Ruger Posted May 4, 2013 Share Posted May 4, 2013 Works both ways. 2 second google, the gun control lobby is perfectly well funded. http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21921875 New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is bankrolling a $12m (£7.8m) advertising campaign for tougher gun control laws. It would still be interesting to hear of the opposing lobby and its actual membership?. Big difference between the two...one is working to reduce gun related violence, and the other wants as many guns as possible of the streets to maximise profits margins... I know which one I'd prefer. So if given the chance you'd prefer to live in Bloombers New York city of crime. Thanks to his laws which have empowered criminals. Fair enough. I'd stick to the "cowboy state" of Vermont where there are no asinine feel good laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruger Posted May 4, 2013 Share Posted May 4, 2013 Alan yes Bill Whittle touched on that in his recent speech. Good luck, enjoy the hiding to nowhere on that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted May 4, 2013 Share Posted May 4, 2013 Ignoring the fact that NYC crime rates have fallen steadily since 1990 and that Vermont's have risen regularly over that period, is there really a point to be made in comparing a rural area of 600,000 people with a city of over 19 million? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jefferson Posted May 4, 2013 Share Posted May 4, 2013 Works both ways. 2 second google, the gun control lobby is perfectly well funded. http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21921875 New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is bankrolling a $12m (£7.8m) advertising campaign for tougher gun control laws. It would still be interesting to hear of the opposing lobby and its actual membership?. Big difference between the two...one is working to reduce gun related violence, and the other wants as many guns as possible of the streets to maximise profits margins... I know which one I'd prefer. The anti-gun lobby are not working to reduce gun-related violence at all; they're working to promote a government and corporate monopoly on violence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruger Posted May 4, 2013 Share Posted May 4, 2013 Vermont homicide rate in 1990 - 2.3, 2011 - 1.3. Sorry to use a fact. Crime should have gone down in NY considering it has been going down throughout the entire Nation over that period.. During the 1990s the New York City Police Department (NYPD) adopted CompStat, broken windows policing and other strategies in a major effort to reduce crime. The city's dramatic drop in crime has been attributed by criminologists to policing tactics, the end of the crack epidemic and - controversially - the legalization of abortion approximately 18 years previous[4][5] and the decline of lead poisoning of children.[6] Most of the crime remaining occurs in poor areas, which tend to be outlying People are quite happy to ignore those same differences when comparing UK to USA crime rates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilitantDogOwner Posted May 4, 2013 Author Share Posted May 4, 2013 Works both ways. 2 second google, the gun control lobby is perfectly well funded. http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21921875 New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is bankrolling a $12m (£7.8m) advertising campaign for tougher gun control laws. It would still be interesting to hear of the opposing lobby and its actual membership?. Big difference between the two...one is working to reduce gun related violence, and the other wants as many guns as possible of the streets to maximise profits margins... I know which one I'd prefer. The anti-gun lobby are not working to reduce gun-related violence at all; they're working to promote a government and corporate monopoly on violence. Hmm less dead people = totalitarian government. Okay, moon child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted May 4, 2013 Share Posted May 4, 2013 The anti-gun lobby are not working to reduce gun-related violence at all; they're working to promote a government and corporate monopoly on violence. Don't worry - just carry on wrapping yourself in tinfoil and continue advocating the sale of arms to people who need defending from... errm... people who've bought arms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilitantDogOwner Posted May 4, 2013 Author Share Posted May 4, 2013 The anti-gun lobby are not working to reduce gun-related violence at all; they're working to promote a government and corporate monopoly on violence. Don't worry - just carry on wrapping yourself in tinfoil and continue advocating the sale of arms to people who need defending from... errm... people who've bought arms. Indeed. If only the 2 year old had a gun then she could of defended herself. Or the mother of the Sandy Hook shooter...oh wait she was shot with her own guns...probably purchased to provide some personal security....oh irony much? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruger Posted May 4, 2013 Share Posted May 4, 2013 Works both ways. 2 second google, the gun control lobby is perfectly well funded. http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21921875 New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is bankrolling a $12m (£7.8m) advertising campaign for tougher gun control laws. It would still be interesting to hear of the opposing lobby and its actual membership?. Big difference between the two...one is working to reduce gun related violence, and the other wants as many guns as possible of the streets to maximise profits margins... I know which one I'd prefer. The anti-gun lobby are not working to reduce gun-related violence at all; they're working to promote a government and corporate monopoly on violence. Its also interesting that they are not willing to give up their own guns in the name of gun control. Elitist hypocrites of the highest order. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7VMA8KfxNE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7VMA8KfxNE I wonder if he ever did get back to him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilitantDogOwner Posted May 4, 2013 Author Share Posted May 4, 2013 http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html "...study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher." "... it may be that the type of people who carry firearms are simply more likely to get shot, it may be that guns give a sense of empowerment that causes carriers to overreact in tense situations, or encourages them to visit neighbourhoods they probably shouldn't..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruger Posted May 4, 2013 Share Posted May 4, 2013 Works both ways. 2 second google, the gun control lobby is perfectly well funded. http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21921875 New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is bankrolling a $12m (£7.8m) advertising campaign for tougher gun control laws. It would still be interesting to hear of the opposing lobby and its actual membership?. Big difference between the two...one is working to reduce gun related violence, and the other wants as many guns as possible of the streets to maximise profits margins... I know which one I'd prefer. The anti-gun lobby are not working to reduce gun-related violence at all; they're working to promote a government and corporate monopoly on violence. Hmm less dead people = totalitarian government. Okay, moon child. Yes because 262Million dead is less dead people. Okay, "moon child". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruger Posted May 4, 2013 Share Posted May 4, 2013 http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html "...study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher." "... it may be that the type of people who carry firearms are simply more likely to get shot, it may be that guns give a sense of empowerment that causes carriers to overreact in tense situations, or encourages them to visit neighbourhoods they probably shouldn't..." Such a shame Mayor Bloombergs security team was not aware of those "facts". Mr Bloomberg would be so much safer. He must also be a paranoid tinfoil hat nut job to want so many security guards with guns around him. Dear me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilitantDogOwner Posted May 4, 2013 Author Share Posted May 4, 2013 http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html "...study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher." "... it may be that the type of people who carry firearms are simply more likely to get shot, it may be that guns give a sense of empowerment that causes carriers to overreact in tense situations, or encourages them to visit neighbourhoods they probably shouldn't..." Such a shame Mayor Bloombergs security team was not aware of those "facts". Mr Bloomberg would be so much safer. He must also be a paranoid tinfoil hat nut job to want so many security guards with guns around him. Dear me. Ah, this is the same crap argument the NRA used saying "why is Obama different, why can his children be protected by armed men?" People in positions of authority (the President of the USA, Mayor of New York, etc) are often the target of attacks. And so are their families. The reason these people and their families get protection and poor Bob Smith doesn't is because Obama, etc are what are called "high value targets", especially families which can be used as leverage to coerce some to do something. By the way Ruger...you don't happen to watch Alex Jones InfoWars web casts by any chance...you come across as the sort who really buys into his "screaming patriot" bullshit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilitantDogOwner Posted May 4, 2013 Author Share Posted May 4, 2013 Yes because 262Million dead is less dead people. Okay, "moon child". Okay, I'll play along...please explain where you came to the conclusion that 262 million people have died because of gun control? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Bawden Posted May 4, 2013 Share Posted May 4, 2013 Why are you all bitching about a law in a country that no one here lives in? The fact of the matter, you know, the thread before it got derailed is that regardless of adults owning/keeping guns it is wholly unacceptable that a child has access to a gun. The USA in my opinion, if an animal would be put to sleep for being a danger to itself and others, unfortunately it is not an animal but a collection of animals and the best that I can hope for is a massive sinkhole about the size of the USA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.