N
Nate13
Guest
Jesus didn’t question as to why Peter had a sword, he questioned his use of it 
- Status
N
Newbie2
Guest
Where is this in force (what city)? How far up the legal chain did the challenge go?
Government only has a limited ability to mandate that private citizens purchase something. I’ll bet that there are/were some exceptions written in the law.
From a strictly legal standpoint, such a mandate opens up quite a can of worms. Perhaps some legal eagles can weigh in on this…
J
jwinch2
Guest
Kennesaw, GA is the city from what I remember. And the ordinance passed through referendum in which the citizens voted on it as a proposition from what I recall. I know it has been challenged when it first came out but I don’t remember the details…
T
TimothyH
Guest
Christ is not going to call you to account for putting out a fire when you thought your TV might burn up. He is going to ask you about the life you took when you thought your TV was being stolen.
I have no skin in this game. I don’t care if anyone carries a gun or if everyone carries a gun or if noone carries a gun. I choose not to because I don’t trust myself with one. And knowing myself, I’m not going to risk being called to account by God for taking a life, not matter what the reason. I just don’t want to have to answer the question when I die, that’s all.
I just think it is important, from an eternal salvation perspective, to ask ourselves what we are defending, against what we are defending it, and what the results of that defense are. If you break into my house and steal my TV and shooting you means I go to hell, then enjoy your new TV dude!
-Tim-
N
Newbie2
Guest
I wonder how stringently it is enforced…
J
jwinch2
Guest
No idea…
I know the issue was that since, they are a suburb of Atlanta, they were getting alot of crime making its way out to them on the weekends from people who were not from there. They decided to pass the ordinance and crime dropped significantly the following year.
P
promethius
Guest
That is correct. I do recall reading a statistic a year ago that found the following:
25% of mass shootings stopped by police
25% of mass shootings are stopped by armed citizens
50% of mass shootings stopped by unarmed citizens, the shooter commits suicide, or the shooter simply stops shooting/leaves
The important finding is that cases where a mass shooting was stopped by an armed citizen, the resulting casualties were 90% less than the other cases. Waiting for police to arrive typically involves approximately the same number of casualties as unarmed citizens trying to stop them.
Most places where concealed carry is allowed require people to pass a proficiency test with their weapon before they are able to get a license to carry. The myth of innocent bystanders getting mowed down in a protracted gunfight is also a hollywood propaganda piece. The average shooting conflict between a mass shooter and an armed citizen lasts 15 seconds and involves no bystanders being hit by the armed citizen.
N
Newbie2
Guest
You have statistics to support this? I’m not arguing against it, just wonder where you get that information.
Sure, they have to stand there and shoot at a target, but realistically, it stands to reason that it’s a much different matter to point a firearm at a real person and shoot them, with a steady hand, perhaps as the bad guy is pointing the business end of his or her gun at them.
Right here, right now in Detroit, there is a guy on trial for unintentionally killing someone when he missed when he was shooting at a bad guy…doesn’t really matter to the victim’s family whether or not there was a “protracted gunfight” or not, the victim is just as dead.
I know a…pardon the stereotype…“blonde” neighbor who has a CCW and carries. Yes, I’d be worried and so would you if you knew her that she has in her possession, when she goes out into public, a lethal weapon.
I’m not against carrying, per se, but I am saying that there are some people who are legally eligible to carry that shouldn’t be…
S
Swiss_Guy
Guest
Jesus didn’t question as to why Peter had a sword, he questioned his use of it
Although I think there should be some restrictions, if citizens can’t have weapons, then who knows what the government will do?
Look at what happens when citizens have no arms whatsoever…
B
BigFellaMick
Guest
people that want weapons out of fear for “what if” scenarios show a complete lack of faith in trusting God with their lives. The people of europe do not have rampant gun ownership in their populations and their violent crime in comparison to ours is non existent. Get rid of the guns and the crime rate goes down significantly. Of course gangs will still have their guns illegally and what not but that is what the police are for. The arguments been made before but it stands to reason. Taking a life is taking a life. My friend is a prime example of why guns are bad and shouldn’t be allowed in a civilized society. He buys a buttload of guns (he’s a gunsmith) and is always prepared “just in case”. He had a gun in every room of his house so that no matter where he was, if someone kicked open his door he would be within arms reach of a loaded weapon. I think the more recent american generations have just played too many video games and watched too many bruce willis movies (not knockin on Bruce, the mans a beast). But I’m just saying. That kind of paranoia is not healthy. It’s time america joined the rest of the world and got rid of its guns.
J
jwinch2
Guest
How are those gun restrictions working in Chicago, IL?
By your way of thinking, none of us should learn CPR or first aid. Forget having a fire extinguisher around the house or wearing our seat belts when we drive. Who needs car seats for little kids or airbags? Let’s get rid of AED’s in public places and just think of all the money we can save by not getting annual physicals, going to the dentists, and staffing those pointless emergency rooms at hospitals. Sunscreen, who needs it?
I challenge anyone on this forum to provide evidence of significant crime perpetrated by people who were licensed to carry a firearm by their state of residence.
A
asia53
Guest
This is a gross generalization. I’m a 58 year old female gun owner who lives with her elderly mother. Our lives and welfare could hinge on a “what if” scenario. In my case,it has nothing to do with not trusting the Lord, it’s not paranoia— it’s common sense. I’m a nurse, I’ve seen the results of not being able to defend yourself. I don’t care how good or bad a neighborhood you live in, it can happen anywhere, and to anyone.
I have 3 weapons: 20 gauge shotgun, Lady Smith 9mm, and an inherited 22 rifle. My weapons are unloaded, secured in one place, and the ammo is in another place. I detest video games, mindless drivel.
I was 32 when I acquired my first weapon, after a good friend, who lived alone, was murdered. Her murder is still unsolved.
I’ve used my weapons one time for self-defense. I didn’t fire, I didn’t brandish it—I pumped my shotgun, whoever slit my screen door, trying to jimmy open my patio door, heard the “kerchunk”, and ran away. At that time, I lived alone.
Some of us gun owners are responsible, level-headed citizens.
P
promethius
Guest
I’m not able at the moment to find the article with the statistic I quoted (not exactly, anyway). However, I did find this set of statistics (cited in the document):
concealedcampus.org/pdf/ccw_gun_facts.pdf
C
Corki
Guest
Well said. I got my first gun when I lived a ways out of the city and was living alone. We had some wild dogs that were chasing pets and even harrassing some kids. My neighbor called the sherrif and it took over an hour for them to get out to us. I realized that fast response was not going to be likely simply due to location and I needed to be prepared. Thus my .357.
That’s not lack of faith, or abundance of fear. It’s simple preparedness. Now that I live in Texas, I keep a hurricane preparedness kit packed during the hurricane season. Does that mean I lack faith in God? No, it is just being prudent – which is a virtue by the way.
J
jwinch2
Guest
Oops.
http://www.justfacts.com/images/guncontrol/florida.jpg
oops.
http://www.justfacts.com/images/guncontrol/accidents_nonfatal.jpg
http://www.justfacts.com/images/guncontrol/florida.jpg
- Since the outset of the Florida right-to-carry law, the Florida murder rate has averaged 36% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 15% lower.
- Since the outset of the Texas right-to-carry law, the Texas murder rate has averaged 30% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 28% lower.[115]
- Since the outset of the Michigan right-to-carry law, the Michigan murder rate has averaged 4% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 2% lower.[119]
oops.
http://www.justfacts.com/images/guncontrol/accidents_nonfatal.jpg
J
jwinch2
Guest
http://www.justfacts.com/images/guncontrol/dc.jpg
During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower.
http://www.justfacts.com/images/guncontrol/england.jpg
the British homicide rate has averaged 52% higher since the outset of the 1968 gun control law and 15% higher since the outset of the 1997 handgun ban.
http://www.justfacts.com/images/guncontrol/chicago.jpg
Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the Chicago murder rate has averaged 17% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 25% lower.
http://www.justfacts.com/images/guncontrol/chicago_handguns.jpg
Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the percentage of Chicago murders committed with handguns has averaged about 40% higher than it was before the law took effect. In 2005, 96% of the firearm murder victims in Chicago were killed with handguns
During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower.
http://www.justfacts.com/images/guncontrol/england.jpg
the British homicide rate has averaged 52% higher since the outset of the 1968 gun control law and 15% higher since the outset of the 1997 handgun ban.
http://www.justfacts.com/images/guncontrol/chicago.jpg
Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the Chicago murder rate has averaged 17% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 25% lower.
http://www.justfacts.com/images/guncontrol/chicago_handguns.jpg
Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the percentage of Chicago murders committed with handguns has averaged about 40% higher than it was before the law took effect. In 2005, 96% of the firearm murder victims in Chicago were killed with handguns
P
promethius
Guest
I much prefer to trust God to help me aim.
Myth.
As someone who has lived in Europe (Germany and England) I’ll be the first to point out that I was briefed in England that home invasions (a break in when the home is occupied) are FAAAAAAR more common in the UK than the USofA. Furthermore, I received multiple briefings when I travelled to watch for knives and muggings, which are far more common than in the states.
The gun control countries have less crimes involving guns. But it is a myth that they have less “violent crime” altogether. They just use bats, crowbars, and knives instead.
Myth.
One only has to look at Washington DC to see that this claim is false, but the link I just posted, this one concealedcampus.org/pdf/ccw_gun_facts.pdf, also shows statistical backing that reveals violent crime is directly proportional to the level of gun control.
Not just gangs. A major problem in the UK at present is people purchasing starter pistols (think track races) and modifying them to fit pistol rounds. Grossly dangerous to fire, but they generally hold up long enough for the murder that the purchaser had in mind.
No it isn’t. There is a vast difference between murder and simply “taking a life”. A soldier and an abortionist are not the same thing. A serial rapist and murderer and a person shooting a home invader are not the same thing.
while I agree with you that he’s gone a bit overboard, what you’ve discussed is a difference of opinion. There is nothing about your friend’s behavior which is morally wrong or illegal.
You know, being deployed and being forced to be around literally thousands of people forced to carry firearms, the ones I’ve found to be the most dangerous about being around guns are the ones who are most in favor of no private firearmes (medical personnel, I’m looking at you!). Generally they are the ones who think that:
- Guns never go off if you don’t want them to. (putting fingers on triggers when not ready to fire, safeties off)
- If you fire a gun, the bullet goes straight to the target you were aiming at. (I’m pointing it at the target, why isn’t it just hitting it???)
- You don’t need to pay attention to what you’re doing with a firearm (not knowing why the gun doesn’t do what they want, and so turning around and pointing the barrel at everyone while it is loaded, chambered, and unsafe)
F
FLGreg
Guest
I tried to read this thread with impartiality until I got to this post. I have to respectfully disagree regarding your contention that there is no evidence supporting any deterrent effect of gun ownership:
Crime, Deterrence, and Right-To-Carry Concealed Handguns
Wasn’t there massive gun confiscation by Marcos in the 1970’s? Why are there still armed guards outside of every storefront in the capital? The only thing that your guns laws have succeeded in is raising the cost of goods because more security was needed. Even if you could remove every gun on the island, you folks would still be hacking each other up with bolos.
It wasn’t until I travelled to Luzon in 2007 that I had my first M-16 rifle pointed at me in anger by an overzealous police officer looking for kidnappers while I drove from Manila to Subic Bay.
F
FLGreg
Guest
REALLY?
Care to comment on:
Liverpool shootings 2011
That is just one UK city. How about other cities like Nottingham, Leeds or Manchester?
P
Pfaffenhoffen
Guest
Between '77 and 1986, nothing happened. then the curve went up. so, it take 9 years for the effect to take place. Then 1992-2006, There was a sharp curve down, unexplained. Then the handgun ban and a kagagesim of a milimeter down. Is this the proof???
The other graphics are even worse, I cannot see anything.
I tell you, if everybody could have a tank, a missile, an miniature atomic bomb and a drone, the crime rate would equal 0 (zero). That would be ideal: the graphic would be bottom down.
- Status