[mike92104]

I would just post it on Craigslist.

[mike92104]

I would just post it on Craigslist.

[mike92104]

I would just post it on Craigslist.

[mike92104]

I would just post it on Craigslist.

[mike92104]

[quote=Eugene][quote]True, but considering the previous case(United States of America v. Robert Lee Wright, Jr), I am wondering if the attorney was aware of Haynes vs U.S. If the source of the funds is required to be documented, it may provide a shield[/quote]

Which attorney? US v. Sullivan is dated 1927, Shapiro v. US is dated 1948.

[quote]Interesting statement considering that Switzerland has the most liberal gun control laws virtually anywhere, has one of the lowest crime rates and gun assault/murder rates and is a country that several nations considered attacking but then abandoned that idea. Also consider Washington DC, which had banned handguns except for police, yet their gun assault/murder rate was amongst the highest in the nation. Mexico has one of the highest murder rates as well, getting a gun permit in Mexico is also tricky. [/quote]

Switzerland has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. This includes crimes which can’t be plausibly deterred by gun ownership (and particularly by machine gun and assault rifle ownership). In 2009, there were 8.5 registered rapes per 100,000 residents. In the U.S. in the same year, there were 27 rapes per 100,000. I’m sure that if we go through other crimes such as burglaries and car thefts (which, presumably, occur when the owner of the property being stolen isn’t present, and gun ownership can’t be a strong deterrent either), we’ll see the same thing.

Comparing gun control laws of Switzerland and D.C. or Mexico and making ANY conclusions about their effectiveness is one of the worst kinds of fallacies one can reach in this subject.

Here’s one reason why. People often mistakenly assume that most homicides involve a career criminal, e.g. a robber, shooting an innocent unfamiliar victim. It is argued that gun ownership is a deterrent to such crimes.

But, in reality, the most common kind of homicide in this country is an argument between two acquaintances, possibly (but not necessarily) under the influence of alcohol or drugs, which escalates into a fight. The second most common kind is a juvenile gang killing. (The third most common kind involves a man killing his wife or gilfriend.) I fail to see which one of these categories would be deterred by gun ownership.[/quote]

I think the point is that gun control hasn’t done anything to deter those crimes either.

[mike92104]

[quote=Eugene][quote]True, but considering the previous case(United States of America v. Robert Lee Wright, Jr), I am wondering if the attorney was aware of Haynes vs U.S. If the source of the funds is required to be documented, it may provide a shield[/quote]

Which attorney? US v. Sullivan is dated 1927, Shapiro v. US is dated 1948.

[quote]Interesting statement considering that Switzerland has the most liberal gun control laws virtually anywhere, has one of the lowest crime rates and gun assault/murder rates and is a country that several nations considered attacking but then abandoned that idea. Also consider Washington DC, which had banned handguns except for police, yet their gun assault/murder rate was amongst the highest in the nation. Mexico has one of the highest murder rates as well, getting a gun permit in Mexico is also tricky. [/quote]

Switzerland has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. This includes crimes which can’t be plausibly deterred by gun ownership (and particularly by machine gun and assault rifle ownership). In 2009, there were 8.5 registered rapes per 100,000 residents. In the U.S. in the same year, there were 27 rapes per 100,000. I’m sure that if we go through other crimes such as burglaries and car thefts (which, presumably, occur when the owner of the property being stolen isn’t present, and gun ownership can’t be a strong deterrent either), we’ll see the same thing.

Comparing gun control laws of Switzerland and D.C. or Mexico and making ANY conclusions about their effectiveness is one of the worst kinds of fallacies one can reach in this subject.

Here’s one reason why. People often mistakenly assume that most homicides involve a career criminal, e.g. a robber, shooting an innocent unfamiliar victim. It is argued that gun ownership is a deterrent to such crimes.

But, in reality, the most common kind of homicide in this country is an argument between two acquaintances, possibly (but not necessarily) under the influence of alcohol or drugs, which escalates into a fight. The second most common kind is a juvenile gang killing. (The third most common kind involves a man killing his wife or gilfriend.) I fail to see which one of these categories would be deterred by gun ownership.[/quote]

I think the point is that gun control hasn’t done anything to deter those crimes either.

[mike92104]

[quote=Eugene][quote]True, but considering the previous case(United States of America v. Robert Lee Wright, Jr), I am wondering if the attorney was aware of Haynes vs U.S. If the source of the funds is required to be documented, it may provide a shield[/quote]

Which attorney? US v. Sullivan is dated 1927, Shapiro v. US is dated 1948.

[quote]Interesting statement considering that Switzerland has the most liberal gun control laws virtually anywhere, has one of the lowest crime rates and gun assault/murder rates and is a country that several nations considered attacking but then abandoned that idea. Also consider Washington DC, which had banned handguns except for police, yet their gun assault/murder rate was amongst the highest in the nation. Mexico has one of the highest murder rates as well, getting a gun permit in Mexico is also tricky. [/quote]

Switzerland has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. This includes crimes which can’t be plausibly deterred by gun ownership (and particularly by machine gun and assault rifle ownership). In 2009, there were 8.5 registered rapes per 100,000 residents. In the U.S. in the same year, there were 27 rapes per 100,000. I’m sure that if we go through other crimes such as burglaries and car thefts (which, presumably, occur when the owner of the property being stolen isn’t present, and gun ownership can’t be a strong deterrent either), we’ll see the same thing.

Comparing gun control laws of Switzerland and D.C. or Mexico and making ANY conclusions about their effectiveness is one of the worst kinds of fallacies one can reach in this subject.

Here’s one reason why. People often mistakenly assume that most homicides involve a career criminal, e.g. a robber, shooting an innocent unfamiliar victim. It is argued that gun ownership is a deterrent to such crimes.

But, in reality, the most common kind of homicide in this country is an argument between two acquaintances, possibly (but not necessarily) under the influence of alcohol or drugs, which escalates into a fight. The second most common kind is a juvenile gang killing. (The third most common kind involves a man killing his wife or gilfriend.) I fail to see which one of these categories would be deterred by gun ownership.[/quote]

I think the point is that gun control hasn’t done anything to deter those crimes either.

[mike92104]

[quote=Eugene][quote]True, but considering the previous case(United States of America v. Robert Lee Wright, Jr), I am wondering if the attorney was aware of Haynes vs U.S. If the source of the funds is required to be documented, it may provide a shield[/quote]

Which attorney? US v. Sullivan is dated 1927, Shapiro v. US is dated 1948.

[quote]Interesting statement considering that Switzerland has the most liberal gun control laws virtually anywhere, has one of the lowest crime rates and gun assault/murder rates and is a country that several nations considered attacking but then abandoned that idea. Also consider Washington DC, which had banned handguns except for police, yet their gun assault/murder rate was amongst the highest in the nation. Mexico has one of the highest murder rates as well, getting a gun permit in Mexico is also tricky. [/quote]

Switzerland has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. This includes crimes which can’t be plausibly deterred by gun ownership (and particularly by machine gun and assault rifle ownership). In 2009, there were 8.5 registered rapes per 100,000 residents. In the U.S. in the same year, there were 27 rapes per 100,000. I’m sure that if we go through other crimes such as burglaries and car thefts (which, presumably, occur when the owner of the property being stolen isn’t present, and gun ownership can’t be a strong deterrent either), we’ll see the same thing.

Comparing gun control laws of Switzerland and D.C. or Mexico and making ANY conclusions about their effectiveness is one of the worst kinds of fallacies one can reach in this subject.

Here’s one reason why. People often mistakenly assume that most homicides involve a career criminal, e.g. a robber, shooting an innocent unfamiliar victim. It is argued that gun ownership is a deterrent to such crimes.

But, in reality, the most common kind of homicide in this country is an argument between two acquaintances, possibly (but not necessarily) under the influence of alcohol or drugs, which escalates into a fight. The second most common kind is a juvenile gang killing. (The third most common kind involves a man killing his wife or gilfriend.) I fail to see which one of these categories would be deterred by gun ownership.[/quote]

I think the point is that gun control hasn’t done anything to deter those crimes either.

[mike92104]

[quote=Eugene][quote]True, but considering the previous case(United States of America v. Robert Lee Wright, Jr), I am wondering if the attorney was aware of Haynes vs U.S. If the source of the funds is required to be documented, it may provide a shield[/quote]

Which attorney? US v. Sullivan is dated 1927, Shapiro v. US is dated 1948.

[quote]Interesting statement considering that Switzerland has the most liberal gun control laws virtually anywhere, has one of the lowest crime rates and gun assault/murder rates and is a country that several nations considered attacking but then abandoned that idea. Also consider Washington DC, which had banned handguns except for police, yet their gun assault/murder rate was amongst the highest in the nation. Mexico has one of the highest murder rates as well, getting a gun permit in Mexico is also tricky. [/quote]

Switzerland has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. This includes crimes which can’t be plausibly deterred by gun ownership (and particularly by machine gun and assault rifle ownership). In 2009, there were 8.5 registered rapes per 100,000 residents. In the U.S. in the same year, there were 27 rapes per 100,000. I’m sure that if we go through other crimes such as burglaries and car thefts (which, presumably, occur when the owner of the property being stolen isn’t present, and gun ownership can’t be a strong deterrent either), we’ll see the same thing.

Comparing gun control laws of Switzerland and D.C. or Mexico and making ANY conclusions about their effectiveness is one of the worst kinds of fallacies one can reach in this subject.

Here’s one reason why. People often mistakenly assume that most homicides involve a career criminal, e.g. a robber, shooting an innocent unfamiliar victim. It is argued that gun ownership is a deterrent to such crimes.

But, in reality, the most common kind of homicide in this country is an argument between two acquaintances, possibly (but not necessarily) under the influence of alcohol or drugs, which escalates into a fight. The second most common kind is a juvenile gang killing. (The third most common kind involves a man killing his wife or gilfriend.) I fail to see which one of these categories would be deterred by gun ownership.[/quote]

I think the point is that gun control hasn’t done anything to deter those crimes either.

[mike92104]

I would think it is a pro gun agenda. I’m not sure why they would have to spell it out.

[mike92104]

I would think it is a pro gun agenda. I’m not sure why they would have to spell it out.

[mike92104]

I would think it is a pro gun agenda. I’m not sure why they would have to spell it out.

[mike92104]

I would think it is a pro gun agenda. I’m not sure why they would have to spell it out.

[mike92104]

I would think it is a pro gun agenda. I’m not sure why they would have to spell it out.

[mike92104]

Honestly if we were in a Time Warner area, we would probably have cable. We dropped Cox because their internet was unreliable. Their network is way overextended, and I wouldn’t be able to get internet access any time there was a game or some other popular event on tv because there wasn’t enough gain. when I lived in a Time Warner area, we never had an issue.

[Author]

Posts