Log in

View Full Version : You knew this was going to be a result of Obama getting elected



Pages : 1 2 3 [4]

flickad
11-19-2008, 11:50 AM
Valedictorian of his obedience school class and made the Dean's List at guard school.

Not surprised. Both breeds respond well to training.

bem401
11-19-2008, 12:04 PM
Incorrect. Read it again. It's 40% not 10%. Big difference.

FBI stats show this started in 2003 which correlates almost exactly to the GOP lead push back on illegal immigration. Is that just a coincidence? Personally I think not.

I’m just wondering if the future will show a similar result related to these gun sales. Who knows if it will or won’t. It just crossed my mind as a possibility.


I stand correceted on the percentages, but I think I might be underestimating the rate of growth of the Hispanic community at 5% as well. I think the FBI pushback and any spike in such crimes are both results of the surge in illegals. Either could have resulted without the other and thus I see no correlation.

as far as guns are concerned, they might lead to an increase in the severity of the crimes but i doubt they'll affect the levels themselves.

Mr Hyde
11-27-2008, 07:14 PM
Yes, I know, but guns are far more frequently used in offence than defence.

Cars kill more people than guns. Should we ban cars?

This is what most of the rest of the world doesn't get about the US...we don't like the government taking things away from us.

glambman
11-27-2008, 07:27 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^ To the quote in your post, guns are used millions of times per year in defense. That doesn't mean they are always discharged, but just the presence of the weapon may be enough to stop the crime. Not my stats, but the Dept of Justice. Look it up.

I just watched Inside Edition tonight and it got me thinking. One story of food borne illnesses stated there are tens of millions of food borne illnesses each year, and about 5,000 deaths results (each year). If we banned food, there would no longer be any food borne illnesses, and it would save 5,000 lives per year.

Also, if school children didn't use pencils (or pens), they would not make any spelling mistakes (or other grammar errors). Pencils R t3h 3vil

flickad
11-28-2008, 06:48 AM
Cars kill more people than guns. Should we ban cars?

This is what most of the rest of the world doesn't get about the US...we don't like the government taking things away from us.

Well, compare the primary purpose of guns to cars and then decide.

Compare your homicide rate to Canada's and then decide.

No-one likes the government taking things away from them, but sometimes liberty does need to be qualified to prevent greater harms.

That said, if Americans are quite happy to go on killing each other thanks to their insistence on retaining their freedom to carry guns, it's nothing to do with me. I'm just glad that my grandparents wound up here instead of there when they fled Europe after World War Two, otherwise it might have plenty to do with me.

flickad
11-28-2008, 06:51 AM
^^^^^^^^^^^^ To the quote in your post, guns are used millions of times per year in defense. That doesn't mean they are always discharged, but just the presence of the weapon may be enough to stop the crime. Not my stats, but the Dept of Justice. Look it up.

I just watched Inside Edition tonight and it got me thinking. One story of food borne illnesses stated there are tens of millions of food borne illnesses each year, and about 5,000 deaths results (each year). If we banned food, there would no longer be any food borne illnesses, and it would save 5,000 lives per year.

Also, if school children didn't use pencils (or pens), they would not make any spelling mistakes (or other grammar errors). Pencils R t3h 3vil

If you banned food, pretty much EVERYONE would die, making your analogy a pretty poor fit. Grammar errors are also far less serious than gunshot wounds.

glambman
11-28-2008, 07:57 AM
If you banned food, pretty much EVERYONE would die, making your analogy a pretty poor fit. Grammar errors are also far less serious than gunshot wounds.


Don't you have a funny bone? A little sarcasm. More lives are saved by firearms each year than are taken, banning weapons will increase crime, as people no longer will have the means of protecting themselves.

flickad
11-28-2008, 08:03 AM
Don't you have a funny bone? A little sarcasm. More lives are saved by firearms each year than are taken, banning weapons will increase crime, as people no longer will have the means of protecting themselves.

I doubt that more lives are saved than lost thanks to the presence of firearms.

As for your second contention, look to the crime statistics of other developed countries in which bearing arms is not a right.

glambman
11-28-2008, 08:14 AM
I doubt that more lives are saved than lost thanks to the presence of firearms.

As for your second contention, look to the crime statistics of other developed countries in which bearing arms is not a right.


Right, in Australia, when guns were banned, armed burglaries went up. In England, today, you are more likely to be a victim of a crime than in the US.

When Florida introduced the Concealed Carry Weapons Permit as a right, crime went down after it was enacted.

flickad
11-28-2008, 08:20 AM
Right, in Australia, when guns were banned, armed burglaries went up. In England, today, you are more likely to be a victim of a crime than in the US.

When Florida introduced the Concealed Carry Weapons Permit as a right, crime went down after it was enacted.


How about showing me some stats?

My understanding is that Australia has a lower crime rate than the US. As for your contention vis-a-vis England, are you saying that the English crime rate is higher than the American one? Also, what kind of crime are we talking here? Because the relevant kind is homicide and the causing of serious injury, given that the question being debated is the propriety of firearm legality. Property and drug crime is much less relevant.

flickad
11-28-2008, 08:22 AM
Actually, how 'bout I answer my own call for statistics:

http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/globalrights/usa/firearms-homicides.html

glambman
11-28-2008, 09:53 AM
yawn

http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/aus.html

http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/guncontrol_20010302.html

Dirty Ernie
11-28-2008, 10:53 AM
Man, I haven't seen anyone pull out those useless Australia stats since Will left. These were so widely spread by the NRA and so inaccurate of the true picture snopes.com felt compelled to de-bunk them.

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

flickad
11-28-2008, 01:01 PM
yawn

http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/aus.html

http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/guncontrol_20010302.html

Erm, would you care to locate statistics from a neutral source (ie not the NRA)? See the stats I posted, which are by the Australian Institute of Criminology.

al_bundy
11-28-2008, 06:59 PM
This should get you started. It includes FBI stats as well as stats from the very well respected Southern Poverty Law Center

http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2008/10/29/anti-latino-hate-crimes-rise-for-fourth-year/

splc is far from being well respected. they are anti-gun, anti-whitey & are actually classified as a hate group. you can do your own research.

Lucy in the Sky
11-28-2008, 08:41 PM
splc is far from being well respected. they are anti-gun, anti-whitey & are actually classified as a hate group. you can do your own research.

Classified as a hate group? LMFAO! By who? The KKK?

SPLC is internationally known for its tolerance education programs, its legal victories against hate groups and ofcourse its tracking of hate groups.

Seriously. If you think SPLC is itself a hate group then you are so mistaken it isn't even funny. Either that or you yourself agree with the white supremacist mindset.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and go with the former rather than the latter even though your choice of words (ie anti-whitey, anti-gun) make me wonder if it isn't really the latter.

ps- I did just do some research to find out if and who classified SPLC as a hate group. It was this group which is anti gay organization aka a HATE GROUP.

Guess I'll have to take back that benifit of the doubt thing now and just call a duck a duck. Yup that's right, you're a... duck.

al_bundy
11-29-2008, 01:13 PM
i stand by what i said. mass resistance isn't the only group that classified them that way. they are no different than many other organizations that preach tolerance of their own kind & destruction of everyone else.
the splc has become what they were fighting against just as the adl has & it doesn't take a white supremacist to see that.
you probably don't see peta as a domestic terrorist organisation either but thats what they have become

Lucy in the Sky
11-29-2008, 02:47 PM
i stand by what i said. mass resistance isn't the only group that classified them that way.

Le sigh. Ok. I'll bite. Who else?

Mr Hyde
12-13-2008, 08:34 AM
For me this is less about self-defense or whatever and more about freedom.

I want drugs to be legalized.

I want prostitution to be legalized.

I want guns to stay legal.

I don't do drugs, I don't visit hookers, and I don't own a gun. But you know what? I don't want my government telling me that I can't do something that, as a grown adult, I am capable of making a decision about.

hockeybobby
12-13-2008, 11:35 AM
For me this is less about self-defense or whatever and more about freedom.

I want drugs to be legalized.

I want prostitution to be legalized.

I want guns to stay legal.

I don't do drugs, I don't visit hookers, and I don't own a gun. But you know what? I don't want my government telling me that I can't do something that, as a grown adult, I am capable of making a decision about.

There are all kinds of things you are capable, as an adult, of making a decision about, that the law says: NO, you can't do that.

The test is, can it be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Could you agree to a restriction on your unfettered freedom if it saved a thousand lives? 10 lives? ...One? Can you concieve of other circumstances where you might trade some of your personal freedom for the greater good?

threlayer
12-13-2008, 09:28 PM
...
Can you concieve [conceive] of other circumstances where you might trade some of your personal freedom for the greater good?

This is definitely quotable, in fact with some specific trade limits a good poll question.

NWoD
12-14-2008, 12:41 PM
This country is filled to the brim with crazy whack-jobs with guns...

No wonder this country has always had a pretty violent history...

jester214
12-14-2008, 04:52 PM
This country is filled to the brim with crazy whack-jobs with guns...

No wonder this country has always had a pretty violent history...

And they're out there blowing away anyone who gets in their face with those legally purchased guns! Right? Wait, you mean they aren't?

threlayer
12-14-2008, 07:49 PM
And they're out there blowing away anyone who gets in their face with those legally purchased guns!

No, illegal guns in the ghetto, they do that a lot around here. And it used to be so peaceful before the drug gangs. And otherwise a fair number of wackos believeing that guns can settle their problems in life, since they seem to have NO other tools. Idiots!

Mr Hyde
12-31-2008, 02:55 AM
There are all kinds of things you are capable, as an adult, of making a decision about, that the law says: NO, you can't do that.

The test is, can it be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Could you agree to a restriction on your unfettered freedom if it saved a thousand lives? 10 lives? ...One? Can you concieve of other circumstances where you might trade some of your personal freedom for the greater good?

Using that logic, we should ban cars, stairs, knives, electricity, dogs, lawnmowers, SCUBA gear, etc etc etc.

I am ok with limiting some freedoms for the greater good, but where does the nanny state stop and personal responsibility begin? Should we regulate EVERYTHING and let the government tell us all what to do?

No thanks. I'd rather have rather than less freedom.