Unarmed versus Armed Victims

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

What part of going to the SHOOTING range EVERY week did you not translate????

So? Some not-so-fucking and not-so-lame ass gangstas may go to shooting range too. They also might have experience shooting real people, and being criminals they strike first. That's why I asked if you have real experience outshooting gangstas in real-world situation.

Like your 'real experience' with robbers shooting people (making them murderers)? You don't happen to live in Oakland, do you?

I have spent a few nights in Oakland... catching flights out.. and NOT knowing where the good areas were from the bad areas....eeesh. The hotels near the airport/ colisieum were "interesting"

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Like your 'real experience' with robbers shooting people (making them murderers)? You don't happen to live in Oakland, do you?

Making out things again, as usual?

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Same lame response. SPECIFICS, please.

This looks like a good start:
http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/federal/gun_show.shtml
http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/federal/dealer_firesales.shtml
http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/federal/mental-health.shtml
http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/federal/hr4900.shtml
http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/federal/closing_gun_gap.shtml

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

And disarmed Chicago, NYC and places such as Oakland (#2 violent crime in the country for 2008) are right up there with 'em - got a POINT?

Let's disprove your yet another false claim:

2008 UCR violent crime rates:

Houston - 1,106.8
Detroit - 1,924.1
New Orleans - 1,019.4
Jacksonville - 996.4

Chicago - no data
NYC- 580.3
Oakland - 1,968.4

So basically only one city you mentioned has a high violent crime rate - this, of course, is because you're cherry-picking. Los Angeles has 689.5, and San Francisco has 995.3, and the gun laws are pretty much the same there so it is obvious the difference is not related to different gun laws. Obviously one cherry-picked city out of whole state cannot prove your point.

It is also worth noting that Oakland rate is pretty close to Tennesee (1,925.0) and is exceeded by St. Louis (2,072.7).

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

You could have just said that you're not going to answer my question instead of writing a bunch of rhetoric meaningless phrases.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Like your 'real experience' with robbers shooting people (making them murderers)? You don't happen to live in Oakland, do you?

Making out things again, as usual?

YOUR scenario, not mine - better check your mirror.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

So basically only one city you mentioned has a high violent crime rate - this, of course, is because you're cherry-picking.

Washington, DC violent crime rate 1437.
Then, right next door you have Alexandria, VA, violent crime rate 230.

So, tell me again how the gun laws account for the violent crime, George?

Quote

Los Angeles has 689.5, and San Francisco has 995.3, and the gun laws are pretty much the same there so it is obvious the difference is not related to different gun laws. Obviously one cherry-picked city out of whole state cannot prove your point.

So, you're claiming that the gun laws in Oakland are materially different than LA or SF? Show your proof.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rhaig 0]

Quote

.....
so it is obvious the difference is not related to different gun laws.

if the difference isn't the gun laws, how is making more gun laws going to help?

--
Rob

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Quote

BUT.. you do keep trying to argue without the knowledge needed.

Ok, please tell me what kind of knowledge you think I should obtain to be able to decide whether non-gun owners would benefit if current gun availability was reduced or not?

I answered this already earlier:

Quote

Currently criminals have to wonder most places if their intended victim has a gun.

Even if you choose personally to not to have a gun, by others still having that right you are safer.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[loumeinhart 0]

Quote

Some not-so-fucking and not-so-lame ass gangstas may go to shooting range too

on tv

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

.....
so it is obvious the difference is not related to different gun laws.

if the difference isn't the gun laws, how is making more gun laws going to help?

Replacing toothless laws with effective ones would be a good start.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Rstanley0312 1]

Quote

>I say hell yes and tax the living crap out of the hookers and the drugs.

Fair enough. How about drunk driving?

What? Sometimes I wonder where you get questions like this and how your brain makes connections?

What does drunk driving have to do with taxing a hookers fee and taxing weed?

Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

decide whether non-gun owners would benefit if current gun availability was reduced or not?

Where did you get the idea that non-gun owners have any right to take guns away from everyone else, to make themselves feel better?

Perhaps you would also like non-voters to decide what additional restrictions should be placed on determining who is allowed to vote in elections.

Or maybe non-drivers should get to make new traffic laws for all the drivers.

Sorry, george, but you're barking up a constitutional tree, and you don't get to chop it down. You'd best learn to live with it.

Like the Seattle mayor whose illegal gun-control law just got shot down, it's not a good idea to arrest gun owners by setting up fake school zones. If you don't like guns, try and change the constitution - that's the legal way to do it.

But no, you're not interested in that, are you.

[billvon 3,070]

>What does drunk driving have to do with taxing a hookers fee and taxing weed?

Drunk driving doesn't hurt anyone besides yourself - as long as you don't run into things with your car.

Doing drugs doesn't hurt anyone besides yourself - as long as you're not committing crimes to get it or supporting criminals.

Getting a hooker doesn't hurt anyone - again, provided you're not supporting a criminal enterprise by doing so.

Carrying a gun doesn't hurt anyone - as long as you are not careless with it or use it inappropriately.

Sounds like all those things should be legal (perhaps even taxed) by your reasoning.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Replacing toothless (gun) laws with effective ones would be a good start.

Specifics?

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

.....
so it is obvious the difference is not related to different gun laws.

if the difference isn't the gun laws, how is making more gun laws going to help?

Replacing toothless laws with effective ones would be a good start.

that not "more". harsher penalties for violations and better enforcement of existing laws, I can get on board with.

--
Rob

[Bolas 5]

Quote

>What does drunk driving have to do with taxing a hookers fee and taxing weed?

Drunk driving doesn't hurt anyone besides yourself - as long as you don't run into things with your car.

Doing drugs doesn't hurt anyone besides yourself - as long as you're not committing crimes to get it or supporting criminals.

Getting a hooker doesn't hurt anyone - again, provided you're not supporting a criminal enterprise by doing so.

Carrying a gun doesn't hurt anyone - as long as you are not careless with it or use it inappropriately.

Sounds like all those things should be legal (perhaps even taxed) by your reasoning.

Drunk driving is dangerous to others regardless of legality.

Your drug and hooker examples are causality.

As for the last, if you are careless with a gun or use it inappropriately, there should/will be consequences.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[steve1 5]

reply]

I live not too far from the Big Bend region and have heard many similar tales as you posted. It's getting scarey. Especially with the increased drug traffic through the area. With all this in mind, I'm glad to see the change in the laws pertaining to the carrying of firearms in the Big Bend park and other parks.
Chuck

[billvon 3,070]

>Drunk driving is dangerous to others regardless of legality.

Not in many cases. If you are driving home on deserted roads you are a danger only to yourself. Of course, if you are careless (i.e. run into trees) or injure someone, then there should/will be consequences.

> if you are careless with a gun or use it inappropriately, there should/will
> be consequences.

Agreed.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

>Drunk driving is dangerous to others regardless of legality.

Not in many cases. If you are driving home on deserted roads you are a danger only to yourself. Of course, if you are careless (i.e. run into trees) or injure someone, then there should/will be consequences.

> if you are careless with a gun or use it inappropriately, there should/will
> be consequences.

Agreed.

> if you are careless with a gun vehicle or use it inappropriately, there should/will
> be consequences.

Do you agree to this as well? This definitely covers drunk driving.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[JohnnyD 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

That's the million dollar question. How do you prevent certain people from having access to firearms without trampling on the constitutional rights of the overwhelming majority?
Is it even possible?

We already do a half-assed job. Closing a few of the obvious LOOPHOLES would be a good start.

Same lame response. SPECIFICS, please.

I would really like to see this as a new thread with some real discussion.
It seems that virtually everyone (except George who is clearly in a very small minority) is in agreement that control not confiscation is the answer. What I have yet to see is a single thought out response as to how that should be or more importantly can be accomplished.

[billvon 3,070]

>Do you agree to this as well? This definitely covers drunk driving.

Sure, but it doesn't cover drunk driving. If you are not careless with the vehicle and do not use it inappropriately then you are OK - even if you're drunk.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

You could have just said that you're not going to answer my question instead of writing a bunch of rhetoric meaningless phrases.

You mean like the meaningless phrases of how safe you would feel be if you could getr all governments to ban guns?

So what are YOU going to do when a group of thugs is stalking you and ready to pounce... will you even KNOW they are stalking you... until they are in your face.. and you are peeing down your leg???


Training and awareness George.... there are plenty of VERY unsafe areas around where you live. The wolves are out there.... just waiting for the right unarmed sheep.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

>Do you agree to this as well? This definitely covers drunk driving.

Sure, but it doesn't cover drunk driving. If you are not careless with the vehicle and do not use it inappropriately then you are OK - even if you're drunk.

Some might say just the act of drunk driving is careless and inappropriate.

The intelligence of an action has no correlation to the results nor the number of people doing it.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Sure, but it doesn't cover drunk driving. If you are not careless with the vehicle and do not use it inappropriately then you are OK - even if you're drunk.

Would you oppose a new law that made it a crime to carry a gun while drunk, even if the carrier wasn't doing anything inappropriate with it?