TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- FBI wants palm prints, eye scans, tattoo mapping
Pages (10): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 »

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco Sorry, mis-read your post. So why not fully automatic weapons? Too much firepower?

Too much risk.

quote:

When the right to bear arms was guaranteed, flint-locks were the modern weapons of their day. The idea was to put the average citizen on an equal footing with anything a standing army might be able to throw at them (and actually, that included artillery, explosives, etc.) Now, we are no longer the equals of our standing army, not by a long shot.

The fact is, as anti-individual ownership people love to point out, that citizens are not the equal of a standing army. They have neither the command structure nor the strategic training nor the weapons training to equal the military, nor will they ever. Why? Because most people don't make combat and combat-readiness their job as the men and women of the military do. It's simply not possible for ordinary citizens to equal that, so your whole line of argument here is a dead end.

The point of the right to bear arms is the effect on morale a resistant population would have on the soldiers of an oppressive army, not some ideal where the citizens would meet that army with "equal force," which has never even been possible since countries started raising regular military forces. Take a look at how urban and guerilla warfare has been able to demoralize and sometimes even defeat occupying armies, even when some of those armies have had far superior firepower and training.

quote:

So given that there are more and more calls for disarming the average citizen, wouldn't you say that you have, historically, already been in support of a "slippery slope" of eroding freedoms?

No more than banning intoxicated driving is a "slippery slope" toward the wholesale banning of alcohol.

People today love to break down the 2nd amendment into little parts and evaluate with rules of grammar what the "real" meaning of it is. What they should be doing instead is looking at the historical context in which the Bill of Rights was written. Our forefathers had just fought a revolutionary war to free themselves from an oppressive government. They clearly distrusted a powerful federal government and believed that arms should be in the hands of the people to keep their government in check.

The most common argument is that what they were really saying is that those people in a militia have the right to bear arms, not every ordinary citizen. This type of argument again ignores historical context. This idea would be totally foreign to the authors of the 2nd amendment, at the time the document was written there was nearly universal gun ownership among people. In order to defeat the British, George Washington made regular use of state militias and many people who were initially part of citizens militias entered the Continental Army. In our forefathers minds was this clear and fresh example of armed citizens banding together and working towards the defeat of an oppressive foreign power. The militia language in the amendment was used not to limit the use of arms to those in a militia but to insure that all citizens had the right to be armed and those citizens also had the right to form into a militia.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco [...]

Yeah, to be honest it's pretty clear you're not even understanding the issue at all (not even close, frankly). There isn't much point trying to have a discussion when one party simply isn't on the intellectual level to even comprehend what the other is saying.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN says who? these people were macheted to death. had the government come to the party with assault rifles, the results would have been much the same.

Sometimes I really think you must have fallen down and smacked your little head on the curb.

Do you HONESTLY believe that armed people will be massacred in EXACTLY the same proportions as unarmed people????

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN and you keep pointing to 3rd world dictatorships to provide a comparison to the advanced liberal democracies (ie the US which started this whole conversation) and i do not think such a comparison is remotely valid.

Why? You think only educated people who are being repressed are worthy of consideration? The bottom line is; You just think the whole world should be subjugated by their governments and hope for the best.

Sad.

Narrow-minded.

...and DANGEROUS thinking.

Thinking like that is what sent millions to the gas chambers.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN there is not a single reason to suggest the world's current advanced liberal democracies will fall into dictatorship, nor that average joe's holding guns will prevent it either.

Of course there is no evidence at this time. I for one am glad we're not even close to something like that occurring at this point in our history. But do you really believe that things ALWAYS stay as they are, for the rest of eternity? Has the history of mankind taught you anything? The point isn't that it WILL happen (it may very well never happen), but rather to keep our system of checks and balances in place so that it CAN'T happen. Get it?

In WW2, tens of thousands of lightly armed Partisans of many nations (Russia, France, Hungary, etc.) tied up hundreds of thousands of German troops behind the lines. There are PLENTY of examples of lightly armed citizen soldiers tying down whole armies throughout the history of the firearms era. There are examples of one man with a gun tying down whole Police forces (not saying that is good, just pointing out the logistical facts).

Yet you keep lying to yourself and to others, claiming that an armed citizen has ZERO impact on the powers of authority. I have PLENTY of examples on my side to prove you wrong, while you have nothing but a lot of conjecture.[/QUOTE]

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN yes, but like arbiter, i dont think the second amendment DOES say everyone can own a gun. i agree with his interpretation of the statute.

lol...why? Because he's a "Harvard Lawyer"? One of the most liberal schools in the country spits out another litigation-happy lawyer with skewed liberal viewpoints, and we're all supposed to fall at his feet and kiss his ass because HE thinks he knows how to interpret the 2nd Amend.? The man has just as many peers who disagree with him, so his supposed "pedigree" and position carries no more weight than any other aspiring attorney's in this debate.

The NRA has 4 million members officially. It has almost ten times that number of out-right supporters! Half the people in this country own at LEAST one firearm. We are PROUDLY an armed nation. It's what keeps us free and equal. This is not a movement of "extremists" or "conspiracy theorists". It's something a historically subjugated people (like yourself) can never understand. But what you espouse for us, is exactly that which you were historically brought up to be; A Royal "Subject". Lesser than those above you. Culturally, it still permeates your people's thinking. Don't you see that?

Liberal Politicians in this country in recent years have backed off the gun control issue more and more, because it has been costing them elections. I'm glad they're finally getting the message.

It's everything we fought the revolution for to escape from!

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN your founding fathers werent seers and i do not believe ANY of them would enjoy looking at the results of your gun-obsessed culture in 2008.

Yet another weak-ass argument you make...

"Gun Obsessed"? It's interesting how they put it in the Constitution, how they all owned firearms, how they all saw the benefit of how an armed populace could overthrow a repressive Royalty, and yet YOU think they'd be against the people ever being able to do that again if they were alive today? There are numerous quotes from many of the Founding Fathers on WHY they put the 2nd Amend. in place. And as I've stated already, the concept of freedom to save one's self from repression and/or possible death, NEVER goes out of style.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN the constitution and bill of rights, the courts, parliament etc etc etc all do a far greater job at limiting your government than the right to bear arms, and i find arguments to the contrary to be painfully stupid.

You really come off as a moron sometimes, you know that? Who ever said the 2nd Amend. was meant to be the ONLY check or balance? It's the check of last resort! Not the first!

Of course all of the other branches (judicial, legislative, etc.) work just fine to keep order and fairness in times of peace, it's supposed to be that way. It was never intended that every time there was a grievance between parties, there should be a duel on the Senate! Jesus, please stop making such DUMB assertions.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles The fact is, as anti-individual ownership people love to point out, that citizens are not the equal of a standing army. They have neither the command structure nor the strategic training nor the weapons training to equal the military, nor will they ever. Why? Because most people don't make combat and combat-readiness their job as the men and women of the military do. It's simply not possible for ordinary citizens to equal that, so your whole line of argument here is a dead end. The point of the right to bear arms is the effect on morale a resistant population would have on the soldiers of an oppressive army, not some ideal where the citizens would meet that army with "equal force," which has never even been possible since countries started raising regular military forces. Take a look at how urban and guerilla warfare has been able to demoralize and sometimes even defeat occupying armies, even when some of those armies have had far superior firepower and training.

We sort of agree here, but I will point out that when the 2nd Amend. was added, it never limited what kind of "arms" the average citizen could have. So it always was intended that they be the equal of their military counterparts. I don't think that they ever fooled themselves in to believing that they would be the equal of a trained, full-time enemy military, but the Founders certainly feared a standing military in THIS country FAR more than they feared an equally armed citizen militia. So the notion of being equally armed in the context of the times and in the context of history, bears fruit.

See, you've already caved to the notion of limiting the arms one can bare. I find that a lot more worrisome than this FBI I.D. system of exiting intel. I don't know why it doesn't worry you more, but that's your business.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Yeah, to be honest it's pretty clear you're not even understanding the issue at all (not even close, frankly). There isn't much point trying to have a discussion when one party simply isn't on the intellectual level to even comprehend what the other is saying.

I see unwarranted collegiate arrogance is alive and well and the Rich Snob School of Liberalism.

Good luck with your career, you're going to need it, you narrow-minded ass.

suck my dick donny, you middle-aged conservative halfwit.

woohoo! land of the free to kill and home of the cowardly.

quote:

A gunman killed five people and wounded two at a police station and city council meeting in suburban St. Louis on Thursday night before officers shot and killed him, police said. Two police officers are among the dead in Kirkwood, Missouri. Two of those killed were police officers, said Tracy Panus, spokeswoman for St. Louis County police. "We have what we believe to be our suspect," Panus said. "There's no reason for the Kirkwood residents to feel unsafe at this point." The shootings began shortly after 7 p.m. just outside the city hall in Kirkwood, Missouri, when a man approached a police officer in the parking lot of the Kirkwood police station and fatally shot him, Panus said. The officer died at the scene. The suspect then went into the city council chambers, she said, and killed a second police officer, then fatally shot three people who were attending the meeting, Panus said. Two people who were attending the city council meeting were taken to area hospitals, she said. One is in critical condition. Kirkwood police officers returned fire, Panus said, killing the suspect. Don't Miss KMOV: Gunfire at City Council meeting Police did not identify the suspect or victims. A correspondent for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Janet McNichols, who was in the city council meeting when the shooting took place, identified the gunman as Charles Lee Thornton, the newspaper reported. Thornton sued the city of Kirkwood after he was arrested twice for disorderly conduct at two council meetings in 2006. He was later convicted, according to the First Amendment Center, a group that says it works to preserve First Amendment freedoms. According to a Thursday article written by the center -- before the shooting -- Thornton asked to speak during public-comment portions of 2006 meetings on specific topics, but instead spoke on what he alleged was harassment of him by city officials. In the lawsuit, Thornton said his First Amendment rights had been violated. However, U.S. District Judge Catherine Perry said in a January 28 ruling that the public-comment portion of a meeting could be reserved for certain groups and topics of discussion. Rather than discussing the subject at hand, Perry wrote, "Thornton engaged in personal attacks against the mayor, Kirkwood and the city council ... Because Thornton does not have a First Amendment right to engage in irrelevant debate and to voice repetitive, personal, virulent attacks against Kirkwood and its city officials during the comment portion of a city council public hearing, his claim fails as a matter of law," the ruling said, according to the First Amendment Center. Thornton's brother, Gerald, told CNN affiliate KMOV, that his brother had serious grievances with the city government. "The only way that I can put it in a context that you might understand is that my brother went to war tonight with the people that were of the government that was putting torment and strife into his life," Thornton told KMOV. "And he had spoke on it as best he could in the courts and they denied him all access to the rights of protection, and therefore he took it upon himself to go to war and end the issue." Kirkwood is about 10 miles west-southwest of St. Louis.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN suck my dick donny, you middle-aged conservative halfwit.

Only if you agree to dive deep in your drawers to hunt up the little sucker for me, expose it to my subjugation, and then let me hack it up with a machete, whilst you stand there espousing your pacifist ideals as I make mince-meat out of your sacrificial member, AND your theories.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco Only if you agree to dive deep in your drawers to hunt up the little sucker for me, expose it to my subjugation, and then let me hack it up with a machete, whilst you stand there espousing your pacifist ideals as I make mince-meat out of your sacrificial member, AND your theories.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco as I make mince-meat out of your sacrificial member, AND your theories.

asides from ad hominems and non sequiturs you havent done shit.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN woohoo! land of the free to kill and home of the cowardly.

Yah? So? I already addressed random crime and gun restrictions, compared to the larger picture of genocide.

Do you know that of the 11,000 (on average) gun deaths in this country, more than half involve gangs and drug crimes? These are people who were going to kill each other no matter what the weapon is.

Then you factor in the domestic violence cases (cases in which the offender was determined to kill the spouse, and the gun just happened to be the weapon of choice).

Then there are the suicides by gun (again, termination vehicle of choice).

By the time you get down to people killed by RANDOM acts of crime involving a firearm, the odds of it happening to you are so absurdly slim, that you should be a LOT more scared of driving your car, or slipping in your pool, or choking on a piece of chicken, etc.

The larger, main-stream media sure likes to hype up random gun crimes, while ignoring the times that people have saved their lives by being armed. I have MANY newspaper articles however that I can post for you about people who have done exactly that, if you'd like to see them?

Of course I know it won't make a difference. Your mind is so rigidly made up already. You love trees, fur and would never harm an ant...and you somehow think this makes you more "special" than the rest of the world that isn't living in the same absurdly unrealistic fantasy-land of puppy-dogs and ice cream that you choose to live in.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco Yah? So? I already addressed random crime and gun restrictions, compared to the larger picture of genocide. Do you know that of the 11,000 (on average) gun deaths in this country, more than half involve gangs and drug crimes? These are people who are going to kill each other not matter what the weapon is. Then you factor in the domestic violence cases (cases in which the offender was determined to kill the spouse, and the gun just happened to be the weapon of choice). Then there are the suicides by gun (again, termination vehicle of choice). By the time you get down to people killed by RANDOM acts of crime involving a firearm, the odds of it happening to you are so absurdly slim, that you should be a LOT more scared of driving your car, or slipping in your pool, or choking on a piece of chicken, etc. The larger, main-stream media sure likes to hype up random gun crimes, while ignoring the times that people have save their lives by being armed. I have MANY newspaper articles however that I can post for you about people who have done exactly that, if you'd like to see them? Of course I know it won't make a difference. Your mind is so rigidly made up already. You love trees, fur and would never harm an ant...and you somehow thinks this makes you more "special" than the rest of the world that isn't living in the same absurdly unrealistic fantasy-land of puppy-dogs and ice cream that you choose to live in.

donny, i lost enthusiasm for this discussion when i told you to suck my dick, brought on by your juvenile responses to my arguments. if you wanna look at the world in your polarised "left - right" dynamic then be my guest. only stupid yanks think politics is THAT simplistic.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN donny, i lost enthusiasm for this discussion when i told you to suck my dick, brought on by your juvenile responses to my arguments. if you wanna look at the world in your polarised "left - right" dynamic then be my guest. only stupid yanks think politics is THAT simplistic.

pfft. Please. You throw out the insults, but can't take it when they are returned. Go back and re-read for yourself. I asked you to keep it civil. You lost your temper.

I, on the other hand, CAN take the heat. I suggested that you NOT go here because I knew you would lose. I'm far more creative in my thinking when it comes to serious issues, as well as to discussing the lopping off of your tiny one.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN asides from ad hominems and non sequiturs you havent done shit.

If I posted stats, links and videos all day long, you'd accuse me of being Trancer (unable to debate and/or formulate my own thoughts).

I'm sorry that I've out-debated you in front of so many people. A dozen carnations are on their way to you as we speak.

Friends?

right donny. you count up every citizen that has been murdered by your genocidal government, and compare that number to the total of people killed by other citizens.

quote:

A MAN furious at being denied a liquor licence got within sight of Sunday's Super Bowl championship match with an assault-style rifle and 200 rounds of ammunition. US authorities today revealed that Kurt William Havelock had vowed to "shed the blood of the innocent" in a manifesto mailed to media outlets on Sunday, the Associated Press reported. "I will not be bullied by the financial institutions and their puppet politicians,'' Mr Havelock wrote in his eight-page manifesto. "I will test the theory that bullets speak louder than words. Perhaps the blood of the inculpable will cause a paradigm shift ... someone has to start the revolution but no one wants to be first." Would-be bar owner The 35-year-old, who wanted to set up a bar, was armed with an AR-15 assault-style rifle when he reached a parking lot near the stadium when pre-game activities for the NFL football championship between the New York Giants and New England Patriots were underway. He waited about a minute and decided he couldn't do this,'' FBI agent Philip Thorlin told a detention hearing for Mr Havelock. Last-minute nerves Mr Havelock's father testified that his son then called his fiancee and met his parents at his home in suburban Phoenix, the Associated Press reported. "He was very upset; he was sobbing hysterically,'' Frank Havelock said. "He said 'I've done something terribly, terribly wrong'.'' The 35-year-old has been charged with mailing threatening communications. He is being held without bail.

lucky the guy was there, just in case the US government stormed the superbowl!

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco I'm sorry that I've out-debated you in front of so many people. A dozen carnations are on their way to you as we speak.

Jesus TIT-FUCKING CHRIST, NOBODY FUCKING CARES YOU IDIOT BASTARD.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Jesus TIT-FUCKING CHRIST, NOBODY FUCKING CARES YOU IDIOT BASTARD.

You obviously can't delineate humor from reality, you stupid pot-smoking internet geek.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN right donny. you count up every citizen that has been murdered by your genocidal government, and compare that number to the total of people killed by other citizens...

Not comprehending my posts again I see.

I already said that the price we pay for staving off POTENTIAL genocide via an out of control government, is having arms proliferation within our borders.

I'll tell you what the Founders DIDN'T see being a factor in the future though, and a large part of why we even have gun crimes to begin with;

They didn't see the Justice System being so lenient with criminals who use guns in the future. Many states don't even have a death penalty, and the ones that do have had some people on "Death Row" for well over 25 years! It's absurd. There's no deterrence for using firearms illegally, or for committing murder, with such a system.

They also didn't see the government outlawing alcohol (1920's) and drugs (1940's and beyond), which has given rise to organized crime and the common street gang.

These two factors contribute heavily to crimes involving firearms.

Because you are so in love with anti-gun mainstream media-hype surrounding firearms usage, here are a LOT of examples of some smaller newspaper outlets that ran stories about how guns have SAVED lives. In my state alone there are 682 articles chronicling incidents over the past 30 years or so. You should use the search engine on their page and scroll through the rest of the states.

"The Armed Citizen"-articles

Scroll down to the bottom of the page. "To find all records for a specific state, select that state from the drop-down and leave the keyword field blank. Click "submit search"."

I've taken the liberty to re-post page 1 of 69 from California, Raisin!! Imagine the mild-boggling number of articles on citizens who may have saved their own life by being armed, in the rest of the 52 states!!

The Bakersfield Californian, Bakersfield, CA, 11/09/07
State: CA
American Rifleman Issue: 2/1/2008
After someone shot through Steven Troy Stewart's living room window, the frightened Stewart began keeping a shotgun nearby. A month later, the precaution proved a lifesaver. Stewart heard glass breaking. He leapt from bed, grabbed his shotgun and walked toward the front of the house. There stood a man with a gun and a gasoline bomb. Stew-art shot several times, wounding the intruder. The intruder fled with accomplices and later died. Three suspects were arrested In connection with the crime andsuspicion of gang activity. In a jailhouse interview, one suspect told a local TV station they planned to kill Stewart, but he didn't know why.

Daily Press, Victorville, CA, 9/26/07
State: CA
American Rifleman Issue: 12/1/2007
The screams of his pregnant wife -- a horrible sound -- woke Roger Gilchrist from a dead sleep. He grabbed his gun and ran to the garage, where he discovered that his wife had driven in and stumbled upon a gun-wielding burglar. "Under the circumstances, with him having a gun and standing next to my pregnant wife, I'm not going to wait and see what happens -- I'm going to fire," Gilchrist said. Police say the burglar shot first and Gilchrist returned fire, injuring the intruder. The suspect fled, but was apprehended shortly thereafter. "If [my husband] didn't have that gun, we would've both been dead," said Gilchrist's wife.

Manteca Bulletin, Manteca, Calif., 6/11/07
State: CA
American Rifleman Issue: 11/1/2007
Panicked residents reported a man running through their yards as police chased a county jail escapee through several neighborhoods in Manteca, Calif. That is, until the suspect jumped a fence and entered the yard of a citizen armed with more than a telephone. The citizen -- NRA member Richard Soares -- heard his dog barking and retrieved a firearm to investigate. He encountered the suspect, who claimed to be jumping fences for a school project. Soares ordered the suspect to the ground where he was apprehended without further incident.

Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, Ontario, CA, 6/15/07
State: CA
American Rifleman Issue: 9/1/2007
Police say two or three men who broke into a home looking for drugs messed up big time."The victims had never seen them before. They probably picked the wrong house," explained Los Angeles County Sheriff's Sgt. Charles Jurcak. "[The suspects] entered the location, confronted the husband and demanded to know where the pot was!' When the couple said they didn't know anything about marijuana, the frustrated intruders began to beat them. While they focused on the husband, the wife went to the bedroom to retrieve a firearm. On her way back, she was confronted in the hallway by one of the intruders and shot him several times. The suspects fled, but the injured intruder was found lying nearby and arrested.

The Mendocino County Observer, Laytonville, CA, 04/19/07
State: CA
American Rifleman Issue: 8/1/2007
An elderly man discovered an intruder less than one-third his age burglarizing his boat. Police say the young criminal sprang at the man, stabbing him in the chest. Despite his injuries, the victim retrieved a shotgun and fired upon his assailant, causing him to flee. The victim was expected to recover from his injuries. The suspect was charged with attempted murder after he was found seeking treatment for gunshot wounds.

The Tribune, San Luis Obispo, CA, 5/21/07
State: CA
American Rifleman Issue: 8/1/2007
According to police, a 36-year-old man awoke to popping noises resounding from the back of his residence. He took a .40-caliber hand-gun from his room and walked down the hallway to investigate. Detecting movement from the rear bathroom, the man opened the door and found a 16-year-old climbing through the window and another standing outside; both boys wore cotton gloves. The homeowner held both suspects at gunpoint until law enforcement arrived. Police arrested the boys on suspicion of burglary and possession of burglary tools.

The Press Democrat, Santa Rosa, Calif., l2/18/2006
State: CA
American Rifleman Issue: 3/1/2007
GERRY STECKMYER AND his wife awoke to a loud commotion and were shocked by what they saw outside their bedroom window -- a deranged man was shouting and jumping on the roof of their car. Police say that when Mr. Steckmyer opened the window and shouted at the man to get off the car, the man walked toward the house and started trying to break in. He kicked the home's front door and slammed his shoulder into it. Steckmyer repeatedly told the man to leave and warned that police were on the way, but there was no stopping the man's odd behavior. He grabbed a 5-gallon water cooler bottle, smashed in'a window and entered the home. When the intruder neared the master bedroom, Steckmyer shot him with a handgun, killing him.

Los Angeles Daily News, Woodland Hills, CA, 10/19/06
State: ca
American Rifleman Issue: 1/1/2007
A California woman was playing the role of getaway driver as her gang-member son looked for a home to burglarize, according to police. When the suspect found a target, he broke the lock on the screen door and began yelling at the female occupant. The burglar gave chase as the woman fled to the backyard, but she halted his advance with three rounds from a .38-caliber revolver. The intruder ran back to his mother, and the homeowner phoned police. When the suspects failed to locate a hospital, the "mother of the year" flagged down a sheriff's deputy. The deputy, however, was responding to the victim's 9-1-1 call and apprehended mother and son.

The Sacramento Bee, Sacramento, CA, 05/13/06
State: ca
American Rifleman Issue: 8/1/2006
Mike Smith was napping when the sound of someone breaking into his home jarred him back to consciousness. He clutched a .38-caliber pistol with one hand and dialed 9-1-1 with the other. According to reports, when he stepped into the hallway, he saw the silhouette of a man through his window blinds and an alleged female burglar in the foyer. When she stepped toward him, he gripped the pistol with both hands and fired several shots. Both suspects fled. The woman was apprehended by police and was taken to the hospital, where she was listed in stable condition. Her male accomplice was still being sought. "There's no doubt that committing burglary is extremely dangerous ... because you don't know ... if the homeowner is going to be armed," said Sgt. Terrell Marshall of the Sacramento Police Department.

The Oakland Tribune, Oakland, CA, 3/14/06
State: ca
American Rifleman Issue: 7/1/2006
Jason Goettsch knew something wasn't right when he saw a man in his back yard in the early morning hours, because it meant the prowler had scaled Goettsch's fence. According to authorities, Goettsch went into his back yard with a handgun, yelling that he was armed and had called the police. At first, he didn't see anyone, but when he walked around the corner of his home, the prowler appeared and swung a baseball bat at him. Goettsch shot his attacker twice, killing him.


"Survey research (by Criminologist, Gary Kleck) indicates that firearms are used in the United States as frequently as 2.5 million times a year for personal protection, and that the presence of a firearm, without a shot being fired, prevents crime in many instances. Shooting usually can be justified only where crime constitutes an immediate, imminent threat to life, limb, or in some cases, property"


Another good read;

Crime Rate Down-source article

Guns, Gun Ownership, & RTC at All-Time Highs, Less "Gun Control," and Violent Crime at 30-Year Low


Guns.

The number of privately owned guns in the U.S. is at an all-time high. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) estimates that there were about 215 million guns in 1999,1 when the number of new guns was averaging about 4.5 million (about 2%) annually.2 A report for the National Academy of Sciences put the 1999 figure at 258 million.3 According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, there were 60.4 million approved (new and used) NICS firearm transactions between 1994 2004.4 The number of NICS checks for firearm purchases or permits increased 3.2% between 2003-2004.

Gun Owners.

The number of gun owners is also at an all-time high. The U.S. population is at an all-time high (294 million), and rises about 1% annually.5 Numerous surveys over the last 40+ years have found that almost half of all households have at least one gun owner.6 Some surveys since the late 1990s have indicated a smaller incidence of gun ownership,7 probably because of some respondents` concerns about "gun control," residually due, perhaps, to the anti-gun policies of the Clinton Administration.

Right-to-Carry.

The number of RTC states is at an all-time high, up from 10 in 1987 to 38 today.8 In 2004, states with RTC laws, compared to other states, had lower violent crime rates on average. Total violent crime was lower by 21%, murder by 28%, robbery by 43%, and aggravated assault by 13%.9

"Less Gun Control."

Violent crime has declined while many "gun control" laws have been eliminated or made less restrictive. Many states have eliminated prohibitory or restrictive carry laws, in favor of Right-to-Carry laws. The federal Brady Act`s waiting period on handgun sales ended in 1998, in favor of the NRA-supported National Instant Check, and some states thereafter eliminated waiting periods, purchase permit requirements, or other laws delaying gun sales. The federal "assault weapon" ban expired in 2004. All states now have hunter protection laws, 46 have range protection laws, 46 prohibit local jurisdictions from imposing gun laws more restrictive than state law, 44 protect the right to arms in their constitutions, and 33 prohibit frivolous lawsuits against the firearm industry.10

Studies by and for Congress, the Congressional Research Service, the Library of Congress, the National Institute of Justice, the National Academy of Sciences, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and even researchers who support "gun control," have found no evidence that "gun control" reduces crime.11

Crime.

The FBI reports that the nation`s total violent crime rate declined every year between 1991 2004.12 In 2004, the violent crime rate fell to a 30-year low, lower than any time since 1974. The murder rate fell to a 39-year low, lower than any time since 1965. The 2004 robbery and aggravated assault rates were lower than any time since 1968 and 1984, respectively. Since 1991, total violent crime has decreased 39%; murder and non-negligent manslaughter, 44%; rape, 24%; robbery, 50%; and aggravated assault, 33%.13 Between 2003-2004, the violent crime rate declined 2.2%.14 Concurrently, the most recent Bureau of Justice Statistics crime victimization survey found that violent crime is lower than anytime since 1973, when the first such survey was conducted.15

Notes

1. BATF, "Crime Gun Trace Reports (1999) National Report," Nov. 2000, p. ix (www.atf.gov/firearms/ycgii/1999/index.htm).
2. BATF, "Firearms Commerce in the United States 2001/2002" (www.atf.gov/pub/index.htm#Firearms).
3. National Research Council, Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review, National Academies Press, 2005.
4. BJS, "Background Checks for Firearm Transfers, 2004" (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov./bjs/pub/pdf/bcft04.pdf).
5. Bureau of the Census (http://www.census.gov/popest/states/NST-ann-est.html).
6. Gary Kleck, Targeting Firearms, Aldine de Gruyter, 1997, pp. 94, 98-100.
7. E.g., BJS Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics 2002, Table 2.58, (www.albany.edu/sourcebook/).
8. See NRA RTC fact sheet (within www.nraila.org/Issues/Filter.aspx?ID=003).
9. See FBI, Crime in the United States 2004 (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm#cius) for state crime statistics.
10. See NRA-ILA Compendium of State Firearms Laws (www.nraila.org/media/misc/compendium.htm). Also, note that in October 2005, federal legislation prohibiting such lawsuits was signed into law.
11. Federal "assault weapon" ban: Roth, Koper, et al., Impact Evaluation of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994, March 13, 1997 (www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=406797); Reedy and Koper, "Impact of handgun types on gun assault outcomes: a comparison of gun assaults involving semiautomatic pistols and revolvers," Injury Prevention 2003, (http://ip.bmjjournals.com/cgi/reprint/9/2/151); Koper et al., Report to the National Institute of Justice, An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003, June 2004 (www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/jlc-new/...er_aw_final.pdf); Wm. J. Krouse, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, "Semiautomatic Assault Weapons Ban," Dec. 16, 2004. "Gun control," generally: Library of Congress, Report for Congress: Firearms Regulations in Various Foreign Countries, May 1998, LL98-3, 97-2010; Task Force on Community Preventive Service, "First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws," Morbidity and Mortaility Weekly Report, Oct. 3, 2003 (www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm); National Research Council, Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review, National Academies Press, 2005 (http://books.nap.edu/books/0309091241/html/index.html).
12. Note 9 and BJS (http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/). See also FBI (http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressre...estat101705.htm).
13. Note 10. Condensed at www.nraila.org, click on "Research," then "Crime Statistics."
14. Note 12.
15. BJS (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov./bjs/pub/press/cv04pr.htm).

Posted: 11/1/2005 12:00:00 AM



I'd suggest you read this one too. It's interviews with criminals about how they fear running in to armed citizens;

Criminals Fear Armed Citizens


And this one, about gun myths;

Myths

You'll note that I got all of these from the NRA's site, but EVERY ONE of the articles are supported by sources noted within them. It's not just conjecture on their part, it's FACTS.

Read it and weep!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/u...&hp&oref=slogin

Fightin' tyranny, the American way?

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/u...&hp&oref=slogin Fightin' tyranny, the American way?

Oh please, he happened to be in Politics, but that hardly makes him the poster child for "fighting tyranny".

The 2nd Amendment isn't about one lone lunatic with a gun exercising grievances with his government by going WAY outside the bounds of reason. He could have exercised his grievances with the judicial or legislative tools at his disposal. The other system of checks and balances is still working quite well in this country.

Now, had these tools been taken away from him in a Dictatorship, and had he had a majority of people backing him in his plan to regain those lost rights, then perhaps an argument could be made for calling the man a "Patriot".

But because he chose to abuse his 2nd Amend. right and use it out of context, he's nothing more than a psychopath who happened to be in politics. And that's all this is.

I should really go to school and become a Lawyer. If it is this easy to beat you guys in a debate, I'll be richer than Johny Cochran in no time!!

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco Oh please, he happened to be in Politics, but that hardly makes him the poster child for "fighting tyranny".

I don't know about that; he seems to fit in pretty well with you, Trancer-X, et al.

Granted, he's the only one of you to actually go charging after an imaginary tyranny so far, but Trancer-X looks like he's right on the edge, and I wouldn't put much of anything past you once those darn liberals get control of the government.

quote:

I should really go to school and become a Lawyer. If it is this easy to beat you guys in a debate, I'll be richer than Johny Cochran in no time!!

You'll have to forgive me if I don't find it to be a productive use of my time to "debate" with you; after all, trying over and over again to find a way to dumb-down my arguments so that you can understand them is probably a Sisyphean task, and while your off-topic responses are certainly amusing to some degree, they just don't have the "staying power" to make me want to keep at it.

That said, please do try to go to school and become a lawyer! Maybe when you receive your sub-25th percentile LSAT score, which precludes you from enrolling even in those law schools which have virtually no career prospects and dismal bar passage rates, you will finally have an epiphany and realize that your grasp of logic is tenuous at best and that you really have no idea what you're talking about. I doubt it -- you'll probably just blame the test, but it is still worth a try.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter I don't know about that; he seems to fit in pretty well with you, Trancer-X, et al. Granted, he's the only one of you to actually go charging after an imaginary tyranny so far, but Trancer-X looks like he's right on the edge, and I wouldn't put much of anything past you once those darn liberals get control of the government.

Ooooh, how dopey Liberals just LOVE to label anyone who's not a socialist a "crazy paranoid".

I didn't write the Constitution, and I didn't put the 2nd Amend. in it for the purposes that the Founders stated. So when you call me a "paranoid", it's really pretty idiotic. You might as well put the blame where it should rest, and call our Founding Fathers "paranoids" and half-wits.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter You'll have to forgive me if I don't find it to be a productive use of my time to "debate" with you; after all, trying over and over again to find a way to dumb-down my arguments so that you can understand them is probably a Sisyphean task, and while your off-topic responses are certainly amusing to some degree, they just don't have the "staying power" to make me want to keep at it. That said, please do try to go to school and become a lawyer! Maybe when you receive your sub-25th percentile LSAT score, which precludes you from enrolling even in those law schools which have virtually no career prospects and dismal bar passage rates, you will finally have an epiphany and realize that your grasp of logic is tenuous at best and that you really have no idea what you're talking about. I doubt it -- you'll probably just blame the test, but it is still worth a try.

If you really ARE becoming a Harvard Attorney (which frankly, I have my doubts), it's a sad commentary on how our education system continues to spew out misguided collegiate renegades who keep trying to warp the Constitution to fit some myopic, silly, trendy view of how they think things SHOULD be in our country, as opposed to what they ARE, and as opposed to what the majority wants.

There's a reason people despise Lawyers. Most of you guys really are scum, IMHO.

And it is guys like you who defend criminals to absurd lengths (anything to win, right?) and who are anti-death penalty, that contribute to our REAL crime problems!

Does the death penalty actually deter crime? I thought that was an open question.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Does the death penalty actually deter crime? I thought that was an open question.

Look at who is claiming that it is an open question; Liberal-minded Psychiatrists, Lawyers and Politicians.

Would you kill someone you are mad at, even if you thought they truly deserved it, and if you KNEW that it would ultimately result in your death?

Arbiter, I can't believe you're actually a lawyer. Your argumentation is pathetic, especially given the fact that you're right.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco Look at who is claiming that it is an open question; Liberal-minded Psychiatrists, Lawyers and Politicians.

The fact that somebody is "liberal-minded" does not necessarily detract from his opinions at all. Should we take conservative or moderate thinkers at their word? Are they not just as capable of having an agenda warp their view of the facts?

Come on, do some basic reasoning here.

quote:

Would you kill someone you are mad at, even if you thought they truly deserved it, and if you KNEW that it would ultimately result in your death?

But quite a few murderers likely imagine that they will never be caught, and at least some in fact are never caught. So no, people who decide to kill someone do not "know" that they will be caught, much less executed, unless they simply don't care about getting caught in the first place and never try to evade capture. But how many of them are like that?

pfft ridiculososesinesseses

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles The fact that somebody is "liberal-minded" does not necessarily detract from his opinions at all. Should we take conservative or moderate thinkers at their word? Are they not just as capable of having an agenda warp their view of the facts?

OK, you're right to a degree. I will pick this up again later, but this issue of deterrents and crime is an interesting topic that is inter-related to the gun control debate.

But I have to run for now.......I have a life........away from the internet.................something you guys wouldn't understand.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.