Do you feel the need to be unarmed and defensless while camping?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Christophe Noel

Expedition Leader
Scientific data requires an isolation of controls. The only thing that can be derived from the Chicago stats is that the application of strict controls without any means of isolating them will yield inconclusive results. So, as many of you would agree, that's an ineffective application of gun regulations. Pretty basic scientific theory.
 
J

JWP58

Guest
Scientific data requires an isolation of controls. The only thing that can be derived from the Chicago stats is that the application of strict controls without any means of isolating them will yield inconclusive results. So, as many of you would agree, that's an ineffective application of gun regulations. Pretty basic scientific theory.
Well that's a shocker, down playing the ineffectiveness of gun control in the cesspool ratholes its been implemented.....classic. So by your logic, the same (high gun violence) would happen anywhere near the Mexican border, since guns are everywhere down there....well everywhere if you're a cartel member....since the law abiding citizens cant own guns. But Im sure you'd still be all for taking guns out of "circulation", or making them almost impossible to purchase, right?

Tell me oh great one, how did those evil assault weapons get into Paris??? Arent they ILLEGAL? Why didnt a magical "safe spot angel" sent from the government not come down and remove the weapons as soon as they entered the "no gun zone"????
 
Last edited:

Christophe Noel

Expedition Leader
Tell me oh great one...
This is why I'm exiting this conversation. There's no need for snark and disrespect. I'm above it. You're above it. It degrades the entire discourse. I'm disappointed this is the direction these conversations always go. It's a shame.

It's unfortunate as I was actually in agreement with you on the Chicago citation. As you and others have said, laws that can be easily circumvented are ineffective. I was agreeing with you, but you have your hackles up and are only interested in opposition regardless of what it is. That's a bummer.

Good day, fellas.
 
J

JWP58

Guest
Ok without sarcasm, I will ask you what has been asked several times, but has gone unanswered.

How would you like to see your wishes enacted (lower the number of guns in circulation/making it almost impossible to purchase firearms)? How would laws not be "easily circumvented" and effective?
 

Christophe Noel

Expedition Leader
JWP58,

I think this conversation, for me, has run its course. It's already devolving. It's not even really a discussion anymore as it's just point and counterpoint for the sake of it, even when I agree with you and Dalko. There's also too much projection. You and Dalko continue to project my stance as one of banning guns when I have stated otherwise four times. There's no more thoughtful dialogue here. No one is listening.

If we continue down this rabbit hole, the insults are going to continue to fly, heels will get dug in, and the thread will get closed...again.

By the way, it was a good thread for a while. I have some good takeaways from the other side of the discussion.
 

mvbeggs

Adventurer
Scientific data requires an isolation of controls. The only thing that can be derived from the Chicago stats is that the application of strict controls without any means of isolating them will yield inconclusive results. So, as many of you would agree, that's an ineffective application of gun regulations. Pretty basic scientific theory.
If you look at the data, you will see a very high correlation between shootings (gun violence) and drug activity. No one ever mentions this. It is a very similar statistic if you look at the high correlation between low income areas in metropolitan areas, drug activity, and gun violence. This video does a good job of shedding some light on the subject: Actual Gun/Violent Crime Statistics

It is my opinion that a majority of gun violence is caused by the drug trade, and the turf wars/beefs that accompany the illicit sale of drugs. Although tragic when they occur, statistically, very few people are shot in random acts of violence. (i.e. mass shootings, active shooter incidents, etc.) Unfortunately, that statistic becomes 100% for an individual caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. IMHO, If you really want to reduce killing and gun violence, you should be urging your government representatives to take actions that truly impact and reduce the sale and transportation of drugs. Sorry, a bit off subject, but still relevant.
 

Duke84

New member
No, I will vote for policies and legislators that will help bring this country back into the civilized world.
If you believe what's in a certain well-known book, at one time we had 4 people on the planet and wound up with a 25% murder rate and that was a fratricide. We have not progressed all that much past that point, even with becoming more "civilized." Any cop that's worked a holiday can vouch for the number of domestics they get called to on holidays.

We have laws that outlaw all sorts of illegal conduct that include possession, use, sale, transfer, brandishing, shooting, etc. of firearms by folks that shouldn't have guns. And yet there is not a day that goes by that a large number of local, state, federal agencies don't make an arrest where a gun is involved. And everyone of those gun arrests has a person attached to it. No cop, deputy, agent arrested a gun for shooting or possessing itself illegally.
 
S

Squatchout

Guest
CN I agree that the Data if you will on Chi town is corrupt. So are the politicians there. This just reinforces what I said about the fact that the guns exist and can be made and always will.

I think that many are like myself. Responsible gun owners who would also like to see guns kept out of the hands of bad guys. Do I know how to do it? No! But no one else has shown me a good solution yet. The bill of Rights doesn't give us rights. It is just a legal affirmation of the assumed rights of the natural man and the rest of the animal kingdom for that matter. It assumes that we have the right to defend our selves from attack both large and small by whatever means is current and available. The 2nd amendment is there to protect many other amendments such as the 1st and the 3rd(check that one. Don't need soldiers living in my house).

The problem comes in with who gets the authority to control who gets to have what weapons. The last 3 sitting presidents(at least) have been quite dissatisfied with the checks and balances built into our great but flawed system. These checks and balances were put there to keep any one branch from being too powerful. They have done much to wreck this concept in recent years. They want the power. These people have used government agencies to monitor and intimidate their opposition and the populace. At local,state, and federal level. Are these the people you want to give the ability to limit your right to protection. They've already proven they would abuse it instantly. The current President and at least one candidate have already said that they would take every gun in the land from everyone that has one given the chance. History has shown time and again what follows that.

Find me a good solution that doesn't strip the law abiding citizens of their freedoms and place my children's future in jeopardy of tyranny and I'm all ears!

Benjamin Franklin was a wise man indeed.
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
"Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."
Make yourselves sheep, and the wolves will eat you.
 
Last edited:

Dalko43

Explorer
Scientific data requires an isolation of controls. The only thing that can be derived from the Chicago stats is that the application of strict controls without any means of isolating them will yield inconclusive results. So, as many of you would agree, that's an ineffective application of gun regulations. Pretty basic scientific theory.
You don't need to isolate the controls, you need to understand them. It's unrealistic for any sort of study to remove all the outside factors/sources affecting Chicago's gun violence problem because it is one of many factors affecting the issue. I asked you earlier if you thought that Chicago's type of gun regulations should be applied on a nation-wide basis and you said "no." But yet you still see Chicago's gun regulations as "ineffective" due to outside firearm suppliers/sources. So what is your take on this? Do we need to apply Chicago style of gun regulations, or something similar, across the entire US to have effective gun control?

I harp on this because we do have nation-wide restrictions/regulations on other issues, like drugs, but I don't think anyone is going to argue that we have that issue under control. Or for a more direct comparison, we at one point had the nation-wide Assault Weapons Ban in place for the entire country, and yet there was a negligible change, if any, in crime rates. The numbers are what the numbers are. It's incumbent upon the reader to apply the proper context when drawing conclusions from those results.
 
Last edited:

Dalko43

Explorer
JWP58,

I think this conversation, for me, has run its course. It's already devolving. It's not even really a discussion anymore as it's just point and counterpoint for the sake of it, even when I agree with you and Dalko. There's also too much projection. You and Dalko continue to project my stance as one of banning guns when I have stated otherwise four times. There's no more thoughtful dialogue here. No one is listening.

If we continue down this rabbit hole, the insults are going to continue to fly, heels will get dug in, and the thread will get closed...again.

By the way, it was a good thread for a while. I have some good takeaways from the other side of the discussion.
Okay, this is getting a little out of hand. I have explicitly acknowledged in my earlier posts that you are not in favor of a total firearms ban. And I have explained my stance on gun control, of any sort, in a very nuanced and well-articulated way.

I have also given you very direct feedback on some of the ideas and opinions you have expressed.

I have asked you repeatedly to explain certain aspects of your views in greater detail so that we can have a more thoughtful conversation. Quite often you have refused to respond to my queries and instead have referred to me offhand, as you are doing in this post.

I realize that someone else has been injecting a little sarcasm and annoyance into his posts. I have not been doing that, so please don't try to throw me under the bus for something that I am not doing. As well, I think your grievances are a little over-exaggerated; the conversation, while a little testy at times, is still focused on arguing the content rather than name-calling and degrading each other.

If you would like to continue to discuss this issue, there are plenty of people, myself included, who are up for that. In fact, I'm still hoping to hear your answers to some of the questions I have asked of you.

This is not the first time that you have threatened to exit the conversation, nor is this the first time you have implied that the thread could be closed due to a lack of civility. There is no need for either. If you don't like the conversation, you don't have to be a part of it. And the overwhelming majority of posts have been focused on debating the topic rather than mocking anyone's views. Otherwise, if you want to have a conversation, let's have a conversation.
 
Last edited:

Lynnrb

Observer
If you believe what's in a certain well-known book, at one time we had 4 people on the planet and wound up with a 25% murder rate and that was a fratricide. We have not progressed all that much past that point, even with becoming more "civilized." Any cop that's worked a holiday can vouch for the number of domestics they get called to on holidays.

We have laws that outlaw all sorts of illegal conduct that include possession, use, sale, transfer, brandishing, shooting, etc. of firearms by folks that shouldn't have guns. And yet there is not a day that goes by that a large number of local, state, federal agencies don't make an arrest where a gun is involved. And everyone of those gun arrests has a person attached to it. No cop, deputy, agent arrested a gun for shooting or possessing itself illegally.
Just like no one was ever shot when a gun was not present.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top