Dick7Access
Dick S
- Local time
- Today, 10:05
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2009
- Messages
- 4,309
I get the point
Gun laws do they work (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Dick7Access
- Start date
I get the point
Dick7Access
Dick S
- Local time
- Today, 10:05
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2009
- Messages
- 4,309
Hi motorcycle buddy,
I have extensive training also. from a police department, from the FBI, and from Navy, and Marines. oh and almost forgot when I was sixteen from the local country agent. Later I also taught in the police department.
ChrisO
Registered User.
- Local time
- Tomorrow, 00:05
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2003
- Messages
- 3,202
Dick7Access.:-
From post #566
>>Ok, you may have me. I probable not informed enough with assault rifles. I think I was thinking high powered hunting but jut the name seems to indicate that it is something different. I will have to bone up on assault rifles before I can make an informative comment.<<
Now in post #582
>>I have extensive training also. from a police department, from the FBI, and from Navy, and Marines. oh and almost forgot when I was sixteen from the local country agent. Later I also taught in the police department.<<
If all of that is true then it is frightening.
Chris.
From post #566
>>Ok, you may have me. I probable not informed enough with assault rifles. I think I was thinking high powered hunting but jut the name seems to indicate that it is something different. I will have to bone up on assault rifles before I can make an informative comment.<<
Now in post #582
>>I have extensive training also. from a police department, from the FBI, and from Navy, and Marines. oh and almost forgot when I was sixteen from the local country agent. Later I also taught in the police department.<<
If all of that is true then it is frightening.
Chris.
Dick7Access
Dick S
- Local time
- Today, 10:05
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2009
- Messages
- 4,309
Give me a break, back then we didn't have a concern about assault rifles. Navy consisted of M60' and M-16 which is not in the same catagory a the heavy stuff they have today. Police department was strictly .38's. FBI was shot guns, and riot batons. The heavy emphases was on gun safty
- Local time
- Today, 09:05
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2001
- Messages
- 30,249
Gun control continues to be the quick-fix issue when it won't fix squat.
As to whether our house has ever been broken into? No, but only because someone was home, turned on a light, and scared away the ones making the attempt. We had to buy an alarm system because of that.
I haven't had to defend myself with a weapon, but I do personally know someone who did so. He walked away. His assailant and would-be robber didn't. It happens.
Adam Camaron, I respect you for a lot of things but you and I will probably be on opposite sides of this one. I said that taking guns away from everyone was the wrong answer and you imply that I wasn't thinking but merely being a knee-jerk reactionary. Did you BOTHER to read the rest of the comments? I believe that guns aren't the problem. PEOPLE are the problem. But nobody wants to do the right thing and make the commitments needed to help troubled kids. If the kids aren't troubled then they won't shoot up a school or something equally tragic. NO that wasn't a knee-jerk reaction and I am insulted that you would that it was purely reactionary. I tried to give a thoughtful comment or two and you dismissed it casually. On something this important, trust me that I wasn't being flippant or dismissive. On the other hand, you appeared EXACTLY that way.
Dan-cat, you offer a comment about "delusions of grandeur" based on my reference to that quote about the relationship between people and government. I said it and I meant it; nor do I think it is delusional. READ OUR WORLD'S HISTORY. (Yes, intentionally yelling.) When a government has its people totally subjugated, that is when the greatest atrocities begin. Governments will be reluctant to do that when their people can shoot back. In a sense, it is probably why many of the Middle Eastern countries can't control the terrorist groups within themselves. The terrorists have at least as modern a set of weapons as the governments.
I find myself despairing over a society that increasingly wants the "quick fix" to a problem that admits of no quick fixes. If it took us years to become so terribly violent, why does anyone think it won't take us years to fix the problem? Confiscatory gun control is a band-aid on a blow-out patch held in place by duct tape. It doesn't address the real problems. But it is a solution that makes some whiny babies feel like they did something. At least until the next massacre comes along. If I sound a bit strong here, it is because I feel that attention on gun control will divert us from the real problem, which is societal in nature.
All too often we demonize guns, violent video games, and violent movies. Hey, I'd just as soon watch a nice love story that included skin and a little erotic (no, not XXX erotic) activity - but the prudes don't want that. On the other hand, they don't raise nearly so much of a squawk about movies about assassins and hit men and wars. So the prudes must want us to be fighters, not lovers. Society is inconsistent and then wonders why we get kids who know violence but not love.
As to whether our house has ever been broken into? No, but only because someone was home, turned on a light, and scared away the ones making the attempt. We had to buy an alarm system because of that.
I haven't had to defend myself with a weapon, but I do personally know someone who did so. He walked away. His assailant and would-be robber didn't. It happens.
Adam Camaron, I respect you for a lot of things but you and I will probably be on opposite sides of this one. I said that taking guns away from everyone was the wrong answer and you imply that I wasn't thinking but merely being a knee-jerk reactionary. Did you BOTHER to read the rest of the comments? I believe that guns aren't the problem. PEOPLE are the problem. But nobody wants to do the right thing and make the commitments needed to help troubled kids. If the kids aren't troubled then they won't shoot up a school or something equally tragic. NO that wasn't a knee-jerk reaction and I am insulted that you would that it was purely reactionary. I tried to give a thoughtful comment or two and you dismissed it casually. On something this important, trust me that I wasn't being flippant or dismissive. On the other hand, you appeared EXACTLY that way.
Dan-cat, you offer a comment about "delusions of grandeur" based on my reference to that quote about the relationship between people and government. I said it and I meant it; nor do I think it is delusional. READ OUR WORLD'S HISTORY. (Yes, intentionally yelling.) When a government has its people totally subjugated, that is when the greatest atrocities begin. Governments will be reluctant to do that when their people can shoot back. In a sense, it is probably why many of the Middle Eastern countries can't control the terrorist groups within themselves. The terrorists have at least as modern a set of weapons as the governments.
I find myself despairing over a society that increasingly wants the "quick fix" to a problem that admits of no quick fixes. If it took us years to become so terribly violent, why does anyone think it won't take us years to fix the problem? Confiscatory gun control is a band-aid on a blow-out patch held in place by duct tape. It doesn't address the real problems. But it is a solution that makes some whiny babies feel like they did something. At least until the next massacre comes along. If I sound a bit strong here, it is because I feel that attention on gun control will divert us from the real problem, which is societal in nature.
All too often we demonize guns, violent video games, and violent movies. Hey, I'd just as soon watch a nice love story that included skin and a little erotic (no, not XXX erotic) activity - but the prudes don't want that. On the other hand, they don't raise nearly so much of a squawk about movies about assassins and hit men and wars. So the prudes must want us to be fighters, not lovers. Society is inconsistent and then wonders why we get kids who know violence but not love.
Dick7Access
Dick S
- Local time
- Today, 10:05
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2009
- Messages
- 4,309
If all of that is true then it is frightening.
I am sorry that is frightening. The best advice I can give you is don't bang on the side of my RV at 2:am.
Dick7Access
Dick S
- Local time
- Today, 10:05
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2009
- Messages
- 4,309
Doc
All very well articulate. However remember that no matter what they call you, it can't change who you are.
Secondly this thread issue is noting new. It is been going on for as long as I have had my first gun. for my third birthday my parents hung the holster on my crib that morning. (just kidding)
ChrisO
Registered User.
- Local time
- Tomorrow, 00:05
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2003
- Messages
- 3,202
Doc.
>>Gun control continues to be the quick-fix issue when it won't fix squat.<<
Are you saying that the gun laws in Hawaii have not at least reduced the statistics of gun crime by a significant margin in Hawaii when the FBI statistics would imply that they do?
Do you have creditable statistics to the contrary? If so then please post them.
Chris.
>>Gun control continues to be the quick-fix issue when it won't fix squat.<<
Are you saying that the gun laws in Hawaii have not at least reduced the statistics of gun crime by a significant margin in Hawaii when the FBI statistics would imply that they do?
Do you have creditable statistics to the contrary? If so then please post them.
Chris.
- Local time
- Today, 09:05
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2001
- Messages
- 30,249
ChrisO, I quote Mark Twain: "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics." The problem with statistics is that statistically, the number of kids killed by violent shooting incidents is far lower than the number of kids killed by vehicular accidents. Do we ban cars? I don't want anyone to think I'm not appalled by the Newtown tragedy. It is just that I would prefer to spend my resources on what I firmly believe to be the correct way to fix the problem rather than a fix for which I have absolutely no confidence in its effectiveness. Gun bans are a "feel-good" fix that I don't see as being effective. What else can I say? I think it diverts attention from the real problem.
Dick7Access
Dick S
- Local time
- Today, 10:05
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2009
- Messages
- 4,309
Well my friend, if you are looking for certificates you are out of luck. some of my training goes back to 1957 1962, 1965 ,66 1980. so at this late date there is no paper trail, you will either take my word for it or not believe it. Either ay makes no difference to me. In fact all that training wont do me any good either as I want to get my concealed weapons permit before it too late and I still have to take a safety course, as of course they will not except my say so. and they need to evaluate me as I could be a wacko, Hey wait a minute I am a wacko <G>. [FONT="]
[/FONT]
John Big Booty
AWF VIP
- Local time
- Tomorrow, 00:05
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2005
- Messages
- 8,262
John Big Booty
AWF VIP
- Local time
- Tomorrow, 00:05
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2005
- Messages
- 8,262
Oh and just in case you didn't get it, yes I am extracting the urine 
RainLover
VIP From a land downunder
- Local time
- Tomorrow, 00:05
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2009
- Messages
- 5,041
Answer to my pervious question.
How Long to Kill 1,000,000 Americans.
The answer by some could be "Too long". One person said something like "What does it matter"
Americans got upset and are still crying over the death of about 3,000 people when the trade centre was hit.
But you really don't care about killing 1,000,000 fellow Americans.
I am not American but I care. I care about all those innocents killed and those that will be killed sometime in the future.
I read that since the assignation of Martin Luther King which was in 1968 (I think) there has already been ONE MILLION MURDERED by gun owners. These people are your fellow Americans.
What would you do if these people were killed not by Americans but by Canadians?
How Long to Kill 1,000,000 Americans.
The answer by some could be "Too long". One person said something like "What does it matter"
Americans got upset and are still crying over the death of about 3,000 people when the trade centre was hit.
But you really don't care about killing 1,000,000 fellow Americans.
I am not American but I care. I care about all those innocents killed and those that will be killed sometime in the future.
I read that since the assignation of Martin Luther King which was in 1968 (I think) there has already been ONE MILLION MURDERED by gun owners. These people are your fellow Americans.
What would you do if these people were killed not by Americans but by Canadians?
John Big Booty
AWF VIP
- Local time
- Tomorrow, 00:05
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2005
- Messages
- 8,262
Come on Chris, the FIB is the Goberments and we all knows you can only trust the internets
Lightwave
Ad astra
- Local time
- Today, 15:05
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2004
- Messages
- 1,537
A while back I heard a podcast from a leading policeman in New York talking about how they had managed to reduce crime levels in the city.
They had come to the opinion over the years that a significant proportion of all types of crime is not particularly planned it being largely opportunistic and that if a person could be prevented from committing a crime on a particular day rather than displacing that crime to another day that crime may never happen.
An example in Britain were the London riots of 2011 - a small minority decided to go on a rampage after a perceived injustice against an individual.
Subsequently many of the rioters and looters were interviewed.
• Many conceded that their involvement in looting was simply down to opportunism, saying that the perceived suspension of normal rules presented them with an opportunity to acquire goods and luxury items they could not ordinarily afford. They often described the riots as a chance to obtain "free stuff" or sought to justify the theft.
Unfortunately murder is most usually a crime of passion occuring between people who know each other. Something breaks in one or other individual and they strike out with whatever they have to hand with very little reason or thought for the long term consequences. It's why we keep guns away from children they might not mean to hurt anyone but at some point they might do something on the spur of the moment without thought. Keeping guns from them doesn't simply delay a crime they are destined to commit later it completely prevents a tragedy and crime from ever occurring.
It is an achievable goal to remove dangerous items from the vicinity of individuals or parties who you suspect lack responsibility. (which incidently closely tallies with the US foreign policy on nuclear weapons.)
It is a far harder goal to allow dangerous items to people and attempt to monitor them in the hope you can step in at an appropriate time to prevent disaster.
No guns and you don't have to monitor people - guns and your government may have to increase its monitoring of you.
It’s a perverse truth but your desire for guns may increase your governments wish to monitor your every movement. One of the very things you are rallying against.
It is my opinion that the statistics from other countries from Hawaii from New York all point in support of this theory. Reduced availability of guns isn't simply delaying crimes it is preventing them from ever occuring.
Adam Lanza would appear to fit this profile completely - he was upset with someone he knew ( his mother allegedly because she was seeking to commit him) he quite clearly lashed out against her and then with the opportunity in hand he lashed out against her place of work (quite likely because he associated it with her)
An altercation between mother and son looks like it was always going to happen but if the mother had been prevented from owning guns we have proof that the son would have been denied access to buying a gun. Would that have prevented further disaster?
I don't know but I strongly suspect it might have.
They had come to the opinion over the years that a significant proportion of all types of crime is not particularly planned it being largely opportunistic and that if a person could be prevented from committing a crime on a particular day rather than displacing that crime to another day that crime may never happen.
An example in Britain were the London riots of 2011 - a small minority decided to go on a rampage after a perceived injustice against an individual.
Subsequently many of the rioters and looters were interviewed.
• Many conceded that their involvement in looting was simply down to opportunism, saying that the perceived suspension of normal rules presented them with an opportunity to acquire goods and luxury items they could not ordinarily afford. They often described the riots as a chance to obtain "free stuff" or sought to justify the theft.
Unfortunately murder is most usually a crime of passion occuring between people who know each other. Something breaks in one or other individual and they strike out with whatever they have to hand with very little reason or thought for the long term consequences. It's why we keep guns away from children they might not mean to hurt anyone but at some point they might do something on the spur of the moment without thought. Keeping guns from them doesn't simply delay a crime they are destined to commit later it completely prevents a tragedy and crime from ever occurring.
It is an achievable goal to remove dangerous items from the vicinity of individuals or parties who you suspect lack responsibility. (which incidently closely tallies with the US foreign policy on nuclear weapons.)
It is a far harder goal to allow dangerous items to people and attempt to monitor them in the hope you can step in at an appropriate time to prevent disaster.
No guns and you don't have to monitor people - guns and your government may have to increase its monitoring of you.
It’s a perverse truth but your desire for guns may increase your governments wish to monitor your every movement. One of the very things you are rallying against.
It is my opinion that the statistics from other countries from Hawaii from New York all point in support of this theory. Reduced availability of guns isn't simply delaying crimes it is preventing them from ever occuring.
Adam Lanza would appear to fit this profile completely - he was upset with someone he knew ( his mother allegedly because she was seeking to commit him) he quite clearly lashed out against her and then with the opportunity in hand he lashed out against her place of work (quite likely because he associated it with her)
An altercation between mother and son looks like it was always going to happen but if the mother had been prevented from owning guns we have proof that the son would have been denied access to buying a gun. Would that have prevented further disaster?
I don't know but I strongly suspect it might have.
Last edited:
Brianwarnock
Retired
- Local time
- Today, 15:05
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 12,701
I did ask a while back
But of course I got no answer.
Doc says banning guns would make no difference so maybe he could answer.
Brian
But of course I got no answer.
Doc says banning guns would make no difference so maybe he could answer.
Brian
Brianwarnock
Retired
- Local time
- Today, 15:05
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 12,701
One other thing that puzzles me, the American's on this forum seem to be terrified of their leaders, and yet America spends a fortune trying to tell the rest of the world how it should live and be governed. 
Brian
Brian
