Subject:
|
Re: Swift was Right! (He just named the wrong people...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 17 Jun 2003 17:16:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3730 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli wrote:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
>
> > > I would hazard a guess that most of the homicides are also due to 'armed'
> > > people. Imposing gun control on law abiding citizens will prevent and slow
> > > down the number of guns getting into the hands of criminals.
> >
> > No it doesn't. Take Austraila for example.
> > Here are some "pro-gun wacko" sites with statistics
> > http://www.888webtoday.com/beezley565.html
> > http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/guns/down_under.htm
> > http://www.fehq.org/public/guncontrol.htm
> > http://www.nrawinningteam.com/auresult.html
> > http://www.old-hippie.com/doc_files/polit/austrailian_gun_control.htm
> > Strangely enough I can not find any "anti-gun wacko" sites with
> > contradictiong claims.
>
> Here's one web reference that might be familiar to you:
>
> http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=19250
>
> And in that post I link to a site that specifically addresses the Australia
> problem. In particular, your citations (which in essence simply parrot the >same
> statistics and might as well all be the same source) cleverly omit the actual
> numbers involved, which are much more telling than the misleading percentage
> figures.
> If I give one cupcake to aid Ethiopian famine relief, and I thereafter give
> ten cupcakes, I can righty claim that my second donation is 1000% of my >first,
> but does that really tell us anything? Of course not, and if I omitted the
> specifics of my donation, I would be guilty of deception, just as your sites >are
> guilty.
Exactly why I called them "pro-gun wacko" sites. However I still can not find
any "anit-gun wacko" sites to refute them. Somewhere in the middle lies the
truth.
>
> > > Less guns in
> > > total can only mean less guns for criminals. Less guns to steal from law
> > > abiding citizens and stores means less guns to buy on the black market,
> > > therefore making it more difficult to purchase an illegal gun.
> > >
> > > Criminals cannot have guns *if* there are no guns to have.
> >
> > Do you think we can succesfully invade every country with a gun >>manufacturing
> > plant and shut them all down? I think it is easier just to allow law >>abiding
> > citizens to be on equal terms as the criminals.
>
> That's a straw man argument. Perhaps you could rephrase it?
No it isn't, I simply made the mistake of assuming we all knew that as long as a
single country still makes guns, criminals will have them.
-Mike Petrucelli
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
161 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
