| Author | Message | ||
     Aesquire |
What we've done is about keeping the worst of them out of the hands of the insane. That's just it. The Insane that do these mass shooting every single time are in violation of the law. Just by the possession of the weapons. Not even counting the murders, which are to a much older and far less argued law. BTW Randomly shooting in a crowded theater certainly shouldn't be protected. Ok, duh. See older law above. Please consider yourself flamed for missing the point AND being too obvious in that statement. I do understand what you are trying to say, but the attempt rates a fail in both hyperbole and nearsightedness. Respectfully. Duh. In every other theater in that town playing Batman, carrying a concealed weapon legally was fine, and no one got shot. The murderer wasn't allowed to have a gun there, I believe was not allowed to have a gun anyway, and certainly, first and foremost, NO ONE is allowed to randomly shoot anywhere, much less the proverbial ( and literal ) crowded theater. I still get a little steamed when a group of Riot! Party! guys got off in court for trying to stone to death a truck driver dragged out of his truck. The Moron decision was that throwing rocks wasn't assault with a deadly weapon. So It was NOT attempted murder. This despite throwing rocks being a CURRENT and Legal means of execution in many countries, today, and is freaking biblical in it's history. Plus, secondary chest pains from the simple fact that trying to murder someone, for any reason, with any tool is the same crime. Period. I know we Have additional laws to cover the real evil cases where folk are tortured or we otherwise have a case where the Prosecutor gets freaked out. I have no comment on those laws except to say If you want to have one punishment for murder, and another on top for "aggravated" murder, I'm good with that. I just don't think it gets applied equally. | ||
| Blake |
The relative frequency of rape is surprising. That is one violent crime that plummets in frequency when women are allowed to carry a gun. In Texas after concealed-carry was legalized, the frequency of rape dropped precipitously. Various studies estimate the number of violent crimes thwarted in America every year due to the brandishing or use of a defensive firearm by the intended victim. The estimates range from 600,000 by anti-gun activists to as many as 11 million by gun rights proponents. It's likely well over a million per year. How many women in places where carrying a handgun is prohibited might avoid being raped if they were permitted to carry a handgun? | ||
| Aesquire |
Blake, interesting how you can have such a range in numbers. For example, the New York Times gleefully accepted a 1932 Pulitzer Prize for Walter Duranty and his work to cover up and praise the Soviet Union. The number of Ukrainian Kulaks deliberately murdered ranges from 750,000 ( Soviet sources decades later ) to 46 Million ( Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn ) Most were killed by deliberately starving them to death. The New York Times has never admitted it's complicity in these murders, being a heavy supporter of one of the most murderous thugs in the history of mankind. Don't recall them being enemies of the # 1 mass murderer in history, Mao. ( at least one of Obama's chief minions is a big fan of Mao. ) Expecting honest reporting on the US Constitution from such fans of tyrannical overlords is a bit silly. CNN, of course covered up many mass murders to keep on the good side of Iraq's dictator. Oh! Look! CNN is a leader in anti-gun/Anti-freedom propaganda. History Rhymes. | ||
| Sifo |
BTW Randomly shooting in a crowded theater certainly shouldn't be protected. Ok, duh. See older law above. Please consider yourself flamed for missing the point AND being too obvious in that statement. I do understand what you are trying to say, but the attempt rates a fail in both hyperbole and nearsightedness. Respectfully. Duh. In every other theater in that town playing Batman, carrying a concealed weapon legally was fine, and no one got shot. The murderer wasn't allowed to have a gun there, I believe was not allowed to have a gun anyway, and certainly, first and foremost, NO ONE is allowed to randomly shoot anywhere, much less the proverbial ( and literal ) crowded theater. The point is that banning guns is akin to banning words. We don't ban words (yet), we do however recognize there are certain situations where words can be misused, and those uses get legislated against. Same with gun laws, don't ban the tool, ban misuse of the tool. We don't ban hammers when one is used in a crime, do we? | ||
| Pwnzor |
I think we're all missing the big picture here.... SQUIRRELS!  | ||
| Davegess |
Blake, Sifo, I don't think I said that guns laws were responsible or the reduction of crime in NYC, just that: ONE: Maybe it helped BUT msotly that using crime rates in NYC as an argument against gun control was probably not the strongest argument. | ||
| Sifo |
What we've done is about keeping the worst of them out of the hands of the insane. Actually Dave, what you've done is keep guns out of the hands of all. In what way do your gun laws address anything about the insane. It seems to me that you are misrepresenting what you have done. You also have claimed to have done this in the name of "freedom". Perhaps you need to look that word up in the dictionary. Freedom isn't about restricting what you can do. The link you posted is kind of interesting. They go on and on about the reduction in deaths due to guns. No doubt that will happen when you ban guns. That doesn't mean you have been successful in protecting people though. From your article...
Emphasis, mine. So the bottom line is that taking guns away from people has gotten you a steady homicide rate. Sorry, I just don't see the benefit at all. In fact for the person who would have had a gun if given the choice, that persons chances of being killed have gone up dramatically by removing their ability to defend themselves. In my mind, that is simply making me MORE vulnerable. That is a very warped sense of "freedom" in my mind. | ||
| Macbuell |
Danger Dave and others are happy to give up their own rights so that a very small percentage of people that have evil intent cannot get weapons. Nevermind that most criminals get weapons outside of legal means anyway. I am NOT willing to give up MY rights for any reason. Benjamin Franklin put it far better than I did. "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety" | ||
| Sifo |
Blake, Sifo, I don't think I said that guns laws were responsible or the reduction of crime in NYC, just that: ONE: Maybe it helped BUT msotly that using crime rates in NYC as an argument against gun control was probably not the strongest argument. Fair enough. I agree that it's often hard to look at any one law and say that it resulted in a specific effect. I think Florida provides one of the best views of this though. They had high rates of violent crime when the first allowed concealed carry. There was a notable change in violent crime rate overall that I haven't seen attributed to other factors. There was also a noticeable shift in violent crime that was unexpected though. Suddenly violent crime against people in rental cars spiked way up. The reason for this appeared to be that rental cars were readily identifiable with a certain sticker, and it was reasonable to assume that the person renting a car was a tourist that flew in and was probably unarmed. Of course Florida relying heavily on tourism, didn't like this being in the news, and changed the laws regarding the stickers on the rental cars so that they would blend in more readily. I still stand by what I said about crime and gun laws in NYC though, until someone can show the direct correlation that isn't offset by years. You just have to be smart enough, and HONEST enough to look at the big picture. EDIT: BTW Dave, the "HONEST" comment isn't directed at you, but at those who would refuse to acknowledge the realities of what is know of cause and effect of gun laws. Just look at how Australia touts how they have reduce gun crimes while homicide rates are virtually unchanged. It's dishonest to claim that people are now safer. In fact in many forms of crime, thing have gotten worse. Is that because of the gun laws the enacted? Maybe? You still have to look for other circumstances that would account for it. At first glance though, gun laws didn't make things better and could have made certain things worse. (Message edited by SIFO on January 07, 2013) | ||
| Sifo |
Some pretty good points are made in this article regarding psychiatric medications. This is an aspect of these crimes that seems to be overlooked in the news and the political reaction. The Giant, Gaping Hole in Sandy Hook Reporting | ||
| Bob_thompson |
Blake- "Various studies estimate the number of violent crimes thwarted in America every year due to the brandishing or use of a defensive firearm by the intended victim. The estimates range from 600,000 by anti-gun activists to as many as 11 million by gun rights proponents" Agreed Blake and here in the great free state of Utah, just last year, our legislature, after doing and researching studies, passed a law to allow brandishing. It has been only a misdemeanor anyways and very few people were ever convicted on it. And we still maintain a very strict rule to always keep a CC weapon "completely" concealed at all times. It has stopped many confrontations before it escalated into a serious crime. When confronted with their own demise most bullies back down. Keep that in mind when our current administration become bullies. And Macbuell, I too love old Ben: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety" You recon he was referring to our 2nd Amendment? I'll bet he was. Stay safe and FREE all. | ||
| Sifo |
Some food for thought. Way too many people get killed on motorcycles. Far too many are young people who should have had many years yet to live. What to do. Let me be clear though, I am not talking about taking your motorcycles away. The problem is that many bike are just too fast. They have to many CCs. I have no problem with you wanting to ride a motorcycle responsibly, this is only aimed at getting the crazies off the bikes. I am not talking about taking your motorcycles away. These bikes with a large CC capacity have the ability to go over 180 MPH! NOBODY needs that. We need to do something to get people riding responsibly. I am not talking about taking your motorcycle away. So, here's what should be done. Engine capacity needs to be set to a reasonable limit. One that we can all agree is reasonable. A 250 CC bike will get you well in excess of the speed limit, so lets just ban all bikes over 250 CC. That would be a good starting point. I am not talking about taking your motorcycle away. This is just a simple step to make the world much safer by banning large capacity motorcycle engines that nobody needs. So, who's on board? | ||
| Pwnzor |
Sifo...  | ||
| Johnnymceldoo |
If firearm related deaths are not leading causes of death in the US why the big hubub over firearm ownership? When are X ammount of laws enough? The answer if your a democratic politician is there are no set maximum amount of laws you can pass to protect the American people no matter how bland and mediocre you make their lives. If new laws desired by our politicians conflict with the constitution than they try to twist the definition of the constitution or rewrite it. That's unacceptable to me. | ||
| Pwnzor |
if I can't have this:  Then I'm just taking my ball and going home. | ||
| 86129squids |
O-M-F-G, Pwn... I DO have a GL1000, would be GREAT fun to replicate that hack- wouldn't take much to rig a belt off the cam belt drive to spin those Gatling barrels! What fun that would be... | ||
| Sifo |
I just watched Machete last night!  | ||
| Sifo |
Some interesting point are made here. | ||
| Danger_dave |
>>Danger Dave and others are happy to give up their own rights << That's the thing. They are not 'rights' here. Never have been. Completely different culture and mind set. | ||
| Danger_dave |
>>Actually Dave, what you've done is keep guns out of the hands of all.<< Not really, but I've got nothing more to add. It's not really a prominent issue here any more. I weighed in because I see the Australian example used in your (collective) discussion. It's not a good example. We're poles apart in law and attitudes to start with. | ||
| 86129squids |
Hey DD... How in the hell do you ride on THAT side of the road?!?! ESPECIALLY on a Buell?!  One of these days, seriously, I wanna head that way and ride with you. | ||
| Danger_dave |
Cool. There are some good runs around here. We'll drag out the Chilli dawg too. One of these days I think I should organise a NZ ride. I'm going back in feb to road captain a tour for some execs. I'll put a cunning plan together. | ||
| Kenm123t |
The real issue is the danger of letting any one of the liberal demonrat commie socialist ( feel free to add in your definition) In any postion of leader ship any where. The Leftist postions and Ideals and their proponants killed over 262 million people in the last century do a little research then let us address the real issue liberals suffer from a basic personality disorder. In the past week the party of tolerance has called for dragging Pro NRA legislators behind trucks the Killing of NRA leadership and in New Hampshire instating policies to keep conservatives from moving into the state. | ||
| Aesquire |
We don't ban hammers when one is used in a crime, do we? Well YOU wouldn't, you are reasonably sane. THEY, ( the gun grabbers ) certainly would. They are already talking about knives. In England some insane folk are trying to ban kitchen knives, because, you know, people get stabbed! Just heard on the radio. The Governor of New York, the Son of a former Governor, and a fellow who ran for Governor the New York Way, by getting the Attorney General Job and exploiting it. ( just like the Last Governor, Love Client #9 ) Anyway, The Governor, who is very, very, good at manipulating perception, and taking credit for stuff he has nothing to do with, ( while sliding completely on stupid he IS directly responsible for... ) Our Fine Gov, he want to DEFINE "Assault Weapon" to cover what HE WANTS IT TO BE. He's not happy with some other pols proposed law, since it covers stuff that looks military, has a handle, and ANY other "military" item like a bayonet lug. ( Great! Now a high tech feature 600 years old is too new to own! A Design Feature to replicate a Spear! when you've used up the bang.... a "feature" 50,000+ years OLD. ) My rambling point is... There is No such thing as what they want to ban, It is something made up to con you. The plan is to give something, ( anything ) a scary name, and ban it. Repeat. Until you can't own a chefs knife with a blade over 3 inches... and that had better be registered. So the Police Know where to go when they law changes again. I hate to say this, but it's seriously civil disobedience time. Our nice Aussie Friends are right. They come from a different culture. They have been loyal Subjects, and Loyal Subjects are armed at the pleasure of the Crown. But the Aussies, The Canucks and the Brits, are pretty much the only buddies we have left that haven't gone over the neomarxist cliff, and England may be gone. The difference is, we declared the right to defend ourselves when the Crown decided to take it away. We became citizens, not subjects. The last century has brought a great deal of evil to America, in large part, if not most the Progressive movement, the koolaid of submission of the individual to the Communal Good, and the never spoken fact is that THAT argument has always been a con so that rotten a000oles can make themselves the new aristocracy, while enslaving us. | ||
| Sifo |
Well YOU wouldn't, you are reasonably sane. I'm reasonably sane?  D_D, I'd really like to hear how your laws have kept guns out of the hands of the insane as you said, but not kept them out of the hands of others, as you have also said. This sounds like total fabrication to me. I imagine the US and Australia are worlds apart on this. You live in a nation with naturally protected borders that has, so far, had very little strategic value to the rest of the world. Relative isolation has it's pluses. | ||
| Danger_dave |
>>the real issue liberals suffer from a basic personality disorder.<< Can I get some Banjo music with that? | ||
| Danger_dave |
>>D_D, I'd really like to hear ,<< Got nothing more to add sorry. | ||
| Sifo |
Got nothing more to add sorry. I guess it's safe to say that your claims are all BS then. | ||
| Danger_dave |
Nope - can't be drawn in that way either. Like I said before - I never repeat myself. | ||
| Sifo |
Not asking for you to repeat yourself, I'm simply asking you to support your claims. You refuse, and they don't appear to be supported by other known facts. It's BS. |
