Everyone is scared, everyone has guns.

[mrsleeve]

Studies have shown that it is actually counterproductive to ban/restrict guns to decrease murder:
http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_stud...terproductive/

this has been a known and debated and hammered on fact for 300 years, Yet largely forgotten

[cale]

I dont quite get what you asking here or what you point is about chemical weapons and Geneva. If you read the linked post, and digested the information provided you have all the answers to this already. Read it again and if you are having trouble understanding ask about that 1st.


If you live in a free state that doesn't regulate past the Federal NFA rules you have a full functioning and armed Antiaircraft battery on your roof, a antitank recoil-less rifle, grandees ect... If you have the cash (shits really expensive like you can buy nice homes for what some if it costs) but you can have it an use it.

The point that I made in the post you claim to have read, points out we have a RIGHT to anything that a general infantry many is going to have access too, hand guns, rifles, shot guns, and other small arms, In 1934 thanks the to prohibition gangsters shooting it out with better arms than the Gmen had so we ended up with NFA.

Now there have been I think 2 crimes ever committed with a legally held NFA/title 2 weapon. One was a NJ cop that went nuts and used a Department owned weapon to kill his wife IIRC.

My question was what in the Constitution states what weapons you can or cannot have? And if not explicitly defined and categorized, then I'm claiming interpretation of the Amendment is necessary to come to the conclusions you and many others have. Hence many courts coming to different conclusions as to what "bear arms" defines and what arms are protected under this amendment. And since what is available to the infantry is ever changing, primarily as a result of what can be made to be carried feasibly, the limitations are extremely broad and do in fact include weaponized chemicals or any other devastating weapons as such weapons ARE deployable by infantry if a need ever arose. Furthermore, that because of this indistinction one could interpret the banning of any form of armament is a breach of your 2a right.

Please don't just say I'm wacko, tell me where I'm wrong.

[Victell]

I googled your reference, looks like a huge shootout between some bank robbers and cops. How does that relate exactly? What I was trying to say is the armed civilian appears like just another victim (because of his civilian attire, hidden weapon, etc) UNTIL the armed civilian pulls out his/her gun at the time it seems most opportunistic to him/her. I believe that is different than the incident you quoted in that the cops showed up in full force and the robbers knew exactly who they were fighting before the fighting began. In the scenario I was speaking about, the shooter would not know he was fighting anyone until the civilian is already shooting, thus giving the civilian the advantage. The civilian has the ability to choose WHEN he/she will begin the firefight. I think that makes all the difference.

Id agree with most of that, and its more likely the shooter will be stopped quicker if more people are armed. Although the shooter may just alter the attack strategy. I do think that having more random people armed increases the confusion and likelyhood of friendly fire. Even trained police officers shoot each other and bystanders during firefights, civilians would do worse. So I'm not sure the net effect will be any less death as we may trade murder for friendly fire. But all this is moot in my opinion because I believe the shootout should never start in the first place.

Yes, I will be armed. The rest of you can be armed if you want, that's your choice, not mine. Also, my rationale stated that some schoolteachers can be armed (and those that are have done so on their own free will, and therefore have some sort of training and confidence with a gun), and no, not vests, helmets, etc, that is ridiculous. Refer to my paragraph above regarding anonymity and its advantage. So that way, no one is inconvenienced.

Also, I would LOVE to disarm the crazies, that would be ideal. But how do you propose we do that? You would have to destroy every gun already under private ownership, and I don't see a non-civil war way to do it.

We wouldnt need to destroy all firearms. Weeding out crazies could be done with regular mental testing and profiling. Maybe use similar profiling and statistical methods that insurance companies use. I accept higher car insurance if I'm young and ride a motorcycle and I'll accept higher medical insurance if I'm older and am a no-fitness fatass that smokes. A lot of people wont like it but it can be done.

I am glad you are willing, maybe they can selectively install breathalyzers in people's cars who are willing. I however am not. That said, I am all for the complete enforcement of drunk driving laws, no tolerance, etc.

I've posted elsewhere that current DUI laws still allowed 10k people to be killed in 2010 alone. Some are not willing to be inconvinienced to do anything about this. Others are. Some people wont be inconvinienced to save a million lives. Each of us has our own line. But we have a consensus as a society about where the lines and laws are for us as a whole. Starting with local laws and ultimately federal. It seems this massacre is a tipping point for a lot of people who are now willing to be inconvinienced a little more to try to prevent this from happening in the future.

Now that bolded parts there I can agree with. I hate some of these speed limits, but that is a different argument for a different thread. And yeah, absolutely allow responsible citizens to buy guns. (and by responsible I mean all the things you listed above).

So, I guess I never really introduced my overarching argument for what I would like to see happen in the US: CWP availability on a national level, i.e. not specific by state. Everyone would be able to get one provided they passed the required exams, independent of what state they live in.

Given what you posted above, victell, it seems like you would agree with my statement proposition.

My biggest problem with CWPs on a national level is I dont believe enough people can handle it. Our conflict resolution skills are too low and there are way too many hotheads that fly off the handle at the smallest provocation. Hell, people dont even want to fight fair anymore. Combine this with our violence culture and add a firearm on our person at all times = disaster. Road rage is a good example. Way too many regular joes have got instantly pissed about a traffic incident then got carried away. Even if you have your own gun, how can you protect against someone driving up next to you and blowing you away? Also, having to fire an employee means they might lose their shit, come back and shoot you. Bar fights become bar shootouts, etc.

That said, judging from how well some gun enthusiasts on this board are invested in the knowledge and responsibility of your firearms I'd say I'd trust most of you with CCWs. I'd still like regualar checkups to make sure you keep your shit together though. While I dont share your fear and fix of guns needs guns, I trust you guys more with your weapons that the average joe. But you guys should know better than me that there are too many of your fellow gun owners that are way too cavalier with this responsibility.



-----------------
This is directed at the anti gun control crowd and probably my last post on the subject.

I feel this a problem the anti gun control crowd has made. Where do you think the criminals and crazies got their guns? The only thing the gun crowd had to do is self-regulate. The careless proliferation and lack of attention to firearms has put them into the hands of the very people you now fear. "Buy another gun to defend yourself" is circular logic. How bad does it have to get before people say ok we've gone too far? It seems this massacre is the tipping point for a lot of people. It has changed minds who were before against more gun control.

We need a better answer for prevention of death by increasingly armed and possibly unstable populace. Me and most non-gun people I know could care less what firearms others have at home. But when those owners get their guns stolen, go crazy, lose temper, or do anything else negligent that causes the rest of us death - then we do care.

There will always be people that intend harm, but the prolifiration of firearms and lack of thier control has made these people exponentially more deadly. The justification of firearms for safety has cause the exact opposite effect. Gun owners and organizations have not fully accepted responsibility for ensuring their firearms arent used by those who murder. This is when the rest of us step in. The response of 'arm yourself to protect against our mess' is not acceptable.

[Farbin Kaiber]

My biggest problem with CWPs on a national level is I dont believe enough people can handle it. Our conflict resolution skills are too low and there are way too many hotheads that fly off the handle at the smallest provocation. Hell, people dont even want to fight fair anymore. Combine this with our violence culture and add a firearm on our person at all times = disaster. Road rage is a good example. Way too many regular joes have got instantly pissed about a traffic incident then got carried away. Even if you have your own gun, how can you protect against someone driving up next to you and blowing you away? Also, having to fire an employee means they might lose their shit, come back and shoot you. Bar fights become bar shootouts, etc.

Have you ever thought there are way too many hotheads because our society has removed the potential for getting yourself into a fucking mess?

I'll tell you what, I went from California where only the baddies tote a gun around, to Idaho where anyone could be Open Carry, and lots of people have a "Shall Issue" CCW, not to mention the rifles on racks in the back windows of pickuptrucks, and my stupid ass changed my tone REAL quick, I don't tailgate, I don't blast my horn and flip off people for lack of a signal when turning, in fact, nowadays I politely wave at most cars that pass me. If someone pisses me of doing something dumb on the road, now, I give them a thumbs up and a smile. I don't explode at people in the store, don't yell and snap at any dumbass thing because I know I'm taking a 50/50 gamble and flipping the coin.

Everyone in our country would respect everyone else a whole shit-ton more just by the thought that the guy across you might have a chambered round ready on the 6 o'clock position under that Carhartt jacket.

AND I FUCKING LIKE IT, IT MADE ME GROW THE FUCK UP AND STOP ACTING LIKE A STUPID KID WITH SUPERMAN SYNDROME.

(NOTE: I'm not ranting AT you, I'm speaking towards the issue, don't take my capslock sentence as an attack on you, please)

[iamsam]

Id agree with most of that, and its more likely the shooter will be stopped quicker if more people are armed. Although the shooter may just alter the attack strategy. I do think that having more random people armed increases the confusion and likelyhood of friendly fire. Even trained police officers shoot each other and bystanders during firefights, civilians would do worse. So I'm not sure the net effect will be any less death as we may trade murder for friendly fire. But all this is moot in my opinion because I believe the shootout should never start in the first place.







We wouldnt need to destroy all firearms. Weeding out crazies could be done with regular mental testing and profiling. Maybe use similar profiling and statistical methods that insurance companies use. I accept higher car insurance if I'm young and ride a motorcycle and I'll accept higher medical insurance if I'm older and am a no-fitness fatass that smokes. A lot of people wont like it but it can be done.






I've posted elsewhere that current DUI laws still allowed 10k people to be killed in 2010 alone. Some are not willing to be inconvinienced to do anything about this. Others are. Some people wont be inconvinienced to save a million lives. Each of us has our own line. But we have a consensus as a society about where the lines and laws are for us as a whole. Starting with local laws and ultimately federal. It seems this massacre is a tipping point for a lot of people who are now willing to be inconvinienced a little more to try to prevent this from happening in the future.





My biggest problem with CWPs on a national level is I dont believe enough people can handle it. Our conflict resolution skills are too low and there are way too many hotheads that fly off the handle at the smallest provocation. Hell, people dont even want to fight fair anymore. Combine this with our violence culture and add a firearm on our person at all times = disaster. Road rage is a good example. Way too many regular joes have got instantly pissed about a traffic incident then got carried away. Even if you have your own gun, how can you protect against someone driving up next to you and blowing you away? Also, having to fire an employee means they might lose their shit, come back and shoot you. Bar fights become bar shootouts, etc.

That said, judging from how well some gun enthusiasts on this board are invested in the knowledge and responsibility of your firearms I'd say I'd trust most of you with CCWs. I'd still like regualar checkups to make sure you keep your shit together though. While I dont share your fear and fix of guns needs guns, I trust you guys more with your weapons that the average joe. But you guys should know better than me that there are too many of your fellow gun owners that are way too cavalier with this responsibility.



-----------------
This is directed at the anti gun control crowd and probably my last post on the subject.

I feel this a problem the anti gun control crowd has made. Where do you think the criminals and crazies got their guns? The only thing the gun crowd had to do is self-regulate. The careless proliferation and lack of attention to firearms has put them into the hands of the very people you now fear. "Buy another gun to defend yourself" is circular logic. How bad does it have to get before people say ok we've gone too far? It seems this massacre is the tipping point for a lot of people. It has changed minds who were before against more gun control.

We need a better answer for prevention of death by increasingly armed and possibly unstable populace. Me and most non-gun people I know could care less what firearms others have at home. But when those owners get their guns stolen, go crazy, lose temper, or do anything else negligent that causes the rest of us death - then we do care.

There will always be people that intend harm, but the prolifiration of firearms and lack of thier control has made these people exponentially more deadly. The justification of firearms for safety has cause the exact opposite effect. Gun owners and organizations have not fully accepted responsibility for ensuring their firearms arent used by those who murder. This is when the rest of us step in. The response of 'arm yourself to protect against our mess' is not acceptable.

I'll try to hit all of your points as concisely as possible, mostly because I am not feeling like I am in essay mode right now.

This is of course speculation but I think in most massacre events, it would be relatively easy to tell who the good guys are and who the bad guy is. The bad guy is the guy who starts shooting first and has the combat gear on. In general. I know there are a million hypothetical situations to go against what I said though, but it would be beating a dead horse to address all of those individually. Also, history has shown that a shootout can definitely start in the first place. And I am not bothering with posting links to news articles now.

Weeding out crazies by testing I am totally cool with, as long as it is reasonable and actually yielding results of course. Don't weed me out because I played through the single player of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare once...

yep DUI laws aren't strict enough, I agree. But like the crazy nutcases who carry out massacres, it is nearly impossible to preempt a drunk driver before he gets in his/her car.

And yes, people get irrational road rage all the time, and if some of them had guns, I wouldn't doubt they'd strongly consider using them, and yes that scares me. However, I hope the strong background checks, history reports and testing will try and minimize that possibility with respect to the number of actually responsible gun-toting civilians. There will always be loopholes and problems with every system, the trick is to choose the lesser of the evils.

And to address your last point: the situation that there are so many available guns is ALREADY the status quo. Arguing that less guns would help would be to no end, although a sound argument, because these guns are already in existence, and removing them from existence would be too costly in both money and blood. It is too late to disarm America, America is already armed. I am ALL FOR lessening the number of guns out there, BUT, the number of guns MUST be lessened proportionally MORE for the criminals than for the law-abiding citizens, and any gun-lessening effort would unfortunately do the opposite, which is a worse situation than the one we are in now.

[cale]

Have you ever thought there are way too many hotheads because our society has removed the potential for getting yourself into a fucking mess?

I'll tell you what, I went from California where only the baddies tote a gun around, to Idaho where anyone could be Open Carry, and lots of people have a "Shall Issue" CCW, not to mention the rifles on racks in the back windows of pickuptrucks, and my stupid ass changed my tone REAL quick, I don't tailgate, I don't blast my horn and flip off people for lack of a signal when turning, in fact, nowadays I politely wave at most cars that pass me. If someone pisses me of doing something dumb on the road, now, I give them a thumbs up and a smile. I don't explode at people in the store, don't yell and snap at any dumbass thing because I know I'm taking a 50/50 gamble and flipping the coin.

Everyone in our country would respect everyone else a whole shit-ton more just by the thought that the guy across you might have a chambered round ready on the 6 o'clock position under that Carhartt jacket.

AND I FUCKING LIKE IT, IT MADE ME GROW THE FUCK UP AND STOP ACTING LIKE A STUPID KID WITH SUPERMAN SYNDROME.

(NOTE: I'm not ranting AT you, I'm speaking towards the issue, don't take my capslock sentence as an attack on you, please)

And how then do you explain all the violence in inner cities amongst lets face it, black and latino's? Are they unaware of the murders happening on a daily basis? Based on your thinking, those should be some of the safest areas in the country.

[joshh]

Have you ever thought there are way too many hotheads because our society has removed the potential for getting yourself into a fucking mess?

I'll tell you what, I went from California where only the baddies tote a gun around, to Idaho where anyone could be Open Carry, and lots of people have a "Shall Issue" CCW, not to mention the rifles on racks in the back windows of pickuptrucks, and my stupid ass changed my tone REAL quick, I don't tailgate, I don't blast my horn and flip off people for lack of a signal when turning, in fact, nowadays I politely wave at most cars that pass me. If someone pisses me of doing something dumb on the road, now, I give them a thumbs up and a smile. I don't explode at people in the store, don't yell and snap at any dumbass thing because I know I'm taking a 50/50 gamble and flipping the coin.

Everyone in our country would respect everyone else a whole shit-ton more just by the thought that the guy across you might have a chambered round ready on the 6 o'clock position under that Carhartt jacket.

AND I FUCKING LIKE IT, IT MADE ME GROW THE FUCK UP AND STOP ACTING LIKE A STUPID KID WITH SUPERMAN SYNDROME.

(NOTE: I'm not ranting AT you, I'm speaking towards the issue, don't take my capslock sentence as an attack on you, please)

This is why I have a cam-corder in my signature!

[Vedubin01]

[mrsleeve]

Considering that since 9/11 only 17 Americans have been killed by terrorists in the US but over 100,000 people have died from firearms , and with 16 mass shootings resulting in 88 deaths in 2012 alone, I'd rather take my chances with Derka Muhammad than Joe Blow.

I have decided to play your game for a minuet or two. Oh and what are defining as "Mass" now anyway???

February 22, 2012—Five people were killed in at a Korean health spa in Norcross, Georgia, when a man opened fire inside the facility in an act suspected to be related to domestic violence.
Umm very very seedy and crime ridden area of Atlanta. "Korean health spa" prolly whore house. (arent these banned too ??) Crime happens in an crime ridden shit hole part of a major urban area, big shocker news story at 11.

February 26, 2012—Multiple gunmen began firing into a nightclub crown in Jackson, Tennessee, killing one person and injuring 20 others.
Gang members AKA criminals get into a shooting match. Again with the huge surprises here. We have a paroled felon with a gun and 2 persons of questionable immigration status all had to have obtained those weapons illegally and are bared owning them anyway. Next in TN no gun signs carry the force of law, and every night club I have ever been is has BIG NO FIREARMS SIGNS on the doors. It prolly safe to assume this was the case here, making this a gun free zone .

So we have a GUN FREE ZONE with Criminals that are banned from owning guns, and a law abiding populace that is disarmed. That about sum this one up

February 27, 2012—Three students at Chardon High School in rural Ohio were killed when a classmate opened fire.
So here we have a state that bars CCW in schools, and bans weapons of any type in schools. So we have another GUN FREE ZONE.

March 8, 2012—Two people were killed and seven wounded at a psychiatric hospital in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, when a gunman entered the hospital with two semiautomatic handguns and began firing.
Cant Carry weapons in hospitals in PA and depending on hospital policy the hospital security cant carry a weapon either. If it like where my MIL works (a hospital) their security guard cant even carry a D cell mag light, pepper spray or any thing that might be used as weapon outside of car keys or cell phone. Odd for a Hospital in MT owned by people from TX.

Yup you guessed it GUN FREE ZONE

March 31, 2012—A gunman opened fire on a crowd of mourners at a North Miami, Florida, funeral home, killing two people and injuring 12 others.
Funeral was for a slain gang member. Rival gang Drive By's his funeral. Yup Criminals being criminals with guns acquired illegally, just like all other criminals do.

One could also try and ( more than likely successfully ) argue FL Statute 823.05 that defines any place of nuisance your not allowed to Carry a Lawful CCW. Sub section 2b of that statute defines gang members, and where they are congregated is considered an area of nuisance. Its more than safe to assume there would be gang related affiliates at a gang members funeral. Thus this funeral could be easily argued to be

You guessed it A GUN FREE ZONE

Not that a normal and sane CCW holder is going to return fire on a drive by. ANd really WHO THE FUCK Other than criminals are going to shoot up a Funeral????

April 2, 2012—A 43-year-old former student at Oikos University in Oakland, California, walked into his former school and killed seven people, “execution-style.” Three people were wounded.
Here we are at a school again and in a state with the most restrictive gun laws in the country.

GUN FREE ZONE check.

April 6, 2012—Two men went on a deadly shooting spree in Tulsa, Oklahoma, shooting black men at random in an apparently racially motivated attack. Three men died and two were wounded.
You got me on this one Hate crime is hate crime. But No gun they would have used something else like say a TRUCK

Like this guy maybe

http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/08/06/mississippi.hate.crime/index.html

or this one

http://www.cnn.com/US/9807/06/dragging.death.02/index.html

yup banning firearms would have stopped this one

May 29, 2012—A man in Seattle, Washington, opened fire in a coffee shop and killed five people and then himself.

Well this one you have a case for I admit that. Its one of those things where a "mentally unstable person" has slipped though the cracks. He had a CCW and he legally bought his weapons. This is one falls under crazy fuck is crazy and maybe if he had not been able to get a gun might not have hurt as many people. But he was set off and and wanted to take revenge on the coffee shop for banning him. How about a bomb or his car though the front windows ???

July 9, 2012—At a soccer tournament in Wilmington, Delaware, three people were killed, including a 16-year-old player and the event organizer, when multiple gunmen began firing shots, apparently targeting the organizer.
Well lets see here One of the aggressors was wanted for a 2008 shooting. There are 3 aggressors in total that open fired into a crowd. When some in the crowd with lawfully carried weapons began to RETURN FIRE!!!!!! The attackers fled, One was killed by return fire the other 2 were found a short distance away.

What if there were no Lawfully Armed Civilians in that crowd. Those 3 would have been able to continue until armed police arrived to help, who knows how long that would have taken, 6-7 mins is the average emergency response time in the US . Not to mention that DE has some pretty tough gun laws.

Opps this one didnt work out the way you planed did it


July 20, 2012—James Holmes enters a midnight screening of The Dark Knight Rises and opens fire with a semi-automatic weapon; twelve people are killed and fifty-eight are wounded.
CRAZY FUCK is crazy yet again.

Also drives right past several theaters closer to his home that are showing the same movie at the same time that do not bar CCW in them, to one that does bar CCW.

Huh who would have guessed a GUN FREE ZONE. Is chosen to carry out crime rather then an identical venue where the attacker might find armed resistance. Wow this is just crazy talk though

August 5, 2012—A white supremacist and former Army veteran shot six people to death inside a Sikh temple in suburban Milwaukee, Wisconsin, before killing himself.
Again with the hate crime, Not having access to guns would not deter these people. They would just turn to using bombs like this guy

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20121218_12_A13_CUTLIN58522&rss_lnk=11

notice the date

August 14, 2012—Three people were killed at Texas A&M University when a 35-year-old man went on a shooting rampage; one of the dead was a police officer.
GUN FREE ZONE

September 27, 2012—A 36-year-old man who had just been laid off from Accent Signage Systems in Minneapolis, Minnesota, entered his former workplace and shot five people to death, and wounded three others before killing himself.
Ummm most employers ban carrying of arms on their properties, if you wish to remain employed.

Yup you have guessed it again

GUN FREE ZONE

October 21, 2012—45-year-old Radcliffe Frankin Haughton shot three women to death, including his wife, Zina Haughton, and injured four others at a spa in Brookfield, Wisconsin, before killing himself.
Well there is a sign on the door of the place prior to the incident that says what ???? NO FIREARMS and did not allow CCW. I know lots of women that have a pistol in their purse and go to spas.

Signs carry the force of law yet again in WI


So what we have here is................................Say it with me now................................ A GUN FREE ZONE



December 11, 2012—A 22-year-old began shooting at random at a mall near Portland, Oregon, killing two people and then himself.
Crazy fuck + GUN FREE ZONE

Signs carry force of law in OR

December 14, 2012—One man, and possibly more, murders a reported twenty-six people at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, including twenty children, before killing himself.
GUN FUCKING FREE ZONE Not old enough to posses or buy hand guns, tired to buy a rifle and was in the "cooling off period" (CT law was doing what it was supposed to do at the retail level by curtailing purchases for someone buying to get even) so kid steals moms guns kills her and forces his way into a school A GUN FREE ZONE and continues his rampage. Lots of criminal activity and law breaking going on before the killing thing got going. Not to mention known mental stability issues, and should have been in the system. With out knowing the specifics of how he got a hold of his mothers weapons, I hate to lay some of this on her, if she kept them where he had some what easy access to them, knowing his mental issues.

and did I mention GUN FREE ZONE yet???

So basicly to sum up this shock article you know little to nothing about any of the actual events cited, and the author of which apparently didnt do their home work either, with a little digging proves my points with glaring clarity. Irony is ironic.

So lets see here, we have Mostly GUN FREE ZONES that carry the force of law or the full weight of the govt when violated by law abiding citizens, are attacked because there is no one there to stop them. We have Criminals that should not have gotten weapons and obtained them illegally, like they always have and will continue to do if we attempt to ban them from the hands of law abiding citizens. We have legal CCW holders return fire and cause attackers to say fuck it an abandon their attack in the face of the opposition. And we have racially induced hate crime that was going happen 1 way or the other no matter what.


You can scream ban and its the guns fault until your blue in the face, it will never change the fact that bad policy and bad people create the environment for this shit to happen. By your logic nearly all these places should be 100% safe and nothing bad can happen there since firearms were banned in them, sorry this is not how the world works



Congratulations out of all these instances your rhetoric of choice MIGHT have saved 5 lives taken with a firearm, that prolly would have been killed by a crazy fuck in some other way.


With this many people out there that are hell bent on doing bad shit to someone else. Why do you wish to remove my rights to defend my self form such people? What gives you that right to disarm a 100 million peaceful law abiding US gun owners. Take you propaganda article and shove it.

[Quadrajet]

And how then do you explain all the violence in inner cities amongst lets face it, black and latino's? Are they unaware of the murders happening on a daily basis? Based on your thinking, those should be some of the safest areas in the country.

Well Gang members follow a different set of rules than the rest of the population. They generally tend to think of people in 3 categories.
1-Friends,Homeys,Family
2-Enemies,cops,snitches
3-Strangers=Targets of opportunity.
If you fall into categories 2 or 3 you are lible to get killed, maimed, beaten,robbed or have any other combination bad things happen to you at any time for any reason.

Aside from what ever "rules" they use to govern themselves, the main rule is "I will do anything to anyone, anytime I feel I should". Your life literally means nothing to them. And if you have something they want, and the moment is right, they won't think twice about killing you. And the general population just living there, is generally reluctant to talk to authorities, due to the fact that the cops aren't there 24/7 and the gangs have them intimidated through coercion.

And really? Let's face it, you're talking about criminals. Who follow their basic instinct and do not follow the law.

[Mr. Burns]

WOW.







I suppose a sensible observation I can drum up after reading 11 pages of this would simply be "not surprised" by some of the attitudes showcased in this thread.

You messed the bed, now sleep in it sorta comes to mind.

I feel sorry for alot of you guys really.

Good luck

[u3b3rg33k]

It's natural/god given now? So did this natural/god given right exist since the first human, millennia before guns were created or does it simply mean any form of weaponry available at the time? If that's the case, I guess you have a god given right to a suitcase sized nuclear bomb if you can get your hands on one, and any attempts at preventing you from doing so goes against what god intended for you! No, this right is given to you by a piece of paper. You do not have a right to weaponry simply because you were born on Earth.

That "right" you have to run your mouth is given to you by a piece of paper. You do not have a right to free speech or self expression simply because you were born on earth.

Maybe you should have to get a free speech license, and only be allowed to use words on the "approved" list, and only in places that don't have signs prohibiting your "free" speech.

See how utterly insane it sounds when you apply the same logic to a different "right" ?

[cale]

Yup, that definitely makes sense. I'm so happy you brought your wisdom to the discussion, we were hopeless without you.

Maybe we can actually put that into effect, we could really make a difference. That way it would be much more difficult for psycho's to walk into a school and kill two dozen children with free speech. It's quite dangerous after all, it must fall into that "other weapons" category in the FBI list of weapons used in murders.

[Victell]

...

Interesting read with lots of incidents cited. Article seems inconclusive. "Do armed citizens stop mass shootings?"

[mrsleeve]

WOW.







I suppose a sensible observation I can drum up after reading 11 pages of this would simply be "not surprised" by some of the attitudes showcased in this thread.

You messed the bed, now sleep in it sorta comes to mind.

I feel sorry for alot of you guys really.

Good luck

How have "we messed the bed" its crazy lunatics and criminals that have done so with illegally obtained weapons. WHich they will continue to obtain if you get your wish.

Dont feel sorry for me and why would you because I dont share your idealic fantasy that there are no bad people in the world and that nothing bad will ever happen to me or my family. It you whom I feel bad for, if something were to happen to you or someone you care about and you could have defended yourself or family.

Your entitled to your opinion, it is your RIGHT. Just like I am entitled to my Firearms and right to bear them. I am also entitled to my right to my opinion as well. Our founders ALL of them not just those that made up the early govt, Fought, Bled, Died, to make sure we future generations stood a chance of having those rights. Not to mention all those that have come since that have Fought, Bled, Sacrificed and Died, to not just defend this nation but US the people, and the Rights bestowed by our Constitution. They swear an Oath to Uphold and defend the Constitution and all that it sands for from all enemies foreign and domestic.

Like I keep saying, you have dual citizenship so it makes it much easier for you than most. If you have such an issue with firearms, take your soap box cram it firmly in you mouth so it wont fall out on the journey, and take your happy ass back to Canada. If you feel so strongly about such things, you have every right to live some place that reflects your values and ideals (many of us move to places that hold similar values)