Open Carry March on Washington DC July 4th

[Dooom35796821595]

This thread just cannot stay on topic...

What was the topic again?

[Edlichbury]

Racial profiling is wrong. Allowing people to die in the name of "civil rights" and "Freedom" is still wrong.

So you have the same reasoning as those advocating racial profiling.

Good for you.

No I don't. I state that no civilians should have guns for the safety of society. I have the same reasoning as people who put in metal detectors and x-rays in airports.

[Edlichbury]

This thread just cannot stay on topic...

We're no longer discussing Byzantium or cars, so I think we're doing rather well now.

[Ifreann]

This thread just cannot stay on topic...

What was the topic again?

I'm pretty sure it wasn't "Does being okay with airport security make you a racist?"

[Occupied Deutschland]

When the site has no interaction with the poll or the survey being used, I fail to see your point.

Want more on the study?
http://vacps.org/public-policy/the-cont ... s-of-kleck (Kleck's methodology was flawed)
http://www.oneutah.org/2009/11/national ... stortions/
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/02/26 ... emi/192799
http://www.bmsg.org/pdfs/myths.pdf

1) Biased.
2) Biased.
3) Biased.
4) Interesting. Previous discussion on this topic has taught me that the acceptance of these studies largely falls along partisan lines.

Seriously, did you even LOOK at the photo "OneUtah" used?

[The UK in Exile]

This thread just cannot stay on topic...

well the topic is a group who believe that a collection of gun control laws regarded by the rest of the world and about half of the US as common sense are a tyrannical assault on the 2nd Ammendment. their solution is peaceful, armed, protest (not clear which of those needs to be in quotation marks). their position isn't even logically consistent, so there is really nothing to say, but "gee, I hope no-one gets shot who didn't have it coming." Then debate who would have it coming.

[The UK in Exile]

What was the topic again?

I'm pretty sure it wasn't "Does being okay with airport security make you a racist?"

which airport are we talking about here?

[Edlichbury]

Want more on the study?
http://vacps.org/public-policy/the-cont ... s-of-kleck (Kleck's methodology was flawed)
http://www.oneutah.org/2009/11/national ... stortions/
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/02/26 ... emi/192799
http://www.bmsg.org/pdfs/myths.pdf

1) Biased.
2) Biased.
3) Biased.
4) Interesting. Previous discussion on this topic has taught me that the acceptance of these studies largely falls along partisan lines.

Seriously, did you even LOOK at the photo "OneUtah" used?

Biased sources still point out the obvious fact: the study had flaws and doesn't match up with DoJ estimates.

[Alekera]

I got one for you: Ordinary folks disarmed, criminals armed, and police 20 minutes away....

Again, please show statistics. Until then, I'm holding with the studies that show a huge decline in murder, assault, and robbery rates after gun control.

Lets look at countries that have strict gun control and how much violent crimes they have...

UK: 2,034 violent crimes for every 100,000 people

Honduras: 82 murders (alone) for 100,000 people

USA: 386 violent crimes per 100,000 people (and we're the ones with more gun freedom)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/nmcrimn.htm
http://www.ibtimes.com/honduras-has-worlds-highest-murder-rate-un-374196
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

[The Whispers]

What a country.

[Ifreann]

This thread just cannot stay on topic...

well the topic is a group who believe that a collection of gun control laws regarded by the rest of the world and about half of the US as common sense are a tyrannical assault on the 2nd Ammendment. their solution is peaceful, armed, protest (not clear which of those needs to be in quotation marks). their position isn't even logically consistent, so there is really nothing to say, but "gee, I hope no-one gets shot who didn't have it coming." Then debate who would have it coming.

I could easily see a lot of them having it coming. Terrorism's pretty serious business.

[Occupied Deutschland]

So you have the same reasoning as those advocating racial profiling.

Good for you.

No I don't. I state that no civilians should have guns for the safety of society. I have the same reasoning as people who put in metal detectors and x-rays in airports.

So you have the same reasoning as those advocating racial profiling. This group of people you dislike is just too evil to have their rights respected.

But getting off that slightly, I do hope you're just using shorthand for your 'NO CIVILIAN OWNERSHIP' advocacy. I really hope that's just your way of saying stricting licensing requirements and such. Because if you seriously have a 'no civilian ownership' position, your opinion is terrible and completely useless as a starting point for any 'reasonable discussion'.

[Occupied Deutschland]

1) Biased.
2) Biased.
3) Biased.
4) Interesting. Previous discussion on this topic has taught me that the acceptance of these studies largely falls along partisan lines.

Seriously, did you even LOOK at the photo "OneUtah" used?

Biased sources still point out the obvious fact: the study had flaws and doesn't match up with DoJ estimates.

My NRA sources say otherwise.

#4 was the only one even worth reading, and it boiled down to correlation isn't causation.

[Edlichbury]

No I don't. I state that no civilians should have guns for the safety of society. I have the same reasoning as people who put in metal detectors and x-rays in airports.

So you have the same reasoning as those advocating racial profiling. This group of people you dislike is just too evil to have their rights respected.

But getting off that slightly, I do hope you're just using shorthand for your 'NO CIVILIAN OWNERSHIP' advocacy. I really hope that's just your way of saying stricting licensing requirements and such. Because if you seriously have a 'no civilian ownership' position, your opinion is terrible and completely useless as a starting point for any 'reasonable discussion'.

Gun ownership is the most important factor in whether or not someone will commit crimes with a gun, race isn't.

Not the same.

And no, considering the benefits of societies with no civilian gun ownership, I'd hardly consider that "useless" or "terrible."

[The Steel Magnolia]

So you have the same reasoning as those advocating racial profiling.

Good for you.

No I don't. I state that no civilians should have guns for the safety of society. I have the same reasoning as people who put in metal detectors and x-rays in airports.

So you support banning guns.

Weren't you complaining about such a position being a "strawman" earlier?

[The UK in Exile]

Biased sources still point out the obvious fact: the study had flaws and doesn't match up with DoJ estimates.

My NRA sources say otherwise.

#4 was the only one even worth reading, and it boiled down to correlation isn't causation.

you don't think the NRA might be somewhat biased?

[Edlichbury]

Biased sources still point out the obvious fact: the study had flaws and doesn't match up with DoJ estimates.

My NRA sources say otherwise.

#4 was the only one even worth reading, and it boiled down to correlation isn't causation.

As they all mentioned, Kleck focused on males in the South or West, allowed them to define their own standards of "self-defense," and oversampled gun-rights advocates. Three things that all led to horrible oversampling.

And the hypocrisy of using NRA sources and calling mine biased and not worth reading is staggering.

[Occupied Deutschland]

My NRA sources say otherwise.

#4 was the only one even worth reading, and it boiled down to correlation isn't causation.

As they all mentioned, Kleck focused on males in the South or West, allowed them to define their own standards of "self-defense," and oversampled gun-rights advocates. Three things that all led to horrible oversampling.

And the hypocrisy of using NRA sources and calling mine biased and not worth reading is staggering.

Yes. That was the point. You see the problem with biased sources now?

[Edlichbury]

No I don't. I state that no civilians should have guns for the safety of society. I have the same reasoning as people who put in metal detectors and x-rays in airports.

So you support banning guns.

Weren't you complaining about such a position being a "strawman" earlier?

I do. Doesn't mean the majority of gun-control advocates do. I complained that you assumed that was true when at the time not a single person had said such.

[Great Terran Republic]

Kokesh is a real patriot I hope he shows our Government that our freedoms will not be taken

[Edlichbury]

As they all mentioned, Kleck focused on males in the South or West, allowed them to define their own standards of "self-defense," and oversampled gun-rights advocates. Three things that all led to horrible oversampling.

And the hypocrisy of using NRA sources and calling mine biased and not worth reading is staggering.

Yes. That was the point. You see the problem with biased sources now?

I see no problem considering you simply labelled mine "biased" when the NRA has no objectivity and provided no evidence that mine were as well. Please, inform me how each of them is biased and then I might consider posting the other sources that come to the same conclusion.

[Occupied Deutschland]

So you have the same reasoning as those advocating racial profiling. This group of people you dislike is just too evil to have their rights respected.

But getting off that slightly, I do hope you're just using shorthand for your 'NO CIVILIAN OWNERSHIP' advocacy. I really hope that's just your way of saying stricting licensing requirements and such. Because if you seriously have a 'no civilian ownership' position, your opinion is terrible and completely useless as a starting point for any 'reasonable discussion'.

Gun ownership is the most important factor in whether or not someone will commit crimes with a gun, race isn't.

Not the same.

And no, considering the benefits of societies with no civilian gun ownership, I'd hardly consider that "useless" or "terrible."

"Race is the most important factor is whether or not someone will commit a robbery." This statement is technically correct as robberies are predominantly done by minority groups. I wonder if possibly there's other factors involved here and in the case of people using guns in crimes? Or is that just crazy talk.

Your opinion is worthless if you honestly think no civilians should own guns. Largely because even the places you point to as examples of how peachy such a situation is STILL HAVE PRIVATE FIREARM OWNERSHIP.

[Occupied Deutschland]

So you support banning guns.

Weren't you complaining about such a position being a "strawman" earlier?

I do. Doesn't mean the majority of gun-control advocates do. I complained that you assumed that was true when at the time not a single person had said such.

...Wow.

[The UK in Exile]

As they all mentioned, Kleck focused on males in the South or West, allowed them to define their own standards of "self-defense," and oversampled gun-rights advocates. Three things that all led to horrible oversampling.

And the hypocrisy of using NRA sources and calling mine biased and not worth reading is staggering.

Yes. That was the point. You see the problem with biased sources now?

That you consider Government sources partisan and political pressure degrades the value of even those by forcing the discontinuation of meaningful statistical measurements?

[The Whispers]

Lets look at countries that have strict gun control and how much violent crimes they have...

There is a problem with this, though (and I say this as someone maybe affected by being in the UK and being broadly against gun ownership, so take that as you may).

What the US considers "violent crime" and what the UK considers "violent crime" are patently different (the wiki article says as much with regards to Canada, and the Telegraph, a paper pretty resolutely against the ruling government in 2007, suggests that not just assault, which covers a lot in the UK, but also robberies and sexual offenses were being counted). You also run into serious problems about the internal recording and external reporting of what crimes do happen. This is almost certainly part of the reason why the Eastern European countries appear to do extremely well on all of the European crime statistics, whereas the UK and Scandinavian countries probably look much more dangerous than they actually are/are actually somewhat realistic about the amount of crime going on.