- This topic has 1 reply, 6 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
The spree may now be over since a local businessman shot one of the Monday perps! God bless a man with a gun.
And now we have police (yes, at least for a while) and security cameras have been installed over town (and at my house).
On [url=http://www.qcostarica.com/2014/09/14/costa-rica-a-country-without-an-army-harbours-half-a-million-guns/]todays [b]’qcostarica'[/b], [/url]an article saying that Costa Rica: a country with no army harbors 500,000 guns…even more than Colombia and El Salvador.
[quote=”costaricafinca”]On [url=http://www.qcostarica.com/2014/09/14/costa-rica-a-country-without-an-army-harbours-half-a-million-guns/]todays [b]’qcostarica'[/b], [/url]an article saying that Costa Rica: a country with no army harbors 500,000 guns…even more than Colombia and El Salvador.[/quote]
Well that would make sense. If you don’t have an army to protect you, you should have some sort of plan B to defend yourself right?
Finca, the perp was shot 2 days after the gang came through. A neighbor responded to the alarm and shot him
[quote=”sweikert925″]In that same article it points out that the US has 9 times as many firearms in private possession per capita. Does that make Americans 9 times as safe? The statistics answer that and the answer is a resounding “no”.[/quote]
But then again Steve doesn’t (or didn’t) Chicago have some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the US and yet some of the highest shooting, murder, and gun assault rates? I seem to remember that the last two summer’s have been rather “eventful” when it came to gun violence in Chi-Town.
Simple fact is that gun control laws have no impact on the bad guys that don’t follow the rules. Can’t provide you a nifty internet link or some manufactured statistics…. just good old common sense…. you’ll have to take a leap of faith and trust me on this one! 🙂
[quote=”sweikert925″]Anyone who believed that Chicago’s gun control laws had any effect on gun ownership is a fool. You only had to travel less than 5 miles to the south suburbs or Indiana to get all the legal guns you could afford to buy. The ownership of guns had absolutely no effect on the murder rate and neither did the lifting of the ban a few years ago.
A bad guy is only a bad guy after he does something bad. Until then, if he is a gun owner, he is someone people like you stick up for in being allowed to own as many guns as possible. I could cite statistics about how many children are killed by accident by guns they found in their parents drawers or closets, but you hate statistics so I’ll refrain. Maybe you can use your common sense to explain why we shouldn’t care about that.[/quote]
You’ve made my point for me. The point being that gun control laws only control those that play by the rules…. the good honest people that choose to obey the law. The bad guys…. the ones more likely or intent on doing something nefarious with a gun will always be able to get a gun.
As to the deaths of children (always tragic no matter what the means)…. there’s been a rash of them dying after being left in cars by their parents this summer… perhaps we should outlaw cars… or how many died in pools this year once again… should we outlaw back yard pools? Might want to add households cleaning products and other toxic materials in the home to the list. The point being there will always tragic situations caused by the negligence of others. Do laws stop that?
[quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”Imxploring”] I seem to remember that the last two summer’s have been rather “eventful” when it came to gun violence in Chi-Town.[/quote]
Your memory is faulty, we are on a pace to record another low in the murder rate this year. The murder rate has fallen steadily since the mid 80s – when the Chicago gun ban was passed, though that is a pure coincidence.[/quote]What about gun related shootings? Murder rates, like battlefield deaths, have come down over the last 4 decades due to advances (and much more readily available) immediate medical care. Folks that use to die (both on the street and on the battlefield) are now surviving.
A “bad guy” is just that. If he can’t find a gun, he will use a knife or his fists. And guns aren’t meant to do harm to anyone unless that person has an evil intent. They are the best defense against the “bad guy”, but you need to be trained in their use, maintenance, and storage.
[quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”VictoriaLST”]A “bad guy” is just that. [/quote]
Tell me please, who was the bad guy in [url=http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/fla-man-charged-fatal-movie-theatre-shooting-released-bail-article-1.1864106]this case[/url] or [url=http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/05/us/trayvon-martin-shooting-fast-facts/]this case[/url] or [url=http://www.floridatoday.com/story/news/local/2014/08/19/florida-grandmother-shoots-7-year-old-grandson/14295351/]this case[/url] or [url=http://wtvr.com/2014/06/09/child-shot-hopewell/]this case?[/url]
Some of those cases involved someone who believed that “that person ha(d) an evil intent” but – oops! – guess they were wrong.
It is well documented that your chances of dying violently are actually HIGHER rather than lower in homes where a gun is presernt.[/quote]
And your chances of fighting off an ARMED attacker in your home are absolutely ZERO if you don’t have a gun!!! Sorry Steve…. I’ll take my chances with a gun….. I have home field advantage, considerable training, and common sense on my side. You can take your chances dialing 911…. I’ll stick to good sight alignment and a slow steady squeeze of the trigger.
Sorry Steve…. two old coots, Zimmerman (Found not guilty BTW), and a negligent gun owner really don’t make your case. I’m guessing more folks are injured or killed each year by “older” folks, hotheads, and negligent individuals operating automobiles. Just a guess…. but shootings make better headlines!
I bet these folks wish they had a gun in the house. Might have had a different outcome.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire,_Connecticut,_home_invasion_murders[quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”Imxploring”]…two old coots, Zimmerman (Found not guilty BTW), and a negligent gun owner really don’t make your case. [/quote]
All those innocent lives lost and that’s your only comment? Not even a pro-forma expression of regret about those poor victims and their grieving survivors?
As for Zimmerman being found not guilty, I suppose that was a great comfort to Trayvon Martin’s parents but you know, their son is just as dead. But it apparently makes you feel better about that incident, and that’s the important thing.
[quote=”Imxploring”]I’m guessing more folks are injured or killed each year by “older” folks, hotheads, and negligent individuals operating automobiles. Just a guess…. but shootings make better headlines![/quote]
Why just yesterday, [url=http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/18/us/florida-deadly-shooting/]another 7 innocent lives were tragically taken by a gun-toting miscreant[/url]. Just more collateral damage eh? I suppose you maintain that if he hadn’t had a gun handy he would have hauled them off to the nearest pool and drowned them, or had them stand in the middle of the road so he could mow them down with his car, or made them all chug a bottle of Draino. Because that kind of thing happens all the time – er, wait, no, come to think of it it doesn’t. It’s only mass shootings that seem to.
Now as to crazy old coots, as someone who is on the cusp of cootitude himself (though not a crazy one, I hope), I have to stick up for old coots. People over 60 are in fact the safest drivers on the road. It’s the 16-25 year-olds that you have to watch out for. In fact, 16-25 year-olds are responsible for much of the mischief, wickedness and tomfoolery that goes on. You would think that with all the sex they are busy having they wouldn’t have time for anything else, but it appears that they do.
But back to crazy old coots. How can the folks who are within shooting range of you and your gun be assured that you aren’t a crazy old coot, or wlll someday slide into being one?
[quote=”Imxploring”]I bet these folks wish they had a gun in the house. Might have had a different outcome.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire,_Connecticut,_home_invasion_murders%5B/quote%5DHow come you get to link to external references but I get criticized when I do?
[/quote]I guess we could debate the boxers or briefs issue at length as well but the FACTS are simple. You may choose to not own a gun for whatever reason you like. Just as I may take the opposite approach. The real issue is that YOU don’t have the right to keep me from possessing one just as I would never assume the right to FORCE you to have one.
As to the latest shooting you pointed to. If you read the article you will see this was an individual that was breaking the law by simply possessing a weapon based on his criminal past, as well as someone that should have been thinned from the herd a long time ago based on prior conduct and repeated interaction with the police for actions none of us should tolerate. As additional information comes out I’m sure most folks would agree.
Society’s willingness to continue to explain away unacceptable behavior and allow folks like this animal to walk among us will ALWAYS result in tragic outcomes. And once again… laws only restrain those willing to follow them… and apparently this animal did not.
Exploring, I liked that “thinned from the herd”. As one of my favorite writers once said, “there are some people who should be shot on sight. The problem is knowing who they are.”
As for your cases, Sweik, an old man with a gun, a child whose parents should have put the gun under lock and key, a frightened 63 yo, all tragic. As to Martin, I have my concerns and would have voted not guilty.
As for me, my friend once put 5 shots into a rapist who followed her home and attacked her before her roommate could come out with the shot gun. Police just poked the body and congratulated her.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
