dropoutdave 0 #176 February 3, 2005 QuoteIn general I find having more options gives me more peace of mind, not the opposite. I hear that bro. Just out of curiosity, what you say is the mindset of the majority of gun owners/carriers in the states? IMO I feel that the majority of gun owners have them due to an underlying fear that the worst will happen. ------------------------------------------------------ May Contain Nut traces...... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
justinb138 0 #177 February 3, 2005 QuoteQuoteIn general I find having more options gives me more peace of mind, not the opposite. I hear that bro. Just out of curiosity, what you say is the mindset of the majority of gun owners/carriers in the states? IMO I feel that the majority of gun owners have them due to an underlying fear that the worst will happen. Do you own a gun? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #178 February 3, 2005 OK, let me try to explain. There are two types of numbers used in measuring crime. One is an absolute number. An example would be the number of murders committed in a given year. Then there are numbers per population unit. An example is the number of murders per 100,000 citizens. So Finland's number of murders is low for a number of reasons, including low population. Finland's murder rate per 100,000 is fairly high for a number of reasons, including lower population. Each murder in the US is measured against more hundred of thousands of people. So yes, each murder in Finland counts more when talking about the rate per 100,000. Quote Soo... I guess, because we (Finland) have such a small population, also e.g. our birth rate is higher, since "each birth counts more" That is just s silly statement because birth rate is always done in real numbers per year. No one measures it against the total population. QuoteOh, and if you want to belief that Finland has one of the highest crime rates of the world, because "the study said so" - be my guest. I assure you, that you are way off though.... You are welcome to visit Finland - I'll be your free tour guide! Actually I have been there. I spent time in Helsinki and its suburbs. If I'm ever there I just might take you up on that guide offer, though. However, you have to keep in mind that because your population centers in the south so outweigh the frozen north that your murder rate per 100,000 is fairly high. That can be tempered with the fact that your actual number of murders is very low. I also agree that comparing crime across national lines, and especially across continents and oceans is a waste without statistical control far over all our heads. However, when people get down on the US for its murders and mention that gun control is an answer, it is useful to contemplate other country's experience with bans. Afterall, just because there are differences, that doesn't mean there is nothing we can learn from each other.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #179 February 3, 2005 QuoteQuoteDo you believe that someone who wants to commit murder will be prevented from doing so by the simple absence of a readily available gun? Good point JR, I mean the sniper in Washington could have bought the city to a standstill and killed all those people at random by running up to them and beating them to death with sticks couldn't he. Well, the guy didn't exactly go out to a gun shop and buy it legally, now did he? No, he picked it up illegally (the gun was stolen/missing from a Washington state gun shop). Besides, as I've asked so many times, what sense does it make to base policy on the one time events instead of the everyday realisty? Would you base lifeguarding policy on the idea that a tsunami will show up every day?witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dropoutdave 0 #180 February 3, 2005 No. I had a target pistol when I used to competed in tetrathalon in my teens. Have shot all kinds of guns when I was younger because a few of my friends live on farms but i've never felt like I needed a gun and i've lived very close to some really dodgy areas. Actually, I tell a lie, my housemate bought me a BB paintball gun for xmas, but that doesn't count. Right? ------------------------------------------------------ May Contain Nut traces...... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
br0k3n 0 #181 February 3, 2005 Quote Besides, as I've asked so many times, what sense does it make to base policy on the one time events instead of the everyday realisty? Would you base lifeguarding policy on the idea that a tsunami will show up every day? But these aren't one time events in the us, one time it is a guy with a sniper rifle, the following week it is a kid with an automatic rifle, or it’s a school in Littleton, Jonesboro, Paducah or Springfield that’s is massacred ……to the list goes on and on…----------------------------------------------------------- --+ There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.. --+ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #182 February 3, 2005 And Appalachian Law School and Pearl High School refute your argument. (or is it Perle?) Since you're Aussie rather than American, maybe you weren't aware of the fact that here in the US guns are used to prevent between 1 and 3.5 million crimes every year. Here in the US, guns do far more good than harm. Also, there are so many guns ehre that it would be absolutely impossible to round them all up. ps - I'd rather not have to coin new terms for crime as you did after your bans. Does the phrase "home invasion" mean anything to you?witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
br0k3n 0 #183 February 3, 2005 QuoteAnd Appalachian Law School and Pearl High School refute your argument. (or is it Perle?) Since you're Aussie rather than American, maybe you weren't aware of the fact that here in the US guns are used to prevent between 1 and 3.5 million crimes every year. Here in the US, guns do far more good than harm. Also, there are so many guns ehre that it would be absolutely impossible to round them all up. ps - I'd rather not have to coin new terms for crime as you did after your bans. Does the phrase "home invasion" mean anything to you? What makes you assume Im an Aussie, I just live and work here........ I was simply stating that gun crime is not like a tsumani as per your post, in that it it happens once ever 100 years or so, but is an everyday occurance...----------------------------------------------------------- --+ There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.. --+ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #184 February 3, 2005 I'm not going to go down this road again. This thread was about England. Guns do more good in the US than in the UK. Believe it or don't, I don't care anymore. You can go ahead and fear inanimate objects and believe in government control. I don't.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
br0k3n 0 #185 February 3, 2005 QuoteI'm not going to go down this road again. This thread was about England. Guns do more good in the US than in the UK. Believe it or don't, I don't care anymore. You can go ahead and fear inanimate objects and believe in government control. I don't. Dude you crack me up ----------------------------------------------------------- --+ There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.. --+ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #186 February 3, 2005 QuoteQuoteI'm not going to go down this road again. This thread was about England. Guns do more good in the US than in the UK. Believe it or don't, I don't care anymore. You can go ahead and fear inanimate objects and believe in government control. I don't. Dude you crack me up Well that's that -- you won that one! . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
br0k3n 0 #187 February 3, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteI'm not going to go down this road again. This thread was about England. Guns do more good in the US than in the UK. Believe it or don't, I don't care anymore. You can go ahead and fear inanimate objects and believe in government control. I don't. Dude you crack me up Well that's that -- you won that one! Thanks I wasnt even trying----------------------------------------------------------- --+ There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.. --+ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #188 February 3, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI'm not going to go down this road again. This thread was about England. Guns do more good in the US than in the UK. Believe it or don't, I don't care anymore. You can go ahead and fear inanimate objects and believe in government control. I don't. Dude you crack me up Well that's that -- you won that one! Thanks I wasnt even trying . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CornishChris 5 #189 February 3, 2005 QuoteYou can go ahead and fear inanimate objects and believe in government control. I don't. Dude Nuclear weapons are just a tool. An inanimate object - it would be foolish to be afraid of them, why don't we just let everyone have one. I mean if people want to commit genocide they will do it with or without nukes so we may as well just let ehm have them. See what I did there? CJP Gods don't kill people. People with Gods kill people Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dropoutdave 0 #190 February 3, 2005 I saw what ya did there. ------------------------------------------------------ May Contain Nut traces...... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
br0k3n 0 #191 February 3, 2005 I think this is a fitting end to this thread.... http://mfile.akamai.com/9139/rm/stream.wmg.com/wmi/uk/glc/gunsdontkillpeople_dirty_r_hi.ram----------------------------------------------------------- --+ There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.. --+ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #192 February 3, 2005 QuoteQuoteYou can go ahead and fear inanimate objects and believe in government control. I don't. Dude Nuclear weapons are just a tool. An inanimate object - it would be foolish to be afraid of them, why don't we just let everyone have one. I mean if people want to commit genocide they will do it with or without nukes so we may as well just let ehm have them. So you equate weapons of mass destruction with small arms. OK. Do you also equate the internet with a printing press? Ducatis with draft horses? QuoteSee what I did there? Yeah, I saw what you did. You took a simple statement, looked only at half of it, built a strawman around that half, and then compared apples to Orange County. Maybe next time you'll bring something useful to the conversation.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
br0k3n 0 #193 February 3, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteYou can go ahead and fear inanimate objects and believe in government control. I don't. Dude Nuclear weapons are just a tool. An inanimate object - it would be foolish to be afraid of them, why don't we just let everyone have one. I mean if people want to commit genocide they will do it with or without nukes so we may as well just let ehm have them. QuoteSo you equate weapons of mass destruction with small arms. OK. Do you also equate the internet with a printing press? Ducatis with draft horses? in·an·i·mate Audio pronunciation of "inanimate" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-n-mt) adj. 1. Not having the qualities associated with active, living organisms So yes weapons of mass and minor destruction are equated as is the internet with a printing press? However a "ducatis and horse" are not as the horse is a living organisms and therefore not inanimate. That would be like comparing apples to oranges... Quote Maybe next time you'll bring something useful to the conversation. Are you familiar with the term "pot calling the kettle black"??----------------------------------------------------------- --+ There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.. --+ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites CornishChris 5 #194 February 3, 2005 QuoteSo you equate weapons of mass destruction with small arms. OK. Wasn't JR & yourself comparing machines designed to project peices of metal at thousands of feet per second designed specifically to kill with sticks and stones. The point there was that they were all inanimate objects and that if you got rid of guns people would kill with other items. Remember "fear of inanimate objects", you wrote it. I said the same about nucleur weapons, just inanimate objects - my demonstration was that the former was a truly ridiculous statement to make. You backed that up quite nicely. Thanks. CJP Gods don't kill people. People with Gods kill people Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dropoutdave 0 #195 February 3, 2005 QuoteYou can go ahead and fear inanimate objects and believe in government control. I don't. To be fair, that was a broad statement. ------------------------------------------------------ May Contain Nut traces...... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites slug 1 #196 February 3, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteDo you believe that someone who wants to commit murder will be prevented from doing so by the simple absence of a readily available gun? Good point JR, I mean the sniper in Washington could have bought the city to a standstill and killed all those people at random by running up to them and beating them to death with sticks couldn't he. Well, the guy didn't exactly go out to a gun shop and buy it legally, now did he? No, he picked it up illegally (the gun was stolen/missing from a Washington state gun shop). Besides, as I've asked so many times, what sense does it make to base policy on the one time events instead of the everyday realisty? Would you base lifeguarding policy on the idea that a tsunami will show up every day? Hi kennedy Are you and JR playing Laurel and Hardy. One guy ask the question and the other one has the punch line >Well, the guy didn't exactly go out to a gun shop and buy it legally, now did he? No, he picked it up illegally (the gun was stolen/missing from a Washington state gun shop)." The gun shop in you quote (The bullseye) is locacted in tacoma Wa After the gun was traced to that dealer. The feds found over 250 guns "stolen/missing" from that one store. We haven't heard how the shooter got the gun have you? The Gun store owner lost his gun dealers liscense, he and his insurance company paid $2,000,000 in civil suits related to the Wa D.C. sniper attacks and the ex dealer is now faceing Fed charges for failure to pay federal income taxes for a number of years (he never filed). Maybe one liscensed gun dealer in the US was a very bad business man or dumber than a rock. I'm not sure about the shooters past criminal record but if he didn't have a criminal record he could have bought the gun over the table rather than under it. The only reason the gun was traced back to the dealer was because the shooter got caught with the gun. The dealer allegedly didn't even know the gun was missing from his inventory until the shooter was caught. Can you explain how a Business man can afford to experience a inventory shrinkage of 250 guns total value of maybe $50-$100,000 can stay in bussiness? IMO the trail of the "stolen gun" used by the sniper team from the gun shop to the shooters may be uncovered in the future. R.I.P. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites slug 1 #197 February 3, 2005 Hi John My post was directed to kennedy but since you and Kennedy play the Amos and Andy, laurel and hardy, Laverne and shirly routine. Lets go back to what to the thread that your responding to Police officers in the US are responsiable for a higher percentage of domestic violence than the any other occupation in the US. This includes guns, physical and mental abuse. Since Mr Kennedy will soon be a police officer than there's a higher probability (could be a guess just like he responded to my earlier post)) that he will abuse his domestic partner. Read the post for the source of domestic violence in the US stats. Abbott & Costello had some great routines "Who's on first", "Niagra falls" and others To bad PJ is MIA for a while or we could have a routine of the Three Stooges of SC discussing GC. JR to Kennedy affirmative Kenndy to JR affirmative JR to PJ affirmative Kennedy to PJ Affirmative PJ to JR affirmative PJ to Kennedy Affirmative LMAO R.I.P. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jaaska 0 #198 February 3, 2005 I hear you... So - how do you explain the difference b/w different numbers (per 100 000) in the different statistics... (see my first message http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1454325;#1454325) and the one used here (UN). There are just sooo many variables and different methods of reporting crime from one nation to another that it is fairly easy to come up with quite the opposite statistics - neither one wrong; they just measure different things... E.g. Some of the laws here in Finland that might (ok, the thing is, I'm not too familiar with e.g. Russian or American law system) contribute a lot in the sense of having "misleading" data. 1) Home violence is always investigated and thus counted in. E.g. I hear some disturbing sounds from the next flat - I call the police, they go and investigate ; they find a married couple but the woman doesn't want to press charges (intimidation might play a part). No can do - the law states that the police need to investigate and if there is ground for it, press charges. Quite a bit of the recorded violence is that origin... How is it in the US? 2) It is possible to rape your wife... You are happily married, things go bad, your wife doesn't want to give you any, you use "your husbandly right" - your wife can press charges... etc. etc. etc. PS. How did you like Finland? Did you feel unsecure in the suburbs of our capital? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #199 February 3, 2005 Quote I hear that bro. Just out of curiosity, what you say is the mindset of the majority of gun owners/carriers in the states? IMO I feel that the majority of gun owners have them due to an underlying fear that the worst will happen. My fear was that California legislators were interested in taking away my choice, so I preempted them. Whether they grandfather me in on a ban or not, I have them and they can't make me register them or turn them in. From my cold dead hand...blah blah blah. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mr2mk1g 10 #200 February 3, 2005 Quote"After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it." - William Burroughs (b. 1914), U.S. author. On two occasions in the last 20 years, two otherwise law abiding individuals committed more than one third of firearms murders for that year with firearms they held legally. A whole third! Guess we took the guns away from the class of person who did do it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next Page 8 of 12 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
CornishChris 5 #194 February 3, 2005 QuoteSo you equate weapons of mass destruction with small arms. OK. Wasn't JR & yourself comparing machines designed to project peices of metal at thousands of feet per second designed specifically to kill with sticks and stones. The point there was that they were all inanimate objects and that if you got rid of guns people would kill with other items. Remember "fear of inanimate objects", you wrote it. I said the same about nucleur weapons, just inanimate objects - my demonstration was that the former was a truly ridiculous statement to make. You backed that up quite nicely. Thanks. CJP Gods don't kill people. People with Gods kill people Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dropoutdave 0 #195 February 3, 2005 QuoteYou can go ahead and fear inanimate objects and believe in government control. I don't. To be fair, that was a broad statement. ------------------------------------------------------ May Contain Nut traces...... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
slug 1 #196 February 3, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteDo you believe that someone who wants to commit murder will be prevented from doing so by the simple absence of a readily available gun? Good point JR, I mean the sniper in Washington could have bought the city to a standstill and killed all those people at random by running up to them and beating them to death with sticks couldn't he. Well, the guy didn't exactly go out to a gun shop and buy it legally, now did he? No, he picked it up illegally (the gun was stolen/missing from a Washington state gun shop). Besides, as I've asked so many times, what sense does it make to base policy on the one time events instead of the everyday realisty? Would you base lifeguarding policy on the idea that a tsunami will show up every day? Hi kennedy Are you and JR playing Laurel and Hardy. One guy ask the question and the other one has the punch line >Well, the guy didn't exactly go out to a gun shop and buy it legally, now did he? No, he picked it up illegally (the gun was stolen/missing from a Washington state gun shop)." The gun shop in you quote (The bullseye) is locacted in tacoma Wa After the gun was traced to that dealer. The feds found over 250 guns "stolen/missing" from that one store. We haven't heard how the shooter got the gun have you? The Gun store owner lost his gun dealers liscense, he and his insurance company paid $2,000,000 in civil suits related to the Wa D.C. sniper attacks and the ex dealer is now faceing Fed charges for failure to pay federal income taxes for a number of years (he never filed). Maybe one liscensed gun dealer in the US was a very bad business man or dumber than a rock. I'm not sure about the shooters past criminal record but if he didn't have a criminal record he could have bought the gun over the table rather than under it. The only reason the gun was traced back to the dealer was because the shooter got caught with the gun. The dealer allegedly didn't even know the gun was missing from his inventory until the shooter was caught. Can you explain how a Business man can afford to experience a inventory shrinkage of 250 guns total value of maybe $50-$100,000 can stay in bussiness? IMO the trail of the "stolen gun" used by the sniper team from the gun shop to the shooters may be uncovered in the future. R.I.P. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
slug 1 #197 February 3, 2005 Hi John My post was directed to kennedy but since you and Kennedy play the Amos and Andy, laurel and hardy, Laverne and shirly routine. Lets go back to what to the thread that your responding to Police officers in the US are responsiable for a higher percentage of domestic violence than the any other occupation in the US. This includes guns, physical and mental abuse. Since Mr Kennedy will soon be a police officer than there's a higher probability (could be a guess just like he responded to my earlier post)) that he will abuse his domestic partner. Read the post for the source of domestic violence in the US stats. Abbott & Costello had some great routines "Who's on first", "Niagra falls" and others To bad PJ is MIA for a while or we could have a routine of the Three Stooges of SC discussing GC. JR to Kennedy affirmative Kenndy to JR affirmative JR to PJ affirmative Kennedy to PJ Affirmative PJ to JR affirmative PJ to Kennedy Affirmative LMAO R.I.P. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jaaska 0 #198 February 3, 2005 I hear you... So - how do you explain the difference b/w different numbers (per 100 000) in the different statistics... (see my first message http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1454325;#1454325) and the one used here (UN). There are just sooo many variables and different methods of reporting crime from one nation to another that it is fairly easy to come up with quite the opposite statistics - neither one wrong; they just measure different things... E.g. Some of the laws here in Finland that might (ok, the thing is, I'm not too familiar with e.g. Russian or American law system) contribute a lot in the sense of having "misleading" data. 1) Home violence is always investigated and thus counted in. E.g. I hear some disturbing sounds from the next flat - I call the police, they go and investigate ; they find a married couple but the woman doesn't want to press charges (intimidation might play a part). No can do - the law states that the police need to investigate and if there is ground for it, press charges. Quite a bit of the recorded violence is that origin... How is it in the US? 2) It is possible to rape your wife... You are happily married, things go bad, your wife doesn't want to give you any, you use "your husbandly right" - your wife can press charges... etc. etc. etc. PS. How did you like Finland? Did you feel unsecure in the suburbs of our capital? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #199 February 3, 2005 Quote I hear that bro. Just out of curiosity, what you say is the mindset of the majority of gun owners/carriers in the states? IMO I feel that the majority of gun owners have them due to an underlying fear that the worst will happen. My fear was that California legislators were interested in taking away my choice, so I preempted them. Whether they grandfather me in on a ban or not, I have them and they can't make me register them or turn them in. From my cold dead hand...blah blah blah. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #200 February 3, 2005 Quote"After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it." - William Burroughs (b. 1914), U.S. author. On two occasions in the last 20 years, two otherwise law abiding individuals committed more than one third of firearms murders for that year with firearms they held legally. A whole third! Guess we took the guns away from the class of person who did do it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
