Frigidus wrote:Although there is apparently empirical evidence to support carrying laws (although admittedly all the statistics I read don't have sources), logic does not suggest that they would have an effect. Do murderers really say to themselves, "Gee, somebody might have a weapon with which they could fight back...I guess I'll just have to give up on crime." I could see an upturn in dead criminals, but a downturn in dead innocents? Not so much.
Whether you recognize it or not carry laws result in a reduced violent crime rate, including murder. If there is a particular state for which you doubt this is the case look up the year right to carry legislation was passed and the murder rates of the surrounding years. The link below provides dates, statistics and sources. If you don't believe anything said there, double check. http://www.nraila.org/Issues/factsheets/read.aspx?ID=18
The problem is that not enough people are outspoken about the right to bear arms as opposed to the right to keep arms. If there was a genuine social awareness of an increased presence of armed individuals the crime rate would drop even further. Weakness invites violence and tyranny while strength deters these things.
I've read that 2000 people so far have been killed in these battles on the Mexican border so far this year. We don't hear about it but there is a war taking place on our Southern border between American citizens and the Mexican drug cartels.
You are a prize tool. those links talk about mexican drug gangs v mexican police / dea / army. nowhere does it mention that mexican drug gangs were crossing into the US and shooting Americans (i just wish they did and that they had enough range to stick a bullet through your empty head.)
I've read that 2000 people so far have been killed in these battles on the Mexican border so far this year. We don't hear about it but there is a war taking place on our Southern border between American citizens and the Mexican drug cartels.
You are a prize tool. those links talk about mexican drug gangs v mexican police / dea / army. nowhere does it mention that mexican drug gangs were crossing into the US and shooting Americans (i just wish they did and that they had enough range to stick a bullet through your empty head.)
Well there's this little gem for one. That would be the first sentence of the first link
Hit men dressed in fake police tactical gear burst into a home in Phoenix, rake it with gunfire and execute a man.
Also note the title of the article: "U.S. rattled as Mexico drug war bleeds over border"
Edit: It's notable that the "dea / army" is composed entirely of US citizens
Last edited by GabonX on Wed Mar 11, 2009 3:02 pm, edited 2 times in total.
whats interesting about the RTC fact sheet is how many of the statistics require the reader to suspend critical analysis. As i lazily prep for the GRE here and there I cant help but think of how many exam questions you could draft from the first few statistical bits of analysis they do. They seem to overstep a bit far in terms of correlation leading to casuality, and while it isnt overtly stated, its certainly understood as implied.
While it certainly is possible that RTC has some effect i do think the statement about the potential benefits being difficult to weigh is a relevant issue. I think a more honest approach (but of course not unexpected given the source and their goals - they are after all legally and seemingly from this page fairly enough lobbying) would put RTC as more of a piece of a more comprehensive crime safety solution. Again however, when it expedities political purposes you sadly are going to get more of a fact sheet like this, and less of a fact sheet that maybe hold up more stringently to critical analysis.
GabonX wrote:Well there's this little gem for one.
Hit men dressed in fake police tactical gear burst into a home in Phoenix, rake it with gunfire and execute a man.
Phoenix isn't on the border.
The guy in Alabama had a list of "people who [had] done him wrong" which must have included a lot of family members. Armed to the teeth, the very tragic ending of an ordinary life.
It is in the lower half of a border state. I would argue that the further north these things are happening the more relevant they become to the rest of the country.
Drug cartels don't wage war against regular citizens. They fight other drug traffickers, and law enforcement agencies. By using that situation as an example in this discussion are you trying to suggest that the average citizen should have the right to carry guns, so that they can go fight against the drug dealers? That seems a bit of a stretch to me. People who want to shoot people in defense of their country need to become law enforcement officers, the same as people who want to drive over 100 miles an hour need to become race car drivers, and people who want to perform surgery need to become doctors.
Timminz wrote:Drug cartels don't wage war against regular citizens. They fight other drug traffickers, and law enforcement agencies.
Sadly this isn't the case anymore. Everyday American's are being caught in the cross fire. Their homes are being invaded and some are even being taken hostage and held for ransom.
For the record all of this was detailed in the first two sentences of the first article.
Timminz wrote:People who want to shoot people in defense of their country need to become law enforcement officers, the same as people who want to drive over 100 miles an hour need to become race car drivers, and people who want to perform surgery need to become doctors.
Every American has a right to defend his home and family and we are all members of the militia as defined by United States law.
snufkin wrote:and everyone knows that it´s just as easy to kill 16 people with a kitchen knife - I do it all the time.
Seriously, let's not get all out of control with the gun talk...people go crazy once in a while just be glad you weren't in his path of distruction. He could have just as easily driven a car into a crowd of people or so many different methods. I don't think the gun laws need to change, what really needs to change is the medical diagnosis. I'm sure once they dig into this, there will be clear sings of this kid being insane which was probably just ignored.
Same thing happened with the VA killings a few years back.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. We need to find out why this guy went looney.
i still suck cock for a living
by jalen45 on Thu Aug 28, 2008 12:47 pm
Hyasri wrote:Dont panic, I am here and active
Just taking my time to get familiar with everything rather than just rushing in and making some rash decisions.
A nuke ban would result in countries like North Korea and Iran being the only nuclear armed world powers!
As for banning super soakers: It doesn't matter what you ban, determined individuals will find a way. Banning guns (or anything else for that matter) does not remove them from society. Regardless, somebody will always think of another comperable alternative if that's what they put their mind to ie. people who live in caves and mudhuts found a way to destroy the World Trade Center buildings.
We are left with only two options, denial, or acceptance and preperation.
Nobody is talking about preventing the United States government from having guns, and likewise I didn't mean we as a country shouldn't have nukes.
Super-soakers shouldn't be banned; flame-throwers should be banned. Obv.
Point is, Even if you accept the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument, I'd still rather have someone go on a killing spree with a knife and kill one person, maybe two or three if they're really determined, than let someone mow down a crowd with an Uzi.
Oh yeah, and the 9/11 planners weren't living in mud-huts.
What it comes down to as far as im concerned is that i did have access to a gun (which is pretty unusual in my country) and when I used to do do heavy drugs and felt like sort of killing someone I couldnt because there was only a couple of firearms in my gang, If it had been legal I would have carried one...(I didnt have a severe criminal record when I was far out on drugs) and I totally lost my grip several times. I am now a nice old dad and have quit drugs and the criminal stuff but I still remember the rage and the totally logical feeling of being what I percieved entitled to shoot certain peopole.. i broke a couple of noses and got my own broken and got stabbed once and thats it.. its worse now.. we got our arms from yugoslavian refugees now its more of a choice (as in no choice at all) and I´m happy Im not a drug dealer no more
The main reason for the 2nd Amendment was that an armed populace is a deterrent to tyrants. Will i "take on the US Army with a rifle?" If it comes to that, yeah. I would however prefer to shoot a few cops first.
InkL0sed wrote:Nobody is talking about preventing the United States government from having guns...
Just the people right? That's a great idea because they prove every day how they have the best interest of the people at heart
Do you plan on facing down the US Army with a rifle?
Technically the US army isn't supposed to be used as a police force against the general population. There was a law passed in the 19th century which states this, if you really want I can look it up.
This doesn't mean it would never happen but if push came to shove there's a decent chance that some of the generals would side with the people.
And for the record I would be facing the US Army with my shotgun
Prior to the big "bail out" for the fat cats, an entire division and a number of airborne units were pulled out of Iraq and deployed to the US on combat readiness status. First time this has been done since the civil war, and nothing whatsoever was mentioned in our media. They were given seminars on urban warfare and equipped with such goodies as tireshredder strips, riot gas (much worse than tear gas), and lots and lots of bullets. Sounds like a good time for a gun ban.
b.k. barunt wrote:The main reason for the 2nd Amendment was that an armed populace is a deterrent to tyrants. Will i "take on the US Army with a rifle?" If it comes to that, yeah. I would however prefer to shoot a few cops first.
Honibaz
From a police officer who carries on & off-duty just in case some asshole like in Alabama/Germany threatens the public around me, I hope the above quote is a fucking joke. Embarrassing....I hope you're good with that rifle, because don't call us when the shit goes down.
Call you when the "shit goes down"? No cop ever helped me out of any shit, although they've created quite a bit of it for me. They bully the poor and kiss ass to the rich, and they protect each other. No joke dude, i'd love to drop a few, and yeah, i'm good with a rifle.
