We Remember The Magic Café We Remember
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Anti Gun...check this out.. (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8 [Next]
R.S.
View Profile
Regular user
CT one day I'll have
173 Posts

Profile of R.S.
From the Harvard School of Public Health. Here are just a couple of pages from that study...

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hic......dex.html

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hic......dex.html



Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Quote:
On 2011-05-28 09:58, R.S. wrote:
From the Harvard School of Public Health. Here are just a couple of pages from that study...

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hic......dex.html

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hic......dex.html


Ron


Nice find, Ron. Thank you.

John

PS I am not opposed to firearms in general, but I see no reason that firearms should not be registered and that certain classes of weapons be banned.
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20661 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Yea the problem is which "classes" of weapons should be banned? People scoff at the slippery slope theory but in our country health care is a perfect example. They want single payer but absolutely know the people will not go for it in one fell swoop. So they put in place a gateway to get what they want.

Anti-gun advocates absolutely want what Andrew wants. Abolition of all gun ownership. Registering weapons, and banning spacific "classes" of weapons is a perfect gateway. It is how our political system works. So if people who are not anti gun are a bit worried, you can't call them paranoid.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Quote:
On 2011-05-27 20:09, acesover wrote:


I really have to be honest here. I am not sure what is not true in the original post.


Perhaps you didn't read the responses or follow the links. Soles is not anti-gun. In fact, he gets a favorable rating from the NRA and other gun-issue lobby groups.
Quote:
I may be wrong in my assumptions as I did not research the post that I found but rather just posted a link to it to show what I consider his hipocracy. Many politicans campaign on ideals that they do no endorse but believe will get them elected.


This is the irony. Soles was guilty. But not of hypocrisy. He plead down to a misdemeanor assault and paid a $1000 fine. The hypocrisy was not Soles's but the blogger's.

Quote:
Again I am not sure what is a lie in the article I posted. If it is wrong I apologize but I did not write it but rther only found it and posted it. To be honest that is one of the reasons I seldom use information on the net but rather just voice my own opinion. By doing differently this time it seemes like it bit me in the read end if what I posted is nothing but a lie.


No apology is necessary. I believe you made a mistake, not a deliberate lie. But I do think it is nice if we acknowledge and correct our mistakes. Cripes, I'm wrong an awful lot of the time.

John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
The tactic of bringing up the idea of everyone owning an uzi, or bazooka is an especially interesting fear tactic considering the vast majority of gun crimes are committed with hand guns.
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
The idea of registering guns is just as laughable considering the large issues with gun smuggling, and stolen firearms kind of negates any usefulness of a registry.
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20661 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
But it works to make another side look unreasonable so bringing up an uzi or bazooka makes perfect sense.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Quote:
On 2011-05-28 12:18, gdw wrote:
The tactic of bringing up the idea of everyone owning an uzi, or bazooka is an especially interesting fear tactic considering the vast majority of gun crimes are committed with hand guns.


The point is to query whether any restriction is defensible. If someone takes the stance that everyone can own nuclear missiles, then there really isn't any point in discussing much else. OTOH if both sides agree that at least some weapons require restriction, then they can have a reasonable discussion about where the relevant differences lie.

For example, in Canada there is very little debate about whether the current restrictions on handguns is justified. The debate is sharply focused on the wisdom of registering "long guns". This is a very important step in the discussion.

John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20661 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
In Canada perhaps that is reasonable.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
Just to remind you, at the time that the Second Amendment was written, the armed forces of Great Britain, France, and the United States were equipped with (usually .75 caliber) smoothbore muskets of the "Brown Bess" type, which were quite inaccurate and ineffective beyond a range of 50 to 100 yards.

In contrast, the hunters and frontiersman of the then-Western United States were equipped with the "Pennsylvania long rifle" or "Kentucky rifle," based on the German Jaeger rifle, which although usually of only .40 to .50 caliber, was much more accurate than the smoothbore musket, and in the hands of an experienced marksman, effective out to a range of as much as 400 yards, in other words quite as effective as a twentieth century military rifle with iron sights in the hands of most soldiers.

In other words, the civilian of the day was equipped with a far better weapon than the soldier, and the civilian was usually more proficient in its use. That is one reason why the Founders thought that this country could be adequately defended by a "well-regulated" (=competent) militia.

Until Senator Thomas Dodd crafted US gun-control legislation on models supplied by the Library of Congress from National-Socialist German legislation on file, it was possible to purchase almost any hand-gun or long-gun by mail order in this country, no questions asked. Including huge anti-tank rifles. I remember a model of one of those was listed for sale in an ad in Popular Mechanics when I was a kid, and for only about $112.99, if memory serves. (It would be worth more than $15,000 today.)

Submachine guns, like Tommy guns or Uzis, are available for purchase by civilians today, in fact, but are subject to a difficult Federal tax requirement and very few are available.

Noise suppressors or "silencers" are also highly regulated in the United States, although in Europe, they are very commonly purchased, and in England it is considered rude to hunt using a rifle not so equipped (because the noise bothers the neighbors).

I think nuclear weapons are beyond the reach of most private citizens.

But the gradualist or carefully crafted limitations that Magnus advocates on the Canadian model are hazardous. In some countries, similar restrictions are being applied to free speech. It is now in Europe for all practical purposes illegal to criticize Islam, the Noble Qu'ran, or the Prophet Muhummad, upon whom be peace. On the other hand, to display in a museum a crucifix in a bottle of urine is considered a thoughtful and penetrating artistic expression. With the suppression of speech, as Orwell observed, comes the suppression of thought. Prevent people from formulating a thought in words, and you will soon be able to prevent them from thinking it.

Over centuries, many men (and women) bled and died to gain -and preserve- for our country unquestioned freedom of speech, of the press, of conscience . . . and of the right to keep & bear arms. You can probably have freedom of speech and of religion without the right to keep & bear arms . . . for a time.

And it has been observed that an armed population is a people's best defense against genocide.

Thomas Jefferson observed that the tree of Liberty will have to be periodically watered by the blood of patriots and tyrants. Let's hope more of the latter than the former.

Woland
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1197 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Reductio ad abusurdum can be used fallaciously (and often is), but it is not inherently a fallacy, but a legitimate argumentative technique. You can always have a reasonable argument about reasonable and appropriate regulations pertaining to the right to bear arms, but if one side does (or pretends to) take the position, "Second Amendment, no regulations, period!!!!" then reductio ad absurdum is perfectly reasonable to create the agreement that some restrictions or regulations are appropriate...at which point you can begin the real discussion about just what those regulations might be. Or discover that you're talking to somebody who believes that everyone should be able to own his own nuclear bomb, at which point you should probably excuse yourself to use the bathroom, then climb out the window.

As an analogy to reductio ad absurdum as a logical technique vs. fallacy, let's say someone makes the claim that "Mammals can't fly," which is incorrect as a categorical statement. Bringing up bats isn't a fallacy; it's a demonstration that the assertion is flat out wrong. The first person doesn't get to say something like, "Oh, well, if you're going to take extreme examples like the bat, you're just being silly."
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1197 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On 2011-05-28 07:41, landmark wrote:
Lobo you beat me to it. Hmm, I'm starting to agree with you too much these days, though I recognize it's more about how to argue than what.


I apologize profusely for any distress this may be causing you. Smile
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2011-05-28 13:35, Woland wrote:
Just to remind you, at the time that the Second Amendment was written, the armed forces of Great Britain, France, and the United States were equipped with (usually .75 caliber) smoothbore muskets of the "Brown Bess" type, which were quite inaccurate and ineffective beyond a range of 50 to 100 yards.

In contrast, the hunters and frontiersman of the then-Western United States were equipped with the "Pennsylvania long rifle" or "Kentucky rifle," based on the German Jaeger rifle, which although usually of only .40 to .50 caliber, was much more accurate than the smoothbore musket, and in the hands of an experienced marksman, effective out to a range of as much as 400 yards, in other words quite as effective as a twentieth century military rifle with iron sights in the hands of most soldiers.

In other words, the civilian of the day was equipped with a far better weapon than the soldier, and the civilian was usually more proficient in its use. That is one reason why the Founders thought that this country could be adequately defended by a "well-regulated" (=competent) militia.

Until Senator Thomas Dodd crafted US gun-control legislation on models supplied by the Library of Congress from National-Socialist German legislation on file, it was possible to purchase almost any hand-gun or long-gun by mail order in this country, no questions asked. Including huge anti-tank rifles. I remember a model of one of those was listed for sale in an ad in Popular Mechanics when I was a kid, and for only about $112.99, if memory serves. (It would be worth more than $15,000 today.)

Submachine guns, like Tommy guns or Uzis, are available for purchase by civilians today, in fact, but are subject to a difficult Federal tax requirement and very few are available.

Noise suppressors or "silencers" are also highly regulated in the United States, although in Europe, they are very commonly purchased, and in England it is considered rude to hunt using a rifle not so equipped (because the noise bothers the neighbors).

I think nuclear weapons are beyond the reach of most private citizens.

But the gradualist or carefully crafted limitations that Magnus advocates on the Canadian model are hazardous. In some countries, similar restrictions are being applied to free speech. It is now in Europe for all practical purposes illegal to criticize Islam, the Noble Qu'ran, or the Prophet Muhummad, upon whom be peace. On the other hand, to display in a museum a crucifix in a bottle of urine is considered a thoughtful and penetrating artistic expression. With the suppression of speech, as Orwell observed, comes the suppression of thought. Prevent people from formulating a thought in words, and you will soon be able to prevent them from thinking it.

Over centuries, many men (and women) bled and died to gain -and preserve- for our country unquestioned freedom of speech, of the press, of conscience . . . and of the right to keep & bear arms. You can probably have freedom of speech and of religion without the right to keep & bear arms . . . for a time.

And it has been observed that an armed population is a people's best defense against genocide.

Thomas Jefferson observed that the tree of Liberty will have to be periodically watered by the blood of patriots and tyrants. Let's hope more of the latter than the former.

Woland


Europe's certainly not to only place with growing limitations on speech and expression.
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
No, but it is more apparent there than here.
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
Does europe have free speech zones, and arrest people for dancing near monuments? Honestly, I don't know if they do have things like that.
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
Quote:
On 2011-05-28 13:35, Woland wrote:

Just to remind you, at the time that the Second Amendment was written, the armed forces of Great Britain, France, and the United States were equipped with (usually .75 caliber) smoothbore muskets of the "Brown Bess" type, which were quite inaccurate and ineffective beyond a range of 50 to 100 yards.

In contrast, the hunters and frontiersman of the then-Western United States were equipped with the "Pennsylvania long rifle" or "Kentucky rifle," based on the German Jaeger rifle, which although usually of only .40 to .50 caliber, was much more accurate than the smoothbore musket, and in the hands of an experienced marksman, effective out to a range of as much as 400 yards, in other words quite as effective as a twentieth century military rifle with iron sights in the hands of most soldiers.

In other words, the civilian of the day was equipped with a far better weapon than the soldier, and the civilian was usually more proficient in its use. That is one reason why the Founders thought that this country could be adequately defended by a "well-regulated" (=competent) militia.

Various resources online put the effective range of the Brown Bess far beyond the 50 to 100 yards you claim. E.g.,

http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_brown_bess.html

And whereas the Brown Bess muskets could be fired up to 4 or 5 times a minute, the long rifles could take up to a minute to reload.

I'm not disputing that the long rifles were an improvement in some way, but I think your comparisons and subsequent conclusions from them are somewhat off.
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20661 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Certainly even though I am VERY pro second ammendment, the Uzi never was concieved was it?
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
Well, balducci, if you read contemporary accounts, or consider what happened at the Battle of New Orleans, the Pennsylvania long rifle was far and away the most devastating weapon used in war during its heyday. Although a trained infantryman could maintain a good rate of fire with a musket, so could a skilled frontiersman with a rifle, and remember that the musket was used to fire in volleys, and not for effect; the militiamen who devastated the British at New Orleans were definitely aiming for effect.

My only conclusion is that the civilian of the day (at least in Pennsylvania and in areas later settled by Pennsylvania-German gunsmiths) could easily obtain a weapon that was superior to the military weaponry of his time.

Since the Founders wanted an armed population to be a counterweight to the authority of the State (and it is clear that that's what many of them wanted), it should be evident that they expected that the population would be armed with weapons comparable to those in the armouries of the State.

The fully-automatic M-14 was in my opinion the finest battle rifle ever deployed. It's a pity that most of the remaining stock were sold to Lithuania and other countries at $10 a piece rather than being made available to the public, as the M-1 Garands were/are.

But that's as far as I would take it, myself. Although Swiss militiamen (i.e. the vast majority of the male population, aged 18-45) keep fully automatic battle rifles or light assault rifles at home, along with at least 200 rounds of ammunition, only those who are identified as having the immediate need for them in an emergency keep explosives, rocket launchers, and the like. One of my neighbors once owned a surplus tank, but I don't think the mileage you'd get on one would encourage most people to train with one regularly.
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5042 Posts

Profile of landmark
"But that's as far as I would take it, myself. Although Swiss militiamen (i.e. the vast majority of the male population, aged 18-45) keep fully automatic battle rifles or light assault rifles at home, along with at least 200 rounds of ammunition, only those who are identified as having the immediate need for them in an emergency keep explosives, rocket launchers, and the like. "

Fair enough. Limit the the regular US military to 5% of military personnel as Switzerland's regular military is, and I'll go along with a militia.
critter
View Profile
Inner circle
Spokane, WA
2551 Posts

Profile of critter
The UZI is a reliable, but not particularly powerful, weapon. It is fairly accurate for a sub-machine gun. A 9mm round isn't likely to penetrate a bulletproof vest. But a knife will do it. I don't know if I had a point.
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Anti Gun...check this out.. (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.27 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL