Well, I at least now see what you were trying to say.

 

And there's no way you can prove that a crime hasn't been prevented because a criminal was concerned that a potential victim was armed.

 

And, more importantly, there's absolutely no way you can prove that this law will do ANYTHING to prevent/deter/control crime in the slightest. So please tell me the point of the law?

 

 

To provide us something to argue about in P&R?

To provide us something to argue about in P&R?

 

Lets just call it an objective debate !:idunno:

To provide us something to argue about in P&R?

 

Finally I will agree with you about something!! :laugh:

 

I just wish some "gun control" person (maybe you, RM? ) in this forum would just come out and adopt the following statement:

 

"I hate guns. I do not own one and I wish no one did. Therefore, I support any gun legislation whatsoever that makes it more difficult to obtain a gun. Even if that legislation is unfair and unnecessarily burdensome to law-abiding citizens who do choose to exercise their Constitutional right to own a gun. And even if the legislation is being duplicitously sold as a means to "deter crime" and support the "safe handling" of weapons - things to which I can find no substance or credibility whatsoever that it will. Because the bottomline is that if such legislation causes even just a few less people to own guns, I find it worthwhile."

 

It would be so refreshing to find someone to actually admit this. Because, frankly, unless someone can really break down this proposed legislation and clearly spell out what you feel to be its tangible benefits (and, no, saying "what harm could it do?" doesn't count), that's the appearance that is given.

Finally I will agree with you about something!! :laugh:

 

I just wish some "gun control" person (maybe you, RM? ) in this forum would just come out and adopt the following statement:

 

"I hate guns. I do not own one and I wish no one did. Therefore, I support any gun legislation whatsoever that makes it more difficult to obtain a gun. Even if that legislation is unfair and unnecessarily burdensome to law-abiding citizens who do choose to exercise their Constitutional right to own a gun. And even if the legislation is being duplicitously sold as a means to "deter crime" and support the "safe handling" of weapons - things to which I can find no substance or credibility whatsoever that it will. Because the bottomline is that if such legislation causes even just a few less people to own guns, I find it worthwhile."

 

It would be so refreshing to find someone to actually admit this. Because, frankly, unless someone can really break down this proposed legislation and clearly spell out what you feel to be its tangible benefits (and, no, saying "what harm could it do?" doesn't count), that's the appearance that is given.

 

 

The problem is, I DON'T hate guns! Do I own one? No. Do I even think I need to own one. Again...No. Do I know how to use one? Yes. Do I know people with guns, yes. Do I know people with guns that scare me because I do know that they are hair-trigger tempers. Yes.

 

Let me put this one out there...I actually don't care about the proposed legislation to the degree that it may seem by my conversation here.

 

What I REALLY want to see is increased safety training requirements, and re-licensing requirements. THAT I'm passionate about.

The problem is, I DON'T hate guns! Do I own one? No. Do I even think I need to own one. Again...No. Do I know how to use one? Yes. Do I know people with guns, yes. Do I know people with guns that scare me because I do know that they are hair-trigger tempers. Yes.

 

Let me put this one out there...I actually don't care about the proposed legislation to the degree that it may seem by my conversation here.

 

What I REALLY want to see is increased safety training requirements, and re-licensing requirements. THAT I'm passionate about.[/QUOTE]

 

Which of those will apply to criminals ?

OK....let me break it down:

 

Yes, there is evidence that a gun stopped a burglary or assault etc.

Yes, there is evidence that a dog has done so as well.

 

 

I didn't say never. However, how can one say that nothing has ever happened to one BECAUSE they had a gun? If someone breaks into your home, and you have a gun, the crime was still committed. If your home is not broken into, and you have a gun, there's no way you can say definitively that your house hasn't been broken into BECAUSE you had a gun. You can't say a crime has been prevented by a gun, if there wasn't even an attempt.

 

Does that make sense?

Absolutely. But the point here is, I want to have the right to own a gun and defend myself if the need ever arises. I'm 52 and never had a reason to go for my firearm. But it is there if the need ever comes about. Please don't take that right away from me.

The problem is, I DON'T hate guns! Do I own one? No. Do I even think I need to own one. Again...No. Do I know how to use one? Yes. Do I know people with guns, yes. Do I know people with guns that scare me because I do know that they are hair-trigger tempers. Yes.

 

Let me put this one out there...I actually don't care about the proposed legislation to the degree that it may seem by my conversation here.

 

What I REALLY want to see is increased safety training requirements, and re-licensing requirements. THAT I'm passionate about.[/QUOTE]

 

Which of those will apply to criminals ?

 

 

What difference does it make? My issue isn't with legal gun ownership. My issue is with the lack of responsibility many gun owners display. Not everything surrounding the right to bear arms is in any way related to criminals.

Absolutely. But the point here is, I want to have the right to own a gun and defend myself if the need ever arises. I'm 52 and never had a reason to go for my firearm. But it is there if the need ever comes about. Please don't take that right away from me.

 

Trust me, I don't want to take anyone's guns away. I harbor no animosity toward people who own guns, despite the best efforts of some to paint me as anti-gun. I'm apathetic about the legislation in the first post of the thread. I lean toward feeling it's responsibile, and logical, so I'm for it. But, if it doesn't pass, I won't feel like it's a loss.

I would say there is a greater chance that some miscreant would be turned away from the door based on Lucky's bark, than on the off-chance that I might have a gun.

I bet the sound of a shotgun cocking would be more intimidating.

Trust me, I don't want to take anyone's guns away. I harbor no animosity toward people who own guns, despite the best efforts of some to paint me as anti-gun. I'm apathetic about the legislation in the first post of the thread. I lean toward feeling it's responsibile, and logical, so I'm for it. But, if it doesn't pass, I won't feel like it's a loss.

Hey, I don't think you're anti-gun, just confused as to what more legislation will do, and I mean that respectfully.

Of course, there's no proof that having a gun stops things from happening to them. It's simply a "peace of mind" thing.

If you like, when I get home, I can dig up tons of articles where crime was deterred by a gun.

True, but there was still a crime committed before the defensive use of the weapon was introduced.

 

A crime was not prevented. Possibly changed, but not prevented.

Correction, no further crimes were committed once the weapon was introduced.

 

 

What difference does it make? My issue isn't with legal gun ownership. My issue is with the lack of responsibility many gun owners display. Not everything surrounding the right to bear arms is in any way related to criminals.

 

In the past 10 years, firearm-related accidents in the home have dropped by more than 44 percent!

Over the past 9 years, the number of unintentional firearm-related fatalities for children 14 and under has decreased by 69 percent!

Firearms are involved in fewer than 1.2 percent of accidental fatalities among children 14 and under! There have been 178 million guns manufactured in the U S alone since 1968 , not even a drop in the bucket compared to guns made prior to that, and guns entering the U S from outside sources.:thumb:

 

In the past 10 years, firearm-related accidents in the home have dropped by more than 44 percent!

Over the past 9 years, the number of unintentional firearm-related fatalities for children 14 and under has decreased by 69 percent!

Firearms are involved in fewer than 1.2 percent of accidental fatalities among children 14 and under! There have been 178 million guns manufactured in the U S alone since 1968 , not even a drop in the bucket compared to guns made prior to that, and guns entering the U S from outside sources.:thumb:

Exactly, and they want more and more restrictions on us.

What type of Supreme Court judges have conservatives sought? Answer: Strict constructionists who do not rely on public opinion polls or cite decisions of foreign courts in making decisions. Conservatives do not need a Supreme Court inventing the constitutional right to bear arms, that right is already in there - near the top of the list of our Bill of Rights.

Oh, so it's OK as long as they're advocating your point of view.

 

Do you know of a case where a judge relied on "public opinion polls" to render a decision? Or is that just another right-wing talking point?