dfosterf
15 years ago
I wasn't speaking about us as individuals... Macro, not micro.

I was talking about the NRA and points right contrasted with the Brady Bill crowd and points left.

If you have a plan to put all those folks out of a job, I'd love to hear it.
Cheesey
15 years ago
Liberals are the only ones i have seen that are constantly trying to take away our guns. Thats why i say it. It actually IS fact. Not just my opinion. If i saw conservatives trying to take away our right to own guns, i'd be against them.
And some that seem to think that i am over reacting........i bet other countrys thought that too, as they slowly had their rights taken away.
Then one day you look around and realize that it happened. Not all at once, a little at a time.
Yet we get this big "global warming" scare, and people jump on that and take it seriously.
All the while little by little our rights are eroding.
"WE" have given up our power to guys in office that abuse it. I'm damn sick and tired of it, too.
UserPostedImage
Dulak
15 years ago

Liberals are the only ones i have seen that are constantly trying to take away our guns. Thats why i say it. It actually IS fact. Not just my opinion. If i saw conservatives trying to take away our right to own guns, i'd be against them.

"Cheesey" wrote:



Im a bit emotional atm ... Ive erased what I typed here and I am just going to say ... guns dont just sit there they can hurt familyies ... sons, daughters, fathers and mothers ...
zombieslayer
15 years ago

Liberals are the only ones i have seen that are constantly trying to take away our guns. Thats why i say it. It actually IS fact. Not just my opinion. If i saw conservatives trying to take away our right to own guns, i'd be against them.

"Cheesey" wrote:



GBI banned the importation of 49 foreign guns, many of which I was quite fond of.

GBII said he'd sign the Clinton gun ban if it landed on his desk. Thank God it didn't.

Those were 2 of the worst gun bans I remember since I became old enough to vote. True that I've taken a lot of blows to the head, but if I remember correctly, both Bush's were Republicans.
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage
(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. šŸ‡¹šŸ‡¹ šŸ‡²šŸ‡² šŸ‡¦šŸ‡·
Porforis
15 years ago

Liberals are the only ones i have seen that are constantly trying to take away our guns. Thats why i say it. It actually IS fact. Not just my opinion. If i saw conservatives trying to take away our right to own guns, i'd be against them.

"zombieslayer" wrote:



GBI banned the importation of 49 foreign guns, many of which I was quite fond of.

GBII said he'd sign the Clinton gun ban if it landed on his desk. Thank God it didn't.

Those were 2 of the worst gun bans I remember since I became old enough to vote. True that I've taken a lot of blows to the head, but if I remember correctly, both Bush's were Republicans.

"Cheesey" wrote:



You confuse republicans with conservatives. Overall, I'd consider both Bushes conservatives, but Bush II certainly went on liberal streaks. Not that it really takes away from your point, I'm just saying...
TheEngineer
15 years ago
I'm going to stay out of the gun debate, but I will pose the following statements:

Firstly, it is not proven that more guns means or implies that crime decreases based on that article. "In 2009, more guns meant less crime, in a very, very big way." That statement is very misleading because it implies that correlation does prove causation, which is not a guarantee. Additionally, a 1-2% increase does not constitute a "soar" in firearms purchase in my opinion.

Secondly, if you check Table 1, the majority of the decrease is due to a reduction in motor vehicle theft. Now, I'm going to take some liberties here and assume that, in the majority of vehicle theft cases, vehicles are typically stolen when unattended. I therefore hypothesise that the increased reduction in motor vehicle theft is partly due to the improvement in car security. At the very least, I would assume that the majority of motor vehicle thefts do not involve firearms.

Thirdly, the statistics do not list the latest data on violent crimes including or excluding firearms; thefts involving firearms or not, etc etc. It's just too broad to draw such sensationalist conclusions to say that somehow, more firearms actually means less violence.

My conclusion is that that NRA article skews the statistics to give the pro-gun stance a favourable light, irrespective of what implications can actually be drawn with confidence from very limited data contained. Since the article did not cite any other statistics which show some negative correlation between firearms sold and crimes committed, I'm going to dismiss this as the NRA clutching at straws.

I'm sure they'll be statistics that do support a pro firearms stance. It's just a shame the NRA did not bother to actually cite anything that conclusively supports their stance.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/firearmnonfatalrt.cfm 
blank
Cheesey
15 years ago
Hmmm....let's see......have more gun control laws.
WHO is affected by stricter gun control laws?
ANSWER: Law abiding citizens ONLY.
Why? Because criminals don't give a DAMN about laws. That's why they are CRIMINALS in the first place.
It amazes me how otherwise logical intellegent people don't understand that.
Gun control laws will NEVER lower crime. Because they don't affect criminals one bit. The ONLY way to lower crime is to make the punishment more harsh. Otherwise, like i already said, the prison revolving door just let's the bad guys out to do more crime.
If they made prison places of punishment, instead of worrying about prisoner's "rights", maybe prison would deter criminals from making crime their "profession". Make it so bad in prison that they NEVER want to have to go back, and maybe when they get out they will behave themselves.
Now, it just teaches them how to be better criminals.
UserPostedImage
zombieslayer
15 years ago



You confuse republicans with conservatives. Overall, I'd consider both Bushes conservatives, but Bush II certainly went on liberal streaks. Not that it really takes away from your point, I'm just saying...

"Porforis" wrote:



Actually, I don't. The media does though. The Bush's weren't conservatives. Just Republicans. As are most Republicans today.

The closest Republican to a real conservative is Ron Paul, and the current Republican party hates him with a passion (because he's smarter than the rest of them put together and today's Republicans are a bunch of chickenhawks).

I hate Republicans every bit as much as I hate Democrats. One wants to ban this, the other wants to ban that.

Eng - Actually, it's not implying causation. It's taking a stab at the belief that more guns = more murder and shows that's silly and anti-gun nuts need to come up with another angle as their angle is simply wrong.

You really want to cut murder? I'll tell you how. Stop sending jobs overseas. Stop bringing in illegals, who are often criminals, and undercut family farmers and working class folks. Fix the economy. Employed people kill less. This is fact with stats after stats to back it up.

Guns are a small part in this. I'm a gun nut but I'll readily admit this.

Guns aren't the 2nd Amendment because of criminals. They're the 2nd Amendment to protect us from foreign invasion or tyranny. The fact that they give us an additional option against criminals to me is simply a bonus.

From a personal note, the best way to avoid being a victim of crime is to avoid "bad areas." Crime stats in America are skewed because most of the crime happens in "bad areas." America is a very safe country, except for the bad areas. I've lived in bad areas twice in my life and the best thing you can possibly do is do anything you can to move out of them, and when you want to see your friends and family, have them visit you instead of vice versa.
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage
(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. šŸ‡¹šŸ‡¹ šŸ‡²šŸ‡² šŸ‡¦šŸ‡·
Formo
  • Formo
  • Veteran Member Topic Starter
15 years ago



You confuse republicans with conservatives. Overall, I'd consider both Bushes conservatives, but Bush II certainly went on liberal streaks. Not that it really takes away from your point, I'm just saying...

"zombieslayer" wrote:



Actually, I don't. The media does though. The Bush's weren't conservatives. Just Republicans. As are most Republicans today.

The closest Republican to a real conservative is Ron Paul, and the current Republican party hates him with a passion (because he's smarter than the rest of them put together and today's Republicans are a bunch of chickenhawks).

I hate Republicans every bit as much as I hate Democrats. One wants to ban this, the other wants to ban that.

Eng - Actually, it's not implying causation. It's taking a stab at the belief that more guns = more murder and shows that's silly and anti-gun nuts need to come up with another angle as their angle is simply wrong.

You really want to cut murder? I'll tell you how. Stop sending jobs overseas. Stop bringing in illegals, who are often criminals, and undercut family farmers and working class folks. Fix the economy. Employed people kill less. This is fact with stats after stats to back it up.

Guns are a small part in this. I'm a gun nut but I'll readily admit this.

Guns aren't the 2nd Amendment because of criminals. They're the 2nd Amendment to protect us from foreign invasion or tyranny. The fact that they give us an additional option against criminals to me is simply a bonus.

From a personal note, the best way to avoid being a victim of crime is to avoid "bad areas." Crime stats in America are skewed because most of the crime happens in "bad areas." America is a very safe country, except for the bad areas. I've lived in bad areas twice in my life and the best thing you can possibly do is do anything you can to move out of them, and when you want to see your friends and family, have them visit you instead of vice versa.

"Porforis" wrote:



I consider Ron Paul a libertarian over a conservative.

If you ask me, the most conservative 'Republican' I can think of is Huckabee. (Fair tax?)
UserPostedImage
Thanks to TheViking88 for the sig!!
Formo
  • Formo
  • Veteran Member Topic Starter
15 years ago

I'm going to stay out of the gun debate, but I will pose the following statements:

Firstly, it is not proven that more guns means or implies that crime decreases based on that article. "In 2009, more guns meant less crime, in a very, very big way." That statement is very misleading because it implies that correlation does prove causation, which is not a guarantee. Additionally, a 1-2% increase does not constitute a "soar" in firearms purchase in my opinion.

Secondly, if you check Table 1, the majority of the decrease is due to a reduction in motor vehicle theft. Now, I'm going to take some liberties here and assume that, in the majority of vehicle theft cases, vehicles are typically stolen when unattended. I therefore hypothesise that the increased reduction in motor vehicle theft is partly due to the improvement in car security. At the very least, I would assume that the majority of motor vehicle thefts do not involve firearms.

Thirdly, the statistics do not list the latest data on violent crimes including or excluding firearms; thefts involving firearms or not, etc etc. It's just too broad to draw such sensationalist conclusions to say that somehow, more firearms actually means less violence.

My conclusion is that that NRA article skews the statistics to give the pro-gun stance a favourable light, irrespective of what implications can actually be drawn with confidence from very limited data contained. Since the article did not cite any other statistics which show some negative correlation between firearms sold and crimes committed, I'm going to dismiss this as the NRA clutching at straws.

I'm sure they'll be statistics that do support a pro firearms stance. It's just a shame the NRA did not bother to actually cite anything that conclusively supports their stance.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/firearmnonfatalrt.cfm 

"TheEngineer" wrote:



Good post, and I'm surprised you are the first person to mention the NRA article this 'late' in the debate.

While you make valid points.. the 2nd one you made a few assumptions. At a drive thru in the Dairy Queen right down the road from our apartment (the DQ that we frequent most), a woman was car-jacked at gunpoint. She was IN THE DRIVE THRU! I'm not yelling at you.. I'm stressing the fact that there were OTHER people around. I'll be damned if I'm going to have my wife sit in a drive thru without some sort of protection. Yes, having an assortment of pepper spray/'Guardian Angels' is nice. So is having a gun, legally.

In case you didn't know.. In the state of Minnesota, there are two ways of purchasing a gun. Getting a permit to purchase and getting a permit to carry. With only a purchase permit, you cannot carry the weapon. It must stay in the case (and I'm sure it must stay in your place of residence). With the permit to purchase, you jump through hoops, and background checks before you get the permit.

To get a permit to carry, you have to take many classes. The instructor is typically a former/current police officer. The instructor takes EVERY precaution and does everything in his/her power to stress that having a firearm on your person at all times is a great, great responsibility and to not abuse that responsibility. I think they do a great job in stressing those two points.. because, trust me, with our liberal media, they would crucify a person who had their permit to carry if they has used their weapon on someone. I haven't heard of a shooting that involved a legally purchased and carried weapon, ever (I'm not saying it never happened, I just never heard of one).

It's also stressed to go to the firing range A LOT to practice. Not to become a better shot, but to be used to firing a weapon. The more comfortable one is with a weapon, the less chance for an accident.
UserPostedImage
Thanks to TheViking88 for the sig!!
Similar Topics
Users browsing this topic
    Fan Shout
    dfosterf (14h) : It's my one day deal complaint dept. on shareholder meeting day
    dfosterf (15h) : Probably a homer access credential intimidation kinda thing
    dfosterf (15h) : Meathead "journalists" skip this, concentrating on operational revenue when convenient. They switch when net revenue is more favorable.
    dfosterf (15h) : Resulting in an actual drop of net revenue of 12.5%. She is from Minnesota. Just sayin'
    dfosterf (15h) : Any plans to hold Maureen Smith (CFO) accountable for a 95% drop in investment revenue?
    Mucky Tundra (15h) : In your face, HBO!
    Mucky Tundra (15h) : @ByRyanWood Mark Murphy: ā€œA great source of pride of mine is that we were never on Hard Knocks.ā€
    Mucky Tundra (16h) : *years
    Mucky Tundra (16h) : @mattschneidman Mark Murphy says he anticipates ā€œmany Packers gamesā€ being played in Germany, Ireland and/or the U.K. over the next 5-10 yea
    dfosterf (16h) : *cafeteria* I have hit my head also, so I sympathize
    dfosterf (16h) : Possibly hit his head leaning into the glass protecting the food in the cafateria
    dfosterf (16h) : Maybe a low flying drone
    dfosterf (16h) : Did Savion Williams run into a goalpost or something?
    Mucky Tundra (16h) : also, no bueno when a guy starts getting concussions right off the bat in his career
    Zero2Cool (16h) : Concussion is worse. Banks probably vet off day via back booboo claim
    Mucky Tundra (19h) : @AndyHermanNFL Jordy Nelson out at camp today. No word if heā€™s in play for one of the two open roster spots ; )
    dfosterf (19h) : Is that better or worse than Banks bad back?
    Zero2Cool (20h) : Savion concussion ... not good.
    packerfanoutwest (24-Jul) : Aaron Rodgersā€™s first pass of first team period was picked off
    Mucky Tundra (24-Jul) : tbh I didn't hear of his passing
    Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : Cosby Show. Malcom Jamal Warner I think is real name
    Mucky Tundra (24-Jul) : I was thinking of Ozzy and Hulk
    Mucky Tundra (24-Jul) : Who's Theo?
    Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : How is Theo alliteration?
    Mucky Tundra (24-Jul) : Bad week for people whose names are alliterations
    Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : Hulk Hogan gone too.
    Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : Oh, it's toe injury
    Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : Hope it's not serious. that would stink
    dfosterf (24-Jul) : Sounds like an ankle not a knee for Fields
    dfosterf (24-Jul) : Ya Flaccp on Browns
    Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : Maybe Tyrod Taylor instead
    Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : He's on Browns, right?
    dfosterf (24-Jul) : They would probably go with Flacco is my guess if Fields out
    dfosterf (24-Jul) : Fleece 'em again!
    Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : Malik Willis might be someone Jets come after
    packerfanoutwest (24-Jul) : Packers introduce 1923-inspired classic uniform, leather-look helmet
    Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : Both LB Quay Walker and Rookie DB Micah Robinson have passed their physicals
    Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : Happy to see site feels more snappy snappy
    Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : No sir. I did not.
    dfosterf (23-Jul) : You didn't get free childcare when you were at work?
    wpr (23-Jul) : These guys make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. Pay for their own childcare.
    dfosterf (23-Jul) : 2nd issue. Number 1 issue was no gameday childcare. 1 of 3 teams not providing it
    Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : Suppose if locker room is main issue, we sitting pretty
    wpr (23-Jul) : I thought so Mucky. In those useless player polls GB always rates high overall. Locker is a part of it.
    Mucky Tundra (23-Jul) : Wasn't the locker room just updated like 6 or 7 years ago?
    Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : I have forum updated on different site. We'll see how this one goes before going to that
    Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : Elgton Jenkins has a back injury, is expect to end contract dispute
    wpr (23-Jul) : It's funny the PA complained about the locker room. It wasn't that long ago it was top shelf. Things change in a hurry.
    wpr (23-Jul) : The site is much more better.
    Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : NFLPA report said Packers lockerroom needed upgrade. Whining bout where you change?
    Please sign in to use Fan Shout
    2025 Packers Schedule
    Sunday, Sep 7 @ 3:25 PM
    LIONS
    Thursday, Sep 11 @ 7:15 PM
    COMMANDERS
    Sunday, Sep 21 @ 12:00 PM
    Browns
    Sunday, Sep 28 @ 7:20 PM
    Cowboys
    Sunday, Oct 12 @ 3:25 PM
    BENGALS
    Sunday, Oct 19 @ 3:25 PM
    Cardinals
    Sunday, Oct 26 @ 7:20 PM
    Steelers
    Sunday, Nov 2 @ 12:00 PM
    PANTHERS
    Monday, Nov 10 @ 7:15 PM
    EAGLES
    Sunday, Nov 16 @ 12:00 PM
    Giants
    Sunday, Nov 23 @ 12:00 PM
    VIKINGS
    Thursday, Nov 27 @ 12:00 PM
    Lions
    Sunday, Dec 7 @ 12:00 PM
    BEARS
    Sunday, Dec 14 @ 3:25 PM
    Broncos
    Friday, Dec 19 @ 11:00 PM
    Bears
    Friday, Dec 26 @ 11:00 PM
    RAVENS
    Saturday, Jan 3 @ 11:00 PM
    Vikings
    Recent Topics
    15h / Around The NFL / Mucky Tundra

    16h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    22h / Green Bay Packers Talk / TheKanataThrilla

    25-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

    25-Jul / Around The NFL / beast

    24-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

    24-Jul / Around The NFL / beast

    24-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    23-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    23-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

    22-Jul / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

    22-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    22-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    20-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    20-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    Headlines
    Copyright Ā© 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.comā„¢. All Rights Reserved.