(Close Window)
Topic: Even MSNBC Admits It - Gun Violence is DOWN.
Message: Posted by: RobertSmith (May 7, 2013 09:44PM)
Wonder how painful it was for MSNBC to write the words, "gun violence is down" in the same sentence?

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/07/18108298-gun-violence-in-us-has-fallen-dramatically-over-past-20-years-justice-dept-report-finds?lite
Message: Posted by: acesover (May 8, 2013 01:24AM)
Gee I wonder where are all the anti gun people? Probably trying to figure out how to spin this. :)
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 8, 2013 01:29AM)
No, they're sleeping. It's an easy one; as soon as (well, I won't mention any names, because none of them would claim to be anti-gun) wakes up, you'll see something like: "See, those 20,000+ laws ARE working, so clearly, we should pass more of them."
Message: Posted by: acesover (May 8, 2013 01:33AM)
[quote]
On 2013-05-08 02:29, LobowolfXXX wrote:
No, they're sleeping. It's an easy one; as soon as (well, I won't mention any names, because none of them would claim to be anti-gun) wakes up, you'll see something like: "See, those 20,000+ laws ARE working, so clearly, we should pass more of them."
[/quote]

OMG...I never thought of that. I have to delete my post. :)
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 8, 2013 05:58AM)
Exactly. Even with procecutions down the violence is down.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 8, 2013 08:18AM)
How 'bout trying to understand the data BEFORE we reach conclusions?

The source document is [url=http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/]here[/url]

The table makes it clear that gun violence in the US was very high in the 93 and declined steadily until about 2003, where it was fairly steady until 2007. It dropped sharply in 2008, and has risen slightly since then.

So what are the relevant questions?

Was gun violence in the early 90s abnormally high? Are current rates higher or lower than those of the 60s, 70s and 80s? Have their been social changes or legislation changes that correspond to the rate changes? Have the methods of collecting the statistics changed? Is it only gun crime that is declining, or is this part of a general social trend?

In general, we have seen declines in all violent crimes in pretty much every Western country in the past few decades. Why?

The fact that there is less violent crime, including gun violence, today than there was in 1993 is an interesting and important story. It would be nice to know more.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (May 8, 2013 09:22AM)
Do the good people of Chicago, Washington DC, Detroit, and Philadelphia, know that they are safer today?????
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (May 8, 2013 09:48AM)
No, Al, but the people of New York City do. Violent crime there dropped by 60% in the 1990's and now the city is rated by the FBI as one of the safest large cities in the country. Republican mayor Guiliani attributed that to its enforcement of existing gun laws.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 8, 2013 09:52AM)
Al unintentionally as usual brings up a good point. Those specific cities are run by liberal democrats and have some very strict gun control laws.

John why is it when you hear horses you start looking for Zebras? How desperate are people for an agenda any more that this happens? Numbers never are what they are.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (May 8, 2013 09:56AM)
Danny, you forget that in Chicago people simply can go out of city limits to purchase any gun they want. In New York, on the other hand, there are state laws (in the surrounding states as well) that are basically consistent with New York's. How about those laws in Republican Chris Christie's New Jersey?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 8, 2013 10:28AM)
How long has he been in office. Plus he is hardly a conservative anyhow.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (May 8, 2013 10:31AM)
Do you think that Rudy Guiliani is a "liberal?" His administration has taken credit for the drastic drop in NYC crime that substantially effected the nationwide numbers.
Message: Posted by: RobertSmith (May 8, 2013 10:51AM)
[quote]
On 2013-05-08 11:31, mastermindreader wrote:
Do you think that Rudy Guiliani is a "liberal?" His administration has taken credit for the drastic drop in NYC crime that substantially effected the nationwide numbers.
[/quote]

On guns and the 2nd Amendment he is.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 8, 2013 10:51AM)
I am sorry did Rudy grab guns?
Message: Posted by: RobertSmith (May 8, 2013 10:51AM)
[quote]
On 2013-05-08 10:22, Al Angello wrote:
Do the good people of Chicago, Washington DC, Detroit, and Philadelphia, know that they are safer today?????
[/quote]

Excellent point. Maybe if those cities had strict gun control laws they'd be better off?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 8, 2013 10:59AM)
[quote]
On 2013-05-08 11:51, RobertSmith wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-05-08 10:22, Al Angello wrote:
Do the good people of Chicago, Washington DC, Detroit, and Philadelphia, know that they are safer today?????
[/quote]

Excellent point. Maybe if those cities had strict gun control laws they'd be better off?
[/quote]

Al is irony impaired.
Message: Posted by: RobertSmith (May 8, 2013 11:01AM)
[quote]
On 2013-05-08 09:18, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
How 'bout trying to understand the data BEFORE we reach conclusions?

The source document is [url=http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/]here[/url]

The table makes it clear that gun violence in the US was very high in the 93 and declined steadily until about 2003, where it was fairly steady until 2007. It dropped sharply in 2008, and has risen slightly since then.

So what are the relevant questions?

Was gun violence in the early 90s abnormally high? Are current rates higher or lower than those of the 60s, 70s and 80s? Have their been social changes or legislation changes that correspond to the rate changes? Have the methods of collecting the statistics changed? Is it only gun crime that is declining, or is this part of a general social trend?

In general, we have seen declines in all violent crimes in pretty much every Western country in the past few decades. Why?

The fact that there is less violent crime, including gun violence, today than there was in 1993 is an interesting and important story. It would be nice to know more.
[/quote]

When you say 'how about we try to understand the data before reaching conclusions...'

I think you mean [b]figure out how to spin the data[/b].

That said, understanding the data is really superfluous to the point. Anti gun zealots have said for years how bad gun violence has gotten in the United States and the simple fact, regardless of the why, is that [b]it hasn't.[/b]

I would wager a guess that more widespread conceal carry laws have something to do with it. Unlike some gun folks though, I would't say that is the sole reason. Just one factor.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 8, 2013 11:03AM)
[quote]
On 2013-05-08 10:52, Dannydoyle wrote:

John why is it when you hear horses you start looking for Zebras? How desperate are people for an agenda any more that this happens? Numbers never are what they are.
[/quote]

Unfair and untrue, Danny. Gun crime in the US is way down from 1993--I linked to facts to back that up. What I don't know is whether the early 90s were particularly filled with gun crime, or whether they were typical of the years that preceded it.

The data have two interesting but different meanings: either violence is low today (which would be great) or violence was high 20 years ago (which is interesting).

Do you know which is the case? As always, I welcome facts to the discussion.
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 8, 2013 11:25AM)
Do you think that Rudy Guiliani is a "liberal?" Giuliani was knighted by Her Majesty the Queen, which is against the American Constitution. Does that make him liberal?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 8, 2013 11:38AM)
[quote]
On 2013-05-08 09:18, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
How 'bout trying to understand the data BEFORE we reach conclusions?

The source document is [url=http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/]here[/url]

The table makes it clear that gun violence in the US was very high in the 93 and declined steadily until about 2003, where it was fairly steady until 2007. It dropped sharply in 2008, and has risen slightly since then.

So what are the relevant questions?

Was gun violence in the early 90s abnormally high? Are current rates higher or lower than those of the 60s, 70s and 80s? Have their been social changes or legislation changes that correspond to the rate changes? Have the methods of collecting the statistics changed? Is it only gun crime that is declining, or is this part of a general social trend?

In general, we have seen declines in all violent crimes in pretty much every Western country in the past few decades. Why?

The fact that there is less violent crime, including gun violence, today than there was in 1993 is an interesting and important story. It would be nice to know more.
[/quote]

So you're saying that it IS a fact?
Message: Posted by: RobertSmith (May 8, 2013 11:50AM)
[quote]
On 2013-05-08 11:51, Dannydoyle wrote:
I am sorry did Rudy grab guns?
[/quote]

Rudy is hardly the friend of the 2nd Amendment that he claims to be. Here's a list from ontheissues:

As mayor, suggested federal gun licensing. (Nov 2008)
Government can impose reasonable regulations on guns. (Nov 2007)
Focus on criminals, not on guns. (Sep 2007)
NYC gun control laws made NYC safest big city in US. (Sep 2007)
2nd Amendment gives people the individual right to bear arms. (May 2007)
Supported nationwide licensing & assault weapons ban. (May 2007)
Things you do in NY about guns may be different than TX. (May 2007)
Gun control reduces urban crime; no effect on hunting. (Feb 2007)
NYC sued two dozen major gun manufacturers and distributors. (Jun 2000)
All gun owners should pass written test. (Mar 2000)
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 8, 2013 12:12PM)
[quote]
On 2013-05-08 12:38, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-05-08 09:18, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
How 'bout trying to understand the data BEFORE we reach conclusions?

The source document is [url=http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/]here[/url]

The table makes it clear that gun violence in the US was very high in the 93 and declined steadily until about 2003, where it was fairly steady until 2007. It dropped sharply in 2008, and has risen slightly since then.

So what are the relevant questions?

Was gun violence in the early 90s abnormally high? Are current rates higher or lower than those of the 60s, 70s and 80s? Have their been social changes or legislation changes that correspond to the rate changes? Have the methods of collecting the statistics changed? Is it only gun crime that is declining, or is this part of a general social trend?

In general, we have seen declines in all violent crimes in pretty much every Western country in the past few decades. Why?

The fact that there is less violent crime, including gun violence, today than there was in 1993 is an interesting and important story. It would be nice to know more.
[/quote]

So you're saying that it IS a fact?
[/quote]

According to the data I linked to, there is less gun violence in the USA in 2012 than in 1993. I've already said that. What I don't know, and no one has provided any assistance, is whether the early 90s were particularly violent, making the current decline comparable to earlier years, or whether we are in a period of decline from a more stable earlier period.

What's hard to understand about what I posted?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 8, 2013 12:17PM)
Apparently I'm the only one who cares, but

[img]http://civiliandisarmament.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/homiciderates.jpg[/img]
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (May 8, 2013 12:43PM)
The extreme drop in the 90's corresponds with the 60% drop in gun homicides in NYC during the same period. (Also note that the assault weapons ban went into place during that decade.)
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (May 8, 2013 01:45PM)
The other thing to ponder- if gun violence is down, why are so many people surprised and had assumed the opposite? The power of the media in action.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 8, 2013 01:55PM)
At least part of the explanation is likely to be the aging population (just as the "baby boom" is a partial explanation of the bulge in crime from the early 70s to the early 90s). Violent crime tends to be committed by the 18-30 year old group.

But undoubtedly there are other factors.
Message: Posted by: Andrew Zuber (May 8, 2013 02:36PM)
So for the passionate fans here of the 2nd Amendment, what do you propose we do to lessen gun violence? Specifics, not just "regulate the laws" or "focus on mental health." You all are so against gun control, but you never offer up your own suggestions on how to reduce gun violence. At least we're TRYING for cryin' out loud. Or do you think everything is working just fine the way it is? I can't imagine you're fine with what happened in Connecticut, or Colorado, or any of the other mass shootings that we've seen. So let's hear your ideas.

Looks to me like this thread was started merely to push the pro-gun agenda and wait for gun control advocates to chime in so we could argue endlessly about it yet again. How about we make it a productive discussion instead? If gun laws aren't the answer, let's hear some other options.
Message: Posted by: Kevin Connolly (May 8, 2013 02:44PM)
Rudy Guiliani had to clean-up Dave Dinkins mess. The City was a cesspool when Rudy Guiliani and fixed it. Other cities followed his lead to turn around their urban problems.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (May 8, 2013 02:49PM)
Yes, Kevin, I agree. I also agree with Guiliani's rational use of gun control measures, which he himself credits for the drop in homicides.

Note also that NYC had a huge homicide rate BEFORE the Dinkins administration as well. But I agree that Dinkins was a poor mayor.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 8, 2013 02:52PM)
[quote]
On 2013-05-08 15:36, Andrew Zuber wrote:
So for the passionate fans here of the 2nd Amendment, what do you propose we do to lessen gun violence? Specifics, not just "regulate the laws" or "focus on mental health." You all are so against gun control, but you never offer up your own suggestions on how to reduce gun violence. At least we're TRYING for cryin' out loud. Or do you think everything is working just fine the way it is? I can't imagine you're fine with what happened in Connecticut, or Colorado, or any of the other mass shootings that we've seen. So let's hear your ideas.

Looks to me like this thread was started merely to push the pro-gun agenda and wait for gun control advocates to chime in so we could argue endlessly about it yet again. How about we make it a productive discussion instead? If gun laws aren't the answer, let's hear some other options.
[/quote]

First, I think we have to recognize that as long as there are guns in the country, some people will be killed by guns. That's simply a fact of life. Nobody offered up any suggestions on how to reduce swimming pool deaths, either. Are you guys ok with hundreds of little children dying in pools every year?

I, for one, would be somewhat interested to know how many innocent people are killed by guns each year in our country of over 300 million people. Not "gun deaths," which include the suicides of people who could have done the same thing a number of ways, and which also include justifiable homicide (i.e. self-defense or defense of the life of another person), and which also include deaths caused by the deliberate choices of people (e.g. gang members). I think it would be a useful number to bring into the discussion.

To get around to answering your question, I would propose:

1) Stronger criminal sentences for violent crimes (e.g. life in prison for armed robbery); and
2) Increased border security, including building that fence.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 8, 2013 03:07PM)
[quote]
On 2013-05-08 13:12, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-05-08 12:38, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-05-08 09:18, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
How 'bout trying to understand the data BEFORE we reach conclusions?

The source document is [url=http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/]here[/url]

The table makes it clear that gun violence in the US was very high in the 93 and declined steadily until about 2003, where it was fairly steady until 2007. It dropped sharply in 2008, and has risen slightly since then.

So what are the relevant questions?

Was gun violence in the early 90s abnormally high? Are current rates higher or lower than those of the 60s, 70s and 80s? Have their been social changes or legislation changes that correspond to the rate changes? Have the methods of collecting the statistics changed? Is it only gun crime that is declining, or is this part of a general social trend?

In general, we have seen declines in all violent crimes in pretty much every Western country in the past few decades. Why?

The fact that there is less violent crime, including gun violence, today than there was in 1993 is an interesting and important story. It would be nice to know more.
[/quote]

So you're saying that it IS a fact?
[/quote]

According to the data I linked to, there is less gun violence in the USA in 2012 than in 1993. I've already said that. What I don't know, and no one has provided any assistance, is whether the early 90s were particularly violent, making the current decline comparable to earlier years, or whether we are in a period of decline from a more stable earlier period.

What's hard to understand about what I posted?
[/quote]

One thing I find hard to understand is the intense level of scrutiny you seem to place on one side of the debate and the vacation your analytical rigorousness seems to go on when the other side of the debate is ripe for further inquiry to get to the truth of the matter.

As a for instance, IMO, it's clearly not feasible to eliminate guns in the United States by federal mandate; we have thousands of miles of a porous border with a country with extensive criminal gang ties to the USA and a vast economic disparity in living conditions, some of the busiest ports in the world, etc. In the USA, we have a pretty clear case of "If guns were outlawed, only outlaws would have guns." Mileage may vary dramatically in Japan, a small island nation. Yet when it was suggested by analogy that strict gun control would be effective in the USA in part because it works so well in Japan, I don't remember you pointing out that blatant elephant in the room. But when there's a post about a marked decline in gun violence over the past 20 years, you immediately want to break down the numbers, go 20+ years before THAT, etc.

While pre-1990s numbers do have relevance to some questions, another thing I don't understand is how they're relevant to a central issue that's been discussed here: The vast decline in gun violence over the past 20 years in the USA, [i]in complete opposition to what is commonly believed and commonly portrayed.[/i] One reason that some people may seem less interested than you think is justified in deciphering all the ways are wherefores behind the numbers is that they're irrelevant to the point being made: Led by the media and anti-gun politicians, people in the USA believe that rates of gun violence are either flat or have increased, [b]and they're wrong.[/b]

Of course, there are ancillary, related, and "other" points that could be made and that the other numbers have bearing on (such as whether the decline in gun violence is [i]attributable[/i] to the increase in gun ownership). But there are important points that are adequately supported in the article the OP links to that require no further inquiry.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 8, 2013 03:07PM)
Passionate fans of the second amendment? Could you be more condecending?

Pathetic.

Wait till they get to a right that you really like. One like search and seisure. Oh wait they came for that one in the Patriot Act! Don't you see why ALL of your rights are important, and not to cherry pick them?

Gun violence is going down. What more do you need? That to me is proof that no amount of gun control short of taking them all will be enough for you guys.
Message: Posted by: RobertSmith (May 8, 2013 05:23PM)
[quote]
On 2013-05-08 15:36, Andrew Zuber wrote:
So for the passionate fans here of the 2nd Amendment, what do you propose we do to lessen gun violence? Specifics, not just "regulate the laws" or "focus on mental health." You all are so against gun control, but you never offer up your own suggestions on how to reduce gun violence. At least we're TRYING for cryin' out loud. Or do you think everything is working just fine the way it is? I can't imagine you're fine with what happened in Connecticut, or Colorado, or any of the other mass shootings that we've seen. So let's hear your ideas.

Looks to me like this thread was started merely to push the pro-gun agenda and wait for gun control advocates to chime in so we could argue endlessly about it yet again. How about we make it a productive discussion instead? If gun laws aren't the answer, let's hear some other options.
[/quote]

You're blatantly lying. Those of us who believe in freedom have in fact offered suggestions. But because those suggestions don't include banning guns or restricting law-abiding from having them, they're chalked up to "never offering suggestions to reduce gun violence."

[b]First of all Andrew...[/b]According to those statistics, which MSNBC even points out are strictly numbers, [b]gun violence is DOWN.[/b]

I'll go ahead and point out that as a whole, gun laws over the last 20 years have been eased. Concealed carry laws are no prolific across America. Is that the main reason? I don't know. I wouldn't say so. I would only say it's one reason.

Self defense laws have changed also. More states have added or strengthened their castle doctrine laws over the last 20 years.

That dreaded group of b#stards at the NRA have also spent millions pushing more gun education & training over the last 20 years. (Can you believe the audacity of TEACHING people how to handle guns SAFELY?)

Those are three reasons I believe gun violence is dropping. Do I think they're the only reasons? Not at all.

From a sociological stand point we're also seeing a generational change. A generation that was once gripped with crack/cocaine, drug deals and gang involvement is now aging. Are there still gangs and drug violence? Of course. But I think when you look at the overall generation gap we're going from a generation that would take actions, to the current generation that by and large, is too preoccupied getting fat sitting on their couch playing video games than they are going out in public and socializing.

Please note, I'll fully accept that what I've just suggested is purely an untested hypothesis. But I don't believe that the premise that the generation gap is changing America is outside the scope of reality.

[b]So, Andrew[/b], what you may need to accept is that the basis of your statement of using gun control to limit gun violence, may be inherently flawed.

Because according to that DOJ report, it may not be gun control that's reducing gun violence over the last 20 years.
Message: Posted by: RobertSmith (May 8, 2013 05:28PM)
[quote]
On 2013-05-08 13:43, mastermindreader wrote:
The extreme drop in the 90's corresponds with the 60% drop in gun homicides in NYC during the same period. (Also note that the assault weapons ban went into place during that decade.)
[/quote]

Yet if you look at the actual assault weapons ban, it didn't stop the sale of the weapons. They were still available.

So how can banning a gun for 10 years, a gun which was in fact not really banned but still available for the entire 10 years, factor into a decline in gun violence?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 8, 2013 05:39PM)
Because they say so.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 8, 2013 06:39PM)
[quote]
On 2013-05-08 15:36, Andrew Zuber wrote:
So for the passionate fans here of the 2nd Amendment, what do you propose we do to lessen gun violence? Specifics, not just "regulate the laws" or "focus on mental health." You all are so against gun control, but you never offer up your own suggestions on how to reduce gun violence. At least we're TRYING for cryin' out loud. Or do you think everything is working just fine the way it is? I can't imagine you're fine with what happened in Connecticut, or Colorado, or any of the other mass shootings that we've seen. So let's hear your ideas.

Looks to me like this thread was started merely to push the pro-gun agenda and wait for gun control advocates to chime in so we could argue endlessly about it yet again. How about we make it a productive discussion instead? If gun laws aren't the answer, let's hear some other options.
[/quote]

Btw, does it also look to you like the child-shoots-child thread was started merely to push the anti-gun agenda, or was that just a totally unrelated thing?
Message: Posted by: Woland (May 8, 2013 07:17PM)
[quote]While pre-1990s numbers do have relevance to some questions, another thing I don't understand is how they're relevant to a central issue that's been discussed here: The vast decline in gun violence over the past 20 years in the USA, in complete opposition to what is commonly believed and commonly portrayed. One reason that some people may seem less interested than you think is justified in deciphering all the ways are wherefores behind the numbers is that they're irrelevant to the point being made: Led by the media and anti-gun politicians, people in the USA believe that rates of gun violence are either flat or have increased, and they're wrong. [/quote]

May I add, Lobo, that gun violence is drastically down, despite (or because) concealed carry permits are now available on a "shall issue" basis in the majority of states, and despite (or because) private citizens in America are buying millions of new firearms every year.
Message: Posted by: Andrew Zuber (May 8, 2013 07:52PM)
[quote]
On 2013-05-08 16:07, Dannydoyle wrote:
Passionate fans of the second amendment? Could you be more condecending?

Pathetic.

Wait till they get to a right that you really like. One like search and seisure. Oh wait they came for that one in the Patriot Act! Don't you see why ALL of your rights are important, and not to cherry pick them?

Gun violence is going down. What more do you need? That to me is proof that no amount of gun control short of taking them all will be enough for you guys.
[/quote]
Not intended to be condescending at all. Merely factual from what I see being written. You're a fan of the second amendment...the right to own a gun. It's something you're passionate about. Or am I mistaken? If I am, why all the fuss?
Message: Posted by: Andrew Zuber (May 8, 2013 07:56PM)
[quote]
On 2013-05-08 18:23, RobertSmith wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-05-08 15:36, Andrew Zuber wrote:
So for the passionate fans here of the 2nd Amendment, what do you propose we do to lessen gun violence? Specifics, not just "regulate the laws" or "focus on mental health." You all are so against gun control, but you never offer up your own suggestions on how to reduce gun violence. At least we're TRYING for cryin' out loud. Or do you think everything is working just fine the way it is? I can't imagine you're fine with what happened in Connecticut, or Colorado, or any of the other mass shootings that we've seen. So let's hear your ideas.

Looks to me like this thread was started merely to push the pro-gun agenda and wait for gun control advocates to chime in so we could argue endlessly about it yet again. How about we make it a productive discussion instead? If gun laws aren't the answer, let's hear some other options.
[/quote]

You're blatantly lying. Those of us who believe in freedom have in fact offered suggestions. But because those suggestions don't include banning guns or restricting law-abiding from having them, they're chalked up to "never offering suggestions to reduce gun violence."
[/quote]
Can you disagree with me without calling me a liar? I'm merely mentioning what I see written on here...one side saying "we should do this" and another side saying "no we shouldn't" and that other side not offering up alternatives. I'm confused as to how that makes me a blatant liar but thanks for the insult.
Message: Posted by: Andrew Zuber (May 8, 2013 07:58PM)
[quote]
On 2013-05-08 15:52, LobowolfXXX wrote:
1) Stronger criminal sentences for violent crimes (e.g. life in prison for armed robbery); and
2) Increased border security, including building that fence.
[/quote]
I absolutely agree on both fronts. I'm all for it. And I've been all for the wall for years, for many reasons.
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 8, 2013 08:21PM)
FEMA fence?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 8, 2013 08:21PM)
[quote]
On 2013-05-08 20:58, Andrew Zuber wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-05-08 15:52, LobowolfXXX wrote:
1) Stronger criminal sentences for violent crimes (e.g. life in prison for armed robbery); and
2) Increased border security, including building that fence.
[/quote]
I absolutely agree on both fronts. I'm all for it. And I've been all for the wall for years, for many reasons.
[/quote]

On a related note, I'd decriminalize or reduce sentences for what are commonly called victimless crimes, both in a philosophical basis, and a practical one (i.e. keeping available prison space for more serious crimes).
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 8, 2013 08:26PM)
Hang the lawyers
Message: Posted by: landmark (May 8, 2013 08:59PM)
[quote]
On 2013-05-08 15:44, Kevin Connolly wrote:
Rudy Guiliani had to clean-up Dave Dinkins mess. The City was a cesspool when Rudy Guiliani and fixed it. Other cities followed his lead to turn around their urban problems.
[/quote]
As someone who lived in NYC both during Dinkins's administration and Giuliani's administration, I can say you're wrong. Giuliani's administration was rife with corruption, special favors, and the worsening of race relations in the City. When your hand-picked Police Commissioner is indicted and currently serving a four year prison term, you know things are rotten. He was just the tip of the iceberg in an administration that let corruption run wild. If the city was a cesspool, Giuliani only added to it. His much vaunted "leadership" during 9/11 was based on false promises. He never stood up to fight for the families of the first responders when it came to actually compensating them for their sacrifices. If other cities have followed his lead, then it's no wonder municipal governments are in such bad shape around the country.
Message: Posted by: RobertSmith (May 8, 2013 09:26PM)
[quote]
On 2013-05-08 20:56, Andrew Zuber wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-05-08 18:23, RobertSmith wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-05-08 15:36, Andrew Zuber wrote:
So for the passionate fans here of the 2nd Amendment, what do you propose we do to lessen gun violence? Specifics, not just "regulate the laws" or "focus on mental health." You all are so against gun control, but you never offer up your own suggestions on how to reduce gun violence. At least we're TRYING for cryin' out loud. Or do you think everything is working just fine the way it is? I can't imagine you're fine with what happened in Connecticut, or Colorado, or any of the other mass shootings that we've seen. So let's hear your ideas.

Looks to me like this thread was started merely to push the pro-gun agenda and wait for gun control advocates to chime in so we could argue endlessly about it yet again. How about we make it a productive discussion instead? If gun laws aren't the answer, let's hear some other options.
[/quote]

You're blatantly lying. Those of us who believe in freedom have in fact offered suggestions. But because those suggestions don't include banning guns or restricting law-abiding from having them, they're chalked up to "never offering suggestions to reduce gun violence."
[/quote]
Can you disagree with me without calling me a liar? I'm merely mentioning what I see written on here...one side saying "we should do this" and another side saying "no we shouldn't" and that other side not offering up alternatives. I'm confused as to how that makes me a blatant liar but thanks for the insult.
[/quote]

There you go again. Saying the pro freedom side is not offering up alternatives is a lie. Look, it's either a lie or it's just plain ignorance.

There are plenty of alternatives that have been offered across at least a half-a-dozen threads and several dozen pages worth of content (much of which has been removed by TMC).

I think the simple fact is you just don't consider any suggestion that doesn't include bans or restrictions to be alternatives. So you sit up on your pedestal saying, "the other side isn't providing alternatives," and "we're the only ones trying for crying out loud."

That's simply not true. I think you know that but won't acknowledge it.

Here's some ideas...

1) Pass national conceal carry reciprocity.
2) Prohibit plea deals for crimes that involve the use of a firearm.
3) Mandatory 15 year minimum for committing a crime with a gun, no questions asked. 25 year mandatory minimum if the crime involved injury to the victim.
3) Improve our mental health system.
4) Castle doctrine laws in more states.
5) Secure the border and release Border Patrol Agents from criminal or civil liability if engaging in a chase on the border.
6) Reintroduce firearm training in schools across America.
7) Prohibit the United States government from small arms sales with ANY other country, regardless of whether they're allies.

There's 7 ideas.

Now go ahead and take them one-by-one and tell me how crazy I am and how none of these ideas will help.

But DO NOT tell me I haven't made suggestions.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (May 8, 2013 09:34PM)
I find it surprising that so many who espouse state's rights in other contexts notably ignore that argument when it comes to gun rights.

National concealed carry reciprocity means that citizens of states with the loosest requirements for getting a CCW would be able to carry them freely when traveling to states with stricter requirements, thus effectively defeating their laws.

So much for state's rights.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 8, 2013 09:36PM)
[quote]
On 2013-05-08 16:07, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-05-08 13:12, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-05-08 12:38, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-05-08 09:18, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
How 'bout trying to understand the data BEFORE we reach conclusions?

The source document is [url=http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/]here[/url]

The table makes it clear that gun violence in the US was very high in the 93 and declined steadily until about 2003, where it was fairly steady until 2007. It dropped sharply in 2008, and has risen slightly since then.

So what are the relevant questions?

Was gun violence in the early 90s abnormally high? Are current rates higher or lower than those of the 60s, 70s and 80s? Have their been social changes or legislation changes that correspond to the rate changes? Have the methods of collecting the statistics changed? Is it only gun crime that is declining, or is this part of a general social trend?

In general, we have seen declines in all violent crimes in pretty much every Western country in the past few decades. Why?

The fact that there is less violent crime, including gun violence, today than there was in 1993 is an interesting and important story. It would be nice to know more.
[/quote]

So you're saying that it IS a fact?
[/quote]

According to the data I linked to, there is less gun violence in the USA in 2012 than in 1993. I've already said that. What I don't know, and no one has provided any assistance, is whether the early 90s were particularly violent, making the current decline comparable to earlier years, or whether we are in a period of decline from a more stable earlier period.

What's hard to understand about what I posted?
[/quote]

One thing I find hard to understand is the intense level of scrutiny you seem to place on one side of the debate and the vacation your analytical rigorousness seems to go on when the other side of the debate is ripe for further inquiry to get to the truth of the matter.

As a for instance, IMO, it's clearly not feasible to eliminate guns in the United States by federal mandate; we have thousands of miles of a porous border with a country with extensive criminal gang ties to the USA and a vast economic disparity in living conditions, some of the busiest ports in the world, etc. In the USA, we have a pretty clear case of "If guns were outlawed, only outlaws would have guns." Mileage may vary dramatically in Japan, a small island nation. Yet when it was suggested by analogy that strict gun control would be effective in the USA in part because it works so well in Japan, I don't remember you pointing out that blatant elephant in the room. But when there's a post about a marked decline in gun violence over the past 20 years, you immediately want to break down the numbers, go 20+ years before THAT, etc.

While pre-1990s numbers do have relevance to some questions, another thing I don't understand is how they're relevant to a central issue that's been discussed here: The vast decline in gun violence over the past 20 years in the USA, [i]in complete opposition to what is commonly believed and commonly portrayed.[/i] One reason that some people may seem less interested than you think is justified in deciphering all the ways are wherefores behind the numbers is that they're irrelevant to the point being made: Led by the media and anti-gun politicians, people in the USA believe that rates of gun violence are either flat or have increased, [b]and they're wrong.[/b]

Of course, there are ancillary, related, and "other" points that could be made and that the other numbers have bearing on (such as whether the decline in gun violence is [i]attributable[/i] to the increase in gun ownership). But there are important points that are adequately supported in the article the OP links to that require no further inquiry.
[/quote]

Out of curiosity, what side of what debate do you think I'm on?

I have no objections to guns in general, and I'm in favour of moderate gun control (restricting some weapons, and registering legal firearms, for example).

I also don't think I've put particular scrutiny to anything here other than trying get some context for the decline in violent crime noted in the OP (a phenomenon, btw, that both you and I have alluded to in the past).

I am slightly confused.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 8, 2013 09:40PM)
[quote]
On 2013-05-08 20:52, Andrew Zuber wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-05-08 16:07, Dannydoyle wrote:
Passionate fans of the second amendment? Could you be more condecending?

Pathetic.

Wait till they get to a right that you really like. One like search and seisure. Oh wait they came for that one in the Patriot Act! Don't you see why ALL of your rights are important, and not to cherry pick them?

Gun violence is going down. What more do you need? That to me is proof that no amount of gun control short of taking them all will be enough for you guys.
[/quote]
Not intended to be condescending at all. Merely factual from what I see being written. You're a fan of the second amendment...the right to own a gun. It's something you're passionate about. Or am I mistaken? If I am, why all the fuss?
[/quote]

I am passionate about our constitution and our freedoms. As I said when they get to infringing one you may be passionate about there even if I don't like it I will defend it. Refered to as consistency.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 8, 2013 09:42PM)
[quote]
On 2013-05-08 22:34, mastermindreader wrote:
I find it surprising that so many who espouse state's rights in other contexts notably ignore that argument when it comes to gun rights.

National concealed carry reciprocity means that citizens of states with the loosest requirements for getting a CCW would be able to carry them freely when traveling to states with stricter requirements, thus effectively defeating their laws.

So much for state's rights.
[/quote]

Umm yea sort of a defacto nationalised ccw permit program. Not a fan.

See Andrew that is the 10th amendment I am defending. See how it works?
Message: Posted by: RobertSmith (May 8, 2013 10:20PM)
[quote]
On 2013-05-08 22:34, mastermindreader wrote:
I find it surprising that so many who espouse state's rights in other contexts notably ignore that argument when it comes to gun rights.

National concealed carry reciprocity means that citizens of states with the loosest requirements for getting a CCW would be able to carry them freely when traveling to states with stricter requirements, thus effectively defeating their laws.

So much for state's rights.
[/quote]

Wow. And yet all 50 states managed to work out drivers license agreements despite the fact that some states you can get a driver's license at 15, while others it's 16 or 17. Or the fact that in some states you must be a United States citizen to obtain a driver's license yet in New Mexico (and other liberal controlled states now) you can walk up to the DMV, admit you're committing a federal crime by immigration violation, and they'll tell you, "smile for the camera." And those licenses are still legit driving ANYWHERE in America.

Regardless of what the requirements are to get them, the person traveling as a guest in the other state would still be required to follow the laws of the state they're a guest in.

It's just like when New Mexico's interstate speed limit is 75mph, I can't continue to drive that fast in a state with a 65mph speed limit.

Or consider this - a Passport is a FEDERALLY ISSUED ID and has reciprocity across all 50 states as a form of identification.

But you already know these things, Bob. Someone as smart and well read as you must have some other reason then for throwing out the state's rights card.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (May 8, 2013 10:27PM)
The comparison to drivers licenses doesn't work. The way you describe it, national CCW reciprocity would be meaningless. I.e.- If a person with a Texas CCW visited New York, you seem to be acknowledging that he would have to follow New York law in any case, meaning that he wouldn't have the right to carry there anyway unless he met New York's requirements.

So what's the point of reciprocity then?
Message: Posted by: RobertSmith (May 9, 2013 09:46AM)
[quote]
On 2013-05-08 23:27, mastermindreader wrote:
The comparison to drivers licenses doesn't work. The way you describe it, national CCW reciprocity would be meaningless. I.e.- If a person with a Texas CCW visited New York, you seem to be acknowledging that he would have to follow New York law in any case, meaning that he wouldn't have the right to carry there anyway unless he met New York's requirements.

So what's the point of reciprocity then?
[/quote]

Of course it doesn't work. Because it blows your assessment of overcoming state's rights out of the water.

You clearly know squat about concealed weapons licenses and what national reciprocity would actually accomplish. Not going to bother with educating you to it.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (May 9, 2013 10:57AM)
National CCW reciprocity has been repeatedly voted down for precisely the reasons I outlined. As it will continue to be.
Message: Posted by: landmark (May 9, 2013 11:41AM)
[quote]You clearly know squat about concealed weapons licenses and what national reciprocity would actually accomplish. Not going to bother with educating you to it. [/quote]
Ah, clearly you must be the man from the Outreach Department.
Message: Posted by: RobertSmith (May 9, 2013 12:06PM)
[quote]
On 2013-05-09 11:57, mastermindreader wrote:
National CCW reciprocity has been repeatedly voted down for precisely the reasons I outlined. As it will continue to be.
[/quote]

In the long run national reciprocity may prove to be irrelevant. More and more free states are expanding their laws to honor all other state's permits.

Much to your chagrin and that of some others, CCW is expanding, and, on a whole, is making people safer.
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 9, 2013 12:12PM)
The reason gun violence is down might be something to do with the fact that you are living in an ever increasing police state.

Which may also be causing global warming incidentally.
Message: Posted by: Andrew Zuber (May 9, 2013 01:36PM)
[quote]
On 2013-05-08 22:42, Dannydoyle wrote:

See Andrew that is the 10th amendment I am defending. See how it works?
[/quote]
Now who's being condescending?
Message: Posted by: Andrew Zuber (May 9, 2013 01:40PM)
[quote]
On 2013-05-08 22:26, RobertSmith wrote:
Here's some ideas...

1) Pass national conceal carry reciprocity.
2) Prohibit plea deals for crimes that involve the use of a firearm.
3) Mandatory 15 year minimum for committing a crime with a gun, no questions asked. 25 year mandatory minimum if the crime involved injury to the victim.
3) Improve our mental health system.
4) Castle doctrine laws in more states.
5) Secure the border and release Border Patrol Agents from criminal or civil liability if engaging in a chase on the border.
6) Reintroduce firearm training in schools across America.
7) Prohibit the United States government from small arms sales with ANY other country, regardless of whether they're allies.

There's 7 ideas.
(
Now go ahead and take them one-by-one and tell me how crazy I am and how none of these ideas will help.
[/quote]
That's what I was looking for. I can't say I agree with all of them, but #2 I'm definitely on board with, both #3's as well (though I think we've got to figure out some specifics for improving the mental health system and that one is a biggie.)
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 9, 2013 01:56PM)
[quote]
On 2013-05-09 14:36, Andrew Zuber wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-05-08 22:42, Dannydoyle wrote:

See Andrew that is the 10th amendment I am defending. See how it works?
[/quote]
Now who's being condescending?
[/quote]

Simply pointing out the concept for you. Not sure if you were keeping up.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 9, 2013 02:00PM)
Not to agree with Bob as it has been happening too often lately BUT the ccw reciprocity thingie does not really compare to a drivers license. I mean all 50 states license cars and drivers already. All pretty much on the same level. This would mean a federal law where the state where you can do the most with a ccw is the law of the land.

Even with drivers licenses you obey local ordinances. Not sure the comparison is valid.

I think thT states that wish to participate in the program should be able to.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (May 9, 2013 02:47PM)
And they already do Danny. Many states have CCW reciprocity agreements with states that have similar standards as their own. The attempt to impose a NATIONAL standard applicable to all states, though, is just a transparent attempt to water down CCW regulations throughout the country.

What's the next step? National open carry reciprocity laws? Carry a loaded weapon anywhere anyone wants to?
That wasn't even permitted in the Old West.
Message: Posted by: RobertSmith (May 9, 2013 04:32PM)
[quote]
On 2013-05-09 15:47, mastermindreader wrote:
And they already do Danny. Many states have CCW reciprocity agreements with states that have similar standards as their own. The attempt to impose a NATIONAL standard applicable to all states, though, is just a transparent attempt to water down CCW regulations throughout the country.

What's the next step? National open carry reciprocity laws? Carry a loaded weapon anywhere anyone wants to?
That wasn't even permitted in the Old West.
[/quote]

What if a national permit was issued at the highest standard? Sure states can have their own but a national permit could also be created. Anyone with a federal permit is clear to carry in all 50 states.

Fair?
Message: Posted by: Woland (May 9, 2013 05:16PM)
I would object that a national permit is unConstitutional.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 9, 2013 05:30PM)
Yea me too.
Message: Posted by: RobertSmith (May 9, 2013 09:48PM)
[quote]
On 2013-05-09 18:16, Woland wrote:
I would object that a national permit is unConstitutional.
[/quote]

Why so?
Message: Posted by: RobertSmith (May 9, 2013 09:49PM)
[quote]
On 2013-05-09 18:30, Dannydoyle wrote:
Yea me too.
[/quote]

Why?
Message: Posted by: balducci (May 9, 2013 10:10PM)
[quote]
On 2013-05-09 22:48, RobertSmith wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-05-09 18:16, Woland wrote:
I would object that a national permit is unConstitutional.
[/quote]

Why so?
[/quote]
Count to 10 (much)?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 10, 2013 04:29AM)
No need for sarcasam. Robert has expressed an arguement so answer him. You guys complain about attacks yet attackna LOT.
Message: Posted by: Woland (May 10, 2013 05:04AM)
I do have to sleep from time to time.

It's unConstitutional because establishing a license to exercise a God-given right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights is not one of the powers of Congress enumerated in the Constitution.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 10, 2013 07:57AM)
[quote]
On 2013-05-10 05:29, Dannydoyle wrote:
No need for sarcasam. Robert has expressed an arguement so answer him. You guys complain about attacks yet attackna LOT.
[/quote]

Actually Robert has been consistently rude, condescending and aggressive in both gun threads.
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 10, 2013 08:25AM)
Actually it is well known that the word gun triggers rudeness and flights of fancy.
Message: Posted by: RobertSmith (May 10, 2013 08:28AM)
[quote]
On 2013-05-10 06:04, Woland wrote:
I do have to sleep from time to time.

It's unConstitutional because establishing a license to exercise a God-given right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights is not one of the powers of Congress enumerated in the Constitution.
[/quote]

Well on that I agree. But I don't see that happening anytime soon. Too many folks like those in these discussions who prefer government control to freedom.
Message: Posted by: RobertSmith (May 10, 2013 08:30AM)
[quote]
On 2013-05-10 08:57, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-05-10 05:29, Dannydoyle wrote:
No need for sarcasam. Robert has expressed an arguement so answer him. You guys complain about attacks yet attackna LOT.
[/quote]

Actually Robert has been consistently rude, condescending and aggressive in both gun threads.
[/quote]

Only to those most worthy.
Message: Posted by: RobertSmith (May 10, 2013 08:32AM)
[quote]
On 2013-05-10 05:29, Dannydoyle wrote:
No need for sarcasam. Robert has expressed an arguement so answer him. You guys complain about attacks yet attackna LOT.
[/quote]

That's their MO. I take no offense.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (May 10, 2013 08:40AM)
Danny
You know there is a very good reason why none of us ever talk to Robert Smith. LOL
Message: Posted by: RobertSmith (May 10, 2013 09:43AM)
[quote]
On 2013-05-10 09:40, Al Angello wrote:
Danny
You know there is a very good reason why none of us ever talk to Robert Smith. LOL
[/quote]

LOL
You're still mad I ignored your private message to me. You may say you don't talk to me but the fact is you're obsessed with me. You want to interact with me, Al. You KNOW it.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 10, 2013 10:01AM)
[quote]
On 2013-05-10 08:57, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-05-10 05:29, Dannydoyle wrote:
No need for sarcasam. Robert has expressed an arguement so answer him. You guys complain about attacks yet attackna LOT.
[/quote]

Actually Robert has been consistently rude, condescending and aggressive in both gun threads.
[/quote]

So to prove he is wrong and the behavior is bad it is duplicated?
Message: Posted by: RobertSmith (May 10, 2013 10:04AM)
[quote]
On 2013-05-10 11:01, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-05-10 08:57, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-05-10 05:29, Dannydoyle wrote:
No need for sarcasam. Robert has expressed an arguement so answer him. You guys complain about attacks yet attackna LOT.
[/quote]

Actually Robert has been consistently rude, condescending and aggressive in both gun threads.
[/quote]

So to prove he is wrong and the behavior is bad it is duplicated?
[/quote]

Do as I say not as I do and all that.
Message: Posted by: Al Angello (May 10, 2013 10:57AM)
Danny
A word to the wise.
Message: Posted by: Woland (May 27, 2013 05:50AM)
Returning to the title of this thread, [url=http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=9116604]gun violence is not exactly "down" in Chicago,[/url] where it seems, despite (because?) of the strictest "gun control" laws in the Nation, they are certainly "down with it" -

[quote] May 26, 2013 (CHICAGO) (WLS) -- At least 17 people have been shot over the Memorial Day weekend, and six of them died.

The most recent victim was a man shot on the Near North Side just before 3 a.m. Sunday. Chicago police say the 42-year-old victim was shot in the head in the 1000-block of North Branch Street.

Another man died after he was shot in the head in a possible drive-by Saturday night in the 7300-block of South Dorchester.

Among the other victims was Leetema Daniels, 17, who was shot in the head Friday night in the 400-block of North Central Avenue. Another 18-year old man was seriously wounded in the same shooting.

There had been no arrests in that case Sunday. [/quote]
Message: Posted by: balducci (May 27, 2013 07:17AM)
[quote]
On 2013-05-27 06:50, Woland wrote:
Returning to the title of this thread, [url=http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=9116604]gun violence is not exactly "down" in Chicago,[/url] where it seems, despite (because?) of the strictest "gun control" laws in the Nation, they are certainly "down with it" -

[quote] May 26, 2013 (CHICAGO) (WLS) -- At least 17 people have been shot over the Memorial Day weekend, and six of them died.

The most recent victim was a man shot on the Near North Side just before 3 a.m. Sunday. Chicago police say the 42-year-old victim was shot in the head in the 1000-block of North Branch Street.

Another man died after he was shot in the head in a possible drive-by Saturday night in the 7300-block of South Dorchester.

Among the other victims was Leetema Daniels, 17, who was shot in the head Friday night in the 400-block of North Central Avenue. Another 18-year old man was seriously wounded in the same shooting.

There had been no arrests in that case Sunday. [/quote]
[/quote]
Your linked to article says nothing about gun violence being up or down.

Actually, if you compare it to the story below, gun violence may well be down over the Memorial Day weekend in Chicago compared to 2012 and 2010 (2011 was an "off" year due to bad weather, so I am not including it here):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/29/chicago-shootings-10-dead_n_1552297.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/21/chicago-violence-at-least_n_619259.html

The 2013 long weekend is not over yet, though, so lets wait another day and see.
Message: Posted by: Woland (May 27, 2013 08:13AM)
Thanks for bringing up those details, balducci.

I'm sure it is a consolation to the families of the killed that gun violence in Chicago may actually be more or less stable, despite (because?) of the most strict "gun control" laws in the country.
Message: Posted by: balducci (May 27, 2013 08:26AM)
[quote]
On 2013-05-27 09:13, Woland wrote:

I'm sure it is a consolation to the families of the killed that gun violence in Chicago may actually be more or less stable, despite (because?) of the most strict "gun control" laws in the country.
[/quote]
No, but the real point is that if there are fewer of those families suffering than there would otherwise be then that is a very good thing.
Message: Posted by: Woland (May 27, 2013 12:22PM)
Quite true, balducci. It is indeed high time for Chicago and Illinois to try some policies that actuall work.
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (May 27, 2013 05:25PM)
You guys are funny. :jesterhat:
Message: Posted by: Woland (May 28, 2013 05:58AM)
Happy to oblige.
Message: Posted by: Woland (May 29, 2013 06:39AM)
Meanwhile, in Britain, an online poll shows that [url=http://www.thecommentator.com/article/3644/britain_wants_its_guns_back]citizens want their guns back![/url]

[quote] Last Friday the Daily Telegraph, Britain's most widely read broadsheet newspaper, issued an online poll asking members of the public which proposal they would like to see introduced as a Private Members' Bill in the UK's Parliament.

Private Members' Bills are introduced by Members of Parliament or Peers who are not government ministers.

The choices include term limits for Prime Ministers, a flat tax, a law to encourage the 'greening' of public spaces and the repealing of Britain's hand gun ban. Following the Dunblane massacre in 1996, in which 16 schoolchildren were killed, Parliament passed The Firearms Act of 1997, which essentially banned handguns for the atrocity.

But Britons seem unconvinced by the law. The proposer, known as "Colliemum" asked, "...why should only criminals be 'allowed' to possess guns and shoot unarmed, defenceless citizens and police officers?"

While the poll continues, so far over 80 percent of the 11,000+ respondents have told the Telegraph that they want to see the handgun ban repealed. The news comes as America contemplates its own new laws on gun ownership, with British talk show host Piers Morgan claiming to back a UK-style ban for the United States.

While gun crime soared after the British ban in 1997, rates of gun violence have fallen, especially in British cities, following more spending by police forces into tackling gun crime. Police in England and Wales recorded 5,911 firearms offences in 2011/12, a reduction of 42 percent compared with nine years earlier, according to the Office for National Statistics.

But statistics from the United States show that guns are used by citizens to defend themselves around eighty times more often than they are used to take a life. A recent study published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy concluded that there is a negative correlation between gun ownership and violent crime in countries internationally, that is, “where firearms are most dense violent crime rates are lowest, and where guns are least dense violent crime rates are highest."[/quote]

And I know that this is not a scientific sample. But it is interesting, nevertheless.
Message: Posted by: Russell Davidson (May 29, 2013 07:54AM)
[quote]
On 2013-05-29 07:39, Woland wrote:
Meanwhile, in Britain, an online poll shows that [url=http://www.thecommentator.com/article/3644/britain_wants_its_guns_back]citizens want their guns back![/url]

[quote] Last Friday the Daily Telegraph, Britain's most widely read broadsheet newspaper, issued an online poll asking members of the public which proposal they would like to see introduced as a Private Members' Bill in the UK's Parliament.

Private Members' Bills are introduced by Members of Parliament or Peers who are not government ministers.

The choices include term limits for Prime Ministers, a flat tax, a law to encourage the 'greening' of public spaces and the repealing of Britain's hand gun ban. Following the Dunblane massacre in 1996, in which 16 schoolchildren were killed, Parliament passed The Firearms Act of 1997, which essentially banned handguns for the atrocity.

But Britons seem unconvinced by the law. The proposer, known as "Colliemum" asked, "...why should only criminals be 'allowed' to possess guns and shoot unarmed, defenceless citizens and police officers?"

While the poll continues, so far over 80 percent of the 11,000+ respondents have told the Telegraph that they want to see the handgun ban repealed. The news comes as America contemplates its own new laws on gun ownership, with British talk show host Piers Morgan claiming to back a UK-style ban for the United States.

While gun crime soared after the British ban in 1997, rates of gun violence have fallen, especially in British cities, following more spending by police forces into tackling gun crime. Police in England and Wales recorded 5,911 firearms offences in 2011/12, a reduction of 42 percent compared with nine years earlier, according to the Office for National Statistics.

But statistics from the United States show that guns are used by citizens to defend themselves around eighty times more often than they are used to take a life. A recent study published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy concluded that there is a negative correlation between gun ownership and violent crime in countries internationally, that is, “where firearms are most dense violent crime rates are lowest, and where guns are least dense violent crime rates are highest."[/quote]

And I know that this is not a scientific sample. But it is interesting, nevertheless.
[/quote]

It certainly shows what a load of old tosh these things are as people in Britain do not want guns. This so called ban we had in 1997 changed very little as getting a gun isn't / wasn't quite as staightforward as it is in the States. We've always had strict gun laws & that's the way we like it here.
Message: Posted by: balducci (May 29, 2013 08:15AM)
[quote]
On 2013-05-29 07:39, Woland wrote:
Meanwhile, in Britain, an online poll shows that [url=http://www.thecommentator.com/article/3644/britain_wants_its_guns_back]citizens want their guns back![/url]

[quote] Last Friday the Daily Telegraph, Britain's most widely read broadsheet newspaper, issued an online poll asking members of the public which proposal they would like to see introduced as a Private Members' Bill in the UK's Parliament.

Private Members' Bills are introduced by Members of Parliament or Peers who are not government ministers.

The choices include term limits for Prime Ministers, a flat tax, a law to encourage the 'greening' of public spaces and the repealing of Britain's hand gun ban. Following the Dunblane massacre in 1996, in which 16 schoolchildren were killed, Parliament passed The Firearms Act of 1997, which essentially banned handguns for the atrocity.

But Britons seem unconvinced by the law. The proposer, known as "Colliemum" asked, "...why should only criminals be 'allowed' to possess guns and shoot unarmed, defenceless citizens and police officers?"

While the poll continues, so far over 80 percent of the 11,000+ respondents have told the Telegraph that they want to see the handgun ban repealed. The news comes as America contemplates its own new laws on gun ownership, with British talk show host Piers Morgan claiming to back a UK-style ban for the United States.

While gun crime soared after the British ban in 1997, rates of gun violence have fallen, especially in British cities, following more spending by police forces into tackling gun crime. Police in England and Wales recorded 5,911 firearms offences in 2011/12, a reduction of 42 percent compared with nine years earlier, according to the Office for National Statistics.

But statistics from the United States show that guns are used by citizens to defend themselves around eighty times more often than they are used to take a life. A recent study published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy concluded that there is a negative correlation between gun ownership and violent crime in countries internationally, that is, “where firearms are most dense violent crime rates are lowest, and where guns are least dense violent crime rates are highest."[/quote]

And I know that this is not a scientific sample. But it is interesting, nevertheless.
[/quote]
That article (at least what you are quoting) misrepresents what the poll was about. They were given six options to vote for. It may simply be that the 'guns' option was the least offensive of six bad choices.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10071072/Telegraph-new-law-competition-vote-now.html

Personally, though, I think the results of the poll were thrown off by pro-gun voters in the States, who were being recruited on gun sites to vote for the repeal. Just a few examples of that:

http://www.all4shooters.com/en/news/law/2013/Telegraph-Poll-Handgun-Ban-Repeal-UK/

http://www.shootersforum.com/general-discussion/84897-please-vote-brits-get-their-guns-back.html

http://www.survivalistboards.com/showthread.php?p=5555992
Message: Posted by: acesover (May 29, 2013 08:53AM)
[quote]
On 2013-05-29 09:15, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-05-29 07:39, Woland wrote:
Meanwhile, in Britain, an online poll shows that [url=http://www.thecommentator.com/article/3644/britain_wants_its_guns_back]citizens want their guns back![/url]

[quote] Last Friday the Daily Telegraph, Britain's most widely read broadsheet newspaper, issued an online poll asking members of the public which proposal they would like to see introduced as a Private Members' Bill in the UK's Parliament.

Private Members' Bills are introduced by Members of Parliament or Peers who are not government ministers.

The choices include term limits for Prime Ministers, a flat tax, a law to encourage the 'greening' of public spaces and the repealing of Britain's hand gun ban. Following the Dunblane massacre in 1996, in which 16 schoolchildren were killed, Parliament passed The Firearms Act of 1997, which essentially banned handguns for the atrocity.

But Britons seem unconvinced by the law. The proposer, known as "Colliemum" asked, "...why should only criminals be 'allowed' to possess guns and shoot unarmed, defenceless citizens and police officers?"

While the poll continues, so far over 80 percent of the 11,000+ respondents have told the Telegraph that they want to see the handgun ban repealed. The news comes as America contemplates its own new laws on gun ownership, with British talk show host Piers Morgan claiming to back a UK-style ban for the United States.

While gun crime soared after the British ban in 1997, rates of gun violence have fallen, especially in British cities, following more spending by police forces into tackling gun crime. Police in England and Wales recorded 5,911 firearms offences in 2011/12, a reduction of 42 percent compared with nine years earlier, according to the Office for National Statistics.

But statistics from the United States show that guns are used by citizens to defend themselves around eighty times more often than they are used to take a life. A recent study published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy concluded that there is a negative correlation between gun ownership and violent crime in countries internationally, that is, “where firearms are most dense violent crime rates are lowest, and where guns are least dense violent crime rates are highest."[/quote]

And I know that this is not a scientific sample. But it is interesting, nevertheless.
[/quote]
That article (at least what you are quoting) misrepresents what the poll was about. They were given six options to vote for. It may simply be that the 'guns' option was the least offensive of six bad choices.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10071072/Telegraph-new-law-competition-vote-now.html

Personally, though, I think the results of the poll were thrown off by pro-gun voters in the States, who were being recruited on gun sites to vote for the repeal. Just a few examples of that:

http://www.all4shooters.com/en/news/law/2013/Telegraph-Poll-Handgun-Ban-Repeal-UK/

http://www.shootersforum.com/general-discussion/84897-please-vote-brits-get-their-guns-back.html

http://www.survivalistboards.com/showthread.php?p=5555992
[/quote]

So how many votes do you feel that this poll received from these pro gun forums? I mean 80% seems like a strong vote in favor of wanting their guns back. Around 11,000 votes cast which means almost 9,000 of the votes cast are in favor of bringing the guns back. Do you feel that most of those votes were from the pro gun forums? I myself am pro gun and would not bother to vote for a gun law for or against in the U.K. it is not of my business as to what they want and truthfully I feel "most" would feel the same way. Do you think perhaps that they just might want them back?

Admittedly I would put more trust in a vote that asked "in favor of", or "not in favor of".

Unfortunately the same thing is being proposed here disguised as more and more gun laws are being passed. It will have the same effect here in America if certain people get their way. That is after the horse has run away lock the barn door.
Message: Posted by: balducci (May 29, 2013 09:05AM)
Less than 13,000 overall votes cast, in a poll for a newspaper that has a print readership of 552,065, and the third most visited British newspaper website with 1.7 million daily browsers.

The poll did not allow you to vote "against" measures ... only "for" them.

So less than 13,000 votes "for" any of the measures cast on a site with 1.7 million daily browsers.

What does that tell you?

Maybe, just maybe, that none of the proposed measures are very popular?
Message: Posted by: Woland (May 29, 2013 09:22AM)
Hi Russell,

[quote]We've always had strict gun laws & that's the way we like it here. [/quote]

If you'll forgive me for contradicting you in a public forum, that statement is simply in error. England has [i][b]not[/i][/b] "always had strict gun laws," and if you have ever read Conan Doyle, you will perhaps remember, for example, that Doctor Watson, like many middle-class or upper middle-class Englishmen, owned a revolver which Mr. Holmes often asked him to bring along. The restriction of firearms ownership and carriage in England began after The Great War, and was initially intended to disarm the working class.

If you are interested in learning the actual history of firearms legislation in England, may I respectfully suggest that you have a look at Professor Malcolm's study, [url=http://www.joyceleemalcolm.com/books/guns_and_violence/][i]Guns and Violence: the English Experience,[/url][/i] published by the Harvard University Press, and available in the U.K. from [url=http://www.amazon.co.uk/Guns-Violence-Joyce-Lee-Malcolm/dp/0674016084/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1369837188&sr=1-1&keywords=joyce+lee+malcolm]Amazon.[/url] A recent article of hers published in the Wall Street Journal is [url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323777204578195470446855466.html]here.[/url]
Message: Posted by: balducci (May 29, 2013 10:50AM)
[quote]
On 2013-05-29 10:22, Woland wrote:
Hi Russell,

[quote]We've always had strict gun laws & that's the way we like it here. [/quote]

If you'll forgive me for contradicting you in a public forum, that statement is simply in error. England has [i][b]not[/i][/b] "always had strict gun laws," and if you have ever read Conan Doyle, you will perhaps remember, for example, that Doctor Watson, like many middle-class or upper middle-class Englishmen, owned a revolver which Mr. Holmes often asked him to bring along.
[/quote]
Perhaps he meant more along the lines of in modern times / in his lifetime? Which is how I read it.

I believe Doctor Watson's firearm was an old officers' handgun from his time in the Army in India. So I am not at all sure whether his having a handgun was at all representative of whether "many middle-class or upper middle-class Englishmen" did. Really, it makes it sound more like Watson was rather unusual (quite atypical) for having a handgun. Interesting question, though, and I am a little curious as to what the actual facts are.

Woland, don't forget about the "French Tax Soars to Over 100%" thread. I'm waiting for a response from you there. :)
Message: Posted by: balducci (May 29, 2013 11:09AM)
[quote]
On 2013-05-29 10:22, Woland wrote:

If you are interested in learning the actual history of firearms legislation in England, may I respectfully suggest that you have a look at Professor Malcolm's study, [url=http://www.joyceleemalcolm.com/books/guns_and_violence/][i]Guns and Violence: the English Experience,[/url][/i] published by the Harvard University Press, and available in the U.K. from [url=http://www.amazon.co.uk/Guns-Violence-Joyce-Lee-Malcolm/dp/0674016084/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1369837188&sr=1-1&keywords=joyce+lee+malcolm]Amazon.[/url] A recent article of hers published in the Wall Street Journal is [url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323777204578195470446855466.html]here.[/url]
[/quote]
It appears that her book was first published in one form circa 2002, then again in 2004? In any case, it appears that her research and conclusions are somewhat out of date:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/02/01/british-gangs-use-flare-guns-now-because-they-cant-find-real-ones/
Message: Posted by: Woland (May 29, 2013 01:01PM)
Hi balducci,

Watson is just a convenient, generally known example. Even vicars carried revolvers in Victorian and Edwardian times.

Malcolm's work on the history of firearms control in England is not at all out of date.
Message: Posted by: acesover (May 29, 2013 02:09PM)
[quote]
On 2013-05-29 10:05, balducci wrote:
Less than 13,000 overall votes cast, in a poll for a newspaper that has a print readership of 552,065, and the third most visited British newspaper website with 1.7 million daily browsers.

The poll did not allow you to vote "against" measures ... only "for" them.

So less than 13,000 votes "for" any of the measures cast on a site with 1.7 million daily browsers.

What does that tell you?

Maybe, just maybe, that none of the proposed measures are very popular?
[/quote]

Seems to tell me that so far it is approaching 14,000 voters have an interest in these issues and so far a vast majority are in favor of having their guns back. Oh also it is not over yet. So no telling how many votes will be cast.

Also if I am not mistaken not even 60% of the people here in The U.S. voted in the last presidential election. What does that tell you? Maybe people are just not interested in things but like to complain if the results don't suit them.
Message: Posted by: Russell Davidson (May 30, 2013 03:27AM)
[quote]
On 2013-05-29 11:50, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-05-29 10:22, Woland wrote:
Hi Russell,

[quote]We've always had strict gun laws & that's the way we like it here. [/quote]

If you'll forgive me for contradicting you in a public forum, that statement is simply in error. England has [i][b]not[/i][/b] "always had strict gun laws," and if you have ever read Conan Doyle, you will perhaps remember, for example, that Doctor Watson, like many middle-class or upper middle-class Englishmen, owned a revolver which Mr. Holmes often asked him to bring along.
[/quote]
Perhaps he meant more along the lines of in modern times / in his lifetime? Which is how I read it.

[/quote]

Yes, I meant in my lifetime, thank you balducci. There's no need for us to have hand guns in our homes.
Message: Posted by: acesover (May 30, 2013 08:35AM)
[quote]
On 2013-05-29 08:54, Russell Davidson wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-05-29 07:39, Woland wrote:
Meanwhile, in Britain, an online poll shows that [url=http://www.thecommentator.com/article/3644/britain_wants_its_guns_back]citizens want their guns back![/url]

[quote] Last Friday the Daily Telegraph, Britain's most widely read broadsheet newspaper, issued an online poll asking members of the public which proposal they would like to see introduced as a Private Members' Bill in the UK's Parliament.

Private Members' Bills are introduced by Members of Parliament or Peers who are not government ministers.

The choices include term limits for Prime Ministers, a flat tax, a law to encourage the 'greening' of public spaces and the repealing of Britain's hand gun ban. Following the Dunblane massacre in 1996, in which 16 schoolchildren were killed, Parliament passed The Firearms Act of 1997, which essentially banned handguns for the atrocity.

But Britons seem unconvinced by the law. The proposer, known as "Colliemum" asked, "...why should only criminals be 'allowed' to possess guns and shoot unarmed, defenceless citizens and police officers?"

While the poll continues, so far over 80 percent of the 11,000+ respondents have told the Telegraph that they want to see the handgun ban repealed. The news comes as America contemplates its own new laws on gun ownership, with British talk show host Piers Morgan claiming to back a UK-style ban for the United States.

While gun crime soared after the British ban in 1997, rates of gun violence have fallen, especially in British cities, following more spending by police forces into tackling gun crime. Police in England and Wales recorded 5,911 firearms offences in 2011/12, a reduction of 42 percent compared with nine years earlier, according to the Office for National Statistics.

But statistics from the United States show that guns are used by citizens to defend themselves around eighty times more often than they are used to take a life. A recent study published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy concluded that there is a negative correlation between gun ownership and violent crime in countries internationally, that is, “where firearms are most dense violent crime rates are lowest, and where guns are least dense violent crime rates are highest."[/quote]

And I know that this is not a scientific sample. But it is interesting, nevertheless.
[/quote]

It certainly shows what a load of old tosh these things are as people in Britain do not want guns. This so called ban we had in 1997 changed very little as getting a gun isn't / wasn't quite as staightforward as it is in the States. We've always had strict gun laws & that's the way we like it here.
[/quote]

Just let me correct you so your statement can be true and not supposition.

That is the way you like it. At least we know that statement is a truism. Would not want to call you a fibber.

Also let me correct you again. There is no need for you to have a handgun in your home. Agreed, as it could be dangerous as your obvious distain for them would reflect your lack of knowledge in handling one and that could be dangerous.

So now I agree. Someone such as yourself does not need one nor should they have one.

Problem solved.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 30, 2013 04:50PM)
It works out great. I am even all for nobody in England wanting one or needing one. Bully for you. Good to hear violent crime is not rampant.

Now since I extend that courtesy and don't mind one bit and never try to make you adopt an American way of thinking or our constitution I will ask the same in retur ln from you and our Canadian neighbours. Just keep quiet about it.
Message: Posted by: balducci (May 30, 2013 05:36PM)
[quote]
On 2013-05-30 17:50, Dannydoyle wrote:

Now since I extend that courtesy and don't mind one bit and never try to make you adopt an American way of thinking or our constitution I will ask the same in retur ln from you and our Canadian neighbours. Just keep quiet about it.
[/quote]
I would happily keep quiet about it, if you would only help keep 'your' guns and NRA out of 'my' country (e.g. see link).

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2010/09/13/canada-nra-gun-registry.html
Message: Posted by: Russell Davidson (May 31, 2013 05:43AM)
[quote]
On 2013-05-30 09:35, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-05-29 08:54, Russell Davidson wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-05-29 07:39, Woland wrote:
Meanwhile, in Britain, an online poll shows that [url=http://www.thecommentator.com/article/3644/britain_wants_its_guns_back]citizens want their guns back![/url]

[quote] Last Friday the Daily Telegraph, Britain's most widely read broadsheet newspaper, issued an online poll asking members of the public which proposal they would like to see introduced as a Private Members' Bill in the UK's Parliament.

Private Members' Bills are introduced by Members of Parliament or Peers who are not government ministers.

The choices include term limits for Prime Ministers, a flat tax, a law to encourage the 'greening' of public spaces and the repealing of Britain's hand gun ban. Following the Dunblane massacre in 1996, in which 16 schoolchildren were killed, Parliament passed The Firearms Act of 1997, which essentially banned handguns for the atrocity.

But Britons seem unconvinced by the law. The proposer, known as "Colliemum" asked, "...why should only criminals be 'allowed' to possess guns and shoot unarmed, defenceless citizens and police officers?"

While the poll continues, so far over 80 percent of the 11,000+ respondents have told the Telegraph that they want to see the handgun ban repealed. The news comes as America contemplates its own new laws on gun ownership, with British talk show host Piers Morgan claiming to back a UK-style ban for the United States.

While gun crime soared after the British ban in 1997, rates of gun violence have fallen, especially in British cities, following more spending by police forces into tackling gun crime. Police in England and Wales recorded 5,911 firearms offences in 2011/12, a reduction of 42 percent compared with nine years earlier, according to the Office for National Statistics.

But statistics from the United States show that guns are used by citizens to defend themselves around eighty times more often than they are used to take a life. A recent study published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy concluded that there is a negative correlation between gun ownership and violent crime in countries internationally, that is, “where firearms are most dense violent crime rates are lowest, and where guns are least dense violent crime rates are highest."[/quote]

And I know that this is not a scientific sample. But it is interesting, nevertheless.
[/quote]

It certainly shows what a load of old tosh these things are as people in Britain do not want guns. This so called ban we had in 1997 changed very little as getting a gun isn't / wasn't quite as staightforward as it is in the States. We've always had strict gun laws & that's the way we like it here.
[/quote]

Just let me correct you so your statement can be true and not supposition.

That is the way you like it. At least we know that statement is a truism. Would not want to call you a fibber.

Also let me correct you again. There is no need for you to have a handgun in your home. Agreed, as it could be dangerous as your obvious distain for them would reflect your lack of knowledge in handling one and that could be dangerous.

So now I agree. Someone such as yourself does not need one nor should they have one.

Problem solved.
[/quote]

No aces. It's not because of a lack of knowledge but simply we that don't need them. We're not scared in our own homes :)
Message: Posted by: acesover (May 31, 2013 09:13AM)
[quote]
On 2013-05-31 06:43, Russell Davidson wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-05-30 09:35, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-05-29 08:54, Russell Davidson wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-05-29 07:39, Woland wrote:
Meanwhile, in Britain, an online poll shows that [url=http://www.thecommentator.com/article/3644/britain_wants_its_guns_back]citizens want their guns back![/url]

[quote] Last Friday the Daily Telegraph, Britain's most widely read broadsheet newspaper, issued an online poll asking members of the public which proposal they would like to see introduced as a Private Members' Bill in the UK's Parliament.

Private Members' Bills are introduced by Members of Parliament or Peers who are not government ministers.

The choices include term limits for Prime Ministers, a flat tax, a law to encourage the 'greening' of public spaces and the repealing of Britain's hand gun ban. Following the Dunblane massacre in 1996, in which 16 schoolchildren were killed, Parliament passed The Firearms Act of 1997, which essentially banned handguns for the atrocity.

But Britons seem unconvinced by the law. The proposer, known as "Colliemum" asked, "...why should only criminals be 'allowed' to possess guns and shoot unarmed, defenceless citizens and police officers?"

While the poll continues, so far over 80 percent of the 11,000+ respondents have told the Telegraph that they want to see the handgun ban repealed. The news comes as America contemplates its own new laws on gun ownership, with British talk show host Piers Morgan claiming to back a UK-style ban for the United States.

While gun crime soared after the British ban in 1997, rates of gun violence have fallen, especially in British cities, following more spending by police forces into tackling gun crime. Police in England and Wales recorded 5,911 firearms offences in 2011/12, a reduction of 42 percent compared with nine years earlier, according to the Office for National Statistics.

But statistics from the United States show that guns are used by citizens to defend themselves around eighty times more often than they are used to take a life. A recent study published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy concluded that there is a negative correlation between gun ownership and violent crime in countries internationally, that is, “where firearms are most dense violent crime rates are lowest, and where guns are least dense violent crime rates are highest."[/quote]

And I know that this is not a scientific sample. But it is interesting, nevertheless.
[/quote]

It certainly shows what a load of old tosh these things are as people in Britain do not want guns. This so called ban we had in 1997 changed very little as getting a gun isn't / wasn't quite as staightforward as it is in the States. We've always had strict gun laws & that's the way we like it here.
[/quote]

Just let me correct you so your statement can be true and not supposition.

That is the way you like it. At least we know that statement is a truism. Would not want to call you a fibber.

Also let me correct you again. There is no need for you to have a handgun in your home. Agreed, as it could be dangerous as your obvious distain for them would reflect your lack of knowledge in handling one and that could be dangerous.

So now I agree. Someone such as yourself does not need one nor should they have one.

Problem solved.
[/quote]

No aces. It's not because of a lack of knowledge but simply we that don't need them. We're not scared in our own homes :)
[/quote]

And well you should not be scared in your own homes. Neither am I. But not because I have a weapon. I have a weapon because I want one and I enjoy shooting sports. Also I am not just speaking of having a firearm at home but also carrying it on my person. Some people do and some people don't. Some people like chocolate ice cream and others like vanilla.

As you mentioned you are not scared in your own home. I should hope not. That is unless you live in a very unsavory neighborhood which I assume you don't. Just keep in mind, firearms are not only for protection which of course if one knows how to use one properly it is superb tool for protection. They are also for enjoyment and considered sport just like tennis, cricket, bowling, white water rafting and with practice one should be able to enjoy oneself if that is what they wish. The shooting sports are like any other sport. They require practice and common sense so one does not injure oneself or someone else.

While on the subject. Do you have fire insurance on your home? If you do, is it because you are scared or because it is the prudent thing to do? Car insurance? Health insurance?

Just remember this. If you need a firearm there is nothing in this world that will take its place. It is in most cases something many people have and hope they never need it...just like most insurance.

In my case as I stated before I get a lot of enjoyment out of my firearms. I use mine for shooting sports such as target shooting with my friends and family. I am fortunate in that I have a small shooting range on some property I own and shoot on a regular basis. I try and get out at least once a week to shoot and now with the Summer here it will be more.

Lastly I am familiar with all of my firearms, in that I can maintain them, disassemble them for cleaning and know how they function. As I said before if you do not want one and lack the knowledge of how to handle one correctly you should definitely not have one because you would be a danger to yourself and anyone around you. One of the most dangerous things I can think of is a person handling a firearm that is afraid of it. Respect it and know how it functions and it will give you many years of enjoyment, and God forbid if need be, even protect you and your loved ones.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 31, 2013 10:16AM)
[quote]
On 2013-05-30 18:36, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-05-30 17:50, Dannydoyle wrote:

Now since I extend that courtesy and don't mind one bit and never try to make you adopt an American way of thinking or our constitution I will ask the same in retur ln from you and our Canadian neighbours. Just keep quiet about it.
[/quote]
I would happily keep quiet about it, if you would only help keep 'your' guns and NRA out of 'my' country (e.g. see link).

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2010/09/13/canada-nra-gun-registry.html
[/quote]

Yea Canada would be a perfect place if it wasn't for America.

I sincerly doubt your ability to keep quiet. You are constantly weighing in on things that you claim never affect you.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 31, 2013 12:01PM)
[quote]
On 2013-05-30 04:27, Russell Davidson wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-05-29 11:50, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-05-29 10:22, Woland wrote:
Hi Russell,

[quote]We've always had strict gun laws & that's the way we like it here. [/quote]

If you'll forgive me for contradicting you in a public forum, that statement is simply in error. England has [i][b]not[/i][/b] "always had strict gun laws," and if you have ever read Conan Doyle, you will perhaps remember, for example, that Doctor Watson, like many middle-class or upper middle-class Englishmen, owned a revolver which Mr. Holmes often asked him to bring along.
[/quote]
Perhaps he meant more along the lines of in modern times / in his lifetime? Which is how I read it.

[/quote]

Yes, I meant in my lifetime, thank you balducci. There's no need for us to have hand guns in our homes.
[/quote]

"Need" is subject to interpretation. The hot burglary rate isn't a bad justification for the fact that some people [i]want[/i] them
Message: Posted by: acesover (May 31, 2013 06:06PM)
[quote]
On 2013-05-30 18:36, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-05-30 17:50, Dannydoyle wrote:

Now since I extend that courtesy and don't mind one bit and never try to make you adopt an American way of thinking or our constitution I will ask the same in retur ln from you and our Canadian neighbours. Just keep quiet about it.
[/quote]
I would happily keep quiet about it, if you would only help keep 'your' guns and NRA out of 'my' country (e.g. see link).

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2010/09/13/canada-nra-gun-registry.html
[/quote]

Why would you make such a statement as the above one? How can we keep the NRA from doing what they want? This is America. Are they doing something illegal or just something "you" don't like?

Also not sure what guns we are sending or whatever you meant in your statement...however I can only respond that if some of our guns are ending up in Canada it is because Canadians want them. I am sure we are not taking them and throwing them across the border. Unless you know something I don't.
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (May 31, 2013 07:06PM)
When I clean my gun, I dream of Galveston.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jun 2, 2013 01:45AM)
[quote]
On 2013-05-31 06:43, Russell Davidson wrote:

No aces. It's not because of a lack of knowledge but simply we that don't need them. We're not scared in our own homes :)
[/quote]
On my quest to fulfill my New Year's pledge to watch one movie a day, I am now in a film noir phase which led me indirectly to Gun Crazy AKA Deadly is the Female:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0042530/

Early on in the movie, we get this incisive dialogue:

> I just gotta have a gun.

< But why?

> Because, like Sis says, shooting is what I'm good at. It's the only thing I like. It's what I want to do when I grow up.

< You mean you don't want to do anything with your life except shoot guns?

> I like shooting 'em, Judge. I don't know why. But I feel good when I'm shooting 'em. I feel awfully good inside, like I'm somebody.

:)
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 2, 2013 09:59AM)
[quote]
On 2013-06-02 02:45, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-05-31 06:43, Russell Davidson wrote:

No aces. It's not because of a lack of knowledge but simply we that don't need them. We're not scared in our own homes :)
[/quote]
On my quest to fulfill my New Year's pledge to watch one movie a day, I am now in a film noir phase which led me indirectly to Gun Crazy AKA Deadly is the Female:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0042530/

Early on in the movie, we get this incisive dialogue:

> I just gotta have a gun.

< But why?

> Because, like Sis says, shooting is what I'm good at. It's the only thing I like. It's what I want to do when I grow up.

< You mean you don't want to do anything with your life except shoot guns?

> I like shooting 'em, Judge. I don't know why. But I feel good when I'm shooting 'em. I feel awfully good inside, like I'm somebody.

:)
[/quote]

Your are of course talking about a movie. :)

But I would like to add that shooting a gun and killing someone with said gun is entirely two different things. Being the best shooter or best anything in the world is different than being the most notorious killer in the world...don't you think?

Being the strongest man in the world is quite an accomplishment. However if your only goal was to be the strongest man in the world so you could snap peoples necks and kill them easily, well I think that is different.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jun 2, 2013 10:32AM)
So we just blame all those obvious psych issues the mivie character has on guns?

What will you blame things on next? Do you ever hold people responsible for their own actions?
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 2, 2013 11:12AM)
[quote]
On 2013-06-02 11:32, Dannydoyle wrote:
So we just blame all those obvious psych issues the mivie character has on guns?

What will you blame things on next? Do you ever hold people responsible for their own actions?
[/quote]

I think you misunderstand me. I don't blame any object for any wrong doing. I blame people for their misuse of that object. Or in the case of the strong man I still blame the man for the misuse of his strength skill.

I am not all familiar with the movie you are referring. But it seems like the judge is asking if all he wants to do is shoot guns, not whether he wants to shoot guns and kill people. Again it is a movie made for entertainment.

I know a lot of kids that the only thing they do is play xbox. So this guy likes guns and other kids like xbox. They would like nothing better than play xbox because it makes them feel good inside and they are good at it. Of course one must consxider the source. An immature teenager and and mentally challanged individual.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 2, 2013 11:53AM)
They should make a movie about the Korean grocers during the Rodney King riots.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 2, 2013 12:44PM)
[quote]
On 2013-06-02 12:53, LobowolfXXX wrote:
They should make a movie about the Korean grocers during the Rodney King riots.
[/quote]

That has Academy Award written all over it.

Just have to be careful not to offend any Koreans or Grocers, especially Korean Grocers. We have to politically correct also watch how we portray the muslims in this movie.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jun 2, 2013 04:56PM)
[quote]
On 2013-06-02 12:12, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-06-02 11:32, Dannydoyle wrote:
So we just blame all those obvious psych issues the mivie character has on guns?

What will you blame things on next? Do you ever hold people responsible for their own actions?
[/quote]

I think you misunderstand me. I don't blame any object for any wrong doing. I blame people for their misuse of that object. Or in the case of the strong man I still blame the man for the misuse of his strength skill.

I am not all familiar with the movie you are referring. But it seems like the judge is asking if all he wants to do is shoot guns, not whether he wants to shoot guns and kill people. Again it is a movie made for entertainment.

I know a lot of kids that the only thing they do is play xbox. So this guy likes guns and other kids like xbox. They would like nothing better than play xbox because it makes them feel good inside and they are good at it. Of course one must consxider the source. An immature teenager and and mentally challanged individual.
[/quote]

I didn't mean to direct my post at you.

I didn't say that stuff. Blame my computer.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 2, 2013 08:13PM)
[quote]
On 2013-06-02 17:56, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-06-02 12:12, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-06-02 11:32, Dannydoyle wrote:
So we just blame all those obvious psych issues the mivie character has on guns?

What will you blame things on next? Do you ever hold people responsible for their own actions?
[/quote]

I think you misunderstand me. I don't blame any object for any wrong doing. I blame people for their misuse of that object. Or in the case of the strong man I still blame the man for the misuse of his strength skill.

I am not all familiar with the movie you are referring. But it seems like the judge is asking if all he wants to do is shoot guns, not whether he wants to shoot guns and kill people. Again it is a movie made for entertainment.

I know a lot of kids that the only thing they do is play xbox. So this guy likes guns and other kids like xbox. They would like nothing better than play xbox because it makes them feel good inside and they are good at it. Of course one must consxider the source. An immature teenager and and mentally challanged individual.
[/quote]

I didn't mean to direct my post at you.

I didn't say that stuff. Blame my computer.
[/quote]

Bad dog.
I mean Bad Computer. :)
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jun 4, 2013 12:07PM)
[quote]
On 2013-06-02 10:59, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-06-02 02:45, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-05-31 06:43, Russell Davidson wrote:

No aces. It's not because of a lack of knowledge but simply we that don't need them. We're not scared in our own homes :)
[/quote]
On my quest to fulfill my New Year's pledge to watch one movie a day, I am now in a film noir phase which led me indirectly to Gun Crazy AKA Deadly is the Female:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0042530/

Early on in the movie, we get this incisive dialogue:

> I just gotta have a gun.

< But why?

> Because, like Sis says, shooting is what I'm good at. It's the only thing I like. It's what I want to do when I grow up.

< You mean you don't want to do anything with your life except shoot guns?

> I like shooting 'em, Judge. I don't know why. But I feel good when I'm shooting 'em. I feel awfully good inside, like I'm somebody.

:)
[/quote]

Your are of course talking about a movie. :)

But I would like to add that shooting a gun and killing someone with said gun is entirely two different things. Being the best shooter or best anything in the world is different than being the most notorious killer in the world...don't you think?
[/quote]
Absolutely.

Actually, in the movie, (SPOILER ALERT!) the fellow who loved guns so much never killed anyone with a gun. Except at the very end when he killed the deadly female, his lover, who was about to shoot his two childhood friends. But he did go along with her willingly on her crime spree, in which she killed several people under his watch.

Anyway, it is just a movie and I was just sort of yanking your chain with the posted dialogue from it. :)
Message: Posted by: Slide (Jun 4, 2013 03:20PM)
"Really, it makes it sound more like Watson was rather unusual (quite atypical) for having a handgun. "

Yes, he WAS unusual since he was a fictional character. Apparently vampires were smuggled into to England in coffins filled with dirt at that time in England as well, from what I read. I think that is why they allowed fictional characters to arm themselves.