Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Gun Control      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 SexyandBrainy
Joined: 6/26/2005
Msg: 601
Re: Gun ControlPage 25 of 50    (10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50)

My point is that if you're basing your opinions of Americans on the type of people that frequent Nobu, then you have formed an opinion on probably less than 1% of the population.



Now Timpommell do you actually think that I would base my experience of the US people on a dining experiences at one of NY's trendiest suhi restaurants? I mean come on, the last time I was there I was next to the Designer Guys who sat with their entourage at the table next to us. That is hardly the "real American experience"!!! You had told me previously that I needed to "hang out at better bars" so I was simply pointing out that I have no problem finding the "good places" when abroad. Now if what you are trying to say is that Nobu is not YOUR cup of tea well that's a different story.


I've never been to Miami or Atlanta and I cannot comment on that. I have been to Philadelphia, New Jersey, Boston, Chicago and Ohio and I DID comment on that.
Please go back and re-read my posts or NOT. but for future if you do selective reading then it's no point even having a discussion with you since you simply take whatever you wish to misconstrue and base all your arguments on that. Not only is that not playing fair, it is a complete waste of time.
 lola05
Joined: 7/1/2005
Msg: 602
view profile
History
Re: Gun Control
Posted: 8/20/2005 10:21:16 AM
timpommell



The State judge doesn't "check" the box because he or she doesn't feel the person is a risk for extreme violence, and may feel the removal of any firearms is an unnecessary infringement on rights, and / or perhaps serve to further excite the issue. Now then, the State by virtue of not checking the box, demonstrates resistance to the broad brush application of the Federal law, and the Fed's, in the interest of preserving the division of Government, will in most cases ignore the infraction so as not to muddy the jurisdictional waters and create resistance for other more meaningful cases. ...
..I am in no way minimizing the threat, ....


You are saying that the "judge" would presume, that a person who has been issued a restraining order, is not a risk for "extreme violence", because he/she "feels" that way ?
How about just the present potential risk of an escalation of violence ?
Which is almost always present in cases involving restraining orders.

You are saying that the... Temporary "removal" of a Firearm, may not be justified ?
In spite of an existing legal protection order, due to a recognized level of potential threat
to the victim ?

And that, THIS ? ! ...might be, ..."an unnecessary infringement on rights, and/or perhaps
serve to further " excite the issue " ? "Excite" ? ... What do you mean, "excite" ?



"... in the interest of preserving the division of Government, will in most cases ignore the infraction so as not to muddy the jurisdictional waters and create resistance for other more meaningful cases."


Well, ... preserving that "division of Government", should ...
Certainly (!) take priority over any Risks to the Health and Safety of a tax paying Citizen. And we certainly wouldn't want to go "muddying" any "jurisdictional waters".

Tim, have you ever heard of the term, "Zero Tolerance" ?
And legal action, with the aim of preventing or reducing, potential violence?
. . . Any, and All ...future, potential violence?


~ And, Tim ?

In which States, would it be legal for a young person to legally purchase
a firearm,. . while they are yet unable, to legally purchase alcohol?
 SexyandBrainy
Joined: 6/26/2005
Msg: 604
Re: Gun Control
Posted: 8/20/2005 1:23:38 PM
wooops! I meant the Queer Eye for the Straight guy, guys not the Designer Guys...the latter are Canadian.
 lola05
Joined: 7/1/2005
Msg: 605
view profile
History
Re: Gun Control
Posted: 8/20/2005 3:25:06 PM
Thanks sparklepants. ~ i'm still curious if there are any others.
(goin out... i'll have to check back later)

sexyandbrainy - Those guys ?? !!!!
i looove that blond guy ! He constantly cracks me up !!! (my favorite) ~
 Montreal_Guy
Joined: 3/8/2004
Msg: 607
view profile
History
Re: Gun Control
Posted: 8/20/2005 6:04:20 PM

Children and Gun Violence
In a single year, 3,012 children and teens were killed by gunfire in the United States, according to the latest national data released in 2002. That is one child every three hours; eight children every day; and more than 50 children every week. And every year, at least 4 to 5 times as many kids and teens suffer from non-fatal firearm injuries. (Children's Defense Fund and National Center for Health Statistics)

America and Gun Violence
American children are more at risk from firearms than the children of any other industrialized nation. In one year, firearms killed no children in Japan, 19 in Great Britain, 57 in Germany, 109 in France, 153 in Canada, and 5,285 in the United States. (Centers for Disease Control)

Guns in the Wrong Hands
Faulty records enable terrorists, illegal aliens and criminals to purchase guns. Over a two and a half-year period, at least 9,976 convicted felons and other illegal buyers in 46 states obtained guns because of inadequate records. (Broken Records, Americans for Gun Safety Foundation)

School Safety

Between 1994 and 1999, there were 220 school associated violent events resulting in 253 deaths - - 74.5% of these involved firearms. Handguns caused almost 60% of these deaths. (Journal of American Medical Association, December 2001)
In 1998-99 academic year, 3,523 students were expelled for bringing a firearm to school. This is a decrease from the 5,724 students expelled in 1996-97 for bringing a firearm to school. (U.S. Department of Education, October 2000)
Nearly 8% of adolescents in urban junior and senior high schools miss at least one day of school each month because they are afraid to attend. (National Mental Health & Education Center for Children & Families, National Association of School Psychologists 1998)
The National School Boards Association estimates that more than 135,000 guns are brought into U.S. schools each day. (NSBA, 1993)

Children and Gun Violence

America is losing too many children to gun violence. Between 1979 and 2001, gunfire killed 90,000 children and teens in America. (Children's Defense Fund and National Center for Health Statistics)
In one year, more children and teens died from gunfire than from cancer, pneumonia, influenza, asthma, and HIV/AIDS combined. (Children's Defense Fund)
The rate of firearm deaths among kids under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)

America and Gun Violence

Every day, more than 80 Americans die from gun violence. (Coalition to Stop Gun Violence)
The rate of firearm deaths among kids under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)

American kids are 16 times more likely to be murdered with a gun, 11 times more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine times more likely to die from a firearm accident than children in 25 other industrialized countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control)
Guns in the Wrong Hands

Americans for Gun Safety produced a 2003 report that reveals that 20 of the nation’s 22 national gun laws are not enforced. According to U.S. Department of Justice data (FY 2000-2002), only 2% of federal gun crimes were actually prosecuted. Eighty-five percent of cases prosecuted relate to street criminals in possession of firearms. Ignored are laws intended to punish illegal gun trafficking, firearm theft, corrupt gun dealers, lying on a criminal background check form, obliterating firearm serial numbers, selling guns to minors and possessing a gun in a school zone. To access The Enforcement Gap: Federal Gun Laws Ignored, visit http://w3.agsfoundation.com/.

Studies show that 1 percent of gun stores sell the weapons traced to 57 percent of gun crimes. According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), the dealer that armed the DC area sniper is among this small group of problem gun dealers that "supply the suppliers" who funnel guns to the nation's criminals. (Between 1997 and 2001, guns sold by this dealer were involved in 52 crimes, including homicides, kidnappings and assaults. Still open today, it also can't account for 238 guns or say whether they were stolen, lost or sold, or if their buyers underwent felony-background checks.) As a result, these few gun dealers have a vastly disproportionate impact on public safety. The ATF can recognize such dealers based on: (1) guns stolen from inventory; (2) missing federal sales records, needed by police to solve crimes; (3) having 10 weapons a year traced to crimes; (4) frequently selling multiple guns to individual buyers; and (5) short times between gun sales and their involvement in crimes. Yet ATF enforcement is weak due to a lack of Congressional support and resources.

Terrorists have purchased firearms at gun shows, where unlicensed sellers are not currently required to conduct background checks or to ask for identification. According to the Middle East Intelligence Report, for example, a Hezbollah member was arrested in November 2000, after a nine-month investigation by the FBI's counter-terrorism unit. Ali Boumelhem was later convicted on seven counts of weapons charges and conspiracy to ship weapons and ammunition to Lebanon. Federal agents had observed Boumelhem, a resident of Detroit and Beirut, travel to Michigan gun shows and buy gun parts and ammunition for shipment overseas. Boumelhem was prohibited from legally purchasing guns as gun stores because he was a convicted felon. Additional cases involve a Pakistani national with an expired (1988) student visa; a Lebanese native and Hamas member with numerous felony convictions; and a supporter of the Irish Republican Army. (USA Today, Wednesday, November 28, 2001 Americans for Gun Safety)

According to Americans for Gun Safety (December 2002), gun theft is most likely in states without laws requiring safe storage of firearms in the home and where there are large numbers of gun owners and relatively high crime rates. Based on FBI data, nearly 1.7 million guns have been reported stolen in the past ten years, and only 40% of those were recovered. The missing guns, over 80% of which are taken from homes or cars, most likely fuel the black market for criminals. NEA, AGS and the National Rifle Association advocate for safe storage. To access "Stolen Guns: Arming the Enemy" visit www.agsfoundation.com.
The American Medical Association reports that between 36% and 50% of male eleventh graders believe that they could easily get a gun if they wanted one.
In 1998-99 academic year, 3,523 students were expelled for bringing a firearm to school. This is a decrease from the 5,724 students expelled in 1996-97 for bringing a firearm to school. (U.S. Department of Education, October 2000)
According to a report by the Joshephson Institute of Ethics (2000 Report Card: Report #1), 60% of high school and 31% of middle school boys said they could get a gun if they wanted to (April, 2001).

Updated: April 14, 2005


If the right to have firearms made people safe, America would be the safest country in the world to live in.

It's really that simple.
 Montreal_Guy
Joined: 3/8/2004
Msg: 608
view profile
History
Re: Gun Control
Posted: 8/20/2005 9:28:29 PM

Actually, no, it isn't. Look at European countries where having a firearm in the house is mandatory. Lowest crime rates. It has been proven time and time again that having a firearm in the house, when criminals KNOW there is one, has resulted in less crime.


That ignores the positive effect in those same European countries of a strong social safety net. The poor there are not as poor as the poor in the USA, as they have access to progressive welfare and health benefits.

Those things certainly counterbalance any " positive" effect the weapons have.

If you have high poverty, it carries with it the connected effects of many things like drug and alcohol abuse, spousal abuse, and higher crime. Also, demographically, older populations have a tendency to not commit crimes.
 marita_b
Joined: 6/15/2005
Msg: 609
view profile
History
Re: Gun Control
Posted: 8/21/2005 7:54:02 AM
we seem to keep going in circles here,....and every time a position is defended with documentation and where this information can be verified,..it goes ignored and then re espoused wrong,...

your (yna6) reference regarding mandatory gun law countries in europe I believe is your reference to Switzerland,....and there it was shown to not in fact be working and their gun ownership inspite being required by any abled body man who is also required to be in the national millitia,...

which is why they are issued not only the weapon but also the bullits which are well regulated,....and they are now dealing with a high (and ever increasing) crime rate and revising their gun ownership and liscencing issues,....

I'm not going to write it all out again,...and I haven't figured out how to cut and paste yet ,....just go back a few pages it's all there,....

and your ideas of well let 'em come and I'll blast 'em,...I countered with your very own state laws regarding the use of firearms for defense,....which in MOST states is very high,...

so you can own the gun,..but if you use it,..you might find yourself behind bars for a very long time,....even in what might appear to be clear cut cases of self defense,...you have to check your particular state's laws to find out where you stand,...

and I even pointed out ,...as have others,..on more than one occasion that IF,...most criminals already know that most houses have gun owners living in them,...why are they still (at a higher rate than many countries that don't) breaking and entering,...

as I stated before you have either the dumbest criminals on the planet or the bravest ones taking risks like that,......

Your right,..the police can't be there 24x7 not in the USA,..not in Canada,...not anywhere thruth be told,....so then the crime statistics have that variable in common ergo that then cancells its self out,...

so if you all have these guns to protect your person and property,...wouldn't you think there would be less deaths and roberies,...instead of more?

Even in your country you are not all created or rather ruled the same,...as far as gun ownership, use, carrying permits, etc,...

Just last night I heard of a huge program being run in Rochester NY,..called
PROJECT EXILE,...just google it and you can get the info yourself,...the long and short of it is this project is designed to reduce the vast number of illegal guns,..because even in your country where there are SOOOOOO many legal ones,....there are still inordinate number of illegal ones as well,....

why is that,.....

why,...in a country where it is so easy to get a gun,....are there still so many illegal ones?,...
This makes no sense to me,.....perhaps someone can explain it,...

If you all lived in a bubble where no one comes in or goes out I would agree that it doesn't effect anyone but you,....this however isn't the case and if you want to continue to attract the millions of tourists that visit your country every year,....an income I don't think you could afford to do without,...then what you do does affect more than just "your citizens"
illigal smuggeling not withstanding,....

I think your first serious test of advers reaction will be to keep an eye on the state of Florida which recently or shortly will have THEE most relaxed laws on gun ownership and use in your country,...In this Global Economy,...no Country is an island,.....nor self sufficient completely.

not even you


 marita_b
Joined: 6/15/2005
Msg: 610
view profile
History
Re: Gun Control
Posted: 8/21/2005 9:01:27 AM
How about,....SAFE FREEDOM?
 Montreal_Guy
Joined: 3/8/2004
Msg: 611
view profile
History
Re: Gun Control
Posted: 8/21/2005 9:23:00 AM
Does anyone here have a clue as to why the founding fathers of the USA put the second ammendment into the constitution in the first place?It wasn't put there so the early colonialists could defend themselves against robbery or Native American uprisings,it was put there so the citizens of the newly formed country could defend themselves against the GOVERNMENT in the event the new government became as tyranical as the British government that was just overthrown.They wanted the people to be able to defend themselves against tyranny and totalitarianism in any form.

One need only look at events like Ruby Ridge and the Branch Davidian siege in Waco,Texas a few years ago look at them objectively and ask if the founding fathers fears were now being realized.I'll take dangerous freedom over "safe" tyranny anyday.Keep guns legal and available to the citizens.


This argument I have always loved.

Americans, who have one of the most democratic countries every created on this planet, who actually have the power to legally remove a leader that violates laws, that has proven the strength of that power of the common man over his government time and time again - also seem to think they need weapons to defend themselves against it.

Do you really think, no matter how well armed you are, that you will have a chance against a much more powerful government ? If it comes down to that, you are outgunned and outmanned. If you look at any of those incidents you quoted - the proof is in the result.

The founding fathers would probably be as shocked as anyone else if they saw the weapons available today. They are beyond anything they could have imagined as being even possible, in their accuracy and rate of fire.

They wanted militias, groups of armed men under control - not renegades with automatic weapons.

They were visionaries, but also lived in their time. Let us not forget that when they said " All men are created equal " their perspective did not include non-white men, non-land owners, or even women - meaning most of the nation at that time. Those people could not vote.

It took time for those disenfranchised groups to be included in the democratic process.

 Montreal_Guy
Joined: 3/8/2004
Msg: 612
view profile
History
Re: Gun Control
Posted: 8/21/2005 9:36:58 AM
Subsequent legislation in the second Congress likewise supports the interpretation of the Second Amendment that creates an individual right. In the Militia Act of 1792, the second Congress defined "militia of the United States" to include almost every free adult male in the United States. These persons were obligated by law to possess a firearm and a minimum supply of ammunition and military equipment. This statute, incidentally, remained in effect into the early years of the present century as a legal requirement of gun ownership for most of the population of the United States. There can by little doubt from this that when the Congress and the people spoke of a "militia", they had reference to the traditional concept of the entire populace capable of bearing arms, and not to any formal group such as what is today called the National Guard. The purpose was to create an armed citizenry, which the political theorists at the time considered essential to ward off tyranny. From this militia, appropriate measures might create a "well regulated militia" of individuals trained in their duties and responsibilities as citizens and owners of firearms.

http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm


What I find interesting is that the Constitution has been amended over time. Many Americans see this right to bear arms as something that is written in stone.

Why don't we also return to a time where only white male land owners could vote ?

The founding fathers set up a system that could be modified, for good reasons. They realized that things would change, and that a process was needed to modify their vision when circumstances demanded it.

The systems of checks and balances they brilliantly set up to do that clearly shows the American political system was meant to be a dynamic and responsive machine.
 lola05
Joined: 7/1/2005
Msg: 613
view profile
History
Re: Gun Control
Posted: 8/21/2005 10:08:01 AM

Montreal_Guy
The founding fathers set up a system that could be modified, for good reasons.
They realized that things would change, and that a process was needed to modify
their vision when circumstances demanded it. "


^^^ ^^^ ~ Vital, to the survival of any organism or society, is adaptation.
 msquared
Joined: 8/31/2004
Msg: 614
view profile
History
Re: Gun Control
Posted: 8/21/2005 10:13:05 AM

One need only look at events like Ruby Ridge and the Branch Davidian siege in Waco,Texas a few years ago look at them objectively and ask if the founding fathers fears were now being realized.I'll take dangerous freedom over "safe" tyranny anyday.Keep guns legal and available to the citizens.


As I understand it, gun control isn't about keeping guns from law-abiding citizens. It is about making sure people are responsible before they get the guns. Therefore, why are so many people opposed to it?
 Montreal_Guy
Joined: 3/8/2004
Msg: 615
view profile
History
Re: Gun Control
Posted: 8/21/2005 10:25:41 AM
Had a time traveller walked into the hall, while the Constitution was being drafted, and taken an automatic weapon out and invited the founding fathers outside for a demonstration - things might have been a bit different.

"Sir, do you mean to imply that a firearm can be loaded in less than one minute ! Preposterous ! Witchcraft , I say !!! "

Had he also explained how America would change from a small nation, primarily agrarian in it's make up, to one of great population densities and large industrialized cities, with military force that left no doubt of an easy ability to defend against any foreign attack to overthrow the government - well, they would have reached for "ye olde liquid paper" .
 lola05
Joined: 7/1/2005
Msg: 616
view profile
History
Re: Gun Control
Posted: 8/21/2005 3:06:03 PM
^^^^^^^^

You know, where i stand on Gun Control, Mike, .. and i Very Much liked your post. ~
 TimPommell
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 617
view profile
History
Re: Gun Control
Posted: 8/22/2005 4:50:49 AM
Lola 1034

~ i completely disagree with you.

There’s a shocker…


Here, we're back again, at your assumption that *someone* has stated that the object,
(the Gun), 'causes' or "creates the criminal intent".

I don’t assume “someone” stated it, I assert that you constantly infer and imply it.

i have maintained that,....
... the easy access, or availablity of the Firearm,... Facilitates... the criminal intent.

And I maintain that the gun facilitates criminal intent at the same level as does a knife in a stabbing incident, or a bat in a bludgeoning incident. The weapon is a tool used to commit the crime; a person commits the crime. Whether it’s intentional or not, you constantly infer that the weapon (firearm) influences the criminal act, and it simply isn’t true… It influences the method used to perpetrate the violent act, but it doesn’t create the crime.

If a firearm was the weapon of choice, and the person…

See what I mean, you constantly seem to blame crime on the weapon, not the criminal.

Generally, survival rates of people attacked by people with bats and knives,
are known to be, .. Way better, that survival rates of people where a firearm was used.
. . The people attacked with knives and bats have stood a way better chance of survival,
and of having the chance of being able to live to talk about it.

I don’t know that is true at all. One would have to make the assumption that nearly every trigger pull resulted in death in order to make that distinction, and most people simply aren’t that good of a shot. I’d be very interested in reading any information you might be able to find on the subject. (Even if it is from an extremist position.)

What is more perplexing, ...given my opinion of your obvious intelligence,
is why you obstinately refuse, to do so, ... on your own. -------------->

Perhaps~ I ~~~ have ~ figured it out ~~~~ I ~~~~~~ just ~ don’t ~ agree ~~~ with ~~~~ your ~ conclusions.
S&B 1035

You had told me previously that I needed to "hang out at better bars" so I was simply pointing out that I have no problem finding the "good places" when abroad.

It was a joke! To quote Fred Flintstone, “Loosen the bone Wilma!”

but for future if you do selective reading then it's no point even having a discussion with you since you simply take whatever you wish to misconstrue and base all your arguments on that. Not only is that not playing fair, it is a complete waste of time.

I read the entire post…. I didn’t intentionally take anything out of context, you indicated you had experiences with Americans that were somewhat less than stellar, then specifically indicated several places in Manhattan that you frequent. If your perspective of Americans were based on a wider array of information beyond the pretentious Sushi crowd, then I’d have to say you have at least increased the odds of your perspective being an accurate reflection of us.
Lola 1036

You are saying that the "judge" would presume, that a person who has been issued a restraining order, is not a risk for "extreme violence", because he/she "feels" that way ?

Yes, that’s what I’m saying. The Judge is the person issuing the order; they are ones that decide if an order is appropriate and the limits of the order.

How about just the present potential risk of an escalation of violence ?
Which is almost always present in cases involving restraining orders.

You’re making the assumption that almost all restraining orders issues are predicated on a history of violence, they are not…. nor are they limited to former domestic partners. You can get a restraining order because of persistent harassing phone calls, unexpected / unwelcome visits, inappropriate persistent sexual advances…. The list is very long, and the majority does not necessarily include any previous act of violence.

In which States, would it be legal for a young person to legally purchase
a firearm,. . while they are yet unable, to legally purchase alcohol?

The national drinking age is 21. I don’t know what individual state laws are in respect to the minimum age requirements for ALL firearms, but I’m pretty sure no state is currently lower than age 18 for long guns, but I suspect the actual required age is now 21, as it is for handguns.
Sweetietoyou 1040

Not true at all. The district court judge will always check the box if there is a finding of abuse. The box will not be checked if it is used in a negotiation to get the defendant to agree to an order (negotiations the the judge has nothing to do with.)

You need to reread my post. I said “The State judge doesn't "check" the box because he or she doesn't feel the person is a risk for extreme violence”
If you have a case where there is a history of domestic violence, I would think NOT restricting access to firearms would put the state officials who “negotiated” the exemption at risk of prosecution for reckless endangerment.
You’re speaking about a specific case? Was it your intent to have everyone interpret “abuse” as domestic violence? One can abuse telephone privileges, doesn’t mean they’re at risk of shooting the phone.
I can assure you that allowing the presence of a firearm within easy access to someone with a history of domestic violence is not the standard of behavior, nor is it considered a negotiating tool by any responsible public official. If you have public officials endangering the lives of the public they are sworn to protect, then you have another type of abuse as well ... abuse of power. I suggest you look into having the person who negotiated on your behalf removed from office; clearly they are not doing their job.
 TimPommell
Joined: 1/13/2005
Msg: 618
view profile
History
Re: Gun Control
Posted: 8/22/2005 6:36:14 AM
Monty

"Sir, do you mean to imply that a firearm can be loaded in less than one minute ! Preposterous ! Witchcraft , I say !!! "


More likely they did anticipate progress.... if you consider at the time we were considered radical thinkers, why would they limit the right to keep and... on the assumption that technology would stand still? Wouldn't we look pretty silly going up against an AK47 on the battlefield with Kentucky Long Rifle?
The rights afforded were the most liberal and progressive at the time, and were designed in expression to defy the standards of time. I think they accomplished just what they set out to do.... to provide us with a vehicle necessary to become the leader of the free world.

I'm with MajMike, some limited revamp of our gun laws are necessary. To begin, eliminating anitquated unenforceable laws that were put into place by their narrow of mind succesors.
 lola05
Joined: 7/1/2005
Msg: 619
view profile
History
Re: Gun Control
Posted: 8/22/2005 12:09:32 PM
timpommell



S&B 1035
Lola 1034
Lola 1036
Sweetietoyou 1040


~ Tim, in future, please consider more clarity in your posts.
By attributing the member's name and message #,... Within... the quote itself.
Such as -> sexyandbrainy - (msg:1035) "......".
Your last post was very confusing, and i did had a good sense of who you were referring to.
If your not willing to make that effort, just individualize your posts to particular members.



" You’re making the assumption that almost all restraining orders issues are predicated on a history of violence, they are not…. nor are they limited to former domestic partners. You can get a restraining order because of persistent harassing phone calls, unexpected / unwelcome visits, inappropriate persistent sexual advances….
The list is very long, and the majority does not necessarily include any previous act of violence. "


You are making the "assumption", that the behaviors in your examples are not to be considered serious and potentially threatening, in terms of potential for escalation and possible danger to the victim. In spite of the obviously contrary opinion of the courts.

Now, if it was your mother or sister or daughter, who required this protection,
perhaps you would be far less inclined to minimize any potential threat of future violence.
And possibly reconsider your position on whether it would be prudent to allow this individual the legal possession of a Firearm.

And Tim, *news flash*, ... any abusive behavior IS a form of violence. Because it 'violates' the basic Rights of the victim. In this case, the Right to be free of harrassment. So it really wouldn't be a major 'stretch' to consider that a person of this character may also be inclined to other possible forms of violence.

As for, " The list being very long, and the majority does not necessarily include any
previous act of violence ". ... i really don't know where you are getting that "list" from,
and further that assumption, but i would suggest it is Not, .. from reality.



~ lola - (" ...your assumption that *someone* has stated that the object,(the Gun), 'causes' or "creates the criminal intent". ")

Tim- " I don’t assume “someone” stated it, I assert that you constantly infer and imply it."

~ lola - (" i have maintained that,... the easy access, or availablity of the Firearm,...
Facilitates... the criminal intent.")

Tim - "And I maintain that the gun facilitates criminal intent at the same level as does a knife in a stabbing incident, or a bat in a bludgeoning incident. ... the weapon (firearm) influences the criminal act, and it simply isn’t true… It influences the method used to perpetrate the violent act, but it doesn’t create the crime."

~ lola - ("If a firearm was the weapon of choice, and the person…")

Tim - "See what I mean, you constantly seem to blame crime on the weapon, not the criminal."

~ lola - ( "survival rates of people attacked by people with bats and knives,are known to be, .. Way better, that survival rates of people where a firearm was used. ")

Tim - "I don’t know that is true at all. "


Here's another *news flash*, Tim. The thread is not about criminal intent or behavior.
It's about, Gun Control. Emphasis being placed on the topic of Guns, and the implications
of their existance, by possession and use in a society.

That lil game, of my continuously responding to your erroneous assumptions, and illogical statements, has been rather time consuming and obviously futile. ...i've clarified my point
of view many times, and you continue to spin your own interpretation, as to what it is that
i Am saying. So now, it really is.. Okay.. that you disagree with me.

As for playing, That... lil game, it kind reminds me of a lil cat chasing it's tail.
It's just not fun anymore, because i've already figured out the game.

~ You can lead a person to logic, but ya can't make em *think*. ~
 siver555
Joined: 5/27/2005
Msg: 621
view profile
History
Gun Control
Posted: 8/22/2005 1:55:43 PM
hi smarty you wrong ,,,a lie can kill more people then a gun ,ask george w. bush re. iraq
 marita_b
Joined: 6/15/2005
Msg: 622
view profile
History
Re: Gun Control
Posted: 8/22/2005 2:35:34 PM
Perhaps safe & freedom is unatainable where you live (tarus)but not where I do

and BTW no one still has answered my question of why in a country that has such relaxed laws,..where anyone who wants to get a gun,..almost any type of gun they can get one legaly,......WHY are there still so many ILLEGAL ones on your streets?

 marita_b
Joined: 6/15/2005
Msg: 624
view profile
History
Re: Gun Control
Posted: 8/23/2005 1:48:39 AM
sparkle and taurus,....well am I the only one who notices that this makes about as much sesnse as one country having enough nukes to wipe out every living thing on the planet three or more times over,...being insecure enough to try and make sure nobody else has any,...to the point that even suspecting anyone else having them also (without bothering to wait for comfirmation) is enough to send your children off to start a war,....you have painted yourselves into this weird corner with your us against everybody mentality,....to a point where there isn't ever enough to "feel safe",...

So many you ask over and over again why what you do in your country should matter to
ANYONE ELSE,...

well here's why,...because it's people who think like you (insecure americans)
ones who perhaps grew up in a place like,...say TEXAS,...or Florida,... where everybody has at least one gun,...and believes you should be allowed to shoot first and sort it all out after,...(who even sign that idea into law)...who just might grow up to become your president,....and keeper of all the biggest toys (guns)on the playground,...

Have you ever met a kid who hasn't wanted to at least check out how the best toys work? A kid who will come up with any excuse,.....good or otherwise to try them out?

And since you are not overly concerned about the paperwork,...be it for gun registration or,....say keeping track of the weapons you (your government) do have,...like nukes or the material to create them,... that this stuff,..when it goes missing,...and apparently it has,..and continues to do that it now becomes a concern to anyone else on the planet,....

after all it is because you believed that Sadam has nukes you went over there,...and you believed it because you sold the materials he needed to make them (which was your verification) since you haven't found this material yet,.....THEY ARE IN FACT MISSING,...

Since WW2 your country has been content to just,...TEST your big toys from time to time,...

Not all of these test were conducted within your borders,...many were actually conducted in ours, as recent as the 70's up in the north ....among others,....some of those places where these test ocurred have been left completely uninhabitable by the people who had called the place home before you played with your toys in their back yard,.....

I think your attitude towards the one (private guns) shows to us,....people who don't live in your country,...your atitude towards them all,...and you are THEE only country to date that has ever intentionally used them on unsuspecting civilians,....and before someone counters that with,...ya but it saved millions,...it ended the war early,...and so on,....

the fact that you did use these weapons on a civilian populated area showed the rest of the world that you would do it,....and that there are no boundries,...or limits like,....using them only on military targets......

I know that some might think I am making a huge leap from gun controll to the world distroyed by a nuclear war but let's not forget that it wasn't all THAT long ago that that was a real posibillity,....I remember the duck and cover drills in school,....and I'm not THAT old..

How you are raised to think about guns matters when you are raising future Presidents,....

The nuclear issue has recently been raised by your current President regarding Korea,....as well as Iraq,...and India and well you get the point,.....

I actually don't even know if we (Canada) have any,...I suspect we don't,...
I'm ok with it if we don't,....one less thing to worry about,.....but perhaps now you might understand how what you do matters to others,.....it's a small planet we all share,....
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Gun Control