You said: That is why I asked if he was a CCW. You see there was that report that showed that CCW people committed very few weapons crimes. Odds are way better than Joe Citizen

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

Odds are way better that one legged hippies have committed less weapons crimes than Joe Citizen, too.


You can mock cops re: Dunkin Donuts all you want, but if you don't see how cops running into a room full of people brandishing weapons is more dangerous than cops running into a room with one clear villain, then you're being deliberately obtuse. But then, you ignored my comments about the increased danger of friendly fire incidents with more friendly fire in the air, too.

__________________
1984 300TD

Don't want them, don't need them. All I have needed them for is to fill up my reports so I can claim insurance. Oh, yeah, that and try impress me with their power. Note, I don't mind you writing me a ticket. Write the ticket, ask me if I have any questions, STFU and go off. Don't try impress me on what you can do or harass me. Or is that too much to ask?

Well, if your goal is to make their life easy by being the sheep lead to the slaughter, go for it. I prefer to defend myself. Is your scenario going to make it more difficult for the cops? Probably so. Assuming it isn't over by the time they get there. However, since they will take several minutes at the very best, I'd rather have a fighting chance than just hoping and praying that none of those shots hit me.

Which place would you rather stand? Next to the perp or next to the few people with a gun trying to get the perp? Friendly fire and all? Somehow I think I am safer with the larger group. Again, I am not for shoving a gun into everyone's hand. You want to CCW? Sure. Get certified and trained. Oh, whats that? You are a felon? Sorry. Had a violent past? Nope. Don't want to go thru training and certification? Stand aside

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

I'm not a big fan of cops either. I just don't want more bodies on the ground because a cop shot a couple CCW holders because they had their guns out.


This is where it seems you either can't get it or don't want to. You are not safer in the middle of two sides shooting at each other. And given the fact that CCW holders don't all sit next to each other, you're really in the middle of five or six or seven sides. Now here come the cops. Come on, you can't tell me a couple kids don't get dropped by some friendly fire ever. Considering 80% of the bullets flying aren't coming from the villain.

__________________
1984 300TD

So it is ok that cops shoot first and ask questions later?

Again, I agree it makes it harder for the cop. Sure, it would be nice for them that there is one guy with the gun and they can shoot him and be done with it.

Assuming that it isn't over by the time they get themselves there? OK. What is the alternative? Wait for 911 to show up and hope you don't get shot by then? Sure, things might be riskier but would you rather take your chances by waiting for help? Think it would be less risky? How about a stampede when people are trying to get out of his way? Understand this. From the time the first shot is fired to the time someone gets out and calls the cops, it could be about 5 mins. Say another 5 mins for them to come. 10 mins is an eternity when you are being shot at. Trust me, I have experienced that. She had 5 shots and one was a dud. It felt like a long long time waiting for her to run out.

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

People need to realize that with most any (if not every) gun related scenario, there is a never ending list of outcomes that can rightfully promote either side of the gun control issue.
To see only the outcomes that promote ones own stand, is nothing shy of selfish, narrow-minded stupidity.

With that said – Everyone feel free to go back to seeing who can bang their head on the wall the hardest.

__________________
1980 300D - Veggie Burner !

Who was that som***** sneaking in here making sense? Lock the dang door!

I assume you are referring specifically to shootings on college campuses. I can not comment on whether or not school shootings occur more per capita in the US than other countries, However, I can comment on the fact that countries with stricter gun laws usually have a higher crime rate per capita than countries with less gun restrictions. In fact we see this trend in our own country. A case in point is Warsaw, GA (I could be wrong about the town…I will have to find the link), which at some point had fairly high crime per capita for that size town. The city made it mandatory that every head of household own a gun. Since then the city has enjoyed a virtually crime free city.

Case in point, Washington, DC has some of the most restrictive guns laws in the country and also has some of the highest crime rates per capita in the country.

I will leave you with this:

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” (Thomas Jefferson Quoting Cesare Beccaria)


EDIT...It was Kennesaw, GA....

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288

Right - That would be Kenneshaw Georgia. Seems to work for those folks.

But, if anyone thinks that what works there (and I am by no means saying it doesn't) would work everywhere else, particularly DC, they're a fool.

__________________
1980 300D - Veggie Burner !

Are you saying what they are doing now in DC works? What is your solution to the DC crime rate?

(In an effort to stay as politically correct here as possible.)

I’m not saying anything about what is and isn’t working in DC. Nor, what will and wont. (I guess I should have said: Work the same way.)

I’m saying that there are quite a few factors involved with regard to where mandatory gun ownership will and will not work. It’s not a blanket solution.

i.e. In a small southern town of a few thousand folks is one thing. In a big city (such as DC) full of gangs, poverty, various levels of mental/physical/financial stability is quite another.

If you can’t see, as well as understand that. I can’t explain it to you, and wont waste our time trying.

BTW (and for the record) – I am by no means anti gun. I own a few. Quite a few. And a CHL/CCL. I carry quite often.

However (as I told Bot) - I just get sick of hearing from folks whos "big picture" is actually a wallet sized black and white image they drew up and printed themselves.
(That’s not necessarily directed at anyone in particular. Though it certainly could be.)

__________________
1980 300D - Veggie Burner !

The whole point of federalism is to allow for diversity of opinions, lifestyles, culture, etc. Folks who live in oh say ... Berkeley probably don't think that living the way folks live in Crossett AR would be such a great idea. And vice-versa, I feel certain. To me, that's a good thing. People in DC want to live at the mercy of thugs? Fine with me, go for it. Folks in Crossett want to squirrel hunt with their kids before school? Go for it.

B

I guess the trick is to figure out how to make it mandatory for those “living at the mercy” to own guns. And not the thugs themselves.

Looking at the mentalities alone (Feel free to grasp that which produces and drives said mentalities on your own.), of both parties (much less, the zillions in between). This is not a pretty picture where crime rates drop and everyone lives in peace.

“Berkeley” ?? Was that a shot? (or should I ask: A troll?)

__________________
1980 300D - Veggie Burner !

Well, lets look at it this way:
You are in a classroom, if its like many of the classrooms when I went to college then there are two entrances/exits, usually on one wall of the room. A lunatic enters, draws weapons and starts shooting. There will be a stampede to the doors if the shooter is not blocking them and/or people piling up in the back of the room trying to cover themselves, etc.

So the question you are asking is do I want to be in this situation with a lunatic shooter and no other person armed? Or do I want at least the CHANCE of a CCW present that MAY be able to return fire? I will take the CHANCE with CCW every time. Sure, there is a chance that I may be killed by the CCW, or even the police, if they make it on time and shoot the anybody in the room with a gun. I'll take that CHANCE.

Without that CHANCE I and everyone else in the room is a victim just waiting for execution and praying that someone "saves" us.

Lets take a look at the VT shooting. The lunatic went room to room, shooting and reloading, returning to some rooms to shoot people again. The holocaust survivor professor was shot trying to barricade a door and keep the lunatic at bay. Do the naysayers NOT see how there might have been a CHANCE for someone to do something if CCW had been allowed? How much F#$%ing clearer can I make it?

My original comments revolved around simply allowing CCW permit holders to carry in more places, like universities, etc. The CCW holders are already there. It would be extremely unlikely that someone would run right out and obtain CCW permit simply to carry on campuses. The people that want them already have them, they just leave the weapons at home when they can't carry where they are going. This is not "arming everyone" or any of the other alarmist BS stated above.

RT

__________________
When all else fails, vote from the rooftops!
84' Mercedes Benz 300D Anthracite/black, 171K
03' Volkswagen Jetta TDI blue/black, 93K
93' Chevrolet C2500HD ExCab 6.5TD, Two-tone blue, 252K

I agree that mandatory ownership is not the answer, for obvious reasons, however, blanket disarmament is not the answer either as it only disarms the law abiding citizens because the criminals will carry either way.

Two points: One, I mentioned Kennesaw because is shows a direct relationship between law abiding citizens possessing firearms and the drop in the crime rate (the inverse relationship clearly shows that the more law abiding citizens who possess a firearm the less crime there is in that region) . Two, CHL and/or a permit systems seems to work when the restrictions are reasonable and are considered “Shall Issue.” This can be determined by the many reports out there that show that those who are issued permits are not people committing crime.

I am very pro 2A, and that being said, I also do not believe everyone should be allowed to possess a firearm. I believe there should be some “reasonable” restrictions on both ownership and carry. I think the real issue is determining what is reasonable and what is not.

For example, I think it is reasonable to say that mental defectives should not be allowed to own or possess a firearm. I also think it would be reasonable to have a built in mechanism/process so that a mental defective can prove their stability and get their right back. A good example of this is that some legislators out there are trying to band combat vets diagnosed with post traumatic stress syndrome from owning or possessing firearms. I “might” concede that one that is diagnosed with PTSS is unstable and should not be allowed to own or possess a firearm, However, I would assert that at some point they might be stable and should be afforded their constitutional right.