Not another gun debate....

[winsor 187]

Quote

Quote

The pro-gun side gets defensive, because the anti-gun side wants to take away their gun property and their gun rights. That's a natural reaction. If someone was trying to take away something of yours, you would get defensive too.

This is like the chicken and the egg. Neither of us can say what came first, but you are right that each side gets defensive because of the actions of the other. Both sides are currently in losing and in danger of losing things that are of value to them. Thus, the only sensible thing is rational discussion and compromise.

Compromise is the hallmark of mediocrity.

If ignorance is truly bliss, the life of an antigunner must be like a continuous orgasm.

If it is okay for the Government to be armed, I contend that, as a taxpayer and a Citizen, I AM the Government.

He who pays, says. So long as my tax dollars are footing the bill, I insist upon calling the shots. I do not require any officially assigned babysitters to do my thinking for me, and possess expertise in the matter of firearms that only a handful on government payrolls can match - none of them in the Legislature.

Anyone who cannot be trusted with a loaded firearm cannot be trusted, and a man sees in others what he knows of himself. If someone doesn't trust the citizenry with armament, he has clearly defined his lack of trustworthiness.


Blue skies,

Winsor

[Ian84 0]

Quote

That's what England has done. They banned handguns outright, confiscating all those which were privately owned. Anyone now caught with a handgun, whether you're committing a crime with it or not, is in serious trouble.

So, according to your theory, gun crime should be down drastically in this handgun-free haven, right?

Guess again. Gun crime has gun up dramatically, since they instituted this change in their law, in 1996.

Hmmm......those are some interesting statistics.

If memory serves however i believe the primary reason for the ban was the Dunblane massacre in Scotland. Some dude with a bunch of legal handguns walked into a primary school and killed a whole bunch of kids. (maybe thats not completely correct, i was only 11. and yes I watched the news when I was eleven)

Its just pretty hard for me to take in since back home not even the Gardai(police) carry guns.

Maybe it is just the video games.......but no guns has been working pretty well for us.........but then your not us so its all very confusing

[jfields 0]

Quote

David Smith, 20, a pedestrian caught in the crossfire, was grazed by a flying bullet or a piece of flying debris

So, John, what should David Smith say about the incident? How did the gun owner treat him? Considering that the gun owner was only in the situation because of a chain of poor decisions (flicking the guy off, getting out of the car, unecessarily firing his weapon), he should go to jail for injuring an innocent bystander. Hardly a good endorsement for proper gun owner behavior.

But then again, that would make him a criminal, and criminals get guns no matter what the gun laws are, despite the fact that supposedly he was an "upstanding law-abiding citizen" before the event.

[jfields 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The pro-gun side gets defensive, because the anti-gun side wants to take away their gun property and their gun rights. That's a natural reaction. If someone was trying to take away something of yours, you would get defensive too.

This is like the chicken and the egg. Neither of us can say what came first, but you are right that each side gets defensive because of the actions of the other. Both sides are currently in losing and in danger of losing things that are of value to them. Thus, the only sensible thing is rational discussion and compromise.

Compromise is the hallmark of mediocrity.

If ignorance is truly bliss, the life of an antigunner must be like a continuous orgasm.

If it is okay for the Government to be armed, I contend that, as a taxpayer and a Citizen, I AM the Government.

He who pays, says. So long as my tax dollars are footing the bill, I insist upon calling the shots. I do not require any officially assigned babysitters to do my thinking for me, and possess expertise in the matter of firearms that only a handful on government payrolls can match - none of them in the Legislature.

Anyone who cannot be trusted with a loaded firearm cannot be trusted, and a man sees in others what he knows of himself. If someone doesn't trust the citizenry with armament, he has clearly defined his lack of trustworthiness.

That's all well and fine, if the gun owner is responsible. Some aren't. What about the "taxpayers and citizens" that end up lying dead in the street through someone else's carelessness? ("Luckily", the guy in this situation was only inadvertently wounded, not killed.) What about their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Worth less than yours? I don't think so.

So, you don't want the government doing your thinking for you. So gun owners take the responsibility on themselves to think for everyone else (including innocent bystanders) that they may (and do) kill?

Please explain how this is a higher moral position?

Then we can get back to a potentially productive discussion about how to make your gun ownership safer.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Quote

David Smith, 20, a pedestrian caught in the crossfire, was grazed by a flying bullet or a piece of flying debris

So, John, what should David Smith say about the incident? How did the gun owner treat him? Considering that the gun owner was only in the situation because of a chain of poor decisions (flicking the guy off, getting out of the car, unecessarily firing his weapon), he should go to jail for injuring an innocent bystander. Hardly a good endorsement for proper gun owner behavior.

But then again, that would make him a criminal, and criminals get guns no matter what the gun laws are, despite the fact that supposedly he was an "upstanding law-abiding citizen" before the event.

I agree with you. I'm still curious to see if he had a concealed carry permit. Even if he did, though, it's no excuse for not avoiding the situation in the first place. Avoid, Escape, Defend. That's the way it should be.

And if you notice above, that guy who was grazed is my intern's brother.

[jfields 0]

Quote

And if you notice above, that guy who was grazed is my intern's brother.

I had noticed that. I'm sorry it happened, but glad it wasn't worse. I hope he recovers fully and quickly.

Now, let's learn from this, and make it a potential teaching point in a productive debate. This isn't pro-gun or anti-gun. Let's just assess the situation and see how to avoid similar ones in the future.

A quick run-through of the facts/assumptions to date regarding the incident:
1) Gun owner behaves poorly in giving the finger to the other driver.
2) Club-wielder behaves poorly in giving the finger to the gun owner.
3) Neither party was forced to interact further with the other, yet they chose to.
4) The gun owner did not have to draw his weapon, when he could have fled the attack.
5) The gun owner *might* have been able to deter the attacker without firing.
6) The gun owner fired, and hit an innocent bystander.
7) The gun owner bought his weapon legally, carried legally and had no prior firearm problems.

So, what is the correct course of action from this point forward?

What ways could the gun owner have been better educated, trained or screened?
Could he have been better educated to the risks of escalating a confrontation?
Could he have been better trained in accuracy, so he wouldn't have hit the bystander?
Could he have been screened in some way to pick up a disposition/temperment unsuitable for ownership?
Other than simply wanting to carry a handgun, did he have any particular verifiable need?

What should happen to the firearm owner now?
He is clearly not a responsible gun owner. Should he ever be allowed to own again?
He shot an innocent person. Should he go to jail for it?
He shot an innocent person. Should he get taken to the cleaners in civil court?

Big picture issues
How did the shooter's "rights" compare to those of the innocent bystander?
Did this case contribute to or detract from general public safety?
Does this case illustrate the blurring of the often-cited clear division between "law abiding citizens" and criminals?

[burbleflyer 0]

Quote

I have a compromise.
Everyone against guns can declare their own "Gun Free Zone." in their house and post a sign to that effect on the door. Each and everyone of you. A BIG sign that say something like:
"This is a gun free zone!! There are no guns in this home!!!!"

Also, you must have a bumper sticker on your car and a badge on you coat that says you never carry a weapon.

Then I will be willing to talk about reasonable restrictions on my gun ownership.

Whats up? You're unwilling?
Come on, I offered a legitemate compromise.

No takers?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

This just isn't the case to support your cause.

I'm not using this as an example to support gun rights.

I'm just countering those who are too quick to make judgements, IMO, without sufficient evidence to make such conclusions.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Everyone against guns can declare their own "Gun Free Zone." in their house and post a sign to that effect on the door.

The government, and anti-gun groups, want to create more and more so-called "safety zones" where guns are not allowed; schools, hospitals, public buildings, sports arenas, post offices, and so on. Private businesses operate on this same theory too, banning guns from their premises. The problem is, that the criminals don't care about those signs on the door that say "no guns allowed". They just ignore them and walk on in with their guns and do what they want to do anyway. Meanwhile, the law-abiding people inside have been disarmed and are now helpless and defenseless at the hands of the criminals who ignore the signs. Thus, instead of creating safe zones, it actually does the exact opposite: it creates zones where the criminals are assured of finding helpless victims, who are unable to offer any significant resistance. In effect, the "no guns allowed" signs become "criminals welcome!" signs. This is one big reason why people choose to shoot-up schools, post-offices, and office buildings instead of police stations.

The concept is opposite that of concealed-carry laws sweeping the nation. The idea of requiring citizens to carry their firearms *concealed*, is so that the criminals won't be able to know who is armed and who is not armed. Thus, *everyone* benefits from the doubt placed in the mind of the criminal; both the unarmed and the truly armed. Many criminals turn to property crimes instead of attacking people, because of the fear of encountering an armed defense. On the other hand, if guns were required to be carried openly, then the criminals could just pick their victims carefully, after determining that there is no gun visible. That kind of law would benefit only those truly armed. So by allowing the possibility of guns being anywhere and everywhere in the hands of responsible citizens, it counteracts and deters the actions of the criminals.

So, to get back to the "no guns" zones with this line of thinking, by banning guns from places, there is no deterrent to the criminals who wish to commit crimes in those places. In fact, it actually *encourages* them to select those places for their crimes.

It's the law of unintended consequences. It makes politicians and some people feel good over "doing something" about violence. But in fact it does nothing, and may even make the problem worse. I suggest that making the criminals believe that they are not safe anywhere they choose to commit their crimes, is the best course of action.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

England... banned handguns... Gun crime has gun up dramatically...

Quote

If memory serves however i believe the primary reason for the ban was the Dunblane massacre...

That is true, but irrelevant to the trend: Handguns were banned, and gun crime has gone up.

The ban was a knee-jerk emotional reaction to the horrible school shooting. And the fact is, the police should have yanked the guy's gun license, but didn't. However, it's much easier to blame guns, than to blame police. So a witch hunt began to confiscate all handguns and semi-auto long guns. People were deprived of their sport and their property. And it's all been for naught.

"The number of firearms required to satisfy the crime market is minute, and these are supplied no matter what controls are instituted...There is no case, either in the history of this country or in the experience of other countries, in which controls can be shown to have restricted the flow of weapons to criminals or in any way reduced armed crime."
- Metropolitan Police Superintendent, Colin Greenwood, West Yorkshire, England, 1996.

That is not the proper way to determine laws for free people. It should be done instead, through careful, lengthy deliberation, with facts and logic.

Quote

no guns has been working pretty well for us...

Your murder rates were low before handguns were banned. Since the ban, the murder rate has gone up. So it seems to me that things were working better before the ban.

Gun control laws don't work!

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

he should go to jail for injuring an innocent bystander. Hardly a good endorsement for proper gun owner behavior.

I've never said that his behavior was representatitve of good gun handling.

He obviously didn't give enough consideration to what was beyond his target, or he wouldn't have wounded an innocent bystander.

Quote

But then again, that would make him a criminal, and criminals get guns no matter what the gun laws are, despite the fact that supposedly he was an "upstanding law-abiding citizen" before the event.

That's jumping to a conclusion again. The news story doesn't tell us whether or not he was a fine, upstanding citizen prior to the shooting. For all we know he's an ex-felon who isn't even allowed to own a gun. The facts aren't known on that. So you shouldn't assume anything in that regard, no matter how badly you wish to use him to make gun owners look bad.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

So, you don't want the government doing your thinking for you. So gun owners take the responsibility on themselves to think for everyone else (including innocent bystanders) that they may (and do) kill?
Please explain how this is a higher moral position?

First of all, the number of innocent bystanders hurt and killed by legal citizen shootings, is tiny. The police shoot far more innocent bystanders than do citizens, and I'm sure you wouldn't offer that as good cause to disarm the police.

And it is justifiable, because to deny citizens the right to be armed in self defense, would allow our cities to return to the "law of the jungle". The criminals would rule, and the number of people being hurt by them, would be far greater than the few that get hurt accidentally by law-abiding citizens fighting against crime.

Self defense is a high moral position.

Making everyone helpless victims, is not.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I'm still curious to see if he had a concealed carry permit.

The newspaper included no new information today. It's now old news, and will be forgotten by the press. So we'll never know.

There is a story, however, about an armed robber holding up a grocery store, being shot and killed by a store employee.

Good guy: 1
Bad guy..: 0

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Who said you were the opposition? Who said you couldn't be "pro-safety with guns" and me "pro-safety without guns"?

The point isn't whether I like them or not, or think they are useful or not. The point is how can we make it safer for everyone for you to own it? You should have a vested interest in that, which puts us on the same side as me. It is only if you are unwilling to dilligently work toward improved safety that you get marked as being "anti-safety". That is your call.

So, how do you propose to improve the safety of gun ownership, without their removal? That is an honest question. Toss out some great ideas! I'm happy to chuck the gun-related laws that have no basis in improving safety. Like I said, the issue isn't to own or not to own, but how to make owners safer.

That's pretty simple -

Shoot anyone that commits a crime with a gun. Repeatedly - until they are dead.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Ian84 0]

Quote

Quote

no guns has been working pretty well for us...

Your murder rates were low before handguns were banned. Since the ban, the murder rate has gone up. So it seems to me that things were working better before the ban.

Gun control laws don't work!

I've tried to find some info about this on the net but am having no luck. I don't recall a time when handguns were legal in Ireland, maybe cause im young but if you have details please let me know where I can find them.

As for gun crime going up, I would say that it is due to a general breakdown in social behavior. If handguns were still legal there would be an awful lot more deaths, accidental and spur of the moment type killings. That number would be added to the shootings in robberies, assassinations etc.....

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

As for gun crime going up, I would say that it is due to a general breakdown in social behavior. If handguns were still legal there would be an awful lot more deaths, accidental and spur of the moment type killings

John is assuming cause and effect
So are you

I see correlation and casual (not causal) relations, the only way to test either one of your theories is to legalize guns and see which way it goes. (i.e., is the effect reversable).

But I think John also has data where guns were made more accessible and crime dropped. So that would more likely support his view than yours. Best to test it in the same culture though. In both directions a couple times to see. Got 40 years to run an experiment?

Or else it's a non-relation either way.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Ian84 0]

Quote

I see correlation and casual (not causal) relations, the only way to test either one of your theories is to legalize guns and see which way it goes. (i.e., is the effect reversable).

Your right. The only way to know for sure is to try it out.

That means in the States making guns illegal to see what happens. As you point out our cultures are vastly different and so the results of an action taken in one place should not nessecarily predict the outcome of the same action elsewhere.

[jfields 0]

Quote

First of all, the number of innocent bystanders hurt and killed by legal citizen shootings, is tiny. The police shoot far more innocent bystanders than do citizens, and I'm sure you wouldn't offer that as good cause to disarm the police.

How about addressing the issue of this guy, this situation, rather than deflecting to tangential issues?

Quote

And it is justifiable, because to deny citizens the right to be armed in self defense, would allow our cities to return to the "law of the jungle". The criminals would rule, and the number of people being hurt by them, would be far greater than the few that get hurt accidentally by law-abiding citizens fighting against crime.

You are justifying attempts at self defense, successful or not? So you would rather have a "heavily armed law of the jungle", with, say, people hypothetically getting gunfights and possibly hitting bystanders than the "minimally armed law of the jungle we'd have otherwise"? And going back to this situation, chances are the "self-defender" is now a criminal. The lines are not drawn as you state. It isn't that they are two distinct groups. People cross from law-abiding into criminal. In this case, the use of the firearm was the cause of the change.

Quote

Self defense is a high moral position.

No. Using good judgement to avoid this incident completely and refrain from shooting two people would have been the better moral decision, as well as the better practical one.

Quote

Making everyone helpless victims, is not.

What about this helpless victim, shot by the gun owner you are defending? What about his rights? Rather than trivialize them as statistically rare, please explain how you rationalize his rights being less important.

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

As for gun crime going up, I would say that it is due to a general breakdown in social behavior. If handguns were still legal there would be an awful lot more deaths, accidental and spur of the moment type killings. That number would be added to the shootings in robberies, assassinations etc.....

Uh, why do you say that?

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[kallend 1,647]

Quote

Quote

England... banned handguns... Gun crime has gun up dramatically...

Quote

If memory serves however i believe the primary reason for the ban was the Dunblane massacre...

That is true, but irrelevant to the trend: Handguns were banned, and gun crime has gone up.

The ban was a knee-jerk emotional reaction to the horrible school shooting. And the fact is, the police should have yanked the guy's gun license, but didn't. However, it's much easier to blame guns, than to blame police. So a witch hunt began to confiscate all handguns and semi-auto long guns. People were deprived of their sport and their property. And it's all been for naught.

"The number of firearms required to satisfy the crime market is minute, and these are supplied no matter what controls are instituted...There is no case, either in the history of this country or in the experience of other countries, in which controls can be shown to have restricted the flow of weapons to criminals or in any way reduced armed crime."
- Metropolitan Police Superintendent, Colin Greenwood, West Yorkshire, England, 1996.

That is not the proper way to determine laws for free people. It should be done instead, through careful, lengthy deliberation, with facts and logic.

Quote

no guns has been working pretty well for us...

Your murder rates were low before handguns were banned. Since the ban, the murder rate has gone up. So it seems to me that things were working better before the ban.

Gun control laws don't work!

You keep going on and on about this, but the truth is that even before the "ban", handguns and rifles were effectively unobtainable in England unless you had extraordinarily good reason to own one. The only common weapon was a shotgun. In terms of practical effect on law abiding citizens the ban is cosmetic only, and is most unlikely to be the proximate cause of any crime increase. I'd be more inclined to blame the Blair government's economic policies.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Ian84 0]

Quote

Uh, why do you say that?

I assume you're talking about my assumption that there would be more deaths due to guns if they were still legal.

Simple, in my way of thinking at least. Look at the number of people killed in arguments where a gun was present. In many cases it was a moment of lost control on the part of the attacker, where their anger is released by beating, stabbing or shooting their victim. Beating and stabbing require more commitment to the act. Pulling a trigger is somewhat easier, although it bears, in most cases more significant consequences. So assuming these situations do occur, where someone has a legal handgun....this is a 'gun crime'. As such it would be added to the total number of gun crimes which would probably have occurred gun controls or not. See what I mean?

Not sure how clear that is

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I've tried to find some info about this on the net but am having no luck. I don't recall a time when handguns were legal in Ireland, maybe cause im young but if you have details please let me know where I can find them.

Ireland is a separate entity from England & Wales, for crime statistics. Even if you are correct about handguns there, that hasn't stopped the violence in Northern Ireland...

British crime stats and some history of gun laws can be found at:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/

Quote

As for gun crime going up, I would say that it is due to a general breakdown in social behavior.

Correct. It has nothing to do with the presence of guns. The reason violence occurs, has to do with culture.

Quote

If handguns were still legal there would be an awful lot more deaths...

No. Every criminal who wants a gun, has one, despite the gun ban. Passing laws does not make criminals obey laws.

It's awfully hard to claim that a gun ban is a success, when gun crime goes up anyway. Using that kind of logic you could justify virtually anything - regardless of the results of the change, we'll deem it good! I think a nation of free people deserve better than that.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

John is assuming cause and effect

No, not necessarily. That would be the best case for my position; that banning guns from the law-abiding causes an increase in gun crime, because the criminals still have guns, but the law-abiding can no longer defend themselves. There may be some element of that in the rise in gun crime, however, I wouldn't say that for sure.

But the worst that can be said, is that banning guns didn't stop gun crime from rising anyway. That is a 100% indisputable statement. And even that "worst" statement, is pretty darned good for the pro-gun position. So that's what I go with.

So my position is not so much that banning guns caused gun crime to go up. But rather than banning guns doesn't cause gun crime to go down. In other words; Gun control laws don't work!

Quote

I see correlation and casual (not causal) relations, the only way to test either one of your theories is to legalize guns and see which way it goes... Or else it's a non-relation either way.

An examination of the gun laws and gun crime statistics of various nations reveals the following categories:

- There are countries with no legal guns and few gun murders.
- There are countries with no legal guns and lots of gun murders.
- There are countries with lots of legal guns and few gun murders.
- There are countries with lots of legal guns and lots of gun murders.

The only logical conclusion you can reach from this mix of circumstances is that the mere presence of lawfully owned guns has no effect upon gun crime rates.

Therefore, restricting gun ownership is futile. It accomplishes nothing but to restrict the rights of the law-abiding. And they don't deserve that.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Your right. The only way to know for sure is to try it out. That means in the States making guns illegal to see what happens.

No U.S. state has banned handguns outright. But one U.S. city has done so: Washington, D.C.

And Washington D.C. also has the distinction of having the highest murder rate in America.

D.C. Gun Laws

D.C. Murder Capital

Gun control laws don't work!

The usual argument that comes next goes something like this: "Well, the criminals just go outside D.C. to get their guns! So we should spread D.C.'s strict gun laws to surrounding areas!"

The problem with that argument is that according to this theory, the more easily available guns outside D.C. should make those areas, like Virginia and Maryland, have worse gun crime rates than D.C. But they don't - they're better...

[Ian84 0]

Quote

Even if you are correct about handguns there, that hasn't stopped the violence in Northern Ireland...

Hmmm.....Northern Ireland isn't your typical 'rough part of town' if you will. Its an area of political struggle between two distinct groups of people. It is basically the remnants of a war for independence.....its the bit that got left behind. The situation there is comparable to the current Israeli/Palestinian crisis. Although in recent years there has been quite a decline in the intensity of the fighting. In fact, if youve been to the north recently you will find that republican/nationalists fly Palestinian flags while unionist/loyalists fly Israeli flags. So I don't think that comparing gun crime in Northern Ireland to anywhere else is relevant.

Quote

Correct. It has nothing to do with the presence of guns. The reason violence occurs, has to do with culture

But without them the means to commit the crimes becomes more difficult to obtain and all but hard core elements are left without.......thus less shooting.

Quote

No. Every criminal who wants a gun, has one, despite the gun ban. Passing laws does not make criminals obey laws.

True, but taking a gun out of someones hands limits their ability to become a criminal in a moment when they 'aren't thinking'. By that I mean people who would not premeditate a murder.