Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: Can you believe this crap?

  1. #1
    Regular Member renoglock22's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Greensboro, NC
    Posts
    170

    Can you believe this crap?

    I want to know where they get their stats from. I mean come on, "it's the law abiding citizens with guns committing homicides" WTF.


    http://gunvictimsaction.org/blog/201...uns-yes-we-do/

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by renoglock22 View Post
    I want to know where they get their stats from. I mean come on, "it's the law abiding citizens with guns committing homicides" WTF.


    http://gunvictimsaction.org/blog/201...uns-yes-we-do/
    I think its against the forum rules to answer that question.
    Don't believe any facts that I say! This is the internet and it is filled with lies and untruth. I invite you to look up for yourself the basic facts that my arguments might be based upon. This way we can have a discussion where logic and hints on where to find information are what is brought to the forum and people look up and verify facts for themselves.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,929
    We would have a fraction of the gun homicides we have if only the criminals had guns.
    I think I just gave myself a concussion doing this

  4. #4
    Regular Member .40S&W's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    earth
    Posts
    74
    Well at least they live up to their names, victim. They are victims of pure unbridled ignorance and stupidity. I hate that they are Americans and I hate that I have to say that.
    Never get complacent. Practice situational awareness. Stay alert stay alive.

  5. #5
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    I posted a comment to that blog, pointing out a couple of factual errors, WITH a link so people can check out what I'm saying.
    I doubt it'll get published, but at least the blog owner will know that some people know s/he is a lying sack of...

    Quote Originally Posted by renoglock22
    I want to know where they get their stats from. I mean come on, "it's the law abiding citizens with guns committing homicides" WTF.
    It claims some stats from the FBI:
    Over 50% of U.S. gun homicides are due to arguments not criminals. (FBI Annual Uniform Crime Reports).
    Technically, almost all homicides are due to criminals. Only the justifiable ones aren't (self-defense & lawful police action). If someone is committing a homicide (non-justifiable) s/he is by definition a criminal.
    Looking at the 2010 FBI Violent Crime Report,
    the total murders blamed on "arguments" is 3,396, out of a total victim count of 12,996. That's 26%.
    If you throw in "romantic triangle" & "brawls" it's 3665 for 28%.
    They could accurately say that 2/3 of murders in 2010 were by firearm (8737 / 12946).
    So taking 2/3 of 3665 is 2456, for 19%.
    That's a far cry from the blogger's claim of "over 50%".
    See how bad people in the US have gotten in math?

    The only category that is marked as having anything to do with firearms is "sniper attack": 0.02%.
    (Two one-hundredths of one percent.)

    We would have a fraction of the gun homicides we have if only the criminals had guns.
    Technically true, though misleading.
    100% is a fraction: 1/1.
    Even if they're only referring to the current numbers of criminal homicide, & not lawful self-defense or actions by a LEO, the fraction would still be pretty large. I'm guessing better than 99%.


    As an interesting aside, have a look at the graph toward the bottom of the page here.
    It shows about a 200,000 drop in the number of violent crimes between 2006 & 2010.
    Isn't that interesting?
    Wonder what the numbers of cc licensees & legal gun owners have done during the same time.

    This is rich:
    sales to criminals represent 25% of the Gun Industry’s annual sales.
    (Source: Expert witness report filed as part of the 1999 NAACP lawsuit vs. the Gun Industry.)
    Manufacturers are only allowed to sell to FFLs, aren't they?
    And FFLs can't be prohibited persons or they'd lose their license, right?
    But even if a manuf. could sell to a citizen, there'd have to be a background check, proving that citizen wasn't a prohibited person, right?
    So I think their 'expert witness' is full of hooey.

    According to Wikipedia (I know, not terribly reliable):
    The United Kingdom has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world, and did so even before strict gun control legislation came into force.
    Gun ownership levels have traditionally been low. This was the case even before the imposition of modern firearm legislation.
    (Emphasis added.)
    So it's not the restrictions on freedoms of good people that's causing their firearm-related crime rate to be low.
    Last edited by MKEgal; 02-15-2012 at 04:08 AM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Hardbuck90's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Hobart, WA
    Posts
    76
    Unsurprisingly my comment is awaiting moderation, just to make sure I'm not a big meanie.

    Criminals are interested in getting money, not in killing people
    Most criminals are led by a desire whether it be money or otherwise, It's the pursuit of that leads to violence and sometimes fatalities. Then there are the ones who just want to kill, So as a matter of fact it does happen both ways

    I don't need to go on, I'm just venting...

    I know you guys feel the same way

  7. #7
    Regular Member renoglock22's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Greensboro, NC
    Posts
    170
    Quote Originally Posted by Hardbuck90 View Post
    Unsurprisingly my comment is awaiting moderation, just to make sure I'm not a big meanie.



    yeah my comment is still awaiting moderation as well. It will never be posted..

  8. #8
    Regular Member ThatOneChick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    North Side *Represents*, Utah, USA
    Posts
    118
    It is the law-abiding citizens with guns, not the criminals, who are committing the majority of the gun homicides.
    Erm. How can you be a "law-abiding citizen" if you're breaking the law by committing homicide?
    It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems just with potatoes. --Douglas Adams

    Unless cited, any comments are my personal opinion and may not hold any weight or be correct.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by ThatOneChick View Post
    Erm. How can you be a "law-abiding citizen" if you're breaking the law by committing homicide?
    By the same logic that only "gun homicides" or "gun crimes" matter, not robbery, assault, or other murders that can and are defended against with firearms.
    Don't believe any facts that I say! This is the internet and it is filled with lies and untruth. I invite you to look up for yourself the basic facts that my arguments might be based upon. This way we can have a discussion where logic and hints on where to find information are what is brought to the forum and people look up and verify facts for themselves.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran MSG Laigaie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Philipsburg, Montana
    Posts
    3,135
    Damm, I ended up spending half an hour posting on their page. Everything I read was refutable and I made a bunch of posts.

    They kept using England as a model nation. My mum-in-law is a Brit. When she first saw me open carrying it scared the dickens out of her. Seemed to be ingrained, almost stamped on her DNA. It took a little bit for her to get over it, but MY positive attitude has allowed her to soften.

    "why do you have to wear that gun all the time?" says Mum. "To ensure that no one harms your daughter or your grandchildren, Mum."
    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference .When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." -- George Washington

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    I wrote a very long response to this article, which I think ended up in the wrong thread. I'm going to duplicate it here:

    I've lived in his model country (England). The aspect his argument overlooks is the great difference in culture. In England, it is an accepted fact of life that a person will be regularly victimized by petty (and sometimes no so petty) crime. Not to mention that the regularity of muggings etc. and the acquiescence with which people are condition to respond to such victimization leaves the door wide open for "crime of opportunity" rapes and the like (much more common over there).

    While it is impossible to logically disprove the notion that human life is of a sanctity which justifies such a state of affairs (that is a matter of faith, I suppose, or one's established moral framework), I will merely point out that Americans will not tolerate living in this manner. As an American who has lived over there, I can attest to this fact. Such a way of life is diametrically opposed to the fundamental American values which are ingrained in me to the very core.

    When I was victimized (robbed) while living in England, I had strong feelings of dissatisfaction with my culturally-imposed inability to react by asserting and defending my rights. I soon found that these feelings were not shared by, and in fact were rather mysterious to, most Britons I knew. Most of them seemed to expect that I should accept it as an inevitable occurrence and forget about it. But, as an American, that single event in a way began to define my experience in the country and my notions of English culture -- hence my subsequent repatriation with no regrets.

    I generally have little patience for those who instruct Americans to expatriate at the first hint of dissatisfaction with governmentally-imposed restrictions on common lifestyles -- for instance, gay marriage or marijuana use ("If you don't like it you can git out!") -- but when confronted with such a huge cultural mismatch as demonstrated by this self-declared "patriot", I feel inclined to point out that the man doesn't understand, appreciate, or fit in in his own country.

    Instead of attempting to fundamentally alter the entire culture of the country to which he assigns his so-called "patriotism" in order to emulate a "model" nation from which we rebelled, he should just move the **** to England.

  12. #12
    Regular Member .40S&W's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    earth
    Posts
    74
    I would also like to add that people use firearms for more than just self defense. Hunting, sport shooting, collecting, etc etc come to mind. These people would try to deprive them of their hobbies, and for some a way to kill game so they can eat? Seriously? The GVA belong in an asylum where they can't hurt anybody else with their posionous ideals. smh
    Never get complacent. Practice situational awareness. Stay alert stay alive.

  13. #13
    Regular Member 09jisaac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Louisa, Kentucky
    Posts
    1,694
    Did i surprise anyone that our comments are "awaiting moderation"

    Does anyone know of ANY anti gun website that allows any open opinion? Even ANTI-CARRY posters can join this forum and discuss their opinion. Why? Because we operate on facts, not without bias, but still facts.
    Last edited by 09jisaac; 02-15-2012 at 08:19 PM.

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Retorts are fun (and funny), but let's see if I can respond to some of their claims with some intelligence.

    "There is a country where only the criminal have guns—England." Well, then they turn right around and say citizens can own long guns after jumping through some serious hoops.

    "England is a country very similar to ours." This is a logical fallacy, namely, a fault premise. Actually, we are not "very similar" to England. Sure, we both speak English, but there are some serious philosophical differences between our people. For one, the U.S. is made of adventurers and explorers and their descendants who uprooted themselves and traveled here to start a new life. England is predominantly made of those who remained behind.

    "England has 75 gun homicides per year." The rate is actually 0.07 per 100,000 population, which comes to around 42. Compare that to the U.S.'s 4.8, which comes to about 14,400.

    "There is only one explanation for these facts..." This is a logical fallacy, namely, begging the question. There may be just one explanation, but usually there are several, and often, many factors play a role.

    "We would have a fraction of the gun homicides we have if only the criminals had guns." Not only is this based on a fault premise, but it's patently false, as correlation studies between changing gun control laws and changing crime rates have clearly showed.

    "Criminals are interested in getting money, not in killing people." Oh, so I suppose murder is merely an "accident..."

    "The NRA and gun lobby block any law that would make it harder for criminals to get guns." False. The NRA has actually supported some of the (saner) gun laws.

    Bottom line: Just another flavor of anti-gun wacko.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran Schlitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,567
    “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
    [Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. Supp. 486, 489 (1956)]
    “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights.”
    [Sherar vs. Cullen, 481 F2d. 946 (1973)]

  16. #16
    Regular Member KYKevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Owensboro, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    328
    Quote Originally Posted by Schlitz View Post
    HAHA I got a good laugh when I read this.

    "While most Americans consider the open carrying of guns socially unacceptable, it is becoming more common. "

    If it is becoming more common wouldn't that suggest that more Americans are finding it MORE socially acceptable?

  17. #17
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by KYKevin View Post
    HAHA I got a good laugh when I read this.

    "While most Americans consider the open carrying of guns socially unacceptable, it is becoming more common. "

    If it is becoming more common wouldn't that suggest that more Americans are finding it MORE socially acceptable?
    Good point! You could substitute anything in there..that people at one time and many still do find "socially unacceptable".
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    I lived in the UK .. they wished they had their gun rights back ... now they just tax tax tax ..

  19. #19
    Regular Member jbone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    2,241
    Quote Originally Posted by Schlitz View Post
    And here they don't seem to mention having a issue with that Holder Guy selling guns to terrorists in Mexico.

    http://gunvictimsaction.org/fact-she...t-to-get-guns/

  20. #20
    Regular Member Gil223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Weber County Utah
    Posts
    1,428
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Good point! You could substitute anything in there..that people at one time and many still do find "socially unacceptable".
    I believe the quote, "While most Americans consider the open carrying of guns socially unacceptable, it is becoming more common." to be accurate. If "most" considered OC to be a socially acceptable behavior, wouldn't "most" be OC'ing (according to the 2010 U.S. Census, that would be the majority of roughly 235,000,000 adults of legal age)? I think that "most people" (I use the term most advisedly) are uncomfortable when they see an OC'er because they assume that since the OC'er is not in uniform or wearing a badge, s/he is up to no good. This is just my opinion based upon anecdotal evidence. (I have no "facts" to back it, so don't bother going there. Neither have I bothered to approach someone who appeared to be uncomfortable with my OC, to inquire if my presence with a sidearm made them uncomfortable for fear of making them even more uncomfortable). But, the very few who have inquired have gotten an honest, friendly answer, and seemed to have at least a minor attitude change about OC when we finished talking. I have no ill-will toward those who choose not to go about armed, but to recruit them as comfortably accepting of the practice for others is a matter of education and exposure. The more of us who OC in public, the greater the exposure, and (theoretically), the less uncomfortable the general public will become.

    Having read the link supplied by the OP, I liked this statement - "Over 50% of U.S. gun homicides are due to arguments not criminals. (FBI Annual Uniform Crime Reports)." Their assumption seems to be that criminals do not have "arguments", and that "50%" is all arguments between LACs ending in a murder by gun being committed! WTF is wrong with those NGVAC people? I didn't see a single provable fact in their entire posting. It would take a D-9 Cat and 50 yards of logging chain to pull their collective heads out. Pax...
    MOLON LABE
    COUNTRY FIRST
    Glocks ROCK!

  21. #21
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    Quote Originally Posted by Gil223 View Post
    I believe the quote, "While most Americans consider the open carrying of guns socially unacceptable, it is becoming more common." to be accurate. If "most" considered OC to be a socially acceptable behavior, wouldn't "most" be OC'ing (according to the 2010 U.S. Census, that would be the majority of roughly 235,000,000 adults of legal age)? I think that "most people" (I use the term most advisedly) are uncomfortable when they see an OC'er because they assume that since the OC'er is not in uniform or wearing a badge, s/he is up to no good.

    The argument that OC should not be allowed because a supposed majority find it sociall unacceptable is a logical fallacy and flies in the face of the fundamental principals of the socio-political philosophies of this nation--namely that the Bill of Rights was established SPECIFICALLY to protect the rights of people with unpopular and even controversial beliefs and practices.

    Sixty years ago, you could substitute "Blacks riding in the front of the bus" or "interracial marriage", or "integrated schools" or "country clubs who allow Jews and blacks to be members" for the term OC in the abov statement, and many people in the US WOULD HAVE agreed--but that DOESN'T make their opinion right, moral, or legal.
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974
    Look at their board of directors. 12 of 15 are from IL, CA and DC aka the usual suspects.

    The founder lost his son in a criminal act with a firearm by a mentally ill person. If he had lost his son in a trafffic accident, he would be trying to ban something related to cars. If he had a daughter raped at knife point, he would be trying to ban cutlery and penises. I empathize with his loss, however, I am offended at his path of grief resolution. His world view is clearly visible in his perspective that his son would have been better in a world where the gov't violated the constitution and banned firearms rather than a world where his son was armed, willing and able to defend himself and follow a path of self-determination.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •