Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Todd Simpson Nov 19 2014, 05:24 AM

Just in time for XMAS, Walmart (our nationwide chain store for anything and everything) has NATO spec assault rifles on SALE!!!

On aisle 4 next to the disney FROZEN display.

http://www.walmart.com/ip/Sig-Sauer-M400-SRP-Rifle-5.56-NATO-Prismatic-10-Round-Magazine/29029482

Posted by: Mudbone Nov 19 2014, 05:32 AM

Unfortunately, it's not available at any Walmart near me. Sig Sauer makes quality equipment. Do you know how much it is?

Posted by: Todd Simpson Nov 19 2014, 06:23 AM

Not available near me either dagnabit!!!

Posted by: Kristofer Dahl Nov 19 2014, 09:15 AM

I'll have two, please

Posted by: Cosmin Lupu Nov 19 2014, 10:39 AM

Uhhh... sorry mates, but I don't think weapons should be available for purchasing in a general hypermarket/store It's the same like buying a samurai sword at the supermarket..

Posted by: Ben Higgins Nov 19 2014, 11:45 AM

It is just effing weird

What next ? Mail order brides and heroin just beyond the frozen food section ?

Posted by: Bogdan Radovic Nov 19 2014, 12:45 PM

Hahhaha can you try it out before purchase?

Posted by: Monica Gheorghevici Nov 19 2014, 01:04 PM

I will say just "choose your weapon"

With a little luck, soon you will can buy a real tank from the hypermarket/store for your "TANK TUESDAY"

Posted by: jstcrsn Nov 19 2014, 02:09 PM

Walmart does not sell these next to the frozen display and this is usually a tactic caused by someone being irked by the fact that they sell guns ( I thought you said you were a LIBERTARIAN , who, stand for freedom to choose) . They have a gun/hunting section (usually in the back corner of the store)
You still have to go thru backround checks and all the legal stuff,and usually the closer to a city you are the less likely the Walmart is to have guns( the 3 in my city don't carry them),but, the further you are from he city, the more likely their clients hunt/ shoot , so, can't they be FREE to sell what their clients are buying

Posted by: klasaine Nov 19 2014, 03:15 PM

We don't actually have a Wal-Mart near me so I don't know. But even here on the 'left' coast, while you can buy a rifle at all of the larger sporting goods shops and some of the mega-stores (K-Mart), they are in the hunting and fishing department and under heavy lock and key. In fact if you weren't into hunting or fishing (or survival type stuff) you'd probably never see them.

Posted by: Fran Nov 19 2014, 05:56 PM

Nice AR, mag too small. Oh well, at least you guys can have them

Posted by: AK Rich Nov 19 2014, 06:10 PM

Completely false. And this item is not available (at a Wallmart) anywhere within 50 miles of my location which is a rural area.


Confirmed.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Nov 19 2014, 07:01 PM

Double Fisted!!! I like it

hahahahahah!! Nice But now that you mention it!!!!!!!



I am a LIBERTARIAN and I"m a proud GUN OWNER



I thought it was clear that I was JOKING about this being next to the FROZEN FOOD display? But it seems two posts are suggesting I was serious? I was being funny fellas This gun is for sale at some walmart locations. NOT online. My point in making this post was to share with folks in other countries that, yes, we have guns/rifles in the same store with standard mega mart bits

Posted by: AK Rich Nov 19 2014, 07:17 PM

Yeah, maybe it was clear to some, but maybe not to all. Now there is no question. Thanks Todd.
With all the anti gun rhetoric we hear in this country, I am sure you can understand why some of us find no humor in this and that some folks will take it seriously since it is not uncommon for some to say these kinds of things and be completely serious about it.

Posted by: Mith Nov 20 2014, 02:55 AM

YAY Tank Tuesday, I've actually driven a tank and it was the best fun ever

Posted by: Spock Nov 20 2014, 04:01 AM

I SHOT MY FIRST TURKEY THIS WEEK!!!!!





It Scared the Shit Out of Everyone in the Frozen Food Section!

Posted by: Mudbone Nov 20 2014, 05:25 AM

Trust me Ben, it is the least weird thing you'll see at a Walmart..... In the midnight hours, the Walmartians are on patrol.

Actually, what am I saying, they're always there!

Posted by: SpaseMoonkey Nov 20 2014, 08:18 AM

You got that right. This is reason enough to go in when they are busy!

http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/

Posted by: Ben Higgins Nov 20 2014, 11:22 AM

Haha, I missed this comment !

Yes, that would be most excellent !!

I'll have 1 x Challenger 2 please !



Tell us more !



Are those the people whose choice of clothes doesn't quite contain their bulk ?? And they waddle around the aisles oblivious to it ?

I think we've seen the memes !



Oh man, to see is to believe and I still don't believe it

Posted by: Kristofer Dahl Nov 20 2014, 11:25 AM

It's so much easier when targets don't move!!

Did anyone shoot back at you? To protect their birds? Shopping grocery is so boring here in Sweden, compared the fun you seem to be having.

Posted by: Mith Nov 20 2014, 03:41 PM

Oh only got to do it once. I'm actually a decorated war vet (yeah I don't look like it now days and I was very young when I did) I was in the Navy as a engineer but I got to visit army bases sometimes and sometimes they let you play with their toys.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Nov 20 2014, 04:33 PM

Being a long time gun owner, and staunch defender of second amendment rights (not to mention being one of the few guys who has posted pics with other GMC members and myself AT A GUN RANGE) I thought for sure folks would know how to take this kind of post But heck, text carries very little "tone" and I have seen quite a lot of "anti gun" stufflately due to the frequent stories on the news about folks (I'm gonna call them "nut jobs") shooting up public places......

NICE!!! Got a good laugh on that and thought to myself..

WALMART SHOPPER!!!





TANK TUESDAY COMES TO WALMART!! I like it!!


MITH : As Ben says "Picture/Vid or it didn't happen! more info on your TANK RUN!

Posted by: Mith Nov 20 2014, 04:39 PM

hahaha, well there aren't many pics of me at that ages, was never one to take photos. Only ones that probably still excise are ones of maybe me with a rifle or sleeping in the shade whenever I could. I so don't like the heat

Posted by: Ben Higgins Nov 20 2014, 06:11 PM

That's badass.. you dark horse !



My FB buddies have seen this but this is the closest I've got to driving one

Posted by: AK Rich Nov 20 2014, 06:20 PM

It's all good Todd I just wanted to make sure that folks living abroad didn't get the wrong impression that here in the states folks that wanted a weapon like this couldn't just grab one off the shelf from right next to the disney movies and toss it into their cart along with their groceries and flat screen tv.

Posted by: AdamB Nov 21 2014, 12:47 PM

"frequent stories on the news about folks (I'm gonna call them "nut jobs") shooting up public places"

Why are nut jobs frequently shooting up public places?

Posted by: Todd Simpson Nov 21 2014, 09:12 PM

GOOD QUESTION!!! Speaking of which, just saw YET ANOTHER one of these stories on the news. Some "nut job" in Floridan shot up a LIBRARY before taking a bullet from a cop.

We have seen a rise in these types of things in recent years. Personally, I blame a variety of factors that were always at play but seem to be made worse by our stagnant economy.

Posted by: Cosmin Lupu Nov 22 2014, 09:50 AM

Somehow, to me this is the EXACT picture that I get, in respect to this whole thing I have nothing against owning guns, but somehow, I think that each person wanting to buy a gun should first undergo a pshychologic test which should be VERY strict.

I think that the shootings occur mainly because some people who should NEVER own guns, actually own them.

Posted by: fkalich Nov 22 2014, 10:55 AM

I know somebody who has a boy pushing 9 who plays with Barbie dolls, dresses up in girls clothing. His momma should have steered him towards the assault weapon toys.

40 or 50 years ago kids played with gun toys, watched shoot um up movies. Real guns were everywhere. But back then no kid would come to school and shoot up his school mates. Never ever. Don't blame modern crazy world behavior on the toys.

Posted by: fkalich Nov 22 2014, 11:41 AM

That is what I want, to give the government power to test me psychologically and classify me according to their findings.

I personally have never known anyone personally who was the victim of serious violence, not in my entire life. The average person in my country has a 1/20,000 chance of getting murdered in some fashion on any given year. The average person has close to 100 times as big a chance of being diagnosed with cancer. I am pretty liberal I think for the most part, I certainly vote that way, but when I want to give the government any further powers, I want it to be for issues that effect a significant number of lives, not for the sensational odd occurrences that the media blows up out of proportion to serve as entertainment for the mass audiences.

Posted by: Cosmin Lupu Nov 22 2014, 03:04 PM

Maybe - I don't live there, so I don't know how things are going actually But I still don't think that anyone should be allowed to have a gun - that's just me though

Posted by: AdamB Nov 22 2014, 03:40 PM

Surely checking peoples psychological stability would be flawed, though? That sort of assumes that one's mental state is not only measurable, but remains consistent in the future.

School shootings in the USA go back quite a way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States

Edit:


I don't understand this. Surely this is required in order to care for the population? I mean what if you or someone you know becomes mentally unwell, how can the government provide care for them if they're not even allowed to asses their state?

Posted by: klasaine Nov 22 2014, 05:24 PM

To the Europeans - it's near impossible to truly understand unless you've spent some time here (not on vacation).

To the Americans - I heartily recommend that you spend some time in Europe (not on vacation).

I realize that is impossible for most so suffice to say that neither society is represented properly or even truthfully in each others media. "You had to be there" as they say.

Posted by: AK Rich Nov 22 2014, 07:05 PM

Yeah, that's what I was afraid of, and why I wanted to make it clear that this is not the reality. While it is certainly true that some folks should not own a gun, and there are laws on the books that do strip people of their rights to posses one, such as certain criminal records for example. There are some in this country that would seek to strip everyone of that right when the truth is that the vast majority of gun owners are responsible law abiding citizens. And because of those in and out of Gov that would seek to strip people of the right to bear arms, the people are hesitant to give the Gov too much power to reach it's tentacles into that area , and other areas of their lives. A lot of us feel that Gov control into every aspect of our lives results in abuses of that power, tyranny, and negative liberties. So goes the saying that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
The two main reasons for the right to bear arms being enshrined in our constitution are. A check on the Gov acquiring too much power so it cannot become tyrannical.(People should not fear their Gov. The Gov should fear the people in order to keep them honest and do the job we allow them to do, and send them there to do by voting them into office.) And as a deterrent to a foreign invader. (The number of hunters alone in this country far outnumber any standing army in the world.) Basically it is the right of the people to defend themselves against any threat, be it foreign or domestic.

Edit: I also would like to clear the air with Todd and I and apologize for my initial poorly worded response to his post and to say that it was not my intention to put into question his support for the second amendment. My bad Todd!

Posted by: Cosmin Lupu Nov 23 2014, 08:56 AM

I think you are right Ken I have never been to the US and most likely a lot of the US guys here haven't yet visited Europe and that's a good reason for which we don't really know anything about each other's real environment or ways of life.

I am also using weapons but for educating my spirit, not really having them in order to fend for my life - I really hope that will not ever happen, because the laws here are very nasty. Regardless if someone breaks into your house - if you wound them, you are the guilty one and the other one not only gets away with it, but also receives damage coverage from YOU I like the way I've heard that things are in the US - if you tresspass, you do it on your own responsibility and no one but you, gets it for doing it - I find that VERY fair (if it's true)

Posted by: Ben Higgins Nov 23 2014, 11:31 AM

This is a very important consideration that I think everyone should be making in their lives: Risk assessment.

We all tend to get suckered in by the 'defend yourself' fear mongering that is perpetuated by martial arts, self defense classes and the like. Look at the rise of Krav Maga 'Israeli Commando fighting techniques'.

Completely ignoring the fact that a set of skills designed to be used by soldiers in a war zone, not civilians, is being touted as a way to defend themselves. There's a big difference between dealing violence, and defending oneself. If you're wilfully engaging in trading blows with somebody, that's a fight. Once you cross the line between doing what's necessary to prevent harm to yourself, you're doing more than is necessary.. you're trying to punish the perp who dared target you.

Usain Bolt is probably better prepared for self defense than most martial artists.. because he'd run away faster than anyone else. Most martial artists are being taught to fight and deal damage, not defend themselves.

Why am I talking about MA and SD ? Because I believe it's applicable to most people and risk assessment. If you wrote a list of your daily activities, the locations you visit, your habits, the area in which you live.. you'd soon be able to have an idea of the types of crime that you are most likely to encounter in your life. This is the crucial bit. Violence is linked to crime. Any violence that isn't is either domestic or egoistic in nature, ie. the typical bar room 'what you looking at ?' scenario that is usually avoidable with some common sense.

Where I live, the most I would probably encounter is to witness someone littering, some teenagers out late at night talking loudly.. maybe some things get stolen from farms in the area. But that's about it. Risk of random murder, assault, rape is virtually nil. Why ? The area I live in presents no practical targets or opportunities for any criminal. None at all. It makes no sense for it to occur there.

That's a quick skim of the subject but in reality, most people have the mindset of acquiring skills that they will never need in the lifestyle they lead. Before anyone goes on about 'better to have skills and never need them etc..' Do you really think you're likely to need the ability to severely disable 3 ninjas in a dark alleyway if 1. You never walk down dark alleyways in your own or at all or 2. You can easily avoid these situations or 3. These situations are unlikely in your area

Many of you will be at risk from break ins but a lot of that can be deterred by making your house a hard target. Increasing your security habits etc. Most break ins will be about theft rather than murder or rape, though. In the case of the latter, you'd really have to present yourself as an enticing victim to a potential perp, though. The average hairy assed, gun toting man is probably not that.

It's an interesting subject. Definitely worth researching, even if you're a liberal pacifist and hate thinking about violence, crime or weapons. You're responsible for yourself and your loved ones after all. The world doesn't work the way you think it should, it works the way it does.





This has happened but is not necessarily true. The people who perpetuate this rumour are usually people who don't understand what self defense is and what it isn't. It isn't dealing out punishment or justice. It's getting away from harm.

There was a notorious case many years ago in England where 2 intruders broke into a farm house. The farmer disturbed them and as they were running away he shot at them. He hit the youngest one in the back and killed him. The farmer was jailed.

There was public outcry and many hailed the farmer a hero. People used the example of his jailing as the definite 'Criminals have more rights than us'.

Considering the laws of self defense can you guys tell me why you think the farmer got jailed ?

Posted by: Cosmin Lupu Nov 23 2014, 12:43 PM

I thnk he got jailed because he shot that guy as he was running I am thinking more of a situation in which you are literally exposed to danger in the form of a guy that is armed and threatening you or your loved ones. There was a case here in which that has happened and there's a law that says that you are considered guilty if the blade of your knife is 10 centimeters longer than your attacker's blade

That's RIDICULOUS - who will measure blades in such a case?????

I'm all for being able to fend for yourself - but that's it, not trying to hurt others deliberately. There's a thin line maybe, but I've witnessed many situations - in time - in which a guy and a gal peacefully walking on the street were mugged by bad guys, trying to pick on the gal or on the guy if he wore glasses or looked skinnier - I would go berzerk in such a situation. Indeed, it all depends on where you live All of this would be almost nothing for a guy living in Syria, correct?

Posted by: Ben Higgins Nov 23 2014, 01:07 PM

Yeah totally, man. It's easy to talk about this stuff but in the heat of the moment stuff happens.. and you don't have time to run through the moralities and legalities whilst thinking of the best strategy to deal with the situation.

That's why we have to arm ourselves with as much knowledge before we ever find ourselves in a crappy situation like that but yes, it's still up in the air and anything can happen.

Avoidance really is our best guarantee (or the closest we can get to a guarantee). People who get targeted should analyse how and why; do they regularly go out on the town ? Are they regularly within close distance of intoxicated members of the public ? Do they frequently go to 'high risk' areas that are prime targets for harassment, muggings, theft ? Do they park in well lit areas near to their destination ? Do they park in dark, isolated areas ? Are they always aware of their surroundings ? Do they alter their route to avoid any potential dangers, crowds of people, drunks, thugs ?

I've known so many people who go out, get drunk and wonder why they seem to attract trouble. Lack of awareness leads to a lot of situations that, to the victim, seemed to 'come out of nowhere'.

And then sometimes, stuff really is just luck of the draw and totally unavoidable.

Posted by: jstcrsn Nov 23 2014, 01:31 PM

great line


this is the same in the US if you are not being threatened ,you have to let them run and I have no problem with this.
It is only allowable here to defend yourself and if you don't do what you can to avoid, is were it gets sticky.

I have been lucky enough to have married a very beautiful woman who gets followed in her car and even from ailse to aisle in this a fore mentioned Walmart.Now she carries a 9 shoot forty caliber hand gun. Even in that ,I told her she should have told somebody in the store.

I believe ,like you said,avoid confrontation at all costs. I had a nephew who was cut off in traffic, so he cut-off the guy back . The guy followed him to a gas station and grabbed a wrench out of his truck. Now in my opinion he could have avoided this altogether by letting it go,but when he became the aggressor by cuting the guy off he could have wound up in jail too.story goes , he flashed his piece to the guys girlfriend , who quickly grabbed the wrench and told him and they left.This , to me , was stupid (Although it ended up with no one getting hurt), but cause of his actions he could have screwed up the rest of his life. If the other guy had a gun, it would have just been ugly

Posted by: Ben Higgins Nov 23 2014, 03:55 PM

Yes this is a great example. Often it's our actions that escalate an annoying or inconvenient situation into a very bad situation instead.

Posted by: klasaine Nov 23 2014, 06:23 PM

Oscar Pistorius says he "thought she was an intruder".

Trayvon Martin, an (unarmed) 17 year old kid in a sweatshirt was fatally shot by a guy who was supposed to be 'watching' the neighborhood.

It can get grey and ugly rather quickly.

Jstcrsn outlines our trespassing and stand your ground laws pretty succinctly. You can't just shoot somebody who crosses your threshold or you think 'might' intend you harm ... even if you're a law enforcement officer. There's a very high profile case in Missouri as we speak.

The States are a big BIG place. Other than a consistent language, the differences between where I live and where Todd lives or fkalich lives can be fairly dramatic culturally and socially and I'm purposely not even talking about politics.

Via the news media the US can seem like a violent place but then look at Ukraine/Russia right now or Yugoslavia in the early 90s. Over here we see that and think, "are you all f'ing insane?"

It's all perspective ... or actually lack of perspective.

Slightly OT and I don't even really know what, if anything, it means but ...
I live in Los Angeles. 6 million people here (LA metro city, LA county = 10,000,000) and for all intents and purposes we border a poor country. We have the smallest police force per capita of any major city in the world. The department serves an area of 498 square miles (1,290 km2) and a population of 6,000,000 with 10,000 officers and about 2800 civilian helpers.
So far, in 2014 there have been 225 homicides. *Compare with 1993 at 1,092 homicides but only 3.4 million people.
Even during the economic crisis our violent crime rate has gone down and this is also true for (most of) the rest of the country. Violent crime in the US has dropped 32% since the mid 90s. So why do we also have the highest rates of incarceration per capita in the world? We put more folks behind bars for lesser crimes and 'most' aren't actually eligible for any kind of parole so they stay in longer.

Posted by: Spock Nov 24 2014, 02:14 AM

I love my guns and all I want to add now is a shot-gun, i'd like a tactical one.

My friend has one of these Russian made Saiga semi-automatic 12 gauges and I'd like one too - they can take down a small tree real quick.





I stand by the motto...

I own a gun because I'm too young to die; and too old to take an ass whoop'n.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Nov 24 2014, 02:45 AM

I"m with COSMIN Here I believe strongly in the right to own firearms, per our constitution, but I also believe strongly in testing and licensing. We require people to pass a test to get a drivers license. I'd be all for requiring people to pass a test to get a gun license. Evidence of serious Mental Instability would count anyone out of gun ownership ideally.

Sadly we, as a country, are ok giving anyone guns, while we require all manner of testing just to drive a car. Seems rather backwards eh?

I've always wanted a Saiga 12!! Awesome gun I'd like to see how it handles slugs on a range. Some slugs now are fin guided. Woohoo!! Egad, I sound like a gun nut. Hm...

KLAISSAINE has a very good point. This country is HUGE and gets really different depending on where you are and where your from.

I"m from the "Deep South" which is almost a world unto itself. Many "Southerners" consider themselves "American by birth and Southern by the grace of God". In other words, some folks in this neck of the woods think of themselves as "Southern" first, ahead of being "American". Some feel almost as if the Federal system itself is corrupt and beneath contempt.

I"m not one of those people I think there is great value in the Federal system and honestly feel it's allowed the country to be far more effective than it would be otherwise. But I digress.

Posted by: klasaine Nov 24 2014, 03:08 AM

Exactly. For example ...
My father is solidly mid-western, a Korean war vet and has firearms in his house (in L.A.). He dutifully instructed me in their proper care, handling and usage.
I live in an area of Los Angeles that has a reputation for it's gang violence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Avenues_%28gang%29
I don't own a gun. I don't feel threatened. The area, besides gang members is also home to a bunch of artists and musicians and plain old working class folks with kids.

Honestly, dealing with traffic, drive times and parking are the biggest concerns for the denizens of this town. Seriously!

Now, Todd, when you mention me you need to spell my name right - k l a s a i n e

Posted by: Todd Simpson Nov 24 2014, 06:24 AM

My bad!!!! k l a s a i n e

Posted by: Cosmin Lupu Nov 24 2014, 10:14 AM

It's funny... I'm the one carrying a Japanese katana at least two times a week on the street (in it's scabbard and into a sack and into a 'gig bag')

Posted by: Spock Nov 24 2014, 03:19 PM

I've found that mid-western hold the basic overall values as we "American by birth, Southern by the Grace of God" people.

As far as a license goes; that pretty much is in place. Every time I have purchased a weapon a background check has been done, you have to have the serial number of that gun tied to your name and social security number, a background check is run and must be approved (it takes seconds). Also, there is a no open carry law where I live. In other words - you can't just walk around with a gun strapped to your side out in the open - like in the wild wild west.

However, after passing a background check - and after taking an 8 hour course which includes 6 hours of verbal lessons followed by a written test, and then firing range practice (which you must pass as well), you will be issued a Concealed Weapons Permit.

The purpose of this permit is for personal safety. You are allowed to carry a firearm on your person as long as it is out of site. You can not carry the weapon on any government facility, except for public restrooms (a lot of attacks on people happen there) and you can also carry at national parks. So - essentially by going through this process, you are keeping the "law abiding" citizens armed and protected - because you know a thug with bad intentions is not going to go through the processes involved.

Of course anyone (that passes a background check and can legally own a firearm) can keep a gun in their house, and transport a weapon (under certain restrictions) to places.

I just took my CWP course again because I allowed my last one to go over 90 days without getting it renewed. The course is free after you pay for it the first time - and I have enjoyed the training both times I have taken it.

I can honestly say there are only a few times in my life I wish I had had a weapon on me to feel more secure - two of those times were because of dogs, and I use to walk for miles outside for exercise until I had a couple of instances with dogs. By the way, just last week in my hometown, 3 pit-bulls were loose and went on a rampage. They killed some household pets and attacked a couple of people.

You hope you never have to use your weapon, but if you ever find yourself in a situation where it's life or death, it's always better to give yourself a fighting chance by having "the great equalizer" with you. JUST BE CAREFUL!!!! And NEVER take a gun for granted. Being careless with one will get you or someone else killed.

Funny, I just wrote a post and saw this headline as soon as I left the site.

This is why you have a firearm - and it's always better to have one close, you never know when your life will be put into a situation like this...


Trio of Armed Thugs Tied Up Man and His Wife, Then Momentarily Left Them Unattended. When They Returned, There Was a Surprise Waiting.


A man and his wife were reportedly attacked and tied up by a trio of home intruders who forced their way into the couple’s Lakewood, Washington, home on Tuesday. The horrifying incident left one of the intruders dead and the others running for their lives, according to police.

The 66-year-old wife was reportedly in the bath when three men knocked on the door. When the husband, 62, answered the door, he quickly realized he didn’t know them and tried to close the door. Unfortunately, the men — armed with a gun and knife — overpowered him and entered the home.

The thugs beat the man severely, leaving him needing stitches, and cut his wife’s hand, according to court documents obtained by the News Tribune. The men then allegedly tied up the couple and searched the house for valuable items to steal. At one point, they momentarily left the house — and it turned out to be a huge mistake.

During the brief time that the men were outside, the husband was apparently able to free himself, untie his wife and relocate to their bedroom. They locked the door and the man retrieved his firearm from a lock box and aimed it at the door.

When the suspects returned and busted through the door, the husband opened fire. Police believe the man fatally hit one of the robbers. Police later identified the deceased suspect as 19-year-old Taijon Voorhees. All three of the men ran out of the house in fear.

Police later arrested Duprea Wilson, 19, in connection to the robbery, which he reportedly told others had “gone wrong.” The suspects may have broke into the wrong house looking for drugs and money, according to investigators.

Wilson was later charged with 12 felonies, including first-degree manslaughter, robbery, kidnapping and assault.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/11/21/trio-of-armed-thugs-tied-up-man-and-his-wife-then-momentarily-left-them-unattended-when-they-returned-there-was-a-surprise-waiting/

Another thing you are allowed to do under the law.

Even if it's not your life in danger, but the life of someone around you - you are protected by law to use deadly force against the perpetrators.

Another thing to remember - NEVER assume, even if the person is down, that they are not a threat. If you point your gun at anyone, you better intend to kill that person. Shoot until you can safely make sure the gunman is or can be disarmed, surrenders and drops his weapon - or is dead. Keep you weapon on him until police arrive. When police arrive, if you have someone call for you, have the person detail your description to the emergency operator - or else police could kill you.

Once police arrive, put you weapon on the ground and put your hand in the air, so they can see you are not a threat. They will handcuff you for questioning - this is protocol.

Beautifully illustrated in these video below...








And here's one showing a guy just going about his business - good thing he was prepared.

Posted by: klasaine Nov 24 2014, 05:00 PM

Of course what Spock illustrates is that yes, bad shit can and does happen. You can read about it every day.
But what I want to point out to those "who live outside the US" is what I allude to in my posts, especially post #44 ...
You have to 'work hard' to find that stuff in this giant and diverse country.

I've lived in a city of 6 million (give or take) for 52 years. I don't currently and have never lived in Beverly Hills or Malibu and I've never encountered anything remotely like those stories or videos.

*In California you can't even carry a rifle, exposed and unloaded unless you are in an unincorporated, rural area. We do have some good hunting here and a few nasty critters in the hills and Sierra mtns. To obtain a license for 'concealed' carry in Cali I believe(?) one has to undergo the most rigorous testing and qualifying of any state in the union. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_California
CA also does not recognize any CC permits from any other state.
Off duty law enforcement officers, high level security detail personnel, diplomats, etc. are exempt.
The national park thing is sticky. 'National Parks' are federal and you are allowed to carry. If you bring a firearm into a nat. park in CA and the rangers and/or sheriff find out, they will keep an eye on you until you leave.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Nov 24 2014, 06:07 PM

Sadly, having worked in Downtown Atlanta, for about 8 years, I saw desperate folks doing desperate stuff every day. Usually it was homeless folks in desperate circumstances robbing students ( I worked at a University) on the street. Kids would would around downtown (dorms are in the middle of the city) and get robbed for their iPhone, ipod, etc. Also sexual assault on female students in parking decks and the university library.

All of this is part and parcel to attending college smack in the middle of a large city with crime/homeless problems. I never "carried" on campus, but I"m a rather large male and was never accosted. A stern look was always enough to ward off trouble for me. But for the younger, smaller, college students, especially the girls, it can be a very unsafe place.

However, just a few miles north, outside of the city, crime rates drop almost to zero. The suburbs in the north of town are very quite and mostly safe So K L A S A I N E is spot imho It varies widely based on where you are/live/work. There are safe spots where you don't need a gun, just dead center of the city isn't one of them. You could probably get by with a TASER though!

Here is a link to the crime report stats on Georgia State Univ. Don't want to make it sound worse than it is
http://safety.gsu.edu/safety-you/statistical-reports/

Posted by: klasaine Nov 24 2014, 06:26 PM

Just to illustrate how different the different parts of this country are ...
I live in the L.A. metro area (the city) in an area that is considered 'sketchy' by those who live in the 'better' parts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highland_Park,_Los_Angeles and I don't need a weapon. It's the more rural parts to the east, north east and south east where the meth-head sociopaths all live.

Posted by: AK Rich Nov 24 2014, 07:19 PM

Sorry Todd, but this is simply not true. Not "anyone" can own a gun.

California for example:

POSSESSION

It is unlawful for anyone convicted of a felony, or who is a drug addict, present or former mental patient, ever committed for mental observation, or acquitted by reason of insanity to own or possess any firearm. People with certain misdemeanor convictions involving force or violence may not possess or own any firearm within 10 years of the conviction. A person who has been adjudged a ward of the juvenile court for certain offenses may not own or possess any firearm until age 30. A minor may not possess a handgun except with written permission or under the supervision of a parent or guardian.

Within 60 days of bringing a pistol, revolver or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person into this state, the person importing the firearm must complete and return a Department of Justice registration form or sell or transfer the firearm to a licensed dealer, or transfer the gun to a sheriff or police department. Currently, registration of rifles and shotguns is not required. However, this law may soon change.

If any person seeks to know whether they can possess or purchase a firearm in California before a transfer is made, they may request a Personal Firearms Eligibility Check conducted by office of the Department of Justice.

A minor under 16 may not possess a handgun, unless they are accompanied by their parent or guardian while participating in a legal recreation activity involving firearms or has written permission to participate in such activities. A minor under 16 may not possess live ammunition except with the written permission or under the supervision of a parent or guardian, or while going to or from an organized lawful recreational or competitive shooting activity or lawful hunting activity

http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-laws/california.aspx

http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-laws.aspx

Posted by: klasaine Nov 24 2014, 07:26 PM

Yes, Cali is very tough with it's gun laws.
Ironically it was the Republican state legislature under then CA gov Reagan in the late 60s and early 70s that started that trend in response to the Black Panthers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panther_Party exercising their right to carry - openly - rifles.

Posted by: AK Rich Nov 24 2014, 08:23 PM

Here is the Federal Law concerning who is prohibited from possessing a firearm.

http://www.fedcoplaw.com/html/federal_firearms_laws.html

C. PROHIBITED PERSONS

1. Indictment or Information for a Felony - This person (indicted for a felony or has a felony information filed against him) has restrictions placed on his firearms activity. He may continue to lawfully possess the firearms and ammunition he already has, but may not ship or take them across State lines and may not acquire more firearms or ammunition affecting interstate commerce: § 922 (n), 5 years.

2. Felon – This person (convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year) is not allowed to knowingly possess, ship, transport or receive any firearm or ammunition affecting interstate commerce: § 922 (g)(1), 10 years. It does not matter what sentence the felon actually received.

a. Definition: § 921(a)(20), a felony crime does not include offenses pertaining to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, other similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices; or the conviction has been expunged, set aside, pardoned, or full civil rights restored unless they expressly provide for no firearms possession.

b. After a felony conviction, the felon must rid himself of all firearms defined in § 921 (a)(3) (except antique firearms § 921 (a)(16)) - that affect interstate commerce. If later caught with a firearm or ammo, the felon is guilty of violating § 922 (g)(1).

c. Interstate Commerce, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, U.S. Constitution, “The Congress shall have Power…To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States…” In Scarborough v. U.S. (1977), the Supreme Court held that evidence that a firearm (or ammo) previously crossed State lines is sufficient to prove interstate commerce.

d. Relief from Disabilities – If a felon did not have his felony conviction pardoned, expunged, etc., he may apply for Relief from ATF under § 925(a)(1). However, Congress has not approved funds for the ATF to conduct Relief investigations for many years except for corporations.

e. Armed Career Criminal – A person who is convicted of § 922 (g) and has three previous convictions for violent felonies and / or serious drug offenses, committed on different occasions, must be sentenced to not less than 15 years in prison, § 924 (e).

3. Fugitive – This person (who flees from one State to another State to avoid prosecution) may not knowingly possess etc. any firearm or ammunition affecting interstate commerce: § 922 (g)(2), 10 years.

4. Unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance – This person may not knowingly possess, etc. any firearm or ammunition affecting interstate commerce: § 922 (g)(3), 10 years. 27 C.F.R. 478.11.

5. Adjudicated a mental defective or committed to a mental institution – This person may not knowingly possess etc. any firearm or ammunition affecting interstate commerce: § 922 (g)(4), 10 years. § 478.11.

6. Illegal alien - This person may not knowingly possess, etc. any firearm or ammunition affecting interstate commerce: §922 (g)(5), 10 years.

a. Non-Immigrant on a Visa (tourist, student, etc) – This person may not possess etc. any firearm or ammunition affecting interstate commerce: § 922 (g)(5), 10 years, unless the alien falls under an exception or has a DOJ waiver described in § 922 (y)(2)&(3).

7. Dishonorably discharged from the armed forces – This person may not knowingly possess etc. any firearm or ammunition affecting interstate commerce: § 922 (g)(6), 10 years.

8. Renounced U.S. citizenship - This person may not knowingly possess etc. any firearm or ammunition affecting interstate commerce: § 922 (g)(7), 10 years.

9. Intimate partner under restraining order - where both parties had opportunity to present evidence prior to issuance of order – This person may not knowingly possess etc. any firearm or ammunition affecting interstate commerce: § 922 (g)(8), 10 years.

10. Convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence - This person may not knowingly possess etc. any firearm or ammunition affecting interstate commerce: § 922 (g)(9), 10 years. (Exceptions: a conviction that has been expunged, set aside, pardoned, or full civil rights restored, unless they expressly provide for no firearms possession; a conviction which did not have as an element the use or attempted use of force, 921 (a)(33)(A)).

11. Juvenile and Handgun –This person (under 18 years of age) may not knowingly possess a handgun or handgun only ammo: § 922 (x)(2), 1 year. Exceptions: he has the prior written consent of his parent or guardian for use in employment, in ranching, farming, target practice, hunting, or a course in the safe and lawful use of a HG; the juvenile is a member of the Armed Forces or National Guard; or as protection during a home invasion.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Nov 24 2014, 09:37 PM

You are quite correct of course and I was far too loose with my words Felons CAN"T own guns here. I should have been more precision and said "Nearly Anyone" with a clean record.

We have somewhere around 300 MILLION PLUS guns in ownership in the U.S. That doesn't include the illegal guns which are estimated near the same number. Thats enough for every Man, Woman and Child to have 2 guns each. My point was simply that we, as a culture, are simply saturated with firearms. I'm not suggesting we "clamp down" on folks who legally own guns. Just pointing out that our culture is one of rampant gun ownership (including myself of course) to the point where access to firearms sometimes turns in to a huge problem such as the SANDY HOOK shootings which of course is TROLL BAIT so please nobody bite down! To Wit!


IN GERMANY, they have pretty restrictive gun laws. I was talking to CHRISTIAN when he visited from Germany and he was telling me how hard it was to get/keep weapons and how many laws/safety procedures were involved. We can look to their numbers as well.



OF COURSE we are very different in MANY WAYS from Europeans/Germans!!! Very different history/culture/etc. Let's just take that as a given

Still, we can look to the German approach and perhaps find things that we could adopt as a culture, as a people, that could help get our "Gun Homicide" numbers to look more like theirs, per capita, and less like ours

Todd

Posted by: AK Rich Nov 24 2014, 11:34 PM

Thanks Todd, While it is true that there is a problem with gun violence in this country, and that testing and registration sounds like a good idea to help reduce it, there are other things to consider here. History has shown us that everywhere there has been gun registration, it has ALWAYS resulted in at least some confiscation, even here in the states. And in many examples, and the most extreme circumstances of course, the end result has been genocide or the elimination of dissidents.
I am not trying to say that this is the end game for us here in the states by those that push for these kinds of registry's. Only that the possibility should not be ignored since there is no question that there are some people in, and out of government that would love to see the populace completely disarmed.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Nov 25 2014, 12:14 AM

EGAD!! As a libertarian, the idea of "Disarming The Populace" MAKES ME CRINGE!! But I'm ok with trying to put sensible rules/laws/procedures in place The line between sensible and totalitarian can be fuzzy for sure once politics gets involved, but it seems like a conversation that we just can't avoid anymore. I'm all for Guns and Gun ownership. But I'm also for personal responsibility and social justice. It's a tough line to walk sometimes

Todd

Posted by: Spock Nov 25 2014, 01:01 AM

Posted by: Arcanist Nov 26 2014, 08:48 PM

Interesting thread, thanks for the insights. Arm-availability in the US is still odd to most Europeans - but it's always important to hear the pros and cons and the average citizens experiences instead of overstated images conveyed by media. As it is, the reputation of the USA is at it's lowest point in my lifetime in my country. Arms and incidents like recently in Ferguson are big part of that, not least due to the clicheed media coverage

Posted by: jstcrsn Nov 27 2014, 04:46 PM

Probably just as foreign to Americans as eating all the Entrails/organs from cows and sheep

Posted by: AdamB Nov 28 2014, 11:38 AM

You don't eat sausage in America?

Posted by: Ben Higgins Nov 28 2014, 02:01 PM

Sausages are like our savoury version of the Twinkie !

Posted by: Todd Simpson Nov 28 2014, 11:58 PM

Sadly, incidents like that one seem to be showing up on the news far too frequently along with incidents where someone goes off and shoots up a school, or public place. The tension between the pro gun/anti gun lobbies here are intense but mostly one sided as the pro gun lobby has wads of money So it's unlikely we will see much in the way of national reforms which I personally think is a missed chance to stop a few crazies from getting guns or being in the same home with someone else guns. The Mental Illness issue is one that does concern me and many folks here. If there was a requirement to pass a psychological exam before purchasing a weapon, I'd be happy to take it but that's not a majority view

Posted by: jstcrsn Nov 29 2014, 05:17 PM

more control , spoken like a true libertarian

Posted by: jstcrsn Nov 29 2014, 05:45 PM

and it doesn't help when our president says things like "he is disappointed in the outcome" (stirring up tension) rather than as a Lawyer knowing a grand jury weighed the evidence and found there wasn't enough evidence to pursue charges , and standing behind the rule of law and encouraging its citizens to do so.
I don't know the facts
Obama doesn't know the facts(and if he does, he should spend his time on the countries big problems)
We should trust the system . Does this mean sometimes there will be mistakes, yes, and we should do what we can to right those. But this mob rules mentality , that was helped by his remarks ,does nothing but make the situation worse and almost convinces me of the need to carry, which I do, and train, which I do. The average assailant can travel 20 feet in 1.7 seconds and this is how I train . that i can evaluate then threat , pull my firearm and have fired and hit my desired target in that 1.7 seconds.

in response to Cosmin training with your sword ( you might be mad at me not calling by its proper name). I to spend time training to be fast and efficient while keeping me and any by standers safe. Knowing my firearm intimately, sound bad but you know what I mean

and as for us eating sausage , it is not that big to most here and if they find out how it is made , they usually get sick. I think it is safe to safe just about never would you see entrails/organs in the complete state as a main dish !

Posted by: Ben Higgins Nov 29 2014, 06:04 PM

You two.. get a room

I struggle to see anything negative in what T-Master said though ?

Posted by: jstcrsn Nov 29 2014, 06:47 PM

there is nothing wrong with what he said , but more control is the complete opposite of libertarian theology http://www.lp.org/platform . I am struggling to see ,If he is a self proclaimed libertarian , which part he stands for. Whilst all of his post in these types of threads talk about more control, more taxes , the government controlling your health care , etc. WE will never get to bottom of who is right or wrong on these issues, since every side has there evidence to back there position up. As any friend of yours and mine would do, we ribb our friends of their inconsistencies of what they say. Is this not true ?

Posted by: Ben Higgins Nov 29 2014, 06:52 PM

You're concentrating on the labels though, that stuff isn't as important as the message. Don't make me reach for my pocket Bruce Lee.. I will... I mean it.....

Ok, I found him - you asked for it ! 1.11

Posted by: jstcrsn Nov 29 2014, 07:05 PM

maybe that's my problem, I don't have a pocket Bruce Lee

Posted by: Todd Simpson Nov 30 2014, 03:00 AM

Sadly, being a "libertarian", isn't as simple as going strictly by the F.A.Q or party platform. Part of the very core idea of LIbertarian ideology is that we are free to think and do as we wish, as individuals. We don't all "Tow the party line" but we all generally paddle in the same direction.


To Wit.... Here is an article where a like minded Civil Libertarian suggest that we give the idea of gun control a fresh look.


http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/12/a-civil-libertarians-case-for-giving-gun-control-a-chance/266336/

Posted by: AK Rich Dec 5 2014, 07:21 PM

I wouldn't say it is one sided at all looking at the millions of dollars Bloomberg, Gates, Ballmer, Seattle venture capitalist Nick Hanauer and Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen. and others spent trying to influence elections in more than 12 states last month. Then there is the majority of national news outlets that get out the anti gun message for free. The NRA-ILA was actually outspent in many states in the run up to the midterms.
And it is important to note that the money the NRA-ILA spends comes largely from it's members such as myself (Life Member ) and most likely some of your neighbors. As well as businesses that donate a portion of their profits.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/12/02/bloomberg-plans-gun-control-push-in-states/19785161/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/04/16/bloomberg-aims-to-spend-50-million-on-gun-control/

Posted by: Todd Simpson Dec 5 2014, 10:53 PM

I'd agree with you all the way the lefty billionaires impact election I was talking about the gun lobby in particular the NRA (also funded by billionaires as well as regular folks if we are honest about it) and how one sided the push against gun control is.

Again, I SUPPORT GUN OWNERSHIP AND I OWN A GUN.

However, I do not support people who are schizophrenic being able to arm themselves. I know it's going to be a very hard road trying to find the proper balance of liberty vs legislation, but that's what politics is for

Just to add something for THOSE OUTSIDE THE U.S.

*This is a magazine rack at my local Grocery Store in Georgia

Posted by: Ben Higgins Dec 6 2014, 10:41 AM

Makes perfect sense, how can anyone argue against that ?

A lot of the gun culture, and some of those magazines, not all, cater to paranoia.

Posted by: AK Rich Dec 6 2014, 07:11 PM

Maybe so. But the same can be said about some on the other side of the issue that feel that the only way to stop things like school shootings , is to get rid of all the gun rights for citizens. And in my opinion, paranoia about that is reasonable.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Dec 6 2014, 08:06 PM

Getting rid of ALL gun rights for citizens is clearly just out of the question unless we remove the second ammnd to the Constitution. So that seems a bit of a straw man yeah? What I"m talking about is limiting gun rights for people diagnosed with serious mental illness.

Arming those with documented mental problems is something that would seem to be a clear "bad idea" however, as RICH and CRSN are certain to point out, there are wads of folks (honestly those leaning right thought a few lefties as well) here that would oppose that even those in my own party (The libertarians).

So sadly, it's not likely to happen. What is likely to happen is continuation of the insanity we keep seeing on the news almost weekly. Some "nut bag" goes postal and shoots folks that he doesn't even know. Sometimes, shoots kids. I personally think this is a bad thing. I'd support those people getting the help they deserve, and support them not having access to guns and support the idea of requiring gun owners who live with them to keep their guns locked up and hopefully away from them.

But, as common sense as this sounds, it gets a HUGE negative reaction from gun folks here in the states.

Posted by: jstcrsn Dec 6 2014, 09:11 PM

you are saying things that are flat out not true
In rich's post # 53 there is a law about not letting those with known mental illnesses not possessing firearms of which I am fully in agreement with.but with our Laws , you are innocent until proven guilty .
You need to stop putting words in my mouth I did not say and don't think
There are numerous incidents were you fudged the Truth ( in this thread alone)
and saying Negatives that I did not say (which are impossible to disprove) , In my opinion, can easily mislead someone, who does not know me,and give them a negative impression of were I truly stand . A proven tactic of the Left is to smear and I have to say you are wondering pretty close to that cilff

Posted by: Ben Higgins Dec 7 2014, 10:15 AM

I think you secretly enjoy the conflict crsn as you are always able to find it in these threads

Go on, admit.. you LOVE the drama !

Posted by: jstcrsn Dec 7 2014, 12:37 PM

duh , but what was I supposed to do , he called me out by name

Posted by: Ben Higgins Dec 7 2014, 02:22 PM

Is that a 'Duh' as in "Well, obviously, dumbass" ? If so, that's a bit naughty.

I'm taking my ball and going home !!

Posted by: jstcrsn Dec 7 2014, 02:47 PM

fine, take your ball, I didn't want to play anyway

and I am going to tell my mom

Posted by: fkalich Dec 7 2014, 02:50 PM

Read that list item by item, say go to the 50's and 60's and read each item. Then go to recent times and do the same. It should be clear to you that what we see today was rare to non-existent if you go back 40 or 50 years. Shootings occurred, but not mass shootings. They were personal disputes for the most part, or associated in committing some crime. not loony's deciding to take out as many random people as they do now, for no reason other than insanity.

The problem is not guns, we have always had guns. The problem is too much fantasy land entertainment (electronic media) in modern culture (including what we call the "news").

Posted by: Todd Simpson Dec 7 2014, 06:25 PM

Easy there big guy!! Just chatting in a forum about guns and such No need to get in a twisty.

I agree GUNS are not the problem. Guns don't kill people, crazy people kill people. or those in a "crazed" state, from the look at the stats. I"m for trying to limit crazy people getting near assault weapons and maybe cutting down on mass shootings a bit?

Posted by: AK Rich Dec 7 2014, 06:38 PM

There is also some concern about the side affects of Psychotropic drugs used to treat ADD/ADHD (Ritalin etc) such as psychosis and suicidal ideation. I believe it is known that over the years that these drugs have been over and misprescribed as well as abused.

https://healthwatcher.wordpress.com/2008/02/15/link-between-prozac-ritalin-luvox-zoloft-and-paxil-to-school-shootings/

Posted by: Todd Simpson Dec 7 2014, 06:48 PM

I'm sure they are not helping things!! Hopefully as we move forward as a Country we can all come to some sort of understanding and agreement on the dangers of allowing folks with serious mental illness to arm themselves. It's going to be a very thorny issue with lots off divided thought, but it's a conversation that I think our Country needs to have.

Posted by: AK Rich Dec 7 2014, 06:56 PM

And it doesn't help that trust in Gov is arguably at an all time low, and not without warrant.

Posted by: Ben Higgins Dec 7 2014, 07:13 PM

I finally found that link that I saw ages ago. http://www.rateyourrisk.org/

You click on the different buttons and go through some questions to assess how risk you are from the following crimes:

-serious assault
-murder
-burglary

You guys might find it interesting. It'll probably give you the sort of answers you would expect if you're a city dweller and clued up.

I think that, before people get all paranoid and go looking for self defense schools and weapons they should go through this type of process. Awareness and knowledge is just as important (or more so) than the hard skills.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Dec 7 2014, 08:14 PM

Well said!! There are plenty of parts of town where you really don't need a gun. Most folks here that live in the "Burbs" and have guns, have them for the "idea" of defense, even though there may have been zero breakin/burglary in the area.

It goes to the "better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it" frame of mind. Many folks here just feel safer with a gun in or several in the house.

Personally, I enjoy shooting at the range and really don't own my gun for "defense". My hood has virtually zero crime. So I don't feel threatened here at all. I think one can enjoy guns/shooting, without being a survivalist nut or paranoid. Hopefully Trying not to name drop here. Ahem.

Posted by: Spock Dec 8 2014, 12:16 AM

When it comes to thugs with guns - that's why you stay armed. If we were in another country there would be thugs with knives or thugs with sarin gas.

Speaking of which, did I just read a headline somewhere that said Britain wants people to give up their knives now? If so, what's next? Spoons? Spoons don't kill people, people with spoons kill people without spoons. Always pack a spoon with ya - because the bad guys are gonna have their spoons.

I say - kill them all, and let God sort 'em out...

Posted by: Todd Simpson Dec 8 2014, 08:59 AM

Hear Ye, Hear Ye!! GIVE UP YOUR SPOONS!!!!

Posted by: Ben Higgins Dec 8 2014, 10:44 AM

Did anyone go through that risk assessment link at all ? If so, what was your risk level ?

That was quite a long time ago, if we're thinking of the same thing. There was a knife amnesty or something where people were encouraged to ditch their knives into allocated bins around the country. I guess it was a way of allowing people to ditch their weapons anonymously. Several cities had them and they lasted for an amount of weeks.

But to clarify, it was aimed at actual weapons, not everyday household knives.

Posted by: Spock Dec 8 2014, 11:38 AM

I got ya.

Well just like with guns, the only difference between

this...




and this...





is the intent.


I just looked over the link and went through my threat assessment. The first thing that stood out was the test was created in 1995, which the world was a far different place then than now. This latest generation of kids have grown up on video games, pop culture and the internet more than any generation before now. This has bred an attitude of entitlement.

Acts of violence are more random now, for instance, in that test the questions asked were essentially on how you presented yourself and allowed yourself to be an open target for violence. Where as today the only reason for an attack is so it can be captured on video and uploaded to World Star Hip Hop.

I hate to say it - but you run the risk of being attacked now, just for being white. I know many in the U.K would not understand this, and the liberally minded would scream "RACIST REMARK" with elitist indignation. But the facts are the facts. Thug culture has swept our country and violence has turned into a sport. In my city alone, which is not even a major U.S. city, we have had numerous occurrences in the past 10 years of gangs of youths (of a certain ethnic persuasion) which have wreaked havoc in areas where people congregate for leisure. There has even been a curfew instilled in our downtown area for anyone under 18 without adult supervision. I'm not sure if that has been lifted yet.

But imagine this place where families go to relax, walk through the streets and visit shops, or in the park with their children and pets, eating at the locally owned restaurants, enjoying the local brewery's or watching one of the many bands or outside plays be performed...



Suddenly gets turned on it's head by a gang of frenzied youths out for nothing but mayhem. Well, it's happened enough times that the city has had to step in, and if you want to at least attempt to insure your safety, you won't naively go anywhere like this thinking it's Andy Griffith's Mayberry in the late 50s. The sort of violence people need to be most vigilant about now days is not inner city - but random acts of thuggery.

Posted by: klasaine Dec 8 2014, 03:08 PM

I took the first test - 'Risk of Assault' - my risk level was 23 (low risk).
As I've mentioned before I live in the L.A. metro area.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Dec 10 2014, 01:33 AM

I took it I'm a "cautious" guy
**(0 to 50) This score shows a low risk of assault. You are either highly cautious or a poor target. You should not be foolishly overconfident however. Keep up the precautions and take the test again next month and don't fudge on your points.

Posted by: AK Rich Dec 12 2014, 07:30 PM

Not at all. In the history of this country there are numerous examples of Gov. and the Supreme Court skirting the Constitution.Many have been struck down, many have not. Here is an example of a violation of the 4th Amendment.

http://original.antiwar.com/andrew-p-napolitano/2013/11/06/end-runs-around-the-constitution/

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/12/11/congress-endorses-warrantless-collection-storage-of-us-communications

Need more examples? There are plenty concerning many of the Amendments to the Constitution.
You don't need a Constitutional Convention to change or amend the Constitution when you have a Supreme Court that will misinterpret it. Or simply rule against it. This in itself is unconstitutional.

http://constitutionality.us/SupremeCourt.html

The specific problem is addressed here. Taken from page 3 of the above.

A Summary of the Problem

If you have followed the links to the left which precede this page ('A Proposal'), then you have read my thoughts on the Constitutionality Crisis facing the United States of America. I have explained that:

There are many unconstitutional laws on the books
It is far too easy to pass unconstitutional laws. We must make it harder to do.
It is practically impossible to repeal or overturn unconstitutional laws. We must make it easier to do.
The Supreme Court has been a willing accomplice to the federal government's unceasing expansion of power. As a branch of the federal government itself, permitting the Supreme Court to review laws for constitutionality is letting the fox guard the hen house.
The power of Judicial Review is a power that was usurped by the Supreme Court; it is not a power granted to the court by the Constitution.
Reviewing laws for constitutionality, upholding the constitutional ones and striking down the unconstitutional ones, is a power retained by The States and the people, per the Tenth Amendment.
Unconstitutional laws are, in effect, unauthorized amendments to the Constitution which have not had to undergo the rigorous scrutiny and debate which would accompany proper, proposed amendments before adoption nor have they been approved by the states. Because unconstitutional laws have the very same effect as unauthorized constitutional amendments, legislation of questionable constitutionality should be given close scrutiny and review, and require super-majorities to pass, much like actual proposed amendments.
The Constitution and the federal government are creations of the states. It's time for the states to regain control of the Constitution and therefore, the federal government.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Dec 13 2014, 12:32 AM

With watchdogs like you I don't think they will be able to get away with too much Honestly though, I think we are in greater danger of World War III being started by Martians than we are in danger of the Govt. striking down the 2nd Amendment.

I just don't believe that we are in any real danger of losing our right to keep and bear arms. Despite the enormous amount of grinding on fox news and by Rush Limbaugh and others on the farrrrrrr opposite of left leanings, I just don't buy it. I have seen nothing, yes nothing in terms of proposed legislation,(especially none could pass and get signed) that even comes close.

So I think we are probably safe for now with our weapons But I do hope we manage to find a way to reduce the number of CRAZY People that get access to guns.

TO WIT!!!! yet ANOTHER "nut job" shoots up the place yet again. This time in PORTLAND OREGAN.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/12/us/portland-school-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Posted by: AK Rich Dec 13 2014, 03:34 AM

Well, I agree something of that sort is probably not going to happen over night. These things are done, and have been done incrementally,
and with backdoor methods that simply make it tougher and more expensive to own guns and ammo. There really is no argument against the fact that there has been a slow erosion of rights and the Constitution in this country.

I heard about the recent shooting today, and most likely in this case , as in most of these events, the perpetrator was in possession of a firearm illegally. So most likely there was already a law on the books that was supposed to stop this. And then after things like this happen , the answer our lawmakers come up with has more effect on responsible law abiding gun owners than it does anyone else.
Laws or mandatory testing for ownership doesn't stop a bad guy with a gun , a good guy with a gun does.
Instead of diminishing gun rights, maybe we should be trying to diminish the reasons and circumstances that lead to gun violence?
I don't have the answers but it seems to me the approaches taken or attempted are flawed.

Posted by: fkalich Dec 13 2014, 05:11 AM

I don't have to check out Johnson County Kansas, in the top 2% of the country in per capita income. Not me, I'm poor. But I inherited my house and it is in a good neighborhood. So I know I am in no danger. I walk the streets past midnight, walking my dogs, never give it a second thought.

But I still like my gun. Even if you are pretty safe, don't be so sure that some time in the future things we take for granted, such as police protection, will not disappear for awhile do to some event, at least for awhile. There are several scenarios where this could happen, people just assume that the world will always be safe for them. Bad assumption.

My preferred gun is what I have, a .357 Magnum 7 shot S&W. Why? Well it is pretty for one thing, shiny. You only have to shot them once, it won't break your wrist, and it can shoot .38 special ammo as well if you run out of .357. I like a revolver over an automatic. Why? You have to think with a revolver. And just cocking the thing may be enough to make them run like a rabbit. Shotguns are good for that effect as well, "ka-chunk" and they take off with their tail between their legs. I want that extra second to think about what I am up against, to make sure that the guy has a weapon before I would unload. And 7 shots is nice, because you can say "did I fire 5 or 6...do you feel lucky, well do you punk?". And either way they get blown away, the chamber holds 7, so the joke was on them.

Posted by: Arpeggio Dec 17 2014, 03:13 PM

Finland is similar to the US in that it has a high amount of gun ownership, but no where near the same amount of shooting massacres.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Finland

US also has (if you search for these): "Stolen Tank rampage" and "Killdozer".

More US soldiers die of suicide outside the combat zone.

http://www.thewire.com/national/2013/01/us-military-suicides-2012/60985/

~

The Finnish mental health system is decentralized and medication is very low on their list of priorities

http://www.mindfreedom.org/kb/mental-health-alternatives/finland-open-dialogue

Posted by: AK Rich Dec 17 2014, 05:08 PM

Not trying to diminish the fact that there is a problem with gun violence here but I am not sure that this is a good comparison since the population of the greater Los Angeles area alone appears to be 2 to 3 times greater than the entire population of Finland.

"The City of Los Angeles has an estimated population in 2013 of 3,862,839, and it's the most populous city in the country. It also sits in one of the most ethnically diverse counties in the United States. The City of Angels is a global city, and the Los Angeles Combined Statistical Area (CSA) is the third largest in the world, after Greater Tokyo and New York. It's also the 48th most populous city in the world."

"The greater Los Angeles area is much larger, though, and its metropolitan area has a population of 12.8 million, with 17.7 million living in the CSA."

http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/finland-population/

"Estimates are released in the country on an annual basis and it is claimed that the Finland population in 2012 had reached 5,404,956 and in 2014, 5.44 million, making this the 116th most populous country on the planet."

http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/finland-population/

Posted by: Todd Simpson Dec 17 2014, 06:31 PM

HERE WE GO AGAIN!!! I can't even reply to a post before yet ANOTHER crazy man goes on a shooting spree. Ex marine, probably PTSD influenced.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/15/us/pennsylvania-shootings/index.html

(CNN) -- Police in Pennsylvania mounted an intense search Monday in the Philadelphia suburbs for a man suspected of killing his ex-wife and five former in-laws, the district attorney for Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, said at a Monday night press conference.

Bradley William Stone of Pennsburg killed his ex-wife and her mother, grandmother and sister, as well as the sister's husband and 14-year-old daughter, said District Attorney Risa Vetri Ferman.

But Stone didn't harm his two daughters, who were living with his ex-wife. He took them to a neighbor's residence in Pennsburg, the last place he was seen, Ferman said.






---------------
REPLY TO RICH:

We are actually on the same page on a few things here In the Oregon case we are talking about, it looks to be "gang related" and gangs don't buy guns through regulated channels nearly as much as one would like. Also, the shooter appears to have been quite young. So unless his father bought him a gun, it's probably a "street weapon".

The laws on the books do very little to deal with illegal guns nor will they ever be very good dealing with illegal guns much the same way they are not very good dealing with illegal drugs or anything for which there is an active black market.

What this particular case seems to be about in terms of policy, is a lack of security at our nations schools. Personally, I"d vote for and pay local taxes for a bill that puts metal detectors at every entrance and every exit on school grounds. THese should be built in from initial construction IMHO. But that's a separate issue really from what we have been going on about here.

But even if we did put metal detectors in schools, kids could still shoot each other outside, in the park, etc. So just securing the school grounds won't stop this kind of violence against children. In cases like this, where you have a minor, with an illegal gun, policy is feckless imho. He's too young to be prosecuted as an adult, he can buy a guy or borrow one on the street, there's very little policy can do here IMHO. What the child appears to need is better parenting or perhaps any parenting. Before they are adults, it really is up to the parents imho. Children raised in loving homes by loving parents (sans mental illness) are typically not on the shooter list. This is different than children raised in wealth homes who are "latchkey kids". These kids somehow do end up on the shooter list without benefit of mental illness it seems.

The entire "gun thing" is a thorny issue. All we can do is try to work with the structures/laws/policies, as voters, in a way that encourages the outcomes we desire. The balance between our liberties and our laws is perpetually in flux. So we have to remain vigilant

GREAT POST!! These are really important points here. They go to show the real issue at stake in our country which is a systemic, cultural, violent impulse. Other countries have guns, lotsa guns. But it's we here who have the crazy high soldier suicide rate, school shooting rate, rampage rate, etc. Many of these issues stem from deeeeeeep cultural values and policy as a reflection off those.



The issue is really "guns per capita" rather than overall numbers though. Just take finland and scale it up. You can get a better look at the comparison that way if you want even numbers.

Posted by: AK Rich Dec 17 2014, 07:47 PM

Sounds good to me. those things, as well as adding armed security could go a long way to lowering the numbers of school shootings I think.

I am not sure that scaling Finland's population up would offer a fair comparison either considering population density and other related factors. But even as that is. Instead of using a hypothetical, how about if you just compare school shootings in a city in the US that has a similar population as the country of Finland? Do you think numbers would be closer? I do, it may even be that Finland's number would come out higher. The point is that these "per capita" comparisons do not necessarily reflect reality.

I have read that if you compare Europe to the US per capita that the numbers of mass shootings are very close. You probably won't like the source, but what about the content?

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Lott-guns-Connecticut-shooting/2012/12/15/id/467903/

http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/guns-in-other-countries/

Another thing to consider is that even while gun manufacturing and ownership has continued to rise, gun crimes have actually fallen. Although gun suicides have unfortunately gone up.

[attachment=40200:FirearmFacts.png]

Posted by: jstcrsn Dec 17 2014, 08:10 PM

we also have to be careful about sensationalizing these shooting sprees ( which I condemn fervently). This is such a hot topic for those wanting to gain more government control. We think , and have so many examples of people getting brutally shoot in movies,that immediate we envision it this way. as gruesome as it is , if you really want to do something about peoples untimely demise . Lets look at the big Life takers.

Tex-ting and phoning while driving responsible for 3092 deaths last year
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2011/12/nhtsa-cell-phones-killed-3092-car-crashes-/1#.VJHMnHvm7aQ

Illegal aliens kill 12 Americans everyday
http://www.wnd.com/2006/11/39031/ The 55,322 illegal aliens studied represented a total of 459,614 arrests – some eight arrests per illegal alien;

Their arrests represented a total of about 700,000 criminal offenses – some 13 offenses per illegal alien;

36 percent had been arrested at least five times before.


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2006/11/39031/#81G5EBU9RE6s8yfO.99

or just your standard car accidents in the US kill 92 people a day
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year

are these deaths any less gruesome , leave behind any less pain .
I am gonna cry Bullshit , you moan and groan about a hand full of deaths from guns when in reality ,like fkalich says "lets not hand control over for a minimal amount of damage". ( before you think I am some freak, I have many kids, would not want to loose any , in any way. and know how much those are hurting for I have lost a daughter at birth)
If you want to save lives why don't we have government monitors to shut your engine off if it detects a cell phone.Build a freakin fence
we can debate all day about making illegals legal , but if they had not been allowed to cross the border( and I blame both sides of congress)we would have a lot less killings , rapes and other crimes that take our tax payer dollars to pay for some one that should have not been allowed to come in
People like to sensationalize this issue and say" isn't saving one child worth it", Do they really mean it, at the same time are they willing to loss their right to have a cell phone, drive a car , I mean, don't ever cry foul about the hand full of deaths from gunfire unless you have proportionately cried foul about the selfish things we do that take thousands and thousands of lives.
I feel I have puked up enough for now , peace , i"m out

One last thought , Normal people kill way more than crazy people do

Posted by: AK Rich Dec 17 2014, 08:24 PM

Here are some relevant graphs and charts comparing crime rates with other countries, many, if not most, or all of which have much stricter gun control than the US, complete with sources.

[attachment=40201:Guns_in_...on_rates.jpg]
[attachment=40202:Guns_in_...s_States.jpg]
[attachment=40203:Guns_in_...omicides.jpg]
[attachment=40204:Guns_in_...rendline.jpg]
[attachment=40205:Guns_in_...nd_Wales.jpg]

http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/guns-in-other-countries/

Posted by: jstcrsn Dec 17 2014, 08:27 PM

maybe we should have licensing for having a child, make sure the parent\parents make enough money to bring the child up right

Posted by: fkalich Dec 17 2014, 08:44 PM

I would be a bit skeptical about using extreme ideological sources, in this case very extreme right wing.

I have nothing against Hispanics who have come in, for the most part hard working people with strong family values. And they at present have a higher birth rate than the rest of the population. Countries in Western and Northern Europe, China, etc. with low birth rates are going to be in a world of hurt at a point in the future.

Posted by: jstcrsn Dec 17 2014, 09:06 PM

I though I found and used a fair example , there were some that said 25, even if it was on the right , was it wrongl
Quote:
“Wasted” Lives: 4,380 Americans Murdered by Illegal Aliens Each Year!
February 16, 2007
Vox Populi
By John Lillpop


While Senator Barack Obama called the loss of 3,100 Americans in the war on terror “wasted lives,” the senator, all of his Democrat colleagues, RINOs, and President Bush choose to ignore a far more outrageous statistic.

As documented in a report by Joseph Farah dated November 28, 2006 and titled “Illegal Aliens Murder 12 Americans Daily,” illegal aliens murder an average of 4,380 Americans each year.



And that does not include the 4,750 Americans killed by drunken illegal aliens every year! That, by the way, equals 23,725 “wasted lives,” since 9/11.

Read more: http://www.city-data.com/forum/illegal-immigration/51230-wasted-lives-4-380-americans-murdered.html#ixzz3MBiAteLZ

and your okay with them coming , in that earlier report , 36 percent on them were arrested five times, and your okay with that

Posted by: fkalich Dec 17 2014, 09:24 PM

It's wrong, all of them are wrong. It does not matter, everything called "news" is wrong. Whatever the source. Public radio and tv are better than the others, but even they are wrong. It all just seems convincing. None of it is correct, it is always misleading, it always leaves the real picture out, distorts things in some fashion. That is what "the news" is, That is why I don't read it, don't watch it, don't listen to it. I have not had tv in my home for nearly 10 years by choice.

Nothing is ever that simple. They just throw things out at you, it seems to make sense, and depending on your particular preference of poison, they tell you what you want to hear. In my experience I have not had bad issues with Hispanics. So why pick on them? For the most part they are just hard working people looking to give themselves and their families a better life.

Posted by: jstcrsn Dec 17 2014, 10:01 PM

than how do you distinguish between truth and not, or do you just make that ruling from on high

Posted by: Arpeggio Dec 18 2014, 12:54 AM

Thanks it does expand on it without talking only about gun crime or massacres.

I regard gun crime and massacres as two separate things due to noteworthy distinction in their demographics.

Gun crime is often due to social demise, which consists of a number of things such as poverty, poor economics, social inequality.

Shooting massacres are often done by middle class folk too, and those not so affected by the same things. You wont see a senior-level undergraduate rob a liqueur store at gun-point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seung-Hui_Cho

Cultural values you speak of might apply to both groups but I think there is some distinction in the above.

I believe distinction can be explained in allusion was I was trying to make in my last post where said; “The Finnish mental health system is decentralized and medication is very low on their list of priorities”.

The US army is the most medicated in the world (just look it up).

Posted by: Todd Simpson Dec 18 2014, 02:06 AM

That's not a bad idea Would cut down on sooooo many issues right off the bat!! We require licenses to drive cars but we let anybody breed!

You noticed that to eh? So did I I thought it was a joke him quoting from that particular site at first but nope!! Hmm.

However, this thread had nothing to do with immigrants until that post. From the post, it seems there are some of my countrymen here who simply oppose immigrants but who would not actually admit to it. As for myself, I still believe in what is permanently written in the statue of liberty.

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

As everyone knows, we are a nation of immigrants. I support everyone who wants to come here and start a new life for themselves. These folks are portrayed as evil in some parts of our media. On the whole, they are just poor people trying to do better for their children.


I'm with ya Shooting vs massacre very different groups doing the shootings typically. Also, yup. We have the most medicated military on earth and the highest military suicide rate. We lose 20 soldiers / ex soldiers EVERY DAY TO SUICIDE in this country. That's sad.

Posted by: jstcrsn Dec 18 2014, 02:02 PM

it was a tongue and cheek comment, but ow you know how far are willing to go to try to control peolpes lives


it must be so easy when you don't agree with something to call it ideology and throw it out the window without looking at the facts


and yes I know what the thread title is , am I the only one who has ever discussed ( in a thread )something different than a thread topic.
I brought it in as 1 of 3 examples to try to show you that there are far bigger things that kill way more people( just as gruesomely),we are to selfish as a nation to give up these big killers but some how you ignore these issues and want to glamorize this one while trying discredit your opposing argument with nothing but conjecture while ignoring any kind of documentation.
I don't mind law abiding people, but when 36 percent of them are arrested five times . I think we are in for future problems.
This report was made by a congressman , he was a republican , so he must have been lying I guess
I don't believe what the statue of liberty reads ( it sounds lovely)200 years ago. I believe what the Constitution says and some how think that the brilliant minds that fought and died and ended up sculpting these Laws , knew they were necessary for something , and when a Country does not follow its own rule of Law, I can only imagine the chaos that can follow

And this is what I want "those outside the US" to know to

Posted by: Arpeggio Dec 18 2014, 03:09 PM

Yet the drugs aren't making things any better.

Assuming the drugs are making something less worse and without them even more people would commit suicide and homosuicide (killing others then yourself)

.....this would mean there must be some serious issue behind it, even though *with* medication it still outpaces the rest of the world.

Posted by: AK Rich Dec 18 2014, 06:48 PM

Wow Todd. Do you really think that is a fair characterization? I think that most people have no problem with good people coming to this country in search of a better life, but to paint those that would would seek to keep out the significant criminal element that comes along with them as "anti immigrant" is a bit low don't you think?

From reading your post it appears that you make no distinction between legal and illegal immigrants. And I also have to wonder if you interpret the words on the Statue of Liberty to include violent and murderous gang members such as MS-13 among others who are involved in drug and human trafficking, or sex offenders and other violent criminals who have been deported numerous times and just keep coming back. Is it your view that we should just have open borders?

The WND article that Cursin has linked to actually echoes to some extent what has been written about in lots of different media as well as FBI reports and reports done by the Dept of Justice's National Gang Intelligence Center.
Even if the numbers in the WND article are inflated or the studies done to find those numbers are flawed in some ways, it still doesn't take away from the fact that there is a very significant problem with the criminal element slipping into this country illegally.
So to say that ("On the whole), they are just poor people trying to do better for their children." Is just whistling through the graveyard or burying your head in the sand. It is certain that this is true for many, but to a high degree it is also untrue.

Even the study appearing the most scrupulous concerning the numbers of crimes committed by illegals I found still concludes that there are legitimate reasons to address the issue. They basically did a study of other studies concerning immigration and crime.

"In conclusion, we find that it would be a mistake to assume that immigrants as a group are more prone to crime than other groups, or that they should be viewed with more suspicion than others. Even though immigrant incarceration rates are high in some populations, there is no clear evidence that immigrants commit crimes at higher or lower rates than others. Nevertheless, it also would be a mistake to conclude that immigrant crime is insignificant or that offenders’ immigration status is irrelevant in local policing. The newer information available as a result of better screening of the incarcerated population suggests that, in many parts of the country, immigrants are responsible for a significant share of crime. This indicates that there are legitimate public safety reasons for local law enforcement agencies to determine the immigration status of offenders and to work with federal immigration authorities."

http://cis.org/ImmigrantCrime

As far as my personal experience. I have some neighbors (Some of the nicest and most respectful people I have met) that I know well and do some work for that emigrated to this country from Guatemala, and they will be the first to tell you that the immigration policies of late are completely unfair to those who have come here and waited in line to come here legally and that those policies are also very dangerous because of the criminal element that has been coming in and largely ignored. Basically, these policies are bringing in to this country what my neighbors have tried to escape from.

Maybe you will find these articles and sources more reliable than WND,

http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_1_the_illegal_alien.html

http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2008/january/ms13_011408/

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-01-29-ms13_N.htm?AID=10709313&PID=6154538&SID=8kjcj004vx8j

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-fight-against-ms-13/2/

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2009/01/illegal-immigrant-gangs-commit-most-u-s-crime/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS-13

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/2011-national-gang-threat-assessment/2011%20National%20Gang%20Threat%20Assessment%20%20Emerging%20Trends.pdf

Posted by: Todd Simpson Dec 19 2014, 01:48 AM

Always fun to have you in the mix CRSN! Keeps things fresh and confrontational which is always a blast

To balance things out. Let's look at something like this. IT's a link to a sort of FACT CHECK on the "immigrants and crime!" sort of thing. TO be sure, there are some immigrants who are criminal, legal and illegal. However, here are wads of facts and numbers that show how less likely immigrants (legal or illegal) are to be incarcerated relative to native born folks.

Certain media outlets / personalities in my country tend to demonize immigrants on the whole when as a point of simple fact, it's our nations immigrant population that provides us with a labor force willing to jobs that most native born folks are just not willing to do like picking fruit for 10 bucks a day.

Anyhoo, here is the link. (i'm guessing this will be declared propoganda? )

http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/anecdotes-evidence-setting-record-straight-immigrants-and-crime-0

Just one cherry pick.

http://Research%20in%20New%20Jersey%20and%20California%20Found%20Immigrants%20Less%20Likely%20to%20be%20in%20PrisonAn%20analysis%20of%20data%20from%20the%20New%20Jersey%20Department%20of%20Corrections%20and%20U.S.%20Census%20Bureau%20by%20New%20Jersey’s%20Star-Ledger%20found%20that%20“U.S.%20citizens%20are%20twice%20as%20likely%20to%20land%20in%20New%20Jersey’s%20prisons%20as%20legal%20and%20illegal%20immigrants.”%20According%20to%20the%20Star-Ledger’s%20analysis,%20released%20in%20April%202008,%20“non-U.S.%20citizens%20make%20up%2010%20percent%20of%20the%20state’s%20overall%20population,%20but%20just%205%20percent%20of%20the%2022,623%20inmates%20in%20prison%20as%20of%20July%202007.”


[quote name='AK Rich' date='Dec 18 2014, 01:48 PM' post='702657']
Wow Todd. Do you really think that is a fair characterization? I think that most people have no problem with good people coming to this country in search of a better life, but to paint those that would would seek to keep out the significant criminal element that comes al

Posted by: AK Rich Dec 19 2014, 04:04 AM

[quote name='Todd Simpson' date='Dec 18 2014, 04:48 PM' post='702701']

To balance things out. Let's look at something like this. IT's a link to a sort of FACT CHECK on the "immigrants and crime!" sort of thing. TO be sure, there are some immigrants who are criminal, legal and illegal. However, here are wads of facts and numbers that show how less likely immigrants (legal or illegal) are to be incarcerated relative to native born folks.

Anyhoo, here is the link. (i'm guessing this will be declared propoganda? )

http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/anecdotes-evidence-setting-record-straight-immigrants-and-crime-0

Just one cherry pick.

http://Research%20in%20New%20Jersey%20and%20California%20Found%20Immigrants%20Less%20Likely%20to%20be%20in%20PrisonAn%20analysis%20of%20data%20from%20the%20New%20Jersey%20Department%20of%20Corrections%20and%20U.S.%20Census%20Bureau%20by%20New%20Jersey’s%20Star-Ledger%20found%20that%20“U.S.%20citizens%20are%20twice%20as%20likely%20to%20land%20in%20New%20Jersey’s%20prisons%20as%20legal%20and%20illegal%20immigrants.”%20According%20to%20the%20Star-Ledger’s%20analysis,%20released%20in%20April%202008,%20“non-U.S.%20citizens%20make%20up%2010%20percent%20of%20the%20state’s%20overall%20population,%20but%20just%205%20percent%20of%20the%2022,623%20inmates%20in%20prison%20as%20of%20July%202007.”

Well. I don't know if it is propaganda or not but there are at least a couple of issues. The study I linked to in my last post from the Center of Immigration Studies, which as I said before is a study of many studies that have been done in the past including ones sponsored by the IPC which you link us to. The publication of the CIS finds flaws in the studies made on both sides of the issue. I added the final paragraph of their conclusion in my previous post.

Concerning the IPC's findings that you linked us to, the CIS publication has this to say about it.

"Recent reports by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) and Immigration Policy Center (IPC) showing low rates of immigrant incarceration highlight the data problems in many studies. The 2000 Census data they used are not reliable."

"An analysis of the data used in the PPIC and IPC studies by the National Research Council found that 53 percent of the time the Census Bureaus had to make an educated guess whether a prisoner was an immigrant. The studies are essentially measuring these guesses, not actual immigrant incarceration."

"The poor quality of data used in the PPIC and IPC studies is illustrated by wild and implausible swings. It shows a 28 percent decline in incarcerated immigrants 1990 to 2000 — yet the overall immigrant population grew 59 percent. Newer Census data from 2007 show a 146 percent increase in immigrant incarceration 2000 to 2007 — yet, the overall immigrant population grew only 22 percent.

And further into the publication, this.

"Recent Studies Share a Major Flaw."

"Two recent and widely cited studies have tried to shed light on the question of immigrant criminality by analyzing public-use data from the 2000 census on persons in institutions. One study, by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), is “Crime, Corrections, and California: What Does Immigration Have to Do with It”?9 The other study is “The Myth of Immigrant Criminality and the Paradox of Assimilation: Incarceration Rates among Native and Foreign-Born Men”10 and was sponsored by the Immigration Policy Center (IPC), a think tank created by the American Immigration Lawyers Association. Both studies were conducted by well-known researchers in the field. The general idea behind both studies is reasonable. While the public-use census files used in these studies do not distinguish between correctional institutions and persons committed to other facilities like nursing homes, by confining their analysis to younger men, the authors of both studies hoped to get a good idea of the immigrant incarceration rate. Both studies conclude that immigrants are much less likely to commit crimes than are natives. However, both studies share a fundamental problem: The data they use are not reliable, making meaningful analysis impossible."

After that section of the publication it goes into the problems in great detail with the census information that was used in the IPC sponsored study.

The other issue is. Is there a possible conflict of interest with the IPC being created by the American Immigration Lawyers Association?
I don't know, But the CIS appears to be "an independent, non-partisan, non-profit, research organization." While the IPC "is the research and policy arm of the American Immigration Council."

http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/about-immigration-policy-center

http://cis.org/About

What I can tell you from looking at both of these groups findings is that the CIS publication appears to be far more in depth, as well as balanced since it finds flaws from studies that support either side of the discussion.
So where does that leave us?

Here again is the link to the Center of Immigration Studies publication of Immigration and Crime: Assessing a Conflicted Issue.

http://cis.org/ImmigrantCrime

Posted by: fkalich Dec 19 2014, 04:38 AM

And when you say native born folks what may be missed is who these native born folks are. Black Americans as a group have murder convictions about 8 times that of the rest of the country. About the same goes for armed robbery. Burglary is even higher, at about 11 times the rate of the rest of the country. You would think that having for so long spent at least $14,000 to $18,000 a year per child for education in the inner cities would have made a difference, but things have not improved all that much. And that has nothing to do with white racism. Hell nearly half of us voted for Obama, I did twice, and am happy with my choice. The problem is that 72% of babies among that ethnic group are born to single mothers. Until that changes, things are going to stay the same, i.e. 50% of the serious crime being committed among an ethnic group comprising 12% of the population. Although the 53% rate here among Hispanics should give us a lot of pause for concern as well.

This is the problem, not freaking guns. I have a loaded .357 magnum 6 feet from me as I type. But it is not like I am going to use that on anyone. I had the benefit of having a father who not only provided me financial stability growing up, but would also give me a kick in the ass when I needed it.

Posted by: AK Rich Dec 19 2014, 05:19 AM

But we are not supposed to mention that. It is not "politically correct" and you may be labeled as racist.
Politically correct = Truths that cannot be spoken for fear of offending. And a tool used to end honest discussions about topics of this nature and many other topics that need an honest discussion as well.

Posted by: fkalich Dec 19 2014, 05:27 AM

hard to figure how I voted for Obama twice over white men if I were racist. You probably didn't (I suspect based on your comments). You have to be more careful than I do.

edit: Not to mention that going against the general tide, I think he is a pretty good president. You would think that if I had some deep seated root racism, I would have turned on him by now!

Posted by: AK Rich Dec 19 2014, 05:32 AM

What I wrote was meant to be a joke hence the wink I was merely pointing out that saying such things are seen as taboo by many. And no , I didn't vote for Obama. And just so you know , I have been in an interracial relationship for going on 20 years.
Sorry if I came across the wrong way. It was certainly not my intention to infer that you might be racist. I probably shouldn't have said anything at all.

Posted by: fkalich Dec 19 2014, 06:33 AM

I understood you. You didn't say anything that sounded wrong. To tell you the truth, it has been a long haul for people to move from the past. I honestly think that white Americans have become among the least racially prejudice people on earth. Except maybe for the French. We have been forced to be that way really by circumstances. But CNN is not going to make a financial killing saying that kind of thing. Much more money to be made making martyrs out of a guy who attacks a cop and gets shot, or another guy who had been arrested 31 times and died from a heart attack while being subdued resisting arrest.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Dec 19 2014, 07:02 AM

Personally I'm glad that we have something like GMC to let us all come together and share our thoughts and links and such Please don't take anything I say personally as I never mean it to be harmful/hurtful. I do run a bit towards sarcasm though Which doesn't always come across well in text form.

Sometimes I think crsn might blow a gasket while typing but it's all in good fun I hope folks reading this have gotten as much out of it as I have Some really great replies. Thanks to everyone who participated!!! I've said my bit at this point so I"ll leave the rest to you guys

Todd

Posted by: AK Rich Dec 19 2014, 07:06 AM

I agree, that is what happens when the country we live in is arguably the most racially diverse on the face of the earth. And as sad as the reality is , I have to agree with the rest of your statement as well. Although I am a bit troubled by the second incident and the way it was handled, I still feel that both incidents would have been avoided had there been better choices made by the two young men that paid the ultimate price for their actions in the heat of the moment. Neither one of them would likely be in too much trouble, and more importantly alive today had they simply cooperated with law enforcement.

Posted by: AK Rich Dec 19 2014, 06:50 PM

Sounds good Todd I am ready to break it down myself. It's hard work trying keep you honest! Just kidding man Thanks for the good back and forth and you have a Merry Christmas! See you this weekend in the pain cave! Peace!