Jump to content

Guns Rule In This Cowboy Town


Recommended Posts

Tawp can not grasp the difference between correlation and cause :D

There was a correlation between Terry Wogan being on the radio rush hour and there being traffic jams but he did not cause them. :o

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 125
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Ad hominid again.

2% increase isn't very alarming he says. No, it's not, but it's not an decrease either. Wich, I hope, was the intended purpose of the law in ther first place.

It has however been brought into debate in the UK that the goverments main wish was to remove guns, period.

As once again, criminals don't care about license-demands or the revoking of issued license. Only law-abiding do.

And for the 6(7?) time, no-one has yet to explain what the logic behind the banning of anything that _looks_ like a gun will adhere to and how you would like to word that law, so to not include anything that wasn't intended.

Will boys that make guns out of LEGO, pieces of wood or cardbord-boxes (hey, we all did when we where kids!) be prosecuted for having 'gun lookalikes'?

The comming law is based on fear, not logic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ad hominid again.

2% increase isn't very alarming he says. No, it's not, but it's not an decrease either. Wich, I hope, was the intended purpose of the law in ther first place.

It has however been brought into debate in the UK that the goverments main wish was to remove guns, period.

As once again, criminals don't care about license-demands or the revoking of issued license. Only law-abiding do.

And for the 6(7?) time, no-one has yet to explain what the logic behind the banning of anything that _looks_ like a gun will adhere to and how you would like to word that law, so to not include anything that wasn't intended.

Will boys that make guns out of LEGO, pieces of wood or cardbord-boxes (hey, we all did when we where kids!) be prosecuted for having 'gun lookalikes'?

The comming law is based on fear, not logic.

they ban lookalike guns because you can still scare the shit out of people and rob places.

A lego gun??? if you get robbed with a lego gun then you probaly deserve it :o

I can just imagine someone trying to hold me up and pulls out a gun made out of lego :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Robbed with a toy is still robbed with a toy. Painted waterpistol works just as a replica, and is cheaper. :o

And more consearned about the UK-goverments obsession of 'protecting' their citisens against purseeded threats.

'45min-attack' comes to mind...

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Ad hominid again.

2% increase isn't very alarming he says. No, it's not, but it's not an decrease either. Wich, I hope, was the intended purpose of the law in ther first place.

It has however been brought into debate in the UK that the goverments main wish was to remove guns, period."

Ad hominid exactly but I think you see reality in the second part of the paragraph above.

The main reason was to remove guns after Dunbalne as the 88 law after Ryan did not stop Dunblane.

Yes there has been an increase in gun crime since but hopefully the trend is down.

A hel_l of a lot of the increase can be related to crack cocaine just as this was seen as a precurssor to high crime rates in the USA (see Freakonomics by Steven Levitt for a discusion on this).

There are other reasons in the UK though and a lot to do with gang culture among particular ethnic groups - this is going to seem harsh but as this does not affect the majority of ordinary subjects of her majesty they do not give a shit and as long as its NIMBY they can shoot ach other all day for most people.

I do not subscribe to that view and am happy at the increased police activity such as Operation Trident and other operations in cities like Nottingham etc.

I would like to see serious disincentives for carrying hand guns and the like with mandatory sentences of 5 years or more for 1st offence.

As for the law of carrying anything that looks like a gun - I think yourself has stated that it wil be hard to phrase that and if it succeeds in Parliament i am sure there wil be challenges in the courts to establish case law and precedents.

Maybe it will just be anything that is used to give the impression a person has a gun while comitting a crime etc - even saying you have just like saying you have a bomb would be an offence.

I had an air rifle from about 8 year old and used my grandads .22 rifle from not much older. I had great times out shooting rabbits and birds with them. We did have some land to shoot on but some area's would have been a very grey area but nobody bothered.

I think most of the guy's I grew up with had air guns and many went rabbiting with ferrets too.

Edited by Prakanong2005
Link to post
Share on other sites

I only read the first few pages on this topic and decided to post my comments.

I lived in Sa Kaeo province (about 18km from the Cambodian border) for 18 months. I know thats not a long time but it is long enough to think there is some truth to the story about the guns here.

I had one friend who had some guns and offered to take me shooting with him out in the farm fields. I asked what kind of guns he had and he said many. He collects them but dosen't have papers for them.

Many guns are avaliable here because at one time, there were Communist insurgents fighting against the Thai government in this area. I don't know if that is true or not.

I don't really like guns so I didn't ask to see them. I did see his body guards gun slip out of his pocket and fall on the floor at one of the local restaurants.

Another one of my friends there had a gun legally. Once after returning from a long motorcycle trip through the farm fields, my friends father scolded me for riding out there unprotected.

He said next time I felt like I wanted to ride out there to take his gun with me. I told him I was afraid of getting caught by police with a gun.

He said there are more bad people around than I realize and should take protection.

Also, about Sa Kaeo city, it is not really that close to the border. It's at least an hour to an hour and a half away by bus.

Poi Pet, across the border from Aranyapreth, is the real coyboy town. That place is truley the old wild west.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Poi Pet, across the border from Aranyapreth, is the real coyboy town. That place is truley the old wild west."

Its 4 years since I went through there and those were my thoughts exactly.

The GF at the time had a complete look of horror on her face the whole time there till we were on the road to SR

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kennesaw, GA's

Mandatory Gun Law

A Proven Success

11-6-99

The New American magazine reminds us that March 25th marked the 16th anniversary of Kennesaw, Georgia's ordinance requiring heads of households (with certain exceptions) to keep at least one firearm in their homes.

The city's population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996 (latest available estimate). Yet there have been only three murders: two with knives (1984 and 1987) and one with a firearm (1997).

"After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982. And it has stayed impressively low. In addition to nearly non-existent homicide (murders have averaged a mere 0.19 per year), the annual number of armed robberies, residential burglaries, commercial burglaries, and rapes have averaged, respectively, 1.69, 31.63, 19.75, and 2.00 through 1998."

With all the attention that has been heaped upon the lawful possession of firearms lately, you would think that a city that requires gun ownership would be the center of a media feeding frenzy. It isn't. The fact is I can't remember a major media outlet even mentioning Kennesaw. Can you? The reason is obvious. Kennesaw proves that the presence of firearms actually improves safety and security. This is not the message that the media want us to hear. They want us to believe that guns are evil and are the cause of violence. The facts tell a different story.

What is even more interesting about Kennesaw is that the city's crime rate decreased with the simple knowledge that the entire community was armed.

The bad guys didn't force the residents to prove it. Just knowing that residents were armed prompted them to move on to easier targets. Most criminals don't have a death wish. There have been two occasions in my own family when the presence of a handgun averted potential disaster. In both instances the gun was never aimed at a person and no shot was fired. Yet, in both cases the thugs bent on criminal mischief decided to take their ambitions elsewhere and my family remained safe. Only God knows what would have happened if a firearm had not been handy.

Yes, there are times when gun accidents occur. There are many more accidents involving automobiles, airplanes, bathroom shower stalls and backyard swimming pools, however. And let's not forget that freedom is risky business. Freedom allows people to make mistakes recognizing that the alternative is worse.

A local newspaper columnist recently said that other nations are free without possessing firearms. He fails to see the obvious fact that people who are not free to own firearms are not free. Many people live their entire lives and never know a day of real freedom. And, while I'm sure that there are those who would choose to live without freedom, there are some of us who would rather die free than live enslaved.

:o:D

Link to post
Share on other sites
"Poi Pet, across the border from Aranyapreth, is the real coyboy town. That place is truley the old wild west."

Its 4 years since I went through there and those were my thoughts exactly.

The GF at the time had a complete look of horror on her face the whole time there till we were on the road to SR

Definately the last frontier. The shot was taken about three Kms in from the border......

post-7622-1144764598_thumb.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kennesaw, GA's

Mandatory Gun Law

A Proven Success

11-6-99

The New American magazine reminds us that March 25th marked the 16th anniversary of Kennesaw, Georgia's ordinance requiring heads of households (with certain exceptions) to keep at least one firearm in their homes.

The city's population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996 (latest available estimate). Yet there have been only three murders: two with knives (1984 and 1987) and one with a firearm (1997).

"After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982. And it has stayed impressively low. In addition to nearly non-existent homicide (murders have averaged a mere 0.19 per year), the annual number of armed robberies, residential burglaries, commercial burglaries, and rapes have averaged, respectively, 1.69, 31.63, 19.75, and 2.00 through 1998."

With all the attention that has been heaped upon the lawful possession of firearms lately, you would think that a city that requires gun ownership would be the center of a media feeding frenzy. It isn't. The fact is I can't remember a major media outlet even mentioning Kennesaw. Can you? The reason is obvious. Kennesaw proves that the presence of firearms actually improves safety and security. This is not the message that the media want us to hear. They want us to believe that guns are evil and are the cause of violence. The facts tell a different story.

What is even more interesting about Kennesaw is that the city's crime rate decreased with the simple knowledge that the entire community was armed.

The bad guys didn't force the residents to prove it. Just knowing that residents were armed prompted them to move on to easier targets. Most criminals don't have a death wish. There have been two occasions in my own family when the presence of a handgun averted potential disaster. In both instances the gun was never aimed at a person and no shot was fired. Yet, in both cases the thugs bent on criminal mischief decided to take their ambitions elsewhere and my family remained safe. Only God knows what would have happened if a firearm had not been handy.

Yes, there are times when gun accidents occur. There are many more accidents involving automobiles, airplanes, bathroom shower stalls and backyard swimming pools, however. And let's not forget that freedom is risky business. Freedom allows people to make mistakes recognizing that the alternative is worse.

A local newspaper columnist recently said that other nations are free without possessing firearms. He fails to see the obvious fact that people who are not free to own firearms are not free. Many people live their entire lives and never know a day of real freedom. And, while I'm sure that there are those who would choose to live without freedom, there are some of us who would rather die free than live enslaved.

:o:D

Very interesting. So's this ... (To be found at http://timlambert.org/2003/11/kennesaw/)

Glenn Reynolds points to a page that purports to show the effect on crime of Kennesaw’s ordinance that made gun ownership mandatory. Unfortunately the numbers given there are misleading—they just give the crime rates for the year before the ordinance (54 burglaries) and the year the ordinance was passed (35 burglaries) and for 1998 (36 burglaries). This makes it look like there was a decrease, but if you look at burglary rates over a ten year period (see the graph to the left [1]) there is a lot of fluctuation. A statistical test shows that there was a statistically insignificant increase [1].

It’s not surprising that the ordinance had no effect. It was purely symbolic and was never enforced so is unlikely to have had any effect on gun ownership in Kennesaw.

Edited by MarkBKK
Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting. So's this ... (To be found at http://timlambert.org/2003/11/kennesaw/)

The link above does not work for me. I would like to read it but can't.

Anyway, I'm in the group that believes gun ownership is okay. I've owned guns all my life and have enjoyed shooting with friends, hunting, etc..

A quick story that happened recently. My brother was over at his girlfriend's house. Her ex-husband drove by and saw my brother's car. The ex-husband (6' 2", 260 pds.) proceeds to go home and get drunker (he was already drinking)....at which time he calls the girls mother and tells her he is going over to kill them both. The mother calls the daughter and tells her. My brother is not too concerned.....just a drunk running his mouth. Anyway a few minutes after the call they hear a loud 'crash'.....the ex-husband has snuck into the back yard and he takes out the glass slider with an aluminum baseball bat. My brother leaves the living room and proceeds down the hall with small-caliber (.380) auto in hand (not my choice of guns but that's for another discussion). He tells the guy to 'back off' and leave the house. My brother is 5' 9" and around 160 pounds and 20 years older than the ex-husband.....not likely to be able to handle the guy. Anyway the guy continues FORWARD even with my brother pointing the gun at him. He gets closer and takes a swing.....my brother raises his left arm to block the blow to his head and it nearly breaks his arm. At that point the guy continues FORWARD with my brother backing up. My brother has no choice at this point so he shoots the guy twice.....once in the lower left stomach and once in the lower right stomach. The guy goes down and my brother holds him at gunpoint until the police and ambulance arrive.

I'm convinced had my brother NOT HAD a firearm for personal protection the guy would have beaten him to death and perhaps the ex-wife as well.......no doubt in my mind.

I'll keep my guns and continue to fight for my right of self defense. :o

Edited by LoveDaBlues
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for getting the link to work. An interesting read.

Here's an interesting read too:

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/index.html

At the end of the day pro-gun and anti-gun forces can hurl statistics at each other all day. For me, it's a matter of common sense. I KNOW I'm safer with my Sig-Sauer .40 by the bed......especially since I'm a light sleeper :D ............. I have the right to defend myself and use lethal force if my life/safety are in danger. :o

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for getting the link to work. An interesting read.

Here's an interesting read too:

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/index.html

At the end of the day pro-gun and anti-gun forces can hurl statistics at each other all day. For me, it's a matter of common sense. I KNOW I'm safer with my Sig-Sauer .40 by the bed......especially since I'm a light sleeper :D ............. I have the right to defend myself and use lethal force if my life/safety are in danger. :o

Er ... yes. And capital puishment works as a deterrent ... er ... right?

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.


×
×
  • Create New...