Sign in to follow this  
SEC=UGA

Gun Control

Recommended Posts

I still don't buy the "if more people there had guns the carnage would be less" idea. Sure things may have gone down differently, but there is no gaurantee (nor any similar cases that I'm aware of) that would back up this idea that armed citizens were going to stop the gunmen.

 

It is certainly not a good reason to remove restrictions on where people can take their guns. Next thing people will be saying they should be allowed to carry their guns into NFL games, court rooms, libraries, schools, etc.

 

Maybe gun control isn't the solution. But I have to think if half of the guns in this country suddenly vanished that there would be fewer shooting deaths because fewer people (law abiding and criminals) would have access to guns.

 

As far as dealing with those with mental issues, we could add more programs and such, but in many cases it wouldn't matter as these people are not considered to have issues until they go on a shooting rampage. They are almost always "just an average normal person".

 

 

And this is part of the problem. The guns won't just vanish and there is almost no way to find the crazies before they snap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't buy the "if more people there had guns the carnage would be less" idea. Sure things may have gone down differently, but there is no gaurantee (nor any similar cases that I'm aware of) that would back up this idea that armed citizens were going to stop the gunmen.

 

It is certainly not a good reason to remove restrictions on where people can take their guns. Next thing people will be saying they should be allowed to carry their guns into NFL games, court rooms, libraries, schools, etc.

 

Maybe gun control isn't the solution. But I have to think if half of the guns in this country suddenly vanished that there would be fewer shooting deaths because fewer people (law abiding and criminals) would have access to guns.

 

As far as dealing with those with mental issues, we could add more programs and such, but in many cases it wouldn't matter as these people are not considered to have issues until they go on a shooting rampage. They are almost always "just an average normal person".

 

 

From last week.

 

http://www.nbcdfw.co...-162941656.html

 

And another

 

http://happilyameric...-stops-robbers/

 

And another

 

http://www.wisn.com/Customer-Stops-Grocery-Store-Robbery-By-Shooting-Suspect-Police-Say/-/9374034/10936560/-/dcpmr/-/index.html

Edited by Perchoutofwater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My front door has locks to prevent this sort of thing.

:lol:

 

Perch logic: Leave front door unlocked, carry loaded weapon during a BBQ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And this is part of the problem. The guns won't just vanish and there is almost no way to find the crazies before they snap.

Maybe not 100% of the crazies, but from the little I've read of the people that have done this sort of killing they typically have at least some run in with "the system" before they go full psycho and start shooting random people. Maybe this guy's story is different. I know when the guy shot up the Von Maur Store here in Omaha he had been in the state system at one point. I think as state budgets have shrunk over the years, mental health care is something that has been cut and it's importance diminished. My position is that it would be possible to improve that system with better funding and lessen the likelyhood of future incidents. I'd even support some way to take away future gun purchasing rights from those that have been in the mental system for particular incidents. Granted there are a million questions of "how" and "who chooses" left out of that, but I don't see how that is not a valid way to improve the current situation without taking away lawful citizens guns or drastically change the political landscape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol:

 

Perch logic: Leave front door unlocked, carry loaded weapon during a BBQ.

 

 

As I said earlier if you cared to read it, it was in the middle of the day and my kid was playing with a kid across the street.

 

Square logic: Lock your kid out of the house while they are playing outside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said earlier if you cared to read it, it was in the middle of the day and my kid was playing with a kid across the street.

 

Square logic: Lock your kid out of the house while they are playing outside.

There is plenty of logic in not reading all of your posts.

 

Besides, the whole concept of "it's just the middle of the day and my kids are playing across the street" = good time to carry a loaded firearm is admittedly bizarre to me so maybe I'm missing something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is plenty of logic in not reading all of your posts.

 

Besides, the whole concept of "it's just the middle of the day and my kids are playing across the street" = good time to carry a loaded firearm is admittedly bizarre to me so maybe I'm missing something.

 

Simple answer, the ne'er-do-wells like to strike when you least expect it, therefore every waking moment is the right time to carry a loaded firearm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple answer, the ne'er-do-wells like to strike when you least expect it, therefore every waking moment is the right time to carry a loaded firearm.

 

 

Sure, but many of us think people who pack heat, especially in low crime areas, all the time seem a bit irrational/illogical anyways. My money is on Perch never needing to draw down on anyone again besides Beatle Juice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Sure, but many of us think people who pack heat, especially in low crime areas, all the time seem a bit irrational/illogical anyways. My money is on Perch never needing to draw down on anyone again besides Beatle Juice.

 

I'll tell you what, had Perch been in that theater,

 

Ah crap I can't do it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't buy the "if more people there had guns the carnage would be less" idea. Sure things may have gone down differently, but there is no gaurantee (nor any similar cases that I'm aware of) that would back up this idea that armed citizens were going to stop the gunmen.

 

It is certainly not a good reason to remove restrictions on where people can take their guns. Next thing people will be saying they should be allowed to carry their guns into NFL games, court rooms, libraries, schools, etc.

 

Maybe gun control isn't the solution. But I have to think if half of the guns in this country suddenly vanished that there would be fewer shooting deaths because fewer people (law abiding and criminals) would have access to guns.

 

As far as dealing with those with mental issues, we could add more programs and such, but in many cases it wouldn't matter as these people are not considered to have issues until they go on a shooting rampage. They are almost always "just an average normal person".

 

Simple question. If you were there with your wife and kids and the gunman stood between you and the door, would you be ok with having a gun?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There is plenty of logic in not reading all of your posts.

 

Besides, the whole concept of "it's just the middle of the day and my kids are playing across the street" = good time to carry a loaded firearm is admittedly bizarre to me so maybe I'm missing something.

 

 

It is better to have it and not ned it, then need it and not have it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is better to have it and not ned it, then need it and not have it.

 

 

You could say the same thing about poontang.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could say the same thing about poontang.

 

Or blow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe not 100% of the crazies, but from the little I've read of the people that have done this sort of killing they typically have at least some run in with "the system" before they go full psycho and start shooting random people. Maybe this guy's story is different. I know when the guy shot up the Von Maur Store here in Omaha he had been in the state system at one point. I think as state budgets have shrunk over the years, mental health care is something that has been cut and it's importance diminished. My position is that it would be possible to improve that system with better funding and lessen the likelyhood of future incidents. I'd even support some way to take away future gun purchasing rights from those that have been in the mental system for particular incidents. Granted there are a million questions of "how" and "who chooses" left out of that, but I don't see how that is not a valid way to improve the current situation without taking away lawful citizens guns or drastically change the political landscape.

 

There are questions on form 4473 and laws that don't let people buy guns for various mental reasons.

 

As to carry, one usually carries all the time. Once you're used to it being there, you never take it off. I had an officer's model carried in an inside-the-waistband holster and it was on every moment it could be. Went in the pants just like the wallet and keys.

 

I feel really sorry for folks that are have an irrational fear of an inanimate object. :shrug:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple question. If you were there with your wife and kids and the gunman stood between you and the door, would you be ok with having a gun?

 

 

Difficult question because I'm not married and don't have kids.

 

Hypothetically, if I was there and this happened, I suppose I'd like to have a gun to protect myself. But since I don't own or use guns I probably wouldn't have one. (Not to mention if the theatre posts signs saying "no weapons" I'm likely to abide by that. Not sure why some gun owners think that they can ignore that, I believe in Ohio if a sign is posted and you take your gun in you are breaking the law.)

 

I'm also not sure that I or any of the number of those with guns and training would be in a position to intervene and save the day. I'm basically not a big fan of guns, I don't think the average person needs to carry one regularly to protect themselves. I've lived in large cities all my life (LA, Cleveland, Akron) and have never felt the need to have or carry a gun to protect myself.

 

The idea that more guns present in hostile situation automatically means a quicker defusing of that situation just seems silly to me. And the notion by some here (and other places I've had these discussions) that citizens who "shoot their guns more often than cops" are in a position to step in and stop a gunman like this is pretty scary. (As if target practice prepares them to deal with this kind of situation.)

 

 

WV,

 

That inanimate object makes it very easy and quick for people to kill each other. That is the fear people have, not fear of the object itself. If you're carrying a club or knife and I piss you off it isn't so easy for you to kill me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many areas have very strict laws regarding gun ownership. Many of these municipalities/states with the strictest gun laws have some of the highest rates of murder by firearms and other crimes.

 

For instance:

DC had a long standing ban on handguns (it was struck down by the SC sometime in the middle of 2000), they require all guns to be registered and many other "qualifying" steps be taken to purchase a gun. With these laws in place, DC has roughly 31 firearm deaths per 1000,0000 population, this among the highest in the nation.

 

Illinois has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, there is no carry and concealed permit allowed and a person must carry a permit to even purchase a firearm in the state. Chicago has even more stringent laws regarding the ownership of firearms where all firearms must be registered with the police and no firearms sales are allowed in the city.. Further, only one operable firearm is allowed per family. With these laws in place, Chicago has had 228 people killed by firearms through the middle of June of this year.

 

New Jersey, New York and Cali also have relatively onerous gun laws and many of their cities boast very high firearm death rates.

 

As I have noted before, there is one city I know intimately that has a law mandating that every household own a firearm, Kennesaw, GA. Firearm deaths in Kennesaw are among the lowest in the nation and have been for MANY years.

 

Now, it is difficult to compare cities of a few million people to one that has 3,000, but in accordance to the logic: "The availability of firearms is directly correlated to firearm deaths" on would think that in a city where firearm laws are very lenient, one would expect to see a high rate of deaths by firearms... This seems to not be the case.

 

Now, the counter argument to this is much the one that Mexico is putting out. "We have tough laws on gun ownership, if only you, the US, would have more stringent laws we would not have all of these firearm deaths, because most of the firearms are coming from you guys." This is an argument that NYC has made and actually filed suit against a GA gun dealer claiming that a number of the weapons used in murders in NY came from GA gun dealers. No matter what the laws are in an individual state or municipality, people will find a way to acquire weapons from other sources.

 

Face it, the biggest problem, the biggest source of deaths in this country is not from the lone whacko, who legally purchased his weapons, stroming a movie theater. The biggest problem is from a criminal element, who in most cases acquired weapons illegally, using them in single incident/victim shootings.

 

The main question, I guess, is: Do you want to restrict access to law abiding citizens legally purchasing guns? As cliche as it is, the criminal is going to get one regardless of the laws and it will be as easy as going down to the corner to buy Josh Gordon, crack, heroin, etc...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SEC

 

Wow really, those are your examples. DC and some other states with tough gun laws that have large urban areas with a lot of crime.

 

Answer this, if half of the guns in the US just vanished overnight, do you think we'd have more or less people shot to death in the period after that.

 

Or maybe we should just follow the idea of Kennesaw, and require every US citizen (head of household) to own a gun. Then surely shooting deaths would plummit rapidly to near zero.

 

To answer your question, I just want fewer guns in general. Fewer people being shot in wild rampages like this one (and many others we've seen recently). Less people who think that using their gun to settle an argument is the best alternative. Fewer guns in the hands of people that will end up using them for evil.

 

 

One more thing, I was reading up on the law in Kennesaw and there seem to be many outs for those who don't want to own a gun. And nobody has ever been prosecuted for not owning one. (If they were penalty is not known and would be determined at that time.) Also didn't see any info on how many people own guns, before or after the law was enacted. So its pretty hard to draw any real correlation here, just like all the other examples you and others on the other side have thrown out.

 

I guess my point is we seem to live in a more violent society than other "civilized" parts of the world. People in the use resort to violence more often, and access to guns means more deadly violence when that happens. I think we all want the same thing (less violence, tragic death, etc.) But one group thinks more guns is the solution, while the other thinks less guns would help.

Edited by stevegrab

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many areas have very strict laws regarding gun ownership. Many of these municipalities/states with the strictest gun laws have some of the highest rates of murder by firearms and other crimes.

 

For instance:

DC had a long standing ban on handguns (it was struck down by the SC sometime in the middle of 2000), they require all guns to be registered and many other "qualifying" steps be taken to purchase a gun. With these laws in place, DC has roughly 31 firearm deaths per 1000,0000 population, this among the highest in the nation.

 

Illinois has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, there is no carry and concealed permit allowed and a person must carry a permit to even purchase a firearm in the state. Chicago has even more stringent laws regarding the ownership of firearms where all firearms must be registered with the police and no firearms sales are allowed in the city.. Further, only one operable firearm is allowed per family. With these laws in place, Chicago has had 228 people killed by firearms through the middle of June of this year.

 

New Jersey, New York and Cali also have relatively onerous gun laws and many of their cities boast very high firearm death rates.

 

As I have noted before, there is one city I know intimately that has a law mandating that every household own a firearm, Kennesaw, GA. Firearm deaths in Kennesaw are among the lowest in the nation and have been for MANY years.

 

Now, it is difficult to compare cities of a few million people to one that has 3,000, but in accordance to the logic: "The availability of firearms is directly correlated to firearm deaths" on would think that in a city where firearm laws are very lenient, one would expect to see a high rate of deaths by firearms... This seems to not be the case.

 

Now, the counter argument to this is much the one that Mexico is putting out. "We have tough laws on gun ownership, if only you, the US, would have more stringent laws we would not have all of these firearm deaths, because most of the firearms are coming from you guys." This is an argument that NYC has made and actually filed suit against a GA gun dealer claiming that a number of the weapons used in murders in NY came from GA gun dealers. No matter what the laws are in an individual state or municipality, people will find a way to acquire weapons from other sources.

 

Face it, the biggest problem, the biggest source of deaths in this country is not from the lone whacko, who legally purchased his weapons, stroming a movie theater. The biggest problem is from a criminal element, who in most cases acquired weapons illegally, using them in single incident/victim shootings.

 

The main question, I guess, is: Do you want to restrict access to law abiding citizens legally purchasing guns? As cliche as it is, the criminal is going to get one regardless of the laws and it will be as easy as going down to the corner to buy Josh Gordon, crack, heroin, etc...

 

 

The important difference between those places is drugs not gun laws.

 

Take away the black market for drug money, and you decrease gun violence in the USA and Mexico. It's really that simple.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The important difference between those places is drugs not gun laws.

 

 

And that's why the NRA hyped cause and effect arguments are worthless. They look at one factor in a vacuum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Not to mention if the theatre posts signs saying "no weapons" I'm likely to abide by that. Not sure why some gun owners think that they can ignore that, I believe in Ohio if a sign is posted and you take your gun in you are breaking the law.)

 

actually, what the city did -- criminalizing the act of ignoring a no firearms sign -- is actually illegal in my state and I'm not sure how they got away with it and continue to do so. A city is not allowed to preempt state law.

 

It is not illegal to CC in a business per state law, but the city made it a 3rd degree misdeameanor and you can lose your firearm in the process. You are REQUIRED to leave a store if the store asks you to leave.

 

 

I don't think the average person needs to carry one regularly to protect themselves.

 

 

you're right, you don't need it regularly... just once. Unfortunately, I don't know anyone psychic to tell me that one or few times that a person would need their firearm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

actually, what the city did -- criminalizing the act of ignoring a no firearms sign -- is actually illegal in my state and I'm not sure how they got away with it and continue to do so. A city is not allowed to preempt state law.

 

It is not illegal to CC in a business per state law, but the city made it a 3rd degree misdeameanor and you can lose your firearm in the process. You are REQUIRED to leave a store if the store asks you to leave.

 

 

 

you're right, you don't need it regularly... just once. Unfortunately, I don't know anyone psychic to tell me that one or few times that a person would need their firearm.

 

 

To the point of carrying and signs, I believe that was part of the Ohio CCW law (the ability of businesses to post signs prohibiting firearms). We have one at our office, and most every retail business has them as well. However I hear many gun owners/CCW holders that say "Screw that, its just a sign telling criminals its ok to rob the place. I'm still carrying my gun." So much for the view of "law abiding gun owners".

 

You only need it once...

That's similar to a philosophy regarding safety gear for motorcycling, All The Gear All The Time (ATGATT). You don't know when you might crash so you always wear it (helmet, jacket, pants, gloves, boots). I guess I just don't feel the risk is there to warrant me having or carrying a gun. I'm also not trying to stop others from doing it. I just think its a bad idea to have more guns in the hands of more people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.