[Djshakes]

[quote=pri_dk]
So any effective legislation has to planned in secret and then sprung on the public without any discussion or debate?

That’s what “politics is all about?”

Where do you come up with this nonsense?

Don’t answer, I already know.[/quote]

LOL, this pretty much sounds like how the Dems ran things the last two years. Wasn’t this exactly how the healthcare legislation was passed? Overnight, in back door rooms, no time to read the 2500+ page bill, forced on the people.

[Djshakes]

[quote=pri_dk]
So any effective legislation has to planned in secret and then sprung on the public without any discussion or debate?

That’s what “politics is all about?”

Where do you come up with this nonsense?

Don’t answer, I already know.[/quote]

LOL, this pretty much sounds like how the Dems ran things the last two years. Wasn’t this exactly how the healthcare legislation was passed? Overnight, in back door rooms, no time to read the 2500+ page bill, forced on the people.

[Djshakes]

[quote=captcha][quote=CA renter]
These “disturbed people” will always have tools at their disposal: knives, guns, rope, blunt objects, their hands or feet, etc. The most “disturbed” murderers (especially serial killers) tend to prefer “close-combat tools” rather than impersonal guns.

If you hear someone breaking into your house, would you rather have a bat or a gun in your hand? Guns are “the great equalizer,” and can afford women (and men who are not physical fighters) the only chance — however slight — of subduing their attackers.
[/quote]

One of my major points is that you likely won’t have access to your firearm if you ever need it.

I spent a little over a year in military (mandatory draft) and I’m familiar with the utilitarian value of guns. I also used to hunt large game with my father and my grandfather and I am familiar with the entertaining value of guns.
Obviously, I received some basic firearms training.

In a hypothetical situation where an armed person determined to murder me or members of my family is trying to enter my house I’d rather have a gun than a bat.

However, I believe that an alarm, a dog and a bat provide sufficient protection while reducing the danger of a nosy kid hurting itself (my cousin never fully recovered from shooting himself in the left hand while playing with my uncle’s handgun).

[quote=CA renter]
Crime and murder have been with us for all of human history. Banning guns does not deter crime, and it certainly does not deter people from killing. Creating a peaceful, egalitarian society, with a sufficient social safety net is the best defense against violent criminals, IMHO; yet even in this type of society, I would prefer that people had the means to defend themselves against those who are, nonetheless, determined to be violent.[/quote]

I agree with all that. I just don’t believe that a gun in every hand helps in any way.[/quote]

My wife is an orange county native. She didn’t grow up around guns like I did in WI. She is a girlie girl. I took her shooting once to get her familiar with guns. I keep a pistol in the night stand next to the bed. I drill her from time to time to make sure she can chamber a round, etc. She isn’t a fan of guns. I’m sure she would prefer I don’t have them but does understand that in a tough situation, they can help. It is not my first line of defense as it shouldn’t be. I have the house always locked and I am installing an alarm system. However, if someone broke in and lets say I don’t have access to the gun, she might. She wouldn’t even have to shoot the perp…she could shoot in the ceiling. The sound of the gun should scare away the perp. I think most people here that are anti-gun feel that people with them are going to use them like the movies or the wild west. That isn’t the case. There different ways to use a hammer.

[Djshakes]

[quote=captcha][quote=CA renter]
These “disturbed people” will always have tools at their disposal: knives, guns, rope, blunt objects, their hands or feet, etc. The most “disturbed” murderers (especially serial killers) tend to prefer “close-combat tools” rather than impersonal guns.

If you hear someone breaking into your house, would you rather have a bat or a gun in your hand? Guns are “the great equalizer,” and can afford women (and men who are not physical fighters) the only chance — however slight — of subduing their attackers.
[/quote]

One of my major points is that you likely won’t have access to your firearm if you ever need it.

I spent a little over a year in military (mandatory draft) and I’m familiar with the utilitarian value of guns. I also used to hunt large game with my father and my grandfather and I am familiar with the entertaining value of guns.
Obviously, I received some basic firearms training.

In a hypothetical situation where an armed person determined to murder me or members of my family is trying to enter my house I’d rather have a gun than a bat.

However, I believe that an alarm, a dog and a bat provide sufficient protection while reducing the danger of a nosy kid hurting itself (my cousin never fully recovered from shooting himself in the left hand while playing with my uncle’s handgun).

[quote=CA renter]
Crime and murder have been with us for all of human history. Banning guns does not deter crime, and it certainly does not deter people from killing. Creating a peaceful, egalitarian society, with a sufficient social safety net is the best defense against violent criminals, IMHO; yet even in this type of society, I would prefer that people had the means to defend themselves against those who are, nonetheless, determined to be violent.[/quote]

I agree with all that. I just don’t believe that a gun in every hand helps in any way.[/quote]

My wife is an orange county native. She didn’t grow up around guns like I did in WI. She is a girlie girl. I took her shooting once to get her familiar with guns. I keep a pistol in the night stand next to the bed. I drill her from time to time to make sure she can chamber a round, etc. She isn’t a fan of guns. I’m sure she would prefer I don’t have them but does understand that in a tough situation, they can help. It is not my first line of defense as it shouldn’t be. I have the house always locked and I am installing an alarm system. However, if someone broke in and lets say I don’t have access to the gun, she might. She wouldn’t even have to shoot the perp…she could shoot in the ceiling. The sound of the gun should scare away the perp. I think most people here that are anti-gun feel that people with them are going to use them like the movies or the wild west. That isn’t the case. There different ways to use a hammer.

[Djshakes]

[quote=captcha][quote=CA renter]
These “disturbed people” will always have tools at their disposal: knives, guns, rope, blunt objects, their hands or feet, etc. The most “disturbed” murderers (especially serial killers) tend to prefer “close-combat tools” rather than impersonal guns.

If you hear someone breaking into your house, would you rather have a bat or a gun in your hand? Guns are “the great equalizer,” and can afford women (and men who are not physical fighters) the only chance — however slight — of subduing their attackers.
[/quote]

One of my major points is that you likely won’t have access to your firearm if you ever need it.

I spent a little over a year in military (mandatory draft) and I’m familiar with the utilitarian value of guns. I also used to hunt large game with my father and my grandfather and I am familiar with the entertaining value of guns.
Obviously, I received some basic firearms training.

In a hypothetical situation where an armed person determined to murder me or members of my family is trying to enter my house I’d rather have a gun than a bat.

However, I believe that an alarm, a dog and a bat provide sufficient protection while reducing the danger of a nosy kid hurting itself (my cousin never fully recovered from shooting himself in the left hand while playing with my uncle’s handgun).

[quote=CA renter]
Crime and murder have been with us for all of human history. Banning guns does not deter crime, and it certainly does not deter people from killing. Creating a peaceful, egalitarian society, with a sufficient social safety net is the best defense against violent criminals, IMHO; yet even in this type of society, I would prefer that people had the means to defend themselves against those who are, nonetheless, determined to be violent.[/quote]

I agree with all that. I just don’t believe that a gun in every hand helps in any way.[/quote]

My wife is an orange county native. She didn’t grow up around guns like I did in WI. She is a girlie girl. I took her shooting once to get her familiar with guns. I keep a pistol in the night stand next to the bed. I drill her from time to time to make sure she can chamber a round, etc. She isn’t a fan of guns. I’m sure she would prefer I don’t have them but does understand that in a tough situation, they can help. It is not my first line of defense as it shouldn’t be. I have the house always locked and I am installing an alarm system. However, if someone broke in and lets say I don’t have access to the gun, she might. She wouldn’t even have to shoot the perp…she could shoot in the ceiling. The sound of the gun should scare away the perp. I think most people here that are anti-gun feel that people with them are going to use them like the movies or the wild west. That isn’t the case. There different ways to use a hammer.

[Djshakes]

[quote=captcha][quote=CA renter]
These “disturbed people” will always have tools at their disposal: knives, guns, rope, blunt objects, their hands or feet, etc. The most “disturbed” murderers (especially serial killers) tend to prefer “close-combat tools” rather than impersonal guns.

If you hear someone breaking into your house, would you rather have a bat or a gun in your hand? Guns are “the great equalizer,” and can afford women (and men who are not physical fighters) the only chance — however slight — of subduing their attackers.
[/quote]

One of my major points is that you likely won’t have access to your firearm if you ever need it.

I spent a little over a year in military (mandatory draft) and I’m familiar with the utilitarian value of guns. I also used to hunt large game with my father and my grandfather and I am familiar with the entertaining value of guns.
Obviously, I received some basic firearms training.

In a hypothetical situation where an armed person determined to murder me or members of my family is trying to enter my house I’d rather have a gun than a bat.

However, I believe that an alarm, a dog and a bat provide sufficient protection while reducing the danger of a nosy kid hurting itself (my cousin never fully recovered from shooting himself in the left hand while playing with my uncle’s handgun).

[quote=CA renter]
Crime and murder have been with us for all of human history. Banning guns does not deter crime, and it certainly does not deter people from killing. Creating a peaceful, egalitarian society, with a sufficient social safety net is the best defense against violent criminals, IMHO; yet even in this type of society, I would prefer that people had the means to defend themselves against those who are, nonetheless, determined to be violent.[/quote]

I agree with all that. I just don’t believe that a gun in every hand helps in any way.[/quote]

My wife is an orange county native. She didn’t grow up around guns like I did in WI. She is a girlie girl. I took her shooting once to get her familiar with guns. I keep a pistol in the night stand next to the bed. I drill her from time to time to make sure she can chamber a round, etc. She isn’t a fan of guns. I’m sure she would prefer I don’t have them but does understand that in a tough situation, they can help. It is not my first line of defense as it shouldn’t be. I have the house always locked and I am installing an alarm system. However, if someone broke in and lets say I don’t have access to the gun, she might. She wouldn’t even have to shoot the perp…she could shoot in the ceiling. The sound of the gun should scare away the perp. I think most people here that are anti-gun feel that people with them are going to use them like the movies or the wild west. That isn’t the case. There different ways to use a hammer.

[Djshakes]

[quote=captcha][quote=CA renter]
These “disturbed people” will always have tools at their disposal: knives, guns, rope, blunt objects, their hands or feet, etc. The most “disturbed” murderers (especially serial killers) tend to prefer “close-combat tools” rather than impersonal guns.

If you hear someone breaking into your house, would you rather have a bat or a gun in your hand? Guns are “the great equalizer,” and can afford women (and men who are not physical fighters) the only chance — however slight — of subduing their attackers.
[/quote]

One of my major points is that you likely won’t have access to your firearm if you ever need it.

I spent a little over a year in military (mandatory draft) and I’m familiar with the utilitarian value of guns. I also used to hunt large game with my father and my grandfather and I am familiar with the entertaining value of guns.
Obviously, I received some basic firearms training.

In a hypothetical situation where an armed person determined to murder me or members of my family is trying to enter my house I’d rather have a gun than a bat.

However, I believe that an alarm, a dog and a bat provide sufficient protection while reducing the danger of a nosy kid hurting itself (my cousin never fully recovered from shooting himself in the left hand while playing with my uncle’s handgun).

[quote=CA renter]
Crime and murder have been with us for all of human history. Banning guns does not deter crime, and it certainly does not deter people from killing. Creating a peaceful, egalitarian society, with a sufficient social safety net is the best defense against violent criminals, IMHO; yet even in this type of society, I would prefer that people had the means to defend themselves against those who are, nonetheless, determined to be violent.[/quote]

I agree with all that. I just don’t believe that a gun in every hand helps in any way.[/quote]

My wife is an orange county native. She didn’t grow up around guns like I did in WI. She is a girlie girl. I took her shooting once to get her familiar with guns. I keep a pistol in the night stand next to the bed. I drill her from time to time to make sure she can chamber a round, etc. She isn’t a fan of guns. I’m sure she would prefer I don’t have them but does understand that in a tough situation, they can help. It is not my first line of defense as it shouldn’t be. I have the house always locked and I am installing an alarm system. However, if someone broke in and lets say I don’t have access to the gun, she might. She wouldn’t even have to shoot the perp…she could shoot in the ceiling. The sound of the gun should scare away the perp. I think most people here that are anti-gun feel that people with them are going to use them like the movies or the wild west. That isn’t the case. There different ways to use a hammer.

[Djshakes]

Interesting post from another forum with a similar topic.

Some of you may have already read my rants about why statistics are more important than emotional anecdotes. I value stats, because they allow us to see the forest through the trees. Instead of getting caught up in a tragedy like Tucson, it’s wiser for journalists and legislators to turn to statistics, because they are more telling. I’ve said before that lumping all US homicide statistics as a whole and comparing them with European crime statistics is incredibly misleading. I posted in another thread that the US has some problems it faces that are much more severe than in Europe. To name a few, we have severe issues with:

– Gang violence in inner cities
– Blood from the ongoing drug war
– Extreme racial economic disparity
– A lacking of education in inner city minorities
– Lingering issues from slavery and civil rights
– Tremendously failed welfare programs that tried to compensate for those past atrocities
– And so on…

The point I made is that those issues factor into the homicide rate much, much more than gun ownership. In fact, if you remove homicides committed by Black Americans, the group that probably suffers from the most problems related to my list above, the murder rate in the US actually drops to a level on par with Finland and Sweden. And we’ve all seen how the overall violent crime rates in the US are actually much lower than many gun free or gun-restricted zones, like the UK, France, Sweden, Austria, etc.

I decided to gather some data today and make a few charts. I took FBI crime statistics on murder (a popular figure people like to throw around) from 2009, as well as census data from 2009, and some data from the Washington Post from a survey in which the rough percentage of gun owners in each state was calculated. I plotted the murder rate per 100,000 residents in each state + DC against rough percentage firearm ownership, and percentage of the population that is Black. Here are the resulting graphs. I had Open Office add a linear regression trend-line for dramatic effect.

Note: when removing DC, the linear regression line exhibits a smaller negative slope.

The point is not to smear Black people, but rather to make people aware of how misleading their assumptions about American murder rates are. I believe some people are honestly clueless on why our murder rate is higher than Western Europe. Many have been brainwashed into thinking guns are to blame. Then there are those who cook the books and make up lies for political gun. Using an inanimate object to explain our murder rates is a way to excuse us of our real shortcomings as a nation, and allows politicians and groups like the Brady Bunch to skirt reality and avoid the real issues. The real issues we face involve gangs, drugs, education, and racial economic disparity.

The attempt to remove our Second Amendment rights because of some emotionally charged tragedies, while the real problems go completely ignored is outrageous! The level of misinformation and diversionary tactics in this country has gotten out of control, and it’s time for people to wake up to reality and stop blaming guns for everything.

[Djshakes]

Interesting post from another forum with a similar topic.

Some of you may have already read my rants about why statistics are more important than emotional anecdotes. I value stats, because they allow us to see the forest through the trees. Instead of getting caught up in a tragedy like Tucson, it’s wiser for journalists and legislators to turn to statistics, because they are more telling. I’ve said before that lumping all US homicide statistics as a whole and comparing them with European crime statistics is incredibly misleading. I posted in another thread that the US has some problems it faces that are much more severe than in Europe. To name a few, we have severe issues with:

– Gang violence in inner cities
– Blood from the ongoing drug war
– Extreme racial economic disparity
– A lacking of education in inner city minorities
– Lingering issues from slavery and civil rights
– Tremendously failed welfare programs that tried to compensate for those past atrocities
– And so on…

The point I made is that those issues factor into the homicide rate much, much more than gun ownership. In fact, if you remove homicides committed by Black Americans, the group that probably suffers from the most problems related to my list above, the murder rate in the US actually drops to a level on par with Finland and Sweden. And we’ve all seen how the overall violent crime rates in the US are actually much lower than many gun free or gun-restricted zones, like the UK, France, Sweden, Austria, etc.

I decided to gather some data today and make a few charts. I took FBI crime statistics on murder (a popular figure people like to throw around) from 2009, as well as census data from 2009, and some data from the Washington Post from a survey in which the rough percentage of gun owners in each state was calculated. I plotted the murder rate per 100,000 residents in each state + DC against rough percentage firearm ownership, and percentage of the population that is Black. Here are the resulting graphs. I had Open Office add a linear regression trend-line for dramatic effect.

Note: when removing DC, the linear regression line exhibits a smaller negative slope.

The point is not to smear Black people, but rather to make people aware of how misleading their assumptions about American murder rates are. I believe some people are honestly clueless on why our murder rate is higher than Western Europe. Many have been brainwashed into thinking guns are to blame. Then there are those who cook the books and make up lies for political gun. Using an inanimate object to explain our murder rates is a way to excuse us of our real shortcomings as a nation, and allows politicians and groups like the Brady Bunch to skirt reality and avoid the real issues. The real issues we face involve gangs, drugs, education, and racial economic disparity.

The attempt to remove our Second Amendment rights because of some emotionally charged tragedies, while the real problems go completely ignored is outrageous! The level of misinformation and diversionary tactics in this country has gotten out of control, and it’s time for people to wake up to reality and stop blaming guns for everything.

[Djshakes]

Interesting post from another forum with a similar topic.

Some of you may have already read my rants about why statistics are more important than emotional anecdotes. I value stats, because they allow us to see the forest through the trees. Instead of getting caught up in a tragedy like Tucson, it’s wiser for journalists and legislators to turn to statistics, because they are more telling. I’ve said before that lumping all US homicide statistics as a whole and comparing them with European crime statistics is incredibly misleading. I posted in another thread that the US has some problems it faces that are much more severe than in Europe. To name a few, we have severe issues with:

– Gang violence in inner cities
– Blood from the ongoing drug war
– Extreme racial economic disparity
– A lacking of education in inner city minorities
– Lingering issues from slavery and civil rights
– Tremendously failed welfare programs that tried to compensate for those past atrocities
– And so on…

The point I made is that those issues factor into the homicide rate much, much more than gun ownership. In fact, if you remove homicides committed by Black Americans, the group that probably suffers from the most problems related to my list above, the murder rate in the US actually drops to a level on par with Finland and Sweden. And we’ve all seen how the overall violent crime rates in the US are actually much lower than many gun free or gun-restricted zones, like the UK, France, Sweden, Austria, etc.

I decided to gather some data today and make a few charts. I took FBI crime statistics on murder (a popular figure people like to throw around) from 2009, as well as census data from 2009, and some data from the Washington Post from a survey in which the rough percentage of gun owners in each state was calculated. I plotted the murder rate per 100,000 residents in each state + DC against rough percentage firearm ownership, and percentage of the population that is Black. Here are the resulting graphs. I had Open Office add a linear regression trend-line for dramatic effect.

Note: when removing DC, the linear regression line exhibits a smaller negative slope.

The point is not to smear Black people, but rather to make people aware of how misleading their assumptions about American murder rates are. I believe some people are honestly clueless on why our murder rate is higher than Western Europe. Many have been brainwashed into thinking guns are to blame. Then there are those who cook the books and make up lies for political gun. Using an inanimate object to explain our murder rates is a way to excuse us of our real shortcomings as a nation, and allows politicians and groups like the Brady Bunch to skirt reality and avoid the real issues. The real issues we face involve gangs, drugs, education, and racial economic disparity.

The attempt to remove our Second Amendment rights because of some emotionally charged tragedies, while the real problems go completely ignored is outrageous! The level of misinformation and diversionary tactics in this country has gotten out of control, and it’s time for people to wake up to reality and stop blaming guns for everything.

[Djshakes]

Interesting post from another forum with a similar topic.

Some of you may have already read my rants about why statistics are more important than emotional anecdotes. I value stats, because they allow us to see the forest through the trees. Instead of getting caught up in a tragedy like Tucson, it’s wiser for journalists and legislators to turn to statistics, because they are more telling. I’ve said before that lumping all US homicide statistics as a whole and comparing them with European crime statistics is incredibly misleading. I posted in another thread that the US has some problems it faces that are much more severe than in Europe. To name a few, we have severe issues with:

– Gang violence in inner cities
– Blood from the ongoing drug war
– Extreme racial economic disparity
– A lacking of education in inner city minorities
– Lingering issues from slavery and civil rights
– Tremendously failed welfare programs that tried to compensate for those past atrocities
– And so on…

The point I made is that those issues factor into the homicide rate much, much more than gun ownership. In fact, if you remove homicides committed by Black Americans, the group that probably suffers from the most problems related to my list above, the murder rate in the US actually drops to a level on par with Finland and Sweden. And we’ve all seen how the overall violent crime rates in the US are actually much lower than many gun free or gun-restricted zones, like the UK, France, Sweden, Austria, etc.

I decided to gather some data today and make a few charts. I took FBI crime statistics on murder (a popular figure people like to throw around) from 2009, as well as census data from 2009, and some data from the Washington Post from a survey in which the rough percentage of gun owners in each state was calculated. I plotted the murder rate per 100,000 residents in each state + DC against rough percentage firearm ownership, and percentage of the population that is Black. Here are the resulting graphs. I had Open Office add a linear regression trend-line for dramatic effect.

Note: when removing DC, the linear regression line exhibits a smaller negative slope.

The point is not to smear Black people, but rather to make people aware of how misleading their assumptions about American murder rates are. I believe some people are honestly clueless on why our murder rate is higher than Western Europe. Many have been brainwashed into thinking guns are to blame. Then there are those who cook the books and make up lies for political gun. Using an inanimate object to explain our murder rates is a way to excuse us of our real shortcomings as a nation, and allows politicians and groups like the Brady Bunch to skirt reality and avoid the real issues. The real issues we face involve gangs, drugs, education, and racial economic disparity.

The attempt to remove our Second Amendment rights because of some emotionally charged tragedies, while the real problems go completely ignored is outrageous! The level of misinformation and diversionary tactics in this country has gotten out of control, and it’s time for people to wake up to reality and stop blaming guns for everything.

[Djshakes]

Interesting post from another forum with a similar topic.

Some of you may have already read my rants about why statistics are more important than emotional anecdotes. I value stats, because they allow us to see the forest through the trees. Instead of getting caught up in a tragedy like Tucson, it’s wiser for journalists and legislators to turn to statistics, because they are more telling. I’ve said before that lumping all US homicide statistics as a whole and comparing them with European crime statistics is incredibly misleading. I posted in another thread that the US has some problems it faces that are much more severe than in Europe. To name a few, we have severe issues with:

– Gang violence in inner cities
– Blood from the ongoing drug war
– Extreme racial economic disparity
– A lacking of education in inner city minorities
– Lingering issues from slavery and civil rights
– Tremendously failed welfare programs that tried to compensate for those past atrocities
– And so on…

The point I made is that those issues factor into the homicide rate much, much more than gun ownership. In fact, if you remove homicides committed by Black Americans, the group that probably suffers from the most problems related to my list above, the murder rate in the US actually drops to a level on par with Finland and Sweden. And we’ve all seen how the overall violent crime rates in the US are actually much lower than many gun free or gun-restricted zones, like the UK, France, Sweden, Austria, etc.

I decided to gather some data today and make a few charts. I took FBI crime statistics on murder (a popular figure people like to throw around) from 2009, as well as census data from 2009, and some data from the Washington Post from a survey in which the rough percentage of gun owners in each state was calculated. I plotted the murder rate per 100,000 residents in each state + DC against rough percentage firearm ownership, and percentage of the population that is Black. Here are the resulting graphs. I had Open Office add a linear regression trend-line for dramatic effect.

Note: when removing DC, the linear regression line exhibits a smaller negative slope.

The point is not to smear Black people, but rather to make people aware of how misleading their assumptions about American murder rates are. I believe some people are honestly clueless on why our murder rate is higher than Western Europe. Many have been brainwashed into thinking guns are to blame. Then there are those who cook the books and make up lies for political gun. Using an inanimate object to explain our murder rates is a way to excuse us of our real shortcomings as a nation, and allows politicians and groups like the Brady Bunch to skirt reality and avoid the real issues. The real issues we face involve gangs, drugs, education, and racial economic disparity.

The attempt to remove our Second Amendment rights because of some emotionally charged tragedies, while the real problems go completely ignored is outrageous! The level of misinformation and diversionary tactics in this country has gotten out of control, and it’s time for people to wake up to reality and stop blaming guns for everything.

[Djshakes]

Another great followup. This should put this debate to rest.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell112702.asp

[Djshakes]

Another great followup. This should put this debate to rest.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell112702.asp

[Djshakes]

Another great followup. This should put this debate to rest.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell112702.asp

[Author]

Posts