Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on December 08, 2008, 12:09:32 PM
-
Congressman Ron Paul - Gun Control: Protecting Terrorists and Despots
Texas Straight Talk ^ | December 8, 2008 | Congressman Ron Paul
Gun Control: Protecting Terrorists and Despots
Tragically, over the Thanksgiving holiday, the world was reminded how evil and cruel people can be. According to emerging accounts of the events in India, about a dozen well-armed and devastatingly well-trained terrorists laid siege on the city of Mumbai, killing almost two hundred people, and terrorizing thousands.
Regardless of the reasons, the indiscriminate shooting on masses of unarmed and defenseless people is chilling and reprehensible. How were these terrorists able to continue so long, relatively unchallenged, killing so many?
India’s gun laws are her business, of course. However, once the shock of these events and the initial reaction of fear passes, Americans should take away a valuable lesson about real homeland security and gun control from this tragedy.
Gun control advocates tell us that removing guns from society makes us safer. If that were the case why do the worst shootings happen in gun free zones, like schools? And while accidents do happen, aggressive, terroristic shootings like this are unheard of at gun and knife shows, or military bases. It bears repeating that an armed society truly is a polite society.
The fact is that firearm technology exists. It cannot be uninvented. As long as there is metalworking and welding capability, it matters not what gun laws are imposed upon law-abiding people. Those that wish to have guns, and disregard the law, will have guns. Gun control makes violence safer and more effective for the aggressive, whether the aggressor is a terrorist or a government.
History shows us that another tragedy of gun laws is genocide. Hitler, for example, knew well that in order to enact his “final solution,” disarmament was a necessary precursor. While it is not always the case that an unarmed populace WILL be killed by their government, if a government is going to kill its own people, it MUST disarm them first so they cannot fight back. Disarmament must happen at a time when overall trust in government is high, and under the guise of safety for the people, or perhaps the children. Knowing that any government, no matter how idealistically started, can become despotic, the Founding Fathers enabled the future freedom of Americans by enacting the second amendment.
In our own country, we should be ever vigilant against any attempts to disarm the people, especially in this economic downturn. I expect violent crime to rise sharply in the coming days, and as states and municipalities are even more financially strained, the police will be even less able or willing to respond to crime. In many areas, local police could become more and more absorbed with revenue generating activities, like minor traffic violations and the asset forfeiture opportunities of non-violent drug offenses. Your safety has always, ultimately been your own responsibility, but never more so than now. People have a natural right to defend themselves. Governments that take that away from their people should be highly suspect.
________________________ __
RON PAUL GETS IT!
GUN CONTROL ONLY PROTECTS TERRORISTS, CRIMINALS, & TYRANTS
-
I can fix it in a hurry.
You commit an intentional crime with a gun and you get 20 years added to your sentence.
You commit a crime of negligence, like shooting a hunting partner in the face accidentally, you go away for 5 years.
-
I can fix it in a hurry.
You commit an intentional crime with a gun and you get 20 years added to your sentence.
You commit a crime of negligence, like shooting a hunting partner in the face accidentally, you go away for 5 years.
Like that would have stopped the Mubai massacre or the VT shooting??????
-
Agreed. I'm all for very harsh sentences for armed crime. There should be very little tolerance.
However, banning guns does not take them out of criminal hands but disarms citizens from the right to protect themselves and their property.
-
Ron Paul gets everything.
This is a man that could have saved our country. It may sound miraculous at this point in time, yes, but he knows what steps we need to take, in what direction and he would have the nerve to take them as president.
The one thing he didn't get is elected. :-\
Do you think if he ran in 2012 he'd get much support despite his age?
He's gained a lot of support from the economic crisis...people are listening to him more than ever...
-
Like that would have stopped the Mubai massacre or the VT shooting??????
I was referring to our country just as Paul was.
-
Ron Paul gets everything.
This is a man that could have saved our country. It may sound miraculous at this point in time, yes, but he knows what steps we need to take, in what direction and he would have the nerve to take them as president.
The one thing he didn't get is elected. :-\
Do you think if he ran in 2012 he'd get much support despite his age?
He's gained a lot of support from the economic crisis...people are listening to him more than ever...
The man preaches and advises medicine for a sick patient who refuses to even realize he is on his death bed in the first place.
Ron Paul tells it like it is.
-
Do you think if he ran in 2012 he'd get much support despite his age?
He's gained a lot of support from the economic crisis...people are listening to him more than ever...
Apparently he doesn't dress well enough for some people on this board to vote for him.
-
Apparently he doesn't dress well enough for some people on this board to vote for him.
WTF? Forward me the thread?
-
Congressman Ron Paul - Gun Control: Protecting Terrorists and Despots
Texas Straight Talk ^ | December 8, 2008 | Congressman Ron Paul
Gun Control: Protecting Terrorists and Despots
Tragically, over the Thanksgiving holiday, the world was reminded how evil and cruel people can be. According to emerging accounts of the events in India, about a dozen well-armed and devastatingly well-trained terrorists laid siege on the city of Mumbai, killing almost two hundred people, and terrorizing thousands.
Regardless of the reasons, the indiscriminate shooting on masses of unarmed and defenseless people is chilling and reprehensible. How were these terrorists able to continue so long, relatively unchallenged, killing so many?
India’s gun laws are her business, of course. However, once the shock of these events and the initial reaction of fear passes, Americans should take away a valuable lesson about real homeland security and gun control from this tragedy.
Gun control advocates tell us that removing guns from society makes us safer. If that were the case why do the worst shootings happen in gun free zones, like schools? And while accidents do happen, aggressive, terroristic shootings like this are unheard of at gun and knife shows, or military bases. It bears repeating that an armed society truly is a polite society.
The fact is that firearm technology exists. It cannot be uninvented. As long as there is metalworking and welding capability, it matters not what gun laws are imposed upon law-abiding people. Those that wish to have guns, and disregard the law, will have guns. Gun control makes violence safer and more effective for the aggressive, whether the aggressor is a terrorist or a government.
History shows us that another tragedy of gun laws is genocide. Hitler, for example, knew well that in order to enact his “final solution,” disarmament was a necessary precursor. While it is not always the case that an unarmed populace WILL be killed by their government, if a government is going to kill its own people, it MUST disarm them first so they cannot fight back. Disarmament must happen at a time when overall trust in government is high, and under the guise of safety for the people, or perhaps the children. Knowing that any government, no matter how idealistically started, can become despotic, the Founding Fathers enabled the future freedom of Americans by enacting the second amendment.
In our own country, we should be ever vigilant against any attempts to disarm the people, especially in this economic downturn. I expect violent crime to rise sharply in the coming days, and as states and municipalities are even more financially strained, the police will be even less able or willing to respond to crime. In many areas, local police could become more and more absorbed with revenue generating activities, like minor traffic violations and the asset forfeiture opportunities of non-violent drug offenses. Your safety has always, ultimately been your own responsibility, but never more so than now. People have a natural right to defend themselves. Governments that take that away from their people should be highly suspect.
________________________ __
RON PAUL GETS IT!
GUN CONTROL ONLY PROTECTS TERRORISTS, CRIMINALS, & TYRANTS
What's the problem with having gun control?
I can honestly tell you that where I live, I am very happy to know that it is illegal for anyone to carry any kind of weapon unless they are out hunting.
This means that if I'm out in a bar, the chance of a guy pulling a gun or a knife out of the open because he's getting insulted - that doesn't happen.
It's funny how Ron Paul mentions that states and municipiatalities are getting finacially strained.
When he was one of the most vocal voices for tax cuts even when the economy was running well.
Which is Ron Paul, do you want the police to have money to do their job - or not?
He's got zero credibility.
Can you believe this guy?
He wants to cut taxes when the economy is running well - and he wants to cut down on expenses when the economy is running bad?
WTF?
Clown.
-
What's the problem with having gun control?
I can honestly tell you that where I live, I am very happy to know that it is illegal for anyone to carry any kind of weapon unless they are out hunting.
This means that if I'm out in a bar, the chance of a guy pulling a gun or a knife out of the open because he's getting insulted - that doesn't happen.
It's funny how Ron Paul mentions that states and municipiatalities are getting finacially strained.
When he was one of the most vocal voices for tax cuts even when the economy was running well.
Which is Ron Paul, do you want the police to have money to do their job - or not?
He's got zero credibility.
Can you believe this guy?
He wants to cut taxes when the economy is running well - and he wants to cut down on expenses when the economy is running bad?
WTF?
Clown.
;)
-
Typical liberal response.
Everyone is already grossly overtaxed in every area, whether it be sales taxes, real estate taxes, energy taxes, communication taxes, income taxes, fica taxes, fees, levies, assessments, fines.
Ron Paul wants to follow the constitution, unlike you.
People who are undergo a background check to get a CCW or a gun are the least likely to commit crime in your scenario.
We already have 20000 laws on the books regarding guns. Only do anti-gun zealots think we have no gun control as it is.
-
I'm all for guns and gun ownership but it's scary to think of some of the people in this country that could be potential gun owners. Just look at all the bad drivers.
Moreover, you think having a well armed populace in Mumbai would have prevented or some how decreased the verocity of the attacks? Gimme a break. Very few people have enough training and expertise to execute an armed exchange with assailants properly and effectively. What Mumbai needed was a very well armed, well trained, and much more organized response from law enforcement. The U.S. is very different in this regard. SWAT teams all over the country are pretty well armed and well trained for the most part. Most people turn tail and run when they get into a hand to hand fight. Carrying a weapon and being able to actually use it in a life or death situation are two VERY different things. It's like seeing all these wannabe tough guys carrying their little clip pocket knives in their front pockets. Most of them would piss themselves if they ever got into a confrontation witih someone that required them pulling it out and actually stabbing someone.
Case in point.......the chinese nutjob that severed someone's head on a bus full of people. You actually want guns in the hands of the general populace like them? They'd probably shoot each other on accident.
-
First off...guns in a bar or in any place that serves alcohol is illegal in most states. Even if you have a CWP. They are trying to get that changed here to allow people going to just restaurants to carry their firearm. If somebody pulls a weapon in a place like a bar, the chances of that happening with a law abiding person is slim to none.
Second...I have read several responses about hand to hand fighting. Not everybody is trained to protect themselves in hand to hand combat. Telling somebody to just "duke it out" is a moot point. Having a CWP means that you have to at least demonstrate how to use the gun properly and safely, and also it is a requirement to take classes. Most people that I know that do carry take many classes to teach them how to handle and shoot in different scenarios(Thanks Cap for the advice) So if somebody breaks into your house I'm supposed to go Rocky on somebody?
Third...having a gun and being properly trained to use it is why you are supposed to police yourselves. A SWAT team will take many long minutes if not longer because they are not normal police. It takes some time to assemble a SWAT team...I have an good aquaintance on my local SWAT team.
Fourth...the reason Ron Paul wants to cut taxes besides us being overtaxed is to make the government spend less. Our federal government does not have that kind of discipline...without getting into all of the details you have to FORCE our government to balance a budget and spend less.
-
First off...guns in a bar or in any place that serves alcohol is illegal in most states. Even if you have a CWP. They are trying to get that changed here to allow people going to just restaurants to carry there firearm. If somebody pulls a weapon in a place like a bar, the chances of that happening with a law abiding person is slim to none.
Second...I have read several responses about hand to hand fighting. Not everybody is trained to protect themselves in hand to hand combat. Telling somebody to just "duke it out" is a moot point. Having a CWP means that you have to at least demonstrate how to use the gun properly and safely, and also it is a requirement to take classes. Most people that I know that do carry take many classes to teach them how to handle and shoot in different scenarios(Thanks Cap for the advice) So if somebody breaks into your house I'm supposed to go Rocky on somebody?
Third...having a gun and being properly trained to use it is why you are supposed to police yourselves. A SWAT team will take many long minutes if not longer because they are not normal police. It takes some time to assemble a SWAT team...I have an good aquaintance on my local SWAT team.
Fourth...the reason Ron Paul wants to cut taxes besides us being overtaxed is to make the government spend less. Our federal government does not have that kind of discipline...without getting into all of the details you have to FORCE our government to balance a budget and spend less.
Great post.
The stalinists & liberals and panzies want everyone disarmed so that only the criminals and govt have weapons.
-
Typical liberal response.
Everyone is already grossly overtaxed in every area, whether it be sales taxes, real estate taxes, energy taxes, communication taxes, income taxes, fica taxes, fees, levies, assessments, fines.
Ron Paul wants to follow the constitution, unlike you.
Whether you or Ron Paul likes it or not, things like roads, schools and police actually has to be paid for.
Also, when the economy is heating up, instead of cutting taxes and just making things worse, the responsible management would raise taxes to build up a healthy surplus and keep spending in check.
And when the economy goes down, it would be good to have a buffert to spend, then would be the time for the big tax cuts, the big infrastructural investments.
The time to get people spending. To avoid the economy from freezing up.
But Ron Paul is a fcuking idiot.
He doesn't get these basic economic principles.
People who are undergo a background check to get a CCW or a gun are the least likely to commit crime in your scenario.
Tell that to the ghetto gangbangers, sporting AK's.
We already have 20000 laws on the books regarding guns. Only do anti-gun zealots think we have no gun control as it is.
If there is gun control, why then do you have all these criminals out in the streets carrying?
BTW, I love how so many people are fans of Ron Paul without seemingly having a clue about what policies the guy stands for.
To most, Ron Paul is evidently just a guy who "seeks the truth" and believes that 9/11 was a conspiracy. ::)
-
I dont even know where to begin with your lies.
First off - no one says we should pay no taxes, but 50% is too high unless you are a socialist who wants a communistic society.
Second - gang members, felons, cannot get a legal gun permit.
Third - when you tax people to death like we do now, they dont have extra money to spend.
-
Second...I have read several responses about hand to hand fighting. Not everybody is trained to protect themselves in hand to hand combat. Telling somebody to just "duke it out" is a moot point. Having a CWP means that you have to at least demonstrate how to use the gun properly and safely, and also it is a requirement to take classes. Most people that I know that do carry take many classes to teach them how to handle and shoot in different scenarios(Thanks Cap for the advice) So if somebody breaks into your house I'm supposed to go Rocky on somebody?
No but shooting a weapon in the confines of your own home is an entirely different situation then having a guy walk into a restaurant start blasting people and 20 people pulling out a hand gun and start firing. That's my point. It's like driving. Look at all the irresponsible, idiot drivers out there. We all have to take tests and learn to drive etc. But morons still crowd the roads. And my point about hand to hand combat is this........VERY FEW PEOPLE have the werewithall to defend themselves in a normal situation. A gun compounds this problem x100. Meaning, it takes a certain amount of balls, courage, bravery, self control, whatever to rip out a gun and use it properly in an adrenaline craze situation. 3/4 of the societal populace doesn't have it. Owning guns for home protection is one thing..........having every jane dick and tom walking around with a handgun in their pocket is entirely different. As the laws are now those people that want/need a gun and a CCW can and should be able to get them.
-
I have a license in NY.
It took me the following:
1. NRA safety class.
2. FBI background check
3. State background check.
4. Extensive application process
All in all, it took about 6 months.
Do any of you fools think that after going through all of that I am going to rob a bank or stick up and old lady?
-
What's the problem with having gun control?
Plenty. Ever consider actually doing some research on the topic? Lets start simple. It’s easy to put together some correlational info that is without proper context or missing data or fails to account for other variables. Anti gun types, being inherently intellectually dishonest, are specialists at that. They appear to feel the end justifies the means, so if ignoring history and fudging facts and data gets guns banned, that’s OK with them. A fun and simple example of how to do it:
Every year the Brady Bunch gives each state a grade for their gun laws. As you would expect (as they being a anti gun/pro gun control oriented group), states with strict gun control laws get high grades and states with less strict laws get lower grades:
STATE . . . . . . Brady Grade,
New York . . . . . . B+
Vermont . . . . . . . D-
New Hampshire . . D-
Maine . . . . . . . . . D-
Massachusetts . . . A-
Connecticut . . . . . A-
Rhode Island . . . . B-
Now, lets compare each of those states to the actual crime rates:
2005 FBI UCR data of crime/homicide rates per 100,000 people:
Region . . . Violent Crime, Homicide Rates
USA National . . 569.2 , 5.6
New York . . . . 445.8 , 4.5
Vermont . . . . . 119.7 , 1.3
New Hampshire 132.0 , 1.4
Maine . . . . . . . 112.2 , 1.4
Massachusetts . 456.9 , 2.7
Connecticut . . . 274.5 , 2.9
Rhode Island . . 251.2 , 3.2
Conclusion: if you want to find the safest place to live in the US, chose the state with the WORST grade from the Brady bunch! Aint playing with numbers fun?
-
The anti-gun crowd refuses to accept the fact that we already have massive gun control.
The criminals will never follow any of said laws, whether it be knives, guns, or whatever.
The definitive work on this subject is by John Lott "More Guns - Less Crime".
I have no problem requiring NRA training and background checks and maybe even yearly training to keep brushed up on new laws and skills.
However, what these morons propose is just unbelievable in light of the facts.
-
He doesn't get these basic economic principles.
Swedish people understand basic economic principles.
Take the cheapest materials you can find, it can be anything just as long as it can be held together with pins and white glue. Throw some of the parts in a box, preferrably with some pieces missing. Scribble some lines, loops and arrows on a scrap piece of paper and add some numbers to it with the title "Instructions" at the top. Take a black felt marker and hand print, "Finest Swedish Engineering" on the box. Name the furntiure you just created by randomly picking any letters of the alphabet you like to make a word such as, Tidrslak. Sell it for 400% more than the materials cost to idiots around the world.
-
Whether you or Ron Paul likes it or not, things like roads, schools and police actually has to be paid for.
Also, when the economy is heating up, instead of cutting taxes and just making things worse, the responsible management would raise taxes to build up a healthy surplus and keep spending in check.
And when the economy goes down, it would be good to have a buffert to spend, then would be the time for the big tax cuts, the big infrastructural investments.
The time to get people spending. To avoid the economy from freezing up.
But Ron Paul is a fcuking idiot.
He doesn't get these basic economic principles.
Tell that to the ghetto gangbangers, sporting AK's.
If there is gun control, why then do you have all these criminals out in the streets carrying?
BTW, I love how so many people are fans of Ron Paul without seemingly having a clue about what policies the guy stands for.
To most, Ron Paul is evidently just a guy who "seeks the truth" and believes that 9/11 was a conspiracy. ::)
That's kind of my point though...criminals will not obey laws period. Therefore it makes no sense to make gun laws even stricter for law abiding citizens.
I know times are tough, believe me I feel it everyday at work. The thing is if you are going to reel in government spending now is the time to do it. I understand why raise taxes to create a "buffer", but if our government would just operate on a budget then there wouldn't be too much concern when we do have a recession.(In a very basic way)
I think Ron Paul "gets it" because of him warning us about this.
-
No but shooting a weapon in the confines of your own home is an entirely different situation then having a guy walk into a restaurant start blasting people and 20 people pulling out a hand gun and start firing. That's my point. It's like driving. Look at all the irresponsible, idiot drivers out there. We all have to take tests and learn to drive etc. But morons still crowd the roads. And my point about hand to hand combat is this........VERY FEW PEOPLE have the werewithall to defend themselves in a normal situation. A gun compounds this problem x100. Meaning, it takes a certain amount of balls, courage, bravery, self control, whatever to rip out a gun and use it properly in an adrenaline craze situation. 3/4 of the societal populace doesn't have it. Owning guns for home protection is one thing..........having every jane dick and tom walking around with a handgun in their pocket is entirely different. As the laws are now those people that want/need a gun and a CCW can and should be able to get them.
The tests for CWP are much more strict than driving. If 3/4 of the people in that restaraunt are shooting at the same thing...well that's usually a good thing. Granted, you have a point about people not practicing, not taking extra classes, and panicking instead of keeping their head. That's why I don't think you will ever see that amount of people carrying at one time. It still doesn't change the fact that more gun control will not solve anything.
Even if somebody has the balls to simply defend themselves in a situation...doesn't mean they have the training to. I see having a gun as being the equalizer to that situation if properly trained. Does that mean everybody should take some type of self defense training? We already have enough Tapout shirt wearing guys walking around. ;D
-
I believe firmly that anyone with a gun should undergo training. But that is a good thing!
however, banning law abiding citizens willing undergo background checks, training, etc, seems to me to be not only short sighted, but dangerous.
There are countless stories of people defending themselves with firearms. Additionally, many times, the cops only write a report and do not prevent crime.
-
Swedish people understand basic economic principles.
Take the cheapest materials you can find, it can be anything just as long as it can be held together with pins and white glue. Throw some of the parts in a box, preferrably with some pieces missing. Scribble some lines, loops and arrows on a scrap piece of paper and add some numbers to it with the title "Instructions" at the top. Take a black felt marker and hand print, "Finest Swedish Engineering" on the box. Name the furntiure you just created by randomly picking any letters of the alphabet you like to make a word such as, Tidrslak. Sell it for 400% more than the materials cost to idiots around the world.
I take it your house is filled with IKEA. ;)
Actually, I believe IKEA to be pretty good quality considering the price.
Didn't realize it had a bad rep?
-
I take it your house is filled with IKEA. ;)
Actually, I believe IKEA to be pretty good quality considering the price.
Didn't realize it had a bad rep?
LOL its mostly college student crap...it is decent but only b/c of the dirt cheap prices not b/c of the quality
-
Tell that to the ghetto gangbangers, sporting AK's.
If there is gun control, why then do you have all these criminals out in the streets carrying?
B/C you jackass they dont go through goverment and law abiding channels to get their guns you retard...you think taking away or limiting ppl who follow the laws rights to own and carry a gun is going to take guns out of the hand of criminals? LOL please explain that to me.
-
LOL guys it's too late to even think about removing guns.
Although I do think that guns in the us have contributed to criminal activity and they would be better off with no guns to begin with, it's just too late. Either you allow guns from the start, or you don't.
It's practically impossible to remove them now.
-
Whether you or Ron Paul likes it or not, things like roads, schools and police actually has to be paid for.
Also, when the economy is heating up, instead of cutting taxes and just making things worse, the responsible management would raise taxes to build up a healthy surplus and keep spending in check.
And when the economy goes down, it would be good to have a buffert to spend, then would be the time for the big tax cuts, the big infrastructural investments.
The time to get people spending. To avoid the economy from freezing up.
But Ron Paul is a fcuking idiot.
He doesn't get these basic economic principles.
Tell that to the ghetto gangbangers, sporting AK's.
If there is gun control, why then do you have all these criminals out in the streets carrying?
BTW, I love how so many people are fans of Ron Paul without seemingly having a clue about what policies the guy stands for.
To most, Ron Paul is evidently just a guy who "seeks the truth" and believes that 9/11 was a conspiracy. ::)
Co-sign - Even eurotrash gets it.
Ron Paul is a fucking wack job, and his moronic followers are just as nutty.
-
Hedgehog,
What's your opinion on our second amendment? In your opinion was it placed there solely to protect the rights of sportsmen?
-
Hedgehog,
What's your opinion on our second amendment? In your opinion was it placed there solely to protect the rights of sportsmen?
The second amendment is to protect the rights guaranteed by the rest of the constituion and from a tyrannical govt, not to hunt ducks.
-
Co-sign - Even eurotrash gets it.
Ron Paul is a fucking wack job, and his moronic followers are just as nutty.
Actually although he maybe short sighted he's a very intelligent person. Maybe we need a whack job like him in the Presidency. You really think he'd be worse than anything we've ever had? They used to say that about Ross Perot. Turns out we was spot on about everything.
-
The second amendment is to protect the rights guaranteed by the rest of the constituion and from a tyrannical govt, not to hunt ducks.
I agree with you, it's another very important check on the government. Just wondering what Hedgehogs opinion is...
-
I agree with you, it's another very important check on the government. Just wondering what Hedgehogs opinion is...
I definately understand the purpose of the 2nd amendment - 200 years ago. There weren't a structured society with laws or any authorities to protect the citizens then.
But everything evolves.
So should a constitution.
As for law abiding citizens carrying a gun - that's probably not a big deal.
But it does creates the market for gun production, and then, sooner or later, thugs will get their hands on them.
Look, I have no great answer to those who want a gun to defend themselves.
All I know is that the amendment argument means jack and shit to me.
If slavery was an amendment, it would be changed, right?
A constitution has to evolve with time.
If it was possible to get rid of the guns from the streets and still have liberal gun laws, I would be all for it.
In short, it's all about minimizing gun violence for me.
How it's done is secondary.
-
I definately understand the purpose of the 2nd amendment - 200 years ago. There weren't a structured society with laws or any authorities to protect the citizens then.
But everything evolves.
So should a constitution.
As for law abiding citizens carrying a gun - that's probably not a big deal.
But it does creates the market for gun production, and then, sooner or later, thugs will get their hands on them.
Look, I have no great answer to those who want a gun to defend themselves.
All I know is that the amendment argument means jack and shit to me.
If slavery was an amendment, it would be changed, right?
A constitution has to evolve with time.
If it was possible to get rid of the guns from the streets and still have liberal gun laws, I would be all for it.
In short, it's all about minimizing gun violence for me.
How it's done is secondary.
If you think that the 2nd Amendment is any less relevent today than it was 200 years ago in light of what is going on in the world you are completely delusional. If anything, it will become more relvent in the coming years.
BTW. What other rights do you not care about in the consitution?
If you want to minimize gun violence, we need to keep violent criminals locked in jail forever and release non-violent offenders or find alternatives to prison.
-
I definately understand the purpose of the 2nd amendment - 200 years ago. There weren't a structured society with laws or any authorities to protect the citizens then.
But everything evolves.
So should a constitution.
As for law abiding citizens carrying a gun - that's probably not a big deal.
But it does creates the market for gun production, and then, sooner or later, thugs will get their hands on them.
Look, I have no great answer to those who want a gun to defend themselves.
All I know is that the amendment argument means jack and shit to me.
If slavery was an amendment, it would be changed, right?
A constitution has to evolve with time.
If it was possible to get rid of the guns from the streets and still have liberal gun laws, I would be all for it.
In short, it's all about minimizing gun violence for me.
How it's done is secondary.
A constitution shouldn't "evolve" as it is not a living organism. The things written in the Constituion are COMMON SENSE things that a people and government can or should live by that still hold true in today's society.
-
If you think that the 2nd Amendment is any less relevent today than it was 200 years ago in light of what is going on in the world you are completely delusional. If anything, it will become more relvent in the coming years.
Exactly. Sometimes I get the feeling Hedge hits the bong one too many times a day.
-
There weren't a structured society with laws or any authorities to protect the citizens then.
Because the authorities will always be there to help you. The authorities always look out for the little guy. Because the authorities aren't corruptable. The authorities can always be trusted to do the right thing, right.... right?
-
A constitution shouldn't "evolve" as it is not a living organism. The things written in the Constituion are COMMON SENSE things that a people and government can or should live by that still hold true in today's society.
I disagree.
The constitution was written in a time when slavery existed.
In a time when women had no right to vote.
Since the declaration of independence, there has been lots of development in democracy.
Very few disputes that fact.
You seem to somehow think that a change to the constitution would automatically be something negative.
I disagree.
Eg, the constitution could be changed to open up for more parties, stead of just two big ones.
The Blajogevich and Senator Stevens affairs (among others) shows that the two-party system corrupts.
The election process could be changed, so that every precinct would award percentages of their votes to candidates instead of all their electoral votes to the winning candidate.
So a change in the constitution is not just about the 2nd amendment.
There are so many other things that could be looked into.
As far as my home country - I want to get rid of our monarchy. A disgrace to any democracy to have a king. Even if the guy doesn't have any power and just act as a PR person.
-
I disagree.
The constitution was written in a time when slavery existed.
In a time when women had no right to vote.
Since the declaration of independence, there has been lots of development in democracy.
Very few disputes that fact.
You seem to somehow think that a change to the constitution would automatically be something negative.
I disagree.
Eg, the constitution could be changed to open up for more parties, stead of just two big ones.
The Blajogevich and Senator Stevens affairs (among others) shows that the two-party system corrupts.
The election process could be changed, so that every precinct would award percentages of their votes to candidates instead of all their electoral votes to the winning candidate.
So a change in the constitution is not just about the 2nd amendment.
There are so many other things that could be looked into.
As far as my home country - I want to get rid of our monarchy. A disgrace to any democracy to have a king. Even if the guy doesn't have any power and just act as a PR person.
You are truly a moron and obviously have not a clue about what you are talking about. The constitution is silent as to political parties.
What else needs to be revised??? The first amendment????? The fourth?????? Why not have a dictator?????
-
I disagree.
The constitution was written in a time when slavery existed.
In a time when women had no right to vote.
Since the declaration of independence, there has been lots of development in democracy.
Very few disputes that fact.
You seem to somehow think that a change to the constitution would automatically be something negative.
I disagree.
Eg, the constitution could be changed to open up for more parties, stead of just two big ones.
The Blajogevich and Senator Stevens affairs (among others) shows that the two-party system corrupts.
The election process could be changed, so that every precinct would award percentages of their votes to candidates instead of all their electoral votes to the winning candidate.
So a change in the constitution is not just about the 2nd amendment.
There are so many other things that could be looked into.
As far as my home country - I want to get rid of our monarchy. A disgrace to any democracy to have a king. Even if the guy doesn't have any power and just act as a PR person.
I do not dispute that fact/
Your first post implies that you would get rid of the 2nd ammendment. From my perspective that is a negative thing, but not all of the things that have changed are negative or any proposed future changes may not be either.
The Constituion recognizes no party. If you want to talk about our balloting system then we can agree, especially allowing third parties allowed to participate in the debates etc. Our Bill of Rights needs to stay intact as they are common sense laws.
-
You are truly a moron and obviously have not a clue about what you are talking about. The constitution is silent as to political parties.
What else needs to be revised??? The first amendment????? The fourth?????? Why not have a dictator?????
The current system favors the two major parties.
With a different system, there would actually be a point in voting for eg a libertarian party (perhaps headed by Ron Paul), as they would actually get a few seats in the congress if they could get 5 or more % of the popular vote.
The political scene would be more diverse.
I don't understand why you would oppose that?
Again, I believe that changes can and should be made to constitutions over time.
Over here, a change in the constitution needs to be confirmed twice with an election in between.
One change that was made a couple years ago was to extend the the time in office to four years instead of three.
Another one was some thirty years ago when the legislative body was re-modeled into one chamber instead of two.
No offence, but I think you're being a little bit paranoid.
And again, I don't understand why you oppose a change that would open up for a multi-party legislative body?
Instead of the current system that favors the two old ones.
-
Our system favors the two party system...not the Constitution itself. While I favor more political parties, it is basically different rules set forth by both Republicans and Democrats who play by different rules than other parties.
Republicans weren't even in power when the Constitution was written. Lincoln was a third party candidate known as the Republican party. We have ammended our Constituion, and I don't disagree totally with what you are saying. It just seems that you want to regress our Bill of Rights. There is no need to do that.
-
CCW in action
-
CCW in action
damn
-
damn
That's what im talking about!
-
That's what im talking about!
That guy had all the authority he needed to help him out of that situation. ;D
-
The current system favors the two major parties.
Which has nothing to do with the US Const. Best to not comment in things you know so little about.
With a different system, there would actually be a point in voting for eg a libertarian party (perhaps headed by Ron Paul), as they would actually get a few seats in the congress if they could get 5 or more % of the popular vote.
The political scene would be more diverse.
I don't understand why you would oppose that?
To repeat, you don't know anything about the system or the US Const. Worry about your own country, and save your advice about ours. I voted third part Libertarian myself. We have not laws nor Const. related articles that force any type of 2 party system here.
Again, I believe that changes can and should be made to constitutions over time.
Lucky for us, no one cares what you believe.
Over here, a change in the constitution needs to be confirmed twice with an election in between.
One change that was made a couple years ago was to extend the the time in office to four years instead of three.
Another one was some thirty years ago when the legislative body was re-modeled into one chamber instead of two.
Good for you. Our Const was written by some of the greatest thinkers ever to grace this planet. We hold what they wrote as essential to Liberty, Freedom, and Democracy, and no ignorant twits here or in your country will ever change that.
No offence, but I think you're being a little bit paranoid.
No offense, but you should keep your opinions about our Const. to yourself, made all the worse by the fact you don't actually know much about it.
And again, I don't understand why you oppose a change that would open up for a multi-party legislative body?
Instead of the current system that favors the two old ones.
See above comments... ::)
-
You're amusing.
Which has nothing to do with the US Const. Best to not comment in things you know so little about.
It does.
If the congressmen votes for each state weren't decided by a majority vote in each precinct, but would be spread out evenly to the parties getting a certain amount of votes in that state.
Eg, lets say Missouri would have 10 congress seats.
Then in the congrss election, lets for arguments sake say the Democrats would get 30 percent and 3 seats. The Republicans would also get 30 percent and 3 seats.
Then some new parties would get percentages as well. The Libertarians perhaps would get 20 percent and 2 seats.
A radical left party, the Socialist party, would only get 4 percent, and that would not be enough to get a seat. Perhaps a new local party, The Southerners that perhaps caucus with the Republicans, would get 15 percent and the two remaining seats.
To repeat, you don't know anything about the system or the US Const. Worry about your own country, and save your advice about ours. I voted third part Libertarian myself. We have not laws nor Const. related articles that force any type of 2 party system here.
Where do you get the idea that I don't know anything about the US Constitution?
I actually took the Democracy class my senior year in the USA. Did you?
Where do I claim that there are any rules that forces a two party system?
I'm not.
What I am saying is that the current political system in USA favors the two old big parties.
If you by any chance followed the election, it's gone so far that not even the two parties will battle for every state in the presidential race, only in states they think are close.
Is that democracy?
Lucky for us, no one cares what you believe.
We've been having a great discussion here.
What's with the attitude, sport?
Our Const was written by some of the greatest thinkers ever to grace this planet. We hold what they wrote as essential to Liberty, Freedom, and Democracy, and no ignorant twits here or in your country will ever change that.
Exactly what have I've been wrong about?
No offense, but you should keep your opinions about our Const. to yourself, made all the worse by the fact you don't actually know much about it.
No offence taken.
Again, give me an example on how I am wrong about the US constitution.
See above comments... ::)
Sorry, but I don't see much in your post other than personal attacks and keyboard warrior antics.
It would be awesome if you could prove me wrong however.
Good luck with everything, sport.
-
LOL its mostly college student crap...it is decent but only b/c of the dirt cheap prices not b/c of the quality
tonymctones,
What are the best go-to brands for mid-end contemporary furniture? High-end? Thanks. ;)
(Any good mid-end leather brands?)
-
Where do you get the idea that I don't know anything about the US Constitution?
from your ignorant comments in this and other threads showing you have no clue what you are talking about. Hint: nothing you wrote relates one iota to the Const. forcing any sort of two party system, nor is any 2 party system mentioned anyplace in th US Const. It appears you're not aware of that, regardless of what you seemed to have memorized. You may have read it, but that does not mean you "get it."
What I am saying is that the current political system in USA favors the two old big parties.
That it true, and quite different from your statement "the constitution could be changed to open up for more parties, stead of just two big ones." The Const. does not govern that issue and does not need to be changed.
Again, you worry about your country, leave us to worry/comment on ours.
What's with the attitude, sport?
Goofy kids from another country who "took the Democracy class my senior year in the USA" suggesting we alter our Const. = attitude son. Some of us don't take real well to it, and take especially dim view when said democracy expert suggests a change to the Second Amend.
-
from your ignorant comments in this and other threads showing you have no clue what you are talking about. Hint: nothing you wrote relates one iota to the Const. forcing any sort of two party system, nor is any 2 party system mentioned anyplace in th US Const. It appears you're not aware of that, regardless of what you seemed to have memorized. You may have read it, but that does not mean you "get it."
That it true, and quite different from your statement "the constitution could be changed to open up for more parties, stead of just two big ones." The Const. does not govern that issue and does not need to be changed.
Again, you worry about your country, leave us to worry/comment on ours.
Goofy kids from another country who "took the Democracy class my senior year in the USA" suggesting we alter our Const. = attitude son. Some of us don't take real well to it, and take especially dim view when said democracy expert suggests a change to the Second Amend.
I don't mind Hedge at all, but I think he thinks that, what's good for Sweden is good for America.
-
tonymctones,
What are the best go-to brands for mid-end contemporary furniture? High-end? Thanks. ;)
(Any good mid-end leather brands?)
im no furniture afficiando bro the only reason i know about ikea is b/c im a former broke college student and know about their quality first hand
-
I don't mind Hedge at all, but I think he thinks that, what's good for Sweden is good for America.
I'm sure he's a good kid, but don't give lectures on what America should do with its Const., especially the 2A, and be surprised you get attitude. ::)
-
from your ignorant comments in this and other threads showing you have no clue what you are talking about. Hint: nothing you wrote relates one iota to the Const. forcing any sort of two party system, nor is any 2 party system mentioned anyplace in th US Const. It appears you're not aware of that, regardless of what you seemed to have memorized. You may have read it, but that does not mean you "get it."
That it true, and quite different from your statement "the constitution could be changed to open up for more parties, stead of just two big ones." The Const. does not govern that issue and does not need to be changed.
Again, you worry about your country, leave us to worry/comment on ours.
Goofy kids from another country who "took the Democracy class my senior year in the USA" suggesting we alter our Const. = attitude son. Some of us don't take real well to it, and take especially dim view when said democracy expert suggests a change to the Second Amend.
Exactly what comments were ignorant?
-
I can fix it in a hurry.
No, you can't actually.
You commit an intentional crime with a gun and you get 20 years added to your sentence.
So beating a person to death with a rock is better? Focusing on the tool used vs the end result and intent of the person doing the killing is what matters. Murder should carry the same sentence regardless of the tool used. The dead person does not care what was used to kill them with. If a person drives his SUV into a crowed killing 10, he should get less time then the guy who kills one with a gun? Use your brain.
Adding additional sentence for using a gun in a crime, has no effects on total crime rates, and has been shown to make criminals simply (if they bother to think about it at all) change tools. Stabbings go up, etc, etc. Read and learn:
The Cold, Hard Facts About Guns
by John R. Lott, Jr.
America may indeed be obsessed with guns, but much of what passes as fact simply isn't true. The news media's focus on only tragic outcomes, while ignoring tragic events that were avoided, may be responsible for some misimpressions. Horrific events like the recent shooting in Arkansas receive massive news coverage, as they should, but the 2.5 million times each year that people use guns defensively are never discussed--including cases where public shootings are stopped before they happen.
Unfortunately, these misimpressions have real costs for people's safety. Many myths needlessly frighten people and prevent them from defending themselves most effectively.
Myth No. 1: When one is attacked, passive behavior is the safest approach.
The Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey reports that the probability of serious injury from an attack is 2.5 times greater for women offering no resistance than for women resisting with a gun. Men also benefit from using a gun, but the benefits are smaller: offering no resistance is 1.4 times more likely to result in serious injury than resisting with a gun.
Myth No. 2: Friends or relatives are the most likely killers.
The myth is usually based on two claims: 1) 58 percent of murder victims are killed by either relatives or acquaintances and 2) anyone could be a murderer.
With the broad definition of "acquaintances" used in the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports, most victims are indeed classified as knowing their killer. However, what is not made clear is that acquaintance murder primarily includes drug buyers killing drug pushers, cabdrivers killed by first-time customers, gang members killing other gang members, prostitutes killed by their clients, and so on. Only one city, Chicago, reports a precise breakdown on the nature of acquaintance killings: between 1990 and 1995 just 17 percent of murder victims were either family members, friends, neighbors and/or roommates.
Murderers also are not your average citizen. For example, about 90 percent of adult murderers have already had a criminal record as an adult. Murderers are overwhelmingly young males with low IQs and who have difficult times getting along with others. Furthermore, unfortunately, murder is disproportionately committed against blacks and by blacks.
Myth No. 3: The United States has such a high murder rate because Americans own so many guns.
There is no international evidence backing this up. The Swiss, New Zealanders and Finns all own guns as frequently as Americans, yet in 1995 Switzerland had a murder rate 40 percent lower than Germany's, and New Zealand had one lower than Australia's. Finland and Sweden have very different gun ownership rates, but very similar murder rates. Israel, with a higher gun ownership rate than the U.S., has a murder rate 40 percent below Canada's. When one studies all countries rather than just a select few as is usually done, there is absolutely no relationship between gun ownership and murder.
Myth No. 4: If law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry concealed handguns, people will end up shooting each other after traffic accidents as well as accidentally shooting police officers.
Millions of people currently hold concealed handgun permits, and some states have issued them for as long as 60 years. Yet, only one permit holder has ever been arrested for using a concealed handgun after a traffic accident and that case was ruled as self-defense. The type of person willing to go through the permitting process is extremely law-abiding. In Florida, almost 444,000 licenses were granted from 1987 to 1997, but only 84 people have lost their licenses for felonies involving firearms. Most violations that lead to permits being revoked involve accidentally carrying a gun into restricted areas, like airports or schools. In Virginia, not a single permit holder has committed a violent crime. Similarly encouraging results have been reported for Kentucky, Nevada, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas and Tennessee (the only other states where information is available).
Myth No. 5: The family gun is more likely to kill you or someone you know than to kill in self-defense.
The studies yielding such numbers never actually inquired as to whose gun was used in the killing. Instead, if a household owned a gun and if a person in that household or someone they knew was shot to death while in the home, the gun in the household was blamed. In fact, virtually all the killings in these studies were committed by guns brought in by an intruder. No more than four percent of the gun deaths can be attributed to the homeowner's gun. The very fact that most people were killed by intruders also surely raises questions about why they owned guns in the first place and whether they had sufficient protection.
How many attacks have been deterred from ever occurring by the potential victims owning a gun? My own research finds that more concealed handguns, and increased gun ownership generally, unambiguously deter murders, robbery, and aggravated assaults. This is also in line with the well-known fact that criminals prefer attacking victims that they consider weak.
These are only some of the myths about guns and crime that drive the public policy debate. We must not lose sight of the ultimate question: Will allowing law-abiding citizens to own guns save lives? The evidence strongly indicates that it does.
This article fist appeared in the Chicago Tribune on May 8, 1998 and is reprenited here with the author's permission.
Dr. John Lott, Jr. is the John M. Olin law and economics fellow at the University of Chicago School of Law,
-
No, you can't actually.
So beating a person to death with a rock is better? Focusing on the tool used vs the end result and intent of the person doing the killing is what matters. Murder should carry the same sentence regardless of the tool used. The dead person does not care what was used to kill them with. If a person drives his SUV into a crowed killing 10, he should get less time then the guy who kills one with a gun? Use your brain.
Adding additional sentence for using a gun in a crime, has no effects on total crime rates, and has been shown to make criminals simply (if they bother to think about it at all) change tools. Stabbings go up, etc, etc. Read and learn:
The Cold, Hard Facts About Guns
by John R. Lott, Jr.
America may indeed be obsessed with guns, but much of what passes as fact simply isn't true. The news media's focus on only tragic outcomes, while ignoring tragic events that were avoided, may be responsible for some misimpressions. Horrific events like the recent shooting in Arkansas receive massive news coverage, as they should, but the 2.5 million times each year that people use guns defensively are never discussed--including cases where public shootings are stopped before they happen.
Unfortunately, these misimpressions have real costs for people's safety. Many myths needlessly frighten people and prevent them from defending themselves most effectively.
Myth No. 1: When one is attacked, passive behavior is the safest approach.
The Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey reports that the probability of serious injury from an attack is 2.5 times greater for women offering no resistance than for women resisting with a gun. Men also benefit from using a gun, but the benefits are smaller: offering no resistance is 1.4 times more likely to result in serious injury than resisting with a gun.
Myth No. 2: Friends or relatives are the most likely killers.
The myth is usually based on two claims: 1) 58 percent of murder victims are killed by either relatives or acquaintances and 2) anyone could be a murderer.
With the broad definition of "acquaintances" used in the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports, most victims are indeed classified as knowing their killer. However, what is not made clear is that acquaintance murder primarily includes drug buyers killing drug pushers, cabdrivers killed by first-time customers, gang members killing other gang members, prostitutes killed by their clients, and so on. Only one city, Chicago, reports a precise breakdown on the nature of acquaintance killings: between 1990 and 1995 just 17 percent of murder victims were either family members, friends, neighbors and/or roommates.
Murderers also are not your average citizen. For example, about 90 percent of adult murderers have already had a criminal record as an adult. Murderers are overwhelmingly young males with low IQs and who have difficult times getting along with others. Furthermore, unfortunately, murder is disproportionately committed against blacks and by blacks.
Myth No. 3: The United States has such a high murder rate because Americans own so many guns.
There is no international evidence backing this up. The Swiss, New Zealanders and Finns all own guns as frequently as Americans, yet in 1995 Switzerland had a murder rate 40 percent lower than Germany's, and New Zealand had one lower than Australia's. Finland and Sweden have very different gun ownership rates, but very similar murder rates. Israel, with a higher gun ownership rate than the U.S., has a murder rate 40 percent below Canada's. When one studies all countries rather than just a select few as is usually done, there is absolutely no relationship between gun ownership and murder.
Myth No. 4: If law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry concealed handguns, people will end up shooting each other after traffic accidents as well as accidentally shooting police officers.
Millions of people currently hold concealed handgun permits, and some states have issued them for as long as 60 years. Yet, only one permit holder has ever been arrested for using a concealed handgun after a traffic accident and that case was ruled as self-defense. The type of person willing to go through the permitting process is extremely law-abiding. In Florida, almost 444,000 licenses were granted from 1987 to 1997, but only 84 people have lost their licenses for felonies involving firearms. Most violations that lead to permits being revoked involve accidentally carrying a gun into restricted areas, like airports or schools. In Virginia, not a single permit holder has committed a violent crime. Similarly encouraging results have been reported for Kentucky, Nevada, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas and Tennessee (the only other states where information is available).
Myth No. 5: The family gun is more likely to kill you or someone you know than to kill in self-defense.
The studies yielding such numbers never actually inquired as to whose gun was used in the killing. Instead, if a household owned a gun and if a person in that household or someone they knew was shot to death while in the home, the gun in the household was blamed. In fact, virtually all the killings in these studies were committed by guns brought in by an intruder. No more than four percent of the gun deaths can be attributed to the homeowner's gun. The very fact that most people were killed by intruders also surely raises questions about why they owned guns in the first place and whether they had sufficient protection.
How many attacks have been deterred from ever occurring by the potential victims owning a gun? My own research finds that more concealed handguns, and increased gun ownership generally, unambiguously deter murders, robbery, and aggravated assaults. This is also in line with the well-known fact that criminals prefer attacking victims that they consider weak.
These are only some of the myths about guns and crime that drive the public policy debate. We must not lose sight of the ultimate question: Will allowing law-abiding citizens to own guns save lives? The evidence strongly indicates that it does.
This article fist appeared in the Chicago Tribune on May 8, 1998 and is reprenited here with the author's permission.
Dr. John Lott, Jr. is the John M. Olin law and economics fellow at the University of Chicago School of Law,
John Lott is like kryptonite to gun control freaks.
BTW - I HAVE A NEW G26 ON THE WAY THIS WEEK!
-
John Lott is like kryptonite to gun control freaks.
Agreed, but dude, learn to snip! :o
BTW - I HAVE A NEW G26 ON THE WAY THIS WEEK!
Enjoy! ;)
-
I actually read a book you wrote years ago, i cant remember the name. It was pretty good and I hope you had decent sales on it.
BTW - I already have the G17, but wanted the smaller G26. I would have went for .40 cal, but i like being able to shoot 9mm at the range more often and become more proficient.
As far as rifles go, I am best with a Bushmaster M4 AR-15. That damn thing is great.
-
Exactly what comments were ignorant?
bump for answer!
-
bump for answer!
Your entire posting history on this topic is so replete with errors one would not know where to begin.
-
I actually read a book you wrote years ago, i cant remember the name. It was pretty good and I hope you had decent sales on it.
Was it Priming The Anabolic Environment? See:
http://www.amazon.com/Title-Priming-Anabolic-Environment-Practical/dp/1552100030/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1229618929&sr=1-1
I sold it as a one time fee to MMI, so I did OK with it, but it didn't make me rich by any means. BTW, my ebook (spam alert!) Bodybuilding Revealed is a far better book. Priming (hence the title) was a more foundational/beginners read, where as BBR is 600 plus pages of beginner to advanced science based info on supps, nutrition, and training.
OK, back to guns...
BTW - I already have the G17, but wanted the smaller G26. I would have went for .40 cal, but i like being able to shoot 9mm at the range more often and become more proficient.
Considering the cost of ammo right now, a very good idea! I was considering a 9mm 1911 myself for that reason as .45 ACP is freakin' expensive! I took a tactical combat handgun course recently and the ammo cost more then the course, hotel room, etc combined! >:(
As far as rifles go, I am best with a Bushmaster M4 AR-15. That damn thing is great.
Me too. It's my one and only long gun:
(http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b374/willbrink/M4Heaven.jpg)
[/quote]
-
Your entire posting history on this topic is so replete with errors one would not know where to begin.
Exactly.
-
Exactly.
In addition to being a troll-faced schmoe, you are a one trick pony. Always popping up on gun control threads. ::)
-
That was the book! Very basic, but to the point and hit all the points. The thing I still follow is focusing on big body parts like Back, Legs, Chest and sticking to basic exercises.
As far as ammo costs, go to sportsmansguide.com
They have as good prices as you are going to get anywhere.
The thing I like about the bushmaster is also the fact that it is a very low recoil gun for the round.
At 100 yards with the Barska laser scope at 1x magnification I can get about 1.5 to 2.5 inch groupings.
-
In addition to being a troll-faced schmoe, you are a one trick pony. Always popping up on gun control threads. ::)
I "pop up" in all manner of thread topics, so your reading comprehension is poor. Carry on wanna be GB troll person. 8)
-
That was the book! Very basic, but to the point and hit all the points. The thing I still follow is focusing on big body parts like Back, Legs, Chest and sticking to basic exercises.
Yup. ;D
As far as ammo costs, go to sportsmansguide.com
Can't. People's Republic of MA does not allow such things.
The thing I like about the bushmaster is also the fact that it is a very low recoil gun for the round.
That is the nature of the AR platform and the projectile is fires. Not a brand thing, but a design thing.
At 100 yards with the Barska laser scope at 1x magnification I can get about 1.5 to 2.5 inch groupings.
I'm not all that great with mine. Decent groups at 100 yards, but nothing special. I'm a handgun shooter mostly.
[/quote]
-
you guys need a hundred round drum for your ar's like i have ;D
-
Do you live near the border of CT or RI?
Why not get family member to get it for you or something and just stock up?
I got a lot of .223 for a great price.
-
Do you live near the border of CT or RI?
Why not get family member to get it for you or something and just stock up?
I got a lot of .223 for a great price.
Best priced are to drive up to NH. I did stock up before prices went from high to crazy. I made sure to get true 5.56 vs. .223.
-
Best priced are to drive up to NH. I did stock up before prices went from high to crazy. I made sure to get true 5.56 vs. .223.
I use it mostly for the range but have good stuff for SHTF scenarios.
-
I use it mostly for the range but have good stuff for SHTF scenarios.
Me too. Bunch of cheap Wolff .223. for range. Runs fine, but it's dirty stuff.
-
No, you can't actually.
Actually, I can. It's my scenario and my rule.
So beating a person to death with a rock is better? Focusing on the tool used vs the end result and intent of the person doing the killing is what matters. Murder should carry the same sentence regardless of the tool used. The dead person does not care what was used to kill them with. If a person drives his SUV into a crowed killing 10, he should get less time then the guy who kills one with a gun? Use your brain.
Wrong about the rock and you are dead wrong with your reasoning. You're using the specious "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument and here is why that's wrong: It's easier and much more feasible to kill a person with a gun than it is a rock.
If that is not the case, then why do bank robbers use guns? Why didn't the Columbine kids storm the high school armed with rocks? Why doesn't the US government arm its soldiers with rocks and rolled up magazines?
Why? B/c guns make killing easier to do.
Adding additional sentence for using a gun in a crime, has no effects on total crime rates, and has been shown to make criminals simply (if they bother to think about it at all) change tools. Stabbings go up, etc, etc. Read and learn:. . . .
Fine. I'll take my chances with a crook armed with a knife versus a store owner armed with a registered gun. But this argument is nothing more than an iteration of your "guns don't kill people..." fallacy.
-
you know whats funny decker is you always talk about the underlying problems of illegal immigration and why building a fence wont solve anything b/c you have to deal with the underlying problems but you dont apply that logic to gun control.
-
Actually, I can. It's my scenario and my rule.
Wrong about the rock and you are dead wrong with your reasoning. You're using the specious "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument and here is why that's wrong: It's easier and much more feasible to kill a person with a gun than it is a rock.
Irrelevant as already explained.
Old myths snipped. See above articles and consider actually reading the data on the topic. If actually interested in knowing the facts, consider www.gunfacts.info
Not that you would ever want to let the facts get in the way of a good emotional based position or anything....
-
I would rather face a gun than a knife.
With a gun, I am dead, with a knife, that is BBBBBBBAaAAADDDDDD news.
A knife wielding assailant is deadly and the best thing to do is RUN!.
-
I would rather face a gun than a knife.
I would rather face neither, but would prefer the ability to have something to counter it with besides wishful thinking and 911. BTW, under 20 ft, the knife has the advantage and many an unfortunate cop has learned that the hard way. There is something known as the "21 foot rule" with gun vs knife known well now by LEOs. Not to mention knives go right through bullet proof vests like butter, and you have a bad scenario.
-
I would rather face neither, but would prefer the ability to have something to counter it with besides wishful thinking and 911. BTW, under 20 ft, the knife has the advantage and many an unfortunate cop has learned that the hard way. There is something known as the "21 foot rule" with gun vs knife known well now by LEOs. Not to mention knives go right through bullet proof vests like butter, and you have a bad scenario.
I used to take a class by a guy John Perkins and Col Al. Ridenhour both military and law enforcement, and they always say a knife is better than a gun in most circumstances. we used to do a drill where a person would have a black marker and someone had to try to "disarm" the attacker. Most times, the person wound up with black all over themselves. Guess what the black marks represent????
Check it out. www.attackproof.com
These guys are no joke. Col. Al has been in both Gulf Wars and is a seriously bad mofo. We get mma guys in there who want to roll around with BJJ and get stomped when they dont even know how to stop a punch to the face or boot kick to the shin, etc.
Granted, a seasoned MMA guy will almost always win against a regular martials arts student, but for the most part, these guys teach bad ass stuff.
-
I used to take a class by a guy John Perkins and Col Al. Ridenhour both military and law enforcement, and they always say a knife is better than a gun in most circumstances. we used to do a drill where a person would have a black marker and someone had to try to "disarm" the attacker. Most times, the person wound up with black all over themselves. Guess what the black marks represent????
Check it out. www.attackproof.com
These guys are no joke. Col. Al has been in both Gulf Wars and is a seriously bad mofo. We get mma guys in there who want to roll around with BJJ and get stomped when they dont even know how to stop a punch to the face or boot kick to the shin, etc.
Granted, a seasoned MMA guy will almost always win against a regular martials arts student, but for the most part, these guys teach bad ass stuff.
I'm no MA expert, but that reminds a lot of Wing Chun. Always wanted to try some Crav Maga myself.
-
I'm no MA expert, but that reminds a lot of Wing Chun. Always wanted to try some Crav Maga myself.
A lot of both. They stress the basics and alot of balance.
-
great thread guys!
-
Irrelevant as already explained.
Old myths snipped. See above articles and consider actually reading the data on the topic. If actually interested in knowing the facts, consider www.gunfacts.info
Not that you would ever want to let the facts get in the way of a good emotional based position or anything....
You've explained nothing. You completely avoided the topic. Are you actually claiming that guns do not make killing easier?
You missed your calling. You should write books about conceal/carry of rocks. I mean rocks...guns....what's the difference?
Only an idealogue like yourself would see no qualitative difference btn the two.
In fact, here's what you said:
Focusing on the tool used vs the end result and intent of the person doing the killing is what matters. Murder should carry the same sentence regardless of the tool used.
My contention is that any intentional use of a gun during a crime gun should carry a stiff penalty as an aggravating factor--maybe slap on 10-20 years. I would even increase such the penalty for the negligent use of firearms. We already have increased sentences for the use of a gun in assault or battery. I just take that idea and push it a little further on criminal killings and irresponsible gun use.
Since a gun makes killing or harming another person easier, our leaders decided that some crimes committed with guns have increased penalties, see aggravated battery and assault.
If criminal penalties as a modifier of behavior mean nothing, as you aver, then we can just shitcan a huge rationale for criminal law--deterrance (the other being punishment).
Why are you defending gun criminals? Are you soft on crime?
-
I have no problem adding to a sentence if a gun is used to commit a crime like robbery or assault.
However, I have a huge problem with states that want to tax ammo, ban CCW permits by law abiding citizens, and make it harder to exercise a right guaranteed by the constitution that the SC, and even Obama said, is an individual right.
-
You've explained nothing. You completely avoided the topic. Are you actually claiming that guns do not make killing easier?
What part of the word/term "irrelevant" didn't you understand? Hint: guns make it "easier" to defend ones self, and defensive uses exceed criminal uses in the US. Again, read the data, or stop running your pie hole.
You missed your calling. You should write books about conceal/carry of rocks. I mean rocks...guns....what's the difference?
Only an idealogue like yourself would see no qualitative difference btn the two.
And only those who are not well read (read ignorant) on the topic make such comments. Again, resources for your education were supplied.
In fact, here's what you said:
My contention is that any intentional use of a gun during a crime gun should carry a stiff penalty as an aggravating factor--maybe slap on 10-20 years. I would even increase such the penalty for the negligent use of firearms. We already have increased sentences for the use of a gun in assault or battery. I just take that idea and push it a little further on criminal killings and irresponsible gun use.
Wow, your reading comprehension is so bad you use quotes I never said? The above never came from me, so "In fact, here's what you said" aint what I ever said. This does not bode well as proof of your debating skills...
Since a gun makes killing or harming another person easier, our leaders decided that some crimes committed with guns have increased penalties, see aggravated battery and assault.
Which has no effects on actual crime rates, thus we go in circles due to your ignorance of the topic and focus on the tool vs the outcomes. The data has shown gun laws either have no effects on crime rates (and crime rates are what matter...duh) or they increase crime, but they don't lower it. Again, see article above by Dr Lott on the effects of guns on crime rates, etc,.
If criminal penalties as a modifier of behavior mean nothing, as you aver, then we can just shitcan a huge rationale for criminal law--deterrance (the other being punishment).
More babble, minus any objective data to support it. Your type always, and predictably goes from the "guns make it easier" to "guns are deigned to kill" arguments, all of which are worthless and fail to look at both data and history. What guns are intended for is irrelevant. Cars are intended for driving to work, yet kill 40,000 per year. Pools and bikes-designed for biking and swimming respectively-kill more kids per year then guns. What guns are USED for is what’s relevant. There are negative and positive uses for guns.
A negative use of a gun is when a person commits a crime using a gun to commit it. That person is what is known as a criminal and all legal and or physical punishment should be applied to said person.
The positive use of a gun would be to prevent a crime or save a life, such as the 120lb women who shoots the 210 rapist, the 80 year old man who prevents the burglar from coming into his home and doing him harm, or the shop owner who protects his life work from looters after a storm, and so on
In that context, the ONLY relevant question is, what is the ratio of good to bad uses of guns? Between 700,000 (FBI’s data) and 2.5 million (Klecks data) times per year a gun is used in the in the US. in the positive sense Guns are used approximately 5 times more often to prevent a crime/save a life then they are to commit a crime.
So why not just remove all guns from the hands of citizens to reduce crime (which is not even possible nor constitutional but mentioned here for the sake of argument) which should lower crime? On a much larger historical picture, history has shown us over and over and over what happens to a population that is disarmed by it’s own government: they become subjects, slaves, or dead. Hitler knew that all too well when he said:
“History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so." --- Adolf Hitler (1889-1945), April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitlers Tischegesprache Im Fuhrerhauptquartier 1941-1942.
Thus, why the Second Amend exists and reveals a universal truth: the right to self defense - be it from criminals or a tyrannical government - is a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT no government can grant or take away. Those who do not view armed self defense as a basic human right, ignore the mass graves of those who died at the hands of tyrants.
Great men of peace and war agree on that. For example:
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." -Mohandas K. Gandhi
and
"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." -- The Dalai Lama, (May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times)
Guns are a necessary evil but necessary to a democracy and that fact was recognized by men far smarter then we are. For example;
"A FREE people ought...to be armed..." -George Washington, speech of January 7, 1790 in Boston Independent Chronicle, January 14, 1790.
And:
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws
make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides,
for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and punishment - (1764).
And a more recent opinion:
"That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or laborer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there." --George Orwell
This is no less true today then it was then, perhaps even more relevant today then it was then some have argued.
Use your logical mind, do some research, leave what you think you know of the topic behind, and you will be shocked at what you find.
-
I have no problem adding to a sentence if a gun is used to commit a crime like robbery or assault.
However, I have a huge problem with states that want to tax ammo, ban CCW permits by law abiding citizens, and make it harder to exercise a right guaranteed by the constitution that the SC, and even Obama said, is an individual right.
I would agree with you most of this. In some instances, harsh sentencing is not a bad thing.
The point BZ seems to be making is that a gun is just like any any tool/weapon. It clearly is not otherwise we'd go into battle with Bowie Knives instead of guns. Guns are different from other weapons b/c of their lethality. Why is that such a contentious point?
-
Gun control is loved by criminals, tyrants, dictators, and kings - all of who Decker thinks should run this nation.
Look at DC, Chicago, Detroit, - all have the strictest gun control. What good does it do??? Nothing.
Gun control does not work the same way as banning drugs does not work. When people want something bad enough, they are going to get it.
It makes no sense at all to put law abiding citizens at a disadvantage in their home when criminals are not going to abide by any laws restricting guns.
The gun control phonies dont realize that guns are never going away and it is impossible to ban them completely because people will then just build them in their basements.
They are living in the land of make believe.
-
What part of the word/term "irrelevant" didn't you understand? Hint: guns make it "easier" to defend ones self, and defensive uses exceed criminal uses in the US. Again, read the data, or stop running your pie hole.
Is that 'exceed argument your baby? Talk about irrelevant.
What's your problem with admitting guns are lethal weapons? What's the big deal? If you are such a relativist on the topic that rocks and guns are equally dangerous, why don't you carry a concealed pumice stone?
And only those who are not well read (read ignorant) on the topic make such comments. Again, resources for your education were supplied.
Ignorant? You're the one that can't follow through on a train of thought. You make a statement then post an irrelevant piece of crap article. What's the point? If you don't want to debate, don't.
Wow, your reading comprehension is so bad you use quotes I never said? The above never came from me, so "In fact, here's what you said" aint what I ever said. This does not bode well as proof of your debating skills...
Is it your M/O to be an insulting fuck? I think it is.
You absolutely typed those words you tool.
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=251474.50
This is what I mean when I say, "you don't know what you're talking about"....hell, even you can't follow your twisted arguments. How do you expect others to follow your meandering?
Which has no effects on actual crime rates, thus we go in circles due to your ignorance of the topic and focus on the tool vs the outcomes. The data has shown gun laws either have no effects on crime rates (and crime rates are what matter...duh) or they increase crime, but they don't lower it. Again, see article above by Dr Lott on the effects of guns on crime rates, etc,.
Typical gun lunacy. We have laws against murder and theft and rape and those still happen. Maybe we'd best abandon the criminal code. Brinkzone thinks that's a good idea b/c gun laws, gosh darn it, just don't work b/c we still have gun crime.
More babble, minus any objective data to support it. Your type always, and predictably goes from the "guns make it easier" to "guns are deigned to kill" arguments, all of which are worthless and fail to look at both data and history. What guns are intended for is irrelevant. Cars are intended for driving to work, yet kill 40,000 per year. Pools and bikes-designed for biking and swimming respectively-kill more kids per year then guns. What guns are USED for is what’s relevant. There are negative and positive uses for guns.
You are one delusional person. When's the last time a crook used an SUV to rob a liquor store? You've built up in your mind such a twisted understanding of what a gun is and what it does that you miss the obvious. You use tortured examples to make your ridiculous points.
A negative use of a gun is when a person commits a crime using a gun to commit it. That person is what is known as a criminal and all legal and or physical punishment should be applied to said person.
No shit.
The positive use of a gun would be to prevent a crime or save a life, such as the 120lb women who shoots the 210 rapist, the 80 year old man who prevents the burglar from coming into his home and doing him harm, or the shop owner who protects his life work from looters after a storm, and so on
You're on a roll.
In that context, the ONLY relevant question is, what is the ratio of good to bad uses of guns? Between 700,000 (FBI’s data) and 2.5 million (Klecks data) times per year a gun is used in the in the US. in the positive sense Guns are used approximately 5 times more often to prevent a crime/save a life then they are to commit a crime.
Who gives a shit? What does that have to do with penalties for crimes committed with a gun?
You're so fucking high up on your soap box that you've lost sight of the discussion....again.
So why not just remove all guns from the hands of citizens to reduce crime.....
I'm not going to comment on the rest of your post b/c it just bleeds on and on.
-
I sincerely believe that the government should promote private gun ownership via the NRA, and should offer training classes for law abiding citizens to carry.
-
Exactly.
You claim I make ignorant comments but can't find one single one when pressed to do so?
You disappoint me tough guy.
I thought you had a little more in ya.
-
post an irrelevant piece of crap article. What's the point?
Point is in article written by the top researcher in the field. But it does not jibe with your emotional ignorant stance (it uses those damn facts and data you avoid so much...) so it's a "irrelevant piece of crap." Brilliant debating skills. Your parents must be proud.
You absolutely typed those words you tool.
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=251474.50
You wrote those words in post #82, not I. That's how f-cked in the head you are. I wrote "Focusing on the tool used vs the end result and intent of the person doing the killing is what matters. Murder should carry the same sentence regardless of the tool used."
You applied your own quote to me. Take a look at the exact quote you attributed to me, which in fact YOU wrote.
Keep up them sharp debating skills. :P
-
I would rather face neither
So perhaps you would fancy extremely tough gun and knife laws after all?
BTW, under 20 ft, the knife has the advantage and many an unfortunate cop has learned that the hard way. There is something known as the "21 foot rule" with gun vs knife known well now by LEOs. Not to mention knives go right through bullet proof vests like butter, and you have a bad scenario.
I think you need to put down the Chris Ryan novel for a minute and return to reality.
-
So perhaps you would fancy extremely tough gun and knife laws after all?
Again, reading comprehension skills lacking on your end. No place did I say anything or make any statements about "tough" laws or lack there of regarding guns or knives. I said crimes committed (rape, murder, assault, etc) should carry EQUAL weight regardless of tool used. Really, read carefully. Now, I would be thrilled if the actual sentence for those crimes were increased REGARDLESS of the tool uses to commit the crime. No parole, no serving shorter sentences 'cause you found God in prison, etc. I am for maximum penalty for crimes commited REGARDLESS of the tool use. I have to write that in caps it appears as you don't seem to "get it" otherwise. However (now follow with me sport) passing "tough" gun laws that have been shown to NOT reduce crimes rates and only effect law abiding citizens ('cause as shocking as this is, criminals don't care about additional gun laws) is illogical to the extreme. To repeat yet again, read article by Dr Lott and or URLs I put up.
Now, do I need to repeat all that yet again or can you simply not comprehend this simple concept?
I think you need to put down the Chris Ryan novel for a minute and return to reality.
And I think you should work on your basic reading comprehension skills. Again, I will keep using the hard data and facts that seem to get ignored by the "don't confuse me with the facts" types here. For example, Countries with the stricter gun laws have HIGHER rates of murder and violence, which was published in Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pages 649-694):
"Appearing in the current issue of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pages 649-694), the Kates/Mauser report entitled "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International Evidence" is a detailed look at gun ownership and how it does not relate to the incidence of murder and violence. They conclude that
"nations with very stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those which allow guns."
The Abstract:
Abstract
The world abounds in instruments with which people can kill each other. Is the widespread availability of one of these instruments, firearms, a crucial determinant of the incidence of murder? Or do patterns of murder and/or violent crime reflect basic socio-economic and/or cultural factors to which the mere availability of one particular form of weaponry is irrelevant?
This article examines a broad range of international data that bear on two distinct but interrelated questions: first, whether widespread firearm access is an important contributing factor in murder and/or suicide, and second, whether the introduction of laws that restrict general access to firearms has been successful in reducing violent crime, homicide or suicide. Our conclusion from the available data is that suicide, murder and violent crime rates are determined by basic social, economic and/or cultural factors with the availability of any particular one of the world’s myriad deadly instrument being irrelevant.
Full paper downloaded here:
http://law.bepress.com/expresso/eps/1413/
-
Point is in article written by the top researcher in the field. But it does not jibe with your emotional ignorant stance (it uses those damn facts and data you avoid so much...) so it's a "irrelevant piece of crap." Brilliant debating skills. Your parents must be proud..
Gun lunatics, such as yourself, cannot admit the obvious--a gun makes killing easier b/c it is a lethal weapon. To lunatics, such as yourself, guns are tools that are a part of any normal person's daily life. Heck, guns should be in the crib with newborns so they become accustomed to them and become comfortable with the instruments of death.
And I don't care whether your parents are proud of you or not b/c you're a jackass in everyone else's eyes.
You wrote those words in post #82, not I. That's how f-cked in the head you are. I wrote "Focusing on the tool used vs the end result and intent of the person doing the killing is what matters. Murder should carry the same sentence regardless of the tool used.".
You applied your own quote to me. Take a look at the exact quote you attributed to me, which in fact YOU wrote.
Wrong-o Mary Lou.
You wrote this on the prior page:
"So beating a person to death with a rock is better? Focusing on the tool used vs the end result and intent of the person doing the killing is what matters. Murder should carry the same sentence regardless of the tool used. The dead person does not care what was used to kill them with. If a person drives his SUV into a crowed killing 10, he should get less time then the guy who kills one with a gun? Use your brain."
I excerpted and commented on a portion of it and you deny authorship.
Not only are you a font of irrelevant statistics and gun propaganda, you're a liar too. Do you see the quoted portion? Do you know why that's attributed to you? Do you see the unquoted portion that I wrote underneath your quote? You rail against people for their lack of reading comprehension and you are one of the worst offenders.
Keep up them sharp debating skills. :P.
I'm stomping you like ripe grapes. Why? B/c I address the topic at hand. You and your 'debating skills' amount to posting links and articles written by gun cranks with cherrypicked stats to prove your gun lunacy points.
Guns are just tools dop, dop, dop, dop, Guns are as lethal as rocks dop, dop, dop.
You come off as a raving simpleton.
Yes, we have gun laws, yet we still have gun crime, so gun laws cause more gun crime and should be scrapped. You would be laughed out of any formal debate with specious reasoning like that.
-
The thing is that a gun is a great equalizer in the hands of people not physically able to defend themselves with a baseball bat or golf club.
For example - drugged up rapist goes into home and tries to assault a 60 y/o woman. How is she going to defend herself with a knife or a bat against a drugged up 20 or 30 y/o assailant?
It works both ways.
-
Gun lunatics, such as yourself, cannot admit the obvious--a gun makes killing easier b/c it is a lethal weapon. To lunatics, such as yourself, guns are tools that are a part of any normal person's daily life. Heck, guns should be in the crib with newborns so they become accustomed to them and become comfortable with the instruments of death.
And again: emotional ranting babble about "lunatics" minus any objective info/data to support ant of said babble.
I excerpted and commented on a portion of it and you deny authorship.
People can simply look above to see you quoted yourself, attributed it to me, and are now back peddling by posting a different quote, which yes, I actually wrote.
Anyone reading this: see post #82 where he quotes himself and then claims I wrote it. Then see post #84 where I show he quotes himself and attributes it to me, yet refuses to admit If I am wrong, I will pay Decker $100. If he's wrong, he has to admit it here with an apology. Deal?
Not only are you a font of irrelevant statistics and gun propaganda, you're a liar too.
Oh my, the expert here has decided they are "irrelevant statistics" because they don't jibe with emotional fear of guns. And your training and background to claim said stats, from one of the leading researchers in the field is what again? I'm guessing nothing would be the answer there...Dr Lott on other hand:
"Previously I held positions at the University of Chicago, Yale University, Stanford, UCLA, Wharton, and Rice and was the chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission during 1988 and 1989. I have published over 90 articles in academic journals. I received my Ph.D. in economics from UCLA in 1984."
The Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy being known for publishing bad data... :o
Do you see the quoted portion?
Yes, and you wrote it. Moron.
Do you know why that's attributed to you?
'Cause you're not real bright? Just a guess...
Do you see the unquoted portion that I wrote underneath your quote? You rail against people for their lack of reading comprehension and you are one of the worst offenders.
Again, anyone can look above and see exactly what you did: quoted yourself and attributed it to me. That you are either not man enough/intellectually honest enough, to admit it, simply shows you to be generally not intellectually honest as you have been throughout. I yet to meet an anti gun type who was not intellectually dishonest, so you are in good company there.
I'm stomping you like ripe grapes.
Right.............. ::) What you are doing is simply shoving you foot yet farther down your ignorant pie hole. Congrats. Anything else you need to get off your chest son? Fire away!
-
And again: emotional ranting babble about "lunatics" minus any objective info/data to support ant of said babble.
And you argue with facts and common sense and logic. Please. Your assertions are moronic and dull normal at best.
People can simply look above to see you quoted yourself, attributed it to me, and are now back peddling by posting a different quote, which yes, I actually wrote.
Children must play. I quoted your words and now you're denying it.
Oh my, the expert here has decided they are "irrelevant statistics" because they don't jibe with emotional fear of guns. And your training and background to claim said stats, from one of the leading researchers in the field is what again? I'm guessing nothing would be the answer there...The Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy being known for publishing bad data... :o
Emotional arguments such as 'guns are just tools' or 'guns are no more deadly than rocks or SUVs' are your bread and butter. You post links to gun sites covering unrelated topics and you think you've done something productive.
My morning bowel movement was more productive than you are.
Yes, and you wrote it. Moron.
You did.
'Cause you're not real bright? Just a guess...
Again, anyone can look above and see exactly what you did: quoted yourself and attributed it to me. That you are either not man enough/intellectually honest enough, to admit it, simply shows you to be generally intellectually honest as you have been throughout. I yet to meet an anti gun type who was not intellectually honest, so you are in good company there.
Simpleton. It's your quote in the quote box. I commented on it.
Right.............. ::) What you are doing is simply shoving you foot yet farther down your ignorant pie hole. Congrats. Anything else you need to get off your chest son? Fire away!
Here is why you are an embarrassing 'authority on guns':
I make a post re increasing the penalty for gun crime by a 20 years and here's what you post in response:
Myth No. 1: When one is attacked, passive behavior is the safest approach.
Where's the relevancy? You just spout shit into the air and think you've made some point.
How about this one from the same article, how is this relevant to the issue of penalties for gun crime?
Myth No. 2: Friends or relatives are the most likely killers.
Or this:
Myth No. 3: The United States has such a high murder rate because Americans own so many guns.
Or this?
Myth No. 4: If law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry concealed handguns, people will end up shooting each other after traffic accidents as well as accidentally shooting police officers.
Or this?
Myth No. 5: The family gun is more likely to kill you or someone you know than to kill in self-defense.
You're an idealogue spewing gun propaganda. You are not responsive to the issue I raised except to note that:
Focusing on the tool used vs the end result and intent of the person doing the killing is what matters. Murder should carry the same sentence regardless of the tool used.
You claim you didn't write that. But you did.
Here's what I wrote in response to your unresponive irrelevant quote: My contention is that any intentional use of a gun during a crime gun should carry a stiff penalty as an aggravating factor--maybe slap on 10-20 years. I would even increase such the penalty for the negligent use of firearms. We already have increased sentences for the use of a gun in assault or battery. I just take that idea and push it a little further on criminal killings and irresponsible gun use.
Since a gun makes killing or harming another person easier, our leaders decided that some crimes committed with guns have increased penalties, see aggravated battery and assault.
If criminal penalties as a modifier of behavior mean nothing, as you aver, then we can just shitcan a huge rationale for criminal law--deterrance (the other being punishment).
Why are you defending gun criminals? Are you soft on crime?
Can you follow that?
-
Again, reading comprehension skills lacking on your end. No place did I say anything or make any statements about "tough" laws or lack there of regarding guns or knives. I said crimes committed (rape, murder, assault, etc) should carry EQUAL weight regardless of tool used. Really, read carefully. Now, I would be thrilled if the actual sentence for those crimes were increased REGARDLESS of the tool uses to commit the crime. No parole, no serving shorter sentences 'cause you found God in prison, etc. I am for maximum penalty for crimes commited REGARDLESS of the tool use. I have to write that in caps it appears as you don't seem to "get it" otherwise. However (now follow with me sport) passing "tough" gun laws that have been shown to NOT reduce crimes rates and only effect law abiding citizens ('cause as shocking as this is, criminals don't care about additional gun laws) is illogical to the extreme. To repeat yet again, read article by Dr Lott and or URLs I put up.
Now, do I need to repeat all that yet again or can you simply not comprehend this simple concept?
And I think you should work on your basic reading comprehension skills. Again, I will keep using the hard data and facts that seem to get ignored by the "don't confuse me with the facts" types here. For example, Countries with the stricter gun laws have HIGHER rates of murder and violence, which was published in Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pages 649-694):
"Appearing in the current issue of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pages 649-694), the Kates/Mauser report entitled "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International Evidence" is a detailed look at gun ownership and how it does not relate to the incidence of murder and violence. They conclude that
"nations with very stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those which allow guns."
The Abstract:
Abstract
The world abounds in instruments with which people can kill each other. Is the widespread availability of one of these instruments, firearms, a crucial determinant of the incidence of murder? Or do patterns of murder and/or violent crime reflect basic socio-economic and/or cultural factors to which the mere availability of one particular form of weaponry is irrelevant?
This article examines a broad range of international data that bear on two distinct but interrelated questions: first, whether widespread firearm access is an important contributing factor in murder and/or suicide, and second, whether the introduction of laws that restrict general access to firearms has been successful in reducing violent crime, homicide or suicide. Our conclusion from the available data is that suicide, murder and violent crime rates are determined by basic social, economic and/or cultural factors with the availability of any particular one of the world’s myriad deadly instrument being irrelevant.
Full paper downloaded here:
http://law.bepress.com/expresso/eps/1413/
You claimed you would rather not face either a gun or a knife.
So if there were no guns available at all, you would not have to face one, ever.
Right?
Perhaps even make gun production very limited, only the military and police forces could buy guns. That way your dream of not ever having to face a gun could perhaps be possible.
Btw, back off the copy and pasting a bit, why don't you.
How about some original thoughts instead, sport?
-
Babble snipped.
You claim you didn't write that. But you did.
Again, anyone can look at posts I listed to see it. If anyone wants to look at ref that, my deal stands.
Here's what I wrote in response to your unresponive irrelevant quote: My contention is that any intentional use of a gun during a crime gun should carry a stiff penalty as an aggravating factor--maybe slap on 10-20 years. I would even increase such the penalty for the negligent use of firearms. We already have increased sentences for the use of a gun in assault or battery. I just take that idea and push it a little further on criminal killings and irresponsible gun use.
Ah, so now you admit you wrote the above? Again, your total lack of honesty here is telling.
Why are you defending gun criminals?
Which exposes your ignorance. There's no such thing as a "gun criminal." As there are no car criminals, bat criminals, etc. There are only criminals. Attaching the criminal to the tool used, as if the tool had it's own brain, is par for the course with the ignorant and intellectually dishonest such as yourself. The very term shows your lack of ability to think. As far as being "soft" my position on criminals can be found in post #92.
-
Are you on drugs????? Other countries have gun producers and guns get smuggled from oversea to criminals all the time. Like Russian and Chinese AK 47s, SKS, Saiga's, etc.
Additionally, there are milllions and millions of guns already in circulation. It is impossible to impound every one of them.
You are clearly living in fantasy land.
The 2nd amendment in OUR COUNTRY was so that the citizens themselves had the power to defend themselves from tyrants both domestic and abroad.
-
How about some original thoughts instead, sport?
You make decker look smart. Stunning logic. Thus my comments about your ignorance. If anyone wants to educate you, that's up to them. I supplied a full study from that Harvard Journal regarding gun laws/gun ownership and it's effects on murder, etc, and you ignored it. That tells me again, you have no interests in actually researching the topic, just posting to hear yourself blather on.
-
Are you on drugs????? Other countries have gun producers and guns get smuggled from oversea to criminals all the time. Like Russian and Chinese AK 47s, SKS, Saiga's, etc.
Additionally, there are milllions and millions of guns already in circulation. It is impossible to impound every one of them.
You are clearly living in fantasy land.
The 2nd amendment in OUR COUNTRY was so that the citizens themselves had the power to defend themselves from tyrants both domestic and abroad.
Yes, but he's an expert on our country 'cause he took a course here his senior year. ::)
-
Chicago and police officers lose case and $7.7 million for false arrest
Woman pulled cop from wrecked car in 2002, but police said she stole service weapon
By Monique Garcia and David Heinzmann
June 12, 2008
A trained nurse, Rachelle Jackson immediately ran toward the sound of the crash. A Chicago police car had collided with another vehicle and was starting to smoke, two officers still inside. Fearing an explosion, she quickly pulled one officer from the passenger side.She never imagined her act of kindness nearly six years ago would land her in jail for more than 10 months on charges that she robbed, battered and disarmed a peace officer.
Jackson filed a lawsuit, and on Thursday a federal jury found against the city and several Chicago police officers, awarding Jackson $7.7 million for false arrest, malicious prosecution, coercive questioning and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
“I’m going to go home and lie down for a little bit,” an ecstatic Jackson, 41, said after the verdict. “I feel relieved. I’m happy, and I’m thanking God.”
The case began in November 2002, when a car ran a stop sign in Jackson’s neighborhood, slamming into the squad car. Jackson was walking nearby and rushed to the scene. When she arrived, the officer behind the wheel was unconscious and the passenger, Officer Kelly Brogan, was dazed.
She pulled Brogan from the wreckage and helped her to a nearby stoop. Soon after, police approached Jackson and told her that the driver’s weapon had been stolen. When she was asked to go to the police station for questioning, she thought it was as a witness to the accident.
Instead, Jackson was accused of the theft. She was held for two days with little food and water and was threatened with violence until she agreed to sign a statement police had prepared for her. She was then charged and spent more than 10 months in the Cook County Jail awaiting trial.
Her case was later thrown out by a Circuit Court judge. Jackson sued the city, Brogan and the two interrogation officers in 2003.
Defense attorney Andrew Hale said the amount the jury awarded Jackson was “excessive” and that he would file post-trial motions to have the amount reduced.
He also questioned Jackson’s intentions when she pulled the officer from the car.
“The officer said [Jackson] came at her, tried to get her gun and put her in a full-Nelson hold,” Hale said. “I’m disappointed the jury could think that would be a legitimate rescue technique.”
But Jackson’s attorneys said it was clear she was trying to help the officer, not harm her.
“This was an innocent woman who saved a police officer from a burning car,” said Chris Smith, who tried the case with Dan Alexander. “There were many heroes out there who helped the police, but they all turned into suspects because some guy ran away with the gun.”
mcgarcia@tribune.com
dheinzmann@tribune.com
________________________ ________________________ ______
DOES ANYONE THINK THESE ARE THE TYPES OF COPS WHO WILL PROTECT US?????????????????
-
Yes, but he's an expert on our country 'cause he took a course here his senior year. ::)
You were the one questioning whether I had any knowledge of the US Constitution.
I simply gave you an honest reply and now you're mocking that?
Too funny.
I don't see why you need to have a degree in political science to be allowed to discuss politics.
I don't discriminate that way at least.
Btw, you still haven't shown me exactly what my previous ignorant comments were.
-
I have a B.A. in Poli Sci, and a J.D. (Law Degree) and am avid reader of history.
I think I know what I am talking about in these matters.
When I tell you that you are just plain ignorant on political and legal issues, take my word for it.
-
Babble snipped.
If that's the standard you set then obviously all your posts are on the chopping block. nyahhhhhh
Again, anyone can look at posts I listed to see it. If anyone wants to look at ref that, my deal stands.
What deal? That you're a dull-normal 'gun expert' who doens't even know what the fuck he's writing in some forum.
Ah, so now you admit you wrote the above? Again, your total lack of honesty here is telling.
You're the pinhead who's confused.
Everbody else in the universe knows that this is a quotation on this forum
...everyone except for you. Do you know that that is a quotation? Do you see that now?
Or do your baseless complaints open the door for you to argue for multiple posts that you are being wronged. Another victim. You're such a shmuck. Oh poor you. You don't address the topic and then you cry that people are putting words into your mouth
You are a disingenous sonofabitch.
Which exposes your ignorance. There's no such thing as a "gun criminal." As there are no car criminals, bat criminals, etc. There are only criminals. Attaching the criminal to the tool used, as if the tool had it's own brain, is par for the course with the ignorant and intellectually dishonest such as yourself. The very term shows your lack of ability to think. As far as being "soft" my position on criminals can be found in post #92.
I know it's a challenge to your emotionally-based argument that 'guns are just tools' and are 'as dangerous as rocks' but 'gun criminals' are criminals who commit crimes with guns. Or how about gun-runners...are those gun criminals?
Everybody else in the universe thinks so. Do a google of "gun criminals".
Did that stretch your vast intellect?
You are soft on gun crime. 20 years in the can for gun crimes can be quite a deterrent.
You make your ridiculous points on minutiae b/c you just can't admit that a gun IS different than a rock or an SUV b/c it is a lethal weapon that does make killing easier. Otherwise the US army would go into battle driving SUVs armed with rocks.
Do you acknowledge that simple fact?
-
I have a B.A. in Poli Sci, and a J.D. (Law Degree) and am avid reader of history.
I think I know what I am talking about in these matters.
Great to pol sci scholar on the board.
Then I take it at least you will agree that the US political system heavily favors a two party rule?
-
Great to pol sci scholar on the board.
Then I take it at least you will agree that the US political system heavily favors a two party rule?
The current system does, but it is not in the constitution. In fact, the original, George Washington warned against strong political parties.
-
The current system does, but it is not in the constitution. In fact, the original, George Washington warned against strong political parties.
The constitution regulates the election process, you know that.
-
The constitution regulates the election process, you know that.
Please just stop now. Your ignorance is just too much and you are spreading incorrect info.
The consitution is silent as to political parties.
-
Please just stop now. Your ignorance is just too much and you are spreading incorrect info.
The consitution is silent as to political parties.
It is silent to party colors yes.
I've never claimed otherwise.
But you admits that the US political system favors the two big ones.
If you go back and re-read my posts you would see that my problem is not with the parties, but rather a system that makes it meaningless to vote for anything but either of the two big ones.
And you can't change the political system to get more parties into the congress without changing the constitution.
Btw, what's with the constant remarks about ignorance?
-
I "pop up" in all manner of thread topics, so your reading comprehension is poor. Carry on wanna be GB troll person. 8)
Really? I've seen you engaged SO VERY OFTEN here on the politics board on topics other than your love for guns. ::)
You can call me an internet troll, but you actually look like one. Schmoe. ;D
-
I didn't bother reading all the posts but are people suggesting there is no reason citizens should be allowed to be armed with a firearm? Could someone also point out where in the Constitution it specifically says that there can only be two major parties?
-
I didn't bother reading all the posts but are people suggesting there is no reason citizens should be allowed to be armed with a firearm? Could someone also point out where in the Constitution it specifically says that there can only be two major parties?
It doesn't say specifically in the constitution that there can only be two parties.
But, and this has been my point the whole time, the current system makes it pretty pointless to vote for anything but either of the two big two parties.
The party that wins a district wins that congress seat.
Instead of counting the votes in each state and then divide the seats accordingly to how many percent votes each party received.
The current system makes it pointless to vote for a small party, since they will never have a chance on getting a seat.
To change this system, you would have to re-write the Constitution.
-
I didn't bother reading all the posts but are people suggesting there is no reason citizens should be allowed to be armed with a firearm? Could someone also point out where in the Constitution it specifically says that there can only be two major parties?
I don't see anyone suggesting that, yet Brinkzone posts all kinds of stats addressing that topic. He can't admit that guns make killing easier to do. A simple fact. I don't see the controversy that he does.
-
I don't see anyone suggesting that, yet Brinkzone posts all kinds of stats addressing that topic. He can't admit that guns make killing easier to do. A simple fact. I don't see the controversy that he does.
It's pretty damn easy to kill with a knife too.
They don't "run out of bullets" and never jam.
A gun is just a tool like any other.
-
It's pretty damn easy to kill with a knife too.
They don't "run out of bullets" and never jam.
A gun is just a tool like any other.
"Gun control" is all about people control and the government wanting the citizens not to be able to have ample means to defend themselves and be solely reliant upon the government for protection.
It was done in Communist USSR - millions of citizens murdered
It was done in Nazi Germany - millions of citizens murdered
It is done in Communist China - who knows how many executed?
It is done in Communist Cuba -
The fools who think that the police are going to protect them should call 911 and see how long it takes for a cop to show up at their home and then ask themselves whether within that time frame they could have been murdered by the criminal??
Police respond to crime and write reports, they do not prevent crime.
-
Are you on drugs????? Other countries have gun producers and guns get smuggled from oversea to criminals all the time. Like Russian and Chinese AK 47s, SKS, Saiga's, etc.
Additionally, there are milllions and millions of guns already in circulation. It is impossible to impound every one of them.
You are clearly living in fantasy land.
The 2nd amendment in OUR COUNTRY was so that the citizens themselves had the power to defend themselves from tyrants both domestic and abroad.
Using that logic we should all own F22's and C4.
-
Using that logic we should all own F22's and C4.
If the Founders of this nation had your pussy attitude we would still be eating crumpets and sipping tea.
-
If the Founders of this nation had your pussy attitude we would still be eating crumpets and sipping tea.
Haha it wasn't the Founding Fathers that were dying on the field of battle for their freedom and liberty. They sat in their "quarters" with their white hair and bellies signing papers dipshit. It was the common man like myself that rose up against the british.. It was the Founding Father's that gave the commoner the spark and ideology. But without the common man rising up their "America" was all but a wet dream.
-
By the way I'm not against guns nor do I believe in strict gun control laws. But your logic is terrible and continues to push people away from gun ownership ideology.
-
Haha it wasn't the Founding Fathers that were dying on the field of battle for their freedom and liberty. They sat in their "quarters" with their white hair and bellies signing papers dipshit. It was the common man like myself that rose up against the british.. It was the Founding Father's that gave the commoner the spark and ideology. But without the common man rising up their "America" was all but a wet dream.
George Washington is a decorated war hero and true leader. Without him, the war would never have been won as he held it all together when all chips were down.
BTW - Many of the people executed by the British were lawyers, etc etc.
Maybe you should read a history book for once.
-
By the way I'm not against guns nor do I believe in strict gun control laws. But your logic is terrible and continues to push people away from gun ownership ideology.
I guess following the constitution and knowing about the Bill of Rights is an "extreme position"?
Only a moron thinks that that 2nd amendment is about hunting for ducks. It is and has always been about providing the people with the means of self defense from tyranny.
Is that too hard for you to understand?
-
I guess following the constitution and knowing about the Bill of Rights is an "extreme position"?
Only a moron thinks that that 2nd amendment is about hunting for ducks. It is and has always been about providing the people with the means of self defense from tyranny.
Is that too hard for you to understand?
No of course it's not. But your ideology is misguided. We don't live in the times of George Washington where our government is matched rifle to rifle with the people. It's going to take a lot more than AR-15's and Glocks to protect our freedoms and liberty well into the 21st century when we are up against Missiles and Apache Gunships.
-
No of course it's not. But your ideology is misguided. We don't live in the times of George Washington where our government is matched rifle to rifle with the people. It's going to take a lot more than AR-15's and Glocks to protect our freedoms and liberty well into the 21st century when we are up against Missiles and Apache Gunships.
Waco made the govt very skiddish about overreaching as far as that goes.
I do believe we need a Boston Tea Party immediately against Paulson and the Fed and the Banks.
-
Waco made the govt very skiddish about overreaching as far as that goes.
I do believe we need a Boston Tea Party immediately against Paulson and the Fed and the Banks.
Boston Tea Party? LMAO! Let me put it to you this way........we could learn a lot from our enemies. The movie V for Vendetta is not too far off if America is to survive.
-
Boston Tea Party? LMAO! Let me put it to you this way........we could learn a lot from our enemies. The movie V for Vendetta is not too far off if America is to survive.
I never saw it.
However, what is going on is beyond insane. What is worse, you and I may disagree on issues, etc, however at least you and I are informed as to what is going on.
Most of the people I speak to, friends, family, etc, dont read newspapers, internet articles, etc and have ZERO CLUE about what is going on in the world.
My personal friends know more about college basketball and their stupid fantasy football teams than they do about Paulson, Bernake, Goldman Sachs, Bush, etc.
Its really unreal. We are witinessing the theft of over a trillion dollars by traitorous bankers and no one says boo about it but some of us on the internet.
Really sad.
-
I never saw it.
However, what is going on is beyond insane. What is worse, you and I may disagree on issues, etc, however at least you and I are informed as to what is going on.
Most of the people I speak to, friends, family, etc, dont read newspapers, internet articles, etc and have ZERO CLUE about what is going on in the world.
My personal friends know more about college basketball and their stupid fantasy football teams than they do about Paulson, Bernake, Goldman Sachs, Bush, etc.
Its really unreal. We are witinessing the theft of over a trillion dollars by traitorous bankers and no one says boo about it but some of us on the internet.
Really sad.
You're exactly right. And although we disagree on a few things you and I agree on so much more and I'd have no problem picking up a gun and fighting along side like minded Patriots as yourself. Most of my friends are more interested in playing Wii and like you said watching sports. But this is exactly how the elite want it. Dumb downed cattle. Listen to my clip I posted over on the nutrition board. It will resonate with you very much.
-
You're exactly right. And although we disagree on a few things you and I agree on so much more and I'd have no problem picking up a gun and fighting along side like minded Patriots as yourself. Most of my friends are more interested in playing Wii and like you said watching sports. But this is exactly how the elite want it. Dumb downed cattle. Listen to my clip I posted over on the nutrition board. It will resonate with you very much.
Its unreal. I am made to feel like a nut when i try discussing these things with my friends.
For example - I was in the car the other day with some friends - Michael Savage was on talking about Paulson and the theft and the bonuses, the war profiteering by KBR, and they made me change the damn channel to FM!
You are 100000% correct, the conditioning and softening has worked. The people who care about what is going on are perceived as "extreme", while the drones who obsess over their fantasy football stats are "cool".
My GF's father told me I was "paranoid" when I told him I think Paulson is a thief and that the recession we are in os going to get far worse before it gets better.
-
Its unreal. I am made to feel like a nut when i try discussing these things with my friends.
For example - I was in the car the other day with some friends - Michael Savage was on talking about Paulson and the theft and the bonuses, the war profiteering by KBR, and they made me change the damn channel to FM!
You are 100000% correct, the conditioning and softening has worked. The people who care about what is going on are perceived as "extreme", while the drones who obsess over their fantasy football stats are "cool".
My GF's father told me I was "paranoid" when I told him I think Paulson is a thief and that the recession we are in os going to get far worse before it gets better.
Dude don't even waste your time talking to other people about it. I've since learned my lesson. My gf used to call it my "darkside". LOL. This was over a year ago when I was reading CrashProof and Web Of Debt . Now after all this stuff is coming to fruition she is coming around. You have to understand most people don't want to hear negativity regardless of whether it's true or not. People like living in their fairy tale comfort zone. We are like sheep.
-
Dude don't even waste your time talking to other people about it. I've since learned my lesson. My gf used to call it my "darkside". LOL. This was over a year ago when I was reading CrashProof and Web Of Debt . Now after all this stuff is coming to fruition she is coming around. You have to understand most people don't want to hear negativity regardless of whether it's true or not. People like living in their fairy tale comfort zone. We are like sheep.
Too damn true!
-
It's pretty damn easy to kill with a knife too.
They don't "run out of bullets" and never jam.
A gun is just a tool like any other.
A gun is not a tool just like any other. That's specious. Guns make killing more feasible and easier than any other tool out there. With the right gun, you can mow down a crowd of people. You can't say that about a screwdriver or knife.
Any object in the universe can be a tool. Let's drop the relativism and call a spade a spade.
If a gun is just a tool like a knife or hammer then the US military would use knives and hammers when spearheading military operations. It issues guns b/c guns are extremely effective tools for killing.
Why is this point so controversial?
On the other hand, if a gun is merely another tool, what is its use?
What is the function of a gun?
-
A gun is an equalizer that allows a physically weaker person to be on par with a physically stronger person.
A senior citizen in their home can defend themselves against a physically stronger drugged up maniac with a knife or a bat, or even a gun.
Of course a gun makes "killing " easier.
However, that is not a bad thing.
-
A gun is an equalizer that allows a physically weaker person to be on par with a physically stronger person.
A senior citizen in their home can defend themselves against a physically stronger drugged up maniac with a knife or a bat, or even a gun.
Of course a gun makes "killing " easier.
However, that is not a bad thing.
I thought I was pointing out something obvious. You get it. You're not defensive on the matter.
A gun is a tool for killing or dealing great damage. Whether that's done in self defense or crime or whatever is immaterial to that simple understanding.
-
I thought I was pointing out something obvious. You get it. You're not defensive on the matter.
A gun is a tool for killing or dealing great damage. Whether that's done in self defense or crime or whatever is immaterial to that simple understanding.
Or hunting. But whether it is an animal or a person, of course a guns' primary purpose is to kill or maim another person.
Like I said, a knife in the hand of an old lady is not as dangerous as that of drugged up maniac.
A gun in the hand of an old lady is equally lethal to that of a drugged up mainiac.
that is why I favor allowing citizens, with proper training and background checks, to be allowed to have CCW permits.
-
A gun is not a tool just like any other. That's specious. Guns make killing more feasible and easier than any other tool out there. With the right gun, you can mow down a crowd of people. You can't say that about a screwdriver or knife.
Any object in the universe can be a tool. Let's drop the relativism and call a spade a spade.
If a gun is just a tool like a knife or hammer then the US military would use knives and hammers when spearheading military operations. It issues guns b/c guns are extremely effective tools for killing.
Why is this point so controversial?
On the other hand, if a gun is merely another tool, what is its use?
What is the function of a gun?
Decker, is a loaded gun sitting on a table or laying on the ground a threat? No, it's not.
A gun, a bladed weapon, lead pipe, whatever is not a danger to anyone until it is picked up and used as a dangerous weapon.
The "function" of a gun (and I'm talking handguns not shotguns and rifles used for hunting), and I've had this discussion with law enforcement, is self-defense. That's what they use it for and that's what I'd use it for.
Seriously, your argument can be used for basically anything from guns to cars (driven by drunk drivers) to military combative and martial arts training. I have about 6 years of martial arts training and was a wrestler for 6 years. The sole purpose for my Krav Maga training is to seriously injure and, if necessary, take someones life. Does that make me any different from a gun? Oh, and as for the military use of guns... it's the soldiers and marines pulling the trigger of the weapons doing the killing. The "guns" are just the tool used to carry out the task, as you stated, efficiently.
It's all in the intent and use of the tool, buddy.
Anyhoo, have a safe and Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. :)
-
Decker, is a loaded gun sitting on a table or laying on the ground a threat? No, it's not.
A tool is only a tool if it is used. Guns do not shoot themselves. Knives do not cut sandwiches without a little help.
A gun, a bladed weapon, lead pipe, whatever is not a danger to anyone until it is picked up and used as a dangerous weapon.
Exactly. And when a gun is picked up, it is a hell of alot more deadly and destructive than a knife or stone could ever be.
The "function" of a gun (and I'm talking handguns not shotguns and rifles used for hunting), and I've had this discussion with law enforcement, is self-defense. That's what they use it for and that's what I'd use it for.
How is it a tool of self-defense? It can kill or maim an attacker better than any other tool out there. That's why people carry guns instead of rolled up pieces of baloney.
Seriously, your argument can be used for basically anything from guns to cars (driven by drunk drivers) to military combative and martial arts training. I have about 6 years of martial arts training and was a wrestler for 6 years. The sole purpose for my Krav Maga training is to seriously injure and, if necessary, take someones life. Does that make me any different from a gun? Oh, and as for the military use of guns... it's the soldiers and marines pulling the trigger of the weapons doing the killing. The "guns" are just the tool used to carry out the task, as you stated, efficiently.
I'm sort of arguing the exact opposite of that point. Although I am certain you are a very capable fighter, I can't use you to rob a liquor store or defend myself from an attacker. You aren't fungible. Guns are.
The simple fact of the matter that we are confusing here is that criminal intent, justifiable self defense etc are interesting topics but not necessary to the determination that a gun makes killing more feasible and easier than just about any other tool out there.
It's all in the intent and use of the tool, buddy.
Anyhoo, have a safe and Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. :)
Same to you Bud. Enjoy your time off. I gotta work X-mas eve. I don't mind but my wife's not happy.
-
A tool is only a tool if it is used. Guns do not shoot themselves. Knives do not cut sandwiches without a little help.
Exactly. And when a gun is picked up, it is a hell of alot more deadly and destructive than a knife or stone could ever be.
How is it a tool of self-defense? It can kill or maim an attacker better than any other tool out there. That's why people carry guns instead of rolled up pieces of baloney.
I'm sort of arguing the exact opposite of that point. Although I am certain you are a very capable fighter, I can't use you to rob a liquor store or defend myself from an attacker. You aren't fungible. Guns are.
The simple fact of the matter that we are confusing here is that criminal intent, justifiable self defense etc are interesting topics but not necessary to the determination that a gun makes killing more feasible and easier than just about any other tool out there.
Same to you Bud. Enjoy your time off. I gotta work X-mas eve. I don't mind but my wife's not happy.
I think we're all going round and round on this. We all agree that guns, like any other weapon, are tools. While I do agree that guns are very very dangerous weapons they are only as dangerous as the person using them. I think you and I can make the same argument about bow/arrows and bladed weapons. Now, while I (God forbid) have never been shot or cut by a knife people do survive gun shot wounds. Knives not so much. If I had to choose which weapon I'd rather be attacked with? Gun, knife, or blunt weapon? Neither. They all suck but I'd surely put knives at the front of the line of my "keep the fuck away from me" list.
Anyhoo, the bad guys are not going to obey the law. If they did they wouldn't be criminals. It's my opinion that the Constitution is pretty clear. My right to own a firearm shall not be infringed upon. That means I have the right to chose or own or not to own weapon. I fear the day when the government strips us of that right. That's the day we stop being free men in this country.
Just my two cents.
Merry Christmas, Decker.