Strong Message to all teenage gangsta wanna-be's

[battery]

This is a good story showing some merits to rights to carry concealed weapons. A civilian saved himself from possible death with a licensed pistol.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/jogger-wont-be-charged-in-fatal-town-n-country-shooting/1144768

[Icculus]

Strong message to do what? Pack your own gun and make sure you shoot first?

The kid was running away when the guy shot at him not once, but 8 times. It would seem that he had been looking forward to the day when he could take advantage of that "stand your ground" law.

-Icculus

[Iggy]

Do you think the criminal would have stopped shooting with a single shot? Do you think he would have no fired a weapon if his victim turned and ran?

If you do, you're seriously out of touch with reality.

Think of it this way; this guy saved the taxpayers a bunch of money on a trial, incarceration, and probably years of supporting him on welfare.
(before anyone says it, I'm not saying that because the decedent was a minority.)

[Icculus]

Do you think the criminal would have stopped shooting with a single shot? Do you think he would have no fired a weapon if his victim turned and ran?

If you do, you're seriously out of touch with reality.

Think of it this way; this guy saved the taxpayers a bunch of money on a trial, incarceration, and probably years of supporting him on welfare.
(before anyone says it, I'm not saying that because the decedent was a minority.)

Well since the criminal in this case did not have a gun, the above scenario does not apply. There are many different types of criminals out there. Some would have shot a person running away, some would have not. Most would not shoot 8 times however. This guy was clearly itching to use that gun and release alot of pent up rage in the process.

Do you then believe that if everyone carried a gun we wouldn't have these types of issues anymore?

I think violence would escalate tremendously if everyone were armed. Instead of hold-ups, we'd have people shooting first and looting corpses instead of running the risk of getting shot at.

[FrenchToast]

A law that lets citizens kill each other based on their own opinion of their personal safety being compromised is tremendously scary.

[Ricey]

Well since the criminal in this case did not have a gun, the above scenario does not apply. There are many different types of criminals out there. Some would have shot a person running away, some would have not. Most would not shoot 8 times however. This guy was clearly itching to use that gun and release alot of pent up rage in the process.

Do you then believe that if everyone carried a gun we wouldn't have these types of issues anymore?

I think violence would escalate tremendously if everyone were armed. Instead of hold-ups, we'd have people shooting first and looting corpses instead of running the risk of getting shot at.

I use to go clubbing a lot in Downtown Orlando with a bunch of friends, usually 5-10 People. All the guys(Mostly military), including myself all carry pistols. Yes, it is a big group, and most likely will be left alone, but Orlando isn't the safest city in the US, what city is. Tampa Bay is just like Orlando in terms of safety.

We've had many drunk people try and start fights with us, but as soon as a pistol is shown they always back off. It should be used a deterrent, and if needed a shot fired away from people, as to scare them.

Now let's go to West Palm Beach, I can't tell you how many cops have been killed by gang members, it's a lot. You take away Gun Permits from everyday, people who follow the laws, they are defenseless. Last time I was in WPB, I had my pistol on me,as my friend told me a Cop was just killed.

Now, go live in those areas, and then come back to me.

I've lived in very safe areas, Cherry Hill,NJ had 1 Murder in 10 years. Camden,NJ... yea. Orlando,Tampa Bay, West Palm Beach, worse than Camden.

Only a few months ago a student was shot on Campus because he wouldn't give up his Macbook Pro. He tried to run, and got shot. Luckily he lived.

Month or so before that, cop had to shot/kill a subject.

Sometimes I walk to labs at 1am, I'll wear a vest, and bring my gun.

[Iggy]

Well since the criminal in this case did not have a gun, the above scenario does not apply. There are many different types of criminals out there. Some would have shot a person running away, some would have not. Most would not shoot 8 times however. This guy was clearly itching to use that gun and release alot of pent up rage in the process.

Do you then believe that if everyone carried a gun we wouldn't have these types of issues anymore?

I think violence would escalate tremendously if everyone were armed. Instead of hold-ups, we'd have people shooting first and looting corpses instead of running the risk of getting shot at.

No, they would shoot more, since many of them carry semi-automatics and can't aim worth a shit. Also, should he have asked the criminal if he was armed? I can see that now:

"Gimme yo wallet, motherfucker!"
"Excuse me, before I decide whether to succumb to your demand, may I ask if you are armed?"
"Yeah, I am." *bang*
Result: Crime victim dead.

I knew a guy back in Jr High and High school. After graduation, he got a job in DC. One night as he walked to his car, an assbag(who probably had a long criminal record) stuck a gun in his face, and demanded his wallet. He handed it over with no struggle or confrontation. The fucker shot and killed him anyway.

Criminals don't give a shit about the law. That's why they are criminals. Most of them are armed, which is why they have the balls to rob someone. Even the ones who aren't, might as well be. After all, how is the victim to know if they are or not? And really, who gives a shit? If someone tries to rob you, and you shoot them dead... too fucking bad. If they didn't try to rob you, they wouldn't be in any danger, now would they?

Does that mean guns should be handed out willy-nilly? Of course not. Proper training should be required before a "permit to carry" is issued to anyone. However, anyone who has a clean criminal record, and can prove they aren't mentally ill, should be allowed to carry a firearm to defend themselves.

[Icculus]

No, they would shoot more, since many of them carry semi-automatics and can't aim worth a shit. Also, should he have asked the criminal if he was armed? I can see that now:

"Gimme yo wallet, motherfucker!"
"Excuse me, before I decide whether to succumb to your demand, may I ask if you are armed?"
"Yeah, I am." *bang*
Result: Crime victim dead.

I knew a guy back in Jr High and High school. After graduation, he got a job in DC. One night as he walked to his car, an assbag(who probably had a long criminal record) stuck a gun in his face, and demanded his wallet. He handed it over with no struggle or confrontation. The fucker shot and killed him anyway.

Criminals don't give a shit about the law. That's why they are criminals. Most of them are armed, which is why they have the balls to rob someone. Even the ones who aren't, might as well be. After all, how is the victim to know if they are or not? And really, who gives a shit? If someone tries to rob you, and you shoot them dead... too fucking bad. If they didn't try to rob you, they wouldn't be in any danger, now would they?

Does that mean guns should be handed out willy-nilly? Of course not. Proper training should be required before a "permit to carry" is issued to anyone. However, anyone who has a clean criminal record, and can prove they aren't mentally ill, should be allowed to carry a firearm to defend themselves.

There are many people out there who can carry a firearm and be responsible with it. There are probably many more who, given such easy access to that much power, would act irresponsibly such as the guy in this story. He pulled his gun, the kid ran, and he shot him anyway. Eight times.

How many people out there with clean criminal records can prove that they are mentally stable enough to carry a gun? Plenty of them like this guy who just want an excuse to shoot someone.

If Ricey went to those clubs he mentioned and EVERYONE in there had a gun, the outcome of some of those altercations would have probably been very different.

Middle America has proven many times that they don't handle responsibility very well.

Arming everyone just sounds like a recipe for disaster.

[Ricey]

If Ricey went to those clubs he mentioned and EVERYONE in there had a gun, the outcome of some of those altercations would have probably been very different.

Most of them do carry, the whole point is, it's a deterrent, it's saying "You could fucking die right now, do you really want that?"

[Lost]

I can see your point Icc, that if no one, anywhere, carried guns, then there would be a lot less violence. It takes far more guts to knife someone than to shoot them. But like Iggy said, the criminals don't care if they have to get them illegally, they'll do it, and then no one will have the legal means to defend themselves.

I think if they strapped every fucker who kills someone while committing any other crime was strapped to a chair and fed 50,000 volts then we would have far safer streets. I specify it that way because the chances of getting killed by someone you don't know are pretty damned low, unless they're looking to steal your stuff.

[battery]

Strong message to do what? Pack your own gun and make sure you shoot first?

The kid was running away when the guy shot at him not once, but 8 times. It would seem that he had been looking forward to the day when he could take advantage of that "stand your ground" law.

-Icculus

I think we should judge the entire incident as a whole, rather than just see who shoots first or who runs away first.

Apparently, the armed man was facing two adversaries. A typical person cannot overcome two enemies in hand-to-hand combat. (Ever wonder why we never see 2 vs 1 boxing matches?) So the man was doomed if he did not have a gun.

Now, the armed man was also punched in the face. If you have not been punched in the face before, let me tell you how it feels: You feel a big shock and for a couple second, you think you are about to pass out. As a matter of fact, a punch in the face has a great potential to produce a knock-out.

From the jogger's perspective, the gangsters were trying to kill him. Losing consciousness is equvalent to death because...who knows what those teenagers were going to do to the body? Drown him in order to eliminate witness, maybe? Even more importantly, the jogger cannot tell if the teenagers were packing or not. Robbers usually carried weapons and there was no reason for the jogger to believe he was looking at exceptions. I believe the jogger reacted properly to a runner who might just suddenly turn around with a Magnum.

Once you have committed to kill a person, here is the correct way to finish the job: You shoot to kill, not to wound. Cops are trained to shoot in order to kill; LAPD training instructs cadets to pump 3 bullets into the target's chest whenever they fire the gun. No one in the right mind shoots to debilitate the target, okay? Suppose a criminal shoots somebody but fails to kill. In the court of law, he will be charged with attempted murder, not just assault and battery.

Shoot to kill. Don't point the gun at anything you don't intend to destory.

[Bridget]

He initiated aggression, and resultingly got dealt with. I see no problem here. I also think there's this illusion of excessiveness with the number of shots fired. Had this man been attacked, whipped out his pistol, and scored a single shot on his aggressor that killed him instantly, would you still be singing a sad song about how unfair it was? Probably not. It's not unfair to me. Unfairness suggests something outside of your control. He could have easily avoided this by avoiding aggression. So, really, whom is to blame?

[Lost]

So, really, whom is to blame?

Obama.

[BinaryLife]

Guns do not make people violent. I understand the stigma associated with a piece of equipment that is specifically designed to kill human beings. However, you need a person to pick up, load, cock, and fire that gun. The human being does more than the weapon.

In general I believe that weapons should be allowed to be carried. I also believe that if everyone over 18 had a firearm in this country, very little would change. Maybe people would be mugged less. At least that's what the statistics show. Correlation is not causation however. That is important for both sides of the argument.

As for the article. It is very confusing. It claims that a jogger was wont be charged. But the description is not of a jogger. If I walk to the corner store to get some food at night (which I often do) I am not a jogger. I am just walking to shop. The reason I bring this up, is because it's an odd discrepancy. Baker, does not say he is jogging the writer does. But, if that's true, if he was jogging and not shopping, then it is odd for him to carry 950 dollars in cash. If he was shopping then his story makes sense. I believe more information should have been in that article, and it shouldn't be used to prove a point for either side.

Assuming he was shopping late, and was attacked. Then I see no moral problem with defending yourself. I can't say that I would do that, but in my neighborhood this sort of thing is very rare. I can walk anywhere I want at any time of night and not need to worry about being mugged. Also, the police are close by and easily called. It makes no sense for me to own a firearm or I would.

But that said. If I lived in a home that was far away from police response, I would absolutely carry a gun. If my neighborhood was known for slow response times, again I would carry a gun. I trust the police to protect me, but I'd like to be alive when they get there.

[Bridget]

I saw Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine last night, yet again. I love when dumbos blame a symptom of the problem as the problem. Look, Americans killing everybody. Look at the Canadians. They are pretty peaceful. It's because they have fewer guns, obviously! Guns are to blame! No. they're not. It's because their culture isn't as polluted as ours. It's because they're not America. Something else is causing us to use guns more in crimes, and it isn't simply because we have guns. That makes no fucking sense. Oh well, what can you expect for Michael Moore? He's a dumbo socialist.

[Hammock]

I pretty much agree with everything battery posted.

He was faced with 2 guys, no idea if they were armed, and who's to say the runner wasn't just going to run a distance away, then turn around and shoot him.

I know in Canada though, if you chased down and shot someone who robbed(or attempted to rob you) you at a store, you would be held liable, as you are no longer in danger once he starts running away since you could just lock the door and chances are he's most likely not coming back.

But this guy was alone outside at night, once he started running away it does not mean he's not going to turn back around on him.

@ricey - That would never fly in Canada that's for sure, almost any club that's even considered "half decent" has either metal detectors, and/or pats you down at the door. And there's almost always a cop car or 2 sitting outside near closing time (atleast in my experiences).

Bars are actually a little more scary just because they aren't as diligent with that sort of stuff, but every club I've been to here has an ID check as you enter, and you go through metal detectors/pat downs.

Even if you're legally allowed to carry a gun (as a military person would), you wouldn't be allowed in with it.

[BinaryLife]

I pretty much agree with everything battery posted.

He was faced with 2 guys, no idea if they were armed, and who's to say the runner wasn't just going to run a distance away, then turn around and shoot him.


Now it was two guys?

My opinion on guns isnt' going to change. I think we should have them. But I'm growing increasingly suspect of this article. I have read it twice and it refers to the guy as a jogger. Then someone who is shopping with his brother. Then a jogger again.

These details are growing important if we don't know the story .A jogger at night is fine. A shopper at night is also fine. But when the stories mesh like this it's usually the sign of a lier.

[stray kitten]

Now that everyone has had their say, I'll chime in. Shooting people who are running away is pretty fucking lame. It's not what right to carry is about. Cops won't even shoot people running away unless they like murdered someone. The guy who shot this dude would be in crazy fucker ward if he was a cop or in the military. Luckily for him he's not held to those standards being a civilian.

[Hammock]

My opinion on guns isnt' going to change. I think we should have them.

Actually even though I agree with battery, (provided the story is true), I hate guns, espcially hand guns. It shouldn't be nescessary to own a gun for protection. If it weren't for the fact the US makes billions manufacturing and selling guns, or that people in "important places" are too easily corruptable to ship illegal guns into the country, or if a person doesn't feel their own government can protect them when they are being "persuaded" by bad people, there wouldn't be as big as a gun problem.

How would criminals have any guns if the government just stops allowing them?

This whole "I need a gun to feel safe cause criminals have guns" theory just blows my mind. But there's too much money involved in outfitting these criminals with guns, and the goverment isn't truly going to stop it, because they're part of it.

*Oh and someone asked why it doesn't seem to be as big a deal up here in Canada as it is down in the US. I believe the #1 reason it isn't is because our Canadian government doesn't make billions a year in gun trade. It's much easier to make a stand against guns when your pocket isn't being filled by the profit from them.

[FrenchToast]

This is from memory so it might not be totally accurate - In Switzerland or Sweden, I can never remember, every adult is technically part of the militia and is required to keep a rifle and 72 rounds of ammunition in their home. They also have one of the highest rates of gun crime per capita in the world. It baffles me that people think having guns everywhere doesn't increase the rate of gun crime.

[stray kitten]

Actually even though I agree with battery, (provided the story is true), I hate guns, espcially hand guns. It shouldn't be nescessary to own a gun for protection. If it weren't for the fact the US makes billions manufacturing and selling guns, or that people in "important places" are too easily corruptable to ship illegal guns into the country, or if a person doesn't feel their own government can protect them when they are being "persuaded" by bad people, there wouldn't be as big as a gun problem.

How would criminals have any guns if the government just stops allowing them?

This whole "I need a gun to feel safe cause criminals have guns" theory just blows my mind. But there's too much money involved in outfitting these criminals with guns, and the goverment isn't truly going to stop it, because they're part of it.

*Oh and someone asked why it doesn't seem to be as big a deal up here in Canada as it is down in the US. I believe the #1 reason it isn't is because our Canadian government doesn't make billions a year in gun trade. It's much easier to make a stand against guns when your pocket isn't being filled by the profit from them.

Everyone knows the best guns come from Germany. :) No one forces us to buy it's our demand that drives the market NOT the other way around. The federal government cannot stop it. People who don't live here or people who live here and try to stop it don't understand the constitution. Or at least take a different interpretation of the amendment. It's not a big deal in other countries because they lack that freedom (or curse depending on your view). I personally see it as a freedom with limitations that can be posed by state regulations, except total public banning. Which would not be constitutional.

[Hammock]

Even with legal trade of guns from foreign countries yields a lot of money for the goverment.

If a government truly wanted to abolish gun crime, they would stop manufacturing guns and boycott all foreign trade of guns.

People always bring up the constitution when talking about their right to own a gun, well that constitution is soo out date it's absurd to keep falling back on that.

I say if you want to keep falling back on that, fine, but it should be regarded then from the time it was written. If you want to own a gun, then you have the right to own a musket.

You say no one forces you to buy guns, true enough, but then again nobody is truly making an attempt to stop the sale of guns either, because there's too much money in it.

It's pretty simple logic actually, no guns = no gun crimes. Obviously no government can stop it completely, especially given the mass amount of guns already out there. But the only people out there that should be allowed guns are hunters, farmers (hunting rifles/shotguns only), and on duty cops. Anyone off duty (miltary or police) shouldn't need to carry one around. And there sure as hell shouldn't be a need for AverageJoe99 living in a 20 story apartment block down town in a city to own/carry a hand gun. The valid reason he can give to owning one, is to "feel safe" why? Cause criminals have guns, why? Cause the government enjoys the profit from legal/illegal sales of guns too much to actually fight the ignorant population that cries "Unconstitutional, when it's even mentioned to out right ban guns".

People who want to own a gun just to own a gun, are just retarded and need to grow a brain and realize they're part of the reason gun crime is soo high, cause if it weren't for them it would be far more difficult for criminals to aquire guns.

It's a vicious circle that you created all on your own, and it would take some pretty powerfull radical people to break that circle, and that's something the world truly lacks in today's age.

[GenghisTron]

This is from memory so it might not be totally accurate - In Switzerland or Sweden, I can never remember, every adult is technically part of the militia and is required to keep a rifle and 72 rounds of ammunition in their home. They also have one of the highest rates of gun crime per capita in the world. It baffles me that people think having guns everywhere doesn't increase the rate of gun crime.

Actually, it's exactly opposite as you remember. They have the highest rate of gun ownership in the world (per capita, as you said) and they have virtually no gun crime. They require most men or head-of-households to keep a gun in their house, but at the same time, they also train owners properly in the use and storage of a firearm. They do the same thing in places in the US, like Kennesaw, Georgia. Back in the 90's, they passed a town ordinance requiring all head-of-households to keep a gun in their house, even if they didn't intend on using it. Crime rates plummeted.

It's easy for people to hate on guns, but if you really take a deep look at the statistics, they'll show you that guns in American are a net positive.

Some facts, courtesy of justfacts.com (http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp):

(Click the link for sources, these are just the facts)

Roughly 16,272 murders were committed in the United States during 2008. Of these, about 10,886 or 67% were committed with firearms.[11]

Based on survey data from the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 5,340,000 violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2008. These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders.[13] [14] [15] Of these, about 436,000 or 8% were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun.

Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.

A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.

So, basically, guns are used in less than 10% of 'violent crimes', and guns are used in 10,000 murders per year, compared to nearly a million instances per year where guns are used for self-defense. Murders involving guns are tragic, no doubt, but as pointed out, only 60% of murders committed involve the use of guns. In places like England, where guns are outlawed, gun crimes decrease, but violent crime remains steady or the same, and murders/crimes with other objects like knives and blunt weapons increases.

With these facts, I don't see how you could really be that opposed to firearms? After all, if you put a gun in the hands of a 90 pound 5 foot-tall woman, she'd be able to better defend herself from a 200 pound, 6 foot-tall man more effectively than not having a gun. Guns are an equalizer, and on the flipside of the same coin, they are also dangerous. However, it's clear to me that guns, while they hold potential for great damage, are also complicit in making people safer. You can't depend on police, as we learned pretty well this Saturday. The police and EMS took 25 minutes to show up to the rampage on Saturday.

[GenghisTron]

Even with legal trade of guns from foreign countries yields a lot of money for the goverment.

If a government truly wanted to abolish gun crime, they would stop manufacturing guns and boycott all foreign trade of guns.

People always bring up the constitution when talking about their right to own a gun, well that constitution is soo out date it's absurd to keep falling back on that.

I say if you want to keep falling back on that, fine, but it should be regarded then from the time it was written. If you want to own a gun, then you have the right to own a musket.

You say no one forces you to buy guns, true enough, but then again nobody is truly making an attempt to stop the sale of guns either, because there's too much money in it.

It's pretty simple logic actually, no guns = no gun crimes. Obviously no government can stop it completely, especially given the mass amount of guns already out there. But the only people out there that should be allowed guns are hunters, farmers (hunting rifles/shotguns only), and on duty cops. Anyone off duty (miltary or police) shouldn't need to carry one around. And there sure as hell shouldn't be a need for AverageJoe99 living in a 20 story apartment block down town in a city to own/carry a hand gun. The valid reason he can give to owning one, is to "feel safe" why? Cause criminals have guns, why? Cause the government enjoys the profit from legal/illegal sales of guns too much to actually fight the ignorant population that cries "Unconstitutional, when it's even mentioned to out right ban guns".

People who want to own a gun just to own a gun, are just retarded and need to grow a brain and realize they're part of the reason gun crime is soo high, cause if it weren't for them it would be far more difficult for criminals to aquire guns.

It's a vicious circle that you created all on your own, and it would take some pretty powerfull radical people to break that circle, and that's something the world truly lacks in today's age.

You're just spewing the most nonsensical propaganda over and over. Sure, if you had the resources to completely stop the production of guns worldwide, you'd see crimes involving GUNS go down. Is this a desirable effect? Well, you can point to places like England, where they are strictly anti-gun (It's a little easier for them, because they're on an island), but since they banned guns, knife crimes have climbed through the roof. I'll try and find an article I read recently, where the Government is urging parents and schools to educate kids about the dangers of knives now.

The simple fact is, the problem isn't GUNS, the problem is CRIME. If someone is going to commit a crime, a gun is merely a tool in the crime. If someone is going to commit pre-meditated assault, and they have no access to a gun, they'll just pick from the wide array of other weapons available to him, from a rock to a pole, to his bare fist. Guns are just convenient. Guns are easily concealable, and they don't require you to be in their face, but again, the only difference between a gun and a crowbar, is convenience. If someone intends to kill you, for whatever reason, being denied access to guns isn't going to stop them. It'll just motivate them to get more up-close and personal with a hard object.

Outlawing guns is like playing whac-a-mole, pure and simple. You *think* you're fixing a problem, when you're really not. Sure, you can draw up a fancy little chart showing that crimes involving the use of a gun are declining, meanwhile overall crime rates are staying the same, or potentially rising, like we've seen in virtually all countries that outlaw guns. It seems you anti-gun people are more afraid of crimes being committed with a gun, than a crime being committed at all. You guys are throwing away the baby with the bathwater.

[Bridget]

It shouldn't be nescessary to own a gun for protection.

Yeah, well that's fallacious; It's wishful thinking. The unfortunate facts are: Crime is inevitable, and criminals will inevitably get their hands on guns. Criminals don't follow laws, that's what makes them criminals, so stacking on gun regulations after gun regulations just means robbing the honest man his ability to defend himself legally from those two inevitable facts of life. In short: Be a fucking realist here, Hammock. Please. No more wishful thinking fallacious utopian thoughts. Consider the here and now.

[Bridget]

People always bring up the constitution when talking about their right to own a gun, well that constitution is soo out date it's absurd to keep falling back on that.

People always bring up Socrates and Plato when talking about knowledge and philosophy. Well, those people are soo damn old; it's absurd to keep bringing them up.

I say if you want to keep falling back on that, fine, but it should be regarded then from the time it was written. If you want to own a gun, then you have the right to own a musket.

You're dumb. If you're so content with using computing standards and protocols still in use today that were originally used in the very early days of computing, then you best ditch your desktop or laptop and build a multi-room computer that requires a hole-punched card to perform basic tasks. Seriously, you want to be consistent, right, Hammock?

It's pretty simple logic actually, no guns = no gun crimes. Obviously no government can stop it completely, especially given the mass amount of guns already out there. But the only people out there that should be allowed guns are hunters, farmers (hunting rifles/shotguns only), and on duty cops. Anyone off duty (miltary or police) shouldn't need to carry one around. And there sure as hell shouldn't be a need for AverageJoe99 living in a 20 story apartment block down town in a city to own/carry a hand gun. The valid reason he can give to owning one, is to "feel safe" why? Cause criminals have guns, why? Cause the government enjoys the profit from legal/illegal sales of guns too much to actually fight the ignorant population that cries "Unconstitutional, when it's even mentioned to out right ban guns".

Sure, but no guns is impossible. But, what are you fucking talking about? You say that no guns equal no crime, then you go on to say that a select few should have access to guns. That's great! A monopoly on gun possession! You're a genius, Hammock! An absolute genius!

People who want to own a gun just to own a gun, are just retarded and need to grow a brain and realize they're part of the reason gun crime is soo high, cause if it weren't for them it would be far more difficult for criminals to aquire guns.

CRIMINALS DO NOT OBEY LAWS. THEREFORE, PASSING LAWS WILL DO NOTHING TO SEVERELY HINDER THEIR ACCESS TO GUNS. The only way to stop gun possession completely is a massive expansion of the State, and to be honest, I'd rather get shot.

It's a vicious circle that you created all on your own, and it would take some pretty powerfull radical people to break that circle, and that's something the world truly lacks in today's age.

It's an inevitable fact of nature.

http://chowug.dyndns.org/dealwithit.gif

[GenghisTron]

The unfortunate facts are: Crime is inevitable, and criminals will inevitably get their hands on guns. Criminals don't follow laws, that's what makes them criminals, so stacking on gun regulations after gun regulations just means robbing the honest man his ability to defend himself legally from those two inevitable facts of life.

Right. I'm reminded of most interventionists' arguments here on things like economic and political theory. Someone fucks up, and then, WE MUST CREATE LAW TO FIX PROBLEM, but they are focusing on what is seen, and not unseen. Creating laws hurts the small guys, and, unintuitively, protects the big guys. When you regulate the economic markets, you make it harder for smaller guys to compete, because the big guys are able to afford lawyers and accountants to find loopholes (Or they can simply fund their own loopholes by paying off Politicians). The same happens when you outlaw guns (or drugs), you're giving free business to criminals, because by definition, criminals don't follow laws. So making more laws to regulate the activities of criminals seems intuitive, on it's face, but ends up not working.

The simple fact, is that prohibitionism and interventionism never work whenever they're applied. From economic markets, to social problems like guns or drugs, it will never work, despite perceived 'successes' in anomalous examples in some European country, or whatever.

[stray kitten]

It bothers me that people think the constitution is outdated. Especially given the immense power and global reach of the US government. Of course it's easy too think that when you aren't within it's influence.

A side of affect of that freedom and ANY freedom is abuse. Abuse doesn't make documents such as the constitution and bill of rights outdated. And when we as a PEOPLE decide it's outdated we will change it. Not from the federal government prohibiting something but from state intervention.

Until then if you try and rob someone near a convenience store you just might get some crazy fucktard itching to shoot you. They used to call that darwinism.

[GenghisTron]

Yea, I don't understand that either. It's not like the Constitution is esoteric or anything, it's not a primer on internal medicine from 1776 or anything. I mean, saying you disagree with the Constitution is one thing, but saying it's outdated is another. The idea behind it is pretty simple. I'm no Constitutionalist or Conservative, and I think the Constitution is flawed, but I also realize the virtue and the reasoning behind the Founders and their thinking behind our form of Government.

Most people don't even understand the Constitution, or our form of Government. They think that the Constitution is like any other charter, where rights are apportioned to the Government, whereas our Constitution is telling the Government what it can't do. I think it's more ironic than anything when someone from a country that is ruled by a Monarchy says that our form of Government is outdated.

[stray kitten]

I think people put too much weight on the word "conservative".

The media has made "conservative" thinking some evil taboo associated solely with christian fundamentalism and whack job radio hosts. Mostly by whack job fuckstards on MSN etc. By defending the constitution you are conservative by definition. You wish to conserve the ideology of it's original purpose.

[BinaryLife]

Actually even though I agree with battery, (provided the story is true), I hate guns, espcially hand guns. It shouldn't be nescessary to own a gun for protection. If it weren't for the fact the US makes billions manufacturing and selling guns, or that people in "important places" are too easily corruptable to ship illegal guns into the country, or if a person doesn't feel their own government can protect them when they are being "persuaded" by bad people, there wouldn't be as big as a gun problem.

How would criminals have any guns if the government just stops allowing them?

This whole "I need a gun to feel safe cause criminals have guns" theory just blows my mind. But there's too much money involved in outfitting these criminals with guns, and the goverment isn't truly going to stop it, because they're part of it.

*Oh and someone asked why it doesn't seem to be as big a deal up here in Canada as it is down in the US. I believe the #1 reason it isn't is because our Canadian government doesn't make billions a year in gun trade. It's much easier to make a stand against guns when your pocket isn't being filled by the profit from them.


You didn't really respond to my post. I am questioning the fact that the article doesn't make sense, which it doesn't.

More to your point, I believe that "Criminals have guns" is a stupid reason to own a gun as well. In any realistic situation for myself owning a gun wouldn't help me avoid getting shot. However, it sin't this way everywhere. Some states and areas are far away from police. The problem with the argument however, is the logic in that the situation can be solved by two people shooting each other.

Ultimately, my real issue with removing guns from the population is simply that if we do so, there's no real evidence to show it would help. I think it would only distract people temporarily from the issue of gun violence and the violent sect of america would simply move to another weapon in order to cause harm. Since the core issue isn't with the weapon itself then taking that weapon away wouldn't make the problem go away. Instead of a shooting we have a bombing since it is incredibly easy to make a bomb these days. The information is also unfortunately available very easily.

As a nation our focus should be to solve the problem at the root and then expand rather than attack the symptom.

[GenghisTron]

Digging through my bookmarks, found that link I was talking about that I'd said I'd post.

http://www.thegovmonitor.com/world_news/britain/uk-invests-250000-for-anti-knife-crime-initiatives-42474.html

[Bridget]

The solution is to ban knives.

[moosh]

The solution is to bring back duels.

[Iggy]

I have a better solution, ban people.

[Innoc]

This is from memory so it might not be totally accurate - In Switzerland or Sweden, I can never remember, every adult is technically part of the militia and is required to keep a rifle and 72 rounds of ammunition in their home. They also have one of the highest rates of gun crime per capita in the world. It baffles me that people think having guns everywhere doesn't increase the rate of gun crime.
Perhaps you should search that out. Every "study" I've ever seen places Countries in Africa, Central and South America as having the highest per capita rates for murder and homicide. No one else even comes close.

When you say "gun crime" are you talking about crimes where death occurs? The reason I ask is that crimes involving loss of life end up being more consistently tabulated as not every mugging victim reports the crime. Assuming you're referring to murder and homicide I think you're going to have a hard time finding any solid statistic that supports your initial statement.

[Etzell]

Perhaps you should search that out. Every "study" I've ever seen places Countries in Africa, Central and South America as having the highest per capita rates for murder and homicide. No one else even comes close.

When you say "gun crime" are you talking about crimes where death occurs? The reason I ask is that crimes involving loss of life end up being more consistently tabulated as not every mugging victim reports the crime. Assuming you're referring to murder and homicide I think you're going to have a hard time finding any solid statistic that supports your initial statement.
Check GT's post. He's already been shown rong.

According to this, Columbia is the winner. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_crime)
We're 12th out of 37 listed. So, not great. Not awful

[GenghisTron]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQUqqXoHauE

fuckin lol'ing at this video

[Bridget]

What a bozo.

[GenghisTron]

Game. Set. Match.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZiDZF2Jq-g

[stray kitten]

shizzle fazizzle

video reminds me of comments in another 2nd amendment thread. Given that context anti-second amendment proponents are both national socialists and racist.

[Innoc]

Check GT's post. He's already been shown rong.

According to this, Columbia is the winner. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_crime)
We're 12th out of 37 listed. So, not great. Not awful
Thanks Etzell. GT is on ignore so I would not have seen that. The order in the top 10 shifts some depending on the source and the reporting period but it has commonly the same countries appearing there.

[FrenchToast]

Yeah I'm trying to remember where I heard that and I'm beginning to think someone told me in a pub so... my bad.

[Bridget]

Thanks Etzell. GT is on ignore, because I'm a coward.

oh okay

[GenghisTron]

Help help, I'm a victim. (http://forums.fortress-forever.com/showpost.php?p=479557&postcount=51)

[GenghisTron]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1350295/Steven-Greenoe-smuggled-80-guns-UK-used-Manchester-shooting.html

[Innoc]

Yeah I'm trying to remember where I heard that and I'm beginning to think someone told me in a pub so... my bad.
We've all had that happen. No worries!

[The Drizzle]

I use to go clubbing a lot in Downtown Orlando with a bunch of friends, usually 5-10 People. All the guys(Mostly military), including myself all carry pistols. Yes, it is a big group, and most likely will be left alone, but Orlando isn't the safest city in the US, what city is. Tampa Bay is just like Orlando in terms of safety.

We've had many drunk people try and start fights with us, but as soon as a pistol is shown they always back off. It should be used a deterrent, and if needed a shot fired away from people, as to scare them.

Now let's go to West Palm Beach, I can't tell you how many cops have been killed by gang members, it's a lot. You take away Gun Permits from everyday, people who follow the laws, they are defenseless. Last time I was in WPB, I had my pistol on me,as my friend told me a Cop was just killed.

Now, go live in those areas, and then come back to me.

I've lived in very safe areas, Cherry Hill,NJ had 1 Murder in 10 years. Camden,NJ... yea. Orlando,Tampa Bay, West Palm Beach, worse than Camden.

Only a few months ago a student was shot on Campus because he wouldn't give up his Macbook Pro. He tried to run, and got shot. Luckily he lived.

Month or so before that, cop had to shot/kill a subject.

Sometimes I walk to labs at 1am, I'll wear a vest, and bring my gun.

The bold section is a joke right?

[episkopos]

In places like England, where guns are outlawed

I live in England. You can legally keep a shotgun in your home as long as you have a permit (basically verifying that you're sane and not likely to use it to commit crime). There are also requirements to keep it in a locked cabinet.

Take note that actually defending yourself with it is very often a criminal offense (you're allowed to use "reasonable force", which is very subject to interpretation).

I personally attribute our gun control laws to the fact that guns simply aren't seen as important by the vast majority of citizens. Nobody feels the need to have a gun with which to defend themselves, or feels that any fundamental right is being denied. Wanting to own a gun is seen as a sign of paranoia or mental illness, if not a desire to commit crime.

Interestingly, surveys have shown a lot of people keep cricket bats and other improvised blunt weapons under their bed, possibly backing up your idea that other weapons will simply move in to fill in the void left by guns. However, isn't it better that people use less lethal weapons in crime? If you took percentage violent crimes in the UK that led to death vs. percentage of violent crimes in the US that led to death, what would the numbers come out like?

[Iggy]

Apples and oranges. I'd bet the per-capita crime ratio in the UK is much lower than in the US. Of course, you'd then have to compare by individual cities(highest crime-vs-highest crime to lowest-vs-lowest). Some areas of the US have an almost non-existant crime rate, while where I live, to not have a shooting/murder/etc... makes the news because of the rarity of the event.

Anything can be used as a weapon, and any weapon can be considered "deadly". It's possible, with a little effort, to turn two popcicle sticks into a switchblade knife.

"Deadly" weapon is a misnomer anyway... I've never seen anyone who shoots to disable someone who broke into their home. Ballbat? Never seen anyone stop to call 911 until the perpatrator is not moving. You name it....

[GenghisTron]

I'd bet the per-capita crime ratio in the UK is much lower than in the US.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

We get it, you hate America.

[Iggy]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

We get it, you hate America.

Irrellevent... but I stand corrected.

[stray kitten]

Some of the more violent places on the planet have strict gun control laws. In fact that whole idea of no sex or going out in public with a woman along with banned political debate and being put to death or eating certain foods can make any sane person violent. But what amazed me recently was how much more lax gun laws are in a country like Switzerland. Gun control advocates there aren't worried about gun crime as much as they are worried about controlling the suicide rate.

AP Reference (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gnqH5refpATFA9GZqEMS5UIpE3Aw?docId=1a241e760 ed4491088e8c1a1fa24846c)

Time Reference (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2049136,00.html)

Those peeps make us (USA) and our Second Amendment seem authoritarian. :)