What's your reason to vote AGAINST Obama?

[Jiro]

Not higher as in USA, also violent crime in LA is lower than in 80's and 90's when gun control is present.

Own guns wouldn't help to prevent from crime in mixed cases, you could get tackle in one minute and never know about what happens.

Guns is more nothing than cause an civil issue, even guns are more collection and hobbies, such as hunting and worth for police, FBI, SWAT and ATF.

FYI, I have nothing to against on gun rights.

I don't know about you but I rather get tackled than get killed/stabbed/beaten as a defenseless man. I'll take my chance with the tackling. 2 words - KRAG MAGA! I have no doubt that in EVERY scenario - you'd wish you have a gun. I don't buy the BS that you can simply run away because it happens right in front of your face and you can't simply run away from that. It's a civil issue because the idiots refuse to acknowledge the seriousness of it.

You can go ahead and count on cops to rescue you but a lot can happen in 1 min and there are only 3 likely scenarios - you're either seriously injured or dead or... by a grace of luck - unharmed.

Don't even bother comparing crime stats between USA and UK. and I don't care what the stat says. It WILL happen to you anytime, anywhere. It's like accidents and speeding tickets - it happens to anyone.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

Yup, I found from some people's opinion about ban to own guns or increase more gun control would cause crime goes up but there's some way to interesting.

In UK, you or citizens are banned to own gun but crime rate, usually murder in UK is much lower than in US, same with crime rate in London is lower than in NYC.

In Los Angeles, they have stricter gun control like you aren't allow to open carry or CCW but only can have guns at home or private place, depends on kind of guns are lawful to own, also crime rate in LA is down and down in over years, it shows gun control has nothing to affect crime rate. In 1992, murder was around 1,200 and in 2007, it's 394. Gun control has been more tighten since 80's and murder was very high in late 80's until early 1990's due serious gangs problem.

Gun control has nothing to affect crime rate but depends on anything goes on.

Yes, that's right. Carry the guns to the public is not allow in many European countries, no wonder why we have low crime rates.

 

[Jiro]

Yes, that's right. Carry the guns to the public is not allow in many European countries, no wonder why we have low crime rates.

uh no. you mean... low MURDER rate by firearms? It's still no better than getting seriously injured like stabbing and being stomped on by a group of thugs. :roll:

 

[Foxrac]

I don't know about you but I rather get tackled than get killed/stabbed/beaten as a defenseless man. I'll take my chance with the tackling. 2 words - KRAG MAGA! I have no doubt that in EVERY scenario - you'd wish you have a gun. I don't buy the BS that you can simply run away because it happens right in front of your face and you can't simply run away from that. It's a civil issue because the idiots refuse to acknowledge the seriousness of it.

You can go ahead and count on cops to rescue you but a lot can happen in 1 min and there are only 3 likely scenarios - you're either seriously injured or dead or... by a grace of luck - unharmed.

Don't even bother comparing crime stats between USA and UK. and I don't care what the stat says. It WILL happen to you anytime, anywhere. It's like accidents and speeding tickets - it happens to anyone.

Not what I means, I said when you get down by other people when on your back then too late for you to defense, guns aren't always to save you, even not 100%.

Don't act like hardcore and convince us to get guns, there's word for you, life is too short.

I have own opinion to compare with USA and UK because some people's opinion said more gun control would cause more crime, that's not always to be true.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

double post.

 

[Pinky]

Yup, I found from some people's opinion about ban to own guns or increase more gun control would cause crime goes up but there's some way to interesting.

In UK, you or citizens are banned to own gun but crime rate, usually murder in UK is much lower than in US, same with crime rate in London is lower than in NYC.

In Los Angeles, they have stricter gun control like you aren't allow to open carry or CCW but only can have guns at home or private place, depends on kind of guns are lawful to own, also crime rate in LA is down and down in over years, it shows gun control has nothing to affect crime rate. In 1992, murder was around 1,200 and in 2007, it's 394. Gun control has been more tighten since 80's and murder was very high in late 80's until early 1990's due serious gangs problem.

Gun control has nothing to affect crime rate but depends on anything goes on.

I heard about UK is ban on gun rights.

That's good for LAX to be strict the law on gun. Is that because of gangs members and criminal? How about in NYC and Chicago?

Is that true about Obama's friends with gangs member in Chicago?? I don't know if it's true or not. You know more than I do.

 

[Foxrac]

I heard about UK is ban on gun rights.

That's good for LAX to be strict the law on gun. Is that because of gangs members and criminal? How about in NYC and Chicago?

Is that true about Obama's friends with gangs member in Chicago?? I don't know if it's true or not. You know more than I do.

Yup, only part and CA has adopt the stricter gun control in late 80's and gang population in LA is declining so sharply from 80's and 90's.

Chicago has stricter gun control too but not know about NYC, however crime rate in Chicago has improve since 2 years and murder rate is low as late 1960's.

Crime rate in NYC is down in big time, murder was about around 2,000 in early 1990's but now, it's around 400-500.

I don't know about Obama's friends with gangs.

 

[Hwy99]

I'd rather to be in the city where nobody have the gun carrying around except their home or rural areas where allows the guns.

I was told by someone that he don't believe in the guns because he think there are no reason to scare people off from the gun owner's home and also the guns are the one who murder the most. He told me those when he asked me this question "Do you have an gun?".

I have to disagree with him, strongly, because nobody would know if someone would break in the house and try to attack me, I am not that strong and are living lonely in my house so I do feel like I need the gun for my own protective. Also I have to disagree with him that the guns are the one that killed people, I know there are ANYTHING that people can use to kill someone, hammer, pans, a glass bottle of wine, knifes, the windows, mirrors, iron, much more..

But I do not support open-carry unless they are in the zones.

 

[Hear Again]

I'd rather to be in the city where nobody have the gun carrying around except their home or rural areas where allows the guns.

Guns are just as prevalent in the city as they are in rural areas. Just look at inner city buy back programs to see how many guns are turned in to the police -- and that doesn't even count the number of weapons carried by gang members or people defending their property.

 

[Hwy99]

Guns are just as prevalent in the city as they are in rural areas. Just look at inner city buy back programs to see how many guns are turned in to the police -- and that doesn't even count the number of weapons carried by gang members or people defending their property.

Well I think it's wrong to open-carry the guns in the city as there's too many people, which mean there are more possible that someone could be killed by an gun or an business attacked by the guns in the city, but I have no problem of open-carry in the rural areas because there are not many people.

I was used to work at the mall and one of the stores in the mall was attacked by a man with gun, all of the workers was shot and their money was stolen. I don't want to see something like this happen again.

 

[Jiro]

Not what I means, I said when you get down by other people when on your back then too late for you to defense, guns aren't always to save you, even not 100%.

Don't act like hardcore and convince us to get guns, there's word for you, life is too short.

I have own opinion to compare with USA and UK because some people's opinion said more gun control would cause more crime, that's not always to be true.

of course I don't expect 100% but it's better than 0% which is NO gun at all. It's a 50-50 for me when I carry gun. Maybe I'll get shot by my own gun... maybe I'll live. With no gun - it's nearly 0%.

I'm not acting hardcore whatsoever and I don't need to convince you because it's not my place to tell you that you should carry one. but I deserve to have a rights to carry one or not. I do not want my rights to be dictated by you or government. Yes life is short but I prefer my life not to be SHORTER.

 

[Jiro]

I heard about UK is ban on gun rights.

That's good for LAX to be strict the law on gun. Is that because of gangs members and criminal? How about in NYC and Chicago?

Is that true about Obama's friends with gangs member in Chicago?? I don't know if it's true or not. You know more than I do.

It's not LAX. You mean LA. LAX is the name of major airport in LA. It's very common of major metro-area to be extremely restrictive on guns. NYC is highly restrictive on guns. So restrictive that it's 99% impossible to own a gun in NYC. The gun I own is banned in CA - I don't know why.... probably because it's a tactical version? I dunno.

It is terrible and sad that LA is very strict on guns because so many gang members and criminals are illegally armed and law-abiding citizens have no way to defend themselves.

 

[Jiro]

Well I think it's wrong to open-carry the guns in the city as there's too many people, which mean there are more possible that someone could be killed by an gun or an business attacked by the guns in the city, but I have no problem of open-carry in the rural areas because there are not many people.

I was used to work at the mall and one of the stores in the mall was attacked by a man with gun, all of the workers was shot and their money was stolen. I don't want to see something like this happen again.

NOBODY is going to allow people to OPEN-CARRY the gun in city. I do not support that... ONLY CCW (concealed). I do agree that OPEN-CARRY in highly-populated area is VERY UNCOMFORTABLE. That's why I support CCW. It's better that way. I guarantee you that in city - you most likely have unknowingly walked past a criminal/gang-banger/aggressor with ILLEGAL gun at least 3x at any given day.

 

[Hear Again]

I was used to work at the mall and one of the stores in the mall was attacked by a man with gun, all of the workers was shot and their money was stolen. I don't want to see something like this happen again.

I'm sorry that happened, but it's people who kill people -- not guns.

 

[Hwy99]

NOBODY is going to allow people to OPEN-CARRY the gun in city. I do not support that... ONLY CCW (concealed). I do agree that OPEN-CARRY in highly-populated area is VERY UNCOMFORTABLE. That's why I support CCW. It's better that way. I guarantee you that in city - you most likely have unknowingly walked past a criminal/gang-banger/aggressor with ILLEGAL gun at least 3x at any given day.

Totally agree with you, it's very uncomfortable to be in wide public with someone carrying a gun in it.

I'm sorry that happened, but it's people who kill people -- not guns.

And the people need to be protected from others who carry the guns.

 

[Jiro]

Totally agree with you, it's very uncomfortable to be in wide public with someone carrying a gun in it.

And the people need to be protected from others who carry the guns.

for both comments - all for reason why I support CCW but not Open-Carry.

 

[Byrdie714]

Sheriff seeks privacy information on 10,000 concealed weapons owners
by David Holley, The Oregonian
Monday November 10, 2008, 6:28 PM

Rob GordonWashington County's sheriff is asking 10,000 people who hold concealed handgun licenses whether they want their names made public if it is requested as an Oregon public record.

Sheriff Rob Gordon said he believes that people obtain these licenses as a security measure, which would exempt the release of their names. But a circuit court in Jackson County ruled in April that people have to document that the license is for security reasons in order to be exempt from public records law.


On Friday, license holders will be mailed letters asking them to say whether they obtained the license for security reasons, and whether they want their information kept confidential.

"Instead of going through the process of saying that it's implied, we're going though the process of getting the documentation that says that it is," said Sgt. Vance Stimler, public information officer at the Washington County Sheriff's Office.

When The Mail Tribune in Medford requested names of concealed handgun license holders as a public record in 2007, the Jackson County Sheriff refused the request based on Oregon law that states records are not public if they could reveal a person's security measures or weaknesses. But Jackson County's Circuit Court ruled that each individual must specify that he or she doesn't want any personal information released. If not, their names are public record.

The ruling is now in front of the Oregon Court of Appeals. No court date is set.

If each applicant requests to keep their information private, then Oregon law will allow the Washington County Sheriff's Office to reject a request for names of license holders, Stimler said.

"Essentially we follow the law and the law stated that people had personal protection reasons for getting them," Stimler said. "We're just trying to follow the interpretation."

The Multnomah County Sheriff's Office will confirm that a person has a concealed handgun license if someone calls with a name, said Deputy Paul McRedmond, public information officer. They approve public record requests for general release of names on a case-by-case basis.

In Clackamas County, the sheriff's office will release the information for properly made requests, said Det. Jim Strovink, public information officer.

Both counties are considering Washington County's idea and plan to discuss whether they will implement something similar.

License holders in Washington County can answer the privacy questions on the sheriff's office Web site, at Concealed Handgun License Holder Report Form

The Jackson County Civil Court case stems from the news that broke in 2007 about a Medford teacher with a concealed handgun license who wanted to bring a handgun onto school property for personal security reasons

Sheriff seeks privacy information on 10,000 concealed weapons owners - Washington County - Oregonlive.com

 

[Pinky]

for both comments - all for reason why I support CCW but not Open-Carry.

I understand you're support CCW not Open-Carry. Personally, I don't want to touch the gun for myself.

 

[Pinky]

It's not LAX. You mean LA. LAX is the name of major airport in LA. It's very common of major metro-area to be extremely restrictive on guns. NYC is highly restrictive on guns. So restrictive that it's 99% impossible to own a gun in NYC. The gun I own is banned in CA - I don't know why.... probably because it's a tactical version? I dunno.

It is terrible and sad that LA is very strict on guns because so many gang members and criminals are illegally armed and law-abiding citizens have no way to defend themselves.

Oops! I forget about LAX Airport. Oops! It sound in California State is strict the law. Have you ever seen an open-carry or ccw guns in NYC before?

 

[Hear Again]

And the people need to be protected from others who carry the guns.

I respectfully disagree. Like I said, guns don't kill people -- people do. Even if laws are put into place to restrict gun use, it won't stop people from obtaining guns one way or another.