Quote:

---

(and yes, I would consider sitting in a hunting blind for days sniping, not sharpshooting)

---

Possibly. But in truth snipers also MOVE stealthily. In the Israeli military they call it "shesh b'shishim". I'm not sure what it is called here. But the technique, which I was taught years ago in basic training, includes moving inches over a multiple hour period (30 meters over a 2 day period is not unheard of) to slowly and unnoticeably move closer to your target. I was decent at it. Special forces and snipers are friggin' experts. I suspect that Kindj, who was a SEAL knows much more about the technique than I do. But that is the difference between a sniper and a sharpshooter.

Nevertheless, despite the semantic differences between sniper and sharpshooter, your point is well-made. When roughly 5% (15 million people) of the nation is armed with high-powered hunting rifles and large calibur sport-shooting rifles, as well as untold numbers of handguns, the ability to make home-made explosives and weapons out of kitchen chemicles (I can put together a crude form of mustard gas in a few minutes with the right household cleansers), the use of industrial machinery that can be converted to act as weapons in a pinch, heavy construction equipment that is as durable and agile as many tanks, and acess industrial explosives and chemicals and equipment, the chances of taking on the US military successfully are much more realistic than many people might think. In a civil war against our own military, with 15-1 numerical superiority on the side of the civilians, along with intimate knowledge of the territory that most soldiers do not have of areas outside their own home towns, and the equipment and abilities that I spoke of, the chances aren't that bad, actually. In fact, at that point, the military's soles tactical advantages become discipline and combat experience. And that much can be available to former soldiers who are now retired who fight on the side of the civilians. The odds are actually in favor of the civilians in most ways.

So the argument that "my little handgun can't really make a difference" is not true.

Great point, GF.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

I would also venture to hazard a politically incorrect guess that certain ethnic minorities have higher rates of gun violence and murder than the general population and that "stricter" gun controls have less of an effect than race in the risk for gun violence.

I don't have the statistical expertise or the time to crunch the figures on this, but if any of these factors proves true , then the effectiveness of "stricter" gun control laws is moot.

---

Your in luck I have the expertise and the time. I did your two and two that I thought might make a difference as well. I only did it for the top 10 and the bottom 10 though. The two I thought might make a difference were home ownership and high school degrees.

State--------murder---V.crime-----Race----P.density—H.owner-H.degree
D.C.-----------29.1------1508.4------57------9,378------40.8------77.8
Louisiana------9.9------594.4------33------102.6------67.9------74.8
Maryland------9.7------678.6------29.3------541.9------67.7------83.8
Nevada--------9--------606.8------7.7------18.2------60.9------80.7
Alabama------8.3------425.2------26.4------87.6------72.5------75.3
South Carolina8.3------765.5------29.2------133.2------72.5------76.3
Mississippi----7.7------298.6------36.9------60.6------72.3------72.9
Arizona-------7.5------501.4------3.6------45.2------68------81
Arkansas-----7.3------551.6------15.7------51.3------69.4------75.3
Michigan-----7.1------562.4------14.3------175------73.8------83.4
Minnesota----2.4------312------4.3------61.8------74.6------87.9
Oregon-------2.2------286.8------1.8------35.6------64.3------85.1
Vermont------1.9------136.6------0.6------65.8------70.6------86.4
Iowa---------1.8------283.5------2.3------52.4------72.3------86.1
Montana-----1.8------253.7------0.4------6.2------69.1------87.2
Utah---------1.8------224.4------1------27.2------71.5------87.7
Maine--------1.7------115.5------0.8------41.3------71.6------85.4
Wyoming----1.7------239.6------0.9------5.1------70------87.9
Hawaii------1.6------281.2------2.3------188.6------56.5------84.6
North Dakota1.3------127.9------0.8------9.3------66.6------83.9
South Dakota1.2------171.4------0.8------9.9------68.2------84.66
New Hampshire1------138.7------1------137.8------69.7------87.4
*edit: trying to make it readable.

You'll need to import my data into excel to read it apparently.
*edit: I think I have it readable now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

From ET's

Last post it can be pointed out that Maine, New Hampshire, North Dakota
Are less densely populated, there population is more homogenous and less diverse, and perhaps drugs and gangs are not as prevalent and that is why gun homicide is much less than in the US in general and compared with Australia.

---

Perhaps. But WHY is that the case? I would argue that the reason that drugs and gangs are not as prevalent in those locations is because of gun ownership. Drug dealers and gang-bangers are not as free to act with impunity as they are elsewhere. If they try, they risk getting shot by a well-armed civilian who is will and able to protect his property, his family and his neighborhood. So the drug dealers and gang-bangers move to places where armed opposition is less likely.

Quote:

---

I would also venture to hazard a politically incorrect guess that certain ethnic minorities have higher rates of gun violence and murder than the general population and that "stricter" gun controls have less of an effect than race in the risk for gun violence.

---

I would not disagree with that politically incorrect statement. However, there are states where crime is low, but the minority population is not relatively lower than other places.

For instance, Ohio is known to be an important polling state for elections because it has a population that reflects the USA as a whole, almost exactly. It tends to be a good indicator of how specific ethnic groups vote. So... since we know that Ohio's per-capita minority population matches that of the USA as a whole, we would expect crime statistics to reflect the nation as a whole.

Ohio has a murder rate of 4.4 per 100,000. The USA as a whole has a rate of 5.5 per 100,000. Michigan, which is the state next door (just north of Ohio) and has a comparale population mix, but has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation has a murder rate of 7.1 per 100,000, nearly double that of Ohio. If you guessed that Ohio has no registration or licensing requirements for gun ownership, you'd be right.

More tomorrow.

Elliot

Tee hee

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

But the technique, which I was taught years ago in basic training, includes moving inches over a multiple hour period.

---

No problem, so I'll use my 92 Mercury Sable when the day comes. The enemy will mistake it for a broken down car incapable of movement or containment of human life while I floor it, inching myself into shooting range.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

When roughly 5% (15 million people) of the nation is armed with high-powered hunting rifles and large calibur sport-shooting rifles,

---

That's it? Wow, the gun to person ratio in my area is about 3 to 4 (the crime rate is also close to zero, so you can't say anything about that Skell)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

(I can put together a crude form of mustard gas in a few minutes with the right household cleansers),

---

Me too, an untold number of housewives have found this out the hard way. After the bathtub is cleaner than it's ever been, they wake up on a hospital bed wondering what their miracle cleaner did to them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gallivant_fellow

That's it?! Wow, the gun to person ratio in my area is about 3 to 4 (the crime rate is also close to zero, so you can't say anything about that Skell)

---

WOW! The gun to person ratio in my area is about 0 out of 1000's and the crime rate is also close to zero. So you can't say anything about that galliant_fellow!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

From ET's

last post it can be pointed out that Maine, New Hampshire, North Dakota
are less densely populated, there population is more homogenous and less diverse, and perhaps drugs and gangs are not as prevalent and that is why gun homicide is much less than in the US in general and compared with Australia.

---

Ill agree with this for sure. I live in a city of about 500,000 and crime is hardly an issue. And it certainly isn't because of gun ownership because no one owns one or if they do they don't carry them with them. They have them registered and locked away accordingly.

Sydney however, a city of 4,000,000 people does have crime problems. This is because it is densely populated, (over crowded), very diverse and drugs and gangs are a lot more prevalent due to this. Legalising the ownership of guns wouldn't change this one bit.

Do you honestly think forcing everyone in the USA to carry a gun at all time would make it a safer place Elliot?

Giving everyone in Australia a gun won't make it a safer place. That is just absurd and Elliot can throw whatever statistics he wants at me and I will refute it. For every report he has saying it makes it safer ill show him a report saying otherwise. Its never ending!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

ET :

What do you think of a NATIONAL gun registration?
The argument I hear from [ Rudy ] is that strict gun control in NY does not help reduce crime because of less strict laws in places like VA?

Grace and Peace

---

Yes, id be interested to hear what you have to think about this too Elliot!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skell

WOW!! The gun ownership in my area is about 0 out of 0 and the crime rate is also close to zero. So you can't say anything about that galliant_fellow!

---

Yes I can. We get to play with guns and enjoy an extremely low cime rate. By the way, didn't you say you were from Australia? I thought gun ownership is common over there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gallivant_fellow

Yes I can. We get to play with guns and enjoy an extremely low cime rate. By the way, didn't you say you were from Australia? I thought gun ownership is common over there.

---

You thought wrong! It may be common amongst farmers who use it for pest control but that's about it. I don't know one single person that owns a gun other than for hunting and it is legall registered and stored accordingly. None of my friends or family own or have ever owned a gun nor do they wants to. And they don't feel scared without one. In fact id go as far to say that they would feel more uneasy and less safe for carrying a gun!

And we don't see them as a toy to play with like you do!

You enjoy a low crime rate?? Im happy for you. It's a shame your fellow citizens don't enjoy that same luxury!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skell

Sydney however, a city of 4,000,000 people does have crime problems. This is because it is densely populated, (over crowded), very diverse and drugs and gangs are a lot more prevalent due to this.

---

But I thought that gun laws are supposed to prevent crime. If the same gun laws are in place in Sydney as in the rest of Australia, then the crime rate should be uniformly low. That's the argument being made by gun-control advocates: gun laws lower crime. It seems to me that Sydney fails that test. Gun laws are, by your own admission, incapable of stopping the crime that is caused by overpopulation, drug use, and gang activity.

So what you are doing clearly isn't woking, by your own admission.

Quote:

---

Do you honestly think forcing everyone in the USA to carry a gun at all time would make it a safer place Elliot?

---

That is where you are making your mistake, Skell. I'm not suggesting that everyone be forced to carry a gun. I'm saying that they should have the OPTION to do so. And I am saying that in states and localities where that option is available, crime is lower.

Quote:

---

Giving everyone in Australia a gun won't make it a safer place.

---

How do you know that if it has never been tried?

Quote:

---

That is just absurd and Elliot can throw whatever statistics he wants at me and I will refute it.

---

I'm still waiting for the first time.

Quote:

---

For every report he has saying it makes it safer ill show him a report saying otherwise. Its never ending!

---

I'm not using reports. I do my own research on crime statistics and gun laws using raw data. You should try it. You'd be surprised by how much more information you get from looking at the raw data instead of someone else's manipulation of it.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

ET :

What do you think of a NATIONAL gun registration?
The argument I hear from [ Rudy ] is that strict gun control in NY does not help reduce crime because of less strict laws in places like VA?

Oh, NSG, sorry to continue the hijack of this thread:o

Grace and Peace

---

Hi again, ITB.

To continue from yersterday's post:

I have heard that argument before as well, but it is one area where I disagree with Rudy.

First of all, if guns were legally available in NY, people wouldn't be buying them and illegally importing them from VA.

Second of all, you will notice that VA has a MUCH lower crime rate than DC, which is right next door, while also having the same population makeup. That's because VA has legalized gun ownership, where DC has not. So murder in VA is about 1/3 that of DC.

Third, crime in NY is lower than it used to be. That was not accomplished through stricter gun control (Rudy was never actually able to get stricter gun laws passed at either the city or state levels during his tenure), but rather through Rudy's enforcement of nuisance crimes and new zoning laws, as well as getting big businesses to invest in New York. The result was that New york became the "big city" with the lowest crime rate in the nation. Gun laws never entered into the situation. Rudy knows this... he's the guy that made it happen.

As for the idea of national gun registration, I am torn on the issue.

Gun control is clearly a federal issue. The fact that the Constitution gives us the right to bear arms in the Second Amendment makes it clear to me that it is a federal issue rather than a state issue. In that sense, I like the idea of a federal registration system rather than a state-by-state system.

However, I don't believe there should be any fom of gun control at all. I think it's Unconstitutional, whether at the state level or federal level. And I think it's a bad idea for a whole slew of reasons as I have explained above.

I would also point out that after 6 years and $28 million spent, the CoBIS balistic fingerprint system used in New York State to register new handgun sales and identify guns in criminal investigations has resulted in only two "hits" and no arrests for any crime. That's a $28 million system that has proven to be completely useless in stopping crime. What makes us believe that a NATIONAL registration system would be any more effective than that?

The problem is that the guns that criminals use are "off the radar". They don't exist, as far as the government knows. Even in cases where a particular gun is known to the government, it is easy to change the balistic fingerprint of the weapon by changing out the barrel and firing pin for new ones. Even changing the brand of ammo can change the ballistic fingerprint. File off the serial numbers of the weapon, and you're home free. There is no way to effectively register every weapon in such a way as to prevent crime or capture criminals based on information in a database. Trying to do so is a useless excersize that is a waste of money and effort. And the CoBIS system proves it.

I would not have a problem with a federally mandated reasonable waiting period for the purchase of handguns. And I would not have a problem with background checks to prevent legal sale of guns to criminals or mentally impared. But I don't believe that there is any legal basis for the control or banning of firearm sales to non-criminals who are mentally healthy.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skell

You thought wrong! It may be common amongst farmers who use it for pest control but thats about it. I don't know one single person that owns a gun other than for hunting and it is legall registered and stored accordingly. None of my friends or family own or have ever owned a gun nor do they wants to. And they dont feel scared without one. In fact id go as far to say that they would feel more uneasy and less safe for carrying a gun!

And we dont see them as a toy to play with like you do!

You enjoy a low crime rate????? Im happy for you. Its a shame your fellow citizens dont enjoy that same luxury!

---

I think you just have to understand that this country was created by independent men with guns at their sides. The government overpowering us and taking away our guns would be a complete reversal of everything we believe in. They are not only symbols, but tools of our freedom.
Telling an American that they can't have a gun is like saying "Hey, here's an idea! Lets raise King George from the dead and move back to England."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gallivant_fellow

I think you just have to understand that this country was created by independent men with guns at their sides. The government overpowering us and taking away our guns would be a complete reversal of everything we believe in. They are not only symbols, but tools of our freedom.
Telling an American that they can't have a gun is like saying "Hey, here's an idea! Lets raise King George from the dead and move back to England."

---

AWESOME answer!! THAT is the spirit of the law!

Quote:

---

Duckling disagrees: That's not true. Many cases of men raping women in the army. How come every other man there isn't shooting this rapists head off? Please go to the Women's research department in an American University.

---

First of all, Duckling, how many rapes take place in the US military every year? Do you have the information or are you just assuming that to be the case?

I can guarantee you that the level of rape on US military bases is much lower than that of the population as a whole. Part of that is because of military discipline. Part is because of the fact that so many people go around armed.

But there is also the point that not every soldier on an army base carries a weapon all the time. Administrative soldiers rarely carry a weapon except for specific reasons. Guards and combat soldiers do, but what are often referred to as REMFs do not. Perhaps this is a reason that they should... to keep crime on military bases down.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

But I thought that gun laws are supposed to prevent crime. If the same gun laws are in place in Sydney as in the rest of Australia, then the crime rate should be uniformly low. That's the argument being made by gun-control advocates: gun laws lower crime. It seems to me that Sydney fails that test. Gun laws are, by your own admission, incapable of stopping the crime that is caused by overpopulation, drug use, and gang activity.

---

That is ridiculously simplistic! Ridiculous.

By that logic your telling me that states in the US with little or no gun laws should have the same level of crome uniformly in each city. That's just stupid and I can't even believe I'm wasting time arguing this point!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

That is where you are making your mistake, Skell. I'm not suggesting that everyone be forced to carry a gun. I'm saying that they should have the OPTION to do so. And I am saying that in states and localities where that option is available, crime is lower.

---

But Elliot you told me before that you want to change things. You acknowledged that things at present aren't working given your high crime rates. You said you wanted to come up with a solution to change thing.

So if you advocate that carrying a gun reduces crime then why not go as far as forcing everyone to have a gun on them at all time? Surely if you want to change things and guns are as effective as you claim then this is your only option to reduce crime?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

How do you know that if it has never been tried?

---

It has. When it was legal we had 18 mass shootings including more than 30 people in one spree in the decade prior to them becoming illegal. In the decade since we have had laws introduced we have had one, involving 2 people.

You bring up the argument of knives but I've never heard of 32 people being knifed to death in one spree. Despite what you want to say about crime it reduces killings. It may not reduce crime but it reduces murders. Id rather be a victim of a mugging involving a knife then a victim of a bullet in the brain whilst sitting in school Elliot!

The muggings with knives still happen here Elliot. The mass shootings don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

I'm not using reports. I do my own research on crime statistics and gun laws using raw data. You should try it. You'd be surprised by how much more information you get from looking at the raw data instead of someone else's manipulation of it.

Elliot

---

That's right. Your own research Elliot. I forgot about that. That stuff you cut and paste from Wiki that I come across in your earlier posts. Research like that should never be refuted!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gallivant_fellow

I think you just have to understand that this country was created by independent men with guns at their sides. The government overpowering us and taking away our guns would be a complete reversal of everything we believe in. They are not only symbols, but tools of our freedom.
Telling an American that they can't have a gun is like saying "Hey, here's an idea! Lets raise King George from the dead and move back to England."

---

As I have said before and ill say it again. I see the main difference in our point of views as a cultural one. It is ingrained into your minds. That's fine. I respect that. Where as me and where I'm from it isn't. We aren't taught that is a attack on our freedom to not carry a gun. We don't think that way.
No problems that you do. Its just hard to fathom for most of us! Like it is for you to fathom our thinking!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

First of all, Duckling, how many rapes take place in the US military every year? Do you have the information or are you just assuming that to be the case?

I can guarantee you that the level of rape on US military bases is much lower than that of the population as a whole. Part of that is because of military discipline. Part is because of the fact that so many people go around armed.
Elliot

---

I'm sorry, but how dare you belittle this problem? Many women are being tortured and raped in the military (a place full and full and full of guns and weapons). But here is the information you can read of many cases where American military men have raped or sexually tortured some of their own American military women. Now, your argument assumed that the more guns, the more likely that someone in a position like, say a woman being raped, would help “prevent the problem”. I proved you wrong.

Also, you try and manipulate people reading this post, by saying "well if there are rapes, I guarantee there are less in the military". You are manipulating here because you do not mention that the ratio of women to men in the military is FAR LESS than the ratio of women to men OUTSIDE of the military! So, even though there are less women concentrated in the military, there seems to be an oddly high amount of sexual torture. Odd isn't it? I guess that disproved you implying that guns are the solution.

This is not to say that a gun can't help solve a problem. But then this does prove that guns being spread into our hands, as you are an advocate for, is not really an answer.

Your desire for guns needing to be spread to protect us from our own government, is rather a conspiracy theory that I have helped disprove (through using your own logic). You are a little too radical and a bit of a conspiracy theorist in how you analyze things. You should go to the Women's Department in a University instead, and do some research. I warn you though, they will laugh at you if you make your radical rants of not being aware of the tons of cases of women being sexually tortured in the military (a place full of guns). They will also laugh at you for belittling rapes done in armies.

Below you will find how “The US military received 1,700 reported cases of sexual assault in just ONE year (2005)” as stated by the US Defense Department.

BBC NEWS | Americas | Sex assault rise in US military

Here is another one:

Camouflaging Criminals: Sexual Violence Against Women in the Military

Now, this report shows that 37 American women stationed in Iraq, came out and said that their own American Military men have been torturing them. There were also 88 cases reported of sexual misconduct. These American women, despite the tons of guns, have ended up being raped or tortured by the other men who carry guns (men who are a part of the American military). So your argument is very flawed. I showed you examples of a situation where there are A LOT OF GUNS. And don't you dare say the number is low, because after 37 come out and they are not taken seriously, then imagine how many women went into silence.

So you see? More guns is not the simple answer that you try to sell. You have to think more critically. When someone says that an answer is “violence” they are full of manipulation and propaganda. You know why? People who believe violence and guns are an answer to everything, are people who do not believe in the power to their own position, ideological perspective, or words.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

But there is also the point that not every soldier on an army base carries a weapon all the time. Administrative soldiers rarely carry a weapon except for specific reasons. Guards and combat soldiers do, but what are often referred to as REMFs do not. Perhaps this is a reason that they should... to keep crime on military bases down.Elliot

---

So, only certain people at the high position and honor of working for our protection, carry guns. That's odd. Isn't it rather ironic that every citizen outside of the military should be able to carry a gun? Where is the logic here... this does not make sense. Thank you for highlighting this for everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Hi again, ITB.

To continue from yersterday's post:

I have heard that argument before as well, but it is one area where I disagree with Rudy.

First of all, if guns were legally available in NY, people wouldn't be buying them and illegally importing them from VA.

Second of all, you will notive that VA has a MUCH lower crime rate than DC, which is right next door, while also having the exact same population makeup. That's because VA has legalized gun ownership, where DC has not. So murder in VA is about 1/3 that of DC.

Third, crime in NY is lower than it used to be. That was not accomplished through stricter gun control (Rudy was never actually able to get stricter gun laws passed at either the city or state levels during his tenure), but rather through Rudy's enforcement of nuisance crimes and new zoning laws, as well as getting big businesses to invest in New York. The result was that New york became the "big city" with the lowest crime rate in the nation. Gun laws never entered into the situation. Rudy knows this... he's the guy that made it happen.

As for the idea of national gun registration, I am torn on the issue.

Gun control is clearly a federal issue. The fact that the Constitution gives us the right to bear arms in the Second Amendment makes it clear to me that it is a federal issue rather than a state issue. In that sense, I like the idea of a federal registration system rather than a state-by-state system.

However, I don't believe there should be any fom of gun control at all. I think it's Unconstitutional, whether at the state level or federal level. And I think it's a bad idea for a whole slew of reasons as I have explained above.

I would also point out that after 6 years and $28 million spent, the CoBIS balistic fingerprint system used in New York State to register new handgun sales and identify guns in criminal investigations has resulted in only two "hits" and no arrests for any crime. That's a $28 million system that has proven to be completely useless in stopping crime. What makes us believe that a NATIONAL registration system would be any more effective than that?

The problem is that the guns that criminals use are "off the radar". They don't exist, as far as the government knows. Even in cases where a particular gun is known to the government, it is easy to change the balistic fingerprint of the weapon by changing out the barrel and firing pin for new ones. Even changing the brand of ammo can change the ballistic fingerprint. File off the serial numbers of the weapon, and you're home free. There is no way to effectively register every weapon in such a way as to prevent crime or capture criminals based on information in a database. Trying to do so is a useless excersize that is a waste of money and effort. And the CoBIS system proves it.

I would not have a problem with a federally mandated reasonable waiting period for the purchase of handguns. And I would not have a problem with background checks to prevent legal sale of guns to criminals or mentally impared. But I don't believe that there is any legal basis for the control or banning of firearm sales to non-criminals who are mentally healthy.

Elliot

---

I guess the difference in NYC was Rudy letting the police do their job vs Dinkins. ;)

I did not know about the second to last paragraph. :(

However, the point I disagree with you on is about not having ANY gun control at all.
Wow, that is pretty radical!
It will be "rifle" season here shortly and I don't think the deer will stand a chance against automatic weapons. :eek:





Grace and Peace