BF2S Forums Respond To This One And Only Question, STAY ON TOPIC!!!

I'm having trouble responding your post is riddled with such illogical conclusions.

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

So just to fucking clarify:  In case you missed my last post

I AM NOT correlating gun ownership to a DROP IN CRIME

You certainly implied a correlation in gun ownership to drops in crime.

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

I am merely stating it is IMPOSSIBLE to attribute rises in crime to guns or that it is impossible to say "Guns cause crime" in the sense of the overrall effect

Guns cause gun-related crimes, because without guns, they wouldn't be 'gun-related'.

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

Of course guns cause crimes on the micro level, duh, and guns save lives, quite a few more than they kill.  BUT NOW WE'RE GETTING OFF TOPIC.

Sorry Albert, but you've never shown any evidence of your opinion that guns save more lives than they take. In fact, the thought that a tool designed for the sole purpose of killing or maiming could save a life without taking one.

Oh, sorry we're not on the "Albert Wesker is right" topic anymore.

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

Also, thank you to the people that ACTUALLY answered the question, because there is only one arrivable conclusion that you cannot correlate anything to a drop in crime, and conversely you cannot correlate any one thing to a rise in crime, namely guns.

You can correlate many things to a drop in crime, a couple of examples would be the presence of a police force and a penitentury system.

You are partially correct, guns do not correlate to an overall rise in crime, but it is possible that increases in restrictions on guns can correlate to decreases in specific types of crime.

P.S. You really seem to be getting aggrevated, perhaps you should cool down a bit, it might aid you in logical thinking.

Last edited by jonsimon (2006-09-05 11:07:49)

eagles1106 wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

lowlife gang bangers piss their pants and run to momma when they see a flash of steel in their direction.

lol its like theres a gangbanger RIGHT behind you as you type, hehe
*off topic*Im afraid of stingrays now...lol...

dont make assumptions, they make you look like an ass

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

Shipbuilder sorry, missed that, sure I agree

but once again neither you nor jonsi have even answered my question

How can crime be this far down and still going down when firearm ownership and the amount of firearms are on the rise???

- As I said, crime is not still going down.
- Do you have any statistics showing that firearm ownership per capita is on the rise? Otherwise, I can't believe you.

TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION: If it is true that firearm ownership is going up whilst crime statistics are down sharply over the past 13 years, then clearly other factors have much more of a bearing on crime statistics than does per-capita gun ownership.

But I don't think anyone was suggesting that an increase in per-capita gun ownership would correlate to an increase in crime. Certainly I never did, because it's clearly just not true. In which post did someone else say so? And if not, what was the reason for the post in the first place?

guns force people to go out and rob old ladies and teachers

Albert, the argument against gun sales in the other threads was never 'guns cause crime', so why do you feel the need to make that point so clear?

TinMaN wrote:

I read somewhere a while back that most people who commit violent crimes have a predatory mentality, in which they will seek out an easy target, one that they feel that can commit the crime and get away with it.  It is my opinion that these 'easy targets' are getting fewer and fewer because of the large amounts of people that have firearms on their person. 

I have seen quite a few instances in my local town where home invasions backfired on the criminal because the homeowner either shot the invader or shot AT them and they ran away.  If you break it down into the basic urges of a predator/prey situation, even a little old lady with a .45 has a chance of mortally wounding a 19 year old thug intent on taking her purse, which in the predator's mind, isn't worth the chance.  The thug is going to choose to avoid the situation and move on to something else, something they feel they can get away with.

Your are completely right! Most people in our age are what we call "grass eaters". When danger threatens, they shrink away. They are weak and in comstant denial of reality. They adventure too little, hesitate too long, and repent too soon. Grass eaters are easily identified by criminals and are consistently selected for victimization. That's why learning how to preserve your own life and the lives of family members when facing an imminent felonious physical threat by a criminal or criminals is indispensable.


Semper Fi!

jonsimon wrote:

Albert, the argument against gun sales in the other threads was never 'guns cause crime', so why do you feel the need to make that point so clear?

Maybe not yours, but there were others. 

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

Trooper_Collider wrote:

Your are completely right! Most people in our age are what we call "grass eaters". When danger threatens, they shrink away. They are weak and in comstant denial of reality. They adventure too little, hesitate too long, and repent too soon. Grass eaters are easily identified by criminals and are consistently selected for victimization. That's why learning how to preserve your own life and the lives of family members when facing an imminent felonious physical threat by a criminal or criminals is indispensable.


Semper Fi!

Generalities like that are stupid.

??? Care to explain why you feel that way?  Its a basic fundamental of criminal profiling, it certainly does not apply universally but it is neccessary to understand other things.  There's more to it than what Trooper wrote, but thats not the point now is it???

Where is any evidence to back up a claim like that? "Most people now-a-days are pussies!" You'd have to prove not only that a significant majority of the population is "weak" and "in denial of reality", but you also have to prove that everyone before was a big brave superhero. Its a silly thing to say and rather insulting.

oug wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

I don't know why people care so much about these silly gun topics).

It's not that I care so much whether guns are legal in the US or not... It's just that gun supporters' opinion is so far from mine I feel it as a challenge to respond and maybe even convince some of them to see this from a different angle. Clearly I have failed

I say we shoot them all. The irony would be beautiful.

jonsimon wrote:

I say we shoot them all. The irony would be beautiful.

No need... they'll eventually do it themselves

btw wasn't there another thread about concealed arms etc? where is that? I've searched...

This topic is not going anywhere until we start using statistics to prove our points.

"People are pussies these days" "YEAH DUDE!"

Sorry bro that doesn't cut the mustard. Neither do meaningless sound bites like "guns don't kill people do" if you don't actually explain what you mean by that. I can say "guns don't kill, people do" to argue that guns should be banned in the US because the average US citizen is a moron/psycho who can't be trusted with a keyboard and an internet connection let alone a weapon.

Can anyone find any gun ownership statistics? Maybe registered American gun owners?

The_Shipbuilder wrote:

Neither do meaningless sound bites like "guns don't kill people do" if you don't actually explain what you mean by that. I can say "guns don't kill, people do" to argue that guns should be banned in the US because the average US citizen is a moron/psycho who can't be trusted with a keyboard and an internet connection let alone a weapon.

Simple place a loaded gun on the floor. next to a baseball bat, a katana and any other weapon. and have several people stand in a circle arond them. Without any person touching these weapons, how many people were killed?...0. Guns wont kill a person unless the trigger is pulled by another person(yes you could go on about acidental killings by guns being dropped, but there are measures that have been put in place on modern guns for just that reason.)

phnxfrhwk wrote:

The_Shipbuilder wrote:

Neither do meaningless sound bites like "guns don't kill people do" if you don't actually explain what you mean by that. I can say "guns don't kill, people do" to argue that guns should be banned in the US because the average US citizen is a moron/psycho who can't be trusted with a keyboard and an internet connection let alone a weapon.

Simple place a loaded gun on the floor. next to a baseball bat, a katana and any other weapon. and have several people stand in a circle arond them. Without any person touching these weapons, how many people were killed?...0. Guns wont kill a person unless the trigger is pulled by another person(yes you could go on about acidental killings by guns being dropped, but there are measures that have been put in place on modern guns for just that reason.)

But if you remove the gun, and the person simply curls their index finger, no one is killed. Guns ENABLE people to kill people.