It is well known and, quite frankly, self-evident that one’s vicinity to a gun increases the likely hood that one will be shot.
Fact: In homes with guns, a member of the household is almost three times as likely to be the victim of a homicide compared to gun-free homes.
So. I can’t figure out how this works.
If you love your family, or course, you want to protect them. Statistically speaking, keeping a gun in the home will triple the chances one of your family will be shot.
And since the chances of ever needing a gun to protect your life (unless you live in a war zone) are infinitesimal, the only other justification is to protect property.
Doesn’t that mean gun owners are putting protection of personal property ahead of the lives of family, friends and neighbors?
Lets be honest. In the face of these simple facts, you’ve got to be dangerously uninformed or paranoid to keep a hand gun in your home.
I’ve posted some more thoroughly documented facts below for consideration.
Self Defense
For every time a gun in the home is used in a self-defense homicide, a gun will be used in—
- 1.3 unintentional deaths
- 4.6 criminal homicides
- 37 suicides
In 1997 there were 15,690 homicides.
- Of these, 8,503 (one half) were committed with handguns.
- Among handgun homicides, only 193 (2.3 percent) were classified as justifiable homicides by civilians.
For every time in 1997 that a civilian used a handgun to kill in self-defense, 43 people lost their lives in handgun homicides alone (FBI Supplementary Homicide Report data, 1997)
The Second Amendment
No gun control law has ever been overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court on Second Amendment grounds. Such laws include federal bans on machine guns and semiautomatic assault weapons as well as local community bans on the sale and possession of handguns.
Every federal Court of Appeals that has considered the meaning of the Second Amendment has held that it protects the right of states to maintain a militia, not an individual right to own a gun.
- In 1981 the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals stated that “possession of a handgun by individuals is not part of the right to keep and bear arms.”
- In 1976 the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals noted “the erroneous supposition that the Second Amendment is concerned with the rights of individuals rather than those of the states.”29
#1 by Richard Warnick on May 15, 2008 - 3:05 pm
Cliff, are you trying to stir something up here?
Compare the lack of comments on my Iraq and Guantanamo posts to the gun ownership thread…
#2 by Cliff Lyon on May 15, 2008 - 3:37 pm
Well Richard,
Its clearly in my nature I suppose, to speak out against in justice. But the past 7 Bush years have convinced me to get louder.
Your thorough work is a critical part. I like to think we compliment each other.
You do the tactical while I use the medium as a club.
btw: I almost posted the following several days ago,
But when I went back to check today, OneUtah is not even on the first 5 pages. I didn’t check past that. I got sick to my stomach.
Someway, somehow, somebody at Google really has it out for us.
#3 by Larry Bergan on May 15, 2008 - 5:04 pm
Cliff:
OneUtah is on the second page at Yahoo where it concerns Korwin. How does Yahoo and Google work anyway? Somebody at a DFU meeting was talking about “bots” that comb the internet for activity. Does anybody know anything about this?
#4 by Ken Bingham on May 15, 2008 - 5:25 pm
Cliff
If we should ban guns because it increases the possibility of violence either accidentally of on purpose, then what are we to make of this major scientific study that states that homosexual partners living together are at a “substantially” higher risk of being victims of domestic violence than heterosexual partners? The study also states the homosexual man are at a greater risk for domestic violence than a heterosexual women.
At what point do we stop banning things that may contribute to violence in the home?
#5 by cav on May 15, 2008 - 5:51 pm
Ken, it’s all that ‘macho’ reverbing inside those four loney walls. It’ll foment rage faseter than you can spell ‘mindless’.
#6 by Bob S. on May 15, 2008 - 8:19 pm
Cliff,
Just wanted to let you know I’m not ignoring you, but out of town for the weekend. I’ll get to this in full on Monday or Tuesday.
But I can’t let it go with correcting one of the statements
Guess you got tired of losing the debate on the other posts, eh?
Wrong again.
#7 by Cliff on May 16, 2008 - 1:16 pm
Ken,
I get your point. I think driving cars is the best example. You can’t ban everything just because some people get hurt.
You logic is bullet proof…except…for…one..minor………difference.
Hand guns server only one purpose. It is not a car, it is not a male homosexual partner living in SF, in fact it is not a lover at all,
…it is a killer.
Indeed, hand guns serve exactly ONE function — to kill another human.
btw: The study was interesting. One question they left out was WHO is more violent; gay men or straight men.
#8 by John of Manchester on May 17, 2008 - 6:55 am
Difference is, you have no guarantee of the an individual right to transportation, no matter the use of the conveyance, but are guaranteed the individual right to bear arms, non-specific, including pistols, as an inalienable right under the 2nd amendment of the US Constitution, better known as the Bill of Rights.
The ability to defend yourself, without anyone knowing, was decided to be more important than whether or not you had a wagon or a horse by our founders. It is of more fundamental importance.
Your problem is Cliff, you need to see your own use of a thing as the sole reason as why that thing would be valid. Since you have no need, desire, or some fear of such a right, you wish to restrict it to others.
Contrary to your opinions, the right exists for a very sound reasons.
#9 by Cliff Lyon on May 17, 2008 - 11:19 am
I thought the justifications for the war on terror generated more rhetorical inventions than any other subject in my lifetime, until now.
But I was wrong. Gun toting, self-proclaimed constitutional historians have taken the a well established part of American history to a whole new level of myth.
What exactly was decided and by whom?
I’d love to see any evidence of this statement because it is entirely new to me.
Oh, yes, and thank you John for establishing your bona fides; “the 2nd amendment of the US Constitution, better known as the Bill of Rights.”
Did you learn that during your academic studies or after you got on the NRA mailing list?
#10 by Larry Bergan on May 17, 2008 - 2:05 pm
I heard the attendees at an NRA meeting laughing at a Bush level (lower brain) joke that Mike Huckabee made (accidentally on purpose) about how Barack Obama might be ducking to avoid bullets.
What a good Christian knee slapper that was, huh Mike!
#11 by John of Manchester on May 17, 2008 - 3:13 pm
By the definitions of the Constitution Cliff, the simple truth is in the rights it defines inalienable, and those that are left out. The right to drive isn’t in the Constitution.
The founders decided that, and 230 years of historical precedence confirm it.
The bona fides of the reality are plain and simple. It has got to piss you off that the right has been so clearly defined in word and history. The Constitution is a rather simple document, and was meant to be so. Clear and understandable, it is humorous that so many that dislike portions of its scope attempt to complicate to the point that in their minds only some imagined people with credentials can decide its meanings.
Anyway, when the SC decides confirms the individual right, perhaps you can then include me in the know with the rest of those that understand this basic inalienable right established and guaranteed under the 2nd amendment of the US Constitutions’ Bill of Rights.
I am not a member of the NRA, just a US citizen, though after reading upon your conceptual hatred of such things as the 1st and 2nd amendment, I am now sure to join, as the threat your ideas represent to Liberty, are quite disconcerting.
#12 by Cliff Lyon on May 17, 2008 - 3:48 pm
Answer the question John.
#13 by John of Manchester on May 17, 2008 - 7:48 pm
It was decided by all members of the original 13 states legislatures that voted to ratify the Constitutions Bill of Rights, in 1791.
Articles 3 to 12, ratified December 15, 1791, by three-fourths of the state legislatures, constitute the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights.
The 2nd amendment is contained within those amendments that were ratified then. It was and is called democracy.
Lists of the names and votes of those people that ratified the Constitutional 10 amendments in majority are easily accessed, why don’t you do your own work and find those lists of those people that ratified the 2nd, and educate yourself?
The actual possession and use of personal arms as a matter of history thereafter defines the right through precedence. There were never any objections to the personal ownership of any arms from the moment of ratification. As such the argument that it is still a matter of interpretation is patently ridiculous.
As a Constitutional democracy you have the right to challenge a Bill of Rights amendment. We have the right to maintain them, and have the advantage of legal precedence in an issue that is a personally guaranteed right under the US Constitution. Good luck in your battle, we’ll all be there.
By the way, I have those lists, should you imagine they somehow do not exist.
#14 by Cliff Lyon on May 18, 2008 - 5:28 am
One more time John,
you said…
What exactly was decided and by whom?
Another way; WHO argued that “The ability to defend yourself, without anyone knowing” in the context of the 2nd Amendment? What is your source material?
…Diary? Federalist Papers? newspaper?
Just tell me EXACTLY where that claim comes from so I can read it. NRA literature doesn’t count.
Oh, and thanks for the info on the amendment process.
#15 by John of Manchester on May 18, 2008 - 2:04 pm
It wasn’t argued or negatively implied. The right to self defense was implicit with the personal right to bear arms. People then were not so stupid as to argue whether anyone had the right or not. The history bears this out. Concealed weapons were a simple fact of life, and the history of carrying and using them as a personal right was never once questioned, nor was it inhibited.
Better question for you, since you wish to destroy an element of the Bill of Rights. Show where there is any mention that the 2nd is not a personal right. The onus is on those that would attempt to deny the right, as such things always are within the spectrum of the law. Good luck.
Vermont joined the Union directly after ratification, 1791, and since that time concealed carry has never been questioned and still remains as a right to non felons without ANY permit process. Precedence and general societal acceptance far more effectively describes the right than any persons words ever could.
Name a person from the past, a founder, that defines the 2nd as not a personal right.
Go on then.
CAPTAIN JOHN PARKER (Commander, Lexington Militia Company): “Every man of you who is equipped, follow me…..Stand Your ground. Don’t fire unless fired upon. But if they want to have a war, let it begin here.” Lexington, MA, 19 April 1775, as British troops approached (Mine Eyes have Seen, Goldstein 1997; and Quotes for the Military Writer, U.S. Army Command Information Unit, Library of HQ TRADOC)
You see Cliff, the militia had no arms, but for what the Patriots brought of their own accord, and they were in fact (gasp!) PERSONAL WEAPONS!
After the pasting that they gave the crown on that day, the men melted back into their countryside, to their homes, and GASP!!.. took their weapons home…and HID them.
#16 by jdberger on May 19, 2008 - 11:49 pm
Bwaahahha! Cliff, that Kellerman study is so old, even Kellerman said his methodology sucked.
Dude, you really have to work harder at this.
For goodness sakes, I gave you all the links to the decent studies in your first thread (the one where you accused Korwin of lying and then you were severely spanked for being full of crap). That might have been the thread where you ran out of decent arguments and started challenging people’s credentials, too. Good times…
If you ever are REALLY interested in increasing your knowledge base, I’d be happy to point out some resources to you. We’ve already seen how bad your Google skills are.
#17 by Bob S. on May 20, 2008 - 12:01 pm
Sorry,
posted removed
#18 by Bob S. on May 20, 2008 - 1:24 pm
Cliff,
Let’s break down this garbage one chunk at a time.
That sounds serious, studious, and official. Where did it come from? The Kellerman study as pointed out earlier, did you do any research on that study Cliff?
You know, where even Kellerman admits the study was flawed
Why would Kellerman do this? Maybe he was also anti-gun? As he admitted at the 1993 Help Conference.
Let’s be honest Cliff, perhaps gun owners aren’t so dangerously uninformed or paranoid.
For your next trick, you pull out a favorite – making it appear as if multiple sources were used for the “data”.
And where did you get this tidbit of information? Why from the Violence Policy Center again… without citation. Or could it be you were dishonest enough to let people think that the information came from the Bureau of Justice Statistics site?
From the VPC site, let’s look at the citation, shall we?
Good old friend Kellerman again.
Let’s be honest Cliff, did you know the Kellerman study was flawed and used it anyway to advance your anti-rights agenda?
#19 by jdberger on May 20, 2008 - 2:30 pm
If only Cliff would spend a little time with the links we’ve provided him, he might be able to intelligently participate in debate.
Every single one of Cliff’s assertions has been knocked down – most simply because he refuses to educate himself.
C’mon, Cliff. Give us a challenge already.
#20 by Bob S. on May 22, 2008 - 6:06 am
Cliff,
No answer? Come on, did you know the Kellerman study was flawed and used it anyways?
How about an admission that the Heller decision in the Court of Appeals overturns a gun control law based on the individual interpretation of the 2nd amendment?
These inaccurate and unsupportable statements need to be taken to task and a permanent record established.
#21 by Cliff Lyon on May 22, 2008 - 8:02 am
I can only take from this that you guys throw caution to the wind by putting your families at unnecessary risk. For what, ego, machismo, sport or do you simply not care much for your family?
You seem to be semi-educated men. You certainly use the Internets well enough. Chances are your lives are not in danger. So you insist on having loaded weapons in your home because….?
#22 by jdberger on May 22, 2008 - 10:06 am
I can only take from this that Cliff is using the, “Hey look, a squirrel!” aproach to argument.
How about you answer the question, Cliff?
Did you know that the Kellerman study was a disaster before you quoted it? Did you do it anyway, to try to slip it by? Are you really that intellectually dishonest?
#23 by John of Manchester on May 22, 2008 - 11:38 am
Not all of us are as fearful and incompetent as you may be Cliff.
Anyone that can get through the run up of a CWP is a model citizen, and authority of common sense are glad to have them in the general public.
Anyone concerned for their families safety during the years of raising small children, can store or sell their guns, only to either reacquire or re-assume an armed bearing when the children are cognizant and ready to learn how to exercise their Constitutionally guaranteed personal right to bear arms in these United States.
There are to be no constraints on the law abiding and intelligent to live as they see fit in this regard. Any people that cannot manage to legally live so will come afoul of the law. That you would use the statistics of incompetents to regulate the legal rights of the law abiding and skilled speaks volumes of how you would utilize any means to institute your rather common brand of fascism.
#24 by Bob S. on May 22, 2008 - 12:36 pm
Part One. (Spam filter keeps eating a longer post, lets see if a smaller one gets by)
Cliff,
Let’s see that unsupportable comment taken to task. Did you know the Kellerman study was flawed?
Research proves it was and Kellerman even admits it is flawed.
If the study is flawed; can the conclusions from the study be trusted?
No, so why continue to base your claims about gun safety on a fatally flawed study? Because you have an agenda and telling the truth isn’t part of that agenda. Right or Wrong?
Maybe Kellerman gives us a clue as to some of the problems in the homes
Maybe it’s not the gun in the home, but the type of home the gun is in?
#25 by Bob S. on May 22, 2008 - 6:09 pm
Part two
So let’s look at some numbers that might be trusted.
My numbers differ a little bit, but the source also includes “legal intervention”. I’ll admit I unsure of what that means. But that data shows 18,8100 homicides/legal interventions. Let’s use your numbers and compare rates shall we?
Take away the legal interventions (15,690 divide by 18,810 times rate of 7.0) gives us a homicide rate of 5.8, right? Is the math too hard or words too big again?
Let’s put that number in perspective.
Suicide rate – 10.6
Chronic liver disease/cirrhosis – 9.5
Motor Vehicle accidents – 16.3
Other infectious/parasitic diseases – 8.5
Diabetes Mellitus – 23.1
Major cardiovascular disease 349.3
Maybe handguns (half of all homicides) aren’t the deadliest thing around, are they?
But that doesn’t matter to those like you does it? The “average dial up blogger” and the rest don’t have the credentials to know what to do with their lives, right?
Isn’t that why we bans on transfats, smoking, drinking, strict driving laws, motor vehicle safety laws, etc? The people don’t know what is good for them, so make laws limitings their rights.
How is that working for motor vehicles? 43,520 people died in motor vehicle accidents regardless of the number of laws, requirements, restrictions. A rate 2.8 times higher than the murder rate with firearms.
Let’s move on to look at some facts about those murders (by the way, I notice you are use the Bureau of Justice site that I’ve used previously.) Good information there, isn’t it?
Is there something special about the ages, could it be those are the ones likely to be committing crimes; gang bangers, drug dealers, robberies?
Seems likely, I would also like to point out the first graph on that page. Notice how the trend for arguments has declined? Concealed carry laws have increased and firearm deaths in arguments have decreased; given the lie to the claim that “every argument will escalate into a gun fight.”
Then there are factors of race.
Could it be that there are cultures and society issues that are directly relating to the deaths than guns? Yes, but to admit that means to admit that not all cultures are equal and some are actually harmful. The permissive and pervasive drug culture, absentee fathers, lack of parental involvement, dependency culture are greater factors in fatalities than firearms.
Stop blaming the tool and focus on the cause Cliff.
#26 by Sally on May 23, 2008 - 6:44 am
Bob S,
It is illegally STUPID to compare accidents and death to murder.
We make laws to prevent disease and accidents, why not murder?
#27 by Bob S. on May 23, 2008 - 7:33 am
Sally,
We don’t have laws to prevent murder, we have laws that list the consequences for murder. Big difference.
We don’t make laws to prevent disease, we have laws to limit the exposure and spread of disease. Pass a law against the common cold, see if it stops it. We can’t legislate death out of the picture, no matter how hard some people try.
That is what Cliff is trying to do. How many people ready to commit murder actually stop and go “Dang, I would kill that punk who dissed my gang, but it is against the law”?
My point is that we don’t ban cars, knives, baseball bats, other TOOLS that can cause murder but Cliff claims handguns should be, why?
I posted information about motor vehicle accidents to show that cars are more dangerous than guns. The number of firearm deaths includes murder, not just accidents but is Cliff calling for a ban on cars?
I posted information to show that firearms in the homes are not dangerous to the majority of the people who own them, directly contradicting Cliff’s flawed numbers.
Sally, what is more dangerous to have in a home with children; a firearm or a pool?
I am sick of people trying to run my life because they think they know better than I do. If I want to drive an SUV (and I do), it shouldn’t be against the law as some has called for. If I want to eat a Big Mac or eat french fries cooked with transfats daily (I don’t) I shouldn’t have to break a law. Smoking, Drinking, lack of exercise, etc. Owning a firearm isn’t dangerous. The numbers prove it.
Name an area of your life where the government hasn’t intruded or isn’t trying to control?
Read my posts to make sure that I also address the other side of the coin; personal responsibility. That is what I’m trying to get Cliff to take about his post.
Cliff posted data from a flawed, discredited, biased study. The question is did he do it knowingly or just due to poor research. He called on Alan Korwin to defend his numbers, I’m doing they same.
#28 by Bob S. on May 23, 2008 - 7:34 am
Cliff,
Thanks for pulling part two out of the spam filter. It is appreciated.
As much grief as I give you, you are keeping the debate open and fairly posting comments. Kudos to you for that Sir.
#29 by cav on May 23, 2008 - 9:51 am
Bob, you drive an SUV?!
That changes everything.
#30 by jdberger on May 23, 2008 - 10:59 am
I’m sure that Bob is just doing his part to end our dependence on oil. After all, if it’s all gone, how are you going to use it? Make oil go the way of the buggy whip.
#31 by cav on May 23, 2008 - 7:13 pm
JD, and I’m sure that there are those among us who will buy practically anything.
Now for the serious side. When the price of gas gets high enough, and all the suv drivers are still quite commited to driving, as opposed to parking, there will be more than enough gas in reserve and from other established sources that it will be possible for the US to economically crush Iran. And isn’t that the new goal? For more information see: Micheal O’Hanlon.
#32 by Larry Bergan on May 24, 2008 - 12:26 am
cav:
Been there, done that, no thanks.
#33 by cgrach on May 24, 2008 - 5:41 am
Look, gun violence and deaths are highly localized phenomenea. There’s simply no comparing densely populated urban centers with rural groups of gun owners. No simple one federal law will address that fact. Man, this is the West, get it, or get lost.
#34 by Cliff Lyon on May 24, 2008 - 6:21 am
Bob S,
I apologize for not being able to respond fully to all your points, though I must say, most of them are bad syllogisms (cars kill, guns kill – ban both) and do not merit consideration in an serious discussion.
From the same bad batch of hyper-meaningless talking points comes this much parroted concept…personal responsibility.
“Personal responsibility” is a canard of a concept popularized by Ronald Reagan (may he rest in hell) as a way of giving “Reagan Democrats” permission to say, fuck the poor, fuck single (welfare) Moms, and fuck anyone with dark skin who bitches about it.
Think about it Bob S. What exactly does “personal responsibility” mean in the context of your personal social contract with your fellow Americans?
Hmmm?
To me it means;
“I got mine so fuck you! No matter that I was born into a nice middle class white family. Never mind that I am an educated male. Its not my fault, and YOU are not my responsibility.”
Resembles you inner dialogue doesn’t it? Not a great way to build a strong society is it?
I suggest you think about that attitude and tell me, where do your think it will lead us as a nation.
#35 by Bob S. on May 24, 2008 - 7:31 am
Cliff,
I thought my initials were BS not yours, but I acknowledge you as a master BSer.
Great way to attack the person instead of the issues. At no time do you address the personal responsibility to to be honest.
Did you know the Kellerman study was flawed before you used it?
You called Alan Korwin to account for numbers he used and you won’t address the numbers you use. How is that for taking responsibility for the unsupportable comments published
You post that you want to violate people’s civil rights then try to wiggle out of it using an unsupported “hypothetical” excuse. You were called on it and haven’t admitted you were wrong.
You posted that no Court of Appeals has overturned a law on the individual rights in the 2nd amendment and won’t admit you were wrong.
You’ve called others names and get upset when I ask if the words are too big for you but won’t admit you are being a hypocrite.
Personal responsibility is acknowledging when you are wrong and having the integrity to admit it.
Personal responsibility is trying to live life by the ideals, values and principles that are held dear.
Personal responsibility is working to make your life better, no matter where you started in life.
Personal responsibility is getting up and going to a job every day to take care of your family, not depending on the welfare check everyday
Personal responsibility is using money to put food on the table instead of drinking away your money.
Personal responsibility is paying for insurance instead of smoking.
Personal responsibility is exercising, watching what you eat, and what drugs you used, not demanding medical services when those things aren’t done.
Personal responsibility is recognizing the needs of others and working yourself to help them; not just letting the government take your money and do what you might do.
Personal responsibility is trying to make life better for society as a whole, not just parts of it. Taking money from those who achieve and giving it to those who haven’t won’t solve the problem. It means providing those who haven’t achieved the opportunity to achieve. It means the equality of opportunity, not the equality of income.
Personal responsibility is the bedrock of civilization, without the integrity to be true to yourself, how can anyone be true to others. Of course, maybe that is the problem you are having.
Expressing your real inner dialogue or using projection to admit it perhaps?
It is my “fault” that I’m educated. Like you I put myself through college, I didn’t depend on someone else to pay my way.
I don’t brag or boast of the ways I give back to the community and won’t do it here, but I recognize my blessings and respond accordingly.
Personal responsibility is recognizing that nobody owes me anything but the right to try.
The only canard here is the one you are trying to pull but not addressing the issues.
Should I list all of the questions you’ve refused to answer?
Should I continue to list all the mistruths you’ve posted?
I think it will lead us to a nation of greatness. History has countless examples of those who have started with humble origins and worked hard to achieve greatness.
Show me the examples of those who achieve greatness by having a government program give them food, housing, clothing. Never mind that you can’t give someone an education, they have to take that opportunity and learn. Nobody can pour knowledge and ability into another person.
That which we work for, we value. I am sure that you, like I, had some classes in college that were too easy, do you value those grades as much as the ones you worked hard to earn? How it any different for anything else in life?
If there is no personal responsibility, how is it every day millions of people have the chance to do evil and don’t?
If there is no personal responsibility, how it it every day millions do the right thing even when no one is looking? (That’s called Character).
So, I close again with a call for you to take responsibility for your post.
Did you know the Kellerman Study was flawed and used it as part of the propaganda anyways?
#36 by John of Manchester on May 24, 2008 - 9:23 am
This discussion is pointless, get a CWP and then go to gun shop and buy a pistol if you like and walk out of the store with it.
The personal right is reality, the 2nd defines it, and existing laws provide for it in the unambiguous circumstance to the law abiding.
The rest of this is so much blogona.
To me it means;
“I got mine so fuck you! No matter that I was born into a nice middle class white family. Never mind that I am an educated male. Its not my fault, and YOU are not my responsibility.”
So much pablum that speaks of your ill formed views, projecting a little maybe. I certainly am not willing to be responsible for your views of what society should look like. Let alone your mis-perceptions of others. The above rant is racist, and full of anger, get some help.
Thankfully we have the Constitution, and the personal right to arms to keep the like of you exactly where you are, on the internet, and not in our lives except by choice.
Bye now.
#37 by Cliff Lyon on May 24, 2008 - 5:05 pm
It has become blatantly obvious you guys can’t hold a reasonable discussion on anything.
Your only goal is to beat people over the head until they agree with you.
It is little wonder, all you want are your guns.
I guess thats how you compensate for your anti-social personality (burping is not conversation), anti-intellectual-talking point, I-hope-no-one-notices, mime invention factory style.
Is it any wonder the other blogs get tired of you and shut down comments?
Maybe if you could argue with the big dogs, you could hang on the porch.
#38 by Bob S. on May 24, 2008 - 5:40 pm
Cliff,
This is rich, you seriously need to see someone about your projection issues Cliff. What makes it a reasonable discussion in your book? Us poor, ignorant, un-credentialed folks agreeing with our betters like you?
Sorry if I insistent on having an opinion and expressing it. I think the problem maybe that I’m expressing and proving my opinion better than you are.
Anybody else think that the pro-gun side isn’t holding reasonable discussion or is it just Cliff?
Hmm, guess providing information, data, research, intelligent dialog is beating the people over the head…..of course maybe you just feel outclassed with how the discussion is going?
Cliff, I wonder what gives you the right to discuss our issues; nothing you have posted shown you have a background in pysch but you call us anti-social and anti-intellectual.
Cliff, the phenomena is called “reasoned discourse”, google it and find out how many anti-freedom blogs like yours experience. It is characterized by the blogger losing many arguments, resorting to name calling, ignoring contradictory information, making personal attacks and finally shutting down comments. I can see you are getting an advanced case of it.
You don’t answer the issues, you attack the person. Keep trying I laugh off your comments about me.
But until you ban me, I’ll keep countering the false arguments and trying to take unsupportable comments to task.
So, let’s try again.
Did you know the Kellerman study was flawed before you posted it or not?
#39 by John of Manchester on May 25, 2008 - 1:55 am
“It has become blatantly obvious you guys can’t hold a reasonable discussion on anything”.
To me it means;
“I got mine so fuck you! No matter that I was born into a nice middle class white family. Never mind that I am an educated male. Its not my fault, and YOU are not my responsibility.”
The bulk of your arguments upon failure Cliff degenerate into personal attacks, and a puerile form of name calling.
Lie down with dogs, get fleas.
“mime invention factory style”. ?? Dude, it is way past time for you to quit smoking dope on a daily basis.
#40 by Bob S. on May 26, 2008 - 9:42 am
Cliff,
Come on, address the issue. Did you knowingly post false or biased information?
You’ve accused others of it and called them on it. Do you have the integrity to address it?
#41 by Cliff Lyon on May 26, 2008 - 10:31 am
Bob S,
There is nothing you or I or anyone can do to change the fact that hand guns have only one very narrow purpose; to kill other humans.
The choice you must make in life is about how you see yourself as a human being. Will you stand tall and work to improve the human condition, or will you shrink away in fear, prepared to kill without mercy, your brother?
Reports or statistics, right or wrong and no amount of whining will ever have any bearing on this basic species-defining question.
#42 by Bob S. on May 26, 2008 - 11:00 am
Cliff,
I don’t know how wrong you can be, but you keep finding new levels.
Target shooting, hunting animals are two of the most common uses of handguns, far more often than killing other humans.
I am working to improve the human condition, by not allowing some wannabe dictator tell me or others I can’t defend myself with a handgun.
Is all violence equal? No, would you use your hands and feet to defend yourself or your family against an attack? If so, there is no moral difference in using other tools, handguns included.
This I think is the biggest gulf in understanding between us. There is predatory violence and protectionary violence, one tears away at society and one builds it up. I’m not out looking to attack criminals, but will do what it takes to protect myself and my family, wouldn’t you?
Being prepared to kill without mercy doesn’t make me less human, but more. I am prepared to defend myself and my family without requiring someone else to do it. Can you say the same?
My brother won’t be trying to attack me or my family, improving the human condition by stopping a predator is valid and helpful. Or should I let myself, my family be violated and the criminal go on to attack others, perhaps your family or someone less capable of defending themselves?
Isn’t it part of the social compact to protect others?
You still haven’t answered the question, did you know the Kellerman study was flawed before you posted it?
#43 by Cliff Lyon on May 27, 2008 - 5:12 am
I like your definition of mercy. Actually, jut kidding. I guess pretty much anything that gets cooked up in your brain, drains out uncensored, in-tact?
Any other new examples of mercy we should know about?
Btw: Hunting with a hand gun is a stupid invention by the NRA. No REAL hunter uses a handgun (and I grew up in central PA, so you needn’t lecture me about hunting)
#44 by Anonymous on May 27, 2008 - 5:21 am
Cliff,
Do you realize how hypocritical you sound when you lecture someone about tact?
Would you defend yourself against someone who was going to or was beating you?
Would you defend yourself or your family against someone who was going to kill you?
By the way, I’m going to keep asking; Did you know the Kellerman study was flawed when you posted it ?
#45 by Cliff Lyon on May 27, 2008 - 6:00 am
Bob, You beg the question that someone wants to beat me or kill my family.
For the life of me, I can’t think of a single reason how that might come to pass.
Its kind of like saying, I need four-wheel drive in Atlanta because it snowed once in 1993.
Same deal with the Kellerman study. It begs the question. Did you use such logic in your profession. I’m guessing not.
#46 by Bob S. on May 27, 2008 - 6:27 am
Cliff,
I’m starting to doubt either your honesty or your intellectual capacity. Statistics show, as seen below, there is no place that violence and crime doesn’t touch.
Or do you have a magically charm that protects you and yours from random violent acts? Maybe those “credentials” you have that enable you to discuss anything you want?
Maybe in “your world” you don’t see it or acknowledge it, but it happens. I’m not blind to the possibility, however remote, that something could happen to my family or I.
Do you have insurance on your house, your car? How about fire extinguishers in your house or smoke alarms? The chance of a fire happening is quite small, but most people think it is sensible to prepare for that possibility.
Latest 2006 Crimes per 100,000 People:
Dallas, TX Salt Lake City, UT National
Murder: 15 4.4 7
Forcible Rape: 53.28 51.66 32.2
Robbery: 553.9 275.7 205.8
Aggravated Assault: 584.2 480.7 336.5
Burglary: 1734.7 1220.2 813.2
Larceny Theft: 4006.4 6055.4 2601.7
Vehicle Theft: 1116 1109.3 501.5
Actual Reported Population and Crimes:
Dallas, TX Salt Lake City, UT
Population: 1,248,223 183,901
Murder: 187 8
Forcible Rape: 665 95
Robbery: 6,914 507
Aggravated Assault: 7,292 884
Burglary: 21,653 2244
Larceny Theft: 50,009 11,136
Vehicle Theft: 13,930 2,040
It seems there is a possibility of the cases I mentioned, so you avoided the question again. Would you defend yourself or your family?
I’m asking the question about the Kellerman study because it goes to the integrity of your argument and your own integrity. You called Alan Korwin out on this numbers, how is it any different that I’m asking you to own up to your use of the Kellerman study.
#47 by Cliff Lyon on May 27, 2008 - 7:21 am
Your logic is impenetrable. I give.
#48 by Bob S. on May 27, 2008 - 7:43 am
Cliff,
Still haven’t answered the question about Kellerman. Did you use data that was flawed on purpose or through lack of research?
How about everyone else. Do you think I’m out of line in asking if people would defend themselves?
I pose the argument that not only is it your right to defend yourself, but also your responsibility to do so. If we allow violence acts to go unchecked, doesn’t that damage the society as a whole.
Those that are unwilling to defend themselves and others would not be fulfilling the duty we have to others. Firearms make the rule of law possible for the aged, infirmed or disabled; otherwise we are dependent on physical strength.
So Cliff, are you going to have another post admitting the numbers you used are flawed?
#49 by jdberger on May 27, 2008 - 9:52 am
No Bob. This is usually the point where Cliff starts another thread declaring victory.
Lets see, Cliff. You are apparently following the Joyce/Brady handbook (see your post on Pundits, Parrots and Credentials)- so next should be “ammunition serialization” and “smart technology”.
Go for it. We’ll expertly refute your points, show how you mischaracterize the debate, debunk your “facts”, endure your “withering wit”, and generally give you a much needed intellectual spanking.
C’mon, Cliff. Let’s show those Joyce Foundation folks what you’re really made of. You might still have a chance at that grant.
#50 by Cliff Lyon on May 27, 2008 - 10:28 am
Oh, so know you are advocating that the aged, infirm and disabled carry handguns?
…because less than 1 percent of Americans are confronted with an assault or robbery of some kind (using YOUR statistics). And how many of those result in a shooting of either party?
#51 by jdberger on May 27, 2008 - 10:53 am
Cliff? Could you please restate the question?
I think that I understand the first part, and if so, the answer would be, Yes, the aged, infirm and disabled should be allowed to carry handguns, assuming that they aren’t otherwise disqualified under GCA ‘68. In this case, a handgun is a “force multiplier” for them.
I don’t understand the second part of the question.
#52 by Bob S. on May 27, 2008 - 11:04 am
Cliff,
Actually, I’m advocating all citizens carry handguns. In the gun banners own words, if it saves just one life, isn’t it worth it?
So what level of predatory violence is acceptable to you Cliff? 0.01% of the people being assaulted, raped or mugged? 0.5%?
When do we say enough is enough and no predatory violence is enough?
One of my favorite quotes (as you can imagine)
Would villains be so willing to rape, rob or assault if they might get hurt by their victims instead? No, results from the states that have loosened concealed carry laws show that predatory violence decreases when gun control laws are decreased.
But the converse is not true, I have posted earlier, there are no studies that show the effectiveness of gun control laws.
I notice you still aren’t owning up to the Kellerman study, Did you knowingly post data that was flawed?
#53 by Cliff Lyon on May 27, 2008 - 1:29 pm
Wow Bob,
Thanks for your honesty; “I’m advocating all citizens carry handguns.” A more diplomatic person would say, thank you for your opinion.
Not me. I thank you for your honesty and for the confirmation that you are in fact not worth having a discussion with because your are completely insane and criminally stupid.
The saddest part about the human condition is that there really is no God, because if there were, she would have warned you about getting shorted in the brain department.
And then, you would have known that your intellect is well below average and thus you should ignore yourself less your mind-numbing stupidity gets you in trouble (which I imagine it has on a regular basis, for which reason you remain anonymous.
I’m sort of glad the NRA can count on people like you to remind the rest of us what idiots I’m being generous) you and your NRA friends really are.
I just feel sorry for the next guy who makes the mistake of asking you for the time. He’ll likely end up with a bullet the fleshy part of the thigh (assuming people of your sub-human intellect can’t shoot too good either).
#54 by jdberger on May 27, 2008 - 1:49 pm
What’s your objection to Bob’s proposal, Cliff?
I mean, when you’re done hyperventilating – please elucidate.
Really, Cliff – with this level of anger you are displaying, don’t you think that you should divest yourself of your guns? You really don’t sound like the most stable of individuals.
#55 by Utah Mom on May 27, 2008 - 2:03 pm
This story makes ya wanna move, don’t it?
Dealer Offers Free Gun With Car Purchase
POSTED: 9:26 pm CDT May 20, 2008
UPDATED: 10:30 pm CDT May 20, 2008
BUTLER, Mo. — A local car dealer is holding a controversial promotion involving guns.
Max Motors in Butler is offering anyone who buys a car the choice of $250 in gas or a free semi-automatic handgun.
“Like I say, it’s a choice — protection or gas,” said Walter Moore with Max Motors.
Moore said he came up with the gas or guns promotion.
“We got high gas prices, theft, carjackings, innocent people getting hurt,” Moore told KMBC’s Chris Nagus.
So far, the handgun is a more popular choice.
“Right now were running 80 percent toward the gun,” Moore said.
“Love guns, we all need to have guns,” said Jerry Hertzog, who was buying a new truck. “Guns or gas or fuel, I’ll take the gun anytime.”
But the idea isn’t popular with everyone. One viewer told KMBC that he believes the promotion is dangerous.
“I don’t understand what’s the bad idea. Telling people they have a right to protect themselves,” Moore said.
Moore said most of his customers already own weapons.
“I get in a vehicle to bid a trade, there are guns in the seats, guns in the back windows. Everybody has a gun — there’s no backlash,” Moore said.
Moore said the dealership will hand the customer a certificate to get the gun, but you must pass a background check.
The local police chief said he is OK with the promotion as long as the weapons aren’t handed out at the dealership.
#56 by jdberger on May 27, 2008 - 2:05 pm
Here’s something funny… with all the nutty aspersions that Cliff (and some of the other antis) cast upon us gun owners –
that we’d shoot someone for asking the time, are on a hair trigger, are mentally unstable, care nothing for human life, are degenerate rednecks, etc…
-they feel awfully safe insulting us.
Clearly, you realize that the opposite is true.
#57 by jdberger on May 27, 2008 - 2:44 pm
You bet, Utah Mom… Butler, Missouri looks to be a DANGEROUS town….
Offense 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Murder, Man-Slaughter 0 0 0 0 0 0
Forcible Rape 0 0 0 1 0 0
Robbery 1 0 0 0 0 0
Aggravated Assault 24 33 10 7 5 0
Vewwwy scawwy…..
Let’s compare that to SLC….
Offense 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Murder, Man-Slaughter 18 11 17 15 10 8
Forcible Rape 121 109 79 92 72 95
Robbery 481 478 503 465 417 507
Aggravated Assault 546 635 695 756 784 884
And just for fun, how about a comparison to my neck of the woods – where guns are highly restricted (State handgun card, 10 day wait, no “saturday night specials”, “Safe gun” list, no gunshow sales, no person to person sales, no gunstores in city limits, no “assault weapons”, lots of “peace activists”).
Oakland, California
Offense 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Murder, Man-Slaughter 84 108 109 83 93 145
Forcible Rape 295 249 268 262 306 306
Robbery 2,125 2,452 2,474 2,190 2,672 3534
Aggravated Assault 2,826 2,852 2,762 2,616 2,621 3614
Yup.
Hooray for gun control!!
Sorry about the editing.
#58 by Bob S. on May 27, 2008 - 3:52 pm
Cliff,
Insult me all you want, it doesn’t matter. I give your opinion of me exactly what it is worth…a minute of humor. I find that when the anti-freedom crowd can’t refute a argument they attack the person. So far you are right on track. Every time you go for the insults, I know that you are out of arguments.
Just to be a little mean; when you say
Is that because you aren’t being honest? You wanted Alan Korwin to support his numbers, can you support the Kellerman study? Nope, and you won’t even admit whether or not you know it was flawed when you used it.
What’s wrong with wanting everyone to carry a handgun? Note the phrasing I’m only advocating it; not requiring it, not making it a law. It’s a personal choice.
I note you aren’t refuting the crime rates or the fact that crime happens everywhere. I note that you never answered the question about defending yourself or your family.
Do you have a sign in front of your home stating your principled stand of no firearms? Or do you have firearms in the home?
How about a nice day glow orange bumper sticker “Owner doesn’t believe in guns or violence”?
Concealed Carry is legal in 48 states and has been for years, care to support your assumption (of course you know what they say about assumptions) of violence by gun owners and carriers?
#59 by Bob S. on May 27, 2008 - 4:07 pm
Utah Mom,
I would discuss the reasonableness of offering a means of self-defense as an incentive, but I’m respecting your desire not to debate me.
Please let me know if this has changed.
#60 by Bob S. on May 28, 2008 - 3:36 pm
Cliff,
Read any good news lately? I did, found the following article…..maybe I’m not criminally insane after all.
The Reno resident was in possession of a valid Concealed Carry Permit issued through the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office.
Let’s see how best to summarize this — a legally armed citizen stopped a murder. Maybe if we had more legally armed citizens, the murderers would be a little more reluctant to act.