solareclipse
Member
build a wall around miami 
OH NO. This is not good.
- Thread starter cbrgator
- Start date
- Status
Ah yes, Liberty City...the town that inspired Grand Theft Auto. Or at least one of them...I think ArmedBear made a fantastic point - chiefs are politicians, more so than regular cops.
All of MY police friends are true patriots and staunch supporters of the COTUS, including the 2nd...and 1st and 4th for that matter. Not all of them are the extreme "Right Wing Authoritarians" that holierthanthouwood likes to paint them.
Also, Golden Hound makes an excellent post - these guns don't belong on the street...that has nothing to do with what people have on their property or at the range. Rather than banning the weapon, why not reign down legal hell on the guy using it, or the guy that knowingly sold it to him illegally or the guy who legally bought it for him etc.
But of course I am preaching to the choir here...
at any rate, i was talking about this with my wife the other day - does anyone have any numbers on the percentages of gun-related crimes that involve legal vs illegal weapons?
and by legal i mean legally obtained of course.
I have no idea so i am pulling numbers out of my rear, but I would bet large sums of money that the overwhelming number of crimes involving weapons are not involved legally obtained ones...
sure you hear about the guy who shoots his wife (or the woman who shoots her husband) but that seems to be the minority.
anyone know for sure?
All of MY police friends are true patriots and staunch supporters of the COTUS, including the 2nd...and 1st and 4th for that matter. Not all of them are the extreme "Right Wing Authoritarians" that holierthanthouwood likes to paint them.
Also, Golden Hound makes an excellent post - these guns don't belong on the street...that has nothing to do with what people have on their property or at the range. Rather than banning the weapon, why not reign down legal hell on the guy using it, or the guy that knowingly sold it to him illegally or the guy who legally bought it for him etc.
But of course I am preaching to the choir here...
at any rate, i was talking about this with my wife the other day - does anyone have any numbers on the percentages of gun-related crimes that involve legal vs illegal weapons?
and by legal i mean legally obtained of course.
I have no idea so i am pulling numbers out of my rear, but I would bet large sums of money that the overwhelming number of crimes involving weapons are not involved legally obtained ones...
sure you hear about the guy who shoots his wife (or the woman who shoots her husband) but that seems to be the minority.
anyone know for sure?
What qualifies as "on the street?"
I carry my AR in my truck much of the time. This is perfectly legal here-- and oddly enough, we don't have this kind of thing happen around here.
Let's change this to:
The GUN didn't kill ANYONE. The criminal did. My friend, I fear that your thought-process is taking you down the road of the anti. As soon as you start looking at the TOOL, and not the fact that PERSONS took the action, you are well on your way.
It is an ignored and inconvienient fact that the tools are only a source of empowerment to the person's desires. It is the PERSON that makes the choices.
When you speak of the tool, you are effectively saying that you are seeking ways to limit the ABILITY to do harm, not the DESIRE to do harm. Is that the world you want to live it? A world where people's ABILITY is limited? If so, where does that end?
-- John
Last edited:
wcwhitey
Member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 2,814
Timmoney was a former NYPD Chief who retired and went to Philadelphia, ruined that city and got out before the homicides went crazy. Then he went to Miami and we now see what is happening. Whats old is new again! I personally think it is police incompetence.
you are absolutely right. But clearly he didn't mean the firearm can't be "on the street" in the sense that it can't be in your car...how would it get to and from the range or the multitude of other places where it has utility. But yes, the article implies that the weapon shot those people on its own...
There aren't many situations that i can think of when a person should be wielding a firearm like this on the streets of Miami. However, in the case that a law-abiding citizen does, the chances are, i'm going to want to thank him and shake his hand afterwards - and he should certainly have no fear that he broke any unconstitutional laws!
There aren't many situations that i can think of when a person should be wielding a firearm like this on the streets of Miami. However, in the case that a law-abiding citizen does, the chances are, i'm going to want to thank him and shake his hand afterwards - and he should certainly have no fear that he broke any unconstitutional laws!
Claymore1500
Member
IF this moron had stolen a car and drove it thru the crowd of people on that corner, It most likely wouldn't have even made the news
I have to disgree that Obama has too much on his hands to do any anti gun work. Look at his first two official acts in the white house...
Executive order - close gitmo
Executive order - remove ban on federal funds being used for abortions
Two specific actions designed to appease left wing special interest groups.
Makes you think that an executive order stopping sales of ammo, firearms, whatever could be next...
John:banghead:
Executive order - close gitmo
Executive order - remove ban on federal funds being used for abortions
Two specific actions designed to appease left wing special interest groups.
Makes you think that an executive order stopping sales of ammo, firearms, whatever could be next...
John:banghead:
Shovelhead
Member
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/01/24/miami.shooting/index.html#cnnSTCText
The video on the TAB at the top of the page is running this morning on CNN headline news.
Further into the video airing on CNN, one of the Politicos states (paraphrased) "Biden is a good friend of mine, and has assured me that there WILL BE an assault weapons ban coming"
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/01/24/miami.shooting/index.html#cnnSTCVideo
The video on the TAB at the top of the page is running this morning on CNN headline news.
Further into the video airing on CNN, one of the Politicos states (paraphrased) "Biden is a good friend of mine, and has assured me that there WILL BE an assault weapons ban coming"
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/01/24/miami.shooting/index.html#cnnSTCVideo
Last edited:
WoofersInc
Member
It's going to get worse. Just reporting a shooting in Kansas with amazingly the same number killed and wounded at a wake.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28836088/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28836088/
The_Shootist
Member
Just curious - but how difficult is it to modify a semi AK to one that has a happy switch (and no - I'm not trolling or looking for a blow by blow description). But after those two clowns in LA decided to make an unofficial sequel to the movie Heat, I got the impression it wasn't too difficult. Not easy - but something someone with a decent machine shop and some Internet knowledge could do.
Again, as illegal as if it was a stolen AK, but if it was that easy for criminals, with all the semi type AK's out there to work on you'd expect to see ALOT more incidents (as oppsed to what? 3% - 5%) of this type of crime.
Again, as illegal as if it was a stolen AK, but if it was that easy for criminals, with all the semi type AK's out there to work on you'd expect to see ALOT more incidents (as oppsed to what? 3% - 5%) of this type of crime.
Gungnir
Member
Hmm, lets think about that for a moment, AK, currently used in armed conflicts.
Automobile, currently used in armed conflicts.
Rocks, probably currently used in armed conflicts.
I could go on, probably the biggest weapon of war there was the people who are without a doubt THE only weapon of war, and I don't see armed shoot outs involving a crack kennel and 6 feral dogs round my place, hell we defined the word.
Of course this is logic, and logic is not what most want to hear.
By the logic of the speaker, then one assumes that Diaz will also remove all the police MP5's, AR's, etc. since they are covered by his blanket statement, and have no place on the street.
Finally, I'm pretty sure that the President will not risk doing anything as rash as attempting to pass an EO that impacts the 2A or the RKBA. Firstly because it would be a serious breach of power (constitutional right impacting change without coming through the government branches). It would likely alienate Congress too, your congressmen and senators are part of the political machine, and when they feel dis-empowered they get pretty upset, the only thing that upsets a Politico more than trying to take their power, is to show that you already have.
Sato Ord
Member
Just make sure that you do what I intend to do.
Write a letter to your state and federal legislators and point out that the weapon is simply the means that the criminal used to commit the crime. Since he planned on committing a capital offense he wouldn't have payed much attention to ban on any kind of weapon.
Firearms are fact of life. Once they were designed they could be made by anyone with a little knowledge and the right tools. You cannot put the genie back in the bottle.
Criminals will always find a way to do as they please, and by definition of the word criminal, they don't obey the law. I'm sure that an assault weapons ban will be just as effective as the law has been at keeping cocaine and other illegal drugs out of the hands of the drug dealers. And most likely at least as costly to try and enforce.
In this time of national financial crisis, do we really have the means of imposing such a ban?
Also, in keeping with the spirit of this country, should we take away the rights of law abiding citizens? Should we do so when all past evidence proves that such a ban would do nothing to deter violent crime?
Write a letter to your state and federal legislators and point out that the weapon is simply the means that the criminal used to commit the crime. Since he planned on committing a capital offense he wouldn't have payed much attention to ban on any kind of weapon.
Firearms are fact of life. Once they were designed they could be made by anyone with a little knowledge and the right tools. You cannot put the genie back in the bottle.
Criminals will always find a way to do as they please, and by definition of the word criminal, they don't obey the law. I'm sure that an assault weapons ban will be just as effective as the law has been at keeping cocaine and other illegal drugs out of the hands of the drug dealers. And most likely at least as costly to try and enforce.
In this time of national financial crisis, do we really have the means of imposing such a ban?
Also, in keeping with the spirit of this country, should we take away the rights of law abiding citizens? Should we do so when all past evidence proves that such a ban would do nothing to deter violent crime?
Lightninstrike
Member
T
That's exactly right. It has nothing to do with public safety.
That's exactly right. It has nothing to do with public safety.
Flyboy
Member
My understanding is that the East Hollywood shootout involved weapons that were manufactured as full-auto and stolen from police and military inventories (including Mexican and US militaries).
JImbothefiveth
Member
I don't think executive orders work that way.
However, I do believe he will encourage congress to pass one, at which point I will tell everyone who supported Obama "I told you so".
coloradokevin
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2008
- Messages
- 3,285
I have a new theory on fighting gun control. That is, I post most of my political views on non-gun forums, in an attempt to convert those folks who are currently on the fence (obviously I'm preaching to the choir around here). Nevertheless, here's what I posted on another forum regarding this story, after another forum member mentioned assault weapons bans:
"Yet we all should already realize that these so-called assault weapons are rarely used in crime, statistically speaking. We are in a country of nearly 300,000,000 people, with a news media that feeds on carnage. But, the fact remains that these firearms do not contribute significantly to violent crime. After the last AWB expired, certain members of congress were claiming that our neighborhoods would turn to war zones, and our streets would run red with blood (or something to that effect); four years later this is still not the case!
An issolated incident in the projects does not mean that we need tighter gun laws, though I could still see it being used as fodder for the cause. For that matter, at least based on my experiences in law enforcement, the shooter was probably already a restricted person to begin with, and was therefore committing a felony just by having the gun in his possession!
Besides, let us not ever forget that a certain type of person is responsible for these mass killings/attacks, not a certain type of weapon. Yet, we know that crimes with certain types of weapons get a bit of extra media attention. "If it bleeds, it leads":
1) Andrew Mathis: http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20090109_298_0_hrimgs453588
Andrew intentionally drove his car into a crowd of people in Tulsa, OK, just a couple of months ago. He killed two people and wounded five. Did you ever hear about this? Most folks did not, despite the fact that it was about on-par with the killing in Miami this week!
2)Charles Whitman: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman
The famous tower incident. All told, he killed 14 people, and wounded 32 others. It might be noteworthy to mention that he used a knife, a shotgun, and a Remington 700 ("hunting rifle"). None of which would fall under ANY type of constitutional weapons ban.
3)Naked 26-year-old: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/540387.stm
Wounds 11 people, 4 critically, as he attacks a church congregation, naked, while armed with a sword.
4)Tonya Bell: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19005509/
Wounds 40 people as she drives her car through a crowd in the city with the most restrictive gun laws in the entire nation!
As a final note, you may have noticed that I refer to the "so-called assault weapons" earlier in my post. I think it is important to make this distinction, specifically because none of these legally owned weapons are true select-fire "machine guns", and therefore are not the 'weapons of war' that certain politicians like to claim they are. They will NOT fire in a fully-automatic fashion, nor will they fire in burst mode. They all operate in a manner that is identical to any semi-automatic hunting rifle, whereby one pull of the trigger results in only one single bullet being fired.
Simply put, a civilian "AK-47" is not really an AK-47! A civilian AR-15 is not the same as a military M4/M-16. And, a civilian M1A is not the same as a military M14. None of the civilian weapons in question allow for fully automatic fire. None of them function in a manner that is any different than, say, the Ruger 10-22 (.22 caliber) or Marlin model 60 (.22 caliber) that many of us would have fired at Boy Scout camp, or while hunting small woodland creatures as kids.
The true assault weapons are held by the military, certain police units, and a very few number of civilians with Class III permits (unless you have $25,000 laying around, don't count on obtaining a machine gun this way... even then, it would have had to have been manufactured in the 1980's, or earlier). The remaining true assault weapons that might be found on the streets of America are already VERY illegal, and possessing one would result is severe federal penalties! "
"Yet we all should already realize that these so-called assault weapons are rarely used in crime, statistically speaking. We are in a country of nearly 300,000,000 people, with a news media that feeds on carnage. But, the fact remains that these firearms do not contribute significantly to violent crime. After the last AWB expired, certain members of congress were claiming that our neighborhoods would turn to war zones, and our streets would run red with blood (or something to that effect); four years later this is still not the case!
An issolated incident in the projects does not mean that we need tighter gun laws, though I could still see it being used as fodder for the cause. For that matter, at least based on my experiences in law enforcement, the shooter was probably already a restricted person to begin with, and was therefore committing a felony just by having the gun in his possession!
Besides, let us not ever forget that a certain type of person is responsible for these mass killings/attacks, not a certain type of weapon. Yet, we know that crimes with certain types of weapons get a bit of extra media attention. "If it bleeds, it leads":
1) Andrew Mathis: http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20090109_298_0_hrimgs453588
Andrew intentionally drove his car into a crowd of people in Tulsa, OK, just a couple of months ago. He killed two people and wounded five. Did you ever hear about this? Most folks did not, despite the fact that it was about on-par with the killing in Miami this week!
2)Charles Whitman: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman
The famous tower incident. All told, he killed 14 people, and wounded 32 others. It might be noteworthy to mention that he used a knife, a shotgun, and a Remington 700 ("hunting rifle"). None of which would fall under ANY type of constitutional weapons ban.
3)Naked 26-year-old: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/540387.stm
Wounds 11 people, 4 critically, as he attacks a church congregation, naked, while armed with a sword.
4)Tonya Bell: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19005509/
Wounds 40 people as she drives her car through a crowd in the city with the most restrictive gun laws in the entire nation!
As a final note, you may have noticed that I refer to the "so-called assault weapons" earlier in my post. I think it is important to make this distinction, specifically because none of these legally owned weapons are true select-fire "machine guns", and therefore are not the 'weapons of war' that certain politicians like to claim they are. They will NOT fire in a fully-automatic fashion, nor will they fire in burst mode. They all operate in a manner that is identical to any semi-automatic hunting rifle, whereby one pull of the trigger results in only one single bullet being fired.
Simply put, a civilian "AK-47" is not really an AK-47! A civilian AR-15 is not the same as a military M4/M-16. And, a civilian M1A is not the same as a military M14. None of the civilian weapons in question allow for fully automatic fire. None of them function in a manner that is any different than, say, the Ruger 10-22 (.22 caliber) or Marlin model 60 (.22 caliber) that many of us would have fired at Boy Scout camp, or while hunting small woodland creatures as kids.
The true assault weapons are held by the military, certain police units, and a very few number of civilians with Class III permits (unless you have $25,000 laying around, don't count on obtaining a machine gun this way... even then, it would have had to have been manufactured in the 1980's, or earlier). The remaining true assault weapons that might be found on the streets of America are already VERY illegal, and possessing one would result is severe federal penalties! "
stellarpod
Member
coloradokevin:
Very well stated. I hope you don't mind that I've cut and pasted your arguements so that I can use them where appropriate.
stellarpod
Very well stated. I hope you don't mind that I've cut and pasted your arguements so that I can use them where appropriate.
stellarpod
Caeser2001
Member
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2008
- Messages
- 68
even if there was a real "ban" like in the UK, they'll still be killing each other with them anyways, they'll flow in the same way drugs do.
WoofersInc
Member
We now have the third shooting being reported. Interesting that all of theese shootings have the same number dead and wounded......
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28844043/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28844043/
BrandonBowers
Member
Busy weekend.
coloradokevin
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2008
- Messages
- 3,285
stellarpod said:
Of course! We're all in this together, I just want to get the word out... so feel free to spread anything I say around, if it ever seems beneficial to the cause
A few years ago the late Neal Knox chronicled how often high-profile criminal shootings immediately preceded Congressional debates on gun control. This was especially true with regards to debates involve so-called "assault weapons." I am not big on conspiracy theories but it was striking how it seemed like every time Congress started mumbling about banning "assault weapons" some nut would start shooting up the place with a gun that would be considered in that category. You want to believe that nobody would be insane enough to arrange or at least facilitate mass shootings to further a political goal, but I have to admit that after some stunts I have seen some radical Democrats do, I have to wonder.
Whenever one of these tragic shootings occur it always seems to be on the eve of Congressional debates or votes on gun control. I dismissed the possibility of a deliberate relationship until I saw the time line charts and saw how closely the mass shootings and gun control debates coincided.
Whenever one of these tragic shootings occur it always seems to be on the eve of Congressional debates or votes on gun control. I dismissed the possibility of a deliberate relationship until I saw the time line charts and saw how closely the mass shootings and gun control debates coincided.
i think it's far more likely that when things like this happen the politicians in question might encourage their various friends in the media to push certain stories in exchange for an inside story later or some other form of back-scratching...
both sides do it... cough cough schiavo cough cough, pardon me
both sides do it... cough cough schiavo cough cough, pardon me
SilentStalker
Member
Call me crazy but whose to say that these shootings aren't purposely orchestrated somehow by someone to help pass the legislations coming. Not very plausible I know, and call me paranoid, but it is possible. People pay people off all of the time to make things happen so...just throwing that out there as it is something I have not seen anyone discuss. Nevermind, it pays to read the entire thread as SaxonPig basically stated what I was saying already.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked