Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Shamus on March 11, 2005, 10:13:17 AM
-
What do you mean I cant buy this shotgun, I'm not a convicted felon?
Maybe not, but you are on the list.
What list?
"The" list.
How did I get on "The" list?
Don't know , the only thing that counts is you are on it.
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=7857491
-
This just in... Our elected representatives are morons.
-
..New York Democrat Rep. Carolyn McCarthy introduced legislation
Are there any other questions? Laz is once again vindicated.
-
I wondered how long it would take to become partisan :)
shamus
-
The Government Accountability Office report Tuesday said people associated with terrorist groups had taken advantage of loopholes in U.S. gun laws that do not automatically bar a person belonging to such a group from buying a gun. It documented 44 attempts and 35 successful sales in five months of 2004, and another 12 sales later in the year.
Does this not ring odd? 44 documented attempts to purchase firearms by 'terrorist groups'. 35 successful?
So wouldn't this mean we must have 44 persons belonging to these' terrorist groups' in custody all coming from inside the US?? Or at least some if not all 44 instances are from different peps? I've not heard of any terrorist arrested inside the US?? If they are not arrested, wouldn't that mean we have bigger problems elsewhere??
-
It isn't partisan, it's fact. It validates a veritable host of stereotypes in one fell swoop; woman, New Yorker, Democrat.
Do these people ever think? A list where you have no idea how you got on it, how to get off of it or even who makes the decision to put you on the list. There is no appeal.
And we should use this list to prohibit people from doing/buying some things?
Doesn't it make sense that we don't want terrorists buying cars too? I mean, given their worldwide history, car bombs are one of their prime tools. So, obviously, if you are on this list, you shouldn't be able to buy a car.
Hey...wait a minute.... what if the terrorists rents as car? Ah! No one on this list should be able to rent a car!
Ummm..what if they steal a car? Well, they'll still need to buy gasoline .... no one on this list should be able to buy gasoline then. There, that fixes THAT problem.
Review: Secret list. No way to tell how you get on or off of it. No appeal.
-
Yup I guess those evil dems are the ones who started the list in the first place.
shamus
-
No, but they are the ones trying to use it to deny one of the rights guaranteed to US citizens by the Constitution.
The list is totally flawed. It's common for individuals who have similar appearing names to be confused with people who are actually on the no-fly list.
So if "John Smith" is on the no-fly, all John Smiths should be denied the right to purchase a gun?
They admit they have a problem:
An FBI spokesman added officials are trying to enhance the list with such facts as birth dates and other "identifying factors that will permit law-enforcement authorities to ascertain whether the individual in front of them is the person whose name is on the list."
How about we use this list to deny free speech to terrorists? And that pesky 4th.. the illegal search and seizure. Surely you want all terrorists searched as often as possible? So, let's start with "John Smith".
It's a boneheaded idea, at least using the no-fly list as your basis. It's not going to pass in this form.
And yeah... it was put forward by a Democratic woman representing NY. As I said, that pretty much validates the stereotyping.
-
Oh I dare say there will be some co-sponsors from the other side of the isle.
shamus
-
HHHHmmm there is a no fly list. OK why? What is the criteria for being on the list? How are the people on the list identified? No DOB, no drivers license, no physical descriptions on the list to differentiate all those with the same name?!?!?
Given the data as presented, including the lack of ANY data to actually confirm the folks on the "no fly list" were the ones that actually purchased a firearm, how is there proof that they did it?
People identifying someone by name only is a totally absurd way to claim you have them in any kind of surveilance.
FWIW, what is one of the most common types of white collar crime in the US today????? You guessed it, identity theft. So now we have a select group of names that are on a "list". What is the link between the names and a real person???
How in the hell can ANYONE figure that because you have a "name" you have identified an individual???
There is a term that describes this reliance on that type of "system" and the extrapolation that data drawn from it has ANY relevance. That term is the byproduct of male bovine possession. :rolleyes:
-
I read the article, and I'm still wincing from the split infinitive in the first paragraph. :(
Originally posted by Toad
It isn't partisan, it's fact. It validates a veritable host of stereotypes in one fell swoop; woman, New Yorker, Democrat.
Hehe, I was going to start a thread asking who the anti-gun Americans were. Lazs has already identified the residents of Cook County, but said they were not Americans. Mr. Toad has pre-empted me! Woman, New Yorker, Democrat. I have several friends who match those criteria, and none is a gun owner!
What I find fascinating is that the city people are decried as being anti-gun, and yet it's the cities where most of the crime occurs, including gun homicide. According to the rhetoric I have read on this BBS about the subject, one would have thought that given the "benefits" of gun ownership, guns would be more popular in the cities than in remote rural locations - not the other way round. Could it be that the public at large does not agree with the pro-gun rhetoric we see promulgated on this board? :p
-
Let's see who the co-sponsors are. I haven't been able to find any so far.
-
It could easily be proven that the cities that have the most restrictive gun laws in all the land have the highest rates of gun crime.
From that you might extrapolate that the highly restrictive gun laws don't work and those that support them are....... less than intelligent.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Could it be that the public at large does not agree with the pro-gun rhetoric we see promulgated on this board? :p
I guess the real question would be, why do you care, and how is it any of your business?
-
Well that's one extrapolation, but it isn't the only one. The lawmakers might have tried to contain the gun crime problem by implementing restrictions. For example, consider a small town community - somewhere like Victor, Idaho. (picked at random) Not much crime there, so the powers that be have seen no reason to vary the gun rights set out by the 2nd amendment.
Then consider a much larger city (you pick one) where gun control has been introduced. You're saying that gun control doesn't work because the crime is still high in that city. But have you considered that if nothing had been done, the gun crime might be even worse?
It's difficult to draw an analogy, but here's something: Imagine a middle class town, where everyone owns their own home, and is full of old farts in their 50s - people like us - who drive safely. There'd never have been any calls for a seatbelt law, and probably little or no need for one. But then consider a larger anarchic settlement, where people drive like idiots in busted up cars. TPTB mandate compulsory seatbelt usage to counter the carnage. It helps to a degree, but still a few people are killed - side impact, car overturns, whatever. The erroneous conclusion that could be drawn from that is that "seatbelts don't work and don't save lives".
Just a thought...
SOB - because I often exercise my right to leave Britain and visit the US, and I need to consider my personal safety! Still, the lady from the car rental agency says I'll be OK. :aok
-
NIce try Beet.
Because you forgot that where "right to carry" has been implemented, gun crime has dropped. Even in the cities.
So, you're lost again as usual, grasping at straws.
Most restrictive gun laws in cities = highest crime cities.
Least restrictive gun laws, right to carry in cities = reduced crime.
Spin like a top if you like.... the results are obvious to any rational person.
-
But of course you digress.
The topic at hand is "what's the basis for using a non-specific, inaccurate, secret list for denying someone their constitutional right?"
Discuss.
-
I didn't know suspected terrorists had _any_ rights in your country Toad.
-
Originally posted by Toad
NIce try Beet.
Because you forgot that where "right to carry" has been implemented, gun crime has dropped. Even in the cities.
Most restrictive gun laws in cities = highest crime cities.
Ah, but you're being selective. Take my three horse town of about 7,000 people. I bet the gun laws here are tighter than any US city, whether or not the gun laws have been tweaked. And yet there is NO gun crime here at all. I've lived in this town 22 years. But oh! "Gun crime hasn't dropped", I hear you cry. And how could it? There isn't any. The results are obvious to any rational person! :D
Then consider Baghdad - lots of guns, and lots of crimes! Before Part 2 of the Gulf War, almost every man had a gun. Hehe, it's not changed much. :D Maybe Iraq needs MORE guns to solve the crime wave!
Your logic only works in the US - and even there only to a degree.
-
Well if things progress to a point where even normal citizens must arm themselves to the teeth just for self protection, there' s no turning back I guess.
The rest of us can feel lucky to live in a world where you won't even need to consider arming yourself for your personal safety.
-
right to carry laws reduce crime in any place that they are implemented... if it is an "old fart" town that didn't have right to carry... when they get right to carry they soon have even less crime. that is just the fact of the matter.
Unfortunately... population causes the new york femal democrat syndrome... soon we will all be told what to do by the new york women democrats of the country.
As for seat belt laws.... I am against em. Not against seat belts... just seat belt laws.
lazs
-
BEET, must you try to hijack every thread that has the word "gun" in it? Please try to stay focused on the subject of the thread.
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
I didn't know suspected terrorists had _any_ rights in your country Toad.
But then, as we've seen, not everyone on the no-fly list is a terrorist and beyond that they're not really sure who is on the list.
In other words, three John Smiths could show up to fly and if "John Smith" is on the list NONE of them will be allowed to fly.
Or buy a gun perhaps; even if ONE Smith is "the one", the other two would be denied their 2nd Amendement rights.
Beet, England isn't America. We settled that when we tossed you out in the late 1700's.
You have your safe nanny society and you're welcome to it. It's a nice place to visit but.
We have our society, with all it's dangers.... and freedoms. I'll take mine, thanks and you can have yours.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Now do try to stay on topic; it's so very un-British of you to rudely hijack the thread.
-
You'll wish that he rudely hijacked the thread if he begins to smile. Them european teeth you know. :cool:
-
Originally posted by Toad
Now do try to stay on topic; it's so very un-British of you to rudely hijack the thread.
Bah! I'm wincing in agony - again! :lol
But you have to concede, Mr. Toad, that there's less gun crime in my three horse town than in any of your "liberated" US towns where there are lots of concealed carry guns...
...Which leads me on to Lazs right to carry laws reduce crime in any place that they are implemented... if it is an "old fart" town that didn't have right to carry... when they get right to carry they soon have even less crime. that is just the fact of the matter.
Well, Mr. Toad was focussing on GUN crime when he said that crime always drops where concealed carry is allowed. But it wouldn't happen here in my three horse town because there isn't any gun crime to begin with.
In fact the whole US gun rhetoric package only works in a place where gun ownership has always existed, got out of control leading to rampant levels of crime, and then began to decrease once certain steps had been taken to reduce it. Of course, however successful these US initiatives are, there'll always be more gun crime there than there is in almost any other civilised country in the western world.
quod erat demonstrandum.
-
In other words, three John Smiths could show up to fly and if "John Smith" is on the list NONE of them will be allowed to fly.
Toad, maybe this is a dumb question, but don't you have personal id's in the states?
Is it really possible to mix persons together if they have the same name? I'd be scared sh*tless if a murderer happened to be having the same name with me. :)
-
Siaf,
Yep ID is a great thing. The problem with the list is this. It only lists a name. No ID, date of birth, height weight, skin color or even gender. You might have wonderful ID but if there is a name like yours on the list, guess what. You do not fly. Now if there is a name just like yours on a terrorist list, guess what. You lose rights because there is a name on the list like yours. That is the point of the problem Toad and I was showing you.
FWIW, there were 3 folks in my home town who had the same first and last name as I did. All 4 of us had the same innitials as well and those 3 were unrelated to me. I had a nice "conversation" with the credit reporting bureau one day when they mixed 2 of us up on my credit report. They wanted to know why I hadn't paid the hospital for the birth of my daughter. It was a big surprise to me to hear I was married and had a daughter....... I got a nice letter of apology and a heartfelt "oops" from them.
-
There are forms of ID, of course.
It's just that this "no-fly" list doesn't necessarily include them in every case. In short, one "John Smith" isn't necessarily ID'd as separate from the next "John Smith". It's one of the things they are working on. In typical government fashion, no doubt, they'll have it done in a decade or two.
That's why this idea of the female Democratic Rep from NY is so stupid.
Beet, you're just showing you don't really understand your own history.
Your gun crime rates are essentially the same over the last 50+ years. That covers a period from when Englishman could have a handgun if he merely stated it was for "self-defense" across the years of slowly eroding freedom to the point where handguns are now illegal in your country.
Intuitively, almost everyone sees that if your crime rate is unchanged over all those years it's doubtful your changing gun laws are the reason. Also it is beyond obvious that the post-Hungerford/Dunblane laws had no effect and were just a knee-jerk political reaction that deprived law-abiding citizens of their handguns for no good reason.
Now, if you want to start another "Beet really doesn't understand the history of English gun control and knows less about the US and guns" go ahead. I'll join in until you start denying recorded historical fact like you did last time.
But why don't you quit hijacking this thread? Keep it up and I'm sure the English nannies will be round to chastise you severely.
-
Toad,
Look at what beet is saying about his town in england. If it is removed some distance from the southern england and wales population centers and is homogenius white culture in its 7000 population, then they don't have much crime. The same holds true for most of the USA that is removed from our population centers and have primarily white populations with little travel influx from nearby large population centers. Funny when you take a look at that Red and Blue map from the last election, the blue areas, with demographic exceptions, have the highest crime and most restrictions on firearm ownership in the USA.
Most of our violent crime takes place in our large population centers, which also tend to be the most restrictive areas against personal firearm ownership. When you look at the statistics in those centers the majority of firearms related crime is commited by the minority populations males 15-35. From research on the internet this seems to be the pattern in the EU.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Beet, you're just showing you don't really understand your own history.
Your gun crime rates are essentially the same over the last 50+ years. That covers a period from when Englishman could have a handgun if he merely stated it was for "self-defense" across the years of slowly eroding freedom to the point where handguns are now illegal in your country.
I call Bullshirt on this. The reason you KEEP believing that our gun laws don't make a difference is because you PERSIST in your ERRONEOUS belief that there was a time, within the last 50 years to use your own time line, that ordinary Brits - people like my parents - could just walk into a gun shop and buy a gun like lazs's .44 magnum/.45 semiauto for self defence - just because they wanted to, and for no other reason.
And I KEEP telling you, but you REFUSE to believe it, that such a scenario NEVER EXISTED in Britain - never mind what your worshipful company of masterbeaters would have you believe. Although granted, their task is easy because it's what you WANT to believe.
Firearms legislation was first contemplated c1911, and certainly before WW1 which, in our case, began in 1914. Up until that time, police were being shot at and killed (6 killed and 92 wounded between 1908-1912). The firearms legislation was PROACTIVE which is much better than being REACTIVE. That is to say that we never allowed gun crime to get out of hand the way you did in America.
So no, there was no dramatic fall in gun crime because firearms legislation saw to it that gun crime never got a foothold in the first place. That's why there have been no more than TWO British police officers shot and killed since 1983, and why there are about FIFTY shot and killed EVERY year in the US.
Toodle Pip.
-
Over the weekend I met a sweet little old grandmother who discovered she was on "the List" while trying to fly to California. She has absolutely NO idea why (other than that she has a common first and last name). The scariest thing was the letter from the TSA Ombudsman detailing what she needed to do to try to get off the List, which ended by saying basically that there's no assurance that she'll ever be actually removed.
I'm far from being a screaming civil libertarian, but God forbid that these sorts of "lists", compiled by unknown persons on the basis of unknown information, start to become the criteria for enjoying basic civil rights and freedoms in this country. I can almost hear Beria and Himmler having a good chuckle over the possibility.
-
BAN LISTS!!!!
-
I said 50+ years going off the top of my head. I should have said 60+ because it was in 1946 that the Home Secretary announced a policy change, that henceforth, self-defense would no longer be considered a good reason for being granted a Firearms Certificate.
Note, however that even up into the 1960's your cop-kings still considered "sporting" purposes a reason to issue a rifle or handgun license.
Just fact Beet. And the folks I know DID buy rifles, shotguns and handguns not all that long ago using the "sporting purposes" justification. For example, a Gamekeeper bought a pistol for varmint control.
Again, the point you ignore is that the post-Hungerford/Dunblane laws did not lower your gun crime rates.
Here, OTOH, the cities with the most restrictive gun laws have higher gun crime than concealed carry cities.
Sooner or later, you'll figure out that England and the US are not in the least alike with respect to their societies. What works for you would cause rebellion here.
We have what we want. We had some really sharp fellows write it all up right after we kicked your lordships out of here. While you HAD the right... as Blackstone said in 1765:
The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence suitable to their condition and degree
but you folks gave it up, which makes Ben Franklin's quote about liberty and safety stand out prominently in my mind.
We codified it into the Second Amendement in 1791; we're not about to give it up.
Now, would you please have the common courtesy to stop hijacking this thread and start another if you want to continue to display your totally unfounded beliefs about gun crime?
-
4 words...
gun
show
parking
lot
-
Originally posted by Toad
No, but they are the ones trying to use it to deny one of the rights guaranteed to US citizens by the Constitution.
more than one. the right to arms and presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law to name just 2.
people can try to make it partisan if they want but IMO there has been no shortage of politicians on both sides of the isle playing it pretty free and loose with the constitution.
we need to stop this trend in all areas instead of just trying to protect our 'pet issues'.
-
Apathy, we basically agree. I view it as more of a pendulum swing. It's gone about as far one way as I care to see. Time to push it back the other way.
-
unfortunately when it swings back we'll be stuck in the same boat.
with one side taking the momentum of the swing twards center and using that to push things too far the other way.
I'd like to see a bunch of us in the center try and grab on and hold it as it passes somewhere in the neighborhood of reasonable. but then I can be a bit of a dreamer.
-
Mr. Toad,
No need for a new thread; I think we're almost done. We could take it to email, if you like. Do you still have that dog box email address?
What I find funny is you pontificating about life in Britain as if you have some omniscient knowledge of same, but you have NEVER lived here (apart from military service?), and in the same breath saying that I'm unaware of my own history for the last 50 years, when I have lived here for all but about 2-3 years of it, and have lived amongst the very people you claim to have benefited from the right to own guns. And I can tell you now that NONE of my peers had parents who owned guns, and NONE of my parents' friends owned guns. My father had a cousin who enjoyed field sports - the sort of thing you enjoy - and he had various shotguns. That's about it.Again, the point you ignore is that the post-Hungerford/Dunblane laws did not lower your gun crime rates.
I don't ignore it. As Dowding once pointed out to you, British gun ownership before the ban was "sod all". This is the very point you consistently ignore. And because gun ownership was sod all, there was very little gun crime. It was next to nothing - and I know you agree - so no significant reduction in gun crime was possible. Where we don't agree is that you want to believe that the 1997 legislation was a ban. It was, of sorts, but legislation was already very, very tight long before that. but you folks gave it up, which makes Ben Franklin's quote about liberty and safety stand out prominently in my mind.
Liberty - and safety ? Surely you jest. The gun homicide rate in Britain is less than 1% of what it is in the US. The figures speak for themselves about which country offers the greatest safety from being shot.
I tell you what - I don't live very far from Hungerford. I think I'll take a walk in the town centre this afternoon, and I'm going to ask some elderly folks (who were alive in 1946) about how they feel about gun rights. I'll surreptitiously record the conversations, and post on here - or in a new thread if you prefer.
-
I believe Americans should be allowed to purchase Tow missles and machines guns for hunting purposes.
-
yet another example of intrusive government bull pucky.
if you cannot appeal. it is unconstitutional and un-american. IMPO.
-
Originally posted by rpm
4 words...
gun
show
parking
lot
Now this is a telling post.
On a list and can't buy a gun at the gun show? Head to the parking lot and buy one out of the trunk of someones car.
Oh dear me.
-
its the agreggate result of prohibition.
you know, guns can be made too.
i grew up around some old farmers that made 7 shot six shooters from scratch.
-
Start a new thread Beet. I merely say once again you don't know what you're talking about on so many levels in that last post that to answer would be a major continuation to your continual pathetic hijack.
-
I have never heard of the "list". It sounds like it is badly done and illegal tho.
bustr is correct... take any white small town population and isolate it and guns or no guns you will have very little crime or violence.
beetles england has very little homicide or gun crime with or without guns so what is the point of disarming the law abiding?
siaf... I don't know if things have gottern to the point where all normal citizens need to be armed to the teeth but... I would hate to get to the point where normal citizens were forbiden to own firearms by their government. That is scarry. Are you afraid that normal citizens with guns will.... will what? Turn to crime? go crazy because of an object?
lazs
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Still, the lady from the car rental agency says I'll be OK. :aok
Gosh as long as she's given the OK what could possibly go wrong!!
-
Yep... a rental agency woman in charge of your self defense... sorta like when we have senators or congressmen telling us that since they are just like us and don't need any more than a few trained bodyguards that we peasants certainly don't need to be armed... They are only thinking of us right?
lazs
-
Frankly I'd take the advice of the car rental woman over your DEA agents any day. Not to mention the people in charge of your courts and the defense of those who work there.
-
sooo curval... you have had bad experiance with U.S. courts and DEA agents but good experiance with women at car rental agencies?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
beetles england has very little homicide or gun crime with or without guns so what is the point of disarming the law abiding?
To maintain the status quo. :p
Mr. Toad, our normal spirit of cordiality appears to be strained. :( No need for that! :) I did what I said I was going to do today in Hungerford and, as luck would have it, found an elderly gentleman (mid 60s) who is also a member of a shooting club! So I asked him if it was ever possible to buy a handgun in Hungerford. He confirmed that it never was possible to do that - the only gun shop he knew was one selling shotguns and sporting rifles.
If you'll confirm your email address, I'll email you the audio file (533K). We talked for 2½ minutes. He had a real Berkshire burr so I hope you can understand him!
-
Start another thread.
-
Anyone else notice the name "Democrat Rep. Carolyn McCarthy "
How Ironic.
Wonder if there is any relation
-
I agree that "The No Fly List" is a bad, bad thing, the way it is implemented now.
Get a good ID method, (as in DNA, eye scan, fingerprints) and I Might be able to stand for it.
-
Originally posted by JB88
i grew up around some old farmers that made 7 shot six shooters from scratch.
a 7 shot six shooter? would you care to explan?
-
88 is probly using "6 shooter" as a synonym for "revolver". Not quite right but understandable and acceptable. There are several modern revolvers made these days that are 5 shot, 7 shot or even 8 shot. It would not be uncommon for them to be called "6 shooters".
lazs
-
McCarthy has an understandable hard-on about guns, handguns in particular.
She got into office running on the death of her husband during the "Long Island Massacre".
Then, in 1993, her husband was among six people killed during gunman Colin Ferguson's rampage on the Long Island Rail Road. Her son, shot in the head, was one of 19 wounded.
Now she's of the opinion that what we need is MORE gun control, despite the fact that Ferguson broke just about every law in NYC's extensive list of gun control laws. NYC has about THE most restrictive gun laws in the nation and it did in 1993. The laws didn't stop Fergueson and they never will stop people like him.
You want to read about one screwed up individual:
The troubled times of Colin Ferguson (http://massmurder.zyns.com/colin_ferguson_02.html)
McCarthy's attempt to restrict firearms sales based upon the no-fly list is just incredibly stupid given the characteristics of said list.
-
I recall reading that people sometimes modified 6-shooter chambers for 7 rounds in order to get an edge in a firefight.
They thought like the action heroes in Hong-Kong movies: Always leave one last bullet - either for myself or for my enemy.
-
lol.
yep. that's what they said!
;)
-
BROOKFIELD, Wis. - A gunman opened fire Saturday at a church service being held at a hotel, killing four people and sending several others to hospitals, authorities said.
The gunman then apparently shot and killed himself, said Daniel Tushaus, chief of the Brookfield Police Department.
"There is nobody else being sought at this time as a suspect," he said.
Seven to eight people, ranging from their early teens to their 60s, were taken to hospitals in serious condition, he said.
The shooting was reported to police shortly before 1 p.m. Tushaus said it occurred during a regularly scheduled church service at the Sheraton hotel.
Some guests remained locked in their rooms after police surrounded the building and would not allow anyone to enter or leave.
Karen Suick, 48, said she arrived at the hotel Friday night with 15 players and parents for a hockey tournament.
"One of our hockey dad's two daughters are still in there," she said. "They called his cell phone. They were OK, but they were told to go back to their room. So that's what they did."
At least two church groups were holding meetings in the hotel at the time of the shootings, police said.
Brookfield is a western suburb of Milwaukee.
----------------------------------------
More bang bang in gun heaven.
-
as far as I know of Wisconsin law, it's already illegal to shoot people at a hotel.
if the guy didn't seem to care about breaking that law do you really think he'd give a damn about having an extra charge for owning a gun added on?
it can't really be that hard for you to see that people that have no problem killing others without cause aren't going to care if it's legal or not to own the gun.
gun laws just provide unarmed victims.
-
whew! that's a relief! I was gonna suggest that they pass a law making it illegal to shoot people at church..
lazs
-
The original point of the thread is certainly toast. Thanks beet.
-
Mav, I don't think he can get over the fact that we tossed them out in 1776 because of their nannying then.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
The original point of the thread is certainly toast. Thanks beet.
You're welcome, have a nice day. :cool:
As for ridiculing laws because "criminals will ignore them anyway", the same could be said for any laws. Tax laws, driving laws, weights and measures... the justification for NOT having a law, in some camps, seems to be that it won't be 100% successful, or won't be observed by 100% of the population.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
As for ridiculing laws because "criminals will ignore them anyway", the same could be said for any laws. Tax laws, driving laws, weights and measures... the justification for NOT having a law, in some camps, seems to be that it won't be 100% successful, or won't be observed by 100% of the population.
Hmm... I don't think that's ever been said. Neat when that happens.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
The original point of the thread is certainly toast. Thanks beet.
...and don't forget to thank Toad too. I wasn't talking to myself in this thread.
-
well... criminals do ignore laws that is true but beet is correct that we need to make them even if we don't get 100% compliance if... they don't punish the law abiding and if they have a reasonable chance of detering the criminal..
In this vein.. gun control laws allmost allways punish the law abiding 100% yet do little to deter the criminal.. Gun crime penalties on the other hand do 0% to punish the law abiding but have a measureable affect on detering the criminal.
For instance... disarming a city makes it more vulnerable to crime and punishes/takes away human rights of only the law abiding and a small fraction of criminals... Making heavier penalties for using a gun in a crime does nothing to punish the citizen yet deters the criminal.
Proof is out there.. even in england... draconian penalties for gun crimes (even owning one or protecting yourself with one is a crime there) the draconian penalties are the only way that anyone (criminal and suject alike) will comply to any extent.
here.. it has been proven over and over that more guns and CC allowed equals less crime.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Curval
BROOKFIELD, Wis. - A gunman opened fire Saturday at a church service being held at a hotel, killing four people and sending several others to hospitals, authorities said.
...
----------------------------------------
More bang bang in gun heaven.
I think your next step should be to contact the family of the victims to let them know that this wouldn't have happened if they didn't live where gun ownership is legal. You're a class act.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
You're welcome, have a nice day. :cool:
As for ridiculing laws because "criminals will ignore them anyway", the same could be said for any laws. Tax laws, driving laws, weights and measures... the justification for NOT having a law, in some camps, seems to be that it won't be 100% successful, or won't be observed by 100% of the population.
the problem is we aren't talking about ridiculing a law simply because criminals won't obey it.
what we're talking about is already having a law that makes an activity illegal (shooting people without cause) and certain people are breaking that law. we're ridiculing the idea that people think you can add an additional law that will for some reason be obeyed by those who don't seem to have a problem with murder.
for this to be of any use other than taking protection away from law abiding citizens (who's gun ownership has no impact on gun-crimes) you'd actually have to have a significant part of the population who have no problem committing murder but draw the line at owning a gun illegally, because that would be wrong.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
the problem is we aren't talking about ridiculing a law simply because criminals won't obey it.
what we're talking about is already having a law that makes an activity illegal (shooting people without cause) and certain people are breaking that law. we're ridiculing the idea that people think you can add an additional law that will for some reason be obeyed by those who don't seem to have a problem with murder.
for this to be of any use other than taking protection away from law abiding citizens (who's gun ownership has no impact on gun-crimes) you'd actually have to have a significant part of the population who have no problem committing murder but draw the line at owning a gun illegally, because that would be wrong.
The added laws are pointless. they are nothing more then feel good laws so some politition can say he passed a law.
If the original law isnt followed its highly unlikely any future law will be followed any better.
But at least they can say they passed a law.
Makes people think they actually did something.
-
BTW. Somethign I was aluding to earlier and nobody either got or followed up on.
Didnt we have another McCarthy sometime back in the 1950's who also had lists?
Is there any relation between that McCarthy and this one?
Are we entering another McCarthy Era?
-
Didnt we have another McCarthy sometime back in the 1950's who also had lists?
(http://www.vh.org/adult/provider/anatomy/AnatomicVariants/SkeletalSystem/Images/MarilynCharlie.jpg)
Charlie McCarthy didn't have lists, he had termites.
And apparently relations with Marylin Monroe.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
(http://www.vh.org/adult/provider/anatomy/AnatomicVariants/SkeletalSystem/Images/MarilynCharlie.jpg)
And apparently relations with Marylin Monroe.
And who didnt besides you?:)
-
for this to be of any use other than taking protection away from law abiding citizens (who's gun ownership has no impact on gun-crimes) you'd actually have to have a significant part of the population who have no problem committing murder but draw the line at owning a gun illegally, because that would be wrong.
Where do criminals get their guns?
They steal them off people who own them legally.
They get people who can buy a gun to make a straw purchase for them.
They buy them off legal gun owners at gun fairs and from classified ads.
They buy them from gun shops before they turn to crime, or before they get caught
In short, the route guns take to get to criminals is
Importer/manufacturer - dealer - criminal
or
Importer/manufacturer - dealer - legal owner - criminal
the supply of guns to criminals is dependent on the legal market for guns, restrictions on that restrict the supply of guns to criminals.
What astonishes me most about this thread is that there's an American who's been locked up for nearly 3 years without trial, because the administration says he's a terrorist.
No outcry.
There's a list of people not allowed to travel by air, because they are suspected of terrorism.
No outcry.
The same people are not allowed to by a gun.
Outcry.
Take away all their freedoms, lock them up, no problem, just don't try to stop them buying a gun.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
What astonishes me most about this thread is that there's an American who's been locked up for nearly 3 years without trial, because the administration says he's a terrorist. No outcry.
[/b]
Perhaps if there was a perception that the situation is being ignored there'd be a more vocal discussion.
However, his case got to the Supreme Court so it isn't like the situation is being ignored. It's working its way through our legal system.
There's a list of people not allowed to travel by air, because they are suspected of terrorism.
No outcry.
[/b]
So you're saying people suspected of terrorism should be allowed to fly, given the fact of 9/11? The problem is with the inaccuracies of the list and there HAS been "outcry" against this.
The same people are not allowed to by a gun.
Outcry.
[/b]
Quite wrong, I think. There is outcry but it's not because we want people suspected of terrorism to be allowed to buy a gun. Again, the outcry is that "the list" they use is woefully inadequate and inaccurate and the "listmakers" themeselves admit it.
Take away all their freedoms, lock them up, no problem, just don't try to stop them buying a gun.
No, get the list right. THEN use it appropriately.
-
So you're saying people suspected of terrorism should be allowed to fly, given the fact of 9/11? The problem is with the inaccuracies of the list and there HAS been "outcry" against this.
the problem is defining what a "terrorist" is.
the second problem is proving it.
the third problem is becoming one in the process.