Hikers allowed guns on Mt Rainier

mve · Post by **mve** » Mon Mar 15, 2010 10:39 pm

Take your statistical issues with National Crime Victimization Survey, 2000, Bureau of Justice Statistics, BATF estimates on handgun supply. It's their numbers.

As I said earlier, I don't care about statistics -- they are only useful to refute the bogus claims that guns don't work and gun control does (both are myths).

I'll say it once again -- guns in the hands of law abiding citizens WORK to prevent violent crimes. But you wouldn't know much about it because as you said yourself:

AlanK wrote:I have been lucky in that I have always lived in places where I could walk around at any hour of the day without feeling like I needed protection. I understand that one bad guy in the wrong place could prove me wrong. On the other hand, it's worked for me so far -- 58 years as of Thursday.

I am glad it worked for you Alan, unfortunately it doesn't work for everyone even in what seems to be "safe" places as evident by the recent attack on a poor lady in Point Dume State Park. And until you personally have faced such a situation you can't objectively speak of what works and what doesn't. Yet you do exactly that and more:

AlanK wrote:Part of the problem is the people who carry guns who are more likely to shoot themselves than any potential assailant.

You are of course wrong once again:

Myth: You are more likely to be injured or killed using a gun for self-defense
Fact: You are far more likely to survive a violent assault if you defend yourself with a
gun. In episodes where a robbery victim was injured, the injury/defense rates were:
- Resisting with a gun 6%
- Did nothing at all 25%
- Resisted with a knife 40%
- Non-violent resistance 45%

British Home Office – not a "pro-gun" organization by any means

Post by **Taco** » Mon Mar 15, 2010 10:42 pm

AlanK wrote:
mve wrote:
Every day, 550 rapes, 1,100 murders, and 5,200 other violent crimes are prevented just by showing a gun. In less than 0.9% of these instances is the gun ever actually fired.

In 2008, there were 16,272 murders in the US. And you are claiming that 401,500 additional murders (1100 times 35 -- I hope it wasn't a leap year!) were prevented by showing a gun? You believe that 25 times more murders are prevented than actually happen?

Why compare statistics when confronted with data so transparently bogus? It's obvious that far less than 0.9% of those cases were real!

Not sure if I'm on the same page, but I wanted to clarify that if you're in a "trouble", and you draw your weapon, you NEVER "show" it. You draw, and then you engage/shoot/kill/neutralize/your word here for shoot.

I'll leave the rest up to you guys. I can do stuff, I just can't write for shit.

mve · Post by **mve** » Mon Mar 15, 2010 10:57 pm

There are times when you are in trouble, draw your firearm, point with intent to shoot and that alone is enough for the attacker to retreat. But I think I know what you mean here -- don't draw unless ready to fire -- agreed!

AlanK · Post by **AlanK** » Tue Mar 16, 2010 8:44 am

mve wrote:Take your statistical issues with National Crime Victimization Survey, 2000, Bureau of Justice Statistics, BATF estimates on handgun supply. It's their numbers.

No. My issue is with you. You need to take some responsibility here. You quoted the statistics. Now you're saying what? They made you do it?

You say "it's their numbers" but I find it hard to believe that the BATF ever published the claim that over 400,000 murders are prevented in the US each year (or 1,100 per day) because the intended victim brandishes a gun. Where did you get that statistic? It does make a difference if you got it from the BATF or from some random blog.

mve wrote:As I said earlier, I don't care about statistics -- they are only useful to refute the bogus claims that guns don't work and gun control does (both are myths).

You obviously care about statistics because you quote so many of them. What is telling is that you openly admit that you believe that the only use of statistics is to support your side of a discussion. That would apparently free you of any responsibility for accuracy.

OK, I am going to back off. You are undoubtedly a nice fellow. We should probably go hiking together sometime. You can bring your gun.

AlanK · Post by **AlanK** » Tue Mar 16, 2010 8:47 am

TacoDelRio wrote:I'll leave the rest up to you guys. I can do stuff, I just can't write for shit.

Hey, Taco. I've seen some examples from you that indicate otherwise. I know you can do stuff, but you have shown that you can write too. Unless you have a ghostwriter you have not told us about.

mve · Post by **mve** » Tue Mar 16, 2010 11:20 am

AlanK wrote:No. My issue is with you. You need to take some responsibility here. You quoted the statistics. Now you're saying what? They made you do it?

Huh? Made me do what? Statistics and facts are what they are, just because they don't fit your own agenda doesn't make them wrong. And I never said they don't make any sense -- all I said is that if you have an issue with it take it up with the source.

AlanK wrote:You obviously care about statistics because you quote so many of them. What is telling is that you openly admit that you believe that the only use of statistics is to support your side of a discussion. That would apparently free you of any responsibility for accuracy.

Yes I openly admit to the fact that statistics support the simple truth that guns in the hands of law abiding citizens save lives and prevent violent crimes. The point is that I personally don't make my decision whether to carry or not based on statistics -- I make the decision based on my own personal experiences facing violent adversary both with and without a firearm. And to me there's no doubt that I am safer with a firearm than without. If you have never faced such scenarios and don't believe the statistical information quoted by me it's your own responsibility to do your homework and study -- not mine.

"Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too." Voltaire

AlanK · Post by **AlanK** » Tue Mar 16, 2010 11:48 am

mve wrote:Statistics and facts are what they are, just because they don't fit your own agenda doesn't make them wrong. And I never said they don't make any sense -- all I said is that if you have an issue with it take it up with the source.

I did take it up with the source. You are the source. The stat that you passed on does not come from BATF. It would be quite newsworthy if a government bureau claimed that guns stop 25 times more murders than there are murders.

mve wrote:Yes I openly admit to the fact that statistics support the simple truth that guns in the hands of law abiding citizens save lives and prevent violent crimes.

Cool. I openly admit that I am completely right about literally everything. I'm glad we got that off our chests!

There are many simple truths. It is a simple truth that the United States has a murder rate that is at or near the top of the industrialized world. It is a simple fact that many advanced countries with much lower rates of violent crime have much stricter gun laws than we do. I am not arguing that we should change. The fact is that we will continue to have the Second Amendment. I have no quarrel with it. Only with bogus and one-sided statistics.

AlanK · Post by **AlanK** » Tue Mar 16, 2010 11:52 am

mve wrote:I personally don't make my decision whether to carry or not based on statistics -- I make the decision based on my own personal experiences facing violent adversary both with and without a firearm. And to me there's no doubt that I am safer with a firearm than without. If you have never faced such scenarios and don't believe the statistical information quoted by me it's your own responsibility to do your homework and study -- not mine.

I respect your decision and I never asked you to do any homework for me so that I can make mine. I have 58 years of experience to back up my decisions. All I ask of you is to provide the actual source of the information you quoted.

mve · Post by **mve** » Tue Mar 16, 2010 11:55 am

I already did that.

mve · Post by **mve** » Tue Mar 16, 2010 12:24 pm

AlanK wrote:It is a simple truth that the United States has a murder rate that is at or near the top of the industrialized world. It is a simple fact that many advanced countries with much lower rates of violent crime have much stricter gun laws than we do. I am not arguing that we should change. The fact is that we will continue to have the Second Amendment. I have no quarrel with it. Only with bogus and one-sided statistics.

You are wrong once again -- gun control laws do not reduce violent crimes committed by the criminals:

Fact: Many of the countries with the strictest gun
control have the highest rates of violent crime.
Australia and England, which have virtually banned
gun ownership, have the highest rates of robbery,
sexual assault, and assault with force of the top
17 industrialized countries.

Criminal Victimization in Seventeen
Industrialized Countries, Dutch Ministry of
Justice, 2001.

Fact: According to the U.N., as of 2005, Scotland was the
most violent country in the developed world, with people
three times more likely to be assaulted than in America.
Violent crime there has doubled over the last 20 years. 3% of
Scots had been victims of assault compared
with 1.2% in America. [ii]

[ii] Scotland tops list of world's most violent countries,
The Times, September 19, 2005

If you really want to reduce violent crimes focus on CRIMINALS not law abiding citizens:

Most violent crime is commited by repeat offenders. Dealing with recidivism is
key to solving violence. This should be the public policy focus. Most gun
violence is between criminals:

- 71% of gunshot victims had previous arrest records.

- 64% had been convicted of a crime.

- Each had an average of 11 prior arrests

- 63% of victims have criminal histories and 73% of the time they
know their assailant (twice as often as victims without criminal
histories) [ii]

Richard Lumb, Paul Friday, City of Charlotte Gunshot Study, Department of
Criminal Justice, 1994

[ii] Firearm-related Injury Incidents in 1999 – Annual Report, San
Francisco Department of Public Health and San Francisco Injury Center,
February 2002

Arm the law abiding citizens and you will reduce violent crime:

In 1966, the city of Orlando responded to a wave of sexual assaults by offering
firearms training classes to women. Rapes dropped by nearly 90% the following
year.

And yes you are right -- America will continue to have the Second Amendment.

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence form any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." - George Washington, 1790

"No man is entitled to the blessings of freedom unless he is vigilant in its preservation" General Douglas MacArthur

AlanK · Post by **AlanK** » Tue Mar 16, 2010 1:44 pm

mve wrote:You are wrong once again -- gun control laws do not reduce violent crimes committed by the criminals:

I never claimed that gun control laws reduce crime. Never. Don't put words in my mouth (or my keyboard). All I said was that not all statistics go your way. Sure, I know that Scotland has a problem. But what about Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, The Netherlands...? What about states in the US with low rates of gun ownership and low crime? My claim is not that guns cause crime. It is that few guns do not necessarily mean high crime and lots of guns do not necessarily mean low crime.

It is easy enough to refute many of the claims you have made, in all of your posts or the last one. The Orlando rape claim, for example, is a joke to anyone who understands statistics. Rapes tripled from 1965 to 1966 in Orlando (from 12 to 36). Did they get rid of guns in 1965? Or did one prolific rapist get caught? Why did they go back up after 1967? Did women give up their guns?

Oops! I let you change the subject again! What about those 410,000 annually prevented murders?

mve · Post by **mve** » Tue Mar 16, 2010 2:32 pm

AlanK wrote:I never claimed that gun control laws reduce crime. Never.

Well then, we are done here -- Guns save lives in the hands of law abiding citizens and gun control laws don't reduce crime. Issue closed.

AlanK wrote:All I said was that not all statistics go your way. Sure, I know that Scotland has a problem. But what about Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, The Netherlands...?

Fact: "... the major surveys completed in the
past 20 years or more provides no evidence of
any relationship between the total number of
legally held firearms in society and the rate of
armed crime. Nor is there a relationship between
the severity of controls imposed in various
countries or the mass of bureaucracy involved
with many control systems with the apparent ease
of access to firearms by criminals and
terrorists." [1]

[1] Minutes of Evidence, Colin Greenwood, Select
Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, January
29, 2003.

AlanK wrote:What about states in the US with low rates of gun ownership and low crime?

What about them? Maybe law enforcement does a better job there enforcing existing laws, maybe there are less criminals on the streets and more incarcerated, maybe people have more things to do besides killing and raping each other? Who knows??? One thing is for sure it's not the gun control laws that cause low crime rates.

AlanK wrote:It is easy enough to refute many of the claims you have made, in all of your posts or the last one.

Oh really? I am listening ... or maybe not, because who are you to talk about this topic after all? Oh wait, I see you are:

AlanK wrote:I have 58 years of experience to back up my decisions.

and

AlanK wrote:I have been lucky in that I have always lived in places where I could walk around at any hour of the day without feeling like I needed protection.

Well Alan, your implied wisdom and "experience" that you've gained getting from one air conditioned building to the other in an airbag equipped car "without feeling like I needed protection" doesn't mean anything to me.

You wouldn't last a day in places where I spent years at a time and I am "only" 36.

AlanK wrote:OK, I am going to back off. You are undoubtedly a nice fellow. We should probably go hiking together sometime. You can bring your gun.

Yes I am a nice fellow and so are the most of the fellows I know that have been through tough times and came out to tell about it. I can't say the same about the "fellows" I meet more and more here in this country who've spent their lives in a protective cocoon of our "modern" and "progressive" society -- they have nothing in common with the fellows that founded this country and set the laws of the land which you take for granted and happily "refute" at any opportunity you have.

AlanK · Post by **AlanK** » Tue Mar 16, 2010 2:51 pm

mve wrote:Fact: "... the major surveys completed in the past 20 years or more provides no evidence of any relationship between the total number of legally held firearms in society and the rate of armed crime.

I agree. Thank you for admitting I was right.

AlanK · Post by **AlanK** » Tue Mar 16, 2010 2:56 pm

mve wrote:I am listening ... or maybe not, because who are you to talk about this topic after all? Oh wait, I see you are:
AlanK wrote:I have 58 years of experience to back up my decisions.
and
AlanK wrote:I have been lucky in that I have always lived in places where I could walk around at any hour of the day without feeling like I needed protection.
Well Alan, your implied wisdom and "experience" that you've gained getting from one air conditioned building to the other in an airbag equipped car "without feeling like I needed protection" doesn't mean anything to me.

You wouldn't last a day in places where I spent years at a time and I am "only" 36.
AlanK wrote:OK, I am going to back off. You are undoubtedly a nice fellow. We should probably go hiking together sometime. You can bring your gun.
Yes I am a nice fellow and so are the most of the fellows I know that have been through tough times and came out to tell about it. I can't say the same about the "fellows" I meet more and more here in this country who've spent their lives in a protective cocoon of our "modern" and "progressive" society -- they have nothing in common with the fellows that founded this country and set the laws of the land which you take for granted and happily "refute" at any opportunity you have.

OK, I admit that I was wrong when I called you a nice fellow. You can't seem to have a conversation without going below the belt. End of conversation.

mve · Post by **mve** » Tue Mar 16, 2010 2:59 pm

"A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy." -Samuel Adams

Keep up the good work Alan -- when shit hit the fan which it will in your lifetime at the rate we are going. You'll know what right and wrong really means.

Post by **Taco** » Tue Mar 16, 2010 7:41 pm

AlanK wrote:
TacoDelRio wrote:I'll leave the rest up to you guys. I can do stuff, I just can't write for shit.
Hey, Taco. I've seen some examples from you that indicate otherwise. I know you can do stuff, but you have shown that you can write too. Unless you have a ghostwriter you have not told us about.

HEY, don't push me! 8)

Zach · Post by **Zach** » Tue Mar 16, 2010 7:56 pm

and THIS THREAD IS!!!!....

AlanK · Post by **AlanK** » Tue Mar 16, 2010 8:08 pm

Zach · Post by **Zach** » Tue Mar 16, 2010 9:34 pm

mve · Post by **mve** » Tue Mar 16, 2010 10:30 pm

mve · Post by **mve** » Tue Mar 16, 2010 11:11 pm

"No civil right has come under such unrelenting attacks as the 2nd Amendment. Everyone who takes liberty seriously — which apparently does not include the ACLU — must actively defend the 2nd Amendment."

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle" --Edmund Burke.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." --Cesare, Marquis of Beccaria, "On Crimes and Punishment"

"When the people fear the government, that is Tyranny. When the government fears the people, that is Freedom." -Thomas Jefferson

Post by **HikeUp** » Wed Mar 17, 2010 8:43 am

-500 beers for the next person to post in this thread.

Zach · Post by **Zach** » Wed Mar 17, 2010 12:21 pm

WIN!!

Have the beers delivered to the top of Big Iron. Thanks

Post by **HikeUp** » Wed Mar 17, 2010 12:23 pm

That's minus 500 beers (i.e. you owe the board 500 brews). Keep 'em coming monkey girl!

Zach · Post by **Zach** » Wed Mar 17, 2010 12:37 pm

bait and switch! ga!!!

Post by **HikeUp** » Wed Mar 17, 2010 2:15 pm

Post by **Taco** » Wed Mar 17, 2010 9:27 pm

Post by **Taco** » Wed Mar 17, 2010 9:28 pm

edenooch · Post by **edenooch** » Wed Mar 17, 2010 11:19 pm

only a goon would spell it "sammich"

Post by **Taco** » Thu Mar 18, 2010 2:02 am

HAHAHA bread gloves, WTF!

Vitaliy, no offense, but there's kinda no point in arguing about firearms-politics issues on t3h intarw3bz. I know you're a gun guy, and I'm a gun guy, and we'll keep being gun guys as long as non gun guys keep on being non gun guys and that kinda crap.

One need only look at history for whatever facts or anything they want. I'll stay armed as long as I'm alive, but that's just me, based on what I know, what I've seen, what I've been trained in, and all that mumbo jumbo. I'm not trying to derail you or Alan, just trying to kinda destroy it and pound the issue so far into the ground that it gets raped by internet crap if it ever rears its head again.