Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: wrag on March 01, 2008, 06:15:47 PM
-
More ammo against the D.C. gun ban..............
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=57641
Some will point at the source I suppose.
BUT if you pay attention the media at times picks up the stories listed here and starts shouting.
Then some of those that point at this source look pretty funny to me :lol
If you REALLY want to KNOW or at least get an IDEA of whats going on in the world you need to look at several sources from BOTH sides.
Then figure it probably somewhere in between. OR write it down and see which source comes the closest to the actually TRUTH should that truth be later revealed.
Been watchin both side for awhile now.
-
this caught my eye
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44183
the crooked politicians just won't quit will they?
-
Originally posted by DieAz
this caught my eye
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44183
the crooked politicians just won't quit will they?
Granted... that is excessive... but what would you propose the punishment be for illegal firearm? Not picking a fight... just curious :aok
-
Originally posted by DYNAMITE
Granted... that is excessive... but what would you propose the punishment be for illegal firearm? Not picking a fight... just curious :aok
They already have a punishment for illegal firearms. It's called prison. And they often add in fines as well. And you lose many of your rights in the process.
ahhhh New Jersey...........
So we are finally there?
The Government, the politicians can now tell us what we can have and what we can not have to defend ourselves?
That we can defend ourselves only at their permission?
You forget that in the state of New Jersey a firearm MUST be registered or it is illegal?
You forget that in that state people registered their firearms with the PROMISE that those arms would never be taken from them and then after registering their arms found law enforcement at their doors demanding and taking some of those arms?
You really think they will stop?
You really think they will ALLOW you or anyone else that is not APPROVED to be armed?
Hitler didn't, Stalin didn't, Pol Pot didn't, Mao didn't, you really think they wont?
All through history OVER and OVER it has been the same and you think it's somehow going to be different this time?
ya right :rofl
-
If the Supreme Court rules that the 2nd Amendment is indeed an individual right and that the words....The right of the people to keep and bears arms shall not be infringed....means exactly that....NJ will have a lot of laws overturned, as will all other states.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
If the Supreme Court rules that the 2nd Amendment is indeed an individual right and that the words....The right of the people to keep and bears arms shall not be infringed....means exactly that....NJ will have a lot of laws overturned, as will all other states.
We can hope. But so far these places are getting away with it.
And any gun ower whos not in the NRA ,or at least voting for Pro-2nd politicians, deserves what they get.
-
Originally posted by DYNAMITE
Granted... that is excessive... but what would you propose the punishment be for illegal firearm? Not picking a fight... just curious :aok
nice little troll bait there, that question wrongly assumes I would agree those type of laws in violation of the Constitution of the United States are valid.
anyone enforcing those types of laws are in violation of title 18 U.S.C. section 242.
in my opinion the punishment for violation of 18 U.S.C. section 242 should be death. lets see if Capital Punishment is really a deterrent.
:aok
-
rich said... " And any gun ower whos not in the NRA ,or at least voting for Pro-2nd politicians, deserves what they get."
this is exactly right.. you can't be a pro osamabama guy and still want your gun rights.. In 99 out of 100 cases or more.. you can't vote for a democrat and then whine when you lose gun rights.
There are only 4 million NRA members.. there should be at least 100 million and they should vote as a block.
As for cops.... They are overwhelmingly in favor of second amendment rights... it is the fat, sleazy, political hack police chiefs who are against the people.
lazs
-
It's because of the guns deterring crime, and the death penalty deterring murder, that America has the lowest crime and murder rates in the world. Um, wait a second...
More ammo against the D.C. gun ban..............
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?...mp;pageId=57641
Some will point at the source I suppose.
Hmm. From the "news" story:
When sexual assaults started rising in Orlando, Fla., in 1986, police officers noticed women were arming themselves, so they launched a firearms safety course for them. Over the next 12 months, sexual assaults plummeted by 88 percent, burglaries fell by 25 percent and not one of the 2,500 women who took the course fired a gun in a confrontation.
For a start, the story gets the date wrong. By twenty years, in fact. The story originates with Gary Kleck, the same man who reckoned over 200,000 criminals were getting shot by citizens defending themselves each year.
Kleck's own data for Orlando doesn't exactly show remarkable benefits, either.
The rate of forcible rate in Orlando jumped about a lot in the 50s and 60s.
1959 - 26.02
1960 - 11.35
1961 - 6.72
1962 - 1.11
1963 - 0
1964 - 27.03
1965 - 12.82
1966 - 35.91 (the training programme began in 66)
1967 - 4.18 (training ended in 67)
1968 - 9.29
1969 - 16.43
Look at how the rate bounces around. From 26 in 59 to 0 in 63. There is certainly no clear trend caused by the training. In fact, the rate more than halved in the year before the training began.
The same is true of burglary. Murder rates actually rose slightly, as did car theft.
In other words, there seems to have been little to no impact on crime rates, which rose in 64, fell in 65, rose in 66, fell in 67, rose in 68.
-
Originally posted by DieAz
nice little troll bait there, that question wrongly assumes I would agree those type of laws in violation of the Constitution of the United States are valid.
anyone enforcing those types of laws are in violation of title 18 U.S.C. section 242.
in my opinion the punishment for violation of 18 U.S.C. section 242 should be death. lets see if Capital Punishment is really a deterrent.
:aok
I'm not trolling DieAz.
Are you saying that there are no circumstances in which a person an posses a gun illegally? Everyone can have them? Any time? No matter what they've done in the past (read convicted violent offenders)?
-
already answered those questions.
http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=227585
-
The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate, reads:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
One sentence. One thought.
Those who go spastic about the meaning and crusade to have their gun collection (or potential one) protected from the supposed inevitable confiscation from the state should be able to quote it accurately without parsing. Good luck. Carry on.
:D
-
No matter what this bubbles....the USA has the highest:
1. Amount of arms in the hands of civilians for any western nation
2. Capital/serious crime (Murder, Armed robbery and Rape) of any western nation.
3. Amount of its population in jail of any western nation.
So, it must be because the artillery and ammo is too little,...,,,..,,,
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population
Also the highest population of any western nation, so what do you expect.
-
Originally posted by Speed55
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population
Also the highest population of any western nation, so what do you expect.
Less population than the Europeans though, as well as much less population density, and even RURAL homicide rate in the USA exceeds TOTAL homicide rate in i.e. the UK.....
-
There's not one nation in Europe that even comes close to the population of the USA.
Even russia's population at under 150 million is less than half of the USA's.
USA 300+ million
UK under 70 million
Iceland under 400 thousand
So with that said, your points- 1, 2, and 3. make sense.
There will be more guns, more crime, more people in jail.
Edit: For a comparison - look at the borough of ny where i live.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queens
It has a larger population than about 140 countries from that wiki listing.
-
Originally posted by Angus
No matter what this bubbles....the USA has the highest:
1. Amount of arms in the hands of civilians for any western nation
2. Capital/serious crime (Murder, Armed robbery and Rape) of any western nation.
3. Amount of its population in jail of any western nation.
So, it must be because the artillery and ammo is too little,...,,,..,,,
What isn't mentioned in your post Angus is the fact that almost all of the violent crime in America is centered in the poor areas of the large cities. Cities that have gun control as strict as any European nation. We have about 60,000 street gang members in my area alone.
Send these gangstas to Iceland and see how much your laws slow them down. The vast amount of America is safer, or as safe, as any Euro country.
-
It's because of the guns deterring crime, and the death penalty deterring murder, that America has the lowest crime and murder rates in the world. Um, wait a second...
You are the only one who has said that. :)
Florida enacted their CCW law in 1987, so this articles date is probably accurate. Crime rates for all types of crime fluctuate from year to year. To think that there has only been one program to train women in the use of firearms is kinda silly. I don't doubt that there was one in 1966, or 1986 and probably quite a few in between and since.
-
Poor areas in big cities = more crime.
Arm them up, and what do you expect?
BTW, how about homicide rate in RURAL areas of the USA being more than in i.e. Britain. There you have absolutely no population or racial/cultural explanation whatsoever. Nothing, nada.
And although the USA being the most populated western country, that block is pretty much on par legislationally with the core of the European Union, which happens to have more inhabitants on much less space....
-
Florida enacted their CCW law in 1987, so this articles date is probably accurate.
It would be a truly remarkable coincidence if it was. Let's look at what they say:
When sexual assaults started rising in Orlando, Fla., in 1986, police officers noticed women were arming themselves, so they launched a firearms safety course for them.
This is what Kleck had to say, in 1982:
From October 1966 to March 1967 the Orlando Police Department sponsored a program intended to train women in the safe use of firearms. It was introduced in reaction to sharp increases in the number of rapes in 1966 and was given considerable publicity in the local newspaper.
The WND story again:
Over the next 12 months, sexual assaults plummeted by 88 percent, burglaries fell by 25 percent and not one of the 2,500 women who took the course fired a gun in a confrontation.
Kleck:
For 1966 the rape rate was 35.91 in Orlando, while it was only 4.18 for 1967, a one-year drop of 88%
Kleck doesn't mention the 25% drop in burglary in his text, but it is in the table he provides.
2 identical training programmes exactly 20 years apart, both producing an 88% drop in sex crimes, both producing a 25% drop in burglaries? Bit of a coincidence, isn't it?
In fact, if you do a search of the first line of the WND story, but change the date to 1966, you can see it quoted on lots of forums. Not only that, the Google cache of the WND page still has the date as 1966:
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:b4zLKLW7H_kJ:www.wnd.com/index.php%3Ffa%3DPAGE.printable%26pageId%3D57641+When+sexual+assaults+started+rising+in+Orlando,+Fla.,+in+1966,&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=uk&client=firefox-a
So the WND page used to say 1966, but now says 1986. Odd.
Crime rates for all types of crime fluctuate from year to year. To think that there has only been one program to train women in the use of firearms is kinda silly.
Crime rates certainly fluctuate. What's silly is that the story (via Kleck) attempts to assign the cause for one of those fluctuations to a training programme for guns.
-
It assigns the reason why to the PUBLICITY of the programs. That in itself is the most important factor.
If a criminal knows you have a gun, or knows there's a good chance you have a gun, then he won't attack you.
-
nice misdirection nashwan... the violent crime rate drops but.. non violent crime does tend to go up a little since.. criminals still need to eat too. they just fear attacking citizens who might have a gun.
burglaries of occupied homes go way down. unlike in your country where burglars just laugh at the homeowner and taunt him while he is hiding in his closed and they are emptying out the place.
You have no other option. I would never stand for your way of life.
you don't mind being a victim.. we do.. simple as that. I don't really see how devolving back to the strongest man wins is such a leap of civilization tho.
lazs
-
It's not misdirection, it's pointing out that the story has the date wrong by 20 years, and that whilst the claim is the training caused the 88% drop, 3 years earlier rape fell by 100%, and there is no explanation offered for that.
It's an attempt by a gun advocate (Kleck) to attribute cause to random variation.
burglaries of occupied homes go way down. unlike in your country where burglars just laugh at the homeowner and taunt him while he is hiding in his closed and they are emptying out the place.
No, not really. See the typical home has far more weapons in it than a burglar carries. The burglar here can't get a gun, so he typically only carries a short crowbar or knife.
Now, given a choice between taking on someone with a gun and someone with a knife or crowbar, I would feel much more at risk facing the man with the gun.
You have no other option. I would never stand for your way of life.
Of course we have an option. Just like you, we are armed as well as the burglars. It's just here both sides have less lethal weapons, making fighting back a much more realistic option.
A lot less people get killed by burglars here as a result.
you don't mind being a victim.. we do.. simple as that.
No, I don't want to be a victim. I don't want a crack head pointing a gun at me. Don't forget, over 16,000 Americans were the ultimate victims last year, losing their lives to criminals. You are far less likely to be a victim of serious crime, let alone murder, in the UK.
I don't really see how devolving back to the strongest man wins is such a leap of civilization tho.
I don't see how arming criminals works. The statistics back me up, too. About 50 people are murdered during thefts, burglaries and robberies in England and Wales each year. In the US, even with a much higher "unknown" total, it's about 1,300 each year.
Personally, I wouldn't want that much risk of being a victim.
-
Maybe you've already covered this, Laz ... but ... exactly how many times have you had to use a gun from your collection to protect your life or the life of a friend or family member to date? And ... just how secure is your house from intrusion while you and your family is away and criminals are out and about illegally arming themselves?
I'm not a victim because I'm smart enough not to be and I'm not looking (certainly not hoping) for a situation where I require a gun to defend myself. Having said that, I can still find a way, with or without a Desert Eagle, to do so. Hell, we even play a game where situational awareness is "a way of life." :)
-
Originally posted by Arlo
I'm not a victim because I'm smart enough not to be and I'm not looking (certainly not hoping) for a situation where I require a gun to defend myself.
thats what most victims think, "it will never happen to me, I'm too smart".
-
Originally posted by john9001
thats what most victims think, "it will never happen to me, I'm too smart".
Well it hasn't yet. I'm thinkin' your definition of "victim" entails a bit of wishful thinkin'. Got more than that? I do. I deal in facts, ma'am. :D
-
Now, given a choice between taking on someone with a gun and someone with a knife or crowbar, I would feel much more at risk facing the man with the gun.
I have gotten in the habit of checking out some of those real life behind bars federal prison shows. Most of the vicious animals I see there would simply take your cricket bat or golf club out of your hands and shove it up your bellybutton before they went on to rape and kill the rest of your family. Kind of like running into an even more sociopathic Mike Tyson type (in his prime) who realizes that you could send him back to jail if he doesn't do something about it.
You see security camera films of shankings where the victim is already dead before he hits the ground, stabbed perhaps 10 times or so in that 3 second time frame. Far stronger, quicker and with a life of violent conditioning. No remorse and no fear, unless you have a means to kill them that they can't physically dominate.
With a gun, in my own home, and with some personal training it is far more in my favor compared to any kind of H2H fighting even if the other guy has a gun. Especially if there is more than one. I can pull a trigger as easily as any of them, and my shots will more likely hit what I am shooting at. Just like the 80 year old guy who recently saved his own life from a home invasion using a pistol where it was obvious that the criminals (multiple, stronger and younger) wanted him dead from the beginning.
Of course, with a gun ban the criminals will still have a gun if they think they need one, just like they have plenty of banned crack cocaine and heroin to sell if they decide to do that. Perfect parallel. Drugs are banned in all 50 states and the countries on our border (and hemisphere for that matter). Can't even produce many domestically. Yet, they are available in abundant supply.
BTW. How's that ban on cheap samurai swords and pointy kitchen knives coming? I hear there is a new ban now on previously deactivated firearms as well. And how do those bans work in Manchester? Still more per capita homicides than DC in Moss Side, Longsight, and the suburb of Hulm?
In most of America, our homicide rate is directly comparable to Europe even with far more guns in all areas. We simply have more Manchesters (and always have back to the Gangs of New York days), though that is starting to change and not in your favor.
Charon
-
With a gun, in my own home, and with some personal training it is far more than in my favor compared to any kind of H2H fighting even if the other guy has a gun.
And yet the statistics don't back you up. Americans are armed, yet are murdered at a far greater rate than Britons. American police are armed, but are murdered at many times the rate of unarmed British police.
Mentioning prisoners brings up a good point. The murder rate in US prisons is about 5 per 100,000 people, actually below the overall US rate. The murder rate in British prisons is 4.9 per 100,000 (last time I checked) almost identical to the US rate, and several times higher than the UK population as a whole.
Of course, they can't get guns in prison.
Of course, with a gun ban the criminals will still have a gun if they think they need one, just like they have plenty of banned crack cocaine and heroin to sell if they decide to do that.
No, criminals get their guns through the same channels as the legal population, just with an extra step (most of the time). They buy their guns legally, they buy them second hand, they steal them from those who have bought them legally.
Drugs are banned in all 50 states and the countries on our border (and hemisphere for that matter). Can't even produce many domestically. Yet, they are available in abundant supply.
There's a big difference with drugs. A kilo of hard drugs makes about $100,000, after being cut. You make a lot of money on drugs.
A handgun weighs about a kilo, with some ammo. How many criminals can afford to buy a $100,000 handgun?
There just isn't the money to be made in supplying illegal handguns. Push the price up to the thousands of dollars that would make the trade worthwhile, and most criminals can't afford them any more.
BTW. How's that ban on cheap samurai swords and pointy kitchen knives coming? I hear there is a new ban now on previously deactivated firearms as well. And how do those bans work in Manchester? Still more per capita homicides than DC in Moss Side, Longsight, and the suburb of Hulm?
Lies, damned lies and gun lobby statistics.
Manchester had a murder rate of 2.19 per 100,000 last year. The US as a whole has 5.7 murders per 100,000 people (the US rate excludes negligent homicide, the UK rates include it)
Obviously you can subdivide a city, for example if 1 person in a 2 person house is murdered, then the rate for the house is 50,000 per 100,000. If 100 people live in the street, then the rate is 1,000 per 100,000. But if you compare like with like, then Manchester has a rate of 2.19 per 100,000, Washington was about 50 last time I checked.
Overall, 49 people were murdered with guns in England and Wales last year, something over 12,000 in the US, iirc.
In terms of total murders, again bearing in mind the UK figures include negligence, the US figures exclude it, England and Wales saw 1.4 murders per 100,000, the US 5.7 per 100,000.
In most of America, our homicide rate is directly comparable to Europe even with far more guns in all areas.
No. Only 3 US states have a rate as low or lower than the average for England and Wales, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota. The other 47 states are higher.
We simply have more Manchesters (and always have back to the Gangs of New York days), though that is starting to change and not in your favor.
We actually have more of our population in urban areas than the US does. And the figures are not really changing. I remember these debates on this board going back to 2000 or so. The gun advocates then were claiming that the US rate was falling, and the UK rate rising, and America would soon be safer than Britain. Only since then our rate has declined slightly, yours has increased slightly, and we are still far safer in Britain.
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080303/ap_on_re_us/wendy_s_shooting
'Nuther shooting...and the gunman killed himself before any armed citizen could intervene....as usual.
-
nashwan.. you will admit that your country is nothing at all like ours in makeup of the population?
Still... you have many times the number of burglaries in an occupied home. You don't seriously think that granny with a crowbar is a match for a 30 year old felon with a crowbar do you? The stats show that the crowbar is not stopping your burglars.. they laugh at you... their victims. they break into your homes while you run and hide.
no thanks.
lazs
-
arlo... yes.. I have answered your question in other threads.
but... I have never had a seatbelt or helmet save my life. not even on a carnival ride. I have never used my fire insurance or my flood insurance.
I probly never will sooo...
the gun thing seems like a pretty good deal in comparison in any terms you care to name... pain in the butt to deal with all the way to cost.
lazs
-
Charon, you disappoint me:
"In most of America, our homicide rate is directly comparable to Europe even with far more guns in all areas. We simply have more Manchesters (and always have back to the Gangs of New York days), though that is starting to change and not in your favor."
Look up. They are NOT. The USA has the highest rate of serious crime by FAR FAR and FAR, (Murder, Rape, Armed offence & robbery)
As beforementioned, even the serious crime rate in rather rural areas are more than the average in the UK, which BTW is more URBAN than the USA.
Although the biggest blocks of urban areas in the USA are bigger, - well, not by far and by no means unique in the world, the whole core of Europe is much more densely populated and with free transport within, - the whole diddly-doo has more population than the USA on roughly half the area.
As for granny with a crowbar, or a gun, - the last U.S. granny to hit the headlines here was threatening an unsuspecting Danish journalist (he was apparently reporting something on the Bush-Rasmussen meeting), - with a sixshooter, - the guy had stepped into her lawn for a more quiet phonecall or whatever....something that is not offensive enough in Europe to get legally shot for....
Now, not everyone is a granny, and I am not sure that the "Vicious animals" would like to be on the receiving end of some of my household tools, say alone my shotgun, for as you may know, it is legal to own weapons in Europe...for the legal people that is.
(As a sidenote, I was once expecting a rather naughty visit, so I always hade some "homemade" weapon closeby, as well as the pitchfork, - no way mr. Tyson :D)
-
more than half of our homicides are committed by one race.. one that most of you your-0-peeans and backwater country people would know nothing about.
If you take them out of the mix the figures are not that much different than you milktoast countries and quite comparable to canada say.
lazs
-
And yet the statistics don't back you up. Americans are armed, yet are murdered at a far greater rate than Britons. American police are armed, but are murdered at many times the rate of unarmed British police.
And yet, as we have gone over numerous times in the past, those "Americans killed at a greater rate" Are often (50 percent or higher) people with extensive criminal records living in a select handful of neighborhoods typically in a major urban area. There is no gun violence to note, no more than in Europe, outside of those specific communities.
Mentioning prisoners brings up a good point. The murder rate in US prisons is about 5 per 100,000 people, actually below the overall US rate. The murder rate in British prisons is 4.9 per 100,000 (last time I checked) almost identical to the US rate, and several times higher than the UK population as a whole.
Of course, they can't get guns in prison.
The rates are comparable to the US homicide rates and shows that hardened criminals in either country will kill each other about as often, and will make a deadly weapon out of a plastic coffee cup lid if that is their only option. Maybe, we just have (and have long had) more of "this kind" of criminal? See my second post.
There's a big difference with drugs. A kilo of hard drugs makes about $100,000, after being cut. You make a lot of money on drugs.
There is already a firearm black market supporting illegal gun sales at a fraction of that price and profit. Importing guns will add some, but not extremely so, to that cost if the UK is any example. For the gangs, it could easily be part of a package deal with their cocaine suppliers.
Manchester had a murder rate of 2.19 per 100,000 last year. The US as a whole has 5.7 murders per 100,000 people (the US rate excludes negligent homicide, the UK rates include it)
You better tell that to the Guardian:
Despite recent slight falls in the levels of gun crime, inner south Manchester remains one of the most dangerous parts of the country. In 2002 the firearms murder rate for England and Wales was 0.09 per 100,000 head of population, compared with 5.4 per 100,000 for the US.
In Greater Manchester the rate was to 10 per 100,000, while in Longsight, Moss Side and Hulme it was 140 per 100,000.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4874465-105248,00.html[/i]
BTW, politicians in both countries (and many cities) manipulate statistics to best serve their purposes. The Home Office has repeatedly denied gun crime is rising. Last week it pointed to the latest annual crime statistics, which appeared to show that overall gun crime was 13% down on the previous year.
But in his letter to Smith, released today, Davis said these claims were contradicted by figures “buried” in a Home Office statistical bulletin, published ear-lier this year. “[Here] we find the most revealing indication of the true gun-re-lated violence sweeping Britain. Gun-related killings and injuries (excluding air weapons) have increased over fourfold since 1998,” he wrote. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2328368.ece
As I pointed out, the US has more inner city gang problems than the UK has, and has had for over 200 years even when gun laws between the two countries were the same or less restrictive in the UK. Most of the US has no gun violence problem, and my neighborhood and thousands like it do not echo with the sound of gunshots (or even "gunshot"). And, obviously, Most big cities are generally violence free in most neighborhoods.. Only a handful of neighborhoods typically have a problem in a city, as I well know having lived in Chicago for 6 years and worked in NYC and LA for many months at a time. I bet Manchester is actually pretty safe itself, outside of that handful of communities.
Why is it, though, that those handful of communities have those problems in Manchester, etc.? Why do people in those communities keep killing each other while people, perhaps a few block over, do not? Answer me that? This peer reviewed (Harvard) paper points out some of the logical shortcomings with the more guns = more crime grossly broad hypothesis:
WOULD BANNING FIREARMS REDUCE
MURDER AND SUICIDE?
A REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL AND
SOME DOMESTIC EVIDENCE
DON B. KATES* AND GARY MAUSER**
The second issue, allied to the burden of proof, regards plausibility. On their face, the following facts from Tables 1 and 2 suggest that gun ownership is irrelevant, or has little relevance, to murder: France and neighboring Germany have exactly the same, comparatively high rate of gun ownership, yet the French murder rate is nearly twice the German; France has infinitely more gun ownership than Luxembourg, which nevertheless has a murder rate five times greater, though handguns are illegal and other types of guns sparse; Germany has almost double the gun ownership rate of neighboring Austria yet a similarly very low murder rate; the Norwegian gun ownership rate is over twice the Austrian rate, yet the murder rates are almost identical.
And then there is Table 3, which shows Slovenia, with 66% more gun ownership than Slovakia, nevertheless has roughly one‐third less murder per capita; Hungary has more than 6 times the gun ownership rate of neighboring Romania but a lower murder rate; the Czech Republic’s gun ownership rate is more than 3 times that of neighboring Poland, but its murder rate is lower; Poland and neighboring Slovenia have exactly the same murder rate, though Slovenia has over triple the gun ownership per capita...
...These conclusions are reinforced by focusing on patterns of African‐American homicide. Per capita, African‐American murder rates are much higher than the murder rate for whites.92 If more guns equal more death, and fewer guns equal less, one might assume gun ownership is higher among African‐ Americans than among whites, but in fact African‐ American gun ownership is markedly lower than white gun ownership.93
Particularly corrosive to the mantra are the facts as to rural African‐Americans gun ownership. Per capita, rural African‐ Americans are much more likely to own firearms than are urban African-Americans.94 Yet, despite their greater access to guns, the firearm murder rate of young rural black males is a small fraction of the firearm murder rate of young urban black males.95
These facts are only anomalous in relation to the mantra that more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
No, criminals get their guns through the same channels as the legal population, just with an extra step (most of the time). They buy their guns legally, they buy them second hand, they steal them from those who have bought them legally.
Very few buy them legally or go through the same channels. Most (perhaps 70 percent) couldn't pass the background check. Is there a criminal black market network in place where people break the law and face prison time to sell a gun for $100 or $200 in profit. Sure. And straw purchasers and thieves should be punished rigorously. It does get back to the earlier point though, where $100 - $200 in profits is enough to risk jail time for supplying illegal guns.
As a side note to the "gun show loophole" nonsense, the average time between when a handgun is sold and used in crime in NYC is, as I remember, about 12 years. If not the exact figure it is certainly in the ball park.
No. Only 3 US states have a rate as low or lower than the average for England and Wales, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota. The other 47 states are higher.
Again, you use a gross statistic that does not reflect the reality of violent crime in the US. Illinois is a very safe state. Cook County is actually a very safe county. Chicago is even a very safe city -- in real life terms. Statistically, the murder rate in the state is high but it's not uniformly dispersed throughout the state even though gun ownership is (in fact, legal gun ownership is far higher in the safest parts of the sate). I'm sure, Manchester is generally a safe place to visit and live. However, there are communities within these areas, often just a handful of blocks or 3 districts out of 20 or 30 that have a real violence problem, often linked to street gangs or wanna bee thuggery.
We actually have more of our population in urban areas than the US does. And the figures are not really changing. I remember these debates on this board going back to 2000 or so. The gun advocates then were claiming that the US rate was falling, and the UK rate rising, and America would soon be safer than Britain. Only since then our rate has declined slightly, yours has increased slightly, and we are still far safer in Britain.
We actually have entire states where you could drive for 2-3 hours and not see another human, which skews any gross national statistic. Again, you cannot make an apples to apples comparison here. Where is your Montana, Alaska, Texas or a dozen other similar areas? Aside from London, your "urban areas" tend to be quaint villages nestled around a variety of mid-sized cities and towns with a largely homogeneous population. In fact, lets look at the 10 largest cities comparing the US and UK. Oops, let's make it 11 so we can get a 2nd UK city in there.
1. New York 8,214,426
2. London 7.2 Million
3. Los Angeles 3,849,378
4. Chicago 2,833,321
5. Houston 2,144,491
6. Phoenix 1,512,986
7. Philadelphia 1,448,394
8. San Antonio 1,296,682
9. San Diego 1,256,951
10. Dallas 1,232,940
11. Birmingham 992,000
I've spent time in various parts of Britain and much of the US. I don't feel any less safe in the US. In real life terms, I'm not less safe.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
more than half of our homicides are committed by one race.. one that most of you your-0-peeans and backwater country people would know nothing about.
If you take them out of the mix the figures are not that much different than you milktoast countries and quite comparable to canada say.
lazs
70% of this island is black lazs.
Being as you never associate with blacks how can you claim to know anything about them? At all?
-
hmmmm curval.. I was talking about countries not theme parks and tax shelters on fantasy island.
we could look at africa tho if you want.
lazs
-
For those who think that facing a hardened criminal (who is unarmed) while being unarmed yourself (or with a cricket bat, perhaps) is preferable, a picture can be worth 1000 words. So here are some pictures -- moving ones at that. Me, well, I would rather have a gun even if the criminal has a gun in return. Not that he wont anyway, even if mine is banned out of my hands.
The "I'll just slap him on the noggin with my cricket bat" train of though probably comes from a world view on those bumbling criminals like this one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7BAJpbWTkg
Here's reality
Here's an athletic, trained cop going H2H with a real bad guy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opkd7Gw1Z78&feature=related
Here are two cops with billy clubs having a hell of a time subduing one individual.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Kx7ZbV5K9s&feature=related
Here's a prison guard getting a beatdown.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eU1LoQ0UUmo&feature=related
Here's a prison riot from a show I saw this weekend that kind of encapsulates most of America's violence problem. Did you know that in LA some Latin gangs have randomly targeted blacks in the community to enforce a version of ethnic cleansing of "their" neighborhoods? Note, prisoners are not allowed to make illegal weapons -- it's against the rules.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RH3ETX4zSOQ&feature=related
And as I pointed out, our gang problem is spreading internationally like Starbucks and McDonalds. Unfortunately for our Canadian brothers, MS-13 likes Machetes as much as handguns.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NudzVA8bbak&feature=related
-
nashwan.. you will admit that your country is nothing at all like ours in makeup of the population?
I'll admit that I used to think the way you do. I thought certain groups of immigrants caused extra crime. But in the last decade, our wonderful government has opened the floodgates to immigrants, from all over the world.
And yet the murder rate has tended to fall. According to the police, more than half the murders being committed in London are by foreigners. But they seem to be simply replacing British criminals, not augmenting them.
The worst murder rate in Britain is in Glasgow. It also happens to have one of the lowest rate of ethnic minorities of any large British city.
So no, I don't think it's a matter of race. Indeed, even if you exclude murders by black people in the US, which is effectively excluding most of the urban poor, the US murder rate is still twice the British rate, including all our urban poor.
Still... you have many times the number of burglaries in an occupied home.
No. That's another of those "lies, damned lies and gun advocate statistics".
You don't seriously think that granny with a crowbar is a match for a 30 year old felon with a crowbar do you?
Of course not. But granny isn't a match for an armed burglar at all. Armies are full of fit young men, after all. No military thinks giving an 80 year old little old lady a gun makes her an effective combatant.
The stats show that the crowbar is not stopping your burglars
And the guns aren't stopping yours. The difference is, less of us are getting killed along the way.
they laugh at you... their victims.
Which is what the US criminals do. Before shooting people.
they break into your homes while you run and hide.
Same with you. Don't rely on made up figures.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
more than half of our homicides are committed by one race.. one that most of you your-0-peeans and backwater country people would know nothing about.
If you take them out of the mix the figures are not that much different than you milktoast countries and quite comparable to canada say.
lazs
LOL, - ever been to London? Or Leeds? Or down south to the Med?
Ahh, ya, it's all them inferior races...
Just like Rural Americans?
-
My bad....I thought you were referring to me when you mentioned "backwater" countries.
Africa is a poor example to use.
Are guns legal or illegal there...which African country are you referring to?
Are black people born in America Americans? If so they form part of your stats. End of story.
-
Nashwan, you just can't seem to get your head around the idea that criminals are not killing, for the most part, people who are not other criminals or who do not socialize in criminal circles. Typically in very well defined, fairly limited areas with major poverty and gang problems.
I can literally walk down one side of a street in Chicago and feel perfectly safe, and cross the street and be in mortal danger each minute I stay there. I can literally buy a million dollar loft a block away from a housing project. And, far more of the city is safe, (80-90 percent) than is unsafe.
Given that gun laws are uniform in these areas, that tells me guns are an ancillary concern -- a symptom of much greater problems that society should be addressing. Focusing on the tool used by these thugs simply allows politicians to distract from the fact that they lack the political will and courage to actually address the real problems.
Charon
-
Look up. They are NOT. The USA has the highest rate of serious crime by FAR FAR and FAR, (Murder, Rape, Armed offence & robbery)
Depends on how you define Violence. According to the UN (as reported in BBC)...
The study found that, excluding murder, Scots were almost three times as likely to be assaulted as Americans.
Victims of crime in 21 countries were interviewed by the UN, but senior Scots police officers criticised the study.
The survey concluded that 2,000 Scots were attacked every week. That figure is 10 times the number recorded in official police figures.
'Upward trend'
The figure for Scotland dwarfs that of other developed nations such as Japan, where people are 30 times less likely to be attacked.
The study, based on telephone interviews conducted between 1991 and 2000, said 3% of people in Scotland had suffered an assault, while the figure for England and Wales was second highest at 2.8%.
Both Australia and New Zealand had the next highest proportion of assaults among their population at 2.4%, exactly double the level reported for the United States. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/4257966.stm
Given that I am not a criminal myself, or hang in criminal circles, I am likley more at risk from a violent encounter in the UK than the US. However, it's not much of a statistical concern either way.
[EDIT: LOL almost missed this part. Scotland's violence problem is caused by the tool as well! "That's why we will address the culture of violence by doubling the maximum penalty for carrying a knife to four years, by strengthening police powers of arrest for people suspected of carrying a knife, and by raising the age at which a person can buy a non-domestic knife from 16 to 18. Just how, exactly, will that address the culture of violence. Oy]
As beforementioned, even the serious crime rate in rather rural areas are more than the average in the UK, which BTW is more URBAN than the USA.
Although the biggest blocks of urban areas in the USA are bigger, - well, not by far and by no means unique in the world, the whole core of Europe is much more densely populated and with free transport within, - the whole diddly-doo has more population than the USA on roughly half the area.
Part one covered earlier in this thread. Part 2...
Europe was always less violent, except World Wars I & II, the Hundred Years War, and the Middle ages, etc. As pointed out before (with a modern European study you didn't read in 2 past threads) Europe has not had the same pattern of inner city gangland activity the US has had. The same environment that generates most of our crime. Unfortunately for Europe (and the driver of the study), that is changing. Your poor knew their place in society, and even respected the fact that once an oik, always an oik. They likely had a two parent home during this time, to instill some ethics and morality even among criminals. They felt part of society. Now, just where is Europe's current violence problem coming from? Who is committing those crimes?
BTW, would it be too Goodwinson of me to point out how Hitler was such a strong proponent of strict gun control? You have nothing to fear -- the state will keep you safe!
As for granny with a crowbar, or a gun, - the last U.S. granny to hit the headlines here was threatening an unsuspecting Danish journalist (he was apparently reporting something on the Bush-Rasmussen meeting), - with a sixshooter, - the guy had stepped into her lawn for a more quiet phonecall or whatever....something that is not offensive enough in Europe to get legally shot for....
Don't know what the journalist did. Do know that apparently he wasn't actually shot.
Here are some real world examples. I got a bit lazy and used a good list from the mid 90s, but there are plenty of individual exaples up to this day including the WW2 vet that killed the violent robber with his bringback Luger and the other 80 year old guy who shot and drove off the two home invaders trying to stab him to death:
From the American Rifleman, February 1994.
Bessie Jones is 92 and confined to a wheelchair, hardly able to defend herself from the human predators that inhabit her Chicago neighborhood. What makes Jones their match, however, is her handgun. After a young thug broke in and wheeled her from room to room looking for valuables, Jones managed to get her gun and warned the teenager off. When he ignored her, Jones fired and killed him. [NOTE: of course, in Chicago she became a criminal herself]
From The American Rifleman, December 1995
Ninety-two year old Conrad Schwarzkopf had been sleeping in his Long Island, New York, home when a punk four times his junior barged into his bedroom and began beating him up. Schwarzkopf tried to fight back, but was just no match for the younger man, and wound up being tossed into a closet. There, as the man ransacked the house searching for money, Schwarzkopf found the semi-automatic pistol he kept in the closet and emerged from its darkness firing, striking his assailant in the hand and chest. The injured criminal immediately ran to a nearby payphone where he called police and confessed to robbing a house and being shot by the homeowner.
The following story aired on WWL-TV Channel 4, New Orleans, July 14, 1994.
A 68 year old driver for the White Fleet cab company picked up Vitago Lewis and another person at the 2500 block of Laurel St. in New Orleans last night. Lewis pulled a gun on the driver and fired but missed. The driver then shot Lewis in the chest, but his accomplice escaped, and is still at large. The "alleged" perpetrator is in stable condition in a New Orleans hospital, and will be charged with attempted armed robbery and attempted murder.
From the American Rifleman, April 1992
Even though ill and wearing an oxygen mask, a homebreaker found that 74 year old Lena Mae Pate of Oroville, California, was no pushover. When the man broke into her home and, despite repeated warnings, continued to advance, Pate fired at him with her .38 revolver, putting him to flight. A wounded suspect, who had once worked for Pate, was arrested after seeking treatment.
From the American Rifleman, September 1994
It was a hot night in Sacramento, so 80 year old Lillian Carlson left her porch door open when she went to bed. This provided easy access for an intruder , who appeared in the bedroom. Carlson reached for the gun she has kept in her night stand for 50 years, aimed it at her unwelcome guest, and said, "You can live or die. Which is it going to be?" The culprit walked out then walked back in. Two shots from Carlson's antique revolver convinced him to leave for good. Police arrested a wounded suspect the next morning.
From the American Rifleman, October 1995
Roughed up, blindfolded, tied to her bed and fearful of being raped by two robbers, a Spanaway, Washington, grandmother managed to work her hands free and retrieve her .22 cal. revolver. When one of the men started to return upstairs, 69 year old Wilma Roberts shot twice, wounding him in the arm. Roberts then chased the two from her house, firing additional shots as they fled in her van. Police recovered the van just miles away from Robert's home and arrests were expected.
Buffalo News, January 17, 2008: A 73-year-old West Side store owner foiled a robbery Wednesday evening when he pulled out a 9 mm handgun and shot the would be bandit. It was the second time in three days an elderly city store owner fired a gun during a robbery attempt. The 78-year-old owner of Bocce Club Pizzeria on Clinton Street chased away two would-be robbers Monday night with a warning shot. Police said Wednesday's incident occurred when Shaun M. Ford, 30, of Linwood Avenue, North Tonawanda, targeted the West Side Market at 255 Carolina St. just before 7 p.m. and demanded money from owner Ali Abdulla. Ford was wearing a protective mask used in paint-ball and was armed with a rifle, according to Central District Lt. David S. Stabler, head of the investigation. Ford followed Abdulla behind the counter, continuing to demand money and pointing the rifle at him, police said. Abdulla then pulled out his licensed handgun and fired as many as two shots at Ford, striking him once in the leg, police said. Ford fled the store, dropping the rifle and his mask and fell to the sidewalk just outside the store's front door, where he cried for help, police said. He was taken to Erie County Medical Center for treatment and is expected to survive, police said. Criminal charges against him were being processed late Wednesday, according to Michael J. De- George, Buffalo police spokesman. The son of the store owner, Ahmed Abdulla, said his father runs the store from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. seven days a week. "The person came in and pointed the gun at him and my father shot him," he said. "I'm proud of him." Police said it is unlikely the father, who was not injured, will face charges in the incident. "It's not that we encourage vigilantism, but he appeared to have acted in self-defense," DeGeorge said. "Sometimes it's just reactionary. People react very differently in different situations."As for the Bocce Club pizzeria, it was the second time in less than two weeks that the business was robbed. The owner there was confronted about 7 p.m. Jan. 2 by two men, one with a pistol, who demanded money. Both bandits fled with cash. Monday, two men entered the shop and one pointed a handgun at the owner but that time the owner pulled out his own gun and fired a single shot, scaring off the bandits.
-
Given that gun laws are uniform in these areas, that tells me guns are an ancillary concern -- a symptom of much greater problems that society should be addressing. Focusing on the tool used by these thugs simply allows politicians to distract from the fact that they lack the political will and courage to actually address the real problems.
:aok
-
And yet, as we have gone over numerous times in the past, those "Americans killed at a greater rate" Are often (50 percent or higher) people with extensive criminal records living in a select handful of neighborhoods typically in a major urban area. There is no gun violence to note, no more than in Europe, outside of those specific communities.
Again, only 3 US states can match the murder rate for England and Wales, and the UK rate contains large cities like London, Birmingham, Liverpool, Gtr Manchester etc.
The rates are comparable to the US homicide rates and shows that hardened criminals in either country will kill each other about as often, and will make a deadly weapon out of a plastic coffee cup lid if that is their only option. Maybe, we just have (and have long had) more of "this kind" of criminal? See my second post.
It's not "more of this kind", because it's a rate, not an absolute number. The evidence shows that the US prison population, minus guns, carries out less murders than the US average, whereas the British prison population carries out substantially more than the UK rate. Perhaps we have similar rates of violent criminals, but the absence of guns makes them less dangerous. After all, in prison, where guns are not available, our criminals are every bit as murderous as yours.
There is already a firearm black market supporting illegal gun sales at a fraction of that price and profit.
Because supply is so easy. Cut off the source of supply, and suddenly criminals have to go to much greater lengths to obtain a gun.
Importing guns will add some, but not extremely so, to that cost if the UK is any example.
Well, a handgun in the UK costs $2 - $4,000, if you have the contacts to buy one. Homemade guns using blanks to fire ball bearings are cheaper, but not the sort of thing you want to use if you can help it. Guns that might have been used in murders are cheaper, but of course leave you open to life in prison, even if you never fire it yourself.
For the gangs, it could easily be part of a package deal with their cocaine suppliers.
Probably. Mid level drug dealers require firearms to do their "job", so price isn't much of a deterrent. But they tend to keep the guns to deal with other drug gangs, not use them on the public in street robberies.
You better tell that to the Guardian:
Despite recent slight falls in the levels of gun crime, inner south Manchester remains one of the most dangerous parts of the country. In 2002 the firearms murder rate for England and Wales was 0.09 per 100,000 head of population, compared with 5.4 per 100,000 for the US.
In Greater Manchester the rate was to 10 per 100,000, while in Longsight, Moss Side and Hulme it was 140 per 100,000.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3...-105248,00.html
I wouldn't trust British newspapers that much.
Greater Manchester has a population of 2.5 million. If the firearms murder rate was 10 per 100,000, that would be 250 firearms murders in Manchester in 2002.
In fact there were 97 homicides involving firearms in the 2001/2002 year, and 81 in 2002/2003, for the whole of England and Wales.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb0104.pdf
I suspect someone in the Guardian has misread figures given for crimes per million, rather than per 100,000.
BTW, politicians in both countries (and many cities) manipulate statistics to best serve their purposes.
Gun-related killings and injuries (excluding air weapons) have increased over fourfold since 1998,” he wrote. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/ne...icle2328368.ece
Ah, but what's an "injury"? In the UK it includes stress from seeing the gun.
The one figure that they cannot manipulate one way or the other is the number killed by firearms. It was 49 last year, down from the high of 2002, and lower than the figures for the early 90s.
As I pointed out, the US has more inner city gang problems than the UK has, and has had for over 200 years even when gun laws between the two countries were the same or less restrictive in the UK.
It's not gun laws, it's the availability of guns. Guns used to be freely available in Britain, but because a handgun cost a few weeks wages, very few were about.
It's the availability of guns, not the specific laws surrounding them. (I'll bet that 50 years from now there will be far more crime committed with laser weapons, even though there will be laws against them, and lasers are available now.)
Why is it, though, that those handful of communities have those problems in Manchester, etc.? Why do people in those communities keep killing each other while people, perhaps a few block over, do not? Answer me that?
I don't know. Why is crime concentrated amongst the urban poor?
I know that it is, though.
And I also know that it is even when waves of immigrants come and displace the existing urban poor, as seen in, for example, London.
This peer reviewed (Harvard) paper points out some of the logical shortcomings with the more guns = more crime grossly broad hypothesis:
But it's a straw man argument. Nobody is saying guns cause crime, any more than Kleck is really arguing guns prevent crime.
The argument is that the availability of guns to criminals results in increased murder rates.
Why is it that the most violent UK city has more robberies than the US average, but less people killed in robberies? More violent assaults, less people killed in violent assaults? Why do robberies committed with guns in the US have a higher murder rate than robberies committed with knives?
The simple fact is a criminal with a gun is a lot more dangerous than a criminal who hasn't got a gun.
Very few buy them legally or go through the same channels. Most (perhaps 70 percent) couldn't pass the background check. Is there a criminal black market network in place where people break the law and face prison time to sell a gun for $100 or $200 in profit. Sure. And straw purchasers and thieves should be punished rigorously. It does get back to the earlier point though, where $100 - $200 in profits is enough to risk jail time for supplying illegal guns.
Because the risk is low. But the risk, and effort, in acquiring guns abroad, and smuggling them in, is much, much greater. It's even greater if there isn't a legal market in the country.
If a gun dealer is taking a handgun to a criminal contact in the UK, and gets stopped, then as soon as the police find the gun, he's arrested. He doesn't have a licence, and is facing 5 years in prison. He will be on remand, unlikely to get bail.
Now imagine the same case in the US. The illegal dealer probably has a licence himself, so if the police stop him with a gun, he's covered. They have to catch him in the act of selling.
And that's before you get to ammunition, which is freely available in the US, very hard to get hold of in the Uk.
Again, you use a gross statistic that does not reflect the reality of violent crime in the US. Illinois is a very safe state. Cook County is actually a very safe county.
Is it? I looked up the number of murders for Cook County. 2000 - 2004 there were 3,453 murders. I suppose you could consider that safe, if you weren't one of the 3,453 murdered, or one of their family or close friends.
We actually have entire states where you could drive for 2-3 hours and not see another human, which skews any gross national statistic. Again, you cannot make an apples to apples comparison here. Where is your Montana, Alaska, Texas or a dozen other similar areas?
But these rural areas should make the US safer. If you look at murder rates, they are higher in urban areas.
Aside from London, your "urban areas" tend to be quaint villages nestled around a variety of mid-sized cities and towns
No. Take Greater Manchester. It's an area of old industrial towns that expanded until they made one giant urban area. Places like Trafford, Bolton, Salford, Stockport etc are not "quaint villages".
with a largely homogeneous population
The police and politicians in the UK don't like to give breakdowns of crime by race. However, I did find a nice research document on firearms crime in Gtr Manchester from 1997 - 2000.
Out of 46 people shot in Manchester in the period, 76% were black, 7% Asian, 17% white. Out of the suspected shooters, 69% were black, 25% white, 6% Asian.
In fact, lets look at the 10 largest cities comparing the US and UK. Oops, let's make it 11 so we can get a 2nd UK city in there.
1. New York 8,214,426
2. London 7.2 Million
3. Los Angeles 3,849,378
4. Chicago 2,833,321
5. Houston 2,144,491
6. Phoenix 1,512,986
7. Philadelphia 1,448,394
8. San Antonio 1,296,682
9. San Diego 1,256,951
10. Dallas 1,232,940
11. Birmingham 992,000
Well, the figures are a bit off, for example Gtr Manchester should be 5th on the list. But you seem to miss the point. We are talking rates. As the US has about 5.5 times the population, you should see about 5.5 times the population in large cities. In fact the top ten, even excluding Gtr Manchester, shows about 23.5 million living in US cities of over a million, 7.2 million living in British cities of over a million.
If you put those as rates, 1 in 7.9 residents of England and Wales live in cities over 1 million population, compared to 1 in 12.7 US citizens. And as I said, that excludes Manchester.
That should make US murder rates lower, because a smaller proportion of your population lives in large cities.
I don't feel any less safe in the US. In real life terms, I'm not less safe.
In real terms, you are.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Poor areas in big cities = more crime.
Arm them up, and what do you expect?
BTW, how about homicide rate in RURAL areas of the USA being more than in i.e. Britain. There you have absolutely no population or racial/cultural explanation whatsoever. Nothing, nada.
And although the USA being the most populated western country, that block is pretty much on par legislationally with the core of the European Union, which happens to have more inhabitants on much less space....
You didn't read my post. In these large cities guns are already illegal. We aren't "arming anyone up" and I resent your implication. Ive been all over this country and been a big city street cop ,in very high crime areas, for 25 years. I think Ive learned a few things about crime in America.
If your going to make statements about crime rates then back them up with sources. Your second paragraph may make sense in Iceland but its hard to understand here. Actually your entire post is kinda hard to decifer.
-
Nashwan, you just can't seem to get your head around the idea that criminals are not killing, for the most part, people who are not other criminals or who do not socialize in criminal circles. Typically in very well defined, fairly limited areas with major poverty and gang problems.
No, I understand what you are getting at, I just think you are greatly overstating the facts. Are you more at risk of being killed if you are a criminal? Yes. But even the non criminals in the US are at much greater risk than people in the UK.
Given that gun laws are uniform in these areas, that tells me guns are an ancillary concern -- a symptom of much greater problems that society should be addressing. Focusing on the tool used by these thugs simply allows politicians to distract from the fact that they lack the political will and courage to actually address the real problems.
Well, that's a nice sentiment, but I'd be interested to see what you can come up with. Me, I'd rather disarm the criminals in the meantime.
BTW, would it be too Goodwinson of me to point out how Hitler was such a strong proponent of strict gun control? You have nothing to fear -- the state will keep you safe!
It's a nice story, but it isn't really true. Hitler was a keen proponent of private firearms, after all he used his private army to gain power.
Hitler didn't change the gun laws until 1938, by which time he'd stripped the Jews of all their rights, most had either been put in camps or fled.
The sad fact is without the threat of armed communists and fascists both attacking the government at once, Hitler would probably never have achieved power.
-
It's not "more of this kind", because it's a rate, not an absolute number. The evidence shows that the US prison population, minus guns, carries out less murders than the US average, whereas the British prison population carries out substantially more than the UK rate
Uh....seriously....what difference does it make how someone is murdered, or which tool is used, dead is dead.
-
I find myself having a real problem with this statement.........
by Nashwan
"It's a nice story, but it isn't really true. Hitler was a keen proponent of private firearms, after all he used his private army to gain power."
Everything I've read and seen and heard says otherwise. Even remember seeing something on the history or military channel of people explaining that you could be shot trying to turn in a weapon.
Please explain your reasoning.
-
Originally posted by wrag
I find myself having a real problem with this statement.........
by Nashwan
"It's a nice story, but it isn't really true. Hitler was a keen proponent of private firearms, after all he used his private army to gain power."
Everything I've read and seen and heard says otherwise. Even remember seeing something on the history or military channel of people explaining that you could be shot trying to turn in a weapon.
Please explain your reasoning.
I may be wrong... (and i probably am...) but Hitler really wasn't against personal fire arm ownership (for some) i know i've read more than one source claiming that... i'll see if i can find it.
Anyway... Were some shot while turning in their weapons? Probably. Of course they also shot some people who neglected to sew a six pointed piece of fabric on their clothes... so keep that in mind.
-
Again, only 3 US states can match the murder rate for England and Wales, and the UK rate contains large cities like London, Birmingham, Liverpool, Gtr Manchester etc.
London is the only large city on your list. And I bet none of the "three states" you list have a major (by US standards) city. And, very clearly, homicide in the US is not uniformly dispersed among the states, within a state, within a county or within a specific city. Chicago is currently divided into 25 police districts. According to data released by the Chicago Police Department in January; five districts have remained among the city's deadliest over the last five years: Harrison, Austin and Marquette on the West Side and Englewood and South Chicago on the South Side.
In 2002 alone, these districts represented less than a fifth of the city's population, yet accounted for 40 percent of Chicago's murders. Murder counts in these areas are at about the same levels they were five years ago.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JAS/is_2_32/ai_98166282
However, gangland influence is spreading and active in the poorer parts of mid sized and smaller cities, some in what could be considered rural areas. The gangs have been very active in franchise expansion. Still, even in those communities there is a clear delineation of the good and bad neighborhoods.
It's not "more of this kind", because it's a rate, not an absolute number. The evidence shows that the US prison population, minus guns, carries out less murders than the US average, whereas the British prison population carries out substantially more than the UK rate. Perhaps we have similar rates of violent criminals, but the absence of guns makes them less dangerous. After all, in prison, where guns are not available, our criminals are every bit as murderous as yours.
I never meant to imply we have similar rates of violent criminals (exactly the opposite) but that violent criminals kill other violent criminals just like they do on the streets. Of course, without information as to how the prisons are run, who exactly is killing in prison relative to other inmates, why they are killing... there is not enough information to really draw a conclusion form this either way. I could conclude, for example, that UK ethnic gang types have more concentrated interactions in prison than in their home neighborhoods that the UK has lagged in dealing with this special type of inmate. In the US, the gang focus has been a major component of prison control for 50 years and we have developed mechanisms to minimize some of the impact. US style street gangs are still a very new development in traditional Europe.
Maybe the heavy direct supervision you have as a prison inmate keeps down the killings to about this level? That does corresponded to the fact that NYC's crime rates dropped dramatically in the 1990s when they dramatically increased the number of cops on the beat. And, even with no guns, and full supervision, inmates are readily able to kill using weapons made out of coffee cup lids, melted in a toilet stove and worked into a deadly point.
Because supply is so easy. Cut off the source of supply, and suddenly criminals have to go to much greater lengths to obtain a gun.
First, with over 100 million guns in circulation this is a non starter from a practical standpoint. 2nd, the US is not an island. 3rd, impediments to the drug trade have had little impact on price or availability. Would removing all domestic guns increase price? Yes. Would that matter to the types who do most of the killing? I can't see it. We don't have a lot of "casual" killing in the US that do not involve the type of people who would pay extra for a gun (but, IMO, probably not that much extra).
Probably. Mid level drug dealers require firearms to do their "job", so price isn't much of a deterrent. But they tend to keep the guns to deal with other drug gangs, not use them on the public in street robberies.
Your chance of being killed in the US if you are not actively involved gangland activity, are an active "wanna be" or socialize with gang bangers or actively emulate that lifestyle are fairly slim.
For robberies specifically, according to the FBI, out of 14,121 murders in 2004 (9,326 involving a firearm) only 988 were related to a robbery (745 using a firearm). It does not state what percentage of those were one criminal robbing another, etc. Just like the figure for "killed in an argument" does not break out to one gang banger or thug disrespecting another. This, out of a national population of about 300 million at the time. There were over 401,362 total robberies in 2004.
That means: You have/had a 0.13 percent chance of being robbed in a given year. If you are robbed, you have a 0.185 percent chance of being shot and killed during the robbery. Overall, you have a 0.00025 percent chance of being shot and killed in a robbery attempt compared to the "enormous" 0.0031 percent chance of being killed in any kind of firearm homicide.
I wouldn't trust British newspapers that much.
Greater Manchester has a population of 2.5 million. If the firearms murder rate was 10 per 100,000, that would be 250 firearms murders in Manchester in 2002.
Perhaps the reference was to all homicide, which means you can have US style death totals without the need for a gun. Or perhaps they referenced Greater Manchester when the meant just the city itself. But, I certainly cannot trust the local papers to print any statistics or provide balance on gun control here. They are clearly biased, and will print editorials that are a cut and past from Brady.org without even asking a basic question like "how many people are actually killed by assault rifles each year?" Simple Journalism 101 -- unless you are not interested in invalidating your agenda. So, I suppose I agree with you there.
The one figure that they cannot manipulate one way or the other is the number killed by firearms. It was 49 last year, down from the high of 2002, and lower than the figures for the early 90s.
Which would be useful if the UK had a history of US style street gangs so you could make an apples to apples comparison. You also imply that somehow, inner city crime has a current and historical dynamic between the US and UK. That is not the case. What is the History of the Italian Mafia in the UK that rose to prominence during the Prohibition years in the US? Where is the UK Jewish mafia of the period. Where is the UK Bloods and Crips and MS-13? Has the UK had well established, inner city ethnic gangs of anywhere near the scope seen in the US?
As posted in the Kleck study homicide rates vary greatly even among similar regional European counties without a firm correlation to gun ownership. As this often posted but never acknowledged study notes ( Street Gang Violence in Europe http://books.google.com/books?id=tr...d8wDsLo#PPP1,M1 ), US style gangs are something new for Europe, as is the violence they bring with them. Limited firearm ownership has perhaps kept the violence down initially, but that is rapidly changing.
Will Europe ever really catch up to the US? Maybe not. One might imagine the Russian Mafia moving in and organizing things into a more efficient model. However, will these youth channel their energies into violent but not economic channels (Islamic fundamentalism, etc.)... we'll have to see there too. The London train bombers already have shown an appreciation for the true tools of mass killing, and they aren't firearms.
cont.
-
But it's a straw man argument. Nobody is saying guns cause crime, any more than Kleck is really arguing guns prevent crime.
No, the argument addressed is that the relative availability of guns impacts crime or not.
Is it? I looked up the number of murders for Cook County. 2000 - 2004 there were 3,453 murders. I suppose you could consider that safe, if you weren't one of the 3,453 murdered, or one of their family or close friends.
Well, the State of Illinois contains 12,831,970 people. Cook County contains 5,288,655 people. And, the City of Chicago contains 2,833,321 people.
In 2004 there were 758 homicides in the State. You had a 0.006 percent chance of being killed in a homicide that year as a resident. But, 554 of those homicides took place in Cook County. So if you didn't live in Cook county that dropped to 0.0015. If you lived in Cook County then your odds became 0.01. But, of those deaths 448 were in the the City of Chicago. So, if you didn't live in the city your odds jump to 0.002. Studies have also shown that 50-70 percent of the crime victims likely had extensive criminal records themselves, which suggests that a non criminal living in the state had at worst a 0.003 percent chance of dying in a homicide and 0.001 percent chance in the City itself. Again, in real life terms not a risk to lose sleep over.
http://www.isp.state.il.us/docs/cii/cii04/CII04_Sect_III_199to204.pdf
You do bring up the emotional appeal at the end though, which is valid. Every life does count to the family, even a criminal who has killed others and might kill again himself. But, we as society make a number of decisions where there is a gray area, including life and death decisions. In the UK, the solution is to go after the tool not the source of the social problem. Same among big city mayors here. The hope for kinder, gentler assaults. Another step in the total reliance on the state for your protection, which unfortunately the state simply cannot ensure regardless of how many rights you sign away and how many cameras you allow into your daily life.
But, lets not be hypocritical here. The same year 604 people in Illinois died in DUI alcohol related crashes (nearly half of all crash fatalities). This does not count those in Illinois who died from alcohol related organ failue.
So, my chance of being shot is 0.006 and my chance of being killed by a drunk driver was 0.005. And if I developed an addiction my chance of an alcohol-related death would be much higher. And given the demographies of the typical homicide victim, as a non criminal I am at far greater risk from alcohol. So, logically, if it is worth banning guns then it is as worth it to ban alcohol. For my own emotional appeal, I have never heard a shot fired in anger, but I have lost at least three friends to alcohol.
Except banning guns removes a cornerstone check against the power of government set by the framers of the Constitution and it removes the best, most absolute means I have of protecting myself and my family in a worst case scenario such as a violent home invasion. Though rare (like non criminals being killed by gun violence) such events do occur and the police will not be there to stop it, just clean up the aftermath.
In fact, now that you guys got the gun thing under control in the UK it's time for some sensible restrictions on the old pub, one would hope. Unless you are a hypocrite. After all, if it saves but one life...
No. Take Greater Manchester. It's an area of old industrial towns that expanded until they made one giant urban area. Places like Trafford, Bolton, Salford, Stockport etc are not "quaint villages".
Well, compared to, say, the Chicago Metropolitan Statistical Areas which comprises over 10 million people it is. The broader megalopolis footprint actually extends up to the City of Milwaukee adding many more millions to the mix. I get the impression you have never been to the US. I am not an exhaustive world traveler but the contrast to the UK and other European areas is dramatic. You can drive 45 minutes (non rush hour, clear highways) from Chicago before you begin to see a farm field, and for the next 30 minutes most of those are being turned into new housing. I know that 20 minutes out of London I was in a countryside that you have to drive an well over an hour from Chicago to find. Within those 10 million people are a number of communities with well over 100,000 people (Aurora/Joliet - 250K pop. for example). Some of these, like Aurora/Joliet have improvised areas and are the home to franchise operations of the local latin street gangs.
Well, the figures are a bit off, for example Gtr Manchester should be 5th on the list. But you seem to miss the point. We are talking rates. As the US has about 5.5 times the population, you should see about 5.5 times the population in large cities. In fact the top ten, even excluding Gtr Manchester, shows about 23.5 million living in US cities of over a million, 7.2 million living in British cities of over a million.
If you put those as rates, 1 in 7.9 residents of England and Wales live in cities over 1 million population, compared to 1 in 12.7 US citizens. And as I said, that excludes Manchester.
That should make US murder rates lower, because a smaller proportion of your population lives in large cities.
As noted I did not include the comparable Metropolitan Statistical Areas, which virtually triple the population figures for what is considered "Greater Chicago" for example. It is really something you would have to see to understand.
And again, we get back to the assumption that inner city criminal patterns, whether the Italian, Irish and Jewish mobs of the 1930s or the Black and Hispanic street gangs of today were and are comparable to the criminal enterprise shown in Europe up until about 1990. Something that criminologists acknowledge was different and that is changing for the worst. Now, if we're talking Russia I think we can have some apples to apples comparisons (at least to the more formal 1930s to 1950s era) in both criminal patterns and the uselessness of formal gun control.
Charon
-
"It's a nice story, but it isn't really true. Hitler was a keen proponent of private firearms, after all he used his private army to gain power."
Which taught him an important lesson about maintaing power. But, there are some gray areas. Here's a good synopsis:
On Gun Registration, the NRA, Adolf Hitler, and Nazi Gun Laws: Exploding the Gun Culture Wars
BERNARD E. HARCOURT
University of Chicago - Law School June 2004
U of Chicago, Public Law Working Paper No. 67
Abstract:
Say the words "gun registration" to many pro-gun Americans and you are likely to hear that one of the first things that Hitler did when he seized power was to impose strict gun registration requirements that enabled him to identify gun owners and then to confiscate all guns, effectively disarming his opponents and paving the way for the Holocaust. One of the more curious twists in the historical debate, though, is that the most vocal opponent of this argument is also pro-gun. It is the National Alliance, a white supremacist organization. According to them, "German Firearms legislation under Hitler, far from banning private ownership, actually facilitated the keeping and bearing of arms by German citizens by eliminating or ameliorating restrictive laws which had been enacted by the government preceding his." So which pro-gunner should we believe?
Following Germany's defeat in World War I, the Weimar Republic passed very strict gun control laws in an attempt both to stabilize the country and to comply with the Versailles Treaty of 1919 - laws that in fact required the surrender of all guns to the government. These laws remained in effect until 1928, when the German parliament relaxed gun restrictions and put into effect a strict firearm-licensing scheme. These strict licensing regulations foreshadowed Hitler's rise to power.
If you read the 1938 Nazi gun laws closely and compare them to earlier 1928 Weimar gun legislation - as a straightforward exercise of statutory interpretation - several conclusions become clear. First, with regard to possession and carrying of firearms, the Nazi regime relaxed the gun laws that were in place in Germany at the time the Nazis seized power. Second, the Nazi gun laws of 1938 specifically banned Jewish persons from obtaining a license to manufacture firearms or ammunition. Third, approximately eight months after enacting the 1938 Nazi gun laws, Hitler imposed regulations prohibiting Jewish persons from possessing any dangerous weapons, including firearms.
The difficult question is how to characterize the Nazi treatment of the Jewish population for purposes of evaluating Hitler's position on gun control. Truth is, the question itself is absurd. The Nazis sought to disarm and kill the Jewish population. Their treatment of Jews is, in this sense, orthogonal to their gun-control views. Nevertheless, if forced to take a position, it seems that the Nazis aspired to a certain relaxation of gun registration laws for the "law-abiding German citizen" - for those who were not, in their minds, "enemies of the National Socialist state," in other words, Jews, Communists, etc.
Here, then, is the best tentative and bizarre conclusion: Some of the pro-gunners are probably right, the Nazi-gun-registration argument is probably wrong. What is clear, though, is that the history of Weimar and Nazi gun laws has not received enough critical attention by historians. What we really need now is more historical research and reliable scholarship.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=557183
Here's another quote:
The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.
--- Adolf Hitler (1889-1945), April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitlers Tischegesprache Im Fuhrerhauptquartier 1941-1942.
[Hitler's Table-Talk at the Fuhrer's Headquarters 1941-1942], Dr. Henry Picker, ed. (Athenaum-Verlag, Bonn, 1951)
Gun control has definite roots in population control and racism in the US, where a variety of laws were enacted post civil war to limit the access of guns to blacks. In many cases the laws seemed to apply "equally to all" except there were taxes designed to discourage ownership among poor blacks or ban on carrying a pistol that was ignored if the person was white but rigorously enforced if he were black.
Additional gun control in the late 1960s can be linked, in no small part, to fear of the political civil unrest in the streets of the major cities in America over civil rights and the protest of the Vietnam war.
Charon
-
Guns or no guns, you can manipulate American's heads from "jugend" onwards with ease. Amazing ease.
Having them well armed might get a little out of hand though.....
here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Third_Wave
I recommend the book ;)
-
The ones that gave up or had their freedom forcibly taken from them are the ones who scream the loudest when others still have it or are willing to fight to keep it.
I find this strange and or ironic.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
The ones that gave up or had their freedom forcibly taken from them are the ones who scream the loudest when others still have it or are willing to fight to keep it.
I find this strange and or ironic.
I disagree entirely.
This board is full of gun threads started by gun owners in the US moaning loudly about their rights and paranoid percieved threats to the freedom to own guns.
I very much doubt you can even find one started by a non US person telling you guys to give up your guns.
Mostly they are threads like this and when a non US person posts a different perspective they are told how they have no freedom etc.
-
Originally posted by Curval
I disagree entirely.
This board is full of gun threads started by gun owners in the US moaning loudly about their rights and paranoid percieved threats to the freedom to own guns.
I very much doubt you can even find one started by a non US person telling you guys to give up your guns.
Mostly they are threads like this and when a non US person posts a different perspective they are told how they have no freedom etc.
Oh SHADDUP!! You have no freedom, what would you know?
:D
-
Originally posted by Curval
I disagree entirely.
That`s not exactly what I would call a news flash. :rofl
This board is full of gun threads started by gun owners in the US moaning loudly about their rights and paranoid percieved threats to the freedom to own guns.I very much doubt you can even find one started by a non US person telling you guys to give up your guns.
Nothing was said about who started what thread.
It`s not really a mystery why gun threads are not started by a non U.S. person. Think. That`s the point. We are doing our best to keep our rights.
The threats to our gun ownership is neither percieved nor paranoid .
They are a reality and we are doing our best to keep that right and others.
If you don`t believe OsamaObama or Hillary is a threat to gun ownership , I have a bridge to sell you.....cheap.
You make my pint quite well though. thanks.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
The ones that gave up or had their freedom forcibly taken from them are the ones who scream the loudest when others still have it or are willing to fight to keep it.
I find this strange and or ironic.
No, what is strange and ironic is the ones who go gaga over gun ownership rights are usually the same ones who will happily give up their rights to privacy in the name of security.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
The ones that gave up or had their freedom forcibly taken from them are the ones who scream the loudest when others still have it or are willing to fight to keep it.
I find this strange and or ironic.
The post I responded to is above.
Who is screaming then? Obama & Hilary?
You should be more clear...I assumed you were talking about posters in this thread.
"You make my pint quite well though. thanks."
How? If you weren't referring to me as one who was screaming the loudest then how have I made the point.
lol
-
mt... I believe that I am one who screams about losing all rights. gun rights of giving up freedom for security.
I wouldn't restrict the internet or make people wear helmets or seatbelts or drink or eat less or tell em what to drive and I sure as hell would not take away their right to defend themselves.
lazs
-
the point that nashwan and others are ignoring.. even some gun rights guys is..
what happens when you pass gun laws? did england become safer?
No it did not. there were not less crimes.. crime is up.. there was not less murders..i they never had many murders and they still don't. they may have less firearms murders (for now) but.. who cares? the country is full of guns.. the reason isn't that they don't exist anymore it is the fact that the penalty for using them... by anyone is medieval.. they barely stopped short of cutting off the offenders hand.
The same could have been accomplished by simply applying those draconian laws to gun crime only.. not citizens. just the criminals. I could get a gun in england. I could do it in a week... I could make one in a day or two. I don't think I am that much more resourceful than what is left of english "citizens".
nashwan and others will argue that our lax gun laws have not decreased crime.. they may have some point.. crime is about the same.. violent crime against people is down tho... Homicides.. gun or otherwise.. is down from it's highest point.. a point when concealed carry was against the law btw.
What it boils down to is the right to defend yourself... from anyone... you have no right if it means that only the strength of your muscles determine the outcome... only the young and fit have rights then.
No right at all.
We all know that the government.. who makes the laws.. can't protect us.. call the cops.. they will get there in time to take the report.
People wear seatbelts to protect themselves... the chance it will save them are thousands to one. are they foolish? did a man who wore a seatbelt every day of his life and chafed at it every single day.. and never once needed it.. is he foolish or is he just seeing an danger and doing his best to protect himself?
Same for guns.. they are a part of my life.. they are also fun and I enjoy em (unlike seatbelts) the chance that I will be the victim of a violent crime are 1 in four. I have already used firearms to stop crime against me.
I would say that a simple risk assessment would make me smarter than the seat belt wearer but... to each his own.. Like I said.. I would not tell anyone they had to have a gun or wear a seatbelt or.. have fire insurance for that matter.
I am disgusted by those who feel they have the right to.
lazs
-
This board is full of gun threads started by gun owners in the US moaning loudly about their rights and paranoid percieved threats to the freedom to own guns.
My "paranoia" is why I have to call my county and state legislators about every two months to comment on a bill or bills that have been introduced by the Daley machine in Chicago.
The last County bill, for example, would have banned all semi automatic pistols, rifles, most standard capacity pistol magazines, "laser sights" .50 caliber rifles (never used in a crime); many semi automatic shotguns; most semi automatic rifles (used in under 2 percent of all homicides); and added taxes to the handful of revolvers and "sporting" weapons allowed.
The fairly broad assault weapons ban this aimed to replace was passed in 20006 by forcing though a quick vote without community comment or agenda notification so we were denied the ability to let our legislators know our objections. Think Meigs field. The ISRA has filed suit over that one.
ANALYSIS OF COOK COUNTY
ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN
Effective November 14, 2006, a Cook County gun ban Ordinance criminalizes the otherwise lawful possession of many common firearms and large capacity magazines. The law provides for imprisonment up to 6 months, fines, and confiscation and destruction of the enumerated weapons. Owners of such firearms or large capacity magazines have until February 12, 2007 to either remove the affected guns and remove any large capacity magazines from Cook County or surrender them to the police for destruction.
What firearms and magazines are affected by this county wide ban? Over 60 firearms are specifically listed as being illegal, including the deer rifle popular in many Midwest states, the SKS with a detachable magazine. Popular self defense weapons like the Mossberg 500 pump, and popular target shooting semiautomatic AR-15 are also illegal. In addition, all magazines that can hold more than 10 shells are banned.
The Ordinance specifically bans any semiautomatic shotgun that has a fixed magazine with a capacity in excess of five rounds. Since shotgun shell rounds can be obtained in sizes as short as 2 inches, the ordinance can be construed to ban all common semiautomatic shotguns.
In addition to banning over 60 enumerated firearms, the Ordinance defines certain banned firearms with catch-all definitions. One such carefully worded definition bans any semiautomatic rifle that need not have, but has the ability to accept a large capacity magazine and has,
"A shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel,"
A standard dictionary definition of the word shroud is, “something that covers, screens, or guards.” The ordinance defines this “shroud” as something that allows the holding of the rifle in the off hand that would keep the shooter’s off hand from being burned. The Ordinance only excludes from this categorization a “slide,” a term usually applying to the top piece of a semiautomatic handgun. Missing from the exclusion is any verbiage about “the forearm assembly,” “fore-end,” or “stock”. An arguable interpretation of the word “shroud” as used in the Cook County Ordinance would include the standard forearm or stock that allows normal two handed shooting.
In determining the likelihood of Ordinance being interpreted to cover all standard semiautomatic rifles, we can look to the past history in Cook County. The current and prior States Attorneys of Cook County have previously interpreted criminal statutes in an unreasonable manner to justify charging otherwise law abiding citizens with gun possession crimes. These prior anti-gun interpretations have defied common sense and contradicted prior case law. Because the interpretations have been publicly stated to be the official interpretation, all Cook County Assistant States Attorneys are required to use them in determining what charges would be filed. One of the recent examples of the way Cook County prosecutors interpret the law unreasonably has been their failure to acknowledge that current state law allows the carrying of an unloaded gun in specially designed fanny packs. One would expect the Cook County States Attorney’s Office to continue their tradition of interpreting gun laws in a manner to include as many gun owners as possible, and therefore to start charging under the new Ordinance owners of semiautomatic firearms that could be held by two hands, which is for all practical purposes, all semiautomatic rifles.
More recently (last week), I just called on a similar State version of the Current Cook AWB where there is no grandfather clause, and possession of one of the semi automatic rifles in question is a class 3 felony.
Then there are the 5 versions of the ammo serialization bill that aims to economically deter gun ownerships by driving ammunition sales out of the state or making ammunition too expensive, while being fairly easy for criminals to get around.
There are the regular bullet tax initiatives designed to eliminate gun ownership unless you want to pay dramatically more to shoot.
There is the ongoing legislation to ban all gun shops in cook county.
Given the votes from Chicago's "staff" legislators on the CC board and in the State Legislature it's always a tough, uphill fight that hinges on 1-3 votes or so, most of the time. All these bills come from Chicago-based legislators. All are pushed by Daley, the same guy that tried to sue virtually all gun manufacturers out of business a few years back.
So yeah. I guess I am being paranoid about the ability for me to become a felon overnight and lose rights that people living in every state around me and most states in the US freely enjoy, because the mayor needs a scape goat for his failed leadership and the failed social policies of the 1960s.
It would be like waking up and finding you can't post on message boards in your state because some pedophiles use them to troll for victims and we need "sensible speech control."
Charon
-
Originally posted by Charon
It would be like waking up and finding you can't post on message boards in your state because some pedophiles use them to troll for victims and we need "sensible speech control."
lol
Yea...it's JUST like that. NOT.
-
No, what is strange and ironic is the ones who go gaga over gun ownership rights are usually the same ones who will happily give up their rights to privacy in the name of security.
Well, to me gun rights is a hot button issue because it is under heavy attack on at least a quarterly basis in my state. But, I respect the entire BOR and find the transgressions under the past two administrations to be terrible.
My only real beefs against Clinton (at best an average president, IMO) were the AWB BS and the way he diluted the 4th to pander to the "Get tough on Crime, WOD" crowd when he moved to the middle. And, I'm still not sold on NAFTA without greater parity.
I think GWB (have never voted for the man) was a disaster on many levels, the BOR included. I only hope his Supreme Court appointments do a better job down the road than they did on No Knock searches and eminent Domain.
My candidate is (was) Ron Paul, a true candidate for the type of change I want to see in Washington.
Charon
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
No, what is strange and ironic is the ones who go gaga over gun ownership rights are usually the same ones who will happily give up their rights to privacy in the name of security.
I believe you have your spurs tangled up in your bloomers.........so to speak.
......And Curvie, do try to get a grip, will ya? :rofl
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
......And Curvie, do try to get a grip, will ya? :rofl
Oh I have a grip. You just type stuff and then pretend you meant something else.
You got called.
If not, all you need to do is explain what you meant.
-
Yea...it's JUST like that. NOT.
Back up your opinion.
You obviously do not respect firearm ownership as a right. It's not like you have that right to being with. However, there are plenty of people who show as little respect for the rest of the BOR and would impose restrictions on the Internet in a heartbeat. Can they in a practical sense, no. At least not today in the US. But throughout the world they can and do. But that is not the point I was making. I was offering a parallel comparison for those who only respect some parts of the BOR, and not others, as to why I might care about the issue.
But, the comparison is probably closer than you would like to admit.
Exercisers of free speech who have a national and international audience:
NAMBLA - recruitment and propaganda. People on this board have called for it's banning since it supports pedophilia.
Hate Groups - recruitment and propaganda (the turner diaries is linked to the Oklahoma City bombings and a range of hate attacks)
Pornography - morality, feminist backlash. Think of the Children! Even if you like to glance at the latest playboy there is extreme content of all spectrums to be shocked and outraged over. In fact, lets restrict all porn (if you can) since some small terrible percentage involves children or sexual slavery.
Terrorism - recruitment and propaganda. Wheres that Daniel Pearl video, or Osama's latest video?
In fact, most of the same arguments can be made for 1st Amendment restrictions as the 2nd Amendment. I can clearly imagine the framers anticipated the advancement of personal weapons. For that matter improved printing presses. But 24 hour TV news and the Internet? Why are sensible controls off the table with this right, but not the others?
Historically, the pen is mightier than the Sword -- without propaganda it's a lot harder to have aggressor world wars and genocides. Do the Nazis' rise to power? Do you think of your Jewish neighbors as nothing better than sewer rats (we've all seen the film. Gobbles was hardly subtle, but it played to the audience). It's a lot easier to go into Iraq if the press corps doesn't ask the tough questions and instead sucks up for the best embed slot in the big show. It's a lot easier to have the Spanish American War because Randolph Hearst decided it should be so and used his media empire to make it happen. Most of the "glory" killings we see, like the Virginia Tech shootings, might use a gun in the crime, but it is the international media attention that drives the crime.
Free speech is a powerful thing, but a tremendously dangerous thing. My private citizen rifle will never kill 20 million people, but someday it may help stop a tyrant that would.
Today, the internet represents a bypass to state controlled (or in the "free world" state compliant corporate) media. There is plenty of motivation to control the Web and plenty of buttons to push to try and make that happen among both politicians and even the corporate media itself. Fortunately, for now, the corporate media is forced to use its 1st amendment power to protect what has been established firmly as a sacred cow. But, perhaps the next formal corporate Internet will bypass the anarchy we have on the Web today.
Charon
-
you guys should not expect curvie to back up his snide remarks with anything of substance.. at best.. you will get an slightly expanded snide remark.
nashwans thinking may be greatly flawed in my opinion but I do give him credit for explaining why he thinks the way he does.
lazs
-
Back up what? That I don't think that this is the same:
"It would be like waking up and finding you can't post on message boards in your state because some pedophiles use them to troll for victims and we need "sensible speech control."
What you wrote has nothing to do with gun control in my opinion.
Will that do....I don't have time for walls of text?
-
Originally posted by Curval
Oh I have a grip. You just type stuff and then pretend you meant something else.
You got called.
If not, all you need to do is explain what you meant.
The term "Lost like a babe in the woods" comes to mind.
Read the post as many times as it takes you to understand it.
If it`s too tough for you, carry on please.
I`m Jackal1 and I approve this message. :aok
-
What you wrote has nothing to do with gun control in my opinion.
Why?
Will that do....I don't have time for walls of text?
The why post? If you can't back up your point it must not be much of a point.
Charon
-
Good lord.
Someone taking away your guns does not, in my opinion, equate to giving a pedophile free access to minors because of some freedom of speech argument.
Apples/oranges.
That is ALL I am saying.
-
Originally posted by Curval
Good lord.
Someone taking away your guns does not, in my opinion, equate to giving a pedophile free access to minors because of some freedom of speech argument.
Apples/oranges.
That is ALL I am saying.
It does equate. Both issues concern different parts of the Bill of Rights. Both issues would take away something from all law abiding folks based on the misdeeds of a few. I don't think I can say it any simpler than that. :)
-
It does equate. Both issues concern different parts of the Bill of Rights. Both issues would take away something from all law abiding folks based on the misdeeds of a few. I don't think I can say it any simpler than that. :)
lol
-
The Bill of Rights as a whole is something some of us hold very dear Curval. An attack on one part is no different than an attack on another part. The Bill of Rights itself is being attacked and eroded in both cases.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
The Bill of Rights as a whole is something some of us hold very dear Curval. An attack on one part is no different than an attack on another part. The Bill of Rights itself is being attacked and eroded in both cases.
I didn't see you objecting to this:
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/02/cayman-island-b.html
A Cayman Islands Bank got a US site taken down, with the blessing of a US court.
Logically you should be typing an email to your congressman to complain about this. Afterall, it is a clear attack on the site's 1st Amendment rights, which is exactly the same as someone trying to take your guns away.
Right?
-
The point is, in response to your insulting dig I am not paranoid about losing my rights because where I live I have already lost rights that most people enjoy in the US, because the leader of a local political machine -- the Mayor of a single city i cannot vote out of office -- has enough control over the County I live in to take those rights away by controlling who gets elected to the county board for Chicago's many districts.
The last piece was simply an example of why I care about diluting that right for people who might not be appreciative of the 2nd but still respect the 1st. You keep projecting complex **** onto things that are complex, like using a simple analogy for a concern of mine that people with a similar concern for another part of the Bill of Rights might appreciate if the show were on the other foot. Was anyone else confused? Let's look at it again:
So yeah. I guess I am being paranoid about the ability for me to become a felon overnight and lose rights that people living in every state around me and most states in the US freely enjoy, because the mayor needs a scape goat for his failed leadership and the failed social policies of the 1960s.
It would be like waking up and finding you can't post on message boards in your state because some pedophiles use them to troll for victims and we need "sensible speech control."
Note the: It would be like...
Analogy is both the cognitive process of transferring information from a particular subject (the analogue or source) to another particular subject (the target), and a linguistic expression corresponding to such a process. In a narrower sense, analogy is an inference or an argument from a particular to another particular, as opposed to deduction, induction, and abduction, where at least one of the premises or the conclusion is general. The word analogy can also refer to the relation between the source and the target themselves, which is often, though not necessarily, a similarity, as in the biological notion of analogy.
Niels Bohr's model of the atom made an analogy between the atom and the solar system.
Analogy plays a significant role in problem solving, decision making, perception, memory, creativity, emotion, explanation and communication. It lies behind basic tasks such as the identification of places, objects and people, for example, in face perception and facial recognition systems. It has been argued that analogy is "the core of cognition" (Hofstadter in Gentner et al. 2001).
Specific analogical language comprises exemplification, comparisons, metaphors, similes, allegories, and parables, but not metonymy. Phrases like and so on, and the like, as if, and the very word like also rely on an analogical understanding by the receiver of a message including them.
Analogy is important not only in ordinary language and common sense, where proverbs and idioms give many examples of its application, but also in science, philosophy and the humanities. The concepts of association, comparison, correspondence, mathematical and morphological homology, homomorphism, iconicity, isomorphism, metaphor, resemblance, and similarity are closely related to analogy. In cognitive linguistics, the notion of conceptual metaphor may be equivalent to that of analogy.
Analogy has been studied and discussed since classical antiquity by philosophers, scientists and lawyers. The last few decades have shown a renewed interest in analogy, most notable in cognitive science.
As hard as this may be for you to believe, some of us feel just as strongly about the 2nd as the 1st. That is why I added that analogy. It is a real right to us, and it still has value for the very reason the framer included it. Another check on the govt. along with the separation of power among the executive, legislative and judicial branches. Along with the civilian control of the military. As well as the basic natural right to self defense.
I like to shoot, but that is not why I particularly care about the issue to the extent that I do.
Charon
-
Originally posted by Curval
I didn't see you objecting to this:
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/02/cayman-island-b.html
A Cayman Islands Bank got a US site taken down, with the blessing of a US court.
Logically you should be typing an email to your congressman to complain about this. Afterall, it is a clear attack on the site's 1st Amendment rights, which is exactly the same as someone trying to take your guns away.
Right?
http://88.80.13.160/wiki/Wikileaks_victorious_over_Bank_Julius_Baer
-
I didn't see you objecting to this:
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/20...n-island-b.html
A Cayman Islands Bank got a US site taken down, with the blessing of a US court.
Logically you should be typing an email to your congressman to complain about this. Afterall, it is a clear attack on the site's 1st Amendment rights, which is exactly the same as someone trying to take your guns away.
Right?
Absolutely Curval. And if the Judge had failed to do the proper, Constitutional thing it should have evoked a response of outrage. But, in this case the 1st was upheld as it should have been. I imagine groups like the ACLU would have been all over it though.
Charon
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
I believe you have your spurs tangled up in your bloomers.........so to speak.
I don't think so pumpkin.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I don't think so pumpkin.
OK..sweet cheeks. :)
You said....................
No, what is strange and ironic is the ones who go gaga over gun ownership rights are usually the same ones who will happily give up their rights to privacy in the name of security.
Where are you coming up with this from then?
Myself and the majority of people who believe in the right to keep and bear arms are very strong believers in all personal rights , all personal freedoms and certainly believe in the right to privacy.
-
I get that from the myriads of people like you who shout Patriot from the rooftops but are more than willing to allow wiretapping or intrusive government such as the recent wish to bypass the FISA court by Bush etal. because you "have nothing to hide" or because "if you're not a terrorist you have nothing to worry about".
sound familiar?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I get that from the myriads of people like you who shout Patriot from the rooftops but are more than willing to allow wiretapping or intrusive government such as the recent wish to bypass the FISA court by Bush etal. because you "have nothing to hide" or because "if you're not a terrorist you have nothing to worry about".
sound familiar?
Did have a recent fall that resulted in a severe head injury?
Man, have you dialed a wrong number with me. :rofl
-
Well, if I am wrong...I'm wrong, and will admit it:
http://www.physorg.com/news123957389.html
Pawned myself using that example.
-
Did have a recent fall that resulted in a severe head injury?
Man, have you dialed a wrong number with me. :rofl
If you don't fall into that catagory, I give you special dispensation to ignore my post.
-
If you don't fall into that catagory, I give you special dispensation to ignore my post.
<shrug>
Guess I can assume you are not going to answer.
What myriads?
Where?
-
I didn't see you objecting to this:
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/02/cayman-island-b.html (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/02/cayman-island-b.html)
A Cayman Islands Bank got a US site taken down, with the blessing of a US court.
Logically you should be typing an email to your congressman to complain about this. Afterall, it is a clear attack on the site's 1st Amendment rights, which is exactly the same as someone trying to take your guns away.
Right?
Since I had no idea this had happened, no I didn't experience any outrage over this event. Since this issue has since been rectified by the same judge that screwed the pooch in the first place, I see no need to feel any sense of outrage at this time.
In regards to the part of the quote in bold, it is only the same in that both things are attacks on rights that are guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.
-
Well, if I am wrong...I'm wrong, and will admit it:
http://www.physorg.com/news123957389.html
Pawned myself using that example.
:D
I was really tempted to mention something about that in my last post, but somehow managed to refrain. :D
-
mt and curval... I think it is right to point out that you guys are the ones being hypocrites here.. at the least, in my case.
I have always championed individual rights and freedom while you are the ones who pick and choose.
I say that invasions of privacy are wrong.. even forcing one to wear a helmet or seatbelt are wrong.. all but minimal taxes are wrong..
this is consistent with me saying that taking away my right to keep and bear arms is wrong.
you two.. on the other hand.. seem to feel that rights are only rights so long as they are ones you like.
lazs
-
Well, to be honest I had only heard about the Cayman thing from another blog. Then when I saw the judge reverse his decision in another post over there I was like "DOH. I gotta eat some crow on this one." Then the AHBBS went down. But, even though this was buried on page 2 when this site came back up I bumped it with my post...
None of it changes my views on thinking that guns should be made freely available here though.
Also, methinks Charon needs to "grow a pair" though. He felt insulted by something I said...I think about the paranoid remark. After all the abuse hurled my way on this particular issue I find that funny.
-
curval.. I have never felt insulted by anything you said but I have been puzzled by your apparent hypocricy from time to time. Like most liberals you seem to not only want to pick and choose what freedoms you allow others but.. oddly... seem to accuse anyone who has a different set of freedoms they endorse of being a hypocrite.
this, I admit puzzles me.. as you seem like a fairly bright guy. I often wonder what makes you unable to see how foolish it makes you look.
At best... what you are saying is that, in, at least this case... some of the gun rights guys are no less hypocritical than you are.
You are defending yourself by saying others are as bad as you are.
lazs
-
Well, to be honest I had only heard about the Cayman thing from another blog.
What that judge did during the first hearing was wrong. First, he passed judgement without hearing from both sides. Second, he allowed a violation of the 1st amendment.
However, since he fixed his mistakes I guess we'll have to let him live....this time. :D
-
<shrug>
Guess I can assume you are not going to answer.
What myriads?
Where?
you didn't ask a question till now.
only people that need to fear this , are people doing baaaaad things.
a Law abiding citizen, has nothing to fear, and their rights arent
infringed on.
and more of that ilk here http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,227638.0.html
-
curval.. I have never felt insulted by anything you said but I have been puzzled by your apparent hypocricy from time to time. Like most liberals you seem to not only want to pick and choose what freedoms you allow others but.. oddly... seem to accuse anyone who has a different set of freedoms they endorse of being a hypocrite.
this, I admit puzzles me.. as you seem like a fairly bright guy. I often wonder what makes you unable to see how foolish it makes you look.
At best... what you are saying is that, in, at least this case... some of the gun rights guys are no less hypocritical than you are.
You are defending yourself by saying others are as bad as you are.
lazs
Okay, Mr. Socialism is evil...except for the pure scientists they have.
-
Also, methinks Charon needs to "grow a pair" though. He felt insulted by something I said...I think about the paranoid remark. After all the abuse hurled my way on this particular issue I find that funny.
I don't recall hurling any abuse your way except as a response to what you have initiated. I'm not "hurt" by your comments, but I am disappointed and find troll-style posts to be irritating regardless of who posts them. I certainly can't say the same for Nashwan or Angus or a number of others who take a constructive part in this discussion. It's my fault for not just ignoring your one-liner drive bys and letting myself get irritated.
Charon
-
curval.. are you mixing up science and socialism? whoda thunk? science and politics? I have been told that science is pure. that politics have nothing to do with it... the saints that are science can't be bothered with grants and politics and such..
I am shocked you would hint at such a thing... You constantly amaze me. have you ever really thought... uh.. er.. well.. have you ever really thought?
lazs
-
No guns......................... .
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,335889,00.html
-
You constantly amaze me. have you ever really thought... uh.. er.. well.. have you ever really thought?
lazs
:lol :aok
-
Woot! Killing a woman with a baseball bat, when it's easy to get the hands on a gun!
Oh, I forgot 1/4 (?) of all murders in the US do notinvolve a gun. That is the same % as Euro total....
Then you have the other 3/4 left as a bonus.
-
Woot! Killing a woman with a baseball bat, when it's easy to get the hands on a gun!
Oh, I forgot 1/4 (?) of all murders in the US do notinvolve a gun. That is the same % as Euro total....
Then you have the other 3/4 left as a bonus.
That isn't the smartest thing you have ever typed here.
-
That isn't the smartest thing you have ever typed here.
The ice is melting. Give him a break.
:lol
-
Hmmmmmm...................
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58323
-
Yep.. when armed students or citizens stop people bent on killing as many as possible.. the press does it's best to cover up the fact.
If they would have hit him with a bat then the press would have given him parades and had him (or her) on every morning show and every "meet the press" kind of crap on TV.
curval doesn't believe that fully 1/3 of all shootings are stopped by armed citizens but I am sure he must be a tiny bit puzzled by the lack of publicity of the last two shooting incidents and how they were stopped by armed citizens/students.
lazs
-
I shudder at the stats the USA would have then, if all those armed ones weren't stopping murder, rape and armed robbery.
4 to 1 vs Euros to 8 to 1?
Maybe not the smartest conclusion :D
-
I shudder at the stats the USA would have then, if all those armed ones weren't stopping murder, rape and armed robbery.
4 to 1 vs Euros to 8 to 1?
Maybe not the smartest conclusion
Well,
In the areas where the vast majority of the murders occur, law abiding citizens are generally prohibited from carrying a concealed firearms, and in areas like Chicago and New York and DC you are practically prevented from owning most firearms even for protection in the home. You could argue that one of the reasons the gang and thug lifestyle is so dominant and out of control in these areas, and why there is so little cooperation with police, is that they have no means of defending themselves if they try to do anything about the rampant criminal behavior.
I personally would be hard pressed to work against a gang even with a gun for defense. Without a gun for defense -- no way. Especially since I would be treated like a criminal myself for using one.
Charon
-
I've been looking at the thread for awhile and I find myself continuing to come up with a question..............
Those AGAINST weapons, ya against weapons cause IMHO you really want EVERYONE to be good and play nice and actually believe the problem is weapons, need to answer a question.
hmmm.... just a sec before we go there a quick aside....
You really believe that everyone is good and nice?
I don't!
OK let's go there
The question follows................
Has anyone at any point in your life tried to kill you or someone near and dear to you?
OK....
that question isn't fair?
HMMMM....
OK
Has anyone at any point in your life THREATENED you, or someone near and dear to you, with serious bodily harm?
IMHO if you have NEVER been there you have NO RIGHT to decide for others!
I don't care how nice you want to be to others. I don't care how guilty you might feel about anything. I don't care how nonjudgmental you want to be towards others.
YOU DO NOT, IMHO, HAVE THE RIGHT TO DECIDE FOR ALL OTHERS!
You've NEVER felt that emotion that courses through you when you realize it's on the line, you are about to die.
You've NEVER thought what people think when they are confronted with such things.
You gonna say it now?
The yes but you can imagine it?
NO you can't imagine it!
Until you have faced it and felt it and thought during it... it's just physically, and mentally, and emotionally impossible for you to experience it.
PLEASE try to wonder how the HOO TOO and Totsi felt in Africa when they were running around choping each other up with machetes and such?
PLEASE try to wonder what it felt like, what thoughts went through their minds, as they watched the blade coming at them?
Oh wait!
But that's Africa and doesn't really affect us because we are civilized?
Never mind that we are talking about human beings. Never mind that they can actually think and feel! RIGHT?
Would should avoid taking about Dafar too huh?
I get tired of the weapons are bad crap!
HEY weapons are just tools..... oh here we go, here it comes,.....
yes but people actually use weapons to hurt other people!
News flash! THAT'S THE IDEA!
NO I don't WANT to hurt anyone!
BUT if someone is trying to HARM me or an innocent individual I would act in a manner and in accordance with their actions.
I want that ability.
Does that make me judge jury and executioner?
Perhaps.
But in a situation where there is no time, and no law enforcement near, you would prefer I let those intent on doing murder, or unwarranted serious bodily harm to myself or others to continue?
Psychopaths do exist.
Sociopaths do exist.
There are people that exist that rejoice in harming others.
You would prefer I, or an innocent individual, be killed and such survive to ease YOUR guilty conscience?
That they continue doing what they do is somehow better then you having to deal with it?
Oh WAIT... don't get involved, let the law deal with them? Of course you will say it's too bad for their victims, but YOU don't want to get involved, don't want to have to make a judgment of them or their actions, SOOOO someone catch them and just lock the bad people away from the rest of us, RIGHT?
-
angus..one race.. one tiny fraction of the population, commits over half the murders here. of that race.. only a fraction of them commit murders and.. almost none of the murderers own a gun legally. I guess you could cut our rate in more than half.. about like canadas.. if you just said that only white people could have guns and then executed anyone of any other race who was caught with one.
I think that we are better off the way we are doing it now tho. maybe with less restrictions in the places where most of the murders occur tho so that the innocent could protect themselves.
lazs
-
I don't.
And for a good reason. The world in general is a very dangerous place at this time......and multiple rainbows are not in the cards for the future.
The question follows................
Has anyone at any point in your life tried to kill you or someone near and dear to you?
Yes.
Has anyone at any point in your life THREATENED you, or someone near and dear to you, with serious bodily harm?
Yes.
IMHO if you have NEVER been there you have NO RIGHT to decide for others!
I don't care how nice you want to be to others. I don't care how guilty you might feel about anything. I don't care how nonjudgmental you want to be towards others.
YOU DO NOT, IMHO, HAVE THE RIGHT TO DECIDE FOR ALL OTHERS!
Exactly!
If others had had the right to decide for me in the cases above and was strictly enforced, I would not be here.
In one case I wouldn`t be here nor my wife and four children.
BUT if someone is trying to HARM me or an innocent individual I would act in a manner and in accordance with their actions.
As it should be for any human being who doesn`t stick their head in the ground and cant "It doesn`t happen" and click their hills together three times.
I`ll take my right to self protection and the right to protect others over the ruby slippers any day.
I don`t look good in red.
-
I never once voted for a Politicians Ive deemed to be anti-gun rights. Really, never once. I'll sit out a vote before I'll vote for either candidate if both are anti-2nd amendment. And I sit out a lot of local votes believe me.
The way I see it any revisionist who wants to change the Constitution isnt worthy of my vote.
-
rich... you would love to talk to bingie on these boards.. he thinks that only the militia is allowed to have guns and... the militia is just the national guard.
lazs
-
Yep....the intardnet is a real eye opener on how many people really don`t have a hint of a clue about this issue.
A lot claim to be anti-gun period..........but continue to shoot themselves in the foot.