| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/11/2013 02:07:15 AM · #526 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Cory:
Back on topic.
... Like it or not, the UK is a FAR more violent place than the US. Canada is a FAR more violent place than the US.
|
It would be interesting to compare just what constitutes a "violent crime" in these countries vs the USA, and then see just how violent each truly is.
Unless things have changed dramatically since I left the law enforcement environment, the crime rates in the USA on a variety of fronts was still much higher on a per capita basis than that in Canada.
Ray |
Here you go |
Must be because I need sleep, but I did not hear any reference as to the comparison about what constitutes a violent crime in each country, nor did I hear mention of stats relative to crimes in the USA vs Canada.
I most certainly am in full agreement with the latter portions of his presentation as it relates to education and other significant factors that impact on crime rates.
Ray |
|
|
|
01/11/2013 02:12:29 AM · #527 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Cory:
Back on topic.
... Like it or not, the UK is a FAR more violent place than the US. Canada is a FAR more violent place than the US.
|
It would be interesting to compare just what constitutes a "violent crime" in these countries vs the USA, and then see just how violent each truly is.
Unless things have changed dramatically since I left the law enforcement environment, the crime rates in the USA on a variety of fronts was still much higher on a per capita basis than that in Canada.
Ray |
Definition
In the FBI̢۪s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes are defined in the UCR Program as those offenses which involve force or threat of force.
I believe the RCMP uses the same definition as they use the Same "Violent Crime Linkage System " as the FBI. //www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/tops-opst/bs-sc/viclas-salvac-eng.htm |
Not disputing the definition, but do wonder if the crimes included in the definition in Canada might be significantly larger, a factor which could skew the results.
Ray
Message edited by author 2013-01-11 02:20:59. |
|
|
|
01/11/2013 06:13:14 AM · #528 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by Melethia:
The dirt-poor ... severely underrepresented as mass killers. Which is good. |
however they do represent and often are what most gun owners wish to protect themselves against. |
No. We want to protect ourselves and those under our care from anyone who threatens their safety. Be it an inner city gang member, career criminal, a person having a bad hair day, one on prescription meds or a lunatic. Simple really.
eta: I am simply amazed at those who would FORCE disarmamament on this woman and believe she is better off as a dead victim.
What is really eyeopening are some of the comments at the bottom of the article referencing those areas/states that do not have "castle doctrine" language - not even for one's home. That sir, is the kind of enviornment I believe you are in favor of. I hope I never see it. |
we can all find cases that make points for both sides of the argument and arguing individual cases gets no where. the point is to raise the bar of safety for our whole society.
Message edited by author 2013-01-11 06:13:26. |
|
|
|
01/11/2013 07:45:32 AM · #529 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Like it or not, the UK is a FAR more violent place than the US. |
And then links to a Daily Mail article.
Hahahah!
Cory, the Daily Mail is the UK's scaremongering hack central. If it's not knife wielding hoodies it's cancer or peodophiles on every corner. Its whole raison d'etre is right wing biased fear creation with twisted figures. It's renowned for it over here and is seen pretty much as a joke. You do yourself no favours at all linking to it to support your case. Just saying. |
|
|
|
01/11/2013 07:49:49 AM · #530 |
Originally posted by rooum:
Originally posted by Cory:
Like it or not, the UK is a FAR more violent place than the US. |
And then links to a Daily Mail article.
Hahahah!
Cory, the Daily Mail is the UK's scaremongering hack central. If it's not knife wielding hoodies it's cancer or peodophiles on every corner. Its whole raison d'etre is right wing biased fear creation with twisted figures. It's renowned for it over here and is seen pretty much as a joke. You do yourself no favours at all linking to it to support your case. Just saying. |
Couldn't agree with Clive more - the Daily Mail is a publication of considerable ridicule. To be seen reading it is like wearing a badge that says: 'Uninformed Bigot'. |
|
|
|
01/11/2013 08:02:41 AM · #531 |
there ill always be crime, always. always always always.
do you have the right to protect yourself, yes. when the means of protection starts bleed over and causes more harm than it should, we have a problem and should address it.
not only do we have to have tighter regulation, we need to have stiffer penalties.
how about this. you can have a gun only in your home. if you are ever convicted of voluntary or involuntary death by a firm arm that isn't in self defense, min 20yrs or death. that's it and if your gun gets used in a crime, you go to jail too, 20 years or death if some gets killed. no games. you guys want guns, fine dont kill anyone or let anyone get a hold of your toys or else you pay the price. punishment and personal accountability we need more of it.
Message edited by author 2013-01-11 08:03:18. |
|
|
|
01/11/2013 09:54:10 AM · #532 |
Originally posted by Paul:
Originally posted by rooum:
Originally posted by Cory:
Like it or not, the UK is a FAR more violent place than the US. |
And then links to a Daily Mail article.
Hahahah!
Cory, the Daily Mail is the UK's scaremongering hack central. If it's not knife wielding hoodies it's cancer or peodophiles on every corner. Its whole raison d'etre is right wing biased fear creation with twisted figures. It's renowned for it over here and is seen pretty much as a joke. You do yourself no favours at all linking to it to support your case. Just saying. |
Couldn't agree with Clive more - the Daily Mail is a publication of considerable ridicule. To be seen reading it is like wearing a badge that says: 'Uninformed Bigot'. |
Clive you said it so much more eloquently than I ever could, but those were my precise thoughts when I saw the quote was from the Daily Mail. |
|
|
|
01/11/2013 10:01:21 AM · #533 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
there ill always be crime, always. always always always.
do you have the right to protect yourself, yes. when the means of protection starts bleed over and causes more harm than it should, we have a problem and should address it.
not only do we have to have tighter regulation, we need to have stiffer penalties.
how about this. you can have a gun only in your home. if you are ever convicted of voluntary or involuntary death by a firm arm that isn't in self defense, min 20yrs or death. that's it and if your gun gets used in a crime, you go to jail too, 20 years or death if some gets killed. no games. you guys want guns, fine dont kill anyone or let anyone get a hold of your toys or else you pay the price. punishment and personal accountability we need more of it. |
And if you get carjacked or mugged, you just get to die? Of course the assailant will have left his gun at home too.
I'm all for responsibility and accountability, but forcing people, who would otherwise carry responsibly to go around defenseless is not a good solution. With nearly 300k licensed concealed permit holders in my home state, the rate of firearms related incidents among those licensed to carry is nearly nil. To the point that many of the most vocal opponents to the measure making this a shall issue state will concede that it's pretty much a non-issue Of course in the discussion leading up to the passage of that law, they were screaming and yelling about how there would be an endless stream of shootouts in the streets. Didn't turn out that way.
Message edited by author 2013-01-11 10:01:56. |
|
|
|
01/11/2013 10:13:40 AM · #534 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by mike_311:
there ill always be crime, always. always always always.
do you have the right to protect yourself, yes. when the means of protection starts bleed over and causes more harm than it should, we have a problem and should address it.
not only do we have to have tighter regulation, we need to have stiffer penalties.
how about this. you can have a gun only in your home. if you are ever convicted of voluntary or involuntary death by a firm arm that isn't in self defense, min 20yrs or death. that's it and if your gun gets used in a crime, you go to jail too, 20 years or death if some gets killed. no games. you guys want guns, fine dont kill anyone or let anyone get a hold of your toys or else you pay the price. punishment and personal accountability we need more of it. |
And if you get carjacked or mugged, you just get to die? Of course the assailant will have left his gun at home too.
I'm all for responsibility and accountability, but forcing people, who would otherwise carry responsibly to go around defenseless is not a good solution. With nearly 300k licensed concealed permit holders in my home state, the rate of firearms related incidents among those licensed to carry is nearly nil. To the point that many of the most vocal opponents to the measure making this a shall issue state will concede that it's pretty much a non-issue Of course in the discussion leading up to the passage of that law, they were screaming and yelling about how there would be an endless stream of shootouts in the streets. Didn't turn out that way. |
In the state of Louisiana your car is now an extention of your home. It is legal to carry a concealed weapon in your vehicle with no permit. By law if you get pulled over by the cops (speeding etc.) you have to inform the cop that you have a concealed weapon in the vehicle. He will then ask you to step out of the vehicle and he will unload it and check to see if it is stolen. I have been through that a few times...lol
|
|
|
|
01/11/2013 11:32:12 AM · #535 |
Originally posted by Paul:
Originally posted by rooum:
Originally posted by Cory:
Like it or not, the UK is a FAR more violent place than the US. |
And then links to a Daily Mail article.
Hahahah!
Cory, the Daily Mail is the UK's scaremongering hack central. If it's not knife wielding hoodies it's cancer or peodophiles on every corner. Its whole raison d'etre is right wing biased fear creation with twisted figures. It's renowned for it over here and is seen pretty much as a joke. You do yourself no favours at all linking to it to support your case. Just saying. |
Couldn't agree with Clive more - the Daily Mail is a publication of considerable ridicule. To be seen reading it is like wearing a badge that says: 'Uninformed Bigot'. |
Silly Google.
Honestly, I can't keep up with all the rags out there - but one question, are you saying that they're lying? Or simply that they're the equivalent of our Fox News?
|
|
|
|
01/11/2013 11:36:25 AM · #536 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
there ill always be crime, always. always always always.
do you have the right to protect yourself, yes. when the means of protection starts bleed over and causes more harm than it should, we have a problem and should address it.
not only do we have to have tighter regulation, we need to have stiffer penalties.
how about this. you can have a gun only in your home. if you are ever convicted of voluntary or involuntary death by a firm arm that isn't in self defense, min 20yrs or death. that's it and if your gun gets used in a crime, you go to jail too, 20 years or death if some gets killed. no games. you guys want guns, fine dont kill anyone or let anyone get a hold of your toys or else you pay the price. punishment and personal accountability we need more of it. |
You should totally move to China, sounds like you'd love it there.
Seriously, are you this afraid of guns? Don't take this the wrong way - but you sound like a very scared misinformed child who's convinced that the bogie man will eat their feet.
If you would actually desire to make it so that I can only have a gun in the home, then I think an outright ban is a far better idea, since that would absolutely make all firearms absolutely useless to me. How would you feel if the government told you that it's ok to have a car, but you have to keep it licensed, registered, insured, and always keep it in the garage - should you be caught driving it you'll be beheaded on the spot?
Fortunately, even our government isn't anywhere near as crazy as you are.
Message edited by author 2013-01-11 12:21:36. |
|
|
|
01/11/2013 11:37:22 AM · #537 |
Originally posted by salmiakki:
Originally posted by Paul:
Originally posted by rooum:
Originally posted by Cory:
Like it or not, the UK is a FAR more violent place than the US. |
And then links to a Daily Mail article.
Hahahah!
Cory, the Daily Mail is the UK's scaremongering hack central. If it's not knife wielding hoodies it's cancer or peodophiles on every corner. Its whole raison d'etre is right wing biased fear creation with twisted figures. It's renowned for it over here and is seen pretty much as a joke. You do yourself no favours at all linking to it to support your case. Just saying. |
Couldn't agree with Clive more - the Daily Mail is a publication of considerable ridicule. To be seen reading it is like wearing a badge that says: 'Uninformed Bigot'. |
Clive you said it so much more eloquently than I ever could, but those were my precise thoughts when I saw the quote was from the Daily Mail. |
Just to be fair, I think about the same of all the media outlets who have been running 10x as many gun stories since Sandy Hook. (Which is pretty much all of them)..
Message edited by author 2013-01-11 11:37:59. |
|
|
|
01/11/2013 11:37:23 AM · #538 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Silly Google.
Honestly, I can't keep up with all the rags out there - but one question, are you saying that they're lying? Or simply that they're the equivalent of our Fox News? |
Certainly that! |
|
|
|
01/11/2013 12:19:49 PM · #539 |
Hey  mike_311...I've got a simple question for you.. Have you ever fired a weapon. This includes rifles, handgun, or shotguns. I am just curious. If not you need to...it will get rid of some of that pinned up aggression. Infact, I would be happy to take you out shooting sometime.
|
|
|
|
01/11/2013 07:18:54 PM · #540 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Hey mike_311...I've got a simple question for you.. Have you ever fired a weapon. This includes rifles, handgun, or shotguns. I am just curious. If not you need to...it will get rid of some of that pinned up aggression. Infact, I would be happy to take you out shooting sometime. |
Don't know about you Cowboy, but I know of several ways to get rid of aggression and none of them require me to tote a gun around... or even leave the house for that matter. :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
01/11/2013 07:54:46 PM · #541 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Hey mike_311...I've got a simple question for you.. Have you ever fired a weapon. This includes rifles, handgun, or shotguns. I am just curious. If not you need to...it will get rid of some of that pinned up aggression. Infact, I would be happy to take you out shooting sometime. |
Don't know about you Cowboy, but I know of several ways to get rid of aggression and none of them require me to tote a gun around... or even leave the house for that matter. :O)
Ray |
LOL It just seems that he is taking an aggressive stance.(even look at his profile pic)..It might do him good. I know he is in New Jersey but I could take him out on the range...or my buddy's farm set up some targets and he would see how an "assault rifle" being a semi-automatic is just like any other hunting rifle. It just looks menacing.
|
|
|
|
01/11/2013 09:03:40 PM · #542 |
| For the record I have fired "cap" guns (both rifle and handgun formats), a BB gun, a .22 air-powered pellet gun, and a .22 bolt-action rifle; never a handgun or high-caliber firearm of any sort. |
|
|
|
01/11/2013 09:05:58 PM · #543 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
For the record I have fired "cap" guns (both rifle and handgun formats), a BB gun, a .22 air-powered pellet gun, and a .22 bolt-action rifle; never a handgun or high-caliber firearm of any sort. |
Honestly, they're all about the same.. Which is one reason talks about banning certain guns sounds both silly and scary to me. |
|
|
|
01/11/2013 09:13:00 PM · #544 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
For the record I have fired "cap" guns (both rifle and handgun formats), a BB gun, a .22 air-powered pellet gun, and a .22 bolt-action rifle; never a handgun or high-caliber firearm of any sort. |
Honestly, they're all about the same.. Which is one reason talks about banning certain guns sounds both silly and scary to me. |
I think most of the actual change (if any) will be in regard to high-capacity quick-change magazines, and improved and extended background checks, rather than banning specific weapons or even classes of weapons. Adding more effective registration, training, and insurance requirements might be helpful. Restricting ammunition sales, and perhaps classes of ammunition (armor-piercing projectiles are not needed to hunt any creature not wearing body armor), might help a bit too. |
|
|
|
01/11/2013 09:37:24 PM · #545 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
For the record I have fired "cap" guns (both rifle and handgun formats), a BB gun, a .22 air-powered pellet gun, and a .22 bolt-action rifle; never a handgun or high-caliber firearm of any sort. |
Honestly, they're all about the same.. Which is one reason talks about banning certain guns sounds both silly and scary to me. |
I think most of the actual change (if any) will be in regard to high-capacity quick-change magazines, and improved and extended background checks, rather than banning specific weapons or even classes of weapons. Adding more effective registration, training, and insurance requirements might be helpful. Restricting ammunition sales, and perhaps classes of ammunition (armor-piercing projectiles are not needed to hunt any creature not wearing body armor), might help a bit too. |
Have you tried buying armour piercing rounds lately.....You can from some military surplus stores....I have some for my WW2 Russian made Mosin-nagant. The ammo is from ww2 and I am kindof scared to shoot it. My point...To buy armor piercing rounds you do need a licence and the average store does not carry it.
Oh and a .22 is the largest caliber that you have fired...I extend my invitation to you as well.
|
|
|
|
01/11/2013 10:01:29 PM · #546 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
My point...To buy armor piercing rounds you do need a licence and the average store does not carry it. |
Good to know ... I guess I'd heard some reports which suggested otherwise ... maybe they were talking about the the carnage in Mexico.
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Oh and a .22 is the largest caliber that you have fired...I extend my invitation to you as well. |
My son informs me that a friend of ours has a 30-30 rifle and a .357 magnum pistol which pack more of kick than the .22s ... we will try to arrange to get out to the range when the weather improves and I can afford the incidental costs.
I'm not opposed to people using guns for target shooting or hunting for food, and I suppose even for legitimate self-defense or law-enforcement. But the systems and safety controls we have in place are obviously not working, and I don't think either "ban all guns" or "arm every teacher" is a very helpful or practical solution. |
|
|
|
01/11/2013 10:53:05 PM · #547 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
My point...To buy armor piercing rounds you do need a licence and the average store does not carry it. |
Good to know ... I guess I'd heard some reports which suggested otherwise ... maybe they were talking about the the carnage in Mexico.
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Oh and a .22 is the largest caliber that you have fired...I extend my invitation to you as well. |
My son informs me that a friend of ours has a 30-30 rifle and a .357 magnum pistol which pack more of kick than the .22s ... we will try to arrange to get out to the range when the weather improves and I can afford the incidental costs.
I'm not opposed to people using guns for target shooting or hunting for food, and I suppose even for legitimate self-defense or law-enforcement. But the systems and safety controls we have in place are obviously not working, and I don't think either "ban all guns" or "arm every teacher" is a very helpful or practical solution. |
Paul...OK maybe we are making progress in our conversation. Well look...the civilian "assault rifle" is not even close to the military version. If it was I would be closer to your side. However it is just another semi-auto.
FYI....Watch out for the .357 mag...it kicks like hell if your not expecting it..the 30-30 kicks but it is absorbed into the shoulder and is not bad. Just dont anticipate the shot and you will hit the target
|
|
|
|
01/11/2013 10:53:57 PM · #548 |
Im sorry my instructor instinct kicked in
Message edited by author 2013-01-11 22:54:23.
|
|
|
|
01/12/2013 01:51:50 AM · #549 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I think most of the actual change (if any) will be in regard to high-capacity quick-change magazines, and improved and extended background checks, rather than banning specific weapons or even classes of weapons. Adding more effective registration, training, and insurance requirements might be helpful. Restricting ammunition sales, and perhaps classes of ammunition (armor-piercing projectiles are not needed to hunt any creature not wearing body armor), might help a bit too. |
Just a brief comment regarding animals and body armor...your sentance reminded me of an ATV ride through a Ranch in Texas (several yaers ago) where we were pretty well armed (rifles and pistols). Seems there werer quite a few wild boars and these boars had a habit of rubbing against telephone poles to coat their hide with the tar and pitch. It essentially was like body armor. Some bullets would literally bounce off them.
Not saying that is a case for armor piercing rounds - but the sentance did remind me of that. |
|
|
|
01/12/2013 02:01:37 AM · #550 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
My son informs me that a friend of ours has a 30-30 rifle and a .357 magnum pistol which pack more of kick than the .22s ... we will try to arrange to get out to the range when the weather improves and I can afford the incidental costs.
I'm not opposed to people using guns for target shooting or hunting for food, and I suppose even for legitimate self-defense or law-enforcement. But the systems and safety controls we have in place are obviously not working, and I don't think either "ban all guns" or "arm every teacher" is a very helpful or practical solution. |
First hand experience is always beneficial. Some information you may choose to keep.
1. Eye and ear protection are required at nearly all ranges. Even if not required, they are both highly recommended.
2. 30/30's will have a kick. Depending on the recoil pad it can be more or less - "felt". A tight secure hold into your shoulder will minimize bruising. If the rifle has a scope, then beware of "scope creep". This is where a shooter gets too close to the scope eyepiece and when a round is fired the recoil sends the scope into the shooters eye. Typically a nice cut will ocurr and it is common to require stitches,
3. For target practice with the revolver, I strongly recommend you try to secure some 148 grain wadcutters in .38 caliber. These will provide plenty of "experience" and are usually some of the most reasonably priced ammunition in the .38/.357 caliber. Boxes of 50 in my area will typically be in the $20 range. Reloads (from a reputable reloader) are perfectly usable and can help with the savings as well.
|
|
