Philosoraptor

Seriously, I read a story where Rom Emmanuel was blaming guns coming in from other states.

I will guarantee that some troll will chime in with the argument that gun restrictions need to be nationwide, not state or local. Thank God that we won't see that any time soon.

I personally don't own a gun, but I find them fascinating. I also understand why someone would want one and I also understand the responsibilities that come with ownership.

You should own a gun because you can.

I understand that everyone has a lawful right to have a gun. But I also have my lawful right not to get shot...purposely or accidentally.

Your naïve. There are people everyday who get killed over something stupid as TV in their house or $20 on accident.
It doesn't matter how careful you are. I have a friend who was murdered 6 shots to the chest over apparently nothing and the killer was never caught.
I own 2 guns.
Its a great hobby; the gun community is incredibly responsible, and we share a right to defend ourselves from self-serving trash.

If Americans did not have the right to have guns, we would all be potential targets and we would not be as safe. And your opinion would change. The fact that I might have a gun in a convenience store protects you and me. Criminals know that, and it makes us all safer.

Next time someone proposes NATIONAL gun control laws and cite places like England, remind them that Mexico has some of the stricter NATIONAL gun laws and regulations in the planet. Yet, criminals there are armed as good or better than their military.

And before any of the conservative trolls say it, Fast & Furious involved weapons purchased by cartel buyers, not US government funding.

SpursFanFromAround already explained that Fast and Furious was already exposed and proven. It was funded by our government. That is a fact. But, regardless of Fast and Furious, criminals in Mexico were well-equipped before it. The disproportionate nature of guns owned by criminals and guns owned by ordinary citizens is off the charts, and it has been for a very long time. My wife is in her mid 40s and she tells me how these people ran towns by fear back when she was a teen. It was so much so, they (criminals) would impose curfews to citizens with the threat of murder if they were walking about after dark. So, if you were in some sort of work that require you to work after dark, you would have to arrange it with them, or take your chances of being murdered. That is no joke. And, because the level of corruption in all levels of government, you could not go to police for fear that they would tell on you or kill you themselves.

All that said, the 2nd amendment to the constitution wasn't for citizens to protect themselves from "criminals." It was for citizens to have means to protect themselves against tyranny. The idea was to establish balance of power between the government and the people. That balance of power did not exist in the monarchy they (our forefathers) fought against for independence. Now, limiting gun ownership simply because some crazy individual got a hold of a gun and killed people is stupid. It solves nothing. The problem that needs solving is figuring out how that deranged individual got a hold on the gun and address that. For example, in the case of Sandy Hook, charges needed to filed against the mother for negligence. But, even deeper than that, we need to figure out why are we breeding "violent crazies." If you take a gun away from a crazy person set to kill people, they will do it with a knife, a bar, with their bare hands, you name it. To me, it is dumb to focus in "mass" killings. After all, would you be less upset or distraught if a loved one is killed by a deranged individual if your loved one was the ONLY victim? I don't think so. The fact that your loved one was one of many will not be any worse than if he or she was a solitary victim.

No, they did not. They were funded by money given to the cartels by the Obama administration. Sorry to break it to you, but it's already been exposed.

Yup... lots more countries where the bans are effective, you point to one of the exceptions with horrifically counterproductive laws about guns.

Here in the USA, places with stricter gun laws have a much higher rate of gun violence than places without them. That is our reality. And we need to legislate laws that can fit our reality, not others. England is not the United States; and neither is Australia. But, if you still convince that these sort of comparisons are valid, you must take ALL elements of that society and consider each and every one. For example, when I arrived in Germany in the mid 80s, we were told to NEVER refuse the instructions of the Polizei because they could use much more force to make you comply than cops here in the USA. AND, if for some odd reason the case went to court, the courts will be on their side. I am bringing this up to make the point that the mindset of the average German citizen is way different than the mindset of your average American citizen. Culturally, we are way different. We view law and law enforcement differently. Therefore, laws that are effective here might not work there and vice versa.

Also, for all I know, Australian citizens are not very happy with the gun ban. I read somewhere that violent crime in remote areas is way up. I think, if I remember right, home invasions are on the rise and it might be even illegal to defend yourself. That you have to call the police and THEY are the ones allowed to intervene.

Anyway, when I bring the issue of guns, I compare places here in America like Chicago and Dallas. And, again, our reality is that gun restrictions in America do not work. The evidence is overwhelming. All you have to do is look it up and be open-minded about it.

Gun Free zones never made sense to me. It's usually just a sign saying "No Guns". I bet you steal sprite from the fountain all the time when the sign says "Water Only" when you have a water cup.

When you say "you" are you asking about me specifically or people in general?

I don't drink sprite and don't steal soda from the fountain if I only have a water cup.

Just kidding, I think that I know what you meant, the fact that a sign saying that it's a gun free zone won't keep criminals from introducing a gun?

Yes, using it as an example.

All fair points. Gun culture, and a host of societal and class issues are at the heart of the problem. I can't disagree with you. I just thought that using Mexico as an argument is pretty rough due to their very complicated relationship with gun controls over the years. Lastly, cities with gun controls in the US really don't do anything anyway, when you can just cross state lines or go to another city to get guns.

BUT, it doesn't explain the disproportionate rate of gun violence crimes when compared to cities where guns are more easily accessible. Logic dictates that law-abiding citizens will not go to other cities to buy guns to circumvent local gun laws. That is the only thing, in my opinion, that can explain why crime is higher in Chicago than a city like Houston or Dallas; where ordinary citizens can arm themselves for self-protection.

Fair point... however I think that there are confounding factors that are missed in general. I'm also sure there are plenty of normally law abiding citizens who disagree with the gun laws of the city and buy guns elsewhere. It's a question with no good answer at the moment. Guns are in America, they aren't going anywhere, the question is how to reduce violence in general. I've got a few ideas, but this isn't the place for a dissertation on the convergence of socioeconomic factors, maladaptive coping mechanisms and the "cult of macho".

Had to post it. I gotta be me.

But the cops never accept the truth.

still the mafia tho.....

not to mention terrorists next door

If only two people existed, they'd find a reason to kill each other... if only one person existed, he'd do something stupid and get himself killed!

Sure!

and that's why nowhere is safe from criminal minds.