Undeniable proof that gun control works

[Dano Sverige]

Shadow, he asked you to name one example and Athens was a good one but he didn't like it, the American Revolution is the prime example but that doesn't seem to count and neither does the war of northern aggression (civil war).

What part of ..."Name me any significant historical event since the independence of this country "...don't you understand?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[Treasure_Hunter]

It stops 10 times more than it ever causes.Millions of citizens use guns every year to defend their lives and property from all kinds of evil from assaults to burglars. You break into my home your going to be face to face with a 12 gage shotgun loaded with buckshot.

 

[0121stockpicker]

It stops 10 times more than it ever causes.Millions of citizens use guns every year to defend their lives and property from all kinds of evil from assaults to burglars. You break into my home your going to be face to face with a 12 gage shotgun loaded with buckshot.

We call this a statement, not proof - correct?

 

[ShadowLine]

Shadow, in logic you do not prove a negative. I think you will see that posted many places or or you can look it up. You prove that something is true/valid.

Again, you are claiming I said something that I did not say. I never asked you to prove a negative. Anyone could give examples where the presence of a weapon (in this case a firearm) caused someone else to rethink violence. Or, we could do a test.

Put me in at one end of a nearly empty parking lot at night while open carrying a .40 caliber Sig. Then place you on the opposite end of this parking lot with no visible weapon. Now tell 10 thugs which of us is armed and ask them who they'd rather assault and rob. After you tally the results please tell me the mere presence of my weapon didn't deter them.

 

[0121stockpicker]

Again, you are claiming I said something that I did not say. I never asked you to prove a negative. Anyone could give examples where the presence of a weapon (in this case a firearm) caused someone else to rethink violence. Or, we could do a test.

Put me in at one end of a nearly empty parking lot at night while open carrying a .40 caliber Sig. Then place you on the opposite end of this parking lot with no visible weapon. Now tell 10 thugs which of us is armed and ask them who they'd rather assault and rob. After you tally the results please tell me the mere presence of my weapon didn't deter them.

We call that anecdotal evidence and it is meaningless.

 

[0121stockpicker]

Again, you are claiming I said something that I did not say. I never asked you to prove a negative. Anyone could give examples where the presence of a weapon (in this case a firearm) caused someone else to rethink violence. Or, we could do a test.

Put me in at one end of a nearly empty parking lot at night while open carrying a .40 caliber Sig. Then place you on the opposite end of this parking lot with no visible weapon. Now tell 10 thugs which of us is armed and ask them who they'd rather assault and rob. After you tally the results please tell me the mere presence of my weapon didn't deter them.

Shadow you stated - "How do you counter my position that the 2nd Amendment is a deterrent to violence". A counter is proving a negative.

Thesis would be. Prove the 2nd amendment is NOT a deterrent to violence. That would be the counter correct?

 

[0121stockpicker]

Shadow, he asked you to name one example and Athens was a good one but he didn't like it, the American Revolution is the prime example but that doesn't seem to count and neither does the war of northern aggression (civil war).

Last time I checked the American revolution was not fought against the United States government? Unless I am really missing something. Also the last time I check the war of southern rebellion was NOT successful. Did I miss something??

 

[0121stockpicker]

Shadow, he asked you to name one example and Athens was a good one but he didn't like it, the American Revolution is the prime example but that doesn't seem to count and neither does the war of northern aggression (civil war).

And if you would read posts before typing you will clearly see that I said one "significant". If you consider BofA, which absolutely no one has ever heard of until guns right activist desperately came up with in a desperate bid to come up with absolutely any example, significant than enough said. Best.

 

[Dano Sverige]

Again, you are claiming I said something that I did not say. I never asked you to prove a negative. Anyone could give examples where the presence of a weapon (in this case a firearm) caused someone else to rethink violence. Or, we could do a test.

Put me in at one end of a nearly empty parking lot at night while open carrying a .40 caliber Sig. Then place you on the opposite end of this parking lot with no visible weapon. Now tell 10 thugs which of us is armed and ask them who they'd rather assault and rob. After you tally the results please tell me the mere presence of my weapon didn't deter them.

If they all suddenly drew their own guns and pointed them at you...would you REALLY risk attempting to draw your Sig...or throw down your wallet?

@TH - If i was going to break into your home i'd do it the intelligent English way (I'm oldskool remember) and wait until you went out. If i was still facing your shotgun it'd just be proof that guns kill people not people!

 

[ShadowLine]

We call that anecdotal evidence and it is meaningless.

Yes, the word on the street is that common sense is indeed meaningless.

 

[ShadowLine]

Shadow you stated - "How do you counter my position that the 2nd Amendment is a deterrent to violence". A counter is proving a negative.

Thesis would be. Prove the 2nd amendment is NOT a deterrent to violence. That would be the counter correct?

I'm sorry, I didn't realize a meaningful discussion had devolved into semantic analysis. I claim the 2nd Amendment provides the populace of this country the ability to defend itself against both criminals and a tyrannical government. I claim that the government is at least partially deterred from becoming a tyrannical government because they know the collective power an armed public can bring to bear if necessary. I claim that politicians, in general, are less likely to revoke rights in the constitution because the possibility of an armed revolt exists.

On the other hand you believe (I think) that an armed public has no impact on whether or not the government will try to revoke rights from the public. I think you believe a disarmed public is just as likely to suffer the revocation of their rights as an armed public. Is this correct?

 

[dieselram94]

If they all suddenly drew their own guns and pointed them at you...would you REALLY risk attempting to draw your Sig...or throw down your wallet?

@TH - If i was going to break into your home i'd do it the intelligent English way (I'm oldskool remember) and wait until you went out. If i was still facing your shotgun it'd just be proof that guns kill people not people!

I see you have givin some thought to breaking and entering....

 

[ShadowLine]

If they all suddenly drew their own guns and pointed them at you...would you REALLY risk attempting to draw your Sig...or throw down your wallet?

@TH - If i was going to break into your home i'd do it the intelligent English way (I'm oldskool remember) and wait until you went out. If i was still facing your shotgun it'd just be proof that guns kill people not people!

If a group of people approached and wanted my wallet, and I felt they would hurt (but not kill) me if I didn't give it to them I'd hand it over. If a group of people approached and demanded my wallet, and I believed they would kill me even if I gave them the wallet I would draw my weapon without hesitation. If someone pulled a gun on me I would take that as a clear and imminent threat to my life. If I thought they meant to use the gun I'd draw and do my best to survive. If I thought they were just trying to scare me I'd toss the wallet.

It all comes down to whether or not I believe my life to be in danger.

But the original question remains unanswered (and conveniently avoided by you and others). Which person would they try to rob? Me, or the unarmed person? The answer is clear.

 

[0121stockpicker]

I'm sorry, I didn't realize a meaningful discussion had devolved into semantic analysis. I claim the 2nd Amendment provides the populace of this country the ability to defend itself against both criminals and a tyrannical government. I claim that the government is at least partially deterred from becoming a tyrannical government because they know the collective power an armed public can bring to bear if necessary. I claim that politicians, in general, are less likely to revoke rights in the constitution because the possibility of an armed revolt exists.

On the other hand you believe (I think) that an armed public has no impact on whether or not the government will try to revoke rights from the public. I think you believe a disarmed public is just as likely to suffer the revocation of their rights as an armed public. Is this correct?

It's not semantics - it's called logic. The basics of logic are not that difficult even if one has not been schooled in them. It's vital to anyone seeking the truth.

 

[0121stockpicker]

If a group of people approached and wanted my wallet, and I felt they would hurt (but not kill) me if I didn't give it to them I'd hand it over. If a group of people approached and demanded my wallet, and I believed they would kill me even if I gave them the wallet I would draw my weapon without hesitation. If someone pulled a gun on me I would take that as a clear and imminent threat to my life. If I thought they meant to use the gun I'd draw and do my best to survive. If I thought they were just trying to scare me I'd toss the wallet.

It all comes down to whether or not I believe my life to be in danger.

But the original question remains unanswered (and conveniently avoided by you and others). Which person would they try to rob? Me, or the unarmed person? The answer is clear.

How would they know you were armed? Most laws require concealment and nit open carry.

 

[ShadowLine]

It's not semantics - it's called logic. The basics of logic are not that difficult even if one has not been schooled in them. It's vital to anyone seeking the truth.

I am well versed in logic. I am also keenly aware of the fact you will not answer my questions. That is a fact, and that is the truth.

 

[ShadowLine]

How would they know you were armed? Most laws require concealment and nit open carry.

Perhaps if you would read the scenario as originally posted you would know the answer. Logic might have led you in that direction.

 

[Rebel - KGC]

If a group of people approached and wanted my wallet, and I felt they would hurt (but not kill) me if I didn't give it to them I'd hand it over. If a group of people approached and demanded my wallet, and I believed they would kill me even if I gave them the wallet I would draw my weapon without hesitation. If someone pulled a gun on me I would take that as a clear and imminent threat to my life. If I thought they meant to use the gun I'd draw and do my best to survive. If I thought they were just trying to scare me I'd toss the wallet.

It all comes down to whether or not I believe my life to be in danger.

But the original question remains unanswered (and conveniently avoided by you and others). Which person would they try to rob? Me, or the unarmed person? The answer is clear.

Again... SITUATION-SPECIFIC.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

If they all suddenly drew their own guns and pointed them at you...would you REALLY risk attempting to draw your Sig...or throw down your wallet?

@TH - If i was going to break into your home i'd do it the intelligent English way (I'm oldskool remember) and wait until you went out. If i was still facing your shotgun it'd just be proof that guns kill people not people!

From what I have read 53% of burglaries in England happen when people are home, why is that...? Apparently that is the "Intelligent English Way"

Here is something else I found......

Thursday, Feb 28 2013

Now mugging is worse in London than in Harlem


Thursday, Feb 28 2013

by MICHAEL CLARKE, Daily Mail



London is now more dangerous than Harlem, according to figures released yesterday.

The chances of being mugged in Britain' s capital are 25 per cent higher than in the oncenotorious area of New York.

The statistics will put extra pressure on David Blunkett, as he struggles to contain a big rise in muggings on the streets of Britain's cities.

The figures, produced by the Conservatives, will also increase the Home Secretary's frustration with the Metropolitan Police which, say critics, is failing to tackle violent crime in the capital.

Mr Blunkett wants to know why the Metropolitan force has a similar budget to the New York Police Department but manages to field 30 per cent fewer officers.

He is also furious that murder rates in parts of London are soaring while in New York they are at a record low.

Now the Conservatives have produced figures showing how key parts of the American city also outperform London over mugging.

The Tories have found that in Harlem last year there were just 5.9 robberies per 1,000 residents.

Across London the figure was 7.4 attacks.

In some inner-city boroughs the level of street crime was even higher.

Lambeth, which includes Brixton, saw 24 muggings per 1,000 people - four times the Harlem rate.

Westminster - which includes Downing Street and Buckingham Palace - had 12 robberies per 1,000 residents.


The borough of Islington, where Tony Blair lived before becoming Prime Minister, saw 9.3 attacks per 1,000.

Shadow Home Secretary Oliver Letwin said last night: 'You are now more likely to be robbed in London than you are in New York's Harlem.

'These latest figures validate the fears and concerns of London residents.'

Mr Letwin added: 'Labour promised to be tough on crime, but it is clearer by the day that there are fewer police on the beat and violent crime is rising across the capital's streets.'

Latest Metropolitan Police crime figures show street crime is rising in every London borough.

In some areas it has leapt by more than 70 per cent in a year. By contrast Harlem - the traditional home of black New Yorkers - has seen a major fall in crime since the 1980s when it was dominated by heavily armed drug gangs responsible for a spate of murders.

In the last five years crime has fallen 60 per cent and the murder rate is down 72 per cent.

The fall in crime is attributed to tough policing - at times the area has been flooded with patrol officers to drive the gangs off the streets - plus millions of pounds in government grants to rebuild the area and attract new businesses.

Major retailers like Gap and Disney are moving into the area and it is fast becoming a major tourist attraction.

Property values are soaring and unemployment is down.

Mr Blunkett has warned the Metropolitan Commissioner Sir John Stevens that he has six months to get street crime under control or face seeing his force taken over by the Home Office.

Metropolitan police chiefs blame soaring violent crime on the need to put thousands of officers on antiterrorist patrols in central London in the wake of September 11.

But a recent crackdown on mugging using hundreds of traffic officers to hunt street robbers has had some impact.

More money for overtime to keep up the pressure on muggers was announced in last week's Budget.

Now mugging is worse in London than in Harlem | Mail Online


​

 

[0121stockpicker]

From what I have read 53% of burglaries in England happen when people are home, why is that...? Apparently that is the "Intelligent English Way"

Here is something else I found......

http://www.treasurenet.com/ Thursday, Feb 28 2013

Now mugging is worse in London than in Harlem

Thursday, Feb 28 2013

by MICHAEL CLARKE, Daily Mail

London is now more dangerous than Harlem, according to figures released yesterday.

The chances of being mugged in Britain' s capital are 25 per cent higher than in the oncenotorious area of New York.

The statistics will put extra pressure on David Blunkett, as he struggles to contain a big rise in muggings on the streets of Britain's cities.

The figures, produced by the Conservatives, will also increase the Home Secretary's frustration with the Metropolitan Police which, say critics, is failing to tackle violent crime in the capital.

Mr Blunkett wants to know why the Metropolitan force has a similar budget to the New York Police Department but manages to field 30 per cent fewer officers.

He is also furious that murder rates in parts of London are soaring while in New York they are at a record low.

Now the Conservatives have produced figures showing how key parts of the American city also outperform London over mugging.

The Tories have found that in Harlem last year there were just 5.9 robberies per 1,000 residents.

Across London the figure was 7.4 attacks.

In some inner-city boroughs the level of street crime was even higher.

Lambeth, which includes Brixton, saw 24 muggings per 1,000 people - four times the Harlem rate.

Westminster - which includes Downing Street and Buckingham Palace - had 12 robberies per 1,000 residents.

The borough of Islington, where Tony Blair lived before becoming Prime Minister, saw 9.3 attacks per 1,000.

Shadow Home Secretary Oliver Letwin said last night: 'You are now more likely to be robbed in London than you are in New York's Harlem.

'These latest figures validate the fears and concerns of London residents.'

Mr Letwin added: 'Labour promised to be tough on crime, but it is clearer by the day that there are fewer police on the beat and violent crime is rising across the capital's streets.'

Latest Metropolitan Police crime figures show street crime is rising in every London borough.

In some areas it has leapt by more than 70 per cent in a year. By contrast Harlem - the traditional home of black New Yorkers - has seen a major fall in crime since the 1980s when it was dominated by heavily armed drug gangs responsible for a spate of murders.

In the last five years crime has fallen 60 per cent and the murder rate is down 72 per cent.

The fall in crime is attributed to tough policing - at times the area has been flooded with patrol officers to drive the gangs off the streets - plus millions of pounds in government grants to rebuild the area and attract new businesses.

Major retailers like Gap and Disney are moving into the area and it is fast becoming a major tourist attraction.

Property values are soaring and unemployment is down.

Mr Blunkett has warned the Metropolitan Commissioner Sir John Stevens that he has six months to get street crime under control or face seeing his force taken over by the Home Office.

Metropolitan police chiefs blame soaring violent crime on the need to put thousands of officers on antiterrorist patrols in central London in the wake of September 11.

But a recent crackdown on mugging using hundreds of traffic officers to hunt street robbers has had some impact.

More money for overtime to keep up the pressure on muggers was announced in last week's Budget.

Now mugging is worse in London than in Harlem | Mail Online

We go full circle with TH providing even more irrefutable proof that gun control has worked in NYC with Harlem now safer than London. Good find TH I didn't see this one. Excellent datapoint.