What's your opinion on Kevlar?

[haas mark]

Percent of guns bought each year that are stolen. 3.896%
Percent change of the average Joe getting shot and killed: 0.00367%

Statistics. Kindly translate into argument or shut the fuck up.

You need that explained to you? That's sad.

I don't think I know words small enough if you can't see that one number is vastly higher than the other.

One number is higher than the other,. Yup. What does that mean in context of the Kevlar vests? Nothing.

If BPV as stolen at the same rate as guns, and I see no logical reason to doubt that, number of BPV stolen per oppurtunity to save a live: 1000+

Assumption of CSS-wannabe: BPV stolen at same rate as guns.
INCORRECT! Guns are easier to steal than BPVs. Logic dictates that one would steal something directly helpful over something that is indirectly helpful, given that all other factors are equal.

.... BPV won't help criminals. ....

Retard. That's pretty much all that needs to be said.

I wouldn't talk about myself if I were you....and it weren't true.

Therefore guns will be stolen at a much higher rate than BPVs,

1000 times higher?

Not necessarily, but at a higher rate.

You don't need a BPV.

No I don't, because I live in a country where guns are not needed. But I would have one if I lived in a rough neighbourhood. Please refrain from overgeneralizing.

Children in Israel don't need BPV.

Children in Israel (A) Can't afford them (B) get killed by Palestinians every day. Warped logic.

Criminals would love to steal yours. That's the basics, and it seems to be backed up by the data we have.

Oooh, Mr. Perp would steal my vest over my valuables! Mr. Perp wants to protect himself at the risk of being caught BEFORE the vest can be of any help! Mr. Perp is as stupid as CSS-wannabe is!

I hope criminals are as dumb as you think they are.

So they WOULDNT go after valuables, by yopur logic.

WRONG!

[haas mark]

I've lived in suburbs my entire life. I know quite a bit more than you do, I assure you. Did you go to a nice public school as a kid, or a shitty one or ten as I did?

Give me some fucking numbers. I'm tired of the ancedotal bullshit.

Am I the only one here with the balls to give statistics?

Stats that don't mean anything.

[Evil Sadistic Bastard]

.

Am I the only one here with the balls to give statistics?

No you're the only one stupid enough to make bullshit arguments and think statistics will magically save your ass.

[C.S.Strowbridge]

So is the possibility of getting shot with a gun.

No it's not. BPV preventable gun violence is never the #1 killer. (Suicides don't count, for obvious reasons.

Getting shot with a gun isn't a real possibilty? Please.

Yeah, if the odds are less than 1% or 1% then it isn't a real possibility. It's a wild, unfourned, possibility.

It's got the same odd of happening as I have of bedding Famke Janssen.

Are you getting the picture?

Why don't you step outside your comfort zone? GO to the poorer parts of wherever the hell you live and tell me, how often do you hear a police siren? How often do you see opressed people?

I live in the poorer part of town. I am poor. Even in the wosrt of the worse you're going to be hard pressed to find a place with more gun murders per population that guns stolen per gun purchased.

If you did, the population would be shrinking at an alarming rate.

Where DO you live?[/quote]

Canada, and that doesn't help your arguement CAUSE YOU HAVEN'T GIVEN ANY EVIDENCE OTHER THAN YOUR WHINNING ABOUT HOW HARD YOU LIFE IS!

Cite evidence that Kevlar vests will follow the same trend.

I can't, cause it's not common enough to have it's own crime statistics. Unlike the 100 million guns in the States.

Then you can't use it as an arguement. Concession Accepted.

Bullshit. I've given reasons. You must come up with equally compelling reasons why I'm wrong. And accused every criminal of severe mental retardation isn't compelling.

[haas mark]

No it's not. BPV preventable gun violence is never the #1 killer. (Suicides don't count, for obvious reasons.

Getting shot with a gun isn't a real possibilty? Please.

Yeah, if the odds are less than 1% or 1% then it isn't a real possibility. It's a wild, unfourned, possibility.

It's got the same odd of happening as I have of bedding Famke Janssen.

Are you getting the picture?

I don't see your logic. You say that a very tiny possibility is no possibility at all. How is that possible? Any possibility is a real possibility.

Why don't you step outside your comfort zone? GO to the poorer parts of wherever the hell you live and tell me, how often do you hear a police siren? How often do you see opressed people?

I live in the poorer part of town. I am poor. Even in the wosrt of the worse you're going to be hard pressed to find a place with more gun murders per population that guns stolen per gun purchased.

If you did, the population would be shrinking at an alarming rate.

Where DO you live?

Canada, and that doesn't help your arguement CAUSE YOU HAVEN'T GIVEN ANY EVIDENCE OTHER THAN YOUR WHINNING ABOUT HOW HARD YOU LIFE IS![/quote]

And you havemn't given any evidence other than whining 0.00367% Yes, I have now memorized the odds of getting shot. Thank for telling me that 3x a page for the past 17 pages.

I can't, cause it's not common enough to have it's own crime statistics. Unlike the 100 million guns in the States.

Then you can't use it as an arguement. Concession Accepted.

Bullshit. I've given reasons. You must come up with equally compelling reasons why I'm wrong. And accused every criminal of severe mental retardation isn't compelling.

(A) You DONT have evidence. (B) You refuse to admit that you are wrong BECAUSE you have no evidence. (C) Your logic has been flawed since the beginning. (D) You make so many bounds and leaps in logic it is utterly ASTOUINDING.

[Evil Sadistic Bastard]

Yeah, if the odds are less than 1% or 1% then it isn't a real possibility. It's a wild, unfourned, possibility.

Yet it is still a possibility and that is why we use BPVs. And don't you dare look at a gunshot victim and call THAT "a wild unfourned podssibility"

It's got the same odd of happening as I have of bedding Famke Janssen.

Damn straight, because you're too busy being sodomized by a pack of mastiffs

Are you getting the picture?

Yes - which is that you are an incompetent shit-for-brains.

Why don't you step outside your comfort zone? GO to the poorer parts of wherever the hell you live and tell me, how often do you hear a police siren? How often do you see opressed people?

I live in the poorer part of town. I am poor. Even in the wosrt of the worse you're going to be hard pressed to find a place with more gun murders per population that guns stolen per gun purchased.

If you did, the population would be shrinking at an alarming rate.[

Where DO you live?

Canada, and that doesn't help your arguement CAUSE YOU HAVEN'T GIVEN ANY EVIDENCE OTHER THAN YOUR WHINNING ABOUT HOW HARD YOU LIFE IS!

His life experience should be evidence enough, fucktard. Don't come on our boards and slander our members.

Cite evidence that Kevlar vests will follow the same trend.

I can't, cause it's not common enough to have it's own crime statistics. Unlike the 100 million guns in the States.

Then you can't use it as an arguement. Concession Accepted.

Bullshit. I've given reasons. You must come up with equally compelling reasons why I'm wrong. And accused every criminal of severe mental retardation isn't compelling.[/quote]

He has no need to, because you are unfairly putting the burden of proof on verilon's shoulders when it is YOU who should be stating your case and backing it up with evidence instead of trying to discredit the opposition.

verilon may be a nice person. I am not.

Try me, asshole.

[C.S.Strowbridge]

YOU get killed. I survive a shooting while you become another festering pile of corruption upon the streets.

No, I don't get killed cause I don't get shot at. And neither do you. And niether does the other 99.99633% of the population.

How do you know that you won't get shot at?

Cause the odds are so low. It makes more sense to prepare for more likely deaths. Like a pig stampede. (That was a joke, while pigs kill more people than sharks, they kill less than guns.)

And the average citizen can't protect his property from theft.

Appearently not, cause 300,000 guns are stolen every year.

Pointless, becasue you don't know that 300,000 BPVs are going to get stolen. Every. Year.

Yeah, cause I doubt they'll be 300,000 BPV in the hands of civilians. But for each BPV that saves a civilians live hundreds will be stolen.

Wow, that was a complete waste of a reply. What part are you denying? The fact that guns are stolen, or the fact that robberies encourage people to buy guns?

Or are you denying the fact that you should walk onto I40 in the middle of noon day traffic?

And again, you ignore my point and go for the Ad Hominem. A less man might say, 'Concession Accepted' here. But I'll give you one more chance.

What do you disagree with:

Guns get stolen by criminals.
Thefts cause people to by more guns.

Nope, you got that wrong. The real translation is:

Here's the numbers. BPV won't save many live, and will (most likely) get stolen in numbers far greater than they're worth. I've given it before, I'll have to give it again.

Where are the numbers that show me how often BPVs will be stolen? Where are the articles that give you those umbers? They don't exist. Therefore, your arguement is flawed. If you can't come up with a valid base for your arguement, no point in arguing.

And you've come up with how many articles? How many studies? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE TO SUPPORT YOUR SIDE.

If you don't do anything, I win by default.

Saves my life = good idea.

Doesn't save your live cause your never shot = Waste of money.
Better odds of if getting stolen than saving your life = Bad idea.

Doesn't save your life IF you don't get shot. DOES save your life if you DO get shot at. GOOD idea. Odds of it getting stolen = nonexistant.

Proof? Prove BPV won't get stolen?

[C.S.Strowbridge]

What part are you denying? The fact that guns are stolen, or the fact that robberies encourage people to buy guns?

I deny neither of these two.

I am denying your ridiculous assertion that guns WILL be stolen, that they WILL be used against innocents,

So, you deny guns will continue to be stolen, dispite the fact that they are being stolen today. And you deny stolen guns will be used against innocents dispite the fact that they are today.

If that's true, why should I argue with you? Why should anyone argue with you? You're obviously convinced that reality will suddenly change with no preceivaly cause.

You know, I realize you think you're winning, and I can't help but feel sorry for you. Reality is reality. People don't get shot a lot. Guns get stolen more.

[Evil Sadistic Bastard]

How do you know that you won't get shot at?

Cause the odds are so low. It makes more sense to prepare for more likely deaths. Like a pig stampede. (That was a joke, while pigs kill more people than sharks, they kill less than guns.)

No, that wasn't funny, nor is the rest of your argument.

Pointless, becasue you don't know that 300,000 BPVs are going to get stolen. Every. Year.

Yeah, cause I doubt they'll be 300,000 BPV in the hands of civilians. But for each BPV that saves a civilians live hundreds will be stolen.

Justify your arguments. Show me a government study. Hell, I'd settle for experimental evidence. Otherwise get lost.

Or are you denying the fact that you should walk onto I40 in the middle of noon day traffic?

And again, you ignore my point and go for the Ad Hominem. A less man might say, 'Concession Accepted' here. But I'll give you one more chance.

What do you disagree with:

Guns get stolen by criminals.
Thefts cause people to by more guns.

He ignores nothing because there is nothing to ignore! And those last two points weren't even part of the original debate, they were tacked on to try and force a side victory.

Where are the numbers that show me how often BPVs will be stolen? Where are the articles that give you those umbers? They don't exist. Therefore, your arguement is flawed. If you can't come up with a valid base for your arguement, no point in arguing.

And you've come up with how many articles? How many studies? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE TO SUPPORT YOUR SIDE.
If you don't do anything, I win by default.

YOU have done NOTHING to support YOUR side! You have lied, you have distorted the facts, you have twisted evidence and you have been a complete moron in doing so! How DARE you claim victory in the jaws of defeat!

Doesn't save your life IF you don't get shot. DOES save your life if you DO get shot at. GOOD idea. Odds of it getting stolen = nonexistant.

Proof? Prove BPV won't get stolen?

I reject this statement as a reduction to absurdity.

[haas mark]

How do you know that you won't get shot at?

Cause the odds are so low. It makes more sense to prepare for more likely deaths. Like a pig stampede. (That was a joke, while pigs kill more people than sharks, they kill less than guns.)

Reread: How do you know that you WILL NOT get shot at? Odds are odds, there is the possibility.

Yeah, cause I doubt they'll be 300,000 BPV in the hands of civilians. But for each BPV that saves a civilians live hundreds will be stolen.

How do you know? That's like saying for each gun bought, hundreds are stolen. For each gun bought, less than four are stolen. See how your logic is flawed?

And again, you ignore my point and go for the Ad Hominem. A less man might say, 'Concession Accepted' here. But I'll give you one more chance.

What do you disagree with:

Guns get stolen by criminals.
Thefts cause people to by more guns.

Did I ever say I didn't disagree? Thefts do not cause people to buy more guns. The false sense of security put on by society does. Many more peopple own knives, which are just as threatening, and just as effective.

And you've come up with how many articles? How many studies? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE TO SUPPORT YOUR SIDE.

Back at you, partner.

If you don't do anything, I win by default.

You HAVENT done anything, so we win by default.

Proof? Prove BPV won't get stolen?

Proof? Prove BPV WILL get stolen.

[Evil Sadistic Bastard]

I deny neither of these two.

I am denying your ridiculous assertion that guns WILL be stolen, that they WILL be used against innocents,

So, you deny guns will continue to be stolen, dispite the fact that they are being stolen today. And you deny stolen guns will be used against innocents dispite the fact that they are today.

Strawman. You misrepresent my statement, that the fact that guns will be stolen and/or used against civilians is not an absolute.

If that's true, why should I argue with you? Why should anyone argue with you? You're obviously convinced that reality will suddenly change with no preceivaly cause.

Apply the reality check to yourself. Granted I should have mad emyself more clear. You on the other hand, should jhav e realized this was alost cause to begin with.

You know, I realize you think you're winning, and I can't help but feel sorry for you. Reality is reality. People don't get shot a lot. Guns get stolen more.

Well, I am. You are just clutching at straws hoping I'll give up. Well, I won't

[C.S.Strowbridge]

Well, the other half being the proof that the trend would stay the same. Concession Accepted. You can't provide evidence, you have no arguement.

You're telling me theives wouldn't steal BPV? Is that your whole arguement? I think it is. Well, that and the Fallacy of the Vivid Example that is, 'But it's my life!'

Also, are you telling me a BPV will be harder to steal than, say, a VCR? If they can steal a VCR they can steal a BPV.

A VCR would, in fact, be easier to steal.[quote[

Proof? A VCR isn't wearable. A VCR isn't easily compactable.

Yes. A lot clearer. As for the answer, we'll never know. Many times a murder weapon is never recovered. Add in unsolved murders, and the number get's decidedly foggy. How about, you make your claim and see if you can back it up. Cause I've never made a claim about the number of stolen guns used in murders.

There is an answer. We can assume it is higher than 75%.

We can? Golly, I guess there's no need to demand undeniable proof.

BTW, can you proof that this trend will coninue in the future?

How about, you've made the same claim for 14 pages, and have not once backed it up.

How about you don't lie.

http://www.stateline.org/state_header_f ... stateId=NM

834.5 Violent Crimes per 100,000 population per year. Higher than average.

Still, if those were ALL murders it's still less than the number of guns stolen per gun population per year.

But it is also greater than 1%.

.... 834.5 / 100,000 * 100 = 0/8345%

Child killed in a drive by! That's what you said, not just murder.

I think Mozilla just locked up. This might not make it.

First off, there are many murders as well as child-victims of drivebys.

So? That doesn't prove you assertion that child victims of drive-bys happen so often that they aren't reported on TV. So are you going to give evidence, can you at least proof that you know what evidence is?

Second, boohoo poor you why don't you get a better provider? That was so offtopic it wasn't even funny...

First of all, Mozilla isn't an ISP, it's a browser. Secondly, I was telling you cause it might have delayed by responses.

BTW, if you don't know the difference between a browser and an ISP, then why should I continue this debate?

[Mr Bean]

Ugggg... Just sloged my way through NEARLY TWENTY PAGES of you fokes going back and forth, Verilon/Sheps/ESB aurgment can be summed up in the words "If we want a Kelvar vest we want to be able to buy it"

Your aurgment Stonebridge can be summed up best in...

"Because the statlistical chances of you being shot are very low you should not be allowed the chances to protect yourself"
Then of course you add in the Ad-Homean attacks, the Fields of Strawmen, The Appels to everyone from the Pope on down to Statistics and over and over and over AGIAN


You NEVER provided a Valid reason why citizins should be dissallowed from owening a Kevlar vest besides "They could be stolen" "Your chances of getting shot"


Ect... Ect.. Ect..
You went on and on and ON about your chances of getting shot are so small and then preceded to go into so many Logic Fallacys as to make Darkstar Appear RATIONAL by comprasion!

I locked this thread as its blazeingly clear to any who want to slog through the 18 pages that you have no real aurgment, no real reason to aurgue aginst not be allowed to own Kevlar




To go into my own thoughts on the matter

Observe

See the nice 200$ T-Shirt? Its kevlar made and Nomex reforced its JUST that T-Shirt mind you, weighs less than ten pounds and is spec to take all the way up to .44 Magnum Bullets from under 3 Meters

I know this as I have worn those and do wear them from time to time when I am out hunting as I do once or twice a year..

Know why I do?
Just in case... Just like I put my selt belt on every time I get into the Car I put that Vest on every time I go hunting, Though my chances of getting struck by lightning are less than by shot, You won't see me out in a rain-storm with a metal hat on fokes, no more than you will find me driving around without a seatbelt on...


Just in case.

[David]

Ugggg... Just sloged my way through NEARLY TWENTY PAGES of you fokes going back and forth, Verilon/Sheps/ESB aurgment can be summed up in the words "If we want a Kelvar vest we want to be able to buy it"

Your aurgment Stonebridge can be summed up best in...

"Because the statlistical chances of you being shot are very low you should not be allowed the chances to protect yourself"
Then of course you add in the Ad-Homean attacks, the Fields of Strawmen, The Appels to everyone from the Pope on down to Statistics and over and over and over AGIAN


You NEVER provided a Valid reason why citizins should be dissallowed from owening a Kevlar vest besides "They could be stolen" "Your chances of getting shot"


Ect... Ect.. Ect..
You went on and on and ON about your chances of getting shot are so small and then preceded to go into so many Logic Fallacys as to make Darkstar Appear RATIONAL by comprasion!

I locked this thread as its blazeingly clear to any who want to slog through the 18 pages that you have no real aurgment, no real reason to aurgue aginst not be allowed to own Kevlar




To go into my own thoughts on the matter

Observe

See the nice 200$ T-Shirt? Its kevlar made and Nomex reforced its JUST that T-Shirt mind you, weighs less than ten pounds and is spec to take all the way up to .44 Magnum Bullets from under 3 Meters

I know this as I have worn those and do wear them from time to time when I am out hunting as I do once or twice a year..

Know why I do?
Just in case... Just like I put my selt belt on every time I get into the Car I put that Vest on every time I go hunting, Though my chances of getting struck by lightning are less than by shot, You won't see me out in a rain-storm with a metal hat on fokes, no more than you will find me driving around without a seatbelt on...


Just in case.

I agree completely. From the beginning Strowbridge's arguements were nothing but personal attacks and insults. I'm suprised this got as far as 18 pages.