quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Then why did you use it as an example of why you are fearful enough to carry a firearm?


I didn't, I used it as an example of how people hide their fear behind claims of altruistic motives.

It usually takes a mind reader to tell that doesnt it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

His business not mine or yours.

You asked for an example of someone afraid to defend himself , I gave you one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

The drug dealer fears for the safety of his life and his property...how is that different than you?


He is committing crimes and intimidating people into giving him their property.

quote:


I carry to keep my stuff and protect my family.
I started carrying because I worked at the Sheriff's office (in an administrative capacity) and my boss (Who was a captain and law enforcement) Directed my to get a permit and to always carry.
I seriously doubt that your basic drug dealer comes with that kind of directive.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

maybe it's because english is not my native language but a drug dealer isn't someone you go to and give money in exchange of a dose of drug?

Unless they decide that they just want your money or your car and steal it.
By and large, these are not honest businesspersons.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


Drug dealer sells drugs. People give the drug dealer their property not from intimidation but as part of a free enterprise exchange of goods for compensation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

maybe it's because english is not my native language but a drug dealer isn't someone you go to and give money in exchange of a dose of drug?

They often engage in more than one type of crime

quote:

and in any case they have a gun to promote criminal activity,

quote:

I have one so I am not the victim of the criminal activity they cause.

quote:

Their customers are the primary source of crime and violence here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam


Most criminals are generalists

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro


Also the only reason militias were in the South was to keep the black slaves in line. So racism was the reason for the second amendment.

Every time I think you cannot post something more ignorant then your previous efforts, you prove me wrong.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


Drug dealer sells drugs. People give the drug dealer their property not from intimidation but as part of a free enterprise exchange of goods for compensation.

I'm not sure an addict qualifies as a free enterprise exchange of goods for compenation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Earlier you said that the law was passed in 1923 if my feeble colonial memory serves 1903 is before WWI

If you wish to use shit like feeble colonial memory feel free, but they are your words and not mine.

Your attempt at baiting would have been better served if you had read the fucking thread properly. I clearly quoted both dates.

quote:

My post #87 and the relevant paragraph.

You are spouting even more bollocks re gun ownership in the UK as a whole prior to the 1923 Firearms act (Note the date) Up until then ANYONE could own a weapon. The 1903 Pistol act was introduced to stop pistols getting into the hands of criminals and drunkards, you could still obtain one with a license and that continued to be the case right up until the Dunblane Massacre which took place in a school. Stricter firearms controls took place in 1923 exactly for the reasons stated, the country was awash with guns.

Like I said, you are indeed entitled to your own incorrect opinion but not your own facts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

They carry for the exact same reason you do...to protect their life and property.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

I carry to keep my stuff

what stuff do you have that is worth killing for?

My stuff is insured, seems an easier way of doing things

Glad to hear that since anyone has the right to just come in and take your stuff what do you have that I can use.

Curious jump of logic here. Where does one acquire the "right"to steal other peoples shit?

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

They carry for the exact same reason you do...to protect their life and property.

In an earlier post that I responded to I believe that it was, indeed, drug "dealers" that were originally being referred to, and I (and I suspect others) was lumping drug "dealers" in with drug "users".

I think that where lines of thought are being crossed is in the term "drug dealer". A drug dealer, in the process of dealing drugs, might very well be armed to protect himself and his "product". From whom? Drug users. Many drug dealers are also drug users. It is the drug users that rob, steal, and commit various armed crimes in order to get the money they need to feed their habit. So it is actually the drug users that I, and possibly others, are referring to when talking about the difference between reasons for being armed between the USERS and law abiding citizens.

(My apologies for any confusion about my earlier post due to the terminology.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

They carry for the exact same reason you do...to protect their life and property.

In an earlier post that I responded to I believe that it was, indeed, drug "dealers" that were originally being referred to, and I (and I suspect others) was lumping drug "dealers" in with drug "users".

I think that where lines of thought are being crossed is in the term "drug dealer". A drug dealer, in the process of dealing drugs, might very well be armed to protect himself and his "product". From whom? Drug users. Many drug dealers are also drug users. It is the drug users that rob, steal, and commit various armed crimes in order to get the money they need to feed their habit. So it is actually the drug users that I, and possibly others, are referring to when talking about the difference between reasons for being armed between the USERS and law abiding citizens.

(My apologies for any confusion about my earlier post due to the terminology.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Now here's a good article about the mentally ill and guns and crimes.
It's written by the Lovely Miss Ann Coulter so if you're a lefty don't read it or you'll get a headache as it makes too much common sense. (Kriptonite!)
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ann-coulter/2013/09/19/coulter-column-crazier-liberals

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

They carry for the exact same reason you do...to protect their life and property.

In an earlier post that I responded to I believe that it was, indeed, drug "dealers" that were originally being referred to, and I (and I suspect others) was lumping drug "dealers" in with drug "users".

I think that where lines of thought are being crossed is in the term "drug dealer". A drug dealer, in the process of dealing drugs, might very well be armed to protect himself and his "product". From whom? Drug users. Many drug dealers are also drug users. It is the drug users that rob, steal, and commit various armed crimes in order to get the money they need to feed their habit. So it is actually the drug users that I, and possibly others, are referring to when talking about the difference between reasons for being armed between the USERS and law abiding citizens.

(My apologies for any confusion about my earlier post due to the terminology.)

I am really wondering just how many here have had any experience in the criminal justice system. Most drug dealers I have had contact with don't use drugs, especially the stuff they sale. Yes at the very low end drug users, will buy 4 bags, use three and the cut the fourth and sell it to buy more drugs. If a drug user had a gun he sell it, if the drug dealer found out the buyer had a gun he would shoot him. Further drug dealers really don't own a lot of property, even the car is a lease, under someone else's name or a factious one. The dealers sell on a cash only bases, the item may have been stolen and getting caught with stolen property is real trouble for them. I would like to remind everyone that the "drug user" that is being talked about is at as some in recovery at the bottom, the vast majority of users of any substance, including alcohol are highly functional, have jobs and families.

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

They carry for the exact same reason you do...to protect their life and property.

In an earlier post that I responded to I believe that it was, indeed, drug "dealers" that were originally being referred to, and I (and I suspect others) was lumping drug "dealers" in with drug "users".

I think that where lines of thought are being crossed is in the term "drug dealer". A drug dealer, in the process of dealing drugs, might very well be armed to protect himself and his "product". From whom? Drug users.

quote:

Many drug dealers are also drug users.

quote:

It is the drug users that rob, steal, and commit various armed crimes in order to get the money they need to feed their habit. So it is actually the drug users that I, and possibly others, are referring to when talking about the difference between reasons for being armed between the USERS and law abiding citizens.

quote:

Glad to hear that since anyone has the right to just come in and take your stuff what do you have that I can use.

quote:

My point exactly.
If it is wrong to stop them it must be ok for them to so it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Earlier you said that the law was passed in 1923 if my feeble colonial memory serves 1903 is before WWI

If you wish to use shit like feeble colonial memory feel free, but they are your words and not mine.

Your attempt at baiting would have been better served if you had read the fucking thread properly. I clearly quoted both dates.

quote:

My post #87 and the relevant paragraph.

You are spouting even more bollocks re gun ownership in the UK as a whole prior to the 1923 Firearms act (Note the date) Up until then ANYONE could own a weapon. The 1903 Pistol act was introduced to stop pistols getting into the hands of criminals and drunkards, you could still obtain one with a license and that continued to be the case right up until the Dunblane Massacre which took place in a school. Stricter firearms controls took place in 1923 exactly for the reasons stated, the country was awash with guns.

Like I said, you are indeed entitled to your own incorrect opinion but not your own facts.

So now 1903 caused a drop in crime but the country was still awash in guns but guns cause crime so there can't be a drop in crime in a country awash in guns but ...........

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: graceadieu

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Ok, you were wrong not stupid.
Let me tell you how gun bans work here.
D C enacted a gun ban, and don't tell me but Virginia blah blah blah, the number of crimes with guns dropped a little.
Unfortunately the crime rate doubled all they accomplished was making it safe to rob, murder, and rape with a knife or because the thugs were younger and stronger.
The gun bans only effect was to make life easier for the criminals, I don't care how it works where you are that is how it works here.
Of course if, as the officials in D C clearly did, that preventing one gun murder is worth having a thousand people killed with knives it works.
That wasn't exaggeration they insisted that the few gun crimes they stopped made it worthwhile.

Please check some data, rather than repeating what you heard from someone else. When guns were banned in DC in 1975, crime rates dropped. They went back up after a few years, but remained relatively steady until the crack epidemic got really rolling in the mid-80s. Then, just like in every other city, crime rates skyrocketed. Ultimately, the crack epidemic ended, and crime dropped steadily through the 00s, and is now much lower than it was pre-ban.

To give you an idea - the murder rate in DC was 38.3 per 100k in 1974 (pre-ban), dropped to 26.8 in 1976, and didn't get back up to pre-ban levels until 1988. In 1991, it peaked at 80.6. It's now at 13.9. Despite DC's restrictive gun laws.

Amazing that D C officials in the late 90s (I only heard them say it but we know what liars they are)
Insisted that the increase in crime was ok because the % of crimes committed with guns had gone down. When confronted with the fact that the crime rate had doubled they did not deny it but only argued that we shouldn't pay attention to that.

quote:

The gun ban regardless of anti gunners attempts to distort the facts was a total failure.

quote:

First they have a sky high rate because Virginia has looser gun laws and now you try to say they don't have all that much crime.
Please stand in the corner till you pick a story you can stick with.