Allowing citizens to have weapons cuts crime

The Sun News ^ | Aug. 29, 2006 | Rick Daniel

[HawaiianGecko]

That should pretty much explain how guns in the hands of the right people saves lives - provided you answered the questions correctly (see answers below). .

When did I suggest otherwise? 

 

[TigersEye]

Iraq is a nation in the making in the midst of a war with a terrorist insurency following a war to oust a dictator who ruled for thirty years.

Other than that it's just like the U.S.. /s

[TigersEye]

Still, show me a society where being armed is the cause of it being polite.

South Carolina.

[HawaiianGecko]

Still, show me a society where being armed is the cause of it being polite. South Carolina.
 

LOL, that's a good one. Truly.  You're the first one to attempt and answer to a question I asked hours ago.  Thank you and I believe you.  I have a lot of clients in SC and have always been shown a good time by a lot of good people.

However, are you suggesting that if all guns in South Carolina were eliminated you'd all become jerks? :-)

 

[Steve Van Doorn]

This is great. As you know one of the libs biggest arguments is if there are more weapons then accidents increase. I am sure it goes up some but it would be interesting to see how much accidents have gone up while crime has come down.

Is there any statistics on weapon accidents?

[ChessExpert]

I like it!

Perhaps we should deputize and arm all flyers who pass certain minimum standards. Those who are felons or have a history of mentally illness would be excluded. Perhaps some evidence of gun training should be required. There may be guns, or guns could be developed, that would not pierce the skin of an aircraft. If we had one hundred armed Americans per flight, there would be no airplane hijackings.

[Dead Corpse]

Prior to the 1960's, going all the way back to our Countries inception, arms were much more freely carried than today and people were considered much more congenial towards each other than they are today. The only exceptions being western expansion towns, the worst of which incidentally tried imposing arbitrary gun control laws leading the the near legendary antics of places like Tombstone.

Also, it wasn't me who coined Heinlein's words for him, nor was I the one to post them here. If you can't understand the internal logic of being a bit more nice to people who might be equally, or better, armed than you yourself currently happen to be, then there is no hope for you.

My responses to you have more to do with your seeming approval of limitations of an individual Right.

Being such a fan of Dr. Kleck, you should know better than to equate simple gun ownership with violent crime. But still, you keep trying to find traction with some moronic point about how wide spread gun ownership doesn't necessarily lead to a better, more crime free society.

Keep trying though... if your DNA is "rifling", I think your bore may be shot out.

[Dead Corpse]

I hear Alaska is nice. From my recent trip to Minnesota, and their recent controversy over their new carry laws, traffic was much better behaved than I remember it being. Fear of raod rage and a Glock response maybe? Dunno...

I know most of the folk I've met down here in Texas are at least "surface" nice. More so than say your average New Yorker...

[Dead Corpse]

Actually, one would think that with less artificially imposed social stigma, the greater prevalence of individual arms would allow for a much greater familiarity with said arms leading to LESS accidents rather than more.

Especially if any kind of formalized training was to be considered "good manners" again. I've thoroughly enjoyed the tactical classes I've taken over the years.

[TigersEye]

I've never been to SC so I can't say what they'd be like without guns. ;^)

As to your question; you're taking a metaphor literally so it can only be seriously answered tongue-in-cheek.

[Dead Corpse]

Powdered metal rounds. Devestating to soft targets, but won't penetrate sheet metal. Let each airline set up their own requirements in conjunction with their insurance companies. Maybe broker a deal whereby the qualified flyer gets a "security" price cut on airfare for meeting the airlines training guidelines and being willing to act as a "privateer" security person.

[TigersEye]

I'd love to see Alaska regardless of their gun laws. (That would be icing.)

'Nice' is relative. If people mind their own business and refrain from attacking me ... that's "nice" enough. A Glock can help smooth out rough situations I'm sure. I don't have one so I travel with a good friend ... like Sam Colt, Bill Ruger or my buddies Smith and Wesson.

[ChessExpert]

Sounds good to me.

[Dead Corpse]

My "be nice" self defense tool is Italian. EAA Witness in 10mm flavor. I have others, but this one seems to follow me around a lot.

[TigersEye]

That sounds quite calming. Out and about I rely on my Ruger .45 decocker to check uncalled-for disturbances. At home a Mossberg with a big mouth keeps any thought of trouble far from my mind. No matter what happens around here it seems peaceful and serene to me.

[Steve Van Doorn]

I can see your point but I would still like to see statistics to throw in the face of libs.

If we just look at social improvement would the added (or fewer) accidents be acceptable price to pay for the added security?

[Shooter 2.5]

Iraq is still a lawless society. There aren't any police forces who have weeded out the bad guys yet.
During all of our history until the last century, a criminal who paid his debt to society had his guns returned. If he was a murderer, rapist and/or dangerous, he never made it out of the prison system alive. Today, dangerous criminals and mental patients are routinely freed from jails and hospitals.

Go to any gun range in the country or hunting camp. You can't find a more polite atmosphere.

[B4Ranch]

>>A friend of mine spent a year in Iraq as a reservist doing convoy security. He said that Iraqis don't really see themselves as Iraqis but rather, Shia, Sunni, Kurd, etc. Hence the notion of national identity in Iraq is nothing like it is here in the US. <<

Do you see the evil in the method being used to teach us the acceptance of "multiculturalism"?

We are no longer Americans! In todays politically correct world we are German-Americans, French-Americans, English-Americans, African-Americans, Catholic-Americans, Protestant-Americans, Jewish-Americans, etc.

To top it off we still have the upper-class, middle-class and of course the lower-class.

Our society has been intentionally broken into the smallest cultural groups possible to divide us from each other, not join us together. Each cultural groups now has a politically definative difference from every other group or sector.

It is this politically correct multiculturalism division that is enabling politicians to lead us around like idiot goats. They can do things that might be offensive to one group but not to the the others, such as keeping the borders open.

By defining everyones ancestral nationality, they have once again shown us that there is differences in our nation. Not to long ago we all thought of each other as Americans, not small groups with a hyphen in the middle.

Have you ever read Former Colorado governor Richard Lamms speech on the perils of multiculturalism. Here is a link to it.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/lamm.asp

[BJungNan]

I didn't suggest that you suggested otherwise. Just asked the two relevant questions regarding right-to-carry. You dd not answer, by the way.