myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Windsurfing Videos Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Gun Nuts
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 38, 39, 40 ... 160, 161, 162  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
johnl



Joined: 05 Jun 1994
Posts: 1182
Location: Hood River OR

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 7:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DanWeiss wrote:

John, I'm having a hard time here because at first you say there is a problem with my statistics, then explain that only a certain or small percentage of perps get sentenced and do time. You then ask me to consider your own "statistics" that, though they be more accurate or less, you assert without any statistics whatsoever. It's not that your observations from the street are without value, of course not. I simply want to discuss with you your first statements but you blow me off by telling me I "have no clew (sic)."

John, I've tried cases. I understand the difference between those in prison and the vast remainder who commit crimes but never end up in prison. The report I cited can be punched with holes, but I employed it only for what it's worth: 13-15% of crimes committed by inmates involved a firearm. Your argument is that not only do we suffer from these 13-15% but the situation is far worse because, at least in part, a bunch of people who committed crimes are never caught let alone imprisoned.

I completely agree with that statement and acknowledge a far worse problem requires very strong measures, including stricter laws that you dismiss on the theory the new laws have little or no deterrent effect. That's quite a claim and one I'm happy discuss if you like but I think at best it is a gross understatement.


Hmm, I appologize if my "don't have a clew" was taken personally. Although I tend to quote previous text (like above), I don't address my comments directly at the person personally. Well most of the time anyway Smile

But let me give you a very simple example of a law cause this one cracks me up.....

A few years ago in California a lot of illegal drivers (or poor drivers) were driving without insurance. Well the great people of Calif didn't like that so they came up with a Law then passed it on to the LEO's to enforce yet another law. So now when you pull somebody over and they don't have insurance, you were required to cite them. EVEN if they had it, but didn't have current proof. So what happened? Well all these tickets were added to the burden of the courts (even if they don't go before a judge, the court still processes them) causing much more work on the courts. And what happened? Well the illegals and the poor didn't have insurance and were given "X" amount of days to pay the fine. Well they didn't have the money for that either, so they didn't pay it. This made MORE work for the courts since now warrants had to be issued. So eventually some got arrested, went into the already crowded jails and did their "time". End result, they STILL NEVER got insurance. So what did it accomplish?

This is what you get when you use a knee-jerk solution to a problem without going to the source of the problem.

Another example. The maximum speed on the freeway is posted. It is a law. How many people CHOOSE to obey it? How many get pulled over? A very small percentage. If the majority of the people to not concur with the law they just tend to disobey it. This is the nature of our country (after all we didn't like Britain and disobeyed them Smile ). So any gun laws need to be accepted by the majority or they won't work.

I'm not sure if I answered your post, since I kind of climbed up on the "lets use common sense" soapbox...


Last edited by johnl on Fri Jan 18, 2013 6:51 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
keycocker



Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 3460

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I wonder if the NRA argument that an AR15 with a big clip is not important to killing people would convince a soldier in the field to toss his out of the troop carrier and rely solely on a side arm and fast changes.
If that is true think of all the savings in military hardware.
Just give every soldier a 22 pistol. Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 14322

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 11:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

johnl wrote:
when you pull somebody over and they don't have insurance, you were required to cite them. EVEN if they had it, but didn't have current proof.

Another example. The maximum speed on the freeway is posted. It is a law. How many people CHOOSE to obey it?

In WA, the VAST majority. I've seen literally a hundred cars ... close to two miles of tightly packed vehicles ... crawling along behind a wind turbine blade carrier moving at ~20 mph on Hiway 14. Only two of us passed them. (I suspect the rest would still be there if the blade hadn't turned off at the Roosevelt Grade.

And in WA not only will we be ticketed for no proof of insurance, but even if we produce the proof in court we still get fined for not having the proof in our vehicle in the first place.

The AR-15 lying beside us and the exposed .45 automag on our hip, though, are legal, with neither registration nor a permit required.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
windoggie



Joined: 22 Feb 2002
Posts: 2406

PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 10:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Does this work for you iso?
_________________
/w\
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 14322

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 12:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

OOOOOOHHHH ... those scary, dangerous AR-15 mass murder weapons. They must be banned if the nation's children are to have any chance at growing up to face the $53,000 debt they are facing by our hand.
Here's a reality chick ... er ... check:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k97ZpQ6UmZY
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DanWeiss



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 1961
Location: Connecticut, USA

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 5:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

isobars wrote:
johnl wrote:
when you pull somebody over and they don't have insurance, you were required to cite them. EVEN if they had it, but didn't have current proof.

Another example. The maximum speed on the freeway is posted. It is a law. How many people CHOOSE to obey it?

In WA, the VAST majority. I've seen literally a hundred cars ... close to two miles of tightly packed vehicles ... crawling along behind a wind turbine blade carrier moving at ~20 mph on Hiway 14. Only two of us passed them. (I suspect the rest would still be there if the blade hadn't turned off at the Roosevelt Grade.

And in WA not only will we be ticketed for no proof of insurance, but even if we produce the proof in court we still get fined for not having the proof in our vehicle in the first place.

The AR-15 lying beside us and the exposed .45 automag on our hip, though, are legal, with neither registration nor a permit required.


The requirement to demonstrate current insurance coverage actually bothers you guys? I really don't get it. In MA, there is no requirement to show anything but the license and registration. The name of the insurance company that issued coverage at the time of registration is printed thereon. No separate card required. CT, by contrast requires a separate insurance card.

Despite CT's additional card requirement, each state mandates minimum coverage. And there is no further difference. Merely because a card (or even a declaration page, for that matter) identifies the coverage fails to provide proof of actual coverage at that time simply because one can fail to pay a premium, get cancelled but yet also hold a valid registration.

How does this relate to failed laws? If a fine is levied and not paid, the license and registration can be suspended. Driving without either amounts to mandated arrest in many states. Now the driver faces a pending criminal contempt charge if he fails to pay and/or appear. Most recalcitrant drivers will eventually find themselves unable to drive and posing no risk on the roads because they are locked up for contempt.

Again, if a state decides to create or increase a minimum jail sentence for this behavior, not only are the violators off the street for longer but it will change the behavior of many who would otherwise consider driving around illegally.

The deterrent effect of law is probably seen most clearly with highway speed limits. Lower speed limits consistently see lower actual speeds over time -even if the conditions might appear to warrant a higher speed. The ONLY reason this works is because of the speed limit and associated punishment for violation's deterrent effect.

If punishment for illegal sale of a firearm was jacked up enough, quite a few people would not commence a sale that they would have. I hold no knowledge of what the best deterrent punishment should be, but we know by analogue that a caning punishment can prevent even criminals from chewing gum. Again, the question isn't whether a law can actually deter but what punishment is minimally required to achieve the minimally acceptable result.

_________________
Support Your Sport. Join US Windsurfing!
www.USWindsurfing.org

www.konaone.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 14322

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 8:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Has the irony escaped any of you? Obama's threats and initiatives to lessen gun and ammo sales created all-time record purchases of both. Both experienced and first-time buyers are vacuuming them off the shelves, especially today, simply because they fear legislative denial of their Constitutional rights to own them. I see people buying lifetime supplies of both.

Similarly, if any administration hints at confiscating gold, as Roosevelt did, its price will go straight up just as tons of it disappear from the market.

Free people do not like threats to their freedoms. Only dedicated liberals like being treated as sheep.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
keycocker



Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 3460

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 10:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Iso posted something without an insult in it.
Now he is back to his usual nastiness.
Imagine how dreadful it must be to live like that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
windoggie



Joined: 22 Feb 2002
Posts: 2406

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 10:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The gun industry wants to thank mr Fick once again for your loyal paranoia.
_________________
/w\
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pueno



Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2707

PostPosted: Sun Jan 20, 2013 7:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

isobars wrote:
Obama's threats and initiatives to lessen gun and ammo sales created all-time record purchases of both.

So, you should be praising him, yes?

.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 38, 39, 40 ... 160, 161, 162  Next
Page 39 of 162

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group