Where is our BASEBALL BAT CONTROL, and WHY DIDN'T THESE PEOPLE GET SAVED BY THE POLICE?!

[mcrocker 0]

Quote

You ask rhetorical questions that you can't answer and then use your own unfounded "conclusions" based on a hypothetical answer to argue that guns are bad for citizens to have, and shouldn't be owned by the general populace.

I wonder if you have any idea how ridiculous that ends up sounding.

-

And you jump down anyones throat for just mentioning gun control. I didn't see anywhere where he stated 'guns ... shouldn't be owned by the general populace'.

What is wrong with proper registration of firearms?
What is wrong with a 4 day wait period before you can actually purchase a firearm?
Will it stop firearm related crime? Abosutely NOT.
Will it help reduce the amount of firearms in the street? No.

Maybe it will in the future. Maybe 50 years from now after having all new firearms registered and tracked there will be fewer guns on the streets. Maybe 50 years from now all guns on the street will be 50 years old. I don't have the answers. I think it lies somwhere in the middle between gun banning and a gun free for all.

What if you had to registered all new guns that you purchased? What if you had to re-register them annually to prove you still had them under your control? Would that be the end of the world? How would that affect your 'right to bear arms?'. Do you honestly feel that there is a great government consipracy brewing and you'll have black helecopters flying over with ATF agents repelling down?

I don't have any problem with responsible people owning firearms. If you are repsonsible enough to own one you are probably responsible enough to own a thousand. I do have a problem with conficted felons owning firearms. Will gun control stop criminals from owning guns? Of course not, I don't think anyone is crazy enough to think it will. It will make it harder. Over time it may have a effect

Owning a gun is like owning a car. You need to register a car, why not a gun?

Shooting a gun is like driving a car. Both can kill, you need a license to drive, why not to shoot?

Do we still have 14 year old driving around illegally, yes, but that doesn't mean auto registration and drivers licenses are bad thing/invasion of our freedom. Of course, the consitiution doesn't state 'right to drive'.

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

What is wrong with proper registration of firearms?
What is wrong with a 4 day wait period before you can actually purchase a firearm?

What's right about it?

Let's not do things because there's nothing wrong with doing them, let's do things because they're the right thing to do.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[quade 4]

Quote

Let's not do things because there's nothing wrong with doing them, let's do things because they're the right thing to do.

But that point is debatable.

What is "the right thing to do" with regards to guns?

I think there are two sides, both of which think they are right.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

But that point is debatable.

No it's not. Quade, has this forum taught you nothing? You should know by now, we're right, you're wrong.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[AggieDave 6]

We're right, you're left...aka wrong.



(its a joke folks, move along).

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

Let's not do things because there's nothing wrong with doing them, let's do things because they're the right thing to do.

But that point is debatable.

What is "the right thing to do" with regards to guns?

I think there are two sides, both of which think they are right.

Well, when the pro-gun side says it fears registration will lead to confiscation, and the anti-gun side says, "Aw, you're just afraid of phantoms, it will not," and the pro-gun side has country after country after country -- and even cities and states in the U.S. -- where it can cite that exactly that has happened...

which of the two sides claiming to be right actually IS right?

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

What is wrong with proper registration of firearms?
What is wrong with a 4 day wait period before you can actually purchase a firearm?
Will it stop firearm related crime? Abosutely NOT.
Will it help reduce the amount of firearms in the street? No.

All the reason we need to say that infringing on our rights is not justified since it can't deliver safety (and even if it could deliver safety, the price is still too high. You NEVER give up rights for a promise of safety. Better to live without safety than without rights.)

Quote

Maybe it will in the future. Maybe 50 years from now after having all new firearms registered and tracked there will be fewer guns on the streets. Maybe 50 years from now all guns on the street will be 50 years old. I don't have the answers.

Major understatement there. You sure don't have the answers.

There are guns around now that are over EIGHTY years old that still can be fired just fine. Why on earth do you think that a modern manufactured firearm, if maintained and used sparingly, would not last at least 100 years, if there are 100-year-old guns still capable of firing?

Quote

I think it lies somwhere in the middle between gun banning and a gun free for all.

Well, in any event, we don't currently have a "gun free-for-all.

Quote

I don't have any problem with responsible people owning firearms. If you are repsonsible enough to own one you are probably responsible enough to own a thousand. I do have a problem with conficted felons owning firearms.

It's already illegal for felons to own guns. It's illegal for anyone to sell guns to a felon. It's illegal for them to attempt to obtain guns. It's illegal for them to even HOLD a gun, say if a non-felon friend took them to the range and offered for them to blow off a mag or two. What do you want, for it to be made twice illegal? Would it being made illegal twice over make felon gun possession less likely to occur?

Quote

Will gun control stop criminals from owning guns? Of course not, I don't think anyone is crazy enough to think it will. It will make it harder. Over time it may have a effect.

Uh, no, it doesn't make it harder. I certainly believe that any felon who wants a gun either has it, or will within a week of setting out to get one.

Quote

Owning a gun is like owning a car. You need to register a car, why not a gun?

Shooting a gun is like driving a car. Both can kill, you need a license to drive, why not to shoot?

You don't register your car for safety, you register it to give the state revenue. This is well-established.

You don't need a driver's license to simply purchase a 6,000 lb. SUV, which can mow down dozens of people in a fell swoop in a crowded outdoor market (like that old geezer did in California, though it wasn't in an SUV). You don't need a license to drive if you plan on driving only on private property. So if I want to buy a gun, and plan on keeping it and firing it only on my ranch, I shouldn't have to register it or get licensed, right? This is according to YOUR car-analogy, dude, not mine.

Quote

Do we still have 14 year old driving around illegally, yes, but that doesn't mean auto registration and drivers licenses are bad thing/invasion of our freedom. Of course, the consitiution doesn't state 'right to drive'.

I'm fascinated by the way people proposing gun control seem to always guiltily apologize for it at the end by admitting that it won't solve the problems, and thatgun ownership is a Constitutionally guaranteed right, unlike their analogies (like cars), which pretty much closes the case on their claims.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

What is wrong with proper registration of firearms?
What is wrong with a 4 day wait period before you can actually purchase a firearm?
Will it stop firearm related crime? Abosutely NOT.
Will it help reduce the amount of firearms in the street? No.

Maybe it will in the future. Maybe 50 years from now after having all new firearms registered and tracked there will be fewer guns on the streets. Maybe 50 years from now all guns on the street will be 50 years old. I don't have the answers. I think it lies somwhere in the middle between gun banning and a gun free for all.

What's wrong with registration? You point it out right there. You claim not that your goal is to know where all firearms are, but rather to remove guns from citizens. In that case, the only way it works is for registration to lead to.....you guessed it - confiscation.

MY problem with YOUR idea is that you would not just let it be at registration. Rather you would use it as a means to an end, the exact end the self reliant, anti-nanny-state, independent people fear.

reality check: with a minimal amount of care, modern guns last for centuries.

Quote

What if you had to registered all new guns that you purchased? What if you had to re-register them annually to prove you still had them under your control? Would that be the end of the world? How would that affect your 'right to bear arms?'. Do you honestly feel that there is a great government consipracy brewing and you'll have black helecopters flying over with ATF agents repelling down?

and I quote:

Quote

“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it.” – Senator Dianne Feinstein, CBS-TV's 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995

Need I go on?

Quote

Owning a gun is like owning a car. You need to register a car, why not a gun?

Shooting a gun is like driving a car. Both can kill, you need a license to drive, why not to shoot?

Do we still have 14 year old driving around illegally, yes, but that doesn't mean auto registration and drivers licenses are bad thing/invasion of our freedom. Of course, the consitiution doesn't state 'right to drive'.

Any idiot with a minimum of motor control can get a driver's license. Anything stricter would bring revolution to your doorstep.

Is anyone in government doing everything they can to outlaw car ownership? Driving outside your own state?

While I have no problem with speed limits and traffic laws, what has the DMV done for us lately, other than collect our money (taxes) and steal our time (bureaucracy)?

What good do any of us gain by having our car's tagged and our citizenry licensed?

Maybe when someone is advocating taking away your car and your license because of a few other people's irresponsibility, you'll understand my point of view.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

But how many lives has been wasted when a driver with a bad temper shot another driver over a petty discussion? If he had no gun, he may kill him instead with a knife, but also if those murderers had guns the victims would most likely be dead anyway.

You offered up a statement without a source of proof or evidence.

Well, in answer to your question, I say none, it has never happened, and wait for you to tell me otherwise.

Don't cop out with some BS about statistics going one way or the other. Either it has happened or it hasn't.


(ps - I have no doubts someone could have been shot, but I haven't read about it, so show me otherwise, if you can)

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Bringing this one back on topic...

So who besides me wants to drive up to Deltona and volunteer to administer the aluminum-bat execution of these loathesome slime?

I can't remember the last time I felt such intense hatred as I do for these people. Actually, I'm not sure that I ever have.

Oh, and the Tuesday paper has a story about how four people in the criminal justice sector who should have and could have kept the ringleader in jail didn't have been fired. It's just too bad that people in that line of work are not able to be sued. I think that they can be charged, though, can't they? I call that malfeasance.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

A few months ago, there was a hubbub about a video game that featured a stage where Haitian immigrants were coming ashore, and the game said, "Kill the Haitians!"

I wonder, Microsoft could probably make some commercial hay out of this, running a commercial for a game in which you are ordered, "Slug the X-Box Thieves!"

I mean, morality, ethics and compassion are all but dead in modern society, so what the fuck? Why not use this cheap publicity to sell more X-boxes?

"X-Box: You'd kill for it, too!"



-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

While America has the Miranda rules, Britain allows police to interrogate suspects who have asked that interrogation stop, and allows the police to keep defense lawyers away from suspects under interrogation for limited periods. Britain allows evidence which has been derived from a coerced confession to be used in court. Wiretaps do not need judicial approval and it is unlawful in a British court to point out the fact that a police wiretap was illegal." (Kopel, 1992, pp. 101-102.)

I'm not going to bother comming in on the argument, but felt it nessasery to point out to any who bothered reading the above text that it is entirely incorrect. Whoever wrote that needs to be banned from ever writing again - it's an appaling miss-truth to the point that I simply have to conclude that they are deliberate outright lies.

I confess I scan read the text for comments on the UK... I don't think I'll bother reading the rest of it as I have absolutly no confidence that the author can actually write a truthful word.

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"We're right, you're left...aka wrong.




(its a joke folks, move along)."

Made me giggle, not nearly enough humour round here recently.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[crozby 0]

Quote

I don't think I'll bother reading the rest of it as I have absolutly no confidence that the author can actually write a truthful word.

I read it and you are right. As usual, the 'facts' pointing to gun control in the UK being behind an increase in crime are in fact total bollocks.

I personally would like a gun or ten, but I would prefer that all the stupid fuckers that live around me don't have any, even if that means sacrificing my own fun.

Getting back to the main thread. Does anyone know for sure that the 'victims' didn't deserve to get batted?

[rushmc 23]

I can't comment on the part you posted about. I put up the whole document to point out the crime numbers. The portion you talk about came from 1992. Has anything changed since then or was it wrong then too?

Anyway, the crime numbers have references and that is more what I was after......

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

I don't think I'll bother reading the rest of it as I have absolutly no confidence that the author can actually write a truthful word.

I read it and you are right. As usual, the 'facts' pointing to gun control in the UK being behind an increase in crime are in fact total bollocks.

Quote

They only state that gun crime numbers have increased when stricter controls were put into place! This is consistent with every other country that has reduced or removed gun ownership! Canada, Australia and the UK have all shown the same trends. In the US in every state were concealed carry has been approved or made easier violent crime with guns has stayed the same or decreased!

I personally would like a gun or ten, but I would prefer that all the stupid fuckers that live around me don't have any, even if that means sacrificing my own fun.

Getting back to the main thread. Does anyone know for sure that the 'victims' didn't deserve to get batted?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

• Quote

[mr2mk1g 10]

The salient rules came into force in 1984. Since then minor tweaking. Nothing that I quoted above comes even remotely close to the truth, not now, not in 92, not even before 84. Some of the things he says are as far from the truth as black is from white – ie they’re exact opposites of the real position.

Don't get me wrong, I wasn’t criticising you - merely the author you quoted. My only worry is that where there are such glaring inaccuracies in one part of a document, I have a very hard time putting any faith in the rest of it.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

The salient rules came into force in 1984. Since then minor tweaking. Nothing that I quoted above comes even remotely close to the truth, not now, not in 92, not even before 84. Some of the things he says are as far from the truth as black is from white – ie they’re exact opposites of the real position.

Don't get me wrong, I wasn’t criticising you - merely the author you quoted. My only worry is that where there are such glaring inaccuracies in one part of a document, I have a very hard time putting any faith in the rest of it.

I did not take your reply as a criticism but thanks! As for the author (Kopel) he is well respected and is considered accurate most of the time. As for what he wrote, I will have to take your word on that because I do not have clue......

Now the crime numbers though, I have confidence in. I have been following this for a number of years and and the trends continue today.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Did you hear about the court case in either Boston or New York (and I may have that wrong) where a person filed suit against the police. The case stated that the police took too long to get to the seen after a 911 call. If I remember right some one ended up being murdered.

Anyway, the part of the case that really caught my attention was the verdict. Not guilty of course but the judge said it was unreasonable to expect the police to be able to protect the citizens. They could not stop crime and violence and therefore could only be reasonably expected to catch and punish.

It was in Philly, in my neighborhood, about 100 feet from my front door,.regarding the Center City rapist. While I agree with the general conclusion the details in this case made that decision the wrong one. Someone called the police because they heard a woman screaming from an apartment. The police went there, and knocked on the door. No one answered so they left. The coroner put the time of death an hour after the police came. In other words, she was alive and in the custody of the rapist when they went there, knocked on the door of an apartment where screams were reported and left because no one answered the door.

[rushmc 23]

That sounds like the case I heard about. I had not heard all the facts but the court case and verdict were reported.

Thanks for the info.

How many years ago did this happen?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[PhillyKev 0]

It was 2 or 3 years ago I believe. The rapist was caught last year out in Vegas I believe and convicted.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

If we don't get BASEBALL BAT CONTROL LEGISLATION, [I]MORE WILL DIE NEEDLESSLY AND BRUTALLY[/I].

Here's another incident of killing and mayhem with these instruments of death:

A 36-year-old Sacramento man who felt he was "disrespected" went on a rampage at a house in North Highlands on Saturday morning, attacking seven people with a baseball bat, killing one of them, authorities said.

Sacramento Bee

We must regulate baseball bat manufacturers!

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Will it stop firearm related crime? Abosutely NOT.
Will it help reduce the amount of firearms in the street? No.
Maybe it will in the future.

You admit your measures won't have any immediate effect. And all you can hope for is a "maybe" for the future. I'm sorry, but if you want to infringe upon the freedoms of 260 million people, I must insist on a little better evidence of the need for such measures. A future "maybe" just ain't enough.

Quote

Owning a gun is like owning a car. You need to register a car, why not a gun? Shooting a gun is like driving a car. Both can kill, you need a license to drive, why not to shoot?

We already register cars and license drivers, and yet there are 40,000 people per year killed in car accidents. That's three and a half times as many dead people as are murdered with guns. So there seems to be a problem with your logic - registration and licensing doesn't guarantee low fatality rates.

[mcrocker 0]

Quote

You admit your measures won't have any immediate effect. And all you can hope for is a "maybe" for the future. I'm sorry, but if you want to infringe upon the freedoms of 260 million people, I must insist on a little better evidence of the need for such measures. A future "maybe" just ain't enough.

There will NEVER be the 'ultimate' answer to this issue. And because of that you just want to forget the whole thing? Gun control can NEVER happen? What would be 'good enough' to infringe on some freedoms? 260 Million? Is that the population of the US or the membership of the NRA? Not everyone in the US owns guns so you won't be infringing on their freedom. There is no way to prove the lasting effects of gun control legistlation. What if the statistics stay the same? Does that mean there was no effect; Or, would it have been much worse without the legislation? It is impossible to statitically measure things that don't happen. You are saying that because it can't be measure it should just be forgotten? Are you happy with the current amount of violent crime involving guns? Would you like to figure out a way to reduce that? Are you just going to throw up your hands and say it will never work so why bother?

Quote

We already register cars and license drivers, and yet there are 40,000 people per year killed in car accidents. That's three and a half times as many dead people as are murdered with guns. So there seems to be a problem with your logic - registration and licensing doesn't guarantee low fatality rates.

And your statistics reference what? number of miles driven compared to rounds fired? number of cars owned compared to guns owned? number of times a car owner ate at McDonalds? You can throw anonymous statistics out all day long, it doesn't mean anything.

I never said anything about guaranteed lower fatality rates. How do you know that car registration and proper licensing didn't lower the rate? What if there were a bunch of 12 year olds driving on the highway? Would the fatality rate be higher? Who knows, you can't measure it, your stats are worthless. Do the registration/licensing requirements have a long term effect? Short term? The point is you can't measure this stuff but most people agree it is a good thing for the cars. Why isn't it a good thing for guns? You still have the right to bear arms, that will never go away. You'll never see another ammendment pass that removes the 2nd ammendment. You may hear silly politicians spouting rhetoric but that doesn't pass laws.

Increased gun control does NOT remove your right to bear arms, it never has and it never will. It also isn't a panacea for all of the world problems, it never will be. Does it save lives? I say yes, can I prove it? No, no one can. Does it reduce violent crime? I say yes, can I prove it? Again, no, no one can. Are there fewer guns on the streets, yes, are their NO guns on the street NO. Again. there is no ultimate solution, we have to do the best we can with what we have. I think there has to be something instead of nothing.

To lay down blanket statements that gun control is good or bad is incorrect. I'm for gun control because I'm not paranoid that the government is going to start the black ops helicopters and hunt down all of the people with shotguns in their closets. I also firmly believe that if a US citizen meets the requirements they should be able to own as many guns as they want. I don't see it as a black and white issue like most people on the forum do. You can support both gun control AND the 2nd ammendment.

[Ron 10]

Quote

What would be 'good enough' to infringe on some freedoms?

Freedoms afforded by the US Constitution?

NOTHING

Quote

Not everyone in the US owns guns so you won't be infringing on their freedom.

Yes you will...They have the RIGHT..If they don't choose to exercise that right it is their CHOICE. If you take away that RIGHT they can't CHOOSE.

Quote

Increased gun control does NOT remove your right to bear arms, it never has and it never will. It also isn't a panacea for all of the world problems, it never will be. Does it save lives? I say yes, can I prove it? No, no one can. Does it reduce violent crime? I say yes, can I prove it? Again, no, no one can. Are there fewer guns on the streets, yes, are their NO guns on the street NO. Again. there is no ultimate solution, we have to do the best we can with what we have. I think there has to be something instead of nothing.

So you only THINK it will do any good? Well thats good enough for me..."Hey guys, he thinks it will save us..So it must be a good idea..I mean he THINKS it's a good idea. Where do I turn in my weapons at again?

When you have something more than a feeling...Let me know.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334