Gun Control is Completely Useless.

hunboldt

Time Out
May 5, 2013
2,427
0
36
at my keyboard
:p:lol::lol:
Mayhaps but I know for a fact that Japanese subs landed on Northern Vancouver Island.


The $6.50 sushi submarine sadwich was, unfortunately, a disaster inthe 'land of Ham & pepperoni'.

Unless you are referring to the IJN fleet boats that anchored off North Vancouver island...
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
:p:lol::lol:


The $6.50 sushi submarine sadwich was, unfortunately, a disaster inthe 'land of Ham & pepperoni'.

Unless you are referring to the IJN fleet boats that anchored off North Vancouver island...

You would do well to google before you make fun....

American Theater (1939–45) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bombardment of Estevan Point Lighthouse

More than 5 Japanese submarines operated in Western Canada during 1941 and 1942. On June 20, 1942, the Japanese submarine I-26, under the command of Yokota Minoru,[26] fired 25–30 rounds of 5.5" shells at the Estevan Point lighthouse on Vancouver Island in British Columbia, but failed to hit its target.[27] This marked the first enemy shelling of Canadian soil since the War of 1812. Though no casualties were reported, the subsequent decision to turn off the lights of outer stations was disastrous for shipping activity.[28]
 

Cobalt_Kid

Council Member
Feb 3, 2007
1,760
17
38
The Japanese made limited incursions into West Coast waters, if people are citing the existence of gun owners as a deterrent to the Japanese invading then you really don't understand the nature of warfare.

The Japanese could barely project force into the West Coast region and after Midway that was especially limited, even in the Aleutians which were much closer to Japan they were eventually forced out by fairly limited Allied forces.
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
71
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
The Japanese made limited incursions into West Coast waters, if people are citing the existence of gun owners as a deterrent to the Japanese invading then you really don't understand the nature of warfare.

The Japanese could barely project force into the West Coast region and after Midway that was especially limited, even in the Aleutians which were much closer to Japan they were eventually forced out by fairly limited Allied forces.
Apparently you can't grasp the concept of warfare very well either. Maybe you just think of war being large forces battling each other with cannons, planes, and tanks. The Canadian Rangers started out being volunteers using their own weaponry, had no uniforms, etc. They were basically hunters turned into spotters and guerillas. Wife's dad was one. Interesting book on the subject: The Canadian Rangers: A Living History: Amazon.ca: P. Whitney Lackenbauer: Books

History of the Canadian Rangers | Canadian Rangers | Army Reserve | Canadian Army | National Defence and the Canadian Forces

Canadian Rangers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
60,212
9,451
113
Washington DC
Apparently you can't grasp the concept of warfare very well either. Maybe you just think of war being large forces battling each other with cannons, planes, and tanks. The Canadian Rangers started out being volunteers using their own weaponry, had no uniforms, etc. They were basically hunters turned into spotters and guerillas. Wife's dad was one. Interesting book on the subject: The Canadian Rangers: A Living History: Amazon.ca: P. Whitney Lackenbauer: Books

History of the Canadian Rangers | Canadian Rangers | Army Reserve | Canadian Army | National Defence and the Canadian Forces

Canadian Rangers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That was all well and good for a certain era. But the notion of a "citizen militia," whatever you care to call it, having a significant military effect is a bit silly these days.

Warfare is complex. As you say, it's not just a matter of tanks and bombers. But just as those who ignore the economics and psychology of war do so at their peril (see Iraq), the same is true of those who ignore the military effects of Apache gunships. This ain't 1812.
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
71
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
That was all well and good for a certain era. But the notion of a "citizen militia," whatever you care to call it, having a significant military effect is a bit silly these days.

Warfare is complex. As you say, it's not just a matter of tanks and bombers. But just as those who ignore the economics and psychology of war do so at their peril (see Iraq), the same is true of those who ignore the military effects of Apache gunships. This ain't 1812.
Not ignoring any type of warfare. It's Cobalt that seems to be doing that. And guerillas can be a major pain in the dairy air especially when they keep scooping your elaborate gear.
 
Last edited:

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
60,212
9,451
113
Washington DC
Not ignoring any type of warfare. It's Cobalt that seems to be doing that. And guerillas can be a major pain in the dairy air, especially if they keep scooping equipment from the enemy. Otherwise I'd imagine that Canada, the USA, etc. wouldn't still have such outfits as Rangers, Green Berets, personnel that carry out covert ops, and whatnot.

That's a bit simplistic, but I'm glad you're at least thinking about this with an understanding that warfare is a very complex, multidimensional game. I'll keep an eye on your contributions, seems like you have things worth hearing.
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
71
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
Well, I wasn't expecting anyone to request a detailed description of guerilla warfare so I just mentioned an aspect of war that Cobalt ignored. They are more like wasps than pit vipers, but they do have quite an effect sometimes. Read somewhere that Canadian Rangers were responsible for the sinking of a Japanese sub that was shelling some spot in Canada during WW2 once. Can't remember if they just spotted it and called in help, sunk it themselves, or whatever, though.
On another note, there was these things: Fire balloon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia lol Kinda like the Japanese version of a German V1 or V2 I suppose. :D
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.


Alberta girl with her graduation present.... :)

I LOVE it!!!
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,264
14,263
113
Low Earth Orbit
It's not taking away that is worrisome Colpy, it's when people are convinced to turn them in for their own good and they believe it without question.
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
193
63
Nakusp, BC
Guns aren't dangerous. Stupid people are dangerous. Not just stupid people who own guns but stupid people who are willing to give up their freedom for a little imagined security. Safety is learned, not legislated.
 

Cobalt_Kid

Council Member
Feb 3, 2007
1,760
17
38
Apparently you can't grasp the concept of warfare very well either. Maybe you just think of war being large forces battling each other with cannons, planes, and tanks. The Canadian Rangers started out being volunteers using their own weaponry, had no uniforms, etc. They were basically hunters turned into spotters and guerillas. Wife's dad was one. Interesting book on the subject: The Canadian Rangers: A Living History: Amazon.ca: P. Whitney Lackenbauer: Books

History of the Canadian Rangers | Canadian Rangers | Army Reserve | Canadian Army | National Defence and the Canadian Forces

Canadian Rangers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You still need to be able to deploy and supply irregular forces, if you look at the Allied examples of WW II like the SOE and related groups in Europe the Coast Watchers, Marine Raiders, Chindits, insurgents in the Philippines and OSS trained and supplied units in SE Asia, it requires an extensive and reliable supply chain to maintain irregular fores. The Japanese made infrequent patrols to the West Coast that became more and more hazardous as the Empire was pushed farther east and marine defenses increased. It wasn't the presense of gun owners in North America that kept the Japanese from invading which is what I think Petros was initially saying, it was the vast distances that needed crossing and the growing conventional military capability of the Allies that limited Japanese expansion westwards.

If you look at the campaigns on Kiska and Attu the Japanese could barely maintain limited forces on remote islands closer to Japan in one case than America.
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
71
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
You still need to be able to deploy and supply irregular forces, if you look at the Allied examples of WW II like the SEO and related groups in Europe the Coast Watchers, Marine Raiders, Chindits, insurgents in the Philippines and OSS trained and supplied units in SE Asia, it requires an extensive and reliable supply chain to maintain irregular fores. The Japanese made infrequent patrols to the West Coast that became more and more hazardous as the Empire was pushed farther east and marine defenses increased. It wasn't the presense of gun owners in North America that kept the Japanese from invading which is what I think Petros was initially saying, it was the vast distances that needed crossing and the growing conventional military capability of the Allies that limited Japanese expansion westwards.

If you look at the campaigns on Kiska and Attu the Japanese could barely maintain limited forces on remote islands closer to Japan in one case than America.
Oh, I have no doubt that distance was a factor, but there were other factors involved; such as poor strategies and tactics on the Japanese end, the abilities of the Rangers to survive with limited means, etc.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,264
14,263
113
Low Earth Orbit
Disarming Realities: As Gun Sales Soar, Gun Crimes Plummet

Larry Bell
forbes.com
May 16, 2013

A couple of new studies reveal the gun-control hypesters’ worst nightmare…more people are buying firearms, while firearm-related homicides and suicides are steadily diminishing. What crackpots came up with these conclusions? One set of statistics was compiled by the U.S. Department of Justice. The other was reported by the Pew Research Center.

According to DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. gun-related homicides dropped 39 percent over the course of 18 years, from 18,253 during 1993, to 11,101 in 2011. During the same period, non-fatal firearm crimes decreased even more, a whopping 69 percent. The majority of those declines in both categories occurred during the first 10 years of that time frame. Firearm homicides declined from 1993 to 1999, rose through 2006, and then declined again through 2011. Non-fatal firearm violence declined from 1993 through 2004, then fluctuated in the mid-to-late 2000s.

And where did the bad people who did the shooting get most of their guns? Were those gun show “loopholes” responsible? Nope. According to surveys DOJ conducted of state prison inmates during 2004 (the most recent year of data available), only two percent who owned a gun at the time of their offense bought it at either a gun show or flea market. About 10 percent said they purchased their gun from a retail shop or pawnshop, 37 percent obtained it from family or friends, and another 40 percent obtained it from an illegal source.

While firearm violence accounted for about 70 percent of all homicides between 1993 and 2011, guns were used in less than 10 percent of all non-fatal violent crimes. Between 70 percent and 80 percent of those firearm homicides involved a handgun, and 90 percent of non-fatal firearm victimizations were committed with a handgun. Males, blacks, and persons aged 18-24 had the highest firearm homicide rates.

The March Pew study, drawn from numbers obtained from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, also found a dramatic drop in gun crime over the past two decades. Their accounting shows a 49 percent decline in the homicide rate, and a 75 percent decline of non-fatal violent crime victimization. More than 8 in 10 gun homicide victims in 2010 were men and boys. Fifty-five percent of the homicide victims were black, far beyond their 13 percent share of the population.

Pew researchers observed that the huge amount of attention devoted to gun violence incidents in the media has caused most Americans to be unaware that gun crime is strikingly down” from 20 years ago. In fact, gun-related homicides in the late 2000s were “equal to those not seen since the early 1960s.” Yet their survey found that 56 percent believed gun-related crime is higher, 26 percent believed it stayed about the same, and 6 percent didn’t know. Only 12 percent of those polled thought it was lower.

The Pew survey found that while women and elderly were actually less likely to become crime victims, they were more likely to believe gun crime had increased in recent years. On the other hand, men, who were more likely to become victims, were more likely know that the gun rate had dropped.

Those gun crime rates certainly aren’t diminishing for lack of supply…at least not for law-abiding legal buyers. Last December, the FBI recorded a record number of 2.78 million background checks for purchases that month, surpassing a 2.01 million mark set the month before by about 39 percent. That December 2012 figure, in turn, was up 49 percent from a previous record on that month the year before. FBI checks for all of 2012 totaled 19.6 million, an annual record, and an increase of 19 percent over 2011.

Firearms sellers can thank the gun-control legislation lobbies for much of this business windfall. Marked demand increases have been witnessed over the past five years thanks to the 2008 and 2012 elections of U.S. history’s most successful, if unintentional, gun salesman as president. The firearms market got a huge added boost after the tragic shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newton, Connecticut activated a renewed legislative frenzy.

If that gun-purchasing fervor has abated with the defeat of several congressional regulation proposals, as I’m sure it has, you surely wouldn’t have known it by witnessing the overwhelmingly enormous annual NRA convention in Houston earlier this month. Attendance was estimated to be more than 70,000 people from all over the country.

Those attendees weren’t all guys either…not by a long shot. Last year, the National Shooting Sports Foundation reported that participation by women increased both in target shooting (46.5%) and hunting (36.6%) over the past decade. Also, 61% of firearm retailers responding to a NSSF survey reported an increase in female customers. A 2009 NSSF survey indicated that the number of women purchasing guns for personal defense increased a whopping 83 percent.

Is John Lott, the author of “More Guns, Less Crime” right? Does the rapid growth of gun ownership and armed citizens have anything to do with a diminishing gun violence trend? His expansive research concludes that state “shall issue” laws which allow citizens to carry concealed weapons do produce a steady decrease in violent crime. He explains that this is logical because criminals are deterred by the risk of attacking an armed target, so as more citizens arm themselves, danger to the criminals increases.

Whether or not you buy that reasoning, and it does make sense to me, what about the notion that tougher gun laws have or would make any difference? With the toughest gun laws in the nation, Chicago saw homicides jump to 513 in 2012, a 15% hike in a single year. The city’s murder rate is 15.65 per 100,000 people, compared with 4.5 for the Midwest, and 5.6 for Illinois.

Up to 80 percent of Chicago murders and non-fatal shootings are gang- related, primarily young black and Hispanic men killed by other black and Hispanic men. Would tightening gun laws even more, or “requiring” background checks, change these conditions?

Gwainevere Catchings Hess, president of the Black Women’s Agenda (BWA), Inc., an organization that strongly advocates strict gun-control legislation, rightly points out that “In 2009, black males ages 15-19 were eight times as likely as white males the same age, and 2.5 times as likely as their Hispanic peers to be killed in a gun homicide.”

Those are terrible statistics, but here are some others. Today, 72% of black children are born out of wedlock, as are 53% of Hispanic children and 36% of white children. Back in 1965, 25% of black children were born out of wedlock, nearly one-third fewer. As a result, promiscuous rappers, prosperous dope peddlers and street gang leaders are becoming ever more influential role models. It’s probably no big stretch of imagination to correlate such grossly disproportionate crime and victimization rates with comparably staggering rates of single-parent families, those without fathers in particular.

Yet in the general population, and although the agenda-driven media hasn’t noticed, we can be grateful that gun violence has been trending downward since 1993 when it hit its last peak. Don’t want to credit a rise in gun ownership and concealed carry by law-abiding citizens for this good news? Fine. But then, don’t imagine that gun legislation is the reason or answer either. Leave that illusion to gun-control cheerleaders in the media.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
Disarming Realities: As Gun Sales Soar, Gun Crimes Plummet

Larry Bell
forbes.com
May 16, 2013

A couple of new studies reveal the gun-control hypesters’ worst nightmare…more people are buying firearms, while firearm-related homicides and suicides are steadily diminishing. What crackpots came up with these conclusions? One set of statistics was compiled by the U.S. Department of Justice. The other was reported by the Pew Research Center.

According to DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. gun-related homicides dropped 39 percent over the course of 18 years, from 18,253 during 1993, to 11,101 in 2011. During the same period, non-fatal firearm crimes decreased even more, a whopping 69 percent. The majority of those declines in both categories occurred during the first 10 years of that time frame. Firearm homicides declined from 1993 to 1999, rose through 2006, and then declined again through 2011. Non-fatal firearm violence declined from 1993 through 2004, then fluctuated in the mid-to-late 2000s.

And where did the bad people who did the shooting get most of their guns? Were those gun show “loopholes” responsible? Nope. According to surveys DOJ conducted of state prison inmates during 2004 (the most recent year of data available), only two percent who owned a gun at the time of their offense bought it at either a gun show or flea market. About 10 percent said they purchased their gun from a retail shop or pawnshop, 37 percent obtained it from family or friends, and another 40 percent obtained it from an illegal source.

While firearm violence accounted for about 70 percent of all homicides between 1993 and 2011, guns were used in less than 10 percent of all non-fatal violent crimes. Between 70 percent and 80 percent of those firearm homicides involved a handgun, and 90 percent of non-fatal firearm victimizations were committed with a handgun. Males, blacks, and persons aged 18-24 had the highest firearm homicide rates.

The March Pew study, drawn from numbers obtained from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, also found a dramatic drop in gun crime over the past two decades. Their accounting shows a 49 percent decline in the homicide rate, and a 75 percent decline of non-fatal violent crime victimization. More than 8 in 10 gun homicide victims in 2010 were men and boys. Fifty-five percent of the homicide victims were black, far beyond their 13 percent share of the population.

Pew researchers observed that the huge amount of attention devoted to gun violence incidents in the media has caused most Americans to be unaware that gun crime is strikingly down” from 20 years ago. In fact, gun-related homicides in the late 2000s were “equal to those not seen since the early 1960s.” Yet their survey found that 56 percent believed gun-related crime is higher, 26 percent believed it stayed about the same, and 6 percent didn’t know. Only 12 percent of those polled thought it was lower.

The Pew survey found that while women and elderly were actually less likely to become crime victims, they were more likely to believe gun crime had increased in recent years. On the other hand, men, who were more likely to become victims, were more likely know that the gun rate had dropped.

Those gun crime rates certainly aren’t diminishing for lack of supply…at least not for law-abiding legal buyers. Last December, the FBI recorded a record number of 2.78 million background checks for purchases that month, surpassing a 2.01 million mark set the month before by about 39 percent. That December 2012 figure, in turn, was up 49 percent from a previous record on that month the year before. FBI checks for all of 2012 totaled 19.6 million, an annual record, and an increase of 19 percent over 2011.

Firearms sellers can thank the gun-control legislation lobbies for much of this business windfall. Marked demand increases have been witnessed over the past five years thanks to the 2008 and 2012 elections of U.S. history’s most successful, if unintentional, gun salesman as president. The firearms market got a huge added boost after the tragic shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newton, Connecticut activated a renewed legislative frenzy.

If that gun-purchasing fervor has abated with the defeat of several congressional regulation proposals, as I’m sure it has, you surely wouldn’t have known it by witnessing the overwhelmingly enormous annual NRA convention in Houston earlier this month. Attendance was estimated to be more than 70,000 people from all over the country.

Those attendees weren’t all guys either…not by a long shot. Last year, the National Shooting Sports Foundation reported that participation by women increased both in target shooting (46.5%) and hunting (36.6%) over the past decade. Also, 61% of firearm retailers responding to a NSSF survey reported an increase in female customers. A 2009 NSSF survey indicated that the number of women purchasing guns for personal defense increased a whopping 83 percent.

Is John Lott, the author of “More Guns, Less Crime” right? Does the rapid growth of gun ownership and armed citizens have anything to do with a diminishing gun violence trend? His expansive research concludes that state “shall issue” laws which allow citizens to carry concealed weapons do produce a steady decrease in violent crime. He explains that this is logical because criminals are deterred by the risk of attacking an armed target, so as more citizens arm themselves, danger to the criminals increases.

Whether or not you buy that reasoning, and it does make sense to me, what about the notion that tougher gun laws have or would make any difference? With the toughest gun laws in the nation, Chicago saw homicides jump to 513 in 2012, a 15% hike in a single year. The city’s murder rate is 15.65 per 100,000 people, compared with 4.5 for the Midwest, and 5.6 for Illinois.

Up to 80 percent of Chicago murders and non-fatal shootings are gang- related, primarily young black and Hispanic men killed by other black and Hispanic men. Would tightening gun laws even more, or “requiring” background checks, change these conditions?

Gwainevere Catchings Hess, president of the Black Women’s Agenda (BWA), Inc., an organization that strongly advocates strict gun-control legislation, rightly points out that “In 2009, black males ages 15-19 were eight times as likely as white males the same age, and 2.5 times as likely as their Hispanic peers to be killed in a gun homicide.”

Those are terrible statistics, but here are some others. Today, 72% of black children are born out of wedlock, as are 53% of Hispanic children and 36% of white children. Back in 1965, 25% of black children were born out of wedlock, nearly one-third fewer. As a result, promiscuous rappers, prosperous dope peddlers and street gang leaders are becoming ever more influential role models. It’s probably no big stretch of imagination to correlate such grossly disproportionate crime and victimization rates with comparably staggering rates of single-parent families, those without fathers in particular.

Yet in the general population, and although the agenda-driven media hasn’t noticed, we can be grateful that gun violence has been trending downward since 1993 when it hit its last peak. Don’t want to credit a rise in gun ownership and concealed carry by law-abiding citizens for this good news? Fine. But then, don’t imagine that gun legislation is the reason or answer either. Leave that illusion to gun-control cheerleaders in the media.


There simply is no arguing with that.

Thanks Petros.

Telegraph new law competition: vote now - Telegraph