Joey, I disagree. In defending my home a shotgun is KING.

+1
I have both and agree with you.

 

https://www.thetrace.org/2015/10/lower-crime-rates-not-caused-by-concealed-carry/

I agree that it's not the cause for lower crime rates since the 90's but I think it's helping to maintain the current lower level.

IMO this was the primary factor.

 

I agree that it's not the cause for lower crime rates since the 90's but I think it's helping to maintain the current lower level.

IMO this was the primary factor.

Makes sense.

 

https://www.thetrace.org/2015/10/lower-crime-rates-not-caused-by-concealed-carry/

Some people disagree, and they did it by surviving.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=robber+stopped+by+gun

 

@Lestraveled
Looks like an ad for the film 'Arms And The Man'

 

Why make such statement when the data are freely available:
View attachment 107763

As for the murders in Orlando, some media conveniently forget to point out the the shooter was vetted multiple times by the FBI and other US agencies and had worked for a major security contractor to the US government. It was not the gun that was responsible. It was the government agencies that didn't do their jobs. Sound like the failure of the TSA? That is because there is no accountability in the US government.

John

What role did the TSA play in this situation? What did they fail to do?

What other federal agencies didn't do their jobs?

 

The few states that passed these laws enjoyed a significant reduction in gun related violent crime. Exile laws are one of the two forms of legislation that has a significant statistical reduction in gun crime.

Then why cannot the Republican point that as support to amend the gun control laws to be debated in Congress?

At least that force the Democrats to defend the violent criminals.

Those Republicans are retards.

 

Then why cannot the Republican point that as support to amend the gun control laws to be debated in Congress?

At least that force the Democrats to defend the violent criminals.

Those Republicans are retards.

Danny,

Some of us enjoy participating in (or at least reading) these threads. Comments such as these will get the thread closed. Ad hominems are neither useful nor required for the discussion -- nor the direct party references.

 

Why make such statement when the data are freely available:
View attachment 107763

As for the murders in Orlando, some media conveniently forget to point out the the shooter was vetted multiple times by the FBI and other US agencies and had worked for a major security contractor to the US government. It was not the gun that was responsible. It was the government agencies that didn't do their jobs. Sound like the failure of the TSA? That is because there is no accountability in the US government.

John

I'm with @GopherT on this one. It always amazes me how they can be onto these guys. Just no authority to take any action against them. I'm not sure that's a bad thing if you think about it, but certainly nothing you should blame them for.

 

Some people disagree, and they did it by surviving.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=robber+stopped+by+gun

You can always find a handful of these, but you won't hear about the guy that couldn't get a gun when he wanted it.
As they say an ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure.

 

I'm with @GopherT on this one. It always amazes me how they can be onto these guys. Just no authority to take any action against them. I'm not sure that's a bad thing if you think about it, but certainly nothing you should blame them for.

We have due process in America so you can't lockup a person or take away rights for just having a mouth, talking and somebody not liking what was said. If they could then MLK would have been on the terrorist watch list and denied the right to buy a weapon to protect his family if the gun-banning fools in congress have their way. The FBI is designed to investigate crime not prevent it from happening. The sad truth is the only things that usually stops some sick bastard from killing are the people close to them calling the cops out of fear and those at the center of his actions reacting to him like on the train in France.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20160615/nra-statement-on-terror-watchlists

 

We have due process in America so you can't lockup a person or take away rights for just having a mouth, talking and somebody not liking what was said. If they could then MLK would have been on the terrorist watch list and denied the right to buy a weapon to protect his family if the gun-banning fools in congress have their way. The FBI is designed to investigate crime not prevent it from happening. The sad truth is the only things that usually stops some sick bastard from killing are the people close to them calling the cops out of fear and those at the center of his actions reacting to him like on the train in France.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20160615/nra-statement-on-terror-watchlists

In fact, the Bill of Rights simply enumerates -- not grants -- a list of natural rights that belong to the people simply by their nature of existing.

The intention was that natural rights, including the individual right to keep and bear arms, could never be withdrawn without due process. Any law forbidding the purchase, ownership, and/or carrying of arms by an individual -- simply because his name was placed on some list -- without prior due process should, and I believe (hope!) would, be found unconstitutional.

 

We have due process in America so you can't lockup a person or take away rights for just having a mouth, talking and somebody not liking what was said. If they could then MLK would have been on the terrorist watch list and denied the right to buy a weapon to protect his family if the gun-banning fools in congress have their way. The FBI is designed to investigate crime not prevent it from happening. The sad truth is the only things that usually stops some sick bastard from killing are the people close to them calling the cops out of fear and those at the center of his actions reacting to him like on the train in France.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20160615/nra-statement-on-terror-watchlists

At least for now. By 2054, we'll have some Precogs, telling the Pre-Crime division who to arrest well before the crime occurs.

 

In fact, the Bill of Rights simply enumerates -- not grants -- a list of natural rights that belong to the people simply by their nature of existing.

That's a nice speech but it means nothing today politically. Without delineated rights we would be screwed nationwide starting with free speech.

 

That's a nice speech but it means nothing today politically. Without delineated rights we would be screwed nationwide starting with free speech.

I would say we are screwed because of delineated rights. Many believe, incorrectly, that our "rights" are granted by the constitution. If this is true, then we have no natural rights -- which is why some feel that repealing (or amending) the 2nd amendment is all that is required to take our guns.

Freedom is not free. Those who wish to remain free must be willing to fight for it.

 

 

At least for now. By 2054, we'll have some Precogs, telling the Pre-Crime division who to arrest well before the crime occurs.

No need for fancy computers, just arrest anyone with facial tattoos.

Some are designed to block facial recognition software.

 

Not here. And it doesn't seem to make much difference.
I think part of the problem is that the shooter knows what he is going to do and the bystanders don't realize what is going on for a while.
I think many of these guys don't expect to live thru the experience so the fact that there might be guns around is not a real big deterrent.

For a terrorist, that may well often be the case. But for an overwhelming majority of the non-terrorist mass shooters the patterns is extremely clear. They seek out targets that they expect will not offer any resistance, which is why nearly all mass shootings have taken place in declared gun-free zones. What is the evidence for this? Just look at what happens in nearly all of them as soon as they are confronted -- they commit suicide. They do NOT battle it out to the death in a shootout, they simply off themselves because they don't have the (fill in your own choice of adjective) to face someone with a gun. Simply put, they are cowards who go for the sure thing.

 

I would say we are screwed because of delineated rights. Many believe, incorrectly, that our "rights" are granted by the constitution. If this is true, then we have no natural rights -- which is why some feel that repealing (or amending) the 2nd amendment is all that is required to take our guns.

I agree with the principle but the reality is our rights as we currently define them are protected by the constitution of today with it protected by citizens willing to fight for it (owning slaves was once a natural right that's now gone in America). Ask the fine people in Australia how natural rights worked for them when the gun grabbers were in control.

http://gunfreezone.net/index.php/20...inister-of-israel-about-the-orlando-massacre/

 

Personally, I think the notion of "natural rights" is a fiction -- we only enjoy the rights that we are willing to demand and, if necessary, fight for -- and even then only if we do so successfully. I can jump up and down and shout all day long that I have the natural right to life or liberty or whatever else. But what does having a "natural right" mean if I am abducted in the middle of the night, tortured, shot, and buried in a mass grave out in the woods?

It's all well and good for a government to declare a bunch of rights ("natural" or otherwise) and embody their protection in law as strongly as possible (the Constitution in our case), but that protection is only meaningful as long as the government is willing to abide by those laws (or as long as the people are willing and able to force them to abide by those laws). Having "rights" comes with accepting risks and responsibilities. If we demand that government protect us from all of the risks or from accepting the consequences of failing to meet the responsibilities, it can only do that by taking away the rights that gave rise to those risks and responsibilities in the first place.