What we get in return is more of the same. At first, I disagreed with Weer'd Beard about the worth of continuing to debate at Mike's, now I'm completely convinced he was right.
In response to comments made on this post Mike made the following comments
Bob says, "Sorry but your "belief" doesn't rise to the level of proof needed to deprive people of their rights."Perhaps your "belief" doesn't rise to the level of proof needed to maintain that right. Perhaps that's how "rights" are changed through history.
YGTBSM -- My proof doesn't rise to the level needed to maintain our right to keep and bear arms???
We've provided evidence from the CDC showing that firearm fatalities are declining. We've provided evidence that some countries with strict gun control laws have higher firearm homicide and crime rates while some countries with lax gun control laws have lower crime rates. In other words, no evidence that strict gun control laws work.
We've provided evidence showing that there are other factors -- social, cultural, economic, educational-- that affect crime rates more then firearm availability.
We've provided evidence showing that firearms save lives.
Over and over again, we've provided proof, sound proof that our right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed. And what does MikeB provide to back up his opinion? Quotes & sound bites from the Violence Policy Center and the Brady Campaign. Slanted stories from the left stream media.
And our proof may not be enough to keep our rights in his mind?? Abolutely frakkin amazing.
Bob also said, "I know, I know you say you don't want to stop good people from having firearms, but how can you reduce availability and still let good people have firearms."One way is to redefine what we mean by "good people." Obviously the definition we've been working with is not working. As much as you deny it, the flow of these so-called "good" gun owners over to the dark side is significant.
We've provided evidence, time and time again, showing that the "flow" of guns is insignificant.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics report 419,640 for 2005. The CDC reported 12,352 fatalities related to firearm homicides in the same year.
Estimates place the number of firearms in America around 280,000,000. Even allowing for every firearm to be a new and unique firearm used in crime, that means only 0.15428% of all firearms were used in crimes in 2005. Hardly significant! That type of irrationality can not be swayed by the facts, by the truth.
This was the final straw - One way is to redefine what we mean by "good people."
So, what does MikeB propose to do? Redefine every gun owner as "bad people"? Despite the evidence that gun owners are by and large law abiding, despite the fact that most firearm related crimes are committed by people who have criminal records (and most gun owners don't have a criminal record) MikeB wants to take away our rights.
It really isn't that far of a step to imagine that as not good people our rights will be completely trampled to reduce the availability of firearms. Never mind that no prohibition, no ban has ever stopped the flow of an item, we see MikeB's eventual goal in these words....the confiscation of firearms from the law abiding.
So enough is enough, I'm mostly done with this troll. I'll raid his site for occasional blog fodder but I won't be commenting on a regular basis there. I'll post my replies and thoughts on this blog where I know that my comments won't be moderated out of existence.
/rant off
58 comments:
When I hear people like Mike B. making the arguments they make, the only thing I can really do is just bring up the words of the great L. Neil Smith:
"...the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and Constitutional right -- subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility."He won't buy that either, but it'll be interesting to see how he'll try to refute it.
If MikeB wants to take my guns away, I'll give him directions to my house. Think he'll show up and try? We have pretty good laws regarding shooting burglars and trespassers here in Texas that favor the property owner, so if he came to my home intent on relieving me of my firearms, he's toast. The minute he set one foot a fraction of an inch on my land. (Yes, it's mine, the bank does not own it.)
Side Note: Anybody who tries to use the coercive force of the Fed Gov to bend the world to his will is anything but a secular liberal democrat. MikeB refused to see that mirror so I gave up on him a long time ago. I'm surprised it took the rest of you so long to give up on him.
Oh, and I might add. Rights -- REAL rights -- do not change. They are either acknowledged or denied.
MikeB has had some oddly reversed priorities since basically forever, i think. his grasp of the concept of "burden of proof" has never been very solid --- he keeps arguing that if there's a large or "serious" public movement for the banning of pick-a-scapegoat, then because of that movement, it becomes the responsibility of the ban's opponents to show why the scapegoat shouldn't be banned.
yeah, you could sail a battleship through the holes in that "logic". MikeB doesn't see them. you could introduce totalitarianism and tyranny through 'em, also --- the whole stance boils down to "majority rule is always right, no matter what the majority wants" --- but he doesn't care, or care to see that.
so now he's saying that we need evidence for why we should get to keep our rights, rather than the other way around. that's... not just un-American, that's really not even European thinking. individual liberties aren't as highly valued in continental Europe as they are here, but even there, they're generally considered more important than that.and, hey, that's me talking. good ol' big-government, social-engineering, outright socialist, yet even i think MikeB's going too far with that line of thought.
hmm, i think i've found a bug in blogger's comment displaying code. wonder if i should bother trying to report it...
naah, blogger sucks too hard. they've got bigger problems left unsolved than paragraph breaks disappearing if they follow right after a closing-italics tag.
Cartridge box trumps ballot boxes. Always has and always will. Might not be sporting to shoot opponents with no arms but they shouldn't try to steal my possessions.
First rule in not getting shot:
Do not try to assault or steal things from people that may shoot you for your efforts.
Mike should go study that one some more.
I'm still not sure if he's doing this just to troll, or he's so mentally backwards that he believes this tripe.
We know he and the truth aren't on speaking terms.
The idea of sticking around just so random google-n00bs and people following his bait from the Huff-Po can see the opposition's point free-and-clear worked until the arbitrary comment moderation.
After that I was just trolling for fun, kicking around a self-centered jerk because he deserved it.
Honestly tho, his posts bore me to tears, it's like watching TV-Land a 3am. You've seen it all before, and it wasn't very good even then!
He's just upping the emotional hand-wringing, and the thinly veiled insults, as well as dismissing all logic and support for his claims outright, and layering that on top of the same BS he said last week, and his commeters tore it to shreds and fed it to the hogs.
Blah, I stopped reading over a week ago, and frankly I don't miss it at all!
Might not be sporting to shoot opponents with no armsMaybe not, but then, as they say, the only unfair fight is the one you lose.
Maybe not, but then, as they say, the only unfair fight is the one you lose.What if I handicap myself by using a pistol? Would that be borderline more sporting? I've heard that .223/5.56mm doesn't even kill insurgents, so it'd like be giving an American insurgent a chance, right, dudes?
Anybody willing to give me a "Right Arms, Dude! Right Arms!"???
Works nice on coyotes, should work nice on wolves, err...leftists ( wannabee wolves) in sheep's clothing.
Heeheehee.
What if I handicap myself by using a pistol? Hey, it's only a handicap if you can't do what you need to do with it. ;-)
Oh, and a nifty little corollary to that rule: "If you find yourself in a fair fight, you didn't plan your mission properly."
Bob, I thought your post was very well organized and that it represented my feelings pretty accurately. I thank you for that, as opposed to quoting me out of context, for example, or exaggerating my comments. I thought it was a very fair post.
One thing though, I really don't want to take anyone's guns away, believe it or not. I'd be happy with your admitting that there are serious problems, with gun flow and gun availability, for example.
The more reasonable among you admit these things exist but insist nothing can be done about them without damaging the "right." I disagree with that but at least I can accept it.
What the rest of you do is unacceptable to me. You refuse to admit anything, gun flow is insignificant, DGUs outnumber murders, etc., etc. Your approach seems to be never to admit anything, ever. To me that's a crap way to argue.
MikeB,
What you do is fail to admit that gun availability isn't the problem, but the problem lies with the cultural and societal issues.
You consistently lump all gun owners into the same category, refusing to recognize there is an identifiable segment of society that is causing the majority of the problems.
What you do is consistently advocate solutions to the "problem" that won't address the problem. Take for an example- one gun a month laws. Do you really think the gang bangers and drug rings are going to be stopped by that?
Or are they simply going to increase the number of people they rob, the number of people they use in straw purchases? Both of those are crimes already.
So, who does one gun a month affect? The law abiding folks like those commenting here. Preventing us from buying 2 guns in a month isn't going to reduce the murder rate one iota. What is worse, I think you know that already.
And since this is MY BLOG I get to tell the truth straight up.
You say in this post
One thing though, I really don't want to take anyone's guns away, believe it or not.But that isn't telling the truth, in short YOU ARE LYING!Over on the Troy Ryan Bellar post on your blog you say
Blogger mikeb302000 said...
No Mike W., it's not guilty until proven innocent. It's simply extrapolating from the facts we read every day and multiplying by 50 million. This means we've got a big problem and you're part of it.You've previously said that you only wanted to take away the firearms from the bad guys. Now you are saying we are part of the problem. Sorry sir but you are a lying sack of excrement. You know that the vast majority, over 99.75% of all gun owners aren't criminals, are not part of the problem but you still slander us.
How about telling us, once and for all, how you can possibly stop the flow of firearms to the bad guys and still let the good guys have their firearms. I don't think you can. I think you know it.
I'll top post your comments, your ideas word for word so you can make sure I haven't edited any of them.
In fact, I'll repeat an idea I had before. Let's settle on 3 to 5 points of discussion about the gun issue. Either in a single post or a series of posts, let's both put forward our best ideas, evidence. Let's debate it on the blogs?
What do you say Champ? Up for a challenge?
I'd be happy with your admitting that there are serious problems, with gun flow and gun availability Problem with gun availability. What the hell ever, dude. Did you know that once upon a time in this country you could order guns through the mail with no background check whatsoever? Guns are HARDER TO GET NOW THAN THEY HAVE EVER BEEN IN THE HISTORY OF THIS COUNTRY.
Mike,
MY WAY TO ARGUE involves you trying to take my guns away on MY PROPERTY.
Want an address? Be sure to tuck something in your clothing as to how you want to be disposed of after you LOSE.
Taking a page from Clay Allison, also of Texas, you're welcome to have dinner in my home and it might be wild game, not vegan.
"Later he was asked why he would consent to eating with a man who was intent on killing him. His reply? “Because I didn’t want to send a man to hell on an empty stomach.”
As Ray W Hubbard once sang:
Screw you, we're from Texas
Screw you, we're from Texas
We're from Texas
So Screw you!
Just doing my best to arrange better relations between Ital *cough cough* New Jersey and THE GREAT STATE OF TEXAS.
Cheers,
Tom
I really will give you a home addy. The ATF and State Department have it, so why not you and if you're on a mission to rid the world of guns, why not go after a KNOWN GUN TRADER AND SMITH?
You Ital...err...New Jersey Boys a bunch of lactating pussies?
Just wondering...
All complaints can be forwarded to the First Baptist Church of Woodway, Texas. Stacks of NON-Fed-Reserve Notes are also appreciated as are silver and gold and incense and myrrh.
I can't make myself walk upon water but I bet I could make you wish you could with a legal Thompson...
Cheers MikeD (as in DILDO)
You get funnier as time passes and only you don't see the humour.
I'd say, in a fair society, people wouldn't allow you firearms, but it wouldn't be legislated, it would be based on your words and acts.
Bob, Your "challenge" is something we've already been doing for months. For you to describe it like something new and throw down the gauntlet like that is a typical thing you do in your arguing. It's a smoke screen. It's a superficial attempt to make me look like I'm afraid to accept the "challenge." It's nonsense, Bob, and it's misleading.
I have a challenge for you. Leave off the name-calling and insults. Stop supporting people who use those tactics, like Weer'd and Tom. If your argument is really sound, you shouldn't have to do those things.
And while you're at it, leave off the exaggerated false indignity. When you claim to be offended personally by my argument, or when you say that I offend all lawful gun owners because of my opinions, you distract from the real argument. I repeat, if your argument is really so valid, then argue it without all this superfluous stuff. That's my challenge to you.
MikeB,
We have been doing it for months, what I'm trying to do is get all the information in one spot.
As for the name calling and insults, I'll stop those when you do.
You lied, you've insulted me personally repeatedly, you've repeatedly insulted every legitimate gun owner. You've called us names, politely, but still called us names. You've dismissed our research as biased and untrustworthy -- without showing how it is biased and untrustworthy. You've denied the truth when we've pointed out, with evidence, how your cited information is biased and untrustworthy.
You accuse me of false indignity !!
You get your nose out of joint when I take a perfectly valid analogy and apply it to you.
You accuse gun owners of being part of the "flow" and being responsible gun crimes but you won't take responsibility for the child pron crimes because you have computer and camera. (See this comment won't be moderated out of existence).
You get so indigent that you moderated your comments, you censored comments that even touched on the subject of your responsibility.....and you accuse me of false indignity. This is what makes you a hypocrite MikeB.
Why not try a single post with 3-5 points? Put all your cards on the table in a single post--maybe even include a suggested course of action?
Let's sum it up and make it concise. You've said many things over many months...including that you might go armed under occasions...so let's put it together and present out best case.
So what's so superfluous about the fact that getting a gun now is more difficult than it's ever been?
MikeB,
I repeat, if your argument is really so valid, then argue it without all this superfluous stuff.I really didn't catch this until Pistolero's comment...so what is superfluous? Pointing out when you lie? Applying an analogy you don't like?
You want to debate without the superfluous, that is what I'm trying to do. Let's boil it down. 3 to points, present your best case I'll present me. The entire months of gun control arguments summed up in one post. let's put the evidence, the "theories" out there and see if they stand up.
Oh, and another thing. If the availability of guns is a problem, that would imply that people are getting them who should not be trusted with them. If these individuals are so dangerous that they allegedly can't be trusted with guns, then why are they not locked up tighter than Dick's hatband? Why are they still walking free? And why don't you and your ilk ever ask that question, hmmm? Why do you in effect put the "rights" of the criminals above the RIGHTS of the law-abiding?
"Sorry sir but you are a lying sack of excrement."
That's an example of what I consider insulting and superflous.
Pistolero, About the guns being harder to get today than in the good old days, this only proves what you guys often say and what I've agreed with: gun availability is only a part of the problem. Some of our other societal and cultural problems are so acute now that we can't stand the level of access to guns we have now, even if it is less than before.
MikeB,
Then make your case and make it without lying. If you don't want to be called on account of your lies, don't lie.
Mike, I'm tired of you being polite and calling me a liar, being polite and calling me a criminal and enabling criminals. When you lie, I will call you on it. Prove that you weren't lying
Show me I'm wrong
Now you are saying we are part of the problem. Sorry sir but you are a lying sack of excrement. You know that the vast majority, over 99.75% of all gun owners aren't criminals, are not part of the problem but you still slander us.If availability is so crucial now, show it, PROVE IT.
I'll open the negotiations on the debate.
Point #1 - Ease of Availability
Point #2 - Effectiveness of Gun Control Laws
Point #3 - Flow of guns to criminals
How about it, want to add 1 or 2 more points? Or go with what I've suggested -- you standard arguments.
You can show how availability is so crucial now.
This is a case of put up or shut up. Let's see you present your case on how we gun owners are part of the problem. PROVE IT.
Heh,
HE DIDN'T DENY HE LIVES IN JERSEY and PRETENDS to live in Italy!
GOTCHA!
It was an end run but,
GOTCHA!
That one was for Weer'd's benefit :-)
On a more serious and PRAGMATIC note about so-called "gun deaths".
How do you think Mike feels about the fact that in the last quarter of 2008, US Citizens bought more than enough semi-automatic small arms to equip the Chinese Communist and Indian Armies, combined + over 1.5 billion rounds of ammunition?
That kinda sounds like people preparing for WAR, doesn't it? If he were to get his ideas passed as law, how would he feel about having his ink on the death warrants he would have signed for any officer, administrator, or any kind of official at all related to any attempts at confiscation of privately held arms? The targets could even extend to anti-gun press and anti-gun bloggers if, as Mike V says, we play by Clinton's Serbian Rules where television and press were considered legitimate military targets.
Does he want ten families on his block in New Jersey to not have moms and dads because he didn't want my nephew to have a semi-automatic rifle? He would have signed their death warrants by advocating laws to the point they got passed and then having people sent out to confiscate.
If he thinks the war between drug lords and the Mexican government is something, imagine a war between people like myself (never served but military brat and been in the "gun culture with the Vets since I can remember being able to crawl) and my friends and family that are Veterans of wars of all sizes and types.
A Mexican drug warrior might capture an Abrams tank and burn it. The sort of American that might capture an Abrams tank would also KNOW HOW TO DRIVE IT AND OPERATE ALL IT'S SYSTEMS. Air power, same thing.
The US is a highly militarized country with a huge number of vets that want to keep their guns and built the military that people like Mike want to use do disarm the populace, though they won't come right out and say it very often. How well is that going to work?
Be one hell of an INSURGENCY and one with a GOOD CHANCE OF SUCCESS considering that most Marines and Airborne down to the guys that work in the motor pools don't want to take their family's guns away, so they'd disobey orders anyway.
Mike, in the end game, you are proposing an American civil war that quite possibly would be the bloodiest the world has ever seen, and have been all along, while claiming you want to have peace and safe streets.
Some of our other societal and cultural problems are so acute now that we can't stand the level of access to guns we have now, even if it is less than before. So those who haven't done anything wrong should be held responsible for the wrong deeds of others. Ahem. NO. As L. Neil Smith said, "(You) may lecture (me) about the dangerous weirdos out there who shouldn't have a gun -- but what does that have to do with (me)? Why in the name of John Moses Browning should (I) be made to suffer for the misdeeds of others? Didn't (we) lay aside the infantile notion of group punishment when (we) left public school -- or the military? Isn't it an essentially European notion, anyway -- Prussian, maybe -- and certainly not what America was supposed to be all about?
And if there are dangerous weirdos out there, does it make sense to deprive (me) of the means of protecting (myself) from them? Forget about those other people, those dangerous weirdos, this is about (me), and it has been, all along."
And this is usally where it stops. MikeB Gets all butthurt that people called him a liar simply because he doesn't like to tell the truth, the fusses like a baby that maybe somebody used a colorful adjective, and mumbles somthing about how we've been "Discussing" this for so much time.
Of course he won't actually talk in any depth on the issues he sometimes claims to support (other times claims he's NEVER supported See Mass Confiscation which he has both called for and also proclaimed he'd never support it)
Once he's given a few simple snips into the issue he disapears.
And anything discussed with be ignored in his next discussion on the issue (See the Mexican Gun Canard that when presented with the actual AFT report that shows that only a small number of guns recovered in Mexico came from the United States, that he agreed was true...until somebody restated the Canard in which he again was 100% supporting what he had previously agreed was untrue).
Mike doest DISCUSS ANYTHING, he just wants to chime in on his untrue arguments, and doing all he can to "strenthen" them by pointing out anybody who might have refered to him as an "asshole" (BTW Mike the above post is me PROVING you're an asshole) or how Tomas has pointed out that if MikeB came to collect his guns he'd be getting the ammo first.
On another fun little angle is Pistolero's comment about the stupidity of innocent people sharing the responcibility of those who are actually doing the bad thing.
Well Mike's comments take a little more weight when your realize that Mike, without an ounce of shame or remorse, admits that he has owned guns illigally in the past.
You see Mike IS PART of the group of bad people doing criminal acts that lead to the problems our nation has with guns.
Of course Mike does NOT want to share any responcibility for his past crimes, but is very comfortable with passing some blame for his misdeeds on to us.
(Again see definition of "Asshole", I feel I'm VERY justified in using it)
Weer'd - Mike himself is a law-abiding gun owner gone bad, and he believes that the rest of us (all 80 million + are just as irresponsible and criminal as he is.
Yes, Weer'd and Tom have really got me pegged, especially that part about not living in Italy. Only super intelligent guys with natural sleuthing abilities could have sussed me out like that. And only guys who maintain the highest standards of intellectual honesty in their debating would keep pointing it out in a discussion that has nothing to do with where I live. Bravi! (we say bravi here in Italy for the plural, not bravo like they do in America).
One thing that keeps getting repeated around here is that you guys have proven your argument and I have not. I say exactly the opposite. Don't you see the double standard you're always using by calling Helmke and Hemenway shills for the gun control crowd while all your sources are above reproach?
MikeB,
Then this is your chance. Straight up debate, point by point rebuttal and we can show whether or not we've proved our argument.
Don't you see the double standard you're always using by calling Helmke and Hemenway shills for the gun control crowd while all your sources are above reproach?Can you provide any evidence where we've said our sources are above reproach? Again, that is awfully close to one of those "untruths" from you that we can't say point blank.
Again MikeB, if you feel we haven't proven our argument, you feel we can't this is the opportunity to show it. Start with the 3-5 points, make it a post. Heck, I'll even share my draft post with you or we can respond to each others points in another post.
What do you say...let's boil this down and put it up for everyone to review - between your numerous readers and my 4, we should have some comments.
Heh, how about that Irony!
Mike Just chimed in to complain about my last comment....meanwhile he exhibited EVERY point I made.
#1. He did not at ALL address the gun control issue in any factual sense.
#2. He whined and attempted to make a big deal about "naughty" things that have been said about him as if it somehow validates unrelated issues.
#3. He lied: "Don't you see the double standard you're always using by calling Helmke and Hemenway shills for the gun control crowd while all your sources are above reproach?"
Nope, we don't. We point out that Helmke and Hemenway, among others are PAID to say the things they say by people with political interests in the issues being discussed. We also point out the lies told my said people, and have presented multiple sources of data to support our claims.
In no way have we ever stated that the sources were above reproach. But note one thing, you have given no reproach on the sources, except that of your subjective feelings.
I've said this time-and-time-again, that I was once a proponent of gun control. I changed my mind when I discovered that all my core principals for believing in heightening the restrictions on the 2nd Amendment were untrue.
I've changed my mind once, it would be very strange if my mind was unable to change again.
I vowed that if you could prove that the guns in my possession did myself, my family, and society at large more harm than good, I would have every last one of them scrapped, and I would use all my political power to make sure all other gun owners in America did exactly the same, all the way down to banning all guns in the nation.
Bob has also agreed to this pledge, maybe others would chime in as well. Certainly if you can convince me, certainly I would be able to use your argument to convince others.
When somebody asked you "What would you need to see to get you to reverse your position on gun control?" you replied "Nothing." (I assume that answer still stands)
Unlike you, You can very simply get me to change my mind by showing me that the guns in my possession did myself, my family, and society at large more harm than good.
I've posted this request on your Blog, on my Blog, and now on Bob's blog. The two previous times you refused to comment besides meaningless quibbles such as "Well I don't want you to scrap all your guns!" (I don't care what you want, Mike. If my gun is in fact going to "Flow" into the hands of violent criminals, or is going to kill my wife or loved ones in a much more likely fashion than save my life, or simply sit in my safes, ride in my holsters, and entertain me on the firing line, I would WANT to destroy them. Hell I destroyed my swimming pool simply because it was more likely to drowned somebody than do anything useful.)
If your belief in gun control is something other than an unfounded religion of dogma, present it here, or in my blog.....or even over at your own blog (just be sure to let us know because we don't read your blog anymore) and you will gain at LEAST two allies in your fight for gun control.
If your belif in gun control in fact IS simply religious zealotry, by all means ignore this challenge, for there is no other alternative.
Don't you see the double standard you're always using by calling Helmke and Hemenway shills for the gun control crowd while all your sources are above reproach?...
Ok then. Which of the sources we cite is not above reproach? I am well aware of the John Lott controversy, but the thing is, his findings have been replicated by several other studies — some of which were undertaken by people who set out to prove him wrong. If I remember correctly, Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck was one of those who set out to prove Lott wrong — instead, Kleck came out with a study that at least one of his fellow criminologists lauded as methodologically sound. And then we have the case of Duke professor Phillip Cook and Georgetown professor Jens Ludwig, who with a Clinton Justice Department grant undertook a study of their own as they along with the Clinton DoJ thought the Kleck DGU figure was too high...well, guess what? Their study produced about the same results as did Kleck's study, and in fact Cook and Ludwig conceded their methodology might have been too conservative and that Kleck's figure of 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year could very well be almost doubled, to 4.7 million defensive gun uses per year. Again, this was from researchers who got TAXPAYER MONEY to prove Kleck wrong.
Pistolero,
I may appropriate that great information for a blog post or incorporate it into the debate challenge if you don't mind.
Great example of how we don't claim our sources are above reproach and have MULTIPLE sources that show the same results.
Of course I don't mind, Bob. If you write a post I will definitely link to it as well.
Also FYI Joyce Lee Malcom
http://www.law.gmu.edu/faculty/directory/malcolm_joyce
Did several studies on the UK, using law enforcement archives that dated back long before the advent of gunpowder and firearms, and found results very similar to what Lott and the others found about firearms in America.
I HIGHLY recomend her book "Guns and Violence: The English Experience"
If you'd like it Bob, drop me an Email, I'll ship it out to you so long as you promise to ship it back. It's a good reference book to have in my library, but if a friend wants to borrow it for a few months, I'm sure I won't miss it.
And there he goes, Dissapeared into the Ether.
He might come back now just to have a last word, but you'll note he won't address the gun issue in any format presented.
Never addressed the very real prospect of a civil war, either.
Bob, You make gratuitous and insulting remarks to me, but it's my fault because I lie. Is that it? Your policy of never giving an inch and never admitting anything is counterproductive. You should admit when you've gone too far, but you just can't, can you?
Tom, I think it's pure paranoia on your part to talk about civil war. It's that old grandiose victimism that you guys love to fantasize about.
Weer'd, tell us about that theory you have about my inventing things like living in Italy and the rest of it. Are you willing to admit now that it was kind of silly and off topic, not to mention mistaken? The IP address tells the story. Or, are you like Bob, incapable of admitting anything, never willing to give in, even when wrong?
Mike W., No, I don't think all of you are like me, "just as irresponsible and criminal" as I am.
Pistolero, I think Kleck has been proven to be nothing short of a laughing stock. The fact that he has other unscrupulous poll-takers who amazingly came up with the same results is of no more value than you guys on this comment thread supporting each other.
Did I leave anybody out? Oh, Bob, about that "challenge," as I said, we're already doing it so you're throwing down the gauntlet like that is nothing but a big charade. The truth is I don't have the time or the interest to do what you like to do so much, to pick point by point to refute and rebut, many times with twisted logic and tangential anecdotes.
I'll just keep doing what I do, than you very much.
Bob, You make gratuitous and insulting remarks to me, but it's my fault because I lie. Is that it? Your policy of never giving an inch and never admitting anything is counterproductive. You should admit when you've gone too far, but you just can't, can you?
Tom, I think it's pure paranoia on your part to talk about civil war. It's that old grandiose victimism that you guys love to fantasize about.
Weer'd, tell us about that theory you have about my inventing things like living in Italy and the rest of it. Are you willing to admit now that it was kind of silly and off topic, not to mention mistaken? The IP address tells the story. Or, are you like Bob, incapable of admitting anything, never willing to give in, even when wrong?
Mike W., No, I don't think all of you are like me, "just as irresponsible and criminal" as I am.
Pistolero, I think Kleck has been proven to be nothing short of a laughing stock. The fact that he has other unscrupulous poll-takers who amazingly came up with the same results is of no more value than you guys on this comment thread supporting each other.
Did I leave anybody out? Oh, Bob, about that "challenge," as I said, we're already doing it so you're throwing down the gauntlet like that is nothing but a big charade. The truth is I don't have the time or the interest to do what you like to do so much, to pick point by point to refute and rebut, many times with twisted logic and tangential anecdotes.
I'll just keep doing what I do, than you very much.
Bob, You make gratuitous and insulting remarks to me, but it's my fault because I lie. Is that it? Your policy of never giving an inch and never admitting anything is counterproductive. You should admit when you've gone too far, but you just can't, can you?
Tom, I think it's pure paranoia on your part to talk about civil war. It's that old grandiose victimism that you guys love to fantasize about.
Weer'd, tell us about that theory you have about my inventing things like living in Italy and the rest of it. Are you willing to admit now that it was kind of silly and off topic, not to mention mistaken? The IP address tells the story. Or, are you like Bob, incapable of admitting anything, never willing to give in, even when wrong?
Mike W., No, I don't think all of you are like me, "just as irresponsible and criminal" as I am.
Pistolero, I think Kleck has been proven to be nothing short of a laughing stock. The fact that he has other unscrupulous poll-takers who amazingly came up with the same results is of no more value than you guys on this comment thread supporting each other.
Did I leave anybody out? Oh, Bob, about that "challenge," as I said, we're already doing it so you're throwing down the gauntlet like that is nothing but a big charade. The truth is I don't have the time or the interest to do what you like to do so much, to pick point by point to refute and rebut, many times with twisted logic and tangential anecdotes.
I'll just keep doing what I do, than you very much.
Hehhehe, Called it!
Religion not ideology, and he has no interest in supporting his cause and would much rather deny reality.
"Weer'd, tell us about that theory you have about my inventing things like living in Italy and the rest of it. Are you willing to admit now that it was kind of silly and off topic, not to mention mistaken? The IP address tells the story. Or, are you like Bob, incapable of admitting anything, never willing to give in, even when wrong?"
First up you'll note that there is no address of my challenge. "You can very simply get me to change my mind by showing me that the guns in my possession did myself, my family, and society at large more harm than good." (I even stated it twice in this thread alone. I can't remember how many times I stated it in my blog and Mike's Blog)
Better yet he cried that I accused him of still living in New Jersey. (Yes I've seen IPs. Yes they are from Italy, Yes that can be faked, Guess what your above behavior and avoidance of the issue, but your puerile complaints make me not really care WHERE you live. A small man with religious convictions against guns, and no interest to discuss them, except on his on juvenile terms. Doesn't matter where you live)
But "Or, are you like Bob, incapable of admitting anything, never willing to give in, even when wrong?"
WOW let the irony sink in on that one for a bit.
That little number is going up on my blog, with the above challenge. You're welcome to chime in. But you won't because of the irony. You know you're wrong and you'd never admit it. But you whine when I make up a theory out of whole cloth that is meaningless.
That's just funny.
So Wow, not only did you loose the battle, AND the war...but you lost your cool too! That's FUNNY!
And you MASHED that submit button three times in your frothing rage.
I won't like, Mike, an asshole like you being unhappy really makes my day. I'm not above Schadenfreude.
Arrrrr
I think Kleck has been proven to be nothing short of a laughing stock....
By whom? Again, at least one of his peers said his methodology was sound — one who was anti-gun. I have yet to see his study credibly disproven, and I've kept a pretty good eye on this issue. Names and dates, please.
Hey Pistolero, if you note the ironic contradictions in Mike's little screed, as well as his VERY predictable behavior, you'll be like me and not hold your breath.
Bob, Although I got a big kick out of Weer'd describing me frantically clicking the mouse in a rage, it was simply a malfunctioning of the Blogger word verification. Feel free to delete two of them if you like.
To answer Pistolero right away, which I always strive to do, in Hemenway's great book, Private Guns Public Health he pretty much demolishes Kleck. I coined the expression "laughing stock" in this reference. I think it was in chapter 4, but keep an eye on my blog because one of these days I'm gonna dedicate a whole post to it.
Hemenway's great book...
Research for which was funded by GEORGE SOROS, who has been advocating U.S. and international gun control via his funding of the Violence Policy Center and the International Action Network On Small Arms. Yeah, no conflict of interest there, huh?
Bob -- Working on a post talking about this whole thing now, I just couldn't resist. I do invite you to take a look when I am done and perhaps improve on it here. Perhaps you might find some items I miss.
" in Hemenway's great book, Private Guns Public Health he pretty much demolishes Kleck."
Which he was paid to write by the joyce foundation.
Wow, Rinse and repeat.
So are you going to address any of the issues Bob and I have brought forward, or have we charactorized you correctly?
Oh BTW your gullibility of the Brady's lie about the Tiahrt Amendment has gotten me to reading your blog again.
It would appear you are now denying reality for the sake of your agenda. Do I have that wrong as well?
Which he was paid to write by the joyce foundation....
One of Hemenway's collaborators works for the Bradys as well, as Kleck & Marc Gertz pointed out here.
MikeB
I've posted a question on your blog--Do you think Glock should be held liable when a gun they sold to police is used by criminals?
If you don't want to answer it, that's fine, but I won't be commenting on your blog anymore until you answer that one question on your blog. That isn't meant to be a challenge, I'm stating this publicly to keep ME honest.
There seems to be a catch 22 with the sources you will accept data from. I will use "gun lobby" sources to find statistics, but I avoid using stats directly from the gun lobby--I don't trust Brady/Joyce Foundation stats, I don't expect you to believe the NRA.
That leaves government sources--you've rejected state sources as having a pro-gun bias.
Sevesteen, Sorry for not answering sooner. No, I don't think Glock should be responsible for something like that. Maybe the police department, if they allowed the gun to be stolen or misused, but not the manufacturer.
Pistolero, The funding of Prof. Hemenway's work is not the question, as far as I can see. Of course it needs to be considered, but I don't think it's as Weer'd maintains that because the Joyce people or George Soros are involved then Hemenway is lying to please them. They're probably all on the same page politically. I don't see that the funding source necessarily diminished the credibility of the work.
"Maybe the police department, if they allowed the gun to be stolen..."
"Allowed to be stolen" is called "Giving".
Mike, the point we make is that Hemenway's work is unique to Hemenway, AND he was funded by a number of anti-gun sources. Meanwhile independent sources (you'll note that while there are NRA studies done all the time, and I'd say most NRA members read them, we don't cite it because of conflict of interest and ethics) all seem to collaborate that Hemenway is incorrect.
So now we have Occam's razor. Either Hemenway doctored his study to please the people who were paying him to get further paychecks (which he has received) OR there is some MASSIVE conspiracy that not only includes several independent professors, but also includes huge portions of the US Government and Governments of many foreign nations.
Which is the most likely?
The problem with "transparency" is that it gets abused.
The suit against Glock that just got dismissed is one of many examples. The suit was not brought in good faith, it was meant to harass.
Mayor Bloomberg's persecution of out of state gun dealers is another--From what I understand he has yet to win, although he has settled with dealers who couldn't afford to fight anymore.
When the media has unrestricted access to concealed carry license information, some abuse it by publishing the entire list, usually on line as a searchable database, usually with names and addresses, and almost always including women who are hiding from abusers.
And remember just becuase the suit was dismissed doesn't mean Glock lost no skin.
There was a man who had his permit revoked in Mass because his coat blew open infront of an officer writing parking tickets.
Long-story-short he sued the police for revoking his permit for flalce reasons (Open carry is legal here, and he was licensed for conceal carry. "Bad Judgement" and "Disturbing the Peace" were the cited reasons for revocation) He won and his permit was restored.
Somebody on a message board chimed in and pointed out that Massholes should have no fear of Open Carry then. His lawyer, who was a member of this board, chimed in.
"He had to transfer all his guns to his brother's posession which needed to be done through an FFL, he was involved in a lenthy court case that took several months, he missed many days of work, and in the end his legal fees were over $30,000" (Parephrased, I don't remember Keith's exact quote)
Does that sound like a "Win" to anybody?
Glock lost money in this case. That money will need to be recouped somewhere. Since Glock makes most of it's money in government contracts and volume sale likely this will mean they will charge police and security forces more (higher taxes) or charge civilian retail more (higher prices for good entry-level defensive arms).
In the end good people loose because anti-gunners like MikeB deny reality.
I don't see that the funding source necessarily diminished the credibility of the work....
Sure you don't. Would you feel the same if it had been Glock and Ruger bankrolling Dr. Kleck?
Man I need a bookie for MikeB responces.
I'm guessing he'll think your question was either "Rhetorical" or "A Joke".
Sadly there's nobody will will cover that bet, so unfortunetly I can't quit my job in the sciences and retire to the Mountains of New Hampshire.
Bummer he just gave up.
It was getting REALLY funny there too!
COME BACK MIKE! Your mental illness is a RIOT!
Oh, yes! And wasn't it just great how he left unanswered the charge that he rejected state sources as having a pro-gun bias?
That's his standard Modus Operendi.
If he decides to come back he'll ignore your question, and if pressed claim he thought it was "Rhetorical" or "not serious"...and he won't answer them even then.
That's how 'ol Mikey stays two steps ahead of reality....meanwhile looking like the "special" kid on the block playing hide-and-seek behind the street sign.
Post a Comment