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"?)

which is why texas made it law that unless there is a very specific sign posted (it details and shows a picture of whats required) then concealed carry is not prohibited. They also added that IF a private property owner (store, church, etc) is not posted properly and then notices you carrying, all they have to do is ask you to leave. The request is considered proper notice and if you do not leave, you are then considered to be trespassing.

There are always exceptions Pan, MOST people looking to make a statement will try to make the biggest statement they can, and that means going to a place where people are going to be unarmed.

I had planned on replying to all of your points, but I don't see the point. No disrespect intended to you Pan, but you have an extremely low regard for the capabilities of people. I've learned that theres just no argument that can combat that except experiencing it for yourself.

Although, in regards to your san francisco point. Only 58% voted for that ban, how do their rights get to supercede the other 42%?

That's how voting works. 48-51% of America voted for Kerry, but Bush is presedent. Did you know that voting for the right representatives can result in an amendment nullifying the second amendment? The right to vote seeimgly superceedes the interpritation of the second amendment that assumes that one has the constitutional right to own a gun.

An evocative argument, but the government can't <i>and shouldn't</i> be responsible for everything. That's what communists believe. Oh course you don't want to see people dead, but holding the government responsible for the actions of crazy gun-toting lunatics? Where's the sense in that?

Good question. I didn't know you could pass a law that outlaws the second amendment. This is equivelent to 58% of the people saying they think freedom of speech is being abused and should be outlawed and a law is then passed banning free speech. Regardless of the views on guns the legality and logic behind this doesn't make any sense. Are we a country of rights and laws, or a country of 'democracy' where the mob always gets its way.

Going back to the actual question posed in the OP - why do SOME gun REFORM advocates think/act like gun owners are super-violent etc.? (And I've not seen anything personally about y'all being racists or something, btw.)

This is why:

The police can't stop every irresponsible drunk or speeder or teenaged kid that does something stupid behind the wheel and takes people out. They can't stop every crime and to expect them to is completely unreasonable. We're talking about humans here, and any system involving humans is inherently flawed.

Am I fine with that? Yes. Do I wish the system better? Yes. Do I think that armed civilians enforcing the law is a much more flawed system with a huge potential for failure? Yes. Do I want you or any other armed civilians responsible for protecting me or my family? Absolutely not.

To repeal an amendment would take an overwhelming amount of support. If over 75% of the country were of that mindset, then yes, I suppose it could be done, But to have 58% of a locale determine rights for the whole, thats not right.

so, if we acknowledge that the government can't, or shouldn't, be responsible for everything (of which I certainly agree) then when does it become MY responsibility?

so you're saying that because 1%, or 10%, refusing to give up a constitutional right makes us super violent?

then you're living in the right city, because thats exactly what you have. You aren't even allowed to be responsible for your own families safety.

as an afterthought, it dumbfounds me that some of the attitudes that people have about life, especially their own. On top of that, the pitiful opinions that they have in regards to the capabilities of others compared to the ideas that they have about their own as well. It's no wonder this country has gone to hell in a handbasket when people feel they know whats right for everyone else. You say you are fine with the flawed system, I take that to mean that if your kids are killed in front of you because the cops could not get there in time, you're fine with that and thats just plain pathetic. To view life in such a callous fashion is just beyond my comprehension. what is wrong with you people?

It's all different viewpoints. I read your post, and wonder why you have so much fear in you. And, "people feel they know whats right for everyone else" goes both ways.

I won't change your viewpoint. You won't change mine. Why do I post in Politics? I keep making that mistake.

True, but the argument could be made that they go to courthouses, schools and so on because the statement they wish to make is there.

Just as people who go into McDonald's, or Wal*Marts or wherever. To say shootings will only occur where people are not allowed to have guns.... or that the psychos choose places because they know there are no guns there, is ludicrous.

What of armed guards in the courthouses?

Where do I show "low regard for the capabilities of people"? And yes, that is very offensive to me. You're response here and the attack on me, shows me that you cannot come up with a true rebuttal, without attacking me.

If I truly had "low regard for the capabilities of people", I would be wanting guns banned period. I just believe the vast majority of people whether they carry guns or not, can talk a great game but when in the real situation and the pressure is on, will tend to react very differently then they talk.

Or are you trying to state that every single person carrying a gun will respond the exact same way, and will be perfect shooters and there would be no crossfire or innocents hurt? Which if that's the case, I find as misguided and sad as you obviously found my comments.

That's the point of voting, majority rules. The 42% had their chance to show their case to the people and lost. And I don't know about where you live but a 16% difference in votes, is a landslide where I come from.

But I still don't see how that gives people who live outside that community the right to try to dictate policy and overturn the voice of the people.

Again, that's why the Federal government is so strong. They capitalize on the fighting and have to make laws. And when that is the case we all lose.

But, keep fighting the voice of the people in places you don't live and may never visit. Keep believing that you know what's best for a community you don't even live near. You tell me I have "low regard for the capabilities of people"? Yet you support going into a community where the voters have spoken and want to tell the vast majority there that they are wrong..... and use the courts to do so? Who wants to dictate policy now, who wants to tell whom, "they know what's best for the people"? Not me, I believe in the voices of the people and respect the voting procedures from which our nation was founded upon.

It's like the C&CW laws here in Ohio. The majority voted for it. I may not like it, but it passed, the people have spoken and I respect the law they voted for. I can still speak out and try to get it repealed on a later election, but it is not my right nor should it be, to take it to court and demand the government steps in and repeals it against the will of the majority that voted for it.

If you want to use the tired argument that the above example would allow a law that discriminates against a man's color/religion/ethnicity and so on to be legal. Then by all means. But that argument is a fallacy. There is a huge difference between discrinating between a person, himself and what a person chooses to carry on them.

If your community votes that "no one with blue eyes can own land" and I move there and try to buy land and am denied for that reason. It's illegal because it discriminates me personally, they are singling me and everyone else with blue eyes out. But if push came to shove, I could buy my property and live outside city limits.

Now if San Francisco says, "People are not allowed to have guns within the city limits, except in their own homes." and you get arrested for carrying a gun, then you should suffer the consequences. Because there is no singling out of anybody, and because you knew the law and chose to carry there.

One of the above is discrimination against a person for whom they are and the other is a law for an OPTIONAL appliance one chooses to carry.

Again, I talk about MASS shootings. Specific targets are another matter entirely.



First off, although our opinions differ in some things, i've always held them in respect. I'm sorry if you are offended at my remarks about 'low regard for the capabilities of people', but you clearly state that that is your opinion with the following -

How am I to believe that you do not feel that way?

I do not believe that everyone that is licensed is going to be prepared to deal with most situations. I believe that maybe 25% of the people that are licensed and have trained still shouldn't be carrying a gun, but of those 25%, most of them will never find the strength to pull it any way if needed. But I do believe that more than half of those who go through the process of getting the training and the license are ready. Of all the people that I deal with on a 'friendship' basis, who are licensed, are MORE than ready. I shoot great, but these guys beat me hands down AND they have taken the extra steps in taking the tactical training that even most cops don't do. They are capable and ready.



When people are voting on whether to sell acohol in their county, fine, majority rules but we do NOT live in a democracy where mob rule can trample individual rights. As I once read, Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. We live in a representative republic where a majority does not get to override the rights of the minority.

Are any of the minority S.F.ers NRA members? If they are, then I'd say they got the best representation possible to keep mob rule from violating their rights.

I hardly think that by standing up for individual rights is 'dictating policy'. The majority does NOT get to remove the rights of a minority, or have you forgotten about the 9th, 10th, 13th, and 14th amendments of the constitution?

The problem is that S.F.ers, if this ban goes through, does not allow ownership PERIOD. Not even in their own homes. If all san fran wanted to do was outlaw handgun carrying in city limits, what do I care. People would still be allowed to use them for defense in their homes, but an outright ban on ownership violates the constitution.

edit - I did want to acknowledge this statement by you
I can completely understand that. I wouldn't want anyone to feel guilty for shooting anyone instead of the bad guy because of a missed shot, but we'll have to disagree on the part about letting the psycho keep shooting instead of someone playing 'rambo'. without someone shooting back at him, the psycho just gets to keep on killing innocent people and I couldn't live with that.

Edit: I want to acknowledge and thank you for the respect. Yes, we disagree at times, but you do so very respectfully and with honor. I am more the emotional messed up rebel, who's views sometimes get lost in my emotional tone. I don't think we are that far apart on the issue and there is far more common ground then differences.

I can live with how you came up with "low regard for the capabilities of people". I may not like it nor agree with the reasoning on your conclusion, but I am not as offended because of your explanation.

Like you, I watch people and it is my profession to know a little bit about psychology. Personal experience and observations have allowed me to believe most people would not react the way they should. There are exceptions, but the vast majority when facing a situation like that.... I just don't believe would handle it exactly beneficially.

Even if we use your choice of 25% who should not own guns, you still leave the opening that one of those 25% would have a gun and try to play Rambo and make the situation worse by getting more people killed.

That's not a chance I want to take.

I am not that familiar with the SF law, but if it is true they ban all gun ownership, then yes, there is legal recourse there because I truly believe in what you do on your private property, so long as it hurts no one else and does not affect anyone else's rights, you have the right to do as you please. You want to smoke weed in your house, it's your right. You want to own as many weapons as possible because you believe the revolution is coming tomorrow, then by all means own all you want (so long as you are not taking target practice close enough to my property that a ricochet or misfire can hit anyone on my property).

I believe in the rights of the people, I just believe in the voices of the people also and am naive enough to believe that people in communities know what is best for themselves far better than I or the federal government know.

That's a good question. Majority usually rules except when the law they pass is found to be unconstitutional. Otherwise in many parts of the country majority rule would still have blacks sitting at the back of the bus, etc..

Private businesses that cater to the general public can set up their own rules but they cannot usually violate constitutional rights. I guess the constitutional right to own firearms does not mean that they cannot be banned from them.

But as a store owner you are not banning the rights to own or bear a gun.... you are only saying, "not on my property".

Anybody else think Congress should address the second amendment, amybe clarify it for the modern times? Settle most of this debate once and for all.

I am allowed to be responsible for my own family's safety, just not with a handgun. I don't let the kids play in the street or jump off the roof. How would owning a pistol help with either of those? I make sure they know how to swim and that a policeman can help if they're lost. Thank god I have my gun for that (oh wait...)!

Look, I just don't think that you need to carry a gun 24/7 to be safe. In my line of work I get reports all day long of horrible ways that people die. I'm trying to figure out how I can start a thread to tell some of the more interesting stories without risking the anonymity of my clients. For the record, I do write the liability coverage for 4 different manufacturers of guns that at least 10 members here own (last I checked about 6 weeks ago). Guns don't malfunction and kill people, but lots and lots of other things do, like paper bailers, cement trucks, manlifts and scaffolding. In my part of Chicago, I am much more likely to get 1) hit by a car, 2) hit by a bicyclist or 3) die in a fire than get shot.

Good luck with that. Given that the roughly 100 active participants in the politics board can't come up with anything even remotely resembling a consensus, imagine what it would be like when there are powerful folks with a financial stake in the outcome involved in a nation discussion. It would be bedlam - cats and dogs living together, total anarchy! :cool:

I don't. Personally, I believe it is up to the communities to decide and the NRA and anyone else should stay the Hell out of it. Let the people decide what's best for them in this area.

Like abortion, school prayer, drugs and most other issues, let the voters decide in each state/city etc.

Think how many millions would be saved from the needless court battles. The less back logged the court systems would be and the less government intrusion there would be.

The people should have the right to vote what's best for their individual communities and government and people outside should respect those wishes.

Life would be much simpler and needless monies spent to enforce idiotic laws that are made to homogenize the country would be freed to be used elsewhere.

Pan, I get your point and I think store owners should have this ability but let me play devil's advocate for a minute and say:

But as a store owner you are not banning the rights of minorities to shop (or add your own protected activity).... you are only saying, "not on my property

Actually, the 97th congress, US senate did take that up

http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm

And they do with signs that say "we reserve the right to refuse service".

Considering that the "minority" populations are now basically financial equals it would be foolhardy to say "we won't serve Blacks/Jews/people with blue eyes and so on."

Why? Because you'd miss a lot of money and sales that way. Not to mention boycotts, bad press and so on.

But theoretically and lawfully, you can discriminate in privately owned businesses.... now if you overcharge or treat that minority unfairly once they do do business with you, then that is illegal.

I think the point a lot of anit-gun folks miss is that there are things in life you can't control (a out of control vehicle running you down), things you cont control much (like dying in a fire), and things you can control (your own self-defense from a person meaning to do you harm). None of the pro-gun rights folk on this board are arguing that a gun will make them safe from everything. Only that being a well-trained, prepared gun owner puts your self-defense from an attacker in your own hands, more so than not having a gun would. Everyone knows you are more likely to die in a car accident than by a bullet and no one is arguing anything different. But that is no reason to leave your life in the hands of an attacker should you ever be in that situation. Most often the best arguement an anti-gun person can come up with is that it will never happen to you so you don't need to prepare yourself for it.

And, for the reverse -- it is possible, but unlikely, that a coconut will fall on my head and kill me on my next trip to the Caribbean.* I could wear a helmet for my entire trip. But I won't.

The non-gun-carrying-group wonders why the gun-carrying-group sees the world as such a dangerous place.


* Coconut deaths significantly outrank shark deaths.

I'd prefer to hear something from the Judicial branch. If it's already an amendment, then the legeslature is finished with it. It's time for the courts to decide what this means.

It could be because we see daily crimes committed by people with guns. I look at the number of murders in chicago in 2004 and can't help but sigh with relief that I don't live in Illinois anymore.

I find it very strange that the serious anti-gunners like to think that it will most likely never happen to them (being a victim of crime) yet are more than willing to accept that they will be one of the first ones shot if a civilian starts shooting a gun at a criminal. I just can't follow that logic.

What has to be weighted against that is the danger of gun ownership, legal or illegal. The production and distrubution of guns has a direct tie with illegal arms, by which the very criminals who gun owners are trying to stop aquire their weapons. I see it as no different than any other arms producer: bombs, missles, munitions, etc. It is apparent that the producers don't care who the consumers are. As someone who believes in small government, I think it is their responsibility to stop this from happening. Now, obviously they will not stop producing weapons that continue to fall into the wrong hands on their own. Money > morality in most buisnesses, so I would suggest (like I've done in another gun thread) that we simply hold the manufacturer responsible if their weapon is used in a crime (unless the weapon has been stolen from the person who legally purchased it). If they want to stop lawsuits, then they work harder to make sure that their guns are only legally sold and used.

That same judicial branch that decided on kelo vs. new london?

FYI, the executive branch has also come out on this with a DoJ report confirming the individual right as well.

so with 2 of the 3 branches affirming an individual right, what would be the argument if the courts said no?

there are already laws to prevent manufacturers from making illegal gun sales, as well as preventing dealers from doing the same. Do we hold knife manufacturers liable if their knife is used in a crime? How about vacuum cleaners?

http://www.wyff4.com/news/7501397/detail.html

now, doesn't THAT suck. (pun intended)

Shoot me. Shoot me now. Please put me out of my misery for having to put up with DK's terrible puns. :D

I would be happy to allow people to carry guns, as long as they were concealed, and if they were held legally responsible for how they are used, <b>whoever</b> uses them. If someone breaks into a house, or car, steals a gun and subsequently uses it, the original owner should bear responsibility for any crime committed with that weapon.

That is the only way to ensure everyone takes on the full responsibility that goes along with the 'right' to own a weapon.

I don't know what laws exist regarding the transfer of ownership of weapons - I assume private sales are illegal, and that you have to trade your weapon in at the gun-store if you want to relieve yourself of a weapon, or trade up to a new one.

No, the best argument an anti gun person can come up with is to point out that increasing the general availability of weapons increases the chances that those weapons will fall into the hands of the criminal or psychotically minded.

now this is a tricky subject for alot of people. some states don't allow concealed but DO have open carry (wisconsin) and although open carry being legal, police still get calls from people not knowing the law and freaking out with 'man with a gun'. Personally, I say allow open carry, only criminals will bother concealing them for surprise.

I tend to agree with this for the most part. I think that if you are going to have more than one weapon, you should have a gun safe. not a cabinet with glass panels to make it look all pretty, but a hernia inducing metal safe with a double combination lock. THEN if you get robbed and the safe is missing or cut open, I could say you're not liable.

Depends on the state. In some states, whether you sell or give the weapon to someone, there has to be a form filled out. In others, theres only the fed form for initial buy. I don't think having to take your gun back to a dealer for a new one should happen. Just fill out a form that both of you sign so it shows you no longer own that firearm.

With the current procedures we have, the main ways a single criminal gets a gun is to have friend/wife/girlfriend buy it for them. That only produces about 0.7% of the guns used in crimes though. Theft out of homes is the usual way a criminal gets a gun.

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/.../firearms.html
Not sure about the statistics on knife or vaccume. Just something to consider.

hemenways report is extremely questionable because he refuses to divulge his data sources or how he's compiled them.

Why doesn't the NRA have statistics on how many firearm deaths there are per year in the US?

don't know. I'm not a big fan of the NRA because of its compromise policy. BUT, according to the CDC, in 2001 Firearm misuse caused 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

Now, this is only accidental deaths, not suicides or homicides. In my opinion, suicides shouldn't count because if someone wants to take their life, not having a gun isn't going to stop them.

When you consider that guns are used defensively about 2.5 million times a year and, according to the FBI estimates of crimes committed with firearms, Guns are used 65 times more often to prevent a crime than to commit one.

2.5 million? Does that include law enforcement and military? If not, that is a VERY inflated number.

That does NOT include law enforcement and military. That figure is an estimate from a book “Targeting Guns”, Dr. Gary Kleck, Criminologist, Florida State University, 1997

I've found his material quite informative

I think we're moving away from the OP again, and I apologize.

I think that some people with guns have violent impulses or tendencies or even fantisies, but they are not the majority. While I am not interested in having or being around guns, I respect your right to have one. If there is a vote, well we can discuss that on a case by case basis. Not all gun owners are loons, and not all are Rambo wannabees. That being said, I do take issue with many gun owners. I think that gun owners would do well by helping to fix the multitutde of problems in the area of gun control, instead of simply focusing on their right to bear arms. I gladly defend my right to free press, but I call the press on bullshit every day, and I do what I can to fix the problem. The price for freedom is eternal vigilence. You can have freedoms, but you shoudl help to maintain them for the benifit of your fellow man.

dksuddeth hasn't posted about guns in a few hours and I'm worried if he's alright.

I thank you for your concern will, i'm fine. Just a touch of stomach flu.

Oh jeez, I was kidding. I'm sorry to hear that. I hope you feel better soon. Try to keep hydrated and get plenty of rest!

will, i knew you were kidding. relax. and thanks for the advice. =)

One of my concerns about cases like those listed in this thread is that pro gun people often seem to argue along these lines:

News Story = Nutter With Gun Kills Innocents, Hero Citizen Stops Nutter With Own Gun

Argument of made-up pro-gun person = "See - this proves that we need guns to protect ourselves from gun wielding nutters"

Secondary argument of pro-gun fictional character = "you would leave us at the mercy of gun wielding nutters/criminals/etc because you want to prevent heroes/cops/teachers/security men/etc having guns to protect themselves/us"

============================

You see, to me (and I am not speaking for all anti-gun people, just myself), the pro-gun person has started their argument a step to late.

In a world where random nutters can buy guns (or steal them from self-defence conscious citizens) surely the argument ought to be not "make sure heroes can have guns" but rather "stop nutters getting them".

That's why I dislike guns - not to prevent the sane rational sport shooters and careful people that want to prevent themselves becoming victims, but that to curtail those "freedoms" in order to prevent the nutters and criminals from having guns.

==============================

There is also the right to bear arms and form a militia argument. I understand that in a nation that was born in rebellion from a tyrannical army (as the citizens saw it) there would be a strong will to be able to ensure that the government could b overthrown by an armed militia.

However - would it not be fair to say that a militia trying to protect the liberty of citizens does not need the variety of weapons that seem to be available in the States.

As an outsider, I wonder (and I'd love sensible answers on this one) why it isn't better to encourage a small range of firearms that have a common standard for ammunition types, and less chance of being used in crime (i.e. some sorts of rifle/carbine/SMG - rather than pistols, hand-guns etc).

That way, if it ever gets to the point that the people need to form a REAL militia for self defence, the logistics will be more likely to achieve a good outcome - if everyone is using 7mm rounds of type "X", no problem with your militia having 9mm handguns and only .303 riffle ammo.

Now - all tell me why I'm wrong. ;)

Sorry to double post, but I've just realised your sig contains an argument that I feel enhances my point, and you probably feel enhances yours.

=================

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." - George Washington

=================

You SEEM to read it showing that the key point is that the people should be armed.

I read it to mean that IF the people are going to be armed, they ought FIRST have discipline.

All the rugged individualists may have personal discipline, but I find it hard to see that they could in time of need be welded into a valuable fighting force.

And another thing - what would people now be saying if the constitution had been written long enough ago that it gave citizens the specific right not to "bear arms" but to "carry swords" or "own bows"?

Would you now be seeking to argue that the founders MEANT high powered riffles? And what arms are included in "bear arms"? It seems acceptable to most people to restrict the use of military aircraft, missiles, rockets, tanks and the like.

What would happen if the Minutemen on the Canadian border wanted a fully armed A10? Or if a militia was founded off Portland and wanted an aircraft carrier?

Just asking.

To sum up and answer most of your points/arguments, all too often in any society do the loudest groups make the case that in order to stop the smallest minority that caused the most damage, everyone has to pay. In some of these cases, where they (those in power/read that as lawmakers) create such legislation so that, say with guns/crime, because a handful of people over a period of time have caused so much havoc that we feel compelled to make carrying a gun illegal......with the noted exceptions of military, law enforcement, and public servants such as us. All this does is create an elite class that now has priviledges while the rest of society does not. chicago is a classic example of this. gun ownership in the city of chicago is effectively illegal. In order to get around constitutional legalites, they grandfathered weapons that were registered before 1982, BUT, city alderman/council members and state representatives are either allowed to carry concealed weapons for their own protection OR they get assigned chicago policemen for their bodyguards....all at taxpayer expense.

To answer the second part of your argument, the right shall not be infringed does not mean that all people SHALL own a firearm, but those that wish to should not be restricted in any way, shape, or form. The 'militia' issue has been degraded to the point of uselessness because the government/media have been able to 1) present the issue that people don't need militias anymore, they have the police and the military/national guard for their protection. They conveniently avoid ANY founding father statements about the concern for standing armies and government corruption/oppression. 2) That any 'militia' that IS formed is soundly and immediately cast in to suspicion as being 'anti-government' with allegations of intent to take down and destroy the federal government. It also doesn't hurt their cause any to be able to sprinkle untruths about other predatious criminal activity like child molestation, religious fanatacism, and occultism whether they are true or not. It becomes a damned if we do, damned if we don't scenario.

Arms were defined as personal weapons. It didn't matter a whit if they were bows/arrows, knives/swords, or rifles/pistols. My george washington quote says it all. "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."

What he is saying is that we should ALWAYS remember the lesson that the british army taught us, that the first step in to establishing their rule/authority over us is to disarm us and that in order for us to always be prepared to show anyone, including our own government, that if they choose to abuse the powers that we've given them, that we can and will fight back. The 1934 national firearms act was the most important step in disarming the people and having it upheld by the media argument that it was necessary to fight moonshine running criminals who were using automatic weapons to skirt the law, thereby making automatic weapons imaged as 'criminalistic weapons'. Once they got that foot in the door, it was baby steps to make all guns look evil and that 'civilized, law abiding people didn't need them, we had the police and military to protect us.

'Arms', as would be defined then and now, would be that any personal firearms that the individual can carry and use, same as our government. That means all pistols and all rifles (including automatics or 'machine guns'). Rockets, Tanks, Planes, and Ships are not arms. They are instruments used in warfare, but not individual arms. Now, some people don't want to get past that strawman argument because it helps make their case when they argue that the second amendment is a 'states' right, not an individual right but they have been consistently proven wrong on that point, although, some circuit courts are still loaded with judicial activists who want to see the populace disarmed.

There will be no way to stop 'nuts' from getting a gun. It's impossible as long as the 'nut' still has freedom. The ONLY way to stop the nut from being able to commit the murder and mayhem that some have, is to stop infringing on the peoples right to bear arms. Once 'nuts' (the milder ones at least) see that there are other people out there ready to kill them if they try to commit violent crimes, they will not be as 'nutty'. There will always be the psychos, but fewer of them and after time, it will be handled. They will eventually die out from attrition.

You've covered a ot there, friend. I hope you don't mind me taking some of your comments a little further.

Yep - that what I like about society. We all pay for hospitals/schools/prisons/courts/the military/air traffic control/etc., even though only some of us use them. That's civilisation.

I like the fact that society as a whole can get it's shit srted to ban dangerous things (like unsafe cars, crashing aircraft, madmed with guns, etc). This is the point - my personal "freedom" to market a deadly car is curtailed by law - and so is my "freedom" to own my own weight in lethal armaments - it's one of the tings I love about my country.

We clearly have very differnt world views - I accept that your's has merit, but it's far from mine. It seems that many pro-gun people do not acept my right to have the opinion I hold - I am not accusing you, I do not know what you think of my ideas. ;)


As a foreigner, this one looks to me like the more sensible gun owners (and I accept that there are some) being painted with the brush that the worst type of gun fan made and gave to the media - there are certainly people that are so paranoid about federal govt. that they do think of the federales as "the enemy" in some way.

It's sad but true. If you want the decent gun ownrs to be treated fairly in the media, get your friends together and stop the extremists on the fringes of your own camp.

I asked about the use of discipline in the quote. Any thoughts?

Got no knowlege to answer this section - but do my county the honour of giving us a capital letter. :lol:

OK - didn't understand this one previously. Did the founders make that clear? What was there position on individuals or townships owning cannon or mortars and other "heavy" weaponry of the day?


See - this is where you and I fundementally differ. I feel that if there were hardly any guns, then nutters would have great trouble getting them.

I see the arguments used in this thread about the 85,000,000 gun owners (or whatever the stat. was) and the arguments about not banning them because you'd never collect them all.

Private guns were legal and indeed cmmon in the UK in the first decades of the 20th C, but were banned for reasns of public safety. At the time people made the same arguments that have been common in the US lately. Over the rest of the century the number of guns in society fell dramatically, and nowadays most illegal firearms in the UK come from legal sales in other "civilised" countries diverted to illegal imports, rather than from 3rd world countries (I was told this by a friend in the Home Office some time ago, but I have not researched the actual data, sorry).

All in all if NEW guns were banned now in the US, how long would it be before the number of gun deaths fell? And would it be worth it?

hospitals, schools, prisons, etc are much different things in that they are services that are provided by and available to the whole community. Thats nowhere close to the same as depriving a whole society of something because of the illegal actions of a few.

That would be how things are done in your country, however, here in the US things are written differently. Due to the second amendment, banning any ownership of any weapon should not ever happen. The back and forth arguments about less guns/more guns is only going to provide two effects...either you are depriving a whole nation of a constitutional right therefore leaving them defenseless against criminals with guns, or you leave their right alone and work with them to limit the effect that nuts/criminals can do with them.

It is not that they don't accept your right to your opinion, its that they don't accept that your opinion has merit. You are absolutely free to have any opinion you wish to, it's using that opinion to force others to be deprived of something that is god given that makes it unjust.



Is that anything like saying that Islam is a religion of terrorists because the peaceful ones will not speak up? It's a catch 22, how do the 'sensible' gun owners silent the radicals? If we try to be louder than they, we come off looking like the radicals. It's a no win situation for us.



I believe, as do others, that Washington meant discipline as in being able to use them responsibly, keep them workable, and be able to join together under a common cause with efficiency.


Basically, the major catalyst that started the revolutionary war was when the British army started confiscating arms. The colonists KNEW that this was the precursor to absolute authority for King George to have over the colonists. That was something they were not going to live with because they knew, once they were disarmed, it was all over with. It is the same anywhere/everywhere in time throughout history.


Many of the documents that contain the founders words refer to arms, rifles, muskets, pistols, even swords and knives. They do not refer to cannons that I am aware of. My belief is that they felt that as long as the citizens had the same 'arms' and ammunition as any standing army, they could not be defeated. This may have had something to do with the fact that the standing army back then was only about 2% of the population, not much different than it is now actually.




Two things would happen if guns were hard to come by. 'Nuts' would either wait til they could come upon one to use, OR they would simply use whatever was available anyway. Look at the latest massacre in Seattle. The guy used a shotgun, but he had a handgun, a rifle, a machete, AND a baseball bat. He was ready to use all that he had until he was stopped.

It would be a very long time. Look at Washington D.C. They instituted a gun ownership ban in 1968. Their murder rate rose 200% and stayed that way until just recently. Even then, it's only dropped slightly. Blaming this on the illegal importation is just an excuse. It should also show the gun grabbers that gun control did not work and will not work the way they thought it would. I would even go so far as to say that nearly every murder thats happened since gun control got serious in 68 lies squarely in the hands of those who instituted it and those who advocate it. I wonder how many of those murders may have been prevented, had those people been able to be armed.

The view of the Supreme Court is in line with my beliefs. The so called "right to bear arms" is in fact the right to maintain a militia. If you are not an active member of a militia, then you do not have the constitutionally protected right to bear arms. If you believe that you have a fundamental right to bear arms, that can be your belief, but to own a gun is a privelage for the responsible, not a right for the masses.

As to the handgun ban in the UK, it is not an apt comparison to the DC gun ban. The UK gun ban is occouring on an island, and is country-wide. The same is hardly true for Washington D.C. That might explain the differences in success. Just for the sake of information, Britain remains one of the countries with the lowest homicide rate in the world accounting for 853 homicides in the reporting period 2003/04 according to the Home Office's Crime Statistics. (http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page40.asp) I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate our older brother, the UK ,for several years of decreasing violence.

A commonly misinterpreted ruling, vehemently pushed forward by the anti gun crowd. In truth, the USSC has only had 5 cases come before it regarding the second amendment and all 5 times have declined to make a decision on individual vs. collective(states) rights. The miller case opinion only rules on whether or not the sawed off shotgun has relevance to a militia weapon, or in other words, is it used by the military. At that time, it was ruled that it did not, but only because miller was not there to present evidence that it did. And how is it a 'so called' right to bear arms when it is plainly stated there?

While the UK may have a low homicide rate (although in 2003, chicago had 599 murders), the rest of violent crime (rapes, robberies, home invasions, and assaults) have risen dramatically, not all committed with guns, but against defenseless citizens none the less.

Just so we're clear, I'm only personally anti gun (I won't ever own or even use one), but I am a gun control advocate poltically. I have no want to take your gun. My only concern is doing anything and everything imaginable to make sure that the antagonists that we both so often mention are unable to procure guns. While you see the 'right to bear arms' as a civil liberties issue, I see it as a serious liability for those who want to control gun use, and for those past, present, and future gun victims. Back to the courts...
I take this to mean that there is supposed to be a civilian counterpart to the federal military, in order to maintain balance of power (bear in mind that the UK had a very strong military and almost no militia at the time of the 13 Colonies). The Second Amendment is quite simply a guerentee by it's creators that the federal government will not overpower the militia, at the risk of breaking it's own rules. If you are a member of the militia, then you have the right to bear arms to the ends of being a second line of defence against exterior threats, and to maintain the balance of power between federal government and civilians. If you own a gun and do not belong to a militia, the right to bear arms ceases to be a legal civil right. It is a privilege.

Just so you know, the quoted statement above is by Prof. Eugene Volokh, UCLA Law School. I am not a lawyer, but he is (and quite a good one at that).
The dramatic rise still pales in comparison with the crime rates in the US. That information cannot be discounted, as it is telling. At a population of more than 60 million that translates into less than 1.3 homicides per 100,000 residents in the UK. By comparison, in 2000, police in the United States reported 5.5 homicides for every 100,000 population. Both New York City and London have over 7 million residents with New York suffering 952 homicides in 2000 to London's 189 in 2003.

Also, the citizens of the UK are hardly defenceless. That is an exageration at best, and a lie at worst. They have available to them the same defensive technologies as Americans such as security systems, safety doors and windows, clubs, panic rooms, tasers, defensive aerosols, and the likes. I will say this again for clarity: a gun is not the only defence against criminals.

A quick comment on this and then we can hold the rest of this for a thread on the second amendment like I had proposed last week. There were two types of militia back then, organized and unorganized. The power for congress to call forth, organize, and arm the militia was written so that congress could legally supply arms to those that did not own arms. In the time of the writings of the founders, every reference to civilian ownership of arms was considered an absolute right and not a privilege. As I stated before, the confiscation of civilian arms by the British (capitalized for Daniel :cool: ) was a catalyst for the revolution. There should be no doubt as to the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right IF the courts were to take in to account the founders writings during the debates for ratification.


security systesm, safety doors and windows, and panic rooms are not defensive items. They are prevention items. Any hand held, non-missile projecting weapon requires that the intended victim be within arms reach of said assailant, an inherent risk in and of itself and most people are not up to that task mentally or physically. With the risk of bodily injury so readily at hand during that close up encounter, most people choose to submit quietly and hope for the best and I, personally, think that it is an offense against law abiding people to deprive them of a means of defense from a distance. It is an unnecessary risk to their own physical well being just so that the 'state' can institute a 'feel-good' law about gun control.

Go 'noles!

I look forward to that thread.
Are you sure that safety doors and windows, and panic rooms are not defensive items? If someone came to your door with a gun, and you had a safety door, they probably could not get in your house. If they are shooting at you from outside the house 1) they are a lot less likely to hit you and 2) they will attract a lot of attention. I'd call that an excelent defence. As for panic rooms (hopefully with Jodie Foster in them), they are obvsiously a defensive tool, as they defend you from anything but a nuclear blast. Those could be used for prevention, but they are active defensive measures when put to the test. If you had a choice between owning a gun or a panic room (where price is not an issue), which would you choose?
As I stated before, give us a better gun control option. You and I agree that current gun control measures, espically in the US, are ineffective and even counter productive. By the way, it's not often pro gun and gun control people can come together on such an issue.

As I stated in an earlier post:

When guns get into the hands of people who will use them for criminal purposes, the people responsible should be held responsible. If the right to hold is so important, it must also come with the responsibility to hold in a way that does not endanger others.

That responsibility has been taken <b>far</b> too lightly in the past - and is the primary reason why gun-control is seen as being necessary.

The lubys massacre that I've written and posted about in these gun control threads was an event that was directly responsible for the texas legislature passing the concealed carry law in 95. this video link shows Suzanna Gratia, now a texas state representative, testifying in front of congress and then representative charles schumer about the assault weapons ban. Probably the best video and statement that could ever be made against gun control

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...ontrol&pl=true

It's quite possible that the majority of gun owners are ok.

What bothers me is that some pro-gun posters on this board post messages that show a clear ignorance of other parts of the world.

There are many countries with fully functioning stable democracies, strong restrictions no (legal) gun ownership, and a low incidence of gun related injuries.

Given that - I tend to respond if I see a poster acting as if the sky will fall, as soon as weapon X is restricted. Ok, guns might be useful/necessary for defense in some parts of the world - but this sure doesn't seem to be the universal case.

The problem is this: it doesn't matter how stable the democracy ( and what's so great about mob-rule anyway? ), how strong the restrictions, or how low the incidence of injury. What matters is FREEDOM. Without the ability to resist with arms, the people are unfree. Period. Freedom, not safety or public image or democracy, is what's important here. "Without freedom, there can BE no Justice."

In Japan, for instance, which is often touted as an anti-gun paradise, the Police can enter your home and search it at any time, without a warrant or probable cause. You can be arrested without a warrant, and the burden of proof is on the defendant; you are presumed Guilty until proven otherwise. This is not Freedom, this is a Samurai fiefdom redefined as a Corporatocracy.

Likewise in the UK, where six men can be arrested, tortured, convicted on the basis of coerced and inconsistant testimony...and then, when all of the above is discovered, the Judge can refuse to acquit or release them because it might make the courts look bad. Look up the Birmingham Six if you don't believe me.

Ireland is the one truly glaring exception to this; IMO, this is because of an extremely active and engaged electorate which wields its' venom and votes like a bullwhip. The threat of a resurgent ( Official ) Irish Republican Army also probably helps.

I am free, yet I bear no arms. I am allowed free press, free religion, freedom of speech, and freedom to assemble. My existence disproves your statement.