Printable View
Gentlemen,
Having been sunning myself on a quiet beach this last week, I am in a relaxed and happy mood.
I would not appreciate my equable state of mind being further disturbed by the trends of this thread. There have been far too many beastly imputations put abroad for my liking, and I trust they will cease forthwith.
Let any ongoing discourse be constructive and illuminating rather than derisive and divisive.
Thank you kindly.
:bow:
While I could make a host of bad jokes about rank-and-file gardai, I think that, since they have experienced both the armed and unarmed versions of upholding the peace, they would be able to make an informed decision.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
However, in Dublin, about 7 weeks ago, there was a fight on the street between a bum and some drunk dude, and a garda car parked just opposite, with the gardai just sitting and watching. After the fight was over, they got out to inspect the scene. So irish policing standards could be higher too. Then again, it's not like a bum fight is a threat to anyone but the people involved...
On a tangential issue, I seem to recall that there was an issue raised also about the increasing numbers of Armed Gards. Am I completely off track here?
Same out west when the clans go chopping each other up in mass brawls over their family "honour" , the police leave them to it , take notes , then let the courts deal with it , police intervention isn't going to stop them much and they will only directly intervene if it affects other normal people or holds up traffic .Quote:
However, in Dublin, about 7 weeks ago, there was a fight on the street between a bum and some drunk dude, and a garda car parked just opposite, with the gardai just sitting and watching.
The only time they will bother elsewise is if its something big like a funeral or a wedding when they know that the different families are going to be together in a "civilised" setting and they have the armed police and the army present to ensure good order by searching for weapons beforehand .
Eh, I fail to see the big 'gotcha' moment.
Tribes just argued what he's been arguing all along. Except now he has a link to an obscure company that had slapped a sticker that said 22 CAL on a box they did not make.
Meh. I still think calling all .22x caliber bullets "22 caliber" is needlessly vague. There's no reason not to specify what caliber you're talking about, especially when the term .22 is widely used to indicate a certain cartridge. Indeed, it reduces confusion and helps facilitate discussion.
Yeesh. Can we please stop with the strawmen?Quote:
You're saying that some areas of the US are like the slums of Brazil, with the same poverty, number of orphans, utterly corrupt police force and government, etc?
If so, I'd say you have more important things to care about than gun laws.
Maybe because the police are not a protection force - they try to deter and solve crimes, but they'll arrive after a crime has happened.Quote:
Ironside raises the important issue here in my opinion. Would you say that the trust of US citizens in their own police force is so low, that they feel they must supplement the police?Quote:
Or to put it differently the question is not "Should I buy a gun for self-defence or not?" But "Why should I even need to consider buying a gun in the first place?"
Rare self defense cases? In the US, about 2 million people each year defend themselves with a firearm.Quote:
My admiration for policework in the UK has been slowly eroded over the past years, but I still admire that they dare do their job without firearms.
I do understand that there are circumstances where a gun is needed, like rural settings, and rare self-defence cases, however, these cases are few and far-between.
CR
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:Quote:
Tribes just argued what he's been arguing all along. Except now he has a link to an obscure company that had slapped a sticker that said 22 CAL on a box they did not make.
Hey Rabbit don't forget the article from Americas most popular firearms publication :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Hey if you want to maintain your nonsense how would you like a whole pile of links to firearms and ammunition producers that prove you wrong ?:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Bite the bullet Rabbit , you screwed up .
haha, what enjoyment you get out of your internet victories tribesman.
Now, firstly, drop the damn calibres. I don't care and it makes no difference anyway.
Absolutely. It is this way in every country. I don't see your point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Sure. I'll trust your stats. Tell me, how many of these were attacked with a firearm? How many people were arrested for gun related crime? You can't look at stats in isolation. That's what politicians are for.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
I wouldn't as the survey he usually uses is really badly flawed as the only false positive it takes into account is the "were you participating in a crime when you think you defended yourself with a gun" .Quote:
Sure. I'll trust your stats.
Given the pile of comments made by people who were completely wrong it is rather funny don't you think .Quote:
haha, what enjoyment you get out of your internet victories tribesman.
I didn't even have to ask Redleg for his expert opinion on if a 105 is always a 105 no matter if is has a big fast one a short fat one or it it went clang bang or whoosh , a designation by bore is always a designation by bore .
As it relates to the Mexician law calibre does make a difference. In fact the error Tribesman made in his arguement was to include .223 in the arguement since that calibre is for the sole use of the military in Mexico and all weapons of that calibre can not be brought into Mexico. All other .22 calibre weapons can be. Now in Tribesman defense in that arguement it is a single type within the calibre family so, he might have actually included it in the arguement and I misread it in my amusement. But for now I would have to say he included it in the arguement.Quote:
Originally Posted by SwordsMaster
indeed you are correct. Now one could get into the arguement about rifling in that bore and why different grains of powder and ignition methods were developed for the .22 calibre weapons. Its really a rather interesting subject once one delves into it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Well ok then, if the US is nothing like the slums in Brazil, what was the point of your post again?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
My point is what I said before, that crimes in the US happen often in our ghetto areas. They are not as bad as Brazil, true, but they are not as good as the rest of the US.
Police do not magically appear when you are attacked to protect you. You need to take responsibility for protecting yourself.Quote:
Absolutely. It is this way in every country. I don't see your point.
Indeed. Especially funny when he doesn't answer any of the questions posed to him, like how many .22x caliber rifles besides .22LR there are in Mexico.Quote:
haha, what enjoyment you get out of your internet victories tribesman.
And then he goes off on what I allegedly said about a gun ban in Ireland, which is complete BS. :laugh4:
CR
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:Quote:
Indeed. Especially funny when he doesn't answer any of the questions posed to him, like how many .22x caliber rifles besides .22LR there are in Mexico.
Well rabbit for that answer perhaps you can write to Ruger and ask them about their descision to re-chamber the mini-14 to .222 specially for the mexican market . Because of course if they didn't have much of a market down mexico way they wouldn't bother:yes:
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:Quote:
And then he goes off on what I allegedly said about a gun ban in Ireland, which is complete BS.
Awwwww poor wabbit doesn't remember claiming that two countries have banned guns and have really bad crime rates because of it......Jamaica and Ireland:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Bite the bullet rabbit , you consistantly screw up in your favourite special topics about your favourite subject:oops:
*sigh...*Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Source: Kopel, David B. The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy--Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies? (1992), Prometheus Books, New York, pp.257-277, ISBN 0-87975-756-6Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiki
And Tribsey, quit the sarcasm. It's extremely aggravating and it doesn't make anybody respect you more.
Did I dispute the existence of such rifles? I asked for numbers. You know, hard facts. Not some yammering about a rifle made 20+ years ago according to various sources.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Yet you can't come up with any proof of that. :laugh4:Quote:
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Awwwww poor wabbit doesn't remember claiming that two countries have banned guns and have really bad crime rates because of it......Jamaica and Ireland:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Bite the bullet rabbit , you consistantly screw up in your favourite special topics about your favourite subject:oops:
CR
Well maybe , but Mars coud you consider what has been written in this topic .Quote:
And Tribsey, quit the sarcasm.
How wise is it to post.....
when earlier I wrote....Quote:
Source: Kopel, David B.
Quote:
I know , I took some of it from that Dave Kopel idiot on the second amendment project site , I knew I shouldn't have relied on a gun nut for accurate information .
Oh I see , so as some sort of pointless exercise you want me to write to the Mexican government and get a list of every registered firearm in the country then sort them all by calibre then sort all the 22 calibre guns into rim fire and centre fire just because your "expert" knowledge of firearms and firearm legislation let you down badly yet again:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:Quote:
I asked for numbers. You know, hard facts.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:Quote:
Yet you can't come up with any proof of that.
I don't have to Rabbit since I am not the only Irish gun owner on this forum and I am sure they remember the crap you wrote about Irish gun laws , just as british gun owners on this forum will remember the crap you wrote that said they were not allowed guns either .
A bit of a pattern there eh...
Rabbit + other countries gun laws = lots of bollox:yes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Again, please drop the ******* calibres. They make no difference on the issue i was trying to raise here.
Again, I don't see your point. In any country police don't magically appear anywhere, so what is so special about the US police?Quote:
Police do not magically appear when you are attacked to protect you. You need to take responsibility for protecting yourself.
It's kind of getting frustrating now, because nobody's going to win that one...Quote:
Originally Posted by SwordsMaster
Definately.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
So if someone is wrong once, it doesn't mean they're always wrong. Maybe you'd like to try on a professor for size.Quote:
but Mars coud you consider what has been written in this topic .
How wise is it to post.....
when earlier I wrote....
At any rate, Dave Kopel has a rather nice resume.
But it is a pretty good indication , and since you wish to quote him in........Quote:
So if someone is wrong once, it doesn't mean they're always wrong.
It does provide a good example .Quote:
Violent crime accelerated in Jamaica after handguns were banned.
Can you find any Jamaican legislation that bans handguns ?:inquisitive:
The point is, self defense can be necessary, and a gun is very good for that.Quote:
Again, I don't see your point. In any country police don't magically appear anywhere, so what is so special about the US police?
Technically, DC didn't ban handguns. But I guess SCOTUS is just talking "bollox", eh?Quote:
Can you find any Jamaican legislation that bans handguns ?
You 'don't have to' or can't? :laugh4:Quote:
I don't have to Rabbit since I am not the only Irish gun owner on this forum and I am sure they remember the crap you wrote about Irish gun laws , just as british gun owners on this forum will remember the crap you wrote that said they were not allowed guns either .
CR
Kopel makes a very definate claim does he not , if the claim is not true then it shows the reliability of his writing .Quote:
Technically, DC didn't ban handguns. But I guess SCOTUS is just talking "bollox", eh?
Now I am sure you can remember what weapons are actually banned in Jamaica from the topic where you said ireland and Jamaica had banned gun ownership , then again as either your memory is very poor or you are in a state of denial maybeyou can't:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
I don't have to , I shall leave people with working memories to judge for themselves your history of posting complete bollox about firearm legislation .:yes:Quote:
You 'don't have to' or can't?
So you and I are always wrong about everything we say? Awesome.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Did you see my above link about Jamaican law, by a professor? Here it is again, if you don't want to scroll up.Quote:
Can you find any Jamaican legislation that bans handguns ?:inquisitive:
http://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/papers/asc..._slideshow.ppt
No, I would say something like people aren't allowed to carry guns in public in Britain, and you'd come back with some irrelevancy about a few N. Irish politicians granted special permission by the government, in a way totally impossible to the average person, to carry firearms. So I'm right, as those are exceptions to the rule, and there will always be exceptions to the rule.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
But all your posts rest mainly on picking out irrelevant exceptions and acting as if they disprove a point.
I know why you don't want to provide a link. Obviously I said something like the esteemed professor EMFM has linked to in relation to gun bans in Ireland and Jamaica. So posting such a link would make you look like a fool. Especially since your entire argument would rest on some technicality.Quote:
Now I am sure you can remember what weapons are actually banned in Jamaica from the topic where you said ireland and Jamaica had banned gun ownership
But technically, handguns were not banned in DC. However, the Supreme Court of the United States, which I take to be a much more legally scholarly institution than yourself, said DC's laws "banned handguns" and was a "total ban on handguns". So you see, you're the one talking bollox.
You flit around the subject by taking the position that if a law does not explicitly ban a gun, even if other laws make it impossible to acquire a gun, that said gun is not banned.
You know what? SCOTUS says bollox to that stupid argument. (PDF warning, 2.7Mb)
:laugh4:
CR
No rabbit you would say all guns are totally banned , you have said it about many countries , Jamaica and Ireland for example and you have claimed it about handguns in britain .Quote:
No, I would say something like people aren't allowed to carry guns in public in Britain
None of which was true .
If it was impossible for a person to legally possess a gun in Jamaica why are there gun clubs , shooting associations and such ?Quote:
You flit around the subject by taking the position that if a law does not explicitly ban a gun, even if other laws make it impossible to acquire a gun, that said gun is not banned.
If it was impossible then people couldn't have a licence could they and certainly couldn't have a gun to go with their licence .
Since the weapons that are banned for private ownership are cannons , howitzers , mortars , hand grenades , rocket launchers and flame throwers (unless of course they are pre-1850) how is it impossible to own a gun ?
Here Rabbit , your major flaw........your problem is that you make absolute claims , your absolute claims are disproved by the relevant legislation:yes:Quote:
But all your posts rest mainly on picking out irrelevant exceptions and acting as if they disprove a point.
Instead of writing "Jamaica bans all guns" you should write "Jamaica has severe restrictions on obtaining a gun licence so that coupled with the corruption in that country apart from liceces granted to people whose job entitles them to special licence only about 30,000 private citizens have managed to obtain all the relevant paperwork that entitles them to own a gun legally ."
But of course that isn't quite as dramatic is it . Then again accuracy isn't your strong point when you want to make a drama out of firearm legislation .
Yes, ghetto areas. Poor people live there, poor people commit crimes. However, poor people will commit a lot more crimes with the help of corrupt police, like they have in Brazil, and I'm assuming you don't have those in the US.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
SCOTUS: 1 Laughing smiley's: 0
...Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
I'm sure we can all agree that Jamaica's gun laws, at the very least, are very restrictive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Proof, I say, proof! Until then your argument has no substance. My post need only be a slight variation from what you allege and I'd be right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Perhaps you should find some things out about Chicago. No corrupt police- I wish!Quote:
However, poor people will commit a lot more crimes with the help of corrupt police, like they have in Brazil, and I'm assuming you don't have those in the US.
There was a thread a whiles back about a cop who beat up a bartender woman. After he left, some cops came back to threaten her not to press charges. Then the police charged him with a misdemeanor and lobbied a judge to let him keep his gun during the trial.
CR
Then I'd say that is the first thing you need to fix in order to get your crime rates down.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
And you'd be correct. Heck, even in Seattle, there's some places with lax enforcement of laws:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/271689_drugs26.html
CR