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.
My kind of thread...yes what we need is a mixture of effective policing and armed citizens. I just don't buy the logic that less guns = less crime. In another thread I pointed out that countries such as Canada, which have tougher gun laws than the US has 3 times the violent crime rate. Do people really think criminals are gonna be so brazen when they know or suspect that 90% of the people in their immediate vicinity is packing? As long as criminals have guns, so should law-abiding citizens.
My kind of thread...yes what we need is a mixture of effective policing and armed citizens. I just don't buy the logic that less guns = less crime. In another thread I pointed out that countries such as Canada, which have tougher gun laws than the US has 3 times the violent crime rate. Do people really think criminals are gonna be so brazen when they know or suspect that 90% of the people in their immediate vicinity is packing? As long as criminals have guns, so should law-abiding citizens.
I agree.
Citizens will be defenseless against armed thugs.
This will only increase illegal gun activity.
That is why our founding fathers made us have gun rights. Bloomberg has to rethink his socialistic ideas and policy.
Yes..it's called the 2011 Crime Thread. Let's move it there. Mayor I don't buy the logic of more guns = more safety. Why does having more dangerous weapons on every man/woman/child = more safety???
Using your logic, the world will be a much safer place if all countries had nuclear weapons right? It's not like those nuclear weapons acquired legally would fall into the wrong hands and make us less safe..that's not possible. And of course every country with nuclear weapons acquired legally will use the same discretion and restraint as the US, right? Every country will be exactly the same, and will act exactly the same with nuclear weapons, right?
We are safer with LESS guns, not more. I find it hard that others cannot understand that concept. Living in a world where everyone carries a gun to check their mail means we are less safe, not more. And the idea that because everyone is strapped with a gun and should something happen there will be a massive warzone shooting spree by grandma, CEOs, gas attendants, cashiers, bankers, Doormen, delivery boys, and everyone else in the area is laughable. It has never happened nor has it ever been a deterrent for anything.
My kind of thread...yes what we need is a mixture of effective policing and armed citizens. I just don't buy the logic that less guns = less crime. In another thread I pointed out that countries such as Canada, which have tougher gun laws than the US has 3 times the violent crime rate. Do people really think criminals are gonna be so brazen when they know or suspect that 90% of the people in their immediate vicinity is packing? As long as criminals have guns, so should law-abiding citizens.
I agree that less guns does not = less crime. Guns and drugs alike, if someone wants it they know where to get it. And its always the criminals and miscreants that know where to go for these things.
Criminals know most of their to be victims are likely not armed, and just use this system to continue carrying out their crimes.
Less gun restriction, more education and training. Isn't it odd how hard it is to get a gun in NY/NJ, yet you don't even have to really have any training? Correct me if I'm wrong about that.
The gun laws in NYC are already among the toughest in the country so aside from an outright ban I can't see how they can be tougher. It's extremely expensive and downright invasive to get a legal firearm that you can keep in your home. Among other things, you need to tell basically everyone in your building you have a firearm--kinda like being a sex offender. They also call your employer. Forget about getting a permit to carry a concealed weapon--only bigwigs like Charles Schumer can get one. (Indeed, the guy who is most aggressive about gun control has a permit to carry one)
If a parade cannot be held safely, I'd say the city shouldn't grant a permit for it next year.
to my first question (how do you equate debating about laws with socialism?) I had this one: how do you equate taking away guns, which are, just to remind ourselves, deadly weapons designed to kill, with "making things worse"?
Making gun laws stricter or more lenient will have little effect on crime or gun violence. Raising the standard of living will. Legalizing certain drugs like Marijuana will have a tremendous positive effect on violence. Conservatives ask how many shootings were against unarmed victims. I ask how many shootings were related to illegal drugs. But a conservative will never apply the same hands-off philosophy he applies to guns to drugs.
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.
