Tags:
Well, I assume that Doug wouldn't consider that a positive result. But I think my point still stands regarding that comment. It's not better if the local criminal populace wants to mug tourists instead of locals.
My overall feeling is that it is not appropriate to carry a gun in most situations. I realize that many Americans already own guns, and I find that unfortunate. I wish things were different.
But I am not going to own a gun, or support civilian gun ownership, just because some criminals own guns.
PS, spare me the 2nd Amendment speech. It is vaguely worded, the Constitution has been wrong before, I am entitled to my opinion, etc.
Tank-Ridin' Ryan said:Heather,
Doug never said it was a win for anyone. It's simply that not knowing if someone is armed or not is a deterrent to would-be muggers. I doubt Doug was implying that tourists getting mugged instead of locals is a plus. heather stratton said:Can you explain that a little further, or provide a source reading material? I don't understand why muggers moving to target tourists is a win for anyone. Certainly not for Miami, if it gets a reputation like that. Tourism is a big part of their economy.
notoriousDUG said:Actually more guns do make for a safer society. When Miami passed concealed carry muggings and other violent crime went down and the police discovered that muggers where staking out the international terminal at the airport because foreign tourists where sure to be unarmed and carrying something worth taking.
I hate to sound like I'm just blurting out talking points but as they say, 'guns don't kill people, people kill people.' they are speaking the truth. mattbikes1 said:
I just can't understand how adding more guns to a population equals a safer one. More free? Maybe. But safer? I don't think so.
I've been reluctant to weigh in on this, but obviously not completely unwilling, so here goes. As others have pointed out, the City of Chicago handgun ban was a bad ordinance, and failed to accomplish its legislative objective. It failed to reduce the number of handguns among the criminal population in Chicago and criminalized the behavior of otherwise law-abiding citizens who wished to exercise a constitutionally granted right. I do think law-abiding citizens who wish to own guns should be able to do so.
As far as statistics (lies, damn lies and statistics), studies which focus on gun violence show that there are countries with higher rates of gun ownership than the U.S. with lower incidence of murder and suicide (Switzerland & Finland) and vice versa. There have been studies conducted which indicate U.S. cities which have adopted concealed or open carry laws have resulted in lower incidence of violent crime, some of which have been subsequently discredited. There are also countries with very limited legal access to guns which have substantially higher murder and suicide rates (Columbia, Estonia, Russia, Brazil). Hell, the Bahamas have a higher murder rate (though not substantially) than the U.S.
I think if you could wave a magic wand in the United States and make all the guns disappear, you'd witness a spike in murder rates by knife and Louisville Slugger. Most academic studies that look at means of reducing murder rates look at underlying causes for the violent behavior as opposed to focussing on the modality of the violence. Somewhat chilling is the fact that U.S. murder rates peaked during the Great Depression (not this one, the other one). It should also be noted that the War on Drugs has been very good (and by "good," I mean bad) for gun violence.
Statistics also suggest that keeping a firearm in your home exposes you to a much greater risk of death or injury and that your chances of protecting yourself from a home invader with a gun are actually pretty low. But you never know.
That having been said, shooting guns is really fun (I've been shooting for 15+ years), and I don't think the only people who have guns should be the bad guys.
http://www.haciendapub.com/stolinsky.html
So you are saying that I, as a responsible citizen with out a criminal record or history of violent crime and target shooting enthusiast should not be able to own a gun?
Why?
I know how to safely store, transport and use a firearm and I would never carry one around in public but yet I am forbidden in this city of owning one, you think this is acceptable?
If you are going to argue that I could kill somebody with one in a fit of rage you better be prepared to ban knives, cars, frying pans, baseball bats, u-locks and anything else I can swing hard.
Being that we all love to ride bikes, I thought I would throw in this little caveat...
Cars are the number 1 killer of Americans! Cars kill more people per capita than all violent, cancer or natural deaths combine! Yet we are not passing laws to stop people from buying cars. The city of Chicago does not have a car ban. There is no lobby group that says we should ban cars for the good of our children...
That's the problem with discussions like this. People comment and make unsubstantiated claims.
Deaths per year:
Traffic accidents: 45,000
Heart Disease: 630,000
Cancer: 559,000
(the above numbers are rounded)
Bonus statistic
Accidental Discharge of Firearms: 642
Please check your facts first before commenting
Chuck a Muck said:Being that we all love to ride bikes, I thought I would throw in this little caveat...
Cars are the number 1 killer of Americans! Cars kill more people per capita than all violent, cancer or natural deaths combine! Yet we are not passing laws to stop people from buying cars. The city of Chicago does not have a car ban. There is no lobby group that says we should ban cars for the good of our children...
Wow the horror 642 people where killed, What is that 100th of 1% of the population... Duppie said:That's the problem with discussions like this. People comment and make unsubstantiated claims.
Deaths per year:
Traffic accidents: 45,000 Heart Disease: 630,000 Cancer: 559,000
(the above numbers are rounded)
Bonus statistic
Accidental Discharge of Firearms: 642
Please check your facts first before commenting
Chuck a Muck said:Being that we all love to ride bikes, I thought I would throw in this little caveat...
Cars are the number 1 killer of Americans! Cars kill more people per capita than all violent, cancer or natural deaths combine! Yet we are not passing laws to stop people from buying cars. The city of Chicago does not have a car ban. There is no lobby group that says we should ban cars for the good of our children...
Actually, I don't. I have no doubt that you're a responsible person. But I just don't think it's appropriate for regular folks to own guns. I don't really give a shit about the second amendment-- which, if I were a Constitutional scholar (and I'm not), I would interpret as referring to state militias and not to random folks. I think it's unacceptable for civilians to own guns.
That does NOT mean that I think that people who own guns are unethical or psychotic or any other stereotype that might be ascribed. It's just what I believe.
notoriousDUG said:So you are saying that I, as a responsible citizen with out a criminal record or history of violent crime and target shooting enthusiast should not be able to own a gun?
Why? I know how to safely store, transport and use a firearm and I would never carry one around in public but yet I am forbidden in this city of owning one, you think this is acceptable?
If you are going to argue that I could kill somebody with one in a fit of rage you better be prepared to ban knives, cars, frying pans, baseball bats, u-locks and anything else I can swing hard.
Not without spending more time then this is worth but if you want to take the time to look stuff up you will see that the lifting of gun bans and passing of concealed carry results in a DROP in violent crime.
The muggers changing targets is not a positive but it does illustrate the point that when a criminal is faced with the idea that any random person may be able to respond with a gun they think twice about committing a crime.
I think I just need to stop reading the forum.
H3N3 said:Someone needs a break from Chainlink.
Here's what I've learned:
When you delete your profile, all of the threads you create and all of your posts go away.
When you come back, your groups and your friends remain attached to your e-mail address so if you use the same one they will all reconnect to you regardless of your new handle.
I can't remember but I think your events (the ones you've created) stay but become orphaned . . . I don't recall whether they become reattached to your when you return.
Tank-Ridin' Ryan said:What the fuck? What is it with people completely ignoring what's said in responses to their posts lately?
How about you respond to what I actually wrote instead of restating your feelings about the issue? I never attacked your stance on gun ownership. (Before you go assuming my stance on gun rights, keep in mind that you, or anyone else, hasn't a clue on my stance.) I was just clarifying that at no point was it stated that Miami muggers moving on to new prey was positive. It was stated as a FACT, not a 'that's good' or 'that's bad' opinion.
Your feelings are irrelevant to that shift in choice of victim the same way me stating that the dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago doesn't explicitly elicit anyone's opinion. It's merely a fact.
And no, your post doesn't still stand because "I don't understand why muggers moving to target tourists is a win for anyone." had no place of being stated because it was never said that it was a win for anyone.
Funny that I'm getting pissed about reading comprehension in a thread such as this.
heather stratton said:Well, I assume that Doug wouldn't consider that a positive result. But I think my point still stands regarding that comment. It's not better if the local criminal populace wants to mug tourists instead of locals.
My overall feeling is that it is not appropriate to carry a gun in most situations. I realize that many Americans already own guns, and I find that unfortunate. I wish things were different. But I am not going to own a gun, or support civilian gun ownership, just because some criminals own guns. PS, spare me the 2nd Amendment speech. It is vaguely worded, the Constitution has been wrong before, I am entitled to my opinion, etc. Tank-Ridin' Ryan said:Heather,
Doug never said it was a win for anyone. It's simply that not knowing if someone is armed or not is a deterrent to would-be muggers. I doubt Doug was implying that tourists getting mugged instead of locals is a plus. heather stratton said:Can you explain that a little further, or provide a source reading material? I don't understand why muggers moving to target tourists is a win for anyone. Certainly not for Miami, if it gets a reputation like that. Tourism is a big part of their economy.
notoriousDUG said:Actually more guns do make for a safer society. When Miami passed concealed carry muggings and other violent crime went down and the police discovered that muggers where staking out the international terminal at the airport because foreign tourists where sure to be unarmed and carrying something worth taking.
I hate to sound like I'm just blurting out talking points but as they say, 'guns don't kill people, people kill people.' they are speaking the truth. mattbikes1 said:
I just can't understand how adding more guns to a population equals a safer one. More free? Maybe. But safer? I don't think so.
No disrespect Dug, but you make a claim and when someone asks you for a reference you pretend you are to busy. That's a shame. Discussions about divisive subjects like this would be greatly helped if they were based on facts, not opinions.
notoriousDUG said:Not without spending more time then this is worth but if you want to take the time to look stuff up you will see that the lifting of gun bans and passing of concealed carry results in a DROP in violent crime.
The muggers changing targets is not a positive but it does illustrate the point that when a criminal is faced with the idea that any random person may be able to respond with a gun they think twice about committing a crime.
Yes, for personal reasons I don't particularly care for the second amendment. I think it is UNETHICAL to own guns... not illegal. I know it's legal, and likely will be for a long time. I wish they were outlawed, true. But I know they're not. I maintain my principled stance against guns.
You have questions about women's suffrage or prohibition? Go ahead. We all benefit from wrestling with these issues. How do we interpret a document that was written over 200 years ago but that continues to shape our lives? I think these are profound and important thoughts, and I'm glad we're addressing them here.
203 members
118 members
262 members
269 members
63 members