Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.



VIP Members don't see these ads. Join VIP Now
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 41

Thread: Connecticut : Untold Thousands Flout Gun Registration Law

  1. -21
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    8,657
    vCash:
    33369
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by NY8123 View Post
    That question has been answered time and time again. Gun control does not reduce violent crime. Those point to the UK as an example fail to report that since strict gun control was implemented that violent crime rate actually has rose per 100k, where as American rates have been on the decline for decades despite what anyone would want you to believe.

    Same with mass killing, mass killing were the highest in 1929 and have fallen since even though gun ownership has risen dramatically.

    I laugh at people who act like we are living in Iraq when it comes to public safety and guns, I don't have any fear of getting shot even with all these so called "loonies" armed and lurking around or country lol.

    I don't agree with all his points or agree will all Libertarians in general but the man makes some very very valid points: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFMUeUErYVg

    I looked at the 100+ page statistical study of Australia and the determining factors despite what people say have not be able to show any statistical relevances to gun control and a reduction in violent crime. Other factors were found to be more significant on the overall reductions.

    Both sides cherry pick their stats but overall there are many many other things that could also be linked to violent crime but people tend to point the blame at the smoking gun (pun intended).
    I agree that there are many factors that go into violent crime in general and gun crime specifically. Pointing out the rise in violent crime in the UK, as an example, is not an indictment per se of gun control, for the same reason that falls in violence cannot be linked causally to gun control in every case. There is always a weighing of factors, a parsing of details. Social unrest is on the rise in the UK, for example, so who's to say that their violent crime rate wouldn't have been even higher without that legislation? It's like if I cut out eating cupcakes but I still gain 10 pounds. Am I supposed to conclude that eating cupcakes has no bearing on my weight?

    I don't agree with your conclusions about the studies in Australia. I think they've actually shown some pretty positive correlations. The violent crime rate in the US has gone down over the last 30 years primarily, I think, because of the end of the crack epidemic. I remember debating mrhankey8163 (or whatever the number is) about it. He wanted to tie it to stop and frisk. Everything I've seen about it is a combination of social stigma and it basically just "running it's course" was a bigger factor.

    There's another factor in this discussion that bears noting, while we're on the subject of "other factors", and that's income inequality and the general attitude we have toward the poor and disadvantaged. As long as we don't invest enough in inner cities and poor areas, we are dooming people to a cyclical pattern that all too often leads to violent crime. Meanwhile the same people who in general protest high taxes and income redistribution also tend to push for the most open gun laws possible, enabling the poor and desperate to shoot the ever loving **** out of each other.

    If we could tax more and invest more in these people, the overall crime rate would go down and we'd have less of a need for gun control. I'd personally like to see both. But to be against both is turning a blind eye to the situation.
    Last edited by TheWalrus; 03-03-2014 at 04:35 PM.
    Quote Quote  

  2. -22
    Bumpus's Avatar
    Are you gonna drink that?

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jun 2003
    Posts:
    20,800
    vCash:
    25441
    Loc:
    West-by-god-Virginny
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Trophies
    2013 Dolphins Logo1972 Dolphins Logo
    For me, it boils down to this: You can't fight against a gun without a gun. I'm not going to take a knife to a gun fight.

    Some may feel safer without a gun. They feel the authorities will always be able to protect them. They're entitled to feel that way.

    Me? I think I'll stay armed. It's not that I don't believe my government wants me to be safe ... It's just that when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.


    Now, is there more to my belief in the 2nd Amendment guaranteeing my right to bear arms? YEP. A lot more. But we've already rehashed all of that time and time again here. Clearly, the two sides are not about to change each other's minds. Agree to disagree.
    2014 Goals:
    1) Win the next game.
    2) See goal #1





    "The problem with internet quotes lies in verifying their authenticity."
    -Abraham Lincoln

    Quote Quote  

  3. -23
    NY8123's Avatar
    Sophisticated Redneck

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jan 2008
    Posts:
    11,923
    vCash:
    7544
    Loc:
    out in the Ding Weeds
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    I agree that there are many factors that go into violent crime in general and gun crime specifically. Pointing out the rise in violent crime in the UK, as an example, is not an indictment per se of gun control, for the same reason that falls in violence cannot be linked causally to gun control in every case. There is always a weighing of factors, a parsing of details. Social unrest is on the rise in the UK, for example, so who's to say that their violent crime rate wouldn't have been even higher without that legislation? It's like if I cut out eating cupcakes but I still gain 10 pounds. Am I supposed to conclude that eating cupcakes has no bearing on my weight?

    I don't agree with your conclusions about the studies in Australia. I think they've actually shown some pretty positive correlations. The violent crime rate in the US has gone down over the last 30 years primarily, I think, because of the end of the crack epidemic. I remember debating mrhankey8163 (or whatever) about it. He wanted to tie it to stop and frisk. Everything I've seen about it is a combination of social stigma and it basically just "running it's course" was a bigger factor.

    There's another factor in this discussion that bears noting, while we're on the subject of "other factors", and that's income inequality and the general attitude we have toward the poor and disadvantaged. As long as we don't invest enough in inner cities and poor areas, we are dooming people to a cyclical pattern that all too often leads to violent crime. Meanwhile the same people who in general protest high taxes and income redistribution also tend to push for the most open gun laws possible, enabling the poor and desperate to shoot the ever loving **** out of each other.

    If we could tax more and invest more in these people, the overall crime rate would go down and we'd have less of a need for gun control. I'd personally like to see both. But to be against both is turning a blind eye to the situation.
    On the surface of the Australian control laws it seemed to help, I will concede that fact. I found a study of the law done by a university (don't remember which one, I think Brown), here is a link to a Harvard summary of the events and why I say the effect is not fully understood: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/f...pring_2011.pdf

    There were outside factors at play before the buy back and the murder rate in Australia was so historically low it was hard to determine what was statistically valid. I found this study (Not the one I cited above) but it echos the same sentiment as the prior study I read, if you simply look at the appendix tables you'd point and say "see, see it works" but if you dig you find that something was working before the buyback anyway and whatever that effect was it is not understood:

    Buyback Act of 2003. Under this scheme that ran from July to December 2003, 70,000 handguns were removed from the community at a cost of approximately A$69 million. Another shooting on June 18, 2007, in which a lone gunman killed a man who had come to the aid of an assault victim and seriously wounded two others in Melbourne’s central business district during morning rush hour, renewed calls for tougher gun controls. Although gun buybacks appear to be a logical and sensible policy that helps to placate the public’s fears, the evidence so far suggests that in the Australian context, the high expenditure incurred to fund the 1996 gun buyback has not translated into any tangible reductions in terms of firearm deaths.

    http://johnrlott.tripod.com/Australi...Buyback_EI.pdf
    You are 100% correct that poverty drives the violence and if we were to solve the poverty problem the crime problem on a whole would diminish substantially, I just think that the pro-banners want to point to what seems to be the easiest villain instead of looking inward to realize that we as a society are pushing ourselves into this ever greater divide of wealth. Division of wealth lead to this nation, it is time that America learns the lesson it taught its mother nation before we become like the mother nation.

    Add to that, that the gun levels are also exactly the same now as they were in 2003 and that type of control just doesn't work at all:

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-1...e-rise/3662504
    "I am free of all prejudice. I hate everyone equally" ~ W.C. Fields

    Quote Quote  

  4. -24
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    8,657
    vCash:
    33369
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Bumpus View Post
    For me, it boils down to this: You can't fight against a gun without a gun. I'm not going to take a knife to a gun fight.

    Some may feel safer without a gun. They feel the authorities will always be able to protect them. They're entitled to feel that way.

    Me? I think I'll stay armed. It's not that I don't believe my government wants me to be safe ... It's just that when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
    How many gun fights have you been in exactly? I'm betting none. It's your basic paranoid fantasy... the result of watching Death Wish too many times, probably.

    These kind of shoot 'em up situations don't come up often enough to be statistically relevant. I mean, make a list of the things most likely to end up killing you. Situations where someone pulls a gun and you could have shot back if you only had a gun but didn't is going to be so far down the list it's comical. This is all about how you feel -- the world is so dangerous to you you can't be safe unless you're packing -- rather than anything related to reality. Unfortunately for you to feel safe the gun laws have to be such that a lot of other people get killed.

    What would make me feel safer in this country is not carrying a gun myself. It's other people not carrying a gun. When I was a kid my mother, my brother, my aunt and I were all kidnapped and then robbed at gunpoint (the guy approached us in a mall parking lot and then made us drive him around). Not that I was old enough to carry or even shoot a gun but it would not have mattered one bit if I was. The guy was sitting between my brother and I and my mother and aunt were in the front seat. You think I'm going to pull a gun and starting blasting? Run the percentages. What's most likely to happen there?
    Quote Quote  

  5. -25
    Buddy's Avatar
    Starter

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    May 2004
    Posts:
    3,752
    vCash:
    14320
    Loc:
    Victoria, TX
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    The actual better question is how many lives would be saved by aggressive gun control... and exactly how many lives you think are worth losing so you can have your guns.
    None, aggressive gun control will cost lives. I have never seen anything indicating that any significant number of crimes are committed with legal guns being utilized by their rightful owner. It serves to reason that should the lawful citizens be disarmed then they would have no reasonable means to protect themselves and the number of crimes prevented by armed citizens would be zero. I have seen a few estimations where approximately 2.5 million crimes are prevented by citizens lawfully utilizing a firearm to deter crimes. Certainly, a great deal of these people were in mortal danger had they not been able to defend themselves.

    Regardless, the second amendment guarantees the right to bear arms not necessarily to defend ones self from criminals but explicitly from governmental tyranny. Thus, any efforts to "infringe on the right to bear arms" can absolutely be viewed as tyranny and should be summarily rejected. Connecticut is treading on very dangerous ground and is certainly acting unconstitutionally.

    How is it that there was such an uproar about the bill in Arizona that did not explicitly violate anyone's rights but could have been used to keep gays from eating at their favorite restaurant yet the liberals are dead silent or even in favor of clearly unconstitutional legislation. I just pray that the SCOTUS is not so corrupt and liberal leaning that they would allow this abomination to stand. I hope Connecticut goes broke because people refuse to do business there. We have to instill respect for our constitution again.

    Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk
    Quote Quote  

  6. -26
    MAYHEM's Avatar
    Like me

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jan 2011
    Posts:
    566
    vCash:
    2623
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by phins_4_ever View Post
    You are actually linking to one of the biggest knuckleheads in politics who has the audacity to actually use the Weimar Republic as an example?


    The was no right to bear arms in 1928 over there. The law enacted back then was to disarm private armies not regular citizens who had no right to bear arms in the first place. And the Nazis did not get into power until 1931.

    And lets not forget that photo being shown of supposedly Germans handing guns over was a picture from 1940 France.

    http://www.shoahlegacy.org/monitor/d...amps-down-jews


    Yeah you got me on that one .
    He was just a colonel in the US army , A congressman who was on the House Armed Services Committee And the small business committee .
    He never managed to rise to a big job like community organizer .
    Quote Quote  

  7. -27
    MAYHEM's Avatar
    Like me

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jan 2011
    Posts:
    566
    vCash:
    2623
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Hell yeah me The walrus , jtc1111 are all going to this . Bring your checkbooks boys .

    http://www.auctionsamerica.com/event...?SaleCode=LC14
    Quote Quote  

  8. -28
    Buddy's Avatar
    Starter

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    May 2004
    Posts:
    3,752
    vCash:
    14320
    Loc:
    Victoria, TX
    Thanks / No Thanks
    http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

    Interesting read and it is definitely true because it is named "Just Facts"! Either way, sheds some realistic light on the gun control debate and whether it helps or hurts without much opinion.
    Quote Quote  

  9. -29
    MAYHEM's Avatar
    Like me

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jan 2011
    Posts:
    566
    vCash:
    2623
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Hell yeah me The walrus , jtc1111 are all going to this . Bring your checkbooks boys .

    http://www.auctionsamerica.com/event...?SaleCode=LC14
    Quote Quote  

  10. -30
    LANGER72's Avatar
    Hall Of Famer

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Nov 2006
    Posts:
    8,854
    vCash:
    26796
    Loc:
    Munchkin Land / Emerald C
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by MAYHEM View Post
    Hell yeah me The walrus , jtc1111 are all going to this . Bring your checkbooks boys .

    http://www.auctionsamerica.com/event...?SaleCode=LC14
    My neighbor would have a fit seeing that mobile missile launcher parked out back pointed toward his gazebo.
    Quote Quote  

Similar Threads

  1. Merged: Marcus Easley,WR out of Connecticut
    By MiamiDolfan85 in forum NFL Draft Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-19-2010, 02:37 PM
  2. The Haunting in Connecticut - Fact or Fiction?
    By finataxia24 in forum The Critic's Corner
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-31-2009, 06:36 AM
  3. Connecticut Court overturns gay marriage ban.
    By Tetragrammaton in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 10-15-2008, 10:56 AM
  4. Fan From connecticut
    By Tattooartie in forum Introduce Yourself!
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 04-30-2008, 05:22 PM
  5. I need to go to Canton Anyone near Connecticut in?
    By armyfinfan in forum Miami Dolphins Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-06-2005, 09:12 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •