Quote of the day—MikeB302000

I couldn’t care less about truth and falsity or causation and correlation, or all that other double talk the pro-gun crowd like so much.

MikeB302000
November 12, 2010
Austin, Texas Murders Way Up
[We’ve known this for a long time but it’s nice for him to admit it. If only all the anti-gun people would do so it would make things a lot easier.—Joe]

36 thoughts on “Quote of the day—MikeB302000

  1. He’s turned comment moderation on so my reply probably won’t be posted, but I took him to task for saying anyone took him out of context for saying he doesn’t care about the truth. He said it in his own damned words, “I couldn’t care less about truth and falsity or causation and correlation, or all that other double talk the pro-gun crowd like so much.” He’s apparently got a Joe Huffman bug up his ass, because he mentions him at least once in replies to comments, so I felt obliged to inform him that unlike himself, Mr. Huffman apparently does a little research on the subject matter at hand before grabbing the keyboard and making his views known to the world. Incidentally, with a *.uk email address, I wonder why he even has an interest in our political matters. It would seem that with only the criminals owning firearms (the friggin’ bobbies can’t even carry a sidearm there) and the impending shariah rule of the land, he would have better things to worry about than what’s happening on this side of the pond.

  2. He actually spends most of his time in Italy (where he is right now as indicated by the IP address of his last comment here). He does claim to visit the U.S. at times so it’s not totally out of place to comment on the laws here.

    And in general I don’t see a problem with commenting on laws in other countries. Sexual mutilation of women in some Muslim countries is tolerated there and I don’t see anything wrong with commenting and trying to change that situation. And the repressive gun laws in the U.K. are fair game as well.

    If MikeB302000 want to comment on the laws in the U.S. I don’t really have a problem with that. I just wish he had the ability and desire to be able to distinguish truth from falsity.

  3. Well, he did post the comment. I read his new comment policy and felt compelled to send him an email stating that while I totally disagree with everything he has to say, he is entitled to his own opinion, but it’s entirely uncalled for someone to start tossing pedophile accusations around. There’s a huge difference between impassioned debate and pure mud slinging.

  4. Gun control has been, and always will be, a matter of faith for MikeB… it is certainly nice of him to admit it now, but I would not expect him to move on to the next step of dealing with problems…

    And, Da_Truth36 – so far as I am aware, no one has ever accused MikeB of being a pedophile. However, one of his most favorite arguments is that all gun owners share in the responsibility for “gun crime” because [insert impassioned and illogical rationale here] and because we own firearms. As a means of illustrating the lacking logic in that position, a few of us pointed out that pedophiles use digital cameras and computers to spread their particular online filth – given that MikeB owns both, would he agree that he therefore shares responsibility for online pedophilia?

    Predictably, he completely missed the point, maliciously misinterpreted people’s words, and went off the deep end… But, frankly, I find it just as distasteful to be told I am “responsible” for murder/rape/assaults/etc.

  5. Linoge, sorry, I’m fairly new to this fracas. Upon re-reading his comment policy, he does seem to be somewhat thin skinned. Getting upset for being called a liar and a bastard, I could see how he would misinterpret that statement. And Mr. Huffman, I wasn’t trying to imply that people from other countries shouldn’t have an opinion of our laws, that would be the height of hypocrisy as I have strong opinions of other countries laws (except Italy, I have no clue as to what their laws are like), just seems odd to me that someone from the UK, whose problems are far greater than ours, would spout off on something as minor as our gun laws.

  6. When sharia law takes effect in the UK poor MikeB302000 will have to find something other than masturbation to use up his idle time. In the muslim world masturbation is a crime that can get one buried neck deep and stoned to death. He’ll have to find another way to get his bloody nose. Sooo sorry Mikey.

  7. Re: Logic

    I do not think it means what he thinks it means.

    Mike B comments on his own post:

    Common sense and logic is what I go by, which I think is what you’re confusing with “feelings.”

  8. Yeah, well, I get where he’s coming from.

    He’s tired of the cherry-picked numbers and the whole pro-gun propaganda campaign. Most of the people writing the posts with the cherry-picked data are social lepers who have plenty of time (read: no life) to research BS and carefully craft these misleading posts.

    Who cares if cars kill more people than guns? More people own cars and use them more frequently than guns. There is no relationship between the two. There is no relationship between guns and swimming pools either. This is more smoke and mirrors from the pro-gun crowd.

    So Mike is fed up and he says so. Can anyone blame him?

  9. Given that you suffer from the same affliction, Ubu, I understand why you commiserate.

    It must be frustrated living in this world, but only referring to a “reality” of your own design…

  10. “He’s tired of the cherry-picked numbers and the whole pro-gun propaganda campaign. Most of the people writing the posts with the cherry-picked data are social lepers who have plenty of time (read: no life) to research BS and carefully craft these misleading posts. ”

    ‘Social lepers’? Good to know what you really think. Now explain why anyone should listen to a single thing you have to say?

    Of course it’s easy to respond to your claim:

    He’s tired of the cherry-picked numbers and the whole ANTI-gun propaganda campaign. Most of the people writing the posts with the cherry-picked data are social lepers who have plenty of time (read: no life) to research BS and carefully craft these misleading posts.

    Like Josh Sugarmann of the VPC when he stated:

    Assault weapons�just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms�are a new topic. The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons�anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun�can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.

    Or Joan Peterson of the BC/Joyce Foundation who claimed that grenades and rocket launchers can be bought over the counter at gun shows and that companies are manufacturing guns deliberately to look like toys.

    Or MikeB w/ his stupid ‘10%’ claim.

    Just a few examples of deliberately misleading statements and cherry-picked numbers. Are they all ‘social lepers’ in your mind? Yes or no.

  11. Linoge, sorry, I’m fairly new to this fracas.

    No worries, just wanted to clarify the situation since it would appear as though MikeB is back to blatantly misrepresenting it.

    Most of the people writing the posts with the cherry-picked data are social lepers who have plenty of time (read: no life) to research BS and carefully craft these misleading posts.

    Ahh, and here is UBU, demonstrating just how rational, logical, tolerant, and reasonable the average anti-rights nut is! Thank you for that.

    Since you are incapable of arguing, or even appropriately responding to, those numbers we field (and you and I both know you are so incapable), you instead feel as though it is acceptable to engage in your standard ad hominem logical fallacies, and cast baseless aspersions against the numbers in question. Please provide specific citations as to the numbers you are accusing of being “cherry-picked”, and please provide links to the supposedly “misleading” posts – you are making the claims, time to back them up.

    There is no relationship between the two. There is no relationship between guns and swimming pools either.

    We never claimed there was a “relationship” between any of those sets of data (Do you even know what “relationship” means in the statistical sense?). We simply held up the significantly higher number of fatalities, in certain age groups, from the misuse of cars and the negligence surrounding swimming pools as examples of how anti-rights nuts are not honestly concerned with “lives lost” when they start going off about “gun deaths” or “think of the children”.

    Say, now that it appears as though your arm has healed to the point where you can type out yet another of your bigoted screeds, is there any chance of you answering Joe’s question from a few months back?

  12. “Most of the people writing the posts with the cherry-picked data are social lepers who have plenty of time (read: no life) to research BS and carefully craft these misleading posts. ”

    Whew, tell us what you really think! In Southcentral Alaska, gun ownership is strongly correlated with marital status and income level. It is also correlated with being >25 years old. That is, if you’re in a stable, committed marital relationship with a real job you’re more likely to own a firearm than if you’re a single person living in mom and dad’s basement. You might want to rethink your stereotype.

    http://armaborealis.blogspot.com/2010/11/interesting-survey-on-southcentral-gun.html

  13. Joe, thanks for the honor of your QOTD.

    Thirdpower, the 10% theory is not stupid.

    Linoge, you’re the one misrepresenting the child pornography thing. You and your friends bombarded my blog with comments containing those words, which if allowed to continue would have done me harm by associating my blog name with those vile words in the search engines. Your claiming that I accused you guys of being responsible for murder and rape is such an oversimplification of what I’ve often described at length, that it too, your claiming this, is a misrepresentation. But, that’s what you do best, because you really understand such philosophical concepts as truth, falsity, relationship and logic.

    ubu52, thanks for the support.

  14. [T]he 10% theory is not stupid.

    It’s not a theory. It’s a hypothesis. And you are attempting to prove your hypothesis by vigorous assertion.

    Again, you demonstrate you are incapable of, and/or unwilling to, determine true from falsity.

  15. Joe, I am not at all sorry to say this, but, frankly, I am sick and tired of people who are too lazy, too incompetent, and/or too ignorant to do basic mathematical functions for themselves accusing other people of “cherry-picking”, “research BS”, and “carefully craft these misleading posts” without any evidence or substantiation to support those insulting and outlandish claims. If they do not want to be treated as the children they are emulating, perhaps they should stop behaving like it? Until then, I call it as I see it.

    MikeB302000:

    Linoge, you’re the one misrepresenting the child pornography thing.

    False, and what is funny is that the rest of your post in no way disproved or even disagreed with what I said. We took your exact chain of thought (criminal uses X, these people use X, these people are responsible for criminal’s actions), applied it to a different situation, and then directed it at you , as opposed to us. Why do you object so very much? Could it be that your “logic” is deficient, and you know it? Do you not understand that being accused of being responsible for murder/assaults/etc. is just as distasteful, and just as erroneous, if you are not the criminal in question, as being accused of being responsible for child pornography?

    Your claiming that I accused you guys of being responsible for murder and rape is such an oversimplification of what I’ve often described at length, that it too, your claiming this, is a misrepresentation.

    I will agree that I went overboard with the inclusion of rape; however the rest of my comment stands substantiated by your own words. You have said, and I quote:

    I hold those last legitimate gun owners responsible. I hold all the rest of the gun owners who support this system responsible.

    In this case, you were blaming gun owners for thre murders and one injury in a shoot-out in California. Murder and assault, check.

    You have said, and I quote:

    That’s why the lawful gun owners cannot disassociate themselves from this mess.

    “This mess” being a rash of shootings and attacks in Baltimore. Murder and assault, check.

    You have said, and I quote:

    This is the result of decades of lobbying and NRA influence which more than anything is responsible for the gun violence in America. I never tire of pointing out the average gun owner’s share of this responsibility, but the real criminals are the NRA and gun manufacturers who sponsor the lobbyists who achieve such obviously detrimental laws concerning guns.

    Emphasis added. FFLs misbehaving, check.

    Hell, you even blame all firearm owners for a child bringing a firearm to school:

    All the gun owners who push for lenient gun laws and encourage others to arm themselves are to blame. The only people free from the taint of this blame are the gun control advocates, those intrepid warriors in the battle for common sense over paranoid and self-serving gun laws.

    Need I really go on? So, please, tell me exactly where I misrepresented your position (aside from the already-admitted error of including “rape” ) by saying, “But, frankly, I find it just as distasteful to be told I am “responsible” for murder/assaults/etc.”

    I am all ears (or, well, eyes, but still).

  16. Linoge,

    You know it’s not fair to quote their own words. Then they’ll have to come up w/ some way to say ‘that’s not what I ‘really’ meant’ or some other distraction from the fact that, yes, they are hypocritical bigots at heart.

    And yes MikeB, it is stupid.

  17. Joe,

    Ha! I know it wasn’t productive, but it was a good throwaway line. Look how hyped up it gets the usual suspects!

    Unfortunately, this is the same scenario that takes place on anti-gun blogs that accept comments. The blogger throws a little chum in the water and the same sharks all attack. I can understand why a lot of those bloggers stop accepting comments. It would be a full-time+ job to answer them all. And why bother? The people posting comments have already made up their minds about what they believe in. They don’t come for discussion. They come in an attempt to dominate any discussion.

    It would be fun to do a “turn around is fair play” type thing. Get 10 anti-gun posters to go and bombard some pro-gun blog — but it isn’t really worth the trouble. You’ll note, on most of the pro-gun blogs, only pro-gun people comment on posts. I’m sure plenty of anti’s read them but never comment.

  18. Linoge, the pedant, strikes again:

    “Joe, I am not at all sorry to say this, but, frankly, I am sick and tired of people who are too lazy, too incompetent, and/or too ignorant to do basic mathematical functions for themselves accusing other people of “cherry-picking”, “research BS”, and “carefully craft these misleading posts” without any evidence or substantiation to support those insulting and outlandish claims. If they do not want to be treated as the children they are emulating, perhaps they should stop behaving like it? Until then, I call it as I see it.”

    We’re hoplophobic, he’s a pedant. He’s going to teach us…

  19. Wow, its official, I can no longer tell the difference between Ubu52 and MikeB302000, or any other internet troll.

    Maybe she was simply hiding it all along. Lord knows Mike kept up a good act for about a year.

  20. It would be fun to do a “turn around is fair play” type thing. Get 10 anti-gun posters to go and bombard some pro-gun blog — but it isn’t really worth the trouble. You’ll note, on most of the pro-gun blogs, only pro-gun people comment on posts. I’m sure plenty of anti’s read them but never comment.

    Good luck UBU. As far as I can tell there aren’t 10 anti-gun bloggers in the whole blogosphere (hell, you don’t even have a blog)

    As for your 2nd bit, it’s dead wrong. The very fact that you’ve commented on this thread proves your statement false. You’ll notice that while anti-gunners moderate comments, Joe & others let your comments through, no matter how ignorant or bigoted they may be.

    Personally I welcome discussion and thus have no issue with those of differing viewpoints commenting on my blog (and they often do) MikeB is banned, but that’s because of a series of personal attacks and a history of posting personal information about pro-gun bloggers. I will not stand for such attacks on my blog.

  21. You mistake MikeB302000 for someone who can follow a logical train of thought.

    Ouch, Joe. Game, set, and match, I dare say.

    Ha! I know it wasn’t productive, but it was a good throwaway line. Look how hyped up it gets the usual suspects!

    So you freely admit to being nothing more than a common troll? Hell, you seem rather proud of taking on that particular mantle… So why should we care about anything you have to say, if you are only saying it in order to provoke a rise?

    I can understand why a lot of those bloggers stop accepting comments. […] They come in an attempt to dominate any discussion.

    Do you not understand the irony inherent in decrying some people for “attempt[ing] to dominate any dsicussion”, while exhorting and encouragingothers to forcibly dominate the discussion?

    I am sorry to see that your position is so inherently weak that it cannot withstand dissent being expressed… I am sorry, but not at all surprised. And, unfortunately, the internet being the internet, it does not matter if anti-rights nuts stop accepting comments – we can, and will, take the discussion elsewhere and abandon them to their hate-filled corners of the internet.

    I’m sure plenty of anti’s read them but never comment.

    And I am sure you will be along shortly with the evidence to support that blatant assumption, right? Just like you fielded examples of the “cherry-picking” charges you made earlier? Just like you provided links to the supposedly “misleading posts”?

    Oh wait. You are full of it, and unabashedly so.

    We’re hoplophobic, he’s a pedant. He’s going to teach us…

    So, if you are accusing me of being a pedant, what mathematical or logical rules and guidelines would you have our society disregard? Which ones, specifically, have I held to too tightly? Back up your words, or show yourself the coward.

    And do not flatter yourself, UBU – I have precisely zero interest in teaching you anything, primarily because you have no interest in learning. You have, time and time again, demonstrated a remarkable propensity for forcibly, militantly ignoring and/or disregarding any form of facts or figures that would even threaten your oh-so-precious bubble of reality. I see no reason to waste my time on you.

    I will, however, point out exactly where you are wrong, and where you are making baseless claims, as I have done so in this comment thread. If you do not like me doing so, I would suggest you stop making those errors and accusations. Is that so very much to ask?

  22. The second amendment does not come with the qualifier, “…shall not be infringed unless the crime rate exceeds x.”

    So where do we need to do any math?

    If you, the statists (ubu) want to launch a government campaign to save us from ourselves, why wouldn’t you start with those activities that result in the greatest number of preventable deaths? When you don’t seem to be talking about those activities that result in vastly more preventable deaths than firearm ownership by private citizens, we are correct to question either your intentions or your sanity. There’s our math for you. It’s not even math, really– it’s being able to see that some numbers are much greater than others.

    Again though, that’s granting your belief that it’s the government’s job to save us from ourselves, as opposed to, oh, I don’t know…acknowledging, respecting, and protecting our rights like they were supposed to do. I’m not going to even grant you your underlying assumption that it is our government’s job to protect us, so I’m not going to argue over numbers (which you refer to as “math”, which is quite funny given that this is Joe’s blog, and I expect he could outshine everyone on here in math skills).

    As I’ve said before, ubu; the number of air traffic deaths is far too low (if there were fewer restrictions, there would be far more people flying, with far more personal aircraft, hence more accidents, but only because of more liberty and freedom leading to more activity). So we need to get the number of air travel accidents up by lifting restrictions. Now let’s see you dazzle us Neanderthals with your superior math skills.

  23. The pro-liberty crowd has a broad perspective, which is why they bring a wealth of knowledge in the course of scrutinizing the individual arguments (read: pedantry) created by disarmers when they employ generalizations to justify their belief in contraband rules. A necessary process in refuting a generalization is to break it into smaller, more manageable chunks.

    If disarmers dislike the volume of facts and figures that pro-liberty advocates produce to refute generalizations, perhaps they should stop making generalizations–but then that would be an admission that substance vacated those arguments long ago, and it would rob them of the ability to continue presenting reworded generalizations as new arguments, since specific arguments with known sources and methodology may be compared to a list of those which were previously refuted.

    When all else fails, the disarmers simply move the target.

    If disarmers prefer generalizations, let’s address this one overarching problem with social engineering:
    Assertion: contraband causes bad behavior in humans
    Fact: decades of contraband rules have failed to change the behavior of humans

    What comes after this? What’s next? (Let me guess: it’s something we already tried.) Or is the point to enrich government paper-shufflers in a “public safety” industry that never produces any?

  24. Get 10 anti-gun posters to go and bombard some pro-gun blog…

    There are 10 anti-gun posters? Are we counting sockpuppets, too?

  25. “If disarmers dislike the volume of facts and figures that pro-liberty advocates produce to refute generalizations, perhaps they should stop making generalizations–but then that would be an admission that substance vacated those arguments long ago, and it would rob them of the ability to continue presenting reworded generalizations as new arguments, since specific arguments with known sources and methodology may be compared to a list of those which were previously refuted.”

    I’m against a “liberal CCW” policy in my city. My city is Los Angeles. I’m against it based on population density and the number of idiots who are bound to end up carrying guns.

    For all the data that has been presented, none of it directly relates to the “high density” city. New York, Chicago, LA, San Francisco and Washington DC all have very restrictive CCW laws. Any CCW data presented won’t be representative of those cities so the data is leaving out at least 10%+ of the US population. (Houston and Dallas are big cities but they have very little density.)

    To find other high density cities, one has to look outside the USA — and then you hit countries that have extremely strict gun laws. Hong Kong, Tokyo, London, even Sao Paulo have strict gun laws.

    In Manhattan, you have 100,000+ people per square mile. In LA’s Koreatown, it’s something like 50,000 people per square mile. In a good many parts of LA, the population density is over 20,000 people per square mile. You can’t compare this kind of density with a city boasting 3,000 people per square mile in the most dense areas.

    I’d love to see some competitive CCW stats regarding cities of similar density but I don’t think anyone has those. Instead, the pro-gun folks pull out all sorts of data that has nothing to do with that. Pulling out that data is just smoke and mirrors.

    Density matters with guns because, if you miss your target, you are going to hit something or someone that you weren’t intending to hit. So where is the “city” data? (Everything else to me is just BS. I’ve already stated that I think some people need to own guns and that I think guns are fun. I’m talking about the one issue that would make me walk the streets at election time. I’m against “liberal CCW” in my city.)

  26. “And do not flatter yourself, UBU – I have precisely zero interest in teaching you anything, primarily because you have no interest in learning. You have, time and time again, demonstrated a remarkable propensity for forcibly, militantly ignoring and/or disregarding any form of facts or figures that would even threaten your oh-so-precious bubble of reality. I see no reason to waste my time on you.”

    And yet you repeatedly run back to your little blog to post diatribes against people you feel are hoplophobic. You’ve posted about me plenty of times. You must fantasize about us anti-gunners a lot or we would not dominate your blog as much as we do. You don’t even link to blogs like “gun sense” because you think you are so important it might affect her readership ratings. I have to roll my eyes at that.

    You have some sort of mental flaw and if I had to guess which pro-gun blogger would end up in the news, I’d pick you. You really are a piece of work.

    I will praise you for something however: I really enjoy counting how many commas you can fit into a run-on sentence. You really take the cake. You know, periods exist for a purpose! When I see a sentence with 5+ commas, I know it belongs to Linoge!

    I wish I could say something nice at the end of all of this, but I can’t think of anything to say. You have a good vocabulary. Kudos to you.

  27. And yet you repeatedly run back to your little blog to post diatribes against people you feel are hoplophobic. You’ve posted about me plenty of times.

    You (unsurprisingly) seem to confuse “posting about” with “teaching you anything” – this is, after all, understandable for people like you… You almost unquestionably feel as though a post written about you is also a post written to you, when, in fact, you are simply being held up as an example of what the average anti-rights nut is – bigoted, discriminatory, intolerant, and afraid. One would think it would concern you more that you provide so very many examples of those character flaws, and less that I choose to highlight your words and deeds.

    You must fantasize about us anti-gunners a lot or we would not dominate your blog as much as we do.

    Or, y’know, I am concerned about anti-rights nuts incessantly seeking to strip my Constitutionally-protected, naturally-granted individual rights away from me for no better reasons than their own personal fears and self-righteous authoritarianism. But, no, that conclusion would be far too… honest… for you to arrive at. Perhaps you should concern yourself less about making assumptions regarding other people’s motivations? You are not very good at it.

    You don’t even link to blogs like “gun sense” because you think you are so important it might affect her readership ratings. I have to roll my eyes at that.

    Unfortunately, the proprietor of “Common Gunsense” (the weblog I assume you are referring to) does not choose to make her traffic statistics public; however, Quantcast notes that her weblog receives insufficient traffic for them to track. On the other hand, they do track my weblog. Roll your eyes all you like, but according to StatCounter, over 100 people followed external links from my webpage to other webpages yesterday – I would just as soon those people go to sites that do not endorse the abridgement of basic civil rights, like “Common Gunsense” does.

    You have some sort of mental flaw and if I had to guess which pro-gun blogger would end up in the news, I’d pick you.

    You would be wrong (not as though that is any great surprise) – our esteemed host has already “end[ed] up in the news”, as have others I am aware of. But that is not exactly what you meant, is it? And what basis do you have for this all-too-insulting determination? What reason? What cause? Or are you just further devolving to kindergarten and the related behavior?

    I really enjoy counting how many commas you can fit into a run-on sentence.

    Perhaps you can point out a specific example of these supposed “run-on sentence[s]”? Suffice to say, the existance of commas does not denote the existance of a run-on sentence (Did your elementary teachers never educate you on the concept of independent and dependent clauses?), but I do apologize if my writing style is a few steps above your apparent grade level… I suppose I could figure out a way to get down to the, “See Spot. See Spot run.” style of writing, but, in your case, it is simply not worth it.

    And speaking of “specific examples”, where are your citations regarding “cherry-picked data” and “misleading posts”? Where are the statistics regarding the number of anti-rights individuals who read pro-rights weblogs? Where are your explanatoins of which mathematical or logical rules and guidelines would you have our society disregard? Or are you, as we have always expected, simply making baseless aspersions to cast doubt on those you are attacking, in order to indirectly weaken their position without a shred of evidence or substantiation to support your claims?

    To find other high density cities, one has to look outside the USA

    That all depends on what you define as a “city”, I suppose. According to Wikipedia, for whatever that is worth, incorporated areas of Miami, Louisville, Philadelphia, Pittsburg, Dallas, Buffalo, Portland, and Cleveland all have population densities that are equivalent, or even greater than, incorporated areas of the cities you name. When it comes to “greater metropolitan areas”, though, the cities in the country are ranked: NYC, LA, Miami, Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia, San Fran, Pittsburg, Louisville, Providence, and D.C.

    Given that you specifically named D.C., it would stand to reason that any city with a greater population density than them would be acceptable to you – Miami, Philadelphia, Pittsburg, and Lousiville all have very “liberal” concealed carry laws, while Boston does permit it under the state’s “may issue” laws. And you know what is generally missing in all of those locations?

    People who lawfully carry firearms popping off indiscriminate rounds.

    To be certain, it does happen, and those people who do such an irresponsible thing are generally prosecuted for it (after all, lawful carriers typically have to register with the state, which makes finding them a bit easier). However, it is nowhere near the “blood in the streets” plague you would make it out to be.

    I’m against it based on population density and the number of idiots who are bound to end up carrying guns.

    Not that you have ever answered this question before, and not that you are going to answer it now, but what other individual rights stop at the edge of a high-population-density area?

  28. Linoge,

    I currently live in Glendale which is an incorporated city about 10 miles north of downtown LA. It has 200,000 residents living in 31 sq. miles. I live in one of the denser parts of Glendale.

    Glendale is currently still waiting for it’s first homicide of 2010.

    Explain to me how Glendale could be safer if there were more people legally carrying guns via CCW.

    Please, compare Glendale to a comparable city with “liberal” CCW laws. Explain to me how CCW would make my life better.

    Since you are the master of data, I’m sure you can show me another large/dense city with liberal CCW laws that is safer than Glendale.

  29. Explain to me how CCW would make my life better.

    I am not at all sorry to say this, UBU, but the burden of proof is on you – after all, you are the one seeking to deny fellow Americans a basic individual right, you are the one doing so on an arbitrary and self-serving standard, and you are the one using arguments that are frighteningly similar to arguments employed against a different set of people 70 years ago…

    As such, you get to be the one to do the research and present the information… but I can tell you this: murder rates are not the only things in play (though your reliance on it shows how tenuous your position is), and, even with that as your metric, other denser-populated areas have had fewer murders per population unit than Glendale in the past.

    But, I imagine you will present a rational, logical argument to support your position about the time you field the evidence of my supposedly “run-on sentences”, of “cherry-picked data”, of “misleading posts”, of the number of anti-rights nuts who read pro-rights weblogs, and so forth.

  30. Explain to me how Glendale could be safer if there were more people legally carrying guns via CCW.

    UBU – Since you repeatedly make the baseless claim that CCW is dangerous in cities with high population density, please explain how Glendale would be LESS SAFE if people were allowed to legally carry?

    Surely you have factual evidence to back up your claims? *cue laughter*

  31. This is quite amusing, given the fact most gunloons treat probability and statistics with more disdain than those who throw chicken bones and entrails and try to divine the future.

    Do gunloons share responsibility for our nation’s high gun violence levels? Absolutely. There is no industry that has tried to absolve itself of responsibility and accountabaility than the gun community. As a result, *everyone* gets to pay more in terms of taxes, healthcare, products and services. And that’s just the economic costs–it doesn’t account for the families and lives that are shattered.

  32. JadeGold,

    Please explain to us the basis for your statement that gun advocates have a disdain for probability and statistics.

    We used successfully statistics for decades and are now beyond them. The statistics don’t matter anymore. The Supreme Court has recognized that we have a specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. The statistics of gun ownership and gun laws matter no more than the statistics of young black men convicted of crimes matter to the issue of slavery or Jim Crow laws.

    When you do your accounting please make sure to include the benefits of gun ownership. And with something on the order of 7 to 10 billion bullets sold to private citizens in this country each year. Be sure to do the statistics on the benign and/or beneficial expenditure of that ammunition versus the criminal uses.

Comments are closed.