Author Topic: Madison riots (Read 1907 times)

AKDejaVu · « **Reply #120 on:** November 11, 2002, 03:33:02 PM »

LOL Beatle!

You've finally broken down to quoting your "friend".

LOL!

You could have made something better than that up. At least I hope that's made up... if not you have a friend that enjoys lieing to you.

AKDejaVu

lazs2 · « **Reply #121 on:** November 11, 2002, 03:35:07 PM »

kieran... hundreds.... no thousands of stories that are documented are availabe for anyone to read in various publications. The American Rifleman (admittedly a heinous pro gun NRA 666 mag") has a dozen or so every month and they are all indisputable and/or easily checked. Most of the intended victims would have had no chance of survival without the firearm... most of their attackers were either insand or had long records or were hard core drug addicts. Win win.... a good person was left alive and a bad person no longer walks among us.

again... I would suggest that anyone who is interested in the hard undiputed data read john lotts "more guns less crime" the second edition is in paperback and new data has been compiled (since '97) that backs up the old data. Regardless of what spook says it is not an NRA publication and was written by an otherwise (by changing rapidly I would guess) liberal professor on a grant from the john olin foundation (not relation to the firearms olin). The book has been attacked by every pro gun control outfit in the U.S. and they have all been humiliated (much as bettle and spook have). read it yourselves. read any book that disputes it... Oh wait... there are no scholastic works with data that dispute it... nevermind... What you say? handgun control inc or the center for gun violence policy has not data to back them up? well.... no.... they have lots of data but every time even a curspory glance is give to it..... it is found to be an outright fabrication.

lazs

funked said in response to the terror squirrle attack in england that was only stopped by a grandfather with an illeagal air rifle... "Wow if they had a rabid racoon I bet they'd have to call in NATO to bring over a .22 or something."

SC-Sp00k · « **Reply #122 on:** November 11, 2002, 06:09:05 PM »

Ok Beetle, the Cavalry has arrived

Looks like the Gun nuts have you surrounded.

Firstly..Deja.

It is a poor arguement my friend that uses an Automobile as an analogy of a firearm. Your "Mo'tah" as my Brits friends might call it, is not designed to kill. It is a method of transportation. A gun is an implement designed to kill. Nothing more, nothing less. Im suprised you didnt throw in a sharpened graphite pencil and a pair of neck strangling shoelaces while you were at it.

At least Beetles friend has the guts to admit to something outside the apparent "norm" for his own personal reasons. He doesnt seem to be hiding behind a weapon he may never need.

Also, Stats are very boring to both read and find.

With the most powerful Military Force in the world, how many of you Civvies are going to defend the shoreline from the invading Cubans and Iraqi boat people? I would somehow think that any invading Force would have the civilian population armed or not down on the bottom of their list of concerns when it came to taking on the US of A.

Laz.

Dear Laz, you must be getting tired as your making it almost to easy for me. "Noone had proved we will be safer without Guns"
Noone has to prove it Laz. It kinda makes sense on its own.

You then launch into the attack on Beetle using the British Bobby armed with Mp5's. The Brits were fighting terror while you guys were arming their people and mingling with them and shouting them beers on St Pats day. You speak of the War of Terror since 9/11. Whereas the Brits have been fighting it domestically since long before you were born. With an enemy that harboured itself inside your borders. With weapons that were funded by your people. What right have you as a relative Baby to large scale Terrorism to criticise the Britswhen it comes to their "Police Force" carrying Mp5's.

The fact is that most Brit Police remain unarmed. They utilise Tactical units and Response Groups the same way your Country does with Swat and all the other varieties of the same. I imagine your armed Swat teams are a damn sight busier on the Domestic front than Beetles.

The arguement is being used that if Guns are such a problem what about knives. Do we remove knives from everyone?

We've have also been doing that. At least in the sense of restricting their legal ability to carry one in a public place. It is an offence in this part of the Country at any rate to carry a Knife in your possession, in a public place, without lawful excuse. Something that just makes plain common sense. A bit like Firearm reduction policies.

You also appear to be using alternative objects such as life saving airbags in your defence of life taking firearms. Where does that rationale come from? This book you keep babbling about?

As for the Autobahn. Start a new thread. Ill bet we can make that go to a 100+ also.

J_A_B and Leslie are the only ones seemingly making sense on yourside of the arguement. Laz, get one of them to write a book and ask us to read it.

beet1e · « **Reply #123 on:** November 11, 2002, 06:23:19 PM »

Kieran -

Quote

You don't understand Americans- you've made that point abundantly clear. Ditto your understanding of America in general.

Well, erm, I lived and worked there on two separate occasions for a total of about 3 years. I visit often and have a lot of friends there. Once had my life saved in an American hospital. It's like a second home. I've been to more places than most Americans. In fact this year will be the first calendar year since 1977 that I haven't been to the US.

Yes, the homicides appall me, just as I was appalled by Sept 11th 2001. Did you think that the rest of the world didn't give a stuff that day because we don't live there? But you're right, I don't live there.

AKdejavu - do pay attention! That's about the 4th friend I've quoted! I was interested to hear in first hand from a few people. So that's 1 from NY, one from VT, one from CA - sorry, only 3. Guess all my friends are like Ned Flanders?

Kieran · « **Reply #124 on:** November 11, 2002, 06:30:49 PM »

Quote

What right have you as a relative Baby to large scale Terrorism to criticise the Britswhen it comes to their "Police Force" carrying Mp5's.

I'd wager about the same right as an Aussie or a Brit to come here and criticize our second amendment right to bear arms.

Sucks when it is thrown back atcha, doesn't it?

Kieran · « **Reply #125 on:** November 11, 2002, 06:34:55 PM »

Beetle-

I simply maintain what I have said- your experience in America has failed to impress upon you what personal freedom means, and the independence with which most choose to live their lives. Granted, I live in a rural area and my step-dad was a gun dealer, but I have a pretty good feeling I understand America better than you do. Of course you will disagree because you have vacationed over a greater portion of it than I might have, but whutevah.

AKDejaVu · « **Reply #126 on:** November 11, 2002, 06:38:27 PM »

Quote

The reason is that most people who keep a gun for protection end up shooting someone they didn't want to or end up having the gun used against them by the perpetrator.

This is what your "friend" said beetle.

It seriously looks like something off of a "Letters from 'friends' to help your cause in a gun argument" web site. I don't know a single gun owner that would say this, nor has had this happen. Your friend is either made up, lieing to you or completely clueless.

And Spook.. I can see you get only what you want out of that "letter". I respect you for keeping the blinders on through thick and thin... no matter how deep it piles up.

AKDejaVu

beet1e · « **Reply #127 on:** November 11, 2002, 06:48:29 PM »

AKDEjaVu. You can believe what you want. I know that the email was genuine. You just can't take the old buggery-suet treatment to your profile of a gun owner's mindset. You think you know everything and you don't. And the correct spelling is "lying". Thought you of all people would know that.

Gotta hit the sack now, so...

Toodle-Pip!

J_A_B · « **Reply #128 on:** November 11, 2002, 06:56:42 PM »

"Well, it's beginning to look like there are some very bad pockets of gun homicide. I always knew that the white middle class areas were safe, so for all those thousands of gun deaths each year, are you saying that the vast majority occur in ghettos? "

I think this is a self-evident fact. Yes the vast majority of homicies occur in urban areas, particularly poor urban areas. That's hardly a shock to anyone. In my mind this means that gun ownership--and restrictions upon it--should be a local issue, not a national issue. Washington DC has a bad homicide rate, but that doesn't mean that guns here in Rittman, Ohio should be banned (the only homicide here in the last 5 years involved a baseball bat and I think dang near everyone in the town owns some sort of gun). Fix the problem where there IS a problem!

"But I don't see more privately owned guns solving it. Which is what I meant when I said, in the anti-gun thread "

If that's what you said at first, then I'm inclined to agree (I did not read the first half of this thread). A gun is almost useless in crime prevention...it can be used for protection, but by the time you need to use a gun to protect yourself than a crime has already been attempted/committed. At the same time though, a wholesale banning of guns wouldn't reduce gun crime by any measurable means--in fact, in the urban areas where most gun crime takes place, a good portion of the guns being used in those crimes are ALREADY illegally obtained! So banning what is already illegal isn't going to do much

We've been working on the problem of urban violence for 40 years now....in the last decade crime has generally decreased, particularly in cities like New York which made an active effort to increase police presence and do a better job of enforcing existing laws.

J_A_B

Jack55 · « **Reply #129 on:** November 11, 2002, 06:58:22 PM »

Forget about guns. In the UK, lockblade pocket knives are illegal to carry around.

AKDejaVu · « **Reply #130 on:** November 11, 2002, 07:50:13 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by SC-Sp00k
Ok Beetle, the Cavalry has arrived Looks like the Gun nuts have you surrounded.

Firstly..Deja.

It is a poor arguement my friend that uses an Automobile as an analogy of a firearm. Your "Mo'tah" as my Brits friends might call it, is not designed to kill. It is a method of transportation. A gun is an implement designed to kill. Nothing more, nothing less. Im suprised you didnt throw in a sharpened graphite pencil and a pair of neck strangling shoelaces while you were at it.

Ah.. then going to the "guns are only designed to kill" argument.

I'll ask this question one more time spook... why do you carry a gun? Is it only to kill? Is it possible that the mere presence of a gun serves a purpose and has an effect? Surely you must concede this point. I've used a gun numerous times... I haven't killed anyone yet.

Besides... what has greater killing potential... I'm not talking about what kills more... simply what would be a better killer? A car or a gun? Even more people commit murder using a car than a gun... that's even ignoring the accidents. I personally knew one person that was murdered by someone driving a vehicle, my wife knew one other. One was run off the road and the other was ran over while changing a tire (on the curb side.. someone drove around his car). Neither of us know anyone that was murdered with a gun.

AKDejaVu

SC-Sp00k · « **Reply #131 on:** November 11, 2002, 09:01:14 PM »

Deja. firstly, may I say I respect you also for giving me the material to keep my blinders on.

To answer your legitimate question.

why do you carry a gun? Is it only to kill? Is it possible that the mere presence of a gun serves a purpose and has an effect? Surely you must concede this point.

I carry a gun because I have a duty to protect life and property as encumbent upon me by Occupation. And yes. At times, the firearm on my hip does exactly as you state. Its mere presence quells further arguement. Only after a certain point.

Heres the bit you are waiting for...... Yes. I concede that point.

However,

Off duty, I consider myself like everyone else. Share the same problems, bills, annoying neighbours, the idiot driving on the road alongside me etc. I do not jump into "RoboCop" mode, don my firearm and become the protector of the innocent. I simply wait my turn.
One thing ive learnt in life is that the adage, "What goes around, comes around" often applys.

At home, if theres an idiot out in the street, kicking cans, smashing letterbox's etc. Like anyone else, I call the boys in Blue.
No Laz, it has nothing to do with fear. Im just as tempted to go pushing in faces with these morons as anyone else and realise those situations that can blow up and have me doing so, which for a Police Officer, causes problems later on.

Likewise, I do not keep a gun at home to protect myself without good reason. If I were to live in the inner city where Crime is ever present on my doorstep then YES. I'd keep a gun. Just like any of you and you would recieve no criticism or questions from me.

As I do not live in the Inner City and Crime is not beating down the door of my house, then I have no need for a gun. Which is why im debating your need.

Now the topic has been subverted many times in this thread about Sporting shooters. Noone is saying, a legitimate sporting shooter cannot own a gun. They still do here.

The debate as I understand it and the point of my questioning refers only to Joe Citizen living in the Burbs without a crack house on the corner. I am not implying that the US of A is full of crack heads and violent people. Hence my part in the debate. I do not believe the majority of your countrymen require a firearm.

Should I use that Firearm on duty, I shall, as your countrymen do, shoot to stop the threat. Thats the legal answer. I will not however be shooting at arms and legs, like a Cowboy from an ol'd movie. I shall be shooting at the Centre of Mass. In anyones language, thats gonna be a kill shot. I personally hope, that never has to happen.

And laz, that doesnt make me weak. It probably takes a courage beyond your comprehension and one I wont bother to explain.

Re, vehicles in the use of Murder.

It may be that your legislation (of which I am not familiar) puts many catergories such as Drunk driving in the Murder bracket.
Here, we would charge with Manslaughter unless there is a Deliberate intentional Act to kill with a Motorvehicle.

Im confident tho, whatever the reason behind your Motor Vehicle arguement that you and the wife are unfortunate in knowing those victims and that it is not a prevalent offence consistant with the numbers of Firearm incidents. I could be wrong but I doubt it.

J_A_B · « **Reply #132 on:** November 11, 2002, 10:26:10 PM »

"The debate as I understand it and the point of my questioning refers only to Joe Citizen living in the Burbs without a crack house on the corner. I am not implying that the US of A is full of crack heads and violent people. Hence my part in the debate. I do not believe the majority of your countrymen require a firearm. "

I'd agree that those living in safe areas probably don't need to own a gun for self-defence. But what about other reasons?

What about game hunting? Or chasing away and/or killing vermin? Suppose "Joe Citizen" simply likes going out back and plinking away at cans or a tree stump? Or if firearms are a hobby? Maybe "Joe" just likes fiddling around in his basement trying out different loads for his .45.

Or even all of the above?

For you, in your country, guns are seen as instruments of death. Some people in the USA would agree with that (mostly people living in cities with a gun-crime problem). However, for a lot of people OUTSIDE of those areas, guns are nothing more than objects used for hobbies and recreation, no more sinister than a golf club or baseball bat or sports car (and you're far more likely to be killed in a car accident than in a gun accident).

I can understand COMPLETELY why limitations on weapons in certain areas might be important; but a blanket banning over the entire country would be essentially "throwing the baby out with the bath water"--it'd do the trick too, but it's a tad bit extreme

J_A_B

AKDejaVu · « **Reply #133 on:** November 11, 2002, 11:29:56 PM »

Guns serve as a deterent simply by their presence or the possibility of their presence. A deterent for what is up for debate... but its quite simply what was intended by our constition. A deterent.

As for homocide with cars... I was refering to the act of premeditation. Intentionally running over someone on a rural road... or intentionally running someone off of the road. Really... it is more of a threat than handguns. But you have to be psychotic to do something like that (as most would agree). More children are killed by vehicles while playing than by handguns... by a long shot... and that would be a per car /per handgun stat that would hold up quite well. I've come much closer to hitting kids with my car than my gun. Cars driven irresponsibly kill many more people than guns.

So irresponsibility, psychotic behavior and childhood neglegence (parental and child) cause the loss of life on a grand scale when talking about cars. But its OK because everyone needs cars.

Guns on the otherhand, don't have a need? That's where I disagree. Deterence and security are not the same as killing people. Guns are not only intended to kill people. Put a gun in the hands of a psycho, someone that's irresponsible or children and guess what... you run into the same issues as you do with anything capable of destruction.

With guns, much like with cars, you teach children to respect them and hope they'll grow up to be responsible with them... and pray to God that psychos just stay the hell away from them.

AKDejaVu

beet1e · « **Reply #134 on:** November 12, 2002, 04:55:11 AM »

J_A_B - another good post, and I have a couple of comments.

About those "other uses" - chasing away vermin? I've never had a vermin problem, but wouldn't calling in an exterminator be a better solution than firearms? After all, mice/rats live in areas which you can't get at. For every one you can see, there might be 50 that you can't see.

About target shooting etc. In another thread, Mr. Toad said there were about 220 million guns in the US. How many of these are handguns and how many belong to private citizens? I can only hazard a guess. But let's use a round figure and say 50 million. For target practice, would it be fair to say that each gun is fired 500 times a year for target practice? That's less than 10 rounds a week. (I suggest that figure as I know that Lazs squeezes off about 2000-3000 a year, but he's an enthusiast) Well that would mean that about 800 rounds are being fired off every second of every day 24x7! Given that most target shooters would probably want to contemplate the results of a shot and to allow time for reloading, is it fair to say that guys on the range might fire on average one shot per 15 seconds? Well that must mean that there are 12,000 peeps doing target practice at the range around the clock. I don't suppose anyone would want to spend 24 hours at the range. 2 hours seems more reasonable. So that means 144,000 people, attending the firing range for 2 hours a day, every day - or something like 2500-3000 people from every state every day, firing off 400-500 rounds every session -as much ammo in a session as Lazs goes through in three months!

That scenario is patently ridiculous. What is wrong with it? Maybe I was being conservative with the 50 million privately owned handguns. Perhaps it's 100 million? In which case there would need to be twice as many people. We need to get data on ammunition sales and firing range membership to make sense of it.

But I would say that it points to one thing: Most handguns are bought, stored and forgotten or, to put it another way, are not needed.