Question for anti-gun folks?

[flaminlib]

This is directed at staunch anti-gunners, not gun control supporters necessarily. I support sound and effective gun laws but I want to hear from the true anti-gun crowd.

I am making the assumption that you want to ban firearms for 2 reasons. Accidents and intentional gun violence. Is that correct? If not, read no further, but please tell me what your reasons are. My following questions/arguments are based on those assumptions so I might have to go back to the drawing board :)

My question is, since gun ownership has remained fairly steady over time, since the 1950's (The Bureau of Justice Statistics Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics) how can you attribute the increase in gun violence to guns themselves? Wouldnt the historical trends in gun violence keep pace with gun ownership? Since there has been no increase, in fact a slight decrease, in gun ownership, wouldnt gun violence also decrease or remain steady if guns were the "cause" of gun violence?

Second, in terms of accidents involving guns, would you agree that the historical increase in reported incidences of accidents are a result of increasing concern, awareness and statistical measurements on "gun accidents"? There were very few if any (that i can find) surveys or measurements of "accidental" gun injuries/deaths prior to the 70's. Couldnt the increase in reported cases of gun accidents be to due to an increase in keeping statistics on those cases?

[MrBenchley]

1. BZZZT!!

"I am making the assumption that you want to ban firearms"
Thanks for playing. Here's some Rice-a-Roni, Turtle Wax, and the home game.

[Maurkov]

82. Reading Comprehension

From the parent:
"This is directed at staunch anti-gunners, not gun control supporters necessarily. I support sound and effective gun laws but I want to hear from the true anti-gun crowd."

Seeing how you are not in favor of banning guns, this was clearly not directed at you. Why go out of your way to jump down his throat when he's making an honest inquiry?

[MrBenchley]

89. Hahahahahahahahaha....

How many honest inquiries do you run into where the "honest inquirer" tries to pretend his own source is somebody else's delusion?

Even funnier, when do we ever see an RKBA "enthusiast" making an "honest inquiry"?

[Maurkov]

111. You were wrong about me.

I think you are wrong about him. Look at how he responds to posts that aren't belligerent:
#6->#11 reasonable and open minded.

You've been here a long time. You bring a lot of baggage with you into each new thread. When responding to someone with less than 100 posts, please remember that they've probably not been a party to the last hundred battles between you and Feeb. They may have a pro-gun position, but it isn't necessarily unreasoning or set in concrete. Not every RKBA enthusiast is an NRA drone. Being patronizing and adversarial is unlikely to convince them and can easily polarize them.

Please, help elevate the tone in this forum.

(I'd have sent this as a private message, but apparently 6 months and 47 posts aren't enough to earn a little trust around here.)

[iverglas]

115. can you tell us another one?

When responding to someone with less than 100 posts, please remember that they've probably not been a party to the last hundred battles between you and Feeb.

Excuse me ... hahahahahaha hah. Sorry. Couldn't control it.

(I'd have sent this as a private message, but apparently 6 months and 47 posts aren't enough to earn a little trust around here.)

Well that wouldn't have been nearly as much fun!

.

[MrBenchley]

117. Gee, I'm from Missouri...

"Not every RKBA enthusiast is an NRA drone."
Yeah? Could have fucking fooled me. They sure seem to parrot the same tired crap at the drop of a hat.

"Please, help elevate the tone in this forum."
You mean the way al the "enthusiasts" whacking off to their gun porn do? How droll....

[slackmaster]

121. Please spare us your sexual fantasies

I think we've all heard enough of them by now.

[slackmaster]

110. Amazing what some people will volunteer for

Eh?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

2. i am SEVERELY Anti-gun for me and mine

and for excellent gun control laws for you and yours. (kinda like normal non fundie christians feel about abortion)

[MrBenchley]

3. By the way...

Here's the Bureau of Justice Statistics Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics...want to show us the gun ownership figures?

http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/

[flaminlib]

4. Not sure what you mean.

Did i make the wrong assumptions or???? Why say "thank you for playing"?

The historical statics I have are hear.


http://www.gunsandcrime.org/numbers.html

[MrBenchley]

5. Your link

and is NOT the study you referenced. I gave you the link to the study you claim those figures are in.

Why not get an actual fact instead of a bunch of horseshit from dittoheads who talk about Kalifornia or try to peddle the phony Australian bloodbath?

[flaminlib]

8. I didnt reference a study

I referenced a compilation of gallup surveys that were collected by The Bureau of Justice Statistics Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics. That is not a study. But, if you want it from YOUR source, here is the link http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/1995/pdf/t256.pdf


Ok, is that better? Now on to the questions. Did I make the wrong assumptions. Please elaborate

[MrBenchley]

12. Gee, what that shows

is a steady decline...not "gun ownership has remained fairly steady".

"Did I make the wrong assumptions."
Got it in one. That wasn't so hard, was it?

[flaminlib]

16. Reread the whole paragraph

"My question is, since gun ownership has remained fairly steady over time, since the 1950's (The Bureau of Justice Statistics Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics) how can you attribute the increase in gun violence to guns themselves? Wouldnt the historical trends in gun violence keep pace with gun ownership? Since there has been no increase, in fact a slight decrease, in gun ownership, wouldnt gun violence also decrease or remain steady if guns were the "cause" of gun violence?"


But thank you for highlighting my point. How can you attribute increased gun violence to a decrease in gun ownership?

And again I dont understand your remarks.

"Got it in one. That wasn't so hard, was it?"

If i made the wrong assumptions, can you clarify it for me?

[MrBenchley]

21. Gee, who ARE you trying to kid?

"How can you attribute increased gun violence to a decrease in gun ownership? "
It's pretty fucking obvious actually...hunters have declined to just 6% of the population and hunting is considered by many Americans these days as a short step above abusing household pets...

"The number of American hunters has been in a slow but steady decline for the last 20 years, and in the last five years alone fell from 14 million to 13 million, one of the steepest drops since the USFWS began keeping records in 1955. And as the general population has swollen to 290 million, hunting has become important to an ever shrinking minority. Today, only 6 percent of Americans 16 and older hunt. "

http://www.fieldandstream.com/fieldstream/hunting/article/0%2C13199%2C458090%2C00.html

As fewer people hunt, the number of gun buyers that are lowlifes and nutcases increase...don't forget that it wasn't until the 1980s that you saw gun shows proliferate...

[flaminlib]

26. Well you tried

Gotta give you credit though, you tried your best. This is how you lost the argument, and my interest.

"and hunting is considered by many Americans these days as a short step above abusing household pets..."

You need to expand your circle of associates. The "many Americans" you refer to probably are acquaintences of yours and share similar attitudes toward guns. I would certainly retract this statement if you could cite a source to back up your assumption though.


"As fewer people hunt, the number of gun buyers that are lowlifes and nutcases increase...don't forget that it wasn't until the 1980s that you saw gun shows proliferate..."

So according to you, if you are a gun owner you are either a household pet abuser, a lowlife, or a nutcase. I think you have let your argument fall into the despair category. Ad hominem's aside, again please cite sources. Since you held me to such a high standard in my original post, I can only expect that you will abide by that same principle.


I know many gun owners that are neither hunters, nor lowlifes and nutcases. They are collectors, enthusiasts, and a few who simply feel better having a gun in the house, just in case. We obviously travel in different circles but, I wonder what makes your anecdotal evidence any more relevant than mine?

[iverglas]

30. ah, the smell of herring at noon

This is how you lost the argument, and my interest.

You can lose interest if you like, but no one's statement of opinion on a subject that is purely a matter of taste invalidates the facts and figures s/he offers.

As fewer people hunt, the number of gun buyers that are lowlifes and nutcases increase...don't forget that it wasn't until the 1980s that you saw gun shows proliferate...
So according to you, if you are a gun owner you are either a household pet abuser, a lowlife, or a nutcase

Gosh, in addition to getting out more, you may need to refine your reading skills.

The number of people who own firearms for the purpose of hunting has declined drastically in 50 years (see my other post regarding the demographics of firearms ownership also). Considerable numbers of other people have taken their place, in order for overall firearms ownership proportions to remain relatively constant. (The decline in firearms ownership for hunting has been much sharper than any overall decline in firearms ownership.)

There have undoubtedly always been SOME "lowlifes and nutcases" who have owned firearms, even back in the 1950s. Remember Machine Gun What's-his-name?

Is it reasonable to assume that ALL of the increase in non-hunting firearms ownership can be attributed to ... what ... a rise in the number of antique firearms collectors?

Or -- is it reasonable to assume that SOME of the increase in non-hunting firearms ownership can be attributed to a rise in the number of lowlifes and nutcases with firearms?

... what makes your anecdotal evidence any more relevant than mine?

What anecdotal evidence of Benchley's was that? The part where he quoted facts, and provided a source?

If you want to check my assumptions (in the other post) about demographic changes, you can always go to a US census site. Me, I just think it's fairly obvious that there have been demographic changes, and that your data did not account for them.

.

[MrBenchley]

33. This is the part I love with RKBA "enthusiasts"

They begin by pretending they're asking an honest reasonable question, but then they get pissy when they hear the answer.

And as you made obvious, we wouldn't have all these citizens shot daily if most of the folks getting guns were antique collectors...

[flaminlib]

36. Still havent heard an answer LOL

You STILL havent answered. Why not? What are you positions?


Correct my assumptions, please. Do you support banning all firearms or not? For the reasons I gave or some other reasons?


"And as you made obvious, we wouldn't have all these citizens shot daily if most of the folks getting guns were antique collectors..."


Why DO we have all these citizens shot daily? Are guns the reason? See, we are getting back to my original question. We've come full circle and so far, you havent answered my question?

[MrBenchley]

42. I'm fucking sorry...

Perhaps you'd like to point out the post where you asked me what I thought instead of telling me what I thought.

"Why DO we have all these citizens shot daily? Are guns the reason?"
The shooters sure as shit sure aren't flipping the bullets at them off the point of a jackknife.

Yeah, how could these people be getting shot without guns? It's a real mystery...let's call Nancy fucking Drew or the Hardy Boys....Jeepers! Could letting the corrupt gun industry set public policy possibly be the reason why so many of our fellow citizens are getting shot? Do you suppose we should look for some objective evidence on places like gunfetish.com?

Then let's fart around and ask how the corrupt gun industry could possibly have anything to do with it.

Doesn't this act EVER get old?

[flaminlib]

45. Doesn't this act EVER get old?

I was going to ask you that.


"Perhaps you'd like to point out the post where you asked me what I thought instead of telling me what I thought."

The original post....did you read it? I asked quite clearly if i had made false assumptions. I further asked for clarification if that was the case. I still havent got any clarification nor have you actually stated whether my assumptions were wrong.

"The shooters sure as shit sure aren't flipping the bullets at them off the point of a jackknife."

Thank you! The point was and is, why are there shooters to begin with? Are guns the reason people shoot other people? Could there be any other reason?

"Then let's fart around and ask how the corrupt gun industry could possibly have anything to do with it."

And McDonalds made us all fat... I get ya. Thanks

[iverglas]

49. civil discourse, chapter one

You're an idiot and you don't know anything and your motives are evil and you're proposing a really stupid and unpleasant thing.

What? You say you aren't, and you do, and they aren't, and you aren't??

Why, now you must tell me where I went wrong ...


Not.

.

[flaminlib]

52. Not gonna work

If you equate banning firearms with being an idiot, you might be on the wrong forum.

I offered an assumption, then asked if my assumptions were correct or not. That was the FIRST step in this debate and it has yet to be answered but for a couple folks who, like me, have grown tired of the silly back and forth no-answer ad hominems.

[MrBenchley]

53. You know Iverglas, I used to be pro-gun

but then I was surprised to learn that pretty much every racist around, like Larry Pratt and the Aryan Nation, is peddling that pro-gun propaganda. Can this really be true? (snicker)

[flaminlib]

56. Oh yes, thank you

Now gun owners are racist too.

Thanks, this is helpful

[MrBenchley]

61. Glad to be of help...

I just said Larry Pratt and the Aryan Nation were racist, but clearly, you know gun owners better than I do...

[flaminlib]

64. Its a damn shame...

You had a chance to make a reasoned argument about gun ownership and you've pissed it away on this type of crap.

[MrBenchley]

67. Next ask me

if I care what YOU think is a "reasoned argument."

[flaminlib]

72. Well you have shown a propensity for reason so...

maybe you should offer one instead. Like, why wont MrBenchley answer the original question?

that would a good one to start with, ya think?

[MrBenchley]

76. Gee, and you have shown no propensity for reason

"why wont MrBenchley answer the original question?"
Go see response one.

[flaminlib]

79. This qualifies as an answer in your mind???

"Thanks for playing. Here's some Rice-a-Roni, Turtle Wax, and the home game."


Fantastic... I thank you for your reasoned and informed response.

[MrBenchley]

80. For a question like that? It sure does.

[flaminlib]

83. Really?

The first question was, am i wrong? Can you answer even that?


Do you support banning all firearms or not?

[MrBenchley]

85. Really.

[flaminlib]

90. Where is your answer?

Specific, not ad hominem attacks or ridiculing grammar or spelling or whatever tactic you want to try. Where is your answer to my original question? Why do you shy away from stating your position?

[MrBenchley]

97. Too TOO funny...

"Why do you shy away from stating your position?"
You mean after all these posts where you were fucking telling me my position and distorting what I had to say, and trying to pretend your source was in my imagination, NOW you sincerely want to know what it is? That IS a big fucking laugh.

[flaminlib]

100. Cant imagine why you are so reluctant...

to state your opinion. I never told you what your positions were, did I?

Ive been trying to get you to state it but you wont.

[DavidMS]

133. Must we go though this again?

Its no diffrent from the clowns who support Pyongyang and the Shining Path Gurella Terrorist group and others terrorists and totalatarian regiemes. These Include the IAC, Refuse & Resist, Internation ANSWER, etc.

http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2002/10/16/protest/

Extreemists burn with excitement when the opperunity exists to hijack a popular position presents itself.

[MrBenchley]

51. Yeah, I'll bet you were...

How many fucking newbie posts have we had now where we have "enthusiasts" asking breathlessly why people want to "blame guns" and "ban guns?"

I guess it's a step up from the old "I was against guns but I was surprised to learn." The RKBA crowd ran THAT one into the ground months ago.

"The point was and is, why are there shooters to begin with? "
Is THAT the point? Jeeze, why didn't you ask that?

"And McDonalds made us all fat"
Not all...the NRA and the GOP made some fat between the ears...

[flaminlib]

55. Are you finished?

This looks alot like a concession.

Just wondering if you will ever comment on whether my assumptions were correct or not?

[MrBenchley]

60. I just got started....

"This looks alot like a concession. "
Yeah, and a big decline looked like holding steady to you too.

"Just wondering if you will ever comment on whether my assumptions were correct or not?"
You mean you really need to be told your assumptions are horseshit? Okay. Your assumptions were horseshit.

[flaminlib]

65. no, i think you are finished

Youve proven, with relentless hostility, that you will NOT address the issue. It was fun pointing that out to you over and over again but, I need to move on.

[MrBenchley]

68. Come back and play

when you've got an actual fact....

[flaminlib]

71. I would if you will read them

But you wont.... You wont answer my questions, wont clarify your positions, wont read any stats, wont offer an counter argument. Its just a hassle.

This is like arguing with my son about why they have to go to school!

[MrBenchley]

75. I read facts...

But then I don't have to pretend I've never heard of the RKBA webring either....

"This is like arguing with my son about why they have to go to school!"
Put your son on the keyboard, and see if he knows that 49 isn't equal to 41...

Maybe he even knows something about subject/pronoun agreement...

[flaminlib]

81. Well as long as you arent addressing the issue, i guess your safe

I have NEVER heard of the RKBA webring. I went looking for stats and i found them.

"Put your son on the keyboard, and see if he knows that 49 isn't equal to 41..."

And that hurts my original argument how???? LOL

"Maybe he even knows something about subject/pronoun agreement..."

When all else fails, and you have, bring on the grammar lessons. Whats next, punctuation?

[MrBenchley]

86. What issue?

"I have NEVER heard of the RKBA webring. I went looking for stats and i found them."
Uh-huh....hope you're not trying to make a living in sales.

[flaminlib]

92. When you cant win, attack!

Can you say ad hominem?

Can you even admit that YOUR source reported the same figures?

Is your sematical window closing?

[MrBenchley]

94. Gee, so far I'm the only one with any facts

"Is your sematical window closing?"
Better put your son on the keyboard. Maybe he can explain what the fuck a "sematical window " is.

[flaminlib]

96. What facts?

Show me anything you provided, excluding field and stream magazine LOL.


OH you are persistant if nothing else.

[MrBenchley]

99. I am persistant...

and I've shown that the percentage of gun owners is DECLINING, not holding steady, and that the number of hunters is delcining rapidly.

And you're trying to pretend you don't know anything about the source you dredged up. Says it all.

"excluding field and stream magazine"
Why? Because it's an actual source that backed up EXACTLY what I said?

[flaminlib]

102. wow, you are starting to construct an argument

"and I've shown that the percentage of gun owners is DECLINING, not holding steady, and that the number of hunters is delcining rapidly."

Ok, so what is your point? Finish your thoughts please

[MrBenchley]

No, I'll leave you to keep asking

"what could he possibly mean?" and why won't you answer?" and "what is the RKBA web ring?"

[MrBenchley]

31. There IS a laugh..

"You need to expand your circle of associates."
Why? Most of the people I know don't need to get their jollies killing something else.

"So according to you, if you are a gun owner you are either a household pet abuser, a lowlife, or a nutcase."
Well, where would the RKBA cause be without distortion, denial and outright deception?

"I wonder what makes your anecdotal evidence any more relevant than mine?"
For one thing, you decided to quiz me on what you ASSUMED I thought. If you don't want to hear it, you shouldn't have fucking asked.

For another, I didn't spout a false statistic, then piss and moan about "high standards" when it was pointed out.

[flaminlib]

34. Persistance pays, is that your strategy?

You need to expand your horizons a little and understand the gun owners do not equate to people who "get their jollies killing something else".

"Well, where would the RKBA cause be without distortion, denial and outright deception?"

Tell me how anyone can come to any other conclusion based on what you have said?

"For one thing, you decided to quiz me on what you ASSUMED I thought. If you don't want to hear it, you shouldn't have fucking asked"

STILL waiting for you to correct me. Anytime today or are you hesitant to put your beliefs down for the record?

"For another, I didn't spout a false statistic, then piss and moan about "high standards" when it was pointed out."

What FALSE statistic?????? LOL. The source you provided contained the same EXACT numbers as mine. And I never pissed and moaned. I knew it was a vaild source, I just changed to the 3rd party website that reported it so you would feel more comfortable.

[MrBenchley]

37. It pays better than horseshit...

Tell us again how the number of gun owners have remained steady.

And please tell us why people go out to hunt if NOT to "get their jollies killing something else".

[flaminlib]

43. Here are the stats... from YOUR preferred source

http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/1995/pdf/t256.pdf


Again, whether you say it has remaind "fairly" stable or has dropped slightly, the argument just gets better. How can you attribute an INCREASE in gun violence to a DECREASE in gun ownership?

"And please tell us why people go out to hunt if NOT to "get their jollies killing something else"."

As you cited, only 6% of the population hunts. Dont let your statistics come back to bite you, first rule of debate.

Hunting is not about killing. Its like telling your kids that playing sports is only about winning. Im kind of surprised we are having this discussion, I thought you would understand some essential differences in attitudes among people.

For me, hunting is alot more than the "kill" And of course you understand that, like it or not, you KILL things just by your existence. But i digress, this should be in a different post.

[MrBenchley]

48. Too fucking funny...

"How can you attribute an INCREASE in gun violence to a DECREASE in gun ownership?"
Been there, done that...

"As you cited, only 6% of the population hunts. Dont let your statistics come back to bite you, first rule of debate. "
Yeah, so few Americans these days feel they have to go out in the woods and kill something. That's what YOU were arguing AGAINST.

"Im kind of surprised we are having this discussion"
Jeeze, I for sure am amused and surprised to hear an enthusiast pretend that hunters aren't going out in the woods with the intention of killing something. Are they supposed to be posing for photos? One of the few guys I knew who went hunting viewed it as an excuse to build a campfire and get drunk....he didn't even take ammo along. But I wouldn't argue he was in the majority.

But then I'm surprised near every day with how silly the RKBA argument gets as it unfurls.

[Pert_UK]

6. OK - not anti-gun, but pro gun control....a comment or two.........

"how can you attribute the increase in gun violence to guns themselves?"

It doesn't necessarily follow that people are making this conclusion. I agree that if anti-gunners were then it might make little sense if, as you claim, gun ownership has remained constant but gun violence has increased.

In the UK what we're finding is that gun use by criminals is increasing. However, overall levels of violent crime have also been rising. Society is becoming more violent, and when there is more violence then there's more likelihood of guns being used in that violence, especially as hard-core drug gangs fight for control of areas.

So, the point I would make is that gun crime can rise or fall independent of the number of guns in circulation - it's more dependent on levels of violence in society. HOWEVER, it seems obvious that more guns in society means that more guns are available for use in violent crime and therefore illegal gun use will go up. That DOESN'T mean that guns create crimes (in this instance), it just means that if someone flies into a murderous rage and a gun is available then odds are that they'll reach for that rather than a knife. If the gun isn't available then they can't use it, and therefore the crime doesn't get added to gun statistics.

Secondly, it might well be true to say that gun accidents have increased simply because these days we're more likely to register and track gun accidents for statistical purposes. I don't know whether that's true, but it's possible.

The more keen-sighted amongst you will note that I have not said anything here even vaguely anti-gun.......The rest of you will just criticise me anyway!

[Warpy]

10. Eddie Izzard said it best

"they say that guns don't kill people, but people kill people. Well, I think the gun HELPS!"

We live in a nasty, hopeless, disconnected and violent culture. If we take guns away, people will use whatever else they can get their hands on. However, their victims are a little more able to survive that "something else," as it invariably makes death harder to accomplish. Messier, too.

I was passionately antigun when I lived in an east coast city. I faced down bad guys with guns twice and walked away, and having a gun of my own either time would have gotten me shot up real bad.

Now I live in bear, cougar and rattlesnake country, and although I'd never own a gun myself, I can certainly sympathize with folks in the boonies who do, if only to scare the bears out of the garbage.

I would dearly love to see gun ownership licensed and regulated much the way car ownership is. If you want to buy ammo, you need to present your license. To get a license, you must pass a safety course. Although there will be some black market ammo going around, thugs and felons will have to pay a lot for it and it will slow most of them down considerably.

It makes sense. It could work.

[MrBenchley]

13. As Molly Ivins says

(paraphrasing) "The gun lobby likes to say 'Guns don't kill people, people kill people.' But you never hear of someone getting killed because another person threw a bullet at him and shouted 'Bang!' "

[flaminlib]

11. This makes sense.

"So, the point I would make is that gun crime can rise or fall independent of the number of guns in circulation - it's more dependent on levels of violence in society. HOWEVER, it seems obvious that more guns in society means that more guns are available for use in violent crime and therefore illegal gun use will go up. That DOESN'T mean that guns create crimes (in this instance), it just means that if someone flies into a murderous rage and a gun is available then odds are that they'll reach for that rather than a knife. If the gun isn't available then they can't use it, and therefore the crime doesn't get added to gun statistics."



I agree. This brings up the question, what is the solution? What is the source of the violence" Where should we direct our efforts?

[TX-RAT]

7. Never heard anybody here say they wanted to ban firearms.

[NMDemDist2]

9. I had an interesting debate with my dittohead brother in law on this

He lives in rural Washington state and farms for a living. I live in metropolitan Phoenix and drive a lot! He needs a gun for "critters" snakes, coyotes etc and I agreed and asked him if a AK-47 was necessary for that and he laughed and said "of course not, I own a 30-30 and a .38 handgun" I said those weapons weren't on a ban list so no problem. Then I shared with him the story of a man here in Phoenix who was "dissed" and ran out into the street shooting wildly at a car full of people who "dissed" him in front of his women. He managed to kill a landscaper and wound a lady just driving by. I told my B-I-L that I support "assault weapons" bans because it's too easy to get them in a big city and you never know when you will be minding your own business and become a target for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. I also shared about the "Shannon's Law" we have in PHX because some idiot fired a gun into the air and killed a 16 year old girl who was standing in her back yard. In spite of his dittohead mentality, he thought about my argument and agreed that an assault weapon ban made perfect sense. I was amazed! My dad taught me to shoot when I was a kid, and I have owned several guns over the years, but there are too many guns in the hands of idiots who can't shoot straight and do not practice any form of gun safety. Australia has a good gun policy IMHO

[flaminlib]

14. I dont want to turn to the AWB but.....

:) since you brought it up. The AWB is purely cosmetic, aside from magazine capacities. An AK47 by any other name and a smaller magazine is still legal. AR 15, with a few cosmetic adjustments, are still widely available. And lets not even bring up the pre ban inventory that is still legal.

Not sure the AWB makes "perfect" sense.

[MrBenchley]

17. Too TOO funny...

If "The AWB is purely cosmetic" why did the NRA get the liabiltiy immunity bill that had been it's chief legislative priority for three years or more killed when it was attached?

They were pushing the immunity from liability laws disgrace through the Senate, but suddenly when this supposedly "cosmetic" amendment was added, they e-mailed their GOP stooges and had them vote against the whole bill.

[flaminlib]

22. I dont champion the NRA or its legislative agenda

As I said in my original post, I support effective gun control. The AWB is not effective. Many pro AWB groups have also abandonded that bill and will allow it to sunset. You knew that, right?

Perhaps you can inform me how it was anything but a cosmetic, band aid approach to gun control?

[MrBenchley]

23. Too TOO funny...

You don't have any problem passing along the NRA's "AWB is only cosmetic" bullshit, I notice.

"Many pro AWB groups have also abandonded that bill and will allow it to sunset. "
Name one.

Perhaps you can tell us how difficult it was to get the original bill passed over the idiotic objections and backroom obstructionism of the gun lobby and the GOP.

[flaminlib]

28. Ok

Hows this one Violence Policy Center, http://www.vpc.org/

More info on their views here:

http://www.vpc.org/graphics/awbackground.pdf


Im not passing along the NRA's bs, Im evaluating the ban on its merits. It doesnt work. Any questions on that, see above links.


"Perhaps you can tell us how difficult it was to get the original bill passed over the idiotic objections and backroom obstructionism of the gun lobby and the GOP."


Sorry, I cannot.

[MrBenchley]

35. Now show us where the VPC is opposing a ban of assault weapons...

Seems like their platform is that the ban should be renewed and STRENGTHENED.

"see above links."
You mean like THIS one?

"Washington, DC—This Saturday, March 13th, will mark six months until the federal assault weapons ban is set to expire. The failure of Congress and President Bush to act to renew, and more importantly strengthen, the assault weapons ban before September 13, 2004, puts the safety of America's police and public at extreme risk, the Violence Policy Center (VPC) warned today. Legislation to strengthen current law, the "Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act" (S. 1431 and H.R. 2038), is currently pending in Congress.
Kristen Rand, VPC legislative director, states, "America's burgeoning assault weapons industry poses a clear and present danger to all Americans. Congress must act now to pass an assault weapons ban that truly bans assault weapons." "
http://www.vpc.org/press/0403sixmonth.htm

[flaminlib]

39. Yes, but read carefully and follow remember what I have said

"Washington, DC—This Saturday, March 13th, will mark six months until the federal assault weapons ban is set to expire. The failure of Congress and President Bush to act to renew, and more importantly strengthen, the assault weapons ban before September 13, 2004, puts the safety of America's police and public at extreme risk, the Violence Policy Center (VPC) warned today. Legislation to strengthen current law, the "Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act" (S. 1431 and H.R. 2038), is currently pending in Congress.
Kristen Rand, VPC legislative director, states, "America's burgeoning assault weapons industry poses a clear and present danger to all Americans. Congress must act now to pass an assault weapons ban that truly bans assault weapons."
http://www.vpc.org/press/0403sixmonth.htm


You have to read it carefully. I highlighted some critical points. My assertion that the current AWB is purely cosmetic stands. Apparantly, the VPC agrees and is laboring to correct it.

[slackmaster]

41. The VPC rarely gets anything right

Their opinion that the AWB is cosmetic is one of those occasions.

But they are extremists and unable to moderate their views to the point where any AWB bill they'd support has any chance of being passed.

[MrBenchley]

44. That Is hilarious....

So that IS your objection to the AWB...that it needs to be stronger.

[flaminlib]

47. Partially, yes

As i stated in my original post. I support EFFECTIVE gun control.


I dont have the answers as to what those restrictions might be, but the AWB we have now, doesnt work. You have to agree with that, dont you?

vpc.org

[MrBenchley]

54. I agree the AWB should be strengthened

and I support the two bills before Congress.

[iverglas]

15. well, allow me

Not that the question was addressed to me ... I just so dislike faulty thinking and all.

My question is, since gun ownership has remained fairly steady over time, since the 1950's ...

Even if that were true, which I gather it isn't, what I'd wonder is what kinds of firearms we're talking about. Was handgun ownership, for instance, really that common 50 years ago? Given that handguns are the weapon of choice for use in "gun crime", I'd think that this would be an important bit of information to have ...

.

[MrBenchley]

18. For that matter...

I wonder how many Mac-10s were around in the 1950s...

I remember reading somewhere that 70% of handguns and 60% of all guns manufactured since 1900 had been manufactured since 1970.

[flaminlib]

20. And for that matter

I wonder how much crack cocaine was around in the 1950s?

That type of thinking isnt making your case.


And I still dont know whether you want to ban all firearms, or just restrict ownership.

[MrBenchley]

24. Gee, you make your case and I'll make mine

"I still dont know whether you want to ban all firearms"
Jeeze, perhaps if you weren't so busy TELLING some of us what we think and spouting gun nut rubbish, you might find out.

[flaminlib]

29. I made an assumption, then asked if I was wrong

You still havent told me one way or the other.


Just say yes or no, or tell me what magical words I need to use to get you to "correct" my assumptions.


I tried to ask a fair question, can you please try to answer it? Do you support banning all firearms for the reasons I offered? Do you support banning all firearms for some other reason(s)? Do you not support banning all firearms?


As far as I can tell, the only thing you do support is launching attacks at gun owners. Lets take the conversation up to a higher level of reasoning, please.

[MrBenchley]

38. Jeeze louise...

"You still havent told me"
You mean it's still a mystery to you?

"I tried to ask a fair question"
No you didn't. You asked us why we banned guns and then offered some horseshit from a gun nut site.

"Lets take the conversation up to a higher level of reasoning"
You first, cutie.

[flaminlib]

62. Help me

"You mean it's still a mystery to you?"

Yes, please point out where you have confirmed or denied my assumptions. Do you support banning all firearms or not? For the reasons I gave or some others?

If you do support banning all firearms, is it because of my assumptions? Is it because of some other assumptions, please clarify.

If you do not support banning all firearms, just say so.

"No you didn't. You asked us why we banned guns and then offered some horseshit from a gun nut site."

You mean this one?
http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/1995/pdf/t256.pdf

[MrBenchley]

63. No, I meant THIS one...

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/numbers.html

You know, the one YOU offered.

[flaminlib]

66. LMAO

Did you even look at the numbers..... the VERY SAME AS YOUR SOURCE LOL

http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/1995/pdf/t256.pdf

[MrBenchley]

70. So what is that RKBA web ring, do you suppose?

And how much faster can you run away from it?

[flaminlib]

74. I dont care if i run or stay....

I dont visit any pro gun sites for talking points but I WILL rely on them for stats from time to time. Much like you rely on field and stream LOL.

At least I backed it up with the SAME stats from YOUR source.

[MrBenchley]

78. Says it all...

"At least I backed it up"
No, at least what happened when we saw the real source was that "holding steady" turned out to be a DECLINE.

[flaminlib]

87. Wrong

What happened when you saw the REAL source was the same exact thing you saw from MY source.

[MrBenchley]

91. Who DO you think you're kidding?

[flaminlib]

95. What is so hard about this?

From my source

YEAR 59 65 68 72 75 80 83 85 89 90 91 MAR OCT 95 96 97
%YES 49 48 50 43 44 45 40 44 47 47 46 48 51 35 38 42


Now look at your "preferred" source. This is supposedly MORE accurate than mine LMAO

http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/1995/pdf/t256.pdf



Same numbers, same years, same conclusions. Next!

[MrBenchley]

101. Gee, you tell me...

You're the one pretending you have no idea what your source is about....

[flaminlib]

104. I dont, but that is not relevant

It hasnt been relevant since i posted the same figures from your source. But keep pretending that you can straw man your way through this.

[MrBenchley]

106. You do, and it cuts to the heart

[flaminlib]

107. well its been fun

Thanks for never once addressing my original post and for providing me with alot of entertainment.

[MrBenchley]

109. Sure made me laugh like hell...

[flaminlib]

19. Since i was chastized for not providing...

solid, iron clad proof in my gun ownership stats (which I since have, http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/1995/pdf/t256.pdf) can you provide some source for your claim that:

"Given that handguns are the weapon of choice for use in "gun crime","

Since all I hear about is the DC sniper type cases, Im a bit hesitant to take your word for it.


And if you have any questions as to whether my claims on historical gun ownership trends are accurate, please refer to the link above.

[MrBenchley]

25. Really? ALL you've heard of is the DC sniper?

Maybe you ought to read something beside gun nut propaganda....

[iverglas]

27. you really should get out more

Given that handguns are the weapon of choice for use in "gun crime", ...

Since all I hear about is the DC sniper type cases, Im a bit hesitant to take your word for it.

I wasn't asking you to take my word for anything. I really just didn't anticipate that you had led such a sheltered life.

Why, right here on this board today we had two tales, I believe, of road rage shootings. Do we imagine that something other than a handgun was used in those cases?

"Gun crime" is usually the term used for a crime in which a firearms is used to facilitate the commission of the offence. For instance, someone uses a firearm to hold up a liquor store, or to rip off a drug dealer acquaintance.

Yes, it does often include "crimes committed by means of guns", e.g. murder, drive-by-shootings, sniper events, etc. I was using it in the first sense. And even in events in which the term applies in the second sense -- events such as the road rage shootings -- I really do think that you will find that handguns are fairly commonly the weapons used.

I notice that your link doesn't answer my question.

I would also suggest that there have been significant demographic changes in the US population that are not broken out in your link. Urbanization is one in particular that would need to be accounted for. Rural populations have different needs, and different traditions and attitudes in relation to firearms, from urban populations'.

Even if firearms ownership in the 1950s were, in the aggregate, as prevalent in the population as today, we might find that there are higher levels of firearms ownership among urban populations today than in the 1950s, making up for the loss of traditionally firearm-owning rural population.

For instance, using purely hypothetical figures: in 1950, 50% of the population was rural, and 75% of that population owned firearms, while only 25% of the urban population owned firearms; the overall proportion would be 50%. Today, only 25% of the population is rural, with 75% still owning firearms, but because 42% of the urban population owns firearms, instead of 25%, the overall proportion is still 50%. Firearms ownership among urban populations is undeniably a different phenomenon from firearms ownership among rural populations.

Just some thoughts on why statistics don't always say what they seem to be saying, or we might like them to be saying.

.

[flaminlib]

32. To both of you.

I was pointing out that my "limited" exposure to gun violence is no better or worse than yours. Im quite sure you can cite all the anecdotal evidence you need to prove yourselves right but, why not cite an objective source. Since MrBenchley has critized me for citing.... "ditto head something or other", I thought you might also heed his advice and cite some real evidence. Not anecdotal DU tales of gun crime, but surveys, studies, or something that will legitimize your claims.

Hypotheticals and anecdotes dont count. That is the point I was trying to make. My experience and yours are not the same. We should try to rely on objective sources for information to support our claims, agreed?

[MrBenchley]

40. Is THAT what you were doing?

"my "limited" exposure to gun violence is no better or worse than yours"
Jeeze, and yet I've heard of a few more shooting scrapes besides the DC sniper.

"why not cite an objective source"
Like the RKBA webring? Too too funny.

[flaminlib]

50. Seems to be going downhill

"Jeeze, and yet I've heard of a few more shooting scrapes besides the DC sniper."

Sorry for breaking out the crayons for you but, I was being ironic. I know you see this, and I do admire your tactics, but its just getting tiresome.

"Like the RKBA webring? Too too funny."

Where have I cited anything from the what??? The RKBA webring? What is that and where have i cited anything from it. Ive used only YOUR preferred sources for information.

What have you cited to back up your claims, aside from field and stream? LOL

[MrBenchley]

57. Started at the bottom of the hill and went down from there....

"I was being ironic. I know you see this"
How? It's on a par with "gun ownership has remained fairly steady over time" and "Are guns the reason?" and a lot of other statements you made.

"Where have I cited anything from the what??? The RKBA webring? What is that"
Goodness gracious me...what the fuck COULD it be?

"flaminlib (52 posts)
4. Not sure what you mean.
Did i make the wrong assumptions or???? Why say "thank you for playing"?
The historical statics I have are hear.
http://www.gunsandcrime.org/numbers.html  

And when we click on the link and look at the root, we get....

"the Right to Keep and Bear Arms webring
sponsored by KeepAndBearArms.com
site owned by GunsAndCrime.org
This site is part of the "RKBA" web ring.  To go to another site that is part of the ring, or to see a list of all sites in the ring, select one of the buttons in the graphic.  Don't do it 'til you've checked out our site, however, or you'll be missing some good, original stuff."

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/

[flaminlib]

69. Same numbers as YOUR source

Or did you look at them?

This is ridiculous. You wont even read stats from your own sources.

[MrBenchley]

73. Yeah, what ever could that RKBA web ring be?

I wonder how much faster you can run away from it?

"You wont even read stats"
Jeeze, now I'm not the one trying to pretend that the decline shown is "holding steady."

[flaminlib]

77. What???

What the hell does that matter?

If ownership is steady, my argument is valid. If its on the decline, its ever more valid. Did you read any of the stats, or my original post?

The reason i pointed out that the stats can be taken as steady or on the decline is because the difference is negligible. It has remained in the 40% bracket since the 50's.

Is this the best argument you have????

[MrBenchley]

84. Says it all....

You claim to have never heard of the source, then when the source is produced, you want to cry "what does that matter?"

"Is this the best argument you have?"
Why bother with anything more? Somebody who wants to pretend that his own source is somebody else's delusion sure doesn't require anybody's "A" game.

"Where have I cited anything from the what??? The RKBA webring? What is that and where have i cited anything from it."

[flaminlib]

88. I produced it, you labled it

I produced the source, in case you forgot. I never claimed NOT to have heard of it lol, I was the one who posted it! You labled it a RKBA webring, which I HAVENT heard of. I get facts and stats from a number of places, some I associate with, some i dont.

Nice try though.

[MrBenchley]

93. I didn't label a fucking thing...

The site you offered as a link carries that label ITSELF.

But hey, I'd be embarassed to be offering something from a nutcase site like that, too.

[flaminlib]

98. Ok, so would you be embarrased by your own source???/

They say the same thing.

[MrBenchley]

103. If it was as fucking stupid as the RKBA webring

yeah I would be embarassed to dredge up something like that.

[slackmaster]

105. Genetic Fallacies are treated as legitimate argument on this board

Attacking the source of data is the weapon of choice here. It doesn't matter if the data is accurate as long as a source can be impugned.

[iverglas]

113. ah ... you mean ...

... like how our new little friend laughed at Benchley's "Field and Stream" source, without bothering to admit (if he bothered to notice) that the facts it cited came from an official source?

It was a nice attempt, but it fell flat; the execution will require some work.

.

[iverglas]

112. "Is this the best argument you have????"

If ownership is steady, my argument is valid. If its on the decline, its ever more valid. Did you read any of the stats, or my original post?

It's just so sad that you appear to be unable to understand that your "argument" has been completely demolished.

The "best argument" presented so far, by both myself and Benchley (in slightly different forms) can be summarized as:

The characteristics of firearms, firearms owners and firearms use, in the US population, are now so different from what they were in the 1950s that YOU ARE COMPARING APPLES AND ORANGES.

Maybe that will help.

You are comparing figures for the 1950s that reflect

rural firearms ownership,
of firearms acquired for hunting and other rural needs,
of firearms designed for those needs,
by people who used them for those purposes,

TO A MUCH GREATER EXTENT than is reflected in the figures for the present day, which reflect

urban firearms ownership,
of firearms acquired for purposes other than hunting and other rural needs,
of firearms not designed for hunting and other rural needs,
by people who do not use them for hunting or other rural needs,

TO A MUCH GREATER EXTENT than is reflected in the figures for the 1950s.

You are comparing long arms to handguns, to put one of those factors simply. The ~40% (whatever) of the population that owned firearms in the 1950s DID NOT own handguns in the same proportion that the ~40% of the population that owns firearms today owns handguns.

Long arms : handguns = apples : oranges.

Hunting : "self-defence" = apples : oranges.

Farmers : suburbanites/urban dwellers = apples : oranges.


It seems that "40%! 40%" is the best argument you have, and it's just a mighty sad one.

Whether or not people had completed high school was a relatively insignificant factor in their ability to find permanent employment in 1954. It really is not an insignificant factor in people's ability to find permanent employment in 2004. If we could find figures saying that the proportion of people who completed high school had remained relatively steady since 1954, would this mean that we should not encourage *more* people to complete high school today, because obviously completing high school has no influence on ability to find permanent employment??

THINGS CHANGE.

Firearms ownership may indeed have been a relatively insignificant factor in "gun crime" in the 1950s. That does not mean that it is an insignificant factor in "gun crime" in the year 2004.

.

[iverglas]

58. keep it up

What have you cited to back up your claims, aside from field and stream? LOL

It's sure lucky that you find yourself funny ...


Field and Stream was the SECONDARY source cited. IT cited the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the actual source of the data relied on.

You're such a newbie, eh? Perhaps you should consider doing some studying up so you don't make yourself look any sillier.

Start here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=39028&mesg_id=39028

... with my post #80, in particular. That should help you out. Then you'll be at least on your way to being up to speed on things like FACTS, and to being ready to play with the big kids.

.

[iverglas]

46. well, that was fun

Are you actually suggesting that the population of the US is not more urban today than it was in the 1950s?

Are you actually suggesting that hunting has not declined drastically in the US since the 1950s?

If you are, perhaps *you* should be substantiating your own claims. The claims you seem to be disputing are both obvious to a blind bat and very readily substantiated by anybody with the url for google who happens to need such substantiation.

YOU are the one who cited a really very meaningless compilation of public opinion surveys regarding firearms ownership in the US. You really are the one who should be demonstrating that it says what you apparently want it to be saying: that nothing has really changed when it comes to firearms ownership in the US.

The fact is that MANY THINGS have changed when it comes to firearms ownership in the US, the purpose of firearms ownership and the demographic distribution of firearms ownership being two rather big things that have changed.

But, just for you:

http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbsprd

Urban Population as a Percent of Total Population
United States
1990 75.20
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, International Data Base.

Damn. My "hypothetical" was pretty bang-on, although behind the times; the figure would be higher for the current year.

I'm not having any luck, in the time I have, finding figures for the 1950s in the US. Why don't you give it a shot, and let us know?

And go right ahead and identify any "anecdotal evidence" I have cited, other than to dismiss your bizarre claim about what you know about gun crime. You just don't seem to have addressed anything else I said. Did you not bother to read it, not understand it, or find yourself unable to dismiss it?

.

[flaminlib]

59. was it?

"Are you actually suggesting that the population of the US is not more urban today than it was in the 1950s?

Are you actually suggesting that hunting has not declined drastically in the US since the 1950s?"

No and no. Never even implied such a thing. In fact, I would argue that the first is more relevant to the gun violence problem than gun ownership.


"YOU are the one who cited a really very meaningless compilation of public opinion surveys regarding firearms ownership in the US. You really are the one who should be demonstrating that it says what you apparently want it to be saying: that nothing has really changed when it comes to firearms ownership in the US."

Meaningless? If banning guns is your solution to reducing violence in society,(again, my assumption...still waiting) arent statistics on gun ownership relevant?

[iverglas]

108. it's so tempting

To suggest that some people grow up. Who knows, maybe I've even suggested it to you in the past. I won't do it now; no.

I'll just say ...

Meaningless? If banning guns is your solution to reducing violence in society,(again, my assumption...still waiting) arent statistics on gun ownership relevant?

Did I say they weren't RELEVANT?

Or did I say THAT YOUR STATISTICS DO NOT SAY WHAT YOU APPARENTLY (my assumption ... still waiting) WANT THEM TO SAY?

I have made it fairly clear that I think that information regarding firearms ownership THAT TAKES INTO ACCOUNT the kinds of people who own firearms, the purposes for which they own firearms, the kinds of firearms they own and the contexts in which they own firearms is quite MEANINGFUL indeed, and certainly very relevant.

What is NOT meaningful, or particularly relevant, is a GROSS SIMPLIFICATION of the very complex phemonenon of firearms ownership.

And what your little batch of numbers is, is a GROSS SIMPLIFICATION of the very complex phenomenon of firearms ownership.

And that is true whether or not whoever you are throwing those numbers at thinks that "banning guns" is a solution to anything or everything.

All you have done is fashion a straw person to argue with, and then offer what appears to have been meant as the last word on the issue -- firearms ownership rates have been steady over time while firearms crime has increased, which appear to be your premises, ergo firearms ownership has nothing to with crime -- and then disregard anything that anyone else has said.

Like I said: what fun.

It would be ever so much more fun if you would actually try addressing the FACTS that other people have presented, which are very RELEVANT to your hokey little non-debate. Even if you can't find anybody to debate WITH, you still need to make your own argument, and so far it's been shown to be dumb pretty much on the face of it.

Your "facts" do NOT establish that firearms ownership rates have no effect on crime rates. They may suggest that aggregate firearms ownership rates have a relatively insignificant effect on aggregate crime rates, but that fact is of very little use to anyone when there have too obviously been such enormous variations in patterns of firearms ownership and types of firearms owned.

What you're doing amounts to saying that the speed at which cars are capable of travelling has made no contribution to the increase in automobile fatalities since the 1950s ... or that improvements in car design have made no contribution to keeping automobile fatalities lower than they might have been.

Since you can't find anyone to fill those straw shoes you offered, you're just going to have to address what actual people have to say about your little thesis. Or not. Nobody really cares.

.

[flaminlib]

119. be careful what you wish for

"To suggest that some people grow up. Who knows, maybe I've even suggested it to you in the past. I won't do it now; no."

Please do.. you have already degraded yourself to the point of no return.

"I'll just say ...

Meaningless? If banning guns is your solution to reducing violence in society,(again, my assumption...still waiting) arent statistics on gun ownership relevant?

Did I say they weren't RELEVANT?"

No, actually you said they were meaningless. Do you need a thesaurus?

"Or did I say THAT YOUR STATISTICS DO NOT SAY WHAT YOU APPARENTLY (my assumption ... still waiting) WANT THEM TO SAY?"

Well that is your assumption isnt it? The stats I cited dont say "what I want them to say", they simply indicate gun ownership trends over time. There are no assumptions there, its just numbers.

"I have made it fairly clear that I think that information regarding firearms ownership THAT TAKES INTO ACCOUNT the kinds of people who own firearms, the purposes for which they own firearms, the kinds of firearms they own and the contexts in which they own firearms is quite MEANINGFUL indeed, and certainly very relevant."

And yet you cannot or will not cite sources. Again, you hide behind opinions while mocking facts. Lead with your heart, please. Might not like where you end up but, at least you will feel good.

"What is NOT meaningful, or particularly relevant, is a GROSS SIMPLIFICATION of the very complex phemonenon of firearms ownership."

And gross simplification can be exemplified by stating your opinions or my facts?

"And what your little batch of numbers is, is a GROSS SIMPLIFICATION of the very complex phenomenon of firearms ownership."

As opposed to what you "think" right?

"And that is true whether or not whoever you are throwing those numbers at thinks that "banning guns" is a solution to anything or everything.

All you have done is fashion a straw person to argue with, and then offer what appears to have been meant as the last word on the issue -- firearms ownership rates have been steady over time while firearms crime has increased, which appear to be your premises, ergo firearms ownership has nothing to with crime -- and then disregard anything that anyone else has said."

No one has said "anything else" aside from what they "feel" to be true.

"Like I said: what fun.

It would be ever so much more fun if you would actually try addressing the FACTS that other people have presented, which are very RELEVANT to your hokey little non-debate. Even if you can't find anybody to debate WITH, you still need to make your own argument, and so far it's been shown to be dumb pretty much on the face of it."

Facts you say?? What facts? Oh I see. Hmmm, not sure how to argue that the sky is blue. I think you "get it" but you dont want to admit it. Is that the case?

"Your "facts" do NOT establish that firearms ownership rates have no effect on crime rates. They may suggest that aggregate firearms ownership rates have a relatively insignificant effect on aggregate crime rates, but that fact is of very little use to anyone when there have too obviously been such enormous variations in patterns of firearms ownership and types of firearms owned."

And where are your "facts" to back up those assertions?

"What you're doing amounts to saying that the speed at which cars are capable of travelling has made no contribution to the increase in automobile fatalities since the 1950s ... or that improvements in car design have made no contribution to keeping automobile fatalities lower than they might have been.

False analogy, pick up a logic text.

"Since you can't find anyone to fill those straw shoes you offered, you're just going to have to address what actual people have to say about your little thesis. Or not. Nobody really cares."

Since I cant find anyone who will assert their desire to ban all firearms, despite their fervant vitriol toward that end, I will consider this case closed.

[Pert_UK]

114. flaminlib and Mr Benchley....

"Hey funboys, get a room jah?"

"Is this the right room for an argument?"

and so forth.......And name those quotes.

It's no wonder that J/PS gets a reputation...I've never seen such a long-winded duel!

:evilgrin:

P.

[MrBenchley]

116. It's being hit in the head lessons here...

[Wubbman]

118. Lol

Yeah, sooner or later flaminlib will realize Mr. B knows everything and is above question. How dare he doubt Mr. B's argument that if you own a gun you are a stupid, racist, scum eating maggot. The nerve!

[MrBenchley]

120. Gee, wubb...feel free to jump in and tell us

how it is that a decline in gun ownership is gun ownership holding steady.

"Mr. B's argument that if you own a gun you are a stupid, racist, scum eating maggot. "
That's not actually my argument...but it sure does seem the RKBA crowd goes out of its way daily to provide evidence to support that thesis..

[Wubbman]

122. I'm sorry

"That's not actually my argument...but it sure does seem the RKBA crowd goes out of its way daily to provide evidence to support that thesis.."

Well, maybe I was a little too presumptuous. But I have never, ever, seen you describe gun owners in a positive light. Your descriptions of gun owners are always derogatory. Do you even know any gun owners personally (this board does not count, I don't 'know' you and you don't 'know' me)? Do you honestly believe there are 112 million despicable, racist gun owners out there?

[MrBenchley]

123. Gee, wubb....

Tell me again, who's having a "Pimp for the Chimp" jamboree in Pittsburgh this weekend?

[Wubbman]

124. the NRA...

So you believe that all NRA members are despicable, racist people? A few bad apples spoil the whole bunch for you, right?

[MrBenchley]

125. Too funny....

"A few bad apples"
Geeze, asswipes like Pratt and Nugent aren't a couple of disaffected bozos off in some pickup truck in the boonies...they're the ACTUAL FUCKING leadership of the two largest gun owners groups in the country.

[Wubbman]

126. Ok...

And what is it that they've said that has offended you?

[MrBenchley]

127. Gee, wubb....

Do you really think I'm the only one that has a problem with racist pieces of shit like Pratt and Nugent? That's so pweshus.

[Wubbman]

128. That wasn't my question...

I asked you what they had said that offended you, not if you were the only one offended.

[MrBenchley]

129. Gee, who is it pimping for the chimp this weekend?

[Wubbman]

130. HAHAHAHAHAHA

I'm guessing that means you have nothing to say, other than bullshit? I wanted to know what Nugent and Pratt had said that was offensive to you (and others). I have not followed them in the past, and was only curios since you brought it up.

[MrBenchley]

131. You mean that isn't enough for you, wubb?

It's not like it's a fucking secret. Try putting either name with "racist" into a search engine.

[Wubbman]

132. Thanks for a non-bullshit answer this time-nt

[MrBenchley]

134. Now be sure and tell us what you find out

[Name removed]

135. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

136. and of course

I put "racist" and MrBenchley's name into Google"
It produced over 10 pages of hits.
... Appeal to Google fallacies cut both ways.

If what had been implied in what Benchley said --

Try putting either name with "racist" into a search engine.

-- had been "and then count how many hits you get", you'd have a point.

Me, I would have interpreted it as including the implied instruction "and READ some of what you find". As in, don't just COUNT what you find.

So I didn't actually see any "appeal to google" fallacy, myself. I saw a suggestion that someone use the obvious and simple means to acquire whatever information s/he might actually be needing.

.

[MrBenchley]

137. I think it's an "appeal to desperation" on somebody's part...

trying to pretend that the gun rights bunch aren't racist pieces of shit.

By the way, think Wubbman is going to come back and tell us what he found?

[slackmaster]

139. There you go again overgeneralizing

trying to pretend that the gun rights bunch aren't racist pieces of shit.

I've never said that NO gun rights people are racist pieces of shit, OTOH I've never seen MrBenchley admit that NOT ALL gun rights people are racist pieces of shit, or that the fact that some gun rights people are racist pieces of shit does not invalidate the opinions of those of us who are not racist pieces of shit.

[slackmaster]

138. I totally agree

You have to read the results to see whether or not they support someone's contention that person X is a dirty RW so-and-so or a racist or whatever. A high number of hits may mean absolutely nothing.

Most of the hits you see on searches as MrB suggested turn out to be second-hand reports and opinions of third parties, discussions of those reports and opinions, and so on, which don't add much to a reader's understanding. It is possible to wade through them and get a pretty good idea what an individual may have said and in what context, but Google searches provide only a limited ability to see what's really in a person's heart.

[iverglas]

141. what's in Pratt's and Nugent's hearts??

They were, after all, the people whose names it was suggested be searched for.

Most of the hits you see on searches as MrB suggested turn out to be second-hand reports and opinions of third parties, ... . ... Google searches provide only a limited ability to see what's really in a person's heart.

Forgive me for saying it, but I just don't find it all that difficult to see what's in Pratt's and Nugent's hearts.

From the first page of my results for "ted nugent" racist:

http://www.livedaily.com/news/856.html

Nugent, opening for KISS at the Cynthia Woods Mitchell Pavilion on April 1, allegedly launched into a diatribe on stage about Latino immigrants. "If you're not gonna speak English, get the **** out of America," he told the crowd, according to pavilion president David Gottlieb, who was at the concert. Gottlieb added that Nugent's use of the word "faggot" throughout the show was also a factor.

... Following the concert, Nugent reiterated his position on immigrants when he spoke to the Houston Chronicle on Wednesday (4/5). "If you're going to be an asset to America," Nugent said, "it would only be logical to speak the language. How can you be a benefit to your family, neighborhood or country if you can't speak to your fellow citizens? C'mon, if you can't speak English, get out of America."

From a link at that site:

http://www.livedaily.com/news/1476.html

Throughout his career, Nugent has prided himself on being an outspoken conservative. The 51-year-old, long-haired guitarist and avid hunter is the founder of Ted Nugent United Sportsmen of America (TNUSA), and is a staunch supporter of gun-owners' rights.

Nugent is currently touring with KISS in Canada, a country he reportedly said in 1999 that he would lead a U.S. boycott against in response to a bear-hunting ban enacted in Ontario.

(He's obviously not only a pig, but a moron. The "ban" in question was a ban on the *spring* bear hunt only, to avoid the problem of orphaned bear cubs that it created.)

I'll let you read his own words here: http://www.nraleaders.com/ted-nugent.html
as they're not the sort of thing I like to copy and paste, myself.


You have to read the results to see whether or not they support someone's contention that person X is a dirty RW so-and-so or a racist or whatever. A high number of hits may mean absolutely nothing.

And once again ... I didn't see anything by Benchley saying anything about any number of hits. That was your in(ter)vention.

All he said was Try putting either name with "racist" into a search engine. And I'm just damned if I can figure out why "... and count the number of results" would be proposed as a reasonable inference as to what he intended that someone who followed his suggestion should do.

.

[iverglas]

143. that was nugent; pratt --

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45/085.html

Pratt runs an assortment of far-right outfits out of an office in the D.C. area, including Gun Owners of America and English First, and has ties to anti-abortion groups as well. Pratt led an anti-abortion walkout from a Presidential conference on the family. His Gun Owners of America, which provided key funding to elect pro-militia Congress-members in the 1994 Republican take-over of Congress, was an early endorser of Buchanan's 1996 campaign. Pratt is himself a former elected official. He served as a right wing Virginia state legislator. Far from simply having made an error in judgment in attending one meeting with Klansmen and racists, he has been a key figure straddling the line and providing links between the "mainstream" right, Christian Reconstructionism, and the openly neo-nazi forces of Christian Identity and the Aryan Nations. He has spoken, for example, at the Jubilee "Jubilation," a California gathering sponsored by the leading Christian Identity newspaper, along with Aryan Nations "ambassador" and former Texas Klan leader Louis Beam. He was a repeated guest on Christian Identity minister Pete Peters's talk show.

Quelle bizarre coincidence, old Norma McCorvey (Roe of Roe v. Wade) has been pleased to break bread with those Jubilee folks herself. (And there's loads more good stuff on that page.)

Me, if I found myself sharing ANY political opinion voiced by a Nugent or a Pratt, I'd sit myself down for a good talking to.

.

[MrBenchley]

151. And those are just two of the pro-gun scum around

Trent Lott led a campus riot to keep blacks out of the U of Miss in the 1960s. In this century, he announced that we wouldn’t have "all these problems" if we still had Jim Crow. He’s spent his career pushing the phony "gun rights" issue.

How about John AshKKKroft? Got his career started fighting integration in Kansas City…he’s been noticeably timid in protecting the rights of minorities, and notably gung-ho trampling the Constitution to punish them. Again, he’s not only pro-gun rights; he’s one of the shrillest and most strident proponents of the dishonest "individual rights" revisionist interpretation of the Second Amendment. He’s so pro-gun rights that he refused to let the FBI check to see if terrorists bought guns after 9/11.

[slackmaster]

144. I'm happy for you

Forgive me for saying it, but I just don't find it all that difficult to see what's in Pratt's and Nugent's hearts.

It must be nice having a powerful ability to read others based on scant, indirect information, and be so sure of it.

I didn't see anything by Benchley saying anything about any number of hits. That was your in(ter)vention.

I never said Benchley was presenting an "appeal to number of hits on Google" fallacy, just an "appeal to Google" fallacy. I hope you can see the difference. I have no problem distinguishing between the two.

:D

[iverglas]

145. well

I never said Benchley was presenting an "appeal to number of hits on Google" fallacy, just an "appeal to Google" fallacy. I hope you can see the difference. I have no problem distinguishing between the two.

Maybe you could actually substantiate this allegation.

This seems to be yet another example of saying it not making it so ... which is interesting, you being the one apparently telling us that other people's assertions of other things don't make them so.

Exactly what fallacy did Benchley commit? If you can see it, surely you should be able to describe it, and not just continue reiterating that it exists. There's a faerie at the bottom of my garden! Where? What does it look like? There's a faerie at the bottom of my garden! ...

He advised someone to seek out the information he needed by asking google.

He did NOT say "the number of hits alone will prove the truth of what I am saying", as we have established. He did NOT say "the fact that you find websites containing the words I suggest you search for will prove the truth of what I am saying", if that is what you are suggesting he did.

The only reasonable inference from what he DID say was that he was suggesting that the person he was speaking to could, if he was so inclined, confirm the accuracy of what he was saying by asking google for those terms and reading the information on websites that google offered.

What is fallacious about this?? Is it fallacious to tell someone who needs to know the definition of a word to go to the shelf marked "dictionaries" in the library? Is it fallacious to tell someone who needs to know where Toronto is located to go to the shelf marked "road maps"?

Google is a library. One may find particular shelves in it by asking it for the terms one wants to know about. Obviously, just as looking in a Swahili dictionary will not tell one what "dog" means, and looking at a map of Lesotho will not tell one where Toronto is, there will be websites on the "'ted nugent' racist" shelf of Google that will not tell one whether Ted Nugent is a racist. And just as the library shelf marked "faeries" will contain books asserting that faeries live among us, books that cannot be believed, there will be sites on many lists of Google results that cannot be believed. Big deal.

But I am completely failing to see what is fallacious about a suggestion that someone ask google to display websites containing those terms, any more than I would see it as fallacious to ask a reference librarian for the shelf marked "dictionaries" if one wanted to know the meaning of "dog". The individual doing the looking will have to identify appropriate websites in Google's results, just as s/he would have to locate the English dictionary on the shelf.


It must be nice having a powerful ability to read others based on scant, indirect information, and be so sure of it.

Yes, and I'm sure life is very interesting indeed when one cannot see the nose on one's face.

.

[MrBenchley]

147. This theory has been advanced before...

Mostly along the lines that Larry Pratt becomes racist Pat Robertson's campaign manager (and then has to resign when his presence becomes public knowledge) AND holds a kaffeeklatch with the Aryan Nation to stick up for white supremacist Randy Weaver AND heads up a vicious right wing anti-immigrant group by accident somehow...so we're not supposed to draw any inference from that that he really is the small-minded virulent racist piece of shit that he is.

And Wayne LaPierre is the Queen of the May...

[slackmaster]

148. Sorry, I lost you after your first sentence

Maybe you could actually substantiate this allegation.

What allegation?

[MrBenchley]

140. The cherry on the sundae...

More of that scrupuous honesty that so illuminates any discussion with the glocksuckers around here...

"Results 1 - 8 of 8 for MrBenchley racist.
Democratic Underground Forums - Racist John Lott Spanked Over ...
... out the same day ... nodictators, Mar-04-04 05:48 PM, #2. Nor is this
Lott's only racist "science", MrBenchley, Mar-04-04 05:51 PM, #3. ...
www.democraticunderground.com/ discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x42845 - 27k - Cached - Similar pages


Democratic Underground Forums - History of mental illness doesn't ...
... Maybe if such racist scum didn't support reporting... MrSandman, Mar-27-04 12:30
AM, #20. Wonder what THAT bill REALLY said.... MrBenchley, Mar-27-04 07:10 AM, #24. ...
www.democraticunderground.com/ discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x46359 - 101k - Cached - Similar pages

Democratic Underground Forums - VPC: If AWB expires, won't make ...
... a qui: www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1760128 (For those that can't get the
audio; according the the racist, right-wing ... MrBenchley, Mar-12-04 10:52 AM, #1. ...
www.democraticunderground.com/ discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x44471 - 101k - Cached - Similar pages

Democratic Underground Forums - What they do, when they are not ...
... Edited on Tue Mar-16-04 04:29 PM by MrBenchley, ... For one thing, roe... I posted them
to show what a scummy bunch of racist right wing shitheels the NRA are.... ...
www.democraticunderground.com/ discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x45042 - 101k - Cached - Similar pages

Democratic Underground Forums - Ashcroft Gets His Pound of Flesh
... George Lincoln Rockwell, MrBenchley, Mar-07-04 03:02 PM, #15. ... and Canada's
own "mainstream" nazi racist Ernst Zundel's freedomsite.com? ...
www.democraticunderground.com/ discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x43174 - 89k - Cached - Similar pages

Democratic Underground Forums - Busy week in Annapolis (guns ...
... I didn't get to go further into the racist nature of the may-issue system, but I ... Yeah
it's always effective to have somebody, MrBenchley, Mar-19-04 09:00 AM, #3. ...
www.democraticunderground.com/ discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x45400 - 42k - Cached - Similar pages

Democratic Underground Monitoring Blog (DUMB)
... MrBenchley Guess she wouldn't get in the small plane. ... to be seen; and why does not
one want their faces seen at this old knarly racist's memorial, besides the ...
dumonitor.blogspot.com/ 2003_06_29_dumonitor_archive.html - 20k - Cached - Similar pages

Hitler Dean
... Whadda ya say MRBENCHLEY, LOONMAN, HAWKEYE, MATTMAN? ... At the end of this verbal
contest, we come away as greedy racist pigs in the eyes of the pulic. ...
democrats.com/scrub/freep-dean-hitler/ - 61k - Cached - "

Not even a full page...

[iverglas]

142. yup, same 8 I got

On the other hand, benchley racist gets 528 results ... but then, that isn't your name. ;)

.

[MrBenchley]

146. And many of those are pages resulting

from Robert Benchley's friendship with Dorothy Parker, and Dorothy Parker's objections to this or that racist.

[slackmaster]

150. Iverglas, you've made a bad assumption

I was referring to MrBenchley's name, not his posting handle.

[slackmaster]

149. That's the most F-ed up bunch of links I've ever seen on this board

Take a break, MrBenchley.

[Wickerman]

152. Take a break, all of you

I am locking this thread, and I hope some of you consider using the ignore feature on one another. Nothing is getting accomplished, the personal attacks are getting heavier, and we will need to, very soon, get back to discussing this gun control issue.

I can feel a break through, coming, really guys, I can. Any day now, I'm certain, if we all just really try to look into each other's hearts to find the real goodness in each of us, I am certain you can come to some sort of compromise.

Night,

Lunabush
DU Schoolmarm