PsychoSword
Moderator
This ain't trolling, this is a fishing expedition.
ANYTHING can be a weapon????
- Thread starter para.2
- Start date
fyrestarter
New member
That's a good point, Dave, but the statistics were for armed robbery, not bank robbery, specifically. The bank robbery stats appear seperately.
The statistics are similar for aggravated assaults and murder as well. Overall, there are more firearm related violent crimes in shall-issue states than in states with stricter gun control laws. That's not an endorsment or condemnation, just a fact.
Firearm related crime stats
fyrestarter,
In the free world it takes one or two hours and one test to operate a motor vehicle (which is apparently as [in]effective as any other system in screening out idiots,) and half your lunch break to buy as many and whatever kind of handguns or rifles you want.
Believe it or not, there are plenty of us posting in this thread who can remember when it didn't take that long. Do you think I was more likely to leave my front door unlocked in '76 or '96?
All your life, eh? Get out and look around a bit; don't be so provincial. Remember the old Roman description of a Barbarian? 'One who confuses the customs of his tribe with the laws of the universe,' or words to that effect.
Gosh, you're right! Maybe we should put a fence around the place.
What's the total rate of armed robberies? What percentage of armed robberies in the NE are commited with a bat or a machete or are simple strongarm robberies?
What percentage of armed robberies are thwarted by a legally owned firearm in the NE vis a vis other regions?
Lies, damned lies, and statistics...
In the free world it takes one or two hours and one test to operate a motor vehicle (which is apparently as [in]effective as any other system in screening out idiots,) and half your lunch break to buy as many and whatever kind of handguns or rifles you want.
Believe it or not, there are plenty of us posting in this thread who can remember when it didn't take that long. Do you think I was more likely to leave my front door unlocked in '76 or '96?
All your life, eh? Get out and look around a bit; don't be so provincial. Remember the old Roman description of a Barbarian? 'One who confuses the customs of his tribe with the laws of the universe,' or words to that effect.
Gosh, you're right! Maybe we should put a fence around the place.
What's the total rate of armed robberies? What percentage of armed robberies in the NE are commited with a bat or a machete or are simple strongarm robberies?
What percentage of armed robberies are thwarted by a legally owned firearm in the NE vis a vis other regions?
Lies, damned lies, and statistics...
Marko Kloos
Inactive
It misses the point, anyway. Even if 99.99% of all felonies were committed with firearms, it does not confer the right or the moral authority to anyone to prohibit me from owning a gun.
Fyrestarter is confusing rights and privilege.
Everyone has the right to drive a car - but you must be licensed to have the privilege to drive on our publically owned roads. Drive them on private land all you want, with impunity.
Fyrestarter also believes that a commitee of men no smarter than any of us can arrive at guidelines for seperating "good" citizens from "bad", and then making laws that license basic rights to the ones that match up with the commitee's narrow imagination.
Hey, I've got a great idea! Let's use credit ratings as a measure of "responsibility". Statisticallly, less than half of you have a strong credit rating, and would therefore not be allowed firearms. You couldn't be trusted with a credit card, so why a gun?
Fyrestarter's thinking, so common these days, is that of the accidental bigot that believes that the only people who should be full citizens are those he understands and approves of. This couldn't be further from the ideal of liberty that the country was built around and frankly gives me the woolies.
Those pot smoking, sword carrying libertarians you look down your nose at have more in common with men like Benjamin Franklin then you legislators of morality ever will. We became a great nation by allowing our citizens to make their own way. The path you seek will bring us low, like the citizens of the former British Empire well know.
Such stupid but well-meaning curtailment of liberty is only different from the governance of Iran in degree, not intent.
Everyone has the right to drive a car - but you must be licensed to have the privilege to drive on our publically owned roads. Drive them on private land all you want, with impunity.
Fyrestarter also believes that a commitee of men no smarter than any of us can arrive at guidelines for seperating "good" citizens from "bad", and then making laws that license basic rights to the ones that match up with the commitee's narrow imagination.
Hey, I've got a great idea! Let's use credit ratings as a measure of "responsibility". Statisticallly, less than half of you have a strong credit rating, and would therefore not be allowed firearms. You couldn't be trusted with a credit card, so why a gun?
Fyrestarter's thinking, so common these days, is that of the accidental bigot that believes that the only people who should be full citizens are those he understands and approves of. This couldn't be further from the ideal of liberty that the country was built around and frankly gives me the woolies.
Those pot smoking, sword carrying libertarians you look down your nose at have more in common with men like Benjamin Franklin then you legislators of morality ever will. We became a great nation by allowing our citizens to make their own way. The path you seek will bring us low, like the citizens of the former British Empire well know.
Such stupid but well-meaning curtailment of liberty is only different from the governance of Iran in degree, not intent.
I have a friend that on 90 degree days will wear his trenchcoat. As hard as I try, he won't leave home without it. I would hope that police would not stop us every time he has the coat on, because thats not what a normal person would do. What happens whenpolice can stop anyone because they are not acting like a normal person should? And who exactly determines what a normal person does and does not do? If I were to drive downtown LA with a deer strapped to a truck, people would think that is not normal. Around here, the only looks I would get would be to see how big it was.
Pardon me, but your ignorance is spewing to everyone. First of all, if an 18-year old is walking into a gun stor and buying a HANDGUN, then the gun store is not legit.
Secondly, the minimum age for CCW in Arkansas is 21. So if (s)he were found with a gun, I hope they would be arrested.
Third, while I have never been to the Bronx, I would venture a guess that that price is a little high. And means nothing if it were stolen in the first place.
Fourth, how many of these crimes were comitted without a firearm? Saying that a crime was comitted more with a firearm where they were more readily available is like saying that there are more speeding tickets given out where people drive more.
And lastly, what are the actual hard numbers of crimes comited? If in the midwest, 451 out of 1000 robberies were comitted with a firearm, and in the Northeast, 3460 out of 10000 robberies were comitted with a firearm, how is this showing better control?
That's a "duh," right there.
The statistics cited are comparing the rate of crime-with-guns, and not comparing the rates of crimes-period.
At most, those statistics prove that more gun availability equals more gun usage, hardly an earth shattering revelation.
If State A has a lot of guns and a high crime-with-gun rate, and State B has fewer guns and therefore a lower crime-with-gun rate, that shows that guns get used for crime when guns are available. This does not prove that State B is safer than State A, nor even that it is as safe as State A.
For that, you would need to compare the overall crime statistics.
As for the specific assertion that gangs are armed and active in every small town: Where are gangs more active and more dangerous -- small towns with almost no gun control, or big cities with intrusive gun control laws? Are gangs more likely to commit violent mayhem in NYC or in Podunk Junction, TN?
Fantasy land, indeed.
Another "duh," there.
You compared apples and pomegranates.
To purchase an automobile requires no government hoops whatsoever. My 14 year old son could go down and buy a car tomorrow, using cash money with no questions asked.
Would that the gun laws were equally accomodating!
pax
98.4% of statistics are made up on the spot. -- anonymous
fyrestarter
New member
Rather than to attempt to argue each poster's reply individually, I'll just say this, and leave it alone:
Having a license for something doesn't curtail our liberty at all. The only people who are prevented from doing something by a license are people who shouldn't be doing it in the first place. If you can't pass a driver's test, you shouldn't be allowed to drive. If you can't prove that your fiancee isn't your first cousin, you shouldn't be allowed to get married. If you can't prove that you are proficient with a firearm, then you shouldn't be allowed to own one. I don't need statistics or moral authority to think this way, only logic.
America was not founded by people who wanted a place where they could do anything they wanted. If that were the case, why would they bother to write the Constitution to begin with? If everything from life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness down to home ownership is an inalienable "god"-given right, then why would they need to jot it down? Everytime I hear about the "freedom and equality of Americans" I think of our third president sitting on his veranda ordering his house slave to put more mint leaves in his iced tea.
As responsible, law-abiding gun owners, we have the duty to make sure that those who aren't so law abiding never touch a weapon. Violating the law is a violation of one's place in society, and thus, their citizenship. Read Thomas Hobbes. A gun license would ensure that only the responsible and capable have access to guns. Would grant the ability to own a firearm to a 14 year old gangbanger from the ghetto? How about someone with poor eyesight who couldn't hit the ground with his hat in three tries? Or someone who looks into the muzzle to figure out why the bullet hasn't come out yet? According to those who stamp their feet and yell "It's our right!", then the answer to all of the above is "yes". That's dangerous, as well as frightening thinking.
With freedom, comes responsibility. Read Camus, Sartre, Gide -- these thinkers all agreed that there is bitterness in freedom, that freedom unchecked leads to the loss of moral absolutes--the ability to judge one's own actions or the actions of others--an eventually can lead to absolute paralysis. In The 120 Days of Sodom, the Marquis De Sade paints a picture of an unfettered society, quite the opposite of Orwell's 1984. In it, the characters, completely free from any constraints of government or morality, suffer as one's man's freedom turns to another's burden.
Personally, I think this thread has reached an end without conclusion. No person will ever convince me that people do not need supervision -- quite the opposite; I think that 70% of the world's population need to be followed around at all time by the other 30%. Conversely, I will not presume to attempt to change the minds of those who feel the way they do. But the flame can only be fanned if there was a spark to begin with...
Having a license for something doesn't curtail our liberty at all. The only people who are prevented from doing something by a license are people who shouldn't be doing it in the first place. If you can't pass a driver's test, you shouldn't be allowed to drive. If you can't prove that your fiancee isn't your first cousin, you shouldn't be allowed to get married. If you can't prove that you are proficient with a firearm, then you shouldn't be allowed to own one. I don't need statistics or moral authority to think this way, only logic.
America was not founded by people who wanted a place where they could do anything they wanted. If that were the case, why would they bother to write the Constitution to begin with? If everything from life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness down to home ownership is an inalienable "god"-given right, then why would they need to jot it down? Everytime I hear about the "freedom and equality of Americans" I think of our third president sitting on his veranda ordering his house slave to put more mint leaves in his iced tea.
As responsible, law-abiding gun owners, we have the duty to make sure that those who aren't so law abiding never touch a weapon. Violating the law is a violation of one's place in society, and thus, their citizenship. Read Thomas Hobbes. A gun license would ensure that only the responsible and capable have access to guns. Would grant the ability to own a firearm to a 14 year old gangbanger from the ghetto? How about someone with poor eyesight who couldn't hit the ground with his hat in three tries? Or someone who looks into the muzzle to figure out why the bullet hasn't come out yet? According to those who stamp their feet and yell "It's our right!", then the answer to all of the above is "yes". That's dangerous, as well as frightening thinking.
With freedom, comes responsibility. Read Camus, Sartre, Gide -- these thinkers all agreed that there is bitterness in freedom, that freedom unchecked leads to the loss of moral absolutes--the ability to judge one's own actions or the actions of others--an eventually can lead to absolute paralysis. In The 120 Days of Sodom, the Marquis De Sade paints a picture of an unfettered society, quite the opposite of Orwell's 1984. In it, the characters, completely free from any constraints of government or morality, suffer as one's man's freedom turns to another's burden.
Personally, I think this thread has reached an end without conclusion. No person will ever convince me that people do not need supervision -- quite the opposite; I think that 70% of the world's population need to be followed around at all time by the other 30%. Conversely, I will not presume to attempt to change the minds of those who feel the way they do. But the flame can only be fanned if there was a spark to begin with...
Fred Hansen
New member
Except, of course, those "people who shouldn't be doing it in the first" commonly known as criminals. People who BY DEFINITION don't bother getting licenses, following rules, obeying laws, etc., ad nauseam, ad infinitum.
But you already knew that.
"Logic" states that this is primae facie NONSENSE. Witness as evidence every frikkin' weapon licensing program here to date.
As was stated above, the definition of "criminal" is one who doesn't obey the laws, such as getting a required license. They do what the hell they want.
I'll expand to hit one of your other statements. The definition of "stupid" is someone who doesn't observe the necessity of doing only well thought-out things, such as not looking down barrels or handing depressed children loaded guns.
YOU CANNOT PREVENT ANY CRIMINAL OR STUPID BEHAVIOUR. It is an impossibility. They are like forces of nature. The only people for whom licensing or "commen sense" are appropriate or efficacious are those who really, in the end, DON"T NEED THEM.
To restrict MY freedoms in a futile attempt to save the 70% (as you put it) from themselves is a waste of time and, yes, an unwarranted intrusion upon me.
Safety is in the end unlegislatable.
[Gurney being rushed in...]
"Jeez, what happened to him?"
"He was at a college party, chugging existentialism and chasing it with shots of Hobbes."
"Jeez! His epistemology's weak and thready; cynicism levels are still good, though."
"You gotta watch these cases; their minds give them authoritarian hallucinations in order to stave off nihilistic shock..."
"What's happening with kids these days?"
[Cut to dishwashing detergent commercial]
"Jeez, what happened to him?"
"He was at a college party, chugging existentialism and chasing it with shots of Hobbes."
"Jeez! His epistemology's weak and thready; cynicism levels are still good, though."
"You gotta watch these cases; their minds give them authoritarian hallucinations in order to stave off nihilistic shock..."
"What's happening with kids these days?"
[Cut to dishwashing detergent commercial]
TheBluesMan
Moderator Emeritus
Your logic should also be telling you that licensing gun owners to keep law-breakers from getting behind the trigger will have the same effect as licensing drivers has had to keep law-breakers from getting behind the wheel.fyrestarter said:
There are two types of people in the world, fyrestarter, those who seek to control others, and those who have no such desire. Your position is quite clear.
fyrestarter said:
Interesting, mayhaps bizarre thread.
One thing to consider, about the machete situation. Likely that the goons using them offensively, are not doing so, because a firearm is unobtainable. Just as probable it's being used as an additional psychological coercion, as many of the people in the immigrant areas, probably have some personal or secondary knowledge of the effects of a machete attack.
Mayhaps no need for a jungle knife in Boston...but the same arguement could be made for the carrying of any pocket knife larger than a penknife. Or even the like of kubatons, as most people will not need theirs for the use intended.
And a appalling extension of the Terry doctrine is being advocated here...clothing in and of itself, is not justification for a search.
Gangs in little towns, obviously depends on where they are located. Also the cultural influence of gang/music/culture.videos is so damn pervasive that there is a sizeable contingent of people copying the outward affectations. Even here on the rez, that culture is evident, to the great discomfiture of the traditionalists and the elders. And in places not used to the real gang thing, often the first idiot who paints the silo with something they saw on a Tupac video, is percieved as a harbinger of a gang problem.
The implication that the process of having babies should be licensed, OK...? Who's going to do the license test on that one?.
And finally, a machete, sword, warclub, bow and arrow, obsidian knife, assigias (sp)...are all items of cultural signifigance, albeit of little use in modern life. But people should not be required to have a license for possession. To do so, extreme evidence that the guv'ment controls all, even group histories...
For example, is it really being advocated that the authorities raid pow-wows, scottish weddings, wicca meetings, rennaisance fairs, and Kwanzaa festivals, looking for permits?
One thing to consider, about the machete situation. Likely that the goons using them offensively, are not doing so, because a firearm is unobtainable. Just as probable it's being used as an additional psychological coercion, as many of the people in the immigrant areas, probably have some personal or secondary knowledge of the effects of a machete attack.
Mayhaps no need for a jungle knife in Boston...but the same arguement could be made for the carrying of any pocket knife larger than a penknife. Or even the like of kubatons, as most people will not need theirs for the use intended.
And a appalling extension of the Terry doctrine is being advocated here...clothing in and of itself, is not justification for a search.
Gangs in little towns, obviously depends on where they are located. Also the cultural influence of gang/music/culture.videos is so damn pervasive that there is a sizeable contingent of people copying the outward affectations. Even here on the rez, that culture is evident, to the great discomfiture of the traditionalists and the elders. And in places not used to the real gang thing, often the first idiot who paints the silo with something they saw on a Tupac video, is percieved as a harbinger of a gang problem.
The implication that the process of having babies should be licensed, OK...? Who's going to do the license test on that one?.
And finally, a machete, sword, warclub, bow and arrow, obsidian knife, assigias (sp)...are all items of cultural signifigance, albeit of little use in modern life. But people should not be required to have a license for possession. To do so, extreme evidence that the guv'ment controls all, even group histories...
For example, is it really being advocated that the authorities raid pow-wows, scottish weddings, wicca meetings, rennaisance fairs, and Kwanzaa festivals, looking for permits?
fyrestarter,
I stand corrected as to the bank robbery/armed robbery distinction.
As far as the statistics that you link to, they are of little use alone. They are merely a snapshot of one period. It is necessary to put them in a timeline to track trends. For example, since the period that report covers, a number of states in the midwest have passed "shall-issue" laws. Michigan did so halfway through that year. Minnesota and Missouri did so in 2003, and Ohio passed their laws just this year. And so many other factors come into play, that it is really anybody's guess as to what the main reason for any upturn or downturn in crime is.
All that aside, my reason for disagreeing with any restrictions on gun ownership for law-abiding citizens is that such restrictions are legally wrong. They presuppose guilt, requiring a person to prove that they are not a criminal. That is a violation of due process; a right guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. My reason for disdaining such restrictions is that I find them morally repugnant. I accept that liberty will guarantee risk because it is axiomatic that without risk there is no reward. That is life on Planet Earth. The alternative is that I ask the government to build a safety cage around me. And do you know what happens then? I get to live in a cage! No thanks.
I stand corrected as to the bank robbery/armed robbery distinction.
As far as the statistics that you link to, they are of little use alone. They are merely a snapshot of one period. It is necessary to put them in a timeline to track trends. For example, since the period that report covers, a number of states in the midwest have passed "shall-issue" laws. Michigan did so halfway through that year. Minnesota and Missouri did so in 2003, and Ohio passed their laws just this year. And so many other factors come into play, that it is really anybody's guess as to what the main reason for any upturn or downturn in crime is.
All that aside, my reason for disagreeing with any restrictions on gun ownership for law-abiding citizens is that such restrictions are legally wrong. They presuppose guilt, requiring a person to prove that they are not a criminal. That is a violation of due process; a right guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. My reason for disdaining such restrictions is that I find them morally repugnant. I accept that liberty will guarantee risk because it is axiomatic that without risk there is no reward. That is life on Planet Earth. The alternative is that I ask the government to build a safety cage around me. And do you know what happens then? I get to live in a cage! No thanks.
Fred Hansen
New member
Tamara, I have to say that not since SCTV's "Philosophy Street" have I laughed so hard. 
[snork]"chugging existentialism and chasing it with shots of Hobbes"[/snork]LMBFAO
[snork]"chugging existentialism and chasing it with shots of Hobbes"[/snork]LMBFAO
And who gets to decide what is "fair and equitable"?
I guess the lack of a medical license prevents that 14 year old gangbanger from buying crack cocaine and lack of a pilots license prevented Atta from flying a plane into the WTC.
But what if the person and/or agency actually deciding which 30% of the population needs supervision includes you in that group?
Fred Hansen
New member
O.T., but I love this sig line
In a way Mr. Jordan was right, the American people ended up electing one of the greatest men that ever lived, and thank God they did, because President Carter had almost destroyed our beleaguered country. Too bad Mr. Jordan lacked the vision to see that.
In a way Mr. Jordan was right, the American people ended up electing one of the greatest men that ever lived, and thank God they did, because President Carter had almost destroyed our beleaguered country. Too bad Mr. Jordan lacked the vision to see that.