8 stabbed at grocery store, co-worker arrested

[Maverick]

So no gun = not dangerous criminal. Right. Go ask those 8 folks if they think the guy trying to kill them and putting them in the hospital using a knife is not dangerous because he didn't have a gun.

Put down the crack pipe there and take off the rose colored glasses.

[GtoRA2]

Originally posted by eureka101
**If you take a gun away from a criminal, is he suddenly no longer a criminal?**

-becomes less dangerous criminal.

**If granny down at the 7/11 just might possibly have a 44 under that smock, then Joe Crackhead thinks twice about going in for some easy money.
You can never unarm the criminal element. It is totaly impossible.**

-because USA allow drug abuse, which is in many places. But in Asia, drug not tolerated --> Death for drug traffic crime - drug crime very low, and no firearm = store holdup like this not known.

Take the guns away from the non criminal and you just made them all easier targets for even a criminal with a knife.

[Angus]

So, point being, arm the criminals as much as possible right

Jackal:
"That`s one of the main points. Arm the citizen and it at least levels the playing field."

Thereby you take it as given that the game is lost for the civilians, - the criminals are better armed. Am I wrong in my understanding?

[lazs2]

Nope angus... that is not the point at all.

The point is that about 5% of the population will try to commit serious crime... The point is that the rest of us need protection from them in this very large and diverse country.

The point is that the second works.... we stop these guys and lesser criminals millions of times a year.

the final point is that it needs to be a two pronged thing... you allow everyone to be armed but you punish those who would missuse firearms severely..

This is working... the example in the beggining of the thread is a good example.... criminal doesn't use gun.... law abiding ciitizen does....  much happier ending.

Having a firearm to protect you and yours should be a personal decision... just like wearing seatbelts or helmets or safety glasses.

lazs

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by Angus
So, point being, arm the criminals as much as possible right  

Nope. You don`t have to arm the criminals. They arm themselves. There is no way, with laws, to disarm the criminal if he wishs to be armed. It is impossible.

Thereby you take it as given that the game is lost for the civilians, - the criminals are better armed. Am I wrong in my understanding?

Very wrong. The game is a long ways from lost for civilians. As a matter of fact, in some states, mine included, nanny type, useless and self defeating gun laws are being put back as they should be. More law abiding citizens are becoming armed again and less are being denied their freedom. A punk has to think twice before jumping into a situation where he is equaly matched or even out matched. Mst are cowards and will not go into a situation where they put themselves in risk.
Of course there will always be the physco types. Always have been, always will be. Best defense against it is to have the citizen armed.

[Angus]

Originally posted by lazs2
Nope angus... that is not the point at all.

The point is that about 5% of the population will try to commit serious crime... The point is that the rest of us need protection from them in this very large and diverse country.

The point is that the second works.... we stop these guys and lesser criminals millions of times a year.

the final point is that it needs to be a two pronged thing... you allow everyone to be armed but you punish those who would missuse firearms severely..

This is working... the example in the beggining of the thread is a good example.... criminal doesn't use gun.... law abiding ciitizen does....  much happier ending.

Having a firearm to protect you and yours should be a personal decision... just like wearing seatbelts or helmets or safety glasses.

lazs

Well...being sceptical about firearms, bear in mind that I am a gun-guy. I just stop at being too free about them, and I am against any fool getting their hands on conceilable arms and then automatic thingies like automatic pistols or rifles.
This for starters:
"The point is that about 5% of the population will try to commit serious crime... The point is that the rest of us need protection from them in this very large and diverse country."
5%!!!! Wholly cow!!!! that is a very high number. Isn't it out of your head?
Then:
"The point is that the second works.... we stop these guys and lesser criminals millions of times a year."
And the times you don't? Watch it, for the crimerate in capital is one of  the highest in the USA of any 1st world nation. Same goes with "dead by gunshot" rate.  So, do you assume that that it'd be worse with a less armed society?
And here:
"the final point is that it needs to be a two pronged thing... you allow everyone to be armed but you punish those who would missuse firearms severely.."
I take it then, that you support strict gunlaw?
(Yes, you can have guns, if you're OK. Just like where I live, except the pistols and automatic ones)
Here there is something not fitting:
Lazs says:
"This is working... the example in the beggining of the thread is a good example.... criminal doesn't use gun.... law abiding ciitizen does.... much happier ending."
And Jackal:
"You don`t have to arm the criminals. They arm themselves. There is no way, with laws, to disarm the criminal if he wishs to be armed. It is impossible."
So, the game is, or rather WAS, lost for normal law abiding civilians. The thugs were already armed before somebody realized that they were. So, the response is to rearm the population, thereby putting more guns into the circulation?
Won't be the judge there. Would be sceptical about conceilable arms (note how many of the events in the post were stopped by shotgun carrying persons (very obvious bad-arse weapon)).
But bear in mind that the bigger part of the 1st world has less in the arsenal as well as less gun-dead and capital crime than the USA. So, either the USA has too few guns, too many, or to many thugs...
To arm them you need...ahem..arms..in rotation.

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by Angus
And Jackal:
So, the game is, or rather WAS, lost for normal law abiding civilians.

Not sure how you figure that. Number one is that it is far from a  game . What was lost? As long as we hold onto our right to bear arms............nothing is lost, only gained. At which time we are either stupid enough to give up that right or have it taken away by force,then would come the losing and in a big way.

The thugs were already armed before somebody realized that they were. ?

Not sure what you are getting at here. If you wish to discuss the histroy of violence by mankind against mankind I think you are in the wrong thread. Maybe a new one?

So, the response is to rearm the population, thereby putting more guns into the circulation?

Rearm? What rearm? I`m talking about the U.S. here Angus. We have never foolishly gave up our right to be armed. I, for one, do not plan on giving up that right.
Into whose circulation? Armed criminals will be armed no matter what.
Do you have any idea how easy it is to obtain an illegal weapon. Do you have any idea how easy it is to create one?

Won't be the judge there. Would be sceptical about conceilable arms

I`ll take that as concealable.
Why would you have am problem with a law abiding citizen having a concealed weapon? Would you rather only the criminal to have a concealed weapon leaving the general public at their mercy and whim?
Once again........if a criminal wishs to be armed , he will be so. Nothing will change that. It is impossible to do so. What can be done and has been and continues to progress here is making it legal for for law abiding citizens to also be armed. A great deterent.

I totaly agree.

[Maverick]

Just to stick to the story at hand here eureka, Exactly what was the bad person armed with that put 8 folks in the hospital? How did not having a gun keep him from hurting 8 folks.

[Maverick]

Originally posted by eureka101
Mad man with knife? Very possible drug crazed(?). Drug in free supply in violent country. Very unsafe!

Did you see that in the story? I don't recall any mention of it. Oh and by the way many drugs are also illegal in this country, kind of like stabbing people is illegal.

[Maverick]

Originally posted by eureka101
... **Oh and by the way many drugs are also illegal in this country,**

But law not enforced well? Many Asia countries, no drug problem - death for drug traffic crime instead of fine/jail

Excuse me, point of order here. The story in question and the subject of the thread did not mention any country but the US. As to the situatioon in your country, you have yet to even claim a country on your profile to be posted.

Secondly we'd only have your assertion that there is no drug problem in your country whatever it is.

[Pooh21]

Originally posted by eureka101
... **Oh and by the way many drugs are also illegal in this country,**

But law not enforced well? Many Asia countries, no drug problem - death for drug traffic crime instead of fine/jail

Bleetle Engrish style not yours becoming, pond tedious is.

[FUNKED1]

Alan stop with the fake engrish already.

[Angus]

The "game" is maybe better put as "fight".
Anyway, my point was, to try to make it clear, - that the "fight" is lost if the lot of the civilianz needs to be armed because of armed thugs.
In this drugstore case, it was the lucky side of the coin, - thug only had a knife, civilian a gun.
Then there are all the other cases, where the thug is holding the gun.
The US is in that poddle, most western countries and a good block of the asian countries are not.

BTW, in our case here, we didn't give up our rights to have a weapon, it's just the handguns. That is rather unhandy for the thugs, for one does not go far in the streets with a long barreled weapon around the sholder....

[Saintaw]

eureka no chinchin wa chiisai dessio! *


Just testing, *waves at Rolex*

[texace]

Why the fascination with American gun laws? Can't you people let us shoot everything and eat babies in peace?