rawhide Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Freakin' bastard, assuming that his father is unnamed on the birth certificate gallup poll really? and the numbers are so low because of less guns? itn plus live in a red state ya gotta luv'em MAN LAW Link to comment
carlfense Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 gallup poll really? Does Gallup have a reputation for inaccuracy? plus live in a red state ya gotta luv'em I do like them. Link to comment
knapplc Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 I love guns, too. I would love to own/shoot as many weapons as I could. Guns are cool. I just realize that I don't need them, and they're dangerous to have around. Link to comment
rawhide Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 like is such a ambivalent term; what are you not telling us?? knapp is conflicted too. Love/Danger oooooooooo sorry; you guys are trying to have a serious discussion and I am anything but a serious discussionist??? I think weapons probably need their own category without any political influence Not that I don't believe in the gallup poll; just feel there are too many variables left on the table. not unlike government stats. Link to comment
carlfense Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 like is such a ambivalent term; what are you not telling us?? I own quite a few . . . ? "Like" isn't particularly ambivalent. Link to comment
sd'sker Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Thats fine, they can ban them, after I get my rifles, and I'm on my 10 acres northwest of Rapid City... that is the other thing. different areas deserve different gun laws. new york city is a different world than (the wild) west river. Link to comment
walksalone Posted August 1, 2012 Author Share Posted August 1, 2012 Thats fine, they can ban them, after I get my rifles, and I'm on my 10 acres northwest of Rapid City... that is the other thing. different areas deserve different gun laws. new york city is a different world than (the wild) west river. Exactly, but now I'm in Hell Jersey, and I've only got another 3 or 4 months before I can get my license to go buy my rifles. Too many dipsh*ts around here thinking they're in a gangster rap video, and I'm not going to be unprepared... Link to comment
Chimpsmack Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 Since the Brady Act requiring background checks which are supposed to be done; 1998 to 2010 149 million checks have been done. Same FBI info violent crime from 1991 to 2010 all violent crime has dropped murder from 9,8 to 4.3 per 100k, etc. Yet, the population has increased. How can this be you say. Has it been due to some superduper gun laws, no. Has it been do to less people, no. Two things increased: population and the number of people buying guns. just sayin' Unprecedented drops in crime rate began, basically, in 1991 and continue up to the present day. Mostly due to decline in crack epidemic and increasing rates of incarceration. Access to guns and changes in gun laws had almost no effect in either direction. Decent explanation: http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittUnderstandingWhyCrime2004.pdf Link to comment
Yossarian Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 Since the Brady Act requiring background checks which are supposed to be done; 1998 to 2010 149 million checks have been done. Same FBI info violent crime from 1991 to 2010 all violent crime has dropped murder from 9,8 to 4.3 per 100k, etc. Yet, the population has increased. How can this be you say. Has it been due to some superduper gun laws, no. Has it been do to less people, no. Two things increased: population and the number of people buying guns. just sayin' Unprecedented drops in crime rate began, basically, in 1991 and continue up to the present day. Mostly due to decline in crack epidemic and increasing rates of incarceration. Access to guns and changes in gun laws had almost no effect in either direction. Decent explanation: http://pricetheory.u...hyCrime2004.pdf Don't confuse the argument with facts. Link to comment
walksalone Posted August 2, 2012 Author Share Posted August 2, 2012 When you hear things like... Chicago Homicide Rate Worse Than Kabul http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/16/chicago-homicide-rate-wor_n_1602692.html Camden man shot to death; fourth murder in the city in 47 hours http://www.nj.com/gloucester-county/index.ssf/2012/06/camden_man_shot_to_death_fourt.html it doesn't inspire a lot of confidence... Link to comment
MLB 51 Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 Since the Brady Act requiring background checks which are supposed to be done; 1998 to 2010 149 million checks have been done. Same FBI info violent crime from 1991 to 2010 all violent crime has dropped murder from 9,8 to 4.3 per 100k, etc. Yet, the population has increased. How can this be you say. Has it been due to some superduper gun laws, no. Has it been do to less people, no. Two things increased: population and the number of people buying guns. just sayin' Unprecedented drops in crime rate began, basically, in 1991 and continue up to the present day. Mostly due to decline in crack epidemic and increasing rates of incarceration. Access to guns and changes in gun laws had almost no effect in either direction. Decent explanation: http://pricetheory.u...hyCrime2004.pdf Not in Tulsa, Ok. Link to comment
Chimpsmack Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 When looking at the crime statistics for the country as a whole, it is normal that specific locations might remain dangerous or even become more dangerous, even though the overall statistics show massive decreases in crime Link to comment
rawhide Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 Pack lots of rats into a finite space. See what happens. just sayin' rats=people idk you make the call Link to comment
'SkersRule Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 And the framers of the constitution believed in a small, limited in scope and power, federal government with the states holding the majority of power... The only problem being that this isn't true. You don't even need to go into the writings of the founder to see that it isn't true. It's right in the Constitution itself. Yet another example of the alternative reality theory. The founder? So there was only one? . And the Federalist Papers, which is what our Constitution is based on, clearly articulated a limited federal government. Carlfense demonstrates yet another example of the alternative reality theory. 1 Link to comment
carlfense Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 And the framers of the constitution believed in a small, limited in scope and power, federal government with the states holding the majority of power... How do you reconcile the underlined with Article VI Clause 2? Specifically, how can you argue that the framers intended for the states to hold "the majority of power" when they specifically gave the federal government supreme authority? You can quote whatever you'd like from the Federalist Papers. I've read them as well. They don't change what is said in the Constitution itself. Link to comment
Recommended Posts