BrunoPuntzJones
Lifer
- Feb 24, 2001
- 14,513
- 4
- 81
Why should anyone, then, take you seriously and bother to entertain any discussion or debate with you, if you admit that you're disposed to such irrational and fundamentally flawed thinking, that you would compare directly an organization that was founded WITH PUBLIC MONIES for a purpose recognized to have important national implications, to which numerous US Presidents and honored statesmen have belonged, with an international terrorist organization who commits murder against civilian men, women, and children out of religious fanaticism?
Your statement is a 'discussion precluding' absolute like "Abortion = murder (that's my opinion why you give a damn what I think). Would you even give someone like that the time a day?
I suspect this is a dishonest question, to which you have formulated an answer in advance.
As you may know, it is exceptionally difficult, in fact it is impossible, to obtain reliable statistics on the incidence or raw numbers of crime deterrence, prevention, or disruption by defensive gun use because no system of reporting exists for such incidents.
If you break into my home and I chase you away with a gun, the police do not document that as 'attempted burglary foiled by gun'. It is simply classified as attempted burglary, unlawful entry, or home invasion and that is what gets reported to statistical gathering agencies.
If you try to rob a convenience store and get chased away with a gun, it will not be reported as a 'attempted robbery foiled by gun', it is simply documented as 'attempted robbery', which is what is reported to statistical gathering agencies.
Police are likely to notate in their records if a gun was used to fend off or disrupt a crime, but this would be written in a description of the events, which are not the 'reportable' areas of police records. In order to 'count' these, it would require paying a lot of people to sift through millions of police reports BY HAND - ONE BY ONE.
That said, doing so would still not yield reliable or accurate information. If you broke into my home, attacked me and I shot you dead, it is documented as 'homicide'. The homicide will be referred to the prosecutor's office, and the prosecutor determines if the shooting was lawful self-defense, not the police. This determination may take a few days, it may take a few weeks, and the final disposition may or may not be amended to the police report!
So now you have to go sifting through the DA's records. Still, what about cases where charges are filed, and the case results in charges being dismissed or acquittal based on self-defense? This rarely if ever is amended to police reports, so now you have to go sifting through court records.
Also, due to the pervasive legal issues of using a gun and the sensitive nature of even possessing a gun in many areas of the country, many people do not admit to having used a gun. Even if you did have hundreds of people sifting through millions of police reports, you can't count what was not reported or documented because the defender was afraid to tell the police he pulled a gun.
Finally, and this cuts to the fundamental dishonesty inherent in your question, how can you prove a negative? If I break into your home, am I there for your televisions and VCR's, or am I there for your wife and daughter? Can you tell? I can't, nobody can.
So you chase away an intruder, did you prevent a simple property crime, aggravated assualt, a murder, a rape? You can't know, but I'll be goddamned if I'll be forced to find out the hard way what that intruder wanted just to satisfy the irrational phobias of gun-control advocates.
Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
Did you make that up? That's sig material if so
Yes, I did, and yes, feel free to use it, just give me a little tagline, ie "..." - Mookow
not that I would have any business to participate in a gun control debate - this argument is stupid, in our countries u dont need guns to overthrow ur government (unless u want to illegaly overthrow your government and oppress ur populace with guns). U rather use a pen and make a cross to overthrow the government.
Actually I even helped to overthrow a tyrant government 13 years ago - no guns needed just my voice....
I'm not saying I've got a stockpile of 7.62 NATO and a case of grenades under my bed in case I dont agree with current US national policy. I was just pointing out that yes, tyrants tend to have firearms, however, they can be overthrown through the use of them. Yes, its preferable to not use force, but the founding fathers of my country had tried the letter writing route, and that got us no where.
To all you gun control advocates out there>
So, you want to institute a system where the weak and elderly are at the mercy of the strong, the lone are at the mercy of the gang. You want to give violent criminals a government guarantee that citizens are disarmed. Sorry, that's unacceptable. Better that we should require every citizen to carry a gun.
a survey was taken in the county that I live in and 82 percent of the homes have more than 1 firearm, shotguns were not counted. We have had 1 killing with a handgun in 25 years but we had a cop beat his wife to death with his night stick. OUTLAW NIGHTSTICKS
Bleep
So, you want to institute a system where the weak and elderly are at the mercy of the strong, the lone are at the mercy of the gang. You want to give violent criminals a government guarantee that citizens are disarmed. Sorry, that's unacceptable. Better that we should require every citizen to carry a gun.
a survey was taken in the county that I live in and 82 percent of the homes have more than 1 firearm, shotguns were not counted. We have had 1 killing with a handgun in 25 years but we had a cop beat his wife to death with his night stick. OUTLAW NIGHTSTICKS
Bleep
That is Liberal Gun Grabbing bull crap! Just run a bit of sandpaper or shoot the bullet with a bit of polishing compound on it through the barrel. Your idea is crapola!
SHHHHH! Don't upset his little Rainbow & Bubble-up world with common sense. Thats just not fair!
Well it isn't quite that easy, but its easy enough to alter the rifling of a barrel to leave a sufficiently different set of striations and marks on a bullet to preclude a credible match.
These methods would probably work, but it would take more than a 'bit' of sandpaper or a couple bullets with polishing compound to do it.
But it is and is proven. Any abrasive run down the barrel will alter the microscopic profile of that barrel making it completely unusable as a way to identify a gun. That and the simple fact that barrels are easily changed negates any usefullness in the type of registration suggested.
I've done it and no real cop that knows even a little bit about firearms is for this.
I've done it and no real cop that knows even a little bit about firearms is for this.
Listen. Don't give advice that might result in someone getting themselves into trouble. What you're recommending is not adequate to materially alter the ballistic fingerprint of a barrel. It is not proven so stop saying it is.
If you want, PM me and I'll put you into contact with an attorney who has extensive training in crime lab work, including ballistic fingerprinting, and knows what will and what will not sufficiently alter a rifle to prevent identification. I've had this conversation with him before.
A damned bullet coated with abrasive is not going to do it. A few hundred bullets coated with abrasive might, but not one or five or even ten.
As I said, its easy enough to do, but what you're recommending isn't even close.
THANK YOU FOR CONVENIENTLY IGNORING THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT:
I guess you have bigger issues than no command of the English language if you can't figure out that there ARE nations and groups out there who DO want to attack us.
jlee
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2001
- 48,518
- 223
- 106
No, they would just use guns obtained illegally.
While we're at it, let's ban all alcoholic beverages...prevents drunk driving, which kills many innocent American civilians. Or, should we go one step further - ban all forms of private vehicular transport, and rely entirely on buses!
:Q
What's with all these bans? It would be much easier if Congress just passed a law placing everyone under house-arrest or better yet, just sent everyone to their bedrooms for an indefinate time-out.
What about a citizens right to own a flame thrower? Cause it's gettin a little toasty in this thread......
mithrandir2001
you should realy check out cagle and be more shocked before you start ranting about one guy
http://cagle.slate.msn.com/politicalcartoons/
you should realy check out cagle and be more shocked before you start ranting about one guy
http://cagle.slate.msn.com/politicalcartoons/
If i do remember correctly, banning alcohol was tried...it failed. When it was tried, the crime rate went up. So now they want to ban guns, where it has been proven by DC and britain that doing so would increase crime?
Why do you own a watch, or a sofa or a microwave? You don't NEED these things, you simply WANT them. It's called FREEDOM. Look it up.
No use arguing with you about it, the arguments are ALL out there already, you've already made up your mind.
The deciding argument for me is: Are people going to stop killing each other if there are no guns? Hell no.
I think the main difficulty in interpreting the second amendment is that Americans, in the last three generations, have never had a land war fought on US soil. They've never had to fight an invading force from their doorstep.
For most Americans, protecting their family means putting a deadbolt lock on the front AND back doors.
This being said, that doesn't excuse ignorance or idiocy on the part of extreme gun control advocates. Looking at our national heritage, I would rather follow Switzerland's model than Japan's model for crime prevention. There's a reason Hitler avoided Switzerland when he marched through Europe.
For most Americans, protecting their family means putting a deadbolt lock on the front AND back doors.
This being said, that doesn't excuse ignorance or idiocy on the part of extreme gun control advocates. Looking at our national heritage, I would rather follow Switzerland's model than Japan's model for crime prevention. There's a reason Hitler avoided Switzerland when he marched through Europe.
And sighning the US declaration was basically a warrant on your own head from fat George. If my history is correct the Brits didn't come across with pens and pickett sighns.
It is a stupid arguement for you, cause as usual Boob you lose AGAIN.
The original cartoon was from my local paper so it was pertinent to me.
As for the cagle cartoons: pathetic. It makes me want to join the NRA. And now that I have my own house, I think it's time I started shopping for a firearm. Can't let the gun-grabbers win the publicity war.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter