Somali Pirate Attacks On Decline

Quote from Elmer : I don't have to depend on surveys for the argument. Gun manufacturers and importers provide numbers to the federal government, and those are available to view. Gun sales are up, dramatically. And have been for years. The majority of states enacted right to carry laws in the last 25 years. Those are facts, not a survey question.

Do your facts also factor in the number of weapons that are seized and destroyed, illegally exported to other countries, or just thrown in the river after being used?

Not to mention your figures don't mean shit. If one household has 1,000 guns that doesn't skew the percentage of households that have a weapon. I mean, it's not like that person can walk around with 1,000 guns on them for protection. There looks to be a slight problem with your reasoning or at a bare minimum you didn't realize I have been stating a % of households that own a gun and not how many each household owns.

And just to ask, if so many gun owners don't answer correctly why do they lie? Are they just being a puss and don't want to tell people they own a gun?

Quote from LivninSC : You - BTW, it should be acceptable to be allowed to carry, especially by those with a CCW or military. Me - Furthermore, how are the TSA going to verify that these people truly are CCW or military personnel? Look at their military ID? If I'm a terrorist I'd absolutely LOVE if this were practiced. I would imagine it's far easier to fake a military ID so that they could take a gun on board then it would be to smuggle it in somehow. You – facepalm You - So, we better outlaw passengers flying because IDs can be faked. Wouldn't want someone on the no fly list to sneak on, huh? You - And yes, explosives could be save, but they aren't bound by the 2nd. So yes, there you have it. You find the inconvenience of having to pack your unloaded weapon in your checked luggage to be too bothersome and apparently find the risk of a terrorist with a fake military ID allowing him to bring a loaded weapon in their carry-on on to a commercial airplane acceptable. Like I said...

No, that's not like you said. Quit throwing out strawmen. Where did I say that a terrorist with a fake ID and a gun is less risky then a terrorist with a fake ID and no gun? I sure don't see it in what you quoted.

Quote from paperboy05 : No, that's not like you said. Quit throwing out strawmen. Where did I say that a terrorist with a fake ID and a gun is less risky then a terrorist with a fake ID and no gun? I sure don't see it in what you quoted.

Sorry, I meant "like I said, can't debate crazy".

I'm just gonna thrown this out there. You look like a dbag when you use the word strawman/strawmen. Perhaps you need to think about what you say and realize that if A=B and B=C that A=C. That's a fact, it's a mathematical proof. Saying something is a strawman is a dbags way of saying "oh, you caught me but F you, haha!" And it's not just you. "strawman" has seemingly become the word du jour around here. Well, that and red herring.

Oh but wait, is this an accurate statement? You find the inconvenience of having to pack your unloaded weapon in your checked luggage to be too bothersome and apparently find the risk of a terrorist with a fake military ID allowing him to bring a loaded weapon in their carry-on on to a commercial airplane acceptable.

Quote from LivninSC : Sorry, I meant "like I said, can't debate crazy".

Yes because as I said your strawmen are crazy.

Quote : I'm just gonna thrown this out there. You look like a dbag when you use the word strawman/strawmen. Perhaps you need to think about what you say and realize that if A=B and B=C that A=C. That's a fact, it's a mathematical proof. Saying something is a strawman is a dbags way of saying "oh, you caught me but F you, haha!" And it's not just you. "strawman" has seemingly become the word du jour around here. Well, that and red herring.

And I'll throw this out, you look like a dbag when you continually misrepresent other posters and create arguments out of thin air. You didn't catch me on anything, hell even in the passage you quoted says nothing close to what you were trying to attribute to me. Again, feel free to quote me where I think you think there is less risk of a terrorist who is on the no fly list using a fake ID to board a plane (without a gun as currently no one can bring a weapon on board) than there is if that same terrorist uses a fake ID showing them to be a service member so that they're allowed to carry a loaded weapon on to the plane.

It's only your fantasy in which I say the benefits outweigh the risks is equal to, the risks are smaller.

Quote : Oh but wait, is this an accurate statement? You find the inconvenience of having to pack your unloaded weapon in your checked luggage to be too bothersome and apparently find the risk of a terrorist with a fake military ID allowing him to bring a loaded weapon in their carry-on on to a commercial airplane acceptable.

No, it's not entirely accurate.

Is this accurate? You think that guns are scary, will go off whenever they please always causing catastrophic failure in airplanes and terrorists will suddenly create a booming market of military fake IDs if civilians are allowed to legally carry on an airplane.

Quote from paperboy05 : Yes because as I said your strawmen are crazy. And I'll throw this out, you look like a dbag when you continually misrepresent other posters and create arguments out of thin air. No, it's not entirely accurate. Is this accurate? You think that guns are scary, will go off whenever they please always causing catastrophic failure in airplanes and terrorists will suddenly create a booming market of military fake IDs if civilians are allowed to legally carry on an airplane.

So this has turned in to "Takes one to know one"? Haha, OMFG I didn't realize you were a 4th grader. That's hilarious. Sorry, I didn't mean to debate with a pre-pubescent.

Won't make the mistake again.

Quote from LivninSC : So this has turned in to "Takes one to know one"? Haha, OMFG I didn't realize you were a 4th grader. That's hilarious. Sorry, I didn't mean to debate with a pre-pubescent. Won't make the mistake again.

Are you serious? Get a farking life dude. Good lord, I used to think you were semi-smart and witty. Won't make that mistake again. Later.

Quote from LivninSC : Do your facts also factor in the number of weapons that are seized and destroyed, illegally exported to other countries, or just thrown in the river after being used?.

All tiny percentages, and nowhere near enough to account for the percentage in the increases in sales.

Quote from LivninSC : Not to mention your figures don't mean shit. If one household has 1,000 guns that doesn't skew the percentage of households that have a weapon. I mean, it's not like that person can walk around with 1,000 guns on them for protection. There looks to be a slight problem with your reasoning or at a bare minimum you didn't realize I have been stating a % of households that own a gun and not how many each household owns.

No, I understand that. My point is, that the large increases in sales don't square with the "40% reduction in households having a gun" numbers being thrown around on every left wing and anti gun blog.

If that number were true, the point I originally made would still be valid. Maybe it's the increases in ownership by the law abiding and responsible that's affecting the crime and homicide rate. When the crooks don't know who owns guns, or who's carrying one, it can make their job a little more dangerous. Either way, there's lots more guns in circulation, and far less crime and murder. Just like off the coast of Somalia.

Quote from LivninSC : And just to ask, if so many gun owners don't answer correctly why do they lie? Are they just being a puss and don't want to tell people they own a gun?

Considering the ignorance about guns and crime many exhibit, and the stigma put forth by the popular media, I wouldn't be surprised that some gun owners wouldn't divulge the fact that they have one to a stranger. I certainly wouldn't participate in a survey asking such personal questions. And of course we've seen incidents where several prominent anti gun folks, turn out to own them.

Quote from LivninSC : So you're claiming that an atomic bomb didn't kill all those people in Hiroshima? I can't view that link but would imagine it's something like the gun was innocent, had no part in it, the guy holding the gun was the one that killed him. I'd actually agree with that if that's the case but it's also a ridiculously stupid argument because w/o the gun the person likely wouldn't be dead.

Let's try the long link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PezlFNTGWv4

Oh, and there are many that would argue that the atomic bomb saved many more lives than it took. Here's a nice article in which the reporter calculates that the bombing saved 4,000,000 lives.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus...8051/posts

Pretty sure I had livinsc on the column on the.... right in my spreadsheet

Quote from Elmer : All tiny percentages, and nowhere near enough to account for the percentage in the increases in sales.

A former rebar client of mine would have truck loads dumped every year. I would agree that in general the # of guns in existence now is more than in the past but if melt downs like that do happen across the US, and there isn't any reason to think they don't that is a large # of guns removed every year.

Quote from Elmer : No, I understand that. My point is, that the large increases in sales don't square with the "40% reduction in households having a gun" numbers being thrown around on every left wing and anti gun blog.

Sorry, I didn't realize the LA Times was considered a blog here.

Quote from Elmer : Considering the ignorance about guns and crime many exhibit, and the stigma put forth by the popular media, I wouldn't be surprised that some gun owners wouldn't divulge the fact that they have one to a stranger. I certainly wouldn't participate in a survey asking such personal questions. And of course we've seen incidents where several prominent anti gun folks, turn out to own them.

So liars and pusses? It's sad that some people who are demanding our constitutional rights be upheld only do so as long as their anonymity is ensured.

Quote from vaultaddict : Pretty sure I had livinsc on the column on the.... right in my spreadsheet

I dunno what that means

Quote from charles052 : Let's try the long link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PezlFNTGWv4 Oh, and there are many that would argue that the atomic bomb saved many more lives than it took. Here's a nice article in which the reporter calculates that the bombing saved 4,000,000 lives. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus...8051/posts

It's called youtube.com and work doesn't like it. You're gonna have to spell it out.

I'd also agree with the belief that overall the bomb saved more lives than it took. Or is it the person who hit the switch that dropped it that overall saved the lives as weapons in general can't kill or as a result save lives? I mean really, that's the only argument I've ever heard. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people". It's true, but w/o a gun at the same time in many circumstances the dead guy would be alive and the inverse is also true. In many circumstances a gun saved someone's life who would have otherwise been killed had they not had one.

Quote from LivninSC : A former rebar client of mine would have truck loads dumped every year. I would agree that in general the # of guns in existence now is more than in the past but if melt downs like that do happen across the US, and there isn't any reason to think they don't that is a large # of guns removed every year.

Many cities publish the number of guns they impound and destroy every year. (Most were not used in crimes by the way). I think if you checked, you'd see in most places, the numbers are pretty tiny in comparison to guns sold.

Quote from LivninSC : Sorry, I didn't realize the LA Times was considered a blog here.

The same story was front page all over the liberal blogoshere, but since you mentioned it, often, the LA Times has less credibility than a blog.

Quote from LivninSC : So liars and pusses? It's sad that some people who are demanding our constitutional rights be upheld only do so as long as their anonymity is ensured.

Have a nice day....

Quote from paperboy05 : Is this accurate? You think that guns are scary, will go off whenever they please always causing catastrophic failure in airplanes and terrorists will suddenly create a booming market of military fake IDs if civilians are allowed to legally carry on an airplane.

Civilians already can carry on airplanes! Well, at least this lady...
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/loca...2voSdzBQqN

Quote : Bungling TSA airport screeners at Orlando International Airport failed to notice a loaded handgun in a woman’s carry-on bag yesterday — and she was able to fly to New Jersey with the pistol in her purse. The woman is an Orlando-area firefighter who is licensed to carry the gun, a source said. “She was visibly upset. She said she had a license to carry it and just forgot it,” Della Fave said. “The [Port Authority] officer took possession of the handgun and made it safe.”

Good thing a P.A. officer was there to "make it safe" before it went off by itself.

Quote from Elmer : Good point. Back before the "gun free schools" federal law was passed, (1980's), in rural areas, during deer season, you would see rifles in pickup truck racks in school parking lots. It didn't lead to mass violence, despite the overall crime and homicide rate being incredibly high in the US at the time.

The type of rifle you'd use to hunt a deer does not seem to lend itself to mass killing of humans; no?