Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Conceal Carry Recommendations [DJFaithful] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
DJFaithful wrote:
Halvard wrote:
DJFaithful wrote:
Halvard wrote:
DJFaithful wrote:
gshtrisport wrote:


Do you know how many times an armed “good guy” prevents something bad with a gun? It is not very often. Often times they make the situation worse.

But hey, it is your 2nd Amendment right (debatable).


According to Gary Kleck, Ph.D., professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University in Tallahassee and author of "Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America,” the good guy prevents something bad with a gun over 2.5 million times a year.


Interesting.
Do you consider Kleck's work from 1994 as good and of high quality.
Do you find his method and sample correct?


Well, truthfully, I don't really care about his method or his study. I'm a libertarian, not a scientist. I don't want to live in a country in which the government disarms me because "it knows what's best" for me.


So you just like to use some fake science if the conclusion is in alignment with your political view.

Interesting


What are you 12? Don't put words in my mouth. It's not fake science. It's good science, but like all science, good or otherwise, it's subject to scrutiny. But as I said, good or bad science, neither will disarm me. If you don't like the particular constitutional amendment in question here, then try to amend it. Rescind it. The framers provided a method for that.

Even if I was 12 I would have seen that you tried to use some "science" to back up your political view.
I question the science, something that a 12 year old can do. I did not question your political view or the US constitution.
I asked if you though the science you used in your argument was valid.

Since a 12 year old can easily see how you tried to get support for your political view with crappy science, how old does that make you??

Member of Valhalla Racing Team
Quote Reply
Re: Conceal Carry Recommendations [Halvard] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Halvard wrote:
DJFaithful wrote:
Halvard wrote:
DJFaithful wrote:
Halvard wrote:
DJFaithful wrote:
gshtrisport wrote:


Do you know how many times an armed “good guy” prevents something bad with a gun? It is not very often. Often times they make the situation worse.

But hey, it is your 2nd Amendment right (debatable).


According to Gary Kleck, Ph.D., professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University in Tallahassee and author of "Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America,” the good guy prevents something bad with a gun over 2.5 million times a year.


Interesting.
Do you consider Kleck's work from 1994 as good and of high quality.
Do you find his method and sample correct?


Well, truthfully, I don't really care about his method or his study. I'm a libertarian, not a scientist. I don't want to live in a country in which the government disarms me because "it knows what's best" for me.


So you just like to use some fake science if the conclusion is in alignment with your political view.

Interesting


What are you 12? Don't put words in my mouth. It's not fake science. It's good science, but like all science, good or otherwise, it's subject to scrutiny. But as I said, good or bad science, neither will disarm me. If you don't like the particular constitutional amendment in question here, then try to amend it. Rescind it. The framers provided a method for that.


Even if I was 12 I would have seen that you tried to use some "science" to back up your political view.
I question the science, something that a 12 year old can do. I did not question your political view or the US constitution.
I asked if you though the science you used in your argument was valid.

Since a 12 year old can easily see how you tried to get support for your political view with crappy science, how old does that make you??

Maybe you're not 12. A 12 yr old would know how to use google better. Google Marvin E. Wolfgang.

http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/...854&context=jclc
Quote Reply
Re: Conceal Carry Recommendations [DJFaithful] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Don't engage in a gun debate with Halvard, especially when it comes to repealing the 2nd amendment. He isn't even a US citizen, so his opinion has no bearing on the matter.


"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden
Quote Reply
Re: Conceal Carry Recommendations [DJFaithful] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
DJFaithful wrote:
Halvard wrote:
DJFaithful wrote:
Halvard wrote:
DJFaithful wrote:
Halvard wrote:
DJFaithful wrote:
gshtrisport wrote:


Do you know how many times an armed “good guy” prevents something bad with a gun? It is not very often. Often times they make the situation worse.

But hey, it is your 2nd Amendment right (debatable).


According to Gary Kleck, Ph.D., professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University in Tallahassee and author of "Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America,” the good guy prevents something bad with a gun over 2.5 million times a year.


Interesting.
Do you consider Kleck's work from 1994 as good and of high quality.
Do you find his method and sample correct?


Well, truthfully, I don't really care about his method or his study. I'm a libertarian, not a scientist. I don't want to live in a country in which the government disarms me because "it knows what's best" for me.


So you just like to use some fake science if the conclusion is in alignment with your political view.

Interesting


What are you 12? Don't put words in my mouth. It's not fake science. It's good science, but like all science, good or otherwise, it's subject to scrutiny. But as I said, good or bad science, neither will disarm me. If you don't like the particular constitutional amendment in question here, then try to amend it. Rescind it. The framers provided a method for that.


Even if I was 12 I would have seen that you tried to use some "science" to back up your political view.
I question the science, something that a 12 year old can do. I did not question your political view or the US constitution.
I asked if you though the science you used in your argument was valid.

Since a 12 year old can easily see how you tried to get support for your political view with crappy science, how old does that make you??


Maybe you're not 12. A 12 yr old would know how to use google better. Google Marvin E. Wolfgang.

http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/...854&context=jclc

So now you are changing your view again.

You said: Well, truthfully, I don't really care about his method or his study.
Now suddenly you are supporting the Kleck's findings and even throwing in another name to support the findings (that you truthfully did not care about).

Sorry I am getting confused. Do you support Kleck's finding like you said, or do you not care about his methods or his study, as you said.
What do you truthfully mean?

If you support Kleck's work, something that you have said you do and do not care about. Why is it so hard to replicate? Even by following the same method?
If this is sound social science it should be really easy to replicate. And being able to replicate the research and based on the data draw the same conclusion is important in science.

Member of Valhalla Racing Team
Quote Reply
Re: Conceal Carry Recommendations [Halvard] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
 
You're confused because you managed to get both feet, shoes and all, stuck in your mouth. You've been owned.


Quote:
Quote:
Halvard wrote:
DJFaithful wrote:
Halvard wrote:
DJFaithful wrote:
Halvard wrote:
DJFaithful wrote:
Halvard wrote:
DJFaithful wrote:
gshtrisport wrote:


Do you know how many times an armed “good guy” prevents something bad with a gun? It is not very often. Often times they make the situation worse.

But hey, it is your 2nd Amendment right (debatable).


According to Gary Kleck, Ph.D., professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University in Tallahassee and author of "Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America,” the good guy prevents something bad with a gun over 2.5 million times a year.


Interesting.
Do you consider Kleck's work from 1994 as good and of high quality.
Do you find his method and sample correct?


Well, truthfully, I don't really care about his method or his study. I'm a libertarian, not a scientist. I don't want to live in a country in which the government disarms me because "it knows what's best" for me.


So you just like to use some fake science if the conclusion is in alignment with your political view.

Interesting


What are you 12? Don't put words in my mouth. It's not fake science. It's good science, but like all science, good or otherwise, it's subject to scrutiny. But as I said, good or bad science, neither will disarm me. If you don't like the particular constitutional amendment in question here, then try to amend it. Rescind it. The framers provided a method for that.


Even if I was 12 I would have seen that you tried to use some "science" to back up your political view.
I question the science, something that a 12 year old can do. I did not question your political view or the US constitution.
I asked if you though the science you used in your argument was valid.

Since a 12 year old can easily see how you tried to get support for your political view with crappy science, how old does that make you??


Maybe you're not 12. A 12 yr old would know how to use google better. Google Marvin E. Wolfgang.

http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/...854&context=jclc


So now you are changing your view again.

You said: Well, truthfully, I don't really care about his method or his study.
Now suddenly you are supporting the Kleck's findings and even throwing in another name to support the findings (that you truthfully did not care about).

Sorry I am getting confused. Do you support Kleck's finding like you said, or do you not care about his methods or his study, as you said.
What do you truthfully mean?

If you support Kleck's work, something that you have said you do and do not care about. Why is it so hard to replicate? Even by following the same method?
If this is sound social science it should be really easy to replicate. And being able to replicate the research and based on the data draw the same conclusion is important in science.
Quote Reply
Re: Conceal Carry Recommendations [HBB] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Stories like this make your post seem serious, thankfully their recovering well

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2016/09/10/2-men-shot-while-riding-bikes-in-elysian-park-continue-to-recover/
Quote Reply
Re: Conceal Carry Recommendations [CP78] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Full size 1911. It's intimidating...
Quote Reply
Re: Conceal Carry Recommendations [CP78] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
CP78 wrote:
Stories like this make your post seem serious, thankfully their recovering well

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2016/09/10/2-men-shot-while-riding-bikes-in-elysian-park-continue-to-recover/

Except the OP probably could never get a carry license if he lived in LA. He would have to show "good cause," and having been shot and robbed is probably not considered good cause. I guess it makes LA citizens feel safer knowing that law-abiding citizens cannot carry, but criminals and thugs can do whatever the f__k they want.
Quote Reply
Re: Conceal Carry Recommendations [pmcdc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
pmcdc wrote:
according to reports of such in the papers, the assailants would physically knock over a biker, hurt him/her, and then abscond with the bike.

I always have trouble following this line of thinking to its conclusion. If a carrying cyclist were knocked off the bike and someone started to ride away with the bike, is the gun going to be used to fire at the escaping thief?
Quote Reply
Re: Conceal Carry Recommendations [HBB] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
don't wanna revive an old thread and got no idea if this has been posted before

...but, I think this belongs here:


https://cyclehistory.wordpress.com/...e-late-19th-century/
Quote Reply
Re: Conceal Carry Recommendations [DJFaithful] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
DJFaithful wrote:
A big can of pepper spray might be more useful in some situations. Unless you're confronted with deadly force, you can't use your firearm. Confronted by six street thugs, I think I might rather have a pepper spray fogger than a gun.

seems to me being confronted by 6 thugs constitutes a situation justifying a deadly force response with a sidearm.
Quote Reply

Prev Next