Texas - We know how to deal with shooting attacks

With all of the stats and questionable logic being thrown around, just keep in mind that the most likely person to kill you resides in your house.

Know your facts,

Flyer

I just don't get it. Why do gun enthusiasts think that people are inherently bad, no matter the weapon? I may be a lib, but I just think there are greater things in the world to worry about than arming yourselves in case you have just minutes to live. If shit is gonna hit you, it is gonna hit you. Guns increase mortality rates. People may be bad, but guns make them worse. Plus you have people trying to defend themselves that shoot people accidentally or have their kids shoot themselves. Guns don't make the world a better place, regardless. The constitution may want you to have one in times of militia, but a gun doesn't make my world better.

With all of the stats and questionable logic being thrown around, just keep in mind that the most likely person to kill you resides in your house.

Know your facts,

Flyer Originally Posted by b2flyer51

Know my facts?

The most likely person to kill me is driving a car somewhere and likely checking messages on their smartphone, or changing stations on the radio, or some other distracting activity.

If you're only referring to non-vehicular homicide, then your 'fact' is still wrong if there aren't any guns in the house, so thank you for reinforcing my point... or are you suggesting that family members should each have a CHL to protect themselves from each other... ? LOL – better not say anything bad about Mom's cooking at Thanksgiving or it could lead to a firefight!

L4L

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. Originally Posted by LazurusLong

Enforcement and punishment are two important aspects of gun control, and I agree with you that there needs to be more of this. Regulation of supply (prevention) is just as important as both.

You wrote:

so many, especially in this thread, think that we, as citizens for a free country, would be better off without own guns, especially handguns.

A lot fewer innocent people would die without handguns, so I don't know how you can argue that we would not be better off without handguns out in the community. How do you explain to thousands of American families that they had to sacrifice a family member because you and others like you feel the need to carry a handgun around? I don't think they'll see your point.

As I've said before, I don't hate guns. They are the best toys. I think we need more regulated ranges. I think the National Guard should have large enough caches of weapons to arm the population appropriately if ever needed. I think licensed weapons training and basic combat programs should be tax-deductible expenses. These are all things that would reinforce the 2nd amendment and protect our freedom. I also think registered farmers and others who live outside city limits should be able to posses non-military weapons provided they pass thorough background checks.

However, as you can tell, I'm strongly against having weapons freely available out in the community, especially concealed handguns. Way too many innocent people die because of it. There is simply not enough justification for it. When we can all have Star Trek phasers with stun settings, I'll be all for arming everyone with those.

BTW, I'm a big proponent of things like Tasers, mace, pepper spray, etc. as non-lethal alternatives to handguns, especially for women. Much easier to operate and there's no chance a stray bullet is going to kill an innocent bystander or little Johnny at home.

Over and out...

L4L

+1

Missed my point -- I'm on your side of the argument. The person mostly likely to shoot you most likely lives in your house (if guns are available) . . .

Last gun I shot was in a steamy jungle across the water.

Flyer

I just don't get it. Why do gun enthusiasts think that people are inherently bad, no matter the weapon? Originally Posted by Txn5inThick

I resent being called a gun enthusiast. And would really like to know where you gleamed that anti-gun nugget of propaganda.

Call me a Constitutionalist before that. I believe in the entire Bill of Rights and that each and every one of those rights are for the people, each and every one of us.

I firmly believe that everyone who wants guns taken from everyone except for the police and military have the right to think so while citizens with arms have fought and died for almost 250 years.

I don't believe people are inherently bad bit I do believe that those in power can become corrupted and will use their power, whether a CEO of a company or a Congressman, to take away our rights one by one.

However, as you can tell, I'm strongly against having weapons freely available out in the community, especially concealed handguns. Way too many innocent people die because of it. Originally Posted by Lust4xxxLife

Where are you getting these "facts" that having concealed weapon holders running about in the community causes the death of innocent people?

Weapons are not free and there are already plenty of laws around to try and control their illegal use.

As I said before and folks have ignored. Mexico has some of the strictest gun laws yet right now the innocents being killed just south of El Paso is what, I'll guess about 10 a week?

Where are you getting these "facts" that having concealed weapon holders running about in the community causes the death of innocent people? Originally Posted by LazurusLong

The presence of guns (not just CHL) in the community leads to more than an order of magnitude more homicides (and suicides, in rural areas) for an equivalent number of assaults. Guns raise the stakes for assaults. I published the comparative data for the UK, but the comparison is consistent with Canada, Germany, and France also.

Weapons are not free and there are already plenty of laws around to try and control their illegal use. Originally Posted by LazurusLong

I didn't mean 'free of charge', I meant 'freely available'. Nutjobs and criminals don't tend to pay attention to laws regarding the use of weapons, that's why we'd all be a lot safer if it were more difficult for them to obtain guns, as it is in other countries. Not having drunk drivers on the road is better protection from them than seatbags and airbags. Similarly, not having guns out in the community is better protection for people in the community than having a gun to shoot back. All of the other countries in which guns are controlled have proven this over and over again.

As I said before and folks have ignored. Mexico has some of the strictest gun laws yet right now the innocents being killed just south of El Paso is what, I'll guess about 10 a week? Originally Posted by LazurusLong

I recognized earlier that Mexico is one of 3 or 4 countries on the planet that has as serious a problem as we do. Mexico's problem is one of supply and enforcement, not legislation. Their problem is that guns are flowing south across the border as fast as people and drugs are flowing north across the border. Stop that flow – in both directions – and things will get better for everyone.

Now how about if we go back to my earlier point... tell us why you think thousands of American families should have to sacrifice a member of their family to avoidable gun violence so that you can enjoy legislation that allows you to own and carry a weapon in the community. That's what I want to hear.

I firmly believe that everyone who wants guns taken from everyone except for the police and military have the right to think so while citizens with arms have fought and died for almost 250 years. Originally Posted by LazurusLong

I don't want to take guns away from you or anyone else, but I sure do want to see restrictions on how you and everyone else can use and transport them for the protection of all of us. For example, if you have a gun in your car, cops should have a way of knowing (maybe RFID tags). It's the mostly unrestricted availability of guns that I object to, because that's what puts them in too many of the wrong hands and gets innocent people killed.

It's hardly unrestricted.. each time you buy a handgun (and rifle) you go through a background check (unless you're a CHL, in Texas) and you have to fill out the paperwork all over again. This goes for new and used. Class 3 items such as full auto guns require a Tax Stamp, FFL and many levels of background checking.

There is no way to screen out what someone is going to do with a gun, knife or otherwise. Human nature is human nature... and since that is the case, fight fire with fire (guns).

Being a constitutionalist and believing in the bill of rights are remotely related. A constitutionalist has gone over every iota of the constitution, without bias, with a fine tooth comb and has accepted that many portions of each amendment can have multiple meanings both stated and unstated. However, you only choose to see your version of the 2nd amendment.

So, if you are not a gun enthusiast, you do not care whether people have access to guns or not? Your posts on the pro side of this argument state otherwise.

If you think I am taking your arguments out of context, I think you are taking the 2nd amendment out of context. Once again, the second half of the amendment is in direct correlation to the first half of the amendment.

I subscribe to no propoganda. I just see gun deaths.

I don't think the military's main focus is protecting your right to bear arms.

And of all the rights to be taken away, guns should be at the bottom of your list. More important ones? Religion, Free Speech, Rights to vote for women & minorities. Guns, eh, not so much.

I resent being called a gun enthusiast. And would really like to know where you gleamed that anti-gun nugget of propaganda.

Call me a Constitutionalist before that. I believe in the entire Bill of Rights and that each and every one of those rights are for the people, each and every one of us.

I firmly believe that everyone who wants guns taken from everyone except for the police and military have the right to think so while citizens with arms have fought and died for almost 250 years.

I don't believe people are inherently bad bit I do believe that those in power can become corrupted and will use their power, whether a CEO of a company or a Congressman, to take away our rights one by one. Originally Posted by LazurusLong

Being a constitutionalist and believing in the bill of rights are remotely related. A constitutionalist has gone over every iota of the constitution, without bias, with a fine tooth comb and has accepted that many portions of each amendment can have multiple meanings both stated and unstated. However, you only choose to see your version of the 2nd amendment.

So, if you are not a gun enthusiast, you do not care whether people have access to guns or not? Your posts on the pro side of this argument state otherwise.

If you think I am taking your arguments out of context, I think you are taking the 2nd amendment out of context. Once again, the second half of the amendment is in direct correlation to the first half of the amendment Originally Posted by Txn5inThick

Two recent Supreme Court decisions in overturning draconian gun control laws in Chicago (McDonald v. Chicago) and in Washington D.C. (District of Columbia v. Heller) would seem to indicate that the 2nd Amendment is indeed an individual right. That has to chap gun banning liberals asses no end. So who is most likely taking the 2nd Amendment out of context in light of these recent rulings? I would suggest that it's not us.

Two recent Supreme Court decisions in overturning draconian gun control laws in Chicago (McDonald v. Chicago) and in Washington D.C. (District of Columbia v. Heller) would seem to indicate that the 2nd Amendment is indeed an individual right. That has to chap gun banning liberals asses no end. So who is most likely taking the 2nd Amendment out of context in light of these recent rulings? I would suggest that it's not us. Originally Posted by harry

While this is true, we just got another libtard on the bench in the Supreme Court after one of our conservatives retired... I suspect this will try and be reversed soon.

While this is true, we just got another libtard on the bench in the Supreme Court after one of our conservatives retired... I suspect this will try and be reversed soon. Originally Posted by argus256

Yes. Nothing like appointing a lesbian to be fair and actually go back and read and study the Constitution to get fair rulings.

Is it just me, or did anyone else notice how they tip toed around her being a lesbian?