Crazy F*ckers and Mr. Glock

[wfinley]

Here's the Snopes page on Aussie gun statistics: http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

 

Assault rates have risen in the past 10 years; however homicide rates continue to decline.

 

that said - it's easy to tweak the Australia argument because of differences in data collection. For example - the US only records rape - Australia records sexual assault. Thus it looks like on paper that Australia is a far more dangerous place for women. Likewise the US records Aggravated Assault - Australia records Assault.

 

However they both record murder and robbery so that can be compared:

 

US Rates: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/standard_links/national_estimates.html

Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter rate 5.6

Robbery: 140.7

 

Australia rates: http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/facts/2006/

Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter rate 1.5

Robbery: 83

[billcoe]

Seahawks, your personal attack on Decristo not only adds nothing to the conversation, but forces it off track.

 

China has been able to achieve the level of safety which many on this board desire. They do not want to move to China to become safe, they want that safety here and of the opinion that getting rid of public ownership of weapons will get them what they want.

 

In my mind - with safety comes things like this. Here is a real example of how that is true.

 

Those who have disagreement on this idea and shared facts have "Opinions " that these kinds of things wouldn't come to pass here, but they are only opinions. I'd like to see some facts from them.

 

Here are some facts we are sharing with our brothers which bolster our viewpoint. Like your facts above. Like wfinley's facts. Facts make for a more fullfilling discussion than opinions.

 

Personal attacks are of even less value than opinions.

[Seahawks]

Seahawks, your personal attack on Decristo not only adds nothing to the conversation, but forces it off track.

 

China has been able to achieve the level of safety which many on this board desire. They do not want to move to China to become safe, they want that safety here and of the opinion that getting rid of public ownership of weapons will get them what they want.

 

In my mind - with safety comes things like this. Here is a real example of how that is true.

 

Those who have disagreement on this idea and shared facts have "Opinions " that these kinds of things wouldn't come to pass here, but they are only opinions. I'd like to see some facts from them.

 

Here are some facts we are sharing with our brothers which bolster our viewpoint. Like your facts above. Like wfinley's facts. Facts make for a more fullfilling discussion than opinions.

 

Personal attacks are of even less value than opinions.

 

Don't lecture me on personal attacks, when ever I post anything DC personally attacks me. He never comments on it. So as far as I'm concerned direct your comments to him.

[ivan]

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million

political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up

and exterminated.

 

Interesting that I was just ruminating on this fact yesterday. A dude from around here and some buddies decided to unfurl a banner (opps, free speech not allowed, nor are guns allowed in China) at Everest Basecamp, Tibet.

 

They got lucky and only spent 15 days without regular sleep, food or water in a Chinese jail.

 

The banner was only requesting freedom for Tibetians. It said "One World, One Dream, Free Tibet 2008" .

 

Sorry, no guns: no free speech. Crime to think incorrect thoughts.

 

news link

 

I saw that on the news too. DC doesn't care he's a liberal freak with no critical thought.

nonetheless, not giving credit where it's due on a quote is dishonest

 

 

[Seahawks]

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million

political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up

and exterminated.

 

Interesting that I was just ruminating on this fact yesterday. A dude from around here and some buddies decided to unfurl a banner (opps, free speech not allowed, nor are guns allowed in China) at Everest Basecamp, Tibet.

 

They got lucky and only spent 15 days without regular sleep, food or water in a Chinese jail.

 

The banner was only requesting freedom for Tibetians. It said "One World, One Dream, Free Tibet 2008" .

 

Sorry, no guns: no free speech. Crime to think incorrect thoughts.

 

news link

 

I saw that on the news too. DC doesn't care he's a liberal freak with no critical thought.

nonetheless, not giving credit where it's due on a quote is dishonest

 

 

Is there a original thought anywhere on this planet?

Edited April 30, 2007 by Seahawks

[billcoe]

Hello darkness, my old friend

I've come to talk with you again

Because a vision softly creeping

Left its seeds while I was sleeping

And the vision that was planted in my brain

Still remains

Within the sound of silence

[Dechristo]

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million

political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up

and exterminated.

 

Interesting that I was just ruminating on this fact yesterday. A dude from around here and some buddies decided to unfurl a banner (opps, free speech not allowed, nor are guns allowed in China) at Everest Basecamp, Tibet.

 

They got lucky and only spent 15 days without regular sleep, food or water in a Chinese jail.

 

The banner was only requesting freedom for Tibetians. It said "One World, One Dream, Free Tibet 2008" .

 

Sorry, no guns: no free speech. Crime to think incorrect thoughts.

 

news link

 

I saw that on the news too. DC doesn't care he's a liberal freak with no critical thought.

nonetheless, not giving credit where it's due on a quote is dishonest

 

 

Is there a original thought anywhere on this planet?

 

Do you see the irony in your posting that statement in reply to Ivan...now, after the fact?

[ivan]

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million

political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up

and exterminated.

 

Interesting that I was just ruminating on this fact yesterday. A dude from around here and some buddies decided to unfurl a banner (opps, free speech not allowed, nor are guns allowed in China) at Everest Basecamp, Tibet.

 

They got lucky and only spent 15 days without regular sleep, food or water in a Chinese jail.

 

The banner was only requesting freedom for Tibetians. It said "One World, One Dream, Free Tibet 2008" .

 

Sorry, no guns: no free speech. Crime to think incorrect thoughts.

 

news link

 

I saw that on the news too. DC doesn't care he's a liberal freak with no critical thought.

nonetheless, not giving credit where it's due on a quote is dishonest

 

 

Is there a original thought anywhere on this planet?

 

yes

 

AP story

Excerpt:

Britain cracked down after gun enthusiast Michael Ryan massacred 16 people and wounded 13 others in 1987 in the rural English town of Hungerford. The slaughter led to a ban on semiautomatics like Ryan's Kalashnikov rifle.

 

In 1998, two years after suicide gunman Thomas Hamilton used four legally owned handguns to slay 16 children and a teacher at a kindergarten in Dunblane, Scotland, Britain extended the ban to handguns.

 

Today, under laws that make it illegal for private citizens to own anything larger than a .22-caliber and subject them to thorough background checks, Hamilton would have a difficult time obtaining the guns he used in Dunblane: two .357-caliber Smith & Wesson revolvers and a pair of 9-mm Browning pistols.

 

"I feel very safe," said Marion Collins, a college lecturer in Edinburgh. "Virginia Tech happened because guns are so accessible in America. I don't understand why they continue to allow this situation."

 

Britain has one of the world's lowest gun homicide rates _ 0.04 slayings per 100,000 people, according to the Geneva-based Small Arms Survey for 2004. That puts Britain on par with Japan, where the rate is 0.03 per 100,000.

 

By contrast, the United States has a rate roughly 100 times higher: 3.42 gun murders per 100,000 people, the survey said.

 

[billcoe]

Fortunately, many countries, like China, have been able to increase their security and reduce this kind of thing by controlling who has weapons, what people can say, where they work, where they can go, and when they can go there.

 

Very safe.

 

"Fools", said I, "You do not know

Silence like a cancer grows

Hear my words that I might teach you

Take my arms that I might reach you"

But my words, like silent raindrops fell

And echoed

In the wells of silence"

 

(Paul Simon)

[olyclimber]

The human race was dying out

No one left to scream and shout.

People walking on the moon

Smog will get you pretty soon.

Everyone was hanging out

Hanging up and hanging down

Hanging in and holding fast

Hope our little world will last.

Along came Mr. Goodtrips

Looking for a new ship.

Come on people better climb on board

Come on babe we're going home.

Ship of fools, Ship of fools.

[ivan]

The human race was dying out

No one left to scream and shout.

People walking on the moon

Smog will get you pretty soon.

Everyone was hanging out

Hanging up and hanging down

Hanging in and holding fast

Hope our little world will last.

Along came Mr. Goodtrips

Looking for a new ship.

Come on people better climb on board

Come on babe we're going home.

Ship of fools, Ship of fools.

jim morrison could definetly have beaten shit out of paul simon, w/ or w/o glock

 

and for chrissakes, for the 1000th time, gun control doesn't mean taking ALL the guns away - you can make a militia for overthrowing the gubbermint w/ frig'n muskets if need be

[Dechristo]

In the U.S., what would a mandatory surrender of any type of weapon look like?

[olyclimber]

like this

 

 

[archenemy]

POTD

[billcoe]

 

and for chrissakes, for the 1000th time, gun control doesn't mean taking ALL the guns away - you can make a militia for overthrowing the gubbermint w/ frig'n muskets if need be

 

Not sure what you mean then. Certainly in Nazi Germany it did not mean "taking ALL the guns away". Wealthy landowners and party members still could own weapons.

 

Now stop being so unreasonable and get in line for the showers.

[ivan]

reasonable gun control = no guns for folks who're fawking nutz or felons & no multi-shot weapons for anyone except law enforcement/military

 

that leaves me a round for plugging gestapo agent #1 who shows up to put me in the shower - wtf does it matter how many rounds i got though? the force of government overawes any weapons a private citizen might have.

 

 

[dt_3pin]

Now stop being so unreasonable and get in line for the showers.

 

 

 

Your logic is flawless. Prohibit semi-automatic handgun purchases by people who have been diagnosed as being a threat to themselves and society at large obviously leads directly to zyklon-b chambers and government-sanctioned genocide.

 

Anyone who tries to analogize nazi germany to modern America, or invokes nazi germany as some sort of precautionary instructive for debate on contemporary political issues has no intellectual credibility whatsoever. Left or right, it doesn't matter . . . you're fucking stupid.

 

 

 

 

[JayB]

Even if you accept that the link between private gun ownership and the maintenance of personal freedoms is a mighty loose one, there's still the matter of what impact granting the government broad new search/seizure/enforcement powers necessary to stuff this particular genie back into the bottle might have.

 

When people were debating the merits of prohibition, criminalizing drugs way back in the day(you could still buy heroin through the Sears and Robucks catalog around the turn of the century), etc - there were a few folks that argued that the benefits that would arise from making these substances illegal would be dwarfed by the negative consequences they'd have - foremost amongst them being their effects on personal freedoms.

 

Not exactly an apples to apples comparison, but worth thinking about IMO.

[cj001f]

Even if you accept that the link between private gun ownership and the maintenance of personal freedoms is a mighty loose one, there's still the matter of what impact granting the government broad new search/seizure/enforcement powers necessary to stuff this particular genie back into the bottle might have.

 

Uh JayB the Patriot Act already gave them those powers

[ivan]

Now stop being so unreasonable and get in line for the showers.

 

 

 

Your logic is flawless. Prohibit semi-automatic handgun purchases by people who have been diagnosed as being a threat to themselves and society at large obviously leads directly to zyklon-b chambers and government-sanctioned genocide.

 

Anyone who tries to analogize nazi germany to modern America, or invokes nazi germany as some sort of precautionary instructive for debate on contemporary political issues has no intellectual credibility whatsoever. Left or right, it doesn't matter . . . you're fucking stupid.

 

 

 

nah - he just wants to win the argument and has cited a bunch of other historical examples connecting a lack of guns to nazi-style results - i just don't see how a lot more guns woulda made the situation better - to use the nazi example, since it's the most familiar, if hitler had gone to move them to ghettoes and they'd had guns, they coulda fought back, but so what? they still woulda died under stuka and panzer attacks - no private militia can hope to stand up to a determined goverment. and if the jews had shot back, that would most likely only have solidified in german minds the value of oppressing the "subhumans."

[ivan]

Even if you accept that the link between private gun ownership and the maintenance of personal freedoms is a mighty loose one, there's still the matter of what impact granting the government broad new search/seizure/enforcement powers necessary to stuff this particular genie back into the bottle might have.

 

When people were debating the merits of prohibition, criminalizing drugs way back in the day(you could still buy heroin through the Sears and Robucks catalog around the turn of the century), etc - there were a few folks that argued that the benefits that would arise from making these substances illegal would be dwarfed by the negative consequences they'd have - foremost amongst them being their effects on personal freedoms.

 

Not exactly an apples to apples comparison, but worth thinking about IMO.

how would it be so invasive? the law would say you'd have to turn over any semi-automatic weapon - it could be connected to an incentive (a buyback program w/ a decreasing price over time to get them back sooner rather than later) - perhaps an exemption for folks w/ a family heirlom (the weapon must be rendered permanently inoperable, verified as such, and then be kept at home) - after the grace period's over, if you're arrested w/ an illegal gun, then the penalty would be assesed. existing records of gun ownership let you knock on doors or call or write for due diligence in informing the public.

 

how would the enforcement of this law be different from any other? seems like a problem w/ previous gun laws though is they have often been shoddily enforced

[AlpineK]

All I can say is if you want to fight the man you and a bunch of your buddies better be well armed and organized.

 

General Seahawks?

[billcoe]

I just don't see how a lot more guns woulda made the situation better - to use the nazi example, since it's the most familiar, if hitler had gone to move them to ghettoes and they'd had guns, they coulda fought back, but so what? they still woulda died under stuka and panzer attacks - no private militia can hope to stand up to a determined goverment. and if the jews had shot back, that would most likely only have solidified in german minds the value of oppressing the "subhumans."

 

First, agree only that nut jobs should be restricted. Fer sure. When I was up working at the VA Hospital, I worked with some Section 8s (ie "Nutjobz" in Ivan parlance) on and off here and there for almost 4 years. No arguement.

 

Concerning the rest of your arguement. Nope. The oppression of subhumans was in full swing........note these 2 words: 2 words for the graduate. Warsaw Getto.

 

Never forgive, never forget. Life free or die.

[billcoe]

you're fucking stupid.

 

Not as fucking stupid as somebody who would bring that to the table. Screw you.

 

These are deeply held beliefs which I feel very strongly about. I believe in letting others live as they see fit. That means nutjobs don't get guns, and if and when they do and they act up, they do not get second chances like the last jackass in Oregon who after getting out of prison for serving 8 years for murdering 2 women (when they caught him sexually molesting their son), then proceeded to murder like 4 or 5 more young adults after sexually molesting them(remember lil Adam from the back of the milk cartons?) and by his admission, sexually molested an estimated 75 more very young children whom he did not kill but would have like too.

 

They probably would have let him live with another life sentance as there was a huge outporing of people who thought that this poor lost soul should get still another chance, except the dude stepped up, declared of those who wanted him to get a 2nd chance idiots, and proclaimed that he needed to be put down as he couldn't control it and would kill again.

[JayB]

Even if you accept that the link between private gun ownership and the maintenance of personal freedoms is a mighty loose one, there's still the matter of what impact granting the government broad new search/seizure/enforcement powers necessary to stuff this particular genie back into the bottle might have.

 

Uh JayB the Patriot Act already gave them those powers

 

What provisions of the Act are you referring to? I don't think that your assertion here is correct with regards to the personal ownership of firearms.

 

If you oppose some of the provisions of the Patriot Act on the grounds that the extent to which they erode personal freedoms constitutes a harm that exceeds any benefit to society, that's fine - but you have to frame your gun-control wish-list a bit more carefully as the search/seizure/enforcement provisions of any such legislation could easily equal or exceed anything contained within the Patriot Act.

 

I personally think that the country took a big step down the slippery slope when the notion that the state had the right to regulate which substances it was legal for mentally competent adults to consume during Prohibition, and things haven't improved substantially on that count since then. The case of guns is a more complex one, but I don't think that you can simultaneously wish for a massive gun-law enforcement bureaucracy with broad new powers to search private homes, issue ex-post-facto declarations that what was once legally held private property is now subject to seizure by the state, etc - and make broad complaints about the provisions in the Patriot Act at the same time.