Costas uses the Jevon Belcher tregedy to preach gun control at halftime........

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from ccsjl. Show ccsjl's posts

    Re: Costas uses the Jevon Belcher tregedy to preach gun control at halftime........

    Time to leave this forum for Rimfirecentral....thats right a gun forum...

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Costas uses the Jevon Belcher tregedy to preach gun control at halftime........

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    You keep comparing apples and oranges.

    Japan is 98.5% Japanese. Canada is similarly white. UK is 92% white.

    The racial disharmony in the US cannot be compared to these places. Add in the fact we have half as many illegal immigrants as the entire population of Canada and you are just missing the mark regarding what might work there vs what will work here.

    [/QUOTE]

    Now it comes out . . . it's all the blacks and hispanics . . . 

    If everyone was white there'd be no gun violence . . . 

    PS: Toronto is way more racially and ethnically diverse than Boston . . . and has a lower murder rate. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Don't even try to play the race card on me. I'm simply noting that if you compare the white population of the US to Canada's white population the homicide rates are very comparable.

    According to the CDC, the rate of gun deaths among Whites in the US is about 9 per 100,000.  It's about 3 per 100,000 in Canada (all races). Homicide is a bit different, but the homicide rate among Whites in the US is about 2.8 per 100,000, while it's less than 1 per 100,000 for all races in Canada. Sorry, but I don't think you've got your facts right here, Babe.  

    The facts are that as of 2005 the offending rates for blacks in the US were 6 times that for whites. From 1976 to 2005 that rate was up to 10 times greater. And the high rate of homicides among Blacks is some 94% upon fellow Blacks. I don't make up the numbers. I'm just commenting on them trying to show you reasons why your comparisons are invalid. But you're endeavoring to prove your detractors right apparently.

    Yes, the homicide rate among blacks is high.  But black on black deaths still count don't they? Shouldn't we be trying to reduce these as well too?  Maybe better gun control would help with this problem.  

    And let's not try to kid the people about ethnic diversity in Toronto. The fact is 90% of its population is neither black nor hispanic but rather it's by far largest minority is comprised of asian and south asian. Meanwhile Boston has a nearly 40% black/hispanic minority.

    Again, you seem to be suggesting that the whole problem stems from blacks and hispanics.  The statistics don't seem to bear this out, however, even if the homicide rate among blacks is high. There are something like 30,000 gun deaths a year in the US.  Only about 4,500 of those are homicides with black victims.  

    Comparing the two cities as proof is rather ludicrous pro. In 2005 Toronto had 80 homicides while Boston had 75 in the same year. It's only in 2011 that Toronto had an inexplicable drop in homicides.

    2005 was an unusual year in Toronto with 80 homicides (about 50 of them committed with guns).  2011 was also an unusal year with only 45 homicides.  Typical is more like 60 overall (about half of which are committed with a gun).  Toronto is much larger than Boston, by the way, and its homicide rate typically is about one-third that of Boston's. 

    [/QUOTE]


     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Costas uses the Jevon Belcher tregedy to preach gun control at halftime........

    In response to NY-PATS-FAN4's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Military men are taught not to engage without intelligence about the enemy's weapons and whereabouts. Civilians think their gun makes such intelligence meaningless.

    [/QUOTE]

    So the military wouldn't engage in the case of an ambush where they obviously do not know anything about an enemy's disposition, since it's, you know, an ambush!!!

    That's basically what a homeowner would be facing from an intruder. An ambush.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from ccnsd. Show ccnsd's posts

    Re: Costas uses the Jevon Belcher tregedy to preach gun control at halftime........

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ccsjl's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    "or mounted an Abrams tank in my back yard. "

    With a class 3 firearms license, (and a few million in cash), you can put the Abrams in your back yard! Isnt America great!!

    [/QUOTE]


    Few people understand how vulnerable a tank is in urban warfare or dense cover. Without infantry support they are a coffin.

    [/QUOTE]


    As a person who served in an M1A1 tank in the military I can assure you that is not the case. I remember in the early 2000's the first time one of the tanks was actually taken out by Iraqi's. It was determined to be damaged by a Syrian weapon more modern than anything Saddam had. Not one soldier died in the Tank. Modern American tanks are not coffins, they are lethal but ungodly expensive and for financial reasons the military is always cutting back on Tanks.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Costas uses the Jevon Belcher tregedy to preach gun control at halftime........

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    According to the CDC, the rate of gun deaths among Whites in the US is about 9 per 100,000.  It's about 3 per 100,000 in Canada (all races). Homicide is a bit different, but the homicide rate among Whites in the US is about 2.8 per 100,000, while it's less than 1 per 100,000 for all races in Canada. Sorry, but I don't think you've got your facts right here, Babe.  

     

    [/QUOTE]

    According to the UNODC Canada has an overall homicide rate of 1.6. The US overall is 4.2.

    According to the USDOJ (1976 - 2005) rates for white victims or perps in the US are about the same as the overall Canadian rate just mentioned.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

    http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/race.cfm

    I'm not concerned with how many are gun deaths or not. If you want to kill there are other ways than firearm use.

    The point of the discussion is whether significant restrictions added to current gun laws would significantly impact the homicide rate in the US. What would the point be if such an approach didn't affect the overall rate?

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Costas uses the Jevon Belcher tregedy to preach gun control at halftime........

    In response to ccnsd's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ccsjl's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    "or mounted an Abrams tank in my back yard. "

    With a class 3 firearms license, (and a few million in cash), you can put the Abrams in your back yard! Isnt America great!!

    [/QUOTE]


    Few people understand how vulnerable a tank is in urban warfare or dense cover. Without infantry support they are a coffin.

    [/QUOTE]


    As a person who served in an M1A1 tank in the military I can assure you that is not the case. I remember in the early 2000's the first time one of the tanks was actually taken out by Iraqi's. It was determined to be damaged by a Syrian weapon more modern than anything Saddam had. Not one soldier died in the Tank. Modern American tanks are not coffins, they are lethal but ungodly expensive and for financial reasons the military is always cutting back on Tanks.

    [/QUOTE]


    This anecdotal example you give was in a heavily forested or urban environment?

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from xXR3S1NXx. Show xXR3S1NXx's posts

    Re: Costas uses the Jevon Belcher tregedy to preach gun control at halftime........

    In response to NY-PATS-FAN4's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to jerh5's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NY-PATS-FAN4's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to jerh5's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NY-PATS-FAN4's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to jerh5's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NY-PATS-FAN4's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TexasPat's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NY-PATS-FAN4's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TexasPat's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Salcon's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Oh by the way, I've heard every story about why people should own guns.  Other than hunting, they're all pretty weak.

    [/QUOTE]

         Err...you think that protecting yourself, your home, and your family from burglars is a weak argument? LOL!!!

    [/QUOTE]

    Considering that far, far, far more people are hurt by gun accidents in the home vis a vis burglars shot by homeowners; yes, it is an extremely weak argument.

    Making it even weaker is that the average gun owner in a home, unless s/he has served in the military, has never shot a human being before. Those who have served know it is a VERY different experience than shooting at a range; the target is moving while your blood and adrenaline are pumping out of control.

    Further, if you're home is invaded by a burglar, that burglar is doing it on his time, not yours, while his senses are heightened whereas yours are dull. The intruder has the clear advantage of surprise; even moreso if he had the competence to reconnoiter your house beforehand. You stagger down the stairs in your bright, white T-shirt, while the burglar is dressed head-to-toe in black. If the burglar is armed, he likely does this for a living, which means he is likely to have been in this scenario before; likely to move more skillfully in the dark; likely to be more cool under pressure; and perhaps likely to have more firepower than you.

    If you have kids in you're home, then it is most likely that your weapon is locked away and not loaded. (If this is not the case, you're a damned fool just begging for a home accident, as children, above all else, are curious beyond curious.) While you're fumbling around getting your ammo in the gun, the burglar may get the bead on you. But, let's suppose you are quiet and fast. You run down the stairs and yell, "Freeze!" but the burglar, who is already prepard for a conflict, has scounted out the best defense position from gunfire. He dives; you shoot and miss, creating a big noise. The burglar returns fire from behind the kitchen island.  Bullets are now flying, which of course is when your six-your-old, frightened by strange noise, saunters in the room and calls out, "Daddy?"

     

    Still, most gun advocates on this board--at least, those who have never shot at a human being--will continue to advocate this "protect my home" position. And that, right there, is the biggest problem with guns. Very few of us would pick a fist fight with Brandon Spikes, but a gun gives a man who is overmatched in a fight the false courage to believe he is on equal standing. The sands of Iraq are littered with such Iraqis.

    You are far better off to have a good lock system for your doors and windows; an alarm system with piercing sound; lights illuminating the perimeter of your house...and, if all that fails, a calm demeanor and the good sense to know that your family is more important than your valuables, and you are statistically much more likely to hurt yourself or your family members than to actually take out a skilled burglar.

    [/QUOTE]

         Sorry...I'm not going to risk putting the well being of my family in the hands of a "skilled" burglar. I'd much rather shoot the bum right between the eyes...

    And that is noble. But very few people can pull this off. Most end up hurting their families.

    then rely on his humanity. Besides, how many burglars are of the Alexanderl Mundy/skilled persuasion? The majority are thugs belonging to gangs, or drug users.

    Problem is, you don't know who he is. But he may know everything about you.

    With so many servicemen coming home from Iraq/Afghanistan without future prospects, both crime and suicide amongst vets is rising dramatically. If a guy who survived Iraq breaks into your house, chances are, you ain't taking him out, no matter how well intended you are.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]
     I can guarantee you my chances would be a lot better with a gun, than without.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Words spoken by many a fallen hero.

     

    [/QUOTE]Correct. But also by many more that saved their lives and that of their familys. I would rather have control of my fate.

    [/QUOTE]


    We all want that, and I don't condemn you in the least for feeling that way. But the awful truth is that your son or daughter is far more likely to shoot one another or their mother than you are to ever shoot an intruder.

    You can say, "But I'm careful how I store my gun," and if so, I applaud you. But just about every parent says that. It's only after the fact that they realize just one slip-up can lead to tragedy.

    [/QUOTE]

      No disrespect, but that is just not true.

    http://www.actionamerica.org/guns/guns1.shtml

    [/QUOTE]


    None taken.

    But, be honest...does that site look even the slightest bit impartial to you?

    I mean, the bottom of the page screams, "GET A GUN!" in huge red font.

    If you cite an impartial, academic study, I'll be happy to read. But this guy is a Tea Party salesman.

     

    Again, please understand, I am not against gun ownership. I just feel that guns do give people a false sense of security. I don't have the need or desire to break into anyone's house, but if I did, the homeowner wouldn't stand a chance, no matter what weapon he owned. Not saying I'm the best gunman that ever lived (far from it), but I am better than 99% of civilians, and I would have scouted the house and the owners well before breaking in. And I likely break-in with a partner with equal or better skill than mine.

    Now, every burglar is not so prepared as I would be; I realize that. But a half-asleep owner has no way of knowing whether I'm a drug addict or a former Green Beret.

    Military men are taught not to engage without intelligence about the enemy's weapons and whereabouts. Civilians think their gun makes such intelligence meaningless.

    [/QUOTE]

    If Criminals where smart they wouldnt be criminals. And the Ones that are smart-ish are doing things way above home invasions.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Costas uses the Jevon Belcher tregedy to preach gun control at halftime........

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Yes, the homicide rate among blacks is high.  But black on black deaths still count don't they? Shouldn't we be trying to reduce these as well too?  Maybe better gun control would help with this problem.  

     

    [/QUOTE]

    What evidence do you have that rate would lower with stricter gun control? I would suspect most of the guns used in such crimes are not legally acquired. Or did you think strict adherence to the law was a top priority in the hood?

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Costas uses the Jevon Belcher tregedy to preach gun control at halftime........

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Again, you seem to be suggesting that the whole problem stems from blacks and hispanics.  The statistics don't seem to bear this out, however, even if the homicide rate among blacks is high. There are something like 30,000 gun deaths a year in the US.  Only about 4,500 of those are homicides with black victims.  

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Since the rate among whites in the US is about the same as it is overall in the 90%+ white Canada, then the greater overall US number must be coming from the 6 -1 or better rate among blacks (and likely hispanics).

     

    We are talking about perps here, not victims. For the sake of this discussion victims ethnicity is irrelevant.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from ccnsd. Show ccnsd's posts

    Re: Costas uses the Jevon Belcher tregedy to preach gun control at halftime........

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ccnsd's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ccsjl's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    "or mounted an Abrams tank in my back yard. "

    With a class 3 firearms license, (and a few million in cash), you can put the Abrams in your back yard! Isnt America great!!

    [/QUOTE]


    Few people understand how vulnerable a tank is in urban warfare or dense cover. Without infantry support they are a coffin.

    [/QUOTE]


    As a person who served in an M1A1 tank in the military I can assure you that is not the case. I remember in the early 2000's the first time one of the tanks was actually taken out by Iraqi's. It was determined to be damaged by a Syrian weapon more modern than anything Saddam had. Not one soldier died in the Tank. Modern American tanks are not coffins, they are lethal but ungodly expensive and for financial reasons the military is always cutting back on Tanks.

    [/QUOTE]


    This anecdotal example you give was in a heavily forested or urban environment?

    [/QUOTE]

    It was in Baghdad. I am not disagreeing whatsoever about infantrym support in an urban environment but modern american tanks are very powerful and have very thick and top secret armor (at least it was a secret to my enlisted butt). Tanks are very effective in an urban environment and are used constantly in them. They tend to be blunt weapons which lead to a lot of collatarel damage but they have proven to be life savers.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Costas uses the Jevon Belcher tregedy to preach gun control at halftime........

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    2005 was an unusual year in Toronto with 80 homicides (about 50 of them committed with guns).  2011 was also an unusal year with only 45 homicides.  Typical is more like 60 overall (about half of which are committed with a gun).  Toronto is much larger than Boston, by the way, and its homicide rate typically is about one-third that of Boston's. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    It had 70 in 2006, 84 in 2007.

     

    But you are AGAIN comparing apples and oranges.

    Toronto is much larger in land area than Boston because Boston has a number of smaller cities around it that comprise the metro area. You would have to add the rates from the immediate surroundings of Boston to get a true rate, or compare only the most densly populated parts of Toronto.

    That small patch of 45 square miles accounts for around 40-45% of all homicides in the state. That's with a city population of 600,000+. The metro area is 4.5 million.

    Apples and oranges.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Costas uses the Jevon Belcher tregedy to preach gun control at halftime........

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    According to the CDC, the rate of gun deaths among Whites in the US is about 9 per 100,000.  It's about 3 per 100,000 in Canada (all races). Homicide is a bit different, but the homicide rate among Whites in the US is about 2.8 per 100,000, while it's less than 1 per 100,000 for all races in Canada. Sorry, but I don't think you've got your facts right here, Babe.  

     

    [/QUOTE]

    According to the UNODC Canada has an overall homicide rate of 1.6. The US overall is 4.2.

    For 2009, the latest date the UNODC has published the data for both countries, the homicide rate in Canada is 1.8 and in the US 5.0.  It's about 2.8 times higher in the US. 

    According to the USDOJ (1976 - 2005) rates for white victims or perps in the US are about the same as the overall Canadian rate just mentioned.

    1.8 and 3.5 are different numbers.  Take out blacks and the US still has a homicide rate almost twice Canada's

    I'm not concerned with how many are gun deaths or not. If you want to kill there are other ways than firearm use.

    The UNODC (which you quote above) does find a correlation between availability of firearms and homicide rate. 

    The point of the discussion is whether significant restrictions added to current gun laws would significantly impact the homicide rate in the US. What would the point be if such an approach didn't affect the overall rate?

    Again, according to the UNODC which you quote above, in countries where firearms 

    Nonetheless, the high overall homicide rates combined

    with a very high proportion (more than 60

    per cent) of homicides by firearm seen in regions

    such as Central and South America shows that,

    depending on the context, the availability of fire-

    arms and therefore easy access to guns can play a

    significant role in influencing homicide rates. In

    such contexts, a certain proportion of civilian firearms

    (utilized by a certain proportion of the population)

    may be considered a major “enabler” of

    homicide events.

    [/QUOTE]


     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from ccnsd. Show ccnsd's posts

    Re: Costas uses the Jevon Belcher tregedy to preach gun control at halftime........

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    2005 was an unusual year in Toronto with 80 homicides (about 50 of them committed with guns).  2011 was also an unusal year with only 45 homicides.  Typical is more like 60 overall (about half of which are committed with a gun).  Toronto is much larger than Boston, by the way, and its homicide rate typically is about one-third that of Boston's. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    It had 70 in 2006, 84 in 2007.

     

    But you are AGAIN comparing apples and oranges.

    Toronto is much larger in land area than Boston because Boston has a number of smaller cities around it that comprise the metro area. You would have to add the rates from the immediate surroundings of Boston to get a true rate, or compare only the most densly populated parts of Toronto.

    That small patch of 45 square miles accounts for around 40-45% of all homicides in the state. That's with a city population of 600,000+. The metro area is 4.5 million.

    Apples and oranges.

    [/QUOTE]

     Babe, on a personal level I believe guns are way to prevalent in this country and I think only a fool would deny the proliferation of guns has not contributed to the violent crime rate and gun crime statistics in this country. The stats are undeniable in my opinion. Guns do not kill people on their own but neither does heroin so to me that is a silly slogan and nothing else.
     All that being said I support the constitution of the united states all though i believe the second amendment has lead to plenty of unnecessary deaths. I believe the first amendment has lead to social problems also but I do not want any of these rights removed. If the 2nd amendment cannot be changed in the way that the constitution demands then it stays the way it is and we live with it. Certainly the supreme court believes that gun rights are not without some provisions. Not even in Texas can you walk around with an RPG.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Costas uses the Jevon Belcher tregedy to preach gun control at halftime........

    In response to ccnsd's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    It was in Baghdad. I am not disagreeing whatsoever about infantrym support in an urban environment but modern american tanks are very powerful and have very thick and top secret armor (at least it was a secret to my enlisted butt). Tanks are very effective in an urban environment and are used constantly in them. They tend to be blunt weapons which lead to a lot of collatarel damage but they have proven to be life savers.

    [/QUOTE]

    The armor is a chobham variant and likely reactive with some active protection systems thrown in. The US Army rates the handheld RPG29 as a high threat weapn to US MBTs. The US M19 AT mine is also effective. That can be found in over a dozen countries around the world.

    You still need infantry to keep the other guys from getting too close in closed quarters like a city.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from NY-PATS-FAN4. Show NY-PATS-FAN4's posts

    Re: Costas uses the Jevon Belcher tregedy to preach gun control at halftime........

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NY-PATS-FAN4's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Military men are taught not to engage without intelligence about the enemy's weapons and whereabouts. Civilians think their gun makes such intelligence meaningless.

    [/QUOTE]

    So the military wouldn't engage in the case of an ambush where they obviously do not know anything about an enemy's disposition, since it's, you know, an ambush!!!

    That's basically what a homeowner would be facing from an intruder. An ambush.

    [/QUOTE]

    An ambush??? LOL, not many burglars break into your house and start spraying machine gun fire at the bedrooms! They're usually just looking to steal shi!t without waking up you and the whole dang neighborhood.

    But the decision tree in a combat ambush is dependent upon the situation at hand. If the aggressor is indeed firing at you, you have no choice but to fire back. Now, if your communications and escape routes are cut off, and the enemy has the clear upper hand in terms of terrain, manpower and firepower, and (with a conventional enemy, not a terrorist network) has demonstrated the discipline to hold fire and take prisoners...the decision to lay down arms may be the best choice. Nothing heroic about getting a unit killed in a demonstrably unwinnable fight.

    Of course, trying to compare the decision matrix of a professional military officer with hundreds of hours of training and experience in such situations, versus an overweight suburban slob in an Ambien/two-scotch/three-ayem fog, trying to figure out which end of the gun to stick the bullets in...is not exactly apples to apples.

     

     

     

     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Costas uses the Jevon Belcher tregedy to preach gun control at halftime........

    In response to ccnsd's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    2005 was an unusual year in Toronto with 80 homicides (about 50 of them committed with guns).  2011 was also an unusal year with only 45 homicides.  Typical is more like 60 overall (about half of which are committed with a gun).  Toronto is much larger than Boston, by the way, and its homicide rate typically is about one-third that of Boston's. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    It had 70 in 2006, 84 in 2007.

     

    But you are AGAIN comparing apples and oranges.

    Toronto is much larger in land area than Boston because Boston has a number of smaller cities around it that comprise the metro area. You would have to add the rates from the immediate surroundings of Boston to get a true rate, or compare only the most densly populated parts of Toronto.

    That small patch of 45 square miles accounts for around 40-45% of all homicides in the state. That's with a city population of 600,000+. The metro area is 4.5 million.

    Apples and oranges.

    [/QUOTE]

     Babe, on a personal level I believe guns are way to prevalent in this country and I think only a fool would deny the proliferation of guns has not contributed to the violent crime rate and gun crime statistics in this country. The stats are undeniable in my opinion. Guns do not kill people on their own but neither does heroin so to me that is a silly slogan and nothing else.
     All that being said I support the constitution of the united states all though i believe the second amendment has lead to plenty of unnecessary deaths. I believe the first amendment has lead to social problems also but I do not want any of these rights removed. If the 2nd amendment cannot be changed in the way that the constitution demands then it stays the way it is and we live with it. Certainly the supreme court believes that gun rights are not without some provisions. Not even in Texas can you walk around with an RPG.

    [/QUOTE]


    I have not said I'm against sensible gun control. The problem lies in the fact that many gun control proponents aren't sensible in the least and that causes the other side to entrench for preservation. If idiots weren't proposing the laws and they agreed to stop after a deal was reached perhaps some better controls could be implemented.

    An example is the 10 day waiting period. Why in the world should somebody have to wait 10 days when they already own guns and have been screened for permits to have them?

    Another example is an assault rifle ban. You can probably do even more damage in most circumstances with a pump action shotgun loaded with double aught buck than a 30 round AK.

    Too much of the policy revolves around appeasing constituencies that don't know a damned thing about guns but still want their ignorant notions mollycoddled rather than truly sensible restrictions.

    Too many gun control advocates just don't get they THEY are the problem in producing better gun laws.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Costas uses the Jevon Belcher tregedy to preach gun control at halftime........

    In response to NY-PATS-FAN4's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NY-PATS-FAN4's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Military men are taught not to engage without intelligence about the enemy's weapons and whereabouts. Civilians think their gun makes such intelligence meaningless.

    [/QUOTE]

    So the military wouldn't engage in the case of an ambush where they obviously do not know anything about an enemy's disposition, since it's, you know, an ambush!!!

    That's basically what a homeowner would be facing from an intruder. An ambush.

    [/QUOTE]

    An ambush??? LOL, not many burglars break into your house and start spraying machine gun fire at the bedrooms! They're usually just looking to steal shi!t without waking up you and the whole dang neighborhood.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    What would you call it? I doubt the crook sends a postcard a week before saying I'm going to break into your home.

    You're the one who brought the military comparison into this. I just offered a pertinent military situation to expose the absurdity of claiming reconnaissance is always available.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from ccnsd. Show ccnsd's posts

    Re: Costas uses the Jevon Belcher tregedy to preach gun control at halftime........

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ccnsd's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    2005 was an unusual year in Toronto with 80 homicides (about 50 of them committed with guns).  2011 was also an unusal year with only 45 homicides.  Typical is more like 60 overall (about half of which are committed with a gun).  Toronto is much larger than Boston, by the way, and its homicide rate typically is about one-third that of Boston's. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    It had 70 in 2006, 84 in 2007.

     

    But you are AGAIN comparing apples and oranges.

    Toronto is much larger in land area than Boston because Boston has a number of smaller cities around it that comprise the metro area. You would have to add the rates from the immediate surroundings of Boston to get a true rate, or compare only the most densly populated parts of Toronto.

    That small patch of 45 square miles accounts for around 40-45% of all homicides in the state. That's with a city population of 600,000+. The metro area is 4.5 million.

    Apples and oranges.

    [/QUOTE]

     Babe, on a personal level I believe guns are way to prevalent in this country and I think only a fool would deny the proliferation of guns has not contributed to the violent crime rate and gun crime statistics in this country. The stats are undeniable in my opinion. Guns do not kill people on their own but neither does heroin so to me that is a silly slogan and nothing else.
     All that being said I support the constitution of the united states all though i believe the second amendment has lead to plenty of unnecessary deaths. I believe the first amendment has lead to social problems also but I do not want any of these rights removed. If the 2nd amendment cannot be changed in the way that the constitution demands then it stays the way it is and we live with it. Certainly the supreme court believes that gun rights are not without some provisions. Not even in Texas can you walk around with an RPG.

    [/QUOTE]


    I have not said I'm against sensible gun control. The problem lies in the fact that many gun control proponents aren't sensible in the least and that causes the other side to entrench for preservation. If idiots weren't proposing the laws and they agreed to stop after a deal was reached perhaps some better controls could be implemented.

    An example is the 10 day waiting period. Why in the world should somebody have to wait 10 days when they already own guns and have been screened for permits to have them?

    Another example is an assault rifle ban. You can probably do even more damage in most circumstances with a pump action shotgun loaded with double aught buck than a 30 round AK.

    Too much of the policy revolves around appeasing constituencies that don't know a damned thing about guns but still want their ignorant notions mollycoddled rather than truly sensible restrictions.

    Too many gun control advocates just don't get they THEY are the problem in producing better gun laws.

    [/QUOTE]

    Who is "they". A gun control advocate who wants sensible gun control laws gets ridiculed instantly if they even mention a discussion on the subject. The government is gridlocked because both sides are so damn sure of their convictions they refuse to ever negotiate in good faith out of fear of their constituents. In reality the "silent majority" that Nixon spoke of wants government to work and get things done but this majority are not the activists or lobbyists and therefore almost nothing they desire gets done.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheExaminer. Show TheExaminer's posts

    Re: Costas uses the Jevon Belcher tregedy to preach gun control at halftime........

    Sheesh, I cant believe this stupid thread is still alive. What have I created? I figured itd disappear within an hour of creating it, else I wouldnt have robbed graves to find body parts for it. Hahaha....havent looked to see what folks are saying since last night, and I aint'a gonna. I said my piece on the first page friends.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from ccnsd. Show ccnsd's posts

    Re: Costas uses the Jevon Belcher tregedy to preach gun control at halftime........

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ccnsd's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    It was in Baghdad. I am not disagreeing whatsoever about infantrym support in an urban environment but modern american tanks are very powerful and have very thick and top secret armor (at least it was a secret to my enlisted butt). Tanks are very effective in an urban environment and are used constantly in them. They tend to be blunt weapons which lead to a lot of collatarel damage but they have proven to be life savers.

    [/QUOTE]

    The armor is a chobham variant and likely reactive with some active protection systems thrown in. The US Army rates the handheld RPG29 as a high threat weapn to US MBTs. The US M19 AT mine is also effective. That can be found in over a dozen countries around the world.

    You still need infantry to keep the other guys from getting too close in closed quarters like a city.

    [/QUOTE]


    I am not disagreeing about infantry support. I disagree strongly about it being a coffin though. Wikipedia (you can choose to believe or disbelieve) goes into the history of combat damage and the casualtes incurred in the M1A1 tank. There were very few. Certainly a war aginst an advanced nation with modern ammunition would dramatically change these statistics. Like a Pats fan saying they do not determine their own schedule the Tankers do not decide who they will have to fight.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Costas uses the Jevon Belcher tregedy to preach gun control at halftime........

    In response to ccnsd's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ccnsd's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    2005 was an unusual year in Toronto with 80 homicides (about 50 of them committed with guns).  2011 was also an unusal year with only 45 homicides.  Typical is more like 60 overall (about half of which are committed with a gun).  Toronto is much larger than Boston, by the way, and its homicide rate typically is about one-third that of Boston's. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    It had 70 in 2006, 84 in 2007.

     

    But you are AGAIN comparing apples and oranges.

    Toronto is much larger in land area than Boston because Boston has a number of smaller cities around it that comprise the metro area. You would have to add the rates from the immediate surroundings of Boston to get a true rate, or compare only the most densly populated parts of Toronto.

    That small patch of 45 square miles accounts for around 40-45% of all homicides in the state. That's with a city population of 600,000+. The metro area is 4.5 million.

    Apples and oranges.

    [/QUOTE]

     Babe, on a personal level I believe guns are way to prevalent in this country and I think only a fool would deny the proliferation of guns has not contributed to the violent crime rate and gun crime statistics in this country. The stats are undeniable in my opinion. Guns do not kill people on their own but neither does heroin so to me that is a silly slogan and nothing else.
     All that being said I support the constitution of the united states all though i believe the second amendment has lead to plenty of unnecessary deaths. I believe the first amendment has lead to social problems also but I do not want any of these rights removed. If the 2nd amendment cannot be changed in the way that the constitution demands then it stays the way it is and we live with it. Certainly the supreme court believes that gun rights are not without some provisions. Not even in Texas can you walk around with an RPG.

    [/QUOTE]


    I have not said I'm against sensible gun control. The problem lies in the fact that many gun control proponents aren't sensible in the least and that causes the other side to entrench for preservation. If idiots weren't proposing the laws and they agreed to stop after a deal was reached perhaps some better controls could be implemented.

    An example is the 10 day waiting period. Why in the world should somebody have to wait 10 days when they already own guns and have been screened for permits to have them?

    Another example is an assault rifle ban. You can probably do even more damage in most circumstances with a pump action shotgun loaded with double aught buck than a 30 round AK.

    Too much of the policy revolves around appeasing constituencies that don't know a damned thing about guns but still want their ignorant notions mollycoddled rather than truly sensible restrictions.

    Too many gun control advocates just don't get they THEY are the problem in producing better gun laws.

    [/QUOTE]

    Who is "they". A gun control advocate who wants sensible gun control laws gets ridiculed instantly if they even mention a discussion on the subject. The government is gridlocked because both sides are so damn sure of their convictions they refuse to ever negotiate in good faith out of fear of their constituents. In reality the "silent majority" that Nixon spoke of wants government to work and get things done but this majority are not the activists or lobbyists and therefore almost nothing they desire gets done.

    [/QUOTE]


    "They" are those gun control proponents that see any agreement on gun control as merely a foot in the door to eventually gaining greater controls. Opponents know this is their tactic so they entrench and make them fight to the death for every inch.

     

    There are gun control proponents that think the 2nd Amendment means you can't own a gun but can join the National Guard. No gun freedom advocate is going to even discuss issues with a loose cannon like that. And there are plenty of gun control advocates "like that". It would be pointless.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from ccnsd. Show ccnsd's posts

    Re: Costas uses the Jevon Belcher tregedy to preach gun control at halftime........

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ccnsd's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ccnsd's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    2005 was an unusual year in Toronto with 80 homicides (about 50 of them committed with guns).  2011 was also an unusal year with only 45 homicides.  Typical is more like 60 overall (about half of which are committed with a gun).  Toronto is much larger than Boston, by the way, and its homicide rate typically is about one-third that of Boston's. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    It had 70 in 2006, 84 in 2007.

     

    But you are AGAIN comparing apples and oranges.

    Toronto is much larger in land area than Boston because Boston has a number of smaller cities around it that comprise the metro area. You would have to add the rates from the immediate surroundings of Boston to get a true rate, or compare only the most densly populated parts of Toronto.

    That small patch of 45 square miles accounts for around 40-45% of all homicides in the state. That's with a city population of 600,000+. The metro area is 4.5 million.

    Apples and oranges.

    [/QUOTE]

     Babe, on a personal level I believe guns are way to prevalent in this country and I think only a fool would deny the proliferation of guns has not contributed to the violent crime rate and gun crime statistics in this country. The stats are undeniable in my opinion. Guns do not kill people on their own but neither does heroin so to me that is a silly slogan and nothing else.
     All that being said I support the constitution of the united states all though i believe the second amendment has lead to plenty of unnecessary deaths. I believe the first amendment has lead to social problems also but I do not want any of these rights removed. If the 2nd amendment cannot be changed in the way that the constitution demands then it stays the way it is and we live with it. Certainly the supreme court believes that gun rights are not without some provisions. Not even in Texas can you walk around with an RPG.

    [/QUOTE]


    I have not said I'm against sensible gun control. The problem lies in the fact that many gun control proponents aren't sensible in the least and that causes the other side to entrench for preservation. If idiots weren't proposing the laws and they agreed to stop after a deal was reached perhaps some better controls could be implemented.

    An example is the 10 day waiting period. Why in the world should somebody have to wait 10 days when they already own guns and have been screened for permits to have them?

    Another example is an assault rifle ban. You can probably do even more damage in most circumstances with a pump action shotgun loaded with double aught buck than a 30 round AK.

    Too much of the policy revolves around appeasing constituencies that don't know a damned thing about guns but still want their ignorant notions mollycoddled rather than truly sensible restrictions.

    Too many gun control advocates just don't get they THEY are the problem in producing better gun laws.

    [/QUOTE]

    Who is "they". A gun control advocate who wants sensible gun control laws gets ridiculed instantly if they even mention a discussion on the subject. The government is gridlocked because both sides are so damn sure of their convictions they refuse to ever negotiate in good faith out of fear of their constituents. In reality the "silent majority" that Nixon spoke of wants government to work and get things done but this majority are not the activists or lobbyists and therefore almost nothing they desire gets done.

    [/QUOTE]


    "They" are those gun control proponents that see any agreement on gun control as merely a foot in the door to eventually gaining greater controls. Opponents know this is their tactic so they entrench and make them fight to the death for every inch.

     

    There are gun control proponents that think the 2nd Amendment means you can't own a gun but can join the National Guard. No gun freedom advocate is going to even discuss issues with a loose cannon like that. And there are plenty of gun control advocates "like that". It would be pointless.

    [/QUOTE]


    Nothing is pointless if negotions are done in good faith. You are as bad as the other side when you have prejudged their position. I'll be honest on most issues i am on the liberal side of the ledger but I believe conservatives , moderates and liberals are all necessary and good for the country. Both major parties need to win elections on a regular basis to keep the country from turning into a one party state like Mexico was for nearly 70+ years. Corrupt elemants and special interests depend on the american people being cynics so they can get away with what they do. Am I completely naive fool? probably, but otherwise why would I still continue to vote in every election.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from shenanigan. Show shenanigan's posts

    Re: Costas uses the Jevon Belcher tregedy to preach gun control at halftime........

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to shenanigan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to glenr's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to shenanigan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Salcon's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Oh by the way, I've heard every story about why people should own guns.  Other than hunting, they're all pretty weak.

    [/QUOTE]

    How about to form a militia.  The founding fathers didn't give a rip about hunting or self defense.  The 2nd amendment exists because of the history of nearly every government in the world becoming corrupt and oppressing the people. 

    When the British didn't like us not paying taxes and decided to march on down with their guns we didn't fight them off with sticks. 

    [/QUOTE]


    'well regulated' militia. It's called The National Guard.

    [/QUOTE]


    According to you, but the 2nd ammendment existed before the National Guard.  It's safe to assume that if the founding fathers saw the National Guard as their idea of a well organized militia that was so critical to this country they put it in the constitution than they would have just gone ahead and created the National Guard.  They didn't.

    [/QUOTE]

    They didn't really like standing armies. The second amendment envisions a society where the military power (the weapons) are in the hands of the people, who are called to duty when war is declared, and then go back to their homes when it is over. We are so far from that vision now that talking about original intent when it comes to military policy or gun policy is absurd. The world just isn't the same as it was in the late eighteenth century. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    So, you simply don't agree with the second amendment and want to get rid of it?

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from shenanigan. Show shenanigan's posts

    Re: Costas uses the Jevon Belcher tregedy to preach gun control at halftime........

    In response to NY-PATS-FAN4's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NY-PATS-FAN4's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Military men are taught not to engage without intelligence about the enemy's weapons and whereabouts. Civilians think their gun makes such intelligence meaningless.

    [/QUOTE]

    So the military wouldn't engage in the case of an ambush where they obviously do not know anything about an enemy's disposition, since it's, you know, an ambush!!!

    That's basically what a homeowner would be facing from an intruder. An ambush.

    [/QUOTE]

    An ambush??? LOL, not many burglars break into your house and start spraying machine gun fire at the bedrooms! They're usually just looking to steal shi!t without waking up you and the whole dang neighborhood.

    But the decision tree in a combat ambush is dependent upon the situation at hand. If the aggressor is indeed firing at you, you have no choice but to fire back. Now, if your communications and escape routes are cut off, and the enemy has the clear upper hand in terms of terrain, manpower and firepower, and (with a conventional enemy, not a terrorist network) has demonstrated the discipline to hold fire and take prisoners...the decision to lay down arms may be the best choice. Nothing heroic about getting a unit killed in a demonstrably unwinnable fight.

    Of course, trying to compare the decision matrix of a professional military officer with hundreds of hours of training and experience in such situations, versus an overweight suburban slob in an Ambien/two-scotch/three-ayem fog, trying to figure out which end of the gun to stick the bullets in...is not exactly apples to apples.

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Got it, the burglar population of the world consists of a bunch of highly trained military professionals who have the presence of mind to use their military training against civilians.  And all of the civilians are people with no military background so burglaries will result in a slaughter by the burglar. 

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Quagmire3. Show Quagmire3's posts

    Re: Costas uses the Jevon Belcher tregedy to preach gun control at halftime........

    Only a liberal would automatically assume "gun fight." Just owning a gun may have been deterrent enuff for the fool to think twice before drawing down on her.

    [/QUOTE]

    Wow!  So you've pretty much sized me up based on my assessment of your post.  With all due respect you:

    *Know zippo about me except that I responded to your post.  And if I were a liberal (which I am not) so what?  Because I wouldn't think the same way that you do makes me somehow wrong automatically?

    *Posted the words 'defend herself'.  That's not deterrence that's using the firearm for its intended purpose - killing another individual.

    *Presuming rational thought on Belcher's part otherwise you wouldn't have used the term 'deterrent' in your last post.

    [/QUOTE]

    A firearms intended purpose is not to kill another individual but rather for hunting, target shooting, clay busting, and self defense, as well as just plain exercising your 2nd Ammendment right to protect yourself against any and all oppressors/aggressors. Let me put it in a simple form for you. Lets say there were two cities side by side: city A nobody is allowed to own a gun, city B everyone must own a gun for protection. Now  lets say you are a thief and break into houses for a living. Which city are you going to burglarize? City A where posessions are ripe for the taking or city b where you may get your head blown off by a homeowner protecting his property? Obviously the "Peoples Republic of Massachusetts" would be city A. 

     

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share