What nobody sees, and the press is loathe to print, are the incidents where individuals with guns, STOPPED multiple homasides(sp?). One of the noted authorities on guns and their legislation has shown there are as manyor more individuals who have stepped forward to stop violent crimes. What happened at Va. Tech is horrible. But there are laws or rules at most instituions that if you bring a gun onto a campus you could get expelled or even serve time in prison of up to three years. With that, noone honest enough would risk it. To the person who is deranged, and plans on killing one to a hundred, three years in prison is nothing compared to what he or she is planning to do.
The problem is compounded by the media. Telling stories of crimes that were thworted or averted by individuals with permits, doesn't make good news. there is nothing to show. No one got hurt. No graphic scenes. But the horror of multiple murders and its aftermath does.
Ex.1. In a rural high school, I forget where, a kid brought a gun to school and started shooting. Because of the school board ruling that no gun can be brought within 1/4 mile of the campus. The vice principal ran over a half mile round trip to get his own gun, subdued the student as he was leaving the school, headed for the local middle school for more "action" and held him until the police arrived. Of the 15 news agencies in the immediate area, only 13 reported the incident, 8 mentioned the vice principle actions of submission, and only three mentioned that he took control with his own gun.
Ex.2. A Mayor in Japan, where the gun control laws are some of the strictest in the world, was gunned down.
So it is tough to say you win either way. I own a gun and am not afraid to use it and would if I had to. But hope that day never comes.
The bigger stick theory as stated earlier is inaccurate. Criminals will go after those that they know will not fight back. They use hand guns. Hand guns are easily concealed. Machine guns aren't. They are oportunist. The average criminal will not break into a home if they know there is a gun in the house. They don't want you to resist. Otherwise they won't get what they came after.
Point of fact. In Kennesaw Ga. not forty miles from where I now reside, they passed an ordinance several years ago that every home owner had to have a gun in their residence. They didn't care if it was unloaded, taken apart, and stored in a suitcase in the attic with the door locked. Since the ordinance was passed, the crime rate has been almost non existant.
In the combined cities of the "Wild Wild West" of the 1800s, the average death rate was about three to five a year. the same period of time in New York City was over a hundred. When everybody had a gun, nobody would try to rob or steal from you. Besides, if you did and you got caught, you got hung then and there, because they couldn't take the time to take you to jail and then go to trial etc. and waste that much time. There was too much to do, and the sight of a bandero hanging from a tree would serve notice to others of their fate.
I am neither a liberal or conservative. probably best described as a pragmatic Libertarian. True Libertarians have no concept of borders or Jihadist.
I think our problem here is we are "discussing" the headlines and not the facts. If the news were really the news, you would have the facts laid out before you so YOU could decide. Todays news is just sensationalism and biased opinions. Have any heard of Mr. Cho's ties to Islam? Is that a fact, or someones bias? You don't really know in this world unless it has been varified, certified and stamped with the seal of aproval.
Boy am I gonna get flamed!!!!
Does any one know what this has to do with using mobile phones anyway?????
Bill
The problem is compounded by the media. Telling stories of crimes that were thworted or averted by individuals with permits, doesn't make good news. there is nothing to show. No one got hurt. No graphic scenes. But the horror of multiple murders and its aftermath does.
Ex.1. In a rural high school, I forget where, a kid brought a gun to school and started shooting. Because of the school board ruling that no gun can be brought within 1/4 mile of the campus. The vice principal ran over a half mile round trip to get his own gun, subdued the student as he was leaving the school, headed for the local middle school for more "action" and held him until the police arrived. Of the 15 news agencies in the immediate area, only 13 reported the incident, 8 mentioned the vice principle actions of submission, and only three mentioned that he took control with his own gun.
Ex.2. A Mayor in Japan, where the gun control laws are some of the strictest in the world, was gunned down.
So it is tough to say you win either way. I own a gun and am not afraid to use it and would if I had to. But hope that day never comes.
The bigger stick theory as stated earlier is inaccurate. Criminals will go after those that they know will not fight back. They use hand guns. Hand guns are easily concealed. Machine guns aren't. They are oportunist. The average criminal will not break into a home if they know there is a gun in the house. They don't want you to resist. Otherwise they won't get what they came after.
Point of fact. In Kennesaw Ga. not forty miles from where I now reside, they passed an ordinance several years ago that every home owner had to have a gun in their residence. They didn't care if it was unloaded, taken apart, and stored in a suitcase in the attic with the door locked. Since the ordinance was passed, the crime rate has been almost non existant.
In the combined cities of the "Wild Wild West" of the 1800s, the average death rate was about three to five a year. the same period of time in New York City was over a hundred. When everybody had a gun, nobody would try to rob or steal from you. Besides, if you did and you got caught, you got hung then and there, because they couldn't take the time to take you to jail and then go to trial etc. and waste that much time. There was too much to do, and the sight of a bandero hanging from a tree would serve notice to others of their fate.
I am neither a liberal or conservative. probably best described as a pragmatic Libertarian. True Libertarians have no concept of borders or Jihadist.
I think our problem here is we are "discussing" the headlines and not the facts. If the news were really the news, you would have the facts laid out before you so YOU could decide. Todays news is just sensationalism and biased opinions. Have any heard of Mr. Cho's ties to Islam? Is that a fact, or someones bias? You don't really know in this world unless it has been varified, certified and stamped with the seal of aproval.
Boy am I gonna get flamed!!!!
Does any one know what this has to do with using mobile phones anyway?????
Bill
