Chicago Turns on Obama

[Birdog]

I have a simpler argument.

It doesn't matter if it's useful or suitable for any purpose. It's our constitutional right to be able to own one. Just as we have many other rights- such as freedoms to speak, assemble, worship and so on.

Ahhh...That pesky Constitution again......

 

[catastrophe]

I have a simpler argument.

It doesn't matter if it's useful or suitable for any purpose. It's our constitutional right to be able to own one. Just as we have many other rights- such as freedoms to speak, assemble, worship and so on.

Of course you are correct re the right to own one.
And for those that love hunting and sport use, thats great.

But for the most part on here, what we read is the choice of gun to use on a perp, how accurate one to the other is to blow someones head off, the goal to have your 100 pound wife carry one in the car to stave off the boogie man.

" A gun carrying society is a safer society...a more polite society !!"

If thats the method of making people polite God save us.

 

[Chris]

Like the ACLU- they should be renamed the ASCLU. American Some Civil Liberties Union.

It's not a cafeteria plan where you get to choose the one's you like.

 

[Trim'd Up]

I have a simpler argument.

It doesn't matter if it's useful or suitable for any purpose. It's our constitutional right to be able to own one. Just as we have many other rights- such as freedoms to speak, assemble, worship and so on.

I agree completely, but that argument has NO meaning to a liberal. They don't believe in the constitution.

 

[Birdog]

Of course you are correct re the right to own one.
And for those that love hunting and sport use, thats great.

But for the most part on here, what we read is the choice of gun to use on a perp, how accurate one to the other is to blow someones head off, the goal to have your 100 pound wife carry one in the car to stave off the boogie man.

" A gun carrying society is a safer society...a more polite society !!"

If thats the method of making people polite God save us.

If you are so interested in what we Americans say & think...You should at least educate yourself on what OURE founding Fathers wrote about it..
The 2nd Ammendment had NOTHING to do with hunting...

 

[Chris]

Of course you are correct re the right to own one.
And for those that love hunting and sport use, thats great.

But for the most part on here, what we read is the choice of gun to use on a perp, how accurate one to the other is to blow someones head off, the goal to have your 100 pound wife carry one in the car to stave off the boogie man.

" A gun carrying society is a safer society...a more polite society !!"

If thats the method of making people polite God save us.

Yes, it is unfortunate that many uncivilized instincts have yet to be bred out of the human race. And until genetic evolution catches up to our quantum leap forward in civilized attitudes of the last century, we'll need a way of keeping those who don't play nice at bay.

This isn't anything new- the strong have been feeding on the weak since man first rose out of the primordial ooze. And just because we have some new-found societal aversion to the process doesn't mean we've eliminated the urge. So now being strong by being young and large has been balanced by one of our civilization's inventions-portable strength and power. Weaponry.

We can all hope for a world where everyone loves one another and looks after their fellow man. But we're not there yet.

If you want to look at a living example of banning firearms, take a look at Australia. All of the data collected shows no positive societal benefit. Every one of the relational factors have continued to trend exactly as they had prior to the ban. Several increased by several percentage points above their projected trend. None dropped.

The reality is- as proven in Australia's failed experiment, is that man has been causing harm to his fellow man since the beginning of man. There was never an upward trend due to the availability of a convenient device for causing that harm. And as long as the ability to harm others is present in man, man will continue to do so. So ban guns, then knives. Then sticks and rocks and pipes and shovels. That will be a good way to see man's creativeness at work, devising the best alternative to do harm to another.

 

[catastrophe]

Yes, it is unfortunate that many uncivilized instincts have yet to be bred out of the human race. And until genetic evolution catches up to our quantum leap forward in civilized attitudes of the last century, we'll need a way of keeping those who don't play nice at bay.

This isn't anything new- the strong have been feeding on the weak since man first rose out of the primordial ooze. And just because we have some new-found societal aversion to the process doesn't mean we've eliminated the urge. So now being strong by being young and large has been balanced by one of our civilization's inventions-portable strength and power. Weaponry.

We can all hope for a world where everyone loves one another and looks after their fellow man. But we're not there yet.

If you want to look at a living example of banning firearms, take a look at Australia. All of the data collected shows no positive societal benefit. Every one of the relational factors have continued to trend exactly as they had prior to the ban. Several increased by several percentage points above their projected trend. None dropped.

The reality is- as proven in Australia's failed experiment, is that man has been causing harm to his fellow man since the beginning of man. There was never an upward trend due to the availability of a convenient device for causing that harm. And as long as the ability to harm others is present in man, man will continue to do so. So ban guns, then knives. Then sticks and rocks and pipes and shovels. That will be a good way to see man's creativeness at work, devising the best alternative to do harm to another.

Dont think anyone in this discussion ever mentioned banning guns.

 

[catastrophe]

If you are so interested in what we Americans say & think...You should at least educate yourself on what OURE founding Fathers wrote about it..
The 2nd Ammendment had NOTHING to do with hunting...

Is there a point to that post??

 

[jayboat]

I have a simpler argument.

It doesn't matter if it's useful or suitable for any purpose. It's our constitutional right to be able to own one. Just as we have many other rights- such as freedoms to speak, assemble, worship and so on.

I don't have a problem with the constitutional argument AT ALL.

I would just like to see some common sense applied and I would bet that a majority of law enforcement personnel would as well.

MY POINT, in response to Ted's post, was his quick (and predictable) jump to the 'Obama's gonna take away our guns!' meme. It's horsehockey.

 

[Chris]

I don't have a problem with the constitutional argument AT ALL.

I would just like to see some common sense applied and I would bet that a majority of law enforcement personnel would as well.

MY POINT, in response to Ted's post, was his quick (and predictable) jump to the 'Obama's gonna take away our guns!' meme. It's horsehockey.

Believe me, I'm with you. The only thing I can't stomach any more than the firearm banners is the firearm owners that use them irresponsibly.

But we don't need any more laws. Lawmakers think we do- since all the can do is make laws and they need to placate their constituencies. It cracks me up every time some numbskull congressman sponsors a firearm ban/registration/licencing bill that's absolutely unconstitutional. They know it's going nowhere and they do it purely to show their constituents that they're "doing something". Many firearms laws are downright silly.

Do you know that we have a ban on the importation of firearms with certain features, such as pistol grips, detachable magazines and flash hiders? These same weapons are available throug an endless supply of American manufacturers- to the point that the market is saturated. Does that make any sense? Does anyone believe that ownership of these types of firearms will increase if imported models were available? And even so, does anyone see a correlation between them and an increase in crime? The FBI statistics prove conclusively that use of these types of weapons in crime is exceedingly rare- and that the last time domestic prohibitions on these so-called "evil features" was imposed, there was no statistical shift in any crime data.

 

[Chris]

And on the law enforcement desire to have firearms regulated...

I have many good friends in the profession. They have a valid desire to see all weapons of any type removed from the civilian population. That would only make their job easier and much safer. But if I had a wish, I'd wish for violence of all types to go away and then we wouldn't need these law enforcement officers at all. But that's not the way it works.

No weapons makes the job safer for the police, but it makes our lives less safe. No one in law enforcement will tell you with a straight face that what they do has any substantial effect at crime prevention. In fact, the concept of crime prevention has been deliberately purged from what the profession writes and speaks about. The threat of punishment is what makes our system work. And if you're not afraid of the punishment, it's not much of a barrier. So as admirable a job as that officer may do, he's most likely not going to be there at the moment you're having a bad or violent experience.

 

[Wardey]

Damn....You guys gave me a headache !!!!

 

[Birdog]

Is there a point to that post??

You forgot what you typed already ?

YOU said the 2nd Amendment was Ok with you for hunting
I pointed out that it has NOTHING to do with hunting


JAY "I would just like to see some common sense applied and I would bet that a majority of law enforcement personnel would as well."

Just who do you trust to fool with the Constitution ?

 

[Tommy Gun]

Of course you are correct re the right to own one.
And for those that love hunting and sport use, thats great.

But for the most part on here, what we read is the choice of gun to use on a perp, how accurate one to the other is to blow someones head off, the goal to have your 100 pound wife carry one in the car to stave off the boogie man.

" A gun carrying society is a safer society...a more polite society !!"

If thats the method of making people polite God save us.

From what I can find the analysis of the effects of CCW has returned mixed results depending on who perfomed the analysis. But one thing is clear, the issuance of CCW has not increased the crime rate.

The Lott-Mustard Study

Using cross-sectional time-series data for U.S. counties from 1977 to 1992, we find that allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes, without increasing accidental deaths. If those states without right-to-carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, county- and state-level data indicate that approximately 1,500 murders would have been avoided yearly.

The Truth About "The Florida Model"

"Violent crime rates are highest overall in states with laws severely limiting or prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms for self-defense". (FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 1992)

The Violence Policy Center claims that over 2.6 years, from May 2007 through the end of 2009, concealed carry permit holders in the US have killed 117 individuals, including 9 law enforcement officers. Though in 2007, in the entire United States, there were 16,929 murders and 254 legally justified/self defense killings; in 2008, there were 16,272 murders and 245 legally justified/self defense killings in the United States. The FBI report for Jan.-June 2009 is still in its preliminary stages.

"Scholars engaged in serious criminological research into "gun control" have found themselves forced, often very reluctantly, into four largely negative propositions. First, there is no persuasive evidence that gun ownership causes ordinary, responsible, law abiding adults to murder or engage in any other criminal behavior—though guns can facilitate crime by those who were independently inclined toward it. Second, the value of firearms in defending victims has been greatly underestimated. Third, gun controls are innately very difficult to enforce.

"Therefore, the fourth conclusion criminological research and analysis forces on scholars is that while controls carefully targeted only at the criminal and irresponsible have a place in crime-reduction strategy, the capacity of any type of gun law to reduce dangerous behavior can never be more than marginal.

In 1980 University of Washington public health professor Brandon Centerwall prepared a study comparing homicide rates between Canada and the U.S., as the two countries are very similar, yet have different handgun ownership rates. He reported "Major differences in the prevalence of handguns have not resulted in differing total criminal homicide rates in Canadian provinces and adjoining US states." In his conclusions he published the following admonition:

"If you are surprised by my findings, so are we. We did not begin this research with any intent to "exonerate" handguns, but there it is – a negative finding, to be sure, but a negative finding is nevertheless a positive contribution. It directs us where NOT to aim public health resources."

I'd be curious to see how they compare today.

 

[catastrophe]

From what I can find the analysis of the effects of CCW has returned mixed results depending on who perfomed the analysis. But one thing is clear, the issuance of CCW has not increased the crime rate.



Point taken.
I agree.

 

[BBB725]

Of course you are correct re the right to own one.
And for those that love hunting and sport use, thats great.

But for the most part on here, what we read is the choice of gun to use on a perp, how accurate one to the other is to blow someones head off, the goal to have your 100 pound wife carry one in the car to stave off the boogie man.

" A gun carrying society is a safer society...a more polite society !!"

If thats the method of making people polite God save us.

I grew up in a rural area and kids would routinely bring shot guns to school and go hunting after school was done for the day and I'm guessing 95% of the guys carried knifes. So what you ask, well we never had a shooting or a knifing because people had respect for life not because it was illegal to own or bring it to school.

 

[Chris]

Good point. There's a whole new breed out there that's been raised with no regard for life.

I grew up in a an industrial town and the best way I can describe our school system is the term "Gladiator Academy". But no one ever got stabbed or shot (OK- there was one teacher that got smoked) The animals I was raised around today seem now to have had a much higher level of values than what you see today.

 

[catastrophe]

"I grew up in a rural area and kids would routinely bring shot guns to school and go hunting after school was done for the day and I'm guessing 95% of the guys carried knifes. So what you ask, well we never had a shooting or a knifing because people had respect for life not because it was illegal to own or bring it to school. "

Thank You

Then you agree that there were no shootings because everyone walked around in fear of one another or knew everyone else was armed.

The lack of incidents was based on the quality of the people rather than the quality of their marksmanship.

 

[Chris]

No, there was absolutely no quality of people going on. It was a place that you didn't want to be. One of my classmates threw a teacher out of a second-story window. In the 8th grade.

But no one ever used a weapon. It just wasn't done. Maybe it was an honor thing. Or just socially unacceptable at the time.

 

[catastrophe]

No, there was absolutely no quality of people going on. It was a place that you didn't want to be. One of my classmates threw a teacher out of a second-story window. In the 8th grade.

But no one ever used a weapon. It just wasn't done. Maybe it was an honor thing. Or just socially unacceptable.

I was responding to Brooks.

But you make a good point about the honour thing.

One could blame this all on women and the changing times.

Back in those days it was impolite for them to point out to their husbands that they had small d!cks.