Political Crossfire Forums

[airo]

Blinky wrote: airo wrote: Blinky wrote: airo wrote: Blinky wrote: Quote: If we outlaw guns, criminals will have them. No difference.

Probably true. But fewer guns - especially over time as the remaining ones are disposed of, break, are seized by police etc.

Criminals have aquired once-legal guns are are using them for no good, and your solution is to produce more legal guns to ensure the supply of illegal firearms? Thats doesn't seem to make sense.

Why have a police force? Why not give everyone a gun and let people settle their differences themselves?

Most firearms used illegally are illegally possesed by the owner. That is to say, the gun was stolen, imported illegally, or illegally modified in some way. This is just further proof that criminals really don't give a flying f**k about laws regarding firearms.

Their firearms are already illegal, how is making them more illegal going to solve anything? It's not, it's only going to take firearms out of the average law abiding citizen's hands, because we're the only ones who give a damn about the law.


Read again airo. The thread title was "If we Outlaw guns criminals will still have them. No Difference. "
To which I said:
blinky wrote: Probably true. But fewer guns - especially over time as the remaining ones are disposed of, break, are seized by police etc.

The title of the thread is untrue - if private citizens stopped buying guns tomorrow the supply of illegal firearms would cease because ALL illegal firearms were once legal firearms which were lost, stolen, sold by their legal owners.
As the remaining firearms in the hands of criminals broke, were destroyed, and confiscated by police, there would be no guns to replace them (unless they were aquired by other means like being smuggled - but that's a border security issue).
Its what we did in Australia and it has worked.

That's not true. Illegal firearms are smuggled into this country as well.

Thanks for reiterating EXACTLY what I just said.
blinky wrote: unless they were aquired by other means like being smuggled - but thats a border security issue).


airo wrote: And an illegal firearm is an illegal firearm, whether or not a ban is in place. Basically, if a person is going to pack an illegal gun, he's going to do it, and no silly law you pass will stop him.

Those hardened, organized criminals that truly want a gun will still have access to them no doubt. But since when are organized criminals interested in mugging old ladies and breaking into houses for your TV?
The point is that the vast majority of everyday criminals will no longer be able to get a gun. They'll become a rare and precious commodity on the black market sending the cost of them skyrocketing - where's a crack addict going to get a few thousand dollars to buy a less than reliable second-hand pistol?
The current system ensures almost an overflow of readily available firearms - they're available at Walmart for god's sake, aren't they?

You're not well educated on organized crime, are you? Many members of "organized" crime (Especially gangs.) regularly engage in petty theft, armed robbery, and burglary. It's not Hollywood, and just because the proverbial "Don" didn't order a hit doesn't mean a couple of s**t bags who happen to be in a gang won't take it upon themselves to break into a house, or rob a convenience store. In fact, i'd say a very significant portion, if not a majority, of these crimes are committed by gang members.

As far as the cost of firearms... It seems to be a general trend that countries that have large firearm black markets also have a lower mean price then firearms purchased legally in the U.S.. I don't think someone would have to pay thousands of dollars for a firearm in a 1984-esque United States.

Wal-Mart has, by and large, dropped firearm sales. Not to mention, you could only purchase longarms from them.

You still have to go through a waiting period in the majority of states if you don't hold a CCW, and you have to go through a background check.

Quote:
[quote="airo"]Perhaps you should look up the prohibition. The idea to ban a deeply enrooted facet of American culture is nothing new, and it's even been attempted before! The only thing it accomplished? It made a lot of criminals very, very, VERY rich. A firearms ban would do no better.

And border security IS an issue. Did you know we currently stop less then 12 percent of all illegally smuggled goods? Can you imagine if people had to resort to smuggling firearms?

The answer to why you only stop 12% of smuggled good lies in your government's spending priorities:
http://www.federalbudget.com/
Quote:

I've heard DEA officers themselves admit that fighting the war on drugs by trying to stop them at the border is pointless. Unless building a giant f***ing wall through the Gulf of Mexico and shooting down any planes that attempt to fly over is high on our spending priorities list, we cannot, and never will be able to, stop drugs, weapons, or people from entering into our country illegally.

Quote:
[quote="airo"]And as far as "Well, if everyone just stopped buying them, and turned them in!" That's very Utopian of you, but no one is going to. If drug dealers start turning their firearms in, i might consider it briefly before i say "no.", but i will never deprive myself of a means to defend my life, and my rights.

Utopian implies that it wouldn't happen, but it has here. And has worked well.
Please airo, for the last time stop insisting that you need firearms to defend your rights. Its getting ridiculous now. The whole world saw what gun owners do when their government infringes on their rights - they co-operate. Its not a theory of anti-gunners. We saw it happen. Thrilla has since done his best to distinguish the gun owners of New Orleans from the other gun owners in America, but it just doesn't wash.


Wait, i'm sorry, i don't completely understand. NOLA? People willingly turned over firearms there? Someone must not have informed a couple fellows i know, not to mention seen in various threads across the internet, who open carried in the days after Katrina, sometimes blatantly in front of LEOs, none of which seemed to care.

I said it before and i'll say it again, if any confiscation did occur in NO, it was few and far in between, and HIGHLY exaggerated, as our press has a tendency to do.

As for your country, if i remember correctly, within recent years you also had swords banned, because an upsurge in violence where these became the weapon de joure of violent criminals. Yes, banning firearms simply solved all of your society's issues, didn't it? Now, run along and ban butter knives as well.

Quote:
airo wrote: Simple, to enforce traffic codes, and clean up after Citizen's are done defending themselves.

You have a very low opinion of the work police officers do. I bet you wouldn't say that to a cop's face.


My father was a police officer, and i'm actually planning on becoming one as well.

And i have said such a thing to my father's face. When we discussed it a little, and we went over how many shootings he responded too after ex post facto, he agreed with me.

The statement is oversimplified, but when it's applied to self-defense, it holds true. I have nothing but the utmost respect for LEOs, but, i'm not about to rely on them to defend me. I can do that just fine myself.

Quote:
airo wrote: I've said it before, response time in my area is horrible. I've actually made 911 calls, had no one report, and called back and the dispatcher told me there was no record of my call. If someone invades my home intent on causing me harm, the police WILL NOT be there to protect me. I am the only one capable of protecting myself.

Care to elaborate? What were you calling them for?
Because I've got news for you - your prisons are literally bursting at the seems. So the cops must be arresting people, yet you alone are the ONLY person who can protect yourself.

Mostly traffic accidents. I think it's important to mention i've actually counted as much as six radio cars passing me while the fellow who'd hit me and myself just sat by our vehicles waiting for someone to respond.

And yes, i'm the only one capable of protecting myself. Part of being capable means being within reasonable proximity to me. If i can't see a police officer, in other words, they're not exactly capable of protecting me, are they? Especially if a mugger sticks a gun in my ribs.

Quote:
airp wrote: You seem happy living under your false sense of security, where a bobby is always on you back, fending off the swarms of dregs who would wish to take you wallet, but nothing more!, and that's's good for you! I think it's nice some people can view the world through rose tinted glasses.

I, however, am more realistic than you.

Its not a false sense of security airo. It a real sense of security. I sleep easy at night knowing that theres next to zero chance I'll get shot tommorrow. Whereas you and your friends carry holsters not only out of the house but at home while cooking dinner and watching TV, remember? You said that putting on a holster with your belt and taking it off before getting into bed was routine for your CCW friends.
Literally the biggest worry I have is someone wanting to take my wallet airo. What can I say? Its great.
Its not rose tinted glasses for me, my friend. It is reality.

And you make it sound like everyone i know, and myself, live in constant fear, and horror. You're a silly person.

I don't know how many times i've said it, but there's a difference between being prepared, and being paranoid. Being paranoid is altering your life, constantly worrying about something, focusing your life around that moment.

Being prepared is having the knowledge, the skillset, the tactics, and the training to deal with a specific situation, but, if you're not in that situation, putting it outside of your head completely.

You know the only difference between you and me? (Other than the obvious ideological ones...) It's not that you're happier than I, because you're not. It's not that you're living a better life because you cannot defend yourself, because you aren't. If you're happy, and truly happy, then the only difference between me and you is the fact that you may one day run into a situation that you have absolutely no idea how to handle, and you, or someone you know, may end up irreversibly hurt, or dead.

[Blinky]

airo wrote: You're not well educated on organized crime, are you? Many members of "organized" crime (Especially gangs.) regularly engage in petty theft, armed robbery, and burglary. It's not Hollywood, and just because the proverbial "Don" didn't order a hit doesn't mean a couple of s**t bags who happen to be in a gang won't take it upon themselves to break into a house, or rob a convenience store. In fact, i'd say a very significant portion, if not a majority, of these crimes are committed by gang members.

As far as the cost of firearms... It seems to be a general trend that countries that have large firearm black markets also have a lower mean price then firearms purchased legally in the U.S.. I don't think someone would have to pay thousands of dollars for a firearm in a 1984-esque United States.
.

Airo, I'm speaking from experience. Look at the number of robberies that in occur in Australia with a firearm. Then look at how many occur in the US with a firearm.

With costs, you're probably right - countries with a large black market in firearms have firearms available for cheap. Thats one of the points of gun control. Its taking a step towards cutting off the supply of the black market, which in turn drives up costs. Its simple economic theory - when demand is greater than supply, cost goes up. If you think that Australian style gun control laws wouldn't reduce the number of once legal firearms circulating in the US, then youre just living in denial because as it stands in the US, I could buy a gun and then "lose it" for the guy who offers me a nice cash incentive.

Once buying a gun wasn't a simple as that, do you think the average guy whos gonna stick up the local 7-Eleven has the know how (let alone the connections) to go that extra step in acquiring a firearm? Is he going to rendezvous with the Ukrainian arms dealer on his boat in international waters and purchase his Uzi with a roll of hundred dollar bills?

Yes people desperate and cashed up enough are going to still get firearms, I would never deny it and it happens here. But, the number of firearm homicides in the US per 100'000 people is currently 63 times higher than it is in Britain. If you think thats coincidence, you're wrong.



airo wrote: Wait, i'm sorry, i don't completely understand. NOLA? People willingly turned over firearms there? Someone must not have informed a couple fellows i know, not to mention seen in various threads across the internet, who open carried in the days after Katrina, sometimes blatantly in front of LEOs, none of which seemed to care.

I said it before and i'll say it again, if any confiscation did occur in NO, it was few and far in between, and HIGHLY exaggerated, as our press has a tendency to do.

Every gun in NO was not seized so its quite possible for you to know someone who retained theirs. But guns were seized, this is undeniable. Even the other gun-nuts admit that. Anyway you look at it, it was a direct violation of your rights, and nobody used their weapons in defence of them.

airo wrote: As for your country, if i remember correctly, within recent years you also had swords banned, because an upsurge in violence where these became the weapon de joure of violent criminals. Yes, banning firearms simply solved all of your society's issues, didn't it? Now, run along and ban butter knives as well.

You are allowed to own swords - but keep them at home where they belong. A lot of people collect ornamental swords and swords with historic or sentimental value. You are not allowed to carry a sword down the street, and why should you be allowed to? What possible legitimate use does a sword have?
Before you cry about freedom, you also can't walk naked down the street and that doesn't hurt anybody.




Airo wrote: My father was a police officer, and i'm actually planning on becoming one as well.

You want to "enforce traffic codes, and clean up after Citizen's are done defending themselves" all day every day? Good luck to you, I suppose.



airo wrote: Mostly traffic accidents. I think it's important to mention i've actually counted as much as six radio cars passing me while the fellow who'd hit me and myself just sat by our vehicles waiting for someone to respond.
You called the emergency number for a traffic accident? :lol: And was surprised when they didn't show up?


Airo wrote: And you make it sound like everyone i know, and myself, live in constant fear, and horror. You're a silly person.

I simply repeated what you told me were standard practices among your CCW friends. If that sounds like them living in constant fear and horror, that should tell you something.


airo wrote: You know the only difference between you and me? (Other than the obvious ideological ones...) It's not that you're happier than I, because you're not. It's not that you're living a better life because you cannot defend yourself, because you aren't. If you're happy, and truly happy, then the only difference between me and you is the fact that you may one day run into a situation that you have absolutely no idea how to handle, and you, or someone you know, may end up irreversibly hurt, or dead.

...says the guy who carries a loaded gun around.

1) The chances of me finding myself in a situation in which I wished I had a gun are so near to zero, it really isn't worth the worry/money/time spent training on my part
2) that fact in itself tells me that I am probably happier than you Airo. That and the fact I don't feel the need to keep an eye on my government to prevent them implementing a police state the moment my back is turned.

[perdidochas]

britboy wrote:

Wal-Mart has, by and large, dropped firearm sales. Not to mention, you could only purchase longarms from them.

You still have to go through a waiting period in the majority of states if you don't hold a CCW, and you have to go through a background check.

Wal-Mart gun sales depends on the state. Most FL Wal-Marts sell guns. However, you do have to go through a background check (NICS) to buy them, and they do escort you to your car with them. Not sure about the handgun sales or not. I haven't looked recently. I have read that in April, Wal-Mart announced that it would stop gun-sales in about 1/3 of their stores altogether (they stopped selling guns in CA a few years ago), depending on how gun sales have been in the particular store (good business decision).


airo wrote: And you make it sound like everyone i know, and myself, live in constant fear, and horror. You're a silly person.

I don't know how many times i've said it, but there's a difference between being prepared, and being paranoid. Being paranoid is altering your life, constantly worrying about something, focusing your life around that moment.

Being prepared is having the knowledge, the skillset, the tactics, and the training to deal with a specific situation, but, if you're not in that situation, putting it outside of your head completely.

You know the only difference between you and me? (Other than the obvious ideological ones...) It's not that you're happier than I, because you're not. It's not that you're living a better life because you cannot defend yourself, because you aren't. If you're happy, and truly happy, then the only difference between me and you is the fact that you may one day run into a situation that you have absolutely no idea how to handle, and you, or someone you know, may end up irreversibly hurt, or dead.

Exactly. Is it paranoid to own fire extinguishers, or how to do CPR? Is it paranoid to own a first aid kit? After all, those are just based on living in fear of fire or heart attacks or of being injured.

[airo]

Blinky wrote: airo wrote: You're not well educated on organized crime, are you? Many members of "organized" crime (Especially gangs.) regularly engage in petty theft, armed robbery, and burglary. It's not Hollywood, and just because the proverbial "Don" didn't order a hit doesn't mean a couple of s**t bags who happen to be in a gang won't take it upon themselves to break into a house, or rob a convenience store. In fact, i'd say a very significant portion, if not a majority, of these crimes are committed by gang members.

As far as the cost of firearms... It seems to be a general trend that countries that have large firearm black markets also have a lower mean price then firearms purchased legally in the U.S.. I don't think someone would have to pay thousands of dollars for a firearm in a 1984-esque United States.
.

Airo, I'm speaking from experience. Look at the number of robberies that in occur in Australia with a firearm. Then look at how many occur in the US with a firearm.

With costs, you're probably right - countries with a large black market in firearms have firearms available for cheap. Thats one of the points of gun control. Its taking a step towards cutting off the supply of the black market, which in turn drives up costs. Its simple economic theory - when demand is greater than supply, cost goes up. If you think that Australian style gun control laws wouldn't reduce the number of once legal firearms circulating in the US, then youre just living in denial because as it stands in the US, I could buy a gun and then "lose it" for the guy who offers me a nice cash incentive.

Once buying a gun wasn't a simple as that, do you think the average guy whos gonna stick up the local 7-Eleven has the know how (let alone the connections) to go that extra step in acquiring a firearm? Is he going to rendezvous with the Ukrainian arms dealer on his boat in international waters and purchase his Uzi with a roll of hundred dollar bills?

Yes people desperate and cashed up enough are going to still get firearms, I would never deny it and it happens here. But, the number of firearm homicides in the US per 100'000 people is currently 63 times higher than it is in Britain. If you think thats coincidence, you're wrong.


I've mentioned that i've gone to school in some pretty hard places. (Some of the worst neighborhoods in Tampa.) I can tell you, from first hand experience, that some Gangs in Tampa are better "connected" (In terms of what they're able to get their hands on.) than most mafias. And yes, that gang member who's holding up a local 7-11 more than likely has access to these connections.

And, i do not dispute your point that banning firearms would lower the number of legal firearms in circulation, since they would all become illegal once banned. Are you pro-illegal firearms? O.o

And, robberies that occur with a firearm is an obtuse statistic. "Armed robberies" or violent robberies would be much more revealing, since one of my arguments IS that even if criminals hypothetically cannot get their hands on weapons, they will simply continue to commit crime without them. Removing weapons from the equation only removes the ability of civilian to fight back effectively.

Quote:
airo wrote: Wait, i'm sorry, i don't completely understand. NOLA? People willingly turned over firearms there? Someone must not have informed a couple fellows i know, not to mention seen in various threads across the internet, who open carried in the days after Katrina, sometimes blatantly in front of LEOs, none of which seemed to care.

I said it before and i'll say it again, if any confiscation did occur in NO, it was few and far in between, and HIGHLY exaggerated, as our press has a tendency to do.

Every gun in NO was not seized so its quite possible for you to know someone who retained theirs. But guns were seized, this is undeniable. Even the other gun-nuts admit that. Anyway you look at it, it was a direct violation of your rights, and nobody used their weapons in defence of them.

Oh, i don't doubt some guns were confiscated. However, you're making it sound like it was some insidious plot to disarm the populous of NO, when, more than likely, it was one or two occurrences where a local cop got his hardon and thought he knew all there is to know about the law, and the constitution.

I'll say it again, it wasn't wide spread, and the cases that WERE true were widely exaggerated in stereotypical American-media fashion.

Quote:
airo wrote: As for your country, if i remember correctly, within recent years you also had swords banned, because an upsurge in violence where these became the weapon de joure of violent criminals. Yes, banning firearms simply solved all of your society's issues, didn't it? Now, run along and ban butter knives as well.

You are allowed to own swords - but keep them at home where they belong. A lot of people collect ornamental swords and swords with historic or sentimental value. You are not allowed to carry a sword down the street, and why should you be allowed to? What possible legitimate use does a sword have?
Before you cry about freedom, you also can't walk naked down the street and that doesn't hurt anybody.


Isn't a "blunt instrument" (Large cudgels, and the such.) ban in discussion, as well?

Quote:
Airo wrote: My father was a police officer, and i'm actually planning on becoming one as well.

You want to "enforce traffic codes, and clean up after Citizen's are done defending themselves" all day every day? Good luck to you, I suppose.


Nice job conveniently skipping over the rest of what i wrote. You get an A+ for good debating skills! Keep it up, and i'll promote you to the rank of "politician"!

Quote:
airo wrote: Mostly traffic accidents. I think it's important to mention i've actually counted as much as six radio cars passing me while the fellow who'd hit me and myself just sat by our vehicles waiting for someone to respond.
You called the emergency number for a traffic accident? :lol: And was surprised when they didn't show up?


Considering that's the number you call, and they told me officers were being dispatched, yes, i'm surprised when the police lied to me. Is that a common occurrence in Australia?

Quote:
Airo wrote: And you make it sound like everyone i know, and myself, live in constant fear, and horror. You're a silly person.

I simply repeated what you told me were standard practices among your CCW friends. If that sounds like them living in constant fear and horror, that should tell you something.


No, you made a statement to infer something. I called you out on what you were inferring, don't back-pedal.

Quote:
airo wrote: You know the only difference between you and me? (Other than the obvious ideological ones...) It's not that you're happier than I, because you're not. It's not that you're living a better life because you cannot defend yourself, because you aren't. If you're happy, and truly happy, then the only difference between me and you is the fact that you may one day run into a situation that you have absolutely no idea how to handle, and you, or someone you know, may end up irreversibly hurt, or dead.

...says the guy who carries a loaded gun around.


There's your inference again. ;)

Quote:
1) The chances of me finding myself in a situation in which I wished I had a gun are so near to zero, it really isn't worth the worry/money/time spent training on my part
2) that fact in itself tells me that I am probably happier than you Airo. That and the fact I don't feel the need to keep an eye on my government to prevent them implementing a police state the moment my back is turned.

How old are you?

Are you honestly saying that you believe the world climate will remain completely stable, and NOTHING will ever happen to upset your way of life during your entire lifetime?

You DO realize your entire country was extremely close to being occupied during WW2, right? And that was only some 60 odd years ago. You're saying such a thing is completely impossible, and will never happen again?

If you were in your 60s, i can see holding such a point of view, although considering criminals tend to target the elderly, i'd argue you had MORE of a chance of being victimized than me.

But i highly doubt that you're 60 or older.

I live in a coastal region that could quite easily turn to NOLA should a major hurricane directly hit my area. Not only that, but i strongly believe that there will be at least a one month period of lawlessness at some point in my lifetime, considering similar things have happened before. (Lest we forget, the race riots, etc.)

I'm not fearing it, in fact, if you even bother to read how i'm writing, i've completely come to accept it. I'm not afraid of someone breaking into my house, or attempting to rob me. I've already accepted the situation should it be forced upon me. I am merely prepared for it.

And, please refrain from telling me how happy i am in life. You don't know me, and i made a point no to stipulate your contentedness in life, and i'd appreciate it if you extended the same courtesy to me.

[wyldejackyl]

I agree - lawlessness can break out at any time for any reason. I'm not willing to bet my life on that. I'd love it if I never even aimed my gun at another human for my whole life..but I'd rather have it than not have it.