Forum Thread

Hate and Guns


Reply to ThreadDisplaying 166 - 178 of 178 Prev 1 .. 8 9 10 11 12
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch Wrote: Yes Jared, of course you are right . But what I stated shows that this country is absolutely un-manageable and painted itself into a corner. The damage is done, there is no return because of the system. I guess the rest of the world laughs out loud at our own created gun heaven.

    I think it's important for us to recognize that violent crime has dramatically fallen throughout the country in the past two decades. It is true that it has risen this year, but it is an insignificant rise when compared to the crime waves of the 80's and early 90's.

    Dutch Wrote: Even Biden got a bloody nose from the NRA; I doubt if you can fight this or find a solution; like most gun nuts will say; you can have my gun over my dead body.They love their guns even more than their family.

    The NRA leadership and the majority of NRA members are at odds over many gun control issues. There are more than enough gun nuts who love their guns more than their own families, but there are far more (74%, actually) who have no problem with background checks and other gun control methods.

    Hell, the NRA used to be one of the biggest gun control advocates before their leadership decided in the 1980's to turn it into a political organization that advocates for guns to be everywhere in our society. That was because the NRA was bought out by the gun industry who wanted to sell more guns and the best way to do that was to infiltrate the organization and change its agenda away from pandering to hunting enthusiasts and teaching gun safety to being a right-wing hate group that thinks the only thing that will kill a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

    Dutch Wrote:Background checks are a farce; then you have to screen just about the whole population (at what cost?) because just about everyone owns a gun. Guns sold which had a background check only represents 0.5% of actual gun owners.

    Actually, background checks are proven to work in more ways than one. Mandatory waiting periods are also proven to work. The vast majority of gun deaths in this country are by suicide and every single state that has instituted these two requirements have seen a decline in both suicides and homicides done by a firearm.

    Only 1/3 of Americans own a gun, but the vast majority of them own more than one. That is why we have more guns than people in this country. It's not that the vast majority of people own a gun; it's that the people who own a gun almost always own more than one.

    And I hate to break it to you, but that .5% number is woefully inaccurate. Roughly 60% of all gun sales are subject to background checks. I want nothing more than to see that number at 100%, but .5 is more than a little misleading.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    Dutch Wrote: Yes Jared, of course you are right . But what I stated shows that this country is absolutely un-manageable and painted itself into a corner. The damage is done, there is no return because of the system. I guess the rest of the world laughs out loud at our own created gun heaven.

    I think it's important for us to recognize that violent crime has dramatically fallen throughout the country in the past two decades. It is true that it has risen this year, but it is an insignificant rise when compared to the crime waves of the 80's and early 90's.

    Dutch Wrote: Even Biden got a bloody nose from the NRA; I doubt if you can fight this or find a solution; like most gun nuts will say; you can have my gun over my dead body.They love their guns even more than their family.

    The NRA leadership and the majority of NRA members are at odds over many gun control issues. There are more than enough gun nuts who love their guns more than their own families, but there are far more (74%, actually) who have no problem with background checks and other gun control methods.

    Hell, the NRA used to be one of the biggest gun control advocates before their leadership decided in the 1980's to turn it into a political organization that advocates for guns to be everywhere in our society. That was because the NRA was bought out by the gun industry who wanted to sell more guns and the best way to do that was to infiltrate the organization and change its agenda away from pandering to hunting enthusiasts and teaching gun safety to being a right-wing hate group that thinks the only thing that will kill a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

    Dutch Wrote:Background checks are a farce; then you have to screen just about the whole population (at what cost?) because just about everyone owns a gun. Guns sold which had a background check only represents 0.5% of actual gun owners.

    Actually, background checks are proven to work in more ways than one. Mandatory waiting periods are also proven to work. The vast majority of gun deaths in this country are by suicide and every single state that has instituted these two requirements have seen a decline in both suicides and homicides done by a firearm.

    Only 1/3 of Americans own a gun, but the vast majority of them own more than one. That is why we have more guns than people in this country. It's not that the vast majority of people own a gun; it's that the people who own a gun almost always own more than one.

    And I hate to break it to you, but that .5% number is woefully inaccurate. Roughly 60% of all gun sales are subject to background checks. I want nothing more than to see that number at 100%, but .5 is more than a little misleading.

    Your statement of : "60% of all gun sales are subject to background checks......." is certainly not what I said. I said "owners" even old people still have guns carried over in the family etc. even since WWI and II. Those I count and are the majority without any "checks" thus the whole picture is indeed .5%. Also you are forgetting all the sales made before background checks got started which is just recently (last few years); certainly not the case for 50 years or more !!!
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Gun violence continues to exist and will continue getting worse until prevention is addressed in a positive manner. Whatever the role guns play in gun violence it will be a long time and probably never before guns are removed from the streets. The problem is that most people that support gun control won't support what it will take to remove guns. Removing guns will require a police presence that people have already said they don't want or will accept. But if the police presence was immediately funded and put into effect all violence and violent crimes would diminish. There are already strong laws designed to keep guns away from potential offenders but there is no stomach to fund execution of those laws. Crime prevention requires police presence. We should pay our cops more and hire many more of them. People have and live with burglar alarms in their house. The best peace of mind I have comes from my security system. Why not extend that system with more cops. The wealthy have gated communities with the gates attended by guards. Why can't the poor have the same protection. start with increased police protection and I mean significant protection. Any group or gathering should have protection available. Anecdotally I see violence escalating everywhere . There will be many many many more tragedies before any type of gun control begins to have even a very slight effect on gun violence.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: Gun violence continues to exist and will continue getting worse until prevention is addressed in a positive manner. Whatever the role guns play in gun violence it will be a long time and probably never before guns are removed from the streets. The problem is that most people that support gun control won't support what it will take to remove guns. Removing guns will require a police presence that people have already said they don't want or will accept. But if the police presence was immediately funded and put into effect all violence and violent crimes would diminish. There are already strong laws designed to keep guns away from potential offenders but there is no stomach to fund execution of those laws. Crime prevention requires police presence. We should pay our cops more and hire many more of them. People have and live with burglar alarms in their house. The best peace of mind I have comes from my security system. Why not extend that system with more cops. The wealthy have gated communities with the gates attended by guards. Why can't the poor have the same protection. start with increased police protection and I mean significant protection. Any group or gathering should have protection available. Anecdotally I see violence escalating everywhere . There will be many many many more tragedies before any type of gun control begins to have even a very slight effect on gun violence.
    Chet, I can follow your thoughts. But there is always a "but". Do you want a "police state" ? I doubt it. As I said in many of my "threads", it is too late to act now, the damage is done; there will be only more and more weapons in circulation , not less. So I guess we have to live with that and protect ourselves as you describe. The NRA is a powerhouse and certainly will object to any change in laws etc.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Did your numbers take in account all of the Gun Buy Back programs throughout the country mostly which are in the mostly urban areas, as a member of a Gun Buy back event, except for the more well known automatics that shown to the media for propaganda purposes, most of the weapons turned in are of vintage time , such as Grandpops old weapons hidden in Attic or the basement or the closet and they are far from operable, don't get me wrong , an inoperable weapon still can be used in the commission of a crime, my point is these types of surveys are usually off target as they as they geared to a predetermined conclusion and not to the facts of actual gun ownership which would be damn near impossible to achieve if only because of those who fear a actual gun confiscation program ,would think that the beginning of such a program would start with the knowledge of who owns guns, so they would not respond accurately to any survey.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote: Did your numbers take in account all of the Gun Buy Back programs throughout the country mostly which are in the mostly urban areas, as a member of a Gun Buy back event, except for the more well known automatics that shown to the media for propaganda purposes, most of the weapons turned in are of vintage time , such as Grandpops old weapons hidden in Attic or the basement or the closet and they are far from operable, don't get me wrong , an inoperable weapon still can be used in the commission of a crime, my point is these types of surveys are usually off target as they as they geared to a predetermined conclusion and not to the facts of actual gun ownership which would be damn near impossible to achieve if only because of those who fear a actual gun confiscation program ,would think that the beginning of such a program would start with the knowledge of who owns guns, so they would not respond accurately to any survey.
    Yes J.C. you are right; indeed it is difficult to trace who owns them all; I doubt if the "drug" cartel will tell you!!! Don't forget either the "underground" trade etc.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    J.C. I just watched last night a movie on Netflix, it is called Lord of War with Nicolas Cage playing in it. It is based on the reality of weapons "brokers/dealers". It gives a clear picture of the whole trade. Especially in Africa, Russia etc. plenty of these weapons end up here as well via the drug trade. When I was running around in Africa, I was faced with the same things as in this movie; especially related to the corruption, killing etc. Sometimes these scenes haunt me. If you watch this movie then may be you realize why I write things the way I do.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch Wrote: J.C. I just watched last night a movie on Netflix, it is called Lord of War with Nicolas Cage playing in it. It is based on the reality of weapons "brokers/dealers". It gives a clear picture of the whole trade. Especially in Africa, Russia etc. plenty of these weapons end up here as well via the drug trade. When I was running around in Africa, I was faced with the same things as in this movie; especially related to the corruption, killing etc. Sometimes these scenes haunt me. If you watch this movie then may be you realize why I write things the way I do.
    Seems if you run around in Africa and stay alive you would make a good politician. Africa is one of the reasons I think sovereignty is over rated . Sovereigninity gives a lot of criminals legitimacy.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet, today is the remembrance of 9/11; we've not learned from it. 14 years later we have even more conflicts than ever. We still hand out money to corrupt leaders and fight loosing wars. 9/11 was caused because we gave the leaders plenty of money while the population only got dirt; it is still the same today. We want the natural resources and bribe all over the place, including the "sale" of weapons to get what we want. My guess is that we by now have created a hell of a lot more "terrorists" than in 2001. Everyone we are bombing or use our drones on them; their family members or others will seek revenge. Due to our much better protection at "home" it has become more difficult to attack us. But one way or an other, eventually they will find a way to repeat 9/11. We are asking for that due to our behavior in the world.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Talk about not learning from history. We supplied and made Sadam the force he was. We put the Shah in power . Since you were in Afruca look at the support for Idi Amin. In the National Interest has never been. It has always been in the "Interest of a Few". But chasing oil and resources has formed policy. Never human rights. Even in the guise of saving people for communism our own people are being driven into worse conditions. I would never say third world conditions because nothing approaches the disdain for life like Sudan and Darfur. But fighting and dying for the National Interest is misleading. There is historical guidance for the current world crash course. "Jubilee". After the people that naturally can get it all got it all the ancients would call time and reset the score to zero wiping out all debt, Other than working ourselves up for a Great War over unpayable debts the world should declare bankruptcy. Wipe out all debt.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: Talk about not learning from history. We supplied and made Sadam the force he was. We put the Shah in power . Since you were in Afruca look at the support for Idi Amin. In the National Interest has never been. It has always been in the "Interest of a Few". But chasing oil and resources has formed policy. Never human rights. Even in the guise of saving people for communism our own people are being driven into worse conditions. I would never say third world conditions because nothing approaches the disdain for life like Sudan and Darfur. But fighting and dying for the National Interest is misleading. There is historical guidance for the current world crash course. "Jubilee". After the people that naturally can get it all got it all the ancients would call time and reset the score to zero wiping out all debt, Other than working ourselves up for a Great War over unpayable debts the world should declare bankruptcy. Wipe out all debt.
    Chet, I know all about Idi Amin; he had bought a couple of aircraft from us; however when he exiled to Libya we were underway to deliver these planes; we landed on the bombed out runway in Entebbe and immediately were surrounded by Tanzanians with AK 47's. Our contact there had an old Beetle with a rotted out floor and no windshield. The first thing we lost was our watches and all the cigarettes. Then I had to sit in the burned out airport hall with a group of guys with plenty of guns and a cooking fire; all the spare equipment on the aircraft was stashed into a ladies bathroom with a padlock on it. We had to wait a while and were invited in the hangar to meet the new leaders and transfer the aircraft to them. Amin had already paid for it by means of coffee money. We got out in a hurry, because all the old hotels were occupied by rebels and gun toting criminals etc. Anyway these things give you a different look at the world.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: Gun violence continues to exist and will continue getting worse until prevention is addressed in a positive manner. Whatever the role guns play in gun violence it will be a long time and probably never before guns are removed from the streets. The problem is that most people that support gun control won't support what it will take to remove guns. Removing guns will require a police presence that people have already said they don't want or will accept. But if the police presence was immediately funded and put into effect all violence and violent crimes would diminish. There are already strong laws designed to keep guns away from potential offenders but there is no stomach to fund execution of those laws. Crime prevention requires police presence. We should pay our cops more and hire many more of them. People have and live with burglar alarms in their house. The best peace of mind I have comes from my security system. Why not extend that system with more cops. The wealthy have gated communities with the gates attended by guards. Why can't the poor have the same protection. start with increased police protection and I mean significant protection. Any group or gathering should have protection available. Anecdotally I see violence escalating everywhere . There will be many many many more tragedies before any type of gun control begins to have even a very slight effect on gun violence.
    Chet, you make some very valid points here, but as I read Dutch write in another post, "there are always exceptions." Indeed I believe this to be true, and I see one more "exception" that should be noted. More cops will very likely also mean more BAD cops, as there is undeniably some small percentage of those who are. Just look at that percentage in the current level of policing. Whatever this small percentage is, it is enough to rear its ugly head quite often, and NEVER fails to make the news. I'm just saying that this variable would have to be considered in the hiring of more cops.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Michael39301 Wrote:
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: Gun violence continues to exist and will continue getting worse until prevention is addressed in a positive manner. Whatever the role guns play in gun violence it will be a long time and probably never before guns are removed from the streets. The problem is that most people that support gun control won't support what it will take to remove guns. Removing guns will require a police presence that people have already said they don't want or will accept. But if the police presence was immediately funded and put into effect all violence and violent crimes would diminish. There are already strong laws designed to keep guns away from potential offenders but there is no stomach to fund execution of those laws. Crime prevention requires police presence. We should pay our cops more and hire many more of them. People have and live with burglar alarms in their house. The best peace of mind I have comes from my security system. Why not extend that system with more cops. The wealthy have gated communities with the gates attended by guards. Why can't the poor have the same protection. start with increased police protection and I mean significant protection. Any group or gathering should have protection available. Anecdotally I see violence escalating everywhere . There will be many many many more tragedies before any type of gun control begins to have even a very slight effect on gun violence.
    Chet, you make some very valid points here, but as I read Dutch write in another post, "there are always exceptions." Indeed I believe this to be true, and I see one more "exception" that should be noted. More cops will very likely also mean more BAD cops, as there is undeniably some small percentage of those who are. Just look at that percentage in the current level of policing. Whatever this small percentage is, it is enough to rear its ugly head quite often, and NEVER fails to make the news. I'm just saying that this variable would have to be considered in the hiring of more cops.
    Did I forget to say to pay them a decent wage. They especially as well as everybody else needs a wage high enough to have some discretionary spending. Just as crime and violence are associated with low income the same inference may be drawn that low pay might cause problems with cops. Money is the key to every problem's solution.