Gunman kills 13 in New York siege

[BritinBritain]

BritinAfrica, correct me if I'm wrong here, but has anyone, in the last 10 gun control debates that have been started here, actually said ANYTHING positive about banning guns totally? NO!! No one has said ANYTHING about banning guns altogether; throwing that argument completely out the window.

Yes I will correct you, refer to earlier posts by others that have stated that by reducing firearms, crime would reduce. Then someone asked about a gun owning eutopia that has low levels of crime or words to that effect. Kenneshaw is a prime example where in actual fact crime has reduced dramitically, so much so the town has had an influx (according to reports I have read) by people who want to live in a safer town. You can enact all the guns laws you like, even down to banning firearms, criminals don't obey any law, let alone gun laws. I suggest that you reads the posts more carefully instead of jumping to conclusions or making assumptions.

Because, as I've said to other members before, what happens in one small corner of a state does NOT indicate the situation for the entire country... If that were the case, I could say racism is still open and thriving in the world because of a few back woods towns in Tennessee... But that's not the case for the vast, overwhelming majority, is it? Just like gun crime in the United States as a whole is increasing, regardless of stricter gun control laws.

What the hell has this got to do with racism?. As for your remark that gun crime in the US in increasing, then I suggest that you do a little more research. I have carried out extensive research, you obviously havent.

States where concealed carry is allowed crime HAS DROPPED. Florida being a case in point. Rape was almost pandemic, then when concealed carry was enacted rapes dropped considerably. Criminals are not stupid, they want their victims to be defenceless. If you were a rapist or burglar, would you risk attempting to rape a woman or break into a house if you knew that your intended victims could be armed?

The VAST majority of gun crime are committed by criminals using illegal and or banned weapons, those criminals include teenage gang bangers fighting over turf, drugs or both.

Because this forum is open to all ages, and I highly doubt Redleg would appreciate you putting those types of graphic images up.

Again you need to read my posts more carefully. I said anyone who wants to see the pictures to send me a PM with their email and I will mail them, I didn't say I would post them on the forum. You really need to get your facts right before opening your mouth.

I suggest that you obtain a copy of “More Guns Less Crime” by Professor John Lott, whom over a number of years carried out an UNBIASED study of firearms in society.


In his bestselling classic, More Guns, Less Crime, John R. Lott, Jr., proved that guns make us safer. Now, in his stunning new book, The Bias against Guns, Lott shows how liberals bury pro-gun facts out of sheer bias against the truth.

With irrefutable evidence, Lott shoots gun critics down and gives you the information you need to win arguments with those who want to ban guns.

Praise for The Bias against Guns

"If you want the truth the anti-gunners don't want you to know... you need a copy of The Bias Against Guns." --Sean Hannity, of Fox News Channel's Hannity & Colmes

"John Lott's thoughtful study should be read by everyone interested in the control of violent crime, and protection against terrorism." --Vernon L. Smith, 2002 Nobel Prize Winner in Economics

"John Lott's 1998 book, More Guns, Less Crime, created quite a stir among the gun-control romantics, whose expressive advocacy involves neither sound analytics nor empirical evidence. In this follow-on book, The Bias Against Guns, Lott continues the struggle, and responds to his critics, motivated by his strong conviction that analysis and evidence must, finally, win the day." --James Buchanan, 1986 Nobel Prize Winner in Economics

"Another major contribution by John Lott to the evidence on the effects--good and bad--of gun-control legislation. An important supplement to his More Guns, Less Crime."--Milton Friedman, 1976 Nobel Prize Winner in Economics

"As a gun-toting rock 'n' roll star all my life, I have lived firsthand the outrageous media and Hollywood bias against good guys with guns forever. I laugh in their face. John Lott is my academic hero." --Ted Nugent, recording artist and author of Kill It & Grill It and Gods, Guns, & Rock 'n' Roll

"[Lott] marshals unimpeachable evidence on how the anti-gun crusade, driven by sins of omission and commission, might actually be costing many more lives than it saves. You'll want to have this intellectual ammunition." --Walter E. Williams, economist and syndicated columnist

"John Lott is a scholar's scholar and a writer's writer--and his book shows why. That gun ownership might bring social benefits as well as costs is a story we do not often see in the press, and Lott here explores why. With a blend of new data, evidence, and examples, he unpacks the bias against such stories in the media."--J. Mark Ramseyer, Harvard Law School professor

 

[MontyB]

With regards to Lott's work didn't the National Academy of Sciences determine that there was not credible evidence to either support or refute his claims about the right to carry laws?

It is all very fine to hold the guy up as the poster child for the NRA but if his work is inconclusive then it is a little underhanded.

 

[BritinBritain]

With regards to Lott's work didn't the National Academy of Sciences determine that there was not credible evidence to either support or refute his claims about the right to carry laws?

It is all very fine to hold the guy up as the poster child for the NRA but if his work is inconclusive then it is a little underhanded.

Actually he carried out his research over a number of years and completely unbiased. The facts speak for themselves, in states where concealed carry and or castle doctrine laws are enacted, crime has dropped. National Academy of Sciences are not exactly known for their pro gun stance so their opinion regarding John Lotts study is suspect to say the least. How strange people that continue to regard intensive research as inconclusive when that research comes out in favour of the pro gun organisations.

John Lott isnt a poster child for any one or any organisation, his intensive research proved that where there are less restrictions on firearms ownership are as I have said many times, crime does actually drop.

John Lotts latest book "Bias against guns" continues where his previous book More Guns Less Crime left off.

When the black population in South Africa from 1994 were allowed to legally own firearms, crime in Townships dropped like a lead ballon, people were at last allowed to protect themselves and their families. Now with the latest gun laws severely restricting firearm purchases and demands that guns are to be handed in by the police, crime has began to increase again. As I keep on saying, criminals do not like their victims to fight back, they like nice easy soft targets.

A Shopping Mall in Cape Town was hit yesterday by an armed gang, despite "Gun Free Zone" signs all over the place. Just shows how much notice criminals take of those signs. So yep,gun laws sure work, except they only restrict the law abiding, criminals take no notice of them.

I suggest that you read my previous post in full.

 

[Rob Henderson]

Yes I will correct you, refer to earlier posts by others that have stated that by reducing firearms, crime would reduce. Then someone asked about a gun owning eutopia that has low levels of crime or words to that effect. Kenneshaw is a prime example where in actual fact crime has reduced dramitically, so much so the town has had an influx (according to reports I have read) by people who want to live in a safer town. You can enact all the guns laws you like, even down to banning firearms, criminals don't obey any law, let alone gun laws. I suggest that you reads the posts more carefully instead of jumping to conclusions or making assumptions.

I have been reading the posts. And you're acting like people on this forum are advocating the complete banning of firearms. That is a false statement. I'm not making any assumptions, you've said this before. You only THINK you're correcting me, because you don't like my "young buck" (AKA someone young with an opinion) attitude.

What the hell has this got to do with racism?. As for your remark that gun crime in the US in increasing, then I suggest that you do a little more research. I have carried out extensive research, you obviously havent.

Mr. "read-posts-more-carefully" isn't following through with his own advice... The post was perfectly clear... Just because a statement is true for one part of the country doesn't mean it's true for the nation as a whole. THAT'S what it had to do with racism.


And I suggest you look for facts on the other side of the fence. Because just because you can continue to site the same book every other post, doesn't mean there aren't statistics AGAINST looser gun laws... Read this:
http://www.ippnw.org/Resources/MGS/V7N1Cukier.pdf

"The UK has one of the lowest levels of gun ownership and one of the lowest rates of intentional gun deaths. The gun crime rate rose between 1997 and 2004 but has since fallen back a little, while the number of homicides from gun crime has largely remained static over the past decade." Not exactly supporting of your whole "UK has gone down the toilet since banning guns" theory, is it?

States where concealed carry is allowed crime HAS DROPPED. Florida being a case in point. Rape was almost pandemic, then when concealed carry was enacted rapes dropped considerably. Criminals are not stupid, they want their victims to be defenceless. If you were a rapist or burglar, would you risk attempting to rape a woman or break into a house if you knew that your intended victims could be armed?

Obviously, my answer would be no... But then again, if they're dumb enough to be breaking the law in the first place, do you really think they're going to think things all the way through every time?

The VAST majority of gun crime are committed by criminals using illegal and or banned weapons, those criminals include teenage gang bangers fighting over turf, drugs or both.
/QUOTE] Yes... And if you can effectively defend yourself, you can be a survivor instead of a victim... But the key phrase is effectively defend.... I wonder how many people in the United States ACTUALLY know how to use a hand gun and train with it regularly....

Again you need to read my posts more carefully. I said anyone who wants to see the pictures to send me a PM with their email and I will mail them, I didn't say I would post them on the forum. You really need to get your facts right before opening your mouth.

This is completely and utterly off the topic.

I suggest that you obtain a copy of “More Guns Less Crime” by Professor John Lott, whom over a number of years carried out an UNBIASED study of firearms in society.


In his bestselling classic, More Guns, Less Crime, John R. Lott, Jr., proved that guns make us safer. Now, in his stunning new book, The Bias against Guns, Lott shows how liberals bury pro-gun facts out of sheer bias against the truth.

With irrefutable evidence, Lott shoots gun critics down and gives you the information you need to win arguments with those who want to ban guns.

Praise for The Bias against Guns

"If you want the truth the anti-gunners don't want you to know... you need a copy of The Bias Against Guns." --Sean Hannity, of Fox News Channel's Hannity & Colmes

"John Lott's thoughtful study should be read by everyone interested in the control of violent crime, and protection against terrorism." --Vernon L. Smith, 2002 Nobel Prize Winner in Economics

"John Lott's 1998 book, More Guns, Less Crime, created quite a stir among the gun-control romantics, whose expressive advocacy involves neither sound analytics nor empirical evidence. In this follow-on book, The Bias Against Guns, Lott continues the struggle, and responds to his critics, motivated by his strong conviction that analysis and evidence must, finally, win the day." --James Buchanan, 1986 Nobel Prize Winner in Economics

"Another major contribution by John Lott to the evidence on the effects--good and bad--of gun-control legislation. An important supplement to his More Guns, Less Crime."--Milton Friedman, 1976 Nobel Prize Winner in Economics

"As a gun-toting rock 'n' roll star all my life, I have lived firsthand the outrageous media and Hollywood bias against good guys with guns forever. I laugh in their face. John Lott is my academic hero." --Ted Nugent, recording artist and author of Kill It & Grill It and Gods, Guns, & Rock 'n' Roll

"[Lott] marshals unimpeachable evidence on how the anti-gun crusade, driven by sins of omission and commission, might actually be costing many more lives than it saves. You'll want to have this intellectual ammunition." --Walter E. Williams, economist and syndicated columnist

"John Lott is a scholar's scholar and a writer's writer--and his book shows why. That gun ownership might bring social benefits as well as costs is a story we do not often see in the press, and Lott here explores why. With a blend of new data, evidence, and examples, he unpacks the bias against such stories in the media."--J. Mark Ramseyer, Harvard Law School professor

Do you just copy and paste these things? Do you simply google John Lott and copy the back of the book?

You didn't say a DAMNED thing about what was in the book... You just copied what a bunch of conservatives said about the book...

 

[MontyB]

Actually he carried out his research over a number of years and completely unbiased. The facts speak for themselves, in states where concealed carry and or castle doctrine laws are enacted, crime has dropped. National Academy of Sciences are not exactly known for their pro gun stance so their opinion regarding John Lotts study is suspect to say the least. How strange people that continue to regard intensive research as inconclusive when that research comes out in favour of the pro gun organisations.

John Lott isnt a poster child for any one or any organisation, his intensive research proved that where there are less restrictions on firearms ownership are as I have said many times, crime does actually drop.

John Lotts latest book "Bias against guns" continues where his previous book More Guns Less Crime left off.

That is great but if his work is not repeatable and can not be validated then it is not considered accurate and it doesn't matter who produces the work.

When the black population in South Africa from 1994 were allowed to legally own firearms, crime in Townships dropped like a lead ballon, people were at last allowed to protect themselves and their families. Now with the latest gun laws severely restricting firearm purchases and demands that guns are to be handed in by the police, crime has began to increase again. As I keep on saying, criminals do not like their victims to fight back, they like nice easy soft targets.

A Shopping Mall in Cape Town was hit yesterday by an armed gang, despite "Gun Free Zone" signs all over the place. Just shows how much notice criminals take of those signs. So yep,gun laws sure work, except they only restrict the law abiding, criminals take no notice of them.

I suggest that you read my previous post in full.

I am not sure why you think countries will emulate South Africa if firearms sales are monitored better, lets face it South Africa is hardly an example of a modern, politically stable, united nation such as you find in much of Europe, North America and chunks of the South Pacific.

I think to a large degree your argument suffers from that of 5.56's where there is no middle ground an all or nothing scenario unfortunately though the more multiple shootings you have the more likely it is you will end up with the "nothing" option as people come to the conclusion that it is the easier option.

Like most things if people can not and will not regulate themselves then governments will do it for you and make a buck out of it at the same time.

 

[03USMC]

I have been reading the posts. And you're acting like people on this forum are advocating the complete banning of firearms. That is a false statement. I'm not making any assumptions, you've said this before. You only THINK you're correcting me, because you don't like my "young buck" (AKA someone young with an opinion) attitude.

I'd say it's because you don't understand the theory of reasonable and
measured debate. You agree with nothing and no one that dosen't agree with your oh so enlightened views. It has nothing to do with your age....although it could. It has everything to do with your attitude and your propensity to wear your feelings on your sleeve.

It also has to do with your displayed propensity to pop off at the mouth to other members and then play the poor pitiful agrieved party with hurt feelings when they retort in a way you don't agree with or tweaks yer emotional button.

Mr. "read-posts-more-carefully" isn't following through with his own advice... The post was perfectly clear... Just because a statement is true for one part of the country doesn't mean it's true for the nation as a whole. THAT'S what it had to do with racism.

Case in point to the above.


And I suggest you look for facts on the other side of the fence. Because just because you can continue to site the same book every other post, doesn't mean there aren't statistics AGAINST looser gun laws... Read this:
http://www.ippnw.org/Resources/MGS/V7N1Cukier.pdf

So its alright for you to post links/copy and paste. But for anyone else who's info doesn't conform to the world view according to Henderson then thats just plain wrong? Is that message?

"The UK has one of the lowest levels of gun ownership and one of the lowest rates of intentional gun deaths. The gun crime rate rose between 1997 and 2004 but has since fallen back a little, while the number of homicides from gun crime has largely remained static over the past decade." Not exactly supporting of your whole "UK has gone down the toilet since banning guns" theory, is it?

Obviously, my answer would be no... But then again, if they're dumb enough to be breaking the law in the first place, do you really think they're going to think things all the way through every time?

Do you just copy and paste these things? Do you simply google John Lott and copy the back of the book?

So what if he did? You googled the above link didn't you. I don't think he did but hey we all can't be as all knowing and well informed as you.

You didn't say a DAMNED thing about what was in the book... You just copied what a bunch of conservatives said about the book...

Again so freakin what. He's supposed to clear the content of his post and his opinion with YOU (SEE HOW IRRITATING THOSE CAPS ARE AND THEY DON'T EVEN ADD TO THIS OR YOUR POSTS) who appointed you editor and chief.

Responses (some) embedded

Thats a mighty high horse your riding sure hope you don't fall off and break your neck.

BTW: This is a debate. That means in case you might have missed it that there are 2,3 maybe even 4 sides to it. Every one including yopu has their own opinion and wonder of wonders are free to post material or their opinions whether you agree or not.

 

[Rob Henderson]

I'd say it's because you don't understand the theory of reasonable and
measured debate. You agree with nothing and no one that dosen't agree with your oh so enlightened views. It has nothing to do with your age....although it could. It has everything to do with your attitude and your propensity to wear your feelings on your sleeve.

It also has to do with your displayed propensity to pop off at the mouth to other members and then play the poor pitiful agrieved party with hurt feelings when they retort in a way you don't agree with or tweaks yer emotional button.


Case in point to the above.

Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but look at what you're saying... Do you follow your own berating? You say that I agree with no one one that doesn't agree with me... First of all, that makes sense, considering they don't agree with me... Secondly, are you telling me that you're so above it all that you concede points when YOU debate? No, you fight to the bitter end because this is the internet, and no one is going to change their minds on the internet.


*chuckle* Poor pitiful aggrieved party eh? Trust me, if I reported HALF the posts that I thought were in any way harmful to me, you wouldn't know what to do with them all. No, I only report the posts that I think are too far for what I've said previously in the debate... But this is all extremely fftopic:

So its alright for you to post links/copy and paste. But for anyone else who's info doesn't conform to the world view according to Henderson then thats just plain wrong? Is that message?

I'd just rather not read the reviews on a book... They're normally not very indicative of what's actually inside the book... It'd be different if the post was loaded with material about how gun control really was responsible for all the detrimental turns that crime has taken; but instead it's "With irrefutable evidence, Lott shoots gun critics down and gives you the information you need to win arguments with those who want to ban guns." It doesn't actually STATE any of the information... It just tells you that it will give it to you if you buy the book......?

So what if he did? You googled the above link didn't you. I don't think he did but hey we all can't be as all knowing and well informed as you.

Yes, I did... But my link actually has tangible information relevant to the topic at hand... It's not giving reviews of the article.... It's not telling people how great this article is if you want to win arguments against pro-gun people... It GIVES you the facts DIRECTLY.

Again so freakin what. He's supposed to clear the content of his post and his opinion with YOU (SEE HOW IRRITATING THOSE CAPS ARE AND THEY DON'T EVEN ADD TO THIS OR YOUR POSTS) who appointed you editor and chief.

I'm just curious as to what validity the post had to do with gun control... Other than to pitch a pro-gun book... Considering there were NO FACTS PRESENTED...

By the way... All-Caps are used to emphasize words, since vocal inflection is impossible on the Internet... The more detailed your posts are, the more you can correctly convey your meaning to the reader.

Responses (some) embedded

Thats a mighty high horse your riding sure hope you don't fall off and break your neck.

BTW: This is a debate. That means in case you might have missed it that there are 2,3 maybe even 4 sides to it. Every one including yopu has their own opinion and wonder of wonders are free to post material or their opinions whether you agree or not.

As do I.

Yes, I recognize this is a debate, but call me crazy if something doesn't actually relate to the debate in any way, shape, or form, then I'm going to question it's validity. I believe a modern slang word for it is SPAM.

 

[senojekips]

By the way... All-Caps are used to emphasize words, since vocal inflection is impossible on the Internet... The more detailed your posts are, the more you can correctly convey your meaning to the reader.

Not true at all Rob, All Caps is seen as "YELLING" and is considered as just bad manners. Emphasis is normally given by making the comment Bold or perhaps using colour.

 

[errol]

Owning firearms which have a legitimate use is vastly different to some of these fantasy queens who just have to have the biggest meanest firearm to make then feel "macho", even though they live in the city and there is not an edible animal within 100 miles.

There are also collectors and those who genuinely need firearms for other purposes, (vermin control etc), but the people that worry me are those who think they are some sort of 21st century "cowboy" or "mob hitman" in waiting. And believe me, they are out there, not to mention everyday social misfits, nutters and the seriously mentally deranged.

It really makes you feel safe doesn't it?

I agree Seno. This is nub of this sad little thread. I believe we have a few of these "macho" types on this forum. Do the "Gun Machos" see any problem with people having access to a fully automatic military type weapon??

 

[senojekips]

I personally love fully automatic weapons and have owned a few over the years, but the difference was that there were probably not 20 others in Australia that were aware that I had them.

I was a collector of modern military firearms and hunted as a second preference. When the laws changed, it all just got too bloody difficult. What weapons I never got the chance to sell were destroyed, as I know of two persons who ended up with fire arms that were supposed to be destined for Railway brake blocks. I never trusted the system.

I pity the legitimate collector or hunter, but I always disliked the "****** phenomenon" that used to surface in the collecting game, as they were the bastards that attracted all the unwelcome, and often unfair attention from those who as in all walks of life, only live to spoil someone else's enjoyment.

I have not owned a firearm other than a Brno Mod.1 .22 repeater for nearly 30 years, but I have no doubt whatsoever that I could not find any thing I needed given a few days.

It's very sad, but there's no sense in beating yourself to death for something you can't change.

My interests have changed and life goes on

 

[A Can of Man]

Personally I would have liked one because operating and firing one was a skill I learned and something I'd like to keep and improve.
Home defense would be another reason as well. You just never know when things go real bad. Again, would rather have one and never need it than need it and not have one.

 

[AZ_Infantry]

I agree Seno. This is nub of this sad little thread. I believe we have a few of these "macho" types on this forum. Do the "Gun Machos" see any problem with people having access to a fully automatic military type weapon??

Why does enjoying an assault rifle automatically relegate someone as a "Gun Macho?" Shooting is a sport, no different than fishing or golf. Do people who play golf use only one club, or do fisherman limit themselves to only one reel and pole? Are drivers not allowed to choose the type of car or truck they enjoy?

Why are certain firearms so icky and scary to some? I've never shot anyone with my AK-47, and neither has anyone else. It is like a fancy golf club. I enjoy using it as a hobby.

 

[Rob Henderson]

But golf clubs aren't MEANT for killing things... No one invented a firearm with hobby in mind.

 

[AZ_Infantry]

But golf clubs aren't MEANT for killing things... No one invented a firearm with hobby in mind.

What's relevant: why something was created, or the manner one uses it in?

If someone uses a stick and murders another with it, are they any less of a murderer?

If a man uses an AK-47 and never hurts anyone with it, are they any less innocent?

Blaming a tool for the way one decides to use it is ludicrous.

 

[Rob Henderson]

What's relevant: why something was created, or the manner one uses it in?

If someone uses a stick and murders another with it, are they any less of a murderer?

If a man uses an AK-47 and never hurts anyone with it, are they any less innocent?

Blaming a tool for the way one decides to use it is ludicrous.

But it doesn't refute the fact that an AK is a lot easier to kill someone with (and kill multiple people with) than a stick.

 

[AZ_Infantry]

But it doesn't refute the fact that an AK is a lot easier to kill someone with (and kill multiple people with) than a stick.

But if one doesn't use it to kill, why should they not be allowed to have it?

Punish the abusers.

 

[Rob Henderson]

That's the problem... America has too many people to punish on a case by case basis... It's like recess... One or two ruin it for the whole class.

 

[perseus]

But golf clubs aren't MEANT for killing things... No one invented a firearm with hobby in mind.

Well shotguns were designed for killing game and small animals for (mainly) sport, I think. This principle can easily be extended to other weapons as a excuse.

 

[Rob Henderson]

Not fully automatic, large-caliber rifles.

 

[AZ_Infantry]

That's the problem... America has too many people to punish on a case by case basis... It's like recess... One or two ruin it for the whole class.

That is what a Totalitarian regime does. We are a Republic.

You don't take from the innocent to keep the guilty on the straight and narrow. You don't punish those who have committed no offense.

America is founded on the principles of freedom for her people. That is what I defended in the Army Infantry. When we develop the attitude that we are within our rights to strip rights from the innocent because a few abuse those rights, we deny everything that even IS America.

Rob, you seem to be a very intelligent, very intuitive, very insightful young man. You must stop listening to the ramblings of a few liberal professors attempting to scare you into believing their tripe.

There are an estimated 300 MILLION firearms in this nation. How many deaths were attributed to violence with LEGAL firearms last year?

Look at the numbers. You want to punish the vast majority for the acts of a very slight minority. It doesn't make sense, sir.