Gun violence in America.

[Timmy69]

Tell this to a 50lbs women or an 80 year old man that gets attacked by a 200lbs ex-con!
Shall they defend themselfes with bare hands?!

I really do not understand anti gun quaks that pamper criminals and protect them like victims while at the same time the real victim is rendered helpless and left alone by justice, government and vox populi.
THIS is immoral!

How can you make a valid comment on something you admit you haven't read? It wasn't that long. I'm guessing it took more time to articulate and type out a response to something you haven't read than the time necessary to read the comment in the first place. Having read gringito's comments, I found no mention of AK-47's or other high powered, assault weapons (though I have no idea what his opinion on them are) so putting words in his mouth about his wanting everyone walking around with AK-47's seems unfair.

Even in case of extremly strict gun control, criminals will opt for other "tools". Great Britain is an example: After extensive gun control measures knife crime increased dramatically. Now Great Britain implemented strict knife laws. What do you think will happen next?

I'm not quite so worried about the criminal who can't access a gun (due to stricter gun control) opting for other "tools." You don't read much about psychos going on mass stabbing sprees. A psycho with a knife in a strategic position on the floor above the food court at a shopping mall will kill far fewer than if that same psycho had a high powered assault weapon.

Keep the calibers reasonable, no need for military style, rapid fire weapons in the hands of the public, register guns and their owners.

Fair enough, the comment was unfair to Gringito without having read his argument. Let me apologise to him and delete the comment. Gringito, I made a comment without having read your post which was wrong of me. I think it's important we learn to respect others' points of views on this website and treat others in a fair and respectful manner. On this occasion, I didn't fully live up to my own beliefs and reciprocate how I would wish my arguments to be treated in a debate.

[falconagain]

I think that the current comparison between the US and Peru is unfair because of
the following:

The US is currently in its economic decline, with a heavy increase on poverty which
is normally shared by a heavy increase on violence.
Peru is now close to its economic peak, which normally should be shared by an increase
in security within the whole country.

A better and proper comparison would be Gun violence in Chile at its economic peak
compared to Gun violence in Peru now. (Chile was up to 1970 considered Peru s
equal in corruption).

While this comparison will not give you the same result that you expect. (Peru still
comes out as uncivilized, and maybe something worse). Still that would be the proper
way to continue the discussion.

[sbaustin]

Well, I have only JUST realised this was quite a debate! I wanted to point out that the US is also violent and people's lives are also in danger, just like in Peru or anywhere else for that matter.

The conversations on this forum are one sided by design and I (we-expats) can understand why as a Peruvian you might feel that Peru is being picked on, but that's only due to the built in bias of a forum dedicated to people that have moved their lives to Peru.

Out of curiosity what do you think about the subject besides there is also danger in the USA. You have been extremely quiet without opining much.

[curlyguy18]

The conversations on this forum are one sided by design and I (we-expats) can understand why as a Peruvian you might feel that Peru is being picked on, but that's only due to the built in bias of a forum dedicated to people that have moved their lives to Peru.

Out of curiosity what do you think about the subject besides there is also danger in the USA. You have been extremely quiet without opining much.

I understand this is a forum dedicated to expats in Peru, and what I can't get my head around is why some people are so critical of Peru and complain so much about it and yet they are still living here. And this isn't just on this board, but I constantly meet foreigners say they don't like their lives here for a number of reasons but here they are.

Regarding gun violence in America, I think this is something that will be around for a while. It's one of those problems that's ingrained in society and will not be done away with any time soon.

[falconagain]

You have to take in account that due to certain circumstances (sometimes, mainly
money), there is people (Peruvians and Non Peruvians) that ended up on this country
against their will. So they have every right to complain about it.

Why do you think I left.

[curlyguy18]

You have to take in account that due to certain circumstances (sometimes, mainly
money), there is people (Peruvians and Non Peruvians) that ended up on this country
against their will. So they have every right to complain about it.

Why do you think I left.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. You made the choice to leave Peru and yes, there are people that may not be able to leave Peru due to financial reasons. However, the people I'm talking about ARE ABLE TO leave Peru (some of them have left), but they just don't.

[chi chi]

I understand this is a forum dedicated to expats in Peru, and what I can't get my head around is why some people are so critical of Peru and complain so much about it and yet they are still living here. And this isn't just on this board, but I constantly meet foreigners say they don't like their lives here for a number of reasons but here they are.

I think that those people weren't happy in their homecountry either. If the go back there, they will up in the same old rat race that they ran away from.
Peru is a different place and for most of them surviving here is a challenge but they don't want to back to their (boring) old life.

[Sergio Bernales]

Hey Curlyguy, I think your comment might make a good topic for another thread. I think you should open a new one, although I'm not sure the posters who complain about Peru might necessarily contribute. By the way, I hope I'm not one of them.

[curlyguy18]

Yeah, this would be a good topic for a different thread. Let's get back to the actual topic of this thread (gun violence in the states).

And no, Sergio, you don't strike me as someone who complains and slags Peru off.

[Sergio Bernales]

Yeah, this would be a good topic for a different thread. Let's get back to the actual topic of this thread (gun violence in the states).

And no, Sergio, you don't strike me as someone who complains and slags Peru off.

Glad to hear it. I am curious about the topic, because I think some people do go through an adjustment period, almost like a relationship or a marriage, where it goes from honeymoon to hard reality, but then that's maybe different to those that have been here for years and still complain.

Going back to the guns topic, I think it's played itself out, a bit too much posturing as well for my liking although a few good comments from Ironchefchris and Tom and a few others. Maybe gun violence in Peru might be a better topic, and then you might really get the Peru slaggers out in force.

[sbaustin]

I think your comment might make a good topic for another thread. I think you should open a new one, although I'm not sure the posters who complain about Peru might necessarily contribute. By the way, I hope I'm not one of them.

There are plenty of threads here with people complaining about Peru.

I understand this is a forum dedicated to expats in peru, and what i can't get my head around is why some people are so critical of peru and complain so much about it and yet they are still living here.

My Peruvian wife usually shares this same opinion with me when we meet expats that overly complain about Peru though besides financial reasons, people might not leave because they have children here, their wife/etc can't get a visa/ etc although life is much nicer when you try to go with the flow instead of complaining all the time.

people do go through an adjustment period, almost like a relationship or a marriage, where it goes from honeymoon to hard reality, but then that's maybe different to those that have been here for years and still complain.

I think this is entirely true that we go through stages of an expat. I wrote a kind of satiric post about this a couple years back (somewhere else). I'll start a new thread and see what others think about the stages.

[Sergio Bernales]

That's a nice idea, Sbaustin. I look forward to reading it. In fact, I think you've already started it. Although I am curious about whether, or to what extent, this is a different phenomenon from what Curlyguy's talking about, as there do seem to be expats who seem to have been here for years and are still complaining. Are they still adjusting or is this something else?

[curlyguy18]

That's a nice idea, Sbaustin. I look forward to reading it. In fact, I think you've already started it. Although I am curious about whether, or to what extent, this is a different phenomenon from what Curlyguy's talking about, as there do seem to be expats who seem to have been here for years and are still complaining. Are they still adjusting or is this something else?

It's a lot better to go with the flow than nag all the time. I must say some of these people are relatively new to the country and some have been here for a while.

[argidd]

In my, very humble opinion, I believe the violence issue in the US goes further than the right to bear arms.

As "uncivilized" or "backward" some may consider Peru, I did not go to school here with metal detectors, random drug checks or with fear of being stabbed in the bathroom, unlike when I was in Middle School in the US (and it was a nice residential area). But Peru has serious safety issues too. I don't think we should slander one country or the other (I love the US and have wonderful memories; I like Peru as well, hence am still here). I think perhaps it is more useful to analyze the volence problem and see how we can contribute to society (in Peru, Chile, US, India or wherever) through the children we bear (or will bear).

I found this online and have to share... I love it.

[falconagain]

I think that descriptions need to accurate and proper. Whenever a series descriptions
fit a word. Then use the word instead, if uncivilized and backward are words that fit
the truth. They need to be used repeatedly.

[gringito]

timmy69:
Thank you for your apology.

Not as a tit-for-tat response but simply because you gave me the catchwords I would like to add the following:

Judging people by their appearance or by their avatar is not only discriminating but also leads to condemnation in advance of trial.

In contrast to disputes in a public forum a responsible gun owner should never lose his self control or attack other humans beings without having thoroughly evaluated the situation and without having legitimate and reasonable grounds to do so.

Moreover, as a responsible gun owner you should never ever provoke a fight - in particular since in various jurisdictions this can bring you behind bars (also applies to Peru, by the way).

Furthermore, many people have a gun phobia or hoplophobia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoplophobia), mainly resulting out of a lack of knowledge about weapons and because they have never handled or operated weapons under safe tutelage.

Finally, some anti-gun advocates project their own fear, insecurity about their own character and sometimes their hidden psychosis onto gun owners. Example: They fear that a person with a gun would act in an uncontrolled and dangerous manner thereby threatening other people while in reality this person does not trust itself and in his own capabilities to act in a responsible and reasonable manner.

[gringito]

USA - Peru
Though the legal situation in Peru is different than in the USA, many aspects mentioned in this thread also apply to the situation in Peru. This is due to the fact that Peru has a very liberal gun law and allows legally owned guns for its citizens.

However, while about 80 million US citizens own guns (If I remember well...) only about 300.000 Peruvians LEGALLY own guns. It is, however, estimated that the number of illegal guns in Peru is 10 to 20 times (!) higher.

Peru has much stricter gun laws than the USA:
Peru requires background checks and, for example a psychological test for potential gun owners. Furthermore, Peru has a national gun database.
(BTW, personally, I agree to these measures)

US authorities currently intend to implement such measures against the interests of the US gun lobby and 2nd Amendment activists.

Assault rifles

... I found no mention of AK-47's or other high powered, assault weapons (though I have no idea what his opinion on them are)...

In the USA ownership of REAL assault rifles (i.e. high capacity firearms which allow AUTOMATIC fire) require a special clearing.
US citizens usually own SEMI-automatic versions of such firearms. These firearms only LOOK like real assault rifles.
The legal situation in the USA regarding such rifles is completely different than in Peru. In the USA even assault rifles can be owned due to the 2nd Amendment issues.

In Peru such weapons are strictly forbidden for civilians.
However, many assaults in Peru are carried out with this type of weapon.
Where do this weapons come from?
Usually from theft in Police stations and military bases.
It is heard that corrupt policemen even rent (!) their assault rifle to thugs.

Caliber restrictions

Keep the calibers reasonable, no need for military style, rapid fire weapons in the hands of the public, register guns and their owners.

In the USA there usually no exists a restriction in caliber for usual guns for civilians.

In Peru there are considerable restrictions as to the caliber!
Civilians are not allowed to own high power hand guns.
The police however is!

This leads me to the following aspects:
Personally, I feel that this restriction here in Peru is not ok!
Why?
Why should a private citizen own a weaker gun than a policemen?
A policeman is only a citizen in uniform.
If a policeman needs a higher powered gun to defend himself against a criminal why should the citizen be left with a low power gun to defend himself against the same criminal?
This is discriminating and only makes the civilian easier prey.
The original idea behind this Peruvian legislation was that policemen should have better chances against a criminal since it was assumed that a criminal would only own low power guns. However, as already mentioned above, the contrary is the case.

Knifes:

I'm not quite so worried about the criminal who can't access a gun (due to stricter gun control) opting for other "tools." You don't read much about psychos going on mass stabbing sprees. A psycho with a knife in a strategic position on the floor above the food court at a shopping mall will kill far fewer than if that same psycho had a high powered assault weapon.

If I remember well, due to stricter gun laws for example in Canada and GB the death toll caused by knives is now the highest among deaths caused by any other means.

[gringito]

I think perhaps it is more useful to analyze the volence problem and see how we can contribute to society (in Peru, Chile, US, India or wherever) through the children we bear (or will bear).

I agree that analyzing the reasons for violence is an important issue.
Moreover, the contribution you mentioned is fine..though a little bit idealistic.

Just because we have responsibility for our children (and our parents and other loved ones) we should not close our eyes, become naive and pretend that we live in an ideal world without real dangers. Unfortunately, we don't!
According to many criminologist crime and violence will most probably always exist in any type of society.

This does not imply that we should become paranoid but rather that our safety depends mainly (but not exclusively) on ourselves.

[Hitoruna]

I dont know... people say that on one side there are criminals and on the other side "law abiding citizens"

personally I fear more a "law abiding citizen" that gets angry with me because of alcohol or because he thinks I slept with his wife and gets his stupid revenge using a gun.

The best reasons why there should be controls over guns

[Hitoruna]

Another thing I noticed while traveling in the US (and reading about it) is the kind of feeling some people have there toward guns. They "love" them. They play with them, they think it is "cool", they talk about it, caress them and multiple other ridiculous things.

I remember when a friend of mine (citizen of a country with NO weapons at all) went to study to the US. Her friends took her to a shooting range (and pardon the stereotype but it is true) where a fat bald guy with a beard (the owner) took her and her friends to shoot and then later pose in all kinds of positions for the photographs smiling.

I reprimanded her sternly. You see, my father owned a gun and was very good at it. But he doenst "love" guns. growing up we had a very strict rule in the house: the drawer where "el papa" kept his gun was out of limits. We never saw the gun (except once), we never touch the gun, mind you we never even touched the drawer. It was kind of a sacred place where you had to take off your sandals to enter. THAT is the correct attitude toward a gun. Have it if you need it, but dont idealize it. they are tools of death and need no romanticizing.

By the way I learned how to shoot as well, and was very good at it, but still the attitude is the same. People who like to play with guns shouldnt own one

[chi chi]

In Peru there are considerable restrictions as to the caliber!
Civilians are not allowed to own high power hand guns.
The police however is!

This leads me to the following aspects:
Personally, I feel that this restriction here in Peru is not ok!
Why?
Why should a private citizen own a weaker gun than a policemen?
A policeman is only a citizen in uniform.
If a policeman needs a higher powered gun to defend himself against a criminal why should the citizen be left with a low power gun to defend himself against the same criminal?
This is discriminating and only makes the civilian easier prey.

''A policeman is only a citizen in uniform'' ???
Policemen have to go through a very strict selection process and training process before they get the job. And they have to pass tests, trainings sessions and exams on a regular basis during their career.
Policemen will use their gun as the last option in an intervention.

A citizen will probably use his gun as the first option.

If citizens are allowed to buy gun without no limit on the caliber then where will it end?
Why don't we all start buying chemical weapons?

[chi chi]

I dont know... people say that on one side there are criminals and on the other side "law abiding citizens"

personally I fear more a "law abiding citizen" that gets angry with me because of alcohol or because he thinks I slept with his wife and gets his stupid revenge using a gun.

The best reasons why there should be controls over guns

Most mass shooting are carried out by so-called ''law abiding citizens''. Almost all of those people that carried mass shootings in universities, colleges and workplaces had no criminal record. After the shootings, friends and neighboors of those mass shooters are shocked to her that the person they know as a decent, calm and nice person did such a horrible act. Mass shootings are mostly carried out by good students that are very social and never caused any problems.

If guns weren't available then they wouldn't have been able to carry out those shootings.

[Arroz con Pollo]

Most Americans don't give a crap what outside countries think about their constitutional rights. It's one of the many things that keep it the best country in the world. So I find this entire thread hilarious.

[curlyguy18]

Most Americans don't give a crap what outside countries think about their constitutional rights. It's one of the many things that keep it the best country in the world. So I find this entire thread hilarious.

...okay?

[gringito]

personally I fear more a "law abiding citizen" that gets angry with me because of alcohol or because he thinks I slept with his wife and gets his stupid revenge using a gun.
The best reasons why there should be controls over guns

It would be interesting to know where your fear from law abiding citizens and your revenge dreams come from…
Are you a criminal or do you sleep too much with other men’s wifes???

''A policeman is only a citizen in uniform'' ???

INDEED!
The fact that policemen have to go through a selection process and receive training does not change this fact.

Regarding Peruvian policemen:
The selection process and the training are lousy!
Furthermore you may know the reputation Peruvian police has.
I do not trust them at all.

USA:
Many studies show that policemen have the worst hit rate and cause the most collateral damage.

Policemen will use their gun as the last option in an intervention.
A citizen will probably use his gun as the first option.

This is a prejudice.
Usually, policemen have less constraint to use the gun, in particular since they do not have to fear law suits in the same way as civilians have to.

As an armed sitizens you are OBLIGED (!) to ONLY use your gun as the last resort.
Otherwise you will go to jail!

If citizens are allowed to buy gun without no limit on the caliber then where will it end?

I did not say anything about “without any limitation”. I said law abiding citizens should be allowed to own the same caliber as authority members.
So..where will it end? Tell me! Or don't you have an opinion as regards?

Why don't we all start buying chemical weapons?

This is a quite irrational question and an overstatement.
Chemical weapons are military weapons of mass destruction owned by states whereas guns for civilians are used for self-defense. However, it is quite ok to ask your government why they own chemical weapons. Did you ask them???

Most mass shooting are carried out by so-called ''law abiding citizens''.

No! People that carry out mass shootings are criminals and/or crazy persons.
A person who has not committed any crime is an innocent person.
You mix up both.
Moreover, these killers were no good students. They usually showed considerable social and psychological problems prior to the depravation.

If guns weren't available then they wouldn't have been able to carry out those shootings.

This applies in an ideal world without guns. However, such world does not exist.

Disarming students and teachers on the campus has only one result:
Making it more convenient for the offender to kill them all since he knows they are defenseless and he will not have to expect ANY resistance.
This is SACRIFYING innocent people.

[Hitoruna]

personally I fear more a "law abiding citizen" that gets angry with me because of alcohol or because he thinks I slept with his wife and gets his stupid revenge using a gun.
The best reasons why there should be controls over guns

It would be interesting to know where your fear from law abiding citizens and your revenge dreams come from…
Are you a criminal or do you sleep too much with other men’s wifes???

neither of them. It is simple experience. People who drink (well, fortunately except in the country where I live) in excess tend to get violent. (Ask Miguelito Barraza in his last interview, or any hooligan in the UK) I have witnessed this even personally in a bar in which a stupid guy got very very angry for an ACCIDENT (I spill a little of MY beer over a tiny fraction of his clothes) and in other occasion in which another guy thought I was trying to "steal" his romantic conquest when I was just simply looking for the toilet.

btw, "my" revenge dreams? Read well, I am talking about others revenge dreams.

And btw, it would be interesting to know Are you criminally inclined enough to think that people who sleep with other peoples wifes deserve to be murdered? Are you a taliban?

As an armed sitizens you are OBLIGED (!) to ONLY use your gun as the last resort.
Otherwise you will go to jail!

Very NAIVE. In which world do you live?
what use is that he goes to jail if he has murdered you already?

No! People that carry out mass shootings are criminals and/or crazy persons.
A person who has not committed any crime is an innocent person.
You mix up both.

I think YOU mix them. Those criminals were "law abiding citizens" UNTIL they commited the crime. Under your definition no law abiding citizen commits crimes because if they do they stop being so... very conveninet

Disarming students and teachers on the campus has only one result:
Making it more convenient for the offender to kill them all since he knows they are defenseless and he will not have to expect ANY resistance.
This is SACRIFYING innocent people.

[/quote]

Fortunately I live in a country where NO guns are permitted. And there are no shooting incidents in schools as well.

And fortunately I lived my chilhood in Peru where I didnt need to fear any of my classmates or teachers had guns.

[TShadow]

People who drink

You should have used the word 'some'.

well, fortunately except in the country where I live

Wherever you live, as humans are very similar all over the world, there are also many people who don't need to drink to get violent. Don't tell me that in the country where you live that there is no violence.

Are you criminally inclined enough to think that people who sleep with other peoples wifes deserve to be murdered? Are you a taliban

Your personal interpretation is telling me something about your personality.

In the country where I lived guns are normally not allowed only in very special circumstances. As usually there are a lot of firearms available to criminals and also the most violent crimes happens without the use of guns and also within families.

Law abiding citizen is a relative term. If someone goes crazy because of a psychological problem, then it doesn't matter if he/she was before. Also in some countries not paying a fine could bring you in jail, so you're not a law abiding citizen anymore.

Fortunately I live in a country where NO guns are permitted

I don't believe that does make it a better country, nor that their citizens are all better people.

And fortunately I lived my chilhood in Peru where I didnt need to fear any of my classmates or teachers had guns

No, but now you have to pay attention where you go, life has become more dangerous in Peru due to it's high crime rates and because of an not efficient and corrupt justice system.

There is no perfect country, there ain't perfect people. We are living in a violent world and things are not getting any better, so gun violence is only one aspect, there are many more scenarios.

Because someone is favoring the possession of guns does not make him a potential killer. People who are against it also are not automatically better persons.

[MarcoPE]

Well ... for a sad laugh (ahh, liberals): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2diNojgJF9c

and here's a good one:

[gringito]

Regarding Hitoruna’s hooligan bars, revenge dreams, other people’s wifes and the talibans…
@TShadow: I fully agree!
@Hitoruna: May I remember that the only one who brought up these topics and these ..aehm…”interesting” -or may I say: absurd - chain of thoughts…were you?

Very NAIVE. In which world do you live?
what use is that he goes to jail if he has murdered you already?

Your understanding of law and legality and your logic is bloodcurdling…!
1) YES, as a law abiding gun owner the use of your gun has to be last resort!
2) You imply that a law abiding gun owner is a murderer. This is sick!

[/quote]

I think YOU mix them. Those criminals were "law abiding citizens" UNTIL they commited the crime. Under your definition no law abiding citizen commits crimes because if they do they stop being so... very conveninet

Convenient?! Once again: Your understanding of law and legality is bloodcurdling…
EVERY person is innocent not only UNTIL they commit a crime but rather UNTIL they are FINALLY CONVICTED for this crime!
Therefore, your interpretation is again prejudgment or condemnation prior to trial.

Are you this type of guy that considers every gun owner to be a criminal/murderer or at least potential criminal/murderer???

Or do you feel that everybody that simply gives you a dirty look should be put into jail? Just as a precautionary measure…or for YOUR own convenience??? Huhh?

Do they really think that outlawing guns will keep the outlaws from having guns? Do they think that these criminals will abide by laws? No, it only removes guns from law abiding citizens that need to defend themselves from these criminals that will always have guns, regardless of any laws. If you outlaw guns, only outlaws wil have guns!

As I said...!
One does not even have to be a gun owner to comprehend this.

[Hitoruna]

blahblahblah

In the end, all I am sayin is that if some "law abiding" idiot gets angry I prefer him to be unarmed than holding a pistol with which his idiocy can cause some real harm.

Ho Hum, Ho Hum, Yawn, Yawn, Yawn. Another gun control debate initiated by a bunch of Liberal, Pacifistic, Good-Ship-Lollipop passengers. Do they really think that outlawing guns will keep the outlaws from having guns? Do they think that these criminals will abide by laws? No, it only removes guns from law abiding citizens that need to defend themselves from these criminals that will always have guns, regardless of any laws. If you outlaw guns, only outlaws wil have guns! Idiots, idiots, idiots!!!!

You should be careful in your choice of word now that you are in Peru or you will be misunderstood. Liberal in Peru doesnt mean what you think. Liberal is what you call conservative in the US. Thata is how peruvians use it
On the other hand it is very interesting to notice the difference in thinking between countries. All the arguments that pro gun people in the US give seem to us taken from a manual of "how to be a communist". You see in Peru and in Latin America ONLY communist talk about a "well armed militia", for example Allende in Chile or (forgive me if I am wrong with the name) was it Silez Suazo in Bolivia? Those people promoted that the general populace is "well armed" because they were communist supporters. Me, a non communist support that only the State is armed, and some very well checked and regulated responsible citizens (that does not include gun worshippers)

[Arroz con Pollo]

OK, comrade, nice try.

[Hitoruna]

try? Ignorance of other countries culture I would call that.

If only some logic would be applied it could be understood. You see US people have seen a communist government in power in their rival the USSR. Therefore they relate State, Army= communism.
In our countries, in contrast, communists were usually the rebels, not the state. Therefore the main adversary of communism is the army.

Whenever I hear US patriots, their parlance sound very communistic to me. Militia? that is PURE communism. Army= right Militia= left.

the army being almost the only thing that prevented a red wave all over latin america, is the symbol of anticommunims and therefore permitting guns only in the army is the thought of anti communists.
Communists like Allende on the other hand promoted that the general populace get armed. Militias were formed in Bolivia as well. Those people made everyone conform with the "pensamiento unico".

On antoehr topic. a criminal is a criminal and you know it, so you could take precautions against it. But a law abiding idiot with a gun? That is more dangerous, because you ont know of his danger until he produce a gun to your head and blow your brain. That is why a through check and control is imperative.

[gringito]

blahblahblah

Is this any kind of sound argument?

In the end, all I am sayin is that if some "law abiding" idiot gets angry I prefer him to be unarmed than holding a pistol with which his idiocy can cause some real harm.

Why should anybody get angry with you????
Nonetheless, if THIS is your opinion about law abiding people and your kind of friendly terminology I am not surprised that you get in some kind of trouble…

[Hitoruna]

In the end, all I am sayin is that if some "law abiding" idiot gets angry I prefer him to be unarmed than holding a pistol with which his idiocy can cause some real harm.

Why should anybody get angry with you????
Nonetheless, if THIS is your opinion about law abiding people and your kind of friendly terminology I am not surprised that you get in some kind of trouble…

1) Are you denying that some people get angry for the sillies reasons? What kind of NAIVE person are you?

2) I have witnessed by experience the above. People DO get angry for no reason whatsoever. sme dude here accused me to be a pacifist heart bleeding liberal and to the contrary I am the opposite. I understand human nature and dont assume people are good nature savages.

3) As I said before all criminals were law abiding citizens once, right? Or do you suppose they were born criminals? Again how naive are you?

4) But then again I preach no interventions so if you prefer to live in your la-la country where no people get angry for no reason what soever, more power to you. Just dont pretend it is like this everywhere.

5) Btw, you are the best example that proves my point. This discussion started when I posted MY opinion. to which I am entitled and YOU attacked me with name calling out of the blue for no reason whatsoever. I dont want to think how you become with a couple of beers and a gun in your hand.

[alan]

Hey.. not bad! Over 80 posts before the debate deteriorated into a gunfight!

Since there is really no new information being added, how about we move on...