PDA

View Full Version : more killings by knives than guns (according to this study)



mostlymad
13 Dec 04,, 16:47
Article today on knives and kids. Supports my feeling that banning firearms will not stop school killings. Not saying there shouldn't be regulations, but people determined to kill will find ways. Banning firearms doesn't address the problem of violence, of why kids or anyone feels it's ok to kill someone for their phone, a pair of brand name shoes, or because their girl dumped them.

"The families are backed by the Victims of Crime Trust, which says a child dies in a knife attack every two weeks.
It says there are three times as many fatal stabbings as gun deaths and penalties for carrying a knife should be the same as for carrying a gun. "

full article:
knives/guns (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4090897.stm)

PFCBroccoli
14 Dec 04,, 12:46
I concur. They should put stronger restrictions on knives. But would that really help? Not really. Then, instead of killing *blank* with a switchblade, *blah* will kill *blank* with a steak knife. Doesnt really matter, but I bet it will get the job done.

Injecteer
15 Dec 04,, 14:52
there must be a kind of firearms banning anyway. It will not affect "profi" criminals, but at least it will filter out some of determined-to-kill guys, or kids which overplayed in Doom3

jame$thegreat
20 Dec 04,, 02:23
Well I have kept a knife collecion since i was 12 and ive never killed anyone (not that u can prove, ill gut u if u can jk) but there are sickos who will. I believe all people should be interveiwd before sold a hazordous product such as a violent video games they should be tested for violent behavior. Let me know in this thread about your standing on my responce and all topics mentioned

Bill
20 Dec 04,, 02:34
How bout people buying cars?

How bout people buying rat poison?

How bout people buying chainsaws, or garden hoes, or crazy glue, or blah, blah, blah.

LOL.....the ONLY thing that would be useful to ban is CRIMINALS.

The Chap
20 Dec 04,, 06:15
How bout people buying cars?

How bout people buying rat poison?

How bout people buying chainsaws, or garden hoes, or crazy glue, or blah, blah, blah.

LOL.....the ONLY thing that would be useful to ban is CRIMINALS.

On the face of it the above sounds like an absurd reduction, so before anyone points that out I feel obliged to immediately side with M21. It's simply true. More ridiculous is airline policy, esp. stateside. Sure, make me take my ruddy shoes off. Bother to find out if I know un-armed combat? No nail clippers allowed. Shame about my fountain pen.
Having just returned from Dubai - where there is sweet FA crime - the solution seems simple: lock 'em up or chop it off. The incarcerated do not commit crimes. Nor are pockets picked without fingers. On a lighter note the restaurant at Emirates Towers is excellent. :biggrin:

Bill
20 Dec 04,, 09:07
Agree 100% chap. They'll take my fingernail clippers, but can't be bothered with the 12" long carbon fibre dagger that i've concealed under my clothes....

lol.

jame$thegreat
18 Jan 05,, 01:23
I agree its insane that people can conseal weapons so easily (such as non-metalic weapons). I could easily put a ceramic knife in my pants or shirt. The problem is; not enough of the right people have guns, knives etc. Anything can be a weapon if used in the proper way. For example I could take a 200 lb man down with a needle if I wanted but why would I and if I can what makes you think someone with a full military education and willing to die for their cause cant use any available object to kill.

Tinkertoys
06 Mar 05,, 07:30
How bout people buying cars?

How bout people buying rat poison?

How bout people buying chainsaws, or garden hoes, or crazy glue, or blah, blah, blah.

LOL.....the ONLY thing that would be useful to ban is CRIMINALS.


When I was a Cowboy, we busted people for assault weapons and all that, I shot someone with a 9mm who tried to hit me with a 5.56. He himself claimed that if restrictions were tighter, he wouldn't have it. We NEED restrictions on firearms. There is a really good book about it called Private Guns, Public Health. Read it sometime.

-Tink

Bill
06 Mar 05,, 12:01
"When I was a Cowboy, we busted people for assault weapons and all that, I shot someone with a 9mm who tried to hit me with a 5.56. He himself claimed that if restrictions were tighter, he wouldn't have it. We NEED restrictions on firearms. There is a really good book about it called Private Guns, Public Health. Read it sometime."

Bullshiit.

(Before you ask which part, i mean all of it)

ChrisF202
06 Mar 05,, 16:19
"When I was a Cowboy, we busted people for assault weapons and all that, I shot someone with a 9mm who tried to hit me with a 5.56. He himself claimed that if restrictions were tighter, he wouldn't have it. We NEED restrictions on firearms. There is a really good book about it called Private Guns, Public Health. Read it sometime."

Bullshiit.

(Before you ask which part, i mean all of it)
A Cowboy, what do you mean?

Tinkertoys
06 Mar 05,, 21:40
A Cowboy, what do you mean?

It's sorta like an employed informant that works for the police. And M21, I could claim everything you say is ********. That doesn't change the fact that it's true. Yes I edited the story, for obvious reasons, but the part about busting the guy is true. And he did claim that it was easy to get a gun.

-Tink

sniperdude411
07 Mar 05,, 01:38
When I was a Cowboy, we busted people for assault weapons and all that, I shot someone with a 9mm who tried to hit me with a 5.56. He himself claimed that if restrictions were tighter, he wouldn't have it. We NEED restrictions on firearms. There is a really good book about it called Private Guns, Public Health. Read it sometime.

-Tink

That's why people need to have guns-- to defend themselves. Chances are, that guy really would have that gun even if it were banned. And if guns were banned, you wouldn't be posting this right now.

Tinkertoys
07 Mar 05,, 01:43
That's why people need to have guns-- to defend themselves. Chances are, that guy really would have that gun even if it were banned. And if guns were banned, you wouldn't be posting this right now.


If no one had guns, no need to defend against them.

-Tink

Ziska
07 Mar 05,, 01:54
and how the hell are you going to take the guns owned by criminals?

Tinkertoys
07 Mar 05,, 01:56
and how the hell are you going to take the guns owned by criminals?


Criminals don't have tanks do they? Those are safe. Don't have missiles, those are safe. I love inciting flaming.. Flame away, guys!

-Tink

Ziska
07 Mar 05,, 01:59
... what a squeezer.

Confed999
07 Mar 05,, 02:01
I love inciting flaming.. Flame away, guys!
You do realize nobody will believe anything you say now?

Also, may I direct you to the FORUM RULES. (http://www.militaryaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?t=2232)

Tinkertoys
07 Mar 05,, 02:10
The last two posts weren't actual responses, guys. I know that we cannot take away guns, but we can tighten restrictions and make guns safer.

-Tink

Ziska
07 Mar 05,, 02:17
and I say again, how do you propose to tighten restrictions on weapons owned by people who are already breaking the law?

Confed999
07 Mar 05,, 02:22
I know that we cannot take away guns, but we can tighten restrictions and make guns safer.
I have no problems with background checks and such. Criminals shouldn't be sold guns. My guns are as safe as guns can be, and still perform their designated task.

Confed999
07 Mar 05,, 02:23
and I say again, how do you propose to tighten restrictions on weapons owned by people who are already breaking the law?
Find them, arrest them, put them in jail. That's all I can think of. :(

Tinkertoys
07 Mar 05,, 02:25
and I say again, how do you propose to tighten restrictions on weapons owned by people who are already breaking the law?


The idea is to prevent future crimes, not stop current ones. That job is left to law enforcement.

-Tink

Ziska
07 Mar 05,, 02:58
but making laws that are impossible to enforce is just stupid. I mean, if law enforcement was perfect, we wouldn't be arguing about gun control at all.

Criminals have guns already. Making it harder for law-abiding people to aquire or retain guns is counter-productive.

Beaugeste93
07 Mar 05,, 03:04
and I say again, how do you propose to tighten restrictions on weapons owned by people who are already breaking the law?


You're asking the wrong question. Its not tightening restrictions on the weapons, its locking up those who are illegally possessing them and having reasonable criminal background checks to regulate legal sales of firearms.

By all statistics, violent crime has decreased in US states that authorize carry permits for its citizens. Likewise, in Australia and Great Britain, there have been massive increases in violent crime since enaction of the gun bans there.

Check australian papers for stories about Ken Chaffer being run out of business by the ridiculous applications of these laws.

More children are killed annually in america by drowning in the bath than by firearms accidents. Should we mandate showers for kids under 6?

Ziska
07 Mar 05,, 03:07
I know mate. I'm opposed to most forms of gun control. We have less shooting deaths in Australia, sure, but massively increased rates of home invasion and assault.

To quote a cliche, gun control is not crime control.

Tinkertoys
07 Mar 05,, 03:08
but making laws that are impossible to enforce is just stupid. I mean, if law enforcement was perfect, we wouldn't be arguing about gun control at all.

Criminals have guns already. Making it harder for law-abiding people to aquire or retain guns is counter-productive.
"Law abiding" is a catch-all phrase for anyone not in jail. It was "law abiding citizens" who shot and killed US Marshal's at Ruby Ridge, was it not? Law enforcement needs to be given much more leeway than they currently have. Don't bullcrap, your chances of being randomly shot in a crowd are slim to none. And it has been PROVEN that your chances of dying or being seriously injured in a break in are increased nearly twofold when you fight back against an attacker with a gun, than do nothing at all. Remember, they already have their guns pulled. You don't.

-Tink

Ziska
07 Mar 05,, 03:12
and isn't that my risk to take?

I don't see how making me give up my gun makes a positive difference to crime.

Tinkertoys
07 Mar 05,, 03:14
You're asking the wrong question. Its not tightening restrictions on the weapons, its locking up those who are illegally possessing them and having reasonable criminal background checks to regulate legal sales of firearms.

By all statistics, violent crime has decreased in US states that authorize carry permits for its citizens. Likewise, in Australia and Great Britain, there have been massive increases in violent crime since enaction of the gun bans there.

Check australian papers for stories about Ken Chaffer being run out of business by the ridiculous applications of these laws.

More children are killed annually in america by drowning in the bath than by firearms accidents. Should we mandate showers for kids under 6?

More children are not killed in bathtubs, but by swimming pools. Both involve water. And I quote on the Self defense topic, which is crap in my opinion; 8 percent that threatened or attacked an assailant with a gun were injured, as opposed to 0 percent for doing nothing during a robbery, 3 percent for assault, and 0 percent for a break in. Source; National Crime Victimization Surveys, 1992-98; Kleck and Kates 2001

Ziska
07 Mar 05,, 03:17
... so if someone broke into your house you would just let them take your stuff/treaten your family? If everyone did that, criminals would have a field day.

Tinkertoys
07 Mar 05,, 03:24
and isn't that my risk to take?

I don't see how making me give up my gun makes a positive difference to crime.


Criminals that do not feel threatened by a gun almost certainly will not pull one, and if someone posts claiming to be a "Super cat burglar" "And you know nothing about what we think." I will flip. Besides, we, society, would have to pay for medical costs at a public hospital, costs of hunting down criminals, and also risk lawsuits because someone decided to fight back, and we did not call 911 in time enough for the criminal to survive, has happened before, although the case was rejected.

-Tink

Tinkertoys
07 Mar 05,, 03:25
... so if someone broke into your house you would just let them take your stuff/treaten your family? If everyone did that, criminals would have a field day.


I do not have a family. And they could take my stuff if I could keep my life, plus, I'm proficient enough with a P228 that I pity the fool who tries to rob me. Someone tried to, and I just used a stun gun. Easy enough.

-Tink

Beaugeste93
07 Mar 05,, 03:28
[QUOTE= 8 percent that threatened or attacked an assailant with a gun were injured, as opposed to 0 percent for doing nothing during a robbery, 3 percent for assault, and 0 percent for a break in. Source; National Crime Victimization Surveys, 1992-98; Kleck and Kates 2001[/QUOTE]


I'm not quite clear on the numbers. Is that saying that 92% of the people who did fight back with a gun were not injured?

If you plan on defending yourself, you have to practice how you will fight, have a plan, and have the will to survive. If you pull a knife on a knife-wielding robber, you will get cut. But if you have the will, you can prevail. Life is dangerous, and we can not alway be in a position to fight back, often it is better to do nothing and be a good witness. If i'm in a store with my wife and 3 guys with shotguns come in and all I have is my .380 keltec with one extra mag, i'm probably not going to try to do anything unless they start killing folks.

Tinkertoys
07 Mar 05,, 03:32
I'm not quite clear on the numbers. Is that saying that 92% of the people who did fight back with a gun were not injured?

If you plan on defending yourself, you have to practice how you will fight, have a plan, and have the will to survive. If you pull a knife on a knife-wielding robber, you will get cut. But if you have the will, you can prevail. Life is dangerous, and we can not alway be in a position to fight back, often it is better to do nothing and be a good witness. If i'm in a store with my wife and 3 guys with shotguns come in and all I have is my .380 keltec with one extra mag, i'm probably not going to try to do anything unless they start killing folks.


Plans go to hell when the shots are fired. And no, it is people who were injured after the act of "self defense." Meaning that they were injured supposedly AFTER the criminal was finished. By the way, good choice on the 3 guys with shotguns.

-Tink

Beaugeste93
07 Mar 05,, 03:34
Criminals that do not feel threatened by a gun almost certainly will not pull one, and if someone posts claiming to be a "Super cat burglar" "And you know nothing about what we think." I will flip. Besides, we, society, would have to pay for medical costs at a public hospital, costs of hunting down criminals, and also risk lawsuits because someone decided to fight back, and we did not call 911 in time enough for the criminal to survive, has happened before, although the case was rejected.

-Tink


A valid point. It depends on your location. Tennessee is pretty good about such things. There is no duty to retreat before using deadly force to defend yourself here. And if you defend yourself with a gun you are carrying illegally, you can't be charged for illegal carry.

I recall hearing about a farmer in england who shot a burglar (unfortunately not to death) with a legally owned shotgun inside his home. The farmer got six or so years in prison for it. The judge actually said that burglars had a right to be protected from armed homeowners, or something to that effect!

bonehead
07 Mar 05,, 03:38
OK. Pretend you are a burgler. You are looking at a row of ten houses and deciding which one to enter and burglerize. You know there are two houses where the owners have a firearm and will shoot you if given the chance. Which of the other eight do you go into?

Beaugeste93
07 Mar 05,, 03:41
Plans go to hell when the shots are fired. -Tink


How true. I think we're on basically the same side of this debate :)

I'll give an example of what I mean by having a plan and a mindset. An Acquaintance approached me and asked about ammo and practice tips for the walther ppk .380 he just bought. He was going to the class to get his carry permit and wanted some "sage" advice (don't know why he asked me for it). I told him some things, and told him to practice one of the drills we use- two shots to the body center mass and one to the pelvic girdle in case the bad guy has on body armor (its a bigger target than the head). The pelvic shot will likely damage the nerves and cause the criminal to go down. He said, and I quote "I couldn't shoot a guy in the nuts". I told him to sell the gun and not get a permit. Don't carry one if you're not prepared to use it. You have to think about what you are going to do before it happens because you fight like you train. It certainly won't go as you planned, but its a start.

Tinkertoys
07 Mar 05,, 03:45
OK. Pretend you are a burgler. You are looking at a row of ten houses and deciding which one to enter and burglerize. You know there are two houses where the owners have a firearm and will shoot you if given the chance. Which of the other eight do you go into?

Whatever one has more rubies. It's not the gun, it is the person behind it. Come into my house, your head will have two 9mm holes in it, go to my neighbors, who is filthy stinking rich, your car trunk will have holes in it. It all depends.
Besides, remember, you have your weapon drawn, the target does not. Thats a HUGE advantage.
-Tink

Confed999
07 Mar 05,, 03:46
"Law abiding" is a catch-all phrase for anyone not in jail.
Nah, it's the phrase for "not a convicted criminal". That innocent until proven guilty thing...

It was "law abiding citizens" who shot and killed US Marshal's at Ruby Ridge, was it not?
What was their crime, a firearms violation that didn't pan out? How many people lost their jobs on that one? Didn't one of the FBI go up for 18 months? Granted the folks on the Ridge weren't the type I would sell a gun to, but Ruby Ridge is more of a reason to have guns IMHO. Fouled up summons, $3.1 million dollar settlement, shooting kids in the back, shooting women holding babies, and killing dogs is a bad example to throw out. Ruby Ridge was a fiasco.

And it has been PROVEN that your chances of dying or being seriously injured in a break in are increased nearly twofold when you fight back against an attacker with a gun, than do nothing at all. Remember, they already have their guns pulled. You don't.
Not in my case. I'm not willing to take the chance the police will even show up, let alone show up in time.

Tinkertoys
07 Mar 05,, 03:48
Nah, it's the phrase for "not a convicted criminal". That innocent until proven guilty thing...

What was their crime, a firearms violation that didn't pan out? How many people lost their jobs on that one? Didn't one of the FBI go up for 18 months? Granted the folks on the Ridge weren't the type I would sell a gun to, but Ruby Ridge is more of a reason to have guns IMHO. Fouled up summons, $3.1 million dollar settlement, shooting kids in the back, shooting women holding babies, and killing dogs is a bad example to throw out. Ruby Ridge was a fiasco.

Not in my case. I'm not willing to take the chance the police will even show up, let alone show up in time.

Ruby Ridge was a fiasco? Killed what, three people with Marshal blood on their walls and bullets. Fiasco? I would have shot them any day, although I do not relish the thought of shooting any human being, no normal person should not, but bless the Hostage Rescue Team.

-Tink

Confed999
07 Mar 05,, 04:14
Ruby Ridge was a fiasco? Killed what, three people with Marshal blood on their walls and bullets. Fiasco? I would have shot them any day, although I do not relish the thought of shooting any human being, no normal person should not, but bless the Hostage Rescue Team.

-Tink
Yeah, a fiasco. I have no other way to put it. Maybe a catastrophe, but that seems too much. The only person to go to jail was FBI. The summons was wrong. The weapons charges were trumped up. The Marshal that was killed may have shot without IDing himself. (Not near the cabin BTW) The firefight at the cabin was started with the killing of a dog, that's a member of the family where I'm from. Killed an unarmed woman holding a baby. The government had to pay out $3.1 million for wrongful death, and Weaver walks. Now Weaver is a hero to the white supemists. You don't call that a fiasco? You must have some really bad days...

Tinkertoys
07 Mar 05,, 04:18
Yeah, a fiasco. I have no other way to put it. Maybe a catastrophe, but that seems too much. The only person to go to jail was FBI. The summons was wrong. The weapons charges were trumped up. The Marshal that was killed may have shot without IDing himself. (Not near the cabin BTW) The firefight at the cabin was started with the killing of a dog, that's a member of the family where I'm from. Killed an unarmed woman holding a baby. The government had to pay out $3.1 million for wrongful death, and Weaver walks. Now Weaver is a hero to the white supemists. You don't call that a fiasco? You must have some really bad days...


I do have really bad days, and I hate to say it, and I mourn the loss of a human infant, but the child would have grown up as yet another gov't hating white supremacist, tragic, but it is true. The Marshals identified themselves, and Weaver and the other guy (cannot think of his name at the moment) fired witjush assault type rifles. Is that not illegal, plus, shooting at Federal Agents, then killing one, is a capital crime. Judge, jury, executioner, all with a sniper's two bullets, my peace is done. But that does not make the death of a human any less tragic, remember that, folks.

-Tink

Confed999
07 Mar 05,, 04:36
I do have really bad days, and I hate to say it, and I mourn the loss of a human infant, but the child would have grown up as yet another gov't hating white supremacist, tragic, but it is true.
There was no infant killed. You can try to play games with me, but I won't do the flame war thing. BTW, in this country it is their right to be white supremest.

The Marshals identified themselves
Sorry, conflicting stories on that one. May have identified themselves, may not have. With all the government did wrong there it's fully questionable and could go either way. They were also there on an invalid warrant.

Is that not illegal, plus, shooting at Federal Agents, then killing one, is a capital crime.
Depends if they IDed before opening fire. If not, it was legal. They were also serving an invalid warrant, after telling them they were going to take his land, win or lose, and leave them destitute.

Judge, jury, executioner, all with a sniper's two bullets, my peace is done. But that does not make the death of a human any less tragic, remember that, folks.
But they could have sent a Fed with the local Sheriff to knock on the door, and quite possibly saved everyone.

Major fiasco, and it's probably for the best you aren't a cop.

Tinkertoys
07 Mar 05,, 04:44
There was no infant killed. You can try to play games with me, but I won't do the flame war thing. BTW, in this country it is their right to be white supremest.

Sorry, conflicting stories on that one. May have identified themselves, may not have. With all the government did wrong there it's fully questionable and could go either way. They were also there on an invalid warrant.

Depends if they IDed before opening fire. If not, it was legal. They were also serving an invalid warrant, after telling them they were going to take his land, win or lose, and leave them destitute.

But they could have sent a Fed with the local Sheriff to knock on the door, and quite possibly saved everyone.

Major fiasco, and it's probably for the best you aren't a cop.


Too bad I was a cop. Did I not alread say they properly identified, and if you knew anything about the USMS you would know that one of their missions is asset seizure. The warrant is valid with a signature, that's all it takes.

-Tink

Confed999
07 Mar 05,, 04:53
Too bad I was a cop.
That is too bad, but "was" makes it better.

Did I not alread say they properly identified
So you were there huh? How do you know? One side says yes, the other no. In a normal case I would side with the cops, but in this case, with the innumerable foul ups, it's questionable. If you weren't there, you have no idea what really happened. You also don't know many of the facts of the case. I think you picked it for shock value, without knowing anything about it.

The warrant is valid with a signature, that's all it takes.
The warrant was issued on the basis of an invalid summons. Hard to hold that up in court 'eh?

They could have sent in the Sheriff, and avoided the whole thing. 3 people would be alive, and a Fed wouldn't have gone up the river.

Tinkertoys
07 Mar 05,, 04:56
That is too bad, but "was" makes it better.

So you were there huh? How do you know? One side says yes, the other no. In a normal case I would side with the cops, but in this case, with the innumerable foul ups, it's questionable. If you weren't there, you have no idea what really happened. You also don't know many of the facts of the case. I think you picked it for shock value, without knowing anything about it.

The warrant was issued on the basis of an invalid summons. Hard to hold that up in court 'eh?

They could have sent in the Sheriff, and avoided the whole thing. 3 people would be alive, and a Fed wouldn't have gone up the river.


Invalid summons are usually "overlooked" by the jury when cops are killed, besides, the Sheriff wouldn't have helped. The USMS has it's mission, and thats their job. He would have interfered, also, in a Federal case, although I have forgotten most of my legal knowledge, I believe the Sheriff has no jurisdiction. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

-Respectfully yours, Tink

Confed999
07 Mar 05,, 05:08
Invalid summons are usually "overlooked"
The warrant was issued 1 month before he was required to appear in court. He wasn't supposed to be a wanted man. It wasn't overlooked, and should never be.

the Sheriff wouldn't have helped. The USMS has it's mission, and thats their job. He would have interfered, also, in a Federal case, although I have forgotten most of my legal knowledge, I believe the Sheriff has no jurisdiction.
The Sheriff knew the Weavers, and would have escorted a Fed there, if he had been asked. He testified to that in court. Instead a military assault was ordered on a family after they were threatened with destitution, guilty or innocent.

Tinkertoys
07 Mar 05,, 05:11
The warrant was issued 1 month before he was required to appear in court. He wasn't supposed to be a wanted man. It wasn't overlooked, and should never be.

The Sheriff knew the Weavers, and would have escorted a Fed there, if he had been asked. He testified to that in court. Instead a military assault was ordered on a family after they were threatened with destitution, guilty or innocent.


ITS THE FBI. Not the military, the FBI is part of the DOJ, military is DOD. Good job. So you are saying that they were innocent, of breaking numerous Federal firearms laws, of killing US Marshals, of funding extremist groups? That is illegal, my friend, you cannot change that.

-Tink

Confed999
07 Mar 05,, 05:17
ITS THE FBI. Not the military
Fine, military style assult. Happier?

So you are saying that they were innocent, of breaking numerous Federal firearms laws, of killing US Marshals, of funding extremist groups?
Weaver has $3.1million and is walking the streets, sadly it doesn't matter if he was a massmurderer now. Is funding white supremists illegal? I don't think so. Also, it was never proven he was a part of their innercircle. All they proved was that he was a dope with a hack saw.

That is illegal, my friend, you cannot change that.
It's all in the details, you cannot change that.

Tinkertoys
07 Mar 05,, 05:23
Lmao, this is REALLY off topic.

-Tink

Tinkertoys
07 Mar 05,, 05:24
Fine, military style assult. Happier? Yes, thank you.

-Tink

Tinkertoys
07 Mar 05,, 05:25
Weaver has $3.1million and is walking the streets, sadly it doesn't matter if he was a massmurderer now. Is funding white supremists illegal? I don't think so. Also, it was never proven he was a part of their innercircle. All they proved was that he was a dope with a hack saw.

It is illegal to fund an organization that plots the mass violent overthrow of the government.

-Tink

Confed999
07 Mar 05,, 05:33
It is illegal to fund an organization that plots the mass violent overthrow of the government.
Any proof they were? Nobody convicted in my search. Not Weaver anyway. Again, fiasco, to say the least.

Tinkertoys
07 Mar 05,, 05:38
It's all an opinion, both mine and yours. Yours comes from, well I don't know, and mine comes from a deep love of the USMS and being a police officer.
Conflicting viewpoints don't ever settle, so lets just end this whole argument.


-Tink

Confed999
07 Mar 05,, 05:46
Yours comes from, well I don't know
My view point is based on news reports, police reports, witness testimony and court records. To believe the government/police cannot make mistakes, based on your love, is a mistake in itself.

Tinkertoys
07 Mar 05,, 05:58
My view point is based on news reports, police reports, witness testimony and court records. To believe the government/police cannot make mistakes, based on your love, is a mistake in itself.

I don't believe Law Enforcement is infallible, far from it, I've made many mistakes myself. Do not, sir, tell me that I do not comprehend this.


-Tink

Confed999
07 Mar 05,, 05:59
I don't believe Law Enforcement is infallible, far from it, I've made many mistakes myself. Do not, sir, tell me that I do not comprehend this.


-Tink
LOL :)

Bill
07 Mar 05,, 09:10
"And M21, I could claim everything you say is ********. That doesn't change the fact that it's true. Yes I edited the story, for obvious reasons, but the part about busting the guy is true. And he did claim that it was easy to get a gun."

I can go buy a hot gun right now off the street for not a whole lot more than retail.

It's much easier to buy a gun illegally, than to obtain one legally, ESPECIALLY for someone with a felony conviction.

In study after study, prison inmates have stated that their single biggest fear is running into an armed homeowner.

Since the 1936 act was passed banning automatic weapons, exactly three murders have been commited with legally owned weapons.

The last person convicted of such a murder was a federal law enforcement officer, over 60 years ago.

Bill
07 Mar 05,, 09:12
"Its not tightening restrictions on the weapons, its locking up those who are illegally possessing them and having reasonable criminal background checks to regulate legal sales of firearms."

We already conduct instant background checks on the vast majority of all firearms purchases in the US, and have for several years now.

Bill
07 Mar 05,, 09:14
"Law abiding" is a catch-all phrase for anyone not in jail. It was "law abiding citizens" who shot and killed US Marshal's at Ruby Ridge, was it not?"

When the police take on the role of tyrants, they'll get what's coming to them, just as they should.

Ruby Ridge was a travesty, and all involved should be ashamed of the wanton disregard for long established police procedure, and the murder of Mr. Ruby's family.

Bill
07 Mar 05,, 09:15
"And it has been PROVEN that your chances of dying or being seriously injured in a break in are increased nearly twofold when you fight back against an attacker with a gun, than do nothing at all."

So you are proposing we should just cooperate and take our chances?

Pfft, and i thought you were full of shiit before...

Bill
07 Mar 05,, 09:20
"I do have really bad days, and I hate to say it, and I mourn the loss of a human infant, but the child would have grown up as yet another gov't hating white supremacist, tragic, but it is true. The Marshals identified themselves, and Weaver and the other guy (cannot think of his name at the moment) fired witjush assault type rifles. Is that not illegal, plus, shooting at Federal Agents, then killing one, is a capital crime. Judge, jury, executioner, all with a sniper's two bullets, my peace is done. But that does not make the death of a human any less tragic, remember that, folks."

You sicken me.

PS: "The other guy" was Weavers 15yo child, who defended himself after his dog was killed by unidentified men in camoflauge uniforms on HIS land. And the boy was not armed with an assault rifle.

No one at ruby ridge but the police had assault weapons.

If assault weapons should be taken away from anyone, it's the cops....because of morons like you.

Bill
07 Mar 05,, 09:25
This guy is a troll, and an obvious fake.

Kudos Tinker, you might be the fastest troll i ever ID'd in my life. Amazing.

lemontree
07 Mar 05,, 09:34
Criminals that do not feel threatened by a gun almost certainly will not pull one,
That is a misconception.

sw55
07 Mar 05,, 16:55
and I say again, how do you propose to tighten restrictions on weapons owned by people who are already breaking the law?

There will allways be calls for 'sensable' gun laws when there are allready 40,000 of them on the books. Every 'sensable' claim follows every new law, until like England or Australia, there are very few if any legal guns owned by citizens.
Me or any law abiding citizen are NOT the problem with gun violence. Criminals are. New gun restrictions only restrict the law abiding and disarm them in front of the criminal that gun ownership deters.
More important than disarming the population against criminals, is the true intent of the second ammendment, which was to keep the people from being disarmed by a government and left vulnerable to its powers . An unarmed population is ripe for being victomized by tyrants, and if we are to keep that possibiltiy from ever comming to this country, then we should protect the intent of the founders in their intrepretation of the Constitution and its protections which include the right of the individual to keep arms.

Tinkertoys
07 Mar 05,, 20:43
There will allways be calls for 'sensable' gun laws when there are allready 40,000 of them on the books. Every 'sensable' claim follows every new law, until like England or Australia, there are very few if any legal guns owned by citizens.
Me or any law abiding citizen are NOT the problem with gun violence. Criminals are. New gun restrictions only restrict the law abiding and disarm them in front of the criminal that gun ownership deters.
More important than disarming the population against criminals, is the true intent of the second ammendment, which was to keep the people from being disarmed by a government and left vulnerable to its powers . An unarmed population is ripe for being victomized by tyrants, and if we are to keep that possibiltiy from ever comming to this country, then we should protect the intent of the founders in their intrepretation of the Constitution and its protections which include the right of the individual to keep arms.


The government has B2 Spirit bombers, you owning a .45 will never stop one if the government decides to kill us all. I think even M21 will agree with me on this, you do not stand a chance against the US military. Anyways, I get to go on vacation for ten days. So I won't be here.

-Tink

Tinkertoys
07 Mar 05,, 20:50
"And M21, I could claim everything you say is ********. That doesn't change the fact that it's true. Yes I edited the story, for obvious reasons, but the part about busting the guy is true. And he did claim that it was easy to get a gun."

I can go buy a hot gun right now off the street for not a whole lot more than retail.

It's much easier to buy a gun illegally, than to obtain one legally, ESPECIALLY for someone with a felony conviction.

In study after study, prison inmates have stated that their single biggest fear is running into an armed homeowner.

Since the 1936 act was passed banning automatic weapons, exactly three murders have been commited with legally owned weapons.

The last person convicted of such a murder was a federal law enforcement officer, over 60 years ago.

Most murders are committed with legal guns, so your statement is crap. You're trying to tell me that the Columbine s******* did not buy legal guns? From K Mart nonetheless. Thats twelve right there.

-Tink

Tinkertoys
07 Mar 05,, 20:53
"Law abiding" is a catch-all phrase for anyone not in jail. It was "law abiding citizens" who shot and killed US Marshal's at Ruby Ridge, was it not?"

When the police take on the role of tyrants, they'll get what's coming to them, just as they should.

Ruby Ridge was a travesty, and all involved should be ashamed of the wanton disregard for long established police procedure, and the murder of Mr. Ruby's family.
Hey good job, Ruby Ridge is a place not the man's name. How about the murder of Federal agents?

-Tink

jame$thegreat
07 Mar 05,, 22:50
Most murders are committed with legal guns, so your statement is crap. You're trying to tell me that the Columbine s******* did not buy legal guns? From K Mart nonetheless. Thats twelve right there.

-Tink
Now whos statement is crap, i believe yours sir, if an illigal act is going to be committed why the hell would a criminal bother going through the legal system to obtain a weapon that they can easily purchase for slghtly more without anyone knowing besides the gun-pusher illigally selling it to you anyway (not including un-premeditated crimes and crimes of passion)

Tinkertoys
07 Mar 05,, 23:54
Now whos statement is crap, i believe yours sir, if an illigal act is going to be committed why the hell would a criminal bother going through the legal system to obtain a weapon that they can easily purchase for slghtly more without anyone knowing besides the gun-pusher illigally selling it to you anyway (not including un-premeditated crimes and crimes of passion)


Hello, they knew they were going to die. Oh, and the DC s*******. That's another what, six? Hinckley attempting to assassinate Reagan, that was a LEGAL firearm.
Shall I go on? Sniper you claim to be all knowing, but you swallow the statement that three murders were committed with legal firearms? The killing of a Marion County Sheriff's Deputy in Oct. 2004, Legal firearm and purchase, the killing of a Columbus Ohio Sergeant on January Six, 2005. Need I say more?
-Tink

jame$thegreat
08 Mar 05,, 00:15
Hello, they knew they were going to die. Oh, and the DC s*******. That's another what, six? Hinckley attempting to assassinate Reagan, that was a LEGAL firearm.
Shall I go on? Sniper you claim to be all knowing, but you swallow the statement that three murders were committed with legal firearms? The killing of a Marion County Sheriff's Deputy in Oct. 2004, Legal firearm and purchase, the killing of a Columbus Ohio Sergeant on January Six, 2005. Need I say more?
-Tink


Although sniper may be inaccurate with his statement i would also like to clarify that the gun used to assassinate regan was though legal, his ammunition was most certainly not. he used a .38 "saturday night special" meaning the rounds contained explosives and thank god reagan pulled through because there was a problem with the explosive components inside the bullets

Bill
08 Mar 05,, 00:40
" I think even M21 will agree with me on this, you do not stand a chance against the US military."

How many B-2s did the VC have?

How about the Iraqis?

All one needs is a handgun.

You can upgrade your gear after you blast a few soldiers. That's the way it's done when there is no state sponser for a guerilla action.

Bill
08 Mar 05,, 00:42
"Most murders are committed with legal guns, so your statement is crap."

No they're not, it's not even close.

Well under 15% of all murders are commited by legal weapons.

Check the FBI uniform crime report if you don't believe me.

Bill
08 Mar 05,, 00:43
" Hey good job, Ruby Ridge is a place not the man's name. How about the murder of Federal agents?"

Perhaps you ought to re-read my earlier post when i state, "Mr. Weavers son..."

Bill
08 Mar 05,, 00:45
"Hello, they knew they were going to die. Oh, and the DC s*******. That's another what, six? Hinckley attempting to assassinate Reagan, that was a LEGAL firearm.
Shall I go on? Sniper you claim to be all knowing, but you swallow the statement that three murders were committed with legal firearms? The killing of a Marion County Sheriff's Deputy in Oct. 2004, Legal firearm and purchase, the killing of a Columbus Ohio Sergeant on January Six, 2005. Need I say more?"

You obviously don't know what an assault weapon is.

There have been exactly three murders with assault weapons since 1936(the last violent crime commited with an assault weapon was the LA Bank robbery commited by the ex-Ranger and his flunkie buddie. I seem to recall that no one was killed however- except the bad guys).

Bill
08 Mar 05,, 00:46
"Although sniper may be inaccurate with his statement i would also like to clarify that the gun used to assassinate regan was though legal, his ammunition was most certainly not. he used a .38 "saturday night special" meaning the rounds contained explosives and thank god reagan pulled through because there was a problem with the explosive components inside the bullets"

I was not innaccurate in my statement, ole Tinker just doesn't seem to know what an assault rifle is.

Hint: The term 'select fire' ring any bells?

PS...a 'saturday night special' is a term for an inexpensive handgun, it is not related to the ammunition.

Tinkertoys
08 Mar 05,, 02:14
"Hello, they knew they were going to die. Oh, and the DC s*******. That's another what, six? Hinckley attempting to assassinate Reagan, that was a LEGAL firearm.
Shall I go on? Sniper you claim to be all knowing, but you swallow the statement that three murders were committed with legal firearms? The killing of a Marion County Sheriff's Deputy in Oct. 2004, Legal firearm and purchase, the killing of a Columbus Ohio Sergeant on January Six, 2005. Need I say more?"

You obviously don't know what an assault weapon is.

There have been exactly three murders with assault weapons since 1936(the last violent crime commited with an assault weapon was the LA Bank robbery commited by the ex-Ranger and his flunkie buddie. I seem to recall that no one was killed however- except the bad guys).


DEA agents were killed many times in the eighties with assault rifles. Thats more than three. And if you did the research, you would know that the DC s******* used a Bushmaster, although only single shot. By the way, you contradicted yourself. You said only three legal murders had been committed with assault weapons since they were banned. Illegal weapon=illegal act.

-Tink

Bill
08 Mar 05,, 02:48
Do me a favor, look up the definition of assault rifle.

In fact, i'll save you the trouble:

An assault weapon is a select-fire rifle firing a medium power cartridge.

A semi-auto is not an assault weapon, regardless of what it looks like.

And i said only three murders have been commited in the US with legally owned assault weapons(Class III) since the passage of the 1936 NFA, with the most recent being commited by a federal law enforcement officer in the 1940's.

DEA agents being killed by foriegn nationals on foriegn soil do not apply, for obvious reasons.

Feel free to look it up in the FBI UCR.

Bill
08 Mar 05,, 02:51
Also, interestingly enough, the most rabidly anti-gun politician in the US Congress, one Diane Feinstein of Ca, felt it proper to obtain a permit to carry firearms.

A right she has tried to deny the rest of us for her entire career.

http://www.nndb.com/people/535/000023466/

Go figure.

Tinkertoys
08 Mar 05,, 03:05
Do me a favor, look up the definition of assault rifle.

In fact, i'll save you the trouble:

An assault weapon is a select-fire rifle firing a medium power cartridge.

A semi-auto is not an assault weapon, regardless of what it looks like.

And i said only three murders have been commited in the US with legally owned assault weapons(Class III) since the passage of the 1936 NFA, with the most recent being commited by a federal law enforcement officer in the 1940's.

DEA agents being killed by foriegn nationals on foriegn soil do not apply, for obvious reasons.

Feel free to look it up in the FBI UCR.


Talking about Feds killed by US citizens.

-Tink

bonehead
08 Mar 05,, 07:05
Also, interestingly enough, the most rabidly anti-gun politician in the US Congress, one Diane Feinstein of Ca, felt it proper to obtain a permit to carry firearms.

A right she has tried to deny the rest of us for her entire career.

http://www.nndb.com/people/535/000023466/

Go figure.

Yep. I do not see how anyone can choke down Feinsteins hypocracy. Californians should have booted her sorry *** out a long time ago.

Bill
08 Mar 05,, 13:24
"Talking about Feds killed by US citizens."

Then you are either mistaken, or directly distorting the actual figures.

Regardless, you're wrong.

Here, some fact for a change:

"In 1995 there were over 240,000 machine guns registered with the BATF. (Zawitz, Marianne,Bureau of Justice Statistics, Guns Used in Crime [PDF].) About half are owned by civilians and the other half by police departments and other governmental agencies (Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997.)

Since 1934, there appear to have been...two homicides committed with legally owned automatic weapons. One was a murder committed by a law enforcement officer (as opposed to a civilian). On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman. Patrolman Waller pleaded guilty in 1990, and he and an accomplice were sentenced to 18 years in prison."

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html

PS: Appologies to the board WRT the errors i made in the numbers...it was 2, not 3, and the Cop killed someone in 1988, not the 40's as i had erroneously stated.

NOTE: The article states civilians(as opposed to police officers). I have news for the author, police ARE civilians.

TexasOutlaw
08 Mar 05,, 21:47
ooh ooh ooh...I wanna chime in...can I please? LOL

Reading thru all of this...it has become somewhat of a blur..but here we go..

The kids at Columbine did NOT buy their weapons at Kmart...they purchased them at a gun show, and altered the shot gun at home *the one seen in the video tape* They bought the Ammunition at Kmart. *stated in that horrible movie Bowling for Columbine*

There are roughly 1.5million crimes that are Prevented by the use of a firearm.

Tink - correct me if I am wrong..but from what you said earlier...you would shoot a 9yr old boy in the back?
I would have shot them any day,
Now I'm not here to pass judgement on anyone, but in this case I will. With a statement like that...it is no wonder you are not a cop anymore. To even agree that the FBI and ATF were in the right is purely absurd. To agree that shooting an unarmed woman holding a baby IN THE FACE, and then making a mockery of it the next day over the bull horn "Hey Mr. Weaver, what is your wife cooking for breakfast?" "Hey Mr. Weaver, how is your wife doing this morning?" To side with that Tink, I will adamently say...you are wrong in every sense of the word.

Charleton Heston said it best...."From my cold dead hands."

Bill
08 Mar 05,, 23:49
Agreed on all counts Outlaw.

TexasOutlaw
09 Mar 05,, 00:15
thanx M21...but it just chaps my ass when people start getting beligerant about something that they only have half the facts or half truths, and then start spoutin it all as the gospel according to them.

I'll be the first to admit that the US is not a perfect country by any stretch of the means...we've made some horrendous mistakes in our 200+ years as a nation, but there is no other country that has the same freedoms that we sometimes take for granted, and then we also have freedoms that no other country has, or had and their gov't took away from them. Australia's gun ban being case in point.

Some of these folks with the extreme liberal mindset would be shocked to realize that there are so many people in this world that want those same freedoms that we have, they look up to Americans. My father travels the world on a fairly regular basis, and he has told me that people have asked him what it is like to be an American, to be free; to be able to speak your peace and not have to worry about the reprecussions of what you said.
To take what freedoms that we have away from us, is to only throw us into a downward spiral into a cesspool. And if the liberal's get their way..that's exactly what will happen.

Ziska
09 Mar 05,, 00:27
Hmm. Australia is a great country, but our gun laws suck. Most people grow up never having held a rifle, which is a great shame. That said, pretty much anyone can legally get a weapon, it just costs a helluva lot, which is my issue with it. I have no problem shelling out for a gun safe, safety lessons etc, but paying the government so they can keep tabs on me is a bit rich.

sw55
09 Mar 05,, 01:35
The government has B2 Spirit bombers, you owning a .45 will never stop one if the government decides to kill us all. I think even M21 will agree with me on this, you do not stand a chance against the US military. Anyways, I get to go on vacation for ten days. So I won't be here.

-Tink

It is not the intention for the existence of the US military to ever be used against US citizens, on US soil. The point at which National Guard troops were called out against anti-war protesters at Berkley and shots fired at US citizens was the exact point at which we lost the Viet Nam War. That sort of thing by any government is what causes revolutions, and history is filled with examples.

Personal rights are perishable at the point of when the priority for the persistence and existence of the governments power eclipses the individual's rights.

"A government is the most dangerous threat to man's rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims."
Ayn Rand

"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
Ayn Rand

“All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.” (by Mao Zedong in the Problems of War and Strategy, Nov 6 1938, published in “Selected Works of Mao Zedong,” 1965)

Have a nice vacation Tink...

sw55
09 Mar 05,, 01:59
Do me a favor, look up the definition of assault rifle.

In fact, i'll save you the trouble:

An assault weapon is a select-fire rifle firing a medium power cartridge.

A semi-auto is not an assault weapon, regardless of what it looks like.

And i said only three murders have been commited in the US with legally owned assault weapons(Class III) since the passage of the 1936 NFA, with the most recent being commited by a federal law enforcement officer in the 1940's.

DEA agents being killed by foriegn nationals on foriegn soil do not apply, for obvious reasons.

Feel free to look it up in the FBI UCR.

"assault Rifle" is the US military, and law enforcement select fire, fully automatic firearm.
The term "Assault Weapon" was invented by Diane Fienstein's 1994 ban on semi-auto rifles with that legislation, and the attempt to renew the ban last September by her cohorts was to include just about all semi-auto rifles in a couple of the versions of the ban renewal (even rifles that were exempted by name in the original ban, like the Ruger Mini-14) that fortunately never made it out of congress, thanks to the efforts of many of us who wrote our senators and threatening them with our votes in November. For this subject I suggest
http://awbansunset.com/
I am "DR EVIL" on the forum associated with that website.

Avenger
09 Mar 05,, 04:58
Article today on knives and kids. Supports my feeling that banning firearms will not stop school killings. Not saying there shouldn't be regulations, but people determined to kill will find ways. Banning firearms doesn't address the problem of violence, of why kids or anyone feels it's ok to kill someone for their phone, a pair of brand name shoes, or because their girl dumped them.

"The families are backed by the Victims of Crime Trust, which says a child dies in a knife attack every two weeks.
It says there are three times as many fatal stabbings as gun deaths and penalties for carrying a knife should be the same as for carrying a gun. "

full article:
knives/guns (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4090897.stm)

Well, with due respect to all you firearm aficionados, one can more easily run away from an assailant with a knife than one with a gun. Surely guns are more of a threat than knives for school killings and the like?

(It is true that I'm rather in favor of gun control, and wish there was more of it, but I don't mean to provoke animosity here.)

lemontree
09 Mar 05,, 05:15
I'll be the first to admit that the US is not a perfect country by any stretch of the means...we've made some horrendous mistakes in our 200+ years as a nation, but there is no other country that has the same freedoms that we sometimes take for granted, and then we also have freedoms that no other country has
But the pros about your nation far outweight the cons. For instance a US cop can arrest the kith and kin of the US president for violation of any law (just as the UK police in their country). But if that happens in our country, the poor guy will not only loose his job, but life thereafter will be hell for him and his family.
That is freedom, the freedom to do your job without fear of doing the right.

Ziska
09 Mar 05,, 05:33
Well, with due respect to all you firearm aficionados, one can more easily run away from an assailant with a knife than one with a gun. Surely guns are more of a threat than knives for school killings and the like?

(It is true that I'm rather in favor of gun control, and wish there was more of it, but I don't mean to provoke animosity here.)

Then you could say it's easier to smuggle a knife into school, and so on.

Guns make it easy for someone to kill another person, yes. I don't think anyone here advocates that guns should necessarily be widespread, or easily obtainable by everyone. What I say is that people who are law abiding should be able to own weapons for no other reason than that they want to.

sw55
09 Mar 05,, 05:44
Then you could say it's easier to smuggle a knife into school, and so on.

Guns make it easy for someone to kill another person, yes. I don't think anyone here advocates that guns should necessarily be widespread, or easily obtainable by everyone. What I say is that people who are law abiding should be able to own weapons for no other reason than that they want to.

Well with freedom comes responsibility.
If you don't want to take responsibility you can climb into your prison cell and you won't ever have to worry about security... but then again...

I think it was Ben Franklin who said:

"Those who would trade freedom for security will end up with neither"

(paraphrase)

bonehead
09 Mar 05,, 05:50
People usually follow the path of least resistance and firearms are an easy way to kill people. The problem is that when you remove the guns, you have not removed the urge to kill. A murderer will simply change his tactics to get closer to the victim if a knife or other close quarter weapon is to be used. In fact, I believe most mass murderers , Dalmer, Jack the Ripper, Gacy, Night stalker, Green River, etc, did not use a firearm as a weapon of choice. (If I am wrong on this let me know).
As for columbine, many forget that they also attempted to use propane bombs. Where are all the marches against home made bombs? The bottom line is that one or two armed teachers with a bit of training and a lot of courage could have saved a lot of lives that day. Parents more in touch with their children would have also made a difference.
Unfortunately with the hysterics and gun phobic people would rather hold on to their irrational fears than to see the facts. There are others who know the facts and suppress them or lie about them as the facts about guns are a threat to their political agenda. Which is worse. The ignorant irrational people who refuse to take responcibility for themselves, or the ones who feed on those fears for personal and political gain.

Bill
09 Mar 05,, 06:55
""Those who would trade freedom for security will end up with neither""'

--------------------------------------

"Absolute security is absolute tyranny. Those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither."
~Benjamin Franklin


.

jame$thegreat
09 Mar 05,, 20:21
[QUOTE=M21Sniper]"Although sniper may be inaccurate with his statement i would also like to clarify that the gun used to assassinate regan was though legal, his ammunition was most certainly not. he used a .38 "saturday night special" meaning the rounds contained explosives and thank god reagan pulled through because there was a problem with the explosive components inside the bullets"

I was not innaccurate in my statement, ole Tinker just doesn't seem to know what an assault rifle is.

Hint: The term 'select fire' ring any bells?

PS...a 'saturday night special' is a term for an inexpensive handgun, it is not related to the ammunition.[/QUOTE/]
my apologies sir i did not know that you meant assault rifles i agree with you and as far as the saturday night special that is what I read in a book it was a while ago so i cant site my source but i can tell you it was about presidential assassination

jame$thegreat
09 Mar 05,, 20:31
Tink you are obviously inaccurate in your statements cosidering every post you have added was either an obvious lie or a misconception. Most were shot down as untrue by snipe or another well informed person on this site please check your sources (if this crap is coming from another misfortionate soul) because i am starting to question the credibility of your posts

Bill
09 Mar 05,, 20:48
"my apologies sir i did not know that you meant assault rifles i agree with you and as far as the saturday night special that is what I read in a book it was a while ago so i cant site my source but i can tell you it was about presidential assassination"

No problem.

The term saturday night special was invented by Democratic Politicians in an attempt to villify inexpensive handguns in order to ban them back in the 60s.

Who would that have hurt the most?

Law abiding poor people that live in crime riddled neighborhoods.

Yet another example of why the left is not for the poor, despite their assertions to the opposite.

TopHatter
09 Mar 05,, 23:07
[QUOTE=TexasOutlaw]The kids at Columbine did NOT buy their weapons at Kmart...they purchased them at a gun show, and altered the shot gun at home *the one seen in the video tape*They bought the Ammunition at Kmart. *stated in that horrible movie Bowling for Columbine*[QUOTE]

Thanks for pointing that one out TexasOutlaw
Might as well chime in here myself. At least one of their weapons was obtained illegally through a straw purchase from an 18 year old woman (girl, whatever).
She ought to do herself a favor and find out how good the barrel of a pistol tastes. :mad:

sw55
10 Mar 05,, 01:30
"my apologies sir i did not know that you meant assault rifles i agree with you and as far as the saturday night special that is what I read in a book it was a while ago so i cant site my source but i can tell you it was about presidential assassination"

No problem.

The term saturday night special was invented by Democratic Politicians in an attempt to villify inexpensive handguns in order to ban them back in the 60s.

Who would that have hurt the most?

Law abiding poor people that live in crime riddled neighborhoods.

Yet another example of why the left is not for the poor, despite their assertions to the opposite.

The next anti-gun attack will be against "sniper rifles", or hunting rifles. Just wait. It will be a double agenda, anti gun and anti hunting. Claiming as more powerful than an "assault weapon", which they are, hunting rifles will be demonized. It is just the tactic of the moment by the anti-gun crowd. They won't shut up until all guns are banned. All guns illegal. A totally disarmed population. They will then not feel threatened in their ivory towers, safe from those inferior to them.

Bill
10 Mar 05,, 01:45
Which is why we must never rest.

Rest assured though, if push ever comes to shove...we have the guns, not them.

The dumbasses...

Here's another of those founding father quotes i know you're fond of:

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance"
~Thomas Jefferson

TopHatter
10 Mar 05,, 01:48
Rest assured though, if push ever comes to shove...we have the guns, not them.


...and that's godd*mn right :mad:

sw55
10 Mar 05,, 01:49
Which is why we must never rest.

Rest assured though, if push ever comes to shove...we have the guns, not them.

The dumbasses...

Here's another of those founding father quotes i know you're fond of:

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance"
~Thomas Jefferson

Well you have to admit, it is true.

Bill
10 Mar 05,, 02:13
The most important part is, the opposition also knows it's true.

Hence their nibble-nibble strategy.

bonehead
10 Mar 05,, 04:15
The most important part is, the opposition also knows it's true.

Hence their nibble-nibble strategy.

Nibble nibble my ass! Ginny Burdick is trying an all out attack on assault weapons and the rights of CCL holders in Oregon. Her list of "banned weapons" is right out of the California laws. She says her legislation is not so bad because current owners can keep theirs at home or at a rifle range. The not so fine print says you can not import, manufacture, sell or even give the rifles away. (not even to sons or daughters) Oh Yeah. high capacity mags are banned as well. If you are caught with a mag over ten rounds=go to jail. No record of assault weapons used in crimes here means nada to her.

Her legislation against CCL holders is to severely limit where they can go. It allows cities and countie to make laws that supercede state laws. My favorite is the part where if you go to the zoo, park, or whatever and a school field trip happens to show up, you are in violation. She is demanding manditory jail time for this instance. The fact that there has never been a problem with CCL holders and schools matters not.
She aint nibbling. She's going for the whole enchelada.

lemontree
10 Mar 05,, 06:13
Ginny Burdick is trying an all out attack on assault weapons and the rights of CCL holders in Oregon.
My friend, these are tactics used by politicians to squeeze money out of the gun/arms industry for their political campaigns of their own pockets. Once their pockets get lined, then they shut up of change their tune.

bonehead
10 Mar 05,, 06:53
I'd love to agree with you on this, but it is not the first time she has tried this type of legislation. She has made it perfectly clear over the years that she wants Oregon to follow in California's footsteps when it comes to gun control. She has a sympathetic govorner and enough democrats in the state senate to push this through. The house, though dominated by republicans, have a lot of "gun control" republicans. She knows that if ever this type of legislation will succeed it will be now. She is not after money. She is ruthlesssly, cold heartedly, calculatingly, manipulatingly after the second amendment. We let our guard down a few years ealier and she ram rodded an election that duped the voters into accepting the sales of new firearms to be recorded and the records kept for 5 years. The provisions of destroying said records have yet to be determined. After the election she wanted the five years to be permanant. Ginny Burdick is the consummate politition. She knows how to lie. She knows how to ignore the truth. She can give people a plate of dog **** and convince them its prime rib. She knows that if you are persistant enough, sooner or later you can sneek some through.

Avenger
10 Mar 05,, 07:44
thanx M21...but it just chaps my ass when people start getting beligerant about something that they only have half the facts or half truths, and then start spoutin it all as the gospel according to them.

I'll be the first to admit that the US is not a perfect country by any stretch of the means...we've made some horrendous mistakes in our 200+ years as a nation, but there is no other country that has the same freedoms that we sometimes take for granted, and then we also have freedoms that no other country has, or had and their gov't took away from them. Australia's gun ban being case in point.

Some of these folks with the extreme liberal mindset would be shocked to realize that there are so many people in this world that want those same freedoms that we have, they look up to Americans. My father travels the world on a fairly regular basis, and he has told me that people have asked him what it is like to be an American, to be free; to be able to speak your peace and not have to worry about the reprecussions of what you said.
To take what freedoms that we have away from us, is to only throw us into a downward spiral into a cesspool. And if the liberal's get their way..that's exactly what will happen.

I'm a moderate Democrat, and I'm somewhat for gun control generally, but I must say that I agree with a lot of what you say. You don't fully appreciate our free and stable society unless you've seen how much of the rest of the world lives.

Avenger
10 Mar 05,, 07:56
Then you could say it's easier to smuggle a knife into school, and so on.

Guns make it easy for someone to kill another person, yes. I don't think anyone here advocates that guns should necessarily be widespread, or easily obtainable by everyone. What I say is that people who are law abiding should be able to own weapons for no other reason than that they want to.

Right, that's why I'm a bit torn on this issue. I also feel that one should not tell others how to live (to include what they can or cannot own). But a lot of these school shootings were directly associated with gun and hunting culture, in areas where (as I recall from one documentary) "everybody hunts." I still think society would do better without the profusion of guns.

Then again, if some maniac opens fire at a restaurant I'm eating at, I wouldn't at all mind having a gentleman (or even a gentlelady) at the next table stand up, pull a gun, and kill the cretin before he kills me. Another reason I'm on the fence on this issue. I guess basically in the end I'm not against responsible gun owners, such as surely virtually all of you. Just don't kill your wife in the heat of the moment, and don't let your kids swipe your guns and use them somewhere (or accidentally discharge them). Those things are just innately dangerous.

Anyway, peace. A former brother-in-law was a gun owner and hunter who educated his kids (my nephews) in the proper use of firearms. He's a good guy, as I'm sure all of you are.

Avenger
10 Mar 05,, 08:03
People usually follow the path of least resistance and firearms are an easy way to kill people. The problem is that when you remove the guns, you have not removed the urge to kill. A murderer will simply change his tactics to get closer to the victim if a knife or other close quarter weapon is to be used. In fact, I believe most mass murderers , Dalmer, Jack the Ripper, Gacy, Night stalker, Green River, etc, did not use a firearm as a weapon of choice. (If I am wrong on this let me know).
As for columbine, many forget that they also attempted to use propane bombs. Where are all the marches against home made bombs? The bottom line is that one or two armed teachers with a bit of training and a lot of courage could have saved a lot of lives that day. Parents more in touch with their children would have also made a difference.
Unfortunately with the hysterics and gun phobic people would rather hold on to their irrational fears than to see the facts. There are others who know the facts and suppress them or lie about them as the facts about guns are a threat to their political agenda. Which is worse. The ignorant irrational people who refuse to take responcibility for themselves, or the ones who feed on those fears for personal and political gain.

Now, my understanding is that you're dead on right about the serial killer angle. They want to assert control over their victims by killing them in an intimate way, often by strangulation or with a knife. As for Columbine, it's too bad the cops didn't have tactics where they could charge in and kill those two Hitler admirers.

Can someone cite some cases of mass killings that were averted by an armed bystander? Didn't such a guy get killed outside that courthouse when that guy was shooting his wife with a semiautomatic rifle last week? I myself have stepped in to end violent assaults twice, but I couldn't have done anything if they had involved guns.

highsea
10 Mar 05,, 08:53
The next anti-gun attack will be against "sniper rifles", or hunting rifles. Already happening...

Schwarzenegger proves to be a "Girlie Man" on guns!

(Sacramento) While the U.S. Congress moves to restore the rights of law-abiding citizens by allowing the Clinton/Feinstein Gun Ban to sunset, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger stomps on California citizen's rights by banning .50 BMG single shot bolt action rifles. These are firearms that have never been used in the commission of a crime in the state in over 81 years of existence.

This is the first time in California history that a single shot bolt action rifle of any kind is banned in the State. Schwarzenegger makes history again by being the first California Governor to ban a firearm that has never been used in a crime. Even former Governor Gray Davis doesn't have that distinction.

The Governor crushed the rights of law-abiding gun owners by signing the .50 BMG ban (AB 50 Koretz-D) while at the same time he considers whether to protect his Hollywood cronies by signing SB 231. Sources say SB 231 was required by Federal firearms officials or Hollywood would have had to shut down any television and movie production having to do with a firearm. Firearms used in television and movie productions are real firearms even when modified to shoot blanks. Production companies just handed the firearms over to the actors in violation of numerous state and federal laws regarding lending and transferring without background checks - even though some of the actors are ineligible to touch a firearm because of prior criminal convictions. SB 231 would create a system that will allow the studios to comply with the law but does nothing about years of previous felony violations.

http://gunownersca.com/news/04/govsgnsab50pr.htm
Now how many criminals are lugging around Barrett .50's?

lemontree
10 Mar 05,, 09:43
Can someone cite some cases of mass killings that were averted by an armed bystander? Didn't such a guy get killed outside that courthouse when that guy was shooting his wife with a semiautomatic rifle last week? I myself have stepped in to end violent assaults twice, but I couldn't have done anything if they had involved guns.
The problem is that crimes will always be committed even if guns are not there. A rejected lover may not use a gun or knife to kill his target but then he may use acid to disfigure her face, thereby ruining her life.
Should the law makers feel proud that at least a gun was not used. The Indian state of Bihar is swamped with illegaly made country made gun guns. Crimainals move about armed and a law abiding citizen cannot even arm himself without having a history of facing extortion threats (and when one gets a license the cost of a weapon is prohibitive). You can not roam the country sides of the states of UP and Bihar unarmed.

sw55
10 Mar 05,, 12:45
Already happening...
Now how many criminals are lugging around Barrett .50's?

Excellent point. But that won't stop them because banning all guns is their ultimate goal, if not pubilcally admitted. The scare tactics are disgusting. Gang bangers or terrorists, or a band of pissed off grannies will buy these things, at only about $6,000 a gun, and $5.00 a round, and take on a police station. And the seduction to violence by the gun, as if the gun made them do it. For chirst sake, a gun is an inanimate object. A tool, used for good as well as bad. Blaming the gun for the crime absolves the individual of the responsibility of morality: It is the gun with the moral quality, and that is the ultimate materialism.
The gun grabbers, and the left in general, are either really screwed up or dishonest on this subject. Maybe both. And they are the same ones who claim to be the most tollerant of others different from themselves in lifestyles. Evidently not.

Ok, rant over. I feel better now.

sw55
10 Mar 05,, 13:07
Can someone cite some cases of mass killings that were averted by an armed bystander? Didn't such a guy get killed outside that courthouse when that guy was shooting his wife with a semiautomatic rifle last week? I myself have stepped in to end violent assaults twice, but I couldn't have done anything if they had involved guns.

There have been many, but allways downplayed by the police and media. An example, I can't produce a date or place yet but I will try, was a college where some kid went into the facility and started shooting. The media and police said the kid was "subdued" and held down by other students until police arrived. What actually happened was that other students with their guns retrieved from their cars, and several of them evidently, held the assailant at gunpoint. Clearly I would not approach someone shooting a gun and try to physically hold him down while I was unarmed, as the newspaper implied. This sort of treatment by the police and press is typical of this sort of situation.
I guess they are trying not to encourage vigilantism.

And as far as "mass killings averted", they are not news. No mass murder, maybe not even any shots fired when the potential mass murder is confronted by an armed good guy. You won't ever hear about it in the news unless someone bleeds, and even then you won't get the whole story.

Officer of Engineers
10 Mar 05,, 15:26
Can someone cite some cases of mass killings that were averted by an armed bystander? Didn't such a guy get killed outside that courthouse when that guy was shooting his wife with a semiautomatic rifle last week? I myself have stepped in to end violent assaults twice, but I couldn't have done anything if they had involved guns.

Happens everyday when I was in UNPROFOR and everyday in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

sw55
10 Mar 05,, 20:34
Just don't kill your wife in the heat of the moment, and don't let your kids swipe your guns and use them somewhere (or accidentally discharge them). Those things are just innately dangerous.

Anyway, peace. A former brother-in-law was a gun owner and hunter who educated his kids (my nephews) in the proper use of firearms. He's a good guy, as I'm sure all of you are.

It is obvious you have little experience with firearms, or so it would seem. To use such force on anyone I loved, no matter how mad I was, is inconcevable to me. As I have taught my son, I firmly believe it is just as inconcevable to him. I know you mean't no harm, but cars are also "innately dangerous", but we aren't talking about banning them, are we. At this point you should be suspecting the intentions of those wanting to ban guns. I suspect that it is your inexperience that leads to your fear of firarms, and as so with the left in general. With experience with firarms, as automobiles, you gain trust in yourself to make right decisions and fear the inanimate object less, but respect it more. Go to a range, shoot a couple hundred rounds with someone who knows. With responsibility comes power, and I am not going to surrender to cries for security, which is a lie to strip the people of their constitutional power.

Bill
10 Mar 05,, 23:31
"Can someone cite some cases of mass killings that were averted by an armed bystander?"

About a year after the Columbine killings a local in some backwater USA town saw a few kids trying to sneak into their school with guns and held them for the local police with a shotgun. They had planned a repeat of the Columbine shootings in their school.

Can't remember the details, it's been a while since i read about the incident.

I held a hit and run driver that tried to flee on foot(after slamming into a car with a woman and her infant) at gunpoint for police once. That was about 6 years ago i guess.

sw55
11 Mar 05,, 00:07
"Can someone cite some cases of mass killings that were averted by an armed bystander?"


I held a hit and run driver that tried to flee on foot(after slamming into a car with a woman and her infant) at gunpoint for police once. That was about 6 years ago i guess.

DAMNNNNN!!!!

Nice job snipe!

I am sure you didn't get the recognition you obviously deserved.
But you got it from me.
I am about to renew my CCW. You just added another reason to spend the $100 I shouldn't have to spend to excercise my rights, but thanks all the same, and even more.

Nice job

SW55

Avenger
11 Mar 05,, 02:12
There have been many, but allways downplayed by the police and media. An example, I can't produce a date or place yet but I will try, was a college where some kid went into the facility and started shooting. The media and police said the kid was "subdued" and held down by other students until police arrived. What actually happened was that other students with their guns retrieved from their cars, and several of them evidently, held the assailant at gunpoint. Clearly I would not approach someone shooting a gun and try to physically hold him down while I was unarmed, as the newspaper implied. This sort of treatment by the police and press is typical of this sort of situation.
I guess they are trying not to encourage vigilantism.

And as far as "mass killings averted", they are not news. No mass murder, maybe not even any shots fired when the potential mass murder is confronted by an armed good guy. You won't ever hear about it in the news unless someone bleeds, and even then you won't get the whole story.


Thanks--that's fascinating to learn. I remember the case you cite. And yes, I believe your points here are valid. As for your other post, you bet I'm totally inexperienced with guns. I do fear them in the wrong hands, and I do also tend to believe statistics that suggest that firearms usually end up harming family or friends, far more than they ward off intruders. But I am not militating banning them altogether because of that. I am torn, in that I think society would be better off without them, whereas I also would not want to tell you gun-owners how to live, or be told by anyone how to live. It is also true that if I had a chance, I would most enjoy firing various guns at a firing range. And it is true that if I were armed with a gun, I would never hesitate to use it when justified and necessary to defeat an armed assailant committing a violent crime. Anyway, it's interesting to hear the views of people with different experiences than I have on this subject. Thanks.

Avenger
11 Mar 05,, 02:15
"Can someone cite some cases of mass killings that were averted by an armed bystander?"

About a year after the Columbine killings a local in some backwater USA town saw a few kids trying to sneak into their school with guns and held them for the local police with a shotgun. They had planned a repeat of the Columbine shootings in their school.

Can't remember the details, it's been a while since i read about the incident.

I held a hit and run driver that tried to flee on foot(after slamming into a car with a woman and her infant) at gunpoint for police once. That was about 6 years ago i guess.

Thanks for the info. I also would get similarly involved in such an incident as you describe (the hit and run), armed or not.

Avenger
11 Mar 05,, 02:18
Happens everyday when I was in UNPROFOR and everyday in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

God bless the military, but that's a bit of a different thing than what I meant.

BTW, my first inclination after 9/11 was to join the military, but they would hardly have known what to do with a 42-year-old black belt. So I am relegated to the role of cheerleader, more or less. (That is, unless some moron jumps up and attacks a stewardess on an airplane I'm on, in which case I hope I'm first in line to attack him.)

Cheers.

Praxus
11 Mar 05,, 02:52
If no one had guns, no need to defend against them.

-Tink

This is simply an evasion of reality.

Bill
11 Mar 05,, 02:53
"DAMNNNNN!!!!

Nice job snipe!

I am sure you didn't get the recognition you obviously deserved.
But you got it from me.
I am about to renew my CCW. You just added another reason to spend the $100 I shouldn't have to spend to excercise my rights, but thanks all the same, and even more.

Nice job

SW55"

LOL, thanx man. I just don't like criminals is all.

As far as recognition, as soon as i handed the clown over, i got the hell out of there before some cop decided it would be fun to break my balls(there are lots that seem to enjoy that).

Bill
11 Mar 05,, 02:55
"BTW, my first inclination after 9/11 was to join the military, but they would hardly have known what to do with a 42-year-old black belt. So I am relegated to the role of cheerleader, more or less."

Don't feel bad, I tried to re-enlist on Sept 12th, and they didn't seem to have any idea what to do with a 32yo ex sniper with combat experience either.

Go figure.

After six months of jumping through hoops, i finally told them to pound sand.

sw55
11 Mar 05,, 13:53
I do fear them in the wrong hands, and I do also tend to believe statistics that suggest that firearms usually end up harming family or friends, far more than they ward off intruders..

We all fear them in the wrong hands, but we should want them in the right hands. I don't believe those statistics you mention because there are just as many that prove otherwise, and I could probably guess where you got your statistics. I think that there are many on the anti-gun side that distort statistics to their cause. Because of the way our media is, every gun story is a big news story. Sensationalism and rubber necking the car wreck is what pays the bills for the media. That plays well for the anti-gun people.

I live in a very gun friendly community, as you might imagine in Northern Michigan. Everyone on my road has at least a hunting rifle, and then some. Right now my keys are in my trucks ignition, and I couldn't lock my house if I wanted to. But the point is we have no crime to speak of. Nobody would be crazy enough to try to break into any homes around here, it just doesn't happen that much because it is common knowlege you would get shot. Washington DC and New York have opressive gun laws and bans. Do you think a car would stay anyplace in New York City for more than 10 minutes with the keys in the ignition? How about a unlocked house there? I think when good people are armed it keeps people honest. That is why when states pass pro-CCW laws crime actually declines noticably.

I still think you should find a pro gun friend and go to the gun range. I bet you will love it.

sniperdude411
11 Mar 05,, 21:29
If you want proof, then check all these websites out:
http://directory.google.com/Top/Society/Issues/Gun_Control/Pro-Gun_Rights/

sw55
12 Mar 05,, 00:01
If you want proof, then check all these websites out:
http://directory.google.com/Top/Society/Issues/Gun_Control/Pro-Gun_Rights/

I love your avatar, XM-8 I believe.

I also didn't mention the theroputic aspect of firarms. I suspect I have saved myself thousands in anti-depresants with my hobby.
And I just ordered another thousand rounds of theropy to arrive soon.
Life is GOOD!!!!!!!!

Confed999
12 Mar 05,, 01:31
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." -Sigmund Freud

bonehead
12 Mar 05,, 04:58
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." -Sigmund Freud

Sigmund Freud related everything to sex. My hero!

Confed999
12 Mar 05,, 15:18
Sigmund Freud related everything to sex. My hero!
"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." - Sigmund Freud ;)

TexasOutlaw
13 Mar 05,, 03:45
I also live in a rural area where everyone has at least 1 firearm. It took me at least 6 months to get my wife to not worry so much about someone stealing her car or breaking into the house *after a 4 year stint in phoenix*...but still, she will lock up the house and the cars if we go out of town for more than 1 day...lol

Avenger...you said that you were more inclined to believe the stats cited by the anti-gun lobbyists...What they're not telling you is that for one...the number one killer of teenagers is alcohol...not guns...there are more children that drown in the bathtub than there are children that are killed by a gun.
roughly 1.5million crimes are prevented by us "gun-toting, neanderthal right-wing freaks who believe that the U.S. Constitution is a binding legal document." :tongue:

Bill
13 Mar 05,, 03:59
"...who believe that the U.S. Constitution is a binding legal document."

You mean it's not?

sniperdude411
13 Mar 05,, 16:21
I love your avatar, XM-8 I believe.

I also didn't mention the theroputic aspect of firarms. I suspect I have saved myself thousands in anti-depresants with my hobby.
And I just ordered another thousand rounds of theropy to arrive soon.
Life is GOOD!!!!!!!!

Is there anything more fun?
I'm almost never depressed, but blowing-away a few pieces of plywood w/ my 12-gauge is just plain good. *drools while imagining shooting 6 rounds in-succession*

Also: Yep, xm8 in compact carbine config. Signature's pic is a CheyTac Intervention m200.