One of them who I think is the leader does a great job delivering the paper. Monday to Friday I should have him do Sunday paper but I’m set in my ways I like to go get the Sunday paper and danish.

On the other hand, one of those kids in FL could easily have been dead by now.

Thanks again for helping make our nation worse!

at least from the article from Chicago is the one who ended up paying with his life for being a criminal.

For what? Some jewelry or a few bucks from this woman’s purse?

He made the choice to throw his life away and I commend the woman for refusing to be another Chicago crime statistic.

The guy in Miami was an asshole of the 1st degree but he’s now facing his consequences.

Either way, your comment doesn't say anything about my statement. Thieves and guns (and gun nuts, even on the Dem side) can both make the country worse.

Why is the onus always on the victim to not react rather than the onus being on the offender to not commit criminal acts?

At least for those who hate guns that certainly seems to be the case.

He gambled on that woman being an easy victim and lost.

Don’t begrudge her in the least.

He was just doing it for kicks, I suppose.

None of this upends my point that guns make situations like this worse. For every little old lady packing heat, there is a jerk-off waving his gun at some black teens on bikes. Not to mention that if criminals start assuming their marks are armed, they might be more inclined to attempt to incapacitate them in some way (e.g. hit her over the head or just shoot her immediately) rather than just try to scare them.

The situation with the little old lady is the closest I would ever come to thinking guns are ok (I mean, I don't think she did anything illegal in shooting the guy), but it happens so seldomly compared to far worse stuff that to me it just doesn't matter in terms of argument.

The ratio is 1 to 1 as you claim, I expect you can provide 3 to 9 million examples of the bad behavior you describe.

Actually, I would bet that there are far more crimes than self-defenses, regardless of what the NRA says.

You have a baseline of 3 million, better get started.

to instances of gun crime.

Your contention that I meant to compare mere carrying of a gun to gun crime would only make sense if the initial story had been about an old woman who carried a gun (but didn't use it).

Anyway, this seems to be the old argument about "good guys with guns". Even those guys can be harmful, since they are the only source for guns used in crimes (whether they themselves become criminals, or whether they lose their guns to theft or otherwise).

Meaning? But, yeah, I didn’t think you could back up that claim.

but not really relevant. I admit that I used the term confusingly. Sorry I confused you.

according to the CDC

"https://www.policefoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Cook-et-al.-1996-Guns-in-America.pdf"

This long paper, goes over several surveys, including one that alleges 3 million defensive uses of guns annually. They find that 3 million number "absurd" (their word):

"As seen in Table 6.9, the NSPOF data
also imply that as many as 630,000 lives
are saved each year by defensive gun
uses. By comparison, there were 22,076
people murdered in 1994 (FBI 1995,
18). Since the number of homicides is
generally regarded as accurate, we can
only think of two explanations to reconcile these two statistics, the first of
which is absurd: (1) victims of serious
(potentially lethal) criminal attacks have
firearms available and successfully
ward off their attackers in about 97
percent of all cases or (2) the NSPOF
estimates of the number of lives saved,
if not the DGU estimates themselves,
are greatly exaggerated."

The 2013 report ordered by President Obama
https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3

Thos was done under the auspices of the CDC so I view it as a more 'neutral' source.

But if you see petty financial crime as arising from poverty, it is tough to be comfortable with the death of the criminal.

That said, my main point is not about the thief.

self defense is a basic human right.

Itself an act of high civility. We all know how graciuos, respectful, and humane armed robbers behave, just as in this delightful example: https://abc7ny.com/new-jersey-gas-station-clerk-killed-during-robbery/4934722/

Oh, wait...

Might as well say we cannot defend ourselves if we don't have M60 machine guns in our homes.

Oh, how will I defend my home if I don't have a grenade launcher!

Confiscate all the guns, then see where the homicide and suicide rates land...

Confiscate all the guns.

Eager as they are to be on the right side of the law and public opinion.

The criminals are armed because being armed is easy. Once being armed is not easy, fewer criminals will be armed.

If all guns are illegal, then if anyone walks around armed they risk detection and arrest without having to take any further criminal action. Of course, this only applies to handguns. Long guns are so easily detected that no one would dare try bringing one out in public (at least, not without wanting to be arrested/shot by police).

I agree that criminals will probably still try to get guns, but the supply would be severely constricted and black-market guns would be expensive and subject to severe criminal penalty merely for possession. Furthermore, all of the so-called "responsible" gun owners would be disarmed (wouldn't want to break the law, right?), and thus we wouldn't need to worry about them going insane and shooting up a shopping mall (or letting their kids get access to do same).

So tell me again how criminals will still have easy access to guns?

which means your comment was probably just a joke?

Since we are not going to convince each other, probably best to leave it here before we get really goofy.

Confiscation in the USA. There are far more similarities than banners care to admit, and any attempt to do so would likely meet with just as much success.

Is that all you have?

I never said confiscation would be popular or even constitutional (under current doctrine). I support the policy position regardless of those things.

I also never said it would be easy. It would take time and surely some "responsible" gun owners would hold out (which means they are actually criminals at that point, but whatever). Anyone owning a gun would try not to be caught with it in public, which at the very least would help to protect the general public from said guns.


As to Venezuela:

Venezuela has no functioning justice system at the moment, poverty is absolutely endemic, and has a huge problem with criminal gangs that absolutely dwarfs anything Chicago has to deal with.

The USA has a justice system, functioning non-corrupt police (mostly), and has no serious poverty to contend with.

You cannot seriously contend that private gun-ownership is the only thing that separates the two countries.

Contend that the American population would accept and gladly comply with complete civilian disarmament. For those of us who have actually used firearms in self defense, your attitude that we have to just suck it up and submit ourselves to gun wielding criminals with the comforting knowledge that some day in the future the land might be a gun-free utopia is an absolute joke. Additionally, your commentary would suggest a fundamental lack of understanding on your part of the mechanism of gun control policy and implementation in Venezuela. In regard to civilian disarmament, the Chavez/Madro enjoys some considerable advantages not existing here in the USA, and yet they are still inable to deter gun crime.

I never said it would be popular, so stop saying I contend such and such. You need to re-read what I wrote and reply accordingly.

The funny part of your comment is that you imply that "responsible" gun owners would actually end up breaking the law if confiscation were legislated. Not really a good way to show you are the good guys. What, are you going to start shooting the poor cops who have to enforce the law, or will you just resort to assassination? Let us know....

As for Venezuela, I already pointed out the differences.

I would instead look to South Korea, where one cannot own a handgun unless it is for a job like bodyguard or a guard at some sort of facility. (https://klawguru.com/2016/08/24/south-koreas-gun-laws-in-a-nutshell/) Most people cannot own a gun, and yet the population does not appear to be revolting against the laws. Also, they enjoy much lower crime rates than we do (even homicide).

Concerning firearms you might have a point, but they don’t and neither do you. At at any rate, you continue to contend complete civilian disarmament in possible in the United States when there are too many factors in play that render it impossible at least forthe foreseeable future. You agree it won’t be popular, yet you seem to think that any administration that charges forward with such a policy would be immune to mass noncompliance, both on an individual and agency level. Immune to being tossed out of office in the next election cycle and the RKBA restored. You might have the opportunity to enjoy criminalizing folks for simple possession for a time (and I have the sense from your posts would would gain some personal pleasure from that), I don’t think it would be for long.

"complete civilian disarmament in possible in the United States when there are too many factors in play that render it impossible at least forthe foreseeable future. "

You allow that it is possible on a long enough time horizon. Who knows what is possible? My point is that I support that policy as I see guns as a net negative to society.


"you seem to think that any administration that charges forward with such a policy would be immune to mass noncompliance"

Mass non-compliance would be criminal in my hypothetical future. You are admitting that those gun nuts would all be criminals (and since illegal possession is a felony, they would be further banned from owning guns, as we do even now). Why would you support such criminals? You must face that you are on the side of all the red-neck militia members out there.


"You might have the opportunity to enjoy criminalizing folks for simple possession for a time (and I have the sense from your posts would would gain some personal pleasure from that), I don’t think it would be for long."

We do it with grenades already. And missiles and bombs. Other nations have been able to cut back on gun ownership (or even just cut back on public carry) without your apocalypse happening. I merely submit Americans are like other people in most respects. I think we can do what the South Koreans did without us all trying to kill each other.

Policy of complete civilian disarmament would likely be quickly destined for the ashcan. Go ahead and start kicking in the doors of otherwise politically moderate and law abiding folks who don’t swallow the-state-will-protect-you koolaid and see what the reaction is. In doing so you will prove the red necks right to a degree, and will have aligned yourself with the likes of Nicolas Maduro. To be honest, I have a feeling that a global expansion of gun rights is more likely considering the state of things.
I have to say, if you are left with resorting to comparing a bolt action hunting rifle to a bomb or missle, you’ve already lost the argument.

You know, the industrialized world of which the United States is a part of and Venezuela is not?

Japan doesn't but then they are very weak on civil rights so authoritarian acts by the government are hard to oppose.

floating around that we do. We're talking about a continent of 700+ million people. Not surprisingly, crime is significantly there.

why have we seen a 50% decrease in violent crime in America since the early 1990's while gun ownership has skyrocketed? Shouldn't we be experiencing record violent crime?

If violent crime has gone down so much, why not start restricting civilian guns. Seems we don't really need them anymore...

I enjoy competitive target shooting for example. I don't own any guns for self defense.

LOL, so you and your glock are going to take down the US Govt, huh?

And the other commenter called ME a fantasist!

where the balance of power is tilted towards the government and away from individual freedom.

The government is not a threat. And gun owners can't take down the US government alone.

Regardless of wait time...