3 shootings in three days

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

More gun control only effects law abiding citizens. By definition criminals won't obey any additional laws. Only you and I will. It's as clear as that people.

ENFORCE THE EXISTING LAWS

[Fandango 1,440]

I have absolutely no problem with a waiting period, background checks, etc...but you seem to think that if all the guns were collectively melted down, we could erect a friendship statue of the care bears & everything would be peachy from there on in. <---------that was hyperbole, don't take this statement literally please That is the point that I'm having trouble with.

That is a point I never made.

I wonder how you read...

irony!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I have absolutely no problem with a waiting period, background checks, etc...but you seem to think that if all the guns were collectively melted down, we could erect a friendship statue of the care bears & everything would be peachy from there on in. <---------that was hyperbole, don't take this statement literally please That is the point that I'm having trouble with.

That is a point I never made.

I wonder how you read...

irony!

It would be if the hyperbole would be at least remotely based on something I said. Only it isn't.

[Fandango 1,440]

I have absolutely no problem with a waiting period, background checks, etc...but you seem to think that if all the guns were collectively melted down, we could erect a friendship statue of the care bears & everything would be peachy from there on in. <---------that was hyperbole, don't take this statement literally please That is the point that I'm having trouble with.

That is a point I never made.

I wonder how you read...

irony!

It would be if the hyperbole would be at least remotely based on something I said. Only it isn't.

Take guns off the streets and the streets will be safer. Why is that so hard to understand?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I have absolutely no problem with a waiting period, background checks, etc...but you seem to think that if all the guns were collectively melted down, we could erect a friendship statue of the care bears & everything would be peachy from there on in. <---------that was hyperbole, don't take this statement literally please That is the point that I'm having trouble with.

That is a point I never made.

I wonder how you read...

irony!

It would be if the hyperbole would be at least remotely based on something I said. Only it isn't.

Take guns off the streets and the streets will be safer. Why is that so hard to understand?

Don't tear my statements out of context to make your point, please.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

More gun control only effects law abiding citizens. By definition criminals won't obey any additional laws. Only you and I will. It's as clear as that people.

ENFORCE THE EXISTING LAWS

Crime is inevitable and criminals will always find ways to break the law, and there will always be victims of crime.

If you make it more difficult for everyone to get guns, it follows that prices for black market firearms would go up, and there would be fewer criminals with them. I don't have stats to back it up, but I seem to remember reading once that many victims of gun crime were shot with their own weapons...

Seems to me that people out in public who might get mugged would not have a gun on them anyway. I don't know about you but I'd feel much safer walking that everyone around me isn't tooled up ready to go.

[dalegg 143]

I don't know about you but I'd feel much safer walking that everyone around me isn't tooled up ready to go.

So would criminals. That's why since Florida enacted it's right-to-carry laws in 1987 their homicide rates have fallen dramatically even while the national average rose.

It's not like the criminals went away though. While Florida liberalized gun ownership laws, Washington D.C. keeps the toughest gun laws, and their violent crime rates are among the countries highest.

It's not rocket science. If you were going to mug people and you knew in one city they didn't allow hardly anyone to carry a gun-law abiding or not, and the other city the mayor was encoraging citizens to carry guns, which city would you go to?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't know about you but I'd feel much safer walking that everyone around me isn't tooled up ready to go.

So would criminals. That's why since Florida enacted it's right-to-carry laws in 1987 their homicide rates have fallen dramatically even while the national average rose.

It's not like the criminals went away though. While Florida liberalized gun ownership laws, Washington D.C. keeps the toughest gun laws, and their violent crime rates are among the countries highest.

It's not rocket science. If you were going to mug people and you knew in one city they didn't allow hardly anyone to carry a gun-law abiding or not, and the other city the mayor was encoraging citizens to carry guns, which city would you go to?

True. But what does that say to you about the state of our society - that people see the ownership of a firearm as a necessary part of everyday life to act as a deterrent for something that may never happen?

Speaking from my own experience I have never (touch wood) in 28 years been the victim of any violent crime whatsoever. Perhaps I've been lucky or just careful, but I've never felt any particular fear of being a victim of crime, and I've lived and worked in some less than salubrious neighbourhoods.

Part of the blame can be attributed to the news media. Its quite well documented for instance, that the media reporting of crime increases public fear of it, specifically violent crime. Why is this? because if you report every robbery, rape and murder it makes people think there is more of this type of crime than there actually is. The truth is, the overwhelming majority of crime does not make the news because the 1000's of tax evaders and shoplifters are simply not as attention grabbing as the hundred or so murderers, serial rapists and bank robbers.

To me that's what it comes down to - an irrational fear of a type of crime that isn't supported by the numbers. Sure if you live in a neighbourhood with high incidences of police activity, I can see why a gun might provide some illusion of security. But seriously, if I ever found myself feeling like that, I think I'd reconsider where I choose to live a long time before I ever went out and bought a gun.

Truth is, unless you carry it on your person 24/7 (illegal depending on which state you live in) the gun is only really going to provide a false sense of security. The one time you do find yourself robbed - when you're at the ATM or jogging in the park, you won't have it with you or you'll be so shocked by events that you won't think to use it.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

I want to know where the irrational fear of honest gun owners comes from? And why people want to disarm them?

see the Tommy J. quote in my sig.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I want to know where the irrational fear of honest gun owners comes from? And why people want to disarm them?

see the Tommy J. quote in my sig.

Perhaps from the fact that everyone is willing them to arm themselves to protect themselves from criminals with guns.

The irrational fear is in the psychological need for a gun to protect people from something that may never happen.

I mean, what reason do you have for thinking you might become a victim of crime?

Edited April 4, 2006 by Fishdude

[dalegg 143]

The irrational fear is in the psychological need for a gun to protect people from something that may never happen.

I mean, what reason do you have for thinking you might become a victim of crime?

Yeah, you know I was thinking about cancelling the fire insurance on my home too.

The irony is that most people who legally own guns and are so adomant about gun rights aren't even the one's who need them.

Sure, I don't feel I need a gun. I'm one of those that the statistics about having a gun in the house would actually make me less safe applies. I don't live in a dangerous neighborhood so I wouldn't buy a gun.

But in Urban D.C where you don't walk home alone it's a different story. Someone who has no criminal record cannot even keep a gun in the house for protection. And obviously the criminals there know that.

This story and case are an excellent example and I doubt she would agree that her fear is irrational.

Parker v. District of Columbia

Edited April 4, 2006 by dalegg

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The irrational fear is in the psychological need for a gun to protect people from something that may never happen.

I mean, what reason do you have for thinking you might become a victim of crime?

Yeah, you know I was thinking about cancelling the fire insurance on my home too.

The irony is that most people who legally own guns and are so adomant about gun rights aren't even the one's who need them.

Sure, I don't feel I need a gun. I'm one of those that the statistics about having a gun in the house would actually make me less safe applies. I don't live in a dangerous neighborhood so I wouldn't buy a gun.

But in Urban D.C where you don't walk home alone it's a different story. Someone who has no criminal record cannot even keep a gun in the house for protection. And obviously the criminals there know that.

This story and case are an excellent example and I doubt she would agree that her fear is irrational.

Parker v. District of Columbia

Granted. I just don't understand the psychology - why someone would want to live in a place where they feel they need a firearm to feel safer? As I said, I'd sooner move somewhere where I didn't feel that way.

Whether or not you own a gun, it will make little or no difference as to your chances of being a victim of crime.

Assuming you keep it inside purely for home defence - how common is home invasion, seriously?

The fact is you are more far likely to be a victim of crime walking on the street (when the gun is likely the least available to you).