Printable View
So it's better to be raped than to shot the SOB trying to rape you?!?Quote:
Originally Posted by oldno7
I don't think so....
Anyhoo... that's what I took away from that message. Some people are just a waste of good air and the planet is a better place without them. YMMV
Sent using Tapatalk
What I took away from it was yet more propaganda that's not true. That poster did NOT come from the Brady Campaign.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
Where the hell you guys did up this crap from, really? Its not just mildy offensive to spread lies like this. Ignorance and stupidity. Vet your sources!
When the truth isn't enough to support an arguement, search the 'net for any ol' thing I suppose.
Yes... I understood the joke... I was just commenting on the picture/ad/whatever....
Alright.... I'm outta this thread. If ya'll want my guns, come and get'em... I'll be handing them over bullets first.
One Man's nightmare is anther man's fantasy..... :2gun:
http://i.chzbgr.com/completestore/20...032432ffa6.jpg
http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/wp-co.../042911NRA.jpg
http://losersbracket.com/wp-content/...cks-guns-1.jpg
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1222/...b8fc3fec45.jpg
I'm utterly flabbergasted this thread is 15 pages and counting. Any bets on where it'll end?
I'm betting on pg. 28 or thereabouts...:deadhorse::rifle:
:assault::topes:
Disgusting. I'd like to shoot each of them in the face personally.Quote:
Originally Posted by oldno7
Yeah, I'm done with this thread too...there just aren't enough sissies to make it interesting. :twisted:
A few simple phone calls from you can make a big difference (although an email is better)...
Help Stop the Federal Semi-Auto Gun Ban and Magazine Ban
All gun owners need to immediately contact their Congressmen and tell them specifically to:
Vote against any renewal of the ban on so-called “assault weapons.”
Vote against any renewal of the so-called “high capacity magazine” ban.
Vote against any new federal gun control.
Call and e-mail the entire Utah Congressional delegation. Their contact information is listed below.
The USSC does not ask for your help unless it is absolutely necessary. We do not bug you to contact legislators based upon every Internet rumor or anti-gun bill that has no chance of passing.
This time the threat is real, it is big, and it is likely to become law. The anti-gunners are exploiting the Newtown mass murder to pass a so-called “assault weapon” ban. This ban is not like the 1994 “assault weapon” ban; it is worse. The new bill being prepared by Dianne Feinstein lists over 100 guns by name and defines an assault weapon as basically any semi-automatic firearm capable of accepting a detachable magazine.
To understand the anti-gunners logic consider the Glock 17. This gun, which was not banned in 1994, is functionally similar to the TEC-9 that was banned. The only difference between the two guns is the TEC-9 is scary looking because it has the appearance of a fully automatic machine gun, which it is not. The anti-gun fanatics are now arguing that since both guns are functionally similar both should be banned under the new bill.
The 1994 law banned scary looking semi-automatic guns, the new law will ban all semi-automatic guns that accept detachable magazines. That means everything from your 1911 to Ruger 10/22 and M1 Carbine will be labeled an assault weapon and banned.
This bill will require owners of existing weapons to register them with the ATF as if they were machine guns. This would entail a $200.00 registration fee per gun and other onerous requirements.
The bill being proposed would also label as “high capacity” all standard capacity magazines that hold over ten rounds. Such magazines would be banned.
Many pro-gun NRA “A” rated Senators such as Mark Warner of Virginia and Joe Manchin of West Virginia already appear to be wavering. In the House of Representatives over 122 Republicans are ready to sign on to the ban.
You can have a huge impact protecting your gun rights. All of Utah’s Congressional delegation has been solidly pro-gun but they will be coming under intense pressure from an electorate that watches Piers Morgan on CNN and believes that these modern sporting weapons are fully automatic machine guns designed to mow down children.
They need to hear from you as soon as possible. Send and e-mail and phone each legislator. Put their phone numbers in your cell phone contact list and call them once a week until the gun ban bill comes up for vote early next year. Pass along this e-mail to every gun owner you know.
Remember these gentlemen have all been solid gun supporters. Be polite and simply ask them to oppose the renewal of the assault weapons ban, the high capacity magazine ban, and any new federal gun control.
We do not have e-mail addresses for the Utah Congressional delegation but you can click on the links to go to their web page where you can e-mail them.
Note that Chris Stewart takes office on January 3rd, 2013 and does not yet have an office phone. The e-mail link is to his campaign web site. You can also post to his Facebook page.
Senator Orrin Hatch
202-224-5251
801-524-4380
E-mail form http://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/i...fm/email-orrin
Senator Mike Lee
202-224-5444
801-524-5933
E-mail form http://www.lee.senate.gov/public/ind...-lee?p=contact
To find out what house district you live in go to: http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/
1st Congressional District
Representative Rob Bishop
202-225-0453
E-mail form http://robbishop.house.gov/contact/zipauth.htm
2nd Congressional District
Representative Chris Stewart
http://www.chrisstewartforcongress.com/contact/
3rd Congressional District
Representative Jason Chaffetz
202-225-7751
801-851-2500
E-mail form https://chaffetz.house.gov/contact-me/email-me
4th Congressional District
Representative Jim Matheson
202-225-3011
801-486-1236
E-mail form https://mathesonforms.house.gov/contact-form
Utah Shooting Sports Council
PO Box 17561
Salt Lake City, UT 84117
I have used http://www.congress.org/news/ to contact my representatives both at the national and state level, top right of the page is a space to contact lawmakers. I assume that the message gets to them but since you rarely every see any feedback from an elected official I can't say it as definite.
You are all pussies. :lol8:
Jesse Ventura Pwned Piers Morgan in Gun Control Debate Live on CNN
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_FJSqYBLVE&sns=em
Hipster stat dude seems to be trying to re-direct the conversation away from homicide rates by firearms and instead on violent crime rates. A bit apples to oranges methinks.
Another stat not covered is mass shootings by firearms.
Not that his points aren't valid. But, with regard to the conversation about especially school shootings, it doesn't really address that issue.
I've not been to the UK, but, my bet is if you get in a scrap in a pub there, someone will be a victim of violent crime. Here? Chances are you'll be shot. Folks don't really duke it out much anymore. They get a gun. Societal differences.
Americans can't stand to "lose," ya know... :lol8:Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian in SLC
Maybe @Rob L can chime in on this one, but I've also been to a few British Pubs, not that this gives me any more right to make claims than google, but there can be some pretty nasty brawls. And a lot of the time it's not just 1 on 1. The pubs are more like community gathering places where most visitors know most of the others. So when a brawl breaks out, there is a tendency to involve 80% of the guests. And yes, guns occasionally make their appearance.
But here in the states there are MANY times where a gun is not involved in the bar fight. I would disagree with your point that chances are you'll be shot. It's still the small minority. How many guns have been fired inside the bar?
And from those statistics.... how many ASSAULT RIFLES have been fired inside the bar?
Isn't it interesting how the school shooting sparked the debate about how AR-15 rifles are so easily accessible, but it turns out that weapon wasn't used at all? And that has not slowed down the debate at all.
Well you must have been to ones that I don't frequent !!! All very genteel. Where were you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sombeech
If anything, the takeaway from the UK comparison (for me) was that criminals are a lot less effective there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian in SLC
Very difficult to compare "violent crimes" rate country to country, as small changes in how things are classified can make a big difference. But "murder" rates are more straightforward. Hipster Dude seems to ignore that UK murder rate is 1/4 of US murder rate. A lot of stuff in the USA ends up with death that in other countries ends up with a hospital visit. Not only bar fights, but domestic violence and suicides too.
T
Easy enough to compare the US to the UK.... just use the official government numbers from both and not the propaganda numbers presented by both the pro and anti gun groups....
It's also easy enough to see where the money and effort to fix the problem should be spent....
This is one of those video's everyone should watch, no matter your current stance on gun control.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0
Dude.... :facepalm1:Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
Nice repost.
And no, you cannot directly compare UK and USA numbers, because they probably don't categorize crimes in exactly the same way...
uh oh, I'm reposting too...
T
No one said it was an exact comparison... but its certainly apples to apples.... so the UK has somewhere between 3 to 4 times the US violent crime rate... how about we call that close enough for discussions.
And the UK comparison was only a small part of the video... care to comment on the rest?
Sent using Tapatalk
How many deaths in the UK last year due to violence related to soccer hooligans? How many in the US? It only makes sense that the predominant view in the US that soccer is for pussies is far better for public safety. Ban Soccer now before we become like them!
Is there really anybody that honestly believes that not allowing more than 10 round magazines will actually help. It pretty easy to change multiple magazines after each 10 shots when all the victims are hiding and trying to not get shot. And that's assuming the criminal is obeying the magazine law. Of course there are mass shootings at the schools when there are bright neon signs above the school letting everyone know there isn't anybody to defend them.
I know, this whole argument by the "do something" crowd is ridiculous.Quote:
Originally Posted by 2065toyota
Did you hear about the woman in Georgia that shot a home intruder? She hid in a closet with her kids and a gun and let him have it in the face when he opened the door...6 rounds. What could have happened if she were unarmed?
The gun control crowd just doesn't understand that there is room for NO DEBATE with us on this...but they try so hard anyways. No grey zone to "compromise" in here, boys and girls.
I don't believe the "do something" argument is ridiculous.... its just most the proposals are ridiculous. It would be helpful if folks would actually educate themselves and not just believe all the propaganda and scare tactics being used by both sides.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byron
I think most of us agree that better availablity to mental health care and proper enforcement of current laws would be a step forward.
Sent using Tapatalk
Google searches are fun...Quote:
Originally Posted by Sombeech
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evgpWTm_-rE
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/salt-lake-city-ut/T08D90RJMIS3NLTNO
http://www.kutv.com/news/features/national/stories/vid_1631.shtml
http://www.federalwaymirror.com/news/160545115.html
http://www.tangilena.com/view/full_s...es_left_columnQuote:
Originally Posted by Sombeech
You got a vetted source for that claim? I see whacky sources for it, but, nothing of substance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sombeech
This CNN story is from the 19th of December. Sources look pretty solid.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/18/us/con...uns/index.html
You're right, though, plenty of bar brawls sans firearms. Just seems like we hear about the local ones when they happen (that Green Street deal with the off duty cop sounded fugly...). Folks get butthurt, just seemed like they used to step outside and resort to fisticuffs. Instead they often head to the car or home to pick up the heat, and, return. Because they can I suppose. Times have seemed to change in that regard. Kids never took guns to school when I was a kid, and, when one pulled a knife in a fight, it made huge news (I remember two in the state of Montana when I was a kid...one across town at a rival high school, and, one in another city...funny...the stories made the rounds because they were so rare).
Anyhoo...I digress. What were we talkin' about again?
Watched it again a couple of times. For me, its still apples to oranges.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
He talks about the violent crime rate, and, admits the homicide rate is higher in the US. So, he's diluting the debate a bit by focusing on violent crime.
His other points about being able to focus in on exactly where violent crime occurs is interesting, but, not really part of the gun debate, IMHO, at least not specifically.
But, back to comparing the US to the UK. Yeah, they got 3X more violent crime per 100k than we do. Interesting. But...
US murder rate is 4.8/100k. UK is 1.2/100k.
US homicide by firearm rate is 3.2/100k (2009 numbers I think). UK rate is .03/100k. I'm gonna have to do some math here, but...uhh, we have 100X more homicides by firearms? Geez, how come hipster dude didn't mention that?
So, I have a 3X higher chance of gettin' my ass beat in the UK. I have 100 times more chance of gettin' whacked by a gun here.
In the gun debate, which rate has more traction in the arguement?
Sure, you can toss poverty, education, income, all kinds of fluff into the mix and look at data a ton of different ways. But, for me, homicides by firearm per 100k kinda tells me something more than rate of violent crime, which, could be granny hittin' me with her purse (or gettin' beat up with a pipe, etc). Such a wide range of violence out there.
Would I trade an uptick in violent crime, say, 3X for a 100X reduction in gun homicides? Dunno. Something to ponder. Is the fear of being a victim of violent crime enough to justify nearly 10,000 folks a year dying in homicides by firearms?
More to the specific issue du jour, though, mass shootings. If you kinda define it as intent and attempt, what are the rates of it, and, what weapons are used?
I know the media blows this stuff up, but, seems like when these whack jobs head out to slaughter a bunch of innocent folks, they find the firepower they need to do the job. I'm just thinking of the last few...Portland Mall, Colorado's two biggies, CT, Fort Hood, Virginia Tech. All military-esque high capacity fairly lethal items. Not some scoped huntin' rifle. Not a Ruger 10-22. Just seems in every case easy access to fairly lethal firepower. Is that ok? Acceptable? Worthy of debate? Introspection?
Crazy stuff.
Also interesting that violent crimes and homicides have decreased by 50% in the US over the past 20 years.... looks like bar fights just ain't what they used to be.
Funny that both the pro and anti gun groups forget to mention you are 50% safer now than 20 years ago... but it doesn't play into either sides fear based campaigns.
The dude with the US vs UK statics does make the point that his analysis was just scratching the surface based on limited research... but his point that perhaps we are looking in the wrong areas about how to solve the problem is valid.
Any sane person that has even a basic knowledge of the problem has to admit that banning barrel shrouds and pistol grips is not a valid answer and nothing but a waste of time and money.
Sent using Tapatalk
And that its going UP in the U.K.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
holmes isn't crazy, he's just a moron...do they have a background check for that? In the case of Lanza, he was getting mental health care from the wealthy mother he whacked...sorry Ice, you're beginning to sound like them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
Arm yourselves...that's it.
It seems that this argument, this "debate", this "compromise", this "do something" is just a battle of statistics. Hey you, 50% this! Oh yeah, 78% that! This thread is 30 plus pages and it's getting nowhere...just like the high shaking heads on T.V.
There's only one logical answer here...buy a gun and learn how to shoot it. "More mental health"? What exactly is that supposed to mean? What "existing gun laws" are being broken, or at least need to be beefed up? See Ice, they're starting to wear you down, man.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...frica-U-S.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by Sombeech
Instead of talking about far away countries, lets talk about a Country we share a border with and how well gun control is working there.
http://www.inegi.org.mx/inegi/conten...comunica29.pdf
I don't think most people in this country understand how poor our mental health care is.... I have a basic understanding from my wife who is a paramedic. She tells me over half the calls she responds to daily are mental. Sit for 5 minutes with her coworkers and listen to their chatter and you will catch on to the problem real fast.
Harris and Klebold (Columbine), Cho (Virginia Tech) along with Lanza (Sandy Hooks) were all in the mental health system at one time before their shooting sprees, to bad they didn't get the help they needed.
Sent using Tapatalk
"I know the media blows this stuff up, but, seems like when these whack jobs head out to slaughter a bunch of innocent folks, they find the firepower they need to do the job. I'm just thinking of the last few...Portland Mall, Colorado's two biggies, CT, Fort Hood, Virginia Tech. All military-esque high capacity fairly lethal items. Not some scoped huntin' rifle. Not a Ruger 10-22. Just seems in every case easy access to fairly lethal firepower. Is that ok? Acceptable? Worthy of debate? Introspection?" (Brian in SLC)
I read somewhere that the VA Tech shooter used 2 guns that would not be affected by the ban, and the third one had a mag cap of 16, which means he couldn't have had that magazine - but could have had the gun under the ban. Wiki here notes that one of them was a .22 - actually not as lethal as a Ruger 10-22 because with it you can't hit shit...
"Cho used two firearms during the attacks: a .22-caliber Walther P22 semi-automatic handgun and a 9 mm semi-automatic Glock 19 handgun.[13] The shootings occurred in separate incidents, with the first at West Ambler Johnston Hall, during which Cho killed two pupils, and the second at Norris Hall, where the other 31 deaths, including that of Cho himself, as well as all the nonlethal injuries, occurred."
And you kind of need to throw out Fort Hood - -wouldn't you expect a military guy, on a military base, to have military style firearms? And since he was acting in a terrorist capacity... at least he didn't use a suicide bomb - which would most likely have have far more casualties.
Come on----Mexico only has 1 gun store!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by oldno7
They are likely the most gun prohibitive country in the World!!
Why don't we want to mirror their success in keeping guns out of the hands of citizens.
If we keep trying, surely we can be equally as safe as Mexico in 20 years.........
I guess it could be argued, that despite stiff gun control, Mexicans can still easily obtain guns from obama and holder!
Biden: Obama prepared to take executive action on gun control
By Amie Parnes - 01/09/13 01:03 PM ET
President Obama will likely take executive action in an effort to tamp down the recent rash of gun violence, Vice President Biden said Wednesday.
[FONT=&]