Gun laws do they work (2 Viewers)

[Sketchin]

People should stop being scared of their own shadow and KCCO.

 

[John Big Booty]

And what about when it's the military, government, or police you have to protect yourself from? You say it's farfetched but that's exactly what has been happening around the world and as our government becomes more divided, so shall the people.

The countries (Iraq, Syria, Libya) of which I believe you are thinking have never had democratically elected Governments. So until someone starts talking about scrapping the twenty second amendment, I believe your fears are groundless.

 

[Vassago]

Really? Because our government hasn't sidestepped any amendments or anything, oh wait... Patriot Act (all accounts reported to government, require identification), NDAA 2012 (indefinite detention without exclusion for American citizen without charge), BSA (transactions over a certain amount to a financial institution are reported to government for investigation without your knowledge)... the list goes on. And what would gun control do? Effectively take out the 2nd amendment. If you give the government the power to remove amendments, when will it stop?

Guns are more than just a weapon. They are also a sport. I don't even own a gun, I'm playing devil's advocate here though. There are plenty of people who fire off their gun for sport and stress relief at a range. There's nothing wrong with that! How is it any different than calling archery a sport?

 

[Adam Caramon]

Really? Because our government hasn't sidestepped any amendments or anything, oh wait... Patriot Act (all accounts reported to government, require identification), NDAA 2012 (indefinite detention without exclusion for American citizen without charge), BSA (transactions over a certain amount to a financial institution are reported to government for investigation without your knowledge)... the list goes on.

So, is your contention then that if the American government turns on its citizens, you are going to take them down?

And what would gun control do? Effectively take out the 2nd amendment. If you give the government the power to remove amendments, when will it stop?

Gun control doesn't equal 0 guns. You're fighting against a straw man.

Guns are more than just a weapon. They are also a sport. I don't even own a gun, I'm playing devil's advocate here though. There are plenty of people who fire off their gun for sport and stress relief at a range. There's nothing wrong with that! How is it any different than calling archery a sport?

Maybe I missed it, but was someone advocating removing all guns from citizens? Most gun control efforts I see are bans on assault rifles, making it illegal to sell kits that turn a rifle into a fully automatic weapon, etc.

 

[John Big Booty]

An interesting article here on the phenomena of mass killing.

 

[John Big Booty]

...

Gun control doesn't equal 0 guns. You're fighting against a straw man.

...

 

[Mike375]

There is a world of difference between owning a gun and using it effectively for self defence. Even someone who can hit a target may not be able to perform under pressure. Moreover they could well panic kill someone unintentionally.


Moreover the offender had bullet proof clothing and a bigger gun than anything one could conceal. I would not fancy taking on an assault rifle with a pistol.

The person who would carry a pistol/handgun to a theatre would be a very keen shooter and will know what he is doing. His keeness will also be reflected in the gun he has.

You also assign "power" to "assault rifle". They are ony 223s or 7.62 X 39s (if non American). We are talking here about two calibres (cartidges to be more correct) that are at the very bottom of the power ladder for rifle calibres and many handguns greatly exceed their power.

You might also like to investigate further the issue of "bullet proof-clothing"

 

[Galaxiom]

You also assign "power" to "assault rifle". They are ony 223s or 7.62 X 39s (if non American).

Not power but accuracy. I am no expert but in my experience a rifle is far eaiser to aim.

 

[Mike375]

Not power but accuracy. I am no expert but in my experience a rifle is far eaiser to aim.

When it comes to accuracy assault rifles are poor in the world of rifles. But you are correct that for the average person the assault rifle will be far easier to hit with than handgun.

However, going back to my previous post, the bloke that takes a handgun to a theatre is unlikely to be the average shooter. In fact it would be reasonable to say that such a shooter on seeing the gunman would think a dream came true. The bloke who shot up the theatre would lose his head like a water mellon that a had a stick of dynamite go off inside the mellon. It's just unfortunate that such a shooter would have had to wait for the gun man to kill a couple of people so as to keep himself clear of the law.

And as to power, the 44 magnum's power is very low when compared to the very powerful handguns.

 

[Vassago]

It would have been nice to see some of the crowd overpower him once he started shooting. They could easily have taken him. There might not have been so many people shot. It's very sad.

 

[boblarson]

However I am never very convinced about the line

"we need guns to protect ourselves"

The people that start shooting up their neighbourhood always generally target the innocent and always rely on the element of surprise .

Chances are when you really need that gun - you won't have it on you.

So my feeling is that you're safer making it very difficult to get guns than trusting everyone with a gun.

First off, the statement that people start shooting up the neighborhood generally target the innocent is not that true from what I’ve seen and read. Yes, innocents get hit but the good majority are criminals targeting other criminals (gangs vs. gangs).

Next, you state that “Chances are when you really need that gun – you won’t have it on you.” is one of the reasons why we have Concealed Carry. I carry mine wherever I can. I would much rather never need it than be in a situation where I wished I had one.

And last, you stated that it would be safer to make it difficult to get guns than trusting everyone with a gun. Well, funny you should say that. In every state since concealed carry started with Georgia back in 1976 and then when Florida took it on in 1986, people predicted mayhem and blood in the streets. But amazingly enough that never materialized and hasn’t in each state that has instituted it. And, in Florida, a year later the president of the police chiefs association, who had opposed the bill, was asked if he had kept track of all the problems the law caused. "There aren't any," he said.

You won’t hear of most of the incidents that concealed carry has stopped because most of them, when a perpetrator learns that someone is carrying (i.e. someone walking their dog is being approached by a couple of thugs bent on robbery, or worse, the sheer action of clearing the shirt away exposing the handle is enough SOMETIMES to make them turn and walk away), there is no report to the authorities but an incident was averted.

Now with hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of concealed carry holders in the U.S., it is very RARE to hear of one of them causing a problem, let alone killing someone. Yes, it can happen and does, occasionally. But the statistics about that would make winning the lottery, or being struck by lightning, a greater chance of happening to you than getting killed by a concealed carrier. Now, if you engage in high risk activity – robbery, burglary, etc. then you are at a much higher risk of being permanently retired than if concealed carry was not allowed. And that is a good thing. A study was done which asked criminals what they feared about committing their crimes and the answer was not that they were afraid of the police, but that they were afraid of the citizens who carry because that is an unknown factor. They know what to expect when dealing with the police. If concealed carry is available then the risk, or cost of crime, goes up for the criminal.

The problem with civilians carrying, is that there are so many hot heads and nut jobs out there that allowing it seems BOUND to lead to trouble.

The funny thing is, that it just hasn’t happened that way. As mentioned before, in all states which have implemented Concealed Carry, gun crime and problems like that just simply have not risen like they should if that statement were true.

I have heard it said (and I totally believe it) that a gun in the home is far more likely to be involved in an accidental shooting than in legitimate self defense.

And

Statistically, a gun is ten times more likely to kill one of the owner's family members than a criminal intruder. They make very poor case for gun ownership as a defence.

You can believe it all you want but you will find that is a myth propagated by those who do not like guns, including the Brady Institute. But the study you are hearing it from (Protection or Peril? An Analysis of Firearm-Related Deaths in the Home, Arthur L. Kellerman, D.T. Reay, 314 New Eng. J. Med. 1557-60, June 12, 1986.) was flawed (of the 43 cases it looked at 37 (86%) were suicides and the other 6 were disputes among family members (most of which had to do with drugs). There just isn’t enough to back up that assertion. I see stories every day about home owners who have repelled burglars or home invasions with guns, and fewer stories about the home owners getting taken out by their family members.

So if civilian gun ownership, is so good for stopping crime; why didn't one of the many gun owner at Aurora take down James Holmes and put an end to his rampage?

The first reason would be that the Cinema, where the shooting took place, had “NO GUNS ALLOWED” signs posted and those do have the force of law in Colorado, from what I understand. So, had someone been carrying, they may have been able to stop him (we’ll never know) but because it was unlawful for them to carry there, the LAW ABIDING CITIZENS were powerless to shoot back. So gun laws generally only keep law abiding citizens restricted and provide criminals (even ones who, like this guy, were law abiding until they chose to go kill) with Criminal Safe Zones (where the criminal doesn’t have to worry about getting shot because they know that law abiding citizens won’t go contrary to the law). Gun Free Zones don’t protect people. They only serve up people as free targets.

Because the element of surprise in a public setting tends to completely negate gun ownership as a defense.

That is not a correct statement. In fact it is kind of stupid. Surprise can freeze some, but surprise does not disable many others. People, if they are smart, when they carry have thought about what they would do in certain scenarios and train their mind for it. And they try to train for muscle memory so they can just do when it is called for. That is what this guy did recently when two thugs came in, one with a gun and one with a bat. He pulled his weapon and shot them, chasing them away (his choice of caliber meant that they didn’t suffer significant injuries but he did make them turn tail and run).
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/18/florida-customer-shoots-suspects-during-internet-cafe-robbery/

If you are in environment where you do not trust people. As much as possible you want to put things in your favour. Given that in most cases a criminal or a discontented individual will attack when you least expect. You owning a weapon won't help much cos say you'll be out of bullets - or your having a BBQ at the moment or say you're cutting the lawn and maybe it's locked in your cupboard or you were at college and hey you don't have your semi automatic on you just at the moment.

You are under the misconception that you can’t see an attack coming. That may be true SOMETIMES but if you are a responsible gun owner and concealed carry person, there are things you can learn to highten your SA (Situational Awareness). There are things you can do to avoid becoming a victim. I belong to a forum which helps people learn how to do that. It is true that a lot of people are clueless with that, but just because a criminal pops upon you unexpectedly doesn’t mean that all is for naught and you should just resign yourself to not being able to defend yourself. There are constantly news stories of people who have fought back with their gun after being “jumped” or a robber comes storming into their store with a gun. It is true that not all of them have happy endings but I would say that I do see more positive endings occurring when they do fight back than when they don’t.

Allowing free access to guns increases the chances that these guys will come at you well armed.

That is another myth which doesn’t seem to be proving to be fact. Actually the crime rate has been going down across the country. And, it they are well-armed, then you can either capitulate or you can choose to defend yourself, if you have a chance. Just because they MAY come well-armed doesn’t mean that they will. Your attitude is like a horse giving up before even coming out of the gate.

It doesn't increase the chances that you will be armed when he comes at you UNLESS you wear a gun all the time.

A lot of the concealed carry people DO carry all of the time. It is a tool which is with me with rare exception. Even at home I have it on me because there have been very violent home invasions occurring and, while the chances are very slim that our house would be targeted, I don’t want to find myself in the situation where I could have done something but can’t because I didn’t want to have it on me. Someone kicks in my door and they will be greeted with a couple of rounds of .40 cal self-defense rounds. I don’t want to be like the guy in Connecticut who had a home invasion and then had to watch as they tortured and killed his wife and daughters. I just won’t do it.

Does everyone in America really want to go back to wearing guns everywhere?

Maybe, maybe not. But with evil out there, I would rather be prepared than not. And there are a lot like me who do want to be prepared. That doesn’t mean we ever want to use them. I don’t. I would hope that I’ll never have to unholster my pistol for anything other than target shooting or to clean it. But I will if necessary.

Not sure about that Guns don't kill people line..

If I place my pistol on a table, it will sit there and never go off. It is an inanimate object which can’t do a darned thing unless someone pulls the trigger. So, if someone aims the gun and pulls the trigger, then that PERSON killed someone, not the gun. The gun is a tool, as is a car and a car can kill (just recently we had someone run up on a sidewalk and kill some people). It is the person using the tool which has responsibility, not the tool.

Not only do guns kill people you can kill a lot more people a lot more quickly from a distance.
It's kind of why they were invented.

You can also kill a lot of people with fire or a bomb. It just is, what is. And as someone else mentioned, it can be used for hunting as well. But yes, you can kill more people a lot more quickly from a distance than say using a knife or a garrote.

...or better still your local Police force that's what they get paid to do.

When seconds count, police are only minutes away. Anyone who relies solely on the police to defend them is only kidding themselves. In fact, here in the U.S., the Supreme Court has ruled that the police have no duty to defend you. That’s right, they don’t. They are generally a “cleanup crew” which deals with things AFTER-THE-FACT. They investigate and will attempt to capture and bring to trial those who have perpetrated crime against others. But they normally, unless circumstances just fall into place, can’t stop crime. So, it falls to YOU to defend yourself and your family.

Here's some statistic that show that you are more likely to be killed by someone you know that a stranger, in fact strangers were involved in only 14% of all homicides.

If you read those statistics a little more carefully you will notice that the UNDETERMINED relationship is DOUBLE what is known. So you can’t draw a firm conclusion here with those. And, if you notice, since the 2000’s the gun homicides on all BUT the stranger crime has been DROPPING.

And here's a picture of my every day carry pistol:

 

[Dick7Access]

Amen and Amen
I was a police officer for 4 years. All (that's 100%) of the gun related crime we had in my city by undesirables had stolen guns, except for I suicide and that was a fellow police officer.

 

[Dick7Access]

John,
Thanks for doing that research. I have wanted to comment sooner, but was too lazy to do the research. Actually I have been tied up with my wife’s rehab, and I have been taking a little online access course.

 

[Lightwave]

Bob thanks for the reply I would only say that none of my comments were statements they were all my personal opinions.

I personally don't want to carry a gun at all times including within the house.

 

[Dick7Access]

Lighwave, and anybody else that doesn’t want to pack or use a gun. I am not saying you are in this category, but the old cliché is so true, and I personally meet so many people that if they are of a liberal mind set and they don’t like a certain thing they don’t want anybody else to have one either. It goes up my nose a mile that some politician should decide for me how much soda I should buy.

I do believe, however that if a majority of people in a free country find guns objectionable they have the right to pass laws to stop the sale of them. I, of course, reserve the same right for myself to fight against it.

 

[ColinEssex]

It's a sorry state when a would-be Jesse James feels they have to carry a gun at all times and doesn't even feel safe in their house.

What does that say about the USA?

It says that all the stories we hear are true.

Thank god (if there is one) we can sleep peacefully at night without the need for an arsenal of weapons under the pillow.

I feel sorry for the USA how it used to be great and is now a crime-ridden gun toting land.

How does carrying a gun and being happy to kill people sit with being a christian? (all Americans claim to be christians because god is American)

Or is the christian faith out the window where guns and violence and killing are concerned.

Col

 

[Adam Caramon]

Lighwave, and anybody else that doesn’t want to pack or use a gun. I am not saying you are in this category, but the old cliché is so true, and I personally meet so many people that if they are of a liberal mind set and they don’t like a certain thing they don’t want anybody else to have one either.

Can you give an example other than guns? I'm very liberal, I could care less what other people do. If you want to do drugs, that should be legal, IMO. But should you be able to drive while under the influence? No, of course not. Whatever religion you want to be, fine. I don't care.

Where it seems many of these stereotypes come from is from a lack of understanding. Conservatives think liberals are trying to take things away from them, because historically conservatives have had everything their way. For example, conservatives want to have religious ornaments on public property. Liberals disagree. Conservatives say liberals are trying to take away their right to have their religious stuff on public property.

In reality, conservatives have never had the RIGHT to put that stuff there, they just did it anyway (they forced it down everyone's throat, if you want to use the colorful conservative language). Now that less and less people are religious, more people are pointing out this issue.

When it comes specifically to guns, you are right that liberals tend towards gun control. If people are so wed to the idea of their guns that nothing can change, then I would rather they open carried so that it was clear who had a gun and who didn't. This would at least allow us non-gun people to avoid the gun people.

I find it very disconcerting that anyone around me could be packing heat at anytime (luckily, I work in an institution where federal law bars the concealed carrying of firearms).

I do believe, however that if a majority of people in a free country find guns objectionable they have the right to pass laws to stop the sale of them. I, of course, reserve the same right for myself to fight against it.

Yes, that's the beauty of a democracy.

It's a sorry state when a would-be Jesse James feels they have to carry a gun at all times and doesn't even feel safe in their house.

I agree. I have never been the victim of a violent crime, so I do not claim to understand the fear that then occupies you for the rest of your life, but not even being safe in your own home seems silly to me. How would you ever relax?

I also find it odd, maybe due to my age, of the people that choose to carry a gun. Part of being a man has always been being able to stand up for yourself. If you got into a fist fight, regardless if you win or lose, both people walk away alive.

The guy that whips out the gun when a fist fight would break out seems to be the ultimate coward in my opinion. If someone breaks into my house, they're going to have a fight on their hands, but I definitely wouldn't kill them unless I had absolutely no other choice.

 

[dan-cat]

It's a sorry state when a would-be Jesse James feels they have to carry a gun at all times and doesn't even feel safe in their house.

It is actually. What kind of mind-set must people be in to think that the world is such a bad place that they must be prepared to use a lethal weapon at any point?

Going shopping: Make sure gun is loaded
Going to work: Make sure gun is loaded
Going to pick kids up from basketball practice: Make sure gun is loaded

We're not at war. What a terrible way to live your life, in the shadow of this constant fear of attack.

 

[Sketchin]

I feel sorry for people who believe everything they see on T.V.

In Canada, our crime rate is the lowest its been since the 70's, yet people still wont even let their kids walk to school alone, or play in the park because of all of the fictituous child rapers and kidnappers.

Drives the girlfriend crazy that I will leave the doors to the house unlocked and the windows wide open all night and not worry about it at all.

Not sure what crime rates in the U.S are doing, but they could be declining also??

 

[ColinEssex]

There seems to be alot of references to "if someone breaks into my house......etc". Would it not be better to invest in some superior locks for the doors and windows rather than eating a meal with a gun next to the salt just waiting for a burglar to break in?

Adam, I like your intimation that Larson is a coward - I'll bet he's ex-military too. They always have a large arsenal of weapons in the garage. Be careful though, if he gets a bit cornered, he'll ban you or just delete your post rather than discuss anything. He thinks he's a qualified psych who can diagnose from 3000 odd miles away, so he thinks he's pretty clever. (not) Still, I doubt Larson will post again here because several people are questioning him and his gun craze. When that happens he gives up and refuses to discuss. He's always right you know.

How does a "No guns allowed" thing work in the cinemas? Do you have to guive them up at the popcorn counter? Or go through a metal detector, like in an airport?

And the sign "No guns allowed" - does that mean those that carry no guns are allowed, but it doesn't say what to do if you are carrying a gun, there's no mention of that scenario. No wonder the geezer shot so many.

Col