"Gun town U.S.A." Not a murder in 25 years!!!

OWB

I understood it to be so, but you clearly didn’t understand by reply.
This doesn’t make sense, I’m not saying that thinking [by which I mean the fear level] you are going to be attacked is the same [fear level] as being attacked, what I’m saying is that pro-gunners seem to promote guns by promoting the supposed threat of being attacked.
Doesn’t really change what I said does it.
This seems like evasion I mean you’re not addressing what’s said you’re just nit picking.
I’m saying that pro-gunners seem to promote guns by promoting the supposed threat of being attacked
*
They’re the ones that relate scenarios involving violent criminal, psychos and rapists.

NO, actually they’ve brought them up and I’ve commented on them and tried to talk about why they do it and why they don’t seem able to discuss alternatives so far all I seem to get is silence or evasion.
AGAIN yet more evasion, you’re are not addressing what’s said
*
What you seem to be suggesting is that being told that you could be murdered, maimed or raped is the same as being told that you might be rained on, which to me is ridicules.

AGAIN this is evasion – I’ve pointed out that pro-gunners mention these things often (the evidence is in all the gun threads) so the question still stands.
Is telling someone they could be murdered, maimed or raped likely to cause more sense of fear than telling someone they might get rained on?
**
Are you arguing that if someone says people might be attacked, maimed or murdered by a violent criminal they’re not trying to induce or instil any sense of fear in that audience?

Oooooh the man with no fear.
Well I’m glad you are immune to one of the most persistent techniques for selling things (products and political views) in history, but are you absolutely convinced everyone else thinks as you do?
And the thing is that I don’t really get it over here while pro-gunners hinting at the possibility of getting attacked happens quite frequently on these forums.
*
But it’s not me promoting guns through fear by saying that people might be attacked by violent criminals, and that gun ownership makes them ‘safer’.

AGAIN EVASION – you’re brave and fearless and immune to the fear sales pitch but are you sure it doesn’t work on other people?
I mean a lot of people claim they buy gun specifically for protection.
*
You’re implying that people that buy a gun specifically for protection (millions of them according to the info above) are doing so because they feel in no way threatened whatsoever?

I know you don’t agree but I don’t think you actually explain why - here is the relevant post http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showpost.php?p=5373603&postcount=186
You don’t actually address it directly at all – if you have somewhere else please show me.
I said - “The United States has the largest number of guns in private hands of any country in the world with 60 million people owning a combined arsenal of over 200 million firearms.”
60 million gun owners minus 12.5 million hunters
Would make 47.5 million gun owners that are not hunters?
Now there could be those that are hunting illegally but 47.5 million?
The results of a 2004 national firearms survey extrapolated that some – “64% of gun owners or 16% of American adults reported owning at least one handgun” http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/...t/full/13/1/15
16% of 300 million is 48 million.
Your reply was - Nice work interpolating these figures for us. But the figures are a probably little skewed seeing as hunters tend to own multiple guns and collectors, who may not be hunters, tend to own even more.
But the multiple gun issue was actually covered - 60 million people owning a combined arsenal of over 200 million firearms
So you don’t seem to have addressed the issue at all.
*

To repeat –

65%
*
You’re saying that if someone says something like ‘you’ll wish you had a gun when a killer/rapist/psycho kicks down your door’ they’re not trying to us fear to sell guns they’re just saying there’s positively and absolutely nothing to worry about.

It has been put to me like that many times (and to other people that have questioned the pro-gun stance) you’d know that if you’d read the threads I’d linked to you several times now.

*

Sorry, my dyslexia sometimes gets the better of me thank you and noted.

*

So are you saying that violent crime and its causes are NOT in your opinion societal problems?

AGAIN EVASION – you said “Did you really think that with this title that no one would mention the possibility that there might be a correlation between gun ownership and lower rates of violence? Where in the world did you get the impression that this thread was going to be a discussion of all the societal problems of the US?”
To which I asked – “So are you saying that violent crime and its causes are NOT in your opinion societal problems?

It seems to me that pro-gunners are ignoring the possibility there might be wider concerns and instead concentrate overly on guns?

Because as I’ve pointed out, they don’t seem interested in discussion of wider issues and just concentrate on guns.
You miss out the bit that makes the question make sense.
*
It seems to me that pro-gunners are ignoring the possibility there might be wider concerns and instead concentrate overly on guns?

AGAIN EVASION – I’ve explained at length why I think it is so you are not explaining why thing it isn’t so beyond just saying it isn’t.
*

 

I personally have offered to discuss any of these wider issues you want to but so far you have brushed the offer aside.

WE HAVE BEEN THROUGH THIS SEVERAL TIMES - THIS HAS GONE BEYOND EVASION AND IS BECOMING OUT AND OUT LYING.

For example post 97 http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showpost.php?p=5361023&postcount=97

And your reply to this was a brush off – that you didn’t post such things because…well because.

TRY THIS AGAIN AND I WILL TAKE IT AS TROLLING.

If you wish to post something in any of the other threads about other subjects in politics AS I’VE SAID SEVERAL TIMES you are free to do so and I’d be very happy to join in.
*

 

I mean you do seem to be supporting the idea that gun ownership is a way of dealing with the problem of violence.
So while you seem to be ignoring the wider societal problems associated with violence you are advocating that guns are a way to deal with it?

EVASION – You haven’t given me anything else to go on [see above] so I’m only left with the view that you seem to see guns as a way of dealing with the problem of violence.
You may say you have workable ideas as to alternative measures but all it is so far is your say so.
*
These are all things that are believed to lead to crime. Non-urban areas that are described as affluent (such as Kennesaw) with low levels of hunger, homelessness and unemployment usually have lower levels of crime.

AGAIN EVASION – you’re not addressing what been said just dismissing it, are you saying that in your opinion none of these things have any effect on levels of crime?
I mean it wasn’t the opinion of that article I quoted

Some of the likely costs of unemployment for society include increased poverty, crime, political instability, mental health problems, and diminished issue in economics. A low rate of unemployment usually helps prevent mass poverty and violence.
http://articles.directorym.com/Unemp...nnesaw_GA.html
Your rather immature outburst that “some people live in the most retched conditions and yet do not commit crime and yet some of the most affluent do” doesn’t address what’s been said.
You’re just saying that yes crime happens.
(I’ve covered this before at length in the threads I’ve mentioned)
This is about guns being supposedly useful in tackling crime, the type of crimes affluent people usually get involved in are the so called ‘white collar crime’ “because the opportunity for fraud, bribery, insider trading, embezzlement, computer crime, and forgery is more available to white-collar employees” (wiki)
They are not the kind of crimes that are likely to be tackled with a gun or the type of crimes mentioned repeatedly by pro-gunners.
Thing is that need is more likely to cause a less affluent person to ‘street crime’ whereas a more affluent person is likely to commit ‘office crime’.
*
One of the points I’ve been making is that pro-gunners seem to want people to believe guns are a way of dealing with something like crime (often using fear tactics), as a way of distracting from the societal problems that are thought to be the major causes of such things, because they don’t seem to have any answer for those problems.

For fuck sake OWB – read the fucking OP that is the implication of the article – that gun ownership has directly lead to a drop in crimes and has made this town ‘safer’ from violent crime.

AGAIN EVASION – and sophistry,

I’m not saying pro-gunners are claiming gun ownership completely eradicates all crime, I don’t think anyone is (except it seems in your imagination).

Does one rural and affluent town of only some 30,000 people ‘prove’ this or just that a town with an above average median wage and low levels of unemployment, poverty and homeless are not so likely to have high crime rates?

My argument is that pro-gunners often seem to promote guns as a way of tackling crime, while seeming to have no alternative ideas, in other words they don’t care what might be behind crime or violence they just want to promote gun ownership.

But as I’ve said many times it is the pro-gunners that talk of ‘psycho’ and ‘rapists’ kicking in your door and invading your home.
*
Quote:
For example why is it that in the 1990’s the rate of homicide due to firearms for black males in their early twenties was 104.7 per 100,000 while the rate for all individuals in there early twenties was just 17.1.

Why don’t you ask them? I know why I don’t shoot people with guns. I was taught not to, who knows maybe they aren’t being taught not to shoot people? Who knows, maybe it is just that simple.

AGAIN EVASION – “why don’t you ask them” how childish – So basically your telling me to go away and boil my head, you’re not playing.

You’re refusing to debate, in fact virtually all of your replies are refusals to debate, in which you address hardly anything and evade a lot.

 

So what’s the consensus – do we close this thread or not?

I’m not really learning anything new (I already knew that pro-gunners could be evasive)

Anyway it does seem to be somewhat adrift, I mean Aris has already pointed out that the OP poster isn’t really involved.

Shall we have a show of hands?

Yea or nay

 

i kinda like merry go rounds myself..

 

LOL hilbilly

I'll take that as a yes then.

 

Close it.

 

Fuck it what else is there left to say

 

TRY THIS AGAIN AND I WILL TAKE IT AS TROLLING?

Heck, I've taken everything you've said in this thread as trolling and I've played along.

You have not answered one question I've asked you, talk about being evasive. Shoot, I'm still waiting for you to define a "Healthy Society".

Personally I'm still waiting for you, to take me up on my offer to discuss “societal problems”.

Personally I’m amazed that you would even bring up Post #97 as it is an excellent example of your evasive techniques, I simply said if you want to discuss “societal problems” that I would be happy to do so, nothing underhanded, nothing evasive, nothing tricky, just an honest willingness to discuss it with you if you wished.

Post #97 is the answer you came back with. Now I ask you where in that whole post, about a half a page long do you say; okay let’s talk? Where do mention any other “societal problems” that you want to talk about?

In actuality it is a long dismissive and evasive diatribe aimed at me.

Now I’ve been writing off all the nasty things you’ve been saying, please note Post #140, because I thought you were just being passionate about what you believe in.

But now you’ve called me a liar and that is out and out slander.

I have tried to have a reasoned debate with you on this subject and have tried to show you honor and respect in this discussion but you have shown yourself unwilling to return the favor.

Yours is the first post I’ve even considered reporting, I won’t but I suggest you clean up your act.

Close it if you wish, you're not learning anything.

 

Well I think we should continue this discussion just not in this thread, so I started a new poll, where we can vote and discuss about wether or not guns should be banned and why we think they should or shouldn't, that sorta thing, here's the link Should Guns be Outlawed in the U.S.A.?

 

The reason I haven't posted in here since starting the thread, is because I have said everything I have to say on the subject (and then some) in a past thread. For those of you that were there, you already know it resulted in people being banned and hundreds of posts being deleted.

I believe I spent several MONTHS researching statistics on the Australian and UK gun bans, constructing rational arguments, and contributing to the thread on a daily basis in the most reasonable and informative way I could. And what was the end result?


I honestly started this thread simply because I wanted to share the story. However, I definitely should have known that it would have re-ignited a debate. Not saying it's good or bad, but I simply refuse to enter back into this when I have already spent tens of hours putting my sincerest thoughts on the matter into that thread. I know balbus linked to that thread more than once in this thread.

So if me starting this discussion is viewed as a drive by attack, so be it - close it. However that was not my intention...and sorry to those who have had to pop many aspirins over this.





Oh and this:

 

Heh. Well, I was totally oblivious to any of that.

 

Really? I thought you were in on that one too?

 

OWB

As I keep saying – if you were interested in things beyond defending guns then you would have already been discussing them and when called on that you would have entered into other discussions.

From what I can tell your posts mainly fit into the ‘god, guns and gays’ areas that I talked about earlier the mantra of the conservative and neo-con right wing that they use to distract from any open and honest debate on other things.

So yes I’m calling you a liar because you are a liar you claim that I’m refusing to discuss other issues, yet there are many threats on the forum that do discuss other issues as far as I can tell you’ve not contributed anything of any worth to any of them.

I told you that if you said this again I’d consider it trolling, it seemed fair warning – one week time out for trolling.

 

Michael

One – then why post at all, you know (or should do) what happens when this subject is raised – a heated discussion ensues.

Two – you’re saying you posted this even thought you were not interested in a debate, seemingly knowing what would happen, so you were basically posting something to cause mischief?

*

My second post in this thread acknowledged this –

*

The problem is that the evidence from those threads doesn’t seem to back up what you’re saying here. You did cut and paste stuff that you seemed unwilling or incapable of defending but cut and pasting directly from mainly pro-gun sites isn’t exactly ‘research’ and you never did seem to have a handle on the statistics.

I’ve given links to some of the threads anyone can check if they wish.

*

Well of cause it was going to ignite a discussion and one you knew from the start you wouldn’t enter, which would indicate you were just spamming.

 

Ok

Well the consensus seems to be that the thread should be closed.

Well putting aside the data that there seem to have been 5 murder/manslaughter victims in Kennesaw between 2000-2005 which would negate the headline of the OP
http://www.disastercenter.com/georgia/crime/2285.htm

The thing of interest to me was the seeming complete acceptance that guns were at the root of the town’s lower crime rate.

Anyone that has studied crime quickly realises it is a complex subject with no one and easily installed solution and no one or easy to identify cause.

And many in the pro-gun camp will even admit this, the problem I have is that they don’t seem willing or able to discuss the alternatives but are very loud and persistent in pushing the gun as a means of tackling the symptoms of crime.

My question that still remains unanswered is – why are they seemingly so unwilling or unable to discuss the wider issues?

I hope one day to find out.