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

[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?

[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.

[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....

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.”

[tw]

Originally Posted by richlevy

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.

Does the President of Pizza Hut go out and work in his stores as a delivery man? Everyone here should learn from a TV show (I believe) called "Undercover Boss". How many bosses know how the work gets done? How many, instead, act like a business school graduate?

So these bosses create rules but do not even work as an employee? The question "what Dominos and Papa Johns have in place" is a major and critically important question. Along with, "Do they periodically go work as an employee? Or simply make rules from ignorance as any business school graduate would do?"

Meanwhile, the NRA now says pizza delivery men should be escorted by armed guards. Only armed guards and bigger guns create safety. Even an executive who is a business school graduate can see how stupid that NRA reasoning is.

A Pizza Hut president probably has no idea what his employees do. Last time I was in Pizza Hut, they told me my Pan Pizza would take more than 10 minutes. Because the guy who makes pizzas was cleaning toilets. Guess why so many Pizza Huts have closed. Everyone near me has closed. In most cases, even the building was destroyed. A classic symptom of executives trained in business schools. Who have no idea what happens in their stores or when delivering pizzas.

[DanaC]

Undercover Boss is an awesome show.