^
Yeah? Like what, genius?

There's nothing wrong with quite a lot of laws on the books. They just aren't enforced.

[Edited on September 27, 2006 at 1:05 PM. Reason : 7]

9/27/2006 1:05:45 PM

They are enforced. Quite a bit, actually.

It comes down to the fact that preventing crime has NOTHING to do with trying to control people's possession of inatimate objects.
You could completely ban possession of firearms in this country and criminals would still get guns. Period. This has been proven time and time again around the world whenever gun bans are enacted.

9/27/2006 2:00:53 PM

Quote :

"It comes down to the fact that preventing crime has NOTHING to do with trying to control people's possession of inatimate objects."

so then its ok for me to have a nuclear bomb, becuase preventing me from having it wouldnt stop me from from killing someone with it

[Edited on September 27, 2006 at 5:36 PM. Reason : 34]

9/27/2006 5:36:21 PM

^ When last I checked, nuclear bombs were not constitutionally protected for private ownership. But if the person in possession of the bomb at issue had no evil intent, it would just be a very large doorstop that would never purposely harm anyone.

Again, Josh8315, you reveal your incessant need to run to the government for EVERY goddamn thing! Since you seem to be such an expert on morality, you should know that morality cannot be legislated.

The reason that criminals still get guns in violation of WHATEVER laws are enacted is because, well, CRIMINALS COMMIT CRIMES--THEY DON'T FOLLOW THE FUCKING LAW! All that most new laws of the sort you describe do is strain the few threads of freedom the law-abiding citizens have left.

If you want to continually turn to government for your answers, fine. But don't ask the rest of us to follow you. You've got some major letdowns coming from Uncle Sugar--I promise you.

9/29/2006 8:03:20 PM

By the way, Josh8315, before you reply with the same type of dumbass shit that you usually do, really think for a minute. Try a new angle. What could it hurt?

Concerning criminals, you should know that I have a fair amount of knowledge about them. I was a correctional officer for North Carolina and Virginia.

9/29/2006 8:40:20 PM

Quote :

"^ When last I checked, nuclear bombs were not constitutionally protected for private ownership. But if the person in possession of the bomb at issue had no evil intent, it would just be a very large doorstop that would never purposely harm anyone."

the hell they arent. as a long as arms can fire nukes, those arms are legal, according to the constitution.

9/30/2006 7:43:03 AM

^ I tried to get you to avoid posting your typical bullshit. Alas, it is hopeless.

As soon as you get your new nuclear warhead-gauge, double-barreled shotgun, I'm sure that we would all like to see it. You fucking knob.

9/30/2006 11:19:10 PM

As odd as it may sound, nuclear bullets may not be that far off. A singe bullet's yield wouldn't be more than a few tons of TNT, though.

10/1/2006 12:29:17 AM

Quote :

"As soon as you get your new nuclear warhead-gauge, double-barreled shotgun, I'm sure that we would all like to see it."

are you that fucking stupid? have you ever seen starship troopers?

10/1/2006 8:41:21 AM

SERVICE GUARANTEES CITIZENSHIP

10/1/2006 2:17:45 PM

nuclear bullets can exist, i could build one.

so tell me, why must they be illegal?

10/1/2006 2:59:25 PM

Quote :

"nuclear bullets can exist, i could build one. "

I really doubt you have the resources required.

10/1/2006 4:16:50 PM

i would if i had the capital

10/1/2006 6:11:51 PM

I think you can't have an unpermitted nuclear reactor in this country. If you check Snopes about the kid that built the nuclear reactor in his backyard, the NRC or somebody found out about this shit and came and seized the damn thing. Dunno if they arrested the kid that built it or not, but they did take his shit.

10/1/2006 7:45:29 PM

you dont a reactor to make something nuclear bomb

10/2/2006 8:03:07 AM

Quote :

"i would if i had the capital"

As far I know, nuclear bullets are still theoretical. The main design I've read about involves antimatter. It'd require advances containment technology. Building one would take a great deal of capital and time.

10/2/2006 12:35:47 PM

Quote :

"you dont a reactor to make something nuclear bomb"

How else are you going to make/obtain weapons grade materials? I dont care if you think you can because you have some sort of science or Nuclear Engineering Degree, the simple fact of the matter is that to obtain weapons grade anything, you must make and refine it. And to do that, you need a reactor, among tons of other things.

There are a lot of nations in this world that have people who know a LOT more about the subject of nuclear weapons than you do, plenty of capital, and a government that would REALLY like to have a nuke or two and THEY can't even get them.

Nuclear weapons have absolutely nothing to do with citizens in the United States being armed anyway.

10/2/2006 12:58:10 PM

^ not true. you just mine the uranium and enrich it. you can use a mag trap or a gas centrifuge or whatever.

[Edited on October 2, 2006 at 1:02 PM. Reason : ]

10/2/2006 1:02:28 PM

How are you going to make a nuclear bullet with uranium? The thing would weigh at least fifty pounds.

10/2/2006 4:26:50 PM

why are you even responding to this faggot

10/2/2006 8:11:02 PM

^^ scale it down.

10/2/2006 8:36:24 PM

Quote :

"^ not true. you just mine the uranium and enrich it. you can use a mag trap or a gas centrifuge or whatever."

And where do you plan to get a centrifuge? There are entire third world countries that spend decades trying to do this stuff, and you are saying you could do it by yourself?
I just don't see your logic.

Again, I repeat, what do nuclear weapons have to do with me peaceably owning an AR-15 with a 100-round drum magazine? Or maybe even 20 of them?

10/3/2006 8:26:54 AM

Quote :

"^^ scale it down."

You can't. There's this little problem called critical mass.

Basically, unless you get your hands on some antimatter, you ain't making anything smaller than a W54 warhead.

http://www.brook.edu/FP/projects/nucwcost/davyc.HTM

10/3/2006 8:40:06 AM

Quote :

"why are you even responding to this faggot"

10/3/2006 8:40:40 AM

Mainly because I like talking about antimatter.

It's cool to see reality getting closer and closer to science fiction.

10/3/2006 8:42:12 AM

To Josh8315: Yes, I have seen _Starship Troopers_ many times. YOU are living proof that some people should have to earn their citizenship through service, as is the case in the movie.

Concerning nuclear weapons, I have mentioned on TWW before that shoulder-fired nukes were tested in the late '50s and early '60s. But they may not be necessary for tactical use. Rail guns, which use electromagnetic propulsion, are available now and they are continually improving. Small projectiles--some traveling at 13,000 mph--can deliver awesome destructive force. And there is obviously no problem with radioactivity.

But none of that matters. Surrender yourself and your rights to the machinations of the politburo, Josh8315--I never will. You are a fucking ass leech.

10/3/2006 9:55:21 AM

Quote :

"OU are living proof that some people should have to earn their citizenship through service"

somebody hates our constitution

10/3/2006 12:04:31 PM

That's why there was a smiley face, you ass. Fuck! You can't even recognize humor--in addition to the obvious truths that you seem incapable of grasping. Donate your fucking brain to science--now! (Hint: It should be labeled "Abbey Normal.")

10/4/2006 1:41:22 AM

10/4/2006 2:09:29 AM

Ha! Good catch!

10/4/2006 3:10:59 AM

^^^Truth. Jest.

10/4/2006 3:19:57 AM

I will not allow you to rain on my _Young Frankenstein_ parade, BridgetSPK.

10/4/2006 3:30:36 AM

http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/display_exclusive.html?id=3628

10/6/2006 6:11:04 PM

Quote :

"hat's why there was a smiley face, you ass. Fuck! You can't even recognize humor"

hAHAHAHAHAHHA


millions of deaths from gun violence


AAHAHAHAHAHH

10/6/2006 6:29:46 PM

^ hAHAHAHAHAHHA


millions of deaths from gun violence LIBERAL DIPSHITS


AAHAHAHAHAHH

By the way, did you even bother to read the previous link?

10/6/2006 8:55:24 PM

^^ Here it is, since you're obviously too lazy to even click on the link:

"Study shows increased gun control does not reduce crime rates

By CJ Staff
October 06, 2006

RALEIGH — In today’s Friday interview, Carolina Journal’s Mitch Kokai speaks with Dr. John Moorhouse of Wake Forest University about gun control and crime rates. The interview aired on Carolina Journal Radio (click here to find the station near you).


Kokai: In addressing this topic of whether gun control reduces crime or crime increases gun control, you actually put together a fairly sophisticated study looking at crime data and gun-control laws across the 50 states.

Moorhouse: Yes, there is so much talk in the media and in the press about gun control reducing crime that, like some other scholars, I wanted to take a systematic look at that and did so by trying to explain crime rates in the states. It depends on a number of factors, which we could talk about, if you like. And also, since states have different degrees of gun control, whether that made a difference in the crime rate. But do it systematically.

Kokai: Before we get into the details of your study, this was sparked by hearing something on the radio that didn’t strike you as perhaps something that had been well thought out or studied entirely.

Moorhouse: A spokesman for the Family Physicians Against Violence said on a radio program several years ago that even if a state had good and strict gun control laws, they could be undermined and made ineffective if an adjacent state had weak gun control laws. And so, I was thinking, as an economist, I ought to be able to test that hypothesis. The good doctor said it as if it were a fact, but I interpreted it as a hypothesis worth exploring.

Kokai: So, how did you go about trying to test just how good the correlation was between gun control laws and the amount of crime?

Moorhouse: Well, as I said earlier, I’m looking at, or looked at, crime rates by state. And there are a number of factors: demographic factors, economic factors and law enforcement factors. And I took those into account. Then I had an index of gun control, which was constructed out of 30 facets of gun control put into six categories and weighted. For example, a state that had a five-day waiting period before you could take possession of a gun, they received a higher score than a state that had only a three-day waiting period. Also, the index from the Open Society Institute, I looked at the degree of law enforcement of gun control. And so then I used the index as a measure of gun control. I looked at the demographic variables, the economic variables, the law enforcement variables, and then this gun control index, which allowed me to compare the degree of gun control in one state with another. And then we looked at the adjacent states and their level of gun control and constructed a measure of the so-called contagion effect.

Kokai: So, putting together this study, seeing this index of gun control, comparing that then to the crime rates in the 50 states, did you find any relationship?

Moorhouse: I found absolutely no support that gun control laws reduce crime rates. And crime rates, we looked at property crime, violent crimes — ten categories of crimes — and in not one of them did we find any impact of gun control, nor did we find that there was this contagion effect. That is, that a neighboring state with weak gun control laws seemed to have no effect on crime rates in the primary states. So, we found no evidence that gun control, or its absence, had an effect on crime rates. But if I may go on, what we did find was kind of the reverse. In areas that had high crime rates, there seemed to be political support for more stringent gun control. And so we looked at using crime to explain the gun control index. We took into account some other factors, and we found very strong evidence that high crime rates lead to more stringent gun control laws. But subsequent to that, there was no impact on crime rates.

Kokai: One of the political implications of your study would seem to be that the argument that you set out to test would lead some to think that, well, if we want the most effective control, then all the states should adopt the most stringent forms of gun control to avoid having this spillover or the contagion effect that you were talking about. It sounds as if your study would suggest that, no, that wouldn’t have any difference. You’d just have stronger gun control with no impact on crime.

Moorhouse: Yes, exactly. There is just no support for this contagion effect. But you —continually hear people talk about good gun control laws being undermined by the laws of an adjacent state. I had not seen any studies that really explored that in a systematic, statistical way. And our study, again, found no support for that hypothesis.

Kokai: Scholars always like to have their studies replicated to determine that what they found is, in fact, what the patterns would show in repeated tests. Would you like to see other people perform the same or similar tests to try to find the same result?

Moorhouse: Absolutely. There are interesting questions that are related to the ones we addressed, or addressing our questions in a slightly different manner. This is always welcome. I am not under the illusion that this is the final study that will settle all the debates. It won’t. It’s just one among many, and I hope that there are additional studies in the future.

Kokai: But the bottom line is, based on what you know from your study at this point, there doesn’t seem to be any link between gun control laws and the crime rates?

Moorhouse: No, we found none. And I should mention that the results of our study are consistent with some studies done in the ‘80s and ‘90s that were pretty sophisticated. There just isn’t any hard evidence that gun control affects crime rates."

10/6/2006 8:57:23 PM

Gun Control Saves Lives
September 19, 2006
It took less than 24 hours for Stephen Harper’s blind opposition to the gun registry to be exposed for the partisan rhetoric it is.

“The Prime Minister has been proven wrong when he said that the gun registry could not prevent the kind of tragedy we witnessed in Montreal,” said Deputy House Leader Marlene Jennings, who represents Montreal’s South Island. “Yesterday police in Quebec, using information obtained from Canada’s gun registry, arrested a teenager who planned a copy-cat of the Dawson College shooting.

“A tragedy has been averted and lives have been saved because of the gun registry,” she said. “How many more examples does the Prime Minister need before he will listen to the police, listen to Premier Charest, and listen to parents who want the gun registry maintained?”

Ms. Jennings was one of many prominent Montreal Liberal MPs who continued to hammer Mr. Harper in Question Period today over his government’s plan to weaken gun laws in Canada and dismantle the gun registry.

“This minority Conservative government speaks only of penalties, not prevention,”said Deputy Leader Lucienne Robillard. “We see once again that the register is an effective and useful tool. The gun registry must be maintained to prevent another tragedy from happening.”

Since the registry was introduced five years ago, almost 7 million firearms have been registered and death rates for all types of gun deaths – homicide, suicide and accidents – have declined. More than 5,000 affidavits have been provided by the Canadian Firearms Registry to support the prosecution of firearms-related crime and court proceedings across the country.

Law enforcement officers all agree that the gun registry works in preventing crime.

The Liberal Opposition will do everything in its power to prevent Prime Minister Harper from dismantling this essential crime prevention tool in order to curry favor with his friends in the gun lobby.

Canadian lives are too important to sacrifice for the Conservatives’ political back scratching. The best way to prevent gun violence in Canada is to keep guns out of the hands of criminals

[Edited on October 6, 2006 at 8:59 PM. Reason : 5]

10/6/2006 8:57:27 PM

Shooting victim wants better gun control
Oct. 6, 2006. 10:27 AM
CANADIAN PRESS

MONTREAL — An 18-year old who was among the shooting victims at Dawson College last month is crusading for better gun control in Canada.

Hayder Kadhim, who still has bullets lodged in his head and neck, met with Dawson's student council to pitch his mission to save the federal firearms registry.

The student council voted overwhelmingly on Thursday night to support Kadhim's campaign to save the gun registry.

Kadhim, who previously challenged Stephen Harper to a debate about gun control, has begun his mission by writing a letter to the prime minister.

Kadhim was one of 20 people injured when Kimveer Gill stormed into Dawson on Sept. 13 and began firing, killing 18-year-old Anastasia De Sousa.

10/6/2006 9:01:53 PM

^ Because the registry did such an effective job saving him from those bullets.

10/6/2006 9:08:16 PM

Shooting victim wants better gun control
Oct. 6, 2006. 10:27 AM
CANADIAN PRESS

MONTREAL — An 18-year old who was among the shooting victims at Dawson College last month is crusading for better gun control in Canada.

Hayder Kadhim, who still has bullets lodged in his head and neck, met with Dawson's student council to pitch his mission to save the federal firearms registry.

The student council voted overwhelmingly on Thursday night to support Kadhim's campaign to save the gun registry.

Kadhim, who previously challenged Stephen Harper to a debate about gun control, has begun his mission by writing a letter to the prime minister.

Kadhim was one of 20 people injured when Kimveer Gill stormed into Dawson on Sept. 13 and began firing, killing 18-year-old Anastasia De Sousa.

10/6/2006 9:15:07 PM

uns kill 1,000 people daily
KYODO
Wednesday, May 17, 2006 17:50 IST




Email Article Print Article
Most Emailed Articles RSS Feed
Most Viewed Articles Search This Site

LONDON: One thousand people across the world are killed each day from small arms, a new report has said.

The London-based International Action Network on Small Arms said these statistics make it imperative for the United Nations to boost its curbs on the proliferation of guns worldwide.

IANSA's report released on Tuesday claims, "640 million guns are in circulation across the world and there are enough weapons to equip one in every 10 people."

IANSA, which is a global framework of more than 700 civil society organisations, is now calling on the countries to strengthen the UN Program of Action on Small Arms and Light Weapons when it is reviewed next month after five years in operation.

IANSA Director Rebecca Peters said she is reasonably optimistic there will be progress on strengthening the code on transfers of small arms. But she says some countries, including Russia, Egypt and China, are showing signs of opposition.

Peters wants the United Nations to agree to universal regulations for the possession of small arms held by civilians.

After releasing the report, Peters said she hoped countries backing a tougher line at the
UN, including those from Africa and Latin America, will not be deterred from making reforms in the face of opposition from more powerful countries.

IANSA activists also want the UN to introduce a new code that states that members will not export to countries where there is a chance that guns and light weapons will be used to abuse human rights or hinder development.

10/6/2006 9:16:52 PM

Gun accident kills deputy
Orlando Sentinel, FL - Oct 1, 2006
Matt Barnes, 26, told guests Friday night that the gun was not loaded, according to the St ... a deputy for two years and was off duty at the time of the accident. ...


Gun accident kills 12-year-old St. Louis boy
St. Louis Post-Dispatch, United States - Sep 18, 2006
... Louis Family Court. Homicide detectives were trying to determine if the shooting was purely accidental, and to learn the origin of the gun. ...

10/6/2006 9:31:01 PM

sounds like he was an idiot

you don't play with guns

you ASSUME every gun is loaded until you check for yourself

don't believe someone when they are like "it's cool, it's unloaded"


I sure am glad the gun registry and gun bans kept that canadian kid from getting shot

when are you gun control idiots going to hold people accountable for their actions???

10/7/2006 1:20:48 PM

definitely dont mess with a gun when you are drunk and its loaded

10/7/2006 1:40:57 PM

Man rushes to aid struggling cops
_Daily Herald_ of Roanoke Rapids, NC
August 7, 1990

(I'm paraphrasing) Gun owned by private citizen hooksaw possibly saved the lives of two police officers--and the even the crazy asshole who took the gun of one of the officers.

Man honored for aiding police in struggle with gunman
_Daily Herald_ of Roanoke Rapids
October 2, 1990

(I'm paraphrasing) Mayor, police chief, and town council honor hooksaw. At the time, first time the town (Weldon) had honored a citizen for heroism.

But you don't understand anything about bearing arms to defend others, do you, Josh8315? In addition, the reports you posted are heavily anecdotal. The _Carolina Journal_ article I posted was from a "sophisticated study looking at crime data and gun-control laws across the 50 states." Isn't this the type of scientific study you would normally cling to? But the facts just don't fit your worldview, do they, knob?

10/7/2006 1:55:56 PM

Quote :

"sounds like he was an idiot "

seems like a pattern here among gun owners

10/7/2006 2:36:32 PM

yeah, most people that own illegal firearms are idiots

and thugs

and criminals


but almost every law abiding gun owner I've met has been college educated and doing quite well for themselves

but what would you know, you'd have to leave your computer and your room to see that

[Edited on October 7, 2006 at 2:45 PM. Reason : .]

10/7/2006 2:45:13 PM

Quote :

"seems like a pattern here among gun owners humanity"

Quote :

"It is the second leading cause of death in Washington State for youths aged ten to 24; every year about 130 state residents drown; last year 18 people drowned in King County alone."

Quote :

"According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, drowning is the second leading cause of death for children 1-14 years old, and an extensive study performed by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) found that "75 percent of the children involved in swimming pool submersion or drowning accidents were between 1 and 3 years old." In addition, the CPSC's study revealed the following statistics: Most of the victims were being supervised by one or both parents when the swimming pool accident occurred. Nearly half of the child victims were last seen in the house before the pool accident occurred. Twenty-three percent of the victims were last seen on the porch, patio, or in the yard. Sixty-nine percent of the children who became victims in swimming pool accidents were not expected to be in or at the pool, but were found drowned or submerged in the water."

Quote :

"In 1997, 4,051 people drowned in the United States, including 964 children under age 15. Drowning is the second leading cause of injury death (after motor vehicle crashes) among children 1-14 years old. A person who lives after nearly drowning may suffer brain damage."

Quote :

"Children and young adults: Drowning rates are highest mainly for children under 5 years of age and persons 15-24 years of age. How children drown tends to vary by age. For example, children under age one most often drown in bathtubs, buckets, and toilets. Children 1-4 most often drown in swimming pools, hot tubs, and spas. Children aged 5-14 typically drown in swimming pools and open water, such as lakes and rivers. Males: In 1997, drowning rates were at least three times greater for males than for females for almost every age group. Blacks: In 1997, the overall age-adjusted drowning rate for blacks was 42% higher than that for whites. Black children between 5 and 19 drowned more than twice as often as white children of the same age. In addition, alcohol use can increase the risk of drowning. Alcohol use was involved in 25-50% of adolescent and adult deaths associated with water recreation. Alcohol is a major contributing factor in nearly half of all drownings among adolescent boys."

BAN POOLS AND STANDING BODIES OF WATER!!!!

[Edited on October 7, 2006 at 2:52 PM. Reason : asdf]

10/7/2006 2:46:44 PM

Quote :

"when are you gun control idiots going to hold people accountable for their actions???"

10/7/2006 2:49:14 PM

Quote :

" BAN POOLS AND STANDING BODIES OF WATER!!!! "

the purpose of pools is not to kill

10/7/2006 8:27:08 PM