Texas - We know how to deal with shooting attacks

You can keep it in your car, as a car is an extension of your home. You can have it on your person in a school parking lot as this is not considered the premises of a school. Read your handbook more thoroughly, there is a difference between the two. Originally Posted by argus256

You are correct sir.

I also think the problem with CHL's is the need for them. If the availability for guns wasn't so prevalent-either black market or gun shops or wal mart-we would have less need for CHL's. Argus mentioned the UK. One of the 1st world nations that has as many police problems that the US has except for one glaring one. Firearm crimes are laughably low compared to the US. I know we all need to arm ourselves with automatic weapons to kill deer, and we need a gun locker in case someone might break into our house, but if we weren't selling them in the US, and black marketeers couldn't get them, we would have no need for CHL's. Originally Posted by Txn5inThick

You bet! Let's all hear it for returning to the dark ages, where the biggest thug with the biggest blade rules the block and God help a woman, or an old person because they would have absolutely no defense. . . none. Which is why in Britain they are considering outlawing knives over a certain length and why, along with Scotland, it is considered one of the most violent countries on the planet by the UN.

We could all just rely on the Police, they're only minutes away. . . when seconds count.

Sorry, but your argument did not deserve a better reply IMHO.

Regards,

Well your reply wasn't all that great in the first place. My point was, if there were no guns, seconds wouldn't count. I guess my point is, Some people think the 2nd amendment allows for everyone to have a gun. I believe it is only a portion of the amendment, that only in times where a militia is needed to overthrow an oppressive force, do you have the right to bear arms. All the rest of it is just a quest to be better than the person who may or may not hurt you.

Well your reply wasn't all that great in the first place. My point was, if there were no guns, seconds wouldn't count. I guess my point is, Some people think the 2nd amendment allows for everyone to have a gun. I believe it is only a portion of the amendment, that only in times where a militia is needed to overthrow an oppressive force, do you have the right to bear arms. All the rest of it is just a quest to be better than the person who may or may not hurt you. Originally Posted by Txn5inThick

So you're saying that GUNS are the ONLY violent crime? What about strangulation and knife wounds? There's statistical data out there, I forget the source, that says more people die from knife wounds than from gun shots.

So in reality you're just regurgitating the bullshit you have been fed. LOL to seconds NOT counting when there are no guns around... you realize you can still be killed/assaulted in the same 10 seconds it takes to get out a gun and shoot you right? And the police / medics are still minutes away, WHEN SECONDS COUNT.

I read a quote once that said: "I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy" - and while that is a little corny in its own right, it's TRUE. Unless you put a cop within a block of every single solitary house and person / event, there will be violent crime with knives, guns, swords, whatever can be found by disturbed people and overall just crooks. The people of Texas realize this, and armed citizens DETERS crime, again PROVEN by the CRAZY ASS liberal establishment, The Brady Campaign... to their detriment.

Iaintliein wrote:

"Which is why in Britain they are considering outlawing knives over a certain length and why, along with Scotland, it is considered one of the most violent countries on the planet by the UN."

This is incorrect and is typical of the myths propagated by the gun lobby all the time. In fact a comparison between the US and the UK looks like this (all numbers are per 100K people):


Firearm homicide: 3.6 US vs. < 0.02 UK

Non-firearm homicide: 5.5 US vs. < 0.9 UK

Assaults: 7.57 US vs. 7.45 UK

Rapes: 0.3 US vs. 0.14 UK

Burglaries: 7.1 US vs. 13.8 UK

Car thefts: 3.9 US vs. 5.6 UK

Source: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime

We can each interpret our own bottom lines from these numbers. One thing is certain - the UK is not even close to being "one of the most violent countries on the planet". I think it's common sense that the more people you have carrying guns, the more gun violence you're going to have. Most people will never face gun violence in their lives, just like most people will never be struck by lightening. I believe that the likelihood of being struck by lightning goes up if you walk around in the open holding a metal pole in the air, and statistics indicate that the likelihood of getting shot goes up if you carry a gun.

On the other side of the coin, car thefts and burglaries are higher in the UK. So I guess more people get burgled in the UK, and more people get assaulted and killed here. I'd rather have somebody take my DVD player or my car than be shot.

...

It should not be yours, or anyone else's ability to impose on ME or others like me who feel strongly that my right to own guns of any kind are just as important as your right to follow the lead of progressives who want us all to believe blindly that someone else knows better than each individual.

I should not have to explain to you or anyone else, especially not to the State of Texas or the Congress of these United States why I want to own and use handguns.

As long as I am not using them to violate one of your rights of life or of ownership of property or anything related to those basic rights.

The moment any gun is used to rob, steal, take a life or injure a person unjustly, punish them and punish them severely.

Severe punishment for using any weapon, whether a car, a sword, a steak knife or a hangun or rifle must be done.

There is no difference in the murder charges if a person uses an AK-47, 12 gauge shotgun, or a .22 target pistol to kill another person.

So what gives you or anyone else the right to tell me what kind of arms I can and cannot own?
---------------------- Originally Posted by LazurusLong

LL - You raise the point about civil liberty and personal freedom in the preceeding text, and you ask the question "what gives you or anyone else the right to tell me what kind of arms I can and cannot own?" I'll try to answer it with an example. Here is your same text, with a few minor modifications:

It should not be yours, or anyone else's ability to impose on ME or others like me who feel strongly that my right to drink and drive is just as important as your right to follow the lead of progressives who want us all to believe blindly that someone else knows better than each individual.

I should not have to explain to you or anyone else, especially not to the State of Texas or the Congress of these United States why I want to drink and drive.

As long as I am not violating one of your rights of life or of ownership of property or anything related to those basic rights.

The moment any drunk driver takes a life or injure a person unjustly, punish them and punish them severely.

Severe punishment for injuring anyone else, whether due to drunk driving, stabbing, or firearm assault, must be done.

There is no difference in the homicide charges if a person uses a car, an AK-47, 12 gauge shotgun, or a .22 target pistol to kill another person.

So what gives you or anyone else the right to tell me when I can drive or not drive?

Not every driver who drinks while intoxicated is going to cause injury or even an accident of any kind. However, the odds of an accident go way up when someone drives while intoxicated, so society passes legislation to try to prevent it. Similarly, I don't care if you or my neighbor own guns. But the same lack of restrictions that you're defending raises the odds – by more than an order of magnitude - that some nutjob is going to be armed and kill me, my children, their teachers, our cops, or even you. That is what gives me - and the rest of society - the right to demand tighter gun controls. Gun controls won't end crime or violence, but we KNOW it will reduce the number of people who are killed by crimes of violence, just as we KNOW that drunk driving laws reduces the number of innocent people who are killed by drunk drivers.

I just can't imagine killing another animal, be it human, deer, whatever. Killing is not in my nature. When seconds count, means you have to have the menatlity that you are set to kill in a split second. I don't have that. If you didn't have the gun would you still have the instinct? Protect your family is fine. Baseball bat, knives, mace, dogs, all can be home defense "when seconds count." I just think the intention to kill someone as a last resort has to be built into a psyche. If it is there, then the gun completes the equation.

Iaintliein wrote:
...In fact a comparison between the US and the UK looks like this (all numbers are per 100K people):

Firearm homicide: 3.6 US vs. < 0.02 UK

Non-firearm homicide: 5.5 US vs. < 0.9 UK

Assaults: 7.57 US vs. 7.45 UK

Rapes: 0.3 US vs. 0.14 UK

Burglaries: 7.1 US vs. 13.8 UK

Car thefts: 3.9 US vs. 5.6 UK

Source: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime Originally Posted by Lust4xxxLife

When you look at ALL homicides, firearm and non firearm, the US shows 9.1 per 100K where UK shows .092. Just living in this country means you are much more likely to be murdered.

So I'll go back to my original point.

It is obviously more dangerous as shown by those stats to just be here than not.

Would you rather be one of the stats who are not killed with a gun but some other way, or would you rather OWN and exercise your 2nd amendment right and not be murdered at all?

Something these stats can't measure was demonstrated Monday.

I had to make a trip out of town. 4 hours each way. I wasn't tired but with road construction, there were times I had to drive over those rumble strips on the highway.

Is there any possible way to count the number of lives saved because those rumble strips have caused a sleepy driver to wake up?

Nope.

It is extremely difficult to try and calculate just how many times the brandishing of a handgun has caused a bad guy to change locations. I have personally been in ONE such situation and if I did not have my handgun on my person at that time, I most likely would have been beaten, most likely robbed and possibly killed.

I've noted in other places that the police are under NO obligation to respond to your call for help. Court cases have held the police not responsible for the loss of life when someone is killed while on 9-1-1 and even worse, Oakland, CA just announced that due to budget issues, if you call the police, don't expect them to show up.
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local...-98266509.html

They have a list of crimes they will not respond to. Nice.

Good thing I live in Texas where I still can own handguns in case I arrive home and find a bad guy inside loading a pillow case with my shit.

And if someone truly thinks the UN will provide honest stats on anything other than their own progressive agenda, ask yourself how can horrible dictators and the countries they are currently raping such as Iran be on the Human Rights panels?

But the UN is another entire topic.

Your final paragraph about how you and other progressively brainwashed people sure seem willing to sacrifice MY freedoms for an illusion of safety.

How's those strict gun control laws working down in Mexico? Would you feel as safe as you do in Dallas if the US enacted as strict gun laws as they have there? Just who is safe when an ordinary citizen cannot defend not just himself, but his family and his property?

Our country allows each state to set certain laws and encourages citizens to move to states that have laws they like or to elect others to try and change them. Given the overwhelming number in Texas who support the 2nd amendment, you might want to move to a city with much more strict gun control laws such as Washington, DC and see how that works out for you.

Iaintliein wrote:



This is incorrect and is typical of the myths propagated by the gun lobby all the time. In fact a comparison between the US and the UK looks like this (all numbers are per 100K people):


Firearm homicide: 3.6 US vs. < 0.02 UK

Non-firearm homicide: 5.5 US vs. < 0.9 UK

Assaults: 7.57 US vs. 7.45 UK

Rapes: 0.3 US vs. 0.14 UK

Burglaries: 7.1 US vs. 13.8 UK

Car thefts: 3.9 US vs. 5.6 UK

Source: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime

We can each interpret our own bottom lines from these numbers. One thing is certain - the UK is not even close to being "one of the most violent countries on the planet". I think it's common sense that the more people you have carrying guns, the more gun violence you're going to have. Most people will never face gun violence in their lives, just like most people will never be struck by lightening. I believe that the likelihood of being struck by lightning goes up if you walk around in the open holding a metal pole in the air, and statistics indicate that the likelihood of getting shot goes up if you carry a gun.

On the other side of the coin, car thefts and burglaries are higher in the UK. So I guess more people get burgled in the UK, and more people get assaulted and killed here. I'd rather have somebody take my DVD player or my car than be shot. Originally Posted by Lust4xxxLife

I guess the Times of London and the UN are part of the vast "gun lobby" conspiracy then.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...icle568214.ece

Regards,

Check the 2nd paragraph in that linked article:

"The study, based on telephone interviews with victims of crime in 21 countries, found that more than 2,000 Scots were attacked every week, almost ten times the official police figures."

I guess if progressives want to publish statistics about guns and how since they are confiscated, violent crime will go down, the first step must be to not report crimes!

Amazing how you can skew stats to show what you want, depending on your agenda....

...

It is obviously more dangerous as shown by those stats to just be here than not.

Would you rather be one of the stats who are not killed with a gun but some other way, or would you rather OWN and exercise your 2nd amendment right and not be murdered at all? Originally Posted by LazurusLong

I would obviously rather not be killed by a gun (or any other way) but the free availability of guns because makes it MORE likely BY AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE that I, AND PEOPLE WHO ARE IMPORTANT TO ME, WILL BE KILLED by violent crime, not just by guns. The possibility that someone may be armed, makes any conflict a lot more aggressive for both the good guys and bad guys. If I have a knife or a club and I think you may have a gun, I need to try to do serious damage to you very quickly. A lot less opportunity to 'see how things go' or even just run away. The mere presence of guns among the public is a major escalator for the average conflict, as evidenced by the stats. By the way, the UK was just one example. The numbers are consistent across Canada, Germany, France, etc.. Stricter gun controls won't take all of the risk away, but it reduces it a lot. The few countries on the list that were consistently worse than the US included South Africa (worst by far), Thailand, Colombia, and Mexico.

Something these stats can't measure was demonstrated Monday.

I had to make a trip out of town. 4 hours each way. I wasn't tired but with road construction, there were times I had to drive over those rumble strips on the highway.

Is there any possible way to count the number of lives saved because those rumble strips have caused a sleepy driver to wake up?

Nope. Originally Posted by LazurusLong

Sure you can, if it's important. All you need to do is correlate accidents caused by falling asleep at the wheel with the time that rumble strips were added. The numbers will be there if someone decides it's worth looking into it. Just like we KNOW that free availability of guns results in MORE homicides, not less. By more than an order of magnitude. We KNOW this.

It is extremely difficult to try and calculate just how many times the brandishing of a handgun has caused a bad guy to change locations. I have personally been in ONE such situation and if I did not have my handgun on my person at that time, I most likely would have been beaten, most likely robbed and possibly killed. Originally Posted by LazurusLong

Perhaps not, and nor can we say that I would have been killed on my way home tonight if it weren't for the laws against drunk driving. But what we CAN say with certainty is that a lot fewer people are killed by drunk drivers because of the strict controls we now have in place to prevent it, and a lot fewer people would be killed if guns were less freely available. Some innocent people will still be killed in both cases by people who shouldn't be permitted to drive and people who shouldn't be permitted to posses firearms, but we know that the number of innocent people who will die will be less in both cases.

Good discussion, but I sense it's going to take a few more years to convince you!

Check the 2nd paragraph in that linked article:

"The study, based on telephone interviews with victims of crime in 21 countries, found that more than 2,000 Scots were attacked every week, almost ten times the official police figures."

I guess if progressives want to publish statistics about guns and how since they are confiscated, violent crime will go down, the first step must be to not report crimes!

Amazing how you can skew stats to show what you want, depending on your agenda.... Originally Posted by LazurusLong

I'm sure this aberration applies equally to all countries. Surely you don't think that all high school fights, gang fights, etc. like these telephone interviews picked up are reported accurately in Dallas, LA, New York, etc.?

If the culture in these places remains the same, and you add freer availability of guns to the mix, the number of conflicts doesn't go down, but the number of homicides goes way up.

I guess the Times of London and the UN are part of the vast "gun lobby" conspiracy then.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...icle568214.ece

Regards, Originally Posted by Iaintliein

This supports my point. Comparable level of assaults but much higher homicide rate in the US where guns are much more freely available.

This is quite possibly the single most unbelieveable statement I have ever heard.

You should move to the UK then.

Disarming the police makes them no better than security mall ninjas (mall security guards). Having armed citizens deters crime, it's a proven fact. The crazy liberal Brady Campaign proved this (to their detrement) with their own statistical fact finding mission about us "CHL"ers and the number of killings per capita vs. non-armed citizens and compared it to crime rates.

You do realize criminals don't care about gun laws, right? So what are you gonna do if someone comes at you with a gun? MAYBE get a cell phone out and wait for however long police take to show up? Let's say there was a 2 minute response time... that's enough time for someone with a knife OR gun OR baseball bat OR box knife to slice you up, put a few holes in you and get away.

Part of the foundation of this country is the right for the average citizen to bear arms, among other things obviously. Originally Posted by argus256

And the UK has wildly lower incidents of gun violence than the U.S. What does that statistic tell you? Do criminals there somehow care more about gun laws? Or is their sensible gun policy much easier to enforce because all people caught with handguns are arrested?

And the UK has wildly lower incidents of gun violence than the U.S. What does that statistic tell you? Do criminals there somehow care more about gun laws? Or is their sensible gun policy much easier to enforce because all people caught with handguns are arrested? Originally Posted by TexTushHog

There's the true rub for those who support gun ownership, including but especially handguns.

The police and prosecutors have thousands of laws on the books right now to prevent bad people from owning guns. Yet they fail to do anything about them and in some eyes, like mine, they'd rather wait until something horrible happens so they can posture and make more demands for more restrictions to our liberty.

I'll point out again that an NRA sponsored initiative, Project Exile, Richmond Virginia, set out to heavily come down on gun crimes. 5 year sentence in federal prison for gun crimes. Minimum, no parole.

Libs hated that. Progressives claimed it was too harsh, took the bad guys away from family and bleated like the sheep they are to stop enforcing the laws. The libs actually created "pro-gun" groups that were actually anti-gun in attempts to show that not all people who enjoy their rights supported such a strict enforcement. And it's sad to say that with my decades of reading the progressive press with tens of thousands of anti-gun slanted articles, anti-gun slanted movies and the like that so many, especially in this thread, think that we, as citizens for a free country, would be better off without own guns, especially handguns.

Violent crime and especially crimes with guns went down. And this program has spread to other cities and it screams out that there are plenty of gun laws. They just need enforced.