Your views on guns.

[garickman]

Originally Posted by GregWeld

Well -- I think my broader point was missed.



In Mexico -- entire towns have been overrun with drug gangs - the citizens that try to intervene are gunned down or they just leave town.


What we have in America is gangs or gang bangers that are - for the most part - in certain areas of a town. They manage - nightly - to kill each other. But they're not taking over entire towns as they have been able to do in Mexico. The citizens are NOT armed in Mexico. I think - and it's purely MHO - that it can't happen - or can't happen as easily here because of the citizens that just might put up a fight if push came to shove.

Greg, I agree that what is happening in Mexico would probably never happen in the United States, but in those "certain areas" of a town where gang bangers have taken over there are still citizens who live trapped like prisoners in their own homes. For those people, they are living in Mexico.

In Oakland California last year, a one year old, a three old, a five year old and two nine year old children all died of gunshot wounds. Oakland had 11 different shooting incidents where more than 100 rounds were fired on city streets. In one of those incidents more than 170 rounds were fired from 5 different weapons. The only victims were an innocent lady driving to work who was killed and an innocent man waiting at the bus stop. For those people and the families of those innocent children, they are also living in Mexico.

The only point I am trying to make is something that most people overlook when they speak of citizen's arming themselves. If you take every city, county and state where carrying a firearm is permitted whether open or concealed, less than 12% of those citizens eligible in the entire United States actually apply for a permit. I would be willing to bet that of those 12%, more than half of those people do not carry a firearm 100% of the time. Also of those 12%, I am sure there is a small percentage who would either never use it if confronted with a situation or who would use wrong. (George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin)

[camcojb]

Originally Posted by garickman

I am sure there is a small percentage who would either never use it if confronted with a situation or who would use wrong. (George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin)

In California George did it by the book, at least as far as the shooting part if you believe Trayvon was on top of George and hitting his head on the ground. Here if an unarmed guy is attacking you, you cannot pull your gun and shoot him. Now if he has you on the ground and picks up a brick to smash your head in (or is pounding your head into the concrete) THEN you can draw your weapon and shoot. I guess they assume that because the guy is unarmed he won't knock you out before grabbing an object to smash you with........ You have to wait until the instant before he kills or mains you to pull the gun.

Now if you're 80 years old, or if he has a weapon of some sort all that changes. If you're a normal able-bodied person you have to take a few punches I guess and hope he quits or doesn't incapacitate you.

[garickman]

Originally Posted by camcojb

In California George did it by the book, at least as far as the shooting part if you believe Trayvon was on top of George and hitting his head on the ground. Here if an unarmed guy is attacking you, you cannot pull your gun and shoot him. Now if he has you on the ground and picks up a brick to smash your head in (or is pounding your head into the concrete) THEN you can draw your weapon and shoot. I guess they assume that because the guy is unarmed he won't knock you out before grabbing an object to smash you with........ You have to wait until the instant before he kills or mains you to pull the gun.

Now if you're 80 years old, or if he has a weapon of some sort all that changes. If you're a normal able-bodied person you have to take a few punches I guess and hope he quits or doesn't incapacitate you.

I am not so sure that George Zimmerman did it by the book because I don't have all the facts. I am pretty sure the police officers investigating this incident don't have all the facts either because one party is dead. I am not for or against George Zimmerman just as I am not for or against Trayvon Martin. It is very likely that Mr. Zimmerman approached this kid and simply asked him a question and Trayvon attacked him without provocation. If George Zimmerman felt his life was in danger than he was certainly justified in defending himself. However, with out knowing all the facts it is just as likely that Mr. Zimmerman approached Trayvon and asked him the same question while opening is jacket and displaying a firearm in his waistband. If that was the case than Trayvon Martin would have be justified in attacking George Zimmerman to prevent him from pulling a gun which he perceived as a threat to his life.

The only reason I reference this case in my previous post is because I believe this. As a private citizen of the United States you have the right to make a citizen's arrest when you believe a crime is being committed. As a private citizen, you have the right to arm yourself to effect that arrest. However, you do not have the right to stop random people you believe are "suspicious". When you confront people for no other reason except that they are "suspicious" bad things can happen and in the this case bad things did happen. The reason I say Mr. Zimmerman used his gun wrong is not because of the fact that he felt he was defending his life with it. It is because I believe he used is gun as tool to feed his courage. I could be 100% wrong, but my gut tells me that if Mr. Zimmerman was not carrying a gun he never would have approached Trayvon Martin, a person he described in his own words as "much bigger than him and intimidating looking".

You don't have to pull your gun out and brandish it or shoot it to be using it wrong. If you believe you are responsible enough to carry a firearm in public and you allow that firearm to give you the courage to confront a situation you would not confront with out it, then you are using it wrong.

[camcojb]

Originally Posted by garickman

I am not so sure that George Zimmerman did it by the book because I don't have all the facts. I am pretty sure the police officers investigating this incident don't have all the facts either because one party is dead. I am not for or against George Zimmerman just as I am not for or against Trayvon Martin. It is very likely that Mr. Zimmerman approached this kid and simply asked him a question and Trayvon attacked him without provocation. If George Zimmerman felt his life was in danger than he was certainly justified in defending himself. However, with out knowing all the facts it is just as likely that Mr. Zimmerman approached Trayvon and asked him the same question while opening is jacket and displaying a firearm in his waistband. If that was the case than Trayvon Martin would have be justified in attacking George Zimmerman to prevent him from pulling a gun which he perceived as a threat to his life.

The only reason I reference this case in my previous post is because I believe this. As a private citizen of the United States you have the right to make a citizen's arrest when you believe a crime is being committed. As a private citizen, you have the right to arm yourself to effect that arrest. However, you do not have the right to stop random people you believe are "suspicious". When you confront people for no other reason except that they are "suspicious" bad things can happen and in the this case bad things did happen. The reason I say Mr. Zimmerman used his gun wrong is not because of the fact that he felt he was defending his life with it. It is because I believe he used is gun as tool to feed his courage. I could be 100% wrong, but my gut tells me that if Mr. Zimmerman was not carrying a gun he never would have approached Trayvon Martin, a person he described in his own words as "much bigger than him and intimidating looking".

You don't have to pull your gun out and brandish it or shoot it to be using it wrong. If you believe you are responsible enough to carry a firearm in public and you allow that firearm to give you the courage to confront a situation you would not confront with out it, than you are using it wrong.

I am not (and don't want to) debating how that event played out. But most everyone believes the ending to be as I described, which is what I was referring to. In my state you'd have to wait to that point to pull your gun. How they got to that point is certainly up for debate.

[garickman]

Originally Posted by camcojb

I am not (and don't want to) debating how that event played out. But most everyone believes the ending to be as I described, which is what I was referring to. In my state you'd have to wait to that point to pull your gun. How they got to that point is certainly up for debate.

No debate from me Jody. But in the famous words of Tom Cruise "It doesn't matter what I believe, it only matters what I can prove." And you have to give me some credit on the fact that I was able to implement a quote from A Few Good Men into this thread.

[Dayton]

Originally Posted by garickman

In Oakland California last year, a one year old, a three old, a five year old and two nine year old children all died of gunshot wounds.

In a whole year?
That is a quiet night my Mexician standards.
Of the world’s 50 most violent cities, 40 are in Latin America; 14 are in Brazil, 12 are in Mexico and five are in Colombia. Mexico lays claim to five of the top 10 urban areas

[Vince@Meanstreets]

Originally Posted by ratman67

hey man i live in medellin colombia, i feel MUCH safer here than i would in chicago. the cops here don't play, a lot of them carry sub machine guns or m16s. two months ago two kids snatched a lady's purse down town, a cop saw it go down and yelled stop, then shot one in the leg, the other one stopped instantly. if regular people catch a thief in the act, they will stomp the crap out of him while waiting for the cops to come get him after the beat down....

Chicago, according to our commander and chief has the strictest gun laws in the country.

[Vince@Meanstreets]

Originally Posted by ratman67

it is almost impossible to get a ccw in medellin, yet there are 20 to 45 murders a month in the city lately, but it is the drug dealers fighting over territory. it's 3k for a cheap 12 gauge through legal channels, my buddy is a retired police capt from the usa that has been here 12 years, he got a ccw back then, and paid 6k for a s&w 38 revolver through legal channels. i asked a taxi driver where i could buy a gun for home protection, he got me a sig .380 for 750 bucks in an hour. lol

its kind of perverse in that the mob called la oficina ran medellin really well. they kept the peace in that, when low level hood rats would do stupid stuff ie kill people of petty stuff and create problems in the barrios, the oficina would wack them and the area was peaceful again. after the cops decimated la officina, there are now 3 different groups competing for control of the city and as a result a lot of new murders, kind of back fired, it was better when the cops and the mob had a working relationship. lol

thats just wrong.....you paid 6K pes for a 38, whats the conversion? 4 bucks?.....LOL down town oakland you can buy one out of a back of a van for $300 US.

[Vince@Meanstreets]

Originally Posted by ratman67

no 6k DOLLARS...... through legal channels you pay like 5k in taxes included with the price of the gun!!!


today its 1829 col pesos to a us dollar

where the hell do yo live? lol

[Vince@Meanstreets]

Originally Posted by ratman67

in medellin colomia south america, i live in el pablado which is the nicest part of medellin, there is very little crime where i live.

parts of down town and some of the crappy barrios are no place to be at night, in the worst barrios people have to pay a vaccuna, which keeps you healthy. lol its only about 2 or 3 dollars a month, and every person that lives on your block pays it. if i live in another gangs block i have to pay like 10cents to go hang at your house in their territory. crazy huh?

loco cie