Gun Laws sure do work! 67 people shot in NYC over weekend.

You missed the part where I mentioned that I usually lean in favor of looser gun laws.

 

Sure. I'm against interventionism in most cases, but it's not really because of the innocent civilians getting killed. It's because it just doesn't usually pay off.

War should be a last resort, and most conflicts aren't relevant enough for us to get involved.

 

Good point. Granted, NY is also much more urban as a state than most.

NYC overall doesn't rank that badly among the most populous cities when it comes to gun crime per capita. Granted, I'm not saying that it's the safest place either.

 

Since thinking is not a crime (yet) they cannot arrest people till a crime has already been committed.

Enough, in many cases just the sight of a handgun is enough to deter crime.

I don't care what he was talking about. The thread is about 67 people shot in New York City , which has much stricter gun control laws than the rest of the state.

Please don't presume to tell me anything about NYC gun laws. I lived in NYC and now live just 10 minutes outside. You will not get a license for a handgun in NYC.

I addressed it in my last post where someone else mentioned your post.

 

Cars are not designed with killing as their sole reason for existing.

 

One could argue that the sole purpose of guns is protection, whether it be for a citizens protection from a solder or a citizens protection from a criminal.

 

Yes, you could argue that. You could also argue that it isn't the most welcoming of prospects having to arm yourself in the expectation you'll be attacked. I'm glad I feel I don't need to.

 

I will support more victim disarmament laws when you can convince criminals to obey those laws. Until then the only people following the laws are the victims. More laws are not what we need. We need better enforcement.

 

So?

Thats wasnt my question, save lives was the question. Most crimes arent life threatening .

SO you dont care what the opening topic was talking about? LOL
[quote[
The thread is about 67 people shot in New York City , which has much stricter gun control laws than the rest of the state.
[/quote]
Sure but they still allow for civilians to have firearms. That those civilians choose not to do that is the fault of the city?

Plenty of people do have them, if its that important for you...

Fact remains it is legal, civilians deemed capable can carry firearms .





I addressed it in my last post where someone else mentioned your post.[/QUOTE]

 

No guns are designed to shoot, a bullet proof vest would be for protection.

 

Police aren't armed to protect you. They are armed to protect themselves in the course of their work. An armed officer rarely is in a position to protect an unarmed citizen. They usually show up after the citizen has been shot.

 

Just like a liberal.

He brings a dagger to a gun fight.

 

No, guns are for protection, its intimidation. A bullet proof vest isn't going to help you and its very impractical.

 

But niether are guns, they were created and are used for multiple purposes. hunting, defense, and recreation.

 

No a gun is to shoot, if you show it most people will indeed back off out of fear of getting shot .

You do realise defense is different from intimidation?

 

Then you should know that I have nothing against your right to defend yourself....

 

thanks for your honesty, i agree though with that.

but also of the 67 people who were killed do you not think it unfair they had no chance to defend themselves because of gun laws restricting lawful citizens to carry? i mean i understand no matter what people are gonna die, get murdered,raped, etc. etc. but dang man they atleast deserve the option to defend themselves against criminals who are gonna be packin heat no matter what.

all restrictions do in this country is make citizens sitting ducks.

 

So your weirdo idea is that if there were more guns then less people would get shot.

Yeah, that's Tea party logic for ya.

Here's a concept: crime rates are higher where you have a lot of people; so gun crimes goes up in those places; so guns tend to be regulated more. Kind of like traffic.

And your conclusion is: regulation of guns caused the gun crime.

BWHAHAHHAHAHAHHHAH!

You're like the guy who thinks traffic lights cause traffic. Perfect Tea Party duncery.

 

less innocent law abiding citizens would be killed yes. what, you rather have criminals be able to kill law abiding citizens than give law abiding citizens the chance to defend themselves on the same level?

i get it, basically what you are saying is sacrificing law abiding citizens are ok when it comes to your policy of not allowing them the right to defend themselves against gun toting criminals.

its ok if they die, because whats more important is not allowing these citizens the right to fight back.

what a good liberal you are.

 

So, it deems your point irrelevant as the police are not there to protect you rather to catch criminals (hence the crime has already been committed).

Here are some good articles if you want to take the time to read them.

The OP is about 67 people shot in NYC, therefore I am discussing gun laws in NYC. See how that works?

You cannot get a concealed carry in NYC. Period. Ask anyone here from NYC and they will tell you the same thing. With that said, they also make it very difficult just to get a permit to even own one. Do a little research, NYC is famous for its draconian gun laws.

 

"We will find any means we can to further restrict them because I hate guns. We do not want the American disease imported into Australia." - John Howard the then right wing Prime Minister of Australia after the Port Arthur massacre.

 

First of all, I have no affiliation with the Tea Party. You know what they say about assumptions, dontcha? You have some serious, and I mean serious, issues with this whole Tea Party movement. Please seek help.

Second - the simple of the fact of the matter is this. 67 people and many others throughout NYCs history were/have been shot. The weapons that did the shooting were obtained illegally. What that says to me is that the average law abiding citizen is at a disadvantage. That should not be the case.

Do I think NYC is like the wild wild west? No, of course not. That still does not change the fact that the average, law abiding citizen, should have the right to bear arms in the small chance that they may need to defend themselves or their loved ones.

 

Actually, it is the reality...more guns, less shot...we have had a 100 million increase in guns in the usa and a 50% drop in violent crime since 1990.

 

Aparently the ther is failure to enforce the law.

 

When seconds count, the police are minutes away.