Bad news for the AWB supporters

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Oh for the uninitiated I will say this poster is AGAINST your rights to own firearms, it is hard to tell, I know.

Thank God they have you.

I type real fast, about as fast as I can shoot an assault rifle ...

Impressive. Your mother must be so proud of you, freak.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

####### is disgressionary?

Yep. I was right. Keep looking there are more. You are helping your cause so much. Please keep posting. Oh for the uninitiated I will say this poster is AGAINST your rights to own firearms, it is hard to tell, I know.

Like I said, I love it when the opponent proves my point. It takes very little time before anti-civil rights people resort to name calling, make fun of errors in spelling. Thank you for your assistance, though you haven't been quite so much help as Hal who pointed out the real reasons for crime for us and that really any firearm is better than none for concealed carry. But thanks, every little bit is appreciated.

Keep posting

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

####### is disgressionary?

Yep. I was right. Keep looking there are more. You are helping your cause so much. Please keep posting. Oh for the uninitiated I will say this poster is AGAINST your rights to own firearms, it is hard to tell, I know.

Like I said, I love it when the opponent proves my point. It takes very little time before anti-civil rights people resort to name calling, make fun of errors in spelling. Thank you for your assistance, though you haven't been quite so much help as Hal who pointed out the real reasons for crime for us and that really any firearm is better than none for concealed carry. But thanks, every little bit is appreciated.

Keep posting

You're very welcome, freak. So how many rounds was that?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Hey, I'm all for your right to bear arms.

I'm not here to fight you. I am, however, here to make fun of you.

I suppose we all answer to a higher calling. I will then choose to ignore you. Another of my choices in a free country.

[natty bumppo 297]

####### is disgressionary?

Yep. I was right. Keep looking there are more. You are helping your cause so much. Please keep posting. Oh for the uninitiated I will say this poster is AGAINST your rights to own firearms, it is hard to tell, I know.

Like I said, I love it when the opponent proves my point. It takes very little time before anti-civil rights people resort to name calling, make fun of errors in spelling. Thank you for your assistance, though you haven't been quite so much help as Hal who pointed out the real reasons for crime for us and that really any firearm is better than none for concealed carry. But thanks, every little bit is appreciated.

Keep posting

You're very welcome, freak. So how many rounds was that?

resorting to name calling?

wonder if the threads can be merged? 2nd Amendment Rights

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Hey, I'm all for your right to bear arms.

I'm not here to fight you. I am, however, here to make fun of you.

I suppose we all answer to a higher calling. I will then choose to ignore you. Another of my choices in a free country.

Well, now that that bit of business is done, where did you go Hal? I need your help here. Phil? You there Phil? Whatever happened to that Brit guy that is so comfortable without a gun because I have one?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

####### is disgressionary?

Yep. I was right. Keep looking there are more. You are helping your cause so much. Please keep posting. Oh for the uninitiated I will say this poster is AGAINST your rights to own firearms, it is hard to tell, I know.

Like I said, I love it when the opponent proves my point. It takes very little time before anti-civil rights people resort to name calling, make fun of errors in spelling. Thank you for your assistance, though you haven't been quite so much help as Hal who pointed out the real reasons for crime for us and that really any firearm is better than none for concealed carry. But thanks, every little bit is appreciated.

Keep posting

You're very welcome, freak. So how many rounds was that?

resorting to name calling?

wonder if the threads can be merged? 2nd Amendment Rights

I don't know about merging threads. Can you discuss the topic or has it changed to "merging threads" because you are at a loss to argue your position?

Can you tell us your position on the topic and why?

[natty bumppo 297]

####### is disgressionary?

Yep. I was right. Keep looking there are more. You are helping your cause so much. Please keep posting. Oh for the uninitiated I will say this poster is AGAINST your rights to own firearms, it is hard to tell, I know.

Like I said, I love it when the opponent proves my point. It takes very little time before anti-civil rights people resort to name calling, make fun of errors in spelling. Thank you for your assistance, though you haven't been quite so much help as Hal who pointed out the real reasons for crime for us and that really any firearm is better than none for concealed carry. But thanks, every little bit is appreciated.

Keep posting

You're very welcome, freak. So how many rounds was that?

resorting to name calling?

wonder if the threads can be merged? 2nd Amendment Rights

I don't know about merging threads. Can you discuss the topic or has it changed to "merging threads" because you are at a loss to argue your position?

Can you tell us your position on the topic and why?

my position is quite clear on the topic. I'm fully a 2nd supporter and anti AWB. I'm also an instructor and have been for more than 10 yrs. Check the threads ...

I requested the merge to bring some of the multiple gun related threads a common area. stephen spammed the board earlier this week with "gun" stuff and played the threads. Also to make note that there is yet another thread along the same lines as this one.

note: I've been down this road before with the same people.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

####### is disgressionary?

Yep. I was right. Keep looking there are more. You are helping your cause so much. Please keep posting. Oh for the uninitiated I will say this poster is AGAINST your rights to own firearms, it is hard to tell, I know.

Like I said, I love it when the opponent proves my point. It takes very little time before anti-civil rights people resort to name calling, make fun of errors in spelling. Thank you for your assistance, though you haven't been quite so much help as Hal who pointed out the real reasons for crime for us and that really any firearm is better than none for concealed carry. But thanks, every little bit is appreciated.

Keep posting

You're very welcome, freak. So how many rounds was that?

resorting to name calling?

wonder if the threads can be merged? 2nd Amendment Rights

I don't know about merging threads. Can you discuss the topic or has it changed to "merging threads" because you are at a loss to argue your position?

Can you tell us your position on the topic and why?

my position is quite clear on the topic. I'm fully a 2nd supporter and anti AWB. I'm also an instructor and have been for more than 10 yrs. Check the threads ...

I requested the merge to bring some of the multiple gun related threads a common area. stephen spammed the board earlier this week with "gun" stuff and played the threads. Also to make note that there is yet another thread along the same lines as this one.

note: I've been down this road before with the same people.

Thank you. I thought somehwere I had resorted to name calling...heaven forbid. What would be the point of that?

[HAL 9000 96]

Not to budge in... but can we get a commentary about the differences in population density and mean education of the residents, as well as a market for illegal criminal activity to begin with, between any major US metropolitan area and the incredibly beautiful state of Vermont, Burlington included perhaps?

You are not "budging" (barging) in at all. Thank you so much. And yes, it includes Burlington a very beautiful, clean friendly city where you are perfectly safe to walk the streets, but look both ways before crossing at the corner just to be extra safe.

I always get just a bit perturbed when someone like Bill O'Reilly says we don't protect children in Vermont because we don't have this or that law he wants. Yet we have the safest state in the country for children. Go figure. The children know where the rifle is kept behind the kitchen door and how to use it. They're safe. Like I said, we are a libertarian state, very conservative in our liberalism. Basically we can piss anyone off!!!!!!!! Kinda like if someone implicates we need some of those "reasonable" gun laws to reduce our crime rate.

I want to know...which house would you choose to burglarize in Vermont? I mean it would be easy, really. Most homes are not locked and we are pretty affluent here and have lots of "stuff"? Oh, and which car would you try to jack up? I never heard of a car-jacking in Vermont and cars are really useful here, you would think someone would try to steal one. Wonder why that never happens? Maybe because thieves don't like Suburus? Or is it they don't like Suburus driven by moms packing heat? What do you think?

Oh and don't get the impression we have to shoot our way out of the grocery store, or parking spaces, never happens. There is no crime because we are armed. The idea is to carry a big gun with nasty looking hollow point bullets that would make gaping, sucking chest wounds...and then never use it. Nothing discourages rapists like sucking chest wounds, really.

No offense, but I think you're confusing intent/deterrance of would-be criminals where there are none in your neck of the woods. Figuratively and statistically speaking. Besides, packing a little smaller heat would theoretically yield a faster bullet hole on a would-be perp anyway, specially at close range where the absolute majority of individual instances of crime occur.

Quite simply, there is no crime where you're at because there is no singular reason for there to be crime. That has everything to do with those social factors I mentioned and very little to do with the fact that guns are a deterring variable. Common sense. This whole thing about an armed society being a polite society is way too John Wayne for any rational mind to digest- given the short fuse on most Americans' attitudes.

Chicken or egg, Hal? We have always allowed all people to carry firearms. If there are no criminals, then you have to answer why? Expensive homes packed full of good stuff and no dorr locks sounds pretty tempting.

Now as to your choice of the firearms you carry concealed, Hal, thats a personal thing. Statistcally, truly statiscally, speaking ANY firearm is better than nothing in preventing crime. Personally, I am well trained with handguns and use a 3" Kimber Custom, Ultra CDP in .45 ACP. Too much gun for a lot of people. Better a .380 or even a .22 if you can't handle the bigger gun. A hit with a .22 is far more effective than a miss with a .45. Not as noisey but more effective to be sure. I don't worry about missing. It is virtually never necessary for an armed citizen to actually shoot someone, I was being a bit facetious. Silly me. Actually any firearm is usually enough to discourage criminals. The presence of many firearms in private hands, particularly when it is isn't known whose hands, is enough to discourage the presence of criminal activity

Sorry but your last part is simply wrong. Here is how it breaks out...

2 states do not allow people to carry concealed firearms at all...Illinois and Wisconsin.

2 states allow anyone to carry a concealed firearm without a permit...Vermont and Alaska. (Alaska didn't always, they copied)

9 states allow concealed carry on a "disgressionary basis", that mjeans the local Sheriff gets to decide if he thinks you need a to carry a firearm. Now in two of those, Alabama and Iowa, the Sheriffs pretty much agree you need one if you sat so and hand out the permits easily. Likewise New York where most of the county Sheriffs will do the same, but not all. That leaves 6 that have disgressionary carry but with varying degrees of difficulty.

It hasn't always been this way. In 1965 only 3 states allowed concealed carry. Vermont (always) Alaska and Washington. The first to change this was Florida in 1986 when in the grips of a drug fueled crime wave they passed the first of the countries "new" concealed carry laws. In the next 15 years the other 36 states followed suit to the howls of Sarah Brady, Newspapers, and doomsday predictions everywhere. Never happened. As crime rates dropped, other states joined in. Missouri, Nebraska and Kansas were the last. Wisconsin has passed concealed carry TWICE, only their anti-gun Governor Doyle has prevented it from becoming law. Soon enough.

So, Hal..You are in IL? Yes?

Iowa, Missouri, Kentucky, Indiana have all passed concealed carry laws in the last 15 years. They have all had reductions in crime attributed to this law. So tell me, why would the people of IL not be able to handle this? Why would we expect a different result in IL than in every other state? Why would the politicians of IL in face of overwheming evidence (no common sense but tins of evidence) deny this right to IL residents? Does it concern you just a bit that yuour politicians deny you rights othes have for no reason? In fact they deny you the benefit of reduced crime. Now what could be the reaon for that?

But in 42 of our 50 United States law abiding people can carry concealed firearms. Now that is a cross section that goes far beyond "common sense" Yet every county of every state that has implemented these laws has had reductions in crime in general and gun realted crime in particular and in every state the largest beneficiaries were women, not surprising to me. It has nothiung to do with John Wayne, since none of us act like John Wayne.

Yes, crime rates among those states vary, for all the reasons in your previous post reagrding the causes of crime, but ALL have a decrease in crime since passing the concealed carry laws. If that goes against you common sense...sorry. The studies were done by the University of Chicago, Dr. John Lott. You can read them on the web, just google "John Lott". He actually did county by county studies, really remarkable evidence.

I must be a liar. Not.

Its only a chicken or egg scenario when you try to justify the existence of one thing by linking it slave to another. Reality doesn't work that way.

[HAL 9000 96]

Unless you mean cause and effect...

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Not to budge in... but can we get a commentary about the differences in population density and mean education of the residents, as well as a market for illegal criminal activity to begin with, between any major US metropolitan area and the incredibly beautiful state of Vermont, Burlington included perhaps?

You are not "budging" (barging) in at all. Thank you so much. And yes, it includes Burlington a very beautiful, clean friendly city where you are perfectly safe to walk the streets, but look both ways before crossing at the corner just to be extra safe.

I always get just a bit perturbed when someone like Bill O'Reilly says we don't protect children in Vermont because we don't have this or that law he wants. Yet we have the safest state in the country for children. Go figure. The children know where the rifle is kept behind the kitchen door and how to use it. They're safe. Like I said, we are a libertarian state, very conservative in our liberalism. Basically we can piss anyone off!!!!!!!! Kinda like if someone implicates we need some of those "reasonable" gun laws to reduce our crime rate.

I want to know...which house would you choose to burglarize in Vermont? I mean it would be easy, really. Most homes are not locked and we are pretty affluent here and have lots of "stuff"? Oh, and which car would you try to jack up? I never heard of a car-jacking in Vermont and cars are really useful here, you would think someone would try to steal one. Wonder why that never happens? Maybe because thieves don't like Suburus? Or is it they don't like Suburus driven by moms packing heat? What do you think?

Oh and don't get the impression we have to shoot our way out of the grocery store, or parking spaces, never happens. There is no crime because we are armed. The idea is to carry a big gun with nasty looking hollow point bullets that would make gaping, sucking chest wounds...and then never use it. Nothing discourages rapists like sucking chest wounds, really.

No offense, but I think you're confusing intent/deterrance of would-be criminals where there are none in your neck of the woods. Figuratively and statistically speaking. Besides, packing a little smaller heat would theoretically yield a faster bullet hole on a would-be perp anyway, specially at close range where the absolute majority of individual instances of crime occur.

Quite simply, there is no crime where you're at because there is no singular reason for there to be crime. That has everything to do with those social factors I mentioned and very little to do with the fact that guns are a deterring variable. Common sense. This whole thing about an armed society being a polite society is way too John Wayne for any rational mind to digest- given the short fuse on most Americans' attitudes.

Chicken or egg, Hal? We have always allowed all people to carry firearms. If there are no criminals, then you have to answer why? Expensive homes packed full of good stuff and no dorr locks sounds pretty tempting.

Now as to your choice of the firearms you carry concealed, Hal, thats a personal thing. Statistcally, truly statiscally, speaking ANY firearm is better than nothing in preventing crime. Personally, I am well trained with handguns and use a 3" Kimber Custom, Ultra CDP in .45 ACP. Too much gun for a lot of people. Better a .380 or even a .22 if you can't handle the bigger gun. A hit with a .22 is far more effective than a miss with a .45. Not as noisey but more effective to be sure. I don't worry about missing. It is virtually never necessary for an armed citizen to actually shoot someone, I was being a bit facetious. Silly me. Actually any firearm is usually enough to discourage criminals. The presence of many firearms in private hands, particularly when it is isn't known whose hands, is enough to discourage the presence of criminal activity

Sorry but your last part is simply wrong. Here is how it breaks out...

2 states do not allow people to carry concealed firearms at all...Illinois and Wisconsin.

2 states allow anyone to carry a concealed firearm without a permit...Vermont and Alaska. (Alaska didn't always, they copied)

9 states allow concealed carry on a "disgressionary basis", that mjeans the local Sheriff gets to decide if he thinks you need a to carry a firearm. Now in two of those, Alabama and Iowa, the Sheriffs pretty much agree you need one if you sat so and hand out the permits easily. Likewise New York where most of the county Sheriffs will do the same, but not all. That leaves 6 that have disgressionary carry but with varying degrees of difficulty.

It hasn't always been this way. In 1965 only 3 states allowed concealed carry. Vermont (always) Alaska and Washington. The first to change this was Florida in 1986 when in the grips of a drug fueled crime wave they passed the first of the countries "new" concealed carry laws. In the next 15 years the other 36 states followed suit to the howls of Sarah Brady, Newspapers, and doomsday predictions everywhere. Never happened. As crime rates dropped, other states joined in. Missouri, Nebraska and Kansas were the last. Wisconsin has passed concealed carry TWICE, only their anti-gun Governor Doyle has prevented it from becoming law. Soon enough.

So, Hal..You are in IL? Yes?

Iowa, Missouri, Kentucky, Indiana have all passed concealed carry laws in the last 15 years. They have all had reductions in crime attributed to this law. So tell me, why would the people of IL not be able to handle this? Why would we expect a different result in IL than in every other state? Why would the politicians of IL in face of overwheming evidence (no common sense but tins of evidence) deny this right to IL residents? Does it concern you just a bit that yuour politicians deny you rights othes have for no reason? In fact they deny you the benefit of reduced crime. Now what could be the reaon for that?

But in 42 of our 50 United States law abiding people can carry concealed firearms. Now that is a cross section that goes far beyond "common sense" Yet every county of every state that has implemented these laws has had reductions in crime in general and gun realted crime in particular and in every state the largest beneficiaries were women, not surprising to me. It has nothiung to do with John Wayne, since none of us act like John Wayne.

Yes, crime rates among those states vary, for all the reasons in your previous post reagrding the causes of crime, but ALL have a decrease in crime since passing the concealed carry laws. If that goes against you common sense...sorry. The studies were done by the University of Chicago, Dr. John Lott. You can read them on the web, just google "John Lott". He actually did county by county studies, really remarkable evidence.

I must be a liar. Not.

Its only a chicken or egg scenario when you try to justify the existence of one thing by linking it slave to another. Reality doesn't work that way.

Sorry if you thought I said you were a liar. I didn't mean to infer that and really don't see where you did. Perhaps it is where I said that the facts seem to refute your "common sense". Hal, being mistaken is not the same as being a liar.

So what do you think Hal? Can the people of IL accept the responsibility of concealed carry or would they be the only state to have a crime increase after implementation? What do you think? Why? What exactly would prevent them from being as responsible as, say, Kentucky residents? Education? Economic advantage? Really, I would like to know how and why you think IL residents would be unable to handle this freedom.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Not to budge in... but can we get a commentary about the differences in population density and mean education of the residents, as well as a market for illegal criminal activity to begin with, between any major US metropolitan area and the incredibly beautiful state of Vermont, Burlington included perhaps?

You are not "budging" (barging) in at all. Thank you so much. And yes, it includes Burlington a very beautiful, clean friendly city where you are perfectly safe to walk the streets, but look both ways before crossing at the corner just to be extra safe.

I always get just a bit perturbed when someone like Bill O'Reilly says we don't protect children in Vermont because we don't have this or that law he wants. Yet we have the safest state in the country for children. Go figure. The children know where the rifle is kept behind the kitchen door and how to use it. They're safe. Like I said, we are a libertarian state, very conservative in our liberalism. Basically we can piss anyone off!!!!!!!! Kinda like if someone implicates we need some of those "reasonable" gun laws to reduce our crime rate.

I want to know...which house would you choose to burglarize in Vermont? I mean it would be easy, really. Most homes are not locked and we are pretty affluent here and have lots of "stuff"? Oh, and which car would you try to jack up? I never heard of a car-jacking in Vermont and cars are really useful here, you would think someone would try to steal one. Wonder why that never happens? Maybe because thieves don't like Suburus? Or is it they don't like Suburus driven by moms packing heat? What do you think?

Oh and don't get the impression we have to shoot our way out of the grocery store, or parking spaces, never happens. There is no crime because we are armed. The idea is to carry a big gun with nasty looking hollow point bullets that would make gaping, sucking chest wounds...and then never use it. Nothing discourages rapists like sucking chest wounds, really.

No offense, but I think you're confusing intent/deterrance of would-be criminals where there are none in your neck of the woods. Figuratively and statistically speaking. Besides, packing a little smaller heat would theoretically yield a faster bullet hole on a would-be perp anyway, specially at close range where the absolute majority of individual instances of crime occur.

Quite simply, there is no crime where you're at because there is no singular reason for there to be crime. That has everything to do with those social factors I mentioned and very little to do with the fact that guns are a deterring variable. Common sense. This whole thing about an armed society being a polite society is way too John Wayne for any rational mind to digest- given the short fuse on most Americans' attitudes.

Chicken or egg, Hal? We have always allowed all people to carry firearms. If there are no criminals, then you have to answer why? Expensive homes packed full of good stuff and no dorr locks sounds pretty tempting.

Now as to your choice of the firearms you carry concealed, Hal, thats a personal thing. Statistcally, truly statiscally, speaking ANY firearm is better than nothing in preventing crime. Personally, I am well trained with handguns and use a 3" Kimber Custom, Ultra CDP in .45 ACP. Too much gun for a lot of people. Better a .380 or even a .22 if you can't handle the bigger gun. A hit with a .22 is far more effective than a miss with a .45. Not as noisey but more effective to be sure. I don't worry about missing. It is virtually never necessary for an armed citizen to actually shoot someone, I was being a bit facetious. Silly me. Actually any firearm is usually enough to discourage criminals. The presence of many firearms in private hands, particularly when it is isn't known whose hands, is enough to discourage the presence of criminal activity

Sorry but your last part is simply wrong. Here is how it breaks out...

2 states do not allow people to carry concealed firearms at all...Illinois and Wisconsin.

2 states allow anyone to carry a concealed firearm without a permit...Vermont and Alaska. (Alaska didn't always, they copied)

9 states allow concealed carry on a "disgressionary basis", that mjeans the local Sheriff gets to decide if he thinks you need a to carry a firearm. Now in two of those, Alabama and Iowa, the Sheriffs pretty much agree you need one if you sat so and hand out the permits easily. Likewise New York where most of the county Sheriffs will do the same, but not all. That leaves 6 that have disgressionary carry but with varying degrees of difficulty.

It hasn't always been this way. In 1965 only 3 states allowed concealed carry. Vermont (always) Alaska and Washington. The first to change this was Florida in 1986 when in the grips of a drug fueled crime wave they passed the first of the countries "new" concealed carry laws. In the next 15 years the other 36 states followed suit to the howls of Sarah Brady, Newspapers, and doomsday predictions everywhere. Never happened. As crime rates dropped, other states joined in. Missouri, Nebraska and Kansas were the last. Wisconsin has passed concealed carry TWICE, only their anti-gun Governor Doyle has prevented it from becoming law. Soon enough.

So, Hal..You are in IL? Yes?

Iowa, Missouri, Kentucky, Indiana have all passed concealed carry laws in the last 15 years. They have all had reductions in crime attributed to this law. So tell me, why would the people of IL not be able to handle this? Why would we expect a different result in IL than in every other state? Why would the politicians of IL in face of overwheming evidence (no common sense but tins of evidence) deny this right to IL residents? Does it concern you just a bit that yuour politicians deny you rights othes have for no reason? In fact they deny you the benefit of reduced crime. Now what could be the reaon for that?

But in 42 of our 50 United States law abiding people can carry concealed firearms. Now that is a cross section that goes far beyond "common sense" Yet every county of every state that has implemented these laws has had reductions in crime in general and gun realted crime in particular and in every state the largest beneficiaries were women, not surprising to me. It has nothiung to do with John Wayne, since none of us act like John Wayne.

Yes, crime rates among those states vary, for all the reasons in your previous post reagrding the causes of crime, but ALL have a decrease in crime since passing the concealed carry laws. If that goes against you common sense...sorry. The studies were done by the University of Chicago, Dr. John Lott. You can read them on the web, just google "John Lott". He actually did county by county studies, really remarkable evidence.

I must be a liar. Not.

Its only a chicken or egg scenario when you try to justify the existence of one thing by linking it slave to another. Reality doesn't work that way.

So how does it work?

Every state with a concealed carry law has a drop in crime...but the two are not related (incidentally there was even a drop in crime nationwide as we went fro 3 to 42 states that allow concealed carry. Anti gunners, when they can croak out an argument, like to say "well, crime was going down anyway" LOL Just by coincidence I suppose, at any rate it shoots in the foot any argument they can make that guns increase crime, thank you again, I can always count on the anti-civil-rights people to open their mouth and change feet.) States with concealed carry laws had crime rate drops in excess of those that did not have concealed carry laws. Read The University of Chicago study, it was really quite thorough.

I will await your explanation of how reality works. Please.

[justashooter 430]

I live in Chicago.

that explains a lot.

[Ban Hammer 13,469]

I live in Chicago.

that explains a lot.