Results 1 to 24 of 24
  1. #1
    waterproof*
    Reputation: Creakyknees's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    40,591

    District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago followups

    Newly released data for Chicago shows that, as in Washington, murder and gun crime rates didn't rise after the bans were eliminated -- they plummeted. They have fallen much more than the national crime rate.

    Read more: Media Silence Is Deafening About Important Gun News | Fox News

    And Lott's own blog with links to data sources:
    John Lott's Website: 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?

    "Similarly, in the year after the 2008 "Heller" decision, the murder rate fell two-and-a-half times faster in Washington than in the rest of the country.
    It also fell more than three as fast as in other cities that are close to Washington's size. And murders in Washington have continued to fall.
    If you compare the first six months of this year to the first six months of 2008, the same time immediately preceding the Supreme Court's late June "Heller" decision, murders have now fallen by thirty-four percent.
    Gun crimes also fell more than non-gun crimes.
    Robberies with guns fell by 25%, while robberies without guns have fallen by eight percent. Assaults with guns fell by 37%, while assaults without guns fell by 12%. "
    * posted by Creakybot 2013 all rights reserved.
    * not actually waterproof.

  2. #2
    Ricardo Cabeza
    Reputation: Andy69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    14,584
    the truth can be so nasty sometimes!

    oh but guns are still bad because, well because
    Whenever the legislators endeavour to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience, and are left to the common refuge which God hath provided for all men against force and violence - John Locke

    SuperAndy's Garage

  3. #3
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: cycmike's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    299
    Living in Houston in the 80's/90's, one could read about a deadly car jacking seemingly every week, or sometimes multiple times a week. Once the concealed carry law was passed in the nineties by Gov Bush, the car jacking stopped nearly over night. Hmm. Wonder if there is any connection.

    Less Murders, Violent Crime 15 Years after Concealed Carry

  4. #4
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    964
    I have a feeling this will be a quiet thread. lol

  5. #5
    Anphaque II
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    5,994
    Excellent news to hear!

    As well as not surprising.
    America's greatest threat: Congressional liberal Democrats

    Crimes Against Humanity: The History of The Democrat Party

  6. #6
    Ricardo Cabeza
    Reputation: Andy69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    14,584
    ha ha, every libtard argument against guns, shattered in one brutal moment.

    haw haw haw
    Whenever the legislators endeavour to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience, and are left to the common refuge which God hath provided for all men against force and violence - John Locke

    SuperAndy's Garage

  7. #7
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Fredrico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    12,831

    Talking Not at all. Haw haw haw.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy69 View Post
    ha ha, every libtard argument against guns, shattered in one brutal moment.

    haw haw haw
    Crime rates have been steadily dropping for 20 years. Gun violence just isn't as cool as it was during the 90s, so there's less of it. Young gangstas proving their manhood by shooting rivals accounts for most of the gun violence in Chicago and DC, and it's no longer "cool," if it ever was. Now that this nappy haired Kenyan is president, the pressure's off blacks to "prove" themselves.

    The prospects of law abiding citizens fighting petty thievery with guns is a minor deterrent. Most DC residents have gotten along fine when guns were banned and feel no need to start carrying now.

    So bragging that guns prevent crime is BS. As usual.

  8. #8
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: cycmike's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    299
    Quote Originally Posted by Fredrico View Post
    Crime rates have been steadily dropping for 20 years. Gun violence just isn't as cool as it was during the 90s, so there's less of it. Young gangstas proving their manhood by shooting rivals accounts for most of the gun violence in Chicago and DC, and it's no longer "cool," if it ever was. Now that this nappy haired Kenyan is president, the pressure's off blacks to "prove" themselves.

    The prospects of law abiding citizens fighting petty thievery with guns is a minor deterrent. Most DC residents have gotten along fine when guns were banned and feel no need to start carrying now.

    So bragging that guns prevent crime is BS. As usual.
    So having Obama as president reduces violent crime? Is there nothing this man cannot do? Bwahahahaha
    I assume that you have not yourself been a victim of a car jacking or home invasion. What would you do if you were. Wait for the police to come rescue you? Bwahahaha again.
    I wouldn't call killing law abiding citizens for their cars or debit cards or girlfriends or Air Jordans petty crime. Just figure it out. If a thug thinks there is a loaded gun in the home or car is he more or less likely to try something?

  9. #9
    waterproof*
    Reputation: Creakyknees's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    40,591
    Quote Originally Posted by Fredrico View Post
    Crime rates have been steadily dropping for 20 years. Gun violence just isn't as cool as it was during the 90s, so there's less of it. Young gangstas proving their manhood by shooting rivals accounts for most of the gun violence in Chicago and DC, and it's no longer "cool," if it ever was. Now that this nappy haired Kenyan is president, the pressure's off blacks to "prove" themselves.

    The prospects of law abiding citizens fighting petty thievery with guns is a minor deterrent. Most DC residents have gotten along fine when guns were banned and feel no need to start carrying now.

    So bragging that guns prevent crime is BS. As usual.
    No, your post is BS, as usual.

    At least you could try and pretend that you read the linked articles, and if you have issue with the data or conclusions, speak to them specifically. That would really cut down on how much of a hack your post makes you look like.
    * posted by Creakybot 2013 all rights reserved.
    * not actually waterproof.

  10. #10
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Fredrico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    12,831

    Angry Still BS.

    Quote Originally Posted by Creakyknees View Post
    No, your post is BS, as usual.

    At least you could try and pretend that you read the linked articles, and if you have issue with the data or conclusions, speak to them specifically. That would really cut down on how much of a hack your post makes you look like.
    Robberies with guns fell by 25%, while robberies without guns have fallen by eight percent. Assaults with guns fell by 37%, while assaults without guns fell by 12%.

    Just as with right-to-carry laws, when law-abiding citizens have guns some criminals stop carrying theirs.


    What? Why would a robber think committing a robbery without a gun, would be any less risky than with a gun? Seems like knowing potential victims might be armed would reduce robberies without guns at the same rate as robberies with guns.

    The other thing the Fox link mentions is middle class whites can afford to legally own guns, while those most likely to be in danger, po blacks, can't. So how does that work as a deterrent to gun crimes, when most are committed against poor people who can't afford guns?

    Look, creak, it just don't add up!

    Obviously, there's more to the story than simply arming potential victims. But it makes gun owners warm and fuzzy.
    Last edited by Fredrico; 10-08-2011 at 10:46 PM.

  11. #11
    gazing from the shadows
    Reputation: QuiQuaeQuod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    22,491
    Quote Originally Posted by Creakyknees View Post

    And Lott's own blog ...

    Given Lott's history, I don't put any faith in any statistical analysis he does on gun issues.

    Here's some wiki to give you an idea of who you are hanging your hat on:

    Disputed survey

    In the course of a dispute with Otis Dudley Duncan in 1999-2000,[53] Lott claimed to have undertaken a national survey of 2,424 respondents in 1997, the results of which were the source for claims he had made beginning in 1997.[54] However, in 2000 Lott was unable to produce the data, or any records showing that the survey had been undertaken. He said the 1997 hard drive crash that had affected several projects with co-authors had destroyed his survey data set,[55] the original tally sheets had been abandoned with other personal property in his move from Chicago to Yale, and he could not recall the names of any of the students who he said had worked on it. ...

    Use of Econometrics as proof of causation

    Rutgers University sociology professor Ted Goertzel[59] considered use of econometrics to establish causal relationships by Lott (and by Lott's critics Levitt, Ayres and Donohue) to be "fundamentally flawed" junk science.[60] ...

    Mary Rosh persona
    See also: Amazon.com#Reader reviews credibility

    As part of the dispute surrounding the missing survey, Lott created and used "Mary Rosh" as a fake persona to defend his own works on Usenet and elsewhere. After investigative work by blogger Julian Sanchez, Lott admitted to use of the Rosh persona.[57]
    .
    Stout beers under trees, please.

  12. #12
    Ricardo Cabeza
    Reputation: Andy69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    14,584
    Quote Originally Posted by QuiQuaeQuod View Post
    Given Lott's history, I don't put any faith in any statistical analysis he does on gun issues.

    Here's some wiki to give you an idea of who you are hanging your hat on:

    Disputed survey

    In the course of a dispute with Otis Dudley Duncan in 1999-2000,[53] Lott claimed to have undertaken a national survey of 2,424 respondents in 1997, the results of which were the source for claims he had made beginning in 1997.[54] However, in 2000 Lott was unable to produce the data, or any records showing that the survey had been undertaken. He said the 1997 hard drive crash that had affected several projects with co-authors had destroyed his survey data set,[55] the original tally sheets had been abandoned with other personal property in his move from Chicago to Yale, and he could not recall the names of any of the students who he said had worked on it. ...

    Use of Econometrics as proof of causation

    Rutgers University sociology professor Ted Goertzel[59] considered use of econometrics to establish causal relationships by Lott (and by Lott's critics Levitt, Ayres and Donohue) to be "fundamentally flawed" junk science.[60] ...

    Mary Rosh persona
    See also: Amazon.com#Reader reviews credibility

    As part of the dispute surrounding the missing survey, Lott created and used "Mary Rosh" as a fake persona to defend his own works on Usenet and elsewhere. After investigative work by blogger Julian Sanchez, Lott admitted to use of the Rosh persona.[57]
    isn't this the old "I can't refute the facts so I will attempt to discredit their source" ploy?

    Whenever the legislators endeavour to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience, and are left to the common refuge which God hath provided for all men against force and violence - John Locke

    SuperAndy's Garage

  13. #13
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: jarbiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,672

    An armed

    Quote Originally Posted by Creakyknees View Post
    Newly released data for Chicago shows that, as in Washington, murder and gun crime rates didn't rise after the bans were eliminated -- they plummeted. They have fallen much more than the national crime rate.

    Read more: Media Silence Is Deafening About Important Gun News | Fox News

    And Lott's own blog with links to data sources:
    John Lott's Website: 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?

    "Similarly, in the year after the 2008 "Heller" decision, the murder rate fell two-and-a-half times faster in Washington than in the rest of the country.
    It also fell more than three as fast as in other cities that are close to Washington's size. And murders in Washington have continued to fall.
    If you compare the first six months of this year to the first six months of 2008, the same time immediately preceding the Supreme Court's late June "Heller" decision, murders have now fallen by thirty-four percent.
    Gun crimes also fell more than non-gun crimes.
    Robberies with guns fell by 25%, while robberies without guns have fallen by eight percent. Assaults with guns fell by 37%, while assaults without guns fell by 12%. "
    society is a polite society. But the gun grabbers can't stand this. Nearly every place that has passed a right to carry law has seen crime rates go down.
    +1 for the NRA!

    Guns save lives.

  14. #14
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by Creakyknees View Post
    No, your post is BS, as usual.

    At least you could try and pretend that you read the linked articles, and if you have issue with the data or conclusions, speak to them specifically. That would really cut down on how much of a hack your post makes you look like.
    Or he could just do what I'm going to do. Correlation does not imply causation.

    And if you think I'm a gun grabber, just google my username and try to figure out what it means.

    The connection between the crime rate and gun ownership or law-abiding citizens carrying guns is limited at the very most. Yes, criminals do fear armed victims. They also fear getting caught, and all kinds of other things. Determining which is the most relevant fear is basically impossible, even if some professor tells you otherwise.
    Last edited by twodownzero; 10-09-2011 at 06:43 PM.

  15. #15
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Fredrico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    12,831

    Nah.

    Quote Originally Posted by jarbiker View Post
    An armed society is a polite society. But the gun grabbers can't stand this. Nearly every place that has passed a right to carry law has seen crime rates go down.
    American society is not one of the "polite" societies of the world. Do you travel any? If so, you'll find Americans are rude compared to most other ethnic cultures. I've traveled to Asia, India, Egypt, Europe, and know people from South America. All are polite and respectful compared to Americans.

    Guns don't do sh!t to make people behave and respect each other. That's another self-serving fantasy of gun lovers.

    I'm not a "gun grabber." I think guns are a crutch, frankly, and have never felt any need for one. If I wanted to kill, I'd have one.

  16. #16
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Fredrico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    12,831

    Angry Huh?

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy69 View Post
    isn't this the old "I can't refute the facts so I will attempt to discredit their source" ploy?
    This guy Lott obviously has an agenda, to prove his predetermined belief that if everyone had a gun, there would be much less crime. Self-serving BS. There are many other factors in play, as I and twodownzero have tried to suggest.

  17. #17
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by Fredrico View Post
    I'm not a "gun grabber." I think guns are a crutch, frankly, and have never felt any need for one. If I wanted to kill, I'd have one.
    If you wanted to kill, our laws would (hopefully) have stopped you from getting a gun a long time ago. That just might be the most ignorant and foolish statement I've ever seen in any politically-related discussion that had to do with firearms, however. It suggests that firearms are only useful, or that their predominant use is to "kill." The fact is that millions of firearms are used for sport every day in our world. The fact is that is what they are used for most often.

    If your acquisition of inanimate objects is based on "need," that's yet another, separate issue. But the suggestion that one piece of sporting equipment is a "crutch" or for 'killing' because you haven't ever been involved in their use for anything else is no less ignorant than saying that bicycles are for children.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fredrico View Post
    This guy Lott obviously has an agenda, to prove his predetermined belief that if everyone had a gun, there would be much less crime. Self-serving BS. There are many other factors in play, as I and twodownzero have tried to suggest.
    Lott has some pretty substantial data to back his claims. I still think he's probably wrong, but your dismissive attitude reeks more of antiintellectualism than rational consideration.

    Furthermore, since you cant prove the truth of anything, I suspect that the person with the conclusion that goes beyond the evidence...is you. Lott's claims are (at least mostly) limited to the evidence he's examined.

    Note that I never said that I know Lott is wrong, that he has a predetermined agenda, etc. I don't know. And neither do you. Nor will we probably ever know. Research is interesting to examine the connections between the infinite variables in our world. It usually does an excellent job of that. Where it falls short is when that translates into popular discussions where inductive reasoning (or, in Lott's case, pop culture books) broadens the claims into something far beyond narrow assumptions and survey data.

    If everyone had a gun, there might be a whole lot less crime for all I know. I do know one more thing for certain, though. We'll never be living in a world where "everyone" has a gun, nor one where "most" or even "many" relative to the world population, so such an assumption is so unrealistic as to render any conclusion drawn from it meaningless.

    I am sure about the limited claim that I made, however. Firearms laws have such a limited effect, if any, on the overall rates of crime that any claim that they have a significant effect is nonsense. Something that miniscule simply cannot be isolated sufficiently to draw any meaningful conclusion.

    Gun owners would be much more well-served to:

    1. Discuss firearms ownership and carrying as a matter of right. Nothing is a bigger trump card in politics than an enumerated constitutional right that bars the policy your opponent is trying to enact. For examples, see pornography, discrimination, eminent domain, etc. Stop apologizing to the gun grabbers or trying to persuade them that gun ownership is some great humanitarian goal. Even if it is, that fight is a waste of time.

    2. Emphasize the evils of governments that have grown too large and too powerful to be checked by their people. Over a hundred million people were victims to oppressive governments in the last century. And probably just as many were victims of wars (some just, some not) and other killings. Government, the rule of law, the protection of private property rights, etc., have produced unprecedented wealth in modern societies. But utopian political ideologies and other atrocious, authoritarian regimes have killed hundreds of millions of human beings in just the last half-dozen generations. If a gun grabber isn't ready to consider seriously the idea that the government, as much as his fellow countryman, can become the enemy and destroy human life, then the gun grabber isn't anywhere near the humanitarian he claims to be.
    Last edited by twodownzero; 10-10-2011 at 02:06 AM.

  18. #18
    gazing from the shadows
    Reputation: QuiQuaeQuod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    22,491
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy69 View Post
    isn't this the old "I can't refute the facts so I will attempt to discredit their source" ploy?
    I've looked at his stuff before, and it is crap. He is an agenda driven hack and a self admitted liar when it comes to his claims about guns, why would this time be any different? But I will click through and give a scan, just for you....

    The "facts" are nothing. The only control he puts on things is time of year, he ignores a whole host of other KNOWN factors that affect violent crime rates. Why might he do that? Because he is an agenda driven hack, that's why.

    Correlation is not causation, as has been said before, in this thread and outside this thread. No surprise that he makes such a claim with no rigor behind his numbers, nor is it any surprise that some jump on his claims as if they were a gold standard, ignoring the weakness of his claims and his history.
    .
    Stout beers under trees, please.

  19. #19
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Snakebit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    51,156
    Quote Originally Posted by Fredrico View Post
    American society is not one of the "polite" societies of the world. Do you travel any? If so, you'll find Americans are rude compared to most other ethnic cultures. I've traveled to Asia, India, Egypt, Europe, and know people from South America. All are polite and respectful compared to Americans.

    Guns don't do sh!t to make people behave and respect each other. That's another self-serving fantasy of gun lovers.

    I'm not a "gun grabber." I think guns are a crutch, frankly, and have never felt any need for one. If I wanted to kill, I'd have one.
    If it was killing you were interested in you could probably find a way to do it without a gun. Use your sword.

  20. #20
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Fredrico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    12,831

    Smile Perhaps I was being a little hyperbolic.

    Quote Originally Posted by twodownzero View Post
    If you wanted to kill, our laws would (hopefully) have stopped you from getting a gun a long time ago. That just might be the most ignorant and foolish statement I've ever seen in any politically-related discussion that had to do with firearms, however. It suggests that firearms are only useful, or that their predominant use is to "kill." The fact is that millions of firearms are used for sport every day in our world. The fact is that is what they are used for most often.

    If your acquisition of inanimate objects is based on "need," that's yet another, separate issue. But the suggestion that one piece of sporting equipment is a "crutch" or for 'killing' because you haven't ever been involved in their use for anything else is no less ignorant than saying that bicycles are for children.



    Lott has some pretty substantial data to back his claims. I still think he's probably wrong, but your dismissive attitude reeks more of antiintellectualism than rational consideration.

    Furthermore, since you cant prove the truth of anything, I suspect that the person with the conclusion that goes beyond the evidence...is you. Lott's claims are (at least mostly) limited to the evidence he's examined.

    Note that I never said that I know Lott is wrong, that he has a predetermined agenda, etc. I don't know. And neither do you. Nor will we probably ever know. Research is interesting to examine the connections between the infinite variables in our world. It usually does an excellent job of that. Where it falls short is when that translates into popular discussions where inductive reasoning (or, in Lott's case, pop culture books) broadens the claims into something far beyond narrow assumptions and survey data.

    If everyone had a gun, there might be a whole lot less crime for all I know. I do know one more thing for certain, though. We'll never be living in a world where "everyone" has a gun, nor one where "most" or even "many" relative to the world population, so such an assumption is so unrealistic as to render any conclusion drawn from it meaningless.

    I am sure about the limited claim that I made, however. Firearms laws have such a limited effect, if any, on the overall rates of crime that any claim that they have a significant effect is nonsense. Something that miniscule simply cannot be isolated sufficiently to draw any meaningful conclusion.

    Gun owners would be much more well-served to:

    1. Discuss firearms ownership and carrying as a matter of right. Nothing is a bigger trump card in politics than an enumerated constitutional right that bars the policy your opponent is trying to enact. For examples, see pornography, discrimination, eminent domain, etc. Stop apologizing to the gun grabbers or trying to persuade them that gun ownership is some great humanitarian goal. Even if it is, that fight is a waste of time.

    2. Emphasize the evils of governments that have grown too large and too powerful to be checked by their people. Over a hundred million people were victims to oppressive governments in the last century. And probably just as many were victims of wars (some just, some not) and other killings. Government, the rule of law, the protection of private property rights, etc., have produced unprecedented wealth in modern societies. But utopian political ideologies and other atrocious, authoritarian regimes have killed hundreds of millions of human beings in just the last half-dozen generations. If a gun grabber isn't ready to consider seriously the idea that the government, as much as his fellow countryman, can become the enemy and destroy human life, then the gun grabber isn't anywhere near the humanitarian he claims to be.
    I base my guns as crutches theory on observations of gun owners I've known and hung out with over the years. They have been, to a one, fearful, insecure men, with the exception of one woman living in NYC, worried about being attacked by muggers or robbed at night in their houses. The first time I got mugged, I vowed to get a gun and go after the perps. The second time, I thanked my lucky stars I didn't have a gun. I might very well not be here to tell you about it.

    Americans are somewhat unique in their love of guns. I can only conclude there's more going on than a simple desire for protection, or having fun at the shooting range. Now its true Americans like to hunt, so maybe I'm overlooking that reason.

    But still, I'll back up my "foolish statement." Whether for protection or hunting, guns are designed to kill. What I find curious is those who manage to separate the weapon from the purpose it was designed for an is continually being perfected to do more efficiently.

    And hey man, let's not get warm and fuzzy about an armed population deterring oppressive government. This sentiment does rationalize owning a gun, however. Snake crawling into my kitchen, thug breaking through back door, government declaring martial law and coming for my guns, it's all the same ball of wax. Your chances of crashing your car and killing yourself are a million times more possible than actually needing to protect your life or "freedom" with a gun.

  21. #21
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Fredrico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    12,831

    Talking You should talk!

    Quote Originally Posted by Snakebit View Post
    If it was killing you were interested in you could probably find a way to do it without a gun. Use your sword.
    How many targets did you kill today? : Bam! Take that! Bam Bam! Take that!

    I gave up my sword years ago. Transformed it into plowshares! Praise the Lord!

  22. #22
    Call me a Fred
    Reputation: MikeBiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Fredrico View Post
    I base my guns as crutches theory on observations of gun owners I've known and hung out with over the years. They have been, to a one, fearful, insecure men, with the exception of one woman living in NYC, worried about being attacked by muggers or robbed at night in their houses. The first time I got mugged, I vowed to get a gun and go after the perps. The second time, I thanked my lucky stars I didn't have a gun. I might very well not be here to tell you about it.

    Americans are somewhat unique in their love of guns. I can only conclude there's more going on than a simple desire for protection, or having fun at the shooting range. Now its true Americans like to hunt, so maybe I'm overlooking that reason.

    But still, I'll back up my "foolish statement." Whether for protection or hunting, guns are designed to kill. What I find curious is those who manage to separate the weapon from the purpose it was designed for an is continually being perfected to do more efficiently.

    And hey man, let's not get warm and fuzzy about an armed population deterring oppressive government. This sentiment does rationalize owning a gun, however. Snake crawling into my kitchen, thug breaking through back door, government declaring martial law and coming for my guns, it's all the same ball of wax. Your chances of crashing your car and killing yourself are a million times more possible than actually needing to protect your life or "freedom" with a gun.
    I was a competitive shooter in my youth and hung out with lots of gun owners. None of them seemed to have thought the way your gun owner's did. You must hang out with some weird people.
    Mike

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    You may starch my jumper
    Hang it upside your wall
    You know by that, baby
    I need my ashes hauled.

    Sleepy John Estes

    H

  23. #23
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    25
    Americans are far from unique in their love of shooting sports. IPSC has something like 60 countries involved, and it's far from the only shooting sport. Competitive rifle shooting might have 2x as many.

    It has nothing to do with hunting. Marksmanship is a sport.

    Guns are tools designed for putting holes in things. It's not a weapon unless it's pointed at something that it's intended to destroy. That's what people like you can't seem to grasp. It's not shooting at someone or some animal that is my sport. My sport is the skill of driving the gun, which requires far more technique than you even realize.

    I don't need a fair probability of needing my rights in order for it to be wrong for you to take them from me. Furthermore, that the rest of the world lives in tyranny and misery, is disarmed and has no reasonable means of effective resistance from oppressive government does not change the substance of my constitutional rights one iota.

    If the best you can come up with is a few anecdotal cases of ignorant rednecks or hunting as a justification for firearms ownership, glossing over the hundreds of millions of deaths I discussed earlier in this thread, maybe this isn't the thread for you.

  24. #24
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Fredrico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    12,831
    Quote Originally Posted by MikeBiker View Post
    I was a competitive shooter in my youth and hung out with lots of gun owners. None of them seemed to have thought the way your gun owner's did. You must hang out with some weird people.
    Well, you could be right!

Similar Threads

  1. Heat Advisory for District Of Columbia, DC
    By MB1 in forum Commuting, Touring and Ride Reports
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 06-13-2011, 05:16 PM
  2. Columbia is now Team Columbia-HTC
    By DIRT BOY in forum Pro Cycling - Race Discussion
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 07-04-2009, 05:48 AM
  3. Outstanding result for Zach McDonald in Baal
    By henry_j in forum Cyclocross
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 01-02-2009, 04:16 PM
  4. Ronald McDonald House and Crack.
    By Brick Tamland in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 06-02-2008, 06:21 AM
  5. Ronald McDonald is so...old, ugly, and masculine
    By mohair_chair in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 03-29-2006, 09:29 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Sea Otter Classic

Hot Deals

Contest


Latest RoadBike Articles


Latest Videos

RoadbikeReview on Facebook