"Guns for Tots"

[Troll]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Guns for Tots"

This supports your claims how exactly? And could you please respond in a civil manner?

Don't confuse boards. Civil isn't a requirement here and frankly, I don't have that feeling towards you and your smug/whiny approach at the other boards.

I'm just saying that it's common knowledge that your country bans weapons instead of making people with weapons responsible. The result? The banned weapons crimes have increased. and yet you twits keep arguing how righteous the ban is and trying to say anyone showing you the freaking reality in crime stats there is wrong. There. simple enough for ya?

 

[BillyTK]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Guns for Tots"

Don't confuse boards. Civil isn't a requirement here and frankly, I don't have that feeling towards you and your smug/whiny approach at the other boards.

I'm just saying that it's common knowledge that your country bans weapons instead of making people with weapons responsible. The result? The banned weapons crimes have increased. and yet you twits keep arguing how righteous the ban is and trying to say anyone showing you the freaking reality in crime stats there is wrong. There. simple enough for ya?

I'll take that as a "no" then. Goodbye!

 

[a_unique_person]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Guns for Tots"

Don't confuse boards. Civil isn't a requirement here and frankly, I don't have that feeling towards you and your smug/whiny approach at the other boards.

I'm just saying that it's common knowledge that your country bans weapons instead of making people with weapons responsible. The result? The banned weapons crimes have increased. and yet you twits keep arguing how righteous the ban is and trying to say anyone showing you the freaking reality in crime stats there is wrong. There. simple enough for ya?

they've got a long way to go till they get to your crime rates.

 

[Hazelip]

Not one thing you said...NOT ONE THING...matches any claim I've made in this entire thread. And I've clarified it so many times in so many different ways it's ridiculous to think that any reasonable person could still misunderstand me.

Lie. A flat-out lie. I quoted everything you wrote, and in the very first post of this thread, you say that police should be punished.

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Re: "Guns for Tots"

The question's not invalid. Being unaware of an instance of some phenomenom does not invalidate an argument anyway, but regardless--have a look at the photo at the end of the link.

That photo is of a replica pistol, not a toy pistol.

Read the article. You made the comment about the argument making sense *over here*, here's a chance to familiarise yourself with the situation.

My flippant comment notwithstanding, I didn't want this to degenerate into another US vs. UK thread, but since you seem insistent on it:

Young people brandishing toys and replicas can cause confusion and result in needless police call-outs, he said.

They're worried about call-outs, not deaths as the NYC politicians are.

"I used to have toy guns and I used to be out there playing cowboys and indians and all the normal sorts of games, but places and cities do change," Mr Oddie said.

"Gee, I tell ya, these kids today..."

"I have lived in this city now for 24 years and it is a fantastic place and most of the changes have been positive, but this summer since July we have had 31shootings in the city - that is unheard of."

Wait a minute, I thought gun related crime was going down after the wonderfully successful handgun ban?

"I think it is outrageous in modern society that you can go and buy something that looks identical to the real firearm.

Oh, and minors can buy nonalcoholic beer, too! What's this world coming to????

He did say, however, that he would not be in favot of a ban on toy guns, only replica guns.

Ummm--okay. I'm not actually arguing justifications for police to open fire. You confuse me with Hazelip, perchance?

Sorry 'bout that. These long threads get confusing.

 

[shanek]

Lie. A flat-out lie. I quoted everything you wrote, and in the very first post of this thread, you say that police should be punished.

But not with regards to toys altered to look like real weapons! And that qualifier was in every single one of your comments about my claims!

Why can't you understand the very simple and obvious distinction between a police officer encountering someone with a toy modified to look like a real weapon and using that to commit a crime, and someone playing with an unmodified toy gun?

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Guns for Tots"

they've got a long way to go till they get to your crime rates.

Keep banning inanimate objects. You'll get there soon enough.

 

[Shaun from Scotland]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Guns for Tots"

Don't confuse boards. Civil isn't a requirement here and frankly, I don't have that feeling towards you and your smug/whiny approach at the other boards.

I'm just saying that it's common knowledge that your country bans weapons instead of making people with weapons responsible. The result? The banned weapons crimes have increased. and yet you twits keep arguing how righteous the ban is and trying to say anyone showing you the freaking reality in crime stats there is wrong. There. simple enough for ya?

No, not simple enough, simplistic enough.

Oh and incidentally, according to gunowners.org homicides involving guns in the USA are about 7.59 per 100,000 of the population. Scotland, with a population of 5 million, had 5 homicides with handguns in 2001...

Im sure you can do the math........


I'll take my chances here thank you very much.......

 

[BillyTK]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Guns for Tots"

My flippant comment notwithstanding,

Well, why didn't you say so sooner? Could've avoided a lot of unnecessaryness. If that's the case, then apologies for taking your comment out of context.

Sorry 'bout that. These long threads get confusing.

No problem. We all make mistakes

 

[heath]

Lie. A flat-out lie. I quoted everything you wrote, and in the very first post of this thread, you say that police should be punished.

Am I the only person that has put ShaneK on ignore since he degenerated into a one issue troll (2-3 months ago)?

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Guns for Tots"

Oh and incidentally, according to gunowners.org homicides involving guns in the USA are about 7.59 per 100,000 of the population. Scotland, with a population of 5 million, had 5 homicides with handguns in 2001...

Im sure you can do the math........

And yet again, I point out the invalidity of cross-culteral comparisons. Interstinjg that you keep clinging to it, as if that one invalid point were the only one that supported your side...

 

[shanek]

Am I the only person that has put ShaneK on ignore since he degenerated into a one issue troll (2-3 months ago)?

One issue troll??? Let's see, right now I'm debating:

Gun control
Roadside monuments
Public education
The upcoming Iraq war
The War on Drugs
The National Debt (including the dangers of a fiat currency as experienced by the Continental Congress)
Alleged racist activity by Chrysler employees
School prayer

And that's just off the top of my head.

But, I guess it's easier to ignore some people and call them names than actually consider their arguments...

 

[Shaun from Scotland]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Guns for Tots"

And yet again, I point out the invalidity of cross-culteral comparisons. Interstinjg that you keep clinging to it, as if that one invalid point were the only one that supported your side...

No, I am simply showing that the gun murder figures show that your statement, "Keep banning inanimate objects. You'll get there soon enough" is an utter lie.

Oh and incidentally, if you care to look back through the UK Gun control threads, you will see that the first point I made was the invalidity of cross cultural comparisons. I seem to remember it was your crowd that kept wanting to point out that gun control causes crime in the UK, and you didn't listen to any of the cultural reasons why this was not the case. Remember the point about simplistic interpretations to suit your agenda..........??

Oh, and furthermore I have a whole raft of points why our Gun Laws work. One in a million odds being only just one of them. But go on, just pretend that statistic does not exist. Just pretend that gun crime didn't drop more in the first year of the gun ban than it did in the whole of the previous four years. Funny you never made a little graph for those statistics did you ShaneK.....? I wonder why?

Oh yeah, because it didn't suit you..........

Insert your "strawman" comment to ignore the point when you see fit.................

 

[heath]

shanek This person is on your Ignore List.

It's bound to be something like "I answered this, read my posts <angry face><angry face> <lots of capitals>
...
anti american comunist... um...
anything other than back down on the simplest point....
anything other than examine my strongly help beliefs...

<fingers in ears> La La La. I'm not listening, I'm not listening</fingers in ears>



Your posts used to be interesting ShaneK, that time has passed.

 

[Hazelip]

But not with regards to toys altered to look like real weapons! And that qualifier was in every single one of your comments about my claims!

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/news/WABC_020503_gunsftots.html

That link is from your first post. The post in which you call for punishment of police officers. In that article, it describes BOTH situations, children getting accidentally shot (which you claimed to not even be discussing) and altered toys to fool people.

So, which is it, Shanek?

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Guns for Tots"

No, I am simply showing that the gun murder figures show that your statement, "Keep banning inanimate objects. You'll get there soon enough" is an utter lie.

Except that it's not, as more and more evidence for rising violent crime in Britain shows.

Oh and incidentally, if you care to look back through the UK Gun control threads, you will see that the first point I made was the invalidity of cross cultural comparisons.

Oh, I get it. You think that cross-cultural comparisons are invalid, so that's why you keep making them. Makes perfect sense.

I seem to remember it was your crowd that kept wanting to point out that gun control causes crime in the UK, and you didn't listen to any of the cultural reasons why this was not the case.

That is not the same as a cross-cultural comparison.

Oh, and furthermore I have a whole raft of points why our Gun Laws work.

None of which have held up under scrutiny. Remember the graphs I made from your source?

As for the other statistics, the reason why I didn't graph them is that the raw data simply wasn't there to graph. Nor did you present the raw data when asked.

 

[shanek]

It's bound to be something like "I answered this, read my posts <angry face><angry face> <lots of capitals>
...
anti american comunist... um...
anything other than back down on the simplest point....
anything other than examine my strongly help beliefs...

<fingers in ears> La La La. I'm not listening, I'm not listening</fingers in ears>

I'm just going to let this bit of childishness speak for itself.

Your posts used to be interesting ShaneK, that time has passed.

Oddly enough, this seems to be about the same time that I started rebutting all of heath's points...Hmmm....

 

[shanek]

That link is from your first post. The post in which you call for punishment of police officers. In that article, it describes BOTH situations, children getting accidentally shot (which you claimed to not even be discussing) and altered toys to fool people.

So, which is it, Shanek?

I have answered this question several times! Why do you refuse to listen to me?

Maybe if I say it monosyllabically you'll get it:

1) Kid paints gun, gun look real, kid does crime, cop shoot kid. Cop not bad.

2) Kid has toy gun, toy gun still look like toy gun, cop shoot kid anyway, cop need train good.

Capice???

 

[Shaun from Scotland]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Guns for Tots"

Except that it's not, as more and more evidence for rising violent crime in Britain shows.

Please tell me how the murder rate in Scotland is anywhere near US levels?

Please also explain why the British Crime Survey is showing crime falling?


Oh, I get it. You think that cross-cultural comparisons are invalid, so that's why you keep making them. Makes perfect sense.

No, YOU are the one maintaining gun laws cause crime. You have not refuted a single point I made about different cultural circumstances. Please tell me where "I keep making them!? I have made ONE comparison in all the times I have posted. Another lie from you. Show me ANY post where I have told the people of the USA what they should do regarding their gun laws?



That is not the same as a cross-cultural comparison.

It is absolutely implicit in your argument that the USA's lax gun laws are better. Don't even begin to claim that's not the case ShaneK.

None of which have held up under scrutiny. Remember the graphs I made from your source?

Yeah, that will be the ones posted in response to you asking to show ANY reduction in crime. When I did you changed the goalposts to argue about a fall in the RATE of crime. Nice try, but I saw through that one.

As for the other statistics, the reason why I didn't graph them is that the raw data simply wasn't there to graph. Nor did you present the raw data when asked.

Lies again. There is as much raw data in the Scotland gun crime figures as in the Scotland overall crime figures. You didn't like the gun crime figures so you ignored them.

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Guns for Tots"

Lies again. There is as much raw data in the Scotland gun crime figures as in the Scotland overall crime figures. You didn't like the gun crime figures so you ignored them.

I made charts out of the overall figures and not the gun crimes figures because the last time I tried that, you and a_u_p jumped all over my case for being "selective" with the data.

But apparently, you can be selective all you want.