The Maryland sniper

[|MP|Buccaneer]

All the Vermont example tells me is that I don't want to go to Vermont.

Then you are pretty dense if that's all it tells you.  Way to open your mind to education!

All the Vermont example tells me is that I don't want to go to Vermont.

As for my opinions meaning less and less.  I could say the same about you because for you it is always an ideology thing.  I continue to see this word liberal thrown out by you.  That alone makes your opinion mean less.  

Ah, result to more bullshit when you can't actually argue facts.  I haven't been throwing out the word Liberal.  If you actually read my posts, I am a liberal, I admit to it.  Go ahead, go back and read some.  The only time I've thrown out terms like "Ultra Liberal" is when I was being called a "Conservative" by Zaitzev.  So.  Go ahead and read back.  You'll see others throwing out that term.  I've been arguing the facts.

And yes, you've just shown why your opinions mean less and less.  Because you can't even keep thses simple facts right in your head.  

In fact, the numbers supporting that are just as many as those that support your case.  Zait and I have both provided numbers to prove our case.  You have provided some numbers that basically say, the US is less bad in comparison to others when guns are available.

You haven't provided numbers to prove your case at all.  The only thing that those numbers have proven is that America is more violent then (some) European countries.  That has nothing to do with how well gun bans work.  I've pointed out many times that you have to compare the same place before and after a ban.  The places that I can think of (Canada and England) didn't actualy get less violent, did they?  You say it "takes time".  I say, the numbers are speaking for themselves at this point.  You gave guesses to support conclusions, not numbers.

The numbers and links I provided were to show how violence compares in our Nation, with and without more LEGAL guns.  

Remember, this isn't about if Europe is a nicer place to be or live.  It could well be in your opinion (and I think Deadeye asked why the hell you don't go there).  This was about why a gun ban wouldn't work in the USA and why it would be stupid and WRONG.  Here, not there.  I wasn't comparing countries to each other, there are too many variables.  I was mocking that tatic.  

 Sorry, but you are in no position to decide whose opinions should be counted and whose shouldn't because you are biased.  But one thing can be said, your side is no more valid or logical than mine.

There's where you are wrong.  My side is much more logical because I'm providing facts that support guns in America and how well gun bans have worked.  I'm not comparing Homicide rates of countries, because they don't mean anything when talking about a Gun Ban in AMERICA.  I'm also not basing conclusions on guesses, like you and Zaitsev have.  I'm also reading your posts and your links, something that you have faild to do.  That's what makes my argument more valid and logical.

As for biased?  How am I biased exactly?  I haven't been reading your data??  I think I went over it better then you did.  I think I posted some of the same numbers before Zaitsev, even saying what they showed and didn't (which both of you just ignored, thank you very much).  No Bondo.  The biased one that isn't thinking sits in Colorado, not here.

You need to get beyond looking at trying to be less bad, and try to be equal with the other countries.

There you go again, drawing conclusions out of your ass.  Where and When did I say that the USA was not equal or better then other countries?  I think it is better, THATS WHY I LIVE HERE, AND NOT CANADA ANYMORE YOU ASS.  Nice to see that you can read.

As for making America better.  I'm all for it.  Make much tougher penalties for those that commit violent crimes.  Use efforts to reduce violence in america.  Make gun locks manditory everywhere (the user ID's would work there too) to reduce the illegal use of legal firearms.  I'm all for those things.  But banning of guns.  Nope.  You haven't posted one fact to support how that works.  I've posted plenty to show how having more legal guns helps.  All you've shown is that you like other countries more then the USA.

[EUR_Zaitsev]

Bucc you can bitch and try to rebuttle Bondo all you want, but you yourself said you cant fight statistics and the statistics clearly show,

 THE MORE GUNS THE MORE MURDERS THE MORE DEATHS THE WORSE THE COUNTRY

Has not having guns really hurt the brits or the candaians or the Japanesse? I dont think so and once you give up your glory and we can tighten up gun laws if not all together ban guns then we can have a better safer country and that is a  FACT that the STATISTICS show.

[*DAMN Mauti]

My last statement to this debate: At all I am happy to see that you, Bucc, agree with my last post. About the Seductive to theft thing I think you misunderstood me or better I explained it bad. When I said you are also responsible I don't mean that you get punished for leaving your bike or house unlocked but your insurance wouldn't pay because they say "you lead someone to steal your bike,..". I think it's the same in the USA or would your insurance pay when you don't lock your house and you get robbed!? I don't think so but maybe I am wrong.

[Bondo]

Bucc, I was saying better in the view of this discussion.  Meaning the US is clearly worse when it comes to violence, and that your solution of having liberal gun laws (meaning free use) makes areas less violent than those that have moderate gun laws, is only making the US somewhat less violent, not making it as low in violence as Europe.  This had nothing to do with which country has better quality of life, and if you weren't so dense you would clearly see that.  But you continue to misread everything I say which is why you have failed to argue against my points.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Bucc what you claim is completly wrong. The VAST MAJORITY of murders involving guns in the US are over fights and someone gets angry and its a split second action, you hear about the premeditated ones in the news because they are so rare. However bursts of anger often kill with a gun at hand and dont, without one.

Zaitsev, what claim is completly wrong?

Where do you get that VAST MAJORITY being arguments?  Again, the stats show that about 80% of gun crimes are comitted with illegal guns, not legal ones.  So if you are talking about a bunch of CRIMINALS running around, getting angry and offing people with ILLEGAL guns, then show me where that comes from please.

Bucc you can bitch and try to rebuttle Bondo all you want, but you yourself said you cant fight statistics and the statistics clearly show,

 THE MORE GUNS THE MORE MURDERS THE MORE DEATHS THE WORSE THE COUNTRY

Has not having guns really hurt the brits or the candaians or the Japanesse? I dont think so and once you give up your glory and we can tighten up gun laws if not all together ban guns then we can have a better safer country and that is a  FACT that the STATISTICS show.

Now there is another prime example of Zaitsev not actually reading the studies out there.  The stats you showed prove none of that Zaitsev.  The number of violent crimes and homicides went up in Canada and England after their gun bans, not down.  Both those countries had low rates to begin with.  Yes, GUN RELATED crimes went down, but not VIOLENT CRIMES or HOMICIDES.  Thanks for paying attention.  Those countries have less crime and less homicides YES.  But, there is nothing to show that the gun bans are responsible.  That's what I've said, thanks for reading it so well.

BTW Zaitsev, nice wrong conclusion again.  Those countries that were much higher then the USA have less guns, but more murders.  So much for your foolish argument.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

My last statement to this debate: At all I am happy to see that you, Bucc, agree with my last post. About the Seductive to theft thing I think you misunderstood me or better I explained it bad.

Mauti, you explained it ok, I may have come off a little harsh as talking to the wall that is Bondo has gotten me on edge (I hate talking, or posting to people that don't even bother to read half of what you write).

I've always believed in gun control.  I'm pretty sure I started this with a comment about my gun being in a safe right now.  But gun control isn't a gun ban.  I want more criminal control.  I think that would go much much further to solving some of the violence problems in the USA.
Here, insurance does pay if I left my house, car, or bike locked up.  It is not considered leading them or tempting them to do it.  Criminals are responsible for their own crimes, and average citizens shouldn't have to protect criminals from their urges here.

However, if you do things like put alarms on cars or houses or other things to deterr theft, you usually pay less for your insurance, since they see you as being more careful, and thus being a lower risk.

Bucc, I was saying better in the view of this discussion.  Meaning the US is clearly worse when it comes to violence, and that your solution of having liberal gun laws (meaning free use) makes areas less violent than those that have moderate gun laws, is only making the US somewhat less violent, not making it as low in violence as Europe.  

Bondo, this has been addressed many, many times.  Please, for once, talk about the points I'm making.  Yes, having more liberal gun laws (meaning free to carry, not to use, by the way) makes areas less violent.  You want to make it better, make the laws tougher on those that are careless with guns, or comitt violent crimes.  I mean much tougher.  PUNISH THE GUILTY!!!  How many times can I say that before you and Zaitsev here it??  In Europe, the punishments for using a gun, or other deadly weapon are much harsher then we have here too.  Hell, prisions in Europe are much harsher then what we have here, we seem to close all the harsh ones because some people think we are too hard on violent criminals.  Go figure.  Usually those are the same people that want to do things like ban guns.

But you continue to misread everything I say which is why you have failed to argue against my points.

Then say them better.  At least I read what you post.  At least I read your links.  At least I care to look at both sides of an issue.  

Bondo and Zaitsev, all your facts have proven is that the USA is more violent then many countries in Europe, but not as violent as some other countries (who also have gun bans).  Your arguments have only shown that you want a ban, and you don't care what studies show, you don't care what has happened in the past, and you don't think about the consequences.  

Have either of you addressed the fact that criminals would still be able to smuggle weapons in (just like they do drugs today)??  NO.  Have either of you addressed the fact that violent crimes were lower in those countries before the ban on guns??  NO (except for Bondo's weak "you have to give it time").  You have both discounted the fact that other countries, with gun bans, have a much higher homicide rate and violence rate the the USA, because that doesn't fit with your arguments.  

In other words, you can attack all you want, your attacks are weak and worthless because they have no base of fact to rest upon.  You two don't bother to educate yourselves and talk intelligently on the matter.  It's pathetic.

You see, Mauti there is bringing up points about ways to make it SAFER in America, not just why guns should be banned.  That is a cause worth fighting for.  I'm all for making it safer in America.  One of the proven ways to make it safer HERE is with more liberal gun laws and much tougher criminal punishments.  Those have both been proven to work.  You two just argue from your conclusion.  A conclusion is what comes at the end of an argument, not the begining (the begining is a premise, if you didn't know).  

So, unless Mauti or someone else of intelligence wants to discuss this further, or unless Bondo or Zaitsev actually have something that aproaches a logical argument, I'm done with this too.  Neither of you discusses the facts on why a gun ban would be bad, you just keep pointing to the fact that America is more dangerous then some other countries.  

[EUR_Zaitsev]

When I said your claim it means you said "Criminals are Criminals" clearly implieing that all things are premeditated. Bucc your stats are completly biast reports I am sure the websites you are using tell otherwise, contrary to your argument. If there are less guns there are less accidental murders and violent crimes and thus less lives destroyed and no statistic you say will ever disprove that.

P.S. I recently saw a news flash that republicans are re calculating thier stance on gun registration

[Jeb]

In places like england where they have harsh gun control laws the criminals can still get guns. if we tried to ban guns they would come in from canada and mexico. people who wanted a gun would have them.quite simply i like the idea of banning guns, however they would still get into the country.  
I"m suprised that no one has said that violent video games cause violent crimes. Video games seem to be a easy scapegoat for violent acts because no politician will drop balls and say we need to ban guns, but ban violent video games.
And you want to know the reason i'm glad bush is the president, because if gore had won Liberman would have more power.

[Bondo]

Ok, you have many errors in your criticism of me Bucc.

First off, I never was going from a no guns or bust.  Throughout I've been saying gun ban OR extremely strong gun control.  What I don't agree with is allowing more guns.

As for punishing criminals who use guns more strictly...when did I say that wasn't a good idea.  I am strongly behind that (I believe I was the one who said using a gun should be a capital crime...I was joking in the extent but the point was the punishments should be ultra-strict.  Like automatic life sentences or exectutions for those who kill with guns.  And no less than 20 years for any other crime with a gun.  Also, free use or free ownership, it is fucking semantics.

As for my "weak" it takes time for the effect of a ban to show...what is weak, it makes complete sense to anyone with a brain that it takes time for the guns that existed prior to the ban to be removed.  You like to show that 80% number that were obtained illegally, but like I said, a huge number of those were obtained legally to begin with.  The smuggling of guns isn't a big deal when compared to the problem guns that were originally sold legally are.

Bucc, a conclusion is always a restatement of the introduction.  You state a point, give support and then conclude.  As for me being a wall, you are hypocritical, you are just as much of a wall for not seeing all the proofs supplied by Zait and I.  Same goes for your claim that our arguments are weak.  We have provided logical arguments supported by fact...which is what you claim makes your arguments strong, so if our arguments are weak, so are yours.

Finally, you have this US is violent and that it can't be changed attitude.  There is no reason the US couldn't be peaceful if proper steps were taken, but people like you who don't try to make the world a better place because you just say it is the way it is are the reason it is still violent.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Damn, I'm going to try yet again.

When I said your claim it means you said "Criminals are Criminals" clearly implieing that all things are premeditated.

Clearly implying that all things are premeditated eh?  Since when are crimes of passion not crimes?  Since when are they not criminals?  You are now falling into the dumbass category Zaitsev.  There was no implication there, just a flat statement.  Also, if it were all the owners of LEGAL guns, then 80% wouldn't have been gotten by ILLEGAL means.  Making them already CRIMINAL.  You think?

Bucc your stats are completly biast reports I am sure the websites you are using tell otherwise, contrary to your argument.

My stats came from the Department of Justice, the CDC, Florida State University, etc, need I go on?  You show just how little you read.  I posted the same stats from the DOJ and CDC as you did, BEFORE YOU.  YEAH, I'M LOOKING AT JADED AND BIASED REPORTS.  I even posted links, did you go take a look (NO, or you'd know the sources).  You sir, are an idiot.

If there are less guns there are less accidental murders and violent crimes and thus less lives destroyed and no statistic you say will ever disprove that.

There are not less violent crimes.  There were more violent crimes after the gun bans in Canada and England.  Thanks for not reading yet again.  There were MORE VIOLENT CRIMES AFTER THE BANS.

And, there are plenty of ways to avoid accidental killings without banning guns.  I've agreed and support many of them.

P.S. I recently saw a news flash that republicans are re calculating thier stance on gun registration

And this would matter why?  I'm not a Republican.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Now, Bondo's turn.

First off, I never was going from a no guns or bust.  Throughout I've been saying gun ban OR extremely strong gun control.  

Your extremely strong gun control is the next thing to a ban.  No guns in the home, only in shooting clubs.  It's way too strong, and only effects the legal owners, not the criminals.  So it doesn't do much to support less violence.

As for punishing criminals who use guns more strictly...when did I say that wasn't a good idea.  I am strongly behind that (I believe I was the one who said using a gun should be a capital crime...I was joking in the extent but the point was the punishments should be ultra-strict.

Then stop right there.  Punish the guilty.  Why isn't that enough?  Why should the innocent be punished too?  Aren't you one of the guys that's pro the legalization of pot and other drugs?  (which I am too, though I don't use).  Isn't this the same thing.  Don't drugs kill?  Aren't they bad for us?  Shouldn't we protect everyone from them?  And fatty foods next?  Just stop with punishing the guilty, and making it hurt.  That would be a great step.

As for my "weak" it takes time for the effect of a ban to show...what is weak, it makes complete sense to anyone with a brain that it takes time for the guns that existed prior to the ban to be removed.

It's weak because how many years does it take?  How many years Bondo.  You say it will make a difference, but the numbers don't.  Why are you right and they not?

You like to show that 80% number that were obtained illegally, but like I said, a huge number of those were obtained legally to begin with.  The smuggling of guns isn't a big deal when compared to the problem guns that were originally sold legally are.

That 80% came from the Department of Justice (aka the FBI).  Where is your support that they were obtained legally to begin with?  Where?  Is stolen obtained legally?

The smuggling of guns is a big deal.  Where do you think the automatic weapons that do so much damage usually come from??  Also, like I was pointing out and you missed completely.  If guns were banned in America, the smuggling of them would skyrocket, just like alcohol did in the 20's and drugs today.  How good are we at stoping drugs from coming into the USA?  Why do you think we would be better at stopping guns, if they became the ticket?

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Bucc, a conclusion is always a restatement of the introduction.  You state a point, give support and then conclude.  As for me being a wall, you are hypocritical, you are just as much of a wall for not seeing all the proofs supplied by Zait and I.  Same goes for your claim that our arguments are weak.  We have provided logical arguments supported by fact...which is what you claim makes your arguments strong, so if our arguments are weak, so are yours.

Wow, showing off you LOGIC skills again.  Which don't exist.  Your definition of a CONCLUSION is what it is in a PAPER, not LOGIC.  Do you need me to slow down for you?  In logic, you start with a premise, then try to prove it true of false, then make a conclusion based upon those proofs.  The conclusion doesn't and often isn't, the same as the premise.  Isn't that amazing.  You really should take a class.

I'm not hypocritical.  I've been anti gun.  I was for getting rid of them, back when I was 17.  I have read what you say.  I've read the facts, even more the the ones you present.  While you haven't bothered to really read.  Go out to the pro gun sites and read.  But you wont.  I read both sides.  It's the only way to make an informed opinion.  Not just an opinion.

The so called "proofs" supplied by you and Zaitsev proved nothing about gun controll.  All it proved is that there are more homicides in the USA then in many European countries.  I've quoted both of you concluding based upon where you say "I would guess".  That's the catch.  You see that there are more homicides, that there are more guns, so you GUESS that must be the link.  You haven't proven any link at all.  Like Deadeye said.  He could link those same figures to climate just as easy, and they'd all still fit, and be just as invalid.  Why don't you see that??  Seriously, answer that!

Finally, you have this US is violent and that it can't be changed attitude.

Wrong again.  It can be changed.  But not with gun bans.  They wont work.  That's the attitude that I have.  Punish the guilty, protect the rights of the innocent.  Make it better.  But your knee jerk reaction of banning or all but banning guns isn't a solution to that problem.

[EUR_Zaitsev]

Many thousands of people wouldnt own guns if it were illegal, they are law abiding citizens and every year a hand full make a mistake that ruins thier lives. I have heard personal attacks and rebuttles but nothing has disproven the fact that in countries with less guns there are less homicides?

[Bondo]

Wow, showing off you LOGIC skills again.  Which don't exist.  Your definition of a CONCLUSION is what it is in a PAPER, not LOGIC.  Do you need me to slow down for you?  In logic, you start with a premise, then try to prove it true of false, then make a conclusion based upon those proofs.  The conclusion doesn't and often isn't, the same as the premise.  Isn't that amazing.  You really should take a class.

So you are saying papers can't be logical because they start with an introduction (which is rephrased as part of the conclusion) instead of with a premise.  Now who is being illogical.  You accused me of starting with a conclusion, I was just showing you that I was starting with an introduction before moving to premises and finally going on to the conclusion.  But alas that was a bit much for you.

That 80% came from the Department of Justice (aka the FBI).? Where is your support that they were obtained legally to begin with?? Where?? Is stolen obtained legally?

Are you retarded.  I made it very clear, while the person who is using the guns is obtaining them illegally in 80% of the cases like you point out.  But the gun was originally sold legally (as in, not smuggled) in most cases.  Thus if you made that original sale not happen, the criminal wouldn't be able to get it.  As for these smuggled guns.  Most crimes are committed with legal types of guns (handgun, shotgun, rifle, etc.) not with assault rifles and uzis or whatever type of illegal gun would be smuggled.

Then stop right there.? Punish the guilty.? Why isn't that enough?? Why should the innocent be punished too?? Aren't you one of the guys that's pro the legalization of pot and other drugs?? (which I am too, though I don't use).? Isn't this the same thing.? Don't drugs kill?? Aren't they bad for us?? Shouldn't we protect everyone from them?? And fatty foods next?? Just stop with punishing the guilty, and making it hurt.? That would be a great step.

I've given my reason for this before.  Unlike drugs, cars, alcohol, fatty foods, and a number of other things that can be abused in a way that it hurts others, guns sole use is to shoot, a dangerous and unneccesary action to others.  All the others have specific uses that have absolutely no risk to others or even the user with precaution.  But guns specific use is to shoot an act under any circumstance which I put lower (ethically) than the proper use of drugs, cars, alcohol, or fatty foods.

"But your knee jerk reaction of banning or all but banning guns isn't a solution to that problem."

In what way is my reaction knee-jerk.  That would imply that I want guns banned because of the sniper incident.  I've supported a gun ban for much longer than a month.

I've quoted both of you concluding based upon where you say "I would guess".? That's the catch.? You see that there are more homicides, that there are more guns, so you GUESS that must be the link.? You haven't proven any link at all.?

Like I've said before, there are facts for everything, they don't prove any more than how they are interpreted.  When I say I guess, or I think, that is just like the people in stuff you quote making relations.  Guessing or thinking is what stat analysis is all about.  Nothing is so firmly positive in this world that guessing or thinking wouldn't be necessary.  As my bitchy Composition teacher said there is no such thing as a universal truth.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Many thousands of people wouldnt own guns if it were illegal, they are law abiding citizens and every year a hand full make a mistake that ruins thier lives.

And every year, and larger handful of them kill themselves or others in drunk driving accidents.  And every year, a large number of them kill with kitchen knives.  How many lives have been ruined by alcohol, drugs or gambling?  I don't want you to protect me Zaitsev.  What ever happened to Liberty and the pursuit of happiness?  You don't need to take guns away from those of us that can handle them properly to protect the idiots that can't.  

You accused me of starting with a conclusion, I was just showing you that I was starting with an introduction before moving to premises and finally going on to the conclusion.  But alas that was a bit much for you.

No, you nitwit.  You WROTE that you start with a conclusion (look at the quote).  That is how a paper for an ENGLISH CLASS is written.  Not how logic works.  Don't even try to twist my words, you aren't good enough to pull it off.

Are you retarded.  I made it very clear, while the person who is using the guns is obtaining them illegally in 80% of the cases like you point out.  But the gun was originally sold legally (as in, not smuggled) in most cases.  

That's the second time you've said that, and this is the second time I'm asking you to back it up.  How do you know this fact that you claim?  

Unlike drugs, cars, alcohol, fatty foods, and a number of other things that can be abused in a way that it hurts others, guns sole use is to shoot, a dangerous and unneccesary action to others.  All the others have specific uses that have absolutely no risk to others or even the user with precaution.  But guns specific use is to shoot an act under any circumstance which I put lower (ethically) than the proper use of drugs, cars, alcohol, or fatty foods.

So hunting and self protection are low on your list ethically.  Good for you.  Not on my list.  If you are talking about their legal use, then guns are more ethical then cars (which destroy our environment), and alcohol (which still is not good for your health, alcoholism is still legal).  If you talk about their illegal uses, or just abuses, or just accidents.  Cars kill, alcohol kills too.  How can they be more ethical then guns?

Like I've said before, there are facts for everything, they don't prove any more than how they are interpreted.  When I say I guess, or I think, that is just like the people in stuff you quote making relations.  Guessing or thinking is what stat analysis is all about.  Nothing is so firmly positive in this world that guessing or thinking wouldn't be necessary.  As my bitchy Composition teacher said there is no such thing as a universal truth.

Again, you are so very, very wrong here.  I blame the poor state of public education, as exampled by that dumb statement by your Composition Teacher (If you don't think there are universal truths, you've never studied physics, amongst other things).

Bondo, you have yet to show any facts that support what good a gun ban would do.  Period.  If there are facts supporting it, show them.  Otherwise, just shut up.  And when you guess or think, you are not doing what stat analysists do.  Why?  Because you aren't looking at stats that matter.  You see, if you use stats that don't reflect the actual case, they don't mean anything.  Just like your conclusions.  As has been shown multiple times, anyone could just as easily conclude that the climate had more to do with the homicide rate then gun control did from your stats.  The warmer the climate, the more homicides.  The gun control or gun ban nations were on both sides of the USA.  So, is that conclusion right do you think?  If not, why?  It's based upon those same graphs you used.  That conclusion is wrong, btw, because there is just not enough data there to support that argument either.

[Mr.Mellow]

Guys, I really think this thread needs to be locked. One side cannot make the other side see their point, so it's pointless. It's like arguing with a Creationist(is that a word?) about evolution. If you believe in Creation and not in evolution, this was not an attack on you, it was just the best example I could come up with. Anyways, both sides of this argument on guns have strong, valid points. However, it's starting to just degenerate into personal attacks on one another. It's obvious neither side is going to win this argument/debate, so let's just end it here, okay? All it has accomplished so far is frustration and anger. So, everyone be mellow and stop posting on the topic. That way we can all be
  and   again.  

[Bondo]

No, you nitwit.  You WROTE that you start with a conclusion (look at the quote).  That is how a paper for an ENGLISH CLASS is written.  Not how logic works.  Don't even try to twist my words, you aren't good enough to pull it off.

But the point is, introductions and conclusions are one in the same, just stated differently.  And expository writing isn't only used in english writing, it is used in every single discipline of acedemic writing.  One of the things it is used in is poly sci, or philosophy, or sociology, or every other category that this argument could fit into as well as logic could fit into.

That's the second time you've said that, and this is the second time I'm asking you to back it up.  How do you know this fact that you claim?  

How do you know my claim is wrong.  Nothing you have shown says this isn't the case.

Again, you are so very, very wrong here.  I blame the poor state of public education, as exampled by that dumb statement by your Composition Teacher (If you don't think there are universal truths, you've never studied physics, amongst other things).

Did I say I agreed with my teacher...in fact I dropped the class because she pissed me off with that bullshit.  But while there are universal truths in some things, sociology isn't one of those places, what we are arguing doesn't have universal truths.  It isn't a universal truth that having an armed populace reduces crime or is safer than banning guns.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

But the point is, introductions and conclusions are one in the same, just stated differently.  And expository writing isn't only used in english writing, it is used in every single discipline of acedemic writing.  One of the things it is used in is poly sci, or philosophy, or sociology, or every other category that this argument could fit into as well as logic could fit into.

Every single discipline of acedemic writing eh?  Thanks Bondo, once again you have shown us the smoking embers of the fire of knowledge.  In other words, you are wrong, again.  Maybe, after you have actually spent a little time in Acedemia, you'll find out that Expository writing has no place in many places.  Logic class would be one.  Any hard science would be another.  Oh, but I know what you will say, you didn't mean them when you said EVERY again.  Yes, we've all heard you say that before.

How do you know my claim is wrong.  Nothing you have shown says this isn't the case.

You made the claim, I want to see proof.  When you called me on it, I provided.  I know that you are bluffing, and can't produce these facts.  You are using an opinion to support an opinion, just like with all those guesses.

Did I say I agreed with my teacher...in fact I dropped the class because she pissed me off with that bullshit.  But while there are universal truths in some things, sociology isn't one of those places, what we are arguing doesn't have universal truths.  It isn't a universal truth that having an armed populace reduces crime or is safer than banning guns.

Yes Bondo, you did imply that you agreed with your teacher.  You said "Nothing is so firmly positive in this world that guessing or thinking wouldn't be necessary.  As my bitchy Composition teacher said there is no such thing as a universal truth."  That, is agreement if I ever heard it.  Nice try but no points again.

Mellow, you are right, it is time for this to end.  Bondo is worse then ignorant (since that's just not knowing something), he refuses to even read the other side.  He is what is known in sociology as a zelot.  They come in all forms, flavors and sizes.  You'll often find them in religion.  A good example are the terrorist bombers, who are religious zelots.  You can show them right exactly where in their holy writings it says they shouldn't do what they are about to do, and they just ignore it.  Because it just doesn't fit with their view.  I could point to 1000 studies that would show it is safer to have guns and Bondo would still refuse to even read them, because he is a zelot.  He knows what's right and best for everyone, and nothing will ever change his mind.  All at the age of 19, living in his parents basement going to community college.  I quit now like I should have long ago.

[Bondo]

Every single discipline of acedemic writing eh?  Thanks Bondo, once again you have shown us the smoking embers of the fire of knowledge.  In other words, you are wrong, again.  Maybe, after you have actually spent a little time in Acedemia, you'll find out that Expository writing has no place in many places.  Logic class would be one.  Any hard science would be another.  Oh, but I know what you will say, you didn't mean them when you said EVERY again.  Yes, we've all heard you say that before.

You made the claim, I want to see proof.  When you called me on it, I provided.  I know that you are bluffing, and can't produce these facts.  You are using an opinion to support an opinion, just like with all those guesses.

Yes Bondo, you did imply that you agreed with your teacher.  You said "Nothing is so firmly positive in this world that guessing or thinking wouldn't be necessary.  As my bitchy Composition teacher said there is no such thing as a universal truth."  That, is agreement if I ever heard it.  Nice try but no points again.

Mellow, you are right, it is time for this to end.  Bondo is worse then ignorant (since that's just not knowing something), he refuses to even read the other side.  He is what is known in sociology as a zelot.  They come in all forms, flavors and sizes.  You'll often find them in religion.  A good example are the terrorist bombers, who are religious zelots.  You can show them right exactly where in their holy writings it says they shouldn't do what they are about to do, and they just ignore it.  Because it just doesn't fit with their view.  I could point to 1000 studies that would show it is safer to have guns and Bondo would still refuse to even read them, because he is a zelot.  He knows what's right and best for everyone, and nothing will ever change his mind.  All at the age of 19, living in his parents basement going to community college.  I quit now like I should have long ago.

No Bucc, I meant every, including hard sciences.  When someone is doing research and after all the work they publish the article...what form is it in...expository.  The typical paper on ethics is a number of logical layouts set within what?  An expository paper.  Sorry, but it is the truth, every field of study uses expository writing.

As for my contention about the 80% number, you haven't done anything to prove what I said wrong, no number you provided clarified how many of those 80% were not originally bought legally.  I just presented a point about that.  You can try to prove me wrong if you wish but until you do that it remains a reasonable hypothesis.

As for your seeing me as agreeing with the teacher, just because you are not bright enough to notice the use of the word bitchy isn't my fault.

Finally, I find all these insults from you laughable because you are doing it all much much worse than I.  At least I don't profess to have proof for all my thoughts.  Having thoughts and then seeking to prove if they are true or not is what has fueled all scientific progress.  They all started with a theory or thought that didn't have proof.  Socretes didn't use proof hardly at all, he just used logic (which as you've disagreed with me before, does not need to be true).  I'm hardly a zeolot about gun control...I've never had anyone I know shot, I've never held a gun, and don't consider guns to be an issue in my area.  I just argue based on what is the politically and socially best alternative.  I'm not passionate about it, I just haven't yet been proven that it is wrong because the proof you provided is not greatly convincing.  Maybe YOU should look at how you are like a zeolot in your defense of the 2nd Amendment.  You are clearly more passionate about that then I am about banning guns.

Oh, and UCCS is a four year university with a highly ranked Business School, and it is just as difficult as any other state university.  But I suppose Western Michigan (which judging from the college football thread is your school) is the center of the acedemic world?

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Gawd, I just can't help myself.

No Bucc, I meant every, including hard sciences.  When someone is doing research and after all the work they publish the article...what form is it in...expository.  

Gee Bondo, guess all those things I wrote that weren't expository just don't exist then.  Maybe they should take back all my degrees.  Of course, you have studied the different styles of writting, and know that only one exists, right?  You again, are an idiot.  There are plenty of papers published in the scientific community that are nowhere near expository.

As for my contention about the 80% number, you haven't done anything to prove what I said wrong, no number you provided clarified how many of those 80% were not originally bought legally.  I just presented a point about that.  You can try to prove me wrong if you wish but until you do that it remains a reasonable hypothesis.

So it's the "this figure is correct until you can prove it wrong" argument, eh?  We went through that.  You asked me to prove my figures, I did.  Now, I'm asking you to prove yours.  Come on now.  You threw it out there, you should be able to back it up.  And you just said it yourself.  That statement of yours is a "hypothesis".  You can't base conclusions off of a hypothesis, which is what you were doing.  You TEST a hypothesis, to get to a conclusion.  You are so easy Bondo, it almost isn't fun.

Finally, I find all these insults from you laughable because you are doing it all much much worse than I.  At least I don't profess to have proof for all my thoughts.  Having thoughts and then seeking to prove if they are true or not is what has fueled all scientific progress.  They all started with a theory or thought that didn't have proof.  Socretes didn't use proof hardly at all, he just used logic (which as you've disagreed with me before, does not need to be true).  

Bondo, if you actually knew half of what you pretend to, you would almost be smart.  Socretes used proofs all the time.  Proofs are the heart of logic.  You start with a premise.  You then start proving conditions about that premise.  Which will lead you to a conclusion.  You don't start with a conclusion, as you've said before.  You are right about having "thoughts" and then proving them true of false.  The problem is, you just want to hang onto the thought, not daring to think it could be false.  

What in the world makes you think you know more about logic then I do?  How many classes in it have you taken?  How many books on it have you read?  Did you belong to your debate team?  What?  Anything?

I'm hardly a zeolot about gun control....  I just argue based on what is the politically and socially best alternative.  I'm not passionate about it, I just haven't yet been proven that it is wrong because the proof you provided is not greatly convincing.  

Bondo, you haven't even read half of what I supplied, so how would you know if the proof was convincing or not?  You didn't read shit.  You don't want the possibility of changing your mind, so you close it.  That's why you are a zelot.  As for me, if you had READ again, you would have seen that I once thought that getting rid of all hand guns would be a good thing.  I thought this back on campus as a freshman (as I said earlier).  Then, since I was arguing about it, I started to research it.  Everything that I found showed me that banning handguns would do no good whatsoever.  It would do some harm, as only criminals and law enforcement would then have them.  Yes, I actually thought it would be a good idea to look the stuff up.  Then, later, I lived in a shitty ass part of Detroit (also posted) which is where I finished my transition and actually purchased one.  I know that you can't be bothered to actually read these things, but it would make you look less stupid if you did.

Oh, and UCCS is a four year university with a highly ranked Business School, and it is just as difficult as any other state university.

Bondo, when you've gone to another State University, you can say if UCCS is as difficult.  Until then, you again don't really know what you are talking about.  As for me, I've have degrees from more then WMU, that was undergrad.  I also have an MS from Purdue and an MBA from UofM.  So, if you want to compare education, you'll lose.  Try to just get your BS with honors before you bring it up.

And the center of the acedemic world is Oxford.