| Antidepressant Medications Handle stress, elevate the mood, treat anxiety disorders. | Shared Movies Over 80 Million Movies and TV-Shows No Charge per movie, No download limit! | Weight Loss Supplements Natural supplements that burn body fat, suppress appetite and support a healthy diet. | Casino Classic Best Online Casino! Get $500 free on the house! |
|
Posted at December 31, 1969, 6:00 pm: Quote: Originally Posted by Yoda Actually, based on these two quotes, it's you that's misunderstood me, and not the other way around. You're making a claim...not an argument. I'm well aware of what you're suggesting...but you seem to make your case by...stating your case. Well, in that case are you seriously claiming that a gun-free society is more liable to cause crime and related deaths than a gun-toting one??? I was giving you the benfit of the doubt that you'd misunderstood. Now, why don't you go check out the comparable stats between our countries. Across the board/quantative-alone statistics will be fine in this country-to-country comparison Quote: Originally Posted by Yoda I don't see why. Who in their right mind would want to mug someone in a crowd as opposed to someone relatively isolated? Oh for heaven's sake! Crime is far more rampant in cities. Drug supplies are far higher and more concentrated in cities as a rule. Crime is more concentrated in cities. The potential for criminal activity self-referencing and growing is greater in cities i.e crime is eay to find and copy in cities. To take the examples to ridiculous and unrealistic extremes, as you do: How likely are you to get mugged wandering around a forest? Honestly! Quote: Originally Posted by Yoda I'll be glad to do some more research into the matter, but just as damning as low crime rates in control-free areas are high crime rates in highly-controlled areas...which is exactly what DC is. DC is one good example of crime in a big city. But I STILL dispute the idea that DC and Vermont are a valid comparison. If you fail to see why the failing is more with your perception than my argument Quote: Originally Posted by Yoda Why? We've got one from a dense area, and one from a sparse one. One showing the results of gun control, and one showing the results without. I'm sorry, but you reek of reluctance. If I give you every statistic you ask for, I've no doubt you'll find the tiniest thing to grab hold of, use (and misspell) the word "dodgy," and go on believing what you do now. Yods, as ever, i have my agenda but i'm prepared to be persuaded. Just coz your answers are specious and i have valid reasons for disagreeing with them doesn't mean i'm being reluctant. It means just that. Your arguments are in no way convincing on a logical level. Why can't you see that the two CANNOT be validly compared? If you genuinely can't then you are far less logical than some people give you credit for. Quote: Originally Posted by Yoda And you're welcome to unveil your as-of-yet hidden retort to that point. By your logic, we'd ban things like bows and arrows before plastic toys unfit for children, even if the latter caused far more deaths. No no, it's a very valid point. The final result is the most important thing. I'm just taking the piss coz of how you've avoided addressing motivations under the umbrella of this argument [i.e. you've "either-or"ed again and concluded that therefore motivations are unimportant, which is obviously nonsense]. It is very valid after the events have occured and we can analyse them. (however, in the war example, the result is still very much in question. As, seperately for the most part, are the motivations, whether you like it or not.) Quote: Originally Posted by Yoda In many places, public drunkenness is illegal. Regardless, I imagine you'd still support gun control even if a provision for alcohol were included, so the point is moot. Erm, is drunkeness illegal in all places? If people are supposedly always carrying, are they required to stow their firearm when entering a bar? Again, you can't universalise your way out of this one. Just coz public drunkeness isn't allowed in some places doesn't mean it is in all. As for the SECONDARY argument, that i might theorhetically support gun-control over free-for-all, it's difficult for me to judge being so far away. But you've given me no reasons to support free-for-all so far. Find some more stats Quote: Originally Posted by Yoda I can't be held accountable if I'm the first to expose you to rational arguments. Mate, i read more logical arguments on the back of cereal packets than what you've got to write sometimes Original of the message was taken from http://www.movieforums.com/community/ Previous Post: Quote: Originally Posted by Golgot My case wo... Next Post: Quote: Originally Posted by Golgot Obviously,... |