Texas governor stirs controversy

[joepole]

>why do you think every civilized nation in the world now has laws against this type of behavior

Correct or not, that's not a legit line of reasoning, "Everybody else is doing it" means nothing. Almost every civilized nation in the world has socialized medicine, as well.

[joepole]

>How can you say fewer lives would have been lost when only 1 man had a gun as opposed to 100 people having a gun, when our own nations history tells the exact opposite story?

Because it's a reasonable assumption that none of the other likely-to-be-armed students wanted to go on a murderous rampage and it's a logical conclusion that if any other student had killed Cho before he could finish fewer lives would have been lost.

[BrainSmashR]

Originally Posted by joepole

>How can you say fewer lives would have been lost when only 1 man had a gun as opposed to 100 people having a gun, when our own nations history tells the exact opposite story?

Because it's a reasonable assumption that none of the other likely-to-be-armed students wanted to go on a murderous rampage and it's a logical conclusion that if any other student had killed Cho before he could finish fewer lives would have been lost.

Homicide is the 14th leading cause of death in America today.
Accident is the 3rd leading cause of death, of the accident category, firearm accidents are the 8th leading cause of death.

....and your contention is because there are NOT enough guns on the street.

I'm glad you admitted this was total assumption....I can't find death stats for the 1800's when most men carried a firearm, but I'll be sure to let you knwo when I do

[Al Swearengen]

WRONG WRONG WRONG
In March 2000, WorldNetDaily reported that since Australia's widespread gunban, violent crime has INCREASED in the country. WND reported that, although lawmakers responsible for passing the ban promised a safer country, the nation's crime statistics tell a different story:
.Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
.Assaults are up 8.6 percent
.Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent
.In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent
.In the 25 years BEFORE the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily
.There has been a dramatic increase in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly

The violent crime stats are EVEN WORSE in Great Britain!
__________________

The above is an excerpt from an earlier post of mine where I was replyin to someone else's opinion that "fewer guns equals fewer deaths". It just doesnt work that way...period...end of story! Theres a school in Utah I think where the students with concealed carry permits are encouraged to wear their guns on campus, so lets just have a little hypothetical scenario here. Ok, lets say a "Cho" type murderous a$$hole shows up one at school one mornin and starts shootin people...with me so far? Ya followin me so far? Ok, "Cho" pulls his gun and gets off a few shots and kills a few of his poor, hapless classmates and instructors...but other students and instructors draw their own weapons and tuck "Cho" in for a dirtnap! Total body count? Four dead, includin the aforementioned murderous a$$hole...as opposed to, say, 30 or 50 dead...maybe even more.

The sad truth is that when one of these nuts snaps and decides to go on a shootin spree, be it on a school campus, the post office, your local Luby's cafeteria, or where ever, everyone who is NOT armed is basically just the proverbial "fish in the barrel", whose options amount to hidin under a table, playin dead, beggin the crazy bastard not to shoot em, or runnin and gettin shot in the back! These nutcases KNOW that their victims cant fight back, which is why they can kill so many of them. Different ballgame altogether when there are citizens carryin lawfully concealed guns. Nice try Brain, but you're full of schit! Ya might try doin some research first next time.

[BrainSmashR]

Hey that's great....how about stats for this country?

BTW, I did NOT say fewer guns equals fewer deaths, I said MORE guns DOES NOT equal fewer deaths.

Now check out this "hypothetical" scenario. Everytime someone gets pissed off they reach for their guns....you know, like every western story you've ever heard.

[Al Swearengen]

Originally Posted by BrainSmashR

Hey that's great....how about stats for this country?

BTW, I did NOT say fewer guns equals fewer deaths, I said MORE guns DOES NOT equal fewer deaths.

Now check out this "hypothetical" scenario. Everytime someone gets pissed off they reach for their guns....you know, like every western story you've ever heard.

On the contrary, more guns do indeed equal fewer deaths. And America's crime rates, violent or otherwise, have been steadily dropping since concealed weapons carry by licensed citizens, along with adoption of the "Castle Doctrine" by the states have become more prevalent. People who are licensed to carry concealed weapons must meet the criteria. Those citizens understand that carrying a concealed weapon means they have a much greater responsibility to conduct themselves with restraint, and draw and use their guns ONLY when they or someone else is threatened with death or grave bodily harm, NOT because they get "pissed off". Those who do NOT understand this likely dont meet the licensing criteria anyway.

[Al Swearengen]

BTW, I'm a Louisiana resident in possession of a concealed weapons permit issued by the State of Florida, Department of Agriculture, which is good for 5 years. As of January 5th of 07, I can carry a concealed weapon in 30 states, Kansas being the latest, all of which have reciprocity agreements with Florida.

[BrainSmashR]

Originally Posted by Al Swearengen

On the contrary, more guns do indeed equal fewer deaths. And America's crime rates, violent or otherwise, have been steadily dropping since concealed weapons carry by licensed citizens, along with adoption of the "Castle Doctrine" by the states have become more prevalent. People who are licensed to carry concealed weapons must meet the criteria. Those citizens understand that carrying a concealed weapon means they have a much greater responsibility to conduct themselves with restraint, and draw and use their guns ONLY when they or someone else is threatened with death or grave bodily harm, NOT because they get "pissed off". Those who do NOT understand this likely dont meet the licensing criteria anyway.

According to the U.S. Department of Justice:
Firearm-related crime has plummeted since 1993, then slightly increased in 2005.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance.htm#Crime

....and I'm sure the stats for 2006 will reflect the trend is continuing to rise....stay tuned for more details

[LateNight]

Originally Posted by BrainSmashR

Now check out this "hypothetical" scenario. Everytime someone gets pissed off they reach for their guns....you know, like every western story you've ever heard.

more or less guns does not change this scenario.. this happens now as it is.. idiot gets pissed, idiot goes home gets his gun and shoots someone.
If idiot doesn't have a gun, he'll find another way.

[BrainSmashR]

Originally Posted by joepole

>why do you think every civilized nation in the world now has laws against this type of behavior

Correct or not, that's not a legit line of reasoning, "Everybody else is doing it" means nothing. Almost every civilized nation in the world has socialized medicine, as well.

If it's not a legit line of reasoning, why do you think I'm trying to say that?

More people with guns always equals more murders, not less. That's why most nations have some type of gun laws, not because they want to be like their neighbor!?!?!?!?!?