Undeniable proof that gun control works

Status
Not open for further replies.
Legislators put the term into popular culture as a means of creating fear to back their cause of banning and ultimate confiscation (because there is no reason to allow people to hold onto banned firearms). Just read the bills being pushed RIGHT NOW that include the terms forfeiture, banning, and confiscation.

Jason,I don't mean it in anger,some people are born number than a pounded thumb,glad you're not one of them.
 

packerbacker said:
Why is it acceptable to stop and frisk people that some cop feels is acting or looking suspicious and yet they are not supposed to stop folks in Arizona that appear to be illegals?
Does the ACLU have dues?

I'm actually a big fan of profiling. I think it is quite effective.
 

I also believe profiling works but is it right? That's another subject in itself. I think it's great that the murder rate is down in NY. Thing is, I believe that it is more a result of profiling and then stopping and frisking people. I truly believe that, even if they hadn't passed the gun laws, the crime rate would be the same or nearly the same as long as the cops were profiling. Thing is, NY is looking more and more like a police state under the guise of protecting the citizens.
 

How about you read what you just typed and tell me how todays proposed ban on "assault" weapons is in fact aimed at assault weapons. Please dont lecture me when you cant even see that you proved MY point with your post. I could point it out but its more fun to watch you struggle.

Sorry but everyone else cant keep giving you all the answers. You have made no good points and I am not going to waste any more of my time explaining stuff to you because all you will do is ask the same thing over and over and be lost with your own thoughts. Do some research, learn something, then you can worry about comparing notes with other people. And I didn't "lecture" you, I answered your question about what an assult rifle is. You need to read what people say before your opinion comes babbling out because it makes you look like you have no sense. Sorry that you just don't get it...have a good day!
 

packerbacker said:
I also believe profiling works but is it right? That's another subject in itself. I think it's great that the murder rate is down in NY. Thing is, I believe that it is more a result of profiling and then stopping and frisking people. I truly believe that, even if they hadn't passed the gun laws, the crime rate would be the same or nearly the same as long as the cops were profiling. Thing is, NY is looking more and more like a police state under the guise of protecting the citizens.

I think it can work well in many situation if it is a proper profile. I think there are known profiles for drug runners etc. I think profiling in the airport can be very helpful. I think with proper oversight / supervision it can be down without the violation of rights. But again that's my opinion and I know it's probably a little to conservative/authoritarian for many.
 

packerbacker said:
I also believe profiling works but is it right? That's another subject in itself. I think it's great that the murder rate is down in NY. Thing is, I believe that it is more a result of profiling and then stopping and frisking people. I truly believe that, even if they hadn't passed the gun laws, the crime rate would be the same or nearly the same as long as the cops were profiling. Thing is, NY is looking more and more like a police state under the guise of protecting the citizens.

I get detected / frisked and scanned for drugs and explosives every time I fly. I have to show Id and sign in every client I visit in NYC. They are inconveniences that I accept though really do not view them as a denial of my rights. Again I can completely understand how others might feel differently.
 

Sorry but everyone else cant keep giving you all the answers. You have made no good points and I am not going to waste any more of my time explaining stuff to you because all you will do is ask the same thing over and over and be lost with your own thoughts. Do some research, learn something, then you can worry about comparing notes with other people. And I didn't "lecture" you, I answered your question about what an assult rifle is. You need to read what people say before your opinion comes babbling out because it makes you look like you have no sense. Sorry that you just don't get it...have a good day!

This is perfect! You not only proved my points in your previous post, but now you are resorting to the standard "take your ball and go home" approach anti-gunners have. In my previous posts I pointed out that the politicians have misused the term "assault weapon" for the current legislation/ban. You denied it, yet you yourself posted a definition of an assault weapon that states it is capable of automatic fire. Current legislation is not related to automatic weapons, as that was covered in laws passed over 60 years ago! But you want me to do MY research?

So go ahead and make your ridiculous claims that I don't know what I'm talking about. To everyone else here it's obvious you have nothing but your own emotions to argue, while I am giving facts. You have yet to present a cogent argument for supporting the current gun legislation that would ban "assault" rifles. Stick around to follow the thread and maybe you will learn a bit about firearms. Or you can continue to passionately support a cause you have no understanding of. Your life, your choice.:tongue3:
 

right picker but, at the airport everyone goes through security. The NYPD is stopping and frisking people based on a profile alone, it's not just random or everyone.
 

packerbacker said:
right picker but, at the airport everyone goes through security. The NYPD is stopping and frisking people based on a profile alone, it's not just random or everyone.

If do that at the airport too instead of doing everyone. I think doing everyone is a complete waste. But I'm probably biased because I'm a very waspy looking white male.
 

technology changes, governments and human nature does not. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Governments always seek absolute power.

...As do people with guns! ;)
 

technology changes, governments and human nature does not. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Governments always seek absolute power.

Governments change all the time. No idea what you are talking about. Can you give me one example of a government that did not change over time?

Human nature is not subject to change. Human nature cannot be altered by the choices, studies, or decisions of man. Government and technology can change because the are subject to the afore mentioned.

People seek absolute power, not governments.

However, technology does change, I can agree with that. And, I agree with the quote on power.

In conclusion: You got about half of it right...not bad.
Crispin
 

...As do people with guns! ;)

Your picture is the typical leftist attempt to portray the American gun owner as fat and stupid. The truth is, the guns used by us colonists to rebel against the British Empire were the exact same weapons used by the gov't troops, not scaled down and similar in appearance only, You know what the REAL difference between the left and right images is? The one on the left actually used that gun to kill people to protect his freedom.
 

Governments change all the time. No idea what you are talking about.

Yes you do, said it just then. Most government start out with the best intentions and then change over time into self-serving monstrosities who seek absolute control over all the citizens to maintain power. It is the life cycle of government. You nailed my point exactly, so thank you.
 

Funny how you can down other peoples statistics but yours we can all believe I don't put stock in it.

Again I say according to you seizure is control.

Ammo is harder to get; primers are harder to get; brass is harder to get.
 

Have you heard of how Orlando dealt with increase in rapes in 1966?

"
You can't rape a .38 . . .

Gun control
January 21, 2013
By: Lawrence Wood
Subscribe

When it is too late to run . . .
When it is too late to run . . .
Credits:
LDW
0 Email
Government newsletter
Related topics

Gun control
second amendment
Barack Obama
women
self defense

Advertisement

Women are prime targets for the criminal. The admonitions of equality with men in almost every category by the feminist movement without standing, rape statistics demonstrate that women are prey for certain types of men with serious mental issues. Yet, the majority of women between 18 and 26 voted for President Obama. They voted for a president who does not believe that one should even use a firearm in defense of one’s own life and family within one’s own house.

In 2004, as an Illinois State Senator, he voted in opposition to a bill that would have granted an exception to the handgun ban that would have allowed one to use a firearm in defense of one’s life in one’s own home. President Obama believes that none have the right to self-defense with a firearm, even in defense of one’s life and family in one’s own home.

Yet, this president alleges that he fully supports the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. His history says otherwise. In fact, it certainly appears from his legislative and ideological history that he is more than willing to allow the rape and murder of the victim so long as the victim does not resist the felon by any attempt at self-defense with a firearm.

The liberal left has always believed that one should never oppose a criminal, that one should always retreat, locking one’s self away if possible, or to just try to survive the assault if it was not possible to get away. That is your duty as a ‘good’ citizen. After all, the criminal is a product of their upbringing and society must suffer those it produces. ‘Collateral’ damage is acceptable to the liberal, so long as the ideal is the goal. In this case, an America without firearms.

Further, the liberal believes that somehow simply putting an admonition into law immediately results in that outlawed activity ending. As if the idea of an ‘assault’ weapons ‘ban’ will accomplish anything that would save one child’s life? Of course, these same liberals are hypocrites, as their imperative in killing the unborn has resulted in the deaths of an estimated 55 MILLION Americans as a result of abortions.

The idea of rape is abhorrent to any sane, rational individual. To the liberal, given their outlook with respect to the criminal having greater rights than the victim, rape is unfortunate, but, usually survivable. It is not unexpected that there must be casualties in the progressive struggle to spread the ideology of change.

Our children are conditioned to believe that violence is abhorrent, and that civilized people respect each other's rights without violence. That one is not responsible for their actions or conduct. And, little boys should not be boys, but drugged into compliance. After all, little girls don’t act ‘that way’.

To that end, the National Education Association and the American Federal of Teachers have continually opposed any firearms in a school, including those of police and armed guards. Fortunately, saner minds have prevailed in those school districts with armed guards or police already in the schools. Belatedly, the Newtown school district has decided that armed police in the schools indefinitely may protect the children, where rhetoric and specious law and policy have failed.

In the 1960s, the city of Orlando Florida had a serious problem. 33 rapes had occurred within 9 months. A decision had to be made for the safety of the citizens. The police admitted that they were too few and far between to be of any impact. The Orlando Sun-Sentinel newspaper and the Orlando Police Department came up with a novel solution.

In 1966, self-defense firearms training was offered to the women of Orlando by the Orlando Police Department. 6,000 women took the offered training, which was well publicized by the Orlando Sun-Sentinel. Decals were given to those who completed the firearms course and placed on home windows. There was an 88% reduction in rape in the first year after the start of the firearms training program. Yet, the incidence of rape did not decrease in surrounding Florida cities. The only change was Orlando’s firearms training program for women.

Similar firearms training programs conducted in Highland Park, MI and New Orleans, LA resulted in drops in the rate of armed robbery. When Kennesaw, GA required its citizens to maintain a firearm in each household, burglaries dropped 89% during the seven months after the law passed, as compared with the same period the previous year."

Read the whole article here ----> You can't rape a .38 . . . - Anchorage Alaska Gubernatorial | Examiner.com
 

...As do people with guns! ;)

And at the same time I guess our First Amendment rights don't extend to TV, Radio, or the internet?

I guess our 4th Amendment rights don't extend to email accounts or possessions within a motor vehicle?

Of course that means under our 8th Amendment bail must be set at a maximum of about $100,000 because in 1776 anything over that would certainly be excessive.

Your pictures are cute but they are more effective in showing a shallow mindset than portraying reality.
 

I also believe profiling works but is it right? That's another subject in itself. I think it's great that the murder rate is down in NY. Thing is, I believe that it is more a result of profiling and then stopping and frisking people. I truly believe that, even if they hadn't passed the gun laws, the crime rate would be the same or nearly the same as long as the cops were profiling. Thing is, NY is looking more and more like a police state under the guise of protecting the citizens.

I think it is what NYC folks wants, since 9-11.
 

I thought Florida WAS for... LIBERAL living; DUNNO! LIBERAL in California!
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top