Vsicks Pathy Posted July 28, 2007 Author Share Posted July 28, 2007 pretty funny how some are brain washed into a certain line of thinking. hmm.. ^^^ Sad really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoohaa Posted August 4, 2007 Share Posted August 4, 2007 We all know about the inherent poverty that is inflicted upon a massive section of the populous. We all know that poverty leads to desperation and that desperation leads to lawlessness especially when that poverty is of a 3rd. world, or even lower, rating. So the poor are criminals? That type of thinking is deeply disturbing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vsicks Pathy Posted August 5, 2007 Author Share Posted August 5, 2007 So the poor are criminals? That type of thinking is deeply disturbing. How come you neglected to inform us that the murder rate (with a gun) is coming down because of new gun control laws in South Africa? How come you didn't inform us that the gun control laws are just being implemented now, and that next to nothing existed in the recent past re gun controls? Why do you omit facts continuously? WHY? As I mentioned, South Africa has very strict gun control laws. May I make an observation? The selective way you post suggested that even with "very strict gun control laws" the gun murder rate is high, no no no, I will correct myself...... You would have us believe that because of gun control it is high.. You gave the distinct impression that South Africa had these laws forever, if not years.... One could almost say you are a lier. Any who, FACTS can't be disputed, the new laws are working and working very well indeed even in its infancy. Wait, it gets better... Because of the huge success gun control is having there, South Africa is aiming to get rid of all guns... Ambitious I know, but at least they're already bearing the fruits of their efforts. You have to take your hat off to them for seeing the folly of their ways. So here we are, and to date you have not contributed anything that was remotely factual in this discussion, and quite frankly, it's way past pathetic now with your more than obvious bias.... You push your pro kill everyone agenda like a religious fanatic trying your best for Armageddon or a sleazy pedophile camped outside a kindergarten. I don't quite know which but I do know that you leave a bad taste in my mouth and that I have had enough. Post your childish banners somewhere else. P.S. You could have at least found pro 'loosen up gun laws so we can kill more of each other more easily when we feel like it' posters with good looking ladies (and I use that term very loosely). But alas, even that was beyond you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vsicks Pathy Posted August 6, 2007 Author Share Posted August 6, 2007 It doesn't stop. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/06/nyregion...&ei=5087%0A Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoohaa Posted August 6, 2007 Share Posted August 6, 2007 Why don't you demonstrate for us how our gun laws are not "reasonable or responsible" in their current form? And no, I absolutely do not agree that "not a single measure has been put in place to try and curb gun trauma either". I have no idea where you got this from, but there are and have been MANY laws which attempt to "curb gun trauma". You must not be at all familiar with American gun laws. If you want to criticize our country, our Constitution, and our laws, PLEASE make yourself familiar with them! I've seen more than one comment that illustrate how ignorant you and other Australians are of our legal system and our Bill of Rights. The VT thread did not include a shred of "factual evidence supporting gun control and the positive outcomes that follow implementation". There were plenty of news stories about "poor little johnny who got shot accidentally by a big mean gun", but there were actually several links which called to attention the faulty logic and statistics often used to support gun control. Perhaps we read different "VT threads", but the one I read contained link after link to CREDIBLE internet sites which disproved or seriously called into question the claim that strict gun control leads to fewer deaths. I don't know if you missed it, but there was one link to a very well written, neutral, and well referenced comparison of the gun laws of Japan, Canada, and the United States which concluded that strict gun laws did not correlate to fewer deaths. Please, Vee Sicks, lay out your arguments in a clear and concise way. Please don't just post a list of links to news stories about people accidentally shooting themselves or others. Let's talk about the claim that positive outcomes follow the implementation of gun control. I'd love to hear your explanations of how the citizens of Israel and Switzerland have such free access and even compulsory ownership of firearms, yet they have low crime rates, while countries like South Africa have extremely strict gun control laws, yet they lead the world in murders per capita. I also want to respond to your claim that "children" are dying by the hordes due to gun accidents. You have not provided evidence for this claim. Please lay it out there. And no, citing a number of news stories about gun accidents is not providing evidence. **HINT** Before you even link to some anti-gun site, please be sure to disclose what they mean by "children". Anti-gun advocates often include youths up to 20 years old in the "children" category, so gang shootings are included in the statistics, skewing the data beyond all recognition. Unfortunately there is much of this sort of meddling with data when debating gun control, so we will need to carefully review the statistics that I hope you can share with us proving your points . I'm sorry to do this, but I really think the burden of proof should fall on your shoulders, since you initiated this debate with very open criticisms of the anti-gun control position. Don't expect me to spend hours laying out my responses and citing references when you have not done the same. Your arguments have not been well supported with credible evidence. You have cited lots of anecdotal evidence, but anecdotal evidence only gets you so far in a debate. Why don't you start here by responding to this post. You have said I've not contributed anything "factual" to this debate... Something I would accuse you of as well. Since you are the one who started this thread in all of its biased glory, why don't you start by reading over the post I just quoted and lay your arguments out there. PLEASE, no more nytimes new stories or BBC links. They are every bit as biased and non-objective as you are and they contribute nothing. The burden of proof is on your shoulders, IMO, since you started this thread as an American gun law bashing festival. Tell us why we should take your side. Back your claims up with some facts (again, not BBC links!!!). And I really don't appreciate the tone of your last post. I have tried to be as respectful as possible, but you still seem to find it necessary to make things personal. Let's be objective and not so emotional, ok? If you're not sure what I'm referring to, read this part of your post: You push your pro kill everyone agenda like a religious fanatic trying your best for Armageddon or a sleazy pedophile camped outside a kindergarten. "Pro kill everyone"? Now who is it that is pushing an agenda? You could more appropriately label my agenda as "guns save lives" than what you called it (BTW I can back that up with all the "factual" data you want. HINT: take a look at the decline in crime related death rates in the states that adopted "right to carry" concealed weapon permits. Please, Vee Sicks, stop it with the emotional outbursts. It's very hard to participate in a debate with someone who makes things so emotional and personal. I've asked you to answer a number of questions without making any cutting personal comments about you, please see if you can answer them in an objective way without all the drama and emotion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoohaa Posted August 6, 2007 Share Posted August 6, 2007 (edited) How come you neglected to inform us that the murder rate (with a gun) is coming down because of new gun control laws in South Africa? Because that's not true. Please, read up on the notion of "causality" in statistics and rethink your statement. Can you prove that new gun control laws caused the drops in murder rates? Absolutely not. Again, who is being "factual" and who is not? Just think about the skewing variables in this case. South Africa has been in tremendous turmoil politically, with LOADS of change over the last thirty years. There are economic, social, political, and religious changes happening fast enough to make your head spin. An even more important factor is that of ethnicity. And in the midst of all this you are actually claiming that you know that the decrease in murder rates was directly caused by new legislation. Seems you have oversimplified an incredibly complex correlation. And BTW, I don't care about murder rates "with a gun" as opposed to with something else. I have always argued that humans kill people, not guns. Take a gun away from a person with murder in their heart and they will use a knife, baseball bat, shoelace, etc. This is why gun control doesn't work. It takes away one killing tool that is substituted by another. And since you are so fond of my pro-gun propaganda, here's some more: I figure there is enough anti-gun propaganda in the media that I can toss in a little of my own pro-gun propaganda here. Edited August 6, 2007 by hoohaa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
94extreme Posted August 6, 2007 Share Posted August 6, 2007 Because that's not true. Please, read up on the notion of "causality" in statistics and rethink your statement. Can you prove that new gun control laws caused the drops in murder rates? Absolutely not. Again, who is being "factual" and who is not? Just think about the skewing variables in this case. South Africa has been in tremendous turmoil politically, with LOADS of change over the last thirty years. There are economic, social, political, and religious changes happening fast enough to make your head spin. An even more important factor is that of ethnicity. And in the midst of all this you are actually claiming that you know that the decrease in murder rates was directly caused by new legislation. Seems you have oversimplified an incredibly complex correlation. And BTW, I don't care about murder rates "with a gun" as opposed to with something else. I have always argued that humans kill people, not guns. Take a gun away from a person with murder in their heart and they will use a knife, baseball bat, shoelace, etc. This is why gun control doesn't work. It takes away one killing tool that is substituted by another. And since you are so fond of my pro-gun propaganda, here's some more: I figure there is enough anti-gun propaganda in the media that I can toss in a little of my own pro-gun propaganda here. that's pro gun paranoia man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vsicks Pathy Posted August 6, 2007 Author Share Posted August 6, 2007 (edited) that's pro gun paranoia man. Too true mz, and again with the ugly chicks. Edited August 6, 2007 by Vsicks Pathy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoohaa Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 that's pro gun paranoia man. Call it what you want. I think they make a good point. I'd rather be called paranoid every now and then than end up not being able to defend my family when the time came. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
94extreme Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp http://www.mcsm.org/buyback.html In 1992, handguns killed 33 people in Great Britain, 36 in Sweden, 97 in Switzerland, 60 in Japan, 13 in Australia, 128 in Canada, and 13,200 in the United States. http://www.thepeacealliance.org/files/outr...ts_violence.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoohaa Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp That snopes article explains pretty clearly what I attempted to explain above about the difference between causality and correlation and skewing variables. Jumping in to a debate armed with a couple sets of percentages showing an "increase" or "decrease" in "crime" is a recipe for disaster if one does not understand (or chooses to mislead using) cause and effect relationships. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
94extreme Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 did you miss the part of my post that quotes the number of gun deaths in different countries? notice anything unusual there? collateral damage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vsicks Pathy Posted August 7, 2007 Author Share Posted August 7, 2007 did you miss the part of my post that quotes the number of gun deaths in different countries? notice anything unusual there? collateral damage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoohaa Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 did you miss the part of my post that quotes the number of gun deaths in different countries? notice anything unusual there? collateral damage? No, I didn't miss it. I'm not sure why you thought I would even respond to it. Here, I will lay out the issues: 1. You are listing whole numbers rather than percentages. The population of the USA is quite a bit larger than Switzerland. This is a good example of how statistics can be used to mislead. 2. The countries listed have RADICALLY different levels of handgun ownership, again making the statistics misleading. You are comparing countries which are completely saturated with handguns with countries, like England, with very very low handgun ownership. 3. The assumption seems to be that since America's death stats are so much higher than everyone else's (see point #1) that gun control in the USA must be too lax. This is also misleading because the countries listed have varying levels of strictness of gun control. 4. I would tend to distrust the figures themselves even, coming from a group like Handgun Control Inc. Not exactly an unbiased source. 5. There are very different social, economic, and political factors at work in those different countries, making any such "correlations" with gun control and crime levels very doubtful at best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
94extreme Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 country populations/dead United Kingdom 60,609,153/33 Sweden 9,016,596/36 Switzerland 7,523,934/97 Japan 127,463,611/60 Australia 20,264,082/13 Canada 33,098,932/128 United States 298,444,215/13,200 2. The countries listed have RADICALLY different levels of handgun ownership, again making the statistics misleading. You are comparing countries which are completely saturated with handguns with countries, like England, with very very low handgun ownership. are you telling me that gun control works or something? that's the way it reads.. either that or since we're wild it's cool that 13000 americans die every year. so the deaths of our soldiers in iraq, since we're loosing them under a 1000/y, should really be no sweat, right? and is america the poorest of the listed? socioeconomically depressed? etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
94extreme Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 yup, better dead horse then a live kid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vsicks Pathy Posted August 8, 2007 Author Share Posted August 8, 2007 yup, better dead horse then a live kid. I understand what you're saying. He just doesn't see it. Facts to him are irrelevant. He seems to have a "real" fear of being attacked or robbed by gun persons. That's why he doesn't use or acknowledge factual data to support his argument. In his mind the argument is justified. There is no factual data to support his ideals/beliefs, just manipulation of print media, stats and of course, using posters with ugly girls on them. He agrees that gun control works. He even says so here......... Twice........ 2. The countries listed have RADICALLY different levels of handgun ownership, again making the statistics misleading. You are comparing countries which are completely saturated with handguns with countries, like England, with very very low handgun ownership. 3. The assumption seems to be that since America's death stats are so much higher than everyone else's (see point #1) that gun control in the USA must be too lax. This is also misleading because the countries listed have varying levels of strictness of gun control. How on Earth can he say what he said and not slap himself silly? The argument that gun control leads to misleading results of stats is out with the fairies. It is the funniest thing I have read in years... Yet, he will justify it, well try to. Take this for an example of his trying to justify a mistake in his argument.... He has the cheek to use the fact that the gun murder rate IS falling in South Africa against me? He even goes so far as to tell me why I can't use South Africa and about the circumstances of the populous of South Africa??? Parrot or what? lol. Did he forget the fact that it was he that used South Africa as an example of how gun control doesn't work? And it was I that pointed out the opposite even with all of the cultural hurdles and poverty South Africa is facing? Of course not. He chooses to overlook it, to twist the argument, because it doesn't suite his agenda. Let's see how he justifies point 2 and 3 in the above comments. He is a fundamentalist, a radical. He is scared of change, he is scared of other people and of what might happen and nothing can change his mind. NOTHING! Hence, the flogging of the dead horse. I feel sorry for all those that live like that. Fear is an awful thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
94extreme Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 i actually felt like doing some math so here are the results: UK 1:1'836'641 Swe 1:250'461 Sui 1:77'566 Jap 1:2'124'393 Aus 1:1'558'775 Can 1:258'585 USA 1:22'609 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrimGreg Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 MSN article Just thought this might work thrown in here. Back to your BS, BSing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vsicks Pathy Posted August 9, 2007 Author Share Posted August 9, 2007 You're not going boohoo are you hoohaa? Where are you? mz "i actually felt like doing some math so here are the results: UK 1:1'836'641 Swe 1:250'461 Sui 1:77'566 Jap 1:2'124'393 Aus 1:1'558'775 Can 1:258'585 USA 1:22'609" That's scary stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
94extreme Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 excellent link GG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vsicks Pathy Posted August 10, 2007 Author Share Posted August 10, 2007 The whole "one shot one kill" thing in combat is a load of crap. Here is another important reason for the one shot one kill motto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
94extreme Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 shock and awe man. shock and awe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vsicks Pathy Posted August 15, 2007 Author Share Posted August 15, 2007 Just when I had my sights set and I had taken aim…… it looks like our pro gun lobbyist, Xxx Xxx, has shot through after shooting off when only half cocked which ended with him shooting himself in the foot. Seems he didn’t have any ammunition to protect himself, ironically, from himself when it came to the facts of the matter. Still, no need for you to disappear Xxx. It is just a topic ffs. No winners or losers here! They’re in the streets. P.S. The above is just a bit of humour with a little word play. I couldn’t resist it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoohaa Posted August 17, 2007 Share Posted August 17, 2007 Just when I had my sights set and I had taken aim…… it looks like our pro gun lobbyist, Xxx Xxx, has shot through after shooting off when only half cocked which ended with him shooting himself in the foot. Seems he didn’t have any ammunition to protect himself, ironically, from himself when it came to the facts of the matter. Still, no need for you to disappear Xxx. It is just a topic ffs. No winners or losers here! They’re in the streets. P.S. The above is just a bit of humour with a little word play. I couldn’t resist it. I haven't gone anywhere guys, just on vacation. I think I will probably retire from posting in this thread though. It's just silly to enter into a debate where people either don't understand how to form an argument using facts or deliberately ignore facts in order to push an agenda. It's also tiring dealing with the emotion in many of these posts. Not conceding defeat at all, just deciding that my pearls of wisdom are probably better off cast elsewhere. I believe that a person with a good knowledge of logic and statistics will understand my main points and will see through the arguments of the opposite side. Unfortunately it's often easy to mislead those not familiar with statistical fallacy and errors in logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts