Do you honestly not see how your last two points here contradict each other? How can you be so sure that the cause of lower violent crime in NYC is police, while at the same time the cause of higher violent crime in California is stringent gun control laws? Nobody is going to just say, "Gee, CaseyH, you must be right because you care about guns more than me, despite your inability to effectively argue your case."
no I argued my case quite well. Someone brought up NYC vs houston to show gun control works. I showed a case that shot down that theory, then explained a reason why NYC has such a lower crime rate. They promptly ignored my case for NYC and my alternative comparison. I never ever said Cali has a crime problem JUST because of the gun laws. I have said many times the best way for a .gov to control crime is law enforcement. If you read any of the thread, you would know that.
I never backpedaled. If you had read the thread you would see that many times me and Weslinder said that the .gov job is to reduce crime. This is the overall plan for safety. It is a persons responsibility to protect themselves. This is the Micro plan for safety. Another lie int his thread by the way. Show me where I backpedaled.
This in no way suggests that CHL should be allowed on campus. Easy. You go from advocating CHL on campus to arguing for some nebulous concept of self-defense, knowing full well that nobody's going to deny that people have a right to defend themselves. When you do this you are backpedaling by severing your advocacy of guns on campus, which is the topic of this thread.
Actually no. Not everyone agrees on self defense. The reason none of the current convo in the last poages has anything to do with a campus is because thats where the people against me have taken it. They talked about police which led to a discussion on the best way to prevent crime. Again you claim I am backpedaling. Where have I done this?
Do you understand what is backpedaling? The first quote was a summation of someones argument, the last two was telling someone why they disagree with me. ie if you do not agree with self defense you will never agree to expand it as a right.
First I answered people accusations of why its not different on campus, compared to off campus. Then after I talked about issues of CHL off-campus I get accused of backpedaling Talking about something different (when I was drawn into IT!) is not backpedaling.
Nothing prevents crime better than excessive use of force against scary-looking people that may or may not be committing a crime.
Nice try, but you were the one to erroneously bring "self-defense" into the debate. Somebody made the argument that guns on a college campus would more likely be involved in accidents. Instead of directly refuting that assertion, you backpedaled away from your original point that CHL would make campuses safer.
whatever man. Your quotes never proved that. I did directly refute that by saying "why would they be more accidents on campus than off?" Their answers where shot down.
It seems to me that the burden of proof would be on you to show that there would NOT be more accidents, seeing as you are the one advocating a change in policy.
Casey, you haven't proven anything in this thread. You throw out assumptions and assume them to be fact. That isn't "shooting down" someone's argument, sorry.
great. i guess quoting laws, and totally shutting down someones assertion that its illegal to carry on state property isn't proving anything. Or that its illegal to carry while drinking or that its illegal to have a chl under 21. now instead of the topic you guys have me arguing about the thread. so you guys took the argument from CHL on campus to CHL in general to crime in cities, to what i said in the thread days later. congrats.
