Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Are reporters and news editors manipulating the general public??

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by oldschool View Post
    Too bad for the cops who "only follow orders" when they are unconstitutional. When I was sworn into office, the first thing I swore to uphold was the constitution (US, then state), followed by the laws of my state and the ordinances of my city. My position is at odds with some of my coworkers, but thankfully they are a minority.

    As for burying my guns, they're not going to do me much good if I need them and they are buried somewhere 50 miles away, now are they?
    That's why I was sad to see that Ron Paul didn't get anywhere in the primaries. Now there's one politician who really understands what it means to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America."

    As for hiding your weapons, you don't need to bury them. Do what I do; buy them from private owners so you don't have to register them. They can't come for what they don't know you have.

    I told my wife a couple of weeks ago that I wanted to buy an AR-15 and a Barrett .50. She said why do you want to do that? I answered "because Hillary doesn't want me to."
    "Striking terrific terror in the hearts of criminals everywhere" Since 1977.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by HotelSecurity View Post
      Being Canadian it is very simple for me. With very very few exceptions we are not allowed to own firearms. Those that are, are supposed to have all of them registered. Now compairing gun laws & rights in the US & Canada is like comparing apples & oranges. You can not. However I (again not being in the US & only looking from afar) can not understand why pro-gun law abiding citizens fight things like gun registration so hard. Is it not better to try & prevent criminals from getting their hands on guns from the law abiding citizens? I read things like there are markers that can be added to ammunition to trace which lot a round comes from yet organizations lie the NRA fight to prevent laws being inacted to make it manditory to add the markers. Why? Doing so would not prevent you from owning firearms.

      P.S. the shooting at Dawson College in downtown Montreal 2 years ago was committed by someone who had a gun license.
      Registering guns does not keep them out of the hands of criminals, nor does it prevent crimes committed with guns. As an example, the UK has some of the strictest gun laws in the world.

      From the London Times online,

      February 3, 2007
      James Andre Smartt-Ford, 16, was shot dead at Streatham ice rink, South London

      February 6, 2007
      Michael Dosunumu, 15, shot dead in his bedroom in Peckham, South London

      Feb 15, 2007:
      "Sir Ian Blair , the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, will hold talks with senior detectives today after the third fatal shooting of a teenager in South London in less than a fortnight.... His death follows the fatal shootings of two other teenage boys in South London in the past few weeks, one in his bed in Peckham and another at an ice rink in Streatham."

      June 23, 2007
      Annaka Pinto, 17, shot dead in a bar in Tottenham, North London

      In Canada, the gun registry has cost the country hundreds of millions of dollars to operate. 75% of the public want it scrapped. How many murders have been solved using data from the registry? How many more cops could be put on the streets, actually catching criminals for a measly few hundred million dollars? In the US, tracing gun ownership of a gun used in a crime only indentifies the person the gun was stolen from, not the person who used it to commit a crime, in the majority of cases.

      In regards to tracing ammunition lots; lets say that Federal produces a lot of say a million .40 cal rounds. And let's say that lot of ammo is spread all over the country, how are the cops going to trace that? How would they know without registering ammunition too? How many hundreds of millions would that cost us? And how many crimes would it really solve or prevent?

      All it would do is make a box of .40 ammo cost $250 a box. That is why the NRA opposes it, and why the liberal wieners like it. There have been proposals in Congress and State Legislatures to impose huge taxes on ammunition as a back door method of gun control. One idiot proposed a tax of $10 per round!!! How would you feel walking around with $500 worth of ammo on your belt?
      Last edited by Badge714; 02-12-2008, 10:09 PM.
      "Striking terrific terror in the hearts of criminals everywhere" Since 1977.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Badge714 View Post
        Registering guns does not keep them out of the hands of criminals, nor does it prevent crimes committed with guns. As an example, the UK has some of the strictest gun laws in the world.

        From the London Times online,

        February 3, 2007
        James Andre Smartt-Ford, 16, was shot dead at Streatham ice rink, South London

        February 6, 2007
        Michael Dosunumu, 15, shot dead in his bedroom in Peckham, South London

        Feb 15, 2007:
        "Sir Ian Blair , the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, will hold talks with senior detectives today after the third fatal shooting of a teenager in South London in less than a fortnight.... His death follows the fatal shootings of two other teenage boys in South London in the past few weeks, one in his bed in Peckham and another at an ice rink in Streatham."

        June 23, 2007
        Annaka Pinto, 17, shot dead in a bar in Tottenham, North London

        In Canada, the gun registry has cost the country hundreds of millions of dollars to operate. 75% of the public want it scrapped. How many murders have been solved using data from the registry? How many more cops could be put on the streets, actually catching criminals for a measly few hundred million dollars? In the US, tracing gun ownership of a gun used in a crime only indentifies the person the gun was stolen from, not the person who used it to commit a crime, in the majority of cases.

        In regards to tracing ammunition lots; lets say that Federal produces a lot of say a million .40 cal rounds. And let's say that lot of ammo is spread all over the country, how are the cops going to trace that? How would they know without registering ammunition too? How many hundreds of millions would that cost us? And how many crimes would it really solve or prevent?

        All it would do is make a box of .40 ammo cost $250 a box. That is why the NRA opposes it, and why the liberal wieners like it. There have been proposals in Congress and State Legislatures to impose huge taxes on ammunition as a back door method of gun control. One idiot proposed a tax of $10 per round!!! How would you feel walking around with $500 worth of ammo on your belt?
        I will not debate with you because like I said before our countries views on this issue is like apples & oranges. I will argue when you bring up a few cases where guns were used in crimes in the UK. I'm sure if you compare the percentage of murders committed in the US with countries that do not (legally) allow their citizens to own guns, you will find a big difference.

        Another stat I would like to see is the percentage of crimes & accidental shootings committed with legally owned guns compared to stolen or otherwide illegal ones.

        You also said you wanted more cops on the street catching criminals. I am more for preventing crime. I believe (And again I'd love to see stats) less crimes with guns are committed if it is harder to get guns.

        P.S I am not anti-gun. If legally allowed to own one I probably would. Since I can't I am sure Canada will never soften it's gun laws I spend more effort trying to get the laws changed so that Security can at least carry OC spray or Tasers or what ever other new inventions come along.(Been reading lately about using light to incapacitate people).
        I enforce rules and regulations, not laws.
        Security Officers. The 1st First Responders.

        Comment


        • #19
          Gun registry is about deterrance and takes a proactive approach to cutting back on gun-related crimes, specifically crimes of passion. If you cannot get a firearm without a license, then the likelihood of a person who doesn't have a gun committing a crime of passion with a gun very slim. Sure, Canada's gun laws are costing a lot of money, but you'll notice that Canada has EXTREMELY LOW gun-related crime compared to the US, even in ratio. One could argue that firearm registry is helping that.

          Also, your figure that 75% of Canadians want the registry off. I'd like to know where you got that figure, because I question if it's legitimate.

          EDIT: You can legally own a gun in Canada. You have to complete a safety course for un-restricted and/or restricted firearms, apply for a license, and you're then able to purchase firearms.
          Last edited by Nauticus; 02-13-2008, 03:01 AM.

          Comment


          • #20
            I was under the, apparently incorrect, assumption that there were more personally owned firearms per capita in Canada than in the United States.
            "A good deed’s like pissing yourself in dark pants. Warm feeling but no one notices." - Jacob Taylor

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Nauticus View Post
              Gun registry is about deterrance and takes a proactive approach to cutting back on gun-related crimes, specifically crimes of passion. If you cannot get a firearm without a license, then the likelihood of a person who doesn't have a gun committing a crime of passion with a gun very slim. Sure, Canada's gun laws are costing a lot of money, but you'll notice that Canada has EXTREMELY LOW gun-related crime compared to the US, even in ratio. One could argue that firearm registry is helping that.

              Also, your figure that 75% of Canadians want the registry off. I'd like to know where you got that figure, because I question if it's legitimate.

              EDIT: You can legally own a gun in Canada. You have to complete a safety course for un-restricted and/or restricted firearms, apply for a license, and you're then able to purchase firearms.
              Canada's crime rate was extremely lower than ours long before the Canadian Government implemented their gun ban and registry. So you cannot attribute the lower rate to the gun ban/registration program.

              I can't rememeber where I saw the 75% figure, I will post it when I find it.

              I did find a couple interesting tidbits from the Public Safety Canada web site:

              "By March 2005 the net cost of the firearms program was $946 million. Today they exceed $1 billion. The Auditor General states that Parliament was misinformed about many of these costs. (Auditor General's Report 2006, Chapter 4)."

              "There are nearly 7 million registered long-guns in Canada. Yet of 549 murders recorded in Canada in 2003, only 2 were committed with long-guns known to be registered (Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics)."

              A billion dollars to catch two murderers a year? (That's assuming that the crimes were solved by tracing a gun through the registry and not through good old fashioned police work.) Not very cost-effective if you ask me.
              "Striking terrific terror in the hearts of criminals everywhere" Since 1977.

              Comment


              • #22
                Reuters news say otherwise

                Originally posted by Mr. Chaple View Post
                I was under the, apparently incorrect, assumption that there were more personally owned firearms per capita in Canada than in the United States.
                Here's a news report from Reuters.com, saying Canada owns 30 guns per 100 people, while the USA has 90 guns per 100 people. I own 11 handguns, 3 shotguns, and 4 rifles; do I qualify as a "gun nut," or "gun freak?"

                http://www.reuters.com/article/topNe...34893820070828

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by OMG_Ihatethisjob View Post
                  Here's a news report from Reuters.com, saying Canada owns 30 guns per 100 people, while the USA has 90 guns per 100 people. I own 11 handguns, 3 shotguns, and 4 rifles; do I qualify as a "gun nut," or "gun freak?"

                  http://www.reuters.com/article/topNe...34893820070828
                  I have two 700 pound gun safes, - one just for shotguns - and I still have a few guns in my closet due to lack of room in the safes. If owning a handful of guns makes you a "gun nut," what does that make ME???
                  "Striking terrific terror in the hearts of criminals everywhere" Since 1977.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Badge714 View Post
                    Canada's crime rate was extremely lower than ours long before the Canadian Government implemented their gun ban and registry. So you cannot attribute the lower rate to the gun ban/registration program.

                    I can't rememeber where I saw the 75% figure, I will post it when I find it.

                    I did find a couple interesting tidbits from the Public Safety Canada web site:

                    "By March 2005 the net cost of the firearms program was $946 million. Today they exceed $1 billion. The Auditor General states that Parliament was misinformed about many of these costs. (Auditor General's Report 2006, Chapter 4)."

                    "There are nearly 7 million registered long-guns in Canada. Yet of 549 murders recorded in Canada in 2003, only 2 were committed with long-guns known to be registered (Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics)."

                    A billion dollars to catch two murderers a year? (That's assuming that the crimes were solved by tracing a gun through the registry and not through good old fashioned police work.) Not very cost-effective if you ask me.
                    No, the gun registry is not there to CATCH criminals, it's to deter would-be criminals from committing acts of violence as easily as they could, if guns were freely handed out. You cannot rate deterred crimes in a statistic, because they don't happen. So, $1 billion is not to catch two murderers, like you put it. It's to stop criminals from legally having firearms to begin with.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Nauticus View Post
                      No, the gun registry is not there to CATCH criminals, it's to deter would-be criminals from committing acts of violence as easily as they could, if guns were freely handed out. You cannot rate deterred crimes in a statistic, because they don't happen. So, $1 billion is not to catch two murderers, like you put it. It's to stop criminals from legally having firearms to begin with.
                      Exactly...
                      I enforce rules and regulations, not laws.
                      Security Officers. The 1st First Responders.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Nauticus View Post
                        No, the gun registry is not there to CATCH criminals, it's to deter would-be criminals from committing acts of violence as easily as they could, if guns were freely handed out. You cannot rate deterred crimes in a statistic, because they don't happen. So, $1 billion is not to catch two murderers, like you put it. It's to stop criminals from legally having firearms to begin with.
                        A registry will never stop a determined criminal from getting a gun if he wants one. If the bad guys can smuggle dope across the border, by the TON, a few guns won't be a problem.
                        The only people a gun registry deters are law-abiding citizens. So they get punished to "deter" the bad guys, who aren't really deterred at all.
                        Don't get me wrong, I hope our neighbors to the north keep their gun registry. Then we can use it as an example of an ineffective, extremely costly, government-expanding debacle when our lawmakers try to pass similar plans.
                        "Striking terrific terror in the hearts of criminals everywhere" Since 1977.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Badge714 View Post
                          A registry will never stop a determined criminal from getting a gun if he wants one.
                          Agreed. But I bet if you check your stats you will find that most murders are not committed by determined criminals. Most are spur of the moment things. Making guns hard to have prevents some of these spur of the moment crimes.
                          I enforce rules and regulations, not laws.
                          Security Officers. The 1st First Responders.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            I don't think guns are the problem.

                            The problem is the lack of punishment and how fast that punishment is deployed. People don't fear killing people because they know they have a very good chance of living the rest of their lives with 3 hot meals a day, free room & board, And not having to work for a living.

                            I believe if you kill someone with a gun or by any other method and you plead guilty in court or are found guilty by overwhelming DNA, video, and/or several witnesses, you should be toast within 24 hours. Just enough time to run the witnesses through a lie detector test. That my friend will instill fear in most men.
                            Last edited by Craig S; 02-15-2008, 09:27 AM.
                            Craig

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Lots of good points here...It seems like the media is demonizing gun owners and guns in general. Did you guys know the biggest gun control act since 1930 was passed recently, with the APPROVAL of the NRA? Its an act which disarms many law enforcement officers and military / retired. It strips people of their right to buy weapons / bear arms if they have one of many loosely defined mental conditions like PTSD, which that designation is give to many cops or soldiers.

                              The OP mentioned the mall shooting....The killer was taking anti depressants, which are known to increase suicidal thoughts and actions. The Virginia Tech shooter was perscribed anti depressants too. So were the Columbine kids. Most of these shootings involve mind altering SSRI Anti Depressants.....Read the inserts and warning labels on these drugs, they can actually be a factor in INCREASED suicides and violent behavior. Why don't we see campaigns and calls to ban or restrict these drugs to depressed people at risk or alternate treatments? Why is the use of these antidepressants sky rocketing?

                              How about that church shooting which shortly followed the mall shooting? A Security Officer shot the gunman before he could kill more people, and the media was real quiet about that.

                              Infact they hardly ever report lawful gun owners who use their weapons in self defense, or local news never does stories on gun owners who simply brandish their weapon and the bad guys run.

                              Just remember this - one of the final steps or "nails in the coffin" of a society and of people going into bondage is complete disarmament of the people. Infact, disarming populations can also be the precursor to mass killings or roundups. Once they get all the guns they can have their way with us. Thats how it is/was throughout history. Thats how it was/is in Cambodia, Soviet Union, Pakistan, Mexico, Turkey, Germany etc.

                              So watch the "gun control" laws closely...and remember that the basic right to self defense and to defend your human right to live is GOD GIVEN and no one has authority to take it away.
                              Last edited by Jeremy; 02-14-2008, 06:10 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Are reporters and news editors manipulating the general public??

                                Without the Second Amendment all the others are meaningless.
                                Newspapers are in it for the money, Time is money!! The facts take time Ergo???

                                Comment

                                Leaderboard

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X