Target rich environment

[layoutshooter]

Do you believe that there is no correlation between the increase in "right to carry" and drop in crime?

I don't believe that firearms ownership, on a percentage basis, in nearly as high as it was decades ago. I believe it is rising, quite quickly.

Something else the "anti's" tend to lie about, or ignore, is the fact that firearms accidents, including hunting accidents, are at all time lows.

 

[Moot]

Something else the "anti's" tend to lie about, or ignore, is the fact that firearms accidents, including hunting accidents, are at all time lows.

Tell that to Harry Whittington!

 

[Turtle]

Do you believe that there is no correlation between the increase in "right to carry" and drop in crime?

Thus far, no one has been able to show a correlation, without using highly selective data. So, no, at this point, there is no correlation between the two.

I don't believe that firearms ownership, on a percentage basis, in nearly as high as it was decades ago. I believe it is rising, quite quickly.

You would be correct. It's risen dramatically, especially since 2008.

Something else the "anti's" tend to lie about, or ignore, is the fact that firearms accidents, including hunting accidents, are at all time lows.

They ignore the hunting accidents because it's irrelevant to the issue, but they are all over the reduced firearms accidents in general, because they attribute it to gun locks, safes and gun control legislation.

 

[layoutshooter]

They also ignore the tremendous effort that groups like the NRA, 4H and countless others, have put into firearms training and safety.

I ONLY threw in the firearms hunting accidents because, THEY have tended to use them in the past to further the false idea that the ownership, and use, of firearms, leads to increases in accidents. That despite the fact that accidents, across the board are down.

There is little that the anti Constitution group uses to "prove" their points that are real.

 

[Turtle]

They also ignore the tremendous effort that groups like the NRA, 4H and countless others, have put into firearms training and safety.

I ONLY threw in the firearms hunting accidents because, THEY have tended to use them in the past to further the false idea that the ownership, and use, of firearms, leads to increases in accidents. That despite the fact that accidents, across the board are down.

There is little that the anti Constitution group uses to "prove" their points that are real.

Topic: Target rich environment, and the logical fallacy thereof

 

[layoutshooter]

Gee, that is funny, but OK.

 

[cheri1122]

I have to say that a website that prominently advertises "How to build your own AR-15, completely off the books" and illustrates it with a woman holding the weapon while wearing a bikini, is a site I just can't take seriously as a source of accurate information.
Advertisers who use such tactics apparently view their target [sorry!] audience as being interested in seeing that, and maybe many of them are - but many more are not. Ads that alienate potential customers are really dumber than dirt - but maybe that's the demographic they're going for.

 

[aquitted]

I have to say that a website that prominently advertises "How to build your own AR-15, completely off the books" and illustrates it with a woman holding the weapon while wearing a bikini, is a site I just can't take seriously as a source of accurate information.

Cheri I don't believe such site exist please add link to prove it's existence

 

[cheri1122]

Cheri I don't believe such site exist please add link to prove it's existence

It's in the very first post, goober - not that there's any shortage of those ads.

 

[Turtle]

I have to say that a website that prominently advertises "How to build your own AR-15, completely off the books" and illustrates it with a woman holding the weapon while wearing a bikini, is a site I just can't take seriously as a source of accurate information.

I don't know why, but the above paragraph makes me think of three words:

Fox.News.Babes

 

[Moot]

dumber than dirt[/B] - but maybe that's the demographic they're going for.

Cheri, read the comments at the bottom of the OP's link.These people walk among us, packing. Great ammunition for the anti-gun groups.

The following is one of my favs: They should be sued for large sums of money for violation of the constitutionally protected civil right to carry firearms under the civil rights laws, which guarantees that the plaintiff wins and the defendant loses, the defendant must pay THREE times whatever the jury decides is an appropriation punishment for the violation of the plaintiff's civil rights to the plaintiff's attorneys as their attorneys' fees. In addition to paying all the court costs.
A dozen or so 30 million dollar jury awards to plaintiffs who had their civil right to carry firearms violated by Starbuck's, Target, or any other organization and 90 million dollar attorneys' fees awards to the plaintiffs' attorneys would quickly change their minds.

 

[skyraider]

Not what the left calls them but every bit as accurate a description.

How the Left Is Creating Dangerous ?Target Enrichment Zones?

You had to know that the "Pick you apart gang" would be on you to soon, but it happens here if you post enough stuff.....

 

[skyraider]

What next, Dangerous Wal-Mart Enrichment Zones? You purport to being a red blooded, gun toting, 2nd Amendment, card carrying conservative. Yet, much of the crap you post makes a better case for gun control and liberals in general. Are you sure you aren't a dumber than dirt liberal secret agent?

Freedom of speech is for all, no matter how upset one gets over postings....

 

[LDB]

Oh, I'm very familiar with the gang here. I appreciate them. Any uncertainty or question about a position is clarified by the comments of the gang. Their disagreement with a position or statement removes all doubt of the correctness of the position.

 

[paullud]

I have to say that a website that prominently advertises "How to build your own AR-15, completely off the books" and illustrates it with a woman holding the weapon while wearing a bikini, is a site I just can't take seriously as a source of accurate information.
Advertisers who use such tactics apparently view their target [sorry!] audience as being interested in seeing that, and maybe many of them are - but many more are not. Ads that alienate potential customers are really dumber than dirt - but maybe that's the demographic they're going for.

Let's be honest here, do you really think that ad would cost many customers? I think it would be more likely to bring in more than it would potentially lose. Their target audience will like it, not be upset by it.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app

 

[Turtle]

Oh, I'm very familiar with the gang here. I appreciate them. Any uncertainty or question about a position is clarified by the comments of the gang. Their disagreement with a position or statement removes all doubt of the correctness of the position.

Except the actual numbers and events (a.k.a. reality) don't agree with yours.

 

[Unclebob]

Except the actual numbers and events (a.k.a. reality) don't agree with yours.

Never let reality get in the way of your beliefs. It's protected in the constitution you know.

 

[Pilgrim]

The point being, of course, is that Home Depot is not a "Target Rich Zone," yet crimes, including violent and gun crime is still committed there. How can this be? According to the link in the OP, and in particular the feel-good rhetoric summary you quoted in #11, and agree with, this should never happen except in "Target Rich Zones." If felonies only happened in these gun-free Target Rich Zones and not in other places, then you'd be on to something. But that's not the reality. At all.

Well, I went to Home Depot yesterday with Mr. Walther tucked neatly tucked away and concealed by my baggy Hawaiian shirt. Spoke to the hot dot vendor and bought my 5 gal of paint without incident. A couple of things occurred to me as I thought about the posts in this thread: 1. My Home Depot isn't located in St. Louis, Philadelphia or Wilmington; 2. During all the hundreds, if not thousands of visits I'm made to Home Depot and Lowe's over the years I've NEVER seen anyone openly carrying a gun of any kind, and have never seen an armed guard although this location certainly isn't in an urban or large metro area.

So after I got back I looked for myself to see what Home Depot's policy is regarding weapons, and guess what:

"Thank you for contacting The Home Depot.

The Home Depot does not prohibit anyone who is legally permitted to
carry firearms from entering our stores, provided the firearms are
carried in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.

In addition, The Home Depot has a long-standing policy prohibiting
employees from carrying weapons in its stores.

For any further assistance please visit or contact the Store Manger of
your local Home Depot store.

Sincerely,

Felicia Walker

Resolution Expeditor-The Home Depot Email Team
1-800-654-0688 ext.72698"

I guess anyone wanting to knock off a Home Depot cash register just needs to make sure there are no armed customers nearby. The customers can protect themselves, the employees can not.

 

[Turtle]

Armed employee gets into it with an irate customer. Irate customer manages to get gun, shoots someone, and the liability gravy train departs for court.

 

[layoutshooter]

Everyone should just lock themselves in their house, and just hope that NO one breaks in. No one should do anything to even TRY to defend themselves, at any time or any place. We should all just give up, cower, and give the streets to the criminals, because there is nothing worth doing to try to protect one's self. If it's not 100% perfect, no chance of a problem, or mistake, there is no point. It's far better to insure you status as a victim than to try.