Omg....guns!!! (Atlanta: law, dangerous, versus)

[neil0311]

Originally Posted by jeepejeep

Oh so you think making people into unarmed victims is a good idea?

I think that's a false dichotomy. The choice is not either we all walk around with a 6 shooter on our hips or we're helpless sheep walking to the slaughter. I have never felt unsafe and in need of a gun during my daily life, and I grew up in NYC. People who go about their daily lives are not walking targets unless they choose to be.

So we should license people to defend themselves from maniacs with legally licensed guns, like Seung-Hui Cho at Virginia Tech? How about the innocent children and others killed by "accident" when a legal gun is misused?

[gt6974a]

Originally Posted by neil0311

I think that's a false dichotomy. The choice is not either we all walk around with a 6 shooter on our hips or we're helpless sheep walking to the slaughter. I have never felt unsafe and in need of a gun during my daily life, and I grew up in NYC. People who go about their daily lives are not walking targets unless they choose to be.

So we should license people to defend themselves from maniacs with legally licensed guns, like Seung-Hui Cho at Virginia Tech? How about the innocent children and others killed by "accident" when a legal gun is misused?

Or if a student had a gun on them legally, shot him, and the death toll was less.

Or the people like me (police report on here) protect themselves from the illegal gang bangers walking around Atlanta. I carried mine onto Tech's campus quite a bit and never shot anyone, yet students get robbed at gun point quite a bit, cars stolen, etc. Only thing good about campus cops are handing out parking tickets!

[jeepejeep]

Originally Posted by neil0311

I think that's a false dichotomy. The choice is not either we all walk around with a 6 shooter on our hips or we're helpless sheep walking to the slaughter. I have never felt unsafe and in need of a gun during my daily life, and I grew up in NYC. People who go about their daily lives are not walking targets unless they choose to be.

So we should license people to defend themselves from maniacs with legally licensed guns, like Seung-Hui Cho at Virginia Tech? How about the innocent children and others killed by "accident" when a legal gun is misused?

The instances you note are aberrations. There are approximately 2 million cases per year of people defending themselves legally with a firearm in this country. This is an FBI statistic, not the NRA by the way. It has been repeatedly proved that more guns equals less crime. True, many people go unarmed all the time. Those that do are relying on the fact that many criminals do not perpetrate a crime because they are not sure who is armed and who is not. I'd much rather carry a gun and never need it than need it just once and not have it. All this is beside the point that carrying a gun is guaranteed by The Constitution. Or have you not heard of the Heller case?

[gbear48]

The discussion goes on.

Meanwhile , the 2nd Amendment coalition has been winning , in Congress and in most states , since the mid-1990's. Of course , the DC v Heller case was a huge victory that opens the door for more cases across the country.

I am glad that the gun-grabbers keep the pot boiling , it reminds us of their intentions.



Keep up the good work!

[neil0311]

Originally Posted by gbear48

I am glad that the gun-grabbers keep the pot boiling , it reminds us of their intentions.

The choice is not between banning guns and unrestricted, unlimited wild west style gun ownership. There is a common sense middle ground that most Americans support that includes both private ownership and sensible guidelines for that ownership.

Only people with a blind political agenda can try and make a case against licensing and training gun owners, and restricting people from bringing weapons into places like churches, schools, airports, and bars. We license and restrict all kinds of things in the public interest but yet people think it's fine to have unrestricted gun ownership

I'm sorry, and I'm essentially a libertarian, but the wacko right is just as crazy as the wacko left when it comes to their paranoid worship of guns.

[jsimms3]

Who wants to live in a society where citizens are not legally aloud to defend themselves? Criminals almost always get guns through criminal means. Most criminals are repeat offenders and are not legally aloud to have a license to own and purchase a gun. So how do they get their guns? Through black market shipments, smuggling, theft, and insider knowledge (like when a car on a train is known to have a shipment of weapons, and when an inventory is taken at the train depot there is almost always theft). Even if the far left had its way and took away our constitutional right to posess firearms, criminals would still be getting their guns through the same means they have almost forever been getting their guns, except now when a convenience store is held up or your house is robbed, we would get in trouble for pulling our own gun in self defense.

I know there are going to be those of you that are going to comeback with the argument that the U.S. has a higher crime rate than almost any other developed nation. Bring it on, there are plenty of explanations for that one as well, and none of it has to do with the legality to possess firearms and right to use them (in self defense).

[neil0311]

Originally Posted by jsimms3

Who wants to live in a society where citizens are not legally aloud to defend themselves?

Geez...it's not a zero sum game. The choice isn't between everyone owning a gun and carrying it everywhere, and all guns being banned and people being slaughtered in the streets. What a load of hyperbole.

That seems to be the only response...."OMG...innocent people will be dying in the streets because they can't defend themselves".

I will challenge anyone again on this specific point....tell me how many crimes are committed at Atlanta Hartsfield Airport in a year...in the public terminal and public parking lots, where having a gun would have stopped violence? That's the argument right? All of these defenseless innocent travelers will be murdered, raped, and otherwise done violent harm because they have no gun? How many of them were victims last year? Cite your sources please.

[jsimms3]

Originally Posted by neil0311

I will challenge anyone again on this specific point....tell me how many crimes are committed at Atlanta Hartsfield Airport in a year...in the public terminal and public parking lots, where having a gun would have stopped violence? That's the argument right? All of these defenseless innocent travelers will be murdered, raped, and otherwise done violent harm because they have no gun? How many of them were victims last year? Cite your sources please.

I agree that it is not a zero sum game necessarily, but it very well could be IF the most left politicians have their ways. There is middle ground, however I personally disagree even with that.

Hartsfield is a very bad example because there is extremely high security with armed police and within security nobody, whether a criminal or not, has a gun. It would be a different story if your example was a public spot such as Starbuck's or a convenience store that does not have official security, or someone's private residence. These are places that would be affected by gun control laws, not a place where everyone is under tight security and gun control equally.

[RainyRainyDay]

Originally Posted by jsimms3

I agree that it is not a zero sum game necessarily, but it very well could be IF the most left politicians have their ways. There is middle ground, however I personally disagree even with that.

Hartsfield is a very bad example because there is extremely high security with armed police and within security nobody, whether a criminal or not, has a gun. It would be a different story if your example was a public spot such as Starbuck's or a convenience store that does not have official security, or someone's private residence. These are places that would be affected by gun control laws, not a place where everyone is under tight security and gun control equally.

Oh for heaven's sake, how many people are assaulted, robbed, etc. at Starbucks? Don't tell me that Starbucks is safe because everyone but me is armed to the teeth. I'm from Canada where there's just as many Starbucks, but not handguns (except in the hands of criminals) and ... gasp ... I was never held up or assaulted there either.

[neil0311]

Originally Posted by jsimms3

Hartsfield is a very bad example because there is extremely high security with armed police

Right...but that's exactly the case being made by the "guns everywhere" lobby in GA...that people have to be able to carry concealed weapons at Hartsfield because otherwise innocent people will be slaughtered in the terminal and parking lot without them.

http://www.ajc.com/fayette/content/business/stories/2008/06/30/airport_gun_showdown.html (broken link)