Another Interstate sniper on the loose

[lazs2]

How can a crime rate be at a saturation point?  wouldn't a saturation point be anarchy or riots?    Our crime rate and homicide rate is going down even tho we have more people and more guns and many more states with right to carrry laws...

people here seem to be saying that the way to deal with criminal elements is to take away the law abidings right and/or ability to defend himself or his property.

you gave up your rights for nothing.

"preemptive"??? how could you know?  england has NEVER had an agressive population so far as homicide... you have never had a homicide problem and so... when you banned guns you didn't make it less.... it stayed the same... even starting to rise..  are you saying that it would have been much worse if you hadn't had a ban?   there is absolutely NO evidence that that would be the case... the evidence points to the contrary if anythoing...

you gave up your rights for nothing.

lazs

[midnight Target]

Our crime rate stopped dropping when Bush took office.... I'm sure it was just a coincidence though.

BTW it started dropping in 1993 and dropped steadily until 2000.

[Kirin]

This guy prolly did not own the guns he used legally

Why not GToRA? Do you need any kind of psychological profile or examination before you get a gun? (besides filling out a form yourself)

[lazs2]

no MT  the crime rate is still falling in the U.S.   I don't credit or blame bush for any of it either way.

kirin.... are you saying that we should allow some witch doctor of a shrink to decide who is allowed to own firearms?   yeah... shrinks have real good accuracy record...   You are not asked to evalute your own sanity.  You are asked if you have ever been treated.  

face it... you guys all gave up your rights for nothing...  maybe it is a right that you don't care about right now but... you gave it up none the less.... I hope you or your loved ones don't live to regret it..   history tells us that unarmed citizens are pretty much meat eventually tho.
lazs

[Thrawn]

Are black peopke in the US not American's or something?  Do their deaths mean less?  Then why the hell does it keep being brought up?

[AKIron]

Originally posted by midnight Target
Our crime rate stopped dropping when Bush took office.... I'm sure it was just a coincidence though.

BTW it started dropping in 1993 and dropped steadily until 2000.

Are you trying to tie this to Bush? He may not know how to say "nuclear" but I haven't heard of him cutting any police forces and I'm pretty sure he hasnt been robbing any banks.





Ah, now I see, not so much as blame Bush as credit Clinton. We just didn't count so many things as crimes while he was in office.

[wrag]

Hmmm...

Actually Laz I think there is a really big difference between the English and the Americans.  Somewhat of an historical thing.

That difference IMHO is in the form of government.

In that they are, or were, considered SUBJECTS of the crown? and we are considered a FREE people.

Admittedly I may have that wrong.  Changes and Parliament and all but if I read the history correctly the English never had the rights we have.  They came close but.....

So the politicians in England never had the restraints placed upon them that are on ours.

That coupled with the national mindset/schooling over there, actually makes it easier to take their rights away without nearly the fuss we would put up.

Very sadly however that seems to be changing in America.  The mindset/schooling many have received and are receiving even now makes the same loss much more possible here.

Very few of our young people actually know what the preamble to the Bill Of Rights says.  They do not seem to understand what the word inalienable means.  The leftward leaning education given in colleges now seems to make many unable to truly appreciate just what we actually have.  Coupled with the Media hype/slant (much of it filled with leftward leaning college trained individuals) bods ill for our Rights.  Law enforcement seems to be absorbing an us vs them attitude a little more every day, and the military seems to become more and more house to house confiscate the weapons oriented every day.

Far too much of our heritage and land is turned over, by our politicians, to U.N. control/ownership every year.  With a Media that seemingly applauds these actions.

Just recently the plan to turn over the "entire" INTERNET to U.N. control was temporarily shelfed.  I had thought our internet was formed originally for emergency use by our government and people.  Perhaps that thought is incorrect.

All this is just my opinion and doesn't really mean anything.

[Torque]

Originally posted by AKIron
Are you trying to tie this to Bush? He may not know how to say "nuclear" but I haven't heard of him cutting any police forces and I'm pretty sure he hasnt been robbing any banks.

Pittsburg PA is the "City of Knowledge"

[beet1e]

Originally posted by lazs2
How can a crime rate be at a saturation point?  wouldn't a saturation point be anarchy or riots?    

No, Dummy - I meant that the supply of guns has reached saturation point - the point at which all demand for guns has been sated, and no criminal wants for one - he already has one or many. And because of that, it wouldn't make any difference if the cops were to hand out guns. Criminals already have more than they can handle. A few more would make no difference.

Your crime isn't going down. The only way you can claim that your crime is going down is because of a large influx of law abiding people whose presence has had the effect of diluting the per capita crime rate. But you're still wrong, even after making an allowance for that. If you would look at the FBI chart (attached) you will see that homicides (the crime most closely associated with guns, which is what we're talking about) went down between 1998 and 2000. But from 2000 it started going back up. Between 2001 and 2002 it remained static.

However the overall volume of crime is on the increase as of 1999, and the number of firearms related homicides has increased every year since 1999.



I'm out of here till Sunday evening. Argue amongst yourselves...

[Curval]

Originally posted by Elfie
It's true Curval, gun ownership didn't stop this crime. Gun ownership does stop many crimes in the US each year though. Many times it's just the presence of a gun that stops the crime.

I know man..believe me that has been pointed out to me many many times on this BBS.

I was just making a point...and thanks for accepting that point without jumping down my virtual throat.

Toad...I'm not familiar with the term SHACK.  My internet lingo must be lacking.

What does it mean?

[beet1e]

Originally posted by wrag
Hmmm...

Actually Laz I think there is a really big difference between the English and the Americans.  Somewhat of an historical thing.

That difference IMHO is in the form of government.

In that they are, or were, considered SUBJECTS of the crown? and we are considered a FREE people.

Wrag, you might have had a point 500 years ago. For example, Henry VIII had absolute power - and abused it. He was like a mediaeval Saddam Hussein, and the people were indeed subjects. In this day and age, the Monarch has no real power, and is merely a symbolic figurehead.

As natives of the European Union, we (along with all others) can relocate to any of the other 14 EU member states, only about half of which are monarchies. So the "subjects of the crown" tag means nothing.

[Toad]

Curval, "shack" is "direct hit".

Story goes in the old days of bombing ranges, fighter-bombers blew up all the targets, had ord left and the rangemaster told them to hit a small old shack on the property. They did, thus the term "shack" for direct hit on a difficult target.

[lazs2]

beetle... The figures for murder show that it has not increased per capita... reading the cnn thing someone posted a link to shows that it has even gone down this year... overall crime has definitly gone down in the U.S. and..... gone up in limeyland.

saturation point for criminals??  ok... lets say we have reached a saturation point and your bizzare theory is correct... all the criminals who want a gun can have one... well bud... then we have been at this saturation point for allmost 100 years maybe 200...   The only thing that has changed recently is that more citizens have firearms... more women are arming themselves... in the places where more citizens are arming themselves crime is going down.

I wish I could find a site that gave the figures for justifiable homicide but I can't.   Think of all the crime and future crime and expense that is stopped by one justifyable homicide...  

The guy in england that was wounded while burglaring is free to carry on his trade... he also knows that no citizen would be crazy enough to try to stop him.  

lazs

[wrag]

Ahhhh Beet1e.....

You sadden me.  I think I understand you better.  

Questions follow..............

You did not read my entire post did you?  Or did you merely, hmmm should I use the word merely for what I think I see?, not see the entire post because of tunnel vision?

Oh wait I think I may have the answer!  You're a LIBERAL?????

That, from my experience, SEEMS to be a common LIBERAL trick.

Ignore the meat of the subject and go for the slightest point that can give any argument some more mileage!

All of Europe has a very SIMILAR history.  That seems to be Monarchs and feudalism.  All of Europe .... Union or otherwise has never given it's people all the rights insisted upon by the Americans.

Rights that are considered instilled in each individual by our creator at birth.

PLEASE!!! ..... in the future read the entire post before jumping on one point that I had already ADMITTED I could have the wrong impression about before you start jumpin all froggy!

In your response the point of the post was ignored.

Oh Well.................

[ravells]

All of Europe has a very SIMILAR history. That seems to be Monarchs and feudalism. All of Europe .... Union or otherwise has never given it's people all the rights insisted upon by the Americans.

All of Europe???? A very similar history??? If you think a similar history consists of having a monarchy and a once feudal culture, then you might as well extend that definition to most of the world rather than Europe.

all the rights insisted upon by the Americans.

Rights that are considered instilled in each individual by our creator at birth.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibits discrimination in voting practices or procedures because of race and color. In 1957 and 1960, Congress had enacted voting rights laws that took small steps toward increasing minority voting participation for all Americans.

Well done. It only took you from 1776 to 1965 to realise that black people had 'inalienable rights'

Wrag...please don't throw stones, because you live in a very large glass house.

Ravs