Interesting police opinion

So Tom,

You are saying that in 2012, 349 people were killed by "assault type" rifles with high capacity magazines?
Only 349, you must be very proud!

Tom, how many were killed by "assault type" rifles with just regular magazines?

**************************

2012 gun murders...........all types of guns, not just assault type rifles with large magazines!

Australia........................30
Japan............................11
New Zealand....................7
England & Wales..............41

Total.............................89
Jim, 349 is 349 too many, but it is still a very small part of 12,500, 3%.
By the left's definition, anything with a plastic stock, pistol grip and a magazine that hangs below the stock is an "assault rifle". If it's not selectively fully automatic it's not an assault rifle. You can take a hunting rifle, install a plasic stock, pistol grip, and a magzine, and "voila" you have your definition of an assault rifle. Once again it's not the number of people killed that bothers you, but your lack of control over "how" they are killed. If it were the number, the other hundreds of thousands that die each year from things we've discussed before would bother you, but it doesn't.
 

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
Answer (since you'll NEVER get to it): THEY WON'T. 'Never HAVE - 'never WILL. Crooks and loons always HAVE HAD and always WILL GET whatever 'arms' they want. That's just a fact. Therefore, taking weapons and ammo capacity away from people like ME won't change diddly. LEOs ACROSS THE NATION AGREE WITH THAT.
Larry,

I answered your question, now answer mine.

These countries all had millions of guns (three of them are English speaking countries with very similar ideals of personal responsibility and personal values when compared to the USA), they then made almost all of them illegal, why did their gun murders decline to almost nothing?


2012 gun murders...........all types of guns, not just assault type rifles with large magazines!

Australia........................30
Japan............................11
New Zealand....................7
England & Wales..............41

Total.............................89
 
Last edited:

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
You would be wrong once again, why would I listen to you or Mr Biden, you are both wrong!

Perhaps you can answer the question, Larry refuses to answer.

These countries all had millions of guns (three of them are English speaking countries with very similar ideals of personal responsibility and personal values when compared to the USA), they then made almost all of them illegal, why did their gun murders decline to almost nothing?


2012 gun murders...........all types of guns, not just assault type rifles with large magazines!

Australia........................30
Japan............................11
New Zealand....................7
England & Wales..............41

Total.............................89
 

Ron Earp

Admin
I presume you would listen to VP Biden (since he is helping to


Joe Biden says get a double barreled shotgun. And fire it into the air to scare off criminals, both barrels, after which you are unarmed and you might have unintentionally harmed innocents.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIuk3G9Xixc[/ame]
 
And as for polls... Remember I said that polls can be misleading...

To prove my point, I conducted a poll on another website regarding the housing market bubble and crash. I presented it to over 10,000 people and 99% of respondents said that appraisers were to blame for the bubble and crash.

And when I presented the poll, I did not offer any influencing information to coerce answers.
 
You would be wrong once again, why would I listen to you or Mr Biden, you are both wrong!

Perhaps you can answer the question, Larry refuses to answer.

These countries all had millions of guns (three of them are English speaking countries with very similar ideals of personal responsibility and personal values when compared to the USA), they then made almost all of them illegal, why did their gun murders decline to almost nothing?


2012 gun murders...........all types of guns, not just assault type rifles with large magazines!

Australia........................30
Japan............................11
New Zealand....................7
England & Wales..............41

Total.............................89
Geeez Jim, If these countries are so attractive, hell I'll help you pack!
 

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
Perhaps you can answer the question, Larry refuses to answer.

These countries all had millions of guns (three of them are English speaking countries with very similar ideals of personal responsibility and personal values when compared to the USA), they then made almost all of them illegal, why did their gun murders decline to almost nothing?


2012 gun murders...........all types of guns, not just assault type rifles with large magazines!

Australia........................30
Japan............................11
New Zealand....................7
England & Wales..............41

Total.............................89
Oh, for Pete's sake, sir - murder is murder. There is NO DIFFERENCE in the degree of 'dead' between death by firearms and by any other means. So, let's look at MURDER stats - period:

List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You'll note the murder rate in NORTH AMERICA is 3.9! Central America 28.5! South America 20.0! (You might check out the color coded world map on the right side of the page while you're at it.)

It'd be nice to know the stats on how many lives are SAVED by guns every year...but, no such stats are kept.


Now, answer MY question (he asks knowing full well how pointless it is to do so).
 
Well, without regard to the murder stats, the grieving families, the outraged right, the incensed left.....the financial fallout has begun. The first firearms manufacturer has announced it will leave Connecticut. Undoubtedly more will follow. This state is having major problems retaining a manufacturing base due to restrictive laws and taxes and this may be the final straw. I feel bad for those who will be unemployed due to politicians fighting to get on the media circus train, no matter what the outcome of the legislation or how well intended it was (and you know what they say about good intentions). These lawmakers have lost sight of what the state, nation, and the victims' families, really need and are blindly grasping for a way to be seen as doing the right thing. They may well be doing the families, and the nation, a disservice by not taking the time to objectively look at facts and solutions. They need to view what they're doing as an attempt to change the Amendments of the Constitution, not as enacting separate stand-alone laws. These Amendments are rights, not privileges as in a driver's license. They are unabridgeable, unquantified. Simply, this is not the way to go about bringing an effective solution to gun violence. It hasn't worked even in a state (Illinois) that has a blanket ban on carrying all guns. Connecticut had some of the most stringent laws before these new ones and there were mass muders then, like the East Hartford brewery shooting,etc. As a veteran familiar with the M-16/AR-15 I know magazine quantity restrictions will only slow down a 'shooter' a second or fraction of one, with 10 round units taped back to back. And this particular argument is pointless - one person dead is too many and these fools are debating whether magazine restictions will drop the death toll from 25 to 20. Another absurd provision is allowing police to have more than 10 round capacity magazines while on duty only. This means the officer would have to leave his service weapon in the station when he goes home to avoid committing a felony. Ridiculous. The new legislation hardly scratches the surface on the issue of mental health - and this issue is the issue. About the only thing I find sensible is requiring background checks for purchases at gun shows. If we do it in our respective states, we should do it at that level too. And... if the Feds are going to regulate this by overiding states rights,as they're making it a Constitutional issue, then issue Federal gun permits and do away with all this other crap.
Getting back to the financial issue, it is estimated that the new laws will cost Connecticut about 25 million extra, seeing as they'll have to do some more work. It's just assinine.
 
Typically, we see the argument for gun controls being voiced loudest, by those without guns, condecendingly talking all over those that do. It is pretty easy for one to protest from a point of having nothing to lose personally by the changes you propose

Consider instead, if a group of people were beaten to death by mad man using a leather sandal, which happened to contain a tan coloured sock and that method of murder were to catch on and as a result of growing fears from non sandal wearers, it was called for Sandals to be banned (or more-over, sandals, if owned, must be strictly controlled and never worn, or expressly never used in combination with socks), I suspect that the far left may be pretty upset at being controlled by a group of people who are known not to wear sandals (let alone wear, or combine their use with socks) and who therefore have nothing to lose by changing Laws to support the banning of, or strict control over the use of, Sandals.
 
Have I done it again Keith?

I keep making an utter fool of myself in here, but no matter how many times I am told, or have the fact explained to me, by no matter how many people, I keep coming back and doing it all over again and again and again!
 
So let me see if I understand.....................

All members of Policeone, are "law enforcement" officers. The "Law enforcement" officers take an OATH to uphold the LAW.

These Officers take an oath to uphold the law, yet a fairly large percent say that they would not uphold laws that they were sworn to uphold and took an oath to uphold?

It appears that some "Law Enforcement" officers who have sworn to uphold the laws are liers and should be removed from there jobs!

I call for a Congressonal Investigation.
And doesn't the president on inauguration swear on a bible to uphold the constitution? Hummmm
 
just read the first couple of posts, and its the usual left vs right. Now as someone who recently had my firearms and shotgun licenses renewed, the police in the UK did a great job. But technically I was never a threat.

And someone told me off the record that if I wanted a pistol, I could have one within 30 minutes.

From the Guardian in 2008:Firearms: cheap, easy to get and on a street near you | UK news | The Guardian

The whole outrage comes from mad men, going into schools, and shooting innocent, unarmed children. What about thishttp://m.usatoday.com/article/news/2072577
 
Last edited:

Pete McCluskey.

Lifetime Supporter
I think banning sandals with or without socks is a violation of the second amendment, except of course for brown socks which to my knowledge have only ever killed fashion sense and are therefore virtually harmless.
Of course those rampant pinko commie leftist poofters will want to ban brown socks especially those that are size nine and higher.
However sandals and socks have never killed anyone. Some will give examples where people have been kicked to death by people wearing s sandals and socks.
Some will even show graphs of the incidence of people killed by sandals with brown socks involved.
But I repeat socks and sandals don't kill people it is the wearer of the sandals that kill people, therefore my friends my conclusion is people should be banned to keep people safe:stunned:
 

Keith

Moderator
Pete and Mark, the socks issue was solved years ago. My clubs always had a sign outside which read "No Fat Birds or White Socks".

As for sandals, how are you going to kick someone senseless with sand surfers?
 

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
And... if the Feds are going to regulate this by overiding states rights,as they're making it a Constitutional issue, then issue FEDERAL GUN PERMITS(!) and do away with all this other crap.
Aaaaaaaaah, but here's the big 'rub' there: Where in the 2nd Amend did The Founders give govt the authority to do that? IOW, where does it say a citizen has to PAY GOVT A FEE, AND get govt's PERMISSION (a permit) to excercise a R-I-G-H-T? 'See what I mean?

Aside from that, I pretty much agree with everything you said, sir.
 
Top