georgerussia

How many cars are in this country, and how many of them were used to murder someone? Please note the quoted post I was replying to, as your statement sound little unconnected. This is not bias - someone said it happens, and I said I never heard about it, which was true. So I asked for examples, and I got a few (besides some irrelevant examples which made me laugh, such as when people claim that a police officer is basically the same as average Joe with a gun, so any crime stopped by an armed police officer counts as a crime stopped by average Joe with a gun), and so far I am not sure guns "do more good than bad" in preventing this kind of crime. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

So let's compare the numbers then? How many were stopped, and how many weren't? Then the problem is that making it easy (or even mandatory for anyone) to get CHL would not really affect crime level for such crimes. Most criminals are not total idiots, and obviously they'll choose those areas where a chance to meet a gun owner is limited - like preferring a school over shooting range. So then until every place around allows carrying, nobody is safe from those criminals. Now, do you think it's realistic to expect every place around to allow guns? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

That's true at this moment (one with a gun can be very picky in his victim selection, but one with an explosive vest attached to his chest cannot), but this becomes negligent when everyone around carries guns (which seems to be an ideal situation for some pro-gun types). In this case everyone is a potential enemy, and one just cannot be picky anymore. It also depends on a gun. It is quite easy to discriminate with a sniper rifle than with AK-47, and a knife is probably even more discriminating than a gun. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

You did not answer my question. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

In theory you would be right. But if you look on real-life examples, you might check what percentage of cars are being bought, or bridges being built are then used to kill someone versus what percentage of guns bought is then used to murder someone. Also the same argument can be used for WMDs - countries have been attacking each others for centuries, starting with stone axes and ending up with tactic missiles, so why some people are against giving WMDs to anyone around, but would still give a gun to anyone around? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

But WMDs are! Basically a country having a WMD is similar to an average Joe having a gun. My question is why some gun owners consider it good when every average Joe has a gun (to prevent crimes against him, as they tell us), but it is not good for average country to have WMD - also to prevent crimes against them? I will, but only once you show that you want to have a _discussion_, which means you have a position and able to stand behind it. So far in almost every thread I've been watching your answers you're trying extremely hard to avoid any specifics about what do you think about subject, or what would you do on subject. You just blame or criticize what other think, and request proofs from everyone for everything without even bothering to state what exactly you argue with, and why. This is called "trolling", and makes the discussion with you useless. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

There were multiple stories recently when a gun was used to murder a bunch of people, and so far there were no stories when average Joe with a gun used it to shoot the guy that was trying to hurt 30 people. So maybe you tell us when will it work? So what? If you're assuming there would be more concealed carry gun owners if there was no such rule, you'd have to prove it. Are you saying that NOBODY on this base can legally carry an armed weapon outside the range? So is your point that there would be no real help from gun owners in preventing crimes like that until every place around allows anyone to bring a loaded gun? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I see, you decided to ignore my questions, and you did not even state your position on any important subject. No reason to waste time on you anymore. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

My point has been proven by real life examples. Looking on recent history, I remember several shoot spree cases in U.S., and not a single case when a potential or existing shoot spree was stopped by a regular citizen who happen to be a gun owner. What else proof you need? There is a difference between defending yourself, and approaching an armed murderer who may otherwise ignore you (for example if he kills only his coworkers or only blacks). But at this moment it's quite a moot point as we do not have real-life examples of such approaches. Nope, it is very important. If your theory would only work when every citizen would be carrying, then it would never work as there are people who would not carry a gun no matter what. Then the question to you is, what rate of gun ownership should be sufficient to prevent such sprees? So now you're saying that even if everyone would own guns it would still be no use to prevent shoot sprees until every place, including clubs, courts and airplanes, allows you to carry a gun? And do you know what would happen if one or more Cho colleagues illegally carried a gun in the VaTech? They would likely to share this information between their peers - after all, nobody expected their peers to be a threat - and he would shot them first. Maybe even would use their guns to shot others too. I don't care about "majority" as you apparently need only one gun to save 30 people. How many armed people were there who had a gun in possession, and why nobody stopped them? If military base personnel, who has or should have had necessary training, and have no issues firing in a real person (something not everyone can do - it is still different from a shooting range), and have better access to guns than everyone around but still was unable to stop such a spree - I doubt it would be more effective anywhere else. And I still waiting for you to clarify your position. You've become very good in dodging questions and turning them around, and I already asked you two. It does not make any sense to seriously discuss issues with someone who has no balls to even state their opinion, so unless you do it (and answer my question about your expectations of preventing shoot sprees, and regarding owning WMDs), I will ignore your further questions on that matter. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

You're asking incorrect question - it should make it more difficult, not easier. Unless it doesn't make it more difficult, there is no reason to prove that guns would reduce crime, and that's your point, right? So, if you like to go into theories, then it depends. My opinion is that not everyone would risk their life by approaching an armed guy who doesn't care about his own life anymore, unless their life is already at risk. So while it might make it more difficult, it doesn't mean it wouldn't happen anyway. But if you consider real life, you'll see how it worked. How many gun owners are in Virginia? Was there any in Va Tech? And how many guns are on a military base in TX? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I got impression that if Brady types would do background check for gun owners in U.S., most if not all wouldn't pass either. It really depends on who is doing the check. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

There is the difference between theory and practice. I'm considering practical scenarios which already happened, not something which just might happen. Just wonder whether you support Iran and N.Korea obtaining nuclear weapons? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

However it is easier to use a gun to directly hurt 30 people than to use a gun to directly protect 30 people. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

DVD Decryptor on Windows, dvd::rip on Linux. I also suggest you do not recode your DVDs, leave them as images. Disk space is cheap nowadays. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

You're trying too hard. It is like tug-of-war - the harder you pull, the more pressure she puts. But if you suddenly drop it, and be the first to recover, you'd win :) Find yourself something to do, and next time she calls tell her something like "of course, stay there honey, no problem I understand it's boring for you here so I've made some plans, as you're not coming the next few days anyway, right?" I wouldn't be surprised if she books the first flight back. And if she doesn't, well, you know how much your marriage worth. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

There is still some difference, as a gun makes it MUCH easier for one person to hurt a bunch of people in a spree. Gonna be quite hard (although not impossible) with a knife or a bat. I also find it funny that those who state the society would benefit if everyone has access to guns also tend to state that the world would not benefit if every nation has access to WMDs. In my opinion those are quire similar analogies, and the same arguments can apply in both cases. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Explain. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Interesting. It was exactly the opposite in Russia, as a report was released in 2004 - more businesses are robbed when it's raining. Less traffic, less cops on streets, cameras get foggy, and traffic cops at city exits* have much less incentive to get out to stop and question one. *in Russia every city has a traffic police post on every road which goes in/out, and they frequently stop incoming/outgoing cars, question drivers and perform trunk searches. It is right on the road, not like a weight station, so those guys have to work outsize of their cozy building, and obviously have much less incentive doing so when its raining. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Those Brady guys seem to be a bunch of idiots like PETA. And no, I'm not pro-guns (nor anti-guns though). * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

So are you trying to claim that there are people who will not need health insurance in their life? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

And now, of course, the question is how much your personal opinion on that matter worth? Andrew P. Napolitano (b. June 6, 1950, in NewaAndrew P. Napolitano (b. June 6, 1950, in Newark, New Jersey) is a former New Jersey Superior Court Judge and now a political and legal analyst for Fox News Channel. And he of course has a very neutral point of view! I did not find the context it was said in. Actually I didn't find any news source either with this quite - everything just points to some blogs which quote each others. At least those do not assume it does not. What was the question? You're quoting various sources. Arrange them in some way if they are relevant. His answer is very reasonable. A member of Congress or Senate so far is not required to have a constitutional law degree to perform their duties. They have lawyers for that Probably because most people use their brain instead of watching fox "news"? If you think Congress violated constitution, then posting in forums is cheap remedy. File a lawsuit. Put your money where your mouth is. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Interesting. So should we consider recent Irish activity of Catholic Church an official Christian endorsement? Not only they did not confront it - some church authorities actually helped to hide it! And what kind of confrontation from Muslim leaders you're exactly looking for? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

This is a useless claim in comparing life expectancy with other countries unless you compare it using the same data from other countries. Don't forget that "lifestyle choices" are not limited to exercising and eating. Using only "exercising and eating healthy diets" criteria even Russia should strive ahead of US, but it doesn't happen. However the major factors are completely different - two major factors related to life expectancy are not related at all to exercising and eating, it is alcohol and traffic accidents. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

The problem is that they do not do right thing. They just tell others that they should do this right thing, i.e. "do what I say, not what I do". So much for aiming high. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

And lack of gay men among his mistresses will have a negative effect on LBGT community! * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *