Larry Bergan Says:

April 16th, 2008 at 3:43 pm

I don’t know what you gun nuts are worried about. Your sculls are too thick to be penetrated by a bullet anyway.

There you go, you haven’t got the facts on your side so you call names, insult and lie. Rather common tactic but I enjoyed seeing it used. I would imagine this Bitter, Bible thumping, red necked gun nut has studied the issue as much as any amature, more than most. I have yet to see where gun control has made any place safer.
Other societies have lower gun crime rates, but they often have lower crime rates period. They tend to homogeneous populations. Japan has tough gun laws, a low crime rate but one of the highest murder/suicide rates in the world. That has nothing to do with guns or gun ownership. But the gun controllers lie about that too.

But keep up the name calling and insults. It reminds me to hate liberals all the more. I have been doing so since May 31, 1968. From time to time I mellow but up jumps a liberal and brings me back to reality. So this Bitter, Bible Thumping; Red Necked Gun Nut wishes you all a good night. I shall curl up with “The Samurai, The Mountie, and The Cowboy” by David Kopple, which I purchased through Alan Korwin’s Bloomfield Press.

http://www.gunlaws.com/books4.htm

Albert,

The methodology is on page 4.

And so what? They overestimate the number of DGUs. Kleck claims 2.5 million. THe NSPOF claims 1.5 million. But we were stipulating to 400,000 as found in the Southwick study.

Yes, Albert, the 400,000 number is incredible (not your definition). But so was Copernican astronomy.

Larry, I don’t know how impenetrable my scull is, though it’s made from carbon fiber.

Why are people so hung up on this “400,000″ number? I mean, the number of crimes committed in a single year is significantly higher than that. Why is it so difficult for the anti-rights lobby to accept that law-abiding citizens, within the law, cannot use the appropriate means and level of force in self-defense?

I’m noticing a constant pattern of the anti-rights lobby making empty arguments, and then resorting to name-calling and other rude, immature, and other behavior unbecoming of civilized adults.

Wow, this is like a Gun Control Advocacy Train Wreck. I keep trying to stop reading it, since it got boring long ago, but I have to keep coming back to see what “incredible” things are said about the definition of “defensive” (really, how thick can you get), or how more picky we can get about a Defensive Gun Usage Study, or ranting about something wholly unrelated (yes, Bush (and Nagin, and the ATF, and others) is bad and hasn’t met a Constitutional Protection he wasn’t ready to violate, we get it, we agree, can we get back to the topic at hand?).

The Gun Control folks serve them up, the “Gun-Nuts” smack it down. Better than TV.

I agree with Tomare Utsu Zo. This topic is essentially little more than an anti-rights advocate proclaiming that the law-abiding have no use for self-defense, and then when presented with data that shows the law-abiding using effective means of self-defense successfully, the same anti-rights advocates then ignore the studies they asked for, say they won’t accept its results, or make numerous posts asking for the definition of a single word. The anti-rights lobby might as well stick their fingers in their ears, turn their heads, and yell in unison, “La la la, I can’t hear you!”

The anti-rights lobby has yet to make a single point that actually holds up to any deconstructionist. It’s very easy, once you get past the “feel-good” points, to see why the anti-rights lobby is nothing more than a political agenda masked by the illusion that they want to help others by disarming them.

It’s astounding that people don’t understand that criminals are a group of people characterized by their deviance from the law, and thus making it illegal for them to break the law is nothing more than redundant. Keep passing laws to make illegal behavior illegal again. Maybe someday the criminals won’t want to break the 9th law to make murder illegal.

If laws stopped deviant behavior, we wouldn’t have criminals. If only it were that easy….

Ideally, we’d live in a world where self-defense isn’t an issue, but the reality of the situation is just the opposite. A person who refuses to take their own personal safety seriously is the perfect victim for someone with malicious intentions. It’s unfortunate that the anti-rights lobby is a group of people who want to create more victims while telling them the laws that disarm them (which they’ll listen to because they’re law-abiding citizens) is actually going to make them safer. The illusion of safety doesn’t prevent violence.

Larry
You keep saying that Bush is taking peopls guns, yet i have not seen a sinlge link to any newstory about this theft happening. The only recenct unlawfull gun theft was done by Mayor Ray Naggen(sp?) Democrat, and possibly with support by Gov. Blanco (sp?) another Democrat. You can either support your point of Bush taking guns, or you can keep repeating the lie that Bush did take someones guns. But untill you do the first It is a Lie, and no matter how many times you repeat it. It will never become the truth.

From the Pro-Self Defense crowd we have reasoned debate.

From the Anti-Self Defense crowe we have name calling and Hide-The-Goalpost.
(we’ve seen this game before people, we know where you are hiding it)

Larry Bergan Says:

April 17th, 2008 at 9:51 am
Robert G says:

No. We of the Right, as in the Correct, have tried dealing with Liberals before.

Would you like to link me to that effort, because I’m speechless.

No and Good, stay that way and reflect on the error of your ways. Too many times we have seen semi-bi-partisan “reasonable” gun laws passed and when the gun laws did no good the Left came back for more. The Left, such as Senator Edward Kennedy referred to almost all hunting calibers as Cop Killers and tried to get them banned. We saw the Liberals define semi-automatic rifles and shotguns as assault weapons, the fools.

Again, No and Good, stay speechless and reflect on the error of your ways. We of the Right, as in the Correct, are here to help our wayward citizens of the Wrong-er- Left.. Have a nice day.

The best part in this, is that armed criminals don’t read this steaming pile, and make their way with a gun in possession, debate be damned.

Thank-you all for providing a lively and informative debate. I don’t have a dog in this fight… just came to watch. I am, however, quickly becoming a pro-gun American. Thanks go to those who have provided proof and links. Cliff, you seem to have your head in the sand.

I am struck by what Bogardus wrote to argue for gun possession.

“I’m older, and semi-disabled. It’s a little late for me to dedicate the majority of my life to learning unarmed combat techniques, which pretty much only work in the movies anyway.”

I’m sure his premise is that we should have the right to defend ourselves (with guns).

Certainly that seems reasonable. But I would ask at what cost.

So, then, Cliff, do you argue that we should have a society where younger, larger and stronger thugs can do completely as they wish?

Are you going to tell a rape victim that it is morally righteous that she is NOT ALLOWED to defend herself? After all, -most- women do not have the strength or body mass of -most- men.

Is a robbery victim morally righteous because they are NOT ALLOWED to counter a street thug with a club or knife with the equivalent deadly force?

Is a GLBT bashing victim morally righteous because they are NOT ALLOWED to make a group of attackers go find an easier target?

What will be the cost be of allowing thugs to have their way at will? Are you prepared to pay it? Because it is NOT a monetary cost.

You may argue that you rely upon the police. Essentially, you are then arming yourself by proxy. And rather ineffectively, since police will generally arrive after the fact.

So… It’s your choice:

In a darkened parking garage, confronted by several thugs with clubs, broken bottles, knives, what have you, you can draw a legal concealed weapon, and using your best John Wayne/Clint Eastwood impression (funny, last time I did that, I didn’t know that John Wayne or Clint Eastwood sounded so squeaky, and used the F-bomb so much…), tell them to go find an easier target… You go home, your body, and dignity (didn’t sound a thing like the Duke back there… more like SpongeBob..), mostly intact, and they go on to find either an easier victim or a “party.”

Or you can hand them your wallet, your watch, your car keys, your shoes, your coat, possibly submit to a rape, and still be killed. And the police will show up later, with their crime scene tape, their cameras and computers, and you’ll be a statistic. But by golly, you’ll be a righteous statistic.

The vast majority of gun owners are people like myself – not convicted of crimes (hey, I went to college in the eighties…), decent citizens, gainfully employed, or gainfully retired, etc., etc…

And many of us, when confronted with people who wish to render us defenseless, wonder why.

If any of you folks who don’t know about firearms are in the St. Louis area, I’ll be happy to have you as my guest at a local club. You’ll meet some interesting people, and maybe have a few stereotypes busted.

Note i am not saying the peer-review leads to bad science, but keep a few things in mind.

Peer-review said the world was flat.
Peer-review said the sun orbited the earth.
Peer-review said ect. ect. ect.

Just because something is peer-reviewed, or not, does not make it either good nor bad science.

You have to read the paper and see how it was done, and then judge for your self it if is good or bad sciene.

Ever notice how people with poor arguments absolutely abhor counter arguments without an identifiable source?

It is most pronounced by the owner of this blog. He relies on the habit of followers to once they know who is posting, to debase the argument simply because of who it is presenting it.

The need to have a name to the point in question is to so as enable the ad hominem process of debasement of the ideas without review. A form of intellectual fascism.

None of this matters really as for anyone really interested in exchanging ideas, we only become interested in who states them when the ideas have merit. The rest is a feeble attempt of cult of personality, or the averse of that…

This insecure method is the best means at hand to true believers to marginalize the valid ideas of any person that does not promote the concepts that fit into their intellectually lazy orthodoxy. It is age old, and with technology available via wordpress, the blog owner can alter twist and make up what a person states and then name it to a person and idea, they do not approve of.

This is the variety of anti-intellectual Cliff Lyon is. There are many posts here I never wrote that are attributed to me, and also many that are not, and are altered anyway.

Those of you new to this visa vis the gun debate will recognize that Cliff is an intellectually dishonest person, and if he were to be a criminal, he would likely be serving a life sentence under the 3 strikes and you are out law.

With any luck his marvelous search engine manipulation will add this sorry fact concerning his character in the record, as he likes to submit….forever.

Larry Bergan Says:

April 15th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Your gun rights are safer under a Democratic administration, and Katrina proved it. Where did I say Katrina wouldn’t have happened under Gore? I just said the weapons wouldn’t have been confiscated by Blackwater, because it (Blackwater) wouldn’t have existed.

Gore, Bush, Blackwater your arse. The guns were confiscated by local authorities , with some out-of-town police assistance. The guns were confiscated by order of Mayor Nagin and the Governor of Louisiana. Now what all this has to do with the attack on Alan Korwin I do not know. But you people do like to wander don’t you?

Our rights would be safer under a Democratic Administration? I doubt you believe that but both Senators Obama and Clinton have stated otherwise. No I will not provide a link. Look it up.

cookie problem.

nevermind

For those of you who would bother
John Lott – More Guns on Campus:
Article Exposes Gun-Free-Zones Folly:

Australian Prohibitions Have Had No Favorable Impact:


From JPFO:(Jewish Group)

But if it does not fit your tidy little world view it does not matter. So call us silly names, it does not matter and neither do you. Way too many of you have flat out lied about Alan Korwin which says nothing about him, but volumes about you.