Think Oblahma won't suppress you're right to own guns - Think again... [Archive]

View Full Version : Think Oblahma won't suppress you're right to own guns - Think again...

TheHumanAlphabet

1/30/2009, 12:58 PM

Read and then go out and buy - buy - buy!!!

Link (http://www.ktrh.com/cc-common/news/sections/newsarticle.html??feed=121300&article=4926930)

Now Who's Paranoid?!

Gun owners are starting to voice their concerns over some of the proposals of the new President.
By KTRH's John Labus
Friday, January 30, 2009
Some supporters of Barack Obama are feeling betrayed, now that it appears his Attorney General-Designate wants to increase gun control. Houston gun shop owner Jim Pruett (http://www.jimpruett.net/) says they shouldn't be surprised.

"If they read on the website of the Democratic National Convention - which is still there - they intend to pass the Assault Weapons Ban, and even make it more comprehensive."

But Michael Hammond with the Gun Owners of America (http://gunowners.org/) says a lot of Second Amendment advocates are surprised by Obama's selection of Eric Holder as Attorney General.

"Holder supported licensing of firearms; he supported taking away an individual's right to own a gun for a lifetime, because he had a playground fight at five years of age... and he supported doing away with gun shows... Here is a man who is a rabid anti-gunner, at a point in which we have a president who supposedly got elected on the proposition that he didn't hate the Second Amendment."

One of Holder's proposals -- to number every round of ammunition sold in America. Pruett and Hammond both say it's an effective means of gun control, because no one could afford the high cost of bullets.

Pruett says the current run on gun purchases seems far more reasonable now.

"Most reasonable people... sometimes we read what the liberal media says and we start feeling weird and strange like we're gun wackos; but we are correct. We are right."

Holder is scheduled to be confirmed by the full Senate on Monday.

Would numbering each individual bullet sold in the US actually reduce crime? To answer our question of the day

JohnnyMack

1/30/2009, 01:06 PM

I think you should have to have a license and carry insurance on each gun you own. You have to do that to operate a motor vehicle, why not a gun?

bri

1/30/2009, 01:08 PM

BECAUSE CARS AIN'T A GOD-GIVEN RIGHT!!! :D

Dan Thompson

1/30/2009, 01:13 PM

But there just a lethal.

Frozen Sooner

1/30/2009, 01:28 PM

Are you sure you haven't confused Holder with Chris Rock?

bri

1/30/2009, 01:33 PM

Heh.

TheHumanAlphabet

1/30/2009, 01:57 PM

I think you should have to have a license and carry insurance on each gun you own. You have to do that to operate a motor vehicle, why not a gun?

Just as motorcycle riders that don't wear helmets should be required to have a million $ plus medical insurance rider to cover their health care costs when they have an accident.

Were as the motorcycle is a priviledge afforded by the state, the right to own guns and use them legally is a constitutional right.

C&CDean

1/30/2009, 02:21 PM

There's a lot of bull**** Oblama is going to get away with because people are still fellating him like he's John Holmes, however, when he seriously starts to **** with guns, he's gonna lose a big chunk of his blowers. Johnny Mack won't be one of them though cause he's had plastic surgery to attach Brack's dick to the roof of his mouth.

JohnnyMack

1/30/2009, 02:41 PM

How's about you keep your homo-erotic fantasies to yourself and focus on the topic.

Why shouldn't gun owners be required to have a license to operate a firearm and carry insurance on it?

yermom

1/30/2009, 03:03 PM

probably the same reason you don't have to pay a "poll tax"

85Sooner

1/30/2009, 03:04 PM

yermom

1/30/2009, 03:08 PM

it's like drugs, if you make them hard to get, the black market ones are still going to be around

the people you don't want to have them are still going to have them, but the people that you wouldn't be worried about having them might not

personally, i kinda like the idea that John Q. Mugger might need to worry about some Charlie Bronson running around

Vaevictis

1/30/2009, 03:23 PM

You are correct in that gun control won't prevent habitual criminals from having guns. It will prevent people from using them in the heat of the moment to commit crimes -- eg, jilted lover. It will also increase the cost of doing business for said habitual criminals.

Maybe that trade-off is worth it -- maybe it's not. I personally don't think it is, but I don't feel that strongly about it one way or the other.

What I don't get is the argument that you need to keep guns to keep the government honest. It makes no sense to me. If things ever get to the point where you want to be involved in an armed uprising, guns will be easy to get. The government will have plenty. Just take them.

In that case, the real problem won't be weapons. It will be organizing an effective force and keeping it intact in the face of the rather overwhelming force the government can bring to bear.

JohnnyMack

1/30/2009, 03:25 PM

Because its none of the governments business to "Know" that information. IMO

Thanks for your expectedly simplistic response.

Whet

1/30/2009, 03:38 PM

double-speak from "them":

Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.

C&CDean

1/30/2009, 03:55 PM

How's about you keep your homo-erotic fantasies to yourself and focus on the topic.

Why shouldn't gun owners be required to have a license to operate a firearm and carry insurance on it?

Because about 95+% of "gun owners" don't carry a gun around with them - unless they're headed out hunting or to the range. Why should I have to have a license and insurance on the 20 guns that spend 99% of their time in my closet or under the bed?

That, and the fact that it's a stupid idea on principle. Will me insuring my guns and having a license make your kids safer in their home? Make you less likely to get gangstered on a dark street in Baltimore? Didn't think so.

yermom

1/30/2009, 04:04 PM

"gangstered"

heh

Whet

1/30/2009, 04:23 PM

Maybe he wants to be gangstered on a dark street!

After all, according to the FBI, 80% of all crimes are committed by gangsta's

JohnnyMack

1/30/2009, 04:38 PM

Because about 95+% of "gun owners" don't carry a gun around with them - unless they're headed out hunting or to the range. Why should I have to have a license and insurance on the 20 guns that spend 99% of their time in my closet or under the bed?

That, and the fact that it's a stupid idea on principle. Will me insuring my guns and having a license make your kids safer in their home? Make you less likely to get gangstered on a dark street in Baltimore? Didn't think so.

Wrong city smacktard, I'm going to Long Beach to chill with Snoop.

I'm not talking about a policy that would make it prohibitive to own a gun, simply one that covers you in case your old *** mistakenly shoots farmer Cletus instead of a buck because your eyesight ain't what it used to be. Or if little Timmy gets ahold of his daddy's gun and accidentally blasts little Marvin then a policy would cover medical bills and damages. Incidents like those are rare I know, but what I'm getting at is establishing a series of hoops that would result in stiffer penalties against offenders who don't see to it that they are covered.

Frozen Sooner

1/30/2009, 04:48 PM

JM-

Dean's homeowner's liability portion already covers that.

C&CDean

1/30/2009, 04:52 PM

JM-

Dean's homeowner's liability portion already covers that.

True dat.

JM,

You simplistic simpleton of a gangsterer. Let's see......I want you to insure your kids' roller skates in case he runs me over at the park. I want you to insure your sunglasses in case the glare blinds me while you're giving me highway head and I crash. I want you to insure......see what I mean? Stupid.

JohnnyMack

1/30/2009, 04:56 PM

JM-

Dean's homeowner's liability portion already covers that.

Zip it.

I had him on the ropes.

Jerk

1/30/2009, 05:16 PM

What guns are these you speak of?

I lost all of mine in a tragic boating accident :(

JohnnyMack

1/30/2009, 05:18 PM

Cool! Jerk's here. Let's get drunk and have it out*.

*Online of course. I don't want you to actually shoot me with the guns that you no longer have. :D

Pricetag

1/30/2009, 05:30 PM

JM-

Dean's homeowner's liability portion already covers that.
Heh, after all the talk of fellating and homo-erotic fantasies, I totally misread this one.

85Sooner

1/30/2009, 05:48 PM

Thanks for your expectedly simplistic response.

It isn't a complicated issue.

Penguin

1/30/2009, 05:54 PM

Guns? Obama can take all the guns away for all I care. Now, if he starts threatening to take away my machete and hockey mask, I'm gonna be mad! :mad:

Jerk

1/30/2009, 06:05 PM

Cool! Jerk's here. Let's get drunk and have it out*.

*Online of course. I don't want you to actually shoot me with the guns that you no longer have. :D

I'm getting drunk, too. What are you drinking? I'm drinking wheat beer.

Harry Beanbag

1/30/2009, 06:34 PM

I'm getting drunk, too. What are you drinking? I'm drinking wheat beer.

You have a license and insurance for that?

Jerk

1/30/2009, 08:01 PM

You have a license and insurance for that?

All they're interested in is the tax. That's how progressives love to control the populace. When the burden becomes too overwhelming, I will either bootleg it in or make my own.

I know people who know how to make their own. In fact, I have a decent source from southeast Oklahoma.

JohnnyMack

1/30/2009, 09:17 PM

I'm getting drunk, too. What are you drinking? I'm drinking wheat beer.

Leftover Amber Bock from a party we had last weekend. Might get the good stuff out later.

Jerk

1/30/2009, 09:23 PM

Wrong city smacktard, I'm going to Long Beach to chill with Snoop.

I'm not talking about a policy that would make it prohibitive to own a gun, simply one that covers you in case your old *** mistakenly shoots farmer Cletus instead of a buck because your eyesight ain't what it used to be. Or if little Timmy gets ahold of his daddy's gun and accidentally blasts little Marvin then a policy would cover medical bills and damages. Incidents like those are rare I know, but what I'm getting at is establishing a series of hoops that would result in stiffer penalties against offenders who don't see to it that they are covered.

Do you own a swimming pool, bicycle, ladder, or household detergents? I think you should have a license for those items since they are more likely to accidentally kill a kid.

StoopTroup

1/30/2009, 10:41 PM

I need Ninja Insurance.

GaqS9l3xL5E

OklahomaTuba

1/30/2009, 11:19 PM

Gun control has been a smashing success in Britain.

Violent crime is at historic levels over there since the ban was enacted.

Vaevictis

1/30/2009, 11:37 PM

Violent crime is at historic levels over there since the ban was enacted.

That might be a compelling statistic, were it true.

Firearms Act banning hand guns: 1997

Statistic: Violent crime down 48% since 1995. (Page 2, http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08/hosb0708.pdf)

OklahomaTuba

1/30/2009, 11:45 PM

That might be a compelling statistic, were it true.

Firearms Act banning hand guns: 1997

Statistic: Violent crime down 48% since 1995. (Page 2, http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08/hosb0708.pdf)

The homeoffice stats are worthless, at best.

Government figures 'missing' two million violent crimes

An extra two million violent crimes a year are committed in Britain than previously thought because of a bizarre distortion in the Government's flagship crime figures, it was claimed yesterday.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/government-figures-missing-two-million-violent-crimes-454637.html

Vaevictis

1/30/2009, 11:49 PM

An extra two million violent crimes a year are committed in Britain than previously thought because of a bizarre distortion in the Government's flagship crime figures, it was claimed yesterday.

And even if you take the claim at face value, it still yields a -5% change from 1995. Your claim is still demonstrably false.

OklahomaTuba

1/31/2009, 12:00 AM

And even if you take the claim at face value, it still yields a -5% change from 1995. Your claim is still demonstrably false.

Actually, the gun ban has more than likely shown a 4X increase in gun violence since the ban.

However, perhaps most telling is the massive increase in gun violence, disclosed on 25 January of this year (Homicides, Firearm Offences and Intimate Violence 2005-06, Home Office). Buried at page 36 . . . we find [that] . . . gun-related killings and injuries (excluding airguns) have increased by over fourfold since 1998.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2328368.ece

I wouldn't trust the homeoffice figures. Its like trusting something from the RNC or DNC, even if it seems "official".

OklahomaTuba

1/31/2009, 12:04 AM

Damn...

Neither have bans worked in other countries. Gun crime in England and Wales increased 340 percent in the seven years since their 1998 ban. Ireland banned handguns and center fire rifles in 1972 and murder rates soared — the post-ban murder rate average has been 144 percent higher than pre-ban.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,336689,00.html

OklahomaTuba

1/31/2009, 12:20 AM

Interesting video about the English protesting the gun ban, and what a smashing pile of dog crap its been for them over there...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGVAQOUi6ec

Vaevictis

1/31/2009, 12:40 AM

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2328368.ece

I wouldn't trust the homeoffice figures. Its like trusting something from the RNC or DNC, even if it seems "official".

If you don't trust the Home Office figures, why are you citing an article where someone is citing the home office figures?

Harry Beanbag

1/31/2009, 01:22 AM

I need Ninja Insurance.

GaqS9l3xL5E

I have that. It's pricey, but definitely worth it.

Vaevictis

1/31/2009, 01:32 AM

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08/hosb0708.pdf

Of the firearm offences which involved injury, 86 per cent (or 2,762 offences) resulted in slight injury, representing nine per cent more slight injury offences than in 2006/07.

2762/.86 = 3211 total firearm offenses resulting in injury.

Many of these slight injuries were caused by imitation weapons (some of which fire plastic pellets).

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs09/hosb0209.pdf

You have to carry out some numbers, but if you do, you find that 25% of the injuries quoted are from 'imitation firearms'. Toy guns. Deliberately disabled firearms. Etc.

From your article:

From The Sunday Times
August 26, 2007

(...)

The Home Office figures - which exclude crimes involving air weapons - show the number of deaths and injuries caused by gun attacks in England and Wales soared from 864 in 1998-99 to 3,821 in 2005-06.

It's not a coincidence that you have a politician in August 2007 quoting numbers running from 2005. Why are they doing that? To exaggerate.

If you look at the numbers, crimes involving firearms peaked in 2004/2005. Last year, crimes involving firearms were down 28% relative to 2004/2005.

Of the firearm crimes last year, 15% were categorized as involving "imitation weapons". Compare this to 1997/1998, when 4% of "firearm crimes" were committed using imitation weapons. In other words, the "lethality" of the firearms used in crime is decreasing as a proportion of the crimes.

If you look at the injuries figures that are comparable to your politicians claims, you'll find that of all injuries, 45.4% of them are caused by these imitation weapons. Almost all of these are categorized as "slight", by which they basically means you required no serious medical attention. Maybe you got a bruise or a minor cut.

If you look at the violent crime numbers, you'll find that in 1997/1998, 33.3% resulted in homocide or "serious injury." By 2007/2008, this number has fallen to 17.8%. (The remainder in both cases being "slight or no injury.")

In other words, your numbers are bunk and are deliberately misleading. If you go actually dig into things, what you'll find is that while the total number of crimes since 1997/1998 has increased,

(1) The numbers are not nearly high as you are claiming because you're using old data for sensationalist purposes.
(2) The severity of injuries in crimes has drastically fallen as a proportion of the crimes committed.

#2 is pretty important there. It tells me that there is a good chance that the firearm ban has resulted in a major reduction in the severity of injury resulting from violent crime relative to where things would be without said ban.

Crucifax Autumn

1/31/2009, 01:41 AM