Just curious?

[worldtalker]

Dano, I do not have any tinfoil hat crap flying around. LOL! I don't think you have the right perspective on this. They are trying to take away the guns....did you miss New York's recent gun ban? just for a quick example. I am not sure what you mean with the 50% good and 50% bad thing though. As far as cameras and turning on cell phone mics goes, that is a direct violation of the fourth amendment: [SIZE=+1]Right of search and seizure regulated [/SIZE]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I am not willing to give up any of our rights. I guess that right there is a freedom we have and you Europeans do not. Your right on one thing "live your life" but the direction things are going a lot of lives are going to be cut short and or severely diminished.

Diesel, A very wise old man told me once,Do not try to out think the devil,he is to intelligent.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[Backbacon]

Really? The U.N. is allowing Iran a seat......

What's wrong with Iran having a seat in the UN? If anything it would help to establish a better dialogue with Iran. Relax Diesel the US already has them surrounded and is currently invading their country with drones and who knows what else. Here's a visual aid in order to calm everyone down about Iran for a bit.

 

[dieselram94]

What's wrong with Iran having a seat in the UN? If anything it would help to establish a better dialogue with Iran. Relax Diesel the US already has them surrounded and is currently invading their country with drones and who knows what else. Here's a visual aid in order to calm everyone down about Iran for a bit.
View attachment 749561

Iran is going forward with nuke program......in violation I might add and they get a seat you can't reason with madmen (Iran) By the way what is the source of your picture?

 

[Crispin]

Diesel, A very wise old man told me once,Do not try to out think the devil,he is to intelligent.

So now Dano is the devil? Don't you think you might be giving him a little too much credit there? However, you also called him intelligent so that makes up for it. lol

 

[Crispin]

Iran is going forward with nuke program......in violation I might add and they get a seat you can't reason with madmen (Iran) By the way what is the source of your picture?

Iran will never stop developing nukes. They have said numerous times it is their goal to wipe Israel off the map. They can have any seat anywhere they want to, as far as I am concerned. It will not do them any good. Israel will launch a preemptive counterattack way before they get a nuke. More power to them. When someone threatens my family and breaks into my house I don't wait for them to start shooting before I start severing limbs with my samurai sword.

Crispin

 

[0121stockpicker]

Are you asking for numbers and or statistics? I thought you did not go for these.....As you say to easily manipulated.

Whatever you or anyone else would like to provide.

Thesis - the fawb increased crime/violence:murder in the US.

If your belief is that gun control increases violence than shouldn't the passage of the fawb have lead to AB increased crime rate?

 

[G.I.B.]

 

[Dano Sverige]

Iran is going forward with nuke program......in violation I might add and they get a seat you can't reason with madmen (Iran) By the way what is the source of your picture?

Kind of like me saying Dieselrat, you can't have that gun you're going to buy!....While i have 4,000 of them, isn't it?

 

[0121stockpicker]

Iran is going forward with nuke program......in violation I might add and they get a seat you can't reason with madmen (Iran) By the way what is the source of your picture?

Iran, just like about every other country in the world, has always had a seat. That's the point of the UN?

 

[dieselram94]

Whatever you or anyone else would like to provide.

Thesis - the fawb increased crime/violence:murder in the US.

If your belief is that gun control increases violence than shouldn't the passage of the fawb have lead to AB increased crime rate?

[h=2]Expiration and effect on crime[/h]Opponents of the ban claimed that its expiration has seen little if any increase in crime, while Senator Diane Feinstein claimed the ban was effective because "It was drying up supply and driving up prices."[SUP][7][/SUP]
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studied the "assault weapon" ban and other gun control attempts, and found "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence. A 2004 critical review of research on firearms by a National Research Council panel also noted that academic studies of the assault weapon ban "did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence" and noted "due to the fact that the relative rarity with which the banned guns were used in crime before the ban ... the maximum potential effect of the ban on gun violence outcomes would be very small...."[SUP][9][/SUP]
In 2004, a research report submitted to the United States Department of Justice and the National Institute of Justice found that should the ban be renewed, its effects on gun violence would likely be small, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, because rifles in general, including rifles referred to as "assault rifles" or "assault weapons", are rarely used in gun crimes.[SUP][10][/SUP] That study by Christopher S. Koper, Daniel J. Woods, and Jeffrey A. Roth of the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology, University of Pennsylvania found no statistically significant evidence that either the assault weapons ban or the ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds had reduced gun murders. However, they concluded that it was "premature to make definitive assessments of the ban's impact on gun crime," and argue that if the ban had been in effect for more than nine years, benefits might have begun to appear.[SUP][11][/SUP]
Research by John Lott in the 2000 second edition of More Guns, Less Crime provided the first research on state and the Federal Assault Weapon Bans.[SUP][12][/SUP] The 2010 third edition provided the first empirical research on the 2004 sunset of the Federal Assault Weapon Ban.[SUP][13][/SUP] Generally, the research found no impact of these bans on violent crime rates, though the third edition provided some evidence that Assault Weapon Bans slightly increased murder rates. Lott's book The Bias Against Guns provided evidence that the bans reduced the number of gun shows by over 20 percent.[SUP][14][/SUP] Koper, Woods, and Roth studies focus on gun murders, while Lott's looks at murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assaults. Unlike their work, Lott's research accounted for state Assault Weapon Bans and 12 other different types of gun control laws.
The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence examined the impact of the Assault Weapons Ban in its 2004 report, On Target: The Impact of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapon Act. Examining 1.4 million guns involved in crime, "in the five-year period before enactment of the Federal Assault Weapons Act (1990-1994), assault weapons named in the Act constituted 4.82% of the crime gun traces ATF conducted nationwide. Since the law’s enactment, however, these assault weapons have made up only 1.61% of the guns ATF has traced to crime."[SUP][15][/SUP] A spokesman for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) stated that he "can in no way vouch for the validity" of the report.

 

[dieselram94]

Whatever you or anyone else would like to provide.

Thesis - the fawb increased crime/violence:murder in the US.

If your belief is that gun control increases violence than shouldn't the passage of the fawb have lead to AB increased crime rate?

[h=2]Expiration and effect on crime[/h]Opponents of the ban claimed that its expiration has seen little if any increase in crime, while Senator Diane Feinstein claimed the ban was effective because "It was drying up supply and driving up prices."[SUP][7][/SUP]
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studied the "assault weapon" ban and other gun control attempts, and found "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence. A 2004 critical review of research on firearms by a National Research Council panel also noted that academic studies of the assault weapon ban "did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence" and noted "due to the fact that the relative rarity with which the banned guns were used in crime before the ban ... the maximum potential effect of the ban on gun violence outcomes would be very small...."[SUP][9][/SUP]
In 2004, a research report submitted to the United States Department of Justice and the National Institute of Justice found that should the ban be renewed, its effects on gun violence would likely be small, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, because rifles in general, including rifles referred to as "assault rifles" or "assault weapons", are rarely used in gun crimes.[SUP][10][/SUP] That study by Christopher S. Koper, Daniel J. Woods, and Jeffrey A. Roth of the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology, University of Pennsylvania found no statistically significant evidence that either the assault weapons ban or the ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds had reduced gun murders. However, they concluded that it was "premature to make definitive assessments of the ban's impact on gun crime," and argue that if the ban had been in effect for more than nine years, benefits might have begun to appear.[SUP][11][/SUP]
Research by John Lott in the 2000 second edition of More Guns, Less Crime provided the first research on state and the Federal Assault Weapon Bans.[SUP][12][/SUP] The 2010 third edition provided the first empirical research on the 2004 sunset of the Federal Assault Weapon Ban.[SUP][13][/SUP] Generally, the research found no impact of these bans on violent crime rates, though the third edition provided some evidence that Assault Weapon Bans slightly increased murder rates. Lott's book The Bias Against Guns provided evidence that the bans reduced the number of gun shows by over 20 percent.[SUP][14][/SUP] Koper, Woods, and Roth studies focus on gun murders, while Lott's looks at murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assaults. Unlike their work, Lott's research accounted for state Assault Weapon Bans and 12 other different types of gun control laws.
The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence examined the impact of the Assault Weapons Ban in its 2004 report, On Target: The Impact of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapon Act. Examining 1.4 million guns involved in crime, "in the five-year period before enactment of the Federal Assault Weapons Act (1990-1994), assault weapons named in the Act constituted 4.82% of the crime gun traces ATF conducted nationwide. Since the law’s enactment, however, these assault weapons have made up only 1.61% of the guns ATF has traced to crime."[SUP][15][/SUP] A spokesman for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) stated that he "can in no way vouch for the validity" of the report.

 

[0121stockpicker]

Iran is going forward with nuke program......in violation I might add and they get a seat you can't reason with madmen (Iran) By the way what is the source of your picture?

And I'd love to hear an intelligent argument from anyone how they plan on taking over - please. The UN makes or gridlocked an incompetent gov look like a well oiled machine!!

 

[dieselram94]

As you can see. The ban really did not help anything except take away rights. But aren't we talking guns in general and not specifics anyways?

 

[Backbacon]

Iran is going forward with nuke program......in violation I might add and they get a seat you can't reason with madmen (Iran) By the way what is the source of your picture?

Google it and find out for yourself. So Iran joining the UN, thus establishing a better dialogue would be a bad thing? If my country was surrounded by 45 US military bases I would expect my government to be doing the same as theirs.

 

[dieselram94]

And I'd love to hear an intelligent argument from anyone how they plan on taking over - please. The UN makes or gridlocked an incompetent gov look like a well oiled machine!!

Based on what?

 

[Crispin]

And I'd love to hear an intelligent argument from anyone how they plan on taking over - please. The UN makes or gridlocked an incompetent gov look like a well oiled machine!!

Fifth Column.

Nuff said!

 

[dieselram94]

Google it and find out for yourself. So Iran joining the UN, thus establishing a better dialogue would be a bad thing? If my country was surrounded by 45 US military bases I would expect my government to be doing the same as theirs.

They wouldn't be surrounded if they weren't hostile....

 

[dieselram94]

Google it and find out for yourself. So Iran joining the UN, thus establishing a better dialogue would be a bad thing? If my country was surrounded by 45 US military bases I would expect my government to be doing the same as theirs.

A better dialogue with people (Iran) who want to wipe you off the map? What progress could reasonably be made? Would a better dialogue with fugitive ex-LAPD cop Christopher Dorner have actually helped?

 

[wingmaster]

You know they really want to take away our rights over here to metal detect as well, there are few places anymore to detect and they really want it so you can't even detect on your own property.

Yup! Very true mate.

Ok G.I.B...let me try to explain this once again (I get asked this a lot and explain best i can). It's not so much an "obsession" as more a "hobby", much like metal detecting. Sometimes i go out a lot - Swedish summer beaches FTW! Sometimes i go out rarely - Long dark very cold Swedish winters and snow!
I go when i feel like going and it's the same here. I joined this site when i was first into detecting to see how you lot over the pond went about it. Minded my own business on here and just looked around, but then another Brit' member asked me to back him up in an argument on some thread or other, so i did. After that thinks seemed to snowball fast - "Ohh come to the "politics forum" Dano. Naw, i hate politics sorry. Oh c'mon it'll be fun!" So i went for a looksee.
I forget the details now but someone ended up throwing the usual "we kicked your ***!....we saved you speaking German!" rubbish, so i pointed out just how wrong he was (In those days we didn't have to worry about trivialities like "personal insults" or "Tnet ToS"....miss those days lol)....Many more Americans got on my case over time, and the rest as they say..is history!

I enjoy the banter, bickering and international rivalry here, but also during arguments stuff will get said and i'll go off and research/learn what i can about that subject if it interests me enough. An example being someone going on about the battle of bunker hill (think it was RJC)...something i knew little about so went off to read up on it.Now i'm a little wiser! I do this with subjects that crop up all the time, i believe it helps me to try understand American mentality, beliefs, feelings and the like.
I enjoy learning....i enjoy a bit of rivalry....i enjoy meeting new friends and new enemies...this site helps me with all of those and probably more. So.....That's why i come!
Hope it's helped?

 

[0121stockpicker]

As you can see. The ban really did not help anything except take away rights. But aren't we talking guns in general and not specifics anyways?

So if we look back at our original thesis which stated that gun controls would increase crime, etc the evidence presented DID NOT support that thesis. So we have not proved the thesis that gun control increases crime/violence.

And yes I agree with you that the fawb was a completely constitutionally legal limitation on firearm ownership.