Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?

[P@triot]

I'm still waiting on your examples of the hero gunman saving the day.

Are you? Are you really junior? Well, here you go.... And this is a 71-year old man who not only "saved the day" but would not have been able to defend anything at his advanced age without a gun. Oh - and this has video! Enjoy (and learn something for once, you ignorant asshole)....

71-Year-Old Man Shoots Would-Be Robbers at Ocala Internet Cafe: Authorities | NBC 6 South Florida

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWoLGC-n4i4]71 year old Man Stops Armed Robbery - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Brain357]

I see you failed to answer my questions. Lets go one at a time then. How does the gun owner without an alarm get to his gun, but the person with an alarm can't get to his phone. Please explain that one. You seem to not only have no understanding of security, but also no understanding of time or physics.

Uh, nooooo junior, you failed to answer my questions. I asked my first, you realize the answers humiliate you, so you ignore them and blab on with your own ignorant questions.

First of all, I have never said "don't have an alarm". Ever. What I said that an alarm without a firearm is ****'n useless.

Second - the person without an alarm is alerted because his dogs start barking long before the perpetrators even attempt to touch the house (the dogs can hear and smell them before they are even close enough to touch the house junior).

Third, an alarm is only sounded when a breach actually occurs (ie the contacts are "broken") - which means the door, window, etc. has already been opened. So unless you're in a 30,000 sq ft. mansion giving you time while the perpetrators search for you, you will not have time to dial 911 and have a conversation with the dispatcher. Furthermore, you still have to wait until help arrives stupid. So even if your magical 911 conversation occurs, what are you going to do in the meantime? Try to woo them over with tea and crumpets?

Your questions are so dumb I didn't think they really needed to be answered.

Ahhhhh!!!! In other words, you know you've been owned. If they are so "dumb" it should be easy to answer them and expose me as a fool. Sadly though, the exact opposite is happening here. You're the one being exposed as a fool. You have no idea what an alarm system is even for, you've never owned a gun (or even shot one), yet you're all over this forum popping off at the mouth about what is more effective. Game. Set. Match junior.



Typical Dumbocrat here. First of all, if I am unarmed, how exactly do I "protect" myself and my "stuff"? Secondly, who gives a **** about your "stuff"? They can take everything I own. I'm insured. And even if I wasn't, it's only "stuff". The fact that you believe an alarm system is about protecting "stuff" shows that you're a typical Dumbocrat - you care more about material items than you do human life.



My example? What example did I give? You're just making shit up as you go. Not only do I have multiple firearms in my home, I have an alarm, and I have dogs (because dogs are exponentially better security than an alarm system which can be bypassed and which does not fight back). It's called "layered security". Something an imbecile such as yourself knows nothing about. Anyone in law enforcement will tell you thinking you are safe simply because you have an alarm is ******* comical. The entire point of an alarm is to alert people with guns that you need help and bring them to you. Therefore, logic dictates that having a gun - so you don't have to wait for the people with guns to arrive - is the obvious thing to do.

Ok so your a security expert and your seriously asking me why police don't carry alarms? A security expert who clearly doesn't even understand what alarms are for.

So what is an alarm for, junior? To protect your "stuff"

You're the asshat that said (and again, I quote) "alarms are more effective" than guns. So if they are more effective, why doesn't law enforcement stop carrying guns and start carrying alarms. After all, you seem to think the sound of an alarm will cause criminals to "run"...

You did not provide anything even close to a fact about the Gifford shooting. Provide some links or something. You've not provided anything actually. I'm still waiting on your examples of the hero gunman saving the day.

First of all, you have yet to ask for an example (and I can provide an ungodly amount). Second, I provide the exact details - including the NAME of the CCW holder - at the Gifford shooting. All of which could be verified if you weren't so ****'n lazy. And, furthermore, why are you even commenting in this thread when you don't even know the basics - such as the fact that the CCW holder arrived after Loughner had been tackled to the ground?

Well I don't disagree that dogs are great, I like them myself. So congrats on saying something smart. I'd say a dog would be better than having a gun.

But of course the argument hasn't been about what's better, dogs or a security system. We have been discussing what is better to have, a security system or a gun. Pay attention. If you asked I would say have all 3, but that wasn't the question.

And yes the sound of an alarm causes the criminal to run. They have this thing about not wanting to get caught. You failed to answer if your some kind of criminal? Normal people don't have to worry about ninjas coming to kill them.

So if guns are so great then how are 232,000 of them stolen each year? I've not heard any explanation on that yet. The owners should have had alarm systems. Clearly they had guns and that didn't work...

You continue to provide no sort of proof. You say you can do it but I see a lot of nothing from you....

 

[Brain357]

Most criminals are trying to steal your stuff, not kill you. Why are you so sure everyone wants to kill you?

Don't you love how brainless here literally makes stuff up as he goes? He has not data, no links, no facts, has never worked in law enforcement, or even owned a gun, yet he ignorantly declares "most criminals are trying to steal your stuff". Oh really? And you're basis for that outrageous claim is.......????

First of all, millions of criminals have entered a home for one purpose and one purpose only - to rape a woman. They could care less about your "stuff". So how is that 15-30 minute response time going to work out while you're being raped, junior? While the alarm company tries to reach you on your various numbers to alert you to the fact that they have an alarm showing?

Second, there are endless murders in houses with alarm systems. How do you explain that, stupid? I know a case where the son of the family turned the alarm system off so that the person they hired to do the job could kill his parents while he was at a public place with his girlfriend so that he had an alibi. Oops! Another example of how being armed provides exponentially more security over an alarm system. Dumb ass.

And you still haven't answered the biggest question - since an alarm system is designed to alert the people with guns that you need help, doesn't it make sense to eliminate the middle man and the response time, and just have a gun yourself?

You continue to bring me great joys of laughter. After stating I don't provide links or facts(which I actually have). You provide a rant without any.

Sorry but if an alarm goes off the guy doesn't stick around to rape someone. And since the woman will call 911 when the alarm goes off help will arrive much faster than that, more like 4 minutes. Making it highly likely the guy would get caught, hence why he gets the heck out when he hears an alarm.

Without the alarm a gun doesn't do you that much good. I have the 232,000 guns stolen each year backing me up, what you got?

 

[P@triot]

I'm still waiting on your examples of the hero gunman saving the day.

Don't let the facts smack you in your stupid face, junior....

December 17, 1991
Aniston, AL

Late at night on Tuesday, December 17, two men armed with recently-stolen pistols herded 20 customers and employees of a Shoney’s restaurant in Anniston, Ala., into the walk-in refrigerator, and locked it. Continuing to hold the manager at gunpoint, the men began robbing the restaurant.

Then one of the robbers found a customer who had hidden under a table and pulled a gun on him. The customer, Thomas Glenn Terry, legally armed with a .45 semi-automatic pistol, fired five shots into that robber’s chest and abdomen, killing him instantly.

The other robber, who was holding the manager at gunpoint, opened fire on Terry and grazed him. Terry returned fire, hitting the second robber several times and wounding him critically.

The robbery attempt was over. The Shoney’s customers and employees were freed. No one else was hurt.


The Armed CitizenArmed Citizen at Shoney?s Prevents Mass Shooting | armed citizen

 

[P@triot]

Most criminals are trying to steal your stuff, not kill you. Why are you so sure everyone wants to kill you?

Don't you love how brainless here literally makes stuff up as he goes? He has not data, no links, no facts, has never worked in law enforcement, or even owned a gun, yet he ignorantly declares "most criminals are trying to steal your stuff". Oh really? And you're basis for that outrageous claim is.......????

First of all, millions of criminals have entered a home for one purpose and one purpose only - to rape a woman. They could care less about your "stuff". So how is that 15-30 minute response time going to work out while you're being raped, junior? While the alarm company tries to reach you on your various numbers to alert you to the fact that they have an alarm showing?

Second, there are endless murders in houses with alarm systems. How do you explain that, stupid? I know a case where the son of the family turned the alarm system off so that the person they hired to do the job could kill his parents while he was at a public place with his girlfriend so that he had an alibi. Oops! Another example of how being armed provides exponentially more security over an alarm system. Dumb ass.

And you still haven't answered the biggest question - since an alarm system is designed to alert the people with guns that you need help, doesn't it make sense to eliminate the middle man and the response time, and just have a gun yourself?

You continue to bring me great joys of laughter. After stating I don't provide links or facts(which I actually have). You provide a rant without any.

Sorry but if an alarm goes off the guy doesn't stick around to rape someone. And since the woman will call 911 when the alarm goes off help will arrive much faster than that, more like 4 minutes. Making it highly likely the guy would get caught, hence why he gets the heck out when he hears an alarm.

Without the alarm a gun doesn't do you that much good. I have the 232,000 guns stolen each year backing me up, what you got?

You've yet to add one single link to any response of my posts. I've answered your posts with link after link after link (and laughing the entire time while doing so).

So come on junior - where is your link backing up your false, irrational, and just plain bizarre claim that "most criminals just want to steal your stuff"

 

[hunarcy]

Yes it's sad that 232,000 guns are stolen from gun owners each year and get into the hands of 17 year olds.

Now your first video. Nice that guy was there to shoot him I guess. But the bad guy shot and killed two neighbors over dogs? Was this guy one of those responsible gun owners?

Now the rapist he obviously deserved what he got. Now of course if the woman had a good security system she wouldn't have been raped in the first place...

Ok now the last one he shot and killed a kid with a fake gun? That's your example? Sorry but I don't see how anyone was in danger from the toy guns...

It's also sad that 1,192,809 motor vehicles were stolen last year. Obviously, crime is a real problem! So, rather than waste time whining about stolen items, why not come up with an effective plan to control criminals?

So, to your question about the first video, I'd say the guy was a criminal because he was committing a crime. The police showed up and needed assistance and a responsible gun owner helped him.

Prove that a rapist would stop his criminal activity if the woman had an alarm. Now, he may have moved to another target, but he'd continue his criminal activity, so an alarm wouldn't really solve the problem would it?

And, you are mischaracterizing the air soft gun as a toy. Obviously, it was real enough for the criminals to use to try to rob the store. I guess, though, you have to do that since you really don't have a point.

I know you feel you're in so deep that you have to keep posting, but seriously, you should stop because you're making a fool of yourself!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBYSau64LOc]Internet Cafe Shooting. Concealed Carry Citizen Prevails. - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zf5xlvtOqDU]Houston Self Defense Shooting CCW - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnL05eLaTjQ]people saved by guns - YouTube[/ame]

 

[P@triot]

I see you failed to answer my questions. Lets go one at a time then. How does the gun owner without an alarm get to his gun, but the person with an alarm can't get to his phone. Please explain that one. You seem to not only have no understanding of security, but also no understanding of time or physics.

Uh, nooooo junior, you failed to answer my questions. I asked my first, you realize the answers humiliate you, so you ignore them and blab on with your own ignorant questions.

First of all, I have never said "don't have an alarm". Ever. What I said that an alarm without a firearm is ****'n useless.

Second - the person without an alarm is alerted because his dogs start barking long before the perpetrators even attempt to touch the house (the dogs can hear and smell them before they are even close enough to touch the house junior).

Third, an alarm is only sounded when a breach actually occurs (ie the contacts are "broken") - which means the door, window, etc. has already been opened. So unless you're in a 30,000 sq ft. mansion giving you time while the perpetrators search for you, you will not have time to dial 911 and have a conversation with the dispatcher. Furthermore, you still have to wait until help arrives stupid. So even if your magical 911 conversation occurs, what are you going to do in the meantime? Try to woo them over with tea and crumpets?



Ahhhhh!!!! In other words, you know you've been owned. If they are so "dumb" it should be easy to answer them and expose me as a fool. Sadly though, the exact opposite is happening here. You're the one being exposed as a fool. You have no idea what an alarm system is even for, you've never owned a gun (or even shot one), yet you're all over this forum popping off at the mouth about what is more effective. Game. Set. Match junior.



Typical Dumbocrat here. First of all, if I am unarmed, how exactly do I "protect" myself and my "stuff"? Secondly, who gives a **** about your "stuff"? They can take everything I own. I'm insured. And even if I wasn't, it's only "stuff". The fact that you believe an alarm system is about protecting "stuff" shows that you're a typical Dumbocrat - you care more about material items than you do human life.



My example? What example did I give? You're just making shit up as you go. Not only do I have multiple firearms in my home, I have an alarm, and I have dogs (because dogs are exponentially better security than an alarm system which can be bypassed and which does not fight back). It's called "layered security". Something an imbecile such as yourself knows nothing about. Anyone in law enforcement will tell you thinking you are safe simply because you have an alarm is ******* comical. The entire point of an alarm is to alert people with guns that you need help and bring them to you. Therefore, logic dictates that having a gun - so you don't have to wait for the people with guns to arrive - is the obvious thing to do.



So what is an alarm for, junior? To protect your "stuff"

You're the asshat that said (and again, I quote) "alarms are more effective" than guns. So if they are more effective, why doesn't law enforcement stop carrying guns and start carrying alarms. After all, you seem to think the sound of an alarm will cause criminals to "run"...

You did not provide anything even close to a fact about the Gifford shooting. Provide some links or something. You've not provided anything actually. I'm still waiting on your examples of the hero gunman saving the day.

First of all, you have yet to ask for an example (and I can provide an ungodly amount). Second, I provide the exact details - including the NAME of the CCW holder - at the Gifford shooting. All of which could be verified if you weren't so ****'n lazy. And, furthermore, why are you even commenting in this thread when you don't even know the basics - such as the fact that the CCW holder arrived after Loughner had been tackled to the ground?

Well I don't disagree that dogs are great, I like them myself. So congrats on saying something smart. I'd say a dog would be better than having a gun.

But of course the argument hasn't been about what's better, dogs or a security system. We have been discussing what is better to have, a security system or a gun. Pay attention. If you asked I would say have all 3, but that wasn't the question.

And yes the sound of an alarm causes the criminal to run. They have this thing about not wanting to get caught. You failed to answer if your some kind of criminal? Normal people don't have to worry about ninjas coming to kill them.

So if guns are so great then how are 232,000 of them stolen each year? I've not heard any explanation on that yet. The owners should have had alarm systems. Clearly they had guns and that didn't work...

You continue to provide no sort of proof. You say you can do it but I see a lot of nothing from you....

You still haven't answered the question.... (your silence speaks volumes)

If an alarm is "more effective than a firearm", why don't law enforcement officers stop carrying guns and start carrying alarms? Remember - you said that alarms cause criminals to run. So clearly they are the ultimate defense. Why doesn't our military carry alarms instead of guns? And most of all, why doesn't the Secret Service carry alarms instead of guns? After all, they are protecting the most important person in the world. It would go to figure that they would use the best tools and tactics available to do so....

 

[Brain357]

Uh, nooooo junior, you failed to answer my questions. I asked my first, you realize the answers humiliate you, so you ignore them and blab on with your own ignorant questions.

First of all, I have never said "don't have an alarm". Ever. What I said that an alarm without a firearm is ****'n useless.

Second - the person without an alarm is alerted because his dogs start barking long before the perpetrators even attempt to touch the house (the dogs can hear and smell them before they are even close enough to touch the house junior).

Third, an alarm is only sounded when a breach actually occurs (ie the contacts are "broken") - which means the door, window, etc. has already been opened. So unless you're in a 30,000 sq ft. mansion giving you time while the perpetrators search for you, you will not have time to dial 911 and have a conversation with the dispatcher. Furthermore, you still have to wait until help arrives stupid. So even if your magical 911 conversation occurs, what are you going to do in the meantime? Try to woo them over with tea and crumpets?



Ahhhhh!!!! In other words, you know you've been owned. If they are so "dumb" it should be easy to answer them and expose me as a fool. Sadly though, the exact opposite is happening here. You're the one being exposed as a fool. You have no idea what an alarm system is even for, you've never owned a gun (or even shot one), yet you're all over this forum popping off at the mouth about what is more effective. Game. Set. Match junior.



Typical Dumbocrat here. First of all, if I am unarmed, how exactly do I "protect" myself and my "stuff"? Secondly, who gives a **** about your "stuff"? They can take everything I own. I'm insured. And even if I wasn't, it's only "stuff". The fact that you believe an alarm system is about protecting "stuff" shows that you're a typical Dumbocrat - you care more about material items than you do human life.



My example? What example did I give? You're just making shit up as you go. Not only do I have multiple firearms in my home, I have an alarm, and I have dogs (because dogs are exponentially better security than an alarm system which can be bypassed and which does not fight back). It's called "layered security". Something an imbecile such as yourself knows nothing about. Anyone in law enforcement will tell you thinking you are safe simply because you have an alarm is ******* comical. The entire point of an alarm is to alert people with guns that you need help and bring them to you. Therefore, logic dictates that having a gun - so you don't have to wait for the people with guns to arrive - is the obvious thing to do.



So what is an alarm for, junior? To protect your "stuff"

You're the asshat that said (and again, I quote) "alarms are more effective" than guns. So if they are more effective, why doesn't law enforcement stop carrying guns and start carrying alarms. After all, you seem to think the sound of an alarm will cause criminals to "run"...



First of all, you have yet to ask for an example (and I can provide an ungodly amount). Second, I provide the exact details - including the NAME of the CCW holder - at the Gifford shooting. All of which could be verified if you weren't so ****'n lazy. And, furthermore, why are you even commenting in this thread when you don't even know the basics - such as the fact that the CCW holder arrived after Loughner had been tackled to the ground?

Well I don't disagree that dogs are great, I like them myself. So congrats on saying something smart. I'd say a dog would be better than having a gun.

But of course the argument hasn't been about what's better, dogs or a security system. We have been discussing what is better to have, a security system or a gun. Pay attention. If you asked I would say have all 3, but that wasn't the question.

And yes the sound of an alarm causes the criminal to run. They have this thing about not wanting to get caught. You failed to answer if your some kind of criminal? Normal people don't have to worry about ninjas coming to kill them.

So if guns are so great then how are 232,000 of them stolen each year? I've not heard any explanation on that yet. The owners should have had alarm systems. Clearly they had guns and that didn't work...

You continue to provide no sort of proof. You say you can do it but I see a lot of nothing from you....

You still haven't answered the question.... (your silence speaks volumes)

If an alarm is "more effective than a firearm", why don't law enforcement officers stop carrying guns and start carrying alarms? Remember - you said that alarms cause criminals to run. So clearly they are the ultimate defense. Why doesn't our military carry alarms instead of guns? And most of all, why doesn't the Secret Service carry alarms instead of guns? After all, they are protecting the most important person in the world. It would go to figure that they would use the best tools and tactics available to do so....

If an firearm is more effective than a security system why are 232,000 firearms stolen each year? I'm sorry your question is so stupid I just like your repeating it constantly. Btw, what good is a gun when your not home? Ouch, point security system.

 

[P@triot]

•*John Lott and John Whitley find that “the longer a right-to-carry law is in effect, the greater the drop in crime.”

•*The third edition of John Lott’s More Guns, Less Crime found that the states which issued the most permits had the biggest drops in violent crime rates. Lott also found: “By any measure, concealed-handgun permit holders are extremely law abiding.”

•*Economists Florenz Plassmann and Nicolaus Tideman found that “right-to-carry laws do help on average to reduce the number of these crimes.”

•*Carl Moody, chair of the economics department at the College of William and Mary at the time of the study, said his findings “confirm and reinforce the basic findings of the original Lott and [David] Mustard study.”

•*In another paper that studies county crime rates from 1977 until 2000, coauthored by Moody and attorney and sociologist Thomas Marvell, the authors write that “the evidence, such as it is, seems to support the hypothesis that the shall-issue law is generally beneficial with respect to its overall long run effect on crime.”

•*Economists Eric Helland and Alex Tabarrok studied county crime rates from 1977 to 2000 and concluded that “shall-issue laws cause a large and significant drop in the murder trend rate” and that “there is considerable support for the hypothesis that shall-issue laws cause criminals to substitute away from crimes against persons and towards crimes against property.”

Excerpt From: Beck, Glenn. “Control.” Threshold Editions. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

Check out this book on the iBooks Store: https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/control/id599776911?mt=11

 

[P@triot]

Well I don't disagree that dogs are great, I like them myself. So congrats on saying something smart. I'd say a dog would be better than having a gun.

But of course the argument hasn't been about what's better, dogs or a security system. We have been discussing what is better to have, a security system or a gun. Pay attention. If you asked I would say have all 3, but that wasn't the question.

And yes the sound of an alarm causes the criminal to run. They have this thing about not wanting to get caught. You failed to answer if your some kind of criminal? Normal people don't have to worry about ninjas coming to kill them.

So if guns are so great then how are 232,000 of them stolen each year? I've not heard any explanation on that yet. The owners should have had alarm systems. Clearly they had guns and that didn't work...

You continue to provide no sort of proof. You say you can do it but I see a lot of nothing from you....

You still haven't answered the question.... (your silence speaks volumes)

If an alarm is "more effective than a firearm", why don't law enforcement officers stop carrying guns and start carrying alarms? Remember - you said that alarms cause criminals to run. So clearly they are the ultimate defense. Why doesn't our military carry alarms instead of guns? And most of all, why doesn't the Secret Service carry alarms instead of guns? After all, they are protecting the most important person in the world. It would go to figure that they would use the best tools and tactics available to do so....

If an firearm is more effective than a security system why are 232,000 firearms stolen each year? I'm sorry your question is so stupid I just like your repeating it constantly. Btw, what good is a gun when your not home? Ouch, point security system.

Exactly, stupid! Like all greedy Dumbocrats, you entire focus is on "stuff". My focus is on human life. Which is why you like an absolute buffoon in this debate.

Now, until you even attempt to answer the question, I'm just going to keep repeating it because it exposes you for the moron that you are:

If an alarm is "more effective than a firearm", why don't law enforcement officers stop carrying guns and start carrying alarms? Remember - you said that alarms cause criminals to run. So clearly they are the ultimate defense. Why doesn't our military carry alarms instead of guns? And most of all, why doesn't the Secret Service carry alarms instead of guns? After all, they are protecting the most important person in the world. It would go to figure that they would use the best tools and tactics available to do so....

 

[P@triot]

They are getting their asses handed to them in this debate...

Gallup has been asking Americans since 1959: Do you think there should be a law banning the possession of handguns, except by the police and other authorized persons?

—1959: 60 percent
—1965: 49 percent
—1975: 41 percent
—1988: 37 percent
—1999: 34 percent
—2006: 32 percent
—2009: 28 percent
—2012: 24 percent

Excerpt From: Beck, Glenn. “Control.” Threshold Editions. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

Check out this book on the iBooks Store: https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/control/id599776911?mt=11

 

[Brain357]

You still haven't answered the question.... (your silence speaks volumes)

If an alarm is "more effective than a firearm", why don't law enforcement officers stop carrying guns and start carrying alarms? Remember - you said that alarms cause criminals to run. So clearly they are the ultimate defense. Why doesn't our military carry alarms instead of guns? And most of all, why doesn't the Secret Service carry alarms instead of guns? After all, they are protecting the most important person in the world. It would go to figure that they would use the best tools and tactics available to do so....

If an firearm is more effective than a security system why are 232,000 firearms stolen each year? I'm sorry your question is so stupid I just like your repeating it constantly. Btw, what good is a gun when your not home? Ouch, point security system.

Exactly, stupid! Like all greedy Dumbocrats, you entire focus is on "stuff". My focus is on human life. Which is why you like an absolute buffoon in this debate.

Now, until you even attempt to answer the question, I'm just going to keep repeating it because it exposes you for the moron that you are:

If an alarm is "more effective than a firearm", why don't law enforcement officers stop carrying guns and start carrying alarms? Remember - you said that alarms cause criminals to run. So clearly they are the ultimate defense. Why doesn't our military carry alarms instead of guns? And most of all, why doesn't the Secret Service carry alarms instead of guns? After all, they are protecting the most important person in the world. It would go to figure that they would use the best tools and tactics available to do so....

Being a security expert I'm sure you know that the alarm is effective because criminals know the police are on the way. Since they have this thing for avoiding jail they get the heck out. Now obviously there is no reason for police to carry alarms as they are already there and crimes tend to not occur when they are present.

 

[P@triot]

If an firearm is more effective than a security system why are 232,000 firearms stolen each year? I'm sorry your question is so stupid I just like your repeating it constantly. Btw, what good is a gun when your not home? Ouch, point security system.

Exactly, stupid! Like all greedy Dumbocrats, you entire focus is on "stuff". My focus is on human life. Which is why you like an absolute buffoon in this debate.

Now, until you even attempt to answer the question, I'm just going to keep repeating it because it exposes you for the moron that you are:

If an alarm is "more effective than a firearm", why don't law enforcement officers stop carrying guns and start carrying alarms? Remember - you said that alarms cause criminals to run. So clearly they are the ultimate defense. Why doesn't our military carry alarms instead of guns? And most of all, why doesn't the Secret Service carry alarms instead of guns? After all, they are protecting the most important person in the world. It would go to figure that they would use the best tools and tactics available to do so....

Being a security expert I'm sure you know that the alarm is effective because criminals know the police are on the way. Since they have this thing for avoiding jail they get the heck out. Now obviously there is no reason for police to carry alarms as they are already there and crimes tend to not occur when they are present.

So being that "crimes tend to NOT occur" when police are present, why do police carry firearms? And why aren't you demanding that they stop carrying them?

 

[Brain357]

Exactly, stupid! Like all greedy Dumbocrats, you entire focus is on "stuff". My focus is on human life. Which is why you like an absolute buffoon in this debate.

Now, until you even attempt to answer the question, I'm just going to keep repeating it because it exposes you for the moron that you are:

If an alarm is "more effective than a firearm", why don't law enforcement officers stop carrying guns and start carrying alarms? Remember - you said that alarms cause criminals to run. So clearly they are the ultimate defense. Why doesn't our military carry alarms instead of guns? And most of all, why doesn't the Secret Service carry alarms instead of guns? After all, they are protecting the most important person in the world. It would go to figure that they would use the best tools and tactics available to do so....

Being a security expert I'm sure you know that the alarm is effective because criminals know the police are on the way. Since they have this thing for avoiding jail they get the heck out. Now obviously there is no reason for police to carry alarms as they are already there and crimes tend to not occur when they are present.

So being that "crimes tend to NOT occur" when police are present, why do police carry firearms? And why aren't you demanding that they stop carrying them?

Police are very important in keeping the peace and stopping criminals obviously. They carry firearms because they use them to capture criminals. For a security expert you sure ask a lot of dumb questions. Why would I demand they stop carrying guns? I haven't demanded anyone stop carrying guns.

 

[hunarcy]

If an firearm is more effective than a security system why are 232,000 firearms stolen each year? I'm sorry your question is so stupid I just like your repeating it constantly. Btw, what good is a gun when your not home? Ouch, point security system.

There is no comparison between his question and yours. YOU claim an alarm is at least as effective as a firearm, so his question is directly relevant. Your question about firearms and stealing firearms has NO relevance.

I'm sorry to say that you have no credibility left in my eyes. I suspect that others gave up on you a long time ago.

 

[hunarcy]

Exactly, stupid! Like all greedy Dumbocrats, you entire focus is on "stuff". My focus is on human life. Which is why you like an absolute buffoon in this debate.

Now, until you even attempt to answer the question, I'm just going to keep repeating it because it exposes you for the moron that you are:

If an alarm is "more effective than a firearm", why don't law enforcement officers stop carrying guns and start carrying alarms? Remember - you said that alarms cause criminals to run. So clearly they are the ultimate defense. Why doesn't our military carry alarms instead of guns? And most of all, why doesn't the Secret Service carry alarms instead of guns? After all, they are protecting the most important person in the world. It would go to figure that they would use the best tools and tactics available to do so....

Being a security expert I'm sure you know that the alarm is effective because criminals know the police are on the way. Since they have this thing for avoiding jail they get the heck out. Now obviously there is no reason for police to carry alarms as they are already there and crimes tend to not occur when they are present.

So being that "crimes tend to NOT occur" when police are present, why do police carry firearms? And why aren't you demanding that they stop carrying them?

I can't help myself...check these stories out.

PD: Teenager Tried To Rob Officer At Police Station « CBS Dallas / Fort Worth

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sliqwhAEGW0]12 And 14 Year Olds Try To Rob A Police Station - YouTube[/ame]

I know they're all kids, but OMG!

 

[Brain357]

If an firearm is more effective than a security system why are 232,000 firearms stolen each year? I'm sorry your question is so stupid I just like your repeating it constantly. Btw, what good is a gun when your not home? Ouch, point security system.

There is no comparison between his question and yours. YOU claim an alarm is at least as effective as a firearm, so his question is directly relevant. Your question about firearms and stealing firearms has NO relevance.

I'm sorry to say that you have no credibility left in my eyes. I suspect that others gave up on you a long time ago.

How is the number of firearms stolen not relevant? He is saying that all you need is a gun and your safe from criminals. Yet 232,000 guns were stolen. Clearly having a gun doesn't always save you from criminals. But asking why police don't have alarms instead of guns is a good question to you? Have I stepped into the land of the idiots? You've lost all credibility in my eyes. Even the obvious eludes you.

 

[P@triot]

Being a security expert I'm sure you know that the alarm is effective because criminals know the police are on the way. Since they have this thing for avoiding jail they get the heck out. Now obviously there is no reason for police to carry alarms as they are already there and crimes tend to not occur when they are present.

So being that "crimes tend to NOT occur" when police are present, why do police carry firearms? And why aren't you demanding that they stop carrying them?

Police are very important in keeping the peace and stopping criminals obviously. They carry firearms because they use them to capture criminals. For a security expert you sure ask a lot of dumb questions. Why would I demand they stop carrying guns? I haven't demanded anyone stop carrying guns.

Because you keep contradicting yourself. First you claim that alarms are better than guns. Then you claim that "crimes tend to NOT occur" when police are present.

So by your logic - police do not need firearms. First of all because "crime tends to NOT occur" when they are present - so all they need to do is arrive and criminals immediately stop their bad behavior. Second, on the rare occassions that the criminal activity does not cease solely by the presence of the officer, an alarm is the "more effective" than a gun (your words). So there is absolutely no reason for law enforcement to carry a firearm.

 

[P@triot]

If an firearm is more effective than a security system why are 232,000 firearms stolen each year? I'm sorry your question is so stupid I just like your repeating it constantly. Btw, what good is a gun when your not home? Ouch, point security system.

There is no comparison between his question and yours. YOU claim an alarm is at least as effective as a firearm, so his question is directly relevant. Your question about firearms and stealing firearms has NO relevance.

I'm sorry to say that you have no credibility left in my eyes. I suspect that others gave up on you a long time ago.

How is the number of firearms stolen not relevant? He is saying that all you need is a gun and your safe from criminals. Yet 232,000 guns were stolen. Clearly having a gun doesn't always save you from criminals. But asking why police don't have alarms instead of guns is a good question to you? Have I stepped into the land of the idiots? You've lost all credibility in my eyes. Even the obvious eludes you.

If the firearm was stolen - then obviously the owner was not there. And if they were not there, then clearly they were safe from the perpetrator.

Would you like to try again?

 

[Brain357]

So being that "crimes tend to NOT occur" when police are present, why do police carry firearms? And why aren't you demanding that they stop carrying them?

Police are very important in keeping the peace and stopping criminals obviously. They carry firearms because they use them to capture criminals. For a security expert you sure ask a lot of dumb questions. Why would I demand they stop carrying guns? I haven't demanded anyone stop carrying guns.

Because you keep contradicting yourself. First you claim that alarms are better than guns. Then you claim that "crimes tend to NOT occur" when police are present.

So by your logic - police do not need firearms. First of all because "crime tends to NOT occur" when they are present - so all they need to do is arrive and criminals immediately stop their bad behavior. Second, on the rare occassions that the criminal activity does not cease solely by the presence of the officer, an alarm is the "more effective" than a gun (your words). So there is absolutely no reason for law enforcement to carry a firearm.

No actually I'm not contradicting anything. We aren't talking about what is better for police, we are talking about what is better for the average citizen. I am not a police officer, nor are you. Obviously a gun is better for a police officer. All your thinking is just wacko.