Chicago Mayor blames "guns".
in [Motorcycles]
|
Prev: 'Lectro bike price drop
Next: Soapbox-derby style trike
From: Lookout on 12 Nov 2009 00:46 On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 18:09:31 -0500, "Vito" <vito(a)cfl.rr.com> wrote: >"Lookout" <mrLookout(a)yahoo.com> wrote >| The problem is a lack of gun and gun owner control. > >If that were true there would be less crime where there is stricter control. >Statistics show just the opposite. >But phobia trumps fact. > There are. Look at military installations. It won't work at the state level as you can just go to the next state and buy what you want. We need NATIONAL laws that are enforced.
From: Stephan Rothstein on 12 Nov 2009 01:05 Lookout wrote: > On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 18:09:31 -0500, "Vito" <vito(a)cfl.rr.com> wrote: > >> "Lookout" <mrLookout(a)yahoo.com> wrote >> | The problem is a lack of gun and gun owner control. >> >> If that were true there would be less crime where there is stricter control. >> Statistics show just the opposite. >> But phobia trumps fact. >> > There are. Look at military installations. > It won't work at the state level as you can just go to the next state > and buy what you want. We need NATIONAL laws that are enforced. Yeah, look at the recent incident at Ft. Hood and tell me again how well that works. And there have been a lot of other crimes on base also. Note their police forces are about as proportional in size as similarly sized cities. On a more serious note though, your logic about not working at the state level would fail because it is even easier to just go off base and get any guns you want. The example of a military base having a lower crime rate actually proves that gun control is not related to crime nearly as much as other factors. Lots of gun guys on base and they own their own weapons also. That is in addition to the closely controlled military weapons. So, what is the primary factor that would explain the lower crime rate (and I agree it is lower in general)? I would look at the fact that the base has a select population as the primary example. It is not the general public, but a group of people that have been mostly screened and many of whom have had discipline instilled through military training. The use of the UCMJ instead of the civil laws might also be a factor. The fact that the military can, and does, control the civilian dependents by taking action against the military sponsor also may be a significant factor. I would say that this might be an area that is deserving of further study, but the conclusion is probably going to indicate that the presence or lack of guns is not nearly as big a factor as the select population and the justice system overall. It makes the comparison useless for the debate or could work against the gun control side. We definitely need some reforms in our civilian criminal justice system, though I would not suggest implementing a military type system for the whole country. Steve Rothstein
From: Long Ranger on 12 Nov 2009 01:47 -- Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one --Charles Mackay "Lookout" <mrLookout(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:b78nf5tnuc9g5g89ol786rlmk6142gn8h2(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 18:09:31 -0500, "Vito" <vito(a)cfl.rr.com> wrote: > >>"Lookout" <mrLookout(a)yahoo.com> wrote >>| The problem is a lack of gun and gun owner control. >> >>If that were true there would be less crime where there is stricter >>control. >>Statistics show just the opposite. >>But phobia trumps fact. >> > There are. Look at military installations. > It won't work at the state level as you can just go to the next state > and buy what you want. We need NATIONAL laws that are enforced. > It won't work at the state level because every man, woman and child will not subject themselves to the strict chain of command that governs the military. We will not subjugate ourselves to a neighborhood drill sergeant, or an entry gate into our communities where we have to salute our way in etc. THAT is the difference between military controls and civilian life. Manipulation of your behavior and whereabouts is much easier in the military under controlled circumstances. Liberals in general don't seem to realize that those sorts of conditions are exactly what they are asking for when they seek to control everyone's lives through laws for the "benefit" of everyone.
From: Benj on 12 Nov 2009 03:47 On Nov 12, 12:49 am, Lookout <mrLook...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Until the other day strict gun and gun owner control has worked just > fine on military installations. The proof is there. You can't ignore > it. The proof is in the massacre! Obviously, gun control claimed a bunch more victims. As Lenin noticed, an armed man can shoot 100 unarmed men. Worked on the Virginia Tech campus (a gun-free zone) and worked on a military base too. They had to wait for local police to come and disable the killer. Gosh that was REALLY "preventing" shootings wasn't it? The only proof that I see is that you were born without a brain. Don't worry though, I hear there are lots of liberal media who will hire you as a propagan...er...journalist.
From: Benj on 12 Nov 2009 03:48
On Nov 12, 12:46 am, Lookout <mrLook...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > There are. Look at military installations. > It won't work at the state level as you can just go to the next state > and buy what you want. We need NATIONAL laws that are enforced. Nope won't work there either, "lookout". People will just have the flood of "immigrants" from mexico import a flod of guns along with themselves. Nope, you are right. The only thing that will prevent gun crime would be a world-wide fascist police state. THEN, nobody will have anyplace to go! You are a genius! |