Colorado tragedy: THINK IT THROUGH!

Taichiliberal said:
As usual, USFreedom has no real or rational argument, so he just parrots a line to malign people who disprove his personal beliefs. Worse, USFreedom is incapable of original thought, so he reverts to childish mocking. Sad, but not unexpected.

As the chronology of the posts shows, I created no "fantasy"...I merely extrapolated from the actual facts of the case in relation to the scenarios that others put forth to bolster the belief that one or more patrons of that theatre would have lessened and/or prevented Holmes kill rate if they were CWC. Too bad for you if don't like the conclusions, but I don't see you at least attempting a rational discussion like Winterborn.
Click to expand...

it's a false extrapolation you've garnered, simply because everyone there, except for holmes, was following the law and not carrying a weapon and then to take that and draw an equivalence to the entire population of americans only to assume that nobody would have had the chance to minimize anything.
 
Taichiliberal said:
First off, you need to stop lying....I didn't "dismiss WB's link, I provided a valid, documented link that surmmarily debunked Kleck's study. I can provide others if you 've got the stones to deal with it.

Secondly, if you had bothered to read the OP, you'd have noted that I stated in no undertain terms that I am NOT about confiscating guns or restricting them to an elite few...I'm about putting out and reinforcing reasonable systems of control to prevent or minimize insanity like we've seen in done by Holmes. That gunner's immediately try to create a scenario that defies the FACTS of the actual events proves that it's not about reality, but their ideology and fears.
Click to expand...

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/dgufreq.html

http://actionamerica.org/guns/guns1.shtml

From above link
Now, before anyone tries to dismiss the findings of this study as biased, because the study's author is pro gun ownership, let me remind you that the Dr. Kleck, who authored this study, is the same Dr. Kleck, who began his career as an opponent of private gun ownership.

Furthermore, criminologist Marvin E. Wolfgang, who has researched guns and violence for more than 25 years and is one of the most outspoken opponents of private gun ownership, after reading this study, praised the methodology that was used, in a paper titled "A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed," published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, vol. 86, Issue 1 (Fall 1995), p. 188.

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/profiles/a/Gary-Kleck-Biography.htm

Another quote from Mr. Wolfgang from link above
Marvin Wolfgang, a noted criminologist who was on record favoring a ban on all firearms, even those carried by law enforcement officers, was quoted as saying that the Kleck survey was nearly foolproof, saying: “What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator…I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology.”

Now let me first respond with a statement: I do not lie. I might be mistaken from time to time but as an extremely fundamental religious person I believe my soul would be damned to hell for eternity if I lie. I really do think that many who are against concealed carry and know anything about what they are addressing have already dismissed the Kleck study because of preconceived biases. I may be mistaken in that belief but that is an opinion I hold. For every study you can find that "debunks" the Kleck study I'm sure several more can be found to support its findings. I've listed just a few above but that is all that I will list on this thread.

Secondly, I had read the OP and the four things I placed in the middle of my response were general things that had been argued/discussed for days before this thread came up. Of the four I am to take it that you only agree the fourth one then? Maybe you can have a talk with some of the others on this site then.

Like you, I am all for "putting out and reinforcing [something] to ... minimize (I don't think we'll ever prevent it) insanity like we've seen done by Holmes." We have discussed a few of those things as well in other threads, one of which was providing an instant check, much like the criminal background check used now, for any previous confinement to a mental institution. While this isn't something that would have prevented Holmes from anything (looks like if someone had opened their mail that may have helped) it would definitely be good.

The main point of my response, hidden though it must have been, was that just as people like Winterborn and me are 'hypothesizing' and 'surmising' about how things 'might' have been better if someone with a CCW had been in that theatre is no different than someone 'hypothesizing' and 'surmising' that gun laws, shy of complete confiscation, would keep it from happening. And, I will add here too, that it is no different than someone 'hypothesizing' and 'surmising' that someone with a CCW would have not made a difference.

I will close and leave you with a link to read in your spare time.

http://www.thearmedcitizen.com/

It's one of my favorite bits of reading. Not because I'm all about using a gun in self defense or to prevent a crime. That has only happened to me once and isn't likely to for the rest of my life. I like it because the good guys win. I liked the video that another poster put on here today and would have responded on that post were it not for the dig at Obama he put at the end of it. But I will always cheer little old ladies on when they can chase a bunch of thugs out of their place of business because said ladies saw fit to arm themselves.
 
Taichiliberal said:
As usual, the chronology of the posts makes USFreedom out to be a liar. All I've been mostly given are a bunch of hypothetical situations designed to supplant the actual facts of teh Colorado case. As with others, when Winterborn did provide a source link, I countered with FACTS that debunked the validity of his source. As I said, I can provide more if you and those like you have the honesty and courage to read.

So as usual, you've earned the title of "FREEDUMB" with your intellectual dishonesty.
Click to expand...

Tell you what chi-chi; why don't you provice proof that the situations were hypothetical, instead of just wishing they were. :D
 
Taichiliberal said:
As usual, USFreedom has no real or rational argument, so he just parrots a line to malign people who disprove his personal beliefs. Worse, USFreedom is incapable of original thought, so he reverts to childish mocking. Sad, but not unexpected.

As the chronology of the posts shows, I created no "fantasy"...I merely extrapolated from the actual facts of the case in relation to the scenarios that others put forth to bolster the belief that one or more patrons of that theatre would have lessened and/or prevented Holmes kill rate if they were CWC. Too bad for you if don't like the conclusions, but I don't see you at least attempting a rational discussion like Winterborn.
Click to expand...

<translation>\
I'm full of shit and everyone knows it. :)
</translation>
 
SmarterthanYou said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
As usual, USFreedom has no real or rational argument, so he just parrots a line to malign people who disprove his personal beliefs. Worse, USFreedom is incapable of original thought, so he reverts to childish mocking. Sad, but not unexpected.

As the chronology of the posts shows, I created no "fantasy"...I merely extrapolated from the actual facts of the case in relation to the scenarios that others put forth to bolster the belief that one or more patrons of that theatre would have lessened and/or prevented Holmes kill rate if they were CWC. Too bad for you if don't like the conclusions, but I don't see you at least attempting a rational discussion like Winterborn.
Click to expand...

it's a false extrapolation you've garnered, simply because everyone there, except for holmes, was following the law and not carrying a weapon and then to take that and draw an equivalence to the entire population of americans only to assume that nobody would have had the chance to minimize anything.
Click to expand...

You're just regurgitating the SOS in a new form, but with the same erroneous conclusion. If you had paid attention, my "extrapolation" was based on the scenarios YOU and your gunner buddies put forth. What resulted was a increasing "but what if" from your side in an effort to justify the insane fantasy of a CCW patron(age) would have saved the day. I'm talking about this ONE case, and how some effort should be made to red flag such personal arming off the net. I suggest you re-read the exchanges on this thread before you rehash moot points and erroneous summations.
 
leaningright said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
First off, you need to stop lying....I didn't "dismiss WB's link, I provided a valid, documented link that surmmarily debunked Kleck's study. I can provide others if you 've got the stones to deal with it.

Secondly, if you had bothered to read the OP, you'd have noted that I stated in no undertain terms that I am NOT about confiscating guns or restricting them to an elite few...I'm about putting out and reinforcing reasonable systems of control to prevent or minimize insanity like we've seen in done by Holmes. That gunner's immediately try to create a scenario that defies the FACTS of the actual events proves that it's not about reality, but their ideology and fears.
Click to expand...
http://www.gunsandcrime.org/dgufreq.html

http://actionamerica.org/guns/guns1.shtml

From above link
Now, before anyone tries to dismiss the findings of this study as biased, because the study's author is pro gun ownership, let me remind you that the Dr. Kleck, who authored this study, is the same Dr. Kleck, who began his career as an opponent of private gun ownership.

Furthermore, criminologist Marvin E. Wolfgang, who has researched guns and violence for more than 25 years and is one of the most outspoken opponents of private gun ownership, after reading this study, praised the methodology that was used, in a paper titled "A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed," published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, vol. 86, Issue 1 (Fall 1995), p. 188.

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/profiles/a/Gary-Kleck-Biography.htm

Another quote from Mr. Wolfgang from link above
Marvin Wolfgang, a noted criminologist who was on record favoring a ban on all firearms, even those carried by law enforcement officers, was quoted as saying that the Kleck survey was nearly foolproof, saying: “What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator…I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology.”

Now let me first respond with a statement: I do not lie. I might be mistaken from time to time but as an extremely fundamental religious person I believe my soul would be damned to hell for eternity if I lie. I really do think that many who are against concealed carry and know anything about what they are addressing have already dismissed the Kleck study because of preconceived biases. I may be mistaken in that belief but that is an opinion I hold. For every study you can find that "debunks" the Kleck study I'm sure several more can be found to support its findings. I've listed just a few above but that is all that I will list on this thread.

Secondly, I had read the OP and the four things I placed in the middle of my response were general things that had been argued/discussed for days before this thread came up. Of the four I am to take it that you only agree the fourth one then? Maybe you can have a talk with some of the others on this site then.

Like you, I am all for "putting out and reinforcing [something] to ... minimize (I don't think we'll ever prevent it) insanity like we've seen done by Holmes." We have discussed a few of those things as well in other threads, one of which was providing an instant check, much like the criminal background check used now, for any previous confinement to a mental institution. While this isn't something that would have prevented Holmes from anything (looks like if someone had opened their mail that may have helped) it would definitely be good.

The main point of my response, hidden though it must have been, was that just as people like Winterborn and me are 'hypothesizing' and 'surmising' about how things 'might' have been better if someone with a CCW had been in that theatre is no different than someone 'hypothesizing' and 'surmising' that gun laws, shy of complete confiscation, would keep it from happening. And, I will add here too, that it is no different than someone 'hypothesizing' and 'surmising' that someone with a CCW would have not made a difference.

I will close and leave you with a link to read in your spare time.

http://www.thearmedcitizen.com/

It's one of my favorite bits of reading. Not because I'm all about using a gun in self defense or to prevent a crime. That has only happened to me once and isn't likely to for the rest of my life. I like it because the good guys win. I liked the video that another poster put on here today and would have responded on that post were it not for the dig at Obama he put at the end of it. But I will always cheer little old ladies on when they can chase a bunch of thugs out of their place of business because said ladies saw fit to arm themselves.
Click to expand...
\
nice try toodles, but this little gasbag of yours IGNORES THE FACTS my link pointed out with regards to Winterborn's Kleck link: Maybe Mr. Wolfgang should have read with a critical eye. Observe and learn from this excerpt:

One check on the credibility of these DGU estimates is made possible by the detailed follow-up questions included in both these surveys. In the NSPOF, respondents were asked whether they fired their guns, and if so, whether they
managed to hit the mark. The responses to this item from our 19 "genuine" defensive gun users, multiplied by our sampling weights, imply that approximately 132,000 perpetrators were either wounded or killed at the hands of armed civilians in 1994.
That number, it turns out, is just about the same as the total of all people who were shot and killed or received treatment for nonfatal gunshot wounds in an emergency room that year-yet we know that almost all of those are there as a result of criminal assault, suicide attempt, or accident. There is no trace in these official statistics of the wounded assailants.
Respondents are also asked to report the circumstances under which they were provoked into using their gun. From the NSPOF, we estimate that 322,000 used a gun to defend against a would-be rapist. But that is more than the total
number of rapes and attempted rapes estimated from the best available source, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)!6
Similar puzzles are found in Kleck and Gertz's findings [Hemenway, 19961. Our closer examination of the DGU reports in the NSPOF suggests that almost half of the incidents appear to contain some internal inconsistency, or otherwise
do not make sense. We are persuaded that surveys of this sort generate estimates that grossly exaggerate the true number of DGUs. The most likely explanation provides an important insight about the limitations of the survey method.
http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/JPAM_Cook_Ludwig_Hemenway_2007.pdf

you make the same mistake that willfully ignorant 3rd rate gunner propagandists make... YOU didn't even read the link I provided, YOU just ran to find a source that agreed/supported with your view and posted that. But the devil is in the details, as I've shown above. So your collection of suposition and conjecture is wasted when the FACTS are analyzed (the source I provided DOCUMENTS ALL IT'S INFORMATION, not just the parts necessary to support it's theme).

The statements you put forth in your initial response to me was a LIE, as I pointed out previously. You can't soft soap it or BS around it. My OP and subsequent responses stand.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
As usual, the chronology of the posts makes USFreedom out to be a liar. All I've been mostly given are a bunch of hypothetical situations designed to supplant the actual facts of teh Colorado case. As with others, when Winterborn did provide a source link, I countered with FACTS that debunked the validity of his source. As I said, I can provide more if you and those like you have the honesty and courage to read.

So as usual, you've earned the title of "FREEDUMB" with your intellectual dishonesty.
Click to expand...
Tell you what chi-chi; why don't you provice proof that the situations were hypothetical, instead of just wishing they were. :D
Click to expand...

The chronology of the posts shows others creating scenarios to justify their premise that a CCW/CCP would have saved the day. I countered accordingly. When source material was brought in to support their assertions, I countered accordingly.

And as usual Freedumb offers nothing but attempts to substitute childish retorts for an actual debate. If he has nothing else, I'll just leave him to his delusion (the last word is SO important to clowns like Freedumb).
 
Think it through.
If you consider that doing research to support an argument for you to own a device designed to kill people is a worthwhile way to spend your time, you are clearly barking mad.
BTW what is meant by the term 'assault weapon'? Is that things like machine guns and weapons one uses to conduct wars? Sorry. Genuine question. Killing people is not a world that I inhabit.
 
Taichiliberal said:
The chronology of the posts shows others creating scenarios to justify their premise that a CCW/CCP would have saved the day. I countered accordingly. When source material was brought in to support their assertions, I countered accordingly.

And as usual Freedumb offers nothing but attempts to substitute childish retorts for an actual debate. If he has nothing else, I'll just leave him to his delusion (the last word is SO important to clowns like Freedumb).
Click to expand...

Ironic and hypocritical post by chi-chi, will always be Ironic and Hypocritical. :D

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
As usual, USFreedom has no real or rational argument, so he just parrots a line to malign people who disprove his personal beliefs. Worse, USFreedom is incapable of original thought, so he reverts to childish mocking. Sad, but not unexpected.

As the chronology of the posts shows, I created no "fantasy"...I merely extrapolated from the actual facts of the case in relation to the scenarios that others put forth to bolster the belief that one or more patrons of that theatre would have lessened and/or prevented Holmes kill rate if they were CWC. Too bad for you if don't like the conclusions, but I don't see you at least attempting a rational discussion like Winterborn.
Click to expand...

<translation>\
I'm full of shit and everyone knows it. :)
</translation>
Click to expand...


Ahh, USFreedom911 is projecting again...how sad. Freedumb has no interest in debating the issue, but just has an axe to grind, so there is no point in responding to him further.
 
Lowaicue said:
Think it through.
If you consider that doing research to support an argument for you to own a device designed to kill people is a worthwhile way to spend your time, you are clearly barking mad.
BTW what is meant by the term 'assault weapon'? Is that things like machine guns and weapons one uses to conduct wars? Sorry. Genuine question. Killing people is not a world that I inhabit.
Click to expand...

So you werern't alive when that Chinese Tank killed the protester?
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
So you werern't alive when that Chinese Tank killed the protester?
Click to expand...

Which tank was that then? Have you nothing better to do than stalk posters? You have never, ever made a point worth debating and have never, ever said anything of interest. I guess you are really lonely with the demise of you two nasty little friends. Anyway, big shot, you are still in the box so you can HA HA to your hearts content.
 
Lowaicue said:
Which tank was that then? Have you nothing better to do than stalk posters? You have never, ever made a point worth debating and have never, ever said anything of interest. I guess you are really lonely with the demise of you two nasty little friends. Anyway, big shot, you are still in the box so you can HA HA to your hearts content.
Click to expand...

And yet you respond??!! :D

You sure do whine and cry a lot, for someone as old as you say you are. :palm:
 
Yurt said:
lowiq is the only current member i have on ignore.
Click to expand...

I cut him some slack; because he has to post what his Chinese masters tell him to, or else it's a "re-education" camp for him.

That and for the reason his dad was an American GI.
 
I would just like to interject something here...

What happened there was an atrocity. Calling it a "tragedy" imparts some innocence in the event that does not exist.
 
Damocles said:
I would just like to interject something here...

What happened there was an atrocity. Calling it a "tragedy" imparts some innocence in the event that does not exist.
Click to expand...

It was murder. It's to bad, someone sitting close didn't have a gun and try to shot him in the head.
 
Taichiliberal said:
\
nice try toodles, but this little gasbag of yours IGNORES THE FACTS my link pointed out with regards to Winterborn's Kleck link: Maybe Mr. Wolfgang should have read with a critical eye. Observe and learn from this excerpt:

One check on the credibility of these DGU estimates is made possible by the detailed follow-up questions included in both these surveys. In the NSPOF, respondents were asked whether they fired their guns, and if so, whether they
managed to hit the mark. The responses to this item from our 19 "genuine" defensive gun users, multiplied by our sampling weights, imply that approximately 132,000 perpetrators were either wounded or killed at the hands of armed civilians in 1994.
That number, it turns out, is just about the same as the total of all people who were shot and killed or received treatment for nonfatal gunshot wounds in an emergency room that year-yet we know that almost all of those are there as a result of criminal assault, suicide attempt, or accident. There is no trace in these official statistics of the wounded assailants.
Respondents are also asked to report the circumstances under which they were provoked into using their gun. From the NSPOF, we estimate that 322,000 used a gun to defend against a would-be rapist. But that is more than the total
number of rapes and attempted rapes estimated from the best available source, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)!6
Similar puzzles are found in Kleck and Gertz's findings [Hemenway, 19961. Our closer examination of the DGU reports in the NSPOF suggests that almost half of the incidents appear to contain some internal inconsistency, or otherwise
do not make sense. We are persuaded that surveys of this sort generate estimates that grossly exaggerate the true number of DGUs. The most likely explanation provides an important insight about the limitations of the survey method.
http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/JPAM_Cook_Ludwig_Hemenway_2007.pdf

you make the same mistake that willfully ignorant 3rd rate gunner propagandists make... YOU didn't even read the link I provided, YOU just ran to find a source that agreed/supported with your view and posted that. But the devil is in the details, as I've shown above. So your collection of suposition and conjecture is wasted when the FACTS are analyzed (the source I provided DOCUMENTS ALL IT'S INFORMATION, not just the parts necessary to support it's theme).

The statements you put forth in your initial response to me was a LIE, as I pointed out previously. You can't soft soap it or #% around it. My OP and subsequent responses stand.
Click to expand...

So let's cut to the chase and put an end to this....you aren't budging and I'm not budging when it comes to concealed carry. You have presented no facts but a university of Chicago study (and yes, I had read your little blue cut and paste job) which I believe contains flaws itself. My final comment on this thread to Mr. Liberal will be to again say that I do not lie...and you are hypothesizing just as much as I or any other advocate for concealed carry.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top