Kal Penn robbed at gunpoint in DC

[onehandle]

Source: New York Post

The "White Castle" actor, who recently stepped down from a position at the White House, was robbed at gunpoint early this morning while walking in Washington, D.C., reports TMZ.

Penn told police a man carrying a gun approached him around 1:20 a.m. and took his wallet, along with other personal property, a source told the entertainment website.

Police are investigating the incident.

Earlier this month, Penn ditched his role with the Obama administration -- where he served as an associate director the Office of Public Engagement for nine months -- for Hollywood so he could resume his acting career.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/kal_penn_robbed_at_gunpoint_in_dc_okH3LIFydHPTlDxcjnR8hK?CMP=OTC-rss&FEEDNAME=

---

If only he'd had a legal gun, he'd be dead now. And/or the robber would have gotten the gun too, and one more gun that started out legal, would be on the streets of DC.

[alcibiades_mystery]

1. Thank you

Come again.

[CreekDog]

142. You didn't really say that in response to Kai Penn getting robbed

maybe there's another explanation. :O

[GreenPartyVoter]

2. Well, he can't come back to "House," unfortunately. :^(

[CBGLuthier]

16. As P. Duffy once said, "Never say Never"

[GreenPartyVoter]

25. LOL

[Xithras]

72. Sure he can. House is nuts, remember?

He can be House's personal hallucination.

[sharp_stick]

3. Never walk around DC alone at night

the sun goes down and that town turns nasty.

[Rebubula]

8. I would guess....

...that you know little of Washington, D.C.

The town gets going after dark and is an excellent city. As with all big cities, there are some problems. However, I have lived in and around DC for 25 years and never even been hassled.

[Ready4Change]

248. Depends on where you are in DC.

Some sections are more ok than others. Oddly, head a block or two south/east from our nations Capital building and you are in a quite bad neighborhood. Murders weekly. OTOH, if you are in the NW, like Georgetown, you are in better shape.

I know several people who have been mugged in DC, at gun point and knife point. In one case I'm certain the victim was over confident in his martial arts training and became complacent. Didn't stay alert, got jumped and beat up, even though he handed over his wallet first. Another, though alert, got jumped by a gang. No place to run.

I don't choose to go there often. I only choose to go there in daylight. The only reason I go there at night is if friends I care about are going down there. They know the people I know who got mugged, but are in denial of the dangers. I only go on those occasions to increase the odds that my friends will make it home safe. I never enjoy those trips, but love my friends too much to let them go alone.

[Jennicut]

10. I could say the same of Bridgeport, or Waterbury.

[wordpix]

38. yes, you could - or Phoenix or Boston or Seattle

[wordpix]

37. that's the truth - absolutely

[Supersedeas]

81. now there's a commentary on the state of our nation

[dmallind]

4. Impossible. Guns are banned in DC. NT

[villager]

12. Um, no, the NRA and its fans on the Roberts court saw to that. Plus

...they flow in rather freely from ol' Virginny...

[friendly_iconoclast]

15. Do the criminals also commute? The Virginians don't seem to have quite this level of crime...

[sharesunited]

22. Mass shootings are more Virginia's thing.

[beevul]

157. In a 'dc-like' gun free zone, no less. N/T

[Ready4Change]

262. DC they shoot more people, but one at a time.

DCs per capita firearm death rate has been, by far, the highest in the nation for the decades in which it has imposed a gun ban.

Compare that with Virginia which, according to this graph (data from 2006, I think) had a fire arm death rate per capita lower than the national average.

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000

You'll note that DC has, by far, the highest rate. But it's not all roses for gun ownership. Alaska has the second highest rate. But DC, a gun free zone in 2006, had a rate that leaves Alaska far 'behind'.

[dmallind]

18. Actually still yes - new laws not on the books yet - DC pols dragging their feet. NT

[X_Digger]

23. Interesting read on the process as it stands..

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/01/AR2009090103836.html

"It took $833.69, a total of 15 hours 50 minutes, four trips to the Metropolitan Police Department, two background checks, a set of fingerprints, a five-hour class and a 20-question multiple-choice exam."

[RaleighNCDUer]

30. If it is THAT important to you, that seems pretty reasonable. nt

[X_Digger]

31. Now imagine that kind of process to vote,

Why should this civil right be so burdened, but not others?

[RaleighNCDUer]

33. A vote does not kill strangers on the street. nt

[X_Digger]

34. Shit, tell that to the iraqi's..

I'd say that all the assholes who voted for dubya have responsibility for the hundreds of thousands his pointless exercise in 'nation building' caused.

But hey, rights are rights. I view burdensome restrictions on all rights equally, whether it's poll taxes, voter literacy tests, RealID bullshit, 'first amendment zones', the patriot act, forcing women to submit to mandatory sonograms, etc.

[PavePusher]

173. Wow. Cognitive disconnect, much? n/t

[spin]

184. REASONABLE?

I consider Florida's gun law reasonable.

1) I go to a gun store to buy a handgun.

2) I pick out the firearm I want.

3) I fill out the required paperwork and show the dealer my Concealed Carry Permit.

4) The dealer calls the paperwork in.

5) I pay for the firearm.

6) I walk out the door with it.

(If I don't have a CCW, I wait 72 hours and return to pick it up.)

The CCW costs $117 and is good for 7 years. You need to be fingerprinted and have a passport photo taken. If you have no record of prior firearms training, you have to take a class. The cost of the class varies, an estimate would be $75.

To renew a CCW you have a new passport photo taken, fill out a form and get it notarized and mail the form and the photo to the State along with a check for $65. The renewed license is also good for 7 years.

In Florida, I can have a loaded firearm in my glove box without a license and I can carry concealed with a license.

[X_Digger]

185. Only thing that bothers me is the 72 hour thing. n/t

[spin]

186. That's why a lot of people get a concealed carry permit ...

I was at a hardware store with my daughter buying her a backup gun for concealed carry (BUG for the gun illiterate). It was a birthday present.

I ended up in a conversation with a city cop and a country sheriff about the weapon she liked, a NAA .22 Long Rifle Mini-Revolver. The city cop actually carried one as a backup. (I wanted her to buy the .22 mag version, but it was a bit large for her to slip into the pocket of her tight jeans.)



But during the conversation the sheriff mentioned that he had got a CCW so he didn't have to go trough the waiting period.

[SteveM]

202. ....jump, Jim Crow, jump, jump, Jim Crow!......

[SteveM]

200. Jump, Jim Crow! Jump, jump, Jim Crow!.... nt

[michreject]

27. It's illegal to carry them

You can only have them legally in your home.

All the laws for gun control in the world wouldn't have prevented this stick-up.

[Dr Fate]

44. Repealing any of the laws for gun control in the world wouldn't have prevented this stick-up.

So even if you are right, I guess that takes us back to square one.

Most NRA types are opposed to things that would have prevented it- all they ever talk about is putting people in prison, after the fact.

I'd love to see more balance in this debate- banning guns everywhere is not the answer, but forcing everyone else into the gun culture just so they can protect themselves from crazy fuckers who should not have guns is not appealing to me either.

[friendly_iconoclast]

45. The problem with that is, the robber already 'forced' KP into the gun culture

And if it is lax gun laws that force "everybody else into the gun culture"- So What?

There are plenty of other places that "force people into the gun culture" by that metric- like Seattle,
Minneapolis, Anchorage- yet they have far less crime than DC. And I might remind you that the DC government
went all the way to the Supreme Court to argue that the public does not have a right to police protection, so I
wouldn't be looking for help from that quarter...

[Dr Fate]

46. He was robbed at gun point, that's for sure. I'm not sure I read you.

I'm saying that I am for private gun ownership.

I'd prefer to live in a political climate where there is less crime, without infringing on gun ownership rights.

My problem is that most gun advocates I know have no solutions for me except for me to arm myself and join in the gun fight or what ever. That's not working for me and there needs some balance here. We can do better than just guns & prisons here. I also feel that the weird metaphors, statistical wrangling and zero give & take on the issue (from both sides) is getting us nowhere.

[beevul]

156. " zero give & take on the issue (from both sides)"

Tally it up, and see if "zero give & take on the issue (from both sides)" truly fits.

Start around...say...1934.


Plenty of give and take been going on.


Gun owners give, and antis take.


With damn few exceptions.

[michreject]

57. Violation of laws are punishment

You can't punish someone for what they might do.

[Dr Fate]

80. But maybe we can figure out how to keep the crazy fucker from getting a gun?

As opposed to having me pay to put him in prison, after I'm already shot or dead?

Seems to me like the Gun Lobby and the GOP has 2 options for me- become an NRA gun expert & quick-draw artist, or get shot and be happy with the thought that we are building more prisons.

[Pavulon]

83. Figure out how to keep him from getting crack yet? umm no

so the total ban you have in place in dc is pretty much like the weed ban. Just an opt in kinda thing.

[Dr Fate]

86. Besides having me pay for prisons or having me train to be a killer, what is the NRA's solution?

If these really are your only 2 solutions, then maybe I should just side with the people who want to elimate the physical existence of so many guns on the street. Unless the NRA and the Gun Lobby is going to help me with VIABLE solutions, then they are going to drive me look at ways physically keep guns away from these people.

Also, please talk to me like I'm a normal person- I'm not part of the NRA circle where every gun is comparable to crack, knives, run-away cars, drowing in bath-tubs, whatever. Most people can see a difference, and I'm one of them.

GUNS are the subject-we dont need "well what if guns were crack" metaphors when we can just stick to guns themselves.

[Pavulon]

89. Root cause is important..

I own a gun and dont rob people. I don't feel the need to break the law because I have plenty to loose. Now some poor fucker who lives in a devastated community who wants to earn by selling crack does have something to loose.

Generally these guys killing each other and suicides are the majority of gun death. The news is when rich people get robbed or someone goes on a spree.

THe other 99 % is not news worthy. Want to fix that, drug law, and mental health.

We tried prohibition and a drug war, both are giant fuckups and waste money and life. But hey the appearance of progress is maintained.

[Dr Fate]

96. Important enough for the NRA and the Gun Lobby to fully ignore it.

As I said, the over-all pro-gun movement seems to be part of the problem, not part of the solution.

I'm glad there is a teeny, tiny minority of people like you who say they want to look at root problems, but that is not enought to make me side with the rest of the NRA & GOP.

[Pavulon]

98. The NRA has no position on Drug Law, NORML does

I dont have a side. I like common sense. The big issue is that gun control is a dead issue. No political party will pass any restrictive gun law and not be voted out, post haste.

[Dr Fate]

100. No- but they DO have a position on PRISONS. They want me to pay for more of them.

Or better yet, they want me to learn to shoot people.

[Pavulon]

102. Can you link that? To clarify

your statement.

[Dr Fate]

105. Sure:

In this very thread we see the oft repeated gun advoate talking point:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4350666&mesg_id=4351688

Then I googled "Heston gun prison" and got this:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=heston+prison+guns&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

So you are wrong if you are trying to say that the NRA does not think prisons are a major part of the solution. That's all well and good, but I'd like to live in a country where keeping me out of gun fights is the emphasis.

[Pavulon]

107. No I mean from there site or charter

i see one link from a dead man talking about felons carrying guns going to prison. That is a good thing.

[Dr Fate]

109. So Chuck Heston's own words at a Pro-NRA speech don t count?

If the NRA has since disagreed with their former Presdient's postions, or contradicted his position in anyway in their charter, then I'm glad to let you find that and post that yourself.

You said yourself that the NRA wants felons carrying guns to go to prison. That seems to confrim what I'm saying- that the NRA does advocate more prisons as part of their 2 pronged plan. Plan 1- arm yourself- draw your gun or get in a gun fight with your attacker. Plan #2- make me the victim pay to put the attacker in prison after he shoots me.

You say you dont want to get in a gun battle in the 1st place- sorry chump, cant help you.

Does this sound like something a progressive or a moderate should go along with?

[Pavulon]

111. I dont see anything on their site saying they support new prisons

only existing laws be enforced. Heston said felons with guns should be jailed, very reasonable.

I dont see them stating that as their position in anything you posted.

[Dr Fate]

114. Logic tells us that once the old prisons fill up, we will have to build new ones.

If the NRA/GOP position is that we simply over crowd prisons with people who shoot us before we shoot them, then my mistake. Either way, it doesnt sound very progressive to me.

[Pavulon]

118. Or let out the drug offenders with no violent records.(nt)

[Dr Fate]

120. I would love it if the NRA/GOP openly supported that. They dont. Therefore I oppose them.

Again, I'm looking for allies who are part of the solution.

[HALO141]

285. If you really expect

the NRA (or any similar type of organization) to expand its narrow focus to include curing all of society's ills then your expectations are unrealistic and you're going to be disappointed. If you're trying to help make the world (or your little corner of it) a better place then it's your responsibility to seek out and address the root causes of evil as you see them. Your assertion that the NRA is leaving you with only two options is ridiculous.

"Either become a trained killer or be grateful for being a victim." Is that about right?

The simple fact is that crime, including the violent kind, is a fact of life and it has always been so, plaguing all societies to one degree or another throughout the history of man. You say that you're happy and willing to embrace the NRA and work with them so long as they come up with a viable plan to alter the fundamental nature of mankind.

Well... good luck with that.


P.S. I'd love to know... Which of the gun-control organizations have proffered any solutions to the problems of crime, poverty, desperation, etc.? After all, if we could do that then gun control becomes a moot issue, doesn't it?

[gorfle]

321. Are you really saying this?

Are you really saying that you are upset with the NRA because they advocate putting people who commit violent crimes in jail?

Is this really what you are upset with the NRA about?

Also please stop conflating the NRA with the GOP. The NRA is non-partisan and supports any politician who supports the right to keep and bear arms.

I'm a member, and I have often had Democratic candidates with high NRA approval ratings.

[SteveM]

207. Crime rates are down. How is the "pro-gun movement" part of the problem?

[spin]

231. You also have to remember that many Democrats own firearms...

as do Independents.

Many of the gun owning Democrats that post here do look at the root problems. We also look at ways to improve current gun laws to help eliminate the illegal trade of firearms to criminals and the legal sale to people who have severe mental problems.

Some of us feel that we could accomplish a lot by giving up on the failed war on drugs and legalizing some drugs so as to take the profit motive out of smuggling and dealing.

We don't want to give up our rights to own firearms for hunting, target shooting and self defense in the false hope that doing so will reduce crime.

Gun ownership has increased dramatically in the last 20 years. Guns sales have skyrocketed after the Obama election and there was a severe ammo shortage as people stocked up. Strangely, the violent crime rate has continued to fall despite all the predictions that a terrible economy would lead to an increase in crime.

It's obvious that more guns does not equal more crime. It MIGHT be possible that more guns and laws such as "shall issue" concealed carry actually reduce crime. The problem is that many factors might cause the decrease in crime, including more cops on the street and better police work.

[gorfle]

320. Are you kidding?

Important enough for the NRA and the Gun Lobby to fully ignore it.

As I said, the over-all pro-gun movement seems to be part of the problem, not part of the solution.

I'm glad there is a teeny, tiny minority of people like you who say they want to look at root problems, but that is not enought to make me side with the rest of the NRA & GOP.

Are you kidding? Seriously?

The root cause of firearm crime has been known for a long time.

The root cause of firearm crime is not firearms, it's a tendency for violent criminal behavior.

http://www.cardozolawreview.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=138:kates201086&catid=20:firearmsinc&Itemid=20

"What differentiates criminals and violent psychopaths from ordinary people is not their experiencing hatred or rage, but the ease with which those emotions are prompted and the acts to which they give rise. Killers exhibit an absence of impulse control and a seemingly inexplicable (to ordinary people) propensity to explode into extreme violence over the most trifling matters. Ordinary people virtually never kill, while the kind of people who murder often do so over things so trivial that we are left aghast not only at the fact of killing but at the inconsequential grievance that engendered it.27 The triviality of motive further confirms the extreme deviance of murderers.

To reiterate, the claim of gun prohibition advocates that most murderers are ordinary people is preposterous, devoid of even a shred of supporting evidence."

The NRA has been one of the biggest backers of keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals, because it is well known that people who commit firearm crime usually have extensive prior criminal records, often violent criminal records.

[PavePusher]

175. What "viable solutions" do you think the NRA has opposed? n/t

[Euromutt]

188. Crack isn't a metaphor; it's an illustration of how legal prohibition is no guarantee...

...of eradicating the good or service in question. There isn't a country in the world--even China--where organized crime cannot acquire firearms, illicit drugs, or trafficked persons, and consequently supply them to any end user who can stump up the cash.

The evidence is overwhelming that the criminal use of firearms is driven by demand, not supply. In spite of increasing numbers of firearms in private ownership, violent firearm crime in the United States has for the past decade been less than half of what it was in the early 1990s. Violent firearm crime increased in the UK and the Netherlands during the period during the past two decades, even though there was no loosening of laws pertaining to private firearms ownership. What it boils down to is that, if criminals feel the desire/need to have firearms, they will acquire them.

The point of bringing up crack--or any form of cocaine--is that coca can't be grown in North America (or someone would be doing it by now) and therefore cocaine has to be imported. Despite four decades of the so-called "War on Drugs," it has proved impossible to secure the United States' borders against its illicit import. The import of this is that, even if you could magically make every firearm in the United States disappear overnight, along with every firearms manufacturing plant in the country, as long there were sources of firearms outside the U.S. (and it's not like we're going to stop the Russians and the Chinese from making guns any time soon), some enterprising spark will get them into the country to supply the criminal demand for them. The very existence of zip guns among New York gangs in the 1950s is an indication that gun control cannot eradicate the demand for firearms, and that was before the Gun Control Act of 1968 was adopted, when you could still buy guns by mail order.

I hate to trot out the old NRA saw of "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns," but the reason that trope has endured is because it's true; as long as the criminal element wants guns, some fucker will supply the guns, even if they have to smuggle them in from south-eastern Europe, Russia or China.

[SteveM]

206. bereft of your OWN solutions, you look to the NRA? What is "viable" to you?

[GreenStormCloud]

224. You are ignoring other forms of violence.

Lets us suppose that guns could be magically uninvented. Poof. No more guns, anywhere.

I am a senior citizen and no longer able to fight. By taking away my gun, you have rendered me defenseless against young violent male muggers who may be armed with knives or clubs. Taking away guns does not solve the problem of human-on-human violence. Taking away guns only removes the ability of those unable to fight to defend themselves.

[booley]

65. I think you're both right

Gun laws would probably not have prevented this from happening.

At the same time, if Penn had had a gun that's unlikely to have helped either. The robber would have stolen the gun since it not only keeps him safe but it's quite valuable.

[PavePusher]

176. How do you know that Penn could not have defended himself...

had he had a gun?

You seem to imply superhuman ability to criminals...

[SteveM]

208. "...robber would have stolen the gun..." Wishin' and hopin'? Speculating?

[PavePusher]

174. "Repealing any of the laws for gun control in the world wouldn't have prevented this stick-up."

How do you know this?

Firearms are used in defense quite frequently, according to the available statistics.

[Callisto32]

198. Here is the issue.

"Most NRA types are opposed to things that would have prevented it- all they ever talk about is putting people in prison, after the fact."

How do we prevent gun violence? Short answer, we can't. People are autonomous, some will make bad decisions. Nothing will stop this, especially not prohibition. Just look at the number of guns in places where they are banned, and the ready availability of controlled substances everywhere.

The only way to stop violence would be to lock everybody up in their own individual cells, never again to see the light of day. So, the only humane thing to do is to punish people for the wrongs they have committed.

[SteveM]

205. Corrections...

"but forcing everyone else into the gun culture just so they can protect themselves from crazy fuckers who should not have guns is not appealing to me either."

This "charge" by you is, of course, completely wild-eyed and rather hysterical. I challenge you to find ANY EVIDENCE where ANYONE has tried to "force everyone else" into your "gun culture." This is the kind of culture war attack made by those who have been losing culture wars for a long time: to accuse the "other side" of ringing down some kind of mass hegemony upon society.

Fact is, maybe a third of Americans own firearms, and a small fraction of those carry concealed. Been that way for years.

I would like you to explain: "...banning guns everywhere is not the answer..." Where do you think guns should be banned?
Also, what do you mean by "...NRA types are opposed to things that would have prevented it." What are those things?

I want to see your idea of "balance in this debate."

[one-eyed fat man]

222. Putting people in prison after the fact.

Maybe your crystal ball is high-def, but that is mostly how our system works, Doc. If you don't squat to piss you were born with the tool required to commit rape. Don't you think it is good we ignore the more radical screaming members of NOW and actually wait until you at least try to commit a rape before we throw you in jail?

You likely possess a gas can for your lawn mower and a book of matches. Some shithead burned down a nightclub in the Bronx in a jealous fit over a girlfriend with less than buck's worth of gas and two matches roasting 87 people alive.

Using ordinary gardening tools, Hutus hacked up about a million Tutsis in a 100 days!

If gun control were so absolute at preventing crime, prisoners in penitentiaries wouldn't murder and rape each other.

Perhaps, just perhaps, the problem might be evil people with a predilection to visit evil upon their neighbors. To put restrictions on only the law-abiding as akin to taking keys away from sober people as means of stopping drunk drivers.

[PavePusher]

172. I think he meant...

It's illegal to carry them. There is no Right to Bear Arms in D.C. ..... yet.

[SteveM]

199. Um, no, gun prohibition. For decades. You are familiar with prohibition, no?

[Bette Noir]

5. I hope he finds work quickly.

It's a shame they killed off his character on "House."

[liberation]

20. Huh? He actually has a position in Obama's cabinet

I forgot his actual title/position. but he actually quit the show to work for Obama.

Pretty cool, me thinks. Kind of bummer that he was robbed on 420 though...

[X_Digger]

24. He stepped down from the Administration post (according to the OP article.) n/t

[OhioChick]

32. Filming Harold & Kumar 3, I believe

http://www.collider.com/2010/03/31/kal-penn-leaving-white-house-to-film-harold-kumar-3-this-summer-a-very-harold-kumar-christmas/

[soleft]

6. I just listened to his interview with Rachel from one year ago

When he ditched acting to take the job. He seemed so into at the time, talking about how his public service roots went back to his parents working with Ghandi. He also said that he thought Obama was a statesman who transcended politics and partisanship.

I wonder if he became disallusioned.

[X_Digger]

7. Care to back that up?

"If only he'd had a legal gun, he'd be dead now. And/or the robber would have gotten the gun too, and one more gun that started out legal, would be on the streets of DC."

First of all, considering DC has one of the most restrictive ownership processes (and only after the SCOTUS told them they had to) and carry permits that are rarer than hen's teeth; chances are, if he had a gun it would not be legal.

Secondly, the DOJ's NCVS survey finds that there is no correlation between resisting crime with a firearm and an increased chance of being killed. (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/welcome.html)

Finally, according to the BATFE, gun theft is only a small source of illegal guns (friends / family being the main one), and a majority of thefts occur from unoccupied residences.

[onehandle]

11. Back what up?

1) I didn't say anything about gun ownership being easy in DC

2) I didn't say anything about the statistics of being killed when resisting a crime

3) I didn't say anything about the statistics of how legal guns become illegal guns

[friendly_iconoclast]

13. This:

"If only he'd had a legal gun, he'd be dead now. And/or the robber would have gotten the gun too, and one more gun that started out legal, would be on the streets of DC."

Facts, not faith, if you please...

[SteveM]

209. Pinned the tail on that donkey. nt

[X_Digger]

14. Your assertion-

"If only he'd had a legal gun, he'd be dead now. And/or the robber would have gotten the gun too, and one more gun that started out legal, would be on the streets of DC."

You said it, own up to it. Or was it just moronic fact-free hyperbolic chaff, meant to attach morality to an object?

[onehandle]

17. 'And/or'

Let me use it in a sentence.

'The next Timothy McVeigh will be another gun rights enthusiast and/or an extreme racist.'

[dmallind]

19. But these need not be either "and" or "or"

If he'd had a gun he might not have been robbed, or the robber may have been shot. Both of those outcomes are at least equally likely to Penn being dead or the gun being taken.

[MichaelHarris]

26. Do robbers with

guns bring their gun drawn to the party? CCW holders holster their gun concealed, they stand no chance when approached by someone with a gun in hand. Unless you're Quick Draw Mcgee you have a choice, die or give up 20 bucks. That's what concealed permit holders never want to confront, a concealed weapon is worthless when you are confronted with someone really "armed"

[michreject]

28. That's Quicks Draw McGraw

When I'm out at night walking, weather on a street or parking lot, I have my hand in my pocket and a gun in my hand.

[MichaelHarris]

39. are you

really that scared? I'm sorry but that's not much of an existence living in fear like that.

[Pavulon]

41. Hurry, send him the contact number for his closest mental health professional

his fear must be crushing his will to live.

My personal fear of jumpy spiders on my face is intolerable.

[michreject]

58. I'm not scared

I carry a gun where ever I go.

[MichaelHarris]

159. I'm so glad

I'll never know the miserable existence you call your life, having to arm yourself every day because of some unknown fear. It really has to be a horrible existence. I hope others have seen your post about walking around town, pistol in hand, in fear of every dark corner. It speaks volumes about the gun culture.

[GreenStormCloud]

226. Nope, not an all-consuming fear.

It only consumes a few seconds to put my guns on when I leave and take them off when I get home. It takes longer to lock the house when I leave, and unlock it when I return. Everthing else goes pretty much normally.

Do you lock your doors at night, every night. Isn't that a horrible existence to have to do that every night?

[AtheistCrusader]

230. Have you memorized the number for 911? Keep a spare tyre in your car? Fire extinguisher in your home

?

If you do any of those things, you know exactly what it means to live evry day of your life prepared for some unknown fear.

[Callisto32]

201. Wow, you just wanted to spring a trap, eh?

Initial post=There is something to be scared of about which you can do nothing, armed criminals.

Someone else says "I'm prepared for that in X way."

You reply "are you really that scared?"

What an asshole game to play.

[SteveM]

211. "He who first smelt it, dealt it" -- Euripides.

What you are "living in fear" of is total defeat of the propped-up, intellectually bankrupt gun-control issue. You got nothing.

[Dr Fate]

49. Jesus- where do you live? Late 1800's Dodge City?

I walk the "mean streets" of San Francisco all the time, and I haven't needed to shoot anybody yet.

Well, at least you really are prepared!

What if your opponent can do the hammer thingy with his revolver? QUICK- dive behind the horse trough!!...LOL! I'm just kidding- I just think it's weird that we think that walking around armed to the teeth is a normal & healthy way to live.

[michreject]

59. I don't need to shoot anyone either

Just those who threaten my safety. No threat, no problems.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

61. Gee, I hope some kid with a cap gun doesn't jump out from behind a bush.

[michreject]

62. Only cops in the bushes

:)

If someone pulls a toy gun that looks like a real gun, in a threatening manner, he will get shot.

[Dr Fate]

78. LOL! Well at least we are keeping the children safe.

LOL! I guess the little buck-a-roo will think twice b/f he plays cowboy around you!

What a great vision of community life.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

160. After he shoots the kid he can tell his mother "what's the difference between ...

... me shooting your kid and a drunk running him over, Dead is dead!"

[Callisto32]

203. That isn't the point of that.

Dead IS dead, I'll give you that. But the point of comparison to drunk drivers killing people is not that the death is any less of a tragedy, but that cars being used irresponsibly is a much larger public health issue than guns being used irresponsibly.

[Dr Fate]

70. Sounds like the NRA/GOP Gun Culture nightmare has all but come true.

I cant imagine that the Founding Fathers meant for us to be a nation of people skulking about the streets, clutching guns, shaking & shuddering, waiting for a gun fight.

[Pavulon]

94. Then repeal the second. The prohibition crowd

managed to change the constitution and it was a smashing success.

[Dr Fate]

104. I agree that it would be a disaster. So why not start working with moderates on this?

Full on Prohibition would be a disaster, and once more white people start getting shot, you are going to push people who could care less about guns, militias & Sarah Pailin into looking at such desparate measures.

Seems to me like the more progressive gun owners need to start calling Bullshit againt the NRA & the GOP instead of siding with them & defending them so much.

[Pavulon]

108. Crime is actually dropping

less shooting, less murder. The NRA has ranked democrats who do not take an anti gun stance as A.

Now what laws need to be modified?

[Dr Fate]

113. I'm not sure I want to modify a law.

If we are seeing less murder & less crime under Obama, great. Maybe certain gun laws from the past several years really are starting to work if that is the case. I'm sure there are plenty of other variables as well.

I'm aware that Conservative Democrats take money from Pro-Republican Lobbyists as well. I'm not sure why I'm supposed to see that as a good thing, since I see the NRA as part of the problem.

If you are right, and less white people are getting shot, then you have nothing to worry about- gun laws would pretty much remain at status quo. We agree that gun laws will probably stay about where they are, or even get looser for the next several years.

Maybe I'm just getting ahead of myself here- I was saying that white people will want the laws modified, for better or for worse IF it gets to the point were your crime & murder stats reverse & trends against white people...

I am sure that Sarah Pailin and the NRA dont really care about my best interests, one way or the other. If I get shot, so be it.

[Pavulon]

116. 10 year trend, cross racial lines. Poor people are impacted more by crime

more poor people in some areas are black and are overrepresented in the prison system as well as the crime stats available at the FBI site.

Gun laws have been proven ineffective by contrasting places like telluride co and other wealthy areas with less restrictive laws with places like chicago and dc that have handgun bans and massive murder rates.

You seem stuck on party politics and personality. The solution is very simple.

[Dr Fate]

119. What's your point? The wealthy areas with less restrictive laws were already low crime areas...

...where there was little danger of me getting shot in the first place.

I grew up in communities where people drove around with gun racks- we agree that in those places, it was not a problem.

I agree with you that the gun culture has a place in certain communities, and we agree that guns contribute to crime and deaths in other communities.

Are you saying that if DC and Chicago had gun laws that mirror Telluride laws, or that if they eliminated their gun laws all together- that their would be LESS crime & shootings? Could be, but I'm not sure it would play out that way.

Also, maybe the community standard in the inner city is different than the one in suburbs or rural areas. Maybe they want solutions to their social problems instead of having Republican Lobbyists forcing their "guns & prisons" values on them. Maybe more democracy & respect for community standards need to be a part of the solution.

[Pavulon]

121. Drug Laws = Poverty = Crime

criminals already are barred from ownership The NRA is not going to fix that problem. Our party could take steps to do just that with reform laws for Drugs.

[Dr Fate]

123. I realize the NRA/GOP is only going to make those problems worse.

Considering that all they advocate is brandishing guns & filling up prisons. That is why I'll oppose them.

[Callisto32]

204. Than quit whining and offer up a workable solution.

I don't say that to be personally mean to you, but really; if you have a solution that will reduce gun crime without infringing upon the rights of the non-violent among us, I would love to hear it.

The best solution is to end the drug war (really a war on people). Most gun violence seems to be gang driven, gangs get their funds from running in the black market. Let the light in on the black market and their profits will dry up, so no more money to buy guns, or drug-running territory to protect with them.

[SteveM]

213. You have established yourself as a gun-controller, not a moderate.

And you are not factual. The NRA does not advocate "brandishing" guns. This act is illegal in the various states.

Where does the NRA advocate filling up prisons? In your mind.

Wanna start a "moderate" campaign? Get the call for an expanded so-called "assault weapons ban" out of the Democratic Party Platform. It's a lightning rod, and guess who gets shocked every time?

[SteveM]

212. Admit it: you are deeply invested in gun-control, and can't let up. nt

[GreenStormCloud]

298. The Wild West had a lower rate of street crime than we do today.

The hammer thingy is called "fanning" and is extremely inaccurate. Wyatt Earp, later in life wrote about gunfighting, and stated that going a bit slower and being accurate was better than being fast and missing. Fanning a gun is a circus style trick. Doing that with a real Peacemaker gives you and empty gun in one second with very little chance of hitting anything.

"...and I haven't needed to shoot anybody yet." Past performance is no guarantee of future performance. Of course, in that part of CA, your chances of getting a CCW are next to none. The criminals don't bother with getting permits and will be armed.

[Dr Fate]

50. dupe

dupe

[X_Digger]

29. No?

http://www.cfnews13.com/News/Local/2010/3/16/homeowners_kills_attempted_robber.html?cid=rss

"A man returning home from work was met at gunpoint overnight. Little did suspects know, he was armed with a gun of his own. It happened around 12:30 a.m. in the driveway of a quiet Ocoee neighborhood. The homeowner, identified as Dave Henry, got out of his car and may have been pistol whipped by the suspects, according to police. Police said one of two suspects had a gun and they were trying to rob the man. But the homeowner, who has a concealed weapons permit, pulled his own handgun. He exchanged gunfire with the suspects. When the smoke cleared, one suspect was killed, one got away and the homeowner was taken to Orlando Regional Medical Center."

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2010/03/carjack_victim_shoots_suspect.html

"Joshua McElveen, 24, approached a man in a pickup truck in the 1800 block of Lamanche Street about 9:30 p.m., according to authorities. He pointed a handgun at the man and told him to open the door, NOPD spokeswoman Hilal Williams said.

The unidentified truck driver refused. Williams said the truck driver pulled out his own handgun and fired several bullets at McElveen."

http://www.wrno.com/cc-common/mainheadlines3.html?feed=135361&article=6723590

"Investigators say the man was approached in a parking lot by three men as he left his business just before 9pm.

One member of the trio produced a gun and struck the man in the head and then grabbed a backpack the victim had in his possession. The intended victim retrieved the backpack, pulled a gun from it and shot two of the suspects."

http://www.modbee.com/2010/03/20/1095586/modesto-store-clerk-shoots-and.html

"A liquor store clerk shot and killed one of two armed, masked men who tried to rob the shop on Tully Road late Friday night, Modesto police said today."

Concealed means concealed. Bad guy thinks I'm reaching for my wallet.

[Dr Fate]

48. I guess all those people were really good with guns. I guess we all better get practicing!

I'm not all that great with them, and my guess is I would get shot.

I suppose I could start going to target practice on the weekend, practicing the all important "quick draw" move, cleaning & oiling my blue steele baby, getting tips from the NRA guys at the gun store- but WTF? I dont want to live that way. Guns are neat- I've hunted years ago and owned shot guns, but quick draw urban gun fights? Getting permits, training and carrying around guns at work & shit? That's the answer?

For a lot the NRA types- their only solution is for everyone else to join their gun culture. If I still get shot, well at least the gun guys believe in lots & lots of prisons! Gee, thanks.

I dunno, I just dont want to live in a country where my best option for safety is to train myself to shoot people.

[Pavulon]

53. YOur best option is reforming drug laws

so someone does not shoot you during a robbery so they can smoke a 20 rock or score heroin. The gun is just the mechanism they are using to get that done.

drug laws and lack of real mental health care stack bodies here.

[Dr Fate]

67. Except your greatest voice on this issue, the NRA/GOP, OPPOSES such sane solutions.

I just see the conservative gun lobby as part of the problem, and not working at all towards a solution.

The Republican Gun lobby does not care if I get shot at by drug gangs- all they care about is whether I can shoot back. I need more solutions than that.

Talking about drug reform is great- but the gun lobby is not helping with that-all they care about is forcing me into their gun culture.

Not just talk- I need to see the gun lobby MOVING on solutions. Until then, I'll basically oppose them as huger part of the problem. I'll oppose them like I oppose most any other Republican lobby efforts.

[Pavulon]

84. The NRA is a single issue group. They have no position on abortion, nafta, or drug law(nt)

[Dr Fate]

87. I hear NRA people taking the position that people should go to prison all the time.

On many occasions we hear NRA types say "we need to enforce the laws on the books" even on this thread we hear someone saying "If this guy had been in prison, this wouldnt have happened."

So it seems like the NRA does have take the position that not just more guns, but more prisons are the solution to gun violence.

If this is the best the Conservative Gun Lobby can offer me, then I see them as part of the problem, and I'm probably not going to side with them.

If the NRA refuses to be part of the solution, then that is their bad, not mine.

[Pavulon]

88. Bottom line, its a dead issue. Gun Control is not going to be passed

because it is political cancer. It does not work, and it pisses off people who come out to vote you out of office. The supreme court will continue to overturn bans and laws interfering with legal ownership.

The solution is very simple, drug laws, mental health. It is just harder to do that then fool people into thinking you are helping them by banning scary black rifles or some other pointless shit.

[Dr Fate]

93. The bottom line is that the NRA & gun lobby are part of the problem.

The solutions you offer are OPPOSED by the NRA, GOP, Tea-baggers and any other large, high-profile group of gun advocates.

Seem like we cant have both- one can either go with the GOP & NRA solution (more guns & more prisons) or one can side with Liberals & pro-ownership moderates who are actually for the solutions you list.

If the NRA and the Gun Lobby was actually proposing the solutions you list, then I could side with you.

Just because the GOP/NRA is winning on this issue doesnt mean that their Right Wing solutions (more prisons & more guns) are is going to be a good thing for the USA, and it certainly doesnt mean that gun violence will be reduced.

I dont want to see a ban on guns, so I'm not sure what the solution is- but the NRA solution isnt working either-even if is the political reality.

[Pavulon]

95. Again, the NRA has NO POSITION on Abortion, NAFTA, or Drug law

they are a one issue group. I am not siding with anyone. NO ONE wants to legalize drugs, they all just want to appear to be doing something because the actual fix is far harder than bullshitting the USA Today crowd into believing they are doing something.

[Dr Fate]

97. But they DO have a position on PRISONS. They want me to pay for MORE of them.

You are wrong if you are trying to say that the NRA does not take the position that putting people in prison is part of their "solution" to me getting shot.

Sorry, but "more prisons & more guns" sounds like Sarah Pailin bullshit, not true progressive ideals that I would want to be a part of.

[Pavulon]

99. I believe they support enforcement of existing law.

would have to go read their charter. I support long prison sentences for people who use guns to commit crimes.

[Dr Fate]

101. True- like I said- prisons & more guns is their only solution. Sounds pretty Right Wing to me.

I'm glad that you & the NRA want my family to pay for my killer's prison sentence after I'm dead. That's comforting.

I'f love it even more if the conservatives & Pailin types would give an inch and work with me and help me not get in the gun battle in the 1st place.

[Pavulon]

103. What would you like changed?

also why should I (having been through 2 ssbi background investigations ) not be able to carry a concealed weapon in places defined by reasonable laws?

What part of the current laws need review?

[Dr Fate]

106. I'd like it if gun advocates would be part of sane & responsible solutions.

As opposed to their offical Far Right Wing postion of- "all we can help you do is shoot back at them, or put them in prison after the fact."

I need to see this on a major level-not just your lone dissenting voice- before I can trust their motives or actions. In other words, the ball is not really in my court on this one.

[PavePusher]

178. What solutions do you propse?

You keep making claims about the NRA (without supporting evidence) and not proposing ideas. This somehow makes it all the NRA's fault.

I'm missing the connection.

[SteveM]

215. "the ball is not really in my court on this one." That's just the problem...

you don't want to recognize. When challenged to come up with your solutions/policies, you duck out and blame the other "side."

I think we know your solutions/policies: more of the same gun-control positions.

[cowman]

309. OMFG

now you sound just like those idiots at the VPC and the Brady Bunch. Admit it, your a shill for these groups are'nt you?

[jazzhound]

313. Au contraire, mon frere

In other words, the ball is not really in my court on this one.

Given the steady erosion of public support for gun "control" and the undeniable trend toward liberalization of laws governing gun rights the ball is very much in your court.

To claim otherwise is not only extremely dishonest, but unobservant.

[one-eyed fat man]

312. What should we do with your killer?

You seem to think sticking him in jail for shooting you is a bad idea? Is he supposed to get a reward or what?

If you have a criminal that has proven himself to be violent by repeatedly assaulting people, does it matter if he uses a gun, a knife, a pool cue, his bare hands or half a can of gas and a Bic lighter? Are you saying it should just be catch and release?

Granted Charlie Manson didn't kill anyone, he got love-starved hippie chicks to do it for him, but do you think he should just be turned loose?

[gorfle]

324. How is it "right wing" to support putting violent criminals in jail?!?!?

True- like I said- prisons & more guns is their only solution. Sounds pretty Right Wing to me.

How is it "right wing" to believe that violent criminals should be put in and kept in prison?

[SteveM]

214. Ahh, such a "moderate." No, you are a culture-war extremist...

who has convinced himself he is moderate, and can now blow out anything he wishes. See it frequently from "controllers" on these threads.

[PavePusher]

177. Do you not beleive that putting criminals into prisons...

is part of the solution?


Also, where does it state that the NRA is against repealing drug prohibition laws?

[Euromutt]

194. For violating *firearms* laws, yes

The NRA does advocate more aggressive enforcement of firearms laws, and laws concerning violent crime. It does not, as an organization, advocate incarcerating more people for longer periods of time for drug offenses (I'm sure there are NRA members who favor that as well, but as an organization, it does not).

The point Pavulon is driving at, if I'm not mistaken, is that rather than focusing on changing (or resisting the changing of) the laws governing the method of violent crime (though it deserves note that firearms have been used in less than 10% of violent crimes in the U.S. since 1997), we should focus on changing the laws that cause many crimes to occur in the first place. A large amount of homicides in the United States are members of drug gangs shooting each other, innocent bystanders getting hit by stray bullets, drug gang members eliminating witnesses, etc. Legalizing and regulating the drug trade would put a severe dent in the illegal drug trade, in much the same way that the repeal of Prohibition largely put an end to the more public violence of rival bootlegging gangs. We'd see a lot fewer gunfights on the streets of Detroit, Baltimore and Oakland.

[gorfle]

323. VIOLENT CRIMINALS SHOULD GO TO PRISON ALL THE TIME!

I hear NRA people taking the position that people should go to prison all the time.

No, the NRA's position is that people who commit violent crimes should be in prison. Why? Because most firearm crimes are committed by people with extensive criminal, usually violent, records!

http://www.cardozolawreview.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=138:kates201086&catid=20:firearmsinc&Itemid=20

If these people were in prison, they would not be out committing further violent crimes.

On many occasions we hear NRA types say "we need to enforce the laws on the books" even on this thread we hear someone saying "If this guy had been in prison, this wouldnt have happened."

No, what they are saying is that there already countless laws on the books concerning crime and even concerning firearms. New laws aren't going to do anything when the current laws are not effective or are not effectively enforced.

So it seems like the NRA does have take the position that not just more guns, but more prisons are the solution to gun violence.

Most firearm crime is committed by people with extensive prior criminal records. If dangerous criminals were kept in prison, they would not be out committing more violent crimes.

If this is the best the Conservative Gun Lobby can offer me, then I see them as part of the problem, and I'm probably not going to side with them.

If the NRA refuses to be part of the solution, then that is their bad, not mine.

So, now that you know that most firearm crimes are committed by people with past criminal records, what would be YOUR solution?

[X_Digger]

55. I would prefer that fewer people turn to crime.

To that end, I support ending the War on Some Drugs, providing a secure social safety net, better mental health services, and a living wage.

At the same time, I recognize that even after that happens, nobody will personally take responsibility for my safety. I choose to have available the most effective means of possibly protecting myself. It's no guarantee, no magic talisman. It's a tool. A tool that may give me a chance to protect myself, should I be in the direst of circumstances.

[GreenStormCloud]

227. Just because you choose to be defenseless does not mean that thugs will be kind to you. N/T

[RaleighNCDUer]

63. Interesting - in each of those four stories the bad guys

had more respect for life than the 'good' guys, who were willing to shoot and kill to protects 'stuff', whereas the 'bad' guys merely threatened and did NOT shoot first.

No wonder I'm a fucking hermit.

[X_Digger]

64. No, the bad guys were willing to convince the good guys..

.. that 'stuff' was worth the good guys' lives.

What is the 'or else' in the threat that a bad guy makes when asking for your 'stuff'?

After all, if you weren't in fear of death or grievous bodily harm, you'd tell a robber to go fuck themselves.

They make the value judgment that my life is more valuable than my 'stuff', I don't.

(Which leaves aside the whole question whether you should take the word of someone who's already broken the social contract by which we all live, when they say they won't kill or maim you anyway.)

[PavePusher]

179. And I should trust the criminals because.....? n/t

[GreenStormCloud]

228. Wrong. The good guys were shooting because the bad guys were threatening to kill the good guys. N/

[GreenStormCloud]

225. No, the criminal does not walk around with a drawn gun.

He doesn't want to attract attention, so he waits until his victim is alone, then approaches and draws the gun at the last second. By practicing situational awareness and tactics, you can deny the element of surprise to a criminal.

Also, action beats reaction. If the criminal has his gun out and isn't shooting, then he is waiting to see what you will do. And if he is talking, even if is it only the demand for money, his mind is on what he is saying. He will be between 1/2 to 3/4 second behind me if I decide to act.

If I spot him early, I can challenge him thereby forcing him to either abandon the planned crime, or to deploy into attack mode too early which can cause his attack to fail.

There is more to being armed than merely sticking a gun in your holster. On needs to get some training. I can recommend some good books on the subject if you would like.

[AtheistCrusader]

229. There are innumerable ways to deal with this situation.

Some of which might get you shot, but quite a number of which end up with the aggressor getting shot.

[gorfle]

322. There have been numerous examples cited here.

CCW holders holster their gun concealed, they stand no chance when approached by someone with a gun in hand. Unless you're Quick Draw Mcgee you have a choice, die or give up 20 bucks. That's what concealed permit holders never want to confront, a concealed weapon is worthless when you are confronted with someone really "armed"

There have been several examples posted here where victims who were confronted by an armed aggressor were able to turn the tables on their attacker even though their attacker had the drop on them.

In one example, a 90-something year old man and his wife were held at gunpoint in their apartment. The old man got his pistol and shot his attacker.

In another example, a criminal held a victim at gunpoint with a shotgun. The victim got the shotgun away from the criminal and shot him with it.

Here is a video of an armed robber confronting a hotel desk for money, and one of the clerks draws his firearm and hit the bad guy three times:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AA_dgRdDhk

The armed bad guy hit no one.

[X_Digger]

21. And yet you can't / won't back up either assertion.

Another thought-free post from the desk of onehandle.

[SteveM]

210. I see you still employ the Rovian...

punking technique. You should be paid by the gun prohibitionist. Once you have established a track record in MSM, then the NRA may pay you for your insights (they have a track record of paying to use the prohi's latest arguments in support of their positions). See? Gettin' it 2 ways.

[proteus_lives]

36. Onehandle with facts?

:rofl:

He hates those! They don't mesh with his authoritarian POV.

[Dr Fate]

47. Maybe they would have shot each other. Or maybe he would have shot the robber.

Or maybe they both would have shot & missed.

Maybe the victim would have fired off some shots and scared off the robber.

Maybe they would have shot out some windows, or a 3rd person.

Maybe it would turn out just the way the OP says. Now the robber has two guns to shoot.

Whole lotta shooting going on one way or the other.

Bang bang- ka-pow! That's what I want in my neighborhood. Sounds like a real American Dream you have in store for us.

[X_Digger]

56. According to the DOJ's NCVS, most defensive gun uses involve no shots fired.

http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/165476.pdf

So no, not necessarily a 'whole lotta shooting going on'.

[Dr Fate]

66. But in the examples you gave in post #29, there was a whole lot of shooting going on.

Either way, seems that you and the NRA types will have me and my family living in a culture where it is likely that citizens will be in situations where guns are being drawn.

[X_Digger]

68. Yes, it's hard to find press articles about crimes that didn't happen.

But those are the majority of defensive gun uses per the DOJ & other studies.

The society I want you to live in is one where we have a social safety net, a living wage, and mental health care that results in fewer people turning to crime. Until the time that there are no criminals present, I want you to have the choice to defend yourself with the most efficient means available.

[Dr Fate]

69. But you were able to find plenty where people are popping off shots.

I want the social safety net, etc.

When I see the majority of gun absolutists taking this positon (the NRA & GOP does not- they either IGNORE it or eveny actively oppose it), as opposed to telling me I need to learn how to shoot people, then I'll trust them a little more.

[beevul]

158. Absolutists?

Please define.

Accurately.

[friendly_iconoclast]

9. Another occasion of sin, eh? n/t

[proteus_lives]

35. Ban Kal Penn.

Then we'll all be safe.

"If only he'd had a legal gun, he'd be dead now. And/or the robber would have gotten the gun too, and one more gun that started out legal, would be on the streets of DC."

Do you use your crystal ball to play the lotto? Google cases of self-defense.

[Pavulon]

40. Impossible. Handguns are illegal there.

someone actually broke the law before they broke the law again to rob the man.

[Dr Fate]

43. This would not have happened if they would just take all the gun laws off the books.

And neither would any of the other shootings in history. They would have just hit them with pipes or drowned them in bath tubs- so why even bother.

[Pavulon]

52. Just the stupid pointless ones that put newt in office and do nothing

to impact crime. if a TOTAL BAN on handguns for anyone who is not juiced in (i assume like nyc and socal you can buy the permit for 10 - 20k in "donations") is doing nothing what is the point of various other stupid laws?

Why is DC a shithole and greenwich ct not?

Reasonable fine, AWB, waiting periods, no CCW, and other hey look we are fighting crime bamboozles are done as an effective tool political or legally.

[Dr Fate]

75. I agree with you that some communities are "shitholes" while others are not.

If the Gun Culture works in Greenwich CT, great.

The gun culture doesnt seem to be working too well in DC.

I have no problem with using community standards in crafting reasonable gun regulations that work for their particular situation. I grew up in places in NC, SC & GA where people rode around with gun racks- it was never really a problem.

As you suggest, such activities WOULD be a problem in "shitholes" like DC.

[Pavulon]

85. gastonia sc is a high crime shithole

impacted by the same drug and poverty problem as dc.

[Dr Fate]

128. Wouldnt doubt it. Changes nothing as to my basic arguments & concerns. n/t

n/t

[PavePusher]

180. The legal "gun culture"...

is not allowed to exist in D.C.

So we don't know if it works there or not.

But feel free to continue being disingenuous....

[Dr Fate]

42. But-but- he could have robbed him with a lead pipe- or a car- or a bath-tub!!!

OR:

If they had not outlawed bath-tubs in the 1st place, maybe he could have defended himself!!!

[Pavulon]

54. I think robbery and murder predate gunpowder...(nt)

[Dr Fate]

73. Hell, he could have robbed him with a sword, or a cave-man's club.

Geeze- next the Liberal Nanny State will be telling us we cant bring our swords, baseball bats or lead pipes into the grocery store.

[Pavulon]

82. Knives and screwdrivers kill more than assault rifles

but hey, if you think gun control is a political reality, your loss.

[Dr Fate]

90. My loss indeed, If I get shot, it's not like the NRA would give a shit.

All they care about is whether I can shoot back or not, or whether I get to pay to have the shooter go to prison after I'm dead or injured.

You are right- gun control is not a political reality yet- thankfully not enough white people are getting shot for that to happen. That doesnt mean I cant question the motives & results of the NRA and people like Sarah Pailin- who are NOT part of any solution that works for me.

And why narrow it down to just assualt rifles? I thought the discussion here was more about concealed hand guns-like the robber used. Seems like bringing in assualt rifles is an attempt to the muddy the waters- LOL- NRA talking points are never designed to do that, are they?

As I said, next thing you know- the Liberal nanny state wont let us wear our butcher knives & screw-driver shanks to campus or the store...Gosh, who would want to live in a world like that.

[Pavulon]

91. Personally I dont care about him, or if you get shot in a carjacking

just like you dont care if I get hit and killed by a drunk driver. That the reality of the world. His robbery has nothing to do with my legal ownership of firearms, or your legal ability to get all banged up, as long as we both follow the law.

Murder is illegal, robbery is illegal, and DWI is illegal. Carrying a gun in DC is illegal.

Personal responsibility is important. If you murder me with a pistol or your camry after pounding beers i'm still dead and its still your fucking fault.

You are right I dont care about you, I care about me. If you dont like what I legally say under the first or own under the second legally, to bad. Thats life.

[Dr Fate]

110. In other words, I should oppose you, the NRA and the GOP with every fiber of my being.

Seeing as how you all put such a low value on my life.

[Pavulon]

112. Oppose what you want. Reality is what it is.

gun control is done as a political cause in the US. I dont know you, so your life has minimal impact on mine. Lumping everyone who supports the 2nd amendment into one group would be unwise. We represent about 50% of the population.

Again what choices we make (and the motives behind them) is far more important than some law anyone can choose to break.

[Dr Fate]

115. I accept reality. I could get shot, and you, the GOP & the NRA could care less.

I'm glad that we can get to the real morals & values behind all this.

[Pavulon]

117. You could be killed by a drunk driver but brunello still goes well with steak

and asparagus.

[Dr Fate]

122. Normal people see a difference between drinking wine w/ steak & shooting people.

Seriously- they really do.

[Pavulon]

124. If i kill you with my car while drunk or shoot you dead, you end up in the same place..

I can responsibly own firearms and consume alcohol. There is no difference in DWI deaths and a shooting death.

[Dr Fate]

126. I could kill you using karate chops too, but normal people still see a difference...

...between karate fights & gun fights.

I'm trying to tell you that all these cutesy metaphors only work on NRA discussion boards- they dont win the day when you are talking to non-militia, non-NRA types.

Despite your efforts to muddy the issue, normal people can still tell the difference b/t robbing someone w/ with wine & steaks (LOL!) and robbing someone w/ a hand gun. You can too, if you really try.

[Pavulon]

129. Normal people arent married to e med docs

and I can post pictures of a close range shotgun blast to the head or a head on collision caused by a DWI resulting in people being ejected and crushed by their car. The bodies look the same. Big split open splattered mess.

Normal people are fucking morons who watch Inside Edition and American Idol and used to read USA Today because it was written at a 8th grade level.

You could kill me with a gas powered dildo but at the end of the day I'm worm food.

Why would you kill me? What would motivate you to rob and murder a person, or get behind the wheel of your car drunk?

[Dr Fate]

131. All I know is that no one can rob me with a glass of wine.

I'm a pretty fit guy and I could probably either run away or kick his ass.

If I'm faced with the quick draw contest that you want me to be in, then I'm probably a goner. But at least you have plan- my family gets to pay to put him in prison, after the fact- YAYYYY!!!!!

LOL! Gas-Powered Dildos! Another cutesy metphor that has nothing to do w/ gun violence- what a suprise!

This is what I'm talking about- the NRA would rather perform silly-ass logic games involving "gas powered dildoes" and other full-on nonsense as opposed to being an active part of the solution.

[Pavulon]

132. So if I kill you with my car while drunk should I be punished, or are we cool?

I smash you head open with a bullet or with a suburban 2500 what is the difference (other than the vast sentencing difference I will get in court) ? You are just as dead, you mom is just as sad.

[Dr Fate]

136. Which Multi-Million Dollar conservative lobby is advocating a drunk driving culture?

And does said conservative lobby refuse to be part of solutions that would reduce DUI deaths BEFORE the fact?

In fact, there is no comparable lobby that seems to be tying the hands of law enforcement & law makers as to solutuions to the DUI problem.

Can we talk about guns like normal people would, considering that it is the subject?

We dont need your silly wine, dildo & car metaphors when actual gun & NRA examples exist.

[Pavulon]

141. Guns are a bamboozle. Ita a choice. I pull a trigger and kill you, i drive a car into you and kill

you. What is the difference. I made a bad call.

[Dr Fate]

144. I guess NRA literature only covers certain debate topics.

When someone like me takes arguments outside of what you expect (ie calling on the Gun nuts to step up and be part of the solution), all you can do is fall back on tired, silly ass metaphors that have nothing to do with the points being made.

Wine & DUI has nothing to do with my point-you are bringing that in order to steer the deabte back to familiar territorty.

My theme is that gun advocates like the NRA have no solutions expect for me learn to shoot people or for me to pay to put people in prison. These one sided gun advocates are a serious part of the problem in my opinion. As such, my best bet is to oppose them, despite your gas-dildo distracions.

[Pavulon]

145. There is no debate. Gun control as a political topic is done.

it ended when newt walked in on the back of a pointless law that made rifles look a certain way. People own their choices. Drive drunk, kill people, murder. Shoot a person, murder.

Gun control is irrelevant at this point.

What is your point again?

[Dr Fate]

148. Then stop talking about it. Be content. You have nothing to defend.

Since you know the quick draw & you know how to kill people, and you have a multi-million dollar Far Right lobby, you have nothing to worry about.

Meanwhile, the rest of us are still trying to figure out how to make our cities & neighborhoods a little safer. More and more communities are seeing the Gun Lobby as a group of uncompromising politicians who are forcing unwanted values onto their communities. So win or lose, expect the debate to continue, at least at some level.

[Pavulon]

150. Legalize drugs ( already not enforced in rich communities) and make mental health

care available. Simple answer. Gun control is irrelevant.

[Dr Fate]

151. And I'll side with the NRA as soon as they start advocating that.

Until then I'll oppose the Gun Lobby and I'll red-ass progressives who defend them.

[GreenStormCloud]

318. The NRA takes no position on drugs, or other issues.

They are a single issue organization.

[PavePusher]

181. What are your proposals? n/t

[jazzhound]

297. "Then stop talking about it. Be content. You have nothing to defend."

Quite incorrect. We have the Democratic Party to defend.

The reason many of us are so deeply attached to this issue is because the fate of the Democratic Party is attached to it. No haphazard gun "control" -- no George W. Bush.

Is that really so difficult to comprehend? Or is it just easier to paint Dem gun owners as NRA sycophants "fearing" imminent attack on the streets and living in "fear" that their guns will be confiscated?

[jazzhound]

314. Huh?

I could get shot, and you, the GOP & the NRA could care less.

Try "I could get shot, and you, the GOP & the NRA couldn't care less."

There. Now at least it makes sense.

[SteveM]

216. Well, do you? Are you serious? Do you have it in you for the long run?

The gun-controller's dilemma: do they have it in them for the long run (most clearly don't), or do they resolve to be 'doubly sure' and lash out wildly, "proving" (to themselves, if no one else) that they are still in the game. Either way, the prospects for success are bleak, or (self-) discredited.

[Dr Fate]

241. The guy just told me that he does not care if I get shot or not.

Not a suprise at all, but pretty screwed up if you ask me. I suppose that attitude also applies to my family & loved ones- he doesnt care if they get shot either- so long as he can shoot someone himself.

LOL! What am I supposed to do- thank him for his concern?

Also, I'm not sure if I'm a gun-controller in some dillema- I just know that the GOP/NRA does nto have the answers to my goals.

[oneshooter]

301. I live in Texas, do you care if I get mugged? n/t

[Euromutt]

307. Sounds like a predetermined conclusion to me

I get the impression you're not interested in actually discussing this topic for the purpose of coming to some synthesis; you're just interested in winkling out something to justify the opinion you already held.

[boppers]

51. If only he had a permit.

If he had a permit for a thermonuclear weapon, nobody would have messed with him.

[slackmaster]

60. Or, if that robber, who is probably a career criminal, was in jail where he belonged,

There wouldn't have been a problem at all.

[Dr Fate]

71. I made that point above- the NRA/GOP solution is to build more prisons...

...and to force more people into their gun culture.

Of course, none of the Ultra-Rich NRA Tea-baggers will actually want to PAY for these prisons as it would require evil taxes- so I guess middle class & poor people will get stuck with bill, as usual- even though I never wanted this many guns around in the 1st place.

I'll bet we can do better than this. Maybe in the future, I guess.

Interesting point about him being a career criminal-maybe it should not be so easy for such a career criminal to be able to lay his hands on a gun.

[friendly_iconoclast]

133. Well, it's not like making guns illegal in DC made a difference, now did it?

The people who would have guns in DC under more liberalized laws aren't the ones you have to worry about.
It's people like the guy who robbed Penn.

And like it or not, the violent crime and murder rates in the US are at their lowest levels in decades, even while
the number of guns has soared.

You don't like guns? Fine. Same as abortion- If you don't like them, don't get one.

I say the same to you as I would to anyone else: It's the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of What I Think Is A Good Thing
For Other People.

Short of a total gun ban, complete confiscation and East German-style border controls, criminals will
always be able to get guns. So why disarm the law abiding when they never were much of a problem and have become
even less so in recent years?

[Dr Fate]

139. So if we REPEAL all the gun laws in DC, will that reduce gun violence there?

Or is it crazy for me to say that w/o these laws, maybe even a few more gun deaths would have occured?

I dont know the answer for sure, but I have a feeling that your solution might not work either.

[Euromutt]

197. It probably wouldn't make gun violence worse

Or is it crazy for me to say that w/o these laws, maybe even a few more gun deaths would have occured?

That depends whether you have a plausible argument, or better yet, some evidence, to support that surmise. During the height of the "Crack Wars" of the 1980s, the firearm homicide rate in DC was higher than that of Beirut, and at the time, that was saying something. The notion that things would have been worse but for the handgun ban is pretty hard to swallow.

And if I can digress for a moment, I find the argument, in response to a historical example of how imposition of gun control laws failed to lower violent crime or even failed to prevent an increase, that "w/o these laws, maybe even a few more gun deaths would have occurred" to be one of the lamest ones that gun control advocates have to offer. It bears some resemblance to the old joke about the guy scattering elephant repellent powder around an intersection in some European or North American city and, when it's pointed out that there aren't any elephants around, responding "See? It works!"

Only in this version, the intersection is swarming with elephants and the guy says "And if it weren't for this elephant repellent I'm scattering around, there'd be even more of them!"

[GreenStormCloud]

299. Repealing DC draconian gun laws would simply make it like most US cities.

It would make DC look like Dallas, Omaha, Jacksonville, Kansas City, Albuquerque, Butte, Salt Lake City, Las Vegas, New Orleans, Little Rock, Nashville, Memphis, San Antonio, Mobile, Oklahoma City, Lincoln, Grand Rapids, Sioux Falls, Pittsburg, or most other cities and towns. Would that be so bad?

[slackmaster]

220. I don't think we need more prisons - I think we are putting too many of the wrong people in prisons

Ending the War On (some) Drugs would free up space so more violent offenders could be incarcerated.

Interesting point about him being a career criminal-maybe it should not be so easy for such a career criminal to be able to lay his hands on a gun.

There will always be guns available in this country, except for people who are in prison.

[saigon68]

74. Don't waste your time with these idiots ---slack

[Dr Fate]

76. Yes- better to discuss this with the "smart" NRA & GOP types. LOL!

Yes- anyone who questions the actions, motives and talking points of REPUBLICAN lobbyists must be "idiots"

[spin]

190. Dr Fate, A high percentage of Democrats own firearms ..

maybe you weren't aware of this.





And they are not all hunters.



Note: info from Gallup at:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/21496/gun-ownership-higher-among-republicans-than-democrats.aspx

[Dr Fate]

242. I'm one of them- thanks! Do I give money to right wingers? Hell no.

n/t

[SteveM]

217. Yeah, like you want real "balance on this issue." right.

[Dr Fate]

243. I dont want "balance" for the benefit of the NRA- I want less gun violence in DC.

And no one here can seem to tell me with certainty that the NRA's approach will bring me that result.

When I asked below if there would less gun violence in DC if we made it a 100% NRA approved city, no one gives me a straight up up "yes" or "no" answer.

At the same time the talking point of "The gun laws do nothing to reduce gun violence in DC" seems to be a popular argument. It is totally fair for me to turn that arguement around, and look the results in DC if we were to reverse all those laws.

[Pavulon]

276. It is totally fair to be ignorant of logic and analysis as well.

there is no certainty. No one will give you an answer because they are not liars and are not taking bait.

You cant reverse correlation and causation, its invalid. Even is we PROVED to a mathematical certainty the ban caused crime to increase, that DOES NOT prove removing it will cause it to decrease.

Your local community college has courses is statistics and Aristotelian logic these are helpful in interpreting information and data.

[Dr Fate]

287. See post #259 for an example on how to make an attempt at answering a fairly easy question.

Cant you at least make an educated guess like he did? We even found things to agree on.

[Pavulon]

290. You did not have educated guess in your list of answers(nt)

[LanternWaste]

77. Good to see that most...

Good to see that most posters are far more concerned with Penn's safety than what may or may not, or should or should not have been in his hands...

Oh, wait... wrong thread.

[Dr Fate]

79. Gun absolutists dont seem to care if I get a gun pulled on me...

...so long as there is a scenerio where I have chance to pull out a gun, and maybe shoot someone myself.

This kind of thinking seems to be part of the problem, not part of the solution.

[Pavulon]

92. You are correct, I really dont care. I dont relate drinking wine with dinner to a dwi murder

Unless I rob you at gunpoint, you have no concern over my legal ownership of firearms, consumption of alcohol, or any other legal act.

If I break the law, they you have a bitch. Until then, you have nothing.

[Euromutt]

195. Pulling a gun on people (except in self-defense) is already illegal too

It's not that we don't care, it's just that we aren't under the illusion that someone who is already willing to carry a firearm in an illegal manner (e.g. concealed without a permit, or in an establishment that makes the majority of its revenue from sales of alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises), and is already willing to draw it an threaten or attempt to harm you with it in something other than self-defense, is going to be stopped from doing so by a law that says he can't possess that firearm in the first place. Hell, in the case of most people who are going to threaten you with a gun, they already are prohibited from owning a firearm due to a prior criminal record.

Will tighter gun control reduce violent crime? There's no reason to assume it would, since it's never happened before. Where there is a criminal demand for firearms, there will be a supply; gun control may drive up the black market price, but firearms are a capital investment to certain types of criminals (especially those involved in organized crime), so an increase in price will not reduce demand. Moreover, given that the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that government cannot be held responsible for failing to provide protection to individual citizens (even when the failure is due to incompetence or negligence on the part of the cops, as in Warren v. District of Columbia and Castle Rock, CO v. Gonzales), the government cannot legitimately seek to deprive citizens of the means to protect themselves (of which firearms are, given current technology, the most effective).

It is not part of the problem to acknowledge that gun control will do little (if anything) to protect citizens from violent crime, and that you cannot hold the government to account if it fails to even try to protect you.

[friendly_iconoclast]

125. I'm concerned enough to point out that DC's gun laws are so much security theatre n/t

[Dr Fate]

127. So DC would have less gun crime if they repealed all their current laws?

If not, then it seems like that takes us back to square one.

My insticnt is that legalizing a full on gun culture in certain cities or areas might make the violence & crime even worse.

[Pavulon]

130. Define Gun Culture, the "gun culture" I know would get fucked up in S chicago

east baltimore or DC.

[Dr Fate]

134. You know-fat guys with beards & guns who like Sarah Pailin & give money to GOP lobbyists.

You know- guys who compare guns to glasses of wine & "gas powered dildoes."

You know- the guys who offer me ZERO solutions excecpt for me to learn how to kill people (Ie joining the gun culture myself), and more prisons.

You know- the guys who think that EVERYONE should train themselves, go to gun ranges, learn how to clean & operate & properly carry guns.

You know- the guys who apparently think that my 68 year old aunt and my teen-age cousins need to also train themsleves with guns so that THEY can be safe. They offer no other solutions for my family, so this must really be what they think.

You know- the guys who think that teachers & schools should be models of their gun cultutre- and that it is normal thing to have an armed campus as learning environment.

You know- the guys who form Spanky & the Gang style "militias" & dream of being in Red Dawn or in a Chuck Bronson revenge flick.

You know- all the guys you side with when you defend the NRA and the gun Lobby.

Hunters and people who have guns to protect their homes & family, but who are also ACTIVE progressives & who oppose people who are part of the problem? If they are part of a gun culture, and you are one of then I like those guys.

Guess what- not everyone whats to be a part of this bizzare, largely conservative sub-culture. Some of us would rather live in nice, safe neighborhoods were the gun battles dont happen in the 1st place.

LOL! I'm just kidding about the fat guys w/ beards part.

[Pavulon]

135. Those guys aren't the ones lit up in the ER, in Raleigh

or any other city. No shootings where they live. My nice neighborhood is not impacted by gun violence. Except for when it spills over from the crap parts of town.

What does ANY of that have to do with me legally owning a gun? What part of political suicide do you not understand?

[Dr Fate]

137. True- and I'm not sure if their culture would translate over into high crime areas.

It would just involve that much more shooting & killing, wouldnt it?

Your hood & the safe places where many of rural NRA types live were probably never high crime areas to begin with- guns or no guns. Am I wrong?

I thought that your position is that there should be more guns and less laws, even in the high crime areas.

I admit my post was tounge & cheeck- but doesnt yours & the NRA/GOP position follow that people in the inner city would need to buy guns, practice using them, learn how to clean & maintnence them, frequent gun stores, etc, in order to protect themsleves?

I suppose this even includes teens and the elderly- or maybe they should just stay inside?

This is what I mean when I say that all the NRA really wants to do is force everyone into some kind of gun culture- as opposed to being part od a real solution.

So back to the original question that was glossed over- if we repeal all the gun laws in DC, do you think less gun violence will result?

[Pavulon]

143. No, my neighbors are generally retired and fairly liberal folks from the NE.

They spend money and time on golf and german cars. And yes, changing the law in DC would only impact legal gun owners. No impact in crime.

[Dr Fate]

146. The question was- if we repeal gun laws in DC, will there be less gun violence?

This is what you seem to want, and it is a yes or no question.

As far as your Liberal neighbors go, great. I dont see how that changes any of our points about community standards. Lotsa guns in areas that were never high crime to begin with are not the problem. Whether it's a rural area populated with NRA members, or a Liberal suburb where some people keep guns by their table, we agree that those neighborhoods are not a problem.

So- less gun violence or more if we make DC the model NRA city-yes- or no?

[Pavulon]

147. No correlation. Whatever the trend is doing it will continue..

no matter what laws change for legal owners. Guns are not relevant to the violent crime in DC. The longstanding ban and continuing shithole nature of the place prove that.

[Dr Fate]

149. So you are saying that the NRA would cause more gun violence in DC, not less?

Or are you saying that it would be about the same, or are you saying that repealing the gun laws would actually reduce gun violence?


If the NRA really knows what's best, then lets talk about what they say they want.

If we make DC the model NRA city what will be the result:

1) More deaths due to gun violence.

2) Less deaths due to gun violence.

3) It would stay the same.

Come on-give us a clear, concise answer by choosing 1, 2 or 3.

[Pavulon]

152. It would be the same as if they changed the rules on liability insurance on passenger cars

no impact on gun crime. The factors that drive violence currently would continue to influence the numbers. Change your frame of reference. All choices invalid due to assumption than gun law actually impacts gun crime.

[Dr Fate]

153. So if the NRA had their way, would 1) more people in DC get shot. 2) Less people or 3) the same?

I didnt ask you for more silly ass car/didlo/wine wine metaphors- I asked you to take a clear, concise position and pick 1, 2 or 3.

You seem to be reluctant to admit that if the NRA had their way, more people in DC might get shot. I guess that would prove the point I've been making on this thread.

Change my frame of reference? Why should I? I'm trying to find out if your ideas would really reduce gun violence or not. I actually have goals that involve soemthing besides more guns & prisons.

Again- please pick 1, 2 or 3, unless you just cant bring yourself to admit that the NRA's positions might actually lead to more shootings.

[X_Digger]

154. False choice.

There is no correlation either way.

[Dr Fate]

161. In other words, if the Far Right and the NRA gets their way 100%, more people in DC will get shot.

You failed to show us otherwise.

Either show us how the NRA's policies would result in LESS gun violence in DC, or admit that they are part of the problem.

To me it's strange that you guys are spending so much effort to defend a Far Right Lobby group on a DEM board.

[X_Digger]

163. AGAIN with the false choice.. *sigh*

There is enough variation among gun laws in large cities, that one can find cities and locales with low crime and lax gun laws, and others with restrictive gun laws and low crime. At the same time, you can find the reverse- cities with lax gun laws and high crime, as well as those with restrictive gun laws and high crime.

This isn't an either / or situation. Your false equivalence has been noted and dismissed.

[Dr Fate]

164. Then tell us how the NRA/GOP will reduce gun violence in DC. Or maybe that simply is not the case?

If you cant do that, then I think smart progressives can conclude that the NRA/GOP is part of the problem, not a part of a solution that involves true progressive ideals.

[X_Digger]

165. Are you being intentionally obtuse?

If.. or.. not. Problem or solution.

Same either / or again.

Jumping-Jesus-Christ-on-a-pogo-stick.

Please tell me you're just trying to make a point and you actually do get it.

It is not the goal nor responsibility of the NRA to decrease or increase gun violence in DC.

No more than it's the ACLU's responsibility to reduce child pornography because they advocate for the first amendment.


eta: (Enough with the GOP schtick already, the NRA supports Dem candidates as well when they're on the right side of the issue. To lump them together as though they are one and the same is disingenuous.)

[Dr Fate]

166. No- just honest. The GOP/ NRA will not help my goal of reducing gun violence in DC.

I realize that the NRA/GOP goals are not in line with my goals- that is why as a progressive, I have to oppose them, and I have to criticise the RESULTS of their far right, death dealing stances.

Frankly, I'm not so worried about the stated "goals" of the Far Right Lobbyists as I'm concerned about the RESULTS of their actions.

Unless you can show us otherwise, the results of a 100% NRA/GOP gun model will result on more gun violence in DC. More bullets being fired from more guns at more people.

Also, I refuse to characterize the multi-million dollar Far Right Wing Gun Lobby as something progressives & Liberals should support, simply for your benefit. If Blue Dog DEMS want to take money from the far right, that's their bad, not mine.

Refering to the NRA as a largely Right Wing, Republican, org. is honest and accurate- and I'm sorry if that association makes you uncomfortable. It should.

[X_Digger]

167. "Blue Dogs" like Harry Reid? Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

It's not a right / left issue. If anything, it's typically characterized by rural / urban.

My family has been democrats, pro-union (coal miners) and pro-gun since before either of us was born. The left's swing at gun rights is a fairly new phenomenon. (starting in the late 60's with dixiecrat racist gun laws).

A true progressive would say that if there is no connection between gun ownership and either increases or decreases in crime, then the position that should take precedence is the one that promotes civil liberties, not the one that restricts them.

[Dr Fate]

168. Blue Dogs, DLCers, conservative, "moderate" DEMS, whatever they are calling themselves this week.

Like I said, if someone like Reid takes money from far right lobbyists, that's his bad, not mine.

It's not a suprise to me that Reid could be opposed to my goals in more areas than one.

Your retort does not detract from any of my points or goals.

[X_Digger]

169. No, I refuse to play by your black and white precepts.

If you insist on reducing complex social policy to a bumper sticker mentality, we're done.

[Name removed]

170. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[X_Digger]

171. For all that you've claimed it, you haven't demonstrated that such and such are the results..

.. of ANYTHING.

Did DC's handgun ban reduce crime? Did the rise of Concealed Carry reduce crime? No? Can't prove even correlation?

Then what "results" are you pissing and moaning about, again?

[friendly_iconoclast]

189. So what positive RESULTS have obtained from DC's recent gun laws?

Not security theatre, an actual reduction in crime.

And while we're on the subject- why do other large, poor cities with laxer gun laws have lower crime and murder rates?

[Dr Fate]

236. What positive results from DC's laws? About the same as what the NRA gets?

I'm saying that the NRA might not have the answer either.

[SteveM]

218. Ah, you are such a "moderate." So "fair & balanced." burp.

[jazzhound]

315. Self-delete

duplicate

[jazzhound]

316. Point deserving of extra emphasis

A true progressive would say that if there is no connection between gun ownership and either increases or decreases in crime, then the position that should take precedence is the one that promotes civil liberties, not the one that restricts them.

[friendly_iconoclast]

192. The DC government hasn't, and says its citizens have no right to police protection

And went to court to enforce its position. It's hard to see how less anal gun laws could make things worse:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

Warren v. District of Columbia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Warren v. District of Columbia<1> (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is a U.S. Court of Appeals case in which three rape victims sued the District of Columbia because of negligence on the part of the police. Two of three female roommates were upstairs when they heard men break in and attack the third. After repeated calls to the police over half an hour, the roommate's screams stopped, and they assumed the police had arrived. They went downstairs and were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, and forced to commit sexual acts upon one another and to submit to the attackers' sexual demands for 14 hours. The police had lost track of the repeated calls for assistance. DC's highest court ruled that the police do not have a legal responsibility to provide personal protection to individuals, and absolved the police and the city of any liability.<2>...

http://gunrightsalert.com/documents/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia_444_A_2d_1.pdf


Also confirmed more recently by the Supremes in Castle Rock v. Gonzales:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales

Castle Rock v. Gonzales

Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, in which the court ruled, 7-2, that a town and its police department could not be sued under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for failing to enforce a restraining order, which had led to the murder of a woman's three children by her estranged husband....

[Dr Fate]

238. I realize that the NRA types would rather blame the police as opposed to the gun idustry, etc.

I'm not against holding the police accountable where they are negligent- but we know the GOP/NRA will argue until the end of time that the gun industry should, never, ever, EVER be put in front of a jury in a civil trial.


I never said that everyone in the DC govt. is taking the right approach- but I think I have established that the NRA certainly is not going to do a damn thing to reduce gun violence in DC. They are part of the problem, not part of any solution that works for me.

[friendly_iconoclast]

305. The way Boeing is 'responsible' for Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and 9/11?

The Enola Gay and Bock's Car were Boeing B-29 Superfortresses. The airliners flown into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were Boeings. Boeing bears responsibility.

Like Ford and Toyota are responsible for drunk drivers,
Dell and Cisco, etc., for phishing scams and child pornography rings,
rope and bullwhip makers for lynchings and whippings,
hibachi and pesticide manufacturers for suicides in Japan...

[Euromutt]

196. You're shifting the burden of proof

Unless you can show us otherwise, the results of a 100% NRA/GOP gun model will result on more gun violence in DC.

That is your assertion, which means the burden falls on you to provide evidence to support it; the burden is not on someone else to prove you wrong.

What we know is that the imposition of DC's gun ban failed to reduce violent crime in DC, or prevent it from increasing. Given that increased gun control failed to do any good, there's no reason assume that getting rid of it will make things worse. Leaving aside constitutional issues, there is no legitimate reason to impose restrictions on its citizens that fail to have any demonstrable positive effect on public safety or any other aspect of the common weal.

Refering to the NRA as a largely Right Wing, Republican, org. is honest and accurate <...>

It's accurate (just look at the line-up of speakers for this year's annual meeting), but whether it's honest depends on to what cause you ascribe that fact. The question that arises is whether the NRA (and other gun rights organizations) lean toward the right wing of the political spectrum because support of freedom of private ownership of firearms (aka "gun rights") is inherently a socially conservative (dare I say it, reactionary) position, or whether the NRA et al. lean Republican because the Democratic party has a four decade-long history of opposing gun rights? I think there's certainly evidence for the latter explanation. Given that McCain never got better than a C rating from the NRA-PVF, it's hard to imagine the NRA would have endorsed him as a presidential candidate had he not been running against Obama, a Chicago Democrat (with all that entails re: gun rights) with a number of gun control planks in his platform. If McCain had found himself running against Richardson (whom I supported), the NRA would certainly not have supported McCain, and would very likely have endorsed Richardson, who has an A rating from the NRA-PVF. (In the 2006 New Mexico gubernatorial election, the NRA-PVF endorsed Richardson over his Republican opponent.)

Essentially, there's good reason to surmise that the NRA would be a good deal less inclined to lean towards the Republican party if the Democratic party were to take a position less hostile to gun rights.

[Dr Fate]

246. I'm just looking for ways to reduce gun violnece in DC. Does the NRA have that solution?

Burden of proof or no, no one has yet to show me that the NRA plan will result in less people in DC getting shot or shot at.

[Euromutt]

306. Does the NRA have to provide that solution?

If loosening DC's restrictions on private firearms ownership doesn't improve the violent crime rate (I don't why you're focused solely on "gun violence" instead of violent crime in general), but doesn't make it worse either, and makes it possible for some DC residents to successfully defend themselves against a criminal assault, then on balance, I'd say the move would be beneficial.

Hell, if nothing happened at all, including the violent crime not increasing, the move would still be beneficial on balance, simply because an increase in individual freedom (or, more accurately, the rolling back of non-beneficial restrictions on individual freedom) is a desirable end unto itself.

[PavePusher]

183. You have failed to show how your assertion is true. n/t

[Dr Fate]

239. I have yet to see someone show me that the NRA plan will decrease gun violence in DC.

In what post # did that occur?

Until then, I'll maintain my position that if the NRA/GOP had their way, more people would get shot in DC.

[PavePusher]

250. "I have yet to see someone show me that the NRA plan will decrease gun violence in DC."

You keep saying this. I don't know why.

1. What is this "NRA plan" to reduce "gun violence in DC" that you keep talking about?

2. How is it the responsibility of the NRA to come up with a plan for reducing crime? Not really their venue, as I see it. Their job is to concentrate on the rights of non-criminals.

3. You then keep claiming that the NRA opposes efforts to reduce crime. You've been asked several times to state what efforts they oppose. So far only static/dodges in return.

4. "Until then, I'll maintain my position that if the NRA/GOP had their way, more people would get shot in DC." What evidence do you have to support this? and what is the "way" the NRA/GOP wants to have?

5. Since you claim the NRA has been so negligent, what are your proposals? (Also asked several times...)
Edit: I just saw your post # 245, so you get a partial pass on this. But it still gets us back to #2....


Can we get some definitive answers, please?

[Dr Fate]

278. I've already adressed all that, but here it goes again:

"1. What is this "NRA plan" to reduce "gun violence in DC" that you keep talking about?"

I'd love to know. Can you tell me what it is? Will the NRA plan reduce gun violence in DC? If it's fair to claim that gun laws do not reduce violence, then isnt fair to ask whether the alternate, NRA plan will do it?

"2. How is it the responsibility of the NRA to come up with a plan for reducing crime? Not really their venue, as I see it. Their job is to concentrate on the rights of non-criminals."

What the NRA's stated "responsibility" is and the RESULTS of their law suits, lobbying efforts, etc as to DC are 2 different things. If they want more guns in DC, then maybe they DO have a responsibility to show me why that is a good idea? I thought I'd at least ask!

Reducing gun violence or crime not really their venue? Are you sure? On this very thread, you guys make the argument that guns reduce crime. Are you really saying that the NRA does not take the position that gun owenership means you can protect yourself from crime, and reduce it? It's also a fact that the NRA, on numerous occasions has stated that we need to put gun-criminals in prison to reduce crime, not go after legal gun owners. Reasonable enough, but it seems to me like they do adress the reduction of crime by saying this. I'd love to find out if their more guns/more prisons plan really works. Will it work in DC?

3. You then keep claiming that the NRA opposes efforts to reduce crime. You've been asked several times to state what efforts they oppose. So far only static/dodges in return.

The only plan I've seen from the NRA is "more guns, more prisons." What efforts did they oppose? I thought that was a big part of what they did- opposing gun laws. Am I wrong to think that the GOP and the vast majority of NRA membership would oppose "Liberal" social efforts such as reforming drug laws, helpinjg out poor people, putting more money into education, etc? So long as the NRA offers "more guns, more prisons" as it's ONLY soultion, then they dont really appear to be my allies, do they?

"4. "Until then, I'll maintain my position that if the NRA/GOP had their way, more people would get shot in DC." What evidence do you have to support this? and what is the "way" the NRA/GOP wants to have?"

When I wrote this, I was still waiting for some stats. No one wanted to go out on a limb and tell me 100% for sure that less people would get shot. All I got was people telling me to take a stats class. The "way" the NRA/GOP wants to have? Oppose gun laws, and tell me that deaths increase in spite of them, but w/o showing me that their plan was any better.


5. Since you claim the NRA has been so negligent, what are your proposals? (Also asked several times...)

Answered as was all of the above- but here goes again. I DONT KNOW! I admit it! I'm still pretty sure that the NRA is on the wrong side of this.

Instead of forcing me to join the gun culture, my proposal might be for the NRA & conservatives as a whole to join me helping solve the problems that cause crime & gun violence in the 1st place. Helping me shoot people and helping me put folks in prison AFTER I get shot is not enough. In fact, it seems to be part of the problem, and not part of any solution.


WHEWWW!

So anyone else wanna say that *I'm* the one trying to avoid some specifc questions here?

[Pavulon]

155. Your choice is bullshit. It assumes legal gun ownership impacts crime

you think I am fucking stupid. I don't read USA Today and am used to negotiating with adults. Yyour bullshit choices are a joke.

Maybe gun law changes will impact the number of people taking advil, eating chinese food, or using quality toilet paper vs the cheap scratch stuff.

Allowing legal gun ownership in DC will
1) make my piss smell like asparagus
2) cause the price of number 2 diesel go up
3) change the zoning laws for strip clubs.

[Dr Fate]

162. In other words, if the Far Right and the NRA gets their way 100%, more people in DC will get shot.

LOL! I thought the indication was that if the NRA gets their way, everyone in DC will have guns and everyone will be safer. You cant seem to back that up.

"Impacts crime" must be one those NRA sematics tricks- I'm talking about more bullets coming out of more guns and hitting more people.

And I'm not suprised that you compared guns to piss, gas & strip clubs. Some other guy in this thread was comparing guns to gas-powered dildos. The topic IS GUNS. The guns=knives, bath-tubs, run-away cars etc. metaphor trick found in Far-Right literature doesnt work on normal people.

LOL! Only a tea-bagger or a Sarah Pailin supporter is stupid enough to confuse a GUN with a Dildo or a glass of wine. Come one, start talking like a noramal person here. Those silly metaphors only impress NRA types.

You guys seem to want to talk about everything under the sun except how this Right Wing Gun movement via the NRA could result in more people getting shot in DC.

Either show us how the NRA's policies would result in LESS gun violence in DC, or admit that they are part of the problem.

To me it's strange that you guys are spending so much effort to defend a Far Right Lobby group on a DEM board.

[oneshooter]

187. That is possable, but maybe enough of the goblins will be shot

often enough for the rest to want to change their evil ways. Another possability.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Dr Fate]

240. Oh! Goblins, Dildos, run-away cars, glasses of wine! More stupid-ass metaphors-what a suprise.

These are all actual comparisons that people in this thread have made.

It's almost like all you guys read the exact same literature- which apprenty tells you to comapre fire arms to "dildos" and gun shot victims to "goblins."

Goblins, babies drowning in tubs, DUI, dildos-anything but the topic on hand- which is GUNS the NRA making it easier for HUMANS to get shot in DC.

[Pavulon]

249. Yep, reality is quite a motherfucker. Crime in dc had gone up with a ban, down in rest

of us. You have no statistics that back your position. So please stop bullshitting around and make your point. Life is not about feelings, its about fact. Fact like this.

in 1976, Washington, D.C., enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Since then, the city's murder rate has risen 134% while the national murder rate has dropped 2%.

Among the 15 states with the highest homicide rates, 10 have restrictive or very restrictive gun laws.

[Dr Fate]

256. I'll bet gun violence in DC did go up after the gun laws. Would it go up under the NRA plan?

Or would they go down, or would they remain the same?

Care to even take a guess?

I'm sure there are plenty of areas with lax gun laws where gun violence is not a problem- I've lived in them. Am I wrong to say that these places already had low instances of violent gun-realted deaths to begin with?

I've never doubted yout stats- so why not show me some stats, specifc to DC, that shows that if we remove the various gun bans, there will be less gun violence.

[Pavulon]

260. They dont exist. Stats dont show cause

so the correct answer is 4, gun laws have no impact on crime. It will continue to be driven by the real root causes. Not gun law.

You are asking for something that does not exist. I cant show you stats that prove that tax laws impact traffic patterns either. Get it?

[Dr Fate]

263. No- guns and gun victims DO EXIST. And there will either be more of them, or less of them....

...or the #s will stay about the same.

You dont seem to have a problem stating that gun laws do not bring the #s down- so all I'm trying to do is see if repealing those laws will bring the #s down.

Why is this only a one way street- why is it okay for you to say that gun laws to not decrease gun violence in DC, but it's anthema for me to ask if your plan is any better?

Guns and Gun violence victims do exist- the question is whether the NRA's plan will help us reduce those the #'s of at least the vicitims.

[X_Digger]

266. Please, please, please take a stats class..

.. they offer them online, even free.

http://diplomaguide.com/articles/Online_Math_and_Statistics_Classes_Offered_Free_by_Top_Universities.html

You keep making the same asinine assumption of correlation, much less causation.

Again and again and again and again and..

[Dr Fate]

271. I'm the one asking you for information, and you cant provide it. Fair enough. n/t

n/t

[Pavulon]

274. You are playing a game. You ask for information that can not be provided. Put false options

out and expect to get something in return.

What so you propose be done in DC?

[X_Digger]

280. "What color is happy?" "How does quantum mechanics taste?"

Those are the kinds of questions you are asking.

[Pavulon]

272. Same as their plan for famine in africa..

again for the 5th time causation. You are prompting for answers you know to be false or are to dense to realize after having it explained that they are still false.

The change of DC's law restricting my right to own a firearm has no proven causation on rates of shootings. I have not seen data that shows cause. We have correlation showing ban is ineffective but not cause.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation

[GreenStormCloud]

300. You are forgetting about all the other types of violence. N/T

[PavePusher]

252. Another dodge....

With your foot-work, you should be in dance.

[Dr Fate]

257. LOL! You guys compare guns to Dildos & victims to "goblins", yet *I'm* the one dodging?

That's rich.

[Pavulon]

269. Yeah you are, show me stats on swiss watch ownership and baldness..

correlate and show causation.

1) owning a swiss watch causes less baldness
2) owning a swiss watch causes more baldness
3) baldness will stay exactly the same.

[Dr Fate]

281. Dildos, watches, wine, cars, bath tubs, bald guys. LOL! All from this very thread!

I know that tea-baggers & Sarah Pailin voters are stupid mother fuckers who might confuse guns with dildos, wine, cars, bath-tubs and wathces, but I'm a little smarter than that.

Save the tortured metaphors for the RW idiots on the gun boards- they dont work on normal people.

Just tell us whether gun deaths would increase or not. There was a guy down thread who was perfectly willing to give me an honest answer on that- maybe I'll just go talk to him some more.

[Pavulon]

291. Ignorance of statistics could be classified as stupid..

do what you want, this is pure entertainment for me. Normal people are by definition fucking morons. Now if you claim to be at the right of the bell curve you may want to ask questions that have answers.

A guess is nice, I guess 37!

[friendly_iconoclast]

191. What other large cities had a jump in gun crime when gun laws were loosened?

Go find some facts and present them to us. Hard statistical evidence, not shouting and handwaving.

[Dr Fate]

234. So you are saying that less people would get shot in DC if the NRA had there way?

I've been asking for some evidence that gun violence in DC would decrease if we took all the laws that the NRA doesnt like off the books.

No one has given me any stats to back that up. Why is that I'm the only one who is asked to provide stats?

Since I brought up my point before you did, you go first- give as hard, statistical evidence, specific to DC, that shows us that NRA approved laws will result in less people in DC getting shot.

[Pavulon]

251. Casting pearl before swine. you have negative correlation friend, so causation is not possible

Among the 15 states with the highest homicide rates, 10 have restrictive or very restrictive gun laws
Twenty percent of U.S. homicides occur in four cities with just 6% of the population—New York, Chicago, Detroit, and Washington, D.C.—and each has or, in the cases of Detroit (until 2001) and D.C. (2008) had, a requirement for a licence on private handguns or an effective outright ban (in the case of Chicago)
In 1976, Washington, D.C., enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Since then, the city's murder rate has risen 134% while the national murder rate has dropped 2%.

ruh ro that kinda kicks the chair out from under your entire position?

[Dr Fate]

288. Either more people will get shot, less people will get shot, or the #s will stay the same.

No matter what happens where. Other factors will contribute, sure, but in the end one of the 3 will occur, gun law or no gun law.

If the NRA has it's way 100% in DC, there is either going to be MORE bullets fired at people from guns, or less bullets being fired at people from guns. I'd just like to know which.

LOL! Come on, it's very simple and anyone can see it.

[Pavulon]

294. No you may be simple but the world you live in is not.

now you want opinions and not stats here's mine. DC is a fucking dump. gun law has no bearing on who is getting shot. People deciding to shoot people do that. Now you could talk about their motive, but you dont really care. We went through this yesterday. Drug law poverty.

Not the NRA's problem. The people we vote into office are responsible for that.

Can you tell the future? No, then don't ask me a do you still beat you wife leading bullshit question.

We've covered correlation and causation, we covered common sense and root cause, what the fuck do you want?

Your question is BULLSHIT and you know it. What ever happens is not correlated to gun law by any statistical model.

God damn I hope you have some artistic skill because logic and reason are clearly not you strong point.

Oh yeah, the comparisons are there because you repetitive questions were answered with dumbed down responses in the hope you could grasp the logical structure being discussed.

[SteveM]

219. The true sign when you have lost your argument:

You attack your fellow progressives. Unless all along you are not progressive; just another gun-controller/culture warrior.

[Dr Fate]

235. LOL! Since when do we include the GOP/NRA as "fellow progressives"

I've not lost any arguements that I've seen.

If it's okay for you & the NRA/GOP to say that gun control does nothing to decrease gun violence in DC, then why is it so offense if I reverse that- and say that the GOP/NRA plan is not going decrease gun violence there either?

[jazzhound]

304. Your derogatory remarks in posts #162 & #281 *were not* directed at the GOP

or NRA ------ they were directed at a member (members?) of this forum.

[PavePusher]

182. What are your proposals? n/t

[Dr Fate]

245. I'm not sure. I just know that the NRA will not help me with my goals.

I'll admit that I dont have the answer- I'm not sure what the best way is to reduce the #s of people in DC getting shot.

I do know that no one in this thread has shown me that the NRA's policies will help me with that. If anything, the strained effrots to refuse to answer my questions shows that you guys know that more people in DC would get shot if the NRA had it's way, 100%.

[one-eyed fat man]

223. Maybe you are picking on the wrong culture?

In this destructive environment, the more violent and predatory you are, the more heroic you seem. The world of thug culture, middle-class men with minor legal transgressions feel compelled to exaggerate their bad behavior, claiming to be hard-core degenerates in order to impress youngsters looking for outlaw role models.

If it is better to be an outlaw than to be a teacher or a chemist or accountant, then young black men will continue to go to prison in record numbers. If it is more acceptable to be violent and reckless than to be a responsible father and husband, then marriage will continue to decline in black communities. If you want to ruin a nation, a society or an ethnic group, persuade its members that the highest form of achievement lies in criminality.

[DissedByBush]

310. You a Bruce Schneier fan? n/t

[slackmaster]

221. We'd all be safer if violent shitheads were kept in prison instead of tagged and released

HTH

[Dappleganger]

138. What makes him so special?

Welcome to normal America, LOL!

[Dr Fate]

140. Nothing- really more of a celebrity news piece than anything else. n/t

n/t

[derby378]

193. You have just made an argument for liberalizing DC's gun laws

It's sad that you apparently think Kal Penn is so inept at defending himself that he'd be dead if he was carrying a concealed weapon. Me, I'm an optimist.

[spin]

232. It's unlikely that the gun laws in DC will ever be liberalized ...

the portion of the Democratic Party that favors strong gun control fears that actually allowing people to own and carry firearms concealed with a license would cause the crime rate to fall dramatically.

The would rather see the crime continue than to lose the argument.

[Dr Fate]

233. So if the NRA had their way, would 1) more people in DC get shot. 2) Less people or 3) the same?

You have established that Liberal DEMS might not have the answer.

I'm not sure that Far Right Lobbyists have the answer either.

Are we really saying that less people will get shot in DC if we took all non-NRA approved laws off the books?

[Pavulon]

237. 4) none of the above.

you question is fundamentally flawed because it assumes gun law has any impact on violent crime..

[Dr Fate]

244. Will more people or less people get shot, or will the #s hold. Which is it?

I think that guns are directly related to gun violence. So do normal people.

Man pulls out gun. Man shoots gun. Bullet comes out of gun. Bullet hits victim, or scares the shit out him. The result is gun violence.

See the correlation now? Normal people do.

Seems like you use the phrase "violent crime" as a trick in order to muddy the waters- but I'm talking about the numbers of human beings who will get shot. Will it increase, decrease ot remain the same?

If you & the NRA can say that "the laws in DC do nothing to reduce the # of people getting shot"- then it must also be fair to reverse that- and say that "the laws that the NRA wants also do nothing to reduce the # of people getting shot."

It takes us back to square one as far as I can see.

Unless you can prove otherwise.

You cant, can you?

[Pavulon]

247. I think that you need to attend a stats class.

correlation and causation are very important things. The trend will continue on its trajectory uninfluenced because correlation does not imply causation. At this point you done have correlation yet. And you cant have causation without some correlation.

I deal in fact and reality with real numbers and real consequences. Half assed assumptions and hunches don't work there. They are a giant rolled up newspaper useful for walloping the offender with.

I assume your education has either not reached the point where this is taught or you were not instructed in this part of scientific evaluation of data.

Evanston, Illinois, a Chicago suburb of 75,000 residents, became the largest town to ban handgun ownership in September 1982 but experienced no decline in violent crime.
In 1976, Washington, D.C., enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Since then, the city's murder rate has risen 134% while the national murder rate has dropped 2%.


See these things destroy your position and the gun control mantra as a whole.

[Dr Fate]

253. "violent crime" is not my topic. My topic is the #s of human beings in DC getting shot at.

Or getting guns pulled on them, etc. Gun realted violence- stop trying to change the sematics.

And what I want to know, is that if we made DC a city with model NRA laws, what would happen?

1) More people getting shot at?

2) Less perople getting shot at?

3) Number stays the same?


"Evanston, Illinois, a Chicago suburb of 75,000 residents, became the largest town to ban handgun ownership in September 1982 but experienced no decline in violent crime.
In 1976, Washington, D.C., enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Since then, the city's murder rate has risen 134% while the national murder rate has dropped 2%."

Since when did I disagree with such findings? I'm trying to figure out if the NRA/GOP plan would reverse these trends. Would they?

DC has the most restricive gun laws and yet we might be able to say that gun violence still increased. I have no doubt. Would it increase under an NRA plan? Would it decrease under the NRA plan? Would it stay about the same?

How do I know for sure that EVEN MORE crime and even MORE detahs in DC would have happened if they had never passed the law in '76?

The question you are avoiding is whether the NRA plan would be better for DC, and reduce amount of people getting shot at.

I've seen nothing from you on that.

[Pavulon]

254. You still miss it. Just because the stats show murder increased after a ban (correlation)

that does not prove (causation) a ban has negative impact. So you cant reverse it and say a repealed ban would help. Thats how "normal" people think. Smart people know better. So once again the correct answer is 4, none of the above.

I am, unlike you, not trying to prove causation. I am aware that is an invalid use of data. You appear to have lost that.

you entire position is a logical mess and is invalid.

[Dr Fate]

261. Could be. So show us your stats then.

I want you to show me that less people will get guns pulled on them and less people will get shot if we loosen gun laws in DC.

If you have no such stats, can you just make a guess?

[X_Digger]

268. See #266. n/t

[darn skippy]

311. my best guess

I believe that by allowing normal law abiding citizens the right to carry guns, less people will get shot in DC.

It adds a deterrent that is currently not present. If you were a criminal trying to take advantage of someone, it adds a chance that he might be armed, and a chance that he may just pull it out and blast your ass with it.

There have been lots of studies made of career criminals, and some i recall reading, or seeing on TV asked the criminals in prison for doing crime whether or not they would break into a house with an alarm system on it. most of them answered NO and they would move along until they found an easier target.

When asked if they would rather stickup a 130 pound woman that just got money out of an ATM, or a 200 pound man that just got money out of an ATM, they overwhelmingly answered they would pick the easier target - the 130 pound woman.

when asked if they would rather break into someones home that had lights on and a TV or move along to a house without lights on that looked empty they overwhelmingly answered they would rather rob the house that looked empty (picking the easier target)

and the #1 thing that most criminals feared was getting shot by someone armed when they broke into a house.

I can see a pretty common theme in all of this. It appears to me like a criminal will always look for an easy target over a hard target.
By allowing LAW ABIDING CITIZENS the right to carry firearms in DC it MAY make it enough of a deterrant where some criminals will think twice before they rob people. They certainly have nothing to fear from the law abiding citizen now because law abiding citizens are not carrying firearms because it is currently illegal, and law abiding citizens do just as there name implies - abide by the law.

Just pick a normal nice looking person that doesn't appear to be a thug and follow them from the ATM and pull out your gun (which you purchased illegally out of the back of some guys car trunk and turns out to be stolen from a burglary of someone elses home - no need for a gunshow loophole) and 98% of the time (OR MORE - that's just a guess) they wont have a gun on them - sure makes easy pickings for the common criminal.

There have been studies that show that crime increased in Australia after they banned guns
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15304
http://www.gunsandcrime.org/aussiegc.html

and in England
http://www.gunsandcrime.org/crvsgraf.html

During the assault weapons ban the Bureau of Justice released there studies that the ban did absolutely NOTHING to curb crime, and the fact that assault weapons were used in a VERY small percentage of crimes.


This does nothing to prove that by removing the ban it will decrease crime, but it sure shows to me that crime seems to go up after a ban is put into place and it seems to me that it is because it has removed the ability for the law abiding citizen to protect themselves which increases the amount of EASY targets for the criminals.

I saw a quote mentioned somewhere (maybe a bumpersticker?) that an armed society is a polite society, and i have to believe that.
Normal people (that aren't professional boxers) are not going to go up to Mike Tyson and pick a fight with him cause they know they are going to get there ass handed to them. I would have to think the same thing would apply to criminals trying to decide who to rob - better not pick that guy, he looks like he may be the type to carry a firearm concealed.

just my best guess anyway

[PavePusher]

255. It has been shown that crime rates do not increase...

when gun restrictions are removed. There is some evidence to show that it sometimes causes decreases in crime.

IIRC, the murder rate in D.C. dropped something like 20-25% in the year after the Heller decision. Some kind soul probably has those numbers available here, I can't seem to find it right now.

So you were saying...?

[Dr Fate]

258. Jesus- why did that take 2 freaking days?

That's all I've been asking for - some sort of evidence that loosening gun control laws in DC might actually result in less people getting shot or shot at.

I would think that you guys would want to make that case while this was in LBN, for all to see, before it got all the way in gun dungeon.


If you've got the stats showing that less people in DC were shot or shot at after gun laws were loosened, then let's see them. It would certainly help your case.

[PavePusher]

264. My apologies, been pretty busy at work.

I pulled a 17 1/2 hour shift yesterday, and I'm going on less than 3 hours sleep today.

Link to D.C. crime stats:
http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/view,a,1239,q,561242,mpdcNav_GID,1523,mpdcNav,%7C.asp

And from the mouth of the D.C. Chief of Police herself:
http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/local/dc-murder-rate-lowest-in-45-years-122809

I'd try to find a non-Fox source for the same, but right now I'm to freekin' tired, and 2+2=4 no matter who proclaims it.

Going by the above, I think we can say that at least for the short term, a slight loosening of D.C. firearms laws did not result in an increase of gun deaths. The decrease can probably be attributed in parts to many factors, including politics, policing strategies and increased legal gun ownership, but sorting that out defies my current mental abilities. Maybe after I get some rest this weekend.

I'd have to admit that a few more years of data will be needed to see if this is an on-going trend, or just a blip in the charts, but we're certainly off to a good start.

[Dr Fate]

270. Helpful, but I asked for gun-violence stats, not general "crime stats"

From what I've seen in this thread, a lot of sematics & selective stats are being used to muddy the waters here. I say this b/c so many poster cannot give a straight answer- they keep changing the sematics, topics, switching metaphors, etc.

Considering the above, I'm not sure if less crime will always = less gun deaths, but it might, and we have to say that less crime is a good thing.

Even with a "loosening" of gun laws, that still means that certain gun laws are still in place. Laws that that the NRA probably initally opposed. If your predictions are right, then that shows me that there might be a balance here.

In other words, if it is fair to make the general statement that "even with all the gun laws, gun violence increases"- then maybe it is also fair to say "if the NRA had it's way in every instance, gun violence would still increase." That's all I've been saying, and it looks like the jury still might be out on that one.

If your prediction is correct, then seems to me like both sides are getting part of it right and both sides are getting part of it wrong.

[Pavulon]

273. What is your solution to the "problem" please list details. I will not ask you for supporting stats

with a statistically valid sample properly stratified etc.

What do you propose. Based on whatever you choose to base your position on?

[Dr Fate]

279. Are you disagreeing with my "balance" conclusion?

Or are you saying that no, we really should just go 100% NRA on this?

I'm not sure I proposed a solution-What I just said above is that maybe a 100% gun ban is not right, but maybe a 100% NRA model is not right either.

The stats provided were based on loosening gun laws, not eliminating them- as I'll bet the NRA opposed most of the laws guns as they were passed through the years.

We dont really have a model where the NRA got it's way 100% with high crime city. We dont really have a model where the Gun Ban crowd got it's way 100% with high crime city.

Even still, everyone here sure is awfully reluctant to go out on a limb and tell me 100%:

"Yes- the NRA has got you covered, go with them and they will make sure that DC will be safer for you- they can do a better job keeping you safe from gun violence than all those laws we oppose..."

[PavePusher]

277. Well, the general homicide stats are there...

I don't know if they break them out by weapon type, I'll look later... and so could you.

Note that homicide does not always equal murder, some of those may have been valid self-defense, even with a gun.

http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/view,a,1239,q,547256,mpdcNav_GID,1556.asp

Try the DOJ website, they usually have some better break-downs by weapon type. I've got to get to bed. Later.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

259. Well, there's two way to look at this:

a) More people will get shot (gun crime) because there are more guns.
-->This may or may not be correlated to overal violent crime & murder rates

b) More criminals will get shot resulting in less overall gun violence.
--> It's documented that a majority of violent crime is committed by a limited number of repeat offenders.
--> Eliminate a few offenders and overal crime rates may fall.

Myself... I think that gun incidents and violence might see a rise in occurrance. The more people you have handling firearms, the more chance there is for someone to misuse firearms. However, I do think that the overall crime rate would fall. There have been several historical and statistical indicators showing an inverse relationship between violent crime and laws allowing RKBA. I would trade off more "gun crime" for less "violent crime".

[Dr Fate]

265. AN HONEST, STRAIGHT FORWARD ANSWER! THANK YOU LORD!!!!!

"Myself... I think that gun incidents and violence might see a rise in occurrance."

ME TOO!

"The more people you have handling firearms, the more chance there is for someone to misuse firearms."

AGREED! I might add that more people would get shot at during various altercations as well, unless we have some DC or problem city type stats showing otherwise.

"However, I do think that the overall crime rate would fall. There have been several historical and statistical indicators showing an inverse relationship between violent crime and laws allowing RKBA. I would trade off more "gun crime" for less "violent crime"."

COULD BE! Are these historical idicators connected to inner city , high crime areas, or are we talking about suburban & rural areas where there was never much or a crime/violence/gun problem to begin with?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

267. Those are, of course, my opinion.

Most of the stats I've seen are generally statewide or nationwide DOJ stats. Thge only "urban breakdowns" I ever see are for things line Chicago, Detroit, NYC... nobody really gives a shit about BFE. Nevertheless, if only collectively, there is generally a tenuous correlation for area with more liberal gun laws to have lower violent crime rates and in recent times --> areas that have liberalized gun laws have seemed to experienced a lower, if not the same, crime rate. So, from where I'm sitting it seems as though more gun rights means less crime, if only slightly.

I remember recently in Ohio when we passed CCW. Quite literally, there were MANY more firearms out in public being carried and handled. I have not noticed any increase or decrease in crime and recently I've lived in a large city, small city, and suburb. All seems well here - so I currently support the right of people to arm/defend themselves.

[Dr Fate]

284. Thanks for the somewhat straight answers & talking to me like a normal person!

I can agree with your "collectively" statement, still struggling with whether your model is the right one for high-crime, inner city type areas...

Thanks for adressing my questions instead of playing the dildo switch-a-roo games.

[Euromutt]

308. By "straight answer," you mean "the answer you wanted," right?

Because from where I'm standing it looks suspiciously like you weren't interested in listening to anyone who tried to tell you that you were asking the wrong question (based on making a number of invalid assumptions), and just go snippy at anyone and everyone whose responses didn't confirm your preconceived conclusion.

[spin]

283. There are many factors to consider ...

The violent crime rate in our country has been decreasing at the same time that the number of firearms has increase dramatically and "shall issue" concealed carry and castle doctrine and "stand your ground" laws have been enacted in many states.

But better policing and more cops on the street may be the explanation.

Little statistical evidence exists and much of what is available may be questionable.

One of the best reports that I can find that is actually fair and balance and was produced by the U.S. Department of Justice can be viewed at:

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/165476.pdf

From the report:

Defensive gun uses
NSPOF estimates. Private citizens
sometimes use their guns to scare off
trespassers and fend off assaults. Such
defensive gun uses (DGUs) are sometimes
invoked as a measure of the
public benefits of private gun ownership.
On the basis of National Crime
Victimization Survey (NCVS) data, one
would conclude that defensive uses
are rare indeed, about 108,000 per
year. But other surveys yield far higher
estimates of the number of DGUs.
Most notable has been a much publicized
estimate of 2.5 million DGUs,
based on data from a 1994 telephone
survey conducted by Florida State
University professors Gary Kleck and
Mark Gertz.13 The 2.5 million figure
has been picked up by the press and
now appears regularly in newspaper
articles, letters to the editor, editorials,
and even Congressional Research Service
briefs for public policymakers.

The difficulty in gathering statistics for defensive gun uses is that many never make it into the data base. For example, 20 years ago my daughter used a firearm to stop an intruder who was forcing a sliding glass door open in our home in Tampa. No shots were fired. She pointed a large caliber revolver at him and he ran. The police were called but never caught the individual. The incident never made the news because no shots were fired and there was no blood. Boring, except to my daughter and myself. Both of us own firearms and have concealed carry permits, but fortunately no incidents have happened where it was necessary to use a firearm again.

The intruder had the balls to try to break into a home with a burglar alarm and a 60 pound dog. My daughter told me she had a feeling that she was being watched when she took the dog out to do her business after she came home.

Did the incident cause the intruder to reconsider breaking into occupied homes? Did he tell his friends?

I personally believe that allowing honest citizens to own firearms causes the nature of crime to change. Criminals fear armed home owners far more than police. The police will go out of their way to merely arrest a criminal. A civilian may feel threatened and shoot. Better to break into an unoccupied home than take a chance that the homeowner might confront you with a .357 magnum or a 12 gauge shotgun.

Now I'm not going to say that everybody should be armed. I favor laws that prohibit the sale of firearms to people who have a violent criminal record or a record of substance abuse such as DUIs. I like the NICS background check and personally feel that a method of extending it to all private sales should be developed. I also believe that the NICS system needs improvement to more timely incorporate records and to better identify those with severe mental problems. I'm not a great fan of open carry in urban areas, but do believe that citizens who qualify for a concealed carry permit should be allowed to carry.

I have no problem with people owning semi-auto assault weapons as they are no different from other common semi-auto weapons except for cosmetic appearance. I do believe that fully automatic weapons should be strictly controlled (as they are).

In some areas I disagree with the NRA. I am not, nor do I play an NRA spokesman on TV or here in the Gungeon. However, I am an NRA member and have been for 40 years. I approve of their efforts to defend gun owners from gun registration and confiscation and their dislike of the assault weapons ban as this was merely a useless "feel good" law which attempted to ban a very useful target and hunting weapon. In fact, this law only increased the popularity and sales of assault weapons. I should note that I don't own ANY assault weapons although I do own a number of handguns, rifles and one shotgun. If I move into the country from my current residence inside a small town, I may buy a rifle that many would consider an assault weapon for target shooting, hunting and self defense.

I support the efforts of Marion Hammer (the National Rifle Association's lobbyist in Tallahassee for more than three decades.) She was responsible for many pro-gun laws in Florida including "shall issue" concealed carry, "stand your ground" and "bring your gun to work" laws. Despite the babble from the Brady Campaign and the VPC, these laws have not turned Florida into the "wild west".

I do, however, find the constant anti-Obama babble from the NRA-ILA disgusting. I merely throw their contribution gathering propaganda into my waste basket unopened. The monthly NRA magazine, "The American Rifleman" is full of interesting and informative articles on the shooting sports and the history of firearms. I enjoy reading those articles and ignore any bullshit.

What I do favor is improving current laws to eliminate the legal sales of firearms to people who are irresponsible or who attempt to profit from trafficking in straw purchases. I also favor enforcing existing laws to take firearms from criminals and criminal gangs who terrorize our society.

[Dr Fate]

286. More for me to agree with in your post than most. I AGREE- there would be MANY factors to look at!!

"But better policing and more cops on the street may be the explanation."

No doubt there, other social factors as well.

Does not stop someone from taking a guess and telling me: "Assuming that we have better policing and better social factors, then yes, the NRA plan would indeed reduce gun violence."

That is pretty much what I've been trying to get people to tell me. Folks seem really, really reluctant to take that plunge.

My larger point after that would be- "Yes, but most NRA members & certainly the conservative movement would oppose us TOOTH & NAIL on those efforts- so maybe we should look elsewhere, AWAY from the NRA & Pailin types for balance & guidance on this..."

I'm pretty unpopular here with NRA members, but I'm not sure if my general thoughts are really all that dangerous to as to PROGRESSIVE, non-NRA gun owners....

[spin]

296. There are Democrats who are NRA members ...

and the NRA does support pro-RKBA Democrats. Obviously, the NRA does support more Republicans as they in general support gun rights.

Just one example of a Democrat who got a high rating from the NRA was Bill Richardson who if you remember was a Democratic candidate for President in the last primary for the run for President.

It seems to me that the most gun-friendly candidate from either party at this point is a Democrat, Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico. He has consistently received endorsements from the NRA and he is the only candidate for president in 2008 who has publicly stated that he holds a concealed carry permit. Richardson is one Democrat who seems to “get it” on gun rights:

A large man sitting in a small office, wearing a brown suede vest and heavy, battered boots, Richardson clearly revels in his image as the quintessential Westerner. “You have to talk about guns in the context of lifestyle, recreation, a way of life,” the Governor argues, “rather than as just a measure to prevent murders and deaths. Democrats need to move into a void in the West. The Bush Administration is scaring off recreationists, hunters and fishermen because of their extreme anti-environmental policies. It’s important to build alliances with these ranchers and fishermen and broaden the dialogue. The West is becoming more fertile Democratic territory. It’s important for Democrats on the East Coast not to make the gun issue a litmus test.”

… A Western regional primary, says Richardson, “would mean the presidential candidate would have to be attuned to Western issues – and the gun issue would be important. It would force candidates to confront the gun issue more realistically, instead of just a blanket opposition. The core issues are access to healthcare, jobs and job protection, education. These are Democratic core issues. The gun issue? It should not be a litmus test. Because there are more and more Democrats who support the Second Amendment.”

“Richardson’s a very politically astute individual,” says Robert Goode, NRA regional representative for West Texas and New Mexico. “He knows you’re beating your head against a wall when you go after the firearms issue. And he backs his words with his votes.” Goode continues that, if a candidate like Richardson ran for the presidency, he believes the NRA would step back and not take a partisan stance on the election. Goode’s colleague Charles Weisleder, a 70-year-old NRA lobbyist, agrees. “Richardson,” says Weisleder, a bald man smiling broadly over coffee at an Albuquerque Shoney’s, “got a lot of gun votes because of what he said to us. A lot of people are driven by the firearms issue.”
http://www.snubnose.info/wordpress/news/bill-richardson-on-gun-control/

In the area I live, the campaign for the candidate for a state office called me and started by saying, "You know he is a strong supporter of gun rights, and we all know how important gun rights are."

My plan would be to strictly enforce current gun law and to incarcerate those who misuse firearms in a criminal manner or to traffic in straw purchases for profit. No plea bargains. No bullshit. Misusing a firearm in a criminal manner will take you off the streets for a long time. Carrying a firearm illegally will not result in some simple slap on the wrist with a wet noodle. If you are a gang member and enjoy terrorizing your fellow citizens, plan on a long time in prison.

Take the criminals who misuse firearms off the street and the demand for firearms should decrease. Eventually those of us who use firearms for target shooting and hunting will probably be the only people who spend money for them.

When I grew up in the sixties, few people owned firearms for self defense where I lived. Currently, a judge has recommended that people buy firearms for self protection in that county in Ohio.

Ashtabula County: Judge tells residents to "Arm themselves"
Updated: 4/9/2010 5:36:18 PM Posted: 4/8/2010 6:24:43 PM

JEFFERSON -- In the ongoing financial crisis in Ashtabula County, the Sheriff's Department has been cut from 112 to 49 deputies. With deputies assigned to transport prisoners, serve warrants and other duties, only one patrol car is assigned to patrol the entire county of 720 square miles.

"I did the best with what they (the county commissioners) gave me. If it wasn't enough, don't blame me, don't blame this department," said Sheriff Billy Johnson.

Johnson said he is suing the commissioners to get a determination of whether he should use his limited budget to carry out obligations defined by law or put more patrol cars on the streets.

"I just can't do it anymore," he said. "I have to have the court explain to the commissioners and to me what my statutory duties are."

The Ashtabula County Jail has confined as many as 140 prisoners. It now houses only 30 because of reductions in the staff of corrections officers.

All told, 700 accused criminals are on a waiting list to serve time in the jail.

Are there dangerous people free among the 700 who cannot be locked up?

"There probably are," Sheriff Johnson said, "but I'm telling you, any known violent criminal, we're housing them. We've got murderers in there."

Ashtabula County is the largest county in Ohio by land area.

Ashtabula County Common Pleas Judge Alfred Mackey was asked what residents should do to protect themselves and their families with the severe cutback in law enforcement.

"Arm themselves," the judge said. "Be very careful, be vigilant, get in touch with your neighbors, because we're going to have to look after each other."

Ashtabula County gun dealers and firearms instructors tell WKYC their business has really picked up since the Sheriff's Department cutbacks began some months ago.

"That's exactly why they are coming, so that they can protect themselves," says Tracy Williams, a certified firearms instructor in Jefferson. "They don't feel that they are protected. They want to be able to protect themselves."
http://www.wkyc.com/news/local/news_article.aspx?storyid=133951&catid=3

I'm glad I moved from Ashtabula County to Florida.

Still, this does point out the importance of police and the importance of firearms when police can't respond.

Palin supports RKBA because hunting is important as a food source in Alaska. Note, I'm not talking of hunting wolves from aircraft.

Hunting is also important in the current county where I live as it is among the poorest 50 counties in the United States and the poorest county in Florida. Deer and wild hog taste really good if properly prepared and cost far less than store bought beef or pork. Many people here depend on hunting for meat as they have little income.

While I support Palins views on hunting for sustenance, I disagree with almost everything else she says.

I don't consider your arguments as "PROGRESSIVE, non-NRA gun owners...." or for that matter to progressive NRA gun owners.

Consider both sides of the argument carefully and decide which side has the facts. you may well end up in the middle.

[Pavulon]

275. And who fucking cares. DC is a virulent shit hole

and some famous guy got robbed. This has dick to do with DC gun law, or tax codes for class s corps either. Has nothing to do with me or my inability to carry a weapon legally in one of the most dangerous cities in the US.

[Dr Fate]

282. I couldnt have put more accurate sentiments in the mouth of the NRA/GOP if I had tried!

"Who fucking cares"

"Has nothing to do with me"

This is exactly why progressives are reluctant to see things your way.

You guys simply dont give a crap whether people in certain cities are getting shot or not-so long as you can do some shooting or gun brandishing yourself.

[Pavulon]

289. Criminal acts have shit to do with me. Its a choice

you choose not to be a criminal (i guess) and so do I. These criminals have nothing to do with my rights, period.

[Dr Fate]

292. I hear ya- as long as you can shoot people, what the fuck do you care if I get shot?

I'm sure the same goes for my family & friends too.

Sounds about right to me.

[Pavulon]

295. Anyone can shoot people, its a choice. Some choose to be criminals

some dont. I don't know your family I wish them no ill will. But their actions have no bearing on my rights to free speech or an attorney. pretty simple.

[jazzhound]

302. "I hear ya- as long as you can shoot people...................

....................what the fuck do you care if I get shot?"

Usual BS post from a pro-controller.

1) Attributing bad attitudes to gun owners without proof such attitudes exist. (callousness)
2) Supplying no evidence that legal ownership of guns will increase the odds that he'll get shot.

[spin]

293. Not all of us ...

I personally care about all people despite race, gender or location.

As a father I was glad to see that that the training with firearms that I gave my daughter enabled her to successful defend herself against any intruder in our home. I was also glad that no shots were fired and that the intruder merely ran away. Shooting a person can lead to major psychological problems.

Had we lived in Washington DC, she would not have had access to a firearm for self defense. I might have returned home from work to find a dead daughter, my only child. If so, I wouldn't have had two wonderful grandchildren to spoil today.

I can honestly say that I feel sorry for all the people in Washington DC or Chicago who were unable to defend themselves against a violent criminal attack and were injured or murdered. I realize that many people would chose to not own firearms and would still would have been injured or killed, however there are those who are responsible enough to be able to own a weapon for self defense and would have used it in a legal manner and possibly saved themselves from severe injury or death.

Somewhere in Washington DC is a father whose daughter was raped or killed and had no chance. With the training I gave my daughter and access to a firearm his daughter might have survived. I actually have tears in my eyes as I type this. My daughter and my grandchildren are the most important items in my life. My life would be worthless without them.

I can also understand why so many people who have suffered a loss from a violent criminal with a firearm are so opposed to guns. Of course, they may feel that the best solution is to eliminate all firearms. The problem is that if you can't invent a magic wand to eliminate firearms everywhere, criminals will always be armed. If you can smuggle tons of drugs into our country, guns are no problem.

There are at least two sides to every argument.

Obviously, I favor the right to own firearms. I'm sure that many others can present good arguments for the other side.

Your choice is to read and consider. I have to admit that I am biased.

Still, I can walk into the living room where both my daughter and my two grandchildren are right now. Fortunately!

[friendly_iconoclast]

303. Your moralizing would work better if you actually *had* some moral authority, you know.

Self-importance and high volume bloviating are just as unattractive here at DU as it is coming from some right wing talking head on Fox.

[one-eyed fat man]

317. Life in the big city.

Glad you are here to tell us poor benighted hick gun owners we just can't understand the complexities of modern urban living. These urbane sophisticates spend much ink in lecturing how they are more socially adept and caring from living in such close proximity to their fellow denizens. We cannot possibly fathom their catch and release criminal justice system or how gun control they want to impose on everyone BUT criminals is needed for them to live happy productive lives.

Here is another example of the great civic minded spirit in the Kitty Genovese tradition. A man lies dying on the street, in plain sight, after helping a woman escape an assailant. Stabbed for his trouble, no one comes to his aid or calls for help. Not even the woman whose life he likely saved.

Multiple Pedestrians Ignore Dying New York Hero

Now, "Doc", you tell me who demonstrably has a tradition of not giving a fuck about their "neighbors" in trouble? Sure don't see many of those hick types you like to bad-mouth stepping over the dying man on that clip.

[gorfle]

319. How do you know this?

If only he'd had a legal gun, he'd be dead now. And/or the robber would have gotten the gun too, and one more gun that started out legal, would be on the streets of DC.

How do you know this?

Many anecdotes have been posted here where people that criminals have gotten the drop on still fought back with a firearm and won.

I could just as easily speculate that if he'd had a legal gun (nearly impossible in DC, by the way), maybe he'd still have all his possessions and the bad guy would be dead!

[Name removed]

325. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. 
[link:www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html|Click
here] to review the message board rules.