If There Were No Antis What Gun Laws Would You Have?

[Duke of Doubt]

Titan: "Hmm, well everything you are saying seems to indicate that there is more crime today than 1968, the opposite of what you said a few posts ago. I certainly would have to disagree about fraud being more prevalent in 1968 as well. A lot of fraud now occurs with the actor outside of the US victimizing someone inside the US or occurs on such large scale (Billions and billions of dollars) that there is no way to say there is less fraud now than there was in 1968."

No, what I'm saying is that it's hard to compare the two times for crime rates. For example, your "FBI figures" for murder in 1968 do not include abortions, even though abortion was murder in 1968. Accordingly, their figures are too low by far for 1968 murders, and should be higher.

As to fraud, in 1968 all you had to do was steal somebody's credit card and you were golden. You'd buy merchandise at one store with the stolen card, return it to another store, pocket the cash and leave town. Huge credit card theft rings with ties to OC existed in all major cities back then. Credit card fraud still exists, but its golden age is long gone.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Not because you are true anti but because you want to restrict freedoms in ways that are illogical.

You know what? Every factual claim he has made that we can check (for example, his screed on crime rates) turns out to be untrue.

So when he says he's pro-Second Amendment, has a CCW, carries daily, and so on . . .

 

[Duke of Doubt]

Titan: "You are getting lumped in; in the same fashion that Zumbo was. Not because you are true anti but because you want to restrict freedoms in ways that are illogical. Also you lie and make stuff up to support your bogus positions."

1. I don't know who Zumbo was.

2. You sure like to make a lot of accusations without specifics. My favorite line of yours is "probably a lie." There is a differrence between saying something that is incorrect, or saying something controversial with different answers, and deliberately lying.

3. I think your positions are laughably bogus. That doesn't make you a liar.

 

[Funderb]

Duke, you have to admit, you came on to a board full of people that love, i mean love, firearms, and shooting, take tremendous pride in their ability to defend there home and proper, you then proceeded to dump a poop load of legislation that embitters the near entirety of the board, and call it "common sense".

What did you think would happen?

 

[Duke of Doubt]

Vern: "You know what? Every factual claim he has made that we can check (for example, his screed on crime rates) turns out to be untrue."

Again, just because you found one set of figures which you think supports your position (I disagree), does not make all contrary statements by anyone else "lies." With your level of self-righteousness, you must have been a real handful in nursery school.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

Funderb: "Duke, you have to admit, you came on to a board full of people that love, i mean love, firearms, and shooting, take tremendous pride in their ability to defend there home and proper, you then proceeded to dump a poop load of legislation that embitters the near entirety of the board, and call it "common sense". What did you think would happen?"

I answered the OP's question. My proposals, with few exceptions, are considerably less restrictive than actual current law. Those who think they'll just find or make a world where no laws exist are delusional.

 

[Funderb]

yeah, but you are taking a hypothetical really really seriously.
This kind of thing happens when you invade people's utopias.

I'm sure in this hypothetical situation you could just have fun imagining a world with no antis, not because they aren't there, but because they don't need to be.
out with the realism, in with the fantasy....

 

[Duke of Doubt]

Sometimes the balloon needs to be pricked before the pricks balloon.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Sometimes the balloon needs to be pricked before the pricks balloon.

In your case, we were too late.

Now you used scatology earlier. Here you "cleverly" use a vulgar word for penis. Can't you behave like a gentleman?

 

[Titan6]

Zumbo:

Jim Zumbo is a formerly prominent firearms and hunting commentator and writer. Until February 2007, he was the Hunting Editor for Outdoor Life magazine and host of the television program Jim Zumbo Outdoors on The Outdoor Channel. He was removed from both positions after he condemned the use of non-traditional looking, semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15 and AK-47 for hunting in his blog. On July 3, 2007 Zumbo's TV show went back on the air.

From his BLOG (second to last entry FEB 16, 2007):

I must be living in a vacuum. The guides on our hunt tell me that the use of AR and AK rifles have a rapidly growing following among hunters, especially prairie dog hunters. I had no clue. Only once in my life have I ever seen anyone using one of these firearms. I call them "assault" rifles, which may upset some people. Excuse me, maybe I'm a traditionalist, but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity. I'll go so far as to call them "terrorist" rifles. They tell me that some companies are producing assault rifles that are "tackdrivers." Sorry, folks, in my humble opinion, these things have no place in hunting. We don't need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them, which is an obvious concern. I've always been comfortable with the statement that hunters don't use assault rifles. We've always been proud of our "sporting firearms." This really has me concerned. As hunters, we don't need the image of walking around the woods carrying one of these weapons. To most of the public, an assault rifle is a terrifying thing. Let's divorce ourselves from them. I say game departments should ban them from the praries [sic] and woods.[2]

Zumbo wanted to ban guns based upon an irrational prejudice to and what he believed to the right POV for pro-gun. I am not surprised you don't see the similarity. He was not a true anti-gunner in that he owned hundreds of firearms personally and held otherwise moderate views.

An irrational prejudice such as thinking that 18 year old teens are not mature enough to protect themselves and should be singled out for criminal attacks is kind of where we are headed there.

2. You sure like to make a lot of accusations without specifics. My favorite line of yours is "probably a lie." There is a difference between saying something that is incorrect, or saying something controversial with different answers, and deliberately lying.

Ok, we will go with the last one first. Where are the crime record numbers from 1878 that you said were higher than 2008? And where are the numbers from all of 2008? Go ahead and prove me wrong.....

3. I think your positions are laughably bogus. That doesn't make you a liar.

Yes I know that, but the difference is I can prove what I say. Since you can not you get lumped with the antis who talk much, say little and prove nothing.

 

[Funderb]

come onnnnn guyyyyssssss.
geeeeeeeeeze.

This need to be done.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

Disputing the applicability or validity of somebody's cited figures does not make one a "liar," any more than opposing the notion of arming six year old children makes one a "fascist."

Calling me a fascist and a liar wasn't exactly "taking the high road."

 

[Duke of Doubt]

Your Zumbo was mistaken. Around here, guys hunt coyotes with ARs, at night, over bait, legally. It is considered a public service. And fun.

 

[Titan6]

Disputing the applicability or validity of somebody's cited figures does not make one a "liar," any more than opposing the notion of arming six year old children makes one a "fascist."

You did not cite.

You made it up.

A lie (also called prevarication), is a type of deception in the form of an untruthful statement, especially with the intention to deceive others, often with the further intention to maintain a secret or reputation, protect someone's feelings or to avoid a punishment. To lie is to state something that one knows to be false or that one has not reasonably ascertained to be true with the intention that it be taken for the truth by oneself or someone else.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

Just because I won't do your research for you doesn't mean I'm making things up. After decades of study and practice, I have some informed opinions about crime. Some of those opinions may be wrong. But they are not baseless; I've seen all sorts of studies over the years, and see no need to compile a comprehensive list of sources which you'd just ignore anyway.

 

[expvideo]

No one single study, Vern. Mostly general reading in the area of criminal law and criminal justice. I'm also not just referring to violent crime.

Keep in mind that a lot of crime occurring in 1968 is not considered crime today, and so would not be comparable or included in 1968 figures prepared today. For example, abortion was murder in 1968, but the murder rates for 1968 in Titan's graphs do not include abortions. Marijuana possession was criminal in 1968, and arrest figures reflect that, but marijuana has been de facto or de jure decriminalized in many states today, so we do not think of marijuana possession as a crime as they did in 1968, and so modern figures do not include pot possession crimes for 1968 as "drug crime". Fraud was considerably easier and more prevalent in 1968 than in 2008 as well. And then there are all the crimes created post 1968 via RICO. It's probably an apples and oranges problem. It's easy to compare figures for, say, bank robberies, but that is a small fraction of all crime.

Well I was going to tell you that your comparison was pointless, but you seem to have proven that much more effectively than I ever could have. Bravo.

Calling me a fascist and a liar wasn't exactly "taking the high road."

He called you a statist. YOU called you a facist.


To his credit, while I completely disagree with most of what he has said, DoD has been able to maintain a 14 page debate without mentioning nazis or reducing his arguement to name calling. He's taken all that we can throw at him and he's still arguing. I don't agree with him, but you've got to give him a little credit, arguing with all of us at once and not looking like a complete idiot.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Just because I won't do your research for you doesn't mean I'm making things up. After decades of study and practice, I have some informed opinions about crime.

But no cites.

Let me give you a hint -- a man wh had really studied, and who had truly informed opinions would have given us more cites than we can handle.

But you haven't -- in fact, all the cites have been coming from the other side, and they refute your opinions.

Let me ask you a question. I have been doing a study. Would you mind telling me if you have a younger sibling, and what the age difference is?

 

[Duke of Doubt]

That's a pretty odd personal question, Vern.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

So are you going to answer it or not?

 

[Duke of Doubt]

I don't think I should. Why are you curious about my family?

 

[Titan6]

Just because I won't do your research for you doesn't mean I'm making things up. After decades of study and practice, I have some informed opinions about crime. Some of those opinions may be wrong. But they are not baseless; I've seen all sorts of studies over the years, and see no need to compile a comprehensive list of sources which you'd just ignore anyway.

Ahh, pretty please show me your research. I am sure it something to proud of and so much better than the 2.3 seconds it took for my google search to prove you wrong.

You are the one that made the baseless statement, refused to cite anything and then refused to bring anything to the table despite repeated requests, now based upon (a completely unfounded) premise that it would be ignored. Unless you are citing the VPC or some other similar bastion of truth I promise I will read it and not make fun of it.

But since it would dispute the DOJ numbers it would have to be pretty strong stuff.

 

[Titan6]

Why are you curious about my family?

I think I know why....

 

[Duke of Doubt]

Okay, this book contains some interesting insights:

http://www.amazon.com/American-Decline-Studies-Public-Policy/dp/0195181158

So ... why the interest in whether I have younger siblings? I guess I don't mind saying that I am not an only child. I like to use the "only child" line, too, and am seldom if ever mistaken when I predict that someone was an only child. Was that it?

 

[MikePGS]

This is a trick question. If there are no anti's there are no gun laws.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I like to use the "only child" line, too, and am seldom if ever mistaken when I predict that someone was an only child. Was that it?

No. It's just a study I'm doing on personalities on the internet.