US Supreme Court upholds individual right to gun ownership

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Mr Snuggles


I discredited your statistics which is what your points were based off of.

In fact I spent several posts dismantling your posts with statements like "Countries without gun ownership have the highest crime rates".

You are right that this must be a joke. Did you not see my posts, or do you not comprehend that by invalidating your manipulated, misleading statistics it thereby invalidates points you've flimsily constructed on top of those stats?

So while I've posted about half a dozen posts in direct response to your points, you've ignored my counter-points entirely and in your single post since then actually had the balls to call me:

A person who, no matter what facts they are shown or how many different ways they are proven wrong, still will not accept facts that they are not comfortable with.

Are you capable of seeing the hypocrisy? You're still standing by your claim about higher Canadian crime rates despite the rebuttal I've provided, for instance. Same with your statements about Australia's crime rates after guns were banned, which I've provided concise and to be honest, completely accurate rebuttals to. You refuse to acknowledge that the foundation of your argument has been shattered, and you've got the balls to accuse me of dodging the issue and being close-minded.

And you can **** right off. I will sleep well knowing you have to live in Detroit, and I do not. You must be suicidal to not care about gun control if you live in Detroit, and that's fine by me.

Nice try Asher but it is so lame you would lose a 3rd grade debate contest.

First ofall you didn't prove that my stats about Australia were wrong. you flagged a website that said they were coreect but misleading. Then gave examples of DIFFERENT stats to show how stats could be misleading.

Then you said that that was the basis for my entire argument. Obviously you are so limited that you can't see that an argument might have more than one point. That is why a I summarized many other, and in my opinion more important, points.

Your rebuttal. Insults and obscenity. You followed that up with your supposed "proof" that my Australia stats were wrong, when in fact your own link says they are correct but may be misleading.

And speaking of Detroit, where I don't live by the way, the crime rate in Detroit and Michigan has gone down since CCW's have been issued on a "shall-issue basis" as opposed to proving you needed to have one. The crime rate wnt down at the same time poverty, unemployment and high school drop-out rates went up.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by molly bloom
I try not to limit myself to books by the Spice Girls and failed American politicians.

I've never read anything like that.

If you read only books recently published, then that may explain a lot about the content of your posts.

I'll take that as a compliment.

"This sentence could be taken on face value to mean that you have actually read all books written before you were born- that is, if you're 'reviewing' them."

You aren't nearly as smart as you think you are. Old books generally have out dated information and ideas. Newer books are better. You get new ideas and usefull information.

[Ben Kenobi]

Oh, **** off, we're not having this discussion again. You're too stupid and stubborn to understand any arguments made contrary to it.

Oh? I don't see how you can make a case for one and not the other.

It's funny how you think sport hunting is a right, but not gay marriage. Neither are explicitly in the constitution or Bill of Rights.

The first is part and parcel of the right to bear arms, as affirmed by the SCOTUS. If you have an opinion of the SCOTUS WRT to marriage then I suggest you cite it or stop wasting our time with another diversion into gay marriage.

That's the point up for discussion, so stating your argument again doesn't validate it.

According to the SCOTUS, that is a legitimate use of a handgun, or do I need to cite the opinion that was just presented?

I don't think shooting people with a lethal device is valid for self-defense. You do. You're Christian. I'm not. Work that one out, because I can't.

First off, you can shoot people without it being lethal. You make it sound like being shot is the equivalent of instant death. I didn't know that handguns were wands of death now.

It is FAR more lethal than a knife, for instance.

Are the majority of encouters with a handgun lethal? You say it's a lethal weapon, so is a knife.

It very much should be. It is in some states, and I know it's illegal in Canada.

I've spent most of my life out in the country. If you put signs up saying no trespassing, and someone deliberately comes to your house, that's a problem. I lived way out in the sticks, so it's not like you could just wander your way out there.

You're a rights advocate that wants to ensure gays don't have the same right to marry their lover. You're a hypocrit.

Thank you Asher for affirming that the right to bear arms is a fundamental freedom.

Because there's still excessive violence with handguns. Especially in Toronto and youth.

Ahh, so youth and immigrants are the problem? Why don't we ban those and then the homicide rates will go down?

Sorry, bud, you are lying. It's clear you couldn't read my post, yet again. Look up how many people committed suicide with a gun, sum the total, and tell me what I said was a lie.

Tens of thousands? I'm sorry. I proved your numbers are way out there. They are at least half as many as you claim.

I'm pretty sure Christ frowns upon inflicting damage on other people with the intent to kill.

Where does he say that? You are telling me you have an argument to ban guns from scripture. I'm curious where you found evidence for this idea.

But what the **** do I know about that, you're the hardcore Christian who doesn't care if tools for murder are in everyone's hand in the country.

Oh, I do care. I think everyone should learn how to handle a gun properly.

You're so ****ing stupid. Guns predate the bible, so obviously they're not there. A disciple of Christ may consider the fact that the bible frowns upon murder to be a hint that maybe Christ would not be appreciate of his followers using tools of murder on other people. Just a thought.

Agreed. Now, you have to tell me why a handgun is a "tool of murder"? Does Christ say that or is that your own interpretation? Is shooting someone in self defense the same as murder?

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Are the majority of encouters with a handgun lethal? You say it's a lethal weapon, so is a knife.

Sorry I couldn't help it because sometimes stats get buried in the BS, but to answer your question, as I pointed out earlier before Asher avoided the issues by claiming victory:

- Two-thirds of self-protective firearms uses are with handguns.

- 99.9% of self-defense firearms uses do not result in fatal shootings of criminals,

- Of incarcerated felons surveyed by the Department of Justice, 34% have been driven away, wounded, or captured by armed citizens; 40% have decided against committing crimes for fear their would-be victims were armed.

I know that might not sound intuitively correct to some, to me it makes total sense, but facts are a hard thing to argur with.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Deity Dude


Sorry I couldn't help it because sometimes stats get buried in the BS, but to answer your question, as I pointed out earlier before Asher avoided the issues by claiming victory:

- Two-thirds of self-protective firearms uses are with handguns.

- 99.9% of self-defense firearms uses do not result in fatal shootings of criminals,

- Of incarcerated felons surveyed by the Department of Justice, 34% have been driven away, wounded, or captured by armed citizens; 40% have decided against committing crimes for fear their would-be victims were armed.

I know that might not sound intuitively correct to some, to me it makes total sense, but facts are a hard thing to argur with.

Just out of curiosity - what is your source for this ?

[Ben Kenobi]

I know that might not sound intuitively correct to some, to me it makes total sense, but facts are a hard thing to argur with.

DD:

I've seen those stats as well, hence the questions I asked of Asher. Thanks for taking your time to show them here.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


DD:

I've seen those stats as well, hence the questions I asked of Asher. Thanks for taking your time to show them here.

Don't gloat too much BK - those stats are primarily about burglary and theft, and while that is pretty annoying, it's way better than being killed.

[Ben Kenobi]

Don't gloat too much BK - those stats are primarily about burglary and theft, and while that is pretty annoying, it's way better than being killed.

I was thanking DD.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi




I was thanking DD.

Well, at best those stats claims that burglary and theft are lower in countries with no gun control, Just out of curiosity - how many people killed do you think are acceptable to lower burglary a mere fraction ? (those 25 % figs are just to scare people).

[Deity Dude]

Black Cat,

While I don't agree with your premise, thank you for actually discussing the stats and what they mean. If you read my first post they are all FBI stats. BTW the FBI always is against "shall-issue" CCW's yet their own stats prove otherwise.

Here are some more FBI stats posted earlier that were probably overlooked in the Asher BS fest:


• For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3%, rape by 2% and robberies by more than 2%.

• The increased presence of concealed handguns "does not raise the number of accidental deaths or suicides from handguns."

Granting law-abiding citizens the right to defend themselves with handguns reduces violent crime for two reasons. They reduce the number of attempted crimes because criminals can't tell which potential victims are armed, being able to defend themselves. Secondly, victims who do have guns are in a much better position to defend themselves.

IF you are really interested in what you missed, and Asher blew off, go back to page 7 of this thread.

[Agathon]

A person who, no matter what facts they are shown or how many different ways they are proven wrong, still will not accept facts that they are not comfortable with.

Yep, that's him.

[Asher]

Not even reading Detroit or Ben's replies. Won't for over a week. I'm on vacation in Calgary this week and the last thing I need is to be enraged by two of the dumbest posters in Apolyton history.

I did skim read it and see that Detroit Dude still thinks the Australia stats are correct and relevant. I take it he hasn't googled to look at the latest stats, which just one year removed of his sensational statistical "massive increase in crime" showed record low levels. Once he does, that'll be interesting to see how he squirms out of it.

We'll find out in over a week.

[Agathon]

It's because he has a woman's brain. How many women do you know that will admit they are wrong?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
It's because he has a woman's brain. How many women do you know that will admit they are wrong?

If you're arguing on the same side I am here, what the **** are you talking about. Man, you have to be the third dumbest poster on this site.

This thread has inspired me to compile a new, more current list of dumbest people on Apolyton. The metric will be in "Fezes", measuring stupidity in the quantity of 1 "Fez".

Agathon is at 0.9 Fezes, and Ben Kenobi is at 21 kilofezes.

Of course, I am at 0.000001 Fezes.

[Ben Kenobi]

Agathon is at 0.9 Fezes, and Ben Kenobi is at 21 kilofezes.

Of course, I am at 0.000001 Fezes.

You are looking at the scale wrong. Mine shows you at 21 kilofez and me at zero.

Aggie is at -0.9 so I don't know how you got that.