to make them so.First FACT: In their study for the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy entitled: Would Banning Handguns Reduce Murder and Suicide: A Review if Interntional and some Donestic Evidence Don B Kates (LL.B Yale) and Gary Mauser (Ph.D., California, Irvine) found your ideas to be a myth..."...There is a compound assertion that (a) guns are uniquely available in the United States compared with other modern developed nations, which is why (b) the United States has by far the highest murder rate. Though these assertions have been endlessly repeated, statement (b) is, in fact, false and statement (a) is substantially so...There is a lot of data in that report - it will actually demonstrate that simply removing the gun ban cities of Chicago and Washington DC (without adding a city like New York) - US violent crime would be THE lowest of any major civilized country on planet earth.As a matter of fact, the well behaved gun owners of the states of Texas and Florida really help to reduce the nations violent crime statistics BY THEIR INCLUSION.According to a study by the University of Wisconsin (otherwise known as "Berkley of the East") and Bowling Green State University from 2005 to 2007 study by researchers found that police nationwide were convicted of firearms violations at least at a 0.002 percent annual rate. That’s about the same rate as holders of carry permits in the states with “shall issue”. http://lastresistance.com/5309/shock-2-public-mass-shootings-since-1950-occurred-gun-free-zones/#bUfokIzYeL8ZocUr.99 You seem to know well that natural rights were available prior to 1791, and are indeed in effect everywhere, including the US - but you don't seem to realize the significance of the FACT that only the US both recognized and embedded them into our founding/organizing documents.As to your mention of Heller, perhaps what you dont know that it doesn't mean what you think it means? http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2011/08/so-what-happened-to-chicagos-murder-and.html So what happened to Chicago's Murder and Violent Crime rates after the Supreme Court decision in June 2010 striking down Chicago's gun laws?In DC, the change in gunlock laws as a result of the Supreme Court decision meant that about a third of adults already had registered long guns that they were now allowed to legally load and fire for self defense. In Chicago, very few new guns have been allowed and that gun ownership is essentially restricted to relatively well to do areas (see below). Yet it is the poorest parts of the city where crime is the worst and where people need guns the most for self protection. One would thus expect a much bigger change in crime rates from the Heller than the McDonald decisions. Still, for Chicago, the change in the law has not had the bad effect that many had predicted.In short - having MORE lawful citizens, with legal guns, does seem to correlate with LESS violent crime...everywhere.Included - at only the extra charge of your embarrassment - the data doesn't support your concepts.If it did, then the president could simply lead by example a d disarm the secret service, the mere fact that he does not proves unilateral disarmament does NOT reduce crime - it dynamically increases it!And now, even you know it,
Does that mean you came to the conclusion that guns are good for society, and and a natural right that cannot be limited? If so, i didn't see that anywhere?Sorry for repeating FACTS - they do prove to be stubborn things.
Fixed it for you
you must've missed the class too . . . :-)
Fixed it back to correct your misconceptions and errors.Since you state things emphatically, without any citations of support - you seem to assert your arguments are just fundamentally true-er...because you state them with conviction? Unfortunately for you - today is the day I picked to shoot holes in your error - both of you are asleep at the wheel (and just because you really want your error and misconceptions to be true - sadly is not enough to make them so.First FACT: In their study for the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy entitled: Would Banning Handguns Reduce Murder and Suicide: A Review if Interntional and some Donestic Evidence Don B Kates (LL.B Yale) and Gary Mauser (Ph.D., California, Irvine) found your ideas to be a myth..."...There is a compound assertion that (a) guns are uniquely available in the United States compared with other modern developed nations, which is why (b) the United States has by far the highest murder rate. Though these assertions have been endlessly repeated, statement (b) is, in fact, false and statement (a) is substantially so...
WT, if you look through these threads this issue has been discussed ad nauseam, but the short version is this: no one here - certainly not me -- makes the (strawman) assertion in the Harvard report you cite. I don't think I have seen anyone here make the claim and I know I have not made the claim that "the United States has by far the highest murder rate" because "guns are uniquely available in the United States." that strawman argument you cite is actually trumpeted by gun advocate so often that the same Harvard center has come out many times since that 2007 (I think) report you cite and noted things like "cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide." Note: "in the US" http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/ What I have said and what Harvard has said repeatedly -- and this is not contradicted by the report that you cite -- is that as a matter of simple logic: MORE GUNS = MORE GUN VIOLENCE. In other words, the more guns you have around the more likely gun homicides, gun injuries, gun accidents, gun suicides etc. By way of example, the same Harvard center your referenced just issued a report reaching the (obvious to me) conclusion that we have many thefts and property crimes that become murders because the criminal (and even the victim) are more likely to have guns and guns are more deadly than knives and crowbars etc. I have posted it before but I can find the linkYou are more likely to get struck by lightning when there is a lot of lighting around. If you swim in a pond with one piranha you're less likely to get bit then in a pond with 10,000 piranha .. . more guns = more gun violence. Not even sure that is controversial, but hey . .
