Guns...

Status
Not open for further replies.
motorson said:
Funny how reluctant people seem to be to look at actual data. I posted data that shows that the US would have to loose 4390 more people in school shootings just to catch up to Norway in the number of deaths in proportion to population! And we lost those 227 people over a 15 year period while Norway lost their 77 people all in one day in 2011.

Total school shootings since Columbine on April 20 1999 are 227 including this last one in Oregon. (and unfortunately this number also includes the death of the shooter as well.) That is something like .0000757% of the population. Just the one shooting they had of 77 people in Norway back in 2011 is .00154% of their population.

All of the deaths to violence are bad and I am against them but using confiscation of firearms as a solution will not solve the problem. Unfortunately once done there is no way to admit the mistake and go back to how it was before.
Dan.

So you are basing your "data" on the comparison between one rogue event and ignoring the year on year, month on month killing in the US? Crazy.
 
Jeandr said:
xbacksideslider said:
Nobody shoots up a police station or a gun shop either. All the rampages from the so-called "workplace violence" of Ft Hood to the most recent have been "gun free zones" which are nothing but a "feel good" illusion .... like so many other illusions that are foisted on the unsuspecting or non thinking public ... like your money is safe in a bank, social security is a dependable retirement account, the police are only minutes away, the EPA will protect the environment, the FDA will ensure no harmful food or drug reaches you, the SEC will see that no one scams your investments .....

Gun Free Zones invite these killers.

That reckless college district should be forced to pay the victims and their families. Take it straight out of the salaries of the idiots on the board or those on the academic senate who voted for it. They voted to nullify state law. This is just like the sanctuary cities.

The rebellion of the gun controllers, against the higher law provided by the state of Oregon, against concealed carry, is what got those students killed.

Errr, Canada at large is a gun free zone and so are many many countries yet the phenomenon of rampage shootings happens more in the US than anywhere, don't you think the number of guns in circulation has more to do with this fact?

Jean

Jean, I refer you back to the link I first posted

http://www.ijreview.com/2015/06/348197- ... him-wrong/

As you can see, Canada comes in 11th in the ranks of mass shootings per capita.

So . . . . . gun free zones, even gun free nations, accomplish nothing.
All they do is deny self defense to the innocent.


http://www.infowars.com/texas-rancher-p ... land-grab/

There they go again.

It was weapons and speech - two fundamental human rights - that turned around the BLM when it went after the Bundy Ranch. The "court journalists" of the mainstream media did their best to suppress that story it until the alternative media rendered their censorship futile. The idea "tyranny can't happen here" is idiocy.

And then there is the "Knife Terror" going on in Israel right now.
http://news.yahoo.com/three-jersualem-s ... 15052.html
Gun Free Zones ?
 
One more post before we should all put this to rest. All we are doing is saying our viewpoints in a different way.

My previous posts alluded to a mass drug problem in America. Now, David Kupelian has written an entire book on the topic .... "The Snapping of the American Mind".

Kupelian notes:

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 130 million Americans depend on some sort of mind-altering substance to get through life. Some 110 million Americans have sexually transmitted diseases. Families are disintegrating. One in four middle-aged women is taking antidepressants. We’ve become a nation of addicts, he says.

In nearly every case of these rampages, such drugs were involved.

No one wants to address this issue .... there is too much money involved.
Slick
 
I am disappointed that a motorcyclist could show little concern for the right of others to own a firearm, or to suggest that there should be a limit on the number of firearms that are owned by an individual, especially when some of those individuals previously possessed but no longer desire to possess firearms. Here in Australia law abiding firearm owners have been demonised by politicians and media. The right to own a firearm for the purpose of self defence is not recognised, and to use one for that purpose would certainly result in charges being laid. But black market firearms are as readily available as elicit drugs.

I wonder how average motorcyclists would feel if it was motorcyclists that were being demonised. Motorcyclists have always been a minority group and there is certainly a bad element within the motorcycle community. Here, the bad element is currently being targeted by NSW police. There has been a lot of media coverage here recently of police raids on bikie gangs and subsequent displays of drugs and illegal weapons that have been seized. But not all motorcyclists are drug dealing bikie gang members, and fortunately the everyday motorcyclist is not currently a police target in this state. However with a little push from the media we could surely demonise and regard all motorcyclists as undesirables based on the actions of a minority. If you think that all motorcyclists would never be targeted by police then have a look at the manner in which during the 1950s in Australia, motorcyclists were constantly harassed by police, until most gave up motorcycles. The late 1950s was a boom period for motorcycles throughout the rest of the world but the dismal sales figures in Australia were a reflection of government initiated police harassment of undesireables (motorcyclists). During the early 50s my father experienced being pulled over to have his licence and bike roadworthiness checked almost every day and as many as 3 times on a single journey across Sydney, to or from work. In 1953 my father stopped riding and bought a car to avoid the harassment.

The govt here believes that bikie gangs are organised crime, and are all dealing drugs. So to solve the problem of the drug dealing bikie gangs, the govt could consider a ban on motorcycles as that would get rid of the bikie crime gangs. But as an immediate ban might seem a little harsh on the innocent, we should firstly restrict motorcycle ownership to just one Honda Step thru per person. The Honda step thru is the worlds most popular motorcycle so no one could reasonably complain. The smaller capacity motorcycles would also result in a lot less deaths which is a further benefit. And no one needs more than one motorcycle. Subsequently a lot of people will lose interest in motorcycling, and in a couple of years, the govt will be able to introduce a complete motorcycle ban without too much protest. The bikie gang members will of course have lost interest in crime as it was their motorcycles that brought them into crime.
If you let the govt start with restrictions on your firearms, it will just be the first step in a series of steps to the outlawing of private ownership of firearms.
On a serious note my wife spent the last few days with her friend, just being there for support. Her friend has just been the victim of a rape at knifepoint. She awoke to find an intruder in her home, and the intruder had armed himself with one of her kitchen knives before carrying out the attack. What we did not previously know is that this is the third time that this same woman had been attacked. As a 12 year old girl, the woman was raped by a family friend. On leaving school she entered the Police academy, then joined the police force and was raped by an older Police officer during her first week on the job. Of course in that instance she was not believed, and she subsequently had to resign from the police force. In her mid 50s, this woman has gone through it all again. As you can imagine, she is totally shattered.

Current estimates here are that possibly as high as 1 in 4 women will be the victim of sexual assault during their life, although that figure is loosely based and includes an estimate that includes unreported cases. Sexual assault is a crime that directly affects a large percentage of the population, and yet receives little political or media interest. I wonder why that is.
ando
 
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/10/wal ... pro-crime/

I thought of this thread when I saw that column; Williams provides several quotes from the framers of the US Constitution going to the right to defend against tyranny. Note Hamilton's reference to the "original right" of self defense as something inherent, not merely granted by a Constitution.

After every tragic shooting, liberals and progressives call for more gun laws. They exploit American ignorance as to why the Framers gave us Second Amendment protections.

James Madison, the acknowledged father of our Constitution, said, “(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation … (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

Alexander Hamilton said, “The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” Later he said, “If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government.”

Thomas Jefferson: “What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.”

Richard Henry Lee said, “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
 
Bernhard said:
re;
http://www.ijreview.com/2015/06/348197- ... him-wrong/

This chart proves nothing other than that statistics can be nothing other than statistics;
If you were to put it another way as to the NUMBER of people killed per country, the USA comes way out on top, and Norway was a glitch for one particular year due to one single madman.


Well, if you insist, then go ahead and delude yourself; compare a country half the size of Los Angeles county to the entire United States.

Per capita is what makes sense.

Go ahead and argue "that motorcycle is better because it's quicker and faster . . . . . never mind that one is 1000cc and the other 100cc.
 
Its not death rates from 'normal' criminals, or even mentally deranged people that seem the biggest threat for me.

As events in Paris show, the future risk is from terrorism.

The easy access to serious firearms must surely mean this is only a matter of time?
 
What a divisive subject. I dont't think anyone is going to change their opinion on this issue over this thread .

My heart goes out to France this morning. Viva la France!
 
it is a sad thing what has happened in France. but is not France VERY regulated as to ownership of fire arms? now IMHO how would this have played out IF some were armed? my guess is there would not have been the line them up and executions one by one.
 
hankmarx said:
What a divisive subject. I dont't think anyone is going to change their opinion on this issue over this thread .

My heart goes out to France this morning. Viva la France!

Agreed! We need to let this thread die.

Slick
 
bill said:
it is a sad thing what has happened in France. but is not France VERY regulated as to ownership of fire arms? now IMHO how would this have played out IF some were armed? my guess is there would not have been the line them up and executions one by one.

The same thing happened in a theatre in the US, what was the response from anyone watching the movie? Rambo and the Terminator are fictional characters, the script calls for them to respond in the blink of an eye and kill only bad guys sparing ALL the innocent bystanders, real life doesn't work like that and even a highly trained gun owner would not do any good. You must remember that the nuts who did the carnage in France were ready to die for their cause just like the ones who plowed planes in the WTC towers and the pentagon, the forces are not the same when faced with such opponents and this is what saved some lives in 2001 in the fourth plane, some passengers figured out they were going to die anyway so they retaliated.

Guns don't make a country safer from kamikazes, however, the absence of guns makes for safer living conditions, remember gun deaths are about 30,000 year in year out in the US which is way above the number killed by terrorists.

Jean
 
texasSlick said:
hankmarx said:
What a divisive subject. I dont't think anyone is going to change their opinion on this issue over this thread .

My heart goes out to France this morning. Viva la France!

Agreed! We need to let this thread die.

Slick

*I* didn't stir the pot!
 
Jeandr wrote:

"I didn't stir the pot."

There are TWO points of view herein, each stirs the pot. That is why we should let it die. Let us all remain brothers in Nortons.

Slick
 
texasSlick said:
Jeandr wrote:

"I didn't stir the pot."

There are TWO points of view herein, each stirs the pot. That is why we should let it die. Let us all remain brothers in Nortons.

Slick

Slick, nothing against you, no name calling at all, I just think guns are not the answer to safety. This part of the AN forums is called the PUB, it is here to discuss things that are not motorcycle related without polluting the other forums.

IF and that is a big IF guns were used in a responsible manner they would not be the problem they are now, you may use your guns in a responsible manner, but do YOU trust anyone with a gun? do YOU think there should be more control of guns to keep them out of the hands of irresponsible people?

Jean
 
@jeandr

I have posted my thoughts on this issue. You may read them above.

As said by others, and I agree, this is a very divisive subject, no one is going to change anyone else's opinion by further posts, all of which simply re-word the original poster's position, or cherry pick more data to support his viewpoint.

My plea to let this thread die, is no reflection on you, your opinions, or your choice to bring it to the Pub. I simply wish to keep this forum civil and remain brothers helping brothers keep these old Nortons alive. It is my experience, this thread, or any thread on a divisive subject, will degenerate to name calling if it continues long enough. I do not wish that to happen. I enjoy the camaraderie that comes from our love of the Norton.

Everyone who choose to post, has had the opportunity to state his position. No one, has yielded to anyone else, so why continue? It is time to let it rest.

Your contributions to this forum, particularly your work on voltage regulators, has been very valuable to me and others, I'm sure. I hope my contributions have helped someone. Pity if we, or other valuable contributors, get mad at each other, and one goes away.

I owed you the courtesy of a reply, but now, I will follow my own advice, and not return to this thread.

I am always available to anyone via PM on this topic or any other, but would prefer to limit my communications to technical issues.

Sincerely,

Slick
 
Jeandr said:
bill said:
it is a sad thing what has happened in France. but is not France VERY regulated as to ownership of fire arms? now IMHO how would this have played out IF some were armed? my guess is there would not have been the line them up and executions one by one.

The same thing happened in a theatre in the US, what was the response from anyone watching the movie? Rambo and the Terminator are fictional characters, the script calls for them to respond in the blink of an eye and kill only bad guys sparing ALL the innocent bystanders, real life doesn't work like that and even a highly trained gun owner would not do any good. You must remember that the nuts who did the carnage in France were ready to die for their cause just like the ones who plowed planes in the WTC towers and the pentagon, the forces are not the same when faced with such opponents and this is what saved some lives in 2001 in the fourth plane, some passengers figured out they were going to die anyway so they retaliated.

Guns don't make a country safer from kamikazes, however, the absence of guns makes for safer living conditions, remember gun deaths are about 30,000 year in year out in the US which is way above the number killed by terrorists.

Jean

Sorry Slick but I can't let Jean's counter factual post go unchallenged.

Jean - Respectfully, we are largely dependent on the MSM for what we know and the MSM is biased to the Left, both here and in Canada; the bias consists mainly of omission, omission of facts and ideas that are contrary to the Left's core beliefs.

For example, your media exposure has left you unaware, with respect to the Colorado shooting, that

" . . . . out of all the movie theaters within 20 minutes of his apartment showing the new Batman movie that night, it was the only one where guns were banned. In Colorado, individuals with permits can carry concealed handgun in most malls, stores, movie theaters, and restaurants. But private businesses can determine whether permit holders can carry guns on their private property. . . . ."

So, there is a lawsuit, by victims of the Colorado theatre shooting, against the theatre chain for barring self defense in their theatre.

Of course, to learn that critical fact, you have to go outside the lefty MSM; here's where it came from.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/ ... eater.html

Second, bad guys logically look for what the MSM calls "soft targets." That term "soft target" is a rhetorical sleight of hand. It hides the truth. What is meant by that term "soft target" is a place where there are unarmed victims. That is what the Paris shooters and the Colorado theatre shooter sought out - a place where there are no guns. Bad guys prefer having a monopoly on guns.

Third, yes, the shooters were suicidal. So . . . . the obvious question is . . . . Why didn't they just shoot themselves in the head? Obviously, because of the inconvenient truth - they had a purpose. The whole plan was a no go if they knew that some Parisians at large carried guns. Terrorists do not choose to die for nothing. Respectfully, you knew that.

Lastly, you miss the whole point of Kamikazes - the U.S. Navy was almost defenseless against that weapon.
What you had, effectively, was gun control - a defenseless target. That, is precisely why the Japanese used Kamikazes. Just like these ISIS terrorists.
 
I am neither pro- or anti-guns. I was raised in a household with a cabinet full of hunting firearms and my first experience in woodworking, leading to 40 years as a carpenter was sanding walnut gun stocks my dad made for himself and his friends. I learned to clean a gun before I was allowed to fire one, and although I do not currently own one, I have nothing against personal protection.

But the point was made about guns being too easily accessed by the mentally unstable and I agree. Many of the guns used in mass shootings were legally purchased by "law abiding" citizens according to the regulations currently in force. Of course, firearms are more popular in rural areas than they are in cities, more popular in areas of outdoor recreation than they are in crowded urban areas.

So instead of one side of politics continually vilifying the other, why not put heads together to come up with a workable and realistic solution? And even when you do, you will never stop every nutball on the planet from committing horrible crimes. Although the "soft target" argument makes some sense, there are also incidents such as the one where a maniac strolled into a coffee shop and murdered 4 armed policemen before they could defend themselves. If those professionals could be helpless in that situation, how does concealed-carry make anyone safer? I can understand i makes the individual carrying FEEL safer, but that seems to be an illusion. The occasional incident of a concealed-carry advocate stopping a crime doesn't make up for all the children killed by loaded guns carelessly left laying around the house. It doesn't make up for all the legal guns stolen from homes and vehicles and subsequently used in the commission of crimes and violence. Until you start making those who sell and purchase guns responsible for their use or misuse, nothing will change. Background checks, mental stability testing, gun safety training and acceptance of responsibility are needed. Finger-pointing solves nothing.
 
the background checks are in place now and have been for a long time with the exception of private sales. the mental stability is a lot more involved with the HIPA laws we have and this also brings up who draws that line as to mental condition? on the gun saftey issue you can thank the left liberals on the lack of that. the NRA has pushed for YEARS with there Edee eagle program at no cost with almost NO success because of these numb nut's. the left has slowly chipped away at our rights with the right giving in in small increments and once lost it is all but impossible to regain them. you can also blame the left with the lack of responsibility with there push on government dependency and a poor government monoply school system. the left has a womb to tomb we will take care of you mentality.

Danno said:
Background checks, mental stability testing, gun safety training and acceptance of responsibility are needed. Finger-pointing solves nothing
.
 
See, here we go with the categorizing and finger-pointing. All the lame reasons we can't do what we should and it's all the other guy's fault. With all the shit lobbed back and forth by the Leftys and the Right-Wingers, most citizens fall in the middle of the road. Problem is, the extremists on both sides bleat the loudest and insist if things only went their way, we'd all be in paradise. In the meantime, neither offers realistic solutions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top