|
boondock_saint
Jun 16, 2006, 11:37 AM
Post #26 of 211
(3498 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 6, 2005
Posts: 2157
|
If you actually look at the crime stats I think it's pretty irrelevant if you have a gun or not. Most crimes are intra-racial and happen in ethnic lower-income households. So draw your own conclusion here on whether or not you need a gun. (If you're white and not poor, chances are you don't really need to carry a concealed weapon)
|
|
|
|
|
rhaig
Jun 16, 2006, 1:04 PM
Post #27 of 211
(3498 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 27, 2006
Posts: 2179
|
In reply to: In reply to: Man, this may sound crazy but I bet more Americans have died by lederhosen strangulation than have Swiss, now if you were talking fondue skewering and cuckoo clock blugeonings........ I gotta call BS. No self-respecting American would be caught dead in lederhosen. 'Cept mebbe those freaks up in Wisconsin, but can you blame 'em? Heck, they don't even have a decent football team anymore... nothing left to do but eat cheese, drink beer, and wear women's clothing. Not that there's anything wrong with that, you know. In reply to: What you propose is a form of gun control, if mandatory training and education is what you are getting at. OK, I'll give you that, but it's not "Gun Control" in the same sense you were advocating before (i.e. a ban on guns.) It's only "gun control" in the same sense that having to take a driving exam to get a license to drive is "car control." it's also what we call registration. It's the first step to confiscation. Look at Austrailia from about 6-7 years ago and how they did their gun laws and the slow approach they took.
|
|
|
|
|
rhaig
Jun 16, 2006, 1:06 PM
Post #28 of 211
(3498 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 27, 2006
Posts: 2179
|
In reply to: In reply to: apples and oranges. look at the rate of change of the violent crime numbers around the time that the guns were banned. look also at the same rates in states in the US that passed concealed handgun laws. In Texas, there was a decrease in the rate of increase of violent crime about 6 months after the CHL law was passed. That was about the time that the law was tested in court. empahsis mine. i wouldnt call that a success. a success would be a decrease of the rate of violent crime. I agree that a decrease would be a success. My point was that the CHL had a positive impact on the crime rate. I wasn't spinning for success or failure.
In reply to: anyway, i wont get into details now because i go climbing in 45min and i still havent eaten or packed. but i think that comparing usa with other countries that have stricter gun laws is comparing apples and oranges. why? because of the numeber of (legal and illegal) guns in usa. and if you made a law that requried citizens to return their guns, you can bet that the honest ppl would be the only ones to abide by it. criminals would happily keep theirs. so while im am against pro-gun-laws, i strongly believe that implementing stricter laws in the usa would be a BIG mistake. it would just make a bigger mess than it already is. The first thing we need to do in all states is enforce the laws already on the books. I am in agreement with you there. The only pro-gun law I like is the concealed handgun law. And it doesn't force anything on anyone. It just provides the opportunity.
|
|
|
|
|
fenix83
Moderator
Jun 16, 2006, 4:42 PM
Post #29 of 211
(3498 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 23, 2004
Posts: 2397
|
In reply to: So you figure the W.H.O. has a secret agenda? What would that be? W.H.O. is a UN body, and they have a thoroughly public agenda, International gun control. Townhall Article WorldNetDaily Rep. Ron Paul, MD
In reply to: Where would you pursue your gun deaths stats, the N.R.A. or other gun company sponsered groups? Despite the fact that I don't trust the UN on this issue, I didn't criticize it, I just said I would like to pursue the data and collection method. The same would be true of an NRA report etc...
In reply to: Really, what does it matter if the deaths are criminal/self defence. Of course it matters! A legal death caused by the exercise of my right to self defense means an innocent survived a violent encounter because he was armed. How can that be a bad thing? Do you believe in the right to self-defense?
In reply to: Are you implying that these other countries are with higher crime rates (not true) because people do not own guns? I am saying, quite clearly, that this statistics prove nothing, because they don't look at the whole picture. Previous posts have discussed this (rhaig)
In reply to: Are you implying that the USA is less violent country because of guns, less violent than any of the above countries? I said no such thing. Violent behavior is the consequence of a variety of things, social, cultural, nature vs nurture, etc... Saying people are more or less violent in the US because of guns is like saying people are more obese because a lot of frying pans were sold. -F
|
|
|
|
|
fenix83
Moderator
Jun 16, 2006, 4:53 PM
Post #30 of 211
(3498 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 23, 2004
Posts: 2397
|
In reply to: In reply to: However that does not change the statistics that clearly show a relationship between guns and death. I feel this makes a good argument for gun control in countries without current (major) gun problems, my own country, Canada for an example. Sure, I see your point, but on the whole, America has a lower rate of accidental strangulation by lederhosen than does, say, Switzerland. Should the Swiss ban lederhosen? Guys, basically every household in Switzerland has a gun and training, you know, from compulsory military service, and until a couple of years ago, they even got a box of grenades (not sure if it is still the case), and you are using the Swiss as a "good" example... CR doesn't even have an army, the police force is a joke, we have a pretty bad immigration (illegal) problem and lots of guns (getting a legal CCW is easy here)... guess what, very low homicide rates too... -F
|
|
|
|
|
epic_ed
Jun 16, 2006, 5:45 PM
Post #31 of 211
(3498 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2002
Posts: 4724
|
In reply to: If you actually look at the crime stats I think it's pretty irrelevant if you have a gun or not. Most crimes are intra-racial and happen in ethnic lower-income households. So draw your own conclusion here on whether or not you need a gun. (If you're white and not poor, chances are you don't really need to carry a concealed weapon) Did you really write that? So you've never been a victim of a violent crime, have you? Crime trends may support part of your statement, but that doesn't exclude the thousands of crimes that occur every year against people who don't fit the narrow stereo-type you mention above. And it certainly doesn't make me (whitey) immune to crime. If you don't think it can happen to you, then you're just not paying attention. Tell you what -- you protect yourself but stuffing your head up your ass and hoping no one ever visits you with violent intentions. I'll keep packing a gun. I'll also be the first guy you turn to looking for protection when the wolf comes knocking. Ed
|
|
|
|
|
rhaig
Jun 16, 2006, 5:50 PM
Post #32 of 211
(3498 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 27, 2006
Posts: 2179
|
In reply to: Guys, basically every household in Switzerland has a gun and training, you know, from compulsory military service, and until a couple of years ago, they even got a box of grenades (not sure if it is still the case), and you are using the Swiss as a "good" example... CR doesn't even have an army, the police force is a joke, we have a pretty bad immigration (illegal) problem and lots of guns (getting a legal CCW is easy here)... guess what, very low homicide rates too... -F if we had compulsory federal service, or federal service in return for some lifelong benefit (ala starship troopers... the book, not the movie. don't bring up that cartoony piece of crap) I think everyone would understand and probably care about the workings of the country a little more. everyone knowing how to use a gun is not a bad thing. rather than people comparing homicide rates, or "gun deaths", how about talking about violent crime rates. After all, once you lefties ban guns, we'll still be able to commit violent crime until we ban hammers, and baseball bats, and sticks, and cars, and wrenches, and chains....
|
|
|
|
|
epic_ed
Jun 16, 2006, 6:20 PM
Post #33 of 211
(3498 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2002
Posts: 4724
|
Or, we can just keeping banning weapons all the way back to the "club" used by cave men. When you take the weapons out of the hands of law abiding citizens you have guaranteed that society will be dominated by the physical strong and superior. The small and weak will be forced to defend themselves with inferior weapons and the table will be set for rape and pillage. It's already happening in England where knife violence has increased at an alarming rate. Who has a better chance of winning a knife fight? Someone physically more superior. My wife, your girlfriend, our parents have very little chance in hand to hand combat againsts maurading thieves. A gun is the only weapon that gives everyone the same chance to win a battle. Ed
|
|
|
|
|
epic_ed
Jun 16, 2006, 6:32 PM
Post #34 of 211
(3498 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2002
Posts: 4724
|
In reply to: If you actually look at the crime stats I think it's pretty irrelevant if you have a gun or not. Most crimes are intra-racial and happen in ethnic lower-income households. So draw your own conclusion here on whether or not you need a gun. (If you're white and not poor, chances are you don't really need to carry a concealed weapon) Here are a few examples of "white and not poor" who didn't need a gun. There are hundreds of stories like this around the country every day that defy your ridiculous conclusion. http://www.azcentral.com/...421coldcase0421.html http://www.azcentral.com/...414coldcase0414.html http://www.azcentral.com/...331coldcase0331.html I could cut and paste all day -- I hope you get the point. Ed
|
|
|
|
|
epic_ed
Jun 16, 2006, 6:35 PM
Post #35 of 211
(3498 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2002
Posts: 4724
|
In reply to: If you actually look at the crime stats I think it's pretty irrelevant if you have a gun or not. Most crimes are intra-racial and happen in ethnic lower-income households. So draw your own conclusion here on whether or not you need a gun. (If you're white and not poor, chances are you don't really need to carry a concealed weapon) Here are a few examples of "white and not poor" who could didn't need a gun. There are hundreds of stories like this around the countryevery day that defy your ridiculous conclusion. http://www.azcentral.com/...421coldcase0421.html http://www.azcentral.com/...414coldcase0414.html http://www.azcentral.com/...331coldcase0331.html I could cut and paste all day -- I hope you get the point. Ed
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Jun 16, 2006, 6:53 PM
Post #36 of 211
(3498 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
In reply to: Guys, basically every household in Switzerland has a gun and training, you know, from compulsory military service, and until a couple of years ago, they even got a box of grenades (not sure if it is still the case), and you are using the Swiss as a "good" example... Apparently the sarcasm and humor got lost in translation.
|
|
|
|
|
fenix83
Moderator
Jun 16, 2006, 7:24 PM
Post #37 of 211
(3498 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 23, 2004
Posts: 2397
|
In reply to: In reply to: Guys, basically every household in Switzerland has a gun and training, you know, from compulsory military service, and until a couple of years ago, they even got a box of grenades (not sure if it is still the case), and you are using the Swiss as a "good" example... Apparently the sarcasm and humor got lost in translation. Meh, at least the point got across... -F
|
|
|
|
|
bill
Jun 16, 2006, 7:31 PM
Post #38 of 211
(3498 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2004
Posts: 1061
|
Check out these BBC articles on "knife crime" and "knife amnesty" :shock: http://news.bbc.co.uk/.../uk_news/5086922.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/.../uk_news/4694278.stm I did like this part though
In reply to: As well as knives, Devon and Cornwall police also received an 8lb anti-tank rocket launcher, known as a "tankbuster", which has a range of up to 350 metres. A force spokesman said: "The amnesty is for all weapons and if someone wants to get rid of a rocket launcher, that's fine by us."
|
|
|
|
|
danooguy
Jun 23, 2006, 4:04 AM
Post #39 of 211
(3498 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 31, 2002
Posts: 3659
|
Its always amuses me when someone that seems to be against the ownership of firearms for personal protection finally comes out and says something like this:
In reply to: I have lived in California, and I considered getting a gun when I lived there. So when its your ass on the line it just might be okay to own a firearm, eh?
|
|
|
|
|
zozo
Jun 23, 2006, 4:15 AM
Post #40 of 211
(3498 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 3, 2004
Posts: 3431
|
In reply to: Its always amuses me when someone that seems to be against the ownership of firearms for personal protection finally comes out and says something like this: In reply to: I have lived in California, and I considered getting a gun when I lived there. So when its your ass on the line it just might be okay to own a firearm, eh? Awesome! danooguy is back and bastardizing and cherry picking quotes again. And before the NRA talking points book get's opened up I am very skepitcal of gun control and would never suppoert "BANNING GUNS!!!!!"
|
|
|
|
|
danooguy
Jun 23, 2006, 1:08 PM
Post #41 of 211
(3498 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 31, 2002
Posts: 3659
|
In reply to: Awesome! danooguy is back and bastardizing and cherry picking quotes again. If you call illustrating the disparity in his bastardized reasoning "cherrypicking," then I suppose you're right.
In reply to: And before the NRA talking points book get's opened up I am very skepitcal of gun control and would never suppoert "BANNING GUNS!!!!!" You're "skeptical" of gun control? How warm and fuzzy. You're well-suited as yet another board toadie, sniping from the sidelines. :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
tradman
Jun 23, 2006, 2:09 PM
Post #42 of 211
(3498 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159
|
In reply to: Or, we can just keeping banning weapons all the way back to the "club" used by cave men. When you take the weapons out of the hands of law abiding citizens you have guaranteed that society will be dominated by the physical strong and superior. The small and weak will be forced to defend themselves with inferior weapons and the table will be set for rape and pillage. It's already happening in England where knife violence has increased at an alarming rate. Who has a better chance of winning a knife fight? Someone physically more superior. My wife, your girlfriend, our parents have very little chance in hand to hand combat againsts maurading thieves. A gun is the only weapon that gives everyone the same chance to win a battle. Know what the difference between you and people in the UK is? We in teh UK don't want guns, because we're not convinced that we and our families are about to be robbed and raped at any moment. There's a word for people like you who are afraid to stand up for themselves, and you won't like it very much.
|
|
|
|
|
madriver
Jun 23, 2006, 2:34 PM
Post #43 of 211
(3498 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 17, 2001
Posts: 8700
|
...heh....yeah the English have found better weapons to smash peoples brains in...
In reply to: Mixed feelings on this European news tidbit, about how soccer hooligans are using cellphones in lieu of knives and crowbars. On the one hand, it’s great to see outmoded gadgets put to some use, apart from cluttering up closets and landfills. On the other, I’ll bet that getting pegged in the forehead by a Nokia handset hurts like nobody’s business. Though I guess that serves some wankers right for rooting for Blackburn Rovers. http://www.gizmodo.com/...images/Hooligans.JPG http://www.gizmodo.com/...ellphones-026367.php
|
|
|
|
|
timstich
Jun 23, 2006, 2:39 PM
Post #44 of 211
(3498 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 3, 2003
Posts: 6267
|
In the US you are more likely to get shot. In the UK, you are more likely to have your brains stomped out by a mob. Take your pick. :lol: At one time I believed the paranoia about getting attacked, but it was based on my experiences in public school and then later living in Philadelphia. But I learned over time that one could mitigate risk to oneself by behavior, being alert at night on the street, and now having a cell phone. I prefer something like mace on the street, because if used against me or someone I am with it won't kill us. Guns are best kept at home, unloaded, and out of the way of visitors to your home like children. Big doors, double-paned glass, and an alarm system are better investments for home security. To hell with burglar bars, though. I refuse to live like I am in a prison.
|
|
|
|
|
fenix83
Moderator
Jun 23, 2006, 3:28 PM
Post #45 of 211
(3498 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 23, 2004
Posts: 2397
|
In reply to: Know what the difference between you and people in the UK is? We in teh UK don't want guns, because we're not convinced that we and our families are about to be robbed and raped at any moment. There's a word for people like you who are afraid to stand up for themselves, and you won't like it very much. Hmm... really?
In reply to: Mad Dogs and Englishmen By JOYCE LEE MALCOLM June 17, 2006; Page A11 With Great Britain now the world's most violent developed country, the British government has hit upon a way to reduce the number of cases before the courts: Police have been instructed to let off with a caution burglars and those who admit responsibility for some 60 other crimes ranging from assault and arson to sex with an underage girl. That is, no jail time, no fine, no community service, no court appearance. It's cheap, quick, saves time and money, and best of all the offenders won't tax an already overcrowded jail system. Not everyone will be treated so leniently. A new surveillance system promises to hunt down anyone exceeding the speed limit. Using excessive force against a burglar or mugger will earn you a conviction for assault or, if you seriously harm him, a long sentence. Tony Martin, the Norfolk farmer jailed for killing one burglar and wounding another during the seventh break-in at his rural home, was denied parole because he posed a threat to burglars. The career burglar whom Mr. Martin wounded got out early. Using a cap pistol, as an elderly woman did to scare off a gang of youths, will bring you to court for putting someone in fear. Recently, police tried to stop David Collinson from entering his burning home to rescue his asthmatic wife. He refused to obey and, brandishing a toy pistol, dashed into the blaze. Minutes later he returned with his wife and dog and apologized to the police. Not good enough. In April Mr. Collinson was sentenced to a year in prison for being aggressive towards the officers and brandishing the toy pistol. Still, at least he won't be sharing his cell with an arsonist or thief. How did things come to a pass where law-abiding citizens are treated as criminals and criminals as victims? A giant step was the 1953 Prevention of Crime Act, making it illegal to carry any article for an offensive purpose; any item carried for self-defense was automatically an offensive weapon and the carrier is guilty until proven innocent. At the time a parliamentarian protested that "The object of a weapon was to assist weakness to cope with strength and it is this ability that the bill was framed to destroy." The government countered that the public should be discouraged "from going about with offensive weapons in their pockets; it is the duty of society to protect them." The trouble is that society cannot and does not protect them. Yet successive governments have insisted protection be left to the professionals, meanwhile banning all sorts of weapons, from firearms to chemical sprays. They hope to add toy or replica guns to the list along with kitchen knives with points. Other legislation has limited self-defense to what seems reasonable to a court much later. Although British governments insist upon sole responsibility for protecting individuals, for ideological and economic reasons they have adopted a lenient approach toward offenders. Because prisons are expensive and don't reform their residents, fewer offenders are incarcerated. Those who are get sharply reduced sentences, and serve just half of these. Still, with crime rates rising, prisons are overcrowded and additional jail space will not be available anytime soon. The public learned in April that among convicts released early to ease overcrowding were violent or sex offenders serving mandatory life sentences who were freed after as little as 15 months. The government's duty to protect the public has been compromised by other economies. Police forces are smaller than those of America and Europe and have been consolidated, leaving 70% of English villages without a police presence. Police are so hard-pressed that the Humberside force announced in March they no longer investigate less serious crimes unless they are racist or homophobic. Among crimes not being investigated: theft, criminal damage, common assault, harassment and non-domestic burglary. As for more serious crime, the unarmed police are wary of responding to an emergency where the offender is armed. The Thames Valley Police waited nearly seven hours to enter Julia Pemberton's home after she telephoned from the closet where she was hiding from her estranged and armed husband. They arrived once the danger to them had passed, but after those who had pleaded for their help were past all help. To be fair, under the Blair government a host of actions have been initiated to bring about more convictions. At the end of its 2003 session Parliament repealed the 800-year-old guarantee against double jeopardy. Now anyone acquitted of a serious crime can be retried if "new and compelling evidence" is brought forward. Parliament tinkered with the definition of "new" to make that burden easier to meet. The test for "new" in these criminal cases, Lord Neill pointed out, will be lower than "is used habitually in civil cases. In a civil case, one would have to show that the new evidence was not reasonably available on the previous occasion. There is no such requirement here." Parliament was so excited by the benefits of chucking the ancient prohibition that it extended the repeal of double jeopardy from murder to cases of rape, manslaughter, kidnapping, drug-trafficking and some 20 other serious crimes. For good measure it made the new act retroactive. Henceforth, no one who has been, or will be, tried and acquitted of a serious crime can feel confident he will not be tried again, and again. To make the prosecutor's task still easier, he is now permitted to use hearsay evidence -- goodbye to confronting witnesses -- to introduce a defendant's prior record, and the number of jury trials is to be reduced. Still, the government has helped the homeowner by sponsoring a law "to prevent homeowners being sued by intruders who injure themselves while breaking in." It may be crass to point out that the British people, stripped of their ability to protect themselves and of other ancient rights and left to the mercy of criminals, have gotten the worst of both worlds. Still, as one citizen, referring to the new policy of letting criminals off with a caution, suggested: "Perhaps it would be easier and safer for the honest citizens of the U.K. to move into the prisons and the criminals to be let out." Ms. Malcolm is professor of history at Bentley College and author of, inter alia, "Guns and Violence: The English Experience" (Harvard University Press, 2002). I received this with permission to re-post it. You can see why taking self-defense and crime0fighting advice from the Brits might not be the best plan.... -F
|
|
|
|
|
tradman
Jun 26, 2006, 11:16 AM
Post #46 of 211
(3498 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159
|
In reply to: Hmm... really? Yes, really. Even though all the countries in the UK have a major problem with violent crime, the actual likelihood for most people of being attacked or murdered is so small as to be almost zero, and most sensible people know that and don't live in fear of it happening. Scotland has a problem with violence. A big problem. We acknowledge it and we're working on it. Do you REALLY think that a country with a large number of violent criminals would benefit from MORE GUNS? As for the article you posted, i would point out that it's a pack of lies, but I can't be bothered typing it all out, so I'll just settle for pointing out that there's no such thing as the "british police" or "british law". The different countries in the UK have their own systems of policing and law, so all the generalisations about them in your article are both incorrect and redundant.
|
|
|
|
|
unabonger
Jun 26, 2006, 11:57 AM
Post #47 of 211
(3498 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 8, 2003
Posts: 2689
|
In reply to: Know what the difference between you and people in the UK is? Besides the fact that we speak proper English?
In reply to: We in teh UK don't want guns, because we're not convinced that we and our families are about to be robbed and raped at any moment. There's a word for people like you who are afraid to stand up for themselves, and you won't like it very much. Maybe you should be scared. Check the knife attack statistics in your precious UK. You got a problem that guns would solve... Besides, its not the muggings and rapes that scare us, it is our own government. Guess what happens in countries where the populace can't defend themselves? Think Mugabe, or Hussein.
|
|
|
|
|
kubi
Jun 26, 2006, 3:58 PM
Post #50 of 211
(3498 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 15, 2004
Posts: 815
|
In reply to: Sure, I see your point, but on the whole, America has a lower rate of accidental strangulation by lederhosen than does, say, Switzerland. Should the Swiss ban lederhosen? I agree with a lot of what you are saying, but I want to mention that making comparisons involving guns is almost NEVER valid. Knives, cars, drugs, lederhosen may kill people, but none of these things are designed for the specific purpose for taking a life. Guns are designed for one thing only, to kill, and this puts them in a category all their own. Carry on.
|
|
|
|
|
|