If they didn't have guns, they'd have knives. If they didn't have knives, they'd have clubs.

What you miss, though, is the simple fact that the criminals would STILL have the guns if they were confiscated, and the tragedy would be many times worse, with homes invaded of private citizens who are ill equipped to defend themselves against these intruders.

The founding fathers wrote the Bill of Rights FOR A REASON. They knew the value of being able to possess armaments for one's own defense.

As long as people blame crime on guns, crime won't be addressed.

damn, baker, you NAILED IT!

This British asshole doesn't seem to realise that my free access to a gun to blow my neighbour's head off if he parks in my driveway again is a goddam constitutional right.

Just like these kids who run up their schools with guns, constitutional rights!

Speeding... as I have already mentioned, not everyone sticks to the speed limits. People would be going a hell of a lot faster without them though!!

WRONG!!! For awhile in the 90s there was NO Speedlimit on interstates during daylight hours in the state of Montana. Average Speed drivers chose... 80mph. From dusk to dawn the speed limit was 75mph... average speed prefered by drivers... 80mph. I 43 that runs through my county.. Speed Limit 65mph... average driving speed 75mph (everyone in the area knows they won't pull you over until you hit the magic number "80"... So in reality 79 is the real speed limit.

How do laws "Prevent" drunk driving, or force people to wear seatbelts. The only difference between behavior during a crackdown is more people Decide that the risk isn't worth it... it doesn't Prevent or Force anything.

The law means nothing to anyone who chooses not to obey it. It doesn't matter if it is speeding, parking, drugs, alcohol, murder, rape or anything else.

Drugs and guns are very comparable. Neither are dangerous unless they are abused, and each have both legitimate and illegitimate uses.

In fact, when it comes to gun laws, the only difference between communities that allow private ownership of guns and those who don't is how they view a person who uses a gun to defend themselves or someone else. Is the gun owner who shoots a rapist plying his trade a hero or a criminal? How you answer that question speaks volumes to what you think about guns.

Bakerstreet:

As long as people blame crime on guns, crime won't be addressed.

Have an Insightful, on me!!

Are you seriously telling me that people put Uzi's up their asses? Get real. A PPK maybe?! Im sure metal detectors would pick up something like that!

You wouldn't believe the things people shove up their butts. Really.

You are claiming that making gun ownership illegal would somehow prevent these criminals from having guns.

Perhaps if you understood the process a person has to go through in order to own a firearm you'd see that the majority of guns used in crimes are ILLEGALLY owned.

If they didn't have guns, they'd have knives. If they didn't have knives, they'd have clubs.

THANK-YOU!

You guys can be so frustrating. Now I remember why I haven’t been back to this site for so long

That's a 2 way street, y'know. You can be equally as frustrating because you insist that your country has it right and we have it wrong.

Handy,

That is quite possibly the most idiotic thing I've read all year. And I read Congressional Quarterly.

That's a 2 way street, y'know. You can be equally as frustrating because you insist that your country has it right and we have it wrong.

Where did I say we had it right?

I dont think people are reading what I post here.

We're reading Sam, you are merely disregarding anything that doesn't fit your opinion. Selective Reading Syndrome is a sad illness, but there are amazing treatments... alas though, still no cure... maybe with embryonic stem cell research.... well maybe someday. ;~D

dont think people are reading what I post here.

Oh, I'm reading.

We're reading Sam, you are merely disregarding anything that doesn't fit your opinion

Ted hit the nail on the head there.

LOL. Where did I say we had it right?

LOL. Where did I say we had it right?

Again, you're sidestepping and avoiding. Do you have any idea how long and involved the process of purchasing a gun is in the US?

Ted: I didn’t get back on the speeding thing. They recently did some tests here in the UK for a similar thing. They removed traffic lights, and took out road markings etc. People actually drove slower, and I think there were fewer accidents.

They say it was down to people being confused, and having to pay more attention to their surroundings while driving. A good thing possibly, but having drivers confused is probably not. They have put it all back - at least for now.

I still think that 30mph and 40mph limits work very well. Residential areas would probably be intolerable without them - and people would go over the lower limits regularly.

Dharmagrl: I presume there are quite a few checks for weapons. It would be insane to just give them out, right!? Because... errr... guns are dangerous in the wrong hands.

Also, if you have any photos or x-rays of anyone with an Uzi in their rectum.. I would like to see one. I bet not one person in the history of the world has ever hidden a sub-machine gun in their ass.... What are you like?

The original question was "Do guns make New Orleans a safer place?".

I’m talking about guns; legal, illegal: it doesn’t really matter. The point is that the legal aspect makes it a lot easier for people to get hold of them illegally. The high availability of them in N.O. when I started this thread posed a problem. There were places with large amounts of firearms virtually open to the public and there was a serious amount of looting going on.

Is it better that everyone has guns in a state of emergency, or no one?

As for sidestepping, you have pretty much stepped around the entire issue!

I’m sorry if you haven’t read the post correctly, but damn... get off your high-horse and check what’s there. And Britan is spelled Britain in case you ever need to write anyone.

I haven’t said the UK has it right. I’m questioning if the US does though. If that question is too tough for you, its ok, you dont have to join in.

Anyway.....


I can see that as this is becoming a "constitutional issue" for y'all, and Johnny Foreigner has no right discussing it. No less than a war has been fought over your constitution, and I dont want to make enemies on my first week back.