Completely missing from media reports of the Mumbai attacks are India's strict gun control laws, which virtually disarmed the people at the point of attack, turning them almost inevitably - and almost immediately - into victims. (Hat Tip: Instapundit)
Should you - God forbid - find yourself in such a situation, you must act as though your life is already forfeit, since the jihadis will treat your life that way. Difficult though it is, acting to thwart or complicate the attack is the best way to save your life and those of others.
Apparently, it hasn't occurred to the media that the best way of making sure that doesn't happen is to make the targets helpless.
Cross-Posted from View From a Height
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
the gun control laws are worse than that
December 1, 2008 - 11:42 ET by bubbatech01as some of the police and first responders were also reportedly unarmed. not sure if this is a result of the gun control laws, but, as the saying goes, you dont bring a knife to a gun fight.
to suggest that strict gun control contributed
December 1, 2008 - 12:45 ET by abeautifulpersonto this massacre, doesn't seem logical.
homicide rates in various countries per 100,000 (yr 2000)...
USA: 2.97
india: 0.93
britain: 0.12
canada: 0.54
colombia: 51.77
this was a tragic, barbarous act. it was badly mismanaged by indian authorities. first responders should have been armed AND india can still maintain stricter gun controls than the US. no doubt, indians would prefer their gun murder rate to remain 1/3 that of the US.
had the terrorists thought more people (hotel staff, people on the street) could have been armed, it is entirely possible more people would have been indiscriminately shot.
looser gun controls means guns are available to the more extreme segments of society and could increase the likelihood of more nonsensical attacks; not unlike the kind we suffer here in north america, too often.
Abusus non tolit usum
December 1, 2008 - 12:56 ET by moderncommentaries83abeautifulperson:
I can see how this wouldn't be "logical", but remember the phrase abusus non tolit usum - or "abuse does not negate use."
In America, a majority of gun crimes are committed by persons who have no legal right to own guns (read: convicted felons), obtain the guns illegally, and use the guns in the commission of illegal activity (murder, robbery, etc.). Quite frankly, if I'm a criminal, by the very definition of that label I don't hold the law as something to be respected and followed...I'm a criminal after all!
Does any liberal HONESTLY think making guns illegal is going to make a criminal say, "Gee, maybe I'd better not rob this bank/murder this person/assault that woman becaue I'll go to jail for another 5 years because of gun control laws!"? NO. It won't.
A vast majority of Americans who own guns and have CCW permits abide strictly by the law, do not commit crimes, and do not obtain their weapons illegally.
The notion that we have to deny law-abiding citizens their Constitutionally protected right to self defense and bear arms because a minority committs crimes is laughable and ridiculous.
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam
i totally agree
December 1, 2008 - 13:19 ET by abeautifulpersoncriminals use guns illegally. but the reality is at one time every gun was a legal gun. some how it arrived into the hands of a criminal. the easier guns are to obtain, the more they are available to criminals. criminals know people have guns under mattresses, in bedside tables, in glove boxes, in lock boxes in closets.
legal gun owners have guns stolen. rarely are they stolen from inpenetrable safes.
in countries where people don't need to defend themselves from intruders with guns, it should be celebrated. its a chicken and egg thing. if few crooks carry guns, few folks need to protect with them.
one shouldn't confuse a rare massacre with regular everyday gun crime. plenty more are killed via the latter and the tradeoff isn't worth it.
beautiful person, how do you get all of the guns?
December 1, 2008 - 13:29 ET by jefflebowskiFor your argument to work (" if few crooks carry guns, few folks need to protect with them") you would need to rid our world completely of guns. How do you do that? There will always be someone making guns. And the bad guys already show us every day that they intend on getting guns.
You need to realize that guns are a tool. Just as England has very low gun deaths, it's knife deaths are at epidemic proportions. Even some liberal doctors are calling for the prohibition of knives longer than a certain length. People also run down others with cars..or kill with bombs, etc. Let's just hope that someone isn't smothered by a pillow over there.
As for me, I'd rather go down shooting at murderous terrorists instead of pleading (uselessly) for them to spare the lives of my children. And yes, I have my Glock 23 sitting on my desk as I write.
Jeff Lebowski
www.angrywhitedude.c...
you may have noticed how lazy criminals are
December 1, 2008 - 13:57 ET by abeautifulpersonand how much of a tool a gun is for lazy criminals. its much more work to stab someone to death. you really have to make the effort.
i suppose looking at overall murder rates are telling as well, per 100k.
US: 5.7
britain: 1.37
canada: 1.85
banning oversized hunting knives (or at least restricting their sale) in an urban environment is reasonable to me.
i appreciate that a gun is a tool. it has very limited usefulness compared to a knife or a pillow. i've handled guns on several occasions but use multiple knives every day and enjoy a couple pillows every night.
it really is the fear factor. people are afraid. so owning a gun instils them with a false sense of security. few ever have to point it at anyone, let alone shoot it at anyone, and the number of accidental deaths causes many tragedies.
i'd bet my life savings you will never have to shoot anyone to protect your family.
if guns (particularly hand guns and automatic military weapons) were much more restricted in the US as they are in other countries, the murder rate would drop.
unfortunately, as much as the US fights the importation of illegal drugs, other countries suffer the importation of illegal weapons which originate from the US. many of the gun murders in canada and where i presently live in the caribbean, are from illegal weapons.
from your neighbour's desk to our neighbourhood thug.
That makes SO much sense
December 1, 2008 - 14:19 ET by choselife3xSince no one died violently at the hands of another until guns were invented.
That said, I'd rather be shot by a lazy criminal than stabbed to death by an enthusiastic one.
Even MORE preferable is to shoot the sorry SOB. But I'll stab him if I have to.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
"I'd rather be shot by a
December 1, 2008 - 14:35 ET by sherylsims"I'd rather be shot by a lazy criminal than stabbed to death by an enthusiastic one"
That is the best thing I have read all day. I am considering making it my tag-line!
I took 10 years of martial arts and feel pretty confident that I would know what to do if someone tried to attack me with a knife. (or sword or sticks or their fists) If the attacker had a gun, however, the ONLY way to level that playing field would be for me to also have one. (which I do)
sheryl...you rock
December 1, 2008 - 14:50 ET by choselife3xAn armed martial arts expert...I think I just found my new BFF. ;-)
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
I got yer back, girl!
December 1, 2008 - 14:55 ET by sherylsimsI got yer back, girl!
MARRY ME!!
December 1, 2008 - 15:32 ET by Wilbur747Oops...sorry, I hope my wife didn't see this!!!
Ha!
sheryl and chose life
December 1, 2008 - 14:59 ET by cocodrieI like my 1911 .45. On a smaller note I have my 7.65 MM WW2 pistol.
Preparation H is going to start making suppositories in 45 cal. and 38 special to deal with the inflamed ---holes we get have to deal with.
Off topic but...
December 1, 2008 - 16:22 ET by Wilbur747just curious about your 7.65mm. What type?
I'm an avid collector (as my budget allows) of weapons used in war, from the Revolutionary to present.
Maybe...if it's what I'm looking for...and the price is...OK, OK, I'll stop. My wife is watching me typing this!!!
Wilbur
December 1, 2008 - 23:07 ET by cocodrieIt is stamped SAGEN and is french. It is known as 7.65 French longue. It is also known as the 7.65 MAS auto. The magazine holds 8 rounds.
It was based on the 1911. Does not look like it much but the inner workings are similar.
There is a site with pictures I'll have to find. I bought it in 1962 for $19.95. Have no idea how much it is worth. It is from WW2 and is a little worn but fun to shoot. It would compare closely to a .32 special. The same bullet and about the same power.
Hmmmm....
December 1, 2008 - 23:52 ET by Wilbur747Wife's now gone. Tell me...any date of maunfacture or other foundry marks?
You got it for 19.95? Geez, I feel like a kid now! That's when I was 2!
I'm going to research the gun as I'm not familiar with the Sagen. I wonder if it was one of the failed French guns that entered both wars. They may be of considerable value.
Do yourself a favor and don't let go of it or fire too much.
Wilbur
December 2, 2008 - 00:12 ET by cocodrieI'm laughing. You are a kid. My oldest son was born that year.
Go to Guns World and under "news on French guns" go to MAS 35s pistol.
It's really under powered for a military arm but back then the only really powerful pistol was the 1911. This was a successful gun, just weak.
I can get cartridges for it again and the cases are reloadable so I can shoot it again.
abp is some case eh? I still think it's some young girl having a jolly good time yanking our chain.
I'ma kid???
December 2, 2008 - 00:43 ET by Wilbur747Hey! I resemble that remark!
French guns were notorious for being underpowered and unreliable during the two world wars.
ABP is indeed a sad case. I understand his feelings, but he/she/it lives in a fantasy world in a lonely, protected bubble. Young girl eh? I won't go there but you may be right!
Be careful about shooting your gun as it puts stresses on it that degrade its value. I have many guns that I'm dying to shoot, but every shot lowers their value.
Keep it sqeaky clean!
Wil
December 2, 2008 - 01:03 ET by cocodrieWhen you hit 70 everyone under 50 seems very young.
This pistol is in excellent shape - no rust, just a little worn finish, probably from a holster. This one is very reliable. never missed a shot or jammed once, even with the military ammo it came with. The barrel is perfect, no pitts. Rifling grooves are perfect. The French didn't do that much fighting for it to have been fired very much.
If I'd had more money back then, some good collectables were available at cheap prices. Thanks to the democrats and the gun control act of 1968 prices went up and no more imports. That was Chris Dodd And President Loony Byrd Johnson back then and Dodd will be at it again soon.
God how I wish...
December 2, 2008 - 01:26 ET by Wilbur747to have been in your shoes! Old war relics just ripe for the pickings! How I long to get a WWll issued series M1 Garand at the time and price when you bought your gun!
Don't shoot your gun anymore! The objective is preservation!
I have a German 1943 P-38 with hand written confiramtion detailing the last shot that the Wehrmacht officer who was issued it fired. To my knowledge and my uncles (who secured it from the officer) the gun has never been fired since. I will never fire it either.
BTW, I may be young but I know that you are not old. You have the experience and knowledge that we need to survive in today's world!
I salute you sir!
Good night Wil
December 2, 2008 - 01:45 ET by cocodrieGod bless.
Show me the filters for your numbers.
December 1, 2008 - 15:12 ET by Wilbur747Stats are useless without filters.
You say the US has a murder rate of 5.7.
OK, how many were from the following:
guns, knives, cars, pipes, bats, chains, clubs, screw drivers, or bare hands? How many were prison murders? These are reported just like street shootings, and domestic killings.
What's the percentage of these murders by gun (per capita) in the US to that of other countries? Is it 1 in 5 murders are by gun in every country?
Are the laws in these countries the same, or do they vary when it comes to weapons?
BTW, I have successfully defended myself two times, both of the bad guys had guns...so did I and not one shot was fired. I'm here today.
Murder rates do not drop due to resricting guns. Wash D.C., Chicago, and New York, England and Australia are absolute proof of that. The cities I mentions have consistantly been at the top of the murder rate list in the country (using guns!
See my post below about some books that may help with your...shall we say misinformation.
Good evening Wilbur
December 1, 2008 - 15:24 ET by cocodrieabp's numbers came from wikimisinformation. Elsewhere on this thread I gave her the numbers from nationmaster.com which are different.
And a good evening to you!
December 1, 2008 - 15:41 ET by Wilbur747Wiki sucks for accurate info. As we all know Wiki's info is input by whomever without any fact checking.
My stats come from several books. I guess I should have cited them. they're from the book in one of my posts!
This gun stuff gets me so riled up that I can't see straight and don't remember what I posted.
Wilbur
December 1, 2008 - 15:57 ET by cocodrieObama"s biggest supporte is George Soros who is using his wealth and power to disarm the honest citizens in every country in the world. He is responsible for the new gun confiscation laws in Australia. I auppose he will have our new deity in DC trying to confiscate ours soon.
I suspected it was Soros...
December 1, 2008 - 16:16 ET by Wilbur747and from what I understand he was a victim of the Nazi regime. You'd think he'd push for more guns since Hitler confiscated them leaving citizens unarmed and so that only government officials had them.
My grandparents were interned by them in Bergen-Belsen and Birkenau and they were adamantly pro private ownership and carry of guns.
When I think of Soros and the lib/dems, I'm reminded of a puppetmaster!
The definition of a police state: a place where only the police have guns.
→ Puppetmaster Soros
December 1, 2008 - 19:35 ET by Cool ArrowSoros reminds me of an Organ Grinder. Of course, that begs another question.
Cool
December 1, 2008 - 19:44 ET by littlemissmuffinThat is just downright hilarious!!!!
"If we conservatives moved to those seven non-existent States, the government couldn’t find us and tax us to death!"
C'mon Miss and Cool
December 1, 2008 - 20:02 ET by cocodrieNo curious george jokes here please. Well, only if they're funny.
→ Who? Me?
December 1, 2008 - 20:06 ET by Cool ArrowI was referring to the question of whose organ he might be grinding.
Way ahead of ya.
Oh snap!
December 1, 2008 - 20:21 ET by Wilbur747What prey tell are you referring to, again? I just might call the Obama Youth...sorry the new Homeland Civil Defense Force and report your racist/homophobic/right-wing/biggote/didIforgetanything patuty! How dare you! I'm offended!
→ My apologies
December 1, 2008 - 20:24 ET by Cool ArrowI was speaking on behalf of the Larry Sinclair foundation.
All will be forgiven...
December 1, 2008 - 21:33 ET by Wilbur747upon your certified (substantial) donation to the Obamessiah and the Larry Sinclair Foundation!!!
Good call, Jeff
December 1, 2008 - 14:26 ET by choselife3xGlock is my fave. Powerful, accurate....why, I'll bet you could hit ABP's overinflated sense of self-importance from a mile away with that thing.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
mr choose life
December 1, 2008 - 14:40 ET by abeautifulpersonis this responsible gun owner chit chat, you are introducing me to?
i guess owning a gun can have a variety of uses. and idley threatening is one of them? hmmm...
I got this one...
December 1, 2008 - 14:45 ET by sherylsimsFirst of all, I believe that "Mr" choose life is a "Mrs" and secondly, saying that your overinflated sense of self importance (obvious to all here) needs a little puncture to let out some of the hot air doesn't really qualify as a threat (unless you are paranoid.) You should stick to the dumb lib websites where what with your great accomplishments and verbal skills you probably pass as intelligent. Here you are below average.
And Sheryl stuns ABP with
December 1, 2008 - 15:05 ET by choselife3xA roundhouse kick to it's grotesquely oversized noggin, followed by a deft over the hip throw which lands it flat on it's back with a resounding SLAP of flabby flesh against the hard, unforgiving floor. Ding, ding.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
ta-daaaa
December 1, 2008 - 15:08 ET by sherylsimsta-daaaa
C'mon sheryls
December 1, 2008 - 15:18 ET by cocodrieSurely you remember abp has a 5 year old about to graduate Harvard and she is a walking encyclopedia on all subjects. There is nothing she cannot do and nothing she does not know.
She is very important in her parallel universe.
Well, she didn't know that
December 1, 2008 - 15:24 ET by sherylsimsWell, she didn't know that choose life was a "Mrs." not a "Mr." so I guess I DID "get her" (Did you see how scared she was when I zinged her with that one?) That Harvard 5 year old is impressive though. I bet she has a bumper sticker on the back of her Prius that says "My son is a SUPER student at Harvard!" (ok, now I am done with her. She can quit checking the shadows for any more "zings" from me. I know I am pretty terrifying.)
here's some irony
December 1, 2008 - 15:28 ET by abeautifulpersonas you bask in that zinger, i should inform you that i am a MR, not a MRS. ouch.
abp a man?
December 1, 2008 - 15:46 ET by cocodrieI should have read your profile. I was going by the old reasoning - If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck flies like a duck..... I had you pegged as a ten year old girl trying to impress her friends. Now I find out you're a ten year old boy trying to impress his friends.
What a relief
December 1, 2008 - 15:48 ET by choselife3xYou must admit the moniker can be a bit *ahem* confusing to us homophobic right wingers. ;-)
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
we can still be friends
December 1, 2008 - 15:57 ET by abeautifulpersonsee if you knew me in person, you'd realize under a very thick (and scarred) hide, its not entirely inaccurate.
but argumentativeness is a quality i wear like a badge of honour. that and more than a little masochism.
I have many friends
December 1, 2008 - 16:20 ET by choselife3xWho happen, alas, to be liberals. Doesn't mean we don't get along. I love debate.
I do resent having my words twisted into something I never intended. (as in, I never suggested shooting at you) Read the original post again for clarification.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
You forgot...
December 1, 2008 - 16:27 ET by Wilbur747racist, bigoted, small-minded, hate-filled, war mongoring, yada, yada, yada.
When we conservatives are called names we insist it's every name in the book all at once! One for all and all for one!
Hasn't the left taught you anything? :-))
What the left has taught me
December 1, 2008 - 17:02 ET by choselife3xTo wait till I see the whites of their eyes!
*ROFL, gasp, splutter, choke* JUST KIDDING, ABP! JUST KIDDING!
Aw, f**k 'em if they can't take a joke....stomp, stomp, stomp, slam.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
Sorry Chose...
December 1, 2008 - 17:37 ET by Wilbur747you can't say things like "white". That's discriminatory. Someone might get offended. How do YOU know their eyes are white? They may have Caucasian/Uranus colored eyes, thank you!
As far as "sputter", and "gasp"...I'll have to ask my lawyer if it's ok to mention these words since I have no idea if you're suffering and if our posts caused these symptoms. This could mean a lawsuit since you are suffering from my comments.
You're stomping around may hurt my pet mouse so please stop!
I'm gonna sue!!!!!!!!!!
BTW, the term f**k has offended my ears since they are still virgins!
Now that ABP knows I am a girl
December 1, 2008 - 15:40 ET by choselife3xI would like
MY curiosity satisfied. It has been referred to repeatedly as female, without correction, yet has mentioned a 'wife' in one post that I read. Has also mentioned 'tracking' and 'literally fighting' skinheads. Conclusion, either: a liar, a man, one mean@ss dyke, a liar, or...did I mention liar?
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
i have NEVER referred to myself as female
December 1, 2008 - 15:50 ET by abeautifulpersonall you have to do is read my profile.
people have called me everything in the book, here at NB. correcting every one of the inaccuracies is not a priority. i am sorry if you consider that dishonesty. it says more about you than me. i just think its funny that someone who is called CHOOSE LIFE would suggest shooting at me (or whatever that comment's purpose was).
→ Your profile
December 1, 2008 - 15:58 ET by Cool ArrowI quit reading at "enjoys long walks along the beach"
ha
December 1, 2008 - 16:01 ET by abeautifulpersonsome humour. good on ya (seriously).
→ Thanks abp
December 1, 2008 - 16:15 ET by Cool ArrowNothing but humor intended.
And you're right. We'd be downright bored around here if we all agreed. It gets tedious trying to say the same thing more artfully than the previous poster.
Do you read other people's posts
December 1, 2008 - 16:06 ET by choselife3xOr just skim them and make baseless assumptions?
In all honesty, I was afraid you might have a picture of yourself on your profile, I don't do horror. ;-)
I'll 'gird my loins' and go there right now to read whatever leftist drivel you posted underneath the grinning picture of your beautiful self.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
oh i'm a horror show
December 1, 2008 - 16:21 ET by abeautifulpersoni skim nasty stuff. the problem is, there's too much of it. if people were nicer >sniff< i'd probably go through fewer boxes of tissue...
anuglysocialist defeated
December 1, 2008 - 16:50 ET by UnsaneWell, looky here! This is what anuglysocialist decided to whine to me on a PM!:
"i no longer engage you in threads. i also do not read through your rants. you need to check your rage. you are the first person here at NB that i no longer wish to engage.
"the last person to spew such hatred in my direction was a neo nazi who made great effort track me down, to tell me exactly what i looked like, that my family were ugly mud people and that he was coming for me. so you are in good company
"hate is a very consuming thing. ease up.
"that is all. there is no more."
I take this as a sign of surrender. Basically here you admit and whine about your intellectual bankruptcy. Instead of squarely facing the arguments I present, you only whine and call them "rants". And not to mention your veiled fall back on Godwin's Law.
And of course you accuse me of being consumed by hate, when it is you, not I, who is consumed by a phiolosophy of pure hate: Socialism. Being a good little Socialist, you must accuse me of all that you in fact routinely do.
anuglysocialist, the only thing I asked of you is to back up what you say and again face the opposing arguments like a man instead of whining so pathetically about them. Apparently this is all too much for you to handle.
And, of course, true to anuglysocialist form, you simply cannot be bothered to back up a single thing you say. Show me where I have been hateful or filled with rage. It must be SO EASY, right?
If ideas, logic, reason, and philospohies rooted in individuality and essentially trusting all to do what's right for themselves and eventually their country is simply too much to handle, anuglysocialist, I suggest leaving NB. As long as the moderators are willing to have me, I'm not going anywhere. And I will counter your inane postings and your hate-filled philosophy whether you want it or not.
"THIS IS YOUR FINAL WARNING!!! A WAR ON FREEWILL IS COMING!!!" - Nevermore, "Bittersweet Feast", from This Godless Endeavor (2005)
you are the first person
December 1, 2008 - 18:13 ET by Dan The Man 2you are the first person here at NB that i no longer wish to engage - Ohhh u are so lucky, I want to be number 2 on his list.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Ooh! Ooh! Ooh! Raising hand and waving it wildly...
December 1, 2008 - 18:21 ET by R D HelmOkay, I want to be #3 then. :-)
-Dave
When in doubt, always side with freedom, as it sure beats the hell out of the alternative.
sorry dan not yet
December 2, 2008 - 09:16 ET by abeautifulpersonyou haven't reached the level of mouth foaming and rage. frankly, few are capable. i suppose if you threaten and rage and rail as long, its possible.
but i suspect that although we may disagree, you have better things to do with your time than fixate on me at the same intensity and tunnel vision. i think sharing that message is telling and i anticipated seeing it go public. it says more about someone else than it says about me.
Wow. I wonder what we could
December 1, 2008 - 18:24 ET by sherylsimsWow. I wonder what we could do to ALL get on his/her/its list...
don't think for other people...
December 1, 2008 - 20:06 ET by abeautifulpersonyou're having a hard enough time thinking for yourself.
abp... You need to listen
December 1, 2008 - 20:10 ET by Clear thinkerabp...
You need to listen to the guy on this video... The Best Video By A Conservative
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
Hey everybody look!
December 1, 2008 - 21:33 ET by choselife3xABP is back, yay!!
He sent me the nicest PM, he's my favorite troll now.
Be nice to sheryl, ABP. That remark was rather harsh, and beneath your dignity as my FAVORITE troll.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
Yes, it is so wonderful that
December 1, 2008 - 21:42 ET by sherylsimsYes, it is so wonderful that he/she/it is back. I love the way he/she/it complains about people being mean to her/him but just can't resist being just as mean.
According to ABP's theory as
December 1, 2008 - 23:01 ET by choselife3xAccording to ABP's theory as posted above, he HAS to come out firing because he figures you're armed.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
Everybody makes assumptions...
December 1, 2008 - 16:52 ET by Wilbur747based on the evidence presented. I too didn't know your gender, as with Chooselife3x (Although I do assume 3 kids here).
The point is that we must not get riled up when we're thought to be of one gender and not the other. If your moniker is 'hatemen" people assume you are a lesbian when in reality you may be a a woman who's recently gone through a very painful divorce.
If one is afraid to reveal his/her gender, then one must exercise caution when writing so as to prevent misinformation as it relate to gender/orientation, etc.
However if one does not feel the need to blog covertly, then maybe it's time to change web monikers to alleviate all suspicions.
This would help in the prevention of the high crime of 'offending' and lead to a more intellectual discussion.
you got it, do you?
December 1, 2008 - 15:09 ET by abeautifulperson'mr' is 'mrs' oooo zing. ya got me.
i have an opposing view. how that translates into your interpretation of self-importance, i have no idea.
having an opposing view is allowed, whether you can stand to read it or not. i don't suggest you are dumb. how is it, since i disagree with you that i am below average.
and that qualifies as an intelligent reply?
you got it, eh? >chuckle<
No, see, here is the thing.
December 1, 2008 - 15:13 ET by sherylsimsNo, see, here is the thing. Every single thing you post on this website is an opposing viewpoint. No problem, you have the right to your opinion. I just don't get why you think we care when your opinion is ALWAYS just trying to provoke an argument. Until now I have just ignored you because there are others here much better at arguing facts than I am. I am just tired of you thinking that you know so much more when you NEVER support it with any actual facts. I will not argue with you. You aren't worth it.
actually not true
December 1, 2008 - 15:36 ET by abeautifulpersoni have actually agreed with some of the writers here. the problem, when i do not agree (and i admit, its more often than not), there is such a feeding frenzy, you can't help but notice.
your opinion is yours. mine is mine. i could rest on my laurels with a bunch of liberals and circle joke, just like you do around here, but why? who does that help?
i learn around here. and sometimes, others might learn from me. at the very least, you need to know there are those out there willing to engage. the problem with BOTH left and right is they rarely venture beyond their comfort zones.
hell, you should pay me to be here. i stimulate discussion.
i read plenty here and my silence is at times confirmation of the opinions expressed. i don't believe in typing "hell yeah". if you don't like it, just ignore me. and until i am shown the door, i'm here.
show up at a couple left sites and argue me there. i'm the guy asking the questions and presenting the alternative perspectives there, as well.
but pardon me if all you can bring to the table are insults and therefore i ignore you. now you know.
ABP, this would be a lot more fun
December 1, 2008 - 15:28 ET by choselife3xIf you were capable of a logical train of thought.
Having an 'opposing' viewpoint doesn't indicate your sense of self importance, the way you express it does.
Try to pick one topic and stick with it until it is hashed out for starters. You have a tendency to make very broad claims and then challenge others to debunk them instead of providing proof yourself. Then when your claim is challenged you don't respond. Or you call names. Take a lesson from shawn228.
Aw Hell, why did I waste my time even addressing you, could've been checking the dog for fleas....
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
Opinions are not created equal
December 1, 2008 - 15:40 ET by dvdaughtryI forget where I hear the quote.
However the basic premise was that all men are created equal be we (the collective, generic society) have turned it into all opinions are created equal.
I have the same experience you have had with Shawn. Opposing opinions to what the facts portray are completely worthless.
Opinions can be right and wrong. Problem is, most people don't like to be wrong.
You trying to say Jesus Christ can't hit a curveball?
Every gun a "legal" gun?
December 1, 2008 - 13:54 ET by moderncommentaries83Saying every gun was once a legal gun, and their abuse is cause for removing them, then we have a laundry list of things that are "legal", but misused in deadly ways, and therefore should be outlawed.
First and foremost, cars. Every car is legal, but people obtain those cars and use them in criminal manners - aggressive driving, fleeing the police, drunk driving, etc. So I suppose we have to all walk everywhere because a few people misuse cars and cause fatalities.
"Regular everyday gun crime" - repeat that phrase, especially the last part, to yourself as necssary until it sinks in. CRIME. As in, there are laws already on the books that prohibit certain behaviors with guns.
Guess what? Criminals *still* break those laws because they're criminals and, quite frankly, don't give a sh*t what the laws say.
All gun control laws do is punish people who use guns, a tool, safely and responsibly.
Or - to put it another way - liberals always insist sex can be "safer" with more access to birth control and sex ed. So why can't gun use be safer with more access to firing ranges and training?
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam
this is the age-old argument about guns not killing people
December 1, 2008 - 14:06 ET by abeautifulperson...people killing people.
sure cars can be weapons, but people use cars every day all the time with no criminal intent. its not the same thing. even a knife has so many uses other than stabbing.
how about this: anyone can own a gun legally. all are registered with an embedded microchip and IF your gun ever is used in a crime YOU do 30 years. if you use a gun during a crime, you do 50 years. this would sober up gun owners who have their guns stolen. it would force them to be much more diligent with the storage of their weapon and much less likely to end up in the hands of criminals.
Intent?
December 1, 2008 - 14:23 ET by moderncommentaries83My intent in owning a weapons is not to commit a crime, but to express my Second Amendment and God-given right to self defense. In most cases where a legal gun owner pulls a weapon, s/he doesn’t even have to fire a shot because the mere presence of the gun is enough to thwart criminal actions.
The terrorists in Mumbai were a different case, but in most crimes, the perpetrator wants something but certainly doesn’t want to end up dead and will cease when faced with a law-abiding citizen expressing his/her right to defense of self, others, and personal property.
Guns don’t kill people. Guns are a tool, just as knives are. Yes, they have a more specific purpose than a knife, but the abuse of guns by criminals does not mean they should be outlawed.
Oh, so now you're going to punish the victims of theft for crimes they don't commit? Back in October, my car was stolen. Had it been used in a crime - should I have been put in jail?
The thing you fail to understand is that CRIMINALS will find a way to be criminals. No matter what it takes, no matter what the penalty may be, they will commit crimes.
More important: What part of the Second Amendment is unclear to you? What part of a natural-law right to self defense doesn't penetrate your head?
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam
We can never have people
December 1, 2008 - 14:50 ET by Andrew H.We can never have people like ABP run anything, make rules, laws or work in any capacity that affect our lives.
/S/Proud USMC sniper trained and designated.
Liberalism is a convenient lie.
Worshipping the State at ALL costs
December 1, 2008 - 15:51 ET by Unsanehow about this: anyone can own a gun legally. all are registered with an embedded microchip and IF your gun ever is used in a crime YOU do 30 years. Spoken exactly like a Socialist who simply cannot give the State enough control over people's lives; one who believes that personal responsibility is a silly anachronism.
Yeah, if my house is broken into while I am away, and my gun is stolen and used in a crime, I do 30 years while the a**hole who stole the gun gets off scot free. That sounds like a real winner. But we all know how much Leftists feel sorry for people who commit crime.
Sounds to me like you have a phobia of guns, anuglysocialist. Why is that? I live in a state that is extremely full of guns. This doesn't bother me at all; hell, it is probably much safer that way. Besides, if you hate TX for being full of guns...you'd really have Switzerland, where ALL able-bodied males are required by law to have a firearm at home. And let's not forget Israel, a nation very full of guns but very little in the way of ordinary street crims for some reason. (And in Switzerland, crime is a rarity as well.) I wonder why that is?
"The law is far, the fist is near." - Korean proverb
"THIS IS YOUR FINAL WARNING!!! A WAR ON FREEWILL IS COMING!!!" - Nevermore, "Bittersweet Feast", from This Godless Endeavor (2005)
Yet againstt all liberal theories and beliefs...
December 1, 2008 - 18:11 ET by Wilbur747Switzerland has THE lowest violent crime rate in Europe.
Did I mention that when Adolf Hitler told his generals that they needed Switzerland to achieve the Third Reich's agenda that Hermann Goering told Hilter that because of the mountains and the inability to disarm the Swiss citizens, any attack would be folly and doomed to failure?
Having been to Israel on several occasion, I know that their citizens always carry weapons from pistols to Uzis. Yet you don't hear of the "wild west" syndrome the left would have you believe.
Sorry, I didn't mean to offend the Obama gun grabbers.
W747, Israel Requires all homes have a machine gun, on site.
December 1, 2008 - 18:28 ET by upcountrywaterAlso all properties including businesses must have a bomb shelter, in the physical center..
70% of all crimes are stopped by the wonderful citizens of that Great Country.
DEMOCRAT
School
Amen!
December 1, 2008 - 19:29 ET by Wilbur747Amen UPW! Uzi is the primary arm (due to it being Iraeli made) and Ingram.
I stopped two personal crimes without firing a shot. Why can't the lessons learned by Israel be instituted here?
I'm Catholic, and yet I say lechaim to those who oppose tyranny by the people people who oppose their right to live.
I'm sure you'll find statistics showing how our own wonderful citizens have stopped crimes....only not on the MSM!
Thank you, Jeb Bush
December 1, 2008 - 19:52 ET by littlemissmuffinJeb Bush, former Governor of Florida, passed the Castle Law while in office. It applies to your home and your car; and if you see a person whose life is being threatened, you can take the criminal out (vicariously putting yourself in the victim's place.) Also, and this is the best part, no civil lawsuits can be brought against you for these actions.
Oh, how I miss Jeb Bush!!!
"If we conservatives moved to those seven non-existent States, the government couldn’t find us and tax us to death!"
Me too Bro!
December 1, 2008 - 20:08 ET by Wilbur747I thank Jeb for he sparked a 'revolution'
I also thank the Obamessiah for taking our lame governor (NepoloReno). We now have a Rep as the gov. Maybe now we'll be able to truly excercise our 2nd ammendment rights.
But now, living a few short miles from the border, I fear that she'll be as loose as she was here in AZ. "sure, let's stop illegal immigration, but let's not deport those who break our laws!
I can't tell you how I wish for more govs like Jeb!
→ But Wilbur
December 1, 2008 - 18:50 ET by Cool ArrowHitler just bought the money center (Switzerland) with the gold caps he yanked from Jewish jaws.
Switzerland didn't require an occupation. They funded the Nazis.
I respectfully disagree.
December 1, 2008 - 19:59 ET by Wilbur747Switzerland couldn't be occupied simply by the terrain (tanks and other amoured vehicles would encounter the same quagmire as Xerxes only Hitler didn't have the resources to devote to Switzerland) and the number of guns held by its citizens. Hermann Goering said this himself.
Second, the Nazi regime never depended on the gold standard that the Swiss adhered to.
Third, any gold taken from the teeth of its 'enemies' were not sold on the gold market but used as hard money to fund the regime's costs.
Fourth, why would the Swiss fund the Nazi Party, when they sheltered members of every nation in WWll? Churchill said that if the Swiss comforted the enemy, they would be susceptible to attack, so di Ike.
→ Sorry Wilbur
December 1, 2008 - 20:11 ET by Cool ArrowSorry Wilbur, but the New York Times 1/15/97 disagrees with your assumptions concerning the "Neutral Swiss"
But for a curious security guard, much of their ill-gotten gain would have been laundered forever.
Good point.
December 1, 2008 - 20:38 ET by Wilbur747but did the NYT talked about the Italian, Spanish, Turkish or French gold depsoited into Swiss Banks? You can say that they also funded these countries as well.
Remember the source.
→ Maybe
December 1, 2008 - 20:43 ET by Cool ArrowWere these banks found to be hording Jewish money 50 years after WWII?
No problem identifying ducks.
Who realy knows?
December 1, 2008 - 21:30 ET by Wilbur747Only one account was researched. What was the reason that the liberal NYT published this and not others?
How many other countries like the Soviet Union were hording Jewish money? To this day Seiman's company only apoligizes for their use of interned prisoners during the war. My Granpa was one of them. This slavery use was just as bad as hording gold, yet we have Seimans in our country occupying our soil. So who do we blame?
What about our own country? As early as 1943, reports came to the Pentagon about alleged camps, yet nothing was done. Are we just as responsible for supporting the Nazis?
Swiss banks may have horded Jewish gold. So did other banks and how many of them horded othe peoples' gold? After all, as the mafia would say, "it's only business."
Yet we accepted Swiss help in ensuring our guys made it home safely after the war (no Swiss detainees were allowed to go home until after hostilities ended). So by supporting the Swiss, who allegedly supported the Nazis, are we then not as guily as the Nazis?
What about our involvement with the mafia in Sicily? It seems we're all guilty of something.
The point I was making was that Goering peruaded Hitler that invading Switzerland was not a viable military option due to the terrain, and the amount of guns the citizenry held. Any attack and the logistics involved supporting the combat forces were unsustainable. Goering did have a plan to plunder Swiss banks following an invasion directed by Hitler but was frustrated the once the real difficulties emerged.
We could debate this for years, Cool. Whose right and whose wrong? Bottom line is that German invasion of Switzerland was nixed mainly due to the presence of guns!
Nazi's, gold and Paul
December 1, 2008 - 22:15 ET by stratmanNazi's, gold and Paul Volker.
Volker always seems to be circling around the dead and dying like a vulture looking to pick the carcass clean.
As I recall, Volker did squat with the Swiss.
MY intent is the same ...
December 1, 2008 - 17:19 ET by Wilbur747as MC83'S. First, the 2nd ammendment gives me the right, second, I WILL NEVER depend on the police to save my life. That is in MY hands, not the governemtn, police departments, sherrif or what ever.
When they arrive on scene, the crime is done and they are the crime scene clean up crew (this is the belief that several cop friends have told me).
Most of my guns are historic. Others have made money for me in shooting competitions.
Should we now engrave all knives/cars/hands with a serial number that will lead to the perpetrator?
Your argument about microchips is utterly ridiculous. In your scenario, if you are the father of a child that commits murder/rape, etc then YOU should go to prison. After all it's YOU who gave life to the criminal! YOU shuld go to jail because, after all if it weren't for YOU, the crime would not have happened?
If YOUR duaghter gets a speeding ticket then it should be YOU who gets points taken away, REGARDLESS of how old she is. Your kid hit my car at age 29, YOU are responsible. Your grandson hit my kid, YOU are responsible since it was YOUR sperm.
Using your logic, since YOU provided the sperm, them YOU must pay.
I think you get my drift.
"IF your gun ever is used
December 1, 2008 - 21:56 ET by ckc1227"IF your gun ever is used in a crime YOU do 30 years...this would sober up gun owners who have their guns stolen. it would
force them to be much more diligent with the storage of their weapon
and much less likely to end up in the hands of criminals."
And while we're at it, let's make rape victims do 15 years too. This would force them to be much more diligent about locking their doors, not looking so damn attractive, and not going out after sundown. And god help their ass if they had a gun to protect themselves that happened to get stolen after the rape....give 'em life if that happens. Gotta teach them rape victims a lesson.
Libs never let you down. You don't have to talk to one very long before the stupid comes out.
Powerful statement!
December 1, 2008 - 22:47 ET by Wilbur747What a statement! I might humbly add that a woman beaten by her spouse should share a cell with the rape victim. I will go down to the local police department and turn myself in for defending my life from a criminal. After all, I had a wallet with $32 in it so I was the cause of the crime.
I can't hold it back anymore, I like debate, but not against a person who deals from emotions and lib talking points rather than reality.
He/she/it must live in a secure bubble with personal guards.
Saudi justice
December 2, 2008 - 01:39 ET by UnsaneOr we could just apply Saudi justice to rape victims. Just sentence them to 200 lashes and six months in jail for not being escorted in some way by a male relative.
That will show those stupid women not to bring it on themselves!
(Sarcasm off, and great point, by the way!)
"THIS IS YOUR FINAL WARNING!!! A WAR ON FREEWILL IS COMING!!!" - Nevermore, "Bittersweet Feast", from This Godless Endeavor (2005)
"in countries where people
December 1, 2008 - 14:23 ET by NL207"in countries where people don't need to defend themselves from intruders with guns, it should be celebrated"
In those countries, home invasion is the number one serious crime, dwarfing the rate of such in the US. Nobody in Germany or Britain is celebrating that. Usually the victims are simply bound and gagged, but is not uncommon to hear of people being killed by robbers in those countries. Of course, they are never shot, just stabbed, bludgeoned or suffocated.
Now, a better example: The European country with the lowest crime rate is Switzerland. Of course, that cannot possibly have anything to do with the fact that every able-bodied man in the country has a fully automatic assault rifle in his house and has been trained to use it.
The common thread in this
December 1, 2008 - 14:23 ET by dvdaughtryThe common thread in this discussion is criminals. I have an idea that everyone should agree with:
Let's ban criminals.
Yeah, dispose (literally) of all the criminals and then lets see what direction the crime goes.
I submitted an aplication to be on Obama's cabinet, but was turned down after he relized I have purchased 2 guns in the last 3 weeks and plan on making a 3rd purchase.
If if wasn't for that damn, "do you or any of your immediate family members own firearms..." question.
(sigh)
You trying to say Jesus Christ can't hit a curveball?
ABP, you are full of it as usual.
December 1, 2008 - 14:50 ET by R D Helm...the easier guns are to obtain, the more they are available to criminals.
Really?
And the idea that there is little crime in Europe is a blatant lie.
You can sit around in your country waiting and hoping for the police to show up in time if you like. Maybe they will, maybe they won't.
We Americans will take care of ourselves.
-Dave
When in doubt, always side with freedom, as it sure beats the hell out of the alternative.
abp your wikitistics are off
December 1, 2008 - 14:39 ET by cocodrieAccording to Nationmaster.com the homicide statistics are per 1,ooo:
I included the last three to show that guns in the house do not increase the murder rate as you suggest, The percentage of households having guns is as follows:
If you were correct, Norway, Finland, and Switzerland would have a vastly lower nomber households with guns.
one of the perils of using Wiki misinformation as a source for information.
Other factors are obviously responsible for the murder rate. Have you ever considered the drug related killings?
those numbers are pretty much in line with mine
December 1, 2008 - 15:43 ET by abeautifulpersoncanadians own a LOT of long guns. this is the reason why canadians own 60% as many guns are americans and yet suffer only 1/3 gun murders.
drug related murder. sure thing. look at the rates in colombia and venezuela. then again, IRAQ is the murder capital of the world and drugs have little to do with it.
The law is still far and the fist is still near
December 1, 2008 - 15:58 ET by Unsanecanadians own a LOT of long guns. this is the reason why canadians own 60% as many guns are americans and yet suffer only 1/3 gun murders. Once again, anuglysocialist puts up a claim and does absolutely nothing to back it up. We are to blindly believe anything anuglysocialist says and never question it.
This is why, anuglysocialist, you are such a p***-poor debater.
And leave it to you to gush over the Northern Nanny State once more. I remember well talking to a Mountie about gun laws when we were discussing basic differences between the United States and Canada some time ago, never mind when or where. I at one point described the gun laws of the state of TX - the few that there are, that is. I thought her hair was going to turn white. It was quite entertaining.
Yep, Canada has some of the most stringent gun laws in the world but for some strange reason it still has cops. I guess it isn't quite the Utopia you depict.
"The law is far, the fist is near." - Korean proverb
"THIS IS YOUR FINAL WARNING!!! A WAR ON FREEWILL IS COMING!!!" - Nevermore, "Bittersweet Feast", from This Godless Endeavor (2005)
abp you are superb
December 1, 2008 - 16:17 ET by cocodrieat making irrational arguments. You totally ignore that the countries with the highest percentage of households with guns have for the most part the lowest murder rate.
Then you cite a war zone where Islamic lunatics are trying to blow themselves into heaven.
The murders in Colombia are directly caused by drug lords. The murders in Venezuela are committed by Chavez's people eliminating his enemies.
I still believe that your posts have the personality of a giddy young girl.
abp
December 1, 2008 - 16:41 ET by cocodrieMy figures translated into murders per 100,000 are:
your figures per 100,000 are:
Hardly the same
→ Chicago murder rate
December 1, 2008 - 16:45 ET by Cool ArrowIs anybody tracking the swift drop in murders in Chicago since the messiah has come?
That might be interesting.
Evening Cool
December 1, 2008 - 16:57 ET by cocodrieThe swift drop in Chicago murder rate is just as real as Biden's spelling abilities.
your numbers are overall murder rates
December 1, 2008 - 21:41 ET by abeautifulpersonmy first numbers only from GUN murders. a couple comments down i note OVERALL murder rates. my bad for not specifying initially.
while i admit your and my overall numbers don't match exactly (probably looking at different years), they are essentially the same.
and whether you use your numbers or mine, both illustrate that countries with tighter gun restrictions, particularly with handguns and automatic/semi automatic weapons, have lower gun murder and therefore overall murder rates.
my statistics arrive from "Ninth United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems"
please have a look.
http://64.233.169.132/search?q=cache:D_v_0NmlVpoJ:www.unodc.org/pdf/research/9th_survey/CTS9ByIndicatorExtract.pdf
→ Great point
December 1, 2008 - 21:44 ET by Cool ArrowBut aren't Mexico's gun laws many times more restrictive than ours?
I'm just looking for an honest common denominator.
My approach is that if you can't legally defend yourself against armed aggression, your country has sent an invitation to your murderer.
MUCH more rstrictive Cool...
December 1, 2008 - 22:02 ET by Wilbur747I live just north Nogales AZ, and when I go South (no longer after reading a story on I think it wa WND) or elsewhere, I'm told by the border people on both sides that if I have even one single round or casing, I'll be 'detained', and we all know what that means!
→ Thanks Wilbur
December 1, 2008 - 22:09 ET by Cool ArrowI'm about 140 miles from Del Rio and Acuña.
Seems to me if this disarming nonsense were truly effective at curbing gun crime, Mexico would be a safe place to visit.
NOT!!!
How true...
December 1, 2008 - 23:11 ET by Wilbur747So should DC, Chicago and NY. I've been mugged in all three and the cops couldn't care less. Just another day for them I guess. Typical question..."You a tourist?"
I won't be visiting Mexico again. I don't care about how cheaply dentists can fix a tooth. I would rather spend my money in countries that show initiative to secure its visitors.
More 'legal' guns...less crime.
Something else for your perusal....
http://www.news4jax....
abp
December 1, 2008 - 22:09 ET by cocodrieThat's right and that's what I said. If gun related murders are isolated from overall murders, murders by knives, ice picks stones etc should also be listed separately.
The overall murder rate proves that restrictive gun laws do not reduce the murder rate. The only way to reduce the murder rate is to execute the murderer after the first murder. that would eliminate multiple murders by that person.
You cherry pick countries and play games with numbers and facts in an attempt to present a false view of reality. Your selective statistics prove nothing. The murder rate anywhere in the world is affected by many more factors than guns.
I have as much faith in United Nations data as I have in Wikipedia.
i selected the countries for the following reasons
December 1, 2008 - 23:06 ET by abeautifulpersoncanada and britain are culturally the closest to the US. india was included for obvious reasons. and then a couple extreme examples.
there's no playing with facts. and since the UN and wiki basically match your numbers, i don't see how you can be so quick to dismiss them.
i realize that having guns in itself does not alone determine murder rates. it seems reasonable to control them more tightly where people are prone to shooting each other. america is a place where this is physically possible if the will exists (unlike places like colombia or venezuela).
but getting back to the initial discussion: loosening gun controls in india would cause far more problems than it would solve. it appears that embracing a gun culture is like letting the genie out of the bottle; impossible to put back in.
Again ABP...
December 2, 2008 - 00:00 ET by Wilbur747Did you ever stop to think that the same person/organisati0n that wrote the Wiki stats goi it from the UN an their vision of global gun bans?
STOP LOOKING AT WIKI FOR YOUR FACTS!
Forget India, you're dodging. Israel has "loose" laws, yet they are safer than we are.
YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT! CAN I YELL THIS ANY LOUDER?
These cities have a total ban on handguns (I don't have enough space to list them all)
Chicago
New York
Morton Grove, Ill.
San Francisco
Seattle
DC (even after the USSC ruling, guns are essentially banned)
I can go on and on, yet you are too blind to asee the truth.
ABP...EVERYONE OF THESE CITIES RANK THE HIGHEST IN GUN MURDER RATES EVEN THOUGH HANDGUNS ARE BANNED! ARE YOU TOO BLIND TO SEE?
IF YOU BAN GUNS, ONLY THE CRIMINALS WILL HAVE THEM. THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT GUN RESTRICTIONS! THEY ONLY CARE ABOUT THEMSELVES AND THEY WILL KILL AT EVERY OPPORTUNITY! IF YOU WANT TO BE A VICTIM, GO AHEAD. I REFUSE!
IF YOU WANT TO DEPEND ON 911 TO SECURE YOUR SORRY LIFE,THEN DO SO, BUT NEVER, EVER TELL ME I CAN'T CARRY AND DEFEND MYSELF BECAUSE OF SOME STUPID PEACE-NIK IDEA.
I sincerely apologize to everyone and the moderator for my anger and lack of self control. After time, I tire of the arguements of people who live in a bubble.
I apologize.
Good point as well,
December 1, 2008 - 22:29 ET by Wilbur747but I'm suspect of any report coming from an organization that has the expressed goal of banning all privately owned guns.
How about we stay away from the UN and deal with FBI, Center for Disease Control (don't even ask!), local law enforcement, etc, stats. A police shooting in some states that is determined by the DA to be unjustified, can be classified as 2nd or 3rd degree murder.
Are your first numbers on a per capita basis? Meaning that corrections are made due to popluation size? Saying that Chicago has a 2.0% rate with 100 murders can be the same as Podunk, Arkasas having only two murders. The same murder rate for Podunk can equal to Chicago.
What filters are you using? How many of the guns used in crimes are actually stolen from good people and how many are 'recycled' from other criminals?
How many of those murders were justified but because of local laws, they're classified as murder?
ABP, I know you refuse to accept stats that disagree with your beliefs, instead using anti-gun stats that are continually spouted out yet consistently proven wrong. I urge you to reead at least one of those books. Read them with an open mind. Progressives are supposed to be open minded right?
As far as your assumption tha bans create lower murder rates, that goes against even the CDC stats, and they're about as anti gun as you can get.
Again, look at Chicago, DC and other gun banning cities. They continually have the highest gun murder rate in the country.
Bottom line is that banning guns like the semi-auto .22 Remmington Speedmaster that my dad gave mewhen I was 9 or the .22 pistol I got a year later will not and it has been proven reduce murders. Guns make it easy, but if I wanted to kill someone, I have many other tools at my disposal. Do we ban all of them?
You're good at looking up articles, now do some real research.
But I LIKE To Shoot!
December 2, 2008 - 01:47 ET by UnsaneWilbur - For a great read, look for an article by Tom Clancy - yes, that Tom Clancy - called "But I Like To Shoot". A WONDERFUL article on gun control.
I also highly recommend it to anuglysocialist.
"The law is far, the fist is near." - Korean proverb
"THIS IS YOUR FINAL WARNING!!! A WAR ON FREEWILL IS COMING!!!" - Nevermore, "Bittersweet Feast", from This Godless Endeavor (2005)
ABP,
December 2, 2008 - 00:28 ET by RESTLESS 1Canada has about 1/10th the population as the U.S. and yet "suffer only 1/3 gun murders". Think about it.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
I have some serious doubts
December 1, 2008 - 16:49 ET by NL207I have some serious doubts about the Swiss number. 27% might be right if the only guns considered are sporting or personal defence weapons.
Unless there has been some change in the Militia / Home Defence laws there in the last 20 years, every able-bodied man is a member of either the Swiss Armed Forces or Reserves and has his personal service rifle or sidearm, depending upon rank, in his home.
Interesting...
December 1, 2008 - 14:59 ET by Wilbur747that you use those numbers. You failed to mention how many of these homicides were by gun, knife, machete, car, etc. Stats are useles if they don't include filters.
How about this number; one year after England and Australia banned handguns, the reported violent crime rate went up 52%, while in Australia, it was 56%.
In Kennesaw GA, the violent crime rate decreased dramatically after a law required all heads of households to have at least a shotgun, unless they objected due to religion or other convictions. The police chief stated that once the criminals knew the town was armed, they sought easier targets elsewhere.
Let's see some more numbers using just children. In 1995:
200 were killed by guns (remember this figure includes ages up to 25 and include police shootings of a criminal)
2900 by car crashes
950 drowned
1000 were from burns.
More children were killed drowning in those 5 gallon buckets than by gun.
Now to address the thought that banning results in less guns. Chicago, New York and D.C. have severe resctriction or outright bans yet these three cities are on top of the list for having the highest gun crime rates in the country as well as the numbers of those 'illegal' guns. Here is Arizona, the number of 'illegal' guns are suprising low especially when you consider that approximately one in 10 people legally carry a weapon at all times.
Having been to Israel where virtually everyone is armed, I've heard so many stories about terrorists that were killed before they commited their crime (or shortly after) by armed citizens. States with high numbers of law abiding citizens have statisically lower violent crime rates.
Criminals will steal good people's guns. This is true, but it's estimated that some 40-50% of all guns used by criminals were already in use by criminals and were stolen from them. So banning or restricting guns will not decrease the number already on the street.
I successfully defended myself on two occasions from crime. One used a knife (with a gun in his waistband) and the other had a gun. Both times the criminal ran without me having to fire a shot.
I suggest three books for you:
1. "The Seven Myths of Gun Control" by Richard Poe
2. More Guns, Less Crime, By John R. Lott, Jr
3. The Bias Against Guns, also by John Lott.
Many beliefs about guns gun control and who should have them are founded on inaccurate information.
Had the terrorists thought
December 1, 2008 - 21:38 ET by ckc1227Had the terrorists thought more people might have been armed, they likely wouldn't have been there in the first place. Seriously, what is it about you libs? You'll fight to the death for a tree, but if it comes down to defending your own life or getting shot down in the street, you'll basically lay down and wait for the shooter to do his dirty work. If you have so little regard for your life, that's cool, but don't make me and everyone else suffer for your ignorance.
Story Killers
December 1, 2008 - 11:51 ET by flyingmonkeyIf everybody was armed, the attack might have been cut short. What a story killer that would have been.
Have you ever seen a flock of TV trucks at a scene where somebody with a gun saved the day? Hell No!!! The first thing the media does is check out the local gun laws to see if the hero was in compliance.
Boycott your local newspaper. Don't support the same people that lie to you.
They don't have to look at
December 1, 2008 - 12:01 ET by DuymonThey don't have to look at India to see what strict gun laws can do to up the crimerate. Just look at what happened to DC
Gun-Free Zones = Target Rich Zones
December 1, 2008 - 12:06 ET by moderncommentaries83Just like in America, where some of the most vicious and bloody attacks have been carried out in gun-free zones (college campuses, public schools, shopping malls), the left NEVER realizes that gun-free zones are places where they might as well distribute targets to students and shoppers. I work in such a gun-free zone. You want to know what our "security" plan involves? If there's an armed threat in the neighborhood, representatives from every office (including two of my co-workers) are supposed to go stand by the doors (glass doors) of a specific area and screen people entering/leaving the building. My co-workers are both women in their 50s, and they're supposed to wear bright orange vests. It is ridiculous, and even our security isn't allowed to carry weapons. Of course, I live in one of the two states (Wisconsin) where CCW is not allowed...in direct violation of our Constitution. Liberals live in a fantasy world where cops not only are able to teleport directly to the scene of a crime, but also have a sworn obligation to stop crime! Several court rulings in this nation have made it clear that police have no obligation to protect the citizens or prevent a crime from being committed. THEY. DON'T. HAVE. TO. The typical police response time in an emergency is minutes; non-emergencies can take hours. This is a joke. And it's costing people their lives. Aut viam inveniam aut faciam
Not only
December 1, 2008 - 12:37 ET by littlemissmuffinNot only has Great Britain outlawed guns, they also plan to ban fire extinguishers because people don't know how to use them properly! I have friends in GB, and they say crime is rampant. Now I guess fires will become rampant, too.
If we don't want a dictatorship, we better fight like the dickens to keep our guns.
Remember, first comes registration, then comes confiscation.
"If we conservatives moved to those seven non-existent States, the government couldn’t find us and tax us to death!"
Texas gun law
December 1, 2008 - 12:58 ET by jistincaseI may be mistaken but isn't there or wasn't there a county in Texas where people were required to carry a weapon and when the law was enacted that the violent crime rate almost dropped off the charts?
The killing fields of India
December 1, 2008 - 12:37 ET by 10ksnookerMuch easier to pull off a mass murder if there is no possibility of the soon to be slaughtered shooting back.
Liberals seem to forget this lesson, over and over again. In the words of Ronald Reagan --- "It isn't that Liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so much that isn't so."
A useful question to ask any
December 1, 2008 - 12:46 ET by NL207A useful question to ask any gun control advocate: What happened to the James and Younger outlaw gang when they tried to rob the bank in Northfield, Minnesota>
If I was a criminal and
December 1, 2008 - 13:13 ET by jistincaseIf I was a criminal and thought that there might be the chance of 10 people in the lobby of a bank or some checkout line packing I would be inclined to think real hard about doing that said crime. Lets face it unless you are just plain bonkers you wouldn't want to risk getting shot or killed to get 50 bucks from some cash register would you?
I think it would also be important to point out that most homicides are carried out by gang related activity and not by the honest tax paying citizens of this country.
or if you are bent on killing, as these men were
December 1, 2008 - 13:23 ET by abeautifulpersonand you thought 10 people were packing, you might just mow the whole bunch down to avoid the shootout. no warning.
these guys were discriminating (to an extent) who they wanted dead. if they wanted everyone dead, the death toll would have been much higher.
Normally I wouldn't even
December 1, 2008 - 13:35 ET by Jack BauerNormally I wouldn't even respond to your artless, and bizarre ruminations, but sometimes you write something even more detatched from reality than your usual tripe.
Apart from the inane logic you deploy, which seems based on "you think it, therefore it's true"; exactly how many do you think the terrorists intended to kill?
Here's a clue, from someone who actually knows what they are talking about.
RDX
December 1, 2008 - 13:55 ET by katainkentRDX - pretty non-descriminating.
Thanks for the link, btw.
"If you think you're finished shopping for Christmas, why not start on next year"
3 days, 10 guys and only 180 dead
December 1, 2008 - 14:13 ET by abeautifulpersonin a place where there was little opposition. in a city with one of the highest population densities in the world.
now juxtapose that against columbine or virginia tech. how many did they kill in what amount of time?
In case you missed the link
December 1, 2008 - 14:13 ET by Jack BauerIn case you missed the link to the article about the doctors who examined the bodies, and are traumatized by the hideous torture they found on the Rabbi and his wife, and other foreigners.
http://www.rediff.co...
It breaks your heart
exactly my point.
December 1, 2008 - 14:15 ET by abeautifulpersonthese guys were discriminating who they killed.
abp, "More guns less crime", a book BASED ON THE FACTS
December 1, 2008 - 13:47 ET by upcountrywaterMore guns less crime
To bad no one had a gun to defend themselfs, In India, on the high seas or elsewhere.
DEMOCRAT
Aclu</
and yet countries with more restriction on firearms
December 1, 2008 - 14:24 ET by abeautifulpersonconsistently have lower gun (and overall) murder rates.
guess what. those guys who were hi-jacked on the high seas. they had guns. just not big enough ones. the pirates were armed to the teeth
and that's where it goes...
once everyone has a gun. the bad guys get bigger, faster guns that hold more bullets. they shoot you then take your wallet because you aren't afforded the luxury of getting the time to pull your gun out. they shoot you in the back so you don't even see it coming. then they pick up your unfired gun WITH your wallet. no thanks.
Do they, really?
December 1, 2008 - 14:50 ET by CobraMan"countries with more restriction on firearms have consistently have lower gun (and overall) murder rates"
Do they, really? Reality wouild tend to dispropve that statement.
If you compare the murder rates in most countries that "restrict" access to gun's you'll see that the murder rates, per capita, actually increases in response to an unarmed society (this is why the per capita murder rates in NY City, which has VERY restrictive gun laws, is much higher than, say, Minneapolis who's gun laws are much less restrictive). It does not decrease.
The only difference between those countries and America is the fact it is usually government-sponsored killers carrying out the policies of that tyrannical government and NOT the general population whom are merely trying to survive under totalitarianism.
This false belief in the restriction of weapons to the general citizenry will reduce murder has been proven incorrect, time and time again. As anyone who has studied history can attest, the lack of access to weapons leads to tyrannical government, the enslavement of citizens, and an INCREASE in violence and murder.
Case in in point? The Soviet Union where gun ownership by the citizens was banned by law, and state sanctioned murder, and imprisonment, of " malcontents," like any member of political opposition group, occurred on a daily basis.
Another Case in Point? Nazi Germany where the Jews were DENIED the right to arm themselves. We all know what happened to those Jews, don't we?
Obama: My job is above my pay gradem
Blind to History
December 1, 2008 - 15:11 ET by CobraMan"once everyone has a gun. the bad guys get bigger, faster guns that hold more bullets."
Once again, you seem to be blind to history. Just in the last 100 years alone, the myth that "the bad guys get bigger, faster guns" has bee proven incorrect. Back in the eairly 1900's rapid-fire weapons were available to the general population, yet the "bad guys" generally ignored these weapons in favor of their 'trusted", single-fire weapons. How could this be, if the "bad guys" always need bigger and better weapons? Could it be that the "bad guys" realize the need for EFFECTIVE weapons as opposed to ADVANCED one?
The same was true in the 20's and 30's when fully automatic weapons were available to the general population, and at a somewhat reasonable price. Yes, there were a few high-profile cases involving advanced automatic weapons, but, by far, the "bad guys" stuck to their "tried and true" six-shot revolvers and other "slow fire" firearms, did they not? Once again, how could this be?
This idea that the "bad guys" will always go for bigger and better, as opposed to effective, weaponry is just as incorrect as the belief that an unarmed society is more peaceful than an armed one, and just as naive.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
are we going to have an honest discussion here?
December 1, 2008 - 22:03 ET by abeautifulpersonyou are going to go back 100 years to make your point?
why don't you ask a cop if criminals are getting their hands on heavier artillery...
Chief Scott Knight, an official of the International Association of Chiefs of Police said in 2004: ''Weapons of this nature serve no legitimate sporting or hunting purposes and have no place in our community. Unless Congress acts, the firearms of choice for terrorists, drug dealers, gang members and thugs will be back on our streets where once again our officers will be outgunned by criminals.''
from the FIREARMS COALITION website: "Chiefs Call for More Firepower"
http://www.firearmsc...
in texas: "POLICE WILL SOON GET MORE FIRE POWER"
http://www.kiiitv.com/home/17523384.html
police feel they are outgunned.
and since i live in an unarmed society which has a lower crime rate, i'm not being naive. i've lived it and the facts back me up.
answer me this: do the police in your neighbourhood carry 6-shooters? please show me where police are asking for less weapondry, anywhere, and i'll eat my hat (which fortunately was made from a new york strip and grilled to perfection).
abp technology marches on, do cops drive cars from the 50's
December 1, 2008 - 23:39 ET by upcountrywaterIn my state the Police have 14 round clips..
Do you prefer a rutty dirt road, to a paved highway.
4 in-line or a V8...
electric or bike
canning to refrigeration
snares to supermarkets
running water?
soap
DEMOCRAT
School
abp ain't from around
December 1, 2008 - 23:46 ET by Clear thinkerabp ain't from around here!
She/he wrote "and since i live in an unarmed society" .
So why are we wasting our time arguing with an outsider?
Not My President
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
APB, you have children, or so you claim.
December 2, 2008 - 00:23 ET by R D HelmSuppose your domicile gets invaded in the middle of the night. One of the invaders is now standing over one of your offspring with a knife or gun in their hand.
You have a firearm in your hand, and a telephone about three feet farther away.
What are you going to do?
-Dave
When in doubt, always side with freedom, as it sure beats the hell out of the alternative.
The law is STILL far and the fist is STILL near
December 2, 2008 - 02:00 ET by UnsaneNow try asking cops on the street the same question as I have. They will tell you instead that they are a deterrent force only.
The last point is not a balnket dig at cops. But I seem to run into one of two types: 1) complete professionals or 2) complete power-tripping a**holes. Nowhere in between.
Cops:
1) Provide a deterrent, a deterrent only, against crime;
2) Investigate crimes and therefore provide the means to have crimes prosecuted
3) Harass and otherwise treat the general populace with extreme contempt. (For too many in blue, WE work for THEM, not the other way around. But I suspect anuglysocialist LOVES that arrangement.
Interesting you quote not street cops but police chiefs. Their jobs are oftentimes, as Tom Clancy points out in "But I Like To Shoot" that either they harbor political ambitions of their own or are beholden to those who do; therefore they are often under enormous pressure to espouse pro-gun control nonsense even though many of the cops they command would rather prefer that people learn to take care of themselves. After all, even cops on the street - those that I have talked to in different jurisdictions (I even got to work with USSS guys once - talk about some awesome professionals!!!), will be the first to tell you that they aren't everywhere all the time and that even after the call is made, the deed is done. Making the proverb I will quote for you AGAIN even more timely.
"The law is far, the fist is near." - Korean proverb
"THIS IS YOUR FINAL WARNING!!! A WAR ON FREEWILL IS COMING!!!" - Nevermore, "Bittersweet Feast", from This Godless Endeavor (2005)
beautiful person, please disregard my earlier comment to you
December 1, 2008 - 14:00 ET by jefflebowskiI wrote it before reading your latest comment and thought that you possessed even the smallest capacity to reason. I can see that I was wasting my time.
Jeff Lebowski
www.angrywhitedude.c...
You can have all the gun
December 1, 2008 - 14:32 ET by kbassYou can have all the gun laws you want, but you will never close the black market. If a criminal really wants a gun, they will get one. Gun laws only effect non-criminals.
That is EXACTLY what I was
December 1, 2008 - 14:38 ET by sherylsimsThat is EXACTLY what I was going to say, kbass. (I just figured almost everyone here already knew that.) and the one person who doesn't know it won't believe you anyway.
Good evening Sheryl
December 1, 2008 - 14:46 ET by cocodrieI don't remember the case, I'd have to research it but the SCOTUS declared that criminals cannot be required to register guns. It would be against their constitutional rights and they cannot be prosecuted for not obeying gun registration laws.
One of the best lines ever
December 1, 2008 - 15:06 ET by littlemissmuffinOne of the best lines ever. Remember this?
All in the Family.
Gloria is upset because people are getting killed with guns.
Archie says, "Would it make you feel better, little girl, if they were pushed out of windows?"
"If we conservatives moved to those seven non-existent States, the government couldn’t find us and tax us to death!"
i agree with both of you
December 1, 2008 - 22:28 ET by abeautifulpersonand you both know the solution. its the same solution attempted (rather unsuccessfully, i must say) with the war on drugs: tough penalties. minimize production and distribution. unfortunately, too many people profit. the gun lobbies do not want restriction on production or distribution. they work very hard to avoid restriction.
in 2006 almost 4,000,000 guns were manufactured in the US. http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/stats/afmer/afmer2006.pdf
in 2000 over 1,000,000 guns were imported (couldn't find numbers for '06). are we talking 5,000,000 guns per year? that's a lot of guns
from the 2004 national firearms survey:
"In the US, about one in four adults owns at least one firearm. Although some other developed countries have similar rates of personal firearm ownership, what is unique in the US is the number of firearms privately owned. Researchers have estimated about 25 guns per 100 people in countries such as Canada, New Zealand, Germany, France and Sweden.16On the basis of current estimates from our survey, the US has 93 guns per 100 people."
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/13/1/15
You don't know the solution either.
December 2, 2008 - 00:59 ET by Wilbur747X amount of guns were maufactured...so what?
X amount of guns were imported...so what?
All these people own guns...so what?
How many cars are made and how many are involved in crimes? Do we now ban them using your logic?
Your argument is that "x" amount of guns are made and "x" amount are used in crimes.
By your logic...since cars, drowings, knives, screw drivers, etc have been invovled in murders why don't we just ban all of them?
If we ban all sharp objects, we'll eliminate all prison murders.
If we ban hands, we'll stop all domestic violent murders caused by hitting.
If we ban cars, we'll eliminate every death involving a car.
If we ban water and swimming pools, we'll eradicate approximately 2900 deaths per year!
If we ban trains (which I an an engineer on), we'll stop the slaughter of cows and stupid motorists.
Do we ban 5 gallon paint buckets because more kids are killed by them than with guns?
Do we ban the Quarter Pounder because they cause heart disease?
Bottom line ABP is that your beliefs are misdirected, misinformed and founded on feelings and not facts.
Do us a favor and stop posting. In your world, eveything that could possibly pose a threat would be banned.
I'd hate for the government to conficate my spatula!
India has an even bigger
December 1, 2008 - 15:03 ET by Jack BauerIndia has an even bigger immediate problem than that of its unarmed, sitting duck citizenry.
ARMED POLICEMEN at the Railway Terminus cowered and refuse to engage the TWO terrorists as they slaughtered dozens.
This is the angry eye-witness territory of the Indian photographer whose took the only pics of the islamo-terrorists which were flashed globally.
Sky News (UK) ran an extended ten minute re-enaction last night, as he took a female Sky journo on the route he FOLLOWED the terrorists on their leisurely slaughter.
He was bitterly upset that he only had a camera and not a gun to shoot them.
ABP,
December 1, 2008 - 15:18 ET by littlemissmuffinI have a serious question for you:
If the colonists had no guns, would we even BE the United States of America?
"If we conservatives moved to those seven non-existent States, the government couldn’t find us and tax us to death!"
Well... of course
December 1, 2008 - 15:23 ET by Jack BauerWell... of course not!
Though I don't quite see the link between that and the trained and armed Induan cops?
I sort of see where you are heading -- it does reinforce the 2nd Amendment, as a citizen cannot depend upon the state for his ultimate defense.
Jack Bauer
December 1, 2008 - 15:28 ET by littlemissmuffinI was aiming for the Second Amendment in my question. ABP seems to think we should abolish all guns (except the ones the criminals have.) The Second Amendment (IMHO) is to protect us FROM the goverment forming a dictatorship as well as self-defense.
Does that make more sense?
"If we conservatives moved to those seven non-existent States, the government couldn’t find us and tax us to death!"
These are My rights
December 1, 2008 - 20:41 ET by wotsizname"The Citizens," or "The People," is a group, the majority, of persons who wish to live in a peaceful orderly society, or nation. They have primary rights given to them by their nature - or their God, if you prefer - to do so, and defend their homes, families, comunities, and a country if they establish one, from unjust attack. Unjust attacks by criminals do not affect that right. But if I have a right I also have the responsibility to use it wisely or lose the exercise of the right by attacking my fellows. But the right is unalienably mine. You can not take it from me. If I do not attack you, it is mine to use, whether you like it or not. It precedes and supercedes all human ordinances, governments, constitutions and lists of obvious citizens; rights. These rights are defended by "A well regulated (present, constant, available and dependable)militia...." which since colonial times and to the present includes "every able bodied man from 16 to 60 and furnishing their own personal arms," in defense of their community. The United States cannot survive without them. The Declaration Of Independence says, "...We hold these Truths to be Self Evident, that all men are created equal, and that they ARE ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR WITH CERTAIN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS...." Jefferson, in a letter to a friend, said, "The God Who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time. The hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them." Now comes The One. "...just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right...." - Obama, 2008 Philadelphia primary debate.
Well said! The Best Video
December 1, 2008 - 20:47 ET by Clear thinkerWell said!
The Best Video By A Conservative
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
This was a fun thread
December 1, 2008 - 20:26 ET by choselife3xToo bad ABP went home. I love playing Bop a Troll.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
I don't think liberal gun
December 1, 2008 - 22:18 ET by RR GOPI don't think liberal gun laws in a country like India is such a good idea-too many factions at each other's throats with religion as the fuel for hatred.
Over here, just too many creeps, gangs and criminals allowed to run around because the Communists want our Republic to fall apart and fail so they can rush in and fill the vacuum. Oh, yeah, with help from the Liberal suckers who feel sorry for the aforementioned degenerates.
One of the 24% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 89% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.
More guns just could work
December 2, 2008 - 02:13 ET by UnsaneI don't think liberal gun laws in a country like India is such a good idea-too many factions at each other's throats with religion as the fuel for hatred. Actually, more guns might make people there think twice. Besides, look at Israel. That country is more diverse religiously than one might think, and it is armed to the teeth. For some reason street crime doesn't happen much there.
"THIS IS YOUR FINAL WARNING!!! A WAR ON FREEWILL IS COMING!!!" - Nevermore, "Bittersweet Feast", from This Godless Endeavor (2005)