To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 19195
19194  |  19196
Subject: 
Re: We love our guns!!-- was Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Fri, 28 Feb 2003 15:54:14 GMT
Viewed: 
663 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli writes:
2) if there still are some guns, but citizens can't have them, outlaws(1)
will have them more than citizens will.

1 - either civilian thugs or military thugs, depending


I like how you do away with the rest of the logically constructed arguement,
that if you *reduce* the number of guns, you will reduce the number of gun
related cases of violence.  But you won't concede that part.

That is because the crime rate in Canada and the UK and anywhere else you
choose to examine has gone up (NOT down) after Gun Control policies were
enacted.

Care to show cause and effect? I expect not!

It is impossible to reduce the number of guns that criminals will get
so long as guns still exsist in the world.

Given that 500,000 are stolen from lawful owners each year in the USA. Do you
think that if more restrictions were put on ownership perhaps less would be
stolen?



Bet you won't admit it though, will you? It shreds your argument completely.
That's not hiding behind old paper, that's not fallacy, that's just the way
the world is. You're a self admitted dreamer, out of touch with reality.

Dreamers aren't necessarily out of touch with reality--I like this--weak
willed and out of touch with reality--what else can you possibly call me
during this debate?

I plainly, clearly, and straight forwardly said that removing guns from the
criminals as well as the citizens will reduce the gun related violence.
Less guns = less gun related violence.  Truth.  Deal with it.

Well all of the statistics point to: Less guns = only criminals have them and
without fear of opposition use them more often.

Even in the UK, some police are armed.


See a lot of gun control advocates point to the fact that the US has a higher
violent crime rate than in Canada and the UK. They claim this is due to the
tighter gun control legislation.  However when you compare the 3 countries back
when they had equal gun availability the violent crime rates were even lower in
Canada and the UK.

What does this prove?

Today, compared to then, the violent crime rate in Canada
has aproximately doubled, the the UK has aproximately tripled, and the US is
down about 15 percent. Just because the violent crime rates in Canada and the
UK are still lower than the US does not mean that the Gun Control laws have had
a positive effect.

Does it mean the effect is negative?

Scott A



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: We love our guns!!-- was Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
 
(...) Please give up on the notion that gun supply can somehow be controlled. There will *always* be guns, whether they are stolen from my house or produced in a third world nation. Anyway, the whole issue will become moot when technology gives us (...) (21 years ago, 28-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: We love our guns!!-- was Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
 
(...) That is because the crime rate in Canada and the UK and anywhere else you choose to examine has gone up (NOT down) after Gun Control policies were enacted. It is impossible to reduce the number of guns that criminals will get so long as guns (...) (21 years ago, 28-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

92 Messages in This Thread:

























Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR