The Venn Diagram Showing Hidden Criminals
The Venn Diagram of Gun Owners reposted from a couple years ago
A = criminal gun owners
B = law-abiding gunowners
AUB =all of the in-between guys, including but not limited to the following.
1. anyone who has ever violated a gun-law but has never been convicted of a felony.
2. anyone who abuses his wife or children in any way but has never been convicted of it.
3. anyone who is addicted to drugs and/or alcohol but has not yet been disqualified.
4. anyone who has ever dropped a gun or caused a negligent discharge.
5. anyone who has become elderly or otherwise physically incapacitated.
I realize there are others, please feel free to mention them in the comments. And I apologize for the disproportionate diagram. The AUB section should be much, much larger.
UPDATE: The diagram is very much out of proportion. Circle B would be much larger than circle A and the overlapping section representing the hidden criminals would be the largest part of all.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment
Why won't you listen when we try to help you? A and B have no overlap. They cannot. That's how a Venn diagram works. You've defined A and B in mutually exclusive ways. Your numbered items are ridiculous, since the last two aren't defined as crimes.
ReplyDeleteMikeb, if you can't be logical, what business do you have posting the article about new words?
Greg, forget the fucking venn diagram. This post was to define hidden criminal.
DeleteAnd it fails at even that! As Greg said, being old or infirm is not a crime!
DeleteWhy should I forget something that you reposted and continue to use to explain your ideas? You've been shown the flaw in your thinking, but you won't change your conclusions. This proves that you are not logical.
DeleteT., what's so difficult about the idea that "hidden criminal" refers to anyone who does something wrong with a gun and doesn't already have a felony conviction and an official disqualification. That includes people with physical infirmities that impair their ability to safely own and use weapons.
DeleteLook at your own summary just now: "hidden criminal" refers to anyone who does something wrong with a gun...that includes people with physical infirmities.
DeleteWhether the infirm are able to use firearms or not, their infirmity does not qualify as doing something wrong with a gun.
And, of course, this is just a problem with your definition, without even addressing the vileness of making the old and infirm more vulnerable just because you are afraid they'll shoot muggers more quickly than you want them to.
Yes it does, T. It would be like improper possession, like the blind guy. For certain people, possession of a gun should be illegal. That includes certain people with physical infirmities.
DeleteRemember this is my opinion, so what the fuck are you arguing about? Just say you disagree, no one will be surprised.
Ah, so their doing something wrong is being disabled. Gotcha. If only we lived in a society that could go after people for the crime of being In-Valids.
DeleteAre you trying to turn this into a exercise in tedium? The wrong would be the possession of a gun by an unfit person, not their disability. How many times do I have to clarify that?
DeleteWell, then, if unlawful possession is the issue, (including under both laws we have and laws you want) then the entirety of A would be inside of B.
DeleteThe problem, Mikeb, is that what you call a physical infirmity is a long list of things that don't make someone less safe with a gun. Well, there are many problems. Add the problem of saying that possession is equal to doing actual harm against an innocent person.
DeleteBut as you say, these things are your opinion. Fortunately, they will never be law.
I guess its a good thing that there really isn't any such thing as a "hidden criminal" then.
ReplyDeleteA criminal will not stop being a criminal and if not caught at first, will get caught soon because they will just get more bold. Just like law makers that make bad law and get away with it will keep pushing for more and will get called on their practice because they think that since they got away with a little at first, they can get away with it again and be even more bold about it. Think Obama! We could add your name to the list of bad law makers Mike if you were in a position to make law.
Your list,
1: It must not have been a serious violation to remove his/her ability to own guns.
2: Seriously Mike? Abuse will lead to convictions period. Too many in that family will complain to someone or others will notice and file a complaint.
3: Addicts will get caught, the worst type of mental problem is an addict and will do anything to keep their addictions satisfied.
4: That's just stupid on its face first part and a ND will depend on the situation for the second part.
And last, but least,
5: As long as the elderly has the ability to defend themselves, they are the ones that need their right the most. If not then they are being cared for. Physical incapacitation, that depends on the level of lack of capacity. Really Mike, are you proposing discrimination on the wheel chair bound? Missing limbs? One eye? Deaf? If they are physically unable defend themselves then they are already under care from another anyway.
Like I said, I am glad there is no such thing as a "hidden criminal".
Or "pre-crime".
Or "thought police"
Or a Venn diagram that is even remotely applicable in this type of study.
Texas,
DeleteI've pushed mike on that question of disarming the disabled and he stood by it 100%. While he doesn't state it here, he seems to envision a physical fitness test on the level of military service, and if you are too disabled or out of shape to pass it, you lose all gun rights.
When I pointed out that these are the people most likely to need to use a gun, Mike said that that was why they should not be allowed to carry one: because they're not able to run away as effectively, so they would get to their last resort much quicker, and we can't have that! We must think of the muggers' lives too!
And yes, it's the most disgusting position I've ever heard expressed too.
DeleteDo you guys remember the blind guy in NJ who, after committing a negligent discharge, was sill trying to keep his guns. I forget the outcome now, but my position is this, blind people are not physically able to safely own guns. You guys all disagreed, if I remember correctly.
DeleteStop pulling extreme examples to seem reasonable. You've admitted in the past that you're talking about sighted people in wheelchairs, or with enough problems to keep them from passing a rigorous physical fitness test, amputees, and the like. All because they're unable to run away and thus might see shooting an attacker as their only resort rather than trying to run away or otherwise defuse the situation first.
DeleteTHAT was your argument last time we discussed this issue.
As for your blind guy, I believe the general consensus was that he had the same right as anybody to collect whatever items of property he wanted to, but that it would be irresponsible for him to load and shoot the weapons, and he should and would bear all liability for doing so.
"or with enough problems to keep them from passing a rigorous physical fitness test,"
DeleteWhy did you add the word "rigorous?" I never said anything of the kind. "A basic physical fitness test" or "a simple physical fitness test," is what I'd say. But you can't represent my ideas honestly, can you?
If you had a good argument you wouldn't have to keep resorting to dishonest and underhanded shit like that.
You say "simple" or "basic" but then you turn around, show pictures of overweight people, and speculate on how they wouldn't be able to pass your test and don't deserve guns.
DeleteMaybe you don't see it as rigorous, but you have expressed a clear desire for it to be rigorous enough to stop all the fatties from getting guns, not to mention the wheelchair bound, etc.
Those who would be disqualified for being overweight are only the worst of the worst. Same with other infirmities. But being an unrepentant liar, you added the word "rigorous" in order to exaggerate what I always say.
DeleteBesides being dishonest, which is your hallmark, it's just stupid. If you would represent my statements honestly, you'd still have plenty to oppose since I'm a middle-of-the-road gun control advocate and you're an extreme gun-rights fanatic.
Mike,
DeleteYou're far from the middle of the road. As for your claim that it's only the worst of the worst, it's dishonest. In many of your posts about disarming fatties you've shown people who were obese, but certainly not morbidly so--people who could pass run of the mill physical fitness tests. No, you've not said the word "rigorous," but a rigorous test is what would be required to eliminate many of your examples.
Th posts you're thinking about are just to make fun of the fat white gun owners. They're not saying those extra-large guys should necessarily be disarmed. Look back, you'll see.
DeleteAll my categories for disarmament, the drinkers, the druggies, the mentally ill, as well as the obese, apply to the worst cases. Otherwise I'd have to change my post to The famous 95% and that would make Greg right about my true motives. But, sorry to disappoint, he's wrong, and I only want to disarm the truly unfit.
Mikeb, given your stated ideas, what you see as being unfit describes just about everyone. That's because your notions aren't "rigorous." They're idiotic.
DeleteI like how he thinks the intersection of A and B could be the biggest area of the diagram. This implies that there are more "hidden criminal" gun owners than all gun owners in general. Naturally this seems logically appropriate to Mikeb even though by definition the intersection of the two groups must be smaller than A and B. Nice job Mikeb.
ReplyDeleteHe's repeatedly showed that logic and an understanding of Venn Diagrams escape him. He keeps showing this diagram every time he reposts this dreck, but if you logically interpret his diagram, he calls you a liar and manipulator and claims that you are misrepresenting his position.
DeleteHere's a lesson in logic for you: Call A gun owners and B criminals. Now you can say that there's some overlap. The evidence says that the area of overlap is tiny, but at least in those properly formed categories, some overlap can exist.
ReplyDelete