A small Wisconsin town had it's first armed robbery. Guess his race !

What? If a robber pulls a gun in a restaurant, and 10 others pull a gun on him from all different directions and start shooting, all bullets will end up in the robber. They all have a license to shoot, so they won't miss and the bullets won't go through a person. No one else can get hurt. RW common sense should tell you that.

 

Because this thread is about black crime in small town America?

 

No it is not. It is about 1 small Wi town and its 1st ARMED ROBBERY. Which has been proven as a lie, there has been others in the same town.

 

[video=youtube;tJ5zFpL2q14]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJ5zFpL2q14[/video]

3:40. I am actually grateful for the mayor's words on that day as it provided the impetus for my own (white) parents to move from the city to the suburbs with their then five-year-old son (me) and one-year-old daughter (my sister who ironically celebrates her birthday today). My parents' friends who stayed in the city deeply regret that decision today.

 

In my view, the idea is to stack the odds in favor of the good guys. Instead of rolling out the red carpet for thugs by advertising "gun free zones" I'd rather make the bad guys at least have to stop and ponder, "before I grab this lady in the parking structure to violently sexually assault her, slit her throat, and steal her car and credit cards, I wonder if she might have a compact .9x19 in her purse... "

I am a gun owner. I am a good and decent person. I am a skilled shooter and a CCW permit holder. My worst criminal offense is a few speeding tickets. There are millions of me out there. Ironically now that I have moved back to California, I am no longer allowed to legally carry a concealed weapon because it is nearly impossible to obtain a permit in the county where I reside. But I am one of those millions who you'd like to have equipped to deal with a bad guy with a gun should the situation arise - as it often, unfortunately and tragically does in parts of my state.

It is a fact that a firearm in the wrong hands is dangerous. But it is also a fact that a firearm in the right hands can save a life (as this fellow did). This is why we arm police officers.

Chicago is the modern Dodge City. What do the two places have in common?

There are hundreds of incidents like the one I linked above where merely brandishing a firearm stops an act of violence. The FBI does not keep those statistics, however. And when reviewing "gun violence statistics" you need to distinguish between lawfully-owned weapons and unlawfully-owned weapons. You'll find the former category to be a tiny fraction of the total number.

You seem to contradict yourself in your very next sentence.

I thought Rockford's gun was none of your business??

What a sad story. I can guarantee you that robber was carrying an unlawfully-owned weapon. The point being, laws are only as effective as individuals' willingness to follow them. I value my freedom, I have assets, and I have something to lose. Therefore, I am willing to follow the law. I am not legally-allowed to publicly carry my lawfully-owned firearms in California and I don't - but plenty of my fellow Californians have no problem whatsoever ignoring that law, and even ignoring the gentle lady from California, Mrs. Feinstein, thanks to whom I had to modify my AR-15s to make them legally-compliant with California law (meaning getting rid of my 30-round magazines and installing something called a bullet button). Those terrorists who murdered some of my fellow Californians in San Bernardino last month also chose to ignore those very same laws that I choose to obey as they both had 30-round magazines and noncompliant weapons that they illegally possessed anyway: Not a soul in that gun free zone was equipped to defend themselves or anyone else on that awful tragic day. Nor in any of those attacks in Paris - as the whole country of France is essentially a gun free zone if you choose to obey the law.

You may or may not be right. There are numerous factors that influence the outcome of any act of violence.

 

the legacy of slavery, segregation, red lining, racial disparity in drug laws, loss of manufacturing jobs, has a lot to do with this.

 

Maybe the fact that people such as yourself continue to perpetuate that notion also has something to do with it.

 

everyone has the right to own a gun, so no one can unlawfully own a gun, what they do not have the right to do it use that gun to commit a crime

 

So two youths from Chicago rob a convenience store in a small Wisconsin town and it's the fault of progressives? What, stores in rural Mississippi were never robbed by whites in the 1930s. I'll have to talk to my pal Pretty Boy to see if that's untrue. And if it turns out that stores were robbed, was it also the result of the thousands of progressives inhabiting rural Mississippi at the time?

 

That is incorrect. Felons lose the right to own a gun - along with a number of other rights. Additionally, all states have laws regarding the purchase and sale of firearms. If those laws are violated, you are in possession of an unlawful firearm. Depending on the circumstances, this is not only a felony, but could be a federal offense.

 

the constitution does not say everyone but ex-felons have the right to own guns, can we restrict their religious and free speech rights too

you seem to want to turn rights into privileges, but of course when you do that, then they are no longer rights

 

Not saying I agree with it, but many laws on the books violate or at least circumvent the Constitution.. The Constitution doesn't say anything about background checks, either - yet you can not legally purchase a firearm now in any state without one.

You have actually just done an excellent job of making my point, however, so I thank you for that.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but felons lose many rights: http://thelawdictionary.org/article/what-rights-do-convicted-felons-lose/

No, actually I don't.

About that you are correct.

 

Why is the man's colour so important to you that you need to mention it in every post? I know the answer; are you honest enough to confirm what I believe?

 

As you and Rockford have both amply demonstrated, there is no evidence that everyone is safer when everyone is armed. Research and history suggest the exact opposite.

All the gun nuts have is a carefully tended catalog of isolated incidents that are the exceptions to the dismal rule.

No, contrary to your claim, I have no interest in whether you own or like guns.

My interest is in my personal safety.

There is no doubt that when there are mulitple guns in any situation ,the odds of one of them being used goes way up.

I have no issue with people who choose to own guns. I do have a big issue with paranoid people and people with cowboy complexes carrying them around and brandishing them about.

You assert that

, yet reseach going back decades clearly indicates that guns in the right hands are far more dangerous than no guns.

Guns are not guarantees of safety. Guns are weapons.

- - - Updated - - -

Thank you for making my point.

 

I wouldn't mention the color if the color didn't come with a mindset.

Which is something I don't expect you and your ilk to understand.

 

Thank you for reposting links that disprove your point. And prove the anti gun nuts are not capable of viewing anything that goes against the brainwashing they received.

Guns saved the day in every link. And not a single innocent was harmed. LMAO .

 

What about the mindset of the OP and the lie it posted. And some with preconceived mindsets believed it. You know RWers.

 

Sure there is. You are much safer in a police station, for example, in the presence of "good guys with guns," than you are in an elementary school, or a movie theater, or other so-called "gun free zones." A couple of trained responsible armed adults at Sandy Hook or Columbine, for example, could have dramatically altered the outcome of those horrific events perpetrated by "bad guys with guns" (and explosives, FWIW).

I don't know what you mean by "gun nuts." Can you be a little more specific?

Missing my point entirely. I value my freedom and I have something to lose so I obey the law: that means my odds of acting badly are far lower than someone who chooses to disobey the law. All the legal hoops and physical modifications to my weapons that I have to perform to make them legal in California did not prevent the cold-blooded mass murder of 14 of my fellow Californians last month in a "gun free zone" at the hands of radical Islamic terrorists who had nothing to lose. The law in California only makes it more difficult and more inconvenient for law-abiding citizens to obtain and keep firearms, thus shifting the equation dramatically in favor of the bad guys. IT DOES NOT MAKE ANYONE IN CALIFORNIA SAFER.

Then don't move to California. This state makes it very difficult for law-abiding citizens to obtain personal defensive equipment and nearly impossible to actual carry such equipment in public - unless you are a licensed bodyguard and you are hired by Rosie O'Donnell, for example, who does not want YOU to be able to carry, but has no problem having her own personal "good guy with a gun." Calling that "irony" is generous.

As there is no reliable metric to either substantiate or refute that statement as each situation is unique, thus there is no way to control for variables, I will add to your sentence the following, "if certain criteria are met."

Meaning, a properly-trained armed private citizen will only fire under the following circumstances:

1. He or she can clearly articulate imminent peril - either to their own person or to others;
2. He or she is certain of the target, and has a clear, unobstructed line of fire;
3. He or she is certain of what's behind the target;
4 He or she is using proper ammunition - meaning a jacketed hollow point round made to fragment inside the target, dramatically reducing the risk of the round penetrating the intended target and incidentally striking another target down range.

Yet you call them "gun nuts??"

So do I - and so does every rational, law-abiding gun owner. I noticed you only said "cowboy complex." How about "gangsta complex?" Or "thug complex?"

Well, given that you're not going to have "no guns," what would you offer as an alternative?

Nobody has even remotely suggested that.

Guns are tools that can be used as weapons. So are hammers. I can even kill you with a piano string.

 

Platteville, Wisconsin, is a small university town and its crime index is really low (197) compared to the US average (297). But around 30 burglaries and 300-400 thefts have been committed in Platteville every year since 2001, according to city-data.com. There were 34 registered sex offenders living in Platteville, Wisconsin as of February 14, 2016. The ratio of number of residents in Platteville to the number of sex offenders is 37 to 1 and 31 of 34 registered sex offenders living in Platteville are white and 3 of them are black.

http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Platteville-Wisconsin.html