Here's a debate which aired sometime after the Virginia Tech shooting, pitting Eric Thompson, on-line gun dealer against Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign.
What possible motivation could Mr. Helmke have other than what he says? Does anyone really think he's lying when he says, "when you put more guns into a situation, whether it's a home, a city or a college campus, you're going to have more gun violence?" Don't you think he believes that? I certainly do. And what's more, I agree with it.
In fact, I was saying exactly that before I knew who Paul Helmke was. I think we're both really saying things we really believe, with no sinister or ulterior motives, really.
On the other hand, we have Mr. Thompson, who said in a carefully worded comment that he was "warmly received by many of the students." Although that may be true enough, I find it hard to believe that the loved ones of the 32 dead kids would have "warmly received" him. What do you think?
Do you think Thompson is a bit cold-blooded in claiming that his company didn't help provide the gun but simply sold a legal product? Do you have any problem with that?
Helmke said, "We make it too easy for dangerous people to get guns." Do you agree or disagree?
Please leave a comment.
On the other hand, we have Mr. Thompson, who said in a carefully worded comment that he was "warmly received by many of the students." Although that may be true enough, I find it hard to believe that the loved ones of the 32 dead kids would have "warmly received" him. What do you think?
ReplyDeleteThey might have had he been on campus that day and stopped the massacre.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteIf you had 1 firearm or 15 firearms in your house, would you have more gun violence in your home?
It really is that simple.
Everything else is simply propaganda for your attempt to ban firearms.
"Does anyone really think he's lying when he says, "when you put more guns into a situation, whether it's a home, a city or a college campus, you're going to have more gun violence?" Don't you think he believes that? I certainly do. And what's more, I agree with it."
ReplyDeleteYes he is lying. You're lying when you say you belive that, as just like Helmke you've seen and read the numbers, and you know how deeply you must lie to make your point hold water.
The big question is Helmke is paid handsomely to lie for the dihonest gun-control lobby.
What's your excuse, Mike?
Also while we're at it, I'll give you another oportunity dodge a perfectly valid question:
Why do you think we need more gun control, Mike?
I think this is the fifth asking....maybe half-dozen. How many more dodges do you have up your sinister sleeve?
Oh one more thing:
ReplyDelete"Helmke said, "We make it too easy for dangerous people to get guns." Do you agree or disagree?"
Disagree (and so do you!) but what Helmke you and your ilk DO is make it difficult for law-abiding people to protect themselves from dangerous people (tool independant, and most likely NOT a gun).
Blood is on your hands, Mike.
Your next post better answer my damn question, I'm sick of waiting.
Weer'd asked for the fifth time,
ReplyDelete"Why do you think we need more gun control, Mike?"
Sorry for not answering sooner but it's really the same answer, as unsatisfactory as you may find it, as I offered yesterday to the earlier question, "Why guns."
I'll expound a bit. Long before I met you, I aligned myself with the liberal causes. I never pretended to be an expert in anything, but in my reading and listening through the years, the liberal causes felt better to me. This included gun control. Then I met you and Bob and Tom and Nomen. You guys brought it out of me, I kid you not. I was never passionate about it, not nearly as much as I was about capital punishment, for example, but in arguing with you I became more so.
I listened to Helmke speak and was very gratified to hear him making the exact same points I had been. That's because, like it or not, they make sense to many of us.
I think between you guys and myself there could be a good discussion, but lately, I guess you're frustrated, you've resorted more and more to personal attacks about my motives and honesty.
Listen, knock yourself out. Keep repeating that crap all you want. I don't think you're winning anybody over, certainly not me, and all you might eventually do with that method is destroy the blog relationships.
why on earth should gun bans (let's not be hypocrites here; when in american politics we speak of gun "control", we all of us know that's a euphemism for banning guns) be a "liberal cause"?
ReplyDeleteseriously. i may be a socialist, but i don't see what's so liberal about prohibitionism.
MIke,
ReplyDeleteThe ATF has repeatedly stated that trace data does not provide sufficient information to generate statistics. It's on the first page of the reports. Yet Helmke and the Brady Campaign regularly use it as such and repeat the "1%" meme.
Is he ignorant or lying?
Mike,
ReplyDeleteThe question I had and have is "Do gun control laws work?"
That is the honest truth. I went into the research I started to find out. I wanted to know which side I should support. Surprise, I found the gun control side was distorting information, facts, statistics and the issues.
The facts are that gun control laws do not work. They do not prevent violence, they do not reduce gun crime, they do not make people safer.
You and the other gun banners want to take away people's rights to defend themselves, to enjoy a sport; all in the name of making them safer. Shouldn't you be able to show the evidence that gun control makes people safer?
I'm not trying to ruin a blog relationship but I will call you out on what you are trying to do. Part of the issue, in my opinion, is you are being dishonest or were in the past. You claimed to want to allow "responsible" gun owners to keep their firearms, but every actions you supported, every law you praised took away rights from people.
Recently on another thread you said that legitimate gun owners have responsibility for the violence because we stand in the way of eliminating firearms from society. I'll plead guilty to standing in the way, but not the responsibility for the violence.My ACTIONS are responsible and legal, no actions of mine have denied other people their rights.
I will fight for my rights to defend myself, my family. I will fight for my right to try to punch holes in a paper target. If that sours a friendship, so be it.
It is your responsibility to examine your own actions and see if you have responsibility. As Weer'd has pointed out it really is simple. If you call, if you advocate and support positions that leave people unable to defend themselves without violating the law, then YOUR ACTIONS have helped that criminal.
You say that many of Helmke's points make sense. I suppose that could be true...but so did the idea the earth was flat and some people were inherently inferior to others. At one point those ideas made sense to many people....of course they were wrong then and they are wrong now.
Just because an idea makes sense doesn't mean it is legal, constitutional or even MORAL.
When we see people, after hearing the facts, seeing the evidence,the statistics, the proof; continue to advocate an IMMORAL course of action, shouldn't we call it IMMORAL?
"Long before I met you, I aligned myself with the liberal causes. I never pretended to be an expert in anything, but in my reading and listening through the years, the liberal causes felt better to me. This included gun control." -Truth
ReplyDelete"I listened to Helmke speak and was very gratified to hear him making the exact same points I had been. That's because, like it or not, they make sense to many of us." Was true before you started researching the issue as you have. Now you KNOW Helmke (who does more research on the issue than any of us) is lying for his supper.
Yet you won't change your tune now that you know you're wrong. Gun control causes more death. Children are more at danger from household clearners, or standing water than guns by a huge margin. The majority of violent crimes are commited by people who can't legally own guns, and don't have them. The rest are by people who illigally aquired guns by breaking laws already in existance and that are decades old.
No law actually stops a behavior, it only punishes the behavior, this is only a deturant to some, but not all.
Far more lives are saved by firearms than are taken.
Gun free zones, and states/towns with high gun control laws are some of the most dangerous places in the world.
You know all of this is true, you can't refute it, so you only ignore it....then lie and spread misinformation.
Why? (I suspect I'll need to ask THIS question a dozen times as well before you'll answer, meaning I'll have to wait for at least a week. I'll be here still, and you'll still need to lie)
Helmke said, "We make it too easy for dangerous people to get guns." Do you agree or disagree?
ReplyDeletedisagree strongly. this is a good example of helmke using deliberately deceptive language that borders on the slanderous.
nobody goes out and changes the law with the intention of making it easier for dangerous people to get guns. no rule, no regulation, no standard of enforcement has been made for that purpose; even having that as an unintentional side effect is enough to get a proposed rule or law politically spiked.
what helmke wants to say is that we should make more rules and laws so as to make it harder than it currently is for "dangerous" (in helmke's opinion) people to get guns.
he's weasel-wording the idea that he's not getting his own way far enough politically, and he's weasel-wording it in such a way as to make it sound like we're really headed in the opposite direction to the one he'd like us to go. but that we are not.
i certainly think he believes it, and im with him...
ReplyDeleteSlyde, Why?
ReplyDeleteOr are you like Mike, and see Emotions and agenda to be justification enugh?
What you fail to recognize mike is the difference between predatory violence and protective violence.
ReplyDeleteWhen you push "gun control" you disarm everyone but the most violent (I.E. the "predatory violent" ones) and you leave average citizens without an effective means of protective violence.
Very very basic stuff mike.
If "more guns = More violence" were true then firing ranges, police stations, and places like the blog bash / NRA conventions would be goddamn bloodbaths.
If your premise is true then why aren't they the most violent places in society mike?
Oh, and if Helmke were telling the truth about "only wanting to keep guns out of "dangerous hands" then why does he support TOTAL BANS like the one's in DC & Chicago, which disarm ALL citizens.
ReplyDeleteHe's flat out lying Mike and you know it.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteOn Kurt's Armed and Safe site you posted this comment:
I agree with some of what you say, but if the 2nd Amendment is the only thing protecting the 1st,
People question the ulterior motives of gun control advocates with good reason. Would you agree with the professor in the following situation (h/t to Say Uncle)?
Professor Called Police After Student Presentation
For CCSU student John Wahlberg, a class presentation on campus violence turned into a confrontation with the campus police due to a complaint by the professor.
On October 3, 2008, Wahlberg and two other classmates prepared to give an oral presentation for a Communication 140 class that was required to discuss a “relevant issue in the media”. Wahlberg and his group chose to discuss school violence due to recent events such as the Virginia Tech shootings that occurred in 2007
Remember, this is just 3 people in class talking about violence occurring on college campuses. Something that has a direct impact on them...but they are only giving a presentation.
Shortly after his professor, Paula Anderson, filed a complaint with the CCSU Police against her student. During the presentation Wahlberg made the point that if students were permitted to conceal carry guns on campus, the violence could have been stopped earlier in many of these cases. He also touched on the controversial idea of free gun zones on college campuses.
Freedom of Speech...apparently not to much in some professor's class. Yes, they talked about it but then had the police called on one of them. Wouldn't that have a chilling effect on future free speech? How many students would be willing to risk having the cops called on them?
That night at work, Wahlberg received a message stating that the campus police “requested his presence”. Upon entering the police station, the officers began to list off firearms that were registered under his name, and questioned him about where he kept them.
Then some people question why registration is a thing to avoid. Note that no one accused him of violating school, state or federal laws, but note how little his right to privacy was respected because 1 person complained about a presentation.
They told Wahlberg that they had received a complaint from his professor that his presentation was making students feel “scared and uncomfortable”.
Why didn't the students make the complaint and not the professor?
How far we have fallen when simply talking about protecting yourself makes some people "scared and uncomfortable".
Do we have anyone else's word that it was the students who really had the problem, any affidavits, statements supporting the professor?
“It is also my responsibility as a teacher to protect the well being of our students, and the campus community at all times,” she wrote in a statement submitted to The Recorder. “As such, when deemed necessary because of any perceived risks, I seek guidance and consultation from the Chair of my Department, the Dean and any relevant University officials.”
Protect them from what? Hearing the rights of Americans to defend themselves?
Here is the money quote Mike...this young lady has it right
“If you can’t talk about the Second Amendment, what happened to the First Amendment?” asked Sara Adler, president of the Riflery and Marksmanship club on campus. “After all, a university campus is a place for the free and open exchange of ideas.,”
Now, tell us again how pro-firearm folks are over reacting?
What about semi-automatics? Do you hard-core folks believe in NO gun laws AT ALL, or just laws against handguns?
ReplyDeleteI have to ask myself which "sport" uses semi-automatic weapons...
Daisy,
ReplyDeleteWhat about semi-automatics?
Automatic and semi-automatic simply describe the functioning of the firearm, they apply to rifles, shotguns and handguns. An automatic weapon allows for more then one round to be fired per pull of the trigger.
Do you hard-core folks believe in NO gun laws AT ALL, or just laws against handguns?
We believe in gun laws, just as little as possible. This also describes many people's belief on laws that control freedom of speech, worship, etc. What we are fighting against is gun control laws that do nothing to stop the problem. One gun a month, waiting periods, etc. Some people have several firearms (some have dozens or more) already...how does making them wait for 3 days solve any problems?
As Nancy Pelosi just said, why don't we enforce some of the laws we already have on the books before we make new laws. Laws that require background checks, laws that make it illegal for convicted felons to possess firearms. There are thousands of gun control laws already on the books.
I have to ask myself which "sport" uses semi-automatic weapons...
Skeet and Trap in the shotgun sports are examples. The Biathlon in the Olympics use semi-automatic firearms. Other Olympic shooting sports also use semi-automatic
There are a wide variety of target shooting sports that use any variety of firearms, semi-automatics included.
Here is a link the Wikipedia entry on shooting sports. Hope it helps
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_sports
+1 Bob, great post.
ReplyDeleteMy wife and I shoot sporting clays semi-regularly. My wife prefers to use a Semi-Auto Beretta shotgun because semi-autos greatly tame recoil.
This spring I'm going to enroll in IDPA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IDPA
Looks like tons of fun, and it's a practical shooting sports, so skills gained might one day save my life.
As for gun control laws, I do support them...just only the effective ones.
The Gun Control Act of 1968 overall (tho nothing is perfect) a good law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968
And the Brady Bill (the modern incarnation requiring a NICS check at all FFL sales...not the antiquated 7-day paper check that took a long time and allowed prohibited persons to slip through the cracks if forms were lost in the mail)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Bill#The_Brady_Law_today
Many others support the National Firearms Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act
Tho frankly the more I become familiar with firearms covered under this law, and firearms legal, overall it's a useless law that really only is popular because very few people were alive when such arms were legal.
But besides those three, most gun control laws are redundant, or ineffective, so I see no point in keeping them on the books.
I hope these help you better understand our point, and I hope we can be of further help if you have any more questions.
Daisy, a semiautomatic gun is like a bicycle going uphill --- if you want it to keep going, you have to keep repeatedly doing something; either pushing the pedals, or pulling the trigger.
ReplyDeletea fully automatic is like an electric sewing machine --- it'll go by itself so long as you keep something pushed down, either a pedal or the trigger.
fully automatics, also known as machine guns, are already regulated to within an inch of being flat out illegal.
semiautomatics are a technology not that much younger than the modern-day "safety" bicycle (but considerably younger than the "big wheel" bikes that came before those). semiauto firearms are quite pedestrian weapons, and among the most common and most popular choices for target shooting sports of many kinds.
speaking for myself, i believe most (if not quite all) of our currently existing gun laws are quite good ones. there are a few new ones i might like to see passed, and some existing ones could be tweaked a bit, but it's all very minor improvements; the big ticket issues, we've pretty much got right already. (as we should, we've been taking gun laws seriously for almost a century!)
Daisy,
ReplyDeleteBy the way, if you are curious about any of the shooting sports or if you have no experience with firearms but would like to learn, just let us know.
There are many bloggers who have invitations to take new shooters out and provide an introduction to firearms. If not a blogger, there are many readers who would also do the same.
I'm sure we could find someone in your area if you would like.
Weer'd asked, "The big question is Helmke is paid handsomely to lie for the dihonest gun-control lobby.
ReplyDeleteWhat's your excuse, Mike?"
I sure hope those lobbyists who pay the big bucks are reading. I'd love to get paid, for saying what I believe.
Helmke said we make it too easy for dangerous people to get guns. In order to make it harder, maybe the law abiding have to be inconvenienced. What's wrong with that?
Thirdpower, sorry I missed that "1% meme." What was that?
"Helmke said we make it too easy for dangerous people to get guns. In order to make it harder, maybe the law abiding have to be inconvenienced. What's wrong with that?"
ReplyDeleteThat it doesn't work. EVER.
And that it's already difficult for dangerous people to get guns, so Helmke and your proposals just make things harder for law-abiding people...and that gets them killed.
Blood on your hands, Mike.
But at least now you're admitting you're lying. That's a start.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteTwo things always comes to mind when I watch debates like this one.
The first is simply "Your actions speak so loudly I can't hear what you say".
A great example of this is President Obama and A.G. Holder. Many said Obama wouldn't be anti-gun...many looked at his past actions and said he would. Lo and behold we have A.G. Holder calling for another AWB.
What actions has Paul Helmke done? Publish distorted information, misleading statistics, etc.
Which leads to the second thing I keep in mind? Will this thing they are advocating lead to increasing my freedom/liberty or taking away my freedom/liberty?
If someone is advocating taking away more of our liberties, our rights; does the evidence support doing that?
Sorry but for the anti's, the gun banners like Helmke, the answer is NO. Just like we've repeatedly shown you.
Yesterday we had temperatures in the 50's but a strong northwest wind blew that away and temperatures fell into the low 30's by afternoon.
ReplyDeleteThis morning we have snow flurries floating through the air and a light dusting of snow on the pavement.
Highs this week here in northwest Ohio are expected to be in the mid-30's, about 10 degrees below average for this time of the year.
At least the days are getting longer- 2 minutes per day. Spring arrives in 23 days.
I like to dwell in factual data. Anybody else?
Mikeb:
ReplyDeleteThey claim that "1% of dealers provide x% of all 'crime guns' ".
This, per repeated statements by the BATFE, FBI, and CRS, is an outright falsehood and a misuse of trace data yet the Brady Campaign et al. continue to use it.
So is it ignorance or lying?
Mud,
ReplyDeleteAre you trying to show that we shouldn't rely on factual data?
You might not appreciate it so much if the government took that approach and arrested you for producing child pornography, eh?
If the evidence doesn't support the claims, should the people or the government be making the claims?
Muddy's saying that like Mike, he knows he doesn't have a leg to stand on on this issue. Rather than get called as a liar like Mike does when he attempts to defend a position he knows is wrong, Muddy just chooses not to participate at all.
ReplyDeleteI won't lie, it's the wiser of the two moves, given that supporting a backwards agenda that kills people while claiming the exact opposite is a dependant factor.
Hey he wouldn't use the moniker "Mud" if he was in any way clean or pure!
That 1% comment, and all the other things that are being called "lies," may be very simply a different interpretation. I'm just suggesting that maybe the Brady people have enough resources at their disposal to do quality statistical research of their own. Maybe they aren't lying any more than the FBI or you guys are.
ReplyDelete"Maybe they aren't lying any more than the FBI or you guys are."
ReplyDeleteOr those stupid historians who make that outlandish claim that jews were rounded up in camps and executed by the Nazis.
The fools, we know the truth, don't we Mike!
(you're really starting to disgust me)
"I'm just suggesting that maybe the Brady people have enough resources at their disposal to do quality statistical research of their own."
ReplyDeleteSorry Mike. All Gov't agencies involved have already criticized the use of trace data that the Brady Campaign regularly use it for.
"In addition, with ATF data, gun control advocates began identifying and publishing the
names of FFLs who in their judgement were “bad apple” dealers, as the data showed
“crime guns” being traced back to their businesses, along with multiple handgun sales
reports, in numbers the gun control advocates found unacceptable.16
As noted above, while multiple handgun sales reports, along with firearm trace and
other investigative data, can be strong indicators of illegal firearms trafficking, alone they
do not constitute proof of criminal wrongdoing on the part of an FFL."
-Congressional Research Service, 2006
It's pretty sad that you have to defend the BC for blatantly lying to the public.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteEver think about the weight of an argument?
I could see you defending your position of the weight of the arguments were equal. Then it becomes a matter of personal opinion and preference.
But consider the weight of the anti-gun argument, how much does it simply rely on the emotional?
The greatest majority of the emotional (yes, even the pro-gun side has an emotional argument to make), ethical, moral, legal and constitutional weight clearly comes down on the side of the pro-civil rights - pro-gun side of the argument.
Doesn't it bother you to support a position that takes away rights you swore at one point to defend?
Mike,
ReplyDeleteLet's go back to a simply argument since you are ducking most of the others.
You wrote:
Does anyone really think he's lying when he says, "when you put more guns into a situation, whether it's a home, a city or a college campus, you're going to have more gun violence?" Don't you think he believes that? I certainly do. And what's more, I agree with it.
I like Weer'd common sense thought experiment.
I go to a range meeting once a month. Usually about 100-120 people there, guesstimating about one-fourth armed. I also live not far from sections of Fort Worth where we can find about 100-120 gang members and drug dealers.
Now for the experiment. Want you to dress nicely, go to the bank and take out 2,000 in cash. You get your choice of two locations.
1.) On the street with the gang bangers and drug dealers....but nobody is armed.
or
2.) At the range meeting where everyone has been instructed to bring their firearms.
Since you believe that more guns in a situation is going to increase violence, isn't your only choice to be on the gang banger turf?
Is that what you would choose?
Good question Bob. Leaves Mike with three options.
ReplyDelete#1 Lie about how your gun club (or really any gun club) is probably the safest place from violent crime in America...and also probably the highest per-capita for "availability of guns" (FYI if I was asked to come armed to a meeting I'd probably carry TWO handguns AND a shotgun if it was allowed)
This way he'll support Helmke's lie, but openly expose himself as being a blatant liar.
#2. Admit that Helmke is a liar when he says "gun availability" has DICK do do with violent crime...espshally gun avalability to those who can DEMONSTRATE themselves to be non-criminals, which is who Helmke targets with his laws.
#3. Admit we have a very good point, and gun avalability has no berring at all on violent crime rates, and in fact often corrilates to LOWER crime, and that violent crime problems have more to do with culture, than available tools.
#4. Not answer your question at all, as any answer will make him look like a deceitful person who has been cheering for laws that get good people killed, and help the worst of society.
I know which one I have my money on.
Listen guys, the idea of "more guns means more gun violence" does not mean that in every single situation where there are more guns you'll have more violence. Isn't that obvious? This is another example of how you guys often argue unfairly.
ReplyDeleteOf course the police stations are safer than the drug corner even though the cops have more guns. No one disputes that.
What I dispute is that increasing the total number of guns in the society will make it safer. That I dispute.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteYou can't argue both sides here. You said that you agreed with Helmke.
You asked if we thought he was lying when he said
when you put more guns into a situation, whether it's a home, a city or a college campus, you're going to have more gun violence
Now, you've admitted that isn't true and you should admit that Helmke was lying!
Helmke disagrees with you:
Of course the police stations are safer than the drug corner even though the cops have more guns. No one disputes that.
And now you are disagreeing with yourself, which is it Mike?
Your argument for availability is shot to Hades. There are other factors, more important factors then availability that makes the difference.
Let's look at the college concealed carry issue. It is one that I am well familiar with.
I started college at the age of 22, old enough to have a concealed carry license (if Texas had them at the time. Now after 4 years in the Air Force, training on .38 revolvers and m-16s, working full time, living on my own and paying my own way; can you honestly say that I fit the profile of a "typical" college kid likely to get drunk and party on campus?
By the way, it was a community college campus, no dorms?
Why shouldn't I be allowed to carry concealed onto campus? You just admitted that it isn't the availability of guns that always makes the difference?
It took me a great deal of time to finish college, going part time and stopping for a couple of years. I was 39 years old when I walked across the stage for my bachelor's degree? Still not trusted to carry on campus, why?
I researched the student carry issue previously, less then half of all college students fit the profile of kids straight out of college, living on campus/near campus and going to school full time. Why can't those who are licensed carry? What magical enchantments do they cast on the school property lines to keep "bad" guns out?
It is not always the availability of firearms Mike, but who has them available.
This is an example of the LIES told by the gun banners and if you continue to say you agree with Helmke, then you are a liar and support liars.
That was Answer #1. Color me surprised.
ReplyDeleteBob, your absolutely right, Helmke said, "whether it's a home, a city or a college campus, you're going to have more gun violence."
ReplyDeleteWhat I take from that is he's being emphatic or using exaggeration or a bit of hyperbole, many of the methods that you and everyone else use when speaking. I don't understand his comments to mean that in every single home every single time there's more violence. I don't hear that Bob, and I don't think you do either. But, what you've chosen to do is derail the entire discussion in order to make a big case that he's a LIAR and since I support him I'm a LIAR.
I can't really speak for Mr. Helmke, but I tell you I'm not lying when I say how I understood his remarks. That's the truth, I swear it.
I don't know what this kick is that you're on trying so hard to prove that I'm lying and doing all this name calling. What do you gain from it? I don't think you feel your side of the argument is in jeapardy, so why disrupt it with these attacks? Why spend so much time doing it?
Okay Mike,
ReplyDeleteLet's broaden the scope. Let's take a community that I live in, or you, or Weer'd, or Nomen.
Add 1,000 firearms to that community. How much will violence go up?
Now add 1,000 firearms to an inner city urban community and how much do you think violence will go up?
Directly proportional to the amount of gangs, drug dealers, thieves, and other assorted criminals, right?
The point of the matter is, that it isn't the number of firearms available. It is who is in possession of the firearm.
Can you admit that?
Mike, the point that I'm trying to make is simple. You are not admitting the truth of your statements and the truth of the gun grabbers.
It does matter who owns the firearms, but the laws are designed to affect everyone, not just those people who are prohibited from owning them.
In fact, many of the laws are designed to adversely impact those who need the firearms the most. \
Laws against "junk guns" and "saturday night specials" are designed to increase the cost of firearms. Now, do you think the typical Hollywood mega star is going to have a problem laying out $500 for a basic handgun? but the people in the inner city, the people who need firearms the most are definitely going to experience problems doing that.
So why are the laws designed to keep responsible people in areas from owning firearms but people who want to break the law, who are breaking the law can afford them?
I don't understand his comments to mean that in every single home every single time there's more violence.
Sorry Mike, but the gun banners mean exactly that. The Kellermann study is used by theFirearms Violence - General, even though it has been thoroughly discredited.
# Protection or Peril? An Analysis of Firearm-Related Deaths in the Home, Arthur L. Kellermann, MD, MPH , and Donald T. Reay, MD, The New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 314, No. 24, June 12, 1986, pp. 1557-1560.
Key Statistics: For every case in which an individual used a firearm kept in the home in a self-defense homicide, there were 1.3 unintentional deaths, 4.6 criminal homicides, and 37 suicides involving firearms.
This study examines firearm-related deaths in the home during a six-year period (1978 to 1983) in King County, Washington
Now, are you willing to admit that the total availability of firearms does not matter as much as who has them?
Maybe we can drop that line of argument and make some progress.
"trying so hard to prove that I'm lying and doing all this name calling. What do you gain from it? I don't think you feel your side of the argument is in jeapardy, so why disrupt it with these attacks?"
ReplyDeleteCalling a spade a spade isn't an "attack" and it's not "name-calling." What you are saying is demonstratably false. As such, calling you a liar is perfectly valid within the context of our discussion.
If you're going to spout bigoted falsehoods you can expect to be called out on them. You may think it's mean Mike, but it's perfectly acceptable and absolutely civil.
If you had 1 firearm or 15 firearms in your house, would you have more gun violence in your home?
Bob - Unless Mike believes that a gun can act of it's own volition without direct, conscious manipulation by a human being, then he MUST answser that the number of guns has NO bearing on the level of violence.
"I can't really speak for Mr. Helmke, but I tell you I'm not lying when I say how I understood his remarks. That's the truth, I swear it."
ReplyDeleteBald face lie. That might have been true at one point, but I've seen all that you've read, and know you've likely read even more than that.
I know you're not an idiot of any sort, and I highly doubt a severe mental illness. This makes you a deceitful bastard on par with those who deny the holocaust.
How do you justify such behavior?
Mike,
ReplyDeleteLet's say you are telling the truth and you don't mean it the way that Helmke did.
We know how Helmke meant it because there are other statements from him in the past.
So, if you agree that individually introducing firearms into a household, or college, or situation isn't a problem. That leaves how more firearms in general means more violence, right?
But the problem with that is the matter of evidence. Sorry but all the prevailing evidence doesn't show that firearm availability is the determining or key factor in the level of violence.
You've admitted this much in the past, right? Something about not being able to compare France and Switzerland because of the complex factors.
What gets me, and I'm sure several others, is your reluctance to move past the "more firearms, more violence" meme. It is demonstrably not valid...so why continue it?
You parrot the gun grabbers talking points quite well, but get very defensive, without being able to defend your position.
Here is another one:
"We make it too easy for dangerous people to get guns."
At no time in American History has it been harder for the average person to get firearms. At no time in American History has it been harder for a 'dangerous' person to get firearms.
Can you recognize that is a fact?
You've also recognized the right of "responsible" gun owners to keep firearms and use them in defense of themselves and others, right?
So, how can we continue to advocate policies that makes it harder and harder for the average person to get firearms, when those policies-even as hard as they make it for the criminals, don't impact crime rates?
You can try to yell the rates would be higher without the laws, but other countries show even with the laws, the rates continue to increase.
Maybe part of the problem is the answer is counter-intuitive. While it may seem like less guns less crime makes sense, it might need a paradigm shift. After all, the US was the only people to use atomic bombs.....because at the time we were the only ones to have them, right?
After other countries developed similar capacities and capability, everyone was too afraid to use them again. So the presence of more atomic bombs actually meant less use of atomic bombs.
Think about it.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteLet me keep up the flow of information.
You said:
What I dispute is that increasing the total number of guns in the society will make it safer. That I dispute.
You don't dispute that the number of firearms in America has been increasing for decades, right?
So, what about crime rates in America? Does that qualify as "in the society"? If the more guns, the more crime theory works, there should be increased crime rates as firearms increase, right?
So, let's look at the FBI stats. You do trust some stats, right?
From here -http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html
VCR = Violent Crime Rate
MR = Murder & Nonnegligent manslaughter rate
AAR= Aggravated assault Rate
Year VCR MR AAR
1986 620.1 8.6 347.4
1987 612.5 8.3 352.9
1988 640.6 8.5 372.2
1989 666.9 8.7 385.6
1990 729.6 9.4 422.9
1991 758.2 9.8 433.4
1992 757.7 9.3 441.9
1993 747.1 9.5 440.5
1994 713.6 9.0 427.6
1995 684.5 8.2 418.3
1996 636.6 7.4 391.0
1997 611.0 6.8 382.1
1998 567.6 6.3 361.4
1999 523.0 5.7 334.3
2000 506.5 5.5 324.0
20012 504.5 5.6 318.6
2002 494.4 5.6 309.5
2003 475.8 5.7 295.4
20043 463.2 5.5 288.6
2005 469.2 5.6 291.1
All the statistics, all the information, at all the levels; cities, state, country, show the same thing. NO CORRELATION between firearms and crime and violence rates.
What will it take for you to give up the theory that more guns equals more crime?
By the way, might want to consider this from Wikipedia:
In 39 concealed-carry states, issuing officials may not arbitrarily deny a concealed-carry application, a practice known as Florida-style "shall issue". It is so named because Florida gained national attention for adopting this policy in 1987, leading to citizens of other states advocating similar measures, even though this practice had been adopted in Washington state in 1961.[4]
So, starting in 1987 states started letting more and more people carry firearms...did crime and violence go up or down?
Here's another example of the BC blatantly lying:
ReplyDelete"Our whole mission at Brady is to attack the illegal gun market that supplies the criminals who kill police in Philly and elsewhere....."
-Doug Pennington, BC Comm. Director
In a post opposing Concealed Carry laws.
What does CCW laws have to do w/ criminals killing police?
Why does the BC oppose youth firearm safety education? Does that have anything to do w/ criminals killing police or do they have an ulterior motive?