Page 15 of 18 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 171

Thread: Vermont to Register Non-Gun Owners?

  1. #141
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Vermont to Register Non-Gun Owners?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    To lower the crime rate.

    The one exception does not in any way invalidate the FACT that when everyone is forced to own a gun, the crime rate goes down.
    You have absolutely no evidence to support that claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    I was referring to the people who aren't likely to go to a hospital unless it's life or death.
    They could still game the system by not buying health insurance until they became sick.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    Evidence shows that a gun-owning population does use the guns out of some silly notion of not wanting to be a victim, and therefore the crime rate lowers. The hypothetical "just let him rape me" population you imagine does not actually exist.
    No, but the "just keep the unwanted gun locked in a box in the back of the closet, don't learn how to safely handle it, and don't buy any ammo for it" population probably does. And they're precisely the people who don't want to own a gun in the first place.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    As gun ownership increases in a population, the crime rate goes down.
    There is NO evidence to suggest that forcing people to buy guns will have the same effect that ALLOWING people to buy guns does.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    Case in point:
    What you may not know is that this ordinance did not actually change the gun ownership rate in this community by a significant amount. Most people in the community already owned guns, and the ordinance was never actually enforced. Furthermore, a single example of a small town would not be sufficient evidence anyway. Who knows what other law enforcement practices they implemented simultaneously? You'd need a much larger sample size to draw any kind of statistical inference from this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    Does UHC offer to reduce illness/injury in the same way that mandatory gun-ownership has proved that can lower crime?
    It has done no such thing. If you are going to make such claims, you have to actually be able to prove them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    The at-risk population would be reduced from the many who were merly not inclined to own, to way down to those few who can not legally possess.
    You're still just redirecting the crime to those defenseless people, rather than eliminating it. And you are still ELIMINATING the risk for the criminal, not making it higher.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  2. #142
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Vermont to Register Non-Gun Owners?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    You have absolutely no evidence to support that claim.
    That's a silly thing to say in the same post you address an example of said "non-existent" evidence

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    No, but the "just keep the unwanted gun locked in a box in the back of the closet, don't learn how to safely handle it, and don't buy any ammo for it" population probably does. And they're precisely the people who don't want to own a gun in the first place.
    They are wrong for not wanting a firearm in their home. **** them

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    What you may not know is that this ordinance did not actually change the gun ownership rate in this community by a significant amount.
    Citation needed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Most people in the community already owned guns,
    Citation needed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    and the ordinance was never actually enforced.
    Citation needed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Furthermore, a single example of a small town would not be sufficient evidence anyway.
    Uh, no, that wasn't the point.

    I did not provide that example to prove the greater argument of 'more gun = less crime'.

    I gave that example to counter your claim that I had "absolutely no evidence".

    In support of the greater argument I already gave you reference to a well researched book on the topic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Who knows what other law enforcement practices they implemented simultaneously?
    So you admit that you don't know anything about the situation. See that's why I don't just take your word for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    You'd need a much larger sample size to draw any kind of statistical inference from this.
    Which is why I already gave you a better refrence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    It has done no such thing. If you are going to make such claims, you have to actually be able to prove them.
    It appears I'm the only one given any evidence of anything, even though evidence has been asked of you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    You're still just redirecting the crime to those defenseless people, rather than eliminating it. And you are still ELIMINATING the risk for the criminal, not making it higher.
    It's their choice to be defenseless.

    That choice is wrong, and I support encouraging them to make a better choice.

  3. #143
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Vermont to Register Non-Gun Owners?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Kinda hard for me to support them if I have to guess which ones you're referring to. When you figure out which ones you're disputing, be sure and let me know.
    Your response here is clear and indusputable proof that you are not paying attention.

    I have not -disputed- anything.

    I HAVE asked you to support your assumptions that:
    -A significant number of people will not use a gun if they have it no matter how desperate the situation
    - Everyone will use health insurance under the same degree of desperation.
    -That even if everyone has a gun, the number of people that will use a gun to defend themselces will not significantly increase.

    These three assumptions are the foundation of your argument; again, I ask you to support them.

    Otherwise, your argument is nothing but a strawman.

    YOU are the one arguing in favor of a bill that takes away freedom and increases the crime rate.
    YOU are, again, not paying attention, as I have not argued for or against anything.

  4. #144
    Advisor TheHat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    01-17-13 @ 06:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    551

    Re: Vermont to Register Non-Gun Owners?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    LiveLeak.com - Vermont to Register Non-Gun Owners?

    Hahah. Of course, I don't really agree with databasing and registering...well most anyone. So I really wouldn't support something like this. But I like the idea of it, makes me laugh. Why should the gun owners be the one's to register, we're just exercising a right. It's much better to register non-gun owners as they're the one's refusing to do their duty to the Republic and will be useless in a zombie fight.

    Umm...I also don't know why there's a video with that link, there's other links

    A Novel Idea. Register non-gun owners - Patriotic Resistance
    :

    This is fantastic! I like the way this guy thinks! Why should I as a citizen with the right to own a gun, have to register that gun?

    Eat your hearts out Brady Bill backers!!!

  5. #145
    Advisor TheHat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    01-17-13 @ 06:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    551

    Re: Vermont to Register Non-Gun Owners?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Yeah...could also be that Vermont is one large suburb and there is not really 'any' crime to commit. You'd have to be seriously desperate to A) make the necessary drive to rob anything of value in Vermont or B) just plain dumb. It's kind of like how Nebraska isn't exactly known for murders. There's really nobody to kill.
    Since we now live in "post-racial USA", since we have a black President, may I ask how many blacks live in Vermont and Nebraska?

  6. #146
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Epic Mountain
    Last Seen
    12-28-09 @ 06:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,384

    Re: Vermont to Register Non-Gun Owners?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Yeah...could also be that Vermont is one large suburb and there is not really 'any' crime to commit. You'd have to be seriously desperate to A) make the necessary drive to rob anything of value in Vermont or B) just plain dumb. It's kind of like how Nebraska isn't exactly known for murders. There's really nobody to kill.
    They're all so chilled out (no pun intended) on Ben and Jerry's. Plus they live next door to "LIVE FREE OR DIE!" so it's...kinda a good neighborhood to be in.

  7. #147
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Epic Mountain
    Last Seen
    12-28-09 @ 06:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,384

    Re: Vermont to Register Non-Gun Owners?

    Quote Originally Posted by TheHat View Post
    Since we now live in "post-racial USA", since we have a black President, may I ask how many blacks live in Vermont and Nebraska?
    RACISM! RACISM! OMG WHY BRING COLOR INTO IT YOU RACIST!

    lol just kidding, you bigot.

    Just kidding again. Not many I would assume, though I'm sure there are lots in population hubs. I've counted 5 black people since I moved to New Hampshire. 5. Coming from North Carolina, I'm in culture shock. I can't leave my house...I can't walk down the street...I don't know what to do with myself...

  8. #148
    Student
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    08-03-11 @ 03:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    174

    Re: Vermont to Register Non-Gun Owners?

    Quote Originally Posted by jackalope View Post
    You don't have the right to insult people who's arguments are not compelling to you.
    Actually, she does. It is called the 1st Amendment. You may not like what she is saying, but she has the "right" to say it.

    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Misattributed to Voltaire but still pertinent is you truly believe in our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

  9. #149
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Vermont to Register Non-Gun Owners?

    Quote Originally Posted by 1 Easy Target View Post
    Actually, she does. It is called the 1st Amendment. You may not like what she is saying, but she has the "right" to say it.

    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Misattributed to Voltaire but still pertinent is you truly believe in our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
    Actually, she doesn't:

    1. Freedom of Speech - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

    At Debate Politics we see freedom of speech as the right to communicate ideas. With this right comes the responsibility to choose your words carefully and respect the rights of others. Common sense dictates the difference between one expressing themselves and one who is disruptive. If you are focused on contributing to the community, you will not have to be concerned with being a disruption. Disruptive behavior, such as personal attacks, can lead to temporary or permanent revocation of posting privileges.

    3. Flaming - "Originally, flame meant to carry forth in a passionate manner in the spirit of honorable debate. Flames most often involved the use of flowery language and flaming well was an art form. More recently flame has come to refer to any kind of derogatory comment no matter how witless or crude."[google] In a forum with sensitive topics such as this, derogatory flaming is bound to happen. Common sense will prevail, yet this is not an invitation to flame. e.g. "You stupid *****ing moron," is completely unacceptable and could lead to a suspension of posting privileges.

    4. Don't be a jerk - This simply means what it sounds like.
    http://www.debatepolitics.com/forum-...rum-rules.html
    Last edited by Jerry; 11-04-09 at 02:16 PM.

  10. #150
    Student
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    08-03-11 @ 03:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    174

    Re: Vermont to Register Non-Gun Owners?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Why? What's the point in forcing someone to own a gun if they aren't going to use it should the need ever arise?


    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    On the other hand, the argument that guns deter criminals is ENTIRELY dependent on the behavior of the gun-owners. Imagine a world where everyone owned a gun, but no one ever confronted criminals with them. Do you think that would deter criminals? Of course not; the people might as well not have the gun at all.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Then you aren't actually reducing crime, you're just shifting it to the most vulnerable people and imposing an additional cost on others.



    Almost any example you can cite is an example of eliminating BARRIERS to gun ownership, not active government prodding in FAVOR of gun ownership. You have absolutely no evidence that the crime rate will go down if the government encourages people to buy guns who have no stomach for, or interest in, guns.



    The criminal can "roll the dice" on whether the homeowner has a gun at all WITHOUT this list. As it is, you're making it nice and easy for him to AVOID rolling the dice.

    You, sir, are being deliberately obtuse. In a situation where most homes have guns in them, most criminals will turn to something other than home invasions and robberies. There are several reasons for this.

    1. The criminals know that most homes have guns in them.
    2. The criminals have no way to know whether or not the home owner is a radical pacifist or a radical would be killer just waiting to "get some" out of a stupid criminal.
    3. Even radical pacifists have been known to reach their limits and kill people who invade their homes.

    There have been a number of studies on the crime rates in states that passed laws allowing easy access to firearms and protections from prosecution to people who were defending their homes and families. Interviews with prisoners convicted of home invasions and armed robbery indicated that the presence of guns in the home was a huge deterrent to those criminals. To argue otherwise is disingenuous at best.

    I assume you know all this but just like to argue for the sake of it.

Page 15 of 18 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •