Chicago Mayor blames "guns".
in [Motorcycles]
|
Prev: 'Lectro bike price drop
Next: Soapbox-derby style trike
From: D. Staples on 12 Nov 2009 15:38 Lookout wrote: > On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 12:29:27 -0600, "RM v2.0" <Blah(a)spamsux.com> > wrote: > >>> 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. >> Ok, how are you going to get the criminals to do that? Nasan was trained and >> screened. >> > Stupid question. and you are an idiot, so whats your point?
From: bob on 12 Nov 2009 16:37 In article <kM2dnXfXxdkhOGbXnZ2dnUVZ_rNi4p2d(a)earthlink.com>, srothstein(a)earthlink.net says... > > 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 As you said, crime is not non-existent on military bases. An officer friend of mine living on base had his and his wife's bicycles stolen a while back. -- Without the 2nd Amendment, the others are just suggestions.
From: Lookout on 12 Nov 2009 16:56 On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:07:14 -0600, Jim Alder <jimalder(a)ssnet.com> wrote: >Lookout <mrLookout(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> 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? > > Were there any this year? Depends on what you call a massacre I guess. No doubt what ever I list you'll claim wasn't a massacre. > >>>Obviously, gun control claimed a bunch more victims. >> >> Wrong. A lack of gun control allows "a bunch" more victims every year >> in the US > > Nope. Too much gun control killed them, too. Wrong again. > >> As Lenin noticed, an armed man can shoot 100 unarmed >>>men. >> >> Asinine example. > > Tell it to Lenin. > >>> 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. > > Only when you get to name yourself referee. Colleges and military bases >hardly compare to the great unwashed on the streets. Drug conflicts and >robberies are uncommon on campus and military base. Bullshit. When I was in there were tons of drugs on post. I can show you pics of me in front of a pile of coke in the barracks. On the walls there are centerfolds from High Times Magazine. You don't know what you're talking about because you never served and you never went to college. > >>>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. > > Now THAT is an insult.
From: Lookout on 12 Nov 2009 16:56 On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:34:05 -0600, The Daring Dufas <the-daring-dufas(a)stinky.net> wrote: >Lookout wrote: >> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 13:08:00 -0500, "Vito" <vito(a)cfl.rr.com> wrote: >> >>> <herman(a)comic.stp> wrote >>> | So! If there's no guns people will not be killing each other? Man they >>> | will find a way! When I was a little kid it was the ice pick that was >>> | used. I can make a zip-gun using black powder. Even if I have to make >>> | the B/P myself. I can kill a person using a rolled up newspaper. Want >>> | to out law newspapers?I can make a shank out of almost anything! >>> | A gun is only as dangerous as the nut pulling the trigger! Cars kill >>> | more people a year then guns. I don't drive so lets out law cars! >>> | >>> >>> Drop it man, you'r right but you are arguing against irrational phobia. >>> >>> Someone said that the real test of madness is doing the same thing over and >>> over ever expecting a different result. Many US jurisdictions have tried >>> keeping guns off the streets. >> >> It needs to be a FEDERAL move and not local. Can you understand that? >> >> > >It worked in Nazi Germany, it should work here. > >TDD This isn't Germany. Stupid example.
From: Lookout on 12 Nov 2009 16:58
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:37:09 -0600, bob <nottooslow42(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >In article <kM2dnXfXxdkhOGbXnZ2dnUVZ_rNi4p2d(a)earthlink.com>, >srothstein(a)earthlink.net says... >> >> 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 > >As you said, crime is not non-existent on military bases. An officer >friend of mine living on base had his and his wife's bicycles stolen a >while back. I never said "non-existent". You're lying. Especially now with the lower standards for enlistment due to the bush's worthless personal war. |