Author Topic: Gun control (The official gun thread!)  (Read 36701 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jerry Rxman Griffin aka MuthaF'er

  • This MuthaF'er is getting to be a
  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *******
  • Posts: 13,406
  • Bought her new 4/75
Re: Gun control (The official gun thread!)
« Reply #50 on: May 04, 2009, 10:33:42 pm »
I picked up my small arsenal prior to the last ban. I didn't own anything other than a S & W 38 Special 5 shot revolver which I inherited from my mother. Didn't really want any weapons after Viet Nam. Why did I decide to pick up a few pieces? Because I could get them and get them complete before they were banned. I haven't fired them in 10 years. Haven't needed to. Hope I don't need to shoot anything living but at least I can and would should the need arise. My government trained me to be a killer back in '71 so I can handle them IF I NEED TO. Back in the day before all these assault weapons we settled our differences like men, with our fists. Not like a chicken #$%* that must shoot someone. If you want to be a bad ass start a fist fight.

AR15 Light Weight Sporter (M16 "sport" version)
MAK90 (AK47 "sport" version)
Mac 10
Tec 9
Tec 22
Star 9mm
S & W 38 Special
German Shepherd

As of today 3/13/2012 my original owner 75 CB750F has made it through 3 wives, er EX-wives. Free at last.  ;-)

Offline ofreen

  • Old Timer
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,220
Re: Gun control (The official gun thread!)
« Reply #51 on: May 05, 2009, 09:31:56 am »

TT, awesome to see your well thought out explanations are aren't just for motorcycles  ;D and the fact that I agree with you is just a bonus!

Brandon

Fixed it for you.
Greg
'75 CB750F


“A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.”
― Mark Twain

Offline manjisann

  • Hazardous Chemical Inhalation
  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,828
Re: Gun control (The official gun thread!)
« Reply #52 on: May 05, 2009, 02:10:40 pm »
 :o  Ofreen, thanks, didn't realize I'd done that.

Jerry Griffin aka Rxman this isn't the topic of the thread, but thank you for serving our country! And thanks to all the other men and women in the armed forces!

Brandon
Sure it's for sale! How much you ask?? Well, how much are you willing to pay??? Now triple it, that's the price!

1973 CB500 K2 - Sold the bike and bought a Mig, Miss the bike, Love the Mig :D
1980 CB650 Custom
1971 CB500 Frame 650 engine: Project

Trip and General Ramblings blog: manjisann.blogspot.com

Offline Jerry Rxman Griffin aka MuthaF'er

  • This MuthaF'er is getting to be a
  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *******
  • Posts: 13,406
  • Bought her new 4/75
Re: Gun control (The official gun thread!)
« Reply #53 on: May 06, 2009, 12:52:17 pm »
I voted for "guns are safe as long as you know how to use them".

We need to control our own guns but in order to do that we must first have guns to control. If we don't wish to have our own guns then don't have them. Please don't tell me what to do. My mother is gone so I don't allow anyone to do that anymore. Guess you could say I'm pro-choice, huh!
As of today 3/13/2012 my original owner 75 CB750F has made it through 3 wives, er EX-wives. Free at last.  ;-)

Offline 333

  • Time for change
  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *******
  • Posts: 7,399
  • Mail List Member #162 - Call me Stan - Fairfax VA
Re: Gun control (The official gun thread!)
« Reply #54 on: May 06, 2009, 09:43:28 pm »
I'd vote, but you left out the selection that I would vote for.  How about let's make it harder, or impossible for wackos to get guns or ammo.  That seems to make the most sense.  Who needs a gun RIGHT NOW?  Why can't you wait for a reasonable and thorough background check.

Aww, now I've been sucked in.  Where's my soapbox?


The second amendment was never written to protect the people from our own government.  It was written in a time when the firearm was the most common and powerful weapon available.  Sure, a cannon was pretty powerful, but limited in ease of use or transport.  We had just seceded from England and created our own government, and wanted to protect ourselves from any invaders.  We didn't have a large army, and our win into independence was made possible because of an army of citizens armed with rifles and pistols.  And we wanted to protect their right to keep those very weapons.  The Founding Fathers could have never imagined the technology we have today, as well as the sheer number of people we have today, and all the problems associated with a huge population.

That having been said, I would point out that the left has never said that they want to take away all the guns.  The right would have you believe that isn't so, and if you let them have power, your guns will be taken away.  And it didn't happen the last time the left had total control either.  They did have some legislation that made it a safer country, but nobody's guns were taken away.

And anyone who thinks that we still need guns to protect us from invasion, you've seen "Red Dawn" too many times.
Go metric, every inch of the way!

CB350F0  "Scrouching Tiger"
CT70K0    "Sneezing Poodle"

www.alexandriaseaport.org

fuzzybutt

  • Guest
Re: Gun control (The official gun thread!)
« Reply #55 on: May 07, 2009, 01:52:46 am »
speaking of handguns..........................

does anyone here know if there is a threaded barrel available for the taurus pt145? i'm looking at buying one and i'm thinking about buying a suppressor for it at a later date.

Offline sangyo soichiro

  • Tuck
  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,167
  • ☢ the atomic playboy ☠
Re: Gun control (The official gun thread!)
« Reply #56 on: May 07, 2009, 10:25:03 am »
And anyone who thinks that we still need guns to protect us from invasion, you've seen "Red Dawn" too many times.

I've also seen Independence Day....   :)
1974 CB 750
1972 CB 750 http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php/topic,57974.0.html
1970 CB 350
1966 Black Bomber
Too many others to name…
My cross country trip: http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php/topic,138625.0.html

Offline TwoTired

  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *******
  • Posts: 20,522
Re: Gun control (The official gun thread!)
« Reply #57 on: May 07, 2009, 11:15:54 pm »
I'd vote, but you left out the selection that I would vote for.  How about let's make it harder, or impossible for wackos to get guns or ammo.  That seems to make the most sense.

Why not just ban wackos?  Surely there is someone that would classify you as one.  Can you be trusted with knives, chainsaws, gallon containers of gasoline, bleach, or the remote from the TV, either?  I bet you are watching the wrong TV shows, and you don’t even have a bill of rights that says you can watch the programming of your choice.  Which appointed government official are you going to trust to make an evaluation of you?

I’d like to know what you plan to do about wackos within the police force and military?  Make it impossible for them to have guns, too?
What about illegal aliens in the country?  Or, the people who haven’t been wackos for the last 30 years of their lives?

Who needs a gun RIGHT NOW?  Why can't you wait for a reasonable and thorough background check.

1 - Because you are a woman in an abusive relationship whose husband has threatened to kill you for getting a restraining order, and is unlikely to wait for the “waiting period” to expire before fulfilling his threat?  Actually, the same need applies if you reverse the gender assignment, too.  If someone is willing to kill you, do you really think that the fact that using a gun to do it being illegal is going to stop them?

2 - Because, the earthquake, tornado, hurricane, flood, etc, has left the community without any law enforcement for the individual.  And roving gangs are taking “liberties” with your survival desires.

3 - Because you neighbor just broke your arm, is out on bail and looking to eliminate you as a witness problem.

4 on up.  There are many more scenarios for those that wish to do an objective investigation.

The second amendment was never written to protect the people from our own government.

Actually it was.   Do you know who wrote the second amendment?  The following must be pretty inconvenient quotes for you:

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants" (Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939)

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good" (George Washington)

It was written in a time when the firearm was the most common and powerful weapon available.  Sure, a cannon was pretty powerful, but limited in ease of use or transport.  We had just seceded from England and created our own government, and wanted to protect ourselves from any invaders.  We didn't have a large army, and our win into independence was made possible because of an army of citizens armed with rifles and pistols.  And we wanted to protect their right to keep those very weapons.

The new government documents were penned by people that had just overthrown the government through force of arms.   This was thought to be a good thing.  And, they put in place a mechanism that would allow it to be repeated should the need arise again in the future. The prior oppressive government was intent on confiscating the very arms that allowed the revolution and government overthrow to succeed.  They wanted those tools to be available should the need again present itself.  They wanted the power to remain with the people where it rightly deserves to be in order for them to be self-governed, instead of enslaved by tyranny.

The Founding Fathers could have never imagined the technology we have today, as well as the sheer number of people we have today, and all the problems associated with a huge population.

True, they couldn’t have imagined today’s technology.  They certainly >could< have imagined and were quite well aware of the nature of mankind.  They knew that individuals have the capacity for good as well as evil, that there would be a certain percentage that would use tools for evil as well as good.  Human nature hasn’t changed.
People did evil things back then, too, both with and without guns, explosives, disease, and words.
The principles of government are not technology based.  They are based on the traits of humanity.  What form of humanity denies tools that enable continued existence, the right to self defense?  Isn’t that tyranny? Why do you favor a 230 lb criminal prevailing over the 98 lb grandmother in a battle of survival?  Why do you favor criminals prevailing in a confrontation, simply because they are burlier then the victim?  You actually favor survival of the fittest in you utopian society?  Are you Aryan, perhaps?
Would you also ban any other tool that can be misused against other individuals.  If so, then what about ordinary rocks? They can be used to kill and maim, as well.  Surely, “wackos” can’t be allowed to acquire these either, and this makes just as equal “sense” as what you forward.
Are YOU willing to give up access and use of rocks and stones?  Why can’t you be considered a future “wacko”?  Have you a secure place within a tyrannical government?

That having been said, I would point out that the left has never said that they want to take away all the guns.

Is this intentional deception?  Or, have you actually been blinded to outright statements by the left?
 
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out right ban,
picking up every one of them... "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,
"I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."
--U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), CBS-TV's "60 Minutes," 2/5/95

* * *
“In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security.  Nonetheless, it is a good idea . . . .  Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.”
              Charles Krauthammer (columnist), Disarm the Citizenry. But Not Yet, Washington Post, Apr. 5, 1996 (boldface added).

* * *
              We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest. . . .  [W]e'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again.  Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice.  Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States -- is going to take time. . . .  The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country.  The second problem is to get handguns registered.  The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition-except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal.
              Richard Harris, A Reporter at Large: Handguns,  New Yorker, July 26, 1976, at 53, 58 (quoting Pete Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc.) (boldface added, italics in original).

* * *
              Rep. William L. Clay (D-St. Louis, Mo.), said the Brady Bill is "the minimum step" that Congress should take to control handguns.  "We need much stricter gun control, and eventually we should bar the ownership of handguns except in a few cases," Clay said.

              Robert L. Koenig, NRA-Backed Measure May Derail Brady Bill, St. Louis Post Dispatch, May 8, 1993, at 1A (boldface added).

* * *
              [Peter] Jennings:  And the effect of the assault rifle ban in Stockton?  The price went up, gun stores sold out and police say that fewer than 20 were turned in.  Still, some people in Stockton argue you cannot measure the effect that way. They believe there's value in making a statement that the implements of violence are unacceptable in our culture.

              [Stockton, California] Mayor [Barbara] Fass:  I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about, is that it will happen one very small step at a time, so that by the time people have "woken up" -- quote -- to what's happened, it's gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be.  But it does have to go one step at a time and the beginning of the banning of semi-assault military weapons, that are military weapons, not "household" weapons, is the first step."

              ABC News Special, Peter Jennings Reporting: Guns, April 11, 1991, available on LEXIS, NEWS database, SCRIPT file (boldface added).

* * *
"My staff and I right now are working on a comprehensive gun-control bill.  We don't have all the details, but for instance, regulating the sale and purchase of bullets.  Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use.  But that's the endgame.  And in the meantime, there are some specific things that we can do with legislation."  Evan Osnos, Bobby Rush; Democrat, U.S. House of Representatives, Chicago Tribune, Dec. 5, 1999, at C3 (quoting Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.)).

* * *
Maryland Attorney General J. Joseph Curran is proposing a wide-ranging package of laws that would make the state's gun control regulations among the strictest in the nation and says his ultimate goal is a ban on handguns.
              Daniel LeDuc, Tough Laws For Guns Proposed In Maryland; Attorney General Says Goal Is Ban, Wash. Post, Oct. 20, 1999, at A01.

There’s far more, see:
http://www.gunscholar.org/gunban.htm

The right would have you believe that isn't so, and if you let them have power, your guns will be taken away.  And it didn't happen the last time the left had total control either.  They did have some legislation that made it a safer country, but nobody's guns were taken away.

I assume you refer to the so called “assault weapons ban” of the Clinton administration.  How you can forward the outright lie that it had any effect on individual safety is beyond me.  The law was allowed to sunset and die BECAUSE there was no real (or surreal) effect on safety before, during or after its existence.  Government studies showed this conclusively.

I defy you to show ANY evidence that there was ANY effect on public safety.  To forward your opinion as having any sort of factual basis, is disingenuous, at best.  The only goal in a new “assault weapons ban” is to incrementally build a list of guns that the populace can’t be allowed to own, circumventing the second amendment, until only those in political favor may be able to afford having any gun of any kind.  The new law, when introduced, will ban a list of guns, and allow the attorney general to add to the list any gun that he sees fit to add in the future, without any vote necessary by a future legislative body.  It’s a perfect recipe for an eventual, total, effective ban on guns for US citizens.

Finally, the total ban didn’t happen “last time”, only because the voting public dumped many of the ban proponents then in office.  The current regime will simply wait till economic conditions have made the people “fat, dumb, and happy” to take that next step toward their ultimate goal.  The current regime made very careful public statements so as to evade gun bans in the political arena.  It would have been political suicide, and they knew it.  They didn’t and don’t want the public to know their plans.  Better to have the fools find out after the deed is done, without being given a real choice in the matter.


« Last Edit: May 08, 2009, 12:57:28 am by TwoTired »
Lloyd... (SOHC4 #11 Original Mail List)
72 500, 74 550, 75 550K, 75 550F, 76 550F, 77 550F X2, 78 550K, 77 750F X2, 78 750F, 79CX500, 85 700SC, GL1100

Thinking:  It's like reading with your own mind

Offline Retro Rocket

  • Eggs are hard due too a
  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *******
  • Posts: 19,326
  • ROCK & ROLL
Re: Gun control (The official gun thread!)
« Reply #58 on: May 08, 2009, 12:29:49 am »
Quote
There are many more scenarios for those that aren’t short sighted.  (or blinded)
Geeze TT i love the way you belittle everyone that disagrees with your short sighted opinions.... ::)
And for the rest of your rant.......Christ i am glad this is only an American point of view.....

Mick
750 K2 1000cc
750 F1 970cc
750 Bitsa 900cc
If You can't fix it with a hammer, You've got an electrical problem.

Offline TwoTired

  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *******
  • Posts: 20,522
Re: Gun control (The official gun thread!)
« Reply #59 on: May 08, 2009, 12:56:02 am »

OK , I'll reword it just for you RR.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2009, 01:04:46 am by TwoTired »
Lloyd... (SOHC4 #11 Original Mail List)
72 500, 74 550, 75 550K, 75 550F, 76 550F, 77 550F X2, 78 550K, 77 750F X2, 78 750F, 79CX500, 85 700SC, GL1100

Thinking:  It's like reading with your own mind

Offline MCRider

  • Such is the life of a
  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *******
  • Posts: 14,207
  • Today's Lesson: One good turn deserves another.
Re: Gun control (The official gun thread!)
« Reply #60 on: May 08, 2009, 04:52:48 am »

OK , I'll reword it just for you RR.

You don't need to reword it for me, I like it just the way it is. There were so many things wrong with the post you responded to, I couldn't figure out where to begin. So thank you.

I will say, simply in agreement with one of your points, that one of the greatest fears of our founding fathers was that the government they were founding would morph into one of tyranny. So the right of an individual to bear arms was every bit in anticipation of the need to resist the government they were founding.

Thanks.
Ride Safe:
Ron
1988 NT650 HawkGT;  1978 CB400 Hawk;  1975 CB750F -Free Bird; 1968 CB77 Super Hawk -Ticker;  Phaedrus 1972 CB750K2- Build Thread
"Sometimes the light's all shining on me, other times I can barely see, lately it appears to me, what a long, strange trip its been."

Offline ofreen

  • Old Timer
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,220
Re: Gun control (The official gun thread!)
« Reply #61 on: May 08, 2009, 07:48:14 am »

 Geeze TT i love the way you belittle everyone that disagrees with your short sighted opinions.... ::)

TT didn't belittle anyone.  The post TT responded to was full of inaccuracies.  The poster stated "The second amendment was never written to protect the people from our own government."  But that is precisely why the Second Amendment exists.  That and other statements demonstrated that the poster is not informed about the history of gun ownership and gun control and the underlying issues.  TT very effectively countered those uninformed statements.

I'll add my thanks to TT for taking the trouble to do it.
Greg
'75 CB750F


“A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.”
― Mark Twain

Offline cudjo

  • CUDJO
  • Enthusiast
  • **
  • Posts: 157
Re: Gun control (The official gun thread!)
« Reply #62 on: May 08, 2009, 08:11:02 am »
I have to say that I agree with TT. I would not have used the same terms that he has in some cases being a liberal minded person, but if you take the labels off the truth remains.
I saw how his language knocked Srust58 out of the conversation a few pages back, and I think that is to bad that he couldnt see past the verbage long enough to fight for is position. Srust58 also said that  Minneapolis has some "inner city" (it does not, trust me) But maybe he just doesnt have a broad enough prospective.

all that said including the part about my being liberal minded, I think that gun control like any other form of control that our government thinks need be placed on us is inherently miss guided. the parties have grown to be shadows of each other, they volley slander and arguments back and forth to keep the masses occupied and seemingly at odds with one another while the do what they want.

I have to say that it does not seem to me that we would need to have guns in our communities today, ( I live IN NYC, "the inner city" and i have lived in worse areas than this)
but they are everywhere, and trying to stop people from having them is a joke. this country was hounded by gun loving revolutionaries!
and it was the second thing that they thought of when they were setting the rule down.

this whole issue is a farce.
take a look at our recent political history and tell me that the government isnt just keeping us busy arguing with each other
the war on drugs, without getting into the facts around the reality of whether or not the government was really trying to stop drugs.
the reason for drugs is a culture that loves to use them. no culture of use no outrages drug use.
but the government would let you believe that if we stopped the drug dealers and and trafficking that would be the end of it.
gun control is an issue cause we have too many innocent people dying at the hands of guns, that is due to the face that there are too many depraved people in our country that have no respect for life...and that is getting worse as far as i can tell.
the government would have us believe that its because there are too many guns on the street.

what struck me the hardest, and mayb because it is a new issue, and i have not been indoctrinated with a point of view on it
the current financial situation.

the government would have us believe that all we need to do is get more money in to the system, so it can go back to working the same way.
no one said that a credit based system is inherently flawed. or the culture of capitalism has turned the national morality into "if it makes money its OK"


I was pointed in the direction of some of Thomas Jefferson's writing in regard to this situation. he warned against federal banks, and in international banking system when this whole america thing was getting started. you would think that he was a profit.
but then i realized that government s havent changed in the last 1000 or so years. the same rules that Machiavelli wrote about in the 1300s or when ever that was still apply, they always will.
Jefferson was student of government, and knew on a very basic level what was need to keep government from becoming a tyrannical one. so I am going with  the guys who havent been overwhelmed with the BS filler information that our developed world is immersed in.

there was a reason that Jefferson and the others were so worried about international banks... they have taken over. if you live in a developed country you are at the mercy of these banks whatever  form of government you have....... when was the last time that you voted for something that really effect your real everyday life?

last point on the guns.
I dont trust the government to be the only ones with guns... especially since all I do trust them to do is bend over for capitalist interests.

I hope all this makes sense. my two year old was climbing on and off me, and i didnt get a chance to check over it for babble.... sorry if it is incoherent.




--
Cudjo Collins
cudjoc@gmail.com
646*234*2999
www.cudjocollins.com

Offline sangyo soichiro

  • Tuck
  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,167
  • ☢ the atomic playboy ☠
Re: Gun control (The official gun thread!)
« Reply #63 on: May 08, 2009, 10:24:24 am »
I have to say that it does not seem to me that we would need to have guns in our communities today, ( I live IN NYC, "the inner city" and i have lived in worse areas than this)
but they are everywhere, and trying to stop people from having them is a joke. this country was hounded by gun loving revolutionaries!
and it was the second thing that they thought of when they were setting the rule down.

Cudjo, I am only quoting you to segue the following.  What follows is not addressed to anyone in particular.

Weapons, perhaps, are not needed when everything in society is working properly.  But take away the ability to call 911, or the ability to get your food at the supermarket, and the case that weapons are unnecessary is not so easily made.

I hinted previously that the human intellect is the only thing that keeps us safe from the rest of the animal kingdom.  Humans stand little chance of survival from, e.g., a bear attack, without utilizing our intellect.  Utilizing it, in the sense of avoiding the situation in the first place, or utilizing it in the sense of properly arming ourselves with weapons that change the odds in our favor.  It is not always the case that danger can be avoided.  And I want the odds in my favor.

It is mildly ironic that you mention that you live in NYC.  In the book Earth Abides (1949) the main character travelled to NYC from San Francisco after a great plague devastated the earth, killing off almost all of the population.  The main character, named Ish, meets a man and woman in NYC, but eventually decides to leave them and head back to San Francisco.  Upon leaving, the narration of the story is quoted below:

George Stewart, from the book Earth Abides:
Milt and Ann, too, were city-dwellers, and when the city died, they would hardly survive without it. They would pay the penalty which in the history of the world, he knew, had always been inflicted upon organisms which specialized too highly.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2009, 10:27:44 am by soichiro »
1974 CB 750
1972 CB 750 http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php/topic,57974.0.html
1970 CB 350
1966 Black Bomber
Too many others to name…
My cross country trip: http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php/topic,138625.0.html

Offline cudjo

  • CUDJO
  • Enthusiast
  • **
  • Posts: 157
Re: Gun control (The official gun thread!)
« Reply #64 on: May 08, 2009, 02:42:09 pm »

George Stewart, from the book Earth Abides:
Milt and Ann, too, were city-dwellers, and when the city died, they would hardly survive without it. They would pay the penalty which in the history of the world, he knew, had always been inflicted upon organisms which specialized too highly.

[/quote]

that is a great quote!
I didnt have time to get into that aspect of the current construct of life. the idea of a "real life" where your safety could be threatened by people animals whatever, were this fragile system that we have created to collapse. this is where our government plays a key roll in keeping us preoccupied with issues that are greatly meaningless to anyone living a "real life" they would have us be the child to their parent, with no concern, happily cradled and safe from harm, and without real control over any meaningful decisions.

I grew up in WI, and living hear in NYC I can see the truth of the notion that there are a lot of people that would die with the city that has created them.

Offline Terry in Australia

  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *******
  • Posts: 23,855
  • So, what do ya wanna talk about today?
Re: Gun control (The official gun thread!)
« Reply #65 on: May 15, 2009, 07:28:24 am »
I like guns and I've got a few dusty old "hand-me-down" guns that I've inherited from several deceased relatives, but I don't need them, because I'm lucky enough to live in a country where just about everybody (apart from farmers and a few others) don't need them. We still have significent violent crime (thanks in part to our apparent "open door" immigration policy) which occasionally involves the use of guns, but the majority of gun related deaths are domestic violence situations and the shooters are more often licensed, trained, and legal.

Interestingly, in the years since the federal governments "Gun buyback scheme" where 700,000 guns were removed from private ownership and destroyed, gun related deaths have been reduced by almost 50 percent. 

I've previously opined that civilised folk living in the 21st century don't need to hide behind a document written by pioneers who needed guns to survive regular attacks from wild animals and red indians 230-odd years ago, but after doing a little research on all the "lunatic fringe" groups in the US, I've decided that If I lived in the US where there are so many people with so many agendas that ultimately involve killing or seriously injuring their fellow Americans, then I guess I'd feel safer if I had one too.

So while private gun ownership won't necessarily reduce the crime rate in the US, it might make you feel a little more secure, or perhaps, a little less afraid. Cheers, Terry. ;D

« Last Edit: May 15, 2009, 07:31:39 am by Terry in Australia »
I was feeling sorry for myself because I couldn't afford new bike boots, until I met a man with no legs.

So I said, "Hey mate, you haven't got any bike boots you don't need, do you?"

Offline edbikerii

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,128
    • Gallery
Re: Gun control (The official gun thread!)
« Reply #66 on: May 15, 2009, 12:51:09 pm »
Not surprisingly, rape statistics for the US are significantly better than many other nations with more stringent gun controls, including Australia, Sweden, Finland, the UK, Canada, and even France:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_vic-crime-rape-victims

Perhaps potential rapists are more concerned about getting their balls blown off in the US?
SOHC4 #289
1977 CB550K - SOLD
1997 YAMAHA XJ600S - SOLD
1986 GL1200I - SOLD
2004 BMW R1150R

Jetting: http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php?topic=20869.msg258435#msg258435
Needles:  http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php?topic=20869.msg253711#msg253711

Offline MCRider

  • Such is the life of a
  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *******
  • Posts: 14,207
  • Today's Lesson: One good turn deserves another.
Re: Gun control (The official gun thread!)
« Reply #67 on: May 15, 2009, 01:14:34 pm »
Not surprisingly, rape statistics for the US are significantly better than many other nations with more stringent gun controls, including Australia, Sweden, Finland, the UK, Canada, and even France:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_vic-crime-rape-victims

Perhaps potential rapists are more concerned about getting their balls blown off in the US?
There is a lot to that I think. I have Googled on this subject as i've followed this thread. Ran across many interviews with bad guys who say they spend a lot of time casing homes to burglarize as they don't want potential gun owners around. Same for late night burglaries, avoided as that's the best time to get shot.

"Crime rate" in the US, likely everywhere possibly, is an elusive thing, as it is only the sum of reported crimes. Crimes that are deterred successfully by a gun owner are often, daresay usually, not reported. Who can know?

The NRA has tried to collect such data, but it would be suspect, no matter how objective they try to be. We all have vested interests and opinions.
Ride Safe:
Ron
1988 NT650 HawkGT;  1978 CB400 Hawk;  1975 CB750F -Free Bird; 1968 CB77 Super Hawk -Ticker;  Phaedrus 1972 CB750K2- Build Thread
"Sometimes the light's all shining on me, other times I can barely see, lately it appears to me, what a long, strange trip its been."

Offline edbikerii

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,128
    • Gallery
Re: Gun control (The official gun thread!)
« Reply #68 on: May 15, 2009, 01:46:02 pm »
Yes, I can appreciate that.  I once successfully deterred a break-in, but I dare not report it, as my gun ownership would have certainly gotten me arrested in New York City, despite the fact that I was an (otherwise) law-abiding citizen.

[edit added this:]
It is also interesting to note that a "Criminal Possession of a Weapon" in New York City carries with it a MANDATORY 3 1/2 YEAR SENTENCE, even if no other "crime" was committed.  The judge has no leeway, once a defendant has been convicted.

"Crime rate" in the US, likely everywhere possibly, is an elusive thing, as it is only the sum of reported crimes. Crimes that are deterred successfully by a gun owner are often, daresay usually, not reported. Who can know?

The NRA has tried to collect such data, but it would be suspect, no matter how objective they try to be. We all have vested interests and opinions.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2009, 01:48:56 pm by edbikerii »
SOHC4 #289
1977 CB550K - SOLD
1997 YAMAHA XJ600S - SOLD
1986 GL1200I - SOLD
2004 BMW R1150R

Jetting: http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php?topic=20869.msg258435#msg258435
Needles:  http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php?topic=20869.msg253711#msg253711

Offline Terry in Australia

  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *******
  • Posts: 23,855
  • So, what do ya wanna talk about today?
Re: Gun control (The official gun thread!)
« Reply #69 on: May 15, 2009, 06:54:20 pm »
Not surprisingly, rape statistics for the US are significantly better than many other nations with more stringent gun controls, including Australia, Sweden, Finland, the UK, Canada, and even France:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_vic-crime-rape-victims

Perhaps potential rapists are more concerned about getting their balls blown off in the US?

Ha ha, geez you must have been struggling to find a statistic where Australia actually surpassed the US in a particular crime Ed, so well done! While you concentrated on your 95000 rapes compared to our 15000, I see (using your source) you didn't mention your 16000 murders compared to our 300. Oh well, not enough to take away the US's "Most violent developed country" tag, but better than nothing, I suppose. Cheers, Terry. ;D
I was feeling sorry for myself because I couldn't afford new bike boots, until I met a man with no legs.

So I said, "Hey mate, you haven't got any bike boots you don't need, do you?"

Offline TwoTired

  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *******
  • Posts: 20,522
Re: Gun control (The official gun thread!)
« Reply #70 on: May 15, 2009, 07:05:35 pm »
Hello Terry,
I'm going to try to keep this as cordial as I can, given our last run-ins on this topic.  It is no surprise that we disagree on many points regarding this topic.  While your opinion is certainly yours to express, I feel compelled to rebut some of your arguments/positioning.

I like guns and I've got a few dusty old "hand-me-down" guns that I've inherited from several deceased relatives, but I don't need them, because I'm lucky enough to live in a country where just about everybody (apart from farmers and a few others) don't need them.
You are indeed lucky, and I am happy you feel secure without them where you live.  I'm sure you can appreciate not everyone lives within the same constraints/environment that you do.  I can't agree that because you feel you can live without them, that those who don't must be deprived of an effective survival tool as well.  Some of these "good people" won't survive due to that attitude.   No offense but, why can't you care about them?

We still have significent violent crime (thanks in part to our apparent "open door" immigration policy) which occasionally involves the use of guns, but the majority of gun related deaths are domestic violence situations and the shooters are more often licensed, trained, and legal.

Honestly, I would like to see support for that statement with some facts/ references.  The data that I find tells quite a different story.   Like you, I don't see much crime specifically where I live either, but I recognize this is not universally true in all locations. 

See: -http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3a6_1228325449

"England/Canada suffers twice the violent crime rate compared to the USA...
Australia suffers 3 times the violent crime rate seen in the USA...
Since the gun ban in Australia, violent crime has shot up 400%."
 Also from: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15304
Though lawmakers responsible for passing the ban promised a safer country (Australia), the nation's crime statistics tell a different story:

    * Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent;
    * Assaults are up 8.6 percent;
    * Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent;
    * In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent;
    * In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily;
    * There has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly.

Interestingly, in the years since the federal governments "Gun buyback scheme" where 700,000 guns were removed from private ownership and destroyed, gun related deaths have been reduced by almost 50 percent.   
The first thing that struck me in this statement was the highly "cooked" statistic at the end.  A similar statement could be made that if you stop putting gas in your vehicle, it will use far less gas.
However, the data I found (above), does seem to dispute your assertion.

Secondly from an economic standpoint, the Australian government spent $500,000,000 to confiscate and destroy 650,000 guns.  That's $770 for each one.  Most of my guns cost more than that, and that doesn't even count the sales tax I paid on each and every one of them to the government.  There are an estimated 200 million (or more) guns in the US.  There are about 4-5 million guns added every year.  And, the gun industry is a 2 Billion dollar industry contributing to the US economy.  Are you really suggesting we copy a failed scheme from another country and apply it to the US?

Further, guns here are used far, far more often to DETER violent crime rather than to aid the commission of a crime.  I've posted this data in previous posts. 
So, if one only looks at deaths-by-motorcycle, it would be quite easy to state that no one needs or should have a motorcycle, because all they do is kill people.  One could substitute just about any tool in this type of statistic, to justify its removal from "public" hands.

I've previously opined that civilised folk living in the 21st century don't need to hide behind a document written by pioneers who needed guns to survive regular attacks from wild animals and red indians 230-odd years ago, but after doing a little research on all the "lunatic fringe" groups in the US, I've decided that If I lived in the US where there are so many people with so many agendas that ultimately involve killing or seriously injuring their fellow Americans, then I guess I'd feel safer if I had one too.

These statements tell me that you actually know very little about the US constitution and the Bill of rights and what their original purpose and intent actually is.  The writers of these documents were prolific writers and publishers.  Ample recorded dialog among the framers of the U.S. Constitution are available to those who care to read and understand it.  And these discussions explain rather clearly the purpose and concerns of those writers when defining the new government.  Derogatory remarks about hiding behind documents hardly lends credence to your opinion.  I can well imagine that the Australian education system has little interest in accurately educating its subjects about how other forms of government may or may not be superior to the one in which control of the populace is maintained where you live.  Nonetheless, should you wish to independently study the purpose and intent of these documents, they are available for study, should you have any inclination.  It's not about wild animals or red indians.  It's about keeping the power of government within the control of the people, and not wresting it away at the whim of tyrannical individuals who seize control.  There are certainly arguments to be made that our current stream of regimes has grossly lost its way, and many of those who have achieved power in this country have forwarded policies repugnant to the very documents they have sworn to uphold.

But, the "lunatic fringe" as you propose, is not limited to the US.   Perhaps you'd like to tell us about how your government murdered the individual that "Crocodile Dundee" was based upon because he would not abide with the government stealing his firearms?
Have your inner cities not fostered gang territorial disputes?  Has your population density not yet grown to allow underworld operations?

So while private gun ownership won't necessarily reduce the crime rate in the US, it might make you feel a little more secure, or perhaps, a little less afraid. Cheers, Terry. ;D
Seems another unsupported assertion, Terry.  The areas in this country where guns are most restricted, are the same areas that have skyrocketing crime rates.  The areas of this country where gun ownership is least restricted, also have the lowest crime rates.

If/when there is a major earthquake or other similar disaster where I am forced to fend for myself, that is when I'll need defense reinforcement the most.  I don't "need" guns for the best of times.  I most likely WILL need guns for the worst of times.  Particularly when 21st century civilization breaks down, even if briefly.  Removing that option at the whim of short sighted individuals, is a detriment to society, as it allows thugs to force their will on "lessers", in physical stature or gang rule.  "Survival of the fittest", does not favor the magnanimous or gentle ideology of cooperative living.

Finally,  I'll add a chart from the Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, 31 January 2006; below

I've tried to present my differing arguments without intent to offend.  I hope I have succeed.

regards,



Lloyd... (SOHC4 #11 Original Mail List)
72 500, 74 550, 75 550K, 75 550F, 76 550F, 77 550F X2, 78 550K, 77 750F X2, 78 750F, 79CX500, 85 700SC, GL1100

Thinking:  It's like reading with your own mind

Offline Terry in Australia

  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *******
  • Posts: 23,855
  • So, what do ya wanna talk about today?
Re: Gun control (The official gun thread!)
« Reply #71 on: May 16, 2009, 01:15:59 am »
Hello Terry,
I'm going to try to keep this as cordial as I can, given our last run-ins on this topic.  I've tried to present my differing arguments without intent to offend.  I hope I have succeed.

regards,


Thanks Lloyd, in the spirit of keeping it respectful this portion (above) is as much of your post that I read, but I imagine that as previously, your (well researched but lengthy) post was mostly typical "pro-gun lobby" propaganda with no new information of note, so I didn't bother. I heard someone say once that "winning an argument will never change someone's opinion", so lets leave it at that, we'll agree to disagree, eh? Cheers, Terry. ;D
I was feeling sorry for myself because I couldn't afford new bike boots, until I met a man with no legs.

So I said, "Hey mate, you haven't got any bike boots you don't need, do you?"

Offline Retro Rocket

  • Eggs are hard due too a
  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *******
  • Posts: 19,326
  • ROCK & ROLL
Re: Gun control (The official gun thread!)
« Reply #72 on: May 16, 2009, 01:37:31 am »
Just like you TT, i couldn't resist, and before i go on i want to make something very clear. I really enjoy your tech threads and replies, very thorough and informative and i respect your knowledge but when you get onto these politically orientated threads you drop the ball considerably.
Quote
Since the gun ban in Australia, violent crime has shot up 400%."
What a load of crap !! i love the way you conveniently link a lack of guns to violent crime, as Terry said earlier, our dumb arsed governments are allowing far too many immigrants from war torn countries into Australia and if you were here you would know this as a fact. We are taking boatloads of Sudanese, iraqi,  Afghans, Lebanese and many more, every time we turn on the TV these guys are stabbing, raping,stealing and trashing our country, i know you have similar problems in the US, a lot of this is new for us in Australia, this also has not a bloody thing to do with guns or a lack of. 400% compared to what ? Our crime rate is relatively small and something you don't factor in is over the last 20 years here our laws have gotten stricter and the dreaded "sue" mentality {i'm sure you are aware of that} has started to take hold so minor rubbish is now considered "violent". Another thing is that what you call violent crime is nothing like we call violent crime, we don't have mass shootings at the rate you do not even close, what was it , 8 or 9 mass shootings in 12 weeks, massacres that is, unheard of here, we have had 1 in the last 20 years, maybe even longer. Don't try and baffle the gullible with mindless statistics that don't even come close to telling the "REAL" story.
Quote
Australia suffers 3 times the violent crime rate seen in the USA...

More rubbish, you see when you start out with a very small number, lets say 3 for arguments sake, then you crime rate goes up 400% well that makes 12, are you starting to get it yet, there is no comparison, just like pollution, Australia is one of the the worlds worst polluters per head of capita, but on the whole world scale we are a drop in the ocean and absolutely no where near the US or India or China, not even close, so next time you want to quote statistics at least understand them, our crime rate does not compare to yours one little bit, if our exact crimes were on the same bar graph, you would need glasses to see ours while at the same time you could trip over yours.......Really TT, stick to the tech threads mate .............. ::)

Mick
750 K2 1000cc
750 F1 970cc
750 Bitsa 900cc
If You can't fix it with a hammer, You've got an electrical problem.

Offline Jerry Rxman Griffin aka MuthaF'er

  • This MuthaF'er is getting to be a
  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *******
  • Posts: 13,406
  • Bought her new 4/75
Re: Gun control (The official gun thread!)
« Reply #73 on: May 16, 2009, 10:31:03 pm »
I'd like to applaud the latter verbage of this topic. It seems like a rather civilized discussion of opinions and references. Very good old chaps and mates. Please keep up the civility so we don't have to shoot any unarmed pacifists, et al. because we can disagree without violence wheras the rest of the world doesn't wish to peacefully disagree.

One issue I've thought about is how do we modern day men even attempt to put a definition of thought intent on something that was written 200 years ago in a totally different world?! ie How can we say what our fore fathers meant?! My assertion is that we can NOT put words in their distant mouths. I further assert that from this day forward any rules, regulations, laws, etc that are imposed also come with a preface as to the intent and meaning of said verbage so we will not have to attempt to do so.

I further assert if it weren't for religion(s) we wouldn't have any where near as many regional conflicts.

I'll bet that can really stir up some #$%*. I'll check back in occasionally. Good night.

 
As of today 3/13/2012 my original owner 75 CB750F has made it through 3 wives, er EX-wives. Free at last.  ;-)

Offline Spikeybike

  • when planting C4 at your enemy's base make sure you don't use a
  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *******
  • Posts: 7,267
  • member #1150
Re: Gun control (The official gun thread!)
« Reply #74 on: May 16, 2009, 11:33:53 pm »
Increased Gun Control is all well and good, but since the populations of both Canada and Switzerland are both more heavily armed than the US, and who can blame them given their respective neighbours :o  I personally suspect that there is something more fundamentally wrong in America (the education system especially) than just who owns all the weaponry :-\

how right you are my man

besides, just because you like to shoot explosive packed targets with a 30cal ... doesn't mean you gonna go on a killing spree 
 

 

;
Honda