Gun politics

[froggyluv 2136]

Lol. Radical militia type numbers are way way down from what they used to be. And if you can post one link to an article reporting an incident involving a radical militia group, in the US, in the last 5 years, I'll honestly be blown away.

http://www.mainjustice.com/2010/03/29/militia-group-members-planned-to-kill-cops-feds-say/

Well you said incident -and planning or trying to kill cops qualifies in my book.

[HyperU2 11]

Unless it's a rap song.

[froggyluv 2136]

LOL, you mean Ice-T. Heh, if you want to consider him a threat be my guest but from what I've heard he's made his peace with the PO-PO not playing army in the woods with Christian ramblings and AntiChrist fears.

Heres more Militia cop killing dreaming

http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20110313/NEWS02/703139890

[RSF TheCapulet 59]

Heh, wow. I actually am a little blown away. But in my defense, half of all the links you posted are from Alaska. And they don't count. :P lol.

But realistically, all of those involved in the articles were criminals. And their 'type' account for .000000000001 of all responsible firearm owners. In fact, I know quite a few men who are in the local Indiana militia here, and one of them is a really good friend of mine. (He's also a LEO. Go figure.) Not only do they firmly stamp out any radical or racial extremist thoughts within their ranks, they also go a long way to help the community. For instance, the Indiana Militia helped, in partnership with the Red Cross, to help in the search and cleanup process after the massive flooding in this state earlier this spring. They also run multiple highway cleanup events, and even donate to quite a few charities on a regular basis.

Just because some nutjob (And I use that term outside of a firearms context) wants to massacre some state and law officials doesn't mean that most are like that, or even that anyone but the one's who got busted are like that.

Edited September 28, 2011 by TheCapulet

[GRS 10]

And the ones who get punished for it are the rest of us.

[froggyluv 2136]

Yep, well I'm not saying all miltias are bad eggs and I'm most certainly not saying all gun-owners are bad people by any means.

I've been paying attention to the extreme radical militias for a while now as everytime I heard them speak (from the 90's on), they come across as hyper-aggressive, waiting for the signal, racist-undercurrent (sometimes blatant) don't F' with us or we'll kill -type of people. Their websites are full of extreme paranoia conspiracy theories.

Now if it was just a few Billy-Bobs, it wouldn't concern me -but they're in the 10's of thousands.

There used to be a guy on these forums who claimed membership and man he was so keyed up waiting for Go time when he could actually start shootin. Strange people.

[tacticalnuggets 24]

Yep, well I'm not saying all miltias are bad eggs and I'm most certainly not saying all gun-owners are bad people by any means.

I've been paying attention to the extreme radical militias for a while now as everytime I heard them speak (from the 90's on), they come across as hyper-aggressive, waiting for the signal, racist-undercurrent (sometimes blatant) don't F' with us or we'll kill -type of people. Their websites are full of extreme paranoia conspiracy theories.

Now if it was just a few Billy-Bobs, it wouldn't concern me -but they're in the 10's of thousands.

There used to be a guy on these forums who claimed membership and man he was so keyed up waiting for Go time when he could actually start shootin. Strange people.

I'm calling you out on hutaree. Last time I checked, they were charged with conspiracy and the case against them is falling apart because no actual recording of conspiracy has been received from the plant.

All these stories have been designed to convince you, froggyluv, that you are not safe from militias putting you in this mind set. The only paranoid people are the ones who believe this evil militia nonsense.

[froggyluv 2136]

You know sometimes where there's smoke, theres fire. Case may fall apart, did with OJ Simpson as well, does that change the truth?

There is most certainly an element within certain Militias that have extreme antagonistic views against all authorities, are waiting for a civil war, race war, New World Order troops etc.. and some want to light the match. You know it and I know it.

When you say the story was 'designed' -by who? Left wing media? Illumanati?

Like I've said, I ve heard enough of these guys speak and visited enough of their websites to know venom when I see it. They may be the minority in the Miltia movement, but they're there nevertheless.

The only paranoid people are the ones who believe this evil militia nonsense.

You must be joking -people who are concerned about an extremely large armed group who (some) practice drills on how to fight authorities and troops trumps the paranoia of these actually armed people? When an armed anti-militia group in the thousands show up I'll take your opinion a little more seriously.

Edited September 28, 2011 by froggyluv

[st_dux 26]

But for every example like this, you can find an example of a wife who would be alive today if her husband didn't have a gun in the house when tempers flared (or inverse the sexes depending on your preference :P).

It's not even close to a 1:1 ratio. It is difficult to assess exactly how often the availability of guns to the general public has stopped crime because the gun isn't actually fired in the vast majority of incidents, but estimates are in the range of 2.5 million per year or an average of 6,850 (of which 1,100 are potential homicides) per day. This data comes straight from the American Bureau of Justice Statistics in a National Crime Victimization Survey that took place in 2000. Incidents in which a husband loses his mind and kills his wife in a blind rage are exceedingly rare by comparison.

The great fear that an armed society will evolve into an ultra-violent society where any heated argument turns into a shootout at the O.K. Corral is simply illusory. It's never happened like that anywhere at any point in history. The fact is that guns really don't turn ordinary people into killers. The relative ease with which a gun can be mechanically operated belies the immense psychological difficulty that the vast majority of people have with taking another life. Ordinary people, even when they become very angry or agitated, will almost never want to take that last step and kill; they just don't have it in them, and the presence of a gun doesn't do anything to change that.

[RSF TheCapulet 59]

You know sometimes where there's smoke, theres fire. Case may fall apart, did with OJ Simpson as well, does that change the truth?

There is most certainly an element within certain Militias that have extreme antagonistic views against all authorities, are waiting for a civil war, race war, New World Order troops etc.. and some want to light the match. You know it and I know it.

When you say the story was 'designed' -by who? Left wing media? Illumanati?

Like I've said, I ve heard enough of these guys speak and visited enough of their websites to know venom when I see it. They may be the minority in the Miltia movement, but they're there nevertheless.

You must be joking -people who are concerned about an extremely large armed group who (some) practice drills on how to fight authorities and troops trumps the paranoia of these actually armed people? When an armed anti-militia group in the thousands show up I'll take your opinion a little more seriously.

So do we start judging people now for anything that anyone says they've done wrong? Guilty not only before their innocence is proven, but guilty after as well? I don't agree with that at all.

Armed Anti-"Extremist"Militia groups do number in the thousands. Or in reality, millions. Every armed American who loves his home, state, and country can be lumped into that group.

It's not even close to a 1:1 ratio. It is difficult to assess exactly how often the availability of guns to the general public has stopped crime because the gun isn't actually fired in the vast majority of incidents, but estimates are in the range of 2.5 million per year or an average of 6,850 (of which 1,100 are potential homicides) per day. This data comes straight from the American Bureau of Justice Statistics in a National Crime Victimization Survey that took place in 2000. Incidents in which a husband loses his mind and kills his wife in a blind rage are exceedingly rare by comparison.

The great fear that an armed society will evolve into an ultra-violent society where any heated argument turns into a shootout at the O.K. Corral is simply illusory. It's never happened like that anywhere at any point in history. The fact is that guns really don't turn ordinary people into killers. The relative ease with which a gun can be mechanically operated belies the immense psychological difficulty that the vast majority of people have with taking another life. Ordinary people, even when they become very angry or agitated, will almost never want to take that last step and kill; they just don't have it in them, and the presence of a gun doesn't do anything to change that.

+1 on some more common sense.

[weaponsfree 46]

It's not even close to a 1:1 ratio. It is difficult to assess exactly how often the availability of guns to the general public has stopped crime because the gun isn't actually fired in the vast majority of incidents, but estimates are in the range of 2.5 million per year or an average of 6,850 (of which 1,100 are potential homicides) per day. This data comes straight from the American Bureau of Justice Statistics in a National Crime Victimization Survey that took place in 2000. Incidents in which a husband loses his mind and kills his wife in a blind rage are exceedingly rare by comparison.

The great fear that an armed society will evolve into an ultra-violent society where any heated argument turns into a shootout at the O.K. Corral is simply illusory. It's never happened like that anywhere at any point in history. The fact is that guns really don't turn ordinary people into killers. The relative ease with which a gun can be mechanically operated belies the immense psychological difficulty that the vast majority of people have with taking another life. Ordinary people, even when they become very angry or agitated, will almost never want to take that last step and kill; they just don't have it in them, and the presence of a gun doesn't do anything to change that.

I'm willing to accept that there it is possible that more murders are prevented than caused through legal gun ownership, but I am wary of stats on this subject. As with a lot of debates, people take the ones they like, and ignore those they don't. But that aside, I use the example of Montreal to point out what I mean. Violent crime is pretty low here, as is gun ownership, and public weapons carrying is entirely illegal. I am not saying that there is a connection, but rather to show that you can have a relatively peaceful society without the requirement of an armed citizenry (especially one that carries in public). Quebec is a colonial society, which means we came from a generally armed populace (fighting and hunting), to eventually get to where we are now. I honestly am not too sure why it's a non-violent city (Quebec City to the east, which is about 1million people is even less violent per capita, and has low gun ownership). I prefer to look to whatever makes these places relatively non-violent without the need to have a carrying public.

I think using stats and examples is pretty useless in the end. It seems to boil down to "I want to be allowed to carry my gun in public" vs "I don't like the idea that strangers around me are armed."

[st_dux 26]

@WeaponsFree:

You're correct in saying that you don't need an armed citizenry to have a relatively peaceful society. There are plenty of examples throughout the world where gun control is high yet homicide rate is low (e.g., Japan). Then again, there are also examples where gun control is high and the homicide rate is also high (e.g, Mexico). There are many factors that determine how violent a society ultimately is, and there is no simple correlation that can be made on a global scale between gun availability/control and level of violence.

That being said, stats are not useless in this debate. While the overall level of violence in a society is the result of a myriad of different factors, statistical evidence conclusively shows that an increase in gun availability in a given area will consistently result in a lower level of violent crime in that area. It's not a matter of opinion; every single study that has been done on this subject shows that legal gun availability deters far more crime than it creates. If data exists that contradicts this, I've yet to see any of it.

In the end, the anti-gun movement boils down to irrational fear. It is an emotional position, not a reasonable one.

[froggyluv 2136]

So do we start judging people now for anything that anyone says they've done wrong? Guilty not only before their innocence is proven, but guilty after as well? I don't agree with that at all.

.

Do I judge a group who's philsophy is to hurt and kill cops in the name of their holy crusade? Your damn right I do. Can I judge them legally that they were actually en route to pull off this caper -no, but it's alittle disturbing that as a member of Law Enforcement your not outraged. I don't know about you, but judging by their philospohy and website -I'll take the FBI's word over the Christian Warriors anyday. When a perp tells you he's innocent in jail any you then talk to the arresting officer -who do you generally believe?

The group was formed in early 2008. The name "Hutaree" appears to be a neologism; the group's web site says that it means "Christian warriors".[2]

The group was allegedly preparing for what they believed would be an apocalyptic battle with the forces of the Antichrist, whom they believed would be supported and defended by local, state and federal police departments. On their website, all police and military members who would support the current U.S. system of local, state or federal government were described as members of the "brotherhood", and were considered by the Hutaree to be "enemies"

No one disputes that this is who they are and what they stand for -just because a technicality may arise to acquit them of actual carrying thru -doesn't mean they aren't to be condemned. Shit, Ice-T and Common are routinely condemed by the right for having a song about cop-killin -a song! Not actual training and what I and many other cops belive to be their true intention.

You see by you and "right/peaceful" militia groups not strongly condemning such groups -it raises red flags. Similar to when moderate muslims really failed to seriously distance themselves from radical militants after 911 -it was to their own peril. Instead, they went into defensive mode saying they were being persecuted...wrong. You need to seperate yourself from the crazies in your niche -otherwise fall prey to stereotyping.

Edited September 28, 2011 by froggyluv

[RSF TheCapulet 59]

Do I judge a group who's philsophy is to hurt and kill cops in the name of their holy crusade? Your damn right I do. Can I judge them legally that they were actually en route to pull off this caper -no, but it's alittle disturbing that as a member of Law Enforcement your not outraged. I don't know about you, but judging by their philospohy and website -I'll take the FBI's word over the Christian Warriors anyday. When a perp tells you he's innocent in jail any you then talk to the arresting officer -who do you generally believe?

Lol, to be completely honest, I was lazy and didn't happen to look at their website.

But this is the upside of FBI watchlists. The FBI and BATF can keep an eye on their purchases and will easily be able to tell what's going on. And in these situations, that's precisely what happened.

---------- Post added at 01:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:08 PM ----------

I'm willing to accept that there it is possible that more murders are prevented than caused through legal gun ownership, but I am wary of stats on this subject. As with a lot of debates, people take the ones they like, and ignore those they don't. But that aside, I use the example of Montreal to point out what I mean. Violent crime is pretty low here, as is gun ownership, and public weapons carrying is entirely illegal. I am not saying that there is a connection, but rather to show that you can have a relatively peaceful society without the requirement of an armed citizenry (especially one that carries in public). Quebec is a colonial society, which means we came from a generally armed populace (fighting and hunting), to eventually get to where we are now. I honestly am not too sure why it's a non-violent city (Quebec City to the east, which is about 1million people is even less violent per capita, and has low gun ownership). I prefer to look to whatever makes these places relatively non-violent without the need to have a carrying public.

I think using stats and examples is pretty useless in the end. It seems to boil down to "I want to be allowed to carry my gun in public" vs "I don't like the idea that strangers around me are armed."

Montreal would be an interesting case study, for sure. Maybe I'll look up some solid numbers to show in comparison when I get off work tonight.

[Beagle 684]

Hello Guys

Just to give you a notice how this is handled in restrictive Europe.

After a handfull of shool shootouts on germany owning more than a sporting .22 pistol or Sigle shot rifle is impossible under the age of 21.

Because of a lot of stabbings is is now also forbidden to carry any knife about 12cm blade lenght. Daggers or any other blades made for stabbing in mind are generally banned. Applies also to kitchen knifes or other sharp and pointed tools.

If you get caught with an air gun (7.5 J maximum allowed) outside of your own property the penalty is the same as with a .45 in your pocket.

The point is...you can still legally own all kind of weapons here, but you're simply not allowed to carry them outside of a certified shooting range or your enclosed property. for transport all weapons (knifes above 12cm too) have to be encased to prevent fast acess.

Crime rates have not changed in any way since then...May 2008

[tacticalnuggets 24]

Froggyluv, there website was hacked after the whole incident happened with hutaree. I visited there website before it happened. They were pretty well known in the community. The only problem people had with them is the liked bible scripture. And again, there was no plan to kill cops. They were just angry after a funeral and started to create speeches about america and the constitution.

Also, violence has more correlation with population density than it does gun ownership.

[HyperU2 11]

I have to walk home tonight, I'm glad this thread reminded me to pack. lol

[[aps]gnat 28]

Port Arthur massacre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)

1 screw ball = 35 dead in 1 incident.

Probably an average day (# incidents) in the US huh?

Either way this one incident polarised the whole Australian community. Gun laws went through a HUGE change. Buy-back and hand-in schemes everywhere.

For me personally (as a rec. gun user) I miss the freedoms prior, the changes seemed extreme and unfair. And sure, there was lots of protests ..... then.

....... but 15 years later I gotta say, the change was great for the country and our whole community.

Protestors now? Virtually nil.

All I can say to all those "die hards" elsewhere, get over yourself and your pretence for lost liberty, I'm sure you can pick another hobby like everyone else does.

Theres plenty where the only risk is you killing yourself ;)

Edited September 29, 2011 by [APS]Gnat

[dm 9]

Crime rates have not changed in any way since then...May 2008

More restrictive regulation on things generally only prevents people who would use said items safely and legally from using them at all.

People who are going to use something to break the law don't give a fuck whether it is illegal or not, after all, they are setting out to do illegal things with it anyway...

[st_dux 26]

Gnat;2029521']Port Arthur massacre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)

1 screw ball = 35 dead in 1 incident.

Probably an average day (# incidents) in the US huh?

Nope, mass shootings are extremely rare here as they are in most places. The vast majority of the murders that take place in the United States (> 90%) are between rival members of criminal gangs using illegally-obtained firearms. Gun crime committed by legal gun owners -- particularly those with a license to carry in public -- is practically non-existent. Moreover, legal gun availability has been statistically shown to be a very effective deterrent to violent crime in any given area. Gun control might make certain people feel safer, but the fact is that it never makes people safer overall and indeed has the opposite effect.

[RSF TheCapulet 59]

Gnat;2029521']Port Arthur massacre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)

1 screw ball = 35 dead in 1 incident.

Probably an average day (# incidents) in the US huh?

An average day? Nah. See, if that happens in the US, unless it's in a school, college, or federal building, it just doesn't last long.

So in Aus, you get 35 dead. In the US, we're more likely to have just a couple injured, and one dead nutjob. That's the whole idea behind having people carry regularly.

[HyperU2 11]

Australia should get on with the next ban..

http://www.aic.gov.au/en/statistics/homicide/weapon.aspx

[GRS 10]

Gnat;2029521']

All I can say to all those "die hards" elsewhere' date=' get over yourself and your pretence for lost liberty, I'm sure you can pick another hobby like everyone else does.

Theres plenty where the only risk is you killing yourself ;)[/quote']

I'll take my liberties, thanks. Keep your new hobby and get over YOURself and your "utopia". ;)

Edited September 29, 2011 by GRS

[kernriver 4]

My (narrow) view on gun laws:

Guns belong to war, not civilian life.

[Herbal Influence 10]

My (narrow) view on gun laws:

Guns belong to war, not civilian life.

Narrow, simple and clear.

On the reasoning above, that not the recorded gun carriers do the daily killings but only the illegal ones: The possibilities of getting a gun is (obviously) much higher where guns are "everywhere", like e.g. in the US.

Private-hobby-gun-fans have to bear that in mind: You are responsible for the ubiquitous availability of guns to everyone. Once the desease is spreaded ... it's not possible to hedge it in. Even primary school pupils .... go to school with guns in a US state ... was on the news.

For m16 lovers the newest of the neverending stories go like this.

Some of us, would lock their doors and call the police ... ah, no, it's already there. The other would lie behind their window and wait for him.

I choose to be in the first group, as I could go on with my work. ;-)

Edited September 30, 2011 by Herbal Influence