It takes only 5 people to end gun violence in America.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by Adak

Had to laugh at another far-left liberal who's always speaking out for the "common man", blah, blah, blah.

They were discussing Michael Moore's armed bodyguard being arrested in New York awhile back, for having a concealed sidearm, without a valid New York CCW permit (which are of course, difficult to get).

Sure Michael - you lecture us on the need for gun control - while you keep your armed bodyguard close at hand.

Damn hypocrite!

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that Michael Moore has probably received considerably more death threats in a single year than the average American is ever going to receive in their entire life.

Perhaps if your country was not awash with firearms, public figures with controversial views would not need to take such extreme precautions to defend themselves.

[henry quirk]

HA!

But America *'is' awash in firearms, Dana.

The only solution that might come close to ending that flood is confiscation of every weapon (and corresponding ammo), from every person.

Simply banning guns and ammo will not work.

Imagine: tomorrow, all guns in America are banned by way of law directing every one to deliver all weapons and ammo to local law enforcers.

No criminal will abide.

Many law abiders will not abide (converting them into criminals in a single stroke).

No, total confiscation is the only answer and that will be a long, bloody, expensive process with no guarantee of success.

Reality: Pandora's Armory opened for business ages ago and all the debbil guns flew out...you'll never be rid of 'em (or the folks who'd use 'em to do nasty things).









*a wonderful word, 'is'...(what) 'is' always trumps wishes and fishes...sure, (what) 'should' (be) is a grand starting place for reformations, but too grand a vision inevitably leads to failure...again: Pandora's Armory opened for business ages ago...it is what it 'is'.

[infinite monkey]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

But America *'is' awash in firearms, Dana.

First thing that popped into my head was Whatever Happened to Baby Jane:

Blanche: You wouldn't be able to do these awful things to me if I weren't still in this chair.
Jane: But you *are*, Blanche! You *are* in that chair

(It sounds more like "but y'are in that chair Blanch.')

This is not commentary, except on the way my brain works.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by DanaC

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that Michael Moore has probably received considerably more death threats in a single year than the average American is ever going to receive in their entire life.

Perhaps if your country was not awash with firearms, public figures with controversial views would not need to take such extreme precautions to defend themselves.

I'm just SO relieved that NO ONE ELSE has ever had any threats to their life:

Like:
* car jackers
* burglars
* robbers
* kidnappers
* home invasion attacks
* wacko's on drugs, with weapons
* road ragers with tire irons/bats/etc.

Since the gov't can't get the booze removed during prohibition, and they can't get the drugs removed during the 40? year "War on Drugs", etc.

How are they ever going to get the guns away from criminals?

Because that kind of thinking (removing legal firearms), has not worked at all well, in Western cultures. It just makes the law abiding citizens into sheeple - perfect sheep-like targets for the wolves to take great advantage of.

That doesn't even address the concerns about wiping out the 2nd article in the Bill of Rights - which are many. Once they have the guns removed from all the legal citizens, what's to stop a future government from removing any other parts of the Bill of Rights, as they please.

Who's going to fight back, besides a few martyrs?

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by Adak

I'm just SO relieved that NO ONE ELSE has ever had any threats to their life:

Yeah...'cause that's just what I said right? I distinctly remember typing the words 'Michael Moore has had threats to his life and nobody else ever has'. I remember typing those exact words....oh, no....wait....

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Adak

I'm just SO relieved that NO ONE ELSE has ever had any threats to their life:

Like:
* car jackers
* burglars
* robbers
* kidnappers
* home invasion attacks
* wacko's on drugs, with weapons
* road ragers with tire irons/bats/etc.

You are so much smarter than that, Adak. There is a difference between a random threat and a targeted threat. There may be a 1 in a million chance that I will be carjacked sometime in my life. But if I received a dozen or more notes from different people stating "I will carjack you", then I would definitely hire a security guard if I could afford it.

Do you wear a helmet when you drive, because that would make you safer? I personally don't care if you wear a helmet, because that does not affect me. Letting you and a few million more carry guns to feel safer does affect me up until the point where someone invents a bullet that self destructs after traveling 5 feet.

[Adak]

Probably, you or I, couldn't afford a full time security guard. They run about $40-$60/hr, armed, with some experience in personal protection (as opposed to guarding a facility, which is a much different job).

Thinking it through, you'd need at least 3 guards, because you know they'd want to come after you when you had no bodyguard. That's a lot of $$$$.

Random threat? It's more probable for some crimes, than you would guess. Let's say you have a wife and two kids. Now go to the website that lists sexual predators, living within 20 miles of you.

If your county is like most, the damn map looks like a sea of red push pins, for crying out loud! If you haven't seen one for your area, take a peek - then tell me you're not worried for your family's safety.

And that map doesn't include lots of other felons who have been convicted of other crimes against persons (as opposed to property crimes). Nor does it count the one's who haven't been caught yet.

It isn't just the probability of being a victim of a serious crime, it's not even the likelihood that the victim (could be you, or a family member or friend), will be seriously hurt of killed. It's also the life-changing anguish it puts people close to the victim through, as well.

I clearly remember Polly Klass's Dad, after Polly was taken from her bedroom at night, raped and strangled. I lived fairly close to the Van Damme girl (Danielle), who was also kidnapped, raped and killed. It didn't just hurt those parents - it tore them to pieces. It tore a hole you could drive a truck through, in the local community, as well. There were many tears shed over these two girls' fate, I can promise you.

And that's the point that the liberals don't get - just how deep these crimes cut you, and how often they are prevented by someone having a firearm. What's the old saying "a liberal is someone who hasn't been mugged yet"? Something like that.

There is more than a little truth in that.

I did find a video of a liberal lion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGDKC7OKFlQ

Beautiful cat, just preoccupied and clueless.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Adak

I clearly remember Polly Klass's Dad, after Polly was taken from her bedroom at night, raped and strangled.

Which proves we all should own 50 caliber rifles with 50 round clips. After all, Polly Klass would still be alive if everyone was heavily armed.

Reality. Violence was just as common 50 years ago. But back then, people survived and crimes were stoppable because knives and six shooters did not massacre herds of people.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by sexobon

Perhaps not so easy. There's an age old saying in law enforcement that the fastest reload is a second gun.

The answer isn't to ban all guns, nor is it to allow things to continue the way they are - it's not working.

[richlevy]

This is interesting. I'm not sure what the company's policy is for employees who are robbed - are they docked for the money that is stolen? I'm assuming the no weapons policy is on the theory that not resisting a robbery is safer. I wonder what Dominos and Papa Johns have in place for a policy.

Life can be dangerous for pizza delivery drivers, who are often carrying cash and food and rarely have anyone to protect them. Now a Pizza Hut employee in Maryland says he’s been pulled off deliveries because he used a tent pole to defend himself against a group of attackers.

The alleged attackers fled without the driver’s cash or the pizza and three of the suspects (all juveniles) were arrested, but the Pizza Hut employee says that his use of the tent pole apparently violated company policy against drivers carrying weapons.

“I’m not saying we should arm all delivery drivers,” explains the employee, “but I’m saying that punishing delivery drivers for defending themselves as they’re being attacked is unjust.”

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Adak

Since the gov't can't get the booze removed during prohibition, and they can't get the drugs removed during the 40? year "War on Drugs", etc.

How are they ever going to get the guns away from criminals?

This is a poor argument. I can make booze in my own kitchen. I can grow pot in my back yard. I have a much better than average workshop in my basement, and a better than average knowledge on making stuff, and it would be virtually impossible for me to manufacture a gun.

If guns are restricted, there will be grandfathered guns out there for a while. They can be stolen and sold by "law abiding" citizens on the black market, but over time they will break and wear out and no new guns will replace them.

Local gun restrictions have not worked because you could just cross the border to the next state, but national gun restrictions will work because the national borders are much more secure. Smuggling guns into the country will be very difficult in any substantial quantities.

Before you argue against my points, you'll need to explain why so many people are lining up at gun shows to buy stuff before it may be banned. They prove my point. National gun restrictions do work. If they didn't, you wouldn't bother arguing against them.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by glatt

This is a poor argument. I can make booze in my own kitchen. I can grow pot in my back yard. I have a much better than average workshop in my basement, and a better than average knowledge on making stuff, and it would be virtually impossible for me to manufacture a gun.

Here's the rub for your assertion: facts.

Zip guns were made in basements and garages and bedrooms, and even in prisons, by the inmates.

Guns are out of the bag - we can't put them back into the bag, and act like they never existed.

The reason people are lining up at Gun Shows, is because they want NICE guns, not zip guns, and they want them BEFORE the feds or the states want your thumb print, blood sample, and DNA, "just for their records".

If guns are restricted, there will be grandfathered guns out there for a while. They can be stolen and sold by "law abiding" citizens on the black market, but over time they will break and wear out and no new guns will replace them.

No new guns will replace them?

< ROFL! >

What world do you live in?

Local gun restrictions have not worked because you could just cross the border to the next state, but national gun restrictions will work because the national borders are much more secure. Smuggling guns into the country will be very difficult in any substantial quantities.

Which will make them more expensive - which will motivate more people to make them, in their garage or basement, to bring in some money.

There ARE people who won't do this, of course, but there ARE lots of people who WILL do this.

And guns that aren't fired don't typically "wear out", as fast as you seem to believe.

Before you argue against my points, you'll need to explain why so many people are lining up at gun shows to buy stuff before it may be banned. They prove my point. National gun restrictions do work. If they didn't, you wouldn't bother arguing against them.

Done.

The facts, and human nature argue against your assertions. I don't need to do much at all.

[glatt]

I'd love to go back to the days of single shot zip guns being a "problem." I'm talking about 30 round semi-automatics. Virtually nobody will manufacture those in their basements. They are the problem.

The only flaw in my argument is the one that you didn't mention. And that is the improvements that are being made in 3D printing. Right now, you can make parts for a gun, but can't make a reliable fully functioning gun beyond a basic zip gun.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Adak

The facts, and human nature argue against your assertions. I don't need to do much at all.

Somehow you know human nature when you also know prisoners are making 30 round clips and automatic rifles in the machine shop. There is reality. And then there is fiction that justifies wacko extremist rhetoric.

Name one prisioner who has manufactured automatic weapons in prison. Name one hollow point bullet that has saved human life.

Little hint. That bullet's name is Jasmine. Facts are easily invented when you need one. And somehow you also know human nature. I don't think you even know yourself.