NationStates Jolt Archive

really? I believe that they may record it as one incident of violent crime, but it is still 10 violent crimes.

:headbang:

That's my point, i don't disagree that it's 10 violent crimes, but when you quote stats saying how safe your area is you have to take into account other factors like the stats. I'm not saying your area is dangerous...

the england/wales homicide rate is 4.4 per 1,000

Do you have any idea how thoroughly ridiculous that statistic is?

The overall UK death rate is only 10.18 per 1000 (CIA factbook, 2005). That would mean homicide would account for 43% of all deaths in the UK, making it the leading cause.

Considering that Heart Disease (37%), Cancer (24%), and Strokes (12%) account for over 70% of the UK death rate, I think we can write off a homicide rate of 4.4/1000 as complete and utter nonsense.

According to Nationmaster, the highest homicide rate in the world is Colombia, with only 0.62 homicides per 1000 population. The UK rate is listed as 0.01/1000 on the same page.

:headbang:

That's my point, i don't disagree that it's 10 violent crimes, but when you quote stats saying how safe your area is you have to take into account other factors like the stats. I'm not saying your area is dangerous...

My point is that ten violent crimes is ten violent crimes, the incidence is recorded as one, but the total of violent crimes is still recorded as ten, when you compare absolutes like this ten is always ten. A single incident in America is not the same as a single incident in Britain, but ten violent crimes will still be recorded on the gross statistics as ten violent crimes, in America they merely fall under one incident.

Do you have any idea how thoroughly ridiculous that statistic is?

The overall UK death rate is only 10.18 per 1000 (CIA factbook, 2005). That would mean homicide would account for 43% of all deaths in the UK, making it the leading cause.

Considering that Heart Disease (37%), Cancer (24%), and Strokes (12%) account for over 70% of the UK death rate, I think we can write off a homicide rate of 4.4/1000 as complete and utter nonsense.

According to Nationmaster, the highest homicide rate in the world is Columbia, with only 0.62 homicides per 1000 population. The UK rate is listed as 0.01/1000 on the same page.

Yes it is rediculous, but it could be another case like yours where they confused thousand and millions, I merely said that given those statistics the swiss had murder rate X at population Y and the brits had murder rate Z at population Y, I made no claims as to the veracity or reliability of the statistics, I just crunched the numbers.

Yes it is rediculous, but it could be another case like yours where they confused thousand and millions, I merely said that given those statistics the swiss had murder rate X at population Y and the brits had murder rate Z at population Y, I made no claims as to the veracity or reliability of the statistics, I just crunched the numbers.
then you should really LOOK at the links in question before you simply crunch numbers (that is why they are presented afterall) these are official british government numbers from 2003/2004

the 4.4 per 1,000 is counted as "violence against the person" include such things as:

Violence against the person

More serious violence

Homicide
Murder
Premeditated and unlawful killing of another person.

Manslaughter
Unintentional killing of another person.

Infanticide
Intentional killing of an infant under 1-year-old by a mother suffering from post-natal depression or other post-natal disturbance.

Causing death by dangerous driving
Killing another person by driving a motor vehicle dangerously on a road or in a public place.
Causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs
Killing another person by inattentive driving; the driver having recently consumed alcohol or drugs.

Causing death by aggravated vehicle taking
Killing another person by dangerous or careless driving of a stolen motor vehicle on a road or in a public place.

More serious wounding or other act endangering life
Viciously intending to cause grievous bodily harm to another person.

Other more serious violence offences
Attempted murder
Attempting to kill another person in a premeditated and unlawful manner.

Threat or conspiracy to murder
Stating an intent to kill or solicit, encourage, endeavour, or persuade someone to do so.

Child destruction
Intentional killing of an unborn child, capable of being born alive, by its mother.

Endangering railway passengers
Placing railway passengers in danger by interfering in any way with the railway system.


Other offences against the person

Less serious wounding
Less serious wounding (including any minor injury)
Maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm, with or without a weapon; also assaulting someone and causing him or her actual bodily harm.

etc...

In all fairness what you are doing is comparing chalk and cheese, i just checked out your area and comparing it to London is creating a strawman.

Please comapre like for like if you compare somewhere in the US with somewhere in England be comparable.

Also you seem to think that just because gun ownership crime is low, are there no other comtributing factors?

If I compare Fairfax County, Virginia to Montgomery County, Maryland
the ethnic distribution is the same
the population per unit area is the same
the income level is the same
many other factors are the same
the only real difference is the gun laws.
In Montgomery County, you can't carry a gun and owning one is difficult.
In Fairfax County, you can own a gun, carry it, etc.

The violent crime (and murder) is 60 percent lower in Fairfax County.

Punishment for crimes is the same. Clearance rates on crimes is the same.

In this case, I'm comparing one red apple to another red apple. The difference is, one has a worm in it and the other one doesn't.

If I compare Fairfax County, Virginia to Montgomery County, Maryland
the ethnic distribution is the same
the population per unit area is the same
the income level is the same
many other factors are the same
the only real difference is the gun laws.
In Montgomery County, you can't carry a gun and owning one is difficult.
In Fairfax County, you can own a gun, carry it, etc.

The violent crime (and murder) is 60 percent lower in Fairfax County.

Punishment for crimes is the same. Clearance rates on crimes is the same.

In this case, I'm comparing one red apple to another red apple. The difference is, one has a worm in it and the other one doesn't.

Well said.

Or maybe the police do a better job, maybe there is less to steal...I understand that there are other factors in all crime, poverty is the big one

But once you have poverty and guns you have a higher murder rate which tallies with the rise in guns.
I feel like I need to draw a distinction here. I (and most on this thread) am talking about violent crime. This means murder, rape, assault, etc. There are non-violent crimes: burglary (most cases), theft, etc. I imagine crime as a whole goes up with poverty due to increased non-violent crimes.

The point I am making, is that there is no clear relationship between more guns=more murders.

I live in Fairfax County, which is a suburb of Washington, D.C. It is not under the authority of the Washington, D.C. government - it is under Virginia government.

Here we carry guns concealed and openly. We have no restrictions on the legal purchase of firearms.

We also have a much lower crime rate than Washington, D.C. In Washington, D.C., you are forbidden to own ANY type of firearm. You can't even own a bow and arrow in Washington, D.C.

Interesting how where I live, we have a really low murder and violent crime rate, and in the US, just about any other jurisdiction that restricts guns has a much higher violent crime and murder rate. In fact, for the one county that is demographically identical to Fairfax County (Montgomery County, Maryland) they have a murder and violent crime rate 60 percent higher - and the ONLY factor that's different between those two counties is that in Montgomery County, you have no permission to carry a gun, and gun purchases, especially of handguns, is severely restricted.

That's why felons in the know go to Montgomery County, because they know for a fact that their victims will be unarmed. It's gotten too dangerous to commit violent crime in Fairfax by comparison.
Then why is it that Florida that has allowed the carrying of a concealed weapon since 1987 (18 years), have the MOST violent crime rate in the US?

Canada's murder rate is 1.73 murders for every 100,000 population, yet in Florida, it is 5.6 for every 100,000 population. That means that Florida's murder rate is 3.2 times higher than Canada.

The total number of murders in Canada in 2003 was 548, 34 fewer than in 2002.

The total number of murders in Florida in 2000 was 903.

Canada also has more than twice the population of Florida.

Not only does Canada have gun control, but also abolished the death penalty in 1976.

Then why is it that Florida that has allowed the carrying of a concealed weapon since 1987 (18 years), have the MOST violent crime rate in the US?

Canada's murder rate is 1.73 murders for every 100,000 population, yet in Florida, it is 5.6 for every 100,000 population. That means that Florida's murder rate is 3.2 times higher than Canada.

The total number of murders in Canada in 2003 was 548, 34 fewer than in 2002.

The total number of murders in Florida in 2000 was 903.

Canada also has more than twice the population of Florida.

Not only does Canada have gun control, but also abolished the death penalty in 1976.

Chicago has the highest gun crime rate, not anywhere in florida.

well after some deep digging
the closest number i could come up with for britain and wales for pure murders(discounting vehicular homicide, infanticide, etc..)
is
.01 per 1,000 for the british murder rate
although the british government is difficult to get actually murder numbers from since they group it all together under "violence against the person"(which is where the 4.4 per 1,000 figure is from)

and also the fact that i just found out:
The murder rates of the U.S. and U.K. are also affected by differences in the way each counts homicides. The FBI asks police to list every homicide as murder, even if the case isn’t subsequently prosecuted or proceeds on a lesser charge, making the U.S. numbers as high as possible. By contrast, the English police "massage down" the homicide statistics, tracking each case through the courts and removing it if it is reduced to a lesser charge or determined to be an accident or self-defense, making the English numbers as low as possible.

I was jonesin for the fifty, but I shot one once and near broke my wrist, as for concealed carry, why would I want to, I live in VA where open carry is legal. Bones will fly from his chest, these are wildcats I'm usin, not only are they tapped and filled with lead(no one saw that posted on here), they're semi frangible, depending on what they hit, if they hit his sternum or ribs, the lead will break out and shatter whatever it hits, after that the rest of the bullet shatters and carves him up on the inside, I used it on a deer once so I know it works. I thought about hollow points, but decided I like my ghetto frangibles better, mostly to reduce innocent casualties from a penetration. Although I'm not sure if my bullets are legal or not, any body on here know if they are? If not I'm gonna have to get those hollowpoints, at least I know those are still legal.

While it is legal in Wisconsin, I have a problem with open carry. Anyone with any kind of tactical mind will strike you first. With concealed carry, they don't know what you have. Considering open carry is the only legal carry in this state, I'm kinda stuck, though.

Chicago has the highest gun crime rate, not anywhere in florida.
Florida has the highest Violent Crime Rate in the US, even though the residents have the right to carry a concealed weapon since 1987. Why?

If a gun stays hidden, the police officer will not be able to arrest the person. This would imply a LOT of strip searches, or at the very least a great many pat-downs without warrants. Not acceptable.

Yeah, I love my weekly strip search. Every time I go into the city. This damn oppressive Australian government, always checking if I have a gun. If only I could get away with buying whatever weapon I wanted, then we could stand up for ourselves and end this opression!

"If guns cause crime then matches cause forest fires. Prevent forest fires! Register matches!"

Great point! We should so totally do this.
Hey, wait...we do!
God bless Australia.

When the temperature rises, and the air dries, and fires become a danger we have this thing called a "fire ban" which means you can't have open fires, like bonfires. Just too much chance for someone irresponsible starting a forest fire.

It's not a problem, I don't feel like my civil liberties are being stamped on.

Still think that a gang that sells illegal drugs and carries 9mm pistols in their baggy shorts is going to go down and register their firearms? Think again.

Not for a moment.
But why is the gang carrying pistols? The dealers here don't.
I know someone who would regularly turn up beaten from gang fights over dealing territory. He never carried a gun, nor needed to.

Florida has the highest Violent Crime Rate in the US, even though the residents have the right to carry a concealed weapon since 1987. Why?

Because of drugs, urban street gangs, and sanctuary laws.

Vermont has "shall issue" CCW laws and is ranked 48th in the country for violent crime. Why?

Since you like to play w/ numbers CH, try this. The South Atlantic region has had a higher crime rate than the rest of the country for decades. Until the 90's, it only had one CC state, Alabama. Since nearly every state has enacted CC laws, this region has shown the largest drop in crime.

Why is that?

Not for a moment.
But why is the gang carrying pistols? The dealers here don't.
I know someone who would regularly turn up beaten from gang fights over dealing territory. He never carried a gun, nor needed to.

Because gang bangers here went from beating eachother up to killing eachother decades ago, even as more "gun control" laws went into effect.

If I compare Fairfax County, Virginia to Montgomery County, Maryland
the ethnic distribution is the same
the population per unit area is the same
the income level is the same
many other factors are the same
the only real difference is the gun laws.
In Montgomery County, you can't carry a gun and owning one is difficult.
In Fairfax County, you can own a gun, carry it, etc.

The violent crime (and murder) is 60 percent lower in Fairfax County.

Punishment for crimes is the same. Clearance rates on crimes is the same.

In this case, I'm comparing one red apple to another red apple. The difference is, one has a worm in it and the other one doesn't.

I live in Loudoun County, which is right next to Fairfax. I personally think of both Fairfax and Montgomery to be high crime areas, but our county is still mostly farms...

Anyway, your logic is flawed. If I learned anything from statistics, it's the tricks people use to make them say anything they want. You implied causality: more guns, less violence. Cars are often found in garages. So if I'm in the garage, does that make me a car? No. It's a bad analogy, but I'm sure you understand.

"Punishment for crimes is the same. Clearance rates on crimes is the same."

Not true at all. Maryland is far more lenient with criminals. Virginia is tough. Virginia allows no parole for violent felons. Maryland does. In Virginia, all violent criminals must serve at least 85% of their sentences. In Maryland, it's 50%. Not to mention that Virginia will execute anyone the first chance they get.

Does that mean difference in criminal laws is the cause for the difference? Not necessarily, but it's a far better explanation for it than gun laws.

Florida has the highest Violent Crime Rate in the US, even though the residents have the right to carry a concealed weapon since 1987. Why?

It's all them feisty oldsters and their devious deeds...

Anyway, your logic is flawed. If I learned anything from statistics, it's the tricks people use to make them say anything they want. You implied causality: more guns, less violence. Cars are often found in garages. So if I'm in the garage, does that make me a car? No. It's a bad analogy, but I'm sure you understand.

"Punishment for crimes is the same. Clearance rates on crimes is the same."

Not true at all. Maryland is far more lenient with criminals. Virginia is tough. Virginia allows no parole for violent felons. Maryland does. In Virginia, all violent criminals must serve at least 85% of their sentences. In Maryland, it's 50%. Not to mention that Virginia will execute anyone the first chance they get.

Does that mean difference in criminal laws is the cause for the difference? Not necessarily, but it's a far better explanation for it than gun laws.

You make an extremely good point.

The other interesting statistics I've seen is statistics for gun carrying + gun-related crimes according to age groups, and similar statistics for drug dealing + drug use

There seems (to my mind, at least) to be a strong link. The explanation I heard was that drug importers got younger males, in gangs and the like, to courier and sell the drugs. Other gangs found it an easier target to pick up the drugs from the kids than to import their own, or to remove competition. So the original drug importers armed their couriers. So you got armed gangs running around, and other people who live in that area felt the need to arm themselves to feel safe.

Which, really, has little to do with gun regulation. If it does have to do with regulation, that would be right at the start, whether arming the couriers would have been necessary in a gun-light society.

I live in Loudoun County, which is right next to Fairfax. I personally think of both Fairfax and Montgomery to be high crime areas, but our county is still mostly farms...

Anyway, your logic is flawed. If I learned anything from statistics, it's the tricks people use to make them say anything they want. You implied causality: more guns, less violence. Cars are often found in garages. So if I'm in the garage, does that make me a car? No. It's a bad analogy, but I'm sure you understand.

"Punishment for crimes is the same. Clearance rates on crimes is the same."

Not true at all. Maryland is far more lenient with criminals. Virginia is tough. Virginia allows no parole for violent felons. Maryland does. In Virginia, all violent criminals must serve at least 85% of their sentences. In Maryland, it's 50%. Not to mention that Virginia will execute anyone the first chance they get.

Does that mean difference in criminal laws is the cause for the difference? Not necessarily, but it's a far better explanation for it than gun laws.


And yet you don't go after other breachers of logic on this thread.

If one thing has emerged from the umpteen threads on this topic, it is that it's possible to cite any number of statistics to prove/disprove your point, whatever side of the argument you are on.

Because of drugs, urban street gangs, and sanctuary laws.

Vermont has "shall issue" CCW laws and is ranked 48th in the country for violent crime. Why?

Since you like to play w/ numbers CH, try this. The South Atlantic region has had a higher crime rate than the rest of the country for decades. Until the 90's, it only had one CC state, Alabama. Since nearly every state has enacted CC laws, this region has shown the largest drop in crime.

Why is that?
Ahhhh so your reasoning is that carrying a concealed weapon only is good in certain States?

Here is an interesting point. Someone mentioned Chicago, so I will throw out New Orleans for consideration:

In 2003, more people were murdered in Chicago than in any other US city. However, based on a ratio of murders per population, the Illinois city is only in tenth place. City Mayors calculated that people in New Orleans are more likely to be murdered than in any other big US city. Per 100,000 citizens, New Orleans recorded 57 reported murders.

How about New York City which has gun control is far safer than say Dallas, or Memphis, or Atlanta?

You want to know the major reason I'm opposed to any form of "gun control"? Why Hoplophobes call me a "gun nut" and "paranoid"? It's because of statements like these:

"Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic--purely symbolic--move. ... Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation."

Charles Krauthammer
"Disarm the Citizenry,"
Washington Post, Apr. 5, 1996

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban [on "assault weapons"], picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in, I would have done it."

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
CBS 60 Minutes,
Feb. 5, 1995


Betty Friedan denounces "the trend of women buying guns" as "a horrifying, obscene perversion of feminism." Friedan believes "that lethal violence even in self-defense only engenders more lethal violence, and that gun control should override any personal need for safety."

"Are You Safer With a Gun?"
by Ann Japenga, Health,
March/April 1994


"We would like to see, in the future, what we will probably call needs-based licensing of all weapons. ...Where it would make it much more difficult for anybody to be able to purchase handguns...."

Sarah Brady speech to the Women`s National Democratic
Club, Sept. 21, 1993

"Every civilized society must disarm its citizens against each other."

Garry Wills
"...Or Worldwide Gun Control?"
Philadelphia Inquirer,
May 17, 1981

"Ban the things. Ban them all."

Molly Ivins
"Ban the Things. Ban Them All,"
Washington Post,
Mar. 16, 1993

Ahhhh so your reasoning is that carrying a concealed weapon only is good in certain States?

Here is an interesting point. Someone mentioned Chicago, so I will throw out New Orleans for consideration:

In 2003, more people were murdered in Chicago than in any other US city. However, based on a ratio of murders per population, the Illinois city is only in tenth place. City Mayors calculated that people in New Orleans are more likely to be murdered than in any other big US city. Per 100,000 citizens, New Orleans recorded 57 reported murders.

How about New York City which has gun control is far safer than say Dallas, or Memphis, or Atlanta?

"Ahhhh so your reasoning is that carrying a concealed weapon only is good in certain States?"

What part of your ass did you pull that out of? The same place your Switzerland/UK math came from?

Did you not read the rest of the post or just convienently ignoring it as you ussually do? The south atlantic region has always been higher in crime.

New York has also been mentioned. Guliani went after the transients and gang bangers. Crime went down. The new mayor has stopped that, crime is rising.

As ussual, you ignore the fact that the top five states w/ the least amount of crime are CCW states, you ignore the fact that crime has dropped most significantly in states that have enacted CCW laws . At least you've stopped quoting HCI and "nicest city" websites as your sources.

I at least, am able to recognize that there are other factors besides firearm ownership which affect the crime rate, you just keep going back to Florida. A state that has still seen a drop in crime even though it was labeled the "gunshine" state.

You want Florida, fine:

Through 1992, Florida`s homicide rate decreased 23%, while the U.S. rate rose 9%. Thereafter, homicide decreased both nationally and in Florida. Then-Florida Licensing Division Director, John Russi, noted there had been "no record of any accidents or incidents from a lack of training" and that "Florida`s concealed weapon law has been very successful. All major law enforcement groups supported the original legislation and in the eight years the program has been in place, none of these groups has requested any changes....(S)ome of the opponents of concealed weapon legislation in 1987 now admit the program has not created the problems many predicted." (Testimony before the Michigan House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, 12/5/95) In a 1995 correspondence to state officials, Dept. of Law Enforcement Commissioner James T. Moore wrote, "From a law enforcement perspective, the licensing process has not resulted in problems in the community from people arming themselves with concealed weapons. The strict provisions of 790.06, Florida Statutes, preclude the licensing of convicted felons, etc., thus allowing the permitting of law abiding citizens who do not routinely commit crimes or otherwise violate the law."

Yeah, I love my weekly strip search. Every time I go into the city. This damn oppressive Australian government, always checking if I have a gun. If only I could get away with buying whatever weapon I wanted, then we could stand up for ourselves and end this opression!

Okay, so they aren't checking for hidden firearms. How do you know someone's not carrying? Or are you just assuming that all humans abide the laws of the land?

I was saying that gun banning wouldn't work in the US--300 million guns that most of us aren't willing to part ways with.

The only way to be sure would be illegal searches.

"Ahhhh so your reasoning is that carrying a concealed weapon only is good in certain States?"

What part of your ass did you pull that out of? The same place your Switzerland/UK math came from?
I thought that the Swiss/UK comparison was bang on.

Did you not read the rest of the post or just convienently ignoring it as you ussually do? The south atlantic region has always been higher in crime.
And giving everyone the right to carry weapons has not solved the problem.

New York has also been mentioned. Guliani went after the transients and gang bangers. Crime went down. The new mayor has stopped that, crime is rising.
Do you have proof?

Reinforcing New York City’s improved policing strategies in the 1990s were tougher sentencing laws and a significant expansion of the city and state correctional systems. Would-be criminals in the Big Apple came to realize that they were not only more likely to get caught, but more likely to end up serving hard time.

The results have been nothing less than spectacular: by one key measure, serious crime in the city has dropped 70 percent over the past 15 years.

As ussual, you ignore the fact that the top five states w/ the least amount of crime are CCW states, you ignore the fact that crime has dropped most significantly in states that have enacted CCW laws . At least you've stopped quoting HCI and "nicest city" websites as your sources.
There are hardly any true gun control states, so it does make it difficult to compare.

Perhaps a study of Florida and New York over the past 15 years would help, since you state that "crime has dropped most significantly in states that have enacted CCW laws ", which includes Florida of course?

I at least, am able to recognize that there are other factors besides firearm ownership which affect the crime rate, you just keep going back to Florida. A state that has still seen a drop in crime even though it was labeled the "gunshine" state.
MOST States have seen a drop in crime. Your point?

Based on New York (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/nycrime.htm) stats, from 1985 to 2000, all crime indicees beat the reductions in Florida (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/flcrime.htm) over the same period, by a large margin.

You want Florida, fine:

Through 1992, Florida`s homicide rate decreased 23%, while the U.S. rate rose 9%. Thereafter, homicide decreased both nationally and in Florida. Then-Florida Licensing Division Director, John Russi, noted there had been "no record of any accidents or incidents from a lack of training" and that "Florida`s concealed weapon law has been very successful. All major law enforcement groups supported the original legislation and in the eight years the program has been in place, none of these groups has requested any changes....(S)ome of the opponents of concealed weapon legislation in 1987 now admit the program has not created the problems many predicted."
Yet in Florida from 1987 to 1992, the Violent Crime Rate INCREASED from 1,024.4 per 100,000 to 1,207.2 per 100,000.

Okay, so they aren't checking for hidden firearms. How do you know someone's not carrying? Or are you just assuming that all humans abide the laws of the land?

I was saying that gun banning wouldn't work in the US--300 million guns that most of us aren't willing to part ways with.

The only way to be sure would be illegal searches.

Yep, they sure aren't carrying. How do I know that someones not carrying? I don't. They may be. But the balance of probability is that they aren't.
The reason? It's not part of our culture. It's not necessary to carry a gun for self protection, and while some criminals do carry guns, the vast majority don't. I've got really bad luck if the thug hassling me on the street has a gun.

Do I assume all humans abide the laws of the land? No. However, when the laws a reasonable and accepted by the culture, the vast majority do.
What's more, if the police find guns, and no gun licences, they can prosecute. Which means that even if someone does have a gun, there is no way they will pull it out to threaten someone, without suffering consequences.

I'm certainly not suggesting banning all guns in America and enforcing that instantly. Obviously there would need to be a rollback period.
Here in Australia when we put the crimping law into effect the government ran a buyback scheme, where anyone could drop off weapons, no questions asked, and be given a low-but-fair price for them. There were a huge number of surrendered firearms.

If I was to disarm America, I'd do it slowly, and take time to let the population get used to the idea. I'd say that you need a licence to own a firearm, but freely give those. Then insist that any firearm owners need a safe to keep them in and needs to produce a receipt for the safe, or have someone check (and must keep them locked in the safe, although I wouldn't check this). Then insist that individual guns must be registered to the owner.

Then start no-carry areas, such as schools, where there are fines and other penalties for carrying a firearm (unless you have a special licence, which schoolteachers might be entitled to). And so on.

Certainly not something silly like "Everyone that doesn't want to be a criminal, hand in your guns right now". As has been pointed out, that will just disarm the good guys.

And, hey, this might not be the best plan. I haven't spent much time thinking about it. I just want to point out that disarmament isn't an instant thing.

Yet in Florida from 1987 to 1992, the Violent Crime Rate INCREASED from 1,024.4 per 100,000 to 1,207.2 per 100,000.

And hasn't it rapidly reduced with the "ten twenty" law, or something? Where if you have a gun during a crime you get minimum ten years in prison, and if you discharge it, a minimum twenty years?
I thought the number of armed crimed dropped significantly, but I haven't seen statistics.

1.I thought that the Swiss/UK comparison was bang on.


2.And giving everyone the right to carry weapons has not solved the problem.


3.Do you have proof?

Reinforcing New York City?s improved policing strategies in the 1990s were tougher sentencing laws and a significant expansion of the city and state correctional systems. Would-be criminals in the Big Apple came to realize that they were not only more likely to get caught, but more likely to end up serving hard time.

The results have been nothing less than spectacular: by one key measure, serious crime in the city has dropped 70 percent over the past 15 years.


4.There are hardly any true gun control states, so it does make it difficult to compare.

5. Perhaps a study of Florida and New York over the past 15 years would help, since you state that "crime has dropped most significantly in states that have enacted CCW laws ", which includes Florida of course?


6.MOST States have seen a drop in crime. Your point?

1. That says quite a bit about you actually.

2. Where did it give EVERYONE the right to carry?

3.http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/41593.htm

4. Cop out.

5. Florida & New York. Do they only sell broken records in Canada? NEW YORK HAS HAD RESTRICIVE GUN LAWS FOR YEARS. Crime still went up. Read your own post to show why crime went down there significantly.

Howabout Vermont and DC?

6. My point is that "gun control" is not the answer. What is your point? Besides throwing out and changing any numbers that you feel might look good even though they have often times been completely wrong or different from other numbers you've touted?

If I was to disarm America, I'd do it slowly, and take time to let the population get used to the idea. I'd say that you need a licence to own a firearm, but freely give those. Then insist that any firearm owners need a safe to keep them in and needs to produce a receipt for the safe, or have someone check (and must keep them locked in the safe, although I wouldn't check this). Then insist that individual guns must be registered to the owner.

Then start no-carry areas, such as schools, where there are fines and other penalties for carrying a firearm (unless you have a special licence, which schoolteachers might be entitled to). And so on.



And that's exactly what groups like HCI, MMM, the VPC and thier ilk are attempting and why I oppose gun control.

And that's exactly what groups like HCI, MMM, the VPC and thier ilk are attempting and why I oppose gun control.
You oppose the gradual disarmament, and adaptation periods to make the population comfortable and happy?

Dude!

It's one thing to say I oppose disarmament. It's another thing entirely to say I oppose gradual disarmament.

I am, however, of the opinion that you're *probably* right. Gun control doesn't seem to work unless you go almost totally one way, or totally the other. Either let everyone carry guns, or highly restrict them to only people who need guns. Somewhere in the middle is just a bad idea (except for the temporary disarming or arming period while changing from one state to the other, so people can get used to things)

You oppose the gradual disarmament, and adaptation periods to make the population comfortable and happy?

Dude!

It's one thing to say I oppose disarmament. It's another thing entirely to say I oppose gradual disarmament.

I am, however, of the opinion that you're *probably* right. Gun control doesn't seem to work unless you go almost totally one way, or totally the other. Either let everyone carry guns, or highly restrict them to only people who need guns. Somewhere in the middle is just a bad idea (except for the temporary disarming or arming period while changing from one state to the other, so people can get used to things)

Damn straight I oppose "gradual disarmament" and any kind of "disarmament" of law abiding citizens.

Damn straight I oppose "gradual disarmament" and any kind of "disarmament" of law abiding citizens.

Ah, sorry. I have no objection to you opposing disarmament in its entirety.

I (incorrectly) assumed you opposed gradual disarmament, in the sense that, if the govermnet was going to disarm the population, whatever you did, you'd prefer they just did it all at once, rather than gradually.

My mistake :)

Do I assume all humans abide the laws of the land? No. However, when the laws a reasonable and accepted by the culture, the vast majority do.
What's more, if the police find guns, and no gun licences, they can prosecute. Which means that even if someone does have a gun, there is no way they will pull it out to threaten someone, without suffering consequences.


We have a saying in the US, "Never around when you need one." The police are not omnipresent, nor do I ever want them to be. If someone pulls a gun, there probably isn't going to be a cop around to see it to do anything about it.


I'm certainly not suggesting banning all guns in America and enforcing that instantly. Obviously there would need to be a rollback period.


They've already started that one--back in 1934.


Here in Australia when we put the crimping law into effect the government ran a buyback scheme, where anyone could drop off weapons, no questions asked, and be given a low-but-fair price for them. There were a huge number of surrendered firearms.

If I was to disarm America, I'd do it slowly, and take time to let the population get used to the idea. I'd say that you need a licence to own a firearm, but freely give those. Then insist that any firearm owners need a safe to keep them in and needs to produce a receipt for the safe, or have someone check (and must keep them locked in the safe, although I wouldn't check this). Then insist that individual guns must be registered to the owner.

Then start no-carry areas, such as schools, where there are fines and other penalties for carrying a firearm (unless you have a special licence, which schoolteachers might be entitled to). And so on.


Already happening here. This is the problem. You seem to think we WANT to get rid of firearms. I never want to be defenseless if at all possible.


Certainly not something silly like "Everyone that doesn't want to be a criminal, hand in your guns right now". As has been pointed out, that will just disarm the good guys.


And will handily point out that the government wants to control the populace, as opposed to the populace controlling the government....


And, hey, this might not be the best plan. I haven't spent much time thinking about it. I just want to point out that disarmament isn't an instant thing.


It's a very good plan, actually--one that works. It is effectively starting to disarm law-abiding citizens. It scares the hell out of me.


And hasn't it rapidly reduced with the "ten twenty" law, or something? Where if you have a gun during a crime you get minimum ten years in prison, and if you discharge it, a minimum twenty years?
I thought the number of armed crimed dropped significantly, but I haven't seen statistics.

Don't know about that, but like I've stated in other posts, they'll just switch to quiter weapons and continue attacking people.

Earths Orbit, what you had said about rollback is why I am against all gun control. If I knew it was going to stop at one reasonable point then I would have no problems. By what has been shown, it does stop at a point. This point is one where the lawabiding citizen looses thier ability to defend themselves.

<snip>Don't know about that, but like I've stated in other posts, they'll just switch to quiter weapons and continue attacking people.
Nah, they'll probably just build their own. It's easy enough.

My Photo Album (http://spaces.msn.com/members/Syniks/) Tells All...

edit: Of course, MSN would be flaky right now... feh. Keep trying. It pops up eventually.

And this says alot about the anti-gunners:

Peter Hamm of the Brady campaign is opposed to the change in Florida self-defense laws stating:

"This says there is an overwhelming presumption of innocence as opposed to what has worked in common law for a long time, which is to let the police, the prosecutors and the courts sort out what happened in a given situation," he added."

So, according to him, gun owners should be presumed guilty unless proven innocent.

And this says alot about the anti-gunners:

Peter Hamm of the Brady campaign is opposed to the change in Florida self-defense laws stating:

"This says there is an overwhelming presumption of innocence as opposed to what has worked in common law for a long time, which is to let the police, the prosecutors and the courts sort out what happened in a given situation," he added."

So, according to him, gun owners should be presumed guilty unless proven innocent.

Of course, don't you know that guns are evil??? Therefore anyone in contact with them for any length of time will BECOME (or already was) evil! RUN!!!! :eek:

:headbang:

And this says alot about the anti-gunners:

Peter Hamm of the Brady campaign is opposed to the change in Florida self-defense laws stating:

"This says there is an overwhelming presumption of innocence as opposed to what has worked in common law for a long time, which is to let the police, the prosecutors and the courts sort out what happened in a given situation," he added."

So, according to him, gun owners should be presumed guilty unless proven innocent.
Well, I say that "sorting out what happened" is an attempt at simple retribution and vengeance. My shooting someone who is actively trying toi kill/injure me requires no "presumption of innocence" - the perp is guilty, or he wouldn't be doing what he is doing. I don't need to presume or sort out anything.

While it is legal in Wisconsin, I have a problem with open carry. Anyone with any kind of tactical mind will strike you first. With concealed carry, they don't know what you have. Considering open carry is the only legal carry in this state, I'm kinda stuck, though.

Open carry is a good deterrant, they may not strike at all if theres more than one armed person around, and their gun is in view, the attacker will suffer from target overload.

Well, I say that "sorting out what happened" is an attempt at simple retribution and vengeance. My shooting someone who is actively trying toi kill/injure me requires no "presumption of innocence" - the perp is guilty, or he wouldn't be doing what he is doing. I don't need to presume or sort out anything.

And if the Fed can't figure that out, I wonder why their still in charge... Oh yeah I forgot, people are stupid and believe the media.

Nah, they'll probably just build their own. It's easy enough.

My Photo Album (http://spaces.msn.com/members/Syniks/) Tells All...

edit: Of course, MSN would be flaky right now... feh. Keep trying. It pops up eventually.

I could make a pistol and black powder easily enough, out of wood no less!

Open carry is a good deterrant, they may not strike at all if theres more than one armed person around, and their gun is in view, the attacker will suffer from target overload.
I personally dont care for open carry. If you can't tell who is armed, then EVERYONE could be armed. It's the old "bank guard problem". Armed bank guards get shot immediately. Unarmed ones don't.

The visual presence of a firearm immediately escalates a situation - that's what it is for. In most situations, that escalation is neither necessary or warranted. The surprise appearance of an unanticipated firearm is what ends encounters withour gunbattles.

Open carry is a good deterrant, they may not strike at all if theres more than one armed person around, and their gun is in view, the attacker will suffer from target overload.

Good point.

I personally dont care for open carry. If you can't tell who is armed, then EVERYONE could be armed. It's the old "bank guard problem". Armed bank guards get shot immediately. Unarmed ones don't.

The visual presence of a firearm immediately escalates a situation - that's what it is for. In most situations, that escalation is neither necessary or warranted. The surprise appearance of an unanticipated firearm is what ends encounters withour gunbattles.

And another good point. :D Hey, this is fun!

Ahhhh so your reasoning is that carrying a concealed weapon only is good in certain States?

Here is an interesting point. Someone mentioned Chicago, so I will throw out New Orleans for consideration:

In 2003, more people were murdered in Chicago than in any other US city. However, based on a ratio of murders per population, the Illinois city is only in tenth place. City Mayors calculated that people in New Orleans are more likely to be murdered than in any other big US city. Per 100,000 citizens, New Orleans recorded 57 reported murders.

How about New York City which has gun control is far safer than say Dallas, or Memphis, or Atlanta?

yeah, for now, when the italian dude(can't remember the name right now) kicked out all the transients vagrants and such, the crime ratye dropped, now that they're being let back in the crime rate is rising again.

yeah, for now, when the italian dude(can't remember the name right now) kicked out all the transients vagrants and such, the crime ratye dropped, now that they're being let back in the crime rate is rising again.
Giuliani. He was fond of saying that if you enforced the laws already on the books against vagrancy and spitting on the sidewalk, the more serious crimes would never occur.

He was right, of course.

I personally dont care for open carry. If you can't tell who is armed, then EVERYONE could be armed. It's the old "bank guard problem". Armed bank guards get shot immediately. Unarmed ones don't.

The visual presence of a firearm immediately escalates a situation - that's what it is for. In most situations, that escalation is neither necessary or warranted. The surprise appearance of an unanticipated firearm is what ends encounters withour gunbattles.

But if I'm armed and the guard is armed and the other guard is armed and two other people are armed, that means you need five people with guns to handle all of us, with CC laws you can do it with two guys killing the guards and dropping us as we try to draw from concealment.

Giuliani. He was fond of saying that if you enforced the laws already on the books against vagrancy and spitting on the sidewalk, the more serious crimes would never occur.

He was right, of course.

Thatas the one, and yeah he was right, now crime rates rising again and no one knows why, except for everybody outside the government.

But if I'm armed and the guard is armed and the other guard is armed and two other people are armed, that means you need five people with guns to handle all of us, with CC laws you can do it with two guys killing the guards and dropping us as we try to draw from concealment.

Uh....if one tries at that point. Maybe. The crooks won't know who to shoot while someone is pulling out the firearm.

Both sides have merit. One has quicker access, but a much higher tension level, and the other has the opposite--slower access with a lower tension level (since the sheeple and crooks don't like to see the metal).

Uh....if one tries at that point. Maybe. The crooks won't know who to shoot while someone is pulling out the firearm.

Both sides have merit. One has quicker access, but a much higher tension level, and the other has the opposite--slower access with a lower tension level (since the sheeple and crooks don't like to see the metal).

heheh, stupid sheeple.

The funny thing is, American citizens with their handguns and hunting rifles, still believe they could defeat the American Army with their assault rifles, grenade launchers, tanks, computer guided missiles, stealth bombers, etc, etc...

The second ammendment was written when the citizens had equal technology to the government, today, it's like the right to bare spears while the government has muskets, and we all should know how well the spears of the Zulus held up to the muskets of the Brittish Army...

Now, if you're going to let people have guns to use for their own protection against other citizens, you should at least teach them the value of responsibility and community, as oppose to the value of greed and finding someone else to blame for your problems...

Thank you! It always amazes me the number of people who don't understand just how much power the US military has. No personal firearm in the world will stop a Main Battle Tank, say an Abrams, for example. It's just laughable. When you throw in all the other tech, its pathetic, and this "defensive capability" goes out the window. The military has satellites that can LOOK THROUGH WINDOWS! Not just top-down pictures, but actual, <meter-resolution side-scan visuals.

Helllllooooo....anyone home? I can see you in there.....

heheh, stupid sheeple.

Scared, I'd say. They've been quite intelligent in their efforts to strip our right to defend ourselves.

Thank you! It always amazes me the number of people who don't understand just how much power the US military has. No personal firearm in the world will stop a Main Battle Tank, say an Abrams, for example. It's just laughable. When you throw in all the other tech, its pathetic, and this "defensive capability" goes out the window. The military has satellites that can LOOK THROUGH WINDOWS! Not just top-down pictures, but actual, <meter-resolution side-scan visuals.

Helllllooooo....anyone home? I can see you in there.....

The women I train find that personal firearms are extremely effective in stopping their ex-husbands from stalking and beating them.

Thank you! It always amazes me the number of people who don't understand just how much power the US military has. No personal firearm in the world will stop a Main Battle Tank, say an Abrams, for example. It's just laughable. When you throw in all the other tech, its pathetic, and this "defensive capability" goes out the window. The military has satellites that can LOOK THROUGH WINDOWS! Not just top-down pictures, but actual, <meter-resolution side-scan visuals.

Helllllooooo....anyone home? I can see you in there.....

And yet Iraq still gives the US military problems...hmmm. Maybe it's the sand. :rolleyes:

Well if the second amendment was meant only for the colonial days then does that same sense hold true for the first amendment too? that we are only allowed to use quill and ink pens? Lets be realistic now shall we? Your statement goes too far. The second amendment is what protects our first! Need I say more?

No, it doesn't, you.....ugh....

There is no way for an average citizen to protect his First Amendment rights if the government were to try to take them away. The ONLY recourse the average citizen has is the courts. You're gun ownership does not guarantee free speech or a free press.

You would get more effect from a Gandhi-esque, passive-aggressive sit-in than you would from a Winchester-toting mob's efforts.

No, it doesn't, you.....ugh....

There is no way for an average citizen to protect his First Amendment rights if the government were to try to take them away. The ONLY recourse the average citizen has is the courts. You're gun ownership does not guarantee free speech or a free press.

You would get more effect from a Gandhi-esque, passive-aggressive sit-in than you would from a Winchester-toting mob's efforts.

A woman who is continually being stalked and beaten by her ex-husband is far safer carrying a gun and knowing how to use it, as opposed to depending on a protective order and the police to keep her from being killed.

of course, if you're against gun ownership, then you believe that a dead wife beaten to death by her ex-husband is morally superior to a dead husband shot by his wife who was defending herself and her children.

No, it doesn't, you.....ugh....

There is no way for an average citizen to protect his First Amendment rights if the government were to try to take them away. The ONLY recourse the average citizen has is the courts. You're gun ownership does not guarantee free speech or a free press.

You would get more effect from a Gandhi-esque, passive-aggressive sit-in than you would from a Winchester-toting mob's efforts.

Wait, let me get this straight: The government that takes away the First Amendment right of free speech is going to defend those that it took the right from and reinstate it?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Wow, what ARE you smoking? Can I have some?

A woman who is continually being stalked and beaten by her ex-husband is far safer carrying a gun and knowing how to use it, as opposed to depending on a protective order and the police to keep her from being killed.

of course, if you're against gun ownership, then you believe that a dead wife beaten to death by her ex-husband is morally superior to a dead husband shot by his wife who was defending herself and her children.
That hardly requires a gun. She could use a knife, no one is talking about outlawing them. Besides her husband could have a gun too, and that puts us back at square one.

Thank you! It always amazes me the number of people who don't understand just how much power the US military has. No personal firearm in the world will stop a Main Battle Tank, say an Abrams, for example. It's just laughable. When you throw in all the other tech, its pathetic, and this "defensive capability" goes out the window. The military has satellites that can LOOK THROUGH WINDOWS! Not just top-down pictures, but actual, <meter-resolution side-scan visuals.

Helllllooooo....anyone home? I can see you in there.....


Umm, yeah, you're assuming that a good deal of the army wouldn't desert, what with most of them supporting the general populace and all, against those trying to enact gun control. Plus I could personally make a gun capable of turning an abrams into a tin can on tracks.

of course, if you're against gun ownership, then you believe that a dead wife beaten to death by her ex-husband is morally superior to a dead husband shot by his wife who was defending herself and her children.
Come now, I don't think that's a fair representation of us anti-gun types.

However, In the context of the society in which you live, I think your position is probably spot on.

Uh....if one tries at that point. Maybe. The crooks won't know who to shoot while someone is pulling out the firearm.

Both sides have merit. One has quicker access, but a much higher tension level, and the other has the opposite--slower access with a lower tension level (since the sheeple and crooks don't like to see the metal).
Actually, because I'm such a sensitive new-age guy, I just don't like frightening all those poor hopolophobes out there. It's not fair to them to be forced to look at my gun... ;)

How is it obsolete? Lets say next election a far left or right winger wins and wants to install a dictatorship. The ONLY way America will fall into a dictatorship is with all of gun rights taken away first! Point proven that guns are NEEDED to ensure and enforce freedom and equality! So if that extremist whackjob gets elected we have the means to overthrow his or her corrupt government or at least make it so it costs him or her millions of dollars and causualities to do it.

The problem with this argument is that if he/she truly is a "whackjob", then he/she won't CARE HOW MUCH IT COSTS!

And I'm sorry, but there are too many sheep in this country for the US citizenry to truly stop a dictatorship being installed. Of course, there is that whole Checks and Balances thing that the Republicans seem so intent on diminishing. Now that's what would truly keep a dictatorship from coming to fruition in this country.

No, it doesn't, you.....ugh....

There is no way for an average citizen to protect his First Amendment rights if the government were to try to take them away. The ONLY recourse the average citizen has is the courts. You're gun ownership does not guarantee free speech or a free press.

You would get more effect from a Gandhi-esque, passive-aggressive sit-in than you would from a Winchester-toting mob's efforts.

.380 win mag beats passive sit in any day. A gun can make a point much better than saying "we will not fight you if you take our rights".

then you've apparently been able to disarm your criminals. if we tried to do that here, i doubt we'd be able to. no criminal is just going to give up his gun.

and i'm sorry, but when you're under attack, you can't afford to wait 10 minutes for the cops to get there. and that's if you can get to a phone to call them.

i am glad that i have the right to own a gun and defend myself and my property from perps.

"Perps"? What is this, an episode of Cops ?

.380 win mag beats passive sit in any day. A gun can make a point much better than saying "we will not fight you if you take our rights".
Pen is mightier than the sword.

Passive resistance is fighting, sans violence.

The problem with this argument is that if he/she truly is a "whackjob", then he/she won't CARE HOW MUCH IT COSTS!

And I'm sorry, but there are too many sheep in this country for the US citizenry to truly stop a dictatorship being installed. Of course, there is that whole Checks and Balances thing that the Republicans seem so intent on diminishing. Now that's what would truly keep a dictatorship from coming to fruition in this country.

Sheep can become goats pretty damn fast if they have too, and goats have horns to hit back with. Plus the fact that the army would almost certainly do one of two things, ignore orders to attack us citizens, or rebel against the dictator.

Pen is mightier than the sword.

Passive resistance is fighting, sans violence.

Gun is mightier than the pen, and passive resistance is fighting without fighting back, so you just get shot or beat up for nothing.

Sheep can become goats pretty damn fast if they have too, and goats have horns to hit back with. Plus the fact that the army would almost certainly do one of two things, ignore orders to attack us citizens, or rebel against the dictator.
Or it would follow orders. You know, like its trained to do. You conveniently left that option out.

Gun is mightier than the pen, and passive resistance is fighting without fighting back, so you just get shot or beat up for nothing.
Which is obviously why India is still under British rule?

Of course, once they have your mind it doesn't mater if you keep your guns or not. They can make you believe and do whatever they want. It's a bit harder to change someone's mind if they are armed and jingoists.

Bushwah!

The US citizenry are some of the most armed and jingoist people in the world, and a majority of them STILL think that WMD were found in Iraq, even after the White House said there were none found.

Lunacy.

Or it would follow orders. You know, like its trained to do. You conveniently left that option out.

Those orders would be illegal, they would be under no obligation to follow them.

Which is obviously why India is still under British rule?

Which is why the Deacons of Justice were needed in the south, look it up and you'll see what I mean.

Those orders would be illegal, they would be under no obligation to follow them.
Soldiers do not have the authority to decide which orders to follow and which orders to disobey.

The second amendment was well thought out. It can be argued that the founding fathers in the U.S. had indeed forcast huge technological advances in arms because (believe it or not) there had been quite a few by the time the constitution was written. They weren't using catapults and slingshots in the revolutionary war, were they? The idea that they had never intended that people be armed with and enjoy the benefits of these advances is ridiculous and that argument should be rejected with just a chuckle.


So the average guy on the street should own a tank and 155 arty piece?

Soldiers do not have the authority to decide which orders to follow and which orders to disobey.

Yeah they do, an illegal order is an order they do not have to obey, ask whispering legs.

Which is why the Deacons of Justice were needed in the south, look it up and you'll see what I mean.
There is a significant difference between bodyguards and armed insurrection. I doubt civil rights would have been handed to blacks very quickly if they had gone out killing people as opposed to refusing to take the bus. One is respected, the other tends to be looked down on.

So the average guy on the street should own a tank and 155 arty piece?

If he can afford it.

If he can afford it.
Nuclear weapons too? Cruise missles? A carrier battle group?

I'm actually amused...

"How is it obsolete? Lets say next election a far left or right winger wins and wants to install a dictatorship. The ONLY way America will fall into a dictatorship is with all of gun rights taken away first! Point proven that guns are NEEDED to ensure and enforce freedom and equality! So if that extremist whackjob gets elected we have the means to overthrow his or her corrupt government or at least make it so it costs him or her millions of dollars and causualities to do it."

That... is a killer lol.

So... guns are needed to ensure and enforce freedom and equality? It's funny... you realize that this shows the US as the most uncivilized country in the west? Also it says a lot about the American mentality.

IF a far left or right winger wins the next US elections then I recommend nuking the country killing everyone who was dumb enough to vote for him.

Besides, think over that one part for a second:

Dictator appears, dictator controls armed forces. Armed forces vs militia, armed forces win rather easily (show me how to deal with an M1A2 or an F-22 with a few semi-automatic rifles, please... *rolls eyes* like any civilian in the US would have the equipment to fight a real war, yeah, right). If not (even though extremly unlikely), then dictator goes Nero on the country and nukes a few of his own cities. Then what? And well, the millions of dollars are a bad argument, why would a dictator care about that? I mean, look at history and show me a dictator who gave a damn about that.

Oh yeah, and... if he gets actually elected, then he has the majority of the people behind him, so... the whole plan wouldn't really work.

There is a significant difference between bodyguards and armed insurrection. I doubt civil rights would have been handed to blacks very quickly if they had gone out killing people as opposed to refusing to take the bus. One is respected, the other tends to be looked down on.

They were more than bodyguards, they fought back, they kept MLK alive long enough to do some good, peaceful resistance only works if they know you have force to fight back when it doesn't.

If he can afford it.

Screw the poor.

And if an extremist is elected?

Well, that's democracy. If most people voted for them, who s going to fight them?

Nuclear weapons too? Cruise missles? A carrier battle group?

If he can afford it. Bill gates couldn't afford a single carrier, much less a battle group.

Screw the poor.

And if an extremist is elected?

Well, that's democracy. If most people voted for them, who s going to fight them?

I will, for one, most of the army for another.

That hardly requires a gun. She could use a knife, no one is talking about outlawing them. Besides her husband could have a gun too, and that puts us back at square one.

So, instead of her being able to defend herself at a distance, where she has less of a chance of being disarmed, she now has to be right next to the guy? Yeah, that's safer.

I'm sorry...but your logic is defying self-preservation techniques.

If he can afford it. Bill gates couldn't afford a single carrier, much less a battle group.
Well they would have installment plans. Duh :rolleyes:

I will, for one, most of the army for another.

and who decides if the elected leader is an 'extremist'?

What if a majority disagree?

Actually, because I'm such a sensitive new-age guy, I just don't like frightening all those poor hopolophobes out there. It's not fair to them to be forced to look at my gun... ;)

Whoa! We have to look at their crystals, though! Those could poke an eye out!
;)

So, instead of her being able to defend herself at a distance, where she has less of a chance of being disarmed, she now has to be right next to the guy? Yeah, that's safer.

I'm sorry...but your logic is defying self-preservation techniques.
Fine, give her a tazer. She has about 15ft to play with now, happy? Even mace/pepper spray will drop most people pretty quickly.

Now say she has a gun. And he has a gun. How does that offer her any protection? A gun is not some magical tool that automatically makes the bad men go away.

Pen is mightier than the sword.


Hey, that could be used to limit the 1st amendment. It's more dangerous than a weapon...restrict it!


Passive resistance is fighting, sans violence.

Nah, it's giving up until those that want you out of the way dispose of you.

Nah, it's giving up until those that want you out of the way dispose of you.
Gandhi would like a word with you.

Well they would have installment plans. Duh :rolleyes:

Oh, my bad :rolleyes:

Gandhi would like a word with you.

Exhume his corpse and we'll chat.

Why didn't gun owning americans rise up and oust Bush when he cheated his way to office in 2000?

Fine, give her a tazer. She has about 15ft to play with now, happy?


Nope. That gives her all of one shot.


Even mace/pepper spray will drop most people pretty quickly.


There's a reason police officers still carry guns. People have tested it, and can still operate after being sprayed. It's by no means comfortable, but if you're pissed off, and you have an objective, many can fight through pain to get what they want accomplished.


Now say she has a gun. And he has a gun. How does that offer her any protection? A gun is not some magical tool that automatically makes the bad men go away.

No, but it definitely evens the odds more than any other device out there.

Why didn't gun owning americans rise up and oust Bush when he cheated his way to office in 2000?

Maybe because hes not trying to take our guns?

and who decides if the elected leader is an 'extremist'?

What if a majority disagree?

The consitution is the ultimate arbiter in those affairs. For a member of the armed forces of the US, their first sworn duty is to the constitution, and as a result, the people that it was drafted for. Their latter duties involve serving the president and those in their chain of command. They are told during all phases of training that the constitution supercedes all other orders.

Gandhi would like a word with you.

:rolleyes:

Exhume his corpse and we'll chat.
Hint, he was killed by an extremist on his own side after India was already liberated from Britain.

Maybe because hes not trying to take our guns?

Oh, ok, so he's your kind of extremist then?

So what, if a left wing president is elected by a majority, but you don't like him, can you rise up then?

There's a reason police officers still carry guns. People have tested it, and can still operate after being sprayed. It's by no means comfortable, but if you're pissed off, and you have an objective, many can fight through pain to get what they want accomplished.

You can still operate after being shot, granted it wasn't instantly lethal. Since this hypothetical situation is a woman protecting her family I'm assuming she is not on a SWAT team and is not the best shot in the world.

"I once read that the UK had a terrible problem with terrorism (something to do with the Irish?)

But also, the UK lives under a monarchy. Which is nothing more then a polite way of saying dictatorship. I cant imagine life living under the rule of one family. Thats just outlandish!"

Engage brain before posting bullshit. Yes, we had a massive problem with the RIRA (which was funded by Bush for several years).

A monarchy is not a dictatorship. Our queen is only a figurehead. The royal family do not rule us, we are governed by an elected government.

I, personally, would not feel safe living in a country where its citizens have a right to bear arms. It's gross stupidity, particularly when it's just a licence for drive-by shootings.

Oh, ok, so he's your kind of extremist then?

So what, if a left wing president is elected by a majority, but you don't like him, can you rise up then?

If they try to violate our constitutional rights through outright disarmament. And bush isn't "my kind of extremist", I personally hate the bastard as a matter of principle since he's from texas, that and I think he's gonna end up getting us all killed, but he's never violated any of our rights in a manner that is overt enough to cause rebellion, so we wait.

You can still operate after being shot, granted it wasn't instantly lethal. Since this hypothetical situation is a woman protecting her family I'm assuming she is not on a SWAT team and is not the best shot in the world.

Oh, I'd more than trust WL's training regimen.

You're going to find that most gun owners tend to be enthusiasts. As enthusiasts, we generally spend more time with the activity we like. This means, we get more practice than the average police officer ever does.

We miss less.

Engage brain before posting bullshit. Yes, we had a massive problem with the RIRA (which was funded by Bush for several years).

Wait, what? :confused:

Loose the guns, get a FPS, lock the doors and have your mommy bring you food.

Oh, I'd more than trust WL's training regimen.

You're going to find that most gun owners tend to be enthusiasts. As enthusiasts, we generally spend more time with the activity we like. This means, we get more practice than the average police officer ever does.

We miss less.
SWAT teams are a liitle better trained than beat cops.

At any rate, no one ever said this woman was a gun enthusiast. She bought a gun to keep her husband away.

If they try to violate our constitutional rights through outright disarmament. And bush isn't "my kind of extremist", I personally hate the bastard as a matter of principle since he's from texas, that and I think he's gonna end up getting us all killed, but he's never violated any of our rights in a manner that is overt enough to cause rebellion, so we wait.

Ok, what if a majority elected a party that amended the constitution to ban guns?

Would you rise in rebellion?

You can still operate after being shot, granted it wasn't instantly lethal. Since this hypothetical situation is a woman protecting her family I'm assuming she is not on a SWAT team and is not the best shot in the world.

If a man is hit with a .357 he's going down, he may get back up, but he'll probably get hit again, and if he is, he'll probably stay down.

If a man is hit with a .357 he's going down, he may get back up, but he'll probably get hit again, and if he is, he'll probably stay down.

So we've reached a point of;

ex-husband harrassing wife = death penalty???

Ok, what if a majority elected a party that amended the constitution to ban guns?

Would you rise in rebellion?

Yes, I would, as would most of the army, since the ammendment itself would be illegal.

So we've reached a point of;

ex-husband harrassing wife = death penalty???

No ex-husband attacking wife, not harrassing.

No ex-husband attacking wife, not harrassing.

How is he going to attack her from across the lawn?

How is he going to attack her from across the lawn?

If you read the previous hypotheticals you will realise he was inside the house and trying to injure her and her children.

If you read the previous hypotheticals you will realise he was inside the house and trying to injure her and her children.

so why wouldn't a knife work?

so why wouldn't a knife work?

Because she is more likely to be injured using a knife than using a gun.

Because she is more likely to be injured using a knife than using a gun.

why? If they are struggling, how is a gun any better than a knife?

why? If they are struggling, how is a gun any better than a knife?

If she is using a gun it may never get to the point where there is a struggle, he may run, if he does continue to try and attack her she can hit him before he gets close enough, as I have said read the posts.

Anyway, your logic is flawed. If I learned anything from statistics, it's the tricks people use to make them say anything they want. You implied causality: more guns, less violence. Cars are often found in garages. So if I'm in the garage, does that make me a car? No. It's a bad analogy, but I'm sure you understand.

Heh. As Twain said, "There are lies, damned lies and statistics."

If she is using a gun it may never get to the point where there is a struggle, he may run, if he does continue to try and attack her she can hit him before he gets close enough, as I have said read the posts.

How can he attack her without getting close?

Why wouldn't he run from a knife?

How can he attack her without getting close?

Why wouldn't he run from a knife?

READ THE GODDAMMED POSTS, THEN ASK QUETIONS!!!!!!!!!!!

READ THE GODDAMMED POSTS, THEN ASK QUETIONS!!!!!!!!!!!

I have read them all.

How can he attack her without being close?

Why would he not run from a knife?

I have read them all.

How can he attack her without being close?

Why would he not run from a knife?

I said TRY to attack her, not actually attack her, as for why would he not run from a knife, probably because he has better teach and can easily disarm her while taking minimal injury.

I said TRY to attack her, not actually attack her, as for why would he not run from a knife, probably because he has better teach and can easily disarm her while taking minimal injury.

oh, I hadn't realised this only applied to ninja husbands who can disarm women with ease.

Ok, how is he trying to attack her from across the room? Has he crept into her house and waited for her? If so, does she have to have the gun on her all the time?

The women I train find that personal firearms are extremely effective in stopping their ex-husbands from stalking and beating them.

I wasn't making points about person to person defense. I was saying that anyone who thinks that personal firearms will protect us from the military is dreaming.

I freely agree that personal firearms make people safer when they are being stalked / assaulted.

And yet Iraq still gives the US military problems...hmmm. Maybe it's the sand. :rolleyes:

Or the incompetence of the US military and civilian leadership?

Remember, these are the people who said the reconstruction of Iraq and the war itself would be funded by Iraqi oil.

*snort*

Yeah, right.

oh, I hadn't realised this only applied to ninja husbands who can disarm women with ease.

Ok, how is he trying to attack her from across the room? Has he crept into her house and waited for her? If so, does she have to have the gun on her all the time?

A man has a much easier job disarming a woman than vice versa, especially a woman armed with a kitchen knife and not trained in its use as a weapon. If he has broken into her house and is coming across the room at her and has attacked her before, it's reasonable to believe that he's here to do it again, and theres no point in creeping in and waiting, most men willing to do this kind of thing don't have that much patience, they'd just trash the house and try again later.

How can he attack her without getting close?
Why wouldn't he run from a knife?
Quite simply - because knife fighting takes a good deal of skill to make it effective. If a non-profficient person threatens me with a knife (and I can tell the difference easily) I will break them. Permenantly and contemptuously. I might not even draw my gun.

Big-Strong-Man vs Woman with knife = dead woman.

Wait, let me get this straight: The government that takes away the First Amendment right of free speech is going to defend those that it took the right from and reinstate it?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Wow, what ARE you smoking? Can I have some?

You miss my point. I'm saying that if the government chooses to take your rights away, YOU CAN'T STOP IT! The average citizen's only recourse is the courts. If the courts have failed, for whatever reason (i.e. totalitarianism), then the average citizen is screwed, gun or no gun. You can't fight city hall, and you sure as hell can't fight the White House.

Umm, yeah, you're assuming that a good deal of the army wouldn't desert, what with most of them supporting the general populace and all, against those trying to enact gun control. Plus I could personally make a gun capable of turning an abrams into a tin can on tracks.

1. History is full of citizen-armies being used against their own populations.

2. What kind of gun, that is man-portable, can turn an Abrams into a tin can?

1. History is full of citizen-armies being used against their own populations.

2. What kind of gun, that is man-portable, can turn an Abrams into a tin can?

My railgun, it takes power like a bitch, but it'll penetrate a steel safe longways, as long as you're careful railguns are not sci-fi.

Sheep can become goats pretty damn fast if they have too, and goats have horns to hit back with. Plus the fact that the army would almost certainly do one of two things, ignore orders to attack us citizens, or rebel against the dictator.

This is laughable in the extreme. Sheep do not become goats. Sheep follow the leader. That is what all militaries throughout history have been predicated on, correct?

Gun is mightier than the pen, and passive resistance is fighting without fighting back, so you just get shot or beat up for nothing.

Not nothing. Gandhi freed India without firing a shot.

My BRITISH christian, left wing view:

Britain should be run by the Lib Dems, but with NO gun control - except obviously the "don't shoot people for no reason".

Not nothing. Gandhi freed India without firing a shot.

and then he got shot. Also if the government had let ghandi die or killed him there would have been a public outcry to make the LA race riots look pleasant by comparison.

If he can afford it.

Ahhhh....I see. So only RICH people should be able to defend themselves from the military. It all begins to come clear now.

Maybe because hes not trying to take our guns?

Yep, just all our other freedoms.

Ahhhh....I see. So only RICH people should be able to defend themselves from the military. It all begins to come clear now.

Well we're obviously not gonna give out multi-million dollar pieces of equipment for free, so if he can afford to buy it, then yeah he can have a tank or a carrier or whatever the hell else he wants, so long as he uses it responsibly.

If they try to violate our constitutional rights through outright disarmament. And bush isn't "my kind of extremist", I personally hate the bastard as a matter of principle since he's from texas, that and I think he's gonna end up getting us all killed, but he's never violated any of our rights in a manner that is overt enough to cause rebellion, so we wait.

So, you don't hate him because he's a neofascist moron who's hurt this country more than Slick Willy's pants antics ever could. You hate him because he's from Texas? Wow, that's a well-reasoned stance.

Yes, I would, as would most of the army, since the ammendment itself would be illegal.

Ummm....by definition, if it's an amendment, it is, well, shucks, it's legal.

My railgun, it takes power like a bitch, but it'll penetrate a steel safe longways, as long as you're careful railguns are not sci-fi.

You build a man-portable railgun that will do that? I find that hard to believe.

Ummm....by definition, if it's an amendment, it is, well, shucks, it's legal.

No, any ammendment alongthose line would be unconstitutional, because, if I remember right, the bill of rights is unchangeable, that is to say that there can be no ammendments that violate the bill of rights, not that there can't be more ammendments.

and then he got shot. Also if the government had let ghandi die or killed him there would have been a public outcry to make the LA race riots look pleasant by comparison.

He was shot by his own people, not those he was rebelling against. Have you ever read a history book? Or do your school books come with little warning stickers on 'em?

Well we're obviously not gonna give out multi-million dollar pieces of equipment for free, so if he can afford to buy it, then yeah he can have a tank or a carrier or whatever the hell else he wants, so long as he uses it responsibly.

And what would be considered responsible use of a tank? Target practice after church on Sunday?

You build a man-portable railgun that will do that? I find that hard to believe.

A railgun is just a line of ring magnets that propel a shard of ferrous metal at very high speeds.

So, rather than achieving an overthrow of the government, the goal of an armed civilian uprising is to make it "prohibitively expensive and bloody" for the army to control the country? i.e. turn the USA into a third world hell?

Doesn't sound like a good idea to me. If the US government decides to take away the rights of US citizens, and the armed forces support the government, then the US is screwed.

Unfortunately you have overlooked one of the key factors in this: the oath US servicemembers take upon entering the military.

We swear to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. This is an important distinction. A government that tries to "overthrow" the constitutional system of democracy in favor of a tyranny will find itself a domestic enemy of the constitution and will have one hell of a time trying to achieve its goals. Even if parts of the military go along with it in violation of our oaths, I can guaruntee you that the majority of US servicemembers hold their oath and their duty to uphold it quite dearly and in the event of such a horrific violation of American democracy would defend the constitution and the citizens of our country with quite the impassioned patriotism.

I guess I'll put in my two cents worth, too...

Americans are a inherently violent and destructive population.

So, we own guns to protect ourselves from other violent people, who might want to hurt us, or rob us. Whats the harm in owning a rifle, pistol, revolver, shotgun, etc.?? Most people who own one will never use it to commit a crime. Many guns used in crimes are illegal anyway. Plus, felons cannot own guns. Neither can wife beaters. But they still have them, because they do not care what the law says. They will have guns no matter what. So why not let the general population own guns, for hunting, target shooting, or self-defense? If someone broke into your house would you shoot him/her? Or would you let them rob you and rape your wife? I know I would not hesitate to defend myself, family, and property, even if it meant I had to shoot, and possibly kill someone.

I live in alaska, so it only 9:23am here, I just got done eating breakfast, and started writing, so i'm a little behind you guys.

He was shot by his own people, not those he was rebelling against. Have you ever read a history book? Or do your school books come with little warning stickers on 'em?

He was still shot, and if the british had let him die it would still have made LA look peaceful by comparison.

No, any ammendment alongthose line would be unconstitutional, because, if I remember right, the bill of rights is unchangeable, that is to say that there can be no ammendments that violate the bill of rights, not that there can't be more ammendments.

Wrong. Any amendment that is passed becomes the basis of law in this country. It is entirely possible to change any of the bill of rights amendments, because they are, themselves, amendments. They can be repealed, just as Prohibition was. The only guarantor of the Bill of Rights continued existance is the hue and cry that would rise up if someone tried to change them, and rightly so.

Please brush up on your history before making such statements.

A railgun is just a line of ring magnets that propel a shard of ferrous metal at very high speeds.

I'm a scientist, you goob. I know what a railgun is and how it works, probably better than you do. That's why I find it hard to believe that you could build a man-portable one that could do what you claim yours does.

Could one be built that does that? Sure. No problem.

Could a single human being then carry it and its power source around unassisted? Preposterous.

Oh, and railguns aren't ring magnets. They are, literally, rails that create a magnetic field along the entire length of the weapon. See this for a simple explanation of the Lorentz Force:

http://www.physics.northwestern.edu/classes/2001Fall/Phyx135-2/19/railgun.htm

The sheer fact that you said they were ring magnets makes me think you don't know what the fisk you're talking about.

I'm a scientist, you goob. I know what a railgun is and how it works, probably better than you do. That's why I find it hard to believe that you could build a man-portable one that could do what you claim yours does.

Could one be built that does that? Sure. No problem.

Could a single human being then carry it and its power source around unassisted? Preposterous.

Never said I could carry the powr source.

I'm a scientist, you goob. I know what a railgun is and how it works, probably better than you do. That's why I find it hard to believe that you could build a man-portable one that could do what you claim yours does.

Could one be built that does that? Sure. No problem.

Could a single human being then carry it and its power source around unassisted? Preposterous.

Oh, and railguns aren't ring magnets. They are, literally, rails that create a magnetic field along the entire length of the weapon. See this for a simple explanation of the Lorentz Force:

http://www.physics.northwestern.edu/classes/2001Fall/Phyx135-2/19/railgun.htm

The sheer fact that you said they were ring magnets makes me think you don't know what the fisk you're talking about.

No, I'm pretty sure my mass driver works rather well.

Wrong. Any amendment that is passed becomes the basis of law in this country. It is entirely possible to change any of the bill of rights amendments, because they are, themselves, amendments. They can be repealed, just as Prohibition was. The only guarantor of the Bill of Rights continued existance is the hue and cry that would rise up if someone tried to change them, and rightly so.

Please brush up on your history before making such statements.

I said I wasn't sure about it.

No, I'm pretty sure my mass driver works rather well.

Bushwah!

If you're getting over 3% efficiency at the muzzle, I'll eat my shorts.

So, you don't hate him because he's a neofascist moron who's hurt this country more than Slick Willy's pants antics ever could. You hate him because he's from Texas? Wow, that's a well-reasoned stance.

he hasn't hurt this country.. he's lowered our taxes (giving us more financial freedom...), managed to make two more friends for us in the Middle East (good place to have friends) by freeing (with the help of others of course, namely the Brits) Iraq and Afghanistan, helped us get over 9/11 (DOW is back over 10,000 after the fall of Summer '00 (stocks were overvalued under Clinton), is trying to get a Social Security reform through Congress that would give people more control over their own money (which we should have...), and has spent his pants off.

caveat: any sane individual understands that the president of a free-enterprise country DOES NOT CONTROL THE ECONOMY, AND SHOULD NOT BE BLAMED OR PRAISED FOR ITS FALL OR SUCCESS. Business, consumers and investors control the economy.

i don't like all the spending, but he's not totally to blame for the increased military spending. when he got into office, Clinton had ended his 8 years of downsizing the military. we had to build it back up to handle Afghanistan and Iraq.

Bushwah!

If you're getting over 3% efficiency at the muzzle, I'll eat my shorts.


Heres the schematic it's based on, mine is a supersized version.

http://www.electronics-lab.com/projects/science/005/index.html A really supersized version, but still man portable.

he hasn't hurt this country.. he's lowered our taxes (giving us more financial freedom...), managed to make two more friends for us in the Middle East (good place to have friends) by freeing (with the help of others of course, namely the Brits) Iraq and Afghanistan, helped us get over 9/11 (DOW is back over 10,000 after the fall of Summer '00 (stocks were overvalued under Clinton), is trying to get a Social Security reform through Congress that would give people more control over their own money (which we should have...), and has spent his pants off.

i don't like all the spending, but he's not totally to blame for the increased military spending. when he got into office, Clinton had ended his 8 years of downsizing the military. we had to build it back up to handle Afghanistan and Iraq.

Okay, off topic, but:

He made two friends in the Middle East and has cheesed off pretty much the rest of the world to do it.

He did nothing to "get us over" 9/11 economically. The economic crash had very little to do with 9/11. Yes, the stocks WERE overvalued while Clinton was in office. He, and for that matter Bush, have very little control over this. You can't blame success or failure of the market on the President. It's just not that controllable.

The "Social Security Reform" he's trying to push through isn't a reform at all. He himself has said that his "personal accounts" plan won't fix Social Security. The only way to do that is to cut benefits. The whole "personal accounts" thing is just a smokescreen. Smoke and mirrors. "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" kind of thing, so that we poor schumcks don't NOTICE that he's cutting benefits. If you really think we should have more control of our money, then how about this: end Social Security for Generations X and Y. Let's pay our own damn way through our golden years.

We have not significantly increased the size of our military in the last four years. We fought two wars with the "Clinton military" and by the admission of the Bush White House, won them both quickly and efficiently. So, don't go Clinton-bashing over the military. A small, well-trained, well-equipped military will beat the Red Army any day. Massive numbers of troops only count in certain situations. Set-piece battles come to mind.

And yes, he's spending his tail off....on Halliburton, abstinance-only sex-ed and so-called "faith-based initiatives".

Since this thread is, loosely, about Constitutional rights, how about that one for a huge fisking violation, eh?

Okay, off topic, but:

He made two friends in the Middle East and has cheesed off pretty much the rest of the world to do it.

He did nothing to "get us over" 9/11 economically. The economic crash had very little to do with 9/11. Yes, the stocks WERE overvalued while Clinton was in office. He, and for that matter Bush, have very little control over this. You can't blame success or failure of the market on the President. It's just not that controllable.

The "Social Security Reform" he's trying to push through isn't a reform at all. He himself has said that his "personal accounts" plan won't fix Social Security. The only way to do that is to cut benefits. The whole "personal accounts" thing is just a smokescreen. Smoke and mirrors. "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" kind of thing, so that we poor schumcks don't NOTICE that he's cutting benefits. If you really think we should have more control of our money, then how about this: end Social Security for Generations X and Y. Let's pay our own damn way through our golden years.

We have not significantly increased the size of our military in the last four years. We fought two wars with the "Clinton military" and by the admission of the Bush White House, won them both quickly and efficiently. So, don't go Clinton-bashing over the military. A small, well-trained, well-equipped military will beat the Red Army any day. Massive numbers of troops only count in certain situations. Set-piece battles come to mind.

And yes, he's spending his tail off....on Halliburton, abstinance-only sex-ed and so-called "faith-based initiatives".

Since this thread is, loosely, about Constitutional rights, how about that one for a huge fisking violation, eh?

To quote the Colonel Khusov, "Quantity has a quality all its own." The Red Army has more force to use than we could ever possibly field, yeah we'd win, but only cause of superior airpower and our better armored units. On my own personal side note, do you read John Ringo?

Heres the schematic it's based on, mine is a supersized version.

http://www.electronics-lab.com/projects/science/005/index.html A really supersized version, but still man portable.
Ok I'm still just an engineering student but I am going to call bullshit on this right now. The mere fact that you expect us to believe that a private citizen can create a firearm that is more advanced than anything all the military contractors currently working for the DoD could produce this decade is laughable. Something makes me think Lockheed Martin would kidnap you in the middle of the night if that were true.

Heres the schematic it's based on, mine is a supersized version.

http://www.electronics-lab.com/projects/science/005/index.html A really supersized version, but still man portable.

I find it hard to believe you could "supersize" this enough to put a slug through a steel safe. A tin soda can, maybe.

Ok I'm still just an engineering student but I am going to call bullshit on this right now. The mere fact that you expect us to believe that a private citizen can create a firearm that is more advanced than anything all the military contractors currently working for the DoD could produce this decade is laughable. Something makes me think Lockheed Martin would kidnap you in the middle of the night if that were true.

DoD has the procurement beuracracy to work through, I've got alot of free time on my hands, advantage Miehm over Beuraeucrats, onne guy who gets the job done with no limitations is better than 500000 that take twenty years and come in half done and over budget.

To quote the Colonel Khusov, "Quantity has a quality all its own." The Red Army has more force to use than we could ever possibly field, yeah we'd win, but only cause of superior airpower and our better armored units. On my own personal side note, do you read John Ringo?

Hehe...how'd you guess?

Oh, and take Rachel's advice about that quote...

I find it hard to believe you could "supersize" this enough to put a slug through a steel safe. A tin soda can, maybe.

It's a bit unwieldy yes, but I can still carry it, and with enough power(to be read as it runs off of a generator, or two, or three... ;) ) it will put a small slug through a safe, a 3mm slug to be precise.

DoD has the procurement beuracracy to work through, I've got alot of free time on my hands, advantage Miehm over Beuraeucrats, onne guy who gets the job done with no limitations is better than 500000 that take twenty years and come in half done and over budget.

Yeah, but, you're stretching credulity here. High-energy physics labs can't build one like this that's man-portable. One that takes up a building, sure, but not a man-portable one.

It's a bit unwieldy yes, but I can still carry it, and with enough power(to be read as it runs off of a generator, or two, or three... ;) ) it will put a small slug through a safe, a 3mm slug to be precise.

No way. You'd crush your rails before you put a 3mm slug through a steel safe.

Hehe...how'd you guess?

Oh, and take Rachel's advice about that quote...

Yeah, I know, it only applied under limited circumstances. Just don't let brother Connor hear you say that, he'll sic Roc on you.

Yeah, I know, it only applied under limited circumstances. Just don't let brother Connor hear you say that, he'll sic Roc on you.

Pfft. Roc doesn't scare me. I'm married to the real-life Bast, buddy-boy.

Yeah, but, you're stretching credulity here. High-energy physics labs can't build one like this that's man-portable. One that takes up a building, sure, but not a man-portable one.

limited budget and too much paperwork, they have meetings about feasibility or cost analysis(like a business) every five hours or so, and the meetings last about five hours... ;)

No way. You'd crush your rails before you put a 3mm slug through a steel safe.

Tougher rails, I had that problem once, and I dealt with it, now it handles the 3mm with little trouble, except when it wobbles a little, then I usually end up replacing something.

Tougher rails, I had that problem once, and I dealt with it, now it handles the 3mm with little trouble, except when it wobbles a little, then I usually end up replacing something.

What are you using for rails?

Mommy, not Bast, although she'll never get through my powered armor, now will she? Remember what she said about Charles, use a strong crossbow at more than 100 yards, only way to be sure to survive the effort.

DoD has the procurement beuracracy to work through, I've got alot of free time on my hands, advantage Miehm over Beuraeucrats, onne guy who gets the job done with no limitations is better than 500000 that take twenty years and come in half done and over budget.
Yeah totally its not like defense contractors have ever been able to make high tech and highly effective weapons before. :rolleyes:

BTW you do have limitations. Serious limitations. Specifically in the area of budget and industry resources. $200 bucks and a couple of copper tubes do not a high powered mag rail make.

What are you using for rails?

I was using copper, but I eventually upgraded to nickel-iron and finally a NiFe rail with a titanium (and wasn't that expensive) core to prevent warping. The Nickel-iron did well enough, but occasionally warped from the stress, the titanium bends more than the brittler nickel-iron and it's stronger to boot, so it prevents excessive warping and springs back into shape more readily than the nickel-iron did, which also causes the nickel-iron to regain its shape.

I was using copper, but I eventually upgraded to nickel-iron and finally a NiFe rail with a titanium (and wasn't that expensive) core to prevent warping. The Nickel-iron did well enough, but occasionally warped from the stress, the titanium bends more than the brittler nickel-iron and it's stronger to boot, so it prevents excessive warping and springs back into shape more readily than the nickel-iron did, which also causes the nickel-iron to regain its shape.

I would imagine the titanium would totally fisk your magnetic field, though. Wouldn't it drain most of your power?

Yeah totally its not like defense contractors have ever been able to make high tech and highly effective weapons before. :rolleyes:

BTW you do have limitations. Serious limitations. Specifically in the area of budget and industry resources. $200 bucks and a couple of copper tubes do not a high powered mag rail make.

Here here.

Yeah totally its not like defense contractors have ever been able to make high tech and highly effective weapons before. :rolleyes:

BTW you do have limitations. Serious limitations. Specifically in the area of budget and industry resources. $200 bucks and a couple of copper tubes do not a high powered mag rail make.

Oh yeah I've got plenty of limitations, but the DoD has more, thy say what to build, instead of just letting them get the job done, they say "it has to be so big, fire so fast, and use so much power per shot." whereas I just said "I wonder if this'll work like this..." and I went and did it, instead of trying to fulfill someone elses expectations. As for contractors, yeah they do a good job, eventually, remember that beuracracy, it screws them over too.

Mommy, not Bast, although she'll never get through my powered armor, now will she? Remember what she said about Charles, use a strong crossbow at more than 100 yards, only way to be sure to survive the effort.

My wife's one scary mamma-jamma. I know I don't piss her off. What's bad is she looks all girly, sweet and innocent. Then you piss her off (hard to do, btw) and WHAM! up side the head. Makes you wonder why I collect swords, axes and staves, doesn't it?

Oh yeah I've got plenty of limitations, but the DoD has more, thy say what to build, instead of just letting them get the job done, they say "it has to be so big, fire so fast, and use so much power per shot." whereas I just said "I wonder if this'll work like this..." and I went and did it, instead of trying to fulfill someone elses expectations. As for contractors, yeah they do a good job, eventually, remember that beuracracy, it screws them over too.

So why not sell the thing to the military, then? Make mad money?

I would imagine the titanium would totally fisk your magnetic field, though. Wouldn't it drain most of your power?

It did at that, I countered that by using more power to fire, somewhere around 220 before the components started overheating, I need to get parts that'll survive higher heat, so for now I no longer have a rail gun, the safe shot happened before the titanium core. It didn't shoot very well on 220 either, abou two feet, maybe I shoulda just stuck with the nickel-iron and made it easily replacable.

My wife's one scary mamma-jamma. I know I don't piss her off. What's bad is she looks all girly, sweet and innocent. Then you piss her off (hard to do, btw) and WHAM! up side the head. Makes you wonder why I collect swords, axes and staves, doesn't it?

Yeah, that does kinda make me question your sanity.

So why not sell the thing to the military, then? Make mad money?

The whole breaking problem is the main reason, another is the aforementioned beuracracy, who probably wouldn't accept it.

Oh yeah I've got plenty of limitations, but the DoD has more, thy say what to build, instead of just letting them get the job done, they say "it has to be so big, fire so fast, and use so much power per shot." whereas I just said "I wonder if this'll work like this..." and I went and did it, instead of trying to fulfill someone elses expectations. As for contractors, yeah they do a good job, eventually, remember that beuracracy, it screws them over too.
Well in that case, since you are obviously so superior to all the world's major arms manufacturers, why don't you just create a space based missile defense system. All their bureaucracy is totally screwing that up, but I'm sure with you're skill you'll go "Hey I wonder if this will work" and poof create a weapon system decades more advanced than even the most cutting edge research labs can manage.

SWAT teams are a liitle better trained than beat cops.

At any rate, no one ever said this woman was a gun enthusiast. She bought a gun to keep her husband away.

And most have the presence of mind to realize they need to be proficient.

Well in that case, since you are obviously so superior to all the world's major arms manufacturers, why don't you just create a space based missile defense system. All their bureaucracy is totally screwing that up, but I'm sure with you're skill you'll go "Hey I wonder if this will work" and poof create a weapon system decades more advanced than even the most cutting edge research labs can manage.

I don't feel like it, that and I don't think it'll ever work very well.

Ok, what if a majority elected a party that amended the constitution to ban guns?

Would you rise in rebellion?

Probably. Probably won't ever see that happen, either. But hey, it is one possibility.

The whole breaking problem is the main reason, another is the aforementioned beuracracy, who probably wouldn't accept it.
That, and the fact that if such a weapon did exist I think it would be highly illegal for you to possess or build.

If I compare Fairfax County, Virginia to Montgomery County, Maryland
the ethnic distribution is the same
the population per unit area is the same
the income level is the same
many other factors are the same
the only real difference is the gun laws.
In Montgomery County, you can't carry a gun and owning one is difficult.
In Fairfax County, you can own a gun, carry it, etc.

The violent crime (and murder) is 60 percent lower in Fairfax County.

Punishment for crimes is the same. Clearance rates on crimes is the same.

In this case, I'm comparing one red apple to another red apple. The difference is, one has a worm in it and the other one doesn't.

Just out of interest does that work with every county with these difference?

That, and the fact that if such a weapon did exist I think it would be highly illegal for you to possess or build.

Not here, I checked the legal code before I started, it doesn't qualify as a gun and as such there are no limitations on its possession or use.

So we've reached a point of;

ex-husband harrassing wife = death penalty???

If you're stupid enough to harrass someone, when you have no right to do so, who also happens to have a firearm, you deserve to get shot. Kinda like not cutting yourself in waters with sharks in them. Just asking to get hurt or worse.

If someone doesn't want you around, why force the issue? What sane reason is there? There is a reason the split occured in the first place. They have to let it go, instead of trying to bully the person (either to "get them to love them again" or to get revenge).

Or the incompetence of the US military and civilian leadership?

Remember, these are the people who said the reconstruction of Iraq and the war itself would be funded by Iraqi oil.

*snort*

Yeah, right.

Well, if they're so incompetent, we won't have that much difficulty taking them down. :)

Which is it? Are they superior or incompetent? Please make up your mind.

80 million gun owners here is a much larger force to be faced than what the US military is facing in Iraq.

If you're stupid enough to harrass someone, when you have no right to do so, who also happens to have a firearm, you deserve to get shot. Kinda like not cutting yourself in waters with sharks in them. Just asking to get hurt or worse.

If someone doesn't want you around, why force the issue? What sane reason is there? There is a reason the split occured in the first place. They have to let it go, instead of trying to bully the person (either to "get them to love them again" or to get revenge).
Current US law would disagree with you. Its quite acceptable to kill in self defense, or defense or someone else. Killing because someone is harassing you? Yeah, prepare to face a long time in jail.

You miss my point. I'm saying that if the government chooses to take your rights away, YOU CAN'T STOP IT! The average citizen's only recourse is the courts. If the courts have failed, for whatever reason (i.e. totalitarianism), then the average citizen is screwed, gun or no gun. You can't fight city hall, and you sure as hell can't fight the White House.

Rights are immutable. They can't change rights. That's even enumerated in the Constitution. They can, however, change the law that is the constitution.

If they "take" rights away, there will be a great many illegals in the country. If they "take" the rights away, the courts will have to uphold the new laws--there is no recourse for the common citizen.

That's when the rebellion begins.

Yep, just all our other freedoms.

You can thank several of your democratic representatives as well.

The Patriot Act was voted against by ONE Senator--and he came from Wisconsin (Feingold).

Bush is not the ONLY one out to get your rights. He's being helped by the "opposition".

Care to explain why Britain which has never had a right to bare arms is far safer.


I believe at one time, all able bodied male English were REQUIRED to own and
well proficient at a bow, spear or staff.

********************
I think arms controle came after the King found it difficult to raise taxes
on a well armed population.

But that's IMHO.

Current US law would disagree with you. Its quite acceptable to kill in self defense, or defense or someone else. Killing because someone is harassing you? Yeah, prepare to face a long time in jail.

Why do people try to not piss off those who drive big rigs by cutting them off in a car? Because they can be run over. Same concept--you don't go looking to start a fight with someone who has a firearm.

Laws may or may not be adhered to. That is reality. If it weren't, we wouldn't have crime. Harrassment can escalate.

That does not explain why British gun laws seem to protect us better. In the UK we dont need armed civilians to stop crime. We have a police service


Because said laws don't protect you.
Your Goverment LIES, they always have.

*** See a BBC comedy called Sir Minister and Yes Prime Minister ***

The British Goverment has lied about its statistics since it's been
publishing it's statisics.

The BBC was built on the concept of propaganda, and nothing else.

Now, after all that awful nasty truth, here's the kicker.
You are safer from gun violence in the UK, because the
the propaganda has seeped in so deep for so long that
even the criminals think it's true.

You see, the laws don't protect you, however, the propagada does.

1. That says quite a bit about you actually.
Doing an honest comparison between the UK and Swiss says a lot about me?

2. Where did it give EVERYONE the right to carry?
Everyone in Florida has the right to carry, other than criminals of course. I wasn't suggesting the entire US. It appears that even though Florida has the right to carry, it still remains the State with the most Violent Crime Rate.

3.http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/41593.htm
How does that web site prove that New York's crime rate is increasing?

4. Cop out.
If anyone is copping out, it would be you. You are not facing facts that jump right off the page. The State of New York's Violent Crime Rate has fallen faster and lower than Florida's over the past 15 years (based on 1985 to 2000 statistics), even though Florida has the right to carry a concealed weapon.

5. Florida & New York. Do they only sell broken records in Canada? NEW YORK HAS HAD RESTRICIVE GUN LAWS FOR YEARS. Crime still went up. Read your own post to show why crime went down there significantly.
New York's Violent Crime Rate was 325 in 1960, and Florida's was 223 that same year. In 1985, Florida's Violent Crime Rate (941) passed New York's rate (929). From 1990 to 2000, New York's Violent Crime Rate went from 1180 down to 553. In the same period, Florida's Violent Crime Rate went from 1244 down to 812. It is apparent that New York has fared better with gun control than Florida has with the right to carry laws.

Howabout Vermont and DC?
Hard to compare apples and oranges?

6. My point is that "gun control" is not the answer. What is your point? Besides throwing out and changing any numbers that you feel might look good even though they have often times been completely wrong or different from other numbers you've touted?
My point is that gun control works. It does in Canada, in the UK, and in New York State.

My numbers are not wrong, and I challenge you to list the posts where they are wrong. The numbers come from official web sites.

Because said laws don't protect you.
Your Goverment LIES, they always have.

*** See a BBC comedy called Sir Minister and Yes Prime Minister ***

The British Goverment has lied about its statistics since it's been
publishing it's statisics.

The BBC was built on the concept of propaganda, and nothing else.

Now, after all that awful nasty truth, here's the kicker.
You are safer from gun violence in the UK, because the
the propaganda has seeped in so deep for so long that
even the criminals think it's true.

You see, the laws don't protect you, however, the propagada does.


Erm what about the Independent news channels?

Sorry but I'm struggling how does propaganda stop criminals (generally people whom have never listeined to anyone) from shooting other people.

Simple fact is that gun crime is rising in Britain and that is directly proportional to the number of illegal guns out there... more guns = more gun crime =more deaths.

Sorry but beat someone to death requires a certain amount of commitment, to pull the trigger in a fit of rage takes little.

Now maybe you think therefor that all law abiding citizens (i still have not got an answer to what happens when a law abiding citizen uses a legally bought gun to kill people) should have guns, sorry but we have too many Dunblames and Hungerford killing sprees to allow that.

Erm what about the Independent news channels?

Sorry but I'm struggling how does propaganda stop criminals (generally people whom have never listeined to anyone) from shooting other people.

Simple fact is that gun crime is rising in Britain and that is directly proportional to the number of illegal guns out there... more guns = more gun crime =more deaths.

Sorry but beat someone to death requires a certain amount of commitment, to pull the trigger in a fit of rage takes little.

Now maybe you think therefor that all law abiding citizens (i still have not got an answer to what happens when a law abiding citizen uses a legally bought gun to kill people) should have guns, sorry but we have too many Dunblames and Hungerford killing sprees to allow that.

Killing somebody with a club is pretty easy, apply metal club to back of head with approximately 25 pounds of force, and what do you get? Why a very sudden and permanent case of dead, thats what.

Killing somebody with a club is pretty easy, apply metal club to back of head with approximately 25 pounds of force, and what do you get? Why a very sudden and permanent case of dead, thats what.
A person is less likely to club a person to death, whereas use of a firearm enables the attacker to keep a distance from his victim.

I haven't heard of any mass "clubbings" in the UK, but there have been numerous mass murders in the US using firearms.

Unfortunately you have overlooked one of the key factors in this: the oath US servicemembers take upon entering the military.

We swear to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. This is an important distinction. A government that tries to "overthrow" the constitutional system of democracy in favor of a tyranny will find itself a domestic enemy of the constitution and will have one hell of a time trying to achieve its goals. Even if parts of the military go along with it in violation of our oaths, I can guaruntee you that the majority of US servicemembers hold their oath and their duty to uphold it quite dearly and in the event of such a horrific violation of American democracy would defend the constitution and the citizens of our country with quite the impassioned patriotism.

I haven't 'overlooked' that factor, I was arguing a hypothetical situation, i.e. the situation in which an armed uprising might be necessary.

If the military does not support an oppressive government, then the populace does not need to be armed, because the military itself will overthrow the government.

Well, if they're so incompetent, we won't have that much difficulty taking them down. :)

Which is it? Are they superior or incompetent? Please make up your mind.

80 million gun owners here is a much larger force to be faced than what the US military is facing in Iraq.

Superior weaponry, which gives tactical and strategic advantages.

Incompetent general leadership, which gives, mostly strategic disadvantages.

Surely I didn't have to hold your hand and explain this to you?

Rights are immutable. They can't change rights. That's even enumerated in the Constitution. They can, however, change the law that is the constitution.

If they "take" rights away, there will be a great many illegals in the country. If they "take" the rights away, the courts will have to uphold the new laws--there is no recourse for the common citizen.

That's when the rebellion begins.

"Rights" are never immutable, you goob. "Rights" are just what the laws say you can have/do.

And yes, if you change the law, those "rights" go away.

As to the rebellion beginning, don't make me laugh. The US couldn't foster a successful rebellion against its own government any more than my foot could rebel against my brain. It might happen, but it won't last long and will be, ultimately, futile

You can thank several of your democratic representatives as well.

The Patriot Act was voted against by ONE Senator--and he came from Wisconsin (Feingold).

Bush is not the ONLY one out to get your rights. He's being helped by the "opposition".

Be realistic. Voting against the Patriot Act would have been political suicide. If all the Dems' voted against it, all that would have been accomplished would have been that they got spanked even worse than they were at subsequent elections, and the conservatives would be in even more control right now.

I haven't 'overlooked' that factor, I was arguing a hypothetical situation, i.e. the situation in which an armed uprising might be necessary.

If the military does not support an oppressive government, then the populace does not need to be armed, because the military itself will overthrow the government.

The problem here is that you're thinking in terms of years when it comes to a developing "oppressive government". Most "oppressive governments" don't form over years. They usually form either over decades or overnight.

In the first case, the military would slowly grow used to the oppressiveness, and would begin to attract those who are either trying to get out from under it, or just laying down on others.

In the second case, you put trusted cronies (a la Wolfowitz) in positions of power, and most of the military will fall in line. The military can be fed any number of lies to help maintain discipline. Look at some of the atrocities committed by our "Boys in Blue" over the years (a la Ruby Ridge). Do you really think the military, who's trained to kill, not contain, would have handled it better? I don't.

Care to explain why Britain which has never had a right to bare arms is far safer.
That's incorrect. The precident for the founders of the US for the right to bear arms was set in Britain, I think before the invention of the firearm itself.

Libs bitch and moan about how Bush is a fascist who wants to rule with an iron fist.

If he really wanted to do that (and this would be the sign...) he would try hard to repeal the Second Amendment.

It is very hard (probably impossible without nukes) to control a country with 50 million gun owners.Which is why he hasn't done it. He did promise to sign a renewal to of the '94 AWB if it crossed his desk. Thank God it didn't, because I'm sure he would've made good on his promise. Also, he's also said he'd close the "gun show loop hole." He's never made any statements or acted in support of gun rights since he's been in office. He's not a pro-gun politician; he's just not as anti-gun as some of the Democrats.

You can rely on getting a good laugh from paranoid US citizens who think that the UN is some big monster coming to take their guns and invade their country. Never min the fact that the US is the most powerful force in the UN, sitting on the security council with a veto and all.The American military members are the UN's "useful idiots".

The problem here is that you're thinking in terms of years when it comes to a developing "oppressive government". Most "oppressive governments" don't form over years. They usually form either over decades or overnight.

Er, no, I don't think I specified a timescale.

That's because, in general, most Democrats don't own guns (well, there are all those illegally owned guns in those blue urban areas). And most Republicans do.I really don't think that's as true as you think. A large part of Democratic voters are not the gun-hating, pinko, vegetarian hippies you might expect. These are people who generally don't understand economics, don't know or care much about foreign policy, and belong to unions. In particular there are many pro-gun Dems in the south.

then you've apparently been able to disarm your criminals. if we tried to do that here, i doubt we'd be able to. no criminal is just going to give up his gun.

and i'm sorry, but when you're under attack, you can't afford to wait 10 minutes for the cops to get there. and that's if you can get to a phone to call them.

i am glad that i have the right to own a gun and defend myself and my property from perps.10 minutes? The range I've had with response time is from under 2 minutes to as much as 40. And this is in central Phoenix about 3 miles from a major police station.

The 40 minute call was for a fight I witnessed outside a big party that ended with shots being fired. I didn't see who was shooting, but I obviously heard it. While I was on the phone there were 2 more shots from what sounded like a different gun. There were a lot of people at this party, but everyone was gone by the time police arrived. I doubt that anyone actually got shot, but I'll never know for sure.

BTW, this isn't where I live. This just off my employer's property.

Also th US has a strict law against the use of the standing military as police units or against US citizens, any leader ordering such a move would find that the majority of the military would refuse, citing that it is an illegal order and as such, the are lawfully required to refuse the order
http://infowars.com/print/ps/creep.htm, and there's a lot more where that came from. Alex Jones also has video of US troops apparently training to guard internment camps. I've seen it.

I was in the Army for 4 years, I wouldn't expect more than 1 in 20 servicemembers to both know the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act and care if they're violating it.

SWAT teams are a liitle better trained than beat cops.

At any rate, no one ever said this woman was a gun enthusiast. She bought a gun to keep her husband away.

All of the women I train to carry handguns shoot better, draw faster, and are more aggressive in drawing and shooting than the police in our area.

I hold them to a much, much higher standard of tactics and training.

That hardly requires a gun. She could use a knife, no one is talking about outlawing them. Besides her husband could have a gun too, and that puts us back at square one.

Most of these guys are chicken shits. Also, since they have had protective orders filed against them, the police have already taken away their guns, and there is no way they can legally purchase one.

These are men who won't fight anyone except an unarmed woman. Once they get wind that the woman is armed, trained, and has a protective order that essentially covers them in the event that they have to shoot their ex-husband, they stay well away.

1.Doing an honest comparison between the UK and Swiss says a lot about me?


2.Everyone in Florida has the right to carry, other than criminals of course. I wasn't suggesting the entire US. It appears that even though Florida has the right to carry, it still remains the State with the most Violent Crime Rate.


3. How does that web site prove that New York's crime rate is increasing?


4.If anyone is copping out, it would be you. You are not facing facts that jump right off the page. The State of New York's Violent Crime Rate has fallen faster and lower than Florida's over the past 15 years (based on 1985 to 2000 statistics), even though Florida has the right to carry a concealed weapon.


5.New York's Violent Crime Rate was 325 in 1960, and Florida's was 223 that same year. In 1985, Florida's Violent Crime Rate (941) passed New York's rate (929). From 1990 to 2000, New York's Violent Crime Rate went from 1180 down to 553. In the same period, Florida's Violent Crime Rate went from 1244 down to 812. It is apparent that New York has fared better with gun control than Florida has with the right to carry laws.


6.Hard to compare apples and oranges?


7.My point is that gun control works. It does in Canada, in the UK, and in New York State.

8.My numbers are not wrong, and I challenge you to list the posts where they are wrong. The numbers come from official web sites.

1. No, you're comparison says a lot about you. You always convienently ignore the fact that the UK's murder rate is still higher that Switzerland. Even by increasing Switzerlands numbers, the UK has more deaths by other means than Switzerland has total. Do you feel it's better to be killed w/o a firearm?

2. You said everyone. Now you're changing your tune.

3. Ignore it some more that crime on the subways and elsewhere is increasing as the vagrants return.

4.& 5. Once again you just keep ignoring the fact that NY has had GUN CONTROL FOR YEARS and that it still had an drastic increase in crime and that the decrease had NOTHING to do w/ changes in its gun control laws. And that Florida also has problems w/ drugs, illegal immigration, and gangs. One more time. New York's crime still went up w/ gun control already in place and reduced due to other reasons. Florida crime went up, and had better results after it enacted Carry laws instead of skyrocketing more.

6. Once again a cop out.

7. Your opinion.

8. While most of the time your numbers are accurate, you BS them in a way that makes them useless. If you can't see/admit your UK/Switzerland analogy for what it is, you're beyond help. You've also used quite a few websites in the past that touted different numbers for the same statistics. You always seem to forget about/ignore those and just go back to NY/FL. Do you remember that "safe city" website you used for awhile?

Superior weaponry, which gives tactical and strategic advantages.

Incompetent general leadership, which gives, mostly strategic disadvantages.

Surely I didn't have to hold your hand and explain this to you?

Hey, you're the one contradicting yourself. So, yeah, you did have to explain your disparate theories.

A bolt action rifle is superior to a short-range AK or AR. In my state, you have thousands of hunters. This translates to thousands of fairly competent snipers. No, a rifle round won't go through a tank. But we're not saying that one person would go toe-to-toe with a tank.

Iraq proves that someone with inferior weaponry can go against an army with superior arms (and tactics).

"Rights" are never immutable, you goob. "Rights" are just what the laws say you can have/do.


If you choose to believe that, I can see why you can be ruled over.


And yes, if you change the law, those "rights" go away.


No, they don't, they're just being legally repressed--kinda what Hitler did. Just because it's a law, doesn't make it right.


As to the rebellion beginning, don't make me laugh. The US couldn't foster a successful rebellion against its own government any more than my foot could rebel against my brain. It might happen, but it won't last long and will be, ultimately, futile

I think we did it some 230-odd years ago--successfully I might add. Laugh all you want.

Be realistic. Voting against the Patriot Act would have been political suicide. If all the Dems' voted against it, all that would have been accomplished would have been that they got spanked even worse than they were at subsequent elections, and the conservatives would be in even more control right now.

Funny, our Senator got re-elected...hmm. Kinda goes in the face of your theory.

A bolt action rifle is superior to a short-range AK or AR. In my state, you have thousands of hunters. This translates to thousands of fairly competent snipers. No, a rifle round won't go through a tank. But we're not saying that one person would go toe-to-toe with a tank.



Unfortunately, that's the same thing the VPC is saying as it redefines hunting rifles as "intermediate level Sniper Rifles"

Unfortunately, that's the same thing the VPC is saying as it redefines hunting rifles as "intermediate level Sniper Rifles"

Yeah. :( It's technically what they are, though. A gun designed for hitting a target VERY far away. But people are so scared of the word "sniper" that it's being used to undermine a great deal.

Look at the "DC Sniper" for instance. None of those shots were over 200 yards. I can practically do that in my sleep. So can most hunters I know--it's just the fools that are scared of a tool that create this hysteria.

Yeah. :( It's technically what they are, though. A gun designed for hitting a target VERY far away. But people are so scared of the word "sniper" that it's being used to undermine a great deal.

Look at the "DC Sniper" for instance. None of those shots were over 200 yards. I can practically do that in my sleep. So can most hunters I know--it's just the fools that are scared of a tool that create this hysteria.

Redefining things is the backbone of the Anti-Rights movement (I know you know but for the unenlightened). You'ld never be able to pass laws against "sporters" but rename them as "Assault Weapons", throw in some faked news reports and media hysterics, and bamm. The Clinton AWB. Anything to demonize them.


Inexpensive Handguns become "Saturday Night Specials"

Modern Composites become "Plastic Guns for Terrorists"

Specialty Ammo - "Cop Killer Bullers"

I still can't get one Hoplophobe to tell me why the FOPA of 1986 was needed if "gun control" is so wonderful.

Just out of interest does that work with every county with these difference?

There's a study by Kleck that says it's true across all the counties in the United States.

My point is that gun control works. It does in Canada, in the UK, and in New York State.

My numbers are not wrong, and I challenge you to list the posts where they are wrong. The numbers come from official web sites.


It obviously doesn't work in Washington, D.C.

It obviously doesn't work if you compare two IDENTICAL counties whose only difference demographically is the GUN LAWS.

I challenge you to show me that your gun laws work in Montgomery County, Maryland - and show that their crime (of any kind) is lower per unit population than Fairfax County, Virginia.

I also challenge you to refute the Kleck study, which you have failed to do every time I bring it up. It's a county by county analysis of gun laws in the United States - and how they aren't working.

It obviously doesn't work in Washington, D.C.

It obviously doesn't work if you compare two IDENTICAL counties whose only difference demographically is the GUN LAWS.

I challenge you to show me that your gun laws work in Montgomery County, Maryland - and show that their crime (of any kind) is lower per unit population than Fairfax County, Virginia.

I also challenge you to refute the Kleck study, which you have failed to do every time I bring it up. It's a county by county analysis of gun laws in the United States - and how they aren't working.

It also doesn't work in Chicago.

Here's what his reply will be... But NY and FL....... (and insert a few carefully cherry picked numbers from other places to add to his stew)

It obviously doesn't work in Washington, D.C.

It obviously doesn't work if you compare two IDENTICAL counties whose only difference demographically is the GUN LAWS.

I challenge you to show me that your gun laws work in Montgomery County, Maryland - and show that their crime (of any kind) is lower per unit population than Fairfax County, Virginia.
It probably has more to do with governance than RTC laws?

The only significant way Montgomery and Fairfax have differed over the past 20 years is that they have been governed by state legislatures and gubernatorial administrations with vastly different approaches to crime. While Maryland has largely adhered to older and more lenient criminal justice policies during the past two decades, Virginia has emerged as one of the toughest-on-crime states in the nation. For example, in 1994 Virginia was the first state to abolish parole for violent felons. Maryland has no such law. More recently, Virginia enacted a truth-in-sentencing law requiring all violent prisoners to serve a minimum of 85 percent of their sentences. Maryland law requires only that imnates serve 50 percent of their sentences. Indeed, looking back over the 20-year period 1978-98, for every 100 Maryland criminals in prison, 66 walked the streets as parolees; in Virginia, only 45 did.

As for capital crimes, Virginia has been far less reluctant to employ the death penalty, executing 11 murderers during the first nine months of 1999 alone. Maryland has executed only three murderers in the past 20 years. Following the rapid drop in crime in New York City after the institution of police reforms by Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, much attention was focused on better policing as the key to controlling crime. But the sharply different experiences of Montgomery and Fairfax counties offer compelling evidence that criminal justice reforms can also be effective in driving down crime rates. Conversely, lenient criminal justice policies can exact a substantial price, not just in inner cities but in some of the nation's most affluent suburbs.

I also challenge you to refute the Kleck study, which you have failed to do every time I bring it up. It's a county by county analysis of gun laws in the United States - and how they aren't working.
I believe the "county by county analysis of gun laws" is extremely flawed because it cannot encompass the larger picture. You keep throwing out Fairfax County as a shining example of RTC, yet there are counties within Virginia that are far more violent. What you can't seem to come to grips with, is that when Virginia (5.6) is compared to New York State (4.9), the murder rate is higher in Virginia.

Also, the rape rates in Virginia (24.0) is higher than in New York State (19.6).

It probably has more to do with governance than RTC laws?


I believe the "county by county analysis of gun laws" is extremely flawed because it cannot encompass the larger picture. You keep throwing out Fairfax County as a shining example of RTC, yet there are counties within Virginia that are far more violent. What you can't seem to come to grips with, is that when Virginia (5.6) is compared to New York State (4.9), the murder rate is higher in Virginia.

Also, the rape rates in Virginia (24.0) is higher than in New York State (19.6).

So you admit NY's crime drop had nothing to do w/ its gun laws?

Where did you cut & paste this from?

"I believe".....? That's nice. It's been peer reviewed, have your beliefs?

Why is NY's rape rate increasing while it's population is static? Let's jump on your dead horse... Why did FL's drop even though it's population increased by two million?

Do you believe it is better for 800 people to die w/o handguns?

What about DC & Vermont?

What about Chicago & the rest of Illinois?

So you admit NY's crime drop had nothing to do w/ its gun laws?
I didn't say that at all. Don't take my words out of context. I was referring to the difference between Fairfax and Montgomery Counties which are in different States and have different ways of dealing with crime.

Where did you cut & paste this from?
It is a cut and paste, but I don't remember where. It makes sense though, so that is why I used it.

"I believe".....? That's nice. It's been peer reviewed, have your beliefs?
Peer reviewed by whom?

Why is NY's rape rate increasing while it's population is static? Let's jump on your dead horse... Why did FL's drop even though it's population increased by two million?
Why did Virginia's rape rates increase? BTW, the population increase was 1 Million not two.

Why is Florida's rape rate twice as high as New York's, even though they have approximately the same population?

Why did the Texas murder rate increase from 5.9 in 2000 to 6.4 in 2003?

Why have murder rates in Loiusiana been increasing since 1999 from 10.7 to 13.0? Same with forcible rapes from 33.5 to 41.1?

Why have murder rates in Ohio increased from 3.7 in 1999 to 4.6 in 2003?

Do you believe it is better for 800 people to die w/o handguns?
I believe that it is better for ZERO people to be murdered and I believe that the murder rate would plummet if strict gun control was enforced in the US.

What about DC & Vermont?
Like I said, this is like comparing apples to oranges. The demographics are completely different. In Vermont, you have 9,250 square miles with a population of 610,000, versus a city with 61 square miles and a population of 570,000.

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that 32% of children under age 5 live in poverty in Washington?

What about Chicago & the rest of Illinois?
Chicago's murder rate dipped to its lowest rate in over 30 years.

BTW, your murder rate for the rest of Illinois is way out of whack. It is closer to 5 than the number under 1 that you posted.

It obviously doesn't work in Washington, D.C.

You have really been bashing Washington, but I found this (http://home.earthlink.net/~crankytaxpayer/Crime/crime_rate.htm) most interesting:

http://home.earthlink.net/~crankytaxpayer/Crime/crime_4.gif

The October 2, 2004 issue of The Economist and the FBI web site (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/02cius.htm) provide some interesting comparisons. Their data put the Richmond murder rate in the company of Washington, DC and the South American drug capitals.

That is Richmond Virginia? A city of only 195,000 people, yet 93 murders. Toronto, Canada with a population of almost 3 Million people, averages 55 murders per year.

And the vast majority of those murders in Richmond were committed with........yup, firearms.

You have really been bashing Washington, but I found this (http://home.earthlink.net/~crankytaxpayer/Crime/crime_rate.htm) most interesting:

http://home.earthlink.net/~crankytaxpayer/Crime/crime_4.gif

The October 2, 2004 issue of The Economist and the FBI web site (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/02cius.htm) provide some interesting comparisons. Their data put the Richmond murder rate in the company of Washington, DC and the South American drug capitals.

That is Richmond Virginia? A city of only 195,000 people, yet 93 murders. Toronto, Canada with a population of almost 3 Million people, averages 55 murders per year.

And the vast majority of those murders in Richmond were committed with........yup, firearms.


I guess you didn't notice the little blue bar at the bottom called "Virginia".
You also haven't refuted the Kleck study at all.

What's hilarious, Canuck, is that the majority of violent crime in the US (76 percent) involves no firearms at all.

You obviously believe that victims should be victims of such crimes, rather than use firearms to successfully STOP 2.5 million crimes per year.

You would rather that those crimes occur.

That would double the violent crime rate.

Nice going. BTW, the I've told some of the women I've trained about you. They put you in the same category as the men who beat them. You want to deprive them of their right to live.

I guess you didn't notice the little blue bar at the bottom called "Virginia".
You also haven't refuted the Kleck study at all.
That is the best response that you can supply in regards to this graph?

http://home.earthlink.net/~crankytaxpayer/Crime/crime_4.gif

From the graph, you will notice that not only is there a higher murder rate in Richmond, Virginia, but there is also a higher murder rate in Norfolk, Virginia, than the city of New York.

If the State of New York was on that graph, their "blue bar" would be less than the State of Virginia.

What this tells me, is that I would be more likely to get murdered in Richmond, Virginia (pop. 197,790) or Norfolk, Virginia (pop. 234,403), than I would be in New York City (pop. 8,008,278).

If you take the murder rate in Richmond. Virginia (46 per 100,000) and apply that to New York City, the number of murders would be an alarming 3680.

1.I didn't say that at all. Don't take my words out of context. I was referring to the difference between Fairfax and Montgomery Counties which are in different States and have different ways of dealing with crime.


2.It is a cut and paste, but I don't remember where. It makes sense though, so that is why I used it.


3.Peer reviewed by whom?


4.Why did Virginia's rape rates increase? BTW, the population increase was 1 Million not two.

Why is Florida's rape rate twice as high as New York's, even though they have approximately the same population?

Why did the Texas murder rate increase from 5.9 in 2000 to 6.4 in 2003?

Why have murder rates in Loiusiana been increasing since 1999 from 10.7 to 13.0? Same with forcible rapes from 33.5 to 41.1?

Why have murder rates in Ohio increased from 3.7 in 1999 to 4.6 in 2003?


5.I believe that it is better for ZERO people to be murdered and I believe that the murder rate would plummet if strict gun control was enforced in the US.


6.Like I said, this is like comparing apples to oranges. The demographics are completely different. In Vermont, you have 9,250 square miles with a population of 610,000, versus a city with 61 square miles and a population of 570,000.

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that 32% of children under age 5 live in poverty in Washington?


7.Chicago's murder rate dipped to its lowest rate in over 30 years.

BTW, your murder rate for the rest of Illinois is way out of whack. It is closer to 5 than the number under 1 that you posted.

1. "
It probably has more to do with governance than RTC laws?"


" Following the rapid drop in crime in New York City after the institution of police reforms by Mayor Rudolph Giuliani," From your post.

That says nothing about new gun control laws. So to paraphrase you "Gun control only works in certain places?"

2. Convienent.

3. The late Marvin E. Wolfgang, self-described as "as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country" who would "eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police," said, "The methodological soundness of the current Kleck and Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it....I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology." ("A Tribute to a View That I Have Opposed," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Fall 1995, pp. 188-192.)

4. You're avoiding the question. You've stated NY, now I want to know why it increased with gun controls in place. Why did Florida's drop? I never stated florida's was lower, I asked why it dropped. WHy did Fl have a higher drop in murders and violent crime while its population increased?

Ohio didn't have CC until 2004. Cherry pick the right places at least.

5. The 800 number is from your UK/Switzerland nonsense which you ignored responses to. Over 800 people in the UK died from non-firearms related. More that Switzerland total if you adjusted the pupulations. Your numbers. Why has the murder rate then gone up in the UK instead of down?

6. So you deny the correlation between Fairfax etc w/ almost identical figures then refuse to compare DC & VT because they're not similar?

7. And is still over 22. Illinois w/ Chicago. Recall I said take out gun banning chicago. 2002 Chicago murder rate 648. Pop. 2.9 Million. Illinois murder total: 620 Population: 12.6 Million

Non Chicago murders : 28, Non chicago population 9.7 million

Illinois murder rate w/o Chicago: .288/100k (lower than I thought)

Why is this?

Hey, that's even lower than the UK, Canada, Australia, or NY.

That is the best response that you can supply in regards to this graph?

http://home.earthlink.net/~crankytaxpayer/Crime/crime_4.gif

From the graph, you will notice that not only is there a higher murder rate in Richmond, Virginia, but there is also a higher murder rate in Norfolk, Virginia, than the city of New York.

If the State of New York was on that graph, their "blue bar" would be less than the State of Virginia.

What this tells me, is that I would be more likely to get murdered in Richmond, Virginia (pop. 197,790) or Norfolk, Virginia (pop. 234,403), than I would be in New York City (pop. 8,008,278).

If you take the murder rate in Richmond. Virginia (46 per 100,000) and apply that to New York City, the number of murders would be an alarming 3680.

What you haven't shown is the drop in Virginia violent crime since 1995.

By your estimates, since there were more legal guns on the street in Virginia, the crime should have consistently gone up.

In fact, for the whole US, gun ownership went up from 200 million to 300 million guns - from 60 to 80 million gun owners. At the same time, our violent crime (and murder) have dropped to the lowest levels since the early 1960s.

By your estimate, the crime and murder should have shot through the roof.

Why hasn't it? Aren't guns evil?

Or is the following working for us now?
1. Death Penalty
2. Concealed Carry
3. More Guns

The whole US is evidence of MORE GUNS and LESS CRIME - over time. By your own statements, if we increase from 200 million to 300 million guns, we should have gotten a horrendous increase in murder and violent crime. But it didn't happen!

That is the best response that you can supply in regards to this graph?

http://home.earthlink.net/~crankytaxpayer/Crime/crime_4.gif

From the graph, you will notice that not only is there a higher murder rate in Richmond, Virginia, but there is also a higher murder rate in Norfolk, Virginia, than the city of New York.

If the State of New York was on that graph, their "blue bar" would be less than the State of Virginia.

What this tells me, is that I would be more likely to get murdered in Richmond, Virginia (pop. 197,790) or Norfolk, Virginia (pop. 234,403), than I would be in New York City (pop. 8,008,278).

If you take the murder rate in Richmond. Virginia (46 per 100,000) and apply that to New York City, the number of murders would be an alarming 3680.




Oh but wait, they're not demographically similar,(200K to 8.1 million.) we can't compare those. That's apples and oranges.

oris it only OK for you to do that?

Since you like Cherry picking: Howabout Rochester, NY: Murder rate of 42, Rape of 107. Not so good for NY.

What you haven't shown is the drop in Virginia violent crime since 1995.

By your estimates, since there were more legal guns on the street in Virginia, the crime should have consistently gone up.

In fact, for the whole US, gun ownership went up from 200 million to 300 million guns - from 60 to 80 million gun owners. At the same time, our violent crime (and murder) have dropped to the lowest levels since the early 1960s.

By your estimate, the crime and murder should have shot through the roof.

Why hasn't it? Aren't guns evil?

Or is the following working for us now?
1. Death Penalty
2. Concealed Carry
3. More Guns

The whole US is evidence of MORE GUNS and LESS CRIME - over time. By your own statements, if we increase from 200 million to 300 million guns, we should have gotten a horrendous increase in murder and violent crime. But it didn't happen!


He denies the Kleck study saying he doesn't believe the big picture. Then he cherry picks numbers from around the US (mostly historically high crime urban areas) and compares them to one area that had a decrease in crime due to non gun related issues. Yet he won't compare the entire US stats when dozens of states have improved their self defense laws and the nat'l crime rates have gone down (starting before the Clinton AWB & Brady Bills). That seems like more big picture to me.

But I guess it's only OK for him to do that.

You have really been bashing Washington, but I found this (http://home.earthlink.net/~crankytaxpayer/Crime/crime_rate.htm) most interesting:

http://home.earthlink.net/~crankytaxpayer/Crime/crime_4.gif

The October 2, 2004 issue of The Economist and the FBI web site (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/02cius.htm) provide some interesting comparisons. Their data put the Richmond murder rate in the company of Washington, DC and the South American drug capitals.

That is Richmond Virginia? A city of only 195,000 people, yet 93 murders. Toronto, Canada with a population of almost 3 Million people, averages 55 murders per year.

And the vast majority of those murders in Richmond were committed with........yup, firearms.

nitpicking (lol.. love that word), but: city of Toronto or metropolitan area of Toronto? I was under the impression that the city of Toronto's population was somewhere around 500,000 or so... in which case it would be similar to Boston, Atlanta and San Francisco: relatively small city population, huge metropolitan (DMA) area population.

as for Richmond's murder rate, it might seem high, but don't forget that they have the best medical examiner in the world, Dr. Kay Scarpetta.

What's hilarious, Canuck, is that the majority of violent crime in the US (76 percent) involves no firearms at all.
Yet in Virginia, 72% of murders and non negligent manslaughter are committed with a firearm.

Also, 52% of robberies in Virginia was with a firearm.

I don't find that humourous at all.

You obviously believe that victims should be victims of such crimes, rather than use firearms to successfully STOP 2.5 million crimes per year.
You keep pulling that number out of a hat. How do you support such a statistic?

I believe that with gun control, appropriate policing, and tough legislation, ALL crime will decrease.

You would rather that those crimes occur.
See above.

That would double the violent crime rate.
Pure speculation on your part.

Nice going. BTW, the I've told some of the women I've trained about you. They put you in the same category as the men who beat them. You want to deprive them of their right to live.
You can't be serious?

Perhaps when someone they love, through the use of her gun, loses their life, or gets seriously injured, or uses the gun in the commission of a crime, they might think twice about the so called "benefits" of owining such a deadly weapon?

Then again, the possibility also exists that they could be murdered by their own gun.

Another graph for you:

http://www-medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPath/jpeg2/FOR112.gif

The issue of "home defense" or protection against intruders may well be misrepresented. Of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides (Kellermann et al, 1998). Over 50% of all households in the U.S. admit to having firearms (Nelson et al, 1987). It would appear that, rather than beign used for defense, most of these weapons inflict injuries on the owners and their families.

Less guns = Less deaths.

Yet in Virginia, 72% of murders and non negligent manslaughter are committed with a firearm.

Also, 52% of robberies in Virginia was with a firearm.

I don't find that humourous at all.


You keep pulling that number out of a hat. How do you support such a statistic?

I believe that with gun control, appropriate policing, and tough legislation, ALL crime will decrease.


See above.


Pure speculation on your part.


You can't be serious?

Perhaps when someone they love, through the use of her gun, loses their life, or gets seriously injured, or uses the gun in the commission of a crime, they might think twice about the so called "benefits" of owining such a deadly weapon?

Then again, the possibility also exists that they could be murdered by their own gun.

Another graph for you:

http://www-medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPath/jpeg2/FOR112.gif

The issue of "home defense" or protection against intruders may well be misrepresented. Of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides (Kellermann et al, 1998). Over 50% of all households in the U.S. admit to having firearms (Nelson et al, 1987). It would appear that, rather than beign used for defense, most of these weapons inflict injuries on the owners and their families.

Less guns = Less deaths.

lol

less guns for law-abiding citizens = more murders/crime suffered by law-abiding citizens

guns prevent crime. if the government took away our guns, only criminals would have them (why can't some people get this simple fact?), and the rest of us would be helpless. The murder/burglary rate would skyrocket because people would no longer be able to defend themselves from the dregs of society. Logic dictates this.

Simple test for gun control advocates:

would you be willing to work the third shift at an inner-city gas station without a gun available (stored under the counter, perhaps)?

Do you really think that the cops would be able to help you in case an armed robber decided to hit your shop?

Interesting...

[QUOTE=CanuckHeavenYou keep pulling that number out of a hat. How do you support such a statistic?[/QUOTE]

I have never pulled that number out of a hat. There are four studies that support that figure. I've posted the link so many times, and so many times you haven't read it.

You still haven't told me how the police would have saved the life of that woman who was beaten to death while talking to the 911 operator.

You also haven't told me how the women I've trained are doing SO WELL compared to women who rely on a protective order alone. Why women who rely on a protective order alone are killed?

Why is it that only 11 percent of rapists (Department of Justice figures) use any weapon at all (a weapon is not just a firearm)?

What's a more effective weapon - psychologically as well as physically - a woman who shouts, "I know karate!" and affects a stance, or a woman who draws a 357 magnum revolver and cocks the hammer back?

Another graph for you:

http://www-medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPath/jpeg2/FOR112.gif

The issue of "home defense" or protection against intruders may well be misrepresented. Of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides (Kellermann et al, 1998). Over 50% of all households in the U.S. admit to having firearms (Nelson et al, 1987). [B]It would appear that, rather than beign used for defense, most of these weapons inflict injuries on the owners and their families.



Now would you care to link to the entire thing?
Isn't this from the famous "Kellerman" study that gave the 42X more likely number? This has been debunked so many times because of crappy data collection it's rediculous.

I have never pulled that number out of a hat. There are four studies that support that figure. I've posted the link so many times, and so many times you haven't read it.

You still haven't told me how the police would have saved the life of that woman who was beaten to death while talking to the 911 operator.



Selective memory.

you're wasting your breath whispering legs... it won't hit home until one of their friends gets beaten up by a burglar... with the cops arriving woefully late (of course).

for a cop to be able to stop a burglary/home invasion, they would literally have to see it happening...

nitpicking (lol.. love that word), but: city of Toronto or metropolitan area of Toronto? I was under the impression that the city of Toronto's population was somewhere around 500,000 or so... in which case it would be similar to Boston, Atlanta and San Francisco: relatively small city population, huge metropolitan (DMA) area population.
Well your impression is incorrect. The population (http://www.aviewoncities.com/toronto/torontofacts.htm) of the city proper is 2,481,494, and the population of the metro area is 4,682,897.

In 2003, the number of murders in Ontario (pop. 12,373,000), which includes the City of Toronto, was only 178 or approximately 1.4 per 100,000 people. Of those 178 murders, only a third were committed with guns or .46 per 100,000.

If you took the Richmond, Virginia murder rate and applied it to Ontario, there would have been 5691 murders, and 4072 of them would have been through the use of a firearm.

7. And is still over 22. Illinois w/ Chicago. Recall I said take out gun banning chicago. 2002 Chicago murder rate 648. Pop. 2.9 Million. Illinois murder total: 620 Population: 12.6 Million

Non Chicago murders : 28, Non chicago population 9.7 million

Illinois murder rate w/o Chicago: .288/100k (lower than I thought)

Why is this?

Hey, that's even lower than the UK, Canada, Australia, or NY.
You say that I need remedial math lessons?

The number of murders in Illinois in 2000 (http://www.fedstats.gov/mapstats/crime/state/17000.html) was 898. With a population of 12,419,293 that works out to 898 murders. The number of murders in Chicago for 2000 was 641. That leaves 257 murders for the rest of the State of Illinois (approximately 10,000,000), which works out to 2.57 murders per 100,000.

Nice try though. :eek:

A person is less likely to club a person to death, whereas use of a firearm enables the attacker to keep a distance from his victim.

I haven't heard of any mass "clubbings" in the UK, but there have been numerous mass murders in the US using firearms.

:)
Exactly my point, anyone with slightest sense would realise that it's harder to beat someone to death, why because you come into contract with the person, not only that you may have to hit that person time and time again, kinda hard...not only that but a lot of people can defend themselves (I'm not talking about training I'm talking about the will to survive)

With a gun it is relatively easier...aim pull the trigger, no contact big bang and the person falls down dead.

I think you have to be really angry to kill someone by beating them to death, give that angry person a gun and you will have a lot more dead people.

What you haven't shown is the drop in Virginia violent crime since 1995.


Hate to break this little fact to anyone but not all crime involved guns!!!!