Author Topic: Madison riots  (Read 1903 times)

Offline SC-Sp00k

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 481
Madison riots
« Reply #135 on: November 12, 2002, 07:58:03 AM »
Believe it or not, I do understand what your saying about Deterence and Security. I even agree to a point.  Only an idiot goes up against someone armed with a gun. Unless the idiot also has a gun.

Reduce firearms. Make their availability to the general public harder to obtain and the Crims (perps) you fear so much will be for the most part hindered.  Sure if you have enough money and the proper fence (seller/reciever of stolen or illegal goods) then anyone can still get one.  The market determines the price which goes up as availability goes down.  The upper echelon Crims, organised Crime gangs are for the most part not likely to bother you.

Most of your common garden variety crims tho dont have much money.  With a $100+ a day habit, their money is spent trying to score.  Druggies are the most common criminal trying to get in your window at night.  Particularly in the Burbs. Their in your house to get your wallet, the wifes handbag or knock off your video machine. They carry a gun because they anticipate you have one.  Most of them are gutless whiney SOB when cornered and will set up exit points prior to commiting the Burg. (The smarter ones anyway)  Those cornered with no place to go, will grab whatever they can get their hands on.  If you have a weapon on the premises and they searched prior to your waking up, then thats what their bound to go for.  Desperate people doing desperate deeds.

Gun reduction wont stop every one of them getting a gun, but it will stop most of them. (Talking a looong way down the track if ever Gun reduction policy was implemented in the USA.)

Your people will feel safer due to less violent Crime (not crime in general as there are no answers to that)  The need to defend themselves from societal scum will disapate and thats how the culture changes.

If your shooting vermin on a property with authorisation from the owner and a proper Gun licence, or plinking at tin cans with the same, then theres no problem.  If your shooting Vermin in your backyard, your hardly in control of your weapon. Richochet and ammo type would play a large part in the death of the neighbours kid whilst your squirrel squeaks and chatters at your from the tree branch.

As stated, Proper sporting shooters, arent effected. They can still enjoy their sport.  Farmers get special dispensation also to control vermin and stock.

The only ones effected by Gun Buy back or reduction are those that dont need firearms in the first place.

Vehicles again :)  I agree there are incidents where a pre-meditated deadly assault/Murder has occurred.  Whilst Car accidents may be in the majority, Murder by vehicle would be a minority.  Vehicle assaults are more likely to occur in Domestic situations, Neighbourhood disputes and incidents of Road Rage.
Aside from Domestics and some incidents of Road Rage, particularly with pedestrian or cyclist involvement, the neighbourhood disputes would be far more likely to involve pre-meditated assault rather than murder.  Killing someone with a gun is far easier than trying to run them over.

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
Madison riots
« Reply #136 on: November 12, 2002, 11:26:44 AM »
beetle.. the figures are between 76 and 86 millon firearms in the U.S.

spook... i still don't think you understand deterance.   you seem to be unable to understand hard data and... at the same time... how people "feel" about something.   Some hard data on "deterance"  in the uk and aus... about 50% of all burglaries are "hot"... the people are home.  In the U.S. it is 13%   Now... since, as you claim, all people are the same then why would our burglars be more reluctant to enter a home that may be occupied? well..

surveys of felony prisoners in 10 state correctional ins. showed that 56% would not attack a person they believed might be armed.. in fact, prisoners in states with the most civilian gun ownership were the most frightened of being shot.

15 surveys including los angeles times and gallup show that handguns are used by citizens to prevent crime 760,000 per year and that all firearms used by citizens to prevent crime may be as high as 3.6 million times a year.  

spook I know that these are mere facts and that they can't hold a candle to what you "Know" instinctively.   Like I said before.  you might be ok with your plan to simply call the cops if you are ever in danger... heck... chances are that you will never be in the situation at home or on the street anyway... your just taking a chance... much as the person who doesn't wear a seatbelt.  askintg others to not wear one (for whatever reason) is unconsionable and taking away their right is tantamount to murder.  

States with more guns have less crime.  you can't deny it (tho you have tried your level best to ignore it).  

 Cars.... well... an suv hits a small car and the person in the small car dies.   we could prevent a lot of deaths by making only one kind of car perhaps.  make everyone drive that.   What would be the hardship? and it would save far more lives than the total and magical removal of all firearms from the face of the earth in the hands of citizens (if that were possible).

History.... does anyone recall britan begging for firearms from the U.S.  in order to arm ordinary citizens agains an across the channel attack?   didn't the british have an "army" to protect them?   Does anyone recall why we dropped Atomic bombs on japan?   Last I heard we were afraid of "over a million casualties" from armed japanesse citizens.    Japanesse leaders feared attacking the west coast of America because of it's armed citizens.  even today... the first thing a warlord or military dictatorship does is disarm it's subjects... did not the UK disarm it's subjects?  perhjaps they are different and should be trusted... don't see how anything can go wrong... the brits have a long history of treating their unarmed subjects fairly.

beetle... what possible differenc does it make if a person buys a firearm and then uses it (for a variety of reasons) or simply keeps it handy and never fires it his entire life..  it is up to him and as data proves.... the  simple fact of him having it reduces crime for everyone else deterence wise.

jab...disagree that there are areas that need more gun control.   I feel that all areas benifiet from more concealed carry handguns and from private ownership.   Every area, urban or otherwise that issues more concealed carry permits enjoys a drop in crime.d but that the students didn't know which 10%.   You trust teachers to cover your childs body with his own when the shootoing starts but you don't trust him to shoot back?

And what is the cost to haveing more concealed carry people out there?   No murders or gun crimes commited by cc people but... a national survey by a police publication showed that 76% of all police officers felt that all trained, responsible adults should be able to obtain a concealed carry permit (law enforcement technology)

A mail in survey (1996, conducted by the national ass. of cheifs of police) the 15,000 chiefs and sherrifs that responded agreed 93% that law abiding citizens should be able to purchase firearms for self defense.   No area was specified and none left out.   Police officers lives are saved by citizens with firearms..  

so... do we belive the data or do we believe in the "gut feelings" of our friend down under?  I say that we are indeed fortunate that we don't have to listen to him and that we haven't lost our rights just yet.   I know that if I was hiding under the table  at a resteraunt while some crazy methodicly searched out and executed fellow diners... I would thank god if someone there had ignored or aussie friends advice.
lazs

Offline SC-Sp00k

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 481
Madison riots
« Reply #137 on: November 12, 2002, 03:05:37 PM »
Ok Laz, enough of your Rambling. Just for that Im gonna hop on a plane. come over there and launch my Campaign for President of the United States.  


....well maybe after breakfast.


Ill respond after when I have time. Im a busy man. All this intuitive thinking and all.

Offline J_A_B

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3012
Madison riots
« Reply #138 on: November 12, 2002, 08:01:34 PM »
"jab...disagree that there are areas that need more gun control."

Gun control doesn't have to = total banning.  I am generally against banning weapons because the people who WANT them for illicit purposes (like gangs) will get simply get contraband/smuggled weapons like they already do, at least in the cities where crime is worst.  Our borders are simply too "leaky" to stop the flow of illegal weapons.  But SOMETHING needs to be done to clean up the inner cities....I might not feel a whole lot of pity for one thug who gets killed by another thug (which is what most gun crime is), but it's still be a better country if that didn't happen so much.

Beet1e..."vermin" doesn't so much mean suburban squirrels and such (indeed most towns have ordnances about discharging weapons in city limits), it is more along the lines of farmers and such who use a rifle or shotgun to chase away stuff that eats their crops.  Yeah they could call an exterminator or resort to poison, but guess which method is cheaper and/or safer  :)

Spook.....

You claim that reduction of guns would have the ffect of reducing overall crime levels.  That may or mat not be accurate.  Certainly arguments can be made both ways, but let'snot get distracted.   Let's assume for a minute that you're right.

We as a nation would be giving up a freedom (the right to own a weapon for whatever reason we wish) for a slight reduction in crime....maybe our homicide rate might decline from .007% to .004%or so...maybe.  Or it might not.

That's an almost imperceptible difference on a national level, especially for something that only "might" happen. To people not directly affected by daily gun violence, it just doesn't seem worth it.   Once you give up a freedom you aren't likely to get it back, and we Americans are very protective of our freedoms.

Remember that gun violence is NOT a problem everywhere....it is largely cenetered in select areas.  Why then go to the trouble of banning/restricting guns nationwide, when such a measure is completely unnecessary?  Given the downsides (like reduced freedom, financial cost, etc), what is the BENEFIT of banning/heavily restricting weapons in areas where they're not a problem?



What I get from those of you who live in countries where weapons are generally illegal is you for the most part seem almost "afraid" of guns.  Whereas I look at a rifle no differently than I look at a baseball bat (another piece of equipment which is often used in beatings and murders).   While your feelings are prefectly fine, try to remember that for a lot of us a rifle just doesn't have that sinister connotation...it's just a thing.

J_A_B

Offline beet1e

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7848
Madison riots
« Reply #139 on: November 13, 2002, 04:43:36 AM »
J_A_B - the sum total of my firearms experience has been to hand hold an unloaded .357 Magnum and pull the trigger. The thing I noticed right away was that whereas with toy guns (LOL!) you would feel the vibration as the hammer fell, with the Magnum the hammer just went "plink" - almost no sensation at all. I didn't notice any safety catch or switch on this gun. I reloaded it and asked the cop who was showing it to me if it was ready to fire and he said it was, so rather than risk a handling accident passing it back to him, I lay the gun on the table, pointing away, and let him pick it up. Beet1e's firearms experience - in one paragraph!  lol

Agreed - the gun crime is concentrated in ghetto areas, and whereas Britain is not free from ghetto areas or ghetto crime, because there's never been a proliferation of privately owned firearms, the criminals find it harder to get them too. Clearly a criminal would be banned from owning a gun (?). So I was wondering why the criminals find it so easy to acquire guns in the US. Would it be fair to say that privately owned guns get stolen, or are sold to someone who sees the chance to make a buck and sells on to an unscrupulous party? Because we've never had many guns here, there are relatively few to steal so fewer of them get into the wrong hands.

I had a few beers with a friend of mine in the village last week - he used to have a lawn mower shop until he retired. Got his start in life serving in the Royal Navy and has seen the world. I was telling him about this gun debate and because he knows more people in the village because of the business he did over 30 years or so, I asked him if he knew anyone with a gun. This village has about 6,000 people so it's really a small town. He didn't know anyone who had a gun of any kind.

Offline SC-Sp00k

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 481
Madison riots
« Reply #140 on: November 13, 2002, 07:14:38 AM »
Your friend sounds like he lives in a great place to own a business then Beetle.

J_A_B, Its not fear of firearms that concerns us I dont think, as some of the people who are in possession of them.  We all have leaky borders. Australia's northern coastline despite millions of dollars invested in Coastal Patrol craft land and air is simply to vast and to daunting a task to patrol effectively with sensible resources.

I agree with almost everything you state. There are no rights and wrongs, or sure thing answers.  Its a topical debate and so far a good one.  Each Question answered leaves another unanswered provided both sides are willing to listen.

It is no good for one person or a group to support Gun Buy back. It has to be a large political body with support of the people to stand even moderate success.  And whilst considered a success in this country, it has its failing also.  For us the time was right. I fear that the USA's time in relation to this will be a long time coming if ever at all.  As stated its interesting to hear your views on it.

Laz, Thank God all you like. He wont help you staring a barrell down ;)

When was the last time, YOU were involved in some of these statistical surveys?  I seem to be represented in almost all of them, yet I can never remember being asked a question  for one of them.

The exception being those I see come through the job. Coppers, Police, whatever you call them, at least in this country, hate statistical surveys.  When your entire life is swamped by paperwork putting the next crim behind bars or valiently attempting to do so, the last thing you want to see is something from some bonehead Uni Graduate asking you in a 10 page document.  Coppers, those that actually do the job and not those who say they are but havent stopped shining a desk chair in 20 years, dont answer the things unless they have to do with paychecks.

This outrageous number of Sheriffs, Deputies, Troopers and so on you quote as having participated in this wonderful survey has me wondering if the whole thing is

a) Bull****
b) Every chair swinging deskjockey and staff member that the various Police departments could muster to scribe a response on direction from above.

Real Police dont have time for that BS.

I dont like stats. I dont trust them and anyone who does to the point you seemingly do, needs their head read.

surveys of felony prisoners in 10 state correctional ins. showed that 56% would not attack a person they believed might be armed..

Now theres a saintly bunch to be asking for decent honest answers eh? LOL.   What do you think they are going to say Laz,

"Hell yes, the moment I get out of here im gonna find me the VCR of the first Gun Nut I find and stick it so far up his........"

If they are going to do State Correctional Statistics. Ask them all.  Then you might get the response your are looking for.  These guys are probably all Prison Farm detainees, on day release with priviliges.   Real Crims, would make you swallow your survey and sit on the pencil.

Some hard data on "deterance" in the uk and aus... about 50% of all burglaries are "hot"... the people are home. In the U.S. it is 13% Now... since, as you claim, all people are the same then why would our burglars be more reluctant to enter a home that may be occupied? well..

Agreed about "Hot" Burglary incidents. Definately a growing trend, tho I doubt the issue has anything to do with whether or not the Owners have Firearms or not as the trend is consistant with the population of Druggies in both rural and urban areas.
Most of our Rural areas are still armed to the teeth Laz.

"Hot" Burglaries (Not a term we use here hence the " 's) are in correlation to the supply of drugs in the market.  Instead of simply coming in to take property to fence off later, they are after cold hard cash.  People feel safe in their homes and leave wallets and handbags all over the shop in the open for all to see and grab.  Dealers now swap property directly for drugs and fence it themselves. The Druggies used to have to do it themselves to get cash to buy their stash.  "Hot" Burglaries are consistant with the weather, time of day, how many trees are in your front yard, whether the screen door is open, whether they can see you in the backyard gardening or hanging up the washing etc.

"Hot" Burglaries have Nothing to do with Firearms, whether you have them or not.

Dont go into the car thing again. Deja gave me a headache with it.  I cannot find any reasonable train of thought to support that analogy in your arguement and would only be repeating what ive already said.


:)

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
Madison riots
« Reply #141 on: November 13, 2002, 08:49:37 AM »
beetle.. all modern American revolvers (any 357 is a modern revolver) have a "safety"   they have since around 1900 for double action arms.   The safety is internal... You an't fire the weapon unless you pull the trigger all the way back and hold it back untill the hammer falls... It wont discharge if you throw it out of the window of you rcar at 60 mph or drop it from a 10 story building or even... if the hammer snags on somthing and it drawn back and released.

spook.... sheesh... you weren't asked because.... duh... you aren't an American cop... they don't care what you think...and  it is easy to see why!  

I don't count on god to help me (much) in the situation you describe..  It is better to just be armed.   I actually felt quite calm the time I was lol, "taring down the barell"  course I was a drug addict and dealer so it was kinda common to be talking to potentialy harmful people who were armed and I was pointing one myself.  now days... I am a sedate frail old man but... I see no reason why when confronted with what I know to be out there that I would choose to be unarmed.

you are a silly man when it comes to data... don't like mine?   think gallup polls are inaccurate?   Your wrong of course but... lets see your data... so far, I have data and you come to the table with nothing but your dick in your hand.  I can give you more if you like.   Counter even one...  

The percent of violent convicts who would admit that they were afraid is surprising... most are motivated by bravado and in other surveys showed an unrealistic bravado when asked about attacking able bodied men or dogs.

Glad you agree with the 50% "hot" burglaries... You of cours, are still in decent shape with some ability to defend yourself and... the ability and penchant to keep large dogs... you "may" be safe unless the intruder is armed but chances are... your ok... so...

since you feel safe why should anyone need any more than you have?  Most are not able to defend themselves from the agressive criminal that might break into their home knowing they are there.... most don't keep dogs.. dogs are a pain and limit lifestyle if done fairly..  I like to take off at any time so I don't have dogs.  people in apartments don't (or shouldn't have) dogs... dogs are dangerous and accidents with dogs are common.

waiting for one shred of hard data that backs up anything you have said about guns in America and glad that we don't wig out and give up our freedoms every time some nut abuses em...  end up like the aussies that way...
lazs

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
Madison riots
« Reply #142 on: November 13, 2002, 09:02:25 AM »
since you like data so much (especially if it is from a national source and includes all incuidents)... here, from  the justice department and, since we agree that concealed carry citizens in the U.S. are a benifiet with no downside....  (they preven crime and save lives but don't cause crime)....

The probability of serious injury from an attack on a woman is 2.5 times greater if she does not resist than if she resits with a firearm.  in contrast... it is 4 times greater if she attempts to resist without a gun...    for men the figure is 1.4 and 1.5  (easy to see why).  So... you would say...what to these people?   call a cop?  bend over and grab your ankles like the brits?
lazs

funked said in response to the terror squirrle attack in england that was only stopped by a grandfather with an illeagal air rifle... "Wow if they had a rabid racoon I bet they'd have to call in NATO to bring over a .22 or something."

Offline -tronski-

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2825
Madison riots
« Reply #143 on: November 13, 2002, 01:24:52 PM »
Quote
History.... does anyone recall britan begging for firearms from the U.S. in order to arm ordinary citizens agains an across the channel attack? didn't the british have an "army" to protect them? Does anyone recall why we dropped Atomic bombs on japan? Last I heard we were afraid of "over a million casualties" from armed japanesse citizens. Japanesse leaders feared attacking the west coast of America because of it's armed citizens. even today... the first thing a warlord or military dictatorship does is disarm it's subjects... did not the UK disarm it's subjects? perhjaps they are different and should be trusted... don't see how anything can go wrong... the brits have a long history of treating their unarmed subjects fairly.


Thats a fair amount of conjecture, and very little actual fact.

Britain wasn't 'begging' for firearms from the US, it was after munitions and heavy weapons...tanks, ships, planes etc. A couple of shiploads of colt-45's and small arms would've hardly done much to stop a German Panzer division as the BEF found out itself by 1940. By the time most of the serious lend lease started the real threat of invasion had abated due to British produced ships, and fighters.

The armed japanese would've gained their weapons from the japanese military, and most of the casualties come from the suicidal tactics of the organised dug in defenders - not from jap farmers waving daddy's shotgun around the rice paddy, hopeing to knock off the odd american. As for fearing the armed US populace...thats a first, I've never heard of that one - I'd be interested where you learn't that actually. As far as I know, there was no serious intent to even invade Hawaii, let alone mainland USA. The intial attack on pearl was designed to delay the US pacific fleet , whilst the japanese swept south toward their intended targets and secure much needed Oil, and other resources.

I've heard this overlords disarm their populace, but yet to see any real examples. Hitler ? - Hitler made every youth drill and learn to use firearms through the Hitlerjugend.

The UK has never disarmed its populace until it's more stringent fire-arm laws has it?
The english subject made up its armies until the foundation of a regular army.

I think you're under the misconception that a self supplied citizen militia could defend it's self against a well supplied , organised army since the late 19th century.
 
Tronsky
God created Arrakis to train the faithful

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
Madison riots
« Reply #144 on: November 13, 2002, 02:21:51 PM »
this isn't england... our citizens are (and allways have been) equipped with considerably more than "daddys shotgun".   The viet cong were equipped with sks rifles.. not a very good weapon but far from an antique shotgun.  

believe what you will about modern man being different and armies being different.   An armed population is a deterent to invasion and to tyranny.  I can think of nothing that has changed that.   Many modern armies, the worlds finest, have sought to overwhelm a population by simply out teching it.  A determined population in a large country or one with difficult terrain can cause them no end of grief.   Governments know this and the fact is a deterent.   To believe otherwise is to not look at history.

I have a 1917 smith with british proof marks (7 tonnes).   And you most certainly did beg for anything that would shoot to equip your home guard.  

The quote about the japanesse atack on the west coast I admit that I can't recall where I got it.  I recall it being from a naval commander but... I can't recall who or where I got it so... I retract it.

lazs

funked said in response to the terror squirrle attack in england that was only stopped by a grandfather with an illeagal air rifle... "Wow if they had a rabid racoon I bet they'd have to call in NATO to bring over a .22 or something."

Offline J_A_B

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3012
Madison riots
« Reply #145 on: November 13, 2002, 07:26:25 PM »
"I recall it being from a naval commander but... I can't recall who or where I got it"

I believe it's attributed to Yammamoto, as he did spend time in the USA prior to WW2.     It's true that the Japanese never seriously considered invading the US mainland and I was always under the impression that the armed populace was one reason why.


Spook/Beet1e--

I'm glad we can at least generally agree with each other's points/presentation, even if we disagree with each other's final conclusions.  Since I suppose I don't really have anything else to say that hasn't already been said, thanks for a good, thoughtful discussion--I appreciate it :)


J_A_B

Offline -tronski-

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2825
Madison riots
« Reply #146 on: November 13, 2002, 10:37:02 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by J_A_B
"I recall it being from a naval commander but... I can't recall who or where I got it"

I believe it's attributed to Yammamoto, as he did spend time in the USA prior to WW2.     It's true that the Japanese never seriously considered invading the US mainland and I was always under the impression that the armed populace was one reason why.


Spook/Beet1e--

I'm glad we can at least generally agree with each other's points/presentation, even if we disagree with each other's final conclusions.  Since I suppose I don't really have anything else to say that hasn't already been said, thanks for a good, thoughtful discussion--I appreciate it :)


J_A_B


Knowing very little about Yamamoto, that is indeed interesting. But I doubt very much that it had any real influence at all with Japanese planners. In fact none I would think considering the overall Japanese strategic intentions.

Quote
this isn't england... our citizens are (and allways have been) equipped with considerably more than "daddys shotgun". The viet cong were equipped with sks rifles.. not a very good weapon but far from an antique shotgun.


Yes and the VC were armed with a little more than just SKS rifles as well (as well as being backed up by the NVA). But again there is a vast difference between the 50-'60s Vietnamese communist fighter and your armed populace ideals.

 Tronsky
God created Arrakis to train the faithful

Offline SC-Sp00k

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 481
Madison riots
« Reply #147 on: November 14, 2002, 07:55:11 AM »
Ok. Lets wrap this puppy up then. A good thread with lots of discussion. Thanks to all who participated.

To end it, a picture of Laz and his Civilian Defenders of Freedom :)

Offline beet1e

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7848
Madison riots
« Reply #148 on: November 14, 2002, 08:11:20 AM »
.

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
Madison riots
« Reply #149 on: November 14, 2002, 08:23:29 AM »
Ok... I admit it .. I don't get it.  But then I didn't get the picture of the 25 auto that spook posted and called a 38 and... I still can't seem to ditg out any data at all from all of spooks pompous pontifications...  probly just me.

but if it amuses bettle... I mean .. I thought he was the only guy who could cheer him up.
lazs

funked said in response to the terror squirrle attack in england that was only stopped by a grandfather with an illeagal air rifle... "Wow if they had a rabid racoon I bet they'd have to call in NATO to bring over a .22 or something."