What's your opinion on Kevlar?

[haas mark]

I don't have those figures, cause BPV are not common enough to be targets. However, if they are common they'd be stolen at the same rate as guns. That's half my argument.

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.

And how many of those guns were stolen, friend?

.... Uhhhh .... I'm not sure how to answer this.

300,000 guns are stolen anually.

Wrong answer. How many gun deaths were caused by stolen guns? Could I be any clearer?

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.[/quote]

There is an answer. We can assume it is higher than 75%. How about, you've made the same claim for 14 pages, and have not once backed it up.

Really? So kid is shot and killed and it doesn't make the news? Where do you live? The West Bank?

Fucking New Mexico, asshole. They don't make reports when it happen so often.

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%.

This is where I call you a liar.

Liar.

Ass. When you come live where I do, or in the projects of Chicago, or NYC, or LA, and tell me that the murders are reported, I have more right to call you a liar than you have to call me one.

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.

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

[haas mark]

Odd of being shot: 0.00367%

This means what? Does a BPV do good or not? YES OR NO. The answer to this question will not come in numbers.

If you're not shot, then it does no good. If you're shot in the head, then it does not good. If you're shot with something higher calibre than it can handle, then it does no good. If you're shot, knocked over and then killed by an alternate means, it does no good. If it's stolen before you're shot, then it does no good.

Before you respond I can guess what you'll say and get right to my response.

You = You never answered my question.

Me = It's a loaded question, and is meaningless in this debate. It's simple yet another attempt to bring in the Fallacy of the Vivid Example you are so in love with, I.E., 'But it's my life.'

Question: Given the possibility that you MIGHT be shot, and that it IS in fact possible, would the vest do more harm or good. You avoided the point entirely. And I could care less whether it's my life alone. It is the lives of many,many thousands of people. The shot wounds may not cause death, but injury as well.

[Evil Sadistic Bastard]

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!'

Your argument is equally baseless - that BPVs are harmful because they could be stolen by criminals and thus we should not wear them and put ourselves at risk.

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.

But he BPV won;t be as accessible as a VCR. Your statement is an assumption. And a bad one, at that.

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.

Oh, you haven't? What was all that bullshit about X% of guns will be stolen? What was that bullshit about X% guns will be used in robberies?

Lies.

And stop trying to shift the burden of proof onto verilon, you prove YOUR case with REASONED ARGUMENTS and not bullshit numbers pulled from your nethers.

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

ISN'T THAT MURDER? What the hell do you think it is, fun and games?

Your utter lack of intelligence amd stubborn refusal to die have convinced me that you are more akin to a cockroach than an economist.

So fuck off and die!

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

Unfortunately it did.

(Takes out can of Raid)

PSSSSSSSSTTTT!!!

[C.S.Strowbridge]

If BPV become common they will be a main target of theft.

Without telling me that it will stay in the trend (because you can provide no evidence other than your own opinion), how is this true? Again, all it does is hinder the criminal becasue (A) he moves slower, and (B) usually they aren't going to think about details such as this. Most of the time, in fact.

Excuse me? Are you saying a thief will ignore a BPV cause it will slow him down? 'You can't outrun a bullet, but you can stop it dead.' At least that's what those bank robbers in L.A. were probably thinking.

BTW, before I forget. GIVE SOME FUCKING PROOF THAT THE AVERAGE CRIMINAL IS A REJECT FROM THE SPECIAL OLYMPICS!

Prove they'd ignore BPV. Prove that it's too hindering for the average criminal exploit.

If BPV become common they will be stolen more often then they are used to save lives.

Then they won't be used to save the criminals' lives, even if they are stolen? Right. And how are you to know that they will be stolen so often? AFAIK, you don't know what our future looks like.

No, but I know what I past and present is like, and I can come up with conclusions based on that.

Each live saved will arm hundred of criminals with BPV.

That's bad.

How is that possible? A life saved = a criminal armed!? WTF!? How did you come to that conclusion?

Cause for every live saved, there will be a hundred BVP stolen. It's called statistics, and it's used to predict future events all the time.

[Evil Sadistic Bastard]

If you're not shot, then it does no good. If you're shot in the head, then it does not good. If you're shot with something higher calibre than it can handle, then it does no good. If you're shot, knocked over and then killed by an alternate means, it does no good. If it's stolen before you're shot, then it does no good.

Yet when you are shot in the chest it does good. When a stray shot bounces off a wall and hits you in the vest it does good. When a shot hits YOU in the head ending your miserable existence, it does the greatest good in the world.

Before you respond I can guess what you'll say and get right to my response.

I'm surprised you had the mental capacity to conceive the concept of second-guessing.

You = You never answered my question.

Bullshit assertion from CSS-wannabe. Check.

Me = It's a loaded question, and is meaningless in this debate. It's simple yet another attempt to bring in the Fallacy of the Vivid Example you are so in love with, I.E., 'But it's my life.'

Pointless blathering about nothing in particular to distract us from alying your white underbelly open. Check.

[haas mark]

If BPV become common they will be a main target of theft.

Without telling me that it will stay in the trend (because you can provide no evidence other than your own opinion), how is this true? Again, all it does is hinder the criminal becasue (A) he moves slower, and (B) usually they aren't going to think about details such as this. Most of the time, in fact.

Excuse me? Are you saying a thief will ignore a BPV cause it will slow him down? 'You can't outrun a bullet, but you can stop it dead.' At least that's what those bank robbers in L.A. were probably thinking.

BTW, before I forget. GIVE SOME FUCKING PROOF THAT THE AVERAGE CRIMINAL IS A REJECT FROM THE SPECIAL OLYMPICS!

Prove they'd ignore BPV. Prove that it's too hindering for the average criminal exploit.

If they can ignore the things LEFT BEHIND at a crime scene, then they can ignore a Kevlar vest.

If BPV become common they will be stolen more often then they are used to save lives.

Then they won't be used to save the criminals' lives, even if they are stolen? Right. And how are you to know that they will be stolen so often? AFAIK, you don't know what our future looks like.

No, but I know what I past and present is like, and I can come up with conclusions based on that.

So what are the past statistics? YOu don't have any do you? So therefore, your logic is flawed.

Each live saved will arm hundred of criminals with BPV.

That's bad.

How is that possible? A life saved = a criminal armed!? WTF!? How did you come to that conclusion?

Cause for every live saved, there will be a hundred BVP stolen. It's called statistics, and it's used to predict future events all the time.

How did you come to that conclusion? And if you don't have past statistics, you can't make these predictions.

[C.S.Strowbridge]

Now you're just being stupid. The peasant kills the knight at several hundred
yards with his primitive blackpowder rifle....

No, peasent fires. Peasent misses. Peasent takes a minute to reload. Knight charges up to peasent. Knight kills peasent.

At several hundred yards a blackpowder rifle's ability to kill would be horrible.

Peasant dodges.

Yeah, cause peasents were known for their close combat skills.

Note: You can't load a blackpowder rifle while you are dodging, and you can't dodge everything.

But what if peasant hits?

That's why I wrote 'most of the time.'

Why do you think knights disappeared from the battlefield?

Cause it was cheaper, and faster, to arm a hundred peasent than it was to train one knight. If a peasent died you just gave his gun to the next one. Same can't be said for each knight that died.

Oh? What do you think the knights did? They got killed off.

Well, no. Not all of them. They got phased out. When the enemy can arm twice as many peasents as you can field Knights it becomes economically unfesiable to fight. Even if you win you'll take more loses than the enemy.

It was the economics of the situation, not the one-on-one combat abilities. There's strength in numbers that can't be denied.

Economics:

Cost of vest < Cost of surgery.
In the long run, Cost of Vest (en totale) > Cost of Surgeries (en totale)
THis helps the economy better than I can imagine.

Cost of surgery = 0 if your not shot.

Odds of you getting shot = 0.00367%

Cost of vest = $500, even if you are not shot.

So Cost of Vest > Cost of Surgery * Odd of Having Surgery.

Think of it this way, you need to pay $500 dollars for heath insurance, but they'll only cover Consumption. All other injuries, diseases, etc. you'll have to pay out of your own pocket. Is this a good deal?

As for the benifits to the economy, it only helps if it creates new wealth, not if it draws money from other parts of the economy.

[Evil Sadistic Bastard]

Excuse me? Are you saying a thief will ignore a BPV cause it will slow him down? 'You can't outrun a bullet, but you can stop it dead.' At least that's what those bank robbers in L.A. were probably thinking.

No, he's saying that a thief will ignore a BPV because he has better things to steal than BPVs. He is also saying that thieves prefer to run for their lives before risking it. Thus they will not impair their movement by stealing or wearing a BPV.

BTW, before I forget. GIVE SOME FUCKING PROOF THAT THE AVERAGE CRIMINAL IS A REJECT FROM THE SPECIAL OLYMPICS!

Well, your constant stream of mindless nosnense is proof that you should be vivisected for science to understand how a cockroach grew this large.

Prove they'd ignore BPV.

No, they won't ignore BPV. Nobody's saying that except you.

Prove that it's too hindering for the average criminal exploit.

Is it not? A bulletproof vest is hot and cumbersome. People who have to wear the things usually move somewhere or do something that removes this need. Apparently your lack of a cerebellum his impaired your ability to fathom such mysteries.

No, but I know what I past and present is like, and I can come up with conclusions based on that.

You know nothing save how to spew bullshit.

Cause for every live saved, there will be a hundred BVP stolen. It's called statistics, and it's used to predict future events all the time.

Restating your point without proving it again. Tut tut tut... Darkstar you really should try harder.

[C.S.Strowbridge]

Arg. What do I have to say for you to understand. BPV will, most likely, be stolen at the same rate per BPV as guns are today. I.E. 3.896%

Simple enough. You have to say to me that you have evidence that the trend will stay the same, ie, that vests will be stolen at a rate of 3.896% (which, btw, is very low).

I've given my reasons, based on past statistics and basic knowledge of criminal behaviour.

BTW, I know 3.896% is very low, but it's 1000 time higher than 0.00367%, which you think is high.

BPV will continue to have the same oppurtunity to save lives as they have today. I.E. 0.00367%

True, but have you ever thought about other things that might penetrate other than bullets?

I'm thinking bullets is the main concern, but if you want to prove me wrong, I'd be more than willing to look at the evidence.

Therefore, ratio of BPV that will be stolen to BPV that might save a life: 1000

Is there anything you need clearifying?

How you came to that conclusion.

Math. Percent that will be stolen (based on past evidence) / Percent that might be used to save the wearers life (based on past evidence)

[haas mark]

Cost of surgery = 0 if your not shot.

Odds of you getting shot = 0.00367%

Cost of vest = $500, even if you are not shot.

Your point being....? I don't have to have this drilled into my head. I have now memorized th odds of getting shot. Which are much higher where I live.

So Cost of Vest > Cost of Surgery * Odd of Having Surgery.

Correction, Cost of Vest < Cost of Bullet Surgeries. You know that surgeries cost upwards of 10K soemtimes, right?

Think of it this way, you need to pay $500 dollars for heath insurance, but they'll only cover Consumption. All other injuries, diseases, etc. you'll have to pay out of your own pocket. Is this a good deal?

So now I am making the BPV health insurance? WHAT ARE YOU ON???

As for the benifits to the economy, it only helps if it creates new wealth, not if it draws money from other parts of the economy.

Creating new weath benefits the economy, or did you fail that part of high school?

Note: I graduated high school last May. My last two classes were government and economics. I know what I am talking about, and I can get mopre info with a simple e-mail to my former teacher, who also happened to teach psychology and sociology. He knows what he's talking about. And I learned from him. I know what I'm talking about. Apparently, you do not.

[Mr Bean]

Math. Percent that will be stolen (based on past evidence) / Percent that might be used to save the wearers life (based on past evidence)

Tell me Stonebridge do you have Insurance of any kind?(Excluding what your forced to buy of course)

[Evil Sadistic Bastard]

Yeah, cause peasents were known for their close combat skills.

Note: You can't load a blackpowder rifle while you are dodging, and you can't dodge everything.

RED HERRING DETECTED

That's why I wrote 'most of the time.'

RED HERRING DETECTED

They got killed off.

Well, no. Not all of them. They got phased out. When the enemy can arm twice as many peasents as you can field Knights it becomes economically unfesiable to fight. Even if you win you'll take more loses than the enemy.

While true, it is stil a RED HERRING

Cost of surgery = 0 if your not shot.

And if you are?

Odds of you getting shot = 0.00367%

Justify your numbers. I couldn't be bothered to call you to task, but you will justify them NOW or we will claim victory by default. Number-waving won't stop us.

Cost of vest = $500, even if you are not shot.

So?

So Cost of Vest > Cost of Surgery * Odd of Having Surgery.

Which is mathematically true but logically false. You buy a vest to protect yourself, not play the odds.

Think of it this way, you need to pay $500 dollars for heath insurance, but they'll only cover Consumption. All other injuries, diseases, etc. you'll have to pay out of your own pocket. Is this a good deal?

Think of it this way. You'll pay $500 for peace of mind and safety, which is priceless.

As for the benifits to the economy, it only helps if it creates new wealth, not if it draws money from other parts of the economy.

You have proven your cockroach economist nature once again with this inane statement which has no bearing on the topic whatsoever.

EDIT: Clarity improved.

[C.S.Strowbridge]

No, peasent fires. Peasent misses. Peasent takes a minute to reload. Knight charges up to peasent. Knight kills peasent.

At several hundred yards a blackpowder rifle's ability to kill would be horrible.

Now you're making even more sense. Hey guys, let's shoot the guy on horseback in armor carrying a lance so that we MIGHT hit him. Why? So we can waste our ammo, spend our time reloading, get killed by a knight and satisfy CSS-wannabe's wet dreams.

Oh, I see. Peasent never missed their target. Got it, make sure to hire peasents as bodyguard.

SNIP!

Feel the pinch? Your flanks rolling up on you? Your flimsy "arguments" which are actually deranged fantasies sprung from a twisted mind collapsing on your head?

No, I don't feel the pinch, cause your counter-arguement is based on no Knights surviving the first volley. I'd like to see you prove that.

[C.S.Strowbridge]

Note: The knight is wearing armor. Armor in this case = Kevlar vest. Even if the peasant shoots and hits, the knight lives.

And if that knight has a 0.00367% chance of being shot, does it really matter?

[haas mark]

Arg. What do I have to say for you to understand. BPV will, most likely, be stolen at the same rate per BPV as guns are today. I.E. 3.896%

Simple enough. You have to say to me that you have evidence that the trend will stay the same, ie, that vests will be stolen at a rate of 3.896% (which, btw, is very low).

I've given my reasons, based on past statistics and basic knowledge of criminal behaviour.

But there has been no criminal behavior involving Kevlar vests. I have seen zero real statistics of that.

BTW, I know 3.896% is very low, but it's 1000 time higher than 0.00367%, which you think is high.

No shit, Sherlock. Like I said, maybe youshould step outside your comfort zone sometime. Come live in New Mexico. Go to Roswell. Or Albuquerque. Or Santa Fe. Crime is a lot more rampant here than it is where you are, I am sure. Not a day goes by where I haven't seen a police car or ambulance with it's sirens on.

BPV will continue to have the same oppurtunity to save lives as they have today. I.E. 0.00367%

True, but have you ever thought about other things that might penetrate other than bullets?

I'm thinking bullets is the main concern, but if you want to prove me wrong, I'd be more than willing to look at the evidence.

All I ask is that you know that bullets are not always going to be the main concern. Do you know that there are many deaths at stand-ins and rallies that are caused by rubber bullets used by police? Or at the very least, injuries to the body?

Therefore, ratio of BPV that will be stolen to BPV that might save a life: 1000

Is there anything you need clearifying?

How you came to that conclusion.

Math. Percent that will be stolen (based on past evidence) / Percent that might be used to save the wearers life (based on past evidence)

No, how you came to the coclusion that BPVs will be stolen at the same rate as guns. And what evoidence do you have? None. So therfore, 0/n = 0. YOu lose.

[C.S.Strowbridge]

I'm not talking about fucking cops. I'm talking about the average loser who buys a gun to protect himself from a crime that has a 99.99633% chance of NEVER happen. And that gun he bought? It has a 3.896% chance of being stolen.

They also have a 96.104% chance of NOT being stolen. And I did that math in my head.

Which is less than the 99.99.... chance of not getting shot.

You can't win, Math is my ally, and a strong ally it is.

[haas mark]

Note: The knight is wearing armor. Armor in this case = Kevlar vest. Even if the peasant shoots and hits, the knight lives.

And if that knight has a 0.00367% chance of being shot, does it really matter?

On a one-on-one situation, the odds are much higher, and you know that.

[haas mark]

I'm not talking about fucking cops. I'm talking about the average loser who buys a gun to protect himself from a crime that has a 99.99633% chance of NEVER happen. And that gun he bought? It has a 3.896% chance of being stolen.

They also have a 96.104% chance of NOT being stolen. And I did that math in my head.

Which is less than the 99.99.... chance of not getting shot.

You can't win, Math is my ally, and a strong ally it is.

Not really, if oyur statistics can't show what the percentage of the Kevlar vests being stolen is......right now, it seems to be a bit less than 0.0000001%.

[C.S.Strowbridge]

You live in a neighborhood where crime isn't all that common. Some of us live in suburbs. Suburbs are normal. Crime happens a lot more in suburbs than urban areas.

I'd like to see some proof.

Show me some proof that Kevlar vests will be stolen at the same rate.

I've given my proof, it's as good as it gets when it comes to predicted future events.

And as far as my proof, its called a high school US Government class.

Do you have a different deffinition of Suburbs? Like the Tom Hanks movie. Rows of single occupant dwellings? (Also known as 'Houses.')

[Evil Sadistic Bastard]

Oh, I see. Peasent never missed their target. Got it, make sure to hire peasents as bodyguard.

STRAWMAN DETECTED!

SNIP!

This, ladies and gentlemen, is living proof of the reproductive cycle of the cockroach economist called CSS-wannabe.

It can't deal with rational attacks so it covers it up with bullshit.

No, I don't feel the pinch, cause your counter-arguement is based on no Knights surviving the first volley. I'd like to see you prove that.

Firing line stacked three deep vs. armored charge.
At close range the order is give to fire.

BLAM! Half the Knights die.
BLAM! Most of the rest die.
BLAM! The survivors are eliminated.

And please note that the user of rifles were TRAINED SOLDIERS and not your hack peasants! Please refrain from insulting the fighting traditiion of the world with blatant misrepresentation.

Fuck You Very Much, and have a fucked up day.

[Evil Sadistic Bastard]

You can't win, Math is my ally, and a strong ally it is.

Fucked is your argument, and a dumb fuck you are.

[haas mark]

I'd like to see some proof.

Show me some proof that Kevlar vests will be stolen at the same rate.

I've given my proof, it's as good as it gets when it comes to predicted future events.

Where? Nowhere. YOu have told me repeatedly that you DON"T have proof. Meaning, that your arguement is invalid.

And as far as my proof, its called a high school US Government class.

Do you have a different deffinition of Suburbs? Like the Tom Hanks movie. Rows of single occupant dwellings? (Also known as 'Houses.')

I go by the government definition: middle-to-lower income housing.

[C.S.Strowbridge]

I'm not talking about fucking cops. I'm talking about the average loser who buys a gun to protect himself from a crime that has a 99.99633% chance of NEVER happen. And that gun he bought? It has a 3.896% chance of being stolen.

Which means what? Means FUCK ALL, you asshole! The point is why he buys Kevlar, not if he carries a gun, which you should, to kill yourself when you finally realize what an idiot you are.

Ok, let's back up a step or two.

Pretend that BPVs are stolen and get in the hands of criminals more often than it's used to save the original owners life.

Is that a bad thing?

[Evil Sadistic Bastard]

I've given my proof, it's as good as it gets when it comes to predicted future events.

It's no proof. It's hot air.

[haas mark]

Pretend that BPVs are stolen and get in the hands of criminals more often

All your past statements have been undone in these words alone.

CONCESSION ACCEPTED!!