You don't have to explicitly state it, it comes through loud and clear in every post you put on this subject. Wrong, wrong, wrong. You are so wrong, you obviously have no clue what Lott has written and researched. Lott in no way believes that everyone including criminals and the mentally unstable should carry a gun. Why do you comment on something that you have ZERO knowledge of? That proves you are a banner. That is the standard whine the gun ban lobby has been spouting for decades - "every argument, every time someone cuts you off on the road, will erupt into a gun battle. People will just start blasting away whenever they think there is a crime, stray bullets will kill innocent people. The streets will run with blood." That's what the banners say whenever a state relaxes its gun laws. The are always wrong. The entire premise is BS and has been disproved completely. Over the past 20 years, crime has gone down >50%, states have relaxed their gun laws, and more people own guns. If banners like you are right then crime should have skyrocketed, but it didn't, and the banners are wrong and totally discredited.
What you choose to interpret clearly has no bearing on what I believe or say. If you're not interested in being objective, feel free to stop pretending you exhibit any level of intellectual honesty or are interested in rational discourse. His entire premise is based on: 1) carrying a gun deters a criminal from selecting you as a target. 2) this may displace criminals to others who are unarmed, as criminals will still be motivated to target someone. The logical conclusion to this is that everyone should carry. Given that our current status quo does not require people to pass any form of background check when purchasing from anyone other than a licensed dealer, our current system does not prevent criminals and the mentally unstable from purchasing a gun as well. Exaggerating my perspective to the point of lunacy is a textbook strawman. Logical fallacies to not lend your position credibility. Crime has gone down in more areas than those who have relaxed their gun laws, so you don't even have direct correlation - much less causation, and the fact that more guns have been sold does not mean there are more gun owners. It could just as easily mean that the average number of guns owned by the average gun owner has increased (which is in line with the propoganda marketing of "Obama's comin to take yur guns" that morons fell for).
That's not Lot's premise. His premise is that with more people legally carrying a gun, a criminal will be more afraid that his target may be armed and some of them will change professions. A criminal doesn't know me from you walking down the street. With more carrying like me, the criminal's decision on choosing a victim becomes much harder. He begins playing "victim roulette".
That applies to concealed carry, and only if the criminal isn't also carrying a firearm. Let's face it, if an individual is targetted by a criminal who is weilding a firearm - the criminal will have the drop on the defender. Can you draw and fire faster than the criminal can pull a trigger?
More total BS. All 50 states have relaxed their gun laws until last year, when a couple added restrictions such as magazine size limits. Even Illinois has had their gun laws relaxed. That shuck & jive about increased gun sales is due to the same people buying more and more ..... and more .... guns has been discredited so many times. Sales are up, ammo sales are up, club membership is up, NRA & GOA membership is up, more classes with more attendees, more concealed carry permits, more women buying guns. All up. But you want us to believe its the same 12 people doing all this. LOL
The fact that more guns/ammo are purchased does not mean that it's more total owners. The fact that more owners are joining clubs doesn't mean that there are more total owners. The fact that there are more people getting CCL does not mean there are more total owners. What is so hard for you to comprehend? BTW, who ever used the number 12?
Its not intellectually dishonest. I linked the article. Read the damn thing yourself. How else are we to discuss it? Your quote also says jack (*)(*)(*)(*) to support the number YOU want to go with and in fact denigrates it. NCVS never asked about DGUs specifically and only allowed people who claimed they'd been victimized to respond. NOTE: You're not victimized if you draw down of the (*)(*)(*)(*)er and run them off. Read what I quoted: They said it was in a RANGE according to the aggregate of all those studies (more than just kleck). From page 10 of the link YOU quoted: " The key explanation for the difference between the 108,000 NCVS estimate for the annual number of DGUs and the several million from the surveys discussed earlier is that NCVS avoids the false-positive problem by limiting DGU questions to persons who first reported that they were crime victims. Most NCVS respondents never have a chance to answer the DGU question, falsely or otherwise." (bolding mine) The NCVS survey is LOWBALLING it. Kleck is HIGHBALLING it. The answer lies somewhere in the middle. Your link autoassumes a serious false positive problem. Not to say that false positives don't exist but the reason they assume it is because of the NCVS number. A number that is arrived at in just as poor a fashion as kleck's, as they point out (my bolded portion). Not simply a good deterrant when employed Log, OFTEN USED as well. << That bit is important. I understand the report. You fail to understand that the DOJ was only working from REPORTED crimes (a large number of crimes go unreported), and that the NCVS number is arrived at by flawed methodology as much as kleck. Of course those aren't the ONLY studies in the CDC report, (a link to which is in the article) there are many more and the number given is an aggregate of those studies. I'm not intellectually dishonest. I"ve stated my opinion, provided facts in support of my opinion, and linked my sources when I used facts so anyone who can get their lazy ass right hand to click a damn hyperlink can research it for themselves. What do you want me to do, wipe your ass for you too?
Gun banners always run around claiming they have "common sense", but they never use it when it doesn't go their way. I used the number "12" because it is as absurd as your argument. You want us to believe that the same small group of people are buying all these guns as if these people spend $20,000+ a year on guns and ammo.
The fact that you quoted the article does not remove the intellectual dishonesty of cherry picking quotes. The fact that I have quoted directly from it clearly illustrates that I have read it. Duh. What number did I say I wanted "to go with"? Right, only subjective responses were permitted, and none were analyzed to ensure objective qualification... That sounds like a good process. In other words, there is no concrete number and the only evidence considered was entirely subjective... How does this strengthen your point? I've found only one study from a reputable source (the others had clear gun control bias, which wouldn't lead to fair assessment) where reported DGUs were reviewed by legal professionals to determine whether they actually qualified as DGUs. The judges in question had only the subjective story of the gun owners on which to base their assessments, which should skew the results in the favor of those gun owners... http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/
Yup, you can choose to apply the death penalty without due process even when your life is in no immenent danger... because the amount of property a person can carry while running away is definately worth more than a human life... unless that life is a fetus. The hypocrisy of conservative thinking boggles the mind.
In other words, your position is a strawman... Got it. You believe the number of gun owners prior to the recent buying frenzy was a "small group"? The most unbiased research I've been able to find illustrates that it's over a third of the country: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...ricans-own-guns-but-just-how-many-is-unclear/ Based on the latest census data, one third of the country would be about 38,408,934 households: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html... Exactly how many people does a group have to include before you stop classifying it as a "small group"?
One just has to wonder what anti-gun folks think their proposals would do exactly, eh? http://gunssavelives.net/blog/prosecutions-for-gun-crime-way-down-under-obama-administration/ I think it just makes the anti-gunners feel better.....more proof it's all about emotion and not fact!
So, once again, you have no intelligent rebuttal and your position is reduced to a logical fallacy... Thanks for coming, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
Reality's comment applies to him, and is not necessarily shared by most conservatives. You should try using logic.
True, but I do agree with Reality. A robber does not deserve my things, especially if he has a wallet that belongs to me or any other member of my family. He is running off with an identity theft kit to screw us over again. Some items in my house cannot be replaced. My grandparents' wedding rings cannot be replaced. My father in law's 1947 Martin guitar cannot be replaced, even though it's appraised at $6000. It sucks that I feel the need to defend my things in this way, but that is the thief's problem. I'm not going to kill someone over a few dollars or an insured car, but I don't want the law to second guess my right to defend myself every time I turn around. The law shouldn't be protecting criminals.
My point, that this type of thinking is commonplace amongst conservatives, is an observation that your post fails to contradict despite the application of an ad hominem fallacy.
Where did you get the statistics indicating that it is commonplace amongst conservatives. I know a lot of conservatives and none of them would agree with reality's comment.
What an odd question given that I don't recall quoting statistics. Are you implying that your personal observations of the conservatives you know are more valid than the observations of others?
This is the typical anti-gun argument: Description: Very often they desperately want to be right and hold on to certain beliefs, despite any evidence presented to the contrary. As a result, they begin to make up excuses as to why their belief could still be true, and is still true, despite the fact that they have no real evidence for what they are making up. Logical Form: Claim X is true because of evidence Y. Evidence Y is demonstrated not to be acceptable evidence. Therefore, it must be guess Z then, even though there is no evidence for guess Z. http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/i...-ad-hoc-rescue or If one says or believes it thus it can be (fallaciously) said all must be the same way. Funny that such statements never require any proof........
Pop is 300+ million. 300รท3 = 100. Go back to 4th grade. - - - Updated - - - Not a conservative so I'd hope it doesn't apply to yall.
I'm not killing him or her over the property. I'm killing them for violating my rights in a way that allows lethal force. I don't kill a rat because it steals a piece of food. I kill it because it's vermin in my house. Thieves are vermin.
