chris matthews "you don't need a gun in DC".

[DesertFlower]

i disagree. don't know what the gun laws are there. i'm originally from new york city where you could not own a gun. however the bad guys had them. now i live in phoenix and yes i own a gun. it's for personal protection. if someone gets passed my alarm system i'm going to use it.

that being said i'm for strict gun control laws.

i'll probably get flamed.

[madinmaryland]

1. I've worked in both NYC and DC and have never owned a gun. Never needed one nor do I want one.

[DesertFlower]

2. i didn't feel safe when i lived in new york. in fact

if it were legal i probably would have carried one. i worked on 42nd st. and ave of the americas. i worked a lot of overtime and would sometimes walk down 42nd st. late at night to get something to eat. i did get a lomo ride home after 7pm.

[dsc]

5. see post 3

you may have felt less safe but you were, in point of fact, considerably more safe in NYC.

[DesertFlower]

19. i was working overtime one night.

when i checked with the attorney to see if he was ready for me he was white as a sheet. this was a 6'6" guy -- former marine. he said "i just saw a woman get shot". he went out to get something to eat about 5:45 pm. a woman walking down ave of americas -- right in front of bryant park.

another night i left at 5pm. had to stop at the jeweler on 40th st. there was blood on the street. i asked him what happened. there had just been a shooting. years before his uncle who owned the store was shot.

[phylny]

34. I worked in Manhattan, 42nd and Lexington. I would routinely walk outside at night after

working late. I never, ever felt afraid - too crowded!

And I'm a woman.

[DesertFlower]

36. there's a big difference between 42nd and lexington

and 42nd and ave of the americas.

[sabbat hunter]

92. when did you live in

nyc?

[Agschmid]

30. Yup.

[meaculpa2011]

102. I've lived in NYC my entire life and always felt safe...

until the day a young gentleman stuck a revolver in my gut and pulled back the hammer.

When he discovered I only had $11 he became enraged. I thought it was all over.

Luckily for me he just ranted and left, but with the hammer cocked all he had to do was sneeze my guts would have been all over the sidewalk. This was 3PM on a bright summer afternoon less than two blocks from the precinct house.

That was in 1970.

I didn't overreact. I never bought a gun or applied for a carry permit, but I can certainly understand why many people would.

[dsc]

3. you were better off in NY

and not by a small amount.

https://www.baruch.cuny.edu/nycdata/public_safety/crime-selectcities.htm


I can't quote the link as the table's format won't translate.

But NYC has less total crime, about half the murder rate, under a third of the rape rate, a slightly higher robbery rate, a considerably lower rate of aggravated assault, less than half the rate of property crime, less than a fifth of the rate of burglary , and no surprise a much lower rate of auto theft (but they should since they have way fewer cars per capita). By pretty much any measure you became much, much less safe by moving to Phoenix.

[gcomeau]

4. But of course the important thing...

...is that the gun makes him *feel* more safe. Take that reality!

[DesertFlower]

11. i was not better off in new york. not talking about crime.

i have friends back there. they tell me traffic is worse than when i left in '89. rents are ridiculous. my friend pays $3300 for a 1 bedroom -- nothing fancy. pollution is terrible.

here in phoenix i have a beautiful house on the side of a mountain which is paid for. hightest mortage payment i ever had was $1290 -- that was with taxes and homeowners. helluva a lot better than living in an apartment and having my car broken into constantly to grab the radio.

you couldn't pay me to even visit. been 26 years and i've never been back. the only thing good about new york is the food.

[dsc]

13. In fairness I should have used safer as opposed to better off

but the fact is by any statistical measure you were safer there than you are in Phoenix.

[sabbat hunter]

93. actualy

pollution is FAR less now than it was back when you lived here. More efficient cars, gas and electric buses instead of diesel.

[DesertFlower]

21. depends on where you live in phoenix.

we do have some areas that are not so nice.

[fishwax]

58. to be fair, though, those are NYC's numbers now

The crime rates in the 80s, when the poster apparently lived in New York, were much higher. There were 1905 murders in 1989 (and that's not even the peak year), for instance, compared to 335 in 2013.

[DesertFlower]

67. thank you. my husband used to go back to

NY on business. he said it had changed.

i was born in queens in '41. left in '89 at age 48. the day we moved was one of the happiest days of my life.

[fishwax]

72. 42nd and 6th is a walk in the park now

I've only lived in the area for a few years, so I have no real knowledge of how it was back then, other than what I've read and videos I've seen and so on. But I can say that I've walked a good deal of Manhattan and various chunks of the Bronx and Brooklyn, frequently with a toddler in tow, and never felt particularly ill at ease.

[DesertFlower]

74. i'm happy to hear that. my friend lives

in peter cooper village -- 20th st. and 1st ave. they've had breakins. management seems to be lax when taking care of front doors that don't close properly -- strange people being buzzed in.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

82. Theres a big difference between walking and driving, too

Driving around in Phoenix with your car doors locked is probably safer than walking around New York City at night - especially depending on where you are walking.

[trumad]

6. Yeah...

You'll probably end up shooting an innocent or yourself.

[DesertFlower]

12. if someone breaks into my house

there not innocent.

[DesertFlower]

42. to be honest i've been considering

getting a taser (which is legal here). i'd rather taser the person until the sheriff gets here. i really don't want to kill anyone, but i don't want to be killed or raped either.

it does take a long time for the sheriff to get here. the alarm company has to notify them and they have to drive up the hill to get here.

i really don't worry too much about it. my road has only one way in and out and you have to drive slowly. anyone who came up here with the intent of doing harm should have 2nd thoughts, but i'd rather be safe than sorry. also they are taking the chance that the homeowner's are armed.

most of the crime that takes place in phoenix is drug related or some crazed husband or wife who shoots their spouse. i should also add crazed girlfriend or boyfriend.

about 10 years ago in a very nice neighborhood just north of here a man was shot and killed in the daytime in his home -- a robbery gone bad. we had some breakins in a subdivsion just south of here where the houses are close together.

i keep my alarm on at all times. i don't understand why people don't have alarm systems. before we left new york when our house was under construction i arranged for an alarm company to install one.

[LeftyMom]

49. Stranger rapes are pretty uncommon.

You're really letting your fear of unlikely events dominate your life. Let me guess? You watch the local TV news religiously?

[DesertFlower]

50. i watch the 10pm news -- mostly for the weather.

if i was letting fear dominate my life i wouldn't go out.

[LeftyMom]

52. Not being a shut-in doesn't make your fears rational.

If you want to live a safe life eat well and get a car with a good crash test rating. Statistically that's what matters.

Anybody who wants to make you afraid is picking your pocket.

[DesertFlower]

55. you're living in a dream world.

good night to all of you.

[LeftyMom]

57. No, I understand basic statistics.

You should try it, it's freeing.

This is literally the safest time in human history. Living like you're in a post-apocalyptic movie and zombies could attack at any moment is a waste of a life. Perspective is freeing.

[beevul]

61. Are you a strict gun control supporter?

This is literally the safest time in human history.

Are you a strict gun control supporter? I ask because I don't see many of them expressing what you did in the above quote.

[840high]

77. I so don't agree with you.

[Lizzie Poppet]

64. Uncommon?

According to the FBI, there are c. 90,000 reported rapes per year. The FBI's Bureau of Justice Statistics estimates stranger rapes at 26% of that total. That's the same as by intimate partners (although a good bit less than by non-intimate-partner acquaintances). That's 24,000 rapes, or over 10,000 more incidents than the gun-related homicides everyone (rightly) calls an appalling number for this country.

Moreover, it's broadly understood that reported rapes are the minority. Even being conservative with the numbers, that means in the neighborhood of 200,000 rapes per year, and probably more. Stranger rapes perhaps in the neighborhood of 50,000. That's still not a huge probability...but it's a hell of a lot higher rate per 100,000 than gun-related murders. If stranger rape is "uncommon," then gun homicides are considerably more so.

I don't think that's quite where you wanted to go with that...

[DesertFlower]

68. back in the mid 80s, i met an 80 year old AA

woman who had been raped. what kind of person rapes an 80 year old? she was a very relgious woman and i think that got her through the horror of what happened. and yes, it was in NYC.

not too long ago an 80 year old woman here in phoenix was raped.

[Lizzie Poppet]

69. How utterly horrible.

My thoughts about the kind of vermin who would do that to an elderly lady are not kind ones, shall we say...

[DesertFlower]

71. i thought of lorena bobbit.

no woman should be raped, but an 80 year old woman makes it more horrendous.

[840high]

76. In my very nice area a man mowing

his lawn at 10 in the morning was robbed and shot.

[DesertFlower]

78. omg. so sorry to hear that.

[Lulu Belle]

83. They should know that might happen.

[Juicy_Bellows]

7. "You don't need a gun." Fixed it for Chris. Nt.

[the band leader]

8. I see Baltimore just celebrated its 211th homicide last week

which seems surprising considering all the, you know, gun control.

[beevul]

9. Funny how that works. How do comparable cities with loose gun laws compare?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[the band leader]

24. I think a moderate amount of research would suggest that gun control laws have no effect

whatsoever at all on the homicide incidence of any given large city. It simply isn't a factor.

[Agschmid]

35. .

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/122071/gun-laws-wont-end-mass-shootings-they-will-reduce-gun-homicides

[the band leader]

38. is there a point there somewhere?

[Agschmid]

40. Do a little light reading, open your mind.

[the band leader]

65. If gun control decreases shootings, why are there so many shootings in Baltimore,

Chicago, NYC, Oakland, etc. There is no shortage of gun control laws in those cities yet those are precisely the places where gun crime is most rampant. Why is that?

[kwassa]

109. Because you are wrong?

In a study published Thursday in JAMA Internal Medicine, researchers found that states with more gun control laws, on average, experience less gun violence and fewer firearm deaths than states without similar regulations.

Now, you wouldn’t be alone if your initial reaction to theses findings was, well, “no duh.” But as it turns out, science that seems to state the obvious can still be vitally important stuff.

Why study the painfully self-evident? Well, for scientists, nothing is a given until it’s been tested (and retested). And hard data can help to shape policy and sway public opinion. So while the recent onslaught of studies on gun control may seem like overkill, their findings are actually a critical step toward building common sense policies to help reduce violence.

In honor of the researchers from Harvard University and the Boston Children’s Hospital who have told us, yet again, that regulating guns can help make people safer — a roundup of other science that makes you say “duh.”

Gun control helps reduce gun violence

In a study released Thursday, researchers from Harvard University and the Boston Children’s Hospital identified a link between strong gun control regulations and a reduction in overall gun violence. By looking at firearm-related fatalities between 2007 and 2010 and comparing each state’s rate of gun deaths per 100,000 people, scientists concluded that the more gun laws a state has, the lower the rate of gun-related deaths.

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/07/gun_control_reduces_gun_violence_and_other_studies_that_confirm_the_obvious/

[beevul]

113. Your excerpt misrepresents the facts.

Last edited Sat Aug 29, 2015, 03:07 PM - Edit history (2)

In a study published Thursday in JAMA Internal Medicine, researchers found that states with more gun control laws, on average, experience less gun violence and fewer firearm deaths than states without similar regulations.

The actual study uses 'rates' which are influenced by low population in low population states, not absolutes, yet your excerpt says 'less gun violence' - an absolute.

Less gun violence? I'm afraid it just isn't so, and heres a couple maps to illustrate that inconvenient fact :





(Keep in mind, this map represents ACTUAL gun violence, as it happened, and where it happened.)

See that area I circled? Kindly explain why it, containing all those states with the slack gun laws, and many of the states with the highest gun ownership, don't resemble the rest of the map, and particularly don't resemble the states with the strict gun laws.

They're playing the 'use rates and misrepresent the fact's' game, and you bought it.

[DesertFlower]

14. the bad guys always get the guns.

[DesertFlower]

51. you are out of line. i can't stand arpaio.

he's a racist. people who vote for him are nothing like me.

that being said i've had enough of this conversation. time to watch tv and relax.

i wish you all well.

[GGJohn]

53. People like you kept Joe Arpaio in office.

Way over the top.

[DesertFlower]

70. i think that post should be directed to leftymom

post 41.

[GGJohn]

73. I just checked and it is directed to her.

It was an over the top insult directed at you and she should apologize to you and delete the offending post.

[DesertFlower]

75. i think she should apologize too.

when someone says something like that i tend to want to ignore the rest of the things they say.

[Recursion]

10. DC had a literal handgun ban until 2008

Now people can keep a revolver locked up in their home.

It was not particularly difficult to get a handgun in DC during the ban. Bans are probably not the answer; we need to think more creatively here.

[DesertFlower]

16. i agree. nt

[dsc]

17. yeah thanks to Virginia it was easy to get guns in DC

that is why giving manufacturers immunity was such a horrible thing to have done. Gun companies literally flouted the law and made sure guns flowed into places such as DC and Chicago and Baltimore which tried to control guns.

[Recursion]

18. I don't know. Cocaine is banned and isn't hard to get either

I think in both cases there are better alternatives to prohibition. We need to make people not want them in the first place.

[dsc]

22. when cocaine kills tens of thousands of people a year

then I will decide banning cocaine might be a sensible idea. The fact is we have allowed gun dealers and gun manufacturers to operate nearly without regulation in this country and have, shock of shocks, the highest murder rate in the developed world and frankly our black and brown citizens have a gun death rate that would be at home in much of the undeveloped world. Hellholes like Rwanda have gun death rates that are on par with that of our black citizens. That ought to disgust us. That ought to lead to laws regulating guns. Instead it leads to shrugs, we can't do anything about it, oh well.

[Recursion]

23. Alcohol kills that many, and most of us agree banning it was not a good idea

I want fewer guns out there and I don't think prohibition is an effective way to do that.

[beevul]

26. Where do you draw this conclusion from?

The fact is we have allowed gun dealers and gun manufacturers to operate nearly without regulation in this country...

Where do you draw this conclusion from?

I'm pretty sure FFL holders would be shocked to hear they operate under almost no regulation, and the ATF which compliance checks these FFL holders would be even more shocked to hear it.

Perhaps trying to operate outside the premise that 'the only way to reduce gun violence is through direct reduction and regulation of the gun' might net some benefits that direct conflict with people that value gun rights will not. It would have the advantage of not being opposed by tens of millions of voters. Assuming its the gun violence rather than the guns, that you see as the problem.

[beevul]

20. Nebraska and Oklahoma are using that very argument right now.

"Marijuana flows from this gap into neighboring states, undermining Plaintiff States' own marijuana bans, draining their treasuries, and placing stress on their criminal justice systems," the lawsuit alleges.

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_27163543/nebraska-and-oklahoma-sue-colorado-over-marijuana-legalization

It was a bullshit argument then, and its a bullshit argument now.

[dsc]

27. If Colorado built marijuana dispenseries right on the boarder

and let them sell more marijuana than could ever be consumed by the citizens of Colorado then maybe they would have a point. But the stats bear out that the places by Oklahoma and Nebraska don't sell more marijuana than their local populations suggest they should be selling.

https://www.coloradopotguide.com/where-to-buy-marijuana/

If you look at the map that I link to. Nebraska has one, count it one, store that is near its border. Oklahoma has a few more but it looks like that area of Colorado has a few cities while the area of Oklahoma has none. Conversely Virginia had a whole bunch of gun stores in the northern part of the state which sold multiple guns to people who then were run up and down the east coast. Similarly the part of Indiana which is close to Chicago and the parts of rural Illinois close to chicago had huge gun stores which sold multiple guns to single purchasers who then sold them in Chicago. A simple look at the map of dispenseries shows that Nebraska has no case at all and Oklahoma probably doesn't but at least there are some stores by them.

[beevul]

32. What?

If Colorado built marijuana dispenseries right on the boarder and let them sell more marijuana than could ever be consumed by the citizens of Colorado then maybe they would have a point. But the stats bear out that the places by Oklahoma and Nebraska don't sell more marijuana than their local populations suggest they should be selling.

Colorado didn't build anything. Business owners did. Beyond that, I'm not sure theres a point in that mess.

Conversely Virginia had a whole bunch of gun stores in the northern part of the state which sold multiple guns to people who then were run up and down the east coast. Similarly the part of Indiana which is close to Chicago and the parts of rural Illinois close to chicago had huge gun stores which sold multiple guns to single purchasers who then sold them in Chicago. A simple look at the map of dispenseries shows that Nebraska has no case at all and Oklahoma probably doesn't but at least there are some stores by them.

Youy're drawing a faulty distinction, where no legal distinction exists. A thing is either legal in a given jurisdiction, or it is not. If it is, then people may buy it. What people do, after passing a background check and filling out a 4473 under penalty of perjury, is on them, not that state or that store.

Its the people in your example, responding to prohibitionist policies as people ALWAYS do, that broke the laws here. Its their burden to bear, not that of the FFL holders. If they're following the law then they are not responsible.

[dsc]

37. the fact is gun companies sold vast quantities of guns

to people they knew damn well were selling those guns in places they weren't legal to be sold. There is no way these people thought people were coming to VA to collect rare saturday night specials. Conversely Colorado isn't doing anything of the sort, nor are the marijuana dispenseries. Since the state says where they can and can't be built, the state does deserve some of the credit for not having targeted neighboring states. The simple fact is the gun manufacturers made sure guns got to DC and Chicago and Baltimore and other places by deliberately making sure that neighboring jurisdictions sold them as irresponsibly as humanly possible . If any other companies conspired to do this we would be up in arms but since it is just guns and the dead are mostly just black and brown we don't give a rats ass.

[beevul]

43. No, thats NOT a fact.

the fact is gun companies sold vast quantities of guns to people they knew damn well were selling those guns in places they weren't legal to be sold. There is no way these people thought people were coming to VA to collect rare saturday night specials.

No, thats NOT a fact. Its an assertion, made without evidence, by you. Calling it a fact does not make it so.

Conversely Colorado isn't doing anything of the sort, nor are the marijuana dispenseries. Since the state says where they can and can't be built, the state does deserve some of the credit for not having targeted neighboring states.

First, let me make this clear: I support Colorado.

That being said, you really don't have a clue how things work in CO. If what you say was the truth and the WHOLE truth, you may have a point but it isn't. See craigslist in the 'beauty and health section' of the Denver page, and get back to me about dispensaries. See, I know this, because I live right next door, and I've been with friends on many a trip to get their bud.

The simple fact is the gun manufacturers made sure guns got to DC and Chicago and Baltimore and other places by deliberately making sure that neighboring jurisdictions sold them as irresponsibly as humanly possible .

Again, asserted without evidence. Calling it a fact does not make it so.

[GGJohn]

46. What unadulterated horse crap.

The PLCAA has nothing, repeat, nothing to do with firearms entering DC from VA.
Firearm manufacturers are forbidden by law to sell directly to the general public, they can sell only to an FFL dealer, and those buying in VA and transporting it across state lines for the purpose of selling it to a DC resident is a federal offense that can net one 10 years in Club Fed.

[beevul]

59. Shame on you...

Shame on you for introducing facts into this.

What were you thinking.

Your chocolate rations have therefore been increased from 6 to 2.

[GGJohn]

60. I'm kinda funny that way,

NOOOOOO, not the chocolate rations, ANYTHING but the chocolate.

[dsc]

80. right sure it does

the manufacturers have no earthly idea who is buying all those guns and what is happening to them. They are powerless, I say powerless, to stop those sales. give me a freaking break. They are do different than banks who set up sham corporations and sell financial toxic waste to their customers. Here are two non gun related analogies. Sudafed, and many other such products can be used to make crystal meth. We can no longer buy more than a months supply at a time and even then we have to have id and there is a system to stop us from going from store to store. The manufacturer of sudafed cooperated. Walmart bans you from buying more that 5 copies of any one movie. Why, the found out people were using walmart dvds to stock redboxes. See, manufacturers know who buys their product, they know why that product is being bought. Gun manufacturers know full well that all those guns they ship to VA and IN are winding up in DC and Chicago.

[GGJohn]

84. Manufacturer's have no freaking way of knowing who is going to buy their firearms

from the FFL dealers.
Again, the PLCAA has absolutely nothing to do with firearms being sold or taken into DC or Chicago.
But I'll entertain your fairy tale, provide links that prove what your saying and I'll apologize.

[dsc]

85. Of course they do

it is beyond absurd to say they don't. Many places ask for zip codes at the register to get data, others get the data from the credit cards used to pay. Unless these are the worst businesspeople on gods green earth they most assuredly have that marketing data.

[GGJohn]

86. So in other words

you have no proof of what you claim?
Thought so, you're just spouting nonsense hoping to be believed, which many will because of their bias towards firearms, but you've yet to provide ANY links proving what you've posted here.

[dsc]

89. Smith and Wesson admitted to it and agreed to change their ways

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1034715816783827996

It is in the article.

[beevul]

94. Its a subscription site, so how about quoting the relevent parts.

Its a subscription site, so how about quoting the relevent parts. It was your assertion, so the onus is on you to support it.


Or do you not have a subscription too, and made it up?

[dsc]

95. It came up for me without a subscription

I will see if it comes up for me now or not.

[dsc]

96. if you had asked more nicely I would have quoted this article but since you were such a jerk

Here is your link

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/03/18/us/gun-makers-see-betrayal-in-decision-by-smith-wesson.html

It is the times and came up without logging in both at work and here at home.

[beevul]

99. I read the entire thing. It does not support your assertion. N/T

[dsc]

101. yes it does

they were sued for how they distribute guns, they admited fault.

[beevul]

103. Settling and admitting fault are two different things.

Your cite does not say they admitted fault for how they distribute guns, or support your original claim, but it does say this:

Lawsuits have been brought against a number of gun manufacturers by 28 cities and counties to hold them responsible for the damage done by their products and to improve gun safety.

This is why the PLCAA was passed.

[dsc]

104. they also changed the practices

you know the ones which were supposedly perfectly great.

[beevul]

105. Your assertions are still unsupported.

That's really the bottom line here.

[dsc]

106. of course the poor dears did nothing wrong

and just decided to settle for the hell of it. Right. Oh, and here are the stats on VA supplying guns up and down the east coast. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/04/opinion/new-jerseys-useful-one-gun-a-month-law.html?_r=0

The one-gun-a-month laws help by slowing the pace of weapon-gathering. In the four years before Virginia passed a one-gun law that took effect in 1993, 35 percent of guns recovered in criminal investigations in Northeastern states, from New Jersey through Massachusetts, came from Virginia. Two years later, the figure was 16 percent.

here is the link the NYT used to back that up

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=403492

you can see an abstract not the study.

[beevul]

107. They certainly didn't admit they did, as you have asserted.

of course the poor dears did nothing wrong and just decided to settle for the hell of it. Right. Oh, and here are the stats on VA supplying guns up and down the east coast.

They certainly didn't admit they did, as you have asserted. How many unsupported assertions is that now? It happens all the time, settlements without admission of guilt.

Oh, and your link isn't about VA supplying guns to anyone. Its about individuals - not the state of VA or gun dealers - breaking the law. You need to take some classes at the school of "just because I said something or characterize something a certain way, reality does not automatically change to make it so".

The one-gun-a-month laws help by slowing the pace of weapon-gathering. In the four years before Virginia passed a one-gun law that took effect in 1993, 35 percent of guns recovered in criminal investigations in Northeastern states, from New Jersey through Massachusetts, came from Virginia. Two years later, the figure was 16 percent.

Another case of 'attack criminality by limiting the law abiding, rather than attacking directly the criminality or the criminal, itself, because the ends justify the means'.

Color.me.Shocked.

That methodology is the hallmark of the modern anti-gun/prohibitionist movement. Their bread and butter, in fact. I take it you count yourself among their ranks?

[Lizzie Poppet]

87. Direct sales to end-users are extremely rare in the firearms industry.

An FFL dealer may well mine that sort of customer data (although most dealers are mom-and-pop operations and probably don't do so in any comprehensive way), but manufacturers most certainly do not have access to that data. I'm sure they know a lot about their actual customers (distributors and dealers), but the end user isn't their customer.

[Eleanors38]

90. Facts. Now, an NRA talking point.

[HereSince1628]

15. Dogs make better friends than guns, and are almost as good a deterrent

against an assault

[DesertFlower]

25. my step daughter lives in a remote

area outside of atlanta. she has both -- a german shepherd and a handgun.

[HereSince1628]

31. I've lived in rural areas...on farms or villages without police most of my adult life

People need to be honest about how fear is rather more important than need to shoot intruders when it comes to justifying having a firearm

I have no problem with people having a firearm. But, I think it's important to name the motivator.

[DesertFlower]

44. that statement makes no sense.

no one has the right to break into someone's home. of course people are fearful. it's a natural instinct.

the need to shoot intruders. WTF? what are you supposed to do -- offer them a cup of coffee.

[Eleanors38]

91. "...fear is rather more important..." What are your fears?

[HereSince1628]

97. I'm not afraid of rural home intrusion and living without a firearm

[Eleanors38]

114. Sounds good.

[the band leader]

29. That's copmpletely false.

Unless a dog has been trained to protect, it will more than likely not stop a determined criminal intent upon entering your home and harming you. plus there are a lot of assholes out there that will just kill your pet without a second thought. I have a doberman pinscher. I protect him, not the other way around.

[HereSince1628]

39. "A lot" that's an impressive stat...

If a gun eases your fear, hey, whatever works for you...

Care to show me a credible stat on "a lot" of people shooting dogs in your neck of the woods during home intrusion?

[the band leader]

62. If a dog eases your fear, hey, whatever works for you...

If a thief is determined, however, it won't stop them and thieves are becoming more brazen and determined, not less. We recently had a young sociopath walking past our fence kicking at the fence, cursing at the dog, and threatening to kill him because he was barking at him. that was the final straw for me. I'm leaving this city ASAP. My dogs are my children. It's my job to protect them, not the other way around.

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2013/02/25/thieves-poison-guard-dog-in-order-to-steal-from-modesto-business/

More dogs poisoned


Family dogs poisoned during botched motorcycle theft

[DesertFlower]

45. i agree. nt

[LeftyMom]

47. A barking dog keeps people from coming in to begin with.

Nobody who hears or sees my mastiff and values their health is coming over my fence. 110 lbs (and growing) of fanatically loyal rescue dog is seriously fucking intimidating.

A gun isn't going to do shit until I see or hear somebody, assuming I'm home at all. The dog hangs around while I'm gone, and his senses are far keener than mine.

[the band leader]

63. It depends. If the thief knows you have something worthwhile your dog won't stop him.

I agree that that a dog is one critical part of an overall security plan however and some dogs are better at the task than others.

[sarisataka]

28. The choice to include a firearm

as a self defense option is very personal.

If a person chooses to do so, they need to be aware that although the chances it will be needed are close to zero, if needed they must be willing to use the gun. Having a gun but being unwilling to fire if the presence of a gun does not deter an attacker is worse than not having the gun in the first place.

A person also need the skill to hit their target; it is a pass/fail test with your life possibly being on the line.

In addition killing a person, a very real possibility, will demand a physical, mental, social and legal cost. The person choosing to use a gun must understand and be willing to pay those costs.

[DesertFlower]

48. well said. nt

[bobclark86]

108. Exactly.

Some think the cost is too high, and that's OK. Some are willing to pay it, and that's OK. It's the idiots who don't think about that who are the scary ones...

[DesertFlower]

56. good night to all of you.

even though we may disagree on many things we're all democrats and that's important. we've got to win this election.

[elleng]

79. matthews is right. (I rarely say that.)

Lived in DC 20+ years, in suburb now. UTTERLY unnecessary to have a gun, shocked in fact to learn a neighbor's tenant had one 25 years ago.

Heller, supreme court 2d amendment case, came out of DC.

[MrScorpio]

81. I lived in the DC area for 7 1/2 years...

I never once felt that I needed a gun. I'm from Detroit and never felt that I needed one in my hometown either.

[etherealtruth]

98. Same experiences and same choices for me!

[Snobblevitch]

88. I wonder who made Matthews the decider of needs?

[Logical]

100. I am sure you way over estimate the changes you will ever need a gun. Most people do. nt

[Lizzie Poppet]

110. By the same reasoning, most people similarly overestimate their chances of being threatened by one.

Just sayin'...

[Logical]

111. Isn't it the same thing? nt

[Lizzie Poppet]

112. Basically, yes.

It's similar, in a way, to the focus on mass shootings when NON-mass shootings constitute a vastly larger number of homicides. People's worries frequently fail to correspond to the probability of the thing they're worried about actually occurring.l

[Statistical]

116. Similar but the probability you will be a victim of violent crime is about 100x higher

The attacker is armed with a firearm in about 25% of violent crimes.

[NickB79]

115. Joe Biden thinks a shotgun is perfectly acceptable for home defense

And I think he's correct: