But you made the claim that an armed society is a polite society. You haven't backed up that claim with _any_ statistics or studies.
Until you do provide data, you're claims are bogus.
Sorry I never made that claim. I did not and do not believe that an armed society would be any more or less "polite". Those are your words. You are taking the words I say, relating them to a position you know and reaplying the buzz from that position to what I have said, generalizing to a fault. It disapoints me to see someone who I respect making this error.
I apologize for using the word polite, I should have said:
But you made the claim that an armed society is a _more peaceful and more equal_ society.
>>You haven't backed up that claim with _any_ statistics or studies.
Further more logic is all that is required for a situation such as this. Data is only necisary when logic fails, or when one wishes to attempt to debunk a logical argument.
Which I did.
Beyond that, you made statements of fact such as "Texas and Nevada have less violent crime" but have not supported those statements.
If one requests data as a precondition to accept a logical argument then they are practicing sudo-science. This kind of situation is a beakon for the scetic.
I didn't ask for data as a precondition, I provided data that I believe contradicts your statements and then, when you told me my data wasn't relevant, I asked you to provide backing for your statements of "fact"
One can claim that 2 plus 2 is not allways 4 for every type of item and then request those who logicaly argue to the contrary to show data prooving that whenever you have 2 items of a type and 2 more items of the same type that you will infact have 4 items of that type. But the act of gathering that data is a fools errand.
Likewise for statistical analisis on systems with infinate variables. No answer is ever the truth is such cases.
The simple truth is that without conceled carry, the only ones with guns are
the criminals.
You see, that's a false statement. Other people, have guns, most of them aren't packing, but they do have them. And still others are permitted to carry concealed weapons
The power of leathal force is in the hands alone of the very
people we would prefer did not have that power.
Again, false.
With conceled carry there is
a balance of this power. In fact i would argue that there is a greater power
in the hands of the law abiding citizen specificaly becouse the criminal
would never know who was carying and who was not. Everyone might be a hard
target. This is a logical argument for which there are no statistics. If you
disagree it is your responsability to show that this argument is wrong, or
show how it is not logical.
It isn't that it isn't logical, its that it is far too simplistic. It assumes from the outset that there is a clear boundary between criminal and law abiding citizen. In fact all of us have the capacity to break the law, and this capacity becomes more likely in certain situations. The phenomenon known as road rage is a good example. People who are otherwise upstanding citizens loose their cool and commit violent criminal offenses.
Furthermore, you seem to assume that if both criminal and victim have a gun then neither of them will use one, and the number of violent acts will decrease. I don't agree that this logically follows. It seems to me that the more people with easy access to guns, the greater the likelihood that people will use the guns if only because , and the greater the likelihood that a criminal will feel he needs a gun to commit his crime with an increased tendency to "get the jump" on his victim. This jumpiness could then transfer to non criminals to the point of innocents being hurt or killed as a result of misunderstanding.
As for logical arguments, they are only as good as the facts that verify them. I could make logical arguments about the sun rotating around the earth or the moon being made of cheese but without facts they are malarkey.
Doug
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
