Question Regarding Gun Opinions
 

I've got a question for the anti-gun/rights members of this board.

Why is it that you assume that, simply because someone owns, carries, or is carrying a firearm that they are automatically a violent, irrational, poorly-educated, racist, secretly frightened redneck hick? Why the entirely overt and stated assumption that, simply because someone owns or carries a firearm, they want to kill someone? Why the assumption that I am a racist, a homophobe, or simply a slack-jawed moron?

Nobody assumes that a policeman or a soldier is a violent racist asshole simply because they carry a firearm, after all, even though your odds of being accidentally shot by a cop are higher by several orders of magnitude than your odds of being accidentally shot by a lawfully-armed civillian.

Simply because someone -will- kill, if needed, to defend themselves does not mean that they -want- to kill; merely that they value their life and will do what is needed to preserve it.

We're not a pack of wild-eyed, drunken racists, thank you. We are vehement, we are committed, and we are entirely, deadly, 100% serious about maintaining our rights. But we don't WANT to kill anyone, we're typically a pretty well-educated bunch, and nearly to a man/woman we would give our lives to assure that Blacks, gays, and whoever else you assume we hate enjoys the same rights we do.

Seriously, what gives?

Dune, you should know that this is a broadly painted image by those in the main stream media because they are an anti-freedom/anti-self defense group. They don't believe that plain civilians have the right to carry a gun, much less own one, so every report that hits the news about gun violence portrays the homeowner/shopkeeper as the 'Shooter and the criminal/perpetrator as a 'Shooting Victim.

Rarely do news agencies (TV or Print) bother to correctly report self defense shootings as justifiable as evidenced by the Pearl, MS school shooting. The media reported that a student started shooting other students with a .30-.30 hunting rifle and was soon tackled and held to the ground by other students as well as a teacher.
Only ONE media outlet ever bothered to report that the student stopped shooting because the vice principal of the school had a .45 caliber handgun pointed at the student. This vice principal, instead of being commended for stopping the shooting and saving lives (having had to sprint 1/4 mile to his truck and back for the gun because of stupid no gun zones), was villified for daring to bring a gun on to school grounds.

Ain't america great?

Seriously, what gives? Why do you assume that we all make these assumptions about you? I certainly don't. I know plenty of wild-eyed drunken racists, some of whom I'm related to, that don't own any guns or have any intentions of owning guns. I also know several college professors that have full gun safes.

Your post basically refutes itself because its guilty of making the reverse assumptions about those you're accusing of making assumptions in the first place. I certainly don't make any assumptions about gun owners - you can't tell who they are just by looking at them.

By the way, you are not all vehement, you are not all committed, and you are not all entirely, deadly, 100% serious about maintaining your rights. One of the guys I had lunch with today just sold all of his guns because he has young children in the house. He's certainly not committed and hasn't been for the 5 years that I've known him.

I don't assume that these assumptions are made; I -see- them being made every time a gun thread comes up. The most recent example is in the thread ( top of this forum ) discussing Illegal Immigration and the presence of Minuteman volunteers along the Canada/US border. The comments along the lines of "Great more rednecks with guns...just a matter of time until Billy Bubba shoots somebody" are there for all to see. I just want to know whence these ideas sprang.

I get it too, on many other forums as well as this one. It's not a direct frontal insult. When the serious gun fearing/gun ignorant person describes the person with an arsenal/stockpile/cache of weapons or they go in to the diatribe of 'the only reason people want assault weapons is to make up for what they are missing between their legs' and frankly, its gone past amusing and become somewhat irritating.

Not everyone does this, there are always exceptions to every rule. But more often than not, thats what we get.

I'm not anti-gun, I don't really think about the topic much, so let's just say I'm "non-gun". Here's my off-the-cuff thought about your question...
If someone is carrying a gun, it seems to me that they are thinking about using it. Not necessarily wanting to use it, but the gun is on your hip, so it is on your mind. I extend that to believe that someone carrying a gun would see the world as a dangerous place, and would examine each person they meet and each situation that they enter with the mindset, "Will I need to defend myself?".

Perhaps I'm a pollyanna, but I don't see the world this way. Perhaps someday I or someone I love will die because I wasn't prepared to defend myself. Nonetheless, I will enjoy the time I have up to that point, because I won't fear the world.

Again, this isn't something I generally think about, so please excuse me if these thoughts aren't complete.

I think you are mistaking those who own guns with those who like to play dress up and play army in the woods.

There is a stereotype at work in there and it has more to do with "idiot rednecks" than it does with guns.

I don't like private gun ownership. However I do not see myself in your description of anti-gun people.

I observe the following incontestable facts:

1) Some parts of the world allow private gun ownership
2) All parts of the world have violent unbalanced or otherwise unsafe people
3) The people in (2) sometimes get to the point where they deliberately or accidentally hurt or seek to hurt other people
4) In parts of the world that allow private gun ownership more of the people from (2) use guns to do (3) to people

I therefore draw the following conclusions that many pro-gun people chose to argue with (as is there right)
1) If there are more legal guns in private ownership, it will be more easy for criminals to obtain illegal guns
2) If there are more legal guns in private ownership, and therefore more illegal guns held by criminals, there will be a greater chance that someone will be killed or hurt by a gun.

It seems to me totally logical (and more importantly seems to be backed up by crime statistics) that not allowing private gun ownership would lead to a reduction in death by firearms.

It doesn't mean that I think that all gun owners are nutters, it means that i think that there are a number of nutters in the world, and if there are guns out there then the nutters will get them.

I'm a huge believer in the color grey, and I try to practice it where ever possible. What I mean is that there is very little in this world that is black and white. No group of people are "always" something unless its an absolute defining trait like "dead" or "Hindus". Within the subset, it's usually impossible to have any further absolutes.

That said, not all rednecks, hillbillies and poor white trash are gun owners and enthusiasts. If anyone needs examples, I have plenty of family members to introduce you to. Not all gun owners are any of the above either - I'll point to our President as proof given that despite his affectations to be a cowboy, he was born and educated in New Haven, CT.

So when you guys are done pillorying all the gun opponents for being close minded, let me know so that I can help clean up the cups and plates from the pity party. Just like everything else, not all gun opponents have a closed mind on this subject, although you apparently do. I'm certainly willing to listen to new information and change my opinion as warranted.

I agree the anti-gun phobia in the US has gotten really frightening lately. I really don't understand it considering guns were instrumental in gaining independence in this country and are still a symbol of our freedom today.

Just the other day I was out of town working construction in Kentucky. We had a new employee who was from California and wasn't used to seeing guns in public unless they were involved in some sort of crime or carried by law enforcement. Anyway, we were eating at a restaraunt and a family came in and the father was wearing a holster with a handgun in it. This new employee literally started freaking out and I had to inform him that indeed guns are perfectly legal for the a citizen to carry and he was in no danger of being shot at.

It's interesting that most who support civil libertys and civil rights don't support the fundamental civil liberty that protects all the other ones.

While you are perfectly within your right to feel that way, Tragedies happen that often change peoples minds. Of course, by that time its way too late to do anything about it.

Feel free to be a 'pollyanna', red, but others have thought the same thing.

Explain chicago and D.C. please

I'm well aware that people have saved themselves and others through shooting in self-defense. But it's not how I "choose" to think about it, it's just the way my brain works. I'm not looking to change anyone's opinions (I rarely post in Politics because of that), but I thought my opinion might be interesting to the thread starter.

Many people do not think that we will ever need to overthrow our government by force and therefore do not need a right to bear arms and even if it comes to that our measly single shot weapons may not be enough to resist a well armed corrupt government anyway. They may have a point if the government keeps restricting the types of firearms we are allowed to own.

There are those who think a government controlled militia should have the right to bear arms but not individuals. This seems somewhat odd reasoning since the government is what individuals would have to overthrow.

If you take away the need to protect ourselves from our own government, many people think that gun control (elimination) is a good way to reduce gun violence and will make our society safer. With the number of guns out there and the attitude of many who own them I don't think this is even possible today at least not across the whole country.

I guess those who believe the above also think that those of us who own (and carry) firearms are part of the problem. They have a point if there was really some way to disarm everyone and if they believe the government could do it without too much trouble. I think the gun culture is too far entrencehd here not to mention the Constitutional issues.

Even though I own and sometimes carry firearms I also look twice at someone if I see they are carrying (especially hidden) as well, I think it's just human nature and curiosity since it is not something you see a lot except out here in the country.

Any chance we can combine all the gun control/gun ban/gun rights threads? I feel like I'm seeing the same arguments everywhere I look.

I'm with will here,

It's like, every 3 days, i get to read about how gun control advocates are missing the point and that every citizen needs to carry a gun just to feel safe and the framers meant for everyone to be prepared to fight against their own government and that there aer several gunowners who have prevented a crime while the kids who accidentally get shot are just statistics and accidents happen,e tc

Frankly, it gets old, just combine the topics or stick ot one or just realize that people will always have different opinions on what to do about guns and you wont' agree with any of them until every citizen is armed, which obviously won't happen

Whooo, longest runon ever

Every citizen doesn't need to carry a gun. It's the fact that it should be their choice to own or carry if so desired. Yes, many pro-gun people think the anti-gun people are the devil and communists in disguise, and vice versa, I've always looked at it as having the right to make that choice, and not having it made for me. :)

I'm a very pro-gun individual, and a lot of things on both sides get overhyped. So, in the end, stick with what you already believe and let it go at that.

The problem I have with many of the pro-gun arguments is the idea that around every corner is some violent criminal intent on holding them up at gun-point. Thankfully, I've never been witness to any kind of violent crime whatsoever - I walk through city streets with an overall feeling of safety. Not so the gun lobby. To them, walking through the city is like asking to become a victim. It's this evident (and in my <b>opinion</b>, irrational) fear, and the feeling that one needs to protect oneself from some unseen criminal threat that I find slightly worrying. Is it paranoia? Maybe, maybe not - but it just doesn't seem healthy. Maybe I'm naive, but as I said, I have never been witness to a violent crime, and nor have any of my friends or family (with the possible exception of drunken brawls at the end of an evening) - In my world, it's just not something I spend any great time thinking about.

The typical pro-gun answer would be something along the lines of describing some far-out situation (let's say, terrorists spraying a mall with AK47 fire) and pointing out that if some people had concealed weapons, that we'd all be safe. Well perhaps you're right. But I just don't believe that 'terrorists' give a damn about my poxy out-of the way mall, much less travel all the way over there to start firing at random consumers.

So - generally then - and if this upsets people I'm sorry, but it's the true opinion I have about those who obsess over their weapons - it seems to me that the pro-gun lobby are generally more fearful than the rest of us, which in turn, because of all the guns that are more readily available to all (and are more easily stolen for example), puts them in the hands of those who might use them for criminal intent.

The concealed carry thing only applies to people who are willing to brandish a weapon and perform a 'hold up'. In a concealed carry culture, the criminal, if he wants to get away with it, is encouraged to shoot first, and not spare anyone's life - and that does not make me feel any more secure - and it wouldn't do, whether I had a gun or not.

So finally then - would I ever own a gun? Yes. If I felt I lived in a violent area where there was no law enforcement, and I might have to hold-out against attackers. But we're talking Afghanistan, or central Africa. Not suburban USA. Is America really that dangerous? Is America really that lawless? Are Americans really that afraid of one another that they feel the need to protect themselves with lethal weapons?

The answer would appear (to me) to be yes.

There are people everywhere that have this idea in their head that 'crime like that doesn't happen in my neighborhood' or 'It could never happen to me'. So because thats the idea that travel around in a lot of peoples thoughts, it's probably natural at that point to think that those who do worry about becoming a crime victim are simply 'paranoid' or too fearful for their own good. Because it hasn't happened doesn't mean that it will never happen.

First, I'm not saying that more guns in the streets is going to make all crime go away. There will always be crime.
Second, George Hennard wasn't a terrorist. He was just a man that snapped. And he may not have cared about going to a mall with an AK-47, but what he did care about was being able to kill as many people as he could, as easy as he could, before anyone could stop him. At that point, he didn't care about breaking a silly gun control law, but what he did care about was finding as many 'sitting ducks' as he could.
I'm sure that most of those people sitting in lubys enjoying lunch/dinner weren't fearful of anything. After all, there were laws made to keep people from carrying weapons out in public. Well, that didn't work out very well, did it? But if one or two people in that restaruant had been carrying, 22 people would not have died that day.
There will always be a way for a criminal to get a gun easily. Gun control has not worked in D.C. or chicago, that should be evident. It's not going to work anywhere else.

Again, misconceptions. Because you've got this idea that only criminals would carry a gun, therefore, anyone that wants to carry a gun would be a criminal.
You say that criminals will only be encouraged to shoot first if everyone is carrying.
60% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they
knew the victim was armed. 40% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided
committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed.

remember new orleans? post katrina? how about the L.A. riots? do you remember whose stores survived? It was shop owners banding together with their guns and keeping the rioters/looters away. Thats suburban usa, not africa or afghanistan.

DK, as pointed out before, DC has had a reduction in murders, and even though DC proper has had a drop in population, the metro area has had one of the largest increases in population in the country.

I remember that fact, if you'll also remember that I pointed out that it was a reduction in overall crime, not just murders, which prompts me to believe that there is some other factor attributing to that, not gun control.

From another thread:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...1&postcount=61

Originally Posted by dksuddeth
So if you hear gunshots down the street and see 2 or 3 people chasing and shooting at a lone individual, you'd leave your target rifle locked in its place and dial 911??

Lets hope that never happens to you, because If I got shot and then found out later that somebody could have stopped it before it took the cop 10 minutes to get there, I'd be pissed.
Maybe you should take a look at some court cases like Warren v. District of Columbia, DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services., or Hartzler v. City of San Jose
The police are under no obligation to protect you as an individual.
So, if the police aren't going to protect us, who will?

wrong

This statement does not include specifics like gang related deaths, deaths by police officers, OR those killed by people using self defense.
meaningless without that.

Kellermans study was debunked quite a few years ago, even acknowledged by the CDC. The only groups that still use it are the VPC and the Brady campaign because they refuse to look at the real numbers.

This is not true either. Firearm misuse causes only a small number of accidental deaths in the U.S.
For example, compared to accidental death from firearms, you are:
• Four times more likely to burn to death or drown
• 17 times more likely to be poisoned
• 19 times more likely to fall
• And 53 times more likely to die in an automobile accident

Again, no breakdown as to the relation of how these deaths occurred. meaningless.

Irrelevant since we're discussion Canadian police and firearm use in that thread and The Captain is Canadian.

Speaking directly to those cases, they all confirm that you have no standing to sue the police for not protecting you, the individual. They all clearly state that the function of the police is to protect the individual. I think that YOU need to spend the time to read the cases or at least the Westlaw version.

You're splitting hairs here. The statement is that guns kill people accidentally. This goes to show that guns are dangerous.

The Kellerman study was certainly done with some shaky statistics. He may still be right, but the way that he arrived at his conclusions was certainly questionable.


Actually it is true and made news in insurance circles since auto deaths have lead all non-disease deaths for something like 65 or 75 years (I don't remember the exact number). Also, the stats that your quoting are nationwide and not state-specific, which is what James_T_Kirk is quoting. To refute, you need to find state-specific data.

I've said it before, I don't care if you own a gun, I don't care if you want to carry it, Personally I don't give a fuck.

But what I do care about is when you demand to carry weapons where children are like amusement parks, schools, city parks, stadiums and so on or where alcohol is served. Guns have no right in those places.

I've had people on this forum tell me they have the right to carry anywhere they wish. That is a lie. In Ohio, the owner of a company can make that decision and it is illegal in bars, churches, hospitals, stadiums/amusement parks and any private property the owner deems it unnecessary.

So if you respect my rights to own a company and say "no guns allowed". And respect the rights of those other companies out there that say "no guns allowed", then we're cool.

But you trample on my rights or someone else's then we have issues. Because private property/ business owners should have the right to bar weapons if they desire to. Don't like it shop elsewhere.

It's respect. You respect my rights I'll respect yours. You decide your rights are more important than mine.... we have a pissing war and one of us ends up losing rights.....and we all end up losers in the long run.

And....there it is.

I understand that there is a difference between canadian law and US law, however, you have the court rulings wrong. It clearly states the the police are not liable for INDIVIDUAL protection, they are only there to serve society as a whole.

lots of things are dangerous. guns less so than lots of other things.

It's extremely shaky and questionable to arrive at that number when you include suicides in the total as well as excluding any defensive uses when the gun is used outside the home (which was a majority of the uses to begin with)


Alaska, Maryland and Nevada as well as D.C.

Maryland has some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation, so it makes me wonder how many of those firearm deaths are crime related/gang related as compared to accidental.
D.C. has a total gun ban so all of those have to be crime related/gang related.
Nevada, not having enough of an idea about the nature of the state other than gambling...how many are suicides?
Alaska......you got me. everybody walks?

Pan, in one respect, I totally agree with that. Private property owners should absolutely be allowed to dictate whether they want guns on their property or not.
In the other respect, I look at the last few years of mass shootings here in texas and they include a courthouse, 3 churches, a school playground, and a few bars. Why? because that sign that has a gun on it with a red circle and slash through it like this
http://www.blueflamepolitix.org/medi...FreeZonesm.jpg
tells anyone that wants to kill people that nobody in here is armed, fire at will.

Do you really think that is the reason someone chooses such a place?...I highly doubt it.

And you should both know that no one here thinks EVERYONE with a gun is a mainiac. Careful when you talk about broadly painted images in support of a broadly painted image.

Think about all the major shooting incidents and where they occurred.

schools, no guns
churches, mostly no guns
workplaces, no guns
courthouses, only guns belong to law enforcement which is probably why there aren't that many.


In 1997, Luke Woodham slit his mother's throat then grabbed a .30-30 lever action deer rifle. He packed the pockets of his trench coat with ammo and headed off to Pearl High School, in Pearl, Miss.
Woodham knew cops would arrive before too long, so he was all business, no play. No talk of Jesus, just shooting and reloading, shooting and reloading. He shot until he heard sirens, and then ran to his car. His plan, authorities subsequently learned, was to drive to nearby Pearl Junior High School and shoot more kids before police could show up.
Vice Principal Joel Myrick saw the killer fleeing the campus and positioned himself to point a gun at the windshield. Woodham, seeing the gun pointed at his head, crashed the car.
Woodham did not expect anyone other than a cop to be there with a gun. It was only after the vice principal sprinted 1/4 mile to his car, retrieved his gun, and ran back to point it at Woodham did the kid stop thinking about killing other kids and realize that he could be killed.
Were it not for Myrick, Woodham might also be dead by his own hand or that of the SWAT team.

Guns save lives as easily as they can take them. It all depends on whose hands they are in.

Easton police officer dies after being shot at station

Officials aren't releasing details of Jesse Sollman's death.
By Tracy Jordan
Of The Morning Call

An Easton police officer died after being shot in his own police station near the end of the 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. shift Friday.

Patrolman Jesse E. Sollman, 36, an 11-year veteran of the force who lived in Washington Township, Northampton County, died of his wounds about 4:25 p.m. after being flown by helicopter to St. Luke's Hospital in Fountain Hill, authorities said.


Two days after Marion Alexander Lindsey was ordered by a judge to stay away from his estranged wife, the 31-year-old followed her after she left work and fatally shot her.

The stakes for shooting his 27-year-old wife, Ruby Nell Lindsey, were raised because of where Lindsey committed the crime — a police station parking lot.


The following mind-boggling attempt at a crime spree in Washington appeared to be the robber's first (and last), due to his lack of a previous record of violence, and his terminally stupid choices:

1. His target was H&J Leather & Firearms, a gun shop specializing in handguns.

2. The shop was full of customers - firearms customers.

3. To enter the shop, the robber had to step around a marked police car parked at the front door.

4. A uniformed officer was standing at the counter, having coffee before work.

Upon seeing the officer, the would-be robber announced a hold-up, and fired a few wild shots from a .22 target pistol. The officer and a clerk promptly returned fire, the police officer with a 9mm Glock 17, the clerk with a .50 Desert Eagle, assisted by several customers who also drew their guns, several of whom also fired.

The robber was pronounced dead at the scene by Paramedics. Crime scene investigators located 47 expended cartridge cases in the shop. The subsequent autopsy revealed 23 gunshot wounds. Ballistics identified rounds from 7 different weapons.


0n the morning of September 3, 1998, Joseph Montgomery watched as two men entered his store. The 56-year-old owner of the store 500 Guns, located near the Indianapolis 500 Speedway, remembered them as having come in earlier.

The men walked to a glass case that held three shelves filled with handguns. "I want that one," said the taller of the two and pointed to a Smith & Wesson .38 revolver, which Montgomery reached down to remove from the display case. Montgomery later recalled that after his head came back up, one of them grabbed him by the neck as the other one stuck a 9x19 mm Ruger to his forehead. The man holding the gun said, "This is a stickup!"


An Eastside gun store owner has died two months after he was robbed and beaten with a hammer.

Tucson Police say someone walked into Jerry's Gun Exchange on December 29 before 12 p.m., beating and robbing owner Jerry Zwicker.

Police say the 78-year-old suffered severe head trauma as a result of the attack. Zwicker is believed to have lost consciousness for more than 30 minutes before calling police himself.

Zwicker's daughter, Robin, said her father was healthy before the incident, suffering only from arthritis.




As you can see, It is relatively easy to find incidence of gun violence to bolster either side of this claim. While it is true Guns can serve as a deterent, or indeed as a way to ease in the commision of a crime, Attempting to back your opinion on this with individual stories is not supporting the position......just as the above stories do nothing to back my own.

yes, there certainly is no lack of stupidity, but what you're posting are individual hits (like the estranged wife deal) or robberies. The police officer dying, did you realize he was shot by another cop? I wonder why thats not mentioned in the story you posted.
I digress, my main point was that someone wanting to commit MASS murder is going to pick a place where people are most likely to be unarmed, and gun free zones are a top pick.

I see your point, and in ways agree with it, as it is obvious that should someone decide to use a Gun to commit a crime they would prefer to do so unopposed. My point is simply that while this may be the case, it is not a reason to make guns unrestricted on private property. I well understand the vehement position of a "Right to Bear Arms", and have no problem with Gun owners, or the Laws in effect to limit proliferation of Some weapons. My point is that Gun free zones do not "Make" it more likely there will be violence, which is the implication you make....intended or not.
It just seems to me that if you want me to agree with this right to carry a firearm, you should allow me to say...."Not in here"....if I do not want one in my House/Buisiness/School/ Whatever. It is when you push to hard, that people begin to push back, even if there is agreement on the issue in the first place.

Read the decisions - they clearly state that individuals have no redress IN COURT for the failure of police to protect. That's what the "liable" in your statement means. All 3 decisions go on to state that protection is the central function of police departments. Let me know if you need me to dig up links to synopese of the decisions, but you're trying to twist the documents from saying that you can't sue if you're hurt in a crime into some warped idea that the cops can sit on their asses all day long with no recourse. The key word here is "liable" and it has a very specific meaning that I think you're missing.

Agreed. See below.

Already conceeded this point.

Again, you've totally missed the point of these numbers. We're comparing two sets of deaths - which set is most likely to flucuate over time? If you said "gun deaths", then you've got blinders on. This comparision is significant because of the reduction in auto deaths, and the Insurance Institute of America used it as proof that their work on car safety is paying off.

As a nod to the other companion thread about perceptions of gun owners, I love how you just called any gun owning residents of DC gang members and all criminals gang members. Yes, some of them probably are, but certainly not all. Probably not even most. Another example of the far right gun nuts screaming in terror "If I don't have my gun the gangs are going to get me!"

I see, they are responsible but not liable when they can't. I'm so inspired with confidence that the police will be there to save me. why is my life, or anyone elses, worth so much crap? :rolleyes:


actually, what I said was that since ALL guns are banned from D.C. that all of those gun deaths would have to be gang related/crime related. I did not synonomize the two and if you gathered that from me using the slash, my apologies. I simply meant that those are the two types of relations for gun crimes or gun deaths.

I agree with you, if a private business or property owner does not want any weapons in his shop or property, that is completely his right just like it would be my right to choose not to enter or do business there because I refuse to go without it. I am simply pointing out that advertising or declaring a no gun zone is essentially telling the criminals that this is a no fear opportunity for them.

It's called governmental immunity and the courts just extended it to the police departments. Other examples of the same theory - you can't collect damages from either cities or states for poor design of roads if your car is damaged in an accident although you can force them to fix the problem (you can sue the contractor working on the road, however, if it is a construction zone); soldiers can't sue the Army for failing to provide safe training grounds; you can't sue if your neighborhood is rezoned.

All of the cases that you listed uphold that individuals cannot COLLECT MONETARY DAMAGES. When you see people collecting big awards from governments it is almost always because the government employee in question was acting outside the scope of their employment (i.e. a cop beats an unarmed person breaking no laws). At that point, the government becomes liable for those actions.

All of the cases that you cited involve folks asking for montetary damages, and I could not find any reference to any portion of the decisions stating that the police are NOT required to protect the public, including the individual. They did hold up the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

But if you do not "advertise" with signs, you have gun people coming in saying "well you have no signage up." So it's a catch 22.

As for people shooting where guns are not allowed. IT doesn't matter if the sign is there or not, and I seriously have issues with the argument, "if I were allowed to carry a gun in there, that wouldn't happen."

Most of the school shootings are kids, where exactly do kids go?

People want to make statements when they do those mass shotings, I seriously doubt they care if there are other people there armed. They probably know they are on a suicide mission and in most cases it seems they have their "mission" well planned, plus they are usually massively armed. That plan usually is taking everyone by surprise. Most people, even if they do have guns when surprised, shocked and scared do not know how to react.

If you have people carrying guns in courthouses for fear of some psycho coming in, you have a lot of people with itchy trigger fingers and the second something happens that they aren't ready for, you may get innocent people getting shot because people over-reacted. Or, if it is an attack you may get more people killed because of crossfire.

There's a reason most major cities have SWAT teams and people who specialize in these areas. It is no, not, never a good place for the average Joe to take out his Glock and play Rambo. You're asking for more trouble than it is worth. Do you honestly believe the average Joe (trained in a classroom setting, who basically shot at a paper and took some written exam) and his Glock 9, are going to take down some nut case, who probably doesn't feel pain at the moment, who has more fire power than a Marine, and is ready for anything?

My feeling is the average Joe is shitting himself, IF he is brave enough to pull out his gun his hand is shaking so bad he can't get good aim and misses, perhaps maiming or killing innocents. Meanwhile, the Psycho hears the guns and really lets loose.

So you tell me, is it worth it? I don't think so, and I think the argument that people who carry guns are trained at handling this and the above scenario would never happen is a pipe dream and not based on anything.

If I am to be taken out by a shooter, I'd rather it be the psycho, than an innocent man playing Rambo. The psycho will get his, the innocent man who made a mistake will live with that guilt for the rest of his life.

Even in your above example, it was OUTSIDE the school where the Vice Principal had the gun. INSIDE may have been disasterous. You can argue it wouldn't have been, I can argue it would have.... no one knows, and IMHO I am thankful for that.

Also, as far as respect, how about cities where the people living there VOTE for gun bans and people outside the community challenge the voice of those people by suing and demanding "their (the outsiders)" gun rights. Case in point San Francisco. Where's the respect of others' rights?

One of the worst issues we have is where people believe their rights supercede everyone else's even if the community decided how they want their communities to live. This is the major reason we have a Federal government so strong and constantly in our lives. This is why there are people that feel we have too many rights and believe we can't handle them.

No one's rights supercede anyone else's. It's about respect and the knowledge that my rights end where your rights begin. In other words, if I choose to carry a gun and you are an owner of a "no gun zone" then my rights are lost when I step foot on your property. As you stated above, you may agree with that, but many NRA members and gun afficiandoes seem not to. As a few have argued they have the right to carry anywhere they desire on here.

The only way to get government out of our lives and the laws cut down..... have people respect others rights...... but a lot of people refuse to see that or live by that simple premise.

And you're perfectly ok with that? that people who are killed because the police can't or don't get there in time are just........dead?

I don't view the right to bear arms as teh most fundamental civil liberty. Free speech is - and it protects all of the other liberties, by allowing us to shed light on the injustices/failures/inequities of the government without fear of reprise.

I support the right to bear arms & own guns. I don't own one myself, but that's my personal decision.

Without guns, we would have never gained our independence. Now-a-days, this argument is pretty moot: the government has MUCH better weapons than we as a citizenry will ever have.

I think the present situation is that the government should be afraid if ENOUGH of the citizenry rise up in revolt that the current Army is well out-numbered. I'm worried, however, that some crackjob in the upper eschelons of the gov't will not yield to the citizenry.

(Too "Tilted Paranoia"?)