Marinerhodes
Active member
Rather than giving us a link and hoping we will make your argument for you how about giving us your opinions and ideas and something to debate against?
The Effects of the Ban on Crime
Rather than giving us a link and hoping we will make your argument for you how about giving us your opinions and ideas and something to debate against?
senojekips
Active member
This is why people are often misinformed, they have little or no personal knowledge of the matter. Their arguments are based on what they have "read", often compiled by paid researchers who, as we know, will always find data that panders to expectations of those paying for the "research".
In 7 of the most deadliest massacres from 1966-2002 the murderer legally held a firearm without a license, in addition 3 of the cases the persons were respected members of pistol clubs. 7 out of 14 of the deadliest massacres in the west with firearms have occured in your very own country of the US. All of the shootings also occured in the south, where gun culture is most prevalent.
Nearly 3/4 of all "long gun" shootings the weapons were legally owned.
While I agree not all gun owning members are irresponsible will it not hurt to give up your past time so that lives may be saved. You claim you have them to protect yourselves and your families yet more people die from legally owned weapons than illegal ones.
Last edited:
senojekips
Active member
I take it then that you are in favour of banning any recreational activity that may kill others?
I hate to keep coming back to the Motor vehicle analogy, but there is no denying that they kill far more people than guns ever did. In fact, I'll bet you a months wages that more people are killed in, and by motor vehicles being used for purely recreational purposes than were ever killed by firearms.
As for the second part regarding legally owned firearms, once again the same goes for motor vehicles, most persons are also killed by legally owned motor vehicles, so really, that has nothing to do with it.
If a man is killed by a firearm the media and anti gun lobby go into mad hysteria, some kid kills three of his mates and puts two other persons into hospital after slamming a his car into another vehicle whilst doing 100 MPH and that is just a "road tragedy".
For Christ's sakes let go of yourself man, admit it, You just don't like firearms, therefore you don't care about the pleasure and recreation of others and are determined to see it stopped.
Last edited:
I carried one for 3 months last year and in less than a month will start carrying one that will never leave my side for half a year. Like you all say, 'guns don't kill people, people kill people', which just screams gun control because at the moment laws are so lax that nearly anyone can get a legal firearm in the US.
Automobiles are in the need category, civilians with firearms are in the want category. Find another analogy in the want category.
He broke the law doing 100mph, speakers go out to high schools talking about the dangers of speeding, etc. Do speakers go out and talk about the dangers of firearms? You admire those educating young people on the dangers of driving yet condemn those who educate them about the danger of firearms.
Automobiles are in the need category, civilians with firearms are in the want category. Find another analogy in the want category.
He broke the law doing 100mph, speakers go out to high schools talking about the dangers of speeding, etc. Do speakers go out and talk about the dangers of firearms? You admire those educating young people on the dangers of driving yet condemn those who educate them about the danger of firearms.
5.56X45mm
Milforum Mac Daddy
You don't need a car. You have public transportation.
What if I passed laws that would require you to turn in your car because it pollutes the environment? It would be illegal for you to own or drive a car. By law you would have to ride the bus with other folks.
What would you say to that?
So by you saying that firearms are a want and not a need. You are saying that people ahve no legal right to self defense. So I take it that self defense is a want and not a need. Because under your logic, it's a want and not a need.
You cannot depend on the police to protect you. If that was the case, murders, crime, rape, burglaries, auto theft, and other crime wouldn't occur.
As a police officer, I cannot be your personal body guard 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a years. It just cannot be done. There are not that many officers in the world to do that. So what are you going to do?
Are you going to roll over and play dead when some crack head breaks into your house at 3am and holds a knife to your wife or kids and demands that you give into his demands or they die. Or are you going to stop dead scumbag and protect your loved ones.
It takes about 3 minutes for the police to respond. A lot of things can happen in 3 minutes.
What if I passed laws that would require you to turn in your car because it pollutes the environment? It would be illegal for you to own or drive a car. By law you would have to ride the bus with other folks.
What would you say to that?
So by you saying that firearms are a want and not a need. You are saying that people ahve no legal right to self defense. So I take it that self defense is a want and not a need. Because under your logic, it's a want and not a need.
You cannot depend on the police to protect you. If that was the case, murders, crime, rape, burglaries, auto theft, and other crime wouldn't occur.
As a police officer, I cannot be your personal body guard 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a years. It just cannot be done. There are not that many officers in the world to do that. So what are you going to do?
Are you going to roll over and play dead when some crack head breaks into your house at 3am and holds a knife to your wife or kids and demands that you give into his demands or they die. Or are you going to stop dead scumbag and protect your loved ones.
It takes about 3 minutes for the police to respond. A lot of things can happen in 3 minutes.
Some say for recreation, some say for self defence. When someone breaks in will you have to time to grab the keys, run out back, open the safe, get the weapon, then run back in and get the bullets? I highly doubt it. Public transportation can not handle the entire population.
senojekips
Active member
I never mentioned one word condemning anyone other than the media and anti gun lobby's irrational hysteria towards firearms offences compared with their mute acceptance of road deaths.
So, what's your answer regarding those killed by recreational drivers? Do you still think that any recreational activity that kills persons should be banned as you suggest
Especially a pastime that kills probably in excess of 100X the number ever killed with firearms. What was your state's road toll last year?
And, Yes, police and others do go and educate the public on firearms safety as they do on many other things household security etc. I have no beef about firearms safety, just irrational disinformation being spread by ill informed persons such as yourself.
Last edited:
senojekips
Active member
No, they certainly aren't accidents, in nearly every case it is recklessness and stupidity often coupled with excessive alcohol consumption. Last year in this state 63% of road deaths were connected to alcohol in some way and an even greater percentage involved reckless driving.
They are NOT accidents. It is stupidity, and the law will back me on that when they get these people into court, so long as they never killed themselves also.
No.... Not accidents.
So are we still going to ban recreational driving? You seem so keen to save lives.
As I said in another post, Why don't you just admit that you are a self centred bigot with an irrational fear of firearms who because they are not your pleasure and enjoyment want to see them banned not only in our country but in other sovereign states as well. You have not been able to offer one supportable argument on three different threads regarding this matter.
They are NOT accidents. It is stupidity, and the law will back me on that when they get these people into court, so long as they never killed themselves also.
No.... Not accidents.
So are we still going to ban recreational driving? You seem so keen to save lives.
So long as it doesn't affect you.
So now you are changing sides? Advocating that firearms should not have to be locked away where they can't be reached when needed in a hurry. Perhaps your first reasonable agument. Unfortunately I think that this was not your intention, but you just shot yourself in the foot (so to speak).
As I said in another post, Why don't you just admit that you are a self centred bigot with an irrational fear of firearms who because they are not your pleasure and enjoyment want to see them banned not only in our country but in other sovereign states as well. You have not been able to offer one supportable argument on three different threads regarding this matter.
Last edited:
senojekips
Active member
You're only fooling one person, and it ain't me.
You still haven't answered as to whether you still support the abolition of all recreational use of motor vehicles because of the high road death rate.
For someone who says he is so worried about needless deaths, you seem to be very one eyed.
You still haven't answered as to whether you still support the abolition of all recreational use of motor vehicles because of the high road death rate.
For someone who says he is so worried about needless deaths, you seem to be very one eyed.
Last edited:
senojekips
Active member
Well, all of the above are certainly recreational use of a motor vehicle. I was actually thinking more of the regular use of your motor vehicle to go to the pub or pick up a video anything that is not absolutely "Necessary".
Because it was you, who advocated that that we gun collectors and hunters should be willing to give up our pastime because it was only a "want" rather than a "need", just like you "want" to go to the pub in your vehicle or to see your mates, this is not a "need". Therefore it is just recreational use, there is certainly no legislated requirement for you to do it.
For someone who is so worried about needless deaths, surely you would be willing to walk a couple of miles to the video store or your mates place. No doubt the exercise would be good for you and improve your life expectancy, further saving the taxpayers millions of dollars.
I just love you "I'm alright Jack" types. You want your pleasures in life, but don't give a flying f*ck for anyone else. Hardly a sound base for your argument.
All of this has been stated quite clearly by me before, and is now starting to come around for the second time.
Because it was you, who advocated that that we gun collectors and hunters should be willing to give up our pastime because it was only a "want" rather than a "need", just like you "want" to go to the pub in your vehicle or to see your mates, this is not a "need". Therefore it is just recreational use, there is certainly no legislated requirement for you to do it.
For someone who is so worried about needless deaths, surely you would be willing to walk a couple of miles to the video store or your mates place. No doubt the exercise would be good for you and improve your life expectancy, further saving the taxpayers millions of dollars.
I just love you "I'm alright Jack" types. You want your pleasures in life, but don't give a flying f*ck for anyone else. Hardly a sound base for your argument.
All of this has been stated quite clearly by me before, and is now starting to come around for the second time.
Last edited:
5.56X45mm
Milforum Mac Daddy
I keep a weapon loaded when I'm at home. I do not need to jump through the hurdles you just created. All I do is reach for my Remington 870 or Beretta 92FS and confront the problem.
if I have family come over I put it in the safest place in the house. MY HIP. I have my little cousins or niece come over all the time. They play video games on my TVs and surf the internet on my PCs. They know I have guns and they know not to touch them. But just in case I lock my gun safes and if it's a long gun that I have loaded I unload it and switch to a sidearm and keep it on me. By doing so it is not lying around, it is in my sight 100% of the time.
But once again, my views with public transportation is the same as yours with firearms. Disarming the civilian populace will not stop criminals from getting firearms.
Yet cars kill more people every year than firearms.
senojekips
Active member
Righto you blokes! Just what the hell have you done with Wallabies?
senojekips
Active member
Donkey has a very valid point.
If you care to go back through all of my posts I have never used the crime rate as a reason for owning firearms. Plus, I don't think that it will ever happen anyway. I have no doubt that even the most avid anti crime gun owner gets more pleasure out of owning and firing beautifully made firearms than he does from knowing he is prepared for any criminal eventuality.
Pride in ownership is a subjective thing like a bloke who spends a large amount of money to buy a "Fat Bob" Harley. It's twenty years old and he rarely ever actually rides it, but it still gives him a great amount of pleasure just to own it. Why? because he just always wanted one.
You still haven't answered the question about banning the recreational use of motor vehicles to lower the death toll either, bearing in mind that it will probably save somewhere in the order of 10 - 100 times as many people as banning assault weapons etc.
If you care to go back through all of my posts I have never used the crime rate as a reason for owning firearms. Plus, I don't think that it will ever happen anyway. I have no doubt that even the most avid anti crime gun owner gets more pleasure out of owning and firing beautifully made firearms than he does from knowing he is prepared for any criminal eventuality.
Pride in ownership is a subjective thing like a bloke who spends a large amount of money to buy a "Fat Bob" Harley. It's twenty years old and he rarely ever actually rides it, but it still gives him a great amount of pleasure just to own it. Why? because he just always wanted one.
You still haven't answered the question about banning the recreational use of motor vehicles to lower the death toll either, bearing in mind that it will probably save somewhere in the order of 10 - 100 times as many people as banning assault weapons etc.
Last edited:
Gator
U of B and B Alumnus
If the Crime Rate in the US drops because of what?
I believe it has already been shown statistically in the past that when Gun Control is implemented in the United States that the Crime Rate goes up, not down, as criminals know that the people are not allowed to legally own or legally carry Firearms.