Political Crossfire Forums

[Lucky Luke]

leftneckredwing wrote:

Ah, so criminals have only one choice and law abiding citizens are to have no choice?

Punish the victims and reward the criminals. That's pro crime.

The people have the same legal choices than the criminals have Lefneckredwing.

To prevent the victims to be harmed is being pro victim, helping criminals to get armed is to be pro crime.
:-D
:-D

[Lucky Luke]

perdidochas wrote: ............

Lucky Luke wrote: Crime prevention is the key to a low crime rate, most people who committed gun crimes acquired a gun and the ability to use it before they started to commit crimes.

Your statistical proof of this? From what I've read (and it's in a DOJ murder study that we've both quoted before), only about 20% of criminals buy their guns legally from a gun store. About 40% buy their guns from straw purchases (usually relatives). About 40% buy stolen guns.

.............

Most people, 20% + 40%= most people, thank you for that.

I might add that the DOJ is talking about the murder weapon, gun lovers have more than one gun and any wannabe murderer will not use one of his own guns purchased legally to commit his crime.

:-D
:-D

[leftneckredwing]

Lucky Luke wrote: leftneckredwing wrote:

Ah, so criminals have only one choice and law abiding citizens are to have no choice?

Punish the victims and reward the criminals. That's pro crime.

The people have the same legal choices than the criminals have Lefneckredwing.

To prevent the victims to be harmed is being pro victim, helping criminals to get armed is to be pro crime.
:-D
:-D

You wrote: Arming the potential victims of criminals makes criminals have no choice but to get armed to go about their line of work. It is no deterrent, if it was America the world gun loving country would have the lowest crime rates around.

So the only choice of law abiding citizens is to break the law according to you.

That's beyond a shadow of a doubt, procrime and intentionally punishes the victims.

[lilwolf]

Aereus wrote: Would you feel safer if everyone was armed? I know I would. How many robbers would be able to rob a bank if everyone in the bank had a gun? How many hijackings would succeed if everyone on the plane had a taser gun? This is common sense, folks. The government cannot always be there to protect us, and by disabling law abiding citizens from having full protection, criminals are actually being enabled.

Thoughts?


I would like it if there were laws in all 50 states and DC (which is coming) that allowed the people that were legal and have met all requirements to carry were allowed to do so. Providing they meet all criteria then the crime rates would plummet because the bad guys would have no easy targets at all. I agree there would be less banks robbed that's for sure and no hijackings at all.
This would be a lot safer place to be for the most part. They are towns all over the place that are passing ordnances that would allow every home to have a gun for self defense. Many are requiring it and there has been very little opposition to it. The vast majority have openly supported it. So if they force people that is wrong but it should be that withing the city limits if you own you can carry. I like that idea. There was a town in the south that passed the type of thing and the crime rates dropped so much it was what caught other towns and cities off guard and now they are followng suit. If you have an armed camp there are less bad guys going to screw with you.

[Lucky Luke]

perdidochas wrote: .........

Lucky Luke wrote: Arming the potential victims of criminals makes criminals have no choice but to get armed to go about their line of work. It is no deterrent, if it was America the world gun loving country would have the lowest crime rates around.

We have fairly low crime rates for a heterogeneous society.

The question is not if you are ready to live with that risk but if you are ready for 8,000 American people to be murdered as a result a year, every year, year after year.

America has average crime rates, nothing to boast about but an insane murder rate, the most heinous of all crimes.

And please gun lovers are not somehow a third gender or a different kind of people, your emotion towards pieces of metal is getting the better of you Perdidochas
:-D
:-D

[Lucky Luke]

leftneckredwing wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: leftneckredwing wrote:

Ah, so criminals have only one choice and law abiding citizens are to have no choice?

Punish the victims and reward the criminals. That's pro crime.

The people have the same legal choices than the criminals have Lefneckredwing.

To prevent the victims to be harmed is being pro victim, helping criminals to get armed is to be pro crime.
:-D
:-D

You wrote: Arming the potential victims of criminals makes criminals have no choice but to get armed to go about their line of work. It is no deterrent, if it was America the world gun loving country would have the lowest crime rates around.

So the only choice of law abiding citizens is to break the law according to you.

That's beyond a shadow of a doubt, procrime and intentionally punishes the victims.

Certainly not Leftneckredwing there are many ways that one can prevent being a victim of crime or/and to defend oneself legally without a gun and even in a very few cases legally with a gun.
Gun control laws only punish the ones who brake them Lefneckredwing like any other laws.
:-D
:-D

[Lucky Luke]

lilwolf wrote:

I would like it if there were laws in all 50 states and DC (which is coming) that allowed the people that were legal and have met all requirements to carry were allowed to do so. Providing they meet all criteria then the crime rates would plummet because the bad guys would have no easy targets at all. I agree there would be less banks robbed that's for sure and no hijackings at all.
This would be a lot safer place to be for the most part. They are towns all over the place that are passing ordnances that would allow every home to have a gun for self defense. Many are requiring it and there has been very little opposition to it. The vast majority have openly supported it. So if they force people that is wrong but it should be that withing the city limits if you own you can carry. I like that idea. There was a town in the south that passed the type of thing and the crime rates dropped so much it was what caught other towns and cities off guard and now they are followng suit. If you have an armed camp there are less bad guys going to screw with you.

But violent crime rates and murder rates are not plummeting but both have gone up last year. Washington DC murder rate is down but Richmond Virginia murder rate is up, what is that telling you about what gun control laws are working the best Lilwolf?

Is Richmond Virginia going to adopt Washington DC gun control laws?

:-D
:-D

[leftneckredwing]

Lucky Luke wrote: leftneckredwing wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: leftneckredwing wrote:

Ah, so criminals have only one choice and law abiding citizens are to have no choice?

Punish the victims and reward the criminals. That's pro crime.

The people have the same legal choices than the criminals have Lefneckredwing.

To prevent the victims to be harmed is being pro victim, helping criminals to get armed is to be pro crime.
:-D
:-D

You wrote: Arming the potential victims of criminals makes criminals have no choice but to get armed to go about their line of work. It is no deterrent, if it was America the world gun loving country would have the lowest crime rates around.

So the only choice of law abiding citizens is to break the law according to you.

That's beyond a shadow of a doubt, procrime and intentionally punishes the victims.

Certainly not Leftneckredwing there are many ways that one can prevent being a victim of crime or/and to defend oneself legally without a gun and even in a very few cases legally with a gun.
Gun control laws only punish the ones who brake them Lefneckredwing like any other laws.
:-D
:-D

You use your examples interchangeably to suit your point, but it never develops into any consistent principle, because there is none.

You use the example of Kimveer Gill who had a legally registered weapon. But speak against citizens being armed.

You employ a double standard.

Whichever way the wind blows.

[Lucky Luke]

perdidochas wrote: ...........

Lucky Luke wrote: Most criminals do not need a gun to commit the crime they wish to commit, let's make guns useless for criminals to keep and hard for them to get.

The problem is that most gun control schemes make it harder for law-abiding citizens to get guns, and don't seem to affect criminals nearly as much.
................

In America yes you are right, the loopholes are wide open for criminals to get armed as easily as before 1994 and yet most here don't want them shut.

It is difficult to blame a law for something it has no power on. The Brady Act can't be blamed for criminals buying guns from markets the Brady Act is not allowed to regulate, blame the ones who refuse to toughen up the existing gun control laws to make it difficult for criminals to get armed.

I believe the American murder rate is in great danger of going back right up of what it was in 1994 if nothing is done about it.
:-D
:-D

[lilwolf]

Lucky Luke wrote: lilwolf wrote:

I would like it if there were laws in all 50 states and DC (which is coming) that allowed the people that were legal and have met all requirements to carry were allowed to do so. Providing they meet all criteria then the crime rates would plummet because the bad guys would have no easy targets at all. I agree there would be less banks robbed that's for sure and no hijackings at all.
This would be a lot safer place to be for the most part. They are towns all over the place that are passing ordnances that would allow every home to have a gun for self defense. Many are requiring it and there has been very little opposition to it. The vast majority have openly supported it. So if they force people that is wrong but it should be that withing the city limits if you own you can carry. I like that idea. There was a town in the south that passed the type of thing and the crime rates dropped so much it was what caught other towns and cities off guard and now they are followng suit. If you have an armed camp there are less bad guys going to screw with you.

But violent crime rates and murder rates are not plummeting but both have gone up last year. Washington DC murder rate is down but Richmond Virginia murder rate is up, what is that telling you about what gun control laws are working the best Lilwolf?

Is Richmond Virginia going to adopt Washington DC gun control laws?

:-D
:-D

There is no way in Hell that Virginia is going to fall into the crap hole like NY or DC. That is about to change you know.

[Lucky Luke]

Aereus wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: Of course they can defend themselves, people are defending themselves with or without guns. In fact American people with all their guns are defending themselves most of the times without the help of a gun. It is logic, who would want to carry a loaded gun 24/7?
How do people defend themselves? Unless they know some form of martial arts, I don't see how most people could defend themselves without weapons.

Quote: Guns or no guns people are protecting themselves and defending themselves when it is required. Gun control laws are designed to make it difficult for criminals and wannabe criminals to get guns, this is where the difference is.
They may be "designed" for that purpose, but they do not achieve it. Traffic lights are also "designed" to keep accidents from occurring, but they will not stop criminals fleeing from cops from slamming into you. You can have all the laws you want, but sometimes the laws can't protect you; sometimes, you have to protect yourself.

Quote: Less people with guns means less people to be outpowered with guns Aereus, making it safer for all.
:-D
:-D
Not necessarily. There are plenty of ways to kill people. Even if you succeed in your quest to collect guns, that will not stop other weapons from being used in homicides.

Here is how American people manage and yet they have guns millions of them but use them very little indeed for this purpose:



Gun control laws like all laws and like traffic lights are preventive measures to make it clear to everyone that reasonable restrictions are in place for the good of the community. Try to remove traffic lights and see what happens if you are not sure that I might be right on this.

Gun control laws achieve a lot but the current ones in America needs to be toughened up and simplified. The message has to be clear, too many traffic lights at an intersection would bring confusion and the likelihood of more accidents to happen.

You and I pay the police to protect the community, if you think you are particular at risk it is your responsibility to take extra measure like private body guards for celebrities.

There will always be murderers Aereus but America has no reason to keep it's murder rate at an insane level. Most western democratic countries have a murder rate with only around 10% of murders with guns, America has 2 to 3 times the murder rate of any other western democratic countries with more than 70% of it's number of murders with guns.

Why would American people kill one another at such rate if not because of the guns Aereus?

:-D
:-D

[Lucky Luke]

leftneckredwing wrote:
You use your examples interchangeably to suit your point, but it never develops into any consistent principle, because there is none.

You use the example of Kimveer Gill who had a legally registered weapon. But speak against citizens being armed.

You employ a double standard.

Whichever way the wind blows.

Would Kimveer Gill and his heroes in Colorado have been able to pass the CCW strict background checks Lefneckredwng?

:-D
:-D

[Lucky Luke]

lilwolf wrote:

There is no way in Hell that Virginia is going to fall into the crap hole like NY or DC. That is about to change you know.

But what about Richmond Lilwolf, is the city of Richmond Virginia doomed?

The good people of Richmond would tell you that they are the ones living in a crap hole.
:-D
:-D

[lilwolf]

Murder is down in the US

2003 rate 5.7 per 100,000 people
2004 rate 5.5 per 100,000 people

then there is this to read:

Murder, violence rates fall, FBI says
By Toni Locy, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — After rising for three years, the nation's murder rate dropped 3.6% last year, according to preliminary figures released Monday by the FBI. The nation's largest cities and rural areas showed the sharpest declines.
Murders dropped 7.1% in cities with populations over 1 million, and 12.2% in towns with 10,000 or fewer people, the FBI said.

"This suggests that something fresh and positive is happening," said David Kennedy, director of the Center for Crime Prevention and Control at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York. "That's really striking."

Murder rates across the nation have been slowly climbing since 2000, when the nation's 15,517 murders were the lowest since 1965.

The FBI didn't provide raw numbers Monday with the preliminary data so the total number of killings in 2004 isn't yet known.


www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-06-06-crime-drop_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA


Richmond is not doomed they are smarter than that and they value the 2nd amendment and they will kepp it.

[Lucky Luke]

lilwolf wrote: Murder is down in the US

2003 rate 5.7 per 100,000 people
2004 rate 5.5 per 100,000 people

then there is this to read:

Murder, violence rates fall, FBI says
By Toni Locy, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — After rising for three years, the nation's murder rate dropped 3.6% last year, according to preliminary figures released Monday by the FBI. The nation's largest cities and rural areas showed the sharpest declines.
Murders dropped 7.1% in cities with populations over 1 million, and 12.2% in towns with 10,000 or fewer people, the FBI said.

"This suggests that something fresh and positive is happening," said David Kennedy, director of the Center for Crime Prevention and Control at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York. "That's really striking."

Murder rates across the nation have been slowly climbing since 2000, when the nation's 15,517 murders were the lowest since 1965.

The FBI didn't provide raw numbers Monday with the preliminary data so the total number of killings in 2004 isn't yet known.


www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-06-06-crime-drop_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA


Richmond is not doomed they are smarter than that and they value the 2nd amendment and they will kepp it.

The American murder rate was up from 2004 to 2005 and the city of Richmond murder rate was up for the second year running last year.

Richmond Virginia has a higher murder rate than Washington DC Lilwolf, wake up, Washington DC murder rate is lower and going down!

Which city is the best in murder rates Lilwolf, Richmond Virginia or Washington DC?

Come on say it, you know it is true and you know it makes your theory a joke.
Gun control works!
:-D
:-D

[britboy]

I would not feel safer if everyone had a gun.

Now you said everyone, not me.

If I was in a room with, for example, 15 young children (aged 3 months to 1.5 years) that had a loaded revolver each, I would, to be honest, feel less safe than if I was in the same room with no weapons present at all.


Despite the fact that if they started shooting I could shoot back at them.


You're right when you say the answer is obvious ..

[Lucky Luke]

britboy wrote: I would not feel safer if everyone had a gun.

Now you said everyone, not me.

If I was in a room with, for example, 15 young children (aged 3 months to 1.5 years) that had a loaded revolver each, I would, to be honest, feel less safe than if I was in the same room with no weapons present at all.


Despite the fact that if they started shooting I could shoot back at them.


You're right when you say the answer is obvious ..

I remember being in a room with 15 to 20 young men of my age being told for the first time how to handle safely the weapon we had just been issued. A soon as the instructor left the room I was surrounded by 15 to 20 Rambos affected with the same sudden memory lost syndrome.

I never felt so unsafe in my life.

I watched in horror the ITV program Calum Fran and Dangerous Danan when the boys went for a shooting session in the desert, did you see it? Scary, very scary.

Imagine being a pedestrian in a city where all cars are driven by young men who just pass their driving test that day, imagine them all driving powerful fast cars after a couple of pints to celebrate and while telling their friends on a mobile phone how good it feels and then attempt to cross the road, this is how it felt.
:-D
:-D

[lilwolf]

Lucky Luke wrote: Aereus wrote:
That's only because they cannot defend themselves.

Who wins...the person with 1 gun or the people with 0 guns? There has to be a majority of people who can outpower those with guns.

Of course they can defend themselves, people are defending themselves with or without guns. In fact American people with all their guns are defending themselves most of the times without the help of a gun. It is logic, who would want to carry a loaded gun 24/7?

Guns or no guns people are protecting themselves and defending themselves when it is required. Gun control laws are designed to make it difficult for criminals and wannabe criminals to get guns, this is where the difference is.
Less people with guns means less people to be outpowered with guns Aereus, making it safer for all.
:-D
:-D


Well LL, that's one of the more intelligent things you'said in awhile. So we like our laws why screw with them?

[Lucky Luke]

lilwolf wrote:

Well LL, that's one of the more intelligent things you'said in awhile. So we like our laws why screw with them?

Closing loopholes is not screwing with them, it is to make sure that they stay effective.
Looking at the last murder rate, it could be already too late.

:-D
:-D

[Onevote]

leftneckredwing wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: perdidochas wrote:

I would feel safer if all those that were legally allowed to be armed where, and that the great majority of criminals weren't.

Unfortunately or fortunately we are all born law abiding citizens, there is no way to determine in advance who should be armed and who should not.
Crime prevention is the key to a low crime rate, most people who committed gun crimes acquired a gun and the ability to use it before they started to commit crimes. You can only disarm them after the crime has been committed and once they are caught Perdidochas making a society without strict gun control laws for all full of armed criminals around planning to commit/or committing crimes.
Most criminals do not need a gun to commit the crime they wish to commit, let's make guns useless for criminals to keep and hard for them to get.
Arming the potential victims of criminals makes criminals have no choice but to get armed to go about their line of work. It is no deterrent, if it was America the world gun loving country would have the lowest crime rates around.
:-D
:-D

Ah, so criminals have only one choice and law abiding citizens are to have no choice?

Punish the victims and reward the criminals. That's pro crime. That is the liberal way!