man released from jail, shoots 2 the next day, then a cop the following day

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

Don't you remember -- facts is facts. There's no need to prove them.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Vermont is representative of what the US CAN BE. It puts to lie any attempt to say that gun laws (or lack thereof) are the "cause" of crime. The existence of states with very lenient gunlaws and very low crime rates (and there are many, Vermont is perhaps most extreme) Negates the argument. It puts YOU in the position of admitting that guns are NOT the cause of crime, which you have already done. Thanks.

If other states have stricter gun laws and higher crime rates...my question would be "Why?" Answer THAT and then we can address the root causes of crime. Hint: It will not be as easy as passing another gun law.

Gary, why do you insist on reading things that aren't there? The argument has never been that guns and a lack of gun laws are the sole cause of crime. The argument was that they can be a contributing factor - and that the lack of crime in Vermont could have more to do with the makeup of the population (for example, that Vermont is sparsely populated and has a predominantly older population), than whether or not those people have guns. In fact, if I remember correctly you have stated in the past that the presence of guns is what keeps the crime rate in Vermont at low levels. Now if we accept, as I've freely admitted, that the availability of guns are not the sole cause of crime - how can you say with absolute certainty that they are the sole solution?

I might just as easily point out to you some similarly populated rural UK towns and villages that have equally low crime rates - despite the presence of the gun laws. I won't because I recognise (while you don't) that there are complex reasons why crime is higher in one area than another and no meaningful comparison can be made by fixating on a single factor.

Edited July 11, 2010 by Its a MADHOUSE

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

May I quote from one of our esteemed fellow Vjers:

Focus, Pike. FOCUS!!!!

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Gary, why do you insist on reading things that aren't there? The argument has never been that guns and a lack of gun laws are the sole cause of crime. The argument was that they can be a contributing factor - and that the lack of crime in Vermont could have more to do with the makeup of the population (for example, that Vermont is sparsely populated and has a predominantly older population), than whether or not those people have guns. In fact, if I remember correctly you have stated in the past that the presence of guns is what keeps the crime rate in Vermont at low levels. Now if we accept, as I've freely admitted, that the availability of guns are not the sole cause of crime - how can you say with absolute certainty that they are the sole solution?

I might just as easily point out to you some similarly populated rural UK towns and villages that have equally low crime rates - despite the presence of the gun laws. I won't because I recognise (while you don't) that there are complex reasons why crime is higher in one area than another and no meaningful comparison can be made by fixating on a single factor.

If I said what you stated, I was wrong. Low crime is caused by a lack of criminals. The criminals would prefer to operate across the lake in New York where not so many people are armed.

In the example of this thread, for an instance, had the criminal been kept locked up, the victims would be alive and UK's crime rate would be lower.

Vermont has a low incidence of criminals and a low incidence of crime. Firearms have little if anything to do with it. We do not SHOOT criminals in Vermont...there are none to shoot. And there were only four people killed in the state in a year...so there just ain't a whole lot of shootin' goin' on. So far, this year, no homocides so maybe we will have a 100% decrease? Maybe not, one wacko guy could off his family and we would be right back to our old level of homocide. Either way, it will have not a thing to do with gun control.

Crime is not caused by guns, it is caused by criminals. Keep the criminals out of society, or make it unfeasible for them to operate (risk outweighs benefit) and tcrime disappears. Pass gun laws and nothing changes or crime increases...simple as that.

Vermont also has higher than average levels of education, I think that is a contributing factor also...again something that cannot be addressed with gun laws.

I am just stating some facts and if you agree then there is no need to argue, but I welcome your support. If you think guns have something to do with crime, then give us some links because Maven is getting all nervous about the fact that you do not back up your statements.

Gary, why do you insist on reading things that aren't there? The argument has never been that guns and a lack of gun laws are the sole cause of crime. The argument was that they can be a contributing factor - and that the lack of crime in Vermont could have more to do with the makeup of the population (for example, that Vermont is sparsely populated and has a predominantly older population), than whether or not those people have guns. In fact, if I remember correctly you have stated in the past that the presence of guns is what keeps the crime rate in Vermont at low levels. Now if we accept, as I've freely admitted, that the availability of guns are not the sole cause of crime - how can you say with absolute certainty that they are the sole solution?

I might just as easily point out to you some similarly populated rural UK towns and villages that have equally low crime rates - despite the presence of the gun laws. I won't because I recognise (while you don't) that there are complex reasons why crime is higher in one area than another and no meaningful comparison can be made by fixating on a single factor.

I agree with you, Madhouse. The reasons for crime are complex. Gun control laws do not address them.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I don't have an issue with lawful holders of concealed weapons permits who treat their weapon with care and respect either, trouble is, that is not always how people treat guns. Sometimes my opinions on a subject have links, sometimes they don't. If you think gun possession makes you "safer" then you are a bit reality challenged. That does not mean that you can't possess a gun and keep yourself safe, or that I don't support your right to have a gun. I have a right to own a gun, I don't particularly want one.

If you must have a link:

A gun in the home is twelve times more likely to result in the death of a household member or visitor than an intruder.

The simple statistical facts create some doubt in my mind about the mentality of those who feel a need to go about armed being precisely the opposite sorts of persons who logically should possess a gun i.e. persons who possess guns with both care and respect. I have never supported banning guns, but it absolutely frightens me to think people who do own them think they make them safer, rather than recognizing simply owning the gun increases the danger to themselves and those they love.

really tired old link. It assumes a gun is ONLY useful if used to kill someone in self defense. Very poor study. I mean I could say that a ladder is 22 times more likely to kill you by falling off it than to save your life in a fire. So what?

We all keep things around for safety, none of which I ever needed to save my life...short list of things I never needed to save my life...

Fire extinquisher, life vest, seat belt, helmet of any type, fall protection harness, smoke detector, CO detector, fire sprinkler system, handgun, emergency escape ladder, emergency slide from an airplane....

which ones should we do without?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Gary, I think you need to go back to the beginning of the thread and see what it was that Slim was actually arguing.

Edited July 11, 2010 by Its a MADHOUSE

[Ban Hammer 13,776]

Oh here we go again as usual.

If one isn't a gun-totin' Cabella's enthusiast, then one MUST be wrong on the issue of firearms.

well dayum, i've never been to cabella's, so i must be wrong too!

[slim 1,533]

I'm more interested in why there is such reluctance to show proof for so-called "facts." And yes, I do find it startling that people don't want to prove stances they are taking.

I will not post links to facts. If folks disagree with facts because they are ignorant of reality, that's their own problem and they can check the facts for themself. There's no reluctance to show facts, there's an unwillingness. I will not do it.

I am fine with guns being used for sport. I know many people who do just this and find it a pleasurable pastime. I am not keen on a populace armed for "protection", whether legal or illegal, honest citizen or lowdown dirty criminal.

So that's your stance on guns. What's your stance on the 2nd Amendment? Are you honestly trying to tell me that Amendment means we're OK to go duck hunting but not to overthrow our government by force if necessary?

Number of times I have gone to Costco? Hundreds...

Number of times I regretted not having a gun when shopping Costco? None...

"What if" and I know you love these... but what if someone started shooting people in Costco? What would you do? Also, would you not feel more comfortable if you had a gun?

This is the "what if" that's not you're on one side of the store and the crazy shooter is on the other. This is the "what if" where the crazy shooter is coming down your aisle, toward your children, looking like he's intent on shooting your kids in front of you. What are you going to do then? And do you still feel that having a gun wouldn't be "better?"

A gun in the home is twelve times more likely to result in the death of a household member or visitor than an intruder.

The simple statistical facts

This is why I don't post links. My facts come from DOJ and FBI statistics as well as figures from AUS and UK ministries of police or whatever the hell they're called. What you have here is a "study" that's conclusions are presented to coax the reader into forming an opinion, not considering facts of reality.

If I posted a link to a study that said, "if you own a swimming pool, your kids are twelve times as likely to die from drowning" would we now want to ban swimming pools? NO. We all accept that swimming pools can be dangerous if not accorded the proper action. However, when it comes to guns it's never the actions of the people involved that're suspect, it's the inanimate metal object itself. Why is that?

There's no need to prove them.

No, there's no need to post links to show incorrect people where to get their facts. If you want to disagree with facts and not do your own research that's on you. What's funny to me is several of you on here keep denying the truth because I won't post a link to show you.

If I said, "You need oxygen to stay alive" would I be forced to post a link?

You can't believe me because you disagree with what I'm posting. That still doesn't change the fact that it is a fact. I WILL NOT post links to support facts. If you're unwilling to believe me - and the facts - that's on you.

Gary, I think you need to go back to the beginning of the thread and see what it was that Slim was actually arguing.

I was arguing with folks who like to get on VJ and post things like, "America is so much more dangerous than other first-world countries like UK and AUS because they have such a high instance of shootings."

So far, we haven't seen any evidence of this being true. All we've seen are OPINIONS of the folks who've said this. I've posted the facts, and those are, that their statements are incorrect. America is no more dangerous than any other first-world country."

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Yes Slim, we know. The thread is all about opinions because that's the standard you set. That and threats, and lies about the nature of them.

Substantiate your opinion or give it a rest. Seriously.

[slim 1,533]

Yes Slim, we know. The thread is all about opinions because that's the standard you set. That and threats, and lies about the nature of them.

Substantiate your opinion or give it a rest. Seriously.

I've yet to post an opinion. Or a threat.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Round and round we go and now you're just lying.

Carry on repeating yourself.

[slim 1,533]

I will not post links to facts.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

I'm still puzzling over why it's so difficult to post any links to demonstrate the factuality of a statement. I have a feeling I would have flunked out of school at age 10 if I had taken that tactic. I'm not your dogsbody to do what should be your work. You do know you come off as an utter ignoramus when you continue this line of "argument," right?

And you know what? I don't happen to agree with the way the Second Amendment is interpreted these days. In my mind, it's an archaic amendment, more suited for another time. I know most of America doesn't agree with me, which is fine. We can agree to disagree. I do not agree with violent overthrow of the government; that's just how I roll.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Yes, so you said.

But you will keep posting it over and over and over again. Anyone would think you're being lazy or you don't really know what you're talking about.

Come on, say it again. Someone may have forgotten.

[slim 1,533]

I'm still puzzling over why it's so difficult to post any links to demonstrate the factuality of a statement. I have a feeling I would have flunked out of school at age 10 if I had taken that tactic. I'm not your dogsbody to do what should be your work. You do know you come off as an utter ignoramus when you continue this line of "argument," right?

This isn't an argument, it's a posting on the internet. There are no grades, no flunking, and thus, no need to back up facts.

Once again, if you refuse to acknowledge something simply because you disagree with it, that does not change it's validity.

And you know what? I don't happen to agree with the way the Second Amendment is interpreted these days. In my mind, it's an archaic amendment, more suited for another time. I know most of America doesn't agree with me, which is fine. We can agree to disagree. I do not agree with violent overthrow of the government; that's just how I roll.

I forgot you were advocating for afternoon changes to our Constitution in the other thread.

Could it be that maybe, perhaps the very reason the founders decided to make an "archaic amendment more suited for another time" was because they knew eventually this country would be on the path it's on now and they sought a way to ensure THE PEOPLE had a way to control government?