The many faces of George Dubbya

[JamieW]

You seem to have it locked down here just fine. The boy ignores previous arguments even though they are very important (England, Australia gun bans and rising crime rates) and seems to strive for a personal ideal in spite of facts and history.

I must say though, I don't entirely agree with you on Bush's pro-2A stance. He did say that he would sign the AWB if it came to him for renewal. Some people have said it was a political move since he never expected it to come to him as is. I say he still said he would sign it. And this coupled with the Patriot Act makes me wonder which devil is worse. The trouncing of our rights by both parties has me a little upset.

Now the likelihood of there being a renewal after the recent trouncing of it is pretty slim. Especially considering the CDC has stated that they are unable to find a correlation between the AWB and crime rates. What most people fail to realize about the ban is that it is almost entirely cosmetic. They hear buzzwords put out by the Brady Bunch and get worked up into a frenzy and never seem to care about facts.

But I must say it is nice to see a sport shooter in the 2A camp. Sport shooters and hunters tend to not care thinking that no one is coming after their guns. They would be wise to watch proposed legislation. And aviation, people are in fact going after sporting shotguns and hunting rifles.

[ClayBuster]

I think he thought it was a pretty safe bet it would never even make it to his desk. IIRC 18 Dems. Lost their jobs after they voted the AWB in.

As for the Sport Shooter most of my friends feel the same way. Once they start taking some they will just want some more. What we need is a Henry Bowman


Time to Feed the Pigs I guess.

[aviationwiz]

"A shotgun, (an $8000 one at that) is a lot less likely to be used in a crime due to cost, size, reload rate, etc. A pistol, or other such type of assualt gun, is very likely to be used, due to it's compact size, lower cost (as you mentioned) and they reload faster. I, and no one else really, is arguing for a ban on gun sales on those used for hunting, etc. Those used for crimes and assualts are another thing."

You asked him to support his points and then you don't support your own. Go ahead, support this point with fact. I dare you.

Common Sence my friend

And while you are at it, I would like you to explain this statement and how it actually pertains to me as it was semi-gibberish. I think I understand, but I'd like you to clarify it.

"I find it lovely that that is what most "gun nuts" (as JamieW, and wicked1 like to put it) react to when someone attempts to use America's political system as it was meant (as you and I are) rather than just supporting the majority and leaving the minority in the dust."

It doesn't pertain to you directly, I used the term gun nut as that's what you & wicked1 like to call yourselves, and that's how I'd also classify the nuts at the NRA as well that were shouting "vote for bush" and "get a life" That being how they do not give a shit about the minority.

[ClayBuster]

Actually Aviationwiz it is not common sense it is what the media lets the sheople think.

I could do more damage to anyone or thing with a $150 pump shotgun and 20 rounds of ammo than those punks did with the 100's of rounds they used in half the time. That same $150 Remington 870 shotgun is used by more people than any other for Hunting, Plinking and sport shooting.

[JamieW]

What do you do when Common "Sence" is defeated by fact? Do you continue to ignore the facts? As ClayBuster so aptly pointed out, shotguns are potentially the most lethal and versatile of all firearms. But you still have not managed to endorse your point with facts. I do not believe you can. It was a pitiful attempt at a dodge, and noted by everyone over 7th grade.

And while I am happy to see that doesn't pertain to me directly, that man was not trying to use the political system for change. He was at a meeting for a private organization. The NRA is not government funded or ran. It was their meeting and they may have who they want it. And I would say this for anyone. The Bill of Rights exists to protect individual rights from both the government and the majority. It protects the smaller religions from the vast religions. The quiet voices from being shut down by the loud voices. That you think this is a minority vs. majority issue tells me that you do not understand the Bill of Rights.

[wicked1]

As for the Jobs going overseas I say good and fuck all those Union bastards they are the reason. My next door Neighbor makes $26 as a janitor at GM and brags about only working about 3 hours out of an eight hour day. They gotta make cuts somewhere and since you can't send the janitors overseas something has gotta give. If GM can cut it designers cost by 70% I say good do it. I'm sure I wouldn't feel the same way though if my job was exportable.

I worked at GM the last 4 years as a security/emergency officer. You are soooo right about its bullshit they make 26-90 an hour depending on position sleep 50% of their shift. I used to have to clear out bunks made in the plant as a fire hazard.Pathetic

[pranav81]

i don't know that Kashmir is any better than Israel...

Yeah,
Thanks to our shithead neighbour country.
India really is heaven in world,except for the hell besides it.


::Pranav::

[wicked1]

quote:Earlier in the day, Tom Mauser, whose son, Daniel, was killed with an assault weapon in the Columbine High School killings five years ago, tried to enter the convention hall where the NRA was meeting, seeking to urge Cheney to support extending the assault weapons ban.

Mauser was turned away by a security guard as several conventioneers applauded. A couple of conventioneers yelled "Get a life" and "Vote for Bush."

I agree in that instance. It wasnt the guns fault and assault weapon is a political term.People die. It happens. Deal with it. No stupid law is gonna change the fact people will kill people.Maybe it would be homemade bombs. Maybe more Oklahoma city like. With a gun his killing options are somewhat limited due to ammo,accuracy etc. What if he put an ANFO charge in the cafeteria? Hundreds dead. See guns save lives.

[wicked1]

[quote="aviationwiz]
A shotgun, (an $8000 one at that) is a lot less likely to be used in a crime due to cost, size, reload rate, etc. A pistol, or other such type of assualt gun, is very likely to be used, due to it's compact size, lower cost (as you mentioned) and they reload faster. I, and no one else really, is arguing for a ban on gun sales on those used for hunting, etc. Those used for crimes and assualts are another thing.

[/quote]

If I were going to snap as a teenager its going to be the easiest thing to get that will be used like a fathers shotgun etc. You know the 250 dollar winchester/remingtons that everyone owns.Easier to get ammo legally too.Not an expensive rifle as weapon of choice. As was already pointed out above and I have seen this too very little crimes are commited by so called "BAD" guns that need more restrictions.Nope its the common ones stolen from people or bought cheap. I dont call an ar-15 a cheap gun.Hell even ak47s are at least 350. Shotguns can be under 200 and do a helluva lot more carnage.

[UALOneKPlus]

LOL very interesting thread.

I support 2nd amendment rights, but I respect Aviationwiz's willingness to take a stand

[Bhairav]

i don't know that Kashmir is any better than Israel...

Yeah,
Thanks to our shithead neighbour country.
India really is heaven in world,except for the hell besides it.


::Pranav::

So true . My mum's from there, and it's so sad... being Hindus, they were forced out for no reason, except that the Puki terrorists went on a genocidal-religious rampage.

[JamieW]

Aviation,

Since you have just avoided backing up your "Common 'Sence'" with fact, I will do it for you. According to the ATF's 2000 study:

#1 Handgun used in crimes: Smith & Wesson, .38 Special
#2 Handgun used in crimes: Ruger, 9mm

This should adequately defeat your "is very likely to be used, due to it's compact size, lower cost (as you mentioned) and they reload faster" argument. Not compact, average costs, not a very quick reload.

But on to the bulk of your statement that a shotgun is less likely to be used:

#1 Long gun used in crimes: Mossberg 12 gauge
#2 Long gun used in crimes: Marlin .22
#3 Long gun used in crimes: SKS (7.62mm x 39mm)
#4 Long gun used in crimes: Remington 12 gauge
#5 Long gun used in crimes: Winchester 12 guage
#6 Long gun used in crimes: Savage 12 guage
#7-#9: .22s
#10: Maverick arms 12 gauge.

And the models of the 12 gauges are ALL pump shotguns. The SKS, while it may seem scary, has an internal magazine requiring stripper clips to load, rifle stock, and only holds 10 rounds and does not qualify under the Brady Bill as an "assault weapon."

What does your "common sence" say now?

[ClayBuster]

Kerry For Sportsmen.

http://www.johnkerry.com/communities/sportsmen LMFAO

Protect the rights of Americans to own and bear firearms

John Kerry is a Lifelong Hunter & Will Defend Hunting Rights

Supports the Brady Bill & Mandatory Background Checks

Strongly Supports 2nd Amendment & Gun Owners Rights
Worked with Law Enforcement Agencies to Ban Military Assault Weapons

Will Work to Close the “Gun Loophole

[aviationwiz]

Think about it, a handgun is much smaller than a shot gun, think about it! I don't classify between handguns and shotguns and all that shit. A gun is a gun is a gun. If you want to be a gun nut and study all the models and shit, be my guest, but a shotgun IS larger than a handun. I play SOCOM 2 enough to know that. While it may not be 300% realistic, the game deals enough with guns for me to know that a handgun would be more likely to be used in a bank robbery or gas station robbery than a shotgun, which is freaking huge! A shotgun is more likely to be used on higher crimes requiring accuracy I would assume, while a handgun would do for day to day crimes with most people.

My take short, I don't want every Tom, Dick, & Harry to have a gun walking down the street. You never know when one of em' is gonna snap and go on a shooting spree. If I see someone on the street with a gun, I'd probably get out of the area just for good measure's sake, of course, JamieW, you'd just be there with your Ruger 9mm and shoot first,

[JamieW]

That's simply not the reason why. The use of handguns used in crimes is slightly less than the ratio of handguns owned legally by private citizens. The reason they are more present in crimes is that they are more present in the country. If they were less present, the crimes would be committed with a different tool, but still committed nonetheless. And even though handgun ownership has more than doubled in the last 30 years, both homocides and homocides with handguns has dropped. Also, when citizens are legally carrying arms the following has happened:

Murder rates drop 8%
Rape rates drop 5%
Aggravated assault drops 7%

States that do not "allow" their citizens to carry handguns show the following:

Robbery +105% (not 5% over other states, 105% over)
Murder +86%
Assault +82%
Violent Crime +81%
Auto theft +60%
Rape +25%

States that banned the easily concealed, low cost guns saw an increase in murder rates while the states that did not pass such bans saw a decline in murder rates.

My take is that based on this, every Tom, Dick, & Harry should be carrying.

And no, I would not just shoot someone even if they presented a gun. This is a falsehood presented by those Brady Bunch idiots that those of us carrying are shoot first type folk. If I'm shooting, its because I have no superior means to keep myself and my loved ones safe. Oh, and about the shooting spree myth? People legally carrying have been found to be significantly less likely to commit ANY sort of crime.

[JamieW]

By the way, I've presented facts to dispute your views and their foundations. You've presented an opinion that exists despite facts to the contrary. I've always wondered: what makes someone hold a view despite facts proving their views wrong? If you want citations from my facts, I can provide most of them pretty quickly. I would like you to either explain holding the view even when presented with mountains of evidence to the contrary or present your own facts (and I won't accept handgun control, inc., brady campaign, million mom march, and their ilk as a citation). My facts come from the CDC and FBI mostly.

[Ian]

A shotgun is more likely to be used on higher crimes requiring accuracy I would assume

Like shooting accuracy? I take it you've never shot a real shotgun.

In all honesty, the guy that's gonna go crazy on the street and start popping people isn't your average sport shooter or hunter. He's probably a criminal or some other nut job that acquired the gun illegally. When this happens, and they start taking out innocent people, you'd be glad to see someone like JamieW take them out before they can injure more people.

aviationwiz, before debating with me or JamieW over this, read the facts. Don't listen to the hippie propaganda that's on the evening news, let alone base your experiences on a video game. Hell if video games really made people violent, I'd be up in a clock tower right now.

[socheat]

Second thread on CDRLabs about something I'm not a big fan of (the other being the marijuana issue), but I'm also not for taking away people's freedom. At least once in recent US history (prohibition), we've seen that when we take away rights from people, it does more harm than good. Organized crime took off during prohibition because even though alcohol was illegal, people still wanted it, and were willing to risk the consequences to get it. If guns are banned, people would still carry. No question. And now they'd be walking around a little more nervous about getting caught... not a good thing.

But, gotta question for you JamieW,

People legally carrying have been found to be significantly less likely to commit ANY sort of crime.

I can believe what you said, but I think it might change if *everyone* was carrying. Just about every system works ideally when there are a few, educated people using and practicing it. Things go real funky once once hundreds and thousands of people join in. Kind of similar (and this is a stretch) to the "*nix/BSD is stable and secure, everyone should use it" argument. The more people who use it, the less stable and secure it will get. I know there are already hundreds, thousands, millions(?) of people carrying guns now, but it's still a good deal smaller than the entire US population.

Aren't there a few steps to getting a gun, like background checks and what not, making the process only worthwhile for the people who are really serious about legally getting a gun? I know a few people who like to do things just because they can. And that exact same attitude makes me think they shouldn't be doing those things (like getting a gun). I'm wondering, do you think what you said would still be true if everyone was carrying?

Again, apart from the facts posted here, I don't really have any. Just curious to hear opinions.

[JamieW]

I'm not what you would call a 2A absolutist. I'm not opposed to background checks (NICS), but I am opposed to them being used as backdoor gun owner registration by the ATF. The law as I understand states that the ATF shall destroy the NICS within 24 hours of receipt. It has been discovered that they are holding them at least 6 months after they get them. I'm not opposed to conceal carry permit system provided it isn't discretionary. Virginia's system is that it shall issue the permit provided the person meets X, Y, and Z criteria. A good deal of those criteria involve the person's criminal record particularly as it pertains to violent crime and the person prove some familiarity via training certification (not required to be government organized or funded). I oppose waiting periods as they have done nothing at all in reducing crimes but do impede the practice of one's right. I oppose stupid legislation like mandatory locks, "safe storage" rules, and 99% of the bans. I think most things firearm related should be legal under circumstances.

Criminals by definition will break the law and you cannot stop it by legislation. We should therefore seek to punish the act, not the tool, and attempt to remove the element from society. So to answer your question, no, I really don't believe literally everyone should carry and I really believe in the systems of some states such as Virginia. But I think every person should have the right to even if it requires some verification that they have not already given up that right by abusing it.

One trap most blissninnies fall into here is that they do not understand what they are saying. They will respond with "well, should you be allowed to have a grenade?!?!" A grenade falls much more under "ordnance" than it does "arms." Bombs are not arms, they are ordnance. I do not believe grenades/bombs/nukes etc fall under the 2A. Whether or not they should or should not be illegal is another question.

[VEFF]

Good points aviationwiz. I could have explained them but then it would only be torn apart word for word by people like yourself.

1. He truly beleives what he is doing is right. So do I

2. He is not afaid to tell the UN or any other organization to go fuck themselves. ( I really like that )

3. He seems genuine to me and not one of the more highly polished politicians He stumbles on words and does stupid things as ALL of us have done from time to time, President or not he is only Human

4. He thinks The Second Amendment means exactly what it says. And that my friends gets my Vote everytime as I am a single issue voter.

As for the Jobs going overseas I say good and fuck all those Union bastards they are the reason. My next door Neighbor makes $26 as a janitor at GM and brags about only working about 3 hours out of an eight hour day. They gotta make cuts somewhere and since you can't send the janitors overseas something has gotta give. If GM can cut it designers cost by 70% I say good do it. I'm sure I wouldn't feel the same way though if my job was exportable.

You have your right to support Bush, and I am not going to comment on that part of your post.

However, I felt the need to reply about the "jobs going overseas" part.
As Ian said, a lot of Information Technology jobs are going abroad; that isn't unionized labor, or "union bastards" as you so eloquently put it.
IT employees make very high salaries in many cases, but they do work more than 3 hours and are also called after hours if something goes wrong. They are not protected by unions and therefore have unknown levels of job security.
Those high salaries can help them build up some financial security for the day their job gets outsourced to India, or China which is supposedly the next trend in outsourcing.
The best way, other than luck, to beta the odds, is to have value-added capabilites, such as knowing both the business side and the IT side and/or just having a very good reputation within your firm.

Just my two cents...

[jase]

You seem to have it locked down here just fine. The boy ignores previous arguments even though they are very important (England, Australia gun bans and rising crime rates) and seems to strive for a personal ideal in spite of facts and history.

I don't want to get involved in the wider argument about firearms again (because I will acknowledge that I just don't know enough about the differing cultures etc, and I will always be defeated in a debate by someone who knows more than I do so there is little point in getting involved).

However, may I just draw attention to figures released in the UK recently which are showing that violent crime levels are no longer rising in most of the UK:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3667985.stm

The latest figures from the Metropolitan Police show that things are improving. In areas covered by Operation Trident, the specialist gun crime unit within black communities, the murder rate halved in the year to April 2004 - down from 24 to 12.

Attempted murders have fallen by a fifth (from 60 to 47). Gun-related violent crime across all of London has falled by 7%.

It is a similar story in other parts of the UK. We are turning the corner, thank whatever is up there...

[JamieW]

Interesting to say the least. I'd like to know whats going on and why.