Arming public reduces crime

You did the same thing earlier with your spurious relationship BS.

 

You need to look at other avenues in order to be relevant. Stop with the same old same old.

 

Sorry, it wouldn't be rational to ditch the scientific process! I'll stick with an evidence-based approach and won't budge

 

Suit yourself. You're not getting the whole picture. Then again, you're a liberal, and I wouldn't expect you to.

 

Statistics of the past may not reflect statistics of the future.

Civil unrest is on the rise which is normal for troubled economic times. That unrest may well come to the US.

Having every citizen walking around with a guns is likely not going to be a good thing.

 

It is the only true protection one can have in this day and age.
The police are far too slow and overworked, and crazy people exist and will buy guns illegally like it or not!

 

I civil unrest comes my way I will be armed. I won't be a helpless victim the way people were in the UK. I will be able to defend myself against those who would attack me.

Thugs in a riot are not combat soldiers trying to seize an objective. They are cowards seeking easy prey. As soon as they learn that their intended victim can do them harm they run away.

 

Yeahhh...

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgcon.html

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html

 

Agreed.... and I cant think of much else that is plausible at this point.

I like part Ron Paul's ideas on reducing crime though .. legalizing/decriminalizing soft drugs and prostitution and so forth. This would take money out of the hands of criminals, decrease crime, and increase tax revenues.

 

Actually, he has the "whole picture" pegged pretty darn well, friend. I'm afraid that it's YOU who is not apprised of this reality. You dodged my earlier post with irrelevance and he was bringing this to your unseeing attention.

 

Flawed reasoning.

You have falsely assumed that only good will come from gun ownership. Surely you're sharp enough to know that this simplistic stance isn't supportable.

 

That's it? You don't have the intelligence to actually use your OWN words to summarize your own argument? You start off with a study that has been widely scrutinized by many, many sources including a government report. You can do better than Lott, friend.
Your second source needs some context and explanation as to your intent. All conspicuously absent from your post, by the way.

 

Wow, the other half of the liberal dynamic duo!

 

I see you're still dodging the issue.

Ad hominem fallacies are no substitute for relevancy, friend.

 

Not true, my friend.

 

Which one? That you're still dodging the issue, or that Ad hominem fallacies are no substitute for relevancy?


Both statements are true, unless you can show otherwise.

 

I'm not dodging anything. Give it up buddy. Quit being so childish.

 

First, following the scientific process ensures a position superior to the ideologically limited. Second, I'm not a liberal and you're only advertising your own ideologically limitation

 

I base most of my positions on what is actually happening in the real world.

 

Sounds like a sequel to Lord of the Flies.

 

Ah yes. This is far superior than the scientific process. Keep watching your FOX news.

 

because i own a car does that mean im going to kill someone in a drunk driving accident ? no .

 

i agree owning a car doesn't make u more likely to kill someone in a drunk driving accident . drinking and driving how ever does . same with a gun responsible use of a gun is safe for those on the right side of it .who cares how many people are killed by guns you should only care about the ones who didn't deserve to die . the others put them selves in that possision . if what ever there doing they think is worth dieing for let them

 

Dissonance created through ideological hindrance stops folk from realising that the scientific process is informing us of what is happening in the real world

 

Welcome here. I see that this is only your second post here.

I AM curious as to the focus of your post. Perhaps, you'd like to expand on whom you're responding to, and what your point is exactly? Relevance is always important as I'm sure you understand.



Addendum: I see that you attempted to clarify your argument in a second post. Thank you for that.

The flaw that I see with your argument is that you assume predictable results from firearm ownership that cannot be attained. People are unpredictable beings prone to rage, jealousy, depression and yes, mind-altering substances. At risk of sounding rude, you appear to be making simple statements about a complicated topic.