Point to a specific statement that I made that requires retraction, and I'll be happy to debate whether or not I should retract it, and if necessary, will retract it. It's not difficult, I did it literally three pages ago.
It's difficult to have a discussion with someone in good faith when they're unwilling to admit when wrong.
Eat yo vegetables
Users with <20 posts and ignored shitposters are automatically invisible. Find out how to do that here and help clean up MMO-OT!
PSA: Being a volunteer is no excuse to make a shite job of it.
I disagree. It could just as easily be the other way around, considering the attacker is looking at substantial jail time if they don't eliminate the witness, whereas the victim is not. Could that factor into the decision? In some cases, sure.
If a crime is halted in its incipient moments, then technically the crime still occurred (just with "attempted" tacked onto the front), though it is very rarely ever reported or recorded as such. In fact, many DGU cases are probably not even thought of by the "victim" as a criminal incident, since it was prevented before it really happened. So many incidents of DGU were likely never even discussed during the NCVS questionnaire.
Uh... "is enough" is a statement of absolute. There's no ambiguity, no limiting agent in the predicate. That's the way it is with linking verbs. If I said "gun control is bad", and you said "that's not true!", and then I said "well, you should have understood that I meant gun control is sometimes bad, duh, I didn't use an absolute", you'd be all over me.
And you didn't even just say "is enough". You said "is more than enough", which is absolutely an absolute.
Then just admit that you should have used a "sometimes" in there and move on.
- - - Updated - - -
You honestly think that criminals will only kill people if they can do it with a firearm? Because that's what it sounds like you're saying.
"The difference between stupidity
and genius is that genius has its limits."
--Alexandre Dumas-fils
boy you really have a hard time with being wrong, considering how much you´re going off when calling someone else out, this is indeed very funny, thanks for the laughs
edit: the "but you first" part is just an icing, very mature
- - - Updated - - -
what has magazine capacity to do with this? if you´re able to have better control of the weapon, then that improves accuracy, and i´m not going to walk you through every accessory to determine which is cosmetic and which adds function
but let me ask you this, if it doesn´t add function, and is overall just a waste of money, why have it?
The study that claims 2.5 million people per year defend themselves with a gun was done in 1995 as a phone survey of only a few hundred people. They then took the response percentage of people who claimed... over the phone, that they had at some point in their life used a gun to defend themselves, and then applied that percentage to the entire population to reach that ridiculous claim that 2.5 million people defend themselves every year with guns.
The person who designed that study I'm guessing only graduated from high school on his football scholarship.
- - - Updated - - -
You haven't conceded that you were wrong once, even when you were blatantly wrong. You just turn to mockery.
That's, like... all wrong. I wish I could say that I expected more from you, but... no.
It was a survey of 4977 people, not a few hundred. And it asked both about the previous year and the previous 5 years, not "some point in their life". The 2.5 million number comes from persons who reported a DGU in the previous year.
As a rebuttal, this attempt of yours is pathetic. Before you scoff, try actually checking your facts next time.
"The difference between stupidity
and genius is that genius has its limits."
--Alexandre Dumas-fils
I think you're intentionally ignoring what I've been saying. Since this conversation isn't going anywhere, I'm just going to ask you: why do YOU think legislators are trying to classify certain firearms as 'assault weapons' and why do you think it's more necessary to regulate those weapons?Originally Posted by Mayhem
My Gaming Rig: Intel Core 2 quad q9650|ASUS P5G41-T M|2x4GB Supertalent DDR3 1333Mhz|Samsung 840 Evo 250GB|Fractal Design Integra R2 500w Bronze|ASUS Strix GTX 960 4GB|2x AOC e2770s 27" (one portrait, one landscape)|Bitfeenix Phenom Micro ATX
Don't hate my rig, there's nothing quite like the classics.
i think they are doing this because they have very little leeway for anything regarding firearm legislation, also they probably are doing it to appeal to voters
i think every accessory should be looked at, and allowed or banned case by case, not banning the firearm itself but certain parts
i think a universal right for everyone to carry guns is not a great idea, people should have to prove that they are fit to be allowed/trusted with firearms around other people
what you do at your home, is up to you, but as soon as you want to carry open/concealed doesn´t matter, you have to get a license, you have to register your weapon and you have to pass a test and you can never be free of consequences for your actions
Users with <20 posts and ignored shitposters are automatically invisible. Find out how to do that here and help clean up MMO-OT!
PSA: Being a volunteer is no excuse to make a shite job of it.
That could certainly be a factor in some cases. Fact of the matter is that there are probably hundreds of different factors going into the determination to pull the trigger, from the perspective of both the attacker and the victim. Which is why it's probably just as likely that, all things being equal, a victim is just as likely to pull the trigger than the attackers. Especially when someone is of the believe that their life is in imminent danger.
Moreover, if there was an imbalance, which is possible; if an attacker was more likely to pull the trigger than a victim, I would be willing to wager it would be somewhere between 2-3 times more likely. But 36 times more likely? I don't see that as realistic in the least.
I have a really difficult time believing that people rarely report attempted assault and/or robbery. Especially those which were serious enough from them to draw a firearm.If a crime is halted in its incipient moments, then technically the crime still occurred (just with "attempted" tacked onto the front), though it is very rarely ever reported or recorded as such.
Again. I have a hard time believing that a victim of an attempted crime, one which elicited the use of a firearm, wouldn't think of said crime as a "criminal incident."In fact, many DGU cases are probably not even thought of by the "victim" as a criminal incident, since it was prevented before it really happened. So many incidents of DGU were likely never even discussed during the NCVS questionnaire.
And, of course, this hasn't even begun to address the several limitations placed on the DGU numbers that I've already outlined. From a scientific standpoint, the numbers are just no where near reliable.
Eat yo vegetables
But nope, not going to happen here in the US. Gun ownership is a guarantee right under our Constitution for good reasons. It is a very effective tool for self defense. A weak or elderly person is not much of a match with a lot of other tools against a stronger opponent. Even back in 1776, they understood this.