What happens when the victims are armed...

[Merchant Marine]

http://www.gregpopik.com/?p=53

"In each of these cases a killer is stopped the moment he faces armed resistance. It is clear that in three of these cases the shooter intended to continue his killing spree. In the fourth case, Andrew Wurst, it is not immediately apparent whether he intended to keep shooting or not since he was apprehended by the restaurant owner leaving the scene.

Three of these cases involved armed resistance by students, faculty or civilians. In one case the armed resistance was from an off-duty police officer in a city where he had no legal authority and where he was carrying his weapon in violation of the mall’s gun free policy.

What would have happened if these people waited for the police? In three cases the shooters were apprehended before the police arrived because of armed civilians. At Trolley Square the shooter was kept busy by Hammond until the police arrived. In all four cases the local police were the Johnny-come-latelys."

[Mojo_electro]

1. Sometimes that's how it goes....

...Better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.

[sharesunited]

2. You're arguing in favor of gun proliferation. That's crazy talk.

The heart of the problem is the easy accessibility of guns.

Who in their right mind wants to go further or faster down that godforsaken road?

Turn around and head in the other direction, toward a civilization less enabled to kill and maim.

[Merchant Marine]

3. I argue

In favor of the individual right to self defense.

"Less enabled to kill and maim?" Man has been killing man since the dawn of time. Perhaps you would like to regress to the middle ages, when mass murder was perpetuated by the sword and the spear. Darfur has done a fine job at genocide with little more than cheap machetes.

You seem to dream of some pacifist fantasy-land. It won't happen, because some people are inherently evil and others have adopted evil ways. That is why I possess the means to my own self-defense.

[sharesunited]

4. You can never get ahead in a self-defense sense if you are enabling new shooters.

You can never be fast enough on the trigger or vigilant enough that you will always see him in time.

You are only fooling yourself and playing a loser's game.

And furthermore, you are misusing your talent to persuade others by attempting to persuade them to join you in constructing an inherently more brutal, unsafe and self-destructive society.

Surely you must see how wrong that is.

[imdjh]

6. horse piddle

[Merchant Marine]

7. None

Of the examples in the OP resulted in zero lives lost, but I would rather have return fire than an unhindered execution like at Virginia Tech.

[sharesunited]

8. I understand your desire to retaliate, but it doesn't address the problem.

The problem is that someone is shooting at you.

And they are able to do so because of their supposed right to arm themselves.

A right you expressly favor.

Oh the irony and futility of that position!

[Merchant Marine]

9. Return Fire

stops killers. When the act is in progress all the goodwill and legislation in the world is worthless.

We could have mandatory screening and psychiatric analysis of every man woman and child in America, but that would be a blatant violation of our 1st amendment right to privacy.

How do you propose to prevent insane people from doing insane things?

[sharesunited]

10. We don't need to make it easy for insane people to obtain guns.

You know what I'm talking about. They can go to the gun store when they are angry or depressed or have some personal grudge to settle.

Why aren't we having this debate about the right to keep and bear a grenade launcher?

Because for some reason you are willing to draw the line short of a grenade launcher.

That's all that's going on here. We just disagree about where we should draw the line.

I want the line to be drawn at front-loading, single-shot flintlocks like the framers intended.

[Merchant Marine]

12. In California

In order to buy a handgun, I have to fill out a full information sheet, submit to an FBI background check and consent to having my name entered into the state handgun registry. I can only buy one handgun every 30 days and I must wait 10 days after the paperwork is submitted to pick-up my handgun. I can only buy handguns approved by the California DOJ. This process must be followed even if the firearm is purchased at a gun show from a private citizen. I cannot own "assault weapons" or fully automatic weapons even if I get a BATF tax stamp.

If I am a felon, have been convicted of a misdemeanor in the past 5 years, have a dishonorable discharge or have an active restraining order I cannot purchase or possess firearms of any kind. (Strangely this law stops very few felons. It is a mystery why they do not obey the law.)

You have some strange vision of cash and carry gun stores. Those of us that live in the real world know the process and the restrictions.

My friend, if a man cannot be trusted with a single shot rifle he cannot be trusted with any rifle. Single shot flintlocks stacked the casualties at Gettysburg and oversaw the slaughter of the buffalo. Are you sure the enlightened elite can entrust us mere civilians with such fearsome killing power?

Oh, and grenade launchers are classified by the BATF as a destructive device. You can own one if you fill out the forms and pay the fees and pass the in-depth background checks. You just can't buy any explosive rounds for it. Plenty of people have harmless fun with chalk practice rounds though.

[gorfle]

28. Minor correction...

My friend, if a man cannot be trusted with a single shot rifle he cannot be trusted with any rifle. Single shot flintlocks stacked the casualties at Gettysburg and oversaw the slaughter of the buffalo. Are you sure the enlightened elite can entrust us mere civilians with such fearsome killing power?

The firearms at Gettysburg were percussion-cap primed weapons. Nonetheless, they were still single shot, muzzle loading weapons like a flintlock.

Casualties at Gettysburg were around 50,000 men killed, wounded, or missing.

[Euromutt]

21. Why not grenade launchers? Because we're talking about defensive armament here

Grenade launchers are what Jane's Infantry Weapons calls "area effect" weapons. The typical 40mm grenade fired by the M79 and M203 grenade launchers needs to travel 27 meters (90') before it arms itself, making the minimum range at which such weapons can be used 30 meters (100'). The high-explosive grenades these weapons fire have a "kill radius" of 5 meters (17') and a "casualty radius" of 15 meters (50'). In civilian applications, including law enforcement, there is no situation that justifies the use of a weapon with a minimum range of 100 feet that will injure, possibly kill, anyone up to 50 feet from the intended target. You can't resolve a hostage situation with a weapon that will kill all the hostages along with the hostage takers. Well, you can physically speaking, but not in a way that is politically acceptable (except if you're a member of a Russian counter-terrorist unit).

By contrast, a "point target" weapon such as a repeating handgun, shotgun or rifle, can incapacitate the intended target without destroying the surrounding area if a shot misses (or, with a grenade launcher, even if it doesn't).

I want the line to be drawn at front-loading, single-shot flintlocks like the framers intended.

Right. So, by extension, you also believe that the "freedom of speech, and of press" only applies to technologies available in 1787 (as other posters have noted), the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" doesn't apply to motor vehicles, computers, or houses built using methods developed after 1787, and that whenever the Constitution speaks of "the several states," it only means the original thirteen states, and the other 43 can go take a powder, right?

Besides, the framers knew their history, and they definitely knew that the firearm technology of their time had advanced from earlier times, from the (hand)gonne of the late 14th century, through the matchlocks and wheellocks of the 16th century and the snaphances of the 17th. It is ludicrous to imagine that they didn't foresee that firearms technology would continue to advance, as it already had up to that point in history.

Moreover, by the time of the writing of the Constitution, firearms already existed that went beyond "front-loading, single-shot flintlocks." The Ferguson rifle was a breech-loader that had been patented in 1776 by a Scots officer of that name, and the framers definitely knew about it, since Ferguson had been given his own unit, Ferguson's Rifle Corps, armed entirely with the weapon, which took part in the Revolutionary War (most notably at the Battle of Brandywine in 1777). Multi-barreled "volley guns" had been around since the 15th century, and the principle had been miniaturized into "duck's foot" pistols and the British 7-barreled Nock volley gun, invented in 1779. These were weapons designed to be fired into a crowd causing them to hurt multiple people simultaneously.

Not that I expect to convince you, but hopefully a couple of lurkers who might otherwise be inclined to think your rotting red herring had some appeal might be persuaded otherwise.

[WWFZD]

33. How many?

"whenever the Constitution speaks of "the several states," it only means the original thirteen states, and the other 43 can go take a powder, right?"
There's 56 states? Just kidding, and I'll take this argument a step further. A law abiding American citizen should be able to own any weapon in common use by the military as was originally intended. If you can afford an M1A1 and have enough land to use it without bothering your neighbors, and use it responsibly, have at it. The first time an exploding shell concussion shatters a neighbors window you forfeited your right.
And Chem/Nuke/Bio weapons are not included. They are strictly offensive weapons of mass destruction. I cannot defend my home/neighborhood/city... with one. I cannot advance on an enemy fortress in an occupied area with a WMD. There is no incongruity whatsoever with advocating private ownership of military style weaponry and disallowing private ownership of weapons of mass destruction.

[gorfle]

27. On grenade launchers and flintlocks.

Why aren't we having this debate about the right to keep and bear a grenade launcher?

We aren't having this debate about grenade launchers and other explosive weapons because explosives are an indiscriminate weapon.

I want the line to be drawn at front-loading, single-shot flintlocks like the framers intended.

You are demonstrating ignorance at what the framers intended.

The framers intended a civilian population that was intended to either replace or at least counter a federal army. In order to do this, logically they must be armed with the same kinds of small arms that the federal army would have. In the founders day, this was indeed flintlock technology. But there is a reason why the founders specifically said "arms" in the second amendment, rather than "flintlocks". They knew technology would change.

To say that the Constitution only protects 18th century firearm ownership is to say that it only protects published speech on 18th century printing presses.

[AtheistCrusader]

39. We aren't having that debate, because we don't like Straw Men.

I want the line to be drawn at you not putting words in the mouths of the framers.

Because they said no such damn thing.

BEHOLD: The 20-shot Girandoni Repeating Rifle, in use by Austria 10 years before the ratification of the 2nd Amendment. http://www.beemans.net/Austrian%20airguns.htm

In California, that's an 'Assault Weapon', and Meriwether Lewis carried one on the Lewis and Clark expedition. 'blowing holes in deer' and such.

Edit: Spelling

[DrCory]

40. Do You Understand...

That the firelock was the "main battle rifle" of that era? What does that tell you about the framers intent? Did the framers limit civilian ownership to obsolete arms, such as matchlocks? No, they did not. What does that indicate to you?

The discussion of "where we should draw the line" is certainly valid, but your interpretation of the framers intent is laughable.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

43. People who are adjudicated mentally ill are legally barred from owning firearms.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

45. So the 1st amendment doesn't protect internet, television and radio speech?

[jeepnstein]

51. Of course it does.

What the poster wants is for it to only cover the parts of the Bill of Rights he likes. How's that for arbitrary?

[Deadric Damodred]

49. We aren't having this debate at all.

The fact of the matter is it doesn't matter what you think about where the line should be drawn. The pro-Constitution side is winning this war; you have no chance to get any sort of anti-gun legislation passed through congress, as we control congress. And even if you did redraw the line, we already own shitloads of the kinds of firearms you hate; 3.5 million every 3 months were sold in 2008. If you think you can take those guns from us.....well I'd love to see you try. Of course you can't redraw the line anyway, as Heller states you can't limit the 2nd Amendment to only the firearms that were around when it was written anymore than you can limit free speech to only the way of communication that were around when it was written.

By-the-way, it's not a "supposed right", it's a real right. You might not like it, but that's just too bad for you. Are some innocent people dying because of the right to bear arms? A few. So what? Sometimes a few people have to die for the greater good. We aren't going to debate this. We're going to keep our guns, and you're going to sit there and like it.

[gorfle]

25. Someone shooting at me.

The problem is that someone is shooting at you.

And they are able to do so because of their supposed right to arm themselves.

A right you expressly favor.

Oh the irony and futility of that position!

First of all, the right is not "supposed", it is the law of the land per our Constitution and recent Supreme Court ruling.

Second of all, no one, at least not I, disputes that by having relatively free access to firearms that there will be people who abuse and misuse that right. In fact, I openly acknowledge that a society that has free access to firearms will have some percentage of the people abuse and misuse that access. This is sad, but an inevitable outcome of such free access to firearms. Unfortunately, if you wish to secure the right to resist oppression as our founders intended, this is the price that must be paid.

[sharesunited]

44. You want to oppose oppression? From whom? The police? The army?

And you expect other rebels to join you in resisting these forces through their exercise of the RKBA?

Sounds pretty delusional to me. Sounds like a typical case of gun love warping an afflicted's person's perception of reality.

[gorfle]

46. From any would-be oppressor.

You want to oppose oppression? From whom? The police? The army? And you expect other rebels to join you in resisting these forces through their exercise of the RKBA?

Sounds pretty delusional to me. Sounds like a typical case of gun love warping an afflicted's person's perception of reality.

Well if it's delusional, it's the delusional vision of our founders, for this was precisely their intent. Read the Federalist Papers, particularly Federalist 29.

The intent of the founders was to have a militia system, where each state maintained its own militia, made up of men from those states and led by officers from those states. Obviously, the intent here was to create a decentralized military system that would be loyal to their respective states and not a central government. They did this to create a military system capable of resisting oppression from without and within.

It never ceases to amaze me that when confronted with the real reason behind the second amendment people such as yourself chalk it up to "gun love". This is not about gun love. This is really what our founders intended. They feared that they were creating a system that, despite the best of intentions, might turn into a tyranny. The second amendment was their way of making sure that the people always had the ultimate means to resist such a tyranny.

Unless I've convinced you, which I doubt, why do you think the founders wrote the second amendment? What do you think their intent was? Why do you think they created a decentralized military system?

[sharesunited]

47. I agree with you. That's what the 2A was about. It is obsolete now.

Overtaken by events, namely the American Civil War.

Remember the Ken Burns documentary? We went from the United States "are" to the United States "is."

Historian Shelby Foote said it in the film. We became an "is." Armed rebellion was put down and the Union was preserved.

It is disingenuous to continue to raise opposition to government oppression as a reason to perpetuate what is now only a menace to public safety.

[gorfle]

50. The second amendment is obsolete?

Overtaken by events, namely the American Civil War.

Remember the Ken Burns documentary? We went from the United States "are" to the United States "is."

Historian Shelby Foote said it in the film. We became an "is." Armed rebellion was put down and the Union was preserved.

It is disingenuous to continue to raise opposition to government oppression as a reason to perpetuate what is now only a menace to public safety.

Yes, I understand that the American Civil War is an example of a failed rebellion.

This does not mean that there will not come a time were armed rebellion is warranted. Nor does it mean that all armed rebellions are doomed to fail.

What will you do should the day come that armed revolution is called for? Or do you believe that we will never again find ourselves in armed rebellion against our government?

[sharesunited]

52. Didn't the Confederacy deem itself warranted?

The secessionists thought it was.

And why did it fail?

A better armed force and industrial capacity harnassed in the name of the majority.

What is the scenario in which a better armed force and industrial capacity somehow gets harnassed in the name of an oppressing minority?

How is it even possible?

No, the rebels will always be a struggling rejectionist minority hoping to disobey lawful authority and prevail despite their narrow grievances or sectarian goals.

There is no need to learn the same lesson again. The American Civil War teaches us that armed rebellion is not a right at all, and must be renounced unequivocally.

[gorfle]

54. That is not the point.

Didn't the Confederacy deem itself warranted? The secessionists thought it was.

I did not claim otherwise. Just because a rebellion is deemed warranted does not mean it will succeed. Quite clearly, not all rebellions succeed. This does not mean, however, that no rebellions can succeed, which is what you are claiming.

And why did it fail?

A better armed force and industrial capacity harnassed in the name of the majority.

True enough. This does not mean that all better armed forces with industrial capacity will win in a rebellion. Witness Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

What is the scenario in which a better armed force and industrial capacity somehow gets harnassed in the name of an oppressing minority?

How is it even possible?

Witness Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

I'm not sure what the majority/minority thing has to do with anything. Whether in the minority or majority, an oppressed people have the right to overthrow their oppressors by any means necessary.

No, the rebels will always be a struggling rejectionist minority hoping to disobey lawful authority and prevail despite their narrow grievances or sectarian goals.

Was this the case in the American Revolution?

There is no need to learn the same lesson again. The American Civil War teaches us that armed rebellion is not a right at all, and must be renounced unequivocally.

So you believe, then, that there will never come a time where armed rebellion is necessary in the United States or any of the current first world countries?

[sharesunited]

59. If you believe that armed rebellion is a Constitutional or even natural right...

then do you believe that average citizens should be entitled to keep and bear military grade armaments?

If not, why not?

As I have said before when engaging in this debate about the 2nd Amendment, we really just disagree about where the line is drawn as to the lethality of the technology one claims is covered by the "right."

Once one admits that police and army firepower is unsafe for society in the hands of the People themselves, it becomes less and less arguable that anything other than the most rudimentary popgun should be covered by 2A protection.

[jeepnstein]

61. I never said that lawful citizens...

should not be allowed arms identical to that of the police and military. The reason that is now the case is an arbitrary ban that took effect in 1986.

Any arm that is commonly issued to a soldier as his personal load out should be available to a regular citizen. So by your reasoning such arms should be covered by the 2nd Amendment.

[gorfle]

62. Please answer the question.

Please answer my question:

"So you believe, then, that there will never come a time where armed rebellion is necessary in the United States or any of the current first world countries?"

If you believe that armed rebellion is a Constitutional or even natural right...then do you believe that average citizens should be entitled to keep and bear military grade armaments?

Small arms? Absolutely. This is precisely the founders' intent. They wanted The People to be able to replace, or at least counter, the army troops of the central federal government. This means equipping them with similar infantry weapons.

I do not have a problem with limiting the availability of fully-automatic weapons (machine guns), because they are suppression weapons which will be of little use against a technologically superior foe who will call in artillery or air support to deal with entrenched positions armed with such weapons. Semi-automatic military variants are sufficient to meet the requirements for rebellion.

As I have said before when engaging in this debate about the 2nd Amendment, we really just disagree about where the line is drawn as to the lethality of the technology one claims is covered by the "right."

No, it seems the disagreement is more fundamental than that. You have been making the case that armed revolution is not possible nor even necessary.

Once one admits that police and army firepower is unsafe for society in the hands of the People themselves, it becomes less and less arguable that anything other than the most rudimentary popgun should be covered by 2A protection.

What can I say? Your opinion is directly at odds with the founders of our nation and with the current Supreme Court of the United States.

Once you admit that the entire intent of the founders was to have an armed citizenry capable of replacing or eliminating their contemporary federal army, it becomes less and less arguable that anything up to and including contemporary military small arms are covered by 2A protection.

So far you have refused to address either the intent of the founders nor the possibility of future armed rebellion.

[jeepnstein]

56. Interesting.

So on what basis does government have a claim to legitimacy, if not on the consent of the governed? Do we pull a sword from a stone? Since the American Revolution was not a legitimate act, shall we send an apology to the British Crown and hope they give us a second chance?

[Statistical]

57. Sad.

So if the US devolved into a totalitarian state (aka 1984) in which without rule of law the entire BofR was scrapped; no trials, no warrants, a state religion, seizure of private property, no method to protest or petition grievances the state is right?

Even in such a situation armed rebellion as a last resort must be renounced? Even if that rebellion is supported by the majority of citizens against a tyrannical minority that has violated the rule of law?

You believe that in all cases and in all times the state is always right.

You would have been far happier under Nazi Germany. Now make no mistakes I am not calling you a nazi and you may have even personally disagreed with their practices but it must be such comfort that even living in a totalitarian state you can simply close your eyes to the atrocities and believe that "the state is always right".

Thankfully for the rest of us, it isn't the role of the courts to determine if the Constitution is obsolete or quaint. The purpose of the 2nd may never be utilized. It simply exists. If you don't like it then the LAWFUL thing to do would be repeal it. The fascist thing to do would be pretend it doesn't exist, or give the state the ultimate power of deciding which rights are relevant.

Have you ever considered the RISKS of such an action? Any state the can eliminate the 2nd without the rule of law can eliminate any portion of the Bill of Rights. You rights have become nothing more than temporary privileges to be revoked by a tyrant govt at their time and choosing.

Heller also expands the intent to include defense of self & home to defense of state and nation. Until is is overturned or limited it is the ruling of the highest court. The right to bear arms in defense of self & home is protected and that right is utilized millions of times each year by lawful gun owners.

[Euromutt]

71. That's irrelevant as long as the law still exists

See, that's the thing about a written law, especially a constitution against which day-to-day legislation may be tested: as long as the law is on the books, it remains in effect. Maybe the Second Amendment is outdated, even obsolete, but that isn't a legitimate reason to ignore it. Doing so would set a rather ugly precedent which an administration like the previous one would have been happy to exploit with regard to the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Actually, they a pretty good job of ignoring those anyway, what with the warrantless NSA wiretaps and denial of due process to anyone the executive deems to be a non-US citizen (thereby making it impossible for someone who is a US citizen to prove that they are).

[rl6214]

64. Another ad hominem attack

when logical debate skills are lacking.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

42. So you think it's better to be unarmed when being shot at?

[ThatPoetGuy]

13. Virginia Tech....

Here we go with Fantasyland again. Yeah. Let's say students were allowed to pack guns. Somebody goes nuts and starts shooting people. In Fantasyland some heroic student pulls his Colt and blows the offender away.

Here's how it really works.

Most everybody is sticking their heads up, looking around, going "WHATTHEHELL????" Joe Hero pulls his Glock out of his rucksack to defend himself. Joe Sixpack comes around the corner, Ruger in hand, sees Joe Hero, thinks he's the bad guy and empties all 14 rounds into him.

Then Curly the Campus Cop comes around the corner, sees Joe Sixpack with a smoking gun in his hand and Joe Hero lying in a pool of blood, yells "FREEZEMOTHERF***ER!!!" at Joe Sixpack and simultaneously blows him away because he's scared as hell.

While there are instances when a gun is useful for self-defense, most of these instances of mass shooting don't qualify for the simple reason that the bad guys know who they are and everybody else is trying to figure out what the hell is happening. Rookie cops have a bad habit of shooting undercover cops. Do you really want a bunch of untrained college students running around "defending" themselves with handguns?

[pipoman]

18. Have a single incident

where your scenario has played out? Surely with the literal millions of concealed carriers this has to have happened?

While there are instances when a gun is useful for self-defense, most of these instances of mass shooting don't qualify for the simple reason that the bad guys know who they are and everybody else is trying to figure out what the hell is happening.

No, they don't qualify because the shooters generally pick soft targets, that is target areas which ban concealed carry even in states with ccw on the books....you know, gun free zones...

[gorfle]

29. That didn't happen at this school shooting...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting

CCW permit holders have successfully used their firearms to defend themselves and others on countless occasions.

How many instances has your scenario played out? Can you cite any?

[Euromutt]

31. So how come it didn't "really work" that way in the cited examples?

Let's review. At the Appalachian School of Law, the two students (Officer Gross and Deputy Bridges) who ran to get their guns did so independently of each other, and both approached Odighizuwa from different angles. Bridges was from Asheville, NC and Gross from Grifton, NC; the two cities are 345 miles apart, almost literally at opposite ends of the state. They did not mistake each other for the active shooter, but both correctly identified Odighizuwa as such.

At Trolley Square Mall, Talović was pinned down by Officer Hammond until a response team from Salt Lake City PD SWAT arrived. Despite the fact that Hammond was from Ogden (25 miles away and two counties over, and therefore likely not known to members of SLCPD), they did not mistake him for the shooter.

So we have two situations in which your hypothesis as to "here's how it really works" didn't work that way at all. Ergo, your hypothesis is proven false.

I can add the Tacoma Mall shooting in November 2005. There were at least two CPL holders on the premises at the time. One, Brendan McKown, left the store he was in and confronted the gunman, Dominick Maldonado. In this case, the identification was facilitated by the fact that Maldonado was carrying a MAK-90 rifle (Chinese-made semi-auto Kalashnikov derivative), and the only reason McKown didn't take him down was because he (McKown) suffered a misplaced attack of humanitarianism, and could not bring himself to shoot because Maldonado was "only a kid." Instead, McKown holstered his pistol and called out to Maldonado to put his gun down (or words to that effect). In response, Maldonado shot McKown five or six times, and while McKown survived (so much for those incredibly lethal "assault weapons") he was at risk of being rendered paraplegic. The other CPL holder, who remains unnamed, hunkered down in the store he was in when he heard shots fired, placed himself between the other occupants (including his family) and the door, and simply kept the door covered until Tacoma PD arrived.

What does this illustrate? That in an "active shooter" situation, legally armed citizens don't go blazing away at the first person they see with a gun, and neither do the police; at least, in places where the possibility exists that a guy with a gun might be an armed citizen.

Oddly enough, the most recent example that approximated your "how it really works" occurred in New York City the other week. Three plainclothes NYPD cops in Harlem spotted one black guy with a gun in his hand pursuing another black guy. The plainclothes cops challenged the guy with the gun, and when he turned towards them with the gun still in his hand, one of them shot him. When the cops checked the shootee, he was found to be wearing a police academy shirt under his clothes, and was subsequently identified as officer Omar Edwards, also of the NYPD.

Now isn't that interesting? In a city where where you need a permit to own a handgun, let alone carry one (unless you're politically connected and/or a celebrity like Chuck Schumer, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., Joan Rivers or Howard Stern*), the cops don't stop to consider that the guy running down the street with a gun might be another cop. Oh yes and, of the six shots fired, two actually hit Officer Edwards, leaving another four to go into the wide blue yonder and possibly hit innocent bystanders.

Yeah, clearly we need to worry about the CCW permit holders, and not about the cops. The cops know what they're doing, right? Right?

* - New York State law only permits the issuance of handgun permits to residents of the state. Curiously, New York City has issued carry permits to individuals who, to the best of my understanding, were not residents of the state, such as Robert de Niro, Bill Cosby and Steven Tyler and Joe Perry. And given the history of every member of Aerosmith with regard to drug use, you have to wonder how either Tyler or Perry even qualify to possess a firearm. But then again, you have to wonder the same thing about Sean Penn, who was issued a California CCW permit by Marin County sheriff's office in spite of his history of violent behavior.
If you think I'm insinuating that law enforcement agencies, having been given discretionary power to decide who gets to own or carry a firearm, will abuse that power, you couldn't be more wrong. I'm asserting outright that this is the case. "May issue" is an invitation for class justice: the bulk of CCW permit holders in Contra Costa county, California are contributors to the sheriff's re-election fund. The NYPD lieutenant(!) responsible for deciding who gets a CCW permit in New York City was investigated for allegedly accepting backstage passes to an Aerosmith concert in exchange for approving Tyler and Perry's applications (even though they don't live in New York state).

[gorfle]

48. Fantastic post!

Fantastic post.

[sharesunited]

60. Your entire post begs the question of why we suffer goofs with guns.

Isn't it because we love guns so much that we would rather accept piling more guns onto the problem than denying access to guns generally?

Yep, pretty sure that's at the heart of the problem. A sense of powerlessness (mostly plaguing males) which is assuaged by holding kill power in their hand.

I say, time to grow up and get over that deficiency.

[Tim01]

66. 911 Recording. Woman shoots intruder while he is strangling her.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTAADW9wNvk

Do you wish the woman hadn't had a gun to shoot the intruder?

[gorfle]

73. And here's a 911 recording of a woman raped while on the phone with police.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3vWsa4ags&feature=related

Bet she wishes she had a gun to shoot her intruder. She had all the time in the world to get into position with a gun as the perp came out of her basement. Instead she had all the time in the world to wait for the police to arrive while he beat and raped her.

[gorfle]

72. It's not a deficiency.

Your entire post begs the question of why we suffer goofs with guns.

Isn't it because we love guns so much that we would rather accept piling more guns onto the problem than denying access to guns generally?

Yep, pretty sure that's at the heart of the problem.

Yes, it is the heart of the issue, but it's not a problem. We love guns, and the freedom they impart, so much, that we will accept more guns in the hands of everyone, suffering them even in the hands of fools, rather than take that freedom from everyone. As Benjamin Franklin said, "Those who would forsake essential liberty to gain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

A sense of powerlessness (mostly plaguing males) which is assuaged by holding kill power in their hand.

You are exactly correct. Having the tools and facilities in place to face adversity is indeed empowering, which is why we seek them out. There's nothing wrong with that. As human beings we face natural limitations to our abilities, and there is no shame in making use of modern technology and all the implements it provides to overcome those natural limitations. Whether buying clothes to resist the weather, fire extinguishers to resist fire, smoke detectors to resist fire, or firearms to resist oppression, the implements of modern man are indeed empowering.

[X_Digger]

74. Matrix-worthy dodge

Why don't you address the points made in the post above?

[Euromutt]

75. "Begs the question"; serendipitous choice of words there...

"Begging the question" (aka "petitio principii") is a logical fallacy whereby you ask your interlocutor to take a given one or more points that are actually a crucial element of the issue under discussion. And that's exactly what you've done here, sharesunited, namely by taking it as read that "we suffer goofs with guns" (I'm assuming that you're using the word "suffer" in the sense of "tolerate" or "allow"). We can actually cite a sod of lot of spree shootings in which the shooter did not possess his firearm legally.

Dominick Maldonado (Tacoma Mall) was a 20 year-old with an extensive juvenile criminal record, and had been prohibited by a court order from possessing firearms.
Sulejman Talović (Trolley Square Mall) acquired his guns illegally.
Luke Woodham (Pearl High School) was 16, and thus prohibited by Mississippi state law (Mississippi Code 97-37-13, -14 and -15) from possessing a firearm (in this case, a .30-30 deer rifle) except in a limited set of circumstances (none of which applied in this situation).
Robert Hawkins (Westroads Mall, Omaha, NE) had stolen the rifle he used from his stepfather.
Mitchell Johnson and Andrew Golden (Westside Middle School, Jonesboro, AR) had stolen the weapons used from Golden's grandfather.

And technically, Seung-Hui Cho, having been adjudicated mentally ill, should not have been able to buy guns either. The only reason he got past the NICS background check was because the Commonwealth of Virginia had been slow submitting the information to the NICS.

Another assumption you're sneaking into the debate is that access to guns generally can be physically denied. The experience of the United Kingdom teaches us that this cannot be assumed (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug/30/ukcrime1).

And again, I note you are avoiding engaging the arguments made by those on the pro-carry side, instead resorting to abusive ad hominems. I find it quite remarkable how many gun control/prohibition proponents are chronically unable to respond to having their precious preconceptions challenged by any other means than sophomoric name-calling. Take you; you can't actually refute any of the evidence presented, so you discount that impugning the mental stability and maturity of the person presenting it, as if that somehow proved anything. It's the only thing you've done in this thread. And you're telling me that I need to grow up?

[Tim01]

53. What you say would happen, and reality, are not similar.

There is no need for you to imagine what might happen. There are actual cases to look at,reality. And those cases DO NOT support your imagined idea of what "could" happen.



If we gave everybody access to a dangerous flammable liquid like gasoline we could have people burning entire families alive over minor neighborhood altercations. People at convenience stores could be setting each other on fire over a parking space. Road rage would turn into a fiery inferno as people lobbed ordinary wind bottles full of gasoline at each other. The wild west and there isn't even a background check.
IT DOESN'T HAPPEN.

[rl6214]

65. Nice

You should be a fiction writer.

[gorfle]

24. Of course you can.

You can never get ahead in a self-defense sense if you are enabling new shooters.

You are making the assumption that every new shooter is out to be engaged in criminal activity.

The data plainly shows that out of the 40-80 million firearm owners in the United States, only 10,000 of them or so engage in murder with a firearm every year. That's about .0025% and .0012% of firearm owners. Even if you include the roughly 800,000 "bad things" that happen with firearms every year, including homicides, rapes, robberies, etc., this is still only between 1-2% of all firearm owners.

By your logic, because we can never avoid car accidents because we are constantly enabling new drivers we should abolish autmobiles. Instead, we recognize the utility and necessity of automobiles, take precautions where we can, and suffer the inevitable consequences of their misuse.

You can never be fast enough on the trigger or vigilant enough that you will always see him in time.

There have been many demonstrated cases in this very forum where people have been fast enough and vigilant enough to act in time.

And furthermore, you are misusing your talent to persuade others by attempting to persuade them to join you in constructing an inherently more brutal, unsafe and self-destructive society.

I submit to you that "society", and mankind in general, is inherently brutal, unsafe, and self-destructive, and the illusion of civility is a facade that comes tumbling down with surprisingly little interruption. Witness Hurricane Katrina. Those who choose to ignore this or believe it is untrue do so at their peril. Those who acknowledge and prepare for it may not in the end prevail, but it will not be for lack of preparedness.

[MrModerate]

11. Bullshit. In Darfur they use cheap guns . . .

Along with the machetes and garden tools. And starvation and shredding the social fabric, and all the diseases that follow on.

But what is most devastating is guns. As per usual. Equating the deadliness of a firearm with the deadliness of a machete is like comparing a nuclear bomb and a conventional one. In other words, there is no comparison.

[Euromutt]

16. Tell that to the 800,000 dead of the Rwandan genocide

Yep, 800,000 dead (very possibly more) in 100 days, almost entirely done with machetes. Who put a stop to it? The UN? The AU? No, a bunch of guerrillas named the Rwandan Patriotic Front, who--not entirely coincidentally--had guns. Had they not, they wouldn't have stood a chance, as the Rwandan government forces outnumbered them eight to one. But the RPF did have guns, and they were well practiced with them, having formed a vital component of the National Resistance Army in Uganda's civil war.

And let's not forget how Cortez and Pizarro did for the Aztecs and the Incas. They only had matchlocks back then, so firearms didn't play a huge role, but steel armor and blades against opponents who didn't have ironworking technology made the killing field a highly uneven one.

The First Crusade was amazingly bloody as well, and firearms hadn't even been invented yet.

See, firearms may make it easier for a comparatively small force to massacre a numerically superior force not so armed (just like a nuclear bomb allows a single aircraft to destroy an entire city), but on a level of individual against individual, especially where one is armed with any kind of deadly weapon and the other is not, how much damage the weapon does is decidedly less important. Much like it makes little difference to any particular house whether it's hit by a conventional bomb or a nuclear one (in either case, the house will be obliterated), it makes little difference to an unarmed citizen whether a mugger is armed with a knife, a bat or a gun, as any of them can be lethal*.

And as we can learn from Yang Jia's attack on Zhabei police station (6 dead, 3 wounded), the Nonhyeon-dong massacre (6 dead, 4 injured), the Akihabara massacre (7 dead, 10 injured) and the Dendermonde day care attack (3 dead, 12 injured), a determined individual with a knife can rack up a body count rivaling that of most spree shootings. Of course, it's especially easy against completely unarmed targets, but all of Yang Jia's victims were police officers, in a police station (and while Chinese municipal police used to be unarmed, since 2006 they have been equipped with a Norinco 9mm revolver http://world.guns.ru/handguns/hg199-e.htm specially designed for them).
Oh, by the way, all these incidents occurred in the past year.

* - There is actually research that indicates that victims are more likely to sustain injury from a robber armed with a blade or bludgeon rather than a firearm, the reason being that robbers consider a firearm to be a sufficiently large threat that they expect their targets to comply, whereas robber armed with blades and especially bludgeons sometimes find it necessary to pre-emptively hurt the target just to show they mean business.

[MrModerate]

20. Your response is all over the map . . .

Either guns are definitive determinants of outcome, or they aren't; either they're more dangerous to the victim or they're not; either the poster I was responding to knew what he/she was talking about or not . . .

Let's take it point by point.

• Rwanda. Yes: the weapon of choice in Rwanda was . . . the radio! After months of anti-Tutsi propaganda there was a general uprising wherein machetes were used indiscriminately by everybody concerned (although they had a substantial number of grenades and AK47s). As to how order was restored following the overthrow of the Hutu government -- after the bloodlust began to die out of its own accord -- I'll give you a grudging "whatever"

• Cortez/Pizarro/Aztecs/Incas -- yep, guns caused the greatest devastation in those cases (Isn't that what I said?), although ignoring disease kind of robs the story of one of its major themes

• Crusades deaths -- pretty bad, but nothing like that caused after guns became common in warfare (disease, disease, disease!)

• "It makes little difference whether a mugger is armed . . ." Nonsense. While gun-wielding criminals may feel more confident (and their victims more compliant), the fact of the matter is that guns are capable of much more devastating injuries, delivered 10, 15, 20 times more quickly, at ranges exceeding a frakkin' *mile* than any edged weapon or blunt object.

• "a determined individual with a knife can rack up a body count rivaling that of most spree shootings . . ." Nonsense 2. Spree shootings? 20 dead, 50 wounded? 30 dead? 40 dead in ten minutes? How about 8 to 1 in favor of firearms in the US 2000-2004 (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/murder.html#table2_9). Knives are dangerous; guns are lots more dangerous.

Think of it this way: the natural gesture in a human preparing to attack or defend is to make a fist. You do that with a gun, and you've already discharged your first round. It's all downhill from there.

[Euromutt]

70. Well, excuse me for refusing to over-simplify complex questions

Either guns are definitive determinants of outcome, or they aren't;

They aren't. They sure do skew the chances, but other factors also play a part.

either they're more dangerous to the victim or they're not;

In the hands of the perp, they are; in the hands of the victim, they're not. This strikes me as blindingly obvious.

either the poster I was responding to knew what he/she was talking about or not . . .

Yes, I'm fairly certain I know what I'm talking about, thank you. I'm male, by the way.
Got any more false dichotomies to toss out?

Rwanda. Yes: the weapon of choice in Rwanda was . . . the radio!

So your point is what? "Machetes don't kill people, radios kill people"? I'm aware of the role of Radio Mille Collines, but those broadcasts weren't the proximate cause of the deaths; Hutus swinging machetes were. Without the latter, the radio broadcasts would have been so much wasted breath.

Cortez/Pizarro/Aztecs/Incas -- yep, guns caused the greatest devastation in those cases (Isn't that what I said?)

Work on your reading comprehension, because that is exactly what I said was not the case. Sixteenth-century matchlocks were useful for downing an armored horseman, but since neither the Aztecs nor the Incas had horses or iron (and matchlocks took twenty minutes to cool sufficiently to load another charge), the guns had marginal effect. What did have effect (and I stated this explicitly) was the Spanish had steel blades (that means swords and lances, not guns) which could easily overcome the armor of cultures that didn't know metalworking, and steel armor that could easily resist the non-metallic weapons of those cultures.

Crusades deaths -- pretty bad, but nothing like that caused after guns became common in warfare (disease, disease, disease!)

Are you suggesting that disease only became an effect of warfare after the introduction of firearms? I hope you don't have a history degree, because if you did, the institution that extended it to you should ask for it back. Plague and warfare go hand in hand as far back as Homer.
As for casualties being worse, the members of First Crusade massacred an estimated 40,000 inhabitants of Jerusalem over a two-day period. The Six Day War resulted in maybe 4,000 dead.
There's also the issue that advances in transportation have made wars much more large-scale affair than they used to be. The French had roughly three times as many people killed at Waterloo as at Agincourt, but at the same time, the French force at Waterloo was three times as large, so the KIA rate was pretty much the same.
Besides, since the Napoleonic wars at the latest, the real casualty-maker in warfare has been artillery, which is rather beyond the scope of the kind of weapons under discussion.

Nonsense. While gun-wielding criminals may feel more confident (and their victims more compliant), the fact of the matter is that guns are capable of much more devastating injuries, delivered 10, 15, 20 times more quickly, at ranges exceeding a frakkin' *mile* than any edged weapon or blunt object.

Again, you miss my point, which is that there is only so lethal a robber's weapon needs to be. Blades can be immediately lethal; not reliably so, but the risk is sufficiently present that they are considered deadly weapons in US law. Muggings take place at short range, not at a mile (how would the mugger retrieve a wallet a mile away). Not that you'll find many firearm that can reliably hit a target at a mile distance. One of my basic training instructors (Dutch army) once hit a target with an Uzi at 1,500 meters, but he had to fire it like a mortar, with another guy with binoculars spotting for him. It took thirty shots before he got a hit, too.

"a determined individual with a knife can rack up a body count rivaling that of most spree shootings . . ." Nonsense 2. Spree shootings? 20 dead, 50 wounded? 30 dead? 40 dead in ten minutes? How about 8 to 1 in favor of firearms in the US 2000-2004

Those are not typical death tolls for mass shootings. The University of Texas clock tower shooting, the San Ysidro McDonald's massacre, the Killeen Luby's massacre, Columbine and Virginia Tech are the closest examples. In fact, there's never been a spree shooting that resulted in 40 dead in ten minutes, and there's never been a spree shooting in the United States that resulted in 40 dead at all; Virginia Tech was the worst with 32.

The majority of spree shootings result in 10 dead or fewer, and while there are a comparatively small number of spree shootings that have racked up higher body counts, there are also incidents in which spree killers have racked up body counts of over 10 with melee weapons. The nastiest shooting incidents, it might be noted, have often been committed by police or military personnel, who would not be affected by restrictions on private gun ownership.

Think of it this way: the natural gesture in a human preparing to attack or defend is to make a fist.

In preparing to attack, maybe; when threatened, however, the natural reaction is to raise the open hands to upper chest/neck level to ward off any attacks at the head or neck.

You do that with a gun, and you've already discharged your first round.

If you're total amateur who doesn't know to "keep your booger hook off the bang switch" (i.e. your finger out of the trigger guard) unless and until you intend to fire. Massad Ayoob, in fact, urges that you keep your index finger curved, so that in the event of involuntary clenching, the finger cannot slip inside the trigger guard.

Frankly, I'm seeing a lot of uncorroborated speculation in your arguments.

[Euromutt]

76. Whoops, missed one

How about 8 to 1 in favor of firearms in the US 2000-2004 (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/murder.html#table2_9).

I think you're reading the wrong line there. I'm seeing figures of around 9,000 for all firearms, versus around 1,800 for "knives and cutting instruments" which gives us a ratio of 5 to 1, not 8 to 1. I suspect you were mistaking the line of "firearms, type not stated" for the knives line.

Throw in blunt objects (around 650), personal weapons (around 940), and strangulation (around 150), and the ratio drops to ~9,000 to ~3,540, so less than 3 to 1. In fact, I'd go so far to speculate that we might legitimately throw the "other weapons or weapons not stated" into the non-gun category, because given the attention given to guns and crime in this country, it strikes me as implausible that a homicide by firearm would not be recorded as such. With an average of 900 homicides a year being committed with "other, or not stated" weapons, the ratio starts to approach 2 to 1. And indeed, that would be consistent with the statement on this BJS page http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm that: "the FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 66% of the 16,137 murders in 2004 were committed with firearms."

It's a little detail that anti-RKBA types tend to overlook: that the US non-gun homicide rate is higher than the overall homicide rate in various other countries that are held up as models. For some reason, the US is extraordinarily homicidal, and the availability of firearms isn't the sole explanation (since if you factor out the gun homicides, which already requires you to assume no "method substitution" will take place, the US is still extraordinarily homicidal).

But why limit ourselves to homicide, since I was talking about muggings and such. That same BJS page I cited earlier also notes that: "After 1996, less than 10% of nonfatal violent crimes involved firearm {sic}." and "Incidents involving a firearm represented 9% of the 4.7 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault in 2005."

So if we could magick the guns away, and no "method substitution" occurred, we'd see at best a 9% reduction in violent crimes other than homicide. Woot.

Now, I'm sure you're already thinking of arguing that this proves the comparative lethality of firearms, because the disparity of firearm use in non-fatal violent crime to homicides is the result of what should have been non-fatal violent crimes turning deadly because of the presence of a firearm (thereby causing what would have been assaults to be reclassed as homicides). That is one possible explanation, but it's not the only one. For starters, rapes and robberies remain separate charges even if someone was killed in the process. Second, it is entirely possible that it is simply the case that firearms are the weapon of choice for committing homicide, but that other weapons are considered to be sufficient for the purpose of committing violent crimes where it is not the express intention that the victim dies. An awful lot of homicides are related, directly or indirectly, to the drug trade. By "indirectly" I mean that an inner-city young black male who is involved in the drug trade has become brutalized by the ubiquity of murder as a means of settling disputes, and thus also uses that method to settle other disputes that aren't "business"-related (e.g. an argument over a girl, or a display of "disrespect"). These kinds of incidents aren't lethal because there's a firearm involved; there's a firearm involved because they're intended to be lethal. Even when there's a causal relationship, you need to look to see which way it runs.

[Euromutt]

14. You're thinking of Rwanda

I believe the weapon of choice among Sudanese janjaweed is the Chinese Type 56 Kalashnikov knockoff. Though the Sudanese government has no idea how the janjaweed got hold of them, nuh-uh.

How's that one go again? "When guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns"? Better hope the wrong people don't get into power.

[gorfle]

23. Civilization has always been enabled to kill and maim.

Turn around and head in the other direction, toward a civilization less enabled to kill and maim.

Historically, "civilization" has always been enabled to kill and maim, with the defining difference between then and now being that the weak were always at the mercy of the strong or wealthy.

The heart of the problem is the easy accessibility of guns.

The heart of the problem, specifically the problem of gun violence, is drugs and gangs. Until this is acknowledged, going after the weapons that the gangs are using will accomplish little.

[TheWraith]

32. The idea that pretending will make us safe, THAT is crazy talk.

No, it's not the "easy accessibility of guns." Switzerland has 600,000 fully automatic machine guns stored in people's houses. Know what their crime rate is? Your belief that everything will be okay if we just try to disarm everybody has been tried, most particularly in Britain. Guess what? When they banned guns, the criminals started using more knives. And now they're banning knives. Think that'll work?

Crime and mental illness do not go away just because you don't want to deal with the issue. In the mean time, people have the constitutional right to defend themselves, the same as you have the right to claim that they don't.

[Euromutt]

77. The criminals started using more guns in the UK, too

This article from last year in the Guardian makes for a chilling read: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug/30/ukcrime1
No shortage of illegal guns, and every single one of them in the hands of a criminal.

[Callisto32]

37. You argue in favor of initiating force against others.

The right to keep and bear arms is only an argument for the right to have the means to initiate force. Surely to actually do it is far more insane than to merely have the means?

[AtheistCrusader]

38. So you want a civilization without arms and legs?

Keeping mine, thanks.

If you can 'move around a little' you have the capacity to kill and maim.

You could make an enormous dent in the number of people killed with firearms in this country, simply by offering national health care, that covers mental health, since approximately half the gun related deaths every year, are suicides.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

41. So arguing for a Constitutionally protected right is arguing for gun proliferation?

[rl6214]

63. Move to England

or Australia. See how you like it there.

[imdjh]

5. Who knew there was a law school in Grundy? I didn't know Grundy still existed.

[X_Digger]

22. Grundy was my home town..

.. they converted the Junior High that I attended into the law school, and they built a pharmacy school just down the road (Appalachian College of Pharmacy).

That plus the ubiquitous coal is the only industry in the area.

[imdjh]

35. I knew a guy from Grundy

And when I did a "whatever happened to" search a long time ago, I came across pictures of an awful flood, and something which suggested that the entire town had been torn down and "moved" across a bridge to nowhere, an act accused of basically being part of the Walmartization of rural America. His stories about his early life in Grundy (about 1954-1966) were a stark contrast to his teenaged years when his circumstances had improved considerably.

[X_Digger]

36. Yup, Grundy was flooded in '77

That's the problem with a place whose only flat land is flood plain next to the river. The US Army corps of engineers came up with a plan to knock the 'town' down and move it to flat land carved outside of the mountainside on the other side of the river. Rather than build the town back up, though, the developers sold out and it's looking like wal-mart will build its first parking garage in Grundy (there's so little land that they're going to build the garage, then the store on top of it.

[geckosfeet]

15. In each of the three cases, had the shooter not had a gun.

My guess is that medical and criminal background checks, waiting periods, and age and residency restrictions would have prevented some of these murders.

[Euromutt]

17. Guess again

Talović (Trolley Square Mall) acquired his firearms illegally.
Luke Woodham (Pearl High School) was 16, and thus unable to legally possess a firearm.

[geckosfeet]

19. Point of fact - better regulation may have made his firearm unavailable on the street.

As much a part of the murder is the myriad of ways that firearms get into the black market and are made available - illegally.

Lax regulation, an abundance of firearms, the willingness of people to sell without regard to consequences, a crappy economy. These are as much a part of the murder as the person who pulls the trigger.

As your comment indirectly points out, the murder is the last act in series of related crimes.

[X_Digger]

26. Ahh, the remainder problem..

Even if you cut off the legal source of guns today, most criminals get their guns from illegal channels (40%) or friends and family (40%).

http://ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

Now, how long do you think it would take for those guns already owned to be destroyed or turned in? (300m firearms)..

http://lawreview.law.wfu.edu/documents/issue.43.837.pdf

(answer: bout 75-100 years)

And during that time, how do otherwise law-abiding citizens who disarmed themselves defend themselves from criminals who didn't?

[votingupstart]

30. excellent points nt

[geckosfeet]

55. Funny, I don't see any mention of legal firearms in my post. Sorry you got confused.

I am talking about people who buy and sell guns illegally. They are criminals and just as complicit in these murders as people who pull the trigger.

I am all for law abiding legal gun ownership. It's the illegal ones I am pissed at. And you should be too. They threaten legal gun ownership in this country. When someone kills someone in a crime or is caught with an illegal weapon, people stop distinguishing between legal law abiding gun ownership and illegal ownership.

Your suggestion that it's too big a problem so we should look the other way is also difficult to support.

[X_Digger]

58. Funny, I thought..

..your point was how guns go from being legal to illegal-

"Point of fact - better regulation may have made his firearm unavailable on the street.

As much a part of the murder is the myriad of ways that firearms get into the black market and are made available - illegally."

We agree that it's the illegal guns in the hands of criminals that are the problem. However, I can't get behind making them more scarce or harder to acquire by legal means as a secondary way of affecting the illegal market. If you want to deter criminals from using guns in the commission of crimes, then how about actually prosecuting gun charges, rather than making them the first thing taken off the table during a plea bargaining? How about enforcing the laws that get nolle prossed in way too many cases.

[geckosfeet]

67. Again, no one said anything about making anything scarce. What are you afraid of?

And yes. A gun is legal. It's not the gun itself that is illegal. It's a question of transfer of ownership, intent, use and local laws.

Gun owners must take responsibility and be inventive when it comes to keeping honest people honest when it comes to guns. If a licensed/legal gun owner can't get behind that, then they are not helping themselves or other licensed/legal gun owners.

[friendly_iconoclast]

68. "Gun owners must take responsibility" Sorry- it's not their job to do so.

They are no more responsible for the criminal acts of others than car owners, for example, bear a collective
responsibility for drunk driving or other unlawful uses of a motor vehicle.

Their only responsibilty is to obey gun laws and use their firearms safely. Our system being a representative democracy, they are also free to organize and attempt to change gun laws in accordance with the Constitution.

Which they have been doing with some success recently. Seems to have harshed the mellow for some people...

[friendly_iconoclast]

69. An attempt at "forced teaming" will not get gun owners to go along with you

Every time someone uses this approach, it seems to come with some variety of:

"There's a law we need that will *surely* help reduce the crime rate. If you don't help with it, that
will hurt you and legal gun ownership"

Guess what? They *don't* have to help you. They are in the ascendancy, and will remain so for the
forseeable future. Frankly, there is no point in conceding anything to people whose idea of 'compromise' is
"What can we get from you?"

[Tim01]

34. The woman down the street was strangled to death in her own home.

And after whatever was done to her, she was hanged in the basement with an electrical cord and her house set on fire.

She lives right on a busy state highway and somebody knocked on her door. She wasn't armed. And a gun wasn't used to kill her.
I do know how this story turned out with out her being armed. I can't imagine how it could have possible been any worse if she had been armed, and it might have gone a lot better for her.

He might have gone away when he saw she wasn't afraid.
He might have gone away when she pulled the gun.
He might have stopped his attack when she shot him.
He might have ended up dead on her front porch.

But that is not what did actually happen.