Printable View
Let me get this bull shit straight. You feel safer with a drug dealer owning illegal firearms which would include anything up to military grade assault weapons........ Than you do with a law abiding peaceful citizen owning a handgun or two to defend his home with?
That just does not make any sense to me at all.
Drug dealers will always have illegal weapons. They also tend to shoot other drug dealers, not joe public.
'Law-abiding' citizens is an oxymoron. Every other jackass on the street owning a firearm is scary, for the reaons I have already outlined.
I never meet drug-dealers in my day-to-day life, but I meet a lot of ignorant, short-tempered, overcompensating 'law-abiding' citizens. If they were armed I would be shitting myself.
When I think of how many bar-fights/road-rage/bus-rage/street arguments I have seen, I would not want any lethal weapons within range of them.
Oli, my mistake, I was talking about new york city alone not the entire state. but thanks for the stats. You cant compare a city to an entire state but it does show that more murders occur in the city than the entire state put together. Give me some stats on CHICAGO, MIAMI, DALLAS, LOS ANGELES AND D.C. and I'll bet it illustrates the point I was making.
Tom , you're whole argument was pure ignorance. Maybe you should never leave your house or 'flat' again you could just as easily get stabbed. Do you know if any of your neighbors have knives or swords? And by the way, you made my point for me by saying that criminals ("drug dealers") will always have guns because THEY DON'T GET THEM LEGALLY! My responsibility to my neighbors stops at my front door. And as far as shitting yourself I have one word for you 'DEPENDS'
Of course criminals will get guns illegally. There is nothing anyone can do about that.
Arming the rest of the population is not going to make anything or anyone safer. It will just esculate the level of violence, when violent incidents occur, as, you must agree happens in the US.
I don't think people should have knives or swords either. How about that?
And yes, we call 'apartments' flats over here. Travel is good.
Europeans don't feel it is our 'Right' to carry a lethal piece of metal. Guess we're all ignorant pussies, right?
Your responsibilty to your countrymen doesn't stop at your front door. That is why there are such things as ASBO's, and taxes, among other things.
Tom's makes an excellent point:
Now DEPENDS might be take care of the shits, but it won't prevent rage-murders or bring the dead back to life. Making someone wait a month before they can buy a gun will definitely attenuate that sort of gun violence. A certain kind of criminal will always have guns. But the generally law abiding citizen whose having a temper tantrum might not become a criminal if he's given a chance to cool down while he's waiting for his gun permit to be processed.Quote:
I never meet drug-dealers in my day-to-day life, but I meet a lot of ignorant, short-tempered, overcompensating 'law-abiding' citizens. If they were armed I would be shitting myself.
When I think of how many bar-fights/road-rage/bus-rage/street arguments I have seen, I would not want any lethal weapons within range of them.
I know Tom is actually arguing for non-ownership of guns. I don't see that ever happening in the U.S. Indeed I personally don't see anything wrong with people owning guns and keeping them in their house, provided they're licensed and registered. I do see a grave danger in concealed carry. I'd rather not live anywhere people are allowed to carry sidearms. But if some one does carry, I think it should be out in the open so everyone can see the asshole they're dealing with. If you going to carry, have some balls and carry openly.
You see this is good dialogue, I don't carry because I don't have a permit to do so and I agree with you trish on your point. Violent tendencies don't just come to a person one day they are the product of long standing issues in one's own life. That is what the mental and background checks are supposed to 'weed out'. And by the way there are towns in Texas were it is legal to carry a firearm as long as it is not concealed. It has to be in plain sight. Criminals prey on the weak and most certainly would not choose a target with a gun. I'll admit the system isn't perfect but it is the one we have and we must live with that. It is far better to choose for oneself than to have your choices made for you don't you think? (this goes for all politcal and personal issues, example abortion) We the people have the right to vote, we live by that standard and that is what makes this country great.
I still prefer to live where there's no carry, concealed or otherwise. Choices that effect the safety of others are not entirely your own. It's not at all clear to me that the Texas towns that allow open carry have stumbled onto the solution we "must live with". I agree, it's not perfect.
:smhQuote:
Originally Posted by zippylongorgan
You would lose that bet:
Murders/100,000 population( National Average = 7)
In descending order by population
New York City - 7.3
Los Angeles - 12.4
Chicago -16.6
Houston - 18.2 (Largest city in Texas)
Phoenix - 15.4
Philadelphia - 27.7
San Antonio - 9.2
San Diego - 5.4
Dallas - 15
Miami - 19.6
State rates are even more telling. Very conservative, pro gun rights states lead the list of firearms deaths /100,000 people:
Alaska - 20
Louisiana - 19.5
Wyoming - 18.8
Arizona - 18
Mississippi - 17.3
Nevada - 17.3
New Mexico - 16.6
Arkansas - 16.3
Alabama - 16.2
Tennessee - 15.4
The ten at the bottom shouldn't come as a surprise to you, with tough gun laws.
Iowa - 6.7
Maine - 6.5
Minnesota - 6
New Hampshire - 5.8
New York - 5.1
Rhode Island - 5.1
New Jersey - 4.9
Connecticut - 4.3
Massachusetts - 3.1
Hawaii - 2.8
Yeah, those numbers definitely back up what you were saying
:smh
http://miamifl.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri...te-per-100-000
Judge Advises Crime Victim To Arm Herself After Attack:
General Sessions Court Judge Bob Moon said Friday that crime in Chattanooga "has become so rampant that it is no longer possible for the police department to protect our citizens."
http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_130537.asp
See state # 10 above.Quote:
Originally Posted by El Nino
Quote:
The woman said she was driving on E. 17th Street when Beard came riding up on a bicycle and pulled a gold handgun on her. When she refused to get out of the car, he began hitting her in the head with the gun.
Bob Moon's an idiot and he's lucky if his advice doesn't accelerate gun violence in Chattanooga. I think if we brain-stormed we could find a hundred alternative actions the woman could've taken other than to pull her own gun, while driving, from her purse in the seat beside her or in the glove compartment without alerting the cyclist what she was up to.
I'll begin...
1) She could've swerved into the cyclist and knocked him over.
2) She could've hit him with her handbag, instead of reaching into it fumbling for her gun.
...
When the people of any given society are disarmed, only tyranny will ensue. This is the big picture; and historically, has happened over and over. Get over it.
Am I talking disarmament El Nino? Where? In which post? Stop diverting the conversation by addressing straw man issues. Get over your paranoia.
3) She could've opened her door hard into the cyclist.
Trish, that was just a general statement for the board, not directed at you. Sorry for the mix up. And for the record, "Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they are NOT after you"... ;)
I have to laugh whenever I hear someone claim their guns will protect them from government tyranny. Face it, all our AK-47s and AR-15s are useless compared to the high tech toys the miltary or the increasingly-militarized police possess. That's a fight that can only be won by vigilance and political activism.
Btw, I own a fair number of guns, including pistols and so-called assault weapons. I keep them in a massive old safe except for the occasional target shooting foray. I don't depend on them for self protection and my home has never been broken into (the ancient Mastiff roaming my property may have something to do with that).
I know plenty of people who legally carry handguns almost constantly and some of them are, imo, too loony to be trusted with them. I'm never surprised when one of them shoots himself or someone else in a fit of drunken despair. I've seen too many lives ruined simply because some idiot had access to a gun.
I'm not suggesting everyone give up their guns. I just think that all the die-hard gun owners should be willing to look at both sides of the issue. Owning a gun brings a heavy responsibility with it. Think long and hard before you assume that responsibility.
If that's true then how are the Iraqi Insurgents and the Taliban kicking our armies asses?
No offense to our men and women in uniform.
The mindset that technology can totally determine the outcome of a battle is just not a good one to have. It's defeatist.
Did Sitting Bull and the bands that follow him say "oh the white man has better tech so we should just give up? No they beat us spectacularly when ever numbers were even.
Did the Zulu's at Isandwana (sp?), in the same year as the little big horn, say oh English we surrender to the superiority of your firearms? No they charged with their short steel spears and won. Those English were to sure of their superiority.
Latter by less than a day those Zulu's were minorly defeated at Rourke's Drift. Those men used the terrain and a fortified position to hold out against odds. They could have had Longbow's, pikes and done as well.
Last but not least. In the Sudan the English did invade the realm of the Mahadi. This time they had machine guns.... the Ansar, the Sudanese army, had as far as I know no firearms what so ever. They were pulverized.
You can look all of these up. I know them from watching allot of the history channel.
The lesson to learn from this is that technology can make but a small difference in the outcome of a war or battle. Cunning, determination, and respect for the prowess of the enemy, lead to victory.
I suspect in a battle between our army and a band of armed citizens the citizens would win because we would have much more respect for the armies ability than they would have for ours. God forbid that ever happens.
It’s not crazy to think that weapons in the hands of citizens would make a difference were the government to attempt a military take over of itself. What’s crazy is to think the government would attempt a military take over of itself. Perhaps you think the military might attempt to take over the government. But here, that would require the cooperation of three independent branches of the military…not likely. Perhaps you imagine an armed populace upsetting its government. But that would be kinda stupid if it was a government of and by the people themselves. It’s just an adolescent fantasy to think that U.S. citizens need guns to fend off the government and the “revenuers”.
But hey, I’m not against citizens owning guns. I just know that the primary justifiable reason to own one is sport. I grew up in a rural area where people hunted and shot target for recreation. Every family I knew owned several rifles. I myself hunted deer, pheasant and rabbit with my father. When I was a kid I could pick off aspirin tablets at 50 yards with a 22 caliber. Since then I lived in several cities and knew lots of urban gun owners. None of them were sportsman. Most of them never shot their weapon more a handful of times. No one ever told them they shouldn’t pass the barrel across someone’s body, even when it’s not loaded. No one told them a gun must be cleaned and oiled to remain in working order. No one told them to aim, hold their breath and squeeze the trigger when firing. They are generally so unfamiliar with their weapons they have to think about how to put the clip in, or where the safety is. Their weapon is a distraction and not an advantage. Most of my urban friends who own guns would be better off without them when the chips are down. They have a much better chance of surviving a rare encounter with a hood, by running or handing over their cash. (Not to mention the morality of killing someone to protect your cash). If you plan to buy a gun only for self-defense, chances are you will not have the patience or the interest required to become familiar enough with your weapon. It will be a hindrance and a distraction when you actually need to do something to save yourself. If you don’t know how to use it well, and you keep it loaded and carry it around in your purse, or glove compartment or on your person, you are a danger to others around you. When a loaded gun is hidden in a woman’s purse, how many times do you suppose the barrel is pointed at an innocent person or child? If you are thinking of buying a gun, neither for the sport of hunting nor the sport of target shooting but only because you think you need it for protection, then please think carefully. If you actually do buy one, treat it and others around you with the utmost respect. It will be one of the most dangerous things you own. I urge you to pledge to yourself never to misuse it through ignorance or malice.
AfghanistanQuote:
Originally Posted by BrendaQG
Coalition Casualties-788
Taliban Casualties-20,000+
Iraqi Freedom
Coalition Casualties-4426
Insurgent Casualties-19,429
Yeah, that's an ass kicking.:screwy
Little Big Horn
Custer-210
Souix, Cheyenne, Arapaho-290
Isandlwana
British-852 (out of 1400)
Zulu-1000 (out of 22,000)
Rorke's Drift
British-17 (out of 139)
Zulu-600 (out of 4000)
17 vs 600 doesn't sound like a 'minor defeat'.
How about The Battle of Chosin Reservoir
US-2500
Chinese-12500
Battle of the Black Sea-Mogadishu
US-19
Somali insurgents-1200-5500
Firepower is THE critical factor on the battle field. And armed citizens against a determined Military stand no chance.
The greatest revolution of the past 20 years was the end of Communism in the USSR. The unarmed citizens prevented the Army from interceding in the coup d' etat attempt by hard line Communists, precipitating the disillusion of the Soviet state.
PS-The History Channel is entertainment, not really a great source of information.
All one need do to commit a school or workplace shooting is to merely buy a gun from criminals on the street, 2nd amendment or no 2nd amendment.Quote:
Originally Posted by hugochavez
[quote=iloveshemales77][quote="BrendaQG
I personally feel that the framers of the constitution wanted the populace to at least theoretically be able to defend itself from a govt. gone mad.... [/quote]
And how does that not apply in today's times?. Look at Zimbabwe where Robert Mugabe has defeated his presidential opponent by sending out groups of people to beat citizens openly in public who do not support him. His opponent backed out of the presidential race, and now Mugabe is still president.Quote:
Originally Posted by iloveshemales77
This is what happens when you disarm the population and is exactly what our forefathers wanted to prevent with the 2nd amendment. This could never happen in America.
Because the people in those zones are easy targets.Quote:
Originally Posted by El Nino
Wrong ... the people are guaranteed the right to bear arms with regulatory laws in place. If you're a convicted felon, you give up that right. To carry a concealed weapon, you must attend training and extensive background checks to ensure you're competent to do so, and on and on.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
One can post intelligent and eloquent arguments and still be dead wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by iloveshemales77
That's right, you tell 'em InHouston. Now if we could just make it the ONLY way to commit a school or workplace shooting we'd be well on our way to cutting down the number of them.
Hmmm ... guns are still primarily operate with a bullet, powder, and an igniting charge just like in days of our founding fathers. This is an obvious case of someone providing extensive analysis on a subject matter they have little or 'no hands-on' experience with at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Hence the old saying, "Never bring a knife to a gun fight."Quote:
Originally Posted by hondarobot
And then you woke up.Quote:
Originally Posted by seanchai
Ditto! :clapsQuote:
Originally Posted by kimjongil
In America you don't have to be forced down to your knees and shot in the back of the head like a rat.
LameQuote:
Originally Posted by seanchai
You are a driveling idiot.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Yes it does, for if we didn't you'd be speaking German this very day.Quote:
Originally Posted by seanchai
You should stick to what you know ... like porn.Quote:
Originally Posted by seanchai
Whoa! There's a come back! Thanks for reposting all my points (and not meeting any of them) Mr. non-idiot InHouston :)Quote:
You are a driveling idiot.
and you'd be speaking Japanese :roll: :roll: :roll:Quote:
Originally Posted by InHouston
You made no valid points. That's why they're missing in my reply. You're obviously intelligent, but any knucklehead can read and read and read and spout rhetorical points. However, I look for one's judgment on matters. Your judgement on most matters I see in your posts ... well ... stinks.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Nice one dumbass.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomfurbs
Whoever heard of meeting valid points? It's the invalid ones that require attention. Thanks again Mr. non-idiot InHouston.Quote:
You made no valid points.
Hehe...awesome.Quote:
Originally Posted by InHouston
Been outside the parish lines lately?
Houston dont even bother on this topic. Some people are less tolerant over positions on gun laws than they are on abortion, religion, or sexual orientation. Minds are closed.
While I for one can see their points they cannot see ours. They think that things like what's happening in Zimbabwe, or anyplace else that tyrants rule is impossible here because of pieces of paper! We know better, our rights are only guaranteed by the implied threat to anyone who would make a tyranical grab for power here. The people would rise up in force and start anew if the worst happened.