Carol Heckelmann: feekmatic: Let me enlighten you! What the Black Panthers did was against the law! And what Spike Lee did was against the law! And what President Obama and Attorney General Holder are not doing is another reason they shouldn't be in charge of our lives ever again. Tea Partiers?...right show me where unless you were the plant there. So one-sided you are and what does being black or white or purple have to do with anything? See, President Obama is continuing to make warfare among people of this country, as you are. This is not "Hope and Change" as Senator Obama promised while looking to gain our votes! I pray people see through his destruction of a great nation. It is amazing how he turns his cheek when he should set good examples instead. We now have the Black KKK thinking they can do anything they want. Again, how sad.
Wow this was a scary rambling mess...!
1- The president is not responsible for local law enforcement
2- The president made an innocuous comment (that every other presidential candidate made btw) which did not presume guilt upon anyone and only said that he feels for the parents. Sadly he just happened to mention that he is black and Trayvon is black... and Right wing idiots went all crazy about it. its comical really.
3-If you are trying to make this into a thing about the president, clearly you have little concern for the actual individuals involved or justice as a whole. The president answered a question, that is all.
Although I am not a fan of the New black panther party, comparing them to the KKK is a bit disengenous considering that i know of few deaths or acts of vandalism that can be attributed to them over the last 20 or so years of their existence. No one cares about the new black panther party, its just a boogey man for nuts like you to drum up in order to get motivated for your... whatever it is that you do.
Tyler Perry: Because everybody lives 75 miles from each other.
Uh no. The population density is about 20 people per square mile. That statement is a cop out and you know it. People are arguing that the presence of guns equals the presence of homicide and Idaho proves they are wrong. Hell, Switzerland does the job as well but people get pissy when I mention that country.
Jesus Christ on a cracker, it was blatantly obvious hyperbole. Unclench.
I would say homicide rates are lower in gun-friendly states like Idaho because those states are not very urbanized.
However, Alaska (60.6% gun ownership) has the third-highest rate of gun deaths in the country (17.62 per 10,000).
Higher rates of gun ownership do tend to lead to higher rates of gun death; however, not all gun deaths are homicides.
However since difference in gun ownership has no real effect on suicide RATES and merely the method of suicide, the number of deaths is an utterly irrelevant statistic.
"As those articles I posted showed the police in the UK are getting more and more armed BUT they want to keep up the facade of being unarmed."
The articles you linked show no such thing.
Lie. Big motherfucking lie. I do not even know how you can say that. I cannot see your face so I cannot tell if it is straight or not but that was just........fuck.
Armed Response Vehicle units patrol around-the-clock in marked cars, carrying pistols and Taser stun guns.
That is unnoticeable because you cannot see the gun through the car.
Police Superintendents' Association-"Arming all officers would damage the traditional image of the British Police Service which is held in such high esteem the world over, primarily because of the difficult and dangerous job officers undertake unarmed," it says.
The facade.
The title of the Telegraph article I showed was "Armed officers placed on routine foot patrol for first time" and was written in 2009.
According to new Home Office figures, the number of operations in which firearms are issued to police officers rose between April 1999 and March 2000 in 21 constabularies, doubling in four.
Police operations in England and Wales using armed response vehicles (ARVs) reached an unprecedented high nationwide, doubling in seven constabularies. MPs expressed concern at the rise, saying it jeopardised the 'principle of an unarmed police force'. ..... Last year Nottinghamshire police became the first force to routinely arm police on foot patrol in a controversial pilot scheme to reduce drug crime. Since then, eight other constabularies have made inquiries to Nottinghamshire to ask how best to implement the scheme. ...... The figures reveal the deployment of ARVs by the Metropolitan Police has reached a record high, doubling from 790 in 1996 to 1,812 in 1999. ARV use in Greater Manchester has quadrupled in a year, to 173 occasions in 1999-2000, and risen threefold in Lincolnshire to 141 incidents last year.
Ah, but I never said how many violent acts I've witnessed, did I? It's a very small number and when you take my age into account, it has been a very infrequent occurrence.
So what are you 70, 80, 90 years old? By your own admission you have seen multiple acts of violence. You are likely middle aged or lower and if you are not in a violence prone area you would not see it every day BUT the fact that you even see it (most violence happens in the shadows) means that it is commonplace and it is where you can see it.
I find your disingenuousness refreshing in its audacity. It is absolutely relevant to your false claim that the police force here is trying to arm itself by stealth. You've painted yourself into the corner of the room now. Claiming that the varnish isn't there won't get you out with clean feet.
YOU ARE WRONG.
The police can say they don't want to be armed but it does not change the fact that they are getting more and more armed (MY point).
BTW I love the fact that you keep using the tile of that Guardian Article as an example of what I am saying (I didn't actually say that) and yet you claim that what I said has no basis.
Lie. Big motherfucking lie. I do not even know how you can say that. I cannot see your face so I cannot tell if it is straight or not but that was just........fuck.
I can say that because it is the truth, Sparky.
Did you read the articles properly? Srsly? English your first language?
"While the number of operations in which firearms were issued to police doubled in Cambridgeshire, Cleveland, Surrey, and South Wales, the number of officers trained in firearms has dropped in Cambridgeshire and South Wales and risen by one per cent or less in Surrey and Cleveland.Police spokesmen put the deployment rises down to a change in tactical procedures: forces used to prefer to train fewer officers in using firearms to a higher standard."
My emphasis. You know what "fewer" and "dropped" mean, right?
Those articles you linked show that armed officers are deployed more than before. Not that there are more of them.
Armed Response Vehicle units patrol around-the-clock in marked cars, carrying pistols and Taser stun guns.
That is unnoticeable because you cannot see the gun through the car.
If they're in the car or van unseen, then they aren't being used, are they? You'd know about it anything kicked off, because they'd cordon the area off and move everyone away. Something I have never seen happen in my area. Also, it's big news when the police shoot someone.
The facade.
Are you saying that it's a lie? I'd be interested to know how you came by that knowledge.
The title of the Telegraph article I showed was "Armed officers placed on routine foot patrol for first time" and was written in 2009.
According to new Home Office figures, the number of operations in which firearms are issued to police officers rose between April 1999 and March 2000 in 21 constabularies, doubling in four.
They only give them to trained officers, not just anyone who happens to be near the gun safe.
Last year Nottinghamshire police became the first force to routinely arm police on foot patrol in a controversial pilot scheme to reduce drug crime. Since then, eight other constabularies have made inquiries to Nottinghamshire to ask how best to implement the scheme.
And armed officers patrolling is very, very rare. Nottingham was in a bad way because there were a lot of drug related shootings and temporarily introduced armed patrols in 2000-2001. It is far from commonplace. And again, they aren't new firearm officers. They're the existing ones being differently deployed.
The figures reveal the deployment of ARVs by the Metropolitan Police has reached a record high, doubling from 790 in 1996 to 1,812 in 1999. ARV use in Greater Manchester has quadrupled in a year, to 173 occasions in 1999-2000, and risen threefold in Lincolnshire to 141 incidents last year.
They're used more. Doesn't mean that there are more of them.
So what are you 70, 80, 90 years old? By your own admission you have seen multiple acts of violence. You are likely middle aged or lower and if you are not in a violence prone area you would not see it every day BUT the fact that you even see it (most violence happens in the shadows) means that it is commonplace and it is where you can see it.
I'm almost 40. I've seen about six "violent incidents" in the past 30 years or so. All bar one were decidedly amateurish drunken fisticuffs in the early hours. If that's what you call commonplace, buy a new calculator.
YOU ARE WRONG.
No, I'm not.
The police can say they don't want to be armed but it does not change the fact that they are getting more and more armed (MY point).
YOU ARE WRONG!
Hmmm. Cathartic.
The amount of firearm officers isn't increasing. Most police don't want to be armed.
BTW I love the fact that you keep using the tile of that Guardian Article as an example of what I am saying (I didn't actually say that) and yet you claim that what I said has no basis.
You claimed that the police were becoming more armed, whilst maintaining a facade of not doing so. I don't find it unreasonable to use the phrase "being armed by stealth" as shorthand for that position. No doubt you do. And yes, what you said has no basis.
He'd wish he had my eloquence, wit, intellectual bombast, rhetorical superiority, and humbleness of course.
CM156: Blablahb, I don't think you could miss the point harder if you tried.
In a way it's flattering I'm apparently someone's archnemesis in a way he spontaneously gets visions of me whenever he meets decent opposition in a debate.
Since when did the pro-violence lobby start making points anyway? All you guys always have to say is some misinterpreted law that hasn't been relevant since somewhere 1800, 'fear the big evil blacks and latinos and libruls who are coming for your guns', and the rather deranged idea that there's people trying to kill you everywhere so you need deadly weapons to murder them first. The reason I rarely post in this kind of thread is I've seen it all, won it all, and the insulting repetitive ways of the gun lobbyists are a little boring.
Blablahb: He'd wish he had my eloquence, wit, intellectual bombast, rhetorical superiority, and humbleness of course.
I would love to live in your world for just five minutes. It must be a fantastic place
Need I dig up half the hyperbole you've stated?
IIRC, you've accused me of having a sea of blood on my hands for supporting the Second Amendment
In a way it's flattering I'm apparently someone's archnemesis in a way he spontaneously gets visions of me whenever he meets decent opposition in a debate.
Decent opposition? That's a laugh. Hell, my debates with you are half the reason I joined the NRA, my friend. I realized that, as few as there are, there are people who want to take away my rights because they don't think I have them.
Since when did the pro-violence lobby start making points anyway? All you guys always have to say is some misinterpreted law that hasn't been relevant since somewhere 1800, 'fear the big evil blacks and latinos and libruls who are coming for your guns', and the rather deranged idea that there's people trying to kill you everywhere so you need deadly weapons to murder them first.
Just keep calling the Second Amendment that. You'll be laughed out of any legal debate on the matter. If you want it gone, repeal the Second Amendment. Article V. Go nuts
In some regards, I must thank you. You've done a good job at making the anti-gun point look crazy, and done a lot to help support the cause of gun rights. The NRA should payroll you
The reason I rarely post in this kind of thread is I've seen it all, won it all, and the insulting repetitive ways of the gun lobbyists are a little boring.
Won it all?
Yeah, no. Gun rights are expanding in the United States. People are favoring gun control less and less, as I've shown you before.
But as odd as it sounds, I understand you well. You are following the normal progression of those who are on the losing side of an argument, to wit: 1. Factual debate 2. Emotional pleas 3. Ad hominem attacks 4. Outright violence Note that your side is on step 3. One wonders how well step 4 will go for you...
Anyways, enjoy living in a world where civilian disarmament in the USA is at all a possibility. Never gonna happen, and your efforts can be better spent elsewhere.
And as I've said, I'm still wondering why I don't seem to get along with Dutch security guards well.
EDIT: Heck, the only reason pro-gun rights people still debate with your side is out of reflex and conditioning, rather than any fear of our rights being taken
"While the number of operations in which firearms were issued to police doubled in Cambridgeshire, Cleveland, Surrey, and South Wales, the number of officers trained in firearms has dropped in Cambridgeshire and South Wales and risen by one per cent or less in Surrey and Cleveland.Police spokesmen put the deployment rises down to a change in tactical procedures: forces used to prefer to train fewer officers in using firearms to a higher standard."
My emphasis. You know what "fewer" and "dropped" mean, right?
Those articles you linked show that armed officers are deployed more than before. Not that there are more of them.
How do you deploy more of something? By putting more of them out there. In other words there are more officers with firearms. You cannot deploy something that does not exist and since those officers were not carrying before they had to be made to carry, i.e. more of those officers had to be created.
If they're in the car or van unseen, then they aren't being used, are they?
Driving around the city. And there are more of them. Therefore there are more guns in the hands of UK's LEOs.
You'd know about it anything kicked off, because they'd cordon the area off and move everyone away. Something I have never seen happen in my area. Also, it's big news when the police shoot someone.
Irrelevant to my point that more LEOs are carrying guns.
Are you saying that it's a lie? I'd be interested to know how you came by that knowledge.
Because LEOs in the UK are armed contrary to the way people view them.
So you admit the fact that LEOs are being armed and are walking around (a rather big change).
They only give them to trained officers, not just anyone who happens to be near the gun safe.
And apparently they are training and/or equipping more officers.
They're used more. Doesn't mean that there are more of them.
So where did these officers come from? Were they kept on ice until they were needed?
I'm almost 40. I've seen about six "violent incidents" in the past 30 years or so. All bar one were decidedly amateurish drunken fisticuffs in the early hours. If that's what you call commonplace, buy a new calculator.
That is commonplace. That means just by chance you have seen an encounter every 5 years. That is commonplace in a "safe" society where all of the crime usually happens in the dark. You never see most of the violence society has to offer and you apparently get to see violence on a fairly regular basis.
How do you deploy more of something? By putting more of them out there. In other words there are more officers with firearms. You cannot deploy something that does not exist and since those officers were not carrying before they had to be made to carry, i.e. more of those officers had to be created.
They deploy with their firearm more often for fuck's sake. Just because an officer is qualified to carry a gun doesn't mean that they do routinely.
52 extra? Get to fuck. There are approximately 140,000 police officers in the UK. That's way beyond statistically insignificant. And that link also says:
"The Police discharged a conventional firearm in 7 incidents (up from 3 incidents in the previous year)." Hardly the fucking Alamo is it?
The scope of your intellectual dishonesty is staggering. 52 extra firearm officers. Take a look at yourself and fucking man up. I and other people have pointed out in other threads, statistics that show correlation between gun ownership and gun crime, accidents and suicides and you dismiss it all with an airy wave of your hand as irrelevant and statistically insignificant because it doesn't support your position. And yet you claim that fifty two extra police being authorised to use a gun is evidence of the UK police arming itself by stealth.
Are you saying that it's a lie? I'd be interested to know how you came by that knowledge.
Because LEOs in the UK are armed contrary to the way people view them.
And how would you know how we view the way that the police are armed? Ever been here?
So you admit the fact that LEOs are being armed and are walking around (a rather big change).
Never denied it. I said it was very ,very rare. Like rocking horse shit rare.
And apparently they are training and/or equipping more officers.
Yeah, to a grand total of way less than 1% of the force. You know as well as I that that is meaningless. You're doing yourself a severe disservice now, as you're starting to look seriously unhinged.
So where did these officers come from? Were they kept on ice until they were needed?
They come from the same magical pixie land that you do.
That is commonplace. That means just by chance you have seen an encounter every 5 years. That is commonplace in a "safe" society where all of the crime usually happens in the dark. You never see most of the violence society has to offer and you apparently get to see violence on a fairly regular basis.
Once every five years is regular? Farmer hecking christmas.
The amount of firearm officers isn't increasing.
Yes they are.
You know full well that you wouldn't accept an increase of 52 in a body of 140,000 "anythings" as anything like significant. If you're seriously going to claim that, you'd better accept the much more significant numbers showing that guns in the home are dangerous.
And yes, what you said has no basis.
Prove it.
I already did and I suspect that the leaky raft to which you cling will soon sink, bringing a tidal wave of cognitive dissonance as you see the world as it really is.
I don't even know what was originally being argued here, but with regard to policing in the UK:
A handful of armed patrols in certain London districts under very specific criteria isn't going to change policing measurably - and reading the Guardian article it seems that these deployments had more in common with an arrest operation than a standard 'beat' anyway. Look at these quotes:
"The pilots involved eight pre-planned intelligence-led operations undertaken by CO19 across five boroughs to back up unarmed colleagues"
"Stephenson repeatedly stressed in his statement to the authority that he currently had "no intention" of introducing "routine" armed patrols on the streets of London"
Those pretty clearly indicate that this isn't a roll-out of armed police, neither is it even an increase in the number of armed police: it was a limited deployment by standing CO19 officers to support arrests. There's nothing to suggest that the overall number of armed officers have increased; CO19 are like SWAT, they're always on standby in case they're needed.
Even if firearm trained officer numbers have increase incrementally; however you argue whether those 52 people (I don't know where this figure has come from so I'm not going to appraise it) are carrying all the time or not, it's insignificant. The simple truth is that the vast majority of UK police do not carry firearms. The exceptions are usually at airports, where you usually see pairs of officers with MP-5s guarding the terminal - against terrorism not random street crime. I live in a (small-ish) city, and I haven't seen one armed officer outside of an airport, well... ever, actually! There are obviously exceptions (armed response teams, pre-planned arrests, raids), but the picture nationwide is that police aren't armed, as always.
Just because the a huge number of people support something doesnt make it rightt, please refrain from using tht silly argument. Hitler was pretty popular at the time Ill have you know.
Goodwin's law.
Also, no its not good enough. The 2nd amendment was created during a time of turbulence and insecurity, and also when concealed weapons for the most part didnt exist, and you couldnt fire 12 rounds from one clip.
As compared to now, in which we live in a nation that is at war, the economy has gone to crap, and our government is constantly telling us that terrorists are everywhere. What nice, peaceful times we are having.
Concealed weapons did exist, mostly in the form of small pistols with large large bullets (nicknamed "manstoppers") that you would stuff in your pockets. Many of the big coats people would where would have over a DOZEN of these pockets, each filled with a gun.
You had to carry a little bag of gunpowder around, and a tamper, a fuse and pungi sticks. Its not the same. I think its the one amendment they didnt really think about in terms of america in the future. With all of out other constitutional rights being stripped away, why is this one RETARDED one being defended with such fervor? Why dont you care about the plethora of rights that weve burned on the altar of retarded wars in the middle east? But dont worry, i guarantee you you will be playing Call of duty:IRAN Warfare in 2016, based on true events. The U.S. is unbearable in its warmongering stupidity, arrogance
True, which is why most people had their guns preloaded for when they travelled, ready to be shot at any time, and had many guns on them so they could just drop one when it fired, and then pull out another one.
As to why this one is being defended the hardest, this is the one most openly attacked, and has the longest standing organization dedicated to defending it. I DO care about the other rights being lost, and I will fight to defend them, nor do I like what the government is doing.
Archroy: They deploy with their firearm more often for fuck's sake. Just because an officer is qualified to carry a gun doesn't mean that they do routinely.
So in other words there are more officers carrying guns.
52 extra? Get to fuck. There are approximately 140,000 police officers in the UK. That's way beyond statistically insignificant. And that link also says:
And that is a 1% increase in the number of authorized carry officers.
"The Police discharged a conventional firearm in 7 incidents (up from 3 incidents in the previous year)." Hardly the fucking Alamo is it?
Why do you insist on bringing up trivial matters? I never denied that or even spoke of that. I suppose you are so grossly inadequate to this task that you have no choice but to try and draw my attention away from the matter at hand.
The scope of your intellectual dishonesty is staggering.
Coming from you that is about as telling as an accusation of terrorism from Osama bin Laden.
statistics that show correlation between gun ownership and gun crime, accidents and suicides
What about Jamaica?
and you dismiss it all with an airy wave of your hand as irrelevant and statistically insignificant because it doesn't support your position.
Actually I dismiss it because it is wrong and irrelevant. The last time you brought up a statistic you could not actually argue for it. If that statistic is right then you are saying that you are inadequate to the task of defending it. You have proven your inadequacy time and time again. I suggest you slink quietly away before you humiliate yourself further.
[/quote]And yet you claim that fifty two extra police being authorised to use a gun is evidence of the UK police arming itself by stealth. [/quote]
More LEOs are armed and people like you deny it. In other words the facade remains intact due to thick headedness and more officers are armed.
And how would you know how we view the way that the police are armed? Ever been here?
Did you read those articles?
Yeah, to a grand total of way less than 1% of the force. You know as well as I that that is meaningless. You're doing yourself a severe disservice now, as you're starting to look seriously unhinged.
Actually you are looking more and more unhinged. At first you categorically denied that there was an increase and now you admit there is an increase but then you deny the increase as irrelevant. Either you are unhinged or you are so completely biased that you cannot even admit you are wrong. I am right and you are wrong. Get over it.
You know full well that you wouldn't accept an increase of 52 in a body of 140,000 "anythings" as anything like significant. If you're seriously going to claim that, you'd better accept the much more significant numbers showing that guns in the home are dangerous.
Calm the fuck down and listen. I said more and more officers are being armed. I have proved that. That is a base number and idea that only requires there to be an increase. Your statistics have to factor in dozens, hundreds, thousands of socioeconomic-cultural factors. It is an entirely different set up and if you cannot realize that then you are long since lost.
OneCatch : I don't even know what was originally being argued here
I was arguing that more officers are armed in the UK now than in the 1980s. My argument was very simple and obviously right (even he admits it, sort of) but Archroy is being obtuse for whatever reason.
Apartheid was pretty popular at the time. If the hitler reference makes sense, use it. The godwins law bs seems like a lame defense against good points. Please use a modicum of your brainpower to come up with a more substantial refutation of my analogy or move on.
As compared to now, in which we live in a nation that is at war, the economy has gone to crap, and our government is constantly telling us that terrorists are everywhere. What nice, peaceful times we are having.
Entirely different scenario's, we had just won our independence, but maintaining it was far from a given. There was no police infrastructure, there were roaming gangs of bandits in those days and without the protection of guns, no one would come to your aid so you had to defend yourself. Now we live in a virtual police state, the need for guns is farcical. I do understand the resistance to gun laws because anything we already have we are steadfast in keeping. But people need to look at the routine school shootings that seem to happen every few months nowadays.
As to why this one is being defended the hardest, this is the one most openly attacked, and has the longest standing organization dedicated to defending it. I DO care about the other rights being lost, and I will fight to defend them, nor do I like what the government is doing.
You shouldnt be able to stockpile weapons. Also, I would think itd be obvious to keep people with mental health problems or ex convicts from owning guns, or even suspected terrrorists, but not the case. Its far too easy to get a gun, any idiot can walk into a walmart with a hundred bucks and walk out with the capability of killing dozens of people.
Define "stockpile" and give a good reason as to why my rights are limited in such a manner. Because I see no proof that this would in any meaningful way reduce gun violence.
Also, I would think itd be obvious to keep people with mental health problems or ex convicts from owning guns,
Agreed. Already illegal.
or even suspected terrrorists, but not the case.
Disagree. The list is based on people who are suspected of committing a future crime. Also, you can't force the government into open court to explain why they put you on the list nor can you challenge your state on it.
Its far too easy to get a gun, any idiot can walk into a walmart with a hundred bucks and walk out with the capability of killing dozens of people.
$100 is a bit low for any decent gun. Yes. Any idiot can exercise their constitutional rights unless legally barred. That's the way the USA works.
Define "stockpile" and give a good reason as to why my rights are limited in such a manner. Because I see no proof that this would in any meaningful way reduce gun violence.
Also, I would think itd be obvious to keep people with mental health problems or ex convicts from owning guns,
Agreed. Already illegal.
or even suspected terrrorists, but not the case.
Disagree. The list is based on people who are suspected of committing a future crime. Also, you can't force the government into open court to explain why they put you on the list nor can you challenge your state on it.
Its far too easy to get a gun, any idiot can walk into a walmart with a hundred bucks and walk out with the capability of killing dozens of people.
$100 is a bit low for any decent gun. Yes. Any idiot can exercise their constitutional rights unless legally barred. That's the way the USA works.
Its not illegal if the enforcement is nonexistant, any mentally deranged person or ex con can go to a trade show and pick up guns from vendors who couldnt give less of a shit to do a background check before taking their cash.
There was an experiment done 2 years ago, a guy walked in to a tradeshow with a video camera and went around trying to buy guns. Out of the 30 people he talked to, 2 of them bothered to check his background.
Its far too easy to get a gun, any idiot can walk into a walmart with a hundred bucks and walk out with the capability of killing dozens of people.
$100 is a bit low for any decent gun. Yes. Any idiot can exercise their constitutional rights unless legally barred. That's the way the USA works"
Yes, exactly why we should have stricter gun laws. I like c rocks solution, make every bullet 5000 dollars
Define "stockpile" and give a good reason as to why my rights are limited in such a manner. Because I see no proof that this would in any meaningful way reduce gun violence.
Also, I would think itd be obvious to keep people with mental health problems or ex convicts from owning guns,
Agreed. Already illegal.
or even suspected terrrorists, but not the case.
Disagree. The list is based on people who are suspected of committing a future crime. Also, you can't force the government into open court to explain why they put you on the list nor can you challenge your state on it.
Its far too easy to get a gun, any idiot can walk into a walmart with a hundred bucks and walk out with the capability of killing dozens of people.
$100 is a bit low for any decent gun. Yes. Any idiot can exercise their constitutional rights unless legally barred. That's the way the USA works.
Its not illegal if the enforcement is nonexistant, any mentally deranged person or ex con can go to a trade show and pick up guns from vendors who couldnt give less of a shit to do a background check before taking their cash.
If they're not FFL dealers, that's not illegal on their part, if I'm not mistaken. They CAN'T do a NICS check because they don't have access to the system
If they ARE a FFL dealer, then they HAVE to use the NICS. Brady Bill and all that.
So that tired meme is out. What's next? Assault clips?
Stilt: Yes, exactly why we should have stricter gun laws. I like c rocks solution, make every bullet 5000 dollars
This deserves a post of it's own.
His idea, is quite frankly, the stupidest thing I have ever heard in ANY serious context. Ever.
I remember reading that most bullets cost less than a dollar to make. And many people already make their own. And there are millions of bullets already out there, if not billions.
You may as well propose a poll tax.
So yeah. It's a non-solution, and should not be taken into any serious consideration. No one would go along with this. It's quite frankly absurd
Apartheid was pretty popular at the time. If the hitler reference makes sense, use it. The godwins law bs seems like a lame defense against good points. Please use a modicum of your brainpower to come up with a more substantial refutation of my analogy or move on.
There's nothing worth refuting. Everything that exists from "My Little Pony" to inheritance tax has been compared to Hitler at some point in time. We're tired of hearing his name pop up in entirely unrelated debates for good reason, let it go and come up with your own argument.
Stilt:
Not G. Ivingname:
As compared to now, in which we live in a nation that is at war, the economy has gone to crap, and our government is constantly telling us that terrorists are everywhere. What nice, peaceful times we are having.
Entirely different scenario's, we had just won our independence, but maintaining it was far from a given. There was no police infrastructure, there were roaming gangs of bandits in those days and without the protection of guns, no one would come to your aid so you had to defend yourself. Now we live in a virtual police state, the need for guns is farcical. I do understand the resistance to gun laws because anything we already have we are steadfast in keeping. But people need to look at the routine school shootings that seem to happen every few months nowadays.
Are you aware that the school shootings are one of the best arguments FOR guns in the hands of responsible and trained civilians? Each and every last one of them could have been stopped before any blood was shed given the right circumstances and a little luck.
As for the rest of this. Maintaining independence is no longer an issue, that is true. But our police force is woefully inadequate, we still have gangs of armed criminals wandering around (they're even worse in some ways, the old bandits didn't tend to fight small wars within the city over their claimed turf.), and the odds of a police officer being close enough to prevent a crime from happening are VERY low.
Stilt:
Not G. Ivingname:
As to why this one is being defended the hardest, this is the one most openly attacked, and has the longest standing organization dedicated to defending it. I DO care about the other rights being lost, and I will fight to defend them, nor do I like what the government is doing.
You shouldnt be able to stockpile weapons. Also, I would think itd be obvious to keep people with mental health problems or ex convicts from owning guns, or even suspected terrrorists, but not the case. Its far too easy to get a gun, any idiot can walk into a walmart with a hundred bucks and walk out with the capability of killing dozens of people.
Um, wrong
Are you even aware of the requirements to own a gun? The specific details vary from state to state, but a felony conviction, being on a terrorist watch list, or having a serious mental issue all prevent a person from getting a license, or invalidate that license if any occur after getting one. No license, no gun.
P.S. "idiot" is the right word, a hundred dollar Walmart gun isn't quite as likely to blow up in one's own face as some older relics, but it certainly would not make for a trustworthy weapon.
Stilt: Its not illegal if the enforcement is nonexistant, any mentally deranged person or ex con can go to a trade show and pick up guns from vendors who couldnt give less of a shit to do a background check before taking their cash.
It is illegal for an FFL dealer to sell without doing a check, unless that person is a CHL, cop, etc (and even then they still have to fill out the paperwork). If that person is not a licensed FFL it is still illegal to sell to a person you know it is illegal to sell it to.
There was an experiment done 2 years ago, a guy walked in to a tradeshow with a video camera and went around trying to buy guns. Out of the 30 people he talked to, 2 of them bothered to check his background.
Problem, you have to look for those guys. Yeah, if I wanted to I could buy a lot of guns without a license. The problem is that I would be looking for the guys shouldering the rifles like this-
(imagine if that guy had a flag in the barrel saying for sale)
Or I would be looking for antique firearms dealers like this-
(BTW those are muzzle loaders)
If you look for them you can find them but generally speaking they are going to be guy selling the granddads old rifle. Even at large guns shows like the Houston Gun Show you will only find a handful of those guys. The VAST majority of gun sellers at guns shows are licensed.
Yes, exactly why we should have stricter gun laws. I like c rocks solution, make every bullet 5000 dollars
Only a person completely ignorant of the way bullets work and of the economics around bullets would say something like that.
1. Bullets are extremely easy to make yourself. I have cast my own bullets before (not now because I don't have the facilities), I have made black powder and know how to make workable gunpowder, and you can easily make cases and primers yourself.
2. If you destroy the civilian market for bullets in the US bullets from all over the world will go up in price as well as many other commodities. The materials to make bullets don't just appear out of nowhere. They have to be gathered and processed. Also the bullets have to be produced and the massive supply produced by the US ensures that other countries have a readymade and cheap supply.
The fact remains, its exceedingly easy for ex cons, psychopaths, and suspected terrorists to buy guns because the law goes unenforced.
No, it is extremely easy because guns are common in this world. I can go south of the border and get a full auto AK47 no problem. It has nothing to do with gun shows, it has to do with the fact that guns are so proliferated in the world that you cannot get rid of them and it is, quite frankly, foolish to try. Especially given how easy it is for people to build their own damn guns.
Apartheid was pretty popular at the time. If the hitler reference makes sense, use it. The godwins law bs seems like a lame defense against good points. Please use a modicum of your brainpower to come up with a more substantial refutation of my analogy or move on.
Alright, I will concede that not everything that is popular is good. However, in a DEMOCRACY where the MAJORITY rules, being popular is very important. If you are saying we should ignore Goodwin's law, however, I will also point out Hitler was a big on gun control, and disarming the Jews is one of the first things he did.
As compared to now, in which we live in a nation that is at war, the economy has gone to crap, and our government is constantly telling us that terrorists are everywhere. What nice, peaceful times we are having.
Entirely different scenario's, we had just won our independence, but maintaining it was far from a given. There was no police infrastructure, there were roaming gangs of bandits in those days and without the protection of guns, no one would come to your aid so you had to defend yourself. Now we live in a virtual police state, the need for guns is farcical. I do understand the resistance to gun laws because anything we already have we are steadfast in keeping. But people need to look at the routine school shootings that seem to happen every few months nowadays.
Do the police have access to teleportation devices and can react to any crime that happens anywhere in the nation? Sure, the police can be their faster, but when seconds count the police are still often minutes away. You know which city has the most crime of ANY part of the United States? Washington DC, a place filled with more cameras, cops, FBI agents, CIA agents, military personal, and gun control than anywhere else in the nation?
And that is in cities, how do you think it is in the country, where the nearest police car is almost an hour away? When somebody is breaking into my house, what am I supposed to do, call a time out?
The school shootings could also be considered a failure of gun control, with them being "gun free zones." What do you think would of happened if some of the victims was packing a glock when the shootout started?
As to why this one is being defended the hardest, this is the one most openly attacked, and has the longest standing organization dedicated to defending it. I DO care about the other rights being lost, and I will fight to defend them, nor do I like what the government is doing.
You shouldnt be able to stockpile weapons. Also, I would think itd be obvious to keep people with mental health problems or ex convicts from owning guns, or even suspected terrrorists, but not the case. Its far too easy to get a gun, any idiot can walk into a walmart with a hundred bucks and walk out with the capability of killing dozens of people.
"Stockpiling" weapons is only done by really a handful of people that are gun collectors. Most people can afford to "stockpile" weapons, because most of them cost more than $100. The other reason is for businesses to get a lot of weapons, and place them around their store. A lot of Pawn shops do that. If I did crack and decide to go Postal at a preschool, how many guns would I really need? One.
Most people have some mental health problem. YOU most likely have a mental health problem, but most people live their lives unaware or able to deal with it. Minor depression, addictions, tendency towards some actions, all are considered "mental health problems" that generally don't end with a person shooting up a 7/11 You know how cases people are legally considered are do to insanity? Only 1 in a hundred cases even attempt the insanity plea, and only a fourth of that are successful. The rest of the 399 cases are due to other reasons that have little if anything to do with the mental health of the crimninal.
Apartheid was pretty popular at the time. If the hitler reference makes sense, use it. The godwins law bs seems like a lame defense against good points. Please use a modicum of your brainpower to come up with a more substantial refutation of my analogy or move on.
Alright, I will concede that not everything that is popular is good. However, in a DEMOCRACY where the MAJORITY rules, being popular is very important. If you are saying we should ignore Goodwin's law, however, I will also point out Hitler was a big on gun control, and disarming the Jews is one of the first things he did.
As compared to now, in which we live in a nation that is at war, the economy has gone to crap, and our government is constantly telling us that terrorists are everywhere. What nice, peaceful times we are having.
Entirely different scenario's, we had just won our independence, but maintaining it was far from a given. There was no police infrastructure, there were roaming gangs of bandits in those days and without the protection of guns, no one would come to your aid so you had to defend yourself. Now we live in a virtual police state, the need for guns is farcical. I do understand the resistance to gun laws because anything we already have we are steadfast in keeping. But people need to look at the routine school shootings that seem to happen every few months nowadays.
As to why this one is being defended the hardest, this is the one most openly attacked, and has the longest standing organization dedicated to defending it. I DO care about the other rights being lost, and I will fight to defend them, nor do I like what the government is doing.
You shouldnt be able to stockpile weapons. Also, I would think itd be obvious to keep people with mental health problems or ex convicts from owning guns, or even suspected terrrorists, but not the case. Its far too easy to get a gun, any idiot can walk into a walmart with a hundred bucks and walk out with the capability of killing dozens of people.
"Stockpiling" weapons is only done by really a handful of people that are gun collectors. Most people can afford to "stockpile" weapons, because most of them cost more than $100. The other reason is for businesses to get a lot of weapons, and place them around their store. A lot of Pawn shops do that. If I did crack and decide to go Postal at a preschool, how many guns would I really need? One.
Most people have some mental health problem. YOU most likely have a mental health problem, but most people live their lives unaware or able to deal with it. Minor depression, addictions, tendency towards some actions, all are considered "mental health problems" that generally don't end with a person shooting up a 7/11 You know how cases people are legally considered are do to insanity? Only 1 in a hundred cases even attempt the insanity plea, and only a fourth of that are successful. The rest of the 399 cases are due to other reasons that have little if anything to do with the mental health of the crimninal.
I don't think that hitler taking guns away is as relevant as my point that popularity =/= right. I was using hitler as an example against a very broad, vague argument which was easily discredited, however i dont think that you would seriously make the argument that because hitler was in favor of gun control that we in america should have no laws governing the sale and purchase of weapons. Hitler was also vegetarian, doesn't mean we should ban vegetables.
The advantage a stockpiler has is, if crazy, he can arm a group of like minded crazies with the snap of a finger, with the possibility of killing thousands.
As for mental health, ill concede this, mental health is a very broad term that covers several disorders, not all of them spontaneous or violent. However my point still stands that violent psychopaths will have no problem finding guns and bullets to kill people with due to our lax gun laws.
Someone previously tried to argue that in the wake of the string of school shootings that our country has experienced for the last 2 decades, that we are still experiencing, that we should make guns even EASIER to obtain. Ha, unreal, Im not even going to bother responding to that
The fact remains, its exceedingly easy for ex cons, psychopaths, and suspected terrorists to buy guns because the law goes unenforced.
No, it is extremely easy because guns are common in this world. I can go south of the border and get a full auto AK47 no problem. It has nothing to do with gun shows, it has to do with the fact that guns are so proliferated in the world that you cannot get rid of them and it is, quite frankly, foolish to try. Especially given how easy it is for people to build their own damn guns.
You live in a bubble, who the fuck knows how to make their own guns?
The fact remains, its exceedingly easy for ex cons, psychopaths, and suspected terrorists to buy guns because the law goes unenforced.
No, it is extremely easy because guns are common in this world. I can go south of the border and get a full auto AK47 no problem. It has nothing to do with gun shows, it has to do with the fact that guns are so proliferated in the world that you cannot get rid of them and it is, quite frankly, foolish to try. Especially given how easy it is for people to build their own damn guns.
Haha you get you news from fox, that tells me all I need to know. Fox spin is infamous, as is their inaccuracy, fearmongering, and general shadiness
The 5000 dollar bullet thing is a JOKE people, part of chris rocks old stand up routine, like tyler perry said so poetically, unclench.
The fact remains, its exceedingly easy for ex cons, psychopaths, and suspected terrorists to buy guns because the law goes unenforced.
What do you know, you're right, it is possible for someone to get a gun illegally. That, in some ways, is the point.
No matter what you do, no matter how tightly enforced gun laws become, it will always be quite simple for a criminal to get a gun. The only potential gun users who give a crap about gun laws, and are actually likely to obey them, are those least likely to misuse a gun.
Haha you get you news from fox, that tells me all I need to know. Fox spin is infamous, as is their inaccuracy, fearmongering, and general shadiness
He just happens to be correct. Gun trade across the border is big. By the way, I suggest you stop assuming where people get their information, I seem to recall both CNN and BBC running a news article or a hundred on this subject before
I read the thing, it made some very good points and I can see my biases more clearly as a result of it, but at the end of the day, I still have to say the fat man with the gun following a kid with skittles is exceedingly likely to be the guilty one. That and the fact that he's alive. Also, people keep saying "oh the bruises wouldnt have had time to show up" to which I respond "then why didnt he take some pictures of those big bad bruises the day after eh?
The 5000 dollar bullet thing is a JOKE people, part of chris rocks old stand up routine, like tyler perry said so poetically, unclench.
The fact remains, its exceedingly easy for ex cons, psychopaths, and suspected terrorists to buy guns because the law goes unenforced.
What do you know, you're right, it is possible for someone to get a gun illegally. That, in some ways, is the point.
No matter what you do, no matter how tightly enforced gun laws become, it will always be quite simple for a criminal to get a gun. The only potential gun users who give a crap about gun laws, are exactly the kind of people willing to use a gun in a responsible and legal manner. I would suggest that you stop maligning them.
Haha you get you news from fox, that tells me all I need to know. Fox spin is infamous, as is their inaccuracy, fearmongering, and general shadiness
He just happens to be correct. Gun trade across the border is big. By the way, I suggest you stop assuming where people get their information, I seem to recall both CNN and BBC running a news article or a hundred on this subject before
Then pick a more credible source next time and I'll take it seriously, no doubt fox has a couple of objective stories, but my experience with them has been overwhelmingly negative in the fact dept.
Here's something you're right about: cracking down on guns wouldn't mitigate gun crime immediately, there's too much of the shit already out there. Over time however, I know that strict gun laws will prevent deaths in the future
edit: I think gun rights advocates should be throwing this z guy under the bus instead of defending him, it would make them look a lot more reasonable. Especially if youre trying to keep your stand your ground laws. your
Edit: I want to also add Im against prohibition of any sort, prohibition never works. However there is no reason for anyone to own more than one gun, it makes it easier for them to get stolen, raises the possibility of armed uprising, and is just generally a bad idea. And no, i dont think stockpiling should be defended on the basis of a collectors novelty.
Wow this was a scary rambling mess...!
1- The president is not responsible for local law enforcement
2- The president made an innocuous comment (that every other presidential candidate made btw) which did not presume guilt upon anyone and only said that he feels for the parents. Sadly he just happened to mention that he is black and Trayvon is black... and Right wing idiots went all crazy about it. its comical really.
3-If you are trying to make this into a thing about the president, clearly you have little concern for the actual individuals involved or justice as a whole. The president answered a question, that is all.
Although I am not a fan of the New black panther party, comparing them to the KKK is a bit disengenous considering that i know of few deaths or acts of vandalism that can be attributed to them over the last 20 or so years of their existence. No one cares about the new black panther party, its just a boogey man for nuts like you to drum up in order to get motivated for your... whatever it is that you do.