Sherrif Begins Taking Away Concealed Weapons Permits

do you not listen?
allowing people to carry guns raises gun crime. they are proven statistics. for example 66% of the 1600 murders in the US in 2004 were committed with guns. this equates to 4 firearm homicides per 100,000 people as opposed to 0.28 per 100,000 in Australia. also, having a gun in the house does not stop you being killed as it may provoke them. keeping a gun in your house makes it 2.7 times more likely that a homicide will be committed in your home.

It seems you have done your research kiwi, i commend your spirit and wholeheartedly agree on this matter.

reply to post by slykiwi


If that were true, we would have more than our approximately 300 gun related deaths (including suicides) per year here in Switzerland, as approximately everybody has access to army issue assault rifles and handguns.

But it seems strangely coincidental that gun related crime (including assault, robbery etc.) started to rise after the first severe gun law "upgrade" came into effect in 1999 which effectively prohibited carrying for everybody except a few "chosen ones".

The right to live should include the right to EFFECTIVE self defense (as opposed to "appropriate" self defense)!

Originally posted by slykiwi
do you not listen?
allowing people to carry guns raises gun crime. they are proven statistics. for example 66% of the 1600 murders in the US in 2004 were committed with guns. this equates to 4 firearm homicides per 100,000 people as opposed to 0.28 per 100,000 in Australia. also, having a gun in the house does not stop you being killed as it may provoke them. keeping a gun in your house makes it 2.7 times more likely that a homicide will be committed in your home.

Studying statistics doesn't mean running to the nearest anti gun website to post misleading figures which are not sourced. Why didn't you post a source for your statistics?

First of all, comparing crime statistics across national and cultural boundaries is very misleading and is used to "bend" statistics.

"example 66% of the 1600 murders in the US in 2004 were committed with guns. this equates to 4 firearm homicides per 100,000 people as opposed to 0.28 per 100,000 in Australia"

Australia never had a constitutional right to gun ownership. Guns were limited to certain special groups by law prior to the gun ban. The gun ban was enacted as an emotional response to a mass shooting event perpetrated by a man using an illegal weapon. Did it address or solve the real issues?

At the time of these key crimes, Australia was suffering high unemployment and all time high rates of drug and alcohol addictions. The simple fact is that gun ownership and possession, both legal and illegal do not compare between Australia and the US for the simple fact that Australia has never had a comparable number of guns.
The statistic you quote has not been adjusted to reflect a neutral sampling pool.

The statistic is "bent" because it does not adjust for the number of guns owned vs the total population. The US has 14.3 times the population of Australia, for example.
"allowing people to carry guns raises gun crime"

That's like saying allowing people to wear red boots raises the number of people wearing red boots. The real test is, if you take away the guns does the amount of crime go down?

Australia since the gun ban:
1. The incidents of "gun death" rose for three years following the ban before finally lowering. The overall murder rate has remained constant.
2. The most common weapon used in crimes, including murders are knives.
3. Assaults have risen 45%

Overall, the number of crimes has risen. The gun ban has had absolutely no effect on crime and this is coming from the Australian government, not some pro gun website or anti gun site.

Australian Government Crime Reports

I've been unable to find a valid source for your last statistic, that of a person being 2.7 times more likely to be murdered by a gun in their home. The statistic usually "bent" is that of "gun deaths" period. This includes accidents and suicides.

Speaking of comparing different countries to prop up anti gun stances:

Lower murder rates in foreign countries prove that gun control works.

False. This is one of the favorite arguments of gun control proponents, and yet the facts show that there is simply no correlation between gun control laws and murder or suicide rates across a wide spectrum of nations and cultures. In Israel and Switzerland, for example, a license to possess guns is available on demand to every law-abiding adult, and guns are easily obtainable in both nations. Both countries also allow widespread carrying of concealed firearms, and yet, admits Dr. Arthur Kellerman, one of the foremost medical advocates of gun control, Switzerland and Israel "have rates of homicide that are low despite rates of home firearm ownership that are at least as high as those in the United States." A comparison of crime rates within Europe reveals no correlation between access to guns and crime.

The basic premise of the gun control movement, that easy access to guns causes higher crime, is contradicted by the facts, by history and by reason.

Why don't you start by telling me honestly why you want guns banned. We can do this statistic thing back and forth all day, you by posting bent figures and me continuing to give you the official, real ones. I doubt it will change your mind or convince you that the anti gun crowd is just wrong.

What's your real reason for hating guns?

[edit on 14-10-2008 by nfotech]

a rate of gun homicides per 100,000 people is not related to population. also, Switzerland has many guns but only given to military personnel. only 13% of households have guns, and they are strictly for military use and are kept under lock and key.
link
www.ojp.usdoj.gov...

[edit on 14-10-2008 by slykiwi]

please please, lets stop the fighting. I'm sure each of your computer screens is peppered with bullets. This is simply becoming a flame-fest rather than the true nonsense conspiracy spouting faeces ridden latrine pit that it should be.

Originally posted by slykiwi
a rate of gun homicides per 100,000 people is not related to population. also, Switzerland has many guns but only given to military personnel. only 13% of households have guns, and they are strictly for military use and are kept under lock and key.
link
www.ojp.usdoj.gov...

[edit on 14-10-2008 by slykiwi]

It's related to population and the number of guns per capita. It's math but it's not rocket science.

Where are you getting your information on Switzerland? Are you purposely telling half truths? A high number of the population in Switzerland are part of the militia so your statement about guns only being given to the military there could be seen as "partially" true. It's not true that only the military is allowed to have guns, however. Gun control advocates really hate Switzerland as they have one of the highest percentages of gun ownership with one of the lowest gun violence percentages.

Switzerland and Guns

The lesson there is that guns are not the problem nor is removing them the solution. This makes a wonderful sample for the issues America faces as it offers a prime example of how the politicians and controllers spin the agendas. They keep people fighting over the side dish so they ignore the main course.

If we were to try and learn from the Swiss we would:
1. Value education and healthcare for our citizens very, very highly.
2. Require all citizens to serve for a period of time in a national program.
3. Create a mix of capitalism and socialized services.

I'm all for capitalism and personal freedom but when corruption infects a nation to the degree it has in America, we need to solve the real issues and do it right.

Our crime problem is not about the weapons used to commit the crimes. It's about poverty, education, family, social and cultural values. Our get ahead and greed is good, shiny things not shiny minds culture is a disease.

Our criminal justice system is a failure kept defective on purpose for profit. Sane people do not victimize others. Punishment does not treat this disease, it only compounds it.

Take away the guns and then take away the knives, bats, sticks and stones. The crime rate will continue to climb because the root causes are not being addressed.

reply to post by slykiwi


We keep the rifle at home between service trems and may keep it after service is finished. And let me tell you, it's a whole lot more than 13% of households that store a rifle. Counting older service rifles, the figure is probably closer to 30% or even more. About the only households that don't store a rifle somewhere are single moms with little children and immigrants that never where in the army.

To give you a perspective: after basic training we have annually reoccurring terms of service, usually for 3 weeks (3 and a half week for NCOs like me or even more for officers). Between those annual terms, we keep the rifle at home.
Yes, thats right.
A fully functional, fully automatic assault rifle is kept at home and may be used for a day at the range at will (though firing fully automatic is prohibited if you're not currently in an active term of service).

Unfortunately, our own brand of gun grabbers is steadily working towards disarming the people, so if anybody is considering moving to Switzerland due to our gun laws, do it quickly or it will be too late to out-vote them.

Originally posted by slykiwi
do you not listen?
allowing people to carry guns raises gun crime. they are proven statistics. for example 66% of the 1600 murders in the US in 2004 were committed with guns. this equates to 4 firearm homicides per 100,000 people as opposed to 0.28 per 100,000 in Australia. also, having a gun in the house does not stop you being killed as it may provoke them. keeping a gun in your house makes it 2.7 times more likely that a homicide will be committed in your home.

First in 2004 there were 16,148 murders in the U.S.A. So your "facts" are wrong from the start and have a read at this.

www.gunowners.org...

Fact: A study claiming "guns more likely to kill you than help you" is a total fraud. Not surprisingly, the figure claiming one is three times more likely to be killed by one's own gun is a total lie. The author of this study, Dr. Arthur Kellerman, refused to release the data behind his conclusions for years. Subsequently available evidence shows why Kellerman stonewalled for so long:

* Researcher Don Kates reveals that all available data now indicates that the "home gun homicide victims [in Kellerman's study] were killed using guns not kept in the victim's home." In other words, the victims were NOT murdered with their own guns! They were killed "by intruders who brought their own guns to the victim's household."

* In retrospect, Kates found, it was not the ownership of firearms that put these victims at high risk. Rather, it was the victim's "high-risk life-styles [such as criminal associations] that caused them to own guns at higher rates than the members of the supposedly comparable control group."

Originally posted by Djdoubt03
This says Concealed permits. Not all gun permits. Why do you have to hide the gun? Here in VA you only have to have a concealed weapons permit if you are hiding the gun under clothing or in your car. It's perfectly legal to walk around if your gun is visible.

NH is an open carry state too. The "concealed carry" nonsense was started by the gun-grabbers. It's no coincidence that in the the bluest of blue and most gun-unfriendly states they only allow "concealed carry." At some point some soccer mom saw an open gun and because of her ignorance she became frightened by the gun as she would be by scary black people. Pure ignorance and prejudice. The gun-grabby legislators figured they would push concealed carry and the pro-gun people would compromise and say "okay, that makes sense." Now guns in public are out of sight out of mind. Good thing, right? Absolutely not. Now that they are hidden gun and gun owners are perceived as the "unusual." The "abnormal." And are consequently looked upon with even more prejudice and ignorance making the job of the gun-grabbers ever easier with each passing generation that is forced to hide the "shame" of owning and enjoying firearms.

Concealed carry is bad for the pro-gun set and ant the anti-gun set knows it. If your state is going from no carry to concealed carry only I guess that's a slight victory but if your state is going from open carry to concealed carry you just lost a big time battle in the war for gun rights. Not only does it help to demonize guns and their owners but it opens the door for licensing and permitting and all that other unconstitutional crap. Jefferson rolled in his grave the day gun-owners willingly accepted a system that would assign them permits to exercise their right.

It's not our job to make everyone else "comfortable" with us exercising our rights. Freedom by definition is going to be "uncomfortable" now and then and it's high time these gun-grabbing totalitarians get over their discomfort and come to the range with us. I haven't met a woman, man or child yet who didn't enjoy a classic cowboy action shoot. Come rock the lever and send a .30-30 down range instead of sipping your latte and complaining about "too much freedom" is what I have to say to them.

Originally posted by slykiwi
do you not listen?
allowing people to carry guns raises gun crime. they are proven statistics.

The ignorance has crossed the line from amusing to destructive.

Kennesaw vs. Morton Grove

One town adopted strict gun laws the other mandated gun-ownership just over a quarter century ago.

Drop the fear and pick up some truth.

reply to post by slykiwi


I see you get your "facts" straight from the Brady Campaign huh?

Could you then explain the lower crime rates in areas where there are few gun restrictions, and then go on to explain how states like Florida watched their crime rates plummet when Concealed Carry permits began being issued?

Originally posted by xmotex
Personally, I actually prefer open carry to concealed carry.

This brings up an interesting question. Here in Bama, I can carry a firearm openly with no problem (other than the cops having heart attacks and most of the people around me moving out of my way ). I know, I've walked through downtown Birmingham carrying an open arsenal once, looking for a pawn shop. That's the only time I ever pawned a gun, btw, and I made sure to get them all back; it was a very unusual circumstance that forced me into this act.

Around my hip was a gun belt with my S&W model 66 .357 Magnum, my favorite gun (stainless steel with custom grips) in a front-break holster on my right; the left side contained a Thompson Center Contender 30-30 single-shot pistol with a 16" barrel and scope, all in it's own custom holster (which hangs down almost to my knee). I had a .444 lever-action Marlin across one shoulder and a Mini-14 across the other one, complete with the old 30-round clip sticking out. My side-by-side double-barrel 12-gauge 20" rabbit-ear shotgun (Russian!) was in one hand, and my 20-gauge double-barrel Savage was in the other. I also had my old Charter Arms 5-shot .38 snub revolver safely in an ankle holster. It was the only gun loaded, although I believe I left the speed loaders on the gun belt.

I normally carry concealed, simply because I don't intend to scare anyone. As someone earlier pointed out, people tend to get paranoid when they see firearms. But I don't see how I could have concealed that arsenal if I had had to.

No one stopped me, no one bothered me. I did notice a few cops were watching me closely, but that's all they did. I was legal, if armed to the teeth. But can that be done in California? Is it ever permissible to openly carry there? If not, then CCW is the only way a person can legally exercise their right to bear arms.

How about it, you Californians? What's the law on open carry there?

reply to post by nfotech

OK, that's it. You just earned a friend spot. You got the star, but that just seems... insufficient.

TheRedneck

Making things such as guns completely illegal will not stop CRIMINALS from getting them. Marijuana is illegal in the USA but is was the biggest cash crop of 2007.

hiphappy.wordpress.com...

People will still get them, they will not be registered, and they will still commit the crimes. Every law abiding citizen should have the right to protect themselves, their family and home, and hunt for food if they choose to. The best we can do is educate and regulate. (sorry for the cheesy rhyme )

[edit on 14-10-2008 by b4christ15]

Originally posted by TheRedneck

Originally posted by xmotex
Personally, I actually prefer open carry to concealed carry.

This brings up an interesting question. Here in Bama, I can carry a firearm openly with no problem (other than the cops having heart attacks and most of the people around me moving out of my way

). I know, I've walked through downtown Birmingham carrying an open arsenal once, looking for a pawn shop. That's the only time I ever pawned a gun, btw, and I made sure to get them all back; it was a very unusual circumstance that forced me into this act.

Around my hip was a gun belt with my S&W model 66 .357 Magnum, my favorite gun (stainless steel with custom grips) in a front-break holster on my right; the left side contained a Thompson Center Contender 30-30 single-shot pistol with a 16" barrel and scope, all in it's own custom holster (which hangs down almost to my knee). I had a .444 lever-action Marlin across one shoulder and a Mini-14 across the other one, complete with the old 30-round clip sticking out. My side-by-side double-barrel 12-gauge 20" rabbit-ear shotgun (Russian!) was in one hand, and my 20-gauge double-barrel Savage was in the other. I also had my old Charter Arms 5-shot .38 snub revolver safely in an ankle holster. It was the only gun loaded, although I believe I left the speed loaders on the gun belt.

I normally carry concealed, simply because I don't intend to scare anyone. As someone earlier pointed out, people tend to get paranoid when they see firearms. But I don't see how I could have concealed that arsenal if I had had to.

No one stopped me, no one bothered me. I did notice a few cops were watching me closely, but that's all they did. I was legal, if armed to the teeth. But can that be done in California? Is it ever permissible to openly carry there? If not, then CCW is the only way a person can legally exercise their right to bear arms.

How about it, you Californians? What's the law on open carry there?

reply to post by nfotech

OK, that's it. You just earned a friend spot. You got the star, but that just seems... insufficient.

TheRedneck

Redneck, bet that was a sight to see. I've always wanted to open carry, but as of now my guns are gone(needed cash in a bad way, bills piled up.)

However, when I move to the great state of Texas next year, do plan on open carrying, since they allow it. I came form north carolina, where you have to fill out a form at the sherrifs office, wait five days, and then you can buy a handgun. You can only buy five a year in that state which makes no sense at all, if i'm going to stockpile guns for illegal purposes i'm not gonna waste time filing out forms.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
I guess knife-throwing doesn't exist over there. Must be nice. I know a few guys who are more deadly throwing a knife than firing a gun at 100 feet.

Great stuff, you are evidently part of the "warrior caste". Pat yourself on the back and convince yourself of fallacies.

Do you honestly, actually think the average knife used to stab someone is a throwing knife? Do you think they can be more successfully thrown than an attacker with a gun shooting someone?

Scratch that, they aren't questions, I already know your answers.

Originally posted by TheRedneckClose range, please pull a gun on me. I won't have a scratch when all is done. Pull a knife close range, and I can't guarantee that. Knives are infinitely more dangerous than guns at close range.

...and you're trying to prove what here? I mean, don't get me wrong, you're definitely a "hard man" (and I saw your later post, to paraphrase: "when I have my gun, people move out of my way in the street") and so no-one here thinks you are simply trying to compensate for either being unusually short or having, by a medical definition, a "micropenis", but do you think the average person, be it man, woman or child, is as Chuck-Norris as you are?

A handgun has a barrel of less than a foot. This is is of comparable size to a knife. It does not require a great deal of room to wield a handgun. People don't have your "elite" skillz.

As a normal bloke, I'm saying I'd rather be given the chance to run.

Originally posted by TheRedneckNah, George is dead, and anyway, we whipped him before he managed to die off.

Congratulations, you are officially the only nation in history to require military assistance from the French.

Originally posted by TheRedneckWe have firearms because it is our right to have them.

Of course. You've already proved that, with your message-board hard-man posturing, you are part of a warrior elite, and therefore it's your job.

But remember! Not everyone is a born-and-bred warrior, like yourself! We aren't all Herculean figures, bestriding the land like a colossus and causing fear in lesser mortals with our exposed firearm in everyday life! Remember us, please, because one day we might need your mighty powers to save us from the Red Menace!

Originally posted by TheRedneckWe do not use a monarchy; we allow the government to have power that is vested in the people, not in some government or king or parliament, under specified restrictions. These restrictions are the US Constitution; it is no more than a contract between the collective people of the USA and the government of the USA.

And therefore you all fear the people you have elected to govern your enlightened selves?

Do you know what the Magna Carta is? I suggest you get on Wikipedia, fast!

Originally posted by TheRedneckShould the contract be broken, legally our government would no longer have the right to govern. All actions against it by the citizenry would be allowed, because it would be an illegal entity.

My goodness, that would be awful. Just awful. Shouldn't you be issuing guns to everyone who doesn't have them? Because, this could happen AT ANY TIME. Think about it. You might wake up tomorrow with American tanks rolling down your street and gibbering on at you in some weird, northern tongue, perhaps as far north as New York, and you'll be thinking "frack! Why didn't we arm everyone yesterday to protect us from the fascist government we put into power?"

Originally posted by TheRedneckThe sad truth is that we have become a weak society of mindless automatons

Agreed. Most of them probably don't have your evidently-considerable prowess in all things war, and undoubtedly if you went to war with your own elected government, those mindless automatons would probably try and actually stop you.

Of course, we know what a folly that would be for them.

Originally posted by TheRedneckwho depend on this government and who are too afraid to go against it.

Well, they did elect them...didn't they? Isn't that why you don't have kings or parliaments? Just an elite, almost absolute-power-wielding family at the top?

Originally posted by TheRedneckI find it precious, though, that you are the first one to mention fear of invasion in this thread. Jumping the gun (pun intended) aren't we?

TheRedneck

I'm touched that you find something about my post precious. It's like praise from Caesar.

Unfortunately, the fear of invasion is the argument I hear all too often when attempting to debate population disarmament in the US. Rather than considering it to be "jumping the gun", perhaps we can consider it a "preemptive strike"? Is...is that military enough for you?

I hear you though. It's not like any other nation is going to invade the US, because of it's mighty feudal warrior caste. I guess the only things you really have to worry about are each other, right?

You might as well issue out the guns so there's no need to be paranoid any more.

Now you can know that everyone is packing heat, so if those pesky emancipation pansies in the "government" decide to commit genocide against the honest-to-God landed Southern Knights, and try and take away their fairly-won Negroes, your average Texan super-hero can just start mowing your own military down.

The additional bonus is that whenever someone tries to rob a store with their issued firearm, everyone else can draw theirs! There's no way that can end badly! Shootings will plummet because everyone will be too scared to do anything stupid!

reply to post by Finn1916

Hmmm, I thought Florida was an open carry state? Maybe not, I just thought it was. I know there is a big billboard on I-75 as you go into FL that warns all criminals that Florida residents have the right to use deadly force to defend themselves.

Maybe that's where I got the idea. Anyway, good luck on the move!

TheRedneck

reply to post by C.C.Benjamin


Funny you should bring up knives. Ask any law enforcement officer which he would rather face close up
.
I was taught gun disarming techneques from a sixtyfive year old that weighed in at about 125.You don,t have to be a superman just follow the procedure.

From up close a knife can be deployed quicker, more accurately, and more quietly than a gun. From under 15-20 feet is is no contest no matter how slow you are with a knife. A handgun must be drawn, aimed, safety released, and trigger pulled. It cannot be nearly as quick as a knife.

Just a few pointers on knife fighting versus guns.

respectfully

reluctantpawn

Originally posted by reluctantpawn

Funny you should bring up knives. Ask any law enforcement officer which he would rather face close up

Well, I don't want to take all the credit, it was my new hero, TheRedNeck, who was explaining about his Desperado-style mates.

Originally posted by reluctantpawnI was taught gun disarming techneques from a sixtyfive year old that weighed in at about 125.You don,t have to be a superman just follow the procedure.

And I imagine it's just like Uncle Ben's - perfect, every time.

Originally posted by reluctantpawnFrom up close a knife can be deployed quicker, more accurately, and more quietly than a gun. From under 15-20 feet is is no contest no matter how slow you are with a knife. A handgun must be drawn, aimed, safety released, and trigger pulled. It cannot be nearly as quick as a knife.

Indeed, but to your average non-warrior, the extra second means nothing 'cause we're still thinking "hey dude, how's it going?" by that point.

Originally posted by reluctantpawnJust a few pointers on knife fighting versus guns.

Thanks, I'll be sure to point them out to the next gun-wielding maniac and next time perhaps he'll get more efficiency out of his massacre and use a knife instead.

reply to post by C.C.Benjamin

OK, OK, stop it please! I've been battling hysterical bouts of laughter for a good 10 minutes after reading your post, and I can just now manage to get my fingers to operate right...

You definitely have the gift of sarcasm! But back on topic:

I am not a warrior. I am a man. I am a man who has lived a very interesting and eventful life, through no fault of my own that I can fathom. I grew up dirt poor, but had a very happy childhood in spite of it. I had a rough time in school, and learned some hard lessons there. Things like being aware of your surroundings, knowing with a glance who is and is not dangerous to me at that moment, how to fight, and more importantly IMHO, how to avoid fighting.

I have had two successful careers in my life, separated by a period of extreme indigence and torment. Even now, I am attempting to start another. Each time, I learn more about life and about humanity. That storehouse of knowledge sitting between my ears is my most prized possession, but also one I desire desperately to share with others. Knowledge, like love, is something that does not decrease when you give it away.

Yes, I can disarm the average attacker. Yes, I know several ways to incapacitate, or even kill, another human. I also know how to start a fire from sticks, build a house, fix a car, build a radio, distill alcohol, purify water, operate most heavy equipment, drive a semi, and sooth a crying child.

I am, however, not just a warrior, just as I am not just a survivalist, a carpenter, a mechanic, a technician, a moonshiner, an operator, a truck driver, nor just a father even. I am a man, capable of learning and applying knowledge from all walks of life.

From my observations of human behavior, I would hazard a guess that you are afraid, no, terrified of the future. What will happen to you tomorrow? Will you be attacked by someone bigger, stronger, or even worse, someone with a gun? I would hazard to guess that you are fearful of many other things - religious intolerance, losing your job, fire, floods, earthquakes, storms... and death. The commonality here is fear. The enemy, the only true enemy, is fear. I hope that someday you will realize this, in time to overcome this dreadful enemy that stalks us all at times (yes, even me).

(and I saw your later post, to paraphrase: "when I have my gun, people move out of my way in the street")

You took that as some sort of warning of my so-called military prowess? That was what I considered to be an amusing anecdote, amusing because of the reaction others had to someone who was simply caught in a unique situation. Really, you should lighten up and enjoy life a bit more.

As a normal bloke, I'm saying I'd rather be given the chance to run.

Nope, running away should be banned. It only causes people to chase you.

See how silly it is to decree how others should handle a threatening situation?

Congratulations, you are officially the only nation in history to require military assistance from the French.

This just got you a star.

Shouldn't you be issuing guns to everyone who doesn't have them? Because, this could happen AT ANY TIME. Think about it. You might wake up tomorrow with American tanks rolling down your street and gibbering on at you in some weird, northern tongue, perhaps as far north as New York, and you'll be thinking "frack! Why didn't we arm everyone yesterday to protect us from the fascist government we put into power?"

OMG! The Yankees are attacking! To arms! To arms!

Actually, I believe that an armed society is a polite society. Here where I live, out away from 'civilization', everyone is armed. I walk around all day knowing in my heart that anyone I meet probably has a gun on him, loaded and ready. But you see, I also know that he knows I probably have one as well. It never 'ends badly'; we have almost no crime here (the last 'robbery' was in the 1980s). I go off and leave doors unlocked all the time. So do my neighbors. Oh, sure, occasionally you'll hear of someone trying to steal something and realizing the error of their ways (very rarely do they even get shot, but they DO get the solid waste products scared out of them).

The reason we have no crime is because we are not criminals. We are individuals who understand the concept of fairness and equality. If I want to be able to live my life in peace, I have to allow others around me to do the same. If I want to be free from tyranny, I cannot bring it to bear against others. If I want to be free from crime, I must commit no crime myself. These are simple principles, but they are principles that 'society' has forgotten.

If you want to be free from fear, you must not instill fear in others. Arguing that guns should be banned instills fear in many. So your own actions are ultimately leading to the things you fear.

Isn't that why you don't have kings or parliaments? Just an elite, almost absolute-power-wielding family at the top?

Are you trying to argue for guns or against them? This (admitted) abuse of power is exactly why we have the right to keep and bear arms. Criminals break laws; that is why they are criminals. There must be enforcement options, or a law is meaningless.

Consider for a moment why you obey the law. You do so because there are penalties involved with law-breaking, be these penalties fines, arrest, or prison. If we had a law that said, for example, that it was illegal to walk naked down main street, but there was no police and no fine or jail time if you broke the law, would you obey it? I already know your answer, if you are honest about it.

You might as well issue out the guns so there's no need to be paranoid any more.

Kennesaw GA did just that, and their crime rate dropped dramatically.

Now you can know that everyone is packing heat, so if those pesky emancipation pansies in the "government" decide to commit genocide against the honest-to-God landed Southern Knights, and try and take away their fairly-won Negroes, your average Texan super-hero can just start mowing your own military down.

Whoa, is the education system that bad over there? We haven't had slaves in over a century (and at one time, most of the traders were English, btw)! I am actually probably going to vote for a 'Negro' (although I prefer to call him a 'man') for President! (And before anyone jumps,no, I'm not that happy with him and that's for another thread.) Or maybe your propaganda system is that good?

Oh, and Texans don't have super-heroes. they have to import from Alabama.

The additional bonus is that whenever someone tries to rob a store with their issued firearm, everyone else can draw theirs! There's no way that can end badly! Shootings will plummet because everyone will be too scared to do anything stupid!

Define 'badly', please? Does that term include an innocent cashier, working for minimum wage at a part time job, losing his/her life? Or is it limited to the criminal losing theirs?

And yes, shootings will plummet because everyone is afraid to do something 'stupid'. Read above. And learn, please.

TheRedneck