Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-11-2008, 08:56 AM
 
Location: Sitting on a bar stool. Guinness in hand.
4,428 posts, read 6,485,406 times
Reputation: 1721

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by dunkel25 View Post
So you don't have a problem with me owning guns...unless I live in a city. Ok, so take away all the guns from the law abiding citizens in the cities. Yeah, that ought to work...defenseless victims and armed criminals. Recipe for success, that is.
My question is have you every lived in a major city?
More people running around with gun legal/illegal is not a good thing. it would be like the wild west time 10,000. I would though be willing to allow guns to be in homes in any town or city. But carrying out on the street.
Yeah on a nice 90 degree day in the concrete jungle. I expect a lot of emergency rooms to be busy with gunshot wounds on those days.
And yeah I don't trust my fellow American judgment in a city setting. More than likely we going to have a lot rage shooting. especially on the roads here.
I'll tell you what. You go ahead and live in Newark NJ, Or Camden NJ, Or perhaps Detroit for a couple of years and let me know how you feel about more people packing heat on the streets of those cities.
As for a recipe for success and defending the meek. Well believe it or not even though I don't want the guy to be the president. Rudy Guiliani did clean up the streets of Manhattan with a large police presence. I sure a lot of redstaters would find that to be a path to fascism. But who says you have to live in the cities. You can go live in bumbleville USA and you can have all the guns you want. Heck I even let you have automatic assault rifles out here. just don't bring into the major cities.


Quote:
Originally Posted by dunkel25 View Post
Bush is not conservative. Red states may have gotten him elected, but only because Gore and Kerry were way too much to stomach. We have not had a truly conservative president since Reagan, and even he did some things I didn't 100% agree with. Congress has not been any better. If you felt that an alien way of life was being forced upon you for the last 8 years, believe me, true conservatives feel exactly the same way.
Fair enough.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-11-2008, 07:57 PM
 
1,080 posts, read 1,707,305 times
Reputation: 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by baystater View Post
My question is have you every lived in a major city?
More people running around with gun legal/illegal is not a good thing. it would be like the wild west time 10,000. I would though be willing to allow guns to be in homes in any town or city. But carrying out on the street.
Yeah on a nice 90 degree day in the concrete jungle. I expect a lot of emergency rooms to be busy with gunshot wounds on those days.
And yeah I don't trust my fellow American judgment in a city setting. More than likely we going to have a lot rage shooting. especially on the roads here.
I'll tell you what. You go ahead and live in Newark NJ, Or Camden NJ, Or perhaps Detroit for a couple of years and let me know how you feel about more people packing heat on the streets of those cities.
As for a recipe for success and defending the meek. Well believe it or not even though I don't want the guy to be the president. Rudy Guiliani did clean up the streets of Manhattan with a large police presence. I sure a lot of redstaters would find that to be a path to fascism. But who says you have to live in the cities. You can go live in bumbleville USA and you can have all the guns you want. Heck I even let you have automatic assault rifles out here. just don't bring into the major cities.
So city dwellers are less trustworthy than country-folk? Sorry, bud, but the Constitution does not make exceptions based on where you live. And everyone has a right to self-defence...yes, even those poor slobs in the cities. Criminals will always have guns, so to take away guns from law abiding citizens does nothing but make better targets.

BTW, the "wild west" was anything but. You've been watching too many John Wayne and Clint Eastwood movies. There were exceptions, of course, but the typical "wild west" town was actually quite civilized...funny thing, but if you know for a fact that the other guy is carrying a gun, you're more likely to be polite.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2008, 09:06 PM
 
Location: Sitting on a bar stool. Guinness in hand.
4,428 posts, read 6,485,406 times
Reputation: 1721
Default 10 fold

Quote:
Originally Posted by dunkel25 View Post
So city dwellers are less trustworthy than country-folk? Sorry, bud, but the Constitution does not make exceptions based on where you live. And everyone has a right to self-defence...yes, even those poor slobs in the cities. Criminals will always have guns, so to take away guns from law abiding citizens does nothing but make better targets.

BTW, the "wild west" was anything but. You've been watching too many John Wayne and Clint Eastwood movies. There were exceptions, of course, but the typical "wild west" town was actually quite civilized...funny thing, but if you know for a fact that the other guy is carrying a gun, you're more likely to be polite.
Again I ask have you lived in a Major city? Have you been lived in a area where people are constantly on top of each other? I guessing probably not.
Yes there is a constitution that says you may bear arms. But then there are the local ordinances in the cities that keep you from carrying. And good thing to because there are just too many people that can make a bad judgement. Now will crimials still prey on people? Sure. Is giving more people guns the answer? I say no for the cities. More police and neighborhood watch will do the job better. Plus on top of that how many more domestic murders do you think are going to happen with more gun in the city? How many road rage incidence do you think are going to happen? Remember what I said people live on top of each other here anything that happens in the city happen 10 fold.

As for you claim that the wild west was calm.

CJRC - Research - Historical Violence Database (broken link)

The Volokh Conspiracy - How Homicidal Was the Old West?--

"the interval for all of southern and central California was between 60 and 70 per 100,000 adults per year—seven times the homicide rate in the United States today (and 28.7 standard deviations away)."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2008, 09:19 PM
 
1,080 posts, read 1,707,305 times
Reputation: 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by baystater View Post
Again I ask have you lived in a Major city? Have you been lived in a area where people are constantly on top of each other? I guessing probably not.
Yes there is a constitution that says you may bear arms. But then there are the local ordinances in the cities that keep you from carrying. And good thing to because there are just too many people that can make a bad judgement. Now will crimials still prey on people? Sure. Is giving more people guns the answer? I say no for the cities. More police and neighborhood watch will do the job better. Plus on top of that how many more domestic murders do you think are going to happen with more gun in the city? How many road rage incidence do you think are going to happen? Remember what I said people live on top of each other here anything that happens in the city happen 10 fold.

As for you claim that the wild west was calm.

CJRC - Research - Historical Violence Database (broken link)

The Volokh Conspiracy - How Homicidal Was the Old West?--

"the interval for all of southern and central California was between 60 and 70 per 100,000 adults per year—seven times the homicide rate in the United States today (and 28.7 standard deviations away)."
It doesn't matter where I have lived, but yes, I have lived in the city. And I have lived in the country. And I have lived in the midwest and the south and overseas. So what? People still deserve the same rights no matter where they happen to live.

And YOU have failed to explain how it makes everyone safer if only criminals have guns...

The case of California in the mid to late 1800's is hardly representative of the entire "wild west" period...a mix of gold, guns, and lawlessness, yes, can be dangerous...however, how much more dangerous would it have been for honest prospectors if they had no means with which to defend themselves from criminals?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2008, 09:55 PM
 
Location: Sitting on a bar stool. Guinness in hand.
4,428 posts, read 6,485,406 times
Reputation: 1721
Default Not applicable

[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by dunkel25 View Post
It doesn't matter where I have lived, but yes, I have lived in the city. And I have lived in the country. And I have lived in the midwest and the south and overseas. So what? People still deserve the same rights no matter where they happen to live.
This is important because a rural or even a ex-burb lifestyle is not applicable to cities. People in the cities have a very different way in which they react to things than country or city folk. City folk at least ones I'm around are much more aggressive and a lot more short tempered. And there it not backing down in the city. So you maybe able to see that thing inside a city might escalate faster than a rural setting. And I rather it escalate with fist than with guns.

BTW. while you were living in the city where you carrying?


Quote:
And YOU have failed to explain how it makes everyone safer if only criminals have guns...
1. because people defending themselves have the ability to not just kill the assailant but to accidental kill innocent bystander that happen to be too close. Remember Cities are a compact place and depending of the caliber of the weapon it the bullet can either go through the assailant and hit someone else or if the defender misses it could hit someone far way from incident.

2. Makes it easier for the local authorities to bust bad guys. All you have to do is have a illegal gun on you in most cities you do an automatic amount of time (varies from city to city) in jail. (Think New Jersey and Massachusetts is five year.) This get more bad guys off the street and behind bars.

3. Makes is more difficult to obtain weapons for bad guy. While we both know the criminal can still get guns. It just another hoop they have to jump through to obtain those weapons.

4. There are already plenty of law abiding citizen carrying guns in the city. In fact there not just defending themselves but also defend the whole city. These people are called Cops. And these guy are actually trained on how to properly use there guns. So it not just the criminal that are armed out there.

Quote:
The case of California in the mid to late 1800's is hardly representative of the entire "wild west" period...a mix of gold, guns, and lawlessness, yes, can be dangerous...however, how much more dangerous would it have been for honest prospectors if they had no means with which to defend themselves from criminals?
Well find some source articles and prove me otherwise. That the wonder of these boards. If I'm wrong you can call me out on it. all with a click of the mouse.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2008, 11:09 PM
 
1,080 posts, read 1,707,305 times
Reputation: 199
[quote=baystater;2490498]
Quote:

This is important because a rural or even a ex-burb lifestyle is not applicable to cities. People in the cities have a very different way in which they react to things than country or city folk. City folk at least ones I'm around are much more aggressive and a lot more short tempered. And there it not backing down in the city. So you maybe able to see that thing inside a city might escalate faster than a rural setting. And I rather it escalate with fist than with guns.

BTW. while you were living in the city where you carrying?
So you continue in this assertation that city-folk are less trustworthy. I'm sure they'll be glad to hear that.

I carry everywhere I go, city, rural, Wal-Mart, wherever.

Quote:
1. because people defending themselves have the ability to not just kill the assailant but to accidental kill innocent bystander that happen to be too close. Remember Cities are a compact place and depending of the caliber of the weapon it the bullet can either go through the assailant and hit someone else or if the defender misses it could hit someone far way from incident.
Weak. With the right ammo, you can kill someone without blasting through even drywall. A shotgun is pretty much the ultimate home defense weapon and easily addresses this concern.

Quote:
2. Makes it easier for the local authorities to bust bad guys. All you have to do is have a illegal gun on you in most cities you do an automatic amount of time (varies from city to city) in jail. (Think New Jersey and Massachusetts is five year.) This get more bad guys off the street and behind bars.
So make it illegal to use a gun in the commission of a crime...oh wait, it already is. Why should someone else using an illegal gun have to mean that I, as a law abiding citizen, shouldn't be allowed to own one for lawful purposes? This same argument could be applied to any tool or item that criminals use...why stop at guns? Outlaw knives, crowbars, baseball bats, and ski masks...then anyone who has any of these items goes to jail...yay, more criminals off the street.

Quote:
3. Makes is more difficult to obtain weapons for bad guy. While we both know the criminal can still get guns. It just another hoop they have to jump through to obtain those weapons.
You are aware that in England, with its almost complete ban on all weapons, has seen an INCREASE in gun crime since their ban went into effect? So if that country, a much smaller country, with a much smaller population, AND A FREAKING ISLAND, can't stem the tide of guns to criminals, what makes you think a gun ban is going to work in American cities? Oh yeah, that's right...even in cities like Chicago and Washington DC, with their bans on handguns, criminals can still get guns.

So now we're back to criminals always having guns and being able to use them against unarmed victims.

Quote:
4. There are already plenty of law abiding citizen carrying guns in the city. In fact there not just defending themselves but also defend the whole city. These people are called Cops. And these guy are actually trained on how to properly use there guns. So it not just the criminal that are armed out there.
Hm, good point...a cop 10 minutes away is much better able to deal with the guy breaking into my house than my gun which is 2 seconds away.

Ok, so here's a question...if living in a city makes one more aggressive and less able to handle the responsibility of possessing a handgun, should we really allow large numbers of people to run around with them? Or does putting on a uniform somehow make someone more trustworthy than your average law-abiding citizen?

Quote:
Well find some source articles and prove me otherwise. That the wonder of these boards. If I'm wrong you can call me out on it. all with a click of the mouse.
You want me to find an article that says that unarmed prospectors would have been in greater danger from criminals if there had been a gun ban in place in California in the last 1800's? Do I need to find an article that if the oxygen content of the air in California in the late 1800's was lower, people would have had a harder time breathing?

Let's see here...unarmed citizens versus armed criminals...yeah, hard to figure out how that one might turn out...

But ok, if you insist:

Quote:
American homicide remained low until the 1840s.12 Relatively modern rapid-fire weapons only became common after the Civil War when hundreds of thousands of military surplus revolvers and lever action rifles were sold. Yet, far from rising in the post-Civil War era, homicide fell off sharply from the 1870s to 1900 -- despite the 1870s mass marketing of cheap "Saturday Night Specials."
Do Guns Cause Crime? (http://hnn.us/articles/871.html - broken link)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2008, 06:56 PM
 
Location: Sitting on a bar stool. Guinness in hand.
4,428 posts, read 6,485,406 times
Reputation: 1721
Default Going postal at the walmart.

[quote]
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by dunkel25 View Post

So you continue in this assertation that city-folk are less trustworthy. I'm sure they'll be glad to hear that.

I carry everywhere I go, city, rural, Wal-Mart, wherever.
OK can you name the the three rules of gun safety? I bet you know what they are. I bet most rural kids that grew up hunting know what the rules are. But I bet you most of the people that live in the city wouldn't have a clue. That because city kids don't grow up an a culture where gun safety if taught. And they don't hunt. In fact what are they going to hunt. Pigeons? Even better a lot of kids/adults here see the gun a not a some type of tool. But a way to project power. They don't respect the power of the gun. Or think of the consequences when one is used.

So your carry everywhere? I just got to know what state your out of so I can avoid it. I would hate to be in line at the walmart and have some redstater go postal. And knowing may luck that probably would happen.



Quote:
Weak. With the right ammo, you can kill someone without blasting through even drywall. A shotgun is pretty much the ultimate home defense weapon and easily addresses this concern.
Your answer not just weak but complete absurd. Look even if this ammo exists most people here would buy standard lead bullets. And those usually go through drywall and criminals and innocent bystanders. As for the shotgun yes the shotgun is a short range weapon. But in an apartment/condo (and alot of people live in those type of dwellings) break in situation those lead pellet will scatter out and can through the thin walls and strike innocent bystanders. Your answer just doesn't hold up.


Quote:
So make it illegal to use a gun in the commission of a crime...oh wait, it already is. Why should someone else using an illegal gun have to mean that I, as a law abiding citizen, shouldn't be allowed to own one for lawful purposes? This same argument could be applied to any tool or item that criminals use...why stop at guns? Outlaw knives, crowbars, baseball bats, and ski masks...then anyone who has any of these items goes to jail...yay, more criminals off the street.
Actually I believe ski mask and and knives over 5 inches are illegal in most of city in the northeastern states. Criminal usually don't carry baseball bat now-a-days. to bulky and I having heard of a crowbar crime. in fact the only time I heard of a crow bar being used was in a fight at a construction site.

Ask for John Q Public carrying of the street.
Let me ask you what type of scenarios can you come up with that would show John Q Public could actually defend himself/herself with out harming anyone else except for the assailant.

Here's mine on how thing go wrong:

1. John Q is confronted by a robber on the street. Robber has a gun pointed at John.
A. John tries to reach for his gun in a panic and Robber shoot him down before his get to it.

B. John is actually able to move fast enough to get his gun out, and start firing wildly hoping to hit the robber before the robber tries to get shot off at the same time the robber sees that john has a gun and:
aa. they both shot each other and are either wounded or die.
bb. they both shot and both miss but unfortunately one or more of there bullets find and innocent bystander and wounds or kills them.
cc. John misses and the robber doesn't. John dies.

C. John allows the robber to takes this valuables and waits for the robber to turn in run. As the robber does so John pulls out his gun and takes down the robber. Unfortunately unknown to John he has just committed a crime. Under most city and some state laws. John is not allowed to shoot the robber when he/or she is running because the robber at this point is no longer considered a threat. So John has committed a gun crime and he must get the mandatory minimum of what ever state he is in.


Quote:
You are aware that in England, with its almost complete ban on all weapons, has seen an INCREASE in gun crime since their ban went into effect? So if that country, a much smaller country, with a much smaller population, AND A FREAKING ISLAND, can't stem the tide of guns to criminals, what makes you think a gun ban is going to work in American cities? Oh yeah, that's right...even in cities like Chicago and Washington DC, with their bans on handguns, criminals can still get guns.

So now we're back to criminals always having guns and being able to use them against unarmed victims.
like I said earlier. Will criminal get guns if they really want them? Yep. Will Baning them being carried on the streets make it a little harder for them to get. Also A Yep.
As for you claim that the UK is experiencing a gun crime wave. I believe you are just plain wrong.

Home Office | Gun crime

rds crime in england and wales 2006-2007

"Contrary to public perception, the overall level of gun crime in the UK is very low – less than 0.5% of all crime recorded by the police."



Quote:
Hm, good point...a cop 10 minutes away is much better able to deal with the guy breaking into my house than my gun which is 2 seconds away.
Actually I believe I already said that guns for home defense where OK Earlier in this tread.

Quote:
OK, so here's a question...if living in a city makes one more aggressive and less able to handle the responsibility of possessing a handgun, should we really allow large numbers of people to run around with them? Or does putting on a uniform somehow make someone more trustworthy than your average law-abiding citizen?
Again your answer is complete Absurd. To say the least. Do you realize police cadets do have to go through psychological test before and during there training. Also future officers are trained and current officers are continually train. On when and how to use there weapons properly. And lastly Cop are taught to "Serve and Protect" the public. The try to do the right thing by the public.
So Yeah those guys that have earned there uniform are more trustworthy in gun incidence than John Q.


[quote]
Quote:
You want me to find an article that says that unarmed prospectors would have been in greater danger from criminals if there had been a gun ban in place in California in the last 1800's? Do I need to find an article that if the oxygen content of the air in California in the late 1800's was lower, people would have had a harder time breathing?

Let's see here...unarmed citizens versus armed criminals...yeah, hard to figure out how that one might turn out...

But ok, if you insist:



Do Guns Cause Crime? (http://hnn.us/articles/871.html - broken link)
Thank you for the article. Actually over all after doing some research myself I found that the Wild West as a whole was not wild was some have put to legend. But I found this was more of a function of not having the population spread out. In those places like dodge city KS, and Tombstone AZ., murder was committed at a much higher rate most because (just like I said before) too many people that have to live on top of each other making bad judgments.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2008, 07:00 PM
 
Location: Sacramento
14,044 posts, read 27,122,537 times
Reputation: 7373
Let's see, the OP asked about polarization between liberals and conservatives, and this is now another gun thread?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2008, 07:11 PM
 
Location: Sitting on a bar stool. Guinness in hand.
4,428 posts, read 6,485,406 times
Reputation: 1721
Default well

Well it is a polarizing issue. Isn't it?

Oh and please don't make a new board for gun control. It's really not enough of a burning issue to warrant a board.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2008, 08:53 PM
LM1
 
Location: NEFL/Chi, IL
833 posts, read 991,245 times
Reputation: 344
Quote:
Originally Posted by baystater View Post
Again I ask have you lived in a Major city? Have you been lived in a area where people are constantly on top of each other? I guessing probably not.
I do.

Quote:
Is giving more people guns the answer? I say no for the cities. More police and neighborhood watch will do the job better. Plus on top of that how many more domestic murders do you think are going to happen with more gun in the city? How many road rage incidence do you think are going to happen? Remember what I said people live on top of each other here anything that happens in the city happen 10 fold.
Yeah, that's what they theorized when Florida first passed "shall-issue" concealed carry in the late 80's. "OMG THE STREETS WILL RUN RED WITH BLOOD! WHAT ABOUT ROAD RAGE!!! DOMESTIC VIOLENCE!!! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!"

For the past couple decades now, since FL has passed their concealed carry law- with an exponentially increased number of states that now permit shall-issue carry- the debate is pretty much over. Your side lost.
It is no longer a matter of "opinion". We've had a long, long time to see what happens when law abiding citizens in places like Tampa, Miami, Dallas, Atlanta, Phoenix, etc are allowed to carry concealed firearms.
The rate of criminal infraction by concealed carry permit holders is enormously lower than the population at large and they account for virtually NO criminal homicides... but who needs "facts" when we have those emotions that feel just oh-so-good, right?

It doesn't matter what we "know", only what we "feel".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top