That would be time-series analysis that you speak of.
There aren't a lot of empirical arguments available for the anti-gun movement to rely upon (well none that aren't based on data sets from an alternate universe) so the debate fairly rapidly deteriorates into an emotive, insult-trading "think about the children/dolphins/baby seals" involving whiny little twerps who just cant keep their noses out of other people's lawful activities.
Pretty much. I can argue the case ad nauseum, yet people like @Sir El Stiffy; will result to strawmans, appeals to emotion and every other logical fallacy in the book because they are so utterly convinced that they are on the moral high ground about the matter.
BTW Neither Adam Lanza nor his mother were NRA members. You do realise that constantly posting pictures of those people encourages copycats too right?
On the subject of Chicago... http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...ers-shot-cell-phone-store-20160113-story.html
In this instance yes you can say that concealed carry stopped a robbery. Whether it avoided or increased the amount of bodily damage done will never be known. The problem is that increasing the number of arms to guard against errant use of arms will end up in chronic escalation, will probably only provide a mild deterrent to criminals, will guarantee that criminals will wear armour and carry bigger guns which are all readily available, and in all likelihood will increase the likelihood of armed robbers shooting first simply to 'protect' themselves and lives will go on being lost. Where does the line get drawn. Surely de-escalation is a preferable route?
What if the result here had been two dead would -be robbers. Would the CC still be a good thing? Does someone deserve to be executed for robbery? Does the civilian with the CC want to have that on their conscience? All worth considering.
In b4 'well if you want to try and rob me you deserve to get killed'.
breaking not braking., they have been braking into houses for years, .
breaking not braking.
In b4 'well if you want to try and rob me you deserve to get killed'.
That's an interesting perspective Mick. Please refer to my comment below -
No one deserves to be killed, and no one said that anyone deserves to die, or should be executed as you call it, but if you part take in high risk activity chances are you may be killed in the process, if these activities are illegal or impacting negatively on other people then these are the chances you take when you rob people instead of working for a living.
I would have no reason to be anti-gun because its a lawful activity that poses no threat to me and in Australia there are limited empirically based arguments that would sway a rational person against firearms ownership freedom.
Yes, Genics, shooting makes my dick move and so do many other lawful things. Your infected little nipple dick seems to find delight in degrading women and drinking yourself to death.
But the thought of antagonising you and knowing how powerless and incapable you are of making any meaningful difference to my freedom as a lawful firearms owner make my willy stand up and touch my sternum.
I'm impressed with this line of thinking. I'd like to see a reply from the point of view of a pro gun owner/concealed gun permit supporter please. How can Repacked points above be convincingly refuted is what I'm asking? Thank you.The problem is that increasing the number of arms to guard against errant use of arms will end up in chronic escalation, will probably only provide a mild deterrent to criminals, will guarantee that criminals will wear armour and carry bigger guns which are all readily available, and in all likelihood will increase the likelihood of armed robbers shooting first simply to 'protect' themselves and lives will go on being lost. Where does the line get drawn. Surely de-escalation is a preferable route?
In this instance yes you can say that concealed carry stopped a robbery. Whether it avoided or increased the amount of bodily damage done will never be known. The problem is that increasing the number of arms to guard against errant use of arms will end up in chronic escalation, will probably only provide a mild deterrent to criminals, will guarantee that criminals will wear armour and carry bigger guns which are all readily available, and in all likelihood will increase the likelihood of armed robbers shooting first simply to 'protect' themselves and lives will go on being lost. Where does the line get drawn. Surely de-escalation is a preferable route?
What if the result here had been two dead would -be robbers. Would the CC still be a good thing? Does someone deserve to be executed for robbery? Does the civilian with the CC want to have that on their conscience? All worth considering.
In b4 'well if you want to try and rob me you deserve to get killed'.
I just can't fathom why Bozo wants to be allowed to carry a side arm here in Australia. What kind of a coward needs to carry a side arm at all times here in Australia, especially a coward who lives in rural Victoria.
Try living in the City, even there you don't need a side arm. Learn to fight or run dickhead, if you're that afraid.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?