Nice street :D

All kidding aside, what one thought of as ''decent'' areas have become statistics.



Robbed at gunpoint -- When I was 16 or 17 Eddie and I ( a high school buddy) drove to a music concert hall that was in a not-so-nice part of the city. When the concert was over we walked back to where we had parked the car on the street and were robbed at gunpoint.

Ever had a gun stuck in your face?

We could have become a statistic. Luckily the thief just took the money no one got hurt. It's called armed robbery. We were not provoking anything. Maybe, just our presence was -- that is fucked up ...

A few years a burglar broke into my garage and stole maybe $1,700 worth of tools and garden equipment I had a $2,000 loss. I live in a suburb near a major city.

The scumbags are commuting to the better suburbs to steal now -- nothing left worth stealing where they live -- they already stole it all.

Now, if I saw someone committing a property crime like breaking into my garage I would call 911 and hope they arrive in time and not confront the criminal at gunpoint looking for an excuse shoot him dead on the spot. But if that same guy breaks into my house while I am in there he's going out in a body bag.

Most police work is reactive to crime -- they get there after the crime usually. Only their presence is a deterrent. There has always been a crime problem here but over the years the number of people that feel they have no alternative to criminal activity increases with no jobs and the illusions of grandeur of being a gangster (gangsta, gangbanger). Random violence like these school shootings, the DC sniper, the Zodiac killer are perpetrated by persons with severe mental problems that are armed.

Serial killers or mass murders don't present themselves at the gun seller wearing a loosened straight jacket, just out of the loony bin -- something obvious to a gun seller. All this talk of preventing the mentally ill from possessing firearms makes some sense if they are really dangerous. Gun sellers should be required to have some training in profiling their buyers (banks have ''know your customer'' regulations) and have some responsibilities for the sale of weapons with the revocation of their license being at risk for the actions of the persons they sell weapons to -- that makes some sense.

But should some guy that is argumentative but non violent, having sought some sort of psychological help, be labelled criminally insane and be in some database banning firearms ownership and who know what else. Potential employers, insurance companies, the public having access? The choice is having an Orwellian state or a reasonable expectation of privacy and freedom -- where do we draw the line?

America is a violent place, at least in the major cities. But then they estimate 60,000 dead in Syria now (many really murders -- civilian deaths) in their civil war -- Syria a country of 20 million as compared to the 314 million here -- there are a lot of worse places to be with a lot worse odds.

The financial industry rips off the saved equity of most Americans (even expanded to world citizens) and what we get are long debates over gun ownership? I am talking about the "government outrage" and its priority here. It's petty pandering in comparison if you think about it.

In the United States no law can be post facto so what guns are legally held will continue to be legally possessed; So, banning guns would only apply to new purchases having little effect other that raising gun values and encouraging illegal gun sales -- and that is where most career criminals get their guns -- illegal gun sales.

</wall-of-text>

Classic diversionary tactic: