Author Topic: Q: What's the difference between a sportsman and a criminal?  (Read 5812 times)

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
Q: What's the difference between a sportsman and a criminal?
« Reply #210 on: September 28, 2003, 09:26:50 AM »
ping... I have only ever had one 22-250.. a bull barelled Savage.   I know very little about rifles and am not all that interested in them compared to handguns.   Dune or deja can probly help ya more than I can.

From readers here to that deformed POS moore... they all point out the murder rate in the U.S.  but no one points out who is doing the murdering.     Who exactly is murdering who?   moore insinuates that the white guys are "frieghtened" of blacks and are buying all the guns and shooting black people... this of course is not  what is happening.  Drug dealers and criminals are shooting each other.   Take that segment out of the equation and, per capita... The U.S. doesn't look so dangerous so far as firearms go.   People murder people for the money....  Take the profit out of it and it will settle down to  a few mentally disturbed shootings a year...   Just like everywhere else.... there, see..  I just answered the question mike moore was too stupid and too close minded to see right in front of his face...   Course.... he probly supports the illegal drug industry so.... in effect... is doing more to further homicide in the U.S. than I am by being a gun owner.... It is he that should feel guilty not me or Kmart.   But.... taking responsibility for his own actions or not looking the other way when his friends support homicide here is way too much to ask of him.

 Canada is just starting... they don't have enough money for drugs and the border below them isn't third world...  Why smuggle drugs to Canada from the U.S.?  

Mexico is a porous border that floods us with drugs and cheap Military full auto AK47's   Ak's go on the world market for around 20 bucks and sell for 200-800 to criminals in the States who don't have access.   Law abiding citizens don't buy em.

The LA shootout was criminals with full auto guns... criminals and political nuts as well as garden variety mentally disturbed will continue to get full auto weapons and there will be "incidents".   Probly as the stress level increases worldwide... there will be incidents.... less if you live on an island of course.  
lazs

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
Q: What's the difference between a sportsman and a criminal?
« Reply #211 on: September 28, 2003, 09:43:53 AM »
cpxx... name one other country that has such an isatiable appetite for drugs... name one that  has a 1500 mile long porus border with a third world country that produces thousands of tons of drugs a year and sells them across the border at 400-1000 times their cost.

preventing homicides in the U.S?  simple... solve the drug problem or the drug profit problem or whatever you want to call it.   Untill then forget it..   Nothing needs to be done.   The criminals will continue to murder each other and the occasional bystander.

You won't be able to stop the occassional nutjob or political loony from shooting up a crowd... but so what?  It doesn't happen enough to get drastic about and most of them are on drugs anyhow and.... the real big slaughters in the U.S by nut jobs don't use guns anyhow.  

But... We can do something....We can make concealed carry permits easier to get... that will save lives... all the school shootings were stopped with a gun.   When the colubine kids knew guns were coming they shot themselves.... most do... if they thought that 10% of the teachers might have had concealed carry permits.... they probly wouldn't have even brought their guns to school.  

Take the drugs out of the equation and make it so the nutjobs don't have any shooting galleries filled with helpless little screaming bunny rabbits.... (they don't shoot up shooting ranges or police stations or military bases).....

You do that and you won't have a problem that is significant enough to restrict firearms in any way.  
lazs

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
Q: What's the difference between a sportsman and a criminal?
« Reply #212 on: September 28, 2003, 09:51:30 AM »
Let me ask you people that think guns are the problem.... even that POS moore asked why Canada has so many guns and doesn't have the problems the U.S. has....

What do yu think the homicide and crime rate of Canada would do if all of a sudden the U.S. became a third or fourth world nation?   A nation of arms brokers and drug manufacturing labs and nothing much else?    Where working at a fast food place in canada could give you enough to support a family of 6 back in the States?   Where the sale of one ounce of speed to a canadian would give you enough to live on for a couple of months.

lazs

Offline Curval

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11572
      • http://n/a
Q: What's the difference between a sportsman and a criminal?
« Reply #213 on: September 28, 2003, 09:55:58 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Mini D
Ah... I see... you never saw the video.  You really don't have any idea what you are talking about in this whole thing.

They weren't hunkered down.  They were walking down the streets.  The cops were shooting from all directions but not having any effect due to the armor.  Finally a cop with a rifle got a headshot off from not more than 30 yards in front of them.  That was the end.

The weapons that can "kill indescriminantly" and poses massive destructive firepower did not kill anyone... despite several hundred rounds being fired.  The police officers were always very near the robbers despite them having those massive long range assault weapons.  What made this event memorable was the lack of effect the police weapons had on the body armor.  The media is the only one that chose to make assault weapons the issue.  The robbers could have had hand guns and it would have been the same.

So when this story is presented as some kind of "talk to the cops that were there and see what they'd say"... it implies you might have had some remote clue as to what really happened.  It implies that you believed the frustration they spoke of came from the weapons being used by the criminals and not simply because of the ineffectiveness of the police officer's weapons.  You were quite simply and quite clearly mistaken.

The rest of what you're now saying in regards to the truck driving idiots is pretty typical demo speak.  You really should try to avoid falling into such neat little stereotypes yourself... it takes away any credibility you might have had.

MiniD


Mini D, can't you read?

I said the COPS were hunkered down, not the guys who robbed the bank.  Please don't mistake your lack of reading and comprehension for a vaild point and a way to discredit me.  You just look foolish.

I'm wondering if you saw the video.  For someone with such an incredible memory you omitted to mention that one guy killed himself, and that a SWAT team member took out the second guy.

Dune, did that SWAT officer kill the last guy from 30 yards?  I'm curious.  If he didn't then Mini D's accusations of me not seeing the video will truly show who is full of it.

I don't honestly remember, it has been a long time since that incident.

What is demo speak?  I told you a true story...look it up on these boards if you like.  Try to stop with the personal attacks Mini D, stick to the point of the debate.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2003, 09:59:21 AM by Curval »
Some will fall in love with life and drink it from a fountain that is pouring like an avalanche coming down the mountain

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
Q: What's the difference between a sportsman and a criminal?
« Reply #214 on: September 28, 2003, 10:03:33 AM »
curval... the bad guys did what guys with full auto weapons do best.... they kept heads down.   They were not incredibly bad shots they were just on full auto.   if someone could have gotten off an aimed shot then any round the police carried would have ended the fight.   Any shot to the head or legs would have ended the fight instantly, in the case of the former, or ended it a little later in the case of the latter.
lazs

Offline Curval

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11572
      • http://n/a
Q: What's the difference between a sportsman and a criminal?
« Reply #215 on: September 28, 2003, 10:07:52 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by lazs2
curval... the bad guys did what guys with full auto weapons do best.... they kept heads down.   They were not incredibly bad shots they were just on full auto.   if someone could have gotten off an aimed shot then any round the police carried would have ended the fight.   Any shot to the head or legs would have ended the fight instantly, in the case of the former, or ended it a little later in the case of the latter.
lazs


Agreed lazs..although I think their legs were protected too.  Your right about the full-auto too, no argument here.  It is still lucky they didn't kill anyone given the sheer number of rounds they fired.

Yup, they kept heads down...hunkered down in fact.
Some will fall in love with life and drink it from a fountain that is pouring like an avalanche coming down the mountain

Offline Mini D

  • Parolee
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6897
      • Fat Drunk Bastards
Q: What's the difference between a sportsman and a criminal?
« Reply #216 on: September 28, 2003, 10:26:11 AM »
Wow... lazs and curval... you are both quite wrong.

The cops did get off multiple shots.  It is not that they were too afraid to shoot.  The robbers had several layers of armor around their entire body.  Nothing was working.  It's not that the cops were too afraid to shoot.

This is getting downright silly curval.  The story was not a case of unusualy firepower.  There were two criminals with guns.  Auto or not that can be dealt with and has in the past.  The body armor was a totally new one and the reason they were able to just walk down the street unscathed.

But here you are somehow... any way... please god let it be... trying to make it sound as if the automatic weapons were the difference here... what made it such a store.  Sorry, but you're really stretching on this one.

MiniD

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
Q: What's the difference between a sportsman and a criminal?
« Reply #217 on: September 28, 2003, 01:15:32 PM »
deja... a head shot woulda ended it.   Cops are trained to fire at center of mass.   No one knows how many times the bad guys were hit but it wasn't that many considering how many rounds were fired.

Again... head or neck woulda done it... hand shot woulda dissabled as would feet.  
lazs

Offline capt. apathy

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4240
      • http://www.moviewavs.com/cgi-bin/moviewavs.cgi?Bandits=danger.wav
Q: What's the difference between a sportsman and a criminal?
« Reply #218 on: September 28, 2003, 01:33:07 PM »
the thing that I find so amazing that the anti's completely dismiss facts that get in the way of their argument.

england bans guns and gun crime goes up. -

it's a fluke, any coralation defies logic.


in areas in the US where more people own guns there is less crime.-

another statistical anomoly, "I'm certain that those people are just less violent, it has nothing to do with the gun"


in spite of the fact that "assault rifles" are banned in california, and full-auto guns are banned (without extensive permits), fellons managed to get these illegal guns from illegal sources, and wheren't concerned with the laws banning them, reinforcing the belief that "when guns are outlawed only outlaws have guns"-

 "You are being a handsomehunk trying to hint that because they are illegal in California you had some sort of point. "



it's easy to feel you're right if you just dismiss out of hand any facts that go against your argument.  it's one thing to doubt someone elses facts, or point to other factoers that wheren't taken into consideration while developing statistics.  but to just say over and over, that "I know the facts point that way and I have no other explaination for it, but they must be wrong because they go against my point"

Offline Curval

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11572
      • http://n/a
Q: What's the difference between a sportsman and a criminal?
« Reply #219 on: September 28, 2003, 02:23:14 PM »
Just when I think I can walk away, something brings me back.  

Capt. the point was and still is irrelevant because this entire discussion started as a result of a St. Petersburg, Florida news article.  The issue was the banning of assault weapons as a result of an incident that happened there...it was not limited to California.  So, I assumed it was a countrywide discussion.  In that regard the point that the guns were used in a State where they were, in fact, illegal is moot if you can purchase such weapons in other states.

Clear?

Now, I granted Medicboy his point that the AKs used were from Mexico, here:

The famed bank shoot out in hollywood: well they got those ak-47's from a dealer in mexico, they wern't the civilan versions modified to fire full auto they werre the military versions that have a selector switch simmilar to the US military's m-16. All the gun laws in the country would not have stopped them.

If this is the case then you have made a good point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This point was made AFTER Mini D's clever remark about them being illegal in California.

You guys should also be made aware of your stereotyping and take out the preverbial "plank" out of your eyes before pulling the sliver out of mine.

You have lumped me in with the "anti's" when I have already told you why I am involved in this thread.  

Mini D did the same thing, I suspect, when he referred to "typical demo speak".  He's throwing me in with the democrats I suppose.  This is funny because I don't live in, or involve myself in the politics of, your country.  I'm also an extremely "consevative" when it comes to ecomomic issues.  You cannot fit me into any US political party line.

Medicboy also veered down the road of stereotyping me as thinking gun owners are all murders and thugs.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Curval is in no way a threat to gun ownership in the United States......its just plain ridiculous.

OKAY?
Some will fall in love with life and drink it from a fountain that is pouring like an avalanche coming down the mountain

Offline wrag

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3499
Q: What's the difference between a sportsman and a criminal?
« Reply #220 on: September 28, 2003, 03:12:05 PM »
"The constitutionally granted 'right to bear arms' is an accident of history and was clearly intended for the circumstances of the day. How can anyone rationally say today that owning a gun is patriotic and a bulwark against the government sending the 82nd Airborne against you? Anyone who owns a gun saying they need it to protect themselves against the authorities or foreign aggression is a nut. Most gun owners are not nuts but guns are dangerous in the hands of angry people and nut-cases. "

Hmm I don't think the 82nd Airborne would necessarily commit such an act.  Funny thing but I don't think any of em would want to attack possible family members or neighbors or other Americans. Ya know rumor has it thats why the Chinese used mongolian troops at Tienanmen Square (ok I know spelling). The Chinese protesters were unable to talk to the mongolian troops.  That single person facing down the column of tanks thing was something! You gonna point at Waco now?  That is a real can of worms if ya really want to open it.  It's still being argued.  And allot of the information never made it to the general public due to the media not saying.

Accident?  So Switzerland is and accident also?   What about your own monarch's actually giving their own people the right to defend themselves?  Didn't they actually make it LAW? (Kinda what started things over here when the troops came for the arms.  Seems these silly colonist had the impression they were British Subject with British Rights!)  And the scramble for arms just after Dunkirk?  Some actually were sent from America to England.  DANG FUNNY how useful those silly colonist weapons were then?

Any weapon is dangerous in the hands of the angry or nut-case.

As to protecting themselves hmmm... funny thing about that what was it hmmm... at the beginning it was about 10 handguns used by some jews in Warsaw that seemed to turn the tide for a time.  Word is politics got involved and the Allies that were near to them didn't show.

And we should probably forget the Afghans and the Soviet Union thing huh?  I mean they don't fit in either.

And we should probably forget most of the arab/muslim world and ignore them huh?  (even if they are all mostly armed with something)

And we should forget the WWII response of the Japanese General when asked why they didn't invade the U.S.

"Just to make the point again as this lie was repeated again. Banning certain types of gun did NOT lead to a 300% increase in gun crime in the UK or Australia or anywhere else. The two are unrelated. In fact if defies logic to relate the two. In fact it makes more sense to say that banning drugs lead to an increase in gun crime. It's a very poor argument particularly as even with increased gun crime they are relatively fewer than the US."

Lie?  Are you sure it's a lie?  Are your sure it hasn't happened?  Crime rates haven't increased?  Home invasion robberies haven't increased?  

The actual statistics DID increase after the banning of certain [?] (thought it was very nearly all) firearms.  

Don't recall anyone saying it was "gun" crimes increasing just crimes.  But do recall the bad guys are reported to have MORE guns NOW!  Also do I recall correctly a female media person murdered with a "gun" at her front door?

"America still has one of the most liberal (ironic word that)l gun owning regime in the developed world. But that's under threat because of constant misuse of legally held guns. Most of the high profile school massacres and work incidents are carried out with legally held guns. That I suspect is why assault rifles were banned in the first place. Incidents like children shooting other children with their Father's gun and other accidental killings are what bothers the public at large."

Actually in most of the High profile cases the weapons are taken illegally, and of course used illegally.

This better not be a regime (at least if my understanding of the word is correct).

Again the term "Assault" rifle did not exist until, I believe it was, a certain Josh Sugerman, coined the Fraze with the intention of demonizing firearms.  I think he was working for Handgun control, or some other anti-gun org. at the time.  Looks like he succeeded.

cpxxx for the record.....

I freely confess I have taken exception, perhaps wrongly, to what I perceive as your attitude as well as the manner you seem to have chosen to display it.  IMHO what was said could very easily been said in a different manner.  Considering the differences in our cultural heritage perhaps we should just agree to disagree.  Otherwise this will go into Rights verses privileges, subjects verses citizens, etc.. etc..  and nothing, in the end, will be proved or solved.

Also there is going to be some individuals calling me for my reaction here.  Not so much that I've said anything wrong but more along the lines of i'm wasting everyones time.
It's been said we have three brains, one cobbled on top of the next. The stem is first, the reptilian brain; then the mammalian cerebellum; finally the over developed cerebral cortex.  They don't work together in awfully good harmony - hence ax murders, mobs, and socialism.

Offline capt. apathy

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4240
      • http://www.moviewavs.com/cgi-bin/moviewavs.cgi?Bandits=danger.wav
Q: What's the difference between a sportsman and a criminal?
« Reply #221 on: September 28, 2003, 03:35:41 PM »
Quote
Mini D did the same thing, I suspect, when he referred to "typical demo speak". He's throwing me in with the democrats I suppose. This is funny because I don't live in, or involve myself in the politics of, your country. I'm also an extremely "consevative" when it comes to ecomomic issues. You cannot fit me into any US political party line.


very few of us can fit completely into 1 political party.  I believe in a lot of the things the republican party says they stand for (family values, keep the gov't out of our lives, anti-abortion, protect the right to bear arms, ending gov't sponsored discrimination) they just don't put much effort into the things we agree on.

I never labled you a democrat or a republican, but from your posts on the issue, I don't feel I was out of line in assuming you where anti-gun.

as far as the AK's being ilegal in the whole US or just Cali, it doesn't really matter, SAM's are ilegal for private ownership just about everywhere, but if you have the money you can still buy them.  so wether these guns where bought legally in mexico and smuggled in.  or bought legal in Nevada, or ilegal everywhere but stolen from a military base and sold on the blackmarket,  it doesn't matter, they where still ilegal and it didn't stop the crooks from getting them.  it just proves that you can make any damn law you want and the only people you restrict are law abiding people.

Offline Nashwan

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1864
Q: What's the difference between a sportsman and a criminal?
« Reply #222 on: September 28, 2003, 04:35:10 PM »
Quote
england bans guns and gun crime goes up.

"England" didn't ban guns, it restricted handguns even more than they were already. And gun crime went down following the ban, not up. Don't believe everything you read on the internet.

Quote
Lie? Are you sure it's a lie? Are your sure it hasn't happened? Crime rates haven't increased?

There was a change to the way crimes were recorded in England and Wales in 1997/98, which increased the recorded level of crime. The more accurate British Crime Survey, which questions people about actual crimes they have experienced, has shown a broad reduction in crime.

As regards gun crime, the number of offences has increased, but by far the largest category is air weapons, ie mainly kids trespassing with an air rifle, shooting at signs, windows etc.

The number of handgun robberies is lower now than it was in 1993.

Two statistics can give you an idea of how frequently guns are used in crime in England and Wales.

Firstly, the number of people convicted or cautioned for an offence under the firearms act:


 
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Cautioning(1)
rate (2001) %

Possession of firearms with intent to
endanger life or injure property
207 240 225 111 79 73 - 18%

Using firearms with intent to resist arrest
15 9 9 10 8 7 - 14%

Possessing firearms at time of
committing, or being arrested for,
an offence
61 77 84 70 95 81 - 23%

Possessing firearms with intent to
commit an indictable offence or
resist arrest
82 71 86 62 78 77 - 8%

Possessing firearms with intent to
cause fear of violence
188 223 295 449 465 560 - 32%

Possessing firearms or ammunition
without certificate (Section 1)(2)
647 705 484 411 365 280 - 42%

Shortening a shotgun
24 14 8 2 2 4 - 25%

Possessing shotgun without
certificate
700 609 425 239 336 346 - 67%

Selling firearms to person without a
certificate
18 29 20 16 9 6 - 100%

Possessing or distributing
prohibited weapons or ammunition
1,002 1,053 1,303 1,038 891 899 - 16%

Carrying loaded firearm in public place
151 174 180 133 114 117 - 44%

Possession of firearms by persons
previously convicted of crime
152 151 157 143 138 116 - 4%

Other indictable offence
34 43 37 40 25 34 - 44%

Sorry about the table, but the numbers are actual figures for each year 1996 - 2001, the last number is the percentage of people who recieved a police caution.

A police caution is basically a warning from the police, which remains on file for a few years. It's used in less serious cases.

Bear in mind that a criminal, say a drug dealer or robber, will be charged with one of the more serious offenses in that table. A retired soldier with an old gun in the attic will recieve a caution under one of the lesser offences (Possessing or distributing
prohibited weapons or ammunition).

That probably equals under 1,000 genuine criminals convicted of possesion of a firearm in a year.

Secondly, the number of policemen shot and killed a year.

In America, the figure is around 50 per year (70 last year, excluding 9/11). In england and Wales, which has about one sixth the population, the figure is usually 0 per year.

In fact, the last time a policeman was shot dead in England and Wales was 1995. In 8 years, the figure is 1 death. Adjusting for population, that should give America 6 deaths in the last 8 years.

Instead, the figure is around 400.

Quote
Home invasion robberies haven't increased?


Burgularies have been going down for a number of years.

The "ban" on hanguns in the UK had no effect on crime, except to make another Dunblane style attack less likely. Handguns were rare enough anyway, the idea that banning them could cause crime to rise is just bizarre. No burgular/robber in the UK used to be worried about encountering someone with a handgun anyway.

Offline wrag

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3499
It's been said we have three brains, one cobbled on top of the next. The stem is first, the reptilian brain; then the mammalian cerebellum; finally the over developed cerebral cortex.  They don't work together in awfully good harmony - hence ax murders, mobs, and socialism.

Offline capt. apathy

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4240
      • http://www.moviewavs.com/cgi-bin/moviewavs.cgi?Bandits=danger.wav
Q: What's the difference between a sportsman and a criminal?
« Reply #224 on: September 28, 2003, 06:09:38 PM »
thats a much better way to disagree with a post than just saying it's irrelivant.

however you say
Quote
The "ban" on hanguns in the UK had no effect on crime, except to make another Dunblane style attack less likely.


except the one statistic that would seem most relivant to that event says otherwise

Quote
Possessing firearms with intent to
cause fear of violence
188 223 295 449 465 560 - 32%


also do you have any figures on actual crimes?  by that I mean that the statistics are for crimes that are mostly just crimes because of gun regulation, or what they think you might intend to do with the gun.  

I didn't see any statistics in your post for things like number of armed robberys per year,  or number of people shot or killed by guns.