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.

think my eyes beem PTSD

Jihadin wrote:think my eyes beem PTSD

What?..

no eye patch? wait...thats it? actually nice shiney there. I just picked up my M1 from my father this morning and yes...WWII. Wife looking at a glock .45

Both the Wife and Genghis Connie have taken a shine to my tweaked Beretta. I may use that as an excuse to get a S&W M&P (with tweaks of course) for IDPA fun.

The ATF is SUPPOSED to basically be an FDA/CPSC variant that only covers things that are inherently dangerous.

Like, you wouldn't give alcohol to the FDA, they'd just reject it. It's dangerous.

But things that we KNOW are dangerous and have decided we don't collectively care about are given to the ATF.

Trouble is, the ATF went from regulatory agency to full-on law enforcement somewhere in the middle and wow is that ever a horrible mix.

ATF is right up there with DNR in some states

buttered white chedder popcorn? If so....Frazzy weiners are getting some treats

Frazzy weiners are the best

Did someone say...popcorn?

Picture looks more like "Oh no Mugsy, we've been had!".

Rented Tritium wrote:The ATF is SUPPOSED to basically be an FDA/CPSC variant that only covers things that are inherently dangerous.

The ATF has never been associated with the FDA or the CPSC. They've never even been in the same cabinet department.

Rented Tritium wrote:
Trouble is, the ATF went from regulatory agency to full-on law enforcement somewhere in the middle and wow is that ever a horrible mix.

The ATF has always been either a law enforcement agency in its own right, or a law enforcement division of another agency.

halonachos wrote:Picture looks more like "Oh no Mugsy, we've been had!".

With those two there's not a lot of difference.

EDIT: This is kind of timely:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/15/as-predicted-fast-and-furious-scandal-gives-rise-to-gun-regulation-debate/

Why are your weiners on my couch? or we do we have similiar couches?

dogma wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:The ATF is SUPPOSED to basically be an FDA/CPSC variant that only covers things that are inherently dangerous.

The ATF has never been associated with the FDA or the CPSC. They've never even been in the same cabinet department.

I never said they were associated, I said it was intended to fill a similar role. Key words in my post: "basically" and "variant"

Rented Tritium wrote:
Trouble is, the ATF went from regulatory agency to full-on law enforcement somewhere in the middle and wow is that ever a horrible mix.

The ATF has always been either a law enforcement agency in its own right, or a law enforcement division of another agency.

Rented Tritium wrote:
I never said they were associated, I said it was intended to fill a similar role. Key words in my post: "basically" and "variant"

So, the ATF was "basically" "intended" to be a "variant" of a pair of organizations with which it was never associated, and shares no organizational history?

Rented Tritium wrote:
The ATF has had a fair bit of mission creep over the years.

Since when? As established under the DoT in 1972 the agency was primarily about the enforcement of, and investigation of violations to, federal gun and explosive regulations. This didn't change under Homeland Security.

You keep talking about what the ATF was intended to be, without defining who is doing the intending, when they did it, or even why, if the ATF was intended to be what you describe, it was granted powers well in excess what was necessary. Hell, you haven't even explained why the initial intention, whatever that may be, of those who founded the ATf is important at all.

The ATF traces its roots considerably earlier than 1972 however, and those roots are based on the "alcohol" part of it, as a tax enforcement branch. It ahas evolved (or devolved depending on view) but regardless its the entity it is today and the past is less relevant.

Picture looks more like "Oh no Mugsy, we've been had!".

I think the pic looks more like:

Wieners? Where?

EDIT: This is kind of timely:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/15/as-predicted-fast-and-furious-scandal-gives-rise-to-gun-regulation-debate/

You know what´s REALLY fun and that the eurowhussie media tries so hard not to mention?
What european country has amongst if not the lowest crime rates of them all and what lone european country has liberal gun owning laws allowing citizens to arm themselves?
Might those be the very same country?

Then again we have holes like the Great Brittain where the police are so sensitive that they arent even allowed to carry guns normally...and what crime rate do we have over there?

Since it obviously isnt an immigration issue, oh no that is just sooo racist, and it´s obviously not the guns themselves, oh no we all know it´s the guns who kill people, then oh what could it be? The snowy alp tops maybe? Or maybe they sing a lot of indie songs over in alp-land?

dogma wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:
I never said they were associated, I said it was intended to fill a similar role. Key words in my post: "basically" and "variant"

So, the ATF was "basically" "intended" to be a "variant" of a pair of organizations with which it was never associated, and shares no organizational history?

Rented Tritium wrote:
The ATF has had a fair bit of mission creep over the years.

Since when? As established under the DoT in 1972 the agency was primarily about the enforcement of, and investigation of violations to, federal gun and explosive regulations. This didn't change under Homeland Security.

You keep talking about what the ATF was intended to be, without defining who is doing the intending, when they did it, or even why, if the ATF was intended to be what you describe, it was granted powers well in excess what was necessary. Hell, you haven't even explained why the initial intention, whatever that may be, of those who founded the ATf is important at all.

Whatever, I can tell you're getting mad about this so I'm not going to argue it anymore. Consider my point dropped.

Pyriel wrote:

EDIT: This is kind of timely:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/15/as-predicted-fast-and-furious-scandal-gives-rise-to-gun-regulation-debate/

You know what´s REALLY fun and that the eurowhussie media tries so hard not to mention?
What european country has amongst if not the lowest crime rates of them all and what lone european country has liberal gun owning laws allowing citizens to arm themselves?
Might those be the very same country?

Then again we have holes like the Great Brittain where the police are so sensitive that they arent even allowed to carry guns normally...and what crime rate do we have over there?

Since it obviously isnt an immigration issue, oh no that is just sooo racist, and it´s obviously not the guns themselves, oh no we all know it´s the guns who kill people, then oh what could it be? The snowy alp tops maybe? Or maybe they sing a lot of indie songs over in alp-land?

If liberal gun laws leads to less crime, why is crime more common in the US than in pretty much any western world? I also partially disagree with your implied statement that violence is somehow the fault of "immigrants": it's the fault of the European governments for not integrating immigrants in general into society, making a small minority of said immigrants turn to crime.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Pyriel wrote:

EDIT: This is kind of timely:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/15/as-predicted-fast-and-furious-scandal-gives-rise-to-gun-regulation-debate/

You know what´s REALLY fun and that the eurowhussie media tries so hard not to mention?
What european country has amongst if not the lowest crime rates of them all and what lone european country has liberal gun owning laws allowing citizens to arm themselves?
Might those be the very same country?

Then again we have holes like the Great Brittain where the police are so sensitive that they arent even allowed to carry guns normally...and what crime rate do we have over there?

Since it obviously isnt an immigration issue, oh no that is just sooo racist, and it´s obviously not the guns themselves, oh no we all know it´s the guns who kill people, then oh what could it be? The snowy alp tops maybe? Or maybe they sing a lot of indie songs over in alp-land?

If liberal gun laws leads to less crime, why is crime more common in the US than in pretty much any western world? I also partially disagree with your implied statement that violence is somehow the fault of "immigrants": it's the fault of the European governments for not integrating immigrants in general into society, making a small minority of said immigrants turn to crime.

Prove we have more crime - you have to yuse similar stats however.
If proven then you have to link us not to Europe, but to Latin America. We literally have an open border to a killing ground and a free flow of illegal immigrants. While I think these immigrants are great and want them legalized, there is also a criminal element, and that criminal element is brutal, organized, and frequnetly deported only to come back.

Looks like I was wrong. For comparison, Sweden had a crime rate of 120 crimes per 1000 inhabitants in 2009 while the US had 34.6 crimes per 1000 inhabitants.
I'd like some help from you guys though, the FBI statistics seem a bit incomplete. Am I missing something or is stuff like fraud not included in the statistics? That seems a bit... well, fraudulent. What I also would like clarified by someone who speaks English as his or her native tongue is whether or not these statistics include all instances of alleged crime reported to every police district or only the ones which police have acted on and then passed on. The distinction is important because the Swedish equivalent reports alleged crimes, without distinguishing between actual or fabricated crimes.

Despite me being wrong on the immediate issue, however, this data still shows us one of two things: either immigrants aren't the source of crime or the US population doesn't trust the police... Which is where I run into a wall. I think we can all agree that there are a lot of Americans who don't trust the police, yes? My argument thus goes as follows:

If immigration leads to an increase in crime per capita, the US should have a much higher rate of crime than it currently does. While this could be seen as evidence of more liberal gun laws being beneficial, I believe that that is not the case, but rather that anti-government sentiment currently present in a lot of Americans (Tea Party etc.) as well as the multiple examples of American distrust of authority through history is evidence of a huge portion of crime going unreported. As such, the crime rate appears lower than it actually is. While this is true in any country, I believe it to be more of an issue in the US than in Sweden due to greate anti-police sentiments being present.

@Almighty Walrus
Here's a comparison whic I Believe is based on a survey collected by the UN.
http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/Sweden/United-States/Crime
In answer to your question about us trusting the police it indicates that we trust our police more than the Swedes.
I'm eating breakfast so likely I'll either edit or have a new post shortly, but I do seem to remember that the UK which has many of the gun restriction liberals in this country would like was crowned the most violent country in Europe.

Looks like I was wrong. For comparison, Sweden had a crime rate of 120 crimes per 1000 inhabitants in 2009 while the US had 34.6 crimes per 1000 inhabitants.
I'd like some help from you guys though, the FBI statistics seem a bit incomplete. Am I missing something or is stuff like fraud not included in the statistics? That seems a bit... well, fraudulent. What I also would like clarified by someone who speaks English as his or her native tongue is whether or not these statistics include all instances of alleged crime reported to every police district or only the ones which police have acted on and then passed on. The distinction is important because the Swedish equivalent reports alleged crimes, without distinguishing between actual or fabricated crimes.

Despite me being wrong on the immediate issue, however, this data still shows us one of two things: either immigrants aren't the source of crime or the US population doesn't trust the police... Which is where I run into a wall. I think we can all agree that there are a lot of Americans who don't trust the police, yes? My argument thus goes as follows:

If immigration leads to an increase in crime per capita, the US should have a much higher rate of crime than it currently does. While this could be seen as evidence of more liberal gun laws being beneficial, I believe that that is not the case, but rather that anti-government sentiment currently present in a lot of Americans (Tea Party etc.) as well as the multiple examples of American distrust of authority through history is evidence of a huge portion of crime going unreported. As such, the crime rate appears lower than it actually is. While this is true in any country, I believe it to be more of an issue in the US than in Sweden due to greate anti-police sentiments being present.

In the US they have a far better way of intergrating their immigrants then europe or god forbid, sweden.
In the US people are made to want to be part and to be proud of being americans, over here it is shameful to be swedish and our dear leaders have said things like sweden has no culture and when two persons apply to the same job the immigrant must be taken first etc. Those things all breed resentment.

Take the biggest prison in the city I live in for example, 58 inmates and of those only 7 are swedes.

The fact still stands, the euro country with the least immigrants and the most liberal gun laws has the lowest crime rates of them all. That cannot be excused away by some lame rhetorics since it proves that either one or both of these factors bring up crime rates immensely.
Take a look at Japan and crime rates, sure they dont exactly flood over with guns but they dont have an insane immigration policy either.



Also:
It got to my attention that some people were upset over me calling Great Brittain a "hole". For this I appologize, I never meant to insinuate it was a bad country, only boring. I wrote to fast not thinking through the correct translation from swedish to english on this matter as "hole" referring to a city in sweden mostly means "boring". You can ask the other swedish member in this thread about this too.
Yeah yeah I know "boring" is bad too but it is imo ok to think a place can be boring and still like it (heck I find my own place that I live in boring but still like it), I have spent over 2 months in the UK on various vacations because I like the country...but I still found it rather boring or else the vacations would have been longer.

Pyriel- wrote:
The fact still stands, the euro country with the least immigrants and the most liberal gun laws has the lowest crime rates of them all. That cannot be excused away by some lame rhetorics since it proves that either one or both of these factors bring up crime rates immensely.

No. Correlation does not equal causation. By that logic, I could say that Switzerland has the lowest crime rate of them all because it has the most national languages.

It most likely doesn't have a lot of crime because it's the wealthiest country in the world in terms of wealth per adult; you don't see a lot of crime in Newport Beach, either.

Seaward wrote:

Pyriel- wrote:
The fact still stands, the euro country with the least immigrants and the most liberal gun laws has the lowest crime rates of them all. That cannot be excused away by some lame rhetorics since it proves that either one or both of these factors bring up crime rates immensely.

No. Correlation does not equal causation. By that logic, I could say that Switzerland has the lowest crime rate of them all because it has the most national languages.

It most likely doesn't have a lot of crime because it's the wealthiest country in the world in terms of wealth per adult; you don't see a lot of crime in Newport Beach, either.

Agreed.

Upon further notice it would seem that there's a lot more things missing from the FBI summary that's represented on the BRÅ one; fraud, DUI, embezzlement and narcotics-related crime is not represented at all. I'm retracting my admittance of being wrong and instead apologising for providing uncomparable sources.

Also, Switzerland is rich and is mountainous. Norway is rich and mountainous. I therefore predict that Nepal will become rich any moment now!

I'm a registered Democrat.

I'm constantly solicited by the Republican National Committee, by both email and phone. They do not remove me from their lists.

I'm okay with Republicans now having to suffer the same shenanigans.