Do more guns equal more crime? Prove it.

Bait!! You got nothing.

 

Since you think gun ownership data does exists. Provide it. You cannot and that proves my point. Thank you very much.

As it is, you are less able to prove anything other than being a tag team troll.

 

Ayuh,.... Several pages of posts, 'n not a mention of the original Topic of the thread...

Just demeanin' comments about the other posters participatin' in a conversation...

 

Well, maybe not exclusively, BUTTTTTT..........:

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- Thomas Jefferson Papers (C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)


"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." -Thomas Jefferson.



"(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -James Madison.



"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria.



"Arms in the hands of citizens (may) be used at individual discretion...in private self defense..." -John Adams, A defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the USA, 471 (178.



"...arms...discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. ...Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them." -Thomas Paine.


It was mentioned.

 

And just who were the militia????;


"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." -Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8.



"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined...The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun. -Patrick Henry.



"To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..." -Richard Henry Lee writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic (1787-178.



"The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." -Samuel Adams, debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87.



"...the people have a right to keep and bear arms." -Patrick Henry and George Mason, Elliot, Debates at 185.



"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." -James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789).



"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." -Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (178 at 169.



"The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age..." -Title 10, Section 311 of the U.S. Code. (see http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/)



"The people are nor to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." -Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646.



"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950).



"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government..."-Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist (#2.



"The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States...Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America." -gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789.



"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. the supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States." -Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the federal Constitution (1787) in Pamphlets to the Constitution of the United States (P. Ford, 188.

 

I'm beginning to see that this is the sum product of your position on this topic;... Deny and dismiss without offering any substantiations for your dissent. This is simply contrariety, friend, and not worthy of a rational discussion, if this is what you intended, that is. .........Is this what you intended?

 

Uh, pot meet kettle.

Danct, you are just a ridiculous troll. Neither you nor Reiver could ever prove gun ownership numbers, the key to any study about gun ownership, so you both resort to deflection.

 

You're talking in circles. You have already admitted that gun ownership data exists, friend. I'm surprised you would now deny this simple fact. YOUR issue was whether the data was accurate or not, remember? Please don't play silly games with me. It's very unbecoming.

Ad hominem and red herring fallacies. I had hoped you could offer more than cheap fallacies.

I'm beginning to see why Reiver left this discussion. You and others here have the distorted view that anyone who asks logical questions of your positions are automatically a "troll" or worse. I have been respectful and courteous to all of you and have only asked for the information that backs up your positions. The responses I have gotten range from distractions and diversions (yourself), and straw man and ad hominem fallacies. This has been very disappointing.

I can have no other conclusion to make other than that your positions are arrived at by ideology rather than science. I can see no other answer, frankly. I wish I were wrong, but there you are.

 

Thank you, Bondo. For once you're right! I appreciate you agreeing with me.

 

Thank you for admitting your error. It takes a big man.

 

So prove it then. Here is the thread ( http://www.politicalforum.com/23516...rime-prove-post1061033443.html#post1061033443 )

You got nothing. The burden is on you not me and you have presented nothing.

 

Do you have something to say or are you just going to copy/paste from gun sites?

 

You're answering for Archer, now? Will you vouch for his character too?

Typical name-calling from you. I had hoped for more.

You don't seem to know what a "troll" is. If you think I am, then report me. We both know that I'm not "trolling". I'm asking logical questions and questioning your rationale in how you have arrived at your conclusions. I haven't said you're wrong and I haven't even said that Reiver was right. I'm merely asking for information from you. Information that you are unprepared to give me for your own reasons. Once again, if you have a problem with a study or studies' gun ownership data, then show the correct data so we can estimate how this would effect the results. Why does this frighten you so? Let's look for the truth. You and me together. Let's cast aside the unbelievers and dissenters and embark on a journey for the truth. What say you?

 

OK. Here we are. The OP asked for proof which was answered by Reiver, correct? He showed scientific proof which was attacked by you and your friends for your own reasons. I am attempting to find out what those reasons actually are. All I have seen are back-slapping, chest-beating and derision in support of your critiques and I am honestly trying to find the rationale in these positions.

Surely, you understand that what you have offered thus far is not compelling? You have made erroneous statements, not the least of which confused economics with econometrics. You also erroneously claimed that the results could not be proven when the results CAN be tested. So,.... if you have something to back up your bluster then do so, and I will gladly look at it and consider it. Until then, it is YOU, friend who has nothing.

 

The fact still remains, after all this back and forth arguing, that more guns does NOT equal more crime...period.

 

Now you are just lying. Prove that I said any such thing.

Since you can't prove that or any gun ownership data, you resort to lying.

The troll label still applies to you since that is what you are doing and doing it knowingly.

 

Reiver proved nothing. You can prove nothing. You don't have gun ownership data. No one does. It does not exist. Any conclusion about gun ownership without gun ownership data is flawed. Get a clue.

 

Once again, you have confused "fact" for "opinion".

 

Oh, here we go.........typical response. When you're found out, you now resort to making baseless charges against my character.

Be careful with that, friend.



Here are your own words: "One study used the sales of "Guns & Ammo" as an indicator". Protest if you must, but the "indicator" as you called it was DATA.

How do you like your crow,..... baked or fried?

 

I only call those that lie, liars. You made a false statement you cannot back up because you made it up. If you are not a liar, prove your statement.

Bad proxy data is not proof of gun ownership. You evidently cannot understand when someone makes a point that is not in your favor.

Now prove that I said gun ownership data exists or quit trolling. I have, in fact, stated repeatedly that it does not exist but don't let a little thing like truth get in your way.

 

Well it's nice of you to stick up for your friend, but he doesn't need your help. You're making a mess of it really.

If I might advise you, you might try actually addressing my argument above instead of offering distractions and the same tired argument that has been exposed by myself previously for what it is; a weak critique. You still can't show the most accurate gun ownership figures and how the study's in question misses that mark. You can't even show how the gun ownership figures used in the study affect the study's results. Odd how you keep running from this inconvenient truth.

 

Now you are catching on and thank you for proving my point. You cannot prove gun ownership because it does not exist. There are no gun ownership figures. You cannot prove a negative.

 

errr, I just did. How did you miss it?

Irrelevant. You had only asked me if the data exists, remember? Not whether it was "good" or "bad". Is this too difficult for you?

You admitted to the existence of this data as I quoted you saying it, friend. I'm sorry you have been caught in this deception, but there you are. Your OWN words: "One study used the sales of "Guns & Ammo" as an indicator". Whether or not this data is "good" or "bad" is irrelevant to your charge. Hence my original claim that

"You're talking in circles. You have already admitted that gun ownership data exists, friend. I'm surprised you would now deny this simple fact. YOUR issue was whether the data was accurate or not, remember? Please don't play silly games with me. It's very unbecoming."
​

I stand by that.

 

Ayuh,... I guess if yer agreein' with Me, that yer completely off topic, tag-team trollin' with reliever,...

Ok,... That's you agreein' with Me,...

Not Me agreein' with You,....that'll be a Cold day in 'ell...

 

Really? "You cannot prove gun ownership because it does not exist"??? Gun ownership doesn't exist? Where have you been?

You're just getting in deeper and deeper. Perhaps you should just quit while you're behind.

Well, you can't even prove a positive, apparently. Why not try that for starters? Show us how the data is wrong and how it affects this study.

There ARE gun ownership figures. You have already alluded to one (don't worry,.... I won't tell anyone). There are others. Which ones did his other studies use? You know this, right?