again, I never said people handguns should be taken away. I definitely never abdicated using a rifle for home defense. however as of yesterday I am now abdicating that people who think HI-point carbines are cool and are good rifles be put in camps
Programmed to be anti-gun
- Thread starter Gouranga
- Start date
- Status
again, I never said people handguns should be taken away. I definitely never abdicated using a rifle for home defense. however as of yesterday I am now abdicating that people who think HI-point carbines are cool and are good rifles be put in camps
You mean folks of modest means should be put in camps for wanting an inexpensive carbine that has been proven to be reliable and is minimally effective for using for home defense like the more expensive shotgun you advocate? Refer to your first post if you can't remember telling folks that a shotgun was all that was needed.
Your arguments have been like horse apples falling through the enormous holes in the logic you've used. You've stated outright erroneous opinion as fact in the face of statistics and facts presented to you, appealed to racism and bigotry on a board who's prime administrator is a Muslim, you've used sweeping generalizations and ad hominem attacks trying to discredit anyone who would point out those holes and the nature of your arguments to deflect attention from the facts presented to you and once again you return to racist imagery. In spite of claiming to be a gun dealer in NY, I'd find the opinions you've presented to be consistent with that shameful minority I see at some shows here in TN ranting about "camps" and "those people".
I applaud the members of THR who have taken the time to counter each and every fallacious argument and pointed out the consistently inconsistent claims you've made that serve to highlight the OPs contention that far too many people have been fed a line of hooey and have swallowed it hook line and sinker.
Last edited:
Deanimator
Member
I'm sure he'll be along shortly to "clarify" that to mean that it only applies to "Muslim clerics".
The only thing he's "abdicated" (sic) so far is the role of rational thinker.
winknplink
Member
Wow, how is this guy still here?
Is this THR material? Really?
This ^ for the win. You can't argue with folks who treat opinion as fact...or a person who can't differentiate between the two. Continually throwing facts at his feet obviously does not work...this thread will go on forever as he obviously hasn't the common sense to know when he is wrong, nor how to cope with being corrected.
Is this THR material? Really?
This ^ for the win. You can't argue with folks who treat opinion as fact...or a person who can't differentiate between the two. Continually throwing facts at his feet obviously does not work...this thread will go on forever as he obviously hasn't the common sense to know when he is wrong, nor how to cope with being corrected.
Last edited:
winkplink,
Yes, it is. Group think is never a good thing. Having a diversity of opinion and vigorous civil debate is healthy and can help to get everyone to shake off their comfortable opinions and examine them again.
It also helps the huge number of people who simply visit THR "listen" to the debate and realize that their opinions that have been based on Anti propaganda might not be as reasonable as they thought. Helping fence sitters off of their uncomfortable position and onto the rational side is important in preserving and restoring our rights.
Whether lopezni is just a mole/troll, an unwitting bigot who thinks certain racial/ethnic groups can't be trusted, or someone who is naive and needs to examine the mis/disinformation they've been fed all their life against the facts presented here, it allows everyone here to see how to constructively deal with opinions like his.
And, as improbable as it seems, we might even get him to drop the lies and prejudice he's shown here and understand that gun owners are already are just like the responsible reasonable people he keeps advocating gun owners should be.
Yes, it is. Group think is never a good thing. Having a diversity of opinion and vigorous civil debate is healthy and can help to get everyone to shake off their comfortable opinions and examine them again.
It also helps the huge number of people who simply visit THR "listen" to the debate and realize that their opinions that have been based on Anti propaganda might not be as reasonable as they thought. Helping fence sitters off of their uncomfortable position and onto the rational side is important in preserving and restoring our rights.
Whether lopezni is just a mole/troll, an unwitting bigot who thinks certain racial/ethnic groups can't be trusted, or someone who is naive and needs to examine the mis/disinformation they've been fed all their life against the facts presented here, it allows everyone here to see how to constructively deal with opinions like his.
And, as improbable as it seems, we might even get him to drop the lies and prejudice he's shown here and understand that gun owners are already are just like the responsible reasonable people he keeps advocating gun owners should be.
Last edited:
winknplink
Member
Good point(s).
I digress.
I digress.
Gouranga
Member
x2 hso....
As I pointed out, I was once among the rank and file who followed the propaganda lines. Almost all of them have been thrown out including a couple I have not ever heard (Muslim Cleric remark is a good example here).
Would be easy for anyone on here to throw out a quick dismissal of anti statements and walk off. Instead we have 5 pages of facts, stats and counter opinions to about every Anti argument I have heard. Not just that but thrown out in a rational, careful manner. Just having that info in one thread (I am sure it is in others as well), is worth the read, IMO. I mean you could almost print this out and make a pamphlet out of it to hand out to anti's or more importantly those on the fence on the discussion.
As I pointed out, I was once among the rank and file who followed the propaganda lines. Almost all of them have been thrown out including a couple I have not ever heard (Muslim Cleric remark is a good example here).
Would be easy for anyone on here to throw out a quick dismissal of anti statements and walk off. Instead we have 5 pages of facts, stats and counter opinions to about every Anti argument I have heard. Not just that but thrown out in a rational, careful manner. Just having that info in one thread (I am sure it is in others as well), is worth the read, IMO. I mean you could almost print this out and make a pamphlet out of it to hand out to anti's or more importantly those on the fence on the discussion.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
lopezni said:
Yes, can't have those people without lots of money having guns can we?
Every time you post something you sound more racist and elitist. More of the typical anti gun rhetoric. There are some "special" people who should have guns, and the peons should be disarmed. Why am I not surprised.
Deanimator
Member
No doubt he'd apply the "paper bag test", and not just for guns, probably for voting and home ownership too.
Neverwinter
Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2008
- Messages
- 1,049
We can't ever be free of programming. It develops through your social interactions and the media that you consume. To participate successfully in society, you have to agree to be programmed into following certain mores.
The best you can do as an individual is to maintain awareness of how your programming affects your thoughts and actions while being open to information which merits reconsideration of your current principles.
The best you can do as an individual is to maintain awareness of how your programming affects your thoughts and actions while being open to information which merits reconsideration of your current principles.
winknplink
Member
Oooh, Good post.
Shadow material recognition...existentialism...on THR...you wouldn't happen to be a Carl Jung fan, would ya?
Neverwinter,
I agree, excellent observation. Our view of the world is subjective based on the sum of our experiences and influences, good or bad. When presented with objective facts we can either honestly take that in and modify our view of the world or dishonestly reject those facts to cling to our more comfortable perspectives. Humans don't like change and changing their mind on a whole network of supporting prejudices is particularly uncomfortable.
I agree, excellent observation. Our view of the world is subjective based on the sum of our experiences and influences, good or bad. When presented with objective facts we can either honestly take that in and modify our view of the world or dishonestly reject those facts to cling to our more comfortable perspectives. Humans don't like change and changing their mind on a whole network of supporting prejudices is particularly uncomfortable.
winknplink
Member
yup.
denial, projection, integration and/or transmutation.
One more thing should be added to this. Medical treatment back then was very crude. So the reality on violence would show it was even safer in the "wild west" than the pure statistics show.
Today a much greater number of those shot survive and are not part of the murder statistics.
A statistic on the rate of being shot or attacked with other lethal weapons rather than just murdered would show this. Modern cities would score even worse.
The Wild West where just about everyone owned a gun, and many carried one around, was a much safer place. Even when most of them were heavily populated by rugged cowboys, miners, railroad workers, etc, and the most common social places were taverns, bars, and brothels, and there was very few women.
So in an environment where the most common recreational activity after a hard day's work was getting drunk, gambling, and many people carried sidearms, it had better statistics than today's gun control capitols.
The myth of the dangers was primarily encouraged by east coast newspapers. They would tell long drawn own accounts of many of the murders out west. So there was few per year, but they received extensive coverage. Even more than local murders.The people in the east were fascinated with how different the culture was, and used it as a sort of fantasy.
This is why things like Buffalo Bill's Wild West shows were so popular for years, both on the East Coast and in Europe from the 1870s on, and similar shows into the early 1900s.
This kept the fantasy alive until Hollywood got in on the act and immortalized it in films.
Last edited:
DeepSouth
Random Guy
When the LA riots happened hundreds, if not thousands, of people could not protect themselves because of the waiting period. Is that how you want it? People who are in danger of loosing their lives not being able to protect themselves because they have to wait for 4 references.
BTW: What do you the chances are of an active Military Major, with no criminal back ground, getting a handgun in NY? I say probably pretty good
you said
"I don't think the judge would have accepted an Islamic Cleric as a reference."
I'll bet your wrong.
To the OP.
I Love Alabama. I have never met an anti face to face in my life.
Quote:
* In Abilene, Ellsworth, Wichita, Dodge City, and Caldwell, for the years from 1870 to 1885, there were only 45 total homicides. This equates to a rate of approximately 1 murder per 100,000 residents per year.
* In Abilene, supposedly one of the wildest of the cow towns, not a single person was killed in 1869 or 1870.
Zooming forward over a century to 2007, a quick look at Uniform Crime Report statistics shows us the following regarding the aforementioned gun control “paradise” cities of the east:
* DC – 183 Murders (31 per 100,000 residents)
* New York – 494 Murders (6 per 100,000 residents)
* Baltimore – 281 Murders (45 per 100,000 residents)
* Newark – 104 Murders (37 per 100,000 residents)
-- from "Frontier Violence: Another Look"
So in fact the gun control Meccas of the US the murder rate is HIGHER than your Wild West.
These numbers are entertaining, but how can they actually be statistically meaningful?
Just as one example, you don't think that comparable population density would have an overall affect on the numbers?
I mean, if you took 25 million 1880's wild west folks and put them inside the same town, would anyone expect the same ratio's per 100,000 to hold true?
And that's just one external factor difference. What about the lifestyle and work type/time required? Differences in potential social interactions and/or disagreements, etc.
I'm not trying to bash the point, but let's not get crazy about what those numbers really mean in a projection forward.
* In Abilene, Ellsworth, Wichita, Dodge City, and Caldwell, for the years from 1870 to 1885, there were only 45 total homicides. This equates to a rate of approximately 1 murder per 100,000 residents per year.
* In Abilene, supposedly one of the wildest of the cow towns, not a single person was killed in 1869 or 1870.
Zooming forward over a century to 2007, a quick look at Uniform Crime Report statistics shows us the following regarding the aforementioned gun control “paradise” cities of the east:
* DC – 183 Murders (31 per 100,000 residents)
* New York – 494 Murders (6 per 100,000 residents)
* Baltimore – 281 Murders (45 per 100,000 residents)
* Newark – 104 Murders (37 per 100,000 residents)
-- from "Frontier Violence: Another Look"
So in fact the gun control Meccas of the US the murder rate is HIGHER than your Wild West.
These numbers are entertaining, but how can they actually be statistically meaningful?
Just as one example, you don't think that comparable population density would have an overall affect on the numbers?
I mean, if you took 25 million 1880's wild west folks and put them inside the same town, would anyone expect the same ratio's per 100,000 to hold true?
And that's just one external factor difference. What about the lifestyle and work type/time required? Differences in potential social interactions and/or disagreements, etc.
I'm not trying to bash the point, but let's not get crazy about what those numbers really mean in a projection forward.
Gouranga
Member
Well it is not apples to apples but then again, this is a point anti's bring up. I have read plenty of books and stories on it and the only way they have to quantify it is, the same stats they use now.
If there were shootings left and right as folks have tried to pass around, regardless of the population density I would expect Abilene for example to have a LOT more murders than none in 1869 or 1870. Especially when you consider they carried weapons while drinking in saloons, I would expect it to be MUCH higher.
Population density does make a difference in crime, that is certain and density in Abilene, Wichita, Dodge City, and Caldwell in the 1870's I am sure is way below DC, NYC, Baltimore, and/or Newark but I would still expect these numbers to be closer if the Wild West was the crazed, insane world it is portrayed as.
Folks bring up the OK Coral and these big shootouts. I would counter with the gang battle at Lancaster speedway in NY and a major shootout we had in one of the Mecklenburg County parks a few years ago (with a mess of illegal guns).
If there were shootings left and right as folks have tried to pass around, regardless of the population density I would expect Abilene for example to have a LOT more murders than none in 1869 or 1870. Especially when you consider they carried weapons while drinking in saloons, I would expect it to be MUCH higher.
Population density does make a difference in crime, that is certain and density in Abilene, Wichita, Dodge City, and Caldwell in the 1870's I am sure is way below DC, NYC, Baltimore, and/or Newark but I would still expect these numbers to be closer if the Wild West was the crazed, insane world it is portrayed as.
Folks bring up the OK Coral and these big shootouts. I would counter with the gang battle at Lancaster speedway in NY and a major shootout we had in one of the Mecklenburg County parks a few years ago (with a mess of illegal guns).
Officers'Wife
Member
I was a foster child in the city of Chicago from age 8 to 11. I can say that at least within the set of foster parents in that particular city there is a tendency to brainwash against civilian handgun use.
When I arrived at the farm in Indiana the firearm of choice was the rifle. To this day I have very little use for a handgun. However, when the person with that handgun acts as if he or she also possesses a modicum of common sense and common decency I don't worry about their choices in weapons.
Going back to my late uncle's observation: There are some that could own heavy machine guns without worry. Others that make me nervous when they pick up a butter knife. My uncle was far more qualified to teach life lessons than the city of Chicago.
When I arrived at the farm in Indiana the firearm of choice was the rifle. To this day I have very little use for a handgun. However, when the person with that handgun acts as if he or she also possesses a modicum of common sense and common decency I don't worry about their choices in weapons.
Going back to my late uncle's observation: There are some that could own heavy machine guns without worry. Others that make me nervous when they pick up a butter knife. My uncle was far more qualified to teach life lessons than the city of Chicago.
Can't speak to that, but here in FL, to get a CWP, you have to get a certificate, so figure a week to sign up and then take that. Then you have to schedule a visit to the Dept of Agriculture, which is a 6-week wait, and then the paperwork takes 4 to 6 weeks to go through. So all told you're close to 4 months before you're legal to carry. Moral of that story is "don't wait until you need armament, but get yourself prepared in advance of trouble."
Not in this case, like I explained in post #114. The most common recreational activity at the time (with no electronics, and not enough women for most men to even have families) was getting drunk in social environments. Like taverns, saloons.
Population density does not matter in that case because 100 people in a saloon or 100 people in a modern night club is still 100 people.
Since this is what the majority of people did for recreation, most of the population put themselves into such densely populated environments on a regular basis, and consumed alcohol while in possession of firearms, and gambling on top of that.
By comparison today most people do not visit the local bar or night club after work each day. Those who do so frequently are within a specific and limited demographic, not the majority like back then. Most today go home. Where they are with a far lower number of people.
So one could argue that while a lower number of people lived per square mile, most packed themselves into high population density environments almost daily for recreation after work.
So in fact the percentage of people who chose to pack themselves together in dense environments on a regular basis was greater then than today. In the wild west with few women, not many families as a result (tends to lead to more violence), mainly rugged men, and a lot of weapons, where recreation was drinking and gambling in dense social environments....
There was far fewer violent attacks than today.
As I also said in post #114, a significantly higher number of those who were attacked died, so the rates of murder alone don't even show how much safer it was as many more attacked today survive the injuries and are not part of the murder statistic who would have been back then.
Last edited:
Deanimator
Member
I'll bet you think that the heavily debunked "43 times" fairy story is "statistically meaningful".
Nothing that doesn't support repressive, invidiously racist gun controls is going to be "statistically meaningful" to you and those of your ilk.
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
The point is that the statistics are useful in dispelling the myth that anti gun people perpetuate that the old west was somehow an inherehntly violent place, and that allowing modern citizens to carry defensive arms would return us to a supposedly violent society.
Certainly one can't draw a direct correlation between the old west and modern America, but then if such statistical comparisons are invalid, then so too is the argument that modern concealed carry by citizens in the 21st century will turn them into brutish savages who have shootouts on mainstreet.
Really, I'm somewhat surprised I even have to point this out.
We actually only have a couple of thousand Muslims serving in our military. Considering that we have about 3 million (unless you use inflated CAIR numbers) in the US that doesn't seem like a large amount that love the US and wish to defend their country.
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
Let's not get this thread locked by turning the discussion to one of religion.
There's not enough information to draw dramatic conclusions about those numbers. They are entertaining, not enlightening. That was my only point.
It's not a 'gun' thing. It's not an 'anti' or 'pro' thing. It's simply a comparison "thing". I'm glad to see some people get it. These are fun numbers to talk about on a barstool, but they have no real dramatic social meaning either way.
You simply can't take numbers and compare them without understanding the underlying environmental and social components that contribute to those numbers and comparisons. It would be like taking car accident rates in 1908, comparing them to car accidents rates in 2009 and trying to draw conclusions about road safety without factoring in anything else It might be entertaining (to those of us who like analysis), but not particularly valuable or enlightening.
Zoogster, as far as I can tell you state some impressions about social behaviors, not facts. Your posts are filled with words like:
'significantly, was greater then, mainly, frequently are within a specific, etc'.
There's no numbers or definitions around anything you're saying, nor do you give any idea where you're getting this info. It's beautiful in a sense, because it SOUNDS so specific but yet can't be proven or rejected because it doesn't actually say anything specific.
Generalized ideas cannot normalize the information you're trying to compare and frankly, the items you speak of are far from an exhaustive list of the variables you would have to consider in such a comparison. I personally don't even believe that some of your generalizations are correct, but that doesn't matter. I doubt you could realistically do a real comparison, there would be too many assumptions and unknowns.
It's not a 'gun' thing. It's not an 'anti' or 'pro' thing. It's simply a comparison "thing". I'm glad to see some people get it. These are fun numbers to talk about on a barstool, but they have no real dramatic social meaning either way.
You simply can't take numbers and compare them without understanding the underlying environmental and social components that contribute to those numbers and comparisons. It would be like taking car accident rates in 1908, comparing them to car accidents rates in 2009 and trying to draw conclusions about road safety without factoring in anything else It might be entertaining (to those of us who like analysis), but not particularly valuable or enlightening.
Zoogster, as far as I can tell you state some impressions about social behaviors, not facts. Your posts are filled with words like:
'significantly, was greater then, mainly, frequently are within a specific, etc'.
There's no numbers or definitions around anything you're saying, nor do you give any idea where you're getting this info. It's beautiful in a sense, because it SOUNDS so specific but yet can't be proven or rejected because it doesn't actually say anything specific.
Generalized ideas cannot normalize the information you're trying to compare and frankly, the items you speak of are far from an exhaustive list of the variables you would have to consider in such a comparison. I personally don't even believe that some of your generalizations are correct, but that doesn't matter. I doubt you could realistically do a real comparison, there would be too many assumptions and unknowns.
- Status
