ObaMao and Hitlery want our guns.. except April caps a record setting year for gun purchases

[calfoxwc]

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20160506/april-capped-a-record-setting-year-for-gun-purchases

 

While Hillary Clinton says (0:40) that, if elected, she would start going after guns on Day One of her theoretical presidency, Americans appear to be doing their level best to make sure Clinton would have a whole lot of guns and gun owners to tackle. The FBI reports that every month for the past year has broken a record for firearm-related background checks in that month. That is, there were more checks in May 2015 than in any previous May, more in June 2015 than in any previous June, and so on from month to month, through April 2016.

There’s even an increase in the rate at which the checks are increasing. There were nearly 2.2 million more firearm-related checks conducted during all of 2015 than in 2014, but there have been nearly 2.5 million more checks during just the first four months of this year than during the same four months in 2015.During the 12-month period May 2015 through April 2016, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) conducted 25.6 million checks, almost all of which were for firearm acquisitions, firearm purchase permits, and firearm carrying permits which, in some states, exempt their holders from being subjected to an additional check when acquiring a gun.

[calfoxwc]

higgardly promises to declare war on most of ..Americans,

if elected.,,,

 

leftism has taken over so many people's minds... it's like a zombie plaque.

[calfoxwc]

[calfoxwc]

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20160506/hillary-remains-willing-to-ignore-federal-firearms-law

Hillary Remains Willing to Ignore Federal Firearms Law

Last week, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton told

viewers of an MSNBC “townhall” that her efforts to enact gun control

would start her “very first day” as president. This week, a Washington

Post article titled, “Can Clinton make good on immigration, guns?,”

shed some light on her anti-gun plans. Rather than rely on the quaint

notion that the legislative branch should be relied on to legislate,

Clinton appears intent on bypassing Congress and pursuing her gun

control agenda by executive fiat.

[bbedward]

Atta boy Cal, others can learn from you and start fighting the real enemy (Hillary) instead of trying to slander the god emperor

[calfoxwc]

not sure what you mean by that. What part of the post do you disagree with?

[bbedward]

not sure what you mean by that. What part of the post do you disagree with?

Not really any of it, I just support your efforts to make the browns board great again.

[calfoxwc]

so, what do ya ..."think" about the SUBJECT ? Trump? is allegedly totally pro-2nd Amendment....

[BaconHound]

Holy shit you need to have a background check to get a gun, what the fuck is happening here.

[Westside Steve]

Holy shit you need to have a background check to get a gun, what the fuck is happening here.

And they need to override the HIPAA laws or they won't be effective. I mean they aren't effective now but even less so.

 

Speaking of privacy aren't you the guy who is outraged because somebody suggested illegal aliens, or just deadbeats in general, should have a valid ID to vote?

 

WSS

[BaconHound]

And they need to override the HIPAA laws or they won't be effective. I mean they aren't effective now but even less so.

 

Speaking of privacy aren't you the guy who is outraged because somebody suggested illegal aliens, or just deadbeats in general, should have a valid ID to vote?

 

WSS

 

 

Being sarcastic. I see absolutely nothing wrong with background checks to purchase firearms. Just find it funny that pretty soon we'll need to have a background check to get on an airplane, federal real ID program, but here people are getting upset about having one for a gun purchase.

 

And my voter ID issues have nothing to do with privacy but more with cost & enforcement

[Westside Steve]

 

 

Being sarcastic. I see absolutely nothing wrong with background checks to purchase firearms. Just find it funny that pretty soon we'll need to have a background check to get on an airplane, federal real ID program, but here people are getting upset about having one for a gun purchase.

 

And my voter ID issues have nothing to do with privacy but more with cost & enforcement

I've been perfectly clear on this board that I have no problem with background checks to buy firearms. I think they will be a joke and I don't think the left will suspend the HIPAA laws, as I said, to make them work.

 

It's a silly game but the pro-gun or anti-gun people play with each other. Nobody thinks they will make a significant reduction in gun crime. But that's not really the point. The point is that they are still number 1.

 

WSS

[BaconHound]

I've been perfectly clear on this board that I have no problem with background checks to buy firearms. I think they will be a joke and I don't think the left will suspend the HIPAA laws, as I said, to make them work.

 

It's a silly game but the pro-gun or anti-gun people play with each other. Nobody thinks they will make a significant reduction in gun crime. But that's not really the point. The point is that they are still number 1.

 

WSS

 

 

In NY the HIPAA laws have been circumvented by the Safe Act. Don't think it has made a dent in gun ownership but has caused some people to forfeit their right to handguns.

[calfoxwc]

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/vast-majority-of-ny-gun-owners-refuse-to-comply-with-safe-act_062015

 

http://safeactnewyork.com/?page_id=25

 

What’s So Bad About the SAFE Act?

Some people might say, well we need laws. We need some regulation. That may be true, but consider again the last phrase in the text of the second amendment, “shall not be infringed“. If we the people, allow laws like the SAFE Act to stand, it paves the way for more and more strict gun control, which would lead our second amendment rights not just being infringed, but being destroyed.

What is so bad about the SAFE Act?

• First, the supreme law of the US says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

• This law bans “semiautomatic guns with detachable magazines that possess one feature commonly associated with military weapons.” The law also expanded the list of features “commonly associated with military weapons.” (1) click here for the ban list

 

• The law creates a statewide registry. All owners of previously banned guns and guns now banned by the SAFE Act must register their guns. “All registered gun owners will be subject to a review of disqualifiers by the State Police. ” (1)

 

• Bans all magazines that can contain more than 10 rounds, except magazines that are curios or relics (over 50 years old) Possession of a “large capacity ammunition feeding device” is a class A misdemeanor. (1)

 

• Background checks and a review of disqualifiers must be conducted for purchase of ammunition. Ammunition sales must also be “electronically accessible to the state.” (1) (The state will monitor who buys what type of and how much ammo.)

 

• Bans direct internet purchase of ammo after January 15, 2014. (1) (This will be the end of youth marksmanship programs that depend of money saving bulk purchases online.)

 

• Pistol permits- criteria for denial has been expanded and licenses are now required to be renewed every 5 years, failure to do so results in revocation of the license. (1)

 

• Background checks are required for all gun sales, except immediate family.(1) (USE CAUTION- There have already been arrests in NY related to the sale of guns without background checks. You can’t buy a gun from your grandfather or sell a gun to your cousin legally without a background check.)

 

• Mental health professionals {Physician, Psychologist, RN or Licensed Clinical Social Worker} are required to report an individual that they believe is likely to cause serious harm to him or herself or to others. (Nothing new, but here is where is changes.) “When a 9.46 report is made, the Division of Criminal Justice Services will determine whether the person possesses a firearms license and , if so, will notify the appropriate local licensing official, who must suspend the license. The person’s firearms will then be removed.” (1) (THIS VIOLATES THE 4TH AMENDMENT- DUE PROCESS)

 

• All “assault weapons” will be confiscated upon death of the owner without compensation. (1) You cannot leave your “banned assault weapon” to your heirs.

 

• Some legislators estimate that the implementation of this law will cost the taxpayers of New York 38 million dollars.

 

• The law places an undue burden on gun businesses in NY by significantly decreasing the amount of inventory they now have to sell and by requiring them to perform background checks that are currently impossible to perform.

 

• Common sense tells us that criminals do not check to see that they are abiding by the law before they act, only law abiding citizens do that. This law targets law abiding citizens and does nothing to deter criminals.

 

• This law is an unnecessary. Even if gun laws did help deter crime (which they don’t) Gun Crimes have fallen drastically in the US. (2)

 

• Gun laws are ineffective. The US Department of Justice issued a study that stated, “At best, the assault weapons ban can have only a limited effect on total gun murders, because the banned weapons and magazines were never involved in more than a modest fraction of gun murders...we cannot rule out the possibility that this decrease reflects chance year-to-year variation rather than a true effect of the ban.” (4)

 

• Gun ownership has increased as gun crimes have gone down. This means thatmore people have guns but there is less gun crime. (3)

 

• Studies have shown that cities with strict gun control laws have very high crime rates. For example, Chicago has some of the most strict gun laws in the US and their murder rate is 15.65 per 100,000 people as compared to 4.5 per 100,000 in the Midwest. (3)

 

• In comparison, Vermont, who does not require licensing or permits to own shotguns, rifles or handguns (5), had a total of 7 murders in the year 2010. (6) A state that doesn’t regulate the purchase of firearms has a murder rate of less than 1 person per 100,000. A city that heavily regulates gun purchases has a murder rate of 15.65 per 100,000.

 

• England, which has essentially abolished its citizen’s right to gun ownership, has ahigher rate of violent crime than the US. (7)

 

http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation (1) (type S2230 into the search box)

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/may/07/nation/la-na-nn-gun-crimes-pew-report-20130507 (2)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/05/14/disarming-realities-as-gun-sales-soar-gun-crimes-plummet/ (3)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/04/02/shooting-holes-in-mayor-bloombergs-anti-gun-propaganda-ten-bullet-points/3/ (4)

http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-laws/vermont.aspx (5)

http://vcic.vermont.gov/crime_statistics/crime_report (6)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-25671/Violent-crime-worse-Britain-US.html(7)

[MLD Woody]

I'd be interested in looking into that last point some more.

 

The two points before that seem to be more the case of comparing apples and oranges.

[gftChris]

I'd be interested in looking into that last point some more.

 

The two points before that seem to be more the case of comparing apples and oranges.

The last point about England having higher violent crime rates? I've been through it before, and it's essentially hokum. Basic point is, violent crime definition in the US is quite specific, whereas in the UK it's much broader and includes things like 'jostling'.

[LogicIsForSquares]

The last point about England having higher violent crime rates? I've been through it before, and it's essentially hokum. Basic point is, violent crime definition in the US is quite specific, whereas in the UK it's much broader and includes things like 'jostling'.

Some hooligans were out jostling the citizenry?

[MLD Woody]

Some hooligans were out jostling the citizenry?

Inform the queen!

[gftChris]

Inform the queen!

No need, the beefeaters have it under control.

[calfoxwc]

so most of the crime in Britain is only "jostling" ?

 

I think that's putting lipstick on a rotten fish, Chris.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

 

Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed.

Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.

[gftChris]

so most of the crime in Britain is only "jostling" ?

 

Yes, yes that's exactly what I said. It's amazing to see your ability to truly grasp the fundamental point of any post in action time and time again.

[calfoxwc]

lol. but by bringing up "jostling" in a defense of the extremely high crime rate,

you surely must admit it has to be the majority of crime to be warranted? Yes?

[gftChris]

lol. but by bringing up "jostling" in a defense of the extremely high crime rate,

you surely must admit it has to be the majority of crime to be warranted? Yes?

Well, no, not really. I didn't think I'd actually have to explain this? But never mind. I gave an example of one of the many things that is considered 'violent' crime by the definition used in UK statistics. Indeed it's not even necessary to cause any kind of injury for something to be considered violent crime here:

Violence without injury (where the victim is punched, kicked, pushed or jostled with no resulting injury) accounted for just under half (48%) of all [Crime Survey for England and Wales] violent incidents

http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/compendium/focusonviolentcrimeandsexualoffences/yearendingmarch2015/chapter1overviewofviolentcrimeandsexualoffences

 

 

Compare with the FBI statistics that exclude non-injurious assaults

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/aggravated-assault

 

 

Does that make sense now? Here's hoping.

[calfoxwc]

nope. Looks like apples and oranges.

 

Violent crime including sex violent crimes....

 

and the FBI aggravated assault stats are "apples vs oranges".

 

[calfoxwc]

http://extranosalley.com/?p=29225

The FBI’s Uniform Crime Report says there were a total of 1,266,248 violent crimes among 308,745,538 Americans of all ages in 2010, the last year for which complete numbers are available.

Page 56 of the Home Office’s “Crime in England and Wales” says there were 2,203,000 violent incidents against adults in England and Wales.(pdf)

The United States violent crime RATE was 403.6 per 100,000 population in 2010.

England and Wales’ violent crime RATE was 4079.7 per 100,000 ADULTS in 2010.

Obviously, England and Wales violent crime rate is more than ten times higher than that of the United States – but we do not know how much more than ten times because the numbers for those not deemed to be adults is not included.

It should also be noted here that the relative number of homicides between the United States and England and Wales cannot be compared at all due to the different way the Home Office keeps the homicide totals. Of course, the relative number of homicides to violent crimes is small, but would increase the violent crime rate slightly if the number were presented as a simple total.

[MLD Woody]

Alright Cal, try to stay with me on this one. I am going to use this thing called a source, your own source even, to show how you're wrong. This should save Chris a lot of time. I know following sources and data isn't your strong suit, so please try to pay attention.

 

First of all, do you really think violent crime in England and Wales is over 10 times more likely than it is in the US? Really? That didn't trigger anything in your simple little mind that might make you think this wasn't done correctly?

 

 

 

As Chris mentioned before, this is another example of two countries defining the term "violent crime" differently.

 

 

First, the US. https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime. Defined as murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault.

 

 

Now, the UK and Wales. Let's go to the PDF your source uses: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/116417/hosb1011.pdf. Go to page 56 like it says. Oh, look, this a little 1 for a citation. Now let's look at what that 1 means as the bottom of the page. "'All violence' including wounding, assault with minor injury, assault without injury, and robbery. For more information see section 5.1 of the User Guide to Home Office Crime Statistics."

 

Alright, let's go there. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/116226/user-guide-crime-statistics.pdf. Feel free to read through what they're counting as violent crime. It includes Stalking and Threats, just FYI. The main thing to read is at the very beginning: "Violent crimes are those where the victim is intentionally stabbed, punched, kicked, pushed, jostled, etc. or threatened with violence whether or not there is an injury."

 

 

 

So, in short, you are comparing apples and oranges. You are comparing two different data sets.

 

and really this is just one example of the majority of "legitimate data" you post. It is all cherry-picked and manipulated to give the reader the result they already want to hear. You're just to ignorant or too lazy to look into it yourself.

[calfoxwc]

Now how could a small little bird like that sustain a g-force of 1,200 as it pecks its bill against tree bark without getting a headache, much less a concussion?

Consider these factors: A strong yet flexible bill, a hyoid -- a structure of ban and elastic tissue that wraps around the skull, an area of spongy bone in the skull, and very little space for cerebral-spinal fluid between the skull and the brain.

These elements absorb mechanical shock & allow for the woodpecker to strike at a tree at a rate of up to 22 times per second with no injuries. This is yet another example of how nature develops highly advanced structures in combination to solve what at first seems to be an impossible challenge.

[MLD Woody]

This is when you just leave the thread and hang your head in shame. If you leave now, everyone might forgot how incorrect you were. Hurry, before it is too late.

[BaconHound]

The main question with most gun legislation is enforcement and in almost all instances the only thing being enforced are licensing, background checks and mental health reporting. None of the Safe Acts main pillars limiting rounds, registering newly designated assault weapons, recertification or private sale NICS checks are being enforced unless a crime has already been committed.

[gftChris]

Add another gun purchase to the list:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36273488?SThisFB

 

 

A gun used to shoot dead unarmed Florida teenager Trayvon Martin is to be auctioned by the man who shot him, George Zimmerman.

He said he was selling the gun partly to raise funds to fight "Hillary Clinton's anti-firearm rhetoric".