Jump to content
Radio Shack Killa

God save us....

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Army Frog Fan said:

I find it funny that the people opposing a more secure southern border, whose main talking point is that a wall will not have a major effect on illegal immigration, are the same people who want to ban "assault" rifles, most of the features of which are cosmetic and have little bearing on the legality of a firearm, even though it will not have a major effect on preventing mass shootings.

Where are you getting this information from, ArmyFrog? Do you have a source with data? I don't understand the correlation between the two issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Army Frog Fan said:

Which part?

I edited after you responded. I wondered where you got your data from that the people opposing the border security and assault weapons are the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, PurpleDawg said:

I edited after you responded. I wondered where you got your data from that the people opposing the border security and assault weapons are the same.

Mainly it is the liberals in Congress.  They oppose funding a wall (really because it was Trump's biggest campaign promise) because because "it's not effective compared to other border security measures" according to Chuck Schumer. https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/schumer-explains-why-democrats-oppose-trumps-wall-theres-no-plan-build-it 

 

Schumer and the democrats also want to pass an "assualt" weapons ban. https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/376286-schumer-unveils-democratic-gun-control-plan-with-plea-for-trump-support The previous assault weapons ban did not really work.  https://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/  Plus, as I have said many pages ago on this thread, the people who do these mass shootings are crazy and will not let an "assault" weapons ban stop them from trying to inflict mass carnage.  Virginia Tech? Not "assault" weapons. Columbine? Not "assault" weapons. Fort Hood? Not "assault" weapons. Santa Fe High School? Not "assault" weapons. Boston Marathon? Not "assault" weapons.  

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Army Frog Fan said:

Mainly it is the liberals in Congress.  They oppose funding a wall (really because it was Trump's biggest campaign promise) because because "it's not effective compared to other border security measures" according to Chuck Schumer. https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/schumer-explains-why-democrats-oppose-trumps-wall-theres-no-plan-build-it 

 

Schumer and the democrats also want to pass an "assualt" weapons ban. https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/376286-schumer-unveils-democratic-gun-control-plan-with-plea-for-trump-support The previous assault weapons ban did not really work.  https://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/  Plus, as I have said many pages ago on this thread, the people who do these mass shootings are crazy and will not let an "assault" weapons ban stop them from trying to inflict mass carnage.  Virginia Tech? Not "assault" weapons. Columbine? Not "assault" weapons. Fort Hood? Not "assault" weapons. Santa Fe High School? Not "assault" weapons. Boston Marathon? Not "assault" weapons.  

 

 

 

 

Thanks. I agree with you that people who have their mind set on mass killings are going to find a way to do it, regardless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, PurpleDawg said:

Thanks. I agree with you that people who have their mind set on mass killings are going to find a way to do it, regardless.

 

Then the question arises: Why don't culturally similar countries--e.g., Canada, Australia, England--have anywhere near the same rates of mass killings as the USA?

 

We simply are not helpless to work to address the problem. Only willless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to mention that there is a large portion of the anti-gun base that does not understand that an AR-15 is not an automatic weapon.  It gets under my skin when politicians grand stand on a topic without a fundamental understanding of what they are talking about.

 

https://thinkprogress.org/democrats-firearms-rhetoric-003b555a52d2/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, NewfoundlandFreeFrog said:

 

Then the question arises: Why don't culturally similar countries--e.g., Canada, Australia, England--have anywhere near the same rates of mass killings as the USA?

 

We simply are not helpless to work to address the problem. Only willless.

At least one of those countries is seeing a rise in mass casualties. It's known that I follow the UK closely. They are seeing way more multi-stabbing incidences in the past couple of years than is normal there. And, all around the world vehicles are being used as weapons more often. But, of course, no where has as many mass killings by civilians in peace time as we do here. I do agree with your inference. It's too easy to get guns in the US and that has to be stopped, along with the type of guns available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, NewfoundlandFreeFrog said:

 

Then the question arises: Why don't culturally similar countries--e.g., Canada, Australia, England--have anywhere near the same rates of mass killings as the USA?

 

We simply are not helpless to work to address the problem.

This article lays out the issues pretty well.  https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/08/gun-control-why-us-is-different-from-uk-and-australia.html

 

Also, some good facts here with citations, if you do not trust the site itself: http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/guns-in-other-countries/ Some facts that stand out:

- Many of the countries with the strictest gun control have the highest rates of violent crime. Australia and England, which have virtually banned gun ownership, have the highest rates of robbery, sexual assault, and assault with force of the top 17 industrialized countries.

 

- Britain has the highest rate of violent crime in Europe, more so than the United States or even South Africa. They also have the second highest overall crime rate in the European Union. In 2008, Britain had a violent crime rate nearly five times higher than the United States (2034 vs. 446 per 100,000 population)

 

- Handgun homicides in England and Wales reached an all-time high in 2000, years after a virtual ban on private handgun ownership. More than 3,000 crimes involving handguns were recorded in 1999-2000, including 42 homicides, 310 cases of attempted murder, 2,561 robberies and 204 burglaries.

 

- Homicides were falling before the Australian firearm ban. In the seven years before and after the Australian ban, the rate of decline was identical (down to four decimal places). Homicides dropped steeply starting in 2003, but all of this decline was associated with non-firearm and non-knife murders (fewer beatings, poisonings, drownings, etc.).

 

- A ten-year Australian study has concluded that firearm confiscation had no effect on crime rates

 

- The number of mass homicides and the number of people killed in mass homicides in Australia has gone up since the gun control initiatives of the mid 1990s.

 

- Comparing crime rates between America and Britain is fundamentally flawed. In America, a gun crime is recorded as a gun crime. In Britain, a crime is only recorded when there is a final disposition (a conviction). All unsolved gun crimes in Britain are not reported as gun crimes, grossly undercounting the amount of gun crime there. 23 To make matters worse, British law enforcement has been exposed for falsifying criminal reports to create falsely lower crime figures, in part to preserve tourism.

 

- One study of Canadian firearm law and homicide rates spanning 34 years “failed to demonstrate a beneficial association between legislation and firearm homicide rates” for three major gun control bills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Army Frog Fan said:

This article lays out the issues pretty well.  https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/08/gun-control-why-us-is-different-from-uk-and-australia.html

 

Also, some good facts here with citations, if you do not trust the site itself: http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/guns-in-other-countries/ Some facts that stand out:

- Many of the countries with the strictest gun control have the highest rates of violent crime. Australia and England, which have virtually banned gun ownership, have the highest rates of robbery, sexual assault, and assault with force of the top 17 industrialized countries.

 

- Britain has the highest rate of violent crime in Europe, more so than the United States or even South Africa. They also have the second highest overall crime rate in the European Union. In 2008, Britain had a violent crime rate nearly five times higher than the United States (2034 vs. 446 per 100,000 population)

 

- Handgun homicides in England and Wales reached an all-time high in 2000, years after a virtual ban on private handgun ownership. More than 3,000 crimes involving handguns were recorded in 1999-2000, including 42 homicides, 310 cases of attempted murder, 2,561 robberies and 204 burglaries.

 

- Homicides were falling before the Australian firearm ban. In the seven years before and after the Australian ban, the rate of decline was identical (down to four decimal places). Homicides dropped steeply starting in 2003, but all of this decline was associated with non-firearm and non-knife murders (fewer beatings, poisonings, drownings, etc.).

 

- A ten-year Australian study has concluded that firearm confiscation had no effect on crime rates

 

- The number of mass homicides and the number of people killed in mass homicides in Australia has gone up since the gun control initiatives of the mid 1990s.

 

- Comparing crime rates between America and Britain is fundamentally flawed. In America, a gun crime is recorded as a gun crime. In Britain, a crime is only recorded when there is a final disposition (a conviction). All unsolved gun crimes in Britain are not reported as gun crimes, grossly undercounting the amount of gun crime there. 23 To make matters worse, British law enforcement has been exposed for falsifying criminal reports to create falsely lower crime figures, in part to preserve tourism.

 

- One study of Canadian firearm law and homicide rates spanning 34 years “failed to demonstrate a beneficial association between legislation and firearm homicide rates” for three major gun control bills.

 

I was speaking specifically of mass murder events which none of your sources addresses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mass public shooting deaths make up less than 1% of all gun homicides, making them a small part of the problem. While mass shootings are horrific, I already explained that banning weapons that look scary will not stop them.  There is not a single piece of evidence that supports that a new "assault" weapons ban would prevent the next mass shooting.  Other than the Las Vegas incident, I would argue that the use of an AR-15 (or its equivalent) probably did not affect the body count of the recent attacks. For example, if the Sandy Hook guy walked into a classroom with all 6 buck shot shells in a 12 gauge, he would have done just as much damage as with an AR.  As for Vegas, that guy used a bump stock (something I never knew existed prior to that). In my opinion, the bump stock essentially converts a semi-automatic rifle into a fully-automatic rifle (which is already illegal).  As such, I would support a bump stock ban, because I do believe that would have an effect on the ban on the lethality of mass shootings going forward and because of my aforementioned belief that it creates a fully-automatic weapon. 

 

At the end of the day, I am not in favor of stripping the rights of millions of law abiding citizens to "solve" the problem, especially when I do not think it would solve anything. Instead, I think the liberal politicians want to pat themselves on the back for passing stricter gun-control laws.  And then what happens when the next shooting happens?  Those same politicians will call for banning shotguns and handguns, most likely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question for the lawyers here: I see Stone says he will refuse to testify about Trump. If Stone is asked a material question about Trump under oath in court and the judge locks him up for contempt, can that contempt citation be pardoned? What about if being asked before Congress under oath?

 

Added: Oh wait, now I think about it that's what Trump did for Sheriff Joe, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Newbomb Turk said:

I wonder if Trump starts losing wingnut support now that he's caved to Nancy?

 

Ann Coulter's column released minutes ago... http://www.anncoulter.com/



 

Quote

 

"...We are headed for another failed Republican presidency.

 

President George H.W. Bush promised, "Read my lips, no new taxes" -- then raised taxes. 

President George W. Bush promised that America would not be "the world's policeman" -- then turned the United States into the world's policeman. 

Whether these promises weren't kept out of bad faith, incompetence or changed minds is of no consequence. That will be a minor footnote for future historians to debate. All that matters is that it didn't happen. That's why Trump got elected. 

But he still hasn't started the wall. 

By now, my erstwhile critics are getting the point. But I'm not sure the president is -- a few weeks ago, he unfollowed me on Twitter."

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump doesn't know what he's doing.  He's just like an amoeba reacting to local stimuli.  Sees something he likes... moves a pseudopod in that direction.  Something else captures his attention, moves in the opposite direction. 

 

Unfortunately for America his amoeba-like approach is one of his least bad qualities.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Army Frog Fan said:

I find it funny that the people opposing a more secure southern border, whose main talking point is that a wall will not have a major effect on illegal immigration, are the same people who want to ban "assault" rifles, most of the features of which are cosmetic and have little bearing on the legality of a firearm, even though it will not have a major effect on preventing mass shootings.

I think it is the words "the Wall" that are the most bothersome.  The Trump admin was hiring attorneys for eminent domain issues for southern border wall building.

 

I think people are all for border security, but "the wall" is freaking them out.

 

If I lived on the Rio Grande, I wouldn't want my beachfront property taken, or a wall built for me to look at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought this NYT interactive was pretty informative about what is in place right now.  Didn't know that most of the land in Texas is privately owned, while mostly on public lands out west.  Also, already 600 miles of wall in place. 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/02/05/us/border-wall.html

 

Last bit is real interesting- 

In part because of increased border security, the number of people caught crossing the border illegally has dropped 82 percent from its peak in 2000.

 

Why not just use the funds to strategically allocate to border security, rather than a physical wall along private property along the Rio Grande? Is Trump's goal to build a wall or increase border security?  If we know increased border security can impact illegal crossings, why not put the money there?  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wading into the Covington matter, I honestly feel the kids only crime was facecrime and hatcrime.

 

I just can't figure out why on earth everyone is so willing to blame actual kids, when clearly there were many highly flawed adults around.  Why on earth did the adults get a pass?

 

Nathan Phillips tried to disrupt the Basillica Mass service that very weekend (they locked the doors to keep him out), not to mention his stolen valor Vietnam Vet stuff, and his references to the BHI as prey while the kids were beasts?  Really?  The BHI referred to the only black Covington boy as a n***** and said his classmates would harvest his organs as spare parts, among other incredibly vile things.  I know people who live in cities say everyone knows to ignore the BHI but isn't it a bit naive to think teens would know that, teens who had never been around BHI people?

 

So, sorry.  But the kids were just that, kids.  And very foolish to buy a MAGA hat on the mall, and even more foolish to wear it.  And yes, it was foolish that the chaperones didn't suggest that to them.  

 

And fine to do what you want with your kids, but if someone invaded my kids space and started beating a drum inches from his face, I wouldn't be happy.  And you bet if my kid is getting doxxed and accompanying death threats, I'd hire a publicist to help him explain to get out from under.  Lives and jobs were threatened.  To me that's the real crime.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, NeFrog in the Kitchen Sink said:

Thought this NYT interactive was pretty informative about what is in place right now.  Didn't know that most of the land in Texas is privately owned, while mostly on public lands out west.  Also, already 600 miles of wall in place. 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/02/05/us/border-wall.html

 

Last bit is real interesting- 

In part because of increased border security, the number of people caught crossing the border illegally has dropped 82 percent from its peak in 2000.

 

Why not just use the funds to strategically allocate to border security, rather than a physical wall along private property along the Rio Grande? Is Trump's goal to build a wall or increase border security?  If we know increased border security can impact illegal crossings, why not put the money there?  

 

 

That interactive guide is a great resource.  Thanks for sharing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, NeFrog in the Kitchen Sink said:

Thought this NYT interactive was pretty informative about what is in place right now.  Didn't know that most of the land in Texas is privately owned, while mostly on public lands out west.  Also, already 600 miles of wall in place. 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/02/05/us/border-wall.html

 

Last bit is real interesting- 

In part because of increased border security, the number of people caught crossing the border illegally has dropped 82 percent from its peak in 2000.

 

Why not just use the funds to strategically allocate to border security, rather than a physical wall along private property along the Rio Grande? Is Trump's goal to build a wall or increase border security?  If we know increased border security can impact illegal crossings, why not put the money there?  

 

I believe this was the democrats proposed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×