In terms of statistics why do they not compare actual homocides with a subset for gun homocides, adjusted for population of course?
|
Also, when you look at the FBI totals for murder in 2011 more people are killed with fists/feet than rifles (all types). Just saying...
Also, those numbers should exclude suicides. Lots of "gun free" countries have much higher suicide rates than the US. |
Quote:
Why call the police? |
Quote:
My argument is that if you use it irresponsibly (and I consider allowing it to be stolen irresponsible) or allow it to be used improperly through negligence, then you should be held accountable. Wanting to have instant access should not be more important than taking measures to insure that it does not fall into the wrong hands. As I said, it would be about personal choice but the consequences would be severe. |
How does anyone allow a gun to be stolen? Like they just open up the door and say here you go please steal my ****. That's asinine. That's like saying oh you allowed yourself to be raped, you allowed yourself to be mugged, you allowed yourself to be T boned by a drunk driver and killed. I guess all bad things that happen are your own fault because you allowed them to happen.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Tapatalk 2 |
You know what they say, "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6."
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Tapatalk 2 |
Quote:
|
Although I do agree there has to be some sort of middle ground (of which I don't know what that could possibly be), I don't feel punishing those who "allow" their firearms to be stolen (by means of irresponsible storage in their homes) would be a plausible solution. How many of us lock our medicine cabinets where we keep our prescription drugs? How about our shelves where we keep our alcohol? How about our cars? All three can easily be stolen from somebody's home, and, when used irresponsibly, all three can have tragic consequences.
Interesting discussion though... |
Quote:
We have baby sitters over several times a month, we feel that we know the sitters well but rather not give them the chance to snag a bottle, play with a gun, get at some meds... not to mention miniMagic staying out of trouble. We have also started down the path to be a foster child respite provider and having booze, meds, and fire arms locked up are all required criteria. |
Quote:
So again, I don't follow what you are saying. What is the magic phrase you want me to say so you can proclaim that you are right and I am wrong. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
You set the scene with "your teaching," instead of "you're teaching" (you Mean "you are teaching," right?). I wouldn't generally be a grammar cop, but you are criticizing a teacher's abilities, so I think you've opened the door. Then you say that wake77 should teach kids to "think and reason for themselves." We'll set aside that he's said he's a math teacher for a moment. You go on to complain that Wake77 argues and disputes everyone's thoughts on WW. Is that not the very definition of thinking and reasoning for himself? Essentially you've said "think and reason for yourself... I can tell you don't because you disagree with me." Irony can be so ironic sometimes. |
There is nothing on earth that you can posess that cannot be stolen from behind a lock. Then the argument will be passed down to "how big a lock" is considered reasonable effort.
It is foolish to legislate restrictions on a free private society in an attempt to mitigate the behavior of those who arent participating in said society (following the rules). The answer is for the punishment of simple gun crime (armed robbery\poss of stolen gun) to be so severe that its not worth the risk, and for the public to defend themselves from potential nuts. A free society is going to have tragedies every now and then. They cannot be eliminated preemptively. Those who dont follow the rules cannot be stopped by creating rules for those that do. Ever wonder why you never hear of anyone holding up a gunstore? Is it because criminals dont feel like gun stores have any money? The gun stores register sits on the counter. A convienence store register sits behind glass, yet they still choose to rob the convienence store where there is less money and its harder to get to. Why do you think that is? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
3 February 1990, Washington The following mind-boggling attempt at a crime spree appeared to be the robber's first, due to his lack of a previous record of violence, and his terminally stupid choices: 1. His target was H&J Leather & Firearms. A gun shop. 2. The shop was full of customers - firearms customers. 3. To enter the shop, the robber had to step around a marked police patrol car parked at the front door. 4. A uniformed officer was standing at the counter, having coffee before work. Upon seeing the officer, the would-be robber announced a holdup, and fired a few wild shots. The officer and a clerk promptly returned fire, covered by several customers who also drew their guns, thereby removing the confused criminal from the gene pool. No one else was hurt. |
Quote:
The woman in Connecticut allowed her guns to be stolen by her son and he murdered 26 people. The fact that its asinine doesn't excuse it from being the cause of the school shooting, the mall shooting and many many other acts of violence. |
So i guess if someone breaks into my house, steals my keys, takes my car, and kills someone it's my fault because I "allowed" them to steal my car? I still find that a ridiculous argument.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Tapatalk 2 |
Quote:
And here is the problem with half of America. People actually think that gun storage caused a shooting spree, and not some derranged lunatic. Blame anyone except the guy who did it. If he would have ran them all over with a car on the playground, we wouldnt be looking for heavier car restrictions, nor would we blame the person from whom he stole the car. It would be just as tragic and all the blame would be on the idiot, not the car, nor who it was stolen from. |
I think the idea (and it was not put well) is that if you have a mentally ill son, maybe it isn't the best idea to drum up an interest in guns and shooting, hmm? If your neighbor didn't properly fence in their dog and it ran into the yard and mauled or killed your toddler, I'm sure you'd be focusing your blame solely on the dog.
|
Agreed Wes.
|
Thank you Wes, that is a very good analogy.
detonate69, its about gross negligence. What many of you folks are missing is what I said in my initial statement, "The idea is that there aren't a lot of fines, just the threat of the fine leading to a lot more secured guns." And again, I never said its perfect. I'm trying to find a middle ground that is somewhat acceptable for both sides of a deeply divided issues. Jason, there is no doubt that this was the work of a sick individual, first and foremost. However, things would have gone vastly different if guns were not accessible. Yeah he could have caused harm with any weapon but instead he had access to an incredibly powerful array of guns. What might be common sense to some apparently isn't all that common. The other thing, to say that the other half of America is wrong is sadly insular. We as Americans, need to stop claiming to be right and work towards compromise on all issues. People feel very strongly on either side of the argument, one side will not win. I thought what I was saying was a compromise worth discussing. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
A. Dog owner B. Dog C. Teeth |
If its easier, which of the three is least to blame?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
So the framers intended the second amendment for you stop you foes? Is that what you are trying to say?
|
The framers believed that in order for a state to remain truly free, its citizenship must retain the right to own the weaponry that would allow them to band together and defend their land from foreign invaders as well as a corrupt government. They knew the history of what invaders can do to an unarmed\underarmed society, and they lived through a corrupt government that they were defenseless against. They simply did not want their new republic to repeat any of these mistakes.
Lets face it, we've already failed somewhat as the weapons we are allowed to own to defend ourselves against a corrupt government pale in comparison to what the government allows themselves. In that respect, we are already subjects rather than citizens. |
Quote:
|
Jason again...Always clouding the thread with facts and ideas that matter.
You don't get it, how I perceive things and how I feel dictate reality. :rolleyes: |
Quote:
|
Have you guys READ the second amendment?
"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." Where does it say anything about overthrowing government, even a corrupt one? Where does it say anything about the weak and the strong? In fact, where does it say anything about hunting? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Carrying doesn't mean you are prepared at all. A gun is a tool and carrying it doesn't make you better at using it, anymore than I can learn the guitar by carrying one around. |
Surely you know by prepared i mean trained and proficient with a gun your going to carry.
|
http://kontradictions.wordpress.com/...-ill-tell-you/
Good read gun control, specifically "assault" and high capacity magazines. Regarding carrying, I only carry what I practice with at the range. Picked up a Glock 27 last week and its locked up till the wife and I go get comfortable with it. |
Quote:
(Hint: This is one of the many areas where there can be common ground) |
None of this is even up for debate. You live in the USA. If you don't like the 2A, don't buy a gun. If you want to take mine... good luck. You always have the option to move to a country where like minded people live. Do you ever wonder why the US gets called on everytime there is conflict in the world? We are the "Land of the free. Home of the brave" for a reason. We fought (with firearms) for our freedom.
If you have to ask why anybody needs a "assault rifle" then you don't understand the 2A. It was not written to allow us to have hunting rifles. It was written to prevent citizens from being disarmed by tyranny. Please read the history books about assaults on citizens rights to arm themselves. As for the whole "assault rifle" argument: What is an "assault rifle"? Would a baseball bat used in a crime be termed a "assault bat"? Is it because it's painted black or doesn't have a wood stock? There are plenty of semi-automatic hunting rifles and shotguns. How are they any different functionallly from a so-callled "assault rifle"? .... And if you think our rifles would prove ineffective against our government during some type of civil war I think that you are sorely wrong. Why are we having such a hard time fighting the wars in Afghanistan? What I'm saying is; Your opinion is up to you. That's the beauty of living in this country. But, that's it.... It's your opinion. The 2A is our right as dictated by our constitution. It shall not be perverted because of politial agenda or fearful perception. Sorry, it's just not on the table. |
|
Quote:
|
Sax thing is this will probably be passed
Sent from my iPhone newtys droid killer using Tapatalk |
Fook me! I knew i should have purchased the FN Scar when i had the chance! :banghead:
|
Here are some interesting statistics
http://rense.com/general95/gun-history.html |
Quote:
http://www.gunbroker.com/All/BI.aspx...s=keltec+pmr30 They are going for more than double that now. Glad I bought a case of ammo a few weeks back too, even .22WMR is going up and getting hard to find (no where bad as .223) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
http://kontradictions.wordpress.com/...-ill-tell-you/
That article was written by a Democrat (or leftist as he calls himself), and I beg the anti-gun people in this topic to please read it. It was posted up in one of the Assault Weapons ban posts, but since there is literally zero liberal activity in there, I am posting it here. No slandering, no arguing about intelligence, just the cold hard facts relating to assault weapons, high capacity magazines and the crimes committed with such weaponry. Feinstein is trying to pass a bill that will force all existing gun owners to register their firearm, pay huge tax penalties (because let's be honest, having to pay taxes for owning a firearm is a penalty) and to register your photo ID and fingerprint with the weapon's serial number. That will create what is essentially a national database of who has what weapons, what magazines and what not. Which has been proven time and time again to be the first step behind taking firearms from the citizens. Anyone who turns this debate into some insult war like all of you have need to stop, breathe, grow up and try to be mature about the topic. This isn't about who's right and wrong, or about who is smarter or less brainwashed, it's about a free America. Statistics have shown that the weapons that will be banned actually prevent more crime than they'll stop, and it will not stop "mass shootings." And if anyone feels the need to insult me, bring it on, because I'm one and doneing with this post. I won't respond to attacks, questions or even continue posting. I have tried to stay out of political discussions on this board for quite a while (job hunting and all), especially since all that anyone has ever done is attempted to belittle and infuriate me. I don't have the time or the tolerance for it. Happy New Years everyone! |
Wow, that's actually a really good article. I'm not sure how anyone could honestly and seriously argue against it after reading.
|
Good article. And I liked this link from it, holy crap:
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/NxzrahUUTi8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> |
I think it was a good article, but I don't think just because something happens with less frequency should mean that we shouldn't address the problem. I mean, I am sure I could come up with comparable numbers of the number of Americans killed in terrorist attacks as opposed to say, automobile deaths. That didn't stop us from waging two full scale wars with the price tag of thousands of US servicemen and hundreds of billions of dollars.
|
To further elaborate, as the author attempts to argue, why not devote all the resources to eliminating automobile deaths before waging war against the Taliban and Saddam?
|
This is crazier than I ever thought. This week I wanted to buy an ar 15 upper and upon a little research it appears that every single ar 15 item is sold out. I expected complete guns and lowers but not all of the parts that are not part of the "registered gun"
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
^And how do you go about that? The shooter at the school had no criminal record, wouldn't that make him a "law abiding citizen"? That's the problem with these guys. Most of them have no criminal background until they go on their shooting spree. And if you are perhaps advocating psychological testing to buy firearms, wouldn't that fit your definition of "hassling law abiding citizens"? So I am just curious of what should be done because so far we haven't heard many viable solutions. One side wants to ban certain weapons while another side wants nothing done except putting more arms in the public.
|
Quote:
Nobody knows! You can't accurately predict human behavior. The best you can do is predict future behavior by past behavior, but that's not always accurate. Once you find a way to predict it, how do you control it? Essentially the gun ban crowd's position is " We don't know how to fix the problem, but we must do something at any cost". That's not a solution! Doing 'something' is sometimes worse than doing nothing as collateral damage becomes a bigger issue.The ONLY way a gun ban will work is if it were a complete ban- all firearms gone with one fell swoop and that can't happen. If it were possible the weapon of choice would simply be the next effective tool. You're chasing your tail. Limiting firearms will not change the heart of a human being set on harming other human beings. Come talk to me once you've figured out how to control and then predict the heart of man. Anything less and you're back to just 'something'. |
Great question! Now your creating dialogue in the right direction. First, these people are not normal people who just flip out. This kid was known to be disturbed. Just because he hasnt commited a crime does not mean he should not be a concern. Second, back in the 60's and 70's, the NFL (and other sports) had problems with streakers. They wanted their 15 seconds of fame and wanted to get a chuckle out of the audience. The NFL stopped showing them in the broadcast. Those who did it stopped getting the attention that such an action was looking to attract. Eventually it stopped happening for the most part. There is no reason we should even know this kids name. The media has to stop breaking down these individuals after these events. These people are messed up and they see that mass shooters names go down in history and become legend. For someone messed up who feels the world is ignoring them, this kind of action is just what they need, and our media fuels their belief that they will get the attention of the world for weeks on end. Third, we need to defend ourselves against these nutjobs. Schools all over the nation need to take a page from the California book.
IMO, as soon as these nuts know we are on to them, they see that we dont care who these nuts are, and they know they will probably fail against a ready defense, mass shootings will simply stop being a proven method for the nutjob to get what he wants. |
The media should report that there was a shooting, mention no names, and move on. There is no reason that there should be 24/7 coverage promoting the criminal.
|
Unfortunatley that won't happen in the information age.
|
Jason nailed it. Interesting the people who want to regulate the most are typically the people who end up giving power to those who commit the crime. They are legends. Show after show on cable channels dedicated to them. They should be dead to society.
|
I think you guys hit the nail on the head. All you hear about are the crazies committing crimes. How many people heard about this a few days after the killings in CT?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-...tonio-theater/ Probably not many because the media failed to report this issue nationally. In my opinion, because it showed the value of owning guns for self-defense, it was not reported. The media is so liberal it is ridiculous. Bottom line... With freedom, there are many possibilities. I am wondering when all cars will be governed to 70 mph by the government??? Same ridiculous concept. |
I hear you on the car issue except cars are an object of desire and drives a huge chunk of our society and economy. The facts do hold true that excessive speed on the roads causes many deaths, it will not change because of previous sentence. Guns on the other hand are not. They are considered by many to be a threat to society even though the facts do not hold true. Matter of fact, many professional politicians know the history of the gun and know guns are a threat to dictators.
|
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Ooa98FHuaU0?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
|
The media is driving this crap. Look at the first responders reports at the school shooting. Handguns found in the school. NO Ar-15. Ar-15 was found in the trunk of the car. There is absolute proof of this in a police helicopter video showing the cops taking the gun out of the car, unloading it and securing it. The vid is all over the internet for people to see. The doctor's report about bullet holes in the victims being 223 caliber is complete bull****. How can they be when the gun is clearly shown being taken out of the shooter's car. There is an egenda with this shooting and the press is leading it. May be the govt telling them to do so, or could be that the media is so liberal sided.
The media decides what we hear and see. The media wants a gun ban. This is what makes them interesting and $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ |
"Bottom line... With freedom, there are many possibilities. I am wondering when all cars will be governed to 70 mph by the government??? Same ridiculous concept."
Like when all cars are automatically driven and there are zero accidents? The people that think they are going to be attacked by the government do not have a valid argument because we can change the government with a vote, so nobody is going to revolt against our government when they can simply vote them out of office. we could even get rid of the president mid office if we wanted to. If we had No guns would crime go down? probably not, like alot of people have already said guns don't kill people, mental, unstable people kill people! |
Sure we can vote them out, as long as the government doesn't change the rules or interpret the rules in a way that keeps us from doing so. But they can't do that, right? Oh wait... They are doing it to the 2nd amendment now.
|
Joe - The Nazi party rose to power in a democratic state...:rolleyes: They were voted into absolute power with the party taking advantage of the system.
|
Hayes, bad example, Hitler was not elected chancellor of germany, he was appointed. Germany ceased to be a monarchy in 1918, when it became a republic, so it had very week democratic principles and was easy for hitler to convert to a Dictatorship once he was appointed. Also, he was born in Austria. He could never have been elected in USA. Do you think hitler was peaceful and non-antisematic when he was growing the nazi party? He joined the party because they were a militant group and antisematic. He was serving a prison term when he started writing mein-kopf.
Nobody is going to touch the 2A, that is a vote that will have to go to the people, so even if the government instituted martial law the people could vote them out and reintate it, no reason to go to war. |
SO... Anyone know where I can get a mini 14, m1a, or m1 carbine on a budget? Any preferred websites or stores that I could order from?
|
Joe - I said the Nazi party, not Hitler. Similar to our Congress / Senate. They slowly took over and gained absolute power.
Parliamentary elections were held in Germany (including recently-annexed Austria) on 10 April 1938.[1] They were the final elections to the Reichstag during Nazi rule and took the form of a single-question referendum asking whether voters approved of a single Nazi-party list for the 813-member Reichstag as well as the recent annexation of Austria (the Anschluss). Turnout in the election was officially 99.5% with 98.9% voting "yes".[1] In the case of Austria, Hitler's native soil, 99.71% of an electorate of 4,484,475 officially went to the ballots, with a positive tally of 99.73%. |
Also, both Germany and the U.S. are democratic republics. Germany was transformed to a dictatorship.
|
I thought my little corner of the world was slightly sheltered from the craziness but boy was I wrong. Just got back from the Spokane gun show and prices have doubled from a month ago. DPMS complete upper for $1200 and lowers selling for 400-500. Wtf!?! Any complete AR with any type of optic was $2000-3000 all throughout the show. I couldn't believe it. Best PMAG price was 40 but most were priced 60-70. Sure am glad I snuck in my purchases last month. People watching at these things is definately one of my favorite ways to kill time :)
Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2 |
Hayes still a BAD example, I said Germany had only been a Republic for 12 years! You cannot compare their situation with our democracy which has been in existence for over 235 years!
|
You''re right, Pound, but over regulation is just as effective by making gun ownership unaffordable for the majority of people. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/whi...ves-2013-01-06
|
"The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state-controlled police and military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of democracy. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military. The hired servants of our rulers. Only the government-and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws." (Edward Abbey, "The Right to Arms," Abbey's Road [New York, 1979])
|
Quote:
//thread drift over, carry on. |
Quote:
The bigger question is do most know who he is :D |
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:06 PM. |