Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Fateweaver wrote:
Banning guns from law abiding citizens will not lower gun crime.
Look at the gun crime statistics in Japan. More importantly, if otherwise law abiding citizens do not have access to weapons they will be unable to commit gun crimes. Many people who are otherwise law abiding commit gun crimes. Therefore, no matter how you want to contort the issue, stricter gun control will reduce gun crimes.
Fateweaver wrote:
That statement is logical.
No it isn't. It might be reasonable (if you accept the evidence as sufficient), but it isn't logical.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/01/10 07:54:19
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
A glock 18C is a high quality high performance machine pistol. Which is a deadly weapon which can not be utilized for hunting.
Vehicles: Legal
Deadly weapons: LEGAL
High performance vehicles: Fun, loud, expensive DEADLY.
High performance weapons: Deadly, effective, expensive, FUN.
Fixed that for you.
Also the Glock 18C is no longer in production, the only ones circulating are pre-cancellation of the Weapons program and are rare, very rare. So I'd chose a different weapon next time you need an example.
I'd also like to point out that most weapons are deadly weapons, even less than lethal can be lethal so have fun with that argument.
I'd also like to know where I get these High Performance Weapons, and what do they do? Do they kill faster or something?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/01/10 07:54:27
Banning guns from law abiding citizens will not lower gun crime/
Yep.
You can't refute it but I can prove it won't as many things that are currently illegal are still obtainable by anyone, good person or bad person.
Yes, and I'm sure banning crack did nothing to dent it's spread and popularity either.
That statement is logical.
I don't think you know what that word means. That statement was contrived and used self evidence to prove a spurious point that had been been previously stated as truth and remained unsupported.
I know you will try to refute it, probably even using the lame ass "90% of guns going into mexican drug cartels hands come from the U.S" which is a downright lie but a lot of left wingers believe it.
Nope, didn't even have too. You used a fallacious argument that you didn't support. Though really, if you think those statistics are BS you should probably bring it up with the ATF, the guys saying it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fixed that for you.
Also the Glock 18C is no longer in production, the only ones circulating are pre-cancellation of the Weapons program and are rare, very rare. So I'd chose a different weapon next time you need an example.
I dunno, mac 10? Mp5? You can get p90s if you want to spend that much on ammo.
I'd also like to point out that most weapons are deadly weapons, even less than lethal can be lethal so have fun with that argument.
You're right, I should have specified "without use in hunting" or "military/police issue weapon". Stressing the difference between a gun designed as a tool and one designed solely as a weapon is important.
I'd also like to know where I get these High Performance Weapons, and what do they do? Do they kill faster or something?
Gunshows, auctions, foreign dealers. Friend of mine had an "antique" Ak variant used by the PLA, it was semi automatic but would be quite easy to convert to automatic. My friend was I believe 20 when he got the weapon legally. As for high performance? Do you really need me to explain the concept of performance and effectiveness in a deadly weapon as to it's capability of killing? Watch the military channel or something, you'll get an idea.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2010/01/10 08:20:39
----------------
Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad
Meriam-Webster wrote:
1 a (1) : a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning
Word math, for those who've never gone through the pain.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
The thing is though the ATF guys aren't saying it. I've seen many interviews where the ATF are saying the exact opposite. The head of the ATF shot down Sotemeyer and said the 90%, 1000's per day is a fallacy. If anyone knows that 90% number is a fallacy is the ATF.
AK's are coming from Russia, Central America, Argentina. The US does not make AK47's and you sure as hell aren't going to Walmart and buying them (not any Walmart I've ever been to at least).
Criminals do not get guns legally so how does banning guns lower gun crime? People buying guns for home defense aren't out shooting up their neighborhood and criminals are getting guns off the black market and through other countries or robbing gun shops.
Just because something works in one country does not mean it works for another. I mean spanking works for some kids to get them to behave, in other kids time outs or just a simple scolding works but the same scenario does not work with every kid on the planet.
So again, you can make a supposition declaring that banning guns in the U.S will lead to less gun crime based on other countries but until that happens it cannot be proven so again irrefutable based on hard evidence. Circumstantial I'll give you only to get you to shut up about it.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2010/01/10 09:05:52
--The whole concept of government granted and government regulated 'permits' and the accompanying government mandate for government approved firearms 'training' prior to being blessed by government with the privilege to carry arms in a government approved and regulated manner, flies directly in the face of the fundamental right to keep and bear arms.
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.”
Fateweaver wrote:The thing is though the ATF guys aren't saying it. I've seen many interviews where the ATF are saying the exact opposite. The head of the ATF shot down Sotemeyer and said the 90%, 1000's per day is a fallacy. If anyone knows that 90% number is a fallacy is the ATF.
Context would be appreciated. I pay less attention to US politics than international.
Fateweaver wrote:
Criminals do not get guns legally so how does banning guns lower gun crime?
Gun crime has nothing, necessarily, to do with the legality of purchase. A person need not be a prior criminal in order to commit gun crimes.
Fateweaver wrote:
Just because something works in one country does not mean it works for another.
This level of differentiation surprises me, given your history. Good on you for learning.
I mean this with sincerity, though the internet does not allow me to show it.
Fateweaver wrote:
So again, you can make a supposition declaring that banning guns in the U.S will lead to less gun crime based on other countries but until that happens it cannot be proven so again irrefutable based on hard evidence. Circumstantial I'll give you only to get you to shut up about it.
Um, ok? Obviously specificity cannot be proven until the specific action is taken. The point was clearly rhetorical.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/01/10 09:19:32
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
I dunno, mac 10? Mp5? You can get p90s if you want to spend that much on ammo.
Except the example you provide are not widely available in fully automatic. P90s you can buy also have extended barrels to prevent easy concealment.
You're right, I should have specified "without use in hunting" or "military/police issue weapon". Stressing the difference between a gun designed as a tool and one designed solely as a weapon is important.
Unlike you, I don't differentiate between a rifle or pistol being a tool or weapon. All firearms have their start in being weapons, I see and treat all as such.
Gunshows, auctions, foreign dealers. Friend of mine had an "antique" Ak variant used by the PLA, it was semi automatic but would be quite easy to convert to automatic. My friend was I believe 20 when he got the weapon legally. As for high performance? Do you really need me to explain the concept of performance and effectiveness in a deadly weapon as to it's capability of killing? Watch the military channel or something, you'll get an idea.
You see I've watched the military channel for sometime now, I also come from a family that has extensive military and firearms experience, never once have I heard a weapon described as "High Performance." A bolt action weapon can be used to greater effectiveness than a semi-automatic weapon depending on the situation. Sure they each have their own specific performance capabilities. I fail to see what your friend buying an AK has to do with performance issues.
York/London(for weekends) oh for the glory of the british rail industry
@Dogma: a good example, in Japan only criminals and police have access to guns but gun crime is minimal. another good example would be Canada, a country that has more registered gun owners to citizens ratio, but a far lower gun crime rate.
@fateweaver: you seem to think criminals grow in pods under yellowstone, law abiding citizens become criminals and no one on this thread had said that all guns should be banned so stop going at it like a dog with a bone.
The banning of the domestic sale of firearms that have no use other than covering the fact that you a small in no way effects the 2nd amendment. As i have said all you could have need of is a hand gun, a rifle/compact bow, a shotgun. Owning an assault rifle serves no perpose for home use, it is designed to be a human killing devise not a devise for hunting or protection.
On the topic of cars as brought up by fateweaver, i think that for the first few years after gaining a licence a person should only be allowed to drive a 1.5 or below and for the driving of high-performance muscle/sports cars a secondary licence is required to show your competance, in the UK (i don't know about the US) i would need a heavy goods licence to drive a truck due to the competance required, the same should be said for high-performance cars. Driving isn't a right its a privaledge tha requires skill, alot of people forget that.
Relictors: 1500pts
its safe to say that relictors are the greatest army a man , nay human can own.
I'm cancelling you out of shame like my subscription to White Dwarf. - Mark Corrigan: Peep Show
Avatar 720 wrote:Eau de Ulthwé - The new fragrance; by Eldrad.
Alcohol kills thousands every year, either through alcohol poisoning or drunk-driving accidents or just stupid mistakes. Alcohol is a complete LUXURY, unlike an essential tool like an automobile.* However, this nation decided long ago that it was collectively willing to let people die due to alcohol in order for the rest of us to enjoy its positive benefits.
The same largely goes for firearms. Yes, some people will die, but the rest of us get to enjoy our weapons.
I'd also like to point out that many of the weapons mentioned in this thread (full-auto AKs, MAC-10, Glock 18c, etc.) require an FFL or Class 3 license to purchase/own. FFL holders are pretty much the most law-abiding citizens in the nation. As they are expensive and can be subjected to an ATF search without warning, only fairly-rich people who fly the straight-and-narrow bother to get such licenses.
Finally, there is the issue of cost-benefit. Regulating and enforcing firearms restrictions is expensive. This is partly because the infrastructure needed to manufacture weapons is minimal, so the capability to produce them is potentially prolific, therefore requiring constant vigilance to prevent. Also, there really aren't *that* many people killed in the US by firearms (especially compared to their sheer proliferation), so your net gain will be small. It could result in, say, spending $1 million to prevent each illegal firearm-related death.
In contrast, automobile production is capital-intensive, with only a few manufacturers and easily-identified production facilities. Mandating the installation of engine governors with a max speed of 75mph is a comparatively inexpensive endeavor, and could potentially eliminate high-speed road fatalities. Let's just say to the tune of $1 million preventing 2 deaths.
Until we reach conditions of post-scarcity, a government's resources are finite. If the government only has $1 mil, why should it legislate firearms to the tune of 1 death prevented when it can legislate automobiles to the tune of 2 deaths prevented, thereby maximizing its efficiency?
The thing is though people buying AK's and M16's and AR15's aren't buying them for home defense. Anyone knowing anything about guns knows they are unwieldy, in-discriminatory and generally too much gun for defense of your home.
People buying assault rifles are doing so to take them to a range or their own backyard and firing off $300 worth of ammo in 5 minutes time because they find it to be fun. If you never shot a gun you won't know what it's like. People that love shooting guns, for the most part relish the chance to shoot off an AK or an AR, maybe even a .50cal rifle.
People buying guns for home defense are buying shotguns or pistols. A .38 or a .45 will generally not hit a wall and exit the other side, even an internal wall (assuming the walls are not trailer house walls and actually have substance). I've shot an M16 and an AK and both were quite a thrill but as a home defense gun both suck at it actually.
Again, it's easy for the liberals or the pro-gun control moderates to say things like "banning assault rifles and semi-autos" will lower gun crime when I pointed out that just because something works in other parts of the world does not mean it would work here.
The majority of AK's going into Mexico are not coming in off the streets of the U.S. Va. Tech and Columbine would have still happened even had the assailants used ONLY pistols and shotguns, you know those guns that the gun control lobbyists say would be the exception to any gun ban. Schools and shopping centers have very gakky security partly due to mall security guards not being allowed to arm themselves and most schools either not having security guards or security guards not being allowed to be armed. If I walked into my local Tech school or University armed with 2 pistols, a shotgun, 6-8 clips and a belt of 10ga ammo I would kill a lot of people before killing myself or being taken out by the police.
So again, how would banning assault rifles make our schools and shopping centers safer? I may not be able to shoot 100 people in as many seconds with a .357 or a .44 but most likely anyone I hit is going to die. Same goes for a shotgun. It's slow to reload but if I walked into a packed classroom and opened fire I could kill a dozen students with 2 rounds and unless someone got brave I'd be able to reload and go to another classroom or keep shooting into the one I was in.
Most gun crimes committed in the US are done by pistol. NOT assault rifles, NOT hunting rifles, NOT combat shotguns (the ones that are semi-auto and hold 6-8 rounds). Rapes at gunpoint are done with the rapist holding a pistol, NOT an AK. Liquor store robberies are committed usually by pistol or shotgun. I could go on and on. Banning assault rifles will not lower the amount of armed robberies or car jackings or home break-ins in the US by a large enough margin to justify more stupid provisions and laws. I'm all for enforcing the ones we have. The ones we have would work if those people in charge would concentrate on enforcing the laws we do have and quit worrying about demonizing law abiding citizens.
Banning assault rifles would not prevent the Mexican drug cartels from obtaining them. Sotomayer and other democrats made up that 90% number (like every other fallacy the liberals have made up regarding guns since Slick Willy was President) just to have an agenda to take guns out of the hands of civilians. Congress is a lot like GW. To fix something they don't swing the pendulum just a few degrees, they swing it as far as they can and only cause more problems.
--The whole concept of government granted and government regulated 'permits' and the accompanying government mandate for government approved firearms 'training' prior to being blessed by government with the privilege to carry arms in a government approved and regulated manner, flies directly in the face of the fundamental right to keep and bear arms.
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.”
The majority of AK's going into Mexico are not coming in off the streets of the U.S.
I don't see how you can say that with any level of factual accuracy beyond your simple belief (something you don't seem to grasp, just because you say it doesn't mean it's true. You need to actually back up arguments). A weapon doesn't need to be manufactured in the U.S. to be funneled through it or resold by it. For reference the mexican government, a body in full military action against cartel and organized crime in mexico also cites statistics concerning the flood of guns southward across the border. But I guess it's all sotomayor.
ost gun crimes committed in the US are done by pistol. NOT assault rifles, NOT hunting rifles, NOT combat shotguns (the ones that are semi-auto and hold 6-8 rounds).
True. But that doesn't have a particular relevance to the issue of banning military issue semi/automatics. If all gun crime was perpetrated by such weapons they would already be illegal or the numbers of gun deaths would be far higher.
Rapes at gunpoint are done with the rapist holding a pistol, NOT an AK.
Aren't more rapes performed by knife wielding individuals or groups anyway? Not sure why you're even bringing rape into this considering it's part of the "gun crime statistic" you already mentioned, all it serves to do is emotionally energize the post a bit more.
Schools and shopping centers have very gakky security partly due to mall security guards not being allowed to arm themselves and most schools either not having security guards or security guards not being allowed to be armed.
Well that and mall cops aren't trained in the use of firearms and do not have the professional standards to hold them accountable for their use. But hey, just rail on liberals some more. It's cool. As for schools, my high-school had several gun wielding cops. It was a waste of money and there was a fairly consistent fear that a student could always attempt to grasp one of the weapons and use it (as opposed to not having that chance at all). The addition of armed security in schools, especially inner city ones, may (MAY) slightly reduce the chance of gun rampages, but the overall number of gun deaths in schools would likely increase due to the increased presence of firearms in them. Putting more people with guns in schools might control crazy kids better, but those events are exceedingly rare and when you put tens of thousands of guns into the school system the number of accidents and events will increase dramatically, likely offsetting the amount of violence it prevents (this is also the same argument against the idea of "everyone having guns prevents gun crime").
Banning assault rifles would not prevent the Mexican drug cartels from obtaining them.
No, but without the easily funneled-through gunshows or semi illicit auctions the sale and distribution of firearms would be much easier to track. It's harder to have an illegitimate face to a business when the business itself becomes illegal. Banning weapons will never stop them from existing, but it enables law enforcement to better control their flow.
ongress is a lot like GW. To fix something they don't swing the pendulum just a few degrees, they swing it as far as they can and only cause more problems.
WE ARE ALL SLAVES BECAUSE OF FLIGHT REGISTRATION LAWS CONCERNING SMALL PROP AIRCRAFT!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/01/10 19:50:00
----------------
Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad
It's really sad that schools in america need armed gaurds. When I qualify, I'm interested in doing a bit of teaching somewhere in the states, to see what it's like. The idea of armed gaurds makes me tense as hell though.
Reading this thread makes me wish we weren't allowed use terms like liberal and conservative on dakka. It makes it way too easy to polarize arguments and tar people with one big giant brush.
The majority of AK's going into Mexico are not coming in off the streets of the U.S.
I don't see how you can say that with any level of factual accuracy beyond your simple belief (something you don't seem to grasp, just because you say it doesn't mean it's true. You need to actually back up arguments). A weapon doesn't need to be manufactured in the U.S. to be funneled through it or resold by it. For reference the mexican government, a body in full military action against cartel and organized crime in mexico also cites statistics concerning the flood of guns southward across the border. But I guess it's all sotomayor.
ost gun crimes committed in the US are done by pistol. NOT assault rifles, NOT hunting rifles, NOT combat shotguns (the ones that are semi-auto and hold 6-8 rounds).
True. But that doesn't have a particular relevance to the issue of banning military issue semi/automatics. If all gun crime was perpetrated by such weapons they would already be illegal or the numbers of gun deaths would be far higher.
Rapes at gunpoint are done with the rapist holding a pistol, NOT an AK.
Aren't more rapes performed by knife wielding individuals or groups anyway? Not sure why you're even bringing rape into this considering it's part of the "gun crime statistic" you already mentioned, all it serves to do is emotionally energize the post a bit more.
Schools and shopping centers have very gakky security partly due to mall security guards not being allowed to arm themselves and most schools either not having security guards or security guards not being allowed to be armed.
Well that and mall cops aren't trained in the use of firearms and do not have the professional standards to hold them accountable for their use. But hey, just rail on liberals some more. It's cool. As for schools, my high-school had several gun wielding cops. It was a waste of money and there was a fairly consistent fear that a student could always attempt to grasp one of the weapons and use it (as opposed to not having that chance at all). The addition of armed security in schools, especially inner city ones, may (MAY) slightly reduce the chance of gun rampages, but the overall number of gun deaths in schools would likely increase due to the increased presence of firearms in them. Putting more people with guns in schools might control crazy kids better, but those events are exceedingly rare and when you put tens of thousands of guns into the school system the number of accidents and events will increase dramatically, likely offsetting the amount of violence it prevents (this is also the same argument against the idea of "everyone having guns prevents gun crime").
Banning assault rifles would not prevent the Mexican drug cartels from obtaining them.
No, but without the easily funneled-through gunshows or semi illicit auctions the sale and distribution of firearms would be much easier to track. It's harder to have an illegitimate face to a business when the business itself becomes illegal. Banning weapons will never stop them from existing, but it enables law enforcement to better control their flow.
ongress is a lot like GW. To fix something they don't swing the pendulum just a few degrees, they swing it as far as they can and only cause more problems.
WE ARE ALL SLAVES BECAUSE OF FLIGHT REGISTRATION LAWS CONCERNING SMALL PROP AIRCRAFT!
I've read and seen several video interviews of border patrol and atf disputing the claim by mexican officials (and please, most of the mexican cartels are ex-military for mexico and mexico's officials are so corrupt they'll say anything to reduce our capabilities of defending our borders and countries to forward their own agenda). Are there illegal assault weapons leaving the US into Mexico? Possibly but I'm sure they are ALSO getting into Mexico's hands from Cuba, the Soviet Union, parts of South Africa, etc...
Obama intends to try to reenact the Brady Bill (or his version of it) sometime before he leaves office in the next 3 years so of course the liberals and anti-gun moderates will create numbers and fallacies regarding gun crimes and statistics to push their agenda and to hopefully have something go right for them, which it won't (see also HCR Bill).
So contrary to CBS, NBC, ABC, Daily Show, Letterman and any other MSM outlet reports the majority of guns going into Mexico are not, in fact, coming from the US. Turn off the Daily Show Shuma and get with reality.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/01/10 21:08:45
--The whole concept of government granted and government regulated 'permits' and the accompanying government mandate for government approved firearms 'training' prior to being blessed by government with the privilege to carry arms in a government approved and regulated manner, flies directly in the face of the fundamental right to keep and bear arms.
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.”
I've read and seen several video interviews of border patrol and atf disputing the claim by mexican officials (and please, most of the mexican cartels are ex-military for mexico and mexico's officials are so corrupt they'll say anything to reduce our capabilities of defending our borders and countries to forward their own agenda). Are there illegal assault weapons leaving the US into Mexico? Possibly but I'm sure they are ALSO getting into Mexico's hands from Cuba, the Soviet Union, parts of South Africa, etc...
Most? I think you severely underestimate the number of raised career gang criminals in mexico if you think the majority is ex military. Do you have anything to back that up (of course you don't)?
Possibly but I'm sure they are ALSO getting into Mexico's hands from Cuba, the Soviet Union, parts of South Africa, etc...
The soviet union doesn't exist (are we still in the cold war?). So no, they aren't coming from there. Cuba is also not a tremendous nation of gun runners, and south africa is largely a point of resale and distribution (much of which heads to the u.s.). I think you largely underestimate how much illegal gun trafficking occurs within our borders, largely helped by lax enforcement of gun laws here.
Obama intends to try to reenact the Brady Bill (or his version of it) sometime before he leaves office in the next 3 years so of course the liberals and anti-gun moderates will create numbers and fallacies regarding gun crimes and statistics to push their agenda and to hopefully have something go right for them, which it won't (see also HCR Bill).
Obama is much more likely to wait until his second term to attempt that. His hands are already full with health care and maintaining the economy to attempt another big push through the senate and house. It looked possible at the outset, but the same polarizing factors that damaged the healthcare debate would hit gun control just as hard.
So contrary to CBS, NBC, ABC, Daily Show, Letterman and any other MSM outlet reports the majority of guns going into Mexico are not, in fact, coming from the US. Turn off the Daily Show Shuma and get with reality.
You really need to learn that just because you say it doesn't mean it becomes true. You have to back up arguments with a factual basis when you are arguing against institutions that provide that basis as part of their mission statement.
Turn off the Daily Show Shuma and get with reality.
WE ARE ALL SLAVES BECAUSE OF TIRE PRESSURE BLOWOUT STANDARDS WITHIN THE TIRE INDUSTRY.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2010/01/10 21:10:56
----------------
Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad
Mexico claims to have recovered 29,000 guns in 07 and 08. 11,055 were submitted for tracing. 95% of those came through/from the US.
So, 9950 guns out of 29,000 SUPPOSEDLY recovered (knowing mexican officials it's a lot more but nobody but the mexican gov't knows for sure). 9,950 is 34%. 34% =/= 95% (not in my world anyway).
That is assuming it was 29,000 those 2 years. If it was 58,000 than that would put the percent of guns going into mexico from the US at 17%.
So all knowing Shuma. Since I just proved that 90% number is a fallacy please explain to me that if 34% of fire arms going into Mexico from the US where, oh were are they getting the other 66%? Walmart in Tx. Oh wait, Tx is part of the US so I guess you can't fall back on that argument.
FYI, Obama won't get a second term but this isn't the thread for it.
--The whole concept of government granted and government regulated 'permits' and the accompanying government mandate for government approved firearms 'training' prior to being blessed by government with the privilege to carry arms in a government approved and regulated manner, flies directly in the face of the fundamental right to keep and bear arms.
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.”
Fateweaver wrote:FYI, Obama won't get a second term but this isn't the thread for it.
People originally predicted he wouldn't get a first term. Let's not try and pretend we speak for 300 million people shall we? Maybe he will, maybe he won't. We won't know until it happens. Unless you were using tarot cards, then you can trust your prophecy.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
BluntmanDC wrote:@Dogma: a good example, in Japan only criminals and police have access to guns but gun crime is minimal. another good example would be Canada, a country that has more registered gun owners to citizens ratio, but a far lower gun crime rate.
Interesting. I'll have to look int that. Still, that suggests what many gun control advocates have understood for a long time: violence is not a matter of weaponry, but culture.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
His approval rating is 46% and dropping. You don't win re-election on 46% approval.
So I am speaking for 162M people (and not every 300M+ people can vote).
--The whole concept of government granted and government regulated 'permits' and the accompanying government mandate for government approved firearms 'training' prior to being blessed by government with the privilege to carry arms in a government approved and regulated manner, flies directly in the face of the fundamental right to keep and bear arms.
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.”
Fateweaver wrote:His approval rating is 46% and dropping. You don't win re-election on 46% approval.
So I am speaking for 162M people (and not every 300M+ people can vote).
You aren't even speaking for that many either. Your aren't actually speaking for anyone at all; you are prognosticating. Also, lolapprovalratings 1 year in. If you can't even be honest and admit that you can't predict the future, how can I trust you on other issues?
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
Survey methodology is based on taking representative samples instead of studying the whole population.
For the sample to be biased (unrepresentative) the Mexican Government must have conspired with the ATF to either select guns bought in the US, or they just lied about the data.
Kilkrazy wrote:For the sample to be biased (unrepresentative) the Mexican Government must have conspired with the ATF to either select guns bought in the US, or they just lied about the data.
You would probably have a hard time convincing people in the US that government would lie to the people. Especially on the reservations.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
I presented facts as presented by the ATF and NRA to the MSM. If the liberal minded MSM don't want to see that than that is their problem, not the problem of those presenting the facts.
95% of guns to Mexico is a logical fallacy. It's also a logical fallacy to think banning assault rifles and semi-autos (which most liberals don't even know what the feth those entail) will lower gun crime and lower the murders and wars started by the drug cartel in Mexico.
Again, the answer to helping Mexico with their problems is not by taking away the rights of the U.S. The fact that Obama and liberalnation is even apologizing for the U.S to foreign entities is ludicrous.
"I'm sorry Mr. Mexican Leader sir, for the actions of our country. If it wasn't for the 2nd amendment your country wouldn't have all these drug cartels and illegal assault rifles. It is our fault you can't get your gak together and take care of your own problem yourself. On behalf of the United States of America I assure you I am doing what I can to punish those infidels who would dare walk into Walmart and buy an AK-47 only to turn around, drive south to the Mexican border and sell it to some drug dealer waiting in a white, Toyota pickup to bring back to his drug cartel friends."
Sincerely,
Barack Hussein Obama.
--The whole concept of government granted and government regulated 'permits' and the accompanying government mandate for government approved firearms 'training' prior to being blessed by government with the privilege to carry arms in a government approved and regulated manner, flies directly in the face of the fundamental right to keep and bear arms.
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.”
The Myth of 90 Percent: Only a Small Fraction of Guns in Mexico Come From U.S.
...
There's just one problem with the 90 percent "statistic" and it's a big one:
It's just not true.
In fact, it's not even close. The fact is, only 17 percent of guns found at Mexican crime scenes have been traced to the U.S.
What's true, an ATF spokeswoman told FOXNews.com, in a clarification of the statistic used by her own agency's assistant director, "is that over 90 percent of the traced firearms originate from the U.S."
But a large percentage of the guns recovered in Mexico do not get sent back to the U.S. for tracing, because it is obvious from their markings that they do not come from the U.S.
"Not every weapon seized in Mexico has a serial number on it that would make it traceable, and the U.S. effort to trace weapons really only extends to weapons that have been in the U.S. market," Matt Allen, special agent of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), told FOX News.
A Look at the Numbers
In 2007-2008, according to ATF Special Agent William Newell, Mexico submitted 11,000 guns to the ATF for tracing. Close to 6,000 were successfully traced -- and of those, 90 percent -- 5,114 to be exact, according to testimony in Congress by William Hoover -- were found to have come from the U.S.
But in those same two years, according to the Mexican government, 29,000 guns were recovered at crime scenes.
In other words, 68 percent of the guns that were recovered were never submitted for tracing. And when you weed out the roughly 6,000 guns that could not be traced from the remaining 32 percent, it means 83 percent of the guns found at crime scenes in Mexico could not be traced to the U.S.
So, if not from the U.S., where do they come from? There are a variety of sources:
-- The Black Market. Mexico is a virtual arms bazaar, with fragmentation grenades from South Korea, AK-47s from China, and shoulder-fired rocket launchers from Spain, Israel and former Soviet bloc manufacturers.
-- Russian crime organizations. Interpol says Russian Mafia groups such as Poldolskaya and Moscow-based Solntsevskaya are actively trafficking drugs and arms in Mexico.
- South America. During the late 1990s, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) established a clandestine arms smuggling and drug trafficking partnership with the Tijuana cartel, according to the Federal Research Division report from the Library of Congress.
-- Asia. According to a 2006 Amnesty International Report, China has provided arms to countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Chinese assault weapons and Korean explosives have been recovered in Mexico.
-- The Mexican Army. More than 150,000 soldiers deserted in the last six years, according to Mexican Congressman Robert Badillo. Many took their weapons with them, including the standard issue M-16 assault rifle made in Belgium.
-- Guatemala. U.S. intelligence agencies say traffickers move immigrants, stolen cars, guns and drugs, including most of America's cocaine, along the porous Mexican-Guatemalan border. On March 27, La Hora, a Guatemalan newspaper, reported that police seized 500 grenades and a load of AK-47s on the border. Police say the cache was transported by a Mexican drug cartel operating out of Ixcan, a border town.
'These Don't Come From El Paso'
Ed Head, a firearms instructor in Arizona who spent 24 years with the U.S. Border Patrol, recently displayed an array of weapons considered "assault rifles" that are similar to those recovered in Mexico, but are unavailable for sale in the U.S.
"These kinds of guns -- the auto versions of these guns -- they are not coming from El Paso," he said. "They are coming from other sources. They are brought in from Guatemala. They are brought in from places like China. They are being diverted from the military. But you don't get these guns from the U.S."
Some guns, he said, "are legitimately shipped to the government of Mexico, by Colt, for example, in the United States. They are approved by the U.S. government for use by the Mexican military service. The guns end up in Mexico that way -- the fully auto versions -- they are not smuggled in across the river."
Many of the fully automatic weapons that have been seized in Mexico cannot be found in the U.S., but they are not uncommon in the Third World.
The Mexican government said it has seized 2,239 grenades in the last two years -- but those grenades and the rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs) are unavailable in U.S. gun shops. The ones used in an attack on the U.S. Consulate in Monterrey in October and a TV station in January were made in South Korea. Almost 70 similar grenades were seized in February in the bottom of a truck entering Mexico from Guatemala. ....
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2010/01/11 01:04:06
Fateweaver wrote:
95% of guns to Mexico is a logical fallacy.
No it isn't. Don't make me re-post the meaning of logic.
Fateweaver wrote:
It's also a logical fallacy to think banning assault rifles and semi-autos (which most liberals don't even know what the feth those entail) will lower gun crime and lower the murders and wars started by the drug cartel in Mexico.
Possibly, but not necessarily. See above.
Fateweaver wrote:
Again, the answer to helping Mexico with their problems is not by taking away the rights of the U.S. The fact that Obama and liberalnation is even apologizing for the U.S to foreign entities is ludicrous.
No it isn't. Its this thing that some people have. I believe its called tact.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Approval rating isn't a statistic that reflects a like or dislike of a presidency. It's a statistic that reflects happiness with a countries current direction, something often times outside of the direct control of influence of a sitting president. It's notoriously inaccurate in representing what it's actually meant to represent. The majority of americans polled simply don't understand the majority of issues for which they are judging a president on (as most Americans do not). It's also not an accurate way to predict votes historically.
You aren't even speaking for that many either. Your aren't actually speaking for anyone at all; you are prognosticating. Also, lolapprovalratings 1 year in. If you can't even be honest and admit that you can't predict the future, how can I trust you on other issues?
You can't trust him to form logical or reasonable points either. You can trust him to dive into cognitive dissonance like it's a beautiful ocean of money and women though.
"I'm sorry Mr. Mexican Leader sir, for the actions of our country. If it wasn't for the 2nd amendment your country wouldn't have all these drug cartels and illegal assault rifles. It is our fault you can't get your gak together and take care of your own problem yourself. On behalf of the United States of America I assure you I am doing what I can to punish those infidels who would dare walk into Walmart and buy an AK-47 only to turn around, drive south to the Mexican border and sell it to some drug dealer waiting in a white, Toyota pickup to bring back to his drug cartel friends."
Sincerely,
Barack Hussein Obama.
Case in point. Arguing with fateweaver is essentially the same as arguing with the leader of the BNP or the dude that shouts from the soap box about 2012 on a NY street corner. Fateweavers opinions can be expressed quite succinctly in this way. "Glen Beck Glen Beck Glen Beck Glen Beck Glen Beck Glen Beck Glen Beck Glen Beck Glen Beck Glen Beck Glen Beck Glen Beck Glen Beck Glen Beck"
----------------
Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
2000, Empire 2000
3250, 
5750, 
4860
