Notice how out of the more than 8,000,000 people licensed to carry, you only find a handful in a year who do something wrong with their guns?
Umm, Greggy, unless you believe tens of thousands of gun deaths and hundreds of thousands of gun injuries are a "handful," you're quite mistaken.
Here's where Greggy's silly comment goes quite wrong, however. It's that almost all gun deaths and injuries are preventable. Maybe not each one but certainly in the 99% range.
Let's look at air travel, for instance. Each year, millions fly billions of miles. And each year more passengers fly and more miles are flown. Yet, commercial aviation fatalities have decreased for the past two decades. That's because when an aviation accident occurs--steps are taken to fully understand what happened and to implement steps to ensure it doesn't happen again. This may mean more pilot training, changes to equipment or maintenance, modifications to procedures, better security, etc.
When 9/11 occurred, the airlines and Government didn't decide the proper response was to loosen security and hand out boxcutters at the boarding gate.
Same goes for drunk driving. It wasn't long ago that drunk driving was treated like a parking ticket. When greater penalties and enforcement came about--drunk driving deaths have decreased 50% despite more drivers driving more miles. Again, the response to drunk driving wasn't to install beer kegs in cars.
Except gun accidents have gone down dramatically. So have homicides using a gun.
ReplyDeleteThe may have gone down, but that's in spite of your resistance to every common sense restriction.
DeleteProve it, Mikeb. I've shown you that your side's claim is false. Gun laws have loosened. More guns are in more places. And more people are owning guns. But the rates of violence and accidents are at a low. You have no evidence to support the idea that those are despite the improvements in gun laws.
DeleteDidn't you see Jadegold's post about gun ownership going DOWN?
DeleteYou know that I did. You also know that Jadegold's posts are so often lies that it's a life-threatening shock when he says something true.
DeleteTS: You omit that fewer households own guns and gun ownership is also declining.
ReplyDeleteOf course, you suffer from Greggy's myopia--the simple fact that nearly all gun deaths and accidents are preventable. The gunloon response is more guns and less regulation which is the polar opposite of what every other responsible industry does.
When a pharmaceutical is found to have some unexpected bad result--it's pulled from the market. The response isn't to flood the market with more.
If a medicine claims to do one thing, but fails at that and in fact does something else entirely, it should be pulled or relabeled. But guns function exactly as they're designed to do.
DeleteBut explain this: How can rates of homicide and of accidental death from gunfire drop as gun ownership goes up and gun laws loosen? You've yet to answer that.
I've answered it many times but you don't like it. Whatever meager decline we've had in gun violence is a fraction of what it could have been and should have been.
DeleteMeager? It was close to ten per 100,000, and now it's below five per 100,000.
DeleteBut I give you facts. When do you offer anything in support of your claims?
But with Mike's gun control, we'd be at -5 per 100,000. That's right--the dead would be rising to thank us for enacting the Plan.
DeleteAnd they'd get to join in the two-minutes of hate each day.
DeleteTed Nugent (Greg) thinks the more guns the fewer deaths by gunshot. Go figure. Like saying I'll get less bee stings if I'm attacked by 10,000 bees instead of just 10 bees. What makes people like Ted Nugent think like idiots?
ReplyDeleteGun laws have improved over the last two decades and gun ownership is on the rise, especially since 9/11, but rates of homicide and of accidental gunshot deaths have dropped.
DeleteBut then, anyone so colossally stupid as to confuse me with Ted Nugent won't be able to follow reason.
Nope, gun ownership has not increased--it's decreased.
DeleteYou act like Ted Nugent, you talk like Ted Nugent, you are as stupid as Ted Nugent, and you are an ass like Ted Nugent, so I call you Ted Nugent. If you don't want to be confused for an ass, don't act like one.
DeleteI'm not the person who's so profoundly stupid that he can't tell the difference between two clearly different individuals.
DeleteThere is no difference between you two, that's why the name fits so perfectly.
DeleteIf I may, Ted Nugent is a real topic of conversation around here. Should someone want to use the search feature to find some historical post on Nugent they will be inundated with this stuff.
DeleteDid Greg just say, "gun ownership is on the rise?"
DeleteHahahahahahahaha, what the fuck is wrong with that guy? Can someone please tell me?
People who prefer facts and logic always mystify you, Mikeb.
DeleteJadegold,
ReplyDeleteYou seem to have missed, whether intentionally or not that Greg's comment specifically mentioned the criminal use of firearms by people with carry permits. Your use of drunken driving enforcement resulting in a drop in related deaths really has no relation to the argument. Those laws punish the actual person who violates the law.
Those drunken driving laws are pretty much just like laws against assault. Mike and his fellow travelers want to restrict who can own firearms before they've done anything wrong. This would be more like passing a law requiring ALL cars to have a breathalyzer installed to prevent it starting. Or even prohibiting the ownership of cars unless you can prove you have a good enough reason.
"Those laws punish the actual person who violates the law." You said that talking about drunk driving laws, but it's not true. Those laws infringe on all of our rights exactly the way any restrictions do. What free citizens used to be allowed to do in the '60s, they can no longer do. But, oddly, you don't whine and cry about that, just like you don't mind the seat belt law.
DeleteAgain you compare gun ownership to dangerous behavior, making a horrible analogy. So there weren't laws against driving while intoxicated at one point in time. That's analogous to a past lack of laws against dangerous behavior with guns--e.g. firing them into the air.
DeleteGun ownership is not a dangerous behavior in and of itself. Just like any other object, be it a car or a claw hammer, the danger comes from the use of the item and the condition of the user, not from the ownership itself.
It's no wonder that someone so infantile that he can't even speak like an adult is incapable of comprehending basic logic, but to everyone else, let's look at what's being claimed here:
ReplyDeleteThere are some 8,000,000 carry license holders in this country. The reports from states that issue licenses show that those of us who have carry licenses commit crimes at a much lower rate than those who do not have licenses.
Jadegold then goes on to mention the total number of gun deaths an injuries per annum in this country. By doing so, he's implying that carry license holders are responsible for all those deaths and injuries. The evidence is that we're not, but it's typical for gun control freaks to conflate numbers.
By the way, Jadegold? What's that, a T-girl stripper?
Again, Greggy makes up his own "facts."
DeleteFirst, those with carry licenses have been shown to commit more crimes than the public.
SSG: So, you're saying police checkpoints only stop the drunk drivers? And how is a breathalyzer in a car "punishing" anyone? Do you believe safety belts are a punishment? Or air bags?
We've discussed this many times on this site, but if you have evidence--not claims, but evidence--I'll look at it.
DeletePolice checkpoints are a violation of rights.
DeleteAS Ted Nugent (Greg) said in his comment the other day, lawlessness is better for society.
DeleteGreg (Ted Nugent) said:
Delete"Control freaks always want to pass more laws. It's the job of people who love freedom to resist them."
A lawless society is best for freedom? Really? Sure if you don't care how many innocents die; and you have described many times that your 2nd amendment right is more important than anyone's life. 30, 000 gun shot deaths a year. How old are you Greg (Ted Nugent)? Multiply 30,000 by your age. That's how many lives were sacrificed to have no changes to your "HOLY" 2nd amendment.
Kevin, I'm not Ted Nugent. I don't care about Ted Nugent. You're just being stupid.
DeleteRegarding the 30,000 deaths due to gunfire, let's note that the majority of those are suicides. Gun control won't stop those. The remainder are mostly homicides, and there's no correlation between gun laws and homicide rates in our states or even among countries.
It's not that I don't care. I simply recognize that gun control won't accomplish the miracle that you seem to believe in. I don't smash my truck's windows if my neighbor has a heart attack. Gun control makes no more sense.
JadeTroll,
DeletePlease, Do show us this evidence that carry permitees commit crimes at a greater rate than the population as a whole.
"So, you're saying police checkpoints only stop the drunk drivers? And how is a breathalyzer in a car "punishing" anyone?"
ReplyDeleteJade, not withstanding the interference with lawful travel with no probable cause, the police only charge those violating a crime right then. Similar to such a check point would be what NYC does with its stop and frisk policy. Something that seems to target minorities to a large degree. Requiring a breathalyzer interlock on your car is at present a consequence of conviction for DUI and is an added expense.
Police are allowed to ask someone with a firearm to see their carry permit. The gunloons as you call them are just fine with the punishing the people who commit crimes. It's when we're expected to jump through hoops because someone else misbehaved that grates.
By the way, you never answered my question on an earlier post asking what you consider adequate training to be for ownership of a firearm. And how this would effect the 75% you think are not trained properly.
You have a very flexible definition of "punishment."
DeleteYou seem to think driving with a seat belt is akin to stop-and-frisk. Gee, I bet you're pissed about those no texting while driving laws.
He said a checkpoint is similar to stop and frisk.
DeleteJadeTroll is not bound by the need to factually restate the other side's position. The other side's position is what he says it is because he is Jade and the heir to Humpty Dumpty.
DeleteI do often feel that we're down the rabbit hole on this site...
DeleteAsk not whether you stand mired in the subterranean warren of the lepus, but rather why one seeks to be assimilate with the denizens of the world beneath the bridge?
DeleteAs is the perennial maxim of humanity;
Those who live free will long for control, those who seek freedom will long to be controlled, and he who is at the whim of his master shall attain virtue.
When a person seeks the use of arms, they soon wish that the use of such arms be exclusive. While you may plead for gun rights, you long for gun control, provided that you (and your comrades) remain free of said control.
The rational choice is obvious.
Look, look, everyone! Spring has come and the trolls are back!
DeleteSo Jade, why aren't there interlocks on every car made in the USA? Why hasn't congress passed a law requiring this with thunderous applause from liberals? And the manufacturers saying, "finally! We've been meaning to do this for decades, because we are not evil like the gun industry, but without Congress telling us what to do, our hands were tied."
ReplyDeleteTS: Several reasons.
DeleteFirst, drunk driving laws have made a significant dent in drunk driving. IOW, increased penalties and greater enforcement work.
Second, even greater enforcement and increased penalties could cut the number of drunk drivers even further.
Third, carmakers are already implementing features such as nav systems that don't allow you to input destinations or change routes unless the vehicle is stopped. I wouldn't be surprised to see anti-drunk drive features put into cars once the cost comes down.
The issue you wish to ignore is your belief that gun laws that actually get enforced and having real penalties represent some kind of draconian punishment.
1) and there has been a significant dent in violent crime rates too.
Delete2) we're talking about policies that treat everyone like a criminal, not just better enforcement.
3) you don't seem to care about the cost of implementing some cooked up idea for gun manufacturers. Breathalyzer interlocks actually exist and are in use, unlike "smart guns" or micro stamping.
4) yes, throwing someone in prison for years, ruining their career/life over the shape of a grip on a rifke is draconian. You keep talking about seat-belt laws, would you like to to be a felony to not wear a seat belt instead of a small fine?
1.) Apples and oranges. Let's try to remember more people are driving and more people are driving more miles. Gun ownership is decreasing. Basically, you're making my case: lower gun ownership equals less violent crime.
Delete2.) Again, you seem to believe any type of regulation and enforcement means we are treating people like criminals. If you wish to pursue this line of non-logic, I could suggest that carrying a gun around makes others feel like criminals because you feel you're in danger. Additionally, all the evidence shows that a gun is far more likely to be used in a crime than in self-defense.
3.) Micro-stamping has next to no cost.
4.) Why not?
Microstamping can be defeated with a metal file or changing out the firing pin. And as for making not wearing a seat belt a felony, well, Jadegold, is there any limit to your control freak loonery?
DeleteJade don't care. He thinks he'll be in the in crowd, dictating the rules to the serfs. That, or he's already a felon and doesn't mind others being bound by the same restrictions he is bound by.
Delete1) if it gets you to sleep at night repeating this over and over, knock yourself out. We can't know exactly how many gun owners are out there, nor should we know. But as I already pointed out, you're one of the first people to question the validity of a mere phone survey. Regardless, we know there are more total guns in circulation that ever before (even if you want to believe the collections are more concentrated), and that gun rights have expanded over the last 20 years. More guns, weaker laws, crimes going down. Gunloons are supposed to be irresponsible with their guns, and their massive collections of firearms should be circulating more guns into the criminal world. And CCW nutjobs are supposed to be making it worse, because they are wannabe criminals too. But violence continues to go down.
Delete2) if the regulation creates a crime, then you are treating people like a criminal. Not wearing your seat belt is not a crime, it is an infraction. If you are going to treat someone like a criminal, there should be a damn good reason- like causing harm to another person.
3) micro stamping actually has no cost because it doesn't exist.
4) I think I just won. But here's a challenge- find one person in the world who agrees with you.
1. As I stated, a phone survey can be perfectly valid, if the methodolgy is sound. Polling outfits make big money doing phone surveys because they're very reliable if done properly.
Delete2. So, your basic argument is that you don't wish to be mildly inconvenienced even if public safety is endangered. I guess you haven't been on an airplane since late-2001.
3. Actually microstamping is very inexpensive. Of course, prosecuting criminals is expensive.
4. Most agree with me since I'm always correct.
1) what methods did they use to determine how many people don't want to broadcast their gun ownership?
Delete2) I didn't say "mildly inconvenienced". I am talking about being treated like a criminal. Felony malum prohibitum laws that send people to prison and ruin thier lives. You keep talking about how gunloon are losers, but if you see prison as a mild change in your life you don't seem to be exactly living the high life.
4) just one person who agrees that someone should get a felony charge for not wearing seat belt. Still waiting. Also keep in mind how these laws are generally enforced. People are pulled over for something else, and the officer tacts on a seat belt charge to boost revenue. A good portion of those unbuckled to reach over to the glovebox to get their registration.
The lowly sergeant (Jadegold) fancies himself a king.
DeleteHow cute!
But all in vain considering your common means.
Greggy: Actually, I'm afraid you don't understand microstamping.
ReplyDeleteTennessean: Are you aware TN has one of the nation's highest adult illiteracy rates?
Microstamping: engraving a serial number on a machine part that will be impressed on the primer or the case
DeleteDo tell, what do you think you know that I don't?
I'm waiting for this earth shattering new information on microstamping as well. Please enlighten us.
DeleteAs for illiteracy rates, it's just your pitiful attempt to distract from the topic at hand with insinuations that I am an illiterate hick who is incapable of comprehending what I read. Yes, I see what you're doing, and no, I don't want to play in the mud with you, little troll.
I'm still thinking that Jadegold sounds like the stage name of a Hanoi stripper.
DeleteWe understand that our patron denizen of Tennessee has repeatedly and with graceful humility, exulted magnanimous evidence of his mastery of the omnipresent matter of discussion.
DeleteIt suits us however to forgo the conventional understanding of the reality concerning the abilities in question, and resort to instead, judging the properties of the individual in light of the worst of his community. Such is undertaken as a matter of convenience in order to best portray The Truth as the public will perceive it.
Instead of conceding defeat in light of current "fact and numbers gap" we shall instead concoct the best available means of distorting the situation in order to best suit our goals.
So, while we understand that you are indeed not a lowly imbecile hick, we cannot admit so.
The leprosy of Jadegold's sockpuppets returns when he gets beaten.
Delete