The bangers that are killing each other cannot legally own or carry firearms. The people that can qualify for CCW, even if it was 100 % of them, are not involved Or near the illegal activity that leads to gun violence in Chicago. You know this. This thread is a fail.
that makes no sense Ron. is someone's bodily fluids polluted with a bad batch of LSD? Is this a reference to Doctor Strangelove?
the BM and other affiliated restrictionists try to justify rules on honest gun owners based on the activities of gang bangers years ago-the BM dog and pony show was being trot out in the congress which had recently been taken over by the GOP in early 1995. a doctor was presenting evidence about the "evils of handguns" based on his studies of gunshot victims and those who perpetrate them. Freshman newly elected Congresswoman Helen Chenoweth (AKA the militia movement's representative to Congress-R-Idaho) asked a quiet question to the doctor. "doctor, did your studies involve any WHITE citizens? Deathly silence. She repeated it. answer-NO HC-then why should I support laws restricting MY constituents when they have NOTHING to do with the problems you have discused He couldn't answer exactly
Ron, how is it that you ask such ridiculous questions ? You know that there are some folks that just do not care about other human lives, as long as there are people that want the cash that is in someone else's pocket, people have killed another person just to have the stinky sneakers off someone else's feet, as long as there are people that are willing to travel long distances to harm, maim and kill, no amount of laws on the books, will ever be enough to reduce murders.
sorry, but that's what the NRA claims. looser gun laws means safer communities. so, when does Chicago get safer?
The people committing murders in Chicago are not CCW holders. Neither are the victims. Perhaps the conclusion we should draw is that CCW holders are less likely to be murdered in Chicago than non-CCW holders. The NRA believes that armed citizens are more able to defend themselves from criminal attack than unarmed citizens. Guess they were right. My two cents ....
some serious wisdom there. I suspect most mopes know that other mopes aren't carrying legally. (of course many were carrying illegally) - - - Updated - - - Maybe not-some liberals I know would feel guilty that they didn't have more for the mugger to take and they spend lots of crying time worrying about how society is so unjust that the poor mugger had to turn to a life of crime.
The truth is, no amount of laws can ever prevent murder, you can ban guns, ban knives, ban every sort of weapon, evil people will commit acts of evil.
Then why have other countries managed to reduce the murder rates? - - - Updated - - - Hmmmmm do you think that anyone would ever manage that without disarming ALL citizens equally??
See ? More ridiculous statements, why do you suppose disarming anyone will accomplish anything ? The truth is, a gun in the hands of a good man or woman poses no danger to anyone, in the hands of an evil person, great evil.
People get murdered using cars. Do you think you will go for cars being banned? If one intends to disarm to prevent murder, what makes sense is to disarm those doing the killings.
Then you should have no problem proving that the increase in gun violence is from those who have legally obtained a CCW in Chicago.
So, I have a question, if guns are a problem, now I have owned guns all of my life, why am I not in jail then ? I have never felt an impulse to rob anyone, I have never felt an impulse to commit an inappropriate physical act towards anyone, never felt an urge to murder anyone, or use a sniper rifle against an innocent person, so, if I already am an ethical person, what does a gun ban accomplish in my case ??? Not a single thing !!! And yes, I had a guy enter my home, only a few days ago, he forced my front door and made his way in, I could have shot and killed him, he is a convicted Felon, yet I simply asked him to leave, I did not have him arrested, He smokes and uses all sorts of drugs.
In default of an impossible dream, namely the removal of all firearms in the country - I guess that makes sense, otherwise the non-owner becomes a vulnerable target for any wacko with one.
Luck had nothing to do with it, I had a Glock in my hand, I could have legally shot and killed him, my dog could have torn him to shreds at a command from me, lucky for him that I am merciful, next time, I may not be so merciful, if someone has the audacity to force ones front door and enter a home unannounced, and pass several rooms, looking for things to steal, perhaps it is wrong to let him do this too many times.
Exactly. You ban them then the ONLY people who will have them are the criminals. But there is NO CHANCE AND BAN WILL EXIST IN THE U.S. AA
Yes, but you seemed to be justifying not retaliating because he was a user of something or other? If he'd had a firearm I imagine he'd have used it first to kill your dog then kill you - especially if he was 'high'. In my opinion (obviously!) you'd have been fully justified in not 'being merciful' - he shouldn't have been there and it was his responsibility that he was - the choice was his, sober or inebriated, and we're all responsible for our actions.
Think about it, I am tired of reading / hearing stuff as, Lucky you ! he did not shoot you, this assumes that I will not shoot first ??? I should have let my dog kill him. Liberal tripe makes me sick.
