Much car-jacking???

I didn't know that it was a secret that the police are there to enforce the laws, not protect the people. Enforcing laws is their #1 job. If they have time, protecting people/land/property is #2.

It's not bad, it's just the way it is. If everyone realized that the cop driving down the street is not forced to protect you (he might, it's his call) then we'd all have a much better relationship with said police.

Of course, your predisposed attitude towards police taints what you are trying to say in this thread...

I did not find that there was a lack of any type of crimes in AZ just because people were armed. There were still car jackings, drug deals, random street murders, robberies, etc. Not that many people in AZ are actually armed, even fewer have a clue how to use a gun, even fewer WOULD use a gun against another human.

What about police who believe that the only protection the public should be allowed is the police, whom we have established, are under no obligation to protect anyone?

Daley's latest argument in not overturning Chicago's gun ban is that it would put first responders (PD, FD) in some sort of danger.

now that is a pretty specious argument
no offense Randy, but you are flat out wrong, on the salary, and the practical situation in California
t

BTW, Mr Bradshaw, you are also mistaken. I lived in Texas for about 10 years, heard about 1 car jacking the entire decade, and the jacker managed to get himself shot by a redneck.

How many times in the last 10 years has there been a gunman killing people at a "gun free" location? How many times has this happened at a gun show or NRA rally? Anecdotal, but pretty consistent

Less than 2 years in Texas, and we've had NUMEROUS carjackings in my neighborhood alone...more than one has resulted in the death of the victim.

However, I was talking about the 8 years I spent in Tucson, where guns are FAR more common than in TX, and the crime is JUST as common.

A snapshot of gun crime

Contrary to public perception, the overall level of gun crime in England and Wales is very low – less than 0.5% of all crime recorded by the police.

Facts & figures

The number of overall offences involving firearms fell by 13% in 2006/07 compared to the previous year.
Firearms were involved in 566 serious or fatal injuries in 2006/07, compared to 645 the previous year - a drop of 12%.
The number of armed robberies involving guns dropped by 3%
There were 13% fewer serious and fatal injuries related to gun crimes in 2006/07.
The number of reported crimes involving imitation guns dropped by 15% in 2006/07.
The number of reported crimes involving air guns dropped by 15% in 2006/07 over 2005/06.

source Home Office

Ian

If i told you to blow me, what would that taint?

I have the attitude i do toward cops in general for very good reason. I can read.

If there job is not to protect, then why do they falsely advertise on our town police cars "to protect and serve"? Seems like false advertising.

Speedy:)

Interesting that you present one particular year. If you read the Home office report for last year both 06/07 and 07/08 "gun" (they also include imitation) crimes are still higher than pre 2001 per their chart. It's certainly true that the overall percentage of "gun" crimes is low. But, if you watch the (admittedly biased) clip, can you fault a person for defending his home from two burglars (and having been burgled twice already). He certainly shouldn't be in jail for murder (original charge) or manslaughter, and facing a possible suit (paid for by the taxpayors) from one of the burglars.

I have no desire to jump into the gun control debate but merely to point out the obvious bias in the OP's linked video. The cold, dead hands group will always 'win' due to the shear weight of evidence discovered/manufactured by the NRA. I live in a country with gun control. I like that a lot. If I had to live south of the 49th, my attitude might be quite different.

I mean, think about it: Forget for a minute the hunting issue & the gun collecting/adoration issue. If you had the choice to live in a country where you felt you had to be armed to protect yourself & your family or a country where you felt that you didn't, what would your honest choice be?

Ian

When you come right down to it, it's the right of free men to protect themselves. It's only a privelege for "subjects".
-Chris

Amen to that and it about sums it up.

If you don't think you need to protect your family, regardless of geography, you may wish to reassess your outlook...

I'm sorry Ian I've travelled a lot and I've not yet found a country where I would not be armed if I had the choice. This may seem paranoid, I accept I suffer from paranoia on this issue but I do not trust my family's or my personal security to outsiders.

Well Isabo, that's too bad. I too have traveled a fair amount (including Italy) & I have never felt a threat or a need to own or carry a gun - other than my recent trip to Guyana. I like to think that big portions of the civilized world have progressed beyond the gunslinging days of the US Wild West. Posters here obviously think we haven't - which is a shame.

Ian

Surely it is even more simple than the issue of self defense. Shouldn't it come down to freedom of choice? Me being free to choose whether I want to own a gun or not?

As long as I take on the responsibility of ownership and don't do anything with it that would be detrimental to anyone else then why should it be anyone else's business?

If someone breaks the law then they should be punished not punish everyone because they might break the law.

This whole thing pisses me off. For the non-gun guys put it into persperctive. How would you feel if a certain type of car was banned because it was thought to be involved in more drink driving deaths?

For all of us on this thread I suggest that each and everyone of us watch the HBO series JOHN HANCOCK.

ok so let's ban Porsches because you might drive too fast and they are capable of high speeds.

Mine only goes 85, the speedo says so. Can I keep mine? :)