Rainierwon Posted November 30, 2003 Posted November 30, 2003 scott_harpell said: Rainierwon said: scott_harpell said: murraysovereign said: scott_harpell said: I don't see where it says in the Fraser Inst. report that violent crime equals gun crime. I know that Vancouver has, or had the last time I reviewed the stats, more stabbings than shootings.....  isn't that kinda the point; that people will kill each other regardless of the impliments involved? oh and happy un-thanksgiving dru!  It's more a reflection of a much lower incidence of murder-by-firearm. Since a lower proportion of murders are committed using guns, it's inevitable that the proportion involving "other" weapons will be higher, be they knives or baseball bats or poison-tipped arrows or whatever else was handy at the time. But I think you'll also find that Canadians are far less likely to kill one another overall than are Americans, regardless of method used. I don't have a ready explanation for that one, but I expect the Fraser Institute can find a way to portray our lower murder rates as further proof of the inferiority of our criminal justice system and the moral corruption of our political structures. Either that, or they'll ignore it altogether because it doesn't further their agenda.  but if the violence is the same with or without... then it doesn't really matter does it? seems like anyone who kills someone else is pretty much psycho and will do it with a knife or a spoon if they have to. HEy Scottywad, you try to kill me with a spoon I'll kick your Get a clue ! A gun is much easier to kill with thana spoon -j  obviously you are missing the point ace. Usin the old Tomcat approach to argue there, eh Chief -jh Quote
scott_harpell Posted November 30, 2003 Posted November 30, 2003 my point you imbecile is that it does not matter what is easier to attack with, the same amount are being attacked ergardless fo the avalability of guns. it appears that if someone wants to kill you, they will do it any way they can. did you live under power lines as a kid? jeeezus! Quote
catbirdseat Posted November 30, 2003 Posted November 30, 2003 Fairweather said: The subject is gun rights. Catbird did no research whatsoever. He simply attacked Scrambler's documentation from The Frasier Institute, as slanted. He did this from memory and a personal predjudice of his own. I posted a CDC report that seems to back up the Frasier report, but apparently you would rather change the argument to the validity of the US Constitution, and Catbird would rather take his ball and play elsewhere. I was playing outside in the snow all day today. I'm too tired to do a lot of research. If I have a slow day at work on Monday, I'll see what I can come up with. Quote
EWolfe Posted November 30, 2003 Posted November 30, 2003 Microcosm: Georgia and Kansas places require appropriately able people to have guns. Â Macro: Let's suppose (for argument's sake [we all love a good argument, right]) that this became federal law. I am thinking about doing a crime anywhere in the U.S. I am shit scared, because chances are folks are packin' heat. Or, I take the risk, knowing there's a good chance I'll be drawn upon. The overall crime rate goes down. Great! Fear is a great motivator. But we all start becoming fearful of our neighbor, not knowing the secret lives of others. Maybe that argument you hear next door becomes much more significant when you know there's two pieces in the house (husband and wife each required to have a gun). Â So the crime rate goes down further, cuz you don't want to report that domestic. Hell, what if he/she finds out you made the call? FEAR. Â BUT , the homocide rate goes up, I'll bet, even though the overall crime rate may go down.... for a while... Â The repression eats away, and you have your own weapon, and you're paranoid now... Â Wait, I had some entropy to go allow - bye. Quote
Dru Posted November 30, 2003 Posted November 30, 2003 If everybody owns guns including criminals then don't they tend to shoot first and use deadly force if they know you are armed Instead of holding you up and robbing you they shoot you and steal from your corpse? Quote
scott_harpell Posted November 30, 2003 Posted November 30, 2003 Dru said: If everybody owns guns including criminals then don't they tend to shoot first and use deadly force if they know you are armed Instead of holding you up and robbing you they shoot you and steal from your corpse? Â no. they tend not too rob you. if you are gonna have to go toe to toe with a gun toter over $20, you got some problems. Quote
Fairweather Posted November 30, 2003 Posted November 30, 2003 I'd have to agree that any law mandating a firearm in a home is ludicrous. I would rather have a would-be burglar/assailant not know what he was up against, anyhow. Â Â Quote
scott_harpell Posted November 30, 2003 Posted November 30, 2003 gotta huge ass (now) deceased coon in my backyard. anyone want a huge ass coon hat? fuck prolly weighs 15 lbs at least. fucker was viscous! Quote
murraysovereign Posted November 30, 2003 Posted November 30, 2003 Thank God this guy was armed, because otherwise he would have been... you know... unarmed. And there's no telling what might have happened then. Probably no-one would have been shot, and that's just the thin edge of the wedge. Before you know it, all kinds of people everywhere wouldn't be getting shot. Quote
allthumbs Posted November 30, 2003 Posted November 30, 2003 I SUPPORT GUN RIGHTS - EAT BALLS Â As to my guns, I have more than I need and fewer than I want. But I still have a few more that I can dig out of the safe for the next look at keeper handguns... Quote
Fairweather Posted December 2, 2003 Posted December 2, 2003 catbirdseat said: Fairweather said: The subject is gun rights. Catbird did no research whatsoever. He simply attacked Scrambler's documentation from The Frasier Institute, as slanted. He did this from memory and a personal predjudice of his own. I posted a CDC report that seems to back up the Frasier report, but apparently you would rather change the argument to the validity of the US Constitution, and Catbird would rather take his ball and play elsewhere. I was playing outside in the snow all day today. I'm too tired to do a lot of research. If I have a slow day at work on Monday, I'll see what I can come up with. Â A white flag, perhaps? Quote
vegetablebelay Posted December 2, 2003 Posted December 2, 2003 Fairweather said: I'd have to agree that any law mandating a firearm in a home is ludicrous. Â As ludicrous as a seatbelt law or helmet law. Quote
Ratboy Posted December 2, 2003 Posted December 2, 2003 vegetablebelay said: Fairweather said: I'd have to agree that any law mandating a firearm in a home is ludicrous. Â As ludicrous as a seatbelt law or helmet law. Â Yep, just as ludicrous. Quote
Scott_J Posted December 2, 2003 Posted December 2, 2003 trask said: I SUPPORT GUN RIGHTS - EAT BALLS Â As to my guns, I have more than I need and fewer than I want. But I still have a few more that I can dig out of the safe for the next look at keeper handguns... Â Right on TRASK!!!! Long guns, hand guns, black powder, bows and arrows, blades, Rottweilers, and game dogs etc. I love 'em all. Quote
allthumbs Posted December 2, 2003 Posted December 2, 2003 sex and gunpowder - both good thangs  Quote
erik Posted December 2, 2003 Posted December 2, 2003 one thing to note.... Â the title of this thread sez "in support of gun rights" Â well gun are an inanimate object and not living therefore i do not think they(the guns themselves) actually have any rights protected by the constitution..... Â Quote
scrambler Posted December 2, 2003 Author Posted December 2, 2003 erik said: one thing to note.... Â the title of this thread sez "in support of gun rights" Â well gun are an inanimate object and not living therefore i do not think they(the guns themselves) actually have any rights protected by the constitution..... Â Â Gun rights is correct. Interestingly, the Supreme Court recently refused to confirm the constitutional right to bear arms (Silveira v. Lockyer, 03-51). Â Excerpts from news article concerning their standing: "The Supreme Court disappointed gun rights groups Monday by refusing to consider whether the Constitution guarantees people a personal right to own a gun." Â "The court has never said if the right to "keep and bear arms" applies to individuals." Â "Although the Bush administration has endorsed individual gun-ownership rights, it did not encourage the justices to resolve the issue in this case, involving a challenge of California laws banning high-powered weapons." Â --snip-- Â "A panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the amendment's intent was to protect gun rights of militias, not individuals. A more conservative appeals court in New Orleans has ruled that individuals have a constitutional right to guns." Â "Justices refused without comment to review the 9th Circuit's decision." Â --snip-- _________________________________________________ Â The last instance of the High Court reviewing the Second Amendment was in 1939, when the Court upheld a ban on the interstate shipment of sawed-off shotguns. Possession of those firearms, the Court Ruled, had nothing to do with maintaining a well-equipped militia. Most lower courts interpreted that ruling as a rejection of the right of individual gun ownership until Attorney General Ashcroft and the New Orleans Court announced contrary conclusions in 1991. Â Â Quote
catbirdseat Posted December 2, 2003 Posted December 2, 2003 Fairweather said: Here is a copy of the recent CDC report regarding firearms. It pretty much states that no cause/effect exists between tougher gun laws and reducing violent crime....But I'm sure some folks here will be able to drag one or two peices of text out of bed and use them to fit their current beliefs system... http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm#tab Okay, Fairweather. I went and read the report. In all eleven cases for intervention to prevent violence, the outcome was the same, "insufficient evidence to determine outcome". This means they couldn't tell one way or the other for a variety of reasons ranging from lack of studies, lack of necessary records, inconsistent results, etc. This is not the same thing as "no cause and effect" as you put it. Did anyone go read that report? Personally, I think that panel was afraid to reach a conclusion for fear of the backlash that would inevitably ensue. Quote
allthumbs Posted December 2, 2003 Posted December 2, 2003 erik said: one thing to note.... Â the title of this thread sez "in support of gun rights" Â well gun are an inanimate object and not living therefore i do not think they(the guns themselves) actually have any rights protected by the constitution..... Â you're dumb Quote
catbirdseat Posted December 2, 2003 Posted December 2, 2003 Erik, trask fancies himself a "sex pistol", so there you go. Quote
mattp Posted December 2, 2003 Posted December 2, 2003 No fair, Catbird. He cited his source apparently without bothering to read it first, and you weren't supposed to either. Quote
erik Posted December 2, 2003 Posted December 2, 2003 you forgot one cbs:  he was spoon fed the article by Rush "i do perscription drugs and am a hypocrite about it" Limbaugh  Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.