Why 33 rounds makes sense in a defensive weapon

General Intelligent Discussion & One Thread About That Buttknuckle

Moderator: Andrew

Postby Rip Rokken » Thu Feb 10, 2011 2:48 am

Seven Wishes wrote:As I've stated before, I'm all for regulation of firearms. People purchasing one for self-defense who have nothing to hide have nothing to worry about. It's harder to get a loan, credit card, and health and life insurance than it is to buy a massive assault weapon that could kill 25 deer in 10 seconds. As far as banning them outright (as in Britain), it's 235 years too late.


The amount of fiction in these discussions is staggering sometimes. You can get a loan, a credit card, or health insurance even with absolutely abhorrent credit history. Of course, there are tradeoffs (extremely high interest), and loaning to high-risk people is a good part of what led to the credit collapse.

Unless you're buying a firearm from a private collector, individuals have to fill out Form 4473 every single time, followed by a call to the NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System) -- there is nothing lax about it.

http://www.ocshooters.com/Gen/Form-4473 ... m-4473.htm

Mail ordered firearms have to ship to FFL's (Federal Firearms License dealers), not individuals, so there is no way to get around the paperwork for legit purchases. The system works well, especially for people who obey the law and follow the rules.
Image
User avatar
Rip Rokken
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 9203
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 5:43 pm
Location: Vadokken City

Postby Rip Rokken » Thu Feb 10, 2011 2:58 am

Ehwmatt wrote:
S2M wrote:I call BS on that line of reasoning. People like to, again, Cherry-pick what they'd like the government to do for them. Please Stay out of my womb, gun safe, and health care issues....but please cut taxes, generate jobs, and continue to fund welfare....NOBODY has a RIGHT to a job. So why look to government to generate them.


I'm not following you here at all. I don't want to jump into the gun debate here, but this is just confusing. People who want taxes cut and jobs created generally are opponents of welfare and entitlements, so I don't see how you lump those together as a trio.


I was very confused by this too, lol. S2M's a great guy and we definitely agree on a lot of things, such as this:

S2M wrote:This world is on the fast track to shitsville.


Once he begins flailing wildly though, I start thinking he really needs a hug more than an answer. :)
Image
User avatar
Rip Rokken
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 9203
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 5:43 pm
Location: Vadokken City

Postby Rip Rokken » Thu Feb 10, 2011 3:09 am

S2M wrote:Today, the legal understanding is that the right to bear arms is primarily driven by the right to defend oneself, particularly in your own home.


Agreed. but again, are you going to take a time out from being burglarized to open your safe(perhaps LOAD the firearm) then hope you still HAVE time to protect your possessions/life?[/quote]

Your conclusions can't even be taken seriously, because they are purely based on wild assumptions. Gun safes do several things -- 1) protect them from theft, 2) protect firearms from rust (if you have a dehumidifier), and 3) keep them away from children. Many have controls like the one below which can be easily operated in the dark:

Image

But your point keeps meandering around... are you against the 2nd Amendment, or do you think that people who own gun safes aren't serious about protecting themselves because of the amount of time it would take to get into the safe and load the firearms (assuming they aren't already loaded and ready to go)? We live in a great neighborhood, and crime still happens. My neighbor two doors down had their car broken into a couple of nights ago. I make a withdrawal from the safe each night, and a deposit each morning. Most people I know who are concerned with home defense are a little more proactive than you think.
Image
User avatar
Rip Rokken
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 9203
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 5:43 pm
Location: Vadokken City

Postby Rip Rokken » Thu Feb 10, 2011 3:14 am

S2M wrote:Government tells you what you NEED everyday....and you put up with it. But you want to pick and choose what that government will do for you. Government has told you what medicines you can and cannot use. Told you that you need car insurance(state level government, but govt. nonetheless). And government has told you that you are required to pay income tax. Now granted, you don't have to pay the taxes, but you are required, and there can be consequences....And you are right, government is SUPPOSED to be representative on the people. It is rarely the case. And it is telling exactly what issues people wil fight for, and which ones they ignore. A person that fights for firearms, yet doesn't bat an eyelash at border security, or issues about illegal narcotics - has their priorities backwards....


More aimless rantings, lol... which side of the fence are you even arguing from? Most people I know who are concerned about firearm rights are every bit as concerned about border security and illegal narcotics. Man, I'm really getting the impression you aren't even serious about the discussion at this point.
Image
User avatar
Rip Rokken
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 9203
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 5:43 pm
Location: Vadokken City

Postby Rip Rokken » Thu Feb 10, 2011 3:23 am

Archetype wrote:
Saint John wrote:
Archetype wrote:My AK-74 is next to my bed with a loaded 30 round magazine.


Where the fuck do you live ... Somalia? :lol:


I made a post earlier that was something to the effect of wanting the best :wink:


LOL... my AK has to be the most fun to shoot of any of my rifles. Mine has a side-folding stock and a replacement handgrip -- it's great as a pistol or a rifle. Other than those additions, I've left it as-is, because I like it rugged with the original wood on the front.
Image
User avatar
Rip Rokken
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 9203
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 5:43 pm
Location: Vadokken City

Postby Archetype » Thu Feb 10, 2011 5:47 am

Rip Rokken wrote:
Archetype wrote:
Saint John wrote:
Archetype wrote:My AK-74 is next to my bed with a loaded 30 round magazine.


Where the fuck do you live ... Somalia? :lol:


I made a post earlier that was something to the effect of wanting the best :wink:


LOL... my AK has to be the most fun to shoot of any of my rifles. Mine has a side-folding stock and a replacement handgrip -- it's great as a pistol or a rifle. Other than those additions, I've left it as-is, because I like it rugged with the original wood on the front.


I have an Arsenal SGL31 and it is probably the best rifle I own (or have ever owned) I have shot over 8,500 rounds through it now with no flaws on hiccups. Granted, I clean it after every range session because I shoot corrosive surplus ammunition most of the time. I just picked up a TGI AMD-65 and it's also quickly proving to be a terrific investment.

Image

Image
"It's really important if you're going to remain a valid band that you play your new stuff. Otherwise you become a parody of what you started out doing." - Janick Gers of Iron Maiden
Archetype
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 2583
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 9:06 am
Location: Andromeda

Postby S2M » Thu Feb 10, 2011 6:46 am

I guess what it really boils down to is I'd like to see extremely strict gun laws, and see courts being serious about enforcing them. I'm talking about Draconian laws...a few here have said laws aren't deterents(sp), and that criminals are criminals inside - and won't change. Maybe true, but if you lock them up for a sufficient amount of time, and not just slap them on the wrists...perhaps it will work. Personally, any crime that involves a weapon should automatically add 25 years to a sentence, without parole.
Tom Brady IS the G.O.A.T.
User avatar
S2M
MP3
 
Posts: 11981
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 4:43 am
Location: In a bevy of whimsy

Postby Archetype » Thu Feb 10, 2011 7:00 am

So you want murder, robbery, battery, and terroristic threats to be illegal? They already are. Add stiffer sentences to those offenses and leave guns alone.
"It's really important if you're going to remain a valid band that you play your new stuff. Otherwise you become a parody of what you started out doing." - Janick Gers of Iron Maiden
Archetype
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 2583
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 9:06 am
Location: Andromeda

Postby S2M » Thu Feb 10, 2011 7:12 am

Archetype wrote:So you want murder, robbery, battery, and terroristic threats to be illegal? They already are. Add stiffer sentences to those offenses and leave guns alone.


Dude, seriously, get over yourself. Really...you own guns, so fucking what. I can tell by your responses that you are a card-carrying member of the National Retard Association...Stricter laws is a start. And although not as much as illegal guns, guns obtained legally are responsible for a good 10% of violent crime.

No one will ever take your precious guns away from you....I realize you are feeling wood just talking about this stuff. :roll:
Tom Brady IS the G.O.A.T.
User avatar
S2M
MP3
 
Posts: 11981
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 4:43 am
Location: In a bevy of whimsy

Postby hoagiepete » Thu Feb 10, 2011 10:00 am

I don't own a gun. Never even owned a BB gun.

The anti gun argument is weak and off point.

Why up the penalty on crimes only committed with guns? If someone kills another, the victim is dead. Period. Didn't matter if it was a bullet, a blade, a car, a bomb, bare hands or a fall off a roof. They're dead and the other person is a murderer.

UP the penalties on all these crimes. Makes sense. Singling out one weapon does not.

Let's see...following this logic...

better ban karate classes, knives of all kinds, machetes? oh my, gun powder, fertilizer, any toxic chemicals, tall buildings with balconies, cars/trucks...they could do serious damage to a crowd, flammables including gasoline... you could go on and on.
hoagiepete
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1610
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 10:16 am

Postby S2M » Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:11 pm

hoagiepete wrote:I don't own a gun. Never even owned a BB gun.

The anti gun argument is weak and off point.

Why up the penalty on crimes only committed with guns? If someone kills another, the victim is dead. Period. Didn't matter if it was a bullet, a blade, a car, a bomb, bare hands or a fall off a roof. They're dead and the other person is a murderer.

UP the penalties on all these crimes. Makes sense. Singling out one weapon does not.

Let's see...following this logic...

better ban karate classes, knives of all kinds, machetes? oh my, gun powder, fertilizer, any toxic chemicals, tall buildings with balconies, cars/trucks...they could do serious damage to a crowd, flammables including gasoline... you could go on and on.


Again, error in logic. I'm talking utility. Fertilizer, knives, tall buildings, and vehicles aren't primarily used to kill people. A gun's sole purpose is to maim and kill....therefore it should be regulated by a different set of rules. Murder aside, I'm talking any crime in which a firearm is used. You rob a store, use a gun....25 years. Mandatory. No reduced time.
Tom Brady IS the G.O.A.T.
User avatar
S2M
MP3
 
Posts: 11981
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 4:43 am
Location: In a bevy of whimsy

Postby Rip Rokken » Thu Feb 10, 2011 2:55 pm

Archetype wrote:I have an Arsenal SGL31 and it is probably the best rifle I own (or have ever owned) I have shot over 8,500 rounds through it now with no flaws on hiccups. Granted, I clean it after every range session because I shoot corrosive surplus ammunition most of the time. I just picked up a TGI AMD-65 and it's also quickly proving to be a terrific investment.

Image

Image


What a freaking trip -- I just saw one exactly like that (top photo) at a show a week ago, and it's the only thing I kept coming back to while I was there (except for an exceptionally nice Enfield No. 5 Jungle Carbine). The seller was closing out a personal collection and was practically giving it away at $325.00. I couldn't believe it and probably should have snagged it, but I'd promised myself I'd stick to what I went there for this time.

This is mine -- it's actually a MAK-90 that I bought during the ban several years ago, then sold to my boss. When I started collecting again he sold it back to me and I replaced the thumbhole stock with this side-folder and pistol grip. He'd misplaced my original metal mags, so I bought a polymer mag and love it. Everything I have is fun to shoot, but if I could only keep one, it would be a very hard choice between this and my Armalite AR.

Image

Image

Mil surp ammo is a great value, for sure. I stick to non-corrosive as much as possible because I don't always like cleaning them as soon as I get home. I think too many hours of cleaning out cosmoline with a hair dryer and a few rolls of paper towels made me kinda lazy, lol.
Image
User avatar
Rip Rokken
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 9203
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 5:43 pm
Location: Vadokken City

Postby Rip Rokken » Thu Feb 10, 2011 3:08 pm

S2M wrote:I guess what it really boils down to is I'd like to see extremely strict gun laws, and see courts being serious about enforcing them. I'm talking about Draconian laws...a few here have said laws aren't deterents(sp), and that criminals are criminals inside - and won't change. Maybe true, but if you lock them up for a sufficient amount of time, and not just slap them on the wrists...perhaps it will work. Personally, any crime that involves a weapon should automatically add 25 years to a sentence, without parole.


I deal with facts, not fantasies. The jails and prisons so overcrowded that crime simply pays these days. Nothing will change there, and lawmakers neither create laws like you wish for nor have any willingness to enforce the good ones already in the books. What is it you have against firearm ownership, anyway?

S2M wrote:
Archetype wrote:So you want murder, robbery, battery, and terroristic threats to be illegal? They already are. Add stiffer sentences to those offenses and leave guns alone.


Dude, seriously, get over yourself. Really...you own guns, so fucking what. I can tell by your responses that you are a card-carrying member of the National Retard Association...Stricter laws is a start. And although not as much as illegal guns, guns obtained legally are responsible for a good 10% of violent crime.

No one will ever take your precious guns away from you....I realize you are feeling wood just talking about this stuff. :roll:


A plethora of personal attacks, lol... yep, that's the signal -- the dying gasp of one stubborn in the wake of defeat. :)
Image
User avatar
Rip Rokken
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 9203
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 5:43 pm
Location: Vadokken City

Postby S2M » Thu Feb 10, 2011 3:12 pm

Rip Rokken wrote:
S2M wrote:I guess what it really boils down to is I'd like to see extremely strict gun laws, and see courts being serious about enforcing them. I'm talking about Draconian laws...a few here have said laws aren't deterents(sp), and that criminals are criminals inside - and won't change. Maybe true, but if you lock them up for a sufficient amount of time, and not just slap them on the wrists...perhaps it will work. Personally, any crime that involves a weapon should automatically add 25 years to a sentence, without parole.


I deal with facts, not fantasies. The jails and prisons so overcrowded that crime simply pays these days. Nothing will change there, and lawmakers neither create laws like you wish for nor have any willingness to enforce the good ones already in the books. What is it you have against firearm ownership, anyway?

S2M wrote:
Archetype wrote:So you want murder, robbery, battery, and terroristic threats to be illegal? They already are. Add stiffer sentences to those offenses and leave guns alone.


Dude, seriously, get over yourself. Really...you own guns, so fucking what. I can tell by your responses that you are a card-carrying member of the National Retard Association...Stricter laws is a start. And although not as much as illegal guns, guns obtained legally are responsible for a good 10% of violent crime.

No one will ever take your precious guns away from you....I realize you are feeling wood just talking about this stuff. :roll:


A plethora of personal attacks, lol... yep, that's the signal -- the dying gasp of one stubborn in the wake of defeat. :)



Using similiar logic - You can't stop the drug industry either. So might as well make cocaine, heroin, weed, and the like - legal.
Tom Brady IS the G.O.A.T.
User avatar
S2M
MP3
 
Posts: 11981
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 4:43 am
Location: In a bevy of whimsy

Postby Rip Rokken » Thu Feb 10, 2011 3:18 pm

S2M wrote:Using similiar logic - You can't stop the drug industry either. So might as well make cocaine, heroin, weed, and the like - legal.


That's similar lack of logic. I've never bought into the legalize drugs argument, and just look at it this way -- would more or less people use (and abuse) drugs if they were legal and inexpensive? Unquestionably more.
Image
User avatar
Rip Rokken
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 9203
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 5:43 pm
Location: Vadokken City

Postby RossValoryRocks » Thu Feb 10, 2011 3:18 pm

S2M wrote:
Rip Rokken wrote:
S2M wrote:I guess what it really boils down to is I'd like to see extremely strict gun laws, and see courts being serious about enforcing them. I'm talking about Draconian laws...a few here have said laws aren't deterents(sp), and that criminals are criminals inside - and won't change. Maybe true, but if you lock them up for a sufficient amount of time, and not just slap them on the wrists...perhaps it will work. Personally, any crime that involves a weapon should automatically add 25 years to a sentence, without parole.


I deal with facts, not fantasies. The jails and prisons so overcrowded that crime simply pays these days. Nothing will change there, and lawmakers neither create laws like you wish for nor have any willingness to enforce the good ones already in the books. What is it you have against firearm ownership, anyway?

S2M wrote:
Archetype wrote:So you want murder, robbery, battery, and terroristic threats to be illegal? They already are. Add stiffer sentences to those offenses and leave guns alone.


Dude, seriously, get over yourself. Really...you own guns, so fucking what. I can tell by your responses that you are a card-carrying member of the National Retard Association...Stricter laws is a start. And although not as much as illegal guns, guns obtained legally are responsible for a good 10% of violent crime.

No one will ever take your precious guns away from you....I realize you are feeling wood just talking about this stuff. :roll:


A plethora of personal attacks, lol... yep, that's the signal -- the dying gasp of one stubborn in the wake of defeat. :)



Using similiar logic - You can't stop the drug industry either. So might as well make cocaine, heroin, weed, and the like - legal.


None of those are right guaranteed by the Constitution. I actually think they should be legal...and taxed accordingly...
User avatar
RossValoryRocks
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2003 4:47 pm

Postby verslibre » Thu Feb 10, 2011 3:21 pm

S2M wrote:Again, error in logic. I'm talking utility. Fertilizer, knives, tall buildings, and vehicles aren't primarily used to kill people.


The only gap in logic I see is CA, NY and other states banning non-bladed weapons like the nunchaku, manriki (chain) and the three-sectional staff. Yes, they are capable of inflicting serious, even lethal, damage on an opponent, but they're primarily for use in close quarters.

I don't see why guns should be banned. Those who possess guns and register them are generally responsible citizens.

The assholes who don't give a shit one way or the other and simply use them for murder and theft are still going to acquire them, whether they're legal or not.
"Heer's ta swimmen wid bowlegged wimmen!"
verslibre
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 6873
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 12:55 pm

Postby verslibre » Thu Feb 10, 2011 3:24 pm

RossValoryRocks wrote:
S2M wrote:Using similiar logic - You can't stop the drug industry either. So might as well make cocaine, heroin, weed, and the like - legal.


None of those are right guaranteed by the Constitution. I actually think they should be legal...and taxed accordingly...


Fuck, yeah! Legalize and regulate. California's budget crisis will disappear overnight.

Why the fuck is prostitution illegal? Regulate that shit. This may shock some people on here, but I don't see the big deal in a guy going and getting a no-strings blowjob. Better than his ass getting trashed at a bar and then getting behind the wheel.
"Heer's ta swimmen wid bowlegged wimmen!"
verslibre
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 6873
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 12:55 pm

Postby S2M » Thu Feb 10, 2011 3:30 pm

None of those are right guaranteed by the Constitution. I actually think they should be legal...and taxed accordingly...

Stu, meaning that just because there is an alleged sense of failure in the enforcing of established gunlaws, it shouldn't mean that you give up as a country. I don't really see the ATF actually trying to stop the importing of guns from China. You never hear of caches of guns being comandeered by that agency. its like a non-issue.

I also think that a purchase of a weapon should come with a caveat: If this weapon is used in an illegal act, even though YOU, the owner, wasn't involved - you can still be held responsible on some charge. You want to purchase a gun legally, then be MORE than responsible for it...
Tom Brady IS the G.O.A.T.
User avatar
S2M
MP3
 
Posts: 11981
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 4:43 am
Location: In a bevy of whimsy

Postby Rip Rokken » Thu Feb 10, 2011 3:38 pm

RossValoryRocks wrote:None of those are right guaranteed by the Constitution. I actually think they should be legal...and taxed accordingly...


There are endless firearm safety resources, and countless numbers of people who handle firearms safely. Should we offer drug safety courses to teach people how to snort or shoot up responsibly and without creating a danger to other people? Brain chemistry is a finicky thing, and I am also absolutely against anyone being able to use their personally induced altered states as an excuse or defense for anything calamities they cause

I honestly don't care what people do to themselves as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, but addicts generally find a way.
Image
User avatar
Rip Rokken
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 9203
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 5:43 pm
Location: Vadokken City

Postby Rip Rokken » Thu Feb 10, 2011 4:04 pm

S2M wrote:I also think that a purchase of a weapon should come with a caveat: If this weapon is used in an illegal act, even though YOU, the owner, wasn't involved - you can still be held responsible on some charge. You want to purchase a gun legally, then be MORE than responsible for it...


Ya know, you don't seem like a very happy guy... Whatever it is you have against firearm ownership, you can't legislate based on resentment and cartoonish stereotypes. That is irresponsibility.

Me personally, I think if someone is purposefully careless with their firearms, such as leaving them around in plain sight or in a way that put children in danger, then I can see some punishment if a crime is committed, sure. Criminally, if kids were involved it would be the same type of thing as child endangerment, but otherwise it's a civil matter if someone thinks they have a case and wants to pursue it.

You can never guard 100% against theft, so your idea is unfair. You just have something against gun ownership for some reason and are throwing darts to throw darts.
Image
User avatar
Rip Rokken
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 9203
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 5:43 pm
Location: Vadokken City

Postby S2M » Thu Feb 10, 2011 4:13 pm

Rip Rokken wrote:
S2M wrote:I also think that a purchase of a weapon should come with a caveat: If this weapon is used in an illegal act, even though YOU, the owner, wasn't involved - you can still be held responsible on some charge. You want to purchase a gun legally, then be MORE than responsible for it...


Ya know, you don't seem like a very happy guy... Whatever it is you have against firearm ownership, you can't legislate based on resentment and cartoonish stereotypes. That is irresponsibility.

Me personally, I think if someone is purposefully careless with their firearms, such as leaving them around in plain sight or in a way that put children in danger, then I can see some punishment if a crime is committed, sure. Criminally, if kids were involved it would be the same type of thing as child endangerment, but otherwise it's a civil matter if someone thinks they have a case and wants to pursue it.

You can never guard 100% against theft, so your idea is unfair. You just have something against gun ownership for some reason and are throwing darts to throw darts.


Like I said in an earlier post....I don't have anything against gun ownership insomuch as I take issue with the stoic, almost radical views of the gun owners. I'm the Devil's Advocate....my name is Sean....nice to meet you. I'm not unhappy. Just neither a lemming, nor a conformist. Take it, or leave it. I could poke holes in the fallacious arguments laid down here, but I won't....fairness has nothing to do with things, Rip.
Tom Brady IS the G.O.A.T.
User avatar
S2M
MP3
 
Posts: 11981
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 4:43 am
Location: In a bevy of whimsy

Postby Rip Rokken » Thu Feb 10, 2011 4:40 pm

S2M wrote:Like I said in an earlier post....I don't have anything against gun ownership insomuch as I take issue with the stoic, almost radical views of the gun owners. I'm the Devil's Advocate....my name is Sean....nice to meet you. I'm not unhappy. Just neither a lemming, nor a conformist. Take it, or leave it. I could poke holes in the fallatious arguments laid down here, but I won't....fairness has nothing to do with things, Rip.


Stoic, radical views of which gun owners? Of course there are some paranoids and extremists out there, and a few folks who live in fantasy land. They are a minority.

If someone plays Devil's Advocate as a matter of routine, then they really come off as not standing for much except arguing for the sake of arguing. I'm all for thought provoking conversation, but without the "thought" part it's just provoking, lol. I'd love to take you seriously man -- I just still trying to figure out when you're serious. Tito resolved all such mysteries for me when he came out with his "Joe Jackson Appreciation Thread".

Image
Image
User avatar
Rip Rokken
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 9203
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 5:43 pm
Location: Vadokken City

Postby Seven Wishes2 » Thu Feb 10, 2011 6:57 pm

Rip Rokken wrote:
The amount of fiction in these discussions is staggering sometimes. You can get a loan, a credit card, or health insurance even with absolutely abhorrent credit history. Of course, there are tradeoffs (extremely high interest), and loaning to high-risk people is a good part of what led to the credit collapse.


Rip, with all due respect, you've taken this completely out of context - or perhaps I should have framed the statement differently.

You're more likely to get REJECTED for essentials like health and life insurance - even care insurance and business loans - than you are to have your "application" to own a firearm turned down.
User avatar
Seven Wishes2
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1621
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 11:49 am
Location: Charlotte, NC

Postby S2M » Fri Feb 11, 2011 12:15 am

Rip Rokken wrote:
S2M wrote:Like I said in an earlier post....I don't have anything against gun ownership insomuch as I take issue with the stoic, almost radical views of the gun owners. I'm the Devil's Advocate....my name is Sean....nice to meet you. I'm not unhappy. Just neither a lemming, nor a conformist. Take it, or leave it. I could poke holes in the fallatious arguments laid down here, but I won't....fairness has nothing to do with things, Rip.


Stoic, radical views of which gun owners? Of course there are some paranoids and extremists out there, and a few folks who live in fantasy land. They are a minority.

If someone plays Devil's Advocate as a matter of routine, then they really come off as not standing for much except arguing for the sake of arguing. I'm all for thought provoking conversation, but without the "thought" part it's just provoking, lol. I'd love to take you seriously man -- I just still trying to figure out when you're serious. Tito resolved all such mysteries for me when he came out with his "Joe Jackson Appreciation Thread".

Image


In my case, not true. I just don't blindly follow the staus quo and take things at face value. Never have. I constantly took my college professors to task. Questioning everything. I've never been a what guy, always been a why guy. A society that stops asking questions is a society that embraces ignorance...I remember getting into discussions with my father late in his life(ages 55-71). We would be discussing some policy, rule, judgment, decision....etc. And I would ask why it is, or why he believed a certain way. and he would respond, 'Cause that's the way it is, Sean' or 'That's the way it's always been'. And I would just look at him and shake my head. Cause he had 'givin up' on life. Comfortable just going to work, collecting a paycheck, coming home and checking out of life till 4:30 the next morning when he had to do it all over again. I sort of lost respect for my father during those times. How can a person come to the table with, 'Cause that's the way it's always been'? And that's why i feel the way I do. The way I post the way I do. Granted, sometimes my tone is magnanimous, and I apologize....I'm just shocked at the attitudes of some people. Apathy is a better word.
Tom Brady IS the G.O.A.T.
User avatar
S2M
MP3
 
Posts: 11981
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 4:43 am
Location: In a bevy of whimsy

Postby Saint John » Fri Feb 11, 2011 2:50 am

Keep the guns away from blacks and Mexicans and the problem is virtually gone. Exhibit A:


Official Department of Justice statistics show that black people committed 52.2% of murders for the year 2005 (the most recent statistics available at this time) despite being only 12.1% of the population. Whites (which under US law, includes Latinos), who represent 74.7% of Americans, committed 45.8% of murders.

If we assume a population of 300 million in America for 2005, that means that there were approximately 36.6 million blacks and 224.1 million whites that year.

The total murders by all races in 2005 was 17,029. 52.2% of those were committed by blacks, or 8,889 murders. 45.8% were committed by whites and Latinos, or 7,799 murders.

What this means is that the rate of murder (talking about offenders here, not victims) among all blacks in America is 8,889 in 36.6 million, or 24.7 murderers per 100,000 black people. The rate of murder among whites (including Latinos) is 7,799 per 224.1 million, which equates with 3.38 per 100,000.

The way that the FBI collects data makes it difficult to try to ascertain the differences in crime rates between "Anglo" whites and Latino "whites." In common usage, Latinos and whites are considered separate races. We can arrive at an estimate using the published California statistics for arrestees for murder.

In California, with an estimated 2005 population of 37 million, Latinos represented 35.9% of the population, or 13.3 million people. They were arrested for committing 48.4% of 2005's 1956 murders, which means that there were 946 arrests of Latinos for murder.

946 murders per 13.3 million people breaks down to a rate of 7.11 murder arrest per 100,000 Latinos.

Now for the white arrests. Whites in 2005 were 43.0% of the population of California, or 15,910,000 people. They represented 19.7% of the arrests for murder, or 386 arrests. That represents a rate of 2.42 per 100,000.

What this tells us is that any given Latino was 2.94 times more likely to be arrested for murder in California than was any given white.

Let's assume for a moment that the ratio between whites and Latinos is the same in terms of arrests for murder in California and convictions for murder nationwide, and apply that ratio to the above statistic for the murder rate of whites and Latinos combined. It may not be exactly correct, but for want of better statistics, it's the best estimate for the time being.

There were about 41.5 million Latinos in the US in 2005, and about 182,600,000 "Anglo" whites, and both groups combined committed 7799 murders. If the rate of Latinos murdering is 2.94 that of "Anglo" whites, that puts the white rate at 2.63 per 100,000, and the Latino rate at 7.73 per 100,000.

So there we have it. Latinos commit murder at a rate of nearly three times that of "Anglo" whites, and blacks commit murder at a whopping 9.4 times that of "Anglo" whites.

Now to the meat of the argument. Gun availability is the same for all of these racial groups. If gun availability has anything to do with propensity to commit murder, why is there a three times greater propensity for Latinos to kill than whites, and a nine times greater propensity for blacks to kill than whites?

Clearly, there is some other thing at work here. I don't pretend to know why this is, but it's not the availability of guns. It's certainly not going to slow the murders down by ignoring the vastly different rates of murder between different races and favoring things like gun bans that are proven to make things worse.

If you find these statistics hard to swallow... so did I when I first read them. If the much higher conviction rates for blacks and Latinos was a result of white racism against minorities, it would seem that the conviction rates for Asians (which includes individuals whose ancestry goes back to India as well as China, for example) would not be lower than that of whites, let alone blacks and Latinos, and it would also seem that the rate of conviction for Latinos would be much closer to that of blacks than it is.
User avatar
Saint John
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 21723
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:31 pm
Location: Uranus

Postby Archetype » Fri Feb 11, 2011 3:27 am

S2M wrote:None of those are right guaranteed by the Constitution. I actually think they should be legal...and taxed accordingly...

Stu, meaning that just because there is an alleged sense of failure in the enforcing of established gunlaws, it shouldn't mean that you give up as a country. I don't really see the ATF actually trying to stop the importing of guns from China. You never hear of caches of guns being comandeered by that agency. its like a non-issue.

I also think that a purchase of a weapon should come with a caveat: If this weapon is used in an illegal act, even though YOU, the owner, wasn't involved - you can still be held responsible on some charge. You want to purchase a gun legally, then be MORE than responsible for it...


Actually, Chinese guns haven't been coming in since the mid 1990s thanks to the ATF under direction of the Clinton administration. Would you like to try again? The sole purpose of a gun is NOT to maim and kill. There are literally dozens of sports for firearms, they are used for personal protection from both humans and animals, and they are Constitutionally guaranteed.

You're welcome to try to insult me all you like, but it says a lot more about you than it says about me.

It's also ironic that you take about ATF stopping imports. Why don't you take a look at a study they released very recently?

PDF File here
Last edited by Archetype on Fri Feb 11, 2011 4:00 am, edited 2 times in total.
"It's really important if you're going to remain a valid band that you play your new stuff. Otherwise you become a parody of what you started out doing." - Janick Gers of Iron Maiden
Archetype
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 2583
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 9:06 am
Location: Andromeda

Postby Archetype » Fri Feb 11, 2011 3:30 am

Seven Wishes wrote:
Rip Rokken wrote:
The amount of fiction in these discussions is staggering sometimes. You can get a loan, a credit card, or health insurance even with absolutely abhorrent credit history. Of course, there are tradeoffs (extremely high interest), and loaning to high-risk people is a good part of what led to the credit collapse.


Rip, with all due respect, you've taken this completely out of context - or perhaps I should have framed the statement differently.

You're more likely to get REJECTED for essentials like health and life insurance - even care insurance and business loans - than you are to have your "application" to own a firearm turned down.


You take part in any of the many things listen on form 4473, and are convicted of it, you don't get to buy a gun. Ever again. Have you ever filled out form 4473 and had the dealer call NICS? Are you familiar with the process at all?

You get rejected for those other things because a private company is out to make money, not do you a favor by giving you insurance.
"It's really important if you're going to remain a valid band that you play your new stuff. Otherwise you become a parody of what you started out doing." - Janick Gers of Iron Maiden
Archetype
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 2583
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 9:06 am
Location: Andromeda

Postby Archetype » Fri Feb 11, 2011 3:33 am

S2M wrote:
Rip Rokken wrote:
S2M wrote:I also think that a purchase of a weapon should come with a caveat: If this weapon is used in an illegal act, even though YOU, the owner, wasn't involved - you can still be held responsible on some charge. You want to purchase a gun legally, then be MORE than responsible for it...


Ya know, you don't seem like a very happy guy... Whatever it is you have against firearm ownership, you can't legislate based on resentment and cartoonish stereotypes. That is irresponsibility.

Me personally, I think if someone is purposefully careless with their firearms, such as leaving them around in plain sight or in a way that put children in danger, then I can see some punishment if a crime is committed, sure. Criminally, if kids were involved it would be the same type of thing as child endangerment, but otherwise it's a civil matter if someone thinks they have a case and wants to pursue it.

You can never guard 100% against theft, so your idea is unfair. You just have something against gun ownership for some reason and are throwing darts to throw darts.


Like I said in an earlier post....I don't have anything against gun ownership insomuch as I take issue with the stoic, almost radical views of the gun owners. I'm the Devil's Advocate....my name is Sean....nice to meet you. I'm not unhappy. Just neither a lemming, nor a conformist. Take it, or leave it. I could poke holes in the fallacious arguments laid down here, but I won't....fairness has nothing to do with things, Rip.


Basically what it seems to boil down to is you just like attention. You argue things that you are absolutely clueless about and resort to personal attacks when NO ONE follows your incredibly flawed logic and misinformed arguments.
"It's really important if you're going to remain a valid band that you play your new stuff. Otherwise you become a parody of what you started out doing." - Janick Gers of Iron Maiden
Archetype
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 2583
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 9:06 am
Location: Andromeda

Postby verslibre » Fri Feb 11, 2011 3:57 am

Saint John wrote:Keep the guns away from blacks and Mexicans and the problem is virtually gone.


Yeah, whites don't kill. Uh-huh. GTFO! :lol:
"Heer's ta swimmen wid bowlegged wimmen!"
verslibre
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 6873
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 12:55 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Snowmobiles For The Sahara

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 7 guests