• 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!

White House to Push Gun Control

Boo Radley said:
j, these are the nunmbers we're working with:


its already established there are between 700-1300 accidental shootings a year.



"there are about 7700 to 18500 reported legal shootings of criminals a year"

Guns and Self-Defense by Gary Kleck, Ph.D.

Now 44,000 is more than 18500. And by a wide margin as well.
Click to expand...


However, what you fail to recognize is that overall gun ownership is safer than riding your bike.

j-mac
 
Boo Radley said:
I think you know my soin didn't.
Click to expand...

Actually no I thought you just claimed he did, that would explain your hoplophobia.....


But moving on. He still used the gun.
Click to expand...


Who's "he"?

Just as the gun didn't shoot the criminal. The person did. If you can't use gun statisitics on suicide you can't use them for protection either.
Click to expand...



nonsense. one is a choice to do harm to oneself, the other, is an active response to someone elses choice to do harm to you. =/=
 
j-mac said:
However, what you fail to recognize is that overall gun ownership is safer than riding your bike.

j-mac
Click to expand...




Nor is he recognizing the number of times a gun is successfullly used for self defense without ever firing a shot. He's playing a dishonest numbers game.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Actually no I thought you just claimed he did, that would explain your hoplophobia.....





Who's "he"?





nonsense. one is a choice to do harm to oneself, the other, is an active response to someone elses choice to do harm to you. =/=
Click to expand...

hypothethical he.

And both are active choices. You don't shoot anyone in an inactive manner.
 
j-mac said:
However, what you fail to recognize is that overall gun ownership is safer than riding your bike.

j-mac
Click to expand...

Why would that amtter to me. I have no idea if that is true, because maybe more people own bikes than guns and I don't know what other factors are involved. but it has nothing to do with anything I've argued.
 
Boo Radley said:
Why would that amtter to me. I have no idea if that is true, because maybe more people own bikes than guns and I don't know what other factors are involved. but it has nothing to do with anything I've argued.
Click to expand...


the bottom line here is do you support more gun control.

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
the bottom line here is do you support more gun control.

j-mac
Click to expand...

As I've said countlessly, not at the moment. But if someone suggests something reasonable, I'd listen.
 
Boo Radley said:
This is what I mean about you missing a lot. Not equal in all aspect. Both a deliberate act.
Click to expand...



Boo the insipid.....


seriously what is your point, guns are dangerous? do tell. You keep saying I'm missing something, when no one has any idea what the heck it is you are trying to say. :lol:
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Boo the insipid.....


seriously what is your point, guns are dangerous? do tell. You keep saying I'm missing something, when no one has any idea what the heck it is you are trying to say. :lol:
Click to expand...

I guess you should make sure you know before you go off. I was involved in a conversation back when about how both sides see guns. The person I was talking to said that conservatives tended to see guns as they are. I said, no, they see them as magical, supernatural. And we discussed that. You then gave us your overkill story, and actually supported my point, as all those who have jumped in since have. As none of you pay any attention to what you're even responding to. I fine some humor in that, but little more.
 
guns are NOT magical...

LOL!

what an unbelievable waste of width
 
Boo Radley said:
I guess you should make sure you know before you go off. I was involved in a conversation back when about how both sides see guns. The person I was talking to said that conservatives tended to see guns as they are. I said, no, they see them as magical, supernatural. And we discussed that. You then gave us your overkill story, and actually supported my point, as all those who have jumped in since have. As none of you pay any attention to what you're even responding to. I fine some humor in that, but little more.
Click to expand...



Overkill story... :lamo

Seriously boo, how about telling me how tough you are again, perhaps we can talk about how you wouldn't take a gun to confront poachers....

Please, tell us how you would simply smile and ask them to leave.....
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Overkill story... :lamo

Seriously boo, how about telling me how tough you are again, perhaps we can talk about how you wouldn't take a gun to confront poachers....

Please, tell us how you would simply smile and ask them to leave.....
Click to expand...

No, you even missed that point. I would be satisfied if you just offered something on content. ;)
 
Boo Radley said:
No, you even missed that point. I would be satisfied if you just offered something on content. ;)
Click to expand...



I did, you did the boo radley shuffle... i can tell your getting irked again, perhaps stick to the topic and not me..... wouldn't want you to have a coronary.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, you even missed that point. I would be satisfied if you just offered something on content. ;)
Click to expand...


Hmmmm....Something on content. Here:

From the OP:

But in the next two weeks, the White House will unveil a new gun-control effort in which it will urge Congress to strengthen current laws
Click to expand...

The WH looking to strengthen current laws, however it doesn't say in what way, or what will be offered.

So now I ask you Boo, how is our conversation brought about by your defense of point, anywhere near on topic if this above is the OP?

j-mac
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
I did, you did the boo radley shuffle... i can tell your getting irked again, perhaps stick to the topic and not me..... wouldn't want you to have a coronary.
Click to expand...

You are tiresome. But, know, you haven't. Like I siad, you misunderstand much, go off in the wrong directions and then resort to personal attacks. So, while I'll play with you some, it gorws old fast.

Moving on. . . .
 
Boo Radley said:
You are tiresome. But, know, you haven't. Like I siad, you misunderstand much, go off in the wrong directions and then resort to personal attacks. So, while I'll play with you some, it gorws old fast.

Moving on. . . .
Click to expand...


Good bye, take your silly insipid nonsense with you! K thanks bai!!! :lamo
 
j-mac said:
Hmmmm....Something on content. Here:

From the OP:



The WH looking to strengthen current laws, however it doesn't say in what way, or what will be offered.

So now I ask you Boo, how is our conversation brought about by your defense of point, anywhere near on topic if this above is the OP?

j-mac
Click to expand...

Threads often move away from the original op, and this is no exception. we're some 590 posts down the road here. Someone says something interesting and someone builds off that. it's not unusual. And sometimes, people like yourself assume something not stated and run up a ton of posts arguing your own strawmen.

As for Obama, until there are details, not much to say on it. We'll have to wait and see.
 
Boo Radley said:
Threads often move away from the original op, and this is no exception. we're some 590 posts down the road here. Someone says something interesting and someone builds off that. it's not unusual. And sometimes, people like yourself assume something not stated and run up a ton of posts arguing your own strawmen.

As for Obama, until there are details, not much to say on it. We'll have to wait and see.
Click to expand...


Well, on the wait and see part I agree. however, on the building up your own post count based on straw arguments, I'd say there is slightly more than a little projection going on with you sir.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Well, on the wait and see part I agree. however, on the building up your own post count based on straw arguments, I'd say there is slightly more than a little projection going on with you sir.


j-mac
Click to expand...

Yeah, on your part. I have no interest in count. And the strawmen are on your part. You keep battling those evil liberals, whoever they are. :coffeepap
 
Boo Radley said:
Actually, they didn't. They did not measure accidental shootings, or peopel shooting family memebers and friends, with those who protect themselves. They showed other accidents, and compared them with shooting accidents. And then showed an opinion survey. But did not answer my claim at all.
Click to expand...

Actually it did. A government study, the NCVS, showed a minimum of 68,000 DGU's. The NCVS was not intended to measure DGU's however, and it's findings are probably low. Another gov't study I once read said 100,000 per year, but was only recording reported incidents where shots were fired. Kleck's study suggests that most often, no shots are fired and no reports are filed.

The truth probably exists somewhere between the low-ball estimates of 68,000-100,000 and the high estimate of 2.5 million.

Even the lowball estimates vastly exceed the ~30,000 gun deaths annually, and when you consider that half of those are suicides, and that studies have shown suicides to turn to other equally drastic methods when guns are not available, then you have your answer.

Guns are used defensively more often than in murder or accidental homicide.
 
Last edited:
Goshin said:
Actually it did. A government study, the NCVS, showed a minimum of 68,000 DGU's. The NCVS was not intended to measure DGU's however, and it's findings are probably low. Another gov't study I once read said 100,000 per year, but was only recording reported incidents where shots were fired. Kleck's study suggests that most often, no shots are fired and no reports are filed.

The truth probably exists somewhere between the low-ball estimates of 68,000-100,000 and the high estimate of 2.5 million.

Even the lowball estimates vastly exceed the ~30,000 gun deaths annually, and when you consider that half of those are suicides, and that studies have shown suicides to turn to other equally drastic methods when guns are not available, then you have your answer.

Guns are used defensively more often than in murder or accidental homicide.
Click to expand...

Actually no, that has not been proven. The number given so far don't supoport it. and we have to have objective documented proof of how many don't end in shooting, personal reporting is too easily skewed.

VPC - A Deadly Myth: Women, Handguns, and Self-Defense
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
Actually no, that has not been proven. The number given so far don't supoport it. and we have to have objective documented proof of how many don't end in shooting, personal reporting is too easily skewed.

VPC - A Deadly Myth: Women, Handguns, and Self-Defense
Click to expand...


So you're arguing that 68,000 (the lowest lowball figure, from a government study), is a SMALLER number than 30,000?

Must be that new math. :mrgreen:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom