Man who died in accident on Ind. 67 allegedly carjacked vehicle
read more recent story comments Reader comments| jimenicholls2 Tuesday, January 8, 2013: 12:33 pm More from jimenicholls2  | I wonder if the man that was stabbed and robbed of his car, if he would have had a pistol and proper training, would have probably stopped the car jacker and saved more lives. Preventing the thief from endangering me, my wife and kids and you and your kids while driving a high speed weapon (car) on the wrong side of the road. More guns = Less Crime. EVERY TIME! http://www.infowars.com/gun-toting-mom-stops-home-invader/ |
| bob searcy Tuesday, January 8, 2013: 3:58 pm More from bob searcy | jim, what knee jerk politicians arent forseeing is the reduction of weapons in our country would result in a black market where more thugs would be armed than citizens. any basic machine shop can crank out firearms all day long for the right price. also, man ive never saw an automobile so mangled. i usedta drive bain road where many people would round blind corners on my side of the road. i swore if one of em ever tore up my nova fender id rebuild it with 1/2 inch plate.. idda done it too.. |
| John Q Public Wednesday, January 9, 2013: 11:14 am More from John Q Public | Jimenicholls2, while I am sure we both fall on the same side of the gun debate your argument is incorrect. The United States people own more guns than any other country. We also own the highest crime rate and the highest annual number of homicides in the world. Your more guns = less crime is factually incorrect. The recent rumors on new gun laws have sent waves of people who are uneducated and inexperienced with firearms to the gun shops. This will create more problems. I do like how you mention the proper training as I feel that is very vital to this issue. Many people will be quick to state that Switzerland has guns for everybody. This barely scratches the surface. There is no Swiss Army, they have a militia. When you are properly trained in the militia you are issued a government gun. As Americans we are brought up to think that we can do or say or obtain anything we want. Often times we do this at the expense of other people. I'm not sure there is a solid answer for our problems but I think if we thought of others as much as we think of ourselves it might help a little. |
| Madalyn Wednesday, January 9, 2013: 1:57 pm More from Madalyn | John Q Public ... yours is the most sensible comment I have read about this whole issue. Thank you! I'm just so tired of the 'just give me a more bigger guns and I'll blast those bad guys away' stuff that is being spouted by Rambo wannabes. There are reasonable things we can do to lessen the carnage without trampling on the rights of normal gun owners. We need to be doing some serious talking and thinking about what those things might be. |
| nobodyimportant Wednesday, January 9, 2013: 10:54 pm More from nobodyimportant | I too share the opinion that we need the kind of discussion that John Q. Public brings to this topic. Our Republic has evolved, but so many want to apply 18th century attributes or at least use them to argue their point. One area in which the original intent of the Constitution framers falls short in the 21st century is the second amendment to that document. State's rights was a critical issue in getting agreement on the Constitution. In that day, there was no national army or navy until the Continental Army was created mid 1775. There were state militias. A review of some of the writings of the day reveals that there was a fear that the federal government would disband the state militias and replace them with a centralized military. Much like the issue of religion that led to the first amendment, states wanted the sovereign right to regulate their own defense. Read carefully the Second Amendment. Anti-Federalists insisted that states be allowed to have militias. Thus, the amendment contained a critical opening phrase, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". States didn't have the machinery or funds to arm and support a militia, thus they needed to have armed citizens upon which they could call. The 2nd amendment was an appeasement to the anti-Federalists and state's rights advocates who comprised the majority of the delegates. The original Constitutional language had already put the militias under Congress (Section 1, article 8) and placed the President as Commander in Chief over them (Article 2, section 2). A minority view then was that states might also need protection from the new federal government. It wasn't the "government" they feared, it was the Continental Army of which they weren't quite sure, because of so many British loyalists that were in that army. Fast forward, through over two centuries of progress of our nation. The history of militias shows that they have morphed from their origin as first-front military units prepared to defend their state into units of deep reserve in case of attack by a hostile nation. An interesting read is the history of U.S. militias and the reasons they exist and the actions they have taken. State militias, where they exist, would not dream of arming their members with what they could bring from home. I suppose in a time of an all-out invasion, home weapons would be brought into play as a desperate last resort. The proponents of liberal gun laws like to pull out the 2nd amendment as a guarantee that ordinary citizens should be able to procure and own any weapon they want. I believe that taken literally, the 2nd amendment does nothing of the sort. We need to stop living under the illusion that the 2nd amendment to the Constitution is a a factor in this debate. We need a 21st century dialogue for a 21st century problem. |
| Lassiter Thursday, January 10, 2013: 4:02 pm More from Lassiter |
This statement is factually incorrect. 1. The only reason that overall crime rates are highest here is due to drug arrests. Many countries do not have drug laws and don't criminalize people for a bag of pot or a bottle of hydrocodone. 2. The United States ranks 108th in the world in homicide rate per 100K. In fact, 2/3 of the other countries have a higher homicide rate. Now if you want to note the cities within our country with the highest homicide rates, I suggest you start with the cities which have already outlawed firearms. |
| Lassiter Thursday, January 10, 2013: 4:05 pm More from Lassiter | Oh, and one more thing John, Neither do we have the most weapons per capita. Check Switzerland. |
| John Q Public Thursday, January 10, 2013: 9:41 pm More from John Q Public | I checked Switzerland and we do indeed have more guns per capita. http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/15/what-makes-americas-gun-culture-totally-unique-in-the-world-as-demonstrated-in-four-charts/ By your statements you agree we have high crime rates. Now by looking at the data in the link I have provided you can see that we have the most guns. Therefore this is the proof of my claim that more guns does not equal less crime. I don't doubt that the US is highest in homicides per capita and I do not have that data. I had the data that stated the US has the highest number of annual homicides, which is what I wrote. With this data I find it hard to see how my statement is factually incorrect. |
| John Q Public Thursday, January 10, 2013: 9:48 pm More from John Q Public | If everyone had guns we would not have crime right. More guns = less crime, every time. The standard bearing state for gun ownership in this country is Texas. Yet two cities in Texas are ranked very high on the list for home burglaries, taking the number 1 spot is Houston. Liberal New York City is number 5. The data just doesn't match the claim. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/cities-with-the-most-burglaries-161005598.html |
| John Q Public Thursday, January 10, 2013: 9:50 pm More from John Q Public | *CORRECTION* I don't doubt that the US isn't highest in homicides per capita and I did not have that data. I had the data that stated the US has the highest number of annual homicides, which is what I wrote. |
| Danny Stewart Friday, January 11, 2013: 6:46 am More from Danny Stewart | John, Your info is factually incorrect because your source is wrong. Two criminologists,Profs. Don Kates and Gary Mauser, of Harvard University, did a study on gun laws and violence are telling. "Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantiatly higher murder rates than those that do not." Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe, yet possesses the lowest murder rate. In contrast, Holland's murder rate is nearly the worst, despite having the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe. Sweden and Denmark are two more examples of nations with high murder rates but few guns. " per capita murder overall is only have as frequent in the United States as in several other nations where gun murder rate is rarer, but murder by strangling, stabbing, or beating is much more frequent." The study also shows that Russia's murder rate is 4 times higher than the U.S. and nearly 20 times higher than Norway. This in a country that eleiminated private ownership of guns in 1917 with the Russian revolution and totalitarian and police state control. As for crime rate, another study showed that the U.S. was listed as being ranked 8th in the world for crime with a rate of 80.0645 per 1,000 people. Dominica ranked the highest with a rate of 113.822 per 1,000 people. Nobody, your historical phrasing is also incorrect. The early Americans were not afraid of the Continental Army taking over. Historical evidence as written by the writings of Madison, who didn't deem a Bill of Rights was needed, and Henry, who was one of those that demanded it, showed they were indeed afraid of falling back under a totalitarian type central government as they had recently fought to get out from under. The Continental Army was disbanded after the Revolution. Between that time period and the ratification of the Constitution, they were living under the Articles of Confederation, which did not give the federal government any authority to maintain a national army. The states had to willingly give troops at the federal governments request. The federalists papers were written because of the fear that the new Constitution would give a stronger federal government too much authority and thus allow would be dictators to forcably take control of the new nation by political force. Therefore, your assurmation that those uf us that still strongly believe what the Second Amendment says, "The right of the PEOPLE, meaning private citizens, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", was not mearly about the states rights to have their own militias, which still exist to this day and not simply the National Gaurd units, but it clearly states, and the United States Supreme Court backed this up, that the people have the right to own guns. Any serious attempt to confiscate the privately owned guns in this nation will result in the starting of another civil war. As for us being invaded, it is not our military power that keeps us from getting invaded, it is the private ownership of guns that prevent it. The most famous military man to say this was the Japaneese Admiral that led the attack on Pearl Harbor. And I'm blanking on his name at the moment. He stated that an invasion of the U. S. would be futile as you would find a gun under every blade of grass. Every would be wacko dictator knows this. It would seem that we ourselves have forgotten it. You want a 21st century answer to a 21st century problem? Leave the private ownership of guns alone. History and study after study has proven that law abiding citizens do not commit crimes with guns. Criminals do. Taking away our guns will not stop criminals from killing people or committing crimes. |
| John Q Public Friday, January 11, 2013: 8:11 am More from John Q Public | Danny, My source is correct for my claim, that more guns do not equal less crimes. The US has around 88 guns for every 100 residents which is the highest in the world, the second being somewhere in the mid 50s. By the logic of more guns equals less crime, our country should have the lowest crime rate by a substantial margin. That is my claim. I'm not disputing what you wrote but you spent a lot of time attempting to disprove something I did not say. Nobody on here has mentioned taking our guns away either, which will not happen. The whole point I'm trying to make is if you are going to defend your argument make it rational and correct. I still stand by my earlier statements more guns equal less crime is incorrect and your comments did not disprove this. |
| 20 comments found | |
| 1 | 2 | Most Recent | Next |
Add a comment
Posting comments on this web site requires you to be logged in. • Create your account• Log in to your account
» more
TABLE OF CONTENTS »
NEWS
Today
Obituaries
Local
Police
Court news
Weather
Business
Property transfers
Area salaries & stats
Education
State
Nation/World
Photo galleries
Videos
SPORTS
Sports
MD-T sports
IU sports blog
Martinsville
Mooresville
Decatur Central
Eminence
Indian Creek
Monrovia
Tabernacle Christian
Fantasy racing league
BLOGS
All blogs
Quit Smoking...Do It
Sci-Fi Sojourns
The Hoosier Scoop
Hoosier Wine Cellar
Gaming Guru
Mellenblog
