God, Guns, and American pickup trucks

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jul 21, 2009 | 02:47 PM
  #91  
JackandJanet's Avatar
Global Moderator &
Senior Member
15 Year Member
Liked
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,890
Likes: 61
From: Among javelinas and scorpions in Zoniestan
Originally Posted by Frank S
Your crime figures about England are risible. Their violent crime rate has almost doubled, along with Australia.
I can accept that this is possible - nothing ever seems to stay the same. I simply don't know if it's appropriate to correlate lax gun control with low violent crime rates.

- Jack
 
Reply
Old Jul 21, 2009 | 03:10 PM
  #92  
jmeyerholtz's Avatar
Suspended
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
From: Michigan
Nearly five centuries of growing civility ended in 1954. Violent crime has been climbing ever since. Last December, London's Evening Standard reported that armed crime, with banned handguns the weapon of choice, was "rocketing." In the two years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime rose by 40 percent, and the upward trend has continued. From April to November 2001, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in London rose 53 percent.

Gun crime is just part of an increasingly lawless environment. From 1991 to 1995, crimes against the person in England's inner cities increased 91 percent. And in the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York. England's rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America's, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July, England and Wales led the Western world's crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people.
With in 2 years of banning hand guns this is what happened. you are 6 times more likely to get mugged in London than you are in NY

If we become anything like England you will be punished like these people who were trying to defend them self's

� In 1973 a young man running on a road at night was stopped by the police and found to be carrying a length of steel, a cycle chain, and a metal clock weight. He explained that a gang of youths had been after him. At his hearing it was found he had been threatened and had previously notified the police. The justices agreed he had a valid reason to carry the weapons. Indeed, 16 days later he was attacked and beaten so badly he was hospitalized. But the prosecutor appealed the ruling, and the appellate judges insisted that carrying a weapon must be related to an imminent and immediate threat. They sent the case back to the lower court with directions to convict.

� In 1987 two men assaulted Eric Butler, a 56-year-old British Petroleum executive, in a London subway car, trying to strangle him and smashing his head against the door. No one came to his aid. He later testified, "My air supply was being cut off, my eyes became blurred, and I feared for my life." In desperation he unsheathed an ornamental sword blade in his walking stick and slashed at one of his attackers, stabbing the man in the stomach. The assailants were charged with wounding. Butler was tried and convicted of carrying an offensive weapon.

� In 1994 an English homeowner, armed with a toy gun, managed to detain two burglars who had broken into his house while he called the police. When the officers arrived, they arrested the homeowner for using an imitation gun to threaten or intimidate. In a similar incident the following year, when an elderly woman fired a toy cap pistol to drive off a group of youths who were threatening her, she was arrested for putting someone in fear. Now the police are pressing Parliament to make imitation guns illegal.

� In 1999 Tony Martin, a 55-year-old Norfolk farmer living alone in a shabby farmhouse, awakened to the sound of breaking glass as two burglars, both with long criminal records, burst into his home. He had been robbed six times before, and his village, like 70 percent of rural English communities, had no police presence. He sneaked downstairs with a shotgun and shot at the intruders. Martin received life in prison for killing one burglar, 10 years for wounding the second, and a year for having an unregistered shotgun. The wounded burglar, having served 18 months of a three-year sentence, is now free and has been granted �5,000 of legal assistance to sue Martin.
 
Reply
Old Jul 21, 2009 | 03:20 PM
  #93  
RileyDog's Avatar
Suspended
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
From: New Mexico
re: the extreme talking points posted.

The situation is not the problem, people are the problem. "Gun control" should be based on the individual, not the situation as there are many different people in any given situation.

Proposing that everyone carry a gun (including felons and mentally retarded folks) is an extreme, because they're likely to harm someone. Proposing people be allowed to carry to a university, or church does not increase the likelihood of harm. Actually, like the study I posted shows, it will DECREASE harm.
 
Reply
Old Jul 21, 2009 | 03:37 PM
  #94  
mtylerb's Avatar
Technical Article Contributor
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 429
Likes: 1
From: Edmonton, AB, Canada
Originally Posted by JackandJanet
... When the Arizona Legislature wants it to be legal for ANYONE to carry a concealed weapon, without a permit, isn't that extreme? And don't we have to figure out where to draw the line? When a legislative body starts thinking this way, it's no longer a fantasy world, is it?

- Jack
Isn't that exactly the way it goes in Alaska and Vermont? I realise that, population wise, they are fairly small states, but I don't believe there are any restrictions on carry in those two states.
 
Reply
Old Jul 21, 2009 | 07:03 PM
  #95  
JackandJanet's Avatar
Global Moderator &
Senior Member
15 Year Member
Liked
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,890
Likes: 61
From: Among javelinas and scorpions in Zoniestan
Originally Posted by mtylerb
Isn't that exactly the way it goes in Alaska and Vermont? I realise that, population wise, they are fairly small states, but I don't believe there are any restrictions on carry in those two states.
I think you're right, and, I think the violent crime stats are pretty low in both States. We COULD argue that it's too cold there for much of the year and not many people see a need to move to either one, so they don't see a big influx of out of work, uneducated and unskilled people. Probably not much of a drug business in either State too.

As I said, you can find counter examples everywhere.

Are NO gun restrictions good for every locality? I'm still waiting for thoughts from some of our members in law enforcement. The fact that they haven't entered this discussion seems a bit significant to me.

- Jack
 
Reply
Old Jul 21, 2009 | 07:17 PM
  #96  
birddog_61's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 633
Likes: 0
From: Graham TX
Originally Posted by JackandJanet
Are NO gun restrictions good for every locality? I'm still waiting for thoughts from some of our members in law enforcement. The fact that they haven't entered this discussion seems a bit significant to me.

- Jack
To which argument? I would think since you have been asking for their opinion if one of them had read this and agreed with you they would have chimed in.
 
Reply
Old Jul 21, 2009 | 08:23 PM
  #97  
RileyDog's Avatar
Suspended
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
From: New Mexico
post I shouldnt post while still living where I do.....nevermind
 

Last edited by RileyDog; Jul 21, 2009 at 08:23 PM. Reason: oops
Reply
Old Jul 21, 2009 | 08:28 PM
  #98  
mtylerb's Avatar
Technical Article Contributor
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 429
Likes: 1
From: Edmonton, AB, Canada
Originally Posted by JackandJanet
I think you're right, and, I think the violent crime stats are pretty low in both States. We COULD argue that it's too cold there for much of the year and not many people see a need to move to either one, so they don't see a big influx of out of work, uneducated and unskilled people. Probably not much of a drug business in either State too.

As I said, you can find counter examples everywhere.

Are NO gun restrictions good for every locality? I'm still waiting for thoughts from some of our members in law enforcement. The fact that they haven't entered this discussion seems a bit significant to me.

- Jack
The only major issue I've heard of, in Alaska, is a high incidence of rape. Something to do with a high ratio of male population to female population. These are just stats I've heard during my past investigations into anti-gun control statistics. I've written a couple articles on Facebook and my website with regards to Canada and their gun control agenda, that I'm obviously not a fan of.

What I am a fan of, is stiffer penalties for commiting a crime with a gun (or any other weapon, for that matter), but relaxing the restrictions on gun ownership and the carrying of a gun. A friend of mine (who we've adopted as a sister) is a cop here with the RCMP. She doesn't really see things my way, when it comes to guns. My sister is also an RCMP officer, but she doesn't believe in guns at all, go figure.

A guy I work with says: "I'd be fine seeing you (he means me) carrying a handgun, but not everyone". I say, yeah, but if a criminal wants to carry a gun, nobody is going to stop him, so shouldn't we give everyone a chance to defend themselves from that criminal?

This debate is ongoing, you guys have your second amendment. While it's not bullet proof, when you take a politician's "interpretation" into account, it's a far cry from what we're stuck with here in Canada.
 
Reply
Old Jul 21, 2009 | 11:01 PM
  #99  
JackandJanet's Avatar
Global Moderator &
Senior Member
15 Year Member
Liked
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,890
Likes: 61
From: Among javelinas and scorpions in Zoniestan
Originally Posted by birddog_61
To which argument? I would think since you have been asking for their opinion if one of them had read this and agreed with you they would have chimed in.
Birddog - the police are on the "pointy end of the spear". Every day they go on duty, they put their life on the line. I've been there too. I've had people shooting at me and it was fine, they were allowed to, because I was shooting back. I consider the police "Brothers in Arms". And, I've had friends killed in battle. I was one of the lucky ones.

I'm pretty sure that they, like me, are not in favor of "gun control". But, since it is so easy to be misunderstood (witness this thread) they may be choosing to stay out of it. But I suspect they aren't really keen on "universal gun ownership" and "carry permission". I know that's where my hangups lie.

- Jack
 
Reply
Old Jul 21, 2009 | 11:26 PM
  #100  
efuehrin's Avatar
Technical Article Contributor
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,616
Likes: 0
From: Concordia, MO
Originally Posted by shifty219
im not totallly against guns, i dont own a gun and ill never will thats just me. i understand if your that parinoid that you need a weapon to protect your family fine. but do you really need an ak 47 to do so? i think its just a lil overboard on the weapons your allowed to have

What difference does it make what kind of gun you kill a bad guy with?

Whatever works and is safe. You could get lucky with a 22 or your could shoot them 6 times with a AK-47, they are still dead either way!

That is the dumbest argument that anti gun people have.
 
Reply
Old Jul 21, 2009 | 11:44 PM
  #101  
efuehrin's Avatar
Technical Article Contributor
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,616
Likes: 0
From: Concordia, MO
Ok back to the topic since I finally read this thing after being able to see the video.

I may drive over just to shake this guy's hand.

Oh and by the way. That video shows why they don't usually interview smart rural people on conservative topics.

We put up too good of an argument. (Not that I would do that well. )
 
Reply
Old Jul 22, 2009 | 12:32 AM
  #102  
mtylerb's Avatar
Technical Article Contributor
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 429
Likes: 1
From: Edmonton, AB, Canada
Originally Posted by JackandJanet
... But I suspect they aren't really keen on "universal gun ownership" and "carry permission". I know that's where my hangups lie.

- Jack
Problem is, there is a "universal gun ownership" and "carry permission". The only people affected by the restrictions, that the government tries to put in place, are the law abiding people who care what the government thinks.

Putting a law in place to forbid carry and possession, is just a "feel good" law that puts our officers at greater risk, by giving them a false sense of security. You want them afraid of having a gun pulled on them, not because of the stress, but because it keeps them on their toes and more likely to react appropriately to a lethal force situation.

I would rather believe that everyone has a gun and get to go home alive at the end of the night, than believe that people are listening to a law and get caught unaware by a person who doesn't care and is ready to shoot me.
 
Reply
Old Jul 22, 2009 | 06:17 AM
  #103  
shifty219's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
From: Sault,ontario,CaNaDa
Originally Posted by efuehrin
What difference does it make what kind of gun you kill a bad guy with?

Whatever works and is safe. You could get lucky with a 22 or your could shoot them 6 times with a AK-47, they are still dead either way!

That is the dumbest argument that anti gun people have.
what gives you the right to end someones life, and dont say cause their "threating me". i was just expessing my opinion(not arguing) that i think its a il much to be allowed the higher powered weapons. you dont like my opinion... meh
 
Reply
Old Jul 22, 2009 | 08:15 AM
  #104  
efuehrin's Avatar
Technical Article Contributor
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,616
Likes: 0
From: Concordia, MO
Originally Posted by shifty219
what gives you the right to end someones life

Some people call it their God given right, some people call it freedom of protection, I call it just plain RIGHT.

I have EVERY right to kill someone that threatens me with deadly weapon.

And they don't even need a deadly weapon if they are in my house illegally with my wife and 2 year old son. Of course you have to use some common sense here but if someone comes into my house with malicious intent, I have every right to kill them, whether it be with a baseball bat, butter knife, or a rocket propelled grenade!
 
Reply
Old Jul 22, 2009 | 10:01 AM
  #105  
birddog_61's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 633
Likes: 0
From: Graham TX
Originally Posted by shifty219
what gives you the right to end someones life, and dont say cause their "threating me". i was just expessing my opinion(not arguing) that i think its a il much to be allowed the higher powered weapons. you dont like my opinion... meh
What gives them the right to put me in the situation that I have to make that decision? If they threaten me or my family, or they break into my house they will get shot no questions asked and I won't feel bad about it later. Also I now understand why it was so easy to take weapons away from Canadians, we arent "allowed" anything it is a RIGHT.
 
Reply



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:38 AM.