Those Wash DC strict gun laws are working great lately arent they?? [Archive]

valvano

07-15-2006, 06:51 AM

Yes, valvano, things would obviously be much better if the law-abiding citizenry simply shot it out with the criminals. Jes git on down the saloon get Miss Kitty pour ya a nice tall sarsparilla, then we'll see who's causin trouble in River City tell you what. Boy howdy.

i dont understand your point. guns are mainly illegal in DC. what's all these criminals doing with guns, don't they know they aren't supposed to have them?? :rolleyes:

DC spends like $15K per student, they have around a 16:1 teacher student ratio. the tax rates in DC are sky high. elections run about 99.999% democrat. i has the most strictest gun laws in the entire nation. it would appear DC is a liberal's / progressive's dream city. yet its a total sewer and this latest crime wave there proves it......what's wrong? bush's fault?

how many of these murders do you think could have been prevented had DC allowed concealed weapon permits and these victims been armed to protect themselves from criminals??? :confused:

Schmeltz

07-15-2006, 10:25 AM

it would appear DC is a liberal's / progressive's dream city.

Your association of the Democratic Party with liberal progressivism is cute, but not very funny.

how many of these murders do you think could have been prevented had DC allowed concealed weapon permits and these victims been armed to protect themselves from criminals???

Zero. The point of my previous post is that there is nothing to be gained from a war between criminals and regular people. Turning a murder into a shootout is not a step forward for crime fighting or the construction of a peaceful and cooperative society. Your vicious dog-eat-dog mentality is disgusting and bankrupt both politically and morally.

QueenAdrock

07-15-2006, 01:28 PM

DC spends like $15K per student, they have around a 16:1 teacher student ratio. the tax rates in DC are sky high. elections run about 99.999% democrat. i has the most strictest gun laws in the entire nation. it would appear DC is a liberal's / progressive's dream city. yet its a total sewer and this latest crime wave there proves it......what's wrong? bush's fault?

That's pretty flawed reasoning. Many cities are liberal. Most cities have a lot of crime. More people = more crime. It's like saying "Gee, Bumblefuck, Oklahoma has next to NO crime and they have very lax gun laws!" Hmm, maybe it has to do with the fact that crime wouldn't have happened in Bumblefuck anyways, no matter what kind of gun laws you had. When you get millions of people gathered together in a smaller area, there's bound to be violent crime; nothing to do with how "liberal" they are, or how they vote. But if you do want to talk about liberal cities and crime, look up what O'Malley did for Baltimore - he reduced crime drastically and is one of the top-10 big-city mayors in all of America. Not bad for a DAMN DIRTY LIBRUL!

And this LATEST CRIME that's been going on CANNOT be linked to gun control, unless they have *recently* put more laws into actions. B cannot be because of A if A has been around for years and years and B has just popped up recently. It obviously is something else.

valvano

07-15-2006, 06:26 PM

Zero. The point of my previous post is that there is nothing to be gained from a war between criminals and regular people. Turning a murder into a shootout is not a step forward for crime fighting or the construction of a peaceful and cooperative society. Your vicious dog-eat-dog mentality is disgusting and bankrupt both politically and morally.

thug/gang banger attempts to rob innocent guy. thug/gang banger pulls gun and cocks gun. innocent guy happens to have a concealed gun permit and pulls gun while thug/gang banger is distracted and shoots him dead......

the thug/gang banger can no longer rob others while the innocent guy has survived the robbery attempt, unlike the folks who have died this month.....
so what's wrong with this scenario?? what would you do in the situation, offer to take the thug to a local starbucks and talk to him about Ghandi??

:rolleyes:

valvano

07-15-2006, 06:32 PM

But if you do want to talk about liberal cities and crime, look up what O'Malley did for Baltimore - he reduced crime drastically and is one of the top-10 big-city mayors in all of America. Not bad for a DAMN DIRTY LIBRUL!

you talking about this?

http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20051127-105747-6313r.htm

http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime.asp?city=Baltimore&state=MD

QueenAdrock

07-15-2006, 06:58 PM

Yes. The Times aren't biased. Crime will always plague Baltimore (duh, it's a big city like I've stated), but that doesn't mean he didn't decrease it. There's controversey over whether he did because it's his strongest selling point as a mayor, and Ehrlich wants to destroy it. Much like Bush destroying Kerry's war record. He seems confident enough that he's asking for an audit of his jurisdictions. (http://www.newsline.umd.edu/politics/specialreports/elections06/crimeaudit032406.htm)

He was in the running for "World Mayors." (http://www.worldmayor.com/voting05/comments05_americas.html) He was also voted one of the top-10 city mayors in all of America in 2005 for his cutting of crime by 40% in the Baltimore Sun.

QueenAdrock

07-15-2006, 07:19 PM

thug/gang banger attempts to rob innocent guy. thug/gang banger pulls gun and cocks gun. innocent guy happens to have a concealed gun permit and pulls gun while thug/gang banger is distracted and shoots him dead......

the thug/gang banger can no longer rob others while the innocent guy has survived the robbery attempt, unlike the folks who have died this month.....
so what's wrong with this scenario?? what would you do in the situation, offer to take the thug to a local starbucks and talk to him about Ghandi??

:rolleyes:

What's wrong with the scenario is that it wouldn't work for anywhere but Texas. If we had shoot 'em out brawls all the time when violent crime went on, our cities would be more than dangerous to go to. I'd rather be robbed than shoot a man, myself.

Want to talk about gun statistics? (http://medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html)

"There is a positive correlation between homicide rates and availability of guns in developed nations. (Hemenway and Miller, 2000)"

Like I said, would you like to lax the policies on gun control? Have more guns in circulation? You don't think law-abiding people get their guns stolen (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/guic.pdf)?
"According to a 1991 Survey of State Prison Inmates, 10% had stolen at least one handgun."

"The FBI's National Crime Information Center (NCIC) stolen gun file contained
over 2 million reports as of March 1995."

The more law-abiding citizens you have with guns, the more chances criminals are going to have to OBTAIN a weapon. Simply enough, with DC rules criminals can't walk into gun stores and just get guns. They steal them from the law-abiding people, or obtain them illegally from people who have undoubtedly gotten them from stealing from law-abiding citizens. Simply put, if these citizens with guns didn't have them, the criminals would have minimal access to firearms.

Also interesting:

"The issue of "home defense" or protection against intruders may well be misrepresented. Of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides (Kellermann et al, 1998)."

"Accidental shooting deaths are most commonly associated with one or more children playing with a gun they found in the home. (Choi, et al, 1994) The person pulling the trigger is a friend, family member, or the victim. (Harruff, 1992)."

But that's okay. I'd rather have my kid get shot in the face than have my wallet stolen.

valvano

07-15-2006, 07:47 PM

yes or no......had some of the victims the past weeks in DC had concealed gun permits and used those guns to defend themselves and shot dead their assailants, would that not prevent future crimes from taken place by the same assailants???

:confused:

QueenAdrock

07-15-2006, 07:52 PM

That is so stupid, and you know it. WHO THE FUCK CARES ABOUT BEING ROBBED WHEN HAVING A GUN IS DEADLY FOR YOU AND YOUR LOVED ONES?

Look at the overall picture, and don't focus on "If this guy is dead, can it happen again?" Duh, it can't happen again. Any idiot can tell you that. Look at the big picture and see that:

"for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides."

So use your guns in self-defense. But don't come crying to me when there are MORE criminal assaults/homicides in the long run due to YOU having a gun.

valvano

07-15-2006, 08:15 PM

That is so stupid, and you know it. WHO THE FUCK CARES ABOUT BEING ROBBED WHEN HAVING A GUN IS DEADLY FOR YOU AND YOUR LOVED ONES?

L

then what are the criminals doing in DC with all these guns then, don't they understand they are deadly????

:eek:

catatonic

07-16-2006, 03:11 AM

D.C. may very well benefit from gun permits, but in general this is wrong.

The top 6 lowest gun-death-rate states are all "may issue" states.

All "may issue" and "shall not issue", refering to gun permits, states have lower than average firearm-death-rates. Not a single one of these states is above average.

But speaking of murder, Detroit has free-gun laws and they get 42.0 murders per 100,000, trailing none but D.C. that has 45.8.

All the U.N. wants to do is enforce countries own laws on guns.

Do you doubt that "we need a bit more gun-controlling?"

Schmeltz

07-16-2006, 11:27 AM

so what's wrong with this scenario??

Are you actually being serious? What's wrong with it it's that it's completely unrealistic and idealistic (at least in your sense of the term). What in the hell makes you think that a victim of a mugging or a holdup is always going to have some magical opportunity where the gun-toting robber is conveniently distracted long enough for the former to pull it his own weapon?

"Pull gun while thug is distracted." Gee, why do we bother with police forces at all when vigilante crime-fighting is apparently so easy and trouble-free? This is ludicrous. I would imagine that most armed robberies take place in the span of a minute's or a few seconds' time. You are suggesting that victims compromise their own safety by escalating that situation from a robbery to a violent confrontation between armed parties. And you think that would be somehow be an improvement?

I wil say it again, in the faint hope of getting through to you: crime will not be solved via the summary execution of petty criminals by an armed citizenry, and turning the streets of a city into a lawless, anarchic shootout between criminals and regular people is not a step forward in the construction of a peaceful society. If you think it is, well, one more reason why you're not worth anybody's time.

valvano

07-16-2006, 01:48 PM

I wil say it again, in the faint hope of getting through to you: crime will not be solved via the summary execution of petty criminals by an armed citizenry, and turning the streets of a city into a lawless, anarchic shootout between criminals and regular people is not a step forward in the construction of a peaceful society.

1. If you were a criminal, and you knew that your potential victims could possibly be armed to protect themselves, would you maybe consider a new career???

2. How many criminals, shot a killed by their victims during the crime event (or seriously wounded) go on to rob others???????????

;)

Ace42X

07-16-2006, 02:31 PM

1. If you were a criminal, and you knew that your potential victims could possibly be armed to protect themselves, would you maybe consider a new career???

Or maybe you'd consider shooting first and looting the corpses rather than risking letting them live when you mugged them alive...

:eek: :rolleyes: , and all the other smiley faces you use to make up for your specious reasoning.

QueenAdrock

07-16-2006, 03:31 PM

1. If you were a criminal, and you knew that your potential victims could possibly be armed to protect themselves, would you maybe consider a new career???

Sigh. We've gone over this one before. One of the most dangerous professions in the world are the Bering Strait crabbers. They go at night on trecherous waters in freezing temperatures to capture king crab and the like. People get pitched over the sides into the waters which pretty much means no survival, unless they somehow get through the rocky, dark waters back on board within about 3 seconds because anything more than that will shock your body into a hypothermic frozen state and you'll lock your muscles and drown.

THEIR job is dangerous, why do they do it? The payoff is worth it. The KNOW what they are up against when they go out there. If the money's good enough, people are willing to risk their health/lives. If people such as crabbers (who I would argue are more intelligent than these DC robbers) are willing to risk their lives for the payoff, so will the robbers.

Schmeltz

07-16-2006, 07:36 PM

1. If you were a criminal, and you knew that your potential victims could possibly be armed to protect themselves, would you maybe consider a new career???

Not necessarily. I suspect most people willing to provoke a criminal confrontation with someone else do so with some appreciation of the risks involved. If the fear of being caught and sent to jail doesn't deter criminals, why would the risk of an armed victim do so? QueenAdrock makes a good point, I think.

2. How many criminals, shot a killed by their victims during the crime event (or seriously wounded) go on to rob others???????????

None, I suppose. How many turn their lives around and take up a more positive lifestyle? Your question betrays your own vicious desire simply to see people killed for petty crimes, which is sort of disturbing if you ask me.

valvano

07-16-2006, 07:51 PM

If the fear of being caught and sent to jail doesn't deter criminals, why would the risk of an armed victim do so?

so you are admitting then that gun control laws do not work, since criminals will find a way to get a gun no matter what laws are on the books, yet law abinding citizens should suffer under and basically be turned into sitting ducks??

valvano

07-16-2006, 07:53 PM

Or maybe you'd consider shooting first and looting the corpses rather than risking letting them live when you mugged them alive...

:eek: :rolleyes: , and all the other smiley faces you use to make up for your specious reasoning.

i'd ask you shouldnt you be going to bed since you have to work tomorrow, then i remembered you dont have a job because you still live at home with mommy and daddy....:D :D :eek:

Schmeltz

07-16-2006, 08:08 PM

so you are admitting then that gun control laws do not work, since criminals will find a way to get a gun no matter what laws are on the books

I have absolutely no idea how you derived that conclusion from the words I wrote.

law abinding citizens should suffer under and basically be turned into sitting ducks??

You seem to have this strange vision of your society in which the population is composed of only two elements: good, clean, defenceless law-abiding folks and vicious, predatory, heavily armed criminals. Even if that were true (and it is puzzling to consider how oddly you view your countrymen), your solution to this imbalance is simply to arm one group against the other. The state sponsors vigilante militarism among its own citizenry as a solution to armed violence. This is utterly ridiculous. But then, if the only resort to safety and security enjoyed in your country is an anarchic shoot-'em-up among the general population, I suppose I could understand your position.

valvano

07-16-2006, 08:42 PM

I have absolutely no idea how you derived that conclusion from the words I wrote.

did you or did you not write:"If the fear of being caught and sent to jail doesn't deter criminals....."

you have stated that criminals do not fear prosecution and jail and are not deterred by the consequences of their actions........yet you support gun control and want the general population to be "sitting ducks" awaiting the next attacy by a criminal who, as you admit, disregards the same laws you support??

again i ask you, what is your solution, the next time you are robbed you are going to take your assailant to starbucks and teach him about ghandi?

QueenAdrock

07-16-2006, 08:49 PM

again i ask you, what is your solution, the next time you are robbed you are going to take your assailant to starbucks and teach him about ghandi?

Yeah! Next time I'm robbed, I'm going to shoot that motherfucker in the face, because me losing my cancellable credit cards plus $10 cash and my drivers license is TOTALLY worth killing another human being and having that on my conscious for the rest of my life!

If you're robbed, you're robbed. Shit happens. If you can honestly say you'd kill another man over stealing your wallet, I'll pray for your soul.

valvano

07-16-2006, 09:04 PM

Yeah! Next time I'm robbed, I'm going to shoot that motherfucker in the face, because me losing my cancellable credit cards plus $10 cash and my drivers license is TOTALLY worth killing another human being and having that on my conscious for the rest of my life!

If you're robbed, you're robbed. Shit happens. If you can honestly say you'd kill another man over stealing your wallet, I'll pray for your soul.

there's a difference between a simple robbery and armed robbery/having your life endangered (hence justifiable homicide)...the gentlemen last week in DC (who was on Mark Warner's staff), who had his throat slit as the 4 assailants attempted to rape his companion...had he had a concealed weapon do you not think this crime would been cause for dending oneself with the use of a legal licensed firearm?? or did he do the right thing, let himself get his life taken from him and his companion nearly raped......??

QueenAdrock

07-16-2006, 09:15 PM

If you're worried about serious crimes such as rape and murder, the answer is not to have more guns on individuals; as has been shown time and again, people having guns cause MORE problems than they do good. If you're truly worried about the crime in DC, I'd propose more park police and DC cops on duty. There needs to be more police on duty - people who are PROFESSIONALLY TRAINED to use firearms and are there to protect and serve.

However, paying taxes for police to protect you is TOTALLY not worth it. We'd rather cut taxes and arm civilians. Lemme ask you something. You're from Virginia, and I'm pretty sure you've driven in DC - just DRIVING around here, can you honestly tell me that these people are smart enough to handle guns? The idea of these idiots around here having guns and using them is terrifying to me, because I doubt they have the capacity to realize when it is acceptable to use them, and when not to. My ex-boyfriend got peppersprayed by some girl who thought he was walking too close; he had been walking back to his dorm with food, and was about 15 feet behind her. I'm sure as shit glad that SHE didn't have a gun.

Solution is simple. More well-trained police in all areas around DC.

valvano

07-16-2006, 09:29 PM

We'd rather cut taxes and arm civilians. Lemme ask you something. You're from Virginia, and I'm pretty sure you've driven in DC - just DRIVING around here, can you honestly tell me that these people are smart enough to handle guns?

of course every joe sixpack should not be packing heat...that's why (at least her in the Commonwealth) there's a pretty strict process for getting a concealed weapon permit....and I do believe the final thumbs up comes before a judge..it involves training etc....

some psyched out nut job just isnt going to get a concealed permit...

QueenAdrock

07-16-2006, 09:35 PM

So how many people do you think would be able to pass this test and be able to have and properly use a gun?

From what I've seen and heard, joe-six packs are the ones getting robbed.

EDIT:
there's a pretty strict process for getting a concealed weapon permit..

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this what you were arguing in the first place? Thus the title of this thread?

Funkaloyd

07-16-2006, 09:38 PM

The idea of these idiots around here having guns and using them is terrifying to me, because I doubt they have the capacity to realize when it is acceptable to use them, and when not to. My ex-boyfriend got peppersprayed by some girl who thought he was walking too close; he had been walking back to his dorm with food, and was about 15 feet behind her. I'm sure as shit glad that SHE didn't have a gun.
Can you imagine what would have happened when the D.C. sniper was on the loose, or on 9/11?

EN[i]GMA

07-16-2006, 09:47 PM

of course every joe sixpack should not be packing heat...that's why (at least her in the Commonwealth) there's a pretty strict process for getting a concealed weapon permit....and I do believe the final thumbs up comes before a judge..it involves training etc....

some psyched out nut job just isnt going to get a concealed permit...

Oh, I see.

Every single person should have the right to defend themselves against dangerous criminals, except for all the people that shouldn't, like those with psychosis.

I guess you're fine with people suffering from severe delusions and other psychotic effects getting robbed?

What happens when someone suffering from psychosis gets robbed and murdered, because he wasn't allowed to have a gun, because of your strict gun laws? I know you're going to hem and haw your way back, probably use some No-True-Scotsman fallacy or something, but Jesus, think about it for 5 seconds.

You support gun restrictions too. What then are you arguing against?

"Well, conceivably, since every single person isn't packing, they could get robbed and be without a gun, so obviously having a gun would help them out."

That is, literally, your argument. And in case you didn't realize it, it's riddled with logical errors and outright absurdities.

I mean, what if a kid gets robbed? 13, 14, 15 year olds carry wallets; should they also carry guns?

Any child could be molested; arm them?

So what you're reduced to is: "Everybody should have a gun, except for all the people who shouldn't have guns because they aren't capable of using them properly", which is roughly my position.

Schmeltz

07-16-2006, 10:31 PM

you have stated that criminals do not fear prosecution and jail and are not deterred by the consequences of their actions

That, I think, is what makes them criminals instead of planners. I don't doubt that criminals will obtain guns even under the most well-run gun control system in the world, because under such laws anybody in possession of an illegal firearm is a criminal. Think about it for a second. What I do doubt, however, is that distributing guns freely amongst the citizenry is a solution to armed violence. It's completely illogical to assume that a greater prevalence of firearms will actually cure their misuse. This makes no sense whatsoever. On the other hand, restricting the number of and the terms of access to firearms among the general population means fewer guns at large and, unavoidably, a decline in the frequency of their use. This is simple logic.

There are two points you have been completely unwilling to answer and it might add to this debate if you took them on. First, why do you have so little faith in the ability of your government and your countrymen to limit the use of violent force in your society? Is America really so insecure and unstable that you worry about being in public unarmed? Would it not be possible, with sufficiently trained and motivated security forces, to keep a handle on random acts of armed robbery?

Second, how is it that the more frequent the use and distribution of guns, the less they will be used? How do you equate the escalation of a violent situation into an armed confrontation with a step forward in the restriction of violent acts in your society? The two ideas are completely at odds with one another. Your argument makes no sense at all.

Ace42X

07-17-2006, 05:17 AM

i'd ask you shouldnt you be going to bed since you have to work tomorrow, then i remembered you dont have a job because you still live at home with mommy and daddy....

Translation:
I, valvano, don't have an answer for your rebuttal that was so simple, and so obvious, it made me look stupid. And because I am such a collossal loser, I had to use *Qdrops* insults, being unable to come up with my own.

Rebuttal:
If you weren't stupid, you'd realise your criticism makes no sense. Living with your parents doesn't prevent you from getting a job. If you, or Qdrop, chose to check the post archive, you might both notice that I have been in work several times of the course of this and the last year, and that I am living off my *own* income which I have accrewed in various jobs.

Your faith in Qdrops criticisms is quite misplaced, given his penchant for innaccurate and laughable 2-bit psycho-analysis, arrogant faith in his own ignorant pronouncements, and inability to understand my use of irony (something you two have in common).

Next you'll be telling me I'm in a wheelchair again.

So, in closing:
Once again Valvano says something toe-curlingly stupid that he can't come up with an answer for it, so makes some of the most pathetic and inept cusses ever to be seen on the Internet, and then finishes of his post with his trademark juvenile use of smilies...

:) :confused: :( (lb) :p

Let me refer you to earlier posts I made answering you ad hominem attacks, illustrating, quite clearly, why I pity you, and your life, and am totally impressed with who you are, what you own, what you believe, and what you stand for. And it is amazing that someone as totally pathetic as you could think that an insult coming from them would be anything than embarrassing to watch.