OT: USA Today Poll on Gun ownership

=A0It

all

hed

Fact: A complacent, retarded twit like you has this problem. You clearly do not understand what the word "advantage" means.

A woman drew a .38 and shot two of three home invasion robbers yesterday. One died. You think she would have fared better with no gun in her purse? Clearly you have not done your homework.

More stupidity, Not even legal in some states.

Pulling a gun and shoot someone

You're an idiot. Seen any of the recent Mexican drug war videos?

You're a total retard. They get them easier than we do.

Most people simply aren't

You would not be worth keeping your bloodline in the gene pool, in my view.

You are the one living in the movies, dumbfuck.

Bullshit. One will never pull another robbery and the other will think twice.

Carpets are cheap. Life isn't. Well, unless it's someone's who has forfeited his.

Not a fact, a prejudice (of yours). Not all perps have guns. They'd rather not spend the very significant extra time in prison for "aggravated" crimes. They'd rather prey on the weak, except that the weak sometimes have an equalizer.

Your assumptions are staggering. Any conclusions are thus flawed beyond useless.

An incredibly stupid statement.

No, the other guy dies by the gun. Your sword is useless.

Have you ever used a knife in your life? Do you think knives should be forbidden? Do you believe that government or anyone else has the right to tell you that you cannot defend yourself or you should not?

Do you believe that people have the right to live in freedom?

In case that you did not notice the question was not about Iraq and Afghanistan and had nothing to do with it. Why would you bring it up?

Semper Fi!

Just because you say it is a fact doesn't mean it is.

1. Make sure that the attackers know that there is a HIGH probability the person they are attacking will be armed and the number of attacks drop significantly. Review the many studies done on the Chicago gun law implementation and the effects it had on violent crime.

It is NEVER ever 'a lot of trouble' to get a gun to commit a crime.

You are on cloud nine, buddy. Dreaming of utopia. Clearly an obama type of dude.

Turn it around slick: the attacker lives by the sword (gun) and dies by the sword (gun). Because the person being attacked is able to protect himself.

Only criminals want gun ownership limited. ONLY! Got that--the criminals see that limiting gun ownership limits their risk, and improves the profitability of their criminal lives.

Outside the cities (Manchester and Nashua) virtually everyone has a gun. Funny how violent crimes are less common there. A few towns that think they are progressive and want to limit guns seem to be seing a definate rise in violent crimes too...

I remember well the rise in glue sniffing in the 60s... It was amazing that kids would do that, but kids are well known for their lack of common sense (that seems to develop, if the kid survives, about their mid-20s...)

Let's not limit this to gasoline, anything that will cut off the oxygen supply to the brain (which is what most huffed substances do) works. Including gas from whipped cream.

Current prohibition against pot is bone headed, doesn't work (about as successful as prohibition against alcohol was when prohibition was in effect) and creates a nation of criminals.

Damn, I've forgotten what side we're arguing on...

I'm not for the "Everyone can run around with whatever guns they want", but where are you from? (Seriously, where do you live?).

Here in the UK private pistol ownership is _severely_ restricted (apart from Northen Ireland ironically enough), basically no-one can carry a legal pistol about.

Gun crime has shot through the roof in the last 15/20 years. It's not any bother to get hold of a gun for most criminals because they're either already carrying one or can easily get one.

Nial.

Most of them do indeed. Partly because they feel provincial for not being (or having made it in) the US, partly because not having a gun is a good excuse for sheepishly waiting and not having to engage.

It takes much less than average brightness to grasp the simple fact that by banning guns you leave only the criminals and nuts armed, so I guess all those in the anti-gun crowds are just cowards enough to not see their own interest.

Dimiter

Vermont has one of the lowest crime rates in the country. For the farthest left state, they have loads of guns, too. It's a no permit state (no permit available and none required - visitors need a permit from their home state IIRC).

rom

stol

And that is the problem. The criminals get to go around and intimidate the good citizens. Good citizens should have the choice to not feel intimidated by thugs. In America, many many people cannot stand the idea of having to cower to thugs, hence we want guns even if it supposedly makes society less civil. Which it does not. In my perfect world, every non-felon would carry a pistol on their hip. The idiots would tend to kill each other off and in a short time people would treat each other with much more civility. It is the ultimate "All citizens are equal" concept.

As of last week you can carry concealed WITHOUT PERMIT OR LICENSE in Arizona.

Come and get us you leftist weenies... we're going to have so much fun ;-) ...Jim Thompson

No - the Constitution doesn't "give" anyone any rights. Our Creator endowed us with Unalienable Rights - the Constitution merely attempts to protect those rights from tyrants.

But I'm gonna go vote "Yes" because I do believe in the right to keep and bear arms.

Thanks, Rich

I couldn't vote because it's got that flash crap, which most of my browsers (Firefox, Mozilla, Konqueror, SeaMonkey) are immune to.

But put in a vote for "Yes, retain the Constitution, and defend it against domestic enemies!" for me.

Thanks, Rich

Do you let your kids run around and poop in the streets?

OF COURSE NOT!

The difference is "TRAINING."

You toilet-train your children. You teach them that the Skil-Saw is NOT A TOY, and you train them that your weapon is also NOT A TOY!.

Oddly, I agree with you about the Darwin effect - the abysmally stupid _should_ be allowed to cull themselves, but the liberals want to subsidize negligence...

Thanks, Rich

Cricket.

Cheers! Rich

Are the causes of low gun crime not also that it's relatively rural (no big cities), relatively wealthy and there is a lack of poverty/ghettoes?

(This is from a quick google so could be wrong).

Nial

..taking quite a few peacful law abiding people with them.

I can't stand the thought of being scared to knock someone's door at night if your car broke down in case they'd shoot you without questions.

That's just madness.

Nial.

Wealthy? You've *OBVIOUSLY* never been to Vermont. I suppose West Virginia is wealthy, in your little mind, too.

I wouldn't expect anything else.