Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Only as of the moment. This very day, many of your so-called law-abiders will miraculously turn into first-time gun-criminals, while many of the stolen guns they used to own will be used by their new owners to inflict more death and mayhem upon society. There isn't a plus side of all this for you to point to. No matter how you slice it, people are dying and suffering grievous injuries because of you and your guns.
Nope.
My guns and I have never harmed anyone.
Millions of gun owners across America can say the same.
They have lacked worth. Much as this post of yours did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by no1brownsfan
Criminals don't give a f*** about the laws, and that is evident. So make an example out of them! You murder someone, you may have to pay with your own life! You commit a violent crime with a gun, you may have to do hard time with no chance of parole! As I've said, actions have consequences!
We already put people in prison at the fastest rate on he planet. The average sentence for a murder conviction is around 20 years. "Get tough" policies do not work. They have left us still with horrendous tolls of gun-related death and mayhem to somehow reduce here. None of your ideas actually address any of that. You merely pretend that the problems do not exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by no1brownsfan
Not to mention your solution will cause more civil unrest like never seen before.
Promises, promises. Big talk from small people has always come to nothing at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by no1brownsfan
So unless you personally going to put your money where your mouth is, and be one of those who actively partakes in any form of confiscation, you're blowing smoke!
I'm not in the field of law enforcement. In the event that it becomes necessary however, the ones who are in law enforcement will come around and enforce. Bad day at the office for those who try to resist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by no1brownsfan
As for Japan, again we are NOT Japan! They have nowhere near the "diversity" that this country has, and do not cater well to those who are not native.
In a bad year, they might have one gun-related homicide for every 1,000 that we have. Your pointless diversity notions do not explain that. They are just so much additional wannabe whitewash.
Quote:
Originally Posted by no1brownsfan
I'll give to the Japanese though. In the face of a natural disaster the Japanese people stuck together and helped each other through it. You did not hear much of looting going on there. Not the case here, when Katrina hit the gulf coast 10 years ago, where the law of the jungle took over!
Well, the black people in New Orleans were "looters" while the white people were "finders". Like the doctors who "found" supplies in area drug stores and bravely carried them back through the toxic waters to local hospitals. Of course if they were black doctors carrying diapers, they went back to being looters. Always assume the worst about a black person. That's what the media does, so you should too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by no1brownsfan
To your first comment, if you are defenseless there is a greater chance of you getting blown away than not having anything at all.
What sort of English is that? Meanwhile unless you have a whole lot of very serious enemies in the world, nobody is coming to your house with the purpose of killing you. Only hit-men get paid for killing people. The rest get paid for stealing stuff and then selling it on the street. Until you force them to change their minds by brandishing your manly weaponry, it's your stuff that house-breakers want, not you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by no1brownsfan
Most people getting killed as innocent passer-bys are shot by those who have alterior motives anyway, like say in a drive by shooting....
Oh, well in that case, never mind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by no1brownsfan
Of course we won't address that issue and off the SOB that committed the drive by and use him as an example! Nope. Let's go after those who obey the law, and haven't committed any crimes, because there is a very SMALL chance (or rather you perceive)that they might!
We've already gone there and your medieval notions simply don't work. As with all the notions you've expressed here, they simply lack worth.
Last edited by Reynard32; 09-23-2015 at 09:41 AM..
Like I said, The NRA offers more firearm safety programs than at anytime in their history.
Like I asked before and received no reply to, what portion of the NRA budget comes from gun and ammo manufacturers? What portion of that budget is spent on gun safety classes versus lobbying and dishonest propagandizing to promote fear and advance unlimited gun rights?
The NRA was once an honorable organization that made positive contributions to society. It is not anymore.
Well, the black people in New Orleans were "looters" while the white people were "finders". Like the doctors who "found" supplies in area drug stores and bravely carried them back through the toxic waters to local hospitals. Of course if they were black doctors carrying diapers, they went back to being looters. Always assume the worst about a black person. That's what the media does, so you should too.
Have you personally spent a material amount of time in the 'city that care forgot'?
Reason I ask, is that I have a very intimate relationship with the city;
(having been brought up there, not to mention the continuing regular visitation schedule...)
and can talk to the talking point you bring up...
of course, this discussion would probably be best explored in it's own thread.
you keep mentioning harm reduction, as seemingly your primary concern.
That being said, why do you and other's claiming the ultimate goal of harm reduction, not pursue a potentially much more material reduction in harm for society at large?
say for instance the consumption rate in America of refined sugar and flour, the lack of exercise, & lack of personal focused cardiovascular care that seemingly contribute significantly to heart disease, diabetes, etc etc etc rates here in the US...
it seems to me that these sorts of maladies contribute significantly more harm upon society as a whole than firearms...
it seems to me, that if harm reduction was really the goal, that much more time and effort would be focused on figuring out both how and why our food and consumption system apparently are detrimenting our populace, as a whole....
wouldn't the largest death factors be first in line for reduction, if harm reduction was truly the goal in mind?
Of the 30,000 firearm deaths, 18,000 were suicides that many would have found another method of killing themselves if there were no gun available.
Successful suicide results in one dead person. Easy access to guns makes an attempted suicide much, much, much, much more likely to succeed. Nearly all suicides are impulsive, spur-of-the moment actions. But once again, this sort of accelerated death and mayhem is perfectly fine with some folks. As those in the field would tell you, a key ingredient in preventing suicide is introducing delay -- creating the time in which a person can change his mind. You don't care about any of that. You simply want to wash your hands of the whole situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlandochuck1
Look at Japan, way more suicides, no guns. To deal with this, you have to take away the will of the individual to kill themselves. We need a better mental health system.
Japan has a long cultural tradition of honorable suicide. Their suicide rates would be expected to be among the highest in the world under any conditions. But with no guns, they have very few gun-related suicides. A of course they actively pursue measures to prevent suicide by other means. Harm-reduction sounds so sensible, doesn't it? Still, you prefer to do nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlandochuck1
Included in the 30,000 is justifiable homicides that lives were actually saved.
There are 250-300 justifiable homicides per year under ALL circumstances. Claims of their having saved any lives would be worthless NRA-style speculation on your part. More Kleck and Gertz style nonsense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlandochuck1
Also included are police shootings.
Along with accidental shootings. Dead is dead, you know. And gun-related is gun-related. That's where the term "gun-related deaths" (of which there are about 30,000 per year) comes from.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlandochuck1
The true total of firearm murders is about 8000. Approximately 60% of this number are gang related, inner city drug war shootings.
More gun-related death and mayhem that you want to wash away and simply DON'T CARE ABOUT. Why don't you just admit that you don't really care about ANY OF IT. Like some frightened child, all you really care about your guns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlandochuck1
Statistically, the chances of being a random victim of gun violence is minimal, unless you are a gang banger or drug dealer in the ghetto.
Right. Here are some more people that we shouldn't really care about. The pattern here has become pretty apparent. But hardly admirable in any sense of that word.
Since the FBI says that 80-90% of all murders are committed by a prior felon, logic would be for you to immediately keep ALL felons off the street before attempting to disarm law abiding citizens. Want to eliminate 80-90% of all murders? There you go!...
The FBI says 91% of all murders are committed by males and 88% are committed by persons under the age of 40. Seems like we could solve a whole lot of problems here by keeping guns out of the hands of males under 40. We don't let people drive until 16, vote until 18, or drink until 21. Maybe males born since 1975 should simply be barred from owning weapons.
The FBI says 91% of all murders are committed by males and 88% are committed by persons under the age of 40. Seems like we could solve a whole lot of problems here by keeping guns out of the hands of males under 40. We don't let people drive until 16, vote until 18, or drink until 21. Maybe males born since 1975 should simply be barred from owning weapons.
Maybe you, and other folks that believe this sort of iniative has merit, should try to get the Constitution amended to do just that?
to me, given the ingenuity of kids/adults from NYC, DC and Chicago (where firearm controls are strong), I have a hard time believing this sort of ban would be effective -- I've personally seen preteens fabricate 'zip guns' from general purpose hardware store items... it is not difficult to accomplish.
It is a proven fact that communities with guns diminish the abuse of them by would be criminals simply because the criminal knows there is a strong chance he won't live to abuse another day in that town.
No, it isn't. The whole Kennesaw meme was a worthless line of manufactured slop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arleigh
That is what the anti gunner are afraid of , their criminal children meeting their doom for their deeds.
That's really the bottom line isn't it .
Well, the idea of vigilante justice being meted out even by Nobel laureates would be worrisome. But that of course is not the sort that wants to do it!
A successful defensive use of a firearm does not mean that the aggressor was shot. Most defensive gun uses, the firearm is never fired.
Per the DOJ, about 95% of claimed DGU's never occurred to begin with. No wonder there were no shots fired.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlandochuck1
Obviously, you didnt go to the site and click on the up to date links to the local stories.
Everyday in America, you can find stories like these of successful firearm self defense uses.
Unverified, undocumented personal anecdotes with very questionable levels of independence and honesty. How many stories of Elvis or Bigfoot sightings do you think there are out there?
As noted above, the DOJ has looked into DGU claims and found them to be preposterous. The number of successful DGU's claimed in cases of attempted rape for instance exceeds the actual number of cases of attempted rape. That is hardly a good sign.
So tell us now how a successful DGU would leave the intended victim with no reason to report the attempted rape, and that's why the numbers look the way they do. I mean certainly you've bought that slop right along with the rest of it, so let's not let it go to waste -- spill it out here.
Leftist play book again? Insults and deflection I see.
We already put people in prison at the fastest rate on he planet. The average sentence for a murder conviction is around 20 years. "Get tough" policies do not work. They have left us still with horrendous tolls of gun-related death and mayhem to somehow reduce here. None of your ideas actually address any of that. You merely pretend that the problems do not exist.
There are folks who are in prison that shouldn't be there. I agree. It is a vicious cycle in mixing folks committed for non-violent crimes with violent criminals, and the fall out from that sometimes produces more violent criminals. A big start would be to rethink our stance on the war on drugs, but I'm not going to deviate from topic and address that because the topic is guns don't kill people, people kill people. And I will stand my premise of harshly punishing those who commit violent crimes.
Promises, promises. Big talk from small people has always come to nothing at all.
And obviously you underestimate your fellow Americans who would not stand for such a power grab from the government. Your solution would create more criminals. Is that what you want? That sounds a lot like what they did in the former Eastern Bloc nations. Creating mistrust of their fellow citizens, where everyone has to watch their back, and walk on egg shells. Why do you want to bring that oppressive ideology to this country?
I'm not in the field of law enforcement. In the event that it becomes necessary however, the ones who are in law enforcement will come around and enforce. Bad day at the office for those who try to resist.
That's right. Can't do it yourself, so you have to have others do your dirty work for you. The thing is you're going to have a hard time to get a large number of officers to comply with it, because it goes against their oath, as it would go against the oath of military personnel.
In a bad year, they might have one gun-related homicide for every 1,000 that we have. Your pointless diversity notions do not explain that. They are just so much additional wannabe whitewash.
Sure it does. You're just to blind to see it.
Well, the black people in New Orleans were "looters" while the white people were "finders". Like the doctors who "found" supplies in area drug stores and bravely carried them back through the toxic waters to local hospitals. Of course if they were black doctors carrying diapers, they went back to being looters. Always assume the worst about a black person. That's what the media does, so you should too.
Where the hell did I make this about race?! I sure as hell didn't, but you did! Again way to show what you really and truly are! Did Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson tell you that?
What sort of English is that? Meanwhile unless you have a whole lot of very serious enemies in the world, nobody is coming to your house with the purpose of killing you. Only hit-men get paid for killing people. The rest get paid for stealing stuff and then selling it on the street. Until you force them to change their minds by brandishing your manly weaponry, it's your stuff that house-breakers want, not you.
And yet there have been cases where home invaders have raped, or murdered someone, and it was mostly because they were unarmed in the first place, and not to mention they wanted no witnesses. At any rate, if someone wants to rob my house...well..... pray that I'm not home, because the way I see it, they have no damn business being there in the first place! So whether they are there to only "steal my tv" that is irrelevant. They will be dealt with. Why? Because I'm not going to d*** around, and confirm whether or not their intentions were to steal my stuff, or in addition rape my wife! Furthermore, it is MY home, and MY castle, and MY stuff that I and my wife worked hard for, and I'm not about to let some two bit POS low life thug steal it!
Oh, well in that case, never mind.
No. You refuse to address the problem. It isn't folks with conceal carry permits rollin' up and firing into a crowd of people! But let's not let facts get in the way here.
We've already gone there and your medieval notions simply don't work. As with all the notions you've expressed here, they simply lack worth.
They don't work for you, because you want to project victimhood on the criminals, and make people who are law abiding, and haven't committed any crimes as the bad guys. What f***n' bizzaro world are you living in? Let's put this another way. If your run of the mill murderer be it some thug in a drive by, or the estranged husband who premeditated it, or rapist faced the fact that he was possibly going to be swinging from a rope for his crimes, and it was actually reinforced it would certainly be a deterrent! Not to mention the fact that the perp will have been permanently be removed from society, and won't be committing any more violent crimes! Sounds like a win win to me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The thing is you're going to have a hard time to get a large number of officers to comply with it, because it goes against their oath, as it would go against the oath of military personnel.
Let's put this another way. If your run of the mill murderer be it some thug in a drive by, or the estranged husband who premeditated it, or rapist faced the fact that he was possibly going to be swinging from a rope for his crimes, and it was actually reinforced it would certainly be a deterrent! Not to mention the fact that the perp will have been permanently be removed from society, and won't be committing any more violent crimes! Sounds like a win win to me.