Gun con-troll

“They can have my gun when they pry it from my cold dead hand. The magazine will probably be empty too.”

“ah, so you don't keep it loaded then ;o)”

“Darn! You figured it out!”

“I've been thinking of getting a new hand gun and taking the classes fopr concealed carry. My neigbor teaches them and can give me a real good deal.”

“FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 3, 2005

Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro has released statistics related to the issuance of concealed handgun licenses for the third quarter of 2005. Licenses have now been available in Ohio for 18 months, and during that time this law has proven to be one of the most successful pieces of consumer legislation in state history.

From April 2004 to September 2005, 63,597 standard licenses, and 119 temporary emergency licenses were issued to Ohio residents. On average, Ohio sheriffs are issuing approximately 118 concealed handgun licenses to law-abiding citizens per day.

Ohio CHL-holders have proven to be far more law-abiding than skeptics had predicted they would be. Only 94 CHLs (0.14%), have been revoked in the first eighteen months for any reason, including the passing away of some licenseholders. Just 272 CHLs (0.42%), were suspended for any reason, and many of those are often reinstated later.

This level of participation sends a strong message that the right to choose armed self-defense is in serious demand in the Buckeye State, and Ohio CHL-holders' attention on safety and following the law give every reason for legislators to ignore the shrill cries from the gun ban lobby that will no doubt be heard when testimony on Rep. Jim Aslanides' House Bill 347 begins.”

“New York City has some of the nation's strictest handgun laws.



Latest figures show New York's violent crime rate dropped by 2.8 per cent in 2005, almost six times the national average. In Manhattan the annual murder rate has dipped below 100 for the first time since the 19th century. New York is now the safest of America's 25 largest cities, ahead of places such as San Diego and Dallas. Out of America's 227 cities with a population of at least 100,000, New York's crime rate ranks 211.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,16937,1686655,00.html ”

“In more context:

In 1990, 2,245 New Yorkers were murdered. Last year the number was 537, the lowest for 40 years. Figures for other crimes have also plummeted. Eight precincts, including the once notorious Central Park, recorded no violent deaths last year. Rape, assault, theft and muggings have all seen steep drops in the last 15 years.

Sounds like something going on other than extra handgun laws since 1990 to me, but that's just me.

[edit]

Oh wait, apparently it's not just me. Further down the article:

Many experts believe the strongest reason for the transformation is also the most obvious: better policing. Dubbed 'zero tolerance' by the media and politicians, police embarked on a strategy in the Nineties aimed at cutting big crime by stamping out small crime. It was a theory summed up in the idea that, if you refused to tolerate vandalism and breaking windows, you could improve a neighbourhood and discourage more serious criminals from operating. By the end of the decade this concept was being mimicked across America and the rest of the world, including parts of Britain.
last edited: 1/16/06 4:05:54 PM”

“Boy V, you just go searching for whatever media outlet says what ya want to hear. Instead of going clear over to England for your news aboput America, why not start closer to the source? Why not find one that actually talked to the NYC officials? Like this one from the NYSun?

Police Inspector Michael Coan yesterday said several factors contributed to the low statistical reports. "Crime has decreased over 5% this year, and 18% the last four years. This reflects the outstanding efforts of the men and women of the NYPD," he said.
Specifically, Inspector Coan credited several police initiatives, including Operation Impact, which infuses high crime police precincts with additional officers, and Operation Trident, which dispatches extra officers to three neighborhoods with high crime rates.

Which might explain this…

Still, some police precincts that historically report high murder rates reported an increase in homicides, in contrast to the citywide trend.

http://www.nysun.com/article/25038

Not a word mentioned about gun control.”

“Hard to believe that the city which presents the #1 target for terrorism would have better policing and thus a drop in crime. Call me crazy!

Actually this just show that you don't need gun control to control crime.”

“You really expect to be taken seriously when you use the fish-wrapper New York Sun as your source?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!”

“Some of you guys are beating a dead horse. One of my New Years resolutions was to try to stop discussing facts with those who had no interest in any facts, just promoting their agenda.

There are closed-minded people, and then there are those whose minds aren't just "closed", but hermetically sealed.

No names, of course, you all can figure out if the shoe fits or not :)”

““You really expect to be taken seriously when you use the fish-wrapper New York Sun as your source?"

This from the guy who quotes and links The National Enquirer. And the Guardian is a bastion of unbiased truth? Get real. So what you are saying is the quotes were not real?

If it really were gun control they owe the decrease in crime to then the other cities with the same laws would see the same decrease. Your reasoning is flawed.”

“"No names, of course, you all can figure out if the shoe fits or not :)”

It wouldn't be so bad if the worst offenders weren't non-backpacking people mucking up the boards with their drivel. LOL!

It's going to be a boring year without ya on the fuego threads.”

“wanderer - Do you often change your mind politically about issues? Do you go back and forth on abortion, gun-control, etc..?”

“But.... I thought only guns cut crime. This doesn't work, it's liberal media propaganda.”

“?? Sarge??

I try to keep an open mind, but I do have pretty strong basic opinions on what works, what doesn't, what's right, wrong, etc. I like to think my opinions are based upon fact, so if I was presented with new data on any given subject, I like to think I would weigh that data before dismissing it out-of-hand & sticking with my pre-concieved ideas.

I'm lost where you might have been headed with your question... but then again, many who know me claim alzheimers has already stricken! :)”

“Here's why I asked. For starters, let's just say I agree with most of your opinions, by a large degree. But the one I have trouble with is your have argued (I hope it was you, *alzheimers here too*) that those on the far left and right are not open minded. You've boasted about your centeredness" on issues. I think that logic is faulty. There is no reason to believe the center is the most open-minded or the most correct. I was a PETA loving, dope smoking, save the earth liberal for most (going on half) of my life. Now I'm considered about 85% to the right, which is fairly extreme by manys of thinking. If I were closed-minded, I'd still be a liberal (and probably not at work for free on my day off right now). I believe conservative values because I was open-minded.

So when you above stated "There are closed-minded people, and then there are those whose minds aren't just "closed", but hermetically sealed." (I realize in good fun) ... it brought the question to mind "Do you often change your mind on political issues?"?”

“Sarge your burned out, and don't have a clue as to what is going on.”

“Ok. Thanks for the personal analysis. Good job.

Could you tell me my lucky numbers?
last edited: 1/16/06 7:01:25 PM”

“My short answer...

Regardless of whether one is on the fringes left or right, if you won't at least consider the alternative position, then you are, by definition, closed-minded. But, because you are a leftie or rightie doesn't mean that you are closed-minded. Perhaps you've weighed the facts, as you see them, and decided that one way or the other best suits you. Likewise, if you are a "centrist", that doesn't necessarily mean you are open-minded. Perhaps you are to lame to make a decision about WHAT you think! HAHA.”

““But.... I thought only guns cut crime. This doesn't work, it's liberal media propaganda.”


If this is what you have gotten out of the countless discussions on the subject we've had here on TT I'm sorry to say you are terminally doomed to be stuck in your own head and opinions. No one ever said this Y2 and you know it. You show yourself to be braindead.”

“Well, I agree with all of that. I guess I'm wondering why you often assume people haven't considered the alternative position. I'm not trying to bait you - You've done it a lot (to me and to people on the left equally) and it always makes me wonder how you've come to that conclusion. It'd be more interesting to ask the person how they've come to their conclusion that just assume they're following Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken. Know what I mean? Anyway - I'm glad you explained your position. Thanks!”

“you all can figure out if the shoe fits or not :)”
wanderer
4:41:06 PM
1/16/06

mine fit on my feet...where does yours fit? ;p”

“My head is spinning.

Sarge came across as the most reasonable and polite person on the thread.”

“As usual, the anti-gun crowd gets pwn3d.”

“Sarge is a repentant poster.....and just a nice person.........too.”

“Ha! I thought I was the only one who knows what pwn3d is here. The bad part is ya can't pwn someone if they are too dense to realize they have been pwn3d.”

“Back to NYC, one of the thrusts of this "good police work" and one of the main objectives of Mike Bloomberg's administration, is to rid the streets of illegal guns and seal up the I-95 "Iron Pipeline" (as it is known). Guns have been run from the southern states to NYC for years and it has been a thorn in the side for longer than half of you have been alive. So, there are several factors that have gone into this good police work. It's not restrictedsolely to gun control, by any means. But, don't leave it out of the equation either. That's equally wrong.”

“Nothing wrong with trying to stop illegal guns/possession/traffiking. EXCEPT WHEN IT INVOLVES ABRIDGING THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF LAWFUL CITIZENS.”

“I wasn't going there, Mutt. I was talking about police work and policy. But, you're welcome to go there alone if you like! :)”

“Ha! I thought I was the only one who knows what pwn3d is here.

Good lord, surely not! That's as old as the dinosaurs in Internet years.”

“Yeah, I don't think many gun advocates support illegal ownership of guns.”

“This is all rhetorical Tree. Not trying to start crap here:

You make a good point Treebeard. We also need to look at it from another angle. Why are there so many guns coming down the Iron Pipeline? Because a market was created. I’m not saying that if guns were legal in NYC the Pipeline would dry up because as we both know criminals don’t by legal guns for the most part. Gun control has little to no effect on the criminals other than it makes committing the crimes easier because there is no fear of an armed citizen.

If gun control was a major contributing factor then all the other cities and states that have similar laws would see a decrease as well, which they don’t. And again, it’s all in how the stats are used that reflect the truth. One big institute (I can’t remember which one, may be Brookings) includes situations where a gun owner uses a gun to defend themselves as a gun crime. Suicides by gun are considered a gun crime.”

“We're on two different points here, I think. I am talking about stiffening the penalties for gun violence as part of the police work involved, aside from trying to rid us of the Iron pipeline. It's easy to get guns in those other states and bringing them here, where the market is, is easy money. But, there has to be strict consequences for violent crime. I also happen to believe that if the gun can be traced back to other sources, that there should be liability there, too. Hey, you want to peddle potentially dangerous products, then tuff sh_t. You may want to be a little more thorough about who you sell those things to.
last edited: 1/17/06 8:40:32 AM”

““We're on two different points here, I think. I am talking about stiffening the penalties for gun violence as part of the police work involved, aside from trying to rid us of the Iron pipeline. It's easy to get guns in those other states and bringing them here, where the market is, is easy money. But, there has to be strict consequences for violent crime.”

There already are stiff penalties aimed at gun crimes. More laws aren’t the answer. Enforcing the ones we have are. Example: Richmond Virginia had a terrible problem with gun crime. The NRA proposed enforcing the federal laws which carry a higher penalty. The NRA gave the city hundreds of thousands of dollars (half of the cost to push federal penalties). Guess what? Crime went down. It’s about implementation which NYC seems to be figuring out. I think 911 was a major factor here also.

“I also happen to believe that if the gun can be traced back to other sources, that there should be liability there, too. Hey, you want to peddle potentially dangerous products, then tuff sh_t. You may want to be a little more thorough about who you sell those things to.”

When we start making people responsible for the actions of others we are treading on that person’s rights. Would we go back on the gas station attendant who sold an arsonist a Bic lighter? I know, apples to oranges but the crux remains. And to what length do we go? A psch eval for every potential gun buyer? And at what point do these strict background checks violate the buyer’s rights to privacy?

And again, a major part of this has to do with enforcement and implementation of existing laws to make them do what they were meant to do. President Clinton in his final years of service said the Brady bill had stopped over 400 illegal gun sales. But we never heard of any arrests and convictions.

It’s not a lack of gun laws. It’s a lack of implementation.
No legal gun owner wants illegal guns on the streets.”

“"Gun control has little to no effect on the criminals other than it makes committing the crimes easier because there is no fear of an armed citizen."

Yet NYC, with some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, is one of the safest cities in the country.

hmmmm.”

“Then you would think that the NYC PD itself would be making that claim which they aren't. Just can't take no for answer can ya Peewee?”

“Well, NYC IS enforcing existing laws, not implementing new ones. So, why bring it up when that's what we were talking about to begin with?

Now, the nature of one's business brings certain implications to it. If a person is clean and has nothing to hide, why should a background check bother them so much. I have to deal with getting my bags searched, just to get on the ferry to go to work, Nigal. Who's rights are being trampled, I ask you? A guy selling a potentially dangerous product, or me?”

““Now, the nature of one's business brings certain implications to it. If a person is clean and has nothing to hide, why should a background check bother them so much.”

If an American citizen has nothing to hide then why should they be against Bush tapping their phones? See what I mean?

“I have to deal with getting my bags searched, just to get on the ferry to go to work, Nigal. Who's rights are being trampled, I ask you? A guy selling a potentially dangerous product, or me?”

Your rights are being trampled. My governor just signed a Patriot act for the state that requires a photo ID to enter transit stations and forces someone to give their name, Id and personal info to any cop that “suspects” them of having ties to terrorism. But being searched due to terrorism is not the same as going after legal sellers of legal products to legal buyers who may act wrong with said product.”

“If an American citizen has nothing to hide then why should they be against Bush tapping their phones?

Because, I honestly believe that it is not below the "scruples" of this administration to tap the phones of people who are simply outspoken against the war or his policies.

You asked before about where to draw the lines on background checks. I equate it to the the fact that the three to six dogs that are up my ass with each trip are sufficient to "screen" me as to not being a terrorist. Having me bags searched, to boot, is overkill such as excessive background checks might be to you...
last edited: 1/17/06 9:53:12 AM”

““ Because, I honestly believe that it is not below the "scruples" of this administration to tap the phones of people who are simply outspoken against the war or his policies.”

My point was, there is no difference between wire taps and excessive back ground checks.

“Having me bags searched, to boot, is overkill such as excessive background checks might be to you...”

Exactly. So why can’t we both stand up to the government to protect both of our rights to privacy?”

“Iguess we never really defined "excessive". Because, believe it or not, I only feel that they can go so far when checking the background of people who dabble in guns (despite the popular view of my opinions among gun advocates). I don't want to see ANY of these freedoms diminished. I just feel that they haven'tbeen truly threatened with any serious legislation in recent years. if anything, the reverse is true, from what I've been able to observe. And, i am not talking about listing quotes from politicians' proposals. i'm talking about serious legislation that has been enacted only!”

“We've been all through the credible threats to gun rights. Now, what more is needed besides a criminal background check? that's where I draw the line.”

“We're not too far apart here. I just usually have issue with those that are 'up in arms' (pun intended) when more than a just #2 pencil is required to purchase an assault rifle that could wipe out a SWAT team!”

“IIRC you have to use either blue or black ink. LOL!

"to purchase an assault rifle that could wipe out a SWAT team!”

This is the whole point of why more extensive checks are not needed. People who wipe out whole swat teams aren't going down to the gun shop to buy a legal fire arm in the first place.”

“I know. I just like to use the "extreme" sometimes to illustrate a point!”

“Sometimes? LOL! Just kidding.

I have really come to believe that Americans are the most advanced, intelligent, and kind people on earth and that we really are smart enough to handle our own lives without the government butting in at every whip stitch.”

“Best weapon name ever: "Area Denial Weapons System"

http://www.metalstorm.com/index.php?src=news&prid=64&category=Latest%20Video%20%26%20Live%20Firings&PHPSESSID=2c6fa1f4531d3003f25afb813788376a”

“What about my right to keep and bear these kewl arms?
last edited: 1/22/06 6:17:04 PM”

“That's right pedxing. Our founding fathers weren't talking about hunting deer when they wrote the constitution.”