Welcome, Guest

Author Topic: Cider's ?safer? gun free home.  (Read 5509 times)

Offline Anonimo22

  • House Bee
  • **
  • Posts: 58
Re: Cider's ?safer? gun free home.
« Reply #100 on: August 24, 2019, 10:28:26 am »
Well in Europe certain political groups were using box trucks to kill people since they couldn't get guns.

If you outlaw one device, they'll just move on to the next one.

Offline Acebird

  • Galactic Bee
  • ******
  • Posts: 5560
  • Gender: Male
  • Practicing non intervention beekeeping
Re: Cider's ?safer? gun free home.
« Reply #101 on: August 25, 2019, 09:28:43 am »
In countries that outlawed guns or have them restricted have very low numbers of killings.  Certainly there are many ways to kill people intentionally but the numbers show a clear relationship to unrestricted gun ownership.
Brian Cardinal
Just do it

Offline iddee

  • Galactic Bee
  • ******
  • Posts: 9499
  • Gender: Male
Re: Cider's ?safer? gun free home.
« Reply #102 on: August 25, 2019, 10:40:30 am »
""In countries that outlawed guns or have them restricted have very low numbers of killings."""

That is BS. Countries that outlawed guns have more killings than the USA, just fewer per instance in the headlined ones. To me, total killings are the more important statistic.

When counting killings, be sure you include those done by the governments.Those folks are just as dead.
"Listen to the mustn'ts, child. Listen to the don'ts. Listen to the shouldn'ts, the impossibles, the won'ts. Listen to the never haves, then listen close to me . . . Anything can happen, child. Anything can be"

*Shel Silverstein*

Offline CoolBees

  • Field Bee
  • ***
  • Posts: 778
  • Gender: Male
Re: Cider's ?safer? gun free home.
« Reply #103 on: August 25, 2019, 01:37:13 pm »
Ace - I read a statistic recently that stated [paraphrased] "in the last 120 years, more people have been killed by their communist/socialist governments after being totally disarmed (complete gun control) - than all of the people killed in all of the worlds previous wars combined!"

I think your statement leaves these people who have died as a result of gun control/government-run-amuck as "un-accounted for".   
You cannot permanently help men by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves - Abraham Lincoln

Offline kathyp

  • Universal Bee
  • *******
  • Posts: 17183
  • Gender: Female
Re: Cider's ?safer? gun free home.
« Reply #104 on: August 25, 2019, 03:53:23 pm »
Quote
Certainly there are many ways to kill people intentionally but the numbers show a clear relationship to unrestricted gun ownership.

https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Violent-crime/Murder-rate

60% of our gun deaths are suicide.  of the others, 80% are gang related either in gang wars or the commission of other crimes.  Of those gang deaths, most occur in a handful of cities.

The "mass shootings" make a big news splash, but as a cause of death even in school-age kids, they are very low.  Accident of one kind or another is the primary cause of death. 

I just picked a cause at random

http://www.enddrowningnow.org/stats-2/

Should we ban swimming?

They are so divorced from their own interests that even when their own security and that of their children is finally compromised, they do not seek to avert the danger themselves but cross their arms and wait for the nation as a whole to come to their aid. Yet as utterly as they sacrifice their own free will, they are no fonder of obedience than anyone else. They submit, it is true, to the whims of a clerk, but no sooner is force removed than they are glad to defy the law as a defeated enemy. Thus one finds them ever wavering between servitude and license.
Alexis de Tocqueville

Offline CoolBees

  • Field Bee
  • ***
  • Posts: 778
  • Gender: Male
Re: Cider's ?safer? gun free home.
« Reply #105 on: August 26, 2019, 02:16:02 am »
Thank you Kathy for pulling down the statistics.

Here's some thoughtful points ...

[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
You cannot permanently help men by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves - Abraham Lincoln

Offline CoolBees

  • Field Bee
  • ***
  • Posts: 778
  • Gender: Male
Re: Cider's ?safer? gun free home.
« Reply #106 on: August 26, 2019, 02:25:05 am »
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
You cannot permanently help men by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves - Abraham Lincoln

Offline Anonimo22

  • House Bee
  • **
  • Posts: 58
Re: Cider's ?safer? gun free home.
« Reply #107 on: August 26, 2019, 05:57:07 am »
Quote
Its about the culture iddee if you feel the need for 300m guns you need to accept the collateral damage.

I am going to kind of agree with you for a change  :wink:  You missed one thing that I will add, and that is that it is about rights.

Our culture is very different from yours.  In spite of our leftist friends wishing to make us a dependant society, most of us reject this change in whole or in part.  This is a cultural difference from much of the once ruled European world.  We do not wish to be subjects and fought a whole war (in fact, more than one) to keep that from happening. 

Your "rights" are given and taken by your government.  Ours are understood to be natural rights. We, and they, are protected from our government. 

And so yes, we accept that there are people who will abuse any right and we do accept that collateral damage. 

The gun control issue has never been about saving lives.  There are a million ways that lives could be saved with restrictions and new laws about all kinds of things other than guns.  You could ban backyard pools and/or raise the driving age to 21.  1000s of lives would be saved.

I have to agree with Kathy. There is a huge cultural difference between America and Europe. And quite frankly it can be a bit frightening.

We don't want to be put into sugjection and bondage. We want to be free (responsibly free, and be good). We want to be at peace with others also, despite what a few nuts are trying to do to make people think otherwise. Europe and much of Asia also reject God entirely for the most part to the point of near Atheism. Europe embraces being in bondage. If you want an example of this look at, the European Economic Community (which became the European Union). Its leaders were basically Nazi bankers. And you can look it up. Herman Goring, and Walter Funk, also Walter Hallstein (EU and EEC leaders...look them up). (And when you add rejecting God into the mix (not to mention how all the churches in Europe have become museums...) you see a picture where with no foundation of trying to do & be good, you can be led astray down dark roads easily.)

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-nazis-created-basic-plan-for-the-european-union-ukip-mep-gerard-batten-says-a7032221.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Hallstein

https://www.thetrumpet.com/17602-the-dark-history-of-the-european-union

Now we just had a Godless villain for a president for 8 years, but he wasn't the only one (And yes our government is imperfect now also). A lot of the stuff Obama did is coming out. And he tried to put us in bondage in many many ways. A lot of people mistook his immorality and cleverness for being good. A lot of the push back is to undo him trying to put us into bondage. (This may spill out into some ways that could be painful for people.)

A lot of the world doesn't understand this and then they go villainize the current president, who is imperfect. I'm not saying the current president is perfect but you can't expect that there wouldn't be some kind of pushback after all the crazy schemes that Obama and the Clintons did could you? (People have become highly interested in all the foreign money that came into the Clinton Foundation, and how that money has been shown by Judicial Watch to have gone into the democratic party and corrupt them by putting them into heavy vices. People have also become interested in 'The Clinton Body Count' in the last two years.)

My understanding also is that very few people even try to study these issues out. They just rationalize going with what's popular. But good and evil, is always going to end up with good outnumbered by the numbers of who wants to be bad. Then they go villainize Trump for trying to fix some things that shouldn't be happening.

When you look up things that Obama and the Clintons did, you can see why there's pushback to correct where things went wrong. Obama's 'Fast & the Furious' operation (he armed drugdealers on the border and they killed people), NAFTA & GATT also basically gave foreigners and corporations the right to dissolve the middle class and eat it up, the rise of robber barons again in the land (new poor, and disappearance of the middle class), foreign financial and cultural invasion into the US, the putting us in foreign wars, Iran Nuclear controversy (few look this up, past US & European leaders caused this and were secretly letting Iran buy nuclear technology through political bribery), unfair foreign business practices (that individual non-corporations can't fight against in trying to be self sufficient, the disappearance of self sufficiency, the socialism movement in the schools & linked to teacher hiring in the US in the last 20 years, and the list goes on.

The last president we had basically did so many crazy things that it put the US on a collision course with all these other issues. It was like the gun was fired and the bullet left the gun, but in slow motion in such a way as to it not causing impacts until the current president got into office. Now those issues are coming to a head after being in play, and there's nothing anyone can do to stop them from creating some chaos. So they blame Trump (and I hope he doesn't turn into a villain, but he could use his agency poorly before the end too). People fail to study this out or realize it. Then they brand the current president as a bad guy and crazy.

Study the issues out and where they came from. The current president may be a bit loud but look at where the issues are coming from. Look at why he's upset. When you actually look at it, of course people are going to be upset and want it fixed. A lot of these issues are coming out very similar to why Hong Kong is erupting. These people were growing up in a society that had a future for them, and then a bunch of rich elites came along and pulled the rug out from under them and now everyone is riled up.

You can't expect that people wouldn't be mad when they would find out that tarrif imbalances, foreigners, foreign currency & leaders bribing their elected officials & corporations to steal their livelihoods and impoverish them wouldn't get them riled up. And its not entirely their fault, but they should have woken up about it sooner.

The tariff imbalances by not just China, but EUROPE against the US did create a wealth drain. Many of these were heavy imbalances. If we exported a certain product to China AND Europe in many cases because of political bribes the very same product was getting a 10% or even 20% higher tax to export to Europe than to export to the states.

So to clarify, we're all getting along and none of us are upset with each other. All of us are brothers and sisters and should care about each other. And no one here is angry at anyone. But you have a recipe for societal collapse in play right now. But just blaming the current US president doesn't do any good. These issues were already in play for years. And people weren't happy that they were being cheated and lied to.

What's also interesting about this gun rights thing...the same week the Dayton Ohion shooting and El Paso shootings happened there was a third killing spree within just a couple days of each of those in California. But they left that one out of the news because it was a 2 hour Knife killer rampage. He killed 4 people and seriously wounded 2 others. But people wanting to strip away gun rights didn't want this one in the news.

Offline Acebird

  • Galactic Bee
  • ******
  • Posts: 5560
  • Gender: Male
  • Practicing non intervention beekeeping
Re: Cider's ?safer? gun free home.
« Reply #108 on: August 26, 2019, 08:56:02 am »
But they left that one out of the news because it was a 2 hour Knife killer rampage. He killed 4 people and seriously wounded 2 others. But people wanting to strip away gun rights didn't want this one in the news.

It is not the left per say, it is educated people who can make sense of numbers.  With a knife 4 people were killed in 2 hours.  With a gun 29 people were killed in 2 min or less.  The purpose of gun control is to cut down the rate of killing.  No one believes it will stop killing.
Brian Cardinal
Just do it

Offline iddee

  • Galactic Bee
  • ******
  • Posts: 9499
  • Gender: Male
Re: Cider's ?safer? gun free home.
« Reply #109 on: August 26, 2019, 09:14:57 am »
No, gun control is to make people feel like something is being done to help, when in fact, it is doing more harm than good. Remove the multiple killings in gun free zones and then publish the results.  I DARE YOU!
"Listen to the mustn'ts, child. Listen to the don'ts. Listen to the shouldn'ts, the impossibles, the won'ts. Listen to the never haves, then listen close to me . . . Anything can happen, child. Anything can be"

*Shel Silverstein*

Offline kathyp

  • Universal Bee
  • *******
  • Posts: 17183
  • Gender: Female
Re: Cider's ?safer? gun free home.
« Reply #110 on: August 26, 2019, 01:29:53 pm »
Quote
The purpose of gun control is to cut down the rate of killing.  No one believes it will stop killing.

That has never been the political point.  It is the emotional argument made by some of the political class to get the population to go along with them.  Regardless of the issue, the call is the same "OMG WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING!"

Pick the issue that is embraced by the left and it has two things in common.  1. we are all going to die if we don't do X and 2. the net result is more power to the political class. 

Yes, it is shocking if 29 people die in a shooting.  Is it less shocking if 29 people die in any other way? 

In every shooting except Las Vegas the person could have been dealt with if existing laws had been followed, or if we had a way for mental health professionals and the public to work with law enforcement to get to crazy people before they did something crazy.  While I am not a fan of the idea of Red Flag Laws, I do recognize that most of these nuts are known before they kill and there does need to be a way to interdict before they have a chance to kill people.  This should apply to all the nuts, not just those who have guns.  We have people going around knocking people in the heads with hammers, going to jail, being let out only to knock someone in the head with a hammer again. 

What needs to be recognized and dealt with is that we have a problem in our society.  You can take the tools of killing away until all people have is plastic spoons, but if we do not deal with the underlying issues, nuts will sharpen plastic spoons and kill with them. 

Doing something for the sake of doing something is not a plan.
They are so divorced from their own interests that even when their own security and that of their children is finally compromised, they do not seek to avert the danger themselves but cross their arms and wait for the nation as a whole to come to their aid. Yet as utterly as they sacrifice their own free will, they are no fonder of obedience than anyone else. They submit, it is true, to the whims of a clerk, but no sooner is force removed than they are glad to defy the law as a defeated enemy. Thus one finds them ever wavering between servitude and license.
Alexis de Tocqueville

Offline CoolBees

  • Field Bee
  • ***
  • Posts: 778
  • Gender: Male
Re: Cider's ?safer? gun free home.
« Reply #111 on: August 26, 2019, 02:57:21 pm »
Quick newsflash - criminals don't follow laws.

True story - I worked with a guy some (many) years ago. He wasn't "my kind" of person - which is to say, he lived more on the dark side of the law in his off-time. One day he says to me, "my buddy has a gun for sale". I knew that "their type" can, and do, move guns all the time without much concern - so I guessed that this gun must be "different" somehow. ... so (with some trepidation) I agreed to check it out.

What I found, was a full-auto FN-FAL made in Switzerland - arguably one of the finest Battle Weapons ever created by man. This gun has never been allowed to be imported into the US (that I am aware of). I didn't want to be caught anywhere near this thing.

Buuut I had some question for "them" ... "where did you get it?" And "how did it get into the USA"?

They answered, "all drug shipments come with the guns needed to protect them" .... boy was I in the WRONG place!!! ... they went on ... "we get stuff like this all the time"! .... I took the earliest exit possible - just not my thing I guess.

Here's the deal - Illegal Drugs are ... Illegal. Der! ... and there's plenty of them floating around, it seems. The drugs are shipped into the US ... Illegally, and daily. Der! ... and those shipments also contain Illegal guns. ...

.... SOOOOooo - gun control would have NO Impact on criminals obtaining guns ... as I have (unfortunately) witnessed 1st-hand. The only possible impact that gun control would have, is to dis-arm law abiding citizens. Period.

Here's a question - if the law abiding citizens of this country were disarmed, would the total daily body count go down? ... or up?
You cannot permanently help men by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves - Abraham Lincoln

Offline kathyp

  • Universal Bee
  • *******
  • Posts: 17183
  • Gender: Female
Re: Cider's ?safer? gun free home.
« Reply #112 on: August 26, 2019, 03:17:41 pm »
 
Quote
SOOOOooo - gun control would have NO Impact on criminals obtaining guns .

I would have added the word more.   :wink:  We already have gun control.  We have laws about what we can own, when and where we can carry, and who can buy them.  Some states have magazine capacity laws, or ID for ammo laws.  There are now states that require a weapon to be locked up when not in use.  There are states where you can not transit your weapons if you are going from one place to another. 

States have wide latitude in passing these laws.  That means people have choices.  If folks want to live in a place that is virtually gun free, or severely limits your use and ownership of weapons, you are free to move there.  Of course, it is highly doubtful, and we have evidence of the fact, that those wishing to do harm are following those laws.
They are so divorced from their own interests that even when their own security and that of their children is finally compromised, they do not seek to avert the danger themselves but cross their arms and wait for the nation as a whole to come to their aid. Yet as utterly as they sacrifice their own free will, they are no fonder of obedience than anyone else. They submit, it is true, to the whims of a clerk, but no sooner is force removed than they are glad to defy the law as a defeated enemy. Thus one finds them ever wavering between servitude and license.
Alexis de Tocqueville

Offline Michael Bush

  • Universal Bee
  • *******
  • Posts: 17352
  • Gender: Male
    • bushfarms.com
Re: Cider's ?safer? gun free home.
« Reply #113 on: August 26, 2019, 06:15:12 pm »
>In countries that outlawed guns or have them restricted have very low numbers of killings.

Not true at all.  They may have less "gun deaths" but if actually if you look at the number of guns per capita and the number of murders there is no correlation between the number of guns and the number of murders worldwide.  Within a given culture you may affect some change or another, but most likely murders will just be done with the most convenient weapon.  Golf clubs and baseball bats and tire irons are very effective weapons.

Now if you care about saving LIVES instead of posturing... 480,000 people die every year in the US from smoking.  World wide smoking kills 5.4 MILLION people each year.  Drinking kills 88,000 people per year in the US and 3.3 million deaths worldwide each year.  Between drinking and smoking that is significantly MORE than half a million people a year in the US alone (568K).  Let's outlaw drinking!!!!  Oh... we tried that didn't we....
My website:  bushfarms.com/bees.htm en espanol: bushfarms.com/es_bees.htm  auf deutsche: bushfarms.com/de_bees.htm  em portugues:  bushfarms.com/pt_bees.htm
My book:  ThePracticalBeekeeper.com
-------------------
"Everything works if you let it."--James "Big Boy" Medlin

Offline Ben Framed

  • Super Bee
  • *****
  • Posts: 2606
  • North Mississippi
Re: Cider's ?safer? gun free home.
« Reply #114 on: August 26, 2019, 10:38:11 pm »
No, gun control is to make people feel like something is being done to help, when in fact, it is doing more harm than good. Remove the multiple killings in gun free zones and then publish the results.  I DARE YOU!

CORRECT.   
 



Offline Acebird

  • Galactic Bee
  • ******
  • Posts: 5560
  • Gender: Male
  • Practicing non intervention beekeeping
Re: Cider's ?safer? gun free home.
« Reply #115 on: August 27, 2019, 08:28:11 am »
Mike it is not the number of guns per capita.  Most people that have a gun have many.  If a sane person has 100 guns it is the same as having one.  IMO gun control is not banning guns it is controlling what kind of person that will be allowed to have them or have access to them.
Brian Cardinal
Just do it

Offline Anonimo22

  • House Bee
  • **
  • Posts: 58
Re: Cider's ?safer? gun free home.
« Reply #116 on: August 27, 2019, 10:29:11 am »
CoolBees at the end of his comment said; Here's a question - if the law abiding citizens of this country were disarmed, would the total daily body count go down? ... or up?


I can respond a bit. (Also liked his neat story).

One of the jobs I worked at, there was a gal there who was married to a Brazilian guy. She was a real nice conservative person, and so nice to children.

One day the topic came up, hey how come you don't move to Brazil? You are are always talking about it and how much you like it there.

And she said they do both like Brazil more as a couple, partly because they can sink the dollar conversion rate really high down there. And she said they can get really nice big big houses from the salary conversion on trips. But she said that its terrible to live there because everyone's always getting robbed, and tons of crime doesn't go reported.

And she said basically most people know it, and it comes down to one thing; the criminals all have guns (predators). The normal law abiding people don't (Prey), and both sides know it. And its bad enough that even the police have trouble dealing with the predators.

Hope that helps.

This isn't offensive or bias to anyone, but just trying to describe cause and effect.

Offline Dallasbeek

  • Super Bee
  • *****
  • Posts: 2511
  • Gender: Male
Re: Cider's ?safer? gun free home.
« Reply #117 on: August 27, 2019, 11:31:25 am »
Mike it is not the number of guns per capita.  Most people that have a gun have many.  If a sane person has 100 guns it is the same as having one.  IMO gun control is not banning guns it is controlling what kind of person that will be allowed to have them or have access to them.

That seems to make sense on the surface, Brian, but the sticky point is who decides what kind of people will be allowed to have guns.  In my opinion, the old argument against "Saturday night specials" was racially charged under a facade of being against criminals having guns.  Even at that time, criminals had no problem securing high-quality firearms, but poor people, including a lot of blacks, couldn't afford better kinds of guns and were not about to go around stealing them in burglaries. 

Even poor people and those with most kinds of mental illnesses are protected by the Second Amendment.  They have as much right to defend themselves and their families, homes and possessions as any citizen.  The mentally ill are included in that protection. It's only when an individual steps over the line and becomes a threat to the rights of others that their freedomsbshould be limited. 

I have amrelative who is bipolar.  Under most conditions, he is no threat to anyone, but occasionally he has gone off his meds and become unpredictable.  Should he be permanently denied the protection of the Second Amendment?  What about his other rights under the Constitution?   If he loses the right to possess a gun, does he also forfeit the rights guaranteed elsewhere in the Constitution?

Nothing is as simple as those advocating limits on gun rights and other issues would like, I'm afraid.  People screaming for the government to "DO SOMETHING" might get their way, and what the government does in response just might (probably will) be the wrong thing.  Be careful what you ask for.
"Liberty lives in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no laws, no court can save it." - Judge Learned Hand, 1944

Offline kathyp

  • Universal Bee
  • *******
  • Posts: 17183
  • Gender: Female
Re: Cider's ?safer? gun free home.
« Reply #118 on: August 27, 2019, 03:36:05 pm »
Quote
I have amrelative who is bipolar.  Under most conditions, he is no threat to anyone, but occasionally he has gone off his meds and become unpredictable.  Should he be permanently denied the protection of the Second Amendment?  What about his other rights under the Constitution?   If he loses the right to possess a gun, does he also forfeit the rights guaranteed elsewhere in the Constitution?

This is where I get hung up.  We have a problem with loose nuts.  We don't have a mechanism for containing them, or forcing them to stay on meds.  Both have been deemed unconstitutional except in extreme cases.  Most of the people who have done the shootings, and have exhibited other violent behaviors, were known to someone.  They were known to law enforcement, mental health professionals, or friends/family.  In most cases, their "rights" came before the public safety or the officials did not do their jobs in the first place (Parkland).

At what point can we/should we, suspend their rights to protect ours? 

I don't have an answer short of forced lockup or forced medications.  If we keep waiting for people to actually hurt someone before we interfere all of us are going to lose our rights.  We remove the rights of felons to have weapons, and we have laws to deal with domestic abusers and weapons. 

A little OT, but one of the results of not locking up the mentally ill is that we have more mental illness.  There is evidence that some of it runs in families, and certainly being raised in a family with a mentally ill member is damaging.  I know one family that has 3 generations of Bipolar and BPD.  In the name of rights and kindness, what have we foisted on society for the long term?


They are so divorced from their own interests that even when their own security and that of their children is finally compromised, they do not seek to avert the danger themselves but cross their arms and wait for the nation as a whole to come to their aid. Yet as utterly as they sacrifice their own free will, they are no fonder of obedience than anyone else. They submit, it is true, to the whims of a clerk, but no sooner is force removed than they are glad to defy the law as a defeated enemy. Thus one finds them ever wavering between servitude and license.
Alexis de Tocqueville

Offline Ben Framed

  • Super Bee
  • *****
  • Posts: 2606
  • North Mississippi
Re: Cider's ?safer? gun free home.
« Reply #119 on: August 27, 2019, 04:10:05 pm »
''At what point can we/should we, suspend their rights to protect ours?''

We don't, we continue to be strong in the rights to fully defend ourselves along with defending other good law abiding  citizens, and hope we never have to use the right to do so.  At lest our founding fathers had enough insight to see these things clearly, even in their day.  The problem is, our rights to defend ourselves, have been chiseled away a chip at a time by pansies, until no one is safe, leaving us where we are are now, with a open door to the predator evil which exist, which leaves the good law abiding citizens as sitting ducks to such evil minded people. Even a person who has a mean mental tendency does not want to be disposed of, at least until they think they have accomplished their evil minded schemes and plots of hurting others.  For those of us who wish no harm to anyone, but good to all, would never want to faced with the the challenge to defend ourself, but we should CERTAINLY have that option if ever faced with such a tragic event.  We Americans should NEVER go along with being disarmed by others who tremble in fear, who have not the courage to defend themselves, and same said, have NO right to disarming citizens who do.

 "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.''
 Benjamin Franklin.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2019, 05:13:25 pm by Ben Framed »