This message board is only an archive. Click here to go to the current message board.

Page 24 of 26 FirstFirst ... 142223242526 LastLast
Results 231 to 240 of 256

Thread: Change Brady to a charity, or give it away for free.

  1. #231
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    60

    Default Re: Change Brady to a charity, or give it away for free.

    Quote Originally Posted by atomicinchworm View Post
    Because a bunch of people who have known each other for years in internet land joke around in the middle of a frank discussion, EVERYTHING they said is being dismissed?

    That is ridiculous.
    If that is ALL that persons arguments are based off of, ie, calling the other side names, putting up pictures to draw an emotional response, saying 'we need to do something', etc etc...then it is not a rationed and reasonable argument.


    If one is really worried about the chance of someone breaking into their house, do you know what things are more effective than having a gun (which can be and are stolen if someone breaks in when you are not home)? Have a big dog and advertise it (put beware of dog signs up in noticeable locations), and have an alarm system, keep foliage trimmed back and get to know your neighbors. Unless it is a personal vendetta, most thieves strike easy targets. Thieves do not know you have a gun, but they do know you've got a big black dog and a ADT sticker on your windows, which would be a lot of bother.
    I will say those are all good things to do. But none of those things really provide 'defense' against an armed intruder. They are deterrents. And deterrents are beneficial certainly. But they are not 'defense'.

    Remember, self defense is a RIGHT in this country. Armed Self-defense is an INDIVIDUAL right. With all of the protections as any other RIGHT in this country.

    Also, your pig problem posit? If you are actively hunting wild boar (and I know that they are incredibly dangerous animals as well as a nuisance) which is a very specialized instance, I don't see why, with a "I'm hunting boar" permit (that could be free and just requires paperwork), you could not get a larger ammo clip for whatever gun you use. You have shown a NEED for that clip. The average joe schmoe doesn't have that need. I still feel that 10 rounds is typically sufficient, but I could concede a need in that instance.

    No one here is advocating completely eliminating guns. The fact that you can't even see why it might be a good thing to regulate them, like everything else is regulated, is kind crazy.
    That is good, that you have come to realize there maybe some 'need' for these guns. At least I made some small impact on your views. I guess my time here has not been a complete waste.

    Now realize something. It has nothing to do with NEED. It is a RIGHT.

    Remember, 2A is just as much of a right as 1A for an individual.

    So tell me. What is the NEED of an author to write fictional horror stories? I will be waiting.....

  2. #232
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    3,847

    Default Re: Change Brady to a charity, or give it away for free.

    Quote Originally Posted by jay1799 View Post
    No no no. You are forgetting a very important thing here. All of that...ALL, only applies to operating a motor vehicle on a public road. Not purchasing or owning a car. I would argue that my cat could buy a car, as a person is not required to have drivers license or insurance to purchase a car. And I could own a fleet of vehicles, pull the catalytic converters out of them, the seatbelts, the air bags....all of it, and drive around in that motor vehicle without a license or insurance...on private property. And there aint anything the government can do to me. Nothing. It is my private property on my private property.
    Your right to do whatever you want with your cars on your private property is not just because it's your private property. It's because as long as they stay on your property, they are not a public menace. Apples to oranges.

    Big difference between ownership and operating.
    Not when it comes to a small item you can easily conceal on your person, there's not.
    It does not matter. You cant go after me in court for 'contemplating' slandering you. I have to actually slander you. That is the way it works.
    I'm not talking about whether contemplation of killing someone is a crime. It's not. The point is that the two should be treated differently because the consequences of each crime is very different. That is why we don't execute people for jaywalking.
    I consider the right of self-defense one of the most important rights there is. No one has a right to harm me. Thus, I have an inalienable right to defend myself. Self defense is basically...the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
    You have a right to defend yourself. You do not have a right to defend yourself with no limits.

    I could build a firearm that slung a piece of lead downrange in an hour in my garage. The gunpowder may take longer to make, but it is all basic principles of chemistry. Heck, it is really really ancient technology. I could also take up 3 pages posting pictures of operational firearms made in peoples garages all over this world(now, and going back hundreds of years).
    I'm sure some people can do it. The point is production stream. Anybody can grow weed. Anybody can make bathtub gin. All it takes is a little knowledge, some cheap setup, and a few tools to produce enough product to keep you rolling in the dough in the event of a prohibition. You could say the same of guns, but if individual people were making certain types of guns (and mind you, I'm not talking about your garden variety, which would still be available commercially), those guns would become prohibitively expensive, as any handcrafted item does.

    The countries you are probably talking about have always had a lower homicide rate than us. For the past 100 years. When they had full firearm ownership until they have almost a complete ban on firearm ownership. They dont have our unique history, our cultural problems, our large gang problems, etc etc.
    Example: Australia. Where until the late 19th century, British criminals were actually exported.

  3. #233
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Clearwater, FL
    Posts
    2,276

    Default Re: Change Brady to a charity, or give it away for free.

    Quote Originally Posted by jay1799 View Post
    Dont be silly...BLAH BLAH BLAH...you're dumb and I am smart...BLAH BLAH BLAH...{sic}...BLAH BLAH BLAH...these words are so worthwhile because I, the designated expert on these matters, say so...BLAH BLAH BLAH

  4. #234
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    bye
    Posts
    967

    Default Re: Change Brady to a charity, or give it away for free.

    Quote Originally Posted by jay1799 View Post
    12 year old girl, home alone defends herself against intruder with moms 40 caliber glock.
    One shot fired, nobody killed. Cite.


    How about the story of Melinda Herman, who defended herself and her two twin 9 year olds against an intruder with a gun? While her husband was on the phone with the police.
    http://abcnews.go.com/US/georgia-mom...ry?id=18164812
    Shots fired: 5. Nobody killed.


    How about the story of this 18 year old mom, who defended herself AND her 3 month old child with a gun? While she was on the phone with police.
    http://newsok.com/sarah-mckinley-rec...rticle/3642339
    Shots fired: 1. Intruder dead.


    The phoenix 14 yr old that defended himself and the lives of his 3 younger siblings with his dads gun?
    http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/...der/55782484/1
    Shots fired: 1. Nobody killed.


    OR. How about the texas 15 year old, that defended his life and that of his younger sister with... *GASP* an 'assault weapon'.
    http://www.khou.com/news/crime/Burgl...-97430719.html

    I wonder how big the 15yr olds magazine was. /rollseyes.
    Shots fired: 3. Nobody killed.



    So you need a 20- or 30-round mag? Why, exactly?

  5. #235
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    281

    Default Re: Change Brady to a charity, or give it away for free.

    Quote Originally Posted by jay1799 View Post
    If that is ALL that persons arguments are based off of, ie, calling the other side names, putting up pictures to draw an emotional response, saying 'we need to do something', etc etc...then it is not a rationed and reasonable argument.



    I will say those are all good things to do. But none of those things really provide 'defense' against an armed intruder. They are deterrents. And deterrents are beneficial certainly. But they are not 'defense'.

    Remember, self defense is a RIGHT in this country. Armed Self-defense is an INDIVIDUAL right. With all of the protections as any other RIGHT in this country.


    That is good, that you have come to realize there maybe some 'need' for these guns. At least I made some small impact on your views. I guess my time here has not been a complete waste.

    Now realize something. It has nothing to do with NEED. It is a RIGHT.

    Remember, 2A is just as much of a right as 1A for an individual.

    So tell me. What is the NEED of an author to write fictional horror stories? I will be waiting.....
    The point is, that typically if you take proper precautions, you rarely need a defense. This country is not a lawless land; most people who are murdered are murdered by someone they know, not unnamed armed assailants.

    I am not arguing that people do not have the right to defend themselves with a gun. I am arguing that people do not need a 30 round magazine for personal defense. Popping off 30 rounds in a neighborhood to 'defend' yourself is reckless and unnecessary.

    I have always felt that there would be extenuating circumstances with any ban or restrictions. These would require paperwork and maybe serial numbered magazines or weapons. There is an argument that clip are quick to change anyway so it doesn't matter, if this is the case than no one NEEDS large magazines.

    Of course no one needs horror stories, just like no one needs art. I find this argument disingenuous. A story or a painting will never have the potential to directly harm another human being. The right of self expression is a right, but it has restrictions. No one is arguing that people cannot defend themselves. They are asking for reasonable restrictions on certain guns or accessories that are unnecessary in personal defense.

  6. #236
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    60

    Default Re: Change Brady to a charity, or give it away for free.

    Quote Originally Posted by Todash View Post
    Example: Australia. Where until the late 19th century, British criminals were actually exported.
    That is pretty low. You do realize that the proportion of 'criminals' ie, those that were forced to immigrate to Australia was a very small fraction of the amount of people that legally immigrated to Australia. And that many of the 'crimes' people were 'exported' because, were relatively minor and petty.

    Not to mention that this same practice was carried out in the North American Colonies until The American Revolution ended the practice.

    Come on.

    But.

    In regards to Australia. As stated, their homicide rate was ALWAYS lower than ours. And historically, has not moved much.

    In 1915 in Australia, the homicide rate was 1.8 per 100,000 population. In 1998 it was 1.6 per 100,000. During the intervening years it hit a low of 0.8 in 1941 and a high of 2.4 in 1988.
    The annual homicide rates in Australia from 1915 to 1998 are displayed in graph C8.10 below. There was a long-term decline during the first half of the twentieth century, with the homicide rate being the lowest during the period of World War II (1939-1945). The rate then increased substantially to a plateau of about 1.5 per 100,000 population in the 1950s and 1960s. An upward trend occurred during the 1970s, reaching the level of around 2.0 per 100,000 population at the end of that decade. Since then, the rate has remained relatively stable, except for two temporary fluctuations in the 1980s. One of those temporary fluctuations resulted in the highest homicide rate recorded in Australia (rate of 2.4 per 100,000 population in 1988). This is more than double the rate observed in 1950.
    http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/p...australia.html

    And they have been tinkering with 'gun control' since the communist revolutions of the 1920's. And guess what. Their homicide rate has remained basically the same. it has gone up a little and gone down a little over all that time. But overall...basically has remained steady.

    So as I said. Australia has always had a lower homicide rate than ours. ALWAYS! Comparing them to us is meaningless.

  7. #237
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    2,210

    Default Re: Change Brady to a charity, or give it away for free.

    Quote Originally Posted by jay1799 View Post
    What is the NEED of an author to write fictional horror stories? I will be waiting.....
    Point taken about Mr. King's non-need to write but right to do so. I'll still remind you that he took responsibilty for his fictional horror story being an "accelerant to gun violence" by yanking it from further publication.

    Few are the gun owners who are taking responsibility for their guns as accelerants to gun violence by either surrendering them to law enforcement officials or keeping them completely out of reach from others. If it's true that most people who are killed by guns do so at the hands of someone they know (crazy or not), then I don't see gun owners making a concerted effort to prevent this from happening. There are still far too many "accidents" and tragedies like Sandy Hook for me to be convinced that most gun owners *are* responsible.

  8. #238
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    14,080

    Default Re: Change Brady to a charity, or give it away for free.

    Had you bothered to read Steve's essay you would have read this:

    Here’s a dope for you: Martin Bryant, of Port Arthur, in Tasmania. On April 28, 1996, he went on a spree with an AR-15 he purchased through a newspaper ad — easy-peasy. This happy ******* mowed down over a dozen in a crowded café, moved on to a gift shop where he killed some more, then moseyed to a parking garage where he killed yet more. The final tally was thirty-five dead and twenty-three wounded. He called his spree “lots of fun,” and in court laughed wildly when the judge read out the charges and intoned the names of the dead. He is now serving 1,035 years in Ridson Prison, and that should probably be enough. For him, at least. Maybe still not quite enough for the grieving relatives of the dead and the maimed.
    For Australia, though, it was enough. The government either banned or restricted automatic weapons (as well as pump shotguns of the sort Eric Harris used at Columbine). As for those autos already out there, the government authorized a huge buyback that eventually netted 600,000 weapons. It amounted to about twenty percent of the country’s private firepower. Since the Bryant killings and the resulting tough gun laws, homicides by firearm have declined almost 60 percent in Australia. The guns-for-everyone advocates hate that statistic, and dispute it, but as Bill Clinton likes to say, it’s not opinion. It’s arithmetic, honey.


  9. #239
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    60

    Default Re: Change Brady to a charity, or give it away for free.

    Continued from my previous post.

    Now, Australia went ballistic and basically went full on gun grabber in 1998, with confiscations and bans on almost all modern firearms.

    What did that do?

    De Leo, Dwyer, Firman & Neulinger,[32] studied suicide methods in men from 1979 to 1998 and found a rise in hanging suicides that started slightly before the fall in gun suicides. As hanging suicides rose at about the same rate as gun suicides fell, it is possible that there was some substitution of suicide methods. It has been noted that drawing strong conclusions about possible impacts of gun laws on suicides is challenging, because a number of suicide prevention programs were implemented from the mid-1990s onwards, and non-firearm suicides also began falling.

    In 2005 the head of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn, noted that the level of legal gun ownership in New South Wales increased in recent years, and that the 1996 legislation had had little to no effect on violence. Professor Simon Chapman, former co-convenor of the Coalition for Gun Control, complained that his words "will henceforth be cited by every gun-lusting lobby group throughout the world in their perverse efforts to stall reforms that could save thousands of lives". Weatherburn responded, "The fact is that the introduction of those laws did not result in any acceleration of the downward trend in gun homicide. They may have reduced the risk of mass shootings but we cannot be sure because no one has done the rigorous statistical work required to verify this possibility. It is always unpleasant to acknowledge facts that are inconsistent with your own point of view. But I thought that was what distinguished science from popular prejudice."

    In 2006, the lack of a measurable effect from the 1996 firearms legislation was reported in the British Journal of Criminology. Using ARIMA analysis, Dr Jeanine Baker (a former state president of the SSAA(SA)) and Dr Samara McPhedran (Women in Shooting and Hunting) found no evidence for an impact of the laws on homicide.[37]

    Subsequently, a study by McPhedran and Baker compared the incidence of mass shootings in Australian and New Zealand. Data were standardised to a rate per 100,000 people, to control for differences in population size between the countries and mass shootings before and after 1996/1997 were compared between countries. That study found that in the period 1980–1996, both countries experienced mass shootings. The rate did not differ significantly between countries. However since 1996/1997, neither country has experienced a mass shooting event despite the continued availability of semi-automatic longarms in New Zealand. The authors conclude that “the hypothesis that Australia’s prohibition of certain types of firearms explains the absence of mass shootings in that country since 1996 does not appear to be supported… if civilian access to certain types of firearms explained the occurrence of mass shootings in Australia (and conversely, if prohibiting such firearms explains the absence of mass shootings), then New Zealand (a country that still allows the ownership of such firearms) would have continued to experience mass shooting events.”[41]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia

    TL;DR- Nothing.

    Even your 'vaulted' Australia proves that 'gun control' does not work. It does not lower homicide rates, nor even mass shootings.

    You want.....to violate the civil rights of millions of Americans....for something that has been proven to have no marketable impact on the homicide rate, the suicide rate or even mass shooting. Gun grabbers are NOT 'violence solvers'.

    So...there it is folks. Do the people here at SK.com believe in science or not? If you believe in science, there is no proof that gun control lowers homicides. None.

  10. #240
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    60

    Default Re: Change Brady to a charity, or give it away for free.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lily Sawyer View Post
    Point taken about Mr. King's non-need to write but right to do so. I'll still remind you that he took responsibilty for his fictional horror story being an "accelerant to gun violence" by yanking it from further publication.

    Few are the gun owners who are taking responsibility for their guns as accelerants to gun violence by either surrendering them to law enforcement officials or keeping them completely out of reach from others. If it's true that most people who are killed by guns do so at the hands of someone they know (crazy or not), then I don't see gun owners making a concerted effort to prevent this from happening. There are still far too many "accidents" and tragedies like Sandy Hook for me to be convinced that most gun owners *are* responsible.

    And I have no problem with him taking personal responsibility. But the government did not say...your works are banned, because there is no need for them. If the government had done such a thing(I know there was some talk...but politicans like to here themselves talk) I think everyone on this forum would have exploded at the gross over reach of the government in restricting Mr. King's rights. And I would have been right behind him and all of you as well.

    Rights are Rights. They are not 'Needs'.

    One could say the only 'Needs' anyone has in the world is food, shelter, and clothing. Anything beyond that is not a 'need'.

    And I have no problem with the government even encouraging people to take responsibility for their firearms.

    Encouraging responsibility does not need to be 'new laws' however. PSA's is one approach.

    How about this. Would you be in favor of the government issuing gun locks to gun owners with safety instructions aiding parents on how to keep firearms away from children? I think that is a fair approach.

    Guess what. There was a program that did just this. But Obama defunded it.

    Here’s another one: Resume federal funding of firearm safety. During the George W. Bush administration, Congress appropriated more than $90 million that was channeled by the Justice Department to Project ChildSafe. That program has distributed 35 million cable-style gun locks with the assistance, in many cases, of local police departments. Each lock comes with a safety brochure and other educational material meant to help parents keep firearms out of the hands of children (or thieves). Under the Obama administration, the Justice Department ceased funding the program, much to the consternation of local cops.


    “Thousands of law enforcement departments across the country—ours included—use Project ChildSafe to effectively raise awareness among gun owners to safely store firearms and ammunition in their homes,” Robert Desrosiers, chief of police in Paxton, Mass., wrote to Attorney General Eric Holder last year. “This helps prevent unauthorized persons, particularly children, from finding an unsecured and possibly loaded firearm in the house. A properly stored firearm can help prevent tragic accidents and also, potentially reduce cases for the criminal justice system.”


    Desrosiers, like scores of his counterparts from across the country, has pleaded with the Obama administration to revive federal funding for the gun-lock initiative. “It is a program that can literally save lives,” the Massachusetts police chief added.


    Why would a president who favors tougher gun-safety measures cut off this cop-endorsed undertaking? I strongly suspect that the reason is that Project ChildSafe has been—and still is—administered by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a gun-industry trade group friendly with the NRA. Obviously, the Obama administration has its differences with the gun industry and the lobby representing gun owners. This should not, however, prevent the White House from keeping guns out of kids’ hands.
    http://www.businessweek.com/articles...afety-training

Page 24 of 26 FirstFirst ... 142223242526 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Uncut version? (Brady's body torn apart)
    By Dogbyte420 in forum Silver Bullet
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: December 11th, 2012, 11:15 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •