Do Background Checks In America Work To Keep Disturbed People From Getting Guns?

12 years ago

If police used the reasoning that people like MJ use, they would NEVER catch the culprit!

Why don't you look for patterns, find the link, and attack THAT!?

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9211213].message }}

Claude Whitacre 12 years ago

I am so happy that there is Zero chance of this thread being Closed. :rolleyes:
- [ 2 ] Thanks
Signature
One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9211292].message }}

ForumGuru

Banned 12 years ago

Let's focus on the majority of people that commit gun crimes! Those people do not get background checked when they purchase, borrow, or steal a gun. The people you need to worry are out are the criminals! The stats below may be a little old...but I am sure I can come up with some fresher numbers if need be.

From a sample of juvenile inmates in four States, Sheley and Wright found that more than 50% had stolen gun at least once in their lives and 24% had stolen their most recently obtained handgun. They concluded that theft and burglary were the original, not always the proximate, source of many guns acquired by the juveniles.

The FBI's stolen gun file's 2 million reports include information
1.26 million handguns (almost 60%)
470,000 rifles (22%)
356,000 shotguns

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF

* Of 1,662 murders committed in New York City during 2003-2005, more than 90% were committed by people with criminal records

Gun Control - Just Facts

1. Seventy-eight percent of all shooting deaths are drug-, gang- or other criminal-related incidents committed with unregistered guns wielded by non-licensed criminals

3. Less than 1 percent are shootings by legal gun owners committing a crime.

Don't blame crime on legal gun owners - NewsTimes

Criminals are the people that are committing gun crimes! It's the drugs, gangs, territories and on down the list that is the real problem. Start doing something about street crime, gangs, and drug and gang related shootings! Put your efforts into getting the criminals off of the streets instead of worrying about background checks for legal gun owners if you want to try to solve a major problem in our society.

Cheers!

-don

[ 5 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9211304].message }}

TLTheLiberator

12 years ago

Originally Posted by ForumGuru

Let's focus on the majority of people that commit gun crimes! Those people do not get background checked when they purchase, borrow, or steal a gun. The people you need to worry are out are the criminals! The stats below may be a little old...but I am sure I can come up with some fresher numbers if need be.

Criminals are the people that are committing gun crimes! It's the drugs, gangs, territories and on down the list that is the real problem. Start doing something about street crime, gangs, and drug and gang related shootings! Put your efforts into getting the criminals off of the streets instead of worrying about background checks for legal gun owners if you want to try to solve a major problem in our society.

Cheers!

-don

The above is all well and good and...

By any chance are you concerned about at least trying to prevent an unstable person from getting a gun and then performing a mass shooting?

That's basically all the article was talking about.

It says...

"In 2013 nearly 3,000 people were blocked from purchasing guns because of NICS--more than 600 more than in 2012, continuing an upward trend that goes back to 2009."

If you read the article, why sneer at that?

From what I can tell, normal criminals don't commit mass shootings and anything that can be done to prevent mass shootings - without infringing on law abiding people shouldn't be sneered at.

Cheers!

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9213664].message }}

Kay King

12 years ago

In 2013 nearly 3,000 people were blocked from purchasing guns because of NICS--more than 600 more than in 2012, continuing an upward trend that goes back to 2009.

''

It makes sense when you realize gun sales soared in the first half of 2013. This was due some mass shootings that occurred but also due to talk/rumor/attempts to limit gun ownership in several states.

In the first quarter of 2014, gun sales have plunged.

Background checks by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, considered to be the most accurate means of tracking gun sales, plunged by a third in January (2014) compared to the year before. There were about 1.66 million background checks last month, and nearly 2.5 million in January the year before.

I think background checks work to a great extent. In the case of the Georgia shooter there's a lot there for thought beyond the "gun ownership". A 19 year old who was dissatisfied because his boss expected more work from him and he felt he was 'underpaid'. Expectations of an easier job, a better boss, higher pay - did he believe he was 'entitled to' more?

Thanks

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

One secret to happiness is to let every situation be

what it is instead of what you think it should be.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9213881].message }}

ForumGuru

Banned 12 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

The above is all well and good and...

By any chance are you concerned about at least trying to prevent an unstable person from getting a gun and then performing a mass shooting?

Sure, I don't want loony tunes running around with loaded weapons just like you don't.

If you read the article, why sneer at that?

Who sneered at it? Certainly not me.

From what I can tell, normal criminals don't commit mass shootings and anything that can be done to prevent mass shootings - without infringing on law abiding people shouldn't be sneered at.

I am more worried about "normal criminals" using guns than the rare mass shootings. Both are horrible, but "normal criminals" kill and create mayhem many times a day, every day of the year. The number of homicides committed by deranged mass murders using guns as their weapon of choice is not even in the same galaxy as the number of killings done by "normal criminals" with guns.

Cheers!

I think the majority of the efforts should be concentrated to reduce "normal criminal" shootings which include homicides, attempted homicides, assaults, aggregated assaults, armed robberies, and attempted armed robberies.

IMHO the "normal criminals" are "unstable" and they are more dangerous than the diagnosed unstable as they get to walk around in our society without the "unstable" label --> killing people and creating mayhem with guns day after day after day.

Let's focus our attention where the biggest problem gun users are --> like in Chicago (and the roughest suburbs) where gun crime is off the charts year after year after year.

If Chicago and its 400+ homicides per year is not the place to start then consider concentrating your efforts in these cities below.

Here is how the nation’s metropolitan areas ranked for gun homicides in 2009-2010:

Gun murders of persons 10-19 years of age:
Overall number of gun murders:

1. Los Angeles.......................1,141
2. Chicago..............................1,139
3. New York.............................1,101
4. Philadelphia...........................729
5. Houston..................................701
6. Detroit.....................................686
7. Miami.......................................594
8. Dallas......................................469
9. Washington.............................440
10. San Francisco......................439

Gun murders per 100,000 people:

1. New Orleans...........................19.0
2. Memphis...................................9.4
3. Detroit.......................................8.6
4. Birmingham..............................8.4
5. St. Louis...................................8.1
6. Baltimore..................................7.7
7. Jacksonville..............................7.4
8. Kansas City..............................6.8
9. Philadelphia..............................6.2

Gun murders of persons 10-19 years of age:

1. Los Angeles........................................... ....251
2. Chicago........................................... ...........213
3. New York.............................................. ......203
4. Philadelphia...................................... ..........124
5. Detroit........................................... ..............119
6. San Francisco......................................... ...101
7. Houston........................................... .............83
8. St. Louis............................................. ..........82
9. Miami............................................. ...............81
10. Washington........................................ ........76

Gun murders per 100,000 persons 10-19 years of age:

1. New Orleans........................................... ..................25.6
2. Kansas City.............................................. .................11.3
3. Memphis........................................... ........................10.7
4. St. Louis............................................. .......................10.6
5. San Francisco......................................... ....................9.9
6. Detroit........................................... ...............................9.5
7. Chicago........................................... ............................7.9
8. Philadelphia...................................... ...........................7.5
9. Jacksonville...................................... ...........................7.1
10. Los Angeles........................................... ...................6.7

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/la-c...s-highest-rate

Now take a look at the statistics on mass shootings.

More than 900 people died in mass shootings during the past seven years, and a majority of them were killed by people they knew, according to a USA TODAY analysis of gun-related slayings.

The 934 deaths account for less than 1% of all gun-related homicides, and nearly half involve a suspect slaying his or her family members, the detailed examination shows. USA TODAY combed through FBI records and news accounts to identify 146 mass shootings since 2006 that matched the FBI definition of mass shooting, where four or more people were killed.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...e-nra/1937041/

Mass shootings are lees than 1% of all gun related homicides. I tend to worry more about the 99% of "normal criminal" shooters since the statistics show I am almost infinitely more likely to get murdered by a "normal criminal" than I am to die in a mass shooting done by some "loony tune".

Your so-called "normal criminals" ARE the "gun problem" and some folks need to open their eyes to this fact.

Cheers

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9214127].message }}

TLTheLiberator

12 years ago

Originally Posted by ForumGuru

I think efforts should be concentrated to reduce "normal criminal" shootings which include homicides, attempted homicides, assaults, aggregated assaults, armed robberies, and attempted armed robberies.

IMHO the "normal criminals" are "unstable" and they are more dangerous than the diagnosed unstable as they get to walk around in society without the "unstable" label --> killing people and creating mayhem with guns day after day after day.

Let's focus our attention where the biggest problem gun users are --> that's in the inner cities like Chicago (and the roughest suburbs) where gun crime is off the charts year after year after year.

Cheers

If you say so.

What's your position on closing the gun show loophole?

I hear 30-40% of all guns sold in America are sold through this loophole.

Is that IYHO, just another phony stat some would use to oppress gun sellers?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9214135].message }}

ForumGuru

Banned 12 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

If you say so.
What's your position on closing the gun show loophole?
I hear 30-40% of all guns sold in America are sold through this loophole.
Is that IYHO, just another phony stat some would use to oppress gun sellers?

Close all the loopholes you want, I don't care, but it's not going to make a big difference in gun crime rates.

It is the criminals that are doing the vast majority of the shootings --> not the legal gun owners --> and that fact has been proven over and over again.

Their are enough illegal/unregistered weapons in the hands of the the bad guys already to last 2 lifetimes so closing loopholes won't make any significant impact on the number of gun crimes committed each year.

If you want to make a dent in US gun crimes then start lobbying for tougher mandatory sentences when a someone gets caught with an illegal weapon and/or commits a crime with a gun.

Cheers

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9214323].message }}

seasoned

12 years ago

OK, let's nip the obvious conclusions in the bud, OK?

Google

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9211380].message }}

Kay King

12 years ago

There are some good articles and good debates about background checks - this isn't one of them.

Hmmmmm - that's strange. Or not.

Shouldn't an article at least make sense before we get all excited about it?

Most Americans think the answer is yes...while the National Rifle Association emphatically believes the opposite

But then it doesn't support WHY it says the NRA doesn't think background checks work....it just fluffs off and points to....

TA DAAAAAA....drum roll here.....

"Moms Demand Action" Oh.....wait. That's the same group that was claiming a looney tunes photo was from a TX Chipotle. Wow, that's quite a coincidence.

Are people that gullible? Apparently so if they think this is worth linking to or repeating.

[ 2 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

One secret to happiness is to let every situation be

what it is instead of what you think it should be.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9211524].message }}

SteveJohnson

12 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

...
Are people that gullible? Apparently so if they think this is worth linking to or repeating.

Was that a serious question? Of course they are

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9211542].message }}

seasoned

12 years ago

Originally Posted by SteveJohnson

Was that a serious question? Of course they are

As a now famous, or should I say infamous, person once said:

Rahm Emanuel Says Never Let A Good Crisis Go To...

Steve

[ 2 ] Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9211562].message }}

Kay King

12 years ago

....and if you can't find a crisis, create one? Or at least create the semblance of one?

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

One secret to happiness is to let every situation be

what it is instead of what you think it should be.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9211623].message }}

Daniel Evans

12 years ago

"Disturbed" is subjective.

I'd regard a sizable majority of people who owns guns to be disturbed.

I'm sure a lot of people regard their unease and / or caution as a way of surviving in a dog eat dog world. Different paradigms, different cultures, different choices in ways of living...

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9211754].message }}

ForumGuru Banned 12 years ago

Originally Posted by Daniel Evans

"Disturbed" is subjective.

I'd regard a sizable majority of people who owns guns to be disturbed.

A sizable majority? Judge people much?

Which high horse did you ride in on?

Cheers

-don
- [ 2 ] Thanks
- 1 reply
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9211810].message }}
- Daniel Evans 12 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by ForumGuru
  
  Ok, we get it. You don't like guns and you don't like sports and you can't fathom why people do enjoy what you do not enjoy.
  
  Incorrect on all counts though I see you've now edited your previously angst filled post to amend your error of assuming I'm not fan of sports.
  
  I've won many competitions for shooting and I don't try to fathom why people enjoy what I don't. I've addressed the differing factors in the very post you've replied to.
  
  If you exercise some patience in discussion and take time to learn more about the person you feel obliged to dive upon, you won't have to assume and have your claims shown to the contrary.
  
  Referencing my assumption (which it is) in a lot of cases, I see the gun itself as a symbol of insecurity (in various forms) and thus that's what my comment is based upon and that's what I'm entitled to believe even if the next person might share a different view - gun owner or no gun owner.
  
  Horses are actually in the pipeline..
  
  Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9211901].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 12 years ago

Originally Posted by Daniel Evans

"Disturbed" is subjective.

I'd regard a sizable majority of people who owns guns to be disturbed.

If that were true Daniel, I'm sure that most civilized people would just barricade themselves on their property and never venture out anywhere in the US.

Fact is, there are plenty of people who use guns for hunting food, shooting competitions, plinking watermelons off of stumps, self defense. There are many gun owners who wouldn't dream of invading restaurants and other public places strapped with 50 lbs of weapons and ammo. There are many who don't have a disturbed bone in their bodies. I was raised by one of them.

Calling the majority of gun owners disturbed isn't really the way to attempt a reasonable dialogue on the topic of things like background checks and banning high capacity magazines, which are topics I'm interested in.

Will background checks work? Probably not since most of the disturbed cretins who have blown away people in mass quantities have gotten the weapons legally. What are you going to do when a mother who lives with a son that she herself has said that she was afraid of, gives that same son access to enough weapons and ammunition to blow 20 children and adults to pieces? And the clown in Co, bought the weapons and ammo legally in spite of his seeing a shrink prior to his crimes.

[ 2 ] Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9212126].message }}

Daniel Evans

12 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

If that were true Daniel, I'm sure that most civilized people would just barricade themselves on their property and never venture out anywhere in the US.

That proposition rides on the premise that "disturbed" perhaps means "insane" which is not the definition in my mind, hence why the term is subjective.

In my mind, the gun owner who possesses a firearm for the purpose of self defense, however "sane" by anyone's standards, is infact insecure through means of being disturbed by their paradigm which is reflective of their culture and lifestyle. The psyche then is in a state of disturbance.

The gun itself, regardless of it's use by the owner (in the case of sports / games / hunting) is still iconic of it's core purpose and representative of death, disturbance, dis-ease and bravado.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9212153].message }}

ForumGuru

Banned 12 years ago

Originally Posted by Daniel Evans

In my mind, the gun owner who possesses a firearm for the purpose of self defense, however "sane" by anyone's standards, is infact insecure through means of being disturbed by their paradigm which is reflective of their culture and lifestyle. The psyche then is in a state of disturbance.

I believe you are overthinking it and it appears as if you may not have ever lived in a bad neighborhood or had a shop of your own to protect.

-don

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9212163].message }}

Daniel Evans

12 years ago

Originally Posted by ForumGuru

I believe you are overthinking it and it appears as if you may not have ever lived in a bad neighborhood or had a shop of your own to protect.

-don

Having the opinion that a person who doesn't feel secure is "disturbed" (by my own definition) is not an example of "overthinking".

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9212172].message }}

ForumGuru

Banned 12 years ago

Originally Posted by Daniel Evans

Having the opinion that a person who doesn't feel secure is "disturbed" (by my own definition) is not an example of "overthinking".

Think about this US fact--> the reality is we already have hundreds of millions of handguns out in the public and most likely millions of those guns are in the hands of the bad guys --> you must consider that fact that when you evaluate if one is "disturbed" or not when he or she purchases a gun for "protection".

I realize stats on the subject may not mean much to you but here are a few stats anyway.

Fact Sheet: Guns Save Lives

A. Guns save more lives than they take; prevent more injuries than they inflict

* Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day. [1] This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives. [2]

* Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.[3]

* As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.[4]

* Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America" -- a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.[5]

* Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606).[6] And readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high."[7]

* Handguns are the weapon of choice for self-defense. Citizens use handguns to protect themselves over 1.9 million times a year. [8] Many of these self-defense handguns could be labeled as "Saturday Night Specials."

https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm

Now remember we are in a country with hundreds of millions of guns already out in the public. If we were a country that had basically 0 guns out on the street and did not allow "public assembly of groups" etc. then of course not as many "disturbed" Americans would be purchasing guns for "security" or "protection".

We can argue the validity stats all day long but the fact of the matter here is America is filled with tons of criminals committing crimes every day with guns, and one way to "try" to protect yourself and your family is by owning a gun.

In the city of Detroit for example the police response times are ridiculous.
.

Among the many data points the city of Detroit offered in explaining its decision to declare bankruptcy last month, one was particularly eye-catching: Detroit police take an average of 58 minutes to respond to emergency calls, compared with a national average of 11 minutes.

Detroit Police Response Times No Guide to Effectiveness - WSJ.com

Cheers

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9212212].message }}

HeySal

12 years ago

Originally Posted by ForumGuru

Think about this US fact--> the reality is we already have hundreds of millions of handguns out in the public and most likely millions of those guns are in the hands of the bad guys --> you must consider that fact that when you evaluate if one is "disturbed" or not when he or she purchases a gun for "protection".

I realize stats on the subject may not mean much to you but here are a few stats anyway.

Now remember we are in a country with hundreds of millions of guns already out in the public. If we were a country that had basically 0 guns out on the street and did not allow "public assembly of groups" etc. then of course not as many "disturbed" Americans would be purchasing guns for "security" or "protection".

We can argue the validity stats all day long but the fact of the matter here is America is filled with tons of criminals committing crimes every day with guns, and one way to "try" to protect yourself and your family is by owning a gun.

In the city of Detroit for example the police response times are ridiculous.
.
Cheers

Those stats bring up another very important fact about the statistics.

When you read that XXXX people were killed by guns in a year -- the causes of death are not sorted. Many - a vast majority - of those gun "murders" are actually self defense killings and not just some crazy running around potshotting people.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9212233].message }}

ForumGuru

Banned 12 years ago

Originally Posted by HeySal

When you read that XXXX people were killed by guns in a year -- the causes of death are not sorted.

Yeah, many outlets spin the stats and completely ignore the 400+ homicides a year in Chicago. Instead we hear about a few crazies and it's time to ban legal guns.

I don't have them at hand but I do have some deep statistics on the Chicago homicides that will make your jaw drop. Since I don't have those at hand let us take a look at the number of Chicago homicides in recent years.

1928: 399
1964: 390
1965: 396
1966: 512
1967: 548
1968: 645
1969: 715
1970: 810
1971: 824
1972: 711
1973: 862
1974: 970
1975: 818
1976: 814
1977: 823
1978: 787
1979: 856
1980: 863
1981: 877
1982: 668
1983: 729
1984: 741
1985: 666
1986: 744
1987: 691
1988: 660
1989: 742
1990: 851
1991: 927
1992: 943
1993: 855
1994: 931
1995: 828
1996: 796
1997: 761
1998: 704
1999: 643
2000: 633
2001: 667
2002: 656
2003: 601
2004: 453
2005: 451
2006: 471
2007: 448
2008: 513
2009: 459
2010: 436
2011: 435
2012: 516
2013: 415

Crime in Chicago - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

At least Rahm has presided over a decent sized decrease from 2012 to 2013. And let us not forget Chicago had the strict ban on gun sales for many, many years.

CNN) -- A federal judge ruled Monday that Chicago's ban on virtually all sales and transfers of firearms is unconstitutional.

"The stark reality facing the City each year is thousands of shooting victims and hundreds of murders committed with a gun. But on the other side of this case is another feature of government: certain fundamental rights are protected by the Constitution, put outside government's reach, including the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense under the Second Amendment," wrote U.S. District Judge Edmond Chang.

"Chicago's ordinance goes too far in outright banning legal buyers and legal dealers from engaging in lawful acquisitions and lawful sales of firearms," he continued.

Judge rules Chicago gun ban is unconstitutional - CNN.com

Cheers

-don

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9212284].message }}

Daniel Evans

12 years ago

Originally Posted by ForumGuru

Think about this US fact--> the reality is we already have hundreds of millions of handguns out in the public and most likely millions of those guns are in the hands of the bad guys --> you must consider that fact that when you evaluate if one is "disturbed" or not when he or she purchases a gun for "protection".

Those people then are "disturbed" by this fact, hence the purchase of the gun.

The status quo is a state of disturbance.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9212242].message }}

ThomM

12 years ago

Originally Posted by Daniel Evans

Those people then are "disturbed" by this fact, hence the purchase of the gun.

The status quo is a state of disturbance.

You seem to think that everyone who owns a gun is either disturbed or insecure. Are you basing that own your own experience as a gun owner, or have you talked to every gun owner in America?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9212255].message }}

Daniel Evans

12 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

You seem to think that everyone who owns a gun is either disturbed or insecure.

I said that I regarded a sizable majority of gun owners to be disturbed.

Disturbance is a primary reason for the purchase and marketability of firearms.

Are you basing that own your own experience as a gun owner, or have you talked to every gun owner in America?

I'm basing it on the above.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9212273].message }}

ThomM

12 years ago

Originally Posted by Daniel Evans

I said that I regarded a sizable majority of gun owners to be disturbed.

Disturbance is a primary reason for the purchase and marketability of firearms.

I'm basing it on the above.

I'll let all the gun owners I know, know that.
At the least they'll get as good a laugh from it as I did.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9212283].message }}

Daniel Evans

12 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

I'll let all the gun owners I know, know that.

Again, I didn't address "all".

If they own the firearm for self defence then you'll be telling them something they already know - at least on a subconscious level.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9212292].message }}

ThomM

12 years ago

Originally Posted by Daniel Evans

Again, I didn't address "all".

If they own the firearm for self defence then you'll be telling them something they already know - at least on a subconscious level.

That's OK I don't know all the gun owners in America anyways.
Again thanks for the laugh.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9212302].message }}

Daniel Evans

12 years ago

I was referencing all of your friends you mention.

Do you own a firearm? If so, what are your reasons?

Laughter is good, provided that it is actually laughter and not a veil for deep rooted agitation...

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9212313].message }}

ThomM

12 years ago

Originally Posted by Daniel Evans

I was referencing all of your friends you mention.

Do you own a firearm? If so, what are your reasons?

Laughter is good, provided that it is actually laughter and not a veil for deep rooted agitation...

No Dan like I mention in a previous post I don't own any type of firearm any more.
Laughter is good. I'm not agitated at all. It's just one of those gloomy depressing days around here. I'd rather resort to humor and having a little fun with someone then being depressed and actually lashing out at anyone.
To be honest ever time I've read one of your posts in this thread I think back to the homemade Pizza thread you started a while ago. I don't think I'll ever read one of your posts without thinking about how good those Pizzas looked

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9212339].message }}

Daniel Evans

12 years ago

Oh my. Those pizzas are bringing people together in the most unusual of circumstances!

There's power in the pie!

Appreciated!

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9212344].message }}

ForumGuru

Banned 12 years ago

Originally Posted by Daniel Evans

Oh my. Those pizzas are bringing people together in the most unusual of circumstances!

There's power in the pie!

Appreciated!

Unfortunately, I have your American Pizza Pie right here...

This is was MY pizza shop in Rockford, Illinois where I lived for almost 20 years. I bought many pizzas from Vince and his father every year that I lived in Rockford. It is a nice little mom and pop joint with tasty sauce, decent quality cheese, and a good crust at a fair price. They used to have shop in a rougher neighborhood - but a number of years ago they had a new shop built just blocks from my home in a much better area of Rockford.

Unfortunately, this pizza pie event did not bring anyone together and it almost got Vince killed.

This is what the criminals with guns are doing here in the States --> and what are you going to do when armed robbers stick a gun in your chest or face and come within milliseconds of pulling the trigger?

ROCKFORD — Frank Pobjecky disarmed his friend and used the Glock semiautomatic to foil a robbery.
When the shooting stopped Oct. 1, 2011, at Marie’s Pizza, the nine-round .40-caliber handgun was empty. One assailant, Auburn High School student Michael D. Sago Jr., 16, was fatally wounded, and his accomplices — Lamar O. Coates, 24, Desmond L. Bellmon, 24, and Brandon L. Sago, 23 — also were shot.

Prosecutors say the owner, Vincenzo Tarara fought with Coates, Brandon Sago, Coates' cousin, and Desmond Bellmon over the gun Coates was carrying. At one point Tarara testified he put his finger behind the trigger to stop Coates from pulling it. He said Coates continue to pull on the hammer trying repeatedly to fire the gun. An off-duty Winnebago County Sheriff's Deputy Frank Pobjecky shot everyone, killing Michael Sago, 16.

Deputy details robbery try, shooting at Marie's Pizza in Rockford - News - Rockford Register Star - Rockford, IL

3rd suspect found guilty in 2011 shooting at Marie’s Pizza in Rockford - News - Rockford Register Star - Rockford, IL

UPDATE: Man involved in Marie's Pizza shooting gets 40 years - WREX.com

Cheers

-don

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9212401].message }}

Daniel Evans

12 years ago

Originally Posted by ForumGuru

This is what the criminals with guns are doing here in the States --> and what are you going to do when armed robbers stick a gun in your chest or face and come within milliseconds of pulling the trigger?

I'm disturbed by the mere thought.

Are you?

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9212458].message }}

ForumGuru

Banned 12 years ago

Originally Posted by Daniel Evans

Again, I didn't address "all".

Detroit police chief to citizens: Arm yourselves

Craig’s statements echoed those he made Dec. 19 on WJR Radio’s “The Paul W. Smith Show”: “There’s a number of [concealed pistol license, or CPL] holders running around the city of Detroit. I think it acts as a deterrent. Good Americans with CPLs translates into crime reduction. I learned that real quick in the state of Maine.”

Detroit police chief to citizens: Arm yourselves

Let's stay conscious for a few minutes, shall we?

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9212323].message }}

Daniel Evans 12 years ago

“There’s a number of [concealed pistol license, or CPL] holders running around the city of Detroit. I think it acts as a deterrent.

How would a deterent serve its function without an underlying disturbing thought?
- Thanks
- 1 reply
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9212335].message }}
- ForumGuru Banned 12 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Daniel Evans
  
  How would a deterent serve it's function without an underlying disturbing thought?
  
  LoL....
  
  The disturbing factor is we have too many criminals committing gun crimes. That's it.
  
  Until something is done to take the guns out of the hands of the criminals, or we take the gun toting criminals off the street in the US, people will continue arm themselves. This is purely an effort to give themselves some sort of protection in the event of the unthinkable. It gives certain people in certain areas some peace of mind and a chance.
  
  Myself, I am in favor of some VERY HARSH criminal penalties for anyone picked up with an unregistered or illegal handgun no matter whether it has been used in the commission of a crime or not.
  
  Not only would this take some of the criminals off of the street it would send a strong message to other criminals that they better not carry a gun because if the do get caught with it they will be locked up for decades.
  
  Cheers
  
  [ 1 ] Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9212366].message }}
  
  Daniel Evans 12 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by ForumGuru
  
  The disturbing factor is we have too many criminals committing gun crimes. That's it.
  
  I think you're homing into overall agreement.
  
  Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9212374].message }}
  
  ForumGuru Banned 12 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Daniel Evans
  
  I think you're homing into overall agreement.
  
  LoL --> And how do you propose taking the millions of guns out of the criminals hands?
  
  Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9212376].message }}
  
  Daniel Evans 12 years ago
  
  I don't.
  
  Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9212380].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 12 years ago

Originally Posted by Daniel Evans

In my mind, the gun owner who possesses a firearm for the purpose of self defense, however "sane" by anyone's standards, is in fact insecure through means of being disturbed by their paradigm which is reflective of their culture and lifestyle. The psyche then is in a state of disturbance.

The gun itself, regardless of it's use by the owner (in the case of sports / games / hunting) is still iconic of it's core purpose and representative of death, disturbance, dis-ease and bravado.

That's just silly. Insecure? Depending on where you live, a bit of insecurity might save your life. I don't live in a high crime area and never have, but if I did, I'd probably carry a nice little pink pistol for self defense. It's reality, and is not reflective of my culture or lifestyle. It's reflective of the culture and lifestyle of the criminal element in society who would kill me if they saw fit, without batting an eye.

There's guns lying all over our house from my father's day as a national champion shooter in the National Rifle Matches and then his career as a gunsmith following that. They aren't iconic of anything other than the leftover remnants of a long career in shooting sports.

So, you also include hunters in your mix of disturbed gun owners. We're talking about people who go back to their roots and provide food for their families. Venison and other game is still a large part of our diet. That's also iconic of it's core purpose and representative of death, disturbance, dis-ease and bravado? You do know that in some areas in this country, there isn't a grocery store on every block, don't you? In some areas, hunting and fishing are very much still about putting food on your table.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9212209].message }}

Daniel Evans

12 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

That's just silly. Insecure? Depending on where you live, a bit of insecurity might save your life. I don't live in a high crime area and never have, but if I did, I'd probably carry a nice little pink pistol for self defense. It's reality, and is not reflective of my culture or lifestyle. It's reflective of the culture and lifestyle of the criminal element in society who would kill me if they saw fit, without batting an eye.

You appear to have said nothing here to the contrary.

Addressing the source of insecurity or it's value doesn't nullify it's existence. It merely justifies it.

You don't have your own culture. It pertains to civilization. It embodies that criminal element.

So, you also include hunters in your mix of disturbed gun owners. .

No. I addressed the symbolism of the firearm.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9212227].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 12 years ago

Originally Posted by Daniel Evans

You don't have your own culture. It pertains to civilization. It embodies that criminal element.

No. I addressed the symbolism of the firearm.

I beg to differ. While it may not be "my" own culture, I assure you that my cultural influences are vastly different from others. Cultures are defined by similar points of reference, habits, beliefs, languages, etc of specific groups. There is no one size fits all culture. While I was raised in a "gun culture", it is a vastly different gun culture than that of gangs, militias and other gun cultures.

The symbolism of the firearm as you see it resides in your own mind. Not mine.

Originally Posted by Daniel Evans

Those people then are "disturbed" by this fact, hence the purchase of the gun.

The status quo is a state of disturbance.

So, the hunter is disturbed by what? The fact that there are little deer out there in them thar woods that need to be killed? lol.

Someone said that you are English. That splains it. Different culture.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9212372].message }}

Daniel Evans

12 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

I beg to differ. While it may not be "my" own culture, I assure you that my cultural influences are vastly different from others. Cultures are defined by similar points of reference, habits, beliefs, languages, etc of specific groups. There is no one size fits all culture. While I was raised in a "gun culture", it is a vastly different gun culture than that of gangs, militias and other gun cultures.

There's native culture and there's a culture in which you live. You can only perhaps remove yourself from the latter if you don't leave your home. If not, you are part of that culture regardless of roots.

The little pink pistol then, that you insist on carrying would be confirmation of you amalgamating with that culture; carrying to defend against those who carry firearms.

The symbolism of the firearm as you see it resides in your own mind. Not mine.

Sure. Subjective too.

So, the hunter is disturbed by what? The fact that there are little deer out there in them thar woods that need to be killed? lol.

I didn't claim that demographic to be disturbed.

I addressed those who buy firearms for the sake of self defense.

Someone said that you are English. That splains it. Different culture.

I was hoping to convey simple logic above anything that's dependant upon culture, but replies so far have only justified fear and disturbance which is not denial, but confirmation of my proposition.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9212434].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 12 years ago

Originally Posted by Daniel Evans

There's native culture and there's a culture in which you live. You can only perhaps remove yourself from the latter if you don't leave your home. If not, you are part of that culture regardless of roots.

The little pink pistol then, that you insist on carrying would be confirmation of you amalgamating with that culture; carrying to defend against those who carry forearms.

What little pink pistol that I insist on carrying? You misread my post. I don't own a gun of any kind. I don't carry a gun. If I want to shoot a predator in my yard (I have chickens), there are more than enough guns around here to plink around with without me needing ownership of one.

As for culture, I still disagree with you, and will leave it at that.

Originally Posted by Daniel Evans

I was hoping to convey simple logic above anything that's dependent upon culture, but replies so far have only justified fear and disturbance which is not denial, but confirmation.

You overlook a simple fact about Americans. Many Americans just love guns. They collect guns, they play with them, they clean them and fondle them. They do not buy them out of fear or for self defense (although they might use that as one reason they have them). They buy them because they love guns. They are called gun lovers and in this country, there are many of them.

You know that mother of Adam Lanza, the boy who killed 20 people at a school. She was one such gun lover. She spent tons of money on all kinds of weapons and would bring them out to show them off when people visited. She probably shot them a few times at a range and showed her son how to shoot them. She did not buy them out of fear or disturbance or for self defense. She was a collector.

My father had a concealed carry that he never used. He never bought a gun for self defense and yet he had many guns. He built them. He loves them. He still likes to talk about little else. He has guns that he's paid thousands for that have sat in a closet from the day he bought them. He simply wants to own them because he loves them. He's far too old to be a hunter or competitive shooter any longer, but those are the only two reasons he ever owned a gun, other than just seeing one and wanting it for his collection.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9212474].message }}

ThomM 12 years ago

Gun owners are the same as any other group.
The vast majority of car owners, motorcycle owners, boat owners, etc. are responsible people. But you have a smaller fringe group that think driving like an idiot is cool or popping a wheelie on a city street is cool, or showing off their AR15 is cool.
I'm one of the very few people I know who no longer owns any type of firearm. No matter what I tried I just was never a very accurate shooter. All the people I know who own guns and even those with conceal carry permits are extremely responsible with their guns. Unless one of them bought a new gun and asked if you wanted to see it, you'd never know if they had a gun on them or not.
As a little side note here, I was shot in the left knee years ago by a friend. He thought the .22 still had blanks in it. I thought he knew it was loaded with real bullets and just smiled at him. He smiled back and shot me:rolleyes:
Last Monday I was hit in the right knee playing horseshoes. Put me on the ground and immobile for a solid 20 minutes. The moral of my little story is, whatever your weapon of choice is, be it a gun or a horseshoe, aim for the knees
- [ 2 ] Thanks
Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9212180].message }}

serryjw 12 years ago

That maybe one of the quotes that goes down in history. Can you imagine if HRC chooses Rahm for her VP????
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9214117].message }}

sbucciarel Banned 12 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

"Moms Demand Action" Oh.....wait. That's the same group that was claiming a looney tunes photo was from a TX Chipotle. Wow, that's quite a coincidence.

I don't like the group Moms Demand Action. Here in Virginia, we've got our own brand of Moms Demand Action. If Moms around here saw their sons carrying weapons into a restaurant, they'd smack them upside their heads and tell them to keep their guns in the car, take your damned hats off at dinner and get your elbows off the table and mind your manners.

So, this is the real photo. It's so much better than the photo you keep complaining about. Yeah, I'd love to have a nice meal out with these yahoos around.

Oh, and the group responsible for all this hullaballo is OCTC, which were recently severed from their parent organization Open Carry Texas for violating the group's demonstration policy; a policy meant to set local law enforcement and the public at ease.
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9212057].message }}

SteveJohnson

12 years ago

The chances of being killed in a mass shooting are about the same as the chance of being hit by lightning.

'Progressives' championed laws that make it difficult for society to identify and involuntarily treat people afflicted with mental illnesses. This has come back to bite them in the ass. The article whines,

As our in-depth investigation showed, a majority of mass shootings are carried out by people with serious mental health problems, using weapons they obtained legally.

Maybe that's something that needs talked about? There are already laws in place preventing mentally-incapacitated people from owning firearms.

John Fund talked about it here: The Facts about Mass Shootings | National Review Online

...
We would be better off debating two taboo subjects — the laws that make it difficult to control people with mental illness and the growing body of evidence that “gun-free” zones, which ban the carrying of firearms by law-abiding individuals, don’t work.

First, the mental-health issue. A lengthy study by Mother Jones magazine found that at least 38 of the 61 mass shooters in the past three decades “displayed signs of mental health problems prior to the killings.” New York Times columnist David Brooks and Cornell Law School professor William Jacobson have both suggested that the ACLU-inspired laws that make it so difficult to intervene and identify potentially dangerous people should be loosened. “Will we address mental-health and educational-privacy laws, which instill fear of legal liability for reporting potentially violent mentally ill people to law enforcement?” asks Professor Jacobson. “I doubt it.”

Gun-free zones have been the most popular response to previous mass killings. But many law-enforcement officials say they are actually counterproductive. “Guns are already banned in schools. That is why the shootings happen in schools. A school is a ‘helpless-victim zone,’” says Richard Mack, a former Arizona sheriff. “Preventing any adult at a school from having access to a firearm eliminates any chance the killer can be stopped in time to prevent a rampage,” Jim Kouri, the public-information officer of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, told me earlier this year at the time of the Aurora, Colo., Batman-movie shooting. Indeed, there have been many instances — from the high-school shooting by Luke Woodham in Mississippi, to the New Life Church shooting in Colorado Springs, Colo. — where a killer has been stopped after someone got a gun from a parked car or elsewhere and confronted the shooter.

[ 3 ] Thanks

Signature

The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9211507].message }}

HeySal

12 years ago

A few shootings in places where guns are banned. Free targets. Mass hysteria created - gov allowed to take control Old story - resulted in 100 million murders in the last century.

A gov that has been caught twice now running guns to "terrorists". Once the admin (fast and furious) and once a Senator (California). Both advocate giving up your guns.

Most gun murders committed via handguns. Anti-gun advocates want rifles, shotguns and sub-autos taken away when murders via these weapons are very low.

Taking guns does not stop crazy people from murdering. Over 2,000 people a year, and some years closer to 3,000 are murdered with knives and other assorted weapons. Then you have, poisons, explosions, drowning, strangulation.............hey how bout those occasional lunatics that bury someone alive?

Our problem is insanity. We have our people drugged and poisoned (poisons in food and water that cross the blood brain barrier) and schools are being subsidized to put kids on drugs.

Forget the weapons. When people are nuts they are going to kill. How long does it take someone fairly smart to figure out a way to do a mass killing without guns? Take the guns and we'll find ourselves getting sprayed, torched, electrocuted (new one for the military), etc.

You cannot save yourself from the mentally disturbed just because you make more laws or curb people's rights.

The bottom line is our society is insane and we need to find out why and STOP it. You can treat symptom after symptom and never stop the disease - so why are we looking for symptoms to worry about while our population continues to fall into the abyss of insanity?

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9211993].message }}

Daniel Evans 12 years ago

Originally Posted by HeySal

Our problem is insanity.

In a nice tidy line!
- [ 1 ] Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9212023].message }}
Claude Whitacre 12 years ago

[DELETED]

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9212216].message }}
- ThomM 12 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre
  
  Sal; Sal, Sal, Sal....are you serious?
  
  Find a cure for insanity? But....that's the way we are.
  
  We have to be. How else would we put up with the self proclaimed sane people?
  
  [ 1 ] Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
  Getting old ain't for sissy's
  As you are I was, as I am you will be
  You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9212224].message }}
- Dan Riffle 12 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre
  
  Hey! I thought I was an ass! You even put it in your Signature.
  
  Are we drifting apart?
  
  Trust me, you're their king.
  
  [ 1 ] Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  Raising a child is akin to knowing you're getting fired in 18 years and having to train your replacement without actively sabotaging them.
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9212319].message }}

seasoned

12 years ago

I made a post some posts ago going to google showing how police cars have been stolen. Many have weapons and armor in the trunk, and a shot gun in the front. SURE things are locked, but if you drive a few blocks you can drill the locks out in piece. NO PROBLEM! A CHILD can do it.

HECK, they could have several people with some stealing stuff, and others to steal the car when the police leave. EVEN if it has an anti theft device, it could follow the standard protocol that is EASY to defeat if you are prepared. My point is simply that if you want to ban all guns, better do it EVERYWHERE! Don't forget the Treaty of Versailles! It could be argued that it made things worse, and helped start WWII, but goals weren't met. Still, no matter what the wars, the changes in government should give one pause.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9212055].message }}

ForumGuru

Banned 12 years ago

Originally Posted by Daniel Evans

Incorrect on all counts...

Good grief man --> I edited the post here PRIOR to your reply here and AFTER you explained yourself on the sports thread. The way you hit and run on some threads combined with your writing style sometimes leaves a different taste in one's mouth than you might expect.

Statements like this could certainly be considered by some to be anti-gun, anti-gun owner or worse.

Originally Posted by Daniel Evans

I'd regard a sizable majority of people who owns guns to be disturbed.

Maybe that's not what you intended to be taken from the post....but it is how some will take it. For you to say that the "sizable majority" of gun owners are "disturbed" seems to place yourself somewhere above the "average" gun owner. Considering that 47% percent of Americans (according to Gallup 2011) own a gun and considering that we have 240,185,952 adults in the US you just "considered" MORE than 112,887,397 million people disturbed!

Good grief!

I ask you again what high horse did you ride in on??

Originally Posted by Daniel Evans

Sport just isn't that important.

It's hilarious how people seem to think so though and is very revealling of a persons disposition.

He perhaps needs some time alone to review the more important and finer things in life.

Contrary to your opinion --> millions of people work in the sports industries ---> and of course sport is important to those people. On top of that tons of people need sports so they can function properly on a day to day basis. They need the release, they need the competition, they need the comradery, they need their extended "sports" family. Especially those athletes who don't have a high quality real family.

To some of those people sport is a "finer thing in life" and a very important to part of their lives. Sure some folks get a little crazy over their teams and favorite players but hey, sports fanatics are as American as apple pie.

Remember Mark Cuban's early days as an NBA owner? Do you figure he enjoys the "finer things in life"?

So what if your heroes are not the same people that some of the sports fanatics worship? So what if you think "sport just isn't that important"? No need to judge those people on the what they enjoy and how they enjoy it!

Seriously dude, I think I know where you stand when you consider more than 112 million Americans "disturbed" just because you can.

When you couple that with the fact that within hours you also stated "Sport just isn't that important" and "He perhaps needs some time alone to review the more important and finer things in life" does tell us what horse you may be riding.

Maybe you should explain positions and opinions in a little more detail next time you make your "hit and run" initial posts - instead of boldly calling more that 112 million Americans adults and countless others "disturbed".

Maybe you should also explain in your original replies why you don't think sport is important instead of babbling something about he "more important and finer things in life".

5 Surprising Health Benefits Of Being A Sports Fan

1. It Inspires You To Get Active.
2. Watching Live Sports Is A Workout In Itself.
3. You’ll Live Longer.
4. It’s Good For Your Relationships.
5. It Will Make You Smarter.

It’s no wonder your friends aren’t available to hang out on Sundays in the fall and winter—according to a 2005 Gallup Poll, 64% of Americans claim to be professional football fans, and as of 2010, women make up 44% of the NFL fan base.

Being a sports fan doesn’t mean you’re expected to know all the players and stats of your hometown teams and destined for a beer gut—it’s about coming together in the name of good times as part of a community.

“Bonding over sports—the highs and lows of the game—strengthens ties, helps us feel supported, and makes it easier for you to open up about personal things,” says Renee Clauselle, PsyD, who runs a private psychology practice in Long Island, NY.

Rooting for the same team creates an immediate sense of family, says Daniel Wann, PhD, a Murray State University professor who has been studying the psychology of sports fans for over 20 years. “If you identify with a local team, you build an instant connection to others around you,” he says.

Beyond the bonding aspects, watching sports can motivate you to pump up your own workouts—and even burn a few extra calories when you jump, cheer, and clap during the highlights of the game. Find out more ways being a sports fan is a winning situation for your health.

http://www.prevention.com/health/hea...ou-get-active-

I would like to take you out and school you on the links but I am afraid I may be too disturbed to enjoy the finer things in life with you for a few hours.

Cheers

-don

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9212074].message }}

Daniel Evans

12 years ago

Originally Posted by ForumGuru

Statements like this could certainly be considered by some to be anti-gun, anti-gun owner or worse.

Centainly to those who assume.

I would like to take you out and school you on the links but I am afraid I may be too disturbed to enjoy the finer things in life.

I never did consider arguing on the Internet one of lifes finer things, but you sail your own ship, at full flank no less and your "high horse" at its highest height.

My schooling comes from those who are patient, polite and wise.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9212125].message }}

ForumGuru

Banned 12 years ago

Originally Posted by Daniel Evans

I never did consider arguing on the Internet one of lifes finer things...
>snip<
My schooling comes from those who are patient, polite and wise.

HaHaHa... links = golf course --> Tee it up bro.

I just love the way you so wisely and politely called more than 112 million Americans "disturbed".

Nice to meet your online persona and please do keep on schooling us!

-don

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9212135].message }}

Dan Riffle

12 years ago

Originally Posted by ForumGuru

HaHaHa... I just love the way you politely called more than 112 million Americans "disturbed".

Nice to meet your online persona and please do keep on schooling us!

-don

Don, Daniel's a good egg. He's also English. They have a different perspective on guns than we Yanks.

I'd hate to see you two get off on the wrong foot or he might ban you from his foodie posts. You don't want that. Dude's a stellar cook.

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Raising a child is akin to knowing you're getting fired in 18 years and having to train your replacement without actively sabotaging them.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9212149].message }}

HeySal 12 years ago

Originally Posted by Dan Riffle

Don, Daniel's a good egg. He's also English. They have a different perspective on guns than we Yanks.

.

That's true. From what I've seen the English consider Americans insane just by virtue of being American .
- [ 1 ] Thanks
Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9212168].message }}

ForumGuru

Banned 12 years ago

Originally Posted by Dan Riffle

Don, Daniel's a good egg. He's also English. They have a different perspective on guns than we Yanks.

I'd hate to see you two get off on the wrong foot or he might ban you from his foodie posts. You don't want that. Dude's a stellar cook.

Thanks for the info, Dan. I love to cook and I love good cooking so why not give it a shot. I can tell you right now though ---> a Piers Morgan fan I am not. I liked dude ok as an editor and he was good Celeb. Appr. but oh my gosh was he full of it when he took over Larry's desk.

Cheers

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9212177].message }}

Dan Riffle

12 years ago

Originally Posted by ForumGuru

Thanks for the info, Dan. I love to cook and I love good cooking so why not give it a shot. I can tell you right now though ---> a Piers Morgan fan I am not. I liked dude ok as an editor and he was good Celeb. Appr. but oh my gosh was he full of it when he took over Larry's desk.

Cheers

Well, yeah, Morgan's an ass. I can't argue that.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Raising a child is akin to knowing you're getting fired in 18 years and having to train your replacement without actively sabotaging them.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9212187].message }}

Daniel Evans

12 years ago

Originally Posted by ForumGuru

HaHaHa... links = golf course --> Tee it up bro.

I just love the way you so wisely and politely called more than 112 million Americans "disturbed".

Nice to meet your online persona and please do keep on schooling us!

-don

I understood your reference.

You would have been wise to understand my definition of "disturbed" (highlighted above) before you jumped the gun, but so many people do tend to love jumping on guns.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9212164].message }}

RobinInTexas

12 years ago

They don't put a stop to anything, any more than laws requiring a driver's license or insurance to drive a car, or laws against drunk driving stop drunks from driving.

If they make it more difficult for the prohibited class of people to get guns they are doing some good.

Why do you think the NRA (the PR arm of weapons and weapons accessories manufacturers) resists anything that might cut down on sales?

Thanks

Signature

Robin

...Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just set there.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9212102].message }}

HeySal

12 years ago

Finer things in life -- my family belonged to a fairly exclusive country club when I was growing up. Those people were armed and if you suggested taking their guns, they would spit in your face. Many of them fought in WWII and after seeing what a few of the world dictators did to their own people would have read you a riot act if you even suggested gun control.

We had guns all over hell and back in those days. I was taught gun safety and how to fire a gun when I was 5 years old. We didn't have much gun crime back then. What changed? It isn't the guns.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9212116].message }}

lcombs

12 years ago

No offense but, dumb question.

I can buy a gun off the street tonight if I want to.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Fresh...55326481208883

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9212124].message }}

RobinInTexas 12 years ago

Originally Posted by lcombs

No offense but, dumb question.

I can buy a gun off the street tonight if I want to.

That's not a question, but a statement.

It's the opinion of many people that the unrestricted transfer of firearms should be outlawed. A purchaser or transferee should be required to demonstrate that they are not one of the prohibited class of people and the person doing the transfer should be accountable.

It doesn't put a stop to anything, any more than laws requiring a driver's license or insurance to drive a car, or laws against drunk driving stop drunks from driving.

If they make it more difficult for the prohibited class of people to get guns they are doing some good.

Why do you think the NRA (the PR arm of weapons and weapons accessories manufacturers) resists anything that might cut down on sales?
- Thanks
Signature

Robin

...Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just set there.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9212514].message }}

ForumGuru

Banned 12 years ago

Enter At Your Own Risk: Police Union Says 'War-Like' Detroit Is Unsafe For Visitors

DETROIT (WWJ) - The men and women of the Detroit Police Department believe the city is too dangerous to enter, and they want citizens to know it.
Detroit Police Officer Association (DPOA) Attorney Donato Iorio said officers are holding the "Enter At Your Own Risk" rally at 3:30 p.m. Saturday in front of Comerica Park to remind the public that the officers are overworked, understaffed, and at times, fearful for their lives.

Enter At Your Own Risk: Police Union Says 'War-Like' Detroit Is Unsafe For Visitors « CBS Detroit

Somebody has to provide some protection and when the police can't do it you might want to try to protect you and your family yourself. If you don't have the means to move out of the city then you are stuck protecting yourself.

-don

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9212241].message }}

HeySal

12 years ago

Don - the gun crime in Chicago has dropped significantly just in the few months that guns have been unbanned in Chicago.

Disturbance is a primary reason for the purchase and marketability of firearms.

This is the most deluded, innane, and just sheerly stupid remark I've ever heard. You have no clue anything about Americans, how we think, or what we do. This statement is so parsimonious and ridiculous that I am out of this thread. Worry about the climbing death rate in England - where you all love to pretend nobody dies from guns because they aren't legal. Have fun with unrestrained immigration, pal.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9212481].message }}

Daniel Evans 12 years ago

Originally Posted by HeySal

This is the most deluded, innane, and just sheerly stupid remark I've ever heard. You have no clue anything about Americans, how we think, or what we do.

Bizzare then that you've concluded with a (non-relevant) philosophy about the English....

Worry about the climbing death rate in England - where you all love to pretend nobody dies from guns because they aren't legal. Have fun with unrestrained immigration, pal.

I'm confident that ubrupt and bad manners aren't a blanket American trait so for that at least I'm thankful and I'll continue to respect a person for being a person..
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9212492].message }}

David Maschke

12 years ago

Question for Danial Evans:

How did you guys disarm the entire population of your country? I must admit, grudgingly, armed thugs do not appear to be terrorizing the unarmed citizens of your country.

As far as I know, there doesn't seem to be any plan whatsoever to get the guns from the street thugs over here.

I believe your country banned slavery long before it was ended here. Perhaps civilized behavior is possible here too, you never know.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

I

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9212521].message }}

ThomM

12 years ago

Originally Posted by David Maschke

Question for Danial Evans:

How did you guys disarm the entire population of your country? I must admit, grudgingly, armed thugs do not appear to be terrorizing the unarmed citizens of your country.

As far as I know, there doesn't seem to be any plan whatsoever to get the guns from the street thugs over here.

I believe your country banned slavery long before it was ended here. Perhaps civilized behavior is possible here too, you never know.

They still have gun violence there, not to mention other forms of violence.
Gun Crime Soars in England Where Guns Are Banned - Katie Pavlich
Here's some US numbers from the same time.
Notice gun murders, gun robberies, and gun aggravated assaults have gone down while gun injuries, gun suicide, gun ownership and gun manufacturing have gone up.
Gun Rhetoric vs. Gun Facts

Thanks

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9212548].message }}

Daniel Evans

12 years ago

Originally Posted by David Maschke

Question for Danial Evans:

How did you guys disarm the entire population of your country? I must admit, grudgingly, armed thugs do not appear to be terrorizing the unarmed citizens of your country.

As far as I know, there doesn't seem to be any plan whatsoever to get the guns from the street thugs over here.

I believe your country banned slavery long before it was ended here. Perhaps civilized behavior is possible here too, you never know.

We didn't David.

The only claim I've proposed is that a firearm acquired as a means of self defense is done so as a result of a mind that's disturbed by violent facts and potentialities.

I'm speaking psychologically whilst others are rising to defend their country and it's laws.

Classic stuff, but it would have been good to make some sort of connection amidst the digression!

English are included!

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9212557].message }}

Dennis Gaskill

12 years ago

Originally Posted by RobinInTexas

That's not a question, but a statement.

Without going back to check, I think the question Larry was referring to was the one the thread title.

Originally Posted by Daniel Evans

The only claim I've proposed is that a firearm acquired as a means of self defense is done so as a result of a mind that's disturbed by violent facts and potentialities.

I have a feeling if you'd have used "concerned" instead of "disturbed" this thread would have gone if a different direction. Over here it can mean someone with mental illness. In that context, perhaps you can see why calling nearly half our country mentally ill isn't going to sit well with folks.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9212940].message }}

Daniel Evans

12 years ago

Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill

I have a feeling if you'd have used "concerned" instead of "disturbed" this thread would have gone if a different direction. Over here it can mean someone with mental illness. In that context, perhaps you can see why calling nearly half our country mentally ill isn't going to sit well with folks.

Disturbed.

1.marked by symptoms of mental illness: a disturbed personality.
2.agitated or distressed; disrupted: disturbed seas; a disturbed situation.

Yep. Same definitions here in England (I'm unsure why we'd differ!) with my own definition of the word following that of the latter which I clarified, dissected and elaborated upon in a discussion which still took the same course thereafter digressing into patriotism.

A person who follows their own integrity as an individual, rather than a fragment of a landmass unit could perhaps be forgiven then for having the belief that patriotism seems to cause quite a significant degree of blindness. The instinctive action of jumping to a defense appears, more often than not to take precedence above that of understanding of the actual substance of the cause.

"Disturbed" then only amplifies in its aptness.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9213230].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 12 years ago

Originally Posted by Daniel Evans

Disturbed.

1.marked by symptoms of mental illness: a disturbed personality.
2.agitated or distressed; disrupted: disturbed seas; a disturbed situation.

"Disturbed" then only amplifies in its aptness.

Well, you're clearly married to your opinions on American culture and guns, with little to no real understanding of American culture, and that's fine, in that I don't personally care. But I wouldn't make broad assumptions about a culture that I didn't quite grok, without doing a lot of real research before coming to conclusions, as you have.

I don't understand English culture or English humor, so I avoid making assumptions about it, but I don't think that the UK has the answer to gun violence either based on articles I've read.

Two Cautionary Tales of Gun Control
After a school massacre, the U.K. banned handguns in 1998. A decade later, handgun crime had doubled.

Joyce Lee Malcolm: Two Cautionary Tales of Gun Control - WSJ.com

Americans are determined that massacres such as happened in Newtown, Conn., never happen again. But how? Many advocate more effective treatment of mentally-ill people or armed protection in so-called gun-free zones. Many others demand stricter control of firearms.

We aren't alone in facing this problem. Great Britain and Australia, for example, suffered mass shootings in the 1980s and 1990s. Both countries had very stringent gun laws when they occurred. Nevertheless, both decided that even stricter control of guns was the answer. Their experiences can be instructive.

In 1987, Michael Ryan went on a shooting spree in his small town of Hungerford, England, killing 16 people (including his mother) and wounding another 14 before shooting himself. Since the public was unarmed--as were the police--Ryan wandered the streets for eight hours with two semiautomatic rifles and a handgun before anyone with a firearm was able to come to the rescue.

Nine years later, in March 1996, Thomas Hamilton, a man known to be mentally unstable, walked into a primary school in the Scottish town of Dunblane and shot 16 young children and their teacher. He wounded 10 other children and three other teachers before taking his own life.
Enlarge Image

David Klein

Since 1920, anyone in Britain wanting a handgun had to obtain a certificate from his local police stating he was fit to own a weapon and had good reason to have one. Over the years, the definition of "good reason" gradually narrowed. By 1969, self-defense was never a good reason for a permit.

After Hungerford, the British government banned semiautomatic rifles and brought shotguns--the last type of firearm that could be purchased with a simple show of fitness--under controls similar to those in place for pistols and rifles. Magazines were limited to two shells with a third in the chamber.

Dunblane had a more dramatic impact. Hamilton had a firearm certificate, although according to the rules he should not have been granted one. A media frenzy coupled with an emotional campaign by parents of Dunblane resulted in the Firearms Act of 1998, which instituted a nearly complete ban on handguns. Owners of pistols were required to turn them in. The penalty for illegal possession of a pistol is up to 10 years in prison.

The results have not been what proponents of the act wanted. Within a decade of the handgun ban and the confiscation of handguns from registered owners, crime with handguns had doubled according to British government crime reports. Gun crime, not a serious problem in the past, now is. Armed street gangs have some British police carrying guns for the first time. Moreover, another massacre occurred in June 2010. Derrick Bird, a taxi driver in Cumbria, shot his brother and a colleague then drove off through rural villages killing 12 people and injuring 11 more before killing himself.

Meanwhile, law-abiding citizens who have come into the possession of a firearm, even accidentally, have been harshly treated. In 2009 a former soldier, Paul Clarke, found a bag in his garden containing a shotgun. He brought it to the police station and was immediately handcuffed and charged with possession of the gun. At his trial the judge noted: "In law there is no dispute that Mr. Clarke has no defence to this charge. The intention of anybody possessing a firearm is irrelevant." Mr. Clarke was sentenced to five years in prison. A public outcry eventually won his release.

In November of this year, Danny Nightingale, member of a British special forces unit in Iraq and Afghanistan, was sentenced to 18 months in military prison for possession of a pistol and ammunition. Sgt. Nightingale was given the Glock pistol as a gift by Iraqi forces he had been training. It was packed up with his possessions and returned to him by colleagues in Iraq after he left the country to organize a funeral for two close friends killed in action. Mr. Nightingale pleaded guilty to avoid a five-year sentence and was in prison until an appeal and public outcry freed him on Nov. 29.
***

Six weeks after the Dunblane massacre in 1996, Martin Bryant, an Australian with a lifelong history of violence, attacked tourists at a Port Arthur prison site in Tasmania with two semiautomatic rifles. He killed 35 people and wounded 21 others.

At the time, Australia's guns laws were stricter than the United Kingdom's. In lieu of the requirement in Britain that an applicant for permission to purchase a gun have a "good reason," Australia required a "genuine reason." Hunting and protecting crops from feral animals were genuine reasons--personal protection wasn't.

With new Prime Minister John Howard in the lead, Australia passed the National Firearms Agreement, banning all semiautomatic rifles and semiautomatic and pump-action shotguns and imposing a more restrictive licensing system on other firearms. The government also launched a forced buyback scheme to remove thousands of firearms from private hands. Between Oct. 1, 1996, and Sept. 30, 1997, the government purchased and destroyed more than 631,000 of the banned guns at a cost of $500 million.

To what end? While there has been much controversy over the result of the law and buyback, Peter Reuter and Jenny Mouzos, in a 2003 study published by the Brookings Institution, found homicides "continued a modest decline" since 1997. They concluded that the impact of the National Firearms Agreement was "relatively small," with the daily rate of firearms homicides declining 3.2%.

According to their study, the use of handguns rather than long guns (rifles and shotguns) went up sharply, but only one out of 117 gun homicides in the two years following the 1996 National Firearms Agreement used a registered gun. Suicides with firearms went down but suicides by other means went up. They reported "a modest reduction in the severity" of massacres (four or more indiscriminate homicides) in the five years since the government weapons buyback. These involved knives, gas and arson rather than firearms.

In 2008, the Australian Institute of Criminology reported a decrease of 9% in homicides and a one-third decrease in armed robbery since the 1990s, but an increase of over 40% in assaults and 20% in sexual assaults.

What to conclude? Strict gun laws in Great Britain and Australia haven't made their people noticeably safer, nor have they prevented massacres. The two major countries held up as models for the U.S. don't provide much evidence that strict gun laws will solve our problems.

Ms. Malcolm, a professor of law at George Mason University Law School, is the author of several books including "Guns and Violence: The English Experience," (Harvard, 2002).

***************
And another set of statistics regarding UK crime

Let's try a different comparison. Note that I'm probably overestimating the UK population and underestimating the US population in these statistical comparisons, which favors the UK in terms of estimating low crime rates (since these rates are measured per capita). The same goes for the fact I'm underestimating UK crime incidences and overestimating US incidences. Despite heavily favoring the UK for determining the per capita statistics, I think you'll find the results illuminating:

In or about 2006, there were about 60 million (actually closer to 58M, but we'll use the rounded-up number to be kind to hopolophobes) people in the UK as a whole, including Scotland.

In England and Wales alone -- discounting Scotland -- there were over 163 thousand knife crimes.

By the end of 2006, there were more than 300 million people in the US as a whole.

In the US as a whole, there were fewer than 400 thousand gun crimes.

In the UK, based on these numbers, there was one knife crime committed for every 374 people (rounded down).

In the US, based on these numbers, there was one gun crime committed for every 750 people -- less than half a gun crime per 374 people (about 0.4987 gun crimes per 374 people, actually).

That means that, based on these statistics, you are more than twice as likely to be a victim of knife crime in the UK as you are to be a victim of gun crime in the US.
Chad Perrin: SOB » Statistics 101: US Gun Crime vs. UK Knife Crime

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9213441].message }}

Daniel Evans 12 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Well, you're clearly married to your opinions on American culture and guns

Nope. Nothing to do with that as mentioned.

I'm amazed the misunderstanding and patriotism presenting elongated facts, figures and contrasts of countries is still ongoing. You've established an affair with a staw man. That's not what my proposition is related to.

Again, the only claim presented was that a person (any person, anywhere!) who owns a firearm for the sake of self defense is of a "disturbed" mindset (addressing the original post and title of thread).

You're only reenforcing my hypothesis relating to patriotic blindness by ignoring this.

Please stop and review the discussion.
- Thanks
- 1 reply
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9213470].message }}
- sbucciarel Banned 12 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Daniel Evans
  
  Nothing to do with that as mentioned.
  
  I'm amazed the misunderstanding and patriotism is still ongoing...
  
  Mentioning doesn't make it so. It makes it an opinion, subject to the same errors as all opinions are.
  
  But I'll agree ... the misunderstanding is still ongoing and in the US patriotism isn't a dirty word.
  
  Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9213481].message }}

David Maschke

12 years ago

Thanks guys. For tonight I'm going to ponder, "what if it's possible," anyway.

Even better, what if I HAD to disarm the bad guys, what would be my plan?

I'm sure by tomorrow I'll be back to my dickhead self again.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

I

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9212583].message }}

ThomM

12 years ago

Originally Posted by David Maschke

Thanks guys. For tonight I'm going to ponder, "what if it's possible," anyway.

Even better, what if I HAD to disarm the bad guys, what would be my plan?

I'm sure by tomorrow I'll be back to my dickhead self again.

While your pondering Dave, keep in mind that guns aren't banned in England. They have strict gun laws and a tough process to go through to get any gun, but you can still own one there.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9212730].message }}

serryjw

12 years ago

THOM...I think we are all asking the wrong question. WHY do we have the criminal element and high violence that we did NOT have 50 years ago?

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9214126].message }}

ThomM

12 years ago

Originally Posted by serryjw

THOM...I think we are all asking the wrong question. WHY do we have the criminal element and high violence that we did NOT have 50 years ago?

I've given that a lot of thought over the years.
I think it's a combination of things, none of these reasons are scientifically proven, just observations.
The economy effects the crime rate.
The worst the economy is the more robberies you have.
For a few years now here in my area we have had an influx of bank robberies. We're not talking about in large cities, but in small cities and towns.
The weather also plays into it. This past winter with the almost record cold, natural gas, heating oil, and electricity prices soared. So did store and bank robberies.
Food prices have also risen.
The effects of fluoride and the chemicals in our foods are finally coming to the surface.
Those are just a few of the things I've noticed that could have an effect on the crime rate.
I've always been one to look at what causes a problem.
It's like when a part on your car fails. Some people will just replace the part and move on. I will find out why the part failed, fix that and then replace the part.
That's why I have a problem with many of the laws that get passed after a tragedy happens. For example after Sandy Hook, New Yorks gov. Cuomo pushed through his so called safe act. A small part of it did try to address the cause (of Sandy Hook) but most of the shootings in NYS are gang related. This map shows what the people think of the safe act in NYS.
Counties March 20th - NY SAFE Resolutions
The people here understand the safe act was passed for political reasons and has basically nothing to do with addressing the gun violence issue, but it did make the majority of law abiding gun owners criminals.
In Troy NY (the closest city to me) we have the crips, bloods, and latin kings, not to mention Hells Angels and other outlaw motorcycle clubs.The first group has gotten so bad that neighborhoods are welcoming the mc clubs because they are more discreet and the crime rate against citizens drops where they are as opposed to going up where the other groups are located.
Because of our high taxes (on everything) NY has a thriving black market that many people have to resort to simply to survive. Much of that market is controlled by different gangs who feel they must protect their turf.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9214204].message }}

ForumGuru

Banned 12 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

I've given that a lot of thought over the years.
I think it's a combination of things, none of these reasons are scientifically proven, just observations.
The economy effects the crime rate....

I stated above that we need to toughen the penalties for criminals convicted of gun crimes and we need to reform the criminal justice system. And while I do feel the some of the youth of today does not place quite a high enough value on life, I do believe the quality of one's life does often affect one's actions.

That said, you need to make your own living and you can't expect money to be handed to you just because you are too lazy or "too good" to work for it. In other words --> take a low paying real job instead of selling dope and living the gangsta life on the streets. Everyone needs to start somewhere --> and for many folks that means taking a low paying entry level job for starters.

Anyway, if you buy into the economy/poverty and/or class divide argument I am sure you will love this article. They have come to many "statistical" conclusions based on some interesting figures.

Death by gun clearly reflects the class divides which vex America, being substantially more likely in poorer, less advantaged places. And this concentrated nature of gun violence makes it easier for those in more affluent and sheltered places to ignore its consequences. Yes, our nation is in desperate needs of strategies to bridge its burgeoning class divide, but if we truly care to limit the carnage caused by guns in our society, controlling them is the best place to start.

The Geography of U.S. Gun Violence - CityLab

Cheers

-don

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9214282].message }}

ThomM

12 years ago

Anyway, if you buy into the economy/poverty and/or class divide argument I am sure you will love this article. They have come to many "statistical" conclusions based on some interesting figures.

I never stated I "bought" into any argument or that what I said was based on "statistical" conclusions. I simply stated what I have observed and that I had no scientific evidence to back it up. There is a difference between an observation and a conclusion ya know.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9214318].message }}

ForumGuru

Banned 12 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

I never stated I "bought" into any argument or that what I said was based on "statistical" conclusions. I simply stated what I have observed and that I had no scientific evidence to back it up. There is a difference between an observation and a conclusion ya know.

LoL, I never said you did, and it's exactly why I used the conjunction --> if <-- in my reply to you. I simply referred you to an article that seemed to support some of your "observations".

Cheers

-don

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9214333].message }}

ThomM

12 years ago

If you want to make a dent in US gun crimes then start lobbying for tougher mandatory sentences when a someone gets caught with an illegal weapon and/or commits a crime with a gun.

I don't know if it's still like this, but here's what it was like when I lived in Fl. back in the 70's.
Pretty much any resident could buy a gun.
If you committed and where convicted of a crime with a gun in your possession it was 20 years mandatory.
It didn't matter if you used the gun or not, 20 years.
If you where convicted of DWI and had a gun in your glovebox, 20 years.
If you stole a 6 pack and had a gun in your pocket, 20 years.
They also had some interesting drinking laws. For example if you where in a bar and decided to leave, you could get your drink put into a "to go" cup and take it with you. But if you got caught driving while drinking or driving drunk, you where going to jail period.
I was more of an anti-social outlaw type back then, but I never did anything illegal with a gun anywhere near me and never drove drunk. For me 20 years was to big a price to pay just for being stupid.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9214369].message }}

ForumGuru

Banned 12 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

I don't know if it's still like this, but here's what it was like when I lived in Fl. back in the 70's. Pretty much any resident could buy a gun. If you committed and where convicted of a crime with a gun in your possession it was 20 years mandatory.

Yeah, I hear you and I used to live in Orlando, my son currently lives in Coral Gables, and my sister has spent most of her adult life in the Keys & West Palm areas.

While I support many mandatory minimums I was not referencing mandatory minimums when I talked about "when someone gets caught with an illegal weapon". I was referring to when someone gets pulled over and they have an illegal weapon in their possession. Or when they get picked up on a dope charge and they have a illegal gun in their possession. Or when someone is the subject of a raid in which illegal guns are found.

This would take more criminals off the streets for longer periods, and it would send a message to criminals in general --> don't mess with illegal guns unless you want to do major time just for having them in your possession.

That said, I believe one of the possible problems in our current gun policy is that in tons of states (including Florida) you can keep unregistered guns legally. I am a big privacy guy and I know this is a big hot-button issue with gun owners --> and I have been a gun owner in the past --> but it may be time to consider mandatory registrations on many types of guns.

Do I want the US Gov. and others using those registration lists against us? Of course not! So obviously the system would need to be carefully implemented, and we hope it would not turn into another IRS like deal where people are targeted because of the registrations. I know...it's a tough call and a very slippery slope. Anyway...

These are the types of penalties I want to see stiffened....click on the list and notice how many states are not even on the list --> so effectively their is no real penalty at all. It's a bit hard to punish the bad guys with unregistered weapons when it's not illegal for the bad guy to have an unregistered weapon.

Three days detention! C'mon man....

Criminal Penalties for Illegal Possession of Handguns by Minors

Florida

First offense: 1st degree misdemeanor, punishable by up to three days detention and 100 hours of community service

Subsequent offense: 3rd degree felony, punishable by up to 15 days detention and 100 to 250 hours of community service

Detention may be longer in certain circumstances

First offense: 1st degree misdemeanor, punishable by up to three days detention and 100 hours of community service

Subsequent offense: 3rd degree felony, punishable by up to 15 days detention and 100 to 250 hours of community service

Detention may be longer in certain circumstances

Criminal Penalties for Possession or Purchase of Handgun without a Required Permit, License, or Certificate

Hawaii

Acquire firearm without a permit: misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year's imprisonment, a fine of up to $2,000, or both

Failing to register firearm: petty misdemeanor, punishable by up to 30 days imprisonment, a fine of up to $1,000, or both

PENALTIES FOR ILLEGAL HANDGUN POSSESSION

This is already inferred in the document linked above, but just so peeps can see it written...

In the state of Florida, residents may purchase, own and keep in the home an unregistered handgun legally and only require a permit to carry a concealed firearm.

Read more: Florida Gun Recitory Laws | eHow

It surprises even me on how many states have quite liberal gun laws --> and I support gun ownership! Check it out if you want...

Gun laws in the United States by state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's my opinion that we need to take more criminals off of the streets and do something to take the unregistered and illegal guns out of the criminals hands --> just what that something will be is yet to be determined.

Cheers

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9214480].message }}

ThomM

12 years ago

Originally Posted by ForumGuru

Yeah, I hear you and I used to live in Orlando, my son currently lives in Coral Gables, and my sister has spent most of her adult life in the Keys & West Palm areas.

While I support many mandatory minimums I was not referencing mandatory minimums when I talked about "when someone gets caught with an illegal weapon". I was referring to when someone gets pulled over and they have an illegal weapon in their possession. Or when they get picked up on a dope charge and they have a illegal gun in their possession. Or when someone is the subject of a raid in which illegal guns are found.

This would take more criminals off the streets for longer periods, and it would send a message to criminals in general --> don't mess with illegal guns unless you want to do major time just for having them in your possession.

That said, I believe one of the possible problems in our current gun policy is that in tons of states (including Florida) you can keep unregistered guns legally. I am a big privacy guy and I know this is a big hot button issue with gun owners --> and I have been a gun owner in the past --> but it may be time to consider mandatory registrations on many types of guns.

Do I want the US Gov. and others using those registration lists against us? Of course not! So obviously the system would need to be carefully implemented and we hope it would not turn into another IRS like deal where people are targeted because of the registrations. I know...it's a tough call and a very slippery slope. Anyway...

These are the types of penalties I want to see stiffened....click on the list and notice how many states are not even on the list --> so effectively their is no real penalty at all. It's a bit hard to punish the bad guys with unregistered weapons when it's not illegal for the bad guy to have an unregistered weapon.

Three days detention! C'mon man....

This is already inferred in the document above, but just so peeps can see it written...

It surprises even me on how many states have quite liberal gun laws --> and I support gun ownership! Check it out if you want...

Gun laws in the United States by state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's my opinion that we need to take more criminals off of the streets and do something to take the unregistered and illegal guns out of the criminals hands --> just what that something will be is yet to be determined.

Cheers

I can't disagree with that.
I don't have a problem with registering firearms, I simply don't trust the govt. enough to believe they won't use it to their advantage. I really can't think of another way to tell the difference between a legal gun and an illegal gun.
I like the idea of needing a permit to carry or own a handgun. But even there the politicians use that against us. For example in NYC they raised the cost of a handgun permit to $340 every three years for an in-residents only permit.
In the rest of the state it's $55. Why so high in the city? Because the former mayor and current mayor are very anti-gun and would flat out ban all guns if they could get away with it.
It's like when they first made cannabis "illegal". Instead of completely banning cannabis they passed a stamp act and put a price on the stamp that no one could afford. I can see governments (state and federal) using registration and permit fees to do the same thing.
If they keep the fees reasonable then registering a gun and having permits for certain types of guns is a good idea.
In NY they do a criminal and mental heath background check on you when you apply for a pistol permit.
I don't have a problem with that.
The Safe Act requires doctors to report anyone with mental health issues to the authorities if they own a gun. That has caused problems already with doctors reporting people who suffered from mild depression years ago, but are now fine. One man had his rifles taken from him and when he sued the state a judge agreed that they should not have taken them, but they still wouldn't give him his guns back. He's been trying to get them back through the courts for about two years now, which is costing him a butt load of money.
Ideally gun laws that deal with registrations and permits should be designed to do two things. 1. Prevent unstable or dangerous people from owning a gun and 2. Protect the gun owner who owns a gun legally.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9214604].message }}

ForumGuru

Banned 12 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

I can't disagree with that.
I don't have a problem with registering firearms, I simply don't trust the govt. enough to believe they won't use it to their advantage. I really can't think of another way to tell the difference between a legal gun and an illegal gun.

Yeah, you and probably 100-200 million other Americans don't have a lot trust in the GOV these days.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/5392/trust-government.aspx

Regarding the ALL handguns (and some other guns) needing to be registered premise... If all handguns needed to be registered, and if all persons picked up with an unregistered handgun faced very stiff penalties, this would go a long way to taking some of the bad guys off of the street.

As far as telling an illegal gun from a legal gun ---> registration would sure help us be able to do that!

As I am sure you know...many things can make a gun possession illegal...filed serials, sawed off, silencers, automatics, school zones, addicts, felons etc. etc. but I do get your drift.

http://www.justice.gov/usao/ut/documents/guncard.pdf

Yeah, I have read the stories and heard the news on some of the problems with the Safe Act and I am not completely sold on that program either.

Cheers

[ 1 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9214657].message }}

ForumGuru Banned 12 years ago

Originally Posted by serryjw

THOM...I think we are all asking the wrong question. WHY do we have the criminal element and high violence that we did NOT have 50 years ago?

#1 The number of criminals is much greater than it was 50 years ago. The population is much larger and so is the number of criminals.

#2 Youth of 50 years ago would fist fight...many of the youth of today do not place a high enough value on life --> so instead of fighting with fists often times they pop caps in a$$es.

#3 Many judges do not lock up gun criminals for long enough stretches.

#4 Penalties for getting caught with illegal guns are not strong enough.

#5 Judges keep putting habitual criminals back on the streets to commit more crimes instead of locking them up and throwing away the key.

#5 The criminal justice system is horrible, it needs fixed. We need to try to rehab people and that is not happening at a high enough rate in our current system.

That's just the short list...

Cheers

-don
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9214246].message }}

Daniel Evans

12 years ago

I'm aware of what I mean and what I mean is not related to facts, figures and country comparisons. That is so.

Those factors are only what you insist on perpetuating.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9213500].message }}

sbucciarel Banned 12 years ago

Originally Posted by Daniel Evans

What I mean is not related to facts, figures and country comparisons.

Thanks for the clarification.
- [ 1 ] Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9213578].message }}

Do Background Checks In America Work To Keep Disturbed People From Getting Guns?

Trending Topics

Tribute to Mark...

What if we banned Google?

Google Adding Ads to AI?

Is sleep overrated ??

How to make affiliates sell my product??