# A Poll About Gun Control



## Noomi

Sort of.

Hypothetical:

You have 100 people living in a small town, and in order to be safe (lets not question why, as this is NOT the topic of the thread) they decide to hand in their firearms.
The only person who refuses to is a man who is known to be dangerous, and is not trusted.

So. Do you a) forcibly remove the guns from that one person in order to make everyone safe, or do you b) give back guns to 99 people to protect themselves from one person?


----------



## Ragnar

I picked "B". 

You don't violate the rights of one man because 99 volunteered to give up theirs.


----------



## bayoubill

Noomi said:


> Sort of.
> 
> Hypothetical:
> 
> You have 100 people living in a small town, and in order to be safe (lets not question why, as this is NOT the topic of the thread) they decide to hand in their firearms.
> The only person who refuses to is a man who is known to be dangerous, and is not trusted.
> 
> So. Do you a) forcibly remove the guns from that one person in order to make everyone safe, or do you b) give back guns to 99 people to protect themselves from one person?



If your little town was absolutely and completely isolated from the rest of the world (i.e., never, ever subject to occasional visits by bands of outlaws, rogue government agencies, pissed-off ex-spouses, or other such folks with bad intent), then I might be tempted to vote for "A"...

otherwise, I'd vote for "B"...


----------



## dblack

Noomi said:


> Sort of.
> 
> Hypothetical:
> 
> You have 100 people living in a small town, and in order to be safe (lets not question why, as this is NOT the topic of the thread) they decide to hand in their firearms.
> The only person who refuses to is a man who is known to be dangerous, and is not trusted.
> 
> So. Do you a) forcibly remove the guns from that one person in order to make everyone safe, or do you b) give back guns to 99 people to protect themselves from one person?



Hmm.... if this man is 'known to be dangerous' he should be in jail. He certainly shouldn't have a gun.


----------



## syrenn

Noomi said:


> Sort of.
> 
> Hypothetical:
> 
> You have 100 people living in a small town, and in order to be safe (lets not question why, as this is NOT the topic of the thread) they decide to hand in their firearms.
> The only person who refuses to is a man who is known to be dangerous, and is not trusted.
> 
> So. Do you a) forcibly remove the guns from that one person in order to make everyone safe, or do you b) give back guns to 99 people to protect themselves from one person?



sorry, no gun control. 

if the other 99% want to give up their guns..... that is their right to do so. 


and just an fyi..... the most dangerous person is usually the one you would never suspect.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Noomi said:


> Sort of.
> 
> Hypothetical:
> 
> You have 100 people living in a small town, and in order to be safe (lets not question why, as this is NOT the topic of the thread) they decide to hand in their firearms.
> The only person who refuses to is a man who is known to be dangerous, and is not trusted.
> 
> So. Do you a) forcibly remove the guns from that one person in order to make everyone safe, or do you b) give back guns to 99 people to protect themselves from one person?



Unless the individual has violated the law or is properly adjudged mentally incompetent you and the other 99 people do not get to decide his rights do not apply.

The Constitution is clear. The laws are clear. Just because 99 people do not trust or like one man does not give them the right to take away his rights.

How about the fact you insist a man found not guilty by a Jury of his peers is still guilty? Your opinion nor that or x amount of citizens does not allow for violating the law or the Constitution. Your feels have nothing to do with it.

And that in the end is what you are basing this hypothetical on, not facts, not the law, nothing tangible, just your feelings. Exactly why the Constitution and the laws exist, to protect us from a majorities FEELINGS.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Noomi said:


> Sort of.
> 
> Hypothetical:
> 
> You have 100 people living in a small town, and in order to be safe (lets not question why, as this is NOT the topic of the thread) they decide to hand in their firearms.
> The only person who refuses to is a man who is known to be dangerous, and is not trusted.
> 
> So. Do you a) forcibly remove the guns from that one person in order to make everyone safe, or do you b) give back guns to 99 people to protect themselves from one person?



The government may not take property without due process, and that someone is known to be dangerous is not justification for taking property, or subjecting someone to other punitive measures.  

Ideally the person in question would receive the mental health treatment he needs to avoid potential dangerous behavior. 

The problem is not the availability of firearms, but the inability or unwillingness to address mental health issues in a comprehensive and responsible manner.


----------



## westwall

Noomi said:


> Sort of.
> 
> Hypothetical:
> 
> You have 100 people living in a small town, and in order to be safe (lets not question why, as this is NOT the topic of the thread) they decide to hand in their firearms.
> The only person who refuses to is a man who is known to be dangerous, and is not trusted.
> 
> So. Do you a) forcibly remove the guns from that one person in order to make everyone safe, or do you b) give back guns to 99 people to protect themselves from one person?








Dangerous people don't need guns to harm people....  They use whatever is easy to hand...even using their hands...  You see dear person, it's not the weapon that is dangerous..it is merely a hunk of whatever.  The dangerous thing is the person using it....


Below are all Canadian Axe murderers.....  You going to outlaw all axes?  All knives?  All hammers?  Some day you might get it....  You can't outlaw everything...




B.C. Axe Murderer Who Killed His Mother 'Psychotic'

Girlfriend found guilty in Toronto axe murder - News - MSN CA

North Vancouver axe murderer gets life - News - North Shore News


----------



## auditor0007

bayoubill said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sort of.
> 
> Hypothetical:
> 
> You have 100 people living in a small town, and in order to be safe (lets not question why, as this is NOT the topic of the thread) they decide to hand in their firearms.
> The only person who refuses to is a man who is known to be dangerous, and is not trusted.
> 
> So. Do you a) forcibly remove the guns from that one person in order to make everyone safe, or do you b) give back guns to 99 people to protect themselves from one person?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If your little town was absolutely and completely isolated from the rest of the world (i.e., never, ever subject to occasional visits by bands of outlaws, rogue government agencies, pissed-off ex-spouses, or other such folks with bad intent), then I might be tempted to vote for "A"...
> 
> otherwise, I'd vote for "B"...
Click to expand...


This goes to the simple point of how gun control can work.  It can only work if all guns are removed completely as is done in countries such as Great Britain.  And even with that, murders will still happen, but the overall deaths are likely to decrease.  The problem is that we live in a society where one governmental jurisdiction wants guns banned, but anyone can still get a gun by leaving that jurisdiction and then bring the gun back into that jurisdiction to do what they may with it.  Without removing all guns from society, the bad guys will still have them, so nobody is any safer.


----------



## S.J.

"Known to be dangerous", how?  Did he commit a violent crime?  Who determines he is dangerous?


----------



## Missourian

Noomi said:


> Sort of.
> 
> Hypothetical:
> 
> You have 100 people living in a small town, and in order to be safe (lets not question why, as this is NOT the topic of the thread) they decide to hand in their firearms.
> The only person who refuses to is a man who is known to be dangerous, and is not trusted.
> 
> So. Do you a) forcibly remove the guns from that one person in order to make everyone safe, or do you b) give back guns to 99 people to protect themselves from one person?



False premise.

Forcibly removing the gun doesn't "make everyone else safe".

When the one guy with the firearm hears someone screaming for help next door,  looks through the window of the neighbors house and sees this...

[youtube]d37NjA-drpg[/youtube]​
...and uses his gun to stop the assault and apprehend or kill the intruder...THAT makes everyone safer.


----------



## Politico

You hate guns we get it.


----------



## idb

Politico said:


> You hate guns we get it.



You get nothing.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

The only logical answer is B


----------



## Esmeralda

syrenn said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sort of.
> 
> Hypothetical:
> 
> You have 100 people living in a small town, and in order to be safe (lets not question why, as this is NOT the topic of the thread) they decide to hand in their firearms.
> The only person who refuses to is a man who is known to be dangerous, and is not trusted.
> 
> So. Do you a) forcibly remove the guns from that one person in order to make everyone safe, or do you b) give back guns to 99 people to protect themselves from one person?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sorry, no gun control.
> 
> if the other 99% want to give up their guns..... that is their right to do so.
> 
> 
> and just an fyi..... *the most dangerous person is usually the one you would never suspect*.
Click to expand...


You make that last statement as if it were a proven fact: it isn't. It isn't true and it is not a fact. If it is, then prove it. Where is your empirical evidence of such a 'fact'?


----------



## Indofred

Lonestar_logic said:


> The only logical answer is B



Only if you use twisted logic.
The only reasonable answer is, A


----------



## orogenicman

syrenn said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sort of.
> 
> Hypothetical:
> 
> You have 100 people living in a small town, and in order to be safe (lets not question why, as this is NOT the topic of the thread) they decide to hand in their firearms.
> The only person who refuses to is a man who is known to be dangerous, and is not trusted.
> 
> So. Do you a) forcibly remove the guns from that one person in order to make everyone safe, or do you b) give back guns to 99 people to protect themselves from one person?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sorry, no gun control.
> 
> if the other 99% want to give up their guns..... that is their right to do so.
> 
> 
> and just an fyi..... the most dangerous person is usually the one you would never suspect.
Click to expand...


And thanks to the second amendment, that person usually has a gun.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Indofred said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only logical answer is B
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you use twisted logic.
> The only reasonable answer is, A
Click to expand...


What part of "the right to bear arms" do you have a problem with?

Just because 99 people chose not to exercise their right does not give them license to deny anyone else that right.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

S.J. said:


> "Known to be dangerous", how?  Did he commit a violent crime?  Who determines he is dangerous?



Exactly. That's why I disagree with the premise of "hate crimes". People should be tried for actual crimes, NOT the reason for their crime.

About the OP - Taking guns away from "bad guys" didn't work in Tombstone. Nor has it worked in modern day Chicago, but for a different reason - criminals can cross the street and be outside Chicago to buy their guns.

Taking guns away would "fix" nothing but the question does point up the need for law enforcement.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Luddly Neddite said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Known to be dangerous", how?  Did he commit a violent crime?  Who determines he is dangerous?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. That's why I disagree with the premise of "hate crimes". People should be tried for actual crimes, NOT the reason for their crime.
> 
> About the OP - Taking guns away from "bad guys" didn't work in Tombstone. Nor has it worked in modern day Chicago, but for a different reason - criminals can cross the street and be outside Chicago to buy their guns.
> 
> Taking guns away would "fix" nothing but the question does point up the need for law enforcement.
Click to expand...


They need "stop and frisk" in Chicago. It helped NYC.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Lonestar_logic said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Known to be dangerous", how?  Did he commit a violent crime?  Who determines he is dangerous?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. That's why I disagree with the premise of "hate crimes". People should be tried for actual crimes, NOT the reason for their crime.
> 
> About the OP - Taking guns away from "bad guys" didn't work in Tombstone. Nor has it worked in modern day Chicago, but for a different reason - criminals can cross the street and be outside Chicago to buy their guns.
> 
> Taking guns away would "fix" nothing but the question does point up the need for law enforcement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They need "stop and frisk" in Chicago. It helped NYC.
Click to expand...


Except, that's the exact same question as this OP:

Should everyone give up their rights just because a small percentage commit a crime?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Luddly Neddite said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. That's why I disagree with the premise of "hate crimes". People should be tried for actual crimes, NOT the reason for their crime.
> 
> About the OP - Taking guns away from "bad guys" didn't work in Tombstone. Nor has it worked in modern day Chicago, but for a different reason - criminals can cross the street and be outside Chicago to buy their guns.
> 
> Taking guns away would "fix" nothing but the question does point up the need for law enforcement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They need "stop and frisk" in Chicago. It helped NYC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except, that's the exact same question as this OP:
> 
> Should everyone give their rights just because a small percentage commit a crime?
Click to expand...


SCOTUS has said the stop and frisk doesn't violate any Constitutional rights so that argument doesn't have any weight.


----------



## boedicca

The poll choices are inadequate.

In such a small group of people (100), it is irresponsible for 99 to hand in their weapons given that at least some of them should have known that one person was dangerous.  If the 99 are so clueless that they would give up their means of defense against such a person, they should be assigned guardians and institutionalized as they are incapable of handling the responsibilities of being self-sufficient adults.


----------



## Jimmy_Jam

If there is a man in a community of 100 who is dangerous and untrustworthy and everybody knows it, why would they disarm themselves?


----------



## asterism

Noomi said:


> Sort of.
> 
> Hypothetical:
> 
> You have 100 people living in a small town, and in order to be safe (lets not question why, as this is NOT the topic of the thread) they decide to hand in their firearms.
> The only person who refuses to is a man who is known to be dangerous, and is not trusted.
> 
> So. Do you a) forcibly remove the guns from that one person in order to make everyone safe, or do you b) give back guns to 99 people to protect themselves from one person?



Option B because the situation you described is why voluntarily turning in the guns won't work.


----------



## Mertex

I don't believe in taking guns away from people, but making sure that the people that buy them are sane is important.

I don't know how the people in this make-believe town would feel safe if they gave up their guns and looney still had his.

*Seems to me like you've been watching "Under the Dome"*!


----------



## hjmick

Kill the dangerous guy...


----------



## 9thIDdoc

I'm willing to bet 50 would say they are turning in their guns but then keep them.


----------



## S.J.

Everybody in the town owns a gun, but there's no crime.  Why would anyone not feel safe to begin with?


----------



## Desperado

Sounds like the last episode of "Under the Dome".
The correct answer is B however true Americans would never give up your guns in the first place.


----------



## R.C. Christian

I picked B ,but the question has some problems -- mainly was the man perceived to be violent or did he have a rap sheet? If he was felonious in anyway he'd had never had the gun so the question is kind of moot. When you say "known" to be violent that infers that he has been in trouble with the law.


----------



## Jimmy_Jam

Desperado said:


> Sounds like the last episode of "Under the Dome".
> The correct answer is B however true Americans would never give up your guns in the first place.



Bearing arms is a right, not a requirement to prove you are a true American. I've never considered somebody who doesn't own a gun less of an American. I've known people who purposely don't buy one because they either don't feel competent enough or responsible enough to own one, in which case, I'm glad they don't.

Aside from that, the OP offers a silly scenario, which is why I didn't vote.


----------



## westwall

orogenicman said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sort of.
> 
> Hypothetical:
> 
> You have 100 people living in a small town, and in order to be safe (lets not question why, as this is NOT the topic of the thread) they decide to hand in their firearms.
> The only person who refuses to is a man who is known to be dangerous, and is not trusted.
> 
> So. Do you a) forcibly remove the guns from that one person in order to make everyone safe, or do you b) give back guns to 99 people to protect themselves from one person?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sorry, no gun control.
> 
> if the other 99% want to give up their guns..... that is their right to do so.
> 
> 
> and just an fyi..... the most dangerous person is usually the one you would never suspect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And thanks to the second amendment, that person usually has a gun.
Click to expand...







More to the point the old lady or the disabled man does too.  The gun is not in the hands of ONLY THE CRIMINAL!  But you already knew that didn't you olfraud?


----------



## MikeK

Australian Gun Ban Facts & Statistics
Posted on Thursday, January 03, 2013 7:48:26 AM by RC one

It has now been over 10 years since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own Government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

The statistics for the years following the ban are now in:


Accidental gun deaths are 300% higher than the pre-1997 ban rate

The assault rate has increased 800% since 1991, and increased 200% since the 1997 gun ban.

Robbery and armed robbery have increase 20% from the pre-97 ban rate.

From immediately after the ban was instituted in 1997 through 2002, the robbery and armed robbery rate was up 200% over the pre-ban rates.

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 171 percent


Australian Gun Ban Facts & Statistics


----------



## Meister

Noomi said:


> Sort of.
> 
> Hypothetical:
> 
> You have 100 people living in a small town, and in order to be safe (lets not question why, as this is NOT the topic of the thread) they decide to hand in their firearms.
> The only person who refuses to is a man who is known to be dangerous, and is not trusted.
> 
> So. Do you a) forcibly remove the guns from that one person in order to make everyone safe, or do you b) give back guns to 99 people to protect themselves from one person?



I can't vote on any hypothetical poll like this.  The parameter is  so tight as not to be any part of reality.


----------



## Mertex

Desperado said:


> Sounds like the last episode of "Under the Dome".
> The correct answer is B however true Americans would never give up your guns in the first place.



Ya, think?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/308911-a-poll-about-gun-control-2.html#post7717068


----------



## Desperado

Jimmy_Jam said:


> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like the last episode of "Under the Dome".
> The correct answer is B however true Americans would never give up your guns in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bearing arms is a right, not a requirement to prove you are a true American. I've never considered somebody who doesn't own a gun less of an American. I've known people who purposely don't buy one because they either don't feel competent enough or responsible enough to own one, in which case, I'm glad they don't.
> 
> Aside from that, the OP offers a silly scenario, which is why I didn't vote.
Click to expand...


I did not say it was a requirement to prove you are a true American,   I just said that a true American would not give up their gun if they owned one.


----------



## Bleipriester

Noomi said:


> Sort of.
> 
> Hypothetical:
> 
> You have 100 people living in a small town, and in order to be safe (lets not question why, as this is NOT the topic of the thread) they decide to hand in their firearms.
> The only person who refuses to is a man who is known to be dangerous, and is not trusted.
> 
> So. Do you a) forcibly remove the guns from that one person in order to make everyone safe, or do you b) give back guns to 99 people to protect themselves from one person?


Neither a) nor b).
The 99 fellow fools should have known the "dangerous guy" would not give up his guns.


----------



## Jimmy_Jam

Desperado said:


> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like the last episode of "Under the Dome".
> The correct answer is B however true Americans would never give up your guns in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bearing arms is a right, not a requirement to prove you are a true American. I've never considered somebody who doesn't own a gun less of an American. I've known people who purposely don't buy one because they either don't feel competent enough or responsible enough to own one, in which case, I'm glad they don't.
> 
> Aside from that, the OP offers a silly scenario, which is why I didn't vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not say it was a requirement to prove you are a true American,   I just said that a true American would not give up their gun if they owned one.
Click to expand...


Fair enough. I've just seen the sentiment that gun owners are somehow truer Americans than others, kind of like some of my fellow veterans that somehow feel they are truer Americans because they served. I guess I "jumped the gun" a bit (forgive the pun). 

Anyway, I'm a veteran AND I own a gun, and have never felt like I was more of an American than anybody else. That attitude bothers me. If I assigned that attitude to you out of line I apologize.


----------



## FA_Q2

auditor0007 said:


> bayoubill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sort of.
> 
> Hypothetical:
> 
> You have 100 people living in a small town, and in order to be safe (lets not question why, as this is NOT the topic of the thread) they decide to hand in their firearms.
> The only person who refuses to is a man who is known to be dangerous, and is not trusted.
> 
> So. Do you a) forcibly remove the guns from that one person in order to make everyone safe, or do you b) give back guns to 99 people to protect themselves from one person?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If your little town was absolutely and completely isolated from the rest of the world (i.e., never, ever subject to occasional visits by bands of outlaws, rogue government agencies, pissed-off ex-spouses, or other such folks with bad intent), then I might be tempted to vote for "A"...
> 
> otherwise, I'd vote for "B"...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This goes to the simple point of how gun control can work.  It can only work if all guns are removed completely as is done in countries such as Great Britain.  And even with that, murders will still happen, but the overall deaths are likely to decrease.  The problem is that we live in a society where one governmental jurisdiction wants guns banned, but anyone can still get a gun by leaving that jurisdiction and then bring the gun back into that jurisdiction to do what they may with it.  Without removing all guns from society, the bad guys will still have them, so nobody is any safer.
Click to expand...


Except that you have just spouted a falsehood.  Homicides never decreased as a matter of removing guns in Britton.  They remain essentially unchanged (considering that the trend was moving up to begin with).




Of course, the OP really did not want to get into the details of successful gun legislation (because there isnt any) but the question does hinge on that supposition.

It is a false idea that the rest of the 99 people are somehow safe because there are no guns.


----------



## FA_Q2

Esmeralda said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sort of.
> 
> Hypothetical:
> 
> You have 100 people living in a small town, and in order to be safe (lets not question why, as this is NOT the topic of the thread) they decide to hand in their firearms.
> The only person who refuses to is a man who is known to be dangerous, and is not trusted.
> 
> So. Do you a) forcibly remove the guns from that one person in order to make everyone safe, or do you b) give back guns to 99 people to protect themselves from one person?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sorry, no gun control.
> 
> if the other 99% want to give up their guns..... that is their right to do so.
> 
> 
> and just an fyi..... *the most dangerous person is usually the one you would never suspect*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You make that last statement as if it were a proven fact: it isn't. It isn't true and it is not a fact. If it is, then prove it. Where is your empirical evidence of such a 'fact'?
Click to expand...


Mass shootings are a good place to start.

They are almost never committed by those that we are suspecting of such behavior.  Almost to a tee, those events are done by people no one expects but all know are a little out of place.


----------



## FA_Q2

Lonestar_logic said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> They need "stop and frisk" in Chicago. It helped NYC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except, that's the exact same question as this OP:
> 
> Should everyone give their rights just because a small percentage commit a crime?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SCOTUS has said the stop and frisk doesn't violate any Constitutional rights so that argument doesn't have any weight.
Click to expand...


Irrelevant.

Do you agree with everything that the court says?  Would you argue tomorrow that the right to bear arms is NOT a right but rather a collective right held by the states if the court said so?

SCOTUS is NOT right all the time.  They have even reversed themselves on several occasions and I firmly believe that there are several areas they are still incorrect on.  I will tell you that ACA is unconstitutional.  I think I have a damn good argument for that as well.  My opinion might not be that of the current government and is technically incorrect in that light but as a thinking individual I have both the ability and the right to challenge that stance.

Just because the SCOUTUS has ruled does not mean that debate is done of that they have ruled correctly.  All it means is that the current position of the government is on that side.  Considering the current state of the government, I would postulate that falling back on the SCOTUS without a solid line of reasoning is actually a rather weak stance as well.


----------



## FA_Q2

Jimmy_Jam said:


> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like the last episode of "Under the Dome".
> The correct answer is B however true Americans would never give up your guns in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bearing arms is a right, not a requirement to prove you are a true American.* I've never considered somebody who doesn't own a gun less of an American. I've known people who purposely don't buy one because they either don't feel competent enough or responsible enough to own one, in which case, I'm glad they don't.*
> 
> Aside from that, the OP offers a silly scenario, which is why I didn't vote.
Click to expand...


Yes and those people are VERY responsible to acknowledge that simple fact.  It is why no one actually pushes for everyone to be armed  some people just should not have a weapon.  The problem occurs when those that are not capable want to demand that no one is armed.  

Personally, I dont have one atm because I dont have the proper storage for it and I have many young children in my home all the time (and many that are not mine so I dont have control over their responsibility).  

In any case, I dont think that anyone actually thinks that being an American somehow implies that you are armed.  The implication is usually (as the quoted poster pointed out his point was) that true Americans dont want to remove the rights of others including the right to bear arms.


----------



## eflatminor

MikeK said:


> Australian Gun Ban Facts & Statistics
> Posted on Thursday, January 03, 2013 7:48:26 AM by RC one
> 
> It has now been over 10 years since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own Government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.
> 
> The statistics for the years following the ban are now in:
> 
> 
> Accidental gun deaths are 300% higher than the pre-1997 ban rate
> 
> The assault rate has increased 800% since 1991, and increased 200% since the 1997 gun ban.
> 
> Robbery and armed robbery have increase 20% from the pre-97 ban rate.
> 
> From immediately after the ban was instituted in 1997 through 2002, the robbery and armed robbery rate was up 200% over the pre-ban rates.
> 
> In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 171 percent
> 
> 
> Australian Gun Ban Facts & Statistics



Now you stop that!  Facts, logic and reason have NO place in a gun control debate.  It's about feelings...don't you know that?


----------



## eflatminor

I would argue the most dangerous person in our little hypothetical town is the one that would disarm otherwise law abiding citizens.

Just sayin'


----------



## Lonestar_logic

FA_Q2 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except, that's the exact same question as this OP:
> 
> Should everyone give their rights just because a small percentage commit a crime?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SCOTUS has said the stop and frisk doesn't violate any Constitutional rights so that argument doesn't have any weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irrelevant.
> 
> Do you agree with everything that the court says?  Would you argue tomorrow that the right to bear arms is NOT a right but rather a collective right held by the states if the court said so?
> 
> SCOTUS is NOT right all the time.  They have even reversed themselves on several occasions and I firmly believe that there are several areas they are still incorrect on.  I will tell you that ACA is unconstitutional.  I think I have a damn good argument for that as well.  My opinion might not be that of the current government and is technically incorrect in that light but as a thinking individual I have both the ability and the right to challenge that stance.
> 
> Just because the SCOUTUS has ruled does not mean that debate is done of that they have ruled correctly.  All it means is that the current position of the government is on that side.  Considering the current state of the government, I would postulate that falling back on the SCOTUS without a solid line of reasoning is actually a rather weak stance as well.
Click to expand...


It was very relevant to the comment that was made about people giving up their rights under stop and frisk.

Whether you believe their ruling was right or not is what's irrelevant.


----------



## asaratis

Noomi said:


> Sort of.
> 
> Hypothetical:
> 
> You have 100 people living in a small town, and in order to be safe (lets not question why, as this is NOT the topic of the thread) they decide to hand in their firearms.
> The only person who refuses to is a man who is known to be dangerous, and is not trusted.
> 
> So. Do you a) forcibly remove the guns from that one person in order to make everyone safe, or do you b) give back guns to 99 people to protect themselves from one person?


Your hypothetical scenario cannot be extended to argue that all dangerous people in the world population could be recognized.  There are approximately 100,000,000 guns in the USA.


----------



## OldUSAFSniper

The constitution is absolutely clear on this type of issue.  The 'right to bear arms' is an individual right and whether or not 99 out of 100 turn in their guns or not is immaterial.  If one man decides to keep his, then no one else can force him to turn in his weapon.

You say that the only man who didn't turn in his weapon is 'dangerous' and can't be trusted.  Dangerous, how?  Is he a convicted felon?  If so, he cannot legally own a weapon in any case.  If it is thought by the 99 that he is just 'potentially' dangerous, then that line of thinking is even more dangerous than anything else in your situation.  Dangerous because he doesn't go along with the 'crowd' and believe the same way as the majority?  Is this why he can't be trusted because he doesn't 'go along to get along'?  If that's the case, then he's my kind of guy.

This is the fallacy in liberalism.  For liberalism to work ALL must believe the same way and all must do as the 'collective' believes they should.  The thought that if you could get everyone to just go the same way, to believe in the same 'approved' line of thought, then everything will be much better.  For liberals, these rights that conservatives speak of are available for restriction and modification based upon the current line of 'approved' thinking.  This is also why non-Americans are so confused about America in general.

American conservatives have and will continue to celebrate the individual and those individual rights as defined in the constitution.  Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms.  All of these are guaranteed to the individual.  I absolute DETEST the Westboro Baptist Church and believe that those who protest at funerals are nothing but maggots.  But they have that right.  The Supreme Court was right when they declared their activities protected free speech.  Disgusting, but protected.

In the middle of the 1800's, my ancestors settled in the Kansas/Oklahoma area.  At the time, Oklahoma was still the "Indian Nations" and Kansas was bleeding red from the battle over slavery 10 years before the civil war.  I remember that my grandmother literally spit on the ground when "Bushwackers" from Missouri were mentioned.  I mention this because where my grandmother was born was 100 miles from the nearest sheriff.  For a lot of Americans at the time, there was no government, no infrastructure, nothing other than what you carved out for yourself.  This independence lives on in a lot of us.  The liberal utopia of the 'collective' telling you what to do is very offensive.

I own weapons and I will continue to own weapons, regardless of what the collective wants.  If Washington passes laws that I disagree with, I will probably, like most of the people around here, ignore them.  We ignored Clinton's ban on large magazines and made our own.  Obamacare does not affect me because I have chosen to go with a doctor who does not take medicare or any insurance what so ever.  I pay a small monthly fee and get my regular visits to the doctor.  I have insurance for the time I might need to go to the hospital, but it is very cheap because there is no need for them to deal with doctor visits.  When Obama raised the taxes and regulations on retirement accounts I moved most of my money out of the country.  

I am an American and I absolutely, positively REFUSE to stand in line, to go where you want me to go or to do what you want me to do.  If you don't like that, then you have a problem, don't you?


----------



## FA_Q2

Lonestar_logic said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> SCOTUS has said the stop and frisk doesn't violate any Constitutional rights so that argument doesn't have any weight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant.
> 
> Do you agree with everything that the court says?  Would you argue tomorrow that the right to bear arms is NOT a right but rather a collective right held by the states if the court said so?
> 
> SCOTUS is NOT right all the time.  They have even reversed themselves on several occasions and I firmly believe that there are several areas they are still incorrect on.  I will tell you that ACA is unconstitutional.  I think I have a damn good argument for that as well.  My opinion might not be that of the current government and is technically incorrect in that light but as a thinking individual I have both the ability and the right to challenge that stance.
> 
> Just because the SCOUTUS has ruled does not mean that debate is done of that they have ruled correctly.  All it means is that the current position of the government is on that side.  Considering the current state of the government, I would postulate that falling back on the SCOTUS without a solid line of reasoning is actually a rather weak stance as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was very relevant to the comment that was made about people giving up their rights under stop and frisk.
> 
> Whether you believe their ruling was right or not is what's irrelevant.
Click to expand...


Ill remember that next time you disagree with a SCOTUS ruling as apparently their word ends all debate as they are always correct.

Ill also take that as a yes to my first point.  You would defend the new right of arms as a communal right (and therefore the government can take away your weapons) if the SCOTUS so deemed it tomorrow.


----------



## Meister

FA_Q2 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant.
> 
> Do you agree with everything that the court says?  Would you argue tomorrow that the right to bear arms is NOT a right but rather a collective right held by the states if the court said so?
> 
> SCOTUS is NOT right all the time.  They have even reversed themselves on several occasions and I firmly believe that there are several areas they are still incorrect on.  I will tell you that ACA is unconstitutional.  I think I have a damn good argument for that as well.  My opinion might not be that of the current government and is technically incorrect in that light but as a thinking individual I have both the ability and the right to challenge that stance.
> 
> Just because the SCOUTUS has ruled does not mean that debate is done of that they have ruled correctly.  All it means is that the current position of the government is on that side.  Considering the current state of the government, I would postulate that falling back on the SCOTUS without a solid line of reasoning is actually a rather weak stance as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was very relevant to the comment that was made about people giving up their rights under stop and frisk.
> 
> Whether you believe their ruling was right or not is what's irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ill remember that next time you disagree with a SCOTUS ruling as apparently their word ends all debate as they are always correct.
> 
> Ill also take that as a yes to my first point.  You would defend the new right of arms as a communal right (and therefore the government can take away your weapons) if the SCOTUS so deemed it tomorrow.
Click to expand...


Not to get into this debate, but.....what difference does it make if the SCOTUS IS right or wrong?  Their decision is the end all on the issue and is deemed correct in the eyes of the law......correct?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

FA_Q2 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant.
> 
> Do you agree with everything that the court says?  Would you argue tomorrow that the right to bear arms is NOT a right but rather a collective right held by the states if the court said so?
> 
> SCOTUS is NOT right all the time.  They have even reversed themselves on several occasions and I firmly believe that there are several areas they are still incorrect on.  I will tell you that ACA is unconstitutional.  I think I have a damn good argument for that as well.  My opinion might not be that of the current government and is technically incorrect in that light but as a thinking individual I have both the ability and the right to challenge that stance.
> 
> Just because the SCOUTUS has ruled does not mean that debate is done of that they have ruled correctly.  All it means is that the current position of the government is on that side.  Considering the current state of the government, I would postulate that falling back on the SCOTUS without a solid line of reasoning is actually a rather weak stance as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was very relevant to the comment that was made about people giving up their rights under stop and frisk.
> 
> Whether you believe their ruling was right or not is what's irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ill remember that next time you disagree with a SCOTUS ruling as apparently their word ends all debate as they are always correct.
> 
> Ill also take that as a yes to my first point.  You would defend the new right of arms as a communal right (and therefore the government can take away your weapons) if the SCOTUS so deemed it tomorrow.
Click to expand...


My agreeing or disagreeing has no bearing on the ruling.

That's one of the reason I think we need a Constitutional convention and make an amendment that gives the people the power to overturn a Supreme Court decision.

Tell me when has a Supreme Court decision not been upheld?


----------



## RKMBrown

Indofred said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only logical answer is B
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you use twisted logic.
> The only reasonable answer is, A
Click to expand...


Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.  Benjamin Franklin


----------



## Meister

Indofred said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only logical answer is B
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you use twisted logic.
> The only reasonable answer is, A
Click to expand...


How can you say that with such restricted parameters given?
There is no reasonable answer because it's not reality.....not even close.


----------



## PaulS1950

Our rights do not extend from the constitution. We have those same rights with or without the constitution. Our rights are birth-rights not some privilege granted by the federal government. 

Where in the constitution is the supreme court granted the power to determine what our rights are? The supreme court is part of the federal government and restricted by the powers enumerated within the constitution. If the constitution doesn't spell out the power for some part of the federal government then that power is left to the states and the people. 

We live in a republic wherein governments are granted their power by the people and are revokable by the people. Look at the preamble of the constitution. 

*We the people... do ordain and establish..."*


----------



## Lonestar_logic

PaulS1950 said:


> Our rights do not extend from the constitution. We have those same rights with or without the constitution. Our rights are birth-rights not some privilege granted by the federal government.
> 
> Where in the constitution is the supreme court granted the power to determine what our rights are? The supreme court is part of the federal government and restricted by the powers enumerated within the constitution. If the constitution doesn't spell out the power for some part of the federal government then that power is left to the states and the people.
> 
> We live in a republic wherein governments are granted their power by the people and are revokable by the people. Look at the preamble of the constitution.
> 
> *We the people... do ordain and establish..."*



Who has argued that our rights were from the Constitution?


----------



## PaulS1950

When the actions proposed in the poll ask if 99% give up their guns should the 1% have their guns removed forcibly it implies that it may be ok to do that. I was just pointing out that it would be wrong to do so with or without the constitutional protections in place.


----------



## FA_Q2

Meister said:


> Not to get into this debate, but.....what difference does it make if the SCOTUS IS right or wrong?  Their decision is the end all on the issue and is deemed correct in the eyes of the law......correct?


Come on  get into it 
That is the point after all, I need a good challenge!

Anyway, the point is that the first amendment protections over speech exist because speech is by far the most powerful tool in changing the government.  IOW, if I think the SCOTUS is wrong, I am going to bring my case before the people and debate this until they either change my mind or I change enough of others mind to have real influence.  The public discourse has real power to effect change no matter what the SCOTUS decides at one point or another.  There is always debate and public discourse.  Beyond that, perhaps through speaking more about the subject, I will see the light and understand what the court was stating to the point that I agree.

I will always take agreement through real and honest debate rather than submission just because someone said so.  Just because the court makes a ruling does not mean there is an end to all debate; that only occurs when we all agree or the majority get tired of dealing with us damn annoying outliers 


Lonestar_logic said:


> My agreeing or disagreeing has no bearing on the ruling.
> 
> That's one of the reason I think we need a Constitutional convention and make an amendment that gives the people the power to overturn a Supreme Court decision.
> 
> Tell me when has a Supreme Court decision not been upheld?


Its not a matter of upheld.  The SCOTUS has overruled itself on several occasions.  That is not unheard of thought it is rare.  The court tries its damndest to get the ruling right the first time but that is not always the case.  I can also state that the people DO have the ability to overturn the court  its called an amendment.  We have that power but it is a really high bar to pas  for good reason.  Right now you dont see that possibility but I believe that is only because our politics has gone so far off the deep end.  Most people would not recognize freedom if it smacked them in the face let alone be willing to fight for it.  Servitude is much simpler, to our great detriment.  At least IMHO.  Or opinion, I might not be all that humble


----------



## Lonestar_logic

PaulS1950 said:


> When the actions proposed in the poll ask if 99% give up their guns should the 1% have their guns removed forcibly it implies that it may be ok to do that. I was just pointing out that it would be wrong to do so with or without the constitutional protections in place.



I didn't get that from the poll question. None of the 99 were ask to relinquish any rights, however you are free to not exercise any one of your rights at anytime and it's perfectly constitutional to do so.


----------



## KissMy

Noomi said:


> Sort of.
> 
> Hypothetical:
> 
> You have 100 people living in a small town, and in order to be safe (lets not question why, as this is NOT the topic of the thread) they decide to hand in their firearms.
> The only person who refuses to is a man who is known to be dangerous, and is not trusted.
> 
> So. Do you a) forcibly remove the guns from that one person in order to make everyone safe, or do you b) give back guns to 99 people to protect themselves from one person?



This is an absurd premise.

- First of all - Half of the people will not give up their guns.

- Second - Just who exactly is going to take them away? We have more gun owners than soldiers in all standing armies or police.

- Third - You will never get all the guns by force.

- Fourth - If the majority ever disarm, the thugs will rape, rob & kill at will. Guns are easily hidden away & can be easily made. You can never get them away from thugs.

Why not focus on getting rid of thugs, that is much better & simpler.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

FA_Q2 said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to get into this debate, but.....what difference does it make if the SCOTUS IS right or wrong?  Their decision is the end all on the issue and is deemed correct in the eyes of the law......correct?
> 
> 
> 
> Come on  get into it
> That is the point after all, I need a good challenge!
> 
> Anyway, the point is that the first amendment protections over speech exist because speech is by far the most powerful tool in changing the government.  IOW, if I think the SCOTUS is wrong, I am going to bring my case before the people and debate this until they either change my mind or I change enough of others mind to have real influence.  The public discourse has real power to effect change no matter what the SCOTUS decides at one point or another.  There is always debate and public discourse.  Beyond that, perhaps through speaking more about the subject, I will see the light and understand what the court was stating to the point that I agree.
> 
> I will always take agreement through real and honest debate rather than submission just because someone said so.  Just because the court makes a ruling does not mean there is an end to all debate; that only occurs when we all agree or the majority get tired of dealing with us damn annoying outliers
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> My agreeing or disagreeing has no bearing on the ruling.
> 
> That's one of the reason I think we need a Constitutional convention and make an amendment that gives the people the power to overturn a Supreme Court decision.
> 
> Tell me when has a Supreme Court decision not been upheld?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its not a matter of upheld.  The SCOTUS has overruled itself on several occasions.  That is not unheard of thought it is rare.  The court tries its damndest to get the ruling right the first time but that is not always the case.  I can also state that the people DO have the ability to overturn the court  its called an amendment.  We have that power but it is a really high bar to pas  for good reason.  Right now you dont see that possibility but I believe that is only because our politics has gone so far off the deep end.  Most people would not recognize freedom if it smacked them in the face let alone be willing to fight for it.  Servitude is much simpler, to our great detriment.  At least IMHO.  Or opinion, I might not be all that humble
Click to expand...


In other words you can't find one instance where a SCOTUS decision has not been upheld.

You really should brush up on your reading comprehension skills. 

I stated the fact that whether you or I agree or disagree is irrelevant. The decision has been made. I never said the decision couldn't be challenged or even reversed. I simply stated that agreeing or disagreeing does absolutely nothing to effect change. 

You may not agree with any number of the laws on the books or decisions SCOTUS has ruled on but you are obligated to follow them or suffer the consequences.


----------



## KissMy

Lonestar_logic said:


> They need "stop and frisk" in Chicago. It helped NYC.



"Stop and frisk" is stupid. You can't open carry without being constantly harassed. Plus it does not reduce crime. It is unconstitutional & violates rights & personal freedom.


----------



## eflatminor

KissMy said:


> Plus it does not reduce crime.



You sure about that?

I'm not for it as an official police policy, but all evidence suggests it does in fact reduce crime...unless you'd like to offer something that refutes the official crime stats.


----------



## FA_Q2

Lonestar_logic said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to get into this debate, but.....what difference does it make if the SCOTUS IS right or wrong?  Their decision is the end all on the issue and is deemed correct in the eyes of the law......correct?
> 
> 
> 
> Come on  get into it
> That is the point after all, I need a good challenge!
> 
> Anyway, the point is that the first amendment protections over speech exist because speech is by far the most powerful tool in changing the government.  IOW, if I think the SCOTUS is wrong, I am going to bring my case before the people and debate this until they either change my mind or I change enough of others mind to have real influence.  The public discourse has real power to effect change no matter what the SCOTUS decides at one point or another.  There is always debate and public discourse.  Beyond that, perhaps through speaking more about the subject, I will see the light and understand what the court was stating to the point that I agree.
> 
> I will always take agreement through real and honest debate rather than submission just because someone said so.  Just because the court makes a ruling does not mean there is an end to all debate; that only occurs when we all agree or the majority get tired of dealing with us damn annoying outliers
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> My agreeing or disagreeing has no bearing on the ruling.
> 
> That's one of the reason I think we need a Constitutional convention and make an amendment that gives the people the power to overturn a Supreme Court decision.
> 
> Tell me when has a Supreme Court decision not been upheld?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its not a matter of upheld.  The SCOTUS has overruled itself on several occasions.  That is not unheard of thought it is rare.  The court tries its damndest to get the ruling right the first time but that is not always the case.  I can also state that the people DO have the ability to overturn the court  its called an amendment.  We have that power but it is a really high bar to pas  for good reason.  Right now you dont see that possibility but I believe that is only because our politics has gone so far off the deep end.  Most people would not recognize freedom if it smacked them in the face let alone be willing to fight for it.  Servitude is much simpler, to our great detriment.  At least IMHO.  Or opinion, I might not be all that humble
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words you can't find one instance where a SCOTUS decision has not been upheld.
> 
> You really should brush up on your reading comprehension skills.
> 
> I stated the fact that whether you or I agree or disagree is irrelevant. The decision has been made. I never said the decision couldn't be challenged or even reversed. I simply stated that agreeing or disagreeing does absolutely nothing to effect change.
> 
> You may not agree with any number of the laws on the books or decisions SCOTUS has ruled on but you are obligated to follow them or suffer the consequences.
Click to expand...


Read my response again.  We can do a LOT through public discourse and debate.

You might have to follow that provision but that does not mean that there is nothing that you can do.

You are NEVER powerless in this nation.  At least not yet.  That is one of the things that makes us so great.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

KissMy said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> They need "stop and frisk" in Chicago. It helped NYC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Stop and frisk" is stupid. You can't open carry without being constantly harassed. Plus it does not reduce crime. It is unconstitutional & violates rights & personal freedom.
Click to expand...


You would have a valid argument if open carry were allowed in either Chicago or NYC.

And yes, it does stop crime. NYC prior to the law was averaging 2000 murders a year, after the law, 400 murders a year. Quite a difference.

And no it's not unconstitutional according a SCOTUS ruling on the matter.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

FA_Q2 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on  get into it
> That is the point after all, I need a good challenge!
> 
> Anyway, the point is that the first amendment protections over speech exist because speech is by far the most powerful tool in changing the government.  IOW, if I think the SCOTUS is wrong, I am going to bring my case before the people and debate this until they either change my mind or I change enough of others mind to have real influence.  The public discourse has real power to effect change no matter what the SCOTUS decides at one point or another.  There is always debate and public discourse.  Beyond that, perhaps through speaking more about the subject, I will see the light and understand what the court was stating to the point that I agree.
> 
> I will always take agreement through real and honest debate rather than submission just because someone said so.  Just because the court makes a ruling does not mean there is an end to all debate; that only occurs when we all agree or the majority get tired of dealing with us damn annoying outliers
> 
> Its not a matter of upheld.  The SCOTUS has overruled itself on several occasions.  That is not unheard of thought it is rare.  The court tries its damndest to get the ruling right the first time but that is not always the case.  I can also state that the people DO have the ability to overturn the court  its called an amendment.  We have that power but it is a really high bar to pas  for good reason.  Right now you dont see that possibility but I believe that is only because our politics has gone so far off the deep end.  Most people would not recognize freedom if it smacked them in the face let alone be willing to fight for it.  Servitude is much simpler, to our great detriment.  At least IMHO.  Or opinion, I might not be all that humble
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words you can't find one instance where a SCOTUS decision has not been upheld.
> 
> You really should brush up on your reading comprehension skills.
> 
> *I stated the fact that whether you or I agree or disagree is irrelevant. The decision has been made. I never said the decision couldn't be challenged or even reversed. I simply stated that agreeing or disagreeing does absolutely nothing to effect change.*
> 
> You may not agree with any number of the laws on the books or decisions SCOTUS has ruled on but you are obligated to follow them or suffer the consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read my response again.  We can do a LOT through public discourse and debate.
> 
> You might have to follow that provision but that does not mean that there is nothing that you can do.
> 
> You are NEVER powerless in this nation.  At least not yet.  That is one of the things that makes us so great.
Click to expand...


Again your reading comprehension skills are lacking.


----------



## KissMy

Crime has dropped everywhere regardless of "stop and frisk". Reduced IV drug use & illegitimate birth rate due to the fear or aids reduced crime more than any government policy.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

KissMy said:


> Crime has dropped everywhere regardless of "stop and frisk". Reduced illegitimate birth rate reduced crime more than any government policy.



illegitimate birth rates have increased.

And crime rates haven't dropped everywhere.

Latest Statistics on Illegitimate Births 

RISING ILLEGITIMACY: AMERICA'S SOCIAL CATASTROPHE

Chicagos crime rate continues to rise

Violent Crime Up In the U.S. For First Time In Nearly 2 Decades


----------



## KissMy

Crime has dropped everywhere regardless of "stop and frisk". Reduced IV drug use & illegitimate birth rate due to the fear or aids reduced crime more than any government policy.

Two parent structure households create the best well adjusted children. Single parent & divorced households & unwanted children create criminals. The marriage tax penalty & LBJ's Great Society Welfare are what caused the soaring illegitimate birth & crime rates.

November 7, 1991, basketball legend Earvin "Magic" Johnson shocked the world by announcing he tested positive for HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. Within 2 months the number of people getting tested for aids was up 50%. Illegitimate birth rates dropped within 9 months due to gestation period after all the multiple partner unprotected sex stopped. Heroin & other injected drug use that had been soaring since 1960 slowed their accent. No businessman, scientist, political policy or abortion had any positive affect on these social problems until Magic scared the riffraff straight.










The way to wipe out the marriage penalty is simply tax married couples as if each spouse were a single person earning half the total family income. This "income splitting" approach was the law in the U.S. until it was repealed in 1969. That is when erosion of society began. You can see the change in marriage & divorce rates.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

KissMy said:


> Crime has dropped everywhere regardless of "stop and frisk". Reduced IV drug use & illegitimate birth rate due to the fear or aids reduced crime more than any government policy.



Your own graph on illegitimate births shows an increase not a reduction. Do you even understand what "reduced" means?


----------



## KissMy

Lonestar_logic said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Crime has dropped everywhere regardless of "stop and frisk". Reduced illegitimate birth rate reduced crime more than any government policy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> illegitimate birth rates have increased.
> 
> And crime rates haven't dropped everywhere.
> 
> Latest Statistics on Illegitimate Births
> 
> RISING ILLEGITIMACY: AMERICA'S SOCIAL CATASTROPHE
> 
> Chicagos crime rate continues to rise
> 
> Violent Crime Up In the U.S. For First Time In Nearly 2 Decades
Click to expand...


*Bullshit!!!*


----------



## KissMy

The AIDS scare lowered crime around the world the same year it did in the USA.

*Canada*





*Mexico*





*UK Britian*





*USA*


----------



## Lonestar_logic

KissMy said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Crime has dropped everywhere regardless of "stop and frisk". Reduced illegitimate birth rate reduced crime more than any government policy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> illegitimate birth rates have increased.
> 
> And crime rates haven't dropped everywhere.
> 
> Latest Statistics on Illegitimate Births
> 
> RISING ILLEGITIMACY: AMERICA'S SOCIAL CATASTROPHE
> 
> Chicagos crime rate continues to rise
> 
> Violent Crime Up In the U.S. For First Time In Nearly 2 Decades
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Bullshit!!!*
Click to expand...


Rate of Killings Rises 38 Percent in Chicago in 2012


----------



## FA_Q2

KissMy said:


> The AIDS scare lowered crime around the world the same year it did in the USA.
> 
> *Canada*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Mexico*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *UK Britian*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *USA*



How in the heck can you equate aids with lowered crime rate!

I dont think that people stopped screwing for anything, least of all aids.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Some figures I just heard on the news and jotted down -

We have about 11K gun homicides per year but only about 250 self-defense related gun homicides. IOW, only about 250 'bad guys with a gun are stopped by a good guy with a gun'. 

Of the past 42 of the mass killers, 32 would have passed a background check.

As much as we need background checks, they're not a guarantee of anything.


----------



## Ernie S.

dblack said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sort of.
> 
> Hypothetical:
> 
> You have 100 people living in a small town, and in order to be safe (lets not question why, as this is NOT the topic of the thread) they decide to hand in their firearms.
> The only person who refuses to is a man who is known to be dangerous, and is not trusted.
> 
> So. Do you a) forcibly remove the guns from that one person in order to make everyone safe, or do you b) give back guns to 99 people to protect themselves from one person?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm.... if this man is 'known to be dangerous' he should be in jail. He certainly shouldn't have a gun.
Click to expand...


And in our society, the man would probably already have had his right to possess a firearm revoked, unless he lived in Chicago.


----------



## KissMy

Luddly Neddite said:


> Some figures I just heard on the news and jotted down -
> 
> We have about 11K gun homicides per year but only about 250 self-defense related gun homicides. IOW, only about 250 'bad guys with a gun are stopped by a good guy with a gun'.
> 
> Of the past 42 of the mass killers, 32 would have passed a background check.
> 
> As much as we need background checks, they're not a guarantee of anything.



Pure lies!

FBI data shows the Total Firearm Deaths in 2011 was 8,583 & only 1,271 were Felony Murder. That proves 85% of all shootings are likely justifiable homicide self defense. Furthermore, guns are used something like one million times each year for self protection.


----------



## KissMy

Children from broken homes 'nine times more likely to commit crimes'


----------



## Ernie S.

Luddly Neddite said:


> Some figures I just heard on the news and jotted down -
> 
> We have about 11K gun homicides per year but only about 250 self-defense related gun homicides. IOW, only about 250 'bad guys with a gun are stopped by a good guy with a gun'.
> 
> Of the past 42 of the mass killers, 32 would have passed a background check.
> 
> As much as we need background checks, they're not a guarantee of anything.



A shit load of bad guys with knives are stopped by good guys with guns. 2 for me, so far.


----------



## Meister

KissMy said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some figures I just heard on the news and jotted down -
> 
> We have about 11K gun homicides per year but only about 250 self-defense related gun homicides. IOW, only about 250 'bad guys with a gun are stopped by a good guy with a gun'.
> 
> Of the past 42 of the mass killers, 32 would have passed a background check.
> 
> As much as we need background checks, they're not a guarantee of anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pure lies!
> 
> FBI data shows the Total Firearm Deaths in 2011 was 8,583 & only 1,271 were Felony Murder. That proves 85% of all shootings are likely justifiable homicide self defense. Furthermore, guns are used something like one million times each year for self protection.
Click to expand...

 

Research on this issue will always bare out the truth that guns overwhelmingly do protect private law abiding citizens against a perp.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Luddly Neddite said:


> Some figures I just heard on the news and jotted down -
> 
> We have about 11K gun homicides per year but only about 250 self-defense related gun homicides. IOW, only about 250 'bad guys with a gun are stopped by a good guy with a gun'.
> 
> Of the past 42 of the mass killers, 32 would have passed a background check.
> 
> As much as we need background checks, they're not a guarantee of anything.



How any crimes were prevented because an honest citizen had a gun?


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Lonestar_logic said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some figures I just heard on the news and jotted down -
> 
> We have about 11K gun homicides per year but only about 250 self-defense related gun homicides. IOW, only about 250 'bad guys with a gun are stopped by a good guy with a gun'.
> 
> Of the past 42 of the mass killers, 32 would have passed a background check.
> 
> As much as we need background checks, they're not a guarantee of anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How any crimes were prevented because an honest citizen had a gun?
Click to expand...


No where near "85%", that's for damn sure. Not calling anyone a "liar" because this is the CDZ and that's against the rules here. Just saying that's outrageous and not true.

I was clear about the source of the figures I posted. I meant them to be a take off point, hopefully where an adult conversation could start. As I stated, I believe that we need background checks but they are not a guarantee of anything. 

Neither is having a gun in the bedside table a guarantee of being able to stop a crime. Saying that 85% of gun hommicides are self defense is nonsense.


----------



## Desperado

Lonestar_logic said:


> How any crimes were prevented because an honest citizen had a gun?



If it were only one that would be reason enough.

Now another question, If the good guys did not have guns, how many more crimes would be committed?


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Desperado said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> How any crimes were prevented because an honest citizen had a gun?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it were only one that would be reason enough.
> 
> Now another question, If the good guys did not have guns, how many more crimes would be committed?
Click to expand...


Several have already posted that countries with gun control have as many or more crimes as the US.


----------



## Noomi

S.J. said:


> "Known to be dangerous", how?  Did he commit a violent crime?  Who determines he is dangerous?



Not the point. He is known to be dangerous, and he has a weapon. That is all you need to know.


----------



## Noomi

Luddly Neddite said:


> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> How any crimes were prevented because an honest citizen had a gun?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it were only one that would be reason enough.
> 
> Now another question, If the good guys did not have guns, how many more crimes would be committed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Several have already posted that countries with gun control have as many or more crimes as the US.
Click to expand...


We have strict gun control and a lot less gun crime than the US. And no mass killings since 1996.


----------



## Noomi

MikeK said:


> Australian Gun Ban Facts & Statistics
> Posted on Thursday, January 03, 2013 7:48:26 AM by RC one
> 
> It has now been over 10 years since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own Government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.
> 
> The statistics for the years following the ban are now in:
> 
> 
> Accidental gun deaths are 300% higher than the pre-1997 ban rate
> 
> The assault rate has increased 800% since 1991, and increased 200% since the 1997 gun ban.
> 
> Robbery and armed robbery have increase 20% from the pre-97 ban rate.
> 
> From immediately after the ban was instituted in 1997 through 2002, the robbery and armed robbery rate was up 200% over the pre-ban rates.
> 
> In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 171 percent
> 
> 
> Australian Gun Ban Facts & Statistics



You quote from a very conservative website.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Noomi said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it were only one that would be reason enough.
> 
> Now another question, If the good guys did not have guns, how many more crimes would be committed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Several have already posted that countries with gun control have as many or more crimes as the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have strict gun control and a lot less gun crime than the US. And no mass killings since 1996.
Click to expand...


I was coughing and gagging, about to remind you of the many mass and individual shootings in the US - and then I saw it was an Aussie posting. 

Your country has handled this question with intelligence and success. Thanks.


----------



## Noomi

You are welcome. We still have crime, we have gun crime, yes, but mass killings by crazed people with a gun? Doesn't happen anymore, and that is thanks to the gun control that over 90% of us supported, and still do.


----------



## S.J.

Noomi said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Known to be dangerous", how?  Did he commit a violent crime?  Who determines he is dangerous?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not the point. He is known to be dangerous, and he has a weapon. That is all you need to know.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but it IS the point, especially if it's people like you determining he is dangerous.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Noomi said:


> You are welcome. We still have crime, we have gun crime, yes, but mass killings by crazed people with a gun? Doesn't happen anymore, and that is thanks to the gun control that over 90% of us supported, and still do.



Seems Australia is good at a lot of things.


----------



## Wyld Kard

Noomi said:


> You are welcome. We still have crime, we have gun crime, yes, but mass killings by crazed people with a gun? Doesn't happen anymore, and that is thanks to the gun control that over 90% of us supported, and still do.



So gun control is the answer, the answer to why there is no more mass killings by crazed people with a gun in Australia.

Really?  Just because there is gun control laws in your country, that does not completely guarantee that someone could not snap and do a mass killing of people.  You already acknowledge that there still is gun crime in your country.

Let me point something out to you since it is obvious that you support gun control in your country and you believe that it is doing a good job.

In Switzerland almost every adult male is legally required to possess a gun. One of the few nations with a higher per capita rate of gun ownership than the United States, *Switzerland has virtually no gun crime.*

So Switzerland has virtually NO GUN CRIME, because they are legally required, and Australia has gun control laws and still does have gun crime.

Maybe Australia could learn something from Switzerland.


----------



## KissMy

Noomi said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it were only one that would be reason enough.
> 
> Now another question, If the good guys did not have guns, how many more crimes would be committed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Several have already posted that countries with gun control have as many or more crimes as the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have strict gun control and a lot less gun crime than the US. And no mass killings since 1996.
Click to expand...


Crime spiked & is still high in Australia because of strict gun control even as crime was falling in most other countries.


----------



## KissMy

It is not safe to visit Australia. Two people shot to death an Indian businessman Australia should be boycotted by every country on earth.


----------



## KissMy

*Global Homicide Rate Map*


----------



## Ernie S.

Noomi said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it were only one that would be reason enough.
> 
> Now another question, If the good guys did not have guns, how many more crimes would be committed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Several have already posted that countries with gun control have as many or more crimes as the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have strict gun control and a lot less gun crime than the US. And no mass killings since 1996.
Click to expand...


Take cities like Oakland, Los Angeles, Philadelphia and Chicago out of the equation and our violent crime stats look much the same as yours. Guns/ knives dead is dead.


----------



## Ernie S.

Noomi said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Australian Gun Ban Facts & Statistics
> Posted on Thursday, January 03, 2013 7:48:26 AM by RC one
> 
> It has now been over 10 years since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own Government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.
> 
> The statistics for the years following the ban are now in:
> 
> 
> Accidental gun deaths are 300% higher than the pre-1997 ban rate
> 
> The assault rate has increased 800% since 1991, and increased 200% since the 1997 gun ban.
> 
> Robbery and armed robbery have increase 20% from the pre-97 ban rate.
> 
> From immediately after the ban was instituted in 1997 through 2002, the robbery and armed robbery rate was up 200% over the pre-ban rates.
> 
> In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 171 percent
> 
> 
> Australian Gun Ban Facts & Statistics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You quote from a very conservative website.
Click to expand...


Facts and statistics are not partisan, or is the sky magenta for Libs?


----------



## eagle1462010

Gun Control is the ability to hit what your aiming at.

Protected by the 2nd Amendment........

Which is attacked by the Leftist Loons all the time.


----------



## Ernie S.

Side note to all my 2nd Amendment friends. Google "tannerite" Fun stuff!


----------



## MikeK

Noomi said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Australian Gun Ban Facts & Statistics
> Posted on Thursday, January 03, 2013 7:48:26 AM by RC one
> 
> It has now been over 10 years since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own Government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.
> 
> The statistics for the years following the ban are now in:
> 
> 
> Accidental gun deaths are 300% higher than the pre-1997 ban rate
> 
> The assault rate has increased 800% since 1991, and increased 200% since the 1997 gun ban.
> 
> Robbery and armed robbery have increase 20% from the pre-97 ban rate.
> 
> From immediately after the ban was instituted in 1997 through 2002, the robbery and armed robbery rate was up 200% over the pre-ban rates.
> 
> In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 171 percent
> 
> 
> Australian Gun Ban Facts & Statistics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You quote from a very conservative website.
Click to expand...

Are the stats false, incorrect, or mistaken?  You are in a better position than I am to know.  

Also, there are factors which, in the matter of civilian gun possession, make our respective cultures an awkward comparison.  One factor is population density, another is essential cultural disparity.  It's said the U.S. was born out of the barrel of a gun and firearms are as endemic to this Nation as kangaroos and Koalas are to Australia.  So while there is a small percentage of Americans who would like to see a gun ban the vast majority would not.  In fact, such a ban would be virtually impossible to effect.


----------



## asterism

Ernie S. said:


> Side note to all my 2nd Amendment friends. Google "tannerite" Fun stuff!



No need for google, my favorite gun range sells it for $4 a pop!

VERY fun!


----------



## jon_berzerk

Noomi said:


> Sort of.
> 
> Hypothetical:
> 
> You have 100 people living in a small town, and in order to be safe (lets not question why, as this is NOT the topic of the thread) they decide to hand in their firearms.
> The only person who refuses to is a man who is known to be dangerous, and is not trusted.
> 
> So. Do you a) forcibly remove the guns from that one person in order to make everyone safe, or do you b) give back guns to 99 people to protect themselves from one person?



taking away everyones guns does not make everyone safer i pick b 

because you didnt have c 

*the right to keep and bear  arms will not be infringed 
*


----------



## MikeK

KissMy said:


> You fascist commies can shove gun control!  I lived is a large "gun free city" & was held at gunpoint 5 times by 7 people & 7 guns.[...]


Wow.  You must be a nervous wreck!


----------



## Esmeralda

It's amazing how many people would let the nut next door keep the gun(s).  Either endangering the whole community or forcing the whole community to arm themselves just for the sake of allowing one nut case to have firearms.  America making sense.


----------



## R.C. Christian

Ernie S. said:


> Side note to all my 2nd Amendment friends. Google "tannerite" Fun stuff!



An AR at night with tracer rounds and some tannerite = fun.


----------



## idb

Wildcard said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are welcome. We still have crime, we have gun crime, yes, but mass killings by crazed people with a gun? Doesn't happen anymore, and that is thanks to the gun control that over 90% of us supported, and still do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So gun control is the answer, the answer to why there is no more mass killings by crazed people with a gun in Australia.
> 
> Really?  Just because there is gun control laws in your country, that does not completely guarantee that someone could not snap and do a mass killing of people.  You already acknowledge that there still is gun crime in your country.
> 
> Let me point something out to you since it is obvious that you support gun control in your country and you believe that it is doing a good job.
> 
> In Switzerland almost every adult male is legally required to possess a gun. One of the few nations with a higher per capita rate of gun ownership than the United States, *Switzerland has virtually no gun crime.*
> 
> So Switzerland has virtually NO GUN CRIME, because they are legally required, and Australia has gun control laws and still does have gun crime.
> 
> Maybe Australia could learn something from Switzerland.
Click to expand...

From what I can find, the USA has vastly more guns per population than Switzerland and in Switzerland the ammunition is kept by the military, only to be handed out to citizens in case of an emergency. 

Is the threat of being clubbed over the head by an unloaded weapon enough to deter criminals I wonder?


----------



## Noomi

Wildcard said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are welcome. We still have crime, we have gun crime, yes, but mass killings by crazed people with a gun? Doesn't happen anymore, and that is thanks to the gun control that over 90% of us supported, and still do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So gun control is the answer, the answer to why there is no more mass killings by crazed people with a gun in Australia.
> 
> Really?  Just because there is gun control laws in your country, that does not completely guarantee that someone could not snap and do a mass killing of people.  You already acknowledge that there still is gun crime in your country.
> 
> Let me point something out to you since it is obvious that you support gun control in your country and you believe that it is doing a good job.
> 
> In Switzerland almost every adult male is legally required to possess a gun. One of the few nations with a higher per capita rate of gun ownership than the United States, *Switzerland has virtually no gun crime.*
> 
> So Switzerland has virtually NO GUN CRIME, because they are legally required, and Australia has gun control laws and still does have gun crime.
> 
> Maybe Australia could learn something from Switzerland.
Click to expand...


We haven't had a mass killing in years, and its highly unlikely it will ever happen. The US experiences one every other week, and while you like to claim that if someone had a gun, they would shoot the bad guy, why are the bad guys able to cause so much damage before anyone stops them?


----------



## Noomi

I am shocked at the number of people who would prefer that a known dangerous man should be allowed to keep his guns. That shocks me. One would think that you would believe that no dangerous person be allowed to own a weapon.

I don't agree with most opinions expressed here, but I do like the discussion my question generated.


----------



## editec

Is this town in America?

If so, then you get the cops to frame him for some crime, drugs or child molestation are popular choices.

If there one thing the residents of the land of the free and the home of the brave cannot stand its a citizen who thinks he's free or actually is brave.

Those people ARE going to be targeted for destruction.


----------



## Esmeralda

editec said:


> Is this town in America?
> 
> If so, then you get the cops to frame him for some crime, drugs or child molestation are popular choices.
> 
> If there one thing the residents of the land of the free and the home of the brave cannot stand its a citizen who thinks he's free or actually is brave.
> 
> Those people ARE going to be targeted for destruction.



Swirling shit and silly cynicism have about the same effect.  Zip.


----------



## eflatminor

Noomi said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it were only one that would be reason enough.
> 
> Now another question, If the good guys did not have guns, how many more crimes would be committed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Several have already posted that countries with gun control have as many or more crimes as the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have strict gun control and a lot less gun crime than the US. And no mass killings since 1996.
Click to expand...


Why the focus on "gun" crime and not violent crime, which for you, skyrocketed after your dear leaders confiscated civilian owned firearms?


----------



## eflatminor

Noomi said:


> I am shocked at the number of people who would prefer that a known dangerous man should be allowed to keep his guns. That shocks me. One would think that you would believe that no dangerous person be allowed to own a weapon.
> 
> I don't agree with most opinions expressed here, but I do like the discussion my question generated.



If a person has proven himself dangerous to others, he'd be in jail.  If he's not, who's going to determine he's "dangerous"?  You?  Pass.


----------



## idb

eflatminor said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Several have already posted that countries with gun control have as many or more crimes as the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have strict gun control and a lot less gun crime than the US. And no mass killings since 1996.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why the focus on "gun" crime and not violent crime, which for you, skyrocketed after your dear leaders confiscated civilian owned firearms?
Click to expand...


It hasn't "skyrocketed" at all. 
It has continued on pretty much the same (upward) trend it was on already.


----------



## eflatminor

Noomi said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are welcome. We still have crime, we have gun crime, yes, but mass killings by crazed people with a gun? Doesn't happen anymore, and that is thanks to the gun control that over 90% of us supported, and still do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So gun control is the answer, the answer to why there is no more mass killings by crazed people with a gun in Australia.
> 
> Really?  Just because there is gun control laws in your country, that does not completely guarantee that someone could not snap and do a mass killing of people.  You already acknowledge that there still is gun crime in your country.
> 
> Let me point something out to you since it is obvious that you support gun control in your country and you believe that it is doing a good job.
> 
> In Switzerland almost every adult male is legally required to possess a gun. One of the few nations with a higher per capita rate of gun ownership than the United States, *Switzerland has virtually no gun crime.*
> 
> So Switzerland has virtually NO GUN CRIME, because they are legally required, and Australia has gun control laws and still does have gun crime.
> 
> Maybe Australia could learn something from Switzerland.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We haven't had a mass killing in years, and its highly unlikely it will ever happen.
Click to expand...


Tell that to the folks in Norway...



> The US experiences one every other week,



Now that's just a lie.  



> and while you like to claim that if someone had a gun, they would shoot the bad guy, why are the bad guys able to cause so much damage before anyone stops them?



Because these thugs and crazies choose places where carrying a firearm is forbidden...they're called 'gun free zones'.  Shockingly, the criminals do not obey the law...


----------



## eflatminor

idb said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have strict gun control and a lot less gun crime than the US. And no mass killings since 1996.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the focus on "gun" crime and not violent crime, which for you, skyrocketed after your dear leaders confiscated civilian owned firearms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It hasn't "skyrocketed" at all.
> It has continued on pretty much the same (upward) trend it was on already.
Click to expand...


Semantics.  I wonder, why has Australian and England seen violent crime "continue it's upward trend" when so many other countries, including the US, have seen violent crime rates drop consistently?  If guns=crime, US crime rates should be getter worse, not better.


----------



## idb

eflatminor said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why the focus on "gun" crime and not violent crime, which for you, skyrocketed after your dear leaders confiscated civilian owned firearms?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It hasn't "skyrocketed" at all.
> It has continued on pretty much the same (upward) trend it was on already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Semantics.  I wonder, why has Australian and England seen violent crime "continue it's upward trend" when so many other countries, including the US, have seen violent crime rates drop consistently?  If guns=crime, US crime rates should be getter worse, not better.
Click to expand...

It's not semantics at all. 
The claim is that removing guns from people has caused crime rates to skyrocket...that simply isn't true.


----------



## midcan5

"Eric manufactured three more pipe bombs: the Charlie batch. Then he halted production until December. What he needed was guns. And that was becoming a problem. 

Eric had been looking into the Brady Bill. Congress had passed the law restricting the purchase of most popular semiautomatic machine guns in 1993. A federal system of instant background checks would soon go into effect. Eric was going to have a hard time getting around that. 

"Fuck you Brady!" Eric wrote in his journal. All he wanted was a couple of guns - "and thanks to your fucking bill I will probably not get any!" He wanted them only for personal protection, he joked: "Its not like I'm some psycho who would go on a shooting spree. fuckers." 

Eric frequently made his research do double duty for both schoolwork and his master plan. He wrote up a short research assignment on the Brady Bill that week. It was a good idea in theory, he said, aside from the loopholes. *The biggest problem was that checks applied only to licensed dealers, not private dealers. So two-thirds of the licensed dealers had just gone private. "The FBI just shot themselves in the foot," he concluded."                                                                          

Eric was rational about his firepower. "As of this date I have enough explosives to kill about 100 people," he wrote. With axes, bayonets, and assorted blades, he could maybe take out ten more. That was as far as hand to-hand combat would get him. A hundred and ten people. "that just isn't enough!" *

"Guns!" the entry concluded. "I need guns! Give me some fucking firearms! " p.280 'Columbine' by Dave Cullen [bold added]


----------



## eflatminor

idb said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> It hasn't "skyrocketed" at all.
> It has continued on pretty much the same (upward) trend it was on already.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Semantics.  I wonder, why has Australian and England seen violent crime "continue it's upward trend" when so many other countries, including the US, have seen violent crime rates drop consistently?  If guns=crime, US crime rates should be getter worse, not better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not semantics at all.
> The claim is that removing guns from people has caused crime rates to skyrocket...that simply isn't true.
Click to expand...


Care to speculate why violent crime rates rose in England and Australia immediately following the confiscation of civilian owned firearms while at the same time crime rates where dropping in the US as the number of firearms and conceal carry permits were skyrocketing (yes, right word)?


----------



## Skull Pilot

Noomi said:


> I am shocked at the number of people who would prefer that a known dangerous man should be allowed to keep his guns. That shocks me. One would think that you would believe that no dangerous person be allowed to own a weapon.
> 
> I don't agree with most opinions expressed here, but I do like the discussion my question generated.



You don't force everyone to do something because one of one person.

Would you like to have your home searched every day because some other guy in your town was selling drugs out of his?


----------



## jon_berzerk

eflatminor said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Semantics.  I wonder, why has Australian and England seen violent crime "continue it's upward trend" when so many other countries, including the US, have seen violent crime rates drop consistently?  If guns=crime, US crime rates should be getter worse, not better.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not semantics at all.
> The claim is that removing guns from people has caused crime rates to skyrocket...that simply isn't true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Care to speculate why violent crime rates rose in England and Australia immediately following the confiscation of civilian owned firearms while at the same time crime rates where dropping in the US as the number of firearms and conceal carry permits were skyrocketing (yes, right word)?
Click to expand...


the 2013 presidential study by the CDC on firearms 

says that 500 thousand up to 3 million times per year 

the firearm is defensively used 

if you removed the security of the firearm 

our rate of violent crime would rise as well


----------



## idb

eflatminor said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Semantics.  I wonder, why has Australian and England seen violent crime "continue it's upward trend" when so many other countries, including the US, have seen violent crime rates drop consistently?  If guns=crime, US crime rates should be getter worse, not better.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not semantics at all.
> The claim is that removing guns from people has caused crime rates to skyrocket...that simply isn't true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Care to speculate why violent crime rates rose in England and Australia immediately following the confiscation of civilian owned firearms while at the same time crime rates where dropping in the US as the number of firearms and conceal carry permits were skyrocketing (yes, right word)?
Click to expand...


I don't agree that the Australian violent crime rates increased any faster than before the ban. 
As for the UK, who knows, I'm no criminologist but it appears to be one if the most crime-ridden countries in Western Europe. 
A proliferating gang culture is one if the reasons being put forward. 
Are you suggesting that the increase in crime is *because* of the restrictions on guns? How can you know that?


----------



## jon_berzerk

idb said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not semantics at all.
> The claim is that removing guns from people has caused crime rates to skyrocket...that simply isn't true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care to speculate why violent crime rates rose in England and Australia immediately following the confiscation of civilian owned firearms while at the same time crime rates where dropping in the US as the number of firearms and conceal carry permits were skyrocketing (yes, right word)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't agree that the Australian violent crime rates increased any faster than before the ban.
> As for the UK, who knows, I'm no criminologist but it appears to be one if the most crime-ridden countries in Western Europe.
> A proliferating gang culture is one if the reasons being put forward.
> Are you suggesting that the increase in crime is *because* of the restrictions on guns? How can you know that?
Click to expand...


odd that in gun ban europe the only ones not having guns is the average honest citizen


----------



## PredFan

Ragnar said:


> I picked "B".
> 
> You don't violate the rights of one man because 99 volunteered to give up theirs.



End of thread.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Lonestar_logic said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gun Control is the ability to hit what your aiming at.
> 
> Protected by the 2nd Amendment........
> 
> Which is attacked by the Leftist Loons all the time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is more proof that leftist loons hate liberty.
Click to expand...


*Gun Control is the ability to hit what your aiming at.*

that is what *well regulated* refers to in the 2nd amendment


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Esmeralda said:


> It's amazing how many people would let the nut next door keep the gun(s).  Either endangering the whole community or forcing the whole community to arm themselves just for the sake of allowing one nut case to have firearms.  America making sense.



I take it you're not American.


If so?


Thank God!


----------



## Lonestar_logic

jon_berzerk said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gun Control is the ability to hit what your aiming at.
> 
> Protected by the 2nd Amendment........
> 
> Which is attacked by the Leftist Loons all the time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is more proof that leftist loons hate liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Gun Control is the ability to hit what your aiming at.*
> 
> that is what *well regulated* refers to in the 2nd amendment
Click to expand...


I've been a co-owner of a gun shop for the past ten years I have a federal firearm license and I'm a pretty decent shot.  I do pick and choose who I sell to and I have every legal right to deny selling to anyone I deem "questionable". Most of my business comes from law enforcement, good honest hard working Americans that put their lives on the line, even for the idiot liberals.


----------



## idb

jon_berzerk said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Care to speculate why violent crime rates rose in England and Australia immediately following the confiscation of civilian owned firearms while at the same time crime rates where dropping in the US as the number of firearms and conceal carry permits were skyrocketing (yes, right word)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree that the Australian violent crime rates increased any faster than before the ban.
> As for the UK, who knows, I'm no criminologist but it appears to be one if the most crime-ridden countries in Western Europe.
> A proliferating gang culture is one if the reasons being put forward.
> Are you suggesting that the increase in crime is *because* of the restrictions on guns? How can you know that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> odd that in gun ban europe the only ones not having guns is the average honest citizen
Click to expand...


And yet the rate of gun homicides is so much less than in the USA.


----------



## jon_berzerk

idb said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree that the Australian violent crime rates increased any faster than before the ban.
> As for the UK, who knows, I'm no criminologist but it appears to be one if the most crime-ridden countries in Western Europe.
> A proliferating gang culture is one if the reasons being put forward.
> Are you suggesting that the increase in crime is *because* of the restrictions on guns? How can you know that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> odd that in gun ban europe the only ones not having guns is the average honest citizen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet the rate of gun homicides is so much less than in the USA.
Click to expand...


i am not of the opinion that is better die by a knife or bat attack over a gun attack


----------



## PredFan

idb said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree that the Australian violent crime rates increased any faster than before the ban.
> As for the UK, who knows, I'm no criminologist but it appears to be one if the most crime-ridden countries in Western Europe.
> A proliferating gang culture is one if the reasons being put forward.
> Are you suggesting that the increase in crime is *because* of the restrictions on guns? How can you know that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> odd that in gun ban europe the only ones not having guns is the average honest citizen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet the rate of gun homicides is so much less than in the USA.
Click to expand...


Your ignorance is exposed in your belief that it is the fault of the gun.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

idb said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree that the Australian violent crime rates increased any faster than before the ban.
> As for the UK, who knows, I'm no criminologist but it appears to be one if the most crime-ridden countries in Western Europe.
> A proliferating gang culture is one if the reasons being put forward.
> Are you suggesting that the increase in crime is *because* of the restrictions on guns? How can you know that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> odd that in gun ban europe the only ones not having guns is the average honest citizen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet the rate of gun homicides is so much less than in the USA.
Click to expand...


Is it?

Europe is a fairly big continent.

And most European countries have a different method of reporting crime stats. In the UK for instance a gun homicide isn't counted unless there is a conviction for that homicide. In the US, suicide by guns is counted as a gun homicide, but not in the UK.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Lonestar_logic said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is more proof that leftist loons hate liberty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Gun Control is the ability to hit what your aiming at.*
> 
> that is what *well regulated* refers to in the 2nd amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've been a co-owner of a gun shop for the past ten years I have a federal firearm license and I'm a pretty decent shot.  I do pick and choose who I sell to and I have every legal right to deny selling to anyone I deem "questionable". Most of my business comes from law enforcement, good honest hard working Americans that put their lives on the line, even for the idiot liberals.
Click to expand...


as it should be 

i just get tired of the left confusing what well regulated means


----------



## idb

PredFan said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> odd that in gun ban europe the only ones not having guns is the average honest citizen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet the rate of gun homicides is so much less than in the USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your ignorance is exposed in your belief that it is the fault of the gun.
Click to expand...


I can tell you've been dying to bring that meme out but you've wasted the opportunity. 
I don't believe that and have never said it. 

Stick it on a picture and make a clever poster instead. 
Get lots of likes from your friends


----------



## idb

Lonestar_logic said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> odd that in gun ban europe the only ones not having guns is the average honest citizen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet the rate of gun homicides is so much less than in the USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it?
> 
> Europe is a fairly big continent.
> 
> And most European countries have a different method of reporting crime stats. In the UK for instance a gun homicide isn't counted unless there is a conviction for that homicide. In the US, suicide by guns is counted as a gun homicide, but not in the UK.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely right. 
I wasn't going to mention that to keep the discussion simple.


----------



## eflatminor

idb said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not semantics at all.
> The claim is that removing guns from people has caused crime rates to skyrocket...that simply isn't true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care to speculate why violent crime rates rose in England and Australia immediately following the confiscation of civilian owned firearms while at the same time crime rates where dropping in the US as the number of firearms and conceal carry permits were skyrocketing (yes, right word)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't agree that the Australian violent crime rates increased any faster than before the ban.
Click to expand...


Then you're denying reality.  The government supplied statistics have been provided here and elsewhere numerous times.  They prove without a doubt that violent crime increased following the ban.



> As for the UK, who knows, I'm no criminologist but it appears to be one if the most crime-ridden countries in Western Europe.



Which was only the case after the ban.  Again, you can choose to deny reality, but it's not helping your case.



> A proliferating gang culture is one if the reasons being put forward.
> Are you suggesting that the increase in crime is *because* of the restrictions on guns? How can you know that?



I'm suggesting there is no way the gun grabbers can associate civilian firearm ownership with violent crime rates.  So please, leave law abiding citizens alone and focus on those that actually harm others.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

idb said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet the rate of gun homicides is so much less than in the USA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it?
> 
> Europe is a fairly big continent.
> 
> And most European countries have a different method of reporting crime stats. In the UK for instance a gun homicide isn't counted unless there is a conviction for that homicide. In the US, suicide by guns is counted as a gun homicide, but not in the UK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're absolutely right.
> I wasn't going to mention that to keep the discussion simple.
Click to expand...


No need to keep things simple. Most of us conservatives are capable of critical thinking. Unlike the liberals who can only parrot Huffpo and Media Matters' talking points.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

eflatminor said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Care to speculate why violent crime rates rose in England and Australia immediately following the confiscation of civilian owned firearms while at the same time crime rates where dropping in the US as the number of firearms and conceal carry permits were skyrocketing (yes, right word)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree that the Australian violent crime rates increased any faster than before the ban.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you're denying reality.  The government supplied statistics have been provided here and elsewhere numerous times.  They prove without a doubt that violent crime increased following the ban.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for the UK, who knows, I'm no criminologist but it appears to be one if the most crime-ridden countries in Western Europe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which was only the case after the ban.  Again, you can choose to deny reality, but it's not helping your case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A proliferating gang culture is one if the reasons being put forward.
> Are you suggesting that the increase in crime is *because* of the restrictions on guns? How can you know that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm suggesting there is no way the gun grabbers can associate civilian firearm ownership with violent crime rates.  So please, *leave law abiding citizens alone and focus on those that actually harm others.*
Click to expand...


*Well said.*

Too many times guns are blamed and not the individuals wielding them.


----------



## Jimmy_Jam

I serves little purpose, by either the left or the right, to make any comparisons between the U.S. and other countries when it comes to arms rights. Mirroring the same gun-rights policy of another country here will not have the same effect. Our issues are our own.


----------



## PredFan

idb said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet the rate of gun homicides is so much less than in the USA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignorance is exposed in your belief that it is the fault of the gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can tell you've been dying to bring that meme out but you've wasted the opportunity.
> I don't believe that and have never said it.
> 
> Stick it on a picture and make a clever poster instead.
> Get lots of likes from your friends
Click to expand...


Kudos for the snarky response, but my statement still holds true. You do believe it and your statement did say that.


----------



## Meister

One of O'Reilly's emails last night was pretty good.
It was something like, blaming murders on the guns is like blaming hangings on the ropes.


----------



## Katzndogz

Despite the best efforts of gun grabbers to say that most people support gun control, it's not true.

Richmond rally supports more checks for gun purchases - Richmond Times-Dispatch: Central Virginia

Even the appearance of a Newtown parent couldn't dig up more than 15 people to attend.


----------



## Ernie S.

asterism said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Side note to all my 2nd Amendment friends. Google "tannerite" Fun stuff!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No need for google, my favorite gun range sells it for $4 a pop!
> 
> VERY fun!
Click to expand...


My next door neighbor had a 2 pounder last week. It rattled dishes 300 yards away. EPIC!


----------



## Ernie S.

R.C. Christian said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Side note to all my 2nd Amendment friends. Google "tannerite" Fun stuff!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An AR at night with tracer rounds and some tannerite = fun.
Click to expand...


You could make your own war movie!


----------



## Ernie S.

Noomi said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are welcome. We still have crime, we have gun crime, yes, but mass killings by crazed people with a gun? Doesn't happen anymore, and that is thanks to the gun control that over 90% of us supported, and still do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So gun control is the answer, the answer to why there is no more mass killings by crazed people with a gun in Australia.
> 
> Really?  Just because there is gun control laws in your country, that does not completely guarantee that someone could not snap and do a mass killing of people.  You already acknowledge that there still is gun crime in your country.
> 
> Let me point something out to you since it is obvious that you support gun control in your country and you believe that it is doing a good job.
> 
> In Switzerland almost every adult male is legally required to possess a gun. One of the few nations with a higher per capita rate of gun ownership than the United States, *Switzerland has virtually no gun crime.*
> 
> So Switzerland has virtually NO GUN CRIME, because they are legally required, and Australia has gun control laws and still does have gun crime.
> 
> Maybe Australia could learn something from Switzerland.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We haven't had a mass killing in years, and its highly unlikely it will ever happen. The US experiences one every other week, and while you like to claim that if someone had a gun, they would shoot the bad guy, why are the bad guys able to cause so much damage before anyone stops them?
Click to expand...


Mass shootings, while newsworthy, result in a tiny percentage of gun related deaths. They serve only to motivate the left to try for another gun grab.

Perhaps your time and emotionalism would be better spent stopping inner-city youth from killing each other.


----------



## eflatminor

Meister said:


> One of O'Reilly's emails last night was pretty good.
> It was something like, blaming murders on the guns is like blaming hangings on the ropes.



Stated differently, blaming firearms for murder is like blaming spoons for Rosie O'Donnell's fat ass.


----------



## Ernie S.

Noomi said:


> I am shocked at the number of people who would prefer that a known dangerous man should be allowed to keep his guns. That shocks me. One would think that you would believe that no dangerous person be allowed to own a weapon.
> 
> I don't agree with most opinions expressed here, but I do like the discussion my question generated.



What you fail to take into account is that we already have laws that prohibit dangerous people from having guns.
The problem is that criminals, by definition, have no regard for the law and will find a way to obtain a gun.
Your scenario would make the other 99 citizens helpless to defend themselves.
Your well intentioned (but unconstitutional) effort to keep everyone safe from gun violence has resulted in only 1 person who is safe and 99 potential victims.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Noomi said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are welcome. We still have crime, we have gun crime, yes, but mass killings by crazed people with a gun? Doesn't happen anymore, and that is thanks to the gun control that over 90% of us supported, and still do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So gun control is the answer, the answer to why there is no more mass killings by crazed people with a gun in Australia.
> 
> Really?  Just because there is gun control laws in your country, that does not completely guarantee that someone could not snap and do a mass killing of people.  You already acknowledge that there still is gun crime in your country.
> 
> Let me point something out to you since it is obvious that you support gun control in your country and you believe that it is doing a good job.
> 
> In Switzerland almost every adult male is legally required to possess a gun. One of the few nations with a higher per capita rate of gun ownership than the United States, *Switzerland has virtually no gun crime.*
> 
> So Switzerland has virtually NO GUN CRIME, because they are legally required, and Australia has gun control laws and still does have gun crime.
> 
> Maybe Australia could learn something from Switzerland.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *We haven't had a mass killing in years, and its highly unlikely it will ever happen.* The US experiences one every other week, and while you like to claim that if someone had a gun, they would shoot the bad guy, why are the bad guys able to cause so much damage before anyone stops them?
Click to expand...


Really?

Churchill Fire - 10 confirmed deaths due to a deliberately lit fire. The fire was lit on 7th of February 2009.

Quakers Hill Nursing Home Fire - 10 confirmed and as many as 21 people may have died as a result of a deliberately lit fire in a Quakers Hill nursing home. The fire was lit early on 18th of November 2011.

Melbourne gangland killings - 36 underworld figures murdered so far in gang related violence between 1998 and 2010.

Monash University shooting - In October 2002, Huan Yun Xiang, a student, shot his classmates and teacher, killing two and injuring five. 

Childers Palace Fire - In June 2000, drifter and con-artist Robert Long started a fire at the Childers Palace backpackers hostel that killed 15 people. 

Merrylands has become the Sydney suburb most frequently hit by drive-by shootings as the city as a whole reaches the ignominious milestone of 100 instances of gun violence this year. Sept. 2012


----------



## Ernie S.

midcan5 said:


> "Eric manufactured three more pipe bombs: the Charlie batch. Then he halted production until December. What he needed was guns. And that was becoming a problem.
> 
> Eric had been looking into the Brady Bill. Congress had passed the law restricting the purchase of most popular *semiautomatic machine guns* in 1993. A federal system of instant background checks would soon go into effect. Eric was going to have a hard time getting around that.
> 
> "Fuck you Brady!" Eric wrote in his journal. All he wanted was a couple of guns - "and thanks to your fucking bill I will probably not get any!" He wanted them only for personal protection, he joked: "Its not like I'm some psycho who would go on a shooting spree. fuckers."
> 
> Eric frequently made his research do double duty for both schoolwork and his master plan. He wrote up a short research assignment on the Brady Bill that week. It was a good idea in theory, he said, aside from the loopholes. *The biggest problem was that checks applied only to licensed dealers, not private dealers. So two-thirds of the licensed dealers had just gone private. "The FBI just shot themselves in the foot," he concluded."
> 
> Eric was rational about his firepower. "As of this date I have enough explosives to kill about 100 people," he wrote. With axes, bayonets, and assorted blades, he could maybe take out ten more. That was as far as hand to-hand combat would get him. A hundred and ten people. "that just isn't enough!" *
> 
> "Guns!" the entry concluded. "I need guns! Give me some fucking firearms! " p.280 'Columbine' by Dave Cullen [bold added]



I stopped taking this seriously at "semiautomatic machine guns".


----------



## RKMBrown

Ernie S. said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Eric manufactured three more pipe bombs: the Charlie batch. Then he halted production until December. What he needed was guns. And that was becoming a problem.
> 
> Eric had been looking into the Brady Bill. Congress had passed the law restricting the purchase of most popular *semiautomatic machine guns* in 1993. A federal system of instant background checks would soon go into effect. Eric was going to have a hard time getting around that.
> 
> "Fuck you Brady!" Eric wrote in his journal. All he wanted was a couple of guns - "and thanks to your fucking bill I will probably not get any!" He wanted them only for personal protection, he joked: "Its not like I'm some psycho who would go on a shooting spree. fuckers."
> 
> Eric frequently made his research do double duty for both schoolwork and his master plan. He wrote up a short research assignment on the Brady Bill that week. It was a good idea in theory, he said, aside from the loopholes. *The biggest problem was that checks applied only to licensed dealers, not private dealers. So two-thirds of the licensed dealers had just gone private. "The FBI just shot themselves in the foot," he concluded."
> 
> Eric was rational about his firepower. "As of this date I have enough explosives to kill about 100 people," he wrote. With axes, bayonets, and assorted blades, he could maybe take out ten more. That was as far as hand to-hand combat would get him. A hundred and ten people. "that just isn't enough!" *
> 
> "Guns!" the entry concluded. "I need guns! Give me some fucking firearms! " p.280 'Columbine' by Dave Cullen [bold added]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I stopped taking this seriously at "semiautomatic machine guns".
Click to expand...


Selective fire?


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Ernie S. said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Eric manufactured three more pipe bombs: the Charlie batch. Then he halted production until December. What he needed was guns. And that was becoming a problem.
> 
> Eric had been looking into the Brady Bill. Congress had passed the law restricting the purchase of most popular *semiautomatic machine guns* in 1993. A federal system of instant background checks would soon go into effect. Eric was going to have a hard time getting around that.
> 
> "Fuck you Brady!" Eric wrote in his journal. All he wanted was a couple of guns - "and thanks to your fucking bill I will probably not get any!" He wanted them only for personal protection, he joked: "Its not like I'm some psycho who would go on a shooting spree. fuckers."
> 
> Eric frequently made his research do double duty for both schoolwork and his master plan. He wrote up a short research assignment on the Brady Bill that week. It was a good idea in theory, he said, aside from the loopholes. *The biggest problem was that checks applied only to licensed dealers, not private dealers. So two-thirds of the licensed dealers had just gone private. "The FBI just shot themselves in the foot," he concluded."
> 
> Eric was rational about his firepower. "As of this date I have enough explosives to kill about 100 people," he wrote. With axes, bayonets, and assorted blades, he could maybe take out ten more. That was as far as hand to-hand combat would get him. A hundred and ten people. "that just isn't enough!" *
> 
> "Guns!" the entry concluded. "I need guns! Give me some fucking firearms! " p.280 'Columbine' by Dave Cullen [bold added]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I stopped taking this seriously at "semiautomatic machine guns".
Click to expand...


That's luxury that survivors don't have.


----------



## numan

'

Civilized people in civilized countries do not need guns.

The real question is: Is there any possibility that Americans can ever become civilized?

.


----------



## PredFan

Luddly Neddite said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Eric manufactured three more pipe bombs: the Charlie batch. Then he halted production until December. What he needed was guns. And that was becoming a problem.
> 
> Eric had been looking into the Brady Bill. Congress had passed the law restricting the purchase of most popular *semiautomatic machine guns* in 1993. A federal system of instant background checks would soon go into effect. Eric was going to have a hard time getting around that.
> 
> "Fuck you Brady!" Eric wrote in his journal. All he wanted was a couple of guns - "and thanks to your fucking bill I will probably not get any!" He wanted them only for personal protection, he joked: "Its not like I'm some psycho who would go on a shooting spree. fuckers."
> 
> Eric frequently made his research do double duty for both schoolwork and his master plan. He wrote up a short research assignment on the Brady Bill that week. It was a good idea in theory, he said, aside from the loopholes. *The biggest problem was that checks applied only to licensed dealers, not private dealers. So two-thirds of the licensed dealers had just gone private. "The FBI just shot themselves in the foot," he concluded."
> 
> Eric was rational about his firepower. "As of this date I have enough explosives to kill about 100 people," he wrote. With axes, bayonets, and assorted blades, he could maybe take out ten more. That was as far as hand to-hand combat would get him. A hundred and ten people. "that just isn't enough!" *
> 
> "Guns!" the entry concluded. "I need guns! Give me some fucking firearms! " p.280 'Columbine' by Dave Cullen [bold added]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I stopped taking this seriously at "semiautomatic machine guns".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's luxury that survivors don't have.
Click to expand...


Yes it is, why wouldn't it? Are you going to take away the rights of the survivors?


----------



## Ernie S.

RKMBrown said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Eric manufactured three more pipe bombs: the Charlie batch. Then he halted production until December. What he needed was guns. And that was becoming a problem.
> 
> Eric had been looking into the Brady Bill. Congress had passed the law restricting the purchase of most popular *semiautomatic machine guns* in 1993. A federal system of instant background checks would soon go into effect. Eric was going to have a hard time getting around that.
> 
> "Fuck you Brady!" Eric wrote in his journal. All he wanted was a couple of guns - "and thanks to your fucking bill I will probably not get any!" He wanted them only for personal protection, he joked: "Its not like I'm some psycho who would go on a shooting spree. fuckers."
> 
> Eric frequently made his research do double duty for both schoolwork and his master plan. He wrote up a short research assignment on the Brady Bill that week. It was a good idea in theory, he said, aside from the loopholes. *The biggest problem was that checks applied only to licensed dealers, not private dealers. So two-thirds of the licensed dealers had just gone private. "The FBI just shot themselves in the foot," he concluded."
> 
> Eric was rational about his firepower. "As of this date I have enough explosives to kill about 100 people," he wrote. With axes, bayonets, and assorted blades, he could maybe take out ten more. That was as far as hand to-hand combat would get him. A hundred and ten people. "that just isn't enough!" *
> 
> "Guns!" the entry concluded. "I need guns! Give me some fucking firearms! " p.280 'Columbine' by Dave Cullen [bold added]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I stopped taking this seriously at "semiautomatic machine guns".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Selective fire?
Click to expand...


Do you know what a machine gun is?

Selective fire:







Machine gun:


----------



## JWBooth

Noomi said:


> Sort of.
> 
> Hypothetical:
> 
> You have 100 people living in a small town, and in order to be safe (lets not question why, as this is NOT the topic of the thread) they decide to hand in their firearms.
> The only person who refuses to is a man who is known to be dangerous, and is not trusted.
> 
> So. Do you a) forcibly remove the guns from that one person in order to make everyone safe, or do you b) give back guns to 99 people to protect themselves from one person?


Life isn't an episode of *Under the Dome*


----------



## Jimmy_Jam

numan said:


> '
> 
> Civilized people in civilized countries do not need guns.
> 
> The real question is: Is there any possibility that Americans can ever become civilized?
> 
> .



Nice non-objective and inflammatory opinion. 

Try more next time.


----------



## Meister

numan said:


> '
> 
> *Civilized people in civilized countries do not need guns.*
> 
> The real question is: Is there any possibility that Americans can ever become civilized?
> 
> .



They just use another source to break laws. 
There are no true "civilized countries"


----------



## eflatminor

numan said:


> Civilized people in civilized countries do not need guns.



I'm sure the tyrants that murdered millions after disarming their subjects used a similar argument.



> The real question is: Is there any possibility that Americans can ever become civilized?



Another real question:  Is there any possibility you could read a history book???


----------



## eflatminor

Lonestar_logic said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> 
> So gun control is the answer, the answer to why there is no more mass killings by crazed people with a gun in Australia.
> 
> Really?  Just because there is gun control laws in your country, that does not completely guarantee that someone could not snap and do a mass killing of people.  You already acknowledge that there still is gun crime in your country.
> 
> Let me point something out to you since it is obvious that you support gun control in your country and you believe that it is doing a good job.
> 
> In Switzerland almost every adult male is legally required to possess a gun. One of the few nations with a higher per capita rate of gun ownership than the United States, *Switzerland has virtually no gun crime.*
> 
> So Switzerland has virtually NO GUN CRIME, because they are legally required, and Australia has gun control laws and still does have gun crime.
> 
> Maybe Australia could learn something from Switzerland.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *We haven't had a mass killing in years, and its highly unlikely it will ever happen.* The US experiences one every other week, and while you like to claim that if someone had a gun, they would shoot the bad guy, why are the bad guys able to cause so much damage before anyone stops them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> Churchill Fire - 10 confirmed deaths due to a deliberately lit fire. The fire was lit on 7th of February 2009.
> 
> Quakers Hill Nursing Home Fire - 10 confirmed and as many as 21 people may have died as a result of a deliberately lit fire in a Quakers Hill nursing home. The fire was lit early on 18th of November 2011.
> 
> Melbourne gangland killings - 36 underworld figures murdered so far in gang related violence between 1998 and 2010.
> 
> Monash University shooting - In October 2002, Huan Yun Xiang, a student, shot his classmates and teacher, killing two and injuring five.
> 
> Childers Palace Fire - In June 2000, drifter and con-artist Robert Long started a fire at the Childers Palace backpackers hostel that killed 15 people.
> 
> Merrylands has become the Sydney suburb most frequently hit by drive-by shootings as the city as a whole reaches the ignominious milestone of 100 instances of gun violence this year. Sept. 2012
Click to expand...




Facts aren't relevant here!  Don't you know that?  It's about feelings...


----------



## RKMBrown

RKMBrown said:


> Selective fire?





Ernie S. said:


> Do you know what a machine gun is?




The National Firearms Act of 1968 (NFA) defines a number of categories of regulated firearms. These weapons are collectively known as NFA firearms and include the following:

*Machine guns*this includes *any firearm which can fire more than 1 cartridge per trigger pull*. *Both continuous fully automatic fire and "burst fire" (i.e., firearms with a 3-round burst feature) are considered machine gun features.* The weapon's receiver is by itself considered to be a regulated firearm. *A non-machinegun that may be converted to fire more than one shot per trigger pull by ordinary mechanical skills is classed as a machinegun.* Such as a TEC-9 pistol (pre-ban ones are "grandfathered").


----------



## Ernie S.

OK NFA definition.
The original line I objected to was "semiautomatic machine gun" which is an oxymoron. A weapon is either a semiautomatic OR a machine gun. Under NFA, a select fire weapon is a machine gun.
Select fire weapons would be better classified as assault weapons, but you anti 2nd Amendment people have already corrupted the meaning of Assault weapon to include semiautomatics that frighten you because they don't have pretty wooden stocks.


----------



## RKMBrown

Ernie S. said:


> OK NFA definition.
> The original line I objected to was "semiautomatic machine gun" which is an oxymoron. A weapon is either a semiautomatic OR a machine gun. Under NFA, a select fire weapon is a machine gun.
> Select fire weapons would be better classified as assault weapons, but you anti 2nd Amendment people have already corrupted the meaning of Assault weapon to include semiautomatics that frighten you because they don't have pretty wooden stocks.


What makes you think I'm among the "anti 2nd Amendment people?"  I didn't write the NFA rules and I sure as hell don't support them.  Most of our federal laws limiting liberty are moronic.


----------



## idb

eflatminor said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Care to speculate why violent crime rates rose in England and Australia immediately following the confiscation of civilian owned firearms while at the same time crime rates where dropping in the US as the number of firearms and conceal carry permits were skyrocketing (yes, right word)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree that the Australian violent crime rates increased any faster than before the ban.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you're denying reality.  The government supplied statistics have been provided here and elsewhere numerous times.  They prove without a doubt that violent crime increased following the ban.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for the UK, who knows, I'm no criminologist but it appears to be one if the most crime-ridden countries in Western Europe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which was only the case after the ban.  Again, you can choose to deny reality, but it's not helping your case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A proliferating gang culture is one if the reasons being put forward.
> Are you suggesting that the increase in crime is *because* of the restrictions on guns? How can you know that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm suggesting there is no way the gun grabbers can associate civilian firearm ownership with violent crime rates.  So please, leave law abiding citizens alone and focus on those that actually harm others.
Click to expand...

Please, I said that violent crime in Australia increased no faster than before the ban. 
As gun advocates have said many times...if someone is going to commit violence and they haven't got a gun then they'll use a different weapon.


----------



## idb

PredFan said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignorance is exposed in your belief that it is the fault of the gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell you've been dying to bring that meme out but you've wasted the opportunity.
> I don't believe that and have never said it.
> 
> Stick it on a picture and make a clever poster instead.
> Get lots of likes from your friends
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kudos for the snarky response, but my statement still holds true. You do believe it and your statement did say that.
Click to expand...


Thank you, it was ok for a quickly flicked off sarcasm I suppose. 

You believe that everyone is capable and responsible enough to carry a weapon at any time - the sole purpose when manufactured was to kill people - I don't. 
That's not 'blaming the gun'. 
You have blind faith in a utopia that doesn't exist.


----------



## idb

Lonestar_logic said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it?
> 
> Europe is a fairly big continent.
> 
> And most European countries have a different method of reporting crime stats. In the UK for instance a gun homicide isn't counted unless there is a conviction for that homicide. In the US, suicide by guns is counted as a gun homicide, but not in the UK.
> 
> 
> 
> You're absolutely right.
> I wasn't going to mention that to keep the discussion simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need to keep things simple. Most of us conservatives are capable of critical thinking. Unlike the liberals who can only parrot Huffpo and Media Matters' talking points.
Click to expand...


Since you're going to revert to blanket assertions I'll point out that conservatives are the only group that tried to introduce a policy to ban the teaching of critical thinking...in your own state as well.


----------



## eagle1462010

numan said:


> '
> 
> Civilized people in civilized countries do not need guns.
> 
> The real question is: Is there any possibility that Americans can ever become civilized?
> 
> .



Hi Alfred B.  Who the hell are you to tell me what I need or don't need?

I'll keep my Gun and my Bible, you can

*KEEP THE CHANGE*


----------



## Wyld Kard

idb said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are welcome. We still have crime, we have gun crime, yes, but mass killings by crazed people with a gun? Doesn't happen anymore, and that is thanks to the gun control that over 90% of us supported, and still do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So gun control is the answer, the answer to why there is no more mass killings by crazed people with a gun in Australia.
> 
> Really?  Just because there is gun control laws in your country, that does not completely guarantee that someone could not snap and do a mass killing of people.  You already acknowledge that there still is gun crime in your country.
> 
> Let me point something out to you since it is obvious that you support gun control in your country and you believe that it is doing a good job.
> 
> In Switzerland almost every adult male is legally required to possess a gun. One of the few nations with a higher per capita rate of gun ownership than the United States, *Switzerland has virtually no gun crime.*
> 
> So Switzerland has virtually NO GUN CRIME, because they are legally required, and Australia has gun control laws and still does have gun crime.
> 
> Maybe Australia could learn something from Switzerland.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From what I can find, the USA has vastly more guns per population than Switzerland and in Switzerland the ammunition is kept by the military, only to be handed out to citizens in case of an emergency.
> 
> Is the threat of being clubbed over the head by an unloaded weapon enough to deter criminals I wonder?
Click to expand...




> in Switzerland the ammunition is kept by the military



From what I can find, Switzerland does not have a standing army, instead opting for a people's militia for its national defense. The personal weapons of the militia are kept at home as part of the militia's obligations, and so is the ammunition.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Wildcard said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> 
> So gun control is the answer, the answer to why there is no more mass killings by crazed people with a gun in Australia.
> 
> Really?  Just because there is gun control laws in your country, that does not completely guarantee that someone could not snap and do a mass killing of people.  You already acknowledge that there still is gun crime in your country.
> 
> Let me point something out to you since it is obvious that you support gun control in your country and you believe that it is doing a good job.
> 
> In Switzerland almost every adult male is legally required to possess a gun. One of the few nations with a higher per capita rate of gun ownership than the United States, *Switzerland has virtually no gun crime.*
> 
> So Switzerland has virtually NO GUN CRIME, because they are legally required, and Australia has gun control laws and still does have gun crime.
> 
> Maybe Australia could learn something from Switzerland.
> 
> 
> 
> From what I can find, the USA has vastly more guns per population than Switzerland and in Switzerland the ammunition is kept by the military, only to be handed out to citizens in case of an emergency.
> 
> Is the threat of being clubbed over the head by an unloaded weapon enough to deter criminals I wonder?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> in Switzerland the ammunition is kept by the military
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From what I can find, Switzerland does not have a standing army, instead opting for a people's militia for its national defense. The personal weapons of the militia are kept at home as part of the militia's obligations, and so is the ammunition.
Click to expand...


50 rounds 5.56 mm / 48 rounds 9mm required on hand

doesnt make much sense having a firearm without ammo


----------



## idb

Wildcard said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> 
> So gun control is the answer, the answer to why there is no more mass killings by crazed people with a gun in Australia.
> 
> Really?  Just because there is gun control laws in your country, that does not completely guarantee that someone could not snap and do a mass killing of people.  You already acknowledge that there still is gun crime in your country.
> 
> Let me point something out to you since it is obvious that you support gun control in your country and you believe that it is doing a good job.
> 
> In Switzerland almost every adult male is legally required to possess a gun. One of the few nations with a higher per capita rate of gun ownership than the United States, *Switzerland has virtually no gun crime.*
> 
> So Switzerland has virtually NO GUN CRIME, because they are legally required, and Australia has gun control laws and still does have gun crime.
> 
> Maybe Australia could learn something from Switzerland.
> 
> 
> 
> From what I can find, the USA has vastly more guns per population than Switzerland and in Switzerland the ammunition is kept by the military, only to be handed out to citizens in case of an emergency.
> 
> Is the threat of being clubbed over the head by an unloaded weapon enough to deter criminals I wonder?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> in Switzerland the ammunition is kept by the military
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From what I can find, Switzerland does not have a standing army, instead opting for a people's militia for its national defense. The personal weapons of the militia are kept at home as part of the militia's obligations, and so is the ammunition.
Click to expand...




> Parliament has approved a proposal to ban the long-standing Swiss tradition of keeping army ammunition at home.
> With the exception of a few thousand of the 120,000 soldiers in Switzerland's militia army who keep their cartridges at home, all army ammunition will have to be stored in central arsenals. Army guns can still be kept at home.
> The House of Representatives on Thursday followed the Senate in backing a motion that will allow around 2,000 specialist troops, such as those guarding airports and other important installations, to continue to store their ammo in their cellars and attics.
> 
> The government will also be able to lift the ban in the event of a security crisis.


Swiss parliament gets tough in weapons debate. - swissinfo.ch



> Although it is still possible for a former soldier to buy his firearm after he finishes military service, he must provide a justification for keeping the weapon and apply for a permit......When I meet Mathias, a PhD student and serving officer, at his apartment in a snowy suburb of Zurich, I realise the rules have got stricter than I imagined. Mathias keeps his army pistol in the guest room of his home, in a desk drawer hidden under the printer paper.....we don't get bullets any more," he adds. "The Army doesn't give ammunition now - it's all kept in a central arsenal." This measure was introduced by Switzerland's Federal Council in 2007....."The gun is not given to me to protect me or my family," he says. "I have been given this gun by my country to serve my country - and for me it is an honour to take care of it. I think it is a good thing for the state to give this responsibility to people.".....
> 
> In America then, gun ownership is about self-defence whereas in Switzerland it is seen more in terms of national security. To many traditionalists, a gun in the home has become a metaphor for an independent, well-fortified Switzerland which has helped to keep the country out of two world wars...."Forty-three per cent of homicides are domestic related and 90% of those homicides are carried out with guns," he says.
> 
> In his office at Zurich University, Professor Martin Killias, director of criminology at Zurich University is flicking through research papers about gun-related homicides....
> "But over the last 20 years, now that the majority of soldiers don't have ammunition at home, we have seen a decrease in gun violence and a dramatic decrease in gun-related suicides. Today we see maybe 200 gun suicides per year and it used to be 400, 20 years ago. "
> 
> Swiss citizens - for example hunters, or those who shoot as a sport - can get a permit to buy guns and ammunition, unless they have a criminal record, or police deem them unsuitable on psychiatric or security grounds. But hunters and sportsmen are greatly outnumbered by those keeping army guns - which again illustrates the difference between Switzerland and the US.
> 
> Prof Killias cannot hide his anger with those in America who use Switzerland to illustrate their argument that more gun ownership would deter or stop violence.
> 
> "We don't have a gun culture!" he snaps, waving his hand dismissively.
> 
> "I'm always amazed how the National Rifle Association in America points to Switzerland - they make it sound as if it was part of southern Texas!" he says.
> 
> "We have guns at home, but they are kept for peaceful purposes. There is no point taking the gun out of your home in Switzerland because it is illegal to carry a gun in the street. To shoot someone who just looks at you in a funny way - this is not Swiss culture!"
> 
> Street violence has gone up in recent years in Switzerland but there hasn't been an increase in gun-related incidents.


BBC News - Switzerland guns: Living with firearms the Swiss way


----------



## idb

jon_berzerk said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> From what I can find, the USA has vastly more guns per population than Switzerland and in Switzerland the ammunition is kept by the military, only to be handed out to citizens in case of an emergency.
> 
> Is the threat of being clubbed over the head by an unloaded weapon enough to deter criminals I wonder?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> in Switzerland the ammunition is kept by the military
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From what I can find, Switzerland does not have a standing army, instead opting for a people's militia for its national defense. The personal weapons of the militia are kept at home as part of the militia's obligations, and so is the ammunition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 50 rounds 5.56 mm / 48 rounds 9mm required on hand
> 
> doesnt make much sense having a firearm without ammo
Click to expand...


Not since 2007 sorry.
You've been misinformed.


----------



## FA_Q2

Esmeralda said:


> It's amazing how many people would let the nut next door keep the gun(s).  Either endangering the whole community or forcing the whole community to arm themselves just for the sake of allowing one nut case to have firearms.  America making sense.



Its amazing how you could come to this thread and interject a comment that is so vapid and devoid of thought.  Well, no it really isnt.

If you had bothered to read the posts that you are trying to insult you would notice that your assertion is completely false.


Noomi said:


> I am shocked at the number of people who would prefer that a known dangerous man should be allowed to keep his guns. That shocks me. One would think that you would believe that no dangerous person be allowed to own a weapon.
> 
> I don't agree with most opinions expressed here, but I do like the discussion my question generated.


And I am not shocked that you completely misrepresented the opinion of those that you disagreed with.

Seriously, the gun control advocates lack a single fucking fact to support their asinine assertions.  NOT ONE GODDAMN FACT.

I have been asking for a fact based discussion on this for going on four damn months now and no one has anything of any real substance to support assertions that you should be able to take away others rights to a firearm.  Pathetic.


----------



## FA_Q2

idb said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree that the Australian violent crime rates increased any faster than before the ban.
> As for the UK, who knows, I'm no criminologist but it appears to be one if the most crime-ridden countries in Western Europe.
> A proliferating gang culture is one if the reasons being put forward.
> Are you suggesting that the increase in crime is *because* of the restrictions on guns? How can you know that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> odd that in gun ban europe the only ones not having guns is the average honest citizen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet the rate of gun homicides is so much less than in the USA.
Click to expand...


A fact that has nothing to do with guns at all.  That is the most interesting point of all.  The reality is that gun ownership seems to have absolutely zero connection to homicide rates whatsoever despite the crazy claims from those that want more gun control.  Crime rates can be another discussion but suffice it to say, gun laws have no connection to lowering those as well.  Some propose that gun control raises crime rates but that is rather irrelevant.  You dont take away a freedom when it has no positive outcome.  Gun control advocates have to show why gun control is required.  Those against it do not have to establish any positive at all.


----------



## jon_berzerk

idb said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> 
> From what I can find, Switzerland does not have a standing army, instead opting for a people's militia for its national defense. The personal weapons of the militia are kept at home as part of the militia's obligations, and so is the ammunition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 50 rounds 5.56 mm / 48 rounds 9mm required on hand
> 
> doesnt make much sense having a firearm without ammo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not since 2007 sorry.
> You've been misinformed.
Click to expand...


not all of them some 2000  specialist militia members retain their ammo


----------



## idb

FA_Q2 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> odd that in gun ban europe the only ones not having guns is the average honest citizen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet the rate of gun homicides is so much less than in the USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A fact that has nothing to do with guns at all.  That is the most interesting point of all.  The reality is that gun ownership seems to have absolutely zero connection to homicide rates whatsoever despite the crazy claims from those that want more gun control.  Crime rates can be another discussion but suffice it to say, gun laws have no connection to lowering those as well.  Some propose that gun control raises crime rates but that is rather irrelevant.  You dont take away a freedom when it has no positive outcome.  Gun control advocates have to show why gun control is required.  Those against it do not have to establish any positive at all.
Click to expand...


Unfortunately, living in a society means that all of your freedoms and activities are regulated to a certain degree.
I don't know that anyone sensible is calling for guns to be banned, they're calling for firearms access and ownership to be managed.

Gun advocates decry the 'use' of tragedies like Sandy Hook and Aurora but the fact is that they happen and they should elicit some sensible discussion of the current laws.
Circling the wagons and refusing to even consider discussion of the effectiveness of current laws is no appropriate response.

Rather than being a cheerleader for unfettered access to firearms, the NRA should be showing real leadership in the quest for a fair and measured response to such events.
When the only suggestion is to turn every school into a fortress to protect your children against your own citizens I'd suggest that your whole view is back to front.


----------



## arKangel

Noomi said:


> Sort of.
> 
> Hypothetical:
> 
> You have 100 people living in a small town, and in order to be safe (lets not question why, as this is NOT the topic of the thread) they decide to hand in their firearms.
> The only person who refuses to is a man who is known to be dangerous, and is not trusted.
> 
> So. Do you a) forcibly remove the guns from that one person in order to make everyone safe, or do you b) give back guns to 99 people to protect themselves from one person?



An absurd premise.

In your hypothetical town... or any other for that matter.
I would not have handed over my firearms, period.

I have a God given right to keep them.
And "I" would never want to strip anyone of their God given right to defend themselves.  So if "I" absurdly had the authority to forbid people from defending themselves, I simply wouldn't.


----------



## idb

jon_berzerk said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 50 rounds 5.56 mm / 48 rounds 9mm required on hand
> 
> doesnt make much sense having a firearm without ammo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not since 2007 sorry.
> You've been misinformed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not all of them some 2000  specialist militia members retain their ammo
Click to expand...


Sure, out of around 200,000.
That certainly changes the complexion of Swiss firearm ownership statistics touted by the gun advocates doesn't it?


----------



## jon_berzerk

idb said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not since 2007 sorry.
> You've been misinformed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> not all of them some 2000  specialist militia members retain their ammo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, out of around 200,000.
> That certainly changes the complexion of Swiss firearm ownership statistics touted by the gun advocates doesn't it?
Click to expand...


no not really


----------



## Ernie S.

idb said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet the rate of gun homicides is so much less than in the USA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A fact that has nothing to do with guns at all.  That is the most interesting point of all.  The reality is that gun ownership seems to have absolutely zero connection to homicide rates whatsoever despite the crazy claims from those that want more gun control.  Crime rates can be another discussion but suffice it to say, gun laws have no connection to lowering those as well.  Some propose that gun control raises crime rates but that is rather irrelevant.  You dont take away a freedom when it has no positive outcome.  Gun control advocates have to show why gun control is required.  Those against it do not have to establish any positive at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, living in a society means that all of your freedoms and activities are regulated to a certain degree.
> I don't know that anyone sensible is calling for guns to be banned, they're calling for firearms access and ownership to be managed.
> 
> *Gun advocates decry the 'use' of tragedies like Sandy Hook and Aurora but the fact is that they happen and they should elicit some sensible discussion of the current laws.*
> Circling the wagons and refusing to even consider discussion of the effectiveness of current laws is no appropriate response.
> 
> Rather than being a cheerleader for unfettered access to firearms, the NRA should be showing real leadership in the quest for a fair and measured response to such events.
> When the only suggestion is to turn every school into a fortress to protect your children against your own citizens I'd suggest that your whole view is back to front.
Click to expand...


  OK here's your chance. In 20 words or less, propose a law that would have prevented Sandy Hook.


----------



## idb

Ernie S. said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A fact that has nothing to do with guns at all.  That is the most interesting point of all.  The reality is that gun ownership seems to have absolutely zero connection to homicide rates whatsoever despite the crazy claims from those that want more gun control.  Crime rates can be another discussion but suffice it to say, gun laws have no connection to lowering those as well.  Some propose that gun control raises crime rates but that is rather irrelevant.  You dont take away a freedom when it has no positive outcome.  Gun control advocates have to show why gun control is required.  Those against it do not have to establish any positive at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, living in a society means that all of your freedoms and activities are regulated to a certain degree.
> I don't know that anyone sensible is calling for guns to be banned, they're calling for firearms access and ownership to be managed.
> 
> *Gun advocates decry the 'use' of tragedies like Sandy Hook and Aurora but the fact is that they happen and they should elicit some sensible discussion of the current laws.*
> Circling the wagons and refusing to even consider discussion of the effectiveness of current laws is no appropriate response.
> 
> Rather than being a cheerleader for unfettered access to firearms, the NRA should be showing real leadership in the quest for a fair and measured response to such events.
> When the only suggestion is to turn every school into a fortress to protect your children against your own citizens I'd suggest that your whole view is back to front.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK here's your chance. In 20 words or less, propose a law that would have prevented Sandy Hook.
Click to expand...


Are you saying it shouldn't be discussed - because it's hard?


----------



## jon_berzerk

jon_berzerk said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> not all of them some 2000  specialist militia members retain their ammo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, out of around 200,000.
> That certainly changes the complexion of Swiss firearm ownership statistics touted by the gun advocates doesn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no not really
Click to expand...


this only applied to government issued ammo btw 

they can buy all the ammo they want subsided by the government if on a range 

or more expensively if through a commercial retailer


----------



## Noomi

FA_Q2 said:


> And I am not shocked that you completely misrepresented the opinion of those that you disagreed with.
> 
> Seriously, the gun control advocates lack a single fucking fact to support their asinine assertions.  NOT ONE GODDAMN FACT.
> 
> I have been asking for a fact based discussion on this for going on four damn months now and no one has anything of any real substance to support assertions that you should be able to take away others rights to a firearm.  Pathetic.



I didn't misrepresent anything. The majority of people would allow a known dangerous man to possess a firearm. That knowledge is terrifying.


----------



## idb

jon_berzerk said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, out of around 200,000.
> That certainly changes the complexion of Swiss firearm ownership statistics touted by the gun advocates doesn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no not really
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> this only applied to government issued ammo btw
> 
> they can buy all the ammo they want subsided by the government if on a range
> 
> or more expensively if through a commercial retailer
Click to expand...


I've admitted I was wrong a few times...it doesn't hurt that much.
Try it now and see.
I'm not the gloating type...I promise.


----------



## Noomi

Ernie S. said:


> OK here's your chance. In 20 words or less, propose a law that would have prevented Sandy Hook.



What would have lessened the chance of it happening? Banning guns. Adam Lanza used his mothers legally registered gun to murder 26 people. If guns were banned, Lanza likely wouldn't have gotten his hands on it.

That isn't 20 words or less, but that's still a solution that had a good chance of working, whether you admit it or not.


----------



## jon_berzerk

idb said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> no not really
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this only applied to government issued ammo btw
> 
> they can buy all the ammo they want subsided by the government if on a range
> 
> or more expensively if through a commercial retailer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've admitted I was wrong a few times...it doesn't hurt that much.
> Try it now and see.
> I'm not the gloating type...I promise.
Click to expand...


you can have as much ammo at home as one can afford


----------



## arKangel

Noomi said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I am not shocked that you completely misrepresented the opinion of those that you disagreed with.
> 
> Seriously, the gun control advocates lack a single fucking fact to support their asinine assertions.  NOT ONE GODDAMN FACT.
> 
> I have been asking for a fact based discussion on this for going on four damn months now and no one has anything of any real substance to support assertions that you should be able to take away others rights to a firearm.  Pathetic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't misrepresent anything. The majority of people would allow a known dangerous man to possess a firearm. That knowledge is terrifying.
Click to expand...



A majority of people would choose defend themselves.

Your absurd premise is an absolute misrepresentation.
Did you really think this push poll would convince anyone to give up their right to self defense?


Laughable, really.
Even in this whacky premise where you place an individual with the authority to strip such a fundamental right...  you still fail!
It's hilarious!


Clearly, most people recognize this "known dangerous man" was the one who was advocating the gun control in the first place.


----------



## idb

jon_berzerk said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> this only applied to government issued ammo btw
> 
> they can buy all the ammo they want subsided by the government if on a range
> 
> or more expensively if through a commercial retailer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've admitted I was wrong a few times...it doesn't hurt that much.
> Try it now and see.
> I'm not the gloating type...I promise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you can have as much ammo at home as one can afford
Click to expand...


It's not in you, is it?
I said I wouldn't gloat.


----------



## jon_berzerk

idb said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've admitted I was wrong a few times...it doesn't hurt that much.
> Try it now and see.
> I'm not the gloating type...I promise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you can have as much ammo at home as one can afford
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not in you, is it?
> I said I wouldn't gloat.
Click to expand...


why would i 

ammunition is widely available 

it is not like everyone has guns but no ammo


----------



## FA_Q2

idb said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet the rate of gun homicides is so much less than in the USA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A fact that has nothing to do with guns at all.  That is the most interesting point of all.  The reality is that gun ownership seems to have absolutely zero connection to homicide rates whatsoever despite the crazy claims from those that want more gun control.  Crime rates can be another discussion but suffice it to say, gun laws have no connection to lowering those as well.  Some propose that gun control raises crime rates but that is rather irrelevant.  You dont take away a freedom when it has no positive outcome.  Gun control advocates have to show why gun control is required.  Those against it do not have to establish any positive at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, living in a society means that all of your freedoms and activities are regulated to a certain degree.
> I don't know that anyone sensible is calling for guns to be banned, they're calling for firearms access and ownership to be managed.
Click to expand...

Management that is completely ineffective.  You seem to have missed that reality.  Here is the truth  firearm ownership is ALREADY managed to the maximum effective limit.  That management consists of tightly regulating all weapons that are machine guns and completely banning more explosive weapons such as RPGs or over the shoulder SAMs and other exotic and deadly weaponry.  Regulations already exist.  What the gun control advocates are asking for is MORE regulation.  All I ask is that they provide a modicum of evidence that such regulation does ANYTHING to increase the safety of the populous.  Such data is not provided of course because it does not exist. 

Again, I reiterate, it is NOT incumbency upon those that do not want to restrict current rights to somehow prove that gun regulation will cause harm.  That is not required for those that want to keep the rights that we already have.  Those that want to restrict the right are required to establish a sufficient state need and the facts has established that no state need is present given that gun control simply does not work.


idb said:


> Gun advocates decry the 'use' of tragedies like Sandy Hook and Aurora but the fact is that they happen and they should elicit some sensible discussion of the current laws.
> Circling the wagons and refusing to even consider discussion of the effectiveness of current laws is no appropriate response.
> 
> Rather than being a cheerleader for unfettered access to firearms, the NRA should be showing real leadership in the quest for a fair and measured response to such events.
> When the only suggestion is to turn every school into a fortress to protect your children against your own citizens I'd suggest that your whole view is back to front.


They decry the use of incidents like Sandy Hook because they illicit emotional response without logic or facts to back them up.  There is a reason that such discussions only take place when a national tragedy takes place: the facts are completely against the gun control advocates.  We see the standard appeals begin to take hold even in your response.  Phrases like turn every school into a fortress are emotional garbage created to illicit an emotional response considering no one has tried to change schools into a fortress.  Instead, they mention that responsible teachers should arm themselves against this type of attack  a completely reasonable approach.  Of course the advocates for control turn that into an emotional attack by parsing words and calling it a fortress.  

Further, no one has advocated for unfettered access to firearms.  This is yet another complete falsehood predicated by the control advocates to avoid discussing the facts.  All they are advocating for is NOT increasing the ineffective regulations.  As a matter of fact, the NRA advocates for BETTER enforcement of existing regulations.  That is not unfettered.  There are already a myriad of protections and regulations controlling access to firearm in America.  

We have had a discussion about what to do about firearms.  The problem is that the losing side of that argument refuses to accept fact and instead want to impose their will on the rest of the nation so they can feel better.  Fortunately, my rights are not subject to how others feel about them.


----------



## FA_Q2

idb said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've admitted I was wrong a few times...it doesn't hurt that much.
> Try it now and see.
> I'm not the gloating type...I promise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you can have as much ammo at home as one can afford
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not in you, is it?
> I said I wouldn't gloat.
Click to expand...


Yet here you are.

You realize that he was completely correct.  The assertion that was mad was that the swiss control the ammo when you wanted to disregard the fact that they are MANDATED to have firearms and have the highest weapon ownership that I know of.  That assertion was shown to be false.  Not only are some mandated to have the ammo as well but it is freely available for those people to purchase.

Essentially, your assertion was wrong yet here you are asking him to admit that he was wrong.  He already amended the statement that they all have government issued ammo; any further admission on his part is completely unnecessary.


----------



## idb

FA_Q2 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> you can have as much ammo at home as one can afford
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not in you, is it?
> I said I wouldn't gloat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet here you are.
> 
> You realize that he was completely correct.  The assertion that was mad was that the swiss control the ammo when you wanted to disregard the fact that they are MANDATED to have firearms and have the highest weapon ownership that I know of.  That assertion was shown to be false.  Not only are some mandated to have the ammo as well but it is freely available for those people to purchase.
> 
> Essentially, your assertion was wrong yet here you are asking him to admit that he was wrong.  He already amended the statement that they all have government issued ammo; any further admission on his part is completely unnecessary.
Click to expand...


His assertion was


> 50 rounds 5.56 mm / 48 rounds 9mm required on hand
> 
> doesnt make much sense having a firearm without ammo


This is wrong.


The Swiss are listed as fourth highest gun ownership behind the US (far and away in the lead), Yemen and Serbia.
This may or may not be accurate but they are clearly well behind the US.

The number of people that are issued ammo are the 'specialists' that you would find in any society, including, I'm sure, the likes of Japan.
Sure, ammo is available for sale, but guns can not be carried in public without good cause (such as being one of the aforementioned specialists).
All of this clearly impacts on the actual number of firearms *available* for use...which doesn't correlate with the propaganda from the advocates wanting to use Switzerland as a poster child.

The culture in Switzerland is generally written as one of gun ownership for the defence of the country and sport...not self-defence.
US gun culture and Swiss gun culture can't be equated.


----------



## idb

FA_Q2 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A fact that has nothing to do with guns at all.  That is the most interesting point of all.  The reality is that gun ownership seems to have absolutely zero connection to homicide rates whatsoever despite the crazy claims from those that want more gun control.  Crime rates can be another discussion but suffice it to say, gun laws have no connection to lowering those as well.  Some propose that gun control raises crime rates but that is rather irrelevant.  You dont take away a freedom when it has no positive outcome.  Gun control advocates have to show why gun control is required.  Those against it do not have to establish any positive at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, living in a society means that all of your freedoms and activities are regulated to a certain degree.
> I don't know that anyone sensible is calling for guns to be banned, they're calling for firearms access and ownership to be managed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Management that is completely ineffective.  You seem to have missed that reality.  Here is the truth  firearm ownership is ALREADY managed to the maximum effective limit.  That management consists of tightly regulating all weapons that are machine guns and completely banning more explosive weapons such as RPGs or over the shoulder SAMs and other exotic and deadly weaponry.  Regulations already exist.  What the gun control advocates are asking for is MORE regulation.  All I ask is that they provide a modicum of evidence that such regulation does ANYTHING to increase the safety of the populous.  Such data is not provided of course because it does not exist.
> 
> Again, I reiterate, it is NOT incumbency upon those that do not want to restrict current rights to somehow prove that gun regulation will cause harm.  That is not required for those that want to keep the rights that we already have.  Those that want to restrict the right are required to establish a sufficient state need and the facts has established that no state need is present given that gun control simply does not work.
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gun advocates decry the 'use' of tragedies like Sandy Hook and Aurora but the fact is that they happen and they should elicit some sensible discussion of the current laws.
> Circling the wagons and refusing to even consider discussion of the effectiveness of current laws is no appropriate response.
> 
> Rather than being a cheerleader for unfettered access to firearms, the NRA should be showing real leadership in the quest for a fair and measured response to such events.
> When the only suggestion is to turn every school into a fortress to protect your children against your own citizens I'd suggest that your whole view is back to front.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They decry the use of incidents like Sandy Hook because they illicit emotional response without logic or facts to back them up.  There is a reason that such discussions only take place when a national tragedy takes place: the facts are completely against the gun control advocates.  We see the standard appeals begin to take hold even in your response.  Phrases like turn every school into a fortress are emotional garbage created to illicit an emotional response considering no one has tried to change schools into a fortress.  Instead, they mention that responsible teachers should arm themselves against this type of attack  a completely reasonable approach.  Of course the advocates for control turn that into an emotional attack by parsing words and calling it a fortress.
> 
> Further, no one has advocated for unfettered access to firearms.  This is yet another complete falsehood predicated by the control advocates to avoid discussing the facts.  All they are advocating for is NOT increasing the ineffective regulations.  As a matter of fact, the NRA advocates for BETTER enforcement of existing regulations.  That is not unfettered.  There are already a myriad of protections and regulations controlling access to firearm in America.
> 
> We have had a discussion about what to do about firearms.  The problem is that the losing side of that argument refuses to accept fact and instead want to impose their will on the rest of the nation so they can feel better.  Fortunately, my rights are not subject to how others feel about them.
Click to expand...


How can you say this


> Here is the truth  firearm ownership is ALREADY managed to the maximum effective limit.


 when the atrocities continue...where else in the world do they occur with such regularity?

I accept that gun ownership as a right is enshrined in the US constitution.
Do you trust everyone to have the same responsible attitude towards firearms as yourself?

And then we get to the difference in culture.
You say that using language like turning schools into 'fortresses' is emotional language yet suggest that arming teachers is a perfectly reasonable solution.
I say that only Americans with your world view can understand the difference or even believe that the solution is perfectly reasonable.
Most other people of the world will consider that having to arm teachers and barricade children against their own citizens in a First World country is grotesque...a difference in culture? Well maybe.
In any case, whether you like the language or not, having armed teachers, armed guards, locked and reinforced entrance doors, monitored access etc (all of which have been suggested) is a fortress in my view.

The NRA's calls for more effective enforcement of existing regulations is disengenuous at best, when they fight tooth and nail against any enforcement at all.


----------



## FA_Q2

idb said:


> How can you say this
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the truth  firearm ownership is ALREADY managed to the maximum effective limit.
> 
> 
> 
> when the atrocities continue...where else in the world do they occur with such regularity?
Click to expand...

I can say that because, as I have already stated, further gun controls have shown to have zero impact on homicide rates.  They also have not been shown to lower crimes rates.  This is universal across the planet as well as in this nation. 


idb said:


> I accept that gun ownership as a right is enshrined in the US constitution.
> Do you trust everyone to have the same responsible attitude towards firearms as yourself?


No, I dont.  The problem with your assertions though is that you are essentially trusting that they will not break gun laws as well.  Here is a simple truth: the man that does not care about breaking the murder law is NOT going to care about breaking the gun laws.  That is your basic problem, the additional law against the instrument does nothing to curb the outcomes.  That individual does not care about the law in the first place.


idb said:


> And then we get to the difference in culture.
> You say that using language like turning schools into 'fortresses' is emotional language yet suggest that arming teachers is a perfectly reasonable solution.
> I say that only Americans with your world view can understand the difference or even believe that the solution is perfectly reasonable.
> Most other people of the world will consider that having to arm teachers and barricade children against their own citizens in a First World country is grotesque...a difference in culture? Well maybe.


There you go again with barricade and other such inane references.  In the real world, schools almost ALWAYS have locked doors.  There is a myriad of reasons for that and shootings are the LEAST of that concern.  Interestingly enough, a lot of these calls by the NRA are simple defenses to the left demanding solutions for things that are not problems.  School shootings ARE NOT a problem.  They are tragic but more people are beaten to death with hammers than shot at school.  More children drown, are raped, molested and killed in car accidents.  A littler perspective might help.
So far, we have had ONE single child fatality as a result of a school shooting this year.  That is how prevalent this problem really is.  We should use last years data though as it gives us that absolute worst possible frame of reference considering Sandy severely weighted the numbers.  In 2012, 33 children were killed as a result of school shootings.  The number of students that were attending school in 2011 (I could not find reliable data on 2012 but the numbers will be close) comes in around 56.6 MILLION.  That means, on our WORST year we that a risk factor around 0.0006 percent.  This year it is 0.000018 percent.  Is it tragic, yes.  Should that number be zero, yes.  Is that possible, no.  you cannot eliminate all tragedy but we are damn close already.

List of school shootings in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
CPS October 2011 - Detailed Tables - U.S Census Bureau
(table 1, all races and students up to 18)


idb said:


> In any case, whether you like the language or not, having armed teachers, armed guards, locked and reinforced entrance doors, monitored access etc (all of which have been suggested) is a fortress in my view.
> 
> The NRA's calls for more effective enforcement of existing regulations is disengenuous at best, *when they fight tooth and nail against any enforcement at all.*


That is an outright lie.  Perhaps you would like to cite where the NRA has tried to ensure there is no enforcement at all.


----------



## FA_Q2

I&#8217;ll bring back my old thread referencing this subject as well as to how ineffective gun laws are.  There are some revisions as I have refined the argument to reflect the data better over time but the results have proven to still ring true.



FA_Q2 said:


> So, here we go again.
> 
> Clearly I am going to have to remake this argument in a few places so I am going to rework another post I did in one of these other threads.  For those of you that heave read this from me, skip it.  For the rest of the slow class: gun control advocates have no evidence supporting their demands.  I ask the posters here that support gun control laws, how are the gun advocates on the 'wrong' side when you have no data to support your point where they have tons.
> 
> All over the place on this board I am seeing people demanding gun control and making a wide variety of claims about what we need or do not need but one thing is utterly lacking IN EVERY FUCKING THREAD: facts.  I can count the number of facts used in the dozens of threads calling for gun reforms on one hand.  Get educated, we have passed laws already and we have metrics to gauge their effectiveness.
> 
> First, common misinformation techniques must be addressed because you still find all kinds of false claims about higher 'death' rates with lax gin laws that are outright false. The metric we need to be looking at is homicides.  Lots of people like to use 'gun' deaths but that is a rather useless term because you are not really measuring anything.  That term is not fully defined and it is not as easily tracked and compared with different years as a solid statistic.  I also hope that we can agree that what instrument kills the victim is irrelevant.  If gun deaths are cut by 25% but knife deaths increase the same number by 50% we have not made progress.  Rather, we regressed and are worse off.  The real relevant information here is how many people are killed overall and whether or not stricter gun laws results in fewer deaths or crimes.  That is what the gun control advocates are claiming.
> 
> 
> Another common misinformation tactic is to compare US deaths to those on other countries.   Comparing international numbers is also utterly meaningless.  Why, you ask.  Well, that's simple.  Scientific data requires that we control for other variables.  Comparing US to Brittan is meaningless because there are thousands of variables that make a huge difference.  Not only the proliferation of guns that already exists and the current gun laws but also things as basic as culture, diversity, population density, police forces and a host of other things would need to be accounted for.  That is utterly impossible.  Mexico and Switzerland can be used on the other side of the argument of Brittan and in the end we have learned nothing by doing this.  How do we overcome this?  Also, simple.  You compare the crime rates before and after gun legislation has passed.  We can do that here and in Brittan.
> Gun Control - Just Facts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> <revised from original>
> In Washington, it seems that nothing at all happened after gun laws were passed for damn near a decade.  After that they raise sharply for another decade before declining again.  Washington apparently did not get the memo that homicides were supposed to decrease after they passed their law.  It seems that law had no discernible effect on homicide rates at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here we have Chicago where there is no discernible difference before and after the ban.  Again, we are not seeing any real positive effects here.  As a matter of fact, the rate has worsened as compared to the overall rate in the country even though it has slightly decreased.  Form the caption:
> 
> 
> 
> Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the Chicago murder rate has averaged 17% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 25% lower.
> 
> 
> 
> There was a spike that year (likely what predicated the ban) but the overall rate over time remained flat before spiking dramatically and falling again.
> 
> 
> Then we can use this same tactic in measuring the effectiveness in Britton.  Lets actually look at the real numbers over there as well:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oops, even in Brittan, when we account for other factors by using their OWN crime rates, we find that gun laws have NOT reduced the homicides they have suffered.  Seems we are developing a pattern here.  At least Chicago seen some reduction though it was far less than the national average decrease.
> 
> 
> Then, you could always argue, what happens when we relax gun laws.  If the gun 'grabbers' were correct, crimes rate would skyrocket (or at least go up).  Does that happen:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guess not.  The homicide rate in Florida fell rather rapidly and faster than the national average.  In Texas we get a similar result.  This cannot be attributed to the relaxation of the gun laws considering that they were already on the downward trend when those laws were passed but we can certainly disparage the idea that relaxing those laws had any effect in increasing the homicide rates.  They continued on their downward trend.  It seems that the flipside ALSO has shown that gun control does nothing for the homicide rate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then there are other statistics that do matter very much like the following:
> 
> 
> 
> * Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]
> 
> * A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[19]
> 
> * A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[20]
> 
> * A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21]
> 
> &#8226; 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
> &#8226; 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"
> &#8226; 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly, claiming that gun control leads to better outcomes is blatantly false.  Look at the data, it is conclusive that gun laws most certainly do not have any positive impact on homicides or any other meaningful metric.  If you have information that states otherwise then please post it.  I have yet to see some solid statistical evidence that points to gun control as being a competent way of reducing deaths.  I hope I have not wasted my time getting this information.  Try reading it, it will enlighten you.
> 
> 
> In conclusion, over dozens of separate threads have simply ceased to continue because not a single lefty here has any response to the given facts.  I have serious doubts that this time will be any different but I wait with bated breath for one single person to actually support their demands with something that resembles fact.  So far, I have received nothing.
Click to expand...


I have also done similar analysis of Canada and Australia where the results were the same &#8211; no effect of gun control laws.  Everywhere I look, they are completely ineffective at doing anything at all.  The problem here is that over the last 6 months where I have posted this LITERALLY dozens of times I have not received a single factual argument in rebuttal.  That, in and of itself, is VERY telling about how the facts do not support gun control.  The ONE poster that tried used Canada but then posed false numbers from a gun control biased website and a graph that was totally fabricated.  

Where are the facts supporting the other side?


----------



## Ernie S.

idb said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, living in a society means that all of your freedoms and activities are regulated to a certain degree.
> I don't know that anyone sensible is calling for guns to be banned, they're calling for firearms access and ownership to be managed.
> 
> 
> 
> Management that is completely ineffective.  You seem to have missed that reality.  Here is the truth  firearm ownership is ALREADY managed to the maximum effective limit.  That management consists of tightly regulating all weapons that are machine guns and completely banning more explosive weapons such as RPGs or over the shoulder SAMs and other exotic and deadly weaponry.  Regulations already exist.  What the gun control advocates are asking for is MORE regulation.  All I ask is that they provide a modicum of evidence that such regulation does ANYTHING to increase the safety of the populous.  Such data is not provided of course because it does not exist.
> 
> Again, I reiterate, it is NOT incumbency upon those that do not want to restrict current rights to somehow prove that gun regulation will cause harm.  That is not required for those that want to keep the rights that we already have.  Those that want to restrict the right are required to establish a sufficient state need and the facts has established that no state need is present given that gun control simply does not work.
> 
> They decry the use of incidents like Sandy Hook because they illicit emotional response without logic or facts to back them up.  There is a reason that such discussions only take place when a national tragedy takes place: the facts are completely against the gun control advocates.  We see the standard appeals begin to take hold even in your response.  Phrases like turn every school into a fortress are emotional garbage created to illicit an emotional response considering no one has tried to change schools into a fortress.  Instead, they mention that responsible teachers should arm themselves against this type of attack  a completely reasonable approach.  Of course the advocates for control turn that into an emotional attack by parsing words and calling it a fortress.
> 
> Further, no one has advocated for unfettered access to firearms.  This is yet another complete falsehood predicated by the control advocates to avoid discussing the facts.  All they are advocating for is NOT increasing the ineffective regulations.  As a matter of fact, the NRA advocates for BETTER enforcement of existing regulations.  That is not unfettered.  There are already a myriad of protections and regulations controlling access to firearm in America.
> 
> We have had a discussion about what to do about firearms.  The problem is that the losing side of that argument refuses to accept fact and instead want to impose their will on the rest of the nation so they can feel better.  Fortunately, my rights are not subject to how others feel about them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can you say this
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the truth  firearm ownership is ALREADY managed to the maximum effective limit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when the atrocities continue...where else in the world do they occur with such regularity?
> 
> I accept that gun ownership as a right is enshrined in the US constitution.
> Do you trust everyone to have the same responsible attitude towards firearms as yourself?
Click to expand...

of course not! We already have laws that make it illegal for felons and mentally deficient people to possess guns.
All those laws did not prevent Sandy Hook.





> And then we get to the difference in culture.
> You say that using language like turning schools into 'fortresses' is emotional language yet suggest that arming teachers is a perfectly reasonable solution.
> I say that only Americans with your world view can understand the difference or even believe that the solution is perfectly reasonable.
> Most other people of the world will consider that having to arm teachers and barricade children against their own citizens in a First World country is grotesque...a difference in culture? Well maybe.


Of course it is grotesque! we live in a grotesque society. Can you deny that having 2 or 3 trained and armed staff members at Sandy Hook Elementary school would have prevented, or at least limited the carnage in Newtown?

The man shot through the door! While he was engaged in making his entrance, it would have been relatively easy for armed guards to position themselves and pick him off as he got through the doors.
But no. You want schools to "appear" safe, not "be" safe





> In any case, whether you like the language or not, having armed teachers, armed guards, locked and reinforced entrance doors, monitored access etc (all of which have been suggested) is a fortress in my view.


Fortresses are pretty safe places, are they not? Certainly safer than schools.





> The NRA's calls for more effective enforcement of existing regulations is disengenuous at best, when they fight tooth and nail against any enforcement at all.



Bullshit!

Again! I would like you, or any other anti-gun Lib to propose a law that would have been 100% effective in preventing Sandy Hook.


----------



## PredFan

idb said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell you've been dying to bring that meme out but you've wasted the opportunity.
> I don't believe that and have never said it.
> 
> Stick it on a picture and make a clever poster instead.
> Get lots of likes from your friends
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kudos for the snarky response, but my statement still holds true. You do believe it and your statement did say that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you, it was ok for a quickly flicked off sarcasm I suppose.
> 
> You believe that everyone is capable and responsible enough to carry a weapon at any time - the sole purpose when manufactured was to kill people - I don't.
Click to expand...


No, I don't and naver said that I did.



idb said:


> That's not 'blaming the gun'.



Agreed, THAT isn't blaming the gun but that isn't what you said and what you said was in fact blaming the gun.



idb said:


> You have blind faith in a utopia that doesn't exist.



No, that would be you.

What's the matter? Do you have so many arguments going on at the same time that you cannot keep them straight?


----------



## jon_berzerk

idb said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not in you, is it?
> I said I wouldn't gloat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet here you are.
> 
> You realize that he was completely correct.  The assertion that was mad was that the swiss control the ammo when you wanted to disregard the fact that they are MANDATED to have firearms and have the highest weapon ownership that I know of.  That assertion was shown to be false.  Not only are some mandated to have the ammo as well but it is freely available for those people to purchase.
> 
> Essentially, your assertion was wrong yet here you are asking him to admit that he was wrong.  He already amended the statement that they all have government issued ammo; any further admission on his part is completely unnecessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His assertion was
> 
> 
> 
> 50 rounds 5.56 mm / 48 rounds 9mm required on hand
> 
> doesnt make much sense having a firearm without ammo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is wrong.
> 
> 
> The Swiss are listed as fourth highest gun ownership behind the US (far and away in the lead), Yemen and Serbia.
> This may or may not be accurate but they are clearly well behind the US.
> 
> The number of people that are issued ammo are the 'specialists' that you would find in any society, including, I'm sure, the likes of Japan.
> Sure, ammo is available for sale, but guns can not be carried in public without good cause (such as being one of the aforementioned specialists).
> All of this clearly impacts on the actual number of firearms *available* for use...which doesn't correlate with the propaganda from the advocates wanting to use Switzerland as a poster child.
> 
> The culture in Switzerland is generally written as one of gun ownership for the defence of the country and sport...not self-defence.
> US gun culture and Swiss gun culture can't be equated.
Click to expand...


i corrected the statement 

however your assertion that the government 

not giving out ammo to the militia "blows" the pro gun crowds stance on Switzerland 

out of the water is ridiculous 

ammo is widely available at ranges at subsidized by the government prices 

for the militia 

or 

from commercial retailers and normal costs 


*Sure, ammo is available for sale, but guns can not be carried in public without good cause (such as being one of the aforementioned specialists).*

here we go with another real zinger --LOL

it is quite common to see a person serving military service to be en route with his rifle

to carry a loaded firearm a permit is required 

however you can travel with a firearm and ammo if it separated 

and if you have a reason

one of the following reasons 

For courses or exercises hosted by marksmanship, hunting or military organisations,
To an army warehouse and back,

(this one is neat)
*To show the gun to a friend or a possible buyer*

To and from a holder of a valid arms trade permit,
To and from a specific event, i.e. gun shows


and of course according to their law none of these need to be a direct route 

personally i do not like to use the Swiss as an example since if we adopted their laws 

we would be losing the rights we currently have


----------



## Jimmy_Jam

I did some similarly-minded research on this matter and found where the numbers in the U.S. just do not support the paranoid claims of those wanting to restrict the 2nd Amendment. And damn if I didn't lose the work I put into it. The FBI statistics on violent crime show that states that have the most restrictions tend to have the most violent crime, while states that have the least restrictions tend to have the least. The disparities may not be enormous, but they are clear.

Here are the five states that are commonly regarded to have the most gun control, along with percentage of violent crimes reported per population, rounded to the nearest 10th of a percent:

CA          0.4%
NJ           0.3%
MA          0.4%
HA           0.3%
CT          0.3%

Conversely, the same data for the five states commonly regarded as having the least gun control shows:

AZ          0.4%
ID           0.2%
VT          0.2%
MS          0.3%
KY          0.2%

Is this an enormous disparity? No. However, one of the arguments for gun control is that more guns = more violence. It does no good to try and compare the U.S. with other countries, not with much relevance anyway. Different countries, different situations. The same policies would not create the same effects. However, what we can do is compare states within the U.S., and the data is clear. States with less gun restriction have a little less violent crime than states that have more. 

Source:
FBI ? Table 5


----------



## PredFan

idb said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet the rate of gun homicides is so much less than in the USA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A fact that has nothing to do with guns at all.  That is the most interesting point of all.  The reality is that gun ownership seems to have absolutely zero connection to homicide rates whatsoever despite the crazy claims from those that want more gun control.  Crime rates can be another discussion but suffice it to say, gun laws have no connection to lowering those as well.  Some propose that gun control raises crime rates but that is rather irrelevant.  You don&#8217;t take away a freedom when it has no positive outcome.  Gun control advocates have to show why gun control is required.  Those against it do not have to establish any positive at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, living in a society means that all of your freedoms and activities are regulated to a certain degree.
Click to expand...


Bull shit. Some possibly, not all.



idb said:


> I don't know that anyone sensible is calling for guns to be banned, they're calling for firearms access and ownership to be managed.



Both those who call for guns to be banned and those who call for guns to be "managed" are wrong. Managing guns does nothing to stop crime. that bogus claim has been shot down too many times to count.



idb said:


> Gun advocates decry the 'use' of tragedies like Sandy Hook and Aurora but the fact is that they happen and they should elicit some sensible discussion of the current laws.



Wrong again. These things happen despite all of the current laws and will not be stopped or even slowed by additional laws. The only thing that will happen is that the people who won't break the law, and are sane enough not to kill large numbers of people will be the ones unarmed. until you can show how crazy people and crimianls would obey gun laws, you have no ground to stand on.



idb said:


> Circling the wagons and refusing to even consider discussion of the effectiveness of current laws is no appropriate response.



Wrong yet again. We are willing to, and have been discussing the effectiveness of current laws, it's just that we aren't giving you what you want because you are wrong. Current laws are ineffective and more laws will also be ineffective. You don't like not getting what you want so you keep demanding it despite the mountain of evidence that you are wrong.



idb said:


> Rather than being a cheerleader for unfettered access to firearms, the NRA should be showing real leadership in the quest for a fair and measured response to such events.



Strawman argument not deserving of a response.



idb said:


> When the only suggestion is to turn every school into a fortress to protect your children against your own citizens I'd suggest that your whole view is back to front.



Another strawman mixed with childish hyperbole. You have been measured and found lacking.


----------



## FA_Q2

Jimmy_Jam said:


> I did some similarly-minded research on this matter and found where the numbers in the U.S. just do not support the paranoid claims of those wanting to restrict the 2nd Amendment. And damn if I didn't lose the work I put into it. The FBI statistics on violent crime show that states that have the most restrictions tend to have the most violent crime, while states that have the least restrictions tend to have the least. The disparities may not be enormous, but they are clear.
> 
> Here are the five states that are commonly regarded to have the most gun control, along with percentage of violent crimes reported per population, rounded to the nearest 10th of a percent:
> 
> CA          0.4%
> NJ           0.3%
> MA          0.4%
> HA           0.3%
> CT          0.3%
> 
> Conversely, the same data for the five states commonly regarded as having the least gun control shows:
> 
> AZ          0.4%
> ID           0.2%
> VT          0.2%
> MS          0.3%
> KY          0.2%
> 
> Is this an enormous disparity? No. However, one of the arguments for gun control is that more guns = more violence. It does no good to try and compare the U.S. with other countries, not with much relevance anyway. Different countries, different situations. The same policies would not create the same effects. However, what we can do is compare states within the U.S., and the data is clear. States with less gun restriction have a little less violent crime than states that have more.
> 
> Source:
> FBI ? Table 5



Thanks for the information.  It is interesting  and more nails in the coffin of the false claim that gun control works  but I dont even think state to state comparisons are very good.  While country to country has far more variables than state to state, the various states are also quite different.  For instance, Arizona has an EXTREMELY different set of circumstances based solely on the fact that it is a border state to Mexico than, say, Michigan.  It is nearly impossible to control for the major differences in the states due to the border let alone other variables like population density and cultural differences.  That is why I stick with the before and after snapshots.  While that in no way accounts for everything (there are other changes that occur in the various years that the data looks at) it does make the closest comparison that is possible.


----------



## Jimmy_Jam

FA_Q2 said:


> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did some similarly-minded research on this matter and found where the numbers in the U.S. just do not support the paranoid claims of those wanting to restrict the 2nd Amendment. And damn if I didn't lose the work I put into it. The FBI statistics on violent crime show that states that have the most restrictions tend to have the most violent crime, while states that have the least restrictions tend to have the least. The disparities may not be enormous, but they are clear.
> 
> Here are the five states that are commonly regarded to have the most gun control, along with percentage of violent crimes reported per population, rounded to the nearest 10th of a percent:
> 
> CA          0.4%
> NJ           0.3%
> MA          0.4%
> HA           0.3%
> CT          0.3%
> 
> Conversely, the same data for the five states commonly regarded as having the least gun control shows:
> 
> AZ          0.4%
> ID           0.2%
> VT          0.2%
> MS          0.3%
> KY          0.2%
> 
> Is this an enormous disparity? No. However, one of the arguments for gun control is that more guns = more violence. It does no good to try and compare the U.S. with other countries, not with much relevance anyway. Different countries, different situations. The same policies would not create the same effects. However, what we can do is compare states within the U.S., and the data is clear. States with less gun restriction have a little less violent crime than states that have more.
> 
> Source:
> FBI ? Table 5
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the information.  It is interesting  and more nails in the coffin of the false claim that gun control works  but I dont even think state to state comparisons are very good.  While country to country has far more variables than state to state, the various states are also quite different.  For instance, Arizona has an EXTREMELY different set of circumstances based solely on the fact that it is a border state to Mexico than, say, Michigan.  It is nearly impossible to control for the major differences in the states due to the border let alone other variables like population density and cultural differences.  That is why I stick with the before and after snapshots.  While that in no way accounts for everything (there are other changes that occur in the various years that the data looks at) it does make the closest comparison that is possible.
Click to expand...


That's a good point about AZ. I live here and if it weren't for the border areas I am convinced the violent crime would be closer to the other states on the same list. 

I agree the comparison is not perfect, but at least comparing states puts the comparison within the context of the same federal constitution.


----------



## peach174

Noomie
Your Country banned guns and rape & theft went up.
Banning guns does not get rid of criminal activity.
All it does is make the Politicians feel safer and leaves your Citizens defenseless against criminals.

Americans have a 2nd Amendment that gives them the right to defend themselves.


----------



## Smilebong

peach174 said:


> Noomie
> Your Country banned guns and rape & theft went up.
> Banning guns does not get rid of criminal activity.
> All it does is make the Politicians feel safer and leaves your Citizens defenseless against criminals.
> 
> Americans have a 2nd Amendment that gives them the right to defend themselves.



And the 2nd amendment was not written by a bunch of stupid, uneducated morons. They knew what they were doing, and I agree with their wording, even though there are times that it is not as clear as people might like.

 [MENTION=38085]Noomi[/MENTION], my friend, please do not take this as a personal attack, but I am a 2nd Amendment rights advocate and will stand with those who promote it.  I will not bad mouth you. You have been very kind and a friend to me, and I hope we can agreeably not see eye to eye on this.


----------



## FA_Q2

Jimmy_Jam said:


> *That's a good point about AZ. I live here and if it weren't for the border areas I am convinced the violent crime would be closer to the other states on the same list. *
> 
> I agree the comparison is not perfect, but at least comparing states puts the comparison within the context of the same federal constitution.



Very likely.  The border area drags the entire state down with the large amounts of drug trafficking that is done through there.  It truly is a mess.  It is those nuances that really make comparisons across differing geological areas quite difficult.  Its why I deplore comparisons against places like England.  The differences are so vast that any comparisons are meaningless (as you pointed out earlier).  Even the method that crime is reported is completely different.


----------



## unigel

Anyone who wants a gun should have prove they can secure it and share the penalties of any crime commited by someone using the weapon as a result of not securing it.


----------



## Intense

*This is the CDZ. Keep it civil. No insulting or putting down other posters.*


----------



## eflatminor

unigel said:


> Anyone who wants a gun should have prove they can secure it and share the penalties of any crime commited by someone using the weapon as a result of not securing it.



Anyone who wants a book should have to prove they can secure it and share the penalties of any crime committed by someone influenced by that book as a result of not securing it.

Cool with that?


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Ernie S. said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Management that is completely ineffective.  You seem to have missed that reality.  Here is the truth  firearm ownership is ALREADY managed to the maximum effective limit.  That management consists of tightly regulating all weapons that are machine guns and completely banning more explosive weapons such as RPGs or over the shoulder SAMs and other exotic and deadly weaponry.  Regulations already exist.  What the gun control advocates are asking for is MORE regulation.  All I ask is that they provide a modicum of evidence that such regulation does ANYTHING to increase the safety of the populous.  Such data is not provided of course because it does not exist.
> 
> Again, I reiterate, it is NOT incumbency upon those that do not want to restrict current rights to somehow prove that gun regulation will cause harm.  That is not required for those that want to keep the rights that we already have.  Those that want to restrict the right are required to establish a sufficient state need and the facts has established that no state need is present given that gun control simply does not work.
> 
> They decry the use of incidents like Sandy Hook because they illicit emotional response without logic or facts to back them up.  There is a reason that such discussions only take place when a national tragedy takes place: the facts are completely against the gun control advocates.  We see the standard appeals begin to take hold even in your response.  Phrases like turn every school into a fortress are emotional garbage created to illicit an emotional response considering no one has tried to change schools into a fortress.  Instead, they mention that responsible teachers should arm themselves against this type of attack  a completely reasonable approach.  Of course the advocates for control turn that into an emotional attack by parsing words and calling it a fortress.
> 
> Further, no one has advocated for unfettered access to firearms.  This is yet another complete falsehood predicated by the control advocates to avoid discussing the facts.  All they are advocating for is NOT increasing the ineffective regulations.  As a matter of fact, the NRA advocates for BETTER enforcement of existing regulations.  That is not unfettered.  There are already a myriad of protections and regulations controlling access to firearm in America.
> 
> We have had a discussion about what to do about firearms.  The problem is that the losing side of that argument refuses to accept fact and instead want to impose their will on the rest of the nation so they can feel better.  Fortunately, my rights are not subject to how others feel about them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can you say this
> when the atrocities continue...where else in the world do they occur with such regularity?
> 
> I accept that gun ownership as a right is enshrined in the US constitution.
> Do you trust everyone to have the same responsible attitude towards firearms as yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> of course not! We already have laws that make it illegal for felons and mentally deficient people to possess guns.
> All those laws did not prevent Sandy Hook.
> Of course it is grotesque! we live in a grotesque society. Can you deny that having 2 or 3 trained and armed staff members at Sandy Hook Elementary school would have prevented, or at least limited the carnage in Newtown?
> 
> The man shot through the door! While he was engaged in making his entrance, it would have been relatively easy for armed guards to position themselves and pick him off as he got through the doors.
> But no. You want schools to "appear" safe, not "be" safe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In any case, whether you like the language or not, having armed teachers, armed guards, locked and reinforced entrance doors, monitored access etc (all of which have been suggested) is a fortress in my view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fortresses are pretty safe places, are they not? Certainly safer than schools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The NRA's calls for more effective enforcement of existing regulations is disengenuous at best, when they fight tooth and nail against any enforcement at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit!
> 
> Again! I would like you, or any other anti-gun Lib to propose a law that would have been 100% effective in preventing Sandy Hook.
Click to expand...


Yes, because our laws concerning other issues have been 100% effective so we cannot/should not pass any laws that save only a few thousand lives every year.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

FA_Q2 said:


> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> *That's a good point about AZ. I live here and if it weren't for the border areas I am convinced the violent crime would be closer to the other states on the same list. *
> 
> I agree the comparison is not perfect, but at least comparing states puts the comparison within the context of the same federal constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very likely.  The border area drags the entire state down with the large amounts of drug trafficking that is done through there.  It truly is a mess.  It is those nuances that really make comparisons across differing geological areas quite difficult.  Its why I deplore comparisons against places like England.  The differences are so vast that any comparisons are meaningless (as you pointed out earlier).  Even the method that crime is reported is completely different.
Click to expand...


Americans have to get their drugs someplace, you know.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

unigel said:


> Anyone who wants a gun should have prove they can secure it and share the penalties of any crime commited by someone using the weapon as a result of not securing it.



uh-oh ... 

There is absolutely no place in this discussion for logic and responsibility.

If someone gets shot, its their own fault for getting in the way of the bullet. And, as we saw in another thread, even 5year olds should carry guns to school.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

eflatminor said:


> unigel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who wants a gun should have prove they can secure it and share the penalties of any crime commited by someone using the weapon as a result of not securing it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who wants a book should have to prove they can secure it and share the penalties of any crime committed by someone influenced by that book as a result of not securing it.
> 
> Cool with that?
Click to expand...


As soon as people THROW bullets, just as they can with books, that comparison MIGHT make a little sense.

But, probably not. 

All the comparisons and silly "ban cars" points ignore the very basic and most important fact -

Guns/bullets have only one purpose.


----------



## Ernie S.

unigel said:


> Anyone who wants a gun should have prove they can secure it and share the penalties of any crime commited by someone using the weapon as a result of not securing it.



If someone robs you and buys dope with your money, should you be charged with possession?


----------



## Ernie S.

Luddly Neddite said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can you say this
> when the atrocities continue...where else in the world do they occur with such regularity?
> 
> I accept that gun ownership as a right is enshrined in the US constitution.
> Do you trust everyone to have the same responsible attitude towards firearms as yourself?
> 
> 
> 
> of course not! We already have laws that make it illegal for felons and mentally deficient people to possess guns.
> All those laws did not prevent Sandy Hook.
> Of course it is grotesque! we live in a grotesque society. Can you deny that having 2 or 3 trained and armed staff members at Sandy Hook Elementary school would have prevented, or at least limited the carnage in Newtown?
> 
> The man shot through the door! While he was engaged in making his entrance, it would have been relatively easy for armed guards to position themselves and pick him off as he got through the doors.
> But no. You want schools to "appear" safe, not "be" safe
> Fortresses are pretty safe places, are they not? Certainly safer than schools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The NRA's calls for more effective enforcement of existing regulations is disengenuous at best, when they fight tooth and nail against any enforcement at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit!
> 
> Again! I would like you, or any other anti-gun Lib to propose a law that would have been 100% effective in preventing Sandy Hook.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, because our laws concerning other issues have been 100% effective so we cannot/should not pass any laws that save only a few thousand lives every year.
Click to expand...


In 20 words or less, propose a law that would have prevented Sandy Hook.


----------



## Ernie S.

Luddly Neddite said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> unigel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who wants a gun should have prove they can secure it and share the penalties of any crime commited by someone using the weapon as a result of not securing it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who wants a book should have to prove they can secure it and share the penalties of any crime committed by someone influenced by that book as a result of not securing it.
> 
> Cool with that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As soon as people THROW bullets, just as they can with books, that comparison MIGHT make a little sense.
> 
> But, probably not.
> 
> All the comparisons and silly "ban cars" points ignore the very basic and most important fact -
> 
> *Guns/bullets have only one purpose.*
Click to expand...


Yes! Their sole purpose is to punch holes in paper.


----------



## eflatminor

Luddly Neddite said:


> Guns/bullets have only one purpose.



Yes, to propel a projectile.  

Wow, imagine all we could outlaw!


----------



## numan

Jimmy_Jam said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Civilized people in civilized countries do not need guns.
> 
> The real question is: Is there any possibility that Americans can ever become civilized?
> 
> 
> 
> Nice non-objective and inflammatory opinion.
Click to expand...

What is inflammatory? Merely an observation and a question.

I will admit that the question was rhetorical.

.


----------



## Jimmy_Jam

numan said:


> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> numan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Civilized people in civilized countries do not need guns.
> 
> The real question is: Is there any possibility that Americans can ever become civilized?
> 
> 
> 
> Nice non-objective and inflammatory opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is inflammatory? Merely an observation and a question.
> 
> I will admit that the question was rhetorical.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


An inflammatory statement followed by an inflammatory question. Don't bullshit me.


----------



## FA_Q2

Ernie S. said:


> In 20 words or less, propose a law that would have prevented Sandy Hook.



Pshaw.  That is easy.  Ill do it in 7 so there!

It would simply read: it is now illegal to shoot someone.

That will work


----------



## FA_Q2

Luddly Neddite said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can you say this
> when the atrocities continue...where else in the world do they occur with such regularity?
> 
> I accept that gun ownership as a right is enshrined in the US constitution.
> Do you trust everyone to have the same responsible attitude towards firearms as yourself?
> 
> 
> 
> of course not! We already have laws that make it illegal for felons and mentally deficient people to possess guns.
> All those laws did not prevent Sandy Hook.
> Of course it is grotesque! we live in a grotesque society. Can you deny that having 2 or 3 trained and armed staff members at Sandy Hook Elementary school would have prevented, or at least limited the carnage in Newtown?
> 
> The man shot through the door! While he was engaged in making his entrance, it would have been relatively easy for armed guards to position themselves and pick him off as he got through the doors.
> But no. You want schools to "appear" safe, not "be" safe
> Fortresses are pretty safe places, are they not? Certainly safer than schools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The NRA's calls for more effective enforcement of existing regulations is disengenuous at best, when they fight tooth and nail against any enforcement at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit!
> 
> Again! I would like you, or any other anti-gun Lib to propose a law that would have been 100% effective in preventing Sandy Hook.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, because our laws concerning other issues have been 100% effective so we cannot/should not pass any laws that save only a few thousand lives every year.
Click to expand...


Except that I have shown in this thread that passing more gun laws would result in saving 0 lives per year.  You are making an assumption that has been shown as a bald faced lie.  Bring the evidence to the table; you have already been given plenty that refutes such an assertion.


----------



## RKMBrown

Ernie S. said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> of course not! We already have laws that make it illegal for felons and mentally deficient people to possess guns.
> All those laws did not prevent Sandy Hook.
> Of course it is grotesque! we live in a grotesque society. Can you deny that having 2 or 3 trained and armed staff members at Sandy Hook Elementary school would have prevented, or at least limited the carnage in Newtown?
> 
> The man shot through the door! While he was engaged in making his entrance, it would have been relatively easy for armed guards to position themselves and pick him off as he got through the doors.
> But no. You want schools to "appear" safe, not "be" safe
> Fortresses are pretty safe places, are they not? Certainly safer than schools.
> 
> Bullshit!
> 
> Again! I would like you, or any other anti-gun Lib to propose a law that would have been 100% effective in preventing Sandy Hook.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because our laws concerning other issues have been 100% effective so we cannot/should not pass any laws that save only a few thousand lives every year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In 20 words or less, propose a law that would have prevented Sandy Hook.
Click to expand...


Make the laws that prevent citizens from protecting their children in school zones, a felony.  

Then charge the governors of said states with 2nd degree homicide.


----------



## Jimmy_Jam

Luddly Neddite said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> unigel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who wants a gun should have prove they can secure it and share the penalties of any crime commited by someone using the weapon as a result of not securing it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who wants a book should have to prove they can secure it and share the penalties of any crime committed by someone influenced by that book as a result of not securing it.
> 
> Cool with that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As soon as people THROW bullets, just as they can with books, that comparison MIGHT make a little sense.
> 
> But, probably not.
> 
> All the comparisons and silly "ban cars" points ignore the very basic and most important fact -
> 
> *Guns/bullets have only one purpose.*
Click to expand...


You are confusing the word _purpose_ with the word _use_. People have _purposes_, inanimate objects have _uses_. 

That said, guns and bullets most certainly have a distinct use. One for which it is specifically designed. This use may also be carried out with a car, a knife, a baseball bat, or a cast-iron skillet, although the design of these things is not so specific. Regardless, they may all be employed to murder, hunt, defend, even hammer a nail if one was idiotic enough to do such a thing. 

It is your failure to recognize the distinction between _use_ and _purpose_ that, IMHO, is the primary flaw of your argument. Once you can make that distinction, I believe you will be able to have a more mature discussion about arms and arms rights.


----------



## numan

Jimmy_Jam said:


> You are confusing the word _purpose_ with the word _use_. People have _purposes_, inanimate objects have _uses_.


Re-writing the dictionary, are you?

.


----------



## Jimmy_Jam

numan said:


> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are confusing the word _purpose_ with the word _use_. People have _purposes_, inanimate objects have _uses_.
> 
> 
> 
> Re-writing the dictionary, are you?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Any discussion of Constitutional rights is a philosophical one. Any discussion of _purpose_ is therefore philosophical. The philosophical context of _purpose_ is one of human action or will. Guns do not load bullets into themselves, nor do they fire them of their own volition. Human beings do that through a series of actions that requires an intent. It is important to realize that while guns are designed to kill, they possess no purpose of their own. They are merely a tool that can either be used or misused, just as a car, a baseball bat, or a cast-iron skillet can be used or misused. It is the idea that guns have a purpose of their own, that they somehow kill by themselves without the aid of a human purpose or intent appears to be the impetus of most far left opinions on the matter.

If you did not get that point and are deciding instead to attempt a semantic derailing of that point, go for it, but I know better. You offer nothing more than childish jabs that fail to deliver even a jot of the devastation you clearly believe they do.


----------



## Wyld Kard

idb said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> From what I can find, the USA has vastly more guns per population than Switzerland and in Switzerland the ammunition is kept by the military, only to be handed out to citizens in case of an emergency.
> 
> Is the threat of being clubbed over the head by an unloaded weapon enough to deter criminals I wonder?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From what I can find, Switzerland does not have a standing army, instead opting for a people's militia for its national defense. The personal weapons of the militia are kept at home as part of the militia's obligations, and so is the ammunition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Parliament has approved a proposal to ban the long-standing Swiss tradition of keeping army ammunition at home.
> With the exception of a few thousand of the 120,000 soldiers in Switzerland's militia army who keep their cartridges at home, all army ammunition will have to be stored in central arsenals. Army guns can still be kept at home.
> The House of Representatives on Thursday followed the Senate in backing a motion that will allow around 2,000 specialist troops, such as those guarding airports and other important installations, to continue to store their ammo in their cellars and attics.
> 
> The government will also be able to lift the ban in the event of a security crisis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Swiss parliament gets tough in weapons debate. - swissinfo.ch
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although it is still possible for a former soldier to buy his firearm after he finishes military service, he must provide a justification for keeping the weapon and apply for a permit......When I meet Mathias, a PhD student and serving officer, at his apartment in a snowy suburb of Zurich, I realise the rules have got stricter than I imagined. Mathias keeps his army pistol in the guest room of his home, in a desk drawer hidden under the printer paper.....we don't get bullets any more," he adds. "The Army doesn't give ammunition now - it's all kept in a central arsenal." This measure was introduced by Switzerland's Federal Council in 2007....."The gun is not given to me to protect me or my family," he says. "I have been given this gun by my country to serve my country - and for me it is an honour to take care of it. I think it is a good thing for the state to give this responsibility to people.".....
> 
> In America then, gun ownership is about self-defence whereas in Switzerland it is seen more in terms of national security. To many traditionalists, a gun in the home has become a metaphor for an independent, well-fortified Switzerland which has helped to keep the country out of two world wars...."Forty-three per cent of homicides are domestic related and 90% of those homicides are carried out with guns," he says.
> 
> In his office at Zurich University, Professor Martin Killias, director of criminology at Zurich University is flicking through research papers about gun-related homicides....
> "But over the last 20 years, now that the majority of soldiers don't have ammunition at home, we have seen a decrease in gun violence and a dramatic decrease in gun-related suicides. Today we see maybe 200 gun suicides per year and it used to be 400, 20 years ago. "
> 
> Swiss citizens - for example hunters, or those who shoot as a sport - can get a permit to buy guns and ammunition, unless they have a criminal record, or police deem them unsuitable on psychiatric or security grounds. But hunters and sportsmen are greatly outnumbered by those keeping army guns - which again illustrates the difference between Switzerland and the US.
> 
> Prof Killias cannot hide his anger with those in America who use Switzerland to illustrate their argument that more gun ownership would deter or stop violence.
> 
> "We don't have a gun culture!" he snaps, waving his hand dismissively.
> 
> "I'm always amazed how the National Rifle Association in America points to Switzerland - they make it sound as if it was part of southern Texas!" he says.
> 
> "We have guns at home, but they are kept for peaceful purposes. There is no point taking the gun out of your home in Switzerland because it is illegal to carry a gun in the street. To shoot someone who just looks at you in a funny way - this is not Swiss culture!"
> 
> Street violence has gone up in recent years in Switzerland but there hasn't been an increase in gun-related incidents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BBC News - Switzerland guns: Living with firearms the Swiss way
Click to expand...





> Members of the Swiss army keep their weapons  fully automatic assault rifles or pistols  and *a small emergency supply of ammunition at home*. According to the Swiss Constituition, upon completion of all required military service, the gun becomes the property of the individual soldier. Assault rifles are then transformed into semi-automatic weapons. Therefore, military-issue weapons, often generations old, are kept in Swiss households.



Gun Owners of Vermont | Gun Ownership in Switzerland


----------



## numan

Wildcard said:


> ".....we don't get bullets any more," he adds. "The Army doesn't give ammunition now - it's all kept in a central arsenal." This measure was introduced by Switzerland's Federal Council in 2007....."The gun is not given to me to protect me or my family," he says. "I have been given this gun by my country to serve my country...."
Click to expand...

Why -- *GASP!!* -- that appears to be the purpose of owning guns in the USA -- *as described in the Second Amendment of the US Constitution!!!* · · 

.


----------



## idb

FA_Q2 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can you say this
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the truth  firearm ownership is ALREADY managed to the maximum effective limit.
> 
> 
> 
> when the atrocities continue...where else in the world do they occur with such regularity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can say that because, as I have already stated, further gun controls have shown to have zero impact on homicide rates.  They also have not been shown to lower crimes rates.  This is universal across the planet as well as in this nation.
> 
> No, I dont.  The problem with your assertions though is that you are essentially trusting that they will not break gun laws as well.  Here is a simple truth: the man that does not care about breaking the murder law is NOT going to care about breaking the gun laws.  That is your basic problem, the additional law against the instrument does nothing to curb the outcomes.  That individual does not care about the law in the first place.
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> And then we get to the difference in culture.
> You say that using language like turning schools into 'fortresses' is emotional language yet suggest that arming teachers is a perfectly reasonable solution.
> I say that only Americans with your world view can understand the difference or even believe that the solution is perfectly reasonable.
> Most other people of the world will consider that having to arm teachers and barricade children against their own citizens in a First World country is grotesque...a difference in culture? Well maybe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There you go again with barricade and other such inane references.  In the real world, schools almost ALWAYS have locked doors.  There is a myriad of reasons for that and shootings are the LEAST of that concern.  Interestingly enough, a lot of these calls by the NRA are simple defenses to the left demanding solutions for things that are not problems.  School shootings ARE NOT a problem.  They are tragic but more people are beaten to death with hammers than shot at school.  More children drown, are raped, molested and killed in car accidents.  A littler perspective might help.
> So far, we have had ONE single child fatality as a result of a school shooting this year.  That is how prevalent this problem really is.  We should use last years data though as it gives us that absolute worst possible frame of reference considering Sandy severely weighted the numbers.  In 2012, 33 children were killed as a result of school shootings.  The number of students that were attending school in 2011 (I could not find reliable data on 2012 but the numbers will be close) comes in around 56.6 MILLION.  That means, on our WORST year we that a risk factor around 0.0006 percent.  This year it is 0.000018 percent.  Is it tragic, yes.  Should that number be zero, yes.  Is that possible, no.  you cannot eliminate all tragedy but we are damn close already.
> 
> List of school shootings in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> CPS October 2011 - Detailed Tables - U.S Census Bureau
> (table 1, all races and students up to 18)
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> In any case, whether you like the language or not, having armed teachers, armed guards, locked and reinforced entrance doors, monitored access etc (all of which have been suggested) is a fortress in my view.
> 
> The NRA's calls for more effective enforcement of existing regulations is disengenuous at best, *when they fight tooth and nail against any enforcement at all.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is an outright lie.  Perhaps you would like to cite where the NRA has tried to ensure there is no enforcement at all.
Click to expand...






> I can say that because, as I have already stated, further gun controls have shown to have zero impact on homicide rates.  They also have not been shown to lower crimes rates.  This is universal across the planet as well as in this nation.


Does Japan's experience on gun control not show anything at all to you?
A Land Without Guns: How Japan Has Virtually Eliminated Shooting Deaths - Max Fisher - The Atlantic


If school shootings are such a minor problem, why did you say earlier that arming teachers would be a reasonable response?
As I wrote, it may be a difference in culture, but I doubt that most other Western countries would agree that having to arm their teachers is reasonable at all.

Just one example of the NRA's mission to limit enforcement is their continuing campaign against the appointment of a director for the ATF, and their demonising of its officers.


For your information, and for some clarity on my position;
I own guns, I want to continue to own guns and I don't advocate banning guns.
I advocate a sensible and grown-up discussion about the availability of firearms.
It may be, at the end of it your argument prevails and nothing substantial changes, and maybe everyone agrees putting money to enforcing the current regulations is the way to go.

You're damned right the deaths of children at school is an emotional issue - it can't fail to be and if it doesn't cause some discussion and soul-searching I don't know what will.

On the other hand, since I don't live in the US I have no direct vested interest either way - but I can't fail to be moved by the news of shooting events when they happen.

If many of the same people that say that gun controls can't work while these shootings are happening, can spend time, money and effort to create laws to correct a non-existent voter fraud problem - well - where are the priorities?

Please excuse the fractured reply, I've tried to cover a lot of points.


----------



## idb

Wildcard said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> 
> From what I can find, Switzerland does not have a standing army, instead opting for a people's militia for its national defense. The personal weapons of the militia are kept at home as part of the militia's obligations, and so is the ammunition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swiss parliament gets tough in weapons debate. - swissinfo.ch
> 
> 
> BBC News - Switzerland guns: Living with firearms the Swiss way
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Members of the Swiss army keep their weapons  fully automatic assault rifles or pistols  and *a small emergency supply of ammunition at home*. According to the Swiss Constituition, upon completion of all required military service, the gun becomes the property of the individual soldier. Assault rifles are then transformed into semi-automatic weapons. Therefore, military-issue weapons, often generations old, are kept in Swiss households.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gun Owners of Vermont | Gun Ownership in Switzerland
Click to expand...


Yeah [MENTION=39578]Wildcard[/MENTION] , except that letter's dated 1995 and the law was changed in 2007.


----------



## Ernie S.

idb said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can you say this
> when the atrocities continue...where else in the world do they occur with such regularity?
> 
> 
> 
> I can say that because, as I have already stated, further gun controls have shown to have zero impact on homicide rates.  They also have not been shown to lower crimes rates.  This is universal across the planet as well as in this nation.
> 
> No, I dont.  The problem with your assertions though is that you are essentially trusting that they will not break gun laws as well.  Here is a simple truth: the man that does not care about breaking the murder law is NOT going to care about breaking the gun laws.  That is your basic problem, the additional law against the instrument does nothing to curb the outcomes.  That individual does not care about the law in the first place.
> 
> There you go again with barricade and other such inane references.  In the real world, schools almost ALWAYS have locked doors.  There is a myriad of reasons for that and shootings are the LEAST of that concern.  Interestingly enough, a lot of these calls by the NRA are simple defenses to the left demanding solutions for things that are not problems.  School shootings ARE NOT a problem.  They are tragic but more people are beaten to death with hammers than shot at school.  More children drown, are raped, molested and killed in car accidents.  A littler perspective might help.
> So far, we have had ONE single child fatality as a result of a school shooting this year.  That is how prevalent this problem really is.  We should use last years data though as it gives us that absolute worst possible frame of reference considering Sandy severely weighted the numbers.  In 2012, 33 children were killed as a result of school shootings.  The number of students that were attending school in 2011 (I could not find reliable data on 2012 but the numbers will be close) comes in around 56.6 MILLION.  That means, on our WORST year we that a risk factor around 0.0006 percent.  This year it is 0.000018 percent.  Is it tragic, yes.  Should that number be zero, yes.  Is that possible, no.  you cannot eliminate all tragedy but we are damn close already.
> 
> List of school shootings in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> CPS October 2011 - Detailed Tables - U.S Census Bureau
> (table 1, all races and students up to 18)
> 
> That is an outright lie.  Perhaps you would like to cite where the NRA has tried to ensure there is no enforcement at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can say that because, as I have already stated, further gun controls have shown to have zero impact on homicide rates.  They also have not been shown to lower crimes rates.  This is universal across the planet as well as in this nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does Japan's experience on gun control not show anything at all to you?
> A Land Without Guns: How Japan Has Virtually Eliminated Shooting Deaths - Max Fisher - The Atlantic
> 
> 
> If school shootings are such a minor problem, why did you say earlier that arming teachers would be a reasonable response?
> As I wrote, it may be a difference in culture, but I doubt that most other Western countries would agree that having to arm their teachers is reasonable at all.
> 
> Just one example of the NRA's mission to limit enforcement is their continuing campaign against the appointment of a director for the ATF, and their demonising of its officers.
> 
> 
> For your information, and for some clarity on my position;
> I own guns, I want to continue to own guns and I don't advocate banning guns.
> I advocate a sensible and grown-up discussion about the availability of firearms.
> It may be, at the end of it your argument prevails and nothing substantial changes, and maybe everyone agrees putting money to enforcing the current regulations is the way to go.
> 
> You're damned right the deaths of children at school is an emotional issue - it can't fail to be and if it doesn't cause some discussion and soul-searching I don't know what will.
> 
> On the other hand, since I don't live in the US I have no direct vested interest either way - but I can't fail to be moved by the news of shooting events when they happen.
> 
> If many of the same people that say that gun controls can't work while these shootings are happening, can spend time, money and effort to create laws to correct a non-existent voter fraud problem - well - where are the priorities?
> 
> Please excuse the fractured reply, I've tried to cover a lot of points.
Click to expand...


So, you can't propose a law that would have prevented Sandy Hook? If you think there is some magic law, any more effective than the other 100,000 gun laws, give us a quick description. If it has promise, I'll even write my Congressmen asking for their support.


----------



## idb

Ernie S. said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can say that because, as I have already stated, further gun controls have shown to have zero impact on homicide rates.  They also have not been shown to lower crimes rates.  This is universal across the planet as well as in this nation.
> 
> No, I dont.  The problem with your assertions though is that you are essentially trusting that they will not break gun laws as well.  Here is a simple truth: the man that does not care about breaking the murder law is NOT going to care about breaking the gun laws.  That is your basic problem, the additional law against the instrument does nothing to curb the outcomes.  That individual does not care about the law in the first place.
> 
> There you go again with barricade and other such inane references.  In the real world, schools almost ALWAYS have locked doors.  There is a myriad of reasons for that and shootings are the LEAST of that concern.  Interestingly enough, a lot of these calls by the NRA are simple defenses to the left demanding solutions for things that are not problems.  School shootings ARE NOT a problem.  They are tragic but more people are beaten to death with hammers than shot at school.  More children drown, are raped, molested and killed in car accidents.  A littler perspective might help.
> So far, we have had ONE single child fatality as a result of a school shooting this year.  That is how prevalent this problem really is.  We should use last years data though as it gives us that absolute worst possible frame of reference considering Sandy severely weighted the numbers.  In 2012, 33 children were killed as a result of school shootings.  The number of students that were attending school in 2011 (I could not find reliable data on 2012 but the numbers will be close) comes in around 56.6 MILLION.  That means, on our WORST year we that a risk factor around 0.0006 percent.  This year it is 0.000018 percent.  Is it tragic, yes.  Should that number be zero, yes.  Is that possible, no.  you cannot eliminate all tragedy but we are damn close already.
> 
> List of school shootings in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> CPS October 2011 - Detailed Tables - U.S Census Bureau
> (table 1, all races and students up to 18)
> 
> That is an outright lie.  Perhaps you would like to cite where the NRA has tried to ensure there is no enforcement at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can say that because, as I have already stated, further gun controls have shown to have zero impact on homicide rates.  They also have not been shown to lower crimes rates.  This is universal across the planet as well as in this nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does Japan's experience on gun control not show anything at all to you?
> A Land Without Guns: How Japan Has Virtually Eliminated Shooting Deaths - Max Fisher - The Atlantic
> 
> 
> If school shootings are such a minor problem, why did you say earlier that arming teachers would be a reasonable response?
> As I wrote, it may be a difference in culture, but I doubt that most other Western countries would agree that having to arm their teachers is reasonable at all.
> 
> Just one example of the NRA's mission to limit enforcement is their continuing campaign against the appointment of a director for the ATF, and their demonising of its officers.
> 
> 
> For your information, and for some clarity on my position;
> I own guns, I want to continue to own guns and I don't advocate banning guns.
> I advocate a sensible and grown-up discussion about the availability of firearms.
> It may be, at the end of it your argument prevails and nothing substantial changes, and maybe everyone agrees putting money to enforcing the current regulations is the way to go.
> 
> You're damned right the deaths of children at school is an emotional issue - it can't fail to be and if it doesn't cause some discussion and soul-searching I don't know what will.
> 
> On the other hand, since I don't live in the US I have no direct vested interest either way - but I can't fail to be moved by the news of shooting events when they happen.
> 
> If many of the same people that say that gun controls can't work while these shootings are happening, can spend time, money and effort to create laws to correct a non-existent voter fraud problem - well - where are the priorities?
> 
> Please excuse the fractured reply, I've tried to cover a lot of points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you can't propose a law that would have prevented Sandy Hook? If you think there is some magic law, any more effective than the other 100,000 gun laws, give us a quick description. If it has promise, I'll even write my Congressmen asking for their support.
Click to expand...


I never said it was easy, it might not even be possible - so everyone should just give up and accept things the way they are?


----------



## Ernie S.

Well, that's a better alternative than another ineffective law that only serves to restrict the rights of people who would never consider shooting up a school.


----------



## jon_berzerk

peach174 said:


> Noomie
> Your Country banned guns and rape & theft went up.
> Banning guns does not get rid of criminal activity.
> All it does is make the Politicians feel safer and leaves your Citizens defenseless against criminals.
> 
> Americans have a 2nd Amendment that gives them the right to defend themselves.



it is pretty east to extrapolate the information from the 2013 cdc report on gun violence

to understand that between 500 thousand upwards of 2 million times the gun was used to 

defend against a criminal 

 that if the gun was was removed from tht honest citizens

that incidence of rape and violent crime would rise


----------



## Skull Pilot

numan said:


> '
> 
> Civilized people in civilized countries do not need guns.
> 
> The real question is: Is there any possibility that Americans can ever become civilized?
> 
> .



Show me any country on this planet where there is no chance of being the victim of a violent crime.

People have proven over millions of years that they are a violent species via countless acts of murder rape and other assorted acts of violence.

To blithely deny that is beyond ludicrous


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

numan said:


> '
> 
> Civilized people in civilized countries do not need guns.
> 
> The real question is: Is there any possibility that Americans can ever become civilized?
> 
> .



No, the real question is can Americans come to terms with its woefully inadequate mental health policies and the inherently violent nature of its society. 

Gun violence and crime is a consequence of those mentally ill acting in the context of a society that perceives violence as a legitimate means of conflict resolution, not the presence or availability of guns.


----------



## eflatminor

idb said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree that the Australian violent crime rates increased any faster than before the ban.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you're denying reality.  The government supplied statistics have been provided here and elsewhere numerous times.  They prove without a doubt that violent crime increased following the ban.
> 
> 
> 
> Which was only the case after the ban.  Again, you can choose to deny reality, but it's not helping your case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A proliferating gang culture is one if the reasons being put forward.
> Are you suggesting that the increase in crime is *because* of the restrictions on guns? How can you know that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm suggesting there is no way the gun grabbers can associate civilian firearm ownership with violent crime rates.  So please, leave law abiding citizens alone and focus on those that actually harm others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please, *I said that violent crime in Australia increased no faster than before the ban.*
Click to expand...


Incorrect.

According to government statistics, in the 15 years before the national gun confiscation firearm-related homicides dropped nearly 66% and firearm-related deaths fell 50%.

Three years after the confiscation of civilian owned firearms, firearm-related murders were up 19% (and armed robberies were up 69%, home invasions up 21%).

The following year, homicides were up another 20%.

That is a DRAMATIC increase in violent crime immediately following the gun ban.



> As gun advocates have said many times...if someone is going to commit violence and they haven't got a gun then they'll use a different weapon.



Or they'll just find a firearm.  Either way, can we infer from this statement that you do not support the restriction of civilian owned firearms?


----------



## FA_Q2

idb said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can you say this
> when the atrocities continue...where else in the world do they occur with such regularity?
> 
> 
> 
> I can say that because, as I have already stated, further gun controls have shown to have zero impact on homicide rates.  They also have not been shown to lower crimes rates.  This is universal across the planet as well as in this nation.
> 
> No, I dont.  The problem with your assertions though is that you are essentially trusting that they will not break gun laws as well.  Here is a simple truth: the man that does not care about breaking the murder law is NOT going to care about breaking the gun laws.  That is your basic problem, the additional law against the instrument does nothing to curb the outcomes.  That individual does not care about the law in the first place.
> 
> There you go again with barricade and other such inane references.  In the real world, schools almost ALWAYS have locked doors.  There is a myriad of reasons for that and shootings are the LEAST of that concern.  Interestingly enough, a lot of these calls by the NRA are simple defenses to the left demanding solutions for things that are not problems.  School shootings ARE NOT a problem.  They are tragic but more people are beaten to death with hammers than shot at school.  More children drown, are raped, molested and killed in car accidents.  A littler perspective might help.
> So far, we have had ONE single child fatality as a result of a school shooting this year.  That is how prevalent this problem really is.  We should use last years data though as it gives us that absolute worst possible frame of reference considering Sandy severely weighted the numbers.  In 2012, 33 children were killed as a result of school shootings.  The number of students that were attending school in 2011 (I could not find reliable data on 2012 but the numbers will be close) comes in around 56.6 MILLION.  That means, on our WORST year we that a risk factor around 0.0006 percent.  This year it is 0.000018 percent.  Is it tragic, yes.  Should that number be zero, yes.  Is that possible, no.  you cannot eliminate all tragedy but we are damn close already.
> 
> List of school shootings in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> CPS October 2011 - Detailed Tables - U.S Census Bureau
> (table 1, all races and students up to 18)
> 
> That is an outright lie.  Perhaps you would like to cite where the NRA has tried to ensure there is no enforcement at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can say that because, as I have already stated, further gun controls have shown to have zero impact on homicide rates.  They also have not been shown to lower crimes rates.  This is universal across the planet as well as in this nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does Japan's experience on gun control not show anything at all to you?
> A Land Without Guns: How Japan Has Virtually Eliminated Shooting Deaths - Max Fisher - The Atlantic
> 
> 
> If school shootings are such a minor problem, why did you say earlier that arming teachers would be a reasonable response?
> As I wrote, it may be a difference in culture, but I doubt that most other Western countries would agree that having to arm their teachers is reasonable at all.
> 
> Just one example of the NRA's mission to limit enforcement is their continuing campaign against the appointment of a director for the ATF, and their demonising of its officers.
> 
> 
> For your information, and for some clarity on my position;
> I own guns, I want to continue to own guns and I don't advocate banning guns.
> I advocate a sensible and grown-up discussion about the availability of firearms.
> It may be, at the end of it your argument prevails and nothing substantial changes, and maybe everyone agrees putting money to enforcing the current regulations is the way to go.
> 
> You're damned right the deaths of children at school is an emotional issue - it can't fail to be and if it doesn't cause some discussion and soul-searching I don't know what will.
> 
> On the other hand, since I don't live in the US I have no direct vested interest either way - but I can't fail to be moved by the news of shooting events when they happen.
> 
> If many of the same people that say that gun controls can't work while these shootings are happening, can spend time, money and effort to create laws to correct a non-existent voter fraud problem - well - where are the priorities?
> 
> Please excuse the fractured reply, I've tried to cover a lot of points.
Click to expand...


No, Japans situation says nothing at all about gun control because you DO NOT have a control case to compare it to.  Japan has always had strict weapon controls afaik so we have no clue as to how effective it has been.  Further, Japans laws only work at all because the police there have broad search and seizure powers essentially allowing them to search anything they want and confiscate at will.  Essentially, those freedoms that we recognize in the fourth amendment are foreign concepts there.  Japans extremely low homicide rate (and crime rate in general) is that way as a direct result of culture.  Claiming that the homicide rate in Japan is low because of gun control is no more accurate than claiming that the suicide rather there is double that if the US because of gun control.  The causation MUST be established in order to make that claim and the causation is NOT established in that case.  This is particularly true because of all the other cases where WE DO HAVE a control case  the same region pre gun law  that established the law was ineffective.  You are assuming that Japan is different only because you do not have the control data present.


> If school shootings are such a minor problem, why did you say earlier that arming teachers would be a reasonable response?
> As I wrote, it may be a difference in culture, but I doubt that most other Western countries would agree that having to arm their teachers is reasonable at all.


Because there is nothing unreasonable with responsible teachers that have a CC to carry a firearm on them while at school.  Regardless of school shootings, there is nothing wrong with law abiding citizens arming themselves against possible threats.  Its not just culture though.  Again, you might not see it as reasonable but I dont care how anyone sees it.  I am after hard data and to be frank, the data does not show that gun free areas are any safer than non-gun free areas.  


> Just one example of the NRA's mission to limit enforcement is their continuing campaign against the appointment of a director for the ATF, and their demonising of its officers.


I cant comment on the NRA trying to block a director to the ATF, I dont know much about that.  I do know that most of the complaining about NRA backed measures is because the NRA backs gun ownership and privacy  2 things that are going to butt heads with enforcement in many instances.  This is particularly true with privacy which is always a balance between what the authorities are supposed to know and what we are allowed to keep from them.

Perhaps you can make a point that the NRA is not helping enforcement and is disingenuous in that regard.  That, however, does NOT bolster an argument for grater gun controls.  All that does is highlight yet another reason that such groups are corrupt and pointless.  In the end, the arguments for more gun control STILL fall flat on their face.


> If many of the same people that say that gun controls can't work while these shootings are happening, can spend time, money and effort to create laws to correct a non-existent voter fraud problem - well - where are the priorities?


Irrelevant.  This is not a discussion on the merits of voter ID or any other subject.  It is also not a discussion on the rationality of one political spectrum or the other.  If we go that way the only result are distractions and attack on character rather than argument.


> Please excuse the fractured reply, I've tried to cover a lot of points.


No need  it is the only way to reply sometimes


----------



## Joe Steel

S.J. said:


> "Known to be dangerous", how?  Did he commit a violent crime?  Who determines he is dangerous?



Public opinion determines the danger to the community.


----------



## eflatminor

Joe Steel said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Known to be dangerous", how?  Did he commit a violent crime?  Who determines he is dangerous?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Public opinion determines the danger to the community.
Click to expand...


Worked beautifully during the lynching days...

Personally, I'd rather someone be convicted in a court a law before his rights are violated...but that's me.


----------



## Meister

Joe Steel said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Known to be dangerous", how?  Did he commit a violent crime?  Who determines he is dangerous?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Public opinion determines the danger to the community.
Click to expand...


So an untrue story comes out in a newspaper to sway public opinion on a person and .....?


That's never happened, huh?


----------



## FA_Q2

Joe Steel said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Known to be dangerous", how?  Did he commit a violent crime?  Who determines he is dangerous?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Public opinion determines the danger to the community.
Click to expand...


Wow, been awhile joe.

Anyway, what eflat stated is worthy of grater focus imo.  Most importantly, our ENTIRE justice system is completely at odds with that little gem.  The entire point of innocent until proven guilty and the right to a trial is that opinion should have NOTHING to do with the determination of removed rights or your danger that an individual presents to the group.  You might have some sort of point when referring to general concepts for regulations and the like but that is NOT what is being discussed here.  There are 2 things in play  that the MAN presents a danger and  the right to own a firearm.

Neither of those instances are subject in any form to public opinion.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Joe Steel said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Known to be dangerous", how?  Did he commit a violent crime?  Who determines he is dangerous?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Public opinion determines the danger to the community.
Click to expand...


public opinion at work 

Shock Video Allegedly Shows Al Qaeda-Linked Terrorists Stopping Truck Drivers on Side of Road Then Executing Them for Not Being Sunni Muslims | Video | TheBlaze.com


----------



## Skull Pilot

Joe Steel said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Known to be dangerous", how?  Did he commit a violent crime?  Who determines he is dangerous?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Public opinion determines the danger to the community.
Click to expand...


So when public opinion was that a Black man moving into a neighborhood was "dangerous" you were OK with it?


----------



## jon_berzerk

Skull Pilot said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Known to be dangerous", how?  Did he commit a violent crime?  Who determines he is dangerous?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Public opinion determines the danger to the community.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So when public opinion was that a Black man moving into a neighborhood was "dangerous" you were OK with it?
Click to expand...


must have been alright when public opinion said the Indians 

needed to be relocated to the reservations as well


----------



## eflatminor

eflatminor said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you're denying reality.  The government supplied statistics have been provided here and elsewhere numerous times.  They prove without a doubt that violent crime increased following the ban.
> 
> 
> 
> Which was only the case after the ban.  Again, you can choose to deny reality, but it's not helping your case.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm suggesting there is no way the gun grabbers can associate civilian firearm ownership with violent crime rates.  So please, leave law abiding citizens alone and focus on those that actually harm others.
> 
> 
> 
> Please, *I said that violent crime in Australia increased no faster than before the ban.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> According to government statistics, in the 15 years before the national gun confiscation firearm-related homicides dropped nearly 66% and firearm-related deaths fell 50%.
> 
> Three years after the confiscation of civilian owned firearms, firearm-related murders were up 19% (and armed robberies were up 69%, home invasions up 21%).
> 
> The following year, homicides were up another 20%.
> 
> That is a DRAMATIC increase in violent crime immediately following the gun ban.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As gun advocates have said many times...if someone is going to commit violence and they haven't got a gun then they'll use a different weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or they'll just find a firearm.  Either way, can we infer from this statement that you do not support the restriction of civilian owned firearms?
Click to expand...


It wasn't a rhetorical question idb.  I'm interested in your opinion.


----------



## eflatminor

Joe Steel said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Known to be dangerous", how?  Did he commit a violent crime?  Who determines he is dangerous?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Public opinion determines the danger to the community.
Click to expand...


Perhaps you were you being facetious?


----------



## Lonestar_logic

The left will never accept the fact that violence isn't the result of guns.

For too long the left has placed blame on everything except the individual responsible.

For example, five years into his presidency Odrama still blames the Republicans.


----------



## RKMBrown

Lonestar_logic said:


> The left will never accept the fact that *violence isn't the result of guns*.
> 
> For too long the left has placed blame on *everything except the individual* responsible.
> 
> *For example*, five years into his presidency Odrama *still blames the Republicans*.



lol

I think you meant democrats never get to the root causes of problems, and instead deflect and vilify all reasonable solutions.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

RKMBrown said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The left will never accept the fact that *violence isn't the result of guns*.
> 
> For too long the left has placed blame on *everything except the individual* responsible.
> 
> *For example*, five years into his presidency Odrama *still blames the Republicans*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol
> 
> I think you meant democrats never get to the root causes of problems, and instead deflect and vilify all reasonable solutions.
Click to expand...


I mean liberals never blame the individual responsible. It's always something or some else's fault.

Like Obama, blaming his failing policies on the Republicans, the Tea Party and even Rush Limbaugh and not on the Democrat controlled Senate (namely Harry Reid) who are the ones holding everything up.


----------



## Mertex

Lonestar_logic said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The left will never accept the fact that *violence isn't the result of guns*.
> 
> For too long the left has placed blame on *everything except the individual* responsible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *For example*, five years into his presidency Odrama *still blames the Republicans*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol
> 
> I think you meant democrats never get to the root causes of problems, and instead deflect and vilify all reasonable solutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I mean liberals never blame the individual responsible. It's always something or some else's fault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where do conservatives come up with such blather?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like Obama, blaming his failing policies on the Republicans, the Tea Party and even Rush Limbaugh and not on the Democrat controlled Senate (namely Harry Reid) who are the ones holding everything up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about the Republicans in Louisiana blaming Obama for Katrina?
> 
> As for the Senate holding things up, you might want to take a look at the House, where Republicans vote "no" on everything, or waste their time coming up with yet another bill to repeal Obamacare.
Click to expand...


----------



## Vox

It does not have to be a poll. there are hundreds of small towns in America where option B is a live proof that armed populace guarantees safety.

And courtesy


----------



## Vox

Luddly Neddite said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Known to be dangerous", how?  Did he commit a violent crime?  Who determines he is dangerous?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. That's why I disagree with the premise of "hate crimes".* People should be tried for actual crimes, NOT the reason for their crime.*About the OP - *Taking guns away from "bad guys" didn't work in Tombstone. Nor has it worked in modern day Chicago, but for a different reason - criminals can cross the street and be outside Chicago to buy their guns.
> 
> Taking guns away would "fix" nothing but the question does point up the need for law enforcement*.
Click to expand...


EXACTLY.

Since uyou do not have the option to be repped, I am doing it right here


----------



## Ernie S.

Luddly Neddite said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Known to be dangerous", how?  Did he commit a violent crime?  Who determines he is dangerous?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. That's why I disagree with the premise of "hate crimes". People should be tried for actual crimes, NOT the reason for their crime.
> 
> About the OP - Taking guns away from "bad guys" didn't work in Tombstone. Nor has it worked in modern day Chicago, but for a different reason - criminals can cross the street and be outside Chicago to buy their guns.
> 
> Taking guns away would "fix" nothing but the question does point up the need for law enforcement.
Click to expand...



Reasonable post. I am surprised, shocked...
Hate crimes always ticked me off too. If you kill someone, doesn't that kind of indicate you hate them?


----------



## Vox

Noomi said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it were only one that would be reason enough.
> 
> Now another question, If the good guys did not have guns, how many more crimes would be committed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Several have already posted that countries with gun control have as many or more crimes as the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have strict gun control and* a lot less gun crime than the US*. And no mass killings since 1996.
Click to expand...


No, you do NOT. Crime has INCREASED in your country exponentially almost, since your gun control.

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2974487/posts


----------



## Vox

Noomi said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Australian Gun Ban Facts & Statistics
> Posted on Thursday, January 03, 2013 7:48:26 AM by RC one
> 
> It has now been over 10 years since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own Government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.
> 
> The statistics for the years following the ban are now in:
> 
> 
> Accidental gun deaths are 300% higher than the pre-1997 ban rate
> 
> The assault rate has increased 800% since 1991, and increased 200% since the 1997 gun ban.
> 
> Robbery and armed robbery have increase 20% from the pre-97 ban rate.
> 
> From immediately after the ban was instituted in 1997 through 2002, the robbery and armed robbery rate was up 200% over the pre-ban rates.
> 
> In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 171 percent
> 
> 
> Australian Gun Ban Facts & Statistics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You quote from a very conservative website.
Click to expand...


LMAO

I know you ARE stupid but it is just examplary stupidity to consider FIGURES and STATISTICS differ depending on a political affiliation of the site posting them


----------



## Vox

idb said:


> Are you suggesting that the increase in crime is *because* of the restrictions on guns? How can you know that?



 exactly because the ability to defend oneself was taken away. 
are you dumb?


----------



## Meister

Vox said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting that the increase in crime is *because* of the restrictions on guns? How can you know that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> exactly because the ability to defend oneself was taken away.
> are you dumb?
Click to expand...


Indeed, it really is that simple.


----------



## Vox

idb said:


> Does Japan's experience on gun control not show anything at all to you?
> A Land Without Guns: How Japan Has Virtually Eliminated Shooting Deaths - Max Fisher - The Atlantic
> 
> .



No, it DOES NOT.

Japan is much smaller country - first; it is MONOethnic and MONOcutural - and this is the most important - second; it is a couple of  islands, so there is absolutely no interference from outside - third. 

It does not have 2ndAmendment - that's an icing 

Those biases prevent any possible comparison with the US


----------



## Vox

idb said:


> I never said it was easy, it might not even be possible - so everyone should just give up and accept things the way they are?



No, everyone will have to support tearing down the gun RESTRICTIONS and tearing down stupid "gun free zones"  - if one wants to prevent mass shootings FOR REAL.


----------



## Vox

Lonestar_logic said:


> The left will never accept the fact that violence isn't the result of guns.
> 
> For too long the left has placed blame on everything except the individual responsible.
> 
> For example, five years into his presidency Odrama still blames the Republicans.



*that is NOT the reason.*

The reason is - the left wants to take away your guns becasue only THEN the sheeple will become really manageable. THAT is their goal, not your safety.

The left knows perfectly well, that guns do not cause crime and neither are they interested in decreasing the crime or mass killings, or whatever blah-blah-blah are they selling to their useful idiots.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Mertex said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mean liberals never blame the individual responsible. It's always something or some else's fault.
> 
> 
> 
> Where do conservatives come up with such blather?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like Obama, blaming his failing policies on the Republicans, the Tea Party and even Rush Limbaugh and not on the Democrat controlled Senate (namely Harry Reid) who are the ones holding everything up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about the Republicans in Louisiana blaming Obama for Katrina?
> 
> As for the Senate holding things up, you might want to take a look at the House, where Republicans vote "no" on everything, or waste their time coming up with yet another bill to repeal Obamacare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I come up with it from years of observation.
> 
> Prime examples are any crime committed with a gun, the gun, the NRA, society and everything else is blamed except for the perpetrator of the crime.
> 
> And I don't buy into the bullshit some liberal poll shows.
> 
> I'm not as gullible as liberals are.
Click to expand...


----------



## FA_Q2

idb said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not semantics at all.
> The claim is that removing guns from people has caused crime rates to skyrocket...that simply isn't true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care to speculate why violent crime rates rose in England and Australia immediately following the confiscation of civilian owned firearms while at the same time crime rates where dropping in the US as the number of firearms and conceal carry permits were skyrocketing (yes, right word)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't agree that the Australian violent crime rates increased any faster than before the ban.
> As for the UK, who knows, I'm no criminologist but it appears to be one if the most crime-ridden countries in Western Europe.
> A proliferating gang culture is one if the reasons being put forward.
> Are you suggesting that the increase in crime is *because* of the restrictions on guns? How can you know that?
Click to expand...


The assumption is made when you compare crime statistics before and after the law was passed in the same general geographic area.  You tried to make a comparison using Japan without any frame of reference at all and now you question statistical figures that used a before and after snapshot of the same area?

All that tells me is that your criteria for data is that it shows gun control effective.  Why would you ask this question of his data and then completely gloss over that same question when referring to Japan where causation is virtually impossible to establish.

Of course, I am going to point out yet again that raising crime rates is irrelevant anyway.  The fact is that the crime did not decrease after the law was passed and therefore it is a bad law.  Fewer rights with no realized benefit is bad law no matter how you slice it.


----------



## eflatminor

FA_Q2 said:


> Fewer rights with no realized benefit is bad law no matter how you slice it.


----------



## numan

Wildcard said:


> ".....we don't get bullets any more," he adds. "The Army doesn't give ammunition now - it's all kept in a central arsenal." This measure was introduced by Switzerland's Federal Council in 2007.....*"The gun is not given to me to protect me or my family," he says. "I have been given this gun by my country to serve my country...."*
> 
> 
> 
> _emphasis added_
Click to expand...




numan said:


> Why -- *GASP!!* -- that appears to be the purpose of owning guns in the USA -- *as described in the Second Amendment of the US Constitution!!!* · ·





Meister said:


> This post is not surprising coming from you....GASP!!


That comment is a red herring and a violation of the rules of the Clean Debate Forum.

Stick to the topic and write something that at least has the _form_ of a coherent argument.

My point was that the Swiss gun regulations fulfill the intent of the 2nd amendment much better than does the present carnival of lawlessness and murder in the United States. Argue against that.
.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

numan said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".....we don't get bullets any more," he adds. "The Army doesn't give ammunition now - it's all kept in a central arsenal." This measure was introduced by Switzerland's Federal Council in 2007.....*"The gun is not given to me to protect me or my family," he says. "I have been given this gun by my country to serve my country...."*
> 
> 
> 
> _emphasis added_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> numan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why -- *GASP!!* -- that appears to be the purpose of owning guns in the USA -- *as described in the Second Amendment of the US Constitution!!!* · ·
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> This post is not surprising coming from you....GASP!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That comment is a red herring and a violation of the rules of the Clean Debate Forum.
> 
> Stick to the topic and write something that at least has the _form_ of a coherent argument.
> 
> My point was that the Swiss gun regulations fulfill the intent of the 2nd amendment much better than does the present carnival of lawlessness and murder in the United States. Argue against that.
> .
Click to expand...


Are you seriously comparing the US to Switzerland ?

You do know that they don't have a standing army and that the vast majority of men ages 20 to 30 undergo military training including weapons training. And they have one of the highest militia gun ownership rates in the world.

Every Swiss community has a shooting range, and depending on who is counting, the alpine country ranks third or fourth in the number of guns per capita.

But it's really not fair to compare a country with 8 million people to a country with 360 million.


----------



## jon_berzerk

numan said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".....we don't get bullets any more," he adds. "The Army doesn't give ammunition now - it's all kept in a central arsenal." This measure was introduced by Switzerland's Federal Council in 2007.....*"The gun is not given to me to protect me or my family," he says. "I have been given this gun by my country to serve my country...."*
> 
> 
> 
> _emphasis added_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> numan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why -- *GASP!!* -- that appears to be the purpose of owning guns in the USA -- *as described in the Second Amendment of the US Constitution!!!* · ·
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> This post is not surprising coming from you....GASP!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That comment is a red herring and a violation of the rules of the Clean Debate Forum.
> 
> Stick to the topic and write something that at least has the _form_ of a coherent argument.
> 
> My point was that the Swiss gun regulations fulfill the intent of the 2nd amendment much better than does the present carnival of lawlessness and murder in the United States. Argue against that.
> .
Click to expand...


*My point was that the Swiss gun regulations fulfill the intent of the 2nd amendment*

then you would be wrong


----------



## numan

Lonestar_logic said:


> Are you seriously comparing the US to Switzerland ?
> 
> You do know that they don't have a standing army and that the vast majority of men ages 20 to 30 undergo military training including weapons training....
> 
> But it's really not fair to compare a country with 8 million people to a country with 360 million.


Yes, I agree it is not fair to compare the USA with a country so much higher on the scale of civilization.

However, if we tossed Texas out of the Federal Union, and buckled down, and worked really hard, then perhaps even the USA could make some progress in becoming civilized.

By the way, you should look at this posting on this thread which you did not bother to read:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7734702-post224.html

Then you will see that the situation in Switzerland is different than you imagine, and rather more complex.



> Parliament has approved a proposal to ban the long-standing Swiss tradition of keeping army ammunition at home.
> 
> With the exception of a few thousand of the 120,000 soldiers in Switzerland's militia army who keep their cartridges at home, all army ammunition will have to be stored in central arsenals. Army guns can still be kept at home.
> The House of Representatives on Thursday followed the Senate in backing a motion that will allow around 2,000 specialist troops, such as those guarding airports and other important installations, to continue to store their ammo in their cellars and attics.
> 
> The government will also be able to lift the ban in the event of a security crisis.


.


----------



## eflatminor

eflatminor said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please, *I said that violent crime in Australia increased no faster than before the ban.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> According to government statistics, in the 15 years before the national gun confiscation firearm-related homicides dropped nearly 66% and firearm-related deaths fell 50%.
> 
> Three years after the confiscation of civilian owned firearms, firearm-related murders were up 19% (and armed robberies were up 69%, home invasions up 21%).
> 
> The following year, homicides were up another 20%.
> 
> That is a DRAMATIC increase in violent crime immediately following the gun ban.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As gun advocates have said many times...if someone is going to commit violence and they haven't got a gun then they'll use a different weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or they'll just find a firearm.  Either way, can we infer from this statement that you do not support the restriction of civilian owned firearms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wasn't a rhetorical question idb.  I'm interested in your opinion.
Click to expand...


Crickets.  Too bad.


----------



## eflatminor

eflatminor said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Known to be dangerous", how?  Did he commit a violent crime?  Who determines he is dangerous?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Public opinion determines the danger to the community.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you were you being facetious?
Click to expand...


Then you were serious?

Oh my.


----------



## westwall

numan said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".....we don't get bullets any more," he adds. "The Army doesn't give ammunition now - it's all kept in a central arsenal." This measure was introduced by Switzerland's Federal Council in 2007.....*"The gun is not given to me to protect me or my family," he says. "I have been given this gun by my country to serve my country...."*
> 
> 
> 
> _emphasis added_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> numan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why -- *GASP!!* -- that appears to be the purpose of owning guns in the USA -- *as described in the Second Amendment of the US Constitution!!!* · ·
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> This post is not surprising coming from you....GASP!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That comment is a red herring and a violation of the rules of the Clean Debate Forum.
> 
> Stick to the topic and write something that at least has the _form_ of a coherent argument.
> 
> My point was that the Swiss gun regulations fulfill the intent of the 2nd amendment much better than does the present carnival of lawlessness and murder in the United States. Argue against that.
> .
Click to expand...






What was that sagamammymooth?


----------



## FA_Q2

jon_berzerk said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> 
> _emphasis added_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> This post is not surprising coming from you....GASP!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That comment is a red herring and a violation of the rules of the Clean Debate Forum.
> 
> Stick to the topic and write something that at least has the _form_ of a coherent argument.
> 
> My point was that the Swiss gun regulations fulfill the intent of the 2nd amendment much better than does the present carnival of lawlessness and murder in the United States. Argue against that.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *My point was that the Swiss gun regulations fulfill the intent of the 2nd amendment*
> 
> then you would be wrong
Click to expand...


Not really.  The Swiss way of doing things really does fill the intent of the second.  I would not advocate actually assigning a weapon to every single household in this nation though; that seems terribly rash and there are people that simply should not have a weapon.  I prefer the method that we use now  those that should not own a weapon identify themselves by not purchasing one.

Simple.  

That and the simple fact that the second is not the entire constitution.  REQUIRING you to own or purchase anything is outright wrong no matter how you slice it.  One of the base problems I have with Ocare but that is another thread.


----------



## idb

eflatminor said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> According to government statistics, in the 15 years before the national gun confiscation firearm-related homicides dropped nearly 66% and firearm-related deaths fell 50%.
> 
> Three years after the confiscation of civilian owned firearms, firearm-related murders were up 19% (and armed robberies were up 69%, home invasions up 21%).
> 
> The following year, homicides were up another 20%.
> 
> That is a DRAMATIC increase in violent crime immediately following the gun ban.
> 
> 
> 
> Or they'll just find a firearm.  Either way, can we infer from this statement that you do not support the restriction of civilian owned firearms?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't a rhetorical question idb.  I'm interested in your opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Crickets.  Too bad.
Click to expand...


I'm travelling, it's too hard to answer on a phone but the discussion is interesting.
I'll get back to you.


----------



## idb

eflatminor said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you're denying reality.  The government supplied statistics have been provided here and elsewhere numerous times.  They prove without a doubt that violent crime increased following the ban.
> 
> 
> 
> Which was only the case after the ban.  Again, you can choose to deny reality, but it's not helping your case.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm suggesting there is no way the gun grabbers can associate civilian firearm ownership with violent crime rates.  So please, leave law abiding citizens alone and focus on those that actually harm others.
> 
> 
> 
> Please, *I said that violent crime in Australia increased no faster than before the ban.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> According to government statistics, in the 15 years before the national gun confiscation firearm-related homicides dropped nearly 66% and firearm-related deaths fell 50%.
> 
> Three years after the confiscation of civilian owned firearms, firearm-related murders were up 19% (and armed robberies were up 69%, home invasions up 21%).
> 
> The following year, homicides were up another 20%.
> 
> That is a DRAMATIC increase in violent crime immediately following the gun ban.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As gun advocates have said many times...if someone is going to commit violence and they haven't got a gun then they'll use a different weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or they'll just find a firearm.  Either way, can we infer from this statement that you do not support the restriction of civilian owned firearms?
Click to expand...


I'll show you my link...


> In Australia, the annual rate of all gun deaths per 100,000 population is
> 
> 2010: 1.0619
> 2009: 1.04
> 2008: 1.08
> 2007: 1.12
> 2006: 1.19
> 2005: 1.04
> 2004: 1.16
> 2003: 1.45
> 2002: 1.49
> 2001: 1.68
> 2000: 1.69
> 1999: 1.83
> 1998: 1.67
> 1997: 2.31
> 1996: 2.82
> 1995: 2.59
> 1994: 2.88
> 1993: 2.89
> 1992: 3.47
> 1991: 3.57
> 1990: 3.48
> 1989: 3.26
> 1988: 4.06
> 1987: 4.25
> 1986: 4.21
> 1985: 4.31
> 1984: 4.34
> 1983: 4.20
> 1982: 4.56
> 1981: 4.15
> 1980: 4.67
> 1979: 4.71


Guns in Australia: Facts, Figures and Firearm Law


...you show me yours...

(reminder, 1997 was the year of the new gun control measures).


----------



## idb

FA_Q2 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Care to speculate why violent crime rates rose in England and Australia immediately following the confiscation of civilian owned firearms while at the same time crime rates where dropping in the US as the number of firearms and conceal carry permits were skyrocketing (yes, right word)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree that the Australian violent crime rates increased any faster than before the ban.
> As for the UK, who knows, I'm no criminologist but it appears to be one if the most crime-ridden countries in Western Europe.
> A proliferating gang culture is one if the reasons being put forward.
> Are you suggesting that the increase in crime is *because* of the restrictions on guns? How can you know that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The assumption is made when you compare crime statistics before and after the law was passed in the same general geographic area.  You tried to make a comparison using Japan without any frame of reference at all and now you question statistical figures that used a before and after snapshot of the same area?
> 
> All that tells me is that your criteria for data is that it shows gun control effective.  Why would you ask this question of his data and then completely gloss over that same question when referring to Japan where causation is virtually impossible to establish.
> 
> Of course, I am going to point out yet again that raising crime rates is irrelevant anyway.  The fact is that the crime did not decrease after the law was passed and therefore it is a bad law.  Fewer rights with no realized benefit is bad law no matter how you slice it.
Click to expand...


Where's your similar frame of reference for the US experience?
When were guns banned so that you can compare that time with the present day?


----------



## idb

eflatminor said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> According to government statistics, in the 15 years before the national gun confiscation firearm-related homicides dropped nearly 66% and firearm-related deaths fell 50%.
> 
> Three years after the confiscation of civilian owned firearms, firearm-related murders were up 19% (and armed robberies were up 69%, home invasions up 21%).
> 
> The following year, homicides were up another 20%.
> 
> That is a DRAMATIC increase in violent crime immediately following the gun ban.
> 
> 
> 
> Or they'll just find a firearm.  Either way, can we infer from this statement that you do not support the restriction of civilian owned firearms?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't a rhetorical question idb.  I'm interested in your opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Crickets.  Too bad.
Click to expand...


Of course I support restrictions on civilian-owned firearms.
Any sensible person does.
I'm sure you do too.

I live in a society where police don't routinely carry firearms because they don't feel outgunned by the general population.
A simple Google search will find calls to arm the cops - it's an ongoing discussion - but at the moment access to firearms for the police is limited and firearms incidents against the cops are low.
The presence of a firearm in any crime escalates the seriousness of the charges hugely.

It isn't in our general national psyche to own guns for personal protection and, even though we have a relatively high ownership of guns, we don't feel that the restrictions are oppressive.
In fact, it is illegal to own firearms for the purpose of security.

I find it impossible to accept that if concealed-carry firearms were suddenly allowed it wouldn't make us less safe and more concerned about personal security.
I take it that you believe the opposite...if CC weapons were allowed to us, would we all be safer feel more secure?


----------



## jon_berzerk

idb said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't a rhetorical question idb.  I'm interested in your opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crickets.  Too bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course I support restrictions on civilian-owned firearms.
> Any sensible person does.
> I'm sure you do too.
> 
> I live in a society where police don't routinely carry firearms because they don't feel outgunned by the general population.
> A simple Google search will find calls to arm the cops - it's an ongoing discussion - but at the moment access to firearms for the police is limited and firearms incidents against the cops are low.
> The presence of a firearm in any crime escalates the seriousness of the charges hugely.
> 
> It isn't in our general national psyche to own guns for personal protection and, even though we have a relatively high ownership of guns, we don't feel that the restrictions are oppressive.
> In fact, it is illegal to own firearms for the purpose of security.
> 
> I find it impossible to accept that if concealed-carry firearms were suddenly allowed it wouldn't make us less safe and more concerned about personal security.
> I take it that you believe the opposite...if CC weapons were allowed to us, would we all be safer feel more secure?
Click to expand...


*The presence of a firearm in any crime escalates the seriousness of the charges hugely*.

in the 2013 presidents study on firearms *the presence of a firearm* 

stopped the crime between 500 thousand and 3 million times


----------



## idb

jon_berzerk said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Crickets.  Too bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I support restrictions on civilian-owned firearms.
> Any sensible person does.
> I'm sure you do too.
> 
> I live in a society where police don't routinely carry firearms because they don't feel outgunned by the general population.
> A simple Google search will find calls to arm the cops - it's an ongoing discussion - but at the moment access to firearms for the police is limited and firearms incidents against the cops are low.
> The presence of a firearm in any crime escalates the seriousness of the charges hugely.
> 
> It isn't in our general national psyche to own guns for personal protection and, even though we have a relatively high ownership of guns, we don't feel that the restrictions are oppressive.
> In fact, it is illegal to own firearms for the purpose of security.
> 
> I find it impossible to accept that if concealed-carry firearms were suddenly allowed it wouldn't make us less safe and more concerned about personal security.
> I take it that you believe the opposite...if CC weapons were allowed to us, would we all be safer feel more secure?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The presence of a firearm in any crime escalates the seriousness of the charges hugely*.
> 
> in the 2013 presidents study on firearms *the presence of a firearm*
> 
> stopped the crime between 500 thousand and 3 million times
Click to expand...

We're talking about different things.
The presence of a firearm during the execution of a crime in New Zealand results in more serious charges by the police.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

numan said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you seriously comparing the US to Switzerland ?
> 
> You do know that they don't have a standing army and that the vast majority of men ages 20 to 30 undergo military training including weapons training....
> 
> But it's really not fair to compare a country with 8 million people to a country with 360 million.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I agree it is not fair to compare the USA with a country so much higher on the scale of civilization.
> 
> However, if we tossed Texas out of the Federal Union, and buckled down, and worked really hard, then perhaps even the USA could make some progress in becoming civilized.
> 
> By the way, you should look at this posting on this thread which you did not bother to read:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/7734702-post224.html
> 
> Then you will see that the situation in Switzerland is different than you imagine, and rather more complex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Parliament has approved a proposal to ban the long-standing Swiss tradition of keeping army ammunition at home.
> 
> With the exception of a few thousand of the 120,000 soldiers in Switzerland's militia army who keep their cartridges at home, all army ammunition will have to be stored in central arsenals. Army guns can still be kept at home.
> The House of Representatives on Thursday followed the Senate in backing a motion that will allow around 2,000 specialist troops, such as those guarding airports and other important installations, to continue to store their ammo in their cellars and attics.
> 
> The government will also be able to lift the ban in the event of a security crisis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Really.

Texas has produced more jobs in this country than all the other states combined.

1000 people are moving to Texas each day.

I should read more?

You're the one trying to make a comparison between a country of 8 million to a country of 360 million. 


I'm glad that you and your ilk don't like Texas. I can count on you and your kind to stay the hell out of my state.


----------



## RKMBrown

Lonestar_logic said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you seriously comparing the US to Switzerland ?
> 
> You do know that they don't have a standing army and that the vast majority of men ages 20 to 30 undergo military training including weapons training....
> 
> But it's really not fair to compare a country with 8 million people to a country with 360 million.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I agree it is not fair to compare the USA with a country so much higher on the scale of civilization.
> 
> However, if we tossed Texas out of the Federal Union, and buckled down, and worked really hard, then perhaps even the USA could make some progress in becoming civilized.
> 
> By the way, you should look at this posting on this thread which you did not bother to read:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/7734702-post224.html
> 
> Then you will see that the situation in Switzerland is different than you imagine, and rather more complex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Parliament has approved a proposal to ban the long-standing Swiss tradition of keeping army ammunition at home.
> 
> With the exception of a few thousand of the 120,000 soldiers in Switzerland's militia army who keep their cartridges at home, all army ammunition will have to be stored in central arsenals. Army guns can still be kept at home.
> The House of Representatives on Thursday followed the Senate in backing a motion that will allow around 2,000 specialist troops, such as those guarding airports and other important installations, to continue to store their ammo in their cellars and attics.
> 
> The government will also be able to lift the ban in the event of a security crisis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really.
> 
> Texas has produced more jobs in this country than all the other states combined.
> 
> 1000 people are moving to Texas each day.
> 
> I should read more?
> 
> You're the one trying to make a comparison between a country of 8 million to a country of 360 million.
> 
> 
> I'm glad that you and your ilk don't like Texas. I can count on you and your kind to stay the hell out of my state.
Click to expand...


To late.  See Houston, Dallas, and Austin... such a mess.


----------



## FA_Q2

idb said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please, *I said that violent crime in Australia increased no faster than before the ban.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> According to government statistics, in the 15 years before the national gun confiscation firearm-related homicides dropped nearly 66% and firearm-related deaths fell 50%.
> 
> Three years after the confiscation of civilian owned firearms, firearm-related murders were up 19% (and armed robberies were up 69%, home invasions up 21%).
> 
> The following year, homicides were up another 20%.
> 
> That is a DRAMATIC increase in violent crime immediately following the gun ban.
> 
> 
> 
> Or they'll just find a firearm.  Either way, can we infer from this statement that you do not support the restriction of civilian owned firearms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll show you my link...
> 
> 
> 
> In Australia, the annual rate of all gun deaths per 100,000 population is
> 
> 2010: 1.0619
> 2009: 1.04
> 2008: 1.08
> 2007: 1.12
> 2006: 1.19
> 2005: 1.04
> 2004: 1.16
> 2003: 1.45
> 2002: 1.49
> 2001: 1.68
> 2000: 1.69
> 1999: 1.83
> 1998: 1.67
> 1997: 2.31
> 1996: 2.82
> 1995: 2.59
> 1994: 2.88
> 1993: 2.89
> 1992: 3.47
> 1991: 3.57
> 1990: 3.48
> 1989: 3.26
> 1988: 4.06
> 1987: 4.25
> 1986: 4.21
> 1985: 4.31
> 1984: 4.34
> 1983: 4.20
> 1982: 4.56
> 1981: 4.15
> 1980: 4.67
> 1979: 4.71
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guns in Australia: Facts, Figures and Firearm Law
> 
> 
> ...you show me yours...
> 
> (reminder, 1997 was the year of the new gun control measures).
Click to expand...


And your figures are false representations as already covered earlier in this thread.  Gun death statistics are woefully inadequate.  If you are killed by gun, knife or spoon it matters not.  This was ALREADY addressed.  The HOMICIDE rate is what needs to be looked at (and crime rates if we want to delve that deeply).  Looking at gun deaths only amount to finding data that fits one or another confirmation bias.  Raw data needs to be examined.  

Actual homicide rates should be examined:
Australian Institute of Criminology - Homicide statistics




The law was passed in 96 and there is no discernible change in homicide rates whatsoever until 04.  That is a sever year time gap.  There is no reason to attribute the recent downturn in homicide rates with gun control masseurs enacted almost a decade ago.  That is more than a precarious connection.  

In Australia, gun control has not been shown to be effective.


----------



## FA_Q2

idb said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree that the Australian violent crime rates increased any faster than before the ban.
> As for the UK, who knows, I'm no criminologist but it appears to be one if the most crime-ridden countries in Western Europe.
> A proliferating gang culture is one if the reasons being put forward.
> Are you suggesting that the increase in crime is *because* of the restrictions on guns? How can you know that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The assumption is made when you compare crime statistics before and after the law was passed in the same general geographic area.  You tried to make a comparison using Japan without any frame of reference at all and now you question statistical figures that used a before and after snapshot of the same area?
> 
> All that tells me is that your criteria for data is that it shows gun control effective.  Why would you ask this question of his data and then completely gloss over that same question when referring to Japan where causation is virtually impossible to establish.
> 
> Of course, I am going to point out yet again that raising crime rates is irrelevant anyway.  The fact is that the crime did not decrease after the law was passed and therefore it is a bad law.  Fewer rights with no realized benefit is bad law no matter how you slice it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where's your similar frame of reference for the US experience?
> When were guns banned so that you can compare that time with the present day?
Click to expand...


I already went over this idb.  Apparently you have not even bothered to get into the facts that I already presented to you.  Britton, Canada, DC, Chicago, CA, FL, TX and many more provide real frame of reference by having rates that are able to be examined BEFORE and AFTER the law passed accounting for most of the variables that are present when you cross nations and geographic areas.  We cannot tell how effective the gun laws are in Japan because we do not have information there WITHOUT gun law.  We do, however, have a wealth of information before and after the laws in various other locations many of which I have already provided for you.


----------



## FA_Q2

idb said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't a rhetorical question idb.  I'm interested in your opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crickets.  Too bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Of course I support restrictions on civilian-owned firearms.
> Any sensible person does.*
> I'm sure you do too.
> 
> I live in a society where police don't routinely carry firearms because they don't feel outgunned by the general population.
> A simple Google search will find calls to arm the cops - it's an ongoing discussion - but at the moment access to firearms for the police is limited and firearms incidents against the cops are low.
> The presence of a firearm in any crime escalates the seriousness of the charges hugely.
> 
> It isn't in our general national psyche to own guns for personal protection and, even though we have a relatively high ownership of guns, we don't feel that the restrictions are oppressive.
> In fact, it is illegal to own firearms for the purpose of security.
> 
> I find it impossible to accept that if concealed-carry firearms were suddenly allowed it wouldn't make us less safe and more concerned about personal security.
> I take it that you believe the opposite...if CC weapons were allowed to us, would we all be safer feel more secure?
Click to expand...

 According to the data, any sensible person DOES NOT.  

Stop demanding that your position is sensible without any data whatsoever to support it.  That does not make your position sensible at all.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

RKMBrown said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> numan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I agree it is not fair to compare the USA with a country so much higher on the scale of civilization.
> 
> However, if we tossed Texas out of the Federal Union, and buckled down, and worked really hard, then perhaps even the USA could make some progress in becoming civilized.
> 
> By the way, you should look at this posting on this thread which you did not bother to read:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/7734702-post224.html
> 
> Then you will see that the situation in Switzerland is different than you imagine, and rather more complex.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really.
> 
> Texas has produced more jobs in this country than all the other states combined.
> 
> 1000 people are moving to Texas each day.
> 
> I should read more?
> 
> You're the one trying to make a comparison between a country of 8 million to a country of 360 million.
> 
> 
> I'm glad that you and your ilk don't like Texas. I can count on you and your kind to stay the hell out of my state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To late.  See Houston, Dallas, and Austin... such a mess.
Click to expand...


You pick three of the most liberal cities in Texas and what point are you trying to make exactly?

Those cities themselves are producing jobs and having more people move there. So whatever point you were trying to make... you failed!


----------



## eflatminor

idb said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please, *I said that violent crime in Australia increased no faster than before the ban.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> According to government statistics, in the 15 years before the national gun confiscation firearm-related homicides dropped nearly 66% and firearm-related deaths fell 50%.
> 
> Three years after the confiscation of civilian owned firearms, firearm-related murders were up 19% (and armed robberies were up 69%, home invasions up 21%).
> 
> The following year, homicides were up another 20%.
> 
> That is a DRAMATIC increase in violent crime immediately following the gun ban.
> 
> 
> 
> Or they'll just find a firearm.  Either way, can we infer from this statement that you do not support the restriction of civilian owned firearms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll show you my link...
> 
> 
> 
> In Australia, the annual rate of all gun deaths per 100,000 population is
> 
> 2010: 1.0619
> 2009: 1.04
> 2008: 1.08
> 2007: 1.12
> 2006: 1.19
> 2005: 1.04
> 2004: 1.16
> 2003: 1.45
> 2002: 1.49
> 2001: 1.68
> 2000: 1.69
> 1999: 1.83
> 1998: 1.67
> 1997: 2.31
> 1996: 2.82
> 1995: 2.59
> 1994: 2.88
> 1993: 2.89
> 1992: 3.47
> 1991: 3.57
> 1990: 3.48
> 1989: 3.26
> 1988: 4.06
> 1987: 4.25
> 1986: 4.21
> 1985: 4.31
> 1984: 4.34
> 1983: 4.20
> 1982: 4.56
> 1981: 4.15
> 1980: 4.67
> 1979: 4.71
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guns in Australia: Facts, Figures and Firearm Law
> 
> 
> ...you show me yours...
> 
> (reminder, 1997 was the year of the new gun control measures).
Click to expand...


Why "gun deaths"?  Wouldn't it be more honest to consider "murder" and "violent crime" rates, which CLEARLY saw a dramatic increase following the firearm confiscation...which I've already quoted?  Stated differently, the point of civilian firearm ownership is to allow individuals to protect themselves against thugs (and tyranny of course).  Dead is dead, whether a firearm or other object is used (hundreds of thousands of Rwandan killed by edged weapons proves that).  

Further, your figures indicate a rise in 'gun deaths' after the ban, though arguably not a dramatic increase, but the point is violent crime rates are what really tell the story and in that sense, the ban did far more harm than good.


----------



## eflatminor

idb said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't a rhetorical question idb.  I'm interested in your opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crickets.  Too bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course I support restrictions on civilian-owned firearms.
> Any sensible person does.
> I'm sure you do too.
Click to expand...


I support no restrictions on anyone's fundamental rights until such an individual has actually harmed or taken from another and been proven guilty of doing so in a court of law.  Even then, we know darn well that telling felons they can't own a firearm doesn't do a thing to prevent them from obtaining a firearm.  Still, I wouldn't complain about that kind of restriction.  I absolutely stand against restricting freedoms based on the idea that central planners will prevent bad people from doing bad things...as any sensible person would.



> I live in a society where police don't routinely carry firearms because they don't feel outgunned by the general population.
> A simple Google search will find calls to arm the cops - it's an ongoing discussion - but at the moment access to firearms for the police is limited and firearms incidents against the cops are low.



Good for your society...seriously.  However, unarmed police hasn't a thing to do with an INDIVIDUAL'S God-given right to self protection.



> The presence of a firearm in any crime escalates the seriousness of the charges hugely.



And since we know that NO society stops thugs and crazies from obtaining weapons for use in their crimes, that's all the more reason to not restrict good people from arming themselves.  Why in the world would you want to give a tactical advantage to those that couldn't care less about your rules?  That's crazy!



> It isn't in our general national psyche to own guns for personal protection and, even though we have a relatively high ownership of guns, we don't feel that the restrictions are oppressive.
> In fact, it is illegal to own firearms for the purpose of security.



We do.  Again, there is no logical reason to but good people at a disadvantage when we all know criminals...wait for it...don't obey the law.



> I find it impossible to accept that if concealed-carry firearms were suddenly allowed it wouldn't make us less safe and more concerned about personal security.
> I take it that you believe the opposite...if CC weapons were allowed to us, would we all be safer feel more secure?



This is not about "feelings", it's about facts.  The fact is that where conceal carry permits have risen, violent crime and murder have dropped.  Not hard to figure out.  Criminals are opportunists.  The thugs will go where the people are disarmed and the crazies seek out 'gun free zones'.  Makes NO sense to give an edge to the bad guys.  None.


----------



## numan

idb said:


> Of course I support restrictions on civilian-owned firearms.
> Any sensible person does.
> I'm sure you do too.


I am afraid your opinion of Americans is far too complimentary.

Not many Americans are sensible persons -- too brainwashed and prone to hysteria. 

And as you can see from this site, far, far too tetchy and lacking a sense of humor. · · 



			
				idb said:
			
		

> I live in a society where police don't routinely carry firearms because they don't feel outgunned by the general population.


A very, very important point.

Congratulations for living in a society more civilized and superior to the carnival of violence and destruction so prevalent in the Land of Debris and Home of the Crazed.

Pity us; if it had not been for the Insurrectionary Terrorists mis-named the Founding Fathers, we might have been as good as your country or Canada.
.


----------



## Jimmy_Jam

numan said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I support restrictions on civilian-owned firearms.
> Any sensible person does.
> I'm sure you do too.
> 
> 
> 
> I am afraid your opinion of Americans is far too complimentary.
> 
> Not many Americans are sensible persons -- too brainwashed and prone to hysteria.
> 
> And as you can see from this site, far, far too tetchy and lacking a sense of humor. · ·
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I live in a society where police don't routinely carry firearms because they don't feel outgunned by the general population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A very, very important point.
> 
> Congratulations for living in a society more civilized and superior to the carnival of violence and destruction so prevalent in the Land of Debris and Home of the Crazed.
> 
> Pity us; if it had not been for the Insurrectionary Terrorists mis-named the Founding Fathers, we might have been as good as your country or Canada.
> .
Click to expand...


numan,

If you are not American, I will simply disregard your comments and unimportant. If you are, and your opinion of American and Americans is that low, you know what to do.


----------



## FA_Q2

eflatminor said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> According to government statistics, in the 15 years before the national gun confiscation firearm-related homicides dropped nearly 66% and firearm-related deaths fell 50%.
> 
> Three years after the confiscation of civilian owned firearms, firearm-related murders were up 19% (and armed robberies were up 69%, home invasions up 21%).
> 
> The following year, homicides were up another 20%.
> 
> That is a DRAMATIC increase in violent crime immediately following the gun ban.
> 
> 
> 
> Or they'll just find a firearm.  Either way, can we infer from this statement that you do not support the restriction of civilian owned firearms?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll show you my link...
> 
> 
> 
> In Australia, the annual rate of all gun deaths per 100,000 population is
> 
> 2010: 1.0619
> 2009: 1.04
> 2008: 1.08
> 2007: 1.12
> 2006: 1.19
> 2005: 1.04
> 2004: 1.16
> 2003: 1.45
> 2002: 1.49
> 2001: 1.68
> 2000: 1.69
> 1999: 1.83
> 1998: 1.67
> 1997: 2.31
> 1996: 2.82
> 1995: 2.59
> 1994: 2.88
> 1993: 2.89
> 1992: 3.47
> 1991: 3.57
> 1990: 3.48
> 1989: 3.26
> 1988: 4.06
> 1987: 4.25
> 1986: 4.21
> 1985: 4.31
> 1984: 4.34
> 1983: 4.20
> 1982: 4.56
> 1981: 4.15
> 1980: 4.67
> 1979: 4.71
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guns in Australia: Facts, Figures and Firearm Law
> 
> 
> ...you show me yours...
> 
> (reminder, 1997 was the year of the new gun control measures).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why "gun deaths"?  Wouldn't it be more honest to consider* "murder"* and "violent crime" rates, which *CLEARLY saw a dramatic increase following the firearm confiscation*...which I've already quoted?  Stated differently, the point of civilian firearm ownership is to allow individuals to protect themselves against thugs (and tyranny of course).  Dead is dead, whether a firearm or other object is used (hundreds of thousands of Rwandan killed by edged weapons proves that).
> 
> Further, your figures indicate a rise in 'gun deaths' after the ban, though arguably not a dramatic increase, but the point is violent crime rates are what really tell the story and in that sense, the ban did far more harm than good.
Click to expand...


I do not think that homicides did see an increase.  See my earlier thread about the homicide rate.  Looks relatively flat throughout the entire time.

I question any source that failed to get that statistical fact correct as well. 

The lone spike after (and small dip during) the gun confiscation cannot be attributed to the law  it dropped right after.  Spikes and dips are common in examination of things like murder rates.  The overall trend was virtually flat though.


----------



## FA_Q2

Lonestar_logic said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really.
> 
> Texas has produced more jobs in this country than all the other states combined.
> 
> 1000 people are moving to Texas each day.
> 
> I should read more?
> 
> You're the one trying to make a comparison between a country of 8 million to a country of 360 million.
> 
> 
> I'm glad that you and your ilk don't like Texas. I can count on you and your kind to stay the hell out of my state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To late.  See Houston, Dallas, and Austin... such a mess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You pick three of the most liberal cities in Texas and what point are you trying to make exactly?
> 
> Those cities themselves are producing jobs and having more people move there. So whatever point you were trying to make... you failed!
Click to expand...


I think the point was that you are too late from stopping those like numan from coming to TX.  They are already there gravitating to the few liberal bastions ion TX.  You have been invaded already  its just that there were not enough to take over the government there.


----------



## eflatminor

FA_Q2 said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll show you my link...
> 
> Guns in Australia: Facts, Figures and Firearm Law
> 
> 
> ...you show me yours...
> 
> (reminder, 1997 was the year of the new gun control measures).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why "gun deaths"?  Wouldn't it be more honest to consider* "murder"* and "violent crime" rates, which *CLEARLY saw a dramatic increase following the firearm confiscation*...which I've already quoted?  Stated differently, the point of civilian firearm ownership is to allow individuals to protect themselves against thugs (and tyranny of course).  Dead is dead, whether a firearm or other object is used (hundreds of thousands of Rwandan killed by edged weapons proves that).
> 
> Further, your figures indicate a rise in 'gun deaths' after the ban, though arguably not a dramatic increase, but the point is violent crime rates are what really tell the story and in that sense, the ban did far more harm than good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not think that homicides did see an increase.  See my earlier thread about the homicide rate.  Looks relatively flat throughout the entire time.
> 
> I question any source that failed to get that statistical fact correct as well.
> 
> The lone spike after (and small dip during) the gun confiscation cannot be attributed to the law  it dropped right after.  Spikes and dips are common in examination of things like murder rates.  The overall trend was virtually flat though.
Click to expand...


In an effort to demonstrate the trends of several types of violent crime, I quoted Australian government statistics related to firearm-related murders, armed robberies, home invasions and overall homicide rates.  According to the Australian Bureau of Statistic (Crime and Justice - Crimes Recorded by Police) and the Australian Institute of Criminology (Report #46: Homicide in Australia, April 2003), in the three years after the confiscation, firearm-related murders were up 19%, armed robberies were up 69%, and home invasions up 21%.  The following year, homicides were up 20%.  I'd argue that's a pretty broad and unbiased look at violent crime rates following the ban.  Further, as idb's link shows, the 'gun-murder' rate has steadily increased.  Taken together, the results demonstrate, IMO, that the ban did more harm than good.


----------



## jon_berzerk

eflatminor said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why "gun deaths"?  Wouldn't it be more honest to consider* "murder"* and "violent crime" rates, which *CLEARLY saw a dramatic increase following the firearm confiscation*...which I've already quoted?  Stated differently, the point of civilian firearm ownership is to allow individuals to protect themselves against thugs (and tyranny of course).  Dead is dead, whether a firearm or other object is used (hundreds of thousands of Rwandan killed by edged weapons proves that).
> 
> Further, your figures indicate a rise in 'gun deaths' after the ban, though arguably not a dramatic increase, but the point is violent crime rates are what really tell the story and in that sense, the ban did far more harm than good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not think that homicides did see an increase.  See my earlier thread about the homicide rate.  Looks relatively flat throughout the entire time.
> 
> I question any source that failed to get that statistical fact correct as well.
> 
> The lone spike after (and small dip during) the gun confiscation cannot be attributed to the law  it dropped right after.  Spikes and dips are common in examination of things like murder rates.  The overall trend was virtually flat though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In an effort to demonstrate the trends of several types of violent crime, I quoted Australian government statistics related to firearm-related murders, armed robberies, home invasions and overall homicide rates.  According to the Australian Bureau of Statistic (Crime and Justice - Crimes Recorded by Police) and the Australian Institute of Criminology (Report #46: Homicide in Australia, April 2003), in the three years after the confiscation, firearm-related murders were up 19%, armed robberies were up 69%, and home invasions up 21%.  The following year, homicides were up 20%.  I'd argue that's a pretty broad and unbiased look at violent crime rates following the ban.  Further, as idb's link shows, the 'gun-murder' rate has steadily increased.  Taken together, the results demonstrate, IMO, that the ban did more harm than good.
Click to expand...


*armed robberies, home invasions *

i have not studied Australian crime trends for awhile 

but i remember that* Hot Home invasions* ( where the victim is home at the time)

skyrocketed after the strict gun control was incorporated


----------



## idb

FA_Q2 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> According to government statistics, in the 15 years before the national gun confiscation firearm-related homicides dropped nearly 66% and firearm-related deaths fell 50%.
> 
> Three years after the confiscation of civilian owned firearms, firearm-related murders were up 19% (and armed robberies were up 69%, home invasions up 21%).
> 
> The following year, homicides were up another 20%.
> 
> That is a DRAMATIC increase in violent crime immediately following the gun ban.
> 
> 
> 
> Or they'll just find a firearm.  Either way, can we infer from this statement that you do not support the restriction of civilian owned firearms?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll show you my link...
> 
> 
> 
> In Australia, the annual rate of all gun deaths per 100,000 population is
> 
> 2010: 1.0619
> 2009: 1.04
> 2008: 1.08
> 2007: 1.12
> 2006: 1.19
> 2005: 1.04
> 2004: 1.16
> 2003: 1.45
> 2002: 1.49
> 2001: 1.68
> 2000: 1.69
> 1999: 1.83
> 1998: 1.67
> 1997: 2.31
> 1996: 2.82
> 1995: 2.59
> 1994: 2.88
> 1993: 2.89
> 1992: 3.47
> 1991: 3.57
> 1990: 3.48
> 1989: 3.26
> 1988: 4.06
> 1987: 4.25
> 1986: 4.21
> 1985: 4.31
> 1984: 4.34
> 1983: 4.20
> 1982: 4.56
> 1981: 4.15
> 1980: 4.67
> 1979: 4.71
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guns in Australia: Facts, Figures and Firearm Law
> 
> 
> ...you show me yours...
> 
> (reminder, 1997 was the year of the new gun control measures).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your figures are false representations as already covered earlier in this thread.  &#8216;Gun&#8217; death statistics are woefully inadequate.  If you are killed by gun, knife or spoon it matters not.  This was ALREADY addressed.  The HOMICIDE rate is what needs to be looked at (and crime rates if we want to delve that deeply).  Looking at gun deaths only amount to finding data that fits one or another confirmation bias.  Raw data needs to be examined.
> 
> Actual homicide rates should be examined:
> Australian Institute of Criminology - Homicide statistics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The law was passed in &#8217;96 and there is no discernible change in homicide rates whatsoever until &#8217;04.  That is a sever year time gap.  There is no reason to attribute the recent downturn in homicide rates with gun control masseurs enacted almost a decade ago.  That is more than a precarious connection.
> 
> In Australia, gun control has not been shown to be effective.
Click to expand...


I was replying to this assertion by you...specifically related to gun crimes


> Three years after the confiscation of civilian owned firearms, firearm-related murders were up 19% (and armed robberies were up 69%, home invasions up 21%).



However, you can try this graph then.
Allowing for annual fluctuations, it shows a steady decline in homicide rates, which continues.
Long term trends are more reliable than snapshots of a year.

I'm not sure if I said that gun control measures in Australia have improved the homicide rates...however I do dispute the assertion by firearms advocates that guns make a society safer, and these figures bear that out...gun controls were strengthened and the long-term reducing trend of murders has continued.

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html


----------



## idb

FA_Q2 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Crickets.  Too bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Of course I support restrictions on civilian-owned firearms.
> Any sensible person does.*
> I'm sure you do too.
> 
> I live in a society where police don't routinely carry firearms because they don't feel outgunned by the general population.
> A simple Google search will find calls to arm the cops - it's an ongoing discussion - but at the moment access to firearms for the police is limited and firearms incidents against the cops are low.
> The presence of a firearm in any crime escalates the seriousness of the charges hugely.
> 
> It isn't in our general national psyche to own guns for personal protection and, even though we have a relatively high ownership of guns, we don't feel that the restrictions are oppressive.
> In fact, it is illegal to own firearms for the purpose of security.
> 
> I find it impossible to accept that if concealed-carry firearms were suddenly allowed it wouldn't make us less safe and more concerned about personal security.
> I take it that you believe the opposite...if CC weapons were allowed to us, would we all be safer feel more secure?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to the data, any sensible person DOES NOT.
> 
> Stop demanding that your position is sensible without any data whatsoever to support it.  That does not make your position sensible at all.
Click to expand...


Think about it, of course you believe in some restrictions.
Haven't you already spoken about people with mental illness for example?
This isn't a 'gotcha'...just pointing out that almost nobody advocates for unrestricted access to firearms.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

idb said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Of course I support restrictions on civilian-owned firearms.
> Any sensible person does.*
> I'm sure you do too.
> 
> I live in a society where police don't routinely carry firearms because they don't feel outgunned by the general population.
> A simple Google search will find calls to arm the cops - it's an ongoing discussion - but at the moment access to firearms for the police is limited and firearms incidents against the cops are low.
> The presence of a firearm in any crime escalates the seriousness of the charges hugely.
> 
> It isn't in our general national psyche to own guns for personal protection and, even though we have a relatively high ownership of guns, we don't feel that the restrictions are oppressive.
> In fact, it is illegal to own firearms for the purpose of security.
> 
> I find it impossible to accept that if concealed-carry firearms were suddenly allowed it wouldn't make us less safe and more concerned about personal security.
> I take it that you believe the opposite...if CC weapons were allowed to us, would we all be safer feel more secure?
> 
> 
> 
> According to the data, any sensible person DOES NOT.
> 
> Stop demanding that your position is sensible without any data whatsoever to support it.  That does not make your position sensible at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Think about it, of course you believe in some restrictions.
> Haven't you already spoken about people with mental illness for example?
> This isn't a 'gotcha'...just pointing out that almost nobody advocates for unrestricted access to firearms.
Click to expand...


And those who do advocate unrestricted access to firearms are ignorant of the law and irresponsible.


----------



## FA_Q2

idb said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll show you my link...
> 
> Guns in Australia: Facts, Figures and Firearm Law
> 
> 
> ...you show me yours...
> 
> (reminder, 1997 was the year of the new gun control measures).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your figures are false representations as already covered earlier in this thread.  Gun death statistics are woefully inadequate.  If you are killed by gun, knife or spoon it matters not.  This was ALREADY addressed.  The HOMICIDE rate is what needs to be looked at (and crime rates if we want to delve that deeply).  Looking at gun deaths only amount to finding data that fits one or another confirmation bias.  Raw data needs to be examined.
> 
> Actual homicide rates should be examined:
> Australian Institute of Criminology - Homicide statistics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The law was passed in 96 and there is no discernible change in homicide rates whatsoever until 04.  That is a sever year time gap.  There is no reason to attribute the recent downturn in homicide rates with gun control masseurs enacted almost a decade ago.  That is more than a precarious connection.
> 
> In Australia, gun control has not been shown to be effective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was replying to this assertion by you...specifically related to gun crimes
> 
> 
> 
> Three years after the confiscation of civilian owned firearms, firearm-related murders were up 19% (and armed robberies were up 69%, home invasions up 21%).
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

No, you were not because I have never made that claim, that was another poster 

I walked in on the middle of that conversation though.  I refuted BOTH of your claims in this thread of the discussion though.  I dont see a significant increase in homicide rates that justify the claims that it was related to the gun law BUT you are also making a POSITIVE assertion that the homicide rate dropped because of the law.  That is also incorrect as shown by the actual homicide rate without qualifies added.


idb said:


> However, you can try this graph then.
> Allowing for annual fluctuations, it shows a steady decline in homicide rates, which continues.
> Long term trends are more reliable than snapshots of a year.


Which is why I referred to trends and overall rate over many years.  Again, it took about 7 years of a general flat homicide rate before a reasonable downward trend started appearing.  To attribute that to a law passed 7 years ago stretches the concept of causality past a breaking point.  It makes no real sense.


idb said:


> I'm not sure if I said that gun control measures in Australia have improved the homicide rates...however I do dispute the assertion by firearms advocates that guns make a society safer, and these figures bear that out...gun controls were strengthened and the long-term reducing trend of murders has continued.
> 
> Australian Institute of Criminology - Homicide statistics


And I have not made that claim.  My claim is that gun laws do NOTHING for crime rates at all.  The data bears THAT out clearly and not your claims that gun laws make anything safer.  You are attributing a downward trend realized 7 years after the fact to that law while the rates before and after were relatively flat.  That is rather nonsensical.  Further, the overall downward trend when taken during a larger time frame has not changed at all.  The homicide rate in Australia has been trending that way for 2 decades since they started recording them in the first place.
 [url]http://aic.gov.au/media_library/aic/research/homicide/homiciderate2.png[/url]
[img]
(same site)
Where are the effects of the gun law?  They are not there.  The realized crime rates dont seem to care what the gun laws are.  The only logical conclusion is that criminals are going to break the law regardless and that further gun restrictions are simply not effective at changing those rates or results.


----------



## FA_Q2

idb said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Of course I support restrictions on civilian-owned firearms.
> Any sensible person does.*
> I'm sure you do too.
> 
> I live in a society where police don't routinely carry firearms because they don't feel outgunned by the general population.
> A simple Google search will find calls to arm the cops - it's an ongoing discussion - but at the moment access to firearms for the police is limited and firearms incidents against the cops are low.
> The presence of a firearm in any crime escalates the seriousness of the charges hugely.
> 
> It isn't in our general national psyche to own guns for personal protection and, even though we have a relatively high ownership of guns, we don't feel that the restrictions are oppressive.
> In fact, it is illegal to own firearms for the purpose of security.
> 
> I find it impossible to accept that if concealed-carry firearms were suddenly allowed it wouldn't make us less safe and more concerned about personal security.
> I take it that you believe the opposite...if CC weapons were allowed to us, would we all be safer feel more secure?
> 
> 
> 
> According to the data, any sensible person DOES NOT.
> 
> Stop demanding that your position is sensible without any data whatsoever to support it.  That does not make your position sensible at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Think about it, of course you believe in some restrictions.
> Haven't you already spoken about people with mental illness for example?
> This isn't a 'gotcha'...just pointing out that almost nobody advocates for unrestricted access to firearms.
Click to expand...


That is not restricted access in the way that we are speaking about.  That is a removal of rights through the court system.  That would be like saying that I advocate for people to be restricted in when they can leave their house or forced to stay indoors.  That would be incorrect however the courts actively use house arrest for those that have broken the law or institutionalization for the truly crazy.  

There is a MASSIVE chasm between gun control and the legal restrictions on rights imposed through the courts.

What we are talking about is further gun regulation.

Of course its not a gotcha cause you havent got me yet


----------



## RKMBrown

FA_Q2 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to the data, any sensible person DOES NOT.
> 
> Stop demanding that your position is &#8216;sensible&#8217; without any data whatsoever to support it.  That does not make your position sensible at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Think about it, of course you believe in some restrictions.
> Haven't you already spoken about people with mental illness for example?
> This isn't a 'gotcha'...just pointing out that almost nobody advocates for unrestricted access to firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not restricted access in the way that we are speaking about.  That is a removal of rights through the court system.  That would be like saying that I advocate for people to be restricted in when they can leave their house or forced to stay indoors.  That would be incorrect however the courts actively use house arrest for those that have broken the law or institutionalization for the truly crazy.
> 
> There is a MASSIVE chasm between gun control and the legal restrictions on rights imposed through the courts.
> 
> What we are talking about is further gun regulation.
> 
> Of course it&#8217;s not a &#8216;gotcha&#8217; cause you haven&#8217;t got me yet
Click to expand...


Any reasoned person would agree we should restrict/regulate ownership of nuclear weapons.


----------



## numan

'
This discussion is worthless, because you mindless idiots know nothing about crime statistics.

International crime statistics are a dog's breakfast. Every country defines "crime" with different parameters. In particular, the definition of "violent crime" differs -- _well, violently_ -- from country to country. Any discussion of it is meaningless unless you are very, very careful to compare apples with apples and oranges with oranges.

However, anyone who is not a lunatic American knows that Australians -- whatever else maybe the failings of their ersatz Wanabee-American culture -- are far more peaceable, non-violent and sensible than hysterical Americans are ever likely to be.

.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

FA_Q2 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> To late.  See Houston, Dallas, and Austin... such a mess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You pick three of the most liberal cities in Texas and what point are you trying to make exactly?
> 
> Those cities themselves are producing jobs and having more people move there. So whatever point you were trying to make... you failed!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the point was that you are too late from stopping those like numan from coming to TX.  They are already there gravitating to the few liberal bastions ion TX.  You have been invaded already  its just that there were not enough to take over the government there.
Click to expand...


No people like numan hate Texas and would never move here.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

numan said:


> '
> This discussion is worthless, because you mindless idiots know nothing about crime statistics.
> 
> International crime statistics are a dog's breakfast. *Every country defines "crime" with different parameters.* In particular, the definition of "violent crime" differs -- _well, violently_ -- from country to country. Any discussion of it is meaningless unless you are very, very careful to compare apples with apples and oranges with oranges.
> 
> However, anyone who is not a lunatic American knows that Australians -- whatever else maybe the failings of their ersatz Wanabee-American culture -- are far more peaceable, non-violent and sensible than hysterical Americans are ever likely to be.
> 
> .



That's what I tried telling you when you tried comparing the US to Switzerland.


----------



## eflatminor

numan said:


> However, anyone who is not a lunatic American knows that Australians -- whatever else maybe the failings of their ersatz Wanabee-American culture -- are far more peaceable, non-violent and sensible than hysterical Americans are ever likely to be.
> 
> .



Let's assume you're right.  That hasn't a damn thing to do with firearms or any other inanimate objects.


----------



## Bern80

numan said:


> '
> This discussion is worthless, because you mindless idiots know nothing about crime statistics.
> 
> International crime statistics are a dog's breakfast. Every country defines "crime" with different parameters. In particular, the definition of "violent crime" differs -- _well, violently_ -- from country to country. Any discussion of it is meaningless unless you are very, very careful to compare apples with apples and oranges with oranges.
> 
> However, anyone who is not a lunatic American knows that Australians -- whatever else maybe the failings of their ersatz Wanabee-American culture -- are far more peaceable, non-violent and sensible than hysterical Americans are ever likely to be.
> 
> .



I tend to agree the statistics are meaningless, but for a different reason perhaps. Whether the crime rate goes up or down as the result of stricter or looser gun laws is irrelavent. The second ammendment was not written as a crime prevention measure. The reason the authors of the constitution afforded us the right to bear arms was so the citizenry would have the ability to defend themselves and/or fight a tryannical government. 

Think about this amendment in context with all the other rights that come with the following ammendments. On their list of priorties the second most important thing to freedom of speech was making sure people had the right and the ability to defend their life and liberty. That is why statistics do not matter. It does not matter if the violent gun crime escalated ten fold as the result of less restrictive gun laws. It doesn't change the fact that you have the right to defend yourself. It doesn't change the fact that in order to avoid tyranny the citizenry needs an effective means of fighting a tyrannical government.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Lonestar_logic said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You pick three of the most liberal cities in Texas and what point are you trying to make exactly?
> 
> Those cities themselves are producing jobs and having more people move there. So whatever point you were trying to make... you failed!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the point was that you are too late from stopping those like numan from coming to TX.  They are already there gravitating to the few liberal bastions ion TX.  You have been invaded already  its just that there were not enough to take over the government there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No people like numan hate Texas and would never move here.
Click to expand...


and that is bad

how


----------



## RKMBrown

jon_berzerk said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the point was that you are too late from stopping those like numan from coming to TX.  They are already there gravitating to the few liberal bastions ion TX.  You have been invaded already &#8211; it&#8217;s just that there were not enough to take over the government there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No people like numan hate Texas and would never move here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and that is bad
> 
> how
Click to expand...


It's not true at all.  Austin proper is filled with people like numan.


----------



## jon_berzerk

RKMBrown said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> No people like numan hate Texas and would never move here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and that is bad
> 
> how
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not true at all.  Austin proper is filled with people like numan.
Click to expand...


--LOL

that is quite the picture 

--LOL


----------



## RKMBrown

> Austin Voted the ninth best place for gays to live in 2010 by The Advocate, a national gay and lesbian magazine, the city of Austin is seen as &#8220;a small dot of blue in a vast sea of red conservatism,&#8221; said Matthew Gracia, 20, University of Texas at Austin junior women&#8217;s and gender studies major.


Austin voted ninth best place for gays to live in | The Austin Globe


----------



## jon_berzerk

RKMBrown said:


> Austin Voted the ninth best place for gays to live in 2010 by The Advocate, a national gay and lesbian magazine, the city of Austin is seen as a small dot of blue in a vast sea of red conservatism, said Matthew Gracia, 20, University of Texas at Austin junior womens and gender studies major.
> 
> 
> 
> Austin voted ninth best place for gays to live in | The Austin Globe
Click to expand...


that is probably true Conservatives like to live and let live 

we know a cross dresser out here that had to flee the progressive state of Minnesota 

because of intolerance go figure


----------



## RKMBrown

jon_berzerk said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Austin Voted the ninth best place for gays to live in 2010 by The Advocate, a national gay and lesbian magazine, the city of Austin is seen as &#8220;a small dot of blue in a vast sea of red conservatism,&#8221; said Matthew Gracia, 20, University of Texas at Austin junior women&#8217;s and gender studies major.
> 
> 
> 
> Austin voted ninth best place for gays to live in | The Austin Globe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that is probably true Conservatives like to live and let live
> 
> we know a cross dresser out here that had to flee the progressive state of Minnesota
> 
> because of intolerance go figure
Click to expand...


Ayup.  Just sayin, TX isn't just for cowboys.  It's a great place for everyone.  Even Numan would find himself welcome.


----------



## numan

'

You guys stop murdering presidents and vomiting forth loathsome monsters like Johnson and Bush who are determined to destroy the country and its people, then I may change my opinion about Texas.

.


----------



## numan

Jimmy_Jam said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I support restrictions on civilian-owned firearms.
> Any sensible person does.
> I'm sure you do too.
> 
> 
> 
> I am afraid your opinion of Americans is far too complimentary.
> 
> Not many Americans are sensible persons -- too brainwashed and prone to hysteria.
> 
> And as you can see from this site, far, far too tetchy and lacking a sense of humor. · ·
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I live in a society where police don't routinely carry firearms because they don't feel outgunned by the general population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A very, very important point.
> 
> Congratulations for living in a society more civilized and superior to the carnival of violence and destruction so prevalent in the Land of Debris and Home of the Crazed.
> 
> Pity us; if it had not been for the Insurrectionary Terrorists mis-named the Founding Fathers, we might have been as good as your country or Canada.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> numan,
> 
> If you are not American, I will simply disregard your comments and unimportant. If you are, and your opinion of American and Americans is that low, you know what to do.
Click to expand...

I do, indeed, know what to do:

Stand four-square against militarism, corruption and the brainwashing, clap-trap, hypocrisy  and lies which are the daily mental food (or, rather, "poison") of the mindless zombies who now over-run the land of my ancestors.

You may be content to supinely submit to the irresponsible Jingoism of your masters, but I will continue to try to preserve the tattered fragments of individual liberty of thought and rational criticism, which you are so anxious to crush.
.


----------



## RKMBrown

numan said:


> '
> 
> You guys stop murdering presidents and vomiting forth loathsome monsters like Johnson and Bush who are determined to destroy the country and its people, then I may change my opinion about Texas.
> 
> .



Oswald spent more time in NO, NY, and Russia than he did in TX.  But where he really found his calling was as a sharpshooter for the Marines.

>>> loathsome monsters like Johnson and Bush who are determined to destroy the country and its people

lol


----------



## PredFan

If I stab you to death, people say: "OMG! Why did YOU do that? What is wrong with YOU?"

If I beat you to death with a baseball bat, people say: "OMG! Why did YOU do that? What is wrong with YOU?"

If I poison you, people say: "OMG! Why did YOU do that? What is wrong with YOU?"

If I shoot you, people say: "OMG! We must do something about GUNS!"


----------



## RKMBrown

PredFan said:


> If I stab you to death, people say: "OMG! Why did YOU do that? What is wrong with YOU?"
> 
> If I beat you to death with a baseball bat, people say: "OMG! Why did YOU do that? What is wrong with YOU?"
> 
> If I poison you, people say: "OMG! Why did YOU do that? What is wrong with YOU?"
> 
> If I shoot you, people say: "OMG! We must do something about GUNS!"



Heh... the libs would do or say anything to make sure the government gets ever larger.  Taking away our ability to defend ourselves and our children is just another check mark on their list.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

jon_berzerk said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the point was that you are too late from stopping those like numan from coming to TX.  They are already there gravitating to the few liberal bastions ion TX.  You have been invaded already  its just that there were not enough to take over the government there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No people like numan hate Texas and would never move here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and that is bad
> 
> how
Click to expand...


I never said that it was a bad thing. It's actually a blessing.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

RKMBrown said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> No people like numan hate Texas and would never move here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and that is bad
> 
> how
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not true at all.  Austin proper is filled with people like numan.
Click to expand...


Why did they make you take your hat off?


----------



## RKMBrown

Lonestar_logic said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> and that is bad
> 
> how
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not true at all.  Austin proper is filled with people like numan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why did they make you take your hat off?
Click to expand...


heh... I live 45min north of from Austin.  Don't get down there much.  But no that's not me.


----------

