So Long and Thanks for All the Fish!
This site is now closed permanently to new posts.Click anywhere but the link to dismiss overlay!
Real Name: (not displayed to guest users)
Join Date: Jan 13, 2007
Location: Sebastopol
Last Online 07-12-2020
Last edited by Barry; 08-01-2012 at 11:50 AM.
Gratitude expressed by 2 members:
Real Name: (not displayed to guest users)
Join Date: Jul 19, 2005
Location: Santa Rosa
Last Online 01-31-2021
Although I have little interest in guns and don't own one, I think the so-called "other side" is probably right in this case. My understanding is that the research shows that when gun control is tight, murders etc. increase, while murder rates are lower in places where a higher percentage of the populace are packing. This is thought to be because criminals are less likely to attack citizens when there's a good chance those citizens are armed. I agree with the argument that if someone in the Aurora, Colorado movie audience had been armed the body count would have been much lower; the murderer would have been shot before he could shoot nearly as many as he did.
Real Name: (not displayed to guest users)
Join Date: Aug 5, 2006
Last Online 02-07-2021
? That's pretty weak by your usual standards of argument, Dixon! a lot of inference, not a lot of evidence-based conclusions.Although I have little interest in guns and don't own one, I think the so-called "other side" is probably right in this case. My understanding is that the research shows that when gun control is tight, murders etc. increase, while murder rates are lower in places where a higher percentage of the populace are packing. This is thought to be because criminals are less likely to attack citizens when there's a good chance those citizens are armed. I agree with the argument that if someone in the Aurora, Colorado movie audience had been armed the body count would have been much lower; the murderer would have been shot before he could shoot nearly as many as he did.
Taking the points in reverse: a gunfight in a dark cinema? you really think it'd come out well?? Whether it's soldiers, police or gangbangers or a bunch of hobbyist gunslingers firing in uncontrolled conditions, there's a low level of accuracy involved. Military snipers excepted, the percentage of shots-on-target sucks.
Even if you accept that in a case like this there are so many others going to be shot if there's a delay in stopping the shooter (so a handful of friendly-fire casualties are a "better" option) how often would you instead see wanna-be vigilante heroes misidentifying each other's roles and shooting anyone who stands up? Even the cops thought this guy was on their side for a while and were looking for someone different to take down. In Colorado, even if the original shooter was shot, how are the other guys running around with guns in the gas cloud supposed to know when to stop shooting? And how about the cops coming into the scene and finding what looks like a group of terrorists firing wildly all over the theater?
And as for criminals making the careful calculation that a packing populace is a less inviting target - how many people do you know who ever make a careful calculation about much? Most of the more horrific crimes are either crimes of passion, or involve a perp with a signficantly lacking sense of self-preservation. Or, for those who can calculate, the calculation now means an escalation of force is necessary. Even the wild west wasn't as wild as it was portrayed. Despite the fantasy, increasing the odds that encounters escalate to lethal levels doesn't result in increased civility or self-restraint.
And the first claim, murder rates are lower when there are more guns??? Really??? where has that ever happened??
Gratitude expressed by:
Real Name: (not displayed to guest users)
Join Date: Jul 20, 2005
Location: Sebastopol
Last Online 03-25-2024
>>>And the first claim, murder rates are lower when there are more guns??? Really??? where has that ever happened??
If you compare the statistics of New York City with those of London, I think you'll definitely see that ... uh ... well ... I mean ...
But aside from that, I would certainly feel safer walking in downtown Sebastopol if I knew that, although everyone was carrying a handgun, I could kill them as soon as I saw'em take something suspicious out of their pocket. Even if it didn't save lives, it'd cut down on people jabbering on cell phones.
Cheers—
Conrad
Gratitude expressed by 3 members:
Real Name: (not displayed to guest users)
Join Date: Jun 8, 2005
Location: Forestville, California, United States
Last Online 11-05-2012
Real Name: (not displayed to guest users)
Join Date: Jun 18, 2005
The argument that having a bunch of armed people present would have ended the violence sooner because someone would have shot the assailant was effectively answered in the Arizona incident in which the Congresswoman was shot. In this case there was an armed person present, and he came out of the store, gun in hand, to see a man with a gun a few feet from him. Fortunately he held his fire, as the man he saw had just taken the gun from the actual attacker. It would have been all too easy for a more trigger happy person to have not only shot an innocent person, but perhaps even enabled the real killer to regain his gun. These kinds of scenes of violence are extremely disorienting and decisions have to be made in a split second. Adding more guns in more hands is much more likely to worsen the situation than improve it.
Patrick Brinton
Gratitude expressed by 2 members:
Real Name: (not displayed to guest users)
Join Date: Aug 5, 2006
Last Online 02-07-2021
Real Name: (not displayed to guest users)
Join Date: Jan 20, 2007
Last Online 03-27-2023
https://lewrockwell.com/slavo/slavo112.html
Cold Hard Facts on Gun Bans: 'The Cost of Liberty Can Be Measured in the Loss of Life'
by Mac Slavo
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one.”
~ Thomas Jefferson
While anti-gun advocates put forth every argument under the sun for why you should not be able to own a “high capacity” magazine that holds more than 10 rounds, or that you shouldn’t be able to buy ammunition online, or that police should stop going to work until guns have been completely banned, the evidence for disarmament of law abiding citizens as a failed policy is overwhelming.
In Chicago, where guns have essentially been banned for personal defense, the murder of innocents has risen so sharply in recent months that Mayor Rahm Emanual has been left with no other option but to call on criminals to look to their morals and values to stop the carnage. Washington D.C., which bans the carrying of concealed weapons, has maintained one of the highest gun crime murder rates in the country for over three decades – since the legislation was passed in 1975. As the Washington Post notes, the disarming of local residents has been wholly ineffective noting that the “guns kept coming, and bodies kept falling.”
These localized examples of the detrimental effects of restrictive gun policies are nothing, however, when compared to what’s happened in Australia, where the government implemented a “buy back” program in 1997 that completely banned gun ownership for the general population. While Australia’s politician promised a lower crime rate once the ban was in place, the disarming of its citizens has led to exactly the opposite effect.
A right stolen by their government, promising safety in return for its gun ban. But now citizens know the frightening truth. The cost of lost liberty can be measured in the loss of life.Here are the cold hard facts from Australia that anti-gun forces can no longer escape:
“It’s become very, very obvious… that the expenditure of half a billion dollars has done absolutely nothing to reduce crime.”
“It certainly didn’t do what the government touted it would do, which was to reduce crime. It hasn’t done that at all. In fact, there has been more.”
…
“What’s happening today is that the offender, the bad buys, are happy to break into somebody’s house. They’re not frightened to break into somebody’s house while they’re at home.”
…
“It’s very bad at the moment. It’s never been worse.”
Armed Robberies are UP 69%Like Chicago and Washington D.C., Australia’s gun laws have back fired. The statistics above are rarely if ever reported by mainline news channels in America because the evidence is clear: If you take away guns from law abiding citizens, the only people with guns will be the criminals.
Assaults Involving Guns are UP 28%
Gun Murders are UP 19%
Home Invasions – a crime for which Australia didn’t even have laws before the gun ban because it never happened – are UP 21%
Not only is the evidence regularly buried, but harrowing stories of self defense where individuals have taken it upon themselves to protect their lives and property are often downplayed. When a 65-year-old jewelry shop owner took matters into her own hands and opened fire on five gun-toting armed robbers recently, what did the local CBS affiliate mention repeatedly in their report?
“As much as those cops like seeing bad guys having the tables turned on them, they still caution everybody that down-range, beyond the target, there’s often an innocent bystander.”
Video via The Daily Sheeple:
There is always a risk of an innocent bystander being hit by a rogue bullet, but not one example of such an outcome is ever identified by news reporters citing such information. More often than not, it’s the criminals who shoot indiscriminately that maim or kill a child or other innocent passer-by.
Explaining to the anti-gun activists that the benefits far outweigh the risks is like pulling teeth. But, as the 65-year-old jewelry store owner, or the patron of an internet cafe, or the mom who acted to save her kids by shooting an armed intruder show, one person with a gun is all it takes to prevent scores of others from being hurt or killed.
We can continue down this road of stripping Americans of their liberty and right to defend themselves, and we can be assured that we’ll continue to measure the subsequent fallout by counting it in the loss of innocent life. Or, we can put the power back into the hands of the people and send a message to those who would do harm to others. In Australia, criminals are more empowered than ever before when they see statistics like armed robberies being up 69% or murders being up 21%, because they know the people have no ability to defend themselves.
But what if the statistics reported by the media were more like those of Detroit, where self defense killings have jumped 2200% and justifiable homicide is up 79% year-over-year?
If local and national news agencies were reporting that crime was falling and more would-be criminals were ending up taking celestial dirt naps when engaged in violent criminal activity, the psychological effects of being aware of these statistics would be a very powerful deterrent indeed.
The American people are perfectly capable of defending themselves, they need only to have the boot removed from their throats and be allowed to breathe.
Reprinted from SHTF Plan.
August 6, 2012Mac Slavo [send him mail] is a small business owner and independent investor.Copyright © 2012 Mac Slavo
Gratitude expressed by 4 members:
Real Name: (not displayed to guest users)
Join Date: Aug 5, 2006
Last Online 02-07-2021
https://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html presents a lot of information about this. Most interesting apropos Slavo's diatribe, they provide some context to his central claim (that assaults have gone up). Actually, they haven't, in the sense he implies. No new trend of increased assaults has been tied to the change. According to their accompanying chart, the new laws had little effect on the already-increasing rate of assault. Not what was hoped for, but not the damning result claimed by Slavo.
Brady's organization provides this:
Slavo's quotes reek of hyperbole, which is fine in advocacy but doesn't make him sound credible to someone who's not already a true believer:"Has anything changed in Australia since the new laws went into effect? Between 1987 and 1996, 100 Australians were killed in mass killings of four or more people. Since the new laws went into effect, there has not been a single massacre. Moreover, in Australia, homicides committed with firearms have been declining - slowly before the Port Arthur Massacre, more sharply since - from 28 percent of all homicides in 1989-90 to 16 percent in 2001.<4> While the 1996 gun laws did not initiate the decline in firearm homicides, they appear to have accelerated it.
I'm sure that's how Rahm would frame it...In Chicago, where guns have essentially been banned for personal defense, the murder of innocents has risen so sharply in recent months that Mayor Rahm Emanual has been left with no other option but to call on criminals to look to their morals and values to stop the carnage
yeah, that lamestream media won't report something if there's actually any evidence that can be cited. Unfortunately for passionate advocates such as Slavo, the rampant disregard of evidence is associated more with voices like his and his political allies than the media. Not that I'm trying to let the media or his political opponents off the hook - few groups are in a position to disparage their opponent's use of evidence these days....The statistics above are rarely if ever reported by mainline news channels in America because the evidence is clear:
Real Name: (not displayed to guest users)
Join Date: Jan 20, 2007
Last Online 03-27-2023
Real Name: (not displayed to guest users)
Join Date: Jan 20, 2007
Last Online 03-27-2023
Whoa!! Here's where gun control goes out the window...
3D printing an AR 15
https://www.businessinsider.com/it-i...t-rifle-2012-8