I also believe that registration would lead to confiscation. I'm not a sex offender, I will not register like I were one. I'm doing no harm to anyone. Leave me alone.
You honestly think confiscation of your guns can/will happen? How would that even begin?
And by simply adding required registration, you think massive amounts of people are just going to give up and not buy the guns they want? ...Must not want them that bad.
... No, you came across crystal clear. You would not abide if the law came into affect. Now... I have to ask... why wouldn't you?
Quite simply is that I'm not engaging in illegal activity and allowing politicians to do that should be grounds for punishing them, not the law abiding.
I also believe that registration would lead to confiscation. I'm not a sex offender, I will not register like I were one. I'm doing no harm to anyone. Leave me alone.
... The thing is... no one is accusing you of being a Sex Offender. There is a reason why Sex Offenders are required to register... because they have violated the law. You are a legal gun owner. No one is asking you to register as a gun owner, we are asking that you register YOUR gun, not you. It is like your Drivers License is tied to you, as a person. Your vehicle registration is tied to your car. Sell your car and you transfer the title and the vehicle's registration to the new owner. ... As for confiscation... it is only going to happen when you engage in criminal activity. And if you are involved in criminal activity, your guns need to be taken away from you. No one is going to bust down your doors unless you are a threat to other people.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Well it's bigger than that. You'd be cutting off an industry that have countless of good paying jobs ending products that are primarily built in this country. You'd dump people on unemployment while killing the tax revenues that some if these states depend on.
It can't just be that simple to stop making them.
Just like our planet... public safety should not be compromised so that people can have jobs. Get serious.
Hey man, I apologize, was traveling for work and just now being able to relax and check this thread.
You said:
There's some links for you. I personally like to take the time to understand how conclusions are made, and not just take the headlines for what they read. Hence why I simply stated that there are conflicting articles on the subject. Fire up your google machine, and let's keep emotion out of it.
Followed by:
I will say first, why do you sound like such a dick when you are trying to make your points?
Its how I respond to snark, snicker, snicker. And to bullshit facts and statements, see Unsung’s comment, page 3 of this thread regarding the 100 round barrel mag as one example. I also don’t take anyone who references Breitbart and Infowars, or disgraced former academics, who lied about their data, all three of whom are shills for the firearms industry, very seriously.
2) I posted links earlier that had the opposite view that someone stated. I admitted that I didn't have the time to check the validity of them, which you called me lazy and said that's the problem, no one cares. I paraphrased your point. I would also like to point out that you posted links earlier, in which you ultimately had to admit that they the posted contradictory information.
No, the three links I posted on page 5 of this thread are consistent in that they list the states with the highest death rates due to firearms and also have lax gun laws. While the rankings might be slightly off, they’re consistent with the Ezra Klein provided map and stats. And no, my links didn’t contain contradictory information, I stated the following, “You really do have to do some digging as everyone uses different stats and the CDCs stats are much lower due to how they compile and where they draw from. The FBI's stats are higher. The Huffington Post article explains their methodology and sources and hey, it makes sense to me. And I'm glad I don't live in a state where my congressperson was shot in the head in a supermarket. Or any of those other gun nut Utopias.” This is not the same as purposefully posting misleading information or mischaracterizing the information from a source or not taking the time to understand the data behind the emotional headline. Like I said, numbers don’t lie.
3) can you define for me what an "assault" weapon is?
I like the definition as written in the 1994 assault weapons ban. Look it up. I’ve already been accused of too much “cut & paste.”
4) banning guns does make murder rates of the use of gun go down, (I think, again a lot of hazy info on it) but why does overall violent crimes go up? Is that a good trade off?
You and Unsung are the only two I’ve read in this thread that have mentioned “banning guns.” Nowhere in my posts have I advocated for such a practice.
5) you use the facts of the decline in gun homicides from 1993 -2009, but you credit it to the assault weapons ban that expired in 2005.
No, if you read and comprehend what I wrote, I said, “And while it is true that crime rates did go down while the number of firearms sold went up, it does not prove that increased guns were the sole determining factor of why this is so. The article and the studies this article relied upon make no mention of other factors that may have led to lower crime rates. Factors such as: an improved economy during the Clinton years, the waning of the crack epidemic, lower unemployment and an economy at almost full employment during the Clinton Administration, longer jail terms for violent offenders and minimum, longer sentences for drug and violent crimes, the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994-2004, and dare I say as some right wing pundits did, higher numbers of abortion. This article relies on the single factor of higher gun sales as the sole reason for the decline in crime but doesn’t mention that while gun sales and the importation of fire arms nearly doubled, the number of households reporting possession of fire arms actually declined.” I later added in a follow up post that I thought the explosion in cell phone usage during the same time may also have contributed to the decline of firearm deaths. Giving it more thought, I might also add that the explosion in the use of surveillance cameras in private and public places may have also contributed to the decline in firearms deaths and crime overall along with the other previously cited reasons (the chances of being identified and getting caught have increased).
Hey man, I apologize, was traveling for work and just now being able to relax and check this thread.
My responses continued from my previous post:
6) you use a prison survey. Google a prison survey if the criminals were concerned about their potential victims owning a fire arm.
I didn’t use a prison survey. I cited a prison survey in the CRS report that Breitbart linked to because “crimes committed with assault weapons” is repeatedly referred to by the pro-gun crowd as having happened so few times its not worth reinstating the ban of 1994 or doing something about it. And while I didn’t make an argument with that bit of info in my earlier post, I will state that I’m arguing that the number committed, as a result of the survey cited by the CRS, 4,066, (which is remarkably similar to Unsung’s 1% claim; read on for the explanation) is a lot and should be reconsidered. You should Google prison survey and post the results if you’d like to inform me.
7) you discredit my use of CRS but then you sight CRS to make your points?
Except you didn’t cite the CRS, you cited Breitbart and didn’t offer up the information behind the “emotional” headline of Breitbrt’s article. Which, when read and comprehended in its entirety, doesn’t equate to the misleading headline, “More guns=Less crime.”
8) what exactly is your point? What are you trying to argue?
Read my original post in this thread below:
Here’s the issue, Unsung, as I see it. You post and communicate as if gun ownership is the only solution to these horrific crimes you link to justify the unfettered ownership of firearms. Guns are not the only solution to home protection. Have you considered getting a medium size to large dog with a loud bark? How about reinforcing your entry doors with multiple locks? Installing an alarm system with a panic button? Motion sensor exterior lighting? Think about it, not every problem has to be solved by or with a gun.
The other concern many of us non gun owners have is the risk factor involved with gun ownership and some innocent being injured or killed accidently or in a moment of rage by an otherwise “responsible” and “reasonable” gun owner. You yourself have posted an apology for lashing out at a fellow board member in another thread and stating, and I’m paraphrasing, “you were having a really bad week and the incident really bothered you (in reference to the police beating a man to death, I believe).” You have also claimed in another thread to walk into retail establishments that post “No CC Allowed” to confront the person behind the counter by stating your desire to take your business elsewhere. See? Carrying a concealed weapon and actively “confronting” someone because you don’t like their stance, position or desire to conduct their business a certain way. Now let’s say the said owner of said establishment is having a real bad day and maybe you are as well and he tells you to go F yourself and you say something back and because his dog crapped on the carpet that morning and he stepped in it and his previous week’s sales were less than anticipated and that business deal he had been working on for a year fell through, he decides to respond to your last comment by throwing his hot cup of coffee at you. You in turn feel “assaulted” and that your “physical safety” was threatened so you pull out your weapon and put two in his chest like you’ve been practicing at the gun range. Or some poor kid goes off the road at 3:00 a.m. and his cell phone is out of juice and he walks up to your house and bangs on the door wanting to use your phone. Or the group of high school kids toilet paper your tree in your yard when you’ve had a “bad day.” You want us to believe that all “responsible” gun owners are rational just as you want us to believe that all cops are evil and regularly and openly violating our civil liberties. Well then, would it be reasonable of me to think of all gun owners as irresponsible trigger happy nut jobs? I mean when you think of the police and how many there are (1.2 million comes to mind) and how many hours per day they work Xs the number of days in a year and compare that with the number of individuals killed by police in a year, on average, (300) by all causes, inclusive of fleeing the scene, refusing to drop a weapon or pulling a weapon or actively shooting at the police, and subtract these, the number of people randomly beaten to death or killed by the police is small in number(I believe one death is one too many and tragic but some people, criminals fleeing or shooting at cops get what they deserve, IMHO). But you make each case of police brutality into a concerted effort by law enforcement to squelch our individual freedoms and there’s some vast conspiracy afoot to trample the constitution. Most policing is a local function at the local or state level where the libertarians want their government control. I would call this paranoid and delusion thinking. And coupled with gun ownership, down right scary. If I lived next door to you and you spouted some of the stuff you post in the forums in public and I knew you owned a gun or guns and had a CC permit, I’d put my house on the market and move. Simple as that. I wouldn’t go buy my own gun to counter yours. I’d move. I’m sick and tired of people being shot and injured or killed by so called “responsible” gun owners and the idea that gun ownership should be completely unfettered. I’m sick and tired of this mantra that by requiring background checks, licensing and effective training to safely handle a firearm or a requirement to carry liability insurance or some kind of required registration upon sale or transfer, to cut down on gun trafficking and straw purchases, that this is somehow a violation of the 2nd amendment and a threat to our civil liberties. Michigan offers abortion insurance so why not liability insurance for gun ownership? And you rant about the arms the police carry and the “militarization” of local police forces? Read up on the bank robbery in LA and how outgunned the cops were and how many rounds the bad guys got off before being stopped and you’ll begin to understand the “arms race” at the local level. But I suppose that’s just fine with you? And if so, even scarier.
It must suck to go through life thinking everyone is a potential threat, that you feel the need to arm yourself everywhere you go and look over your shoulder at the “government”, however you define it, and think that someday, you’re going to be the victim of a horrific crime or “jack booted government goons” busting through your front door to take your gun(s) away.
Its just as “emotional” for Unsung to have titled this thread the way he did based upon a crime that happened in another state from where he lives, yes/no?
I respectively yield the floor to the gentlemen from Texas with a horse
Have you ever known someone who was killed by a firearm?
Have you ever worked with someone who lost an employee or had someone killed at your workplace or place of employment?
Have you ever known a child or one or both of their parents where the child was killed by a firearm?
Have you ever had a friend killed by a firearm?
Peace.
What difference do these questions make aside from stating an emotional therefor non logic approach to an issue? The majority of us have suffered loss due to events that have been out of our control. And as much as we'd like to control everything, we can't. Some accept it, others crusade against it. I don't fault you if you have, but I've been directly effected by drunk driving. I've suffered a large loss to that, but I know that banning alcohol isn't the solution, placing breathalyzers in every car isn't, and that ultimately, as much as you'd like to control others actions, you can't.
Then you followed with this in response to my questions:
What difference do these questions make aside from stating an emotional therefor non logic approach to an issue? The majority of us have suffered loss due to events that have been out of our control. And as much as we'd like to control everything, we can't. Some accept it, others crusade against it. I don't fault you if you have, but I've been directly effected by drunk driving. I've suffered a large loss to that, but I know that banning alcohol isn't the solution, placing breathalyzers in every car isn't, and that ultimately, as much as you'd like to control others actions, you can't.
There you go with the term “ban” again. No one is proposing banning firearms and I’m not naive enough to think we’ll ever get to zero. Were MADD overly emotional? Emotion, in response to something bad happening and wanting to see change, and not for the sake of “feel good change for the sake of change change”, is an incredible motivator. Without emotion, nothing would change. And excuse me, but when you have personal experience with the questions I posed, you might want to see positive change that results in less gun deaths. And to at least have an honest debate with the other side about it. \ See, where I’m from, when bad things happen that could have been or should have been preventable, we take a step back, we assess the situation, consider the causes and set about making changes through the democratic process to make life better or to reduce the chances of whatever bad happened from happening again. Hell, it’s the reason why air travel is so much safer than it used to be, same with car travel, the drinking age is 21 and a whole host of other scenarios, like crowd control and people not being trampled to death or hundreds of people dying in a fire. Sure they still happen but not nearly as much as they used to. And guns are the only consumer product that kills or I should say that people use to kill other people where we, as a society, accept the carnage of 30K+ killed and 80K+ injured and don’t do anything about it. To me, that is unacceptable. How much you want to bet that there will be advocates wanting there to be “changes” due to the mudslide in Washington State and to make air travel safer because of the Malaysian Airlines crash and that there will be changes as a result of those statistically small events?
Unsung said: The evil weapon that anti's are afraid of is the AR-15. It has been proved to be used in less than 1% of gun crime. Chicago had over 500 murders two years ago and only ONE was attributed to any type of semi-auto rifle.
So why is it the mission of liberals to ban that firearm that is really never used illegally? Why are you afraid of it?
Followed by:
So when the next crazy uses a handgun like that idiot in Arizona are you going to call for a ban?
What about a stabbing spree like what recently happened in China? Ban all knives?
Seriously where does the knee-jerk lunacy stop?
Way too emotional dude. And there you go with that ban thing again. Have a source you’d like to link to for the 1% claim?
1% of all gun crime, fatal and non-fatal is still: 4,784, which averages out to 95.68 per state for 2011 (Fatal gun crimes 2011 = 11,101 + non-fatal gun crimes = 467,300 = 478,401 total gun crimes Xs .01 = 4,784/50 = 95.68 per state) committed with an AR15. Doesn’t seem like an “only” or “never used illegally” to me kind of number but that’s just me.
You are entertaining, so if I use a source that sites CRS as it's a source, and it's invalid because you use CRS as your source?
So you believe in completely banning/restricting, providing security measures to our every day life, because that's what the TSA has done to make flying better?
Do you not believe in the concept that sometimes people will do some really bad things and the actions of these very few limited cases shouldn't completely bring on a police state? Are you willing to give your privacy, your ability to do what you want in order to insure the government has approved this place as safe? Because fully trusting the government has never backfired...
You aurgue drinking age and drunk driving, but don't acknowledge the facts that injuries and death due to automobiles/guns are damn near the same.
I honestly got tired of reading your half page argument of what your point is, all I got out of it is you have a fear of firearms, and a bunch of non facts that you use as "let's just say" facts.
So again, I'll ask you, what is your point? And get to the point. You don't need to type a page in order to express your point. State it, and then as we will either agree or disagree, use your examples to support your point.
Hey man, I apologize, was traveling for work and just now being able to relax and check this thread.
You said:
There's some links for you. I personally like to take the time to understand how conclusions are made, and not just take the headlines for what they read. Hence why I simply stated that there are conflicting articles on the subject. Fire up your google machine, and let's keep emotion out of it.
Followed by:
I will say first, why do you sound like such a dick when you are trying to make your points?
Its how I respond to snark, snicker, snicker. And to bullshit facts and statements, see Unsung’s comment, page 3 of this thread regarding the 100 round barrel mag as one example. I also don’t take anyone who references Breitbart and Infowars, or disgraced former academics, who lied about their data, all three of whom are shills for the firearms industry, very seriously."
I was being snark, snicker and what bullshit facts? Is it because I disagree with you and have facts that back it up? How many of these 100 round barrel mags have been involved in murders? I want to hear your facts on that. 100 round mag = how many involvements in murders/shootings/accidents/suicides/whatever else you want to blame a 100 round mag on. Let's see these 100 round statistics.
What data did I lie about? Let's go fact to fact. Bring it. Keep in mind you can always reference the FBI.gov website that proves that gun deaths are on the decline, more people are killed by a hammer than an ar15 (whether it's a 2 round magazine or a 1,000 round magazine). Please show me the real facts...
I'll point out that regardless of magazine size, an ar 15 is classified as a riffle, there has been almost double the deaths due to blunt objects than riffles. (It's those 100 round magazines!!!)
Have you ever known someone who was killed by a firearm?
Have you ever worked with someone who lost an employee or had someone killed at your workplace or place of employment?
Have you ever known a child or one or both of their parents where the child was killed by a firearm?
Have you ever had a friend killed by a firearm?
Peace.
What difference do these questions make aside from stating an emotional therefor non logic approach to an issue? The majority of us have suffered loss due to events that have been out of our control. And as much as we'd like to control everything, we can't. Some accept it, others crusade against it. I don't fault you if you have, but I've been directly effected by drunk driving. I've suffered a large loss to that, but I know that banning alcohol isn't the solution, placing breathalyzers in every car isn't, and that ultimately, as much as you'd like to control others actions, you can't.
Then you followed with this in response to my questions:
What difference do these questions make aside from stating an emotional therefor non logic approach to an issue? The majority of us have suffered loss due to events that have been out of our control. And as much as we'd like to control everything, we can't. Some accept it, others crusade against it. I don't fault you if you have, but I've been directly effected by drunk driving. I've suffered a large loss to that, but I know that banning alcohol isn't the solution, placing breathalyzers in every car isn't, and that ultimately, as much as you'd like to control others actions, you can't.
There you go with the term “ban” again. No one is proposing banning firearms and I’m not naive enough to think we’ll ever get to zero. Were MADD overly emotional? Emotion, in response to something bad happening and wanting to see change, and not for the sake of “feel good change for the sake of change change”, is an incredible motivator. Without emotion, nothing would change. And excuse me, but when you have personal experience with the questions I posed, you might want to see positive change that results in less gun deaths. And to at least have an honest debate with the other side about it. \ See, where I’m from, when bad things happen that could have been or should have been preventable, we take a step back, we assess the situation, consider the causes and set about making changes through the democratic process to make life better or to reduce the chances of whatever bad happened from happening again. Hell, it’s the reason why air travel is so much safer than it used to be, same with car travel, the drinking age is 21 and a whole host of other scenarios, like crowd control and people not being trampled to death or hundreds of people dying in a fire. Sure they still happen but not nearly as much as they used to. And guns are the only consumer product that kills or I should say that people use to kill other people where we, as a society, accept the carnage of 30K+ killed and 80K+ injured and don’t do anything about it. To me, that is unacceptable. How much you want to bet that there will be advocates wanting there to be “changes” due to the mudslide in Washington State and to make air travel safer because of the Malaysian Airlines crash and that there will be changes as a result of those statistically small events?
Those are tough questions, Halifax2TheMaxand my answers to those questions are: 1. Yes. 2. Sort of (but not directly- that person worked in another store). 3. No. 4. Yes.
But as you pointed out, these are questions that elicit an emotional response. I've known two people killed by gun fire (and in one of those cases the killer also shot and killed them self- so really that's three) but my opinion about guns is no different now than it was before those deaths. I just feel very badly that two of those three people were killed by gunfire. And I would surmise that if we had both greater restrictions on gun availability (registering them) as well as here in the US a more rational view of gun ownership (as in, "look people, arming ourselves to the teeth is not making us better or safer") maybe one or both of those people would still be alive. The feeling of loss is emotional. The opinion about gun ownership is not- it is logical.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
You are entertaining, so if I use a source that sites CRS as it's a source, and it's invalid because you use CRS as your source?
No, because your primary source you linked to, Breitbart, which cited the CRS source, did not jibe with the emotional headline, “More Guns = Less Crime.”
So you believe in completely banning/restricting, providing security measures to our every day life, because that's what the TSA has done to make flying better?
No. There you go with that word “banning” again. Nowhere in my posts have I advocated for the banning of firearms. The TSA didn’t make flying better, the FAA, the aircraft manufacturers, congressional oversight committees, our government, the airline pilots association and other representative trade groups and the flying public, voicing their desire for change, working together for a common goal, made airline travel safer. I don’t know how old you are but I remember as a kid a plane being hijacked by some revolutionary, disgruntled American or some other whack job was a pretty regular occurrence on the nightly news. I’m happy that people can’t carry their firearms on airplanes.
Do you not believe in the concept that sometimes people will do some really bad things and the actions of these very few limited cases shouldn't completely bring on a police state? Are you willing to give your privacy, your ability to do what you want in order to insure the government has approved this place as safe? Because fully trusting the government has never backfired...
Whoa, way too emotional dude. But to answer your question, yes I believe that sometimes really bad people do really bad things no matter what rules, laws and regulations a democratic society put in place. The last time I checked, I wasn’t in North Korea. I’m not concerned with my privacy being “violated” as a reason to place greater restrictions on irresponsible and illegal gun owners nor do I believe that I’m prevented in any way, shape or form, from doing what I want to do. I do what I want to do within the laws of the society in which I live. I don’t fully trust the “government” because, after all, its made up of people like you and me and people tend to go squirrally every now and again. That’s why we have elections and a democratic process. But I also don’t mistrust the government so much that I feel the need to walk around armed, stockpile firearms or not try to make firearm ownership more responsible and safer so that less people are killed by people with firearms.
You aurgue drinking age and drunk driving, but don't acknowledge the facts that injuries and death due to automobiles/guns are damn near the same.
Same or not, automobile traffic deaths have gone done while the number of vehicles owned and the vehicle miles driven have gone up, way up I might add, as a result of a concerted effort by society/stake holders to make automobile ownership and use safer and safer (graduated licensing anyone?). True, deaths by firearms have gone done while the number of firearms sold/purchased have gone up but they’re owned by less people (less people own more firearms). I’ve already stated what other factors may be driving the decrease in firearm deaths and crime rates overall. All of which I’ve already acknowledged.
I honestly got tired of reading your half page argument of what your point is, all I got out of it is you have a fear of firearms, and a bunch of non facts that you use as "let's just say" facts.
I’m sorry you’re so tired. Maybe you should get some more rest. Care to call out my “facts” and explain which ones I cited are not “facts?”
So again, I'll ask you, what is your point? And get to the point. You don't need to type a page in order to express your point. State it, and then as we will either agree or disagree, use your examples to support your point.
That firearms are not the only solution to crime or personal/home protection, that 30K+ firearm deaths and 80K+ injuries due to firearms, irresponsible firearm owners and illegal firearm possessors and dealers need to be reduced and that, with the 4,066 gun crimes allegedly committed with an AR15, all of it is unacceptable.
I'll point out that regardless of magazine size, an ar 15 is classified as a riffle, there has been almost double the deaths due to blunt objects than riffles. (It's those 100 round magazines!!!)
is it weird to wanna stockpile all sorts of shit and learn how to live off the grid and off your own land after watching the walking dead?
I think it's a little paranoid for sure.
But movies like The Road make a guy pause for thought.
People should be able to take care of themselves. Since when did that become paranoia? We saw what happened during Katrina, am I supposed to let that happen to me?
If something happened the grocery stores would be out of food in a day. Geez, people fight and maim others over saving a few bucks on shitty electronics on Black Friday. You think that they wouldn't do worse if they were starving???
I'll point out that regardless of magazine size, an ar 15 is classified as a riffle, there has been almost double the deaths due to blunt objects than riffles. (It's those 100 round magazines!!!)
Please aurgue the FBI statistics. Also please note the decline in murder rates from fire arms...
... It would be nice to have the ability to drill deeper into that data and find out thisn such as how many of those overall deaths were caused by gang shootings, in the commision of another crime (such as robbery or burgulary) or those 'Heat of Passion' crimes. To find out how many of those murder victims know their killer. ... But, the one thing you have to question... in an overall sense... how many people were killed by one person, weilding a baseball bat or hammer in one event... opposed to one person on a shooting spree with a semi-automatic weapon and large storage devices? Because, some fuck that goes out an tries to beat a crowd of people with a basebal bat can be taken on by orginary citizen who do not have a firearm on their person. I mean, you would jump in to try to stop him, even if your gun was at home... wouldn't you. A gun changes that. It makes that person a far more formidible foe to the average, non-weapon carrying citizen. that person could be a (physically) weak as an Adam Lanza, but the gun makes us fear him... right? ... Finally... with the decline of homocides... why all of the fear to stir us into a gun buying frenzy?
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
is it weird to wanna stockpile all sorts of shit and learn how to live off the grid and off your own land after watching the walking dead?
I think it's a little paranoid for sure.
But movies like The Road make a guy pause for thought.
People should be able to take care of themselves. Since when did that become paranoia? We saw what happened during Katrina, am I supposed to let that happen to me?
If something happened the grocery stores would be out of food in a day. Geez, people fight and maim others over saving a few bucks on shitty electronics on Black Friday. You think that they wouldn't do worse if they were starving???
Unsung,
Come on. Making some preparations is fine, but stockpiling for a pending apocalyptic disaster is a little excessive- don't you think?
In the event the world goes for a shit... I would think for the most part, people would bond together and work with each other to gain some semblance of a decent life. I do not think it would be as cutthroat as you suggest.
Edit: We have seen humanity at its finest in our darkest hours such as people running into the trade center or towards the explosions in Boston. In general, people are good.
is it weird to wanna stockpile all sorts of shit and learn how to live off the grid and off your own land after watching the walking dead?
I think it's a little paranoid for sure.
But movies like The Road make a guy pause for thought.
People should be able to take care of themselves. Since when did that become paranoia? We saw what happened during Katrina, am I supposed to let that happen to me?
If something happened the grocery stores would be out of food in a day. Geez, people fight and maim others over saving a few bucks on shitty electronics on Black Friday. You think that they wouldn't do worse if they were starving???
Unsung,
Come on. Making some preparations is fine, but stockpiling for a pending apocalyptic disaster is a little excessive- don't you think?
In the event the world goes for a shit... I would think for the most part, people would bond together and work with each other to gain some semblance of a decent life. I do not think it would be as cutthroat as you suggest.
Edit: We have seen humanity at its finest in our darkest hours such as people running into the trade center or towards the explosions in Boston. In general, people are good.
Quite honestly, making thread after thread about guns and anger toward cops does seem a little paranoid. Surely there other things to think and write about, no?
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
is it weird to wanna stockpile all sorts of shit and learn how to live off the grid and off your own land after watching the walking dead?
I think it's a little paranoid for sure.
But movies like The Road make a guy pause for thought.
People should be able to take care of themselves. Since when did that become paranoia? We saw what happened during Katrina, am I supposed to let that happen to me?
If something happened the grocery stores would be out of food in a day. Geez, people fight and maim others over saving a few bucks on shitty electronics on Black Friday. You think that they wouldn't do worse if they were starving???
Unsung,
Come on. Making some preparations is fine, but stockpiling for a pending apocalyptic disaster is a little excessive- don't you think?
In the event the world goes for a shit... I would think for the most part, people would bond together and work with each other to gain some semblance of a decent life. I do not think it would be as cutthroat as you suggest.
Edit: We have seen humanity at its finest in our darkest hours such as people running into the trade center or towards the explosions in Boston. In general, people are good.
30 bills, while it was nowhere near the devastation of Katrina, I was living in FLorida when two hurricanes (I think it was 2005) came through and fucked up our neighborhood pretty bad. I was without power for a month. Gasoline was hard to come by, and I hardly showered. I ate crappy canned food a lot. I dont think people relized how bad it was becasue monetarily it wasnt too bad...living life was bad though. After the initial few days, people did start working together. It was a bit stressful at first, but it was a nice feeling later to see people collaborating. I would hope that we learned something from Katrina, and not to say that couldnt happen again, but I agree with you that in the face of disaster, people will hopefully band together.
The thing is, its virtually impossible tat the entire northern american continent could suffer the same devastaiton all over...unless a meteor comes, so people in other areas usually get food and supplies to people pretty quickly when in need.
People should be able to take care of themselves. Since when did that become paranoia? We saw what happened during Katrina, am I supposed to let that happen to me?
If something happened the grocery stores would be out of food in a day. Geez, people fight and maim others over saving a few bucks on shitty electronics on Black Friday. You think that they wouldn't do worse if they were starving???
... There is a difference between being prepared for something such as Hurricanes or Earthquakes and building a fortress to hold off plundering hoards. ... And my advice concering this question, 'We saw what happened during Katrina, am I supposed to let that happen to me?'... evacuate, because your fortess becomes useless when it is under 8 feet of water.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
is it weird to wanna stockpile all sorts of shit and learn how to live off the grid and off your own land after watching the walking dead?
I think it's a little paranoid for sure.
But movies like The Road make a guy pause for thought.
People should be able to take care of themselves. Since when did that become paranoia? We saw what happened during Katrina, am I supposed to let that happen to me?
If something happened the grocery stores would be out of food in a day. Geez, people fight and maim others over saving a few bucks on shitty electronics on Black Friday. You think that they wouldn't do worse if they were starving???
Unsung,
Come on. Making some preparations is fine, but stockpiling for a pending apocalyptic disaster is a little excessive- don't you think?
In the event the world goes for a shit... I would think for the most part, people would bond together and work with each other to gain some semblance of a decent life. I do not think it would be as cutthroat as you suggest.
Edit: We have seen humanity at its finest in our darkest hours such as people running into the trade center or towards the explosions in Boston. In general, people are good.
30 bills, while it was nowhere near the devastation of Katrina, I was living in FLorida when two hurricanes (I think it was 2005) came through and fucked up our neighborhood pretty bad. I was without power for a month. Gasoline was hard to come by, and I hardly showered. I ate crappy canned food a lot. I dont think people relized how bad it was becasue monetarily it wasnt too bad...living life was bad though. After the initial few days, people did start working together. It was a bit stressful at first, but it was a nice feeling later to see people collaborating. I would hope that we learned something from Katrina, and not to say that couldnt happen again, but I agree with you that in the face of disaster, people will hopefully band together.
The thing is, its virtually impossible tat the entire northern american continent could suffer the same devastaiton all over...unless a meteor comes, so people in other areas usually get food and supplies to people pretty quickly when in need.
anyone throw some fishin poles into the drink? how about scootin into the everglades for a gator & deer hunt? before i go hungry in a disaster like a hurricane or what have you, i'm gettin into the woods or swamp & i'm grillin me a gator or deer
you all have citrus groves i'm trespassing & taking some citrus
is it weird to wanna stockpile all sorts of shit and learn how to live off the grid and off your own land after watching the walking dead?
I think it's a little paranoid for sure.
But movies like The Road make a guy pause for thought.
People should be able to take care of themselves. Since when did that become paranoia? We saw what happened during Katrina, am I supposed to let that happen to me?
If something happened the grocery stores would be out of food in a day. Geez, people fight and maim others over saving a few bucks on shitty electronics on Black Friday. You think that they wouldn't do worse if they were starving???
Unsung,
Come on. Making some preparations is fine, but stockpiling for a pending apocalyptic disaster is a little excessive- don't you think?
In the event the world goes for a shit... I would think for the most part, people would bond together and work with each other to gain some semblance of a decent life. I do not think it would be as cutthroat as you suggest.
Edit: We have seen humanity at its finest in our darkest hours such as people running into the trade center or towards the explosions in Boston. In general, people are good.
most disagree...if you live in the country you will be fine but in any kind of serious collapse major cities will erupt in ultra-violence. We have seen our finest in dark hours, yes, but in the normal light of everyday a million atrocities occur. Mobs and gangs, looting, military abuses...you can choose to think positively about humanity, you have that right, but i say you are wrong. Katrina wasn't an anomaly. The foolish thing is to think you can prepare against that future..you cant store more that a few months meager rations and you can't eat or drink bullets.
Keep your precious 2nd Amendment rights but consider limitations and regulations. Really. That's so illogical?
Rights, by definition are not limited and regulated. Privileges are.
Next time you feel the need to restrict MY rights how about I get to restrict yours and ban you from being able to post your opinion online. Maybe someone feels that it is reckless and it hurts their feelings. We can't have people getting their feelings hurt, can we?
How about I get to determine what kind of car you get to buy because I don't feel that you need one for whatever random knee-jerk reaction I feel like using? How about I get to give you one of those old brick cellphones because you don't need a smart phone? Maybe I think your TV is too big so I should be able to restrict that too.
Rights are not determined by you or I or any government. Rights are not limited or regulated. So no, I won't consider that.
I believe that there should be steps to ensure that bad guys cannot hurt good guys. However how many more laws will it take to stop gang shootings in Chicago?
lets try some modest restrictions on gun purchases in Ohio to start. Close some of these major holes we have in who can and how they can buy. Like nonresidents buying legally in Ohio.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
is it weird to wanna stockpile all sorts of shit and learn how to live off the grid and off your own land after watching the walking dead?
I think it's a little paranoid for sure.
But movies like The Road make a guy pause for thought.
People should be able to take care of themselves. Since when did that become paranoia? We saw what happened during Katrina, am I supposed to let that happen to me?
If something happened the grocery stores would be out of food in a day. Geez, people fight and maim others over saving a few bucks on shitty electronics on Black Friday. You think that they wouldn't do worse if they were starving???
Unsung,
Come on. Making some preparations is fine, but stockpiling for a pending apocalyptic disaster is a little excessive- don't you think?
In the event the world goes for a shit... I would think for the most part, people would bond together and work with each other to gain some semblance of a decent life. I do not think it would be as cutthroat as you suggest.
Edit: We have seen humanity at its finest in our darkest hours such as people running into the trade center or towards the explosions in Boston. In general, people are good.
Quite honestly, making thread after thread about guns and anger toward cops does seem a little paranoid. Surely there other things to think and write about, no?
Keep your precious 2nd Amendment rights but consider limitations and regulations. Really. That's so illogical?
Rights, by definition are not limited and regulated. Privileges are.
Next time you feel the need to restrict MY rights how about I get to restrict yours and ban you from being able to post your opinion online. Maybe someone feels that it is reckless and it hurts their feelings. We can't have people getting their feelings hurt, can we?
How about I get to determine what kind of car you get to buy because I don't feel that you need one for whatever random knee-jerk reaction I feel like using? How about I get to give you one of those old brick cellphones because you don't need a smart phone? Maybe I think your TV is too big so I should be able to restrict that too.
Rights are not determined by you or I or any government. Rights are not limited or regulated. So no, I won't consider that.
I believe that there should be steps to ensure that bad guys cannot hurt good guys. However how many more laws will it take to stop gang shootings in Chicago?
lets try some modest restrictions on gun purchases in Ohio to start. Close some of these major holes we have in who can and how they can buy. Like nonresidents buying legally in Ohio.
Please explain the non-residents. Do you mean from other states or immigrants?
Keep your precious 2nd Amendment rights but consider limitations and regulations. Really. That's so illogical?
Rights, by definition are not limited and regulated. Privileges are.
Next time you feel the need to restrict MY rights how about I get to restrict yours and ban you from being able to post your opinion online. Maybe someone feels that it is reckless and it hurts their feelings. We can't have people getting their feelings hurt, can we?
How about I get to determine what kind of car you get to buy because I don't feel that you need one for whatever random knee-jerk reaction I feel like using? How about I get to give you one of those old brick cellphones because you don't need a smart phone? Maybe I think your TV is too big so I should be able to restrict that too.
Rights are not determined by you or I or any government. Rights are not limited or regulated. So no, I won't consider that.
I believe that there should be steps to ensure that bad guys cannot hurt good guys. However how many more laws will it take to stop gang shootings in Chicago?
lets try some modest restrictions on gun purchases in Ohio to start. Close some of these major holes we have in who can and how they can buy. Like nonresidents buying legally in Ohio.
Please explain the non-residents. Do you mean from other states or immigrants?
other states. Given the so very lax laws and the proven crime associated with guns purchased in Ohio and transported elsewhere , its a measure that could reduce some of the violence seen in a city such as Chicago. further, tighten up the no paper trail after initial purchase. what I propose could have a very real effect on the propensity of guns in the wrong hands.
text from a news link locally. from a report in June of last year.
COLUMBUS, Ohio - Federal statistics show that Ohio is a top source for guns used in crimes in other states.
The data released this week and reported by The Columbus Dispatch (http://bit.ly/12QJl5B ) show 1,601 guns were first legally purchased in Ohio in 2012 and then linked to crimes such as robbery and murder in 36 other states.
Another 5,375 guns stayed in Ohio and were linked to crimes in 2012, according to the newspaper analysis of numbers from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
Ohio was a top contributor to guns used in crimes in 2011, too. Around 1,700 weapons attained here were traced to crimes in 38 states during that year.
Law enforcement officials say part of the reason is Ohio's less-restrictive gun laws.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
damn free speech restrictions in this forum....."body is xxx characters too long......
article linked above part 1 By Joshua Jamerson The Columbus Dispatch • Friday June 21, 2013 5:19 AM
Comments: 18
Federal data released this week show once again that Ohio is a top source for guns involved in crimes in other states. And the state remains among the weakest when it comes to gun laws.
Criminals know that, law-enforcement officials say, so it’s no surprise to them that Ohio guns show up in so many criminal acts in other states.
“People know they can come to Ohio, get a gun, and take it someplace where there are tougher restrictions,” said Columbus Deputy Police Chief Jeffrey Blackwell. “It happens at gun shows in the sticks and through underground schemes on city streets.”
Sometimes, it’s a lot of guns, such as the 183 that ended up involved in New York crimes, or just one, such as the Ohio gun linked to a crime in Vermont.
In all, 1,601 guns were first legally purchased in Ohio last year and then linked to crimes such as robbery and homicide in 36 other states. An additional 5,375 guns stayed in Ohio and were linked to crimes in 2012, according to a Dispatch analysis of data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
In 2011, the number of guns traced back to Ohio from other states was closer to 1,700, with 5,225 staying in the state. Ohio was a top contributor of guns used in crimes in 38 states.
Though not all those guns are linked to trafficking operations, Laura Cutilletta, senior staff attorney for the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, says that the trace data illustrate how easy it is to get guns in Ohio. She said the state has too many loopholes for gun ownership that serve as a “beacon” for a gun-trafficking market.
By law, background checks are not required for all gun sales — including some online and gun-show sellers. The state doesn’t keep track of who buys guns. Violent misdemeanors, such as domestic violence, don’t disqualify someone from making a firearm purchase.
But gun lobbies argue that there will always be criminals who break the law, no matter how tight the law is.
Now that those lobbies have seemingly halted Congress’ push for tighter gun restrictions, some argue that lawmakers in states across the country could have some effect on gun trafficking in America. But others argue that any more restrictions on gun ownership will affect a constitutional right to bear arms. Movement of guns
It’s hard to end gun trafficking because it’s tough to track the movement of guns. There’s no national register the federal government can use to show who owns a firearm at any given time. The ATF each year uses information supplied voluntarily by local law-enforcement agencies around the country to trace guns used in crimes back to a legal purchase. From there, they can discover whether someone illegally bought guns for other people.
First, the agency traces guns involved in crimes to the manufacturer. From there, they find the shop that first sold it, and the first buyer. Then comes the tricky part: ATF agents have to ask around to figure out how a gun moved from hand to hand.
The data that comes from those investigations is compiled in state-by-state annual reports known as “trace data” that show everything from which types of guns were used in crimes to where they came from.
While there are several limitations to the trace information, it’s the only information of its kind, said Dave Coulson, the Columbus ATF spokesman, adding that it’s “a powerful tool” that provides the bureau with information.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Comments
And by simply adding required registration, you think massive amounts of people are just going to give up and not buy the guns they want? ...Must not want them that bad.
The thing is... no one is accusing you of being a Sex Offender. There is a reason why Sex Offenders are required to register... because they have violated the law.
You are a legal gun owner. No one is asking you to register as a gun owner, we are asking that you register YOUR gun, not you. It is like your Drivers License is tied to you, as a person. Your vehicle registration is tied to your car. Sell your car and you transfer the title and the vehicle's registration to the new owner.
...
As for confiscation... it is only going to happen when you engage in criminal activity. And if you are involved in criminal activity, your guns need to be taken away from you. No one is going to bust down your doors unless you are a threat to other people.
Hail, Hail!!!
law don't go round here, law dog.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Have you ever known someone who was killed by a firearm?
Have you ever worked with someone who lost an employee or had someone killed at your workplace or place of employment?
Have you ever known a child or one or both of their parents where the child was killed by a firearm?
Have you ever had a friend killed by a firearm?
Peace.
What difference do these questions make aside from stating an emotional therefor non logic approach to an issue? The majority of us have suffered loss due to events that have been out of our control. And as much as we'd like to control everything, we can't. Some accept it, others crusade against it. I don't fault you if you have, but I've been directly effected by drunk driving. I've suffered a large loss to that, but I know that banning alcohol isn't the solution, placing breathalyzers in every car isn't, and that ultimately, as much as you'd like to control others actions, you can't.
Then you followed with this in response to my questions:
What difference do these questions make aside from stating an emotional therefor non logic approach to an issue? The majority of us have suffered loss due to events that have been out of our control. And as much as we'd like to control everything, we can't. Some accept it, others crusade against it. I don't fault you if you have, but I've been directly effected by drunk driving. I've suffered a large loss to that, but I know that banning alcohol isn't the solution, placing breathalyzers in every car isn't, and that ultimately, as much as you'd like to control others actions, you can't.
There you go with the term “ban” again. No one is proposing banning firearms and I’m not naive enough to think we’ll ever get to zero. Were MADD overly emotional? Emotion, in response to something bad happening and wanting to see change, and not for the sake of “feel good change for the sake of change change”, is an incredible motivator. Without emotion, nothing would change. And excuse me, but when you have personal experience with the questions I posed, you might want to see positive change that results in less gun deaths. And to at least have an honest debate with the other side about it.
\
See, where I’m from, when bad things happen that could have been or should have been preventable, we take a step back, we assess the situation, consider the causes and set about making changes through the democratic process to make life better or to reduce the chances of whatever bad happened from happening again. Hell, it’s the reason why air travel is so much safer than it used to be, same with car travel, the drinking age is 21 and a whole host of other scenarios, like crowd control and people not being trampled to death or hundreds of people dying in a fire. Sure they still happen but not nearly as much as they used to. And guns are the only consumer product that kills or I should say that people use to kill other people where we, as a society, accept the carnage of 30K+ killed and 80K+ injured and don’t do anything about it. To me, that is unacceptable. How much you want to bet that there will be advocates wanting there to be “changes” due to the mudslide in Washington State and to make air travel safer because of the Malaysian Airlines crash and that there will be changes as a result of those statistically small events?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
The evil weapon that anti's are afraid of is the AR-15. It has been proved to be used in less than 1% of gun crime. Chicago had over 500 murders two years ago and only ONE was attributed to any type of semi-auto rifle.
So why is it the mission of liberals to ban that firearm that is really never used illegally? Why are you afraid of it?
Followed by:
So when the next crazy uses a handgun like that idiot in Arizona are you going to call for a ban?
What about a stabbing spree like what recently happened in China? Ban all knives?
Seriously where does the knee-jerk lunacy stop?
Way too emotional dude. And there you go with that ban thing again. Have a source you’d like to link to for the 1% claim?
1% of all gun crime, fatal and non-fatal is still: 4,784, which averages out to 95.68 per state for 2011 (Fatal gun crimes 2011 = 11,101 + non-fatal gun crimes = 467,300 = 478,401 total gun crimes Xs .01 = 4,784/50 = 95.68 per state) committed with an AR15. Doesn’t seem like an “only” or “never used illegally” to me kind of number but that’s just me.
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf
Interestingly enough, the same link above shows that less than 1% of non-fatal crime victims used a firearm in self-defense between 2007 and 2011.
Peace.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Peace.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
So you believe in completely banning/restricting, providing security measures to our every day life, because that's what the TSA has done to make flying better?
Do you not believe in the concept that sometimes people will do some really bad things and the actions of these very few limited cases shouldn't completely bring on a police state? Are you willing to give your privacy, your ability to do what you want in order to insure the government has approved this place as safe? Because fully trusting the government has never backfired...
You aurgue drinking age and drunk driving, but don't acknowledge the facts that injuries and death due to automobiles/guns are damn near the same.
I honestly got tired of reading your half page argument of what your point is, all I got out of it is you have a fear of firearms, and a bunch of non facts that you use as "let's just say" facts.
So again, I'll ask you, what is your point? And get to the point. You don't need to type a page in order to express your point. State it, and then as we will either agree or disagree, use your examples to support your point.
I'll point out that regardless of magazine size, an ar 15 is classified as a riffle, there has been almost double the deaths due to blunt objects than riffles. (It's those 100 round magazines!!!)
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2008-2012.xls
Please aurgue the FBI statistics. Also please note the decline in murder rates from fire arms...
Then you followed with this in response to my questions:
What difference do these questions make aside from stating an emotional therefor non logic approach to an issue? The majority of us have suffered loss due to events that have been out of our control. And as much as we'd like to control everything, we can't. Some accept it, others crusade against it. I don't fault you if you have, but I've been directly effected by drunk driving. I've suffered a large loss to that, but I know that banning alcohol isn't the solution, placing breathalyzers in every car isn't, and that ultimately, as much as you'd like to control others actions, you can't.
There you go with the term “ban” again. No one is proposing banning firearms and I’m not naive enough to think we’ll ever get to zero. Were MADD overly emotional? Emotion, in response to something bad happening and wanting to see change, and not for the sake of “feel good change for the sake of change change”, is an incredible motivator. Without emotion, nothing would change. And excuse me, but when you have personal experience with the questions I posed, you might want to see positive change that results in less gun deaths. And to at least have an honest debate with the other side about it.
\
See, where I’m from, when bad things happen that could have been or should have been preventable, we take a step back, we assess the situation, consider the causes and set about making changes through the democratic process to make life better or to reduce the chances of whatever bad happened from happening again. Hell, it’s the reason why air travel is so much safer than it used to be, same with car travel, the drinking age is 21 and a whole host of other scenarios, like crowd control and people not being trampled to death or hundreds of people dying in a fire. Sure they still happen but not nearly as much as they used to. And guns are the only consumer product that kills or I should say that people use to kill other people where we, as a society, accept the carnage of 30K+ killed and 80K+ injured and don’t do anything about it. To me, that is unacceptable. How much you want to bet that there will be advocates wanting there to be “changes” due to the mudslide in Washington State and to make air travel safer because of the Malaysian Airlines crash and that there will be changes as a result of those statistically small events?
Those are tough questions, Halifax2TheMaxand my answers to those questions are:
1. Yes.
2. Sort of (but not directly- that person worked in another store).
3. No.
4. Yes.
But as you pointed out, these are questions that elicit an emotional response. I've known two people killed by gun fire (and in one of those cases the killer also shot and killed them self- so really that's three) but my opinion about guns is no different now than it was before those deaths. I just feel very badly that two of those three people were killed by gunfire. And I would surmise that if we had both greater restrictions on gun availability (registering them) as well as here in the US a more rational view of gun ownership (as in, "look people, arming ourselves to the teeth is not making us better or safer") maybe one or both of those people would still be alive. The feeling of loss is emotional. The opinion about gun ownership is not- it is logical.
So much for reading comprehension in Texas.
Peace.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
I've already acknowledged the decline in deaths from firearms, Several times, in fact.
Peace.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
But movies like The Road make a guy pause for thought.
If something happened the grocery stores would be out of food in a day. Geez, people fight and maim others over saving a few bucks on shitty electronics on Black Friday. You think that they wouldn't do worse if they were starving???
It would be nice to have the ability to drill deeper into that data and find out thisn such as how many of those overall deaths were caused by gang shootings, in the commision of another crime (such as robbery or burgulary) or those 'Heat of Passion' crimes. To find out how many of those murder victims know their killer.
...
But, the one thing you have to question... in an overall sense... how many people were killed by one person, weilding a baseball bat or hammer in one event... opposed to one person on a shooting spree with a semi-automatic weapon and large storage devices?
Because, some fuck that goes out an tries to beat a crowd of people with a basebal bat can be taken on by orginary citizen who do not have a firearm on their person. I mean, you would jump in to try to stop him, even if your gun was at home... wouldn't you.
A gun changes that. It makes that person a far more formidible foe to the average, non-weapon carrying citizen. that person could be a (physically) weak as an Adam Lanza, but the gun makes us fear him... right?
...
Finally... with the decline of homocides... why all of the fear to stir us into a gun buying frenzy?
Hail, Hail!!!
Come on. Making some preparations is fine, but stockpiling for a pending apocalyptic disaster is a little excessive- don't you think?
In the event the world goes for a shit... I would think for the most part, people would bond together and work with each other to gain some semblance of a decent life. I do not think it would be as cutthroat as you suggest.
Edit: We have seen humanity at its finest in our darkest hours such as people running into the trade center or towards the explosions in Boston. In general, people are good.
The thing is, its virtually impossible tat the entire northern american continent could suffer the same devastaiton all over...unless a meteor comes, so people in other areas usually get food and supplies to people pretty quickly when in need.
There is a difference between being prepared for something such as Hurricanes or Earthquakes and building a fortress to hold off plundering hoards.
...
And my advice concering this question, 'We saw what happened during Katrina, am I supposed to let that happen to me?'... evacuate, because your fortess becomes useless when it is under 8 feet of water.
Hail, Hail!!!
you all have citrus groves
i'm trespassing & taking some citrus
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
most disagree...if you live in the country you will be fine but in any kind of serious collapse major cities will erupt in ultra-violence. We have seen our finest in dark hours, yes, but in the normal light of everyday a million atrocities occur. Mobs and gangs, looting, military abuses...you can choose to think positively about humanity, you have that right, but i say you are wrong. Katrina wasn't an anomaly. The foolish thing is to think you can prepare against that future..you cant store more that a few months meager rations and you can't eat or drink bullets.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Please explain the non-residents. Do you mean from other states or immigrants?
text from a news link locally. from a report in June of last year.
COLUMBUS, Ohio - Federal statistics show that Ohio is a top source for guns used in crimes in other states.
The data released this week and reported by The Columbus Dispatch (http://bit.ly/12QJl5B ) show 1,601 guns were first legally purchased in Ohio in 2012 and then linked to crimes such as robbery and murder in 36 other states.
Another 5,375 guns stayed in Ohio and were linked to crimes in 2012, according to the newspaper analysis of numbers from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
Ohio was a top contributor to guns used in crimes in 2011, too. Around 1,700 weapons attained here were traced to crimes in 38 states during that year.
Law enforcement officials say part of the reason is Ohio's less-restrictive gun laws.
link, 10tv owned by the Wolfe family. conservative. also own the columbus dispatch. reasonably balanced.
http://www.10tv.com/content/stories/2013/06/21/columbus-ohio-top-supplier-of-guns-to-other-state.html
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
article linked above part 1
By Joshua Jamerson The Columbus Dispatch • Friday June 21, 2013 5:19 AM
Comments: 18
Federal data released this week show once again that Ohio is a top source for guns involved in crimes in other states. And the state remains among the weakest when it comes to gun laws.
Criminals know that, law-enforcement officials say, so it’s no surprise to them that Ohio guns show up in so many criminal acts in other states.
“People know they can come to Ohio, get a gun, and take it someplace where there are tougher restrictions,” said Columbus Deputy Police Chief Jeffrey Blackwell. “It happens at gun shows in the sticks and through underground schemes on city streets.”
Sometimes, it’s a lot of guns, such as the 183 that ended up involved in New York crimes, or just one, such as the Ohio gun linked to a crime in Vermont.
In all, 1,601 guns were first legally purchased in Ohio last year and then linked to crimes such as robbery and homicide in 36 other states. An additional 5,375 guns stayed in Ohio and were linked to crimes in 2012, according to a Dispatch analysis of data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
In 2011, the number of guns traced back to Ohio from other states was closer to 1,700, with 5,225 staying in the state. Ohio was a top contributor of guns used in crimes in 38 states.
Though not all those guns are linked to trafficking operations, Laura Cutilletta, senior staff attorney for the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, says that the trace data illustrate how easy it is to get guns in Ohio. She said the state has too many loopholes for gun ownership that serve as a “beacon” for a gun-trafficking market.
By law, background checks are not required for all gun sales — including some online and gun-show sellers. The state doesn’t keep track of who buys guns. Violent misdemeanors, such as domestic violence, don’t disqualify someone from making a firearm purchase.
But gun lobbies argue that there will always be criminals who break the law, no matter how tight the law is.
Now that those lobbies have seemingly halted Congress’ push for tighter gun restrictions, some argue that lawmakers in states across the country could have some effect on gun trafficking in America. But others argue that any more restrictions on gun ownership will affect a constitutional right to bear arms.
Movement of guns
It’s hard to end gun trafficking because it’s tough to track the movement of guns. There’s no national register the federal government can use to show who owns a firearm at any given time. The ATF each year uses information supplied voluntarily by local law-enforcement agencies around the country to trace guns used in crimes back to a legal purchase. From there, they can discover whether someone illegally bought guns for other people.
First, the agency traces guns involved in crimes to the manufacturer. From there, they find the shop that first sold it, and the first buyer. Then comes the tricky part: ATF agents have to ask around to figure out how a gun moved from hand to hand.
The data that comes from those investigations is compiled in state-by-state annual reports known as “trace data” that show everything from which types of guns were used in crimes to where they came from.
While there are several limitations to the trace information, it’s the only information of its kind, said Dave Coulson, the Columbus ATF spokesman, adding that it’s “a powerful tool” that provides the bureau with information.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14