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.
What if he doesn't... what if he can't? Do you know why there is so much knife crime in the U.K.? Because the criminals can't get their hands on guns with the ease that they do here in America. Of course it isn't impossible... even there, but it is harder. Much harder. It makes a difference. Of course as was noted earlier the largest demographic of U.S. gun violence victims are black men aged 16 - 29. Hmmmmmmmm. Young black men would be the overwhelming beneficiaries of sweeping gun regulation in the U.S. Hmmmmm.
consider the fact that most gang bangers are aged 16-29, and usually minorities, this is not unusual. the gang bangers have illegal weapons, purchased illegally. so this point is moot. if we can eliminate the gangs, and the violence that goes along with the gang problem, then these deaths would pretty much go away. so much for gun control here.
Quote:
What I'd like to know is: given the statistically low chances of Joe WASP winding up on the business end of a Glock 9mm, how come Joe WASP spends so much of his waking hours fearing just such an event? And... given the proven inability of guns to defend someone from a determined and swiftly executed attack why the continued arguments to that effect? Really, every 13 minutes Joe and Julia WASP are thwarting violation or worse at the hands of masked marauders?... Masked marauders without guns right? I mean if I've got my gat and I'm out to roll some straights for drug money am I going to take off into the night at the mere sight of a Smith and Wesson 38? Really? Granted, someone somewhere will punk out and turn tail but... 2.5 million times every year?
so you are telling us that if you went to rob someone, either at knife or gun point, and you intended target produced a firearm, you wouldnt back away from them?
you have to remember that for the most part criminals are in fact cowards, which is why they want a weapon in their hand in the first place, and they stay away from people that are armed. predators tend to NOT prey on other predators because they dont want to get hurt.
Quote:
Makes a good case for no one having access to guns... including law enforcement!
alright, if you can make sure that NO ONE ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD has a fire arm, then i will give up mine. since you cant do that, i will keep my guns thank you.
Quote:
I'm not crazy. For decades this is how it was in Europe, may still be for all I know. If there is a reason for the police to be armed they are issued weapons and when the threat is removed they go back into the armory. It would keep young black men (unarmed young black men) from being turned into Swiss Cheese by jumpy gendarmes in urban areas every eight to twelve months. Ooops there's that qualifier again: black. I'm not buying any of that 2nd Amendment twaddle. None of you all even know the full text of the Constitution and what other powers or responsibilities it requires of you. Bottom line, guns empower you to strut around .... empowered and it is a good feeling by gum! It is a rush... a high... you might very well be addicted... Prohibition went over real well... smoking bans still bring out demonstrators... $5.00/gal gasoline nearly touched off Civil War...
bunch of hogwash here. how many young black men have been turned into so called swiss cheese by jumpy law enforcement officers, anywhere in the world? yes it has happened on occasion, but far less often than you make it seem. and how many of those law abiding young black men were gang bangers that had weapons in their hands and did not want to go back to jail, and there was no way they were being taken in by some flatfooted cop? you are making assumptions here that are flat out false, or are forgetting to tell what is behind the story.
as for me having guns because they empower me, for the defense of myself, me family and my friends, yes. BUT i also recognize the enormity of the responsibility that comes with owning a firearm, and i dont take that responsibility lightly.
Well the Arizona killer did not kill by "Accident" he intentionally killed. Do you have any statistics comparing the number of doctors who intentionally killed their patients with the number of deaths intentionally caused with a firearm?
No? I did not think so.
So what you are saying is that because several hundred people use their guns to kill others each year, then millions of us should be accused of it. Is that right? Why are people like you always wanting to blame people who did nothing wrong for the crimes of the few who do?
Quote:
What I'd like to know is: given the statistically low chances of Joe WASP winding up on the business end of a Glock 9mm, how come Joe WASP spends so much of his waking hours fearing just such an event? And... given the proven inability of guns to defend someone from a determined and swiftly executed attack why the continued arguments to that effect? Really, every 13 minutes Joe and Julia WASP are thwarting violation or worse at the hands of masked marauders?... Masked marauders without guns right? I mean if I've got my gat and I'm out to roll some straights for drug money am I going to take off into the night at the mere sight of a Smith and Wesson 38? Really? Granted, someone somewhere will punk out and turn tail but... 2.5 million times every year?
1 It isn't fear it is preperation, like have a spare tire in a car with a working jack and spanner.
2 proven inability of guns to defend someone from a determined and swiftly executed attack .
Tell that to the my bad guy living life in a wheel chair. I am fairly certain he will tell you there is no proven inabilty. You must excuse the drool cup and rag, and the fact he can't get up and shake your hand.
3 13 minutes Joe and Julia WASP are thwarting violation or worse at the hands of masked marauders?... Masked marauders without guns right?
I am not sure about any every 13 minutes, but my dis-armed father in law by the state a 30 years Army officer and his 2nd wife were over come by your masked marauder, and stabbed to death in the teens of times each. They lived with in 3 city blocks of the cop shop and it took SWAT 2.5 more hours than the Fire Dept.
4. So far in my life all but one decided to surrender with no shots fired was the better of the ways to end things. Some were let go by me and others got the full worst the PD could do.
The best was catching 3 guys rifling thru my car. For that normally i would be just a little angery, but since I was armed with a single shot .50 cal black powder rifle, and returning from the woods with the gun loaded still and the chief of police only lived apx 3 miles away I simply had them all line up and walk down the mountain single file.
There is a good chance that was, and will be the very last time, any black powder relic was used to stop a crime.
You anti's miss the entire point, and simply because you don't gert 'it'.
People use guns to STOP crimes, and not for any other reason.
Then you have your precious wacko pets, who use guns to cause sin, death, mayhem, and you just can't stand the idea that your pets get cut down in the prime of their miserable lives.
My score is many saved, one shot and living if you can call that living, and 2 dead.
Banning things does not change basic human characteristics one bit.
The terrorist Timothy McVeigh used a rental truck diesel fuel and fertilizer in the killing of 168 people and the destruction of a Federal Building.
We aren't going to ban rental trucks, diesel fuel or fertilizer. To do so would be silly, not to mention totally useless.
The 9-11 terrorists used box cutters to hijack airplanes. The 9-11 terrorists used those airplanes to kill almost 3,000 people.
We aren't going to ban box-cutters and airplanes and even if we did, it still would NOT work, or PREVENT terrorism.
Banning this or that is a stupid infantile knee-jerk reaction to a crime in a society that refuses to profile possible criminals and refuses to lay the blame at the individual criminals to begin with. We (some of you) are trapped in this notion that there is no such thing as evil and no such thing as crazy evil people.
We (or some of you out there) habitually almost in a rodent like fashion continually jump onto the rat-wheel and run thinking you're getting someplace.
Crime is the result of evil intentions in people, who act on those intentions, not objects.
Objects don't commit crimes, People do. Weak minded people brought up in a touchy-feely P.C. society, a society with out a moral compass are destined to abuse, to use for evil intent anything they get their hands on, be it drugs, cars, money, firearms, tools, boats, airplanes....anything.
If an insane person commits a crime, lock up the insane person.
I don't think as many people would have been injured or even killed with the weapons above, and if they are effective weapons why can't we just get rid of the guns?
I have no objection to anyone carrying a concealed rock or even a concealed brick...we don't need no stinking guns for protection.
Because the help the citizens of this country prevent a crime over a million times a year. Why would you want to create that many crimes in order to MAYBE stop one or two?
Why does it take such a short time for the argument to get surreal when Conservatives are involved? On just two occasions in the 224 year history of the U.S. has anyone flown a plane into buildings with the intent to kill people... how many millions in that same span of time have been killed by handguns? I imagine if there becomes a sharp uptick in the rate of mass murders by pilots there would indeed be some response by the FAA. It would not involve the banishment of commercial aircraft but it might involve the restriction of flight lane privileges of civilian pilots as well as mental competency exams.. Are you sure you are old enough to be debating with other adults?
Since your talking in things nobody can actually figure, how many people do you think have prevented a crime with a gun in those same 224 years?
I think the pertinent point about the planes on 9/11 is that people can still kill many people at a time without guns. I wonder how many more people would be dead in AZ had this guy not been able to get a gun & instead been forced to fashion a bomb or something.
Greg, you raise good questions. Why wasn't Gifford, a gun advocate, armed? She, in fact could have had a police detail at the event but likely waived it. When you bend down to tie your shoelaces do you expect to break a thumb? There hasn't been an open air assassination of a low level politician in quite awhile. She was complacent. We all were. You are, however, correct. Even if she had the large caliber thug stopper from Hell itself it would not have saved her from an assailant that simply walked up and shot her point blank. Loughner wasn't really human in that moment and someone with merely human reactions wouldn't have been able to overcome him. Still, there are so many tens of thousands of tragic incidents as a result of the ease with which Americans can obtain handguns. One can argue that cars have a purpose which makes their unavoidable misuse worth the pain. What other purpose do civilian handguns have? What is the ratio of legitimate self-defensive use of a handgun to criminal offensive use of a handgun? Need I mention the fact that half of suicides are accomplished with a handgun? Every object that comes up for criticism when people decry gun possession has some life saving or time saving or other beneficial purpose for which it was invented. The gun was invented as an offensive weapon. Period.
Not sure of the ratio but theres estimates from a low of about 700,000 times a year to 2 million. Suicides are a non issue when we are talking about a persons ability to save his or another persons life.
Think about this, most all crime is made much easier due to automobiles that guns & vehicles certainly end many more lives than they save. Its a perception thing, YOU value a car so whatever damage it does seems acceptable. Many people dont feel the same about guns so if it saves even one life, they are all for it, never realizing that they undoubtedly save more lives than they take.
You are right, they are offensive weapons. But their mere presence deters crime, thats why cops dont get mugged. As far as if it would have been different had Gifford been armed that depends. I have little doubt that it would have mattered if it was common knowledge she carried a gun, just as I have little doubt the guy would have never even thought of this if it were commonplace for many people to carry a gun. This happens today in America because its a safe bet that nobody will be able to stop it. So far thats been a correct assumption for most of the mass shooters. We make it easy & safe for them.
I own 3 handguns, an AR 15, 2 shotguns, and 2 rifles. Why? I hunt and in my previous neighborhood in Phoenix 2 of my neighbors were robbed by mutiple men with flack jackets and automatic weapons. Even with the weapons I have I don't stand much of a chance against multiple automatic weapons, its also not from a lack of training.
When the bad guys have weapons like these I feel you must be armed and ready to protect my family.
Last edited by jambini; 01-17-2011 at 07:22 PM..
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.
proven inability of guns to defend someone from a determined and swiftly executed attack .
