Chicago Mayor blames "guns".
in [Motorcycles]
|
Prev: 'Lectro bike price drop
Next: Soapbox-derby style trike
From: Vito on 12 Nov 2009 07:48 <herman(a)comic.stp> wrote | If the bad guys don't have guns they will find other ways to kill. An | ice pick will do nicely. As any prison guard will attest ... <g>
From: Vito on 12 Nov 2009 07:54 "S'mee" <stevenkeith2(a)hotmail.com> wrote "Vito" <v...(a)cfl.rr.com> wrote: > "S'mee" <stevenkei...(a)hotmail.com> wrote > [ I forgot you are as fucked in the head as those little closet faggots > [ like teddy, marty and K boy. > > Naw, but you did forget to say "Sir!". [Nope, you work a nice corner with lots of customers for your ["services". Now that the fleet is in shouldn't you be out 'working'? There you go again. If most people here read something they don't like they attack it using facts and logic. Unable to do that, you resort to personal attacks. It just makes you look childish. Grow up.
From: Lookout on 12 Nov 2009 10:32 On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 00:47:17 -0800 (PST), Benj <bjacoby(a)iwaynet.net> wrote: >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! ONE massacre...as opposed to how many in the US year? >Obviously, gun control claimed a bunch more victims. Wrong. A lack of gun control allows "a bunch" more victims every year in the US As Lenin noticed, an armed man can shoot 100 unarmed >men. Asinine example. 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? And how many killings take place on college campuses and military installations as compared to on the streets every day. You lose that argument every time. > >The only proof that I see is that you were born without a brain. And when you don't have a logical argument you insult. Just like you learned in 4th grade..and you've never grownup Don't >worry though, I hear there are lots of liberal media who will hire you >as a propagan...er...journalist.
From: Lookout on 12 Nov 2009 10:37 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? > 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. >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. 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 12 Nov 2009 10:37
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 00:48:18 -0800 (PST), Benj <bjacoby(a)iwaynet.net> wrote: >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. And I think the borders should be closed. Oopps..there goes my "liberal" title again |