<p>I am not even sure the wild wild west ever existed except in the tabloids of the times and movies of today?</p>
<p>alh,</p>
<p>Let’s see, a large population of younger single men…mostly teens and early 20s<em>, very few law enforcement officers in relation to population compared to today, very few entertaining diversions, lots of money from exploiting natural resources and related businesses, low educational background of most folks</em>, plenty of alcohol in many such towns, more need to “duel” against perceived insults due to prevailing masculine honor code of the period, entire lines of crime devoted to exploiting the nature/infrastructure of the period…such as stagecoach/train robberies, etc. </p>
<ul>
<li>Part of the age demographic cited by some criminologists as the 12-24 age group most likely to be involved in street crimes, especially violent ones.<br></li>
</ul>
<p>** With the exception of a few who are entrepreneurial and/or have a great sense of adventure, most of the wealthiest and well-educated folks who are secure in the more established and relatively “civilized” East Coast/Midwest tended to stay there. Especially considering the high risks and more arduous lifestyle without as many amenities available in more established East Coast/Midwest Areas. </p>
<p>Re: guns in homes</p>
<p>I dont know if this is widespread in more rural areas where y’all live, but I’ve been told that the reason why people in more spread out areas have guns is because the response time of the police is quite slow. </p>
<p>I live “in the city” so it is easy for the cops to get to my street…probably within a minute or two (heck, I see the police cruising by at least once a day…part of their rounds.). However, folks that I know that live “in the county” (which isnt all THAT rural) say that the response time is closer to 10 minutes. That can be a scary thought if you needed the police at your home pronto. </p>
<p>They have even said that criminals often target their properties because they know the police can’t get there quickly.</p>
<p>And, for those who truly live “out in the sticks,” they may feel like they are each their own volunteer police force for their own land. </p>
<p>So, I can see why those folks do have guns in their homes. </p>
<p>I can see why someone would want to carry a concealed gun. A doctor who performs abortions. A reporter who uncovers the dirty dealings of some scumbags. These people can have legitimate concerns for their safety. One thing that escapes me - why would a regular Joe Schmoe need to openly carry a gun into a Starbucks? I certainly don’t. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s not about the “need”, this is supposed to be a free country where we can do as we please as long as we don’t violate the rights of others. Explain to me how someone in your vicinity with a gun violates your rights. If your reason is “being I’m scared”, you don’t have a right to not be scared so don’t bother trying to use that one. On the other hand, we DO have a right to carry a firearm and this is a constitutional right, by the way. This trumps any irrational opinions you might have.</p>
<p>It’s a constitutional right that has resulted in carnage far above what similar nations have, so this may just me, but if something’s not working I try to figure out what would be a better solution. </p>
<p>Why do you people just shrug your shoulders at comparisons to WEurope, Australia, Canada? Caressing your guns is that important to you and to hell with Newtown et al? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nope, your problem is you blame the wrong thing for the killings. If you look at the far majority of shootings, you’ll find almost all of them are being committed by inner city gangs, something that your “similar countries” lack. If you don’t live in these gang infested areas you’re much more likely to be killed by something other than guns, so you can ease down on your fear mongering since the facts don’t back it up.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If I have guns it doesn’t have anything to do with Newtown, because I’m not the one killing people or condoning it. I trust myself to use guns responsibly so tell me why from my point of view I shouldn’t have them. If I can’t trust myself who can I trust? You or liberal politicians? Give me a break. Leland Yee is a great example of why we’re never going to give in to the demands of anti-gun politicians.</p>
<p>When did this thread become a gun politics thread, rather than a discussion about the killing of a fleeing suspect after a serious crime and how legal/ethical/moral or not that is?</p>
<p><a href=“Amendment II. Right to Bear Arms | U.S. Constitution Annotated | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute”>Amendment II. Right to Bear Arms | U.S. Constitution Annotated | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute;
<p>Kid, you are barking up a wrong tree here. Wasting your time arguing with old ladies who are tough and hard to scare. Why don’t you sue Starbucks and all other businesses that ask customers not to come in brandishing their guns - so that as the outcome of that lawsuit the second amendment will get the definitive interpretation as “I have my damn right to bring my gun openly into a Starbucks”? </p>
<p>Because I get tired of all these stupid business owners telling me to hide or to not bring my AK-47! Do something good for your country instead of ■■■■■■■■ CC!</p>
<p>I don’t know why you’re so obsessed with what goes on in Starbucks, and I don’t see who you’re trying to fool with acting “hard to scare” when it’s clear you’re deathly afraid of inanimate objects such as firearms. For someone so active in advocating the removal of freedoms it’s ironic you call me the ■■■■■. I’m not the one telling you how to live your life so how about this idea, you do the same and mind your own business. It’s not your business what other people legally have in their pockets, and as long as it doesn’t affect you there’s no reason for you to whine about it. I don’t see you ranting about the criminals who actually kill people with their guns, instead I see you going after the law abiding gun owners who aren’t harming anybody at all. I wonder why that is.</p>
<p>My concern about this case is that the man who shot the fleeing assailant, bragged that her pregnancy claim did not deter him from his goal of exacting revenge.
Whether it is legal or not, is immaterial, as generally in this culture we don’t shoot pregnant women in the back, no matter what theyve done.
This indicates to me, he is slightly out of touch with reality, and someone in that state makes me uneasy whether they are handling firearms or driving a motor vehicle.
BTW, drivers liscenses have to be renewed to establish the driver can still see to drive, etc, is there any oversight to determine if someone is still capable of knowing when and when not to discharge their weapons?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Driving is a privilege not a right, whereas owning a gun is a constitutional right. So there’s your difference. Anti-gunners accuse pro-gun people of comparing car deaths to gun deaths as illegitimate, but have no problem with comparing cars to guns in a different way as shown in your post. Hypocritical much? </p>
<p>“Whether it is legal or not, is immaterial, as generally in this culture we don’t shoot pregnant women in the back, no matter what theyve done.”</p>
<p>That makes no sense. In this culture we try not to shoot anyone in the back. Pregnant women are not some special class that it’s more awful to shoot. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s actually not true, by the way.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Which means if you kill a pregnant woman you are charged for 2 homicides. You were saying?</p>
<p>@Pizzagirl Of course, no one wants to answer the fairy tale from post# 281 I was talking about, the person who is standing in line at the grocery store with their gun trying to be macho or wanting a fight. All of the examples about the mass shooting that have been referenced thus far is EXACTLY the reason I carry a concealed weapon. For years, my kids would asked me why I would carry a concealed weapon into a movie theater. But after the mass shooting in Aurora, they remind me to make sure I have my weapon on me.</p>
<p>@Sally305: Do you want to change your opinion on your post# 81? I figured back then it would be just a matter of time before this thread was hijacked and then eventually shut down.</p>
<p>Nope, not at all. There’s a difference between a conversation naturally running its course and planting the seeds of a digression to a less-welcome topic.</p>
<p>Sally, could you please rake you politics to a political forum somewhere and stop getting threads shut-down. It just happened again and it’s getting annoying. No minds are being changed here.</p>