Be proud....

MacLeod

unc2701 wrote:

So, On an individual level, let me tell you my two gun in the face expericences and you tell me how having a gun would have helped.

1)I'm walking down the street in Durham, I pass some thugs. one says, "hey, you got some change" I turn around and dude's holding a pistol about 3 feet away. He got my wallet (no cash) and got off one charge before I canceled the cards.

2)I'm on my way to tikal, guatemala. There's a roadblock, but they're waving the car ahead through- about 10 guys under 25, 3-4 with assault rifles. I stop the car, they make me get out, take my watch & the cash I had in my pocket (had all my real cash in my shoe, under the insole).

Right. In those situations you were screwed and having a gun wouldnt have helped.

But what about if your mugger was using a knife? Not all crimes involve a gun.

How about if your wife/mother/daughter/etc had a guy grab her and forcer her into an alley to rape her? Would it help her out if she had a gun?

How about if you walk up on some dude trying to break into your car? He doesnt notice you til youre on top of him and now that youve seen him, he's decided to crack you over the head and take your car. Would you like to have a gun then?

How about if 5 thugs just decide theyre going to kick your **** because of the way you look and theyre only armed with their fists? Would a gun help then?

These are just examples of street crime, the examples of having a gun to protect your home are endless.

Having a gun doesnt mean youll never be a victim of a crime but it does make it much, much less likely.

I do agree that banning guns seems to have little effect on crime in either direction. But like I said earlier, thugs will always be thugs and theyll find a way to commit crimes. But making it easier for law abiding citizens to protect themselves just levels the playing field a little more.

BIZILL

laws make things so that the victim if fucced either way. no gun, get robbed or killed. having a gun in any one of macleod's scenarios and using it may get you locked up as well. az law states that one may use a gun only to stop an immediate threat. if a car jacker decides to steal my car and does it at gunpoint or with a knife, boom, he's dead. but if i shoot him as he drives away, i get in trouble since the law says you have no more justification to shoot as you are no longer in harm's way. sure, there are 'grey' areas of the law in these situations. but criminals know whether a person is strapped or not, a law abiding citizen may be reluctant to draw their weapon as there are always repurcussions. laws.:rolleyes:

edit: but chances are in my favor, if i'm packing rather than not, to come out on top.

BIZILL

also, if not for the law, i'd shoot the carjacker as he/she drives away with my truck! if there was no law saying i couldn't shoot to protect MY property, the criminal would think, "hmm, this guy may be strapped. i'll go elsewhere with my desire because i might get shot. his bad-**** truck isn't worth dying for."

just an example of how laws work in criminals' favor.;)

unc2701

Yep... It's cowbell time.

BIZILL

don't be skurred. mooo.

DarqueKnight

steveinaz wrote:

The criminal element has changed, they'll kill you just "because."

Have they really changed? I really don't think so.

Have you ever heard of Al Capone? He was reportedly a very sadistic cold blooded killer. What about John Dillinger? Do the names "Bonnie and Clyde" ring a bell? How about the famous outlaw Jesse James? Are any of the names I mentioned "contemporary" criminals? How far back do they go? Can any parallels be drawn between their mentalities and methods of operation and those of today's criminals and criminal organizations?

What about young Mafia turks who commit murders just to gain a "rep" on their way to becoming a "made man"? What about people who joined criminal gangs during the days of the "Wild West" not because they wanted to get rich through robbery, but because they had a sick need to hurt people and because the scarcity of law enforcement on the American western frontier meant little, if any, chance of getting caught and punished?

While we are on the subject of criminals committing crimes "just because", Do the names Michael Milken, Ivan Boesky, and Dennis Levine mean anything to you? They were all rich guys who went to jail during the 1980's for insider trading. They were already "filthy" rich, yet they callously engaged in illegal insider trading and other stock market illegalities simply because they WANTED to steal more, More,MORE. Why? Just because, and just because they thought they were above the law and could get away with it. I will defer a discussion about contemporary Congressional and Corporate [can you spell Enron?] criminals for another time.

F1nut

PhantomOG wrote:

I don't think there is a resistance to the option of being armed in a bad situation. There is a resistance to the repeated comments that try to correlate gun control laws with more crimes being committed or even worse blaming crimes on gun control laws instead of the criminals.

Agreed

cfrizz

Excellent point. Especially since in Jesse James time EVERYONE already wore a gun! Crimes were still committed even with ordinary folks running around with guns. That fact didn't deter anyone back then from committing a crime, so there is no reason to think that just because you're running around with a gun now you won't be the victim of a crime!

It simply gives you a false sense of security thinking that you will definately be able to stop whoever might try to attack you. We all know that outcome isn't gauranteed no matter what you might like to believe.

DarqueKnight wrote:

Have they really changed? I really don't think so.

How about the famous outlaw Jesse James? Are any of the names I mentioned "contemporary" criminals? How far back do they go? Can any parallels be drawn between their mentalities and methods of operation and those of today's criminals and criminal organizations?.QUOTE]

steveinaz

cfrizz wrote:

That fact didn't deter anyone back then from committing a crime, so there is no reason to think that just because you're running around with a gun now you won't be the victim of a crime!

Cathy....dear.....
You don't wear a gun as a deterrent (it's concealed typically, provided you have a CCP). You wear a gun as a life saving option. I have no illusions that a criminal will "sense" that I have a gun, I don't care, I just want to survive the ordeal.

Having a weapon and being well trained with it is NOT a false sense of security; it's a probablity that you will survive. Hoping that a violent crime doesn't happen to you is a false sense of security.

This isn't about a dog & pony show, this is about the ability to protect yourself LEGALLY. Do you people know anything about what it takes to get a concealed carry permit? Do you know all of the rules attached to having a concealed carry permit?---you know, where you can, and cannot carry? You do know that a CCW doesn't mean you can take your firearm anywhere right?

Ok. I'm done...again, best of luck, you're gonna need it.

DarqueKnight

steveinaz wrote:

Do you people know anything about what it takes to get a concealed carry permit? Do you know all of the rules attached to having a concealed carry permit?---you know, where you can, and cannot carry? You do know that a CCW doesn't mean you can take your firearm anywhere right?

Yes. I have had a concealed carry permit since 1992. I had to take (and pass) a state accredited firearms training course, pay a $200 fee, and submit to a background investigation by the state police.

cfrizz

Best of luck to you too, since you will need it just as much as I will or anyone else.

Regardless of how much training you have, you're still HOPING that you can pull the trigger before you end up getting hurt, and THAT probability can go either way!

The outcome of a violent crime is not guaranteed whether or not you own a gun legally. You can only hope that it is a life saving option.

Skynut

DarqueKnight wrote:

Have they really changed? I really don't think so.

Have you ever heard of Al Capone? He was reportedly a very sadistic cold blooded killer. What about John Dillinger? Do the names "Bonnie and Clyde" ring a bell? How about the famous outlaw Jesse James? Are any of the names I mentioned "contemporary" criminals? How far back do they go? Can any parallels be drawn between their mentalities and methods of operation and those of today's criminals and criminal organizations?

What about young Mafia turks who commit murders just to gain a "rep" on their way to becoming a "made man"? What about people who joined criminal gangs during the days of the "Wild West" not because they wanted to get rich through robbery, but because they had a sick need to hurt people and because the scarcity of law enforcement on the American western frontier meant little, if any, chance of getting caught and punished?

While we are on the subject of criminals committing crimes "just because", Do the names Michael Milken, Ivan Boesky, and Dennis Levine mean anything to you? They were all rich guys who went to jail during the 1980's for insider trading. They were already "filthy" rich, yet they callously engaged in illegal insider trading and other stock market illegalities simply because they WANTED to steal more, More,MORE. Why? Just because, and just because they thought they were above the law and could get away with it. I will defer a discussion about contemporary Congressional and Corporate [can you spell Enron?] criminals for another time.

Reading through this I can't help to think that crime has continued on the same level. We have made anti-gun laws to curb crime and yet it is still here. We try to outlaw the tools used to commit the crime and the criminals still use them.
The fact is that the criminals don't care if their gun is illegal, in fact I bet they brag to their friends about their fully auto hand gun or rifle.

So the laws only work to punnish the law abiding person.

I can not legally own many guns I would like to own just because lawmakers think it is too easy to use them in a crime; yet I do not use my guns for crime I use them for recreation or hunting.

I just don't believe that outlawing certain guns does much to curb crime.

BIZILL

true. i'll never be able to purchase a full-auto ak-47 (legally), but i know a couple gangbangers at my work who do.

Skynut

And that would be a fun rifle to take out and spend a fortune with.