Is this the way to treat a Mugger?

[denuseri]

Ok, give me that soapbox back for a moment.

This is exactly where I thought this thread would go. I stated the reality of your news story and removed myself from the discussion early on because I found the premise that someone must die so that you could have your discussion and prove your moral superiority offensive. People of reason and experience have come in and spoke. No opinions were changed, but of course that is not the purpose of this discussion is it?

This discussion did of course bring out the usual voices, those who think that because a gun did not do the killing it proves that their way is morally superior. Without ever acknowledging that crimes resulting in death continue unabated even under gun control. Criminals will use a weapon, period. Implement gun control and what do you get? Knife crime. Outlaw knives? Bludgeoning will become the next big crime wave. The only way to stop all murderess crime is to eliminate people altogether.

The biggest irritant I have with threads of this nature is it brings out two types of people in particular that bother me. The first is the type that parrot the belittling speech they have been taught by their mentors. Call people who disagree with their opinion "nuts" and "idiots" and accuse them of drinking the "kool-aid" when they don't even realize that they to are drinking the "kool-aid", just from a different cup, served up by others who expect that you should only believe as they do. Then of course we get the people who get their "history" from movies and television. A simple search would educate them that Dodge City as it exists in the movies is fiction.

You and the other proponents of a helpless population should stop and look at that city closely. They were one of the first American experiments in gun control. Once government and law came to the Kansas territory, no guns were allowed in Dodge City proper. The killers came from across the railroad tracks to prey on the unarmed citizens in the more "enlightened" side of the city. Most likely that is where the phrase "from the wrong side of the tracks" originated.

Now in answer to the question you asked of me earlier. No. Mr. Diaz should not have carried a gun that night. It would have been illegal to do so. New York City prohibits the possession of handguns as does the peaceful and crime free ( that is sarcasm for those that miss it ) city of Washington D.C.

In closing I state that I am a free man. I will never disarm so that I may be made subservient to either the "nobles" or the criminals.

Rant completed, you may have your soapbox back.

I appluad your sound reason Twisted.

I have a license to carry and allmost allways have in my possession a Smith & Wesson 38 Pistol. I am also an excellent shot.

Fourtunately unconstitutional gun control laws such as the one in Washington DC have recently been overturned by the recent ruling of the Surpreme Court.

We have discussed gun control etc many times in various other threads.

The following is taken from page two of another thread on this subject (one of my posts there) and alltough it deals primaraly with using a gun to defend oneself from an attempted rape it also covers other viloent crimes:

<<has taken martial arts before, it helped lil ole me about as much as shooting rubber bands at godzilla

realistically speaking my skill level would have to equal or exceed bruce lees to be able to take down guys that are litterally twice my size even if they had no training

physics are physics

I see many many women told to take matial arts and after a couple classess go about naively with the same sence of security as if they had a gun.

I have also personally heard far too many stories from those same women survivors of rape and other viloent crimes attesting as to how little if any effectivness thier training had in a real life situation defending themselves from single let alone multiple attackers intent on raping them or worse.

Some facts available on statistics if you bother to look them up:

Department of Justice victim studies show that overall, when rape is
attempted, the completion rate is 36%. But when a woman defends herself
with a gun, the completion rate drops to 3%.

For all rapes, woman who resisted with a gun were 2.5 times more likely to escape without injury than those who did not resist, and 4 times more likely to escape uninjured than those who resisted with any means other than a gun.”

Overall victimization studies show that for all violent crimes, including
assault, rape, and robbery, the safest course for the victim is to
resist with a firearm.

The second safest course is passive compliance
with the attacker, but this tactic approximately doubles the probability
of death or injury for the victim.

All other tactics (mace, whistles,
hand-to-hand combat, screams, and so forth) have even worse outcomes.

(Southwick, Journal of Criminal Justice, 2000)

So why is the anti-gunners' answer to violence is to make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to obtain firearms, or the right to bear them for self-defense?

??hummmmm??

Could it be thier agenda isnt about defending the law abiding people of the nation from the criminals at all?

Could it be perhaps that they are more conserned with defending thier government from an armed populace and are will to stoop so low as to play on the naivety of the well meaning massess to do it?

Sounds far more likely to me.

Here is a link to the thread containing the above post:

http://www.bdsmlibrary.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=18322