This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Actually, this proves is that you don't have enough tact not to put political rhetoric on the main FF discussion board.
I've never seen compelling evidance to suggest that restrictions on when/where guns are allowed has made anything safer. If anything, unnecessary gun control laws seem to do the opposite. But what do I know.
:golfclap:
Clarence the barber said:
Obviously you don't know much on this subject...I've never seen compelling evidence that law abiding citizens carrying guns is unsafe. If anything, cutting down on the number of responsible adults allowed to carry only makes things more unsafe, because a criminal will carry with or without gun laws...hth.renesauz said:
Yes, because this is exactly what will be the result at the Super Bowl. People being more protected and safer.two_dollars said:
Interestingly, in a natural experiment where certain states switched to concealed carry laws -- empirically, the effect of concealed gun ownership was associated with a 8 percent fall in murder rate, 5 percent fall in rape, 3 percent fall in robbery, and 7 percent reduction in aggravated assault.Quibble with the numbers, perhaps, but what is most striking is that the actions of a very small group of people - who actually pursue getting one of these licenses- has a possible deterrent effect on criminal behavior.Yes, because this is exactly what will be the result at the Super Bowl. People being more protected and safer.two_dollars said:
Be honest: it would make for compelling television if you knew that most Eagles fans were packing heat on gameday.
The only way I'd support this is a Jets/Colts game with both fanbases armed and someone slipped meth into the beer supply.
Was about to post the same thing.Not to mention if you had Super Bowl XL style refereeing added to the mix.-QG
Ummm...yeah. Kinda what I said.
So, based on your logic, you don't know much on this subject either.
at all yet Chicago has one of the highest gun crime rates in the country even though they have the most restrictive gun laws. Seems ironic that when returning to my state from surrounding states that honor my out of state CCL I must pull over near the state line and stow my firearm where it can't do me any good otherwise I morph into a criminal intent on hurting the people of my state.
The Swiss have the lowest rate of murder and robbery in the West. Guess what the Swiss Govt buys everyone for thier 18th birthday, male or female, to keep for life(Along with a 1-2 part time army stint).That said I don't think we need everyone packing heat at the super bowl.
You are not. This guy is a class A douchbag and moron...obviously he started a political topic that was bound to piss people off. He is a turd. I seriously do not care if I get banned off of here for saying that. total ##### bag.
Intelligent response.
The lack of common sense on this board is down right funny.Allow more people to carry guns, that solves everything, especially in a crowded place.Politicians are not doing this for any other reason then someone with a lot of cash in the gun industry paid them off.Not to mention, if these people are carrying guns...think of accidental shootings, or others getting ahold of the gun some how.
Anyone who defends this government, or politicians are not capable of giving an intelligent response.Example of our genius politicians: Our government gave the tax payers money to the banks when they went broke with the faulty and illegal mortgage system they had setup. Then these banks loan our money to us, with interest, and give their execs million dollar bonuses. But, people who allow that to happen are not idiots? Politicians do not care about us, its about the money they can put in their pocket and if they can get re-elected. Oh, and the name calling rant, seriously?
I'm sure that would come in handy in many a Saturday night bar fight.
... or the Test Forum.
The problem with your "logic" is that a law such as this would take guns away from all law abiding citizens. The criminals would still have their guns no matter what. Sounds like a great idea.
WOW...that's twice someone has totally misread me. I don't have a gun, and I don't feel an overwhelming urge to own one. That said, I have no fear of the average citizen owning one, and I believe that unless you take away ALL guns in EVERY state, including hunting weapons, then we're all much safer going to the opposite extreme, which is to permit all citizens to carry them. Countries with low crime rates sit at one extreme or the other...they don't sit in the middle like we do.FWIW...I would much prefer to dramatically loosen gun laws. My earlier post was meant to contain at least a hint of irony. IE: WAY too many people do feel very strongly about their "right to bear arms" for the gun-control nuts to be able to control guns anywhere near enough to actually reduce crime. Their efforts to this point have done the opposite.The problem with your "logic" is that a law such as this would take guns away from all law abiding citizens. The criminals would still have their guns no matter what. Sounds like a great idea.
Yes I missed the point. My fault and I apologize.WOW...that's twice someone has totally misread me. I don't have a gun, and I don't feel an overwhelming urge to own one. That said, I have no fear of the average citizen owning one, and I believe that unless you take away ALL guns in EVERY state, including hunting weapons, then we're all much safer going to the opposite extreme, which is to permit all citizens to carry them. Countries with low crime rates sit at one extreme or the other...they don't sit in the middle like we do.FWIW...I would much prefer to dramatically loosen gun laws. My earlier post was meant to contain at least a hint of irony. IE: WAY too many people do feel very strongly about their "right to bear arms" for the gun-control nuts to be able to control guns anywhere near enough to actually reduce crime. Their efforts to this point have done the opposite.The problem with your "logic" is that a law such as this would take guns away from all law abiding citizens. The criminals would still have their guns no matter what. Sounds like a great idea.
We are most passionate about our FREEDOMS. For every gun crime that happens in the US there are 200,000,000 other legal gun owners who managed to act responsibly with their firearms. Many believe that our RIGHT to own a gun in this country played a huge part in the fact that Germany and Japan didn't try to invade the US mainland during WW2. Of course, the first thing dictators(Hitler, Stalin, etc)do to "manage" the people is to confiscate the guns from the public so there is no resistance, thereby ensuring success of the regime. Now let's get back to talking Fantasy Football.
Wat?!Sorry, but i think that's just a nice "excuse" for owning a gun. ;-)
During WW2, Germany had the greatest army the world had ever seen. I promise you, they were not afraid of a bunch of cowboys with six-shooters. The reason Japan and Germany didn't invade the U.S. is because of those two huge oceans on either side of the North American continent. It's very hard to supply an invasion force from that far away.If every idiot in this country was packing heat, I'd move to Canada for sure.
dude, please know that there are some of us out here with no police records, who don't believe in violence as means to resolve disputes who own guns because there are examples of other countries (eg: Bosnia-Herzogovenia) where an un-armed populace gets completed friggin slaughtered by the government;
wait, so do you own a gun because you want to protect yourself from slaughter by the government? or to defend yourself if someone kicks in your door? what you're failing to realize is that a gun doesn't really help you in either scenario. but it gives you the feeling/illusion that it does.if someone kicks in your door to steal your stuff that you keep in your single-engine boat house tied to a dock, and you both are armed, there's a very good chance one of you is going to die. you might be able to kill the intruder or he might kill you, but guns escalate violence. imagine a land where most people DON'T have guns.... you know, like most other industrialized countries. how ever do they protect themselves? they must be getting their boat-houses robbed all the time. (sarcasm... actually they live in safer societies by any measure of that word).
An absolutely ridiculous post. I own guns because I like to hunt and I like to shoot at targets. I enjoy it. I endanger you or any other citizen in no way shape or form. My guns are kept in a safe bolted to my basement floor in my house with a security system (The security system is protection for my family in case you missed that) I don't let anyone touch my guns except those who are qualified, meaning they take a gun safety course and then only under my supervision. I don't loan them out and I know where they are at all times.Now having said that, I'm guessing you drive a car? Talk about a dangerous weapon, ever notice someone texting, applying makeup, drunk driving, talking on the phone while driving... heck even simply talking on the phone? You will call this a ridiculous comparison but you know the truth is those people and their vehicles are FAR more dangerous to you or any citizen of this country than MOST gun owners. Yes MOST, you don't ear about the responsible gun owners because we don't own them to shoot people... period.
You're completely correct, and thank you for responsible gun ownership. But there are many gun owners who are not like you. There are also nearly as many guns in the US as there are people. 200-300 million. And I recognize that any gun laws will not be obeyed by the real criminals.Just like a car, a gun is a calculated risk. You're right that your chance of being in a car accident is higher than being in a gun accident or gun-related injury. Both are statistical certainties. We tolerate that calculated risk for driving cars because cars serve a useful purpose. When a car functions correctly, we get to work, and car accidents are a tolerable side effect. When a hand gun functions correctly, it shoots. Sometimes it shoots people, and sometimes it shoots people accidentally. But the primary purpose of a gun is not to sit in your security-protected locker. OP - sorry for the hijack, i will stop. Of course there shouldn't be guns at the Super Bowl.
Yet we know how hard it was for the US to wage war in Vietnam. The idea that an armed public is not a threat to a foreign (or domestic) military is not consistent with history.
Karma, you make a realistic argument for gun control, but you have to realize that the type of control necessary to achieve the result you envision is total control. NOT what we have in the US today. Half-measures don't improve our safety, they lessen it. There are many countries where guns are plentiful, yet the crime rates are low (Switzerland, for example). There are examples here of cities where gun laws are so strict that almost nobody has them legally...and the crime statistics are very high (Detroit). Criminals are less likely to commit crimes when their targets are likely to also be armed.Like it or not, agree with them or not, the guys who like their guns and want their guns will not give up their guns or their "right" to own them. Given that fact, the public safety would be better served to lessen gun restrictions and stop attaching a negative stigma to gun ownership by law-abiding citizens. If criminals KNEW that 1/3 or 1/2 of their targets were toting....most would not be criminals, and half the rest would be dead instead of living off our tax dollars in prisons.
Vegas will have betting lines for # of shootingstime of first shootingpenalties called just before shooting####s/missesetc.
