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.
I agree that place must be safe, but not for any guns, but total lack of any guns.... California has very stiff laws for everything and guns are high on the list of LAWS for California.
No, you're wrong. Even in California I can go to a gun show today, buy a gun, and never have to do a background check at all nor go through any waiting period. About 40% of all the guns in the country are sold this way and it is how most criminals get their guns.
I keep hearing that the only way to prevent gun violence is, apparently, to have as many guns as possible. You see, if everyone is armed to the teeth, then nobody will dare assault anyone because they KNOW that their victim has a gun and will be able to defend himself/herself.
When I was young, I had to venture into South Central L.A. a whole lot. It always struck me that weapons were readily available - at least they seemed to be everywhere.
Perhaps I misread the situation back then due to my youth and inexperience, but it would seem that, logically, South Central should be one of the safest places around. After all, just about everybody is armed.
I am thinking of moving there with my family so we can finally be safe.
1st - everyone in SCLA is not armed to the teeth. if they were there would be around 3 quarters of a million guns in the area.
2nd - I'm not sure when you last ventured into south LA but it is night and day safer then it was 15-20 years ago. If you want to use an example of a major city with major gun violence I would suggest using Chicago.
3rd - You're only hearing that the answer to gun violence is "more guns" by gun nut neo-cons. And just like the economy, voter rights, etc. they are wrong as usual.
4th - Your correlation between gun availability and safety is unsubstantiated. There are multiple factors that contribute to safety; education, low unemployment, low poverty, a well equipped & professional police force, tolerance, low levels of bigotry & prejudice, etc.
1st - everyone in SCLA is not armed to the teeth. if they were there would be around 3 quarters of a million guns in the area.
2nd - I'm not sure when you last ventured into south LA but it is night and day safer then it was 15-20 years ago. If you want to use an example of a major city with major gun violence I would suggest using Chicago.
3rd - You're only hearing that the answer to gun violence is "more guns" by gun nut neo-cons. And just like the economy, voter rights, etc. they are wrong as usual.
4th - Your correlation between gun availability and safety is unsubstantiated. There are multiple factors that contribute to safety; education, low unemployment, low poverty, a well equipped & professional police force, tolerance, low levels of bigotry & prejudice, etc.
1.) I have never been anywhere where everybody was armed to the teeth - it's obviously (or so I thought) hyperbole used to drive home a point.
2.) Like I said, in my younger years - and I am not young. I knew South Central quite well. Too well, probably. I am not familiar with Chicago.
3.) Exactly - and they are the ones who are the target audience of this question, because their assertion is that more guns mean more safety even in light of many a location in the US that is swamped with guns and simultaneously plagued by rampant violence. If their premise is true, then there should be little violence because the omnipresence of weapons should discourage the use of them.
4.) It's not my correlation - it's an assertion that the NRA makes. You see, you can have the worst of the worst prejudices, a huge lack of education, and so forth. Adding guns to the mix does clearly NOT improve matters - even though the NRA claims that it does.
1.) I have never been anywhere where everybody was armed to the teeth - it's obviously (or so I thought) hyperbole used to drive home a point.
2.) Like I said, in my younger years - and I am not young. I knew South Central quite well. Too well, probably. I am not familiar with Chicago.
3.) Exactly - and they are the ones who are the target audience of this question, because their assertion is that more guns mean more safety even in light of many a location in the US that is swamped with guns and simultaneously plagued by rampant violence. If their premise is true, then there should be little violence because the omnipresence of weapons should discourage the use of them.
4.) It's not my correlation - it's an assertion that the NRA makes. You see, you can have the worst of the worst prejudices, a huge lack of education, and so forth. Adding guns to the mix does clearly NOT improve matters - even though the NRA claims that it does.
Makes sense. In my opinion LA decreased its gun violence problem because of weapon restrictions and stiff penalties on crimes that involve a gun not because every citizen is equipped with a gun as a deterrent.
The answer to gun violence is less guns not more...
No, you're wrong. Even in California I can go to a gun show today, buy a gun, and never have to do a background check at all nor go through any waiting period. About 40% of all the guns in the country are sold this way and it is how most criminals get their guns.
Makes sense. In my opinion LA decreased its gun violence problem because of weapon restrictions and stiff penalties on crimes that involve a gun not because every citizen is equipped with a gun as a deterrent.
The answer to gun violence is less guns not more...
I agree. However, we need to keep in mind that the divergent views on gun control are not truly between liberals and conservatives. I think that the underlying reasons for these views are likely to be much more cultural than anything else.
We have a large contingent of people who live in dense (or relatively dense) areas juxtaposed to many people who live quite rurally. Obviously, the needs and perspectives of these two groups differ tremendously.
I never felt the need for a gun when I lived in NYC. Not once did it cross my mind. However, if I lived out in the country with my nearest neighbor somewhat far away, with police miles away, etc. I would feel quite differently.
We all seem to think that the label "American" encompasses us all, and to some degree, it certainly does - yet most of us have a very narrowly defined idea what that term really means. Some people have NO idea how their fellow Americans live because humans tend to use their personal experience and extrapolate that others MUST be similar.
I like to challenge myself by moving to areas that have been vastly unknown to me and that, occasionally, have severe stereotypes attached to them. It is amazing what one can learn through exposure.
Makes sense. In my opinion LA decreased its gun violence problem because of weapon restrictions and stiff penalties on crimes that involve a gun not because every citizen is equipped with a gun as a deterrent.
The answer to gun violence is less guns not more...
Just about every family I knew in Watts with a male head had at least a handgun in the house. As kids we weren't sheltered from guns. In fact we'd raid our homes and target shoot around the neighborhood and pretend to be tough. That is until word got back and our fathers whooped our asses.
You are obviously speaking from a place of ignorance. "South Central" LA is being used as a dog whistle to mean "Black". However if you were speaking from a place of knowledge you would know that "South Central" is predominantly Hispanic in 2012. And the vast majority of the residents of South Los Angeles (as well as throughout all of the city) are law abiding.
I notice that you did not make it a point to say "East Los Angeles" or "Pacoima" or "Santa Ana" in your thread title. I see you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vamos
1.) I have never been anywhere where everybody was armed to the teeth - it's obviously (or so I thought) hyperbole used to drive home a point.
2.) Like I said, in my younger years - and I am not young. I knew South Central quite well. Too well, probably. I am not familiar with Chicago.
3.) Exactly - and they are the ones who are the target audience of this question, because their assertion is that more guns mean more safety even in light of many a location in the US that is swamped with guns and simultaneously plagued by rampant violence. If their premise is true, then there should be little violence because the omnipresence of weapons should discourage the use of them.
4.) It's not my correlation - it's an assertion that the NRA makes. You see, you can have the worst of the worst prejudices, a huge lack of education, and so forth. Adding guns to the mix does clearly NOT improve matters - even though the NRA claims that it does.
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.
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.
