Texas A&M Study Says Castle-Doctrine Laws Increase Homicides, Don't Deter Crime

[PavePusher]

105. So much wrong with your statements....

If some DUer has a gun and I don't, that is disparity of force.

Are you claiming that DUers are intending to harm you? I really don't see any other way to read that.

I would rather the DUer would not carry the gun.

Any other Constitutional Rights you "would rather... <not have us exercise>". And by what reason should your preferences, unsupported by evidence, carry any weight at all?

I've lived a pretty long life and never carried a gun or needed to carry a gun.

And your experiences are the base-line for everyone else? Statistics say not.

If I lived out in the boondocks with the bears, wolves and other predator animals, maybe I would need a gun. If I wanted to hunt deer (and I love venison), I would want to carry a gun for hunting.

The Second Amendment isn't about hunting. Kill that meme, it's DOA.

But only the police and citizens with permits should carry guns on Los Angeles' city streets, and the permits should be handed out very carefully.

May I see your First, Fourth, Thirteenth and Twenty-Sixth Amendment permits, vetted by the government? Otherwise, only government agents really should be using those priviliges.... But really, you want to focus on the people not causing the problems. Why is that?

There have been a couple of gang shootings within a few blocks of my house recently. If only gang members carry guns, then you know if there is a shooting, chances are very great that a gang member did it. Makes solving the murder much easier.

Right, curtailing the ability of innocent people to defend themselves is the obvious answer the gang violence. And the resulting deaths are merely acceptable collateral damage for a more ordely society. Holy Shit. Also, when did we decide that Constitutional Rights should be predicated on "mak(ing) solving the murder much easier"?

If "good guys" carry guns on the streets of a city like LA, it makes the work of the police much tougher.

Really? How so? If they aren't the ones criminally shooting people, they do not affect the job of LE at all. And in what other cities has your claim been true? Cites, please.

My perspective is definitely colored by the proximity of gang activity to my house. People who live in the country do not understand what it is like to live in a city like L.A.

This has nothing to do with non-criminals, yet that is who you propose to target. Your aim is Teh Phale. And Civil Rights are equal everywhere in the U.S., at least in theory.

When more guns are legal, more guns are on the streets, and more criminals have them.

Cite to evidence, please. Also, please differentiate between legally carried and illegally carried firearms, because they are not the same.

The Republicans are criticizing A.G. Holder for the guns that were shipped to Mexico and ended up in the hands of criminals who used them to kill a lot of people.

Good. Why aren't more Democrats doing the same?

But Republicans don't connect the dots.

]

What "dots"? Specify, please.

The same principle that applied in Mexico applies here. The more guns you have in private hands, the more likely they will land, whether intentionally or not, in the hands of murderers, of criminals.

And again you promote attacking lawful persons instead of criminals. Why is that?

I support ownership of guns for sport and hunting but not for carrying to your local bar or on the streets in my neighborhood.

Feel free to Amend the Constitution. The mechanism to do so is stated very clearly, and it is quite simple. Have at it.