Subject:
|
Re: An armed society...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 22 Jan 2002 04:14:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
823 times
|
| |
|
|
[snip]
> > All things being equal otherwise, in areas where it is eaiser to legally • obtian
> > a gun the crime rate is lower. This hold true in all econmic and social
> > classes.
>
> But which is cause, and which is effect? ie, would allowing unlimited • ownership
> of guns in a high crime area (without other social changes) reduce the crime
> rate in that area? I think not.
Well ABC news had a 20/20 report about a county in the USA. (I forget exactly
where) That county had one of the highest crime rates in the country. A policy
was enacted that required all able bodied, law abiding citizens to carry a fire
arm at all times while in the county. That county now has one of the lowest
crime rates in the country. The lesson learned is that most criminals fear
retaliation.
[snip]
> > No one. 99% of gun owners never have to fire their gun.
>
> Where did you get that statistic?
>
> > The threat of force
> > is usually sufficent.
>
> What the percentage does "usually" represent
>
> > The media is controlled by a small group of liberals.
> > You only ever see the news that will benifit that position. The fact that
> > dozens of successful home defence senerios play out for every unsuccessful
> > senerio is often overlooked or ignored as a result.
>
> Do you have any stats in this?
It is all at the local Library.
>
> You've made a lot of assertions here. I agree there are probably many
> successful home defence senerios played out, with & without firearms being
> involved. I don't think that you've been able to convince me that everyone (of
> appropriate age) should own a firearm.
You have the right to not own a firearm if you chose. My point is that I have
the right to own a firearm if I chose and would use said firearm to protect
that right for all of afore mentioned reasons. Anyone that tells me I should
not have a firearm for my own good is full of baloney. The facts do not
support this, rather they contradict it. So why is the Government so hell bent
on convincing me that it is a good idea? I can only assume a best case is as
Sarah Brady founder of Handgun Control Inc. stated in the early 80s:
"Socialist America cannot be realized until those who would oppose us have been
completly disarmed." A worst case could be throwing people in concentration
camps who disagree with them.
-Mike Petrucelli
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) And we can always trust reporters to get the whole story 8?) (...) policy (...) fire (...) I'd be interested in more information about this. How did they ensure that non-law-abiding citizens didn't carry guns? Over what period did the change (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) I meant to comment on this yesterday but didn't get around to it. You appear to be very fond of this quote; in looking for your post I searched for "+Brady +socialist" and found that you've previously cited the quote another two times. Three (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) is (...) a (...) Not all crimes involve firearms. (...) Or people without enough information to decide whether there is a need or not. If Joe Six-pack sees a shop-lifter, and pulls out his legal firearm to stop them, when not required, does (...) (23 years ago, 21-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
179 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
