no photo
Wed 01/09/13 11:57 AM


Who really needs a Miltary gun?
This is really one of those questions that presupposes something it shouldn't.

The military as an organization understands that lives are lost in deadly situations when you have inferior equipment.

Why would this axiom all of a sudden not be true when the person in the deadly situation is a civilian?

You answer my question, and it will answer yours.



the military provides extensive TRAINING

AND emotional/physical evaluations

and also understands the weaponry is for combat against MASSES of soldiers,,,,

if civilians were REQUIRED to go through such a sacrifice (similarly to the gun lovers beloved switzerlan) and effort

and if the weapons were not designed to result similarly in mass deaths,,,,,,,,
You did not answer my question.

no photo
Wed 01/09/13 08:06 AM

Good point about the crime not necessarily being down. I can only speak for our country that crime overall is down which isn't necessarily related to gun control but the shootings are also down here as well. I don't know if that is a direct result of gun registration but our politicians seem to think so.
Crime is down amongst almost all developed nations.

If you graph the violent crime of the big 10 developed nations they may be at different places on the graph but it is awfully interesting how the lines all follow the same broad trend of decline.

All the while some places increase gun control, and other decrease. Anyone with an inkling of knowledge regarding statistics, or study methodologies should recognize a lack of correlation.

That means the idea is spurious, and that other factors are involved. Yet here we are continuing to beat up on guns, and not the real causal factors.

We also tend to dramatize our violence in society . . . even while it is going down, we ratchet up the fear to push new policies through.


no photo
Wed 01/09/13 08:01 AM
Good.

no photo
Wed 01/09/13 08:00 AM
Edited by Bushidobillyclub on Wed 01/09/13 08:00 AM
Who really needs a Miltary gun?
This is really one of those questions that presupposes something it shouldn't.

The military as an organization understands that lives are lost in deadly situations when you have inferior equipment.

Why would this axiom all of a sudden not be true when the person in the deadly situation is a civilian?

You answer my question, and it will answer yours.

no photo
Tue 01/08/13 01:26 PM

Well I'm terrible at science, so I am not fully capable of discussing it properly.
How refreshingly honest. Rare, I approve!

no photo
Tue 01/08/13 01:22 PM
European Murder Rates Compared to the United States: Demographics vs Guns

When the subject is gun control, those who demand more for the United States always point to Europe. Europe, they say, has more gun control than the United States, and lower murder rates. Europe, of course, is a diverse place. Some places have lots of guns and low murder rates. Some places have few guns and higher murder rates. The reason that many developed European countries have murder rates much lower than the United States is not guns or gun control. It is demographics.

In 2006 the Department of Justice issued a report on violent felons in large urban counties. It covered the period from 1990 to 2002, and included the 75 most populous counties in the United States. The study accounted for over half of all the murders in the United States in the covered period.

Revealed in the study was a simple breakdown of the demographics of the murderers that is not commonly available. Murderers were divided into three groups. Blacks were the most numerous at 46%. Hispanics were next at 27 percent. Non-Hispanic whites were last at 23 percent.

While the study does not account for all murders in the period studied, it accounts for more than half and almost certainly slightly understates the percentages of Black murderers, because the latest FBI statistics (for 2010) show that when all the murders in the U.S are taken into account, the percentage of Black murderers is over 53 percent.

No one would dispute that there are several distinct cultures among the American black population. No one would dispute that none of these cultures exist in Europe in any statistically significant numbers. Some of the Black American subcultures probably have very low murder rates. We cannot tell because we do not have the data to distinguish between them.

Similarly, there are a number of distinct Hispanic cultures in the United States. These are all derived from cultures in Mexico, Central and South America, and the Caribbean. They are not Spanish or Portuguese. No one would argue that any statistical number of these populations exist in Europe. No doubt, some of these cultures also have very low murder rates, but without data, we cannot separate them out.

Where does that lead us? If we take the 23 percent figure for non-Hispanic whites to be representative for the entire population (remember, it is likely a good bit lower), then the number of murders committed by non-Hispanic and non-black people in the United States for 2010 would be 2989.

The population of non-Hispanic whites for 2010 was 196.8 million. Applying the 2989 murders to this population gives a murder rate of 1.52 per 100,000 population. We cannot get a more precise figure unless we have more demographic data than that given. Asian-Americans, for example, have historically had very low murder rates, but we do not have the data. The 1.52 per 100,000 murder rate is right in the middle of the murder rate of developed European countries. Add the Black and Hispanic numbers back into the mix and apply to the entire United States population, and the murder rate goes up to 4.2 per 100,000. Guns or gun control simply do not correlate to higher murder rates, particularly when you consider that non-Hispanic Whites own guns at much higher rates than do Blacks or Hispanics in the United States.

There are huge numbers of German-Americans, English-Americans, Greek-Americans, Italian-Americans, Scandinavian and Swiss-Americans in the United States. There are no statistically significant numbers of African-American or Hispanic-Americans in Europe.

As a check, you might consider a non-European example. Japan has extreme gun control and extremely low murder rates. The FBI used to track murders by Japanese-Americans before 1980, when access to firearms was relatively easy.

The murder rate of Japanese Americans was less than half that of Japanese in Japan.

Murder rates are driven by cultural background, not by the instrument used.


http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?109734-European-Murder-Rates-Compared-to-the-United-States-Demographics-vs-Guns Good forum with a great post, thought id share with the locals who care.

no photo
Tue 01/08/13 01:14 PM
Good one!

no photo
Tue 01/08/13 01:13 PM
The point of the article msharmony is not about what wealth provides, but how government can shoot itself in the foot through taxation.

Its a balance, and when out of balance this is the consequence. Not exactly rocket surgery.

no photo
Tue 01/08/13 01:10 PM
Hahhah, good read. I saw another one that said something to the effect. Want to end the financial crisis? Then create legislation that makes it impossible to run for reelection unless the budget is balanced.


no photo
Tue 01/08/13 01:05 PM
whose side Alex is really on.
His own. Anything anti authority. Which strangely enough sometimes means he hits the nail on the head. Even a broke watch is right twice a day.

no photo
Tue 01/08/13 12:55 PM
Edited by Bushidobillyclub on Tue 01/08/13 12:56 PM





Nobody is going to register their guns.

Alex Jones makes his living being a "Fear Monger".
Well, he does indeed make his money spreading fear . . . but when the politicians are saying EXACTLY that . . .

All weapon capable of accepting a removable ammunition feeding device that CAN with a capacity greater than 10 rounds would have to be registered with the ATF, under the NFA with all of the various red tape associated with it.

Details

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

So that means really almost every single gun made in the last 40 years.

Do I think this bill will make it? No, why? Because we are taking it seriously.
eventually every Garage in the Nation will become a Gunsmith-Shop!


The technology already exists to PRINT almost any gun made. I've seen guys print bicycles, and all manner of other things. This means that anyone with a computer, Cad program and appropriate printer can become a small lot gun manufacturer.

If there's anyone who can print me a tommygun (with a 100 round .45 drum magazine), please let me know...I've loved those things ever since I first saw them on "The Untouchables."

http://gadgetopia.com/post/7867

KInda funny in a way...The US doesn't care and never even asks Israel if it has nukes, but it really wants to know each and every American that has a gun...Hmmm...maybe Americans should do what Israel does and not say one way or the other...Let 'em find out "the hard way."

I'll never register anything with the government again...At least not until it is absolutely free, written in to the "registration that it is MY private property, to which I maintain absolute title, and AFTER the government first registers with me as my employee and pays MY registration fee to do so.
OK,now you have printed out that cussed Thing!
Now what?laugh

Now you only need to translate it into Steel,Wood and Plastic!
Should be a Cinch!laugh
He is talking ab out this kind of printer.
http://www.robotshop.com/makerbot-replicator-2-3d-printer.html?utm_source=google&utm_medium=base&utm_campaign=jos

I agree tho, from what I can tell it only prints certain kinds of plastic.

You would still need some fab equipment to assemble the barrel, chamber, and other hardware, trigger assembly etc.

Any machine shop in the country could produce these parts.

Any time in history something has been banned, yet a market still existed for the item, entrepreneurs have risen to the occasion and started manufacturing illegal versions and selling them for big money.

You make a semi auto rifle as costly as manufacturing a real assault weapon and you create a market for even deadlier weapons with absolutely no way to track them.

no photo
Tue 01/08/13 12:46 PM




Well, the source says it all really. 'From the Trenches'? More like 'From the Looneybin'.



The source is irrelevant.


The source is never irrelevant. Excuse me for not falling for the hyperbole and hysteria. huh


I dont understand the skepticism. Have you not taken the time to read what is being proposed?

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons


Of course, but compare the language of the proposal to that of the OP, and the hyperbole and hysteria becomes apparent. Note how a paranoia site employed prosaic fear-mongering to inflame the very passions we are seeing in this thread. Remember, it is only a proposal and it is not immune from being amended, nor altered. I'm sure you recognise the procedures, therefore this bill will debated endlessly taking into account the interests of various lobby groups and constituents before being ratified by the appropriate house. You're one of the more intelligent individuals on Mingle, therefore, you must be aware of how these stories are sensationalised long before they are even voted upon.
I agree, however we must take it seriously to battle it properly. Ill take help even from the likes of Alex Jones, doesn't mean I wont correct him when he is wrong.

no photo
Mon 01/07/13 04:13 PM
Edited by Bushidobillyclub on Mon 01/07/13 04:14 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2riOiBaZrg
War of words.

At least know what you are agreeing to if you want semi automatic rifles banned, or registered on NFA. First it wont work, second it would cost us insane $ to even try, look to Canada they gave up there rifle registry.

At least be honest, you want, no matter how dishonest the means, to restrict these weapons to the state.

No slippery slope needed, just understand the words/labels used.

no photo
Mon 01/07/13 01:59 PM

You might also have seen how the French actor Depardieu took Russian citizenship to escape the French tax rate.
Which was 75%, and politicians are calling him dramatic . . . .

I wonder what percentage it would take for the politicians to admit its not dramatic at all.


no photo
Mon 01/07/13 12:14 PM


Well, the source says it all really. 'From the Trenches'? More like 'From the Looneybin'.



The source is irrelevant.


The source is never irrelevant. Excuse me for not falling for the hyperbole and hysteria. huh


I dont understand the skepticism. Have you not taken the time to read what is being proposed?

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons

no photo
Mon 01/07/13 12:10 PM

Nobody is going to register their guns.

Alex Jones makes his living being a "Fear Monger".
Well, he does indeed make his money spreading fear . . . but when the politicians are saying EXACTLY that . . .

All weapon capable of accepting a removable ammunition feeding device that CAN with a capacity greater than 10 rounds would have to be registered with the ATF, under the NFA with all of the various red tape associated with it.

Details

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

So that means really almost every single gun made in the last 40 years.

Do I think this bill will make it? No, why? Because we are taking it seriously.

no photo
Mon 01/07/13 12:07 PM
Soles was indicted on charges of assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury on 7 January 2010.[4] Soles pleaded guilty in 2010 to assault with a deadly weapon and was fined $1,000


Pretty lenient sentence, think any of us would have got this slap on the wrist if it had been us?

no photo
Sun 01/06/13 01:04 PM






Makes sense.

A legally armed citizen can protect the public as well as and sometimes better that law enforcement.

If a citizen is banned from entering with a weapon, it's only right cops are under the same ban.

I have seen may cops who believe they are above the law.


I totally agree with that, but at the same time I think that if a citizen has a carry permit then any public place shouldn't be able to stop them from entering while carrying in the first place.
Well . . . check your state. Some states give no legal support to such gun buster signs. Other states would consider ignoring one the same as trespassing. If your weapon is concealed . . . it would make it challenging to enforce such a sign.


Whether or not a state allows a public place to decide if people can or can't carry on their property wasn't my point. I was just stating that I don't think any public establishment should be given the option to not allow legal carriers from carrying. The whole point of having a CCW permit in the first place is to be allowed to carry in public. Restaurants/etc are considered public places, so why should they be allowed to say that they don't apply to public laws?
The distinction to make is that of the difference between public space and private business.

Private business is not a public space, neither is your home even if you had a sign up that said, "all welcome".


but how private is a Restaurant who caters and is open to the General Public?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pub


A places location and availability is not the same as its ownership.


no photo
Sun 01/06/13 01:01 PM
I see a guy with some Acne who doesn't appreciate being arrested.

no photo
Fri 01/04/13 12:19 PM

Unfortunately lots of places don't allow them. I suppose those businesses think that will stop potential criminals from whatever they have in mind....

This place takes it a step further....


Yeah, that sign will discourage 'em.....
Ohh I agree, laws, signs and asking nicely all fall into the category of dont hold your breath . . .

Paper protection is no protection at all.

1 2 3 4 5 6 8 10 11 12 24 25