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.
Unless you can say No, not at all then they laws are ineffective, I'll take my chances and provide my own protection thank you!
You are free to go feel safe there though. Just don't inflict your fearful laws on me....especially when history shows they don't stop this sort of thing.
Well, I understand why conservatives need to carry guns in conservative areas... such places are in fact full of conservatives: that's why they are so frightening and ghastly
Well the STATES may lean conservative but the bigger cities tend more liberal....and THAT's where most of the crime is...so by your logic, liberals are the cause of crime.
Last edited by Cyborgt800; 07-27-2012 at 07:16 AM..
Bloomberg has private security that are ARMED with GUNS. Are you really going to take advise for this dude?
Even when he "rides" the 4,5,6 to City Hall, he has 4 big dudes with him.
Guns are not the problems. (remember a human pulls the trigger) Humanity is the problem. Our divide and conquer mindset is the issue. People kill another for trivial reasons.
I don't understand what's so hard to get about this. You really think James Holmes would have been spooked to break gun laws? Are you kidding me? This would have happened with or without extra gun laws. He would have easily found a way to get his hands on a gun.
Well the STATES may lean conservative but the bigger cities tend more liberal....and THAT's where most of the crime is...so by your logic, liberals are the cause of crime.
Again, your statement is wrong.
Yes, it is true that the most violent cities vote Democratic, but it also true that the safest ones (such as Manhattan, Portland, Seattle, Queens, San Jose, San Diego, Boston, Los Angeles, etc etc) vote Democratic too: just because almost every city is prevalently represented by that political party.
Therefore, you're wrong.
Also, the various Birmingham, New Orleans, Charlotte, Raleigh, etc etc are hardly liberal: in California and Massachussets they would be called conservative strongholds.
And you are allowed to insist with the bulls++ts that suburban/small towns areas have no crime and vote republican: that doesn't change the fact that you're wrong.
There are several, wealthy low-crime small towns and suburban areas in USA that vote Democratic.
And comparing states vs cities is misleading: comparing states vs states is more correct... just to realize that you live in the most crime-ridden state in the USA...as well as the trashiest one
Unless you can say No, not at all then they laws are ineffective, I'll take my chances and provide my own protection thank you!
You are free to go feel safe there though. Just don't inflict your fearful laws on me....especially when history shows they don't stop this sort of thing.
When has the world ever functioned in absolutes? Just because something could happen once in a freak time doesn't mean we should throw caution to the wind and get rid of all the laws and protections.
Do police prevent crimes? Then what is the point in having a police department? Your statement sounds just like the police statement. It makes no sense because it is an absolute statement which do not exist in reality.
I don't understand what's so hard to get about this. You really think James Holmes would have been spooked to break gun laws? Are you kidding me? This would have happened with or without extra gun laws. He would have easily found a way to get his hands on a gun.
Ah yes, lets get rid of all the laws because criminals could care less about laws....think about that one for a bit really, really hard. If there were no laws, then there would be nothing to charge this guy with...we have laws for a reason, try and remember that.
Ah yes, lets get rid of all the laws because criminals could care less about laws....think about that one for a bit really, really hard. If there were no laws, then there would be nothing to charge this guy with...we have laws for a reason, try and remember that.
Oh, come on. Don't get into semantics.
I never said there should be no laws, I was just pointing out the fact that gun laws would change NOTHING in terms of criminals obtaining them. Those screaming about reform aren't being logical. The only unprotected ones would be those of us who abide by the laws.
I never said there should be no laws, I was just pointing out the fact that gun laws would change NOTHING in terms of criminals obtaining them. Those screaming about reform aren't being logical. The only unprotected ones would be those of us who abide by the laws.
You know if high capacity magazines were illegal, maybe someone would of noticed him trying to buy them illegally and it could of raised a red flag, but we will never know because it was all good and legal for him to get a hold of these things. I guess that would be no gun law hard at work for you.
All I was doing was basing it off what you are saying, if a law doesn't stop someone, then why do we have laws? The simple answer is because we need laws to charge people with illegal activity, I would much rather have this guy getting arrested for buying illegal weapons that getting arrested for killing people. See the difference?
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.
