quade 3 #26 September 21, 2009 QuoteMaybe they should invent a device that limits the amount of free speech by impeding the amount bof bullshit expelled per minute. We had that, it was repealed by the Reagan Administration. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrinequade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #27 September 21, 2009 QuoteI simply do not understand the reasoning or the logic behind this statement. Yes, you do not get the reasoning. It could have been a error in my message, so lets try again. A CRIMINAL is not going to not kill someone due to a law saying he can't use that tool to do it. If he is willing to murder someone, he is not going to care that the tool is illegal. That is simple logic. Quotethere are many items and substances that are illegal for the common good of society. Why are guns that different? Because you have not really shown how guns CAUSE violent crime. Study after study has shown that it is not the case. The AWB banned weapons that were used in less than 1-6% of crimes (according to the DOJ).... So why ban them if they were not the problem? Quotehttp://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf It was also noted that should it be renewed, the ban's effects on gun violence would likely be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement due to assault weapons rarely being used in gun crimes even before the ban Even so, most survey evidence on the actual use of AWs suggests that offenders rarely use AWs in crime. In a 1991 national survey of adult state prisoners, for example, 8% of the inmates reported possessing a “military-type” firearm at some point in the past (Beck et al., 1993, p. 19). Yet only 2% of offenders who used a firearm during their conviction offense reported using an AW for that offense (calculated from pp. 18, 33), a figure consistent with the police statistics cited above. Similarly, while 10% of adult inmates and 20% of juvenile inmates in a Virginia survey reported having owned an AR, none of the adult inmates and only 1% of the juvenile inmates reported having carried them at crime scenes (reported in Zawitz, 1995, p. 6). In contrast, 4% to 20% of inmates surveyed in eight jails across rural and urban areas of Illinois and Iowa reported having used an AR in committing crimes (Knox et al., 1994, p. 17). By most estimates, AWs were used in less than 6% of gun crimes even before the ban. Some may have perceived their use to be more widespread, however, due to the use of AWs in particularly rare and highly publicized crimes such as mass shootings (and, to a lesser extent, murders of police), survey reports suggesting high levels of AW ownership among some groups of offenders, and evidence that some AWs are more attractive to criminal than lawful gun buyers. So, the AWB banned a whole bunch of evil looking weapons that were not being used in crimes and had NO impact on crime rates. All it did was make it difficult for a law abiding citizen to own one... Criminals didn't pay attention to the ban. It is a perfect example of a stupid law that banned something that was not the problem and did nothing other than make people feel good. It would be like making it a crime for a convicted violent criminal to own a firearm... Wait, that is already true! So if a criminal is going to ignore the law that says they are not allowed to even own a firearm... What makes you think they will follow a law that says they are not allowed a TYPE of firearm? Care to tell me how many people have been killed by LEGAL full auto machine guns since 1934? QuoteI really don't want to gte into another gun debate, since I really could care less how many guns you do or do not have in the States. Your posting on this topic proves otherwise."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ion01 1 #28 September 21, 2009 QuoteQuoteyay! Now our bags can repel attackers. It would be better if we could carry on our persons. In a thin metal tube traveling at great speed where there are people that are pretty much always going to be in the line of fire and have no option to escape? Where there are already uniformed armed professionals patrolling the vehicle? No. You pretty much have to go with the same regs as the airlines. Sorry. Okay, so if someone wants to kill a bunch of people then amtrack is the place to go because once you sneak your weapon on the train there is no one that can stop you! Great idea! You see if people were allowed to carry guns when someone decided they wanted to shoot a bunch of people up they 1. may think twice about it as they know they will get shot by someone else or 2. they get shot by someone else before very many or any really get hurt or killed.......I'll take number two! In your case you would prefer the shooter have no opposition.....because....remember that the bad guys don't follow the rules. Its just like requiring people to have permits....that doesn't stop the bad guys from getting guns because they don't care about the law so they don't get permits. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #29 September 21, 2009 QuoteOkay, so if someone wants to kill a bunch of people then amtrack is the place to go because once you sneak your weapon on the train there is no one that can stop you! If guns cause violent crime, and armed citizens are *not* a deterrent.... Why do we have shooting sprees in unarmed zones like schools and why don't we have shooting sprees at gunshows?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,435 #30 September 21, 2009 >Why do we have shooting sprees in unarmed zones like schools and >why don't we have shooting sprees at gunshows? Probably for the same reason we don't have shooting sprees at DZ's - because they are rare events that occur more often at more common locations. To take the opposite angle - if restricting guns _never_ works, who don't we have shooting sprees on US airliners? If an armed populace is the best deterrent, why do we see shooting sprees in Iraq, where most people are armed? (BTW I have no problem with Amtrak accepting guns in their checked bags) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #31 September 21, 2009 QuoteProbably for the same reason we don't have shooting sprees at DZ's - because they are rare events that occur more often at more common locations. You avoided answering the question....Why at schools as opposed to Gunshows? I mean if people want to claim that more guns equals more crime... then why are there shooting sprees where guns are banned and not at a place where guns are everywhere? QuoteTo take the opposite angle - if restricting guns _never_ works, who don't we have shooting sprees on US airliners? Have we EVER had a shooting spree on an airliner? We have had shooting sprees on trains: http://books.google.com/books?id=tLkDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA28&lpg=PA28&dq=train+shooting+sprees&source=bl&ots=AzebmUy6kU&sig=N-BWtReuG9xgH3ePTHMKsDvMtgM&hl=en&ei=t_a3SrfJDYiCtgf84JnsDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false Yet we know that (1) guns are not allowed on them and (2) it is not legal to carry a pistol in NYC, AND that (3) it is already illegal to shoot at people. Quote If an armed populace is the best deterrent, why do we see shooting sprees in Iraq, where most people are armed? Because they are in the middle of a war. If gun bans work, why does CA have gang gun violence? Why does NYC? Why does DC?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #32 September 21, 2009 QuoteCan you tell me the difference between a machine gun and a full auto? A machine gun is a sub-set of fully automatic weapons. Fully automatic weapons could also include pistols, but most people wouldn't call them machine guns in common usage. If you need some eduction Ron, you can try this; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_gunquade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnDeere 0 #33 September 21, 2009 How much would you like to bet that Ron know's alot more about gun's than you know?Im not a gambling man but this wouldn't be a gamble! Nothing opens like a Deere! You ignorant fool! Checks are for workers! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,435 #34 September 21, 2009 >Why at schools as opposed to Gunshows? Because there are far more schools than gunshows, and schools are open all the time. Same reason there is more crime at schools that at gunshows. Same reason there are more people in schools than at gunshows. >?then why are there shooting sprees where guns are banned . . . Guns are banned on airplanes. No shooting sprees there. >If gun bans work, why does CA have gang gun violence? Why does NYC? >Why does DC? Gun bans don't work because it's hard to keep people from getting them in large cities. In places that they work (i.e. airliners, airports) they are effective. In places they don't work (i.e. DC) they're not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #35 September 21, 2009 Quote How much would you like to bet that Ron know's alot more about gun's than you know?Im not a gambling man but this wouldn't be a gamble! Oh, no doubt. However, when he makes a smart assed comment about a legitimate distinction, I'm certainly going to have a little fun at his expense.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #36 September 22, 2009 Quote A machine gun is a sub-set of fully automatic weapons. Not really... From your own post: Quote In United States law, machine gun is a term of art for any fully-automatic firearm, and also for any component or part that will modify an existing firearm into a fully-automatic firearm How about the LAW of the land, the National Firearms Act... You know the law that actually says what is what? http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/nfa.htm Quote (b) Machinegun. -- The term "machinegun" means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person. Quote Fully automatic weapons could also include pistols, but most people wouldn't call them machine guns in common usage Most people would not call them machine guns in common usage?!?!?!?!?! Really???? How many machineguns do you own? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vopYDdRSDoA How many machinegun matches have you been to? How many machineguns were you issued at some point in your life? Quote Oh, no doubt. However, when he makes a smart assed comment about a legitimate distinction, I'm certainly going to have a little fun at his expense. I referenced the law, you referenced Wikipedia. I OWN machineguns, you referenced Wikipedia. I don't think you are really qualified to state what is "common" terminology here. Like the whuffo claiming that it is called "skyjumping"."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #37 September 22, 2009 Quote Because there are far more schools than gunshows, and schools are open all the time. Same reason there is more crime at schools that at gunshows. Same reason there are more people in schools than at gunshows. You can choose to be obtuse and avoid being intellectually honest. But, that does not change fact. Quote Guns are banned on airplanes. No shooting sprees there. Not until 1972 were passengers screened.... Yet no shootings before then either.... A swing and a miss! Quote Gun bans don't work because it's hard to keep people from getting them in large cities. And yet countries that have banned them STILL have gun violence. Another swing and a miss! Quote In places that they work (i.e. airliners, airports) they are effective. In places they don't work (i.e. DC) they're not. Wow.... In places they work, they work???? In places they don't, they don't???? You just trying to state the obvious? So, in places that require each and every person to pass through a magnetometer and all their baggage to be Xrayed a gun ban works.....Other places, not so much. You are using that example to show that bans work?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 622 #38 September 22, 2009 Who's expense was that comment at??? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,435 #39 September 22, 2009 >Not until 1972 were passengers screened.... Yet no shootings before then either.... And no shootings after. Zero, zip, nada. Now let's compare it to shootings on buses, with no screening. A quick Google search turned up 12. So - no guns on airlines since 1972, no shootings. Guns allowed on buses (or more accurately no screening policy) - several shootings. Kinda destroys your theory that guns prevent shootings. >Wow.... In places they work, they work???? In places they don't, they >don't???? You just trying to state the obvious? Now we're making progress! Yes, sometimes gun bans work, and yes, that is quite obvious. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 622 #40 September 22, 2009 Define "screened". I have taken a number of Amtrak trips over the past few years without so much as as a second glance. Most times with a concealed firearm. Mind you, all these trips were within the state I reside, no searches, metal detectors, questions...anything. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,435 #41 September 22, 2009 >Define "screened". Checked. Obviously some screening programs are better than others. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #42 September 22, 2009 Quote Care to tell me how many people have been killed by LEGAL full auto machine guns since 1934? to my (likely incomplete, and lacking references) knowledge, there have been 2 incidents. One was an off duty police officer, one a postman. I don't recall the specifics, and don't care to google for them at the moment. Nor do I know how many people were hurt.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #43 September 22, 2009 Quote Who's expense was that comment at??? Still his. He can say whatever he wants. Ask the average person to draw you a picture of a machine gun and see what ya get.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #44 September 22, 2009 Most likely a belt fed - crew served weapon. People are not as dumb as you like to think they are. I could show you people you would think were homeless bums incapable of even the most basic thought, yet they are near geniuses. Never judge a book by it's cover. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #45 September 22, 2009 QuotePeople are not as dumb as you like to think they are. I don't like to think anyone is dumb nor do I assume anyone is until proven otherwise. Sadly, some people I know prove it on an almost daily basis.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #46 September 22, 2009 QuoteSo - no guns on airlines since 1972, no shootings. Guns allowed on buses (or more accurately no screening policy) - several shootings. Kinda destroys your theory that guns prevent shootings. No, first you have to remove any incidents that happened in places that DO NOT allow citizens to carry. Places like school buses and cities like Chicago, DC and NYC. Of course you will not actually follow logical data gathering since it does not support your already held notions. QuoteNow we're making progress! Yes, sometimes gun bans work, and yes, that is quite obvious. Not really... You statement implies that places where you have to go through a metal detector and have your bags screened are the only places where bans work. That's not a ban, that is a screening process that works. And there have been failures in those places as well, such as courtroom shootings. So your theory is proven to be false there as well."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #47 September 22, 2009 QuoteHe can say whatever he wants. And quote the LAW, and shown a video of me and one of my machineguns, and having been in the Army.... All while you quote wikipedia. Now answer these questions if you will: How many MG do you own? How many MG were you issued? How many MG matches have you been to? How many medals at MG matches have you won? I am going to bet your answers to all of the above will be ZERO... Yet you claim to know terminology? In this case you are like the whuffo claiming to know more about skydiving than a guy with thousands of jumps. Quote Ask the average person to draw you a picture of a machine gun and see what ya get. Go ahead, run that study and let me know what you get.... you are going to be surprised. Again, answer the questions... go ahead."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #48 September 22, 2009 QuoteSadly, some people I know prove it on an almost daily basis. And I know people that continue to hang onto ignorance no matter what data you present to them."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #49 September 22, 2009 Quote Quote People are not as dumb as you like to think they are. I don't like to think anyone is dumb nor do I assume anyone is until proven otherwise. Sadly, some people I know prove it on an almost daily basis. Is that an inference? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #50 September 22, 2009 Quote Quote Quote People are not as dumb as you like to think they are. I don't like to think anyone is dumb nor do I assume anyone is until proven otherwise. Sadly, some people I know prove it on an almost daily basis. Is that an inference? No. That's an implication. "I imply. You infer."quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
