NEWS FLASH. NEWS FLASH. The bad guys already have plenty of guns. It's just a matter of time until they use them ILLEGALLY.
Most say it's the guns. I say, it's today's society
- Thread starter Sam Fisher
- Start date
NEWS FLASH. NEWS FLASH. The bad guys already have plenty of guns. It's just a matter of time until they use them ILLEGALLY.
Jagger69
Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
Yes I agree but you can **** a helluva lot more people with 120 rounds in a clip than you can with 10. Frankly, I don't know why anyone would feel the need to own an assault weapon in the first place. However, even if the NRA were to win out on that, this police chief in Baltimore has a really good idea as far as I am concerned:
At least it's a step in the right direction that does not ******* the second amendment in any fashion from my aspect.
Link is here:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/baltimore-...city-firepower/story?id=18030163#.UNO876zheSo
We all know a high-capacity magazine ban won't stop criminals from using high-capacity magazines, nor them from using ****** firearms. THIS WAS ALREADY TRIED AND FAILED. If you are willing to die for something you want to accomplish, laws are not a consideration, why this is so hard to grasp, to me itself, is baffling. It is unfortunate most citizens of these United States don't understand that because it does waste time, and efforts, to create REAL change. Too many sheltered housewives adopt the notion that banning these items somehow makes them impervious to crime and hardship, if that is not a sign of a society in denial, I don't know what is. Nobody can be THAT stupid.
I asked this question a couple days ago, but nobody would answer:
If banning things doesn't eliminate them entirely, then why ban them? For example, many ***** are *******, yet there are ***** on our streets. So why not legalize them? Explosives are *******, yet people make bombs anyway, so why not legalize them? Prostitution and human trafficking are *******, yet they still happen. So let's legalize them, too.
Why not abolish all laws? Clearly they haven't worked, so why not eliminate them?
Now, I don't happen to be in favor of banning guns - only regulating them - but if the reason we're going to give for not banning them is that they'll just be made into a black market commodity, then doesn't it follow that we shouldn't ban anything? Everything should be legal: robbery, ******, assault, extortion, ****...you name it. They happen anyway, so why not just let them happen and allow people to fend for themselves?
NEWS FLASH. NEWS FLASH. : New people become criminals each day and some don't have guns, yet
Im loving this, just a fyi i just went to 4 very large *** shops, and there is not one single assualt rifle left in the state. Lol who would have thought obama would be the number one *** salesmen of all time, well i guess thats all hes good for.
Obama's the best thing for the assault weapon industry, virtually every store has run out of their current stocks.
Mr. Daystar
In a bell tower, watching you through cross hairs.
Well I'll tell you what, they can come and have mine, as soon as they bring me a check for 100 million dollars. That's what my safety, and piece of mind are worth. I will buy ONE 6 shot ******** for carry, and home defense, and the rest will go away....all I need is that check for 200 million dollars. I think that's more then fair....I mean surely my home and person have value, and lets not forget my lovely wife, whom I cherish more then anything on earth....yep, that's worth 300 million.
So, is it a deal?
It's about humanity. No human life can be replaced with any mass amount of money.
Can you prove that?
It's self-evident, and a clear correlate to your point that
The point is, there have been criminals in the past, there are criminals now, and there will be criminals in the future. Some guns have been bought in the past and some are being bought now, but if we begin to enact sensible restrictions in future *** sales, we may prevent some criminals from ****ing people because guns won't be so readily available to just anyone who wants them.
I think this thread has run its course. The *** rights supporters aren't even dodging the issues with half-truths anymore. They aren't engaging rationally in a discussion at all, despite the fact that several people here are still proposing and debating ideas.
There are serious points to be made on behalf of *** rights and the need for *** legislation in this country, but the *** rights supporters here are just stroking their hardons over dead *****ren and declaring victory. And the Troll King who started this thread turned tail and ran when the overwhelming evidence against his rhetoric of **** became too much for him to counter with co-opted sound bytes.
So I don't imagine much more can reasonably done here. I would recommend closing this thread, if it is within a moderator's power to do so.
Last edited:
Rey C.
Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
I am a *** rights supporter and an NRA Life member. But I'd also like to think that I have a fairly rational and reasonable position with respect to this issue. And I'd love to have a rational discussion with those who believe that simply banning certain (or all) firearms will make a difference. I've tried, but people never address my points and just post around me, as if my posts are invisible to them (course, maybe they have me on "ignore" by now - I don't know). As I've pointed out many, many, many times, a ban is nothing more than words on a piece of paper if the will and the means to enforce it are not there. I saw something the other day where a *** control advocate was trying to shift the discussion away from mentally ill people committing violent crimes. She claimed that only a small percentage of mentally ill people commit violent crimes. I suspect that is true. But I would also point out to her (or others who don't want these two issues linked) that only a small percentage of firearms (especially "assault weapons") are involved in violent crimes. So using her logic, I guess there's nothing to discuss? :dunno:
My position and belief is, with these mass shootings, we're talking about incidents at the margin. Even though they are horrific, the data shows that they are not as common as we may believe. But that doesn't mean that we can't or shouldn't do things which may lessen their frequency even further. And I believe that fine tuning an already relatively effective background check system, so that mentally ill people will be weeded out even better, is a good first step.
But asking why a 65 year old farmer needs an AR-15 or AK-47 variant (when he poses no real threat to society) is like asking why anyone needs a Glock with a 16 round mag, or a magnum ****** that will take down a grizzly bear with one shot... or why (even) a hunter needs more than one high powered rifle. They don't. None of those things is really and truly necessary. In truth, there are very few things that any of us own that we truly need. I don't need even one automobile that will exceed 150 mph, much less three. But just as with my firearms, I've made certain ownership choices. And with those choices I'm am obliged to act responsibly as I use them. But not everyone sees it that way... sadly - like that stupid teacher who taught her troubled/deranged *** to shoot. So, let's discuss some ways that we can better restrict access to firearms by mentally ill people. Let's discuss some ways that we can effectively prevent firearms possession and use by street gangs and organized crime. Let's begin asking some hard (though politically incorrect) questions. Let's stop wasting time (on both sides) by thinking that words on a piece of paper will mean any more in the future than they have over the past 2,000 years. But if we cannot do that, then I believe you are correct: this thread (and all the others) has run its course and we're just beating a dead *****. And unfortunately, the same scenarios will probably play out in Congress as this issue comes up over the next few months - they're just like us, no? Just lots of muddied water... and no *real* solutions.
Minus one or two, there are more than enough intelligent, thoughtful people here, on both sides of this issue, that we can get somewhere. And even though we won't solve the problem on the FreeOnes board, we can at least learn something from each other... if we choose to. But sticking to extremist positions or discounting reality probably won't get any of us very far.
Just my 2 pesos.
Appreciate your input. I don't agree with everything you said, but it's good that you're willing to make meaningful contributions. It is, however, pointedly uncharacteristic of this particular thread to this point, and those who have contributed to it from the perspective of the "right."
I'm all in favor of law abiding citizens owning some type non-fully automatic firearm. It just makes sense. Guns are ABSOLUTELY NOT the biggest problem in this country. Instead of people being emotionally pissed off about the whole *** control issue, how about getting technical and actually think things through instead of just pointing fingers and having a ******* contest. Let's not forget that the Sandy Hook *****ren were ****ed by mentally ill psychopath instead of blaming the guns. With that said, I do believe something needs to be done about irresponsible owners of guns.
Rey C.
Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
Excellent post - from beginning to end. :clap:
Sam Fisher
Banned
Following are facts about guns, ***-related crimes, crime, and *** owners in the United States. These facts are indisputably true and correct. No one who recognizes the realities of human nature and criminal behavior can successfully argue a differing point of view. These facts stand apart from passionate rhetoric and speak for themselves:
*** Facts - Firearms Ownership And Responsible Behavior
1. For every one person who shoots another without cause, there are millions of *** owners who do not....and will not.
2. If a person is suitably enraged to commit a crime of passion and that person cannot obtain a *** to do it, they will utilize other means: knives, bludgeons, feet, fists, *******, run the victim down with a car, etc. If you don't believe this, simply ask *****d women or crime victims who have survived such an ******, or, the relatives of the deceased victim. Many times, guns are simply not a factor.
3. Many people fall victim to crime every single day in this country, crime that is not ***-related: people are robbed at knifepoint, people are beaten (assaulted by one or more assailants using their hands and/or feet) and robbed, people are bludgeoned and robbed, and recently it made the news when a man was robbing people by threatening them with a supposedly venomous snake. No guns are involved in these circumstances, which occur daily.
4. If a law was ****** requiring every single person who owned or bought a *** to license and/or register it, no criminal would comply with that law.
5. Criminals do not currently obey any of the *** laws that we now have.
6. Most criminals obtain their guns illegally, and regardless of any laws ****** in the future, will continue to do so.
7. It's a parent's responsibility, regardless of any laws that do or don't exist, to responsibly ensure that their *****ren do not have access to any firearms in the home. You can pass laws until the cows come home, and if parents do not act responsibly, those laws will have zero positive effect.
8. *****ren of all ages in this country commit ******** on a daily basis without using any type of ***.
9. In countries where guns have been ****** (such as the recent actions in England and Australia), crime rates have risen dramatically. (Why? Criminals know there's much less chance of their getting their asses shot off.)
10. In areas where *** ownership is not only legal but encouraged, crime rates drop significantly. (Why? Criminals realize there's a pretty high probability that they'll get their asses shot off.)
11. A criminal will be significantly less likely to try and assault or rob a person if they suspect the potential victim may be armed.
12. Adults in this country commit ******** on a daily basis without using any type of ***.
13. Hitler's first actions were to call for the licensing and registration of all guns. He then confiscated all guns, leaving the populace unarmed, and unable to resist. We all know what followed. No governmental authority, including our own, is sufficiently benign as to be deserving of our complete trust.
14. There are many victims of serial ****ers. Many of these serial ****ers never used any type of ***.
15. Passing any type of *** law to legislate responsible action is ********* and useless: we have laws on the books in every state of the Union now forbidding robbery, burglary, assault, ******, etc., yet robberies, burglaries, assaults, ******s, etc., continue year after year. (Again, in many of these crimes guns are not a factor.)
16. If every *** in the U.S. were confiscated, crime in all its forms would continue.
17. For the elderly, infirm, handicapped, etc., whose strength and bodies are ravaged by age, illness, crippling deformity, etc., a *** is the only possible way they have of protecting themselves from an assault or robbery.
18. Some people (including *****ren) will naturally gravitate toward ********. If guns are removed from the equation, they can (and do) find other means with which to express their ********.
19. Guns, in the hands of violent people, do **** people. So do rocks, baseball bats, knives, ropes, cars, fists, feet, sticks, chains, bricks, letter openers....
20. Some people have an inherent tendency toward ********. These people do not seem to respond to any efforts to rehabilitate them. From those people, we need an effective means of protection when we encounter them on the street, or when they break into our homes. A *** is the most efficient means of securing that protection.
21. The Second Amendment clearly and unequivocally states that all Americans have the right to keep and bear arms. Period.
22. I have been a *** owner and a hunter all my life. I've never had a ***-related accident. I have never accidentally harmed anyone with a ***. My ******** grew up in a household with guns, and was simply never allowed access to them. Growing up with guns did not predispose her toward ********. I have never shot anyone. I have no plans to do so, unless my life or the lives of my loved ones are threatened. Of all the responsible *** owners and hunters I know, and there are many, the statements above can be equally applied to their lives.
23. You know, or know someone who does, someone who behaves in a violent manner and/or has harmed someone....without ever using a ***.
24. Countries who quote remarkably low ***-******** and ***-death statistics, don't seem too interested in telling you about the number of victims knifed, beaten, run over, *********, set on fire, boiled, etc.
25. People are ******ed every day somewhere in the U.S. In many of these ******s, guns are not a factor.
26. Criminals are deterred by the threat of *****, lethal if necessary. They are not deterred by displays of kindness or reason, nor is pleading for your life effective. They will, however, run when you pull a ***.
27. Most women (and many men), even if trained in the martial arts, simply do not have the strength to successfully defend themselves from a huge, strong, muscular attacker, particularly if that attacker is *****, doped-up, or both. A *** provides them a reasonable and effective means of defending their lives. I have known many women for whom a *** literally proved to be the tool that saved their lives.
28. The talk of "Taking guns off the streets" is useless: you can remove every single *** there is in America, but until you remove the criminals from the streets, you're still going to have crime. We need to take the criminals off the streets.
29. A *** does not teach a person to act in a manner which disregards another's right to life and freedom from bodily harm; it simply provides a tool with which an attacker can engage a victim. Remove the *** from the equation, and the attacker will find another tool.
30. There have been many ****** wars fought, and many heinous crimes and ******s committed, before guns were invented.
31. If a person has an evil, violent nature, whether that person is a ***** or an adult, no *** law (or lack thereof) will ensure that person will act in a moral, responsible, ethical manner and obey the law.
32. Believing that passing more *** laws (when there is already an abundance of enforcable laws on the books) will eradicate violent behavior is wishful thinking. Criminals will find outlets for their ********: criminals are not allowed to have guns in prisons, but many assaults and ******s occur inside prisons. Guns have proven to be an effective means of protection against the criminal element.
33. Licensing and registering guns does nothing to solve the inherent problems of human nature.
34. Confiscating guns is a ********* of the Second Amendment. It also removes many people's only legitimate hope and means of self-defense. It deprives sportsmen and competitive shooters of the joys of competition and hunting for food. It removes a significant deterrent to violent criminal behavior. It would leave the populace without any means of self-defense if our government were ever to turn on us, as Hitler's government did.
35. The removal of guns would not cause crime to decrease significantly. It might cause ***-crime to decrease an insignificant amount, for criminals do not obey the law and would still find ways and means by which to obtain guns. The rest of us would be totally defenseless against them. Additionally, other crime, utilizing tools such as knives, bats, bricks, rocks, feet, fists, etc., would continue.
36. The problem is not guns: the problem is human nature.
The bottom line is: For every one person who shoots another without cause, there are literally millions of us who don't.... and never will.
And, taking away guns as one of the means of ********, will not solve the problems of ******** we face in our society.
These are indisputable facts.
Copyright 2000 by John Russell. All rights reserved.
http://rense.com/general2/gunfact.htm
*** Facts - Firearms Ownership And Responsible Behavior
1. For every one person who shoots another without cause, there are millions of *** owners who do not....and will not.
2. If a person is suitably enraged to commit a crime of passion and that person cannot obtain a *** to do it, they will utilize other means: knives, bludgeons, feet, fists, *******, run the victim down with a car, etc. If you don't believe this, simply ask *****d women or crime victims who have survived such an ******, or, the relatives of the deceased victim. Many times, guns are simply not a factor.
3. Many people fall victim to crime every single day in this country, crime that is not ***-related: people are robbed at knifepoint, people are beaten (assaulted by one or more assailants using their hands and/or feet) and robbed, people are bludgeoned and robbed, and recently it made the news when a man was robbing people by threatening them with a supposedly venomous snake. No guns are involved in these circumstances, which occur daily.
4. If a law was ****** requiring every single person who owned or bought a *** to license and/or register it, no criminal would comply with that law.
5. Criminals do not currently obey any of the *** laws that we now have.
6. Most criminals obtain their guns illegally, and regardless of any laws ****** in the future, will continue to do so.
7. It's a parent's responsibility, regardless of any laws that do or don't exist, to responsibly ensure that their *****ren do not have access to any firearms in the home. You can pass laws until the cows come home, and if parents do not act responsibly, those laws will have zero positive effect.
8. *****ren of all ages in this country commit ******** on a daily basis without using any type of ***.
9. In countries where guns have been ****** (such as the recent actions in England and Australia), crime rates have risen dramatically. (Why? Criminals know there's much less chance of their getting their asses shot off.)
10. In areas where *** ownership is not only legal but encouraged, crime rates drop significantly. (Why? Criminals realize there's a pretty high probability that they'll get their asses shot off.)
11. A criminal will be significantly less likely to try and assault or rob a person if they suspect the potential victim may be armed.
12. Adults in this country commit ******** on a daily basis without using any type of ***.
13. Hitler's first actions were to call for the licensing and registration of all guns. He then confiscated all guns, leaving the populace unarmed, and unable to resist. We all know what followed. No governmental authority, including our own, is sufficiently benign as to be deserving of our complete trust.
14. There are many victims of serial ****ers. Many of these serial ****ers never used any type of ***.
15. Passing any type of *** law to legislate responsible action is ********* and useless: we have laws on the books in every state of the Union now forbidding robbery, burglary, assault, ******, etc., yet robberies, burglaries, assaults, ******s, etc., continue year after year. (Again, in many of these crimes guns are not a factor.)
16. If every *** in the U.S. were confiscated, crime in all its forms would continue.
17. For the elderly, infirm, handicapped, etc., whose strength and bodies are ravaged by age, illness, crippling deformity, etc., a *** is the only possible way they have of protecting themselves from an assault or robbery.
18. Some people (including *****ren) will naturally gravitate toward ********. If guns are removed from the equation, they can (and do) find other means with which to express their ********.
19. Guns, in the hands of violent people, do **** people. So do rocks, baseball bats, knives, ropes, cars, fists, feet, sticks, chains, bricks, letter openers....
20. Some people have an inherent tendency toward ********. These people do not seem to respond to any efforts to rehabilitate them. From those people, we need an effective means of protection when we encounter them on the street, or when they break into our homes. A *** is the most efficient means of securing that protection.
21. The Second Amendment clearly and unequivocally states that all Americans have the right to keep and bear arms. Period.
22. I have been a *** owner and a hunter all my life. I've never had a ***-related accident. I have never accidentally harmed anyone with a ***. My ******** grew up in a household with guns, and was simply never allowed access to them. Growing up with guns did not predispose her toward ********. I have never shot anyone. I have no plans to do so, unless my life or the lives of my loved ones are threatened. Of all the responsible *** owners and hunters I know, and there are many, the statements above can be equally applied to their lives.
23. You know, or know someone who does, someone who behaves in a violent manner and/or has harmed someone....without ever using a ***.
24. Countries who quote remarkably low ***-******** and ***-death statistics, don't seem too interested in telling you about the number of victims knifed, beaten, run over, *********, set on fire, boiled, etc.
25. People are ******ed every day somewhere in the U.S. In many of these ******s, guns are not a factor.
26. Criminals are deterred by the threat of *****, lethal if necessary. They are not deterred by displays of kindness or reason, nor is pleading for your life effective. They will, however, run when you pull a ***.
27. Most women (and many men), even if trained in the martial arts, simply do not have the strength to successfully defend themselves from a huge, strong, muscular attacker, particularly if that attacker is *****, doped-up, or both. A *** provides them a reasonable and effective means of defending their lives. I have known many women for whom a *** literally proved to be the tool that saved their lives.
28. The talk of "Taking guns off the streets" is useless: you can remove every single *** there is in America, but until you remove the criminals from the streets, you're still going to have crime. We need to take the criminals off the streets.
29. A *** does not teach a person to act in a manner which disregards another's right to life and freedom from bodily harm; it simply provides a tool with which an attacker can engage a victim. Remove the *** from the equation, and the attacker will find another tool.
30. There have been many ****** wars fought, and many heinous crimes and ******s committed, before guns were invented.
31. If a person has an evil, violent nature, whether that person is a ***** or an adult, no *** law (or lack thereof) will ensure that person will act in a moral, responsible, ethical manner and obey the law.
32. Believing that passing more *** laws (when there is already an abundance of enforcable laws on the books) will eradicate violent behavior is wishful thinking. Criminals will find outlets for their ********: criminals are not allowed to have guns in prisons, but many assaults and ******s occur inside prisons. Guns have proven to be an effective means of protection against the criminal element.
33. Licensing and registering guns does nothing to solve the inherent problems of human nature.
34. Confiscating guns is a ********* of the Second Amendment. It also removes many people's only legitimate hope and means of self-defense. It deprives sportsmen and competitive shooters of the joys of competition and hunting for food. It removes a significant deterrent to violent criminal behavior. It would leave the populace without any means of self-defense if our government were ever to turn on us, as Hitler's government did.
35. The removal of guns would not cause crime to decrease significantly. It might cause ***-crime to decrease an insignificant amount, for criminals do not obey the law and would still find ways and means by which to obtain guns. The rest of us would be totally defenseless against them. Additionally, other crime, utilizing tools such as knives, bats, bricks, rocks, feet, fists, etc., would continue.
36. The problem is not guns: the problem is human nature.
The bottom line is: For every one person who shoots another without cause, there are literally millions of us who don't.... and never will.
And, taking away guns as one of the means of ********, will not solve the problems of ******** we face in our society.
These are indisputable facts.
Copyright 2000 by John Russell. All rights reserved.
http://rense.com/general2/gunfact.htm
Mr. Daystar
In a bell tower, watching you through cross hairs.
Very good post. :clap:
There is not a single fact present in this list. Those that appear to resemble facts are actually self-evident observations that are tautologically true, and the conclusions drawn from them are therefore half-truths at best, and are both unsubstantiated and unquantified.
For example, the first claim that "For every one person who shoots another without cause, there are millions of *** owners who do not....and will not" rests upon the benign observation that "not every person shoots another every day, only some." This is true, but only tautologically so; if the reverse were true, the human race would be extinct.
What this claim alleges is that the number of people who don't shoot others every day is numerically insignificant compared to the number of people who do, and in an attempt to make this difference seem as wide as possible, the quantity "millions" is used to describe the former, which seems much larger than the unspecified quantity attributed to the latter. But while it's true that far more people don't shoot others, what of the ones who do? And what is the rate of offenders to non-offenders across demographics, socio-economic condition and national identity? If the rate of *** homicides is 10 times greater in one area than the rate in another area, is that considered "okay" because "millions" more aren't ****ed, or do higher rates in one area warrant looking into the possible reasons for such differences?
This is why we need to think about what things mean, and analyze them in terms of definable quantities, not in broad, sweeping generalizations and sophomorically obvious statements that anyone would accept.
Others so-called facts (especially those that involve the use of words like 'can' and 'would', 'if-then' statements, philosophical generalizations regarding "human nature" and sweeping, purely rhetorical claims such as stating that something "will have zero positive effect") are clearly intended to push an agenda, not to present evidence.
And just as a side note, one should always be wary of claims that something "is indisputably true" and cannot possibly be refuted by any other viewpoint, especially when such claims are made numerous times. This is a sure sign that the author lacks support for their beliefs and simply will not open their mind to other alternatives because it is discomfitting to them.
For example, the first claim that "For every one person who shoots another without cause, there are millions of *** owners who do not....and will not" rests upon the benign observation that "not every person shoots another every day, only some." This is true, but only tautologically so; if the reverse were true, the human race would be extinct.
What this claim alleges is that the number of people who don't shoot others every day is numerically insignificant compared to the number of people who do, and in an attempt to make this difference seem as wide as possible, the quantity "millions" is used to describe the former, which seems much larger than the unspecified quantity attributed to the latter. But while it's true that far more people don't shoot others, what of the ones who do? And what is the rate of offenders to non-offenders across demographics, socio-economic condition and national identity? If the rate of *** homicides is 10 times greater in one area than the rate in another area, is that considered "okay" because "millions" more aren't ****ed, or do higher rates in one area warrant looking into the possible reasons for such differences?
This is why we need to think about what things mean, and analyze them in terms of definable quantities, not in broad, sweeping generalizations and sophomorically obvious statements that anyone would accept.
Others so-called facts (especially those that involve the use of words like 'can' and 'would', 'if-then' statements, philosophical generalizations regarding "human nature" and sweeping, purely rhetorical claims such as stating that something "will have zero positive effect") are clearly intended to push an agenda, not to present evidence.
And just as a side note, one should always be wary of claims that something "is indisputably true" and cannot possibly be refuted by any other viewpoint, especially when such claims are made numerous times. This is a sure sign that the author lacks support for their beliefs and simply will not open their mind to other alternatives because it is discomfitting to them.
Similar threads
