Finally "no open carry" at some businesses

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

The proper way is to make it extremely hard for such people to get guns and ammo. Looking on Europe you can see that it works - much less crime committed by gun owners who went nuts and started shooting people...

You mean like Switzerland, where most of the populace has full-auto military machine guns in their homes, and yet, , they don't go around shooting each other every day? How could that be? It's all about the guns, right? And if guns are widespread, then people shoot each other a lot, right? But they don't seem to be doing that in Switzerland. So how does your theory account for this?

Switzerland has a giant coverup conspiracy - the reality is that it's a big old shoot em up every other day - they just like it that way and don't want the rest of the world judging them

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

Right, because average people could never get hold of anything that the government has banned.
Not drugs, not liquor, not cigarettes, and most certainly not guns!

Logic never made sense to the illogical thinkers.

BTW: this Sunday I am taking my "Possession and Acquisition Licensing" training (mandatory training for people up here in Canuckistan who wish to own firearms). I am still 1-2 months away from being legally allowed to possess firearms up here. This is first step of several which must be taken. But I am in no rush. I may try and time my first purchase with the pending death of Canada's "Long Gun Registry". The legislation has still not passed through the entire bureaucracy, but all indications are that it will pass. The opposition political parties in Canuckistan are all talk and no balls.

Of course I could also just forget about all the existing laws, contact my local gang banger and get myself setup with a firearm off of the street. Politicians may make their lemmings think gun bans would work, but realists know the gang bangers will still have access to their weapons. After all, criminals don't bother to follow laws. There is a reason why they are called criminals.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[billvon 2,400]

Your one warning. Cut it out.

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

Quote

The proper way is to make it extremely hard for such people to get guns and ammo. Looking on Europe you can see that it works - much less crime committed by gun owners who went nuts and started shooting people...

You mean like Switzerland, where most of the populace has full-auto military machine guns in their homes, and yet, , they don't go around shooting each other every day? How could that be? It's all about the guns, right? And if guns are widespread, then people shoot each other a lot, right? But they don't seem to be doing that in Switzerland. So how does your theory account for this?

Wrong. It's not the populace, it's every soldier who ever served in the Swiss army. They have to keep thier weapons locked at home. To compare Switzerland to the US is BS.

The populace usually is not armed with machine guns.

Your post still leaves another open question:

Why don't those crazy Swiss folks walk around, shooting each other? Why are Americans doing that in such an extensive way? THAT should make you <gasp>

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

Your post still leaves another open question:

Why don't those crazy Swiss folks walk around, shooting each other? Why are Americans doing that in such an extensive way? THAT should make you

This is a good question, a valid question and maybe a question that will get to the root of the gun violence in the USA (and other parts of the world). Based on what you just asked/said, you must then agree that the firearm is NOT the problem. The real problem lies in the people using the firearm. It's not the gun that kills people, it is the people using the gun that kills.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[kallend 1,625]

Quote

Quote

Your post still leaves another open question:

Why don't those crazy Swiss folks walk around, shooting each other? Why are Americans doing that in such an extensive way? THAT should make you

This is a good question, a valid question and maybe a question that will get to the root of the gun violence in the USA (and other parts of the world). Based on what you just asked/said, you must then agree that the firearm is NOT the problem. The real problem lies in the people using the firearm. It's not the gun that kills people, it is the people using the gun that kills.

So Americans are just nastier people than Europeans.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

So Americans are just nastier people than Europeans.

Maybe? Maybe not. Those are your words not mine. Europe is where millions and millions of people lost their lives in two world wars. Hard to say. But I don't see guns running around the streets killing people. I see people running around killing other people.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

You mean like Switzerland, where most of the populace has full-auto military machine guns in their homes, and yet, , they don't go around shooting each other every day? How could that be? It's all about the guns, right? And if guns are widespread, then people shoot each other a lot, right? But they don't seem to be doing that in Switzerland. So how does your theory account for this?

Wrong. It's not the populace, it's every soldier who ever served in the Swiss army. They have to keep thier weapons locked at home. To compare Switzerland to the US is BS.

The populace usually is not armed with machine guns.

Your post still leaves another open question:

Why don't those crazy Swiss folks walk around, shooting each other? Why are Americans doing that in such an extensive way? THAT should make you <gasp>

First of all, I should point out that every male citizen becomes part of the Swiss militia, i.e. "a soldier", and is issued a military rifle with full-auto capability, which he keeps at home ready for immediate deployment. This is not just soldiers which make up a small sub-segment of society - it's all males. And once they get too old for the compulsory military service, then they are allowed to keep their military-issue rifles for the rest of their life. Thus, these machine guns are accessible to nearly every family in every home.

Yet for some reason they don't go around massacring each other. Why is that? It's because of culture, not the mere presence of guns.

[tsisson 0]

The bottom line: Guns are loud and scary...

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

The bottom line: Guns are loud and scary...

They're scary only to the criminals when held in the hands of their intended victims, and to those who are unfamiliar with them.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

The bottom line: Guns are loud and scary...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9dk-nuvZNg&feature=channel

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[CanuckInUSA 0]

For shits and giggles, here is one of the world's shortest "Horror" movies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oq9tEi8FrAw&feature=related

"Lights out"

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[aresye 0]

Quote

Well, this has been discussed more than once (sorry, you're not original). Basically criminals are everywhere, and in most countries people manage to somehow survive - and often have lower crime rate than U.S. - without keeping and carrying guns. Violent crime in gun-restricted NYC is less than in gun-friendly Houston/Dallas (I'm not even mentioning St. Louis or Detroit).

What about Washington DC? The District of Columbia has some of the most strict gun control laws of any US city, yet has one of the highest crime rates. Funny how when you look at the statistics, the crime rate has fallen since the lifting of the handgun ban.

Quote

Indeed they would. You are completely right - a criminal would have little respect just to the law which does not allow him to buy guns. What is your proposed solution for that? Mine is to physically restrict the amount of guns criminals would be able to get. It will also cover cases like Jing Hua Wu, who - being non-criminal - was able to buy a gun, and then shoot three people after being fired from his job. Such restrictions work well in Europe, as there is significantly less gun crime there.

You can't really compare one country to another. They are totally different cultures, people, and laws. The amount of crime is what needs to be addressed, not the restriction of firearms. The recent recession, poor neighborhoods, and a failure in the educational system are at fault for crimes. True, according to your logic, the less guns people have, the less the bad guys have. That makes since in a perfect world. What really will happen, if guns are restricted, is that the bad guys won't turn in their guns, the good, law-abiding citizens will, and then the bad guys can have an early Christmas because they know that ordinary citizens aren't carrying anymore. Plus, with the enormous supply of guns that we have, how do you know each city, of every state, will properly dispose of them. Why are there so many Russian AK's in the world, killing our soldiers? The Soviet Union collapsed, and they lost track of their enormous line of firearms. Now the bad guys have even more weapons, due to crooked cops, poor supervision of the transferring of weapons, and so on. It's faulty logic to think that a firearm restriction would mean the complete confiscation, and destruction of all the guns across the US. Not to mention the enormous amount of 2A extremists, that would likely stand-up, refuse the confiscation, and start an uprising. Now our country is in a state of chaos, and possibly anarchy. In the middle of it you have your law-abiding citizens who already gave up their weapons, unable to defend themselves and their families from looters, rioters, and other bad people taking advantage of the situation.

Quote

This doesn't seem to be really the case. I already asked for news reports which would support such statements, and got nothing so far.

Just read The Armed Citizen section of the NRA's website, and you'll get a good idea at how frighteningly often a concealed carry holder stops an armed robbery, a person protects their family at home, and sometimes, saves a cop who's in over his head with an armed gang. If there had been a concealed carrier when those four cops were shot, they could have potentially saved them all.

Quote

Is it a real-life scenario, and if yes, how long ago did it occur? I can counter it with at least three situations already happening when a law-abiding gun owner somehow went crazy and shot someone

No, it wasn't a real situation, but very similar situations happen, once again, frighteningly often. I can provide you with an entire page of links when a concealed carrier has saved a cop, if you wish to see them. I don't want to clutter the forum. That's also, just saving a cop alone. Regular cases of self-defense happen more regularly.

Quote

Now how many of such crimes happen in those countries in Europe where gun ownership is so severely restricted that a criminal could be sure there are nobody with a concealed gun?

Just look on a bunch of crazy gun crimes committed during last week:

Crazy Gunman shoots 20 rounds in Farm King store Macomb, Ill - Illinois has very strict gun laws.

Sandy man arrested in Gresham club shooting - Clubs and Bars are typically gun-free zones, so permit holders can't carry there.

Community shocked, saddened by massacre - Incident sounds like it happened in a poor neighborhood, with statements like people hearing gunshots all the time, and living in a $350 apartment. You live in a poor, rural area, you're likely going to find an elevated crime rate, and a better need to have a gun to defend yourself.

Grandfather: Money led to family shooting MA is another state that has stricter gun laws than others.

This is not a scenario, but a real-life news reports. Note that none of them seems to be a hardcore criminal who commits crimes for living (maybe except the first one, but it's not clear yet) - they more look like some crazy lunatics. How are you planning to prevent things like that from happening?

How do I prevent it? By having equal or greater firepower than the aggressor, which I can't do if the government takes away my firearms. Here's a look at SOME of the crazy gun crimes that were stopped just the past couple weeks:

http://www.news9.com/Global/story.asp?S=11918427

http://www.wftv.com/news/22395063/detail.html

http://www.wrno.com/cc-common/mainheadlines3.html?feed=135361&article=6723590

http://www2.wspa.com/spa/news/local/article/spartanburg_deputies_investigate_home_invasion_shooting/32375/

http://www.10tv.com/live/content/local/stories/2010/01/23/story-columbus-harris-avenue-robber-shot.html?sid=102

http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2010/jan/21/man-shot-liquor-store-robbery-arrested-police-say/

These are also just the ones that made the news.

*BTW, right now, as I was typing this, a person knocked on my door (11:44PM). When I called out to ask what they wanted, I got no response, and looking through my peephole, I saw a man I didn't know walking away. Thank God I had my pistol with me, should he have attempted to break-in, or trick me into opening the door. If your desired gun laws were in effect, and this man was armed and broke in, the police would likely have arrived 45min later to take my body away.

Gun control, does not work. Not in today's day and age, and certainly not in our country, which is far from perfect. You want people to stop carrying guns, then help stop violent crime in general, first. Once you do that, get back to me, and I'll gladly turn in my guns.

Skydiving: You either learn from other's mistakes, or they'll learn from yours.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Right, because average people could never get hold of anything that the government has banned. Not drugs, not liquor, not cigarettes, and most certainly not guns!

This is pretty much true (there is nothing absolute) when the ban is enforced.

Once you show me an Army grenade you bought from illegal arms leader, I'd say you have a point. A joint purchased in Singapore would work too.

Quote

Really, you are quite humorous. It's fun to just pop in here and bait you every once in a while, just to see how long we can get you to keep on spouting your ridiculous mantra.

And I'm having fun too, those test cases become longer and longer.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Wrong - like usual, when you try to discuss stats.

It is indeed wrong - yet another case where you claimed to provide something which you did not. No surprise though - I would be really shocked when at some point of time you indeed provide some data (I mean real data, not a "search it in google" phrase) instead of just empty claims that you did.

Quote

And while the cop is there, there's MORE risk. You're eventually coming to some sort of POINT, right?

I see you didn't get the POINT. The cop is there to make sure the potential gun owner carries an unloaded gun, therefore dramatically reducing the risk.

Quote

Does my sarcasm hurt your feelings?

You must be joking.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

You mean like Switzerland, where most of the populace has full-auto military machine guns in their homes

This is an NRA-like statement which is as true as saying that "there are 290M guns for 300M U.S. population, so everyone there has a gun"

Quote

and yet, , they don't go around shooting each other every day?

You probably forgot this little Leibacher incident almost a decade back, which followed to discussing restrictions on Switzerland gun control and restrictions have been implemented?

Quote

So how does your theory account for this?

I spoke about it with my friend from Zurich - some interesting thing NRA wouldn't tell you:

- There is mandatory military training for every male, which includes recurrency trainings. Only by completing this training and becoming a member of militia (with all relevant responsibilities) you'll get a gun. The guns issued are mostly rifles (pistols are only issued to officers).
- Keeping and maintaining this gun is mandatory, and required by law. Basically this means one _must_ have a gun (kinda different from U.S., isn't it?).
- The ammo was also issued but sealed (only to use during invasion). The recent change in laws stopped issuing ammo, and all military-issued ammo is being retrieved back.
- They are not allowed to carry without a permit, which is difficult to get.
- They have MUCH less guns per person than U.S. - Wiki estimates 1.5-2M total guns for a 7.5M population, comparing to U.S. 290M guns for a 300M population.

There are even more restrictions imposed in 2008 by Schengen treaty.

And how come that your dream TX - which is full of people with guns - still has any violent crime? All those criminals must be scared off your guns, and should all drive to NYC where they supposedly can safely rob, rape and murder unarmed population. Why then violent crime rate in Houston, TX is significantly higher than in NYC?

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

[Edited for clarification and better explanation]

First of all, we're speaking from different positions. You are a gun owner, and you're interested in providing a safer environment for gun owners like you (by removing carry restrictions, for example). So you analyze every crime situation as "less strict gun laws would possibly prevent it" or "if he had a gun, he'd possibly prevent it".

On the other side I am not a gun owner, and it is extremely unlikely I would ever be. And I'm interested in providing a safer environment for non-gun owners like me (by removing guns, for example). And I analyze every crime situation as "European style gun restrictions would possibly prevent it".

It is pretty clear when we look on my examples. My point for those crimes was that they were committed pretty much by nuts who (unlike some hardcore criminals) would not be able to get illegal guns, and even if they did, the time and efforts it would take might make them sober up and would likely prevent the crime itself. Another point is that some crimes are either impossible to commit without guns (for example, drive-through shootings), or the victim count would be significantly smaller (spree killings).

But the whole question is whether the gun ownership privilege does more harm to society than good, or not? Note that I didn't say "to gun owners". The vast majority of the society (Over 70% by lowest measure) does not own guns, and since gun owners are assumed to ignore the harm from guns in exchange of keeping their privilege, the question ends up to whether the benefits from gun owners protecting others (not just themselves) balances the drawbacks coming from criminals who easily obtain guns now (through straw purchases, dealing with corrupt legitimate dealers or stealing guns), and from nuts who get extremely easy access to guns. Before I was thinking the situation is in balance, but now I'm pretty much sure it is not.

Now to your questions. Washington DC does not have the most crimes in USA. A nearby gun-friendly Baltimore (with apparently much less gun restrictions) has even more violent crime than DC. Crime rate fallen pretty much nationwide in 2009 - not just in DC, and saying that it dropped because of recent lifted ban is no different than saying that it dropped because recently a black President was elected.

It is indeed possible to compare countries. People are still the same (and politicians too). Of course it makes little sense to compare a 8M country with a 300M country (say hello to Swiss "fans" from NRA), but the majority of European large countries are valid comparison, and most of them went through different gun ownership laws through their history. The "society uproar" is a common argument used when a significant change is proposed. It was used when segregation ended, it was used when interracial marriage was banned, and it is being used today by gay marriage opponents. However I don't believe in it. I don't believe a lot of gun owners would be fine with shooting law enforcement officers with the consequence of serving a life in federal prison or facing a chair just to make a political statement. Some might, but it would extremely small quantity, not even worth mentioning. I'm 100% sure that nobody of those who screams "Pass this law, I gonna kill everyone who would be trying to get my guns" would do so when it happens. It seems to be a cultural thing here in U.S. - people try to make impression on others by saying something they really have no intentions to do.

Regarding the amount of crime is what needs to be addressed - indeed, this is the point. Unfortunately you did not provide any workable solutions how exactly would you address it. While restricting guns is not a perfect solution, it is a realistic solution and it works very well in Europe and it works very well in NYC (and even in DC if you compare it with Baltimore). What solution would you offer?

And finally to the stories. I'm not reading "armed citizen" because I am not interested of how a minority of armed people protects themselves from crimes. As I said, like the majority I do not own any guns, so none of those stories are relevant to me. As I said, the whole question is not to see if there are ANY benefits from gun ownership - indeed there are. The question is whether there are more benefits than drawbacks, and I believe there are not.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Wrong - like usual, when you try to discuss stats.

It is indeed wrong - yet another case where you claimed to provide something which you did not.

The information is there.

Quote

No surprise though - I would be really shocked when at some point of time you indeed provide some data (I mean real data, not a "search it in google" phrase) instead of just empty claims that you did.

The difference is, I provide a link to where actual data is - you spout off your opinion like it's proven fact.

The fact that you either can't be bothered or are incapable of searching out the same data isn't MY problem.

Quote

Quote

And while the cop is there, there's MORE risk. You're eventually coming to some sort of POINT, right?

I see you didn't get the POINT. The cop is there to make sure the potential gun owner carries an unloaded gun, therefore dramatically reducing the risk.

And YOU didn't get the POINT - a robber isn't going to call a cop, period - he's just going to go someplace else.

Quote

Quote

Does my sarcasm hurt your feelings?

You must be joking.

You certainly whine enough about it.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

The information is there.

That is just your speculation, because you did not provide any proof that this information is indeed there. Show me the link to the actual data.

Quote

The difference is, I provide a link to where actual data is - you spout off your opinion like it's proven fact.

No, if you provided a direct clickable link to where the actual data is, this would be considered "data". What you provided is speculation, not data.

Quote

The fact that you either can't be bothered or are incapable of searching out the same data isn't MY problem.

Fine. Next time if you ask anyone for proof, they may just tell you that "Go to google.com and find it. The fact that you either can't be bothered or are incapable of searching out the same data isn't MY problem". By your standards it is acceptable proof, so this phrase would satisfy your proof requirements. Just don't whine next time.

Quote

And YOU didn't get the POINT - a robber isn't going to call a cop, period - he's just going to go someplace else.

And I assume you read it on the same web site as your 40%, correct? (I admit it would be naive to ask you for any evidence to support this statement)

Quote

You certainly whine enough about it.

You extremely overestimate your capabilities and importance to me.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

You mean like Switzerland, where most of the populace has full-auto military machine guns in their homes

This is an NRA-like statement which is as true as saying that "there are 290M guns for 300M U.S. population, so everyone there has a gun"

Hey, YOU are the claiming that the presence of guns results in crimes.

Quote

So how does your theory account for this?

Quote

I spoke about it with my friend from Zurich - some interesting thing NRA wouldn't tell you:

Why do you think he got that info from the NRA, George? Your bias is showing (again).

- There is mandatory military training for every male, which includes recurrency trainings. Only by completing this training and becoming a member of militia (with all relevant responsibilities) you'll get a gun.

Concealed carry holders have to go through training to get their license and recurring training to keep it.

Quote

The guns issued are mostly rifles (pistols are only issued to officers).

So?

Quote

- Keeping and maintaining this gun is mandatory, and required by law. Basically this means one _must_ have a gun (kinda different from U.S., isn't it?).

Look up Kennesaw, GA. Not sure where this is pertinent.

Quote

- The ammo was also issued but sealed (only to use during invasion). The recent change in laws stopped issuing ammo, and all military-issued ammo is being retrieved back.

Doesn't prevent them from buying non-issued ammo. Not sure where THIS is pertinent, either.

Quote

- They are not allowed to carry without a permit, which is difficult to get.

Same as states, plenty of hoops to jump through.

Quote

- They have MUCH less guns per person than U.S. - Wiki estimates 1.5-2M total guns for a 7.5M population, comparing to U.S. 290M guns for a 300M population.

So?

Quote

And how come that your dream TX - which is full of people with guns - still has any violent crime? All those criminals must be scared off your guns, and should all drive to NYC where they supposedly can safely rob, rape and murder unarmed population. Why then violent crime rate in Houston, TX is significantly higher than in NYC?

Because it's a CRIMINAL problem, not a gun problem. You've been told this HOW many times now?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

[Edited for clarification and better explanation]

Quote

It is pretty clear when we look on my examples. My point for those crimes was that they were committed pretty much by nuts who (unlike some hardcore criminals) would not be able to get illegal guns, and even if they did, the time and efforts it would take might make them sober up and would likely prevent the crime itself. Another point is that some crimes are either impossible to commit without guns (for example, drive-through shootings), or the victim count would be significantly smaller (spree killings).

And the failing in your logic is that, even in banned areas, criminals can still get guns.

Quote

Now to your questions. Washington DC does not have the most crimes in USA. A nearby gun-friendly Baltimore (with apparently much less gun restrictions) has even more violent crime than DC.

And gun restricting Oakland has more crime than both. You have a point?

Edit to add:

DC has a violent crime rate of 8135/100k. Neighboring (gun-friendly) Alexandria, VA (within the same MSA as DC, as well) has a violent crime rate of 324/100k.

DC has a murder rate of 186/100k. Alexandria, 3/100k.

DC robberies, 4154/100k. Alexandria, 149/100k.

Quote

Crime rate fallen pretty much nationwide in 2009 - not just in DC, and saying that it dropped because of recent lifted ban is no different than saying that it dropped because recently a black President was elected.

It also means that saying "gun bans lowered crime" is equally false as an argument.

Quote

It is indeed possible to compare countries. People are still the same (and politicians too).

If this were true, then we wouldn't be having a discussion comparing crime rates between different countries. There are many more issues than gun ownership that drive crime.

Quote

Of course it makes little sense to compare a 8M country with a 300M country (say hello to Swiss "fans" from NRA), but the majority of European large countries are valid comparison, and most of them went through different gun ownership laws through their history.

Why does it not make sense? You just said that 'people are still the same'.

Quote

Regarding the amount of crime is what needs to be addressed - indeed, this is the point. Unfortunately you did not provide any workable solutions how exactly would you address it.

Neither did you.

Quote

While restricting guns is not a perfect solution, it is a realistic solution and it works very well in Europe and it works very well in NYC (and even in DC if you compare it with Baltimore). What solution would you offer?

No, it doesn't - but don't let things like statistics stand in your way.

Quote

And finally to the stories. I'm not reading "armed citizen" because I am not interested of how a minority of armed people protects themselves from crimes.

The armed citizen has no *duty* to protect others - something you STILL don't seem to grasp. The fact that they CHOOSE (at great risk to themselves physically, legally and financially) to do so is a GOOD thing.

That the anecdotes do not fit your VERY narrowly-defined boundaries of 'proof' does not make them invalid - that's a failing of YOUR mindset.

Quote

As I said, like the majority I do not own any guns, so none of those stories are relevant to me.

Really? What do you think you're going to do, when your door gets kicked in?

1. Call someone that DOES have a gun.
2. Pray they get there in time.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

• Quote

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

The information is there.

That is just your speculation,

Wrong, again.

Quote

because you did not provide any proof that this information is indeed there. Show me the link to the actual data.

Show some actual data yourself and I'll provide targeted links. Until then, search it out on the FBI site yourself.

Quote

Quote

The difference is, I provide a link to where actual data is - you spout off your opinion like it's proven fact.

No, if you provided a direct clickable link to where the actual data is, this would be considered "data". What you provided is speculation, not data.

No, I provided a link to the site - your refusal to do even the most cursory search doesn't make it 'speculation', sorry.

Quote

Quote

The fact that you either can't be bothered or are incapable of searching out the same data isn't MY problem.

Fine. Next time if you ask anyone for proof, they may just tell you that "Go to google.com and find it. The fact that you either can't be bothered or are incapable of searching out the same data isn't MY problem". By your standards it is acceptable proof, so this phrase would satisfy your proof requirements. Just don't whine next time.

Still an improvement over what YOU provide, Mr. Opinion.

Quote

Quote

And YOU didn't get the POINT - a robber isn't going to call a cop, period - he's just going to go someplace else.

And I assume you read it on the same web site as your 40%, correct? (I admit it would be naive to ask you for any evidence to support this statement)

Odd, I don't recall YOU providing any evidence to support the robber calling a cop. Why don't you remedy that situation?

Quote

Quote

You certainly whine enough about it.

You extremely overestimate your capabilities and importance to me.

Really? You spent this whole post whining about how I didn't provide a direct link to the data, so you wouldn't wear out your fingers with the extra clicks to get to the expanded offense data about robberies.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[aresye 0]

I'd like to point out that I grew up in an anti-gun family, so I've experienced both sides of the story growing up. In State College, PA, it's a nice, calm area, with very little crime, and not many reasons to own a gun, besides target shooting.

Now I'm in Jacksonville, FL, when my apartment complex itself has had 3-4 break-ins within a month long period. Luckily my apartment was not one of them, but I live in a nicer neighborhood than a lot of other parts. In the same neighborhood, my friend had her apartment broken into, and woke up to a strange man in her room, who then ran out. Just recently another friend of mine at the same complex, just 1/2mi from where I live, was mugged by a person using a taser.

Skydiving: You either learn from other's mistakes, or they'll learn from yours.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

And finally to the stories. I'm not reading "armed citizen" because I am not interested [in any data that contradicts my own viewpoint LALALALALALALALLALALALALA (fingers in ears)]

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

And finally to the stories. I'm not reading "armed citizen" because I am not interested [in any data that contradicts my own viewpoint LALALALALALALALLALALALALA (fingers in ears)]

I thought I made it pretty clear without your childish editing: I'm not reading "armed citizen" because I am not interested of how a minority of armed people protects themselves from crimes. As I said, like the majority I do not own any guns, so none of those stories are relevant to me.

I do not own guns, and not planning to do so. Therefore a story of a non-gun owner like me who was "saved" from a crime by a gun owner is relevant. A story when a gun owner saved himself from a crime is not because it does not impact my safety. Is it so hard to understand?

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *