I have seen the results first hand of a few knife fights. I have never seen one where one guys goes inpatient and the other guy does not. Even if the fight only involved one knife. Even OJ took a few slices and he was huge fighting a girl. With the element of surprise.
thanks captian obvious. and i assert that cars lead to more people getting in car wrecks. the fact remains though, that concealed gun laws lead to a reduction in violent crime. are you saying law abiding citizens can have guns in mexico? if so, you have no clue what you are talking about. mexico has a very strict gun ban - you can go to prison for a long time for even having a bullet. mexico has lots of guns, just not in the hands of law abiding citizens. and look at all the violence there. in switzerland every male is required to have a gun as part of their militia duty. but gun crime is virtually non-existing. people who want to do this kind of stuff are going to get the guns whether or not it is legal. if vt had not banned concealed handguns maybe only 2 or 3 people would have died instead of 32. ive been robbed in my own house and had a gun put to my head and told my head was going to be blown off - i doubt that the people who did that have any concern for laws - the criminals will get their guns anyway. all banning the 2nd amendment would do is put the law abiding citizens in greater harms way. the citizens will be disarmed and the criminals will keep their weapons. plus it will create a whole new black market in arms sales - how dangerous would that be? i carry a buck knife on me at all times, but after this i am considering getting a concealed handgun permit. if anything needs to be banned it is pharmaceutical drugs like antidepressants. this b*stard was on them. the woman who drowned her kids was on them. the woman who cut off her childs arms was on them. its no coincidence.
actually, concealed handgun laws reduce violent crime. i was very much against the concealed handgun law in texas, but i must admit that i was wrong. i thought it would lead to all these shoot-outs and stuff, which besides some very isolated incidents, wasnt the case. the stats i have seen show violent crime to go down, but actually petty crime like vandalism and breaking into cars and such increases. that says to me that people who might otherwise do violent crimes instead turn to lesser offenses out of fear. many criminals who would do violent crimes will do them anyway, but it definately serves as a deterrent.
Heck, so we are closer to be in agreement then I thought. I wish others would stop falling back on the 2nd Amendment also. First thing first: to protect ourselves against a tyrannical goverment. By legal mean, we can throw the bums (prez, congressmen) out of office every 2 of 4 years. We can force other appointees out of office thru political means also. President is limited to 2 4-year terms. I don't think any single president can build up his empire in 8 years. We are talking becoming a dictator. He has to get most people in position of authority, civilian and militay, including those who have control of the arm forces and weapons , to agree (or most to agree and arrest the rest) to do things outside of the law, to oppress all the citizens of this country. It means Congress, the Pentagon, all the generals, Field commanders and armies spread out everywhere in the World, in the US, Europe, Japan. Commanders of all the Navy fleets. The national guards which are under control of individual State governors. The state troopers, police forces of each city ... I think it's very hard to do. Assuming a dictator could do so, how do you think you and I, with our hand guns, will stop him? When it does happen, it needs a revolution, millions of us have to get together and many of the groups I mentioned previously, have to come to our side, we have to acquire heavy weapons, fighter planes, helicopters, aircraft carriers in order to overthrow a tyrant. Just some citizens with hand guns now are not gonna help.
Thats just NOT true. There are no fighter jets, helos, or AC's killing Coalition forces in Iraq. Yet they are winning. Also there are much less than 1 million fighters. guerrilla wars make all these tools useless. Thousands of dedicated killers with rifles can ruin a occupied country.
I might've missed it but I haven't seen any stats that concealed handgun laws lead to less crime. I've seen stats showing they don't lead to increased crime but not reduced crime.
Bosnia, Serbia and Croatia had anti-gun laws. Of course the military was the Serbians. It didn't turn out too well for the Bosnians. If guns were outlawed today in the US, the black market would be thriving and gun-running would be the new profession competing for aspiring drug dealers. We all know how efficient our drug enforcement is and how difficult it is to get illegal drugs. The criminals would be armed and the law abiding citizens would be sitting ducks. That and more money would be funnelled to organized crime than is being funnelled through the drug trade.
You forget Ron Goldman was there who was an athletic man in his prime so OJ was attacking two people and only had superficial cuts to himself. That said there is a risk of getting shot with your own gun at close range which is likely to be more dangerous than getting cut with your own knife.
I wouldn't say that they are winning. There would have to be some sort of common goal for any group to win. They are simply keeping the Coalition from winning.
I don't believe the US is winning but its highly questionable if the insurgents are winning. For that matter the US forces are fighting on foreign soil in an unpopular war and constrained by political considerations a domestic uprising would be a different matter. Of if the US really wanted to it could nuke Iraq. A guerilla war on foriegn soil isn't comparable to the idea of a domestic resistance to a tyrannical government. Anyway given the nature of our political systems and checks and balances such a thing is almost out of the realm of possibility. I will criticize GW Bush for taking too much executive power but I don't believe even his Admin. could succeed in instituting a dictatorship.
I haven't looked this up but from my own recollection was that the Bosnians and Croats did have access to small arms like rifles but that the heavy weapons were in Serbian hands.
We are not talking about the current world. We are talking about one 100 years from now. 100 years ago we were 40 years out from Reconstruction.
