U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Georgia > Atlanta
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-20-2010, 07:50 PM
 
Location: Tyrone, GA
126 posts, read 185,207 times
Reputation: 53

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by toll_booth View Post
Aside from the overall gun laws debate going on, I see two issues being discussed here: Whether to allow guns in the terminal, and whether to allow guns outside the terminal.

Personally, I see no reason to ban guns from outside the terminal. IMO, the same laws that apply out in the open should apply in the parking deck. The fact that you can't even carry a concealed weapon in your car, even in your trunk, when driving to Hartsfield is absurd. But again, with guns in the terminal, I want to see some statistics on gun-caused fatalities in airport terminals.
statistics are inconsistent to prove or disprove the public safety of guns. there is no consistent variable to determine how many bad guys are in a certain area. i prefer to look at the CDC or FBI data bases on reported violent crimes and the harder to find number of victims who defended themselves successfully with a firearm. i once had this data but can no longer find it in the FBI pages.

statistics show violent crime rates across the U.S. decreasing each year. city data is a more detailed analysis of the crime rate as oppose to statewide averages. the 1994 federal assault weapons ban was suppose to remove automatic weapons from violent criminals. it failed because the majority of guns used by violent criminals were not assault rifles. the FBI new this before the ban and has had the statistics on what type of guns were most used (semi-auto compact pistols). those that created the AWB weren't educated on the differences between assault rifles and auto loading rifles. they went by fear factor (if it looks scary, then it is scary). one of the classification of an assault rifle is a bayonet mount. i would really like to see the statistics on how many people where bayonetted by rifles. the AWB was voted down during it's expiration in 2004. obama wants to re-institute the AWB.

the new presidency threatens the 2nd amendment and this resulted in a stock piling of munitions. prices for ammo skyrocketed (creating a shortage) and hasn't returned to pre-election prices. there was also a large increase in gun licensing applicants.

in general, statics can both support or not support people's stance on guns. what's more important is how people perceive guns in the public hands. media has more to do with what influences the sheep.

-a|ex
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-21-2010, 08:02 AM
JPD
 
11,912 posts, read 14,569,256 times
Reputation: 7591
Quote:
Originally Posted by a|ex View Post



the new presidency threatens the 2nd amendment ...

media has more to do with what influences the sheep.

-a|ex
How ironic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-21-2010, 10:22 AM
 
Location: Marietta, GA
7,844 posts, read 14,578,954 times
Reputation: 3484
Quote:
Originally Posted by a|ex View Post
don't be a sheep...
And don't be insulting. People who don't feel the need to pack a weapon everytime they go to the bathroom (because someone might be hiding in the stall ready to mug them) aren't sheep. Frankly, I find the macho, redneck, shoot-em-up mentality to a be bit much.

I think for myself. I support those policies that I believe are consistent with my safety, my happiness, and my prosperity. Allowing yahoos with no training to carry weapons anywhere and everywhere, because somewhere someone was a victim of crime, makes no sense to me.

Yes the second amendment allows for weapons ownership. However, just as we limit ownership by felons and mentally ill, we should require people to be trained in the care and use of weapons, which is not required in GA.

We require hairstylists to be licensed and trained. We require for people to be trained and for all kinds of things to be licensed that don't have the possibility of taking your life. Yet for some reason, we think it's fine to let any breathing carbon unit (as long as they haven't been convicted of a felony or been treated for mental illness) own and carry a weapon. Does that make any sense? I guess to some of you it does. Makes none to me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Georgia > Atlanta
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top