Gun Wisdom

[daveman]

I know "I don't like them" is no need to discount them. However, where they are sourced from is a different matter...

Here's a survey from 2010 (instead of 2002, which are where most of your stats comes from)

Transparency International - the global coalition against corruption

Really? What does an aggregation of opinion polls about corruption have to do with this thread?

I'll save you the trouble of sputtering meaningless nonsense and say "Nothing."

Thought we were talking crime....

Obviously corruption doesn't come under that banner in the US..go figure

You failed.

Hope you don't get raped. You have a better chance down there than you would in America.

 

[daveman]

There isn't less crime in the US. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Wrong, as usual. Oz and NZ both have a higher percentage of crime victims than does the US.

No shit. Funny how you want to ignore the crimes that are more prevalent down under, innit?

Crime is reported differently in different countries. I could go on, but it would probably go straight over your head..

You could go on, but it would not go over my head. You're not capable of such.

So using some stats from some dodgy website that aggregates the stats from all over the place without any methodology being explained, and using info that is almost 10 years old is your 'proof' that NZ and Oz have higher crime than the US?



I know you neocons aren't the brightest bulbs in the socket (you especially prove it with every post), but even a mental midget like yourself can see more holes in your links than a block of Swiss cheese...right?

You really don't have the horsepower to pull off condescension. I suggest you give it up as a bad job.

Meanwhile, you haven't disproven anything I've posted. Of course, that's only because you can't.

 

[Dr Grump]

Wrong, as usual. Oz and NZ both have a higher percentage of crime victims than does the US.

No shit. Funny how you want to ignore the crimes that are more prevalent down under, innit?

You could go on, but it would not go over my head. You're not capable of such.

So using some stats from some dodgy website that aggregates the stats from all over the place without any methodology being explained, and using info that is almost 10 years old is your 'proof' that NZ and Oz have higher crime than the US?



I know you neocons aren't the brightest bulbs in the socket (you especially prove it with every post), but even a mental midget like yourself can see more holes in your links than a block of Swiss cheese...right?

You really don't have the horsepower to pull off condescension. I suggest you give it up as a bad job.

Meanwhile, you haven't disproven anything I've posted. Of course, that's only because you can't.

Right here, right now, I can't prove that I could fly through space with oxygen. But I'm betting I can't.

I know you're having trouble keeping up, but then a jumped up Grunt who's way over his pay scale would do I guess....

 

[whitehall]

Do Cops carry guns only to protect themselves? Stupid cliches do little to preserve the 2nd Amendment except in the eyes of the terminally ignorant.

 

[westwall]

So using some stats from some dodgy website that aggregates the stats from all over the place without any methodology being explained, and using info that is almost 10 years old is your 'proof' that NZ and Oz have higher crime than the US?



I know you neocons aren't the brightest bulbs in the socket (you especially prove it with every post), but even a mental midget like yourself can see more holes in your links than a block of Swiss cheese...right?

You really don't have the horsepower to pull off condescension. I suggest you give it up as a bad job.

Meanwhile, you haven't disproven anything I've posted. Of course, that's only because you can't.

Right here, right now, I can't prove that I could fly through space with oxygen. But I'm betting I can't.

I know you're having trouble keeping up, but then a jumped up Grunt who's way over his pay scale would do I guess....

Keep up this line of reasoning and I'll assume you to be a Fosters drinker.

 

[westwall]

Do Cops carry guns only to protect themselves? Stupid cliches do little to preserve the 2nd Amendment except in the eyes of the terminally ignorant.

Yes they do. They also use them to protect others. I too have lost a law enforcement friend so I know exactly how you feel. The author used the cute cliches as a learning tool because cute phrases are easy to remember. He has also trianed hundreds if not thousands of LEO's how to use their weapons better. I have taken his classes as well (when they were based in Texas) and they are among the best in the world.

 

[Dr Grump]

You really don't have the horsepower to pull off condescension. I suggest you give it up as a bad job.

Meanwhile, you haven't disproven anything I've posted. Of course, that's only because you can't.

Right here, right now, I can't prove that I could fly through space with oxygen. But I'm betting I can't.

I know you're having trouble keeping up, but then a jumped up Grunt who's way over his pay scale would do I guess....

Keep up this line of reasoning and I'll assume you to be a Fosters drinker.

Don't touch Aussie or NZ beers except Montieths golden lager. A becks or peroni man myself

 

[whitehall]

I'm not going to let it go. The stupid ignorant cliche which happens to be number #1 on the list claims that American Cops carry guns only to defend themselves. I'm not going to get in a pissing contest or comparison with the greatest Military in the world but 166 Cops gave their lives in the line of duty in 2011. The alleged 2nd Amendment advocates better be sure who their enemies are before they start taking shots at the people who are sworn to protect them.

 

[westwall]

I'm not going to let it go. The stupid ignorant cliche which happens to be number #1 on the list claims that American Cops carry guns only to defend themselves. I'm not going to get in a pissing contest or comparison with the greatest Military in the world but 166 Cops gave their lives in the line of duty in 2011. The alleged 2nd Amendment advocates better be sure who their enemies are before they start taking shots at the people who are sworn to protect them.

You're picking a fight with the wrong group my friend. Pick your fights with those who are against you, not with you.

 

[logical4u]

Honestly, you sound like a guy who is scared of life. You are always anticipating the worst case scenario. I couldn't live like that. Who has stood up and defended me? When? Who is going to break in my door? If there is an all out war, then that changes the game. I'm talking about living in a civilised, modern society. Things change, and when they do, you adapt..

I was a policeman. One of my last jobs was pulling out a drowned two-year-old who had wondered into his neighbour's yard and fell in their spa pool. Death of another? I worked in Auckland Central, where part of our duties was receiving bodies after sudden deaths. had to strip their bodies of clothing with the assistance of the undertaker and gather their valuables etc. So, you were saying, about the death of another?

I apologize. I am sorry you had to see those things. We are at war. It is in the air, and it is coming. The worst case scenario would to be totally helpless when evil came after my family. I prefer a fighting chance.

I'm sorry for those people but not for myself. Life's about learning lessons.

hhhmm, I'm a little more optimistic than you. I don't think there will be conventional wars any more......

China and the US might bang heads at some stage over the next 50 years, but that would be over water and natural resources IMO...

How about terrorists (foreign or domestic)? How about after the gov't has been wiped? You cannot subjugate a people without boots on the ground.

 

[daveman]

So using some stats from some dodgy website that aggregates the stats from all over the place without any methodology being explained, and using info that is almost 10 years old is your 'proof' that NZ and Oz have higher crime than the US?



I know you neocons aren't the brightest bulbs in the socket (you especially prove it with every post), but even a mental midget like yourself can see more holes in your links than a block of Swiss cheese...right?

You really don't have the horsepower to pull off condescension. I suggest you give it up as a bad job.

Meanwhile, you haven't disproven anything I've posted. Of course, that's only because you can't.

Right here, right now, I can't prove that I could fly through space with oxygen. But I'm betting I can't.

I know you're having trouble keeping up, but then a jumped up Grunt who's way over his pay scale would do I guess....

What did I tell you about condescension? It sounds like clucking chickens coming from you.

 

[Triton]

Gun regulation should be handled universally at the federal level since its in the constitution.

Um... where?

Background checks are easy now. I'm pretty sure entering a SS# can give access to criminal and mental health records.

Background checks are a form of prior restraint.
Prior restraint is an infringement.
The right shall not be infringed.

Well, with the 2nd amendments reference to the militia, arms would've been rifles and pistols. A militiaman's primary weapon at the time.

What do you believe the 2nd amendment was referring to?

 

[Triton]

Moreso my statement is about feasibility. Citizens live in states and cities with a variety of different restrictions.

Some states honor other states licenses, others do not. Heck even some cities within states do not honor their own state's license.

To me, the best way to realistically politically achieve full nationwide firearm ownership and full carry is to have a universal federal pistol license.

I'm not going to care about getting a background check if I am going to be able to carry concealed throughout the country

Leave the long guns alone.




I just don't see the country ever abandoning some level of gun control.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Moreso my statement is about feasibility. Citizens live in states and cities with a variety of different restrictions.

Some states honor other states licenses, others do not. Heck even some cities within states do not honor their own state's license.

To me, the best way to realistically politically achieve full nationwide firearm ownership and full carry is to have a universal federal pistol license.

I'm not going to care about getting a background check if I am going to be able to carry concealed throughout the country

Leave the long guns alone.




I just don't see the country ever abandoning some level of gun control.

The universal permit.

 

[Triton]

Moreso my statement is about feasibility. Citizens live in states and cities with a variety of different restrictions.

Some states honor other states licenses, others do not. Heck even some cities within states do not honor their own state's license.

To me, the best way to realistically politically achieve full nationwide firearm ownership and full carry is to have a universal federal pistol license.

I'm not going to care about getting a background check if I am going to be able to carry concealed throughout the country

Leave the long guns alone.




I just don't see the country ever abandoning some level of gun control.

The universal permit.

I'm with you there, good luck getting rid of gun regulations and restrictive permits, though.

My idea of a federal license where full carry is authorized nationwide is the best we would be able to do in my opinion.


MShooter, you are right, nowhere in the constitution is there mention of the regulation of firearms.

 

[Dr Grump]

You really don't have the horsepower to pull off condescension. I suggest you give it up as a bad job.

Meanwhile, you haven't disproven anything I've posted. Of course, that's only because you can't.

Right here, right now, I can't prove that I could fly through space with oxygen. But I'm betting I can't.

I know you're having trouble keeping up, but then a jumped up Grunt who's way over his pay scale would do I guess....

What did I tell you about condescension? It sounds like clucking chickens coming from you.

you don't have much do ya, Dave....man......

 

[daveman]

Right here, right now, I can't prove that I could fly through space with oxygen. But I'm betting I can't.

I know you're having trouble keeping up, but then a jumped up Grunt who's way over his pay scale would do I guess....

What did I tell you about condescension? It sounds like clucking chickens coming from you.

you don't have much do ya, Dave....man......

Does it annoy you that I don't share your lofty opinion of yourself?

Good.

 

[LOki]

i do not aim with my hand;
he who aims with his hand has forgotten the face of his father.
I aim with my eye.

I do not shoot with my hand;
he who shoots with his hand has forgotten the face of his father.
I shoot with my mind.

I do not kill with my gun;
he who kills with his gun has forgotten the face of his father.
I kill with my heart.

Stephen king, the dark tower vol iii: The waste lands

^ this!

 

[konradv]

MShooter, you are right, nowhere in the constitution is there mention of the regulation of firearms.

Then why is the right given to "the people" instead of a "person" as in the 3rd, 5th and 6th? "The people" are mentioned in the 1st, 2nd and 4th because those rights may not be abridged as a general rule, but may be abridged upon the individual, because of the right of "the people" to security and reasonable order. The Bill of Rights isn't a suicide pact, after all. The 5th and 6th include wording indicating an "hard" individual right with regard to due process in the courts, for example. Wording not present in the 1st, 2nd and 4th. Therefore, while regulation may not be specifically mentioned, it's definitelty implied or the right would have been made "person"al.

 

[Triton]

MShooter, you are right, nowhere in the constitution is there mention of the regulation of firearms.

Then why is the right given to "the people" instead of a "person" as in the 3rd, 5th and 6th? "The people" are mentioned in the 1st, 2nd and 4th because those rights may not be abridged as a general rule, but may be abridged upon the individual, because of the right of "the people" to security and reasonable order. The Bill of Rights isn't a suicide pact, after all. The 5th and 6th include wording indicating an "hard" individual right with regard to due process in the courts, for example. Wording not present in the 1st, 2nd and 4th. Therefore, while regulation may not be specifically mentioned, it's definitelty implied or the right would have been made "person"al.

Interesting Konrad, now i'm looking forward to MShooter's response to this