Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: gofaster on December 03, 2003, 11:57:02 AM
-
Looks like we got a copy cat Interstate sniper (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&e=2&u=/ap/20031203/ap_on_re_us/highway_shootings) on the loose, shooting up a school, cars, some buildings. Killed one person so far. Folks are nervous and the police don't have much to work with.
The shootings began in May along Interstate 270, the freeway that circles Columbus. Many were not reported until after Nov. 25, when 62-year-old Gail Knisley was killed by a bullet that pierced the side of a car driven by a friend.
At least four of the shootings — three at vehicles and one at the school last month — were from the same gun, Franklin County Sheriff's Chief Deputy Steve Martin said Tuesday. Although ballistics tests could not link the rest of the shootings along Interstate 270, investigators believe all 12 are connected, he said.
-
Perhaps America needs more guns. Make a law requiring all drivers to be armed.
Don't you just love it - allow unrestricted issue of sniper type rifles and guess what? People actually get shot by them. Well there's a big freaking surprise. :rolleyes:
-
You're right, if this person was in the UK and they wanted to get a sniper rifle there's no way they'd EVER be able to get their hands on one.
-
Originally posted by SOB
You're right, if this person was in the UK and they wanted to get a sniper rifle there's no way they'd EVER be able to get their hands on one.
Well said....
-
Originally posted by beet1e
People actually get shot by them.
Only the people who actually DESERVE to be shot Beet1e...haven't you been reading all the "Armed Citizen" articles posted recently.
-
The weapon used by the "Beltway Sniper" was not a sniper rifle.
Any hunting rifle is a sniper rifle by definiction and we've had tens of millions of those - owned hunting rifles since the first settler set foot on american soil.
12-year old children would bring their 22lr rifles to school in the 50s and go shoot rats on a landfill after classes. Before socialism creeped in - primarily from England - there were as many guns but much less gun violence.
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Before socialism creeped in - primarily from England - there were as many guns but much less gun violence.
miko
OMG! Do you honestly believe this?
LOL...and American's get all upset because they feel they are blamed for everything? :rolleyes: Now the ORIGINAL settlers of the United States..the British, are to blame for socialism creeping into the US? Just when did this happen Miko?
-
I'll let you know if I see any holes in my Honda. I drive that part of 270 every morning. :eek:
"Many were not reported until after Nov. 25"
That's not true. All but two were reported the day they happened. The problem is that the shootings were reported to three different agencies; State Troopers, County Deputies, and Columbus Cops. No one make the link until the death (or no one cared).
-
Curval: Do you honestly believe this?
Which part. That there was less gun violence in US or that UK set on the path of socialism a few decades earlied than US did?
...and American's get all upset because they feel they are blamed for everything?
I do not actually blame UK for any US woes. UK had perfect right to ruin itself by socialism and put very little pressure on US to do the same.
If not from UK, the US socialists would have imported the state socialism directly from Germany where it originated under Bismark.
Just when did this happen Miko?
Creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913 and monetary policies of the 1920s that ruined and socialised the US free-market monetary system and gold standard in order to stem the flow of gold from good old England? Untill the house of Rockefeller got the upper hand over the house of Rotschild in US politics, the US treasury was pretty much a puppet.
Again, I do not blame England - nobody held a gun to americans' head. Just ecplaining the mechanism of what happening in impersonal way.
BTW, the crime - including the gun violence - is on increase in England, despite clampdown on weapons ownership. For the same reasons it was increasing in US.
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Before socialism creeped in - primarily from England - there were as many guns but much less gun violence.
miko
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_95_1070477162.jpg)
-
Well maybe we should have a death penalty in these types of shootings as we all know what a great deterent the death penalty is....... oh we do already....nevermind.
-
Lets hope that police use their experience to catch this guy quicker.
One thing England has that is worth copying is a network of cameras that basically record every public place and road all the time.
It was a response to the IRA attacks and an attempt to discourage and catch bombers. By filming every subway entrance and exit, every highway, every airport they could quite often go back after the fact and track suspects and place them in the locations.
Now there are so many cameras and with modern technology they have linked them all up that crimes are solved all the time using this system. Even when that poor kid was kidnapped and murdered by the two 12 year olds a few years back, the cameras caught the kids leading him away in the act. People who collapse due to heart attacks have been saved by camera operators seeing them and calling for help.
I am all for freedom and liberty but a system like this would make it much easier to identify and catch car bombers and snipers and other terrorists. It would be hard to wire the whole US like this due to its size but major cities would be a good place to start.
-
Miko2d,
back in the 50's many things were different than today, people had a much different mentality as well.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Well maybe we should have a death penalty in these types of shootings as we all know what a great deterent the death penalty is....... oh we do already....nevermind.
We don't have a death penalty. We have a maybe death, but first a million appeals and probably end up dying of natrual causes penalty.
-
Even if we brought out a certain death penealty w/o appeals, these animals will still murder. They don't fear the punishment, they fear the getting caught part. They most always think they'll get away with the crime.
-
Originally posted by Habu
One thing England has that is worth copying is a network of cameras that basically record every public place and road all the time.
... I am all for freedom and liberty but a system like this would make it much easier to identify and catch car bombers and snipers and other terrorists. It would be hard to wire the whole US like this due to its size but major cities would be a good place to start.
The local government here installed some outdoor cameras at a popular party/club scene part of town, along with a software program that was designed to catch the faces of the people and run them through a database of mugshots to identify wanted criminals. (http://www.sptimes.com/2003/08/20/Tampabay/Ybor_cameras_won_t_se.shtml) Such a system brought a lot of attention and had a number of folks claiming that their privacy was being invaded (I didn't know there was an expectation of privacy in a crowded bar). After spending umpty-ump dollars for the system and using it for awhile, it was realized that the system really didn't do much to stop crime.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Which part. That there was less gun violence in US or that UK set on the path of socialism a few decades earlied than US did?
Miko..what you said was this "Before socialism creeped in - primarily from England - there were as many guns but much less gun violence. Nothing about England setting out on the path of socialism earier than the US...you claimed in your post that socialism creeped into the US FROM England. Please don't twist what you said...it is there in black and white. Unless this is a language issue.
I do not actually blame UK for any US woes. UK had perfect right to ruin itself by socialism and put very little pressure on US to do the same.
If not from UK, the US socialists would have imported the state socialism directly from Germany where it originated under Bismark.
You clearly were blaming England...now you are changing what you said.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Even if we brought out a certain death penealty w/o appeals, these animals will still murder. They don't fear the punishment, they fear the getting caught part. They most always think they'll get away with the crime.
You hit it right on the head. Its not the punishment that's feared, its the getting caught.
I think its just a matter of time before forensics and public tips come together. There was another case, I think it was in Ohio, where a killer was driving around hunting and shooting people. Eventually a guy stepped forward and said that an acquaintance of his had mentioned how much of a challenge it would be to hunt people, like in the short story "The Most Dangerous Game". He described the acquaintance and it matched up with eyewitness descriptions of a suspect and the suspect's vehicle. They got a name, DMV provided an address for the vehicle registration, forensics matched the rifle to the bullets, and he was nabbed. Can't recall the guy's name, though.
-
Curval:Miko..what you said was this "Before socialism creeped in - primarily from England
You clearly were blaming England...now you are changing what you said.
It does sound that way - and I am sorry for misunderstanding. The poor England was the first afflicted by that evil among the anglo-saxon community and then it creeped into US with few englishmen pushing it on US - John Maynard Keynes being the major offender - and many americans pulling it.
I would no more blame England for infecting US with socialism than I would blame my friend of infecting me with flu. He could have been more carefull but flu being what it is, one is likely to get it anyway.
miko
-
You can be sure it's a single, White, unenployed male between 25 and 35 who lives with his mother. That's what all the 'talking heads' just knew was doing the shooting in Washington.
I feel very sorry for the woman who was killed. I hope they catch (him/her) soon.
-
Originally posted by Curval
Only the people who actually DESERVE to be shot Beet1e...haven't you been reading all the "Armed Citizen" articles posted recently.
Ah yes - thank you for correcting me. Now I remember. These are the people who "needed to be killed". Hmm, I wonder why someone thought the 62 year old lady driving to her doctor's surgery needed to be killed...
-
Talk about twisting it.
You may pretend you think "all life is sacred" but it's BS.
The simple test is this:
If you were holding a .45 caliber pistol and a cell phone and watching someone trying to stab your child with a butcher's knife, which one would you use first?
There's people that deserve to be killed. Attack my family with deadly force and you can be one of them. I'll do my best to see that you are.
I'm thinking just about every one of us feels pretty much the same on that subject.
But go ahead and pretend.
-
well.... I guess one way to get rid of insanity is to ban firearms. No way could this guy kill anyone without a gun.
thing is tho... better that you have a gun when you run into this guy than not have one.
and.... all this gun violence and still.... our homicide rate goes down.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Toad
If you were holding a .45 caliber pistol and a cell phone and watching someone trying to stab your child with a butcher's knife, which one would you use first?
Is this a real life event or merely a hypothetical scenario? Has anyone ever attacked a child with a butcher's knife in the presence of the child's parents? I sure has hell have never seen that one...
-
Originally posted by lazs2
and.... all this gun violence and still.... our homicide rate goes down.
...and I'll wager that the US homicide rate never gets as low as that of Britain.
-
Originally posted by Toad
You may pretend you think "all life is sacred" but it's BS.
I never understood how people could say all life is sacred with a straight face and a clear conscience.
Ever seen that video of that tourist that got assaulted by four or five gang members, no guns Beetle - sorry, because he wandered into their territory? The bullets used to put those mother****ers down are more precious/sacred than their lives.
-SW
-
If you saw two cops being assaulted by a cocaine-crazed 350 pound black man, and you had a gun in one hand and a cell phone in the other, would you shoot the perp with the gun or would you call the local news station and get the scoop?
-
Toad...I don't want to re-open THAT particular can of worms. My point was merely that I have read article upon article about how citizens owning guns have saved lives. Here we have one, again, in which a life was taken.
How did gun ownership help the woman shot by this killer?
Answer..it didn't.
That is all.
-
None curval, it's the price that's payed for the right to own guns. But when people try to argue that there's absolutely no reason to own a gun, the "guns save lives" articles actually hold some relevance.
We had a similar incident in Oregon when I was growing up. Someone was throwing bricks off of overpasses and hitting cars. They hit a little girl in the face with one nearly killing her. I tried to lobby that it was the presence of bricks in our society that drove this person to lob them off the overpass but nobody would listen.
I'm hoping the media hops on this and shows just how awfull this type of crime is and just how much media coverage they'll give it if you yourself decide to "give it a shot". That's the only way scenes like this can be exploited... er... I mean prmoted... er... wait... "communicated" to the public.
MiniD
-
Toad: Attack my family with deadly force and you can be one of them.
You are too kind. Anyone who even seems like threatening my family with force is likely to get a half a second time to stop and raise his hands before having his brains blown away.
beet1e: ...and I'll wager that the US homicide rate never gets as low as that of Britain.
Among white people only or at least adjucted for racial composition or do you insist on raw numbers?
miko
-
Originally posted by Mini D
That's the only way scenes like this can be exploited... er... I mean prmoted... er... wait... "communicated" to the public.
MiniD
Like posting "Armed Citizen" articles?
-
Originally posted by Mini D
We had a similar incident in Oregon when I was growing up. Someone was throwing bricks off of overpasses and hitting cars. They hit a little girl in the face with one nearly killing her. I tried to lobby that it was the presence of bricks in our society that drove this person to lob them off the overpass but nobody would listen.
I'm hoping the media hops on this and shows just how awfull this type of crime is and just how much media coverage they'll give it if you yourself decide to "give it a shot". That's the only way scenes like this can be exploited... er... I mean prmoted... er... wait... "communicated" to the public.
MiniD
We had something similar happen here, too. A couple of guys tossed a huge rock off an overpass and it hit the windshield of a lady driving below, collapsed her roof. She died due to head injuries. The cops eventually caught the perps and they were put away.
The reason why your demonstration failed was because you went after the wrong inanimate object. Instead of trying to outlaw bricks, you should've been trying to outlaw overpasses. By outlawing overpasses, not only could incidents like that be avoided, it might even cut down on the number of suicides, too.
And save the animals, too. Remember the deer that fell off an overpass in Michigan and crashed into some guy's Durango? Think of the deer! Do it for Bambi! Save the gay baby deer!
-
Curval: How did gun ownership help the woman shot by this killer?
Life is full of inhherent risks. Trying to minimise them without thinking is likely to just shift them around and increase them. Feel-good knee-jerk reaction or purely political jestis usually the worst one to make.
Economist:
Disaster demands a response, but it is often the wrong one. That is what the experience of Sir Bernard Crossland, a safety expert who led the inquiry into a disastrous underground railway fire in London in 1987 which killed 31 people, suggests. This week Sir Bernard questioned the £300m ($450m) spent on fire-proof doors, metal escalators and suchlike on London's underground after the disaster. The money, he said, might better have been spent on putting smoke detectors in people's houses. It would have paid for one in every house in the country. House fires kill around 500 people a year, mostly in homes without smoke detectors.[/b]
After a disaster, governments' instinct is to halt or restrict the activity concerned. That may be right, but it isn't necessarily. After a rail crash in Britain in 2000, which killed four people, the rail authorities imposed speed restrictions and track inspections. That drove passengers from the railways to the roads. Given that road travel is much more dangerous, this probably caused more fatalities than did the original crash.[/b] It also nearly bankrupted the railways.
Arguably, the same could be said of some of the response to September 11th.[/b] The initial security measures imposed on airlines were based on hunch rather than serious analysis of costs and benefits. America is now, belatedly, moving away from random screening, which led to absurdly rigorous treatment of obviously harmless categories...
If possible, the best solution is to let individuals decide themselves how much risk they will bear, and how much safety they want to pay for. Given the choice, many airline passengers might prefer a slightly cheaper flight on an airline that does not carry useless lifevests under every seat, just as they may choose to buy a Lada rather than a Volvo.
Politicians need to avoid bowing to the cries from newspapers that they must be seen to “make things safe”. Encouraging sensible and informed attitudes to risk will make people richer and happier in the long term, but would require courage and honesty up front. Don't hold your breath.
miko
-
Originally posted by Curval
Like posting "Armed Citizen" articles?
Yes... just like that... except... well the media doesn't really like to hop all over those once they find out the DA isn't going to press charges.
MiniD
-
I see...so it is just great and wonderful to have lots of guns and post all kinds of articles whereby gun ownership has saved lives..but just mention the fact that it didn't work here and I am reminded about all of the inherant dangers in life...
bricks
animals
forks
knives
These are the real killers.
Got it. Thanks.
-
you should have lobbied to get rid of walkways on bridges...;)
-
Originally posted by Curval
I see...so it is just great and wonderful to have lots of guns and post all kinds of articles whereby gun ownership has saved lives..but just mention the fact that it didn't work here and I am reminded about all of the inherant dangers in life...
bricks
animals
forks
knives
These are the real killers.
Got it. Thanks.
I don't think you do get it... but then I don't think you actually want to. That wouldn't be as fun. Plus... you've already shown complete incapability in realizing what the term "crime prevention" means to the point of beligerance.
MiniD
-
Nah, Curval, the REAL killers are automobiles.
Nobody argues that stat.
You'd be safer in life without a lot of things that are fun.
Driving great cars extremely fast is really fun too. It sure can be dangerous for innocent bystanders when the 150mph sports car hits another car, bicyclist or pedestrians though.
Oh, wait.. we have speed laws.
Hell, drinking slightly to excess is fun; but it sure is dangerous for a lot of innocent uninvolved folks that get run over by drunk drivers.
Oh, wait.. there's DUI laws.
:rofl
Sorry, the "all guns BAD!" Moog approach is just laughable. They're no more "bad" than fast cars, whiskey, unprotected sex, golf clubs or kitchen knives.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Sorry, the "all guns BAD!" Moog approach is just laughable. They're no more "bad" than fast cars, whiskey, unprotected sex, golf clubs or kitchen knives.
yet noone seems to have a problem with people giving out free condoms...kitchen knives are kitchen knives and a person armed with one can be held off with a 3 foot stick...theres nothing wrong with whiskey and if you cant fight off a drunk then your a wimp...fast cars are fun...
-
And just for you know who:
The Denver Post, Denver, Colo., 11/23/01
State: CO
American Rifleman Issue: 2/1/2002
A woman shot and injured a gunman in her yard early one Sunday, cutting short his assault on her and her children. Jaquie Creazzo and her three daughters were forced to flee their home after smoke from a car fire billowed into the house. Once they were outside, Justin Michael Getz came screaming toward the wheelchair-bound woman and her family, firing two handguns at them. "He was loaded for bears," Creazzo said. Her daughters and two nearby firefighters ducked for cover from the erratic gunfire, but Creazzo drew her own gun and fired several shots, hitting her attacker in the leg. Getz was the ex-boyfriend of Creazzo's eldest child, and, according to Creazzo, had threatened to kill the family two days earlier when the girl refused to see him again. "I'm certain if I hadn't responded, none of us would be here today," Creazzo said of the incident. "He had made threats to kill each and every one of us."
Daily Leader, Leesville, LA, 1/29/95
State: LA
American Rifleman Issue: 5/1/1995
The locked bedroom door was little deterrent to the housebreaker who had already kicked in the back door of a Vernon Parish, Louisiana, woman's home in the middle of the night. When the man, armed with a large butcher knife, crashed into the room where the woman huddled with her 22-month-old child, the woman mortally wounded the assailant with several shots from her .380 pistol. The woman and her child were not injured.
So, you're thinking it'd have gone better if these folks had whipped out their cell phones instead?
-
Originally posted by Toad
And just for you know who:
So, you're thinking it'd have gone better if these folks had whipped out their cell phones instead?
]
maybe if they had a james bond type cell phone...you know the stun dart ones...
-
Also, I checked with my trusted consultant who assured me that, indeed, guns are a GOOD thing.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_116_1070488720.jpg)
English Kate's first retrieve of pheasant, btw. This is one Bloke-ette that loves guns.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Plus... you've already shown complete incapability in realizing what the term "crime prevention" means to the point of beligerance.
MiniD
Yes I realise that. You are refering to the bike again.
Once again you show your absolute and utter beligerance by suggesting that the way I put the U-Lock on my tire was irresponsible. You ignore the fact that I moved the bike from the driveway from which my scooter was stolen, you ignore the fact that I installed sensor lights and placed the bike under them AND the fact that there IS in fact a U-lock on the tire and the steering lock is locked. Soon I will have a dog of some sort that will also be on patrol around the entire property. All of this is me being irresponsible and not understanding what crime prevention means.
If I was to now drill holes in the side of my house and install something that I can affix the U-lock to will you STFU about it? Please?!
-
Originally posted by Toad
Also, I checked with my trusted consultant who assured me that, indeed, guns are a GOOD thing.
I take it your "trusted consultant" is not the bird. I'm pretty sure his oppinion might differ on the subject.
MiniD
-
Irresponsible Curval? I didn't say that. I said it could have been done better... you said it was good enough. Oh well. After your initial reaction to the police officer stating "you really should lock it better"... I didn't really expect anything other than that out of you.
Everyone else is responsible for everything that happens to you. Thus, the only solution is to limit everything everyone else can do to make it a safer world for you.
MiniD
-
Well, I asked him but he was unable to comment. Kate however, replied strongly in the affirmative.
-
Once they were outside, Justin Michael Getz came screaming toward the wheelchair-bound woman and her family, firing two handguns at them.
Now that's a good example! So those people were only lucky not to be hit by the gun blazing maniac! Could have been the other way round easily. Hey - the crazy bastard had two handguns - so maybe you need a law to force everybody to hold three of em?
-
Hmm... brings to mind some interesting thoughts....
Why do they wanna catch the sniper? Hey come on think about it!
If the enough of the people are afraid enough the people in control can more easily create some pretty Draconian laws.... Laws which they can use to control everything and everyone.
Didn't Hitler use similar tactics to obtain the control he wanted?
Have any of you ever really looked at the Patriot act? Which is already being employed against criminals that are not terrorist and don't even come close to being terrorist.
Have you seen reports of what the IRS is doing with it? Under the wording of "practice cases"?
This by the way is same Patriot act that we were promised when it was passed would only be used against terrorist.
How about the Matrix thing they were workin on?
Create FEAR! Use that FEAR! If the people become fearful enough you can rule them easier!
Hmmm IMHO it kinda sounds like terrorism don't it?
-
well.. this board is a microcosm of what is happening. we have 300 million or so people here... couple of times a year one or two of our more insane citizens gets a gun and does some high profile damage.... it doesn't change the homicide rate in the country but.... it gets all the media attention that hitler would have hoped for, for his ban. No way anyone can say that the gun caused or even made the crime worse...
then... on this board, dozens of incents per month of guns ending crime but.... the only real media attention are small newspaper articles... crime goes down because of guns.. it is a given to anyone who can look at the data with an open mind... But.... no media attention... no "credit where credit is due"...
Also... the reason that the gun ban nazis are having such a hard time convincing the U.S. barbarians to give up their guns is... probly a hundred people who read this board have used guns to stop crime and/or defend themselves or someone else. never gonna convince those folks that they should turn in thier guns.... plus.... we have a healthy distrust of our government here... well... the men here anyway..
you guys gave up your rights for nothing... this "sniper" would just roll a rock onto your car or throw a brick.
Bet out white homicide rate ends up pretty close to englands it's allready the same as canadas... we have 34 states, and growing, with right to carry laws and homicide and crime continue to go down.
but... if you live on a tiny little island i guess you see things different.
lazs
-
A woman shot and injured a gunman in her yard early one Sunday, cutting short his assault on her and her children. Jaquie Creazzo and her three daughters were forced to flee their home after smoke from a car fire billowed into the house. Once they were outside, Justin Michael Getz came screaming toward the wheelchair-bound woman and her family, firing two handguns at them.
It must really suck to have your car burn, your house smoked out, and then have your lives threatened by a crazed gunman while you're gasping for air out on your front lawn. And she's in a wheelchair. I wonder if her nickname is "Lucky".
-
they didn't say it was her car. in some democrat areas, car fires are the norm.
lazs
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Even if we brought out a certain death penealty w/o appeals, these animals will still murder. They don't fear the punishment, they fear the getting caught part. They most always think they'll get away with the crime.
Could it be they don't fear the punishment because the punishment isn't fearsome? I bet I could come up with punishment that anyone would fear, and greatly so. Still, no arguing some would believe they could get away with murder but a severe enough punishment would no doubt deter others.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Bet out white homicide rate ends up pretty close to englands it's allready the same as canadas... we have 34 states, and growing, with right to carry laws and homicide and crime continue to go down.
but... if you live on a tiny little island i guess you see things different.
I'm beginning to think of America as the "tiny little island" in these debates. Indeed, the land area of the US including Alaska represents less than 2% of the earth's surface area. And the central theme of these debates is that Americans are happy with their status quo regarding firearms and the price to be paid for having them, and the rest of the world is happy with its status quo as unarmed countries, and the much lower firearms related homicide tally we enjoy as a result.
It has been said that "British crime is skyrocketing" while "US crime goes down". This statement varies between misleading and erroneous. Our firearms related gomicide rate is so minute compared with that of America that the smallest year on year fluctuation could be made to look like a "skyrocketing increase". And even if America's crime rate were to be falling (which it isn't) America would still have by far the highest homicide rate in the civilised western world.
Folks say that crime in America is going down. Fact is that the total number of homicides has remained static over the last five years, while the number of firearms related homicides has gone up every year since 1999. You would know this if you had checked the FBI links provided by Nashwan, as I did.
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/fbihomicidestats.jpg)
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Curval: How did gun ownership help the woman shot by this killer?
Life is full of inhherent risks. Trying to minimise them without thinking is likely to just shift them around and increase them. Feel-good knee-jerk reaction or purely political jestis usually the worst one to make.
miko
SHACK!!!
-
gofaster
It would really suck to have your car set on fire and your house attacked only to be outside in your wheel chair with no gun with that criminal who would have the guns no mater what the laws says comes for you.
I would rather not have to wait for the cops, and if she had to, she and her kids would have been dead.
That gun saved her life and the lives of her children.
This guy could have easily killed her, with his hands if she had not had it.
-
One more incident (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=718&e=3&u=/ap/20031204/ap_on_re_us/highway_shootings) to add to the list of shootings. They're going to catch the perp(s) eventually, but when?
About the lady in the wheelchair, did she or did she not call the police?
Also, I found this piece (http://www.ago.state.co.us/PRESREL/presrl2002/prsrl65.stm) about a Jacqui Creazzo in Colorado. Another site confirmed that this is why she was in that wheelchair.
In 1994, Harlan kidnapped, raped, sodomized, tortured, and murdered Rhonda Maloney (25), a cocktail waitress. One night when she was travelling home from work, Ms. Maloney's car broke down in a snowstorm. Harlan stopped and raped her. She escaped and flagged down a passing motorist, Jaquie Creazzo (32). Ms. Creazzo tried driving Ms. Maloney to safety. Harlan chased the two women down the interstate, firing repeatedly into Ms. Creazzo's car. The chase ended on the lawn of the Thornton Police Department when Ms. Creazzo could no longer keep driving after having been hit by several of Harlan's bullets. Harlan re-kidnapped Ms. Maloney, beat her savagely, murdered her, and dumped her body under a bridge. Ms. Creazzo survived permanently paralyzed.
-
uh beetle.... you might have noticed if you looked that the population of the U.S. has gone up a tasd since 1998... people tend to come here and stay here and have babies. that doesn't even count illegals..
The rate per capita has gone down and continues to do so.
the island comment has to do with borders.. you don't have any... islands don't have any.. even worse... curvals island is smaller than some theme parks and about as relevant so far as having an opinion on what should be the law in a real country.
lazs
-
gofaster
Do you really think Criminals will be stopped from having guns by more gun laws or a guns ban?
Did you notice the car stopped on the police station lawn? The guy STILL took the women from the car in front of a Police station?
If either women had had a gun things may have ended different.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
That gun saved her life and the lives of her children.
This guy could have easily killed her, with his hands if she had not had it. [/B]
BS! Didn't it say the firefighters also were dodging the bullets? I bet two of those hero type guys could have stopped an unarmed maniac. A gun, yet better two of that kind, put here life at danger. That noone else got hurt was pure luck. One should be happy that maniac was not as gun-nut as some guys are here...
-
Originally posted by lazs2
uh beetle.... you might have noticed if you looked that the population of the U.S. has gone up a tasd since 1998... people tend to come here and stay here and have babies. that doesn't even count illegals..
You would have been more correct to say that the population had increased at a greater rate than crime. But to say that crime has gone down with regard to homicides is patently false. Firearms related homicides have gone up every year since 1999.
-
He said homocide rate beet1e. rate. per. In England the rate isn't nearly as important since you guys have banned growth.
MiniD
-
Kirin
Do you really think Criminals will be stopped from having guns by more gun laws or a guns ban?
I hope you are not implying gun owners IE gun nuts go out on rampages often?
This guy prolly did not own the guns he used legally
-
semantics beetle... and misdirection on your part... the rate is going down... that is what I said and there is no other way to interpret the data. your rate is going up. even tho you are insular and on an island with passports and the whole works. Per capita is the only way to compare countries with such large differences in population.
lazs
-
A total of 149 homicides reported in 2002 in Canada were committed with firearms, 22 fewer than in 2001. This total represented a rate of 0.47 for every 100,000 people, the lowest since 1966.
Hey i didn't even use the race card, shall we drop it lower?.:aok
-
Lazs - you actually said
we have 34 states, and growing, with right to carry laws and homicide and crime continue to go down.
Elsewhere you mentioned per capita crime rates, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt just this once. ;) Out of interest, by what percentage has the US population increased since 1998? No way to know how much your per capita crime rate has decreased without knowing that.
Maybe I should do my part to "cut crime", and start a few babies. :lol:p
-
semantics beetle... and misdirection on your part... the rate is going down... that is what I said and there is no other way to interpret the data.
The rate isn't going down. It went down until 2000, rose in 2001, and stayed the same in 2002. So the current trend is either static or upwards. It certainly isn't falling.
-
It's kinda funny the way you throw out stats then completely ignore them beet1e. One thing you seem to be overlooking in regards to rate thing has nothing to do with population, but handgun ownership. It's a bit odd that ownership of handguns has gone up drastically during those times despite handgun murders not going up. The correlation being.... ?
MiniD
-
yes... the rate is going down... there are about the same number of homicides but the population is growing.
rate is the only way to compare.
torque... we are talking about homicide rates... it matters not how the homicide was committed. your homicide rate is about exactly the same as ours for whites. you have less firearms homicides (per capita). you can relax in the knowledge that your white people are killing each other at the same rate as ours but with more politically correct weapons.
lazs
-
it matters not how the homicide was committed. your homicide rate is about exactly the same as ours for whites.
Lazs, it's simply not true, no matter how many times you repeat it.
The FBI figures show 5536 murders in 2002 were white, 5579 black, the rest unkown.
The US has a white population of approx 224 million, according to the CIA world factbook (2003 figure, which if population has grown will redue the rate, as the offence figures are for 2002)
That equals a white murder rate of about 2.48 per 100,000 population, assuming all the unkown offenders were black (not exactly likely)
Assuming the same black/white proportion existed between known and unkown offenders (which is probably about right), the US murder rate by whites is about 3.2 per 100,000
The Canadian murder rate is about 1.8 per 100,000, for all ethnic groups.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
gofaster
Do you really think Criminals will be stopped from having guns by more gun laws or a guns ban?
No.
-
It's ironic that although Britain may be a tiny little island, the guy with the biggest ego in town, from the biggest country in town personifies the 'island mentality' almost perfectly.
Where is Dixon, CA anyway? Is it near New Jersey?
-
nash... The white murder rate here is less than 2.5 per hundred thousand. your murder rate is about 1.8... I don't know what your white homicide rate is but it's the vast majority I would think... anyway you cut it... it's not much of a difference. this doesn't even take into acount the lower population density of canada. In any case.... the difference between 2.5 and 1.8 isnt enough to get all excited about and certainly not enough to start taking away peoples rights or giving the government more power... the fact is also that our rate is going down...
dowding... Dixon is in California. I believe I mentioned that?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Mini D
It's kinda funny the way you throw out stats then completely ignore them beet1e. One thing you seem to be overlooking in regards to rate thing has nothing to do with population, but handgun ownership. It's a bit odd that ownership of handguns has gone up drastically during those times despite handgun murders not going up. The correlation being.... ?
MiniD, the number of handguns owned has limited impact. That's because a guy who owns three guns is not going to be able to use them all at once, and for the same reason a guy who owns six guns is no more of a risk factor than the first guy who owns three.
You're starting to sound like Mr. Toad and his "deaths per gun" stat. Distributing a further 100,000,000 guns around the US population might make the "deaths per gun stat" look better, but it won't reduce crime.
As for the correlation you seek - increased gun ownership - most of America's 200,000,000 guns are never used, but probably remain in their boxes along with the receipt of purchase. If every single one of those 200m guns was used for practise shooting, there would have to be the equivalent of a gun range on every city block everywhere in the US. It would be interesting to reconcile sales of ammunition, and apportion this figure against the 200m guns (or however many it is) and work out the weekly ammo issue per gun. I think that would bear out what I say about most guns never being used.
As for why gun ownership soared in recent years - Sept.11,2001 is the answer. Many folks rushed out to buy a gun to deal with the perceived threat of Al Qa'eda in the aftermath of the tragedy of that day. Money down the drain. AQ does not make house calls, and you can't take a gun with you into the cabin of an airliner to guard against AQ presence.
-
Heh. Bait withdrawn.
-
Gofaster.
Then you are not pro gun controll? Or do you want to see your fellow citizens at the mercy of armed criminals, unarmed themselves, waiting for the police to come?
-
lazs2: nash... The white murder rate here is less than 2.5 per hundred thousand. your murder rate is about 1.8...
I have to alert you to an amazing disparity of the US statistics.
When counting victims, the hispanics are counted separately from whites and blacks, so a murder of a hispanic by a white is an inter-racial crime.
But when reporting the crime rate, whites/hispanics are counted as a single "white" cathegory despite the fact that hispanic crime is much higher than white crime.
It would probably not reduce the murder rather to that lower than most european countries but would lower it significantly nevertheless.
beet1e: That's because a guy who owns three guns...
beet1e,
I believe 80 million people in US own firearms.
As for why gun ownership soared in recent years - Sept.11,2001 is the answer. Many folks rushed out to buy a gun to deal with the perceived threat of Al Qa'eda in the aftermath of the tragedy of that day. Money down the drain...
If you believe that BS, you are not using your brains.
Here are the main reasons for increase:
- Many people planned to get a gun already but never got to it and the 9/11 (or Beltway sniper) was just a mental straw that made them schedule an appointment, not a cause.
- If there is any hard causal link between increase in gun purchases and 9/11 it is that people expect the government to clamp down on gun ownership and so they got into it to be grandfathered into any regulation and before the prices rise and paperwork increases. There is a brisk sale going in US in pre-ban and post-ban rifles, with the pre-ban receiver being worth 3-5 times as much as an identical post-ban part.
- Those who bought weapons as a result of 9/11 did not buy them to fight Al-Qaeda - though most would probably shoot an armed terrorist is they see one. The 9/11 just illustrated the inherent risks and instability and made people think what would happen if there is a serious disruption.
So they bough the guns to use for defence against americans in case of a breakdown of civil order, not against the terrorists.
miko
-
beetle... again.. you ignore the data and espuse what you think may be happening... most guns in the U.S. before 1992 were unrefgistered we have no way of telling how many are used or kept in the box. fact are that between 3/4 and 3 million times a year those guns are broken out and used to stop crime... fact is... our crime rate is going down and yours is going up. I know... it shouldn't be that way but it is. hardly seems fair eh? that you would go to all that work and.... GIVE UP YOUR RIGHTS FOR NOTHING.. but... don't condem us to that .
in most areas (the U.S. is full of country rural areas)... you don't need a range.. you simply shoot in your back yard or close to it. In big cities the restrictions against ranges, and firearms in general make ranges rare.
but I agree.... most people don't shoot nearly enough. ya gotta admit... it's good clean fun eh?
lazs
-
One-hour response to mauling
Charges may be filed by end of the week in fatal dog attack
By Charlie Brennan And Sarah Huntley, Rocky Mountain News
December 3, 2003
KIOWA - The Elbert County sheriff acknowledged Tuesday that it took more than an hour for a deputy to respond to the first 911 call made after Sunday's fatal dog attack.
The sheriff's office, in a two-paragraph statement released in the evening, said that the lone patrol deputy on duty Sunday morning was handling a domestic-violence complaint when the call about the dog attack came in at 9:54 a.m.
A deputy working in the county jail went out instead, and was later joined by two officers from the Elizabeth Police Department.
"Total elapsed time was about 1 hour and 10 minutes," the statement said.
Three pit bulls killed horse trainer Jennifer Brooke, bit her friend and severely wounded a neighbor, whose son opened fire on the dogs with a shotgun, killing one. The deputy and police officers finished off the other two.
Elbert County has a population of about 14,500, but its residents are scattered over more than 1,850 square miles of often rugged high plains terrain.
Earlier Tuesday, Undersheriff Jim Underwood said that having one deputy on patrol is a normal staffing level for a Sunday.
Underwood also said that criminal charges in the case may be filed by the end of the week.
Jacqueline McCuen, 32, owner of the dogs allegedly responsible for Brooke's death, has a lengthy criminal history in Colorado and Iowa, including convictions in Iowa for prostitution and forgery.
Seven investigators have been assigned to the investigation into Brooke's death, Underwood said in a press conference Tuesday afternoon. The death has sent shock waves through her quiet, rural northwest Elbert County community.
"We will be filing charges, hopefully by the end of the week," Underwood said.
Mike Knight, spokesman for the 18th Judicial District Attorney's office, which includes Elbert County, said two charges that could be filed against McCuen are criminally negligent homicide and ownership of a dangerous animal. Both are class-five felonies, punishable by up to three years in prison.
"Until we have the facts and everything with us that we can look at, I can't pin anything down specifically," Knight said. "Clearly, we'll look at every possibility and determine what would be appropriate."
McCuen and other members of her family haven't been spotted at their home in the 42600 block of Ricki Drive since three of their dogs allegedly got loose and attacked Brooke at daybreak Sunday, then showed up four hours later on the nearby property of Clifford Lynn Baker.
Baker was also attacked and suffered numerous bites on both arms before he and his son repelled the three animals with blasts from a double-barreled shotgun. The animals were ultimately killed on Baker's property late Sunday morning by officers responding to a 911 call.
A Denver attorney who is reportedly representing McCuen didn't return a call Tuesday seeking comment on Sunday's attack.
But the Elbert County undersheriff said Tuesday that investigators have had contact with McCuen and her family, although he wouldn't disclose their whereabouts.
"As far as I know, we know where they're at," Underwood said.
John Sarcone, county attorney for Polk County, Iowa, which includes Des Moines, said that McCuen was sentenced to five years in prison in 1992 on a felony conviction for forgery.
He said McCuen received probation for a 1996 misdemeanor prostitution conviction. Sarcone said that McCuen also was charged in Polk County with third-degree theft and escape, but he couldn't provide further details on those Iowa cases.
Colorado charges against McCuen have included marijuana possession, failure to appear, false reporting and fugitive counts.
One consistent thread in McCuen's legal history is the trouble caused by her dogs.
Before moving to Elbert County, McCuen had contact with animal control authorities in Aurora on three occasions.
Each Aurora incident occurred at McCuen's former home, a ramshackle white house on a rural stretch in the 20000 block of East Colfax Avenue. The house is for sale.
The first contact, which resulted in a written warning, stemmed from an anonymous complaint. The animal control agency sent McCuen a notice in April 2001 saying that she had failed to license her dogs, failed to attach rabies tags to their collars, failed to obtain permits allowing the dogs to be exempt from neutering and was in violation of an ordinance that limits pet owners to three adult dogs and one litter of puppies younger than six months.
A little more than a year later, in August 2002, animal control officers took a stronger stance, issuing a court summons after discovering the situation hadn't improved.
At that point, McCuen also was cited for allegedly violating standards of humane care. The summons indicates there were problems with the dogs' pen, water supply and general housekeeping. Five days later, a second summons was issued. That summons included charges of public nuisance, which is typical for chronic offenders, and failing to keep the dog area clean. The records indicate that McCuen had six dogs.
"We don't know if these are the same dogs or different dogs (from the ones involved in the fatal attack)," said Cheryl Conway, public relations specialist for Aurora Animal Control.
"We never had any complaints about these animals being vicious."
The two Aurora summonses were combined into one court case. McCuen agreed to pay a $165 fine to resolve the matter, Conway said.
A short while later, McCuen moved out of Aurora.
More recently, she was charged by Elbert County authorities in April with failing to keep a vicious dog under control and was due in court in that incident Jan. 7.
A neighbor won a small claims judgment against McCuen when two of McCuen's dogs attacked her as she was walking past the home April 12.
The news of Brooke's death this week brought to light additional tales from neighbors who say they were terrorized by McCuen's dogs.
Kate Messinger, who can see McCuen's residence from her own, said that more than a year ago she was menaced and pinned to her car in fear during a surprise appearance by two of McCuen's pit bulls, one of which was a female that had clearly recently delivered a litter of puppies.
"I was getting in my car to leave, and I saw them there and I stopped. I said, 'Hi puppy,' because they weren't doing anything; they were just standing there," Messinger said.
"Then, one of them started to growl and bark and come at me. I was next to my car, and I turned, and just stayed really still. It was probably three feet from me. It would growl and bark at me every time I moved, and if I stopped moving, it would stop."
Messinger said she escaped jeopardy by waiting until the more menacing of the two dogs became distracted long enough for her to leap behind the steering wheel.
There is no question that the dogs were McCuen's, Messinger said.
"I have walked by there a hundred times, and I know these dogs," she said.
Messinger confronted McCuen's husband that day, she said. He assured her he would install new fencing on his property, and Messinger said he made good on that promise. Other neighbors have confirmed that they saw new fencing erected at the McCuen residence after complaints had been made about their dogs running loose.
Messinger was surprised to learn that McCuen's dog that bit the passerby in April had not been removed by authorities.
"I thought when a dog aggressively bites someone, the dog is taken away," she said. "Obviously, we were all at risk in this neighborhood. There are a whole lot of kids and horses out here. The sheriffs knew about it, so I think it's pretty disappointing that they didn't take that dog out."
An autopsy was performed on Brooke on Monday, but Elbert County Coroner Sandy Graeff said Tuesday that a report would not be complete for six to eight weeks. She did not know of any funeral arrangements for Brooke.
At Brooke's residence Tuesday, a few hundred yards from the horse barn where she was attacked, several people were inside her home, but they urged visitors to go away.
Glenn Bui of the American Canine Foundation said that standing laws are enough to keep the public safe, as long as the laws are enforced.
"If there was a breed ban" in Elbert County, the dogs' owner "is the type of person who wouldn't even follow it," Bui said.
Staff writer Owen. S. Good contributed to this report.
Highlights a lot of points made in this thread, doesn't it.
Hey, grab your cell phone! :rofl
-
My weapon of choice against dogs is a baseball bat.
They're all gone, but I'm still here.
-
Lazs,
Your crime rate is not going down. That is, the rate at which crimes are committed is not going down. Nashwan has it - and you are wrong. Now your "crimes per capita" stat might look better, if there has been a significant influx of law abiding folks into the US...
...but the crime rate - the rate at which crime is committed - is going up or remaining static.
You still haven't provided stats for population increase, and therefore cannot substantiate your own claims that crime "is going down". Post back with the population stats!
-
Here's a new direction: Who really gives a flying poop what Beet1e or Nashwan think they know about the US or what their opinions are? Their opinions might be valid if they were US citizens, but they aren't so...
-
A baseball bat against 3 pitbulls? NO THANKS! I've owned pitbulls and I have to say I would be very worried if I had a baseball bat against 1 pitbull!
THEY ARE FAST AND QUICK! (this may sound like the words I used FAST and QUICK means the same thing, they do not, fast refers to speed, quick refers to manuver)
Mine ran at me at an angle did a quick turn and hit my left leg knocking it into my right leg and down I went! I would have had trouble hitting him with a bat. I've seen people kick and hit pit's with seemingly very little affect. He wasn't an overly large or heavy pitbull either.
Oh and the Pitbull's I have owned have been on the smallish side.
I further seem to recall reports of the Spanish using dogs against the American Indian population during the 1600's and 1700's and the Indians mainly lost.
IMHO anyone in the case mentioned that only had a baseball bat would have been in some real trouble!!!!!
-
gofaster
You versus 3 angry agressive pitbulls? I do not care how big you are. I would put my money on the dogs. Have you ever owned one? I have he was a sweatheart, not agressive, but he was strong, and very hard to handle when he got excited, I am not a small man, and I had to work hard to controll him.
I would not want to have to bet my life on a bat. I would much rather have the proper tool. In this case a gun. Even with a gun, versus three pits I would want to have a tree to climb to better the odds.
I would also rather have the choice to own guns even at the risk of them being used on me, then not have them and maybe need them or have to depend on the police coming to save my life.
-
LOL! Beet1e... stop being a twit. There's more guns now and more people now, but there isn't an increase in crime. Kinda dispells the more guns = more crime myth.
Even in GB... crime is returning to pre-ban levels... but that's OK cause it's still lower than the U.S. Of course, it does mean that gun bans are simply a bandaid that fall off quite quickly, but feel free to ignore that too. You're police will continue to arm themselves with more and more guns while you insist you're country is safer without them.
MiniD
-
...and I'll wager that the US homicide rate never gets as low as that of Britain.
Ok Captain Logic, apply that to Canada. My province of ALberta has firearms ownership rates higher than the state of Texas. Our murder rate, much less violent crime rate, although not decreasing, is certainly far less than the UK. Compare our "bad areas" to those of London, and we have a FAR FAR safer land to live in.
It must be the firearms, and the fact that there is lots of them, right Beetle?
-
Originally posted by Mini D
There's more guns now and more people now, but there isn't an increase in crime.
Probably because your gun crime has already passed saturation point. Now, any criminal who wants a gun already has one, or two, or five... but he only has two hands, so even if he had ten guns he would be no more dangerous than if he had only two. The only way you can manipulate the stats to show a lowering of US crime is by using the recent influx of law abiding people who have helped to dilute your per capita crime rate.
As for our gun ban - pretty transparent actually. I consider it a pre-emptive measure to stop things getting as bad as they are in the US...
Gman, did you know that various deadly nerve agents such as tabun and sarin are made up of precursors which, on their own, are harmless? But mix 'em up and you have a concoction which even in minute quantities can kill many thousands. Same with guns - on their own harmless, just as hostilities between ethnic minorities in deprived areas should be harmless. But put the two together, and...
I have never been to Canada, but I'm guessing that like countries such as Switzerland and Sweden, you don't have ethnic unrest/drug dealing/turf wars on the same scale as your southern neighbour. You have one of the two ingredients - guns. We have the other - social unrest/drugs/ethnic minorities in deprived areas. The US has both problems together - BOOM!
-
Originally posted by Gman
Ok Captain Logic, apply that to Canada. My province of ALberta has firearms ownership rates higher than the state of Texas. Our murder rate, much less violent crime rate, although not decreasing, is certainly far less than the UK. Compare our "bad areas" to those of London, and we have a FAR FAR safer land to live in.
It must be the firearms, and the fact that there is lots of them, right Beetle?
That's interesting do you have a link to the stats on ownership and the type of barrel?
The crime and homicide rates in Alberta are considerable higher than that of Ontario. Alberta doesn't have the population density, ethnic diversity or the gang warfare as seen here, yet the crime is alot higher and on the increase.
Interesting enough a child in Alberta is twice as likely to die from a firearm as is the national average.
Ontario Violent crimes 1.8 Total criminal offences 1.6
Alberta Violent crimes 3.8 Total criminal offences 3.9
http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/020717/d020717b.htm.
-
Originally posted by Curval
Toad...I don't want to re-open THAT particular can of worms. My point was merely that I have read article upon article about how citizens owning guns have saved lives. Here we have one, again, in which a life was taken.
How did gun ownership help the woman shot by this killer?
Answer..it didn't.
That is all.
It's true Curval, gun ownership didn't stop this crime. Gun ownership does stop many crimes in the US each year though. Many times it's just the presence of a gun that stops the crime.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Could it be they don't fear the punishment because the punishment isn't fearsome? I bet I could come up with punishment that anyone would fear, and greatly so. Still, no arguing some would believe they could get away with murder but a severe enough punishment would no doubt deter others.
I don't really know, just guessing here. I wish the severity of the crime would dictate the level of criminal activity (within reason of coarse) but I doubt it. I do feel however that the punishments we have already are severe enough. The evil animals that would murder no matter what because they just believe they'll get away with it. Their 'thought process' just isn't like the majority of normal people. Those that would murder will do so anyway. Those that wouldn't seriously even contemplate killing in cold blood wouldn't do so even if the punishment was less.
Even if the maximum penalty was say 25 years behind bars for murder, I'd seriously doubt the murder rate would rise any significant degree. Would you actually murder someone because of the lack of severity of the punishment? I know I wouldn't no matter what the penalty would be. I'm not talking about killing someone in self defense of yourself, family, friends, etc. I'm talking about going out and murdering someone.
I don't really know you, but from what I've seen of your posts here, I'd guess you to be an ethical, moral, upstanding family man of strong beliefs. I'd bet you to not seriously even think of killing another in cold blood.
I just wish that we'd have perfection in our prosecution of murder suspects where the innocent are always set free and only the truly guilty were convicted. I'd rather a guilty man rot behind bars for the rest of his miserable life than an innocent man being put to death. Unfortunetly, the legal costs alone in having the death penalty is just so much more than letting him serve out his life sentence.
Those murdering animals just don't think like we do.
-
Originally posted by Kirin
BS! Didn't it say the firefighters also were dodging the bullets? I bet two of those hero type guys could have stopped an unarmed maniac. A gun, yet better two of that kind, put here life at danger. That noone else got hurt was pure luck. One should be happy that maniac was not as gun-nut as some guys are here...
No...the guns didnt put those people's lives at risk, a maniac did. Guns are inanimate objects, incapable of anything...unless....someone picks it up and makes it do something.
-
How can a crime rate be at a saturation point? wouldn't a saturation point be anarchy or riots? Our crime rate and homicide rate is going down even tho we have more people and more guns and many more states with right to carrry laws...
people here seem to be saying that the way to deal with criminal elements is to take away the law abidings right and/or ability to defend himself or his property.
you gave up your rights for nothing.
"preemptive"??? how could you know? england has NEVER had an agressive population so far as homicide... you have never had a homicide problem and so... when you banned guns you didn't make it less.... it stayed the same... even starting to rise.. are you saying that it would have been much worse if you hadn't had a ban? there is absolutely NO evidence that that would be the case... the evidence points to the contrary if anythoing...
you gave up your rights for nothing.
lazs
-
Our crime rate stopped dropping when Bush took office.... I'm sure it was just a coincidence though.
BTW it started dropping in 1993 and dropped steadily until 2000.
-
This guy prolly did not own the guns he used legally
Why not GToRA? Do you need any kind of psychological profile or examination before you get a gun? (besides filling out a form yourself)
-
no MT the crime rate is still falling in the U.S. I don't credit or blame bush for any of it either way.
kirin.... are you saying that we should allow some witch doctor of a shrink to decide who is allowed to own firearms? yeah... shrinks have real good accuracy record... You are not asked to evalute your own sanity. You are asked if you have ever been treated.
face it... you guys all gave up your rights for nothing... maybe it is a right that you don't care about right now but... you gave it up none the less.... I hope you or your loved ones don't live to regret it.. history tells us that unarmed citizens are pretty much meat eventually tho.
lazs
-
Are black peopke in the US not American's or something? Do their deaths mean less? Then why the hell does it keep being brought up?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Our crime rate stopped dropping when Bush took office.... I'm sure it was just a coincidence though.
BTW it started dropping in 1993 and dropped steadily until 2000.
Are you trying to tie this to Bush? He may not know how to say "nuclear" but I haven't heard of him cutting any police forces and I'm pretty sure he hasnt been robbing any banks.
:rolleyes:
Ah, now I see, not so much as blame Bush as credit Clinton. We just didn't count so many things as crimes while he was in office.
-
Hmmm...
Actually Laz I think there is a really big difference between the English and the Americans. Somewhat of an historical thing.
That difference IMHO is in the form of government.
In that they are, or were, considered SUBJECTS of the crown? and we are considered a FREE people.
Admittedly I may have that wrong. Changes and Parliament and all but if I read the history correctly the English never had the rights we have. They came close but.....
So the politicians in England never had the restraints placed upon them that are on ours.
That coupled with the national mindset/schooling over there, actually makes it easier to take their rights away without nearly the fuss we would put up.
Very sadly however that seems to be changing in America. The mindset/schooling many have received and are receiving even now makes the same loss much more possible here.
Very few of our young people actually know what the preamble to the Bill Of Rights says. They do not seem to understand what the word inalienable means. The leftward leaning education given in colleges now seems to make many unable to truly appreciate just what we actually have. Coupled with the Media hype/slant (much of it filled with leftward leaning college trained individuals) bods ill for our Rights. Law enforcement seems to be absorbing an us vs them attitude a little more every day, and the military seems to become more and more house to house confiscate the weapons oriented every day.
Far too much of our heritage and land is turned over, by our politicians, to U.N. control/ownership every year. With a Media that seemingly applauds these actions.
Just recently the plan to turn over the "entire" INTERNET to U.N. control was temporarily shelfed. I had thought our internet was formed originally for emergency use by our government and people. Perhaps that thought is incorrect.
All this is just my opinion and doesn't really mean anything.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Are you trying to tie this to Bush? He may not know how to say "nuclear" but I haven't heard of him cutting any police forces and I'm pretty sure he hasnt been robbing any banks.
:rolleyes:
Pittsburg PA is the "City of Knowledge"
:rofl :rofl :rofl :aok
-
Originally posted by lazs2
How can a crime rate be at a saturation point? wouldn't a saturation point be anarchy or riots?
No, Dummy - I meant that the supply of guns has reached saturation point - the point at which all demand for guns has been sated, and no criminal wants for one - he already has one or many. And because of that, it wouldn't make any difference if the cops were to hand out guns. Criminals already have more than they can handle. A few more would make no difference.
Your crime isn't going down. The only way you can claim that your crime is going down is because of a large influx of law abiding people whose presence has had the effect of diluting the per capita crime rate. But you're still wrong, even after making an allowance for that. If you would look at the FBI chart (attached) you will see that homicides (the crime most closely associated with guns, which is what we're talking about) went down between 1998 and 2000. But from 2000 it started going back up. Between 2001 and 2002 it remained static.
However the overall volume of crime is on the increase as of 1999, and the number of firearms related homicides has increased every year since 1999.
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/fbi2.jpg)
I'm out of here till Sunday evening. Argue amongst yourselves...
-
Originally posted by Elfie
It's true Curval, gun ownership didn't stop this crime. Gun ownership does stop many crimes in the US each year though. Many times it's just the presence of a gun that stops the crime.
I know man..believe me that has been pointed out to me many many times on this BBS.
I was just making a point...and thanks for accepting that point without jumping down my virtual throat.
Toad...I'm not familiar with the term SHACK. My internet lingo must be lacking.
What does it mean?
-
Originally posted by wrag
Hmmm...
Actually Laz I think there is a really big difference between the English and the Americans. Somewhat of an historical thing.
That difference IMHO is in the form of government.
In that they are, or were, considered SUBJECTS of the crown? and we are considered a FREE people.
Wrag, you might have had a point 500 years ago. For example, Henry VIII had absolute power - and abused it. He was like a mediaeval Saddam Hussein, and the people were indeed subjects. In this day and age, the Monarch has no real power, and is merely a symbolic figurehead.
As natives of the European Union, we (along with all others) can relocate to any of the other 14 EU member states, only about half of which are monarchies. So the "subjects of the crown" tag means nothing.
-
Curval, "shack" is "direct hit".
Story goes in the old days of bombing ranges, fighter-bombers blew up all the targets, had ord left and the rangemaster told them to hit a small old shack on the property. They did, thus the term "shack" for direct hit on a difficult target.
-
beetle... The figures for murder show that it has not increased per capita... reading the cnn thing someone posted a link to shows that it has even gone down this year... overall crime has definitly gone down in the U.S. and..... gone up in limeyland.
saturation point for criminals?? ok... lets say we have reached a saturation point and your bizzare theory is correct... all the criminals who want a gun can have one... well bud... then we have been at this saturation point for allmost 100 years maybe 200... The only thing that has changed recently is that more citizens have firearms... more women are arming themselves... in the places where more citizens are arming themselves crime is going down.
I wish I could find a site that gave the figures for justifiable homicide but I can't. Think of all the crime and future crime and expense that is stopped by one justifyable homicide...
The guy in england that was wounded while burglaring is free to carry on his trade... he also knows that no citizen would be crazy enough to try to stop him.
lazs
-
Ahhhh Beet1e.....
You sadden me. I think I understand you better.
Questions follow..............
You did not read my entire post did you? Or did you merely, hmmm should I use the word merely for what I think I see?, not see the entire post because of tunnel vision?
Oh wait I think I may have the answer! You're a LIBERAL?????
That, from my experience, SEEMS to be a common LIBERAL trick.
Ignore the meat of the subject and go for the slightest point that can give any argument some more mileage!
All of Europe has a very SIMILAR history. That seems to be Monarchs and feudalism. All of Europe .... Union or otherwise has never given it's people all the rights insisted upon by the Americans.
Rights that are considered instilled in each individual by our creator at birth.
PLEASE!!! ..... in the future read the entire post before jumping on one point that I had already ADMITTED I could have the wrong impression about before you start jumpin all froggy!
In your response the point of the post was ignored.
Oh Well.................
-
All of Europe has a very SIMILAR history. That seems to be Monarchs and feudalism. All of Europe .... Union or otherwise has never given it's people all the rights insisted upon by the Americans.
All of Europe???? A very similar history??? If you think a similar history consists of having a monarchy and a once feudal culture, then you might as well extend that definition to most of the world rather than Europe.
all the rights insisted upon by the Americans.
Rights that are considered instilled in each individual by our creator at birth.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibits discrimination in voting practices or procedures because of race and color. In 1957 and 1960, Congress had enacted voting rights laws that took small steps toward increasing minority voting participation for all Americans.
Well done. It only took you from 1776 to 1965 to realise that black people had 'inalienable rights'
Wrag...please don't throw stones, because you live in a very large glass house.
Ravs
-
Lazs - I guess you're just too fond of that silk blindfold to want to take it off. I have posted stats from your own FBI to show that homicide went up between 2000 and 2001 on a per capita basis, and has risen every year from 1999 by volume. You can't say that crime has gone down this year, because *this year* isn't over yet. :rolleyes: Besides, it would take the FBI etc. some time to compile/collate the figures to produce the stats.
Originally posted by wrag
All of Europe has a very SIMILAR history. That seems to be Monarchs and feudalism. All of Europe .... Union or otherwise has never given it's people all the rights insisted upon by the Americans.
Wrag. I read your post more than once. You're quite wrong about Europe. You say that "All of Europe has a very SIMILAR history. That seems to be Monarchs and feudalism. ", and it's bollocks. Britain still has a Monarchy, whereas France underwent a bloody revolution in 1789 to get rid of Louis XVI and the monarchy itself. What could be more different? France wavered, but hasn't had a monarchy since about the early 19th century. I guess you just use your limited knowledge of European history (the bits you've seen on TV between commercial breaks?) and try to make them fit your argument here on the BBS.
Greece and Ireland are both republics... and their histories have been sooo similar. [/sarcasm] BTW Britain did not have a monarchy from 1649, following the execution of Charles I. The Commonwealth followed - until 1660.
Europe is based on Monarchs and feudalism???? Do you know the meaning of the words Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité? Do you know why the French flag is a tricolore, and what that represents? Did you know that Germany, France, Italy, Ireland, Greece, Portugal, Finland and others are not Monarchies at all but are Republics? Geeez, back to European history class for you, boy. Or if you don't like that idea, better not spout about things you know crap all about. :rolleyes:
PS I'm not a Liberal. I supported Maggie Thatcher. Do you know her political orientation, or have I discovered another gap in your knowledge of European history/politics? Clue - think back to all the hugs with Ronald Reagan. ;)
-
Homicide is down per capita from 1999 and there are more guns. Crime is down every year.... and there are more guns.... your homicide rate stays the same and you have banned guns.... your crime rate continues to rise and you have banned guns... why don't you remove your blindfold?
you gave up your rights for nothing.
You gave up yours and your countrymens rights to have the kind of day we had when your were here for nothing. Sorry to be harsh but you are not wearing hi tech earmuffs... when yours are on you can't hear normal conversation tones... even from me.
lazs
-
Lazs,
In your normal tone of voice, I could have heard every word you said from 100 feet away - even with ear muffs on. :D Yes, it was a fun day. The next one will have to be in Dixon too.
What rights did I give up? I am unaware of having anything taken from me.
-
Actually several of the States refused to sign on if they could not keep their slaves. So it seems it was a lesser of evils kinda thing. It was allowed so there would be a U.S., if they had not allowed it there would have been several different countries here perhaps.
Yes it took allot of years to finally get rid of slavery. However it was not for lack of trying right from the start. The arguments were quite bitter. Jefferson had some comments as did Washington. There was also the Mason Dixon line.
There are opinions that America was made even more possible by the American Indian cultures in place when the colonies were formed. Such as the Iroquois league.
Republic? Greece? Thought it was a Democracy at the start? You know the 2 wolves and the 1 sheep voting for what will be for lunch? It seems to me that to try and claim a specific form of government for Greece is rather difficult. They did experiment allot. In fact I thought the study of history refereed to as a classical education was a large part what the framers of our constitution seem to have had. Greece and Rome were a part of that.
The Irish? Thought they had an Ard Rie? Probably didn't spell that right. But understood it to mean High King?
Ugh need more coffee... probably trying to answer this much to early in my morning... allot of what I posted is in the form of questions. There is a reason for that. I also freely expressed I may have an incorrect understanding. Yet the basic differences in cultures and cultural background can not and should not be ignored. It's a integral part of every societies. It does affect how a society tends to think, how it see's itself, and how it perceives others.
I watched some woman talk for about 30 minutes on domestic violence very early this morning and found myself disagreeing with her approach and methods because I see the cause of domestic violence as having a different starting point. She was placing the blame on too many men thinking they owned the women and children as the starting point. I noticed she did not include that many women have feelings of ownership as well. Turned it off finally. Why do I put this in? I guess because to me where a view point starts is very important. The base or foundation of cultural, or a cultures thought perhaps. And IMHO much of what is being discussed in many of these threads relies very much on point of view.
Dang not comin out the way I'm thinkin it :(
-
beetle.. in england every part of our shooting day would have been illegal. you seem to feel that your laws are fine so.... you are part of the problem.
In the U.S. we originally did not allow women, slaves or people who didn't own land to vote. This is very workable and would improve the situation greatly.
lazs
-
OK, we'll have another shooting day in Dixon. But next time, please don't run out of ammo for the .22 semi auto - Witness was it? I liked that one the best. The others were tough on my hands and I was unable to do any sewing or crochet work for two weeks afterwards.
-
plus... the increase in noodle size and weight caused your current back problems.
lazs