Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Raider179 on May 26, 2005, 01:14:17 AM
-
With all the noise about gun laws I looked up and saw this....Thought it might bring out some paranoia or applause lol :) have a good day gents
http://www.thebrunswicknews.com/front/284962412208815.php
Felons charged with possessing weapons will be tried where the laws are the toughest, whether it be local, state or federal court.
It is a federal crime for a gun to be in the possession of a convicted felon, drug dealer, drug user or addict, illegal alien or a person convicted of domestic violence, under indictment or committing a federal crime of violence.
Illegal possession of a gun can result in a life sentence without chance of parole.
Toad is this one of the programs we discussed before?
-
How silly to have a law like this. Don't they know that more guns = less crime? :aok
-
Good idea IMO.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
How silly to have a law like this. Don't they know that more guns = less crime? :aok
Naw, best way to live in a lower crime rate is to move someplace where the viewing of masonary walls is the biggest excitement. :)
-
Those laws are part of the "Exile" program, specifically intended to target felons who use guns, and remove them from society permanently. This program was developed with help from the NRA by the justice department, and has been constantly and devoutly supported by the NRA and gun owners.
However, the anti gun crowd, despite seeing excellent results in areas where the program was used, cried about the "harsh and excessive sentences" that "make gun criminals even more violent", and successfully got it rescinded in several areas.
-
beetle.. this is a better kind of gun control... it keeps the guns out of the hands of the felonious criminals... and...
women beaters..
or puts em in jail.
I do dissagree that simply possesing one is a bad thing... I would rather that the conviction and higher sentance come from the person missusing the firearm and then when he got out in 20 or 30 years hand him his gun back.
I'm sure you would agree that the "domestic viloence" part of the law is problomatic and subject to error.
Let's take it a step further... studies have shown that women beaters are more suceptible to road rage. It would seem that taking away the drivers licence of those convicted of domestic violence would be a good thing?
lazs
-
Those are the only gun laws that work.
Why? Well I know this goes way over most liberals heads, but they work because the punish the people doing the crimes. Instead of targeting law abiding people that never brake the law.
Guess that is a hard concept for anti gun girly men to grasp.
I see beater er I mean beatle is back to his old dip**** self too.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
beetle.. this is a better kind of gun control... it keeps the guns out of the hands of the felonious criminals...
Oh what, by controlling who can/cannot get a gun instead of making them available to... *everyone*? Well that's a good first step. The next step will be to identify the nascent criminals, and deprive them of guns before they commit a crime. But then, who's to know who might turn to crime? The law needs to be extended so that no-one can get a gun - except law enforcement of course - then it will be safe. I think this approach is worthy of being given a fair trial. Oh wait, it's what we have here in Europe. Never mind...
-
it sounds like this is the law that was used to royally screw a security guard in Maine.
This law was passed with no granfather clause of any kind in Maine. The security guard in question was an outstanding citizen of the community and recently recognized by the states gov.
One day a few cops that he knew knocked on his door and had to take his guns and his carry permits. Seems the man had a midemenor back iin 1967 or so.
The misdemenor in qluestion was a bar fight. The security guard had just returned from Vietnam and was spit on by some hippies. He didn't like it so a fight ensued. He went to court...was all taken care of.
30+ years later he no longer has the right to own or carry a fire arm.
I'll look for the actual story in a bit.
-
your life is in danger, what to do, call 911 and wait 10-20-30 min or grab your 38?
-
Yeah I am pretty sure someone like beatle could not buy a gun in the US if he were a resident.
Seems any domestic abuse, even mis demeaner or a restraining order with no charges filed will prevent you from buying a gun or owning a gun, I think thats part of the federal checking system, not sure it has to do with the above laws.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I do dissagree that simply possesing one is a bad thing... I would rather that the conviction and higher sentance come from the person missusing the firearm and then when he got out in 20 or 30 years hand him his gun back.
I'm sure you would agree that the "domestic viloence" part of the law is problomatic and subject to error.
Let's take it a step further... studies have shown that women beaters are more suceptible to road rage. It would seem that taking away the drivers licence of those convicted of domestic violence would be a good thing?
lazs
Seems to me if you break the law seriously enough then yes you should lose certain rights, especially the right to own a fire-arm.
Domestic violence is exactly the kind of case where guns should be seized. How many murders from guns occur where the "signifigant other" has domestic violence charge on them, and another factor you can't count is how many did it save?
You need a car to go to work, store, etc. You don't need a fire-arm to do this things.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Instead of targeting law abiding people that never brake the law.
Explain how a law-abiding citizen loses his gun rights please? That statement is a contradiction in itself, because if you are law-abiding you won't lose your gun. It's only after you commit offenses that warrant loss of your rights.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
it sounds like this is the law that was used to royally screw a security guard in Maine.
This law was passed with no granfather clause of any kind in Maine. The security guard in question was an outstanding citizen of the community and recently recognized by the states gov.
One day a few cops that he knew knocked on his door and had to take his guns and his carry permits. Seems the man had a midemenor back iin 1967 or so.
The misdemenor in qluestion was a bar fight. The security guard had just returned from Vietnam and was spit on by some hippies. He didn't like it so a fight ensued. He went to court...was all taken care of.
30+ years later he no longer has the right to own or carry a fire arm.
I'll look for the actual story in a bit.
This is over the top. Misdemeanors should not be included.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Yeah I am pretty sure someone like beatle could not buy a gun in the US if he were a resident.
Seems any domestic abuse, even mis demeaner or a restraining order with no charges filed will prevent you from buying a gun or owning a gun, I think thats part of the federal checking system, not sure it has to do with the above laws.
Well if you can't keep your hands off your wife or girlfriend chances are pretty good you aren't too stable. No problems with domestic violence people losing their rights. Misdemeanor besides DV or restraining orders without a hearing I would agree is over the top.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
This is over the top. Misdemeanors should not be included.
agreed but it falls under the "violent crime" section either way. It's pretty stupid that one Fup as a young kid would carry with you the rest of your life AND that there's no avenue of appeal.
-
Policeman: Ahhh I see you have gunned down your family and shot a couple of innocent bystanders. Good thing we have tough gun laws...off you go to jail.
Good thing we have gun laws that REALLY work.:aok
-
ah - the bull neck brute from Fremont isn't really ignoring me - he's just in Peekaboo mode!
John9001 - Maybe you were talking to someone else. If not...
... I take it you've never been out of the US, or you would know that it isn't 911 in other countries. Here, it's 999. You might also understand the concept of an unarmed society had you been to one. Get Lazs to help you with that. As he once put it, when visiting a bar in a seedy area of London, he felt as threatened as he might have done at a Church bingo night.
Kind regards,
Beet (whose last contact with the police was when neighbours got burgled in 1986) :aok :aok :aok
-
Originally posted by lazs2
beetle.. this is a better kind of gun control... it keeps the guns out of the hands of the felonious criminals... and...
women beaters..
lazs
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
Speaking of which, been to court Beet1e ?
-
ENGLISH WOMEN DIES A VICTIM
A 105-Year-Old British woman, terrorized by burglars breaking into her home four times in an 18-month period, has died a perpetual victim,
Proving again..the FAILURE of Englands gun ban to protect law-abiding citizens
"Evening Standard"
Ya beatle.....I guess women can have there "man" defend them...BAHH..women can defend themselves just fine...right?
hahah get it.."beatle"
its good you cant fly in MA anymore...you would get beat like a red headed ..errrrrrrrr... step child
banana; )
-
the ladies name is Amelia Whale...
what a BS way to die..live thru both WW's ..and then die to soem thug scum
-
raider... you haven't thought this through... you are saying women beaters and potential road ragers need to get to work? don't drunk's need to get to work too? how bout uninsured? how bout those with a couple dozen tickets?
I just don't get you guys rerasoning... what is the point of locking someone up to pay their debt to society if when they are "released" they are not given their rights back? If you don't trust em then why release em?
Rather than figure out who or who doesn't have the potential for violence... why not just make severe penalties for those who do commit unwaranted violence.
Is taking away a woman beaters right to "legaly" own a firearm more of a deterent than say a mandatory 20 year jail sentance?
and raider... it is probly true that women beaters have a higher incidence of murdering women but... they will do it with or without a gun... would you rather be streangled stabbed or beat to death? Seems jail is better for the rest of us.
lazs
-
Raider179
A law abidng citizen loses his gun rights every time some ******* liberal politician puts a gun ban law in place like the Cali bull**** "unsafe guns" Ban. Or the .50 cal rifle ban or the assault weapon ban.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Well if you can't keep your hands off your wife or girlfriend chances are pretty good you aren't too stable. No problems with domestic violence people losing their rights. Misdemeanor besides DV or restraining orders without a hearing I would agree is over the top.
Raider,
I do not have a problem with convicted wife beater or stalkers ETC not having the right, but you can get a restraining order without any kind of conviction to go with it.
-
I don't understand the woman beating and gun connection.
-
Beetle
I took you off ignore so I could see your pathetic defense.
You are the brute.
I have never in my life hit a women, nor willl I ever. Scum bags like you make me sick. you are a worm, you pushing your GF down and braking her arm is just more proof of it.
You belong in a double wide somewere with the rest of the wife beaters.
You are such a sad pile of dog feces I find it hard to even laugh at you.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Raider,
I do not have a problem with convicted wife beater or stalkers ETC not having the right, but you can get a restraining order without any kind of conviction to go with it.
I know a guy whos wife came home late at night drunk and snagged their kid. She came back and my buddy held her by the wrist to keep from leaving drunk with their child. She subsequently got a bruise on her wrist and called the cops. My friend was arrested for assault/domestic violence. He repeatedly told the cops to check his wife's BAC and they refused saying it was irrelevent.
The irony of the whole situation was they put the handcuffs on so tight he had bloody/bruised wrists for a week.
Now if convicted my buddy who did nothing wrong but keep his wife from leaving with their kid drunk, wont be eligible for firearm owndership.
Not all Domestic dispute charges are fair.
-
curval... there really is none except for the most tenuous. It is simply busybody feel good stuff compounded by an ignorance of firearms.
The premise being that any kind of violence (especialy against the weaker sex) makes you more prone to shooting people.
lazs
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
I have never in my life hit a women, nor willl I ever.
Neither have I. If I may just mention the 4 letter F word which I know you have trouble with - FACT. On a point of FACT, I have no criminal record, will not be getting one any time soon, and even spent last weekend with Tomato, who was very happy to see me. :D Sometimes you need to look at the FACTS properly, and understand that every story has 2 sides, and also understand human (female) behaviour - granted, that can be hard. Geez, it scares me to think that you were once thinking of being a cop, based on your apparent limited mental faculties. As for understanding women, I can see that you don't get much practice. Still, that's hardly surprising for someone who looks like you.
-
What ever wife beater.
All scum bags claim they are innocent.
Your no different.
LOL I love your nice little personal attack, like your some kind of prize.
If she went back to you, she is a fool and deserves what she gets and if she is a liar and you still see her you are clearly the fool you act like here.
Not suprising either way.
Your still a scumbag.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
What ever wife beater.
She's not my wife - just a small detail, banana. But please, don't let the FACTS get in your way. I realise that FACT is not your strong suit.
Greencloud/BGB - seems you too have some catching up to do. ENGLISH WOMEN DIES A VICTIM
A 105-Year-Old British woman, terrorized by burglars breaking into her home four times in an 18-month period, has died a perpetual victim,
Proving again..the FAILURE of Englands gun ban to protect law-abiding citizens
You need to take a balanced view - not the one-side view you currently hold. Just as you point to a woman being burgled 4 times, and suggesting that if she had a gun it would have been all right, I can counter that with THIS story - of a woman who DID have a gun, whose home was broken into, whereupon she was killed with her own gun.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/01/24/nmurd24.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/01/24/ixhome.html
A burglar who terrorised elderly residents in a village will be jailed for life today after shooting one of them dead with a gun she kept to protect her property.
Stephen Burgess, 20, broke into 81-year-old Mildred Hope-Baldwin's home and shot her with a Second World War pistol she owned as he searched for money to feed his heroin addiction.
Miss Hope-Baldwin was terrified of being burgled and had built up an array of weapons to protect herself and her property, but when she confronted Burgess with a Webley revolver, he snatched it after a struggle and shot her from close range.
Yesterday Mr Justice Gage adjourned sentence until today but warned Burgess: "There will be only one sentence I can pass."
Nottingham Crown Court was told how Burgess, a serial burglar, went to Miss Hope-Baldwin's cottage, known as the Wendy House, in Kegworth, Leics, last February.
At the beginning of the trial he admitted six charges of burglary and one of robbery as a result of other burglaries in the village.
He had first come across Miss Hope-Baldwin when, as a 15-year-old odd-job boy, he would walk her dog to earn himself a few pounds. But five years later he identified her as a soft target who could help feed his £150-a-day drug habit.
Timothy Spencer QC, prosecuting, said: "The death of Mildred Hope-Baldwin was the culmination of a campaign by Burgess against elderly women living in Kegworth. He was in search of money and was prepared to use violence to get it."
After Miss Hope-Baldwin produced the gun Burgess overpowered her, wrestled the weapon from her and shot her in the chest. Badly wounded, she managed to crawl across her floor to a phone and dial 999, but she died shortly after being taken to hospital.
Burgess, who was found guilty of murder, told the jury he fired in the belief the revolver was only a cap gun.
Miss Hope-Baldwin, an artist whose work was often used in children's books and greeting cards, had lived at her cottage for 16 years. Over the years she became more fearful of crime, stories of violence against the elderly having an effect on her.
Eventually she became terrified that she would herself become a target and equipped her home with a complicated CCTV system. She also built up an arsenal of weapons including knives, an air-rifle, a crossbow, an axe, a cosh and a machete.
Just posting that because I KNOW how you LOVE to keep abreast of the FACTS! :lol (http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/jester.gif)
-
Like facts ever got in your way.
Your a avacado and always will be. Back to ignore you go.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I just don't get you guys rerasoning... what is the point of locking someone up to pay their debt to society if when they are "released" they are not given their rights back? If you don't trust em then why release em?
Rather than figure out who or who doesn't have the potential for violence... why not just make severe penalties for those who do commit unwaranted violence.
Is taking away a woman beaters right to "legaly" own a firearm more of a deterent than say a mandatory 20 year jail sentance?
and raider... it is probly true that women beaters have a higher incidence of murdering women but... they will do it with or without a gun... would you rather be streangled stabbed or beat to death? Seems jail is better for the rest of us.
lazs
1) I don't know, explain to me why felons lose the right to vote or be drafted into the military? There are lots of things that I don't understand. We don't trust em to vote or be in the military why trust em to own fire-arms?
2)Because what you are talking about only fixes it so that the victim is already shot,murdered,robbed or whatever and it does nothing for prevention only to prevent a recurance.(sp?)
3)Are you promoting 20 year jail terms for Domestic Violence?
4)Maybe so Laz, but at least without a gun they have a chance to run, flee, fight back.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Raider179
A law abidng citizen loses his gun rights every time some ******* liberal politician puts a gun ban law in place like the Cali bull**** "unsafe guns" Ban. Or the .50 cal rifle ban or the assault weapon ban.
You like 50. cal's and assault weapons? Why not join the military? You can still own those guns. Go get you a proper license, I think its called the collectors license or something and presto own whatever you want.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Raider,
I do not have a problem with convicted wife beater or stalkers ETC not having the right, but you can get a restraining order without any kind of conviction to go with it.
Agreed that is why there should be a hearing for restraining orders or for the gun owner. Maybe even a RO without a charge against the other person should not result in a loss of their firearm.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I know a guy whos wife came home late at night drunk and snagged their kid. She came back and my buddy held her by the wrist to keep from leaving drunk with their child. She subsequently got a bruise on her wrist and called the cops. My friend was arrested for assault/domestic violence. He repeatedly told the cops to check his wife's BAC and they refused saying it was irrelevent.
The irony of the whole situation was they put the handcuffs on so tight he had bloody/bruised wrists for a week.
Now if convicted my buddy who did nothing wrong but keep his wife from leaving with their kid drunk, wont be eligible for firearm owndership.
Not all Domestic dispute charges are fair.
I know this sucks to say but I am gonna have to.
You are not allowed to put your hands on another person if they don't want you to. She probably coulda pressed a kidnapping charge on him if she wanted. For not letting her leave. Sucks I know but if the only way you can control a woman is by force you already lost.
-
Oh no! I've been dumped by the bull-neck brute from Fremont! Say it isn't so. My life won't be the same! He never did forgive me when I jokingly implied that he couldn't add up 1 + 1 and make 2. Geez, it was only a joke - I guess some people just don't have a sense of humour.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
You like 50. cal's and assault weapons? Why not join the military? You can still own those guns. Go get you a proper license, I think its called the collectors license or something and presto own whatever you want.
I wouldnt want to own a .50 they are to much money, I think the cheapest being 3500 bucks
I have owned assault rifles and they are fun.
Why should I have to, I have never broken any kind of law other then speeding. I should be able to buy what I want withen reason.
You do know that so called assault rifles that now are being sold again nationaly were never full auto right?
And by cali banning them they took my rights away, THAT was what you asked.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Agreed that is why there should be a hearing for restraining orders or for the gun owner. Maybe even a RO without a charge against the other person should not result in a loss of their firearm.
I would be ok with that, I am not sure how they do it now. I do not know if you can apeal it.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
curval... there really is none except for the most tenuous. It is simply busybody feel good stuff compounded by an ignorance of firearms.
The premise being that any kind of violence (especialy against the weaker sex) makes you more prone to shooting people.
lazs
In 2002, the most recent data available from the Federal Bureau of Investigation's unpublished Supplementary Homicide Report, firearms were the most common weapon used by males to murder females (928 of 1,733 or 54 percent). Of these, 73 percent (679 of 928) were committed with handguns. Alaska ranks first in the nation in the rate of women killed by men. Ranked behind Alaska are: Louisiana, New Mexico, Nevada, Wyoming, South Carolina, Tennessee, Delaware, North Carolina, and Alabama. Nationally the rate was 1.37 per 100,000.
more stats
• Women are most likely to be victimized by people they know. Having a gun in the home increases the risk of being a murder victim by three times, and by 20 times if there has been a previous domestic violence incident in the home.
Source: Kellermann AL, et al. Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home. New England Journal of Medicine. 1993; 329. 1084-1091.
• For every woman who used a handgun to kill an intimate acquaintance in self-defense, 97 women were killed by an intimate acquaintance using a handgun.
Source: 1998 FBI Supplementary Homicide Report. Analysis performed by the Violence Policy Center.
• In 1998, for every woman who used a handgun to kill a stranger in self-defense, 302 women were killed in a handgun homicide.
Source: 1998 FBI Supplementary Homicide Report. Ratio calculated by the Violence Policy Center.
• Having one or more guns in the home made a woman 7.2 times more likely to be the victim of a domestic homicide.
Source: Bailey, J. Risk factors for violence death of women in the home. Archives of Internal Medicine. 1997; 157(7): 777-782.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Why should I have to, I have never broken any kind of law other then speeding. I should be able to buy what I want withen reason.
Simple answer is because there are BAD people out there who would just love to be able to walk in a store and buy whatever gun they wanted to. This stops them but doesnt stop you. You just have to fill out some paperwork.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
I would be ok with that, I am not sure how they do it now. I do not know if you can apeal it.
There probably should be a hearing for anything that involves removal of someone's rights.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
And by cali banning them they took my rights away, THAT was what you asked.
:lol:lol
Quick, someone get him a towel from the ladies' washroom. :rofl
-
I have to fill out a bunch of paperwork now and wait ten days while the FBI does checks.
Thats not enough?
Can you walk into a gun store and walk out with a gun same day anywere now? I know the background check is national.
Crimanals are not shelling out 500$ or more in a gun store for a gun. They buy them ilegaly.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
I have to fill out a bunch of paperwork now and wait ten days while the FBI does checks.
Thats not enough?
Can you walk into a gun store and walk out with a gun same day anywere now? I know the background check is national.
Crimanals are not shelling out 500$ or more in a gun store for a gun. They buy them ilegaly.
1)Paperwork is nothing new these days. Everything involves paperwork.
2) 10 days? man you need that gun awful bad huh? Whats the rush?Next time plan ahead. That law is specifically created so people without guns won't get pissed off and go buy one and go shoot someone. Isn't it sometimes called "cooling off period" or something.
3)Really? I have seen some criminals with some weapons that were top of the line. But, I also tend to believe most fire-arms used in crimes come from gunshows and those kind of dealers but havent seen evidence of it anywhere. So I partially concede the point.
-
Right so you want more paperwork.
You want a ten day waiting period even though I already own 9 firearms. Because the 9 I already own I wouldnt use in a crime of passion so that 10 days is going to save someone?
I dont have a problem with the 10 day waiting period, but I think 10 days is long enough.
In cali you even have the background check and waiting period at gun shows. The background check is a national law I am fairly sure. So should that not mean gun shows have to do them as well?
I doubt most criminals are getting their guns at gun shows.
I wont go so far to say ex cons should have guns, but I am with laz on punishing people who use them in crime so harshly that they never get out of jail.
And yes for felony spousal abuse I dont have a problem with life if a gun is used or even threatend to be used.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Right so you want more paperwork.
You want a ten day waiting period even though I already own 9 firearms. Because the 9 I already own I wouldnt use in a crime of passion so that 10 days is going to save someone?
.
See buts it's not about you, your law abiding you wouldnt go shoot your wife or whatever. Its for the wacko's out there that would. Sorry if it causes a small disruption but its really is a small one and it has probably saved someone's life.
-
I am not unreasonable, I am not saying we should get rid of the laws in place. Enforcing them is enough.
I just do not think we need anymore laws that restrict people like me.
Go after the criminals. The laws above do.
-
What GTO can't figure out ^ is that no system can make the distinction between "law abiding" and nascent criminal. Seems like the US is at a turning point with its gun laws, what with making background checks! :eek: Oh the ignominy!! Don't they know about the 2nd amendment?! My god! Having to wait 10 days. Hmmm, maybe the authorities have realised that... maybe Guns-4-All is not the great idea some people like to think it is? Hmmmmm...........
:cool:
-
Curval..and BEATle..hahah ..
Do this if you think no no-law abdiding citizen shoul down a firearm..
STICK A POSTED SIGN THAT READS..
THIS HOUSEHOLD HAS NO FIREARMS INSIDE
NO CAN YOU UNDERSTAND IT NOW..???
Society Is Safer When Criminals Dont Know Whos IS Armed
and btw BEATle...i didnt read the endless crap pages of ur old lady crying about u breaking her arm..the firts post was funny enuff to run with it...
I swear if any chick posted soem crap about me on a BB..Id remind her that im part Indian..From the SlapaHp Tribe...Beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee e AAACHHHHHHHH; )
-
"Crimanals are not shelling out 500$ or more in a gun store for a gun. They buy them ilegaly."
duh. of course no criminal has ever bought a hand gun legally, since everybody already knows there going to use it in a criminal act they go and get a gun from a illegal source in the first place.
-
Originally posted by GreenCloud
Society Is Safer When Criminals Dont Know Whos IS Armed
Got any statistics to back this up or are you just making a guess?
Why not take a look at Great Britian and compare it per capita and see if that works out for ya. What did they have 12 fire arm homicides last year?
-
"Why not take a look at Great Britian and compare it per capita and see if that works out for ya. What did they have 12 fire arm homicides last year?"
try comparing it with alberta, we have more guns, a more americanesque culture and history. we have a relativly low use of guns in crimes, most of those are gang related.
-
Originally posted by vorticon
"Why not take a look at Great Britian and compare it per capita and see if that works out for ya. What did they have 12 fire arm homicides last year?"
try comparing it with alberta, we have more guns, a more americanesque culture and history. we have a relativly low use of guns in crimes, most of those are gang related.
how bout we just compare a city with a state. Is alberta a country? hmm no its not.
-
How about we look at the violent crime rate change in D.C. since firearms were outlawed there ?
-
Originally posted by Flit
How about we look at the violent crime rate change in D.C. since firearms were outlawed there ?
why would you do that since guns are available if you travel 1 mile outside of DC.
-
for the most part gun control keeps fire arms out of NON-criminals hands. Most of the gun crime you read about happens with unlawfull firearms.
-
Originally posted by Curval
I don't understand the woman beating and gun connection.
Simple.
People who beat women can't purchase a gun here.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
2) 10 days? man you need that gun awful bad huh? Whats the rush?Next time plan ahead. That law is specifically created so people without guns won't get pissed off and go buy one and go shoot someone. Isn't it sometimes called "cooling off period" or something.
Yeah?
I own a closet full of handguns.Why should I have to wait?Do I need a "cooling off period?"Or do the people passing these bs feelgood laws think I would wait until the new gun arrived before I commited a crime,instead of using one of the dozen I already own?
I have never broken the law.Why shouldn't an instant background check be sufficient?
-
Originally posted by GreenCloud
Curval..and BEATle..hahah ..
Do this if you think no no-law abdiding citizen shoul down a firearm..
STICK A POSTED SIGN THAT READS..
THIS HOUSEHOLD HAS NO FIREARMS INSIDE
NO CAN YOU UNDERSTAND IT NOW..???
Society Is Safer When Criminals Dont Know Whos IS Armed
LOL Greencloud! You're such a banana. And I can tell you've never left your own shores. Have you ever been out of your own state? Sure, I could post that sign outside my house - the neighbours would think it was rather odd, the postman might crack a wry smile. Beyond that, it wouldn't make a ha'peth of difference. Why's that then? Because none of the other houses have guns inside either. Everyone knows that, including burglars. You might as well do what some loony lefties have done, and post a sign outside that says your house is a nuclear free zone. :lol
A typical burglar comes unarmed. Folks have noticed that too many burglars here don't get jailed for first offences. Why's that then (apart from our govt's soft on crime policy)? Because they're unarmed. Were they to have been armed - even with an imitation firearm, it's an automatic 5 year jail sentence.
Originally posted by the bull neck brute from Fremont
Yeah I am pretty sure someone like beatle could not buy a gun in the US if he were a resident.
Wrong. I have no criminal record and no police record. My English friend in AR tells me that he could indeed buy a gun if he were so inclined. He isn't.
I'm fascinated by the changes apparently being made to US gun laws and, more to the point, the reasons for these changes. You guys are now having to undergo background checks and a ten-day wait/cooling off period? Why is this? Doesn't your 2nd amendment guarantee that you can buy a gun whenever you want?
Maybe - just maybe - your leaders have begun to realise that Guns-4-All is not such a good idea? That seems to be the case with Mayor Bloomberg of New York. According to your own NRA, Bloomberg is vehemently anti gun, and yet... Since Mike Bloomberg took office, crime is down 20% citywide and down in every borough. Murders are down 25% to the lowest level in 40 years. Domestic violence crimes are down 27% and arrests for violations of Megan's Law have more than doubled. Subway crime is also down 10%. According to FBI statistics, New York is now America's safest big city.
and..."Mayor Bloomberg has brought vision, innovation, and dedication to the fight on crime. He hasn't just made our neighborhoods safer, he's brought about courthouse reforms that help keep them that way. Thanks to Mayor Bloomberg's Operation Spotlight and Gun Courts, career criminals and the guns they use aren't just getting off our streets, they are staying off." said Dennis Quirk, president of the New York State Court Officers Association.
Source: http://www.mikebloomberg.com No gain without pain, as they say.
-
My response would be pretty much the same as Beet1e's...such a sign is unnnecessary, all households here are "gun free".
-
Raider... what is your source for all your data?
If you read John Lotts book you will find that a woman who defends heself with a firearm is about 3 times less likely to be injured than one who does not (it is about 7 times for a man).
The book is "More Guns Less Crime" It is full of statistics and except for one or two extremely minor mistakes it has stood up well under the onslaught of all the liberal press.
I have read both sides... Have you? you seem to get all your data from very far left sites. I really think you should read both sides.
the facts are that in the U.S. ... The places that allow guns have less crime than the ones that don't.. 1.5 to 3 milloon crimes a year are stopped by firearms in the U.S.
The data you show does not jibe with anything I have ever seen that was documented. The data you show is pretty much made up.
lazs
-
and curval... My response would be... I wouldn't want to live in any of those countries.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
the facts are that in the U.S. ... The places that allow guns have less crime than the ones that don't..
But you have it backwards. You're saying that the states which have the most lax gun laws are the ones which have the least crime. Technically, it may well be correct, particularly in cases like Vermont. But you're doing what the NRA does. You're trying to make it sound as if the low crime in Vermont comes as a result of there being no gun permit required. That is not correct. It's the other way round. Vermont has no supplementary gun control laws because it has never needed them because crime has always been low in VT. Why's that? Because the main focus of crime is in big cities - places of ethnic mixing, gangs and drugs, and Vermont doesn't have any big cities. Study the NRA CCW map - attached. Notice how the states with the largest cities (NY, CA, IL & Washington DC) are the ones with the strictest gun control laws? Now you might try to tell me that this is the reason for the relatively high rate of crime. It isn't. Your legislators have seen the folly of Guns-4-All in these areas, and have acted accordingly.
But in Vermont, the largest city is Burlington, with a population of less than 40,000 and fewer than 1000 blacks. The ingredients for a massive crime wave involving gangs, drugs and ethnic unrest simply aren't there. So no supplementary gun laws (permits etc.) have ever been deemed necessary.
Actually VT is one of my favourite states - around Rutland - beautiful...
(http://www.nraila.org/images/rtcmaplg.jpg)
"More Guns Less Crime" is a biased book which looks at events in British history, observes changes in firearms legislation and frequently makes the false assumption that there are links between the two. Can you say "Bolshevik"? :lol
-
But...but...Mary Rosh thought Lott's book was GREAT and wrote rave reviews on it.:rofl :aok
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
I have never in my life hit a women, nor willl I ever.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
well....one time....this girl said..."spank me, spank me harder"
er, i digress.
-
Originally posted by Curval
But...but...Mary Rosh thought Lott's book was GREAT and wrote rave reviews on it.:rofl :aok
Oh wait - I was talking about the Joyce Lee Malcolm book.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
for the most part gun control keeps fire arms out of NON-criminals hands.
Most of the gun crime you read about happens with unlawfull firearms.
1)How?Since all you need is collector or dealer license and you can own any fire-arm you want.
2) Most does not mean all.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Raider... what is your source for all your data?
lazs
New England Journal of Medicine. 1993; 329. 1084-1091
1998 FBI Supplementary Homicide Report. Analysis performed by the Violence Policy Center
Source: 1998 FBI Supplementary Homicide Report. Ratio calculated by the Violence Policy Center.
Source: Bailey, J. Risk factors for violence death of women in the home. Archives of Internal Medicine. 1997; 157(7): 777-782.
-
Originally posted by Sox62
Yeah?
I own a closet full of handguns.Why should I have to wait?Do I need a "cooling off period?"Or do the people passing these bs feelgood laws think I would wait until the new gun arrived before I commited a crime,instead of using one of the dozen I already own?
I have never broken the law.Why shouldn't an instant background check be sufficient?
I guess you didnt read the entire thread. Just 2 or something posts later I said this.
See buts it's not about you, your law abiding you wouldnt go shoot your wife or whatever. Its for the wacko's out there that would. Sorry if it causes a small disruption but its really is a small one and it has probably saved someone's life.
-
Raider,
Why are you personaly afraid of "Whako's"? It' all you offer up as justification for your arguments.
Your logic process's will incrementally gut the freedom of all citizens one grain of sand at a time. There is no way to tell who will be the next Whako. Too many unaccountable factors in life can turn any of us into a Whako. Including yourself.
Will you take away everything from all of us that "you" can imagine a Whako "might" use to kill someone? When I trained in Tenshin Ryu I could break bricks and boards with my hands. I don't need an artificial impliment to kill a person. The side of the skull shatters at the same lb/per/sq/inch 4 boards break at. Your wind pipe collapses to alot less. Do you want all martial artists in the U.S. photgraphed and registered, then their addresses placed on the same web site with sex offenders?
If you personaly are not prepaired to respond to a Whako in public or private, why reduce those of us who are to your level of inability? I spent 20 years of my life learning how. I don't feel the need to impose restrictions on my fellow citizens.
-
Originally posted by bustr
Raider,
Why are you personaly afraid of "Whako's"? It' all you offer up as justification for your arguments.
Your logic process's will incrementally gut the freedom of all citizens one grain of sand at a time. There is no way to tell who will be the next Whako. Too many unaccountable factors in life can turn any of us into a Whako. Including yourself.
Will you take away everything from all of us that "you" can imagine a Whako "might" use to kill someone? When I trained in Tenshin Ryu I could break bricks and boards with my hands. I don't need an artificial impliment to kill a person. The side of the skull shatters at the same lb/per/sq/inch 4 boards break at. Your wind pipe collapses to alot less. Do you want all martial artists in the U.S. photgraphed and registered, then their addresses placed on the same web site with sex offenders?
If you personaly are not prepaired to respond to a Whako in public or private, why reduce those of us who are to your level of inability? I spent 20 years of my life learning how. I don't feel the need to impose restrictions on my fellow citizens.
lol I am not afraid of anything including your Tenshin Ryu. But thanks for letting me know your a karate expert. That's not gonna help you a lot if someone pulls a gun on you is it? Comparison between martial arts and gun weilding criminals are not even close in my book. I cant remember the last time I saw a Karate Expert go on a rampage, perhaps you can provide a link?
It really makes me laugh, all the gun guys saying "your taking away my rights" then in the next post its I have 9 guns at the house. blah blah blah. I have yet to see anyone's rights infringed on. maybe that one vet security guard who lost his carry permit. But no one else has offered up how it affects their right except to say "I can't buy my gun right when I want it" wow talk about right infringement. Maybe you can get the ACLU on it. lmao
-
Raider,
I did point out where I and others had lost our rights and your reply was, "no you can just get permits or a dealers license."
That’s not valid for several reasons.
A: Many places in Cali will not let you get a FFL unless you have a store front. I do not want to be a gun reseller, I don’t want the ATF to inconvenience me with their we can inspect you without a warrant at any time intrusions that go with the FFL
B: Cali is NOTORIOUS for being impossible to get permits for Illegal to the general public weapons unless you know someone. I do not have a local senator in my pocket. Most people do not.
Your argument is also flawed in that, why should I have to get a special license, that costs hundreds of dollars a year to buy guns, that YOU STILL can not buy cause the are illegal to sell in the state because they are unsafe (Cali’s BS Safety test that costs the gun companies so much they only bother to test one or two models. Oddly though these UNSAFE guns can still be sold to cops) or Illegal to sell because they have been banned (.50 rifles). You as a dealer can not order either cause you can’t sell them.
Your whole argument is like me saying as an example: It would be ok for the government to infringe on your right to free speech, as long as you can still fill out a bunch of paperwork and get a permit so you can go out and hold a sign bashing Bush etc. Yeah it’s more trouble, but what’s a few extra forms or a few hundred in fees, you still have the right. You just have to plan ahead to use it so you have time to go through all the red tape.
We have enough gun laws on the books BS laws like the .50 ban are just that, they are out there to make people who know nothing about the issue feel good about guns being taken away. Guns are only a minor part of the real crime problem. Banning guns that do not get used in crimes is pretty silly. Even if it make silly ignorant people feel safer.
-
Raider,
I also own guns. Ive been retired from martial arts for about 10 years now. The human body can take only so much in a life time. If you are not afraid of Whako's, why do you work so hard to convince everyone to accept laws that might stop one Whako, but in reality strip citizens of their freedoms with dubious results on Whako's?
No Whako in the act of Whakoing someone is stopped by words written on a peice of paper. Most citizens have no clue what is in the law books. By definition a Whako is not afraid of the specific laws it is violating. Or ergo the Whako would not violate those laws.
Your responses to most on this board about laws seems to indicate you are afraid of the potential in all of your fellow citizens to become a Whako. Short of a telepathy machine being invented, there is no really effective method to tell if one citizen or another is a Whako, or will become one in their life time.
But, you can strip "all" of them of rights and privlages as a preventative "scattergun" measure with a method called "laws" until the only leagal activity's they can partake of are sanctioned by the State. Then you have the cohersion of Law by police or militairy to control everyone.
Oh but don't forget. The police and militairy are staffed by our fellow citizens and have the same Whako's in thier ranks. So now we are back where we started, but worse. You've just given the Whako's arms and training to enforce Whako prevention Laws against the disarmed law abiding citizens you want controled because of their potential to become Whako's.
-
Raider,
To be honest Tenshin Ryu is a school of japanese militairy stratigy founded in the 1700's from Katori Shinto Ryu. It teaches all disiplines needed to perform as a samurai in the warfare of that time.
Karate as you think of it is a modern invention. Atemi wasa, striking techniques, have existed as part of armed warfare since it's inception. Testing ones ablility to perform the techniques of striking an opponent or cutting an opponent is standard fair for your education in such a school.
Testing your strikes, tamashiwari, could be on wooden boards, bricks, rocks, cinder blocks, ice or killing animals in a slaughter house. Testing your cutting abllity, tameshigiri, could be on green bamboo, green wood, rolled up grass matts, and as a freind of mine would do, purchase a fresh killed pig carcass. It is very close to a human body in density and structure.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Raider,
I did point out where I and others had lost our rights and your reply was, "no you can just get permits or a dealers license."
That’s not valid for several reasons.
A: Many places in Cali will not let you get a FFL unless you have a store front. I do not want to be a gun reseller, I don’t want the ATF to inconvenience me with their we can inspect you without a warrant at any time intrusions that go with the FFL
B: Cali is NOTORIOUS for being impossible to get permits for Illegal to the general public weapons unless you know someone. I do not have a local senator in my pocket. Most people do not.
Your argument is also flawed in that, why should I have to get a special license, that costs hundreds of dollars a year to buy guns, that YOU STILL can not buy cause the are illegal to sell in the state because they are unsafe (Cali’s BS Safety test that costs the gun companies so much they only bother to test one or two models. Oddly though these UNSAFE guns can still be sold to cops) or Illegal to sell because they have been banned (.50 rifles). You as a dealer can not order either cause you can’t sell them.
Your whole argument is like me saying as an example: It would be ok for the government to infringe on your right to free speech, as long as you can still fill out a bunch of paperwork and get a permit so you can go out and hold a sign bashing Bush etc. Yeah it’s more trouble, but what’s a few extra forms or a few hundred in fees, you still have the right. You just have to plan ahead to use it so you have time to go through all the red tape.
We have enough gun laws on the books BS laws like the .50 ban are just that, they are out there to make people who know nothing about the issue feel good about guns being taken away. Guns are only a minor part of the real crime problem. Banning guns that do not get used in crimes is pretty silly. Even if it make silly ignorant people feel safer.
Sounds like its time to move from Cali if you dislike it so much. I hear Nevada and Texas are pretty lenient on their gun laws.
jk man. :)
-
Originally posted by bustr
Raider,
I also own guns. Ive been retired from martial arts for about 10 years now. The human body can take only so much in a life time. If you are not afraid of Whako's, why do you work so hard to convince everyone to accept laws that might stop one Whako, but in reality strip citizens of their freedoms with dubious results on Whako's?
No Whako in the act of Whakoing someone is stopped by words written on a peice of paper. Most citizens have no clue what is in the law books. By definition a Whako is not afraid of the specific laws it is violating. Or ergo the Whako would not violate those laws.
Your responses to most on this board about laws seems to indicate you are afraid of the potential in all of your fellow citizens to become a Whako. Short of a telepathy machine being invented, there is no really effective method to tell if one citizen or another is a Whako, or will become one in their life time.
But, you can strip "all" of them of rights and privlages as a preventative "scattergun" measure with a method called "laws" until the only leagal activity's they can partake of are sanctioned by the State. Then you have the cohersion of Law by police or militairy to control everyone.
Oh but don't forget. The police and militairy are staffed by our fellow citizens and have the same Whako's in thier ranks. So now we are back where we started, but worse. You've just given the Whako's arms and training to enforce Whako prevention Laws against the disarmed law abiding citizens you want controled because of their potential to become Whako's.
sorry should have used Psycho instead of whacko. lol
Let me ask you this, Should you be allowed to purchase a missile? how bout a horitzer? what about any kind of arms you deam you want. Should there be any limits?
-
Originally posted by bustr
Raider,
To be honest Tenshin Ryu is a school of japanese militairy stratigy founded in the 1700's from Katori Shinto Ryu. It teaches all disiplines needed to perform as a samurai in the warfare of that time.
Karate as you think of it is a modern invention. Atemi wasa, striking techniques, have existed as part of armed warfare since it's inception. Testing ones ablility to perform the techniques of striking an opponent or cutting an opponent is standard fair for your education in such a school.
Testing your strikes, tamashiwari, could be on wooden boards, bricks, rocks, cinder blocks, ice or killing animals in a slaughter house. Testing your cutting abllity, tameshigiri, could be on green bamboo, green wood, rolled up grass matts, and as a freind of mine would do, purchase a fresh killed pig carcass. It is very close to a human body in density and structure.
I was being sarcastic :) Sounds cool though.
-
Oh I plan to move out of the state eventualy.
Prolly to the Northwest, nothing can be as bad as cali. Shame too, it is a pretty awsome state. Little bit over everything, forests, plains, valeys, desert, great beaches, hot beaches, etc.
To bad the state governments is so badly messed up.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Study the NRA CCW map - attached. Notice how the states with the largest cities (NY, CA, IL & Washington DC) are the ones with the strictest gun control laws? Now you might try to tell me that this is the reason for the relatively high rate of crime. It isn't. Your legislators have seen the folly of Guns-4-All in these areas, and have acted accordingly.
Houston (#4), Dallas (#8), Phoenix (#9), & San Antonio (#10)... all have right to carry. DC is ranked #19 in population, but 6th most dangerous city in the US. None of the mentioned cities other than DC even make the top 25.
You'd probably do better comparing crime rate & population density.. in which case we can reach the inevitable conclusion... ban high population densities!
-
If the Militairy has a nuke, I should have a nuke. If psycos will always be a part of the human condition, arm the population so being a psyco is a dieing proposition. I would rather see one psyco dead at the hands of one armed female, than his 12 month trial on Fox for the 12 unarmed females he murdered.
I grew up on military posts. Just as many psycos per population perportion as in the civilian sector. It mostly dosen't get into the media. They have their own court system and prisons.
Human beings are human beings in law enforcement, the militairy, clergy, hospitol, capitol hill, or next door. Every avenue of life having to do with human beings will have psycos. Heck doctors accidentaly kill more people a year than psycos, gang bangers, and Usam Bin Ladin.
Each of has a breaking point, getting there is different for each of us. If you want to bet your life that when some psyco reaches his, and targets you or yours, that a policeman will be standing next to him, or a law will deter him, by all means.
I have never met a policeman or a G.I. who will sign his name in blood on a mountain of bibles that he can personally save anyones kester at the moment a psyco goes off on you. Nor save your kester if or when our buerocrats decide to give up the charade of benevolency and declaire the constitution null and void in the name of security from foreign psyco's.
I beleive it's disingenuous to try and sell laws to people that ask them to give up even a nanosecond of their lifes time and energy to not being able to defend "their" life. In the process of controling human beings by creating adfinitum of laws restricting their daily activities in the hope of restricting psycos, you will reach a point of restrictive imbalance that creates those very psycos.
Politicians thrive on creating laws wheather there is any point to the law other than the emediate emotional histeria of the constituency. After the constituency has their fix, you have one more law on the books that gives the government one more way to restrict and regulate our lives as they choose to interprite the law.
You may feel good now, but you have no clue how that law added to the trail of good intentions inherited from past well meaning individules like your self will be used. One psyco can kill a few today. Laws live on long after you are dead and the original intent is forgotten being leveraged by the government against countless people who you will never have to face.
-
raider.." the violence policy center"?? they got busted for saying that like 9 children were killed every hour with handguns in the U.S.
They are the old "handgun control inc." that was laughed off of every stage they debated on. They depend on the fact that the people who read their stuff are allready of the same mindset.
seriously... is that the case with you? wouldn't you like to at least read the best book on the subject from the pro gun side (even tho he started out very anti gun)?
beetle is talking about concealled carry not guns allowed in the homes (washington dc and chicago..detroit new yuork cityall have very strict laws against firearms) beetle is also talking about a different book about english gun laws. So far as I know he has never read lott's book(s).
most anti gun people here have read reams of stuff by the anti gun crowd... most of it completely unscientific or totally lacking in any documentation yet... Armed (pun intended) with all this one sided prose... you feel that you are well informed.
Admit that nothing you read even pretends to be objective and then read the book that is objective "More guns less crime" by John Lott.
You can probly get a used copy on amazon... Otherwise...
What is the point of argueing the fireams issue?
lazs
-
England and Wales have one of the worst crime records in the industrialised world - even worse than America - according to the findings of an official survey published which compares the experience of victims across 17 countries.
The study, coordinated by the Dutch ministry of justice, shows England and Wales at the top of the world league with Australia as the countries where you are most likely to become a victim of crime. These countries face an annual rate of 58 crimes for every 100 inhabitants.
The findings, based on interviews with 35,000 people about their experience of crime across the 17 countries, were carried out last year. They are a blow to Labour's record and underline the challenge facing Tony Blair when he marks the launch of Labour's 10-year anti-crime plan next Monday by becoming the first serving prime minister to visit a prison.
The 2000 International Crime Victimisation survey shows that the falls in crime recorded since the mid-1990s in England and Wales are part of a general pattern of falling crime across the industrialised world but, unlike America, crime levels in England and Wales are still higher than they were at the end of the 1980s. When the survey was last carried out in 1996, England and Wales also topped the league table with 61 offences per 100 inhabitants.
According to the International Crime Victim Survey:2003/04.
Australia and then England and Wales had the highest burglary rates and rates for violent crimes such as robbery, assault and sexual assault .
People in England and Wales experienced more crime per head than any other country in the survey, 54.5 crimes per 100 inhabitants compared with an average of 35.2 per 100.
People in England and Wales face the second highest risk of being a victim of crime. Australia was the worst with 30% of its people victims of crime in 2000, followed by England and Wales with 26.4%.
England and Wales had the worst record for 'very serious' offences, scoring 18 for every hundred inhabitants, followed by Australia with 16.
People in England and Wales felt they were more unsafe when out alone after dark than people in most other countries surveyed, ranking 4th out of 17.
Contact crime, defined as robbery, sexual assault, and assault with force, was second highest in England and Wales (3.6% of those surveyed). The highest figure was for Australia, where it was 4.1%. The figure for the USA was 1.9% and for Japan, 0.4%.
according to International Crime Victim Survey:..england has a very high crime rate for population size,,..lol..allmost gives fuel to gun owners when they see that kinda crime
-
Originally posted by hyena426
People in England and Wales experienced more crime per head than any other country in the survey, 54.5 crimes per 100 inhabitants compared with an average of 35.2 per 100.
As can be seen from the chart below - supplied by an official source (the Home Office) the rate is below 30 per 1000. You're off by a factor of 20.
Feel free to quote the FACTS!
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/crime2003-04.jpg)
-
.Feel free to quote the FACTS!
not my facts...no need to break out your caps lock...lol. .its from a liberal web site.uk site i think?...if you wanna complain to them about lieing to me,,feal free... found that on civitas web site...suppose to be independent...{whos knows for sure} i dont put that much trust in official or non official surveys.. most say official and fair..lol
im sure you can find a bunch of web sites that are official that show all sorts of diffrent grafs to make ya feal better about crime or worse.http://www.civitas.org.uk/pubs/crimeBB.php The British Crime Survey...International Crime Victim Survey..Crime according to police records..home office crime survey..too many to chose from:)..lol
Civitas: the Institute for the Study of Civil Society was launched early in 2000 as an independent registered charity (No. 1085494). It is politically non-partisan and is financed by private donations. It accepts no government funding
-
Originally posted by beet1e
and even spent last weekend with Tomato, who was very happy to see me.
Never figured someone a woman who would date you had all her common sense.
(http://www.cpinternet.com/~tlong1//beetle_tomato.gif)
dago
-
There's nowt so queer as folk