Xoutpost.com

Xoutpost.com (https://xoutpost.com/forums.php)
-   The Lounge (https://xoutpost.com/off-topic/lounge/)
-   -   Gun Control What's your take??? (https://xoutpost.com/off-topic/lounge/90655-gun-control-whats-your-take.html)

Quicksilver 12-24-2012 12:21 PM

Gun Control What's your take???
 
Quite a discussion going on. Nothing will change because men
don't have the guts to do what's necessary to stop the carnage.
Using the death of children as a reason will only shed a brief
light what is an insurmountable problem....:dunno:

blondboinsd 12-24-2012 12:34 PM

I absolutely support the following:
-Tougher Back round Checks with MANDATORY training (Including most importantly those selling online AND at Gun Shows) because currently by most estimates only 60% of those purchasing a weapon are subject to a back round check making it easy to circumvent the system and purchase a weapon
-Expanded State Reporting to create improved communication between states
-The creation (and strict enforcement) of a "prohibited individuals list" which bans people for various reasons (prior Felon with weapons charges, mentally ill etc.) from owning any gun in any state for any reason
-The Complete banning of Assault Weapons and High Capacity Magazines because they really have absolutely no relevance in today's modernized society

brian5 12-24-2012 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blondboinsd (Post 913413)
<<snip>>
-The Complete banning of Assault Weapons and High Capacity Magazines because they really have absolutely no relevance in today's modernized society

If we could just start with that, I think that we could consider it progress...

blktoptrvl 12-24-2012 02:33 PM

It is absolutely too easy for people who shouldn't to get guns. So, until there is a way found to prevent this (or at least cut it down significantly), I would support almost ANY plan to decrease the number of guns of any kind in the hands of the public.

Quicksilver 12-24-2012 02:36 PM

:iagree: Hmmmm I wonder if we could collect all of them..:dunno:

SlickGT1 12-24-2012 10:40 PM

The only way to stop a bad person with a gun, is a good person with a gun. Simple as that.

It is too easy for a criminal to get a gun. For me, NYC at least, I had to go through some crazy shit to get a rifle permit. I am still waiting for results on a pistol permit, over a year. So my home defence is just a shotty. I would rather have a handgun. But the laws in NYC make it extreme for me to get anything relating to a gun. Now if the rest of the states would follow that, it would be nice. Because a criminal, goes to some lax ass state, gets a gun at Walmart, and does whatever the hell they need to do with it.

It isn't about assault rifles either. You think that shit bag couldn't do this damage with a glock?

Blame the retard ass mother and the rest of the family for not securing those guns.

I keep wondering if this type of carnage would go down the same in Texas. You know the place where every fifth person carries a piece. Where there is a big chance those same teachers have a few revolvers in their desks.

JCL 12-25-2012 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlickGT1 (Post 913458)
The only way to stop a bad person with a gun, is a good person with a gun. Simple as that.

That didn't help at Columbine, where there was an armed security guard.

While it won't prevent every incident, one way to reduce the number of bad guys with guns is to reduce the number of guns.

I struggle to understand why anybody needs an assault rifle or high capacity magazine if they aren't in the military.

Quicksilver 12-25-2012 01:02 AM

I struggle to understand why anybody needs a gun. It makes no sense at all.

Wired.Right 12-25-2012 01:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlickGT1 (Post 913458)

Blame the retard ass mother and the rest of the family for not securing those guns.

I keep wondering if this type of carnage would go down the same in Texas. You know the place where every fifth person carries a piece. Where there is a big chance those same teachers have a few revolvers in their desks.

AGREE ! 100%

blktoptrvl 12-25-2012 01:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quicksilver (Post 913474)
I struggle to understand why anybody needs a gun. It makes no sense at all.

I have a gun. I have it for two reasons...

I like target shooting, but I could do that will a less powerful weapon such as a BB gun.

The primary reason I want killing power is because I travel with a friend who is very attractive. She is often approached just waking down the street or when we are traveling. On one trip years ago, when we pulled into a rest stop there was a group (gang?) of street assholes who started making rude comments to her as she made her way to the ladies room.

They backed off when they saw me approaching from the car. Since that day I never let her go into restrooms at relatively empty rest stops without escorting her to the ladies room and then waiting near the door for her to come out.

I realized that sometime in the future, there may be a time and place where somebody might not be as ready to back off. On those occasions I want to be armed.

blktoptrvl 12-25-2012 01:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlickGT1 (Post 913458)
Blame the retard ass mother and the rest of the family for not securing those guns.

Unfortunately, this does not seem to me to be the exception, but the rule. People who should not have guns are almost always supplied in one way or another by someone who should have known better or somehow been more responsible. We can fix the fault on them, but the dead don't care who is to blame.

PersonaNonGrata 12-25-2012 02:36 AM

Obviously this is an extremely complex problem and I am of the firm belief that it has very little to do with guns. They are just the instrumentality. The root of the problem is the inability of some people to cope with life, their depression, their sorry lot in life, or whatever. It astounds me that someone who is mad at Mommy, or got fired from a job, or just feels like the world shits on them that the response deemed most appropriate is to kill innocents or anyone at all for that matter. Before we even get to the issue of gun control I think the bigger issue is this and more broadly, society in general, and some people's view that responding with unspeakable violence is appropriate.

Mental illness is a tricky thing as far as gun control goes. There have been calls for the mentally ill to be prohibited from owning or possessing guns. Fair enough but first, what exactly the definition of "mentally ill"? Secondly, how is it to be determined that once someone is mentally ill that they not get a gun? There is not currently and possibly no way to integrate mental illness or psychiatric/psychological treatment with a background check. I think there are practical impediments to that as well as federal and state privacy laws concerning medical records. Also, how would it ever be recorded, if it could at all, if someone seeks psychological counseling for dark thoughts? They could go under a false name and unless there was the need for a Tarasoff warning, the psychologist would never report such contact. The bottom line is that creating some kind of database of the "mentally ill" is near impossible. Even being able to keep them from buying guns is difficult and when a mentally ill person can murder the owner and take her guns, access cannot be prevented.

As far as so-called "assault weapons" and high capacity magazines, they are menacing and scary looking but are not the problem. Since the Clinton ban sunsetted and such weapons and magazines were again legal federally (but still banned by many states), there was no increase in crime. In fact, I can tell you as a criminal justice professional that very, very few violent crimes if any are committed with such weapons. I'm talking about the crime that happens every day, not the tragic events like Newtown or Colorado. Furthermore, bans on "assault weapons" and high capacity magazines already exist in many states. As a matter of fact, Connecticut has a ban on "assault weapons".

There are millions of guns and millions of "assault weapons" and even more millions of high capacity magazines in the hands of law abiding owners. It may seem trite but it is true that it must be considered that the vast, vast majority of these guns never kill anything more than paper targets. I know that at moments like now when the world mourns 27 lives lost that even one "assault weapon" seems like too many but the fact that millions are owned without lethal results cannot be ignored. The suggestion to take them way from lawful owners is downright unconstitutional. The United States Constitution forbids uncompensated takings from private citizens, whether it be a gun or your land. Taking in that manner is un-American. Couple that with the Second Amendment and that idea goes nowhere.

"The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." I totally agree with this. I do not envision vigilantes slinging guns all over town looking for a gunfight. The notion of armed police in schools is not new at all. Many schools have "School Resource Officers". It was mentioned that Columbine had such SROs in the schools and that didn't help. Perhaps it did help to prevent even more death. Perhaps if Adam Lanza was confronted by a police officer or other armed person he would have not killed as many people or at all. Perhaps if James Holmes had encountered armed resistance he would have retreated. I have heard from law enforcement sources that the shooter in the mall in Oregon was confronted by an armed citizen whereupon the shooter took his own life, resulting in two tragic deaths but it could have been far, far worse.

The thing that we should all agree on is that these mass killers are cowards. Why else would they do what they do? Why else do they choose the most helpless of victims? Because they are cowards who do not expect resistance, if there was someone there, a good guy with a gun, if nothing else, the killer's focus changes from offensive to defensive. He could be distracted enough to allow for people to escape. He could be forced to retreat in the face of live fire in his direction. He could be neutralized. The notion that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun is stating a simple fact. You do not repel a gun attack with a stern finger wag or good intentions. The simple fact is that to stop a lethal attack requires use of lethal force. If you don't like that, too bad. That's how it's done. It's not nice. It's not pleasant. It is the truth. I have participated in "active shooter" training at schools to prepare for such events. It's an unfortunate reality we have to do this but I can tell you, it is necessary and when you're in the heat of the moment you realize what it takes to end such an attack and it requires enormous violence of action to end.

Don't get me wrong. I am a parent of a little one and every time I hear the news or read of the murders it makes me sick to my stomach and brings tears to my eyes. I am also a gun owner and work in law enforcement. I believe in peoples' rights to keep and bear arms. I see the results of what criminals do to law abiding people. Criminals are not stopped by any rules, waiting periods, or background checks. Criminals do whatever they want and hope that their victims do not have the will or the means to defend themselves.

So what do I think would help? I believe that we do have to have a frank discussion of the issues and chief among them is what our society values and how our society has changed. Is it video games? Movies? Television? I don't have the answer to that but as I stated earlier, we have to address the fact that some people choose to solve their problems with violence. I believe in background checks. It is an overused generalization that there are gunshow loopholes and that you can buy a gun on the Internet without any checks. There are some states that are more lax on background checks but by and large, most states have background checks in place, even at gunshows. Buying guns on the Internet does not mean it arrives on your doorstep. Purchases like this must be completed at a local federally licensed dealer. The Internet seller must ship to the dealer where the buyer will complete paperwork and any background checks. I have made two such purchases. So, I would agree that background checks are a good idea across the board.

The biggest issue is the mental health issue. It seems inevitable that after such a shooting that the shooter is remembered as being "odd" or having some sort of mental instability. Why is it always after the fact? Well, is it realistic to preemptively detain someone because a classmate thinks he is strange and possible dangerous? I don't think we can do that. Mental healthcare is woefully underfunded and too few resources exist in general much less for those who might be prone to a mass shooting. The question would be how we would improve those resources and how we would identify those who need it to prevent shootings. Is it possible? I sure hope so.

For those who do not understand why we own guns, that is not for you to understand just like it is not for me to understand why you like a certain kind of music, food, vacation destination, or the way you choose to vote. Your not understanding why gun ownership is enjoyed does not mean it should be abolished. Saying that there is no purpose to owning an AR-15 style rifle and high capacity magazines is your opinion and I would beg to differ. I find I have many purposes to owning such rifles, the relevance of which you would disagree but none the less, it is my right to own them. Your disagreement is of no consequence to me just as you might dismiss some of my views that do not concur with yours.

One final point: My daughter goes to school. It is terrifying to think that someone would harm her or the other children. That is a reality whether it be a gunman or a kidnapper. The world is a pretty crappy place sometimes. Do I want to go to the school and stand guard? Absolutely! Would I be armed while doing so? Absolutely! If a bad guy with a gun were to visit, a good guy with a gun would try to stop him.

Dannyell 12-25-2012 03:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blondboinsd (Post 913413)
I absolutely support the following:
-Tougher Back round Checks with MANDATORY training (Including most importantly those selling online AND at Gun Shows) because currently by most estimates only 60% of those purchasing a weapon are subject to a back round check making it easy to circumvent the system and purchase a weapon
-Expanded State Reporting to create improved communication between states
-The creation (and strict enforcement) of a "prohibited individuals list" which bans people for various reasons (prior Felon with weapons charges, mentally ill etc.) from owning any gun in any state for any reason
-The Complete banning of Assault Weapons and High Capacity Magazines because they really have absolutely no relevance in today's modernized society

Completely agree...unfortunately the NRA wants to arm everyone to defend against everyone else > thus the continuous carnage.

These shootings should not even come as a surprise, because we love our guns and we seem unwilling to implement laws based on today's society.

I know one thing tho...if and when teachers are armed, that is when I keep my kids home.

SlickGT1 12-25-2012 12:16 PM

Persona, well said.

Those that think banning guns will solve problems, you really should do some research. When you ban all guns, only the criminals would have them.

Do some stats on Texas, gun violence there is less than where you live, factoring on population.

My quote below stands for this topic as well.

Let's put some perspective on this. We should ban spoons. They give people diabetes.

blondboinsd 12-25-2012 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlickGT1 (Post 913458)
The only way to stop a bad person with a gun, is a good person with a gun. Simple as that.

It is too easy for a criminal to get a gun. For me, NYC at least, I had to go through some crazy shit to get a rifle permit. I am still waiting for results on a pistol permit, over a year. So my home defence is just a shotty. I would rather have a handgun. But the laws in NYC make it extreme for me to get anything relating to a gun. Now if the rest of the states would follow that, it would be nice. Because a criminal, goes to some lax ass state, gets a gun at Walmart, and does whatever the hell they need to do with it.

It isn't about assault rifles either. You think that shit bag couldn't do this damage with a glock?

Blame the retard ass mother and the rest of the family for not securing those guns.

I keep wondering if this type of carnage would go down the same in Texas. You know the place where every fifth person carries a piece. Where there is a big chance those same teachers have a few revolvers in their desks.

:rolleyes: it has happened in Texas. Remember Ft Hood?

blondboinsd 12-25-2012 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PersonaNonGrata (Post 913481)
Obviously this is an extremely complex problem and I am of the firm belief that it has very little to do with guns. They are just the instrumentality. The root of the problem is the inability of some people to cope with life, their depression, their sorry lot in life, or whatever. It astounds me that someone who is mad at Mommy, or got fired from a job, or just feels like the world shits on them that the response deemed most appropriate is to kill innocents or anyone at all for that matter. Before we even get to the issue of gun control I think the bigger issue is this and more broadly, society in general, and some people's view that responding with unspeakable violence is appropriate.

Mental illness is a tricky thing as far as gun control goes. There have been calls for the mentally ill to be prohibited from owning or possessing guns. Fair enough but first, what exactly the definition of "mentally ill"? Secondly, how is it to be determined that once someone is mentally ill that they not get a gun? There is not currently and possibly no way to integrate mental illness or psychiatric/psychological treatment with a background check. I think there are practical impediments to that as well as federal and state privacy laws concerning medical records. Also, how would it ever be recorded, if it could at all, if someone seeks psychological counseling for dark thoughts? They could go under a false name and unless there was the need for a Tarasoff warning, the psychologist would never report such contact. The bottom line is that creating some kind of database of the "mentally ill" is near impossible. Even being able to keep them from buying guns is difficult and when a mentally ill person can murder the owner and take her guns, access cannot be prevented.

As far as so-called "assault weapons" and high capacity magazines, they are menacing and scary looking but are not the problem. Since the Clinton ban sunsetted and such weapons and magazines were again legal federally (but still banned by many states), there was no increase in crime. In fact, I can tell you as a criminal justice professional that very, very few violent crimes if any are committed with such weapons. I'm talking about the crime that happens every day, not the tragic events like Newtown or Colorado. Furthermore, bans on "assault weapons" and high capacity magazines already exist in many states. As a matter of fact, Connecticut has a ban on "assault weapons".

There are millions of guns and millions of "assault weapons" and even more millions of high capacity magazines in the hands of law abiding owners. It may seem trite but it is true that it must be considered that the vast, vast majority of these guns never kill anything more than paper targets. I know that at moments like now when the world mourns 27 lives lost that even one "assault weapon" seems like too many but the fact that millions are owned without lethal results cannot be ignored. The suggestion to take them way from lawful owners is downright unconstitutional. The United States Constitution forbids uncompensated takings from private citizens, whether it be a gun or your land. Taking in that manner is un-American. Couple that with the Second Amendment and that idea goes nowhere.

"The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." I totally agree with this. I do not envision vigilantes slinging guns all over town looking for a gunfight. The notion of armed police in schools is not new at all. Many schools have "School Resource Officers". It was mentioned that Columbine had such SROs in the schools and that didn't help. Perhaps it did help to prevent even more death. Perhaps if Adam Lanza was confronted by a police officer or other armed person he would have not killed as many people or at all. Perhaps if James Holmes had encountered armed resistance he would have retreated. I have heard from law enforcement sources that the shooter in the mall in Oregon was confronted by an armed citizen whereupon the shooter took his own life, resulting in two tragic deaths but it could have been far, far worse.

The thing that we should all agree on is that these mass killers are cowards. Why else would they do what they do? Why else do they choose the most helpless of victims? Because they are cowards who do not expect resistance, if there was someone there, a good guy with a gun, if nothing else, the killer's focus changes from offensive to defensive. He could be distracted enough to allow for people to escape. He could be forced to retreat in the face of live fire in his direction. He could be neutralized. The notion that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun is stating a simple fact. You do not repel a gun attack with a stern finger wag or good intentions. The simple fact is that to stop a lethal attack requires use of lethal force. If you don't like that, too bad. That's how it's done. It's not nice. It's not pleasant. It is the truth. I have participated in "active shooter" training at schools to prepare for such events. It's an unfortunate reality we have to do this but I can tell you, it is necessary and when you're in the heat of the moment you realize what it takes to end such an attack and it requires enormous violence of action to end.

Don't get me wrong. I am a parent of a little one and every time I hear the news or read of the murders it makes me sick to my stomach and brings tears to my eyes. I am also a gun owner and work in law enforcement. I believe in peoples' rights to keep and bear arms. I see the results of what criminals do to law abiding people. Criminals are not stopped by any rules, waiting periods, or background checks. Criminals do whatever they want and hope that their victims do not have the will or the means to defend themselves.

So what do I think would help? I believe that we do have to have a frank discussion of the issues and chief among them is what our society values and how our society has changed. Is it video games? Movies? Television? I don't have the answer to that but as I stated earlier, we have to address the fact that some people choose to solve their problems with violence. I believe in background checks. It is an overused generalization that there are gunshow loopholes and that you can buy a gun on the Internet without any checks. There are some states that are more lax on background checks but by and large, most states have background checks in place, even at gunshows. Buying guns on the Internet does not mean it arrives on your doorstep. Purchases like this must be completed at a local federally licensed dealer. The Internet seller must ship to the dealer where the buyer will complete paperwork and any background checks. I have made two such purchases. So, I would agree that background checks are a good idea across the board.

The biggest issue is the mental health issue. It seems inevitable that after such a shooting that the shooter is remembered as being "odd" or having some sort of mental instability. Why is it always after the fact? Well, is it realistic to preemptively detain someone because a classmate thinks he is strange and possible dangerous? I don't think we can do that. Mental healthcare is woefully underfunded and too few resources exist in general much less for those who might be prone to a mass shooting. The question would be how we would improve those resources and how we would identify those who need it to prevent shootings. Is it possible? I sure hope so.

For those who do not understand why we own guns, that is not for you to understand just like it is not for me to understand why you like a certain kind of music, food, vacation destination, or the way you choose to vote. Your not understanding why gun ownership is enjoyed does not mean it should be abolished. Saying that there is no purpose to owning an AR-15 style rifle and high capacity magazines is your opinion and I would beg to differ. I find I have many purposes to owning such rifles, the relevance of which you would disagree but none the less, it is my right to own them. Your disagreement is of no consequence to me just as you might dismiss some of my views that do not concur with yours.

One final point: My daughter goes to school. It is terrifying to think that someone would harm her or the other children. That is a reality whether it be a gunman or a kidnapper. The world is a pretty crappy place sometimes. Do I want to go to the school and stand guard? Absolutely! Would I be armed while doing so? Absolutely! If a bad guy with a gun were to visit, a good guy with a gun would try to stop him.

Interesting points but I fail to grasp WHY someone needs an assault weapon. Answer? They don't.... Just because their not the majority of shootings doesn't for one second remove their culpability or ability to cause major carnage. This whole "oh a good guy with a gun will stop it" seems so ridiculous to me because what about Columbine? What about Ft Hood in TEXAS? Obviously mass shootings still happen and limiting access to these weapons seems like the absolutely rational decision

blondboinsd 12-25-2012 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlickGT1 (Post 913504)
Persona, well said.

Those that think banning guns will solve problems, you really should do some research. When you ban all guns, only the criminals would have them.

Do some stats on Texas, gun violence there is less than where you live, factoring on population.

My quote below stands for this topic as well.

Let's put some perspective on this. We should ban spoons. They give people diabetes.

That is literally the I worst argument I have ever read. So stupid I'm fact I'm shocked I'm actually responding to it. Oh spoons huh? When is the last time there was a drive by spooning? Oh that's right I forgot about that assault spoon shooting? Wait oh yeah none of those happened :rolleyes:

I've looked at your stats Texas and I still believe you have NO need for assault weapons

TerminatorX5 12-25-2012 02:22 PM

well... i've heard the 2nd amendment being mentioned everytime the weapon question comes into the light... so, i read it (there are several versions, one that was adopted by Congress, the other versions that were ratified by states)... it was adopted in 1791 (!), when the private citizens were expected to bring their own weapons into the State sponsored militia... There is nothing more to the 2nd amendment, nothing less... the times were rough, the indians were not friendly (rightfully so), the weapons were necessary - while you are plowing your fields and are being attack by indians, you wanted to have a weapon handy...

over the years the 2nd amendment went viral - people did not want disarm themselves, and wanted to keep expensive guns... The law interpretations went to the extent, that nobody remembers about the militia anymore but right to bear (to bring your own weapon once deputized into militia) has become the right to just HAVE the arms...

I do not see mass shootings involving laser blasters when people and buildings are cut in half... why?... maybe because there are NONE of those blasters in the hands of anyone!!! I do not see nuclear missiles offered for sale at the gun shows... strange - gun is a gun is a gun...

How comes that US is so much worried about prolifiration of weapons worldwide (not just nukes, conventional weapons as well) in the hands of professional, trained military personnel as a THREAT to our security and is NOT worried about proliferation of weapons in the domestic market in hands of untrained, unstabled private citizens? Threat is a threat is a threat.

Slick, you know what Anton Pavlovich said about a rifle hanging on the wall in the first act of a show... I totally understand the desire to protect yourself, and your family from the crooks that have the guns - but the venue chosen is not the best path... even my mother has a handgun... which worries me - if my kids don't find it, what if she flies off the handle when they drive her crazy with ice cream smeared all over the walls.. even the most normal person can go crazy...

I would take a mass knifer with bare hands but will think twice about using my handgun on a mass shooter (пуля - дура, штык - молодец)

I think, all those mass shootings in the US should be considered as acts of TERROR - I worry every time I go to a mall, or Wal-Mart, or take the kids to a movie theater - this is THE very definition of a terror instilled in the general populace by those acts, when daily routine is disrupted enough to cause personal and societal discomfort...

LeMansX5 12-25-2012 02:24 PM

Guns may not be the problem, but they are part of the big problem.

Mental illness + ease of access to "assault weapons" = death of several innocent people

People will remain "people" and they will have assault weapons lying around in the house for some mentally ill kid to grab. That will never change as long as weapons are easily available.

Why do we need "actual assault weapons" to satiate our desire for shooting, etc.? In this computer age, aren't the computer games enough? There are more gun shooting places in Newtown, CT than restaurants.

JonK 12-25-2012 02:27 PM

Many other industrialized countries in the world do just fine without civilians owning guns: Absolutely lower gun related deaths. We are deemed very violent country statistically with guns. There's no denying number of civilian gun ownership factors into the statistics.

My eyes got teary when I face the incident, and I got angry when the CEO of NRA made a speech blaming violent video games on everything gone bad.

PNG is right that we don't have resources to manage the mentally ill to prevent them to cause carnage.

I live in a upscale gated estate all the home's value is above few mils, people here are well to do and very private. Few years back there was a crazy old lady terrorizing neighbors such as taking others mails, popping out like "jack in the box" in their neighbors backyards multiple times. Neither she owned a gun, nor neighbors who got their backyards broke into did own a gun. No blood was splashed... It was going on several month about one incident a week. Nobody wanted to confront including her son so I had to step up and call Sheriff's dept. know that would be only way for her to get mental help. Including a young female deputy taking a report from me blamed me for taking on old innocent grandma who could be my mom. The deputy shut herself off after finding out she has taken other neighbors car key from the RV parked and attempted to drive off his car even though she didn't have a drivers Lic. She was taken in to custody and sent off to mental facility... I found her on my street 2 weeks later, was released because they were too crowed. she eventually foreclosed her home.

Lesson learned? If I didn't have her arrested for B&E, her illness would have never been documented. If any of the parties involved owned a gun, somebody definitely would have been shot.

Americans' appetite for guns are like for giant SUV's. It feels good to own them even though you don't really need them just in case something horrible happens out of blue.

They have to be pried out American's arms to enforce gun regulation...
We like them too much to be taken away.

I am familiar with gun, and properly trained but I don't want them in my house, and I stay as far as possible from people who are fond of them, cause I know what they can do, and I know most of people who own them are not qualified to exercise the respect the firearm commands.
Just my opinion.

Quicksilver 12-25-2012 03:51 PM

:iagree: And I stand by my belief that guns are just not needed.
And I'm not buying the argument that only criminals will have guns.
What i'm saying is "NO ONE" should have guns. Unrealistic in today's
world? Perhaps. But just think about it........ Nothing else makes sense.

JCL 12-25-2012 05:17 PM

It seems to me that the argument gets polarized with words like banned. The question was gun control, not gun elimination.

Leaving aside habitual criminals such as bank robbers and home invaders, mass murderers seem more like individuals who are mentally ill. Having half the number of guns around means it would be twice as hard for them to arm themselves. Seems like a step forward. Having smaller magazines means that the two individuals who rushed the last shooter may have been successful before being shot. Seems like another step forward.

JCL 12-25-2012 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TerminatorX5 (Post 913514)
well... i've heard the 2nd amendment being mentioned everytime the weapon question comes into the light... so, i read it (there are several versions, one that was adopted by Congress, the other versions that were ratified by states)... it was adopted in 1791 (!), when the private citizens were expected to bring their own weapons into the State sponsored militia... There is nothing more to the 2nd amendment, nothing less... the times were rough, the indians were not friendly (rightfully so), the weapons were necessary - while you are plowing your fields and are being attack by indians, you wanted to have a weapon handy...

over the years the 2nd amendment went viral - people did not want disarm themselves, and wanted to keep expensive guns... The law interpretations went to the extent, that nobody remembers about the militia anymore but right to bear (to bring your own weapon once deputized into militia) has become the right to just HAVE the arms....

I've been and read it as well, to try and understand the genesis of the position that there is a right to be armed. Obviously that right is enshrined in the second amendment. But when I read it I don't think about Cowboys and Indians, I read the phrase about a 'well-regulated militia' and think about government tyranny, putting down the English kng, and so on. So what I want to know is, where is the well-regulated militia? It appears to be required in order to justify an armed populace. And that regulation by militia leaders would presumably include putting those that don't keep their guns secured into stocks every now and then. Those that support gun ownership would appear to have an obligation to participate in that well-regulated militia. And by extension, if they believe the government of the day is not responsive to their desires, they have an obligation to take those guns and overthrow the government. Is that the country that 21st century Americans want? If so, I'll try to remember to duck when the serious shooting starts

Quicksilver 12-25-2012 08:06 PM

JCL

I can appreciate your point and all the comments and your right about the thread title. However I don't think the argument gets polarized by bringing
in gun elimination. I set the stage by saying "Nothing will change because men don't have the guts to do what's necessary to stop the carnage". In my view
the answer is clear if a person doesn't have a gun he can't shoot anyone. I am not alone in that view. Many of my friends feel the same way.

I respect everyones right to state their position but if it is felt that my opinion polarizes the argument. I'm happy to abstain from further comment.

Thanks for the feedback

BB


Quote:

Originally Posted by JCL (Post 913529)
It seems to me that the argument gets polarized with words like banned. The question was gun control, not gun elimination.


JCL 12-25-2012 08:25 PM

I don't think that your comments polarize the discussion, Quick, and I don't think you should withdraw from the discussion. I just think that if one side wants guns eliminated, and the other thinks that any control means zero guns for them, that we may be missing an opportunity to significantly reduce the number of guns and thus significantly reduce the carnage.

I read that in Israel, where defence is well-appreciated, you can still be denied a gun if you don't need it for defence, and you can only have certain types of guns. And it is rare for anyone to be allowed to have more than one gun. All that might be a start.

I understand and appreciate your opinion. And I'm a pragmatist.

TerminatorX5 12-25-2012 08:37 PM

when the 2nd amendment was written, the forefathers could not have foreseen the weapons develop into rapid bullet discharge monsters that did not require any special arms knowledge, and thus prolifirating themselves into the hands of mass population...

the firearm has brought an equilizer into the fight scene, where a less powerful opponent is capable of taking out a stronger enemy by discharging a projectile from a distance, thus keeping him/herself safe and at the same time inflicting the most damage/injury to the opponent.
So, the weapons should be classified as tools - while it clearly possible to kill someone using an ax or a hammer, the ax and hammer have distinct purpose, other than to kill... a handgun, machine gun or for that matter of fact, any gun, has no other purpose for its existence other than destruction or murder - even target practicing damages the target beyong repair.

So, while the argument has been repeated numerous times, that the guns do not kill people, people kill people, it is very similar in its notion to the fact that wrenches do not unscrew bolts, people do... go ahead, and try to unscrew a bolt with bare hands... so... the guns are the tools - many states ban posession of lock picks (unless you are a licensed locksmith) as tools of burglary... the locksmiths are registered, bonded individuals or businesses entrusted with those tools... how comes we can not bond or otherwise regulate the weapons?

we do not allow drunk drivers on the road, and label them as killers behind the wheel, and some jurisdictions going to some crazy extends to ruin their lives beyond repair... and yet, we are OK with a handgun in the hands of some old lady (why in the hell my mother needs a hand gun??? she never shot one, and probably will hurt herself if she tries to use it!!!)

We do not allow sales and consumption of alcohol by an individual under 21 years of age (has nothing to do with biological maturity, it is due to mental immaturity) yet allow an individual at 18 to vote, bear arms in military and bear arms in private settings...

Here is something from Wikipedia - granted, not being an American history scholar, I can not vouch for correctness of this article, but these are conditions in the country BEFORE the 2nd amendment was adopted (as per Wikipeadia) - the US gov-t had no money to maintain its army and loading the responsobility to "bear" your own weapon on to the shoulders of the "recruits" was one feasible option...
***********

The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union was the first constitution of the United States of America.[3] The chief problem with the new government under the Articles of Confederation was, in the words of George Washington, "no money."[4]
The Continental Congress could print money, but by 1786 the currency was worthless. (A popular phrase of the times chimed that a useless object or person was .. not worth a Continental, referring to the Continental dollar.) Congress could borrow money, but couldn't pay it back.[4] No state paid all their U.S. taxes; Georgia paid nothing. Some few paid an amount equal to interest on the national debt owed to their citizens, but no more.[4] No interest was paid on debt owed foreign governments. By 1786, the United States would default on outstanding debts as their dates came due.[4]
In the world of 1787 the United States could not defend its sovereignity as an independent nation. Most of the troops in the 625-man U.S. Army were deployed facing—but not threatening—British forts being maintained on American soil. Those troops had not been paid; some were deserting and others threatening mutiny.[5] Spain closed New Orleans to American commerce; U.S. officials protested to no effect. Barbary Pirates began seizing American ships of commerce; the Treasury had no funds to pay the pirates' extortionate demands. If any extant or new military crisis required action the Congress had no credit or taxing power to finance a response.[4]
The new government (of the united states) was proving inadequate to the obligations of sovereignty within the confederation of the individual states. That is, although the Treaty of Paris (1783) was signed between Great Britain and the United States and each of the states by name, the various individual states proceeded blithely to violate it. New York and South Carolina repeatedly prosecuted Loyalists for wartime activity and redistributed their lands over the protests of both Great Britain and the Confederation Congress.[4]Individual state legislatures independently laid embargoes, negotiated directly with foreigners, raised armies and made war, all violating the letter and the spirit of the “Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union”.
During Shays' Rebellion in Massachesetts, Congress could provide no money to support an endangered constituent state. Nor could Massachusetts pay for its own internal defense; General Benjamin Lincoln was obliged to raise funds among Boston merchants to pay for a volunteer army.[6] During the next Convention, James Madison angrily questioned whether the Articles of Confederation was a binding compact or even a viable government. Connecticut paid nothing and "positively refused" to pay U.S. assessments for two years.[7] A rumor had it that a "seditious party" of New York legislators had opened a conversation with the Viceroy of Canada. To the south, the British were said to be openly funding Creek Indian raids on white settlers in Georgia and adjacent territory. Savannah was fortified and the State of Georgia was under martial law.[8]
Congress was paralyzed. It could do nothing significant without nine states, and some legislation required all thirteen. When a state produced only one member in attendance its vote was not counted. If a state's delegation were evenly divided, its vote could not be counted towards the nine-count requirement.[9] The Articles Congress had "virtually ceased trying to govern."[10] The vision of a "respectable nation" among nations seemed to be fading in the eyes of revolutionaries such as George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and Rufus King. Their dream of a republic, a nation without hereditary rulers, with power derived from the people in frequent elections, was in doubt.[11]

PersonaNonGrata 12-26-2012 03:18 AM

I stand by the statement that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Whether that good guy is on the spot as the shooting starts or is nearby, that is the only way the shooter could be stopped. It was asked about the Fort Hood mass shooting. Well, that shooter did kill 13 people but it could have been worse but for him being engaged and shot by responding police officers. I simply do not see any way around the proposition that lethal force of the mass shooting variety can only be stopped by lethal force.

I respect that some of you do not understand the desire or need to own guns and choose not to or associate with people who do. That is certainly your right and it doesn't make me like or respect you any less. I would say though, that one third of American households disagree with you and for whatever reason, choose to own firearms. Bear in mind that "firearms" can mean anything from a .22 caliber target pistol to a 12 gauge duck hunting shotgun to a so-called "assault weapon". I have my reasons and they are really of no consequence to the discussion. The simple fact is that the majority of Americans do understand gun ownership and do so lawfully.

It was also mentioned that there is "ease of access". I think this is notion created by the media. As I stated, there are almost always some procedures in order to buy a gun. Where someone like Adam Lanza kills the owner and steals them or the burglar who steals one during a burglary is not "ease of access" but I do think that gun owners have a responsibility to maintain their firearms in a safe way. To me, that means my guns are locked away in a 600 pound safe. I have always done that even before having a child and before California mandated gun locks or gun safes.

Perhaps that is something that should be implemented nationwide: Require gun owners to store firearms in approved locking devices. That could prevent the owner's child from getting the gun or help prevent burglars from stealing them. That could reduce the "ease of access". To me, that is just smart and just makes sense. I would not want any of my guns stolen much less stolen and then used in a crime. So, I take great pains to safeguard my firearms. I even keep my ammunition and magazines in another large safe. If people were required to lock up their guns, fewer guns would fall into criminal hands. That, I think is common sense and would work. Reducing the number of guns that could be stolen is not realistic. The idea of taking or confiscating guns from law abiding people is offensive to me. (Yes, innocent people being killed is offensive to me too.)

As for the Second Amendment, people like to point to the age of the amendment and the time period in which it was drafted but the United States Supreme Court has recently reaffirmed the Second Amendment in a couple of recent decision so as of 2012 the Second Amendment still stands for the proposition that the people have a right to keep and bear arms.

JCL is correct that the issue is polarized. Every political issue in the United States is polarized these days. He is also correct that there is talk of gun control. Again, as I stated earlier, I agree with effective controls. There is though also a ban being talked about and that is a ban on a certain class of weapon, a class of weapon that has been used in the recent mass shootings. I think it is the talk of this ban and the perception that it is an erosion of the Second Amendment and a start of a slippery slope that causes the strong reaction.

JCL 12-26-2012 03:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PersonaNonGrata (Post 913581)
I would say though, that one third of American households disagree with you and for whatever reason, choose to own firearms. Bear in mind that "firearms" can mean anything from a .22 caliber target pistol to a 12 gauge duck hunting shotgun to a so-called "assault weapon". I have my reasons and they are really of no consequence to the discussion. The simple fact is that the majority of Americans do understand gun ownership and do so lawfully.

I found this a little confusing. The majority of Americans may understand gun ownership, granted. The majority of gun owners (not the majority of Americans) do so lawfully, I am sure. But the majority of Americans simply don't own guns. They outnumber American gun owners 2 to 1. So if a politician or group of politicians wanted to reduce the number of guns in circulation, or restrict certain types of guns or ammunition, or invoke more restrictive permitting systems, it would appear they have a solid base to start from. And they may say that their right to security from gun violence outweighs other's right to combat gun violence with gun violence. At least that is the sense I get, observing from outside the US.

PersonaNonGrata 12-26-2012 04:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCL (Post 913586)
I found this a little confusing. The majority of Americans may understand gun ownership, granted. The majority of gun owners (not the majority of Americans) do so lawfully, I am sure. But the majority of Americans simply don't own guns. They outnumber American gun owners 2 to 1. So if a politician or group of politicians wanted to reduce the number of guns in circulation, or restrict certain types of guns or ammunition, or invoke more restrictive permitting systems, it would appear they have a solid base to start from. And they may say that their right to security from gun violence outweighs other's right to combat gun violence with gun violence. At least that is the sense I get, observing from outside the US.

Since when does what the majority of people want effect the course of political policy? ;)

I brought up that point to illustrate that a significant number, albeit outnumbered by two thirds, understand gun ownership. That is still a large majority that cannot be ignored. What politicians do can have so little to do with what constituents want of feel so the notion that politicians can feel emboldened by popular opinion does not always result in that side "winning". (I don't mean to be condescending. I'm trying to explain myself as simply as possible.) I just don't think it's about one side outweighing the other. As a corollary, look at the US electoral college method of electing a President but I digress.

Also, this assumes that all of the remaining two thirds are against gun ownership, the statistics of which I am unaware. It could well be that some or much of that two thirds who do not own guns are not opposed to civilian gun ownership, whether with restrictions or limitations or not. I would venture to say that there are many people who are not gun owners who have absolutely no problem with law abiding people who pass background checks owning firearms.

In light of that, the political will of the public that theoretically would drive political change might not be as strong as it would seem. Couple that with other variables that enter in the political decision making process and the course becomes even less clear.

g300d 12-26-2012 06:52 AM

Let's say a kid takes dad's BMW X5M for a spin without asking permission, then gets drunk and goes crazy speeding on the highway, getting into an accident killing a few people.

What if because of that there was a sudden clamor for the banning of high horsepower vehicles, especially BMWs?

Why, less high performance cars would mean less incidents of speeding! A positive step in reducing the number of drunk driving accidents is to reduce the number of cars, especially high performance cars, on the road.

After all, who really NEEDS a high performance car when a hybrid will get you where you need to while being good for the environment too?

I dont buy those arguments, because I am in the belief that BMW's or high performance cars dont in and of themselves cause anyone to drive irresponsibly. If a person causes a problem with one, he was most probably a problem to begin with.

A gun will not cause a shooting just like a BMW will not make me speed if I didnt want to in the first place. Smilarly, if a person is intent on killing a few people he will do it, with or without a gun.

Identify the crazies that do these things (whether driving or shooting), get them help or separate them from society, punish those that do crazy appropriately. The gun/car is not the problem, it didnt do it itself.

CT already has an assault weapons ban in place.

Columbine happened during the assault weapons ban that sunset in 2004.

Knowing this, do I advocate not doing anything? No, not at all.

I would like to see action on identifying the root cause of these incidents and addressing them, not knee jerk reactions that limit the rights and criminalize the law-abiding when the people who do these thing have no regard for the law.

TerminatorX5 12-26-2012 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by g300d (Post 913591)
Let's say a kid takes dad's BMW X5M for a spin without asking permission, then gets drunk and goes crazy speeding on the highway, getting into an accident killing a few people.

What if because of that there was a sudden clamor for the banning of high horsepower vehicles, especially BMWs?

Why, less high performance cars would mean less incidents of speeding! A positive step in reducing the number of drunk driving accidents is to reduce the number of cars, especially high performance cars, on the road.

After all, who really NEEDS a high performance car when a hybrid will get you where you need to while being good for the environment too?

I dont buy those arguments, because I am in the belief that BMW's or high performance cars dont in and of themselves cause anyone to drive irresponsibly. If a person causes a problem with one, he was most probably a problem to begin with.

A gun will not cause a shooting just like a BMW will not make me speed if I didnt want to in the first place. Smilarly, if a person is intent on killing a few people he will do it, with or without a gun.

Identify the crazies that do these things (whether driving or shooting), get them help or separate them from society, punish those that do crazy appropriately. The gun/car is not the problem, it didnt do it itself.

CT already has an assault weapons ban in place.

Columbine happened during the assault weapons ban that sunset in 2004.

Knowing this, do I advocate not doing anything? No, not at all.

I would like to see action on identifying the root cause of these incidents and addressing them, not knee jerk reactions that limit the rights and criminalize the law-abiding when the people who do these thing have no regard for the law.

driving a BMW or a trabant requires a set of skills identified by a driver's license (not getting into discussion that some people should not have licenses!!!). Do people drive without license? of course they do... do cops try to weed them out? of course they do... cars must have insurance in order to be operated on the public roads...

how about an insurance mandate for gun owners?? once insurance companies get involved into gun business, I think a lot of gun controls will happen naturally... unless there is already mandatory insurance for the gun owners...

and again, cars have a purpose other then killing innocent pedestrians waiting for a bus at a bus stop - guns do not have that "other" purpose...

So, what would happen if insurance companies will have to insure everyone who owns a gun? if you own a hunting gun, your premium will be $XX, if you own a bazooka - your premium will be $XXXXX...

maybe that will help?

"you have a permit and insurance for that gun, son?"

SlickGT1 12-26-2012 08:46 AM

Why are we not banning McDonald's. Trick question, what is the biggest killer of Americans lately? We should ban all fast food chains. We should ban all drugs and alcohol. We should also ban all high power cars. You start banning one thing, it will never end. Do you have a choice to eat shit and kill yourself with that? Yes you do. Do you have a choice to feed your mids with the same shit? Do you have a choice to buy violent games for your kids, which might teach them how to kill? When are you banning all that?

I have a choice to own a gun. I will teach my daughters how to shoot as soon as I deem them old enough. I will teach them proper gun control, safety, and potential damage that can be achieved.

I've also been in two gun situations. I didn't fire a shot in either, but was glad I had a gun.

SlickGT1 12-26-2012 08:46 AM

Why are we not banning McDonald's. Trick question, what is the biggest killer of Americans lately? We should ban all fast food chains. We should ban all drugs and alcohol. We should also ban all high power cars. You start banning one thing, it will never end. Do you have a choice to eat shit and kill yourself with that? Yes you do. Do you have a choice to feed your mids with the same shit? Do you have a choice to buy violent games for your kids, which might teach them how to kill? When are you banning all that?

I have a choice to own a gun. I will teach my daughters how to shoot as soon as I deem them old enough. I will teach them proper gun control, safety, and potential damage that can be achieved.

I've also been in two gun situations. I didn't fire a shot in either, but was glad I had a gun.

g300d 12-26-2012 09:43 AM

Quote:

and again, cars have a purpose other then killing innocent pedestrians waiting for a bus at a bus stop - guns do not have that "other" purpose...
Guns do have a legitimate use. The defense of life, liberty and property against otherwise overwhelming odds and circumstances.

"...Do you believe that you are forbidden to protect yourself because the police are better qualified to protect you, because they know what they are doing but you're a rank amateur? Put aside that this is equivalent to believing that only concert pianists may play the piano and only professional athletes may play sports. What exactly are these special qualities possessed only by the police and beyond the rest of us mere mortals?

One who values his life and takes seriously his responsibilities to his family and community will possess and cultivate the means of fighting back, and will retaliate when threatened with death or grievous injury to himself or a loved one. He will never be content to rely solely on others for his safety, or to think he has done all that is possible by being aware of his surroundings and taking measures of avoidance. Let's not mince words: He will be armed, will be trained in the use of his weapon, and will defend himself when faced with lethal violence."

A Nation of Cowards

blondboinsd 12-26-2012 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlickGT1 (Post 913596)
Why are we not banning McDonald's. Trick question, what is the biggest killer of Americans lately? We should ban all fast food chains. We should ban all drugs and alcohol. We should also ban all high power cars. You start banning one thing, it will never end. Do you have a choice to eat shit and kill yourself with that? Yes you do. Do you have a choice to feed your mids with the same shit? Do you have a choice to buy violent games for your kids, which might teach them how to kill? When are you banning all that?

I have a choice to own a gun. I will teach my daughters how to shoot as soon as I deem them old enough. I will teach them proper gun control, safety, and potential damage that can be achieved.

I've also been in two gun situations. I didn't fire a shot in either, but was glad I had a gun.

The 2 arguments are NOT RELEVANT. I'm sorry but both a car and McDonalds have other primary uses but a gun does not. Trying to compare the 2 is asinine

blondboinsd 12-26-2012 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by g300d (Post 913611)
Guns do have a legitimate use. The defense of life, liberty and property against otherwise overwhelming odds and circumstances.

"...Do you believe that you are forbidden to protect yourself because the police are better qualified to protect you, because they know what they are doing but you're a rank amateur? Put aside that this is equivalent to believing that only concert pianists may play the piano and only professional athletes may play sports. What exactly are these special qualities possessed only by the police and beyond the rest of us mere mortals?

One who values his life and takes seriously his responsibilities to his family and community will possess and cultivate the means of fighting back, and will retaliate when threatened with death or grievous injury to himself or a loved one. He will never be content to rely solely on others for his safety, or to think he has done all that is possible by being aware of his surroundings and taking measures of avoidance. Let's not mince words: He will be armed, will be trained in the use of his weapon, and will defend himself when faced with lethal violence."

A Nation of Cowards

What is your point? This just reads like some long ramble

wallyx5 12-26-2012 12:54 PM

I will keep my guns thank you.

Lets figure out if how to get our country under control again, or maybe how to quit spending like drunken sailors. Or lets talk about term limits that would be interesting. We already have gun control laws in effect...or maybe we could take Chicago's approach. They only have shootings every few hours out there.

g300d 12-26-2012 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blondboinsd (Post 913623)
What is your point? This just reads like some long ramble

Thread is about stances on gun control.

The essay at the link pretty much tells it as it is for me.

Did you read it?

blondboinsd 12-26-2012 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wallyx5 (Post 913631)
I will keep my guns thank you.

Lets figure out if how to get our country under control again, or maybe how to quit spending like drunken sailors. Or lets talk about term limits that would be interesting. We already have gun control laws in effect...or maybe we could take Chicago's approach. They only have shootings every few hours out there.

And THIS is why we have issues today. This whole "oh let's deflect to something else and everything is great, all laws are working" mentality is why we need additional regulation on the federal level because it clearly isn't going to happen on the local level

wallyx5 12-26-2012 01:48 PM

I am taking the same approach the government has and will continue to do. We don't have a problem, you do. If you don't like the current laws, move. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are their for a reason. That's why they call if the Bill of Rights. I have the right to bear arms just like you have the right to freedom of speech.

Enjoy the holidays, 2013 is going to be an exciting one.

blondboinsd 12-26-2012 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wallyx5 (Post 913639)
I am taking the same approach the government has and will continue to do. We don't have a problem, you do. If you don't like the current laws, move. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are their for a reason. That's why they call if the Bill of Rights. I have the right to bear arms just like you have the right to freedom of speech.

Enjoy the holidays, 2013 is going to be an exciting one.

Nobody Is trying to take all guns away but it's high time we ban assault weapons and large scale ammunition. There is no logical reason for someone to have it. Period

JonK 12-26-2012 03:39 PM

To be clear, I don't own a gun at this moment because it is too much liability to me.
I don't own a dog for a same reason.

I would get a gun, if different situations arise say I move to very isolated area, or go camping in area where bears frequent, etc. I would purchase a proper gun safe, and follow protocols. I just have no reason to own one at where I am.
Not because I am against gun ownership for qualified individuals.

If anyone ask me some of the people I know who own guns will always make right choices with the firearms, "I would say hell no."

djbock 12-26-2012 04:17 PM

I normally don't get involved in these discussions, but I think some people take too much from our media and lawmakers. So which one of these is an "assault weapon"?

http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg115/djbock/12.png

Most folks will answer the one on the bottom. My question is why??

Hate to break this to ya, but they are the exact same firearm; are the same length, utilize the same ammunition, and both have detachable magazines. So is it because the one on the bottom is all blacked out, has a bunch of additional doo-dads attached to it and generally scares us that makes it an assault weapon?

My point is most say,
Quote:

Originally Posted by blondboinsd (Post 913649)
Nobody Is trying to take all guns away but it's high time we ban assault weapons and large scale ammunition. There is no logical reason for someone to have it. Period

So that would mean the bottom choice by most peoples (and the media/lawmakers) definition. But by my example I could just go to my local sporting goods store and purchase the top rifle and do the same amount of damage. Where is the line drawn?

g300d 12-26-2012 08:07 PM

Quote:

And THIS is why we have issues today. This whole "oh let's deflect to something else and everything is great, all laws are working" mentality is why we need additional regulation on the federal level because it clearly isn't going to happen on the local level
Gun control is much more of a deflection than what you are claiming.

Its a symptom of the whole entitlement mentality going on today.

"Wahhh some crazy went out and killed a lot of people. Govt, protect me by banning icky guns!"

Some of us prefer to have the capability to be able to do something about it should we find ourselves in such an unfortunate situation.

Some of us see things as they are. Firearms are simply inanimate tools. How can banning an inanimate object stop someone from doing something crazy?

Let me ask you, If someone handed you a gun, would it somehow make you want to go out and shoot a whole bunch of people?

If it doesnt, shame on you for thinking the rest of us law abiding owners are somehow so morally bankrupt and deficient as to be directed to such an act by an inanimate object!

And if you somehow do tend to think of shooting people when holding a gun, I'm sorry but you are not one to discussing about its legislation in the first place.

You want it banned for the masses and have police with guns be there to take care of things?

First, they are only a general deterrent. They are not there to guarantee the safety of each citizen, they are there to help handle things we the people cannot handle on our own.

Second, how can you morally condone someone with a deadly gun defending you when you think guns are so horrible and evil in the first place?

Is your own life worth defending?

If so, ultimately, who's responsibility is it to defend it?

Given an overwhelming threat against your own life, like yourself against many, someone physically more powerful than you, or one with a weapon, what would you choose to defend yourself with?

pink_roundel 12-26-2012 09:26 PM

Guns.. Is this the real issue? No I do not believe so. The real issue is we live in a politically correct society and when somebody gets their feelings hurt they want to go shoot up the place. This new generation is so sensitive, they get picked on or "bullied" in school then they go home get the daddy's legal gun take it to school and kill a bunch of people. We need to get back to disciplining our children and teaching them to stand up for themselves. Not everyone can be a winner, everybody loses sometime. Also we need to get "big government" out of what local government is paid to do.

TerminatorX5 12-26-2012 09:42 PM

:iagree: with pink!!!

SANguru 12-26-2012 11:22 PM

I will keep mine thank you very much.. for all those opposing I hope you have some way of defending yourself when you need it. If some lunatic want it bad enough you really think they won't find a way to get a gun even through a ban? You swear nobody got any alcohol during prohibition. :confused::rolleyes:

TerminatorX5 12-27-2012 01:38 AM

in a law-abiding society I should not resort to self-defense, judgement and execution... (for some reason the Trayvon Martin - Zimmerman case comes to mind). In a wild-wild west - it is a different story...


on the other hand, if the foreign power invades and the military for some reason is not capable, than the civilian backup to the military makes sense... As it is written in the 2nd amendment, as a matter of fact...

I am trying to remember, which oriental city has like a 1000 unarmed cops keeping peace - is it Singapore? It would be clearly a SUICIDAL mission in NYC... or LA... we are different, and should acknowledge that - we are rather a violent society, glorifying crime - "gone in 60 seconds", "fast & furious" are just couple of movies coming to mind where criminals are portrayed as modern day Robin Hoods, Zorros... while in reality, many of them are trying to finance their habits... whatever those might be...

PersonaNonGrata 12-27-2012 03:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pink_roundel (Post 913705)
Guns.. Is this the real issue? No I do not believe so. The real issue is we live in a politically correct society and when somebody gets their feelings hurt they want to go shoot up the place. This new generation is so sensitive, they get picked on or "bullied" in school then they go home get the daddy's legal gun take it to school and kill a bunch of people. We need to get back to disciplining our children and teaching them to stand up for themselves. Not everyone can be a winner, everybody loses sometime. Also we need to get "big government" out of what local government is paid to do.

AGREED! This is exactly what I started off stating. It's not the proliferation of guns that should alarm people but rather that these mass killers choose to act the way they do. If people read about a man who had been fired from his job for being terrible at his job who then goes to his former workplace with a hatchet and hacks 10 people to death, including totally uninvolved people, would you react and say that hatchets are to blame or would your first reaction be "why would someone do such a thing over losing a job???". Exactly....

Quote:

Originally Posted by TerminatorX5 (Post 913739)
in a law-abiding society I should not resort to self-defense, judgement and execution... (for some reason the Trayvon Martin - Zimmerman case comes to mind). In a wild-wild west - it is a different story...


on the other hand, if the foreign power invades and the military for some reason is not capable, than the civilian backup to the military makes sense... As it is written in the 2nd amendment, as a matter of fact...

I am trying to remember, which oriental city has like a 1000 unarmed cops keeping peace - is it Singapore? It would be clearly a SUICIDAL mission in NYC... or LA... we are different, and should acknowledge that - we are rather a violent society, glorifying crime - "gone in 60 seconds", "fast & furious" are just couple of movies coming to mind where criminals are portrayed as modern day Robin Hoods, Zorros... while in reality, many of them are trying to finance their habits... whatever those might be...

The key to your statement is the presupposition that we live in a law-abiding society. Most people do comport with this but a dangerous minority do not. If you do not believe in the right of self defense when attacked then you are not just denying the law but denying a basic human instinct. I'm not talking about a "Red Dawn"scenario where we'd have to defend against invading Russians. I'm talking about an armed intruder breaks into your house while you are home with your family. What would you do? Of course you'd defend yourself. What would you want to have to survive the situation?

The Trayon Martin case is so distorted by the media that I don't know if we'll ever get the truth but that case is not about gun control whatsoever so I'll leave it at that.

I absolutely agree with you that our society is different than many others for whatever reason. We pride ourselves on many freedoms but those freedoms come with a price, whether it is the freedom to pursue the American Dream in a free market economy that results in disparate wealth or whether it be the freedom of speech where people can vehemently argue their sides no matter how vile it is.

djbock: No evil black rifle!!! This one is much kinder and gentler. :D

http://www.riflegear.com/blogimages/KittyRifle.jpg

BTW, this is a real and fully functional AR-15 (California compliant) rifle.

TerminatorX5 12-27-2012 03:20 AM

1 Attachment(s)
being caught on camera with military weapon in my hands i should just shut the heck up... :nanana:... but this is NOT my personal gun, it belongs to my uncle... Uncle Sam...

JonK 12-27-2012 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PersonaNonGrata (Post 913742)

I love your little toy. Where can I get one? My 11 year old niece's B-day is coming up.:rofl:

Looking at our declining national murder conviction rate, I am sure people like to be at giving ends, instead of receiving ends.

No pun intended! Very mature discussion on a sensitive subject. I am so proud of you all.

tynashracing 12-27-2012 04:56 PM

Question for those of you that would like gun control and even elimination...Why? Is it to save innocent lives?


JCL hit the nail on the head..."I've been and read it as well, to try and understand the genesis of the position that there is a right to be armed. Obviously that right is enshrined in the second amendment. But when I read it I don't think about Cowboys and Indians, I read the phrase about a 'well-regulated militia' and think about government tyranny, putting down the English kng, and so on. So what I want to know is, where is the well-regulated militia? It appears to be required in order to justify an armed populace. And that regulation by militia leaders would presumably include putting those that don't keep their guns secured into stocks every now and then. Those that support gun ownership would appear to have an obligation to participate in that well-regulated militia. And by extension, if they believe the government of the day is not responsive to their desires, they have an obligation to take those guns and overthrow the government. Is that the country that 21st century Americans want?"

Unfortunately, the word militia has a negative connotation today...it implies "extremist" or "radical right wing". Amazing how a system can turn things inside out!

When FEMA teaches that Christians and the Founding Fathers of America are/were terrorists...we've got big problems. Fed training video: Christian and founding fathers called terrorists - YouTube

But here's the best...

Gandhi has written about self defense and training in arms...Prison Planet.com » Gandhi advocated the right to bear arms; use of ‘violence’ to defend innocents against bullying, oppression


Here are a few quotes from the above article...

“I do believe that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence I would advise violence,” Gandhi wrote in his famous work, Doctrine of the Sword.

"When my eldest son asked me what he should have done, had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908, whether he should have run away and seen me killed or whether he should have used his physical force which he could and wanted to use, and defended me, I told him that it was his duty to defend me even by using violence."

"Hence also do I advocate training in arms for those who believe in the method of violence. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor". – M.K. Gandhi, The Doctrine of the Sword.

JCL 12-27-2012 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tynashracing (Post 913866)

It seems to me that using Ghandi's writings to justify gun ownership is the height of cowardice. It twists Ghandi's teachings to suit a narrow view.

"Ghandi pointed out three possible responses to oppression and injustice. One he described as the coward's way, to accept the wrong or run away from it. The second was to stand and fight by force of arms. Ghandi said that this was better than acceptance or running away. But the third way, he said, was the best of all and required the most courage: to stand and fight by non-violent means."

Full essay here: Mahatma Gandhi and His Myths (Gandhi, Civil Disobedience, Nonviolence, Non-Violence, Satyagraha)

So it appears that Alex Jones et al stopped reading partway through, and thus twisted the message. For some reason I am not surprised.

tynashracing 12-27-2012 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCL (Post 913899)
It seems to me that using Ghandi's writings to justify gun ownership is the height of cowardice. It twists Ghandi's teachings to suit a narrow view.

"Ghandi pointed out three possible responses to oppression and injustice. One he described as the coward's way, to accept the wrong or run away from it. The second was to stand and fight by force of arms. Ghandi said that this was better than acceptance or running away. But the third way, he said, was the best of all and required the most courage: to stand and fight by non-violent means."

Full essay here: Mahatma Gandhi and His Myths (Gandhi, Civil Disobedience, Nonviolence, Non-Violence, Satyagraha)

So it appears that Alex Jones et al stopped reading partway through, and thus twisted the message. For some reason I am not surprised.

I don't see it as being twisted. I would prefer the third way as would most. However, there are violent people who wield violent weapons...I don't think the third way will work for those individuals/govt's/countries. Hence the reason for arms training.

Gandhi also said the following. Maybe you have commentary for it as well?

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." -- Mahatma Ghandi
"Gandhi, An Autobiography", M. K. Gandhi, page 446


I posed a question as to why people want to confiscate or limit guns. Anyone care to respond?

TerminatorX5 12-27-2012 10:45 PM

in the absence of firearms one can take on an offender with bare hands even if the offender has cold weapon - I had taken on person with a knife with my bare hands and have a scar to prove it ( I was stupid, young kid, but there was no other choice, either live as a jackal with tail between legs or die as a lion... not that I am a lion, it was still stupid, i could have talked him out of it, but I was young... and stupid)... if he had a handgun or any other firearm, and I had a firearm (and you can see that I am not shying away from guns, I used an AK-74 when I was in service), I would have thought hard before engaging the enemy...

It is that bravada speaks so loud: "if it were I, I would have kicked his a$$, I would have done this and that. that bastard would have no chance if I were there"... nonsense - by the same token, our highly trained military personnel with all the intel and field situation awareness would have eliminated all the Talibs... which is not the case, as we all know... In many cases a non-lethal response is sufficient to subdue the offender in a non-military environment...
in that case, we should abolish the police, the sheriff department and the whole plethora of other law enforcement agencies, and return to the old days of militia - which brings us back to the very beginning.. the 2nd amendment...

These replies of keeping the arms, the right to bear arms - they underline the notion that there is NO legitimate law enforcement offered by the duly elected government, or that the response offered by the law enforcement is not adequate and that there is a valid need to carry arms in order to defend yourself from alleged criminals, as the government has no ability to do so...

think about a road rage, when two otherwise perfectly normal, sane, law-abiding citizens with clean bill of health and with a duly registered guns get so enraged at each other... Neither is a criminal, neither is a looney-case, both are respected members of society... but... something went wrong, one of them felt threatened for whatever reason, pulled a gun, the other one saw the gun, pulled his gun, in the result we have 5 innocent bystanders dead, both guys are totally dumbfounded in the police custody...
now, think if they had no firearms... I personally was deputized by one of our agents in NYC during UNGA 61 when two limo drivers did not settle on some food from a street vendor, and one of them went for a tire iron... yeah, someone could have been killed but the case ended with some bruised egos and couple real bruises... While our agent held back one guy, i held back the other guy, with the tire iron... if the llimo driver had a pistol - i'd be far away... and the crowd would have been long gone too... no pistol = street entertainment... lol.. nobody dead...


also, i have a feeling that I will be unsubscribing from this thread real soon - it is going off on some empty tangent... deja vu...

tynashracing 12-27-2012 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TerminatorX5 (Post 913914)
in the absence of firearms one can take on an offender with bare hands even if the offender has cold weapon - I had taken on person with a knife with my bare hands and have a scar to prove it ( I was stupid, young kid, but there was no other choice, either live as a jackal with tail between legs or die as a lion... not that I am a lion, it was still stupid, i could have talked him out of it, but I was young... and stupid)... if he had a handgun or any other firearm, and I had a firearm (and you can see that I am not shying away from guns, I used an AK-74 when I was in service), I would have thought hard before engaging the enemy...

It is that bravada speaks so loud: "if it were I, I would have kicked his a$$, I would have done this and that. that bastard would have no chance if I were there"... nonsense - by the same token, our highly trained military personnel with all the intel and field situation awareness would have eliminated all the Talibs... which is not the case, as we all know... In many cases a non-lethal response is sufficient to subdue the offender in a non-military environment...
in that case, we should abolish the police, the sheriff department and the whole plethora of other law enforcement agencies, and return to the old days of militia - which brings us back to the very beginning.. the 2nd amendment...

These replies of keeping the arms, the right to bear arms - they underline the notion that there is NO legitimate law enforcement offered by the duly elected government, or that the response offered by the law enforcement is not adequate and that there is a valid need to carry arms in order to defend yourself from alleged criminals, as the government has no ability to do so...

think about a road rage, when two otherwise perfectly normal, sane, law-abiding citizens with clean bill of health and with a duly registered guns get so enraged at each other... Neither is a criminal, neither is a looney-case, both are respected members of society... but... something went wrong, one of them felt threatened for whatever reason, pulled a gun, the other one saw the gun, pulled his gun, in the result we have 5 innocent bystanders dead, both guys are totally dumbfounded in the police custody...
now, think if they had no firearms... I personally was deputized by one of our agents in NYC during UNGA 61 when two limo drivers did not settle on some food from a street vendor, and one of them went for a tire iron... yeah, someone could have been killed but the case ended with some bruised egos and couple real bruises... While our agent held back one guy, i held back the other guy, with the tire iron... if the llimo driver had a pistol - i'd be far away... and the crowd would have been long gone too... no pistol = street entertainment... lol.. nobody dead...


also, i have a feeling that I will be unsubscribing from this thread real soon - it is going off on some empty tangent... deja vu...


No doubt hot heads will use a weapon of convenience and regret their action later...if left alive to regret.

It's really the innocent lives that are lost that cause us much grief...would you agree?

Ha, nice jab at the end. No worries...I'm about done with this thread...just one more point to make.

noncom23 12-30-2012 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PersonaNonGrata (Post 913481)
Obviously this is an extremely complex problem and I am of the firm belief that it has very little to do with guns. They are just the instrumentality. The root of the problem is the inability of some people to cope with life, their depression, their sorry lot in life, or whatever. It astounds me that someone who is mad at Mommy, or got fired from a job, or just feels like the world shits on them that the response deemed most appropriate is to kill innocents or anyone at all for that matter. Before we even get to the issue of gun control I think the bigger issue is this and more broadly, society in general, and some people's view that responding with unspeakable violence is appropriate.

Mental illness is a tricky thing as far as gun control goes. There have been calls for the mentally ill to be prohibited from owning or possessing guns. Fair enough but first, what exactly the definition of "mentally ill"? Secondly, how is it to be determined that once someone is mentally ill that they not get a gun? There is not currently and possibly no way to integrate mental illness or psychiatric/psychological treatment with a background check. I think there are practical impediments to that as well as federal and state privacy laws concerning medical records. Also, how would it ever be recorded, if it could at all, if someone seeks psychological counseling for dark thoughts? They could go under a false name and unless there was the need for a Tarasoff warning, the psychologist would never report such contact. The bottom line is that creating some kind of database of the "mentally ill" is near impossible. Even being able to keep them from buying guns is difficult and when a mentally ill person can murder the owner and take her guns, access cannot be prevented.

As far as so-called "assault weapons" and high capacity magazines, they are menacing and scary looking but are not the problem. Since the Clinton ban sunsetted and such weapons and magazines were again legal federally (but still banned by many states), there was no increase in crime. In fact, I can tell you as a criminal justice professional that very, very few violent crimes if any are committed with such weapons. I'm talking about the crime that happens every day, not the tragic events like Newtown or Colorado. Furthermore, bans on "assault weapons" and high capacity magazines already exist in many states. As a matter of fact, Connecticut has a ban on "assault weapons".

There are millions of guns and millions of "assault weapons" and even more millions of high capacity magazines in the hands of law abiding owners. It may seem trite but it is true that it must be considered that the vast, vast majority of these guns never kill anything more than paper targets. I know that at moments like now when the world mourns 27 lives lost that even one "assault weapon" seems like too many but the fact that millions are owned without lethal results cannot be ignored. The suggestion to take them way from lawful owners is downright unconstitutional. The United States Constitution forbids uncompensated takings from private citizens, whether it be a gun or your land. Taking in that manner is un-American. Couple that with the Second Amendment and that idea goes nowhere.

"The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." I totally agree with this. I do not envision vigilantes slinging guns all over town looking for a gunfight. The notion of armed police in schools is not new at all. Many schools have "School Resource Officers". It was mentioned that Columbine had such SROs in the schools and that didn't help. Perhaps it did help to prevent even more death. Perhaps if Adam Lanza was confronted by a police officer or other armed person he would have not killed as many people or at all. Perhaps if James Holmes had encountered armed resistance he would have retreated. I have heard from law enforcement sources that the shooter in the mall in Oregon was confronted by an armed citizen whereupon the shooter took his own life, resulting in two tragic deaths but it could have been far, far worse.

The thing that we should all agree on is that these mass killers are cowards. Why else would they do what they do? Why else do they choose the most helpless of victims? Because they are cowards who do not expect resistance, if there was someone there, a good guy with a gun, if nothing else, the killer's focus changes from offensive to defensive. He could be distracted enough to allow for people to escape. He could be forced to retreat in the face of live fire in his direction. He could be neutralized. The notion that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun is stating a simple fact. You do not repel a gun attack with a stern finger wag or good intentions. The simple fact is that to stop a lethal attack requires use of lethal force. If you don't like that, too bad. That's how it's done. It's not nice. It's not pleasant. It is the truth. I have participated in "active shooter" training at schools to prepare for such events. It's an unfortunate reality we have to do this but I can tell you, it is necessary and when you're in the heat of the moment you realize what it takes to end such an attack and it requires enormous violence of action to end.

Don't get me wrong. I am a parent of a little one and every time I hear the news or read of the murders it makes me sick to my stomach and brings tears to my eyes. I am also a gun owner and work in law enforcement. I believe in peoples' rights to keep and bear arms. I see the results of what criminals do to law abiding people. Criminals are not stopped by any rules, waiting periods, or background checks. Criminals do whatever they want and hope that their victims do not have the will or the means to defend themselves.

So what do I think would help? I believe that we do have to have a frank discussion of the issues and chief among them is what our society values and how our society has changed. Is it video games? Movies? Television? I don't have the answer to that but as I stated earlier, we have to address the fact that some people choose to solve their problems with violence. I believe in background checks. It is an overused generalization that there are gunshow loopholes and that you can buy a gun on the Internet without any checks. There are some states that are more lax on background checks but by and large, most states have background checks in place, even at gunshows. Buying guns on the Internet does not mean it arrives on your doorstep. Purchases like this must be completed at a local federally licensed dealer. The Internet seller must ship to the dealer where the buyer will complete paperwork and any background checks. I have made two such purchases. So, I would agree that background checks are a good idea across the board.

The biggest issue is the mental health issue. It seems inevitable that after such a shooting that the shooter is remembered as being "odd" or having some sort of mental instability. Why is it always after the fact? Well, is it realistic to preemptively detain someone because a classmate thinks he is strange and possible dangerous? I don't think we can do that. Mental healthcare is woefully underfunded and too few resources exist in general much less for those who might be prone to a mass shooting. The question would be how we would improve those resources and how we would identify those who need it to prevent shootings. Is it possible? I sure hope so.

For those who do not understand why we own guns, that is not for you to understand just like it is not for me to understand why you like a certain kind of music, food, vacation destination, or the way you choose to vote. Your not understanding why gun ownership is enjoyed does not mean it should be abolished. Saying that there is no purpose to owning an AR-15 style rifle and high capacity magazines is your opinion and I would beg to differ. I find I have many purposes to owning such rifles, the relevance of which you would disagree but none the less, it is my right to own them. Your disagreement is of no consequence to me just as you might dismiss some of my views that do not concur with yours.

One final point: My daughter goes to school. It is terrifying to think that someone would harm her or the other children. That is a reality whether it be a gunman or a kidnapper. The world is a pretty crappy place sometimes. Do I want to go to the school and stand guard? Absolutely! Would I be armed while doing so? Absolutely! If a bad guy with a gun were to visit, a good guy with a gun would try to stop him.

Well put. I totally agree.

Thunder22 12-30-2012 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blondboinsd (Post 913649)
Nobody Is trying to take all guns away but it's high time we ban assault weapons and large scale ammunition. There is no logical reason for someone to have it. Period

That's just your opinion, and expressing it so childishly doesn't help anyone see your side of the discussion. Period. ; )

brian5 12-31-2012 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thunder22 (Post 914338)
That's just your opinion, and expressing it so childishly doesn't help anyone see your side of the discussion. Period. ; )

Unfortunately, I think the majority of those with guns in USA need to have the sentences kept short and simple so that they can be understood. I don't think that they are generally on this forum though...

rebound 12-31-2012 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brian5 (Post 914408)
Unfortunately, I think the majority of those with guns in USA need to have the sentences kept short and simple so that they can be understood. I don't think that they are generally on this forum though...

Stereotype much?:rolleyes:

brian5 12-31-2012 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rebound (Post 914413)
Stereotype much?:rolleyes:

Unfortunately, yes. Stereotyping is one way to help describe the mess that this country has got it itself into with its lack of gun controls and the ability of those with mental health issues to lay their hands on these deadly weapons.

Just because the Second Amendment, adopted in 1791, says that people have the right to keep and bear arms, doesn't mean that it shouldn't be revisited now. The USA, and the rest of the world, has changed a lot in that time... The atrocities that have been committed in recent years bear witness to that.

EDIT: After reviewing this thread again today, I'm unsubscribing. There are some pretty inane arguments by the gun advocates.

tynashracing 12-31-2012 11:19 AM

Gun control to save innocent lives, right?

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/...er-disarm.html

Activist Post: Back to the Future: What History Teaches About Gun Confiscations

Death by "Gun Control"

noncom23 12-31-2012 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brian5 (Post 914417)
Unfortunately, yes. Stereotyping is one way to help describe the mess that this country has got it itself into with its lack of gun controls and the ability of those with mental health issues to lay their hands on these deadly weapons.

Just because the Second Amendment, adopted in 1791, says that people have the right to keep and bear arms, doesn't mean that it shouldn't be revisited now. The USA, and the rest of the world, has changed a lot in that time... The atrocities that have been committed in recent years bear witness to that.

EDIT: After reviewing this thread again today, I'm unsubscribing. There are some pretty inane arguments by the gun advocates.

Ok. Call a constitutional convention and revisit it.

PersonaNonGrata 01-01-2013 11:07 PM

One of the many reasons this national "discussion" will never be genuine and productive.

Celebrities call for an end to gun violence.



And the hypocrisy of it all.



Celebrities are hardly the policy makers of the world and should not be looked to as role models but they are. They are influential. Hollywood helped Obama win both times. We may not consider celebrity opinions anything more than white noise but unfortunately the have a loud voice and many do listen to them. Therefore, it is only proper that their own hypocrisy be shown.

TerminatorX5 01-02-2013 12:20 AM

I am not a celebrity... in post #50 I am holding a fully automatic assault rifle in my hands... i have used AK-74 earlier in my life... I have used some small caliber weapons in my life... not against people, all was in training environment...

And knowing what those weapons can do, I am still against them in the hands of general population... while it is possible to kill with bare hands, the use of killing tools makes the killing so much easier... so, it is only natural to restrict the sale of those things - the other day i wanted to buy a bottle of champagne, but the sales clerk said, sorry, it is past midnight... wow... strict alcohol rules... if i buy booze after midnight - i am in trouble... if i buy booze for an underage, i am in trouble... if i buy him a weapon - no biggy deal...

weapons have serial numbers, cars have VINs... we could have national registry (or state registry) for those things... and the notion, that next step will be taking those weapons away is nonsense - in 200 years nobody took them away, and i am sure in the next 200 years will not be much different...

besides, the weapon bearers should serve in the state sponsored militia anyways...

Does all of that make me a hypocrat?

PersonaNonGrata 01-02-2013 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TerminatorX5 (Post 914604)
I am not a celebrity... in post #50 I am holding a fully automatic assault rifle in my hands... i have used AK-74 earlier in my life... I have used some small caliber weapons in my life... not against people, all was in training environment...

And knowing what those weapons can do, I am still against them in the hands of general population... while it is possible to kill with bare hands, the use of killing tools makes the killing so much easier... so, it is only natural to restrict the sale of those things - the other day i wanted to buy a bottle of champagne, but the sales clerk said, sorry, it is past midnight... wow... strict alcohol rules... if i buy booze after midnight - i am in trouble... if i buy booze for an underage, i am in trouble... if i buy him a weapon - no biggy deal...

weapons have serial numbers, cars have VINs... we could have national registry (or state registry) for those things... and the notion, that next step will be taking those weapons away is nonsense - in 200 years nobody took them away, and i am sure in the next 200 years will not be much different...

besides, the weapon bearers should serve in the state sponsored militia anyways...

Does all of that make me a hypocrat?

It makes you no less of a hypocrite than me, a gun owner who believes in the Second Amendment and ownership of so-called "assault weapons", in saying I think there should be regulation and some people should not be allowed to owner or possess guns. You being someone familiar with and required to possess guns for work purposes and having views that call for controls of civilian ownership is not hypocrisy. The only thing I would point out with your post is that you are holding a "fully automatic" weapon and that is not available to the general public. You are holding it, presumably based on your previous posts, as part of Department of Defense operations. I want to mention this because some people think that someone can run out and buy a "machine gun" easily. They cannot. Federal and state law have very, very strict laws about this class (Class III) of weapons.

Why the celebrities are hypocrites is because they are very publicly and very politically demanding something be done to end gun violence yet what they do very publicly and with tremendous recompense, is portray, depict, perpetuate, and glamorize very violent acts committed with the very guns they demand be legislated up to and including outright bans. As I continually say, it's not about the guns. It's about behavior. It's about societal views, norms, mores, and attitudes. I don't think it is remotely possible to end gun violence without considering the kind of violence these celebrities make their millions on.

TerminatorX5 01-02-2013 01:00 AM

I read James Fenimore Cooper, and the pioneers there had weapons... naturally, hostile environment, one needs to shoot first, ask questions later...
now days, we pretend to be a civilized society, the light of free world in the darkness of the tyranny, blah, blah, blah... and yet, when Katrina struck, the looting started... any otherwise peaceful gathering can turn into something violent real fast, i think even the latest camping outside the Wall Street was not immune to that...

in such a violent environment any disruption to normal daily grind may prove fatal - someone losing his otherwise normal mind and going bazookas... even mental health control will not help in identifying a perfect normal dude going biserk - i think, there was a movie (a movie, i know... but we don't read anymore, we watch), about some regular dude going crazy and killing people, i think either Douglas senior, or junior was in that movie... I need to do a search about that one...

my point is, it is very dangerous to have weapons distributed in the society that is not really stable - look at the fiscal cliff, and the debt ceiling, and the whole other plethora of things that are wrong here... V.Lenin said once that he can build a government that even a last maid can operate (кухарка)... sometimes it feels that he had succeeded here, in the States...

PersonaNonGrata 01-02-2013 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TerminatorX5 (Post 914609)
I read James Fenimore Cooper, and the pioneers there had weapons... naturally, hostile environment, one needs to shoot first, ask questions later...
now days, we pretend to be a civilized society, the light of free world in the darkness of the tyranny, blah, blah, blah... and yet, when Katrina struck, the looting started... any otherwise peaceful gathering can turn into something violent real fast, i think even the latest camping outside the Wall Street was not immune to that...

in such a violent environment any disruption to normal daily grind may prove fatal - someone losing his otherwise normal mind and going bazookas... even mental health control will not help in identifying a perfect normal dude going biserk - i think, there was a movie (a movie, i know... but we don't read anymore, we watch), about some regular dude going crazy and killing people, i think either Douglas senior, or junior was in that movie... I need to do a search about that one...

my point is, it is very dangerous to have weapons distributed in the society that is not really stable - look at the fiscal cliff, and the debt ceiling, and the whole other plethora of things that are wrong here... V.Lenin said once that he can build a government that even a last maid can operate (кухарка)... sometimes it feels that he had succeeded here, in the States...

The movie you are thinking of is "Falling Down" with Michael Douglas.

We probably won't agree on this but the very things you listed are why civilian ownership of guns is necessary. Katrina brought out the most vicious and opportunistic parasites who would slit a throat for some loot. Without a means of defense, many more people would have been victimized. Those who were armed were far less likely to be victims. If something like the "Fiscal Cliff" causes civil unrest and riots, be sure that there will be the same kind of vicious opportunistic jackals preying upon defenseless people. Again, these events are not about guns and the risk they pose so much as a testament to what some people will do to other human beings and why those human beings need the option to defend themselves.

Katrina proved also that law enforcement is incapable of protecting everyone in the best of circumstances much less in a critical incident or disaster scenario. Hell, the cops in New Orleans were as dangerous as the criminals but that is a different story. As the great sayings goes, "I carry a .45 because a cop is too heavy" and "When seconds count, a cop is only minutes away".

tynashracing 01-02-2013 02:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PersonaNonGrata (Post 914613)
The movie you are thinking of is "Falling Down" with Michael Douglas.

We probably won't agree on this but the very things you listed are why civilian ownership of guns is necessary. Katrina brought out the most vicious and opportunistic parasites who would slit a throat for some loot. Without a means of defense, many more people would have been victimized. Those who were armed were far less likely to be victims. If something like the "Fiscal Cliff" causes civil unrest and riots, be sure that there will be the same kind of vicious opportunistic jackals preying upon defenseless people. Again, these events are not about guns and the risk they pose so much as a testament to what some people will do to other human beings and why those human beings need the option to defend themselves.

Katrina proved also that law enforcement is incapable of protecting everyone in the best of circumstances much less in a critical incident or disaster scenario. Hell, the cops in New Orleans were as dangerous as the criminals but that is a different story. As the great sayings goes, "I carry a .45 because a cop is too heavy" and "When seconds count, a cop is only minutes away".



Bravo! Excellent remarks...It's times like NOW that we should remain armed.

Yeah, I think some of the opportunist during Katrina may have even been the "good" guys...so I hear! Seems there are times when you might not be able to tell the good guys from the bad. Sucks.

TerminatorX5 01-02-2013 02:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tynashracing (Post 914615)
Bravo! Excellent remarks...It's times like NOW that we should remain armed.

Yeah, I think some of the opportunist during Katrina may have even been the "good" guys...so I hear! Seems there are times when you might not be able to tell the good guys from the bad. Sucks.

that is my point - even the best guy/good guy can turn bad... even if his intentions are good, he still can render harm, just by being incompetent in the area of law enforcement... a guy could be genius in computer programming, or can put an engine together with his eyes closed... but he is not competent in law enforcement - and the mentality, shoot first, ask questions later might work, if the results were not lethal... I would not have problems, if everyone had a non-lethal weapon... the problme with lethal weapons is that the culprit does not have a CHANCE to stand trial, as guaranteed by the same Constitution... the judgement, the trial, the verdict, the execution are all carried out at once. If s/he is incapacitated for a period of time, than there is a chance for a fair trial.


i've read a story long time ago, and will grossly paraphrase it:
say there is a woman playing with her big mastiff in a park, and the dog is really nice... it so happened that a wild tribeman is in the park, and his tribe never seen any dogs in their lives... he sees a woman being attacked by huge animal and he shoots the animal dead with a dart in an attempt to save to woman... Best intentions... good guy... armed... worst results... not to say that a cop can't be incompetent...

If the tribesman was armed with a less-than-lethal weapon, then the whole thing would have been less stressful... I am not comparing life of a dog to a life of a human - human life bears much more value...
What happened to all values that we hold dear? We are crying over spilt blood and want to spill more to prevent the bloodshed... strange logic...

PersonaNonGrata 01-02-2013 02:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tynashracing (Post 914615)
Bravo! Excellent remarks...It's times like NOW that we should remain armed.

Yeah, I think some of the opportunist during Katrina may have even been the "good" guys...so I hear! Seems there are times when you might not be able to tell the good guys from the bad. Sucks.

Thank you. I think I make a lot of sense. ;)

New Orleans was reputed to have the most corrupt police department in the country. There is plenty of video to who NOPD's "finest" helping themselves to goods and the worst was those officers who murdered civilians and tried to cover it up but they got caught and convicted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TerminatorX5 (Post 914616)
that is my point - even the best guy/good guy can turn bad... even if his intentions are good, he still can render harm, just by being incompetent in the area of law enforcement... a guy could be genius in computer programming, or can put an engine together with his eyes closed... but he is not competent in law enforcement - and the mentality, shoot first, ask questions later might work, if the results were not lethal... I would not have problems, if everyone had a non-lethal weapon... the problme with lethal weapons is that the culprit does not have a CHANCE to stand trial, as guaranteed by the same Constitution... the judgement, the trial, the verdict, the execution are all carried out at once. If s/he is incapacitated for a period of time, than there is a chance for a fair trial.


i've read a story long time ago, and will grossly paraphrase it:
say there is a woman playing with her big mastiff in a park, and the dog is really nice... it so happened that a wild tribeman is in the park, and his tribe never seen any dogs in their lives... he sees a woman being attacked by huge animal and he shoots the animal dead with a dart in an attempt to save to woman... Best intentions... good guy... armed... worst results... not to say that a cop can't be incompetent...

If the tribesman was armed with a less-than-lethal weapon, then the whole thing would have been less stressful... I am not comparing life of a dog to a life of a human - human life bears much more value...
What happened to all values that we hold dear? We are crying over spilt blood and want to spill more to prevent the bloodshed... strange logic...

I am in a job where I am sworn to uphold the law and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. I mention this because I think it bears on my point of view, for better or worse. I believe in the law and uphold it. I agree that in an ideal society everyone is afforded due process and no one has lethal weapons, and everyone makes the right decisions but that is simply not reality. I think your premise is flawed in assuming that the bad guys, or culprits, care about the same things you want us to care about. Specifically, you want people acting in self defense to give the culprit the chance to stand trial and face due process of law instead of being shot and killed in the street. I have to say that is far too generous a view given that same culprit and other culprits like him don't give a rats behind about his victims, or due process. What you propose is that law abiding citizens would refrain from self-defense and instead submit themselves to the whims of criminals who have no regard for laws much less the rights of their victims. A harsh view? Yes but that is the world we live in. Every single minute of every single day, criminals take from victims in any way they can even if that means with force and violence. They enter our homes and businesses and are willing to use deadly force to get their way.

Now you might ask "what if the citizen makes a mistake". Well, that can happen and does rarely and there is recourse for that. Invalid or imperfect self-defense can result in a manslaughter conviction. On the other hand, if the citizen is not allowed any sort of self-defense the result for him could be death.

The idea of less than lethal options is a nice ideal but not realistic and subjects those who rely on them to a false sense of security. We all know how ineffective pepper spray can be and tasers are not foolproof either. I submit that a citizen who uses pepper spray unsuccessfully is at substantially greater risk of death or great bodily injury. The reality is that some situations require lethal force. If the criminal is armed, is larger or stronger than the victim, or several other factors, the only effective response is lethal force. Don't bring pepper spray to a gunfight. I truly believe an assailant is intending to cause death or great bodily harm to me or my loved ones, I will respond with lethal force, not to kill but to stop the threat. I say lethal force because the force that the assailant is to apply is also lethal.

TerminatorX5 01-02-2013 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PersonaNonGrata (Post 914619)
Thank you. I think I make a lot of sense. ;)

New Orleans was reputed to have the most corrupt police department in the country. There is plenty of video to who NOPD's "finest" helping themselves to goods and the worst was those officers who murdered civilians and tried to cover it up but they got caught and convicted.



I am in a job where I am sworn to uphold the law and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. I mention this because I think it bears on my point of view, for better or worse. I believe in the law and uphold it. I agree that in an ideal society everyone is afforded due process and no one has lethal weapons, and everyone makes the right decisions but that is simply not reality. I think your premise is flawed in assuming that the bad guys, or culprits, care about the same things you want us to care about. Specifically, you want people acting in self defense to give the culprit the chance to stand trial and face due process of law instead of being shot and killed in the street. I have to say that is far too generous a view given that same culprit and other culprits like him don't give a rats behind about his victims, or due process. What you propose is that law abiding citizens would refrain from self-defense and instead submit themselves to the whims of criminals who have no regard for laws much less the rights of their victims. A harsh view? Yes but that is the world we live in. Every single minute of every single day, criminals take from victims in any way they can even if that means with force and violence. They enter our homes and businesses and are willing to use deadly force to get their way.

Now you might ask "what if the citizen makes a mistake". Well, that can happen and does rarely and there is recourse for that. Invalid or imperfect self-defense can result in a manslaughter conviction. On the other hand, if the citizen is not allowed any sort of self-defense the result for him could be death.

The idea of less than lethal options is a nice ideal but not realistic and subjects those who rely on them to a false sense of security. We all know how ineffective pepper spray can be and tasers are not foolproof either. I submit that a citizen who uses pepper spray unsuccessfully is at substantially greater risk of death or great bodily injury. The reality is that some situations require lethal force. If the criminal is armed, is larger or stronger than the victim, or several other factors, the only effective response is lethal force. Don't bring pepper spray to a gunfight. I truly believe an assailant is intending to cause death or great bodily harm to me or my loved ones, I will respond with lethal force, not to kill but to stop the threat. I say lethal force because the force that the assailant is to apply is also lethal.

this is the law of jungle - he, who has the bigger claw, survives... this is not the law of society... the criminal has the luxury of the first strike, the society has the luxury of the law - it is better to let go ten guilty ones, then to convict one innocent one, or whatever that saying says...

I agree with you on the personal level, eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth (gee, my dentist probably be dead over and over now!!!). but I can not bring myself down to the level of an animal, that the criminal is, just to satisfy the need to lynch... I do not deny the right for the self-defense, it is one of the basic rights, but I can not become a wild animal...

It is the same, as acting like Robert Bales, and killing the afghani civilians... chances are, half of those civilians were peasants by the day and cold blood killers by the night, but we can't be the same... this is the whole idea of civilized society, that we are NOT blood thirsty mob with pitchforks and torches, that lynches the "criminals" on sight. This is the whole notion that the forefathers are trying to instill into us, that everyone deserves due process.
Again, I am a human too, and I am subject to emotions, and my first reaction is to shoot the MF on scene... But we can not teach others on how to be, if we can't behave ourselves... One of our engineers shot two intruders in his house around Thanksgiving (Minnesota homeowner shot two teenagers dead in cold blood in his basement 'because he feared they had a weapon' - NY Daily News), and i understand what he had done, those kids were NOT supposed to be in his house uninvited... but if he would have used an non-lethal force, those kids would be standing trial... Granted, the judicial system is seriously flawed, but that would a subject of a new thread. we still can not take the law into our hands - otherwise we will plunge into the dark ages...

tynashracing 01-02-2013 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PersonaNonGrata (Post 914619)
Thank you. I think I make a lot of sense. ;)

New Orleans was reputed to have the most corrupt police department in the country. There is plenty of video to who NOPD's "finest" helping themselves to goods and the worst was those officers who murdered civilians and tried to cover it up but they got caught and convicted.



I am in a job where I am sworn to uphold the law and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. I mention this because I think it bears on my point of view, for better or worse. I believe in the law and uphold it. I agree that in an ideal society everyone is afforded due process and no one has lethal weapons, and everyone makes the right decisions but that is simply not reality. I think your premise is flawed in assuming that the bad guys, or culprits, care about the same things you want us to care about. Specifically, you want people acting in self defense to give the culprit the chance to stand trial and face due process of law instead of being shot and killed in the street. I have to say that is far too generous a view given that same culprit and other culprits like him don't give a rats behind about his victims, or due process. What you propose is that law abiding citizens would refrain from self-defense and instead submit themselves to the whims of criminals who have no regard for laws much less the rights of their victims. A harsh view? Yes but that is the world we live in. Every single minute of every single day, criminals take from victims in any way they can even if that means with force and violence. They enter our homes and businesses and are willing to use deadly force to get their way.

Now you might ask "what if the citizen makes a mistake". Well, that can happen and does rarely and there is recourse for that. Invalid or imperfect self-defense can result in a manslaughter conviction. On the other hand, if the citizen is not allowed any sort of self-defense the result for him could be death.

The idea of less than lethal options is a nice ideal but not realistic and subjects those who rely on them to a false sense of security. We all know how ineffective pepper spray can be and tasers are not foolproof either. I submit that a citizen who uses pepper spray unsuccessfully is at substantially greater risk of death or great bodily injury. The reality is that some situations require lethal force. If the criminal is armed, is larger or stronger than the victim, or several other factors, the only effective response is lethal force. Don't bring pepper spray to a gunfight. I truly believe an assailant is intending to cause death or great bodily harm to me or my loved ones, I will respond with lethal force, not to kill but to stop the threat. I say lethal force because the force that the assailant is to apply is also lethal.

PersonaNonGrata,

I see you take your oath seriously :thumbup:. And, I bet you have a few years under your belt. You make me proud of what my country should always stand for when dealing with our liberties and Constitution.

It's awesome to see real patriotism is alive and well with those commissioned to protect my rights from foreign and domestic tyranny!

X5Sport 01-02-2013 11:41 AM

As someone who is not American looking in on this awful mess, I cannot see why everyone who wants to needs a gun anyway, let alone more than one? Assault rifles/weapons are certainly well beyond the needs of the average individual. I was trained as an firearms instructor with the UK Armed Forces and I know just how dangerous these things are and what damage they can do at both short and long ranges. If I ever had even the slightest doubt about any person I was teaching to handle and shoot a weapon, they never got their hands on it...period!! All of our weapons were kept under total control, as was the ammunition.

If you want to shoot for recreational purposes then fine - but keep the weapons secured in a proper armoury at the club you shoot at unless you actually need it for hunting, or target shooting etc.

It is precisely because everyone who wants to (legally or otherwise) can have a firearm that the 'gun culture' has proliferated. It's all about escalation and meeting fire-power with more fire-power. If the 'bad guy' has a gun then I need a bigger gun type approach just causes a never ending downward spiral of action and counter-action and round and round you go.

All this 'right' to bear arms has a cost in real lives, and is a smokescreen anyway. Why does anyone really need to carry a gun...I mean really, deep down basic level thinking...why? It's not as if the US is about to be invaded by anyone in large numbers anyway....or is it? And now there are so many vested interests that the whole business is a very sad mess and the discussions are polarised and completely entrenched.

Yes the UK had a serious issue and it locked down the types of guns that can be held, how they were stored, and a proper justification being required. It's not perfect and we do get 'leakers' who still manage to create the odd incident - and I agree it is still a very small minority of US Citizens who are involved in such an atrocity. Not that there is any real comfort for the affected families in that of course. Amnesties were run and most of the weapons taken out of circulation. The penalties for carrying a weapon now range from 5 years to life imprisonment, and that includes carrying replicas (blank firing/air soft/BB/etc) too

Looking in from the outside it's very easy to make comments without understanding the whole cultural ethos around the US Constitution and how tricky it is to make changes. But I can see that unless it's a major vote winner then no one is going to 'man up' and deal with this issue. One reason is the fear of losing votes, another is loss of sponsorship in elections and then of course some idiot with a gun may take a strong dislike to the changes and shoot you!!

I don't envy anyone in the US on either side of the argument. What I do hope is that somewhere common sense will prevail and a 'sensible' compromise' can be achieved on the type and numbers of guns anyone can keep at home or on their person. Delaying the inevitable will cost lives, innocent lives.

Good luck though.....what a minefield!!

tynashracing 01-02-2013 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by X5Sport (Post 914680)
As someone who is not American looking in on this awful mess, I cannot see why everyone who wants to needs a gun anyway, let alone more than one? Assault rifles/weapons are certainly well beyond the needs of the average individual. I was trained as an firearms instructor with the UK Armed Forces and I know just how dangerous these things are and what damage they can do at both short and long ranges. If I ever had even the slightest doubt about any person I was teaching to handle and shoot a weapon, they never got their hands on it...period!! All of our weapons were kept under total control, as was the ammunition.

If you want to shoot for recreational purposes then fine - but keep the weapons secured in a proper armoury at the club you shoot at unless you actually need it for hunting, or target shooting etc.

It is precisely because everyone who wants to (legally or otherwise) can have a firearm that the 'gun culture' has proliferated. It's all about escalation and meeting fire-power with more fire-power. If the 'bad guy' has a gun then I need a bigger gun type approach just causes a never ending downward spiral of action and counter-action and round and round you go.

All this 'right' to bear arms has a cost in real lives, and is a smokescreen anyway. Why does anyone really need to carry a gun...I mean really, deep down basic level thinking...why? It's not as if the US is about to be invaded by anyone in large numbers anyway....or is it? And now there are so many vested interests that the whole business is a very sad mess and the discussions are polarised and completely entrenched.

Yes the UK had a serious issue and it locked down the types of guns that can be held, how they were stored, and a proper justification being required. It's not perfect and we do get 'leakers' who still manage to create the odd incident - and I agree it is still a very small minority of US Citizens who are involved in such an atrocity. Not that there is any real comfort for the affected families in that of course. Amnesties were run and most of the weapons taken out of circulation. The penalties for carrying a weapon now range from 5 years to life imprisonment, and that includes carrying replicas (blank firing/air soft/BB/etc) too

Looking in from the outside it's very easy to make comments without understanding the whole cultural ethos around the US Constitution and how tricky it is to make changes. But I can see that unless it's a major vote winner then no one is going to 'man up' and deal with this issue. One reason is the fear of losing votes, another is loss of sponsorship in elections and then of course some idiot with a gun may take a strong dislike to the changes and shoot you!!

I don't envy anyone in the US on either side of the argument. What I do hope is that somewhere common sense will prevail and a 'sensible' compromise' can be achieved on the type and numbers of guns anyone can keep at home or on their person. Delaying the inevitable will cost lives, innocent lives.

Good luck though.....what a minefield!!


X5Sport,

Kind of like those of us in American that will never understand bowing to a Queen and supporting their habits. Seriously, how do you guys stomach it? I mean, no one really needs a Queen or King, right? I guess it's part of your heritage? :stickpoke...Ahhh, just messing with you X5Sport :D

Violent crime worse in Britain than in US | Mail Online

The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S. | Mail Online

Also, in case you overlooked this one:
Activist Post: Back to the Future: What History Teaches About Gun Confiscations

JCL 01-02-2013 12:35 PM

tynashracing:

If you are going to quote statistics, please at least read them first. You appear to have only read the headline, which said that the UK has more violent crime, and then decided that was the whole story. But your own link contains these data points:
  • In Britain, the figures include fights between two individuals, which are termed violent crimes. The other country statistics don't include those incidents.
  • Degree of violence varies. While the UK ranks above South Africa for violent crime according to the way those statistics were compiled, South Africans suffer more than 20,000 murders each year, while Britain had 921 murders in 2007
You really need to read your own links, and use some critical thinking to connect the dots. Why not compare UK murders to the number of murders in the US? If one relied on that statistic, one could conclude that the lack of guns in the UK is a causal factor in the greatly reduced murder rate vs the US. Certainly not the only factor, but it is hard to have gun violence when there aren't guns around.

I do agree that there are crime problems in the UK. Of all the countries I have lived in, it is the only one where I experienced a home robbery. We lost a stereo, a TV, jewelry, and so on. It was all replaced and covered by insurance. And there was no threat of anyone being shot, on either side. There simply weren't any guns involved. So there is crime, yes. Perhaps it is related to income disparity, I am not sure. But I am pretty sure that the royal family didn't have any bearing on it happening or not.

JCL 01-02-2013 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PersonaNonGrata (Post 914619)
Now you might ask "what if the citizen makes a mistake". Well, that can happen and does rarely and there is recourse for that. Invalid or imperfect self-defense can result in a manslaughter conviction. On the other hand, if the citizen is not allowed any sort of self-defense the result for him could be death.

I appreciate reading your point of view.

I think it is worth separating law enforcement gun use from private citizen gun use. Picking up on your point about the potential of a private citizen making a mistake, it seems to me that mistake could potentially be shooting in error, failing to secure the weapon from unauthorized use, failure to obtain appropriate training, and so on. Here is one view of some of the results of those failures, although the data is somewhat dated:

Quote:

Injuries and Deaths from Guns
Every time a gun injures or kills in self‐defense, one is used

11 times for a completed or attempted suicide
7 times in a criminal assault or homicide
4 times in an unintentional shooting death or injury

Source: Journal of Trauma, injury, Infection and Critical Care (1998)
So by those statistics, guns don't appear to be an efficient form of self defence on a societal basis, considering the costs to society of all those other consequences. They certainly may be efficient on an individual basis, as long as the gun owner never suffers from the consequences listed above.

Since this is a BMW board, and since one of the most popular topics to debate here is whether it is worth changing transmission fluid to extend the life of ZF and GM transmissions installed in BMW vehicles, let's do a comparison.

Let's say 25% of us decided to change our transmission fluid to extend our transmission life. And let's say we had real data that said that for every time one of us who changed their fluid avoided a transmission failure, 22 other transmissions blew up, whether they were ours or not. Wouldn't we begin to wonder whether it was a good idea to keep changing the transmission fluid, even though we each currently have a clear right to do so? And if we wanted to change the fluid, individually, would it be a good idea for those of us who did so to do so on average four times? For background, some statistics put gun ownership at 25% of US citizens, and the average US gun owner has four guns. Rough figures. Anyway, I fully accept that it is a silly analogy. Just trying to put it in perspective.

tynashracing 01-02-2013 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCL (Post 914688)
tynashracing:

If you are going to quote statistics, please at least read them first. You appear to have only read the headline, which said that the UK has more violent crime, and then decided that was the whole story. But your own link contains these data points:
  • In Britain, the figures include fights between two individuals, which are termed violent crimes. The other country statistics don't include those incidents.
  • Degree of violence varies. While the UK ranks above South Africa for violent crime according to the way those statistics were compiled, South Africans suffer more than 20,000 murders each year, while Britain had 921 murders in 2007
You really need to read your own links, and use some critical thinking to connect the dots. Why not compare UK murders to the number of murders in the US? If one relied on that statistic, one could conclude that the lack of guns in the UK is a causal factor in the greatly reduced murder rate vs the US. Certainly not the only factor, but it is hard to have gun violence when there aren't guns around.

I do agree that there are crime problems in the UK. Of all the countries I have lived in, it is the only one where I experienced a home robbery. We lost a stereo, a TV, jewelry, and so on. It was all replaced and covered by insurance. And there was no threat of anyone being shot, on either side. There simply weren't any guns involved. So there is crime, yes. Perhaps it is related to income disparity, I am not sure. But I am pretty sure that the royal family didn't have any bearing on it happening or not.


You know, we've had a pretty civil discussion concerning such an emotional issue. And, now you're resorting to personal attacks in an attempt to belittle me. My lack of "critical thinking" according to...you and "I must only read headlines". Please refrain...don't let this happen again.

I didn't define violent crime. I posted a couple of links to show all is not rosy in the UK...banned guns...and they still have serious issues with violent crime. If I was posting a story about MURDERS...then I would've. Your definition of violent may be different than mine and others.

There's this one out of India that hit this morning...

» Indian Women Turn to Guns After Gang Rape Outcry Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!


Guns and proper training are an equalizer against violent predators...shouldn't everyone have the right to defend themselves?

JCL 01-02-2013 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tynashracing (Post 914699)
You know, we've had a pretty civil discussion concerning such an emotional issue. And, now you're resorting to personal attacks in an attempt to belittle me. My lack of "critical thinking" according to...you and "I must only read headlines". Please refrain...don't let this happen again.

I didn't define violent crime. I posted a couple of links to show all is not rosy in the UK...banned guns...and they still have serious issues with violent crime. If I was posting a story about MURDERS...then I would've. Your definition of violent may be different than mine and others.

I am pointing out that the link you posted, which said in the title of the link that South Africa has more violence than the UK (supporting your point), says in the body of the same link that South Africa has 20,000 murders compared to 921 in the UK. Do you see the failing of your posting? You posted a headline, when the text within the link proves the opposite to the point you are trying to prove. That is the problem with junk news sites, they come up with headlines to sell their product even when those headlines are wrong. And you fell for it. Sorry if pointing that out feels like a personal attack to you.

If this isn't a lack of critical thinking, I don't know what is. Now you are saying that murders don't constitute violent crime, but bar fights do (OK, in the UK they would be called pub fights). What is the possible relevance of fights as a statistic, if those fights don't include guns, in a discussion about gun violence? I could in fact further counter your 'guns make us safer' argument by pointing out that the UK has societal issues, and violence, but not the same degree of gun violence. Suggesting that one of the differences is gun control. And the thread is about gun control.

tynashracing 01-02-2013 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCL (Post 914707)
I am pointing out that the link you posted, which said in the title of the link that South Africa has more violence than the UK (supporting your point), says in the body of the same link that South Africa has 20,000 murders compared to 921 in the UK. Do you see the failing of your posting? You posted a headline, when the text within the link proves the opposite to the point you are trying to prove. That is the problem with junk news sites, they come up with headlines to sell their product even when those headlines are wrong. And you fell for it. Sorry if pointing that out feels like a personal attack to you.

If this isn't a lack of critical thinking, I don't know what is. Now you are saying that murders don't constitute violent crime, but bar fights do (OK, in the UK they would be called pub fights). What is the possible relevance of fights as a statistic, if those fights don't include guns, in a discussion about gun violence? I could in fact further counter your 'guns make us safer' argument by pointing out that the UK has societal issues, and violence, but not the same degree of gun violence. Suggesting that one of the differences is gun control. And the thread is about gun control.

The article very clearly shows the stats for the degrees of crimes. It's not my fault that countries define violent offenses differently. Each reader can decide for themselves what to think.

I'll bet you didn't like this part of the article either: "The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 92 and South Africa 1,609."
Wow, Canada has double the amount of violent crimes than the USA...and you think we should put our guns down? Or, are the crimes in Canada not really violent either...just the ones in the USA?

I'll bet you didn't like these either from the first article: "Shadow home secretary Ann Widdecombe said: 'It's no wonder the people of England and Wales have more chance of becoming victims of crime when there are over 2,500 fewer police, violent crime is soaring and 30,000 convicted prisoners have been let out before serving even half their sentences."

"The chances of having your car stolen are greater in England and Wales than anywhere else in the developed world, it said."

"Recent statistics show that, while overall crime in Britain is falling, violence, particularly street robbery, is rising sharply."

Doesn't exactly sound like pub fights, huh.


It seems to me that gun control advocates are under the impression that if we take guns away, there can be peace and fewer violent crimes committed against innocent civilians. It's important to remind ourselves that violent people are violent people and will use any measure necessary to exact their form of violence. It doesn't go away. The only thing that goes away with gun control...innocent civilians are now at the mercy of LE to protect them. Can LE be everywhere at once?

You know, I heard that the riots in LA had LE on their heels. It was due to the shopkeepers possessing firearms that actually helped LE take control over the situation.

My critical thinking is just fine. You have your POV and I have mine. No more insults, OK? How about you just post up your articles or facts that give a counter to mine or anyone else's...and leave the personal stuff out, fair enough?

Dannyell 01-02-2013 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tynashracing (Post 914735)
You know, I heard that the riots in LA had LE on their heels. It was due to the shopkeepers possessing firearms that actually helped LE take control over the situation.

Imagine if all the protesters brought their guns as well...that would have been the safest place in the world....

Sure a good guy with a gun is in best position to stop a bad guy with a gun...if he happens to be there...at the right time...with the right gun....etc

but more people with guns means more gun violence... its all numbers really nothing more to it.

tynashracing 01-02-2013 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dannyell (Post 914750)
Imagine if all the protesters brought their guns as well...that would have been the safest place in the world....

Sure a good guy with a gun is in best position to stop a bad guy with a gun...if he happens to be there...at the right time...with the right gun....etc

but more people with guns means more gun violence... its all numbers really nothing more to it.

I guess I'm of the opinion that when people lose their job, money, food, shelter...violence will increase. If everyone is working, plenty of food, shelter, etc....you get less violence.
I don't think that widespread gun ownership increases gun violence. How many guns are owned in the USA? Suffice it to say...alot. For the last 20 years our violent crime rates have been cut in half. It was a pretty good 20 year run with our economy.

Recently, I was at a mall on a Friday afternoon. A man was riding the escalator just in front of me. Holstered on the side of his hip was a revolver. I immediately thought...no one's gonna f'k with this guy. And, then I thought, if anything breaks out...I hope he's nearby. AND, then I thought...if we posses a gun, we should all holster on our hip...for EVERYONE to see.

TerminatorX5 01-02-2013 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tynashracing (Post 914763)
I guess I'm of the opinion that when people lose their job, money, food, shelter...violence will increase. If everyone is working, plenty of food, shelter, etc....you get less violence.
I don't think that widespread gun ownership increases gun violence. How many guns are owned in the USA? Suffice it to say...alot. For the last 20 years our violent crime rates have been cut in half. It was a pretty good 20 year run with our economy.

Recently, I was at a mall on a Friday afternoon. A man was riding the escalator just in front of me. Holstered on the side of his hip was a revolver. I immediately thought...no one's gonna f'k with this guy. And, then I thought, if anything breaks out...I hope he's nearby. AND, then I thought...if we posses a gun, we should all holster on our hip...for EVERYONE to see.

how do you know that guy is a good guy?

JCL 01-02-2013 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tynashracing (Post 914735)
The article very clearly shows the stats for the degrees of crimes. It's not my fault that countries define violent offenses differently. Each reader can decide for themselves what to think.

You are continuing to compare apples and oranges. When that is pointed out to you, you claim that it isn't your fault, because it isn't your information, and that you are just quoting it. You also act hurt and claim you are suffering personal attacks.

Look at your linked article again. It is quoting a Conservative party spokesperson, who is critical of the governing party. It is published in a proudly conservative newspaper. That is fine, but there are also counterpoints by the Labour spokesperson. And you are cherry picking the comments from the Conservative. You aren't quoting facts, you are quoting opinions. Just use the editorial page next time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tynashracing
My critical thinking is just fine.

If you say so.

Once again, it is pointed out in your own link that the crime counts use different metrics in each country. Yet you continue to quote them. Why would I possibly be concerned over such comparisons? They are of no consequence. And I see no reason to post factual links referencing independent statistics when you seem to think that post count wins over post quality.

tynashracing 01-02-2013 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TerminatorX5 (Post 914765)
how do you know that guy is a good guy?

Well, he didn't shoot me or anyone else at the mall that day!;)

Seriously, it crossed my mind. I thought, if this guy pulls his gun to rob me or a store in the mall...is there anything I can do? While I did feel a little vulnerable, I trusted that when someone holsters a gun for all to see...they're probably not the criminal type. I would think that those guys hide their gun(s) until they reach their prey.

tynashracing 01-02-2013 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCL (Post 914768)
You are continuing to compare apples and oranges. When that is pointed out to you, you claim that it isn't your fault, because it isn't your information, and that you are just quoting it. You also act hurt and claim you are suffering personal attacks.


I'm not acting "hurt". I'm asking you nicely to cease with the personal attacks. If you have facts that contradict the articles...then post 'til your heart is content.
Again, each reader can decide the validity of the article's posted. You clearly don't like the content...so, move on.

TerminatorX5 01-02-2013 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tynashracing (Post 914774)
Well, he didn't shoot me or anyone else at the mall that day!;)

Seriously, it crossed my mind. I thought, if this guy pulls his gun to rob me or a store in the mall...is there anything I can do? While I did feel a little vulnerable, I trusted that when someone holsters a gun for all to see...they're probably not the criminal type. I would think that those guys hide their gun(s) until they reach their prey.

hopefully you realize that every person has THAT "button" that will push that person overboard... for some, it is a baby crying non-stop on the bus while you are travelling from Miami to NYC... for others, it is the dumb boss that is asking impossible, and at the end promotes a total ass-kisser, and bypasses you... for the others, it is that jerk in that expensive BMW (i had to bring BMW into the picture!!) who thinks he is the king of the road, and almost clipped you...

So, some people are reaching for the tire iron, or grab a suitcase and throw it or... or, they reach for something that is more convenient and scary...
As long as you know, that guy on the escalator was at the end of his rope, and all he needed just that last straw... Don't you watch the news, when on Black Friday people brandish their guns? The pilots undergoing psycho evaluations every so often.. the LE people are taking special tests.... doctors have gazillion tests... people who are capable of taking other people's lives in their daily routine undergo a lot of evaluations... a regular Joe-Shmoe might be seeing shrink but chances are - not...

If there are NO weapons in amateurs' hands, there are less chances of making a mistake - bad enough, we have just about every Joe-schmoe driving a car without knowing what the hell they are doing... and part of the point is - why does my mother need a gun? she is NOT trained how to handle it, she is NOT part of the State sponsored and well regulated militia, and probably poses more threat to society with a tool in her hands that she can't use (if she had a power drill in her hands, I'd be worried almost as much!!!). that is the point - too many guns in the hands of the GOOD people that have no business of having those guns...

JCL 01-02-2013 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tynashracing (Post 914763)
I don't think that widespread gun ownership increases gun violence. How many guns are owned in the USA? Suffice it to say...alot. For the last 20 years our violent crime rates have been cut in half. It was a pretty good 20 year run with our economy.

283 million, give or take.

"The overall firearm related death rate among US children younger than 15 years of age is nearly 12 times higher than among children in 25 other industrialized nations combined."

I am tremendously saddened to hear that this constitutes a pretty good run.

Link here: The U.S. Compared to Other Nations

JCL 01-02-2013 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tynashracing (Post 914775)
If you have facts that contradict the articles...then post 'til your heart is content.
Again, each reader can decide the validity of the articles posted. You clearly don't like the content...so, move on.

There was no reason to post contradictory links, since the articles in your own links disproved your original thesis. That was my point. Please see your own links.

tynashracing 01-02-2013 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TerminatorX5 (Post 914776)
hopefully you realize that every person has THAT "button" that will push that person overboard... for some, it is a baby crying non-stop on the bus while you are travelling from Miami to NYC... for others, it is the dumb boss that is asking impossible, and at the end promotes a total ass-kisser, and bypasses you... for the others, it is that jerk in that expensive BMW (i had to bring BMW into the picture!!) who thinks he is the king of the road, and almost clipped you...

So, some people are reaching for the tire iron, or grab a suitcase and throw it or... or, they reach for something that is more convenient and scary...
As long as you know, that guy on the escalator was at the end of his rope, and all he needed just that last straw... Don't you watch the news, when on Black Friday people brandish their guns? The pilots undergoing psycho evaluations every so often.. the LE people are taking special tests.... doctors have gazillion tests... people who are capable of taking other people's lives in their daily routine undergo a lot of evaluations... a regular Joe-Shmoe might be seeing shrink but chances are - not...

If there are NO weapons in amateurs' hands, there are less chances of making a mistake - bad enough, we have just about every Joe-schmoe driving a car without knowing what the hell they are doing... and part of the point is - why does my mother need a gun? she is NOT trained how to handle it, she is NOT part of the State sponsored and well regulated militia, and probably poses more threat to society with a tool in her hands that she can't use (if she had a power drill in her hands, I'd be worried almost as much!!!). that is the point - too many guns in the hands of the GOOD people that have no business of having those guns...


All very good points Terminator. I do agree that PROPER training is important for everyone's safety. Don't restrict my potential for arming because your mom might pose more of a risk to herself or others while handling a firearm.

Did you see that video in one of the links I provided about the guns being confiscated in N.O. during Katrina? That woman was quite elderly...but, I'd trust her with a firearm. Notice how she said she was handling the gun when the goons tackled her to disarm her?
This kind of reminds me of people that have a license to drive a vehicle...when they probably really shouldn't. Life just can't be made risk less...well, I suppose you could lock yourself in a prison cell to avoid...life in this world.

You know, I've said for most of my life that I'd probably be a victim of gun violence...because I'm so adamant about protecting our rights as Americans. Our founding fathers thought it was our responsibility to keep things in check. I didn't even own a gun until about 3 years ago...but, have always tried to speak up for those who do carry.
I can see the need for more widespread gun ownership in America if the number of LEO's are let go. I hope it doesn't happen. I hope this country doesn't hit as low as some predict. If it does, it's going to be ugly and I will do everything I can to protect my loved ones.

TerminatorX5 01-02-2013 11:55 PM

i already unsubscribed from this thread once, but then got sucked in again... I think i will leave once more... JCL, some folks watch too much Rambo movies and think that a gun can resolve everything... same mentality carries on overboard when the gun seems to be a solution to resolve the lost GF, lost opportunity... If a poet resolves his life problems by writing tragedies, or, when he is in a good mood, writing comedies (I am oversimplifying this), a person who thinks that GOOD can be done by super-violence, will do BAD using the same tools... the tools of choice - weapons...

The mankind has written history for last few millenia - and this has been always the same, a well armed civilian population is a clear threat to the authorities, and to itself... that is why many warlords would disarm the population...

Besides, if the weapons can do good, why are we so worried about the Iran's test of a missile? after all, they say that the bad guys are us, and they are the good guys... lol... everything is in the eye of a beholder...

TerminatorX5 01-03-2013 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tynashracing (Post 914781)
All very good points Terminator. I do agree that PROPER training is important for everyone's safety. Don't restrict my potential for arming because your mom might pose more of a risk to herself or others while handling a firearm.

Did you see that video in one of the links I provided about the guns being confiscated in N.O. during Katrina? That woman was quite elderly...but, I'd trust her with a firearm. Notice how she said she was handling the gun when the goons tackled her to disarm her?
This kind of reminds me of people that have a license to drive a vehicle...when they probably really shouldn't. Life just can't be made risk less...well, I suppose you could lock yourself in a prison cell to avoid...life in this world.

You know, I've said for most of my life that I'd probably be a victim of gun violence...because I'm so adamant about protecting our rights as Americans. Our founding fathers thought it was our responsibility to keep things in check. I didn't even own a gun until about 3 years ago...but, have always tried to speak up for those who do carry.
I can see the need for more widespread gun ownership in America if the number of LEO's are let go. I hope it doesn't happen. I hope this country doesn't hit as low as some predict. If it does, it's going to be ugly and I will do everything I can to protect my loved ones.

upholding one constitutional right (bear arms in well regulated State militia) and ignoring the other constituational right (right to a FAIR TRIAL) - does not sit with me too well... I already made my point that in CIVILIZED, LAW-ABIDING society, there is NO ROOM for vigilantes.

either the law trumps everything, or everything trumps the law...

JCL 01-03-2013 12:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TerminatorX5 (Post 914782)
i already unsubscribed from this thread once, but then got sucked in again... I think i will leave once more... JCL, some folks watch too much Rambo movies and think that a gun can resolve everything...

I'm not here for TNR, logic doesn't work in that debate, IMO.

Here is my philosophy. There are lots of good people who have strongly held beliefs on the gun issue, on each side. Call it 25% each way. They aren't likely to change their minds. That's their right. Then there are the 50% of the population who are in the middle. They are the ones who will eventually change the laws.

Might take a long time. But it will be worth it, if it happens. Because the past 20 years don't constitute a good run, in terms of acceptable collateral damage. Again, IMO.

TerminatorX5 01-03-2013 12:33 AM

nothing will change until the sh!t hits home... look at the Sandy issue with the outgoing congress - the Republican Governor and the Republican Congressmen revolted against their own speaker when the Sandy relief vote did not come to the floor for the ENTITLEMENTS to their constituents!!! for god sake, the republicans always kept saying, that folks need to be insured (insurance, is another form of socilaism, when the risk of few is born by many)... until it hit THEIR home...

Same goes with abortions - life is precious, and any pregnancy must be seen to the birth of a baby... until his own daughter is pregnant from some biker who is long gone... them an abortion is in order... it is so easy to regulate other people's lives...

As a matter of fact, with the abortions - every baby deserve to be born, so the rights of an unborn child are PROTECTED... the moment the baby is born, the same people deny the welfare benefits to the baby - where are the parents who brought the kid into the life, lets make them pay for the baby...

this land is full of paradoxes... but i am flying off on a tangent here...

tynashracing 01-03-2013 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TerminatorX5 (Post 914784)
upholding one constitutional right (bear arms in well regulated State militia) and ignoring the other constituational right (right to a FAIR TRIAL) - does not sit with me too well... I already made my point that in CIVILIZED, LAW-ABIDING society, there is NO ROOM for vigilantes.

either the law trumps everything, or everything trumps the law...


Who said anything about vigilantes? Who said anything about not preserving the right to a fair trial?

tynashracing 01-03-2013 12:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCL (Post 914777)
283 million, give or take.

"The overall firearm related death rate among US children younger than 15 years of age is nearly 12 times higher than among children in 25 other industrialized nations combined."

I am tremendously saddened to hear that this constitutes a pretty good run.

Link here: The U.S. Compared to Other Nations


Do they cite the population difference between US and other countries? Percentages can be used very effectively in manipulating a desired outcome.

TerminatorX5 01-03-2013 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tynashracing (Post 914790)
Who said anything about vigilantes? Who said anything about not preserving the right to a fair trial?

once you shoot a robber or a mugger - you deny him a right to a fair trial... your point is that he has a gun and is threatening your life.. the gun control point is, that there should be NO guns in people's hands... hunting gear excluded... there are many countries where that is the law of the land... of course, it is not American way... but our way has brought us to too many avoidable tragedies... supposedly there are 300 million firearms in the hands of private individuals in the US. I am sure there are 3 billion knives inthe circulation... people kill other people with knives too - but how many people can one kill with a knife and how many he can kill with a semi-auto weapon....

by the same argument, we should be able to buy bazookas - why not?... it can be born on a person...

while i am personally for the far extreme, i am totally ok with banning the MAN-HUNTING weapons, and i am ok to let people keep their pistols, revolvers, whatnot... I am for a compromise, i don't think going too far in any direction is good...

And those who keep it must take the "drivers" test, to get a license to have the weapon - at least they should be able to load/unload the weapon, and shoot in the direction of a target...

JCL 01-03-2013 12:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tynashracing (Post 914791)
Do they cite the population difference between US and other countries? Percentages can be used very effectively in manipulating a desired outcome.

That is why they reference the rate instead of the number of deaths. Feel free to read the link with sources.

Still feeling good about that 20 year run?

tynashracing 01-03-2013 01:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCL (Post 914793)
That is why they reference the rate instead of the number of deaths. Feel free to read the link with sources.

Still feeling good about that 20 year run?


That's like asking if Britain is happy about their reduction in violent crimes.

Accidental death rate for children falls – The Chart - CNN.com Blogs
Teen Homicide, Suicide, and Firearm Deaths | Child Trends Databank
"Trends in firearm-related deaths (homicides and suicides, as well as deaths from unintended injuries) have followed a similar pattern for teens ages 15 to 19, with rates declining dramatically during the late 1990s, from 24.5 per 100,000 in 1995, to 13.1 per 100,000 in 2000. As with the homicide rate, the firearm-related death rate fluctuated slightly between 2000 and 2006, before decreasing to 10.6 deaths per 100,000 in 2010, the lowest rate on record." (Figure 1)


Not to mention how many of these issues are GANG related! I'm too tired to go back and quote more...every reader can decide if we've got this massive issue today or not. And if so, is it with gangs or little Johnny across the street.

JCL 01-03-2013 02:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tynashracing (Post 914796)
Teen Homicide, Suicide, and Firearm Deaths | Child Trends Databank

I'm too tired to go back and quote more...every reader can decide if we've got this massive issue today or not.

Well, you are referencing teens 16 and up instead of children under 15. But let's say that the reduction in teen gun deaths is of the same magnitude, something less than a 50% reduction according to your link. And let's say that none of the other 26 countries had a similar or corresponding reduction. I'll round the numbers to make the math easier. Half the numerator. Same denominator. Same list of comparison countries.

That would mean that the US now has only six times the firearm related childhood death rate as the nearest other 26 industrialized countries, combined.

And to be clear, you don't think this is an issue, but you will leave it to readers to decide for themselves or not.

OK.

tynashracing 01-03-2013 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCL (Post 914800)
Well, you are referencing teens 16 and up instead of children under 15. But let's say that the reduction in teen gun deaths is of the same magnitude, something less than a 50% reduction according to your link. And let's say that none of the other 26 countries had a similar or corresponding reduction. I'll round the numbers to make the math easier. Half the numerator. Same denominator. Same list of comparison countries.

That would mean that the US now has only six times the firearm related childhood death rate as the nearest other 26 industrialized countries, combined.

And to be clear, you don't think this is an issue, but you will leave it to readers to decide for themselves or not.

OK.


JCL,

What I'm leaving up to the reader are the issues with violence and how it's reported around the world.
I'm not suggesting that I'm comfortable with the amount of deaths or injuries associated with our youth...or leaving that up to the reader. I'd love to see those numbers further reduced. They are trending lower as per the link I provided...in fact, they have been reduced by over 50% since the late 1990's. That's a good trend...but, the numbers still need to come down.

X5Sport 01-03-2013 12:04 PM

I think the majority of the English part of the UK are perfectly happy with a Royal Family. On the whole they do us good, but I can't see the relevance to gun control....

The UK does have a problem with knife crime and a much smaller issue with gun crime - because we have banned them from all those other than with a legitimate need. We're not proud of the knife situation and some of it is as a result of parents/schools not being allowed to deal with their kids. This has come under the ridiculously broad 'human rights' legislation - but that's a whole different ballgame, and equally messy!!

In the UK we know that the good guys carrying guns on the streets (ignoring hunters who are usually in the middle of nowhere) are in Uniform or carrying a badge, highly trained, regularly tested under high stress conditions and assessed for their ongoing 'suitability' to carry a gun of any type. If they fail any part, they lose their permits and are off the team. They all know that carrying a firearm is a very serious responsibility and mistakes of any type are not tolerated. A firearms office running amok is likely to be gunned down by one of their own colleagues very quickly (they don't work alone).

In a lot of cases they are only issued with low velocity ammunition and may only draw a weapon under exceptional circumstances, and knowing they will have to fill in all kinds of reports if they do, and if they are wrong and found to be so legally they will be out of that job or jailed. Now like any system it isn't perfect, but it's better than the old less controlled system (the one where innocents died!!). As a former LEO myself, I was in London in the 1980s when guns were more prevalent and we never knew what was behind the next door. I never felt I need to carry a firearm though - EVER. Yes there were instances where I needed to wear a protective vest, but I never got shot at, or stabbed, the jacket was just in case.

Shooting a LEO was (and still is) seen as a major 'do not do' by the criminal fraternity. Only the inner city gangs around today who show precious little respect for anyone or anything are a real issue, and they generally kill each other - with knives. 'Sharps' are something that now also carries a severe penalty - and rightly so as there is no 'need' to carry a knife either.

I believe that most people in the UK would rather have a completely unarmed Police Force, but this is the 21st Century and we have to face unpleasant facts. There are however few shootings, fewer Police or LE shootings and that is a great comfort to most. Zero incidents would be the best, but no system is perfect.

You may not understand the Royal Family, and nor do I expect you to as the US is a Republic, but along with a large part of the UK (and maybe wider?) I do not understand the 'need or right' to bear arms at all times. We used to have much more lax gun laws. People died, innocent people in most cases, and we had the balls to do something about it. It's the lack of action that puzzles me (us) more than anything I guess. I really would like to understand the reasons though. Seriously......

TerminatorX5 01-03-2013 12:13 PM

Reasons??? money... the NRA and the gun lobby makes a killing on the gun sales... always follow the money trait - arms sales are profitable not only on the interantional arena, but also in domestic markets...

tynashracing 01-03-2013 10:54 PM

Wow...» Pennsylvania Police Chief Proposes ’2nd Amendment Preservation’ Ordinance Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

tynashracing 01-03-2013 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by X5Sport (Post 914852)
I think the majority of the English part of the UK are perfectly happy with a Royal Family. On the whole they do us good, but I can't see the relevance to gun control....

The UK does have a problem with knife crime and a much smaller issue with gun crime - because we have banned them from all those other than with a legitimate need. We're not proud of the knife situation and some of it is as a result of parents/schools not being allowed to deal with their kids. This has come under the ridiculously broad 'human rights' legislation - but that's a whole different ballgame, and equally messy!!

In the UK we know that the good guys carrying guns on the streets (ignoring hunters who are usually in the middle of nowhere) are in Uniform or carrying a badge, highly trained, regularly tested under high stress conditions and assessed for their ongoing 'suitability' to carry a gun of any type. If they fail any part, they lose their permits and are off the team. They all know that carrying a firearm is a very serious responsibility and mistakes of any type are not tolerated. A firearms office running amok is likely to be gunned down by one of their own colleagues very quickly (they don't work alone).

In a lot of cases they are only issued with low velocity ammunition and may only draw a weapon under exceptional circumstances, and knowing they will have to fill in all kinds of reports if they do, and if they are wrong and found to be so legally they will be out of that job or jailed. Now like any system it isn't perfect, but it's better than the old less controlled system (the one where innocents died!!). As a former LEO myself, I was in London in the 1980s when guns were more prevalent and we never knew what was behind the next door. I never felt I need to carry a firearm though - EVER. Yes there were instances where I needed to wear a protective vest, but I never got shot at, or stabbed, the jacket was just in case.

Shooting a LEO was (and still is) seen as a major 'do not do' by the criminal fraternity. Only the inner city gangs around today who show precious little respect for anyone or anything are a real issue, and they generally kill each other - with knives. 'Sharps' are something that now also carries a severe penalty - and rightly so as there is no 'need' to carry a knife either.

I believe that most people in the UK would rather have a completely unarmed Police Force, but this is the 21st Century and we have to face unpleasant facts. There are however few shootings, fewer Police or LE shootings and that is a great comfort to most. Zero incidents would be the best, but no system is perfect.

You may not understand the Royal Family, and nor do I expect you to as the US is a Republic, but along with a large part of the UK (and maybe wider?) I do not understand the 'need or right' to bear arms at all times. We used to have much more lax gun laws. People died, innocent people in most cases, and we had the balls to do something about it. It's the lack of action that puzzles me (us) more than anything I guess. I really would like to understand the reasons though. Seriously......


You said it...America is a Republic. Individual rights outweigh the rights of a majority. We should ALWAYS defend the rights for our individual liberties. For if we don't, we lose not only one...but all. Sadly, we're probably about to find out if we have the stomach to actually preserve this Republic.

First and Second Amendments are under attack in a major way right now. The Fourth with TSA has been attacked. The Tenth is also under attack.

So, from my perspective...they're either pushing us toward a civil war, or this country is about to just roll over and swallow the collectivist state that these libs are pushing for.

I don't know, I'm not a Constitutional Lawyer. I only know what I was taught as a child in school...and it doesn't jive with what's being taught today.

All that said, I think the straw that will "break the camel's back" will be gun confiscation. Sadly, the wrong people will end up dead and the PTB will continue their agenda after the dust settles.
If they confiscate slowly...not rush in too quickly, it's possible to avoid a civil war. They'd just wear 'em down until the will to fight is broken.

I really don't know what's going to happen. I just know that I'd prefer my country not change structurally from the vision of the Founding Fathers.

Anyway, all of it adds up to wanting some form of protection from tyranny and the ability to ultimately preserve the Republic.

X5Sport 01-04-2013 11:21 AM

So Democracy - which is what America says it is all about has gone out of the window then? And as for Civil War and Tyranny.........say what!!? :wow: This is the US we're talking about. THE Great Democracy....not some 3rd World Dictatorship who know no better.

Are you really saying the the sane majority (and I am making an assumption here I know) of the US Population will really go to war with their own Government over this? Really?

OK. You are clearly at one end of the range of views - as you have every right to be, so that's fine and I'm not being critical of that at all - what about those on here who are the middle or opposite side of the argument?

TerminatorX5 01-04-2013 12:44 PM

1 Attachment(s)
well... some folks take the right to bear arms a bit too far... Now i understand why so many are installing the tow package...

tynashracing 01-04-2013 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by X5Sport (Post 914958)
So Democracy - which is what America says it is all about has gone out of the window then? And as for Civil War and Tyranny.........say what!!? :wow: This is the US we're talking about. THE Great Democracy....not some 3rd World Dictatorship who know no better.

Are you really saying the the sane majority (and I am making an assumption here I know) of the US Population will really go to war with their own Government over this? Really?

OK. You are clearly at one end of the range of views - as you have every right to be, so that's fine and I'm not being critical of that at all - what about those on here who are the middle or opposite side of the argument?



I think you're confused...America wasn't founded as a Democracy...it was founded as a Republic.
It is this TRUTH that the world should understand.
Democracy is a lie...when referring to America. Sure, they use the term like it's the same thing as being a Republic. Massive mind f'k.

I get the feeling like there's some moral judgement here?! Not necessarily in this particular post...but, maybe an overall theme from those that support banning guns? Like you're standing on some moral high ground...while America is morally void due to the 2nd Amendment.

If you guys want to talk about morality...we'll talk morality and let's see what's worse...America's 2nd Amendment or Govt's that have killed millions upon millions of INNOCENT civilians...that now want us to disarm or abolish the 2nd Amendment. Well, for that matter...the millions that my own country has slaughtered through illegal wars! No outrage over that! Oh boy.


As a matter of fact...how about ABORTION???? Really, let's get into the moral issues of society today. What's worse...2nd Amendment or abortions?

Since Roe v. Wade...some 50 million unborn CHILDREN MURDERED in the USA. There are roughly 3000 unborn children murdered DAILY here in the USA...no outrage over that?

Nah, you and the others just want us disarmed...since we must be the "real" threat to society and our children!

Oh, it's all about the CHILDREN, right!?

AND, if you think that I'm extreme...you really are sheltered. I'm mild. I just want the Constitution abided by and my individual rights protected...even when the majority is against it! This is NOT a Democracy...though they're doing their damnedest to make it into something other than a Republic.

Hope that clears things up a bit. I'm really done with this thread. Good topic. It's been beaten to death...nothing left to say...except:

DON'T TREAD ON ME!

JCL 01-04-2013 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tynashracing (Post 915015)
I get the feeling like there's some moral judgement here?! Not necessarily in this particular post...but, maybe an overall theme from those that support banning guns?

I thought the thread was about controlling guns, not banning them. Like your second amendment says, "a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state...." So why the jump from control/regulation all the way to banning?

No response to the whole abortion hijack. Not sure gun control has anything to do with abortion. Unless you want to arm the unborn in the interests of self defence.

tynashracing 01-05-2013 11:46 AM

So, it was reported on Fox News this morning...

Per FBI stats...more people killed with hammers and clubs than rifles each year.

Oh no...I've got at least 4 or 5 of those "Lethal Assault Weapons".

I've got a small wooden handle hammer for light work..but it's precise.

I've somehow managed to acquire a couple of rubber mallets...easy to swing...but don't do much damage...if you know what I mean ;)

There's also one of the newer style hammers with the composite material and heavier head. Nice waffle texture built into the head...to really help prevent a glancing blow. It's pretty heavy and is great for a bigger job!

Next, I've got the small sledge hammer...10 lb...I think it's referred to as a "pony"...it's the short handled variety. Good for when you can't rear back and really whack it. But, it's quite effective from a short distance.

Then there's the mother of all hammers...The 20lb bash. Just get to swing'n and watch 'em drop.

Look out boys and girls...I'd say with stats like this...we're gonna have to register our hammers and clubs. Who knows, we might even see some kind of legislation to begin banning them?!

After they're done with hammers...I'm sure the attention will be turned to Spoons and Forks...those are making people fat! I mean, look how many fat kids there are today...Do what's right...ban spoons and forks from all fat people !


DON'T TREAD ON ME!

TerminatorX5 01-05-2013 11:57 AM

I thought you left the thread... I have left it twice, and it suckers me back !!! hahaha...
did the Fox News (excellent source of information!!! hahaha) mention ho many MASS clubbngs were out there? with so many deaths reported, the ratio of a murderer/victim can not be 1-to-1, can it? and how many of those "clubbers" committed suicide by the club (or, hammer). And if the responders had clubs (or hammers)... So, the chances are, the clubbers went to a fair trial, which is guaranteed by the Constitution... with semi-automatic rifles or handguns, did all murderers get caught? either escaped, since they committed murder at a distance (say, drive-by), or committed suicide, or got whacked by the cops or a vigilante...

I love Fox statistics, they look at a car, see two wheels on one side and then they claim there are more motorcycles, since each car is equal to two bikes!!! and the best - they really believe what they say!!!!

oh, in some places they DO ban the forks - very effective weapon, as a matter of fact (if we have enough "forking", a fork legislature should be introduced)

JCL 01-05-2013 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tynashracing (Post 915096)
So, it was reported on Fox News this morning...

Per FBI stats...more people killed with hammers and clubs than rifles each year.

You really have to look more broadly than Fox News. Seriously. You are not putting yourself in a good light here.

For 18 years worth of FBI statistics, with 14,000 to 23,000 murders per year, guns were used in 58% to 70% of those murders, depending on the year. Yes, there more more handguns used than rifles, but long guns still accounted for around 12% of murders.

All blunt objects (including your favourite hammers, but also all other types of blunt objects) were used in 4% to 6% of murders. So, it looks like guns are about 12 times more likely to be used in a murder in the US than all blunt objects combined.

Bare hands and feet were used in 5% to 7% of murders.

So it looks like it is safer to have hammers in your hands than nothing. Somebody should tell Fox News.

Data above is from the FBI Uniform Crime Reports. This link shows 18 years of data, but isn't as recent as it could be.

Murder Victims--Circumstances and Weapons Used or Cause of Death statistics - USA Census numbers

Fox News (and their ilk) are ridiculous. Look to real data sources. Remember the discussion we had above on critical thinking? Use multiple sources. Verify the data. And try to use logic, reason and judgement.

Based on past posts, this is usually where you claim you are just posting a link, and that you aren't responsible for the content of it. BS. You are spreading nonsense. Trouble is, some may believe you. And you will be partly responsible for the continuing dumbing down of society. Congratulations.

JCL 01-05-2013 05:50 PM

Since we are on the topic of numbers and statistics, and their frequent misuse, thought I would include this. It is talking about 2012 election results, and organizations such as the "news source" referred to above, many of whom forecast otherwise, but it is equally applicable to those who would use numbers to try and spin a story. Any story.


http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/math.png

tynashracing 01-05-2013 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TerminatorX5 (Post 915098)
I thought you left the thread... I have left it twice, and it suckers me back !!! hahaha...
did the Fox News (excellent source of information!!! hahaha) mention ho many MASS clubbngs were out there? with so many deaths reported, the ratio of a murderer/victim can not be 1-to-1, can it? and how many of those "clubbers" committed suicide by the club (or, hammer). And if the responders had clubs (or hammers)... So, the chances are, the clubbers went to a fair trial, which is guaranteed by the Constitution... with semi-automatic rifles or handguns, did all murderers get caught? either escaped, since they committed murder at a distance (say, drive-by), or committed suicide, or got whacked by the cops or a vigilante...

I love Fox statistics, they look at a car, see two wheels on one side and then they claim there are more motorcycles, since each car is equal to two bikes!!! and the best - they really believe what they say!!!!

oh, in some places they DO ban the forks - very effective weapon, as a matter of fact (if we have enough "forking", a fork legislature should be introduced)


;) Evidently, some people in this lounge don't know when to LAUGH!!! You at least seem to have a sense of humor Terminator.:cool:

tynashracing 01-05-2013 06:12 PM

JCL :stickpoke...It was supposed to be FUNNY. OMG :bustingup

JCL 01-05-2013 07:52 PM

Your Fox News reference wasn't supposed to be funny. Just your attempt at humour on hammers was. Guess I didn't think it was very funny.

OTOH, I found the cartoon on pundits who don't use statistics correctly to be very funny. Provided for your enjoyment. :stickpoke

noncom23 01-09-2013 04:21 PM

As he says. Nothing new.
But stats havn't changed.






Do Gun Bans Reduce Violent Crime? Ask the Aussies and Brits
BY GLEN TSCHIRGI
5 months, 2 weeks ago
(H/T Instapundit)

Nothing original to add here, but this posting I picked up from Instapundit is well worth passing along, particularly in light of the typical, knee-jerk, Statist reactions to the horrific Aurora CO shootings:

Actually, if the Australian Bureau of Criminology can be believed, Americans would be insane to concern themselves with what non-Americans think about American gun rights.

In 2002 — five years after enacting its gun ban — the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.

Even Australia’s Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:

In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

Moreover, Australia and the United States — where no gun-ban exists — both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:

Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America’s rate dropped 31.7 percent.
During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.

So, if the USA follows Australia’s lead in banning guns, it should expect a 42 percent increase in violent crime, a higher percentage of murders committed with a gun, and three times more rape. One wonders if Freddy even bothered to look up the relative crime statistics.

The International Crime Victims Survey, conducted by Leiden University in Holland, found that England and Wales ranked second overall in violent crime among industrialized nations. Twenty-six percent of English citizens — roughly one-quarter of the population — have been victimized by violent crime. Australia led the list with more than 30 percent of its population victimized. The United States didn’t even make the “top 10″ list of industrialized nations whose citizens were victimized by crime.

Now all this statistical and factual information isn’t going to mean anything to Lefty’s and Statists, but it is always good to know that reality backs up the conservative position on gun rights and the 2nd Amendment.

Guns,Second Amendment,Second Amendment Quick Hits

JCL 01-12-2013 04:15 AM

Noncom23:

I wasn't going to respond, since we discussed the reduction in gun violence in other countries earlier in this thread. But tynashracing, in another thread, felt slighted. So here it is.

I realize you didn't write this, that it is a clip from a blog.

Still, there doesn't actually appear to be an Australian Bureau of Criminology. It appears to have been made up by someone hoping that nobody would check. In fact, gun violence in Australia is down significantly since gun controls were brought in. The story, plus lots of graphs, data, links, and sources, at this link:

cameronreilly.com | The Facts About Guns In Australia

noncom23 01-12-2013 07:59 AM

JCL

Do you own any guns, by the way?

First:


Australian Bureau of Statistics:

Australian Bureau of Statistics


4530.0 - Crime Victimisation, Australia, 2010-11




Next:

I don't really see an astoundng change here. Yes reported homicides
are down, but robbery is climbing.
Assaults are up horribly.



Australian Institute of Criminology - Home


Victims of violent crime statistics
Victims of violent crimes from 1996 to 2007 (number)

Homicid Assault Sexual assault Robbery Kidnapping

1996 354 114,156 14,542 16,372 478
1997 364 124,500 14,353 21,305 564
1998 334 130,903 14,689 23,801 707
1999 385 134,271 14,699 22,606 766
2000 362 138,708 16,406 23,336 695
2001 347 152,283 17,577 26,591 767
2002 366 159,548 18,718 20,989 706
2003 341 157,280 18,025 19,709 696
2004 302 156,849 19,171 16,513 768
2005 301 166,507 18,695 17,176 730
2006 322 172,441 19,555 17,375 725
2007 282 176,427 19,781 17,988 730

Assaults continue to represent the majority of recorded violent crimes. The overall trend since 1996 has been upward, with an increase of 55 percent between 1996 and 2007.
The trend in sexual assault has also followed a general increase. The highest numbers of victims of sexual assault and of assault were recorded in 2007.
There were 282 victims of homicide in 2007: a 12 percent decrease from 2006 and the lowest number recorded in the past 12 years.
Continuing the trend since 2004, robbery offences increased again in 2007, to 17,988.
The number of recorded kidnappings fluctuates from year to year. From 1996 to 2004, kidnappings registered a general increase, but the number of victims of kidnapping has remained relatively steady following a decline in 2005.

JCL 01-12-2013 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noncom23 (Post 916198)
JCL

Do you own any guns, by the way?

First:


Australian Bureau of Statistics:

<snip>

Not sure why it matters, but no. Several family members living in separate households do. They hunt deer, elk, moose, etc. Not people.

If we are talking gun control, shouldn't we look at gun violence? If you want to look at all violence you are going to have to consider a lot more causal factors, you can't just attribute it to guns. Especially when the stats are compiled so differently. Look at my comments in this thread, above, on what gets included in the 'violent crime' category in different countries.

noncom23 01-12-2013 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCL (Post 916251)
Not sure why it matters, but no. Several family members living in separate households do. They hunt deer, elk, moose, etc. Not people.

If we are talking gun control, shouldn't we look at gun violence? If you want to look at all violence you are going to have to consider a lot more causal factors, you can't just attribute it to guns. Especially when the stats are compiled so differently. Look at my comments in this thread, above, on what gets included in the 'violent crime' category in different countries.

So you are saying all the assaults, robberies, sexual violence
happened without guns? Forget the fact that you backed up the statement that
the bureau didn't even exist?

JCL, you can twist this any way you want. Look at Europe. I did.
Clearly their gun violence is higer than the US.

Do some real research for once. Or just admit you are against guns and get it
overwith. We won't blame you. Your Socialist stance is fine.

But we have a Constitution here in the US. It is still the law of the land,
despite the disdain of many. The Second Amendment stands. Sorry
you disagree. Your argument for a Modern Society is just another
baseless attempt to take away OUR rights. We fought for these rights
once, and thats why we have weapons now.

tynashracing 01-12-2013 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCL (Post 916180)
Noncom23:

I wasn't going to respond, since we discussed the reduction in gun violence in other countries earlier in this thread. But tynashracing, in another thread, felt slighted. So here it is.

I realize you didn't write this, that it is a clip from a blog.

Still, there doesn't actually appear to be an Australian Bureau of Criminology. It appears to have been made up by someone hoping that nobody would check. In fact, gun violence in Australia is down significantly since gun controls were brought in. The story, plus lots of graphs, data, links, and sources, at this link:

cameronreilly.com | The Facts About Guns In Australia


Are you kidding me..."I felt slighted"???

I said "Oh BTW, it's a bit ironic that over in the Lounge...a post was made on the Gun Control thread by noncom23...NOT A FREAK'N WORD UTTERED BY YOU. Wow, someone actually shut you up...no great come back? I'm so disappointed JCL, I figured you would've had some kind of argument?"

Can you hear the sarcasm in my tone?

I didn't feel slighted. I felt good that someone actually shut you up!

You continue making up stuff that I didn't say JCL. This is becoming a habit of yours. NOT COOL.

JCL 01-12-2013 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noncom23 (Post 916255)
So you are saying all the assaults, robberies, sexual violence happened without guns? Forget the fact that you backed up the statement that the bureau didn't even exist?

I am saying focus on the statistics for violent acts that included firearms, and don't warp the numbers by including acts that didn't, at least in relation to a discussion about gun violence. We would be able to better determine correlations then. Not clear on your bureau comment. There is no bureau. There is an institute, though. Those just aren't their numbers.

Quote:

JCL, you can twist this any way you want. Look at Europe. I did.
Clearly their gun violence is higer than the US.
Disagree. I posted earlier in this thread on that exact point. I won't repeat it.

Quote:

Do some real research for once. Or just admit you are against guns and get it over with. We won't blame you. Your Socialist stance is fine.
I am against gun violence. Guns are inanimate objects, I don't hate them or love them. I don't think much of gun culture. Not sure why there is apparent shame or blame in any of that. Don't understand your reference to a socialism. You know nothing about my politics. Socialism is a long way off, though.

Quote:

But we have a Constitution here in the US. It is still the law of the land,
despite the disdain of many. The Second Amendment stands. Sorry
you disagree. Your argument for a Modern Society is just another
baseless attempt to take away OUR rights. We fought for these rights
once, and thats why we have weapons now.
You are entitled to your opinions. I don't know why you would ascribe disdain to your constitution to others here, maybe you don't mean me. The constitution talks about well-regulated in talking about the reasons for an armed society, so I don't personally see the conflict, but that is up to your country. I don't get a vote. But why is Modern Society capitalized?

I think if guns are going to be used to fight 'tyranny' then the challenge is that the oppression of society, the tyrants, are largely financial, not military. And shooting bankers doesn't sound like a solution to me.

JCL 01-12-2013 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tynashracing (Post 916257)
Can you hear the sarcasm in my tone?

Yes. Apparently you can't hear it in mine.

noncom23 01-12-2013 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noncom23 (Post 916198)
JCL

Do you own any guns, by the way?

First:


Australian Bureau of Statistics:

Australian Bureau of Statistics


4530.0 - Crime Victimisation, Australia, 2010-11




Next:

I don't really see an astoundng change here. Yes reported homicides
are down, but robbery is climbing.
Assaults are up horribly.



Australian Institute of Criminology - Home


Victims of violent crime statistics
Victims of violent crimes from 1996 to 2007 (number)

Homicid Assault Sexual assault Robbery Kidnapping

1996 354 114,156 14,542 16,372 478
1997 364 124,500 14,353 21,305 564
1998 334 130,903 14,689 23,801 707
1999 385 134,271 14,699 22,606 766
2000 362 138,708 16,406 23,336 695
2001 347 152,283 17,577 26,591 767
2002 366 159,548 18,718 20,989 706
2003 341 157,280 18,025 19,709 696
2004 302 156,849 19,171 16,513 768
2005 301 166,507 18,695 17,176 730
2006 322 172,441 19,555 17,375 725
2007 282 176,427 19,781 17,988 730

Assaults continue to represent the majority of recorded violent crimes. The overall trend since 1996 has been upward, with an increase of 55 percent between 1996 and 2007.
The trend in sexual assault has also followed a general increase. The highest numbers of victims of sexual assault and of assault were recorded in 2007.
There were 282 victims of homicide in 2007: a 12 percent decrease from 2006 and the lowest number recorded in the past 12 years.
Continuing the trend since 2004, robbery offences increased again in 2007, to 17,988.
The number of recorded kidnappings fluctuates from year to year. From 1996 to 2004, kidnappings registered a general increase, but the number of victims of kidnapping has remained relatively steady following a decline in 2005.

I guess I have to quote myself. JCL, do have your glasses?
Can you see the link that says Bureau of Statistics?
I can't see any further point in trying to educate you.
You are stuck with your views. At least read the post.:stickpoke

JCL 01-12-2013 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noncom23 (Post 916268)
I guess I have to quote myself. JCL, do have your glasses?
Can you see the link that says Bureau of Statistics?
I can't see any further point in trying to educate you.
You are stuck with your views. At least read the post.:stickpoke

Noncom: right back at you. In post 117 you reopened this and referenced the bureau of criminology. That is what we were discussing. I pointed out that there is no such thing. Read the link i provided. Then you introduced the bureau of statistics. Now you are continuing with the bureau of statistics theme. Which one shall we discuss? The real point is that in post 117, the blog link article was a fabrication.

noncom23 01-12-2013 04:47 PM

Geeeeez. That bureau at the Crime selection I
linked to has the same stats.
Thats the bureau incorrectly quoted in your
blog, saying the bureau didn't exist.

noncom23 01-12-2013 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCL (Post 916264)
I am saying focus on the statistics for violent acts that included firearms, and don't warp the numbers by including acts that didn't, at least in relation to a discussion about gun violence. We would be able to better determine correlations then. Not clear on your bureau comment. There is no bureau. There is an institute, though. Those just aren't their numbers.



Disagree. I posted earlier in this thread on that exact point. I won't repeat it.



I am against gun violence. Guns are inanimate objects, I don't hate them or love them. I don't think much of gun culture. Not sure why there is apparent shame or blame in any of that. Don't understand your reference to a socialism. You know nothing about my politics. Socialism is a long way off, though.



You are entitled to your opinions. I don't know why you would ascribe disdain to your constitution to others here, maybe you don't mean me. The constitution talks about well-regulated in talking about the reasons for an armed society, so I don't personally see the conflict, but that is up to your country. I don't get a vote. But why is Modern Society capitalized?

I think if guns are going to be used to fight 'tyranny' then the challenge is that the oppression of society, the tyrants, are largely financial, not military. And shooting bankers doesn't sound like a solution to me.

To finish.


Amendment II

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.

Just to be clear on the text of the Second Amendment.

Modern Society is capitalized from your previous quote elsewhere
on our disagreement about guns. This gives the taste of a
Utopian ideology where weapons don't exist. This is the way
I took it from your statement.

TerminatorX5 01-12-2013 06:24 PM

anyone here read the portion about the militia??? someone explain to me, what the militia is... in the terms of the XVIII century, not the XX and XXI centuries...

Besides, if any of you are planning to overthrow duly elected US Government, that is in direct violation of 18 USC 2385:


Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or
Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
As used in this section, the terms “organizes” and “organize”, with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.

noncom23 01-12-2013 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TerminatorX5 (Post 916293)
anyone here read the portion about the militia??? someone explain to me, what the militia is... in the terms of the XVIII century, not the XX and XXI centuries...

Besides, if any of you are planning to overthrow duly elected US Government, that is in direct violation of 18 USC 2385:


Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or
Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
As used in this section, the terms “organizes” and “organize”, with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.

Have you read The Constitution?


Preamble
1 When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
2.1 We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
2.2 That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
2.3 Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
2.4 But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.
2.5 Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these States. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
Charges
3.1 He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
[Excised passagte on slavery]
see Jefferson's draft He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidels powers, is the warfare of the Christian king of Great Britain. He has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce determining to keep open a market where MEN should be bought and sold: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.
Conclusion
4.1 In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren.
We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us.
We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence.
They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity.
We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
5.1
Summation We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

TerminatorX5 01-12-2013 07:03 PM

i read it - did you read it? before copyingh and pasting something I would make sure I at least glance over it...

i do not see reference to the US government as being tyrant (even though some may say otherwise)... All references here are made to the king whose bones are long turned into dust... that document, while presents a true historical value and base for our nation has long lost its teeth...

a quarter of millenia later we have moved on - the passage on the slavery, while being part of the constitution has been amended as not reflecting the true nature of all men being EQUAL... So, it is possible to adjust the understanding of centuries old document to reflect today's environment...

so, the notion, that we NEED guns to correct OUR government is ridiculous, unless you are siding with our enemies... we correct our government by electing the officials that represent our views (granted, those officials get carried away in Washington't politics and act in manner not consistent with our choices). But to remove them from the power, we do not resort to guns, we use the representational democracy (i would prefer direct democracy)...

My point is, even if our ancentors used to carve writings in stone using chisels, we do not have to do the same, we have pens, paper, for God's sake, we have those finger-touchy pads that we can write with...

Just because during our ancentors' times there was a great risk of a tyrant (Napoleon Banaparte becoming an Emperor of the French Republic circa 1800), now our nation is too strong for such a risk... we do not resort to Reign of Terror a la Robiespierre.. those examples were vivid before our eyes bsck in the XVIII century, we needed to make sure nothing like that happens on our land... guns, being one of those things...

besides, the constitution has been amended several times after the slavery, in more recent times - before 1920 (give or take 5 years, i just don't remember the date) the women could not vote... yeah... right... let me tell my wife that I, as a man, more superior to her... hahaha

my point - if something is outdated, it needs to updated - you are not using T-model Ford as your daily driver, are you?

JCL 01-12-2013 07:33 PM

2 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by noncom23 (Post 916274)
Geeeeez. That bureau at the Crime selection I
linked to has the same stats.
Thats the bureau incorrectly quoted in your
blog, saying the bureau didn't exist.

The Bureau of Criminology quoted in your link doesn't exist. There is an Institute of Criminology. And a Bureau of Crime Statistics. But let's move on.

Firstly, statistics can be made to support any position if someone only uses part of the data. And gun statistics seem more prone than other statistics to this manipulation, by both sides of the debate. And everything certainly isn't perfect with respect to gun controls and societal violence in Australia. So we could probably fire links at each other forever, to little effect

That said, in the ten years following the Australian implementation of a gun buyback program gun related homicides dropped by 59%. Firearm suicides dropped by 65% with no uptick in non-firearm suicides. And they haven't had another mass shooting like the one that prompted the gun reduction, since 1996. Which, after all, is what they were trying to do.

None of the above claims that other violence in Australia changed for better or worse. It simply says that not as many people died from guns following controls brought in to address that particular statistic.

Australians didn't need to turn in all their weapons. The government bought back 20% of the weapons in circulation. They focused on the semi-automatic weapons used in the Port Arthur shooting. That was it. Want a gun, get a permit. Doesn't seem like taking all the guns away, at least to me.

Sources to this data and links to additional sources here: Massacres and Gun Rules: What U.S. Can Learn from U.K. and Australia | TIME.com

There are lots more statistics that refute the claim that gun controls didn't reduce gun crime in Austalia. Look at the graph, below. In particular, note that the gun buyback program in Australia came in in 1996. That was a bad year for gun homicides. Look at the US gun homicide rate for comparison of the shape of the curve over the same time period.

Those graphs are from this link, here:

cameronreilly.com | The Facts About Guns In Australia

More here:

Quote:

In the years after the Port Arthur massacre, the risk of dying by gunshot in Australia fell by more than 50% -- and stayed there. In the 16 years since the announcement of legislation specifically designed to reduce gun massacres, Australia has seen no mass shootings. Gun deaths which attract smaller headlines are 80 times more common, yet the national rate of gun homicide remains 30 times lower than that of the United States.
Full article here: Gun control: Change is possible -- and fast - CNN.com

I don't think gun controls are a cure all for what ails society. I don't think banning guns works. I think it is our obligation to control access to them. I think economic pressures work better than laws, so gun owners should be held financially liable for the consequences of not controlling their weapons. That wouldn't outlaw guns, it would simply provide an incentive to make sure guns that were laying around were secured.

I also don't think that using statistics about violence in general has much to do with gun murders. I think having more guns is a very inefficient way of reducing minor crimes, since they bring so many other unintended consequences. There is a famous statistic about how for every time a gun is used in self defence, it is used x times in a murder, y times in a suicide, and so on. There are more consequences of the gun being easily accessible than there are incidents of the good guy with the gun saving everyone. On an individual basis (I can now protect my family) it would feel good. On a society basis, not so much.

Finally, to perhaps provide a third party view across the link pasting war, I provide a link to Snopes. Because of the number of claims of Australian gun controls not working, they actually analyzed it. Their view, positive and negative, is here. They characterized the emails floating around as a having a mix of true and false information. Nice to read something more neutral sometimes.

snopes.com: Australian Guns Stats

JCL 01-12-2013 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noncom23 (Post 916281)
Modern Society is capitalized from your previous quote elsewhere on our disagreement about guns. This gives the taste of a
Utopian ideology where weapons don't exist. This is the way
I took it from your statement.

Thanks for that. I am not a promoter of a Utopian society. I am more of a pragmatist. I don't want to ban guns. I just think that solving gun crime by having more guns is illogical. It is like an arms race. And how did that all work out from the Cold War? As I recall, one side went bankrupt, and the other isn't too far behind.

TerminatorX5 01-12-2013 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCL (Post 916320)
Thanks for that. I am not a promoter of a Utopian society. I am more of a pragmatist. I don't want to ban guns. I just think that solving gun crime by having more guns is illogical. It is like an arms race. And how did that all work out from the Cold War? As I recall, one side went bankrupt, and the other isn't too far behind.


speaking of that bankrupt side - since they withdrew from the arms race, pulled their troops from afghanistan, and basically went back into their cave for the last 20 years, they are not debt free and awash with oil money... scary... a wild bear with a lots of money... and, as we know, money talks...

EDIT: I mistyped "they are not debt free"... it should read "they are now debt free"

noncom23 01-12-2013 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TerminatorX5 (Post 916325)
speaking of that bankrupt side - since they withdrew from the arms race, pulled their troops from afghanistan, and basically went back into their cave for the last 20 years, they are not debt free and awash with oil money... scary... a wild bear with a lots of money... and, as we know, money talks...

On this we can agree. US is going
bankrupt.

JCL 01-12-2013 08:26 PM

On that note, I read in one report that the US currently has over 15,000 laws on the books related to gun control, between local, state, and federal. I don't know if that is the right number, but assuming for a moment that it is......

Could the focus change from implementing gun controls (which appear to already have been implemented thousands of times) to improving gun control (as the current laws don't appear to be doing enough)? That could involve a reduction in regulations (on a count basis), with corresponding reductions in cost and bureaucracy, while actually improving gun control effectiveness. Not saying this would be easy, but one of the refrains is, smaller government. It seems to me that tighter and more restrictive gun controls (satisfying one segment of the population) could in fact result in a reduction in the size and cost of government. And no, this isn't my Utopian vision, just a comment for discussion.

noncom23 01-12-2013 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCL (Post 916339)
On that note, I read in one report that the US currently has over 15,000 laws on the books related to gun control, between local, state, and federal. I don't know if that is the right number, but assuming for a moment that it is......

Could the focus change from implementing gun controls (which appear to already have been implemented thousands of times) to improving gun control (as the current laws don't appear to be doing enough)? That could involve a reduction in regulations (on a count basis), with corresponding reductions in cost and bureaucracy, while actually improving gun control effectiveness. Not saying this would be easy, but one of the refrains is, smaller government. It seems to me that tighter and more restrictive gun controls (satisfying one segment of the population) could in fact result in a reduction in the size and cost of government. And no, this isn't my Utopian vision, just a comment for discussion.

I think creative ideas like that could help.

Quicksilver 01-17-2013 02:55 AM

That's right NRA score them points...

The ad says

"Are the president's kids more important than yours?" the ad asks. "Then why is he skeptical about putting armed security in our schools when his kids are protected by armed guards at their school?" The ad continues: "Mr. Obama demands the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes, but he is just another elitist hypocrite when it comes to a fair share of security."

NRA Ad Targeting Obama Family Draws White House Response: 'Repugnant And Cowardly'

JCL 01-17-2013 03:10 AM

Are his kids more important? No.

Are they more likely to be attacked by a nut with a gun? Yes.

Are the people defending his kids highly trained? Yes.

Are his kids more likely to be taken and used as leverage to try and gain control over the president? Yes.

Is this whole ad campaign an attempt to change the subject? Yes.

rebound 01-17-2013 08:59 AM

If the President hadn't pulled those kids on stage for his press conference, then I would agree with you.

The minute he did, he made the NRA ad reasonable.

If the President doesn't like the exploitation of children, he should refrain from doing it.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

noncom23 01-17-2013 09:52 AM

"The greatest tyrannies are always perpetrated in the name of the noblest causes." -- Thomas Paine

JCL 01-17-2013 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rebound (Post 917151)
If the President hadn't pulled those kids on stage for his press conference, then I would agree with you.

The minute he did, he made the NRA ad reasonable.

If the President doesn't like the exploitation of children, he should refrain from doing it.

Fair enough, I see your point. For my part, it wasn't the children I was referring to in my comment about the attempt to change the subject, it was the reference to Obama's children. I saw both sides using children in the debate, I just didn't see the president's children as being relevant. If all children deserve armed guards in their schools, then I guess they all deserve to live in the White House as well.

rebound 01-18-2013 09:55 AM

Since you're Canadian, I'll ask. What's your take on the recent end to Canada's long-gun registry?

Apparently the RCMP couldn't justify its expense in relation to stopping murders?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

lakai 01-18-2013 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blondboinsd (Post 913413)
I absolutely support the following:
-Tougher Back round Checks with MANDATORY training (Including most importantly those selling online AND at Gun Shows) because currently by most estimates only 60% of those purchasing a weapon are subject to a back round check making it easy to circumvent the system and purchase a weapon

What do you mean by tougher background checks? Are the background checks now insufficient ? Please explain the current background check process and details as well as well as how they could be improved.

Mandatory Training ? What do you mean by that ? firearms training like in the military ? Mandatory training to teach someone how to kill people?

You can not buy a firearm online and have it sent to your door in any state nor do I know of any legitimate firearms dealer do that from what I understand with an exception to specific guns that are on the C&R list (Guns and to C&R License holders.

Some examples of C&R firearms are most manually-operated and semi-automatic firearms used by a military force prior to 1946. This includes most firearms (other than automatic weapons) used by the warring nations in World Wars I and II.

All fully automatic weapons require very strict to get Federal Licenses which require a Police Chief to fill out a form and return to the ATF and already banned completely in some states like mine. Even if you could get a license , you are talking about guns that cost in the range starting $10,000+ USD. The price and Permit process alone is a deterent for 95% of people from owning them legaly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by blondboinsd (Post 913413)
-Expanded State Reporting to create improved communication between states
-The creation (and strict enforcement) of a "prohibited individuals list" which bans people for various reasons (prior Felon with weapons charges, mentally ill etc.) from owning any gun in any state for any reason

What do you want reported ?? Do you want all firearms owners pictures and and information to be published publicly like a sex offenders list or like how that one newspaper on the east coast did that published the names and addresses of every gun owner on their website by obtaining the info via FOIA? Thus treating every owner of a firearm as if they were a criminal??

As I Understand it, you can not purchase a firearm legally, at least in my state (CA) if you have been convicted of a felony. The already MANDATORY background check in California already checks for criminal history.

Quote:

Originally Posted by blondboinsd (Post 913413)
-The Complete banning of Assault Weapons and High Capacity Magazines because they really have absolutely no relevance in today's modernized society

Define the term "Assault weapon". Any weapon used for the purpose of assaulting another person ?? I want to know what you want to ban completely and specifically that isn't banned already.

How many rounds of ammunition define "High Capacity" ?? Here in California all firearm magazines are limited to 10 bullets.

I am not a very political person I am not a criminal I have a family. I also have guns. I have guns because I enjoy having them. I don't hunt with them I just shoot at paper targets. I don't "need" a gun to protect my family but the 2nd amendment gives me the right to have one for that purpose should I choose.

I am a responsible gun owner. Safety is always the priority, my kids aren't allowed to handle , touch, my guns and never even seen them. They are locked up in the safe, unloaded and out of their reach.

Please answer my questions if you can. I am all for anything that will guarentee the the safety of my family and things like the recent shooting from happening again. Even if I have to give up my rights and my guns. I just need to understand how your proposals that are not already by law will stop a tragedy like ct from happening EVER again.




Thank you

JCL 01-19-2013 01:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rebound (Post 917307)
Since you're Canadian, I'll ask. What's your take on the recent end to Canada's long-gun registry?

Apparently the RCMP couldn't justify its expense in relation to stopping murders?

I don't have a strong opinion. All other guns are registered (ie handguns). All gun owners are licensed. Many types of guns are restricted or prohibited. There is no concealed carry for self-defence. I'm not any type of expert, so I stand to be corrected on those details.

Against that backdrop, I do think guns should be registered, but that rifles and shotguns probably aren't the biggest issue we have here. I think that the long gun registry was badly implemented, and cost too much. But the police (including the RCMP) did support it. Cancelling the long gun registry ended up being purely a political decision, IMO.

xsx450 01-22-2013 12:56 PM

I swear to god some of you guys live in fooking LA LA Land!

Just because you lived a sheltered life where mommy and daddy kept you safe from the harsh realities of the world and the united states did such a good job of making you feel safe for YOUR entire life you are ignorant to the world we live in?

I realize many and most of you are highly educated or god damn lucky because of how well off you seem to be. READ A FOOKING HISTORY BOOK.

You are pathetic if you think guns are not needed to protect people, just because you think "it won't happen to me". You all sound like the blind leading the blind. What happens when someone does threaten to hurt your loved ones and your sitting there with your dick in your hand because "In this day in age we dont need guns" WOW. Do you really think criminals don't have them ILLEGALLY. Do you really think any amount of regulation will change that??? What a joke.

What happens when we all bend over and hand over our guns to the government. Do we just do whatever they say? Do we just submit to their every demand? Some of you would like, no LOVE, that.

Look at how this country was MADE! Jesus you guys are as unamerican as can be. If you want to live in a country without guns, THEN GO. No shit their gun crime rates are lower. WHY DON'T YOU OPEN YOUR EYES AND LOOK AT THE OTHER STATISTICS LIKE VIOLENT CRIME WITHOUT GUNS??? Does anyone know why we left for the new world?

http://i.imgur.com/9HV71tQ.jpg

What a joke telling us all about your multimillion dollar gated community. GOOD FOR YOU, you are safe, and you do not need a gun. But when the guy that doesn't have all of that see's you and comes into your house to take what you have without a care in the world for human life, your not going to even get to look like an idiot. Your going to be dead laying in your families arms.

Wake up people. All of the unrest in the world could just as easily happen in the US at ANY TIME. what do you think would happen if the banks closed, gas stations closed, and food sold out at the super market? WE WOULDNT ALL HOLD HANDS. Just because the US hasn't had a major crisis in quite a while does not allow us to all live with our head up our ass in LA LA Land. I swear to god some of you are a joke.

TerminatorX5 01-22-2013 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xsx450 (Post 918029)

What happens when we all bend over and hand over our guns to the government. Do we just do whatever they say? Do we just submit to their every demand?


I guess it is safe to assume that you are a US citizen... Do you pay taxes? Do you have a driver's license? if you hunt, do you have a hunting license/permit? do you use the currency sanctioned by this government? Do you buy FDA approved medicine? USDA approved/certified meat? if you travel abroad, do you use US passport? do you call cops for a police report when filing an insurance claim?
if you answered YES to at least one of the questions (there are many similar questions that can be asked), YOU are submitting to "their" every demand... and since you are probably a gun owner, you are also ready to take on the tyrannical government that we have - as the 2nd amendment says NOTHING about protecting your home from a criminal, it only talks about bearing arms in the state regulated militia...

Which is clear violation of 18 USC 2385, the US criminal code...

what you are proposing, is ANARCHY, when the stores are out of supplies, you are suggesting people with arms taking care for themselves, effectively leaving out the weak and disabled, like little kids, elderly... I want to eat, just like anyone else, but i will not take last piece of meal from the mouth of pregnant woman, just because i have a gun... i have dignity... i am a human being... i am a civilized person, i did not just step out the woods... i'd rather die as a lion, from hunger, than live as a jackal...

really, you should read the history books, not written by the NRA - the 2nd amendment, written in 1791... I hope you know what was going on at the time, and WHY that amendment was written... i hope the name Roberspier rings a bell, as well as Bonaparte... And why the forefathers were so worried about the tyrrany... not about the criminals in your bedroom... not about empty shelves in the local 7-eleven... My little boy had super hard time letting go of his pacifier - but it would be looking ridiculous on 9 year old's face... same, the 2nd amendment has no real life bearings on 200+ year old democracy and looks at least, out of place on this pillar of the world's democracy - we are adamantly against prolifiration of weapons abroad, as it DECREASES the overall security but somehow, prolifiration of weapons domestically - increases it?...

and assuming that we were all sheltered and ended up on this forum is a serious mistake - not everyone here had a luxury of being born in the rich, spoiled America - some of us came here for the freedom... If i hear you say, "then go back to your country", it really would answer many questions about your mental state, and add one more reason why folks like you should not have guns.

xsx450 01-22-2013 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TerminatorX5 (Post 918042)
I guess it is safe to assume that you are a US citizen... Do you pay taxes? Do you have a driver's license? if you hunt, do you have a hunting license/permit? do you use the currency sanctioned by this government? Do you buy FDA approved medicine? USDA approved/certified meat? if you travel abroad, do you use US passport? do you call cops for a police report when filing an insurance claim?
if you answered YES to at least one of the questions (there are many similar questions that can be asked), YOU are submitting to "their" every demand... and since you are probably a gun owner, you are also ready to take on the tyrannical government that we have - as the 2nd amendment says NOTHING about protecting your home from a criminal, it only talks about bearing arms in the state regulated militia...

I do pay taxes, I do have a drivers license, and I do follow the US Laws because I believe and support this country. However when this country decides to push me over the line that will all change. There are plenty of things that I don't do/support because I do not submit to their every demand. I vote, and write my elected officials.

"District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment.[3] In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government"

Quote:

Originally Posted by TerminatorX5 (Post 918042)
Which is clear violation of 18 USC 2385, the US criminal code...

what you are proposing, is ANARCHY, when the stores are out of supplies, you are suggesting people with arms taking care for themselves, effectively leaving out the weak and disabled, like little kids, elderly... I want to eat, just like anyone else, but i will not take last piece of meal from the mouth of pregnant woman, just because i have a gun... i have dignity... i am a human being... i am a civilized person, i did not just step out the woods... i'd rather die as a lion, from hunger, than live as a jackal...

When that pregnant women is your wife and that jackal is armed what do you plan to do? defend against him with pride?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TerminatorX5 (Post 918042)
If i hear you say, "then go back to your country", it really would answer many questions about your mental state, and add one more reason why folks like you should not have guns.

I welcome you to our country as it is what this country is built on. I welcome you with open arms. But do not mistake my strong opinion for this issue as an attack on yours. Do not mistake my understanding for the need to protect one self as a means to do harm, or steal from a pregnant lady's mouth. Come on.

TerminatorX5 01-22-2013 02:03 PM

you are referring to the 2nd amendment, and then fallback on to court interpretations of the original texts... it is like barnicles on the ship's hull, or preacher's take of the holy text... the way i read the ORIGINAL wording by THE forefathers is one way, the way it was politically influenced at a given time by an elected or an appointed official that HAS NO vision same of the forfathers - is a different thing...

Jesus came and went, and he said one thing... his words were repeated and CHANGED so many times, that how do you know WHICH christians are following his original words? and which ones are falling victims of the political agenda of the religious leaders at the time? the catholics? the orthodox? the baptists? the lutherans? the adventists? but the beginning was the same!!! it goes with the amendments - the forefathers meant one thing.. it was interpreted the other way...

no matter what this government does to you, you will NOT revolt...

I prefer to think that I live in a HUMAN civilization, and not in the jungle - because if what you are saying is true, than my childhood propaganda about America was RIGHT... and I don't want THE America that was painted for me back then... that America is SCARY!!!
go ahead, ask me where i grew up...

noncom23 01-22-2013 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TerminatorX5 (Post 918042)

really, you should read the history books, not written by the NRA - the 2nd amendment, written in 1791... I hope you know what was going on at the time, and WHY that amendment was written... i hope the name Roberspier rings a bell, as well as Bonaparte... And why the forefathers were so worried about the tyrrany... not about the criminals in your bedroom... not about empty shelves in the local 7-eleven... My little boy had super hard time letting go of his pacifier - but it would be looking ridiculous on 9 year old's face... same, the 2nd amendment has no real life bearings on 200+ year old democracy and looks at least, out of place on this pillar of the world's democracy - we are adamantly against prolifiration of weapons abroad, as it DECREASES the overall security but somehow, prolifiration of weapons domestically - increases it?...
and assuming that we were a

Tx,
The reason you can piss on the Constitution
on this forum is a result of the original revolution
and the Constitution itself. But you refuse to see
it as such. You could appreciate the history of our
country instead of taking it for granted in your
ill-educated statements .

You step on the very same document that
gives the you right to do so. Make any sense? No.
Thats why your argument is ridiculous. Maybe
you should leave if you hate the US that much.

Either way, that document and the people
who wrote it had far more foresight than you
know. They even predicted people would
come here, take the freedom, and
crap on it like you just did.

Congratulations! You proved our point.
The US Constitution lives on. By the way, the US
is a Republic, not a Democracy.

xsx450 01-22-2013 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TerminatorX5 (Post 918062)
you are referring to the 2nd amendment, and then fallback on to court interpretations of the original texts... it is like barnicles on the ship's hull, or preacher's take of the holy text... the way i read the ORIGINAL wording by THE forefathers is one way, the way it was politically influenced at a given time by an elected or an appointed official that HAS NO vision same of the forfathers - is a different thing...

Jesus came and went, and he said one thing... his words were repeated and CHANGED so many times, that how do you know WHICH christians are following his original words? and which ones are falling victims of the political agenda of the religious leaders at the time? the catholics? the orthodox? the baptists? the lutherans? the adventists? but the beginning was the same!!! it goes with the amendments - the forefathers meant one thing.. it was interpreted the other way...

no matter what this government does to you, you will NOT revolt...

I prefer to think that I live in a HUMAN civilization, and not in the jungle - because if what you are saying is true, than my childhood propaganda about America was RIGHT... and I don't want THE America that was painted for me back then... that America is SCARY!!!
go ahead, ask me where i grew up...

LOL DUDE if you think you live by the original constitution and not the current interpretations your are only kidding yourself. Your argument makes no sense.

"no matter what this government does to you, you will NOT revolt..." You may be scared like this, it shows. But I am not.

"go ahead, ask me where i grew up"
No one cares. Save it.

TerminatorX5 01-22-2013 02:36 PM

noncom, it seems that you are reading some other person's posts, not mine - i am for the constitution, as it has been written...not overwritten for political agenda... reread the posts...
somehow you are falling into the same groove, "leave if you don't like it"... your ancestors did not leave, even though they did not like the way native americans lived...
anyways - you reside in Utopia... isn't Utopia a communist state?

TerminatorX5 01-22-2013 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xsx450 (Post 918072)
LOL DUDE if you think you live by the original constitution and not the current interpretations your are only kidding yourself. Your argument makes no sense.

"no matter what this government does to you, you will NOT revolt..." You may be scared like this, it shows. But I am not.

"go ahead, ask me where i grew up"
No one cares. Save it.

If i don't live by the constitution, why should you live by its amendment?
I'd like to think that the constitution is the law of this land...
I could be wrong, i could be too romantic... but still, if my argument about the constitution makes no sense, where is the base for your argument?

you did not revolt when the IRS was established... even though some states still did not ratify it... you did not revolt when USDA fed us all with gormone chickens, fattened the entire nation... you did not revolt, when the Dept of Ed dumbed down the education in this country to the point where kids can't find NYC or Miami or LA on the map... or add 234+432 without a calculator... you did not revolt when we were fed lies about weapons of mass destruction and had so many of our brightest and bravest killed in the line of duty... I sure hope that you voted, that you wrote to your representative and otherwise voiced your dissent in a civilized manner... not with a weapon...

The State gave the citizens the right to bear arms in order to correct the State if the State goes rogue... However, to protect itself, the State MODIFIED the right to bear arms and redirected the aim of the barrel from the State to other fellow citizens, who are not as law-abiding... and by the virtue of MODIFYING the original the State has stepped on the road to be rogue...

Think about it for a moment... everyone is talking about self-defense and criminals... not what the original was...
and now tell me if that was not a smart tactic by a State going rogue to deflect the attention from itself...

government has you in full compliance with its agenda and makes you think that it was your agenda... masters of deceit...

noncom23 01-22-2013 02:55 PM

Tx,

Whose words are these?

"face... same, the 2nd amendment has no real life bearings on 200+ year old democracy and looks at least, out of place on this pillar of the world's democracy "

xsx450 01-22-2013 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TerminatorX5 (Post 918077)
government has you in full compliance with its agenda and makes you think that it was your agenda... masters of deceit...


Well at least we agree about something. I have enough guns to fill both of our 4.8is's. Lets Charge DC!!! :rofl:

TerminatorX5 01-22-2013 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noncom23 (Post 918081)
Tx,

Whose words are these?

"face... same, the 2nd amendment has no real life bearings on 200+ year old democracy and looks at least, out of place on this pillar of the world's democracy "


"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."

this is one of the multiple versions of the 2nd amendment... other than the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", nothing else is being quoted from that passage much...

where is the militia? we have national guard. we have military branches. they are already armed... do we have a different "well regulated militia"? I have to dig it up, but a few years back Sarah Palin has DISARMED a small Alaskan militia... i need to do a google search, to see the reasoning...

if only a part of the amendment is still valid and the other part is not valid, we need to pass another amendment rectifying the issue. if the whole statement is valid, than we should stick to it... but as it was written in XVIII century and stands, it does not have much bearing on XXI century...

I already mentioned earlier - the State very cleverly has deflected the idea of people correcting the course of the State gone rogue to the criminals and self-defense... as a rogue state would do to self-protect

TerminatorX5 01-22-2013 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xsx450 (Post 918084)
Well at least we agree about something. I have enough guns to fill both of our 4.8is's. Lets Charge DC!!! :rofl:


DC is a police State in a singularly taken city - unless you are talking about taking over the slams, the other areas of DC have more cops per square foot than cops convention...

believe me, we agree on more things that you think - don't get me started on the immigraion... If I were in the shoes of sheriff Arpaio (did I say his name right?), you would think that he is a little angel catering caviar to the illegals... there would be more guns pointed south under my watch, if i had it my way... but that is protecting US from outsiders... I have no problems with people coming through the doors - but have issues with people coming into the windows...

like i said, we have more in common... but i still would not apply that to the domestic policy...

noncom23 01-22-2013 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TerminatorX5 (Post 918086)
"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."

this is one of the multiple versions of the 2nd amendment... other than the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", nothing else is being quoted from that passage much...

where is the militia? we have national guard. we have military branches. they are already armed... do we have a different "well regulated militia"? I have to dig it up, but a few years back Sarah Palin has DISARMED a small Alaskan militia... i need to do a google search, to see the reasoning...

if only a part of the amendment is still valid and the other part is not valid, we need to pass another amendment rectifying the issue. if the whole statement is valid, than we should stick to it... but as it was written in XVIII century and stands, it does not have much bearing on XXI century...

I already mentioned earlier - the State very cleverly has deflected the idea of people correcting the course of the State gone rogue to the criminals and self-defense... as a rogue state would do to self-protect

Ok. Here is the "Modern" version of the
Second Amendment. Still think its outdated?
Also removes your "Militia" connection.


"In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions officially establishing this interpretation. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment.[3] In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government"

TerminatorX5 01-22-2013 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noncom23 (Post 918093)
Ok. Here is the "Modern" version of the
Second Amendment. Still think its outdated?
Also removes your "Militia" connection.

"In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions officially establishing this interpretation. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment.[3] In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government"


this is an interpretation of the amendment, not the amendment itself... it stands as a law of the land but without dissent that decision would not have come to life...

say, you have a nice, shiny pair of pants... as you wear it, it develops a hole... you patch it up... keep on wearing it... another hole... patch it up again... and again... at the end, you have something that looks like it used to be a piece of clothing, but under so many patches it is hard to determine what was the original design... it is not the 2nd amendment that guarantees us the right to bear arms but the DC vs. Heller that provides such a guarantee... our forefathers are being abandoned... that is sad...

the comparasions are not doing justice, i don't like the patches, the barnicles on a hull of the ship - but if the original text is outdated that we needed a court decision, than maybe we should pass a new amendment? and vote on it...

the laws have been patched so many times, that the original idea is long gone... since we are working off the interpretations of the original amendment and not the amendment itself, why do we keep referring back to it as it was an original?

kado1976 01-22-2013 03:46 PM

Start with helping mentally ill people. Look up how many shooters are on Prozac in American history....

TerminatorX5 01-22-2013 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kado1976 (Post 918097)
Start with helping mentally ill people. Look up how many shooters are on Prozac in American history....


hey!!! welcome to the party!!! it was getting lonely here for a moment between three of us...

mentally ill... but how do you define mentally ill?

there were times in the not long ago history of this country when alternative sexual orientation was considered to be a mental illness... even criminal behaviour... not anymore (the laws are still in the books, but not enforced). Are we going to trust the government to tell us who is sane?

any normal person can snap on a moment's notice... and do crazy things...

noncom23 01-22-2013 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TerminatorX5 (Post 918096)
this is an interpretation of the amendment, not the amendment itself... it stands as a law of the land but without dissent that decision would not have come to life...

say, you have a nice, shiny pair of pants... as you wear it, it develops a hole... you patch it up... keep on wearing it... another hole... patch it up again... and again... at the end, you have something that looks like it used to be a piece of clothing, but under so many patches it is hard to determine what was the original design... it is not the 2nd amendment that guarantees us the right to bear arms but the DC vs. Heller that provides such a guarantee... our forefathers are being abandoned... that is sad...

the comparasions are not doing justice, i don't like the patches, the barnicles on a hull of the ship - but if the original text is outdated that we needed a court decision, than maybe we should pass a new amendment? and vote on it...

the laws have been patched so many times, that the original idea is long gone... since we are working off the interpretations of the original amendment and not the amendment itself, why do we keep referring back to it as it was an original?

Tx,
There's no hope for you. Your a Socialist
and thats ok. We don't blame you.

You like the Marxist view on life. We don't
hate you. You are a hack as far as history
is concerned, but you are fun to watch.
However, you have no cogent argument
to the Second Amendment for your side.

No, you can't have our guns.
Thx for playing our game.
Next. :-)

TerminatorX5 01-22-2013 05:01 PM

i don't want your guns... as a matter of fact, keep them... 2nd amendment has nothing to do with it anymore, but it is irrelevant...

what i would like to see, that the guns would be like vehicles, you can have them, they would have titles, you can buy, sell, trade, junk them... insure them.. have a license to own them... to get the license, you would go and take the classes on how to handle the guns... I have no beef with the guns, guns are inanimated objects... as they say, guns don't kill people... but, by the same token, screwdrivers do not put screws in or out... guns are tools and since they are dangerous tools, should be regulated... you would not allow an untrained person handle a power tool (well, maybe for fun, you would!!! lol)... why an untrained person can have a device that is lethal by design?

and since we are on cool terms with the State, and need the guns to protect ourselves from criminals, we might as well submit to that licensing and registration... and then, even carry in public, a la Texas (not sure if they carry pieces in public, I am just saying it).

But, most gun owners will not go for this registration - why not? we already established that the militia and free state have nothing to do with the right to bear arms as per DC vs. Heller..:thumbup:

JCL 01-22-2013 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noncom23 (Post 918121)
Tx,
There's no hope for you. You're a Socialist
and thats ok. We don't blame you.

I never understood this charge.

Don't we all (or most of us) have mandatory auto insurance? A library card? Ever use the post office? Don't those things make one a socialist? If so, come on in, the water's fine.

JCL 01-23-2013 12:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noncom23 (Post 918121)
No, you can't have our guns.

A serious question. Why is it all or nothing in these discussions?

Australia bought back 20% of the guns in circulation, and reduced gun violence. Links posted previously.

I can't ever imagine Americans turning in all their guns. Ever. But there are something like 283 million guns in circulation. Is everybody safer than if there were only 200 million?

I am no expert on the constitution, but I thought the original amendment said something about "well regulated" when referencing that famous militia. And DC vs Heller seems to uphold the concept of "prohibitions and restrictions". So why the absolute opposition to any form of controls?

When we finally started the process of nuclear disarmament, it was on the principle that fewer nukes would make for a safer world. Doesn't the same principle, at the highest level, apply to gun controls?

Just asking.

noncom23 01-23-2013 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCL (Post 918189)
A serious question. Why is it all or nothing in these discussions?

Australia bought back 20% of the guns in circulation, and reduced gun violence. Links posted previously.

I can't ever imagine Americans turning in all their guns. Ever. But there are something like 283 million guns in circulation. Is everybody safer than if there were only 200 million?

I am no expert on the constitution, but I thought the original amendment said something about "well regulated" when referencing that famous militia. And DC vs Heller seems to uphold the concept of "prohibitions and restrictions". So why the absolute opposition to any form of controls?

When we finally started the process of nuclear disarmament, it was on the principle that fewer nukes would make for a safer world. Doesn't the same principle, at the highest level, apply to gun controls?

Just asking.

If you really want an example, read this. This is one example
of Communist gun control and the end results.

Communist Gun Control

noncom23 01-23-2013 12:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCL (Post 918185)
I never understood this charge.

Don't we all (or most of us) have mandatory auto insurance? A library card? Ever use the post office? Don't those things make one a socialist? If so, come on in, the water's fine.

Auto insurance is state controlled, not federally.
Driving is a privilage not a right. You don't have
to drive if you don't want to. Library card is
VOLUNTARY, not forced on you by a government.

Socialism, Communism, gives you no choices.
Do you see a trend here? Individual Choice!

Guns are a guaranteed right by the Constitution.

JCL 01-23-2013 01:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noncom23 (Post 918195)
Auto insurance is state controlled, not federally.
Driving is a privilage not a right. You don't have
to drive if you don't want to. Library card is
VOLUNTARY, not forced on you by a government.

Socialism, Communism, gives you no choices.
Do you see a trend here? Individual Choice!

I think you are splitting hairs. True, I don't have to drive, but I have to pay for the roads. I don't have to use the library, but I have to pay for it. No choice. Post office, the same. Military defence. Fire departments. Police departments. Damn socialism! ;)

JCL 01-23-2013 01:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noncom23 (Post 918193)
If you really want an example, read this. This is one example
of Communist gun control and the end results.

Communist Gun Control

Thanks for that.

I guess I have trouble seeing Afghanistan in 1979, with no defence against an invading Soviet army, as being equivalent to the USA in 2013. You have an army. And no Soviet threat on the border. But on top of that, the Afghans didn't have guns according to the link, they made them once they were invaded. So having guns wasn't the deciding factor, knowing how to use them was.

But back to the question. Why is it all or nothing? The link doesn't provide a reason for gun controls turning into a program of 100% confiscation. It just says that confiscating all guns is a bad idea. OK, agreed. But just who proposing gun controls is proposing confiscation of all guns?

noncom23 01-23-2013 09:55 AM

The idea of the entire article
is to show that without weapons
the people are only subjects to their
dictitorial governments. Whether
guns were there before or after the
tyranny, the people can become free
with weapons. With no weapons,
no chance.

Can you see that
concept?

Ok. Now we have weapons, take
them away, where are we? No
better off than any other country
run by subjective dictators who
have weapons to point at us,
while we have sticks.
To you this is "splitting hairs".
To us and many other oppressed
peoples, this is loss of freedom.

Scoff if you will, this is the foundation
of the US. Why go on repeating this
circle over and over? Through history
this merry-go-round has continued.
Oppress, revolt, oppress.

We keep our weapons to remind the
government who is in charge. The
US government works for the people.
The people are in control. Most are
too asleep to see it, but that is the
fact.

I know these words are wasted,
but to many of us without freedom,
there is no point in being here. We won't
give our rights away at a whim
because those rights are trivial
to so many others blinded by their
currnent beliefs and that they want
to force those beliefs on us.

TerminatorX5 01-23-2013 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noncom23 (Post 918193)
If you really want an example, read this. This is one example
of Communist gun control and the end results.

Communist Gun Control


OMG, this article is written in half-a$$ed fashion by a guy who had no idea what he was talking about.

SU special force Alpha attacked presidential palace to rescue Taraki but they were too late. the Soviet 40th army moved across Oxus river into the afgan land, for the 4th time in the XX century. it happened on Dec 27, 1979, at request of Taraki, duly elected president of the presidential palace (i remember that date, as it is my birthday date... )

the afgan had gun not to "protect" themselves - they grew (and still grow) hash and wanted to protect it... simple as that - where you have narcotics, you have guns...

my cousin was in afganistan in 1986, the soviets lost air not because of the stingers, they lost the presense due to internal changes in the politcal situation in moscow...

and somehow Polish Solidarnost got involved into this line of crap - I did a paper in the college, in 1985 on the Solidarnost movement, it started as a political demand and grew into criminal, free-for-all pogroms in Warsaw...

Mike, you are getting fed Propaganda by the Government that you will NOT ever rise against to - so, why cite DC vs. Heller where the "right" to bear arms is reduced to defense against criminals, and a moment later claim the 2nd amendment right to "correct" rogue government?

The 2nd amendment has been substituted long time ago - you can either stick to the original, and present your arms for service in well regulated militia, or, stick to todays reality, and admit to yourself, that you will never ever go against the US government, and need the guns to carry out your view of street justice.

And besides, have you read Karl Marx? do you know that his work, capital, is more capitalistic, than socialistic? the Wall Street operates on the principles outlined in that book...

and I hear that the US is not democracy but a republic... what another nonsense is that??? Republic is derived from Latin Res Publica, something belonging to the public, as opposed to belonging to a monarch. which is the wording behind at least two commonwealths that I know about, the Pennsylvania and the Virginia... Common... The root of the word Common is public, something belonging to community... don't you think that defending Republic, you are defending the main, original principle of the communism? granted, what we KNOW about the communism comes from execution of it in the USSR, or in the French Republic that turned into Empire...either were not the visions of Robespiere who got beheaded for treason, as he raised dessent, nor Lenin, who was left to die in relative isolation, while the power was overtaken by some rogue dictators...

thank God, it should not happen in the US, our democracy is strong enough after 200 years of existence...

JCL, this argument sounds more and more like someone trying to take away a favorite toy from a kid - as the matter is viewed from two different planes of view, it will be hard to convince the kid, the he has overgrown his toys...

noncom23 01-23-2013 11:07 AM

Tx, your still here? I thought we
established your lack of respect
for both sides of the argument
removed your input as viable. :-))

blktoptrvl 01-23-2013 11:27 AM

In all of history, has there EVER been a civilization that prevailed against a technologically superior invader who was committed to total warfare? I think not, but am willing to be schooled.

Based on the assumption that there has not been such a civilization, I don't see what people who hoard a few hundred guns think they can really do against a government that is acknowledged to have the most powerful military force on the Earth. I think those who believe they can hold off the American Military - committed to your destruction are simply delusional.

TerminatorX5 01-23-2013 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blktoptrvl (Post 918244)
In all of history, has there EVER been a civilization that prevailed against a technologically superior invader who was committed to total warfare? I think not, but am willing to be schooled.

Based on the assumption that there has not been such a civilization, I don't see what people who hoard a few hundred guns think they can really do against a government that is acknowledged to have the most powerful military force on the Earth. I think those who believe they can hold off the American Military - committed to your destruction are simply delusional.


:thumbup:

noncom23 01-23-2013 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blktoptrvl (Post 918244)
In all of history, has there EVER been a civilization that prevailed against a technologically superior invader who was committed to total warfare? I think not, but am willing to be schooled.

Based on the assumption that there has not been such a civilization, I don't see what people who hoard a few hundred guns think they can really do against a government that is acknowledged to have the most powerful military force on the Earth. I think those who believe they can hold off the American Military - committed to your destruction are simply delusional.

Did you read the article on Afganistan?
Have any recollection of Russia's
and now our failure in Afganistan?

blktoptrvl 01-23-2013 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noncom23 (Post 918251)
Did you read the article on Afganistan?
Have any recollection of Russia's
and now our failure in Afganistan?

You think the USSR was committed to TOTAL Warfare in Afghanistan?

TerminatorX5 01-23-2013 12:21 PM

blktop - the article on afgan is piece of trash written by someone who had no clue about afgan, soviet union, poland, hungary or yugoslavia... if you care, find your own sources.

afgans were and still are defending the poppy crops... you have opium - you have guns around it... not to diminish the strategic value of old Silk Road - the afgan warlords are collecting a "tax" on every truck passing through their territory (usually a $1 for unit of cargo - 100 bails of something = $100, 500 CD players = $500 US$).

Russia can sustain a war far better than the US - everytime a war stepped into Russia, they survived... 1812 failure of Napoleon. 1945 failure of Hitler... most time they stepped out of Russia - they failed (not counting that Alps mission with General Suvorov, which was successful). in 1986 there was a huge dissent (Academician Sakharov), which raised awareness inside Russia. which dwindled the support for the war...
We are failing in afgan because we thought we could fast forward feudalic society stuck in Middle Ages into the XXI century... which proved not to be working...

TerminatorX5 01-23-2013 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blktoptrvl (Post 918254)
You think the USSR was committed to TOTAL Warfare in Afghanistan?

remember the August of 2008, when then newly elected Medvedev moved 1 mln man army into a 4 mln man nation of Georgia?

if soviets really wanted to commit to war in afgan, there would be no ethnic afganis left... like, ethnic talysh... or ethnic assirians... how often have you heard about those?

soviets were tippy-toeing with the war, and after death of Brezhnev in 1982, wanted to get out (with exemption of Andropov rule, he had a very tight grip on the ussr. even almost started a nuclear war with US during NATO"s Able Archer war game)

noncom23 01-23-2013 12:54 PM

You guys wanna post some facts to
back up anything you say?
Or do we just go with your
opinion?

Quicksilver 01-23-2013 12:59 PM

Being effected by gun violence can change your opinion.

Lawmakers touched by gun violence take debate personally - Yahoo! News

blktoptrvl 01-23-2013 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TerminatorX5 (Post 918255)
blktop - the article on afgan is piece of trash written by someone who had no clue about afgan, soviet union, poland, hungary or yugoslavia... if you care, find your own sources.

afgans were and still are defending the poppy crops... you have opium - you have guns around it... not to diminish the strategic value of old Silk Road - the afgan warlords are collecting a "tax" on every truck passing through their territory (usually a $1 for unit of cargo - 100 bails of something = $100, 500 CD players = $500 US$).

Russia can sustain a war far better than the US - everytime a war stepped into Russia, they survived... 1812 failure of Napoleon. 1945 failure of Hitler... most time they stepped out of Russia - they failed (not counting that Alps mission with General Suvorov, which was successful). in 1986 there was a huge dissent (Academician Sakharov), which raised awareness inside Russia. which dwindled the support for the war...
We are failing in afgan because we thought we could fast forward feudalic society stuck in Middle Ages into the XXI century... which proved not to be working...

Thanks, But...

I did not seek out or read the article, because I already knew that the Soviet-Afghan war was a proxy war, it was part of the cold war, and it was a LIMITED war. In no sense of the term could it be considered a TOTAL war.

TerminatorX5 01-23-2013 01:27 PM

Russia


as a matter of reference to Sakharov is interesting - he was pro-weapons, and later turned against weapons...

Andrei Sakharov - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sakharov was arrested on January 22, 1980, following his public protests against the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan in 1979, and was sent to internal exile in the city of Gorky, now Nizhny Novgorod, a city that was off-limits to foreigners.
On December 19, 1986, Mikhail Gorbachev, who had initiated the policies of perestroika and glasnost, called Sakharov to tell him that he and his wife may return to Moscow

Do you need links to sources showing Hitler's failure? or you will take my word for it? same goes for Napoleon in 1812. i can dig something for you... :)

or you are one of those who still believe that that WWII started with Japs bombing Pearl Harbor and ended with us bombing of Hirosima and Nagasaki?

you can't believe everything that you are told - and i commend you demanding facts... as long as you do it across the board...

and besides, i am not for taking your guns from you, i already said it before... i am for making sure that the guns are not in the hands of untrained people, regarless if they have the right to have it or not...

blktoptrvl 01-23-2013 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noncom23 (Post 918262)
You guys wanna post some facts to
back up anything you say?
Or do we just go with your
opinion?

The Soviets committed only 90,000 troops at any one time (a total of 650K served over the course of the war) to Afghanistan. They claimed to be there at the request of the Afghan Gov to assist them and not to be there to take over the country. In fact, they took over the capital and never moved into the countryside after.

90K out of 1M+ less than 9 percent of their Army. Doesn't sound like TOTAL war to me. How about you?

Frozen 01-23-2013 01:44 PM

fellow bmw enthusiasts, love the advice and the the tips about my car. not sure if this discussion is right for this board. pardon me for interjecting...

TerminatorX5 01-23-2013 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frozen (Post 918275)
fellow bmw enthusiasts, love the advice and the the tips about my car. not sure if this discussion is right for this board. pardon me for interjecting...


we are having fun - we still have more in common that unites us than differences that separate us...

at the end of the day, if my opponents are stranded on the roadside, i still will stop and offer a help... i am sure, they would do the same...

we are just exercising our 1st amendment right... that's all... lol..:D

noncom23 01-23-2013 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TerminatorX5 (Post 918278)
we are having fun - we still have more in common that unites us than differences that separate us...

at the end of the day, if my opponents are stranded on the roadside, i still will stop and offer a help... i am sure, they would do the same...

we are just exercising our 1st amendment right... that's all... lol..:D

Its the final stage resistor, I know it!
Damn...lol.

noncom23 01-23-2013 02:59 PM

Don't worry about the gun situation.
obama has it all in hand.

Check the personal gun stats btw.

Obama Tailoring Military Leadership to Only Those Who Will Shoot Fellow Americans

JCL 01-23-2013 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noncom23 (Post 918262)
You guys wanna post some facts to
back up anything you say?
Or do we just go with your
opinion?

Facts are good.

Quote:

Originally Posted by noncom23
Don't worry about the gun situation.
Obama has it all in hand.

Check the personal gun stats btw.

Obama Tailoring Military Leadership to Only Those Who Will Shoot Fellow Americans

A little short on facts, a little long on opinion.

JCL 01-23-2013 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noncom23 (Post 918224)
The idea of the entire article is to show that without weapons the people are only subjects to their dictatorial governments. Whether guns were there before or after the tyranny, the people can become free with weapons. With no weapons, no chance.

Can you see that concept?

Absolutely. But following your logic further, there are two potential threats in the US, compared to Afghanistan. If the threat is from outside your country, or for that matter inside, then you have an army, and a pretty big one at that, as well as various other forces. So I would conclude that you would only need your own weapons if the threat was your own government. You may need something bigger than a semi automatic rifle, in that case, even withstanding the Afghanistan example.

Quote:

Originally Posted by noncom23
Ok. Now we have weapons, take them away, where are we? No better off than any other country run by subjective dictators who
have weapons to point at us, while we have sticks. To you this is "splitting hairs". To us and many other oppressed peoples, this is loss of freedom.

But the question was, why are you jumping all the way to taking them away? The proposals being discussed are for some form of gun control, not confiscation of all weapons. Is every form of gun control a type of communist threat? If the answer is simply that you believe that every current gun regulation (all 15,000 of them) is a restriction of your rights, and that you would like them all removed, just say so.


Quote:

Originally Posted by noncom23
We keep our weapons to remind the government who is in charge. The US government works for the people. The people are in control. Most are too asleep to see it, but that is the fact.

OK, that clarifies that the threat, or at least one threat, is your government. Now you need to make sure you have enough weapons to overcome the US army et al.

JCL 01-23-2013 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noncom23 (Post 918224)
I know these words are wasted, but to many of us without freedom, there is no point in being here. We won't give our rights away at a whim because those rights are trivial to so many others blinded by their currnent beliefs and that they want to force those beliefs on us.

I separated this because I think it is a distinct point. I don't think words are wasted. I would much rather we discuss this with words, than be shooting at each other over it.

But here is something I think is a waste: the lives of children impacted by gun violence. I think they should have rights and security too.

Quote:

Protect Children, Not Guns
Key Facts
January 3, 2013

A child or teen dies or is injured from guns every 30 minutes.

 18,270 children and teens died or were injured from guns in 2010
 1 child or teen died or was injured every 30 minutes
 50 children and teens died or were injured every day
 351 children and teens died or were injured every week More children and teens die from guns every three days than died in the Newtown massacre.
 2,694 children and teens died from guns in 2010.
 1 child or teen died every 3 hours and 15 minutes
 7 children and teens died every day
 52 children and teens died every week
 Between 1979 and 2010, 119,079 children and teens died from guns. This is more child and teen deaths in 32 years than U.S. soldiers killed in action in the Vietnam (47,434), Korean (33,739), Afghanistan (1,712), and Iraq (3,518) wars combined. The number of children under five who died from guns was more than the number of law enforcement officers who died from guns in the line of duty in 2010.
 82 children under five died from guns in 2010, compared to 58 law enforcement officers killed by guns in the line of duty. Three times more children and teens were injured by guns in 2010 than the number of U.S. soldiers wounded in action that year in the Afghanistan war.
 15,576 children and teens were injured by guns in 2010.
 1 child or teen injured every 34 minutes
 43 children and teens injured every day
 300 children and teens injured every week
Full article here, with data links and sources.

Protect Children, Not Guns 2012

noncom23 01-23-2013 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCL (Post 918327)
I separated this because I think it is a distinct point. I don't think words are wasted. I would much rather we discuss this with words, than be shooting at each other over it.

But here is something I think is a waste: the lives of children impacted by gun violence. I think they should have rights and security too.



Full article here, with data links and sources.

Protect Children, Not Guns 2012

So if all Americans give up their weapons, no more
children will be hurt by guns? If I thought that were
true I would give up my weapons tomrrow.
That argument is kind of old and tired.

Quicksilver 01-23-2013 08:26 PM

Well it seems to me you answered your own question
And your correct if everyone gave up guns no more
Children, in fact no one would be hurt by guns again.:thumbup:

The truth is its not an argument that's old and tired. In fact
It's not an argument at all. It's an answere that would
Solve gun violence. It's also nice to know you would
comply.


Quote:

Originally Posted by noncom23 (Post 918356)
So if all Americans give up their weapons, no more
children will be hurt by guns? If I thought that were
true I would give up my weapons tomrrow.
That argument is kind of old and tired.


noncom23 01-23-2013 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quicksilver (Post 918359)
Well it seems to me you answered your own question
And your correct if everyone gave up guns no more
Children, in fact no one would be hurt by guns again.:thumbup:

The truth is its not an argument that's old and tired. In fact
It's not an argument at all. It's an answere that would
Solve gun violence. It's also nice to know you would
comply.

Prove it.

Quicksilver 01-23-2013 09:45 PM

I don't believe I need to prove your comments.
I took your comments as genuine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by noncom23 (Post 918361)
Prove it.


noncom23 01-23-2013 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quicksilver (Post 918382)
I don't believe I need to prove your comments.
I took your comments as genuine.

Not my words. JCL's link and stats. Come on Quick, keep
up! :nanana:

JCL 01-24-2013 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noncom23 (Post 918356)
So if all Americans give up their weapons, no more
children will be hurt by guns? If I thought that were true I would give up my weapons tomrrow.
That argument is kind of old and tired.

Prove it?

Those are just American children btw, so those are the ones we are trying to save here. Statistics from the CDC and verifiable. No blog opinions. Links to source data in the link I provided.

Taking away the guns (if that was possible) takes away the gun violence. You can't shoot someone without a gun. It doesn't take away the potential for violence, of course. But no guns equals no gun violence, correct. And a reasonable assumption is that fewer guns equals less gun violence. That is achievable.

How about this one. 800 child gun suicides per year in the US. We could affect that number. And a far greater number of accidental shootings could be impacted at the same time.

Children. With rights to life and liberty.

JCL 01-24-2013 12:35 AM

Here is another sobering thought.

34,387 children and teens in the US were reported to be injured by guns in 2008 and 2009. That is more than the number of US military personnel wounded in Iraq, and more than double the number wounded in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan, where they were fighting tyranny a few posts up.

So, what if the threat of tyranny wasn't in Iraq or Afghanistan, but right in our backyards? During peacetime? And we were collectively enabling it?

noncom23 01-24-2013 09:09 AM

So if you take my gun, against
the Constitution btw, then
criminals won't have guns?
You will come to my house
in time to save me after
a criminal breaks into
my home?

Quicksilver 01-24-2013 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCL (Post 918409)
Prove it?

Taking away the guns (if that was possible) takes away the gun violence. You can't shoot someone without a gun. It doesn't take away the potential for violence, of course. But no guns equals no gun violence, correct. And a reasonable assumption is that fewer guns equals less gun violence. That is achievable.

:iagree: Why this is so hard for others to understand is beyond me.

noncom23 01-24-2013 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quicksilver (Post 918472)
:iagree: Why this is so hard for others to understand is beyond me.

So anybody gonna address my question?
Or just ignoring self defense?


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:56 PM.

vBulletin, Copyright 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0
© 2017 Xoutpost.com. All rights reserved.