Home | Community | Message Board


Magic-Mushrooms-Shop.com
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale, Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Kratom Powder for Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals, CBD Edibles

Jump to first unread post. Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 3 months
Re: 2nd amendment to justify shooting pigs? [Re: Xlea321]
    #866561 - 09/06/02 07:15 AM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Give your daughter a gun and she thinks she's invulnerable. Instead of coming home at 10pm in a taxi she thinks "I'm packin, I'll walk it at 2am".

Which studies show she will do this? Source, please.

Muggers don't tend to walk up to you shouting "Hey, I'm going to mug you in 10 minutes, you'd better get your gun ready".

a) It doesn't take ten minutes to draw a gun.

b) My examples involved home invasions, not walking down the street.

Sorry man, but if you had a spike in your steering wheel you would drive slower, leave bigger gaps between cars, look more carefully before pulling out etc.

LOL! So you really were serious? Okay. NOW I understand how you can post some of the other comments you do.

What happens when you get rear-ended by some drunken fool? Or when a truck in the oncoming lane blows a tire and swerves into your lane? Both have happened to me. There was literally no way I could have avoided either situation.

The studies have shown that the more safety devices you introduce in cars the higher the accident rate goes.

Ah... the infamous "studies" once again. I repeat, WHICH STUDIES are these? Certainly not the NHTSA studies, which show that each year since the 55 mph speed limit has been eliminated in the United States, the accident rate per mile driven is decreasing.

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: 2nd amendment to justify shooting pigs? [Re: Phred]
    #866773 - 09/06/02 09:24 AM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Which studies show she will do this? Source, please

Not this again. The last time i gave you a source you never posted in the thread again for fear of having to face the truth.

What happens when you get rear-ended by some drunken fool?

Would a drunk get in a car knowing there was a foot long steel spike an inch away from his heart?

Think about it.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinemr freedom
enthusiast
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 232
Last seen: 16 years, 5 days
Re: 2nd amendment to justify shooting pigs? [Re: Xlea321]
    #867547 - 09/06/02 04:32 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Ok, I have difficulty in removing constitutional arguments from my political discussions but I will try.

The primary defence of handguns is and always has been, self defense. Perhaps in your world the police and authoritys are very fast in responding to your plight, that is not true here. In the U.S., the authoritys are to busy tearing up marijuana gardens.

The primary argument AGAINST handguns is that "they are more likely to be used against the owner of the gun, or the owners family". I can't argue this point, I have no statistics that are not disputed by the NRA(lifetime member ) or these researchers:

I can't dispute these facts, nor would I try,
the question as to handgun ownership is not about what they MIGHT be used for but for what they are INTENDED to be used for.

In this country, a long time ago, free persons were held to a responsibility of defending themselves and their property, also to defend ones neighbors and property. This responsibility goes hand in hand with the right to be free from intrusion in our lives by those that would injure us in any way; this INCLUDES government agencies.

This RIGHT AND RESPONSIBILITY has been, mostly, removed from todays society. We turn a blind eye to the violence and theft commited against our neighbors and they in turn ignore our plight.

My first memory of violence was as a small child. My father was in the U.S. Navy and my mother and I were on base in San Diego, while he was at sea. I remember a woman screaming, and my mother ran outside, I was at the open door. I don't remember what the woman was screaming, I was told later, I do remember that the sailors, that were on leave, were beating up some man, he was quite bloody when the shore patrol arrived.

What was the woman screaming? Rape; that was what she was screaming, and her neighbors came to her defense in numbers, women as well as men. Go to any rape prevention center and read their pamplet on how to prevent rape. The pamplet tells women to scream FIRE, because no one responds to someone screaming rape or help.

This sickens me, that people today would so eagerly give up their rights and ignore their RESPONSIBILITY to defend themselves and their neighbors. Instead they happily foist this responsibility on government and local police. The governments responsibility in the defense of my home is and must be limited, I MUST have the right to defend myself, my family, my property and my neighbors and, if neccesary, to defend myself from GOVERNMENT intrusion.

This is the reason for people to own and be trained in the use of fire arms, all fire arms; M16's, M60's and my personal favorite the Action Arms UZI .45 caliber. The REASON for fire arm ownership is to allow us the right to defend ourselves and our neighbors from ANY invader; be that a rapist or a government gone bad.

We are doing something wrong, we are allowing the U.S. government to become our protectors, like some European countrys.

Our form of government isn'nt like any other in the world, but for it to work, it requires RESPONSIBILITY from its citizens. Said responsibilitys MUST include the right to defend ourselves. With this right there must also be the MEANS to defend ourselves and with the right to take a life, must necessarily come the RESPONSIBILITY of such an action.

This responsibility issue has been drummed OUT of our childrens minds due to the, disgusting, government sponsored, dumbing down of school children.
Children are know longer held to be accountable for their actions, nor, to be rational people learning to think for themselves.

Gun ownership is a responsibility; we should accept it as such. THose who aren't afraid to, or who, like me, insist, on owning a small pistol or two, should be trained in their use and required to properly store them. Outside of this, the only logical solution would be to teach kids RESPONSIBILITY, both for themselves and for others.

The debate on gun ownership is a moot point; we have them because we have the right and responsibility to defend ourselves. That others use guns to commit crimes cannot justify the suspension of the right to gun ownership, any more than say, some people that kill others with cars and strong drink.
Those that commit these crimes suffer the consequences and "thats the name of that tune."

I think the problem is noone asked you; How do you feel about self defense?

What is your recommendation when one is confronted by violence? Should we try and run, and hope that the aggressor is out of shape? Should we give the person what they want and hope that it will be enough?

How about if they want to have sex with your wife? Would this be enough to encourage you to fight back or would you fold your coat for your wifes head while you stand by helpless? I know my words are harsh; they are meant to be. I know that you, like most, would kill or die to protect a loved one. All I am alluding to is that YOU MUST have the RIGHT to defend yourself, and loved one, in such a situation; granted, a vastly unlikely situation, but none-the-less.

Believe it or not, I agree with you. If guns were eliminated from the earth tomorrow the number of murders in the US would decline the very next day. However the NEXT day the murder rate would begin to go up again. Removing guns does not remove violence, what removes violence is the PEOPLES INTOLERENCE for it. We have yet to reach this level of sophistication.

I realy don't mean to sound sarcastic, really, but your argument is fantasy. Violence exits, in european countrys as well as the US.
In other countrys murders are few but they are there, and many occur without the HORRIBLE VIOLENCE of a gun.

My justification of guns is that they can enpower the weak, so that, even young women can walk in a park at sundown with some chance of coming home unmolested.

I do not carry a concealed gun; I can't and have no neccesity of it. I hunt, with bow and gun, and I shoot targets to keep a good eye. I am not a small person; by any means. The possibility of my being attacked is remote to say the least.(and God save the bastards soul cause that is all that will be left). But, does that leave us to tell a woman, or perhaps a more slight man, that they cannot venture where they will? Of course not. They, like myself, may venture where we will, but we should all be able to feel safe while doing so; and cops cannot do this.

I am sure you think that you have studied U.S. history. But, I doubt that any history book, you read, will give any thing, other than some twisted notion, that guns are some obsolete method of self defense that is no longer required.
I also understand that, without a history of individualism, and individual responsibility, which are not a factor in any country but this one, you will ever believe that a person should rely on himself and his neighbors; NOT THE GOVERNMENT for protection.

There is no such thing as FAIR in a fight involving DEATH. This statement can be inclusive of the death of innocence. The right to your person's freedom from attack cannot be foisted on others, nor the government, it is YOUR responsibilty and if a gun will help; then get the best training available and go forth without fear. (but please get training so you don't accidently shoot me in the butt)

From websters online:
Main Entry: CIVILIZED
Function: adjective
Date: 1611
: characteristic of a state of civilization ; especially : characterized by taste, refinement, or restraint

This denotes a civilization that has never and will never be.

MY point is simple, guns are a NECCESARY defense for the weaker members of our society.

Yes, there are ways in which guns may, one day, be unneccesary, but that day is long into the future.

Violence exits, violence has nothing to do with guns, or steak knives, or tables, or chairs, or a tire iron, or a Louisville Slugger. Violence is an act perpetrated (in this discussion) by one human being on another.

The stance that guns are not neccesary in a civilized society; I agree with. However, we DON'T live in a civilized society, and we may never live in such, hell, my great,great,great,great,great,great grandchildren may never live in a civilized society.

If you can't own a gun, because of the country you live in, all I can say is take some hand to hand combat classes and stay out of parks at night; and thank god you are not a 105 pound woman.

In the end fellows and ladys, it is up to the individual to decide for themselves how FAR they will go to defend themselves or loved ones. I am thankful that in this country a 105 pound woman, if she so chooses, may confidently defend herself against a 225 pound male by blowing of his fucking head OFF. If any one finds that this "offends their fragile sensibilitys", remember, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS FAIR IN A FIGHT INVOLVING DEATH.



Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: 2nd amendment to justify shooting pigs? [Re: mr freedom]
    #867875 - 09/06/02 09:09 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

MY point is simple, guns are a NECCESARY defense for the weaker members of our society.

The trouble is there is no evidence arming the weaker members of society is any protection to them. On the contrary it is likely to lead them to take risks they wouldn't otherwise take because they consider themselves invulnerable. The best self-defence is keeping your wits about you and making sensible choices. The one in a million situation where you need a gun may happen, but if you arm everyone this means everytime you get road rage from someone in a car they jump out and start blasting lead through your windscreen.

I'd rather no-one had the guns. Less danger for everyone.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 3 months
Re: 2nd amendment to justify shooting pigs? [Re: Xlea321]
    #867953 - 09/06/02 10:16 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Alex123 writes:

The trouble is there is no evidence arming the weaker members of society is any protection to them. On the contrary it is likely to lead them to take risks they wouldn't otherwise take because they consider themselves invulnerable.

US Department of Justice figures provide the evidence you claim is non-existent. From an earlier post in this thread:

"A Department of Justice-sponsored survey found that 40% of felons had chosen not to commit at least one specific crime for fear their victims were armed, and 34% admitted being scared off or shot at by armed victims. U. S. Department of Justice victimization surveys show that the protective use of a firearm lessens the chance that a rape, robbery or assault attempt will be successfully completed and also reduces the chance of injury to the intended victim."

"States with favorable concealed carry laws have lower rates of crime than states with restrictive concealed carry laws. Overall, the homicide rate for states with favorable carry laws is 31% lower, and the robbery rate is 36% lower, than for states with restrictive concealed carry laws. States which have recently changed their laws have experienced reductions in homicide rates. Since 1987, when Florida enacted a favorable CCW law, its homicide rate has dropped 22%, even while the national rate has risen 15%. "

I'd rather no-one had the guns. Less danger for everyone.

Agreed. But since predators DO have guns, the prey must have the right to them as well.

From your posts it's obvious you are not naive. Surely you must know that no matter how many laws and regulations one puts in the way of the honest majority, the dishonest minority will always be able to obtain guns, since they don't abide by the law.

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: 2nd amendment to justify shooting pigs? [Re: Phred]
    #868051 - 09/06/02 11:53 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

As Bill Hicks put it "In England where no-one has guns there were 14 deaths from handguns. In America where everyone has guns there were 1500 deaths from handguns (I forget the exact figure Bill used). BUT there's no connection between having a gun and shooting someone with it and NOT having a gun and NOT shooting someone with it. There's no conection at all there - and you'd be a fool and a communist to make one"


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Edited by Alex123 (09/07/02 12:00 AM)


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,245
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: 2nd amendment to justify shooting pigs? [Re: Xlea321]
    #868226 - 09/07/02 06:05 AM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Guns Banned in Britain; Crime Soars

In 1997, Britain banned the possession of all handguns, providing for 10 -year prison terms for any Englishman rash enough to get nabbed owning one. The British Government has even prohibited Brits from carrying anything they might use to defend themselves if set upon.


The result of this insanity:



The 1994 arrest of a homeowner for using a toy gun to detain a pair of home invasion burglars;


A British oil company executive was convicted of carrying an "offensive weapon" because he used an ornamental sword to defend himself when he was attacked.

Since Britain banned handguns, or anything that even looks like one, vicious criminals have come out of the woodwork to "prey on law abiding British citizens" wrote Joyce Lee Malcolm in her book "Guns and Violence: The English Experience."


It's been some experience:



During the first two years after the ban went into effect, the criminal use of guns in street crimes soared 40 percent;


During seven months of 2001, armed robberies in London rose an incredible 53 percent (in London these days the chances of getting mugged are six times greater than they are in New York City).
It seems that the Brits are learning the truth of the old saying: "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

Another lesson the British need to learn is that the experience in the U.S. has proven that in pro-gun states where citizens are allowed to carry concealed weapons, crime drops significantly.

http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2002/9/6/152858


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: 2nd amendment to justify shooting pigs? [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #868520 - 09/07/02 09:33 AM (18 years, 7 months ago)

The latest data provides us with a picture of gun deaths among children and youth in the United States in 1998.

3,761 children and teens were killed by gunfire, nearly 10 lives every day, one every two and one half hours. (3,792 without exclusions)

2,184 were murdered by gunfire. Fifty-eight percent of young people killed by gunfire are victims of homicide. (2,215 without exclusions)

1,241 committed suicide using a gun - more than three every day. Guns remain the most common method of suicide for children. Guns are used in two out of three youth suicides. Thirty-three percent of young people killed by guns take their own lives.

262 died from an unintentional or accidental shooting. Seven percent of young people were victims of an accidental shooting. A study reported in the American Journal of Public Health found that 1.4 million homes with 2.6 million children living in them had firearms that were stored unlocked and loaded or unlocked and unloaded but stored with ammunition.

74 died with intent undetermined.

609 of the young people killed were under the age of 15; 179 were under the age of 10; and 83 were under the age of 5.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the rate of firearm deaths among American children under age 15 is almost 12 times higher than in 25 other industrialized countries combined.

http://www.loga.org/GunPolicy.htm


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,245
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: 2nd amendment to justify shooting pigs? [Re: Xlea321]
    #868774 - 09/07/02 12:51 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Alex... you actually posted a link! I knew you could do it. I bet your parents are so proud.

You forgot this part in your cut and paste though:
*Between 1994 and 1998, youth firearms deaths dropped by 35 percent after peaking in 1994 at 5,793 young lives.*

Funny.... more guns then ever but the death rate is dropping.

In 1997, the total number of children, ages 0-14 killed by firearms (all causes) was 629 or 1.7 per day.
National Center for Health Statistics, 1997

Accidental gun deaths among children have declined by over 50 % in 25 years, even though the population (and the gun stock) has continued to increase.
Kopel, Guns: Who Should Have Them?, at 311 and National Safety Council, Accident Facts: 1998 Edition, at 18.

Children 14 and under are over 21 times more likely to die in an automobile, and nearly 8 times more likely to drown than die in an accident with a gun.
Data compiled from National Health Safety Council, Injury Facts, 1999

Only 2.1% (or about 2 of every 100) of all accidental deaths in children 14 and under occur from firearms.
Data compiled from National Health Safety Council, Injury Facts, 1999

"Less that 1% of all homicides among school-aged children (5-19 years of age) occur in or around school grounds or on the way to and from school."
CDC, Facts About Violence Among Youth and Violence in Schools. May 21, 1998

Of 20 million middle-school and high-school students, fewer than a dozen have killed at school this year. Of 20,000 secondary schools nationwide, only about 10 have reported a murder on campus...
Los Angeles Times Opinion column May 31, 1998

In 1997, 25 killings occurred in schools. That same year, 88 people were killed by lightning.
Los Angeles Daily News (June 5, 1998)

Despite the low number of gun accidents among children , most of these fatalities are not truly 'accidents.' Many such accidents are misnamed -- those 'accidents' actually resulting from either suicides or extreme cases of child abuse.
Kleck, Point Blank, at 271, 276

Self Defense Statistics

Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day.
Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, Armed Resistance to Crime

Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.
Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, Armed Resistance to Crime

As many as 200,000 of the 2.5 million are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse.
Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, Armed Resistance to Crime

In 1993 'only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high.
Newsweek, November 15, 1993

In 89.6% of violent crimes directed against women, the offender does not have a gun; and only 10% of rapists carry a firearm. Thus, armed women will usually have a decided advantage against their attackers.
Don B. Kates, Jr., Guns, Murders, and the Constitution: A Realistic Assessment of Gun Control, (1990), at 29, citing U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606).
Kleck, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, (1991):111-116, 148.

In 1966-67, the media highly publicized a safety course which taught Orlando women how to use guns. The result: Orlando's rape rate dropped 88% in 1967, whereas the rape rate remained constant in the rest of Florida and the nation.
Kleck, 'Crime Control,' at 13.

85% of Americans believe people should have the right to use firearms to defend themselves in their homes, 64% favor allowing law-abiding citizens to carry firearms for personal protection outside their homes, and 72% favor stiffer sentences for criminals who use a gun in crime rather then more gun laws.
Survey of voters, Lawrence Research, 1998.



--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Edited by luvdemshrooms (09/07/02 01:01 PM)


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: 2nd amendment to justify shooting pigs? [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #869439 - 09/07/02 04:40 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

I think this is the only one we need to know:

3,761 children and teens were killed by gunfire, nearly 10 lives every day, one every two and one half hours. (3,792 without exclusions)


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: 2nd amendment to justify shooting pigs? [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #869469 - 09/07/02 05:00 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

During the first two years after the ban went into effect, the criminal use of guns in street crimes soared 40 percent;

Can you for once provide a link for this evidence apart from the very open-minded newsmax site? It sounds like a load to me. Here is some official information rather than fundamentalist make-believe:

In the two years since the destruction of 162,000 civilian-owned
handguns, official figures show that stricter British gun laws were
followed by a 17% reduction in all crimes involving firearms, excluding
air guns. -- (UK Home Office Statistical Bulletin 22/99, 26 Nov 1999; Table 10)

As the UK handgun ban took effect, the most closely-related category of
crime also dropped:

?The number of handgun offences? fell by 21% in 1997, near which level
they have remained.? -- (UK Home Office, Criminal Statistics England &
Wales, 1998; 3.10. Mar 2000)

The number of gun-related deaths has also declined markedly. In 1998/99,
49 people were victims of firearm homicide in Britain, down 66% since
1993. -- (UK Home Office, Criminal Statistics England & Wales, 1998.
Mar 2000)

The number of reported robberies in Britain has grown markedly in recent
years. However, those who cite this fact rarely mention that, in the
absence of large numbers of firearms in the community, 96-98% of these
encounters bear no relation to guns.

?The proportion of robberies in which firearms were used in 1998/99 was
4.4%, continuing the recent downward trend? Some research suggests that
the proportion of real guns used in robberies may be only about half the
estimate obtained from the police.? -- (UK Home Office, Criminal
Statistics England & Wales, 1998; 3.13 & 3.25. Mar 2000)

As only 2% to 4% of reported robberies in Britain involve a genuine
firearm, the potential lethality of these encounters would seem to be
greatly reduced. It is hard to see how the number of offences in which
victims are threatened with knives, airguns, toy guns?or in one case a
cucumber in a coat pocket?can be cited as evidence of a crime wave in Britain
attributable to the removal of handguns from civilian ownership.
Instead, the apparent displacement of robbery weapon from firearm to
cucumber might be seen as worthy of encouragement.

British citizens remain 50 times less likely to fall victim to gun homicide than Americans. British police officers are unarmed. None were seriously injured by firearms in 1998/99.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Edited by Alex123 (09/07/02 05:03 PM)


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,245
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: 2nd amendment to justify shooting pigs? [Re: Xlea321]
    #870106 - 09/08/02 12:55 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Your source uses that number, it is highly exaggerated. Please note the red highlighted section. Frankly if you were to just admit that you think guns should be banned simply because you don't like them at least I could respect that as your opinion. However by trying to make a piss poor arguement, which you can't back up with facts (when you even try), you make yourself appear quite the fool.

Now despite the fact that logic seems to have no affect on you, lets try anyway.
1. Speeding is illegal.... has that stopped it?
2. Drugs are usually illegal... has that stopped it?
3. Rape is illegal... has that stopped it?
4. Robbery is illegal... has that stopped it?
5. Add the illegal activity of your choice here... has it stopped?
Now let's try a multiple choice....
6. Guns are banned.... does that____________
a. stop the use of guns?
b. cause dancing in the streets?
c. ensure that only criminals have guns?

Any answer other than c will show you have no grasp upon reality.
____________________________________________
http://www.guntruths.com/Silver/million_mom_deception.htm

DECEPTION: "TWELVE KIDS A DAY ARE KILLED BY GUNFIRE."

Fact: This figure is grossly inflated and includes crime-prone adults. This falsehood was first promulgated by Handgun Control, Inc. and quickly echoed by Pres. Clinton. To arrive at the number "12," HCI had to include 18- and 19-year old adults?a group with a very high violent crime rate.

Fact: The actual number, including suicides and accidents, is much less. Among persons aged 0-17 (what most would consider to be "children"), there were 2,284 gun-related deaths in 1997 (suicide, murder and accident). That?s about 6.2 deaths per day. While still a very sobering number, it is far lower than the "12 kids per day" claimed by Sen. Feinstein. Moreover, if "children" are considered to be 15 and younger, there were 972 deaths, which is 2.66 per day. [source: F.B.I.?s Uniform Crime Reports and the National Safety Council?s 1998 Accident Facts]

Fact: Accidental shooting deaths among children is extremely rare. In 1997, there were a total of 20 accidental shooting deaths of kids ages 0 to 4; 24 deaths for ages 5 to 9; and 94 deaths for ages 10 to 14. Combined, that totals 138 accidental shooting deaths per year, and 0.38 such deaths per day for children, a tiny fraction of the 12 or 13 deaths per day claimed by HCI. [source: 1998 Accident Facts]

Fact: Swimming pools kill far more children than do shooting accidents. In 1997, 1,060 children aged 0 to 14 drowned and 138 died in accidental shootings. May we expect one million moms to march to ban pools? [source: 1998 Accident Facts]

Fact: Most murders of children involve weapons other than firearms. In 1997, for children up to 16 years, 319 were murdered with hands or feet, 69 with blunt objects, 83 with knives, and 287 with other weapons, for a total of 758. By contrast, firearms were used in the murders of 473 children. Thus, firearms were used in 38 percent of the 1231 murders, showing that a person intent committing murdering will do so with or without a gun. [source: 1998 Uniform Crime Reports]

DECEPTION: GUN CONTROL REDUCES VIOLENT CRIME

Fact: Gun control increases violent crime. Americans use firearms to thwart some 2.5 million violent crimes annually. However, while violent criminals ignore gun control laws, their law-abiding victims don?t. Thus, if these would-be victims were disarmed, thousands of the 2.5 million rapes, robberies and murders which are currently prevented because the victim is armed, would be completed each year. [source: "Crime Control Through the Private Use of Armed Force," Florida State University Prof. Gary Kleck]

Fact: Being armed with a firearm is the safest response to a violent criminal. Violent crime victims who defend themselves with a firearm suffer lower rates of injury than do those who resist without a firearm, and even lower than those who comply with a criminal's demands. [source: "Crime Control Through the Private Use of Armed Force," by Prof. Gary Kleck]

DECEPTION: THE "PROLIFERATION" OF FIREARMS LEADS TO HIGHER VIOLENT CRIME RATES

Fact: The violent crime rate is decreasing even as Americans buy millions of guns. According to the F.B.I., the violent crime in the U.S. has hit a 30-year low. Yet, as often mentioned by Sen. Feinstein, Americans buy millions of new guns each year. This alone proves that the proliferation of firearms does not lead to increased violent crime.

Fact: Firearms are used less often in murders. The rate in which guns were used to commit murders decreased from 67.8 percent in 1997 to 64.9 percent in 1998. During that period, Americans bought some 2 million more guns. If anything, this proves gun "proliferation" reduces murder. [source: 1998 Uniform Crime Reports]

Fact: There is no correlation between a country?s firearms ownership and its murder rate. Some countries with strict gun control have high murder rates, while others with liberal gun laws have low rates. It is a capital offense to own a firearm in Taiwan, yet they have a higher murder rate than does the U.S. Similarly, guns are strictly controlled in South Africa, yet their murder rate is 10 times that of the U.S. By contrast, Israel and Switzerland have widespread access to firearms but only a fraction of the U.S. murder rate. [source: United Nations 1996 Demographic Yearbook]

Fact: Americans are simply more violent. In 1998, there were 6.3 murders (per 100,000) in the U.S. Of these, 4.1 involved firearms, and 2.2 involved other weapons. That same year, Japan?s total murder rate was .6 and Canada?s was 1.7. Thus, the U.S. non-gun murder rate was four times that of Japan and 22 percent higher than that of Canada.

DECEPTION: THE PROLIFERATION OF GUNS LEADS TO HIGHER SUICIDE RATES

Fact: Most firearms-related deaths are suicides, and gun control does not reduce suicide. Fifty-two percent of all U.S. gun-related deaths are suicides. However, if the "proliferation" of guns actually led to more suicide, countries without guns should have lower suicide rates. The opposite is true. Japan, with strict gun control and virtually no firearms, has a suicide rate of 16.7 per 100,000. Canada, which also has strict gun control, has a rate of 13.4. By contrast, in the U.S., "awash with guns," the rate is 11.1. This proves that eliminating firearms does not reduce the suicide rate. [source: United Nations 1996 Demographic Yearbook, 1998 Uniform Crime Reports, 1998 Accident Facts]

DECEPTION: IMPOSING A "FEW, SIMPLE, TARGETED" MEASURES WILL REDUCE GUN CRIME

Fact: Trigger locks, background checks and bans on high-capacity magazines won?t reduce violent crime. Obviously, no law will make parents act responsibly, or violent criminals become good citizens. Thus, a trigger lock law will not prevent a 6-year-old from shooting a classmate with a stolen gun, and a background check will not stop a criminal from buying weapons on the black market. A ban on high-capacity magazines will not prevent anything. Rather, these laws simply make it harder for peaceable citizens to defend themselves.

Fact: The only way to reduce gun violence is for parents to raise responsible citizens. If moms want to reduce gun violence (or, for that matter, all violence), they?d be much better off spending Mother?s Day at home teaching their children values and how to be responsible, respectful and honorable citizens.

______________________________________
More from NewMax. You don't have to like my sources. NewsMax just prints what others have to say. Just because it doesn't mesh with what you want to hear is of no concern to me.


*Echoes of 'Fahrenheit 451' Haunt England
Dr. Michael S. Brown
Aug. 4, 2002


"Fahrenheit 451," Ray Bradbury's famous novel of a totalitarian future where books are burned is being acted out in England. But instead of destroying books, authorities seek out and destroy guns owned by citizens in defiance of the national ban.

Those who remember Bradbury's book know the way that subtle alterations of terminology and a slow erosion of common sense can pervert an entire society to the point that it destroys itself in the quest for perfection. In this case, the perfection they seek is a society without violence, but like all utopian experiments this one, too, is doomed to failure.

A chilling article appeared recently in the Sun describing how several ordinary, middle-class men were arrested for keeping guns hidden in their homes in violation of the ban. The article was loaded with propaganda terms reminiscent of Bradbury's imagination. Two retired teachers were called "gun-mad," "gun obsessives" and "gun nuts." Other arrestees were an engineer and fireman. A photo of Dunblane murderer Thomas Hamilton, labeled "monster," was included to further vilify and stereotype the violators.

It is fascinating to read the growing flood of news reports in the British press about the exploding rate of violent crime in the UK, especially gun crime. Many stories about gun crimes mention the harsh gun laws enacted after the "Dunblane Massacre" in 1996. The reporters seem perplexed at the failure of these laws to reduce crime, but never seem to make the connection that would occur to most Americans.

Scholars Joseph Olsen and David Kopel pointed out a few years ago the uncanny relationship between the enactment of English gun laws and subsequent increases in crime. Even a small child could look at the 100-year graph showing the crime rate vs. gun laws and see the tragic conclusion.

A new book by respected history professor Joyce Lee Malcom explains how twin attacks on gun rights and self-defense rights have made England into the most crime-ridden country in the developed world.

The strictest gun laws on the planet have effectively disarmed law-abiding citizens, allowing criminals to run amok with illegally owned guns, knives and even fake guns. Instead of a gun-free society, they have created a situation where guns are more useful and valuable to criminals than ever before. A thriving black market imports guns from Eastern Europe and distributes makeshift guns produced by local craftsmen out to make a quick pound.

'In the Land of the Blind, the One-Eyed Man Is King'

Criminals are now certain that citizens have no effective means to resist an armed attack. The gun-armed criminal is thus a king free to rape and plunder at will.

At least Britain deserves credit for thoroughness. In contrast with American practice, where the rich and famous are effectively exempt from gun laws, English gun controls are so tight that even celebrities are unarmed, leading to many reports of celebrity mansion burglaries and street assaults.

Attempts to counter this avalanche of crime with more police are hampered by limited budgets and a liberal criminal justice system. Thousands of video surveillance cameras have sprouted everywhere, reducing privacy but failing to provide the desired protection.

Laws against self-defense have sent to jail Englishmen who would have been hailed as crime-fighting heroes in America. Years of expenditures and sacrifice have simply created the world's safest working conditions for criminals.

Instead of repealing the counterproductive laws, English politicians prefer to pile on more laws outlawing knives, air guns and toys. Their utter faith in government and their complete ignorance of human nature is stunning.

Americans have good reason to point at our English cousins and laugh as they laughed at us during the era of alcohol prohibition, but I suggest we thank them for conducting one of the great social experiments of our time. By showing the counterproductive nature of gun control, they are teaching us a powerful lesson. We can only hope they see the light before their society is too badly damaged.

Dr. Michael S. Brown is an optometrist and member of Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws, www.dsgl.org. E-mail the author at rkba2000@yahoo.com.

References

"Gun-Mad Teachers Arrested"
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2002260304,00.html

"All the Way Down the Slippery Slope"
Joseph E. Olson and David B. Kopel
http://www.guncite.com/journals/okslip.html

"Guns and Violence, The English Experience"
Joyce Lee Malcom, Harvard University Press
http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/MALGUN.html

Gun crime stories from the UK:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1741336.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/england/1765622.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2168430.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/uk/2001/life_of_crime/police.stm






--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,245
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: 2nd amendment to justify shooting pigs? [Re: Xlea321]
    #870134 - 09/08/02 01:09 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Fear in Britain
They have no guns so they have a lot of crime.
Dr. Paul Gallant
Dr. Joanne Eisen
Dave Kopel
7/18/00

The furor over the Philadelphia police encounter with a would-be carjacker and cop-killer isn't the only public-relations nightmare facing the city's police department. Two thousand reported sex crimes went "uninvestigated" by Philadelphia police between 1995 and 1997 because of "pressure to keep the department's crime numbers low," reported ABC News on July 11. Earlier this year, the department admitted "misreporting" thousands of sexual assaults during the past decade "to make the city appear safer than it was."

Actually, Philadelphia is not the only city to underreport crime in recent years. The 1994 Clinton/Schumer crime bill has resulted in lots of federal dollars for local police departments and also lots of pressure to get crime statistics down so that the federal government can announce the success of its policy of federalizing crime control.

But when it comes to fudging crime statistics, even the finest Philadelphia number-rearranger can't compare to our British cousins.

During the nineteenth century, and most of the twentieth, Britain enjoyed a well-deserved reputation as an unusually safe and crime-free nation, compared to the United States or continental Europe. No longer.

To the great consternation of British authorities concerned about tourism revenue, a June CBS News report proclaimed Great Britain "one of the most violent urban societies in the Western world." Declared Dan Rather: "This summer, thousands of Americans will travel to Britain expecting a civilized island free from crime and ugliness...[But now] the U.K. has a crime problem....worse than ours."

A headline in the London Daily Telegraph back on April 1, 1996, said it all: "Crime Figures a Sham, Say Police." The story noted that "pressure to convince the public that police were winning the fight against crime had resulted in a long list of ruses to 'massage' statistics," and "the recorded crime level bore no resemblance to the actual amount of crime being committed."

For example, where a series of homes was burgled, they were regularly recorded as one crime. If a burglar hit 15 or 20 flats, only one crime was added to the statistics.

A brand-new report from the Inspectorate of Constabulary charges Britain's 43 police departments with systemic under-classification of crime - for example, by recording burglary as "vandalism." The report lays much of the blame on the police's desire to avoid the extra paperwork associated with more serious crimes.

Britain's justice officials have also kept crime totals down by being careful about what to count. American homicide data are based on arrests, but British data are based on final dispositions. Suppose that three men kill a woman during an argument outside a bar. They are arrested for murder, but because of problems with identification (the main witness is dead), charges are eventually dropped. In American crime statistics, the event counts as a three-person homicide, but in British statistics it counts as nothing at all.

Another "common practice," according to one retired Scotland Yard senior officer, is "falsifying clear-up rates by gaining false confessions from criminals already in prison." (Britain has far fewer protections against abusive police interrogations than does the United States.) As a result, thousands of crimes in Great Britain have been "solved" by bribing or coercing prisoners to confess to crimes they never committed.

Explaining away the disparity between crime reported by victims and the official figures became so difficult that, in April 1998, the British Home Office was forced to change its method of reporting crime, and a somewhat more accurate picture began to emerge.

This past January, official street-crime rates in London were more than double the official rate from the year before.

So what's a British politician to do when elections coincide with an out-of control crime wave? Calling for "reasonable" gun laws is no longer an option. Handguns have been confiscated, and long guns are very tightly restricted. So anti-gun demagoguery, while still popular, can't carry the whole load.

Conversely, the government would not find it acceptable to allow its subjects to possess any type of gun (even a licensed, registered .22 rifle) for home protection. Defensive gun ownership is entirely illegal, and considered an insult to the government, since it implies that the government cannot keep the peace. Thus, in one recent notorious case, an elderly man who had been repeatedly burglarized, and had received no meaningful assistance from the police, shot a pair of career burglars who had broken into the man's home. The man was sentenced to life in prison.

The British authorities warn the public incessantly about the dangers of following the American path on gun policy. But the Daily Telegraph (June 29, 2000) points out that "the main reason for a much lower burglary rate in America is householders' propensity to shoot intruders. They do so without fear of being dragged before courts and jailed for life."

So what's the government going to do to make voters safer? One solution came from the Home Office in April 1999 in the form of "Anti-Social Behaviour Orders" - special court orders intended to deal with people who cannot be proven to have committed a crime, but whom the police want to restrict anyway. Behaviour Orders can, among other things, prohibit a person from visiting a particular street or premises, set a curfew, or lead to a person's eviction from his home.

Violation of a Behaviour Order can carry a prison sentence of up to five years.

Prime Minister Tony Blair is now proposing that the government be allowed to confine people proactively, based on fears of their potential dangerousness.

American anti-gun lobbyists have long argued that if America followed Britain's lead in severely restricting firearms possession and self-defense, then American crime rates would eventually match Britain's. The lobbyists have also argued that if guns were restricted in America, civil liberties in the U.S. would have the same degree of protection that they have in Britain. The lobbyists are absolutely right.

Dr. Paul Gallant practices optometry in Wesley Hills, NY. Dr. Joanne Eisen practices dentistry in Old Bethpage, NY. Both are Research Associates at the Independence Institute, where Dave Kopel is Research Director.
http://www.allsafedefense.com/news/International/Britain%20Fear.htm




--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,245
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: 2nd amendment to justify shooting pigs? [Re: Xlea321]
    #870160 - 09/08/02 01:27 PM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Still more for you Alex.
_______________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crime up Down Under
Since Australia's gun ban, armed robberies increase 45%

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Jon E. Dougherty
? 2000 WorldNetDaily.com

Since Australia banned private ownership of most guns in 1996, crime has risen dramatically on that continent, prompting critics of U.S. gun control efforts to issue new warnings of what life in America could be like if Congress ever bans firearms.

After Australian lawmakers passed widespread gun bans, owners were forced to surrender about 650,000 weapons, which were later slated for destruction, according to statistics from the Australian Sporting Shooters Association.

The bans were not limited to so-called "assault" weapons or military-type firearms, but also to .22 rifles and shotguns. The effort cost the Australian government about $500 million, said association representative Keith Tidswell.

Though lawmakers responsible for passing the ban promised a safer country, the nation's crime statistics tell a different story:


Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent;

Assaults are up 8.6 percent;

Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent;

In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent;

In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily;

There has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly.

At the time of the ban, which followed an April 29, 1996 shooting at a Port Arthur tourist spot by lone gunman Martin Bryant, the continent had an annual murder-by-firearm rate of about 1.8 per 100,000 persons, "a safe society by any standards," said Tidswell. But such low rates of crime and rare shootings did not deter then-Prime Minister John Howard from calling for and supporting the weapons ban.
Since the ban has been in effect, membership in the Australian Sporting Shooters Association has climbed to about 112,000 -- a 200 percent increase.

Australian press accounts report that the half a million-plus figure of weapons turned in to authorities so far only represents a tiny fraction of the guns believed to be in the country.

According to one report, in March 1997 the number of privately-held firearms in Australia numbered around 10 million. "In the State of Queensland," for example, the report said only "80,000 guns have been seized out of a total of approximately 3 million, a tiny fraction."

And, said the report, 15 percent of the more than half a million guns collected came from licensed gun dealers.

Moreover, a black market allegedly has developed in the country. The report said about 1 million Chinese-made semi-automatics, "one type of gun specifically targeted by the new law," have been imported and sold throughout the country.

Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, said the situation in Australia reminds him of Great Britain, where English lawmakers have passed similar restrictive gun control laws.

"In fact, when you brought up the subject of this interview, I didn't hear you clearly -- I thought you were talking about England, not Australia," Pratt told WorldNetDaily. "It's hard to tell the difference between them."

Pratt said officials in both countries can "no longer control what the criminals do," because an armed society used to serve as a check on the power and influence of the criminal element.

Worse, Pratt said he was "offended by people who say, basically, that I don't have a right to defend myself or my family." Specifically, during debates with gun control advocates like members of Handgun Control, Inc. or similar organizations, Pratt said he routinely asks them if they're "against self defense."

Most often, he said, "they don't say anything -- they just don't answer me. But occasionally I'll get one of them to admit it and say 'yes.'"

Pratt said, based on the examples of democracies that have enacted near-total bans on private firearm ownership, that the same thing could happen to Americans. His organization routinely researches and reports incidents that happen all over the country when private armed citizens successfully defend themselves against armed robbers or intruders, but "liberals completely ignore this reality."

Pratt, who said was scheduled to appear in a televised discussion later in the day about a shooting incident between two first graders in Michigan on Tuesday, said he was in favor of allowing teachers to carry weapons to protect themselves and their students on campus.

Pratt pointed to the example of a Pearl, Mississippi teacher who, in 1997, armed with his own handgun, was able to blunt the killing spree of Luke Woodham.

"By making schools and even entire communities 'gun free zones,' you're basically telling the criminal element that you're unarmed and extremely vulnerable," Pratt said.

Pratt also warned against falling into the gun registration trap.

"Governments will ask you to trust them to allow gun registration, then use those registration lists to later confiscate the firearms," he said. "It's happened countless times throughout history."

Sarah Brady, head of Handgun Control, Inc., issued a statement calling on lawmakers in Michigan and in Washington to pass more restrictive gun access laws.

"This horrible tragedy should send a clear message to lawmakers in Michigan and around the country: they should quickly pass child access prevention or 'safe storage' laws that make it a crime to leave a loaded firearm where it is accessible by children," Brady said.

Brady also blamed gun makers for the Michigan shooting.

"The responsibility for shootings like these do not stop at the hands of the gun owner," Brady said. "Why are ... gun makers manufacturing weapons that a six-year old child can fire? This makes no rational sense. When will gun makers realize that they bear a responsibility to make sure that their products do not mete out preventable deaths, and that they do not warrant nor deserve special protection from the law to avoid that burden? Instead of safeguarding the gun makers, we should be childproofing the guns."

In contrast to near-complete bans in Australia and Great Britain, many U.S. states have passed liberal concealed carry laws that allow private citizens to obtain a permit to carry a loaded gun at all times in most public places. According to Yale University researcher John R. Lott, formerly of the University of Chicago and a gun control analyst who has conducted the most extensive study on the impact of concealed carry laws in the nation's history, the more liberal the right to carry, the less violent crime occurs.

Lott, who examined a mass of crime data spanning decades in all 3,200-plus counties in the United States, concluded that the most important factor in the deterrence of violent crimes were increased police presence and longer jail sentences. However, his research also demonstrated that liberal concealed carry laws were at the top of the list of reasons violent crime has dropped steadily since those laws began to be enacted by state legislatures a decade ago.

The Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, a division of Handgun Control, Inc., disagreed with Lott's findings, as well as the overall assumption that a reduction in the availability of guns in society reduces violent crime.

"Using violent crime data provided by the FBI, the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence determined that, on average over a five-year period, violent crime dropped almost 25 percent in states that limit or prohibit carrying concealed weapons," the Center said. "This compares with only a 11 percent drop in states with lax concealed carry weapons (CCW) laws. Moreover, states with some of the strongest laws against concealed weapons experienced the largest drops."

Without naming its source, the Center also claimed "a prominent criminologist from Johns Hopkins University has stated that Lott's study was so flawed that 'nothing can be learned of it,' and that it should not be used as the basis for policy-making."

In his most recent research, Lott noted a few examples of mass shootings in schools when teachers who were armed, albeit illegally, were able to prevent further loss of life among students indiscriminately targeted by other students with guns.

Ironically, both Lott and Handgun Control acknowledge that the reams of gun control laws on the books in Washington and in all 50 states have been ineffective in eradicating mass shootings or preventing children from bringing weapons to school. However, Lott's research indicates the criminal element has been successful in obtaining weapons despite widespread bans and gun control laws, while HCI continues to push for more laws that further restrict, license or eliminate handguns and long guns.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jon E. Dougherty is a staff reporter and columnist for WorldNetDaily, and author of the special report, "Election 2000: How the Military Vote Was Suppressed."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15304


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: 2nd amendment to justify shooting pigs? [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #870880 - 09/09/02 01:37 AM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Still more for you Alex.

Sorry man but as i've shown, for every right-winger saying arming everyone is good and the "statistics" prove this, i can link you to an article saying the exact opposite with other statistics.

At the end of the day it's something we have to use common sense on. Common sense tells me that having guns in every house will lead to more gun deaths. All the evidence backs this up. The american death rate from guns is higher than the next 25 industrialised countries put together. What more is there to say?

And as I mentioned earlier the police estimate only 2-4% of gun crimes in the UK actually involve real guns. The vast majority are harmless replicas. The outlaws have as difficult a time finding guns as everyone else. Only the very top gangsters are going to have the money and connections to buy real guns. I like it like that.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Edited by Alex123 (09/09/02 01:40 AM)


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 3 months
Re: 2nd amendment to justify shooting pigs? [Re: Xlea321]
    #871017 - 09/09/02 02:45 AM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Alex123 writes:

Common sense tells me that having guns in every house will lead to more gun deaths. All the evidence backs this up.

All evidence? Not so:

"There is no correlation between a country?s firearms ownership and its murder rate. Some countries with strict gun control have high murder rates, while others with liberal gun laws have low rates. It is a capital offense to own a firearm in Taiwan, yet they have a higher murder rate than does the U.S. Similarly, guns are strictly controlled in South Africa, yet their murder rate is 10 times that of the U.S. By contrast, Israel and Switzerland have widespread access to firearms but only a fraction of the U.S. murder rate. [source: United Nations 1996 Demographic Yearbook]"

But all of this is moot. The 2nd amendment of the US Constitution guarantees the right of Americans to own firearms. You may not like that, and you may point out that it's different in England or Australia or Canada, and you may argue that the 2nd amendment was unwise, but that doesn't alter the fact that ownership of firearms in the United States is guaranteed by its constitution.

And that's what this thread is all about -- the 2nd amendment.

pinky



--------------------


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,245
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: 2nd amendment to justify shooting pigs? [Re: Xlea321]
    #871178 - 09/09/02 05:52 AM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Apparently Alex, reading and comprehension are not your strong points.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,245
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: 2nd amendment to justify shooting pigs? [Re: Xlea321]
    #871182 - 09/09/02 06:04 AM (18 years, 7 months ago)

Here you go Alex.... a story on the rising gun crime rate in England from your countries very own BBC...

*A country in the crosshairs


While Britain has some of the toughest firearms laws in the world, the recent spate of gun murders in London has highlighted a disturbing growth in armed crime.
The shooting of a young woman in London by a mobile phone thief has again raised the issue of escalating gun crime in the UK.

The attack follows a series of gun-related incidents in east London between Christmas and New Year, which included the case of two men who were killed by a single shot at a party.

Between April and November 2001, the number of murders in the Metropolitan Police area committed with a firearm soared by almost 90% over the same period a year earlier.

Armed street robberies rose, in the same period, from 435 to 667 in 2001 - an increase of 53% - while overall in the capital there were 45,255 street robberies and snatches last year, against 32,497 in 2000.

Much of the blame has been pinned on the trade in stolen mobile phones and up to half of all muggings are now thought to be for mobiles.

With both street robberies and gun crime on a sharp increase, there are fears that the two trends will overlap and young muggers will, more and more, graduate from knives to firearms.

The worrying trend is not just in London. Birmingham, Manchester and Nottingham have also witnessed increasing gun crime.

Police believe young men are mostly responsible for the attacks, which are often fuelled by rows in the lucrative crack cocaine market.

There are even suggestions the recent spurt is down to inner city police officers being siphoned off to protect terrorist targets in the wake of the 11 September attacks in America. Muggings in London have risen by more than 40% since early September.

In the capital, so-called "black on black" attacks have accounted for much of the increase in gun murders. Of the 30 firearm killings between April and November 2001, 16 were classed as "black on black".

Special operation

In response to this trend, the Met set up the intelligence-based initiative Operation Trident in March 1998, specifically to tackle "black on black" gun crime.

The operation was deemed necessary because of the reluctance of witnesses to come forward through fear of reprisals from the criminals involved.

Yet only a few years ago the British government led a rigid crackdown on gun ownership.

Following the Dunblane massacre in 1996, in which 16 schoolchildren were killed by a lone gunman, the government hoped to nip in the bud Britain's burgeoning firearms culture with an outright ban on handguns.

Although all privately-owned handguns in Britain are now officially illegal, the tightened rules seem to have had little impact in the criminal underworld.

Millions of guns?

No-one knows how many illegal firearms there are in Britain, although estimates range from between 200,000 to several million. Whatever the true figure, it is said to be growing daily.



Young people with mobiles are becoming targets for street crime

With so many deadly weapons on the streets of the UK's big cities, the next question seems to be whether Britain's famously unarmed police officers should carry guns as a matter of course.

In recent years, the police have gradually become accustomed to firepower. Almost every force already has armed response vehicles, equipped and ready to attend the scene of a robbery or siege.

But there appears to be unease at the prospect of rank and file officers carrying guns on the beat. Many fear that such a move would be counterproductive, inviting more criminals to arm themselves with higher grade weaponry.

Almost 80% of PCs said they were not in favour of being routinely armed, according to a ballot carried out by the Police Federation in the mid 1990s.

And in the event of a decision to arm all officers, only 43% said they would be prepared to carry guns on duty all the time.

Yet the recent spate of attacks will only increase the feeling in some quarters that one day Britain's bobbies may have to cross this Rubicon.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1741336.stm
That story came from one of the links I posted in an earlier response. Seems you failed either to read it or to understand it.

And pinky is absolutely correct. It's a right whether you like it or not.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: 2nd amendment to justify shooting pigs? [Re: Phred]
    #871503 - 09/09/02 11:51 AM (18 years, 7 months ago)

The 2nd amendment of the US Constitution guarantees the right of Americans to own firearms

Actually it doesn't. That's what the first 3 pages of this thread addressed.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: 2nd amendment to justify shooting pigs? [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #871511 - 09/09/02 11:54 AM (18 years, 7 months ago)

From your own post:

Almost 80% of PCs said they were not in favour of being routinely armed, according to a ballot carried out by the Police Federation in the mid 1990s.

If the cops don't want to be armed they're obviously not too worried about criminals having guns. Your argument collapses in a heap yet again whether you like it or not.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale, Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Kratom Powder for Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals, CBD Edibles

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* What does the 2nd Amendment mean? SoopaX 2,213 16 12/11/04 05:09 PM
by SoopaX
* for alex123: court cases involving the 2nd amendment
( 1 2 3 all )
Anonymous 6,692 58 01/23/04 06:34 PM
by luvdemshrooms
* Blind allegiance to the 2nd Amendment by Bush
( 1 2 all )
1stimer 3,014 20 09/09/04 09:35 PM
by unbeliever
* 2nd Amendment Quote MagicalMystery 357 0 10/19/05 04:28 PM
by MagicalMystery
* The 2nd Amendment Anonymous 624 2 08/03/03 12:31 AM
by Anonymous
* Confiscation of registered firearms has begun Ellis Dee 1,471 13 09/06/01 02:14 AM
by MrKurtz
* Which amendment to the bill of rights is your favorite?
( 1 2 all )
Senor_Doobie 2,030 34 01/30/03 12:52 PM
by Sinistar
* Police shoot demonstrators mm. 2,353 15 10/12/18 08:26 PM
by christopera

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
12,039 topic views. 0 members, 0 guests and 11 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Print Topic ]
Search this thread:
MRCA Tyroler Gluckspilze
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2021 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.044 seconds spending 0.011 seconds on 17 queries.