ClumsyMonkey.net

just a little insight to where I live and the reason I sometimes carry a pistol (legaly).

I too am scared to walk around in some places...

Kevin Johnson has a Nazi swastika tattooed on one leg [...] "He doesn't know why he has all the tattoos he has," Hawk said as he left the courtroom. He added that the defendant got the tattoo when he was a young man. "It was what all the 16-year-olds were doing."

Qu'est qe le fuck?

look, I live in Chicago, which until last year had the highest murder rate in the Nation. I have never felt the need to carry around a form of protection, let alone a gun. Are there some places that I would be frightened to walk around? Like every major city, yes. But I walk around in neighborhoods at night and have no fear. I assume some people do have guns, but they only purchase it out of paranoia and fear. This is how I assume a good portion of guns are purchased. They exaggerate danger where it may not exist at all. I embrace my city, I don't grow suspicious of it. St. Louis is a cool city too. Go out and think about how awesome the arch is. Stick around by the river. If there's a bad neighborhood, just avoiding is a better solution than carrying a weapon.

I AM ME wrote:Can someone explain why there's almost no gun violence in Britain? The sops don't even carry guns in most cases!

Well I dont live in Britain anymore, but I do visit alot. I think it mostly has to do with the fact that very little guns are owned in britain, and also that its very difficult to get one, as they arent prominent. Its much more likely you hear of a stabbing or beating than a shooting.

But shootings have happened.

Like Dunblane.

But the instances are few and far between in comparison to the shootings that go on in the US Daily.

Bandalero wrote:reguardless of guns or lack there of, crime is still something you need to worry about, not so much the guns.

There's being sensible and assertive and whatever and not doing silly things like walking down unlit roads or in unsafe areas on your own late at night. And then there's having the kind of irrational fear that makes you afraid to leave your house without some kind of protection (not necessarily a gun.)

right but what i was saying is that instead of worrying about guns, you should worry about crime. knowing that guns are not as prominent in some areas as other gives you a sense of false security when crime itself is on the increase.

the overall objective is to keep crime to a minimun. small things help out in a big way. city maintenence on street lights, and a higher percentage of police out n patrol would help. getting rid of guns, that will only make the criminal resort to using a knife.

I'm not sure if any of this has been posted as I have not read the whole thread, so my apologies if it has. The following is from an e-mail I got from the Hoeffel for Senate Campaign.

We believe that the expiration on September 13, 2004 of our country's ban on 19 types of military-style assault weapons makes each of us less safe from both violent crime and international terror. In fact, Al Qaeda training manuals include specific references to the ability of people in the United States to obtain assault rifles legally.

Sign the petition http://www.hoeffelforsenate.com/petition.cfm

:::troy:::

Sine wrote:So I guess that the massacre of teenagers at a school by guns wouldnt be enough. It would be enough for anyone with a conscience.

i'm going to answer the other posts in this thread once i've read through it all but i just HAVE to comment on this.

Do you understand the concept of legal requirement? The NRA could NOT cancel it's meeting. It doesn't matter if Heston's grand children were victims of the shooting - he was LEGALLY REQUIRED to hold the meeting. As for postponing or rescheduling, as was pointed out already, that was logistically impossible.

People from all over the country travel to the meeting. Some would have had travel plans already made. With only ten days to alter their plans, too many members would have been inconvienced.

PLEASE try to be rational about this.

ps, guns were not to blame for columbine. i would blame bullies and their apologist gun hating friends.

Guns are why students died at Columbine. So yeah, I'd say it was the cause. For <b>Your</b> sake I will be Rational. And keep my mouth shut.

And here is my big reply.

First of all, i saw several posts that contained the idea that a person is more likely to commit murder if he owns a firearm. I respectfully disagree.

If you're a regular person and then something inside you "snaps", you could just as easily use the following items as effectively as a gun:

bleach
a table leg
a baseball bat
kitchen knives
your vehicle
fire
a fork
anything sharp at all, really.
your own hands

some of you might aptly point out that using a gun is easier then most of those methods... but then again, if you knew that the guy you were going to shoot had a gun and might shoot you first if you tried to shoot him... would you be as likely to go over there?

This ties right into my next point. There's a little place in Nevada called Front Sight, where they train regular guys to use firearms in a life or death situation. Recently, the owner started selling condos right on the property.

How many crimes do you think will be commited there this year? I'm guessing somewhere in the region of zero. Let's imagine if you will:

Criminal A: "Hey man let's rob that guys house!"
Criminal B: "And rape his children!"
Criminal A: "Oh wait dude, this place is where all those gun loving mother fuckers live.. if we go in there the owner is liable to make us eat our own shit!"
Criminal B: "You're right. let's go victimize a pacifist instead."

See what i mean? An armed and dangerous populace, i would argue, discourages criminal types.

Yes it's true that if you got rid of guns you'd get rid of gun violence. But look at the UK, they passed some of the most restrictive gun laws ever about 10 years ago and their violent crime rates are now among the highest in the world. Gun crime has been replaced with other crime.

All gun laws do is keep the weapons out of the hands of LAW ABIDING citizens. If you're a bad guy, what do you care if it's against the law? YOU'RE A BAD GUY.

Lastly, cops make me uncomfortable. Ever hear the song "41 shots"?

Sine wrote:Guns are why students died at Columbine. So yeah, I'd say it was the cause. For <b>Your</b> sake I will be Rational. And keep my mouth shut.

Ok, so imagine there are no guns in the world. Do you really believe that the two students who propogated the crime would just go on leading their tormented lives?

They were after revenge and they were GOING to get it, guns or no.

Do you disagree? If so, why?

mosaik wrote:Yes it's true that if you got rid of guns you'd get rid of gun violence. But look at the UK, they passed some of the most restrictive gun laws ever about 10 years ago and their violent crime rates are now among the highest in the world. Gun crime has been replaced with other crime.

All gun laws do is keep the weapons out of the hands of LAW ABIDING citizens. If you're a bad guy, what do you care if it's against the law? YOU'RE A BAD GUY.

Lastly, cops make me uncomfortable. Ever hear the song "41 shots"?

wow, welcome back Doug.

mosaik wrote:Lots of stuff here...

Tou-fucking-che

mosaik wrote:See what i mean? An armed and dangerous populace, i would argue, discourages criminal types.

Sure, it discourages criminal types outside of the community, but what about people within the community? Not everyone is a perfect person. Someone who might not consider a criminal act with assurance of getting away suddenly has a very dangerous weapon in his hands. If every other "gun loving mother fucker" has as much weaponry as he, will he turn against his neighbors? probably not. But what's stopping him from becoming a criminal external to another community. Not as much. He can rob a store a few towns over and have his assurance of escape. Things may be solved with the system, but what about outside of it?

mosaik wrote:All gun laws do is keep the weapons out of the hands of LAW ABIDING citizens. If you're a bad guy, what do you care if it's against the law? YOU'RE A BAD GUY.

I can agree with this to some extent. But not every bad guy is a full time outlaw till the day they die. There are some people who may want to rob a store once or twice with as little trouble as possible. Therefore, it would be in their best interests to acquire a gun legally. And being able to obtain an assualt weapon from an ordinary store would grant them this.


Also it's a hell of a lot easier to subdue a criminal that has fire or a knife as opposed to a gun

hpdfk wrote:Also it's a hell of a lot easier to subdue a criminal that has fire or a knife as opposed to a gun

You would know this how?

A criminal with a gun can hold those attempting to catch him at a distance, where as a criminal with a knife cannot.

but still he can be deadly

Of course.

mosaik wrote:Do you disagree? If so, why?

Good to hear from you buddy!

mosaik wrote:

Sine wrote:Guns are why students died at Columbine. So yeah, I'd say it was the cause. For <b>Your</b> sake I will be Rational. And keep my mouth shut.

Ok, so imagine there are no guns in the world. Do you really believe that the two students who propogated the crime would just go on leading their tormented lives?

They were after revenge and they were GOING to get it, guns or no.

Do you disagree? If so, why?

Yeah, You're right. If they didnt use guns, they could have just as easily used bombs. And gotten even worse results.