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.
In my opinion, the fewer guns on the streets .... the better.
If you want to keep a gun in your home to protect your family ... fine.
But I'd rather you didn't have it on you when you are out in public.
Are you less likely to be attacked when you are at home or out and about?
Here is a recent ruling by the 7th district, Moore V Madigane
Twenty-first century Illinois has no hostile Indians.
But a Chicagoan is a good deal more likely to be
attacked on a sidewalk in a rough neighborhood than in
his apartment on the 35th floor of the Park Tower.
A woman who is being stalked or has obtained a
protective order against a violent ex-husband is more
vulnerable to being attacked while walking to or from
her home than when inside. She has a stronger self-defense
claim to be allowed to carry a gun in public than
the resident of a fancy apartment building (complete with
doorman) has a claim to sleep with a loaded gun under
her mattress. But Illinois wants to deny the former claim,
while compelled by McDonald to honor the latter.
That creates an arbitrary difference. To confine
the right to be armed to the home is to divorce the Second
Amendment from the right of self-defense described
in Heller and McDonald.
They may own guns, but when was the last time they purchased a gun?
How recent was their last background check?
I don't know, the quote was from 2008. And you don't forget what the background check was like and even if you did their is this thing called google that let's you search the Internet to find information on the background check process without spending $1,500 on a gun.
Mark Kelly has purchased guns in the past, what more first-hand knowledge does he need?
When I lived in NYC I could probably agree with you that the police where in a position to protect citizens. How does one protect themselves when the police are 20-30 minutes away?
Do you really believe what you write or are you simply playing devil's advocate?
Mark Kelly has purchased guns in the past, what more first-hand knowledge does he need?
When I lived in NYC I could probably agree with you that the police where in a position to protect citizens. How does one protect themselves when the police are 20-30 minutes away?
Do you really believe what you write or are you simply playing devil's advocate?
Yes, I do believe that the less guns on the streets, the better.
And your example of NYC is a perfect one. An extremely crowded area filled with people banging into each other on the streets and walkways, and getting into all sorts of arguments.
I would not want to know that lots of these people were carrying guns, and using them anytime someone pissed them off.
There are way too many of these arguments happening, and there are lots of innocent bystanders who could end up being killed whenever someone decides to pull their gun.
However, if you lived in a rural area, with a small population and a very small police force, and are worried about crime, then I would not object to you carrying a gun.
Yes, I do believe that the less guns on the streets, the better.
And your example of NYC is a perfect one. An extremely crowded area filled with people banging into each other on the streets and walkways, and getting into all sorts of arguments.
I would not want to know that lots of these people were carrying guns, and using them anytime someone pissed them off.
There are way too many of these arguments happening, and there are lots of potential innocent bystanders who could end up being killed when someone decides to pull their gun.
However, if you lived in a rural area, with a small population and a very small police force, and are worried about crime, then I would not object to you carrying a gun.
Where do you think you are more likely to be the victim of an attack, a small rural town or a large city?
Actually read the study I linked to, people who carry guns legally are 5 times less likely to murder someone than the average public. Your fear is completely unwarented.
I hope the PD rejects his "gift" of the AR and its magazines. Given their current market values, most Joe Sixpacs likely wouldn't be able to afford such largesse. Must be nice to be a part of the upper-crust pushing decisions that affect us mere commoners.
Does anyone suppose that with her high profile she does not receive some form of compensation for appearing or lending her name to any issue, be it gun control or free teddie bears for orphans?
Give me a freak'n break.
Jim Brady's already been down this road.
Mark Kelly may have even taken someone along to film/witness his purchase for the stated reason's of illustrating 'ease of purchase'. That would still leave it a very stupid thing to do in my mind as he is completely atypical and the antithesis of the nutbars using the weapons to shoot up schools and events.
What point could he have possibly hoped to have made with this nutty idea?
That's rich. He and his wife already own guns, but keep trying
As a long-time gun owner, I believe the right to keep and bear arms should not be dependent on the city in which you live," Giffords said in a September 2008 press release after the House passed a measure requiring Washington, D.C. to retool its gun laws
Him owning one or two handguns does not make him qualified to say what guns everyone else can own.
hes a typical POS democrat, "you can only do what I think is right"
screw him and his puppet wife, they both are nothing but a joke to the thinking person.
I am saying that when a person has a gun, he has the opportunity to do much greater harm than when he does not have a gun.
A simple argument between two people carrying guns can end up with one or both dead, if either gets angry to the point where they decide to pull out their gun.
Plus there are innocent bystanders who can get killed as well.
If neither had a gun, the worst that would likely happen would likely be a fist fight.
I'm also not saying all people with guns are potentially violent. Everyone is different. Some may resort to pulling their guns during an argument, others may not.
But if they have guns, the chance they will use them exists, along with the deadly consequences associated with their use.
That is why I prefer that only police, and people with jobs to protect us carry guns. The less people with guns, the better.
the point you're missing is when you outlaw law abiding citizens from owning a gun, you have just left them defenseless to the criminal carrying an illegal gun they didnt turn in because....
wait for it....
wait for it....
BECAUSE THEY ARE CRIMINALS
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.
