Exactly - the genie is out of the bottle and there's no getting it back in. Well there is in the sense of a 'live by the sword, die by it' rationale, but I'd guess that wouldn't be acceptable, especially to the liberals.
But your dog would be dead meat? I trust you're not aiming that at me? I'm so rightist I'd make Genghis Khan look like a peripatetic peacemaker!
Obviously, you have no understanding of anything much, so I will not tax your severely limited intellect, I realized someone was forcing my front door, several rooms away, I could have sent my dog to get him, however, he did not have a gun, frankly, he wanted some romance, he had no intention of killing me. I had no desire to get romantically involved with this guy. Really, do you use your cognitive abilities ? By the way, I live in the bloody middle of no where, there is not a chemist shop or market or pub in walking distance, it is a bloody 50 miles to the nearest shop, so if I wish anything good, it is quite a long walk !!!! And no, there is no way I can carry any amount of supplies and walk 50 miles ! So I need to drive, this guy is a nutter, he walks 20 - 30 miles and arrives at my door and forces it ! Even a police response would take over 30 minutes, so by the time the police would have arrived, I would be dead if I were not allowed to own a personal sidearm, ie. a Glock 17, starting to see some logic here ? a gun ban would be a death sentence on me.
Well you didn't say he entered your house because he fancied you, and wanted to schmooze you, so I naturally presumed he entered for a more nefarious motive, such as robbery. I assure you that I have 'cognitive abilities' in spades! And you didn't say he didn't have a gun!! And I thought I was your friend??
And I should hope not! We alphas must resist all such temptations!! After all, there aren't many of us left. Actually I write short stories and novellas, and that'd make a good storyline!
You are my friend ! It is just that I am frustrated by the logic or perhaps the lack of logic that I would ever hurt a person simply because I possess a handgun, as it stands, I had a rather interesting hand to hand fight with a bloke at a petrol station, he punched so weakly, that I laughed in his face, and I had a sub compact .45 caliber pistol in my trouser pocket, I am no small guy, I can actually stuff a Glock 17 in my front trouser pocket, no bulges. He was pulled over not far away, down the road a bit from the petrol station, he was drunk, and was arrested for DUI.....
Blimey, talk about 'never a dull moment'! I could be your ghost writer, or call on you whenever I have writers' block!!
You want a good story ? I was living in a school bus length recreational vehicle parked on the edge of Vancouver ave & Killingsworth street, in Portland Oregon, I was working as an Automotive Mechanic, you can see what that area looks like by Googling street view over the Internet, and one morning, I heard a motor cranking, I was not wearing shoes, I peeked out my door, and saw a man sitting in a car cranking it, it would not start, now here in America, in Portland Oregon, this is perfectly legal, I got my Remington 870 pump shotgun and walked over to the car and chambered a round, the sound made him soil himself, he was going to steal a car, and thought since it was Sunday, no one would be around, he did not expect me to be there at the petrol station.
The decreasing murder rate is a global change, including the US. Despite record numbers of guns being sold in the US, the murder rate has continued to go down over the last 20 years. It is clearly a fact that more guns does not mean more murder. Judging by the increasing suicide rate in Australia, it clearly doesn't affect that either.
Well a street-name like that sets the scene straight away! Sounds like you've got yourself a fair collection of hardware too. It would be my first foray into crime - my usual genre is erotic drama. 'chambered a round' - I like that! While you were 'chambering' it you should've said, 'Feeling lucky, punk? Go ahead, make my day!'
Well, here is another good one, late at night, I awoke, heard a loud diesel motor, I got up and looked out a window, I saw a few fellows with a roll back truck, they had a huge industrial fork lift, they were going to lift / steal a Range Rover full sized SUV ! They were going to lift it up and place it on the back of the roll back truck bed !!!! I walked over to to the Russians, and I spoke these words, if any of you are still here, I will shoot every man jack ! I nipped back to my R.V. and got an AR-15 out of my rack, inserted a magazine, and trotted out, everyone was gone ! The Range Rover was still there, the Industrial sized forklift was gone !!! Does anyone see any logic to a ban on AR-15s when you are living on a commercial lot, far off the beaten path ? Here in America there are many places where it is a very necessary and needful thing, to have an AK or an AR of some ilk, depending on or waiting for the police is not always such a great thing. Gun bans are stupid, gun bans of any type can get one killed ! Maybe Liberals don't care, as I get older, I need a sidearm, and as sad as it would make me, if I am confronted by a younger man, he is not going to be a very happy camper, I will defend myself ! Still think Gun Bans are a great Idea ? I do not ! Gun bans get people killed !!!!!
Chicago has one of, if not the most restrictive gun regulations in the country and one of the highest crime rates. There is no correlation here except that criminals don't obey the law.
If you are on dimensional in your thinking you might draw the conclusion you have, but gun rights activists use places Chicago, LA and CA in general as examples where strick gun laws do not reduce gun violence as intended or championed as a cure by those advocating for strong gun controls. That more guns results in more gun violence in general is not supported in general by the stats. Since the 90's the number of guns in this country have almost doubled while gun use in violent crime had declined by over 40% as shown by those posting sources in this thread topic frequently. Many discussing the violence in Chicago and other (Dem) run cities use them as examples of failed leftist policies. Few understand what is really going on in Chicago or LA. The inner cities are not unlike third world countries where war lords control the economics of various geographic areas with violence using guns obtained via criminal enterprises usually associated with contol of the local drug trade and wage contol violence and war between factions for control. In Chicago this has been allowed to grow and fester since the days of the south side gangs of the P Stone Nation, BlackStone Rangers and other gangs that controlled the drug trade that morphed into the gangs there today. They grew to create huge strongholds like CabriniGreen and others that became virtual no go, no patrol areas.individual CCW's won't make much Impact because individuals can't fight armies. The only places CCWs might have I pace is in those neighborhoods that aren't controlled by local warlords where the profile of crime isn't the product of gangs, the drug trade and local warring factions. But, if you were in these areas would you rather have a CCW and gun as a SD option or choose to go about in unarmed fear? As for NRA and other 2A adocstes often assert, the problems with gun related violence can only be mitigated by understanding and addressing the underlying causes, not restricting guns as the fix. But, that doesn't fit the narrative you push does it?
And I'm still waiting for the name of the so called FBI instructor you failed to mention. Here's what you don't know. If he's actually a real person and not made up ( highly likely) then at least one of us will actually know him, have trained with him or have at least heard of him. BTW your actual police experience comes from where?
Laws that make it easier for the good guys to get guns also make it easier for the bad guys to get guns. The more guns there are in circulation the more opportunity the bad guys will have to get them. Radical pro-gun activists like to claim that, "If you outlaw guns only the outlaws will have guns." The real truth is that if you outlaw guns a lot fewer outlaws will have guns. England's very low gun crime rate is evidence of that. Despite the claims of many on this board, somehow most outlaws in England don't have guns. If Chicago was located in a country that banned guns there would be a lot less shootings and murders.
Oh look - another claim of correlation = causation If blacks in the US committed murder at the same per capita rates as whites, the US murder rare would fall 40%.
Bad guys are banned from having guns. And yet, while the number of guns in the US has risen by scores on millions since 1993, gun related violent crime has fallen >50%
Your analogy is flawed, I have had a fellow punch me many times, I had a holstered sidearm, I did not draw it or threaten him, I laughed in his face and he was all butt hurt, he hit like a little girl, it was all very funny........
Then why has the violent crime rate and the homicide rate in the USA dropped more than 50% since 1991? In the 1980's, the USA began relaxing state and federal gun laws, and the number of people carrying a firearm and owning a firearm began increasing to record numbers today. And in Australia, when they implemented their gun ban in 1996, why did the violent crime rate soar? Even their homicide rate increased for the 5 years after the ban was enacted. Those 2 examples disprove your "more guns more crime" idea. Why is the homicide rate in Chicago so high, yet so low in the surrounding areas? If guns are the problem, then why are all the criminals going to the trouble of getting guns outside of Chicago and then traveling into Chicago to commit crimes? Why don't the commit their crimes outside of Chicago? And why don't cities that have much more relaxed laws than Chicago have the same massively high murder rate as Chicago? And Chicago - despite numerous court cases - is not gun friendly, the Chicago city rulers do all they can to implement regulations and permitting which are de facto gun bans. That's what gun banners always say. When a city bans firearms and homicides do not decrease, banners claim its because the surrounding area does not ban guns. When the state bans guns and crime does not drop, banners blame the surrounding states. When a nation bans guns and the crime rates do no drop (like Mexico) banners blame the surrounding nations. Despite the facts, banners just can't get it into their heads that gun control does not work, banners always have to have an excuse.
So that's your excuse? Yea, that's the ticket........ [video=youtube;-ucJN8cRDqM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ucJN8cRDqM[/video]
Prior to the McDonald ruling four years ago, approximately ninety five percent of all homicides in the city of Chicago were committed with handguns, despite the ownership of such firearms being outlawed under all circumstances. There was not a single legal handgun in the entire city for many decades. Despite this fact, criminals had absolutely no trouble with procuring and using them. The prohibition on handgun ownership was doing absolutely no good. There was no legal basis to continue enforcing it. How so? Through theft? Are you going to attempt to claim that the legal ownership of a legal product should be prohibited because criminals may simply steal said legal product for use in illegal endeavors? Again. Ninety five percent of all homicides in the city of Chicago were committed with handguns that could not legally be owned by anyone within city limits. Where did they acquire the handguns? The nation of England has always had a lower crime rate than the united states, even prior to the enactment of strict laws prohibiting and restricting ownership. So then you are going on record to say that if the city of Chicago were to be relocated to the nation of England, or some other nation outside of the united states, the numerous drug dealers, gang members, and other violent criminals would simply no longer feel the need to continue killing one another at their current levels, simply because there would be fewer legally owned firearms available? They would no longer feel the need to defend themselves and their territory from rivals, simply because there would be fewer legally owned firearms at their disposal? Profits from drug deals would not matter, simply because there were fewer legally owned firearms?
