PDA

View Full Version : Buying an iPad In a Parking Lot is a Bad Idea




MacRumors
Aug 29, 2011, 01:51 PM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/08/29/buying-an-ipad-in-a-parking-lot-is-a-bad-idea/)


http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2011/08/silverchrysler.jpg


Grand Prairie, Texas is experiencing an epidemic of fake Apple products -- but not the kind from a fake Apple Store (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/07/20/counterfeit-apple-stores-pop-up-in-china/). The details of this scam come from the Grand Prairie police department:
A car load of two or three males will pull up to someone at a convenience store or shopping center parking lot and it's "Pssst, hey buddy. Want to buy an Apple iPad or MacBook?" They will tell the victim they are for sale for $300 each or both for $500. The Apple products are actually painted wood or loose leaf note books with the Apple logo on top and wrapped in bubble wrap. They are in a Fed Ex or Best Buy box and sealed up with tape. By the time the victim figures out the purchase wasn't what they bargained for, the crooks are long gone.

Grand Prairie has had over a dozen such crimes committed since January of this year. The suspects have been mostly black males. However one offense involved a black female as well. The vehicles used vary in most cases. There appears to be several groups of thieves and sometimes the suspects never even get out of the car.

The public should be advised that it is unwise to purchase anything from the trunk of a car, no matter how good the deal seems.The silver Chrysler 300 in the above picture was allegedly used in one of the offenses.

Anyone who has information about the suspects should call Grand Prairie Crime Stoppers at 972-988-8477 or the Grand Prairie "Tip Line" at 972-237-8877.

Article Link: Buying an iPad In a Parking Lot is a Bad Idea (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/08/29/buying-an-ipad-in-a-parking-lot-is-a-bad-idea/)



iPad 3
Aug 29, 2011, 01:56 PM
Painted wood... hilarious.

jared52
Aug 29, 2011, 01:57 PM
You know, if you are dumb enough to get ripped off by this scam, you might possibly deserve it.

soco
Aug 29, 2011, 01:59 PM
Agreed that they all deserve it. Just like the dopes that died from Irene by swimming or surfing during it.

Bunch of numbnuts.

NeonGreenHermit
Aug 29, 2011, 02:03 PM
LOL That's up there with the Wallet Inspector.

But let's consider the 'victim' thing here.

Who in their right minds would a) buy from some dodgy guys in a parking lot for a 1/3 of the price and b) not inspect the item first?

If you believed the product to be genuine, then you're basically admitting you'd buy stolen goods. No way could you say you thought it would be anything else, like a legitimate sale. And if you didn't check the iThing... well, then you're an idiot.

So... in a way... the only people losing here are gullible idiots who would have bought stolen items.

LowKeyed
Aug 29, 2011, 02:07 PM
Yeah, it's odd that they use the word "victim". This is simply one criminal tricking a dumber criminal. The only real victim here is the police officer who has to take the report while keeping a straight face and without making fun of the "victim". :)

al256
Aug 29, 2011, 02:08 PM
Aren't they at risk of getting shot? I mean it is Texas.

SFStateStudent
Aug 29, 2011, 02:08 PM
I would have asked for some ID, so that I could write a CHECK...lol :p

Warbrain
Aug 29, 2011, 02:08 PM
There are a lot of fools in this world.

rjtyork
Aug 29, 2011, 02:09 PM
Just got a $300 iPad from Blacks. About to open it up and hook it up to my computer. A white guy sold it to me in the Blacks Hardware parking lot. :)

Truffy
Aug 29, 2011, 02:11 PM
Truly, there's one born every minute.

itsmemuffins
Aug 29, 2011, 02:11 PM
Pssst, I have a Thousand Dollars here. You can have it for Three Hundred.

lilcosco08
Aug 29, 2011, 02:15 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (webOS/1.4.5.1; U; en-US) AppleWebKit/532.2 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/1.0 Safari/532.2 Pixi/1.1)

P-P-P-Powerbook

RaggieSoft
Aug 29, 2011, 02:15 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_5 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8L1 Safari/6533.18.5)

Thanks for the saying, P T Barnum ;)

nagromme
Aug 29, 2011, 02:19 PM
I would only buy an iPad from a car trunk if I could test it on the spot, and if it had almost no bloodstains.

2 Replies
Aug 29, 2011, 02:22 PM
The public should be advised that it is unwise to purchase anything from the trunk of a car, no matter how good the deal seems.

Unless it's shellfish.
Then it's nothing but a tasty & delish om-nom-itunity! X-D

NAG
Aug 29, 2011, 02:26 PM
Aren't they at risk of getting shot? I mean it is Texas.

If they were fooled by these guys their gun is probably an overly-ripe banana.

MacNewsFix
Aug 29, 2011, 02:29 PM
I'd like to feel some sympathy for the victims, but I'm just finding it impossible. Seriously, how many signs does one need?

DESNOS
Aug 29, 2011, 02:33 PM
Aren't they at risk of getting shot? I mean it is Texas.

You know what they say... If you outlaw guns then only outlaws will have guns. If people want to kill someone there are a million ways that have nothing to do with guns. Personally I'd rather be on the same level as the criminals.

Slix
Aug 29, 2011, 02:41 PM
Wait, so I'm not supposed to buy expensive products from random people in a parking lot? :eek:

MiWall81
Aug 29, 2011, 02:42 PM
Wait a second... What was all that "1 in a million talk..."

Dumb and Dumber

phpmaven
Aug 29, 2011, 02:42 PM
Pssst, hey buddy. Your'e a moron!

touchmonkey
Aug 29, 2011, 02:44 PM
You can't cheat an honest man.--W.C. Fields

toddybody
Aug 29, 2011, 02:51 PM
Sure it's a tad disappointing...but if Apple released a piece of wood with it's logo, they'd charge 300.00 for it too. Seems fair to me

wackymacky
Aug 29, 2011, 02:52 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

God some pepole are fools.
I wonder if anyone paid them with forged money?

ScoobyMcDoo
Aug 29, 2011, 02:53 PM
I don't know if I would go as far to say they deserve what they get. Many years ago, there was a guy I worked with who got scammed in much the same way. He was a brilliant engineer, but very socially awkward. He thought he was buying some high end speakers, but ended up with a box of rocks.

tivoli2
Aug 29, 2011, 02:53 PM
C'mon - how can you resist both for $500? ;)

Gemütlichkeit
Aug 29, 2011, 02:55 PM
Getting ripped off by 3 homies in a parking lot.

Who would buy ANYTHING from them?

mac=saif
Aug 29, 2011, 03:01 PM
How can people be so stupid?
I back the people who run the scam, to remind us how retarded our world has become!

Carlanga
Aug 29, 2011, 03:05 PM
the real question here is if the wood is from an apple tree :p
http://edibleapple.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/original_apple_logo.gif

Mattsasa
Aug 29, 2011, 03:05 PM
well I totally bought and sold my ipad 1 in a parking lot

Eddie Bombay
Aug 29, 2011, 03:13 PM
No wonder my ***** wouldn't turn on God damn it I got burned.

NeonGreenHermit
Aug 29, 2011, 03:16 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

God some pepole are fools.
I wonder if anyone paid them with forged money?


My dad used to work around the world on contracts (engineering, that is), and still laughs to tears about how the house he used to live in when working in Nigera was burgled one night - the thieves left everything, and instead stole the Monopoly money.

I'm not inferring or implying anything racial btw, just that it happened and was hilarious. They probably had never seen Monopoly before and thought they had hit the jackpot.

Makosuke
Aug 29, 2011, 03:18 PM
I don't know if I would go as far to say they deserve what they get.No, I think they deserved exactly what they got. If they'd bought it on, say, Craigslist, but hadn't done due diligence, I might say they were just naive. But these people could not POSSIBLY have thought they were buying anything but stolen goods. Seriously, some sketchy guys pull up to out of nowhere in a fancy car and ask if you want to buy a brand-new piece of electronics in a shipping box for way less than it's worth. They just decided they didn't need it, and eBay was too hard, and Craigslist would take too long? Sure...

If anything, the only saving grace of the idiots who bought the overpriced lumber was that they didn't commit a crime by buying stolen property, which they would have if the "deal" had been legit.

well I totally bought and sold my ipad 1 in a parking lotBut I'm willing to bet you didn't drive up to a random dude walking out of a convenience store and try to sell it to them, nor is that how you bought it. Unless it was stolen, of course.

NeonGreenHermit
Aug 29, 2011, 03:18 PM
I don't know if I would go as far to say they deserve what they get. Many years ago, there was a guy I worked with who got scammed in much the same way. He was a brilliant engineer, but very socially awkward. He thought he was buying some high end speakers, but ended up with a box of rocks.

A very old trick. There was a case of that here in the UK about 10 years ago, someone thought they had bought a high-end guitar amp cabinet, but it was just the body with bricks inside. I'd be gutted, unless I was a fan of stoner rock...


... I'll get my coat :D

Roy G Biv
Aug 29, 2011, 03:19 PM
To bring race into an issue that has nothing to do with race is incredibly offensive. Let's keep talk of color where it belongs.

Thank you.

rmhop81
Aug 29, 2011, 03:20 PM
I don't know if I would go as far to say they deserve what they get. Many years ago, there was a guy I worked with who got scammed in much the same way. He was a brilliant engineer, but very socially awkward. He thought he was buying some high end speakers, but ended up with a box of rocks.

yeah used to be a big scam here in the Dallas area. They would usually drive around in a Ford Explorer type car with big boxes in the back. Then pull up to you at a red light saying how they will sell u these super high end speakers for mega cheap bc they were left over and they didn't need them.

i don't even like the idea of craigslist so can't imagine doing something like this lol.

FroMann
Aug 29, 2011, 03:21 PM
I say let these people get scammed, if your dumb enough to buy consumer electronics from a random guy in a van you deserve to lose your money.

rmhop81
Aug 29, 2011, 03:22 PM
I say let these people get scammed, if your dumb enough to buy consumer electronics from a random guy in a van you deserve to lose your money.

what's the difference between that and the scammer that advertises it on craigslist? lol

jlgolson
Aug 29, 2011, 03:22 PM
To bring race into an issue that has nothing to do with race is incredibly offensive. Let's keep talk of color where it belongs.

Thank you.
To whom is this comment directed?

Justinf79
Aug 29, 2011, 03:32 PM
Got the money? I got the goods.

NAG
Aug 29, 2011, 03:33 PM
Although to be somewhat fair, big box stores often fall for this scam with returns (box of rocks or potatoes).

accessoriesguy
Aug 29, 2011, 03:34 PM
My dad used to work around the world on contracts (engineering, that is), and still laughs to tears about how the house he used to live in when working in Nigera was burgled one night - the thieves left everything, and instead stole the Monopoly money.

I'm not inferring or implying anything racial btw, just that it happened and was hilarious. They probably had never seen Monopoly before and thought they had hit the jackpot.

That's hilarious! some type of good karma bad karma virtue to it! :p

JRSAHLBERG
Aug 29, 2011, 03:37 PM
http://stylefrizz.com/img/ipad-wood-cutting-board.jpg

Consultant
Aug 29, 2011, 03:42 PM
That's just the speaker scam, with more desirable bait, but with non-working products instead of low quality speakers.

To those who think you won't be fooled, the same scam has gone on for DECADES. The scammers are highly honed in their crafts (and train other scammers), don't give you any time to think, and uses psychology cues to get you to comply. Difficult to avoid unless you are 100% legit.

White van speaker scam:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_van_speaker_scam

GreenFreaK
Aug 29, 2011, 03:43 PM
I would only buy an iPad from a car trunk if I could test it on the spot, and if it had almost no bloodstains.

"almost"

SandynJosh
Aug 29, 2011, 04:03 PM
To bring race into an issue that has nothing to do with race is incredibly offensive. Let's keep talk of color where it belongs.

Thank you.

Are you suggesting the police shouldn't have mentioned that the crooks were black? We've become so PC that once a little girl disappeared and the Amber Alert described her completely except to say that she was black. It wasn't until her photo got distributed that her ethnicity became part of who we should watch for.

This crime reminds me of a old quote from the movie, The Flim-Flam Man, "Son, you'd be amazed at the hundreds of satisfied students I've matriculated over the last 50 years!"

Some people just need a good education in how an honest transaction is conducted by both parties.

justinfreid
Aug 29, 2011, 04:13 PM
To bring race into an issue that has nothing to do with race is incredibly offensive. Let's keep talk of color where it belongs.

Thank you.

Given your username, do you mean in the rainbow? :p

beejam
Aug 29, 2011, 04:25 PM
Pssst, I have a Thousand Dollars here. You can have it for Three Hundred.

@Itsmemuffins: Off topic, but I just wanted to point out that you caused me quite a panic as I wondered how the hell a flea got under the glass of my iphone!!! :D

Powerbooky
Aug 29, 2011, 04:27 PM
My dad used to work around the world on contracts (engineering, that is), and still laughs to tears about how the house he used to live in when working in Nigera was burgled one night - the thieves left everything, and instead stole the Monopoly money.
I'm not inferring or implying anything racial btw, just that it happened and was hilarious. They probably had never seen Monopoly before and thought they had hit the jackpot.

Hilarious! That story made my day.
:D

*mental note*
pack Monopoly money on top of luggage whenever traveling abroad.
:rolleyes:

bengi
Aug 29, 2011, 04:27 PM
I would only buy an iPad from a car trunk if I could test it on the spot, and if it had almost no bloodstains.

guys! you are way behind us! In Italy this scam dates since 80s. And they also let you test onnthe spot, but then are so clever to do a trick and give the buyer the wooden thing. They showed the all procedure at a TV program with undercovervideos.

BTW, I was given my very first fake banknote in the US, Tulare, CA, not in Italy.

The world is getting smaller and smaller!

Ben

matbook101
Aug 29, 2011, 04:30 PM
I guess when they say everything is bigger in Texas, they forgot to mention that it's the opposite for the brain.

Benbikeman
Aug 29, 2011, 04:31 PM
There was a spate of these in the UK five or so years ago. The whole basis for the transaction being done quickly, without giving the 'buyer' time to examine the goods, was the unspoken statement that the goods were stolen. Both the price and the manner of sale make that crystal clear.

Anyone willing to buy stolen goods deserves all they get in my view.

B J M
Aug 29, 2011, 04:42 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_4 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8K2 Safari/6533.18.5)

I'm glad I read this, I often buy goods which I think are legit from guys in parking lots..

iEnvy
Aug 29, 2011, 04:54 PM
Pretty sure they're going to hit up surrounding cities. I live in Arlington, so I'm certain people will see them.

snberk103
Aug 29, 2011, 05:26 PM
When I was living for a summer outside NY City there was variation on the speaker scam.

You'd be walking along the sidewalk, and couple of fellows would pop the trunk of their car and offer you a pair of big speakers for a good price. All sorts of stories were used about why they were selling them. You could look at them, examine them. Anything you wanted. If you had a stereo you could test them even (but who walks around with a stereo?). You'd get them home and they'd work fine even.

The scam was that they were buying cheap speakers, legitimately. Even getting a volume discount from the store. But they were charging 2x and 3x what they worth, and were counting on the out-of-town rubes believing that they were "hot", and therefore being sold at a steep discount. Part of the schtick was that they insisted on giving everyone a receipt. And of course the more the scammers insisted on doing the paperwork for the goods sold from the trunk of the car, the more their 'customers' were convinced by the schtick.

The cops tried to shut them down, but they weren't doing anything really illegal. They paid their taxes, and had the paper work to prove it. They plugged the meter. They weren't vending on the sidewalk, so there was some doubt whether the city's vending laws even applied. And if the scammers were cited they just paid the fine because it was small, and they figured it was cheaper to pay it than to fight it.

The only thing they were guilty of was taking advantage of the tourists' greed.

pmz
Aug 29, 2011, 07:24 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A5302b Safari/7534.48.3)

It should be a greater crime to be so stupid.

MacGeek50
Aug 29, 2011, 07:32 PM
If anyone who knows how to google will know Apple's true prices, anything basically under $490 for an iPad or even a MacBook is naive!

Yumunum
Aug 29, 2011, 07:35 PM
Darn I already bought 4 iPads for the family... Do you think they'll take returns?

revelated
Aug 29, 2011, 07:36 PM
Best Buy has boxes?

Brien
Aug 29, 2011, 07:57 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (webOS/1.4.5.1; U; en-US) AppleWebKit/532.2 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/1.0 Safari/532.2 Pixi/1.1)

P-P-P-Powerbook

Haha, so true!

wilheldp
Aug 29, 2011, 08:45 PM
Buying an iPad In a Parking Lot is a Bad Idea
In other news, fire is hot and water is wet!

cactus33
Aug 29, 2011, 09:26 PM
Pssst, I have a Thousand Dollars here. You can have it for Three Hundred.

Damn, that ant is realistic! I flicked my screen multiple times !

rdowty
Aug 29, 2011, 09:41 PM
Sure it's a tad disappointing...but if Apple released a piece of wood with it's logo, they'd charge 300.00 for it too. Seems fair to me

Truest thing I've heard in a while.

MiWall81
Aug 29, 2011, 09:53 PM
My dad used to work around the world on contracts (engineering, that is), and still laughs to tears about how the house he used to live in when working in Nigera was burgled one night - the thieves left everything, and instead stole the Monopoly money.

I'm not inferring or implying anything racial btw, just that it happened and was hilarious. They probably had never seen Monopoly before and thought they had hit the jackpot.

Seriously hilarious!!!

----------

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_4 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8K2 Safari/6533.18.5)

I'm glad I read this, I often buy goods which I think are legit from guys in parking lots..

I can't stop laughing at peoples comments here...!

AppleTools
Aug 29, 2011, 10:06 PM
If I were one of the guys in the car, I would've sell them the AppleCare too!!! :D

Navdakilla
Aug 29, 2011, 10:22 PM
wow. smh, who would buy into that crap? I would never buy a product from a random without fully inspecting it first

Cheerwino
Aug 29, 2011, 10:39 PM
If I were one of the guys in the car, I would've sell them the AppleCare too!!! :D

Brilliant!!! :D

QCassidy352
Aug 29, 2011, 10:50 PM
Image (http://stylefrizz.com/img/ipad-wood-cutting-board.jpg)

I have one of those. Great ergonomics, but it loads webpages really slowly. Can't quite figure out what's wrong with it.

kockgunner
Aug 29, 2011, 11:26 PM
guys! you are way behind us! In Italy this scam dates since 80s. And they also let you test onnthe spot, but then are so clever to do a trick and give the buyer the wooden thing. They showed the all procedure at a TV program with undercovervideos.

BTW, I was given my very first fake banknote in the US, Tulare, CA, not in Italy.

The world is getting smaller and smaller!

Ben

Selling something that's not actually what one claims it is... is that even new? I'm sure it dates far beyond the 80's.

toshgiles
Aug 29, 2011, 11:57 PM
who the hell carries $500 cash around?

jmsait19
Aug 30, 2011, 12:00 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A5302b Safari/7534.48.3)

Really it's just a case of some entrepreneurial guys misplacing their talent. The buyers are just dumb, and should be grateful they were taken for more... But the sellers need to be shown how to harness their abilities in a more legal sense. They have so much potential!

matbook101
Aug 30, 2011, 12:02 AM
who the hell carries $500 cash around?

*cough* ATM *cough*

zync
Aug 30, 2011, 12:46 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_5 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8L1 Safari/6533.18.5)

How can people be so stupid?
I back the people who run the scam, to remind us how retarded are world is become!

I'm not even going to say it.

EDIT:
Wait, it's funnier if I do.
mac=saif
are = our
is = has
And those aren't all of the problems with your statement.

DougFNJ
Aug 30, 2011, 01:01 AM
A fool and their money should had never been together in the first place.

foidulus
Aug 30, 2011, 02:21 AM
When I was living for a summer outside NY City there was variation on the speaker scam.

You'd be walking along the sidewalk, and couple of fellows would pop the trunk of their car and offer you a pair of big speakers for a good price. All sorts of stories were used about why they were selling them. You could look at them, examine them. Anything you wanted. If you had a stereo you could test them even (but who walks around with a stereo?). You'd get them home and they'd work fine even.

The scam was that they were buying cheap speakers, legitimately. Even getting a volume discount from the store. But they were charging 2x and 3x what they worth, and were counting on the out-of-town rubes believing that they were "hot", and therefore being sold at a steep discount. Part of the schtick was that they insisted on giving everyone a receipt. And of course the more the scammers insisted on doing the paperwork for the goods sold from the trunk of the car, the more their 'customers' were convinced by the schtick.

The cops tried to shut them down, but they weren't doing anything really illegal. They paid their taxes, and had the paper work to prove it. They plugged the meter. They weren't vending on the sidewalk, so there was some doubt whether the city's vending laws even applied. And if the scammers were cited they just paid the fine because it was small, and they figured it was cheaper to pay it than to fight it.

The only thing they were guilty of was taking advantage of the tourists' greed.

Thats pretty much a mobile version of the "going out of business" sale. Some places have been going out of business for decades now, wonder when they are finally going to close up shop :p

jumpmanpro97
Aug 30, 2011, 02:22 AM
didn't they have this scam in the 90's

"Hey buddy I have some stereo speakers for sale man!"

I remember in high school some guys in a truck trying to sell me stereo speakers, lol same scam just apple products now.

Negritude
Aug 30, 2011, 04:35 AM
The scam was that they were buying cheap speakers, legitimately. Even getting a volume discount from the store. But they were charging 2x and 3x what they worth, and were counting on the out-of-town rubes believing that they were "hot", and therefore being sold at a steep discount.

Yeah, that's not illegal. Around here we call that eBay.

blackburn
Aug 30, 2011, 04:36 AM
A very old scam. I saw selling cellphones that were soap bars and many stolen, many fake clothing stuff and many fake audio/video stuff. The trick is not to buy or even listen to those "random" encounters. One idiot tried to trick me into trading my phone for a nokia n95 that most likely was stolen, one has to be an idiot to believe in good intentions.

One curious story: a friend of mine was mugged and later on that day we found is cellphone for sale on the flea market. Too bad someone got arrested:D.

marksman
Aug 30, 2011, 07:31 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_4 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8K2 Safari/6533.18.5)

Who carries 500 cash with them these days?

marksman
Aug 30, 2011, 07:41 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_4 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8K2 Safari/6533.18.5)

who the hell carries $500 cash around?

*cough* ATM *cough*

If you have to leave these guys, go go an ATM and the voluntarily come back the loss of money is a proper punishment.

mac=saif
Aug 30, 2011, 07:52 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_5 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8L1 Safari/6533.18.5)



I'm not even going to say it.

EDIT:
Wait, it's funnier if I do.
mac=saif
are = our
is = has
And those aren't all of the problems with your statement.

Thank you, for marking out my grammatical mistakes. I would not have noticed it if it was not for you.
Let me remind you about a common rule in English.
EDIT:

Zync
You never start a sentence with the word 'And'.

andrewlgm
Aug 30, 2011, 08:54 AM
dirty people.

Gasu E.
Aug 30, 2011, 09:36 AM
You know what they say... If you outlaw guns then only outlaws will have guns.

Yes, gun proponents do say that, if that's whom you mean by "they".

If people want to kill someone there are a million ways that have nothing to do with guns.

True, but if you don't want to kill anyone, having a loaded gun lying around is an excellent way to fail.

Personally I'd rather be on the same level as the criminals.

That's an interesting aspiration; I wish you the best of luck.

----------

How can people be so stupid?
I back the people who run the scam, to remind us how retarded our world has become!

I watch the news every day, and listen to the illogical nonsense candidates for higher office are spouting. I don't need any other reminders.

toddybody
Aug 30, 2011, 09:42 AM
dirty people.

They have feelings too.

Gasu E.
Aug 30, 2011, 09:54 AM
Thank you, for marking out my grammatical mistakes. I would not have noticed it if it was not for you.
Let me remind you about a common rule in English.
EDIT:

Zync
You never start a sentence with the word 'And'.

But, today, it's considered perfectly acceptable to begin a sentence with a conjunction in informal writing! And you can start a sentence with "or" as well. Or you can begin a sentence with "but" when appropriate. And you can find many examples in major works of literature, including the Bible. :D

Lesser Evets
Aug 30, 2011, 10:41 AM
This is the oldest scam in the book. If people are still falling for it, they are babes or morons. Who trusts stuff sold out of a car trunk running through a parking lot?

SockRolid
Aug 30, 2011, 11:50 AM
I hear you can't buy the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Australia right now. Not legally, anyway.

Time for these guys to take their show on the road. They could sell *real* Samsung gear.

Consultant
Aug 30, 2011, 12:21 PM
Who carries 500 cash with them these days?

Mark: I don't have cash
Scammer: I just drove by an ATM, we can go there. Follow me.

TWSS37
Aug 30, 2011, 12:25 PM
Isnt this what Apple essentially does now, only with aluminum?

Pomeless
Aug 30, 2011, 01:51 PM
I think that the gift the Greeks gave to the Trojan's can on wheels too.

louis Fashion
Aug 30, 2011, 04:12 PM
I don't know if I would go as far to say they deserve what they get. Many years ago, there was a guy I worked with who got scammed in much the same way. He was a brilliant engineer, but very socially awkward. He thought he was buying some high end speakers, but ended up with a box of rocks.

a box of rocks? 4 Ohm or 8 Ohm?????

Texran
Aug 30, 2011, 06:12 PM
Pssst, I have a Thousand Dollars here. You can have it for Three Hundred.

Your avatar had me for a minute, thought it was a bug on my iPad. Smashed it but it keep moving. Too Funny.

Tiggs
Aug 30, 2011, 07:30 PM
In other news, a sucker is born every minute and a fool and his money are easily parted. :rolleyes:

sittnick
Aug 30, 2011, 08:18 PM
http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2010-09-23/

http://dilbert.com/dyn/str_strip/000000000/00000000/0000000/100000/00000/0000/700/100758/100758.strip.gif

joepunk
Aug 31, 2011, 01:47 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

it would almost be funny to find out that the wood was worth more than $300.

Makosuke
Aug 31, 2011, 06:09 AM
This is obviously an ancient scam, but it does seem to be at least a little different from the standard white-van version, in that at least some of the time with that one the rube could theoretically think he/she is buying something legitimate. Some might think they're getting stolen speakers, and anyone who falls for it is a sucker, but it's possible to be a sucker who thinks they're getting a legit deal.

This particular variant of the scam there is no way a reasonable human being would not think they were buying stolen goods. Which is to say that instead of just idiots, they're wannabe-criminal idiots.

Semantic difference, I know, but I think it does change the character of the scam at least a little.

Isnt this what Apple essentially does now, only with aluminum?Points for the pithy jab at Apple's style tax, but the simple fact that Wintel companies are literally asking Intel for a $100 subsidy just to compete with Apple on price with the MBA, and that nobody has managed to out-spec the iPad at the same price point, is pretty clearly indicative that it's not in reality the case.

Unless you count HP selling the Touchpad for $99, which is fine except they're losing $100M in the process.

Neodym
Aug 31, 2011, 07:18 AM
[Apple's first company logo]
Image (http://edibleapple.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/original_apple_logo.gif)

When i looked at this picture i suddenly realized that Newton seems to use an iPad - amazing how Steve already knew back then what product he would release some 30+ years later... That guy really is planning long-term for sure :D ;) (scnr)

winston1236
Aug 31, 2011, 08:23 AM
shocking, and here i was thinking buying high end electronics from a sketchy group of people in a chrysler 300 was perfectly acceptable

b-rad g
Aug 31, 2011, 10:05 AM
Happening in South Carolina too.....

http://www.thestate.com/2011/08/30/1952545/sc-womans-180-ipad-turns-out-to.html

If you fell for this, you deserve to have your money taken!

jonnysods
Aug 31, 2011, 10:40 AM
At least meet in a public place such as a coffee shop. That's how I do my shifty deals.

zync
Aug 31, 2011, 12:23 PM
Thank you, for marking out my grammatical mistakes. I would not have noticed it if it was not for you.
Let me remind you about a common rule in English.
EDIT:

Zync
You never start a sentence with the word 'And'.

You're welcome. And thanks for pointing that out. It feels good to finally catch the grammar Nazi, doesn't it? Unfortunately you'll have to wait a bit longer because it's not incorrect to start a sentence with a conjunction. I paid attention in English class. And I've paid attention while reading.

Starting a sentence with a conjunction and ending a sentence with a preposition are just things that teachers tell you as fact so that you'll avoid doing it to excess and sounding stupid. But it's not incorrect in English.

It's similar to the 3.5 essay in elementary school. No one uses that structure outside of elementary school, but it provides a framework for kids who are starting out with essays.


But, today, it's considered perfectly acceptable to begin a sentence with a conjunction in informal writing! And you can start a sentence with "or" as well. Or you can begin a sentence with "but" when appropriate. And you can find many examples in major works of literature, including the Bible. :D

Nice response! I wouldn't use it in a thesis, but if you're writing a novel it's not a problem.

As a fellow grammarian, you'll appreciate this site:
http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/errors.html

This page lists this issue as well as many others teachers held dear:
http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/nonerrors.html

The site is great and it's an excellent resource to point people to.


Yes, gun proponents do say that, if that's whom you mean by "they".

And the evidence agrees. In every major city in the United States—Chicago is a big example—where carry rights have been denied, there is a higher instance of crime—and in many cases a higher instance of violent crime.

It's actually not even just the case in the US. England, Ireland, and Australia are also great examples.


True, but if you don't want to kill anyone, having a loaded gun lying around is an excellent way to fail.

I often have a loaded gun around me and people have pissed me off. And you know what happened? I cared less about them angering me than I did before I owned a gun.

If you don't want to kill someone, you're not going to do it. If you're going to put a bullet into someone for a reason other than self-defense, you should just save yourself some time and shoot yourself—unless you like the prospect of rotting in jail.


I watch the news every day, and listen to the illogical nonsense candidates for higher office are spouting. I don't need any other reminders.

Let me get this straight. You believe that law-abiding citizens who have had extensive background checks to get carry permits are going to break the law by shooting someone out of anger and you believe that criminals—who already cannot legally carry a firearm—will comply with the laws if they are made more stringent against guns?

Who's illogical?

cgc
Aug 31, 2011, 12:38 PM
...The silver Chrysler 300 in the above picture was allegedly used in one of the offenses.

Anyone who has information about the suspects should call Grand Prairie Crime Stoppers at 972-988-8477 or the Grand Prairie "Tip Line" at 972-237-8877.

Nice clue, a fricking silver Chrysler 300. To quote Chief Wiggums from The Simpsons, "This is Wiggum, reporting a 318! Waking a police officer!"

The victims had to think they were buying stolen property so I feel nothing for them other than they got what they deserved.

cgc
Aug 31, 2011, 12:48 PM
Are you suggesting the police shouldn't have mentioned that the crooks were black? We've become so PC that once a little girl disappeared and the Amber Alert described her completely except to say that she was black. It wasn't until her photo got distributed that her ethnicity became part of who we should watch for.

This crime reminds me of a old quote from the movie, The Flim-Flam Man, "Son, you'd be amazed at the hundreds of satisfied students I've matriculated over the last 50 years!"

Some people just need a good education in how an honest transaction is conducted by both parties.

I concur, all facts related to the case that don't endanger anyone should be divulged as it will help narrow down the dozens of Chrysler 300's out there.

sclawis300
Aug 31, 2011, 01:22 PM
Happening in South Carolina too.....

http://www.thestate.com/2011/08/30/1952545/sc-womans-180-ipad-turns-out-to.html

If you fell for this, you deserve to have your money taken!

I would expect nothing less from Spartanburg.

zync
Aug 31, 2011, 01:26 PM
I would expect nothing less from Spartanburg.

South Carolina should change its state motto.

South Carolina, giving Florida a run for its money.

snberk103
Aug 31, 2011, 07:04 PM
....
And the evidence agrees. In every major city in the United States—Chicago is a big example—where carry rights have been denied, there is a higher instance of crime—and in many cases a higher instance of violent crime.

It's actually not even just the case in the US. England, Ireland, and Australia are also great examples.

No, actually the evidence doesn't agree. The statistics cited in these cases doesn't take in account differences in income, age, urbanization, etc.

Here's a stat for you. Minneapolis = 29 deaths by guns so far. Windsor, Ontario (Metro) - with far far stronger gun control laws. 0 gun deaths.

Looking at national stats, US gun deaths *rate* an order of magnitude higher than any other developed nation with strict gun control laws.

Another stat. In Washington state, 88% of gun deaths were caused by a Spouses, other family members, friends of the victim. The shooter was not a criminal, until they pulled the trigger during a domestic dispute or by negligence. Only 12% of those killed were shot in act of committing a crime.


I often have a loaded gun around me and people have pissed me off. And you know what happened? I cared less about them angering me than I did before I owned a gun.

If you don't want to kill someone, you're not going to do it.
Until you do. Until you get mad enough that you lose control for just a split second.


If you're going to put a bullet into someone for a reason other than self-defense, you should just save yourself some time and shoot yourself—unless you like the prospect of rotting in jail.

Let me get this straight. You believe that law-abiding citizens who have had extensive background checks to get carry permits are going to break the law by shooting someone out of anger and you believe that criminals—who already cannot legally carry a firearm—will comply with the laws if they are made more stringent against guns?

Who's illogical?
Well the stats actually indicate that most gun deaths are committed by law-abiding citizens. Law abiding until they pulled the trigger, that is.

Or to put it a different way. If you keep a gun to shoot a criminal... you are seven times more likely to shoot someone you love or like before you ever shoot the criminal.

The Washington state stats come from their public health unit, and are similar to the national stats.

zync
Aug 31, 2011, 10:09 PM
No, actually the evidence doesn't agree. The statistics cited in these cases doesn't take in account differences in income, age, urbanization, etc.

Here's a stat for you. Minneapolis = 29 deaths by guns so far. Windsor, Ontario (Metro) - with far far stronger gun control laws. 0 gun deaths.

Looking at national stats, US gun deaths *rate* an order of magnitude higher than any other developed nation with strict gun control laws.

Another stat. In Washington state, 88% of gun deaths were caused by a Spouses, other family members, friends of the victim. The shooter was not a criminal, until they pulled the trigger during a domestic dispute or by negligence. Only 12% of those killed were shot in act of committing a crime.

Well the stats actually indicate that most gun deaths are committed by law-abiding citizens. Law abiding until they pulled the trigger, that is.

Or to put it a different way. If you keep a gun to shoot a criminal... you are seven times more likely to shoot someone you love or like before you ever shoot the criminal.

The Washington state stats come from their public health unit, and are similar to the national stats.


Allow me to retort. Your stats don't take into account differences in population, which is a far easier, and more important point to worry about than income, age, or urbanization.

So let's use actual numbers, sources, and common sense. Shall we?

According to the Small Arms Survey:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership

America has 88.8 guns per 100 people. Canada has 30.8.

The Windsor metro area has 323K people. That's 99,484 guns. The Minneapolis metro area has roughly 3 million people. That's 2,664,000 guns. So, let's even them out based on population. Minneapolis has had one death for every 91,862 guns. That's just under the total amount of guns that can be reasoned to belong in Windsor, assuming that they are average as far as gun ownership. If they are indeed stricter than the rest of Canado, then they have less. So basically it's a wash.

Of course gun deaths are highest in the country where the most guns are. That's obvious. However, the amount of overall crime is less.

According to the International Crime Victims Survey:
http://rechten.uvt.nl/icvs/images/graph05.jpg

We're 7th on the list of cities with violent crime because of NYC. Without NYC, we're not even on the list.

More of that is explained here:
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/guncontrol_20010302.html

The amount of guns has never been higher than it is now, and anti-gun laws have been on the decline, and guess what? violent crime has too. http://www.stateoftheusa.org/content/fbi-report-violent-crime-down.php

Chicago and D.C. both topped the list for crime at one point, and they both had very strict gun control laws. Out of the ten most dangerous cities in America, two are in California.

Why don't we just look at how well the anti-drug laws have worked. Pick a corner and talk to someone.

Oh and that Washington state claim must also be BS because it doesn't take into account suicides. I don't know how your public health unit data can vary so wildly from both the Department of Health and Washington Cease Fire. Both are groups interested in gun control.
http://www.doh.wa.gov/hsqa/emstrauma/injury/pubs/icpg/DOH530090Firear.pdf
http://washingtonceasefire.org/resource-center/national-firearm-injury-and-death-statistics

This data comes from a network of specific communities in Washington State that the DoH works with. In these areas in 2006 Firearm deaths were 522.

392 were suicides (75%)
121 were homicides (23%)
9 were unintentional (2%)

So no, 88% were not injuries to friends or family.

The anti-gun website Washington Cease Fire (based out of Washington State) is close to my numbers (2004) using the CDC's data:

Homicide: 11,624 / 39% of All Fatalities
Suicide: 16,750 / 57% of All Fatalities
Unintentional Death (Accidental): 649 / 2% of All Fatalities

I could go on and address your other claims, but they're probably BS too. For one thing that Brady Campaign number (which obviously fails in this Washington data) about being 7 times more likely to be shoot friends or family is based on a random telephone survey conducted in 1996. In other words, it's BS. Find data from an unbiased source, or even a source biased against your argument (as I have done above) that agrees.

Keep in mind that you need to filter out suicides. You need to filter out homicides. I saw a stat about how likely a woman was to be murdered by someone they know, and obviously that's not accidental and so it doesn't count.

And if you want bonus points, filter out how many are people who were legally allowed to own and carry a weapon.

If you want to try to reason anything in this, beat these arguments and we'll talk:
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=209#FABLE%20IV:

This is also a good article on the subject:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-03-31/news/ct-oped-0331-chapman-20110331_1_concealed-carry-permit-holders-brady-campaign

Hell, this one even comes from the University of Chicago:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30405

It notes that only .001% of people issued a CCW permit in my state have had their permits revoked (not necessarily gun crimes either). That's 165 out of 1.36 million. It also notes that 40% of criminals have said that the thought of someone being armed prevented them from attempting their crime.

Until you get some better facts, I guess we're done here. I could write novels on this, but I don't want to.

I keep a gun to shoot for fun and to protect myself. There is no way that I am going to shoot someone I know. I am not an idiot. I am not firing at people randomly in the dark. And gun safety is my highest priority. Anyone with a CCW has proven it. We're not just people that randomly decide to pick up a toy and not learn anything about it. I've shot my guns. I've shot other people's guns. I realize that death comes out the end of the barrel.

The biggest problem I have is that you would rather deny me my constitutional right because you think I am not trustworthy. My country believes in innocence until proven guilty. You would have it be the other way around.



Until you do. Until you get mad enough that you lose control for just a split second.

What BS. Please don't ascribe your traits and fears to me. That's the problem with anti-gun, Brady Campaign people. Just because you think you could be so angry as to shoot someone, doesn't mean that I will. When you have the power to end someone's life with one trigger pull, you actually think about what that means. You realize that arguments and anger are petty and fleeting and that no argument or amount of anger is worth losing your life rotting in prison or taking another's life over it.

Trust me, there aren't many more things that anyone could do to piss me off. I've seen it all. I will never shoot anyone unless my life, or someone else's life is in danger, or I witness a forcible felony (rape, kidnapping, etc.) taking place and I have the means to safely stop it. And that might not even include discharging my weapon.

Until you actually own and carry a gun, you will just not get it. People who own guns respect them. We don't think that they're toys, or something to use in an argument to make someone submit. We keep them for safety and possibly sport. We don't just bring them home and keep them because they look cool. I know that's what your side thinks. But the truth and the evidence shows that people who are legally allowed to carry guns are safe, law-abiding citizens unlike the picture you're trying to paint. We understand the responsibility of owning a gun, and you don't if you don't own one. And the simple fact is that if you're living in America, 88.8% of the people around you have guns. It appears that you live in Canada. 30.8% of the people around you have guns. Have you ever been shot? Most people just go about their day without even knowing it. And though you'd rather me give up my guns, I'd gladly assist you if you needed it.

So just because your made up data says that I'm seven times more likely to shoot someone I love or whatever doesn't mean that I'm trigger happy or incapable of self-control simply because I have a gun. I've never lost control of myself. I've never even so much as punched someone out of anger. I even take most bugs outside instead of just killing them. So please stop with your, "until you do," BS because that's all it is, BS.

cgc
Sep 1, 2011, 08:55 AM
@ zync: Preach on brother zync! I agree 100% and appreciate your facts and citations. This reminds me of environmentalists who want to ban hunting without knowing anything about hunting. It appalls them people go in the woods and assassinate animals (to eat) but don't realize those same hunters are some of the most ardent, devoted, active environmentalists out there. Same thing goes with gun owners who turn out to mostly be very careful and responsible.

Your post reminds me of my college days where I'd stomp someone into the ground with facts and figures...good work.

zync
Sep 1, 2011, 03:26 PM
@ zync: Preach on brother zync! I agree 100% and appreciate your facts and citations. This reminds me of environmentalists who want to ban hunting without knowing anything about hunting. It appalls them people go in the woods and assassinate animals (to eat) but don't realize those same hunters are some of the most ardent, devoted, active environmentalists out there. Same thing goes with gun owners who turn out to mostly be very careful and responsible.

Your post reminds me of my college days where I'd stomp someone into the ground with facts and figures...good work.

Thanks for saying that. I appreciate it after all of that work. I've been doing it since college too. :)

What you said is equally important. Hunters are intensely concerned about the environment. And that's another thing that people get wrong.

I found another study done by independent researchers before Wisconsin got CCW. http://www.wpri.org/Reports/Volume19/Vol19no4.pdf

It notes that crime has dropped but it cannot be attributed easily to gun ownership. However, it does debunk all of the fears surrounding individuals being armed. It also notes that while crime hasn't changed drastically, it is most likely because criminals don't stop what they're doing, so they always find a victim. With greater amounts of carrying, it may show a decrease.

In any case, I simply wanted to point out that people with CCW permits are not violent individuals. No one should be afraid of a legal gun owner. They are law abiding by definition, and continue to be so even in situations where their gun is necessary. The above study cites a case in which a person used a gun in a defensive manner to stop an armed robbery, saving the lives of 8 people, and did not kill the robber, even as the other victims pleaded him to do so.

The above study also notes that many law enforcement individuals who had previously been against CCW said that they were wrong. I'm sure the same thing happened in Wisconsin after this study occurred.

The problem is, and always has been, criminals with concealed guns. And there's no way to stop that without ruining personal liberty for everyone (unlawful search and seizure). The best solution is licensed concealed carry. However, I would assert that open carry should be legal for everyone without permit. It works for Vermont and their concealed carry age is 18 instead of 21 like most places.

But I like to listen to the Constitution, and believe in what our founders wrote. And that's a part of our culture and heritage as Americans and I wouldn't expect any other country to get that. Australia did for a bit, but they allowed the anti-gun groups to spout half-truths and they lost their rights.

Anyway, I'm going to go back to writing quick, pithy comments instead of tomes. :) Sorry for derailing this thread, I just couldn't let people smear the reputation of those that exercise their right to bear arms. We're not crazy people like you want to believe.

nateo200
Sep 1, 2011, 06:34 PM
Lmfao...are you kidding me? If I picked up a piece of painted would I would just know...jesus. Crappy security photo though....

snberk103
Sep 1, 2011, 07:40 PM
Allow me to retort. Your stats don't take into account differences in population, which is a far easier, and more important point to worry about than income, age, or urbanization.
...
America has 88.8 guns per 100 people. Canada has 30.8.
You need to take into account income, age, and urbanization. Otherwise any comparison is useless. Yes, of course Canada has fewer guns per person. That's the whole point. More guns, more people shot and killed.

The Windsor metro area has 323K people. That's 99,484 guns. The Minneapolis metro area has roughly 3 million people.
Sorry, my bad. I meant to compare metro Windsor with Minneapolis proper, not metro. Which puts the populations at par. I'm not pulling this comparison out of thin air, Minneapolis has recently been making the comparison. The demographics of the two communities is very similar. Minneapolis has lots of guns, Windsor doesn't. Minneapolis has lots of homicides by guns. Windsor doesn't. There are some who believe those two things are linked.


....
Of course gun deaths are highest in the country where the most guns are. That's obvious. However, the amount of overall crime is less.

According to the International Crime Victims Survey:
http://rechten.uvt.nl/icvs/images/graph05.jpg
"Historically, the violent crime rate in Canada is lower than that of the U.S. and this continues to be the case. For example, in 2000 the United States' rate for robberies was 65 percent higher, its rate for aggravated assault was more than double and its murder rate was triple that of Canada. However, the rate of some property crime types is lower in the U.S. than in Canada. For example, in 2006, the rates of vehicle theft were 22% higher in Canada than in the US"[Wikipedia - with link back to primarily source]
So, in fact violent crimes is higher in the country with more guns, and theft from cars... that rarely need a gun ... is higher in a country with fewer guns.

....
The amount of guns has never been higher than it is now, and anti-gun laws have been on the decline, and guess what? violent crime has too. http://www.stateoftheusa.org/content/fbi-report-violent-crime-down.php
Guess what.... violent crime is down in all developed nations, because the population is aging. Older populations don't commit as many crimes. That's the demographic factor you need to take into account.

Chicago and D.C. both topped the list for crime at one point, and they both had very strict gun control laws. Out of the ten most dangerous cities in America, two are in California.
Violent crimes happen most often in urban areas, and less in rural areas. So you need to compare control laws across similar densities, and not rural to urban densities.

....
Oh and that Washington state claim must also be BS because it doesn't take into account suicides. I don't know how your public health unit data can vary so wildly from both the Department of Health and Washington Cease Fire. Both are groups interested in gun control.
http://www.doh.wa.gov/hsqa/emstrauma/injury/pubs/icpg/DOH530090Firear.pdf
....
392 were suicides (75%)
121 were homicides (23%)
9 were unintentional (2%)

I ignored the suicides because we are debating crimes.

I couldn't find my handy King County WA infographic, but I found a better source since this encompasses 3 counties in 3 states, including King County WA.

"The great majority of the victims (76.7 percent) were killed by a relative or someone known to them. Homicides by a stranger accounted for only 15 cases (3.6 percent). The identity of the offender could not be established in 73 cases (17.4 percent). The remaining cases involved other offenders or police acting in the line of duty.
Two hundred nine victims (49.8 percent) died from gunshot wounds. A knife or some other sharp instrument was used to kill 111 victims (26.4 percent). The remaining victims were either bludgeoned (11.7 percent), strangled (6.4 percent), or killed by other means (5.7 percent)." [link (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506#t=articleDiscussion)]


Keep in mind that you need to filter out suicides. You need to filter out homicides. I saw a stat about how likely a woman was to be murdered by someone they know, and obviously that's not accidental and so it doesn't count.
Murdered women don't count?? Would you like to clarify that? I don't think you meant that to sound as ugly as it does.

...
Until you get some better facts, I guess we're done here. I could write novels on this, but I don't want to.
My facts seem to holding up fine. Even the studies you cited show that in developed countries with strict gun control laws, people are very very very much safer than in developed countries without strict control laws.

I keep a gun to shoot for fun and to protect myself. There is no way that I am going to shoot someone I know. I am not an idiot. I am not firing at people randomly in the dark. And gun safety is my highest priority. Anyone with a CCW has proven it. We're not just people that randomly decide to pick up a toy and not learn anything about it. I've shot my guns. I've shot other people's guns. I realize that death comes out the end of the barrel.
....
What BS. Please don't ascribe your traits and fears to me. That's the problem with anti-gun, Brady Campaign people. Just because you think you could be so angry as to shoot someone, doesn't mean that I will.
I agree. We can't use stats to predict what an individual will do. But the stats show that in a big enough sample, most people killed by a firearm are killed by someone they know.

...

So just because your made up data says .....
I've provided links to my data

I am not accusing you of anything, nor do I think you would ever use your gun inappropriately. I am saying that in the wider US population, guns make people less safe, not more.

lav1daloca
Sep 6, 2011, 10:06 AM
I've had the same thing happening to me 10years ago in San Francisco. We were on vacation there and this black guy and a black girl, they looked like homeless people, came up to us with this FedEx box and were like hey do you want to buy a new laptop i just stole it off of this fedex truck and we were like hmmm.. how much, they started with 300 bucks and we luckily pushed them down to 100bucks and went to our hotel with the box, sure enough there was on laptop, it was just a magazine in there that was made to look like a laptop.

oh well, i hope they spent that money well.

zync
Sep 6, 2011, 01:57 PM
You need to take into account income, age, and urbanization. Otherwise any comparison is useless. Yes, of course Canada has fewer guns per person. That's the whole point. More guns, more people shot and killed.

There's a very important distinction here that you and anti-gun people ignore. More guns in the hands of criminals will always equal more people shot and killed. More of the population is law-abiding than not. Thus more guns does not equal more gun deaths.

Let us frame this debate a little better. I am talking about gun ownership amongst law-abiding citizens, like CCW permit holders. Of course more guns held by criminals will lead to more gun crime.

The problem with comparing other nations to the US is that, unlike the US, in most other places all the guns are held by criminals.

With those things understood, let us continue.

Sorry, my bad. I meant to compare metro Windsor with Minneapolis proper, not metro. Which puts the populations at par. I'm not pulling this comparison out of thin air, Minneapolis has recently been making the comparison. The demographics of the two communities is very similar. Minneapolis has lots of guns, Windsor doesn't. Minneapolis has lots of homicides by guns. Windsor doesn't. There are some who believe those two things are linked.

I knew you meant to compare Windsor Metro to just Minneapolis. The problem with that is that it leaves out a lot. It's an unfair comparison. Did your source specifically state that all were killed in the city proper? Metro populations are fluid. For example, Tampa has about 330K residents, but it swells to 3-4 million during the day. There's no way to know with current studies whether someone shot in Tampa was shot by someone from Tampa.

"Historically, the violent crime rate in Canada is lower than that of the U.S. and this continues to be the case. For example, in 2000 the United States' rate for robberies was 65 percent higher, its rate for aggravated assault was more than double and its murder rate was triple that of Canada. However, the rate of some property crime types is lower in the U.S. than in Canada. For example, in 2006, the rates of vehicle theft were 22% higher in Canada than in the US"[Wikipedia - with link back to primarily source]
So, in fact violent crimes is higher in the country with more guns, and theft from cars... that rarely need a gun ... is higher in a country with fewer guns.

As far as I'm concerned, crime is crime. This cannot be directly attributed to the amount of guns. Other factors may play a role as in the likelihood of a victim to have a gun on them. Look at what you copied that I wrote. London, Tallinn, Reykjavik, Belfast, and Dublin, all beat out New York in that study and New York also has strict gun control. A city in the USA with a decent gun population isn't even on the list of 26 cities.

Guess what.... violent crime is down in all developed nations, because the population is aging. Older populations don't commit as many crimes. That's the demographic factor you need to take into account.

Cite a source. Yes, it's down all over, but my source was a US specific study. Neither of us have studies that take into account demographics. It hasn't entered the gun control debate as a whole and it hasn't really mattered to either side. The only way, and not a very good way, would be to compare birth rate. Some rates are down and some are up depending upon age group. Overall it looks to be down since 1990, but by how much and did crime drop proportionately? I doubt it. Feel free to look.

I will fall back on that Wisconsin study (WPRI) I posted as it's more comprehensive than what we have done in this argument. Gun ownership has seemingly had no effect on crime. I will concede that.

But it conceded that if everyone who could get a CCW permit would, we might end up with less crime. The problem is that the CCW population is so little, criminals always have another target. Criminals have often stated in studies that knowing or suspecting that someone had a gun stopped them 40% of the time (WPRI study). That study was made before Florida set the standard for shall-issue concealed carry permits.

Violent crimes happen most often in urban areas, and less in rural areas. So you need to compare control laws across similar densities, and not rural to urban densities.

There are plenty of areas more urbanized than those two cities. Why not elsewhere then? Or shall we again look at NYC, where there are strict gun controls (against law abiding citizens).

I ignored the suicides because we are debating crimes.

I couldn't find my handy King County WA infographic, but I found a better source since this encompasses 3 counties in 3 states, including King County WA.

"The great majority of the victims (76.7 percent) were killed by a relative or someone known to them. Homicides by a stranger accounted for only 15 cases (3.6 percent). The identity of the offender could not be established in 73 cases (17.4 percent). The remaining cases involved other offenders or police acting in the line of duty.
Two hundred nine victims (49.8 percent) died from gunshot wounds. A knife or some other sharp instrument was used to kill 111 victims (26.4 percent). The remaining victims were either bludgeoned (11.7 percent), strangled (6.4 percent), or killed by other means (5.7 percent)." [link (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506#t=articleDiscussion)]

You didn't ignore suicides. Your numbers did as those numbers often do. You used an infographic? I used an anti-gun source based out of WA to provide my numbers. One would suspect a partisan group to have the most fudged numbers.

"The great majority of the victims (76.7 percent) were killed by a relative or someone known to them."

Let's go back to what you stated. "You are seven times more likely to shoot someone you love or like before you ever shoot the criminal." I've heard many variations of that, and they're all BS. And your stated statistics proves it. Your stats are for homicides. They aren't for accidental shootings, or manslaughter. If someone is going to murder you, would you still consider them someone you love or like? And if someone is going to murder you with a gun, would you feel no fear if all they had access to was a knife?

Let's look further at your stats.
"Two hundred nine victims (49.8 percent) died from gunshot wounds."

So that 76.7% is actually only 38.2% of people shot by someone they knew with a gun. You have to actually calculate the data. Less than half of the victims who knew their killer were shot by a gun.

Your source's link didn't load, but it doesn't matter. It's flawed because it doesn't prove what you originally asserted, which was that you'd be more likely to shoot someone you love or like than a criminal—i.e. that it would be an accident. This doesn't even come close to proving that fake statistic.

Homicides by a stranger are always rare. Why? Because you usually don't piss someone off that much on a chance encounter.

Saying you're 7 times more likely to be shot by someone you know is like saying, people on Facebook with 1000s of friends are 7 times more likely to be killed by someone they know on Facebook. Well, duh.

Murdered women don't count?? Would you like to clarify that? I don't think you meant that to sound as ugly as it does.

Don't be cheeky. Murdered women don't count because we're debating being killed by someone you know accidentally, as most people who claim that try to state and as you tried to claim previously. Knowing someone who's purposely murdering you with a gun doesn't count because they aren't killing you because they have a gun, they're killing you because they want you dead. Again most people know their killers.

My facts seem to holding up fine. Even the studies you cited show that in developed countries with strict gun control laws, people are very very very much safer than in developed countries without strict control laws.

Yes, your facts seem fine like glass shards seem to be diamonds. They are flawed upon inspection.

The studies I cited did not show that. Perhaps Washington Cease Fire did, but I cited them only for homicide numbers so that I could show how even the opposite side's numbers agreed with me.

Anyway, that ICVS study that I cited shows NYC (a strict gun control city) as the only American city on a list of the top 26 in the 10 crimes they studied. The WPRI study shows no net affect on crime by the small amount of CCW holders, which is the only legal way to carry in most places in the United States.

There is no way we're getting guns out of the hands of criminals without compromising the 4th Amendment so to say that we would be better off without guns is ridiculous and impossible. The only people complying with such a law would be legal gun owners. That would make those of us who do believe in the 2nd amendment less safe because criminals will keep their guns.

There are many instances where defensive gun use was important. (WPRI) Even the lowest estimate of 64K incidents is worth something. (WPRI) Anti-gun people always say that "even if it just saves one life it's worth it." Well, if .0016% of those cases work out, that's 1 life.

I agree. We can't use stats to predict what an individual will do. But the stats show that in a big enough sample, most people killed by a firearm are killed by someone they know.

Again, most people killed are killed by someone they know. Period. As your facts even stated. But let's not act like it's an accident.

I've provided links to my data

I am not accusing you of anything, nor do I think you would ever use your gun inappropriately. I am saying that in the wider US population, guns make people less safe, not more.

You didn't provide links to sources before. And you did act like I'd not only shoot someone for pleasure but that it would end up being someone I know—and yet be an accident.

I am saying that more guns in the hands of criminals makes people less safe, not more. More guns in the hands of law-abiding people will eventually bring crime rates down because of two things:

Criminals report that guns deter them from committing crimes against gun owners and CCW permit holders only account for .2% of crimes of ANY type. Or better put, only .2% of permit holders, out of the millions issued, have lost their permit due to ANY sort of crime (WPRI).

The simple fact is that there's no way to find out if a criminal has a gun without the 4th Amendment. If someone is legally found with a weapon without the ability to legally carry it, they are arrested and the weapon is confiscated. Any legislation that removes firearms only applies to people who legally own and carry them. Criminals don't follow the law. That's the definition. So nothing changes for the criminals and people who were previously law-abiding would then be criminals under new legislation.

The other fact is that CCW permit holders are, on the whole, 99.8% proven to be law-abiding people. That is indisputable. So why do anti-gun groups want to take guns away from those people? Perhaps now you can understand why people like me get so angry at anyone who wants to take away our guns. It's not simply because we just like guns. It's because we like our guns, they keep us safe (us being CCW people, perhaps not the populace at large), and we have proven ourselves to be more trustworthy than prophylactics.

So by enacting anti-gun legislation (especially stupid things like mag restrictions) you are only bolstering the criminals. And, more than that, you're taking away protection from a group of people that have proven themselves to be extremely trustworthy.

It's like telling a chef that he can't cut vegetables with a knife because he might stab someone. It's utterly ridiculous. There's probably less certainty that the chef won't stab someone than there is that a CCW holder won't commit a crime.

If you want to dispute this fine. But start first with this last section. Otherwise you're wasting your time because we're arguing about different things.

Also, sorry for the delay. I didn't get a notification.

k995
Sep 6, 2011, 03:58 PM
There's a very important distinction here that you and anti-gun people ignore. More guns in the hands of criminals will always equal more people shot and killed. More of the population is law-abiding than not. Thus more guns does not equal more gun deaths.
Accidents, guns that get stolen and find the way on the black market, mistakes,...

More guns free avaible and legaly in the hands of citizens will always have the effect of more "gun violence" its basic statistics .



Let us frame this debate a little better. I am talking about gun ownership amongst law-abiding citizens, like CCW permit holders. Of course more guns held by criminals will lead to more gun crime.

The problem with comparing other nations to the US is that, unlike the US, in most other places all the guns are held by criminals.

Thats not true, plenty of countries with high gun ownership (legal or not)

But shouldnt the comparison be with cuntries that have less guns?



I will fall back on that Wisconsin study (WPRI) I posted as it's more comprehensive than what we have done in this argument. Gun ownership has seemingly had no effect on crime. I will concede that.

If it has no effect on crime, but it does have an effect on mortality rates (as I said accidents and such) why would you defend it?



But it conceded that if everyone who could get a CCW permit would, we might end up with less crime. The problem is that the CCW population is so little, criminals always have another target. Criminals have often stated in studies that knowing or suspecting that someone had a gun stopped them 40% of the time (WPRI study). That study was made before Florida set the standard for shall-issue concealed carry permits.
Do you honestly think criminals would stop?

And everyone armed is asking for a very high number of accidents.

Guns doesnt make any society safer. The reason behind the idea in the USA (militia against an oppresive regime) is also dated, not simple gun is going to stop a modern army.

Its clear it has little advantages but a whole slew of disadvantages.

nateo200
Sep 6, 2011, 04:19 PM
tldr; Guns don't kill people retards/meany faces/psychopaths/anything inbetween kill people with any tools they can get including guns. /Thread

zync
Sep 6, 2011, 04:40 PM
Accidents, guns that get stolen and find the way on the black market, mistakes,...

None of these things are true of CCW permit holders. That's why they rarely (.2%) have had permits revoked.

More guns free avaible and legaly in the hands of citizens will always have the effect of more "gun violence" its basic statistics.

This is simply not the case as the majority of citizens are law abiding. As for CCW, they are overwhelmingly law-abiding to the tune of 99.8%.


Thats not true, plenty of countries with high gun ownership (legal or not)

Almost all countries that have a population that carries firearms carry them illegally.

But shouldnt the comparison be with cuntries that have less guns?

I don't see why. Look at what happened in London the other day. They went nuts over finding 5 guns that they were tipped off about. 1 was a flare gun, 2 were flintlock pistols, and only one was a modern (WWI modern) revolver. It took 35 police officers hours to handle it. And they had to call in a special unit because they didn't know how to clear them so that they'd be safe. How many people could have been robbed or injured while they dealt with that non-issue?


If it has no effect on crime, but it does have an effect on mortality rates (as I said accidents and such) why would you defend it?

Let's get something straight. Though I believe that everyone should be armed, that is not what I'm arguing. I'm saying that guns should never be taken from CCW permit holders as they have proven themselves trustworthy and law abiding.

CCW permits don't have an affect on mortality rates. Only .01% of those granted a CCW permit have committed a gun-related crime (which doesn't automatically mean homicide).

Additionally, over 60K instances of defensive gun use occur each year. So while the criminals can find another mark—which keeps crime the same—permit holders have a better chance of not being victims.

So it's obviously easy to defend. How can you say that I shouldn't be allowed to carry a weapon when I belong to a group that is 99.8% crime-free and 99.99% gun crime-free?


Do you honestly think criminals would stop?

No. I think they would BE stopped. Even if you had a gun would you choose a mark who you believe has a gun or move on to someone who's unarmed? I know I wouldn't and I'm a good shot.

And everyone armed is asking for a very high number of accidents.

This has been claimed by many law enforcement agencies before shall-issue permits were allowed in their states. Almost all of them have reneged on their original statements, and those that didn't still said that they had basically no problems with permit holders.

Why? Safety is a required aspect of CCW permits and people who go through the trouble of getting permits understand the responsibility of being safe with a weapon whether it's loaded or not.

Guns doesnt make any society safer. The reason behind the idea in the USA (militia against an oppresive regime) is also dated, not simple gun is going to stop a modern army.

They absolutely make anyone who is forced into a situation in which a gun is required safer than they would be without a gun.

That idea is an important aspect of this country. It is NOT dated. People against guns have attempted to legislate it away.

Also, I don't know if you realize it, but soldiers in this country swear an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. They must follow orders, however if their order violates a law of the United States, they are charged to disobey that order. So it should never come to this.

And no, a simple gun isn't going to stop a modern army. We should be allowed to use anything the military has with proper training. There should be no restrictions as I've already proven myself to be law-abiding.

Its clear it has little advantages but a whole slew of disadvantages.

It's clear that it only has advantages. CCW permit holders are not criminals and they have the ability to defend themselves. Criminals will always have guns. We should too.

tldr; Guns don't kill people retards/meany faces/psychopaths/anything inbetween kill people with any tools they can get including guns. /Thread

tsdn; (too short, didn't notice if you're wondering) That could be considered opinion, even thought it's based on facts—hence the long arguments actually using facts.

buxtone17
Sep 6, 2011, 05:22 PM
Arguing For Hours About Gun Control on a Tech Blog is a Bad Idea.

nateo200
Sep 6, 2011, 05:22 PM
tsdn; (too short, didn't notice if you're wondering) That could be considered opinion, even thought it's based on facts—hence the long arguments actually using facts.
Despite that compelling wall of text I've learned that off topic really don't matter. Especially when we are talking about guns on an Apple forum.

megsandbytes
Sep 6, 2011, 06:13 PM
the real question here is if the wood is from an apple tree :p
Image (http://edibleapple.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/original_apple_logo.gif)

lol, that changes everything, if that's the case then she got a pretty good deal after all :p

zync
Sep 6, 2011, 09:24 PM
Despite that compelling wall of text I've learned that off topic really don't matter. Especially when we are talking about guns on an Apple forum.

That's fine. I didn't intend to let it get that big. But there you have it.

I'm done. Unless someone has data about CCW permit holders being untrustworthy, I'm ignoring it.

As for the topic, anyone taken by this scam deserves it. That's what you get for basically buying something without seeing it and expecting it to be hot merchandise.

k995
Sep 7, 2011, 03:35 AM
None of these things are true of CCW permit holders. That's why they rarely (.2%) have had permits revoked.

So according to you there are virtually no accidents (at home or outside) and they have guns lost or stolen? Got any proof of that?



This is simply not the case as the majority of citizens are law abiding. As for CCW, they are overwhelmingly law-abiding to the tune of 99.8%.

If I am not mistaken one of the requirments is not have a criminal record, of course you get mostly law abiding citizens.

That wast what I was talking about. A kid finding the gun and shooting someone by accident is just as much "gun violence". A stolen gun, overreacting,...



Almost all countries that have a population that carries firearms carry them illegally.

You dont seem to know a lot outside the USA. Plenty (almost all) countries have legal ways of owing or even carrying firearms.

And that dosnt change the fact that there are plenty of countries wich do have quit some guns but not the level of gun violence the USA has.


I don't see why. Look at what happened in London the other day. They went nuts over finding 5 guns that they were tipped off about. 1 was a flare gun, 2 were flintlock pistols, and only one was a modern (WWI modern) revolver. It took 35 police officers hours to handle it. And they had to call in a special unit because they didn't know how to clear them so that they'd be safe. How many people could have been robbed or injured while they dealt with that non-issue?
You dont see why? To compare of course. The reason stated is that more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens will LOWER crime . yet the USA has higher crime (and certainly gun violence) then most (if not all) western comparable countries .




Let's get something straight. Though I believe that everyone should be armed, that is not what I'm arguing. I'm saying that guns should never be taken from CCW permit holders as they have proven themselves trustworthy and law abiding.
But they serve no purpose, on the contrary even plenty of accidents and such actually cost lives.



No. I think they would BE stopped. Even if you had a gun would you choose a mark who you believe has a gun or move on to someone who's unarmed? I know I wouldn't and I'm a good shot.

You are untrained and unacustomed to such situations, even the police themselves have trouble with such situations.

This is more likely to happen.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/06/eduardo-sencion-ihop-shooting_n_951431.html



This has been claimed by many law enforcement agencies before shall-issue permits were allowed in their states. Almost all of them have reneged on their original statements, and those that didn't still said that they had basically no problems with permit holders.
There isnt a high level of gun carriers so simply we dont know.

But again even law enforcment has issues with this, to untrained civilian would do betetr?



They absolutely make anyone who is forced into a situation in which a gun is required safer than they would be without a gun.
Most people never face such situations and most people would respond badly in such a situation.


That idea is an important aspect of this country. It is NOT dated. People against guns have attempted to legislate it away.

So actually say that some armed civilians would be able to stop the USA army?


Also, I don't know if you realize it, but soldiers in this country swear an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. They must follow orders, however if their order violates a law of the United States, they are charged to disobey that order. So it should never come to this.

Funny you yourself stated that amendment is pointless. But as I said I agree it is pointless.



And no, a simple gun isn't going to stop a modern army. We should be allowed to use anything the military has with proper training. There should be no restrictions as I've already proven myself to be law-abiding.

So you are advocating RPG's and heavy machinegun in the hands of civilians (and a couple of weeks later ) criminals? What a great idea, that will lower crime: heavy warweapons .



It's clear that it only has advantages. CCW permit holders are not criminals and they have the ability to defend themselves. Criminals will always have guns. We should too.


What advantages does it have?

zync
Sep 7, 2011, 04:20 AM
I don't know why I get sucked into this crap. I apologize for further lengthy posts.

K995, I've already posted all of the facts. If you failed to read them, it isn't my problem. You ignore half of what is said. You fail to look at any sources or provide any for your opinions. I shouldn't bother, but I will help you out, because I believe strongly in this issue.


So according to you there are virtually no accidents (at home or outside) and they have guns lost or stolen? Got any proof of that?

I have proof for absolutely everything I've stated. If you'd read, you'd know.

I noted above that in Washington state, accidental shootings are 2% of all firearm deaths by anyone. So it's rather uncommon. CCW permit holders are taught about gun safety so I would imagine it's even less common among that group.

This says that stolen guns account for only 10-15% of gun crime. Criminals surveyed revealed that only 5% had stolen it. In other words it's not very likely.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html


If I am not mistaken one of the requirments is not have a criminal record, of course you get mostly law abiding citizens.

That wast what I was talking about. A kid finding the gun and shooting someone by accident is just as much "gun violence". A stolen gun, overreacting,...

I don't see what your point is. My point is that it doesn't matter what CCW permit holders have, they're not going to use it in a crime or allow it to be used in a crime, whether it's a taser, gun, RPG, or even a nuclear bomb.

The rest of it is covered by the fact that CCW permit holders are 99.99% law-abiding with respect to gun crime. Overreacting doesn't happen. Criminals usually obtain guns by other methods than theft. And only 2% of gun deaths are accidental. None of this proves what I have said wrong. In fact, if you think that criminals get guns so easily that actually makes my argument stronger. If criminals have easy access to guns, why shouldn't law-abiding citizens—who have proven themselves to be law-abiding—legally be allowed to obtain firearms?


You dont seem to know a lot outside the USA. Plenty (almost all) countries have legal ways of owing or even carrying firearms.

And you don't seem to know a lot about the USA, which is what this debate is about.

As an American, it would stand to reason that I know more about America than elsewhere. However I am aware that other countries allow carry. What they don't allow is carry like we have. Other countries restrict what you're allowed to carry or they make it difficult to obtain a permit to do so. It is far more stringent than it is here.


And that dosnt change the fact that there are plenty of countries wich do have quit some guns but not the level of gun violence the USA has.

As for crime being higher in the US than in other countries reference this chart that I posted previously:
http://rechten.uvt.nl/icvs/images/graph05.jpg

Other countries have less gun violence not because there are less guns held by criminals, but because victims don't have a gun. Thus the criminals don't need one to commit their crimes. Knifings are common in the UK, and they have extremely stringent knife laws too.


You dont see why? To compare of course. The reason stated is that more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens will LOWER crime . yet the USA has higher crime (and certainly gun violence) then most (if not all) western comparable countries .

Again, reference the ICVS chart above. That is a FALLACY. And also note that the only US city on the list is one of the most stringent when it comes to gun control.


You are untrained and unacustomed to such situations, even the police themselves have trouble with such situations.

This is more likely to happen.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/06/eduardo-sencion-ihop-shooting_n_951431.html



There isnt a high level of gun carriers so simply we dont know.

But again even law enforcment has issues with this, to untrained civilian would do betetr?



Most people never face such situations and most people would respond badly in such a situation.

All of this is merely conjecture and BS. Over 64K occurrences of defensive gun use occur each year. If it goes badly often you should be able to find it. I'm sure the police would disagree with such laws if it ended badly so often. But they're overwhelmingly for it, once they see that it works. Check the WPRI study. It even has quotes.


So actually say that some armed civilians would be able to stop the USA army?

We wouldn't have to stop the Army. For one thing, many soldiers have expressed that they wouldn't fire on our citizens—their brethren. For another, we didn't defeat all of Britain in the Revolution. You just have to cause enough damage that continuing isn't worth it.


Funny you yourself stated that amendment is pointless. But as I said I agree it is pointless.

Uh, no I didn't. WTF are you talking about? We weren't even talking about any amendment. The idea that we should rise up against an unjust government is not an amendment. If you are from this country, you clearly do not have an understanding of it.

So you are advocating RPG's and heavy machinegun in the hands of civilians (and a couple of weeks later ) criminals? What a great idea, that will lower crime: heavy warweapons .

Explain to me how you plan to take an RPG from me. I don't see how you think that guns simply filter from CCW permit holders to criminals. Right…the answer is, they don't.


What advantages does it have?

Are you serious? Read what you quoted.

When you have a real argument, real facts, or something that I have not already addressed get back to me.

Actually, don't. Regardless of everything else, I'll submit if you can give me one good reason that CCW carry should not be allowed given that 99.8% of CCW permit owners are not involved in ANY crime whatsoever. Gun theft is not acceptable, since 95% of criminals' guns are obtained through purchase or theft from a dealer, not a private citizen. And neither is accidental shootings because they account for 2% of gun deaths by all citizens, not simply CCW permit holders.

So that's it. Why shouldn't CCW permit holders have guns? It can't be theft, accidental shootings, or crimes committed because those have proven to be false concerns.

k995
Sep 7, 2011, 04:38 PM
I have proof for absolutely everything I've stated. If you'd read, you'd know.

I noted above that in Washington state, accidental shootings are 2% of all firearm deaths by anyone. So it's rather uncommon. CCW permit holders are taught about gun safety so I would imagine it's even less common among that group.

In the U.S. for 2006, there were 30,896 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 16,883; Homicide 12,791; Accident 642; Legal Intervention 360; Undetermined 220.

http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html

Ignoring suicide and legal intervention or undetermined thats more like 5% .

Its also a lot higher in the USA :

"What do we know about kids and gun accidents and suicides?
When researchers studied the 30,000 accidental gun deaths of Americans of all ages that occurred between 1979-1997, they found that preschoolers aged 0-4 were 17 times more likely to die from a gun accident in the 4 states with the most guns versus the 4 states with the least guns. Likewise, school kids aged 5-14 were over 13 times more at risk of accidental firearm death in the states with high gun ownership rates. The findings indicate that gun availability is associated with accidental death by shooting [4]."

http://www.med.umich.edu/yourchild/topics/guns.htm



This says that stolen guns account for only 10-15% of gun crime. Criminals surveyed revealed that only 5% had stolen it. In other words it's not very likely.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html


Funny you didnt really read your own source. First it states 25% are stolen guns "This makes the theft of 6,000 guns reported in the CIR/Frontline show "Hot Guns" only 25% of all cases reported to ATF in the past two and one-half years."

Second he also adds "Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales. A straw purchase occurs when someone who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wants to do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf"

It also says "The next biggest source of illegal gun transactions where criminals get guns are sales made by legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers. "

Its clear the easier it is the purchase guns legaly , the easier criminals have acces.


I don't see what your point is. My point is that it doesn't matter what CCW permit holders have, they're not going to use it in a crime or allow it to be used in a crime, whether it's a taser, gun, RPG, or even a nuclear bomb.

Yet the more people have these the eaiser it is for criminals to get there hands on, nulcear armed criminals ...

Add to that the accidents, increased usage in suicides,...


Again this isnt about the people getting permits for carying concealed weapons .




And you don't seem to know a lot about the USA, which is what this debate is about.

As an American, it would stand to reason that I know more about America than elsewhere. However I am aware that other countries allow carry. What they don't allow is carry like we have. Other countries restrict what you're allowed to carry or they make it difficult to obtain a permit to do so. It is far more stringent than it is here.
So? The question is gun crime in general .




As for crime being higher in the US than in other countries reference this chart that I posted previously:
http://rechten.uvt.nl/icvs/images/graph05.jpg

Other countries have less gun violence not because there are less guns held by criminals, but because victims don't have a gun. Thus the criminals don't need one to commit their crimes. Knifings are common in the UK, and they have extremely stringent knife laws too.



LOL sure so you defend the high gun crime statistics of the USA saying "others countries have less guns and thus lower gun crime" isnt that the point I was making? More guns means more gun crimes. The easier it is to legaly purchase guns the easier it is for criminals to obtain weapons and also the more likely they will carry them.


You claim this will be offset by people being able tod efend themselves yet every statistics shows otherwise.

As for the USA not having such a high crime rate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita

Usa is among the highest, even though it has the highest level of legal gun ownership of western nations.




Again, reference the ICVS chart above. That is a FALLACY. And also note that the only US city on the list is one of the most stringent when it comes to gun control.

Even in your chart the USA is higher then average, that with often several times higher gun ownership.



All of this is merely conjecture and BS. Over 64K occurrences of defensive gun use occur each year.
Source?




We wouldn't have to stop the Army. For one thing, many soldiers have expressed that they wouldn't fire on our citizens—their brethren. For another, we didn't defeat all of Britain in the Revolution. You just have to cause enough damage that continuing isn't worth it.
Foreign occupation against own gouvernement you dont agree with. Not quit comparable.

And again if soldiers would never go along with such a gouvernement you dont need firearms.





Uh, no I didn't. WTF are you talking about? We weren't even talking about any amendment. The idea that we should rise up against an unjust government is not an amendment. If you are from this country, you clearly do not have an understanding of it.

The right to bear arms:

"Second Amendment to the United States Constitution" You do know what an
Amendment is?

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

You yourself states this will not happen and so this Amendment (yes thats what it is) is pointless . Perhaps you arent american?


Explain to me how you plan to take an RPG from me. I don't see how you think that guns simply filter from CCW permit holders to criminals. Right…the answer is, they don't.
Steal it, rob the store, have someone buy it legaly , just as is the case now.

Your own sources shows these are the mean sources for criminals to get weapons. Or are you going to carry that RPG, sam , M60 and flame throweralways with you? It will magicly apear on you?




Are you serious? Read what you quoted.
To defend yourself? Again what? How many times do you think your life well be in danger and you need a gun?


When you have a real argument, real facts, or something that I have not already addressed get back to me.

Actually, don't. Regardless of everything else, I'll submit if you can give me one good reason that CCW carry should not be allowed given that 99.8% of CCW permit owners are not involved in ANY crime whatsoever. Gun theft is not acceptable, since 95% of criminals' guns are obtained through purchase or theft from a dealer, not a private citizen. And neither is accidental shootings because they account for 2% of gun deaths by all citizens, not simply CCW permit holders.
Again this isnt just about CCW and you numbers are waaaay off. Most gns are purchased legaly and find there hands to criminals. the smugled in black market is only a small part, after all why should they bother wich so many firearms avaible ?




So that's it. Why shouldn't CCW permit holders have guns? It can't be theft, accidental shootings, or crimes committed because those have proven to be false concerns.

BS legaly purchased guns are a problem, accidents by firearms are a problem, suicides by firearms are a problem and all for what? So you feel a bit safer?

zync
Sep 7, 2011, 10:25 PM
Here we go again. I see you dodged, rather poorly, my final question. No matter how many facts I throw out, or dispute, you'll never change your mind. But that's OK, you do what you want, and I'll do what I want. I hope that you never have the need for a gun in your lifetime.

I'm going to be the bigger man. After this, we're done here. If you had put a dent in my argument, I'd continue. But you haven't even come close. Numbers you used, and evidence you tried to use against me didn't even hold up.

In the U.S. for 2006, there were 30,896 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 16,883; Homicide 12,791; Accident 642; Legal Intervention 360; Undetermined 220.

http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html

Ignoring suicide and legal intervention or undetermined thats more like 5% .

Its also a lot higher in the USA :

"What do we know about kids and gun accidents and suicides?
When researchers studied the 30,000 accidental gun deaths of Americans of all ages that occurred between 1979-1997, they found that preschoolers aged 0-4 were 17 times more likely to die from a gun accident in the 4 states with the most guns versus the 4 states with the least guns. Likewise, school kids aged 5-14 were over 13 times more at risk of accidental firearm death in the states with high gun ownership rates. The findings indicate that gun availability is associated with accidental death by shooting [4]."

http://www.med.umich.edu/yourchild/topics/guns.htm

Can you do math? That's 2 percent.

Either way it's 2 percent.

642/30,896 = .02078
642/(30896-360) = .02102
642/(30896-360-220) = .02118

All of those are roughly 2 percent. So no, it's not like 5%. Not even close.

5% of 30,896 = 1544.8 which is not 642.

Kids are included in your original stat, so it's irrelevant. Also, the dates of those studies predate most states passing shall-issue laws for CCW permits.


Funny you didnt really read your own source. First it states 25% are stolen guns "This makes the theft of 6,000 guns reported in the CIR/Frontline show "Hot Guns" only 25% of all cases reported to ATF in the past two and one-half years."

Second he also adds "Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales. A straw purchase occurs when someone who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wants to do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf"

It also says "The next biggest source of illegal gun transactions where criminals get guns are sales made by legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers. "

Its clear the easier it is the purchase guns legaly , the easier criminals have acces.

Actually, I read all of it. I'm not an idiot. Those were numbers for guns stolen from FFLs, which are commonly dealers, and not private citizens with CCW permits, as I stated. It is you who again did not read. Private citizens (CCW permit holders and non-permit holders) account for 5%.

None of the other sources of guns mention anyone with a CCW. A person with a CCW permit caught doing that would have their CCW permit revoked. Since only .02% of people have had their permit revoked, we can assume that they're not the group doing straw purchases.

Yet the more people have these the eaiser it is for criminals to get there hands on, nulcear armed criminals ...

Add to that the accidents, increased usage in suicides,...

Add to that the 2% of accidents. Who cares about suicides? You don't need a gun to kill yourself. Suicides are irrelevant.

Also, I believe that if you want to kill yourself, you should be allowed to. It's supposed to be a free country.

Again this isnt about the people getting permits for carying concealed weapons .

So? The question is gun crime in general .

The question is whether or not increased gun ownership would decrease crime in America. Even still, crime is lower in America, as I have previously shown with the ICVS study.

LOL sure so you defend the high gun crime statistics of the USA saying "others countries have less guns and thus lower gun crime" isnt that the point I was making? More guns means more gun crimes. The easier it is to legaly purchase guns the easier it is for criminals to obtain weapons and also the more likely they will carry them.

No, that's not the point we're arguing about. It is, however, the point I've posited in this debate. But we are arguing about crime in general. What difference does it make that there are more stabbings in London and Dublin than shootings? They're both murder.

You claim this will be offset by people being able tod efend themselves yet every statistics shows otherwise.

As for the USA not having such a high crime rate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita

Usa is among the highest, even though it has the highest level of legal gun ownership of western nations.

No statistics that anyone has yet shown, have stood up to my scrutiny.

These don't either. Did you look at them?

Among the highest? What are you smoking? Your wikipedia link shows North America at 12. The original source combines the Americas, so that one doesn't count. But I'll do you a favor. If you had read the original source you'd notice that these numbers are war-related so they don't count. It's talking about armed conflict.

Your other link has the US listed as #8, and guess what country is two places ahead? The United Kingdom. Yes, one of the most stringently gun controlled nations, with hefty knife control laws to boot.

So yes, while we are among the highest—as 1st world nations tend to be—we are not THE highest as one would suspect.

Let's go back to the chart I originally cited: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership

The US has more guns than any of the countries above them on the list. This doesn't help your case. I can't find numbers for Dominica (probably because they're so low) which is the top of the list, but we have 4 times the rate of guns that New Zealand has and they're number two. We have about 2.5 times the rate as Finland, they're #3. #4 & #5 don't make the list. We have 14.3 times as many as the UK at #6. Monserrat doesn't make the list either.

In fact, if you add up the rates of all of the other countries that have MORE crime than we do, you still fall short by the rate of 28.8 guns per 1000 people. Combined they have only 68% of the guns that we do.

So your argument is BS. And I've used your own numbers to prove it.

Even in your chart the USA is higher then average, that with often several times higher gun ownership.

Uh no, it's not. Only NYC even made the list, and it has some of the most stringent gun control in the States, which may be why even it made the list.

And the UK tops the list. We rank #1 in guns, they rank #88 in the world. Northern Ireland is also in there and they have a fourth of the guns per 1000 people that we do.

Source?

The WPRI study I've mentioned a hundred times before with this number. I didn't think I needed to again. That was the lowest estimate found. Others are as high as 250K.


Foreign occupation against own gouvernement you dont agree with. Not quit comparable.

And again if soldiers would never go along with such a gouvernement you dont need firearms.

Yes, it is different, but the task is the same. Make it a costly war, which it would be since you'd be firing on the people that pay you.

Most soldiers wouldn't, but that doesn't mean all wouldn't.

The right to bear arms:

"Second Amendment to the United States Constitution" You do know what an
Amendment is?

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

You yourself states this will not happen and so this Amendment (yes thats what it is) is pointless . Perhaps you arent american?

As an American, I most certainly know what and Amendment is, and I know that text without having to look it up, thanks. I am well acquainted with the Bill of Rights.

And please don't personally attack me with this BS, "Perhaps you arent american [sic]." I could just as easily say that perhaps you don't speak English with the amount of errors in that simple sentence.

You never mentioned the amendment, only the idea behind it. Here is what you said:
"The reason behind the idea in the USA (militia against an oppresive regime) is also dated, not simple gun is going to stop a modern army."

You mentioned the "idea in the USA." Considering that you said idea, I was thinking that you were talking about what occurred during the framing of the Constitution, not the specific text of the 2nd Amendment.

I misconstrued what you said because there are two things at play here: the actual text of the amendment and the ideas—which is the word you used—behind the founding of this country.

Steal it, rob the store, have someone buy it legaly , just as is the case now.

Your own sources shows these are the mean sources for criminals to get weapons. Or are you going to carry that RPG, sam , M60 and flame throweralways with you? It will magicly apear on you?

Simply saying that you'd steal it is much simpler than the actual act of doing so and getting away with it and your life. I could just as easily say that I'd shoot you on site. Arguing like that is akin to school children saying that they're invincible in a game of cops and robbers.

Rob the store, steal an RPG and then try to come and take mine. We'll see who wins. That's the point. Without a gun you can just come in and take what I have without penalty. That's why people say that to be unarmed means you are a subject. You have no choice but to submit, which is antithetical to the ideas that founded this country.

To defend yourself? Again what? How many times do you think your life well be in danger and you need a gun?

It only takes one time. I only have one life. Do you think that everyone knows they're going to be murdered before they are? Or that the police magically appear the instant you're in trouble?

Again this isnt just about CCW and you numbers are waaaay off. Most gns are purchased legaly and find there hands to criminals. the smugled in black market is only a small part, after all why should they bother wich so many firearms avaible ?

BS legaly purchased guns are a problem, accidents by firearms are a problem, suicides by firearms are a problem and all for what? So you feel a bit safer?

It's not just about CCW permits, but that is the crux of it. If, overwhelmingly, the people who want guns the most have proven themselves to be trustworthy, why should the not be allowed the protection afforded to them by a gun?

I see you have no recourse but to attack the argument, but the numbers are sound and dead on. I've used the WPRI study, numbers I found for theft, numbers I found for accidents, and numbers you incorrectly thought proved your case for accidents. Suicides by jumping exist, should we make all buildings one story hight? Suicide by knives exist, should we cut up vegetables with scissors? Accidental suicides by autoerotic-asphyxiation exist. Should we mandate that all masturbation must be supervised? What type of nanny state do you want to live in? Pick your poison.

Pot is highly illegal, but it's possible to get it, and it's EASY to do so despite all the regulations.

So your argument is basically…what? If guns aren't available criminals won't get them so easily? Who cares how easy it is? The issue is if it's possible. And it always will be possible as long as we have steel, lead, and gunpowder, and the knowledge of how to put it all together.

So we should just give up our guns, even though there's relatively little chance that we'll use them in any crime? WHY? We should just let criminals have guns, and legislate away our ability to have a fighting chance? That argument is stupid.

ExiledMafia
Sep 7, 2011, 10:26 PM
I mean if a deal seems to good to be true it probably is.....does it make me a bad person if i think these people had it coming>

zync
Sep 8, 2011, 01:03 AM
I mean if a deal seems to good to be true it probably is.....does it make me a bad person if i think these people had it coming>

No it doesn't.

k995
Sep 8, 2011, 12:45 PM
Can you do math? That's 2 percent.
I did state not including suicides and ...

If any suicides should be added as a mayor downside of lots of guns. But i didnt add them because people would probably still try to commit suicide.




Actually, I read all of it. I'm not an idiot. Those were numbers for guns stolen from FFLs, which are commonly dealers, and not private citizens with CCW permits, as I stated. It is you who again did not read. Private citizens (CCW permit holders and non-permit holders) account for 5%.

So? What does it matter wether they are stolen from shops or citizens? Those shops only have them to sell them to citizens .

All those stolem weapons go directly to criminals making it easier and cheaper to arm themselves .



The question is whether or not increased gun ownership would decrease crime in America. Even still, crime is lower in America, as I have previously shown with the ICVS study.

BS, crime was higher then average and other studies show it higher then most .

And the usa already has the highest level of gun ownership, when will you admit that doest really work.





No statistics that anyone has yet shown, have stood up to my scrutiny.

You mean you just ignore them, your own statistic show the usa higher then average WITH several times as much legal firearms then all the rest .


Among the highest? What are you smoking? Your wikipedia link shows North America at 12. The original source combines the Americas, so that one doesn't count. But I'll do you a favor. If you had read the original source you'd notice that these numbers are war-related so they don't count. It's talking about armed conflict.
No where do you get that ?

^ "Crime in the United States by Volume and Rate per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1989–2009". Crime in the United States 2009. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation (USA). 2009-09. Retrieved 2011-02-15.
^ "Table 301. Homicide Trends: 1980 to 2005". Retrieved 20 November 2010.

And yes USA as one of the highest homocide rate of the western world and 8 in crime out of 60 . Thats clearly setting the uas with high crime even tough it has the highest gun ownership .


So yes, while we are among the highest—as 1st world nations tend to be—we are not THE highest as one would suspect.


So? And yes UK also has high crime rates showing once more waht I claim: it DOESNT affect crime .


To cut short the post [sorry for that dont have more time perhaps later] but this is the important part: it doesnt work lots of guns to lower crime .

zync
Sep 8, 2011, 01:54 PM
I didn't ignore anything. Let's get that straight.

Let's get another thing straight. I recanted, pages ago, that it lowers crime statistics as I agreed with the WPRI study that you have not read. At this point, I have been debating that crime IS NOT higher in the US. If there is an effect on crime, it cannot be proven with available data. Which is the same conclusion that WPRI found.

I found another study done by independent researchers before Wisconsin got CCW. http://www.wpri.org/Reports/Volume19/Vol19no4.pdf

It notes that crime has dropped but it cannot be attributed easily to gun ownership. However, it does debunk all of the fears surrounding individuals being armed. It also notes that while crime hasn't changed drastically, it is most likely because criminals don't stop what they're doing, so they always find a victim. With greater amounts of carrying, it may show a decrease.

I am arguing this in the scope of guns because, while guns lowering crime cannot be proven, it can be proven that a prevalence of guns does not increase crime. And it has been proven. And I'll do it again. Please read it this time.

Crime is not limited to homicide alone but since you want to push your agenda, you ignore that. You're ignoring that crime in the US is lower than most other countries and the gap between the worst and the US is on the order of 14 times the amount of guns per 1000 people.

If you work the numbers you'll find that England has approximately 318,965 guns. America has 27,719,986 guns. So, a nation with FAR FEWER guns has more overall crime based on population. But that has nothing to do with anything because it's not homicides, right. I mean, guns can only be used to kill people, right. They're not useful in coercion.

And as for where I got my numbers, uh the first chart on the page that listed North America in the 12th position.

I'm sorry I missed that you discounted suicides this time. Fine. Just under 5%, according to your numbers. However, the anti-gun Organization Washington Cease Fire pegs it at 2%.

http://washingtonceasefire.org/resource-center/national-firearm-injury-and-death-statistics

Homicide: 11,624 / 39% of All Fatalities
Suicide: 16,750 / 57% of All Fatalities
Unintentional Death (Accidental): 649 / 2% of All Fatalities

So what can we assume? It varies between at least 2-5%. So an average is 3.5%.

But even that is irrelevant. Let's really show how ridiculous your numbers are, shall we? Your side always misses the forest for the trees.

Accidental gun deaths in your numbers (CDC, 2006) were 642. Accidental gun deaths from Cease Fire (CDC, 2004) were 649. Combined that's 1291.

The following numbers come from CDC, 2007.

In 2007 alone, 22,631 people died from FALLING. 29,846 people died from POISONING. 42,031 people died from CAR ACCIDENTS.

In 2007—and 2009 actually—assault was 15th on the list of leading causes of death. That's behind ALL of these things.

1. Diseases of heart (heart disease)
2. Malignant neoplasms (cancer)
3. Cerebrovascular diseases (stroke)
4. Chronic lower respiratory diseases
5. Accidents (unintentional injuries)
6. Alzheimer’s disease
7. Diabetes mellitus (diabetes)
8. Influenza and pneumonia
9. Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis (kidney disease)
10. Septicemia
11. Intentional self-harm (suicide)
12. Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis
13. Essential hypertension and hypertensive renal disease (hypertension)
14. Parkinson’s disease

Using this you could just as easily determine that more people WANT to die than are actually killed.

Accidental gun deaths, and even homicide are a drop in the bucket. But we don't install trampolines everywhere to catch falling people. We still allow people to drive. We still allow people to use chemicals.

So again, why should people who are proven to be 99.99% safe with guns, not be allowed to have them? Accidental deaths are EXTREMELY rare compared with most sources of death. And gun theft is still low. Even including theft from FFLs.

It doesn't matter whether they're stolen at all since most criminals obtain guns through straw purchases, and those that have been surveyed stated as much. And if guns were outlawed, they'd get them from the black market before they'd steal them.

And guns stolen from the dealers aren't stolen from me. That doesn't reduce my trustworthiness. It's not like if they said tomorrow that they're going to stop selling guns forever you'd then finally agree that it's OK for me to have one. You'd probably then argue that they'll come and steal it from me. You are being ridiculous.

As you have no facts, we're done. There is no convincing you because you will never be convinced no matter what data can prove to you. Don't bother getting back to me. My questions for you are rhetorical as you have neither facts nor answers.

k995
Sep 8, 2011, 03:22 PM
As an American, I most certainly know what and Amendment is, and I know that text without having to look it up, thanks. I am well acquainted with the Bill of Rights.

And please don't personally attack me with this BS, "Perhaps you arent american [sic]." I could just as easily say that perhaps you don't speak English with the amount of errors in that simple sentence.
Then dont start talking like that.

The right to bear arms is in an amendment that gives this right has a way to rotect from tyrany. Without that threath its pointless.



Simply saying that you'd steal it is much simpler than the actual act of doing so and getting away with it and your life.

I am not simply sayin this, this is happening in real life daily.


Rob the store, steal an RPG and then try to come and take mine. We'll see who wins. That's the point.
Thats childish a gouvernement can rely on YOU protecting RPG's laying around your house at all times at all costs, thats just plain madness.

They dont know you they dont have any clu wether or not you are capable of doing this. This is madness giving such weapons to civilians. After all they cant even be reponsable with light firearms.


It only takes one time. I only have one life. Do you think that everyone knows they're going to be murdered before they are? Or that the police magically appear the instant you're in trouble?

You didnt asnwer my question. To defend yourself? Against what? How many times do you think your life well be in danger and you need a gun?



I see you have no recourse but to attack the argument, but the numbers are sound and dead on. I've used the WPRI study, numbers I found for theft, numbers I found for accidents, and numbers you incorrectly thought proved your case for accidents. Suicides by jumping exist, should we make all buildings one story hight? Suicide by knives exist, should we cut up vegetables with scissors? Accidental suicides by autoerotic-asphyxiation exist. Should we mandate that all masturbation must be supervised? What type of nanny state do you want to live in? Pick your poison.
As usual foolish arguments, buildings knives and whatever you come up with serves a purpose, a purpose that is largly beneficial for society. Guns arent the negatives dont outweight the positives and no matter how many silly comparisons you make you or how many times you want to ignore that this isnt going to change.

Numbers remain clear gun laws have no direct influence on crime, but they do have a direct influence on gun related accidents, gun acces for criminals and suicides with guns.



Pot is highly illegal, but it's possible to get it, and it's EASY to do so despite all the regulations.
Why ban it? If you follow your logic it should be regulated but legal.



So your argument is basically…what? If guns aren't available criminals won't get them so easily? Who cares how easy it is? The issue is if it's possible. And it always will be possible as long as we have steel, lead, and gunpowder, and the knowledge of how to put it all together.
Why cares how easy it is for criminals to get guns? Well thats certainly isnt a concern of yours wich is VERY strange. How can you just shrug at that?

What would be best barely any criminals armed with firearms or all armed with firearms?

zync
Sep 8, 2011, 04:17 PM
Again all BS.

None of my arguments are foolish, they are backed up with FACT—your statements are not.

The point that seems to escape you constantly, is that I cannot rely on the government no more than it can rely on me. Your OPINION is that we cannot be responsible with even with light firearms, but the simple FACT that 99.99% of CCW permit holders have not committed a crime with a gun betrays your opinion. And no matter how many times I state that, you will ignore it. Because you can't disprove it.

I DID answer your question. It's not my fault that you didn't realize it.

I have a gun to defend myself and my family from criminals, home invasions, robbery, carjacking, predatory animals, etc. As for how many times, AS I STATED, I only need to be put in a situation where I need a gun once. I have one life. Unless you can guarantee my safety, the only means available to me is a gun. I am not a big guy. A rather large man could punch me in the face and end my life. Is it really that hard for you to imagine? Perhaps if you never leave your house you might be safe. But, I actually go out into the world. I often have a very expensive camera with me, and I don't need it stolen by someone looking to score drugs.

And there was a time that I needed a gun. I was hiking in the Smokies before the Supreme Court had completely ruled against their gun ban. I didn't take my gun with me. I left it in the car because a sign—that I later found out was supposed to be taken down—told me to. I was tracked for over two miles by a cougar with nothing but a small knife to protect me. Had the cougar attacked me from the hill I would have been dead. All because I left the gun in the car and followed the law. Luckily I was with two other people, but I was alone when I first encountered the cougar on the ridge.

Again, I have said that numbers cannot prove that crime is lowered by the existence of guns—I even quoted what I said above—however, it can be proved, and I have proved it, that a prevalence of guns does not guarantee a prevalence of crime. If that were true, the UK wouldn't be #1.

Are you really that dense? I'm a Libertarian. My argument for pot is the same. WHY BAN IT INDEED!? It SHOULD be legal. That would lessen crime more than eliminating guns altogether.

You ARE really that dense, purposefully so I would imagine. I'm not saying who cares that criminals have access to guns. The difficulty is what is pointless. They are willing to do anything to get them—especially if they're stealing them from people left and right as you propose. In other words, no amount of difficulty is going to stop them.

Don't you get it? Difficulty and laws are not what stops them. If they want a gun, they'll get a gun. It might be harder, but that's NOT going to deter them.

The only thing that can deter them is the prospect that a citizen who they want to rob, kill, etc. might possibly shoot them instead. There are already laws against criminals having guns, there are laws against stealing, black market importation, etc. There are not enough police to even enforce the current laws. What makes you think that limiting the routes that normal citizens get guns is in any way going to stop criminals from obtaining guns?

Even if we stopped manufacturing guns altogether, criminals would still have guns. Unlike the UK, we are a large country with gigantic borders. There's no way we're stopping importation. Hell, our own government was guilty of giving guns to criminals that were used in crimes against us. So yeah, they're not stopping it.

EDIT: I FELT THE FOLLOWING WAS VERY IMPORTANT TO THE DISCUSSION. PLEASE DO NOT IGNORE.

There is something else I'd like to point out. You asked me how many times in my life I'd need a gun, or what I'd need one for. I did answer you, but a simpler answer is better.

It's called the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs. I don't think I'll ever need the Third Amendment, Perhaps I'd need the Fourth on a traffic stop or something, the Fifth is doubtful, as are the Sixth and Seventh, as I don't expect to be wrongly accused of a crime or be brought in a civil suit that needs a jury. The Eighth should be likewise unnecessary to me. The Ninth and Tenth are very important however. Still, I don't NEED any of these Amendments to survive. But I do NEED these RIGHTS to be an American.

I don't think you get that. But it's very important. Those ten amendments are some of the most important writings in our history.

If you don't get that, it's you who is not American. I do have the suspicion that you aren't, but you don't list a location on your profile so I can't be sure. You called me out as if I weren't American because you confused one of the ideas behind the Second Amendment with the actual Second Amendment and tried to blame that on me. Perhaps you were poking fun or attempting to insult me. Or perhaps you don't know where Tampa, Florida is.

Either way, please don't attempt to explain the Second Amendment to me because you're incorrect. Tyranny is one of the reasons that the Second Amendment exists, however it is not the only one. For one thing, that right also existed in the English Bill of Rights. For another it was considered for security of a free State—as the actual text states—which consists of threats both foreign and domestic. It was also considered important for personal safety. All of these are relevant today, as they were before, and they shall forever be. When I say that they've tried to legislate it away, I mean the Second Amendment, not the reasons for its existence. So please, do not put words in my mouth or attribute your idea of the Second Amendment being irrelevant to me. It's simply not true, and the need for it is obvious, despite your insistence that it isn't.

Additionally, as our Constitution is a living document that is impacted by Supreme Court decisions, you should take note that the Heller case in 2008 cleared the ambiguity from the Second Amendment. One does not have to be a member of a militia to possess a gun. Self-defense is a valid purpose. And another interesting fact is that that is irrelevant for Floridians anyway. Simply by being an inhabitant of this state I belong to the State's militia, under Article X, Section 2 of the Florida Constitution.

http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Constitution#A10S02

Also saying, "then don't start talking like that," as you stated it makes no sense. Don't start talking like what? An American? Don't start talking like I don't understand the Second Amendment when you yourself confused one of the ideas behind the Amendment with the Amendment itself? Or perhaps you meant to say don't start talking like an idiot, even though it was a result of your foible.