Be proud....

steveinaz

..anti-gun crowd, you've successfully unarmed the law-abiding citizen in our nations capital, and it shows....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060712/ap_on_re_us/washington_crime

See, anti gun legislation does work, not a single victim had access to a firearm...only the bad guys.

Demiurge

Criminals don't understand pascifism. They get force.

Refefer

I guess I'm confused by what anti-gun legislature has anything to do with this story? It seems you're trying to base the fact that people are being robbed/raped/killed with guns in DC because democrats have been introducing anti-gun legislature that in turn gets shot down by those who want more guns in the hands of others.

Further going along with your statement, you are infurring that if everyone had a pistol in their pocket, these problems would go away.

If that ever happens, I'm staying home: those drunken brawls will get a lot more interesting. Cops will die more often. And God knows how road rage will make driving.

steveinaz

It's very simple. Let's say you're a bad guy and you have to pick one of 2 places to rob. Which would you pick:

a) an area known to have laws that make it difficult (for the honest citizen) to have a gun
b) an area where the citizen standing behind you in that bank line might be packing a .40

No analysis needed huh?

reeltrouble1

This is such an emotional issue its easy to spark one side or the other. Anyone that knows me or what I do knows my postion on weapons.

If you have a weapon in your home please consider your individual storage options/plan. Which of course has nothing to do with the link.

RT1

PhantomOG

steveinaz wrote:

It's very simple. Let's say you're a bad guy and you have to pick one of 2 places to rob. Which would you pick:

a) an area known to have laws that make it difficult (for the honest citizen) to have a gun
b) an area where the citizen standing behind you in that bank line might be packing a .40

No analysis needed huh?

call me crazy but I don't think criminals sit down and ponder state laws and then actually go and move to another state to commit crimes because of them. EVERY state has lowlife criminals. Washington DC is full of tourists from all over the world. Allowing people to own bazookas won't change the fact that most people are not going to be traveling with weapons.

I understand the sentiment. I just think its pretty pathetic to go around and point out EVERY single crime and say "SEEE, if this state didn't have gun control laws, that person would have had a gun and blown the bad guy away!". :rolleyes:

Demiurge

Refefer wrote:

I guess I'm confused by what anti-gun legislature has anything to do with this story? It seems you're trying to base the fact that people are being robbed/raped/killed with guns in DC because democrats have been introducing anti-gun legislature that in turn gets shot down by those who want more guns in the hands of others.

Further going along with your statement, you are infurring that if everyone had a pistol in their pocket, these problems would go away.

If that ever happens, I'm staying home: those drunken brawls will get a lot more interesting. Cops will die more often. And God knows how road rage will make driving.

Criminals rely on your fear as the biggest weapon, not their gun. Take away guns, then what? Knife? Baseball bat? See where I am going with this? A criminal is a criminal, and gun laws don't do anything other than enable criminals and take away the rights of the innocent. Think a criminal cares about a new law? They'll get guns illegally.

You can't take guns away legally as it's my Constitutional right to keep and bear arms so arguing that is pointless. I'll gladly die over that one.

He's also not at all inferring that everyone should have a pistol in their pocket. It's just a complete non-sequitur. Do you have any idea what's involved in CCW training? You have to work to even have the ability to carry (and I agree with that), and a small percentage of the population does it. We're one of the last states left that doesn't have CCW legislation, but we'll be getting it in the next year or so. I'll be one of the first people in line for the course.

When a criminal doesn't know who has a .45 tucked away in a paddle holster he or she might think twice about losing his life over a pair of $100 shoes. They'll also think twice about who they're going to burglarize, and just might not do it at all.

Your last statement is just completely irrational. Do you know the establishments where concealed firearms are even allowed with CCW legislation?

Typical of people to make the law abiding the citizen out to be the criminal while protecting the real criminals. I'll wager a bet you've never handled a firearm or heard anything about them other than that they're 'bad' by some whack job teacher or politician.

steveinaz

This is such an emotional issue its easy to spark one side or the other. Anyone that knows me or what I do knows my postion on weapons.

If you have a weapon in your home please consider your individual storage options/plan. Which of course has nothing to do with the link.

RT1

Exactly, it's always been about responsible ownership. I agree 100%. I'd also mention that formal training (not only educational, but damn fun) should also be on the person's "must-do" list. As a formal Army marksmanship trainer for 10 years, it's amazing the amount of misinformation that exists, and people assume is true.

My wife & I have a plan (home invasion), and we practice it. She's been trained on the operation and use of her firearm, and shoots quite well. I NEVER want to see her in a situation where she cannot make a stand.

steveinaz

PhantomOG wrote:

I understand the sentiment. I just think its pretty pathetic to go around and point out EVERY single crime and say "SEEE, if this state didn't have gun control laws, that person would have had a gun and blown the bad guy away!". :rolleyes:

Did you even read the article...."a rash of crimeS." Note the "s" on crime. It's no secret that DC has a history of one of the highest crime rates in the US, and some of the strictist gun laws.

The only thing that is pathetic is someone thinking they can depend on law enforcement to save them and/or a family member during the commission of a violent crime. Law enforcement is an "investigative" agency, not a preemptive agency---they investigate what has already happened, past tense. So what do you do during the crime? Pray...beg...hope? No thanks, I'll defend.

Criminals have changed. They're no longer satisfied with just taking your stuff, they want to shoot somebody too. There was a time where you could cooperate peacefully and possibly survive an encounter---but brother, those days are gone.

PhantomOG

Demiurge wrote:

Typical of people to make the law abiding the citizen out to be the criminal while protecting the real criminals.

Who's protecting the criminal? The insinuation in this thread is that the anti-gun crowd is to blame for the crimes, not the criminals.

steveinaz

Nope. The insinuation is that strict gun laws don't work, cost tax payers billions of dollars to enforce, and quite possibly cost innocent by-standers their lives.

unc2701

1)I'm all for competent gun ownership. I've handled & fired guns since I was 8 and if a parent is going to own guns, then that's an essential piece of education.

2)The constitution says we can own guns, and I'm ok with some regulation (training courses, waiting periods), but an outright ban is rediculous

3)Trying to say that gun bans do anything to crime IN EITHER DIRECTION is the stupidest arguement in the debate. Its _slightly_ harder for a law abiding citizen to get a gun, but if you want one, not a problem. Does it make criminals move to DC so they can rob people? Nope. Does it make them more brazen? nope.

PhantomOG

unc2701 wrote:

3)Trying to say that gun bans do anything to crime IN EITHER DIRECTION is the stupidest arguement in the debate. Its _slightly_ harder for a law abiding citizen to get a gun, but if you want one, not a problem. Does it make criminals move to DC so they can rob people? Nope. Does it make them more brazen? nope.

exactly.

ohskigod

I personally choose not to own a gun. if things in my life and/or neighborhood change, I might change that stance, but guns just aint my thing. that being said, I thing the anti gun establishment has virtually no grip on reality. Anti gun laws do nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

granted, there should be some law and governance over who can have one. violent offendors, felons, etc should not even be allowed to touch a gun without going back to jail. but if a law abiding citizen makes the choice to have a firearm for protection, they should have the option. with the caveat that its proper use is the responsibility of the owner. use it wrong, and you suffer the consequences.

steveinaz

3)Trying to say that gun bans do anything to crime IN EITHER DIRECTION is the stupidest arguement in the debate. Its _slightly_ harder for a law abiding citizen to get a gun, but if you want one, not a problem. Does it make criminals move to DC so they can rob people? Nope. Does it make them more brazen? nope.

I'll agree with you to an extent. Though gun laws may or may not (arguable) do anything to crime rates, they do influence wether or not people are able to defend themselves affectively. Gun ownership is supposed to be a right, not a priviledge; unfortunately some states have decided that it is a priviledge.

As far as the 2nd half of your statement, that's conjecture and opinion, nothing more. The worst mistake you can ever make is to under estimate your enemy.

Demiurge

PhantomOG wrote:

Who's protecting the criminal? The insinuation in this thread is that the anti-gun crowd is to blame for the crimes, not the criminals.

People who support strict gun laws are protecting the criminals and taking the rights away from the innocent. If a criminal has a gun and I don't, who is protected? Sure as **** isn't me. It's pretty easy to figure out the logic.

Police are first responders after a crime has been commited. They can do little, or in most cases absolutely nothing to stop it from happening.

It's obvious you see the gun as the problem if you support taking guns out of the hands of the innocent rather than the act the criminal perpetrated. It's and irrational fear centered around the ignorance people have of the object.

Demiurge

unc2701 wrote:

3)Trying to say that gun bans do anything to crime IN EITHER DIRECTION is the stupidest arguement in the debate. Its _slightly_ harder for a law abiding citizen to get a gun, but if you want one, not a problem. Does it make criminals move to DC so they can rob people? Nope. Does it make them more brazen? nope.

It's got nothing to do with the ease of access. It has to with the fact that packing heat can get you sent up with a felony on your record. The criminal mind doesn't care about the law, and he's going to carry. The law abiding citizen likely isn't going to be carrying a firearm for fear of jail and the mark on his/her record.

Who has the upper hand there? The criminal, and that's a fact. If you want to bandy about statistics, fine, but I know I'm safer with my firearm than I am without it.

I go to the range every other week, sometimes more. I know how to use a weapon more effectively than Soulja Slim with his Glock cocked to the side trying to rob me of $50. I'd rather take my chances with a gun than without one. Any criminal crazy enough to pull a gun on someone is crazy enough to use it. I don't plan on going without a fight.

steveinaz

Let me make myself clear, I don't have anything against people who don't want to own a gun. That's fine. Just don't legislate my ability to protect my family the way I see fit because you feel they are "unnecessary."

Jump off the bridge by yourself, IOW.

steveinaz

Any of you been a victim of a violent (or potentially) crime? I have, twice. Both times I was unarmed---that won't happen again. Luckily I was able to negotiate my way out of both incidents, of course short alot of money and some belongings.

unc2701

steveinaz wrote:

they do influence wether or not people are able to defend themselves affectively.

****. Getting a gun isnt' like trying to get a drivers license at 4pm on a friday. I'm friends with a convicted felon who has an AR15, an AK47 and more handguns than you'd care to think about. Gun laws don't keep anybody, legal or illegal from getting guns.

steveinaz wrote:

As far as the 2nd half of your statement, that's conjecture and opinion, nothing more.

Well, you spend 8 years volunteering in the criminal justice system, 10 years working in a homeless shelter in the worst part of town (check your weapons at the door, please), find a bleeding body in the street, check it for a pulse, then have to find someone to call the cops, then we can talk. Believe me, I've been in more than a few crack houses and you don't know **** about what you're talking about here.

In fact, you saw a story about a few crimes in DC and wanted to make it about gun control, but sorry. It just isn't.

Dennis Gardner

I was there on the 4th, with half a million other fireworks fans and felt totally safe due to the numbers of people. Parked within 2 blocks of the White House, laughed at the pseudo-security tents that rushed people through like running cattle and really had a nice evening.

I wouldn't want to walk through some of the neighborhoods leaving that area though without some protection.

steveinaz

Well, you spend 8 years volunteering in the criminal justice system, 10 years working in a homeless shelter in the worst part of town (check your weapons at the door, please), find a bleeding body in the street, check it for a pulse, then have to find someone to call the cops, then we can talk. Believe me, I've been in more than a few crack houses and you don't know **** about what you're talking about here.

You obviously know nothing about me.

Stating that criminals don't go to places because of the gun laws, and stating that it makes them no more brazen is your opinion. PERIOD. Unless you've got some facts to back that up?

Demiurge

C'mon Steve, you've been accosted by criminals with guns twice, but you don't know ****! :rolleyes:

sucks2beme

Dallas has concealed handgun permits. One side predicted massive shootouts,
the other a reduction in crime. After all was said and done, net effect was zero. No less crime, no massive number of "armed citizen" shootings.
The bad guy can buy anything he wants at any time. Laws don't do squat to
prevent this.
There was one incident that did amuse me. Back in 92' there was a string of
carjackings outside of private residences. It was brought to an end by several armed citizen shootings. They stopped immediately!
But overall, in the bad parts of town, the norm is they show up guns and are quite happy to use them. I don't see this changing with any law.
I hope the right to own doesn't go away. The banning of guns is feel good
legislation. Just like sueing Micky D's for greasy fries. Bullcrap that makes
someone happy. It doen't fix anything.

steveinaz

Demiurge wrote:

C'mon Steve, you've been accosted by criminals with guns twice, but you don't know ****! :rolleyes:

Yeah, and don't you know there were no dead bodies during Operation Desert Storm. we just blew up buildings and stuff...

its cool, those who don't know....don't need to know.

steveinaz

unc2701 wrote:

I'm friends with a convicted felon who has an AR15, an AK47 and more handguns than you'd care to think about. Gun laws don't keep anybody, legal or illegal from getting guns.

Well, you spend 8 years volunteering in the criminal justice system, 10 years working in a homeless shelter in the worst part of town (check your weapons at the door, please), find a bleeding body in the street, check it for a pulse, then have to find someone to call the cops, then we can talk. Believe me, I've been in more than a few crack houses and you don't know **** about what you're talking about here.

In fact, you saw a story about a few crimes in DC and wanted to make it about gun control, but sorry. It just isn't.

You worked for 8 years with the criminal justice system, and your friends with a convicted felon who is illegally possessing firearms? Maybe you should edit that....;) Ever heard the legal phrase "accessory before the fact" ? Google that...

You do realize you're arguing my point for me: "Gun laws don't keep anybody, legal or illegal from getting guns." (Your quote) Exactly, so why spend huge tax dollars and legislate (yet another thing) to death? Because it gives some people a warm and fuzzy; ie., politics. It removes fundamental rights from Americans and provides a cash cow for crooked politicians to use and abuse.

ND13

All I want to add, and I agree with the thread's author, is........................

I most certainly believe, without a shadow of doubt, that one of the main reasons that the US mainland has never invaded(I don't consider the British, which were already here, as an invader......... modern times) is due to the fact that it's citizens are armed or at least allowed to be armed. It would be a MAJOR miscalculation in judgement to take the right to bear arms away from law abiding citizens and would only invite more terrorism(domestic and foreign bred) and/or maybe even an attack on our shores. You don't think that our enemies haven't wanted to invade us and then had a change of heart when they remembered...........Hey wait a second.....they all have guns, we'll have to fight them all, not just their Armed Forces............ah, nevermind, let's just go blow up one of their Embasseys instead.


POLITICAL CORRECTNESS IS KILLING OUR GREAT NATION!!!!!!!! Slowly but surely

DarqueKnight

steveinaz wrote:

It's very simple. Let's say you're a bad guy and you have to pick one of 2 places to rob. Which would you pick:

a) an area known to have laws that make it difficult (for the honest citizen) to have a gun
b) an area where the citizen standing behind you in that bank line might be packing a .40

No analysis needed huh?

I think further analysis is needed. Particularly with regard to the bank analogy. Bad guys rob banks (and other places with armed security staff) all the time, with the understanding that they definitely will encounter an armed response. The possibility of encountering an armed victim will deter some criminals and will only serve to make other criminals better prepared to deal with the eventiality of an armed response. In other words, if the reward justifies the risk, the criminal will just prepare to be faster, smarter, and better armed than the individial(s) protecting the object of his illicit desire.

I grew up around guns. My grandmother slept with a loaded pistol in her nightstand and a loaded shotgun in her bedroom closet. My father and uncles were avid hunters. Furthermore, my father considered it mandatory for both me and my sisters to receive firearms training when we were adolescents.

The firearms in my home do not make me feel safer from criminal intrusion any more than my auto insurance, air bags, and safety belts make me feel safer from a vehicular collision. Like insurance and safety devices, firearms do make me better prepared and I would not hesitate to use them, and other means at my disposal, to protect myself in the event of an ugly confrontation.

With regard to areas with abusive gun control laws being "softer", more inviting areas for crime, that is not necessarily true. Firearms are not the only effective means of protecting life, health, and property. Poison darts, bull whips, baseball bats, nunchuckus, brass knuckles, knives, and street fighting techniques are good examples of non-firearm self defense options. A business devoid of firearms is not necessarily an easy target for criminals, especially if the staff are well trained in swordplay, knife fighting, and street fighting techniques. I'm sure every one reading this knows of at least one incidence where a knife wielding crime victim has chased off a gun wielding assailant. Sometimes, it comes down to who has the biggest balls, which brings me to the next point.

Even more important than a good external self defense apparatus is a confident, aware, and focused mind. The most effective weapon a criminal has is the element of surprise. Without the element of surprise, a criminal knows that he has lost 99% of the probability of a successful conclusion to an illegal act, and in most cases will not attack a target (individual, home, business) if it appears that said target is aware, confident, and not likely to be intimidated by a confrontation.

bobman1235

ND13 wrote:

I most certainly believe, without a shadow of doubt, that one of the main reasons that the US mainland has never invaded(I don't consider the British, which were already here, as an invader......... modern times) is due to the fact that it's citizens are armed or at least allowed to be armed. It would be a MAJOR miscalculation in judgement to take the right to bear arms away from law abiding citizens and would only invite more terrorism(domestic and foreign bred) and/or maybe even an attack on our shores. You don't think that our enemies haven't wanted to invade us and then had a change of heart when they remembered...........Hey wait a second.....they all have guns, we'll have to fight them all, not just their Armed Forces............ah, nevermind, let's just go blow up one of their Embasseys instead.

I've heard it said on many occasions that this is actually a very big reason we won World War II. We were a nation of gun owners.

steveinaz

ND13 wrote:

All I most certainly believe, without a shadow of doubt, that one of the main reasons that the US mainland has never invaded(I don't consider the British, which were already here, as an invader......... modern times) is due to the fact that it's citizens are armed or at least allowed to be armed. It would be a MAJOR miscalculation in judgement to take the right to bear arms away from law abiding citizens and would only invite more terrorism(domestic and foreign bred) and/or maybe even an attack on our shores. You don't think that our enemies haven't wanted to invade us and then had a change of heart when they remembered...........Hey wait a second.....they all have guns, we'll have to fight them all, not just their Armed Forces............ah, nevermind, let's just go blow up one of their Embasseys instead.

I think that's a very legitimate point, can you ever invision America being taken over by anyone? Hell no, 300 million guns in America--above and beyond our Armed forces equipment.

DarqueKnight

ND13 wrote:

I most certainly believe, without a shadow of doubt, that one of the main reasons that the US mainland has never invaded(I don't consider the British, which were already here, as an invader......... modern times) is due to the fact that it's citizens are armed or at least allowed to be armed.

Mexican illegals notwithstanding, the main reason we have never been invaded is because of the sheer size of our country and the fact that there are two humongous oceans insulating our western and eastern coasts from any country with the means and desire to implement an invasion.

I am of the opinion that illegal immigration constitutes a de facto invasion, which will have the same disasterous long-term effects on our national sovereignty and economy as a full scaled military invasion would have.