Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?

[kaz]

LIBS WANT GUNS KEPT FROM LAW ABIDING CITIZENS (AKA CONSERVATIVES)- THEY DON'T CARE IF CRIMINALS (LIBS) GET GUNS.

Yes, that's the plan

 

[Wry Catcher]

Bullshit. It is your opinion, and by your avatar, your opinion is biased. The Brady Bill was not renewed do to the gun lobby, the threat to seated members of tossing support to those who wanted the Brady Bill to go away, the gun industry, the NRA and people like you.

Nope, it's not just an opinion of mine:

Posted March 13, 2003
Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides

The Brady Bill, the most important piece of federal gun control legislation in recent decades, has had no statistically discernable effect on reducing gun deaths, according to a study by Philip J. Cook, a Duke University professor of public policy, economics and sociology. "The Brady Bill seems to have been a failure," Cook told a sparsely attended lecture in Caplin Pavilion on March 11. "But that doesn't mean gun control is doomed to failure."

Regarded as the nation's foremost authority on gun control, Cook spoke on "Evaluating the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act" to inaugurate a new lecture series on public health, law and ethics issues. Elected in 2001 to the prestigious Institute of Medicine, Cook is also known for his work on alcohol problems. In a 1981 study, he demonstrated that alcohol taxes have a direct effect on reducing drinking.

Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides

Are you claiming the NRA and the gun lobby had no impact on the issue in Congress?

More incredibly, are you claiming members of Congress actual read the study?

Nobody even needed to read the study. FBI statistics show that violent crime (and gun crime in particular) has been on the decline since the mid 90's. Now nobody can say why, but I see a direct relationship between more armed citizens and lower crime. Most if not all of our mass shootings take place in gun-free zones. This is not to mention the fact that many of the cities that have the most violent gun crimes are places that are very restrictive on gun ownership by law abiding citizens.

There is an old saying: If it's not broke, don't fix it. We are on the right path to lowering violent and gun crime.

"F.B.I. confirms Sharp Rise in Mass Shootings Since 2000"
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/us/25shooters.html?_r=0

"There were, on average, 16.4 such shootings a year from 2007 to 2013, compared with an average of 6.4 shootings annually from 2000 to 2006. In the past 13 years, 486 people have been killed in such shootings, with 366 of the deaths in the past seven years. In all, the study looked at 160 shootings since 2000. (Shootings tied to domestic violence and gangs were not included.)"

Here's a list of school shootings:

Columbine to Newtown: A tragic list of school shootings since 1999

See, that's the problem with debating you libs. When you're adversary comes out with conclusive facts, you try to turn them around by bringing up something else. I said that gun and violent crimes in the US has been on the decline since the mid 90's, and you come back with some statistic about mass shootings? WTF is that about? What does mass shootings have to do with our overall gun and violent crime rate? Did you really think I was going to just let that slide by without a response?

Of course not. In a discussion or debate both sides present arguments. It is my opinion that you cherry picked a study to prove your point. I did the same.

Overall gun and violent crime may in fact have declined, but the cause for this may have nothing to do with guns and their proliferation in our society.

I was employed in LE from 1971 until 2005, during that period of time I observed how the criminal justice system reacted to crime in general. The 90's were rife with a new iteration of cocaine, crack. The free black market was open to all comers, nationwide, to distribute one of the most dangerous drugs in terms of addiction and low production cost. Thus we saw the rise of urban gangs and the bloody battle for turf.

Crack was soon seen by drug users as a lethal substance. Withdrawal left even the weekend user depressed and seeking more and more rocks just to alleviate their pain. Word got out and the epidemic waned.

The war on drugs had little impact on it loss of favor, it's impact on the users was enough to reduce demand, and that is likely one reason for the reduction of violence during the period post 2000.

Of course gun violence in terms of mass killings of innocent citizens has become more frequent; today more people carry more guns, illegally. Why if your premise is true, are so many so concerned that they feel the need to be armed at all times?

 

[Wry Catcher]

LIBS WANT GUNS KEPT FROM LAW ABIDING CITIZENS (AKA CONSERVATIVES)- THEY DON'T CARE IF CRIMINALS (LIBS) GET GUNS.

Yes, that's the plan

Stupid comment and stupid response.

 

[kaz]

LIBS WANT GUNS KEPT FROM LAW ABIDING CITIZENS (AKA CONSERVATIVES)- THEY DON'T CARE IF CRIMINALS (LIBS) GET GUNS.

Yes, that's the plan

Stupid comment and stupid response.

You've offered no proposal except limiting the rights of honest citizens. You bought it, own it. You want to change that, actually address criminals and guns and stop blaming victims and removing our ability to defend ourselves, you know, like the OP asked...

 

[Wry Catcher]

Bullshit. It is your opinion, and by your avatar, your opinion is biased. The Brady Bill was not renewed do to the gun lobby, the threat to seated members of tossing support to those who wanted the Brady Bill to go away, the gun industry, the NRA and people like you.

Nope, it's not just an opinion of mine:

Posted March 13, 2003
Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides

The Brady Bill, the most important piece of federal gun control legislation in recent decades, has had no statistically discernable effect on reducing gun deaths, according to a study by Philip J. Cook, a Duke University professor of public policy, economics and sociology. "The Brady Bill seems to have been a failure," Cook told a sparsely attended lecture in Caplin Pavilion on March 11. "But that doesn't mean gun control is doomed to failure."

Regarded as the nation's foremost authority on gun control, Cook spoke on "Evaluating the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act" to inaugurate a new lecture series on public health, law and ethics issues. Elected in 2001 to the prestigious Institute of Medicine, Cook is also known for his work on alcohol problems. In a 1981 study, he demonstrated that alcohol taxes have a direct effect on reducing drinking.

Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides

Are you claiming the NRA and the gun lobby had no impact on the issue in Congress?

More incredibly, are you claiming members of Congress actual read the study?

Nobody even needed to read the study. FBI statistics show that violent crime (and gun crime in particular) has been on the decline since the mid 90's. Now nobody can say why, but I see a direct relationship between more armed citizens and lower crime. Most if not all of our mass shootings take place in gun-free zones. This is not to mention the fact that many of the cities that have the most violent gun crimes are places that are very restrictive on gun ownership by law abiding citizens.

There is an old saying: If it's not broke, don't fix it. We are on the right path to lowering violent and gun crime.

"There are lies, damn lies and statistics" I doubt any parent of a child murdered finds solace in statistics or your opinion.

How do you think the widows from the Washington Navy Yard feel about you?

Your obsession with trying and failing to refute my points has become pathological, even you on some level must know that you've posted nothing of substance and earned no points in a debate. In fact, the more you whine, the less effective you become as a champion for the gun industry.

Keep making the same specious comments, as nothing more than spam, it's actually quite comical.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Nope, it's not just an opinion of mine:

Posted March 13, 2003
Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides

The Brady Bill, the most important piece of federal gun control legislation in recent decades, has had no statistically discernable effect on reducing gun deaths, according to a study by Philip J. Cook, a Duke University professor of public policy, economics and sociology. "The Brady Bill seems to have been a failure," Cook told a sparsely attended lecture in Caplin Pavilion on March 11. "But that doesn't mean gun control is doomed to failure."

Regarded as the nation's foremost authority on gun control, Cook spoke on "Evaluating the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act" to inaugurate a new lecture series on public health, law and ethics issues. Elected in 2001 to the prestigious Institute of Medicine, Cook is also known for his work on alcohol problems. In a 1981 study, he demonstrated that alcohol taxes have a direct effect on reducing drinking.

Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides

Are you claiming the NRA and the gun lobby had no impact on the issue in Congress?

More incredibly, are you claiming members of Congress actual read the study?

Nobody even needed to read the study. FBI statistics show that violent crime (and gun crime in particular) has been on the decline since the mid 90's. Now nobody can say why, but I see a direct relationship between more armed citizens and lower crime. Most if not all of our mass shootings take place in gun-free zones. This is not to mention the fact that many of the cities that have the most violent gun crimes are places that are very restrictive on gun ownership by law abiding citizens.

There is an old saying: If it's not broke, don't fix it. We are on the right path to lowering violent and gun crime.

"F.B.I. confirms Sharp Rise in Mass Shootings Since 2000"
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/us/25shooters.html?_r=0

"There were, on average, 16.4 such shootings a year from 2007 to 2013, compared with an average of 6.4 shootings annually from 2000 to 2006. In the past 13 years, 486 people have been killed in such shootings, with 366 of the deaths in the past seven years. In all, the study looked at 160 shootings since 2000. (Shootings tied to domestic violence and gangs were not included.)"

Here's a list of school shootings:

Columbine to Newtown: A tragic list of school shootings since 1999

See, that's the problem with debating you libs. When you're adversary comes out with conclusive facts, you try to turn them around by bringing up something else. I said that gun and violent crimes in the US has been on the decline since the mid 90's, and you come back with some statistic about mass shootings? WTF is that about? What does mass shootings have to do with our overall gun and violent crime rate? Did you really think I was going to just let that slide by without a response?

Of course not. In a discussion or debate both sides present arguments. It is my opinion that you cherry picked a study to prove your point. I did the same.

Overall gun and violent crime may in fact have declined, but the cause for this may have nothing to do with guns and their proliferation in our society.

I was employed in LE from 1971 until 2005, during that period of time I observed how the criminal justice system reacted to crime in general. The 90's were rife with a new iteration of cocaine, crack. The free black market was open to all comers, nationwide, to distribute one of the most dangerous drugs in terms of addiction and low production cost. Thus we saw the rise of urban gangs and the bloody battle for turf.

Crack was soon seen by drug users as a lethal substance. Withdrawal left even the weekend user depressed and seeking more and more rocks just to alleviate their pain. Word got out and the epidemic waned.

The war on drugs had little impact on it loss of favor, it's impact on the users was enough to reduce demand, and that is likely one reason for the reduction of violence during the period post 2000.

Of course gun violence in terms of mass killings of innocent citizens has become more frequent; today more people carry more guns, illegally. Why if your premise is true, are so many so concerned that feel the need to be armed at all times?

Are you assuming that or do you have anything to backup what you say? People don't stay armed at all times, but I guess that depends on where you live and what's going on.

I'm usually not armed during the day when I go out, but only a few years ago, I was. My neighborhood got less violent through the years and I don't feel the need to take my weapon unless it's night time--especially if I'm going to my ATM machine.

Armed citizens works not so much because we have armed citizens, it's because the criminals don't know who is armed and who is not. That uncertainty keeps everybody much safer.

Drugs are just as bad today as they ever were. We have record amount of deaths from overdose in the US. In fact my cousin just lost her son a few months ago to a heroin overdose.

 

[kaz]

Nope, it's not just an opinion of mine:

Posted March 13, 2003
Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides

The Brady Bill, the most important piece of federal gun control legislation in recent decades, has had no statistically discernable effect on reducing gun deaths, according to a study by Philip J. Cook, a Duke University professor of public policy, economics and sociology. "The Brady Bill seems to have been a failure," Cook told a sparsely attended lecture in Caplin Pavilion on March 11. "But that doesn't mean gun control is doomed to failure."

Regarded as the nation's foremost authority on gun control, Cook spoke on "Evaluating the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act" to inaugurate a new lecture series on public health, law and ethics issues. Elected in 2001 to the prestigious Institute of Medicine, Cook is also known for his work on alcohol problems. In a 1981 study, he demonstrated that alcohol taxes have a direct effect on reducing drinking.

Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides

Are you claiming the NRA and the gun lobby had no impact on the issue in Congress?

More incredibly, are you claiming members of Congress actual read the study?

Nobody even needed to read the study. FBI statistics show that violent crime (and gun crime in particular) has been on the decline since the mid 90's. Now nobody can say why, but I see a direct relationship between more armed citizens and lower crime. Most if not all of our mass shootings take place in gun-free zones. This is not to mention the fact that many of the cities that have the most violent gun crimes are places that are very restrictive on gun ownership by law abiding citizens.

There is an old saying: If it's not broke, don't fix it. We are on the right path to lowering violent and gun crime.

"There are lies, damn lies and statistics" I doubt any parent of a child murdered finds solace in statistics or your opinion.

How do you think the widows from the Washington Navy Yard feel about you?

Your obsession with trying and failing to refute my points has become pathological, even you on some level must know that you've posted nothing of substance and earned no points in a debate. In fact, the more you whine, the less effective you become as a champion for the gun industry.

Keep making the same specious comments, as nothing more than spam, it's actually quite comical.

I haven't posted content? How many posts have you written without addressing my OP question once? You keep going back to licensing and registration for legal gun owners who aren't committing the crimes. You even blamed Ernie for the police needing to come if he defends himself as if that's why the criminal did it.

Again, focus. Kids can get all the pot they want while it's illegal. Address criminals getting guns, stop saying how you will prevent the rest of us from getting them.

And do you understand the same people who import drugs can and do import guns? And the harder you make it to get them, the more they will import.

Here's the 411 Holmes, they want $$$

 

[kaz]

Are you claiming the NRA and the gun lobby had no impact on the issue in Congress?

More incredibly, are you claiming members of Congress actual read the study?

Nobody even needed to read the study. FBI statistics show that violent crime (and gun crime in particular) has been on the decline since the mid 90's. Now nobody can say why, but I see a direct relationship between more armed citizens and lower crime. Most if not all of our mass shootings take place in gun-free zones. This is not to mention the fact that many of the cities that have the most violent gun crimes are places that are very restrictive on gun ownership by law abiding citizens.

There is an old saying: If it's not broke, don't fix it. We are on the right path to lowering violent and gun crime.

"F.B.I. confirms Sharp Rise in Mass Shootings Since 2000"
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/us/25shooters.html?_r=0

"There were, on average, 16.4 such shootings a year from 2007 to 2013, compared with an average of 6.4 shootings annually from 2000 to 2006. In the past 13 years, 486 people have been killed in such shootings, with 366 of the deaths in the past seven years. In all, the study looked at 160 shootings since 2000. (Shootings tied to domestic violence and gangs were not included.)"

Here's a list of school shootings:

Columbine to Newtown: A tragic list of school shootings since 1999

See, that's the problem with debating you libs. When you're adversary comes out with conclusive facts, you try to turn them around by bringing up something else. I said that gun and violent crimes in the US has been on the decline since the mid 90's, and you come back with some statistic about mass shootings? WTF is that about? What does mass shootings have to do with our overall gun and violent crime rate? Did you really think I was going to just let that slide by without a response?

Of course not. In a discussion or debate both sides present arguments. It is my opinion that you cherry picked a study to prove your point. I did the same.

Overall gun and violent crime may in fact have declined, but the cause for this may have nothing to do with guns and their proliferation in our society.

I was employed in LE from 1971 until 2005, during that period of time I observed how the criminal justice system reacted to crime in general. The 90's were rife with a new iteration of cocaine, crack. The free black market was open to all comers, nationwide, to distribute one of the most dangerous drugs in terms of addiction and low production cost. Thus we saw the rise of urban gangs and the bloody battle for turf.

Crack was soon seen by drug users as a lethal substance. Withdrawal left even the weekend user depressed and seeking more and more rocks just to alleviate their pain. Word got out and the epidemic waned.

The war on drugs had little impact on it loss of favor, it's impact on the users was enough to reduce demand, and that is likely one reason for the reduction of violence during the period post 2000.

Of course gun violence in terms of mass killings of innocent citizens has become more frequent; today more people carry more guns, illegally. Why if your premise is true, are so many so concerned that feel the need to be armed at all times?

Are you assuming that or do you have anything to backup what you say? People don't stay armed at all times, but I guess that depends on where you live and what's going on.

I'm usually not armed during the day when I go out, but only a few years ago, I was. My neighborhood got less violent through the years and I don't feel the need to take my weapon unless it's night time--especially if I'm going to my ATM machine.

Armed citizens works not so much because we have armed citizens, it's because the criminals don't know who is armed and who is not. That uncertainty keeps everybody much safer.

Drugs are just as bad today as they ever were. We have record amount of deaths from overdose in the US. In fact my cousin just lost her son a few months ago to a heroin overdose.

My kids grew up in Brookfield, Connecticut, 10 minutes from Sandy Hook. We lived there six years, longer than they lived anywhere else. There is no place in this country you'd have felt safter than in an elementary school in Sandy Hook. I am a Virginia Tech alum. I owned a restaurant in Chapel Hill near where Eve Carson was murdered. I also worked across the street from the World Trade center. A kid who was deranged held up the Wachovia branch a half mile from my house that I banked at with his finger and the cops ended up blowing him away. None of those places seemed dangerous at all. Particularly as you say during the day. I don't carry a gun even though I have a collection, but it makes me think I should consider it. Violence is around us and you just don't know. The best defense is criminals not knowing who is armed

 

[Wry Catcher]

Are you claiming the NRA and the gun lobby had no impact on the issue in Congress?

More incredibly, are you claiming members of Congress actual read the study?

Nobody even needed to read the study. FBI statistics show that violent crime (and gun crime in particular) has been on the decline since the mid 90's. Now nobody can say why, but I see a direct relationship between more armed citizens and lower crime. Most if not all of our mass shootings take place in gun-free zones. This is not to mention the fact that many of the cities that have the most violent gun crimes are places that are very restrictive on gun ownership by law abiding citizens.

There is an old saying: If it's not broke, don't fix it. We are on the right path to lowering violent and gun crime.

"F.B.I. confirms Sharp Rise in Mass Shootings Since 2000"
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/us/25shooters.html?_r=0

"There were, on average, 16.4 such shootings a year from 2007 to 2013, compared with an average of 6.4 shootings annually from 2000 to 2006. In the past 13 years, 486 people have been killed in such shootings, with 366 of the deaths in the past seven years. In all, the study looked at 160 shootings since 2000. (Shootings tied to domestic violence and gangs were not included.)"

Here's a list of school shootings:

Columbine to Newtown: A tragic list of school shootings since 1999

See, that's the problem with debating you libs. When you're adversary comes out with conclusive facts, you try to turn them around by bringing up something else. I said that gun and violent crimes in the US has been on the decline since the mid 90's, and you come back with some statistic about mass shootings? WTF is that about? What does mass shootings have to do with our overall gun and violent crime rate? Did you really think I was going to just let that slide by without a response?

Of course not. In a discussion or debate both sides present arguments. It is my opinion that you cherry picked a study to prove your point. I did the same.

Overall gun and violent crime may in fact have declined, but the cause for this may have nothing to do with guns and their proliferation in our society.

I was employed in LE from 1971 until 2005, during that period of time I observed how the criminal justice system reacted to crime in general. The 90's were rife with a new iteration of cocaine, crack. The free black market was open to all comers, nationwide, to distribute one of the most dangerous drugs in terms of addiction and low production cost. Thus we saw the rise of urban gangs and the bloody battle for turf.

Crack was soon seen by drug users as a lethal substance. Withdrawal left even the weekend user depressed and seeking more and more rocks just to alleviate their pain. Word got out and the epidemic waned.

The war on drugs had little impact on it loss of favor, it's impact on the users was enough to reduce demand, and that is likely one reason for the reduction of violence during the period post 2000.

Of course gun violence in terms of mass killings of innocent citizens has become more frequent; today more people carry more guns, illegally. Why if your premise is true, are so many so concerned that feel the need to be armed at all times?

Are you assuming that or do you have anything to backup what you say? People don't stay armed at all times, but I guess that depends on where you live and what's going on.

I'm usually not armed during the day when I go out, but only a few years ago, I was. My neighborhood got less violent through the years and I don't feel the need to take my weapon unless it's night time--especially if I'm going to my ATM machine.

Armed citizens works not so much because we have armed citizens, it's because the criminals don't know who is armed and who is not. That uncertainty keeps everybody much safer.

Drugs are just as bad today as they ever were. We have record amount of deaths from overdose in the US. In fact my cousin just lost her son a few months ago to a heroin overdose.

I've heard that H. is very popular in the NE. H. is one of the safer, if one can use that word, of the illicit drugs. I had a CI who was an addict for decades, didn't look it, had all his death and held down a job. The only times he looked like shit was when he needed to lighten up so he could shit. I never asked what he took to avoid withdrawal, but he managed his habit very well and was alive and kicking when I moved on.

 

[Ernie S.]

Nope, it's not just an opinion of mine:

Posted March 13, 2003
Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides

The Brady Bill, the most important piece of federal gun control legislation in recent decades, has had no statistically discernable effect on reducing gun deaths, according to a study by Philip J. Cook, a Duke University professor of public policy, economics and sociology. "The Brady Bill seems to have been a failure," Cook told a sparsely attended lecture in Caplin Pavilion on March 11. "But that doesn't mean gun control is doomed to failure."

Regarded as the nation's foremost authority on gun control, Cook spoke on "Evaluating the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act" to inaugurate a new lecture series on public health, law and ethics issues. Elected in 2001 to the prestigious Institute of Medicine, Cook is also known for his work on alcohol problems. In a 1981 study, he demonstrated that alcohol taxes have a direct effect on reducing drinking.

Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides

Are you claiming the NRA and the gun lobby had no impact on the issue in Congress?

More incredibly, are you claiming members of Congress actual read the study?

Nobody even needed to read the study. FBI statistics show that violent crime (and gun crime in particular) has been on the decline since the mid 90's. Now nobody can say why, but I see a direct relationship between more armed citizens and lower crime. Most if not all of our mass shootings take place in gun-free zones. This is not to mention the fact that many of the cities that have the most violent gun crimes are places that are very restrictive on gun ownership by law abiding citizens.

There is an old saying: If it's not broke, don't fix it. We are on the right path to lowering violent and gun crime.

"There are lies, damn lies and statistics" I doubt any parent of a child murdered finds solace in statistics or your opinion.

How do you think the widows from the Washington Navy Yard feel about you?

Your obsession with trying and failing to refute my points has become pathological, even you on some level must know that you've posted nothing of substance and earned no points in a debate. In fact, the more you whine, the less effective you become as a champion for the gun industry.

Keep making the same specious comments, as nothing more than spam, it's actually quite comical.

You have not made a valid point. All you can come up with is licensing legal gun owners which will have no effect on thugs and gang bangers.

Keep making the same specious comments, as nothing more than spam, it's actually quite comical.

 

[Ernie S.]

Nobody even needed to read the study. FBI statistics show that violent crime (and gun crime in particular) has been on the decline since the mid 90's. Now nobody can say why, but I see a direct relationship between more armed citizens and lower crime. Most if not all of our mass shootings take place in gun-free zones. This is not to mention the fact that many of the cities that have the most violent gun crimes are places that are very restrictive on gun ownership by law abiding citizens.

There is an old saying: If it's not broke, don't fix it. We are on the right path to lowering violent and gun crime.

"F.B.I. confirms Sharp Rise in Mass Shootings Since 2000"
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/us/25shooters.html?_r=0

"There were, on average, 16.4 such shootings a year from 2007 to 2013, compared with an average of 6.4 shootings annually from 2000 to 2006. In the past 13 years, 486 people have been killed in such shootings, with 366 of the deaths in the past seven years. In all, the study looked at 160 shootings since 2000. (Shootings tied to domestic violence and gangs were not included.)"

Here's a list of school shootings:

Columbine to Newtown: A tragic list of school shootings since 1999

See, that's the problem with debating you libs. When you're adversary comes out with conclusive facts, you try to turn them around by bringing up something else. I said that gun and violent crimes in the US has been on the decline since the mid 90's, and you come back with some statistic about mass shootings? WTF is that about? What does mass shootings have to do with our overall gun and violent crime rate? Did you really think I was going to just let that slide by without a response?

Of course not. In a discussion or debate both sides present arguments. It is my opinion that you cherry picked a study to prove your point. I did the same.

Overall gun and violent crime may in fact have declined, but the cause for this may have nothing to do with guns and their proliferation in our society.

I was employed in LE from 1971 until 2005, during that period of time I observed how the criminal justice system reacted to crime in general. The 90's were rife with a new iteration of cocaine, crack. The free black market was open to all comers, nationwide, to distribute one of the most dangerous drugs in terms of addiction and low production cost. Thus we saw the rise of urban gangs and the bloody battle for turf.

Crack was soon seen by drug users as a lethal substance. Withdrawal left even the weekend user depressed and seeking more and more rocks just to alleviate their pain. Word got out and the epidemic waned.

The war on drugs had little impact on it loss of favor, it's impact on the users was enough to reduce demand, and that is likely one reason for the reduction of violence during the period post 2000.

Of course gun violence in terms of mass killings of innocent citizens has become more frequent; today more people carry more guns, illegally. Why if your premise is true, are so many so concerned that feel the need to be armed at all times?

Are you assuming that or do you have anything to backup what you say? People don't stay armed at all times, but I guess that depends on where you live and what's going on.

I'm usually not armed during the day when I go out, but only a few years ago, I was. My neighborhood got less violent through the years and I don't feel the need to take my weapon unless it's night time--especially if I'm going to my ATM machine.

Armed citizens works not so much because we have armed citizens, it's because the criminals don't know who is armed and who is not. That uncertainty keeps everybody much safer.

Drugs are just as bad today as they ever were. We have record amount of deaths from overdose in the US. In fact my cousin just lost her son a few months ago to a heroin overdose.

My kids grew up in Brookfield, Connecticut, 10 minutes from Sandy Hook. We lived there six years, longer than they lived anywhere else. There is no place in this country you'd have felt safter than in an elementary school in Sandy Hook. I am a Virginia Tech alum. I owned a restaurant in Chapel Hill near where Eve Carson was murdered. I also worked across the street from the World Trade center. A kid who was deranged held up the Wachovia branch a half mile from my house that I banked at with his finger and the cops ended up blowing him away. None of those places seemed dangerous at all. Particularly as you say during the day. I don't carry a gun even though I have a collection, but it makes me think I should consider it. Violence is around us and you just don't know. The best defense is criminals not knowing who is armed

Got a cousin in Brookfield. I grew up in New Fairfield just across the lake.

I carry most of the time out of the house, but I deal with drunks frequently. Sometimes it's hard to run them out at 2 AM. Generally all it takes is tucking in my shirt and telling them that the party is over.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Are you claiming the NRA and the gun lobby had no impact on the issue in Congress?

More incredibly, are you claiming members of Congress actual read the study?

Nobody even needed to read the study. FBI statistics show that violent crime (and gun crime in particular) has been on the decline since the mid 90's. Now nobody can say why, but I see a direct relationship between more armed citizens and lower crime. Most if not all of our mass shootings take place in gun-free zones. This is not to mention the fact that many of the cities that have the most violent gun crimes are places that are very restrictive on gun ownership by law abiding citizens.

There is an old saying: If it's not broke, don't fix it. We are on the right path to lowering violent and gun crime.

"There are lies, damn lies and statistics" I doubt any parent of a child murdered finds solace in statistics or your opinion.

How do you think the widows from the Washington Navy Yard feel about you?

Your obsession with trying and failing to refute my points has become pathological, even you on some level must know that you've posted nothing of substance and earned no points in a debate. In fact, the more you whine, the less effective you become as a champion for the gun industry.

Keep making the same specious comments, as nothing more than spam, it's actually quite comical.

You have not made a valid point. All you can come up with is licensing legal gun owners which will have no effect on thugs and gang bangers.

Keep making the same specious comments, as nothing more than spam, it's actually quite comical.

Your ignorance is noted, as is your plagiarism. I've repeated parts of my opinion on licensing as the dolts, like you, keep lying that about it. Being one of the stupid ones, I fully expect you will continue to post falsehoods since you have nothing intelligent or thought provoking to offer.

Don't feel bad, you're not the only one.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Nobody even needed to read the study. FBI statistics show that violent crime (and gun crime in particular) has been on the decline since the mid 90's. Now nobody can say why, but I see a direct relationship between more armed citizens and lower crime. Most if not all of our mass shootings take place in gun-free zones. This is not to mention the fact that many of the cities that have the most violent gun crimes are places that are very restrictive on gun ownership by law abiding citizens.

There is an old saying: If it's not broke, don't fix it. We are on the right path to lowering violent and gun crime.

"F.B.I. confirms Sharp Rise in Mass Shootings Since 2000"
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/us/25shooters.html?_r=0

"There were, on average, 16.4 such shootings a year from 2007 to 2013, compared with an average of 6.4 shootings annually from 2000 to 2006. In the past 13 years, 486 people have been killed in such shootings, with 366 of the deaths in the past seven years. In all, the study looked at 160 shootings since 2000. (Shootings tied to domestic violence and gangs were not included.)"

Here's a list of school shootings:

Columbine to Newtown: A tragic list of school shootings since 1999

See, that's the problem with debating you libs. When you're adversary comes out with conclusive facts, you try to turn them around by bringing up something else. I said that gun and violent crimes in the US has been on the decline since the mid 90's, and you come back with some statistic about mass shootings? WTF is that about? What does mass shootings have to do with our overall gun and violent crime rate? Did you really think I was going to just let that slide by without a response?

Of course not. In a discussion or debate both sides present arguments. It is my opinion that you cherry picked a study to prove your point. I did the same.

Overall gun and violent crime may in fact have declined, but the cause for this may have nothing to do with guns and their proliferation in our society.

I was employed in LE from 1971 until 2005, during that period of time I observed how the criminal justice system reacted to crime in general. The 90's were rife with a new iteration of cocaine, crack. The free black market was open to all comers, nationwide, to distribute one of the most dangerous drugs in terms of addiction and low production cost. Thus we saw the rise of urban gangs and the bloody battle for turf.

Crack was soon seen by drug users as a lethal substance. Withdrawal left even the weekend user depressed and seeking more and more rocks just to alleviate their pain. Word got out and the epidemic waned.

The war on drugs had little impact on it loss of favor, it's impact on the users was enough to reduce demand, and that is likely one reason for the reduction of violence during the period post 2000.

Of course gun violence in terms of mass killings of innocent citizens has become more frequent; today more people carry more guns, illegally. Why if your premise is true, are so many so concerned that feel the need to be armed at all times?

Are you assuming that or do you have anything to backup what you say? People don't stay armed at all times, but I guess that depends on where you live and what's going on.

I'm usually not armed during the day when I go out, but only a few years ago, I was. My neighborhood got less violent through the years and I don't feel the need to take my weapon unless it's night time--especially if I'm going to my ATM machine.

Armed citizens works not so much because we have armed citizens, it's because the criminals don't know who is armed and who is not. That uncertainty keeps everybody much safer.

Drugs are just as bad today as they ever were. We have record amount of deaths from overdose in the US. In fact my cousin just lost her son a few months ago to a heroin overdose.

I've heard that H. is very popular in the NE. H. is one of the safer, if one can use that word, of the illicit drugs. I had a CI who was an addict for decades, didn't look it, had all his death and held down a job. The only times he looked like shit was when he needed to lighten up so he could shit. I never asked what he took to avoid withdrawal, but he managed his habit very well and was alive and kicking when I moved on.

They had an autopsy done just in case it was bad stuff. While the paramedics were working on him, another call came in about a woman who overdosed just three miles from where he lived. They were able to save her using a drug called Narcan® But it was suspicious because it was a Sunday at 10:00 am and they were both the same age. So far I haven't heard anything, but I do know autopsies take several months to complete around here.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Nobody even needed to read the study. FBI statistics show that violent crime (and gun crime in particular) has been on the decline since the mid 90's. Now nobody can say why, but I see a direct relationship between more armed citizens and lower crime. Most if not all of our mass shootings take place in gun-free zones. This is not to mention the fact that many of the cities that have the most violent gun crimes are places that are very restrictive on gun ownership by law abiding citizens.

There is an old saying: If it's not broke, don't fix it. We are on the right path to lowering violent and gun crime.

"F.B.I. confirms Sharp Rise in Mass Shootings Since 2000"
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/us/25shooters.html?_r=0

"There were, on average, 16.4 such shootings a year from 2007 to 2013, compared with an average of 6.4 shootings annually from 2000 to 2006. In the past 13 years, 486 people have been killed in such shootings, with 366 of the deaths in the past seven years. In all, the study looked at 160 shootings since 2000. (Shootings tied to domestic violence and gangs were not included.)"

Here's a list of school shootings:

Columbine to Newtown: A tragic list of school shootings since 1999

See, that's the problem with debating you libs. When you're adversary comes out with conclusive facts, you try to turn them around by bringing up something else. I said that gun and violent crimes in the US has been on the decline since the mid 90's, and you come back with some statistic about mass shootings? WTF is that about? What does mass shootings have to do with our overall gun and violent crime rate? Did you really think I was going to just let that slide by without a response?

Of course not. In a discussion or debate both sides present arguments. It is my opinion that you cherry picked a study to prove your point. I did the same.

Overall gun and violent crime may in fact have declined, but the cause for this may have nothing to do with guns and their proliferation in our society.

I was employed in LE from 1971 until 2005, during that period of time I observed how the criminal justice system reacted to crime in general. The 90's were rife with a new iteration of cocaine, crack. The free black market was open to all comers, nationwide, to distribute one of the most dangerous drugs in terms of addiction and low production cost. Thus we saw the rise of urban gangs and the bloody battle for turf.

Crack was soon seen by drug users as a lethal substance. Withdrawal left even the weekend user depressed and seeking more and more rocks just to alleviate their pain. Word got out and the epidemic waned.

The war on drugs had little impact on it loss of favor, it's impact on the users was enough to reduce demand, and that is likely one reason for the reduction of violence during the period post 2000.

Of course gun violence in terms of mass killings of innocent citizens has become more frequent; today more people carry more guns, illegally. Why if your premise is true, are so many so concerned that feel the need to be armed at all times?

Are you assuming that or do you have anything to backup what you say? People don't stay armed at all times, but I guess that depends on where you live and what's going on.

I'm usually not armed during the day when I go out, but only a few years ago, I was. My neighborhood got less violent through the years and I don't feel the need to take my weapon unless it's night time--especially if I'm going to my ATM machine.

Armed citizens works not so much because we have armed citizens, it's because the criminals don't know who is armed and who is not. That uncertainty keeps everybody much safer.

Drugs are just as bad today as they ever were. We have record amount of deaths from overdose in the US. In fact my cousin just lost her son a few months ago to a heroin overdose.

My kids grew up in Brookfield, Connecticut, 10 minutes from Sandy Hook. We lived there six years, longer than they lived anywhere else. There is no place in this country you'd have felt safter than in an elementary school in Sandy Hook. I am a Virginia Tech alum. I owned a restaurant in Chapel Hill near where Eve Carson was murdered. I also worked across the street from the World Trade center. A kid who was deranged held up the Wachovia branch a half mile from my house that I banked at with his finger and the cops ended up blowing him away. None of those places seemed dangerous at all. Particularly as you say during the day. I don't carry a gun even though I have a collection, but it makes me think I should consider it. Violence is around us and you just don't know. The best defense is criminals not knowing who is armed

I got the permit during the housing bubble. When they came up with 0% down, it seemed like every lowlife from the inner-city moved here into the suburbs. With them came the crime. These lowlifes didn't have a pot to pizz in or a window to throw it out of. I remember one time, we had three murders in less than one year all within a mile of my house.

It took the banks years to catch up with their foreclosures and throw all the inner-city trash back to the inner-city, but like a tornado, once it's gone, it takes years to clean up. So while many of them don't live here any longer, they do come by to visit their friends and family.

Even with my gun, I still wouldn't take evening walks in the summer, but if I had to, I'd feel much safer than I did seven years ago.

 

[Ernie S.]

Nobody even needed to read the study. FBI statistics show that violent crime (and gun crime in particular) has been on the decline since the mid 90's. Now nobody can say why, but I see a direct relationship between more armed citizens and lower crime. Most if not all of our mass shootings take place in gun-free zones. This is not to mention the fact that many of the cities that have the most violent gun crimes are places that are very restrictive on gun ownership by law abiding citizens.

There is an old saying: If it's not broke, don't fix it. We are on the right path to lowering violent and gun crime.

"There are lies, damn lies and statistics" I doubt any parent of a child murdered finds solace in statistics or your opinion.

How do you think the widows from the Washington Navy Yard feel about you?

Your obsession with trying and failing to refute my points has become pathological, even you on some level must know that you've posted nothing of substance and earned no points in a debate. In fact, the more you whine, the less effective you become as a champion for the gun industry.

Keep making the same specious comments, as nothing more than spam, it's actually quite comical.

You have not made a valid point. All you can come up with is licensing legal gun owners which will have no effect on thugs and gang bangers.

Keep making the same specious comments, as nothing more than spam, it's actually quite comical.

Your ignorance is noted, as is your plagiarism. I've repeated parts of my opinion on licensing as the dolts, like you, keep lying that about it. Being one of the stupid ones, I fully expect you will continue to post falsehoods since you have nothing intelligent or thought provoking to offer.

Don't feel bad, you're not the only one.

Ad hom.........
I copied your arrogant crap for comedic value once I had invalidated your entire argument.
Yet you insult my intelligence when I explain that your only proposed solution is, was and will be infective.
Arrogance is about all you got.

Don't worry Rye, I feel pretty damned good, but go ahead. Puff out your chest and claim victory. Everyone but you sees through that shit.

 

[paulitician]

Karma is going to get even for somebody killing and eating? Ever watch one of those nature shows? How do you think those large animals eat, by going to the store? Where do you think people got their food before grocery stores opened up in this country?

Most hunters do not hunt to eat or for survival. They do it because they enjoy killing & maiming defenseless animals. They call it 'Sport.' They're sick bastards. Everytime a see a camo-wearing asshole, i wanna slap em senseless.

I have a friend who hunts....every November he kills a deer and fills his freezer with meat...he sends the deer to a butcher he knows and gets steaks, sausages, ribs...I couldn't believe the amount of meat from one deer. and he eats it saying it is healthier than the meat you get from factory slaughter houses....

Unneccesary. He does it because he enjoys killing. I stopped believing the old 'I do it because i need to eat' Bullshite a long time ago. They enjoy dressing up in their little camo outfits and waiting several hours for an innocent defenseless animal to walk by. Then they shoot and murder it with their high-power weaponry. The animal never had a chance. It's anything but 'Sport.' It's cowardly Bullshit.

dipshit....my friend told me a story...he was in a tree stand watching a group of turkey's march toward him through the brush....the Tom Turkey, the leader, paused right before the clearing........the Tom looked up, right at my friend, right at him......gave a warbling cry and they all took off before he could shoot....it was a very funny story and showed just how cagey wild turkeys are...

How much of a chance did your factory turkey have to escape?

It seems quite obvious the turkey was smarter than the guy in hiding, a true bird brain, much like 2aguy.

Hiding in a tree for several hours waiting for an innocent defenseless animal to walk by? Gee, how 'Sporting.' And what brainiacs they are, huh? They need to get a life. They need to find a real hobby.

 

[paulitician]

I have a friend who hunts....every November he kills a deer and fills his freezer with meat...he sends the deer to a butcher he knows and gets steaks, sausages, ribs...I couldn't believe the amount of meat from one deer. and he eats it saying it is healthier than the meat you get from factory slaughter houses....

Unneccesary. He does it because he enjoys killing. I stopped believing the old 'I do it because i need to eat' Bullshite a long time ago. They enjoy dressing up in their little camo outfits and waiting several hours for an innocent defenseless animal to walk by. Then they shoot and murder it with their high-power weaponry. The animal never had a chance. It's anything but 'Sport.' It's cowardly Bullshit.

Now camo with high heels, that you can get into...

Y'all get yer Camo & Ammo at the Walmart today? Heard they was having some big ole sales. Cuz we know you just gots to kill ya some more innocent defenseless animals.

God you people are such loons. And you wonder so many Americans wanna take your guns away.

Again, you eat defenseless animals all the time, hypocrite

Stick a fork in Kaz, he's done. When someone begins to echo there own posts, and toss Red Herrings about, he has nothing more to offer than an opinion he cannot support except with the rebel yell, IT'S MY RIGHT, THE SECOND AMENDMENT SAYS SO.

How pitiful is that.

Gun Nuts are no different than Drug Addicts and Alcoholics. They'll defend and justify with vigorous irrational emotion. There's no reasoning with them. They're the very reason why so many Americans want to take the guns away. I'm a Gun Owner saying this. Gun-obsessed weirdos give all Gun Owners a bad name.

 

[Wry Catcher]

"There are lies, damn lies and statistics" I doubt any parent of a child murdered finds solace in statistics or your opinion.

How do you think the widows from the Washington Navy Yard feel about you?

Your obsession with trying and failing to refute my points has become pathological, even you on some level must know that you've posted nothing of substance and earned no points in a debate. In fact, the more you whine, the less effective you become as a champion for the gun industry.

Keep making the same specious comments, as nothing more than spam, it's actually quite comical.

You have not made a valid point. All you can come up with is licensing legal gun owners which will have no effect on thugs and gang bangers.

Keep making the same specious comments, as nothing more than spam, it's actually quite comical.

Your ignorance is noted, as is your plagiarism. I've repeated parts of my opinion on licensing as the dolts, like you, keep lying that about it. Being one of the stupid ones, I fully expect you will continue to post falsehoods since you have nothing intelligent or thought provoking to offer.

Don't feel bad, you're not the only one.

Ad hom.........
I copied your arrogant crap for comedic value once I had invalidated your entire argument.
Yet you insult my intelligence when I explain that your only proposed solution is, was and will be infective.
Arrogance is about all you got.

Don't worry Rye, I feel pretty damned good, but go ahead. Puff out your chest and claim victory. Everyone but you sees through that shit.

Seems as if you have puffed out your chest and claimed victory. I posited an idea, not a solution, one which might mitigate the apparent ease for criminals to get guns. You're cock sure of yourself but have not ideas on how to mitigate gun violence, other than, I suppose, keeping all criminals in jail and those with mental issues locked in institutions.

BTW, the cost of incarcertion is likely 10.000 times the cost of a gun license since the mechanism (a driver's license or state issued ID card) is already in place at the DMV.

 

[2aguy]

Unneccesary. He does it because he enjoys killing. I stopped believing the old 'I do it because i need to eat' Bullshite a long time ago. They enjoy dressing up in their little camo outfits and waiting several hours for an innocent defenseless animal to walk by. Then they shoot and murder it with their high-power weaponry. The animal never had a chance. It's anything but 'Sport.' It's cowardly Bullshit.

Now camo with high heels, that you can get into...

Y'all get yer Camo & Ammo at the Walmart today? Heard they was having some big ole sales. Cuz we know you just gots to kill ya some more innocent defenseless animals.

God you people are such loons. And you wonder so many Americans wanna take your guns away.

Again, you eat defenseless animals all the time, hypocrite

Stick a fork in Kaz, he's done. When someone begins to echo there own posts, and toss Red Herrings about, he has nothing more to offer than an opinion he cannot support except with the rebel yell, IT'S MY RIGHT, THE SECOND AMENDMENT SAYS SO.

How pitiful is that.

Gun Nuts are no different than Drug Addicts and Alcoholics. They'll defend and justify with vigorous irrational emotion. There's no reasoning with them. They're the very reason why so many Americans want to take the guns away. I'm a Gun Owner saying this. Gun-obsessed weirdos give all Gun Owners a bad name.

Again....60% of Americans after the shooting of the journalists by the gay, black racist said gun control is not the answer....

 

[paulitician]

A deer antler up the anal cavity for all eternity. That would be justice for hunters who kill & maim God's beautiful animals just for fun.

What about just running you through the shredder once for all the innocent cows you have someone else kill for you?

Had a Gun Nut like you awhile back gettin all boned up as he excitedly boasted to me about blowing a deer's spine apart. I had to control myself. I really wanted to slap the sick bastard.

Hunting just for fun is a brutal cowardly act. The animal is innocent and defenseless. So take off the camo and find another hobby.