How do you feel about guns?

[TW Scott]

"Yes, which is why over 1.5 million crimes are prevented each year thanks to guns when only 600,000 or so crimes are commited with a gun. Guns benefit us more each year than they do criminals. ”

Retreating to slogans when your argument runs short does not equal dealing with reality.

It's an interesting point, I'm sure, but your statistical contrast has nothing to do with reality.

Unless, of course, you really do expect me to sit up all night watching my car, clutching my gun, knowing that the bad guys are out there somewhere, and if I don't make sure they don't get me, it's the same as shooting myself.

Actually it is a fact, a gun is 150% more likely to prevent a crime than be used in one. This is not even taking iinto account the times a criminal may have not even considered the crime becuase they were sure there was a gun.

What is amazing is that you would ignore a statistic and claim it is unrealistic becuase it goes against your argument. We Second Amendment supporters do not argue that certain countries without guns have lower murder rates per capita. We just correctly point out that their rates claimb faster than the good ole USA's, now that they banned firearms.

Finally, a gun does not deter all crime all the the time. No one claims it does. Just like a wheel locks don't do much good against embezzlers and padlocks do nothing against commited arsonists, a gun is for use in protecting your life. It's a last line of defense. The item you might turn to when all the chips are down and you're in a corner. If you don't choose to use one, that is fine, but please at least educate yourself to the true statistics and in the use of one. Even if you never carry one, you might find yourself using one.

 

[James R]

You might find yourself using one accidentally, thus joining the thousands of Americans who shoot themselves every year. Or your kids might.

 

[Bells]

I have to amend this. That is punishing people becuase they are not rich. Now if your kid takes your gun to school and some one is injured theri should be an investigation to see if you took all reasobale precautions. if you have then you are not to blame and not responsible. Your kid gets nailed as an adult though.

Interesting thought when one also takes this statement by you into account:

We need to become a nation of empowerment and actual responsibility, not restriction and 'It-ain't-my-fault-I-was-<fill in the balnk>'

It's interesting that if the gun owner has placed a lock on a cupboard door and his/her child has managed to get the keys to said lock or broken it and taken the gun to school or used it on another, that that lock somehow absolves the parent of all responsibility. The fact that had the gun not been in the house in the first place, the child would not have had access to it at all, seems to completely escape you.

The point is this, if you own a gun, you need to know where that gun is at all times. If you cannot do so, then you need to ensure that no one else can access that gun. Merely saying the parent is no longer responsible because it was locked up and the child will be tried as an adult is not enough. As a gun owner, you need to take the precautions to ensure the public's safety against your weapon. Not the other way around.

As for stolen weapons, do we make the owner of a car responsible for any crimes commited with his stolen car? No. Adding that restriction to guns is a propoistion with no legs to stand on.

I disagree. For gun owners, the onus should be placed more squarely on them to ensure that the public are safe from their weapons.

I might agree with this, but more along the lines of you shouldn't use a gun if drunk. If your drunk you can sit in your car and not break any laws if you are not the operator. If you do not draw your weapon drunk then there is nothing to bitch about.

A drunk man sitting in his car is no where near the same as a drunk man walking down the street carrying a loaded gun. Had the drunk man sitting in the car been driving it at the same time, then a comparison could be drawn.

 

[Tiassa]

(Chortle!)

What is amazing is that you would ignore a statistic and claim it is unrealistic becuase it goes against your argument.

Context, Mr. Scott. That's the problem. The point Neildo raised is certainly valid, but in another context. It just wasn't much of a response to the reality of the situation put before him.

We Second Amendment supporters do not argue that certain countries without guns have lower murder rates per capita. We just correctly point out that their rates claimb faster than the good ole USA's, now that they banned firearms.

I remember once that the infamous David Duke made the point about a correlation between skin color and crime; East St. Louis was his choice statistic, and the number was truly shocking. But to accept Duke's argument would presume that skin color was all there was to it. Nothing about education, nothing about economics. We could easily infer from Duke's argument that white people, subject to similar conditions as poor minorities, would not behave in the same manner as the minorities. Yet such a thesis is generally insupportable.

To accept the NRA and gun advocacy line about crime rates would be to concede that the only factor affecting a crime rate anywhere is the number of guns in the general population. And such a concession would be downright irresponsible for those who seek to understand and reduce the crime rate in any given society. Well, those who don't find small things justification for shooting someone to death.

But let's look at a few of your points. Perhaps that might clear things up:

FIrst of all Carjacking is stealing and since you mentioned you daughters safety I included the possibility.

And I reiterate: If I meant carjacked, I would have said it.

That you don't seem to acknowledge the difference between forms of theft is one of those things that worries me about gun owners and advocates. As is often said, guns don't kill people, people kill people. Well, perhaps the thought of an armed populace would not be so worrisome if that populace didn't express itself so simplistically.

Now the truth of the matter is carrying a concealed weapon does not make you more prone to shooting, it makes you more prone to being careful.

This is ... well, ridiculous. I mean, you're kidding, right? That's a good one, Mr. Scott. Thank you for proving that gun advocates have senses of humor.

This is where that wonderful invention called the brain comes in. Obviously under most circumstances you do not need to shoot someone through a door, or blow a 13 year old away. Having a weapon doesn't mean you use it, it means you have the option of using it.

Well, thing is that while you or I might agree about what "most circumstances" do not call for, there are "responsible gun owners" who think differently. Furthermore, that "wonderful invention" called a "brain" is exactly what I ask for: if gun owners and advocates did not represent themselves in such a creepy manner, they would not seem so damnably creepy and paranoid.

For instance:

Like I said your choice, but I would still be watching. Besides I am sure if you think for 2 tenths of a second you can figure out a safe way of keeping a gun. Lock box, gun safes, and the such. Of course you don't have to, which is the point. But if a mother in my neck of the woods had been carjacked twice and was not considering protecting herself, then in my opinion she is no mother. She's just a woman with a child.

This is one of those bits where I think evidence of your brain is lacking. Unless I choose to escalate my temperment regarding what circumstances require a gun, a lock box or gun safe really makes no real difference. I've my knife in the one place I know my daughter can't get to it; the nature of my apartment is such that the knife will serve no real use unless the bad guys take their sweet time coming in. Same problem, theoretically, with a gun. In the end, if I become as frightened as gun advocates would have me be, the better thing to do would be moving elsewhere. If I'm going to move, it would be better to do so because I don't like the crime rate than to make it more reasonable to keep a gun in my home.

But really, Mr. Scott--

But if a mother in my neck of the woods had been carjacked twice and was not considering protecting herself, then in my opinion she is no mother. She's just a woman with a child.​

--such moral assignations should be enough to demonstrate why some find gun advocates downright creepy and paranoid. There are other ways to protect oneself than getting a gun. And getting a gun, as you recall, is central to your argument of "protecting" oneself vis a vis parental fitness.

Now, the above should not be taken that i think parents absolutely must have guns. Considering eearlier statements of yours I am surprised they let you drive somedays. (Not that most people are any better). But a parent should at least educate themselves and their children on all forms of protection, even ones they'll never willingly use. It only makes sense.

To the other, I think that's one of the paranoid motivations of the gun advocates: most fear that if they were required to demonstrate some sort of intelligence standard, they'd fail. Yet they let me drive because the law says they must. Educating children on protection is one thing, but so is educating children on value assignations. After all, there is the infamous case out of Oregon City, one that was not prosecuted, when the couple left their five year-old in charge of the three year-old. When the younger defied the elder, the boy got his daddy's loaded rifle from under the bed and shot her. Much like the guy who shot through his door to stop someone from asking him directions, and the guy who shot the hungry child, the father thought of himself as a "responsible gun owner". It's things like this that compel me to ask what such phrases as "responsible gun owners" mean. And the response seems to be that any official standard of responsibility is unacceptable as an infringement of rights.

Well, I don't know how old she is, but education is the best prevention. Second best, have the gun, but no ammo.

Guns are not for bravado. Neither are knives. I appreciate an old Nepalese standard that if the combat knife is drawn and not used, the soldier would gash his own hand that the blade might taste blood. Not that I abide by it, but neither do I carry my weapon anymore. Traditional and mystical standards aside, no: guns are not for bravado. I presume that any gun pointed at me will be used. Really, I would not encourage people to start flashing unloaded guns: given the diverse interpretations of what constitutes threat and assault, it just doesn't seem like a smart idea. You know, a smart idea? As in, an idea that uses that wonderful invention called a brain?

The one under the second amendment you know A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Yes a well regulated militia is mentioned, but it is the people who are told their right shall not be infringed. Which means any blanket gun control law should be. unconstitutional. Any limitation on that is an infringement, otherwise you open a new can of worms that your property may be searched and Seized for no reason and with no paperwork. for example

So ... a public standard for what constitutes a "responsible gun owner" would be an infringement? I'll chuckle over that one tonight, and pick up whatever remains when I've more time to devote to reiterations. LIke the bit about claymores. You seem to have missed the point with your response.

And, you know, the more you swing-and-miss after relatively simple ideas, the more you paint yourself as failing to use that wonderful invention of yours.

And if broadly consistent poor self-representation by gun advocates is not something to worry about--to put it bluntly as such: if a bunch of indiscriminate people with guns is not a public concern--that doesn't mean I will sleep any better or worse because of it.

Life is. When the rhetoric deserves greater trust, the people spouting it will receive greater trust. In the meantime, my world is no safer for the fact of anyone in my locale who owns a gun.

 

[TW Scott]

It's interesting that if the gun owner has placed a lock on a cupboard door and his/her child has managed to get the keys to said lock or broken it and taken the gun to school or used it on another, that that lock somehow absolves the parent of all responsibility. The fact that had the gun not been in the house in the first place, the child would not have had access to it at all, seems to completely escape you.

The fact that the child obviously broke a law to get the gun in the first place escapes you. If they are willing to take it from your gun safe then they are willing to buy one off a crackhead, or out of the back of a truck or break into a gunshop. The moment they broke the law I am absolved and that is the way it should be.

The point is this, if you own a gun, you need to know where that gun is at all times. If you cannot do so, then you need to ensure that no one else can access that gun. Merely saying the parent is no longer responsible because it was locked up and the child will be tried as an adult is not enough. As a gun owner, you need to take the precautions to ensure the public's safety against your weapon. Not the other way around.

A gun safe is responable assurance that nobody who is not supposed to have the gun doesn't get it. I can't be held responsible if my reasonable means were circumvented by crime or violence. If I gave the gun to the child you would have a point.

I disagree. For gun owners, the onus should be placed more squarely on them to ensure that the public are safe from their weapons.

You can disagree all you want, you're still wrong.

A drunk man sitting in his car is no where near the same as a drunk man walking down the street carrying a loaded gun. Had the drunk man sitting in the car been driving it at the same time, then a comparison could be drawn.

Actually, I picked the correct paralell, wheter you have the brains to see it or not. If a drunk man never pulls his gun it never comes in to play. Same as if he sits in the passenger seat of his car. He is not operating the device it poses no threat. Or are you one of those people who believe a gun somehow controls a person.

 

[TW Scott]

“What is amazing is that you would ignore a statistic and claim it is unrealistic becuase it goes against your argument. ”

Context, Mr. Scott. That's the problem. The point Neildo raised is certainly valid, but in another context. It just wasn't much of a response to the reality of the situation put before him.

The point is that it is still valid and constitutes an argument not a slogan as you mistakenly implied.

“ We Second Amendment supporters do not argue that certain countries without guns have lower murder rates per capita. We just correctly point out that their rates climb faster than the good ole USA's, now that they banned firearms. ”

I remember once that the infamous David Duke made the point about a correlation between skin color and crime; East St. Louis was his choice statistic, and the number was truly shocking. But to accept Duke's argument would presume that skin color was all there was to it. Nothing about education, nothing about economics. We could easily infer from Duke's argument that white people, subject to similar conditions as poor minorities, would not behave in the same manner as the minorities. Yet such a thesis is generally insupportable.

To accept the NRA and gun advocacy line about crime rates would be to concede that the only factor affecting a crime rate anywhere is the number of guns in the general population. And such a concession would be downright irresponsible for those who seek to understand and reduce the crime rate in any given society. Well, those who don't find small things justification for shooting someone to death.

But let's look at a few of your points. Perhaps that might clear things up:

So the fact that these are countries that, before their gun ban, had much lower crime rates and groath that was roughly equal to the US, means nothing to you. The fact that they banned guns during an economic upswing and still their crime rate skyrocketed immediately, is just ignored. Interesting

That you don't seem to acknowledge the difference between forms of theft is one of those things that worries me about gun owners and advocates. As is often said, guns don't kill people, people kill people. Well, perhaps the thought of an armed populace would not be so worrisome if that populace didn't express itself so simplistically.

There is differences in theft. There is non violent theft and violent theft. By all means if it is nonviolent don't worry about taking the guy down. Just report it to the police. However the people who would use violence to steal will invariably start doing more. Having a gun can stop a mugging form becoming a murder or rape. Not that every mugging goes that way.

“ Now the truth of the matter is carrying a concealed weapon does not make you more prone to shooting, it makes you more prone to being careful. ”

This is ... well, ridiculous. I mean, you're kidding, right? That's a good one, Mr. Scott. Thank you for proving that gun advocates have senses of humor.

Why is it ridiculous? Do you see CCW permit holder blazing away at the drop of a pin? Have you seen one shoot an annoying clerk in the check out line? From the way you speak you seem to expect us running around with M-60's blasting everything that moves.

“ This is where that wonderful invention called the brain comes in. Obviously under most circumstances you do not need to shoot someone through a door, or blow a 13 year old away. Having a weapon doesn't mean you use it, it means you have the option of using it. ”

Well, thing is that while you or I might agree about what "most circumstances" do not call for, there are "responsible gun owners" who think differently. Furthermore, that "wonderful invention" called a "brain" is exactly what I ask for: if gun owners and advocates did not represent themselves in such a creepy manner, they would not seem so damnably creepy and paranoid.

Perhaps it is just your particular distaste for the suybject matter. Persoanlyy I find people who sell condos to be damnably creepy, but most people find them charming and ingenous.

“ Like I said your choice, but I would still be watching. Besides I am sure if you think for 2 tenths of a second you can figure out a safe way of keeping a gun. Lock box, gun safes, and the such. Of course you don't have to, which is the point. But if a mother in my neck of the woods had been carjacked twice and was not considering protecting herself, then in my opinion she is no mother. She's just a woman with a child. ”

This is one of those bits where I think evidence of your brain is lacking. Unless I choose to escalate my temperment regarding what circumstances require a gun, a lock box or gun safe really makes no real difference. I've my knife in the one place I know my daughter can't get to it; the nature of my apartment is such that the knife will serve no real use unless the bad guys take their sweet time coming in. Same problem, theoretically, with a gun. In the end, if I become as frightened as gun advocates would have me be, the better thing to do would be moving elsewhere. If I'm going to move, it would be better to do so because I don't like the crime rate than to make it more reasonable to keep a gun in my home.

I'm not saying be afraid, i didnt even say get a gun. I said consider one, hell train for it a bit. By a taser, keep a monkey wrench in the car. Something. This is so you don't have to be afraid. You can be confident that you have it handled. BTW in my neck of the woods during several months losing your car to a car jacker can mean a case of hypothermia.

You can work all the hypotherticals you want, my point was unless you considered (meaning thought out) protection you're not a mother. Since you have, albeit not well, you are exempt from that statement.

But really, Mr. Scott--

But if a mother in my neck of the woods had been carjacked twice and was not considering protecting herself, then in my opinion she is no mother. She's just a woman with a child.

--such moral assignations should be enough to demonstrate why some find gun advocates downright creepy and paranoid. There are other ways to protect oneself than getting a gun. And getting a gun, as you recall, is central to your argument of "protecting" oneself vis a vis parental fitness.

Did I say get a gun or you are not a mother? no. You're taking that way, becuase obviously you want to. I said consider protection. Hell get a sock full of some nuts and bolts if you want. The fact that you considered any type of protect firmly asserts that you are indeed a mother, even if you did not carry through.



I will not argue the rest as it is clear you use the same propaganda and rhetoric over and over despite it being disputed. Just make up any BS you want. After all that is what you've been doing with most of my arguments.

 

[Neildo]

Get off your moral bandwagon - Tiassa

That's very amusing coming from a liberal. No moral bandwagon here (independent). I'll gladly toss aside morals and stick with the law, being allowed to own a gun to protect myself and those around me.

Thank you.

- N

 

[spuriousmonkey]

what about refuting his arguments? Merely repeating that you need your gun for protection merely shows how right Tiassa is.

 

[Neildo]

what about refuting his arguments? Merely repeating that you need your gun for protection merely shows how right Tiassa is.

Considering I've been in quite a few incidents where I HAVE needed a gun for protection merely shows how right I am.



- N

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Considering I've been in quite a few incidents where I HAVE needed a gun for protection merely shows how right I am.



- N

Are you a criminal?

 

[Neildo]

Considering I've been in quite a few incidents where I HAVE needed a gun for protection merely shows how right I am. - me

Are you a criminal? - spurious

You seem to want to protect criminals with your liberal viewpoints always placing the blame on law-abiding citizens instead. Does that mean you're a criminal?

What a stupid question.

It just goes to show how little you've been reading this thread. No wonder you're all just repeating yourselves having this going on for 35 pages. You guys ask nothing but stupid questions and come up with whacky hypothetical scenarios whereas everyone else is dealing with reality.

- N

 

[spuriousmonkey]

I've never needed a gun in my entire life. Hence the question remains valid. Are you are criminal since you needed your gun several times?

 

[Neildo]

I've never needed a gun in my entire life. Hence the question remains valid. Are you are criminal since you needed your gun several times? Are you are criminal since you needed your gun several times?

Uh, if I was a criminal, I wouldn't be advocating gun rights because I could just pick one up off the street. Wanting the people who I would be vicitimizing to have guns would be pretty stupid on my part.

As I said, a dumb question and also shows how you haven't even bothered to read this thread as you'd know I wasn't one considering most of my friends are LEOs and other tidbits mentioned.

It's good that you haven't needed a gun all your life, even with you supposedly having been in the military, but I'm not you nor are the hundreds of thousands of people that prevent over 2 million crimes and assaults each year thanks to warding them off with a firearm. Count yourself lucky that you aren't one of the 10 million+ people that are victim to crimes each year in our country alone.

- N

 

[spuriousmonkey]

I had a browning 9mm in the army. I had in my hands only during my training. Never saw it again after that. That's because I didn't need one. I was a medic.

Since you can't do anything but mount a personal attack I will consider that you lost this discussion and gun control should be increased in the US. Like in any other civilized country.

 

[Tiassa]

What you said

The point is that it is still valid and constitutes an argument not a slogan as you mistakenly implied.

It's merely a slogan if deployed as a distraction from the point. Like I said:"The point Neildo raised is certainly valid, but in another context. It just wasn't much of a response to the reality of the situation put before him."

The fact that they banned guns during an economic upswing and still their crime rate skyrocketed immediately, is just ignored. Interesting

It's not ignored. It's just that among the diverse voices lumped together as "liberals" or according to a mythological depiction of "gun control advocates", there is a fair-sized body of people who don't pretend a single statistical corellation tells the whole of any human story. And they, routinely, are ignored inasmuch as the only attention given their perspective is to call it what it isn't: Gasp! They want a broader perspective: they must be out to steal your rights!

Why is it ridiculous? Do you see CCW permit holder blazing away at the drop of a pin? Have you seen one shoot an annoying clerk in the check out line? From the way you speak you seem to expect us running around with M-60's blasting everything that moves.

It's all in the presentation. Why would gun advocates misrepresent themselves? Is it some calculated effort to get others to respond so you can cry foul? Maybe you're just not thinking the issues through?

At the level we communicate, your words are your actions, and all we have to go on. If, in the living experience, however, that creepy sense of paranoia is reflected in people's actual actions--the neighbors are throwing a party, quick, get the gun!--what, really, are other people supposed to think? There seems a demonstrative similarity between the talk and behavior.

You can work all the hypotherticals you want, my point was unless you considered (meaning thought out) protection you're not a mother. Since you have, albeit not well, you are exempt from that statement ....

.... Did I say get a gun or you are not a mother? no. You're taking that way, becuase obviously you want to. I said consider protection. Hell get a sock full of some nuts and bolts if you want. The fact that you considered any type of protect firmly asserts that you are indeed a moth, even if you did not carry through.

What you said, specifically, was:

How the car is stolen is the difference. Was the car simply gone when you came out from the grocery store? Was it lifted from your garage? Or were you carjacked? In the later case you have already survived russian roulette twice as has your daughter. Gambling with your life is fine, and I suppose if you believe you own your daughter, then gambling with hers is okay as well. Of course if I was DSS I'd be watching you and waiting for you do something else incredibly stupid with your child.​

 

[Neildo]

Since you can't do anything but mount a personal attack I will consider that you lost this discussion and gun control should be increased in the US. Like in any other civilized country.

What personal attack? You asked if I was a criminal because of my stance on guns and that's a pretty stupid question for the reasons I gave. Why would a criminal want guns to be in the hands of the people they assault and steal from?

I'm not the one trying to defend criminals, your liberal-self is always wanting to protect them and make law-abiding citizens out to be the bad guys telling us to run from criminals rather than standing our ground, wanting to press worse charges on us than the criminal, wanting to rehabilitate criminals and give them less prison time which allows them to get out early and commit more crimes. Did you know that the majority of violent crimes are caused by the same few people? Most people in prison have been in there multiple times which wouldn't be a problem if liberals would just leave them there rather than wanting to always release them. You guys are the ones to blame for our high crime rates keeping the criminals on the streets. Liberals are the ones who disarmed citizens in those major cities leaving the guns to the crooks. Liberals tend to be the mayors in those big cities. We have only them to blame.

As for increasing gun control like other "civilized countries", not many have strict requirements as you think. And you can't get any more strict than a complete and total gun ban that the U.S. has in the cities where the majority of crimes happen. Our gun laws are perfectly fine considering we don't have much crime elsewhere in this country other than those crime-infested cities which DO have gun bans. Note: Gun BANS, not gun control, as you can't even own one period. Amusing how all the crime and gun related deaths happen in the cities where guns aren't even allowed.

Please explain that one to me on how your so-called "gun control" would fix that when your gun control would be less severe than our complete and total gun bans. C'mon, you're supposedly the smart one here. You can't get any more severe than a total ban. Tell me how you'd clean up Washington D.C., Chicago, New York City, New Jersey, and other hellholes where the majority of our violent crimes in this country are commited where guns aren't allowed yet all the criminals have em and commit their crimes with them. The only thing those bans did was keep the guns out of the hands of citizens who are victim to those crimes. Laws do nothing to stop criminals.

In my next post, I'm going to make a list of the most violent cities in the U.S. and show you who was in control for the past 50 years. In most of those cities, there is either a complete gun ban, very strict gun control laws, or are in the process of trying to ban them.

- N

 

[Neildo]

Okay, I'm running out of big cities to think of. Someone gimme a few more that have high crime rates so I can get the stats.

- N

Mayors of Washington D.C.:

Walter Washington 1975 1979 Democrat
Marion S. Barry 1979 1991 Democrat
Sharon Pratt Kelly * 1991 1995 Democrat
Marion S. Barry 1995 1999 Democrat
Anthony A. Williams 1999 present Democrat


Mayors of Chicago, IL:

Richard Joseph Daley 1955-1976 - Democrat
Michael Anthony Bilandic 1976-1979 - Democrat
Jane Margaret Byrne 1979-1983 - Democrat
Harold Washington 1983-1987 - Democrat
David Duvall Orr 1987-1987 - Democrat
Eugene Sawyer 1987-1989 - Democrat
Richard Michael Daley 1989-present - Democrat

Mayors of New York City, NY:

William O'Dwyer (Ω) 1946 - 1950 Democratic
Vincent R. Impellitteri (≈) 1950 - 1953 Democratic
Robert F. Wagner Jr. 1954 - 1965 Democratic
John V. Lindsay 1966 - 1973 Republican/Liberal
Abraham D. Beame 1974 - 1977 Democratic
Edward I. Koch 1978 - 1989 Democratic
David N. Dinkins 1990 - 1993 Democratic
Rudolph W. Giuliani 1994 - 2001 Republican (HE ACTUALLY CLEANED UP THE CITY WHILE IN OFFICE)
Michael R. Bloomberg 2002-present Republican

Mayors of Detroit, MI:

# 1962-1970 Jerome Cavanagh - Democrat
# 1970-1974 Roman Gribbs - Democrat
# 1974-1994 Coleman Young - Democrat
# 1994-2002 Dennis Archer - Democrat
# 2002-present Kwame Kilpatrick - Democrat

Mayors of Atlanta, GA:

Ivan Allen, Jr. 1962 - 1970 Democrat
Sam Massell 1970 - 1974 Democrat
Maynard Jackson 1974 - 1982 Democrat
Andrew Young 1982 - 1990 Democrat
Maynard Jackson 1990 - 1994 Democrat
Bill Campbell 1994 - 2002 Democrat
Shirley Franklin 2002 - Present Democrat

Mayors of Los Angeles, CA:

46 Fletcher Bowron 1938–1953 Democratic
47 C. Norris Poulson 1953–1961 Republican
48 Samuel W. Yorty 1961–1973 Democratic+
49 Thomas Bradley 1973–1993 Democratic
50 Richard J. Riordan 1993–2001 Republican
51 James K. Hahn 2001– 2005 Democratic
52 Antonio Villaraigosa July 1, 2005–present Democratic

Mayors of Oakland, CA:

43 May 1, 1966 John H. Reading - Republican
44 July 1, 1977 Lionel J. Wilson - Democrat
45 January 7, 1991 Elihu M. Harris - Democrat
46 January 4, 1999 Jerry Brown - Democrat
47 January 8, 2007 Ronald V. Dellums - Democrat

Mayors of San Francisco, CA:

John F. Shelley 1964-68 - Democrat
Joseph Alioto 1968-76 - Democrat
George Moscone 1976-78 - Democrat
Dianne Feinstein 1978-88 - Democrat
Art Agnos 1988-92 - ???
Frank Jordan 1992-96 - Independent
Willie Brown 1996-2004 - Democrat
Gavin Newsom 2004-present - Democrat

Mayors of New Orleans, LA:

55th 1961-1970 Victor H. Schiro - Democrat
56th 1970-1978 Moon Landrieu - Democrat
57th 1978-1986 Ernest Nathan Morial - Democrat
58th 1986-1994 Sidney Barthelemy - Republican
59th 1994-2002 Marc Morial - Democrat
60th 2002- C. Ray Nagin - Democrat

Mayors of Newark, NJ:

# 1962–1970: Hugh Joseph Addonizio - Democrat
# 1970–1986: Kenneth A. Gibson - Democrat
# 1986–2006: Sharpe James - Democrat
# 2006–present: Cory Booker - Democrat


Mayors of St. Louis, MO:

Joseph Darst 1949 1953 Democrat
Raymond Tucker 1953 1965 Democrat
Alfonso Cervantes 1965 1973 Democrat
John Poelker 1973 1977 Democrat
James Conway 1977 1981 Democrat
Vincent C. Schoemehl 1981 1993 Democrat
Freeman Bosley, Jr. 1993 1997 Democrat
Clarence Harmon 1997 2001 Democrat
Francis G. Slay 2001 -- Democrat

Mayors of Cincinnnati, OH:

1984-1991 Charles J. Luken Democratic
1991 David S. Mann (2nd) Democratic
1991-1993 Dwight Tillery Democratic
1993-1999 Roxanne Qualls Democratic
1999-2005 Charles J. Luken (2nd) Democratic
2006- Mark Mallory Democratic

Mayors of Cleveland, OH:

Ralph S. Locher 1962-1967 Democrat
Carl B. Stokes 1968-1971 Democrat
Ralph J. Perk 1972-1977 Republican
Dennis J. Kucinich 1978-1979 Democrat
George V. Voinovich 1980-1989 Republican
Michael R. White 1990-2001 Democrat

Mayors of Kansas City, MO:

# Ilus W. Davis 1963-1971 - Democrat
# Charles B. Wheeler, Jr. 1971-1979 - Democrat
# Richard L. Berkley 1979-1991 - Republican
# Emanuel Cleaver 1991-1999 - Democrat
# Kay Barnes 1999- - Democrat

Mayors of Philadelphia, PA:

Joseph S. Clark Jr. 1952 - 1956 Democratic
Richardson Dilworth 1956 - 1962 Democratic
James Hugh Joseph Tate 1962 - 1972 Democratic
Frank L. Rizzo 1972 - 1980 Democratic
William J. Green III 1980 - 1984 Democratic
W. Wilson Goode 1984 - 1992 Democratic
Edward G. Rendell 1992 - 2000 Democratic
John F. Street 2000 - present Democratic

Mayors of Baltimore, MD:

Theodore R. McKeldin 1963 1967 Republican
Thomas L. J. D'Alesandro III 1967 1971 Democrat
William Donald Schaefer 1971 1987 Democrat
Clarence H. Burns 1987 1987 Democrat
Kurt L. Schmoke 1987 1999 Democrat
Martin J. O'Malley 1999 – Democrat

Mayors of Memphis, TN: (NOT LISTED IN WIKIPEDIA, WENT TO http://www.worldstatesmen.org)

1960 - 1963 Henry Loeb (1st time)
1963 Claude Armour
1963 - 1967 William B. Ingram
1968 - 1971 Henry Loeb (2nd time)
1972 - 1982 Wyeth Chandler
1982 J.O. Patterson, Jr. Dem
1982 Wallace Madewell
1982 - 1991 Richard "Dick" C. Hackett Dem
1992 - Willie W. Herenton (b. 1940) Dem

Mayors of Miami, FL: (NOT LISTED IN WIKIPEDIA, WENT TO http://www.worldstatesmen.org)

2 Sep 1967 - 25 Nov 1970 Stephen P. Clark (1st time) (b. 1923 - d. 1996)
25 Nov 1970 - 11 Apr 1973 David T. Kennedy (1st time)
19 Apr 1973 - Aug 1973 Maurice A. Ferré (1st time) (b. 1935) Dem
Aug 1973 - Nov 1973 David T. Kennedy (2nd time)
8 Nov 1973 - 13 Nov 1985 Maurice A. Ferré (2nd time) (s.a.) Dem
13 Nov 1985 - 9 Nov 1993 Xavier L. Suarez (1st time) (b. 1949) Dem
9 Nov 1993 - 4 Jun 1996 Stephen P. Clark (2nd time) (s.a.)
4 Jun 1996 - 23 Jul 1996 Wilred Gort (acting)
23 Jul 1996 - 13 Nov 1997 Joseph "Joe" Carollo (1st time) (b. 1955) Dem
14 Nov 1997 - 4 Mar 1998 Xavier L. Suarez (2nd time) (s.a.) Dem
12 Mar 1998 - 19 Nov 2001 Joseph "Joe" Carollo (2nd time) (s.a.) Dem
19 Nov 2001 - Manuel "Manny" Diaz (b. 1954) Ind

Mayors of Houston, TX:

1964 - Jan 1974 Louis Welch (b. 1918)
Jan 1974 - 1978 Fred Hofheinz (b. 1938)
1978 - 1982 Jim McConn (b. 1928 - d. 1997)
1982 - 2 Jan 1992 Kathryn Jean Niederhofer (b. 1946) Dem
Whitmire (f)
2 Jan 1992 - 2 Jan 1998 Bob Lanier (b. 1925) Dem
2 Jan 1998 - 2 Jan 2004 Lee P. Brown (b. 1937) Dem
2 Jan 2004 - Bill White (b. 1954) Dem

Mayors of Boston, MA:

John B. Hynes (D) 1950 1960
John F. Collins (D) 1960 1968
Kevin H. White (D) 1968 1984
Raymond L. Flynn (D) 1984 1993
Thomas M. Menino (D) 1993 —

Mayors of Las Vegas, NV:

1959 - 1975 Oran K. Gragson (b. 1911 - d. 2002) Rep
1975 - 1987 William "Bill" H. Briare Dem
1987 - 1991 Ronald "Ron" Lurie
1991 - 1999 Jan Laverty Jones (f) (b. 1949) Dem
1999 - Oscar Goodman (b. 1939) Dem

 

[Bells]

How the car is stolen is the difference. Was the car simply gone when you came out from the grocery store? Was it lifted from your garage? Or were you carjacked? In the later case you have already survived russian roulette twice as has your daughter. Gambling with your life is fine, and I suppose if you believe you own your daughter, then gambling with hers is okay as well. Of course if I was DSS I'd be watching you and waiting for you do something else incredibly stupid with your child.

What kind of idiotic and pathetic statement is that? So because he does not have a gun he is somehow a "bad" parent and should be watched closely by DSS? It's the parents who own the guns who should be more closely watched, especially when one considers how many children are involved in shootings whereby they have taken their parents guns to kill other kids, etc.

He is not gambling with her life by not owning a gun. Instead he is ensuring that it is not in his house for her to possibly gain access to it to injure herself or another. But seeing as you're the kind of person who'd absolve himself of all responsibility if a child of yours gained access to your locked up gun, saying the child broke the law by taking something from his own house that may have belonged to you so therefore you're no longer responsible for his actions, one cannot really be surprised.

The fact that the child obviously broke a law to get the gun in the first place escapes you. If they are willing to take it from your gun safe then they are willing to buy one off a crackhead, or out of the back of a truck or break into a gunshop. The moment they broke the law I am absolved and that is the way it should be.

Are you serious? So if a child for example manages to get into your medicine cabinet and poisons himself from the contents of said cabinet, you'd remove yourself from any responsibility by saying the child broke the law by getting into said cabinet? And you think Tiassa is somehow a bad parent for not wanting to have a gun in his house because he has a child who could get access to it no matter how well it was hidden or locked away? Are you for real? Can you honestly be that selfish? It's people like you who are investigated by DSS because you fail in your duty of care as a parent for not providing a safe environment for your child by having a gun that a child can access, even if that child has to break a safe to get to it. To simply say the child broke the law by getting into your safe or gun cabinet because it was yours and locked up is really moronic. If you have a gun in your house and children as well, you need to make damn sure that they never ever get their little hands on it. Because if they do and you tell the police who then come and knock on your door that it's no longer your responsibility because your child broke the law by gaining access to it, you'll probably find yourself handcuffed and in the back of a police car, and then investigated by the DSS for your failure as a parent. The gun in your house is your responsibility at all times. Even more so if you have a child in the house.

I honestly cannot believe that you deny any responsibility, merely blaming the child, if the child manages to get to your gun. What if the child was a 5 year old and through their curious wanderings and investigations of his own environ, he comes across your gun safe and manages to get it open and then shoots himself or possibly another. You'd blame that 5 year old and deny any responsibility because you view that 5 year old as having broken the law? LOL! And you dare call Tiassa a bad parent for being responsible enough to not want a gun in his house because he wouldn't want one anywhere near his child since he knows what his child is like?

A gun safe is responable assurance that nobody who is not supposed to have the gun doesn't get it. I can't be held responsible if my reasonable means were circumvented by crime or violence. If I gave the gun to the child you would have a point.

How cowardly and irresponsible of you. You want to own a gun but even if your own child manages to get their hands on it, you'd blame everyone else but yourself. Says a lot about the type of person you are.

You can disagree all you want, you're still wrong.

Yes. This coming from the man who'd lay the blame on their own child instead of accepting some blame for having the damn thing in the house for the child to get access to (even if it was locked away as children can and do manage to get past locks on cabinets, etc.. especially the younger ones who are curious and who have through their curiousity gained access to a locked up gun and shot other kids..). Ya.. you're one to say someone else was wrong...

Actually, I picked the correct paralell, wheter you have the brains to see it or not. If a drunk man never pulls his gun it never comes in to play. Same as if he sits in the passenger seat of his car. He is not operating the device it poses no threat. Or are you one of those people who believe a gun somehow controls a person.

Hmmm.. lets see now.. a drunk man with decreased perception of what goes on around him and possibly in a confused state sitting in a stationary car, without the keys in the ignition..and a drunk man with decreased perception of what goes on around him and possibly in a confused state walking down the street with a loaded gun in his pocket. Yes I can see how they'd be the same. Of course the man merely sitting in his car cannot hurt anyone since the car is not moving. But the drunk man walking down the street with a loaded gun is just as bad as if the drunk had started driving his car. His perception and ability to understand his surroundings are impaired and his ability to judge what goes on around him is also impaired, and would therefore not be able to tell whether any situation he might face might or might not require a gun for protection.

If he's a type of person who gets angry and violent when drunk for example (and many are), he would be more likely to draw out his gun and shoot anyone because he no longer had the ability to judge what was going on around him.. he'd be exactly the same as the drunk who drove a car. So for you to say that a drunk sitting in a stationary car is the same as a drunk walking down the street with a loaded gun in his pocket is exactly the same is well.. kind of moronic really.

 

[phlogistician]

Actually it is a fact, a gun is 150% more likely to prevent a crime than be used in one.

I hope that factoid isn't distilled from Klecks dubious statistics. If Klecks assertions are true, there is a lot of unreported crime in the USA, as his gun defense stats are higher than the number of reported crimes. This rather blows the argument that more guns = less crime right out of the water.

Also, reaching for a gun because a stranger looks at you funny isn't a gun defence, it's an act of paranoia, and a false positive in the stats.

 

[Nickelodeon]

Considering I've been in quite a few incidents where I HAVE needed a gun for protection merely shows how right I am.

What kind of incidents?