Would A Gun Have Helped This Couple?

[bambino]

Originally Posted by CJ7

well, you're an idiot, and easily impressed, sooooo

It's easy to see that you're a tool and wouldn't defend yourself. Why would you bother to get a conceal/carry permit? I have been impressed with how big a dickfuck you are.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by bambino

Or, you could scream "Im a bleeding heart liberal and love thugs".......... Before they shoot you in the head. Feel better now? I'll take the gun. These guys didn't just magically pop up.

My guess is that they DID appear out of basically nowhere. It's very easy to hide in a parking lot or garage.

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with being a liberal, conservative or any other faction. It's common sense and understanding the likelihood of being a victim of a violent crime. If you feel safer with a gun I have no problem with it. I feel safer WITHOUT one.

A few months back on the ECCIE Austin forum, a guy was relating an incident that happened to him. He was returning to his car from a night club when 3 guys attacked him and beat the crap out of him. Of course, a gun toter responded and said something like "I have a CHL and carry my ______ and I would have been able to protect myself if something like that happened to me." The victim responded by saying that he too had a CHL but was not carrying because he had been at a bar. But went on to say that if he had been carrying, the attackers would have gotten his gun because he would not have had time to get to his gun before being attacked.

As I said earlier, carrying a gun does not make you less of a crime victim in most circumstances. Obviously my opinion.

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by bambino

It's easy to see that you're a tool and wouldn't defend yourself. Why would you bother to get a conceal/carry permit? I have been impressed with how big a dickfuck you are.

your stupidity precludes any further responses from me.

[bambino]

Originally Posted by CJ7

your stupidity precludes any further responses from me.

No way.

[bambino]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

My guess is that they DID appear out of basically nowhere. It's very easy to hide in a parking lot or garage.

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with being a liberal, conservative or any other faction. It's common sense and understanding the likelihood of being a victim of a violent crime. If you feel safer with a gun I have no problem with it. I feel safer WITHOUT one.

A few months back on the ECCIE Austin forum, a guy was relating an incident that happened to him. He was returning to his car from a night club when 3 guys attacked him and beat the crap out of him. Of course, a gun toter responded and said something like "I have a CHL and carry my ______ and I would have been able to protect myself if something like that happened to me." The victim responded by saying that he too had a CHL but was not carrying because he had been at a bar. But went on to say that if he had been carrying, the attackers would have gotten his gun because he would not have had time to get to his gun before being attacked.

As I said earlier, carrying a gun does not make you less of a crime victim in most circumstances. Obviously my opinion.

Here's one thing for certain, if you end up in a gunfight without a gun, you die.

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I love how gun toters such as yourself seem to believe that simply carrying a gun makes you immune to such acts of crime. Couple returns to car possibly loaded down with packages and wearing winter clothing. Even if the guy had a concealed handgun, the odds of him getting to it before the criminals could react would be close to zero. These guys more than likely approached the couple with gun or guns drawn. Why the guy resisted is beyond my comprehension. I can guarantee you that I would have given them the keys and, at the very worst, been shopping for a new car with the insurance. Instead, the guy is dead. We can only speculate on what might have happened had the guy simply given up the car.

Secondly, the average person, while accepting the slight possibility of being the victim of a homicide, does not want to carry a gun. Accept that as fact. Even in the state of Texas the last time I did the math, less than 2% of the population eligible to obtain a CHL had done so.

Apparently you didn't even read what I wrote...this man resisted because his wife was in the car. Come on, read the damn story. Why would they approach with guns drawn? Won't that attract unwanted attention?

I don't even know what that little snippet has to do with the story or the resulting conversation. The point that I tried to make (if you can read and comprehend) is that if there is a possibility that someone MAY be armed then criminals will be less likely to rob them. That is proven by John Lott. I also said that this was a "gun free zone" and I was correct. I called the mall and asked. So another liberal inspired gun free zone kills again.

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

My guess is that they DID appear out of basically nowhere. It's very easy to hide in a parking lot or garage.

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with being a liberal, conservative or any other faction. It's common sense and understanding the likelihood of being a victim of a violent crime. If you feel safer with a gun I have no problem with it. I feel safer WITHOUT one.

A few months back on the ECCIE Austin forum, a guy was relating an incident that happened to him. He was returning to his car from a night club when 3 guys attacked him and beat the crap out of him. Of course, a gun toter responded and said something like "I have a CHL and carry my ______ and I would have been able to protect myself if something like that happened to me." The victim responded by saying that he too had a CHL but was not carrying because he had been at a bar. But went on to say that if he had been carrying, the attackers would have gotten his gun because he would not have had time to get to his gun before being attacked.

As I said earlier, carrying a gun does not make you less of a crime victim in most circumstances. Obviously my opinion.

Here is what you refuse to understand, carrying a concealed weapon is not a quick draw contest like you think. There is a time and place to resist with lethal force. You may have to wait until they are looking away or busy doing something else to unholster your weapon. There is no fairness involved. It is not the carrying of a gun that makes you less a victim but the perception and possibility that anyone may be carrying a gun.

I'll ask you the same research question that was asked a few years ago; you have 20 people in an isolated location away from any outside assistance. This 20 have been randomly drawn from society. They could be doctors or criminals, nuns or murderers, farmers or rapists and you don't know. You are given a choice, does everyone get a weapon or will only one weapon be given to someone randomly? Remember the claim, fewer guns means less crime....or does it?

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Apparently you didn't even read what I wrote...this man resisted because his wife was in the car. Come on, read the damn story. Why would they approach with guns drawn? Won't that attract unwanted attention?

I don't even know what that little snippet has to do with the story or the resulting conversation. The point that I tried to make (if you can read and comprehend) is that if there is a possibility that someone MAY be armed then criminals will be less likely to rob them. That is proven by John Lott. I also said that this was a "gun free zone" and I was correct. I called the mall and asked. So another liberal inspired gun free zone kills again.

First, it doesn't matter IMHO, whether or not the guy was trying to protect just himself or himself and his wife when he resisted. My point is had he not resisted he would probably be alive today. If you disagree, fine. I have no idea if the guys approached with guns drawn -- and neither do you. I'd be willing to bet they were easily accessible if not drawn.

Second, it's impossible to know how many times gun-free zones have saved lives. In this case yes, it is possible it cost a life. Gun toters like you always want to believe that a crime victim definitely would have been better off with a gun. The more guns the less crime. Doesn't work that way in NYC.

And why do you think all gun free zones are inspired by liberals? My work building is gun free and is so because it has been determined that it is safer for the employees to have it that way. A common-sense decision not based on political leaning. My home is a gun free zone because I know that more people are killed by handguns because they are in the home than they are used in protecting their home. Common-sense decision.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Here is what you refuse to understand, carrying a concealed weapon is not a quick draw contest like you think. There is a time and place to resist with lethal force. You may have to wait until they are looking away or busy doing something else to unholster your weapon. There is no fairness involved. It is not the carrying of a gun that makes you less a victim but the perception and possibility that anyone may be carrying a gun.

Like the old song says "Paranoia runs deep". I can just imagine myself walking down the street checking each person out as to the possibility of him or her carrying a gun and intending to rob and/or shoot me. Laughable.

I'll ask you the same research question that was asked a few years ago; you have 20 people in an isolated location away from any outside assistance. This 20 have been randomly drawn from society. They could be doctors or criminals, nuns or murderers, farmers or rapists and you don't know. You are given a choice, does everyone get a weapon or will only one weapon be given to someone randomly? Remember the claim, fewer guns means less crime....or does it?

I would give the gun to one person and take my chances. If you give guns to everyone, the killer will definitely have one and if wanting to, will kill at least a handful of the others before one of the others kills him.

I don't know if fewer guns means less crime. New York City has very strict gun ownership laws, low gun ownership, and a very low crime rate per capita when compared to other U.S. cities. What I do know is that the U.S. has more firearms per capita among industrialized nations and by far leads those nations in homicides by firearms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ted_death_rate

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...n-four-charts/

If you can find any similar data that points out that the U.S. is a safer country because of all the guns then please present it to us.

[nevergaveitathought]

I don't see any response addressing any point you proferred JD

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Here is what you refuse to understand, carrying a concealed weapon is not a quick draw contest like you think. There is a time and place to resist with lethal force. You may have to wait until they are looking away or busy doing something else to unholster your weapon. There is no fairness involved. It is not the carrying of a gun that makes you less a victim but the perception and possibility that anyone may be carrying a gun.

Like the old song says "Paranoia runs deep". I can just imagine myself walking down the street checking each person out as to the possibility of him or her carrying a gun and intending to rob and/or shoot me. Laughable.

I'll ask you the same research question that was asked a few years ago; you have 20 people in an isolated location away from any outside assistance. This 20 have been randomly drawn from society. They could be doctors or criminals, nuns or murderers, farmers or rapists and you don't know. You are given a choice, does everyone get a weapon or will only one weapon be given to someone randomly? Remember the claim, fewer guns means less crime....or does it?

I would give the gun to one person and take my chances. If you give guns to everyone, the killer will definitely have one and if wanting to, will kill at least a handful of the others before one of the others kills him.

I don't know if fewer guns means less crime. New York City has very strict gun ownership laws, low gun ownership, and a very low crime rate per capita when compared to other U.S. cities. What I do know is that the U.S. has more firearms per capita among industrialized nations and by far leads those nations in homicides by firearms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ted_death_rate

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...n-four-charts/

If you can find any similar data that points out that the U.S. is a safer country because of all the guns then please present it to us.

The U.S. also leads industrialized nations in the number of auto related deaths -- and leads most in ethnic diversity.




http://www.wnyc.org/story/294888-glo...ng-everywhere/

[JD Barleycorn]

[QUOTE=SpeedRacerXXX;1054722884]Here is what you refuse to understand, carrying a concealed weapon is not a quick draw contest like you think. There is a time and place to resist with lethal force. You may have to wait until they are looking away or busy doing something else to unholster your weapon. There is no fairness involved. It is not the carrying of a gun that makes you less a victim but the perception and possibility that anyone may be carrying a gun.

Like the old song says "Paranoia runs deep". I can just imagine myself walking down the street checking each person out as to the possibility of him or her carrying a gun and intending to rob and/or shoot me. Laughable.

I'll ask you the same research question that was asked a few years ago; you have 20 people in an isolated location away from any outside assistance. This 20 have been randomly drawn from society. They could be doctors or criminals, nuns or murderers, farmers or rapists and you don't know. You are given a choice, does everyone get a weapon or will only one weapon be given to someone randomly? Remember the claim, fewer guns means less crime....or does it?

I would give the gun to one person and take my chances. If you give guns to everyone, the killer will definitely have one and if wanting to, will kill at least a handful of the others before one of the others kills him. What killer? You missed the point completely. You don't even know if there is a killer or not. All you know is that everyone is equal when all are armed.

I don't know if fewer guns means less crime. New York City has very strict gun ownership laws, low gun ownership, and a very low crime rate per capita when compared to other U.S. cities. What I do know is that the U.S. has more firearms per capita among industrialized nations and by far leads those nations in homicides by firearms. Better do some fact checking. Now NYC has less crime because of aggressive law enforcement and more legally owned guns than 30 years ago. Also the USA is NOT number one per capita in gun deaths and it is NOT the highest in actual deaths. Australia, since their "ban" on guns has been imposed has seen a rising violent crime rate. Down under has experienced one good year (2011) with a decrease in both murder and violent deaths. This comes after seven years of increasing violence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ted_death_rate Your own source puts the US death rate (by firearm) at 10.3 per 100K. That is below South Africa, Swaziland, Jamaica, Uruguay, Panama, Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, Columbia, and Brazil. So we are number 12 in the world and countries with gun bans have higher murder rates.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...n-four-charts/

If you can find any similar data that points out that the U.S. is a safer country because of all the guns then please present it to us. [/QUOTE] Pick up John Lott's book and then explain why the declining murder rate is dropping the same time that gun ownership is rising and it is almost uniform that every state has some sort of concealed carry law. Chicago still has a defacto ban though political intervention and south Chicago is more dangerous than Afghanistan.

[JD Barleycorn]

Would a gun have HURT this couple had they had one? The obvious answer is no. This hurts the liberal argument that everything (like insurance) must be used to be useful. So many liberal programs would have to be scrapped if the idea that something has to be actively used to be relevant.

[bambino]

In the police report, the guy was in his front seat when 2 guys approached him. And I bet they didn't look like Alter boys.

[i'va biggen]

The idea liberals don't own guns shows how unaware you are JD .I know liberals who own 'em shoot and hunt. Have CC permits.