Gun Accidents Falling [Archive]

W0MT

02-27-2007, 03:22 AM

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Feb. 26 2007,17:02)]This just in:

THE NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL REPORTS . . . A new report from the National Safety Council shows that accidental firearm-related fatalities remain at record lows, and accidents involving youths continue to decline significantly. The downward trends are occurring even as firearm ownership rises in the U.S. Statistics in the council's 2007 "Injury Facts" report show a 40 percent decrease in accidental firearm-related fatalities over a 10-year period ending in 2005. The report also shows firearm-related accidents involving children ages 14 and under declined 69 percent between 1995 and 2003. Downward trends also are being reported by other sources, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). #

Why is it a goal of the Democrats to continue to harp and bray about the "need" for new gun laws, not least on the Left Coast, where the drop was most significant (59%)?
While I strongly oppose almost all gun control legislation, I think your argument is weak. For example, if a street thug uses a gun intentionally to kill 20 innocent people, I don't believe that this would be classified as "accidental firearm-related fatalities." If the report had not used the term “accidental” then I think you would have a good case. In my example, the gun-control crowd would still say that gun-control legislation is needed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

kc8uzl

02-27-2007, 03:25 AM

It doesn't matter what is passes. Criminals are criminals because they don't follow the laws. Why would this stop them from getting a gun? They will still have them. The only people that wouldn't be able to get guns are honest people that won't hurt anyone.

W0MT

02-27-2007, 03:33 AM

Quote[/b] (kc8uzl @ Feb. 26 2007,20:25)]It doesn't matter what is passes. Criminals are criminals because they don't follow the laws. Why would this stop them from getting a gun? They will still have them. The only people that wouldn't be able to get guns are honest people that won't hurt anyone.
I think you missed the point. I was responding to the question about why some people continue to push for gun-control legislation when ACCIDENTAL gun fatalities are falling.

WB2WIK

02-27-2007, 03:35 AM

Quote[/b] (kc8uzl @ Feb. 26 2007,20:25)]The only people that wouldn't be able to get guns are honest people that won't hurt anyone.
If honest people with guns won't hurt anyone, why would they need guns?

Guns were designed with one intention: To hurt or kill living things.

KI4PEQ

02-27-2007, 04:34 AM

Quote[/b] (WB2WIK @ Feb. 26 2007,21:35)]Quote[/b] (kc8uzl @ Feb. 26 2007,20:25)]The only people that wouldn't be able to get guns are honest people that won't hurt anyone.
If honest people with guns won't hurt anyone, why would they need guns? #

Guns were designed with one intention: To hurt or kill living things.
Perhaps it should be rephrased "Honest people with guns won't hurt other honest people, but honest people with guns will blow away those dishonest and dangerous people who would do harm to them".

The Castle Doctrine works. Home invasions, armed robbery, and other violent crimes are down in the state of Florida, where citizens are no longer required to retreat in the face of danger. It puts honest citizens on an equal footing with thugs who only want what you have. Like your car, your money, or your wife and daughter.

My home is not only protected by Brinks. but is also protected by Smith and Wesson.

KE4FES

02-27-2007, 09:38 AM

Crime & law inforcement: Apprehension
OR prevention.? Personally, I will do my own prevention. Primarily the police do not prevent, they apprehend. I will leave any FOLLOWING #"apprehension" up to the paramedics.

Charlie http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

N0NVT

02-27-2007, 09:40 AM

remember the old saying"guns don`t kill people,criminals kill people?". without a way to protect ourselves from CRIMINALS alot of innocent people would be seriously hurt or die, including the guy who does`nt believe in owning a gun to protect thyself. nothin like a knife in a gun fight. thats why we own weapons of lead throwing capability. to protect OURSELVES AND THE LIFE OF OTHERS THREATENED BY GREAT BODILY HARM OR DEATH. if only cops and criminals had guns what would your chances be before the cops arrived? can we say,,NILL?? its our RIGHT to own firearms given to us by our fore fathers, in place for over 200 years and some of you wanna try to take that away? france is just a few hours plane ride and have a nice life. the iron curtain is down,, communism does`nt work, and thats just what our law makers want. think about it!!! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

n8yx

02-27-2007, 10:12 AM

Quote[/b] (WB2WIK @ Feb. 26 2007,20:35)]
Quote[/b] ]If honest people with guns won't hurt anyone, why would they need guns?

Target shooting, for one?

Quote[/b] ]Guns were designed with one intention: To hurt or kill living things.

All of mine must be defective, then...as they don't.

W8EFA

02-27-2007, 03:56 PM

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Feb. 26 2007,20:02)]This just in:

THE NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL REPORTS . . . A new report from the National Safety Council shows that accidental firearm-related fatalities remain at record lows, and accidents involving youths continue to decline significantly. The downward trends are occurring even as firearm ownership rises in the U.S. Statistics in the council's 2007 "Injury Facts" report show a 40 percent decrease in accidental firearm-related fatalities over a 10-year period ending in 2005. The report also shows firearm-related accidents involving children ages 14 and under declined 69 percent between 1995 and 2003. Downward trends also are being reported by other sources, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). #

Why is it a goal of the Democrats to continue to harp and bray about the "need" for new gun laws, not least on the Left Coast, where the drop was most significant (59%)?
Funny that I could not find that report at the NSC itself. #What I did find is your exact wording in Hunting Net news and other gun sites. #Looks like they took the NSC figures and did their own extrapolations and analysis. #They could have even taken this data from a NSC chapter for one local area - #Looks like a lot of bull to me

Here are some pertinent facts

Homicide, Suicide and Unintentional Gun Deaths among 5-14 Year Old
for the High-Gun and the Low-Gun States between 1988 and 1997

# # # # # # # # # # # #High-Gun States # Low Gun States
Total Population # # 23 Million # # # # # # # 22 Million
Gun Suicides # # # # #153 # # # # # # # # # # # 22
Non-gun Suicides # #69 # # # # # # # # # # # # #82
Gun Homicides # # # 298 # # # # # # # # # # # #86
Non-gun Homicides 143 # # # # # # # # # # # 110
Unintentional gun deaths 253 # # # # # # # #15

Compared to children living in low-gun states, children living in the high-gun states were 16 times more likely to die from unintentional gun injury, 7 times more likely to die from gun suicide and 3 times more likely to die from gun homicide.

Conclusion: The study found a positive and statistically significant association between gun availability and state-level rates of gun suicides, gun homicides and unintentional gun deaths among children 5-14 years old.

http://www.veganpeace.com/gun_control/GunAvailability.htm

W3MIV

02-27-2007, 03:59 PM

Typical party-line Dumbokrat response, and all BS. Why not check out the stats at the CDC while you're at it?

KD6NIG

02-27-2007, 04:41 PM

Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ Feb. 27 2007,08:56)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Feb. 26 2007,20:02)]This just in:

THE NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL REPORTS . . . A new report from the National Safety Council shows that accidental firearm-related fatalities remain at record lows, and accidents involving youths continue to decline significantly. The downward trends are occurring even as firearm ownership rises in the U.S. Statistics in the council's 2007 "Injury Facts" report show a 40 percent decrease in accidental firearm-related fatalities over a 10-year period ending in 2005. The report also shows firearm-related accidents involving children ages 14 and under declined 69 percent between 1995 and 2003. Downward trends also are being reported by other sources, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). #

Why is it a goal of the Democrats to continue to harp and bray about the "need" for new gun laws, not least on the Left Coast, where the drop was most significant (59%)?
Funny that I could not find that report at the NSC itself. #What I did find is your exact wording in Hunting Net news and other gun sites. #Looks like they took the NSC figures and did their own extrapolations and analysis. #They could have even taken this data from a NSC chapter for one local area - ##Looks like a lot of bull to me

Here are some pertinent facts

Homicide, Suicide and Unintentional Gun Deaths among 5-14 Year Old
for the High-Gun and the Low-Gun States between 1988 and 1997

# # # # # # # # # # # #High-Gun States # Low Gun States
Total Population # # 23 Million # # # # # # # 22 Million
Gun Suicides # # # # #153 # # # # # # # # # # # 22
Non-gun Suicides # #69 # # # # # # # # # # # # #82
Gun Homicides # # # 298 # # # # # # # # # # # #86
Non-gun Homicides 143 # # # # # # # # # # # 110
Unintentional gun deaths 253 # # # # # # # #15

Compared to children living in low-gun states, children living in the high-gun states were 16 times more likely to die from unintentional gun injury, 7 times more likely to die from gun suicide and 3 times more likely to die from gun homicide.

Conclusion: The study found a positive and statistically significant association between gun availability and state-level rates of gun suicides, gun homicides and unintentional gun deaths among children 5-14 years old.

http://www.veganpeace.com/gun_control/GunAvailability.htm
Did the study indicate exactly how the weapon was obtained?

I'm sure most of the cases demonstrate "bad application" of common gun safety. IE, leaving the gun out where it can be accessed by the child, etc.

I mean, if someone REALLY wants to do something, they will find a way to do so. Many gun accidents with children I hear about don't start with "the child must have watched me when I put the combination in my gun safe, so thats how the child got it out of the locked safe....."

Statistics are fine, but obviously, in some cases, laws ARE needed simply because people don't have any common sense.
Look at all the cell phone while driving laws. People aren't intelligent enough to realise they shouldn't yack on a phone while driving.

And some people aren't smart enough to practice common gun safety. Thus, the legislators feel the need to legislate.

kc7jty

02-27-2007, 04:42 PM

Quote[/b] (kc8uzl @ Feb. 26 2007,20:03)]I'm not somebody that supports the use of a gun unless it is for hunting or sport,
you missed the boat bud.

KC0IVY

02-27-2007, 05:08 PM

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif I won't take up a lot of room trying to explain.. But I offer this editorial as food for thought. He explains the issue better than I can. Just remember, WE are the Ultimate Authority, not the Govt... They act on Our Authority, and WE have the Power to say NO.

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/02/13/56281/

kc8uzl

02-27-2007, 05:17 PM

I didn't miss the boat. I have guns, and I use them for hunting and target practice. I would never use them to harm anyone unless there was no other choice. I am not for gun control thats true, but I also live in the middle of nowhere so shooting a gun isn't a problem.

k5xit

02-27-2007, 05:21 PM

Quote[/b] (kc8uzl @ Feb. 26 2007,20:03)]Well I can say that I will fight for the right to own a gun. I'm not somebody that supports the use of a gun unless it is for hunting or sport, but its my right.
Do you mean you do not support the right of self defense?

k5xit

02-27-2007, 05:23 PM

Quote[/b] (WB2WIK @ Feb. 26 2007,20:35)]Quote[/b] (kc8uzl @ Feb. 26 2007,20:25)]The only people that wouldn't be able to get guns are honest people that won't hurt anyone.
If honest people with guns won't hurt anyone, why would they need guns? #

Guns were designed with one intention: To hurt or kill living things.
so was a bow. So was a sabre. The list goes on

WB2WIK

02-27-2007, 05:24 PM

Quote[/b] (kc8uzl @ Feb. 27 2007,10:17)]I didn't miss the boat. I have guns, and I use them for hunting and target practice. I would never use them to harm anyone unless there was no other choice. I am not for gun control thats true, but I also live in the middle of nowhere so shooting a gun isn't a problem.
It isn't? I guess it isn't if you're the only one there and a bullet doesn't ricochet off something and come back to hit you in the head.

If there's anybody else there besides you, shooting a gun is a problem. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

w3scm

02-27-2007, 06:51 PM

EFA writes: "Conclusion: The study found a positive and statistically significant association between gun availability and state-level rates of gun suicides, gun homicides and unintentional gun deaths among children 5-14 years old."

And who was the study done by? #VEGANPEACE!!!!!!! #There you go fella.

That's why there are more gun crimes in North Dakota and Wyoming than there are
in Washington DC. #What? #Oh.

Your stats are crap, my man, and common sense ought to tell you that. #It's where LEGAL firearms are readily available to the LAW ABIDING population that you have fewer gun crimes and accidents. #

All other arguments aside, OM, lets say you kicked in every door in America and confiscated ALL the firearms, legal, illegal, whatever, except those owned by law enforcement and the military (and well connected politicians like Ted Kennedy, of course). #Who would rejoice? #The crooks!

Who commits violent crimes, statistically? #Young men with drug or alcohol of psychiatric problems. #For most of us here in ham-land, just how much of a good fist fight could you put against some 21-year-old 6-foot coke addict?

Point: the crooks don't need guns to kill, steal or rape as long they can be SURE we (older, snmaller, female, whatever) don't have guns to fight them off. #

And the original point of this thread is that the left says "guns are too dangerous for you to own" when, in fact, it is getting safer in terms of accidents, to have one. #Or two.

WB2WIK

02-27-2007, 07:24 PM

Quote[/b] (w3scm @ Feb. 27 2007,11:51)]EFA writes: "Conclusion: The study found a positive and statistically significant association between gun availability and state-level rates of gun suicides, gun homicides and unintentional gun deaths among children 5-14 years old."

And who was the study done by? VEGANPEACE!!!!!!! There you go fella.

That's why there are more gun crimes in North Dakota and Wyoming than there are
in Washington DC. What? Oh.

Your stats are crap, my man, and common sense ought to tell you that. It's where LEGAL firearms are readily available to the LAW ABIDING population that you have fewer gun crimes and accidents.

All other arguments aside, OM, lets say you kicked in every door in America and confiscated ALL the firearms, legal, illegal, whatever, except those owned by law enforcement and the military (and well connected politicians like Ted Kennedy, of course). Who would rejoice? The crooks!

Who commits violent crimes, statistically? Young men with drug or alcohol of psychiatric problems. For most of us here in ham-land, just how much of a good fist fight could you put against some 21-year-old 6-foot coke addict?

Point: the crooks don't need guns to kill, steal or rape as long they can be SURE we (older, snmaller, female, whatever) don't have guns to fight them off.

And the original point of this thread is that the left says "guns are too dangerous for you to own" when, in fact, it is getting safer in terms of accidents, to have one. Or two.
Maybe you'd take FBI published data instead?

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

Look up each state. There are 19 "non carry" states vs. 31 "carry" states. On average,
all crime involving guns is lower in the "non carry" states than in the "carry" states. The worst state in America for violent crime involving guns is Tennessee, a "carry" state. The most populous state in the country, California (no CCW permits), ranks below Michigan, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Tennessee, Louisiana, Texas, New Mexico and Alaska -- all "CCW" states -- for crime and accidents (total recorded incidents) involving guns.

If there is any correlation at all between "carry" (permit) vs. "non-carry" (no permit) states and the total of crimes and accidents reported involving guns, it's that the "carry" states have more crimes and accidents involving the use of guns.

One would have to logically conclude that issuing carry permits leads to both more crime and more accidents involving guns, regardless of how anyone feels. It's just data.

That the general trend is downwards, and not upwards, is a good thing. But the trend has nothing to do with CCW permits or anything like that. Might have to do with general public awareness that guns kill people, and even little kids seem to understand that.

W8EFA

02-27-2007, 07:28 PM

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Feb. 27 2007,11:59)]Typical party-line Dumbokrat response, and all BS. Why not check out the stats at the CDC while you're at it?
No you posted that , and I quote Quote[/b] ]THE NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL REPORTS . . . A new report from the National Safety Council shows that accidental firearm-related fatalities remain at record lows, and accidents involving youths continue to decline significantly. The downward trends are occurring even as firearm ownership rises in the U.S. Statistics in the council's 2007 "Injury Facts" report show a 40 percent decrease in accidental firearm-related fatalities over a 10-year period ending in 2005. The report also shows firearm-related accidents involving children ages 14 and under declined 69 percent between 1995 and 2003. Downward trends also are being reported by other sources, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

You disengenuously posted that the conclusion was written by the National Safety Council. So link to that article MIV. Apears you have been caught and made a fool of once again until you provide the link. Back up your post

At least my data was linked and it was plain who did the study, I wasn't trying to fool someone.

Gun nuts need to use common sense and quit exxagerating and quit being such zealots . No one of consequence is talking about taking away target and hunting guns. Initiatives are to limit registration, limit Assault Rifles and concealed carry issues. Which cause gun nuts to go ballistic, they have to have it all, no compromise. They cant be satisfied with having and using (except concealed carry in public) virtually any caliber type of gun or rifle exceptt the less than 1% that are designated assault rifle. No compromise, they have to have it all which says alot about their character.

al2i

02-27-2007, 07:48 PM

I am not a hunter, but I am an enthusiast for individual liberty. I keep hoping for a change, but many Democrats apparently still fear and despise human freedom. I seriously wish people who do not like freedom would go away somewhere to enslave, disarm, and rule each other in another country.

ki4rhh

02-27-2007, 08:06 PM

The only thing I enjoy more then radio is Firearms. I don't own a single hunting rifle, they are all "Evil Black Rifles" or handguns. With that said I obey the law and am responsible in there use and storage, this move to BAN certain guns is ignorant at best. Its just an example of how Liberty is fading over time. There is only one thing that firearms owners can do to protect there rights and that is get involved, I hear allot of crap about if they come for my guns ill do this or that but the same people don't get involved with there local government and make there voice heard. We must lead by example, we must get politically involved, we must vote, attend city council meetings, county meetings, write letters, support them that support the 2nd amendment, we must FIGHT and these are the tools of this war.

W3MIV

02-27-2007, 08:11 PM

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Feb. 27 2007,14:48)]...many Democrats apparently still fear and despise human freedom.
It is not the freedom they despise -- it is only the freedom for YOU they despise.

It is all about control, and who gets to tell everyone what to do, how to live, what to think, and so on ad infinitum. EFA's posts are an exposition of the group think from the likes of Kennedy (any one of them, really, with the possible exception of JFK who was a conservative Democrat), Dean, Biden, Pelosi, Levin, Dodd, Frank, Waters, Feingold, Mikulski, Boxer -- oh, gosh, I gotta stop before I make myself sick.

Their agenda is to reduce the people of this country to a colony of workers and drones, all marching in lockstep to their political tune. No independent thought will be tolerated.

Those few worthwhile Democrats over the years (take, for example, the OTHER Kerry, the one with honor, intelligence and a real record of courage and commitment) have pulled out in disgust.

Guns are only one thing the Demokrats can't tolerate: They also can't abide anyone professing a public religious statement, they will not tolerate ANY form of regulation over abortion, nor will they permit any content into a classroom that is not cleared and sanctioned by a teachers' union that protects incompetence for political gain.

OK, Willy Boy, your turn...

kc7jty

02-27-2007, 08:21 PM

Quote[/b] (kc8uzl @ Feb. 27 2007,10:17)]I didn't miss the boat. I have guns, and I use them for hunting and target practice. I would never use them to harm anyone unless there was no other choice. I am not for gun control thats true, but I also live in the middle of nowhere so shooting a gun isn't a problem.
The primary reason Americans should have the right to own and bear arms is as a deterrent to tyranny. The second reason is for personal protection.
It has nothing to do with duck hunting or paper targets.

kc7jty

02-27-2007, 08:26 PM

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Feb. 27 2007,13:11)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Feb. 27 2007,14:48)]...many Democrats apparently still fear and despise human freedom.
It is not the freedom they despise -- it is only the freedom for YOU they despise.

It is all about control, and who gets to tell everyone what to do, how to live, what to think, and so on ad infinitum. EFA's posts are an exposition of the group think from the likes of Kennedy (any one of them, really, with the possible exception of JFK who was a conservative Democrat), Dean, Biden, Pelosi, Levin, Dodd, Frank, Waters, Feingold, Mikulski, Boxer -- oh, gosh, I gotta stop before I make myself sick.

Their agenda is to reduce the people of this country to a colony of workers and drones, all marching in lockstep to their political tune. No independent thought will be tolerated.

Those few worthwhile Democrats over the years (take, for example, the OTHER Kerry, the one with honor, intelligence and a real record of courage and commitment) have pulled out in disgust.

Guns are only one thing the Demokrats can't tolerate: They also can't abide anyone professing a public religious statement, they will not tolerate ANY form of regulation over abortion, nor will they permit any content into a classroom that is not cleared and sanctioned by a teachers' union that protects incompetence for political gain.

OK, Willy Boy, your turn...
You are pretty much on point here Al. Who is the other Kerry?

KF0RT

02-27-2007, 08:36 PM

Quote[/b] (WB2WIK @ Feb. 27 2007,12:24)]One would have to logically conclude that issuing carry permits leads to both more crime and more accidents involving guns, regardless of how anyone feels. It's just data.
Sorry, but correlation does not indicate cause and effect. Your logic is flawed.

It is just as possible that these states have carry laws because of previous problems with crime and not the other way around.

In order to have a shot at proving your conclusion, one would have to correlate an increase in firearm related crime and accidents coincident with the advent of carry laws. That is, the start of carry laws would have to be followed by an increase in problems.

Do the numbers indicate that? If these states have always had carry laws, you cannot prove anything except for the correlation. At that point, it becomes a chicken and egg problem and you might as well blame the whole ball of wax on the preponderance of rednecks.

73, Rob

W7WV

02-27-2007, 08:43 PM

I just bought a new rifle today. I found a new rule I had not run into before that's not a problem for most. For me it is. Now they want me to prove where I actually live, ie a street address. I don't have mail delivered to my home as I don't wish to use a rural route box as there are too many thefts in AZ from those boxes. Now the feds want the dealer have you prove where you physically live so I had to go the the utility company to get a copy of my bill showing the service address. Even my driver's license and my car registration only show the PO Box. Pretty soon you will have to be related to a politician before you can buy a gun.

W3MIV

02-27-2007, 09:15 PM

Quote[/b] (W7WV @ Feb. 27 2007,15:43)]Now the feds want the dealer have you prove where you physically live...
Of course, how else will they know where to go when the Dumbokrats seek to confiscate your guns?

W3MIV

02-27-2007, 09:19 PM

Quote[/b] (kc7jty @ Feb. 27 2007,15:26)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Feb. 27 2007,13:11)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Feb. 27 2007,14:48)]...many Democrats apparently still fear and despise human freedom.
It is not the freedom they despise -- it is only the freedom for YOU they despise.

It is all about control, and who gets to tell everyone what to do, how to live, what to think, and so on ad infinitum. EFA's posts are an exposition of the group think from the likes of Kennedy (any one of them, really, with the possible exception of JFK who was a conservative Democrat), Dean, Biden, Pelosi, Levin, Dodd, Frank, Waters, Feingold, Mikulski, Boxer -- oh, gosh, I gotta stop before I make myself sick.

Their agenda is to reduce the people of this country to a colony of workers and drones, all marching in lockstep to their political tune. No independent thought will be tolerated.

Those few worthwhile Democrats over the years (take, for example, the OTHER Kerry, the one with honor, intelligence and a real record of courage and commitment) have pulled out in disgust.

Guns are only one thing the Demokrats can't tolerate: They also can't abide anyone professing a public religious statement, they will not tolerate ANY form of regulation over abortion, nor will they permit any content into a classroom that is not cleared and sanctioned by a teachers' union that protects incompetence for political gain.

OK, Willy Boy, your turn...
You are pretty much on point here Al. Who is the other Kerry?
Sorry, Bill, but I left an "e" out in that post. Bob Kerrey was a Senator from NE (if memory serves) and he was a genuine war hero -- as opposed to the coiffeured phony from Laxachusetts.

WB2WIK

02-27-2007, 09:20 PM

Quote[/b] (KF0RT @ Feb. 27 2007,13:36)]Sorry, but correlation does not indicate cause and effect. Your logic is flawed.
Everything posted here on this subject is similarly flawed, as there isn't any verification of cause and effect in any of it.

I was just referencing raw data. It's up to those who read, review or use that data to conclude what they wish.

This is only in response to those who infer that "CCW" states have lower crime rates, or offer any particular advantage over "non-CCW" states, because using any snapshot, the data doesn't support this contention.

WB2WIK/6

kc7jty

02-27-2007, 09:40 PM

Quote[/b] (W7WV @ Feb. 27 2007,13:43)]Pretty soon you will have to be related to a politician before you can buy a gun.
yeah, Hillary, Bill, Dick Cheney, or Rudy Giuliani.

kc7jty

02-27-2007, 09:45 PM

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Feb. 27 2007,14:19)]Sorry, Bill, but I left an "e" out in that post. Bob Kerrey was a Senator from NE (if memory serves) and he was a genuine war hero -- as opposed to the coiffeured phony from Laxachusetts.
you have successfully rescued yourself from the depths.
I can't remember the exactness but Kerrey is a no go with me, buttzoid.

I think I like a lot of what the General, Wesley Clark has been saying but I know better than to trust him or back him.

BTW: It's Massoftwosh*ts

KC4HGH

02-27-2007, 11:49 PM

Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ Feb. 27 2007,08:56)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Feb. 26 2007,20:02)]This just in:

THE NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL REPORTS . . . A new report from the National Safety Council shows that accidental firearm-related fatalities remain at record lows, and accidents involving youths continue to decline significantly. The downward trends are occurring even as firearm ownership rises in the U.S. Statistics in the council's 2007 "Injury Facts" report show a 40 percent decrease in accidental firearm-related fatalities over a 10-year period ending in 2005. The report also shows firearm-related accidents involving children ages 14 and under declined 69 percent between 1995 and 2003. Downward trends also are being reported by other sources, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). #

Why is it a goal of the Democrats to continue to harp and bray about the "need" for new gun laws, not least on the Left Coast, where the drop was most significant (59%)?
Funny that I could not find that report at the NSC itself. #What I did find is your exact wording in Hunting Net news and other gun sites. #Looks like they took the NSC figures and did their own extrapolations and analysis. #They could have even taken this data from a NSC chapter for one local area - ##Looks like a lot of bull to me

Here are some pertinent facts

Homicide, Suicide and Unintentional Gun Deaths among 5-14 Year Old
for the High-Gun and the Low-Gun States between 1988 and 1997

# # # # # # # # # # # #High-Gun States # Low Gun States
Total Population # # 23 Million # # # # # # # 22 Million
Gun Suicides # # # # #153 # # # # # # # # # # # 22
Non-gun Suicides # #69 # # # # # # # # # # # # #82
Gun Homicides # # # 298 # # # # # # # # # # # #86
Non-gun Homicides 143 # # # # # # # # # # # 110
Unintentional gun deaths 253 # # # # # # # #15

Compared to children living in low-gun states, children living in the high-gun states were 16 times more likely to die from unintentional gun injury, 7 times more likely to die from gun suicide and 3 times more likely to die from gun homicide.

Conclusion: The study found a positive and statistically significant association between gun availability and state-level rates of gun suicides, gun homicides and unintentional gun deaths among children 5-14 years old.

http://www.veganpeace.com/gun_control/GunAvailability.htm
This comes down to two factors, in my opinion:

One, EDUCATE children as to what guns are FOR and CAN DO. My daughter has been shooting since age four, my son since age five. Both have been hunting and target shooting with me and know what to do. They don't "tote", since they're not old enough, but they know how to load a gun and know where the loaded guns ARE, in case.... AND, they don't touch them unless they get permission OR are with me.

Two, people need to learn how to CONTROL their anger and THINK of the consequences; Hollywood has dimmed and damaged the thought processes of people, of whom end their lives stupidly. Or are they unsuspectingly depleting the gene pool of (fill in blank here) people?

If anything, my open carry and CCW of 27.5+ years has tempered my anger. I tend to weigh the consequences and have only had to unholster my weapon ONCE in all those years- thankfully, I didn't have to discharge it into the idiot....

But, in reply to the thread...Democrats and liberals have and will always try to disarm We The People, since they fear an armed populace- a fact of governments and criminals all over the world. If they'd ever get their head out of their (fill in blank here), they may see the good sense in an armed populace....

KC4HGH

02-27-2007, 11:56 PM

By the way, there's a gun show at the Gulf State Fairgrounds, April 14 & 15, 2007 in west Mobile, AL...$4/adult to get in. You could waste four bucks in many worse ways. C'mon down & invest in tangible life insurance items!

n2ize

02-28-2007, 12:10 AM

Quote[/b] (kf6rdn @ Feb. 26 2007,19:55)]Because an event happens, the media spazzes out and broadcasts it over and over, blowing it all out of proportion.
Since it's about gun control, the libs jump all over it.

Other things the republican's jump all over, the ephedra and pro-hormone ban comes to mind for that one.
Do you assume that those who are in favor of gun control are politically liberal ?? Many people do. I know several people who vote democratically, are anti gun, and are quite conservative... they are anti drug legalization, anti gay rights, pro war, support the prez even though he's a repub. So Why the assumption that a democrat is automatically a liberal, or, a person who is pro gun control is a liberal ??

I'll give you another example. I tend to have what many might call a liberal point of view, yet I am against gun control and I am pro-gun. How is that possible ?? If I have liberal views then wouldn't I have to had guns and want them outlawed ?? How is it possible that I can own guns and support the right to keep and own them ?? I know several other people who are rather liberally minded yet own guns and support the right to own guns.

When I hear people repeatedly make the automatic connection between being liberal and being automagically anti gun it almost makes me want to go against my own interests and be anti gun myself. I think we'd all stand to move forward on thse issues if we give each other a chance and stop assuming that just because a person is liberal they have to be against guns and if conservatives they have to be pro gun.

This is not meant as a criticism against anyone, just an observation that might be worth taking into account.

n2ize

02-28-2007, 12:17 AM

Quote[/b] (KC4HGH @ Feb. 27 2007,16:56)]By the way, there's a gun show at the Gulf State Fairgrounds, April 14 & 15, 2007 in west Mobile, AL...$4/adult to get in. You could waste four bucks in many worse ways. C'mon down & invest in tangible life insurance items!
They used to have a nice Gun and Knife show at the nearby Westchester County Center not far from my parents home. They had lots on interesting stuff, high power air guns, hunting rifles, handguns, hunting knives, military surplus, bows, self defense gear, cop gear, etc.

Sadly the show is no more. The local yuppies apparently decided that they don;t want such a "terribly display of violence" in their fair community along with all those "violent gun nuts"... So they got together and bargained with their favorite local yokel political hacks and kicked the gun show out.

A shame. One of the few gun shows in the area gone and bitten the dust because people are too stupid to understand that the people at the show are not the people looking to rob or shoot them.

kc7jty

02-28-2007, 01:43 AM

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Feb. 27 2007,17:10)]are anti gun, and are quite conservative...
no es poseeeblay!
The only way someone can be truly conservative and favor gun control is under the new guidelines for conservatism....or maybe be a Noo Yorkih.

KC4HGH

02-28-2007, 01:53 AM

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Feb. 27 2007,17:10)]Quote[/b] (kf6rdn @ Feb. 26 2007,19:55)]Because an event happens, the media spazzes out and broadcasts it over and over, blowing it all out of proportion.
Since it's about gun control, the libs jump all over it. #

Other things the republican's jump all over, the ephedra and pro-hormone ban comes to mind for that one.
Do you assume that those who are in favor of gun control are politically liberal ?? #Many #people do. I know several people who vote democratically, are anti gun, and are quite conservative... they are anti drug legalization, anti gay rights, pro war, support the prez even though he's a repub. So #Why the assumption that a democrat is automatically a liberal, or, a person who is pro gun control is a liberal ??

I'll give you another example. I tend to have what many might call a liberal point of view, yet I am against gun control and I am pro-gun. How is that possible ?? If I have liberal views then wouldn't I have to had guns and want them outlawed ?? How is it possible that I can own guns and support the right to keep and own them ?? I know several other people who are rather liberally minded yet own guns and support the right to own guns.

When I hear people repeatedly make the automatic connection between being liberal and being automagically anti gun it almost makes me want to go against my own interests and be anti gun myself. I think we'd all stand to move forward on thse issues if we give each other a chance and stop assuming that just because a person is liberal they have to be against guns and if conservatives they have to be pro gun.

This is not meant as a criticism against anyone, just an observation that might be worth taking into account.
John, I must say you are a refreshing exception to the average liberal- don't go against your pro-gun interests! But you must admit a standard liberal Democratic mantra IS "gun control/banning"...that's why the observations from the conservative crowd.

KE5FRF

02-28-2007, 02:46 AM

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Feb. 27 2007,19:10)]Quote[/b] (kf6rdn @ Feb. 26 2007,19:55)]Because an event happens, the media spazzes out and broadcasts it over and over, blowing it all out of proportion.
Since it's about gun control, the libs jump all over it. #

Other things the republican's jump all over, the ephedra and pro-hormone ban comes to mind for that one.
Do you assume that those who are in favor of gun control are politically liberal ?? #Many #people do. I know several people who vote democratically, are anti gun, and are quite conservative... they are anti drug legalization, anti gay rights, pro war, support the prez even though he's a repub. So #Why the assumption that a democrat is automatically a liberal, or, a person who is pro gun control is a liberal ??

I'll give you another example. I tend to have what many might call a liberal point of view, yet I am against gun control and I am pro-gun. How is that possible ?? If I have liberal views then wouldn't I have to had guns and want them outlawed ?? How is it possible that I can own guns and support the right to keep and own them ?? I know several other people who are rather liberally minded yet own guns and support the right to own guns.

When I hear people repeatedly make the automatic connection between being liberal and being automagically anti gun it almost makes me want to go against my own interests and be anti gun myself. I think we'd all stand to move forward on thse issues if we give each other a chance and stop assuming that just because a person is liberal they have to be against guns and if conservatives they have to be pro gun.

This is not meant as a criticism against anyone, just an observation that might be worth taking into account.
IZE,

It goes without saying that points of view are as varying within political spheres as hair and eye color. Nobody has exactly the shame shade or tone. Certainly, a person who calls himself a Democrat can be conservative and a person who calls themself a Rebublican can be quite liberal. If a single issue in the party platform is of enough importance to an individual, often he will set aside his values on lesser issues in favor of the party that most reflects his primary concerns. You express in another thread, for instance, what some would consider a rather extreme "bleeding heart" belief where "reperations" are concerned. Indeed, even many people who would call themselves fervant liberals wouldn't agree with your stance. You have demonstrated, as I have followed your posts, a socialist philosophy. It is quite a contrast from your views on gun ownership. What that tells me is that even liberals can have moments of common sense. LOL, kidding. The question is, what issues are most important to you? You favor liberal minimum wage laws. Would you sacrifice your right for gun ownership to accomodate a minimum wage of , say, $15.00/hr?

This is just one issue for an example. It reflects your idealogicial stance. What is funny about that is that most of us share your idealogies, yes evn us die-hard neo-cons. I doubt there is a neo-con on this board who doesn't wish a world without racism, without war, where everyone has a happy lifestyle and free of the evils that we face. The difference is a recognition of human nature, a recognition that Utopia is "pie in the sky" and will never happen. Its an understanding that if we indulged in our instinctive compassion for our fellow man that he will surely pick our pockets while we embrace him. You see, socialism is an idea that looks wonderful on paper...but capitalism is an idea that has stood the test of centuries. Socialism is rooted in small communities, where it often is successful. Capitalism has evolved among the great and populous civilizations throughout history. Socialism is effective on a small scale because everyone has a say and can monitor the distribution of resources to insure equity. On a large scale, it is too easy and prone to abuse. American capitalism favors our social structure because we have been diligent in refining it to give everyone an opportunity. Granted, it has failings, and is just as rittled with greed, but the difference is that even the poorest among us in our system are able to sustain a decent living in most cases. In socialist systems everyone is equally poor, and few have the oportunity to go further. Our flavor of capitalism offers any industrious individual an opportunity to pull himself out of the lower stratta.

Anyway, I read you as a socialist liberal,who has moments of conservatism when it comes to individual liberty. But you are a liberal, good sir,of that I have no doubt.

KI4SQT

02-28-2007, 02:59 AM

Quote[/b] (W0MT @ Feb. 25 2007,22:33)]Quote[/b] (kc8uzl @ Feb. 26 2007,20:25)]It doesn't matter what is passes. Criminals are criminals because they don't follow the laws. Why would this stop them from getting a gun? They will still have them. The only people that wouldn't be able to get guns are honest people that won't hurt anyone.
I think you missed the point. I was responding to the question about why some people continue to push for gun-control legislation when ACCIDENTAL gun fatalities are falling.
However, the Libs have in the past used and will in the future...most especially in those vastly liberal north eastern states Mass, NJ, NY, Md, cental Americas Chicago,and the Left Coasts California... etc., the fact that their Gun control laws are there in part because of the horrendous amount of children killled, wounded and maimed in home gun accident...while totally ignoring the fact that more children drown in home swimming pools, die from accidental poisionings,car accidents, and drug overdoses...that means more in each category, not collectively...than are wounded or killed by gun accidents.
It is just another of the lefts' excuses to pander up more support for gun control...and the American Sheep are more than willing to swallow the load...

kf6rdn

02-28-2007, 04:01 AM

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Feb. 27 2007,16:10)]Quote[/b] (kf6rdn @ Feb. 26 2007,19:55)]Because an event happens, the media spazzes out and broadcasts it over and over, blowing it all out of proportion.
Since it's about gun control, the libs jump all over it.

Other things the republican's jump all over, the ephedra and pro-hormone ban comes to mind for that one.
Do you assume that those who are in favor of gun control are politically liberal ?? Many people do. I know several people who vote democratically, are anti gun, and are quite conservative... they are anti drug legalization, anti gay rights, pro war, support the prez even though he's a repub. So Why the assumption that a democrat is automatically a liberal, or, a person who is pro gun control is a liberal ??

I'll give you another example. I tend to have what many might call a liberal point of view, yet I am against gun control and I am pro-gun. How is that possible ?? If I have liberal views then wouldn't I have to had guns and want them outlawed ?? How is it possible that I can own guns and support the right to keep and own them ?? I know several other people who are rather liberally minded yet own guns and support the right to own guns.

When I hear people repeatedly make the automatic connection between being liberal and being automagically anti gun it almost makes me want to go against my own interests and be anti gun myself. I think we'd all stand to move forward on thse issues if we give each other a chance and stop assuming that just because a person is liberal they have to be against guns and if conservatives they have to be pro gun.

This is not meant as a criticism against anyone, just an observation that might be worth taking into account.
Oh I fully agree, and particularly here those that are very liberal seem to also be pro-gun.

But on the whole liberal dems are anti gun, and conservative reps like to legislate morality.

It's the kneejerk reaction to events in the media that I despise. Some idiot shot themselves in the foot, lets ban assault rifles, or lunatic went on a rampage.
Some fat, high bloodpressured moron took 15 times the recommended dose of ephedra and died, ban it!

kc7mrq

02-28-2007, 04:13 AM

Quote[/b] ]One would have to logically conclude that issuing carry permits leads to both more crime and more accidents involving guns, regardless of how anyone feels. It's just data.

I feel we need one more piece of data before coming to that logical conclusion...

Were the crimes/accidents caused or participated by a CCW permit holder?

That bit of data will back your conclusion undeniably.

Corey

KI4PEQ

02-28-2007, 06:05 AM

Quote[/b] (WB2WIK @ Feb. 27 2007,13:24)]If there is any correlation at all between "carry" (permit) vs. "non-carry" (no permit) states and the total of crimes and accidents reported involving guns, it's that the "carry" states have more crimes and accidents involving the use of guns.

One would have to logically conclude that issuing carry permits leads to both more crime and more accidents involving guns, regardless of how anyone feels. #It's just data.

That the general trend is downwards, and not upwards, is a good thing. #But the trend has nothing to do with CCW permits or anything like that. #Might have to do with general public awareness that guns kill people, and even little kids seem to understand that.
Benjamin Disraeli, the esteemed British statesman was astute enough to observe this thought.

"There are three types of lies. Lies, damned lies, and statistics!"

Your assertion that people with concealed carry permits are responsible for gun crime is that third type of lie. I don't logically conclude your assertion in the least.

Criminals don't get concealed carry permits. If you have a criminal record, you CAN'T get a CCW. So they don't bother, and conceal their weapons without one. Why? Because by virtue of being a criminal, they don't follow the law. The concealed weapons laws mean nothing to them. They are criminals, and part of being a criminal is engaging in criminal activity. In other words, BREAKING THE LAW.

The trend of crime going down is due to criminals knowing that in states where the citizenry is allowed to arm themselves, the criminals stand a good chance of being maimed or killed by a law abiding citizen who is protecting themselves from criminal activity.

Just ask the people of Washington D.C., where a law abiding citizen having a handgun at the ready is guilty of a crime, just how well gun control works.

n0ov

02-28-2007, 02:41 PM

Quote[/b] ]Criminals don't get concealed carry permits. If you have a criminal record, you CAN'T get a CCW

If you are a criminal you are not suppose to be able legally own a weapon. Whoops, guess that is why so many criminals have weapons -- they don't care.

Last time I looked, legal citizens that own guns were not the ones robbing people, doing drive by shootings, or car jacking. Perhaps we should let normal folks have guns and take the weapons away from the judges, elected officials and celebrities that sponsor anti-gun activities. That way the criminals will have easier targets -- they know the ones with the most to lose will be easy victims.

N9XR

02-28-2007, 02:53 PM

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Feb. 27 2007,06:48)]I am not a hunter, but I am an enthusiast for individual liberty. I keep hoping for a change, but many Democrats apparently still fear and despise human freedom. I seriously wish people who do not like freedom would go away somewhere to enslave, disarm, and rule each other in another country.
http://www.objector.org/awol/graphics/cargo_dead.jpg

So much freedom for so many by Republican leadership. I have to agree with you on this one, Dave.

w3scm

02-28-2007, 04:01 PM

WIK writes: "Maybe you'd take FBI published data instead?

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm"

That's FBI data?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif #Really? #I went to this little site and it is not a government site and it doesn't identify itself too well. #

I did notice that it claims in its opening page that "most man-made disasters and all violence are a result of child abuse." #

Hmmmmmmmmm. #Wonder if the owners have a "position"?

Typical left coast pseudostats.

You can't really extract gun crime data from the UCR (you know what that is, don't you, fella?). #It may and probably will surprise you to note that the percentage of violent crimes as tabulated by the FBI (the REAL stats, as opposed to yours) which involve a firearm are less than 10% of the total of such crimes over the last decade and more. #There is a larger issue here, Charlie, if you can grasp it: violence against innocents does not need, or depend upon, guns to rape, maim and kill.

I don't think it is possible to engage in logical discussion with people who have a doctrinairre committment to preconceived ideas anyway. #You can find all the BS gun-crime "statistics" (or "juggled hogwash expressed as numbers", as we say) that you want at a variety of lib/left sites. #So have fun reading what you want to see. #I prefer reality.

It doesn't take a bunch of statistical mumbo jumbo from questionable sources to figure this out anyway. #In rural areas of this once-great nation, firearms ownership and availability per capita are uniformly FAR greater than in the urban areas. #I don't need anyone's stats to prove that. #Where do you see the most gun crime, eh?

Who is committing the vast amount of gun crime - people who are ineligible to own or possess firearms in the first place (kids under 21, drug dealers, felons, nuts) who didn't or can't buy a firearm legally, or people who own and possess them legally? #Or don't you read the paper...?

Taking away guns from law abiding members of society does little to take them out of the hands of crooks, and has other negative effects as well (like assuring helpless victims in their homes and in the streets). #A teenage drug dealer with 50,000 (untaxed) bucks in his back pocket is going to get a gun if he wants one. #If from nowhere else, from the same sources that smuggle in tons of dope of every form every day into this country. #And the gun doesn't get used up when you use it, like the cocaine does, so it's available for reuse or resale.

Why does every cop either of us ever met carry a gun off duty - and when retired #- without fail? #

You could always move to England, where the gun-free society has yielded such wonderful results. #Although California IS closer...

I once heard that a gun rights supporter is a liberal who has just been mugged. #Makes sense. #it happened in my family. #My ex is "born again" and has been for 35 years, is a pacifist, believes in non-violence as a creed (to a point, as we shall see) and I have truly never seen her angry.

Except that one day, post-assult, when I picked her up from the police station and she said, "Get me that application NOW!" And after 12 weeks of background checks, reference checks, criminal and mental health checks, and the personal approval of the local Police chief (all of which you have needed here in the People's Republic of Jersey for the last 20 years) she got her firearm. #

Typical criminal and incipient mass-murderer, no doubt, eh, WIK?

WB2WIK

02-28-2007, 05:17 PM

Quote[/b] (KI4PEQ @ Feb. 27 2007,23:05)]Benjamin Disraeli, the esteemed British statesman was astute enough to observe this thought.

"There are three types of lies. Lies, damned lies, and statistics!"

Your assertion that people with concealed carry permits are responsible for gun crime is that third type of lie. I don't logically conclude your assertion in the least.
The flaw in your statement is I never said any of that, or even implied it.

The reason there are lies, damned lies and statistics frequently lumped together is because people reading statistics misinterpret them. I don't. I made no conclusion at all, just provided raw data.

And the raw data indicates that there's almost no difference at all between gun violence, both intentional and accidental, in "CCW" or "non-CCW" states: But if there is any difference at all (and there is some), the data indicates lower incidence of gun violence in "non-CCW" states.

That doesn't mean anyone issued a lawful carry permit ever committed a single crime, and I never implied it did. It's just an observation: Being in a state that issues CCW permits doesn't make that place any safer, period. No data supports that contention, at all.

WB2WIK/6

KC4HGH

02-28-2007, 06:01 PM

Quote[/b] (WB2WIK @ Feb. 28 2007,10:17)]Quote[/b] (KI4PEQ @ Feb. 27 2007,23:05)]Benjamin Disraeli, the esteemed British statesman was astute enough to observe this thought.

"There are three types of lies. Lies, damned lies, and statistics!"

Your assertion that people with concealed carry permits are responsible for gun crime is that third type of lie. I don't logically conclude your assertion in the least.
The flaw in your statement is I never said any of that, or even implied it.

The reason there are lies, damned lies and statistics frequently lumped together is because people reading statistics misinterpret them. #I don't. #I made no conclusion at all, just provided raw data.

And the raw data indicates that there's almost no difference at all between gun violence, both intentional and accidental, in "CCW" or "non-CCW" states: But if there is any difference at all (and there is some), the data indicates lower incidence of gun violence in "non-CCW" states.

That doesn't mean anyone issued a lawful carry permit ever committed a single crime, and I never implied it did. #It's just an observation: Being in a state that issues CCW permits doesn't make that place any safer, period. #No data supports that contention, at all.

WB2WIK/6
...and you quoted those stats months ago in another long-running thread where many of us concluded that stats mean literally nothing on the streets in the REAL world....nothing at all.

N9XR

02-28-2007, 07:08 PM

This whole discussion of gun control has me LMAO. “Oh, I am against gun control, so I want to support the political party who’s frontrunner in the next presidential election is the biggest proponent of gun control in recent memory.” Yeah. Go Rudy.

I have asked the question before about what controls there are on quantity of firearms and such. I always get the answer that they aren’t readily available enough or certain fully automatics are difficult to obtain. We have had discussions about ham radio licenses on here as well and many say resoundingly, “If it ain’t difficult to get, it ain’t worth havin’”.

I asked myself why the right wing leadership be a proponent of totally deregulating firearms. The right wing leadership is about maximizing government controls and minimizing individual liberties. Why would any of them push for deregulating firearms? It does seem obvious to me that they are looking for a fiasco to occur to totally ban firearms. CCW is a good avenue to take to accomplish this end. If that don’t work, deregulate more.

If you want something worth having, properly regulated and enforced laws maximize the true law abiding citizens.

I was in Cebu City, Philippines last month. I saw the police in the middle of the street trying to control traffic. The guy would stand there, point at a vehicle for it to stop and yield the right of way. Knowing the request would not be enforced, many cars blew by the officer, and those whose turn it was to commence had to wait. This kind of society exists and is waiting for many of you.

Knock yourselves out.

KC2KFC

02-28-2007, 07:17 PM

Why don't they just regulate bullets?

N9XR

02-28-2007, 07:28 PM

I get it. Guns don't kill, bullets do.

Bid on M-16 (http://www.county.lapeer.org/sheriff/m16sale.html)
Anytime you want an M-16, just bid on it. Even from a Sheriff. Can't be less gun control than this.

KC2KFC

02-28-2007, 07:31 PM

Quote[/b] (n9xr @ Feb. 28 2007,12:28)]I get it. Guns don't kill, bullets do.

Bid on M-16 (http://www.county.lapeer.org/sheriff/m16sale.html)
Anytime you want an M-16, just bid on it. Even from a Sheriff. Can't be less gun control than this.
Actually individuals who load the guns with bullets, then point the gun at somebody, then pull the trigger are what kill people. But if nobody could get bullets, then they couldn't put them in the gun and therefore they could pull the trigger, but it would do nothing.

n0ov

02-28-2007, 08:05 PM

Quote[/b] (n9xr @ Feb. 27 2007,13:28)]I get it. #Guns don't kill, bullets do.

Bid on M-16 (http://www.county.lapeer.org/sheriff/m16sale.html)
Anytime you want an M-16, just bid on it. #Even from a Sheriff. #Can't be less gun control than this.
"Guns don't kill people, jelious husband catching their wive with another guy kill people", Larry the Cable Guy

w3mv

02-28-2007, 09:07 PM

Quote[/b] (KE5FRF @ Feb. 27 2007,19:46)]yes evn us die-hard neo-cons
FRF,

Neo-conservatism was born in the Henry "Scoop" Jackson wing of the Democratic Party. It is a pro-Zionist, pro-foreign intervention movement that evolved from the socialist teachings of Leo Strauss. A few noteworthy original disciples of neo-conservatism include: Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Elliot Abrams, and Paul Wolfowitz. All of these people were registered Democrats (I believe that Wolfowitz is still a registered Democrat). Furthermore, the neoconservatives could give a rat's behind about gun ownership, prayer in school, entitlement programs or abortion. They are strictly interested in projecting power internationally and protecting Israel.

WB2WIK

02-28-2007, 09:16 PM

Quote[/b] (KC4HGH @ Feb. 28 2007,11:01)]Quote[/b] (WB2WIK @ Feb. 28 2007,10:17)]Quote[/b] (KI4PEQ @ Feb. 27 2007,23:05)]Benjamin Disraeli, the esteemed British statesman was astute enough to observe this thought.

"There are three types of lies. Lies, damned lies, and statistics!"

Your assertion that people with concealed carry permits are responsible for gun crime is that third type of lie. I don't logically conclude your assertion in the least.
The flaw in your statement is I never said any of that, or even implied it.

The reason there are lies, damned lies and statistics frequently lumped together is because people reading statistics misinterpret them. I don't. I made no conclusion at all, just provided raw data.

And the raw data indicates that there's almost no difference at all between gun violence, both intentional and accidental, in "CCW" or "non-CCW" states: But if there is any difference at all (and there is some), the data indicates lower incidence of gun violence in "non-CCW" states.

That doesn't mean anyone issued a lawful carry permit ever committed a single crime, and I never implied it did. It's just an observation: Being in a state that issues CCW permits doesn't make that place any safer, period. No data supports that contention, at all.

WB2WIK/6
...and you quoted those stats months ago in another long-running thread where many of us concluded that stats mean literally nothing on the streets in the REAL world....nothing at all.
If that were really true, there would be no reason to collect statistical data, it's all a waste of time.

The reason we do collect such data is to note trends, plot means and standard deviations, help guide future change for the better.

Funniest statement I read in this thread is that some people are "pro gun."

How can you be "pro gun?" If this was meant to be the opposite of "anti gun," it isn't.

WB2WIK/6

WB2WIK

02-28-2007, 09:24 PM

Quote[/b] (n9xr @ Feb. 28 2007,12:08)]I was in Cebu City, Philippines last month. I saw the police in the middle of the street trying to control traffic. The guy would stand there, point at a vehicle for it to stop and yield the right of way. Knowing the request would not be enforced, many cars blew by the officer, and those whose turn it was to commence had to wait. This kind of society exists and is waiting for many of you.
I've been to Cebu, too. I even speak enough Visayan to be dangerous.

This is a third-world country, where guns are very strictly prohibited but people walk down the streets carrying machetes and villians have every kind of weapon imaginable. It's out of control due to overpopulation and lack of money.

Ironically, other than kidnappings which occur mostly in the southern territories where Muslim terrorists are trained, most crime there is petty theft (pickpocketing and stealing jewelry are popular sports), committed without any weapons at all.

If anyone were permitted sidearms in a place like that, it would be chaos. I'm very glad they're prohibited, and that's enforced much better than the traffic.

In P.I., a traffic light is considered a "suggestion." But then, it's that way in most of Mexico and lots of other places, too... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

WB2WIK/6

N0NVT

02-28-2007, 09:43 PM

hey. did anybody know our current pres. dubbya carries a pistola?? he sure does. and so did billary. his fav. was a s&w airweight 38spl. how many of you know most presidents carry firearms on a daily basis? they don`t even need a license. just like senators,,govenors,,and supreme court justices. how many officials out there do you think carry?? even the ones that vote for more gun control!! you bet,,most of`em. remember that. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

kc7jty

02-28-2007, 11:10 PM

Rosie O'Donnel

ka5s

02-28-2007, 11:42 PM

Quote[/b] (n9xr @ Feb. 28 2007,15:08)]I was in Cebu City, Philippines last month. #I saw the police in the middle of the street trying to control traffic. #The guy would stand there, point at a vehicle for it to stop and yield the right of way. #Knowing the request would not be enforced, many cars blew by the officer, and those whose turn it was to commence had to wait. #This kind of society exists and is waiting for many of you.
My brother works (or worked, last time I heard from him) for the RP government in Cebu City. He had to GET a [legal] gun -- so he'd be able to shoot back at the kind of people there who shoot policemen.

Cortland
KA5S

N5NPO

02-28-2007, 11:51 PM

Sen Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than any of my firearms have.

k5xit

03-01-2007, 03:09 AM

Quote[/b] (WB2WIK @ Feb. 27 2007,10:24)]Quote[/b] (kc8uzl @ Feb. 27 2007,10:17)]I didn't miss the boat. I have guns, and I use them for hunting and target practice. I would never use them to harm anyone unless there was no other choice. I am not for gun control thats true, but I also live in the middle of nowhere so shooting a gun isn't a problem.
It isn't? #I guess it isn't if you're the only one there and a bullet doesn't ricochet off something and come back to hit you in the head.

If there's anybody else there besides you, shooting a gun is a #problem. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
I have been a competition shooter for years. It is not unusual to have 100 people shooting at the same time in competition. I know of no accidental shooting during an event like that. I live a short distance east of the NRA Whittington Center and we have never had a accidental shooting. There are to many people making statements that have no pracitical experience and no proficency with firearms.

ai4me

03-01-2007, 04:56 AM

Quote[/b] (WB2WIK @ Feb. 26 2007,23:35)]If honest people with guns won't hurt anyone, why would they need guns? #

Guns were designed with one intention: To hurt or kill living things.
A) Because the bad guys will always have guns. Take away the guns from honest people and you will be left with only two kinds of people... Bad guys and victims.

B) So were the Bow and Arrow. I dont see you complaining about those.

Now I admit that cars were not designed with the sole purpose "to hurt or kill living things", but cars kill more people every year than guns do. Heck, drunk drivers kill more people every year than guns do. Lets outlaw Alcohol!!!

No wait.. we did that once.. it didnt work. So what makes you think doing the same to guns that we did to alcohol during prohibition will accomplish? All Prohibition did was create the Kennedy Dynasty.

What if I said that guns were invented in 1364 to defend against attackers? Who is right? You or I? Is your take a more sensational claim? Is yours intended to incite people and trigger emotions that rally to your side of the argument?

You can save more lives by sitting at the local bar preventing patrons from driving home intoxicated than crying about the sins of guns.

k5xit

03-01-2007, 12:05 PM

Quote[/b] (n9xr @ Feb. 28 2007,12:08)]This whole discussion of gun control has me LMAO. #“Oh, I am against gun control, so I want to support the political party who’s frontrunner in the next presidential election is the biggest proponent of gun control in recent memory.” #Yeah. #Go Rudy.

I have asked the question before about what controls there are on quantity of firearms and such. #I always get the answer that they aren’t readily available enough or certain fully automatics are difficult to obtain. #We have had discussions about ham radio licenses on here as well and many say resoundingly, “If it ain’t difficult to get, it ain’t worth havin’”. #

I asked myself why the right wing leadership be a proponent of totally deregulating firearms. #The right wing leadership is about maximizing government controls and minimizing individual liberties. #Why would any of them push for deregulating firearms? #It does seem obvious to me that they are looking for a fiasco to occur to totally ban firearms. #CCW is a good avenue to take to accomplish this end. #If that don’t work, deregulate more.

If you want something worth having, properly regulated and enforced laws maximize the true law abiding citizens.

I was in Cebu City, Philippines last month. #I saw the police in the middle of the street trying to control traffic. #The guy would stand there, point at a vehicle for it to stop and yield the right of way. #Knowing the request would not be enforced, many cars blew by the officer, and those whose turn it was to commence had to wait. #This kind of society exists and is waiting for many of you.

Knock yourselves out.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif