If more guns makes a country safer

[JGalt]

And banning the sale of 20 round magazines also takes that ability away from the law abiding citizen who may, one day, have to defend himself or herself from somebody with a 20 round magazine.

As we on the right understand, having limits on capacity size is only one step in the long game of virtual gun confiscation. If you don't believe that, I'll tell you what: I'll support your magazine size law, if you can get the Democrats to sign a Contract with America. In that contract, it would state the Democrats will never bring up the issue of guns again win, lose, or draw if we support limits on gun magazine size.

Do you really think the Democrats in the House would go for that? Of course not. Because again, it's one baby step in their long game.

Using your logic, regulating a 20mm anti aircraft gun is just as wrong in case you have to defend yourself from someone with an armored vehicle with a M2 mounted on it. Pardon me if I choose not to live in that neighborhood. You may want to live there. I know of only one place on Earth that has no laws and it would be perfectly legal and that would be Yemen and how is that working out for them.

The only real question here is where do we put the limits. Where do we draw the line. To date, the Federal Courts have drawn the line at 15 rounds. No matter where we place the limit, there is always going to be someone jump up and scream that they demand the next higher number or higher.

Now about that fantasy about your home being invaded by, let's say, 10 bad armed guys. You have an AR with 3 30 round mags. Those 10 bad guys are similarly armed. Maybe in a Rambo movie could you expect the good guy to survive that encounter but it's just a movie. The best outcome by directly confronting those bad guys would be to go down fighting. While that sounds heroic, it's not the best option. Take it from a Military Person, sometimes withdrawal is a better option.

Next you are going to say, they have all the exits covered. No matter what I say, you will come up with a scenario where you will have to fight. We are right back inside that movie. But let's say it happens. If you are that worried I suggest you build a nice little safe room that can't be easily breached and blends in with a wall. They aren't there to probably kill you. They are there to steal from you or kidnap. Sit in that safe room with your defensive weapons and stay quiet. And call the Cops. Let them get shot, it's their job. They have a unit called Swat that does that for a living and they don't have any limits to their weapons.

So we place a limit. limits have to be placed because some moron will go hog wild if they aren't. Again, the only real question is, where will those limits be placed. I agree with the Courts except I might place the limit at 20 because some weapons look might funny with the shorter 15 round mag. And 5 rounds one way or the other really isn't that big a deal. So I don't see the world coming to an end with the limit set at 15. The Sun will come up in the Morning, The Seasons will go on and so will I.

You don't assume anything when confronted by armed attackers. They may beat you to death, force you to disclose where valuables are hidden at, and if you don't have enough, kill you because they thought you were holding out on them, or simply because you are a witness that can identify them in court.

Unless you agree to a fight with somebody, and are attacked, you have no idea what their motive is, so you take no chances. It's the same as getting attacked without a weapon. You always expect the worst.

The use of a deadly weapon is the same as not using a deadly weapon. Years ago when I was studying for my blackbelt, I asked my instructor what might happen to me legally if I used one of the five methods to kill another person? With that, he said since I have no idea what their intent is, use them. Because self-defense ends at the point you disabled your attacker from further attack no matter how you did it. Until that point, it's legally self-defense.

If people in my area start to get attacked by airplanes, then I'll look into anti-aircraft weaponry. But thus far, it's been criminals with guns, and yes......big magazines. So I don't think there should be any limit on magazine size because for one, it won't stop one shooting, and two, it won't make any difference in the amount of casualties or deaths. What it does do is advance the commie narrative of virtual gun and ammo confiscation.

Okay, if it won't make any difference on way or the other, what is wrong with placing a limit of 15 rounds for the mag? If the odds are overwhelming, withdraw. Tactical Withdrawal is a sound Military Tactic. And since you actually painted a Military Scenario then one would think using sound military tactics would be the best option.

You used that fact you earned a Black Best, Babyson. Here are some tips you missed.

When your enemy is hitting you here, don't be there
Control the Situation
Avoid the Confrontation if possible

Use only enough force to end the situation. That is part of controlling the situation. If you have no control over the situation then get away from the situation. The person that imparted that to me was a 3rd Don with enough awards and accolades to fill a wall in a decent sized living room.


Then there is Kelvinkis Rules from the New Centurian
If a bad guy picks up his hands, you pick up a knife
If a bad guy picks up a knife, you pick up a club
If a bad guy picks up a club, you pick up a gun
If a bad guy picks up a gun, you pick up your feet and get the hell out of dodge.

I suggest you get a copy of "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu. If you are going to prepare for war, II suggest you learn from the Brightest and the Best.

But if your home is in a potential war zone then use your Martial Arts training and remove yourself and you family from a situation you really have no control over.

So should a police officer pick up a knife if someone comes at him with their fist?

Should he or she deploy a billy club if someone comes at them with a knife?

If someone produces a firearm, is a police officer going to run away?

Being a citizen, I don't have the option of arresting a threat. Nor is it mandatory that I use a non-lethal weapon, such as pepper spray. Do you even know what the "21-foot rule" is, and why law enforcement officers qualify at 7 yards with their service weapons? A person armed with a knife and intent on using it, can cover 21 feet in approximately 1.5 seconds and cut the living fuck out of you.

Very few police officers I know of would even attempt to disarm a person armed with a knife. I also seriously doubt that any criminals spend their time reading Sun Tzu. The fact is, police officers do not carry firearms to protect you or I: They carry weapons to protect their own lives. In 1981, the Supreme Court ruled in Warren vs. District of Columbia that police officers have no "duty to protect." In other words, we are responsible for out own safety.

And if police officers are entitled to have 15-round magazines in their handguns and AR-15 rifles with 30-round magazines, we are entitled to have them as well. Probably more entitled, as a criminal is more likely to perpetrate a more vicious attack on a mere citizen, as they would on a law-enforcement officer.

I quoted a book written by a retired cop. That's a cops views, not mine. And you don't get the meaning, do you. What it means is, always have the upper hand. If you don't have the upper hand disengage until you do have the upper hand.

You are still bring more Bull Crap to the Ball Game. You are still looking for the supreme "Gotcha". What you are really accomplishing is showing that you are just crying and throwing a temper tamptrum over nothing. And more guns or even less guns have zero affect over gun crime in the United States.

But there is a point where too many guns do reach a saturation point and it does increase the violent nature for the US. Learn from History or be prepared to repeat history.

I disagree. A man can't have "too many guns."

Women too.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Using your logic, regulating a 20mm anti aircraft gun is just as wrong in case you have to defend yourself from someone with an armored vehicle with a M2 mounted on it. Pardon me if I choose not to live in that neighborhood. You may want to live there. I know of only one place on Earth that has no laws and it would be perfectly legal and that would be Yemen and how is that working out for them.

The only real question here is where do we put the limits. Where do we draw the line. To date, the Federal Courts have drawn the line at 15 rounds. No matter where we place the limit, there is always going to be someone jump up and scream that they demand the next higher number or higher.

Now about that fantasy about your home being invaded by, let's say, 10 bad armed guys. You have an AR with 3 30 round mags. Those 10 bad guys are similarly armed. Maybe in a Rambo movie could you expect the good guy to survive that encounter but it's just a movie. The best outcome by directly confronting those bad guys would be to go down fighting. While that sounds heroic, it's not the best option. Take it from a Military Person, sometimes withdrawal is a better option.

Next you are going to say, they have all the exits covered. No matter what I say, you will come up with a scenario where you will have to fight. We are right back inside that movie. But let's say it happens. If you are that worried I suggest you build a nice little safe room that can't be easily breached and blends in with a wall. They aren't there to probably kill you. They are there to steal from you or kidnap. Sit in that safe room with your defensive weapons and stay quiet. And call the Cops. Let them get shot, it's their job. They have a unit called Swat that does that for a living and they don't have any limits to their weapons.

So we place a limit. limits have to be placed because some moron will go hog wild if they aren't. Again, the only real question is, where will those limits be placed. I agree with the Courts except I might place the limit at 20 because some weapons look might funny with the shorter 15 round mag. And 5 rounds one way or the other really isn't that big a deal. So I don't see the world coming to an end with the limit set at 15. The Sun will come up in the Morning, The Seasons will go on and so will I.

You don't assume anything when confronted by armed attackers. They may beat you to death, force you to disclose where valuables are hidden at, and if you don't have enough, kill you because they thought you were holding out on them, or simply because you are a witness that can identify them in court.

Unless you agree to a fight with somebody, and are attacked, you have no idea what their motive is, so you take no chances. It's the same as getting attacked without a weapon. You always expect the worst.

The use of a deadly weapon is the same as not using a deadly weapon. Years ago when I was studying for my blackbelt, I asked my instructor what might happen to me legally if I used one of the five methods to kill another person? With that, he said since I have no idea what their intent is, use them. Because self-defense ends at the point you disabled your attacker from further attack no matter how you did it. Until that point, it's legally self-defense.

If people in my area start to get attacked by airplanes, then I'll look into anti-aircraft weaponry. But thus far, it's been criminals with guns, and yes......big magazines. So I don't think there should be any limit on magazine size because for one, it won't stop one shooting, and two, it won't make any difference in the amount of casualties or deaths. What it does do is advance the commie narrative of virtual gun and ammo confiscation.

Okay, if it won't make any difference on way or the other, what is wrong with placing a limit of 15 rounds for the mag? If the odds are overwhelming, withdraw. Tactical Withdrawal is a sound Military Tactic. And since you actually painted a Military Scenario then one would think using sound military tactics would be the best option.

You used that fact you earned a Black Best, Babyson. Here are some tips you missed.

When your enemy is hitting you here, don't be there
Control the Situation
Avoid the Confrontation if possible

Use only enough force to end the situation. That is part of controlling the situation. If you have no control over the situation then get away from the situation. The person that imparted that to me was a 3rd Don with enough awards and accolades to fill a wall in a decent sized living room.


Then there is Kelvinkis Rules from the New Centurian
If a bad guy picks up his hands, you pick up a knife
If a bad guy picks up a knife, you pick up a club
If a bad guy picks up a club, you pick up a gun
If a bad guy picks up a gun, you pick up your feet and get the hell out of dodge.

I suggest you get a copy of "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu. If you are going to prepare for war, II suggest you learn from the Brightest and the Best.

But if your home is in a potential war zone then use your Martial Arts training and remove yourself and you family from a situation you really have no control over.

So should a police officer pick up a knife if someone comes at him with their fist?

Should he or she deploy a billy club if someone comes at them with a knife?

If someone produces a firearm, is a police officer going to run away?

Being a citizen, I don't have the option of arresting a threat. Nor is it mandatory that I use a non-lethal weapon, such as pepper spray. Do you even know what the "21-foot rule" is, and why law enforcement officers qualify at 7 yards with their service weapons? A person armed with a knife and intent on using it, can cover 21 feet in approximately 1.5 seconds and cut the living fuck out of you.

Very few police officers I know of would even attempt to disarm a person armed with a knife. I also seriously doubt that any criminals spend their time reading Sun Tzu. The fact is, police officers do not carry firearms to protect you or I: They carry weapons to protect their own lives. In 1981, the Supreme Court ruled in Warren vs. District of Columbia that police officers have no "duty to protect." In other words, we are responsible for out own safety.

And if police officers are entitled to have 15-round magazines in their handguns and AR-15 rifles with 30-round magazines, we are entitled to have them as well. Probably more entitled, as a criminal is more likely to perpetrate a more vicious attack on a mere citizen, as they would on a law-enforcement officer.

I quoted a book written by a retired cop. That's a cops views, not mine. And you don't get the meaning, do you. What it means is, always have the upper hand. If you don't have the upper hand disengage until you do have the upper hand.

You are still bring more Bull Crap to the Ball Game. You are still looking for the supreme "Gotcha". What you are really accomplishing is showing that you are just crying and throwing a temper tamptrum over nothing. And more guns or even less guns have zero affect over gun crime in the United States.

But there is a point where too many guns do reach a saturation point and it does increase the violent nature for the US. Learn from History or be prepared to repeat history.

I disagree. A man can't have "too many guns."

Women too.

"A" Man can't. But "Men" can. If you don't learn from history you are bound to repeat it.

 

[Kentucky_Conservative]

But there is a point where too many guns do reach a saturation point and it does increase the violent nature for the US. Learn from History or be prepared to repeat history.

So ... in the parts of the country where private ownership of firearms is a GIVEN, and the violence is LOW (Utah, Idaho, Kentucky and Oklahoma for example), more guns will increase the violence?

But in the parts of the country where guns are forbidden or severely restricted (Chicago, St. Louis, Compton, Oakland, Memphis and Detroit for example) we can expect a decrease in violence?

Is that what you are saying?

 

[2aguy]

And of course all those Texans are going to park their guns at the door because guns are NOT ALLOWED in the Walmart. Riiiiiight. You've clearly never been to, or lived in Texas. Guaranteed there were plenty of gun toting 'heroes' in that Walmart all running for the nearest exit as soon as the shooting started. All those guns, I guess in the end they were just cowards after all.

And where were all the gun-toters in Dayton (or was it TOLEDO)? Nobody could have pulled out their weapon in those 32 seconds it took police to take out the shooter? More cowards with guns?

So ... the next time some raving lunatic liberal raises the argument "If We Allow Everyone to Carry a Gun, It Would Be a Wild West Shootout!" as the reason people should not be allowed to carry guns, can I count on seeing YOU standing up in a very public way (ala David Hogg) to shout, "THOSE WILD WEST SHOOTOUTS NEVER HAPPEN!!!" ??

I just want to know if I can count on you to be consistent.

Um....no. I will not be hollering about that in the gun nutter battle. I'll be the green shirt lady laughing at your ridiculousness, watching while you waddle around in your camo pants and too tight t-shirt waving your stars and bars flag in one hand and your guns in the other.

From where I sit, you are all a bunch of cowards running around shouting that the world is trying to kill you, rape you, and steal all your shit.

So YOU make the point that a room full of armed people is ineffective in an "active shooter" situation, and when you are called to the carpet, you will NOT tell the "Wild West" gun grabber idiots to STFU.

Color me NOT SURPRISED.

I'm not saying a room full of armed people can't be effective. I'm saying they seem to shit their pants when the bullets start flying and they hide with the rest of the terrorized people. Otherwise we would hear many more stories of all these 'gun nutter heroes'. Where are all these stories?

And honestly I don't gaf if someone comes to grab your guns. That's your problem, not mine.

Except real world experience shows you are wrong...again....

Armed Citizens Are Successful 94% Of The Time At Active Shooter Events [FBI]

Of all the active shooter events there were 33 at which an armed citizen was present. Of those, Armed Citizens were successful at stopping the Active shooter 75.8% of the time (25 incidents) and were successful in reducing the loss of life in an additional 18.2% (6) of incidents. In only 2 of the 33 incidents (6.1%) was the Armed Citizen(s) not helpful in any way in stopping the active shooter or reducing the loss of life.

Thus the headline of our report that Armed Citizens Are Successful 94% Of The Time At Active Shooter Events.


In the 2 incidents at which the armed citizen “failed” to stop or slow the active shooter, one is the previously mentioned incident with hunters. The other is an incident in which the CCWer was shot in the back in a Las Vegas Walmart when he failed to identify that there were 2 Active Shooters involved in the attack. He neglected to identify the one that shot him in the back while he was trying to ambush the other perpetrator.

We also decided to look at the breakdown of events that took place in gun free zones and the relative death toll from events in gun free zones vs non-gun-free zones.

Of the 283 incidents in our data pool, we were unable to identify if the event took place in a gun-free zone in a large number (41%) of the events. Most of the events took place at a business, church, home, or other places at which as a rule of law it is not a gun free zone but potentially could have been declared one by the property owner. Without any information in the FBI study or any indication one way or the other from the news reports, we have indicated that event with a question mark.

If you look at all of the Active Shooter events (pie chart on the top) you see that for those which we have the information, almost twice as many took place in gun free zones than not; but realistically the vast majority of those for which we have no information (indicated as ?) are probably NOT gun free zones.

If you isolate just the events at which 8 or more people were killed the data paints a different picture (pie chart on the bottom). In these incidents, 77.8% took place in a gun-free zone suggesting that gun free zones lead to a higher death rate vs active shooter events in general

=====

One of the final metrics we thought was important to consider is the potential tendency for armed citizens to injure or kill innocent people in their attempt to “save the day.” A common point in political discussions is to point out the lack of training of most armed citizens and the decrease in safety inherent in their presence during violent encounters.

As you can see below, however, at the 33 incidents at which Armed Citizens were present, there were zero situations at which the Armed Citizen injured or killed an innocent person. It never happened.

 

[2aguy]

YES Mr Flacal What we need is a gov't that honors freedom BTW did you get to read the NY Times or Washington Post this morning ??? The 2 trump forbids you and the gov't from reading?? I' am a deep thinker and I can agree with more than one thing you say. What I can't agree with is a man I despise, a racist piece of moronic trash like trump, telling me anything

Once again, the ignorant, far-left progressives devolve into racism. You must be so proud!

Moron wanted the chair for 5 innocent blacks,,,,prevented blacks from renting in his properties loves Duke now but some of you are good people

What 5 innocent blacks....? The Central Park 5 violently beat that woman into a coma and sexually assaulted her....they didn't rape her but they assaulted her, you moron.

 

[2aguy]

And he feel impeachment is like getting lynched???

That is what all the democrats said when the rapist...bill clinton was impeached....

At least five House Democrats used the term ‘lynching’ to describe Clinton impeachment

 

[2aguy]

Can we start with giving up ALL military style weapons?

Then we keep the AR-15s, right, since they are civilian rifles and have never been used by the military...right? Then you want to take pump action shotguns....5 shot, tube fed, because they are actual military weapons....in the actual military right now, used in war...right now....right? And you want to take all bolt action deer hunting rifles...right? Since bolt action deer hunting rifles are current military weapons, used in current combat in Iraq, and Afghanistan...right?

So...to summarize...we keep AR-15 rifles, we lose pump action shotguns and bolt action rifles...right? What about the lever action rifle.....? Those were used by the U.S. military as were 6 shot revolvers...those go to...right? Since they were actual military weapons...weapons of war?

 

[2aguy]

Moron wanted the chair for 5 innocent blacks,,,,prevented blacks from renting in his properties loves Duke now but some of you are good people

Virtually every apartment building and condominium complex in the 1970's had rules prohibiting blacks from occupying their buildings. That was only a few years after the Civil Rights act of 1968 was passed.

Did you know that as late as the 1950s the manual for FHA and VA appraisers were REQUIRED to include in their appraisal whether or not a neighborhood had the likelihood of having it's racial and/or economic status changed? Loans could not be made in a neighborhood less than 95% of one race. The text was something like "if the neighborhood has a chance of being INVADED BY A DIFFERENT RACIAL OR SOCIOECONOMIC CLASS". Of course, at the same time, it was impossible for a woman to get a mortgage without a man co-signing with her.

Why are you lying about David Duke?

Donald Trump did NOT call for the execution of five innocent blacks. They had been found guilty. They were convicted rapists and murders. It was LATER that they were deemed innocent. Please show us where he urged the execution of them after they had been found innocent!

It was LATER that they were deemed innocent.

Wrong...they were found to have not raped the woman, but they beat her into a coma and sexually assaulted her...

 

[2aguy]

CCW laws are only as good as the laws that protect the shooter. I don't know if my license is good in the commie states like NY or California. But even if it were, I would be deathly afraid of using a firearm in those states because the laws are written to protect the criminal, and not the victim.

In my state, I have no fear of using my firearm if needed. The laws that were written during and after the CCW laws enacted do protect me when I need to use deadly force. In fact, they are written in my favor.

CCW programs were forced on states that refused to have them by the Supreme Court. But that ruling doesn't mean the state has to be on the side of the victim, or that obtaining a license is guaranteed.

John Stossel Denied Carry Permit in NYC

NYC complied with the Heller V ruling. What he didn't say was the reason he was denied. He just said he was denied. They had to give a reason. What I suggest is that this issue be taken back to the Federal Courts. According to the Heller V ruling, the word "Reasonable" must come into play. If the system is "Unreasonable" then it can be contested in court using the very ruling that they are using too justifying denying and allowing him too have a gun in his home.

The problem I see here is, the NRA and others pick the wrong fights. This sounds like a fight they should pick instead of the frivolous ones they keep picking. Picking the wrong fights is designed to keep you stirred up and angry. IF NYC has an unreasonable system for CCW then pursue it in court hard. Case in point. If some like Rump can get a CCW with his comment about being able to shoot someone on 5th avenue and get away with it then they should NEVER turn Jack the Ripper down for a ccw.

Using a metaphor is not grounds for refusing a CCW.....but then again, who knows with commie states.

I imagine you can find Stossle's entire process and results in detail if you look for it. I do know it's in one of his books. I also know of the hoops they made him jump through and the costs involved in his attempt to get a license. It is, by design, to discourage people from even trying. I may be wrong, but if I remember correctly, it cost him over a thousand dollars, and he still never got it.

But back to my point: just because the courts said they must allow citizens to carry firearms, doesn't mean they have to make it easy. Nor does it mean the state will protect you in the event you have to use deadly force.

And I haven't heard on inkling of where the CCW application for NYC has been taken to a Federal Court. I have hear a lot of crying and sobbing about it. I don't think it's right but I don't live in NYC and won't lift a finger to help someone that won't help themselves.

I don't know if he was serious about it or just went through the process only to make a point and story. Either way, it took months of work and waiting before he got the final decision. If people really reject their leadership, they can get a little smarter and start voting Republican again. Rudy straightened that city up real quick when he was in charge. With this commie they elected for Mayor, this is what police officers have to go through now.

What you saw in that vid has nothing to do with the Mayor. That has to do with the Cops not doing their jobs and some people taking advantage of it. Obviously, these were stage ahead of time without the Cops knowledge. The Cops should have reacted stronger in both incidents.


One huge problem. Mayor Dinkus (dig that name) started the spiral down on the Crime Rate before Rudy took office. Many of the programs that Rudy took credit for were already in place. And the bulk of the drop was done byy the policies off the Police Chief that Rudy forced out later. The only real thing Rudy did was approve some programs that were clear violations of citizens rights like stop and search which the courts said it was unconstitutional. If they were going to try that around here, chances are, there is going to be an ass beating to go along with it. And it might be the cop that gets to give the ass beating. If a Cop does not have a reasonable reason and elects to do it then he just threw away his authority as a police officer.

You are doing another, "Hey, look over there" routine. And more guns would not have done anything in the case of your latest deflection other than got a few cops killed.

Many of the programs that Rudy took credit for were already in place.

Wrong...again.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

But there is a point where too many guns do reach a saturation point and it does increase the violent nature for the US. Learn from History or be prepared to repeat history.

So......you are another one that thinks guns change people?

Since the early 90's, violent and gun crimes have decreased with the exception of the Ferguson Effect which took place for a few years. Now it's back on the decline. So if what you say is true, then as more people purchased firearms, more states adopted CCW laws, more states gave privileges to the victim instead of the attacker, violent crime should have increased, not decreased.

If you take a nice, safe, middle-class suburb, and create law that every citizen must own a gun, their crime rate will not change. If you do the opposite in high crime areas, they will remain high crime areas.

This idea that guns influence people to kill are just not supported by statistics.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

CCW laws are only as good as the laws that protect the shooter. I don't know if my license is good in the commie states like NY or California. But even if it were, I would be deathly afraid of using a firearm in those states because the laws are written to protect the criminal, and not the victim.

In my state, I have no fear of using my firearm if needed. The laws that were written during and after the CCW laws enacted do protect me when I need to use deadly force. In fact, they are written in my favor.

CCW programs were forced on states that refused to have them by the Supreme Court. But that ruling doesn't mean the state has to be on the side of the victim, or that obtaining a license is guaranteed.

John Stossel Denied Carry Permit in NYC

NYC complied with the Heller V ruling. What he didn't say was the reason he was denied. He just said he was denied. They had to give a reason. What I suggest is that this issue be taken back to the Federal Courts. According to the Heller V ruling, the word "Reasonable" must come into play. If the system is "Unreasonable" then it can be contested in court using the very ruling that they are using too justifying denying and allowing him too have a gun in his home.

The problem I see here is, the NRA and others pick the wrong fights. This sounds like a fight they should pick instead of the frivolous ones they keep picking. Picking the wrong fights is designed to keep you stirred up and angry. IF NYC has an unreasonable system for CCW then pursue it in court hard. Case in point. If some like Rump can get a CCW with his comment about being able to shoot someone on 5th avenue and get away with it then they should NEVER turn Jack the Ripper down for a ccw.

Using a metaphor is not grounds for refusing a CCW.....but then again, who knows with commie states.

I imagine you can find Stossle's entire process and results in detail if you look for it. I do know it's in one of his books. I also know of the hoops they made him jump through and the costs involved in his attempt to get a license. It is, by design, to discourage people from even trying. I may be wrong, but if I remember correctly, it cost him over a thousand dollars, and he still never got it.

But back to my point: just because the courts said they must allow citizens to carry firearms, doesn't mean they have to make it easy. Nor does it mean the state will protect you in the event you have to use deadly force.

And I haven't heard on inkling of where the CCW application for NYC has been taken to a Federal Court. I have hear a lot of crying and sobbing about it. I don't think it's right but I don't live in NYC and won't lift a finger to help someone that won't help themselves.

I don't know if he was serious about it or just went through the process only to make a point and story. Either way, it took months of work and waiting before he got the final decision. If people really reject their leadership, they can get a little smarter and start voting Republican again. Rudy straightened that city up real quick when he was in charge. With this commie they elected for Mayor, this is what police officers have to go through now.

What you saw in that vid has nothing to do with the Mayor. That has to do with the Cops not doing their jobs and some people taking advantage of it. Obviously, these were stage ahead of time without the Cops knowledge. The Cops should have reacted stronger in both incidents.


One huge problem. Mayor Dinkus (dig that name) started the spiral down on the Crime Rate before Rudy took office. Many of the programs that Rudy took credit for were already in place. And the bulk of the drop was done byy the policies off the Police Chief that Rudy forced out later. The only real thing Rudy did was approve some programs that were clear violations of citizens rights like stop and search which the courts said it was unconstitutional. If they were going to try that around here, chances are, there is going to be an ass beating to go along with it. And it might be the cop that gets to give the ass beating. If a Cop does not have a reasonable reason and elects to do it then he just threw away his authority as a police officer.

You are doing another, "Hey, look over there" routine. And more guns would not have done anything in the case of your latest deflection other than got a few cops killed.

Well......I can already tell you're talking out of your ass since Rudy didn't create Stop and Frisk. That was after he left office as Mayor.

Secondly, the NYC police are at odds with Commie De-Blah-Zio and their reluctance to show authority was led by him. Rudy chimed in on this embarrassing situation. Pay attention to the hyperlink in the article.

Giuliani calls de Blasio a "disgrace" after NYPD attacked with water on streets of New York City

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So many mistakes your friend made in the situation you describe.

So should he have stayed home; check between all the parked cars? I that what you do going back to your automobile in a public parking lot?

It can happen to anybody, anywhere, at any time. Criminals do target places where the least suspecting victims are to be found.

Yes, actually, women (especially women alone) do check the parking lot, especially on the way to, and around her own car.

I know who is in the lot, where they are, if they are coming or going, if they are male or female, if they have bags in their hands, if they look like they belong, if they are wondering around lost, if they are walking too close to me and on and on.

You have to be hyper-aware in parking lots.

And you call us paranoid for carrying our guns?

You call it paranoid, I call it second nature.

The difference between us is, I don't require a gun to leave my house.

For the record - I've never been blindsided in a parking lot and had my crotch bashed in.

Neither have I, but because that never happened doesn't mean I shouldn't be prepared in case it does, unlike my former coworker.

The links I provided earlier were only stories of CCW holders who protected others. There are thousands of stories of CCW holders protecting themselves, or otherwise stopping a crime about to happen simply by brandishing their firearm.

Now let's compare our strategies to avoid being a victim of a crime. We are both in a store, and we both notice a suspicious looking character in the parking lot. He's not doing anything wrong or illegal to get the police involved, just a little concerning.

With your method, you just stand at that store window waiting for this individual to leave. Because I am armed, I leave the store when I want to. Now, if you did not take notice of me walking safely to my car without altercations, you might be there for hours, or perhaps call a friend to drive over to escort you to your car. Me? I'm home in about 20 minutes proceeding to my next project of the day.

A different scenario: Because I don't have time to wait for this person to leave, I exit the store anyway, and if trouble arises, I use deadly force to stop an attack. If you have somewhere important to go, and get attacked in that parking lot, you may lose your purse, get raped, or perhaps murdered.

So tell me: in that situation, who's ahead of the game, you or I?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

But there is a point where too many guns do reach a saturation point and it does increase the violent nature for the US. Learn from History or be prepared to repeat history.

So ... in the parts of the country where private ownership of firearms is a GIVEN, and the violence is LOW (Utah, Idaho, Kentucky and Oklahoma for example), more guns will increase the violence?

But in the parts of the country where guns are forbidden or severely restricted (Chicago, St. Louis, Compton, Oakland, Memphis and Detroit for example) we can expect a decrease in violence?

Is that what you are saying?

I am talking about the extremes. The number of homes that have guns hasn't changed in a couple or three decades. The increase in the number of guns is because those homes that have them have increased the number of guns they have. That means that the increase in the number of guns has exactly no effect of anything.

But if we look at the extremes we have to look at those areas with almost no or no guns. The introduction of more guns in those areas will affect the Violent gun data.

Now, let's look at a saturation of guns. For that we have to back to before 1871 and the reason for the first Gun Regulations in the Western Towns and Cities. When you saturate the number of guns and remove most of the gun regulations you end up with a very dangerous situation. The level headed, law abiding citizen is not the instigators but often times become the victims. Petty Arguments, irritable tempers, drunks, etc. WILL (not might) extend into a dangerous situation. Hence the Towns and Cities that inhibited the carrying of firearms within the city limits. The Earps were actually trying to be nice guys and allow the others to surrender their firearms. Had the same thing happened in, say, Dallas, the Dallas Police Department would have shot them on site and reinforced the old saying"You shot them in the Back, why? Because their front wasn't towards me". We really aren't any more civilized today than we were in 1871 no matter what you wish to think.

What we don't need is to see the extremes in both the lack of, the saturation of individual firearms or the lack of or saturation of gun regulations. It seems that one group wants the lack of one and the other side wants the lack of the other. With the traditions, customs and history of the United States, neither can be tolerated.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

NYC complied with the Heller V ruling. What he didn't say was the reason he was denied. He just said he was denied. They had to give a reason. What I suggest is that this issue be taken back to the Federal Courts. According to the Heller V ruling, the word "Reasonable" must come into play. If the system is "Unreasonable" then it can be contested in court using the very ruling that they are using too justifying denying and allowing him too have a gun in his home.

The problem I see here is, the NRA and others pick the wrong fights. This sounds like a fight they should pick instead of the frivolous ones they keep picking. Picking the wrong fights is designed to keep you stirred up and angry. IF NYC has an unreasonable system for CCW then pursue it in court hard. Case in point. If some like Rump can get a CCW with his comment about being able to shoot someone on 5th avenue and get away with it then they should NEVER turn Jack the Ripper down for a ccw.

Using a metaphor is not grounds for refusing a CCW.....but then again, who knows with commie states.

I imagine you can find Stossle's entire process and results in detail if you look for it. I do know it's in one of his books. I also know of the hoops they made him jump through and the costs involved in his attempt to get a license. It is, by design, to discourage people from even trying. I may be wrong, but if I remember correctly, it cost him over a thousand dollars, and he still never got it.

But back to my point: just because the courts said they must allow citizens to carry firearms, doesn't mean they have to make it easy. Nor does it mean the state will protect you in the event you have to use deadly force.

And I haven't heard on inkling of where the CCW application for NYC has been taken to a Federal Court. I have hear a lot of crying and sobbing about it. I don't think it's right but I don't live in NYC and won't lift a finger to help someone that won't help themselves.

I don't know if he was serious about it or just went through the process only to make a point and story. Either way, it took months of work and waiting before he got the final decision. If people really reject their leadership, they can get a little smarter and start voting Republican again. Rudy straightened that city up real quick when he was in charge. With this commie they elected for Mayor, this is what police officers have to go through now.

What you saw in that vid has nothing to do with the Mayor. That has to do with the Cops not doing their jobs and some people taking advantage of it. Obviously, these were stage ahead of time without the Cops knowledge. The Cops should have reacted stronger in both incidents.


One huge problem. Mayor Dinkus (dig that name) started the spiral down on the Crime Rate before Rudy took office. Many of the programs that Rudy took credit for were already in place. And the bulk of the drop was done byy the policies off the Police Chief that Rudy forced out later. The only real thing Rudy did was approve some programs that were clear violations of citizens rights like stop and search which the courts said it was unconstitutional. If they were going to try that around here, chances are, there is going to be an ass beating to go along with it. And it might be the cop that gets to give the ass beating. If a Cop does not have a reasonable reason and elects to do it then he just threw away his authority as a police officer.

You are doing another, "Hey, look over there" routine. And more guns would not have done anything in the case of your latest deflection other than got a few cops killed.

Well......I can already tell you're talking out of your ass since Rudy didn't create Stop and Frisk. That was after he left office as Mayor.

Secondly, the NYC police are at odds with Commie De-Blah-Zio and their reluctance to show authority was led by him. Rudy chimed in on this embarrassing situation. Pay attention to the hyperlink in the article.

Giuliani calls de Blasio a "disgrace" after NYPD attacked with water on streets of New York City

The Giuliani we see today isn't the same on that once was. AT one time, you would have called him a Commie as well. At one time, he as extremely left at about the same as Bernie. Rudy really isn't left nor right. He is an opportunist. He will do and say anything he thinks that will get him ahead. I have no idea why either party would have anything to do with him.

 

[flacaltenn]

America would be the safest country in the world When will Republicans learn the NRA is FOS ?

You're not a deep thinker are ya? There's only "so safe" a country can be... If you want REALLY safe, you shun immigrants and have a unicultural demographic, and a long list of traditions and a govt that values freedom and liberty... INCLUDING gun rights.. Maybe somewhere like Finland or Switzerland..

SPEAKING of the Swiss.. They ALL HAVE MILITARY style weapons.. They don't NEED them for personal protection, so it's hard to tell if there's any correlation there...

But the fact is -- with our fading culture, morals, education system, failing political system, poor results from imprisionment and a deeply immigrated to country --- It would blood shed and mayhem without the deterrent..

All those guns are not being used... They are the personal nuclear arsenal that keeps others from fucking with you...

YES Mr Flacal What we need is a gov't that honors freedom BTW did you get to read the NY Times or Washington Post this morning ??? The 2 trump forbids you and the gov't from reading?? I' am a deep thinker and I can agree with more than one thing you say. What I can't agree with is a man I despise, a racist piece of moronic trash like trump, telling me anything

Think the TDS Syndrome Group meeting is down the stairs and near the dumpster that the Dem Party is burning in... Think there's an "impeachment" rally going on for ya in that dumpster fire...

I don't generally read the NYTimes or WashPo unless I have a craving to but a gut laughing at their demise...

IF IF IF -- you could actually teach your party how to focus on America's important issues AND WIN ARGUMENTS and DEBATES on topics like law abiding and legal uses for firearms, you wouldn't be a kamikaze last survivor of a party in general meltdown mode...

But if you can't FOCUS on the topic, then maybe there's an intervention in name going on down in that support group downstairs...

You didn't even TRY to squeak out an actual response to the concept that nations can only be as safe as their political and social solidarity and respect for liberties and freedom and the rule of law... So at some point, the number of armed citizens doesn't really need to be larger. It's kinda like the "herd immunity" effect for vaccinations...

Only requires that lawbreakers using guns are punished.. And that the law respecting citizens having them for sport or self-defense are well distributed in the general population...

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Using a metaphor is not grounds for refusing a CCW.....but then again, who knows with commie states.

I imagine you can find Stossle's entire process and results in detail if you look for it. I do know it's in one of his books. I also know of the hoops they made him jump through and the costs involved in his attempt to get a license. It is, by design, to discourage people from even trying. I may be wrong, but if I remember correctly, it cost him over a thousand dollars, and he still never got it.

But back to my point: just because the courts said they must allow citizens to carry firearms, doesn't mean they have to make it easy. Nor does it mean the state will protect you in the event you have to use deadly force.

And I haven't heard on inkling of where the CCW application for NYC has been taken to a Federal Court. I have hear a lot of crying and sobbing about it. I don't think it's right but I don't live in NYC and won't lift a finger to help someone that won't help themselves.

I don't know if he was serious about it or just went through the process only to make a point and story. Either way, it took months of work and waiting before he got the final decision. If people really reject their leadership, they can get a little smarter and start voting Republican again. Rudy straightened that city up real quick when he was in charge. With this commie they elected for Mayor, this is what police officers have to go through now.

What you saw in that vid has nothing to do with the Mayor. That has to do with the Cops not doing their jobs and some people taking advantage of it. Obviously, these were stage ahead of time without the Cops knowledge. The Cops should have reacted stronger in both incidents.


One huge problem. Mayor Dinkus (dig that name) started the spiral down on the Crime Rate before Rudy took office. Many of the programs that Rudy took credit for were already in place. And the bulk of the drop was done byy the policies off the Police Chief that Rudy forced out later. The only real thing Rudy did was approve some programs that were clear violations of citizens rights like stop and search which the courts said it was unconstitutional. If they were going to try that around here, chances are, there is going to be an ass beating to go along with it. And it might be the cop that gets to give the ass beating. If a Cop does not have a reasonable reason and elects to do it then he just threw away his authority as a police officer.

You are doing another, "Hey, look over there" routine. And more guns would not have done anything in the case of your latest deflection other than got a few cops killed.

Well......I can already tell you're talking out of your ass since Rudy didn't create Stop and Frisk. That was after he left office as Mayor.

Secondly, the NYC police are at odds with Commie De-Blah-Zio and their reluctance to show authority was led by him. Rudy chimed in on this embarrassing situation. Pay attention to the hyperlink in the article.

Giuliani calls de Blasio a "disgrace" after NYPD attacked with water on streets of New York City

The Giuliani we see today isn't the same on that once was. AT one time, you would have called him a Commie as well. At one time, he as extremely left at about the same as Bernie. Rudy really isn't left nor right. He is an opportunist. He will do and say anything he thinks that will get him ahead. I have no idea why either party would have anything to do with him.

So at what time would I have called him a commie? As far as I can remember, he's been a pretty conservative guy. No, he isn't the same guy as he once was, but neither am I, and neither are you. We all lose our edge as time progresses.

But NYC was plagued with homeless people washing windows for money, and motorists who didn't pay them faced a violent confrontation. He kicked those people out of the city, and sent the mob to New Jersey. The park was a dangerous place to visit. Under his leadership, crime, assaults and murders decreased. You couldn't have had a better leader during the 911 attacks. And he always supported the NYC police department at every turn.

Business people and the wealthy are leaving the city because of taxes. Violent and gun crime is on the increase. This Mayor is more concerned about getting horse and carriage off the street than he is bums. He never once challenged Kelly Bundy Cortez from chasing businesses out of the city thinking that tax abatements were taxpayers giving businesses money to come there.

What a mess.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

And I haven't heard on inkling of where the CCW application for NYC has been taken to a Federal Court. I have hear a lot of crying and sobbing about it. I don't think it's right but I don't live in NYC and won't lift a finger to help someone that won't help themselves.

I don't know if he was serious about it or just went through the process only to make a point and story. Either way, it took months of work and waiting before he got the final decision. If people really reject their leadership, they can get a little smarter and start voting Republican again. Rudy straightened that city up real quick when he was in charge. With this commie they elected for Mayor, this is what police officers have to go through now.

What you saw in that vid has nothing to do with the Mayor. That has to do with the Cops not doing their jobs and some people taking advantage of it. Obviously, these were stage ahead of time without the Cops knowledge. The Cops should have reacted stronger in both incidents.


One huge problem. Mayor Dinkus (dig that name) started the spiral down on the Crime Rate before Rudy took office. Many of the programs that Rudy took credit for were already in place. And the bulk of the drop was done byy the policies off the Police Chief that Rudy forced out later. The only real thing Rudy did was approve some programs that were clear violations of citizens rights like stop and search which the courts said it was unconstitutional. If they were going to try that around here, chances are, there is going to be an ass beating to go along with it. And it might be the cop that gets to give the ass beating. If a Cop does not have a reasonable reason and elects to do it then he just threw away his authority as a police officer.

You are doing another, "Hey, look over there" routine. And more guns would not have done anything in the case of your latest deflection other than got a few cops killed.

Well......I can already tell you're talking out of your ass since Rudy didn't create Stop and Frisk. That was after he left office as Mayor.

Secondly, the NYC police are at odds with Commie De-Blah-Zio and their reluctance to show authority was led by him. Rudy chimed in on this embarrassing situation. Pay attention to the hyperlink in the article.

Giuliani calls de Blasio a "disgrace" after NYPD attacked with water on streets of New York City

The Giuliani we see today isn't the same on that once was. AT one time, you would have called him a Commie as well. At one time, he as extremely left at about the same as Bernie. Rudy really isn't left nor right. He is an opportunist. He will do and say anything he thinks that will get him ahead. I have no idea why either party would have anything to do with him.

So at what time would I have called him a commie? As far as I can remember, he's been a pretty conservative guy. No, he isn't the same guy as he once was, but neither am I, and neither are you. We all lose our edge as time progresses.

But NYC was plagued with homeless people washing windows for money, and motorists who didn't pay them faced a violent confrontation. He kicked those people out of the city, and sent the mob to New Jersey. The park was a dangerous place to visit. Under his leadership, crime, assaults and murders decreased. You couldn't have had a better leader during the 911 attacks. And he always supported the NYC police department at every turn.

Business people and the wealthy are leaving the city because of taxes. Violent and gun crime is on the increase. This Mayor is more concerned about getting horse and carriage off the street than he is bums. He never once challenged Kelly Bundy Cortez from chasing businesses out of the city thinking that tax abatements were taxpayers giving businesses money to come there.

What a mess.

Okay, let's take a good hard look at the Amazon Distibution Center. So you got 30,000 jobs for 5 years and you sold the baby for taxes to get it. Are you aware that within 5 years, Amazon will totally automate their distrubution centers and those 30K jobs are gone but you still sold the baby. Within 1 years time, doing a 30K layoff isn't pretty and completely wrecks a cities population financially. Those dollars that were supposed to be recouped from taxes from the workers are gone. Yes, Amazon has a fully automated Distribution center ready and able in the wings that it can put into play in the very near future. Amazon is NOT a company you can depend on in a long range. The Delivery Drones are many years away but the Automated Distrubution Centers are already being slowly worked in. Right now, Amazon doesn't need to those 30K workers for one Distribution Center anymore. They can do it with less than 5000. But the deal they cut was for 30K. In the end, it was a bad deal for NYC since the Tax Breaks and outright gifts would NEVER be paid back.

This would have been another Corporate Welfare deal. And for a company that does not pay a single dime in Taxes to begin with but makes billions in profits. Is that your idea of a fair deal for America?

 

[Blues Man]

And there you have it.......another anti-gun loon who has a psycho-sexual fixation on guns as a substitute for the penis. This seems to be a common mental disorder with these types....and really needs to be addressed by a psychiatric professional.

I'm not the one who needs to load up on these phallic symbols every time I leave the house.

You are projecting. Medication and therapy can help you accept your physical limitations.

Let me ask: do you have house insurance? If you rent, renters insurance? Do you have healthcare insurance, or car insurance?

Guns are nothing more than insurance. You have it just in case, but never expect to actually use it. Having insurance is not a symbol of anything but responsibility and protection. If you want to drive with no insurance, I don't care, just don't tell me I can't have auto insurance, and please don't drive around me either.

My insurance doesn't kill anyone. And I've said many times, I don't need that kind of insurance. Caravans of vehicles (or even one) have never driven into my driveway and spilled out hordes of home invaders to steal all my shit and kill me. I am not attacked in public because I know how to keep myself from being a target. I have kept myself safe all over the world, and right here on the CA/MX border.

However, if some incel GOP nutter decided to drive out here and shoot the place up and I got caught in the crossfire, well, then that would be that. I will not live my life in fear of crazy people. I do not care to live my life afraid of the world and I'm not into paranoia.

But if I did need a killing weapon, I'd prefer a bomb, or maybe a grenade. Something I can throw in the general direction of the danger. My hand-eye coordination is not that great and if I'm going for the kill, I'll need something that delivers an easier kill shot.

So you think that you throwing a bomb or grenade would be more effective than a bullet that travels at a speed of 2,500 feet per second? Did you ever consider somebody can see you throwing such an object and simply move away? Or shoot you before you even had a chance to pull your arm back?

You know who else thought they were invincible to crime because they knew how to keep themselves from being targets? All the people who were victims of a criminal attack.

Don't get me wrong, I understand how you think. I thought like that too when I was a kid. Then I came home from work one Saturday and found my apartment broken into. I knew the people who did it as well. Very dangerous people. So that's when I purchased my first gun.

Through channels, I let the people who broke into my house know I was armed, and I was ready and waiting for them. I even told them I had a friend come over from time to time to remove my car and take it home with him to give the appearance the apartment was empty just so I could get a chance at putting the robbers in a body bag. They never came back since.

If you ever read any of the hundreds of stories of people using a firearm to protect themselves or others, you'd see they too did what they could to stay out of that situation. Many times these self-defense acts take place during the day, in good neighborhoods or areas not known for criminal attack.

I don't associate with any very dangerous people. It's one of the ways I keep myself safe.

I don't either but that didn't stop three thugs from putting me in the hospital

And if you can't defend yourself, you are never safe

 

[Blues Man]

In El Paso, there were probably a lot of guns there yet the people there fled, ducked, froze, etc.. Not a single on pulled their weapons and confronted the shooter. And don't tell me that there weren't a lot of guns in that Walmart. It's Texas for crying out loud.

You reasoning is flawed.

For what reason do YOU think most of those armed citizens did not pull their weapons?

Because they are only pretend fierce brave men. In reality they are chicken shit cowards.

Because they had no obligation to

Just because I carry does not mean I have an obligation to protect anyone

 

[Blues Man]

So Mr smart why the US is one of the worst countries when it comes to gun homicides, mass shootings ? There are millions of guns. Why the US is the most fucked up? There is not a day when I don't turn local news and there isn't someone who killed someone....lately is more family violence than gang violence or work violence . The last country I visited the worst crime they had on TV was a shooting in a work place in the US. The irony !!!!

So homicides and violent crimes don't count in your world. How convenient for you!

You know where else your "method" would help? London, England! They can quit counting all the murders committed with knives and machetes!

I do appreciate your efforts in helping me get great exposure for these facts as often as possible!

The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.
By James Slack
UPDATED:18:14 EST, 2 July 2009

Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed.

Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.

The figures comes on the day new Home Secretary Alan Johnson makes his first major speech on crime, promising to be tough on loutish behaviour.

The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 920 and South Africa 1,609.

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: 'This is a damning indictment of this government's comprehensive failure over more than a decade to tackle the deep rooted social problems in our society, and the knock on effect on crime and anti-social behaviour.

Read more: The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S. | Daily Mail Online

UK is violent crime capital of Europe

That only stands to reason.....at least with those of us on the right. Helpless people in Europe have no way to defend themselves. They are targets of crime just like elderly people are in the US.

The difference is that most people here have the ability to defend themselves if they desire. At least in my state, if a helpless 90 pound female is being followed by an aggressive male, and she's prepared for an attack, that 200 pound muscle bound gorilla may be going home on a gurney with the sheet draped over his head. That doesn't happen in Europe.

Stupidest excuses as usual. School shootings? Rosd rage shootings? Work shootings? Concert shootings? Work ppace shootings ? Domestic shootings? Kids accidentally shooting their family members? And so much more....

Mass shootings account for less than 1% of all murders.

70% of all murders occur in inner city urban areas and usually involve young minorities most of which have some sort of criminal history