Question on mentally challenged thieves - Page 2
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Discussion Forums > Survival & Sustenance Living Forum > Question on mentally challenged thieves

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-01-2009, 06:17 PM   #11
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3
Default

Nice, thanks a lot guys. I think I'm just going to start a second speech just FOR his answer. A couple questions to further prove the credibility of the response:

Quote:
Think about this for a minute. What is the armed robbery rate of convenience stores? Pretty high. What is the armed robbery rate of gun shops? Pretty low, for obvious reasons.
Do you have any statistics and credible source to prove that?

Also, this one is a bit off-topic, but, any stances on whether assault weapons should be banned?
__________________
Hawaianhamster is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2009, 06:24 PM   #12
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,900
Liked 2057 Times on 827 Posts
Likes Given: 2706

Default

I don't believe in banning what is called Assault Weapons.

__________________
opaww is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2009, 06:26 PM   #13
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
matt g's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,885
Liked 7 Times on 5 Posts

Default

1.) Define the term assault weapon.
2.) Banning anything is banning freedom.
3.) Banning anything opens the way for the powers that be to ban anything they don't like. This problem is currently playing itself out in states like California, New York, Maryland and Illinois. It'll be coming soon to a state near you.

__________________

"'Did you ever wonder why we had to run for shelter when the promise of a brave new world unfurled beneath a clear blue sky? "
Roger Waters

Vote freedom, join the Libertarian Party.

matt g is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2009, 06:27 PM   #14
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
orangello's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 19,170
Liked 5733 Times on 3359 Posts
Likes Given: 4877

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawaianhamster View Post
Also, this one is a bit off-topic, but, any stances on whether assault weapons should be banned?
Could you define an "assault weapon"? I can't really think of much someone could be assaulted by, except a weapon, be that a brick, a knife, a pistol, a single-shot rifle, a semi-automatic rifle, a shotgun, or an engineered virus. (I forgot baseball & softball bats & tennis rackets.)

I don't think bricks should be banned; they have many useful purposes other than acting as assault weapons. Further, i'm no legal expert, but i don't recall anything in the Constitution of this country that related to banning bricks due to their danger to windows or the public.

edit* Matt G., that was spooky.
__________________
orangello is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2009, 06:46 PM   #15
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
matt g's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,885
Liked 7 Times on 5 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by orangello View Post
edit* Matt G., that was spooky.
You don't see it put into that context often enough, but that is what is happening.

I'll bet that you have to wear a helmet to ride a motorcycle in your state and if not, you do in several neighboring states. The same goes for wearing a seat belt when you ride in a car. That's your home state dictating to you that they know what is best for your own safety and that they know this better than you do.

Look at drug prohibition or the prohibition on prostitution or gambling. That's nothing more than the state or federal government telling you what is best for you.

We're now headed down a slippery slope in which the government will dictate more and more what you can't do in the interest of your own safety, rather than letting you decide what is best for you. This comes as higher and higher numbers of Americans are being forced into social welfare programs.

What the government owns, the government controls.
__________________

"'Did you ever wonder why we had to run for shelter when the promise of a brave new world unfurled beneath a clear blue sky? "
Roger Waters

Vote freedom, join the Libertarian Party.


Last edited by matt g; 07-01-2009 at 06:51 PM.
matt g is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2009, 06:58 PM   #16
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
easterner123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 345
Liked 3 Times on 2 Posts
Likes Given: 24

Default

Assault weapons should not be banned. The reason the founding fathers didn't add a clause for that purpose is government power. If the people feel that the government is unjust and despotic, they can rebel. A milita isn't the national guard, because the militia is supposed to be state trained and not at the call of the federal government.

So in short, we should have assault weapons to defend ourselves from despotic leadership as well as criminals.

__________________

"I only regret I have but one life to lose for my country" Nathan Hale

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

easterner123 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2009, 07:12 PM   #17
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
jwhirl413's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 282
Liked 2 Times on 2 Posts
Likes Given: 13

Default

This is from a thread on this site, titled "Got a quote you like? share it with us."

According to the National Crime Survey administered by the Bureau of the Census and the National Institute of Justice, it was found that only 12 percent of those who use a gun to resist assault are injured, as are 17 percent of those who use a gun to resist robbery. These percentages are 27 and 25 percent, respectively, if they passively comply with the felon's demands. Three times as many were injured if they used other means of resistance.

-- G. Kleck, "Policy Lessons from Recent Gun Control Research," Law and Contemporary Problems 49, no. 1. (Winter 1986.): 35-62.

I think this speaks volumes about using a gun and being passive.

For the record I've used this several times in debates with my liberal friends who think I'm a gun nut, when they read it or hear me recite it, they usually have nothing to say in response

__________________

Our houses are protected by the good Lord and a gun, You might meet'm both if you show up here not welcome son...


Last edited by jwhirl413; 07-01-2009 at 07:18 PM. Reason: additional info
jwhirl413 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2009, 07:34 PM   #18
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
RL357Mag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Albany,New York
Posts: 3,251
Liked 5 Times on 5 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawaianhamster View Post
Hello,

I am doing a speech on the effects of gun control in terms of safety/crime. I have everything ready to go, except for one issue that a friend of mine brought up. Even though guns may prevent some thieves from entering homes, what if there is the occasional thief that is not in the right state of mind and/or desperate enough to outweigh the risks of their lives with survival? They may bring guns as well and when you pull out your gun, they might shoot you. Is there any psychology study on this matter, or anything to refute this claim?

Thanks for reading,
Jordan
If you truly want the best information compiled by a Professor who did the most exhaustive study in the history of this country, go to the library and get the book entitled "More Guns, Less Crime" by John R. Lott. His data was compiled from stats researched from literally THOUSANDS of counties' crime statistics nationwide. It took several years to complete, but is without a doubt the best pro-gun argument available.
__________________
Guns Have Only Two Enemies-Rust and Politicians
"The United States Constitution (c) 1791 - All Rights Reserved"
If Guns Kill, Do Pencils Mis-spell Words?
Pain is Weakness Leaving the Body - USMC
"Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum"
RL357Mag is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2009, 08:09 PM   #19
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by matt g View Post
1.) Define the term assault weapon.
2.) Banning anything is banning freedom.
3.) Banning anything opens the way for the powers that be to ban anything they don't like. This problem is currently playing itself out in states like California, New York, Maryland and Illinois. It'll be coming soon to a state near you.
I DO live in Illinois, and it IS very frustrating.

Assault as in M-16s, etc.

And yes, I know about the domino effect that can happen when you ban one thing, it can spread to other lesser things, but I'm just wondering if there's another angle I can attack the subject. I'm not giving a speech to raise more questions, I'm giving a speech to dominate.
__________________

Last edited by Hawaianhamster; 07-01-2009 at 08:15 PM.
Hawaianhamster is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2009, 08:14 PM   #20
Moderator
FTF_MODERATOR.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
c3shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Third bunker on the right,Central Virginia
Posts: 16,758
Liked 8926 Times on 3867 Posts
Likes Given: 1397

Default

Link for you on DOJ document on convenience store robberies- nationally, they account for 12% of all armed robberies. Homicide rates for convenience store clerks is second only to cab drivers. http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/files/RIC/Publications/e0407972.pdf


However, in this area, there has been ONE robbery of a gunshop in the past 30 years. And that is about 20 shops in the greater metro area.

Now, regarding your question on "assault weapons", could you tell me what that is? I thought I carried one for several years- an Army issued M-16. Full auto weapons are already massively regulated under Federal law- and IIRC, in the past 40 years ONE legally possessed full auto was used in a murder- a police officer that shot his wife. But I hear news critters and politicians refer to semi auto rifles as "assault weapons" ONE of their criteria is if the rifle will accept a bayonet. Did I miss the rash of drive-by bayonetings? And what does that have to do with politicians outlawing ownership of that gun?

BTW- over the years, gun control laws have been passed over and over for the avowed purpose of keeping guns "out of the wrong hands". Sounds good, huh? Do some research (not gonna do it for you) and you will find that at various times and places in the US, the "wrong hands" have been Indian, Black, Irish, female, immigrant, poor folks, Catholics, etc etc. You might also research how poorly existing firearm laws are enforced. Since 1968, a convicted felon may not possess a firearm- to do so is a separate legal offense that carries a mandatory prison term. So..... why are we still playing "catch and release" with some of these folks? As opposed to jacking up one corner of the jail, sliding them under, and let it back down?

__________________

What we have here is... failure- to communicate.

c3shooter is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Homeowners Open Fire With AK-47 On Thieves sculker The Club House 18 03-01-2009 05:07 AM