Quote:

The Department of Justice, with their statistical prowess, reports that the best response time is 4 minutes and the worst over 1 hour. Interpretation? If you live in an upper income area you probably are privy to the 4 minute response time, while middle to rural areas will see a much longer response time. Now here is where things get interesting. Even though the Department of Justice determined that the average [best] police response time to a 911 call is 4 minutes, the average interaction time between a criminal and his victim is 90 seconds. http://www.self-defense-mind-body-sp...onse-time.html

Both, the phone to call the meat-wagon ...

Nice street :D

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackCrayon (Post 19421552) the idea that every thief wants to kill people is retarded. they just want to get the shit and go. you have a better chance of getting shot at if you have a gun than if you didn't.

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:

http://3mp1r3.cam500.com/img/boards/LookAtTheMonkey.jpg

There is a huge difference from having to deal with a police office pointing a gun at you and a criminal on a shadowy street -- totally different situation I have been there in both.

As to internet firearm sales; you have to take delivery of the firearm from an ATF licensed gun dealer -- read the fine print on a the gun selling website. ATF licensed gun dealers are required to make background checks before transferring a weapon -- that is a condition of their continued licensure. Guns cannot be sent (delivered) to unlicensed buyers by the USPS, UPS, Fedex, etc.http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/lice...-business.html only licensed dealers can receive firearms shipments from other licensed dealers. It is just a competitive selling situation.

"you also make an interesting point about all this gun attention being used as a diversion to keep people busy while the government robs them yet again." that is how I see it. The recent school killings are a nightmare and I can understand that but in the overall picture they should be put into a logical perspective.

Maybe, he didn't look like a psycho like in the mugshots the media is circulating.

Maybe, the gun dealer had suspicions; If so, his license should be revoked at the very least or he be even sued for the public endangerment of his inaction.

With licensure comes responsibility -- a lesson for the financial swindlers to be in fear of.

There needs to be better access checks at school entrance points. Armed persons that are not police, etc. should never be allowed entrance into school buildings -- ever.

As for public gatherings; Friendly known persons openly armed shouldn't bother anyone and would certainly make some psyco think twice about opening fire on innocent people.

The death toll from the 2011 shootings at a Norwegian youth camp was 85 and they only gave him a 23 year sentence -- 85 innocent children slaughtered intentionally -- what kind of a message does that send to potential mass murderers? Civilized country my ass.