georgerussia

It has been done several times in Europe (after a yet another war). Anyway, there is a lot of possible implementations - from "grandfathering" with prohibiting any kind of transfer of ownership to mandatory surrendering them in 30 days with a like $10K fine (and/or jail time) for everyone who refused after that. Out of that fine, $5K is going to be paid to a whistleblower, completely anonymously. Like this. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

There is no evidence that presence of guns lowers violent crime, and the statistics actually shows otherwise. But NYC case shows that good police enforcement together with gun restrictions indeed lowers the violent crime. The problem with a violent crime committed with guns is that damage may be (and often is) much higher comparing to if the same crime was committed with other means (like knife or baseball bat). Take Cho as example - would he be able to kill so many people during his massacre using a knife? Indeed. Assuming that at least some would stop committing crimes, it would already lower the crime. Some also would be caught in sting operations while trying to acquire illegal weapons (which would be harder with no straw purchases, no legit purchases through corrupt dealers and no 300K stolen guns a year). So indeed the gun crime will be lowered dramatically, and "stupid gun crime" would likely be down to a pretty much zero. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

No, I told them about this "protesting", which scared off a bunch of people, and resulted in 911 calls, and that some businesses reacted to it by putting "no guns allowed" sign and that I support it. They though it's a good idea too. Some of you gun owners seem to have a kind of paranoia - everyone who does not have a gun and doesn't want it, apparently must be living in fear. The reality, however, is exactly the opposite - if you need a carry your gun with you going to family restaurants, that's YOU who lives in fear, because you insist of carrying a TOOL to protect yourself. Did you read the comments? They are written exactly by the public - which, as you claim, should feel good about it. Apparently it is not. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Do you have any reports? I'd like to read about it, however I'd speculate it didn't happen in pizzeria full of moms with kids. Educating public about laws in such arrogant way reported in this article (which looks to me, and apparently to a lot of comment writers as "you don't like it? Then go fuck yourself, the law allows us to do it!") definitely did more bad than good. I'd expect to see more businesses follow the trend. For example, I talked today with the owner of one of the lunch places I go every week (I typically patronize local businesses and know most of the owners pretty well), and she said she'd consider putting such a sign as well - just in case. Personally I'm much more concerned about nuts carrying guns, as there seems to be quite a lot of them. And if you go through comments, you'd see that such a concern is well-shared among Californians. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

No, this was not your question. You asked for "an example where there was a ratio of 1 gun per person where they then successfully removed them from the equation and crime (not gun crime) went down markedly?" And I pointed out that removing guns is supposed to lower down GUN crime, not all crime. Therefore your question was based on a wrong assumption, pretty much of "could you cite an example when a country where everyone got guns would have significant drop in all crime (not violent crime)?" * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

My point was that if you check the comments, you'd see that they achieved exactly the opposite result, increasing the chance that pissed off public (supported by law enforcement who likely had better things to do) would pass some city ordinance against it, or put it on yet another ballot. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Why are you saying they were protesters, and what exactly they protested against? I have no idea, and apparently nobody else had as it is obvious from the comments. Even if it was, a reasonable person would find a better place to protest than places full of families with children. Would be pretty much as if gay marriage supporters were protesting inside a Catholic church. I actually wonder why didn't those people go to "protest" to East Oakland, or Richmond? Might actually have done some good there. "I do not" != "I will not". I have no idea as I don't drink coffee. We do like pizza though. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

It is right there, under your question. How could you miss it? I'll even quote it for you: Each crime requires different measures to lower it. For example more auditing on Medicare would reduce insurance fraud and will have no effect on gun crimes or DUI. Increasing DUI penalty and implementing "sobriety tests" will lower the number of drunk drivers and will have no effect on insurance fraud and gun crime. Restricting guns will lower the gun crime, and will have no effect on insurance fraud and DUIs. Different crimes require different approaches, and while there is no single approach to lower ALL the crime at the same time, focusing on lowering specific crimes works really well. In short, gun restrictions are supposed to lower gun crime. They are not supposed to lower insurance fraud or DUI. For those types of crime other measures are needed. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I just wonder how many Muslims came to your door last year to tell you more about Mohammad and Allah? As a side note, having a large "Jesus-free home" sign on my front door really helps - we got only two last year. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Peet's and CPK tell Open Carry customers: No guns allowed There was a bunch of gun freaks executing their right by openly carrying their guns (unloaded and holstered, legal) around some family businesses. I would even call them idiots because a reasonable person would not consider it a good idea to brazen their gun rights in front of families with children. Of course people complained about it, and it seems like those complains work. Some local businesses are not welcoming gun carriers anymore. And the comments are even more interesting than article. Looks like those gun freaks pissed off a good amount of locals. So, please do it again and do it more - this would really help to push down even more restrictions than you have now. I've made a note to spend some money this weekend, and tell the management in person that I approve their policy. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

This is a completely different question comparing to what you asked here (see the tsisson quote you replied to), which was HOW to remove the guns. Your other question has been already answered at least twice, the most recent being post #200. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

2-year-old-girl injured in Richmond shooting by another nutter And more drive-by shooting And more women and children shot by yet another idiot * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

You asked? I thought it was tsisson. Is it your another account? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

You obviously understood that the list I provided was not all-inclusive, don't you? Unless you have a working mind reader, I'd say it is pretty naive for you to tell me what I meant to say. Please address what I actually said, not what you think I wanted to say, and please ask clarifications if you don't understand the point. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

...for those who own guns - to avoid such a deadly mix. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Before claiming a BS you should have checked what exactly we were talking about. It was not about drivers shooting. A criminal trying to shot the cops got shot in a parking lot. My speculation is that he shot at cops and got shot back, but I admit the article doesn't state that directly. Doesn't it make it a crime committed with a gun in a parking lot? Why does it matter if they knew each others? Doesn't it make it a crime committed with a gun in a parking lot? Doesn't it make it a crime committed with a gun in a parking lot? The "may" part is your speculation not supported by the fact. He was found dead in a parking lot, so it is much more reasonable to assume he was shot there unless we have information which states otherwise. It's not clear whether he was actually shot on a parking lot, as the article clearly says he collapsed on a parking lot, and the shooting was captured by school cameras. So while this is my assumption, it is based on the article. Doesn't it make it a crime committed with a gun in a parking lot? This is how you present your counter-argument - through misinterpretation and misreading, and trying to invalidate the gun crimes happened using some irrelevant comments like "it happened in apartment complex parking lot", like it doesn't make it a crime. You're comparing apples with oranges. How many murders criminals committed with airbags or AADs? This would be valid comparison if your GF got a bodyguard, but not a gun. Yes, in this case it indeed matters. It would show whether she really _needs_ this "viable option", or it's just you think that she needs it. As you know, violent crimes are committed in Houston as well, so it is obvious just having carrying people around does not stop criminals - so carrying is not an obvious solution against a crime. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I understood that. However this theory is not supported by real-life experience. There is indeed a lot of countries where guns are pretty much unavailable (and crossbows are available), and I was not able to find a single case where someone was murdered with a crossbow in a drive-through shooting. Since my experience with a crossbow is limited to a game "No one lives forever", I'd speculate it is not that easy to shot someone with a crossbow to death from a moving vehicle, and that the chance of such shooting to be lethal is significantly lower comparing to a gun. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I know it's a long word, pretty hard to read, but at least you should have tried instead of reverting to cherry-picking only those words you understand. And I'm not denying that. As I said, it's my fourth language basically acquired six or so years ago, so I'm not claiming proficiency. However you claimed that a phrase "with a potential to be stopped for a violation or got into accident" mean "they should have been be stopped" (and even went so far as claiming you "proved me 100% wrong"). This is also despite the obvious rationale that in any subjective matter nobody can ever be 100% right or 100% wrong, and it is just brazen to claim that. You also claimed that a phrase "I just ignore Ron posts" mean "I will ignore Ron's posts forever" because it does not contain any reference to a time frame. And you repeatedly ignored my questions whether the phrase "I believe in God" according to you should mean "I will always believe in God" following the same rule. Let those without sin cast the first stone. You are not. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

So why aren't those drive-through baseballings happening in Europe, where criminals are significantly restricted in their ability to get weapons and should have reverted to other weapons then? Please provide proof that they are going up. I'll remember and remind you about that when you claim another time that you "provided facts, references and data". You need to do some more research. I knew you'd have nothing to say. So much for "providing facts". Really. I can't believe Berkeley police has no idea that a bunch of people are pretty much openly selling drugs in downtown. Couple of arrests while virtually everyone knows where to buy stuff is not "enforcing the ban" at all. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

After so many explanations you still cannot understand that you can only prove something which happened/happening (or not happened/happening), not what would or would not happen? To make it easier for you to grasp, you cannot prove that if you were in VA tech with your gun, you would stop Cho. And nobody can prove that you wouldn't either. When you talk about something which may or may not happen, you can only talk about probability. One demanding any kind of proof that it would actually happen appears to either having no idea what "proof" is, or deliberately playing "no proof" card while clearly understanding that You only provided proof that the guns were banned for German Jews well before WWII, while most things happened to them already. You did not provide proof that Jews or other nations from other countries (those who were significantly more affected during WWII) were banned from guns being banned, thus making your point irrelevant. And you still claim you proved anything relevant to the discussion? This is not about blame, this is about prevention, so your reply is irrelevant at most as it says nothing about how to prevent further similar crime. So what would you tell them instead? How would you explain that your right to keep (and lose without penalties) your guns is more important to you that lives of thirty people, most if not all of whom would be alive if Cho did not get a gun? I already proved that England gun crime is going DOWN using the official Home Office statistics, and the significant number of reported gun crimes are caused by "imitation weapons" or BB guns which weren't illegal before the gun ban. So where is your proof? And the second time you yet again ignored the follow-up question. I will repeat it again: You have said it clear that since there was zero reference to time frame in my phrase, you assumed this phrase would mean that I would never reply to his posts. However you conveniently ignored the follow-up question: if someone says "I believe in God", do you interpret it as the person now must believe in God for the eternity because there is also zero reference to time frame? If you do, then this is against English grammar rules, and if you don't, then this would mean you intentionally misinterpreted my words to further insult me, because you have no real facts to back your position up. Tough choice, yeah? Everyone else apparently does not consider it worthy. I would too, but I have some time to kill while my test suites are executed after the software changes, and it take a while. This is the only reason I'm still discussing anything with you, as none of us gonna change their opinion anyway. This is the same "data" you provide - which is either irrelevant to the discussion, or not "data" but just your interpretation of data. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

There are several possible working implementations. If you're interested, you might check how did it work in other countries around the world. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Those shootings in parking lots happened on Jan 27 2010, and most victims were killed. And I only went through three pages of Google News out of 8! One hurt in WVC officer-involved shooting Man shot in Pigeon Forge parking lot Man shot in head near NE Houston grocery Fatal shooting in Orange County Boy, 15, shot near school One Man Dead In West Orlando Shooting If this is "insignificant number" just for yesterday, then I'm afraid you lost the touch with reality. It is still doing better than nearby Baltimore - an excellent example that relaxed gun laws do nothing to prevent violent crime. If what you say was true, a lot of violent criminals would have moved to NYC, as there is much less chance to get armed response. How'd you explain that? How are you going to explain why gun-restricted NYC has less violent crime than pro-gun Houston and Dallas? And I really want to hear your answer to my question how exactly your girlfriend survived all those years without carrying a gun to protect herself? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I was unable to find even a single case of drive-through crossbow shooting which killed anyone. Being completely unfamiliar with crossbows, I can only guess it's not that easy. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

This is so funny to watch some people when they screw up and cannot simply admit it and move on, and prefer to call others names. "bullshit scenario", "pulled out of your ass" and now "morons". Very nice of you! Properly secured gun is the one which does not get stolen. It is that simple. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Because the behavior is already banned - and it is not enough. Pretty much the same as you cannot drive in CA with a Scotch flask in your glove compartment (unless it is factory sealed) - i.e. the law already banned the behavior (drunk driving), but now also banned the object (open alcohol). If banning the behavior didn't work and the people would be still texting while driving, and getting into accidents, I wouldn't be surprised if at some point a new law would only allow cell phones in a trunk - like all open alcohol. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *