Gun control is withering on the vine.

Post Reply New Topic

Vermont is a rural area for the most part and is generally a glorified college town.

What works there wouldn't work in Louisiana, which is much more urban and is a big hub for drug trade and has a much worse poverty problem.

And, no, I don't think Vermont would be like the Wild West...it's the north east.

I go to Vermont every summer - leaving next week, as a matter of fact. It's where my husband grew up.

I think the statistic has a lot more to do with how life is lived there, and the rural aspect. The gun culture isn't very evident there; it's not celebrated or advertised. If you hadn't told me the statistic, I would not have guessed it. Kind of a pragmatic way of life. And a very, very liberal state overall.

I think you've heard me state that I think the place of guns in life varies by region and many other factors. To me, the statistic confirms it. It would be really, really interesting to delve further into the factors that make ownership and presence something relatively safe in some locations and circumstances, but not in others.

Do you accept the correctness of self defense or defense of your family or defense of your property?

End the drug war and work on the poverty, why even mess with guns (and the inevitable political quagmire)?

So you and your family spend a significant amount of time surrounded by guns and their culture and didn't even know it until I brought it to your attention... This is what I've been trying to get across all along, the VAST majority of gun owners are virtually invisible, and ownership cuts across political ideology and outlook. Hell, I'm very liberal when it comes to things like gay and women's rights, free speech, the justice system, etc, but I'd lay money that if you put an anti-gun liberal and a pro-gun conservative on the Vermont ballot, it wouldn't even be close.



Or, you could look at it as verifying that guns are not the root of the situations that you fear, and that perhaps legislative efforts should be directed in more constructive (and less contested) areas.

Vermont is a rural area for the most part and is generally a glorified college town.

What works there wouldn't work in Louisiana, which is much more urban and is a big hub for drug trade and has a much worse poverty problem.

And, no, I don't think Vermont would be like the Wild West...it's the north east.

The problem with that, as Sand pointed out, is accuracy, wether there is actually such a threat in the first place, I mean, people tend to make mistakes, usually the judgment of people in general are not as accurate as they would think it is and people are not exactly that brilliant.

Here's an example, there was a discussion a while ago in the Love and Dating forum in which a guy was somehow ranting about women and self-defense, such as one defending herself against him who wasn't actually attacking her and that was the complain, there was a response in which it was said that that was always a possibility to happen for the sake of the woman's safety, and that's unarmed self-defense. Now, add guns to such situation and then you get an irreversible mistake.

Remember kids...

Rural is a euphemism for white.

Urban is a euphemism for black.

But let's not call it racism!

Dallas is urban and whiter than Tom Cruise's teeth. f**k off racist.

CHICAGO — The Chicago City Council on Friday approved what city officials say is the strictest handgun ordinance in the United States.

The 45-0 vote came four days after a Supreme Court ruling made it almost certain that Chicago's handgun ban would be overturned. The high court ruled Americans have a right to own a gun for self-defense anywhere they live.

The new city ordinance bans gun shops in Chicago and prohibits gun owners from stepping outside their homes, even onto their porches or garages, with a handgun. It will take effect in 10 days.

The ordinance also:

_ Limits the number of handguns residents can register to one per month and prohibit residents from having more than one handgun in operating order at any given time.

_ Requires residents in homes with children to keep them in lock boxes or equipped with trigger locks.

_ Requires prospective gun owners to take a four-hour class and one-hour training at a gun range. They would have to leave the city for training because Chicago prohibits new gun ranges and limits the use of existing ranges to police officers. Those restrictions were similar to those in an ordinance passed in Washington, D.C., after the high court struck down its ban two years ago.

_ Prohibits people from owning a gun if they were convicted of a violent crime, domestic violence or two or more convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Residents convicted of a gun offense would have to register with the police department.

_ Calls for the police department to maintain a registry of every handgun owner in the city, with the names and addresses to be made available to police officers, firefighters and other emergency responders.

Those who already have handguns in the city — which has been illegal since the city's ban was approved 28 years ago — would have 90 days to register those weapons, according to the proposed ordinance...

Mayor Daley and his cohorts are blatantly trying to evade the intent of the Constitution and the decision of the courts, I only wish that the when this latest mess is struck down that they could somehow be held personally liable for such contempt of the law. Perhaps a play could be taken from their own book and victims of crime that were prevented from defending themselves by these laws could sue the city since it de facto assumed responsibility and liability for their protection by it's actions, though I doubt they'd get far it would be great political theater and would cost the city money no matter how it turned out.

Dallas has more than just white people, at least during the first 17 years of my life when I lived there. I'm not defending the other guy though, just saying what my experience was only.

Not that it's a shock, but I called this one:

Chicago approves tough new handgun restrictions



Mayor Daley and his cohorts are blatantly trying to evade the intent of the Constitution and the decision of the courts, I only wish that the when this latest mess is struck down that they could somehow be held personally liable for such contempt of the law. Perhaps a play could be taken from their own book and victims of crime that were prevented from defending themselves by these laws could sue the city since it de facto assumed responsibility and liability for their protection by it's actions, though I doubt they'd get far it would be great political theater and would cost the city money no matter how it turned out.