Tuesday, February 17, 2009

The President of Ceasefire NJ vs. Evan Nappen

I discovered this fascinating video on Youtube, posted by a certain NJCSD. It contains a short debate which took place last summer on the show called Real Talk with Megan Vega.

I noticed the title, Anti-Gun Group Backpedles, and figured the poster was a gun supporter. The following written description accompanied the post. Notice only the gun-rights attorney is named, and actually lauded with the appellation "Noted." I thought that was downright shabby. Attorney Thomas Jardim is the President of Ceasefire NJ but was not named except by Megan Vega in the introductions. Do you think this kind of petty slighting of the competition is necessary? Why would people who feel they have the winning argument resort to tricks? Or could it have been just an oversight? Here's the text.

Noted gun rights attorney Evan Nappen debates anti-gun President of CeaseFire, extracting admission that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right, contraverting their long held position that gun onwership is reserved only for those serving in the Militia - seemingly the Armed Forces or law enforcement. Trust us, folks, they were wrong then, and they're wrong now. Everything they say is a lie and the bit about "gun violence" is intellectually and morally bankrupt.

Now, here's the video. Tell me which one seems shrill and hysterical? Which one stutters and stumbles for the right words? Which one interrupts and bullies?

More importantly, which one do you think is right about the laws in New Jersey? Are they about to be overturned as Nappan says?


46 comments:

  1. Which side was lying?

    Mr. Hamm is one of the sinister ones.

    I'm starting to think the same of you, Mike, on this issue.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Mike,

    Did you watch the video?

    Do you think a law that bans firearms the Boy Scouts use for training is a fair law?

    Do you think a law that bans .50 caliber rifles is really trying to address "gun violence" and crime?

    Did you catch this part of the anti-gun shill's statement:
    no magic bullet to keep people safe

    Now if the anti0gun side is admitting there isn't a law that can be passed to keep people safe, isn't incumbent on the government to allow people to defend themselves?

    I think the laws will be overturned because they are unjust.

    How about laws that make "saturday night specials" illegal? Are they fair, consider that product liability laws apply, in outlawing inexpensive firearms....solely because they are inexpensive?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mike,

    A couple of questions to try to understand your position a little better.

    If someone breaks into my house, steals prescription drugs from me, goes to their homes, takes the drugs and overdoses; am I responsible for their death?

    If someone breaks into my house, steals money that I had saved up, locked up in a small cash drawer then goes out and buys illegal drugs, overdoses on those drugs; Am I responsible for their death?

    If someone breaks into my house, steals my alcohol, drives drunk and kills someone; am I responsible for the death caused?

    ReplyDelete
  4. What makes you think he'll answer your questions this time, Bob?

    Mike knows what he posts is spreading ignorance in the face of truth.

    The question is "Why is he doing it?"

    ReplyDelete
  5. If someone breaks into my house, steals my alcohol, drives drunk and kills someone; am I responsible for the death caused?

    no, because the temperance league is defunct and there is no large public movement currently trying to ban alcohol. but if this had happened during the run-up towards prohibition, then yes, you would have been.

    i can see how that argument is a direct parallel to mike's stated position on firearms. i can also see how it is absurd. what i wonder is what mike's seeing.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Nomen,

    It is absurd because Mike's position is absurd. Not because the argument is.

    Alcohol is a legal product just like firearms. Alcohol is easily transported, abused and there are serious consequences for it's misuse.

    As far as temperance movements: they aren't quite dead

    NH's Liquor Enforcer Proposes 1-Drink-Per-Hour Law

    MANCHESTER, N.H. (WBZ) ―

    There is a new bill proposed by New Hampshire's top liquor law enforcer that suggests a one-drink-per-hour limit at local restaurants and bars, according to a newspaper reports.

    SeacoastOnline.com reports the law is aimed at combating drunk driving.

    State Liquor Law Enforcement Chief Eddie Edwards suggests that bar and restaurant owners would only serve one drink per hour, four at a sitting. According to the paper, Edwards defines one drink as an ounce of spirits, 5 ounces of wine or 12 ounces of beer. "Here's the criteria - you can only consume so much alcohol," Edwards told the paper. "If I give you four, five drinks an hour, you should know that this makes someone intoxicated."


    Now if the law is aimed at combating drunk driving, my question really is relevant because there are efforts under way to control a person's actions involving alcohol.

    Weer'd I really don't expect Mike to answer unfortunately....but I just keep trying. I'm a Christian....I believe in miracles.

    ReplyDelete
  7. You guys are definitely exaggerating my not answering. Very often your criticism of me could be turned around on you. Try it sometime.

    Bob's three questions:

    "If someone breaks into my house, steals prescription drugs from me, goes to their homes, takes the drugs and overdoses; am I responsible for their death?"
    Yes, if there had been a movement to ban those drugs and you insisted on having them. Also, if you didn't secure the dangerous drugs properly, yes. You wouldn't be fully responsible, but partially, yes.

    "If someone breaks into my house, steals money that I had saved up, locked up in a small cash drawer then goes out and buys illegal drugs, overdoses on those drugs; Am I responsible for their death?" No.

    "If someone breaks into my house, steals my alcohol, drives drunk and kills someone; am I responsible for the death caused?" Same answer as number one.

    Does that make my position perfectly clear? That's not the same as your agreeing with it, that's only asking if I communicated it to you.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Mike,

    Then you loose, Bub. Because everyone says there is no push to ban guns...just sensible restrictions.

    Now, how do I "secure" dangerous drugs? Place them in a gun safe? Isn't inside my house - a crime to enter without permission--enough?

    Do I need to put locking caps on them so no one else but I can open them?


    Also, what is the difference between stealing my drugs and stealing my money to buy drugs?

    Isn't the action of the criminal the issue, not my property?
    If the criminal hadn't stolen my drugs there would be no harm.
    If the criminal hadn't stolen my property, there would be no harm.

    Apply the same thing to firearms and you see my position.

    I sensibly lock my house. I control my firearms. If any crook steals them...it is his/her actions that accounts for the death of others....NOT MY PROPERTY.

    To claim otherwise means that any one with any dangerous property anywhere can not leave it where a criminal can steal it.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Does that make my position perfectly clear?"

    yes and no. I apriciate this breath of fresh air in your answering questions. I doubt you'll go much further into proposing and defending spesific gun control laws, but I hope to be proven wrong on that too.

    Still, you mention responsibility on stealing of drugs, and alcohol, but not in the theft of cash. What is the difference? And how does that encompass the Father who you refered to as "Irresponcible" because his son broke into his gun safe and stole his guns (that were recovered because the father informed the police when he discovered the crime).

    Also, Mike, not to attempt to stretch an already weak analogy too far, Many perscription drugs (espeshally those with addictive traits) HAVE had movements to ban them.

    Of course they're still on the market as they have been proven to offer far more benifit to society than harm.

    ....Hmmm what does that sound like to you?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Mike,

    You said:
    "If someone breaks into my house, steals prescription drugs from me, goes to their homes, takes the drugs and overdoses; am I responsible for their death?"
    Yes, if there had been a movement to ban those drugs and you insisted on having them. Also, if you didn't secure the dangerous drugs properly, yes. You wouldn't be fully responsible, but partially, yes.


    Now, I am very careful with my prescriptions, I've locked them up. I and all my friends haven't had our prescriptions stolen.

    Others are not as careful, Am I responsible for the deaths because those prescriptions were stolen out of someone elses' home?

    You take prescription drugs or have in the past, correct?

    Are you responsible for the overdoses also?
    How about the drugs that are stolen before between the manufacturer and the pharmacy? Am I responsible for the deaths...even though I don't even use the drugs stolen?

    Where does my responsibility for the misdeeds of others end?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Mike

    I agree that the pro-gun advocate was somewhat abrasive, and the anti appeared much calmer. I would be amazed if that was even remotely surprising to the producers of that segment--They almost certainly had a mild and polite pro-gun spokesman they could contact, but chose to match the tone of show that they wanted.

    ReplyDelete
  12. it was a decent discussion. The pro gun dude was a little jumpy (you may call it passionate) and the anti gun dude was collected and respectful. Both sides were able to tell their story. The pro gun dude said they'll fight every bad gun law in NJ and the anti gun dude said that it will be a tough fight and that he believes that most of the laws will stay.

    I would call it a draw in the public opinion arena. The gun backed up his arguments with facts and constitution but did not present himself in 100% respectable manner. The antigun guy was respectable but couldn't really back up what he was saying.

    We all know that overall impression matters to the polls. I call it a draw.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "I would call it a draw in the public opinion arena."

    And that's why pro-gun people are so passionate. Liars shouldn't get that much traction in public opinion, but it's the method chosen by the anti-gun crowd.

    ReplyDelete
  14. It's the method that works for any crowd, especially when a lot of money is involved. In other words you can't blow it, you have to play smart. Every time you speak for your case you have to assume there will be people who know absolutely nothing about the issue. They will judge your case by how you present your self and by the knowledge you provide. The pro gun guy did not the the best job. I'm a firm believer in 2nd amendment, btw.

    It is important that we present our case well enough to appeal to people who aren't on our side. That is the side we need to recruit. Appeal to emotions of protecting your life and your family, show the arguments from women's point of view as well as from man's point of view.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Sevesteen said, "They almost certainly had a mild and polite pro-gun spokesman they could contact, but chose to match the tone of show that they wanted."

    Actually, I read that of the 40 million gun owners they couldn't find a mild and polite one. (is everyone smiling, that was another example of the Mikeb humor).

    ReplyDelete
  16. Mikeb Humor.

    Plus 14 comments, and that's all you respond to.

    So Mike, what's your sinister reason for supporting gun control? Obviously you're beyond ignorance now, and what you're doing in intentional.

    ReplyDelete
  17. How about we do like they did in the UK?

    "In 2005/6 the police in England and Wales reported 50 gun homicides, a rate of 0.1 illegal gun deaths per 100,000 of population. Only 6.6% of homicides involved the use of a firearm. [20]

    By comparison, in 2004 the police in the United States reported 16,137 gun homicides, a rate of 3.9 illegal gun deaths per 100,000 of population. 70.3% of U.S. homicides involved the use of a firearm. [21]"

    That's from Wikipedia. Are they lying?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Mike posted in his article: Now, here's the video. Tell me which one seems shrill and hysterical? Which one stutters and stumbles for the right words? Which one interrupts and bullies?

    First off, I chose NOT to watch the video because as I have stated on another thread that 'arguing' this topic is like whistling in the wind.

    Secondly, I could not help but have a flash back to politics as Mike asked to watch for bullying, interruptions, hysterical and shrill comments.

    Ah, I said to myself, right-wingers! As a long-time observer of political discourse, I most often see these debate 'tactics' exhibited in those who dwell on the right-end of the political spectrum.

    What does all of this have to do with New Jersey and guns: nothing.

    Yet the style, the tactics, the posturing, the nuance of the 'debate' is often much more interesting than the debate topic itself.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Mike,

    Looking at one narrow measure of crime is wrong.

    Assaults Per Capita
    #6 U.S.:7.56923 per 1,000 people
    #8 U.K: 7.45959 per 1,000 people

    yep, really looks like the U.K. is less violent then the U.S. - right?

    Burglaries
    #7 U.K.: 13.8321 per 1,000 people
    #17 U.S: 7.09996 per 1,000 people

    U.K. has nearly TWICE the burglaries then the U.S. and a higher percentage of burglaries that occur when the owner is home. Isn't that more dangerous for the owner?

    Car Thefts
    #3 U.K: 5.6054 per 1,000 people
    #9 U.S: 3.8795 per 1,000 people


    Rapes
    #9 U.S.: 0.301318 per 1,000 people
    #13U.K.: 0.142172 per 1,000 people

    Robberies

    #8 U.K.: 1.57433 per 1,000 people
    #11 U.S.: 1.38527 per 1,000 people

    Total Crimes
    #6 U.K.: 85.5517 per 1,000 people
    #8 U.S.: 80.0645 per 1,000 people

    Police in U.K. under reporting crime rates

    Public trust in crime statistics has been dealt a devastating blow after ministers admitted the figures have been downplaying serious violence for up to a decade.

    The Home Office admitted that as many as one in five of the worst attacks have been wrongly classified in published figures. As many as 4,000 serious assaults each year were mistakenly recorded as minor incidents — and officials conceded they “simply do not know how far back it goes.”

    The tightening of the rules has seen figures for serious violent crimes rocket by 22 percent compared to last year — and confusion over the figures makes it impossible to say how much of the rise is genuine.


    No Mike, they aren't lying. They just aren't telling the whole truth.

    U.K. has had gun control laws going back nearly 300 years or more. Their culture is different from our in firearm use. The also don't tell you how the rate of firearm related crimes has been going up since stricter laws were enacted.

    As I pointed out again -- this isn't the first time we've had this discussion-- looking at only one statistic is misleading.

    Look at the total crime statistics and see if controlling guns has reduced crime.

    The answer is simply that it doesn't.

    Mike, have you ever studied economics? Supply and Demand?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Mud,

    There is some of this
    Secondly, I could not help but have a flash back to politics as Mike asked to watch for bullying, interruptions, hysterical and shrill comments.

    On both sides of the fence. I don't think anyone is denying that. But overall, the gun banners tend to run in that pattern more.

    I compliment Mike on his site here because it is one of two that I know of that allows open, un-moderated, unedited, unmolested comments. OneUtah.org is the other site.

    But go over and check out the thread I've been debating on.
    NRA/Gun Lobby Spanked Hard in 2008 Elections

    Tell me who is being shrill -- Love Cliff's comments about his stress level going up if he "believes" he may be around firearms.

    Who is bullying on that thread, who is calling names. I'll admit to being a little vicious..polite but vicious in pointing out their hysteria.

    Check out any number of left leaning blogs and sites. Daily Kos and Huffington Post are two great example of how incredible insulting, cruel, and demeaning the left can be.

    ReplyDelete
  21. How about we do like they did in the UK?

    Oh, hell no. People there get prosecuted for fighting back against criminals.

    England has always had a lower murder rate, even when our gun laws were similar. We have no idea what their real assault rate is--I read a handful of blogs by UK policemen. Every one of them says they are under pressure to cook the numbers.

    Fighting back successfully against a criminal is not just about that crime, it is about crime in general. Crime should generally be unsuccessful.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I wonder if Mike will do anything but ignore the respondant data posted by Bob.

    As I've said before, Mike knows he's wrong on this issue, yet he continues to support and call for gun controls. The only other solution would be that he is a simpleton or mentally ill...but reading his comments (on other posts) and posts here, we know that is untrue.

    Also remember that those US crime numbers INCLIUDE places like DC and Chicago, and LA, that have gun laws VERY similar to that of the UK, and have crime per-capita statistics that only support the gun-rights side of the argumet.

    ReplyDelete
  23. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I think I have had an epiphany regarding Mike's ideas on gun control.

    It is simply that he is believes in this:
    That supply constitutes demand.

    If I understand what Mike is saying...if we reduce the supply, we reduce the demand. Unfortunately that is simply false.

    Without changing Demand...how many people want firearms, reducing supply does nothing but increase costs. The costs can be financial($), they can be administrative(paperwork), they can be legal, and especially those costs can be criminal.

    If we consider America as a whole, we see that supply currently exceeds demand. There are more guns then there are people who want them. Let's look at it with numbers; approximately 270 Million firearms and owning those are approximately 65 Million people. That is just the number of firearms people own...not the number of firearms stores have to sell.

    The fact that stores have firearms to sell, that people have firearms for sale proves that supply is greater then demand.

    Let's magically reduce the supply of firearms in half --MikeOPresto_- Done...we are down to 135 Million owned firearms and half of what the stores have.

    Has anything been done to the demand...to reduce the number of people who want to own firearms? NOT a SINGLE THING. There are at least 65 million people who still want to own firearms.

    What has changed, what will change is the price of the firearms. That is basic economic theory.

    AS a result of the price increase will the fewer people not buy firearms? By insignificant percentages, yes. Look at the history of Prohibition and the War on some Drugs. That doesn't mean the demand is less, just people can't afford to fulfill their desire.

    What happens when we keep reducing the supply of firearms ....PRESTOMIKEO and we cut the number of firearms in half again.

    Does demand change? Not by any significant measure There are still approximately 65 million people wanting to own firearms.

    Again, we will have an insignificant drop in people able to purchase because some people can't afford the costs...legal, time, financial....but those are primarily law abiding citizens that can't afford them.

    Because supply is limited, other avenues of meeting that demand will develop. Again, see the history of Prohibition and the War on some Drugs.....and those means won't be legal.


    Now we have worse problems.


    What will happen is the alternative markets will step in and fulfill demand; meeting the needs of the current criminals and making criminals out of those who just want to protect their families.

    Smuggling will increase - War on Drugs/Prohibition-- proves this. No prohibition has ever stopped an item from being bought and sold. Ever. Show me one case in the whole of history where a law has stopped it.

    So, now mostly criminals will be buying the black market firearms.

    Also, theft and robberies will increase...the law of unintended consequences strikes again. If the price increases and a criminal is paying with other people's money...is cost an objection to the crook? Nope. They will steal more to be able to afford the firearm....more crime...not less.

    Also, some crooks won't buy from the black market, they will keep breaking into homes until they find the firearms they want....net result - more crime, not less.

    In the meanwhile, honest citizens will pay more for firearms. Especially since crime is increasing all around them.


    I realize this is overly simplistic but isn't it accurate?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Bob and Weer'd, It's a very convenient position you guys have taken. My little statistical offerings are either outright lies or deceptive half-truths. Yours on the other hand are comprehensive and irrefutable.

    You guys should take a cue from Sevesteen, who always has calm rational responses. Maybe that's just because you two have been dealing with me for so much longer, and sooner or later, he'll join you.

    Here's the deal on stats. They cannot be trusted because the preparers are liable to have been biased, even if that's well hidden, and as Sevesteen pointed out, the numbers are bogus from the start in many cases.

    That leaves us with taking the stats with a grain of salt and utilizing our common sense and logic as best we can.

    The AVAILABILITY of the gun is key in many murders. Not all, not in those cases where the guy is determined to kill, no, but in many cases the gun with it's tremendous killing power compared to other "tools," is key.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Oddly Bob's states totally agreed with the ones you presented, and he showed a bigger picture. What that spesifically negates your last statement:
    "The AVAILABILITY of the gun is key in many murders. Not all, not in those cases where the guy is determined to kill, no, but in many cases the gun with it's tremendous killing power compared to other "tools," is key."

    Yeah except in a place that has higher knife murders...then the knife is the "key".

    But you already know that Mike. Yet you continue. Why?

    I keep speculating towards arrogance. Maybe you can help me out?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Mike,

    The entire point of that little exercise was to prove that reducing supply will not reduce crime.

    It pointed out no statistics, other then ownership levels.

    You are trying to ignore human nature and live in a fantasy world. Just because you make something scarcer does not mean that item goes away.

    Give Thomas 2 hours in a shop or me a day in a shop and we'll produce a firearm.

    Give enough demand and people will smuggle in firearms. Look at England, it's an island nation and they can't keep firearms out.

    You simply can not ignore reality however much you try.

    Name a prohibition that stopped an item from being imported or used.

    The statistics I showed earlier point out the other aspect you are trying to ignore....not all crime is committed with firearms.

    90% of all crime in America is not committed with a firearm. 90% Think about that while you are trying to take away people's rights to defend themselves.

    Tell me how I got that supply/demand exercise wrong. Will the crooks suddenly start obeying the law? Or does it suddenly change their minds and make them join hands and sing gospel hymns?

    You wanted common sense, I gave you an exercise in common sense.

    That leaves us with taking the stats with a grain of salt and utilizing our common sense and logic as best we can.

    Mike, I agree. When I started this it was because of the stats put out by the anti-civil rights crowd didn't look right. So I researched them and found out how distorted they are.

    Here is a great example that I was researching the other day. I will tell you flat out that the numbers are correct....the numbers are also misleading

    From http://csgv.blogspot.com/
    The post is "The Terrible Toll"

    From that post:
    The toll of children and teens lost to gunfire has been well chronicled by the Children’s Defense Fund—one child or teen every three hours, eight every day, 58 children and teens every week; with more than five times that number suffering non-fatal firearm injuries. No other industrialized democracy in the world experiences anything like it; we are unique in putting our youth at such risk.

    If you click on the link to the Children's Defense Fund it brings up a PDF file stating that in 2005, 3006 "children and teens" were killed by firearms.

    The actual number is 3,027 from this site http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html

    But let's see how misleading the numbers are.

    If you break them down into what most people think of children and teens you find the following
    From birth to age 17 - 1,490 deaths

    18, listed by them as a child or teen - factually correct had 716 deaths.

    19, also factually correct as a teen had 821 deaths.

    Less then half of what is normal considered a "child" were actually children.

    Further breaking it down into children and teens is shocking

    From birth to 15 -- 652 deaths
    16 - 379 deaths
    17 - 499
    18 - 716
    19 - 821

    What age do most youngsters join gangs, get involved in drugs robberies? 16 and up, right?

    Now the number of deaths are high, too high but the CSGV would lead you to believe that toddlers are dying left, right and center from gun violence....is that true?

    Now feel free to check my statistcs, I don't mind, I encourage it. That is why I cite sources...so you can determine if their is bias.

    Single statistics can be misleading but when stat after stat all show the same picture - shouldn't they be believed?

    Stat after Stat shows that gun violence is a small part of the crime picture, that defensive guns uses work, that gun bans and gun control laws don't work.

    Common sense says the same thing which is the nail in the coffin if you are willing to stop dreaming of Paradise. Wishing away guns will not stop gun violence.

    Putting the guns in the right hands will greatly reduce it.

    ReplyDelete
  28. "You simply can not ignore reality however much you try. "

    He's been doing a pretty good job sofar, with no end in sight....

    "You wanted common sense, I gave you an exercise in common sense. "

    Even Mike knows his "Common sense" and "Logic" are anything but. So the above statement isn't true. What Mike wants, it appears, is submission, and us to abandon OUR logic and common sense...as well as our guns.

    All further states and data pointed out will be dismissed outright, or be declaired "Biased" with no further explanation.

    I definetly think Mike started this whole fandango out of ignorance about guns and the scope of US gun laws, as well as an incorrect assumption of US violent crime rates (I remember him claiming we had the most murders of any "Developed nation")

    Somewhere he jumped the rails and went down the path shared by racists, and holocaust deniers, as well as the crazies who like to talk about the 9-11 attacks having somthing to do with C4 charges and cruise missles, and Jewish bankers being "in the know".

    Why a bright and caring guy like Mike, Who without hesitation I'd offer my guest quarters as well as my wife's top-notch cooking too, would do such a thing is a very troubling mystery to me.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Bob, I agree that calling 19-year-olds children when lamenting the "child gun deaths" is a good bit of spinning. But, your side does the same; everyone does. That's presenting the argument in the best light. Another way to look at it is we do call teenagers "kids," de we not?


    Weer'd, This description of me leaves me speechless.

    "Somewhere he jumped the rails and went down the path shared by racists, and holocaust deniers, as well as the crazies who like to talk about the 9-11 attacks having somthing to do with C4 charges and cruise missles, and Jewish bankers being "in the know"".

    ReplyDelete
  30. "Weer'd, This description of me leaves me speechless."

    A decent excuse to dodge logic for another 24 hours.

    Kinda neat how Bob supports his claims, while you act like a child and say "Wahhh but your side cooks the numbers too!"

    What numbers Mike? What statistics?

    I thought so!

    Go hide, it appears to be your MO.

    Likely you won't respond for another 24 hours, and be just as forthcoming.

    ReplyDelete
  31. +1 Weer'd

    Show me where our side cooks the numbers Mike and I'll call them on it also.

    Show me where I've cooked the numbers and I'll recant them.

    I posted the numbers of crime in England and showed that rape was higher in the U.S. I used Nationmaster.com as my source.

    I used a different source to show that the police there have been cooking the numbers, possibly for years.

    You claim that U.K. has better gun laws...yep but does it reduce violence, does it reduce crime?

    Stop sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "LALALALA I can't hear the TRUTH".

    Look at the information and decide what type of country you want America to be.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Well I'll show one side. The Kleck study is likely VERY high, and estimates Defensive gun use at 2 million per anum. Meanwhile law enforcement reports show the number at closer to 100,000. But the likely hood of a citizen drawing a firearm in defense, not firing a shot, and not reporting the incident is quite likely, given that these situations could result in loads of problems and even wrongful criminal charges against the defender. (Hell in my state alone, I'd face the possibility of my permit being revoked and loosing ALL my guns, as no reason is needed for a revocation).

    So we have two sets of numbers, one likely (Very) high, one likely low...of course those numbers are higher than our violent crime rate, and that's as far as Mike will go with them.
    http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

    He knows the truth, yet chooses to lie. Even trolls like Mud_Rake run from this issue, and all the other left-of-center commenter are silent as a stone here.

    But there Mike stands, atop his soap box proclaiming the world to be Flat.

    You'd punish your children for acting this way. To know better and to do wrong is likely something you don't tolerate in others...yet you continue?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Please find examples where our side cooks the numbers. There are some relatively complicated statistics where there might be a bit of re-heating, but most of our statistical claims are relatively simple, using neutral data sources. I've never seen one that is completely burned to a crisp the way the average anti-gun statistic is.

    Please also pay attention to what the antis actually claim--Many times you can refute their claims by merely examining the question carefully, without even looking at the underlying data.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Or notice that they refuse to actually discuss the issue.

    8 sentences in responce to 24 hours of debate. I think he wants to wear us down.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Sevesteen, "Cooking" the statistics is done on both sides, don't you think? Haven't you heard the pro-gun claim that there are already 20,000 laws on the books now? I've also seen on my own blog the number 10,000. What do you call that? Is that spinning or exaggerating instead of cooking? My point is always the same: stats need to be taken with a grain of salt. In addition to the statistics we need to use our reason and common sense. There's room for interpretation and compromise, perhaps.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Mike,

    Okay, let's throw out every gun control law and start fresh. That will give us a basis for compromise, right?

    Currently, there are many gun control laws...further compromise from that point means that we give up something and the anti gun side doesn't. For example, laws on fully automatic weapons, laws on concealed carry, open carry; any additional laws means additional restrictions.

    I'll start with a clean slate.

    I'll suggest that we have a national gun owner registration. Any person that wants to own or may own a firearm has to register. They don't have to currently possess a firearm, but they can't purchase any until they are on the registry.

    Make it a field on their driver's license or state ID cards.

    Police would be able to check on this any time a crime is being violated, jaywalking, traffic stop, etc.

    In return for this; nationwide laws on open carry and concealed carry that are extremely permissive.

    The actual trial areas of Court Houses, Jails, and a few other areas off limits for carrying firearms; all other areas open for carry.

    Now, care to debate "compromise" under terms like these?

    ReplyDelete
  37. Haven't you heard the pro-gun claim that there are already 20,000 laws on the books now?

    i've often wondered just how we're supposed to know how many laws there really are on the books --- on any given subject.

    considering how laws are passed, recorded, and kept, i suspect you'd have to take a statistical sample from the middle of a law book or two, count the laws in that, weigh the sample, then weigh the total collection of statute books. unless somebody's done us all the great favor of digitizing all the statute books (has anybody?) that might be the only practically feasible method.

    ReplyDelete
  38. I know Jay just got this year's BATFE law books on CD...I haven't got mine yet, but I imagine I will soon, unless they aren't bothering me because my lisence is up for renewal in the fall....

    Still we have to look at Mike's Methods. Yeah I don't know how many laws are on the books, and yeah I don't even know how to count them (Do I count Just federal? Federal and State? Federal and MY State? Just State? Just my State?) Still he doesn't protest that the number is a HUGE one. Yet he still seems to have a problem with "gun control". Mike has yet to propose the repeal of any laws....but he has advocated a handfull of laws (Background checks at all sales, Universal registration, I can't remember others...not like he's very forthcomming with such data) So let's play statistics. We'll take the lower number, and round down. 9,000 gun laws, and round up Mike's proposed laws to five. Do a little devision and multiply by 100 and the number you get is 0.055% (less than 1%). So Mike sees our curent laws as too vital to suggest an ounce of repeal....but thinks that just a few more to the massive pile will cure the world.

    But also what are we using that "cooked" number for? Just to demonstrate the stupidity of the gun control movement. They have wasted enugh paper to encrust us all in a ballistic sheild, yet they still clammor for more!

    Meanwhile Mike uses cooked number to claim that somehow UK's collection of laws (likely even larger than the US Stock) allow them to live in a safer place.

    Bob of course pointed out that while Mike's numbers weren't falce his conclution simply was.

    Mike of course hasn't refuted what Bob said....just that ALL statistics are bad (tho it sofar hasn't stopped him from citing them).

    I'd say this is a fairly strong case for Mike's dishonesty in the issue.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I don't know the facts behind the 20,000 gun laws number. I don't think it is a lie, but it likely does include local ordinances. This is an example of a lightly reheated statistic.

    Actually, it is valid in some contexts--When I first got my Ohio carry license, I didn't own a gun that was legal to carry everywhere in Ohio due to differing local ordinances. One city banned semiautomatics, another had capacity limits (I was OK there, if I stopped before I got to the edge of town and took a couple rounds out of my magazine) and one applied the BATF import rules to domestic guns, making my $400 Smith and Wesson revolver illegal because it was too small, and considered a Saturday Night Special.

    The number of gun laws is astonishingly high, and astonishingly complex. The exact number is irrelevant, and I'm confident that the most conservative version of the number of laws won't change the claims that the number supports.

    ...unlike the Brady Campaign's numbers. An expanded, more honest version of one of their most popular claims:

    A gun (including illegally owned ones) in the household is many times more likely to kill someone known to the family (if you have ever met your attacker previously, he isn't really an attacker) than to kill (not just wound, capture or scare away) an attacker (who nobody in your house has ever met)

    Probably true, technically. A far cry from the idea they are trying to imply, that the dangers of owning a gun legally are much larger than the benefits.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I think this explains a lot

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_TUxtCbEP5pk/SZ3RNNOjRaI/AAAAAAAAFVo/VGNGGuSwhzk/s1600-h/kneejerk.gif

    Hope some people have a sense of humor about it.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Bob, I certainly wasn't offended by the cartoon. Whether it was funny, I don't know.

    Weer'd said "I'd say this is a fairly strong case for Mike's dishonesty in the issue."

    Try to lighten up, will ya. I can assure you there's no dishonesty here. I don't know why your comments have taken on such a nasty tone lately, but I don't like it. If this is a debating technique, I really think it's counterproductive.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Mike,

    Two quotes

    Physician Heal thyself and

    Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?

    You refuse to recognize the validity of arguments, insult legitimate gun owners, insult Christians and then accuse me of having a nasty tone?

    ReplyDelete
  43. "The AVAILABILITY of the gun is key in many murders. Not all, not in those cases where the guy is determined to kill, no, but in many cases the gun with it's tremendous killing power compared to other "tools," is key."

    They why are the OVERALL violent crime rates higher in the UK, where they've banned guns. If reducing availability of guns is the SOLUTION (as you claim it is) then why do they still have a huge violent crime problem. They should have virtually no violent crime, since they've banned guns & all, right?

    ReplyDelete
  44. Mike W. said, "If reducing availability of guns is the SOLUTION (as you claim it is) then why do they still have a huge violent crime problem. They should have virtually no violent crime, since they've banned guns & all, right?"

    I may have overstated my position to give the impression that I think gun availability is the only problem. That's not the case at all, there are many factors, guns is just one of them.

    I never intended to say that there would be zero crime, sorry if I gave that impression. I'm talking about reducing.

    Furthermore, whatever crime they have in the UK, I say if they had more guns there, they'd have more crime. That's always been my point. More guns means more gun violence, this is what we've been arguing about forever.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Mike,

    You narrow your argument and limit it in a circular reference

    If there were more Anti-Matter Disruptors, then there would more Anti-Matter Disruptor Violence.

    Substitute in any word and your argument makes sense. More Knives, More Knife Crime, More baseball bats, More baseball bat crime. More Tire Irons More Tire Iron Crime.


    But the point of the matter is when they took away firearms in the U.K. they didn't get less crime

    If what you say is true then there should have been less crime, right?
    Less guns less crime?

    That disproves your entire argument if you are willing to see it.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Exactly Bob. As I said before.

    If reducing availability of guns is the SOLUTION, shouldn't you be able to point to immediate and substantial evidence of gun bans reducing overall violent crime pretty much everywhere they've been implemented?

    That elusive evidence doesn't exist because reducing availability has NOT reduced crime anywhere that it's been tried.

    ReplyDelete