I don't know. All I know is that illegal guns starts as legal guns.
Printable View
I don't know. All I know is that illegal guns starts as legal guns.
same can be said for fruit i bring over seas.
Couldn't find any resent resultsQuote:
Originally Posted by silverx2
But it would seem alot of guns used in gun crime are illegal
According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -
* a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
* a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
* family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%
Source
hey magnus explain how this articals towns compared to there guns laws is working
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=55288
im having trouble understanding how a town that mandates that every head of house owns and maintains a gun is able to be murder free for 25 years, while a town that ban guns for everyone but police is having a crime rate that is growing. how does that work?
I don't think such "sunshine stories" is representable as an "overall view".
I'm pasting what Wikipedia write about the debate, not to argue for my point of view, but to show that there are researching pointing both ways.
As I've said before, I don't see that any of us are affecting the others point of view, and I will therefore not be active in this debate anymore. I have programming to do, and the lounge takes way to much time;) But it's been an interesting debate.
Quote:
Relationships between crime, violence, and gun ownership
There is an open debate regarding the relationship between gun control, and violence and other crimes. The numbers of lives saved or lost by gun ownership is debated by criminologists. Research difficulties include the difficulty of accounting accurately for confrontations in which no shots are fired, and jurisdictional differences in the definition of "crime".
Some writers, such as John Lott, author of More Guns, Less Crime, say they have discovered a positive correlation between gun control legislation and crimes in which criminals victimize law-abiding citizens. Lott asserts that criminals ignore gun control laws and are effectively deterred only by armed intended victims just as higher penalties deter crime. His work involved comparison and analysis from data collected from all the counties in the United States.[29] Lott's study has been criticized for not adequately controlling for other factors, including other state laws also enacted, such as Florida's laws requiring background checks and waiting period for handgun buyers.[30] with similar findings by Jens Ludwig.[31] Since concealed-carry permits are only given to adults, Philip J. Cook suggests that analysis should focus on the relationship with adult and not juvenile gun incident rates.[32] He finds a small, positive effect of concealed-carry laws on adult homicide rates, but states the effect is not statistically significant.[32] The National Academy of Science has found no evidence that shows right-to-carry laws have an impact, either way, on rates of violent crime.[33] NAS suggests that new analytical approaches and datasets at the county or local level are needed to evaluate adequately the impact of right-to-carry laws.[34]
Another researcher, Dr. Gary Kleck, a criminologist at Florida State University, estimated that approximately 2.5 million people used their gun in self-defense or to prevent crime each year, often by merely displaying a weapon. The incidents that Kleck studied generally did not involve the firing of the gun and he estimates that as many as 1.9 million of those instances involved a handgun.[35] Kleck's research has been challenged by scholars such as David Hemenway who argue that these estimates of crimes prevented by gun ownership are too high.
The National Rifle Association regularly reprints locally-published stories of ordinary citizens whose lives were saved by their guns.
A study supported by the National Rifle Association found that homicide rates as a whole, especially homicides as a result of firearms use, are not always significantly lower in many other developed countries. This is apparent in the UK and Japan, which have very strict gun control, while Israel, Canada, and Switzerland at the same time have low homicide rates and high rates of gun distribution. Although Dr Kleck has stated, "...cross-national comparisons do not provide a sound basis for assessing the impact of gun ownership levels on crime rates." [36]
In a New England Journal of Medicine article Kellermann, et. al. found that people who keep a gun at home increase their risk of homicide.[37] Florida State University professor Gary Kleck disagrees with the journal authors' interpretation of the evidence and he argues that there is no evidence that the guns involved in the home homicides studied by Kellermann, et. al. were kept in the victim's home.[35] Similarly, Dave Kopel, writing in the National Review criticized Kellermann's study.[38] Kellermann responded to similar criticisms of the data behind his study in a letter to the New England Journal of Medicine[39] Finally, another argument cited by academics researching gun violence points to the positive correlation between guns in the home and an already violent neighborhood. These points assert that Professor Kleck's causal story is in fact backwards and that violent neighborhoods cause homeowners to purchase guns and it is the neighborhood that determines the probability of homicide, not the presence of a gun.
In his book Private Guns, Public Health, David Hemenway makes the argument in favor of gun control and he provides evidence for the more guns, more gun violence and suicide hypothesis. Rather than compare America to countries with radically different cultures and historical experiences, he focuses on Canada, New Zealand and Australia and concludes that the case for gun control is a strong one based on the relationship he finds between lower crime rates and gun control.[40] Other information from countries such as South Africa, Russia, and several other countries which forbid almost all individual firearms and have low rates of gun ownership, have much higher murder rates than the US, usually committed with simple knives, explosives, or improvised blunt-force weapons.[41]
Firearms are also the most common method of suicide, accounting for 53.7% of all suicides committed in the United States in 2003[42] Japan's suicide rate is much higher, despite the strict gun control there.[43]
So can I ask you, how do you want conversations to proceed: That by quoting someone you are directing comments to that person, or that quoting someone does not neccesarily exclude that post being directed at others?Quote:
Originally Posted by gerbick
'Cos at the moment you're having it both ways. One way for the above post, another for the one back a few pages with the misunderstanding of who my comment was directed at.
The above post was directed at one Mod in particular, and at his recent posts directed at me specifically. That IS very obvious. Just as obvious as those times when you respond in a similar manner as I am now to others who have taken a post from you the wrong way. And that has happened often.
And your name came up in that reply in a way that I would certainly not regard as negative, in fact probably positive in what I gave credit to you for. If you don't regard it as positive, then please clarify your issue with how I referred to you. And if you would not like me to mention your name when addressing others even in praise then please clarify that. According to the Jupiter rules it's about referring to someone negatively that is against the rules, so pardon me if I'm just a little confused as to what is requested of me here.
-----
What am I being accused of? Well, according to EVPohovich:
"As I have stated before, follow the rules..."
"Get with the program or the program will get along without you. This is the last warning, from here on out my action will be swift."
Now, I am not aware if it is someone continuing to pursue me for whatever reason after I have removed your name from my footer (which I did immediately as requested) or if there is something else that I am not aware of. Hence my question. Fairly reasonable I would think. Don't really now what rules to follow if I'm not aware of what rules I am - apparantly - still breaking.
-----
At the moment, apart from your name in my footer which I removed immediately upon request pages ago, who's the one being harassed here? As far as I'm aware, these things are now in the past, but are still being brought up. Oh, I'm not whining about it, actually don't care that much (this has been quite humorous actually from the little devil inside me point of view), but am trying to point out some facts here... old man.Quote:
And here's my official request: Please stop it. I find it nigh-harassment. And by definition, harassment is unwanted attention. Please refrain from using my name in a manner that is not befitting of what I've stated.
-----
This began as an overreaction from a mod (not you) to a person's legitimate though differing point of view, then got out of hand and most likely contributed to the overreaction of others (including myself), and the petty and pointless comments of one or two more. Pure and simple. People don't like my views, I care probably as little as those who hold views I don't like. But when it's a mod (sorry, "super" mod - cue Superman music) that's the one who resorts to abuse and name calling due merely to differing views, then excuse me for being a little hesitant to bother apologising for associated and what I regard as far less serious misunderstandings that occur at the same time.
And when another Mod (this time I am referring to you) merely wants to spend his time pursuing an apology over a very obvious misunderstanding rather than also address something that was very deliberate then you might also excuse me for perhaps being a little stubborn on the matter and viewing it as a tad hypocritical. You're still pursuing me for an apology over what I have already stated was a misunderstanding of who part of my post was directed to, and yet say nothing over a Mod who has directed very deliberate offensive comments at a member. And I don't really care that it was me. In this issue I would be making the same point if it had been directed at any other member.
If nothing else, answer me one question from this post: What would you have requested of a member that directed comments at you of the kind EVPohovich has directed at me?
So go on, let me see you being balanced in what you are asking or requesting of me with regards to others, and you will probably find a much more ameniable person coming back at you. We are both very stubborn people (obviously - I once took a $50 parking ticket to court, even though it was going to cost me around $500 in lost work time, because I believed it was wrongly issued. Charges were thrown out of court thankfully.), but I don't think I am asking for too much in this instance.
Seems quite logical to me and others in this thread, including those who support the current gun laws. Stats have been - and will always be - used by both sides of the argument. And both have used them in basically the same way.Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnusVS
Some folk can discuss an issue. Some folk need to attack the person. Nothing new for the CL.
Oh, and before the obvious reply: Yes, I did react and do the same thing in response, which in the end makes me no better than anyone else that did so. But let's see if anyone else will put their hand up and admit what they did in the first place. I doubt it. And as I said, nothing new.
Oh, and merely because you've bothered to add one more stupid post directed at me silverx2, I'll try to give you a clue with regards to your petty accusation that I don't care about 30 innocents killed in a bloodbath merely - it appears - because I didn't know them personally: If that's the nature of me then why would it be, please enlighten me oh wise one, that I have sold everything at home (wasn't much!), given up my career, and moved to Kenya to help a community of - guess what? - people I don't personally know? Money? Fame? Glory? Yep, plenty of that hereabouts! :rolleyes:
Anyway, I'll take some of wise old Marcus' advice and do what I should have done ages ago, and "not be active in this debate anymore".
please davo enlighten me when did I say you didnt care about those 30 people.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOriginalFlashDavo
I dont think the coffee lounge is the right place for a person like you. Might i suggest some other sort of forum, like an "Lets argue, for the sake of arguing" forum, or a last word competition forum.
as for not being active in this debate, you said that like 2 pages into it, and you kept coming back to get the last word. i no doubt will see you in here again to say something in a big long post that really only required a 2 sentence reply.
Cowboys had guns. America had cowboys. It's part of the heritage.
dp
You also "had" civil war, slavery, compulsory draft and alcohol prohibition.
Past tense being fortunate in all cases.
I presume the 'You' in your post relates to Americans, rather than me personally (not being an American).Quote:
Originally Posted by lesli_felix
The US had slavery, sure....the British/French/Spanish/Dutch had a lucrative business going shipping and selling slaves to America and other locations.
Slavery was and is an international issue with many culpable players, not just the end users.
...and many countries still have compulsory military service for all citizens, so it is a little fairer than any lottery system randomly picking punters, for sure, but other than that, no different.
david
do you see how your ideas for why crime rates are different in other countries that have high gun ownership contradict your apparent basis for guns causing crime?Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnusVS
if you think that health care, ethnic groups (???), etc. may affect crime rates more than gun ownership, what basis to you have in suggesting that the US crime rate has anything to do with guns? by your own observations, it could be that the US really just has a mental health care problem and guns are irregardless.
im not sure why you keep asking for people to explain the high US rate. the implication of that question is a common logical fallacy.
Yes, but what a dangerous combination...mental health problems and relatively easy access to high-powered automatic weapons (particularly in Virginia, which reportedly has the most lax gun controls of all of the states).Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
david
living in Virginia, i can assure you, legally you do NOT have easy access to high-powered automatic weapons. No where in the u.s. do you have easy legal access to automatic weapons.Quote:
Originally Posted by david petley
you do have easy access to high-powered semi-automatic weapons though. The vt massacre was done with a .22 and a 9mm.. neither of which i would really call high-power.
hold on now.. evp has issued a declaration that a posters image be in their avatar.. and i see a cowboy in your avatar.. so you must be american. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by david petley
It just seems like overkill to me to allow anyone apart from police or military access to automatic or semi-automatic weapons.
Hunters don't need them (they should practice being better shots), and I cannot see why the common man would need them...it seems like a case of 'bigger badder guns = bigger dick' in some peoples minds.
david
LOL, screw that...it's an 'avatar' :)Quote:
Originally Posted by TallGuyLittleCar
...so it is just a representation of different parts of my persona, beliefs, interests or social status.Quote:
Avatars on Internet forums serve the purpose of representing users and their actions, personalizing their contributions to the forum, and may represent different parts of their persona, beliefs, interests or social status in the forum.
david
I think that is the case quite often.Quote:
Originally Posted by david petley
But if the police need a semi-automatic to fight crime, and you argue 2nd amendment for self protection.. won't the citizens need semi-automatics as well since they are more often on the front line of fighting crime.
Lol, fooled me as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by david petley
But then I'm not dangermouse, so perhaps I should have known....
My point was that heritage isn't great justification for anything, that is all.
LOL :DQuote:
Originally Posted by lesli_felix
I understand, and presume you don't know my typing well enough to read the underlying irony and sarcasm present sometimes in my posts.Quote:
My point was that heritage isn't great justification for anything, that is all.
I do not think many cowboys actually had hand guns, or shot them off very much if they did...bullets were expensive back in the mid 1800's...I am sure everyone would be surprised, after being fed cowboy movies all their life, at how few death from guns actually occurred in the cowboy era.
(I am curious enough to go searching now to find out, let you know what I turn up.)
david