Don't sing "My Way" by Frank Sinata at a Karaoke bar in the Philippines.

Look people, they make training guns that cannot fire bullets. But this is a moot point. I am refering to general firearms safety, not a class on how to fire guns.

If you are interested in firearms you can pursue the above knowlege, but EVERYBODY in the United States should know the proper way to act around firearms, because EVERYBODY in the United States is around them every day, whether they know it or not.

Just teach and reinforce the four basic rules of firearms safety as part of health class. You could use red guns, cardboard cut outs, or even just imagination.

It is pathetic that in a country full of firearms, people are so ignorant about them...

Like how to use a gun?
Someone is around a gun every day in the US. The idea that everyone in the US is around a gun every day is ludicrous. I myself have not been around a gun for years. I'm not around police officers often, and there are laws here about having a concealed weapon, especially a gun. You don't need to exaggerate to make your point. Yes, sometimes some people are around guns.
Assume every gun is loaded, point the gun in a safe direction, keep your finger off the trigger unless you plan to use it, be sure of your target. Guess what? Those are common sense rules. I don't see a reason to teach those things in a mandatory, state sponsored class. They don't have mandatory bomb defusing classes or swordplay, so I think gun safety should be optional. Like sowing or cooking.
It's pathetic that we live in a country full of firearms.

No, perhaps some reading comprehension classes would help you as well.
Hate to burst your bubble, but you are within 10 feet of a gun almost every time you go out in public. Be it a cop (or off duty cop), citizen with or without a carry permit, or a criminal, you are around them. But that sand is so comfortable about the ears, isn't it?
If it was such common sense we wouldn't have the number of accidental shootings we have nowadays, would we? And though there is no way to prove it, I would bet 10 to 1 that you had to Google those rules.

How many bombs or swords are you around daily? *cough*strawman*cough*

And how many people accidently sew themselves to death each year? I googled it, but I couldn't find any hard statistics.

In fact lets just go with your idea. We can shitcan sex-education, most high-school sciences, drivers-ed and whole slew of other "common sense" topics. Then we can spend the money we saved on education on important things like rainbows, sandals, and pot.
And we will continue to until you wave your magic wand and make them all go away.

*Note: Willravel is responding to this while doing homework for a Masters program*
I can always learn more, but you're language was clear.
Tell you what, come on over here tomorrow and I'll walk with you downtown with a metal detector. I happen to know that, because of conceal carry laws, and low gun crime rates in the area, I'm not likely to be around a gun unless it's on the hip of a police officer. So we can take our walk. Then we can stop off for some delicious humble pie. I know a great place, as I've been wrong before about many things.

Maybe the real question should be, why, in my 23 years on this Earth, have I never had to use a gun? I don't even think I've ever been offered the opportunity. I'll tell you I've never actively seeked to learn about or aquire a gun, but really...you're suggesting mandatory gun training for everyone. For me it would be as useless as spelling.
Do you have access to the statistics about those accidental shootings, like for example how many of those people had gun training?
How many people wear clothes? More than have guns? Booyah.
Sex education has been forced towards abstinence, so I'd agree there. Sciences are important to every day life of everyone, because we all in science. Drivers ed...do you know what percentage of Americans have drivers licenses? Compare that to how many people have guns.
There's no such thing as magic. There is such thing as common sense. It's not as common as I'd like, but it's there.

Yes, crystal clear:
Sure, I'll bite (though not the pie). Since you are being silly, and you have a metal detector handy, I'll be right over. :rolleyes:
I thought you had been shot? That seems to me to be the quintessential opportunity to use a gun.

Be careful you don't reap what you sew (sic[see below]).
No, but given the number of guns versus the number of safety courses offered it seems a matter of "common sense" that not everybody who has the potential to come into contact with a gun is properly trained to act in a safe manner around one.
They accidentaly die from wearing clothes? You have lost me here, your logic is truely daunting.
Yeah, but driving is "common sense" to me, so I say we can it.
What about all the people who aren't so prescient about gun safety, like the one who might accidently shoot you through the dorm wall wilst try to clean his pistol? Wouldn't it make sense to spend a day, just one day, in class to at least mitigate some of those incidents?

I didn't have one handy.
And what about the criminals you're teaching? What about those who use their knowledge to hurt others?
No, you're case is that because guns are so prevalent, that it should be taught. Clothes are more prevalent than guns.
Using a turn signal obviously isn't common sense to most people, as most people don't use it. Most people speed. Many people don't stop at a right light when turning right. Some people cross a double yellow line. You get the point.
It makes sense to require GUN OWNERS to go through gun safety. Not everyone. I don't like wasting my time.

Pity.
Please explain to me how a criminal can use the four basic rules of firearms safety to hurt other people.
But the number of people killed cleaning thier clothes each year is presumably quite a bit smaller than the number killed cleaning thier firearms. But I could be wrong, not having seen the statistics.
I do get the point, but who is to dictate what is common sense?

Look, you yourself have argued that allowing the public to own firearms is dangerous. I have proposed a way to make it less dangerous.

I will attempt to research the hard numbers, but would you concede that if people who have had a gun safety course are substantially less likely to be shot, then it is in the public interest to provide all people with that course?
And one day, if you choose to have children, one of them might come upon a gun in a neighbors closet. Of course not being a gun owner, it would be a waste of time if he or she actually knew what to do in such a situation.

Irony.

Please tell me you realized that was intentional, like all the times I spell grammar 'grammer'. I may not always be funny, but I try.

Not from my perspective. I could have killed him had I opened fire. I'm not ready to kill someone, be it intentionally or accidentally. And please don't tell me that gun classes could have helped to prevent that, because you yourself said that they wouldn't be firing guns.
Gun classes teach people about gun safety. Criminals are less likely to accidentally blow off their own heads because of it.
I dictate what's common sense to me.
LThey still have guns.
If they are less likely to not only hurt themselves but also others, then sure.
I have a daughter, and she knows not to touch guns and to tell an adult. That's the most important lesson of all.

So you encourage the deaths of criminals in this fashion even though it could lead to innocent deaths by accident as well. How wonderfully callous of you will!
But we are talking about public education, not willravel education. Do you consider yourself to be representative of a majority of high-schoolers?
Do you dislike guns or the problems associated with them?
I agree, but it also assumes the adult knows what to do.

I'm against creating more efficient criminals. I don't hope that they hurt themselves. I hope they don't pick up a gun.
No more than you do.
Yes.
I know not to pull the trigger. I think we can agree that's common sense.

Originally Posted by debaser
I thought you had been shot? That seems to me to be the quintessential opportunity to use a gun.
Will, since you only got hit once, consider yourself lucky. Did you ever bother to think what COULD have happened if that shooter hadn't been pressed for time and decided that a witness might be a bad thing? coming back to finish you off? What would you have done then?

This is assuming that everyone is going to be a criminal. Shall we assume the same of you?

exactly what the founding fathers didn't want.

I have never been shot- I have had family members brutally murdered, and my wife's life threatened- I will take my guns over hopefull thoughts about the goodness of mankind any day. my wife is 5'2" - she has no chance in hell against a 6'2" assailant with a bat in his hand- with her gun however, she can defend herself quite handily... I do not fear being shot in daily life, I do fear having the means to defend myself against someone bigger and stronger taken away.........

I could have died. Or William Shatner could have saved me. I prefer the second hypothetical.
This is not assuming everyone will be a criminal. This is why many people ignore you. It's blatantly clear that I meant that some of those trained would be criminals. I stole a candybar once when I was in middleschool. I returned it, though.
Again you speak on behalf of the dead? I'll tell you what, if you can locate written doctuments by any of the founding fathers about gun training in school, I'll eat my hat. Until then, this is meaningless rhetoric.

Can your wife work a taser or pepper spray?

Of course you would, because you have the same problem as most other pacifists.....'it can't happen here/to me. The problem is IF it does, what do you do? totally unprepared=dead.

And some could be marines or soldiers, cops or security officers, and god forbid, some just might be decent citizens.

your statement did NOT include schools. It simply stated that you didn't think gun safety should be mandatory. I've also shown you enough historical documentation for you to KNOW that the founding fathers felt that every man should know how to use firearms to defend liberty. I don't think you want me to repost all of that, right?

You know, I can understand calling for a few extra hoops for gun owners to jump through before they can bring their concealed weapons to school/college/ect., but otherwise, I'm really not clear on how it's so insane. Even with the numerous explanations from roachboy - "that's a batshit idea" and the equally illuminating "not worth taking seriously" - it really doesn't sound all that crazy to me to let sufficiently competent students, teachers, and staff carry handguns to school. What would-be criminal intent on murder is going to wait for the existence of those hoops anyway?

'Sufficiently competent' are key words here, to be sure, and they leave a lot of room for debate. But I think it's a hugely unwarranted cynicism that would apply those words only to a law enforcement officer and not to any civilian.

I'm not dead. That's really the point, isn't it. You're suggesting that if the person were a different person that fit into your assertion of criminality, then I would have died. Most criminals don't decide 'that a witness might be a bad thing'. Most do their thing and leave. The statistics probably agree with me, if you want to look them up.
You don't think soldiers and police officers are trained to use guns?
I'm afraid you came in late in the conversation we were having about making gun training mandatory in schools.

Also, the founding fathers bit is just further rhetoric. I'll ask you again: present me with evidence that the founding fathers wanted mandatory gun classes in schools.

See?

I remember back in late 1982/early 1983 - at my school (Western Kentucky University) we had a guest lecturer. He was G. Gordon Liddy, of Watergate fame, and now currently a right wing radio personality. I went to his lecture, and was forever changed in how I viewed the world.

Mr. Liddy opened his lecture by speaking of a scenario in which an elderly woman in a city would go and pick up her social security check at the post office and would then make her way back to her apartment. As she made her way home, she was followed by thugs who were intent on taking her check from her. As she rounded the corner to get to her apartment, the thugs came forward and made their presence known, and demanded of her that check.

Two scenarios followed, Mr. Liddy described. In one scenario, the little old lady gave over her check, thereby giving up her only means of survival for the next month. The other scenario, was more appealing.

Granny pulled out a 44 magnum and told the asswhole thugs to get the hell away, and if they didn't Granny would shoot their ass. And Granny would keep her check and would be able to pay her bills and buy groceries for another month.

Which scenario did we want to envision for the US, Mr. Liddy asked us. It was then that I began to be on Granny's side, and on the side of the second amendment of the constitution.

It is absolutely terrible that this young man killed so many at VT, and with legal handguns.

My concern is not with the second amendment, it is with the judgement of authorities who allowed him to continue to be at school when he was so obviously mentally ill. He had been considered "dangerous", by psycological counselors, and why he was allowed to continue to be enrolled at this school is a huge question to me.

Handguns are used to save lives everyday. MY sister's life was saved by a gun that her husband pulled in order to save her life. Our city has little crime, and I'll be willing to bet it's because there are a proliferation of handguns in the possession of law abiding citizens, like Granny.

I do not believe in assault weapons - they should be banned. There is no value for them other than killing humans. However, assault weapons were not used at VT - normal handguns were. And those will always remain legal.

Yes to both- She chose and bought a gun before she met me - with regard to pepper spray and tasers, I sell them in my store- Both weapons have severe limitations- especially the taser- Keep in mind that they work somewhat, and that I closely associate with several law enforcement professionals that have used both on violent subjects- Pepper spray is for when you have the ability to run away from an assailant, and It WILL NOT work like most people think it will- It is better than nothing, and a usefull tool, but I will not stake my life on it, and it is not good for a break in or home invasion situation- it works best to blind and diminish the fighting ability of a subject while several officers are helping to bear him to the ground and cuff him.... The taser works fairly well, and can incapacitate a subject, but you have ONE SHOT- and that one shot has a 15 foot range... that can be made to work indoors, but it is too iffy for my tastes. also, a heavy, stadium style coat can and will stop the probes on a taser from getting a good contact- causing the weapon to do nothing..... the taser has a contact on the gun, but this only works when applied directly to someone ( I know, we tested one in the store on ME ) and that means closing to hand to hand range and holding the weapon to a struggling assailant.... Tasers have transformed police work and give officers another less lethal option, but bear in mind that police believe in overwhelming force tactics, and there will almost always be SEVERAL of them there when someone is tased, to help control the subject afterwards..... Finally, note that tasers have a limited battery, and WILL NOT imobilize a subject for even as long as it would take for the most optimistic police response to arrive.... In closing it should be remembered that cops use pepper spray and tasers as part of a force continium- they always have a gun handy and are taught to ALWAYS use it if their life is threatened... understand, I carry pepper spray regularly, and if someone with a knife tried to mug me in an alley I would gladly spray them and run away- but if someone kicks in my door, I want the ability to defend myself, with something that will work with permanent certainty......and while I love my sword collection, firearms are simply the best option out there to keep my family safe........

A new bill has been placed in congress that calls for stricter background checks which include mental health. It is supported by the Dems and the NRA. I hope this passes.

Sounds like a good idea, let's hope they don't screw it up in the execution.

The NRA is backing it?! That's like a miracle or something.

The NRA really is a false opposition to gun-control. Gun owner's of America and Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership are much better imo.

I quit the NRA when they rolled over on the "assault weapons" ban.

Do you think they should have assault weapons training in schools, too?

I keep wondering, why in god's name you think you need all these horrible things? What possible reasonable use could anyone but a military officer in the field need with an assault weapon?

The title of the bill has little to do with the actual text. It should of been titled guns that look scary ban but otherwise perform like a hunting rifle.

Assault weapon = assault rifle, yes? If so, then I disagree. The M16 and AK47 are not hunting rifles.

The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. It is about ensuring that the people, thats you and me, have at our disposal the means to fight off....why am I even bothering with this for you? :shakehead:

If you're going to respond to my posts, then maybe you should read a few posts before it for context. This is the second time in the past few days that you've done this. Let me make this as clear as possible:
See where he said that the assault weapon ban was against 'scary guns' that 'perform like a hunting rifle'? THAT is what I was responding to. Understand? If you respond like this again, I'll just ignore you.

Or would you like to tell me that the M16 and AK47 are hunting rifles?

Assault weapon or rifle is a weird term.

Most Civilians cannot get fully automatic weapons since the 30's I believe (if that's what you think of by Assault Rifle). All AK-47 or M16 type guns you get in America are NOT fully automatic. Therefore it does perform similarly to a semi-automatic hunting rifle. It's the LOOK that was banned, not what the rifles did.

Here is an excellent video that shows what I'm talking about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysf8x477c30

Oh snap, that guy's from San Jose! Odd coincidence.

Okay, the video is very informative. I happen to know the difference between a semi and full auto gun, but I was unaware that newsmedia mislabels guns. I'll have to keep an eye out for that.

Going back for a moment, the assault rifle has some key differences from a hunting weapon:
-Selective fire
-Use of the magazine

It's important, in my mind, to point out these differences as they change the functionality of the weapon considerably. Hunting rifles, as I understand them, do not use burst fire. Also, hunting rifles can only keep a small amount of ammunition in the weapon. This means that you have like x number of shots to hit the deer (or the person, if you're a violent criminal). A magazine carries a substantially larger number of bullets that can be fired without reloading.

so you're saying that a rifle that has a detachable magazine holding, say 15 rounds, is an assault rifle but a rifle that only has 5 rounds in a loading tube is not?

So you're saying that an assault rifle and a hunting rifle are the exact same thing?

Pardon me, I misspoke myself. I meant assault weapon, not assault rifle.

Also, not sure why this went to hunting because hunting is not the subject of the right to keep and bear arms.

If you think there is a threadjack, then say something. Samcol and I were discussing assault weapons.

"Gun Control" in the U.S. this is an Oxy Moron!

:lol:, that was out of left field!

Assault rifles are not selective fire. They are semi-automatic only.

A select fire weapon is known as a Class 3 weapon or a machine gun (technically not correct). Anyone can buy once once they pay a $200 tax stamp and complete a very thorough background check.

But the class 3 weapons were banned under the ban, right? I think I need more reading on this...

Actually he said "scary looking" guns. And he is right. Most weapons outlawed by the ban weren't nearly as dangerous as a "hunting rifle", they just had a scary looking part, like a bayonette lug or a pistol grip.


Not at all, they are a completely separate entity under the law and were not effected at all under the AWB.

Will - if this helps, there are some GREAT threads here with all of this info. Check in the politics forum with last posts in the fall of 2004. If I remember correctly, Lebell and Seretogis did a great job explaining why both gun control advocates AND proponents should regard the AWB as junk legislation. I think it was one of the few times that several people changed their opinions on an issue publicly.

First let me state Will, that I for one am not trying to change your opinion on this discussion. I am merely stating my OWN opinion as information to absorb.
Just because in your 25 years YOU have not needed a firearm, does NOT mean that nobody else has had the need. Consider yourself fortunate. While I am appaled that you were shot once before(I will say thank GOD that you are ok afterward) Not everyone that has been shot is as fortunate as you. I have a very good friend of mine that is alive today because of the fact that I carry, and no, I have absolutely no doubt that she would be dead if I hadn't intervened. You asked before If I had ever shot a criminal, and my answer was yes. Here is the situation. I had a good friend of mine who always seemd to date the wrong guys. One of those ladies you see in the movies always picking the guys who beat her up all the time. She was dating this guy who was always mean to her, but she kept telling me that it was "her fault" and whenever I called the cops after hearing them fighting, she would NEVER press charges.(needless to say he didn't like me much...I didn't care if he did) One Friday night, she had finally had enough, and told me that she was going to move out. He was out of town, and we were packing her things so she could move. Well he came home, and at the time I was in my apartment getting more boxes. I heard the yelling, and immediately went over to see what was going on, and he was standing over her with a pistol, screaming at her. He saw me, and while he was starting to point his gun toward me, I drew, and fired. 3 shots, center mass. The police of course arrived, I was arrested (don't think that if you use your firearm, even legally, that you WONT get arrested) and arraigned on Monday morning. When I got out, the charges were already dropped against me.
I got back home, and my friend was obviously distressed, but hugged me and thanked me. We found out a few days later that her "boyfriend" had rope, a roll of plastic construction plastic, a shovel, and an axe in the trunk of his car. So yes, I FULLY believe in the right to own and bear arms. If it weren't for my quick thinking and TRAINING THAT I RECEIVED IN SCHOOL(back then Firearm safety was IN school, and they trained you in safe operation and safety of MANY firearms) then things may have gone differently. Am I saddened that I had to kill someone? YES...I relive the fact that I killed someone....another human being. But I can also feel better knowing that it was done to save another person's life. Someone who was a dear friend.

I now step off my soapbox...

can a gun-owner PM me, i have a couple of serious questions, but i don't want to take up room in this thread.

Thank you

Deltona, that's really, really sad. I'm very glad they you were there to rescue your friend from that sick individual. I'm also very sorry that you needed to kill him and I recognize that it's not my place to say whether it was necessary or not mainly because I wasn't there. The only thing I'm left wondering, and hope you don't find this offensive, is was it necessary to fire center mass? I'm not familiar with firearms, but I'm handy with a bow and arrow and I would be confident to hit someone in, say, the shoulder from 25 feet off. It's a difficult question to ask because it's clear that your life and the life of your friend were in immediate danger, so please don't misunderstand: I think you're a hero for being brave enough to make a serious decision to save your friend. As someone who would die in order to avoid killing another human being, I'm just trying to understand.

To be clear, I can't say with certainty what I'd do in a similar situation. If a friend or family member of mine were in a dire and life threatening situation, it's possible that something in me would kick in and I could take a life. Speaking outside of that situation, though, I'd like to think that I would find all reasonable methods of saving my friend that avoided taking a life. As an atheist, I find life to be especially precious because I know I won't have an afterlife to atone or to see those who have died again.

I just shot a handgun for the 2nd time this weekend, needless to say it was a very humbling experience. The short barrel of a handgun makes it very hard to aim well compared to a rifle. Plus real targets don't stand still so imo it would take some real skill to purposely hit a moving person's shoulder at 25 ft.

will

I hope I don't come off cold blooded saying this, but every time you shoot a firearm at a person you should aim center mass. This is for several reasons:

1. It is much easier to hit. Gunfights are high stress situations, and your shot placement rarely achieves parity with what you can do on a target range.

2. If you are shooting at a person, you have decided to use deadly force. The fact that you are shooting a gun implies that you need to incapacitate the target as quickly as possible, the most reliable way to accomplish this is center mass shots to the torso (the head is too hard to hit in a fluid situation).

3. Legaly you are much more justified in shooting a person in the chest, regardless if you kill him or not, than you are trying to "shoot the gun out of his hand", or shoot him in the leg. Once you discharge your weapon you have applied dealy force, whether you hit him or not. That is the standard you will be judged on.

The real trick is you never want to fire a gun in this situation, period. But once a person has forced you to the point where there is no other option you go with training and neccessity.

Deltona Couple, my condolences and appreciation for your story.

samcol, what were you shooting?

The only pistol I've shot in recent experience is a Beretta M9A1. It's fairly user friendly, IMO.

It was a 9mm Beretta. Yes, it was pretty easy to use, but I was just anticipating the shot and flinching on the trigger pull. It was enlighting to actually shoot one because all I knew before that was whats on tv and video games. So, I could see why someone would only want to aim for the chest once you make the decision to use deadly force.

I'll bet all my money that you don't work at a bank. LOL

Jonathan

it's kind of funny, in a way, to read about the huge debate about gun ownership in a general sense from my perspective. i just grew up with them. they were tools, and remain so. not great savers of liberty, not evil doers of mischief. i grew up popping off bottle tops with .22's, firing .45's, shotguns, rifles; i have no particular fascination with guns, but i'd rather have them around than not. it seems like every other discussion; quickly devolving into the die hard ends of the spectrum. i don't know if i speak for the middle or not; regardless of the particular interpretation you have of the 2nd amendment, i think we should be able to agree that different people seem to have different interpretations of the scope and intent of the amendment. we could go around about the 'correctness' of the individual interpretations til the cows come home without actually resolving the issue. i kind of like it the way it more or less is now, in terms of the legal standpoint. my state isn't a concealed carry state, as far as i know; but if someone broke into my house or my parents' house; they'd probably be pretty severely fucked. i am pretty sure you can get a license to carry a piece around; but it takes some effort and justification to do so. furthermore, there are places - like schools and certain private businesses, where i believe it is illegal to carry a weapon. i rather like it that way.

The Brady Bill was implemented in February of 1994. In 1997, the number of violent crimes committed with firearms had fallen 25% since 1994, while the overall number of violent crimes had declined 14%. Do you dispute this ?

http://www.justfacts.com/gun_control.htm

Crime and mortality statistics are often used in the gun control debate. The number of homicides committed annually with a firearm by persons in the 14- to 24-year-old age group increased by 173% from 1985 to 1993, and then decreased by 47% from 1993 to 1999.

http://www.policyalmanac.org/crime/guns.shtml

Do you dispute any of this evidence ?

Jonathan

Will, to answer your question, the majority of which was touched correctly by Debaser, if you choose to fire a weapon you are using deadly force, and as such, you must be prepared for the result. Accuracy is a big issue. If you aim center mass, then any error in trigger pull, nervous twitch, etc, it still gives you the best chance of hitting your intended target. He was raising his gun in my direction at the time, and in order to prevent him from shooting ME, I had to make the determination that he was an iminent threat. Because of this I felt that it was required to make sure he wouldn't have a chance to fire back. I HAT the fact that it happened, and it is something that I have to live with for the rest of my life. One thing to consider is that I have been raised around firearms all my liffe, and spent 8 years in the Marines, so I had EXTENSIVE training in firearms, and the use of such. It is my opinion that if I were NOT as well trained as I was, I might have flinched, gotten too scared, or worse, and there would have been more than one person who died that day. This is why it is MY belief that everyone should atleast UNDERSTAND the correct use and safety of a firearm. I am not saying it should necesarrily be a required course, but atleast be AVAILABLE in our schools for those who choose to learn. NOTHING in this world is worse in the case of firearms than someone who thinks he knows EVERYTHING about weapons. This makes them twice as dangerous. Yes it is unfortunate that our country has such a higher percentage of firearm deaths. But look again at the statistics. It is hard to make a comparison with such different cultures and populations. Very few countries have the population that we have, or the crime rates that we have. We have been breeding our own problems, and I truly don't see us being able to come to a quick resolution to what is going on. As I said, I would be more than willing to give up every gun I own, if I could be guaranteed the same were done in the entire country. But realistically it will never happen in my lifetime.Think back to prohibition. If we outlawed firearms, then the criminals would import them illegally, and then we would be in more danger as a populace. I am not saying, as was implied of me before, that we shouldn't try. I am saying that we need to make small steps, and gradual EDUCATED steps to help reduce the crimes by firearms. Stronger regulations, stricter requrements for ownership, stiffer crimes for criminals. I like one of the laws in Florida. It is called 10-20-life. If you brandish a weapon while commiting a crime, automatic 10 years, if the firearm is discharged, automatic 20 years, and if you shoot or kill someone, automatic life. It HAS reduced the number of gun commited crimes in Florida. Also, I am not sure where the statistic is, but the it has been shown that the number of person-on-person crimes since the inception of the concealed handgun permit was enacted in Florida has gone down, AND we are showing a decline in other crimes as well. Orlando unfortunately is our problem spot, with crimes on the increase, but hey, can't be perfect...and I don't want anyone thinking I am being biased here...lol. I certainly applaud you Will, for being the way you are....we should have more of you out there. I personally like the check and ballance you give us on this thread, and in the country.

Both gun and non-gun murder rates fell during the same period, 1992 to 1997. In 1992, 68% of U.S. murders were committed with guns; in 1997, it was still 68%. Thus, the decreased gun homicide rate was part of an overall declining crime rate, not an effect of the Brady Bill.

FBI Uniform Crime Reports for 1992 and 1997

Violent crime started falling in 1991, three years before passage of the Brady law. The Brady law did not apply in 18 states, yet violent crime in those states fell just as quickly.

FBI Uniform Crime Statistics for 1990s and the U.S. Justice Department Crime Victimization Survey

Gun possession by criminals has risen in the Brady years – 18% of state prisoners (was 16% before Brady) and 15% for federal prisoners (was 12% before Brady) are caught with firearms.
Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Firearm Use by Offenders”, November 2001

see what I posted above, yes I dispute it.

Anyone can play with numbers to get the desired result they want.

Deltona, I appreciate your candor. If Florida is working, then maybe something along the same lines at the federal level is in order.

Ok, this is some scary shit. I just received an email from my university (University of South Florida) which says they found a 47 year-old man sleeping in his car today at 12:00-1:00, with a loaded .38 caliber handgun on the seat next to him, and a search of his car resulted in finding a knife and a shotgun. Scary thing is, I was at school all day today. Could this VA scenario become commonplace? If there's another university shooting anywhere in the US any time soon, you can bet gun control is going to change big-time. If it happens once, it's a fluke, but if it happens twice within a couple of weeks, what is it? Shenanigans?

I'm glad this situation didn't escalate any further, but I wonder what would've happened if it had. I'm still debating with myself about what I would do if given the opportunity to carry a weapon into campus. I mean, sure, I'd feel a whole lot safer, but in the back of my mind there would always be that feeling that someone around me is also armed. On the other hand, if it were allowed, how many student do you think would actually go through the trouble to get the gun, and be allowed to bring it to school (you'd probably have to fill out loads of paperwork with the university). I mean, how many people around you when you walk down the street have a concealed weapon permit? I'd assume not many. Isn't it reasonable to assume the same ratio of students would bring one to school (i.e, not many)?

it is sad but its nearly impossible to stop it. The government would have to change laws regarding gun control, which is in the Bill of rights.

what law did this guy break?

There are nearly 350,000 concealed license holders in Florida and that does not include those that are carrying without a license, who would otherwise be law abiding citizens. Then you could include criminals and gangbangers and you've probably got about half a million people in your state carrying on a daily basis.

1. Well, since they arrested him and made a huge deal about it, I'd assume he broke some law. He was parked inside the school, and it's illegal to posses a gun(s) within the school. Besides, I don't know about you, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the average gun owner doesn't take his gun(s), drive to a local university, park inside, put them in plain sight (e.i, on the passenger seat), loaded and ready to fire, and then go to sleep. I don't see any possible chain of events which would account for this odd behavior, so forgive me for being troubled by this.

2. Exactly. Assuming 14M adult Floridians, if ,say, 500K own guns, that's 3.6% of the adult population. Assuming it becomes legal to bring firearms to campus, and this same percentage finds itself within my university (though unlikely), where, at any given moment, there are ~5K students and faculty present, that's 180 armed peoples. I don't know about you, but I feel O.K. with that number, considering the size of our campus. And just like all the gun advocates here, I assume if you go through the trouble of buying a gun and registering for a CCW, then you're responsible and also spend time at the range practicing, in which case, I trust that you're responsible with a gun, so I don't expect you to whip it out when a cashier overcharges you accidentally, for example.

You can be troubled by it all you wish, but the law is such that if a person is in his/her own vehicle, whether on college grounds or public school grounds, then he/she is legally allowed to posess a weapon in that vehicle. Now, just because that person was arrested doesn't mean anything. A cop can arrest you for anything they choose and let the court system sort it out. The big deal was simply because of the VT tragedy. I carry mine everyday when I drop my kids off or pick them up so simply having a gun in the car really doesn't mean anything. This person may have simply been looking for a quiet place to rest, but we don't really know that for sure, do we?

Now that is a completely suitable and respectable position to take. :thumbsup:

to the first point, I don't know, but it would surprise me if texas and florida had the same carry laws. so what is legal in dk's state isn't likely relevant to what happens in yours.

secondly, it isn't very reasonable to draw a direct correlation between what happens in the general population of florida and your university. selection bias will have an affect, for one thing. it's conceivable that every person who can and wants to carry in the general population is. it's not a random distribution, so we can't extrapolate from that what might happen on campus. my suspicion is very few people would choose to carry on campus. You could start a survey, that would be interesting. I bet you wouldn't find more than the number you cited: ~180. But I'd base that number in comparison to the 40000+ students at your school...which is why I suggested earlier that no gun law, present or deleted, is going to have any effect at all on this incident or future ones. But if you wanted to draw a comparison, not that it would be much more valid, you would look at how many 28 year olds carry in the general population (should we go ahead and guess not many?) of florida, since that's the average age of your university.

so if you really wanted to know how many people would carry, perform a random survey on your fellow students. take a roster of everyone in your school, do a power analysis to ensure sufficient number of students to be surveyed, have a computer randomly generate the students to contact, if you end up with an n of 30 that should do it so shouldn't be terribly difficult to administer and come back with their responses so we can check it out. you could poll a variety of age brackets with equal responses in each cell. then you could compare those responses to who carries in the community. then you would get close to the question of who would want to carry, if they could, and whether the students were representative of florida's general population.

My guestimate is that you wouldn't get more than a 1% desire to carry on campuses, which nearly triples your 180 student estimate (1% of students alone is 420). And then wonder whether 1% of the population carrying would make a difference in any way shape or form.


there are probably a lot of design flaws in the study I just threw together, but it's just typed up real quick with not much contemplation. you could refine it or just think about it. but assuming in the best case scenario, having 1% of the population evently distributed around campus standing overwatch in case something like this happened. and you can see that given the students who were threatened and harmed by the shooting we're discussing, only 0-1 person would have been armed and present in the best case scenario.

While it is very true that each state is going to have different carry laws, the Texas carry law is based on the Florida...enough so that the 'gun free school zone' federal law is what applies.

TECHNICALLY it is Florida Law that is based on Texas law, because Texas had enacted their CCW laws years before Florida did. ALMOST and I say ALMOST all states with CCW licenses are nearly identical. This is proven by what is called the Reciprocation Law, which means that If you have a CCW permit in Florida, almost every state with a CCW permit will allow you to carry in their state. i.e. my Florida permit is accepted by Texas, Alabama, Georgia, etc...so I can carry my weapon concealed in all the "reciprocating" states, however I am responsable for knowing the specific laws IN that state, which have minor differences.

Where this man broke the law is here: even IF he HAD a CCW permit, that does NOT allow him to have his weapon in plain sight. If you have a CCW permit you are REQUIRED to do your best in keeping that weapon CONCEALED! ALSO in most states, if you DO NOT have a permit, and are transporting a firearm in a vehicle, it must be in a 3-step-fire condition. What this means is that it must take 3 steps to have the weapon ready to fire, and almost EVERY state requres a pistol to be in a box or holster with a butt-strap. So this is where the law was broken. If he was on school grounds, and the school is state funded, then he also broke the law that prohibits firearms on government property.

Oh, I know there won't be 3.6% of the university's population carrying guns. Like I said, it's very unlikely. But is the same state ratio carried into the university, then that's the maximum of students who would carry. Most college students around me are too busy working/studying/partying to take the time and energy and money to go through the steps to acquire a gun and register a CCW, much less practice at a range.

If as few as 1% of the population at the university carried firearms, that's maybe 50 students/faculty with guns at any given moment. I'm still comfortable with that number, considering that it's mostly composed of upperclassmen and faculty (people with the time and money and discipline to become responsible), which I would trust more than the average freshman.

Simple set of thoughts going through my head here. This guy was crazy. Gun control is a good concept but dosnt work. The fact is there will always be crime and the people you dont want to have the guns will get them by illegal means. What needs to be regulated is the crazy people.

I havnt been paying much attention to the news lately but... i assume this has been blamed on just about everything including video games stress from racisim and other problems like that and everything else anyone can think of. But the simple fact is this guy was nuts. Not much you can do about people that are crazy except watch them for strange things they might be doing. Like collecting guns and alot of ammo. So if you know someone you dont think is mentaly stable... and they are collecting guns and lots of ammo... Tell someone about it maybe stop something bad from happening. And i dont mean the weird guy next door that has lots and lots of guns and seems to have a severe hatred for paper targets.

I personaly think shootings like this happen more here because of the media. And i dont mean violent movies. I mean the news. Pethetic suicidal teens watch this stuff and see it on the news and figure hey i want to die but i want everyone to remember me. Years ago someone started this sick fad and it caught on among the crazy people. Its a sick world full of sick people.

Florida became shall issue in 1987. Texas became shall issue in 1996.

I had thought that it was Texas first, but If you have a link or two to prove your statement, I would appreciate it. I have yet to find a specific date of enactment.

This is the best I have at the moment. I'm recovering from a hard drive crash.
http://www.handgunlaw.us/right-to-carry-history.gif

OK, I will wait for you to recover. pretty graphics aren't convincing enough for me...lol. I agree that I may be wrong, but I need more definitive evidence. I used to live in Texas, and I remember hearing about the arguments in Florida about the CCW law. Maybe the argument was over changes in the law perhaps? I am not sure. I guess all that matters is that I can carry in pretty much every state that I ever visit.

That's a cool animation..

Hmm...I guess we're winning.

Will, could you explain your post?

Less unrestricted would be a good thing in my mind.

Shall-issue refers to the fact that the state must issue a concealed carry permit to anyone who applies and is allowed to legally own a firearm.

May-issue states can pick and choose who they wish to issue a permit to based on individual circumstances.

No-issue states do not allow anyone to carry a concealed weapon.

OK.....

Then why are you happy? The number of "unrestricted" doubled from 1 to 2 when Alaska went to unrestricted in 2003.

And the entire country's been moving towards "shall-issue" for 15 years. Perhaps you want to go back and review the terms being used, because you seem unclear on them.

If anything, you're losing.

well, that's it. i'm going to get my gun and apply for the license. would it look totally stupid for a 6'4" dude to be walking around with a pistol strapped to his shorts while he's wearing a birkenstocks?

if you see that guy somewhere, trust me: he's pretty cool. buy him a drink. preferably a decent bourbon or a flying dog pale ale.

Ah. The descriptive language is confusing. Nevermind.

I hope that you have good money for an attorney, because if you strap it on your side in plain sight you WILL get arrested...lol

damn deltona...gotta be peeing on my parade...oh well, it was a good dream while it lasted.

depends on where he lives. 44 states have some form of open carry that is quite legal.

There is a big difference between open carry and concealed carry, I think.

The laws are more strict towards "concealed carry"?

So then, open carry (defined as visible to others) is more common right?

again, that depends on the state.

Some states, like Virginia or New Hampshire, open carry is relatively common. Other states, like Wisconsin, open carry is extremely rare.
Most states that open carry is quite legal, you will not see it because of local law enforcement harrassment, so if concealed carry is available, that is usually the common method of carry.