|
kagunkie
Aug 24, 2002, 2:05 PM
Post #76 of 197
(3524 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 14, 2000
Posts: 731
|
I think we should get all those gun controll bastards together and SHOOT EM!
|
|
|
|
|
pianomahnn
Aug 24, 2002, 3:30 PM
Post #77 of 197
(3524 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 17, 2001
Posts: 3779
|
YEAH!!!
KILL THE HIPPIES!
|
|
|
|
|
kriso9tails
Aug 24, 2002, 3:40 PM
Post #78 of 197
(3524 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2001
Posts: 7772
|
Are you gong to mount them on your walls? Not exactly trophies to be bragging about though.
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Aug 24, 2002, 4:25 PM
Post #79 of 197
(3524 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
Kriso...You have got to be kidding me. You think gun-control would work on the terrorists. You are kidding, right?
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Aug 24, 2002, 4:40 PM
Post #80 of 197
(3524 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
Here are the facts:
I will just address England, where people basically can't own guns.
On June 26, 2000, The Mirror, a London daily announced that England showed a 19% increase in violent crime for that year while London shoed a 38% increase. The overall crime rate in England and Wales is 60% higher than in the United States. The year after England passed a law banning handgun ownership-viloent crime rose 40%.
I will stop there, more to come!
|
|
|
|
|
ponyryan
Aug 24, 2002, 4:52 PM
Post #81 of 197
(3524 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 4, 2002
Posts: 704
|
Anybody read or heard about the californian government taking away Charlton Heston's guns??? Crazy stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
fiend
Aug 24, 2002, 5:36 PM
Post #82 of 197
(3524 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 25, 2001
Posts: 3669
|
It has been statistically proven that dihydrogen monoxide causes car crashes. 98% of all car crash victims consumed dihydrogen monoxide within hours of the accident.
Statistics can be skewed to prove anything.
|
|
|
|
|
kriso9tails
Aug 24, 2002, 5:55 PM
Post #83 of 197
(3524 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2001
Posts: 7772
|
Quote:Kriso...You have got to be kidding me. You think gun-control would work on the terrorists. You are kidding, right? [lol]
Glad to see my facetiousness wasn't lost on you (?).
|
|
|
|
|
pianomahnn
Aug 24, 2002, 6:01 PM
Post #84 of 197
(3524 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 17, 2001
Posts: 3779
|
Fiend, your statistic is baffling. What is this mysterious substance which kills?
We must ban it!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
wildtrail
Aug 24, 2002, 8:40 PM
Post #85 of 197
(3524 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
Jody
No offense, but you sound like one of those, not even right or left wing, but extreme wing persons the NRA has in office. Not great examples of gun registration laws at all. None of what I said sounds silly, only to those that worry about filling out an annual piece of paper.
Poor examples, at best, by countries that DO NOT have the law and order, government regulations, not to mention living standards, of the United States of America.
Speculatory, at best, and only that Jody.
This isn't Uganda and gun regulations, rather asking those that own them to keep them registered, won't start a war. It is a step in the right direction in attempts keep guns out of the wrong hands. One thing changes at a time and those that do nothing wrong are the ones that always jump down the governments throat.
This will never be a perfect world, or country. It is up to us to make responsible decision in hopes that the quality of life gets a little better.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
justsendingits
Aug 24, 2002, 8:55 PM
Post #86 of 197
(3524 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 29, 2001
Posts: 1070
|
I would still like to see someone kill a deer with a plastic spoon,naked!!!that would be like 5.14
|
|
|
|
|
wildtrail
Aug 24, 2002, 8:56 PM
Post #87 of 197
(3524 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
Jody,
I just saw that thing about England. Another bad example. While their "violent" crimes my be higher than ours, the have far less of the following:
Gangs
Shootings
Homicide
All these examples will not happen here. Jody, you are a good guy and very smart and we have agreed on a lot in the past, but you need to get off the NRA's bullshit. The US is NOT going to take the right to bare arms away. Its biggest goal is to get Americans, gun owners, to register via a tiny little form (which I have seen) so they know where the legal guns are. This insures that they are not on the street. They can track them this way. It isn't a flawless system, nothing is, but it is a good start.
I don't see why anyone would see this as a big deal. Remember, I used to be a gun owner. Mosseberg, Remington, Winchester shotguns and rifles, Glock 9mm, Beretta 9mm, Remington .22 pistol, Desert Eagle .357 (don't ask why), Colt 40 cal, and a Sig 9mm.
Its completely a conspiracy theory, designed by the NRA, to make people think that this is the government's first step in "taking them away". Bullshit.
I would have no problem with banning the sales of assault weapons, but the government will never take away you shotgun or deer rifle or Desert Eagle for that matter.
Well, I'm done on this thread as I know these responses will only see more propaganda and conspiracy theory. I don't want to argue with you fine gun owners, I've seen how immature some of you were and I don't want be "shot" by someone (I didn't say it, there were several people talking about shooting other people---stupid). Great represtentation of the right to bare arms. "I'll shoot someone!" Stupid. At least I'm not one of those wackos that say take them away, but I don't want to get shot either.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Aug 25, 2002, 5:05 AM
Post #88 of 197
(3524 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
"Not great examples of gun registration laws at all...Poor examples, at best, by countries that DO NOT have the law and order, government regulations, not to mention living standards, of the United States of America."
Why are they not great examples? The point is that the government of those countries passed registration laws so they would know where the guns were, then confiscated the guns, then killed the people they didn't want. Tell the Jews that their extermination wasn't a great example of gun registration.
"...It is a step in the right direction in attempts keep guns out of the wrong hands."
This sounds all warm and fuzzy and is the most used cliche by the pro-gun control crowd but I have yet to hear anyone explain how this actually keeps guns out of the hands of criminals.
"...This insures that they are not on the street..."
And exactly how does it insure that? Another nice sound bite that has nothing to back it up. Name one single registration law that has prevented a crime.
"...but the government will never take away your shotgun or deer rifle or Desert Eagle for that matter."
Which is exactly what the poor people in the countries I listed above were told. I don't want to give them that opportunity.
BTW Steve, I don't want to shoot anybody, I just want to change their mind.
|
|
|
|
|
wildtrail
Aug 25, 2002, 5:36 AM
Post #89 of 197
(3524 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
Yes, Jody. You still are using bad examples. This country is far more organized and sophisticated that third world countries and the fact still remains the same about England. Far less shootings, homicides, etc.
The US won't do that.
Also, you didn't quite quote me on the "keeping them off the street". I never said it would, but that is the idea.
Everything always sounds warm and fuzzy and calling it that doesn't change the fact that it is a step in the right direction and only time will tell the proper story.
Don't tell me that you are afraid to fill out a form that says that yes, I own a Remington 12ga and this is the make and number?
Fact remains the same (and so does the song~~love Lepplin) that it is a step in the right direction and I am ashamed that any law-abiding citizen that wouldn't be willing to step forth and try and help it work. Aren't your children's future worth it? I know mine are, and if it is even just a small step, I'm willing to take it. Like I said, time will tell and if it didn't work, then we try something else.
Guns aren't that important compared to so many other things, however, I would never want yours taken away. Or, any other person for that matter.
As far as the "shooting" comment, you didn't say that. Others did and it just shows low class and stupidity. Just like that moronic white trash crap like "Sure, you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead fingers." Stupid.
In lieu of those comments, I'm sure those that said it were only joking, but I actually know assholes that actually feel that way. WOW! Since when is a possession really that important? Whatever......
I know what you mean Jody, but using third rate countries as an example really don't justify the means. England is about the only country you mentioned that isn't completely demoralized and unorganized, both judicially and morally.
Okay, I lied. I said I was leaving this thread. I am now. If you would like to discuss a little more, PM me, okay?
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
kriso9tails
Aug 25, 2002, 8:36 AM
Post #90 of 197
(3524 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2001
Posts: 7772
|
I'd have to agree that the gun registration=genocide and/ or crime wave stats are hardly useful.
The England stat is totally useless.
Quote:On June 26, 2000, The Mirror, a London daily announced that England showed a 19% increase in violent crime for that year while London shoed a 38% increase.
So let's see: Violent crimes increase the year before. But how is this possible... I mean there was no handgun ban yet [note: sarcasm]?
Quote:The year after England passed a law banning handgun ownership-viloent crime rose 40%.
OMG the pattern continued into the next year! Has that ever happened before [more]? Obviously there are other causes to the "violent crime increase" that began before banning handgun ownership, so let's quit the witch hunt. I mean I'm sure that some guy started eating muffins right about the time marking the 38% increase period in London. He must be responsible because the stats PROVE it. x% increase in violent crime in London the year before, and then BAM! this guy starts eating muffins and there's a 38% increase! Also understand that an increase in crime also means in part that more crimes are being reported, and not just being committed.
As was also mentioned, we don't know what the crimes were. Could have been spousal abuse, or fisticuffs at the bar. There are many factors that contribute to fluxes in crime rates, so without a good explination as to why a handgun ban caused this crime wave, what do the stats show? They banned handgun ownership... there was an increase in violent crime... and I was eating ice cream [I know the stats don't show me eating ice cream, but I thought I'd volunteer it just in case I was to balme].
What this England story is indicative of, is that guns are not the root of all violent crime as some anti-gunners would have you believe.
In Canada you need to register your gun and apply for a gun ownership license, and that doesn't even give you the "right" to shoot it to the best of my knowledge... oh wait, no genocide yet. Nope, no crime wave yet.
This may alarm you, but the countries that you listed (e.g. Communtist Russia, Nazi Germany), were going to kill those people with or without gun registration. Yes there is some validity in the claim that it facilitated the task, but don't worry; though not the best trained by any measure, the US military is arguably the best equipped military in the world. Go ahead and keep your guns, but if the government wanted to wipe you out in a genocidal wave, they won't make you feel a damn bit better when your dead.
Again, gun registration/ confiscation may have been used in genocidal schemes, but it wasn't the cause, and not having it wouldn't have changed much. Or are you willing to explain such a correlation?
-Surely ideas are far more powerful than guns. If we do not allow our ememies to have guns, then why should we allow them to have ideas- paraphrased from Stalin.
Yeah... gun control was the least of Stalinist Russia's concerns. (Yes that statement argues in favor of both sides.)
[ This Message was edited by: kriso9tails on 2002-08-25 01:43 ]
|
|
|
|
|
jeffe
Aug 25, 2002, 10:35 AM
Post #91 of 197
(3524 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 24, 2001
Posts: 125
|
Jody,
You asked to name one registration law that has helped prevent a crime. Registration in itself allows for the tracking of firearms. This spring I arrested a truck driver that was carrying a 9mm handgun that was stolen from a man's residence in Oklahoma. I would think that qualified the man as a criminal. In the area I reside most people have guns. I take many stolen property reports in wich guns are the property that is stolen. Most often the victim has no idea of the serial number. I usually find the serial numbers by checking the gun registry for that person. Without this information these firearms can not be tracked as stolen. Tacking receiving stolen property, when the stolen property is a instrument of a crime, puts a bigger sentance onto the criminal. Many guns are recovered throughout the year. Many that are not registered cannot be traced to their lawfull owner and are destroyed. I've yet to use the gun registry as a source to locate people to kill. As I said before, most people I know in law enforcement are pro-gun, anti-criminal. Guns don't = crime, they are just a tool.
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Aug 25, 2002, 3:03 PM
Post #92 of 197
(3524 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
"So let's see: Violent crimes increase the year before. But how is this possible... I mean there was no handgun ban yet [note: sarcasm]?"
Uh, in 1997 a ban on handguns went into effect in England. In 1998, GUN crime went UP 10%. The ban had been in effect for 3 years. (Sunday Times Online Edition)
"In Canada you need to register your gun and apply for a gun ownership license, and that doesn't even give you the "right" to shoot it to the best of my knowledge... oh wait, no genocide yet. Nope, no crime wave yet."
Key word...YET.
"This may alarm you, but the countries that you listed (e.g. Communtist Russia, Nazi Germany), were going to kill those people with or without gun registration...Again, gun registration/ confiscation may have been used in genocidal schemes, but it wasn't the cause, and not having it wouldn't have changed much."
No, I never said it was the cause...anti-gunners say that guns are the cause, I don't use that argument. Bad people are the cause, which is exactly my point. At least if their guns hadn't been confiscated, some of them might have had a fighting chance. Instead they were herded into gas chambers.
"Surely ideas are far more powerful than guns..."
Negative, it takes guns to defend ideas. Without the means to defend them, ideas are worthless.
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Aug 25, 2002, 3:09 PM
Post #93 of 197
(3524 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
"... Most often the victim has no idea of the serial number..."
This shows that most laws are made because of stupid people. It is the victims fault for not knowing his serial numbers and for allowing his gun to be stolen.
|
|
|
|
|
rock_climbin_06
Aug 25, 2002, 3:40 PM
Post #94 of 197
(3524 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 15, 2002
Posts: 190
|
I feel that pianomahn is right. I agree with you almost completely. Fiend what is that substance you are talking about? I like guns and the first thing that I learned before I even got close to pulling a trigger was all about the safety issues. Guns can be safe it mainly depends on the person...Just my thoughts....
-Adam
|
|
|
|
|
pianomahnn
Aug 25, 2002, 4:25 PM
Post #95 of 197
(3524 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 17, 2001
Posts: 3779
|
Quote:
Fiend what is that substance you are talking about?
Dihydrogen monoxide. Two hydrogens atoms, one oxygen atom.
[ This Message was edited by: pianomahnn on 2002-08-25 09:35 ]
|
|
|
|
|
fiend
Aug 25, 2002, 4:36 PM
Post #96 of 197
(3524 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 25, 2001
Posts: 3669
|
Scary stuff, huh piano?
I wouldn't put that shite in my body
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Aug 27, 2002, 4:00 AM
Post #97 of 197
(3524 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
Okay, I am going to stay with facts here. As much as I would like to flame like some of you on both sides have, I will just bore you with facts. Since England seems to be a favorite example of some anti-gunners, I will refute their claims here about the effectiveness of gun bans.
ENGLAND
In 1997, a handgun ban was implemented. In 1998, gun crime rose 10%.
From April of 1999 through March of 2000, violent crime rose 16%, including robberies rising 26% and robberies in London rising 40%! For the first time, in October of 2000, the English Police armed themselves to combat gun crime. This despite the fact that there were more stringent controls on weapons ownership then at any time in England's history.
Between 1989 and 1996, armed crime increased 500% while firearms ownership decreased 20% due to licensing restrictions.
U.S. violent crime hit a 30 year low in 1999 while the English crime rate continued to skyrocket.
That will do for now. I close with this quote from Richard Henry Lee during constitutional debate in the late 1700's: "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..."
|
|
|
|
|
amsam
Aug 27, 2002, 4:38 AM
Post #98 of 197
(3524 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 27, 2002
Posts: 372
|
I just can't understand why it's such a bad thing to have to register your gun. You just fill out a form, they aren't trying to take your guns away or prevent you from using them, they just want to try to keep track of where the guns are. Even if it's ineffective, so what? What harm would it have done you to register you're gun?
Oh and as a person whose Jewish relatives where killed by both Stalin and Hitler, I can say that I fully support gun registration, and I'm sure that it is not the reason that so many innocent people were slaughtered, that was inevitable, with or without gun registration.
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Aug 27, 2002, 5:00 AM
Post #99 of 197
(3554 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
"...You just fill out a form, they aren't trying to take your guns away or prevent you from using them, they just want to try to keep track of where the guns are..."
My point exactly! Why do they need to keep track of guns that are in law-abiding citizens hands? What purpose does it serve other than to have the ability to confiscate at a later date? How can a piece of paper save your life? It can't. But it could cost you your life if your gun was ever taken away, leaving you defenseless.
|
|
|
|
|
wildtrail
Aug 27, 2002, 7:09 AM
Post #100 of 197
(3554 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
You're always defenseless. With or without a gun. Still conspiracy theory going here Jody. You're bigger than that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
