PDA

View Full Version : Steelers LB James Harrison blames Jovan Belcher, not guns



SteelCrazy
12-05-2012, 09:34 PM
PITTSBURGH -- When it comes to the subject of the NFL's gun culture in light of Kansas City Chiefs linebacker Jovan Belcher's murder-suicide, Pittsburgh Steelers linebacker James Harrison is a go-to gun authority.

He's been a collector with as many as 20 guns since becoming "fascinated" by them after his grandfather taught him about guns when he was a teenager, he said. Harrison posed for Men's Journal magazine with two handguns across his bare chest, and he touched on his disdain for gun control in the August 2011 cover story.

He remains steadfast in his belief that Belcher's horrific murder-suicide last Saturday -- when Belcher killed his girlfriend, Kasandra Perkins, then drove to the Chiefs facility and committed suicide -- isn't a gun issue, but a people issue.

"It's a big issue as far as what happened and everything, it's a sad story,'' Harrison told USA TODAY Sports. "But the fact of it being part of the guns ? They want to say it's guns and all this other stuff. It's ridiculous. He did it. And he alone is responsible for it. It has nothing to do with the guns.

"Somebody goes out and kills somebody with a knife, you going to blame the knife? Somebody goes out and kills somebody by pushing somebody in front of a train, you going to start cutting off the guy's arms? You going to start blaming people's arms now? It's the person who did it who is responsible.''

Harrison, who normally doesn't speak to the media except after games or on Fridays, continued his rant at his locker: "It's not an athlete thing, it's a human thing,'' the 34-year-old linebacker said.

"If you go and say, 'Alright, now we're going to take guns away from everybody, and the only person who is going to have guns are the police ... if that was a good thing and that's actually how it would go, then that would work.

"But the two people who are going to have the guns then are the police and the criminals. So now I know I can break into every house in the country that doesn't have a gun in it because they're no longer allowed to carry handguns. That's not going to solve things. It's only going to cause more problems.''

Belcher's murder-suicide obviously hasn't made Harrison reconsider his stance on the right to bear and collect firearms.

"No, no,'' he said. "I have my guns. I'm going to keep my guns. I'm going to use my guns responsibly and go from there. It's not as far as athletes needing guns (for protection). It's the right to bear firearms. You never know. You may need it for protection. A lot of people like to hunt. And so on and so forth.

"It's not the gun that did it. No one convinced me to have a gun. I was fascinated with guns when I was a little kid. When I was able to finally get my first gun, I bought a 12-gauge.''

He has expanded his collection since his first acquisition at 18.

"I started collecting from there,'' Harrison said. "I have crossbows. I have compound bows. I've got dart guns. I've got everything ... 15, 20 guns. Who knows?''

Washington Redskins safety Sean Taylor's murder following a 2007 home invasion made NFL players more concerned about protecting themselves, players say.

"Everybody has the right to protect themselves. Period. Home invasions,'' Harrison said.






http://www.baxterbulletin.com/usatoday/article/1748943&usatref=sportsmod?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Cfeature dtext%7CSports%7Cp

Sugar
12-05-2012, 09:53 PM
AMEN Brother Deebo!!!:Clap

lloydroid
12-05-2012, 11:04 PM
Another reason to love the guy. Hines was on saying that the majority of Pgh Steelers own guns and most even have them in their cars but they don't take them inside the facility.

flippy
12-05-2012, 11:28 PM
Another reason to love the guy. Hines was on saying that the majority of Pgh Steelers own guns and most even have them in their cars but they don't take them inside the facility.

And only one's shot himself. Gotta blame Plax, not the gun.

flippy
12-05-2012, 11:30 PM
Another thought on NFL players having guns.

These guys have severe head trauma that impacts their brains. Pain meds and PEDs can also impact their thoughts. Is it really safe for these guys to have guns? Maybe Plax shot himself post concussion.

BradshawsHairdresser
12-06-2012, 12:00 AM
James is right on about this.

fordfixer
12-06-2012, 12:59 AM
AMEN Brother Deebo!!!:Clap


X2.............

hawaiiansteel
12-06-2012, 01:11 AM
James is right on about this.


the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution agrees...

steelfin
12-06-2012, 01:56 AM
Couldnt agree more with Deebo...and Bob Costas needs to keep his opinions to himself especially during football broadcasts....

Slapstick
12-06-2012, 06:56 AM
Couldnt agree more with Deebo...and Bob Costas needs to keep his opinions to himself especially during football broadcasts....

Why can James say anything he wants, but Bob Costas can't?

And, no, I don't blame guns for Belcher murdering that poor girl and then himself...

I blame guns for making it easy to murder that poor girl and then himself...

8467thekraken
12-06-2012, 08:25 AM
If someone wants to murder someone, whether if it's with a gun, knife, poison, a spoon-whatever- they are gonna do it.

Murder has been around for a looooooonnng time. The ease with which it is done is irrelevant.

just a couple cents...

Slapstick
12-06-2012, 08:43 AM
If someone wants to murder someone, whether if it's with a gun, knife, poison, a spoon-whatever- they are gonna do it.

Murder has been around for a looooooonnng time. The ease with which it is done is irrelevant.

just a couple cents...

I agree.

The problem is, if someone really doesn't want to murder someone and they lose composure for even a second, the ease with which
it is done becomes extremely relevant...

With a firearm, it becomes very easy to solve a temporary problem very permanently and very horribly...

D Rock
12-06-2012, 08:47 AM
If someone wants to murder someone, whether if it's with a gun, knife, poison, a spoon-whatever- they are gonna do it.

Murder has been around for a looooooonnng time. The ease with which it is done is irrelevant.

just a couple cents...


That's true, but also consider being in the heat of the moment in an argument and being able to stand across the room from someone and move your finger an inch as compared to physically placing your hands on someone and maintaining the killing action until they die.

I completely agree that it is the fault of the person. You've got to be pretty twisted to even pick up a gun during an argument with someone if you aren't threatened with death yourself. But I'm also sure that a lot of people have died over silly little things and arguments because of the ease and disconnected nature in which a gun be used.

D Rock
12-06-2012, 08:47 AM
I agree.

The problem is, if someone really doesn't want to murder someone and they lose composure for even a second, the ease with which
it is done becomes extremely relevant...

With a firearm, it becomes very easy to solve a temporary problem very permanently and very horribly...


yeah...what he said. Guess we were thinking on the same brainwaves there.

Ghost
12-06-2012, 09:04 AM
Guns don't kill people; Pitbulls kill people....

BradshawsHairdresser
12-06-2012, 09:57 AM
Why can James say anything he wants, but Bob Costas can't?

Both should have the constitutional right to express their opinions. But I think in this case, the media will likely smile on Costas' opinion, and frown on James'. One is PC in the eyes of the media, and the other is not.

BradshawsHairdresser
12-06-2012, 10:06 AM
I agree.

The problem is, if someone really doesn't want to murder someone and they lose composure for even a second, the ease with which
it is done becomes extremely relevant...

With a firearm, it becomes very easy to solve a temporary problem very permanently and very horribly...

This is true. It's also true that, when you need to defend yourself, you don't always have time to fart around and talk things out; the speed with which that firearm does its job may mean the difference between your own life and death...or the life of a loved one.


Take a gander at this article:

Gun Ownership Mandatory In Kennesaw, Georgia
Crime Rate Plummets

by Chuck Baldwin


The New American magazine reminds us that March 25th marked the 16th anniversary of Kennesaw, Georgia's ordinance requiring heads of households (with certain exceptions) to keep at least one firearm in their homes.


The city's population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996 (latest available estimate). Yet there have been only three murders: two with knives (1984 and 1987) and one with a firearm (1997). After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982.


And it has stayed impressively low. In addition to nearly non-existent homicide (murders have averaged a mere 0.19 per year), the annual number of armed robberies, residential burglaries, commercial burglaries, and rapes have averaged, respectively, 1.69, 31.63, 19.75, and 2.00 through 1998.


With all the attention that has been heaped upon the lawful possession of firearms lately, you would think that a city that requires gun ownership would be the center of a media feeding frenzy. It isn't. The fact is I can't remember a major media outlet even mentioning Kennesaw. Can you?


The reason is obvious. Kennesaw proves that the presence of firearms actually improves safety and security. This is not the message that the media want us to hear. They want us to believe that guns are evil and are the cause of violence.
The facts tell a different story. What is even more interesting about Kennesaw is that the city's crime rate decreased with the simple knowledge that the entire community was armed. The bad guys didn't force the residents to prove it. Just knowing that residents were armed prompted them to move on to easier targets. Most criminals don't have a death wish.
There have been two occasions in my own family when the presence of a handgun averted potential disaster. In both instances the gun was never aimed at a person and no shot was fired.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1818862/posts


Now, I wouldn't advocate the forcing of gun ownership, but I think that is an intriguing story.

Slapstick
12-06-2012, 10:15 AM
If you want to think that Kennesaw, Georgia, population 30,000 is proof of anything, than okay...

No one in my family who was not working in law-enforcement, armed forces or legal hunting has ever required the use of a firearm to avoid potential disaster...

That as is just as much proof as Kennesaw, GA...

steelfin
12-06-2012, 10:33 AM
Why can James say anything he wants, but Bob Costas can't?

And, no, I don't blame guns for Belcher murdering that poor girl and then himself...

I blame guns for making it easy to murder that poor girl and then himself...

James (who happens to be a football player) made a statement that was printed by the media....Bob Costas has the same rights to stating his on opinions...but I don't want to hear his left win, agenda driven, 10 minute dissertation on live tv during a football broadcast...

Kind of like people on this board who don't appreciate politically driven posts (that I have been slammed for in the past)....which this one is getting pretty close to...

Dont get me wrong, it was a terrible act and I pray for that girl and her family...it is just awful...

But we shouldn't be blaming guns instead of the irresponsible and unstable people using them....

I can't really argue your point that guns make it easier...

D Rock
12-06-2012, 10:41 AM
This is true. It's also true that, when you need to defend yourself, you don't always have time to fart around and talk things out; the speed with which that firearm does its job may mean the difference between your own life and death...or the life of a loved one.


Take a gander at this article:

Gun Ownership Mandatory In Kennesaw, Georgia
Crime Rate Plummets

by Chuck Baldwin


The New American magazine reminds us that March 25th marked the 16th anniversary of Kennesaw, Georgia's ordinance requiring heads of households (with certain exceptions) to keep at least one firearm in their homes.


The city's population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996 (latest available estimate). Yet there have been only three murders: two with knives (1984 and 1987) and one with a firearm (1997). After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982.


And it has stayed impressively low. In addition to nearly non-existent homicide (murders have averaged a mere 0.19 per year), the annual number of armed robberies, residential burglaries, commercial burglaries, and rapes have averaged, respectively, 1.69, 31.63, 19.75, and 2.00 through 1998.


With all the attention that has been heaped upon the lawful possession of firearms lately, you would think that a city that requires gun ownership would be the center of a media feeding frenzy. It isn't. The fact is I can't remember a major media outlet even mentioning Kennesaw. Can you?


The reason is obvious. Kennesaw proves that the presence of firearms actually improves safety and security. This is not the message that the media want us to hear. They want us to believe that guns are evil and are the cause of violence.
The facts tell a different story. What is even more interesting about Kennesaw is that the city's crime rate decreased with the simple knowledge that the entire community was armed. The bad guys didn't force the residents to prove it. Just knowing that residents were armed prompted them to move on to easier targets. Most criminals don't have a death wish.
There have been two occasions in my own family when the presence of a handgun averted potential disaster. In both instances the gun was never aimed at a person and no shot was fired.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1818862/posts


Now, I wouldn't advocate the forcing of gun ownership, but I think that is an intriguing story.


Kennesaw is already in a pretty decent area, about as decent as it can be that close to Atlanta. I would be more impressed if a mandatory gun law changed a bad town to a good one.

Crime rates did drop though after the law was enacted, that's undeniable. Another thing to consider is that most people in Georgia own a gun anyways.

flippy
12-06-2012, 10:44 AM
I always thought 99% of gun owners have fantasized about being like Charles Bronson in Death Wish.

When someone buys a gun, they have to go through the mental exercise of thinking through situations in which they would kill someone and determine for them when they feel it would be right and justified.

Thoughts can be just as dangerous as actions.

I was watching some 2020 or Dateline show where some guy had guns to protect his family. And his neighbors were having a loud party after midnight. He went over armed and asked them to be quiet. Then one of the drunk guys at the party said something to him and the guy shot him. Said he felt threatened. That's an entire situation where nothing would have happened if the guy didn't have a gun. Was he a douche? Were the neighbors douches? Sure. But no one needed to be shot. There was no reason to bring a gun.

Sure the guy who shot the other guy was at fault. But he probably wouldn't have done anything if he didn't have access to a gun. I appreciate freedom. But you just have to be careful because complete freedom isn't really freedom. Owning a gun opens up people to thinking through killing. Is that a good thing? Maybe they should require gun owners go to church at least so they get reminded thou shall not kill. So when they fantasize, they will remember it's wrong.

In the end, the right to bear arms is a big responsibility. And I'm not sure given the way people act in every day life, that many people are responsible enough to deserve that right.

SteelCrazy
12-06-2012, 11:04 AM
I always thought 99% of gun owners have fantasized about being like Charles Bronson in Death Wish.

When someone buys a gun, they have to go through the mental exercise of thinking through situations in which they would kill someone and determine for them when they feel it would be right and justified.

Thoughts can be just as dangerous as actions.

I was watching some 2020 or Dateline show where some guy had guns to protect his family. And his neighbors were having a loud party after midnight. He went over armed and asked them to be quiet. Then one of the drunk guys at the party said something to him and the guy shot him. Said he felt threatened. That's an entire situation where nothing would have happened if the guy didn't have a gun. Was he a douche? Were the neighbors douches? Sure. But no one needed to be shot. There was no reason to bring a gun.

Sure the guy who shot the other guy was at fault. But he probably wouldn't have done anything if he didn't have access to a gun. I appreciate freedom. But you just have to be careful because complete freedom isn't really freedom. Owning a gun opens up people to thinking through killing. Is that a good thing? Maybe they should require gun owners go to church at least so they get reminded thou shall not kill. So when they fantasize, they will remember it's wrong.

In the end, the right to bear arms is a big responsibility. And I'm not sure given the way people act in every day life, that many people are responsible enough to deserve that right.



Flippy, there are a lot of rights given in this country to everyday morons, but until they do something moronic that right is theirs, yours and mine.

BradshawsHairdresser
12-06-2012, 11:57 AM
Kennesaw is already in a pretty decent area, about as decent as it can be that close to Atlanta.

Wrong! "Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000)." Not my definition of a "pretty decent town."




Crime rates did drop though after the law was enacted, that's undeniable.
BIG time. By the year 2005, the crime rate had fallen to 2,027 per 100,000. All that while the population of the area had increased from 5,242 to 28,189.

"By comparison, the population of Morton Grove, the first city in Illinois to adopt a gun ban for anyone other than police officers, has actually dropped slightly and stands at 22,202, according to 2005 statistics. More significantly, perhaps, the city’s crime rate increased by 15.7 percent immediately after the gun ban, even though the overall crime rate in Cook County rose only 3 percent."

Since the Kennesaw ordinance was passed (as of 2007), "despite predictions of 'Wild West' showdowns and increased violence and accidents, 'not a SINGLE resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender."


But we don't have to just go on statistics from a few American towns. In Switzerland, every household must have, by law, a fully automatic machine gun and ammunition. Guess what? The crime rate is very low there.



(quotes from article at http://www.wnd.com/2007/04/41196/)

BradshawsHairdresser
12-06-2012, 12:06 PM
If you want to think that Kennesaw, Georgia, population 30,000 is proof of anything, than okay...

No one in my family who was not working in law-enforcement, armed forces or legal hunting has ever required the use of a firearm to avoid potential disaster...

That as is just as much proof as Kennesaw, GA...

Then how about Morton Grove, IL, where they banned guns and the crime rate went UP?

How about Switzerland, where by law, every household must have and maintain an automatic rifle, and crime rates are low?

I'm glad you and yours haven't ever needed a firearm to stave off potential disaster. But think about it...if just one of the people in the audience had had a firearm with them, the Batman Movie gunman might have been stopped before he took all those lives. A student with a handgun could have stopped the Virginia Tech killer. There are crimes everyday that could be--and are--prevented because of firearms. In the majority of those situations, a shot never has to even be fired.

Slapstick
12-06-2012, 12:19 PM
Flippy, there are a lot of rights given in this country to everyday morons, but until they do something moronic that right is theirs, yours and mine.

Everybody has the right to have a child. Not everybody should. The same applies to guns.

Slapstick
12-06-2012, 12:20 PM
I'm glad you and yours haven't ever needed a firearm to stave off potential disaster. But think about it...if just one of the people in the audience had had a firearm with them, the Batman Movie gunman might have been stopped before he took all those lives. A student with a handgun could have stopped the Virginia Tech killer.

Or, in either case, more people could have been killed....

flippy
12-06-2012, 12:22 PM
Flippy, there are a lot of rights given in this country to everyday morons, but until they do something moronic that right is theirs, yours and mine.

It just sucks to find out they're a moron after they shoot someone.

If people are just concerned about protection, they could always get a stun gun or tranquilizer gun or something that doesn't kill someone but incapacitates them. But for some reason, people always seem to choose guns that are more deadly. Deadlier is often perceived to be better.

If you think about the length people go through to choose just the right gun, we might actually be concerned about everyone. How can I conceal it? How big does it need to be to kill a 300 lb perp? How big ammunition do I need? Etc.

Maybe they should require you provide your internet search history and based on an analysis of the search terms, they decide if you qualify to buy a gun. Seems like it might be the best way to screen folks. The internet knows all of your secrets that no one else does.

BradshawsHairdresser
12-06-2012, 12:39 PM
Or, in either case, more people could have been killed....
Highly doubtful, Slapper. If someone takes out the shooter, the killing ends.

Slapstick
12-06-2012, 12:42 PM
In Switzerland, every household must have, by law, a fully automatic machine gun and ammunition. Guess what? The crime rate is very low there.



It is also notable that the poverty rate in Switzerland is also less than half the poverty rate in the US. Switzerland also has excellent social welfare and socialized medicine. In addition, they have a much lower rate of drug addiction and the only outpatient rehab clinic in Europe. People can continue to pursue their lives and careers while learning to live life without drug cravings.

Unfortunately, gun violence seems to be particularly problematic in the US. The US is in the lead in number of firearms per citizen in the world, with 89 firearms per one hundred people. The US is also near the top in % of homicides by firearm.

Among the aggregate of the world's 23 richest nations, 80% of deaths by firearm are American citizens. 87% of children who die by firearm are American children.

I'm not denying anyone their second amendment rights. I'm just stating facts. There is a price we pay.

Slapstick
12-06-2012, 12:43 PM
Highly doubtful, Slapper. If someone takes out the shooter, the killing ends.

Unless he misses and hits someone else, in which case the shooter takes cover and it turns into the OK Corral...

Not so doubtful...

D Rock
12-06-2012, 12:43 PM
Wrong! "Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000)." Not my definition of a "pretty decent town."



BIG time. By the year 2005, the crime rate had fallen to 2,027 per 100,000. All that while the population of the area had increased from 5,242 to 28,189.

"By comparison, the population of Morton Grove, the first city in Illinois to adopt a gun ban for anyone other than police officers, has actually dropped slightly and stands at 22,202, according to 2005 statistics. More significantly, perhaps, the city’s crime rate increased by 15.7 percent immediately after the gun ban, even though the overall crime rate in Cook County rose only 3 percent."

Since the Kennesaw ordinance was passed (as of 2007), "despite predictions of 'Wild West' showdowns and increased violence and accidents, 'not a SINGLE resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender."


But we don't have to just go on statistics from a few American towns. In Switzerland, every household must have, by law, a fully automatic machine gun and ammunition. Guess what? The crime rate is very low there.



(quotes from article at http://www.wnd.com/2007/04/41196/)

"pretty decent town" needed to be considered with the rest of that sentence. I live in the north Atlanta suburbs, and around Atlanta, that's about as good as you can get. Maybe in the early 80's it wasn't one of the better regions near Atlanta to live...I wouldn't know, I wasn't born yet.

Djfan
12-06-2012, 01:10 PM
Deebo is one of the best Steelers ever for more than just his on the field amazingness. Love the guy and his chutzpah for speaking up.

Jigawatts
12-06-2012, 01:42 PM
I agree.

The problem is, if someone really doesn't want to murder someone and they lose composure for even a second, the ease with which
it is done becomes extremely relevant...

With a firearm, it becomes very easy to solve a temporary problem very permanently and very horribly...

:Agree

I thought I was the only one who never felt the need to shoot anything or be shot by someone. Slapstick, you and I should hang out and not accidentally shoot each other.

But if for some reason we have a disagreement and you want to throw down in fisticuffs, I've got Jack Johnson and Tom O'Leary waiting for you.

feltdizz
12-06-2012, 01:46 PM
I'm not anti gun but I agree with those who say it's much easier to kill with a gun than it is with a knife, bat or by hand. Americans love their guns... a little too much IMO. LOL....

BradshawsHairdresser
12-06-2012, 02:00 PM
Unless he misses and hits someone else, in which case the shooter takes cover and it turns into the OK Corral...



Not likely.

Not many scenarios where the Virginia Tech and Batman Movie massacres turn out worse then they did if a bystander has a firearm and tries to take out the shooter. But there's a very good chance they turn out better than they did.


I thought I was the only one who never felt the need to shoot anything or be shot by someone.

For the record, I've never felt the need to shoot (or be shot by) any other person. I don't sleep with a gun under my pillow. I don't live expecting to use a gun as a first resort, or even hoping to have to use it as a last resort. I believe that, along with gun ownership, comes the responsibility to be educated in the proper safe use and handling of firearms. I've only ever fired a gun at targets and animals, when hunting.


February 16, 2012

Study: Gun Owners Prevent Crime - 12 (http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/gun-shots/2012/02/study-gun-owners-prevent-crime#comments)


by John Haughey (http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/40191)
A Cato Institute (http://www.cato.org/) white paper states that "tens of thousands of crimes" are prevented each year in the United States by legally armed citizens exercising their Second Amendment right to self-defense.
The 58-page study, "Tough Targets: When Criminals Face Armed Resistance from Citizens," was released in early February. In it, authors Clayton Cramer and David Burnett analyzed news articles recounting the defensive use of firearms over an eight-year span.
According to the study's findings, in the vast majority of self-defense cases, the gun is never fired--its presence in the hands of a would-be victim or witness resulted in thwarting a crime or detaining criminals until they were taken into custody by law enforcement.
Tim Lynch (http://www.cato.org/people/tim-lynch), director of Cato's Project on Criminal Justice (http://www.cato.org/law-civil-liberties), writes that among the study's significant conclusions is the statistical confirmation that, "The defensive use of guns happens much more often than most people realize," and, "Each year gun owners prevent a great deal of criminal mayhem murders, rapes, batteries, and robberies."
For more, go to:
-- New Cato Study: Tough Targets (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/new-cato-study-tough-targets/)
-- Self-defense report cheered by Second Amendment advocates (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/02/self-defense_report_cheered_by_second_amendment_advocat es.html#ixzz1m02ncLgi)
-- Guns and Self Defense (http://www.cato.org/guns-and-self-defense/)
-- Counting the Defensive Use of Firearms (http://www.cato.org/multimedia/daily-podcast/counting-defensive-use-firearms)
-- When Criminals Face Armed Resistance from Citizens (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=14031)
-- 58-page white paper

http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/gun-shots/2012/02/study-gun-owners-prevent-crime (http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/WP-Tough-Targets.pdf)

BradshawsHairdresser
12-06-2012, 02:14 PM
BTW, in that Cato Institute report, there are many specific examples given of how guns are used to deter crime.

BradshawsHairdresser
12-06-2012, 02:22 PM
"pretty decent town" needed to be considered with the rest of that sentence. I live in the north Atlanta suburbs, and around Atlanta, that's about as good as you can get. Maybe in the early 80's it wasn't one of the better regions near Atlanta to live...I wouldn't know, I wasn't born yet.

Well, that's kind of my point...it's now a "pretty decent town"...due at least in part to the gun ownership law. I mean, otherwise, you don't expect the crime rate to drop that dramatically, and stay low, in a town that close to Atlanta that has grown more than 500% larger since the law was passed.

Slapstick
12-06-2012, 02:40 PM
The Cato Institute is a conservative think tank with a pro-gun agenda (among other agendas)...

I'm not impressed...I would prefer to peruse the study of a non-political entity...

D Rock
12-06-2012, 02:48 PM
Well, that's kind of my point...it's now a "pretty decent town"...due at least in part to the gun ownership law. I mean, otherwise, you don't expect the crime rate to drop that dramatically, and stay low, in a town that close to Atlanta that has grown more than 500% larger since the law was passed.

I wasn't referring to Kennesaw specifically in my original post, but more so the generalized area which Kennesaw is only a part of.

Mister Pittsburgh
12-06-2012, 03:23 PM
How many crappy drivers and road rage incidents will it take to finally outlaw cars. You even hear of people drinking and doing drugs and then driving and causing accidents that kill innocent people.

If they would just outlaw cars things would be so much safer and we would have far less deaths.

BradshawsHairdresser
12-06-2012, 03:24 PM
The Cato Institute is a conservative think tank with a pro-gun agenda (among other agendas)...

I'm not impressed...I would prefer to peruse the study of a non-political entity...


Actually, the Cato Institute is a non-partisan, libertarian think tank (they were heavily critical of Bush for his pro-war stance, among other things). But since you don't really have a good answer to the argument they present, you try to villify them...a tactic that doesn't impress me...:wink:

D Rock
12-06-2012, 03:32 PM
How many crappy drivers and road rage incidents will it take to finally outlaw cars. You even hear of people drinking and doing drugs and then driving and causing accidents that kill innocent people.

If they would just outlaw cars things would be so much safer and we would have far less deaths.


I see where you're going with that, but it's pretty hard to ignore the differences in the two objects.

Guns were created to kill people, cars were created to move people places.

lloydroid
12-06-2012, 03:35 PM
I agree.

The problem is, if someone really doesn't want to murder someone and they lose composure for even a second, the ease with which
it is done becomes extremely relevant...

With a firearm, it becomes very easy to solve a temporary problem very permanently and very horribly...

We don't have a gun problem as much as a human problem. In Switzerland every home has a MACHINE gun and yet they have a very low gun murder rate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

Yea, it's not quite apples to apples, but it is relative.

BradshawsHairdresser
12-06-2012, 03:43 PM
In the 1990's Gary Kleck wrote a book that showed that private firearms stop 2.5 million crimes per year in this country.
Kleck is a PhD professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University in Tallahassee; he is a member of the ACLU, Amnesty International, and Common Cause, among other politically liberal organizations...he's also a lifelong registered Democrat. He's never been a member of or contributor to the NRA, Handgun Control Inc., or any advocacy group on either side of the gun issue.

Mister Pittsburgh
12-06-2012, 03:45 PM
Take the gang bangers shootings and deaths, which are essentially a micro military group and don't own their guns legally out of the numbers and you will see the gun death statistics are far less crazy. I live on the north side of Pittsburgh and it seems some 16 year old black kid shoots another 16 year old black kid on a nightly basis. That isn't a gun issue.

BradshawsHairdresser
12-06-2012, 03:47 PM
We don't have a gun problem as much as a human problem. In Switzerland every home has a MACHINE gun and yet they have a very low gun murder rate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

Yea, it's not quite apples to apples, but it is relative.

lloydroid,
I agree with you, but I tried to make the same point earlier in the thread, and Slap argued that the lower murder rate in Switzerland is because they have better socio-economic conditions.

focosteeler
12-06-2012, 04:07 PM
lloydroid,
I agree with you, but I tried to make the same point earlier in the thread, and Slap argued that the lower murder rate in Switzerland is because they have better socio-economic conditions.

Yes they have Machine guns but they are also REQUIRED to take part in military training constantly throughout their lives. They have no standing army, their citizens are their army in an emergency. It also helps that everyone who has a weapon has proper training, constant check ups from doctors, a country with a population of only 8 million people, and one of the highest GDP per capita in the world.

Slapstick
12-06-2012, 04:25 PM
Actually, the Cato Institute is a non-partisan, libertarian think tank (they were heavily critical of Bush for his pro-war stance, among other things). But since you don't really have a good answer to the argument they present, you try to villify them...a tactic that doesn't impress me...:wink:

Not at all.

I never said anything about Democrat or Republican, nor did I try to villify them.

I merely stated that the Cato Institute is a conservative think tank, which they are. Lots of consrvatives were heavily critical of Bush for his pro-war stance. Conservative is not a political party, nor is it a dirty word. The same goes with the word liberal or libertarian (in terms of ideology, not political party).

If you want me to counter the Cato Institute with some kind of report from a liberal think tank that says guns are bad, I could do that. But, the argument would be just as slanted.

I prefer to counter with hard facts that can't be debated, as I did in my previous post regarding quantity of firearms per person in the US and the number of gun related homicides in the US when compared with other countries.

Those, sir, are my tactics. Whether you are impressed by them or not is of no consequence.;)

Slapstick
12-06-2012, 04:26 PM
Yes they have Machine guns but they are also REQUIRED to take part in military training constantly throughout their lives. They have no standing army, their citizens are their army in an emergency. It also helps that everyone who has a weapon has proper training, constant check ups from doctors, a country with a population of only 8 million people, and one of the highest GDP per capita in the world.

All of these things are true, in addition to the information that I presented....

lloydroid
12-06-2012, 05:08 PM
I see where you're going with that, but it's pretty hard to ignore the differences in the two objects.

Guns were created to kill people, cars were created to move people places.

Nuclear power was created to kill people too.

BradshawsHairdresser
12-06-2012, 05:19 PM
Not at all.

I never said anything about Democrat or Republican, nor did I try to villify them.
What were you implying when you said "I would prefer to peruse the study of a non-political entity"?



I prefer to counter with hard facts that can't be debated, as I did in my previous post regarding quantity of firearms per person in the US and the number of gun related homicides in the US when compared with other countries.

Slap, you didn't counter the facts I presented about crime dropping in a town where gun ownership was mandated, and rising in a town where guns were banned. Nor did you bother to counter the facts presented in the Cato Institute Report, or Dr. Kleck's research. You simply chose to ignore them as inconsequential.

Is there a high percentage of gun-related homicides in the US in comparison with other countries? Yes. But there is a high percentage of homicides WITHOUT GUNS in comparison with other countries. That tells me you can't just blame gun ownership.

Murders by firearm in the US number less than 9000 per year...but Dr. Kleck's research found that some 2.5 million crimes are PREVENTED in this country every year because of firearms. In other words, for every murder due to a firearm in this country, more than 250 crimes are THWARTED due to a firearm. Those aren't the findings of a conservative with an agenda; those are the findings of Dr. Kleck, a liberal Democrat (see my earlier post). Even if he's off in his analysis, other studies would seem to indicate that for every crime committed with a firearm, at least 3 to 5 crimes are prevented by firearms. Even using the low figures from the Clinton Justice Department, firearms are used almost 50 times more often to save life than to take life. (* See Injury Facts, published yearly by the National Safety Council, Itasca, Illinois; also Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig, "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms," NIJ Research in Brief; available at http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/165476.txt.)

Now, here are some other facts for you to chew on (though I suspect you'll just dismiss them as well):

--The NON-gun homicide rate for children in the U.S. is more than twice as high as in other Western countries. (* Kids and Guns, 2000, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention)

--In Japan, the murder rate is about 1 per 100,000. In the U.S., there are about 3.2 murders per 100,000 each year by weapons other than firearms. (* United Nations data) Therefore, if all of the firearms in the U.S. could magically be eliminated, we would still have three times the murder rate of Japan.

--Over 80% of homicides against children age 13 and under are committed WITHOUT a gun. (* 1997, FBI Uniform Crime Statistics)

--In the U.S., only 0.1% of all deaths of children age 14 and under are due to firearms. (* 1997 National Center for Health Statistics National Vital Statistics Report)

--90% of all violent crime in the U.S. does not involve any gun of any type. (* 1998 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms) There are more guns in the U.S. than cars (228,000,000 guns according to the 1998 FBI statistics and 207,754,000 automobiles according to the 1998 Federal Highway Administration registrations). Yet, you are 31 times more likely to be accidentally killed by a car than a gun according to the National Safety Council…despite cars having been registered and licensed for more than 100 years.

--Less than 1% of all guns will ever be used in the commission of any type of crime (much less violent crime). (*FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, 1994)

--Two-thirds of the people that die each year from gunfire are criminals shooting other criminals. (* FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, 1994)

--18-20 year olds commit over 23% of all gun murders. None of these criminals are allowed to purchase a handgun due to their age under current law. (* U.S. Treasury and Justice Dept. Report, 1999)

--The national five day waiting period under the Brady Bill had no impact on murder or robbery, but slightly increased rape and aggravated assault rates by a few percent. For these two crime categories, the major effect was to delay law-abiding citizens from getting a gun for protection. The risks were greatest for crimes against women. (* Dr. John Lott Jr., Univ. of Chicago School of Law)

--Every day, 550 rapes, 1,100 murders, and 5,200 other violent crimes per day are prevented just by showing a handgun. In less than 0.9% of the time is the gun ever actually even fired. (* Gary Kleck, Criminologist, Florida State Univ.)

--Of the 250,000,000 annual self-defense cases using guns, more than 7.7% are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse. (* U.S. Dept. of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration,Rape Victimization in 26 American Cities, 1979)

--92.7% of law enforcement officials believe that citizens should be able to purchase firearms for self-defense and sporting purposes. (* 1999 Police Survey, National Assoc. of Chiefs of Police)

--The courts have consistently ruled that the police do not have an obligation to protect individuals. In Warren v. District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Dept.,444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981), the court stated: 'Courts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community.'

--Crime is significantly higher in states without right-to-carry laws:


Violent Crime ……………………81% higher
Murder ………………………….. 86% higher
Rape …………………………… 25% higher
Assault…………………………… 82% higher
Robbery………………………….. 105% higher
Auto Theft……………………….. 60% higher
(* John Lott, David Mustard: This study involved county level crime statistics from all 3,054 counties in the U.S. from 1977 through 1992.)

Now, rather than just dismissing these facts, go ahead and "counter" them with some "hard facts that can't be debated."

D Rock
12-06-2012, 05:25 PM
Nuclear power was created to kill people too.


kudos to mankind for figuring out a better use for it

Slapstick
12-06-2012, 06:53 PM
What were you implying when you said "I would prefer to peruse the study of a non-political entity"?




Slap, you didn't counter the facts I presented about crime dropping in a town where gun ownership was mandated, and rising in a town where guns were banned. Nor did you bother to counter the facts presented in the Cato Institute Report, or Dr. Kleck's research. You simply chose to ignore them as inconsequential.

Is there a high percentage of gun-related homicides in the US in comparison with other countries? Yes. But there is a high percentage of homicides WITHOUT GUNS in comparison with other countries. That tells me you can't just blame gun ownership.

Murders by firearm in the US number less than 9000 per year...but Dr. Kleck's research found that some 2.5 million crimes are PREVENTED in this country every year because of firearms. In other words, for every murder due to a firearm in this country, more than 250 crimes are THWARTED due to a firearm. Those aren't the findings of a conservative with an agenda; those are the findings of Dr. Kleck, a liberal Democrat (see my earlier post). Even if he's off in his analysis, other studies would seem to indicate that for every crime committed with a firearm, at least 3 to 5 crimes are prevented by firearms. Even using the low figures from the Clinton Justice Department, firearms are used almost 50 times more often to save life than to take life. (* See Injury Facts, published yearly by the National Safety Council, Itasca, Illinois; also Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig, "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms," NIJ Research in Brief; available at http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/165476.txt.)

Now, here are some other facts for you to chew on (though I suspect you'll just dismiss them as well):

--The NON-gun homicide rate for children in the U.S. is more than twice as high as in other Western countries. (* Kids and Guns, 2000, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention)

--In Japan, the murder rate is about 1 per 100,000. In the U.S., there are about 3.2 murders per 100,000 each year by weapons other than firearms. (* United Nations data) Therefore, if all of the firearms in the U.S. could magically be eliminated, we would still have three times the murder rate of Japan.

--Over 80% of homicides against children age 13 and under are committed WITHOUT a gun. (* 1997, FBI Uniform Crime Statistics)

--In the U.S., only 0.1% of all deaths of children age 14 and under are due to firearms. (* 1997 National Center for Health Statistics National Vital Statistics Report)

--90% of all violent crime in the U.S. does not involve any gun of any type. (* 1998 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms) There are more guns in the U.S. than cars (228,000,000 guns according to the 1998 FBI statistics and 207,754,000 automobiles according to the 1998 Federal Highway Administration registrations). Yet, you are 31 times more likely to be accidentally killed by a car than a gun according to the National Safety Council…despite cars having been registered and licensed for more than 100 years.

--Less than 1% of all guns will ever be used in the commission of any type of crime (much less violent crime). (*FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, 1994)

--Two-thirds of the people that die each year from gunfire are criminals shooting other criminals. (* FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, 1994)

--18-20 year olds commit over 23% of all gun murders. None of these criminals are allowed to purchase a handgun due to their age under current law. (* U.S. Treasury and Justice Dept. Report, 1999)

--The national five day waiting period under the Brady Bill had no impact on murder or robbery, but slightly increased rape and aggravated assault rates by a few percent. For these two crime categories, the major effect was to delay law-abiding citizens from getting a gun for protection. The risks were greatest for crimes against women. (* Dr. John Lott Jr., Univ. of Chicago School of Law)

--Every day, 550 rapes, 1,100 murders, and 5,200 other violent crimes per day are prevented just by showing a handgun. In less than 0.9% of the time is the gun ever actually even fired. (* Gary Kleck, Criminologist, Florida State Univ.)

--Of the 250,000,000 annual self-defense cases using guns, more than 7.7% are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse. (* U.S. Dept. of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration,Rape Victimization in 26 American Cities, 1979)

--92.7% of law enforcement officials believe that citizens should be able to purchase firearms for self-defense and sporting purposes. (* 1999 Police Survey, National Assoc. of Chiefs of Police)

--The courts have consistently ruled that the police do not have an obligation to protect individuals. In Warren v. District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Dept.,444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981), the court stated: 'Courts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community.'

--Crime is significantly higher in states without right-to-carry laws:


Violent Crime ……………………81% higher
Murder ………………………….. 86% higher
Rape …………………………… 25% higher
Assault…………………………… 82% higher
Robbery………………………….. 105% higher
Auto Theft……………………….. 60% higher
(* John Lott, David Mustard: This study involved county level crime statistics from all 3,054 counties in the U.S. from 1977 through 1992.)

Now, rather than just dismissing these facts, go ahead and "counter" them with some "hard facts that can't be debated."



First off, please don't put words in my mouth. I never said that anything you presented to back up your argument was "inconsequential". Those are your words, not mine. I merely stated that The Cato Institute was a conservative think tank with a pro-gun agenda, which they are. That doesn't make the report inconsequential, but in the case of any such study, one should consider the source.

I never addressed Dr. Kleck's research at all, because I haven't had the opportunity to read it. Thank you for the link, though, because I would like to.

The bottom line is just what I stated earlier. The United States has a lot more guns than anybody else and 80% of the gun deaths of the 23 richest countries in the world are Americans. This is a fact. This shows that the other 22 countries on that list do something different than we do. Now, I appreciate the statistics that show how handguns prevent crimes. But, that being the case, you would think that the incidences of violent crimes in those other countries would be much higher than the US. Sadly, they aren't.

Now, if Dr. Kleck could study that and find a way to explain it, he would really be onto something.

lloydroid
12-06-2012, 07:07 PM
kudos to mankind for figuring out a better use for it

Yea, well we still got over 8,000 nukes in the US. But lecture other countries that they are not allowed to have them. Go figure. The elites are real a holes.

lloydroid
12-06-2012, 07:09 PM
Slap, you didn't counter the facts I presented about crime dropping in a town where gun ownership was mandated, and rising in a town where guns were banned. Nor did you bother to counter the facts presented in the Cato Institute Report, or Dr. Kleck's research. You simply chose to ignore them as inconsequential.

Yup FACTS are the places with lax gun laws has far less crime. The places with the strictest gun laws (i.e. Chicago) have the highest gun murders. So much for all the other BS. Criminals don't obey gun laws. So they can go about their criminal ways knowing that most of the other people won't be able to fight back.

BradshawsHairdresser
12-06-2012, 07:29 PM
The bottom line is just what I stated earlier. The United States has a lot more guns than anybody else and 80% of the gun deaths of the 23 richest countries in the world are Americans. This is a fact. This shows that the other 22 countries on that list do something different than we do. Now, I appreciate the statistics that show how handguns prevent crimes. But, that being the case, you would think that the incidences of violent crimes in those other countries would be much higher than the US. Sadly, they aren't.



True, and that's true even if you take all gun crimes away...the US has a higher rate of violent crimes. Again, some 90% percent of violent crime in the US does not involve a gun. I suspect that if all guns in the US disappeared immediately, the US would still have a higher rate of violent crimes than those other countries.

Could it be that America is, overall, a more violent society?

Slapstick
12-06-2012, 07:44 PM
True, and that's true even if you take all gun crimes away...the US has a higher rate of violent crimes. Again, some 90% percent of violent crime in the US does not involve a gun. I suspect that if all guns in the US disappeared immediately, the US would still have a higher rate of violent crimes than those other countries.

Could it be that America is, overall, a more violent society?

It sure seems that way, doesn't it?

flippy
12-06-2012, 07:50 PM
How many crappy drivers and road rage incidents will it take to finally outlaw cars. You even hear of people drinking and doing drugs and then driving and causing accidents that kill innocent people.

If they would just outlaw cars things would be so much safer and we would have far less deaths.

If they just allowed abortions until age 18, society would have a good shot at cleaning up the gene pool.

Slapstick
12-06-2012, 07:51 PM
I see where you're going with that, but it's pretty hard to ignore the differences in the two objects.

Guns were created to kill people, cars were created to move people places.

The same thing with knives, subway trains, etc....

flippy
12-06-2012, 07:56 PM
Could it be that America is, overall, a more violent society?

I think the class division is the problem. If everyone had jobs, good health, less stress, etc. we would have to worry about violence.

D Rock
12-06-2012, 08:52 PM
I think the class division is the problem. If everyone had jobs, good health, less stress, etc. we would have to worry about violence.

It all starts with the schools. My job takes me inside school classrooms in districts and schools all over middle Georgia. It's absolutely pathetic what is passed off as education in some areas. Even if the kids took it seriously, which they don't because they aren't encouraged to, they still would not get the education kids in other areas do.

eniparadoxgma
12-06-2012, 10:04 PM
http://i.imgur.com/dKvs1.jpg

:)

Also, to whoever cares, the correct spelling of the word is "vilify".

Mister Pittsburgh
12-06-2012, 10:38 PM
It all starts with the schools. My job takes me inside school classrooms in districts and schools all over middle Georgia. It's absolutely pathetic what is passed off as education in some areas. Even if the kids took it seriously, which they don't because they aren't encouraged to, they still would not get the education kids in other areas do.

I agree that education is of utmost importance, but it doesn't start there, it starts at home. Kids have to have respect to learn, and they don't. Some parents simply view school as a daycare.

what good teachers want to work in urban schools where they are basically thrown into the middle of gang warfare and a rap video. And the parents complain to the school that their kids are out of control yet couldn't tell you much about their kids.

Teachers are forced to dumb down the curriculum so the kids don't fail and the schools can meet federal standards of passing kids.

Djfan
12-06-2012, 10:51 PM
Banter all you want. My constitution says that I can have my gun because it allows for militia activity, which ensures good government.

Ain't no one taking my gun, unless it's from my dead hand. I am willing to die on that hill.

hawaiiansteel
12-07-2012, 12:45 AM
http://o.onionstatic.com/images/14/14134/original/600.jpg?9736

Slapstick
12-07-2012, 01:01 PM
Banter all you want. My constitution says that I can have my gun because it allows for militia activity, which ensures good government.

Ain't no one taking my gun, unless it's from my dead hand. I am willing to die on that hill.

Militia activity does no such thing...it did, once upon a time...

Notleadpoisoned
12-07-2012, 01:10 PM
I think the class division is the problem. If everyone had jobs, good health, less stress, etc. we would have to worry about violence.
"Everyone." Boy, you sure are grandiose in your thinking.

lloydroid
12-07-2012, 03:29 PM
It all starts with the schools. My job takes me inside school classrooms in districts and schools all over middle Georgia. It's absolutely pathetic what is passed off as education in some areas. Even if the kids took it seriously, which they don't because they aren't encouraged to, they still would not get the education kids in other areas do.

Then move. Why is it that some people simply don't accept crappy conditions and do something to make change while others just do nothing and say, "See, our schools suck, it's not our fault our kids aren't getting a good education." Then you hear of other parents who simply don't accept a bad environment and do what that have to to change it.

lloydroid
12-07-2012, 03:31 PM
Militia activity does no such thing...it did, once upon a time...

It still could, but they have successfully made it so meaningful militias can no longer exist. They have vilified them.

Slapstick
12-07-2012, 03:56 PM
Then move. Why is it that some people simply don't accept crappy conditions and do something to make change while others just do nothing and say, "See, our schools suck, it's not our fault our kids aren't getting a good education." Then you hear of other parents who simply don't accept a bad environment and do what that have to to change it.

The solution is not abandoning the students to poor conditions...the solution is to help the students lift themselves up to the best of your ability...

hawaiiansteel
12-07-2012, 04:06 PM
Then move. Why is it that some people simply don't accept crappy conditions and do something to make change while others just do nothing

reminds me of the Sam Kinison skit about how to cure world hunger: :D

"Im like anyone else on this planet Im very moved by world hunger. I see the same commercials, with those little kids, starving and very depressed.

But Im not trying to make fun of world hunger. Matter of fact, I think I have the answer. You want to stop world hunger? Stop sending these people food. Dont send these people another bite, folks. You want to send them something? You want to help? Send them U-Hauls!

Send them U-Hauls, some luggage, send them a guy out there who says, Hey, weve been driving out here every day with your food, for, like, the last thirty or forty years, and we were driving out here today across the desert, and it occurred to us that there wouldnt BE world hunger if you people would LIVE WHERE THE FOOD IS! YOU LIVE IN A DESERT! YOU LIVE IN A DESERT! NOTHING GROWS OUT HERE! NOTHINGS GONNA GROW OUT HERE! YOU SEE THIS? HUH? THIS IS SAND. KNOW WHAT ITS GONNA BE A HUNDRED YEARS FROM NOW? ITS GONNA BE SAND! YOU LIVE IN A DESERT! GET YOUR STUFF, GET YOUR STUFF, WELL MAKE ONE TRIP, WELL TAKE YOU TO WHERE THE FOOD IS! WE HAVE DESERTS IN AMERICA WE JUST DONT LIVE IN THEM!"

BradshawsHairdresser
12-07-2012, 04:28 PM
It still could, but they have successfully made it so meaningful militias can no longer exist. They have vilified them.
Glad to see you spelled "vilified" correctly.:D

BradshawsHairdresser
12-07-2012, 04:32 PM
reminds me of the Sam Kinison skit about how to cure world hunger: :D

"I’m like anyone else on this planet — I’m very moved by world hunger. I see the same commercials, with those little kids, starving and very depressed.

But I’m not trying to make fun of world hunger. Matter of fact, I think I have the answer. You want to stop world hunger? Stop sending these people food. Don’t send these people another bite, folks. You want to send them something? You want to help? Send them U-Hauls!

Send them U-Hauls, some luggage, send them a guy out there who says, “Hey, we’ve been driving out here every day with your food, for, like, the last thirty or forty years, and we were driving out here today across the desert, and it occurred to us that there wouldn’t BE world hunger if you people would LIVE WHERE THE FOOD IS! YOU LIVE IN A DESERT! YOU LIVE IN A DESERT! NOTHING GROWS OUT HERE! NOTHING’S GONNA GROW OUT HERE! YOU SEE THIS? HUH? THIS IS SAND. KNOW WHAT IT’S GONNA BE A HUNDRED YEARS FROM NOW? IT’S GONNA BE SAND! YOU LIVE IN A DESERT! GET YOUR STUFF, GET YOUR STUFF, WE’LL MAKE ONE TRIP, WE’LL TAKE YOU TO WHERE THE FOOD IS! WE HAVE DESERTS IN AMERICA — WE JUST DON’T LIVE IN THEM!"

Give a man a fish, and you take care of his hunger for a little while...teach a man to fish and...
well...you probably ain't gonna see him at work too regularly after that.:lol:

Djfan
12-07-2012, 05:25 PM
Militia activity does no such thing...it did, once upon a time...


I disagree.

eniparadoxgma
12-07-2012, 07:12 PM
Glad to see you spelled "vilified" correctly.:D

Me too. :)

lloydroid
12-07-2012, 07:14 PM
Glad to see you spelled "vilified" correctly.:D

I think I am missing the joke here. I did spell it correctly. Why is that funny?

eniparadoxgma
12-07-2012, 07:25 PM
I think I am missing the joke here. I did spell it correctly. Why is that funny?

I think he was taking a shot at me for pointing out a couple of people misspelling it earlier in the thread. I'm not even sure if you were one of them.

BradshawsHairdresser
12-07-2012, 07:41 PM
I'm the one who should be vilified over the improper spelling of vilified.

eniparadoxgma
12-07-2012, 10:26 PM
I'm the one who should be vilified over the improper spelling of vilified.

Nice one.

To change the subject back to the original topic, there are numerous legitimate reasons for the owning and carrying of firearms. While I do believe there is a limit to what the majority of public should be able to fairly easily acquire (I don't think hand grenades or nuclear warheads should be widely available for instance) there are enough useful applications to warrant them.

One of the most legitimate reasons to have one, in my opinion, is for its intended purpose: To kill people. In a world that doesn't seem to be getting any less violent, unless you live in a fortress circled by a moat in a gated community surrounded by surveillance and armed guards 24/7 there is always a chance (albeit a small one depending on your location and current karma level) that someone will want to cause you harm or create a scenario in which causing you harm is a possibility. There is always a chance that someone will want what you have and be willing to harm you to get it. There are people out there that will invade your home. Now, I would say the chance that the type of person that would want to rob you, harm you, and/or invade your home of having a weapon of some sort (be it a blade or a knife) is higher than that of the average citizen. So, what are your options? Even if you are physically strong, can fight like Bruce Lee, and have a ballbat in your hand how does that help you against someone wielding a pistol? How does that help you against four people carrying guns? They are called equalizers for a reason.

Think of single moms. Think of the handicapped. Think of the elderly. What chance would they have against someone breaking into their home? Kidnappings. Rape. Etc. Etc.

Another legitimate reason for the owning of guns is hunting. We made it from a rock to a bow and arrow. Why stop the progress there?

Another (in my opinion) legitimate reason, although this scenario might be far fetched to some, is to protect yourself from the government or armed forces. If only one group of people is allowed to have guns then that group at least has the capability of forcing their will upon those that do not.

Guns are tools. Tools are inanimate objects. Much like the picture I posted earlier stated, blaming a tool for being used for a criminal act is the equivalent of shooting the messenger. The beer can didn't make you an alcoholic. The plate didn't make you fat. The purple jersey (probably) didn't make you an idiot. Murder and suicide are both decisions made in the mind of the person committing the act and can be carried out with common household items. If someone wants to kill someone they will do it with something and whether that something is a gun or not is irrelevant.

BradshawsHairdresser
12-08-2012, 01:02 AM
Nice one.

To change the subject back to the original topic, there are numerous legitimate reasons for the owning and carrying of firearms. While I do believe there is a limit to what the majority of public should be able to fairly easily acquire (I don't think hand grenades or nuclear warheads should be widely available for instance) there are enough useful applications to warrant them.

One of the most legitimate reasons to have one, in my opinion, is for its intended purpose: To kill people. In a world that doesn't seem to be getting any less violent, unless you live in a fortress circled by a moat in a gated community surrounded by surveillance and armed guards 24/7 there is always a chance (albeit a small one depending on your location and current karma level) that someone will want to cause you harm or create a scenario in which causing you harm is a possibility. There is always a chance that someone will want what you have and be willing to harm you to get it. There are people out there that will invade your home. Now, I would say the chance that the type of person that would want to rob you, harm you, and/or invade your home of having a weapon of some sort (be it a blade or a knife) is higher than that of the average citizen. So, what are your options? Even if you are physically strong, can fight like Bruce Lee, and have a ballbat in your hand how does that help you against someone wielding a pistol? How does that help you against four people carrying guns? They are called equalizers for a reason.

Think of single moms. Think of the handicapped. Think of the elderly. What chance would they have against someone breaking into their home? Kidnappings. Rape. Etc. Etc.

Another legitimate reason for the owning of guns is hunting. We made it from a rock to a bow and arrow. Why stop the progress there?

Another (in my opinion) legitimate reason, although this scenario might be far fetched to some, is to protect yourself from the government or armed forces. If only one group of people is allowed to have guns then that group at least has the capability of forcing their will upon those that do not.

Guns are tools. Tools are inanimate objects. Much like the picture I posted earlier stated, blaming a tool for being used for a criminal act is the equivalent of shooting the messenger. The beer can didn't make you an alcoholic. The plate didn't make you fat. The purple jersey (probably) didn't make you an idiot. Murder and suicide are both decisions made in the mind of the person committing the act and can be carried out with common household items. If someone wants to kill someone they will do it with something and whether that something is a gun or not is irrelevant.

Well written and thoughtful.

hawaiiansteel
12-08-2012, 01:03 AM
Terrell Suggs surrenders firearms

Updated: December 7, 2012
ESPN.com

Baltimore Ravens linebacker Terrell Suggs had to surrender several firearms stemming from a domestic case involving his girlfriend, Suggs' attorney told the Baltimore Sun on Thursday.

Warren Alperstein told the Sun that Candace Williams, Suggs' longtime girlfriend and mother of his two children, filed a court order in November, but Alperstein declined to provide further details.

"The guns were surrendered over to police pursuant to the court order, and they (Suggs and Williams) are resolving their issues," Alperstein told the Sun. "All I can tell you is that he's in rightful and lawful possession of the guns but turned them over pursuant to the requirements of the law."

Court records indicate Suggs filed a custody complaint against Williams on Nov. 19, and that Williams filed her complaint after that, Alperstein told the Sun.

Two 911 calls were received from Suggs' address on Nov. 21, but did not yield any reports, Baltimore County police told the Sun.

The Ravens organization and Suggs both declined comment, according to the newspaper.

The Suggs news comes less than a week after Chiefs linebacker Jovan Belcher fatally shot his girlfriend shortly before killing himself with a gun in front of his coach and general manager at Arrowhead Stadium.

USA Today reported Friday that several NFL players estimated about 75 percent of their fellow players owned guns, a figure that didn't sound unreasonable to former Indianapolis Colts coach Tony Dungy.

"I was always shocked at the number of guys who raised their hand," Dungy told the newspaper, referring to his habit of asking which of his players owned guns at his first team meeting every season.

"That was kind of eye-opening to me," Dungy said. "... (But) it's just a fact of life. These guys had them. ... I think so many of these young guys have been around guns and have seen guns, and they just feel that's part of the landscape for them growing up."

Forty to 45 percent of the general American population owns guns, according to the USA Today report, which cited the National Rifle Association.

Pittsburgh Steelers linebacker James Harrison, whom the report describes as one of the biggest gun advocates in sports, said the Belcher story was not related to the prevalence of firearm ownership in the NFL.

"It has nothing to do with the guns," Harrison told USA Today. "Somebody goes out and kills somebody with a knife, you going to blame the knife? It's the person who did it who's responsible."

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/8722433/terrell-suggs-baltimore-ravens-forced-surrender-firearms-part-domestic-case-according-report

D Rock
12-08-2012, 10:53 AM
Then move. Why is it that some people simply don't accept crappy conditions and do something to make change while others just do nothing and say, "See, our schools suck, it's not our fault our kids aren't getting a good education." Then you hear of other parents who simply don't accept a bad environment and do what that have to to change it.


1) I'm not a parent, I just have a job which has me working with kids in schools.

2) I'm getting a new job in January in a much better area.


So shove it.

eniparadoxgma
12-09-2012, 10:57 AM
Well written and thoughtful.

Thanks. Surprised I wasn't vilified for my post. :D

Slapstick
12-09-2012, 12:26 PM
Guns are tools. Tools are inanimate objects. Much like the picture I posted earlier stated, blaming a tool for being used for a criminal act is the equivalent of shooting the messenger. The beer can didn't make you an alcoholic. The plate didn't make you fat. The purple jersey (probably) didn't make you an idiot. Murder and suicide are both decisions made in the mind of the person committing the act and can be carried out with common household items. If someone wants to kill someone they will do it with something and whether that something is a gun or not is irrelevant.

The beer can isn't designed to make someone alcoholic. The plate isn't designed to make someone fat. The purple jersey...well...forget about the purple jersey for a second...

Guns are specifically intended to kill things and assault weapons are specifically intended to kill other people... now, it still takes a person to pull the trigger, but don't pretend that guns are simply a "tool"...

eniparadoxgma
12-09-2012, 12:44 PM
Guns are simply tools. I'm assuming that your issue is that their intended purpose is to kill people and other animals. I argued earlier about the many different circumstances in which having and using a gun for its specific purpose is legitimate. Honestly I'm not sure what you're arguing against. Would you mind clarifying?