Gun Control, A rational discussion Options

[Big P]

<======Gun Control!

This post has been edited by Big P: 09/30/07 12:30am

[Capt.Krueger]

Naw...its our Man Druid....... the research, the eloquence, the sheer size of the post sure smacks of him...nice to see ya around!!

not to mention knowledge of previous topics, and...tadaa... his name Is Robert

[Bargod]

I thought maybe, but I dared not dream it...
I certainly hope it's true, while at the same time nearly dreading the fact that...

THE STUDENT WILL MEET THE MASTER!!!!!!!!


Yeah, so there are problems with the arguement. Sure, I didn't know about the CDC and sponsering of anti-gun, yadda yadda... but you were still sloppy and didn't directly dispute some very clear points I made.

I'll be posting soon enough my counter to the newest voice in "anit-gun control".

I'm sure it will be good reading by all. It shouldn't be too difficult... ;P

Till whenever I get around to it,
I bid you adieu or something...
















Like Japan ever had an invasion plan for the US... that's just stupid....

[Genocide Junkie]

Did I tell you I was thinking about buying a boat?

[Bargod]

Like Japan ever had an invasion plan for the US... that's just stupid....

Of course, I know that the Japanese actually invaded the Aleutians, but to consider that they ever had any intention of "invading" the US is silly. Their intention was to knock out the US navy and get a Non-Aggression Pact to stay out of war with the US. Of course, they didn't get the message to drop diplomatic talks with the US in time so they just "woke the sleeping giant".

[Capt. Andtennille]

Did I tell you I was thinking about buying a boat?

Cool. What are you looking for? I might just be able to help you out.

[Robert]

Well now I regret including the quotes from Yamamoto as it clouds the subject.
Just to clarify things. I wasn't talking about a large scale invasion with occupation being the goal.
I was talking about land based assaults for the purpose of damaging or destroying industry that could be used to fuel the American war machine, much of which was based right there along the coast.
Sure it's easy to look back with 20/20 vision and say it couldn't have happened.
I'm sure people thought the same thing about an attack on Pearl right up to Dec. 7th.

Things were very different back then, parts of the Military thought an attack on the coast was likely.
Keep in mind, Japan was batting 1000 at the time.
Look at how quickly they took control of everywhere they went.
Guam, Wake islands, Sumatra, Guadalcanal, Hong Kong, Manchuria , Manila, Burma, Okinawa, Malaya, Singapore, New Guinea, Borneo and the East Indies, etc.
They ran us out of the Philippines in a matter of weeks.
Our only other stronghold in the Pacific ( Pearl) had already been devastated.
It was pure luck the attack on Pearl didn't catch 2 aircraft carriers in port. One had just left and another ready to arrive.
An example of what was at stake along the coast.
Douglas Aircraft in Santa Monica and the surrounding industry represented half of the U.S. military fighter/light bomber aircraft production.
90% of heavy bomber production was done just outside of L.A.
5 naval shipyards.
When they took the Aleutian Islands, many people in the military expected it to be used for a forward bomber base. While other military leaders thought the capture of the Aleutian Islands was a fake ruse. They believed it was done to make us focus north while the real attack would come from the south, at one point MacArthur ( back in the U.S. after the loss of the Philippines ) predicted an invasion force would land in Mexico just south of the California and drive up from the Mexico/U.S. border.

Of course a full scale invasion was completely impossible, just from a logistics standpoint.
Small effective strikes were not only possible, but predicted by many people in the military.
I just thought Yamamoto quote was a relevant as it pointed out that the U.S. would have been better prepared than almost any other county to repel an invasion due to the fact unlike most nations, we have an armed civilian population.
Think of it in a different way, transplant a section of America with some of the countries Germany invaded.
Compared to them, we would have been better prepared to conduct an effective civilian resistance.
An no, I'm not saying a group of armed farmers could withstand an advance of German tanks
Just consider how much more effective the resistance movements in places like Poland/France would have been if there was an armed civilian population prior to the start of the war.
The same holds true for the Japanese in the Pacific.
Sure several of the Island chains the Japanese invaded, were easy pickings due to their low population but they had just as easy of a time invading high population areas such as, Manchuria, Burma, Malaya and Singapore.
After Japan destroyed the limited military ability of these area's, they had easy control of a combined population of 40+ million people. Why? because the civilian people had either limited or no ability to personally defend themselves.
Look at it this way, even it you removed our natural defense ( Pacific and Atlantic oceans), we would still be better prepared to defend ourselves then almost any nation.
I'm not talking modern day, I'm talking WWII era
Which brings me right back to the underlying meaning behind Yamamoto's quote.
"There would be an American with a rifle behind each blade of grass"
You may not agree but in my PERSONAL opinion I think it was a modern day example of what the Founding Fathers envisioned when they wrote the 2nd Amendment

At the time there was no telling what Japan would do to postpone our involvement in the War.
If you want an interesting read, do a search for Fire Balloons.
We were very lucky they didn't have the required technology to develop a biological weapon ( they tried but failed ), as they had the perfect delivery system via the balloons.




Anyhoo....
Just for shits and grins
Let's all put on our rose colored glasses an envision a day in the not to distant future where every single handgun except those used by police have been rounded up and destroyed..
It\'s now officially illegal to own a firearm.
What do you think what happen?
We would sudden all live in peace an harmony?
There would little or no violent crime?
What I think would happen would be a black market where every criminal who wanted a gun could get one.
I can't find it now, I use to have a link to either a FBI or DEA sudy which concluded it would only take a year of smuggling before there would be a big enough supply that a gun t would be available to every criminal that wanted one.
It sucks that I can't find the link but I hope it's not needed.
To me common sense would say, if we can't stop illegal drug smuggling, we probably couldn't do much better for illegal gun smuggling.
For that matter, if we can't keep illegal people out, then how are we suppose to keep illegal guns out?


Something I forgot to bring up when discussing the CDC external studies that were bought and paid for by doctors who just happen to belong to a gun control advocacy group.
The CDC did their own legitimate study a few years back.
It was the single largest study done to evaluate the effectiveness of gun control measures and the prevention of gun related violence.
What did they find?
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm#tab
Turns out not much.
"The application of imperfect methods to imperfect data has commonly resulted in inconsistent and otherwise insufficient evidence with which to determine the effectiveness of firearms laws in modifying violent outcomes.
"Insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of gun control laws"
I'm not going to claim this as some big victory like some gun rights groups have.
What I do find interesting is how can gun control groups still claim a direct link between restrictive gun laws and reduced gun related violence when the single biggest independent study done wasn't able to show a link.


Which takes us right back to square one.
To me the single biggest problem with all the statistics used by gun control advocates is they never separate out
legal use of a legally owned weapon by a law abiding citizen
versus
illegally use of a weapon by a criminal who due to their prior criminal history cannot even legally own a gun.

[Genocide Junkie]

Did I tell you I was thinking about buying a boat?

Cool. What are you looking for? I might just be able to help you out.

A big one able to tow topics off course.... see now I got you talking about boats.

[Capt. Andtennille]

Did I tell you I was thinking about buying a boat?

Cool. What are you looking for? I might just be able to help you out.

A big one able to tow topics off course.... see now I got you talking about boats.

Will this one work?







Shortly after we got it.







More recent (after we renamed it).

[Bargod]

Well, Mr. Robert, you bring up many good points. Some of whcih i really need to look into more.
I do know that there is a decent amnt. of CRAP that I needed to wade through....
I'm not saying it's all cray...
But you seem to pick and choose numbers as well as anyone else.
We'll talk about these numbers in the future...

[Genocide Junkie]

And you people are talking about guns being dangerous... why not focus on a real problem. Bet this one is a choice most of you wouldn't want our lovely gov't taking away from you. Here's some info for your reading pleasure.

http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/downloads/pdf/tfrs/v5i5.pdf

The losses from smoking-caused fires have been consistently high over the past 25 years— In 2002 alone, lighted tobacco products caused an estimated 14,450 residential fires, 520 deaths, 1,330 injuries, and $371 million in residential property damage.1, 2


http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/..._and_Health.asp

More than 7 million current and former smokers suffer from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the name used to describe both chronic bronchitis and emphysema. COPD is the fourth leading cause of death in America, and the number of women dying from the disease is higher than the number of men. Smoking is the primary risk factor for COPD. About 80% to 90% of COPD deaths are caused by smoking

Pregnant women who smoke risk the health and lives of their unborn babies. Smoking during pregnancy is linked with a greater chance of miscarriage, premature delivery, stillbirth, infant death, low birth weight, and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). Up to 10% of infant deaths would be prevented if pregnant women did not smoke. This would amount to 2600-3600 babies a year who live in the US alone.

About half of all the people who continue to smoke will die because of the habit. In the United States, tobacco causes nearly 1 in 5 deaths, killing about 440,000 Americans each year. Smoking is the single most preventable cause of death in our society.

Based on current patterns, smoking will kill about 650 million people alive in the world today.

This is just a tiny piece of what is really out there. I'm not a smart man but me thinks 650 million is a few more than whatever number you want to dig up from your studies on guns.... So let's keep things in perspective when we talk about exactly how dangerous these are.

[Bargod]

Totally different subject, but I agree. How can alcohol and tobacco be legal, yet possesion of marijuana is a criminal offense?

High Fructose Corn Syrup is making our nation obese and is a leading cause of childhood diabetes, and also causing children to get adult diabetes. Why? Because it's because we put tariffs on imported sugar to keep the price of American sugar higher, while subsidising corn. So, making the seriously unhealthy HFCS, a complex chemical process, is still cheaper than sugar.

[PFC Mustangman]

This might interest you. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trZ96d59hmY They only go to honest folks not the real crooks.

[cowdoc]

Jeeze, don't you people have jobs or something. Do you just sit around thinking this shit up and doing research to back up your arguments.



I am a gun owner. I love the fact that I can own a gun. I have lots of them and I plan on getting more. I even want to get fully automatic weapons, the bigger the better. Why? Because they exist and I want to blow the shit out of an old car or TV just to say I did. I am the guntoting, conservative redneck they talk about on the news. I don't need to debate this issue. I know what is right and I know what is wrong because my parents taught me so.



Someone earlier quated they have the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." I believe these are guaranteed by the Bill of Rights which also says somewhere in there that "these rights are inalienable",which means to me cannot be taken away.



People need to stop trying to tell others how to live their lives. You don't want to own a gun, don't. Don't want to get shot accidently,don't hang out with people that own guns. If you don't want to get shot on purpose, stop trying to take peoples guns away from them.



That is redneck logic.



I now realize why I only check forums about once every 2 months, because I always get stuck reading this pseudophilosophical bullshit. Why don't you guys start a thread and argue about why some people get blue belly button lint and others get grey.



I'm done, see you in 2 months.

[Bargod]

Ouch. The whole point of this was to have a debate. I like debating. I like arguing. I'll argue points I know are wrong or that I actually disagree with because to me it's fun.
I was actually think about making a forum room for debates that I come up with. No lie. I just thought of that while washing the dishes like an hour ago.