Federal gun smuggling

[afc wimbledon]

Alcohol has benefits and always has, guns used to be essential, now are just a hobby.

Criminals drug cartels etc really make little or no difference to the average yank, most murders consist of some drunken idiot killing his wife or neighbour, he might do it with a knife anyway but a gun makes it pretty well certain.

I personally don't care one way or the other about gun control but do detest the absoloute bolloxs the pro gun lobby spouts, guns are damn all good for self defence against mexican drug cartels, black men that want to rape your women or the goverment that wants to pry it from your cold dead hands, outside of the military and police they are a hobby with little practical application except for hunters and having a gun in the house increases your chances of being murdered by a massive amount, especially if you are a woman.

If the NRA etc just stated 'we want guns because we like em, and we know that they will statistically get alot of people hurt for not much good but thats ok by us' I would support them.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Criminals drug cartels etc really make little or no difference to the average yank, most murders consist of some drunken idiot killing his wife or neighbour, he might do it with a knife anyway but a gun makes it pretty well certain.

...outside of the military and police they are a hobby with little practical application except for hunters and having a gun in the house increases your chances of being murdered by a massive amount, especially if you are a woman.

The "gun use for self defense" statistics prove you 100% wrong.

I have posted those figures in past gun grabbing threads and if I remember right the number was in the millions.....

The drunken idiots who kill their wives are simply going to stab or beat them to death instead of use the gun anyways....so the absence of guns does not mean there will be an absence of death.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

The "gun use for self defense" statistics prove you 100% wrong.

I have posted those figures in past gun grabbing threads and if I remember right the number was in the millions.....

The drunken idiots who kill their wives are simply going to stab or beat them to death instead of use the gun anyways....so the absence of guns does not mean there will be an absence of death.

There will always be murder, but having a crap load of guns around pretty well ensures there will be more, and statistically countries with less gun ownership tend to have less gun deaths.
Personally I do not think that the amount of self defence 'saves' in any way outways the amount of deaths, and also is unable to take into account whether if there were less guns they would need less self defence.
I doubt there more than one or two 'self defence's' by gun in the UK and yet their gun crime rate is massively smaller than the US.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Alcohol has benefits and always has

And that benefit is what? Helping ugly people have sex? By all accounts, most health experts will say that if you limit yourself to a drink per day, it won't harm you, but if you don't drink in the first place, there is no purpose in starting, as the health benefits are minimal.

So I'm not sure what the 'benefits' are.

, guns used to be essential, now are just a hobby.

Discounting the obvious use for self defence which you are just choosing to deny, as there are a slew of studies out there that have proven that ownership of guns for self defence purposes isn't a crazy idea, considering that guns are used for self defence purposes over 65,000/year in the US, who cares if guns are just a hobby? Playing hockey is just a hobby for me too. As is reading CP, going to the movies, and building a 200:1 replica Titanic.

I realize that all those things would not be considered dangerous, but I find it a bit insulting that people like me who own guns for hunting and hobby purposes, should do away with those guns, just because some drunk idiot killed his wife in the southern US. I follow every single aspect of gun safety as much as possible, and have never even come close to having a gun related accident.

Criminals drug cartels etc really make little or no difference to the average yank, most murders consist of some drunken idiot killing his wife or neighbour, he might do it with a knife anyway but a gun makes it pretty well certain.

Uh, gun violence is WAY higher in poor urban areas, and in 'conjunction with gang violence' according to Wikipedia. And gangs are notorious for being involved in the drug trade, and people in the drug trade are VERY involved in the buying/selling of illegal firearms. So yes, the drug cartels create a problem, as does the open border.

15% of all homicide victims in the US were family members, while over 60% were either just a acquittance, not known, or the relationship between the victim and the assailant was undetermined. So saying 'most' murders consist of a drunken idiot killing his wife is false.

By and large, the poorer the person, area, city, state or country, the higher the crime rate. The US has a lot of urban areas that are very poor, and as a result they have a higher rate of crime, including violent crime such as homicide and rape.

I personally don't care one way or the other about gun control but do detest the absoloute bolloxs the pro gun lobby spouts, guns are damn all good for self defence against mexican drug cartels, black men that want to rape your women or the goverment that wants to pry it from your cold dead hands, outside of the military and police they are a hobby with little practical application except for hunters and having a gun in the house increases your chances of being murdered by a massive amount, especially if you are a woman.

Sounds to me like you're the one coming up with the stupid cliché's here. The problem with gun control is simple. It costs a lot of money, and doesn't work. Any smart person would understand that if your goal is to reduce gun crime, you have to target the cause, and not the result. Result being gun crime, and the cause or reason being more often than not poverty.

My family and extended family have owned guns for hundreds of years, and we have never had an accident or gun crime.

If you want to bring out the statistics, driving a car is more likely to kill you than owning a gun will.

If the NRA etc just stated 'we want guns because we like em, and we know that they will statistically get alot of people hurt for not much good but thats ok by us' I would support them.

The NRA has taken gun ownership to an extreme. While I support their outreach on safety and sensible gun ownership, I do not support their method of dealing with the political issue.

But then again, the other side of the coin is just as stupid, and it takes one to fight one.

In the end, gun control is like I said a short-term, stupid and ignorant solution to a much bigger problem. To me, the people who are always spouting off against owning guns and how they serve no practical purpose are those who have probably never owned a gun, nor do they know anyone that owns guns. So it is human nature to criticize something they don't understand.

Guns have been around a long time, and will continue being around a long time. Hopefully the Conservative government will thrown out the stupid long-gun registry as it serves no purpose outside of wasting $65 million every single year.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

There will always be murder, but having a crap load of guns around pretty well ensures there will be more, and statistically countries with less gun ownership tend to have less gun deaths.
Personally I do not think that the amount of self defence 'saves' in any way outways the amount of deaths, and also is unable to take into account whether if there were less guns they would need less self defence.
I doubt there more than one or two 'self defence's' by gun in the UK and yet their gun crime rate is massively smaller than the US.

Gun control won't do anything to take guns away from the criminals. And statistics have proven that over 90% of homicides in the US involve people with a criminal record.

I'm not sure why you are arguing about this. I understand what you mean when you say less guns = less gun crime. Technically it is true, but you can't apply that in the real world.

Hell, even gun buy-back programs don't work compared to community outreach and social programs that specifically target kids prone to getting involved in gangs. And by buy-back programs were ESPECIALLY designed to try and reduce the amount of guns amongst the population.

I still support the buy-back idea, but I'm not naive enough to believe that it will actually make a serious difference in reducing gun crime.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by valo403

So a Republican makes a claim and it's automatically truthful? Would it work the same way if a Democrat made a claim? How about we wait for the actual investigation before declaring anyone "caught lying".

We are talking about a public congressional hearing with Holder under oath saying he had only heard about Fast and Furious a few weeks ago. Then CBS turns up memos that shows he had been briefed on Fast and Furious several times over the course of more than a year.

Holder just better hope he gets convicted before Obama gets out of office so he can be pardoned.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by valo403

So a Republican makes a claim and it's automatically truthful? Would it work the same way if a Democrat made a claim? How about we wait for the actual investigation before declaring anyone "caught lying".

It sounds like you are accusing me of being a republican, and you're slightly upset about it.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

It sounds like you are accusing me of being a republican, and you're slightly upset about it.

I'm actually accusing you of jumping the gun with your accusation, I'm well aware that your nutjob mind has no political affiliation.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Azure

Gun control won't do anything to take guns away from the criminals. And statistics have proven that over 90% of homicides in the US involve people with a criminal record.

I'm not sure why you are arguing about this. I understand what you mean when you say less guns = less gun crime. Technically it is true, but you can't apply that in the real world.

Hell, even gun buy-back programs don't work compared to community outreach and social programs that specifically target kids prone to getting involved in gangs. And by buy-back programs were ESPECIALLY designed to try and reduce the amount of guns amongst the population.

I still support the buy-back idea, but I'm not naive enough to believe that it will actually make a serious difference in reducing gun crime.

In the end it will, virtually all guns in the US come from legal sales therfore if you choke off that as a supply black market guns would eventually become difficult to come by and very expensive, as they are in the UK, criminals in the UK have to resort to renting guns as they are so hard to come by, this obviuosly limits their access to youth gangs or other morons and restricts gun use pretty much to 'serious' criminals, this alone would drop your gun crime rate.

It would take a few years to decades but eventually if the US wanted to it could clean most of its guns out of its cities, if they had any sense they would just institute a blanket ban on all handguns and automatic weapons, this would still allow all legal uses of guns, hunting, home protection but massively reduce the effectivness of firearms for most criminals due to the long guns limitations of use.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Azure

And that benefit is what? Helping ugly people have sex? By all accounts, most health experts will say that if you limit yourself to a drink per day, it won't harm you, but if you don't drink in the first place, there is no purpose in starting, as the health benefits are minimal.

So I'm not sure what the 'benefits' are.




Discounting the obvious use for self defence which you are just choosing to deny, as there are a slew of studies out there that have proven that ownership of guns for self defence purposes isn't a crazy idea, considering that guns are used for self defence purposes over 65,000/year in the US, who cares if guns are just a hobby? Playing hockey is just a hobby for me too. As is reading CP, going to the movies, and building a 200:1 replica Titanic.

I realize that all those things would not be considered dangerous, but I find it a bit insulting that people like me who own guns for hunting and hobby purposes, should do away with those guns, just because some drunk idiot killed his wife in the southern US. I follow every single aspect of gun safety as much as possible, and have never even come close to having a gun related accident.



Uh, gun violence is WAY higher in poor urban areas, and in 'conjunction with gang violence' according to Wikipedia. And gangs are notorious for being involved in the drug trade, and people in the drug trade are VERY involved in the buying/selling of illegal firearms. So yes, the drug cartels create a problem, as does the open border.

15% of all homicide victims in the US were family members, while over 60% were either just a acquittance, not known, or the relationship between the victim and the assailant was undetermined. So saying 'most' murders consist of a drunken idiot killing his wife is false.

By and large, the poorer the person, area, city, state or country, the higher the crime rate. The US has a lot of urban areas that are very poor, and as a result they have a higher rate of crime, including violent crime such as homicide and rape.



Sounds to me like you're the one coming up with the stupid cliché's here. The problem with gun control is simple. It costs a lot of money, and doesn't work. Any smart person would understand that if your goal is to reduce gun crime, you have to target the cause, and not the result. Result being gun crime, and the cause or reason being more often than not poverty.

My family and extended family have owned guns for hundreds of years, and we have never had an accident or gun crime.

If you want to bring out the statistics, driving a car is more likely to kill you than owning a gun will.



The NRA has taken gun ownership to an extreme. While I support their outreach on safety and sensible gun ownership, I do not support their method of dealing with the political issue.

But then again, the other side of the coin is just as stupid, and it takes one to fight one.

In the end, gun control is like I said a short-term, stupid and ignorant solution to a much bigger problem. To me, the people who are always spouting off against owning guns and how they serve no practical purpose are those who have probably never owned a gun, nor do they know anyone that owns guns. So it is human nature to criticize something they don't understand.

Guns have been around a long time, and will continue being around a long time. Hopefully the Conservative government will thrown out the stupid long-gun registry as it serves no purpose outside of wasting $65 million every single year.

Actually I always hunted in the UK and used to go out for deer with my ex father in law in Manitoba, I find the irrationality of the NRA galling.

[Azure]

There are millions upon millions of guns on the black market right now. Thinking that if you choke off the legal supply, you'll choke off all firearms in their entirety, is akin to the stupidity in the US where they think banning pot will keep people from growing/using it. Or any other drug.

It has never worked, and it never will.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by valo403

I'm actually accusing you of jumping the gun with your accusation, I'm well aware that your nutjob mind has no political affiliation.

valo403 - "So a Republican makes a claim and it's automatically truthful?"

Your nutjob partisanship revealed itself in the first question of your post....I'm not sure why you bothered with that, if you got nothing nice to say....you know the rest.

[mikey_the_redneck]

^^ It is estimated that there are over 200 million privately owned firearms in the U.S.A. ^^

That is a staggering number, all things considered I think it's going pretty well....

[Calgaryborn]

The American government has been selling guns to an organized crime family in a nieghboring country with interests on both sides of the border. What was it 2 weeks ago that same government assassinated an American citizen on foreign soil.

If the intent of the framers of the constitution was to allow for an armed citizenry as a buffer against a corrupt government I would suggest that that cause still has merit today.

[SebC]

I just skimmed over this thread so I'm not going to wade in too far, but I'm impressed that mikey_the_redneck is using actually sources now, as opposed to any link on the internet. (Or I was, until he linked to foxnews )

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Azure

There are millions upon millions of guns on the black market right now. Thinking that if you choke off the legal supply, you'll choke off all firearms in their entirety, is akin to the stupidity in the US where they think banning pot will keep people from growing/using it. Or any other drug.

It has never worked, and it never will.

Actually in most of europe gun control works very well, they have few guns and few gun crimes.

I did say it would take decades for gun control to choke off the supply, but it would eventually, personally I would allow for legal ownership, stop gun sales completely other than licensed private sales of pre existing guns and just slowly but surely confiscate guns out of the criminal system. Do this long enough and you make illegal guns very scarce and expensive and also ensure that legal owners really have a reason to own a gun.

[Montana Moe]

What would be the "reasons" to own a gun that would satisfy you?

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Montana Moe

What would be the "reasons" to own a gun that would satisfy you?

Actually I don't think it matters, guns just have to be hard enough to get or expensive enough that people would have a definate reason to buy and then take care of them, lock them up and the like.

The real trouble with the US is that the vast number of people with guns don't look after them or care about them much, they buy them cheap and leave them in a closet or in a bedside cabinet where they gather dust until some kid finds them or someone gets drunk and does something stupid.

[Montana Moe]

I appreciate your candor. It is true that there are many that do not have the appropriate training/respect for firearms. I think that's why I don't wander in to these threads much, responsible firearm owners are often lumped into the same group as clowns with no responsibility/education.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Actually in most of europe gun control works very well, they have few guns and few gun crimes.

I did say it would take decades for gun control to choke off the supply, but it would eventually, personally I would allow for legal ownership, stop gun sales completely other than licensed private sales of pre existing guns and just slowly but surely confiscate guns out of the criminal system. Do this long enough and you make illegal guns very scarce and expensive and also ensure that legal owners really have a reason to own a gun.

Again, if the War on Drugs taught us anything, it is that spending billions on prohibition is generally a waste of money.

I can't believe that you don't see that.