RWNJ

I gave you that link so that you could check several websites that give FBI statistics, among other things. It's a simple fact that gun laws have little to no effect on violent crime. Even if you took away every ones guns, it would have no effect on crime, since there are still knives, blunt objects, and even ones own fists. If someone wants to rob, rape, or kill someone, they will find a way to do it. Period.

Comment Loc: California

The owner of a restaurant ejected an unruly customer twice. The second time the punk fisted the owner in the face knocking him down where he struck his head on the sidewalk killing him.

RWNJ

Exactly! There are thousands of ways to kill someone. If someone wants you dead, you're going to die. They don't even need a weapon.

Comment Loc: California

Hammers are one of the favorite tools used in killings. On Facebook, I saw a picture of locks on hammers. Pretty funny. Of course the locks were symbolic. Haha

mark13 Loc: usa

You seem to grasp the elements of living in a virtually disarmed country like America... as to the government just slaughtering people, it hasn't happened in America yet... but shortly after the government completes disarming the American public the spiral to government execution will begin...

it has to do with shear numbers, in Germany [if you divide by 4] there were about 150,000 adult Jews. Had the Nazis left each adult with their semi-auto pistol, and reviewing the limited internal conflicts like Warsaw Ghetto, even though the Germans had overwhelming fire power, ammunition, training, and combat experience, the German casualty rate was horrendous relative to the ability of the Jews to resist with limited and home made weapons.

In every age, the government always disarms the public as much as the government can, before it attacks them... start with the Greeks, when the government disarms the people it is simply a matter of time before the government attacks the public ...

the Jewish experience illustrates that had the 150,000 Jews been marginally armed they could have inflicted some 150,000 causalities on the German civilian and military forces, 1 at a time [maybe even achieved a high kill and cripple rate]; now pick any large defeat suffered by the Germans at the hands of Allied military forces and those numbers run some 150 to 300 thousand. So, a minimally armed Jewish resistance would predictably have delivered causalities about equal to a major combat defeat; except it would have been in country, over time, and in addition to all the common running military causalities.

The point is, all governments recognize that inadequately armed citizens are a greater actual threat to the government than totally disarmed civilian populations.

For the current version, see ISLS, when they take over an area using superior fire power they kill whoever they choose and disarm everyone else, after which, they go on killing anyone who acts up or continues to disagree, just like every tyrant government that disarms it citizens - before the government labels : targets people as enemies of the state, hunts them down, and kills them = again, usually after the society has been disarmed using common sense gun control laws, 1 at a time.

The motor deaths are from the UN and the US, as were the gun deaths.

It is actually a pretty good comparative model using the figures of the Governments.

You recognize the issue in America today, that lawlessly, the government has already nearly disarmed the American public, which public, it has educationally dumbed down to a degree that understanding 'we' the American public are already virtually disarmed is beyond that publics comprehension...

Another element you touch on, but fail to address, is that 'we' are so educationally ignorant 'we' never address the issue of the Constitutionally secured, absolute, Natural Right to be and go about armed with the most modern fire power of the day, everywhere, all the time = at home and in public whether the moment is Domestic or Foreign - residence or travel.

Enjoy the day.

straightUp Loc: California

Yeah, I know... I guess I just assume that anyone joining this discussion would have already done that research, kind of like I expect people here to know what a gun is.

BTW, you sent me a link to a Google search for "Gun laws have no effect on crime." If you want stats you could have said "gun control statistics" ...add any of these terms to get specific sources... "CDC", "FBI", "NSIC". What you typed in the search box my friend, is an opinion more than a question, which strongly suggests that what you're really searching for on Google is confirmation of your preset opinion. Just something to point out.


See, now you're saying "little to no effect".

Look, I can already see where you're back pedaling... saying "little to no effect", because I emphasized the difference between "little" and "none" and you KNOW I'm right.

So, no... it's not "none", it's "little" and as they say... every little bit counts... none, never counts... THIS is why people support gun laws.

RWNJ

See, now you're saying "little to no effect".

Look, I can already see where you're back pedaling... saying "little to no effect", because I emphasized the difference between "little" and "none" and you KNOW I'm right.

So, no... it's not "none", it's "little" and as they say... every little bit counts... none, never counts... THIS is why people support gun laws.
===========================================

I've done the research. When I say little to no effect, I mean exactly that. And crime rates are way down, even though there are a lot more guns. All the research available shows that gun laws do not affect violent crime rates. Not having a gun will not prevent someone from committing a crime. They will find another way. You just can't accept the fact that it's not the guns fault. A gun needs a person to wield it. A person does not need a gun to commit a crime. A hammer, or a knife or club, will do nicely.

straightUp Loc: California

First let me just say that I appreciate your thoughtful response and for offering some interesting things to consider. So as not to mislead you, I'm going to preface my response by saying that I absolutely agree that people should ALWAYS be cautious of their government. Now, having said that, I question the details of your prediction. You seem to be suggesting that gun control (which has been in the works for close to 100 years now) is some kind of a long-term strategy tied to a master-plan to slaughter us. It seems like a pretty big suggestion for not having a motive. Can you tell me what makes you think our government is planning on slaughtering us?

While I await that answer, let me express my own similar concern. Looking from a global perspective, I am seeing a LOT of indications that we are heading for a critical point where the population will exceed the available resources needed to sustain it. As this ratio changes for the worse, desperation will grow... crime will escalate and there will be powers that will start to look for ways to deal with this supply and demand issue.

In nations with totalitarian authorities, the approach is usually a systematic genocide based on ethnicity. In nations heavily influenced by markets such as ours, the more typical approach is to simply abandon those with less money and let them starve. I actually find the later more repulsive because the perpetrators don't take responsibility for what they are doing. This is also the approach that I think will be far more likely in the U.S. So I don't expect to see government troops herding people to the slaughter... What I expect to see is "business as usual" as the media/propaganda machine vilifies each and every victim so as to isolate them from sympathy and support. In this way they can keep the people divided. I also expect to see the kind of surveillance and information systems that will make it much harder to orchestrate resistance than any time in the past.




You just dealing with numbers mark... You're not dealing with the human experience. The fact is people who fear for the lives of their family members will often make the decision to surrender even if they have guns. You simply can't predict human outcome by counting numbers. Secondly, although I appreciate the point you are making, which I think is valid to a point, you are still using a historical example that predates the most recent advances in surveillance and population control. I will admit it's a better comparison than anything from the 18th century and certainly the Nazis took advantage of what technology was available such as the punch card systems that IBM supplied them with to track Jewish families, but compared to what the NSA has now, that was nothing.



Yes, and as your ISIS/ISIL (whatever their most recent acronym) shows, this behavior isn't limited to governments. ISIS is an insurgency AGAINST the government. My question still stands though regarding your statistical comparison... How exactly did those 2,000 American citizens die? The ones you are suggesting were murdered by the U.S. government and are not related to crime.


No I don't recognize that and it's not beyond my comprehension either. I recognize that concerned citizens have used the government to "legally" disarm the more dangerous threats to public safety and I recognize the trade-off regarding our ability as a nation to resist oppression. I really feel this trade off should be better understood. It comes down to how much danger are you willing to accept for the sake of freedom. Liberals that typically advocate gun-control are asking for more safety at the cost of possibly weakening our ability to resist oppression. It *IS* a trade-off and it cracks me up that conservatives think that they aren't doing the same thing when they support things like the PATRIOT ACT which is "supposed" to make our nation safer from terrorists but also weakens our ability to resist oppression. This is why I think 90% of the loud-mouths chiming in are simply reacting to this "us vs them" bullshit without really thinking about what they are saying.

As for the dumbing down... I recognize the original purpose of public education (K-12) as a government-funded program to turn American kids into compliant citizens and to create a labor pool of workers that can read simple instructions and turn cogs. I have noticed the censorship in the social-studies programs especially. But the same lessons that teach us to read instruction manuals also let's us read about things the schools don't teach and it gives most students the opportunity to graduate to universities that still teach the liberal arts, which is to say they have the ability to lean how to see things for themselves. (logic, philosophy, etc... these are all categorized as liberal arts). So, to blame the public-education system, is in my opinion, self-defeating. I was "processed" by public schools in California and Colorado and then went on to university and the liberal arts where I developed techniques for looking at things logically resulting in conclusions that often conflict with what they teach in K-12. I think the bigger blame is on the people themselves for not making the extra effort that it takes to move beyond the mold.


I think you just gave us a prime example. ;)

The ONLY assertion the Constitution makes is that the government shall not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The Constitution does NOT explicitly say "with the most modern fire power"... it does not explicitly say "everywhere, all the time". These are things that you simply added yourself. The amendment DOES preface this limitation on government with a stated purpose... "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..." So the reason for allowing citizens to bear arms is specifically to resist government oppression and that is the ONLY reason. Not to protect yourself from crime, not to collect for fun, not to turn into a business but to be part of a well-regulated militia in response to government tyranny and as I've explained a well regulated militia bearing small arms is far less an equalizer today than it was in 1789 or even in 1938. Jefferson was 100% correct when he said the Constitution should be updated with the times. I think the 2nd Amendment should be rewritten so as to preserve it's purpose in the 21 century, because this is an age where a well regulated militia bearing small arms is no longer any match for a serious tyranny. That's the very simple fact the NRA just cannot seem to understand.

straightUp Loc: California

Well, you're not very good at it then.


There is nothing exact about "little to none". It's okay if you're talking about a range, but you aren't talking about a range, you are talking about the actual results of a policy on gun-control in which case "little to no" is an ambiguity involving mutually exclusive terms. If you have "none" then you do NOT have "little". If you have "little" then you do not have "none". Simple.


Yeah - it's amazing how many people parrot that without ever questioning it. Fact is, crime rate is a ratio of crime to population and the population is simply increasing at faster rate than gun violence.

Do some math for crying out loud...

You can have 100 people, including 40 gun owners of which 12 use them to commit crimes, the crime rate will be 12% in a population where 40% owns guns. Now, if you add another 100 people of which 80 are gun owners, of which 8 of them use guns to commit crimes, gun ownership will have increased to 60% and the crime rate will have gone down to 10% despite the fact that the actual number of criminal incidents involving guns went from 12 to 20.

The leaders of your advocacy know this but they also know they can count on a LOT of really stupid people to just parrot the crime rate out of context like it means something. Don't be a stupid parrot - question EVERYTHING.


No, that's the rhetorical bullshit that you believe.


You can't generalize like that - it depends on the criminal. A determined criminal will find another way, a lazy criminal probably wont.


A hammer, a knife or a club would require physical supremacy and a close approach. With a gun you don't need either, so like I said... It depends on the criminal. Something else to consider is that people stand a better chance to defend themselves against close approaches. If you came at me with a knife or a club you had better make sure I don't see you or you WILL get hurt. If you had a gun, I wouldn't stand a chance.

The only thing I'll say about your "blame the gun" comment is that it's a very old and stupid argument. No one actually believes that guns run around looking for ways to kill - as if they jump into the hands of criminals forcing them to aim and to pull the trigger. I mean seriously - you don't see how stupid that is?

RWNJ

I won't try to refute all of those points, I don't have the time. But what I said about gun ownership and less crime is based on FBI statistics. If you look at the number of gun owners, then compare it to the number of gun related crimes per 100,000, then the crime rate has indeed fallen, even though there are more gun owners. Look it up.

straightUp Loc: California

I have... I've been looking them up for over 20 years. I also just explained how you're misreading those numbers... Look, if you don't have the time to to read the explanations maybe you ought to seize the blabbering, ya know?

mark13 Loc: usa

quote=straightUp] I think you just gave us a prime example.

The ONLY assertion the Constitution makes is that the government shall not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The Constitution does NOT explicitly say "with the most modern fire power"... it does not explicitly say "everywhere, all the time". These are things that you simply added yourself. The amendment DOES preface this limitation on government with a stated purpose... "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..." So the reason for allowing citizens to bear arms is specifically to resist government oppression and that is the ONLY reason. Not to protect yourself from crime, not to collect for fun, not to turn into a business but to be part of a well-regulated militia in response to government tyranny and as I've explained a well regulated militia bearing small arms is far less an equalizer today than it was in 1789 or even in 1938. Jefferson was 100% correct when he said the Constitution should be updated with the times. I think the 2nd Amendment should be rewritten so as to preserve it's purpose in the 21 century, because this is an age where a well regulated militia bearing small arms is no longer any match for a serious tyranny. That's the very simple fact the NRA just cannot seem to understand.[/quote]

It doesn't have to say most modern fire power of the day, the people who wrote the statement believed that it was necessary to be as heavily armed as the state in order to resist tyranny... O ! wait, that was exactly what they had just done by purchasing, inventing, and building the most modern fire power and tactics of the day... by the end of the American Revolution, the European militaries [their weapons and tactics] conduct of War was irrevocably altered - the next such military revolution would await, of course, the American Civil War

The Civil War being another interesting case of heavily armed private, Individual, American citizens dragging their government and the rest of the world into a modern age of High power - improved accuracy - rapidity of fire weapons, wrapped in broad potentials for success, generally rising popular expectation, and an increase in the World population from some 600 million [abt 1709] to about 6/7 billion [2016].

[the civil war is another war in which private development : ownership of the most modern fire power of the day was in the hands of the private citizens who then sold it to the government so the government could upgrade its weapons to match private arms in private hands... a rule which would apply again and again until the government made the first legislative weapon usurpation statute involving fully automatic weapons, after which, the consolidating move would wait until 1968 and the legislative usurpation/abridgement of the Natural Right of American citizens to create - own - move about with the most modern fire power of the day in Amer4ica : Foreign lands.]

It is obvious, you are a victim of the American University of Moscow on the Hudson propaganda machine... as such, you, like another 298,000,000 Americans have no information with which to address the subjects of American History, American Law, or American political issues.

Only you can cure your educational defect, I suggest you do so as soon as possible.
You should start by reading the founding documents [during the Clinton administration published in a multivolume set], the American Constitution, and discussing the lot with someone you think agrees with you; then, locate every different view you can find and consider the whole until you achieve the Constitutional Gestalt.

Or, just go into politics, you would probably find you are reasonably better informed and likely smarter than the current pack of simpering dolts occupying the high offices of the amerikan government... the lawless emerging gun control police state government.

Enjoy the day

Orrie

Read Agenda 21 in it's entirety.

straightUp Loc: California

First of all, the people that wrote the Constitution were not idiots... If they felt it was important enough that the people be as heavily armed as the state they would have made that clear in the law. What they DID make clear in the law was that the entire purpose is to provide a militia and that this militia be well-regulated, which in 18th century terms meant trained and organized. So it's clear that they did NOT want to see armed and unruly mobs who can't shoot straight or who don't know what to shoot at.

Again these were smart people. They actually liberated themselves from what was essentially a superpower that was more heavily armed than they were and they did it though discipline - not by making the latest and greatest weapons available to every idiot in the country.


The Continental Army was never in possession of superior or even advanced firepower, which is why new tactics were used... basically guerrilla warfare which the colonist learned from the Indians during the French-Indian War. Also, there was a LOT of innovation between the American Revolution and the American Civil War. But that's not something many prideful Americans are aware of.


First of all, civil wars always involve private citizens because they are attempted revolutions AGAINST the government, so nothing new there.
As for innovation, the American Civil War is one of several wars that happened at the time of the Industrial Revolution. The Crimean War (1853-1856) is also considered by many historians to be the first modern war - it was the first to use photographic reconnaissance and the telegraph. It was also the first to see exploding shells and medicine on the field was revolutionary. The American Civil War (1861-1865) is also considered by many to be the first modern war for the same sort of reasons... technology.

So it was a matter of timing, more than anything else and more to the point, technology and industry has had 160 years since then to evolve into a state where inventing things in the barn just doesn't cut it anymore. My first tech job was at Hughes Aircraft where I was involved in testing optical guidance systems. I can tell you now... The individual can't compete with that kind of technology anymore. It requires a corporation to amass the kind of funding that goes into it and those corporations make you sign contracts that force you to surrender rights to any thing you invent while employed there.

What that means is that the private citizen today simply can't afford the most powerful and effective weapons. Another sign of the times is that being a software engineer (and something of a hacker), I can probably wield more destructive power just with my keyboard than you can with all the small arms you can possibly afford. You should read up on cyber warfare - it's becoming a very serious thing. All I'm really saying here is you need to update your thinking.


And so ends the veneer of intellect and civility. At least you put on the act until you realized I wasn't just going to roll over and agree with you. But now that you know that it's back to stupid shit.

Well, I have better things to do than to argue with an idiot.

straightUp Loc: California

I did when it was released. I still have a copy of it. Was there something specific you wanted to point out?