Nemises – how many times can you go wrong in 3 paragraphs; you gave us your 2 cents and you did not overcharge.

“I live in California, which has the most restrictive gun laws in the USA”

Wrong, California does not require a purchase permit for possession in the home or transport for lawful purposes and for business purposes for the vast majority of handguns, rifles and shotguns. There are rules regarding semi-auto military pattern rifles but particularly effective variants with certain modifications are still allowed. This is better than most East Coast states, New York, New Jersey, Massachusettes, Illinois, and several other Midwest states. Further – California is an NFA Class III State which permits, subject to federal registration and payment of a $200 tax – the possession and use of full auto machine guns, short barreled rifles, etc. (although they are expensive). In NY and NJ – NFA items are banned.

If you are getting your gun control scorecard about California from the Brady bunch website – their gun control score is based upon a score that includes gov’t record retention, mandatory background checks, storage requirements, waiting periods, etc. – these do not limit or stop the sale and transfer of guns by and to the general populace. Since the enactment of the Federal NCIC database a number of years ago – most State law background checks are window dressing because the federal system picks up just about any country wide criminal conviction, outstanding warrants, etc. The shooter of the Congresswoman in Arizona passed the NCIC database and would have passed the California background checks as well – they are attempting to add mental hygiene state court actions to the NCIC database but there are problems with doing that.

“for example, it is almost impossible to get a CCW permit here"

Wrong – California CCW permits are issued at the County/local law enforcement level and, depending on jurisdiction, require an application and a sign off by the Sheriff. It may be impossible to get a full carry license in San Francisco – but for much of California it does not present much an obstacle beyond the 175$ fee and a training requirement. Most rural areas have de facto dispensed with the requirement and do not care if you are packed so long as you look and act like a law abiding citizen.

“You live in Texas, which has probably the most permissive gun laws in the USA.”

Wrong – Kentucky, Vermont, Louisiana, Alaska, Montana, Wyoming are all more permissive. I think one of these states has a manufacturer attempting to sell weapons outside of BATF jurisdiction by marking them for possession in the home state only – as to avoid federal regulation under the interstate commerce clause. But like I said – the permissiveness is largely related to not having storage requirements, 3 day waiting periods, things like that. The bulk of the weapons available in these state are the same as California. Vermont for example, you don’t even need a license to conceal carry.

Now I will take this next piece out of turn –

“Well, the violent crime rate (per capita) in Texas is significantly higher than in California; Texas rate is 1.32 (above) national average, California is 0.92 (below)”

You read the statistic wrong – that is the overall crime rate including larceny (theft) and auto theft – scroll to the bottom of the screen where violent crime is spelled out by category: Cali beats Texas in robbery. The violent crime rate estimate for year 2009 per 100k per capita population is

.0472 per 100k for Cali

.00491 per 100k for Texas –

There were statistically no real differences in per capital violent crime rate for 2009 – if you are going to argue crime and guns – argue violent crime and guns – not throw crimes like possession of weed, etc.

Scroll to the bottom of the chart at this link for a bar graph - the two states are neck and neck

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=Tex...CrimeRate-


Now continuing -

“ Both are populous states”

They are different – 2009 population of Cali was 38,292,687 2009 population of TX 24,873,773 –

“So you probably expect all the violent criminals from the USA to move to California to commit their crimes against the disarmed population”

No one expects that. If that were true – the 5 boroughs of NYC would have the highest crime rate in the world.

“Well, the violent crime rate (per capita) in Texas is significantly higher than in California; Texas rate is 1.32 (above) national average, California is 0.92 (below).

Uh . . NO.

“The homicide rate in "gunless" UK is three times lower comparing to the USA (1.28 vs 5.0)”

Sure – that totally makes a difference. UK crime statistics are not kept like the FBI does – but from one wiki article there are 16 violent crimes per 1000 residents – I am looking for the violent crime definitions and charts but found this article from the Daily Mail saying England has a higher violent crime rate than South Africa at 2034 violent crimes per every 100k residents – and look at this from the article -

"The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 92 and South Africa 1,609."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...z1VG69mady


I’m curious to see homicide charts for England that pre-date the handgun ban - the overall rate would still be lower than the United States - even during the years that the IRA was most active.

You are so far off base with this its not even funny. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about - you should not be setting crime policy or gun policy.

Quote: (08-16-2011 09:43 PM)Dash Global Wrote:  

Someone breaks into my house with a gun. In the UK im screwd.
I get cornered by 5 thugs in the UK. Im screwd

Sorry, but you're following the same beaten up NRA propaganda from the fantasy world. In the real world the statistics shows that you're three times less likely to "get screwed" in UK than in US. And, as many before you, you're not even trying to rebut the statistics.

Quote:Quote:

Someone gets mad at me for talking to their bitch and decides to cut or shoot me in the UK. Im screwd

Surprise - even if he decides to shoot you in UK, it is much harder to perform unless the dude is hardcore criminal with underworld connections (and at the same time too stupid to carry a gun as this alone would put him in jail). But if he's in US, he'll have no problem shooting you at all. He gets outside, finds a good spot to wait for you, and shoots you when you're out. If he is smart enough, he'll put something on his hands to prevent powder stains, and will scratch the barrel so it is not possible to do ballistics on a bullet. So unless you have a habit to leave the bars in leopard crawl with your gun in your hands, there is nothing you can really do in this scenario - you'll get shot, most likely to death (the dude doesn't need witnesses), and with the dude - even if got caught - might be acquitted completely with a good lawyer. You're just fooling yourself.

Quote:Quote:

Most murders are not random. They are targeted and most of the time the people know each other. I like my chances better with a piece than without.....

Well, expecting your "piece" to save you in this case is extremely naive. Even Presidents got murdered, with all their security around. Someone who wants to murder you will know you're carrying (most gun owners I've met in my life are very open about the fact they're carrying, so I'd speculate you're not an exception), and will just shoot you in the back. Or will shoot you while driving by. If you think carrying a gun would protect you from a murderer, you indeed live in a fantasy world.

Oldnemesis

Let me get this straight,

Under those scenarios im safer NOT having a gun?!?

Lol OK

Quote: (08-17-2011 12:14 AM)Jim Kirk Wrote:  

Nemises – how many times can you go wrong in 3 paragraphs; you gave us your 2 cents and you did not overcharge.
“I live in California, which has the most restrictive gun laws in the USA”
Wrong

First you probably missed the whole scope, but we are talking about guns used for one's self-defense. This makes things like CCW and waiting period/background check more important than your ability to shoot an AK-74 or M4A1 at your ranch. So could you please name another state which has more restrictive gun laws than California in terms of self-protection?

Quote:Quote:

Wrong – California CCW permits are issued at the County/local law enforcement level and, depending on jurisdiction, require an application and a sign off by the Sheriff. It may be impossible to get a full carry license in San Francisco – but for much of California it does not present much an obstacle beyond the 175$ fee and a training requirement. Most rural areas have de facto dispensed with the requirement and do not care if you are packed so long as you look and act like a law abiding citizen.

Wiki says that many counties are de facto "no-issue", and I cannot find any information which supported your statement about lack of CCW enforcement, so I'll pass it until you provide some. But even if it was the case, it doesn't really matter as most rural countries have very small population and therefore do not affect the overall statistics.

Quote:Quote:

You read the statistic wrong – that is the overall crime rate including larceny (theft) and auto theft – scroll to the bottom of the screen where violent crime is spelled out by category: Cali beats Texas in robbery.

And TX still beats CA in aggravated assault, forcible rape, murder and manslaugher.

Quote:Quote:

The violent crime rate estimate for year 2009 per 100k per capita population is
.0472 per 100k for Cali
.00491 per 100k for Texas

Your numbers look wrong. It is 472 per 100K for CA, and 491 per 100K for TX. I think you added extra zero for TX.

Quote:Quote:

There were statistically no real differences in per capital violent crime rate for 2009 – if you are going to argue crime and guns – argue violent crime and guns – not throw crimes like possession of weed, etc.

Well, there IS statistical difference, and it is significant enough. The most important is the fact that the logic of gun advocates was always that criminals would deter attacking the people if they suspect they can carry a concealed weapon. Texas is significantly easier to carry a concealed weapon than California (basically it is "will-issue" vs CA's "will-not-issue"). So according to gun advocates there should be significantly less violent crime in TX comparing to CA. Surprise - this is not the case.

Quote:Quote:

“ Both are populous states”
They are different – 2009 population of Cali was 38,292,687 2009 population of TX 24,873,773 –

Of course they are - but TX is the second populous state after CA, so if this is not a valid comparison target, then I don't know what else would be.

Quote:Quote:

Uh . . NO.

Well, it is still larger. Which proves the point.

Quote:Quote:

Sure – that totally makes a difference. UK crime statistics are not kept like the FBI does

Correct, this is why I do not compare it. Violent crime statistics in UK is very unclear, and so far I was not able to find what exactly is included there. It is important; for example, here's what included into "violent crimes" in Russia:

- all kind of rapes (including statutory rape and attempts), not just forcible rape as in US;
- child molesting;
- all kinds of assaults (not just aggravated), and some attempts;
- all kind of homicides, (including homicide attempts and negligent homicide);
- exceeding the scope of permissible self-defense;
- intentionally passing the STD or HIV;
- kidnapping, false imprisonment;
- illegal abortion

and so on. This is why comparing sets of crimes between countries makes very little sense until you're assured they use the same, or at least similar, standard. Comparing homicides at least makes some sense.

Quote:Quote:

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...z1VG69mady

Unfortunately it says nothing about what Brits consider "violent crime", so comparing the numbers is meaningless here. At least here in US we have the uniform standard.

Quote:Quote:

I’m curious to see homicide charts for England that pre-date the handgun ban - the overall rate would still be lower than the United States - even during the years that the IRA was most active.

I have them but they're useless because UK changed the counting rules in 2002.

Quote:Quote:

You are so far off base with this its not even funny. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about - you should not be setting crime policy or gun policy.

Thank you too. Just please don't disappear again.

Quote: (08-17-2011 05:24 PM)Dash Global Wrote:  

Let me get this straight,
Under those scenarios im safer NOT having a gun?!?

Let me get it straight: those scenarios are less likely to happen, and you have a lower chance to end up dead if guns are restricted, and vast majority of the population has no access to them. It is not about yourself, it is about the society as a whole. Unfortunately this concept is something very difficult to understand for Americans.

@ Nemises - you do not know what self-protection with firearms entails - or their use entails - this question cannot be answered the way you phrased it when its prefaced with your silly qualifiers -

"So could you please name another state which has more restrictive gun laws than
California in terms of self-protection?"

The most important place to have a firearms is your home.
The second most important place would be in your place of business.

An unrestricted 24/7 CCW permit would come after these two - and probably after simply being allowed to keep a firearm of any type in your motor vehicle. In many cases, people 'de facto' legally carry loaded handguns in locked briefcases on the passenger seats of their cars in many states or counties where you cannot get a full CCW. This would not work in New York or New Jersey however. Even California finds 'good cause' even in Los Angeles - or anti-CCW municipalities - where someone has a retail business they can have handguns in their retail store.

With the foregoing in mind - New Jersey, New York, and Illinois, would be more restrictive in terms of 'self protection' than California. The waiting period for a Judge to sign off on one of my permits was over 6 months in New York, for example. New Jersey has almost no carry permits in circulation - New York requires a 250$ permit and 6 month background check just to purchase a pistol and take it home.


Although I prefer my FN/FAL - If given a choice. I would rather have the legal right to have that it my house, train with it, and 'trunk it' in my motor vehicle than have a 24/7 CCW (which I have in certain areas).

You are now saying a 472 per 100k and then 491 out of 100k - is a signifianct statistical difference? Maybe in a Khazar's loan book.

Now turning to the stuff you posted to other guys:

“Surprise - even if he decides to shoot you in UK, it is much harder to perform unless the
dude is hardcore criminal with underworld connections”

No, in fact illegal weapons are as easy to obtain in England as they are anywhere else. The stuff is walked in from Eastern Europe or in from the Middle East and in many cases is full military grade stuff. While you would be unable to take it to the range to shoot in public – guns are in regular albeit illegal circulation. They are even more so in Northern Ireland. Michael G. Mason was only exagerrating a little as to how much artillery is circulating in Northern Ireland.

“if he's in US, he'll have no problem shooting you at all. He gets outside, finds a good
spot to wait for you, and shoots you when you're out”

Dig the hole deeper. You have never even read a decent crime novel in your lifetime. I could just as easily exchange shoot someone for running them over with a car – or walking up behind the victim and sticking an ice pick through vital organs. Experienced killers do not use guns because they make a big noise – and . . .

“ If he is smart enough, he'll put something on his hands to prevent powder stains”

If you fire a gun your clothing is covered with powder.

“and will scratch the barrel so it is not possible to do ballistics on a bullet”

It is herculean, if not impossible, task to bore out a barrel to remove all identifying marks for ballistics matching given that 1000X power microscopes and computers that perform the service for the police. That would be the dumbest maneuver in the world and it would be obvious that the barrel was 'modified' to remove or change the rifling. - most guys puddle the entire gun with a blowtorch. The ejected shell and the barrel can be tracked to a bullet and casing - but the guy whose really smart - makes the death look like an accident.

In one of the towns over from me - there are sound sensors attached to lamp posts. England may have this as well. Any gunshot is instantly picked up and its location plotted on a computer in a police station and the dispatch of an officer is immediate.

Taking the murder rate stat you pulled for England - Note that the German murder rate is less and Germany has pretty liberal gun laws compared to England.

When I teach people about these issues - to a degree you are correct in that younger, or UNTRAINED gun owners will over-estimate their ability to protect themselves when armed. Simply put, and I was trained by guys that train the best SWAT guys in the country, an armed household/business AND/OR TRAINED citizen carrying a handgun is one very important part of crime control, and that's it. I can double tap a chest with a .45 in about .6 seconds from concealed holster. Anyone willing to go to a good school and spend 4 days being trained, then practice, and then 3 months later go for 3 more days instruction can hit that mark. But to really be able to use a holstered handgun on the street - you must get training.
In your home - its not a problem.

@ Playa –

“Gentrification of large parts of Brooklyn and Queens have placed a sizable population of media savvy yuppies with their 2 million dollar brownstones,$600 strollers and $500K 500 Sqft condos within easy reach of the mobs. Therefore, the The mayor might do a tactical mistake and send all the cops he has to protect the yuppies in Park Slope, Carrol Gardens, Downtown Brooklyn and leave the crown jewel Manhattan unprotected”

Playa – I am on Smith Street quite often. When I went to school 15 years ago, I parked my piece of crap Pontiac 6000 down on Sackett or Degraw right off Smith Street – you could always get parking there. When I walked back to my apt. there was no one on the street. Now the place is like little France. I enjoy telling people that if the shit ever goes down in East New York – all of you are going to get burned out. You obviously know Atlantic Avenue – I go back and forth on it all the time. I have watched it go from 100% black to about 75% black and 25% hipster over the last 15 years. I had family that worked in Brooklyn during the blackout in the 1970’s – I know what goes on – but in those areas and I bet you a good meal – the mayor will not put the cops on the street – they will wait 72 hours and the yuppies will try to flee. Brooklyn has its own ‘Code.’

“Also, there's enough high priced real state in Brooklyn less than 5 blocks from the "hood" to cause hundreds of millions in damage and destroy the political career whoever is the mayor at the time this goes down.”

Absolutely true – but remember that the FDNY HQ is right off Fort Greene – and the NYPD emergency command center is nearby. You also have the federal courts – that's a lot of armed men.

“With regards to "60k armed men." There are only that many if they can all get to work, a large scale riot will turn all major highways and roads into parking lots”

On 9/11 and the days after, I watched Hempstead Turnpike become a highway for heavy emergency equipment. There are so many ways to get to Manhattan. The Staten Island Ferry for example will be taken out of service and will pull men into Manhattan. They will bypass the LIE, Grand Central and Belt. To see the ‘police’ go head to head with a riot – watch the end of the movie ‘Gangs of New York’

“If you think an underpaid, demoralized under appreciated NYC cop is going to go out of his way to protect the property of the Bourgeoisie he feels butt fucked him with no lube, I have a bridge to sell you. I predict you going to see officers in full uniform doing the looting and walking around with cans full of gas.”

If you have your finger on the pulse of the City worker – you may be right – I may be underestimating the seething resentment of the man on the street. I remember the blizzard fiasco. You should have seen what Queens looked like – guys left full city busses in the middle of the street for 2 days. I drove around with a 6 pack laughing at the chaos.

"The moment the State of New York runs out of money to pay for the plethora of govt assistance programs its going to be "Hammer Time."

That’s a Gerald Celente saying – “when the money stops going to the man on the streets, the blood starts flowing on the streets.”
All I can say is – we are sure going to find out.

You want to bet a few good French beers at Robin Des Bois on Smith Street – do you like the southern cooking place in DUMBO?

@Jim Kirk - you posted quite a few statements like they are facts. However you did not provide any references to support them. It is not like I do not trust you, but since you obviously have a bias (same as I do), I'm sure you understand that I cannot just take your word for that. So please provide the references when you mention something you base your thoughts on. And please avoid childish adverbs, we're adults and can have a civil discussion even if we disagree. Thank you in advance.

Now to the points:

I'd like to see the supported evidence regarding your claim that "The most important place to have a firearms is your home". Do you have any statistics regarding how many of violent crimes happen in victim's homes? What is your statement based on? To me it looks like there are very few crimes a firearm at home would protect you, assuming that most people are not actually carrying a firearm all the time while at home (at least none of my gun owner friends do). Same for business, but it heavily depends on business. Bank, check cashing? I can see it. Subway or Walmart? Not so sure

24/7 CCW is indeed a valid point, and this is what people got in TX but not in CA (sure you mentioned before that some people just carry illegally and local sheriff doesn't care, but I'm pretty sure this doesn't happen often in populous countries, and even if local sheriff doesn't care, I'm not sure how it would work if the owner actually shoot someone in a questionable situation). So, TX has it, CA doesn't, and you agree it is important violent crime prevention tool. So how do you explain why TX violent crime is actually higher than CA crime?

I didn't use NY as an example, but if you insist...

NY violent crime rate is 385 per 100K
NJ violent crime rate is 312 per 100K
Only IL exceeds TX with 497 per 100K (TX has 491)

So, apparently, most of the gun-restricted states are actually safer than TX. And yes, 472 vs 491 is significant enough because if we believe what some gun owners say the numbers should be not only exact the opposite, but the difference should be even larger.

Now to UK. Yes, illegal weapons are relatively easy to obtain by a criminal with connections and money. I'm pretty sure they are not easy to obtain to an average Joe who got pissed off at his ex-gf who cheated on him and decided to shoot her and her new boyfriend. Some papers referred to illegal drugs in comparison, which is not valid - the main sales target for illegal drugs is general population, this is why they're easy to obtain, and you can met a meth dealer in a dive bar. However illegal guns have different sales targets, you won't meet them offering you illegal guns in a dive bar.

Now back to US, shooting at streets. Here in Bay Area we have a nice town named Oakland. Pretty much every week someone is getting shot there. Pretty much in every case it is a drive-by shot from a moving car. The problem is not guys who are smart, experienced killers, it is idiots who got pissed off at something in their life, went out (or in) and shoot a bunch of innocent people before shooting themselves.

Talking about the murder rate stats, Germany has significantly less freedom comparing to UK, and is a more disciplined society - probably the most discipline one in Europe. But comparing Germany to US is meaningless because the cultures are completely different. Germany is more similar to Russia.

And finally about training. Apparently either those TX gun holders skip on the training, or it is not as effective as you say. Otherwise it is hard to explain why TX doesn't have one of the lowest violent crime rates in the whole USA.

@oldnemesis- you like to throw statistics around, but you fail to realize the other side of the equation. The Government can not and will not keep statistics on crimes PREVENTED by gunowners. Mostly because no shots are fired and neither the criminal nor the gunowner are going to report it. Also the Government has no interest in promoting it's serfs to be more armed and therefor less controlled.
I can speak from PERSONAL experience, that I have protected myself and/or my property or others by having my gun. So have my parents, so have a large number of my friends. In all cases but one, no shots were fired or police reports filed.
This was before I even worked in Law Enforcement. Also, the reader reports in many Gun magazines every month tell of crimes cut short when the criminal found out the victim was packing.
After years of babysitting criminals at my job, and listening to their conversations, the LAST person they want to rob or tangle with is someone armed, and they learn the homes that have gunowners and stay clear. Criminals want the path of least resistance.
So even an untrained gunowner, due to his increased confidence, is less likely to be a victim of crime. TRAINED gun owners, who are packing, are NOT likely to pull their guns in the heat of the moment over simple disagreements because they've been trained on the 3 things needed to justify a shooting, and they know that even if those 3 things are met in today's sheeple society, they can end up in jail. Personally, I think a Gun safety class should be mandatory in Public Schools, it would cut down on a lot of ignorance and accidents.
I live in an area with one of the highest degrees earned per capita, a high median income, one of the top 5 cities in the US for job outlook, and thanks to our lack of immigration enforcement the hispanic gang growth has led to an increasing number of home invasions, prowling, and burglary in very nice neighborhoods. If you don't want to everyday carry, fine, but I think a homeowner is crazy in today's society to not own a 20 gauge shotgun and train their whole family on it.
Guns are neither glamerous or evil, they are simply tools.

Quote: (08-09-2011 05:45 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

[There are hundreds of examples of the free market causing the same kind of implosion, not the least of which is our own 2008 crisis.

WRONG- The 2008 crisis was caused by the unintended consequences of another failed liberal social experiment, The Community Reinvestment Act. Jimmy Carter signed it into law in 1977 to correct the "unfairness" of banks who wouldn't give enough loans to minorities. (Nevermind it was because they couldn't afford the loans in the first place.)
Then Bill Clinton comes along and with Democrats Barney Frank and Chris Dodd gives the Act teeth in 1995. Federal requirements now force banks to make the loans or face penalties, AND requires the US taxpayer to UNDERWRITE the loans.
Once banks figure out they can write bad loans and the American Taxpayer will "insure" them via Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, they ease requirements and give loans to tons of idiots that can't afford them. And so the subprime mortgage crisis is born.
Sad thing is, it's still going on today, and 2 of the main architects of the mess, Frank and Dodd, wrote up the new Wall Street regulations to "fix" the problems they created in the first place!
It should be noted Credit Unions, which were not forced to make these loans, generally kept the old standards for loans and thus are still fiscally sound.

Quote: (08-17-2011 06:26 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

Quote: (08-17-2011 05:24 PM)Dash Global Wrote:  

Let me get this straight,
Under those scenarios im safer NOT having a gun?!?

Let me get it straight: those scenarios are less likely to happen, and you have a lower chance to end up dead if guns are restricted, and vast majority of the population has no access to them. It is not about yourself, it is about the society as a whole. Unfortunately this concept is something very difficult to understand for Americans.

Im less likely to end up dead without a gun for protection.... Sure

Esp considering the fact that if someone wanting to kill you they can easily obtain a gun, or any other deadly weapon.

Most murders are not random sir. They are targeted and usually envolve someone you knw. Hence if someone wants to kill you, stricter gun laws would not stop them. All they have to do is go down the street to the local drug dealer and buy an illegal firearm. Stop being soo naive.

"Whites have come Blacks."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gU5TcTSa9...dded#t=73s

Quote:Quote:

With the foregoing in mind - New Jersey, New York, and Illinois, would be more restrictive in terms of 'self protection' than California. The waiting period for a Judge to sign off on one of my permits was over 6 months in New York, for example. New Jersey has almost no carry permits in circulation - New York requires a 250$ permit and 6 month background check just to purchase a pistol and take it home.

You also forgot to mention that NYC CCW permits are a honor that is only bestowed upon only celebrities, politicians and those who are connected. If you are non-law enforcement as defined by H.R.218 (The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004) and are caught with a gun even if you have a permit elsewhere you going to do at least a year as Puerto Ricans/Dominicans call it “La Roca” A.K.a. Rickers Island. If you don't believe me just ask Lil Wayne, Ja Rule, Plaxico.

Quote:Quote:

I had family that worked in Brooklyn during the blackout in the 1970’s – I know what goes on – but in those areas and I bet you a good meal – the mayor will not put the cops on the street – they will wait 72 hours and the yuppies will try to flee. Brooklyn has its own ‘Code.’

Quote:Quote:

You want to bet a few good French beers at Robin Des Bois on Smith Street – do you like the southern cooking place in DUMBO?

You better get your money right Kirk, I eat a lot. Since you drive down Atlantic ave a lot, I am sure you have noticed that big White Elephant going up on Atlantic Ave and Flatbush ave (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barclays_Center). Only a Russian would spend over 5 billions dollars on an arena complex for the worst team in the NBA. I guess this hubris was the reason why Russians lost the cold war. But I digress, Obama would send SEAL Team Six and order B52’s to carpet bomb the hood before a hostile crowd gets within 5 blocks from this monstrosity. Thus, the Mayor and Co. will not allow hoodlums to run wild for 72 hours in that area while the stadium and surrounding mall burns to a crisp.

Quote:Quote:

On 9/11 and the days after, I watched Hempstead Turnpike become a highway for heavy emergency equipment. There are so many ways to get to Manhattan. The Staten Island Ferry for example will be taken out of service and will pull men into Manhattan. They will bypass the LIE, Grand Central and Belt. To see the ‘police’ go head to head with a riot – watch the end of the movie ‘Gangs of New York’

I am not saying there aren’t multiple ways to get to Manhattan, what I am saying is that the police by itself doesn’t have the resources to stop a London style riot that goes on multiple neighborhoods and boroughs in NYC. And Thanks for the movie recommendation.

Quite possibly you'll all find out in New York on Sept 17th. That's when the US Day of Rage is planned. http://www.usdayofrage.org

Acccording to a statement by one of the groups attending:

"On September 17, we want to see 20,000 people flood into lower Manhattan, set up tents, kitchens, peaceful barricades and occupy Wall Street for a few months. Once there, we shall incessantly repeat our one simple demand until Barack Obama capitulates.

…there is a very real danger that if we naively put our cards on the table and rally around the “overthrow of capitalism” or some equally outworn utopian slogan, then our Tahrir moment will quickly fizzle into another inconsequential ultra-lefty spectacle soon forgotten. But if we have the cunning to come up with a deceptively simple Trojan Horse demand …"

we'll just see how peaceful that stays..

but really if/when we do have a huge London style riot it will start in California and La Raza will be involved.

Quote: (08-21-2011 11:12 AM)thekiller Wrote:  

@oldnemesis- you like to throw statistics around, but you fail to realize the other side of the equation. The Government can not and will not keep statistics on crimes PREVENTED by gunowners. Mostly because no shots are fired and neither the criminal nor the gunowner are going to report it.

This is correct, however we may guess this information from the crime statistics. If one violent crime was prevented, then there is one less crime committed and therefore registered, correct? So if all other things being similar, a gun-friendly state should have less crime than a state which has tough gun laws. Well, this is not the case.

Quote:Quote:

After years of babysitting criminals at my job, and listening to their conversations, the LAST person they want to rob or tangle with is someone armed, and they learn the homes that have gunowners and stay clear. Criminals want the path of least resistance.

Again, this sounds logical and reasonable until you see the stats. A criminal in TX apparently has a much higher chance to encounter a gun owner packing than a criminal in CA where CCW is generally no-issue. So the violent crime rate in CA should be significantly higher than in TX. But it is exactly the opposite. Explain this please. There is very little value in selected personal testimonials when the statistics says otherwise.

Quote: (08-21-2011 12:59 PM)Dash Global Wrote:  

Im less likely to end up dead without a gun for protection.... Sure

Yes. That's what statistics says.

Quote:Quote:

Esp considering the fact that if someone wanting to kill you they can easily obtain a gun, or any other deadly weapon.

If someone wants to kill you, just owning a gun won't help you. Think about it: when you exit your home, do you really scan the surroundings and stay inside if you see a car nearby where a killer may sit (or hide behind)? Do you leave your home the same way military patrol goes through the Vietnam jungles? Do you walk around in a vest with your gun drawn? You must be very naive to think you can prevent being murdered by a dedicated, experienced killer. Even Presidents got killed, and they had more security that you and I would ever have. This is the least concern of mine, and I believe for the most people.

Quote: (08-21-2011 11:18 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

Quote: (08-21-2011 12:59 PM)Dash Global Wrote:  

Im less likely to end up dead without a gun for protection.... Sure

Yes. That's what statistics says.

Quote:Quote:

Esp considering the fact that if someone wanting to kill you they can easily obtain a gun, or any other deadly weapon.

If someone wants to kill you, just owning a gun won't help you. Think about it: when you exit your home, do you really scan the surroundings and stay inside if you see a car nearby where a killer may sit (or hide behind)? Do you leave your home the same way military patrol goes through the Vietnam jungles? Do you walk around in a vest with your gun drawn? You must be very naive to think you can prevent being murdered by a dedicated, experienced killer. Even Presidents got killed, and they had more security that you and I would ever have. This is the least concern of mine, and I believe for the most people.

Where have you found statistics on violent crime success rate or failure when the victim was armed?!?!? Please post them.

So tell me how owning a gun will DECREASE your chances of surviving a violent crime. Cant wait to hear this one! haha Keep in mind I can come up with a million scenarios where having a gun will benefit you in the event of a violent crime.

Quote: (08-21-2011 11:22 PM)Dash Global Wrote:  

So tell me how owning a gun will DECREASE your chances of surviving a violent crime.

I hope you guys don't mind me dropping my theory in the middle of you guys' spirited debate.

It goes like this:

If there is no gun in your immediate area you have very little chance of being shot. If you, even if you are highly trained, have a gun locked in your drawer, your chances of being shot go up exponentially. That's because there's a gun now present. If someone breaks into your house with a gun, now there's two guns, so math tells you the chance you have of getting shot now double. Make sense?

This theory is like skydiving. Right this very second I have very little chance of dying in a skydiving accident. I suppose a skydiver could veer of course and bust through my roof and land on me and I could die, but that's far fetched. If I actually get into a parachute and skydive, my chances of dying in an accident go way up no matter how well trained I am.

Or if I'm driving, a car could cross a highway median and slam into mine, but if I'm not in a car at all that can't happen.

That's my theory. If there's no guns around, no chance at all of you getting shot. One, the numbers go way up. Two, the numbers go up even more.

Aloha!

Quote: (08-21-2011 11:49 PM)Kona Wrote:  

Quote: (08-21-2011 11:22 PM)Dash Global Wrote:  

So tell me how owning a gun will DECREASE your chances of surviving a violent crime.

I hope you guys don't mind me dropping my theory in the middle of you guys' spirited debate.

It goes like this:

If there is no gun in your immediate area you have very little chance of being shot. If you, even if you are highly trained, have a gun locked in your drawer, your chances of being shot go up exponentially. That's because there's a gun now present. If someone breaks into your house with a gun, now there's two guns, so math tells you the chance you have of getting shot now double. Make sense?

This theory is like skydiving. Right this very second I have very little chance of dying in a skydiving accident. I suppose a skydiver could veer of course and bust through my roof and land on me and I could die, but that's far fetched. If I actually get into a parachute and skydive, my chances of dying in an accident go way up no matter how well trained I am.

Or if I'm driving, a car could cross a highway median and slam into mine, but if I'm not in a car at all that can't happen.

That's my theory. If there's no guns around, no chance at all of you getting shot. One, the numbers go way up. Two, the numbers go up even more.

Aloha!

Your theory would be good under the assertion no guns are present by either party. Or that its impossible to obtain a gun. In which case I agree. Although one can still argue them having another form of a deadly weapon.

But in a perfect world your right. Unfortunately our world is far from perfect and people break laws and rules like they change their underwear! lol

Im primarily referring to when someone clearly wants to harm you, and has a deadly weapon, how having a gun for protection will DECREASE your chances of protecting yourself and surviving an attack.

Quote: (08-21-2011 11:58 AM)thekiller Wrote:  

Quote: (08-09-2011 05:45 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

[There are hundreds of examples of the free market causing the same kind of implosion, not the least of which is our own 2008 crisis.

WRONG- The 2008 crisis was caused by the unintended consequences of another failed liberal social experiment, The Community Reinvestment Act. Jimmy Carter signed it into law in 1977 to correct the "unfairness" of banks who wouldn't give enough loans to minorities. (Nevermind it was because they couldn't afford the loans in the first place.)
Then Bill Clinton comes along and with Democrats Barney Frank and Chris Dodd gives the Act teeth in 1995. Federal requirements now force banks to make the loans or face penalties, AND requires the US taxpayer to UNDERWRITE the loans.
Once banks figure out they can write bad loans and the American Taxpayer will "insure" them via Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, they ease requirements and give loans to tons of idiots that can't afford them. And so the subprime mortgage crisis is born.
Sad thing is, it's still going on today, and 2 of the main architects of the mess, Frank and Dodd, wrote up the new Wall Street regulations to "fix" the problems they created in the first place!
It should be noted Credit Unions, which were not forced to make these loans, generally kept the old standards for loans and thus are still fiscally sound.

So bi-partisan misregulation as opposed to simple de-regulation was at the root of the issue. I'd read a few theories similar to this on other sites and it makes sense.

Quote: (08-22-2011 07:31 AM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

Quote: (08-21-2011 11:58 AM)thekiller Wrote:  

Quote: (08-09-2011 05:45 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

[There are hundreds of examples of the free market causing the same kind of implosion, not the least of which is our own 2008 crisis.

WRONG- The 2008 crisis was caused by the unintended consequences of another failed liberal social experiment, The Community Reinvestment Act. Jimmy Carter signed it into law in 1977 to correct the "unfairness" of banks who wouldn't give enough loans to minorities. (Nevermind it was because they couldn't afford the loans in the first place.)
Then Bill Clinton comes along and with Democrats Barney Frank and Chris Dodd gives the Act teeth in 1995. Federal requirements now force banks to make the loans or face penalties, AND requires the US taxpayer to UNDERWRITE the loans.
Once banks figure out they can write bad loans and the American Taxpayer will "insure" them via Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, they ease requirements and give loans to tons of idiots that can't afford them. And so the subprime mortgage crisis is born.
Sad thing is, it's still going on today, and 2 of the main architects of the mess, Frank and Dodd, wrote up the new Wall Street regulations to "fix" the problems they created in the first place!
It should be noted Credit Unions, which were not forced to make these loans, generally kept the old standards for loans and thus are still fiscally sound.

So bi-partisan misregulation as opposed to simple de-regulation was at the root of the issue. I'd read a few theories similar to this on other sites and it makes sense.

I wouldn't really call it bi-partisan. Bush tried to undo it in 2003 but the usual liberal suspects like the Congressional Black Caucus and Guilty Whites in the mainstream media did the usual Race/Class Warfare number and Republicans lost their testicular fortitude.

Also, I don't know how you can say the US isn't regulated enough. One of the few growth areas for jobs under Obama has been federal regulators.

It is also the reason the economy is still in a mess. The non-fortune 500 companies that actually hire MOST Americans (small to midsize) are sitting on money too afraid to hire anybody until they figure how the 2000 pages of Obamacare are going to affect them. In the financial sector businesses are trying to figure out how Dodd-Frank is going to ruin their lives. Meanwhile, the EPA is about to impose new regulations that are going to close a bunch of coal plants, and the market looks like energy prices are already going up even though they haven't taken affect yet. There's talk rolling blackouts might happen in Texas and other parts of the country, like we're the fucking Philippines or something.

Understand also that regulations are for all intents and purposes a TAX on businesses that are then passed on to us, the consumers. There are fees, worse yet, penalties. Then the time, in business time is money. You have to hire accountants or lawyers or other specialists to keep abreast of the changing regulations brought on by every new congress, it's a boondoggle.

I think someone on here mentioned how taxes on business were higher in the 50-60s. Thing is businesses didn't have as many regulations back then, and almost EVERYTHING was a business write-off. Travel, booze, go-go clubs, etc. The IRS wasn't as fucking ruthless back then.

@oldnemesis, where do you come up with this paranoid gotcha crap? Yes, if a professional hitman is motivated to kill me he probably will, that's not the situation I'm carrying a gun for...lol
I work in LE and those ambush type murders you rave on about are rare and involve Drugs/Gangs. I don't do drugs, and I'm not in a Gang, moreover, I tend to avoid areas with much of either.
Please feel free to not own or carry a gun, if everyone did carry, criminals would have to get more brazen.
@Kona, I get what your saying. For instance if I get into a simple brawl with someone and then pull a gun, Shit just got "REAL". However,I'd never do that unless I was certain my life was in major danger.

You guys got to realize there's a new class of offender out there that IS packing, that DOESN'T give a fuck about human life OR jail time. A lot of these kids are nobody on the street, but inside their with their friends and taken care of and shot callers. ESPECIALLY if they did something BIG to get put in jail.

Our STG (gang) officers recently interviewed a bunch of gang members on video, and one story was very common. They'd grown up with gang members in their immediate or extended family, the got "jumped in" to the gang around 12 years old, and a fair number of them (in their mid 20s to 30s) said the young bloods coming up on the street are straight up CRAZY.

Real Talk.

@theKiller,

Oldnemesis thinks trained professional hit men are out to kill people and carrying a firearm will do you no good! lmfao!

Quote: (08-22-2011 11:32 AM)thekiller Wrote:  

@oldnemesis, where do you come up with this paranoid gotcha crap? Yes, if a professional hitman is motivated to kill me he probably will, that's not the situation I'm carrying a gun for...lol

Just in case you missed it, let me repeat the "crap" as it apparently was the most important question the whole conversation was about. A criminal in TX apparently has a much higher chance to encounter a gun owner packing than a criminal in CA where CCW is generally no-issue. So the violent crime rate in CA should be significantly higher than in TX. But it is exactly the opposite.

Could you explain this please, or just say that you cannot explain it? This is relevant. Your personal experience is much less relevant, we're discussing the effect of gun laws on dozen millions of people, not just on you and hundreds of your friends.