SkyDekker

She is a joke.

Why? I thought criminals would be detered from doing violent crimes such as murders and nonnegligent manslaughter if they thought their potential victims were possibly armed? I didn't hear you talk about contributing factors when Kennisaw was brought up in previous discussions? I didn't see you agreeing with the poster who brought up that when you require the citizens of a city to own a gun, you have effectively driven every convicted felon from your city. And that would most likely have a very significant effect on crime rates. Do you agree with that contributing factor?

Okay, I just looked up the statistics provided by the FBI for 2006 and looked up which states (and one district) have murder and nonnegligent manslaughter rates that are higher than 7.0 per 100,000. These states are (in alphabetical order): Alabama Arizona Arkansas District of Columbia Louisiana Maryland Michigan Mississipi Nevada South Carolina Out of these 10 states and district, 8 are shall issue states. 1 Is a may issue state where I understand it is effectively and practically a shall issue state. The only one left is DC. I think if we are being intellectually honest they really don't belong in that comparison. Outside of the fact it isn't a state, it really is materially different from any other state in the union. Non of the other may issue states or no issue states show up in this top 10 (9 if we exclude DC). Isn't this at odds with your argument?

So when it comes to gun ownership and crime rates we won't be able to compare the US against other countries any more? No more reference to the registry in Canada? No more references to England or Switzerland? So you truly believe that when you are allowed to start carrying guns in malls and schools we will see a noticable decrease in school and mall shootings?

It seems to work for most of the rest of the western world. Could it be because they want to target an area with large crowds or because of an intense hatred for the institution? Or is it only because they are no-gun zones? And with the kid in the mall.....would the same have happened if he didn't have such easy access to his step-dad's guns?

You would be in favour of all countries around the world being in possession of nuclear weapons? Why not? It's only a tool.

The way I read that is that gun ownership may possibly stop some crimes. However, it aides one of the largest causes of crimes.....organized crime in the form of gangs and drugs. Is that a worthwhile trade off?

Agreed that there is no correlation between the two. And if the statement is: The 2nd amendmend is the 2nd amendmend and anything negative that flows from that is an unfortunate side effect, then there isn't a whole lot to discuss. However, earlier in this thread we were talking about the argument that criminals tend to think twice if they know or think a gun might be owned by the victim. That argument doesn't really seem to be holding any water when you look at "bad neighbourhoods" or to a degree when you look at the US as a whole.

Not at all. No issue at all with hunting or sport shooting. But we were discussing, well at least I was trying to, the arguments behind the gun ownership. More specifically that supposedly people would be less inclined to commit a crime if they thought somebody might have a gun. By your own admission that might not be entirely true. So, does that have any bearing on the gun debate, or is it just an unfortunate side-effect of the 2nd Amendmend?

Apples and Oranges. Unless you are implying that the use of guns is addictive and once you have killed, you want to continue killing? The problem is every time I want to have a decent and somewhat objective discussion about this.....something silly like this happens.

Muenkel has been banned before, so you'll have to add him to the banned list. Kallend has defintely been banned before.

Then why continue to sell guns if you believe your culture to be such that more guns will result in more gun crime? If you stop selling guns, over time less guns will be in circulation. The price for illegal guns will skyrocket, allowing less criminals to be able to acquire them. According to some of your own reasoning, wouldn't gun crime go down?

I agree with you on many levels, however, sometimes even those who have made bad decisions need a boost, specially when they have reached the end of that ladder.... I recently helped one of my employees. She was 47, worked one of the lower paying jobs in my organization and was about to be in a position where she would have to live in a shelter. There are verious reasons as to why, but some of them certainly had to do with her poor decision making. What didn't help was that if it wasn't for bad luck, this lady would not have had any luck at all. I arranged for the company to pay her bonus early and I gave her $800 out of my own pocket, which she would slowly pay back over time. I also gave her a little "lecture" on the fact that it was time to look after herself and only herself. She found a place a week later, put down first and last and got the keys. Two days later she dropped dead during our office Christmas party from a massive brain anuerism. Eventhough her family knows that I gave her that money, they are so poor and greedy that I will never see that back. Who cares? The deed is what it was about. I was able to help somebody who was truly down and out (eventhough some of it was due to her own actions), specially at this time of year. That is what mattered to me.... And as Kallend pointed out in different words, I truly believe Noblesse Oblige....

This leads me to believe there would also be a problem with non-christians serving in the military. If I go by some of the staunch conservatives on this board, they aren't overly comfortable with mexicans either, so should they serve? What if it isn't completely clear if their whole family is legally in the US? Wouldn't there be some bonding issues too?

Is your argument that these cultural issues only exist in these bad neighbourhoods?

Depending on how old you are, you have given up many liberties for security, specially if you look at it in the broadest sense of the word. As a country (which the statement was more geared towards) you most certainly have.

Right, but the thought process remains the same. Supposedly if you think that some one is armed, you are going to think twice to commit a crime. In these bad neighbourhoods many are supposedly armed, so shouldn't crime (other than the crime of possessing the gun) be lower too?

So there really shouldn't be too much of a problem with gay guys ridiculing straight sex then? Or ridiculing the gay who fucked a really hairy ass?

You are absolutely right, politically it is more a state than a city. But, that is exactly where the comparison ends....

Funny thing is, in some of those "bad" neighbourhoods where gun homocides are very frequent, (illegal) gun ownership is high as well. I thought more guns was supposed to mean lower gun crime?

You don't think more could have been done to capture OBL? You don't think more man power was requested, but lots had already been pulled away to prepare for the Iraq invasion?

A true leader would not have asked what was done in the past. A true leader would have acted upon the information. If you want to blame Clinton's inaction, you also have to blame Bush's inaction.

To be honest you should mention that Bush II also didn't do anything about OBL. Even when he was given a pretty clear security briefing about OBL. He didn't even do anything about him after 9/11. Six years later he is still alive and Bush doesn't even think he is important anymore. So, under Clinton there was an attempt and he did nothing. Under Bush II thousands died and he did nothing (Other than using it as an excuse to invade a completely different non-related country) I know which scenario I prefer..... 9/11 3 thousand dead What did Bush do? He sent minimal manpower into Afghanistan. When more was needed to actually capture OBL, they weren't available because Bush II was already to busy preparing to invade Iraq. You are being very dishonest if you are trying to say that Bush II was very concerned about OBL.

But you have been doing that for decades, if not centuries. Hiding behind that now is a little dishonest.

It isn't a state, so it can't be included in a discussion comparing states. (and I think if people are being completely honest with themselves they can clearly see that DC is completely different from any state in the US. Having some representation in congressmight be the only thing it has in common with any of the states)