HAP's marbles: oooooo (a few less than you teehee)
no problem Rascal. As you said, my statistics were unapplicable to the topic of the right to own. I simply do not have anything I wish to say on that subject beyond my first two paragraphs, and do not wish to participate in it. Just to make it clear to others, my conjecturing on advisability should not be construed as wishing for people to remain helpless, nor in any way was meant as casting a disparaging view on your right to own or carry. I said that a couple of times, but apparently the point was not made.
I would have deleted the posts entirely, but that would have made a real confusing thread.
~HAP (a married liberal republican armed, trained, and like you, not dangerous)( I hope)
maybe you could syndicate that puzzle and sell it like Soduku? LOL
Hap are you irritated because you think that we shouldn`t have access to guns? Are you in favor of owning guns but only under strict guidlines? Having a gun but only at home?
No guns for responsible law abiding citizens period?
I am honestly puzzled as to your position here.
It seems like you are contesting the advisability of me owning/carrying a fire arm. Please clarify and then mayb I can communicate appropriately.
I am only irritated because this is the second thread in a row I have participated in where I apparently do not make myself clear on the gun subject, even though I have stated it numerous times. I will try a bigger font:
HAPe4me HAS NOT contested 2nd amendment rights.
HAPe4me does NOT TAKE a position on whether some people should own firearms.
HAPe4me DOES think some should NOT own firearms.
HAPe4me DOES NOT purport to care whether (most) people own carry, manufacture, buy, sell or trade firearms.
HAPe4me WAS PREVIOUSLY seeking information on whether data supported the idea that people are truly safer due to legally owning firearms.
HAPe4me HAS NOT YET formulated an opinion on such advisability since he has not yet found valid data for a few of the areas of interest related to that.
as such, I make no contention on ANYONE's advisability.
The stat that can't be measured is how many thugs don't break into a house since they know the owner likely is armed.
Or how many times a weapon being held is enough to prevent a crime.
When people are shot in any scenario it becomes a statistic. When people are not shot because a weapon was either wielded or just thought to be available ... that is not a stat ... so all stats are very biased.
Good people are likely to not shoot, but they don't get marked as a stat each time they don't shoot ... just the shootings are recorded.
My point was that there were episodes documented every month of people successfully defending themselves when under attack. In counter to your claim of every once in a long while you hear of a person successfully defending themselves.
Your statistics are entirely unapplicable to this discussion because the information encompasses all assaults with fire arms, almost entirely comprised of people who obtain and operate their fire arm illegally.
The likely hood of a crime of passion occuring when there is a three day wait for a gun purchased, accompanied witha back ground check....a several week wait plus a lot of money to take your safety course, plus the back ground and finger printing that is done when you actually apply for your permit, plus the money for the permit.
It is a long drawn out process. Crimes of passion are immediate, and those perpetrating them will use any object that comes to hand to get the job done.
We have people murdered with knives, axes, blunt force trauma, fists....even a chain saw in the middle of town once.
People who are passionately angry enough to kill don`t need a gun to do the job.
I repeat, my contention was that the vast majority of people with permits to carry guns are not to be feared, and they might save themselves or their loved ones one day from someone who isn`t as concientious in their observance of the laws and rights of others.
For us to be denied the right to protect ourselves because of the criminals with no regard for the laws or our safety is wrong.
Ron- I am not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying that gun ownership and concealed carry is a God given natural right? If yes, could you explain how that is so? Could you define what you mean by a free citizen?
Heretofore we have been talking about the LEGAL right to own or carry and that legal owners and carriers are likely to be safer to the public than illegal ones. I offered no dispute. You bring a different issue to the table, and I would like to have more understanding of what you mean before I might respond to it.
Reminder: I HEREBY STATE I DO NOT CONTEST THE RIGHT OF LEGAL OWNERSHIP NOR LEGAL CARRY OF FIREARMS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EXISTANT LAWS OF THE NATION OR STATE IN WHICH AN INDIVIDUAL LIVES, OR TRAVELS. I DO NOT CONTEST THAT MOST LEGAL CARRIERS OF FIREARMS ARE SAFER THAN ILLEGAL CARRIERS. I DO NOT CONTEST THAT LEGAL OWNERS ARE SAFER AS A WHOLE THAN ILLEGAL OWNERS AS A WHOLE, HOWEVER SOME WHO COMMIT CRIMES COULD BE LEGAL OWNERS, AND SOME LEGAL OWNERS CAN AND WILL BECOME CRIMINALS.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
13
8
7
7
Popular Days
Jan 17
29
Jan 18
27
Jan 19
3
Top Posters In This Topic
rascal 13 posts
HAPe4me 8 posts
Belle 7 posts
Tom Strange 7 posts
Popular Days
Jan 17 2007
29 posts
Jan 18 2007
27 posts
Jan 19 2007
3 posts
HAPe4me
durn, there is no marbles emoticon. try these:
Rascals marbles: ooooooooooooooo
HAP's marbles: oooooo (a few less than you teehee)
no problem Rascal. As you said, my statistics were unapplicable to the topic of the right to own. I simply do not have anything I wish to say on that subject beyond my first two paragraphs, and do not wish to participate in it. Just to make it clear to others, my conjecturing on advisability should not be construed as wishing for people to remain helpless, nor in any way was meant as casting a disparaging view on your right to own or carry. I said that a couple of times, but apparently the point was not made.
I would have deleted the posts entirely, but that would have made a real confusing thread.
~HAP (a married liberal republican armed, trained, and like you, not dangerous)( I hope)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Dang, I knew I`d lost em round here some where....
Thanks hap, it was distressing to think that I had offended you. Sorry I didn`t follow you better.
~rascal~ (who`s also a married liberal(?) republican armed, trained, and hopes never to have to be dangerous)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HAPe4me
I am only irritated because this is the second thread in a row I have participated in where I apparently do not make myself clear on the gun subject, even though I have stated it numerous times. I will try a bigger font:
HAPe4me HAS NOT contested 2nd amendment rights.
HAPe4me does NOT TAKE a position on whether some people should own firearms.
HAPe4me DOES think some should NOT own firearms.
HAPe4me DOES NOT purport to care whether (most) people own carry, manufacture, buy, sell or trade firearms.
HAPe4me WAS PREVIOUSLY seeking information on whether data supported the idea that people are truly safer due to legally owning firearms.
HAPe4me HAS NOT YET formulated an opinion on such advisability since he has not yet found valid data for a few of the areas of interest related to that.
as such, I make no contention on ANYONE's advisability.
~HAP
Edited by HAPe4meLink to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
I'm sorry, Hap, I don't get it. :unsure:
Just kidding!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
The stat that can't be measured is how many thugs don't break into a house since they know the owner likely is armed.
Or how many times a weapon being held is enough to prevent a crime.
When people are shot in any scenario it becomes a statistic. When people are not shot because a weapon was either wielded or just thought to be available ... that is not a stat ... so all stats are very biased.
Good people are likely to not shoot, but they don't get marked as a stat each time they don't shoot ... just the shootings are recorded.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ron G.
A free citizen doesn't seek a permit, license or otherwise seek permission from the state to exercise any GOD GIVEN natural right.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
Well stated Rascal
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HAPe4me
Ron- I am not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying that gun ownership and concealed carry is a God given natural right? If yes, could you explain how that is so? Could you define what you mean by a free citizen?
Heretofore we have been talking about the LEGAL right to own or carry and that legal owners and carriers are likely to be safer to the public than illegal ones. I offered no dispute. You bring a different issue to the table, and I would like to have more understanding of what you mean before I might respond to it.
Reminder: I HEREBY STATE I DO NOT CONTEST THE RIGHT OF LEGAL OWNERSHIP NOR LEGAL CARRY OF FIREARMS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EXISTANT LAWS OF THE NATION OR STATE IN WHICH AN INDIVIDUAL LIVES, OR TRAVELS. I DO NOT CONTEST THAT MOST LEGAL CARRIERS OF FIREARMS ARE SAFER THAN ILLEGAL CARRIERS. I DO NOT CONTEST THAT LEGAL OWNERS ARE SAFER AS A WHOLE THAN ILLEGAL OWNERS AS A WHOLE, HOWEVER SOME WHO COMMIT CRIMES COULD BE LEGAL OWNERS, AND SOME LEGAL OWNERS CAN AND WILL BECOME CRIMINALS.
~HAP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.