Gun Control Debate - Midlothian, VA

Discuss the national Gun Control debate in Midlothian, VA.

Would you support a ban on handguns?

Midlothian opposes
Oppose
 
9
Support
 
2

Vote now in Midlothian:

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

“Pardon my nosiness ”

Since: May 07

London, England

#21 Sep 28, 2010
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is where your laws are completely screwed up (from your link):
Offensive Weapons:-
Anything designed, adapted, intended or modified to cause injury to another.(AV: complete B.S. anything can be modified to use as a weapon. Even a rolled up magazine can be used as a baton, a screwdriver makes a good shank...so does an ink pen.)
It is an offence to have an offensive weapon away from your abode with no lawful excuse.(AV: Offensive or defensive is in the mind of the user. Weapons have no intent. they are merely tools. Intent is strictly in the mind of the user. I carry a sidearm routinely. Is it an offensive weapon? No. It is strictly for my defense and the defense of those around me.)
The onus lies on you to prove your innocence.(AV: COMPLETE NONSENSE!!!! You are innocent until proven guilty.)
An armed individual is a citizen. An idividual disarmed by his govt is a subject.
Really! So if you're caught with an unlicensed (illegal) handgun
in your glove-compartment, or concealed on your person, does that mean that the policeman considers you to be innocent, but he's going to arrest you anyway.
Doesn't make much sense to me, as an officer of the law, I think that he's already proved you guilty, and your only recourse is to prove mitigating circumstances to the court.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#22 Sep 29, 2010
reza june wrote:
<quoted text>
Really! So if you're caught with an unlicensed (illegal) handgun
in your glove-compartment, or concealed on your person, does that mean that the policeman considers you to be innocent, but he's going to arrest you anyway.
Doesn't make much sense to me, as an officer of the law, I think that he's already proved you guilty, and your only recourse is to prove mitigating circumstances to the court.
I do not need a license to carry a handgun openly. It is my right and allowed by law in my state. I have a permit to carry concealed if I choose to carry that way (whether on my person or in my glove compartment). A police officers job is not to prove guilt. That is the job of the prosecuting attorney. The cop's job is to gather evidence and make arrests based on the evidence he finds. Guilt must be proven in a court of law. Arresting me for merely exercising a right will put a tidy sum of $$$ in my pocket when I sue the cop and the city for false arrest.

Do us all a favor and quit trying to tell us how things are outside of your little island, because you are clueless.

“Pardon my nosiness ”

Since: May 07

London, England

#23 Sep 29, 2010
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
I do not need a license to carry a handgun openly. It is my right and allowed by law in my state. I have a permit to carry concealed if I choose to carry that way (whether on my person or in my glove compartment). A police officers job is not to prove guilt. That is the job of the prosecuting attorney. The cop's job is to gather evidence and make arrests based on the evidence he finds. Guilt must be proven in a court of law. Arresting me for merely exercising a right will put a tidy sum of $$$ in my pocket when I sue the cop and the city for false arrest.
Do us all a favor and quit trying to tell us how things are outside of your little island, because you are clueless.
I didn't realize that this Topix thread was only for those that live in the US.
If I'm not mistaken it was 'you' who first questioned me on how things are in my little island of sanity from your gun totting 'little' state of Virginia.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#24 Sep 29, 2010
reza june wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't realize that this Topix thread was only for those that live in the US.
If I'm not mistaken it was 'you' who first questioned me on how things are in my little island of sanity from your gun totting 'little' state of Virginia.
You were the one who asked what would happen if I was to be pulled over by a cop. Silly me for assuming you meant where I am currently located. And FYI, my permit is good in about 28 states...not just Virginia.
Tyler S

Woodbridge, VA

#25 Oct 4, 2010
Per the constitution, you can not ban handguns.
Christie

Midlothian, VA

#26 Nov 7, 2010
I support my God given right to protect my family.
MrBlond

Midlothian, VA

#27 Dec 27, 2010
reza june wrote:
A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting, than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.
A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting, a criminal assault or homicide, or an attempted or completed suicide than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.
(Journal of Trauma, 1998)
Oh my. Another dunce quoting this lie. And this time, it's from a Brit. Say hi to the queen for me.

To suggest that science has proven that defending oneself or one's family with a gun is dangerous, gun prohibitionists repeat Dr. Kellermann's long-discredited claim: "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder." This fallacy, fabricated using tax dollars, is one of the most misused slogans of the anti-self-defense lobby.

The honest measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved, and the property protected not Kellermann's burglar or rapist body count. Only 0.1%(1 in a thousand) of the defensive uses of guns results in the death of the predator. Any study, such as Kellermann' "43 times" fallacy, that only counts bodies will expectedly underestimate the benefits of gun dramatically. Think for a minute. Would anyone suggest that the only measure of the benefit of law enforcement is the number of people killed by police? Of course not. The honest measure of the benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved by deaths and injuries averted, and the property protected. 65 lives protected by guns for every life lost to a gun.

Kellermann recently downgraded his estimate to "2.7 times," but he persisted in discredited ethodology. He used a method that cannot distinguish between "cause" and "effect." His method would be like finding more diet drinks in the refrigerators of fat people and then concluding that diet drinks "cause" obesity.

Also, he studied groups with high rates of violent criminality, alcoholism, drug addiction, abject poverty, and domestic abuse. From such a poor and violent study group he attempted to generalize his findings to normal homes. Interestingly, when Dr. Kellermann was interviewed he stated that, if his wife were attacked, he would want her to have a gun for protection. Apparently, Dr. Kellermann doesn't even believe his own studies. Like so many of the anti-self defense loonies, he is a hypocrite.

Dr. Kellermann's dubious conclusions provide anti-gunners propaganda they use to try to frighten Americans into voluntarily disposing of their guns; in essence, to do to themselves what the anti-gunners have been unable to do to them by legislative, regulatory, or judicial means.

Kellermann admits to the political goal of his work, saying "People should be strongly discouraged from keeping guns in their homes." Anti-gun groups have seized upon his most recent attempt in this regard, a "study" from which the bogus "22 times more likely" risk-benefit ratio is derived. The study suffers numerous flaws common to previous Kellermann efforts, including the fact that it is a very small-scale survey of sample jurisdictions that are not representative of the country or even of one another.

Most significant, though, Kellermann severely understates defensive uses of guns, by counting only those in which criminals are killed or injured. Since only a small very percentage of defensive gun usage involves the death of the criminal, any study, such as this, that counts criminal deaths as the only measure of the protective benefits of guns will expectedly underestimate the benefits of firearms by a factor of 500 to 1,000.
MrBlond

Midlothian, VA

#28 Dec 27, 2010
Kellermann's "22 times more likely" study suffers yet another flaw: only 14.2% of criminal gun-related homicides and assaults he surveyed involved guns kept in the homes where the crimes occurred.

In his own words, Dr. Kellerman admits that he didn't even bother to find out who brought the guns to the party.

"Few of the police reports we reviewed documented whether the weapon used in the homicide was kept in the home or brought to the scene. This was true whether the victim was shot, stabbed, or beaten to death. In most cases, the officers who completed the initial offense report were more concerned with documenting the circumstance of the homicide and the individuals involved than the origin of the weapon"

Since the study only involved 400 households, you would have thought that "Doctor" Kellerman would have at least determined if the gun was the property of the homeowner or not. Unless that determination would interfere with his agenda.
MrBlond

Sarasota, FL

#29 Jan 3, 2011
I'm shocked that nobody from the anti-self defense forces has stepped forward with a retort of "oh yeah, well you are a gun toting redneck" yet.

Since: Apr 10

Midlothian, VA

#30 Jan 28, 2011
reza june wrote:
<quoted text>
This maybe true, but I've never heard of innocent bystanders being killed by bladed weapons or metal pipes.
Professional criminals over here do not carry firearms since everybody knows that if caught, even for a first offense, it's an automatic five year incarceration.
We do not have your mentality over here that the perpetrators of every crime that is considered violent, whether it be a drunken brawl, a gang fight, robbery, or even domestic violence must be shot dead, this is why we have courts of Law.
What world do you hide in? I'm glad you forgot to mention the IRA blowing people up and shooting tons of innocent bystanders with so called illegal AK47's over the last decade? moron.
Jay McLeod

Midlothian, VA

#31 Jan 28, 2011
Right to bear arms, and protect yourself and family. Anyone with common sense knows criminals will always have firearms.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Midlothian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
To Save Medicaid and Our Children's Future, Thi... 56 min just me 2
Sonic 14 hr Old friend 1
threesome Tue Laura 1
effects of prolonged psychological harassment (Jan '11) May 29 RMB 29
Get Out of Iraq, et al May 29 Angry Citizen 1
Meeting new People for sex May 28 RVA123123 2
Review: The Boneyard Butcher And Seafood Shops Inc May 26 Happy customer 2

Related Topics

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]