Gun laws are getting looser across much of US

[X_Digger]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091211/ap_on_bi_ge/us_looser_gun_laws

...
A nationwide review by The Associated Press found that over the last two years, 24 states, mostly in the South and West, have passed 47 new laws loosening gun restrictions.

Among other things, legislatures have allowed firearms to be carried in cars, made it illegal to ask job candidates whether they own a gun, and expanded agreements that make permits to carry handguns in one state valid in another.

...

Among the recent gun-friendly laws:

• Arizona, Florida, Louisiana and Utah have made it illegal for businesses to bar their employees from storing guns in cars parked on company lots.

• Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, South Carolina and Virginia have made some or all handgun permit information confidential.

• Montana, Arizona and Kansas have allowed handgun permits to be issued to people who have had their felony convictions expunged or their full civil rights restored.

• Tennessee and Montana have passed laws that exempt weapons made and owned in-state from federal restrictions. Tennessee is the home to Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, the maker of a .50-caliber shoulder-fired rifle that the company says can shoot bullets up to five miles and is banned in California.

Some real knee-slappers in there, too..

"They shoot each other over parking spaces, at football games and at family events," Rand said. "The idea that you're making any place safer by injecting more guns is just completely contradicted by the facts."

Really? Scan the topics _in this forum_ and count how many stories of CCW holders doing something stupid with a gun you find, compared to the ~800k CCW holders there are in the US... <whistles jeopardy theme>.. thought so.

[rwheeler31]

1. Sad

[taurus145]

31. What's sad about having illegally curtailed rights restored?

n/t

[Name removed]

2. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[eqfan592]

3. OMFG...

"A Violence Policy Center project has mined news reports to find that more than 100 people have been killed by holders of handgun-carry permits since 2007, including nine law enforcement officers. The project originally intended to list all gun crimes by permit holders, but there were too many to keep track of, Rand said."

Wow, Rand, that's an ALLLLLL new low for your sorry ass. You don't track the other numbers because if you published those figures they'd be devastating to your case, just like the death's stat you post is. I use the page they have set up tracking CCW homicides on a regular basis because it does a great job at underscoring the fact that CCW holders are significantly less likely to commit a homicide than non-CCW holders.

Rand, you are one sick fuck, pure and simple.

[EvilMonk]

7. To whit...

"A Violence Policy Center project has mined news reports to find that more than 100 people have been killed by holders of handgun-carry permits since 2007, including nine law enforcement officers. The project originally intended to list all gun crimes by permit holders, but there were too many to keep track of, Rand said."

Interesting that the number is so...low.

Out of 800k licensed CCDW (CHL, CC, etc...) holders, you have only around (let's be generous) 200 convicted homicides? That's...what...0.25%? Dangerous folks those Concealed Carriers! I don't actually see the words "murder" or "homicide" in your quote there incidentally, which leads me to believe that at least a portion of those numbers are comprised of lawful shootings (we call them "self-defense" or "defense of others" here-abouts).

So, you're saying that I have a significantly less than 1% chance of becoming a murdering savage? Oops, I just gave myself away.

I know guns are easy targets (see what I did there?), but try blaming the individual human for their inhuman acts. Attempting to place a moral value on an inanimate object demeans you and damages any credibility you may attempt to build with sensible objectivity.

Just sayin'...

[Euromutt]

4. Some more rubbish from that article

The most contentious of Tennessee's new gun laws was one allowing handguns in bars and restaurants that serve alcohol. It took effect in July after lawmakers overrode a veto by the governor. Last month, a Nashville judge struck down the law as unconstitutionally vague, but supporters have vowed to pass it again.

A similar Arizona law that took effect in September allows people with concealed-weapons permits to bring their guns into bars and restaurants that haven't posted signs banning them.

While Tennessee's law was in place, many bars chose not to let customers bring guns in. Likewise, more than 70 communities have opted out of allowing guns in parks.

"People go in there and start drinking and then they want to start a fight. What are they going to do if they got a gun in their hand?" said Larry Speck, 69, who works at an auto repair shop in Memphis. "I've got a gun permit and I'm not carrying mine in there even if they have a law."

Conspicuously absent from the article is any mention that the laws in Tennessee and Arizona prohibit drinking while you're carrying. As has been observed on this forum countless times already, if someone already possesses sufficient disregard for the law to go looking for an alcohol-fueled brawl with a gun on his person, what plausible reason is there to think that the fact that it's illegal to bring the gun into the bar is going to stop him? And if that didn't happen much before licensed concealed carry was allowed in bars, why should it happen now?

As a aside, I do applaud Mr. Speck's personal decision not to carry into a bar if he doesn't trust himself not to drink while there.

Chattanooga retiree Ken Hasse, 71, said he worries about the possible consequences of allowing people to carry their guns in places like parks. "It's going to tempt somebody to use one," he said.

And what exactly gives Mr. Hasse such keen insight into the workings of the human psyche? What makes his statement more than speculation unsupported by evidence?

A Violence Policy Center project has mined news reports to find that more than 100 people have been killed by holders of handgun-carry permits since 2007, including nine law enforcement officers. The project originally intended to list all gun crimes by permit holders, but there were too many to keep track of, Rand said.

"Too many to keep track of," eh? Isn't that awfully convenient. The VPC thereby absolves itself of the responsibility to provide any evidence of that claim, because hey, there's too much evidence to keep track of. No, we can't prove that, because there was too much to keep track of. But hey, there's no way the VPC would ever distort the truth (let alone lie through their teeth), surely?

And apparently, two paragraphs for the VPC against one line for the Tennessee Firearms Association satisfies the requirements for "balance" which news media are so obsessed with these days.

[tularetom]

5. Requiring anybody to obtain a permit to carry a firearm is gun control and I oppose it

At the same time I doubt that there would be any great benefit to society if the entire populace were armed.

[armueller2001]

6. Noone ever suggested that

the entire populace be armed... the entire populace should have the choice whether or not to protect themselves, yes, but there's nobody going around saying everyone HAS to carry a gun.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

34. I support requiring a permit to carry a firearm

I'll use the much used car analogy from the gun nutties ("Ban cars they're dangerous!!!!" in response to any pro-gun-control post). If we have to do tests and have a licence to drive a vehicle, the same thing should be applied to guns. In the wrong hands, both objects become dangerous.

[john galt38]

48. Cars and guns

I agree, we should treat guns like we do cars.

Anyone can own a car. Even if you have been convicted of DUI you can still legally purchase a car.
You do not need a license to own a car, nor do you need a license to drive a car on private property.
There are no age restrictions on the purchase of a car. If you are 14 and have the cash you can buy any vehicle you want.

Yea, lets loosen the restrictions on firearms to the level of restrictions on cars.

[GreenStormCloud]

8. Actually, it is several million CCW holders in the U.S.

The exact number is unknown because most states don't publish the data.

For the 2010 legislative session in FL, a bill has been pre-filed to exempt FL manufactured guns for Federal regulation as long as the gun is sold in FL.

There are indeed some face-palm worthy comments in the article. I like this one:

"The NRA has a stranglehold on a lot of state legislatures," said Kristin Rand, legislative director the Violence Policy Center, a gun control group in Washington. "They basically have convinced lawmakers they can cost them their seats, even though there's no real evidence to back that up."

The VPC just can't imagine that voters have elected legislators that agree with the voters. It is beyond their conception that a legislator might actually believe in the right of the people (Individuals, NOT the collective) to have guns.

And some misdirections:

A Violence Policy Center project has mined news reports to find that more than 100 people have been killed by holders of handgun-carry permits since 2007, including nine law enforcement officers. The project originally intended to list all gun crimes by permit holders, but there were too many to keep track of, Rand said.

Yes, CCW holders do sometimes kill criminals while defending themselves from attack by violent felons.

[X_Digger]

13. Yah, big woops on that one.. 315k just in TX

Since I screwed up the number so bad, I thought I'd do a little research..

315k in TX

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/PDF/ActLicAndInstr/ActiveLicandInstr2008.pdf

675k valid in FL

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html

257k valid in TN

http://www.tennessee.gov/safety/stats/DL_Handgun/Handgun/HandgunCarryPermitswithPercentChange.pdf

142k in Ohio (2008 only)

http://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/files/Publications/Publications-for-Law-Enforcement/Concealed-Carry-Publications/Concealed-Carry-Reports/Concealed-Carry-Weapons-Annual-Report

22k in Kansas

http://www.ksag.org/page/concealed-carry

13k in ND

http://www.ag.state.nd.us/BCI/CW/TotalCWPIssued.pdf

56k in MN

http://www.bca.state.mn.us/CJIS/Documents/CarryPermit/2008PTSReport.pdf

27k in LA

http://www.lsp.org/pdf/chAnnualReport07-08.pdf

That's 1.5M right there, and that was only the states that made getting the number fairly easy.

[eqfan592]

14. wow, and that's only 8 states...

...most of the time I think I've seen estimations in the 4-6 million range nation wide. If it's 1.5 million just between those states, maybe that estimation is a tad conservative (though that would depend on how much there is int he way of population in the remaining states, as it seems the more populated states are already listed).

[virginia mountainman]

9. Holy Crap, did you see this howler in the article!!

"The NRA has a stranglehold on a lot of state legislatures," said Kristin Rand, legislative director the Violence Policy Center, a gun control group in Washington. "They basically have convinced lawmakers they can cost them their seats, even though there's no real evidence to back that up."

Kristin Rand, is completely delusional to make a statement so outrageously hilarious as that!!! ROFLMAO...

Where shall we start the list, of Congressmen, and Senators, who's first anti-gun vote, was one of their LAST votes??

[Euromutt]

11. That was rather a hoot

There is a reason for the half-joking observation that "NRA" stands for "Never Re-elected Again," and it's precisely because the NRA has cost state-level elected officials their positions on a large number of occasions in the past. Certainly, the VPC is going to have to do a little better in mustering support than reassuring legislators that "there's no real evidence" the NRA can cost them their jobs. It's not like the VPC can muster a couple of million votes. Hell, you'll be lucky if the VPC can muster a couple of votes.

[GreenStormCloud]

12. At the top of the list, we put Ann Richards, governor of Texas, defeated by G W Bush.

Her only anit-gun vote (A veto of shall-issue concealed carry) angered Texas voters.

[Mithreal]

10. Same people defending their firearm

Strangely, I don't see them anywhere else very often at all.

I am sure they have their reasons.

[eqfan592]

15. The biggest reason....

...is folks like you. I don't need to post much in other areas of the forum because, generally speaking, I'm already in agreement with other DU'ers on those issues, and there's no sense in participating in any sort of mutual admiration society. I do read other areas regularly, though, for news and information. However, on this issue, many of my fellow progressives continue to remain ignorant on this issue, some willfully so. For the willfully so, there's not much to be done for them. But for those who just stop in to read whats going on, and are still capable of rational thought, I think we're making a difference.

As for your little bumper sticker there, I'm honestly dismayed to see it and to see the DU logo on it. It's creator, lame54, is doing DU a disservice in it's creation and promotion.

[Mithreal]

17. Well guns don't have enough advocates, keep up the good fight

[spin]

20. Actually those who support RKBA are winning...

we can't seem to get Universal Heathcare but we do have the right to own firearms and in many states pass the requirements and carry them.

Those who are truly in power will allow us to own weapons but not to have a good heathcare system that would cost 1/2 of what we currently pay and would be as good.

Obviously they feel that armed citizens are no threat as long as they are basically uneducated, uninterested and willing to accept life as a wage slave. They merely buy off the media and the politicians and laugh at us because we think owning weapons make us free.

Unfortunately, they are probably right. The United States is of the big corporations, by the big corporations and for the big corporations.

The founding fathers are probably rolling over in their graves.

Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.
John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776

As riches increase and accumulate in few hands, as luxury prevails in society, virtue will be in a greater degree considered as only a graceful appendage of wealth, and the tendency of things will be to depart from the republican standard. This is the real disposition of human nature; it is what neither the honorable member nor myself can correct. It is a common misfortunate that awaits our State constitution, as well as all others.
Alexander Hamilton, speech to the New York Ratifying Convention, June, 1788

Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories.
Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 14, 1781

If it be asked what is to restrain the House of Representatives from making legal discriminations in favor of themselves and a particular class of the society? I answer, the genius of the whole system, the nature of just and constitutional laws, and above all the vigilant and manly spirit which actuates the people of America, a spirit which nourishes freedom, and in return is nourished by it.
James Madison, Federalist No. 57, February 19, 1788

The best means of forming a manly, virtuous, and happy people will be found in the right education of youth. Without this foundation, every other means, in my opinion, must fail.
George Washington, letter to George Chapman, December 15, 1784

All quotes from:
http://www.marksquotes.com/Founding-Fathers/

[Mithreal]

21. Meant it tongue in cheek, I am with you on this.

[spin]

23. I'm very upset today over the lack of progress on healthcare...

I'm at a loss on how we can convince the people we elect to stop helping the big corporations.

At least attempts by the ruling elite to disarm the average citizen seem to be on a back burner.

[Mithreal]

24. Must be fairly confident they have us where they want us, divided

[iverglas]

42. says it all, don't it?

we can't seem to get Universal Heathcare but we do have the right to own firearms and in many states pass the requirements and carry them.

Gosh. I wonder how anybody in government could be that confused. It couldn't possibly be that making sure that guns are everywhere is actually in the interest of the right wing ...

[eqfan592]

22. It's not really the total number of advocates...

...so much as it's about the political capital that is spent by the Democratic party on gun control measures that won't actually get at the core of the problem. That's what bothers me most about it.

[spin]

16. It would be interesting to know how many times a legally concealed firearm...

is used to stop a violent crime.

Accurate statistics are impossible to obtain. Many incidents never make the news because often the good guy stops the attack and the bad guy flees. No shots fired, no one hurt. A police report may not even be filed.

Nor is it possible to determine just how effective concealed carry is on reducing crime. A criminal who picks a target to rob or rape and finds his target is armed probably has a rude awakening. If the bad guy does manage to escape, will he try the same tactics again?

The reason that the states are "loosening" gun laws is that the legislature in these states feel that the new laws will reduce crime. If there were any statistics that show that legal concealed carry increases crime, these laws would never pass. In fact, if legal concealed carry was a problem in the states that have passed it, the law would be repealed.

Florida passed a "take your gun to work" law in 2008. Actually people had commonly brought firearms to work in Florida for years before the bill passed. I started working in a factory in Florida in 1969, and I remember several co-workers who had a handgun in their glove box.

I worked the midnight shift for years. I lived 20 miles from work and occasionally would hear of car jackings or bump and rob incidents in my neighborhood late at night. I decided to carry a firearm in the car as a deterrent. A friend convinced me to get a concealed carry permit. His argument was that if I did get stopped by the police on the way to work and was asked if I had a weapon in the car, things would go better if I could show a concealed carry permit.

The guard force at the factory was well aware that I had a firearm in the car. The sergeant of the guard sold me a stainless .357 mag when I mentioned I was looking for one. He used to joke that if the shit hit the fan, they would borrow my firearm as they were unarmed. I told him that I had no problem with that, but I came attached to the gun.

But the company I worked for grew worried about the legal implications of firearms in their parking lot. They posted a policy that said if you had a firearm in your car, you could be fired. This policy covered their ass. While I was working for them, they never attempted to search a vehicle for firearms. Still, they knew I had a firearm. You could describe the policy as "don't ask, don't tell."

One of my co-workers had a road rage incident on the way to work. For some reason he infuriated another driver. They stopped at a red light. The other driver got out of his car and approached my co-workers car with a tire iron in his hand. My friend drew his 9mm pistol and placed it in view in his hand on the steering wheel. The guy with the tire iron seen it and returned to his car. My co-worker said that if would have been able to drive away, he would have. However, he was blocked in my cars in front of him and on his side.

This is just one personal anecdote of an incidence in which a firearm averted violence with out a shot being fired. No police report was filed. No statistics are gathered on incidents like this.

The company argued that they owned the property we parked our cars on and could set policies. Those who had guns in their cars argued that we had to get to and from work, and we had the right to carry a firearm for self defense.

The "bring your gun to work law" has been a success.

In the time frame from 1970 to today, the number of firearms has increased dramatically in our society. During that period violent crime has decreased. This graph is from the U.S. Bureau of Justice.


http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm

Obviously if more guns cause more violence, we would have seen an increase in violent crime. If we change the laws to ban or prohibit firearms in civilian hands, I predict the graph will show an increase in violent crime.



Note that this graph indicates that the violent crime rate started to drop as the states passed "right to carry" laws.

[taurus145]

18. Do away with gun laws all together

and we get exactly what the framers of the Constitution intended. We need only one law regarding firearms - 2A.

[Mithreal]

19. They intended lots of things, why start there? Why not, am I right?

Can I get an Amen!

http://bp0.blogger.com/_CbS-ezzkKvM/Rv0I0na7fqI/AAAAAAAAAE0/hwEGoFQPitU/s200/adam+foster+gun+ring.gif

and one ring to rule them all

[Mr Kilroi]

25. Don't make our mistake

Gun control is a canard. It is unrealistic to believe that it will equal crime control, worse still believing you can legislate against insane people doing insane things.

I say this as a Canadian and a firearms owner involved in the struggle for the affirmation of our long held right to keep arms in our defence.

The gun control scheme in Canada has basically ensured every thug and n'rr do well that the average person is disarmed and defenceless. Further our licencing system has made it impossible to obtain a CCW permit.

Make no mistakes licencing and registration only will lead to confiscation.

Hope is not lost in Canada, there are cases going to the Supreme Court with strong evidence that the laws in Canada were enacted illegally that is to say that our Constitutional right was not repealed and it was beyond the Federal Government's power to enact the 1995 law.

In Canada the are 7 million firearms owners with 21 000 000 firearms in their possession. Only 2 million complied with the law and only 7 million firearms were registered. (pop Canada 32 million) the cost of registering 7 000 000 firearms was 2000 million dollars. You can imagine what it would cost to have a National Registry in the U.S. imagine what programs that money could fund....

Our right to keep arms is the same source as your second amendment, The English Bill of Rights 1689, This forms part of our Constitution viz The Preamble of our Original Constitution the British North America Act. Which was saved by the Statute of Westminster 1931. Since the Bill of Rights 1689 was an Imperial Constitutional Act. We did not have the means in our Constitution to amend our own Constitution, until 1982.

[TPaine7]

26. Welcome to DU!

I hope you enjoy it here.

Looking into my crystal ball, I predict that you will soon encounter a rabidly anti-gun, hostile and belligerent fellow Canadian who will look down her self-righteous nose at you.

You seem to have facts and knowledge, however, so you should be able to stand your ground.

It's good to hear a different perspective from our neighbors up north.

[Mr Kilroi]

30. I look forward to it.

Thank-you


I've been countering antis for some time, they have little fact to back their claims and largely base their argument in emotion.

Canadians are a strange bunch, it is well established we have the right to protect our lives and families, however our silly politicos have removed even non lethal means of self defence through law. Yes pepper spray for use against human assailants is prohibited, mace and stun guns are prohibited as well. Absurd isn't it?

[TPaine7]

32. Absurd indeed.

There are enclaves in the US where such absurd laws obtain as well. Hopefully the Supreme Court will remedy the situation by applying the Second Amendment to non-lethal weapons as well, though to our shame their are jurists in not much lower courts who have claimed that states can forbid self-defense itself and require submission to attack in the absence of police protection!

There's plenty of insanity down here, too.

[iverglas]

36. well, so far I've caught you

(a) parroting a lie about the costs of the Firearms Registry, which I've already debunked in these pages

(b) using international violent crime statistics improperly with deceptive effect, if not intent, as I've already demonstrated in these pages

So how's it working for you thus far?

C'mon, give us a rousing recitation of Joe's patriotic speech.

[Katya Mullethov]

33. Two thousand million

It's never really about carbon or guns or dope or crime or poverty . 2 billion bucks . wow

[iverglas]

37. as someone's Samuel Clemens once said

or at least as he is said to have said:

A lie can travel halfway around the world
while the truth is putting on its shoes

And it just travels round and round the DU Guns forum.

Don't you feel kinda silly for being taken in by a lie told by one of the nastiest rightest-wing politicians Canada has ever produced -- especially since you don't even know who he is?



fixin' that typo ...

[iverglas]

35. do you think maybe

NAFTA would give you the opportunity to live in the land of all things great and good?

It does for me. I can cross that border and work any time I want. Surely you could find something in the list of designated professions, an obviously educated fella like you. I think you'd be much happier, don't you? Just imagine escaping all the violent crime ... and snow ... up here in the dogforsaken north ...


the cost of registering 7 000 000 firearms was 2000 million dollars

Parrot lies much? I mean, you do know that Breitkreuz - the one and only source of that figure - was lying through his teeth when he made it up, right? Heck, another of those searchies right here in the DU Guns forum will set you straight on that. If you don't know already.

And don't you think our USAmerican cousins are smart enough to work out the computer program bugs, that being the source of the major cost overruns (leaving aside the deliberate and organized sabotage by the right wing filth up here, not that they don't have lots of it down there) before they start? Surely they're smarter than the Liberal Party, gosh. Why would they repeat the mistakes made here? Are you saying they're stupid?


I do expect more of my fellow Canadians, I really do. Things like this make me suspect, well, you know.

So how's old Garry doing these days? Is that particular lie hurting him much back home? I don't imagine. His ongoing attempts to turn Canada into a hell on earth for women are probably pretty popular with the voters.

[iverglas]

27. it's exciting, isn't it?

Just look at all the benefits looser laws have brought you.


Passenger air services deregulation, telecommunications deregulation, broadcasting deregulation ...

And thank goodness regulation never managed to glom its tentacles onto the health insurance industry, eh?!

Environmental deregulation ... and goodness, let's not forget banking and securities deregulation!


Once you get to no laws governing any aspect of anything, imagine how marvellous life will be!!

[GreenStormCloud]

28. Bringing the topic back to guns.

As the other comments on deregulation have nothing to do with public policy on guns, I shall ignore them.

In the past twenty years during which restrictions on citizens owning and carrying have been relaxed, about 100,000,000 guns have been purchased. During that same time, violent crime has dropped dramatically. While correlation does not prove causation, it does appear that we haven't been harmed by the relaxation of previously harsh restrictions.

Most of those relaxations have been states becoming shall-issue concealed carry states. We have gone from a small number of citizens with concealed carry permits to between four to five million permit holders.

Concurrent with this trend has been the spread of Castle Doctrine laws which give the residents greater lattitude to use deadly force to defend themselves and their property.

Oddly, despite all those millions of new CCWers and armed residents, the number of justified homicides has also been declining. More people carrying, but fewer criminals getting shot.

[iverglas]

38. nah

Concurrent with this trend has been the spread of Castle Doctrine laws which give the residents greater lattitude to use deadly force to defend themselves and their property.

Gives 'em greater latitude to kill people without ever having to even whisper that they were defending anyone or protecting anything.

That's a fact. If you disagree, you substantiate your own statement.

[GreenStormCloud]

40. Why should we have to state the obvious?

If someone illegally breaks into my residence while I am there, I am going to conclude that they intend me harm and respond with deadly force. That is a reasonable conclusion given the evidence, and a reasonable reaction. Why should I need to more than point out the evidence? In fact, our 5th Amendment give me that right of silence. If the shot person doesn't like it, don't break into homes in Texas. Instead they should go to wherever you live so that they can be greeted with tea and crumpets, or whatever you serve.

There is a legal distinction between deliberately killing someone, even in self-defense and in the use of deadly force to stop someone from continuing with the crime they are either committing or threatening to commit. We don't shoot to kill, but shoot to stop, even if the subject dies as a result of being stopped. If he dies, that is his bad luck, not an intentional killing. That holds even if the defender knows that the probability of death for the subject is certain.

[iverglas]

41. here is your statement; pay attention to yourself

Concurrent with this trend has been the spread of Castle Doctrine laws which give the residents greater lattitude to use deadly force to defend themselves and their property.

I already quoted it once. Not just for decoration. Because that's the statement I responded to and spoke about.

Substantiate it.


If the shot person doesn't like it, don't break into homes in Texas.

Hey, if you don't want a fat lip, don't look at me when I pass you on the street.

Works for both of us, I guess.

[beevul]

44. Yet another bad comparison.

Passing someone on the street, which belongs to everyone, is just the same as being in a home which does not belong to you, after breaking into it, right?

While everyone has a right to be wrong, you simply abuse this right.


With our minds we can conceive
Of truthful words that can deceive;
Although we claim the truth was meant,
In truth, a lie was our intent. -D. De Haan

[iverglas]

45. comparison

Doing something you don't like.
Doing something I don't like.

You get to decide what deserves death, so do I. The jungle is the jungle, and we're all equal in it.

[beevul]

46. You could try...

You could try not to sound so ignorant.

"The jungle", isn't inside someones home.

You are NEVER equal to a homeowner in the homeowners home, in the context of this discussion. Never.

Just to be clear, that context is when YOU have broken into someone elses home when it is occupied by them.

[GreenStormCloud]

47. I explained to you that we shoot to stop, not to kill. Big difference.

If the BG dies, that is his problem. Castle Doctrine allows me to defend and not have to say anything about my motive. In Texas we can shoot to defend property also. Obviously you don't like our Castle Doctrine laws, but that is your problem. We Texans like it.

[friendly_iconoclast]

29. *Someone* seems to have forgotten two little words: Empirical evidence

Now, if the murder rate had gone up instead of down, you might actually be on to something...

[iverglas]

39. empirical evidence of ... ???

I don't recall making a statement, or claiming that any other statement was incorrect.

What are you talking about?

I praised the great de-regulated, everyone for themself, devil take the hindmost, I'm all right Jack society. Surely you don't object to that.

[gorfle]

43. "The NRA has a stranglehold on a lot of state legislatures,"

This makes me happy every time I write my membership check to the NRA.

The fact is, they work.