Chicago Mayor blames "guns".
in [Motorcycles]
|
Prev: 'Lectro bike price drop
Next: Soapbox-derby style trike
From: Vito on 13 Nov 2009 07:28 "Lookout" <mrLookout(a)yahoo.com> wrote "Vito" <vito(a)cfl.rr.com> wrote: | >| It needs to be a FEDERAL move and not local. Can you understand that? | >| | >Like in Washington, DC? That's very FEDERAL. | > | Federal..as in nation wide. | Idiot. Ahhhh, nationwide like in Mexico where guns are illegal? You seem to think there is little or no crime there. Heh - and you call me an idiot. Typical spoiled third grader.
From: Lookout on 13 Nov 2009 10:12 On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 20:57:08 -0600, Stephan Rothstein <srothstein(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >Lookout wrote: >> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 00:05:54 -0600, Stephan Rothstein >> <srothstein(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >> >>> 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. >> >> ONE incident. Shall we look at murders in the US? >> >>> 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. >> >> Cite? > >You were an MP, weren't you? I could be wrong since that is an >assumption from you and your wife having met while you were at >McClellan. How many people were in your unit? How big was the base? Nope, not MPs. >My experience was that the police staffing ratio was over the national >average of 1 per 2500, much as it is in small towns. Your experience? Tell me facts. > Luling, where I >live now has 14 officers for a population of 6000. Walter Reed had 50 >officers for a population of around 5000 permanent party, 1500 patients, >and 2500 civilian daytime workers. Leavenworth had about 70 MP's for a >permanent party of about 3000 and a TDY to the school of 1000 students. >They averaged around 4 family members for each person, but over half >lived off-base. This does not count the 1000 MP's assigned to the DB for >the 1600 inmates. > >> >>> 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. >> >> And their is almost no crime on bases. I was in for 9 years and that's >> a fact. Almost no crime what so ever. > >That is funny. I was an MP for 8 years, only 2 of which were guarding >all those military prisoners at the USDB. Must have been quite a bit of >crime to cram 1600 prisoners into one facility. And that was just the >felonies. The misdemeanors were kept in local stockades. The Navy >enlisted felons were also kept at their own prison in Portsmouth. > >While I was on patrol at three different bases, we handled calls for >crimes almost every day And how many were multiple deaths due to a hand gun? I know on the 5 posts where I spent 6 months or more it was almost unheard of. >>> 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 >> >> It's not a lack of guns..you're missing the point. There are a lot of >> US military personnel who won their own weapons. The fact is that they >> are locked up in a secure place AWAY FROM THE OWNER when not in use. >> This stops crimes of passion such as a fight with a spouse. It's OWN >> CONTOL as much as gun control IMHO. > >You missed the point. All those who had the guns locked up lived in >barracks. There were not nearly as many crimes of passion there, since >there were NO families to have domestic disturbance calls with. The >people living in housing had their guns in the house also. > >If the crime rate is lower, it was not do to the availability or lack of >availability of guns. The factor of the selected population is probably >much more to be credited. You can't prove it wasn't due to a lack of guns and you admit that you don't know what caused it. You used the word "probably". You seem to have no facts what so ever to back up anything you say. Don't ever join a debate club...they would laugh you out of the place. >Of course, you recognize this when you admit it is not gun control but >owner control. Are your really saying you want the full military >discipline and justice system applied to everyone in the US? I say we need more of both. I made that clear. Don't interpret what I say for me. >> ALL hand guns should be licensed >> ALL hand guns owner should be registered AFTER proper training and >> screening >> >> Simple and no one is being deprived of a gun.
From: Lookout on 13 Nov 2009 10:15 On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 23:09:57 -0800 (PST), Benj <bjacoby(a)iwaynet.net> wrote: >On Nov 12, 1:25�pm, "RM v2.0" <B...(a)spamsux.com> wrote: >> > No one is denying that. >> >> >>Maybe they will shoot you next. >> >> > I don't live in Chicago. >> >> > The problem is a lack of gun and gun owner control.. >> >> What a dumbass statement. THEY ARE BANNED! How much more control can you >> get? > >No, you don't get it. Guns give off horrible rays that make ordinary >liberals start killing each other. So even if guns are totally banned >in Chicago, gun rays pour over the border from neighboring suburbs and >states creating the high murder rates. The only solution is to >eliminate ALL gun rays and that can only happen once EVERY gun in >private hands in the entire world is gathered up and destroyed. THEN >we will all be safe and live in peace and harmony. Boy! You sure are >dumb! You have a very small mind.
From: Lookout on 13 Nov 2009 10:16 On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 07:28:09 -0500, "Vito" <vito(a)cfl.rr.com> wrote: >"Lookout" <mrLookout(a)yahoo.com> wrote >"Vito" <vito(a)cfl.rr.com> wrote: >| >| It needs to be a FEDERAL move and not local. Can you understand that? >| >| >| >Like in Washington, DC? That's very FEDERAL. >| > >| Federal..as in nation wide. >| Idiot. > >Ahhhh, nationwide like in Mexico where guns are illegal? This isn't Mexico. Apples and oranges. >You seem to think there is little or no crime there. >Heh - and you call me an idiot. >Typical spoiled third grader. Nah..typical idiot. You compared us to Mexico.
From: D. Staples on 13 Nov 2009 11:48
Lookout wrote: > On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:34:05 -0600, The Daring Dufas >> TDD > This isn't Germany. Stupid example. You are what? 12? |