Q: What's the difference between a sportsman and a criminal?

[Curval]

Originally posted by lazs2
curval... it's that you sound condencending... so what if you went to some rent a gun carnival one time.   It's not what most of us gun owners are into and we certainly wouldn't be happy with that as our only outlet.   I like to shoot by myself or with friends and any gun I want... I want to transport em in my car from my home.   I want to load my own ammo and take my guns home and cean em there.   I want to shoot anywhere that it is safe and not at a range.   I shoot at the range very seldom.

And... your stupid people thing... again.... condencending.   sign of youth... as I get older I am either getting more stupid or more tollerant of stupid people..   Turns out some of the people I thought were stupid do a lot of things better than I do... I don't know that I want a smart person who doensn't know anything about guns handling one around me... I know a few people with fairly low IQ's that I would trust without question with loaded firearms around me.... The miltiary would seem to point to me being correct more than you.

lazs

lazs...what you see as being condecending, in this thread, is purely a reaction to Mini Ds attacks and his Oregon fan club that jumps to his defense.  Please look at my post where I explain to Medicboy why I got involved in this thread to begin with and why I kept on posting about the Hollywood incident.  It's all about nit-picking with Mini D.

I have no issue with you, or your desire to shoot your guns.  I thought we were clear on that.

The stupid people incident as you know is an old one and what prompted me into this whole gun debate.  Far from being a sign of youth my concerns are much more related to signs of maturity.  I never gave guns a second thought when I travelled to the US, other than finding a gun range to pop a few caps (which I am unable to do at home.)  Having two children and a wife travelling with me in the States now makes me more aware of the number of yahoos that own guns in your country and it concerns me.

I suppose if they had a "Rent a Gun" place in the US airports for visitors then I may be able to feel the same level of security you do.  Otherwise I will simply have to live with my fears and hope that if gunfire erupts anywhere near my vicinity that the only people blasting away are fully trained in their use and are as good a shot as you are.

[Dowding]

I was yawning at your attitude - the 'don't dare say anything about America, but I'll talk all day about how crap other countries are'. It never changes.

Now, I'll ask you again. Why am I anti-gun and what leads you to this conclusion?

[lazs2]

go faster... I answered you... if you have some predjudice against the NRA then you could contact your local range and people would be more than glad to help you but most use NRA guidlines in any case... If you lived near me I would be more than glad to help you in any way that I could.   I have done this for a lot of people.

As for incramentalism... here we butt heads..  I don't feel that there is anything wrong with the current laws on firearms except that they are too strict and that the important ones are not enforced.   I see not particular gun as being more evil than another.   I would like to see more progressive laws on concealed carry.   I belive it should be easier to get a concealed carry permit in most states.   I would like to see teachers with concealed carry permits at schools.
lazs

[Mini D]

Gotcha curvall.  And just so you know, Apathy and I send e-mail back and forth coordinating our attacks on you.  Lazs only participates because we are all on the west coast and still feel the need to defend one another.  We're all really good buds.

Either that or you've been so pathetically stupid with virtually every argument you've presented in this thread that people felt the need to respond.

BTW... did you read this link (posted above): http://www.emergency.com/lapdbank.htm

You probably won't want to... it doesn't really support anything you've said.  It may be better for you just to continue pleading ignorance.

BTW... you might also want to stop trying to fit into stereotypes curval.  Eventually the truth always comes out... People just think that everyone else is too stupid to own a gun.  Then... they talk about how patronizing or condescending anyone is that tries to argue with them.  Oh... wait... it's not how stupid "everyone else" is... it's only how stupid "some people" are.  Keeping lieing to yourself if it makes you sleep better at night.

And Lazs... give dowding a break.  Arguing about gun rights in GB vs the US is pretty damn silly no matter which directing its coming from.  It's hard to think that only applies when one side of the fence is doing it.  I kinda hope dowding remembers that the next time beetle get's started and he can't help but chime in.

MiniD

[lazs2]

curval... good enough but.. the guys who were involved in the LA shootout were anything but normal gun owners and I would say that they probly weren't stupid.   As for your example in the gun store.... I may be stupid but... I don't get it.   What were the guys doing that was so wrong?  putting a gun back in a box?  you have to realize that gun stores have the rules changed on em every month or so by the powers that be.... I am safe at gun handling but I never know what is the current way I am supposssed to act in a gun store.   Safe handling has nothing to do with half the rules and they confuse everyhone.... not just stupid people.

so dowding.... you aren't against private ownership of guns as it in America?
lazs

[gofaster]

Originally posted by medicboy
It boils down to this, bill of rights says we have these rights.  Most were laid out just a few years after our independance was secured.  Now I see that all of these special interest groups are heading to the courts to secure the actual meaning as long as that meaning fits with their beliefs.  Don't you think if the founding fathers wanted the bill of rights to be designed by future courts they would have never bothered setting these rights down in the first place.  NO!  They made it as simple as possible to understand so there will be no question.  Weather or not you like guns doesn't matter.  If you dont' like them don't buy them!  But don't try to tell the rest of us what we should have and shouldn't.  You don't know what is the best for me no matter what the situation may look like from you throne.

  If you care about your rights, if you like living in a free country,  you will not compromise on any of them, not just the ones you like.  Freedom is what this country is about.  Too many people are trying to tell the rest of us that their idea of freedom is the right one and we need to live by their rules because they know what is best for us.  These people need to travel to Washington D.C.  Walk up those big grey steps and read the actual words for themselves.  They start with "We the people..."   Not "I the king..."

Actually, the Bill of Rights was written to be intentionally vague so that the interpretation could be tailored to suit a developing society.  The interpretation of those rights comes via court decisions.  Its only logical that the courts would be the way to secure interpretations favorable to the person seeking a change or clarification to the interpretation.  

So, really, you're right that the Bill of Rights was written in a way that was simple and easy to understand.  Unfortunately, its the way those rights are understood that is not so easy to comprehend.  That's why there were decisions such as Brown vs Board of Education of Topeka (14th amendment - equal protection under the law), Miranda vs Arizona (5th and 6th amendments - freedom from self-incrimination and right to an attorney), Gideon vs Wainright (6th amendment - right to an attorney), and Texas vs Johnson (freedom of speech).  In each of these cases, the citizen was seeking an interpretation of the Constitution that was favorable to him (or her).  That's what the courts are for.

Protecting my freedom is why I vote.  Protecting my freedom is why I have access to the courts.  I don't need a gun to protect my freedom.  But if you feel a gun would help you protect your freedom, then I can support that.

[Dowding]

Nope - I think you should be able to own what you like, but that it should be registered. Kind of like with a car and pretty much like what we had prior to Dunblane. I don't think assault rifles should be allowed except at registered gun-clubs, but private ownership of hand-guns I have no problem with.

Personally I don't feel the need to have one, but that's primarily because I would rather spend my money elsewhere. I also don't feel my security is threatened to an extent where I would need a gun.

Is that anti-gun? I don't think so.

[gofaster]

Originally posted by lazs2
go faster... I answered you... if you have some predjudice against the NRA then you could contact your local range and people would be more than glad to help you but most use NRA guidlines in any case... If you lived near me I would be more than glad to help you in any way that I could.   I have done this for a lot of people.

I think we're both victims of crossed postings.  I must've been typing at the same time you were hitting the "Submit" toggle.  I'll check the NRA site and see if there's an NRA-certified course nearby.  The closest range, if I remember correctly, was shut down due to excessive traces of lead on the property - OSHA and EPA violations.  I can't remember if the owners were going to decontaminate the land and stay in that location or just sell the location for commercial development, pack up, and move farther out.  

Originally posted by lazs2
As for incramentalism... here we butt heads..  I don't feel that there is anything wrong with the current laws on firearms except that they are too strict and that the important ones are not enforced.   I see not particular gun as being more evil than another.   I would like to see more progressive laws on concealed carry.   I belive it should be easier to get a concealed carry permit in most states.   I would like to see teachers with concealed carry permits at schools.
lazs

I prefer incremental changes.  Take a little, see what happens, then stop if the small change was all that needed to be done.  That change could be a relaxing of gun laws or stricter gun control.  Either way, its better to change a little than to change a lot (unless there's an extenuating circumstance, such as acts of terrorism).  

I most definitely see some guns as being more lethal than others.  I'm not nearly as afraid of a bolt-action .22 Marlin as I am a semi-auto SKS.

[Curval]

Originally posted by Mini D
Either that or you've been so pathetically stupid with virtually every argument you've presented in this thread that people felt the need to respond.

Careful, you might hurt my feelings.

 

Personal attacks are normally signs of weakness.  In your case bitterness could be added.

BTW... did you read this link (posted above): http://www.emergency.com/lapdbank.htm

You probably won't want to... it doesn't really support anything you've said.  It may be better for you just to continue pleading ignorance.

I just read it.  I fail to see how it backs up any of your points.

BTW... you might also want to stop trying to fit into stereotypes curval.  Eventually the truth always comes out... People just think that everyone else is too stupid to own a gun.  Then... they talk about how patronizing or condescending anyone is that tries to argue with them.  Oh... wait... it's not how stupid "everyone else" is... it's only how stupid "some people" are.  Keeping lieing to yourself if it makes you sleep better at night.

There are stupid people in the world, agreed?  Given the number of guns in the US it is logical that there are alot of stupid people with guns.  It is statistics, not stereotyping.  What YOU did was stereotyping and you accuse me of doing so.  I called you on it and your answer is to attack.  It really is a sign of weakness.
 [/B]

[Nashwan]

and here the statistics prove the point that outlawing guns (or restricting or outlawing certain types of guns), does nothing to make people safer.

Britain had some of the toughest gun laws anyway. Saying a "ban" didn't make things better in Britain can't be compared to America, which has some of the laxest gun laws in the world.

It's rather like saying a speed limit of 65 mph on motorways/freeways/autobahns would cut accidents.

Trying that in Britain, where the limit is 70, wouldn't make much difference, and wouldn't give you an accurate idea of the effect it would have in Germany, where in places there are no limits.

quite the contrary, gun related deaths went up when peoples right to own them legally was restricted.

No, it initially went down. Neither the fall afterwards, or the subsequent rise, were down to the tightening of the restrictions. Guns were already tightly controlled, certainly enough to stop widespread use of legally aquired arms in crime.

number of people killed by guns is a direct and to the point statistic as far as the effectiveness of gun law in deterring violence

I agree.

The figure in England and Wales last year was 96. The figure in America, with about 6 times the population, was 8,719 (2001, 2002 figures are higher)

Adjusting for population, the American figures would be 600 if they were in line with Britain. Instead they are 8,719.

however you dismiss this statistic out of hand because it just doesn't fit into the way you see the issue (never considering that your view may be wrong), and you can't provide any reason why you think this statistic could be in error.

I don't dismiss it. I think it's the central point. The rate of murders with firearms in America is about 15 times higher than Britain, after adjusting for population.

[miko2d]

Nashwan: Adjusting for population, the American figures would be 600 if they were in line with Britain. Instead they are 8,719.
 The rate of murders with firearms in America is about 15 times higher than Britain, after adjusting for population.

 The statistics you cite is meaningless.
 For all the scientific talk, it compares apples and oranges.

 The "adjusting" that is done is not adjusting at all - just an arithmetical multiplication.

 Guess what, american population is not just a multiplication of the british population. It has a very different ethnic and cultural layout. And the murder rates differ enourmously by ethnicitly and cultural group.

 If you compared likewise populations - say, murder rate among people of european descent in US with the same group in UK, you would get much less discrepancy.

 The US rate would likely still be greater - for the most part due to non-linear nature and pronounced threshhold properties of social problems - but nowhere nearly as great as the one you've posted.

 miko

[Mini D]

Personal attacks are normally signs of weakness. In your case bitterness could be added.

You see... I don't deny that I am issuing personal attacks against someone that is being ignorant and believes he isn't doing that very thing himself.

just read it. I fail to see how it backs up any of your points.

I kinda figured this.  Except how it talks about bullets hitting the perps, just mushrooming and dropping to the ground.  Nothing at close proximity there... I'm sure.  There was no way for the cops to get close.  Of course, it could have been that the officers simply were not equiped to handle body armor... but hang onto that "it's all automatic weapons that are to blame" belief.

There are stupid people in the world, agreed? Given the number of guns in the US it is logical that there are alot of stupid people with guns. It is statistics, not stereotyping.

This is what I find funny about you Curval.  You see... now you are talking in general terms and pretending you're not really being insulting.  Of course, earlier you were citing a 1 minute scene in which you determined individuals not smart enough to own firearms based on your immense expertise.  Afterall, if they were what you consider to be dumb at a gun counter, they are most likely driving a truck and are most likely the type of hicks that you feel shouldn't own a gun.  But that's not really stereotyping.

Statistics are a cool way for people to aply a set of rules to someone the statistics are likely to aply to... but that's not stereotyping.

MiniD

[Nashwan]

It's adjusted by numbers of population, nothing else.

Still, despite Lazs claims that people in Britain are too poor to buy drugs , crime as a whole is higher in Britain. Robberies are higher, burglaries are higher, but deaths during robberies and burglaries are much lower.

For instance, in America about 1,200 people were murdered during a robbery or burglary, not counting those classified as narcotics related. In England and Wales, the figure is around 80 people murdered during all robberies, burglaries, carjackings etc.

And yet there are more robberies and burglaries in England and Wales per capita than in America.

Why is it that the cultural differences in America affect only the murder rate, not the crime rate in general? Why does America have lower crime overall, if it's a cultural thing?

[miko2d]

Nashwan: Why is it that the cultural differences in America affect only the murder rate, not the crime rate in general?

 That's an interesting question. A few months or years of carefull study would answer it to your satisfaction. I only made a superficial study and it's too much to cover in a post. Too many components enter into the final result.

 Nevertheless, whatever their origin, the huge cultural differences between various american population groups are real.
 There is a different propensity towards serious violent crime and non-violent crime among various groups.
  A population may be inclined to theft or even robbery but not serious violence or bodily damage.


 Why does America have lower crime overall, if it's a cultural thing?

 Here you go again - using that word "overall" and in the same sentence with "cultural". We have many cultures here - separated geographically, not just by their ways of life. There is no such thing as "overall" here.

 Whe have cultures here wildly different from what you perceive as UK culture. What ever made you think different kinds of crime should always be synchronised?

 Yes, US crime rates are low. Not that many people steal.
 At the same time we have gang violence where young people (16-20 years old still classified as "children" here) murder each other in turf battles. Excuse me if they are not inclined to theft as well as murder and that confuses your statistics...
 Maybe they consider stealing beneath them and work hard for their living - selling drugs. You see - it's a cultural difference.

 miko

[Curval]

Originally posted by Mini D
You see... I don't deny that I am issuing personal attacks against someone that is being ignorant and believes he isn't doing that very thing himself.

Was I doing that in my post where I said "No skin off my nose"?  If you look back that is where it all started.  I think this comment annoyed you somehow and you reacted to it.  It all escalated from there...go on, deny it.

I kinda figured this.  Except how it talks about bullets hitting the perps, just mushrooming and dropping to the ground.  Nothing at close proximity there... I'm sure.  There was no way for the cops to get close.  Of course, it could have been that the officers simply were not equiped to handle body armor... but hang onto that "it's all automatic weapons that are to blame" belief.

Please, please show me where I quoted "it's all automatic weapons that are to blame".  I'll help you...I didn't.  What I did say was that it was a combination of the firepower and the body armour.

You really need to improve those reading skills.

This is what I find funny about you Curval.  You see... now you are talking in general terms and pretending you're not really being insulting.  Of course, earlier you were citing a 1 minute scene in which you determined individuals not smart enough to own firearms based on your immense expertise.  Afterall, if they were what you consider to be dumb at a gun counter, they are most likely driving a truck and are most likely the type of hicks that you feel shouldn't own a gun.  But that's not really stereotyping.

I'm sorry deja...did I insult stupid people?  You seem very upset by that...wonder what the connection is there.

lol

I never said they weren't smart enough to own guns, just that watching all three of those guys struggling to put the guns back in the box, made me nervous considering they had just bought deadly weapons.  "It gave me "pause is all" was what I actually said.

As to the pick-up truck comment, you got me on that one.  You were fishin for just such a response and I jumped right into it.  Afterwards I regretted not suggesting they drove an El Camino (just joking lazs...honestly).  lol[/B]