quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

You carry a ... wallet???!!!! You must not actually be a woman. Because all women carry purses all the time. Now, that's enlightened equality for you.

Not only that, but they carry the same exact things in them every time they go out. I guess I didn't get the memo. Maybe DK can get a copy since he thinks he is the resident expert on women and what they carry in their bags.

He's also the resident expert on small arms and their tactical application.

And you are the fucking moron who couldn't clean a gun that wasn't operating properly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

I'm sure most women do pick up the same purse loaded with the same stuff all the time. Just like most men pick up the same wallets filled with the same stuff all the time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

We have one set of gas stations in our town has declared themselves to be a gun free zone (no self defense zone). Our first holdup in a couple of years happened last night at one of their stations. Since guns are banned the thug obviously used a knife. I don't understand why they didn't declare it a no crime zone, obviously that would have prevented the holdup.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: quizzicalkitten

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: quizzicalkitten

not intentionally misreading you said MOST.. it implies that with using the word most you mean:::

And you and Bama have both acted like the word was not present. It is pathetic.

Your words putty tat...

MOST victims of violent crime happens to people who seek it out.

That is saying that of the 1,214,462 violent crimes that happened in 2012 of those being 14,827 murders 84,376 forcible rapes 354,520 robberies and 760,739 aggravated assaults....

that MOST of those crime victims sought out, to be murdered, robbed, assulted, and raped... And that is simply just not true... Its not my fault you dont understand what the word most means, It does mean NOT all but it does imply that overwhelming majority.....

http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2013/september/latest-crime-stats-released/latest-crime-stats-released

Actually it is true. Most violent crime happens to people in the drug trade or in other criminal enterprises. That is very well documented fact.

That is likely true. But the question is when someone to whom violent crime doesn't normally happen is assaulted, how can they defend themselves. Even though most violent crime happens to criminals, the absolute hard numbers of violent crime that happens to innocent people are still very, very high, even though the ratio of crime victim to non-crime victim is low. So it's not inconsequential. Most people don't die in a car accident in the US, but somewhere around 30,000 people still do (that's not meant to be an exact number). That's still a lot of people, many of whom are innocent (i.e., not DUI). Same idea here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BecomingV

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: BecomingV

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

We have one set of gas stations in our town has declared themselves to be a gun free zone (no self defense zone). Our first holdup in a couple of years happened last night at one of their stations. Since guns are banned the thug obviously used a knife. I don't understand why they didn't declare it a no crime zone, obviously that would have prevented the holdup.

A "gun-free zone" does not equate with a "no self-defense zone," as other posts pointed out.

I read your OP as having a mocking tone, which fell flat because of ^^^ that first assertion.

Businesses have always asserted a right to limit customers:

1 - No shoes, no shirt, no service
2 - No backpacks
3 - Only 3 students, or less, at a time

and more recently, no eyeglasses' cams.

When the business you wrote about put a limit on guns under their roof, I see that as being no different from a Presidential gathering. Is THAT a "no guns" gathering? No. The Secret Service keeps their guns, but those who enter are not welcome to bring their own.

The business may have a gun behind the counter and have trained all employees in its use. THAT will not prevent gun crime, because a criminal (regardless of what the specific crime they commit is) is a person who will violate the rights of others, in pursuit of getting what they want. So, they may put a bullet hole in the sign that seeks to limit them.

However, by NOT allowing customers to bring in guns, should a gun crime begin, there isn't going to be a lot of cross-firing going on, and the chances of hitting a bystander, are lessened. Should a customer come in, and an armed robbery occurs, and the customer begins shooting, too, at least the "no guns" sign is something a lawyer may use to protect the business owner from a law suit. If the customer's bullet ricochets and kills a kid, for example. A case could be made that responsibility for the killing sits squarely on the customer's head and the practice of suing the business, too (because of deeper pockets) wouldn't pass muster, under these circumstances.

So, while in the OP, the setting of a no gun zone appears to be laughable, perhaps with a bit of expanded thought, it's not. There may be a very real, profitable and reasonable set of reasons behind it.

I would suggest asking the business owner what the reasoning is before coming to a conclusion, or mocking it.

Yes they have every right to ban firearms on their property, just as I have every right to do business somewhere else.
GUN FREE ZONES DON'T WORK.
According to Alabama law any injury incurred by anyone during the commission of a crime falls squarely on the criminal.
If two guys hold up a place and one of them gets killed the other goes up for murder 1.
I believe it is the same in Florida.

Florida law is not something which is applied equally to all segments of the population, so... in short, "don't count on it."

Now, the point I was making is that without further information, I know that I can't judge whether putting up a "gun-free zone" sign WORKS.

Define, "works" as you mean it. Putting up the sign may "work" for the business owner in terms of putting up a public boundary which may be used to deflect potential law suits. Agreed? Or, putting up the sign may "work" for the business owner, at home - appeasing a spouse who wants to see them do Something! In other words, it may only be symbolic in terms of actually keeping guns out of the place, but it still may "work" to gain the owner some peace, at home.

Those are a few examples of why I can't say that the sign doesn't "work" without more information. Otherwise, I'm just looking at a sign and making stuff up.

ETA - typo

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: quizzicalkitten

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: quizzicalkitten

not intentionally misreading you said MOST.. it implies that with using the word most you mean:::

And you and Bama have both acted like the word was not present. It is pathetic.

Your words putty tat...

MOST victims of violent crime happens to people who seek it out.

That is saying that of the 1,214,462 violent crimes that happened in 2012 of those being 14,827 murders 84,376 forcible rapes 354,520 robberies and 760,739 aggravated assaults....

that MOST of those crime victims sought out, to be murdered, robbed, assulted, and raped... And that is simply just not true... Its not my fault you dont understand what the word most means, It does mean NOT all but it does imply that overwhelming majority.....

http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2013/september/latest-crime-stats-released/latest-crime-stats-released

Actually it is true. Most violent crime happens to people in the drug trade or in other criminal enterprises. That is very well documented fact.

That is likely true. But the question is when someone to whom violent crime doesn't normally happen is assaulted, how can they defend themselves. Even though most violent crime happens to criminals, the absolute hard numbers of violent crime that happens to innocent people are still very, very high, even though the ratio of crime victim to non-crime victim is low. So it's not inconsequential. Most people don't die in a car accident in the US, but somewhere around 30,000 people still do (that's not meant to be an exact number). That's still a lot of people, many of whom are innocent (i.e., not DUI). Same idea here.

One crime committed against me makes it a high crime rate for me.
And much as I hate to belabor the obvious this low crime rate comes at a time when there are more legal firearms in the country than ever before.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

In the hands of a smaller percentage of the population which puts an end to that.


wrong as always
A it proves that more guns does not equal more crime
B it means that even a dyed in the wool gun a phobic like you presents a problem for the
potential criminal because he doesn't know who is carrying. Anyone present may shoot him.
As our Sheriff says "I like the idea that the bad guy doesn't know where it is coming from"
C more states allow concealed carry which means that more people are carrying than ever
before

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

In the hands of a smaller percentage of the population which puts an end to that.


wrong as always
A it proves that more guns does not equal more crime
B it means that even a dyed in the wool gun a phobic like you presents a problem for the
potential criminal because he doesn't know who is carrying. Anyone present may shoot him.
As our Sheriff says "I like the idea that the bad guy doesn't know where it is coming from"
C more states allow concealed carry which means that more people are carrying than ever
before

No, it means that claiming that more guns means less crime is clearly illogical. It has no basis in reality. There are other factors driving the decrease (readily apparent as the decrease happened uniformly across the country despite wide variance in gun laws and gun ownership rates).

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

In the hands of a smaller percentage of the population which puts an end to that.


wrong as always
A it proves that more guns does not equal more crime
B it means that even a dyed in the wool gun a phobic like you presents a problem for the
potential criminal because he doesn't know who is carrying. Anyone present may shoot him.
As our Sheriff says "I like the idea that the bad guy doesn't know where it is coming from"
C more states allow concealed carry which means that more people are carrying than ever
before

No, it means that claiming that more guns means less crime is clearly illogical. It has no basis in reality. There are other factors driving the decrease (readily apparent as the decrease happened uniformly across the country despite wide variance in gun laws and gun ownership rates).

I didn't make that claim, who needs to learn how to read?
Everything I said is accurate.
This is proven by the fact that you are arguing against something I didn't say.
Saying more guns equal more crime is even more illogical there are more guns and less crime.
Note I DID NOT SAY that there is less crime because there are more guns but if your world view had any basis in reality there would be more crime, particularly with more people carrying.

quote:

And much as I hate to belabor the obvious this low crime rate comes at a time when there are more legal firearms in the country than ever before.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

In the hands of a smaller percentage of the population which puts an end to that.


wrong as always
A it proves that more guns does not equal more crime
B it means that even a dyed in the wool gun a phobic like you presents a problem for the
potential criminal because he doesn't know who is carrying. Anyone present may shoot him.
As our Sheriff says "I like the idea that the bad guy doesn't know where it is coming from"
C more states allow concealed carry which means that more people are carrying than ever
before

No, it means that claiming that more guns means less crime is clearly illogical. It has no basis in reality. There are other factors driving the decrease (readily apparent as the decrease happened uniformly across the country despite wide variance in gun laws and gun ownership rates).

I didn't make that claim, who needs to learn how to read?
Everything I said is accurate.
This is proven by the fact that you are arguing against something I didn't say.
Saying more guns equal more crime is even more illogical there are more guns and less crime.
Note I DID NOT SAY that there is less crime because there are more guns but if your world view had any basis in reality there would be more crime, particularly with more people carrying.

You were trying to imply that the reason crime rates were down was because of the increase in the number of guns in private hands.

quote:

And much as I hate to belabor the obvious this low crime rate comes at a time when there are more legal firearms in the country than ever before.

Which I then debunked and you tried to defend until it became obvious you couldn't and now you are trying to pretend you never went there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

In the hands of a smaller percentage of the population which puts an end to that.


wrong as always
A it proves that more guns does not equal more crime
B it means that even a dyed in the wool gun a phobic like you presents a problem for the
potential criminal because he doesn't know who is carrying. Anyone present may shoot him.
As our Sheriff says "I like the idea that the bad guy doesn't know where it is coming from"
C more states allow concealed carry which means that more people are carrying than ever
before

No, it means that claiming that more guns means less crime is clearly illogical. It has no basis in reality. There are other factors driving the decrease (readily apparent as the decrease happened uniformly across the country despite wide variance in gun laws and gun ownership rates).

I didn't make that claim, who needs to learn how to read?
Everything I said is accurate.
This is proven by the fact that you are arguing against something I didn't say.
Saying more guns equal more crime is even more illogical there are more guns and less crime.
Note I DID NOT SAY that there is less crime because there are more guns but if your world view had any basis in reality there would be more crime, particularly with more people carrying.

You were trying to imply that the reason crime rates were down was because of the increase in the number of guns in private hands.

quote:

And much as I hate to belabor the obvious this low crime rate comes at a time when there are more legal firearms in the country than ever before.

Which I then debunked and you tried to defend until it became obvious you couldn't and now you are trying to pretend you never went there.

You jumped to the conclusion that because I stated a verified fact that I implied that it caused the other verified fact.
What it proved was what I said it proved, that the increase in crime DID NOT cause an increase in crime.
You, as is your want, answered what you expected me to say rather than what I said.
In fact it looks a lot like you created the concept that more guns=less crimes all by yourself.
The fact that you read an implication into something does not mean that I made the implication.
And how does any of this prove that criminals obey gun free zones, which is, you may remember, the subject of this thread?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

In the hands of a smaller percentage of the population which puts an end to that.


wrong as always
A it proves that more guns does not equal more crime
B it means that even a dyed in the wool gun a phobic like you presents a problem for the
potential criminal because he doesn't know who is carrying. Anyone present may shoot him.
As our Sheriff says "I like the idea that the bad guy doesn't know where it is coming from"
C more states allow concealed carry which means that more people are carrying than ever
before

No, it means that claiming that more guns means less crime is clearly illogical. It has no basis in reality. There are other factors driving the decrease (readily apparent as the decrease happened uniformly across the country despite wide variance in gun laws and gun ownership rates).

I didn't make that claim, who needs to learn how to read?
Everything I said is accurate.
This is proven by the fact that you are arguing against something I didn't say.
Saying more guns equal more crime is even more illogical there are more guns and less crime.
Note I DID NOT SAY that there is less crime because there are more guns but if your world view had any basis in reality there would be more crime, particularly with more people carrying.

You were trying to imply that the reason crime rates were down was because of the increase in the number of guns in private hands.

quote:

And much as I hate to belabor the obvious this low crime rate comes at a time when there are more legal firearms in the country than ever before.

Which I then debunked and you tried to defend until it became obvious you couldn't and now you are trying to pretend you never went there.

You jumped to the conclusion that because I stated a verified fact that I implied that it caused the other verified fact.
What it proved was what I said it proved, that the increase in crime DID NOT cause an increase in crime.
You, as is your want, answered what you expected me to say rather than what I said.
In fact it looks a lot like you created the concept that more guns=less crimes all by yourself.
The fact that you read an implication into something does not mean that I made the implication.
And how does any of this prove that criminals obey gun free zones, which is, you may remember, the subject of this thread?

Then you violated a basic rule of the English language since the two parts of that sentence are unrelated. So which is it? Are you unable to write sensible English or did you just lie your ass off?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

What sentence are you incapable of comprehending, please point it out specifically as there were several sentences in my post.
I will attempt to explain it in simple enough terms that even you can follow.

quote:

And much as I hate to belabor the obvious this low crime rate comes at a time when there are more legal firearms in the country than ever before.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

What sentence are you incapable of comprehending, please point it out specifically as there were several sentences in my post.
I will attempt to explain it in simple enough terms that even you can follow.

you know exactly what sentence. Why pretend otherwise?

quote:

And much as I hate to belabor the obvious this low crime rate comes at a time when there are more legal firearms in the country than ever before.

Now either you are unable to write sensible English or post #132 is a complete lie. Which is it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

What sentence are you incapable of comprehending, please point it out specifically as there were several sentences in my post.
I will attempt to explain it in simple enough terms that even you can follow.

you know exactly what sentence. Why pretend otherwise?

quote:

And much as I hate to belabor the obvious this low crime rate comes at a time when there are more legal firearms in the country than ever before.

Now either you are unable to write sensible English or post #132 is a complete lie. Which is it?

Wrong on both counts.
The crime rate is dropping. Even you admit this.
There are more legal guns in the country than ever before. You admit this too
Do to the spread of concealed carry more people are carrying.
As I explained when you asked (and have clearly stated on previous occasions) this does not prove that more guns=less crime but it does disprove that more guns=more crime.
I put forward the idea that the drop was caused by demographic shifts more than anything else as per a paper written in 1970. I was roundly attacked by gun a phobics because if demographics explain the drop they also explain the previous increases.
You want me to be claiming that more guns=less crime so bad that you can't accept that I not only didn't say that but explained that it only proved that more guns does not = more crime.
It is you who cannot comprehend.
I am not responsible for the conclusions you jump to.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

And much as I hate to belabor the obvious this low crime rate comes at a time when there are more legal firearms in the country than ever before.

You wrote the sentence not me. Either you wrote a nonsensical sentence or you lied your ass off. Your choice. Are you unable to write English or are you a liar? It is a simple either or situation.

That's right, he wrote the sentence. And then you made up a conclusion that the sentence didn't draw. When you are unable to separate your imaginings from what people actually say, the person lying to you is you.