Returning to the OP here for a moment, I don’t begrudge people the right to have an armed guard, assuming said guard is appropriately trained and licensed, and that said guards are available to whomever needs one.
I do, however, have a big problem with folks like California Senators Feinstein and Boxer telling us that Americans shouldn’t be allowed to carry guns while they both had personal licenses to carry concealed. That’s the kind of thing SteveG1 was referring to. They don’t have to pay someone else to carry their guns. They just have to have sufficient influence to get the permits that they want denied to everyone else.
I hope you can shoot better than you can reason, otherwise everyone within a mile of you is in grave danger.
There’s only two types of people who don’t recognize that the threat of gun violence is considerably lower in Europe than it is in the U.S.: ideologues and retards. Of course, there is some overlap between the two.
Fine. Get elected to the Senate, have some death threats made against you, and I’m sure you’ll get a plain-clothes U.S. Capitol police officer to follow you around. That’s the same kind of police officer that follows around pro-gun politicans as Tom DeLay, Speaker Hastert, Senator Frist, and other prominent figures, in case you’re wondering.
And then there’s the retards that can’t read posts: Like Ravenman.
Ravenman alledges that “I don’t recognize that the threat of gun violence is considerably lower in Europe than it is in the U.S.” When I never said any such thing, and wouldn’t, because I know the statistics. Of course it’s lower in Europe. So what else is new?
To turn a phrase, Ravenman, I hope you can shoot better than you can understand what you read, otherwise everyone within a mile of you is in grave danger.
(Or maybe he’s just an anti-gun ideaologue who couldn’t read my post accurately cause he was foaming at the mouth.)
Oh, and before you make more unfounded assumptions about me: I don’t shoot. I don’t own guns, not rent them, or use them at all.
Ahhh, anyone who does not share your opinion is too stupid to have any voice. If this is a US vs. Europe thing, my counter is, that we colonial savages don’t regularly go off on genocides, ethnic cleansings, “answers to the Jewish question” and world wars.
Right back to the original complaint. Only the “ruling elite” has any hope of protection. To hell with the peasantry.
In my world, even if threats are made, you are lucky if you even get the police to drive past your house once in a while to check things out.
So, aside from the insults, what was your main point?
“For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead to the future.”
No, the purpose was to point out that the end result was far less safety for anyone. Look at what happened. Der Fuhrer rode high by promising law and order. “I will protect you”. “I know what is best for you”. THAT was the load of crap.
Alessan, re-read my first reply to you. I said, it was the idea of “I know what is best for you”. It is the same attitude our “leaders” are trying to sell to us. Look, we both know a Tiger tank beats a 38 pistol hands down. Stop trying to jump off onto something else. It was the Big Brother Knows Best attitude I was after. Or are you not listening?
No you just offered a couple examples where your statement was true and then you assumed that their was a correlation, while ignoring instances where it was not. Even if it was true that still doesn’t mean loose gun laws prevent crime. I stand by my original statement that gun laws have very little to do with crime rate. Criminals will get guns anyways no matter what the laws are and very few people ever end up using thier guns to prevent crime no matter what the laws are.
Maybe I should have included the point I was trying to make in the same post as the quote. personally, I thought it was a pretty good example. After all, here we have an established maniac, Big Brother, a country on the road to devastation, and everything else, all rolled up in one convenient package.
Very few in what terms? Numbers or percentages? I’ve seen estimates where over 50,000 crimes are prevented annually to prevent crime. That’s not very few, except in percentages of guns owned.
Anyway, I’m sure you’ll agree that if even one deadly crime is prevented, it’s worth it.
Now that is the load of crap. Your bigoted attitude is just as bad as the Nazis. Not all Germans were Nazis, many of them risked their lives and their families sheltering us and helping some of us get out of the country.
Actually, I did prevent a crime once, with my guns. I kept a girl in Fort Worth from being run down by her “boyfriend’s” truck. He saw the guns, turned the truck around, the cops caught him later.
Also, Jews did fight Hitler as best they could. They spied for us, came over here with new technology and science (Einstein was the most famous), joined the Underground and the Resistance, and joined our armies. Imagine how different it would have been, if someone with a good rifle had been able to take Hitler down early on. Several million lives would have been saved. Hell, even his own generals were trying to kill him.
No. This sounds just like the emotional tripe that Brady and crew use. “If it’ll save one life, it’s worth it!”… bullshit. Policy decisions shouldn’t be made on such nonsense.