Chicago Mayor blames "guns".
in [Motorcycles]
|
Prev: 'Lectro bike price drop
Next: Soapbox-derby style trike
From: never on 12 Nov 2009 22:37 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? > >My experience was that the police staffing ratio was over the national >average of 1 per 2500, much as it is in small towns. 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 >> >>> 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. > >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? > >> 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. > >And it does absolutely nothing to reduce crimes of passion that you seem >to worry about. The guns are still with the owners in their houses. > >Steve Rothstein Luling! Luling, Texas? Town has the greatest barbecue house in the USA! And Luling has a great history, especially, the history of the railroad that runs right along in front of the barbecue house. DCI
From: bob on 12 Nov 2009 22:44 In article <n51pf5dirpi1etp7ue5f0tqjoect2uv02g(a)4ax.com>, mrLookout(a)yahoo.com says... > > 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. Excuse me, but what are you blabbering about? I was replying to Steve, not you. -- Without the 2nd Amendment, the others are just suggestions.
From: Benj on 13 Nov 2009 02:02 On Nov 12, 10:32 am, Lookout <mrLook...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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. If "I lose that argument" then why do your kind use it every chance you get to try to institute Lenin's idea of "men control" Since most killings are by blacks and Hispanics, why aren't you working hard to put the old Jim Crow gun bans back in place? Oh that's right. You want a police state for EVERYONE not just criminal minorities. > >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 Sorry Bub. Anyone WITH a brain can obviously see that this was simply a statement of fact. It's not an insult. We truly desire for you to have medical help with your condition. Let's hope we get socialized "single payer" health "insurance" soon. With a little help you may even no longer be affected by "gun rays".
From: Benj on 13 Nov 2009 02:04 On Nov 12, 12:49 pm, Lookout <mrLook...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 11:57:59 -0500, her...(a)comic.stp wrote: > >On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 09:32:10 -0600, Lookout <mrLook...(a)yahoo.com> > >The gang banger will never turn that gun in. You should know that. > > I never said they would. EVERY crime committed with a gun should get > you 5 years. No if, ands or buts. Second time gives you life. > > End of problem. Sorry, impractical stooopid idea. Jails are full now. Who is going to cover the cost of keeping all those minorities in jail forever? Obviously a simple well-orchestrated genocide is the answer. Will help cure the overpopulation problem too.
From: Benj on 13 Nov 2009 02:09
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! |