• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Man Killed While Trying to Rob Alcoholics Anonymous Meeting

To bring some facts (rather than opinion, speculation, and irony) back into play:

Today, there are only 5 states that do not have a right-to-carry system.

States with right-to-carry laws have lower overall violent crime rates, compared to states without right-to-carry laws. In states whose laws respect the citizen's right-to-carry guns for self defense the total violent crime is 13% lower, homicide is 3% lower, robbery is 26% lower and aggravated assault is 7% lower. (Data: Crime in the United States 1996, FBI Uniform Crime Reports)

Right-to-carry license holders are more law-abiding than the general public. In Florida, for example, the firearm crime rate among license holders, annually averaging only several crimes per 100,000 licensees, is a fraction of the rate for the state as a whole. Since the carry law went into effect in 1987, less than 0.02% of Florida carry permits have been revoked because of gun crimes committed by license holders. (Florida Dept. of State) Research reports printed in "More Guns, Less Crime", John R. Lott, Jr., the John M. Olin Visiting Law and Economics Fellow at the University of Chicago, examined data ranging from gun ownership polls to FBI crime rate data for each of the nation's 3.045 counties over a 1977 too 1994 time span. Lott's research amounts to the largest data set that has ever been put together for any study of crime, let alone for the study of gun control. Among Prof. Lott's findings:

• While arrest and conviction rates being the most important factors influencing crime.... non discretionary concealed-handgun laws are also important, and they are the most cost-effective means of reducing crime.

• Non discretionary or "shall-issue" carry permit laws reduce violent crime for two reasons. They reduce the number of attempted crimes because criminals can't tell which potential victims are armed, being able to defend themselves. Secondly, victims who do have guns are in a much better position to defend themselves. Concealed carry laws deter crime because they increase the criminal's risk of doing business.

• States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest decreases in violent crime. And, it is high crime, urban areas, and neighborhoods with large minority populations that experience the greatest reductions in violent crime when law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry concealed handguns.

• There is a strong relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate--as more people obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates.

• For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3%, rape by 2% and robberies by more than 2%.

• Murder rates decline when either more women or more men carry concealed handguns, but the effect is especially pronounced for women. An additional woman carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for women by about three to four times more than an additional man carrying a concealed handgun reduces the rate for men.

• The benefits of concealed handguns are not limited to those who carry them. Others get a free ride from the crime fighting efforts of their fellow citizens.

• The benefits of right-to-carry are not limited to people who share the characteristics of those who carry the guns. The most obvious example of this "halo" effect, is the drop in murders of children following the adoption of non discretionary laws. Arming older people not only may provide direct protection to these children, but also causes criminals to leave the area.

• The increased presence of concealed handguns "does not raise the number of accidental deaths or suicides from handguns."


CCW Concealed Carry Weapons Permit - Facts & Statistics

Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology
 
Last edited:
That's right, you don't care. Because if you did, you couldn't make your argument. History in the USA does not indicate such.

Right, history in the USA.. one of the youngest nations in the world... compared to history in any other country where it's happened.... :roll:

Slippery Slope said:
OK, but if the right to own guns is guaranteed then why do you keep claiming the right will be taken away? You have no evidence of this. You may have some isolated incidents due to circumstance but that's all.

Uh... have you not read anything I've said? WE've provided quite a few examples of citizenry being disarmed and denied their right to arms... Care to join the conversation?

Slippery Slope said:
Germany huh... HILTER, THE NAZIS!!! and yet you accuse me of attempted distraction? :2wave:

... You sit here and say our history is nothing like any other nations, so we have nothing to worry about.. I give you an example of other nations that were like us.. then confiscating guns... gee.

Slippery Slope said:
So you'd like to adjust your argument now?

I'm trying to clarify your position.. I was a legal firearm owning citizen in the ghetto.

You cannot use the statistics of convicted felons owning firearms, as the laws that are pushed against firearms are only affecting law abiding citizens who could legally own them.


Slippery Slope said:
Getting acrimonious won't help your argument.
Where did I say this is what you should do? I believe I simply stated a fact. Your attempted strawman burned. :flame:

You presented a case where if I did nothing, chances are nothing would happen.

I asked you what gave you, or anyone else the right to decide how I respond to a situation that involves my life being in danger.

You don't have any of those rights, period.

Slippery Slope said:
In Arizona eh? Well, the other 49 states should do it then because Arizona is the nations leader in smart policy...

You should look up Castle Doctrine, and Stand your ground laws... Then come on back to the plate.

Slippery Slope said:
Not to mention that you misunderstood my question. Do you think the woman who brutally attacked my wife's friend would have used a gun if she'd had one handy? Obviously she is prone to violent outbursts and her vicinity to her children and onlookers didn't seem to deter her from extreme violent behavior.

What's your point? She could have RUN your stupid friend over for stopping and engaging the woman in the first place.

Should we go about limiting access to cars?

Slippery Slope said:
Another strawman... actually I acknowledged that an armed citizenry may well be a factor in decreasing crime. But the caveat I posted was that other gun related incidents will rise. Another strawman in flames!

Not to mention that you have no way of knowing whether it was your gun or your presence as a witness that deterred this guy. You certainly could draw my conclusion as easily as yours, especially since you clearly stated "I didn't have to shoot the guy, but I would have.. and I would have been legally justified given the situation of the guy attacking them with a weapon. I simply had to show him that someone else was there that wasn't going to let it happen." Let's hear the recording of the police interview where the guy tells us why he didn't attack them...

I'm not even sure if you would have been legally justified since you weren't being attacked and the attacker didn't have a gun... what's the law in your particular state?

I will let you know what he says when he's prosecuted for attempted aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.. (the club, and his car).

Again, look up castle doctrine and stand your ground laws.
 
Those are nice stats but since no study was referenced, do they tell the truth or are they simply a specious correlation? Like this:

:lol:

You rejecting other people's legitimate sources out of hand, how interesting. It was in a reputable magazine, unless you have evidence to the conrtrary there is no reason to reject them.

I've seen studies and the same stats in many places including the BBC.

British Crime Statistics: 1997-2002 - Crime, UK - The Independent

FIREARMS

Position in 1997: The use of firearms in crime rose during the 1980s and early 1990s, peaking in 1993, after which it began to fall. By 1997-98 it had dropped to the same level as 1990.

What has Labour done? Faced with frightening levels of gun crime, the Home Secretary has announced five-year jail terms for gun possession and a ban on carrying replica weapons.

Position in 2002: Gun crime offences have risen sharply during the past two years, climbing by 35 per cent last year to a record high of 9,974 offences.

Verdict: A major failure. The annual rise in gun crime was the fourth in succession and ministers are only just realising the havoc being caused by drug wars.


International Gun Control symposium

As Britain has moved a long way towards prohibition, the gun crime rate in Britain has skyrocketed.

Do you have anything to actually add or are you simply being cranky and pointless because things haven't gone your way? Again.
 
Robber flies after CVS pharmacist opens fire.

[ame=http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=aab_1239827103]LiveLeak.com - Robber gets surprise when pharmacist opens fire[/ame]

Too bad he got away with some money. I saw that everyone be issued a gun when they are born. Then no one will rob anyone.
 
OK, I'll look into it... list those states.
Thats your job. Get busy.

I will not indulge you on an axiom.
Ah.. Can't support your position, eh? Color me surprised.
Prove that you are more likely to survive a robbery if you give the robber what they want than if you were to pull out a gun, or admit you cannot.

Then we'd have 3 motherless children and a dead woman who probably only needed some anger management counseling.
How is this necessarily so?
Is killing your assailant the ONLY way to use a gun to effectively defend yourself?

Try thinking before posting, it helps.
Oh, the irony!
 
Last edited:
I'm sure she figured it would be a shouting match and not a violent assault by a woman with kids and bystanders.
Doesnt change the fact that she could have rolled the window up.
It also doesnt change the fact that simply producing a firearm would have almost certainly caused her assailant to back off.
 
Doesnt change the fact that she could have rolled the window up.
It also doesnt change the fact that simply producing a firearm would have almost certainly caused her assailant to back off.

But you NEVER KNOW!!! Ah.. the hyperbolic argument that all people produce when they're in a corner they can't fight their way out of.

We've basically been going in circles with this person.. "prove it.." "here" "That's not proof, prove it." "here" "that's not proof either.".

We've manage to draw out a argument over multiple pages, cause this person is either ignorant, or completely and utterly dishonest.

I'm done until he can introduce something other than "I think there will be more violence if there is more guns!" or until he actually refutes my point of guns historically being confiscated after registration.
 
But you NEVER KNOW!!! Ah.. the hyperbolic argument that all people produce when they're in a corner they can't fight their way out of.

We've basically been going in circles with this person.. "prove it.." "here" "That's not proof, prove it." "here" "that's not proof either.".

We've manage to draw out a argument over multiple pages, cause this person is either ignorant, or completely and utterly dishonest.

I'm done until he can introduce something other than "I think there will be more violence if there is more guns!" or until he actually refutes my point of guns historically being confiscated after registration.



Seems like our government used to be all about the things that helped us. Guns. Hemp. But now they try to make them go away. Back when they first banned hemp they first tricked the farmers here in America by making them get it weighed and government stamped. But then they just seized it all.
 
But you NEVER KNOW!!! Ah.. the hyperbolic argument that all people produce when they're in a corner they can't fight their way out of.

We've basically been going in circles with this person.. "prove it.." "here" "That's not proof, prove it." "here" "that's not proof either.".
Yes. Its rather common among the anti-gun crowd.

I love some of the ideas they have:
-The only way to use a gun is to kill something with it.
-The only way to use a gun to defend yourself is to kill someone.
-An 'assault weapon' is not capable of firing single shots
-'Assault weapon' and assault rifle are interchangeable terms
-'Aassault weapons' are far more powerful than 'standard' weapons.
-'Assault weapons' are necessarily inaccurate and only suitable for 'spray fire'
-Penetrating body armor is a herculean task
-A polceman is necessarily far better trained, far more competent, has far better judgement and is more emotionally stable than an ordinary citizen

Hmm. This might make a good poll!
Question for the anti-gun crowd: Which of these things are true?
 
Right, history in the USA.. one of the youngest nations in the world... compared to history in any other country where it's happened.... :roll:
Right, one of the youngest and most powerful. There is no way we could ever get this powerful in such a short period of time... historically speaking, therefore it must not be true, right? Because history provides us with examples of how long it generally take for a nation to dominate the world. Unless you'd like to admit that this country is distinctly unique and does not follow most of the "rules" of history.

Uh... have you not read anything I've said? WE've provided quite a few examples of citizenry being disarmed and denied their right to arms... Care to join the conversation?
But nothing that any intelligent person would claim comes anywhere near disarming a state let alone the entire country. You've provided meager examples of personal our situational circumstances. Hardly a case for the "they're gonna take away all our guns" ferver your side likes to gin up. It's simply not true.

... You sit here and say our history is nothing like any other nations, so we have nothing to worry about.. I give you an example of other nations that were like us.. then confiscating guns... gee.
I adamantly disagree with your comparison of the USA and 1930s germany.

I'm trying to clarify your position.. I was a legal firearm owning citizen in the ghetto.
No you're not, you were claiming I was obfuscating.

You cannot use the statistics of convicted felons owning firearms, as the laws that are pushed against firearms are only affecting law abiding citizens who could legally own them.
You cannot use the statistics of CCW permit holders as your basis for how things would be if everyone had pistol on their belt. Seems like it was that way once... I wonder what happened? :roll:

You presented a case where if I did nothing, chances are nothing would happen.

I asked you what gave you, or anyone else the right to decide how I respond to a situation that involves my life being in danger.

You don't have any of those rights, period.
I proffered the question. Nowhere did I tell you that you must respond in a certain fashion. Pull your panties out of the crack of your ass and rejoin the discussion.
You should look up Castle Doctrine, and Stand your ground laws... Then come on back to the plate.
Maybe I will... although I have a sneaking suspicion I'll come back and correct your position.

What's your point? She could have RUN your stupid friend over for stopping and engaging the woman in the first place.
My point is that you don't have any right to tell dictate what she should have done (see your silly argument above). This is what happened and your "what if" scenario is worse than mine because there is no ambiguity about what happened. Not to mention that it appears you don't have a correct memory of the story I told in this very thread. Go reread it.

I will let you know what he says when he's prosecuted for attempted aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.. (the club, and his car).
Great, I'll wait for you to post the official report.
 
Last edited:
:lol:

You rejecting other people's legitimate sources out of hand, how interesting. It was in a reputable magazine, unless you have evidence to the conrtrary there is no reason to reject them.

I've seen studies and the same stats in many places including the BBC.

British Crime Statistics: 1997-2002 - Crime, UK - The Independent

FIREARMS

Position in 1997: The use of firearms in crime rose during the 1980s and early 1990s, peaking in 1993, after which it began to fall. By 1997-98 it had dropped to the same level as 1990.

What has Labour done? Faced with frightening levels of gun crime, the Home Secretary has announced five-year jail terms for gun possession and a ban on carrying replica weapons.

Position in 2002: Gun crime offences have risen sharply during the past two years, climbing by 35 per cent last year to a record high of 9,974 offences.

Verdict: A major failure. The annual rise in gun crime was the fourth in succession and ministers are only just realising the havoc being caused by drug wars.


International Gun Control symposium

As Britain has moved a long way towards prohibition, the gun crime rate in Britain has skyrocketed.

Do you have anything to actually add or are you simply being cranky and pointless because things haven't gone your way? Again.
Reputable magazine? Reputable to whom? Again I say, nothing in that link gave a direct correlation, which would be in january of 1973 this law was enacted and in 1974 the rate was this... I showed you a graph that crime has been decreasing while gun laws are getting more strict but you don't seem to want to comment on that.

Not to mention that like you and Stevenb ignore cultural and societal differences that could come into play for your position while attempting to admonish me for not taking into account social and cultural differences...

Not to mention that since you are not a citizen of my country and I could really give ****-all about what you think of our laws. :2wave:
 
Robber flies after CVS pharmacist opens fire.

LiveLeak.com - Robber gets surprise when pharmacist opens fire

Too bad he got away with some money. I saw that everyone be issued a gun when they are born. Then no one will rob anyone.
THE PHARMACIST FIRE 3 SHOTS AT THE ROBBER AND DIDN'T HIT THE HIM. now where did those bullets go? Good thing it wasn't crowded eh? So let's review, a robber came in got money, got shot at and ran off with the money. Take out the - got shot at - and the story remains the same. How badly could this have gone? Well let's suppose the robber decided to fire back. Maybe the robber misses too or maybe he shots the dumbass pharmacist, killing him. Would you still have used this story had that happened? It helps if you actually think about what you want to present as evidence for your case and then think about what your opponent might say. Chances are you wouldn't have posted this video.
 
Thats your job. Get busy.
It's not important enough for me to do that kind of work to satisfy you so... too bad.

Ah.. Can't support your position, eh? Color me surprised.
Prove that you are more likely to survive a robbery if you give the robber what they want than if you were to pull out a gun, or admit you cannot.
If you jump out of a plane, you will fall to the ground. Do I have to provide statistical evidence? It's a well known and quite old axiom which would require more work than necessary.

How is this necessarily so?
Is killing your assailant the ONLY way to use a gun to effectively defend yourself?
Could be more obtuse in this post? I don't know why I am even responding to you when your post is nothing more than a series of questions that don't need answers. :shock:
 
Doesnt change the fact that she could have rolled the window up.
It also doesnt change the fact that simply producing a firearm would have almost certainly caused her assailant to back off.
She could have driven her car into a store front too, that would have stopped her assailant. BUT SHE DIDN'T.

Great, here's your real scenario. Both women have guns with them and there is a shoot out with children and bystanders within range of stray bullets. Didn't we just have video of John Wayne popping a a few caps off in a CVS and missing the other guy with a gun? :doh
 
She could have driven her car into a store front too, that would have stopped her assailant. BUT SHE DIDN'T.

Great, here's your real scenario. Both women have guns with them and there is a shoot out with children and bystanders within range of stray bullets. Didn't we just have video of John Wayne popping a a few caps off in a CVS and missing the other guy with a gun? :doh

Sweet! The wild west theory.

You know, they used the same argument you're presenting now when AZ was considering becoming a shall-issue CCW state.

Funny, w/ 10s of thousands of CCW and open carrying citizens in this state we don't have shootouts every day on the freeway!

I'm surprised with all those gun wielding maniacs out there that we're not like a modern day mogadishu!
 
Arguing with Slippery Soap is clearly pointless. He is immune to facts, ignores proof, and thinks his unsupported opinion is more significant that a stack of statistics.

Everything that needs to be proven about the pro-gun position has been proven in this thread... to anyone reading with anything like an open mind; any slightest appreciation of fact.

Slippery declines to do the research to support his position with anything but opinion. Fine, he lost. End of debate. It's supper time, bye now.

G.
 
But you NEVER KNOW!!! Ah.. the hyperbolic argument that all people produce when they're in a corner they can't fight their way out of.
:rofl are you going to take that stupidity back or do I have to create a post with all the "what ifs" you've farted up in this thread alone? :shoot

We've basically been going in circles with this person.. "prove it.." "here" "That's not proof, prove it." "here" "that's not proof either.".
Funny I thought your position was all about "it could happen because something similar happened somewhere in the worlds history". Oh that and you want to constantly point to the few CCW holders as how the rest of society will behave when everyone has a weapon. Do you know why the Earps in Tombstone AZ. outlawed carrying firearms inside the city limits? When you find out come back. Then you can present your case for what a slippery slope gun control is and that it's the precursor to all out gun bans and confiscations... it's been more than 120 years since then and we still have guns... wadda ya know. CASE CLOSED.

We've manage to draw out a argument over multiple pages, cause this person is either ignorant, or completely and utterly dishonest.
Yup that's you.

I'm done until he can introduce something other than "I think there will be more violence if there is more guns!" or until he actually refutes my point of guns historically being confiscated after registration.
I think I just effectively did that.
 
Seems like our government used to be all about the things that helped us. Guns. Hemp. But now they try to make them go away. Back when they first banned hemp they first tricked the farmers here in America by making them get it weighed and government stamped. But then they just seized it all.
The government does a lot of thing it shouldn't at the behest of corporations. Guns haven't been banned or taken away. Hemp was banned so that some powerful industries could profit. Get your facts straight.
 
Yes. Its rather common among the anti-gun crowd.

I love some of the ideas they have:
-The only way to use a gun is to kill something with it.
-The only way to use a gun to defend yourself is to kill someone.
-An 'assault weapon' is not capable of firing single shots
-'Assault weapon' and assault rifle are interchangeable terms
-'Aassault weapons' are far more powerful than 'standard' weapons.
-'Assault weapons' are necessarily inaccurate and only suitable for 'spray fire'
-Penetrating body armor is a herculean task
-A polceman is necessarily far better trained, far more competent, has far better judgement and is more emotionally stable than an ordinary citizen

Hmm. This might make a good poll!
Question for the anti-gun crowd: Which of these things are true?

That is truely a dumb post. Even for you. :shock:
 
Arguing with Slippery Soap is clearly pointless. He is immune to facts, ignores proof, and thinks his unsupported opinion is more significant that a stack of statistics.

Everything that needs to be proven about the pro-gun position has been proven in this thread... to anyone reading with anything like an open mind; any slightest appreciation of fact.

Slippery declines to do the research to support his position with anything but opinion. Fine, he lost. End of debate. It's supper time, bye now.

G.

I'd have to agree with you.
 
THE PHARMACIST FIRE 3 SHOTS AT THE ROBBER AND DIDN'T HIT THE HIM. now where did those bullets go? Good thing it wasn't crowded eh? So let's review, a robber came in got money, got shot at and ran off with the money. Take out the - got shot at - and the story remains the same. How badly could this have gone? Well let's suppose the robber decided to fire back. Maybe the robber misses too or maybe he shots the dumbass pharmacist, killing him. Would you still have used this story had that happened? It helps if you actually think about what you want to present as evidence for your case and then think about what your opponent might say. Chances are you wouldn't have posted this video.
You are talking about **** that didn't happen. The predator turned into prey. No one died. How do you know the man purposely didn't miss with well placed shots that put no one in harm?? I bet the robber with think twice about holding a place up and putting another persons life in direct danger by pointing a gun at them.
 
The government does a lot of thing it shouldn't at the behest of corporations. Guns haven't been banned or taken away. Hemp was banned so that some powerful industries could profit. Get your facts straight.

"But now they try to make them go away."

How do I need to get my facts straight when I never said guns had been banned? You need to learn to read and chew sentences with your brain.
 
Reputable magazine? Reputable to whom? Again I say, nothing in that link gave a direct correlation, which would be in january of 1973 this law was enacted and in 1974 the rate was this... I showed you a graph that crime has been decreasing while gun laws are getting more strict but you don't seem to want to comment on that.
What are you talking about? You shbowed a graph on pirates and temperatures.

If you knew anything about the laws in britain you'd know gun laws have been strengthening since the 20s and hand guns were banned in 97. With that information you can easily see how all thee sources prove our point.

You are not actually dealing with our arguments, you are simply making cranky outbursts that have very little weight behind them. I think it is safe to say you've been shown to have no argument.

Bottomline: Britain's lower gun violence to the US is not a decent indicator that gun restrictions prevent gun crime because of cultural differences and due to the fact gun violence has increased with restrictions in this country.


Not to mention that like you and Stevenb ignore cultural and societal differences that could come into play for your position while attempting to admonish me for not taking into account social and cultural differences...
:lol:

My irony meter just exploded. It is YOU who is doing that, it is YOU who simply pointed at Britain and suggested the lower gun murder rate was due to the strict gun restrictions.
 
Last edited:
What are you talking about? You shbowed a graph on pirates and temperatures.

If you knew anything about the laws in britain you'd know gun laws have been strengthening since the 20s and hand guns were banned in 97. With that information you can easily see how all thee sources prove our point.

You are not actually dealing with our arguments, you are simply making cranky outbursts that have very little weight behind them. I think it is safe to say you've been shown to have no argument.

Bottomline: Britain's lower gun violence to the US is not a decent indicator that gun restrictions prevent gun crime because of cultural differences and due to the fact gun violence has increased with restrictions in this country.


:lol:

My irony meter just exploded. It is YOU who is doing that, it is YOU who simply pointe at Britain and suggested the lower gun murder rate was due to the strict gun restrictions.

It's not worth it.. it's like arguing with Navy Pride about the existence of gay people on boats.

It doesn't matter what sort of logic you use, it's never right.
 
It's not important enough for me to do that kind of work to satisfy you so... too bad.
So, you refuse to back up -your- claims, all while whining and crying for others to do the same.
Irony, thy name is Slippery.
 
Back
Top Bottom