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

[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.

[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.

[Ibby]

Even your strawmen lack brains, Adak.
Rule number one of pathetic, twisted strawmen of your opponents' arguments; pick a strawman that remotely resembles an actual argument being made by those you disagree with. then you might actually have a point or two.

[sexobon]

I was impressed with how you typed it while out on a limb. Tarzan's Jane for the 21st century. :

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by sexobon

I was impressed with how you typed it while out on a limb. Tarzan's Jane for the 21st century. :

Hahahah. I am laughing so much right now.

[Trilby]

the real problem of violence in this country is OJ.

Drink milk, coz OJ will kill ya.

[DanaC]

Right. Clearly then, if you don't agree with an unregulated free for all on weaponry you have no understanding of the impact of serious crime.

[DanaC]

Undercover Boss is an awesome show.

[Ibby]

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Undercover Boss is an awesome show.

Was an awesome show.

[DanaC]

I didn't know it had finished.

[Spexxvet]

I think it's still on. I just think it stopped being awesome. In the beginning, it really was about the eye-opening experience that the CEO got from doing the front-line job. Then it seemed to morph into this "I'm going to be a hero and give a gift to one of my deserving minions" like Extreme Makeover Home Edition. I didn't like it after that, and maybe it's changed again. My feeling is that if you do right for your employees, you're a hero everyday. Pay them enough to be able to afford their daughter's day care, health care, whatever, and you won't have to swoop in and provide a "gift" to them. Then, you're singling out one employee and the rest just stay fucked.

[Lamplighter]

The 2012 Colorado elections resulted in a change in majority party status
for the House (37 Democrats; 29 Republicans) and the Democrats retained their majority
in the Senate (20 Democrats; 15 Republicans).

NY Times
By JACK HEALY
March 8, 2013
Colorado Takes Up Gun Limits in Senate

DENVER — After months of emotional debate, an effort to tighten gun laws
in a state haunted by two mass shootings moved toward an uncertain climax on Friday
as Colorado’s State Senate began a marathon session on a range of new firearms restrictions.

On Friday, the full Senate gave preliminary approval to bills that would
create universal background checks,
require gun buyers to pay for background checks and
keep guns away from domestic abusers.
A debate over limiting*the size of*ammunition magazines loomed as one of the most divisive issues.

The most significant bills up for debate have cleared the Democrat-controlled
Colorado House and are supported by Gov. John W. Hickenlooper, a Democrat.
<snip>
The measure on gun possession and domestic violence won initial approval on Friday afternoon.
Also approved was a bill that would require in-person training, rather than online-only classes,
for Coloradans who want a concealed-weapons permit.

Among the 7 new bills, grounds in Colorado's background check
include a history of domestic violence (legal conviction, restraining order, etc.)


Last night PBS reported as follows:

Four of the bills have already passed the Democratic-controlled House.
Those bills would extend background checks to personal sales,
force gun buyers to pay the background check fee,
limit ammunition magazine size and
ban concealed weapons from being carried on college campuses.

Three additional bills being considered in the Senate would restrict firearm possession
for people who have committed domestic violence,
hold manufacturers liable for assault weapons deaths
and mandate concealed weapons permit applicants to take some in-person gun safety training.