07-14-2014 07:46 AM
4,617 ... 155156157158159 ...
tools
  1. UJ95x's Avatar
    I don't have guns where I live and to be honest I feel safer than if we did have guns. It removes the level of potential escalation, eliminated our massacres, enthusiasts can use them if they follow the law, reduction in teen suicide, low teen murder rates (USA is 82x higher than ours per capita), I think there is really no justification to have guns to prevent a state over throwing a government. If a state doesnt like what's occurring leave the federation.

    - Android Central App. Remember courage is contagious.
    Can't remember where I read this but a few days ago someone said that if you removed Washington DC, Michigan and another state (Can't recall atm) the US would have the second lowest crime rate in the world O_o

    Posted via Android Central App
    12-10-2013 06:32 PM
  2. JW4VZW's Avatar
    If you are a criminal, who are you going to rob/attack first. Someone who is or is not able to defend themselves.

    I always carry if I have to go into a building that doesn't allow it I leave my weapon in my vehicle safe. I also rarely conceal, open is the best option for me. It let's criminals know that I am ready and able to defend myself and others from them.
    When I worked in Richmond we would take our deposits out at night so that we can deposit the cash in the morning when the bank opened. Where we parked our cars was almost a quarter of a mile away. One of the store managers near us got robbed, at knife point, while walking to his car one night. After this, I bought a small safe and kept a gun in the back office so that it would never happen to me. I do agree, open carry is an excellent deterrent against criminals.
    12-10-2013 06:35 PM
  3. Aquila's Avatar
    Again, what I said was “As for why I have my guns, plural. I enjoy target shooting, yes. But i have them because it is a right that is guaranteed to me in the Second Amendment.” So that does cover the sport aspect of things. I also covered the personal defense aspect. So I have my guns for sport (target shooting) and defense. That being said, it is my right to have a gun. The liberal comment has to do with the typical liberal attitude towards guns. That is they are not needed and nobody should have them. As for “Having the right doesn't mandate utilizing it, but rather protects the ability of those who choose to do so.” I hope like hell I never have to use my gun for personal defense. To say that it is “ridiculous” to own a gun because my right is, in fact, quite ridiculous in itself.
    I think I understand what you're saying and what nolittdroid is saying, and from my perspective I think it's just a misunderstanding of terminology. As she said in another thread that she's not a liberal, I am inclined to believe her and think she's not spinning propaganda at you, but rather trying to point out that perhaps there ought to be reasons other than "it's in the Constitution" to buy things. You clearly do have additional reasons, so the "disagreement" is either non-existent or semantics. From my reading, you're not saying, "I bought them because the Constitutions says I may", but pointing that out as additional support to your purchasing decisions. I think she's just indicating an emphasis on the other reasons and clearly not saying that is ridiculous for you to own guns, but rather that your other reasons are the actual justifications for purchase, while the Constitutionality argument just protects your right to make that decision. That's not the same thing as saying you shouldn't buy or be able to buy them.
    12-10-2013 06:38 PM
  4. Aquila's Avatar
    Can't remember where I read this but a few days ago someone said that if you removed Washington DC, Michigan and another state (Can't recall atm) the US would have the second lowest crime rate in the world O_o

    Posted via Android Central App
    I agree that the level of crime in the US would drop to virtually nothing if we sent Washington DC and all the politicians that work there to the moon. Not sure I mean the same thing as the author of your article, but I'll walk it down anyways
    12-10-2013 06:41 PM
  5. Serial Fordicator's Avatar
    How many self defense shootings do you have per month in the city you live in? 15-20?
    How many thug shootings happen per week in Chicago against unarmed victims.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    12-10-2013 06:44 PM
  6. Aquila's Avatar
    If you are a criminal, who are you going to rob/attack first. Someone who is or is not able to defend themselves.

    I always carry if I have to go into a building that doesn't allow it I leave my weapon in my vehicle safe. I also rarely conceal, open is the best option for me. It let's criminals know that I am ready and able to defend myself and others from them.
    For opportunistic criminals, this is absolutely true. They're generally cowards and are looking for easy targets that they can surprise and escape easily. I do have a concern about more hardcore criminals, who once they've decided are going to do something (such as rob a bank) and there is no turning back, will often target armed security first in a "take out the queen" strategy and I'd hate for random people to be putting themselves needlessly in the position of stand-in for the queen. However, given that your odds are in the many millions to one of ever witnessing, let alone being involved in such a crime, it's more of a hypothetical argument versus the risk/value of concealing or not and doesn't really impact the argument of whether or not to carry in any way.
    12-10-2013 06:45 PM
  7. UJ95x's Avatar
    I agree that the level of crime in the US would drop to virtually nothing if we sent Washington DC and all the politicians that work there to the moon. Not sure I mean the same thing as the author of your article, but I'll walk it down anyways
    I think it might have been Reddit lol
    There was no mention of sending them to the moon but that might not be such a bad idea

    Posted via Android Central App
    12-10-2013 06:46 PM
  8. Aquila's Avatar
    How many thug shootings happen per week in Chicago against unarmed victims.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    I have no idea what the stats are and Chicago is pretty terrible about giving good data out for analysis, but my impression is that most of the shootings are not against innocent "civilians" but rather more akin to gangland warfare from the old days. Soldiers and mouth runners, whether armed or not, from "the neighborhood" that opt-in to playing the game. I know that's not everyone, but again, we can solve much more of that problem by simple enhancements to education and other poverty eradicating strategies than we ever will by telling them to stop buying illegal guns.

    Hell, we could probably do it buy doing the reverse to "gun control" and double down on "criminal gun control". If you use a gun (or other weapon) IN A CRIME, you get an automatic 15 years (or whatever) of solitary confinement added to your sentence. If you do not commit a crime, we don't care what you do with your weapons as long as you're responsible enough to keep them out of the hands of those who ought not be armed.
    Fairclough likes this.
    12-10-2013 06:50 PM
  9. palandri's Avatar
    How many thug shootings happen per week in Chicago against unarmed victims.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    How many victims are unarmed, I have no idea. We have about 5.5 shootings a day or about 38 per week. Total for the year ending Nov 1, 2013 is 1,883.

    Shootings -- Chicago Crime -- ChicagoTribune.com
    Fairclough likes this.
    12-10-2013 07:59 PM
  10. Fairclough's Avatar
    Why allow easy access to guns? Easy access means more criminals have them and let's face it with a gun who has the element of surprise wins.

    - Android Central App. Remember courage is contagious.
    palandri likes this.
    12-10-2013 08:47 PM
  11. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    Why allow easy access to guns? Easy access means more criminals have them and let's face it with a gun who has the element of surprise wins.

    - Android Central App. Remember courage is contagious.
    Because you're only taking access away from law abiding citizens.

    Sent from my XT1060 using AC Forums mobile app
    12-10-2013 08:52 PM
  12. Fairclough's Avatar
    Nolittdroid we need you in the politics section. You have common sense.

    - Android Central App. Remember courage is contagious.
    palandri and nolittdroid like this.
    12-10-2013 09:00 PM
  13. Fairclough's Avatar
    Right. So your saying if you had a note regulated system.... Governments will only give guns to criminals?

    - Android Central App. Remember courage is contagious.
    12-10-2013 09:09 PM
  14. JW4VZW's Avatar
    Nolittdroid we need you in the politics section. You have common sense.

    - Android Central App. Remember courage is contagious.
    Yes, anyone who shares your liberal anti-gun stance has common sense. Not quite!
    nolittdroid likes this.
    12-10-2013 09:19 PM
  15. Fairclough's Avatar
    Right... Must making my whole country liberal. Everyone views their is no need for a gun for the sake of it. Only 5% of the population obtain one and our crime rates have been wonders.

    (Actually statistically about 70% of is liberal from the last election)

    - Android Central App. Remember courage is contagious.
    12-10-2013 09:23 PM
  16. JW4VZW's Avatar
    I think I understand what you're saying and what nolittdroid is saying, and from my perspective I think it's just a misunderstanding of terminology. As she said in another thread that she's not a liberal, I am inclined to believe her and think she's not spinning propaganda at you, but rather trying to point out that perhaps there ought to be reasons other than "it's in the Constitution" to buy things. You clearly do have additional reasons, so the "disagreement" is either non-existent or semantics. From my reading, you're not saying, "I bought them because the Constitutions says I may", but pointing that out as additional support to your purchasing decisions. I think she's just indicating an emphasis on the other reasons and clearly not saying that is ridiculous for you to own guns, but rather that your other reasons are the actual justifications for purchase, while the Constitutionality argument just protects your right to make that decision. That's not the same thing as saying you shouldn't buy or be able to buy them.
    Correct, I have other reasons for having my guns, plural. The Constitution gives me the right to purchase a gun, for whatever reason. In my case it's sport and self defense. As you said, the fact that it is in the Constitution is additional support. Hopefully you'll see that I'm agreeing with you!
    12-10-2013 09:23 PM
  17. JW4VZW's Avatar
    Because you're only taking access away from law abiding citizens.

    Sent from my XT1060 using AC Forums mobile app
    Correct! If you ban guns the criminals will still have their supply source for guns.
    12-10-2013 09:26 PM
  18. JW4VZW's Avatar
    Right. So your saying if you had a note regulated system.... Governments will only give guns to criminals?

    - Android Central App. Remember courage is contagious.
    You're not even understanding, are you? If us legal gun owners can no longer own weapons, that will negativity impact us legal gun owners. Criminals, by definition, do not follow the law. They'll still have their guns, and their supply source for guns. I don't really see what you liberal anti-gun people are not understanding. It's pretty simple really.
    cdmjlt369 likes this.
    12-10-2013 09:29 PM
  19. Serial Fordicator's Avatar
    I have no idea what the stats are and Chicago is pretty terrible about giving good data out for analysis, but my impression is that most of the shootings are not against innocent "civilians" but rather more akin to gangland warfare from the old days. Soldiers and mouth runners, whether armed or not, from "the neighborhood" that opt-in to playing the game. I know that's not everyone, but again, we can solve much more of that problem by simple enhancements to education and other poverty eradicating strategies than we ever will by telling them to stop buying illegal guns.

    Hell, we could probably do it buy doing the reverse to "gun control" and double down on "criminal gun control". If you use a gun (or other weapon) IN A CRIME, you get an automatic 15 years (or whatever) of solitary confinement added to your sentence. If you do not commit a crime, we don't care what you do with your weapons as long as you're responsible enough to keep them out of the hands of those who ought not be armed.
    Actually, I read about an exceptional young black man that was murdered because he would not join a gang. The media would not touch this story with a 10' pole.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    12-10-2013 09:46 PM
  20. Serial Fordicator's Avatar
    You're not even understanding, are you? If us legal gun owners can no longer own weapons, that will negativity impact us legal gun owners. Criminals, by definition, do not follow the law. They'll still have their guns, and their supply source for guns. I don't really see what you liberal anti-gun people are not understanding. It's pretty simple really.
    Its quite simple actually, its the "I want to fit in to the it crowd and will blindly follow what my political party leads me to believe." It is the #1 problem on both sides. It really drives me nuts.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    cdmjlt369 likes this.
    12-10-2013 09:49 PM
  21. Live2ride883's Avatar
    Why allow easy access to guns? Easy access means more criminals have them and let's face it with a gun who has the element of surprise wins.

    - Android Central App. Remember courage is contagious.
    If you make it illegal for a law abiding citizen to own/carry a gun for self defense, then only criminals will have them.
    12-10-2013 10:00 PM
  22. Fairclough's Avatar
    How would criminals get them any other way than a law abiding citizen? Think this through and if you say theft read my long post.

    - Android Central App. Remember courage is contagious.
    12-10-2013 10:10 PM
  23. palandri's Avatar
    If you make it illegal for a law abiding citizen to own/carry a gun for self defense, then only criminals will have them.
    That's incorrect; the police will still have guns.
    12-10-2013 10:12 PM
  24. Live2ride883's Avatar
    That's incorrect; the police will still have guns.
    But, the US Supreme court has ruled that the police are not required to protect individual citizens. So I'll carry my own...
    12-10-2013 10:15 PM
  25. palandri's Avatar
    But, the US Supreme court has ruled that the police are not required to protect individual citizens. So I'll carry my own...
    So you're saying the police don't protect the public or fight crime or put criminals in jail? That's up to the individual now?
    12-10-2013 10:21 PM
4,617 ... 155156157158159 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Larva Cartoon - FREE and FUNNY Application
    By liontyping in forum Android Apps
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-21-2014, 11:03 AM
  2. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 10-25-2013, 07:33 AM
  3. POI information and Gallery
    By robjulo in forum Samsung Galaxy S4
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-24-2013, 11:00 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-24-2013, 04:28 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD