Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: junk2drive

Here in the land of Timothy McVeigh, you don't need a permit to carry a weapon unconcealed, and now concealed too. When I first moved here it was a shock to see people with side arms at banks, stores and restaurants. I've gotten comfortable with it and haven't seen anyone waving around a weapon of any sort. In general, crooks avoid occupied homes and autos because they don't know who will have the upper hand.

Feel free to drop by and chat about whatever is on your mind.

quote:

ORIGINAL: chijohnaok

quote:

ORIGINAL: junk2drive

Here in the land of Timothy McVeigh, you don't need a permit to carry a weapon unconcealed, and now concealed too. When I first moved here it was a shock to see people with side arms at banks, stores and restaurants. I've gotten comfortable with it and haven't seen anyone waving around a weapon of any sort. In general, crooks avoid occupied homes and autos because they don't know who will have the upper hand.

This is why all the controversy over what a newspaper in New York state did.

They obtained a list of all registered gun owners in their readership area, then crossed the addresses of each registrant using Google (or Yahoo) maps, and made the results available on their website.

Suddenly every burglar could figure out which homes were protected by guns, and which ones were not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

The statement "people would no longer be permitted" should send chills up the spine of anyone who lives in a free country. When you accept a governments right to take away any natural right, you've started down a dangerous path indeed. History has shown time and again almost any government that had such power over its people eventually leads to horrific tragedy.

Restricting freedom may seem fine when the people in power seem trustworthy, but once the governments right to restrict freedoms is part of the power structure someone always comes along to abuse it, it's simply a matter of time.

quote:



A good example would be the laws passed by the Weimer Republic that were intended to disarm the Nazis and Communists were later used by the Nazis against their enemies when they were taking full power in Germany. Free people should always weigh what they will or can lose when a freedom is taken away, even if it seems like a good reason to take it at the time.

quote:



I've been to Australia twice and made many friends in the law enforcement community down there (I'm retired police). All I can say from my talks with them is there is simply no comparison to the type and level of crime in the two countries. We have gangs here that require their prospective members to go out and kill some random innocent person just to get in the gang. The gangs in Oakland would make a game of it by going out and driving crazy on the freeway. The first person to flash their lights at them would be followed home and shot. I personally worked three different cases like that. Your only chance in an encounter like that is if you're personally armed, otherwise you're dead.

quote:



You completely missed the point if that's what you think. Prohibition was tried and failed miserably. Alcohol still kills far more innocent people daily than gun violence ever will, but it is far better to leave it a lawful commodity then to outlaw it again.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mgarnett

The position of freedom? Nothing wrong with that. 99.9% of law abiding gun owners never use a gun in a criminal act, it's the law breakers who use them in crimes right now, so outlawing them simply disarms the law abiding citizens and leaves them vulnerable to the criminals.

Jim

quote:

Again, if my post was ambiguous, I do apologise, but my point is this. If I were to say lets ban fast food burgers because they are bad for you and you say, yeah, but what about fizzy drinks, they're just as bad and I say, well what about candy, that's not good either and so on and so on, you never get to the end.

So, let's take guns, if I said lets ban guns and you say, well knives are just as bad and I say, well, what about about alcohol that kills people as well and you say, well, cigarettes are just as bad and I say well, don't forget cars, they kill people and you say.....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Missouri_Rebel

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
1 more edit:

That really came out wrong. I'm sorry if I offended my cousins across the pond. Instead of saying you weren't free, I should have merely stated that your speech codes are odd to me. Again, maybe a cultural thing, and I don't intend to influence your laws, it's just something very foreign to me(pun intended).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Missouri_Rebel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Missouri_Rebel

My wife's job ensures that she is very close to those that are on the government dole and the lack of drive among many and a complacency to live with what they are given, never striving for more, is troublesome. I shouldn't have to work so hard to pay for people who refuse to work, and yes there are MANY, so that I can pay for them to fill up on junk food and expensive meats, utilize a free phone, tear up property and homes where they have no vested interest while they demand things such as free internet. Get a job if you can work.

For instance, a consumer of my wife has a son that is 43, older than we are, who 'can't' find a job after 4 years of 'searching' for one. Yet he spends his day on mommy's internet playing games. My wife suggested that he try McDonalds as they are usually hiring. His response? It is below him to work there. Soaking the govt (me) for $300 a month in food stamps and hitting the local food pantries, basically stealing from those who really need it evidently is not below him though.

It doesn't really matter whenever he wants to get a job or not. McDonald's job may be "below him" to him, but it's not like McDonald's would actually hire him. "Usually hiring" means "a position is free in one of the restaurants from time to time" with the "but we got hundreds of applications" part omitted so that they'd get even more applications to choose from.

It's funny how many pretend employers there are nowadays. For example stores and restaurants usually keep job announcements on their fronts for a few months after they have already hired someone on that position and continue to collect tens or hundreds of CVs in that time. Additionally, employment agencies display outdated job offers to get CVs too (why do they even need so many CVs anyway?), government unemployment offices keep tens of outdated job offers on their page, one of the most annoying things that I have encountered is companies posting a job offer and then when one calls, it turns out that they aren't actually hiring, they just want to collect CVs for some time in future when they will have a free position. Tens, hundreds of CVs.

Then there are interviews whose purpose is to eliminate people who aren't good at bullshitting from getting any work.

Getting a job nowadays has nothing to do with wanting to get a job and availability of jobs is illusionary.

I guarantee he has a 100% of not being hired when he won't even go look. Nothing quite like the 'why bother attitude'. The rest of us flipping the bill for people working our butts off are starting to get the 'why bother' attitude.

I understand that the market is bad, but I am talking about people who refuse to work while I pay for them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Missouri_Rebel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Missouri_Rebel

My wife's job ensures that she is very close to those that are on the government dole and the lack of drive among many and a complacency to live with what they are given, never striving for more, is troublesome. I shouldn't have to work so hard to pay for people who refuse to work, and yes there are MANY, so that I can pay for them to fill up on junk food and expensive meats, utilize a free phone, tear up property and homes where they have no vested interest while they demand things such as free internet. Get a job if you can work.

For instance, a consumer of my wife has a son that is 43, older than we are, who 'can't' find a job after 4 years of 'searching' for one. Yet he spends his day on mommy's internet playing games. My wife suggested that he try McDonalds as they are usually hiring. His response? It is below him to work there. Soaking the govt (me) for $300 a month in food stamps and hitting the local food pantries, basically stealing from those who really need it evidently is not below him though.

It doesn't really matter whenever he wants to get a job or not. McDonald's job may be "below him" to him, but it's not like McDonald's would actually hire him. "Usually hiring" means "a position is free in one of the restaurants from time to time" with the "but we got hundreds of applications" part omitted so that they'd get even more applications to choose from.

It's funny how many pretend employers there are nowadays. For example stores and restaurants usually keep job announcements on their fronts for a few months after they have already hired someone on that position and continue to collect tens or hundreds of CVs in that time. Additionally, employment agencies display outdated job offers to get CVs too (why do they even need so many CVs anyway?), government unemployment offices keep tens of outdated job offers on their page, one of the most annoying things that I have encountered is companies posting a job offer and then when one calls, it turns out that they aren't actually hiring, they just want to collect CVs for some time in future when they will have a free position. Tens, hundreds of CVs.

Then there are interviews whose purpose is to eliminate people who aren't good at bullshitting from getting any work.

Getting a job nowadays has nothing to do with wanting to get a job and availability of jobs is illusionary.

I guarantee he has a 100% of not being hired when he won't even go look. Nothing quite like the 'why bother attitude'. The rest of us flipping the bill for people working our butts off are starting to get the 'why bother' attitude.

I understand that the market is bad, but I am talking about people who refuse to work while I pay for them.

On the other hand, I *love* job-dodgers as every one of them is one less CV to the pile and one less person to show off their bullshitting skills on job interviews. You may be hating them, but as long as there's unemployment, their influence on job market is very positive as they make it less difficult (which is ridiculously difficult anyway) to get job for honest, ambitious people who find pride in well done work and want more from life than food stamps. And employers have to deal with less lazy bullshitters.

Personally, I'm more inclined to dislike people who keep 3 different jobs for themselves, denying 2 workplaces to people who are searching for a job and have none. I wonder how much unemployment is created this way.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mgarnett

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

The statement "people would no longer be permitted" should send chills up the spine of anyone who lives in a free country. When you accept a governments right to take away any natural right, you've started down a dangerous path indeed. History has shown time and again almost any government that had such power over its people eventually leads to horrific tragedy.

Restricting freedom may seem fine when the people in power seem trustworthy, but once the governments right to restrict freedoms is part of the power structure someone always comes along to abuse it, it's simply a matter of time.

Hi Jim,

The difference, though, is that it was done WITH public support, not without. The citizens wanted the government to go down this path. In other words, we exercised our our freedom to restrict gun ownership, it was not a case of having it imposed upon us, we the people wanted this.

As a result, IMHO, there was no loss of freedom here, rather, the people exercised freedom. Just because we voted for stricter laws, does not mean we gave up our freedom or restricted our freedom but rather the opposite. To me, guns do not equal freedom and merely being allowed to carry a gun does not increase my freedom in any way at all (this to me, from my perspective, I'm not saying this is the same for everyone).

quote:



A good example would be the laws passed by the Weimer Republic that were intended to disarm the Nazis and Communists were later used by the Nazis against their enemies when they were taking full power in Germany. Free people should always weigh what they will or can lose when a freedom is taken away, even if it seems like a good reason to take it at the time.

I don't think this is a good example. There is a massive difference between a government imposing a law upon a population without the majority of the population wanting it.

quote:



I've been to Australia twice and made many friends in the law enforcement community down there (I'm retired police). All I can say from my talks with them is there is simply no comparison to the type and level of crime in the two countries. We have gangs here that require their prospective members to go out and kill some random innocent person just to get in the gang. The gangs in Oakland would make a game of it by going out and driving crazy on the freeway. The first person to flash their lights at them would be followed home and shot. I personally worked three different cases like that. Your only chance in an encounter like that is if you're personally armed, otherwise you're dead.

Oh, I absolutely agree with this and if it wasn't clear in my original post that I made this distinction, then my apologies. It goes back to my original point that this is not simply an issue of gun control, it's also cultural

quote:



You completely missed the point if that's what you think. Prohibition was tried and failed miserably. Alcohol still kills far more innocent people daily than gun violence ever will, but it is far better to leave it a lawful commodity then to outlaw it again.

Again, if my post was ambiguous, I do apologise, but my point is this. If I were to say lets ban fast food burgers because they are bad for you and you say, yeah, but what about fizzy drinks, they're just as bad and I say, well what about candy, that's not good either and so on and so on, you never get to the end.

So, let's take guns, if I said lets ban guns and you say, well knives are just as bad and I say, well, what about about alcohol that kills people as well and you say, well, cigarettes are just as bad and I say well, don't forget cars, they kill people and you say.....

You can see that we will get nowhere fast because for every additional example I can bring up, an equal and just as bad example can also be found. So my point is, not to advocate prohibition, that's absolutely not what I'm saying, but to say problems of this magnitude have to be dealt with one at a time. You can't solve every issue at the same time, you need to concentrate on what the issue is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mgarnett

The position of freedom? Nothing wrong with that. 99.9% of law abiding gun owners never use a gun in a criminal act, it's the law breakers who use them in crimes right now, so outlawing them simply disarms the law abiding citizens and leaves them vulnerable to the criminals.

Jim

No no no, I really cannot understand how on earth you came to that conclusion. I mean I feel sorry for the law abiding citizens that they have to put up with such violent crime, wouldn't you rather live in a society where you didn't have to put up with violent crime (all things remaining equal, i.e. no loss of freedom)? Just because I feel sorry, does not have anything to do with your freedom, I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion.

I don't have any crime statistics, but I would be interested to know if there is any proof that allowing citizens to carry a gun protects them from crime compared to those societies where citizens are not armed. Actually, this is something that would be really interesting to know, I think I might do some googling to see if any studies have been done and what the results are (for my own interest).

This does lead to an interesting thought, if studies support the notion that guns equals freedom and protection, then it would be a powerful piece of information supporting not introducing gun control. However, I wonder what would happen if studies proved otherwise. Here's a question, as a thought experiment, because I'm sure such a thing would not exist, if a study existed that proved beyond any reasonable doubt that gun control would reduce violent crime and as a result, increase public safety, would pro-gun people still argue against gun control?

I also want to be clear, I am not a US citizen, therefore I do not advocate for or against gun control in the US, because I don't live there and as a result, I do not feel I have a right to voice that opinion. I am merely trying to understand the problem because I feel just as horrified as the next person when I see news reports of innocent people being killed (again, this is not meant to be a dig at firearms). It's just so senseless and I wish a satisfactory solution could be found for all concerned, those pro-gun and those against.

Cheers

Mark

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

My uncle and cousin both owned rifles and hand guns..my uncle even made his own bullets..he had to hand over £1000's of pounds worth of guns..think he had about 10 hand guns or so..all locked away and safe..yet the Government came along and took them, so not everyone felt like the Government was acting on their behalf. They had the main hobby and enjoyment in life taken away from them because people who weren't interested in shooting decided they where all bad and the Government should ban them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wolfe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wolfe

mgarnett - your post pretty much sums up my thoughts from here in the UK. I think there is a big cultural difference, I just don't get the guns = freedom argument.

Jim D Burns - informative response particularly about the gang culture in the US. Though following on from the above I just don't see how "The statement "people would no longer be permitted" should send chills up the spine of anyone who lives in a free country". I live in what I consider a free country and there are lots of things my government (in its representation of the population of the UK) doesn't permit me to do including wandering around with a loaded (or even unloaded) firearm. I still feel free and also more free from the threat of violence than I think I would in the US.

You should check your privilege:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=3246182&key=

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=3246210&key=

Not disagreeing that there is still gun violence in the UK just that my perception is that I am more free from the threat of violence than I think I would be in the US. Maybe I've just been watching too much of Sons of Anarchy recently

That's why you should check your privilege. You're privileged to live a safer area and you're denying people who don't have that privilege the right to protect themselves.
Also, it's not just gun violence - there's also other kinds of violence that are as deadly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BASB

I guess what all my waffle is about is moderation, and gradual culture change. I'm not suggesting for one moment to ban firearms or hunting or target shooting etc etc, but for the life of me I can't see the need for every citizen have 5 shotguns, 4 rifles, 3 sub machine guns,2 semi automatic pistols and a cocked revolver in the pear tree.
Over the past 40 years the US has changed its attitude when it comes to racism, perhaps in the next 40 years your country can do the same and change the gun culture, I'm sure all citizens will benefit if there is only 150 million firearms instead of the 300 million you have today!

But why? If people can afford having many arms, then why shouldn't they have them? I'm pretty sure that having a few or several guns to go to shooting range with is much more fun than having only one gun.
[/qu


If for no other reason to save one persons life and hopefully many more, Its all about risk management. Reduce the risk and you reduce the chances of something going wrong. This may sound very dumb and simple, I question anyone to prove my theory wrong. If 2 blokes go to a fight both with guns, its odds on one of will get shot if not both. If the same two went to a fight and guns were weren't available, the odds of them getting shot very long. Now I'm not suggesting reduce guns by 50% you will reduce the number deaths by firearms by the same amount, but you will reduce them by some percentage.
An issue that hasn't touch in this particular thread is the number of accidental death by firearms. I'm not sure if my stats are right, but there were about 500 accidental death due to firearms in the US in 2012, and about half of all suicides firearms were used.
Every sound minded person should have the right to apply for a gun licence, but necessarily have the right to own a gun. Gun ownership should be a privilege not a right.

< Message edited by BASB -- 1/10/2013 4:53:53 AM >

_____________________________

Formerly Goodwood

(in reply to Perturabo)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mgarnett
I don't have any crime statistics, but I would be interested to know if there is any proof that allowing citizens to carry a gun protects them from crime compared to those societies where citizens are not armed.

quote:

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[12]

quote:

ORIGINAL: mgarnett

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

My uncle and cousin both owned rifles and hand guns..my uncle even made his own bullets..he had to hand over £1000's of pounds worth of guns..think he had about 10 hand guns or so..all locked away and safe..yet the Government came along and took them, so not everyone felt like the Government was acting on their behalf. They had the main hobby and enjoyment in life taken away from them because people who weren't interested in shooting decided they where all bad and the Government should ban them.

Hi Wodin,

I understand completely and I feel sorry for your uncle, we had issues here in AU with sporting shooters and what not (although sporting shooters are allowed firearms, but I think there is criteria around where the guns must be stored or how they must be stored, I can't quite remember), however, the majority of the population wanted the Government to do a particular thing and, for good or ill, that's the way democracies work. There will always be those who are adversely effected by the "will of the majority" (although, IMHO, this of itself does not make the decision inherently wrong, although it might not necessarily be right), but a perfect system of government does not exist where all of the people are happy all of the time.

Take cannabis for example, it's illegal here (although it is decriminalised in some states), but I'm sure some of those that do smoke it disagree with the governments decision to "outlaw" it. Does this make the decision wrong just because some people disagree with it? I honestly don't know. I think apart from those laws that address really extreme criminal behavior, there will always be two sides to the debate.

Some decisions we will agree with, some we won't, but the majority dictates policy (I say this as a statement as far "general policy and direction" is concerned and it's not meant to cover absolutely everything a government does, i.e. lobbying by minority groups). Here in AU, voting is compulsory, you vote or you get fined for not voting, unless you can justify it of course, so the government is voted in by a majority of the entire population (minors excluded), not just a majority of those people who vote.

I'm sure this is one law that could be viewed on as strange from the outside, especially from the US, we are forced to vote or pay a fine, so I suppose you don't have to if you're willing to pay for not voting with your wallet. I would vote regardless, but I'm sure there are those that wouldn't.....right or wrong, who knows.

Cheers

Mark

Feel free to drop by and chat about whatever is on your mind.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wolfe
I still feel free and also more free from the threat of violence than I think I would in the US. Maybe we in the UK have a greater inherent trust in our Parliament than US citizens have for their government, again maybe just one of those cultural differences.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wolfe
I still feel free and also more free from the threat of violence than I think I would in the US. Maybe we in the UK have a greater inherent trust in our Parliament than US citizens have for their government, again maybe just one of those cultural differences.

You may feel safer, but the facts simply don't back up that statement. The video I posted a link to earlier saw the data from the US and Britain compared. You are almost 4 times more likely to be a victim of a violent crime in Britain than you are in the US.

More of note, it's the dense urban areas where the big gangs are prevalent where all the violence is in the US, in most regions of the US we are far safer overall than most other people in the world.

We have a problem with big dangerous gangs in our inner cities, but that's a symptom of our freedoms. We protect everyone from unlawful search and seizure and as a result it is very hard for law enforcement to crack down on gangs. This makes organized crime a very lucrative business in the US, so our urban areas are plagued by violence from those same gangs.

That said, most violence and murders reported in those areas are gang on gang violence. Some does bleed over into the civilian populous sure, but the vast majority of it is scumbags killing scumbags. But hey if it fits into the niche of the anti-gun crowd they're always glad to point to it and say see I told you so.

But the fact is their poor governance in those areas is the true underlying cause of the problem. They get their power from the underprivileged and poor who vote for them, so it's in their best interest to keep those same voters underprivileged and poor while telling them they're "on their side". Some of the worst areas in our nation like Oakland have been staunchly democrat for 50+ years, but nothing ever gets any better in those areas. At some point you'd think the people would wise up and try something new just to see if things might change.

Feel free to drop by and chat about whatever is on your mind.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BASB

I'm sure all citizens will benefit if there is only 150 million firearms instead of the 300 million you have today!

quote:

ORIGINAL: BASB

Why does the US government spend so much money on training their soldiers and police when it appears that every citizen is an expert in the use of firearms already???

quote:

ORIGINAL: BASB

Why does the US government spend so much money on training their soldiers and police when it appears that every citizen is an expert in the use of firearms already???

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sarge

quote:

ORIGINAL: BASB

Why does the US government spend so much money on training their soldiers and police when it appears that every citizen is an expert in the use of firearms already???

because the free world keeps calling for our night stick , just be thankful we’re willing and able to pony up and sacrifice for its defense..........your welcome

quote:

ORIGINAL: BASB

Wow I can't help myself with this one, I'll get my 2 bobs worth in before the thread is locked.

First of all, Mr. Wolfe hit the nail on the head. About 2 hundreds years out of date.
And I can see how the 2nd amendment was important in 1780 or 90 a young nation with no standing army at risk at invasion from any would be attacker, but now the strongest and most powerful nation in the world militarily, no longer needs arm citizens to defend its shores. Suddenly if Canada or Cuba decides to invade, I don't believe the local minute man or militia will have much to do.
Secondly the 2nd amendment has done so well protecting young American kids in schools, the thousands black and ethnic Americans from being maimed and killed in the past 200 years hasn't it?
Thirdly 30 round magazines for assault rifles ain't design for hunting, not unless your hunting the unthinkable or thinkable for some.
Finally, a country with more guns than people, the only ones that will suffer because stricter gun control will be manufacturing and importers of guns and ammo. How much more money do these people want and how many people will die because their need or greed,at the expense of the youth in your schools, and the lobbyist how long are are going to hide behind archaic constitutional law that is no longer valid today for their own pleasure while others are being maimed on a daily basis.
OOps better go and hide before I get shot for my opinion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Titanwarrior89

I hear what you saying....but just This Week....a mother/wife hid in a closet with her small children while a man broke in, opened the door of a closet they were hiding in and she shot him more than once. She was on the phone with her husband, and he was on the phone with the police. What would have happened if she did not have the gun.....rape, murder or maybe robbery only if she and kids were lucky. Guess who got to the closet first....not the police. That GUN saved her life and life of her children. Tell me, are you married with children?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Qwixt

quote:

ORIGINAL: Titanwarrior89

I hear what you saying....but just This Week....a mother/wife hid in a closet with her small children while a man broke in, opened the door of a closet they were hiding in and she shot him more than once. She was on the phone with her husband, and he was on the phone with the police. What would have happened if she did not have the gun.....rape, murder or maybe robbery only if she and kids were lucky. Guess who got to the closet first....not the police. That GUN saved her life and life of her children. Tell me, are you married with children?

If they had a German Shepard/guard dog, the guy would have never even tried to enter the house.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Titanwarrior89

Wow....really?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Qwixt

quote:

ORIGINAL: Titanwarrior89

Wow....really?

Don't really get the reply here. Dog isn't a viable option or you don't think it would deter anyone, or...?