How long untill the president gets shot ? The right wing has gone completely insane ! - Page 17 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

tankdriver · #**241** 08-24-2009, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

And over 300 in Baltimore.

For criminals, a gun is one of the "tools of the trade". As long as there are criminals, criminals will have knives.

Isn't that your point?
What I'm saying is that the statistic for London, being so much lower than Washington's, supports t walgamuth's point about England's crime rate.

Quote:

How many crimes are committed by honest, gun-owning citizens?

As many as honest non-gun owners I suspect. A better question would be, how many guns legally purchased at one point in their history have been used in violent crime?

t walgamuth · #**242** 08-24-2009, 10:16 PM

As for the second question I imagine a small percentage where it is difficult to get one if you are not a good citizen.

Hatterasguy · #**243** 08-24-2009, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cscmc1

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1566715.stm

Thats one of the reasons Switzerland has never been invaded. Who the heck wants to march into a country full of mountains and trained snipers? Notice during WW2 it was the only country in Europe Hitler passed on.

BTW the Swiss also make some of the best rifles, the Sig 5XX series is one of the best 5.56 rifles ever made.

Hatterasguy · #**244** 08-24-2009, 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt L

An assault rifle IS a machine gun. Only in popular culture has the name "assault rifle" been subverted to mean how it looks and not how it functions.

Correct, when Hitler named the Sturmgewehr. It was a weapon that fired an intermediate round, and because of this was capable of controled full auto fire.

Later on came the battle rifle, IE the M14, G3, FN Fal.

I prefer just to make fun of all the limp wristed anti gun liberals and call them evil black rifles.

Since thats the weapon that gets their panties all twisted.

Hatterasguy · #**245** 08-24-2009, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

I find good and bad in gun ownership patterns. Having lived in a number of locations in the US, it has been my experience that states that have strict gun control laws seem to have higher rates of property crime - if I was a burgular in Massachusetts, for instance, I am much less worried that if the owner of a home unexpectedly arrives in the progress of my burgalizing his home, the odds are fairly low that I will be shot, so home burgularies are more common in places like New York and Mass than in Texas due to the lower risk facter, while in Texas the risk of getting one's head blown off while ripping someone household goods off are much higher, since here even his neighbor might shoot you, not to mention the fact the average Texas jury would give the homeowner a pass if he tortured you with a blow torch and a toilet plunger for a few hours before he shot you. On the other hand, the easy availability of firearms in Texas means that fist fights and verbal arguments easily escalate into shootings, so, gun violence in domestic disturbance and assault cases tend to end in a much more permanent way, but here most of the gun violence tends to be concentrated among the drug gangs and the bar room set.

While many of those on the right here would be surprised, I am actually a big supporter of the 2nd Amendment, and support the right to keep and bear arms, however I must say the experience of living in Texas has caused me to arrive at the opinion that those who are allowed to own firearms be restricted to those who are law-abiding citizens by the use of a registration and licensing system. One can easily see why by attending any Houston gun show, shows notorious for arming the likes of Timothy McVeigh and David Koresh, they are armament marts for Texas and Louisiana, and under the radar,Mexican Cartel, drug gangs. I would like to see the 2nd Amendment enforced for what it says: if you want to own a firearm, you must be an accepted member of an organization we should call The National Citizen's Militia, which would have a roll and a set of regulations, as specified in the 2nd, that one must conform too. Only then could we find the happy medium between the extremes of Texas and Massachusetts. Those who cannot prove membership in the NCM would have their guns immediately confiscated. We could get more guns off the streets from the hands of those who should not have them, while we insure that law abiding homeowners can possess weapons for home protection, and of course militia duty for that horrible day when the Northern Barbarianic Horde finally descends on us from Canada.

Interesting, I would support this if the Militia was not under the direct control of the US government. Since the 2nd ammendment is ment to protect us for domestic enemy's as well.

Edit: How about making them under state control, and going the Swiss route and if your a member you can have pretty much unrestricted access to buy whatever you want.

MS Fowler · #**246** 08-25-2009, 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

As for the second question I imagine a small percentage where it is difficult to get one if you are not a good citizen.

If you are saying that it is difficult for criminals to get guns, I must disagree. It might be difficult for them to legally obtain guns, but since they require a gun for their criminal enterprise, they will obtain them.
If you are replying to another statement--then disregard this.

Txjake · #**247** 08-25-2009, 08:09 AM

where is that "beating a dead horse" emoticon?

aklim · #**248** 08-25-2009, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Txjake

where is that "beating a dead horse" emoticon?

Txjake · #**249** 08-25-2009, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

yep, that's it. thanks....

DieselAddict · #**250** 08-25-2009, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LUVMBDiesels

And yet it was totally illegal to posses a fire arm in the District until the Supreme Court weighed in this year...

Gee, I guess gun control really works

Small islands of gun bans never work well. If the ban was nationwide and the penalties for violation severe, then it could have some significant effect, assuming the ban was there from the beginning. It's too late to ban guns now even if it was constitutional. What I'd really like to see is better enforcement of background checks, even for used guns, and some sort of licensing in every state. Our current ways are much too decentralized and unregulated considering the high number of criminals in this country.

LUVMBDiesels · #**251** 08-25-2009, 04:01 PM

Since this has turned into a ban guns thread, here is my suggestion. Take a page from the British Empire (the old days not post WWII)

If you kill use a gun to commit a crime (any crime), it is a capital offense. That law allowed the Bobbies to go around unarmed when England and Scotland has one of the highest per-capita gun owning rates in the world. It was after the death penalty was repealed that gun violence soared.

Of course justifiable cases of self-defense were allowed under this law...

aklim · #**252** 08-25-2009, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DieselAddict

Small islands of gun bans never work well. If the ban was nationwide and the penalties for violation severe, then it could have some significant effect, assuming the ban was there from the beginning. It's too late to ban guns now even if it was constitutional. What I'd really like to see is better enforcement of background checks, even for used guns, and some sort of licensing in every state. Our current ways are much too decentralized and unregulated considering the high number of criminals in this country.

Maybe heavy penalties instead of the State Hilton will work.

t walgamuth · #**253** 08-25-2009, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

If you are saying that it is difficult for criminals to get guns, I must disagree. It might be difficult for them to legally obtain guns, but since they require a gun for their criminal enterprise, they will obtain them.
If you are replying to another statement--then disregard this.

I probably did not give enough information. I believe that a small percentage of the legally obtained guns eventually become used in violent crimes. Thinking about it, I believe that most folks who obtain guns legally probably hold on to them or sell them to someone else equally law abiding.

This is a hunch not based on any known facts (so don't ask, please).

rwthomas1 · #**254** 08-27-2009, 01:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton

Do you agree that a person who is carrying a weapon is permitted to drink alcohol?

It's a yes or no answer and I'm not at all interested in your rhetoric. It's your wedding and your guest list.

Can I answer this one? Actually, I have carried in the past and also consumed moderate amounts of alcohol on occasion while doing so. IMHO, this is a case-by-case situation. Having a beer or two over an hour or so while talking to friends, all the while with a piece in my belt is no different than any other decision regarding alcohol. If you have the self control, presence of mind, etc. its no problem. I have many friends, some carry, and we have NEVER had an incidence of anyone pulling out a piece and acting the fool while even mildly intoxicated. If you wouldn't drive, use power tools, etc. then you have the idea. RT

Brian Carlton · #**255** 08-27-2009, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rwthomas1

IMHO, this is a case-by-case situation.

Precisely.

If you know yourself and your friends very well (not easily accomplished), and you want to drink a moderate amount of alcohol, have at it.

The question posed was whether you would permit it at a wedding, where all the attendees cannot possibly be very close friends...........and you cannot know the interactions between the people who are armed and the people who are not.

Try and make that case...........it's impossible if you're thinking rationally.

BTW, I have NEVER witnessed anyone who pulled a gun on another person. Can I then conclude that it never happens?