Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Taylor ECIL
Senior Contributor

Re: My first link

Have you ever needed a fire extinguisher? I have yet to need one. Should I then get rid of all my fire extinguishers?

Senior Advisor

Re: My first link

@Canuck_2 wrote:

@Nebrfarmr wrote:

And taking one away from a law abiding person, will do zero, to cut crime.

But if that 'law abiding person' has no need of it then why do they have it?


Protection from those who do not abide by the law.

Veteran Advisor

Re: My first link

Who are you, or I, to decide, what legal products, a law abiding person should have?  If they are willing to take that risk, why not let them?  Besides, overall gun ownership, is not all negative, it has been shown to actually tend to reduce crime, not increase it.

Ideally, every gun owner, should know and follow proper safety procedures.  This is one reason I recommend that everyone who owns a gun in Nebraska, take the Nebraska Concealed Carry test.  Even if you have no desire, to carry a concealed weapon, the safety training alone, is well worth taking the course.  Also, if you have a permit, you won't get in trouble if you are caught with a 'concealed' weapon.  The law is vague enough, that a hunter who carries a .22 pistol, to finish off a wounded animal is technically breaking the concealed weapon law, if it starts raining, and the put it inside their raincoat, to stay dry.

Here are a few links to one of the 'reasons' to own a gun.


Gun-control advocates are noticeably silent when crime rates decline. Their  multimillion-dollar lobbying efforts are designed to manufacture mass anxiety  that every gun owner is a potential killer. The statistics show otherwise.

Last week, the Federal  Bureau of Investigation (FBI) announced that violent  crime decreased 4 percent in 2011. The number of murders, rapes, robberies and  aggravated assaults all went down, continuing a pattern.

“This is not a one-year anomaly, but a steady decline in the FBI’s  violent-crime rates,” said Andrew  Arulanandam, spokesman for the National Rifle Association. “It  would be disingenuous for anyone to not credit increased self-defense laws to  account for this decline.”

Mr. Arulanandam pointed out that  only a handful of states had concealed-carry programs 25 years ago, when the  violent-crime rate peaked. Today, 41 states either allow carrying without a  permit or have “shall issue” laws that make it easy for just about any  noncriminal to get a permit. Illinois and Washington, D.C., are the only places  that refuse to recognize the right to bear arms. The Brady Campaign to Prevent  Gun Violence did not respond to requests for comment.

If the gun grabbers were right, we’d be in the middle of a crime wave,  considering how many guns are on the streets. “Firearms sales have increased  substantially since right after the 2008 election,” said Bill  Brassard, spokesman for the National  Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF),  which represents the $4 billion firearms and ammunition industry. “There was a  leveling off in 2010, but now we’re seeing a surge again.”

Read more: MILLER: Gun ownership up, crime down - Washington Times Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter


Political debate over hot-button issues has escalated as the midterm elections draw near, and a candidate's position on gun control can go a long way in deciding his or her fate in November.

Opponents of gun control legislation have new fodder in their efforts to uphold the Second Amendment following the FBI's report that violent crime in the United States has declined for the third straight year. The bureau revealed that, despite rising trends in gun sales and more citizens carrying firearms for personal protection, crime rates are down across the board.

Incidents of murder dropped approximately 7 percent from 2008 to 2009, while robberies fell 8 percent and aggravated assault dropped by 4 percent.

"[The gun ban lobby's] predictions that America's streets would run red have been shown up as a fraudulent sales pitch for public disarmament," said Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms



If you don't want to have a gun, for the dangers it may pose, that is fine with you.  However, it has been shown time and time again, that in the US, as gun ownership goes up, crime goes down.


Lastly, if you were a criminal, would you rather break into this house, or the one next to it?


My next door neighbor wants to ban all guns

Senior Contributor

Re: My first link

 if you were a criminal, would you rather break into this house, or the one next to it?


If I wanted a gun I know which house to break into.


And I do not think a criminal will stop being a criminal just because you have a gun.

He will just get a bigger gun.


Now both are armed and someone is more likely to be injured or worse.

Foghorn you really demonstrate your ignorance !

  Your education most likely entirely from movie and TV scripts is pathetic !  You're a slave to your ignorance and blovating.


  Speaking Moslem, ah, Foghorn there is no "Moslem" language, the world's 1.3 billion Moslems speak many language.


  I sure do agree they were perfect examples of Christians who were promised by the pope their sins would not be recognized as sin, in other words they could rape and pillage with his blessing..  Like many of today's Christians think their sins don't count as long as  they repeat certain phrases and put on the act. 


  You should study a little history, but I'm sure you won't.


  For example-- The first crusade just about wiped out all the Jews living in eastern Europe who they massacred on their way to Constantinople(Christians), where they raped and pillaged the countryside before leaving for Palestine.   On their way they plundered every farm, village and city in their path, murdering everyone, Jew Christian and Muslim.  they laid siege to cities most of whom surrendered after being promised mercy, then they massacred everyone, including  native Christians, plunder was their object. 


  Later crusaders just made fiefdoms for themselves and had good business relations with the muslims, who were never united until Saladan united most of them.  Mostly the inhabitants of the region were accustomed to invaders coming and going and preferred to make peace resume their lives trade with the new customers.


  During the fourth crusade they sacked and massacred the Christians of Constantinople.  Later crusades were in northern Europe, rape and pillage against non-christian  and eastern orthodox serbs, poles, russians etc..  Good christians, indeed.

Veteran Advisor

Re: My first link

Professors James D. Wright and Peter Rossi surveyed 2,000 felons incarcerated in state prisons across the United States. Wright and Rossi reported that 34% of the felons said they personally had been “scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim”; 69% said that they knew at least one other criminal who had also; 34% said that when thinking about committing a crime they either “often” or “regularly” worried that they “[m]ight get shot at by the victim”; and 57% agreed with the statement, “Most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police.” (James D. Wright & Peter H. Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms [1986]. See Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda? by Don B. Kates, et. al. Originally published as 61 Tenn. L. Rev. 513-596 [1994]).








Senior Contributor

Re: My first link

And yet your country, with so many guns, also has one of the highest number of prison inmates per capita.

So if all these criminals are so afraid of all those guns the question is WHY do you have so many criminals?

Re: My first link

  Come on Canuck, you know better than that, most of the people in prison are there because of the so-called War on Drugs.   You're really ignoring what you know in order to make some kind of a argument, like Ol'Foghorn.  A great deal of the violence involving guns is the result of the ruthlessness of drug traffickers, just like the violence during alcohol prohibition.   Give it a break, if you want to limit the ability of your countrymen to defend themselves and enjoy recreation with firearms, that's your business.  What American's wish is not your business, nor the business of other subjects of monarchs, Europeans or other control freaks.


   We have enough nanny busy bodies already, thousands of miles away  making traffic laws for us out here in the middle of no where, limiting our ability to travel.  The lest offensive government is local control.



Senior Contributor

Re: My first link

So why do you lock up so many for drugs?


I think your country has over 700 per 100,000 locked up.

In Canada it is just over 100 per 100,000.

We have laws against drugs too.


Do you think that you lock up an additional 600 people per 100,000 just because of drugs?

Really? just because of drugs?


There has to be some other reasons mixed in there.

Re: My first link

  Why, for stupid reason, one of the biggest is prohibition is big business,those gangsters also "donate" a lot of their loot to politicians.


Colorado's ballot has a constitutional amendment, amendment 64, to legalize sale and possession of marijuana treating it like alcohol.   The taxes collected goes to public education.   Altho I hate new taxes I did vote for it.   It will be interesting to see how it comes out, Coloradoans are more independant and believe in Liberty, but we have too many holy rollers and other totalitarians.

 The crime and violence is directly and indirectly related to prohibition, if you look at the grafts on prison populations you will see it stated to increase with the start of the so-called War on Drugs started by Nixon and accelerated by Raygun.


   Another cause is it has become big business.  Plus the stupid mandatory sentencing championed by that protector of the Constitution the NRA


As of 2007 the cost of medical care for inmates was growing by 10 percent annually.[13][89]

In the past two decades, the money that states spend on prisons has risen at six times the rate of spending on higher education. In 2011, California spent $9.6 billion on prisons, versus $5.7 billion on higher education..... The state spends $8,667 per student per year. It spends about $50,000 per inmate per year. Why is this happening? Prisons are a big business. Most are privately run. They have powerful lobbyists and they have bought most state politicians. Meanwhile, we are bankrupting out states and creating a vast underclass of prisoners who will never be equipped for productive lives. [99]

Fareed Zakaria, CNN, March 30, 2012