Ultimate College Softball
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 5 of 54     «   Prev   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   Next   »
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 21,874
Reply with quote  #121 
I will participate in any conversation I see fit, I also think you should stay out of several but you find that impossible. 

I guarantee grizzly does not want ALL (100%) law abiding citizens armed.  And you blame others for attempting to read your mind. 

Again, I saw your P.S., why are you wanting to increase guns 10 times?  Give me a premise on who and why someone would want that.  We have enough guns, it is your talk of limiting them in the future that has people buying more.

__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #122 
kiir - I don't want to increase concealed weapon use, I don't want to take away the right to bear arms, etc., etc.  It was a hypothesis for a discussion.  I just wanted to take issue with those who say if we would only increase the number of people carrying concealed weapons, we could reduce the number of shootings in America and make it a safer place.  My only purpose was to counter this myth currently being perpetuated.  If Grizzly wants to take issue with this statement, I'm sure Grizzly is capable.  If you want to take issue with my position, that's fine too.  Nobody said Grizzly "wanted" to arm everybody.  I didn't say I "wanted" to increase the number of weapon holders by ten.  It was no more than a discussion about what is currently being presented regarding this gun control subject.

In any event, they answered the question I posed.  Then you and I started and now I'm not sure why.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
GrizzlyFan and Coach-   In other words, do you believe there will be more or less shootings if every American is armed? 


Quote:
Originally Posted by GrizzlyFan
Dewey I believe there will not only be less shootings, I believe there will be less crime overall.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CoachB25
Dewey, in the old west, I believe a majority of the population was armed.  IMO, they were safer. 

__________________
President Obama kept Republicans out of the White House for 8 years and added two excellent justices to the Supreme Court.  Those two things alone make him one of our greatest Presidents of my lifetime.
woody

Registered:
Posts: 8,336
Reply with quote  #123 
Dewey, if a citizen that can legally own a firearm chooses to carry that weapon as protected by the 2nd amendment, why do you have a problem with it? In Texas, more people legally carrying firearms, has lead to a decrease in violent crime, and shootings. To be clear, a citizen of our state may carry a loaded weapon (handgun, rifle, shotgun) loaded in their car. They can legally carry that weapon back and forth to and from their car, to their home or business. If you want to conceal carry a weapon, you must have a state license. If you want to carry a rifle, or shotgun in open sight (unconcealed) down main street, it is legal, as long as you do not brandish it in a threatening, or menacing fashion. Criminals are becoming aware that if you try a car jacking, armed robbery, or home invasion, that there is a very good chance the average citizen will be armed and defend themselves, hence crime is down. How do our crime statistics and shooting rate, compare to a state such as Illinois, home to Chicago, which has very tight gun control laws, and for the most part, an unarmed population of future crime statistics??
__________________
Anarcho Capitalism. Get some, and no you can't have any of my money to live off of you Socialist Democrat.

"IT'S GOOD TO BE DA KING"
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #124 
Quote:
Originally Posted by woody
Dewey, if a citizen that can legally own a firearm chooses to carry that weapon as protected by the 2nd amendment, why do you have a problem with it?


woody - I think if we are going to participate in a forum, we have a responsibility to pay closer attention.  I have not publicly taken a stance on whether folks should have a right to carry a weapon.  In fact, today I would not pursue any legislation to take away that right, (I don't mean any and all weapons), assuming person was sane and law abiding. 

That said, I have presented examples I see as problematic if we decide to encourage more and more people to carry concealed weapons.  For example, I see incidents like the one in Florida increasing in great numbers where a fistfight turns into a shooting.

Lastly, you say carrying weapons has led to fewer shootings in Texas.  I have no reason to doubt you.  Now, if we started a campaign in Texas to encourage more and more people to carry concealed weapons, will your shootings go down even more?  I say not a chance, in fact, they will logically increase.  This has been my point and the suggestion more citizens should become armed is not a good solution in my opinion.  This is a big part of the gun control talk going around and I take issue with the premise.

I suppose you can look at it like drinking.  I'm for keeping the right but minimizing the practice seems to be a more wise goal.   (OK, that was a horrible analogy.)

__________________
President Obama kept Republicans out of the White House for 8 years and added two excellent justices to the Supreme Court.  Those two things alone make him one of our greatest Presidents of my lifetime.
woody

Registered:
Posts: 8,336
Reply with quote  #125 
No need to start a campaign to increase concealed carry, the numbers are swelling daily in Texas. As a result, our crime rate and shooting rate will also continue to fall. Gun sales are through the roof, thanks to gun salesman of the year, President Obama, and the Socialist Democrats crying for restrictions on the 2nd amendment. If you thought the Socialist Dems have a chance to retake the House in 2014, look back to 1994, and see what happened to the Socialist Dems that supported gun control, and restrictions to the 2nd amendment.
__________________
Anarcho Capitalism. Get some, and no you can't have any of my money to live off of you Socialist Democrat.

"IT'S GOOD TO BE DA KING"
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 7,847
Reply with quote  #126 

Dewey -

I haven't seen anyone advocating for more people to carry, unless that is some wise-aleck remark to someone asking a circular question.

The whole debate over gun control is not to increase the number of concealed weapons permits, it is to limit access to and availability of firearms.

The "incident in Florida" that you keep referring too was tragic.  However, hammers still kill more people in this country than rifles, yet people want to ban rifles.  There is little logic to it.

You've stated before that you had deeply held opinions on limiting access to certain weapons, and you didn't really want to discuss your reasons.  That's fine, but the whole issue of what is actually afoot here has been turned upside down in this thread.

keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 21,874
Reply with quote  #127 
mike, whether you want to see it or not, that is usually dewey's strategy.  turn the argument around [or upside down], circular questions, getting people off track by assigning research, straw man arguments, etc...Now if some want to call me 'mean' for saying that, go ahead
__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 7,847
Reply with quote  #128 
Well, by brilliant strategy or by sheer accident, Obama has had his first successful stimulus program:  law enforcement agencies (fingerprinting and background checking) and gun, ammo, and shooting supplies manufacturers.

I suppose now it is no longer accurate to say that the President hasn't done anything for American manufacturing and jobs.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #129 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikec

Dewey -

I haven't seen anyone advocating for more people to carry, unless that is some wise-aleck remark to someone asking a circular question.

You've stated before that you had deeply held opinions on limiting access to certain weapons, and you didn't really want to discuss your reasons.  That's fine, but the whole issue of what is actually afoot here has been turned upside down in this thread.



mikec - Actually, I think I have heard on numerous shows that part of the solution is more good guys carrying guns.  Here is one link where the NRA rep is saying more teachers need to be carrying.  I saw this subject discussed on TV multiple times.  Now if you have a specific question of me that you think I have avoided, please ask me.  All I've said is it is a waste of time for me to try and explain why certain weapons should be on the banned list and to hear why you think they should be legal.  Not sure where that gets us.

PS:  Please know if I had brought up the number of deaths by hammers. or found a way to apply the Obama stimulus to the debate, keepinitreal would have pounced on me for the subject change.  I have no problem with how you make your argument.

__________________
President Obama kept Republicans out of the White House for 8 years and added two excellent justices to the Supreme Court.  Those two things alone make him one of our greatest Presidents of my lifetime.
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 21,874
Reply with quote  #130 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
I think I have heard on numerous shows that part of the solution is more good guys carrying guns.   keepinitreal would have pounced on me for the subject change.  I have no problem with how you make your argument.


I'll be stubborn too. 

More good guys having guns does not equate to your what-if querying about "all law abiding citizens being allowed to carry" or the "10 times more gun carriers" as you have also asked.  You very much exaggerate what you think you know.   Then you want to interject what you think gun owners want.   You seem to be one law abiding citizen that I definitely would not want to have a gun.  I am picturing Don Knotts as Barney Fife in Mayberry here.

Andy comes to the rescue when Barney gets his gun stuck on his finger.

One major comedic source is Barney's lack of ability with a firearm. After numerous misfires (usually a Colt .38 caliber revolver), Andy restricts Barney to carrying only a single bullet in his shirt pocket, "in case of an emergency." The bullet always seems to find its way back into the pistol, where, predictably, it is accidentally discharged.

__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 7,847
Reply with quote  #131 
I for one don't think arming teachers is necessarily a great idea, unless they happen to be skilled at firearm use, and have been a carry permittee before the current histeria took hold.  Throwing guns in their pockets without practice, practice, practice is not likely very helpful.

Unfortunately, though, I think that once schools have become hardened targets, people intent on hurting large numbers of others before they swallow their own bullet can find plenty of places to do that.

Cops, cops, cops.  Have a cop in each school (2 in HS), like the states my kids have attended school in.  I know you said before this is OK with you.

The NRA spokespeople are about as credible as those morons at the American Center for Progressive America, or whatever that place is that just gave their keen insights to Obama.  I guess when I hear them talk, I generally ignore them, just like I do with Limbaugh and the other talk heads.

Also - Biden is dreaming if he thinks guns can to be made so that only the original purchaser can fire them.  Even if it can be done, which I doubt, it's lame.

I understood your reasons for not wanting to item by item on your ban list - that wasn't intended to be a knock on you, as you explained it previously.

I do think, though, that this thread diverged into a hypothetical.

I hope you found my stimulus comment clever - I must admit, I amused myself a bit with it.

As for good guys carrying....

My kids were actually asking me at dinner a few nights ago if I could actually shoot another human (like if someone came in ready to shoot up a food court or something).  Before I could answer, my wife jumped in and said that, if her and the kids were at risk, that I wouldn't hesitate for a second.  Then she said that knowing me, even though at times she might secretly wish otherwise because she wouldn't necessarily want me to put myself in harm's way, she also knew that I also would not hesitate to try to save others.  The kids asked, "but what if you got hurt?"  I told them that, as much I love them, I could not sleep another night in my life if I stood quietly by and watched innocent people die, if I had the means, the knowledge, and wits about me to prevent it.

I would like to think, and I may well be wrong here, that I am not some whacko, self-impowered Pat Garrett figure.  I would also like to think that maybe there are fellow citizens who feel like I do, who would try to protect my family, as I would theirs, if I were not around.  Hopefully, that is what they mean when they talk about the good guys carrying.

I know there are clowns out there with permits who think they are Wyatt Earp, and it's their job to be the sheriff.  But, I think those types are very few and far between.  I actually don't think I know anyone who owns a handgun that feels that way.

I hope that when the time comes for me to meet my maker, I do so as an old man (with about 10 grandkids and 30 great-grandkids) that never had to unholster his weapon outside of a shooting range. 
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #132 
keepinitreal - Talk about getting most of it wrong.  I posed a question, based on the dialogue I see taking place and shared it with members here, (Grizzly, CoachB), and asked a question.  They agreed with some of those I see on TV that more armed people will mean less shootings and will make for a safer Country.  I disagreed with them and then you chimed in. 

Who wants everyone armed?  I never said anyone did but I asked if every law abiding citizen were armed, would we be a safer Country with less shootings?  You exaggerated and said who wants old ladies armed?  I changed my hypothesis for your benefit and asked you if the amount of concealed weapon holders increased by tenfold, (maybe I should have said doubled), next year, would we have more or less shootings?  Who wants to increase concealed weapon carriers by ten fold you asked?  Nobody, it was a different form of my original hypothesis asking if more people are armed will there be more or less shootings?  Who are you to say what gun owners want?  I never said any such thing.  Then this led to another member to question me as to who is asking for private citizens to be armed?  Then I provided a link showing who.  All you've managed to do is fog up the conversation.  In any event, I got my answer as two members say if there was an increase in citizens carrying weapons, we would have less shootings.  I disagree and I was honestly surprised to get this answer.  I can see where the shooting may be reversed from good guy to bad guy, I can see where confrontations might lead to more shootings than they do today if more people are carrying, and I can see more mistaken shootings as a possibility.  I have trouble seeing how they go down from where they are today.  Coach and Grizzly had not trouble with the hypothesis and I did my best to clarify it for you.  Again, sorry it got so confusing.

Signed,

Deputy Fife



mikec - I hope the same for you and may that meeting be many years from now.

__________________
President Obama kept Republicans out of the White House for 8 years and added two excellent justices to the Supreme Court.  Those two things alone make him one of our greatest Presidents of my lifetime.
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 21,874
Reply with quote  #133 
dewey, you have been everywhere on this thread, mostly from one extreme or the other....and to clear it up I 'chimed in' as far back as page one on your asinine rocket launcher comment.
__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #134 
kiir - If you need any answer clarified, just ask me.  Anytime.
__________________
President Obama kept Republicans out of the White House for 8 years and added two excellent justices to the Supreme Court.  Those two things alone make him one of our greatest Presidents of my lifetime.
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 21,874
Reply with quote  #135 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
kiir - If you need any answer clarified, just ask me.  Anytime.


Ok, without saying leave it up to the polls or let Congress vote on it.  What would be your reasoning for not allowing States to settle their own gun control issues? 

__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #136 
The Constitution allows for federal laws to govern in certain areas.  As long as we travel through various States, I want National guidelines to govern our safety.  I want them to say no hand grenades, no machine guns, no military style assault weapons, no tainted food because States don't require food inspection, no ability for a State to arrest me without telling me my rights, etc.  Some things fall under Federal responsibility as far as I'm concerned.
__________________
President Obama kept Republicans out of the White House for 8 years and added two excellent justices to the Supreme Court.  Those two things alone make him one of our greatest Presidents of my lifetime.
Wolfpackfan

Registered:
Posts: 1,918
Reply with quote  #137 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
wolfpackfan and spazsdad - Thanks for the response but I'm still curious if you believe there will be more shootings and trials, as a result of various confrontations, fistfights, etc., if people are all carrying concealed weapons or do you believe there will there be less.  The argument on your side is it will be a safer America is everyone is packing.  Let me remind you, I'm not advocating denying people the right to carry weapons but questioning the suggestion there will be less shootings if everyone were armed.  Is a completely armed America safer or would there be more shooting deaths.

PS:  I had the Florida incident in mind with my analogy.  The bigger guy shot the little guy once he was overpowered.  How would Arizona law have applied to this incident?
I did some checking and could find nothing showing any increase in shootings in AZ since a law allowing anyone who could legally own a hand gun be allowed to carry it concealed. I went through a concealed weapons course and obtained a permit even though it is not required. There are benefits and larger latitude when you have a permit. I find that when I carry I am very mind full to keep my mouth quiet and keep cool when some jerk is spouting off.
As far as the Florida incident I actually spoke to a Deputy in Maricopa county who said it would be hard to defend the use of deadly force in a physical confrotation due to the equal force rule.
Now with that said a guy by the name of Fisher had his conviction overturned He was hiking and came upon 3 dogs which became aggressive he fired a shot in the ground and scared them off. The owner who was well back when this happened went berserk and started running at Fisher who in turn after warning him shot and killed him. He was convicted but like I said was overturned 6 years later in a new trial because he feared for his life. My opinion is he should be in jail but with no witness's??????

__________________
Go Pack!!!!!!!!!!!
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 21,874
Reply with quote  #138 
Old article but you get the idea.  The numbers have not gone up since 2000 if that is the next question. [except for burglary and those numbers will be trending back down shortly.  Have heard MANY stories of robbers shot when entering homes in Texas recently]

Violent Crimes Drop In Texas Under "Concealed Carry" Gun Law

October 13, 2000

In 1995, Texans got the right to carry concealed weapons if they obtained permits to do so. Since then, violent crime rates in the state have fallen.

Here are some of the statistics compiled by the Texas Department of Public Safety comparing crimes in 1995 to those in 1999.

  • Per 100,000 population, rates for aggravated assault fell from 429.3 to 370.
  • Robberies declined from a rate of 179.8 to 146.8.
  • The rape rate was down to 38.1 per 100,000 from 45.5.
  • And murders fell from 9 per 100,000 to 6.1.

Since carrying a concealed weapon in the Lone Star State was legalized, overall violent crimes have declined from 644.2 per 100,000 to 561.

As a group, Texans with concealed-weapon permits are far less likely to commit crimes than other Texans, says Sterling Burnett of the National Center for Policy Analysis. "You don't get a concealed carry permit because you want to commit a crime," he points out. You get one "because you fear crimes against you."

Burnett reports that permit-holders in 1999 were 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for violent crimes than those without permits. They were 14 times less likely to be arrested for nonviolent offenses. And they were 28 percent less likely to be arrested for murder.

Source: Benjamin Kepple, "Texas' Gun-Totin' Ways Hit by Gore, But Data Show Violent Crime Falling," Investor's Business Daily, October 13, 2000.

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=9367


__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 21,874
Reply with quote  #139 

Texas Crime Rates 1960 - 2011

 
Texas Crime Rates 1960 - 2011
      Forcible  Aggravated  Larceny- Vehicle 
Year Population Index Violent Property Murder Rape Robbery assault Burglary Theft Theft 
1960 9,579,677 212,407 15,428 196,979 824 892 3,031 10,681 57,589 123,415 15,975 
1961 9,788,000 208,310 15,441 192,869 788 932 3,042 10,679 56,814 120,707 15,348 
1962 10,116,000 217,270 15,516 201,754 730 937 3,192 10,657 58,017 126,751 16,986 
196310,323,000 231,576 17,511 214,065 760 1,008 3,70012,043 62,867 133,454 17,744 
1964 10,397,000 260,701 19,769 240,932 785 1,176 4,479 13,329 68,170 151,736 21,026 
1965 10,551,000 272,627 21,029 251,598 793 1,132 4,509 14,595 71,636 159,767 20,195 
1966 10,752,000 308,854 24,382 284,472 983 1,237 5,987 16,175 82,651 176,987 24,834 
1967 10,869,000 340,164 26,749 313,415 1,073 1,428 7,558 16,690 89,387 195,275 28,753 
1968 10,972,000 381,640 29,646 351,994 1,163 1,589 9,091 17,803 103,095 214,729 34,170 
1969 11,187,000 443,842 36,707 407,135 1,269 2,153 13,045 20,240 122,152 241,732 43,251 
1970 11,196,000 467,248 40,897426,351 1,299 2,329 15,280 21,989 129,866 251,091 45,394 
1971 11,460,000 469,868 43,089 426,779 1,383 2,701 14,220 24,785 135,648 247,653 43,478 
1972 11,649,000 455,985 41,285 414,700 1,440 2,739 14,013 23,093 141,613 233,646 39,441 
1973 11,794,000 486,564 45,458 441,106 1,506 2,976 17,056 23,920 150,463 248,538 42,105 
1974 12,050,000 576,832 47,008 529,824 1,652 3,486 19,757 22,113 185,928 297,850 46,046 
1975 12,237,000 661,675 47,803 613,872 1,639 3,430 20,076 22,658 203,821 362,665 47,386 
1976 12,487,000 682,340 44,422 637,918 1,519 3,666 17,352 21,885 193,280 400,767 43,871 
1977 12,830,000 692,450 52,309 640,141 1,705 4,338 19,552 26,714 205,672 383,451 51,018 
197813,014,000 723,164 56,650 666,514 1,853 4,927 21,395 28,475 209,770 398,923 57,821 
1979 13,385,000 793,097 67,988 725,109 2,235 6,043 25,667 34,043 239,758 412,515 72,836 
1980 14,169,829 870,458 77,978 792,480 2,392 6,700 29,547 39,339 262,600 450,792 79,088 
1981 14,755,000 892,723 78,560 814,163 2,446 6,821 28,528 40,765 275,978 454,879 83,306 
1982 15,280,000 962,977 88,178 874,799 2,466 6,816 33,618 45,278 285,967 501,727 87,105 
1983 15,724,000 928,858 80,546 848,312 2,239 6,333 29,769 42,205 262,198 503,582 82,532 
1984 15,989,000 964,128 80,737 883,391 2,093 7,343 28,540 42,761266,074 529,518 87,799 
1985 16,370,000 1,075,295 90,030 985,265 2,132 8,364 31,680 47,854 289,825 595,912 99,528 
1986 16,682,000 1,235,822 109,925 1,125,897 2,258 8,607 40,021 59,039 341,747 665,029 119,121 
1987 16,789,000 1,296,519 105,961 1,190,558 1,959 8,068 38,053 57,881 355,597 711,594 123,367 
1988 16,780,000 1,345,369 109,499 1,235,870 2,022 8,119 39,301 60,057 361,972 739,642 134,256 
1989 16,991,000 1,346,866 111,889 1,234,977 2,029 7,951 37,913 63,996 342,346 741,660 150,971 
1990 16,986,510 1,329,494 129,343 1,200,151 2,389 8,750 44,297 73,907 314,512 731,224 154,415 
1991 17,349,000 1,356,527 145,743 1,210,784 2,652 9,266 49,700 84,125 312,693 734,261 163,830 
1992 17,656,000 1,246,148 142,369 1,103,779 2,239 9,437 44,588 86,105 268,928 689,780 145,071 
1993 18,031,000 1,161,031 137,419 1,023,612 2,147 9,922 40,469 84,881 233,913 664,862 124,837 
1994 18,378,000 1,079,225 129,838 949,387 2,022 9,102 37,643 81,071 214,687 623,947 110,753 
1995 18,724,000 1,064,336 124,303 940,033 1,693 8,563 33,667 80,380 202,642 632,468 104,923 
1996 19,128,000 1,092,002 123,270 968,732 1,477 8,376 32,804 80,613 204,390 659,414 104,928 
1997 19,439,000 1,065,357 117,126 948,231 1,327 8,011 30,522 77,266 201,059 645,451 101,721 
1998 19,760,000 1,010,062 111,566 898,496 1,346 7,913 28,677 73,630 194,883 606,967 96,646 
1999 20,044,141 1,008,567 112,306 896,261 1,217 7,61429,405 74,070 190,362613,862 92,037 
2000 20,851,820 1,033,311 113,653 919,658 1,238 7,856 30,257 74,302188,975 637,522 93,161 
2001 21,370,983 1,098,809 122,155 976,654 1,332 8,169 35,348 77,306 204,362 669,625 102,667 
2002 21,736,925 1,130,292 126,018 1,004,2741,302 8508 37,580 78,628 212,602 688,992 102,680 
2003 22,103,374 1,138,981 122,246 1,016,735 1,422 8,025 37,017 75,782 219,877 698,644 98,644 
2004 22,471,549 1,132,256 121,554 1,010,702 1,364 8,38835,817 75,985 220,118696,507 94,077 
2005 22,928,508 1,111,384 121,091 990,293 1,407 8,511 35,790 75,383219,828 677,042 93,423 
2006 23,507,783 1,080,838 121,378 959,460 1,384 8,372 37,254 74,368215,647 648,38495,429 
2007 23,904,380 1,107,196 122,054 985,142 1,420 8,439 38,769 73,426228,313 662,93093,899 
2008 24,304,290 1,093,506123,586 969,920 1,370 8,055 37,739 76,422230,054 654,48285,384 
2009 24,782,302 1,116,766121,684995,0821,3308,311 38,02274,021240,058678,45576,569 
201025,253,4661,064,477113,231951,2461,2497,62232,84371,517228,597654,62668,023
201125,674,681 996,372104,873891,4991,1267,43928,39567,913215,223612,93863,338

__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 21,874
Reply with quote  #140 
From the chart, Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports

murders in 2011 in Texas were at a low not seen since 1967.

__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
Wolfpackfan

Registered:
Posts: 1,918
Reply with quote  #141 
Not sure how they do it in Texas but in Arizona you go through a FBI background check so obviously those who make it through that are less likely to commit crimes. This is why it is so frustrating because you make new gun control laws all you are doing is keeping certain weapons etc from law abiding citizens.
__________________
Go Pack!!!!!!!!!!!
spazsdad

Registered:
Posts: 4,455
Reply with quote  #142 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfpackfan
Not sure how they do it in Texas but in Arizona you go through a FBI background check so obviously those who make it through that are less likely to commit crimes. This is why it is so frustrating because you make new gun control laws all you are doing is keeping certain weapons etc from law abiding citizens.

That is why it come s across that the real goal of "gun control" laws are not to protect anyone but rather to remove guns from everyone. Criminals don't follow them and law abiding citizens are penalized by them.
Like most causes on the left if they came out and said what their ultimate goal was they would never have support except from the fringe. Wrap a pretty bow around it, say it is for the children or some other nonsense, and play on people's emotions.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #143 
Are you willing to take into consideration that the gun owning folks, like the Giffords of Arizona, and non-gun owners like me simply want some of these "excessive" weapons off the streets?  I understand these have to be identified in public policy but do you understand why some folks do not want some of these weapons, and yes, hand grenades, in the hands of the public?  We want people to have the right to bear arms, but not any and all arms.  Is this position understandable?
__________________
President Obama kept Republicans out of the White House for 8 years and added two excellent justices to the Supreme Court.  Those two things alone make him one of our greatest Presidents of my lifetime.
fhoenix

Registered:
Posts: 4,948
Reply with quote  #144 
Most states have seen a decline in crime. There are cities with gang problems but those are armed gang members shooting armed gang members.
Technology. Home security systems are better and there are cameras everywhere. Cars now have Lojack protection, keyless entry, remote access, and the skytrek system even sends images to your pc when car broken into as well as alarm and remote start and engine disable mechanism. This means when it is broken into the owner can shut down the engine from wherever they are thru a smartphone or pc.
Also note concealed guns carried or not have nothingto do with home break in or car break in stats.

No concealed weapons in california yet their crime stats all went down too...including vioelent crimes. It is because many factors of modern society are to be considered...not just 1 thing. I won't post all the graphs and charts just a statement from the state of california dept. of justice site--
"Overall, since statewide crime peaked in 1992, crime rates in all three categories have been cut in half – the rates have tumbled -58.9% for violent crime, -51.7% for property crime, and -48.5% for larceny and theft. In total, more than 1.4 million arrests were made in California in 2009, down from more than 1.9 million 20 years ago.Driving the downward trend were California’s five largest counties, all of which recorded significant crime rate declines from 2008 to 2009."

Gun ownership is a right-- not a problem nor a solution for crime. And types of guns or clip sizes don't matter. Only a person intending to commit a crime or kill people is leaving their home with something other than a handgun. And the only person that should care if you own an AR-15 rifle is the person who is breaking into your home.

__________________
‎"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine." -- Abraham Lincoln
Wolfpackfan

Registered:
Posts: 1,918
Reply with quote  #145 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
Are you willing to take into consideration that the gun owning folks, like the Giffords of Arizona, and non-gun owners like me simply want some of these "excessive" weapons off the streets?  I understand these have to be identified in public policy but do you understand why some folks do not want some of these weapons, and yes, hand grenades, in the hands of the public?  We want people to have the right to bear arms, but not any and all arms.  Is this position understandable?[/QUote/]



     
I certainly understand the position I just disagree with it. There is very little discussion about the mental health aspect of these mass shootings. The people carrying out these heinous acts are literally criminally insane. Why is there more talk about banning the tool then there is about the real problem. Why are we not talking more about getting these people off the streets???
 Can you understand why I and other Law abiding citizens don't understand why we can't own ANY Weapon we want?? I have never been arrested for ANY Crime, I like to think that when I am armed that everyone around me is a little safer. Why do you or anyone care what kind of weapon I have????
As far as the Giffords I can understand how a bullet in the head may change ones position but Gabby Giffords was a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment and gun owners rights. Now she supports Gun Control is this an admission that she was wrong in her prior support??? No she is just being manipulated by the gun control folks.
It just goes to show the depth people will go to move their agendas, President Obama has not pushed for gun control in the past even though he has always supported tough gun laws. Why now , Sandy Hook? There have been plenty of shootings before that Virgina Tech why not push for it then? Guess the President does not have to worry about reelection!
__________________
Go Pack!!!!!!!!!!!
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #146 
wolfpackfan - There is no disagreement that mentally ill folks need to be kept away from weapons.  No need to keep discussing something we all agree upon.  Whether all weapons should be legal to own is in disagreement and will continue to be a major part of the discussion.  I understand your position too and, fortunately, when we can't all agree, we have an avenue to resolve these issues.

I have a brother-in-law that is still upset with me for voting against legalizing marijuana.  He's got a point as he's law abiding otherwise but I thought it was better for the Country as a whole to vote the way I did.  I may have been wrong there too in the minds of many. 

__________________
President Obama kept Republicans out of the White House for 8 years and added two excellent justices to the Supreme Court.  Those two things alone make him one of our greatest Presidents of my lifetime.
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 21,874
Reply with quote  #147 
Yes, we must get rid of these "excessive" weapons.  Now if someone would just define "excessive".

When that is complete, I would like to rollback, "excessive" taxation.  Then perhaps remove some of the "excessive" business roadblocks and the "excessive" government nanny state we live in. 

__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
Wolfpackfan

Registered:
Posts: 1,918
Reply with quote  #148 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
wolfpackfan - There is no disagreement that mentally ill folks need to be kept away from weapons.  No need to keep discussing something we all agree upon.  Whether all weapons should be legal to own is in disagreement and will continue to be a major part of the discussion.  I understand your position too and, fortunately, when we can't all agree, we have an avenue to resolve these issues.
Of  course your right and I don't know why I am worried because our government cannot seem to come together and pass any meaningful legislation anymore.
With that said what is your response to my assertion that a law abiding citizen should be able to own any weapon they want?

__________________
Go Pack!!!!!!!!!!!
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #149 
Yesterday, I was told somebody's mother should never own a weapon.  Law abiding had nothing to do with it.  Can never know when someone might lose the ability to act in a responsible manner.  In any event, I think we are at the banning of manufacturing and sales and not in the confiscation mode.  Unless you have that suitcase nuke or chemical weapon, you are probably safe to keep your weapon.
__________________
President Obama kept Republicans out of the White House for 8 years and added two excellent justices to the Supreme Court.  Those two things alone make him one of our greatest Presidents of my lifetime.
Wolfpackfan

Registered:
Posts: 1,918
Reply with quote  #150 
Dewey I have 1 other question . What will the affect be of banning from Law Abiding citizens  Assualt weapons and high capacity magazines have on mass shootings??
__________________
Go Pack!!!!!!!!!!!
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation: