Very interesting article

[PhillyKev 0]

Actually, a few people in the thread (errr, or possibly another one of the same theme) mentioned that we'd be better off if guns we're completely banned. Not that you did.

Your example is loaded, though. Life causes death...what do we do about that? Stop procreating? My opinion is that the safety and overall welfare of the populace as a whole is better off with access to guns than we would be without them. May be different if our past was different or current social conditions were different, but overall I think we're in a better position.

For your example to sway me, I would need to know that more innocent people are killed by guns than people saved by guns. But that's not quantifiable because if I shoot a burglar, there's no guarantee he was going to kill me, so might not be a save. At the same time, how many would be criminals, refrain because of the fear of legally armed victims. If somehow those two scenarios could be definitively defined in hard numbers, I think the debate would be over. But these examples on both sides of individual incidents can't realistically be used to prove one side is in the right over the other.

And that was the reason for my snappy reply. How about this one....work day's over.....see ya, wouldn't want to be ya! (that one's not so good, everyone wants to be Bill )

[miked10270 0]

Oh Yeah...

I remember reading some stats about US cops which suggested that not only were more cops than bad guys injured by the cops weapons, but that more family members of cops than bad guys or cops were injured by the cops weapons.

Maybe I'll just stick to the UK with our "non-forearm" cops, crappy weather (but strangely excellent convents).

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[skycop 0]

That is entirely incorrect!
1/3 of all cops killed by firearms are killed by their own weapons. The numbers vary from year to year but the 1/3 figure remains fairly constant.
I believe in concealed carry but, with strict training requirements.
It sounds funny but I rarely carry while I'm not working. Mainly because it's a pain in the ass and in most situations I won't be able to use the weapon anyway. A professional witness beats a gunfight in most situations.
Another reason is, and I'm agreeing with Andy (go figure) here, I refuse to live my life in fear. I work in an inner-city area, and live in the outskirts. I don't like to walk around constantly thinking someone's gonna get me. I'm aware and cautious but not paraniod like some people I know.

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[Deuce 1]

Quote

Maybe I'll just stick to the UK with our "non-forearm" cops

My dude, without forearms, what the heck would they do with guns anyway?

[AggieDave 6]

They'd beat you with their bloody stumps...

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

1/3 of all cops killed by firearms are killed with their own weapons. The numbers vary from year to year but the 1/3 figure remains fairly constant.
I believe in concealed carry but, with strict training requirements.

Wow. I'm schocked.

Question then, how many private gun owners, and those with C&C permits have more training then cops?

If the training cops get is only so good so many of them manage to kill themselves, how much training should we require of private individuals?

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[miked10270 0]

Quote

Quote

Maybe I'll just stick to the UK with our "non-forearm" cops

My dude, without forearms, what the heck would they do with guns anyway?

$HIT... $HIT... $HIT... Of all the typos to let through...

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[billvon 2,400]

>Your example is loaded, though. Life causes death...what do we do
> about that? Stop procreating?

I don't get that. What do you mean? If I kill someone because I drove drunk, is "Well, he was gonna die anyway" a valid excuse?

>For your example to sway me, I would need to know that more
>innocent people are killed by guns than people saved by guns.

To sway you to what? I do not advocate a ban of guns, but I'm open to changing the rules we have now on their use, as long as most people still have the right to get them. Surely if someone enacted a rule that reduced the number of people killed accidentally by guns, while affecting your ability to save yourself or others with your gun minimally or not at all, it would be a good thing. The question becomes what form such a change would take. We already have some (waiting periods for handguns etc) that seem to work.

There are extremists on both sides. Claiming that all rules are bad, and you should be able to buy a dozen sidewinder missiles and sell them to whoever you choose, isn't that useful. Likewise, someone who thinks that no one should own guns is clearly going against over 200 years of constitutional law. We're at a middle ground right now, and it's worth deciding how to maintain that middle ground as technology and society changes.

[skycop 0]

The issue is weapons retention. In a physical fight, I'm spending almost as much energy keeping the bad guy off my sidearm, as I am trying to end the fight.
This is the main reason I discourage people from carrying mace, any weapon you have can be used AGAINST you.
The average citizen concealed carry holder doesn't get into nearly as many physical altercations as I do.
The 1/3 number are officers who are engaged in violent confrontations.
There is a gun at every call I go on, MINE!

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[skycop 0]

As far as training requirements go, for officers they are fairly high.
Other than becoming a fully certified ninja, the possibility always exists that someone could disarm me in any number of ways. Surprise, physical strength, unfluence of drugs etc...
We train for all those possiblilties, the average civilian conceal carry training is poor in my opinion, 16 hours or less from my experience.

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[jfields 0]

Quote

Surely if someone enacted a rule that reduced the number of people killed accidentally by guns, while affecting your ability to save yourself or others with your gun minimally or not at all, it would be a good thing.

I'm 100% with Bill here. I lean to more restrictive measures than he probably does, but even I'm not calling for a complete ban on individual ownership.

What drives me crazy is notion that it is more important to defend the right to get (and sell) lots of weapons cheaply, quickly and easily than it is to protect the lives of innocent people. The right to self defense isn't an issue. For example, does a 1 handgun per month limit hinder a person's ability to defend themself? Why should a waiting period for background checks bother anyone that would pass them? Is immediate gratification so important?

A student at my wife's elementary school brought in bullets from his dad's gun. The gun could have been next. Is it unreasonable of me to want that gun owner to be more responsible, so people at the school don't get killed by accident?

Why were people defending the gun shop that sold weapons to the DC sniper? We went around on that one too. I said I had no problem with them being sued out of existance. If the disreputable gun merchants that don't abide by the laws are forced out of business, we have effectively made it just a little harder for criminals to get guns, without impeding the rights of law-abiding purchasers. Why do many gun advocates defend even the worst of their gun culture associates?

The all-or-nothing stance of many gun owners and the NRA is really unhelpful. By fighting every restriction, no matter how sensible, they are limiting their chances to make sensible compromises that would benefit their own long-term situation.

[PhillyKev 0]

That's cool, and I agree with you. I misunderstood your stance. Actually, I think that's the first time you posted it. Your previous posts all seemed to be very anti-gun, however, and I assumed you were in favor of banning them.

If something could be done to make legal gun ownership safer, without restricting our rights to own them, I'm all in favor. The misconception by a lot of people, though, is that those of us against additional restrictions on guns are not interested in safety. The reality is that I, and most others opposed to additional legislation, think it's a complete waste of time and an abuse of authority to pass new legislation that could only serve to punish legal, responsible gun owners. There is already a ton of legislation that is not enforced. New restrictions would only effect those who are willing to abide by them, and they're not the ones that need to be restricted. Those who own and use guns for criminal purposes will be unaffected by new laws, since the existing ones aren't effectively enforced against them currently. And that is the long version of the, "If guns were illegal only criminals would have guns" argument.

[flyingferret 0]

I echo a lot of what PhillyKev said. I am surprised and delighted to hear that billvon is not as anti-gun as I thought. I think to intelligently debate this, it has to be broken down.

Gun Ownership:
Hunters
Casual Owners
Concealed Carry holders

Hunters are a very difficult group to regulate. However in most cases, they will buy longarms, not sidearms. However, there is an overlap between casual owners and hunters. And you have instances like the sniper buying a hunting rifle. How do you effectively target that without taking away the rights of avid hunters? I don't know, I have not seen a good solution yet.

I think that in most of AggieDave's and my posts we have talked about concealed carry. I stand 100% behind this program and think the training is adequate (although you will find most CHL holders train far beyond the requirement on their own time and expense) In every state that I have seen referenced that implemented CHL, notably FL and TX, crime rates have dropped by large percentages. As such you can label me more as Pro-CHL, then pro-gun.

I think a difficult issue, is that while billvon, et. al. are very reasonable individuals, a lot of the gun-control lobbyists are not. There is a pervasive attitude that if the citizens do not fight to keep them, the gun control lobby will take as much as is given. There have been numerous cases were a state instituted manditory tracking of all guns, only to use those tracking records a year or two later to seize all guns. New Hampshire was one of these, I think, dont have the stats at the moment. So many gun owners are very hesitant to consent to partial restrictions, fearing more will come later. This is not so much because of fear of citizens and the habits of government lobbists (insert MPAA/RIAA/DMCA/Brady Bill II rant here).

--
All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

[KawiZX900 0]

ROFLMAO

Accelerate hard to get them looking, then slam on the fronts and rollright beside the car, hanging the back wheel at eye level for a few seconds. Guaranteed reaction- Dave Sonsky

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

ROFLMAO

Talk about a delayed reaction!

[kallend 1,625]

Another interesting article:

www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0301240321jan24,1,7554920.story?coll=chi%2Dnewsnationworld%2Dhed

or

www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-guns23jan23.story?null

...

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

[PhillyKev 0]

got any you don't have to register for? If it's just another example of an innocent person being killed by a gun though, don't bother. Then someone will just post two articles about someone being saved by one.

[jfields 0]

Quote

I think that in most of AggieDave's and my posts we have talked about concealed carry. I stand 100% behind this program and think the training is adequate (although you will find most CHL holders train far beyond the requirement on their own time and expense)

I think the program has gaping flaws. If it were as good as advertised, with only good, upstanding, peaceful folks getting them for self defense use, the following incidents would never have occured.

Quote

On Jan. 24, 2002, a derringer belonging to Ronald T. Cox, 54, accidentally discharged at an Indianapolis restaurant, wounding another patron. Investigators say the gun was in the pocket of Cox's leather coat; it went off when he placed the coat on the back of a chair. Cox had a concealed-carry permit. Police also found marijuana in Cox's coat.

"Safer handling of derringers urged," Indianapolis Star, February 15, 2002 and "Man whose handgun went off charged with drug possession," Indianapolis Star, January 30, 2002

Quote

On November 14, 2001, a gun carried by 32-year-old Cesar Solis accidentally went off in a Chester County, PA, tavern, injuring three people including himself – one seriously. Solis was charged with two counts of aggravated assault, two counts of recklessly endangering another person, and one count of discharging a weapon in a building. Police said Solis, who had a permit to carry the gun, was at the Birch Inn late Sunday night with his brother when Cesar Solis pulled the gun from his waistband. The gun discharged and hit his brother and Sandra Pierson, who was seated at a nearby table

"Man held in tavern shooting," Philadelphia Inquirer, November 14, 2001.

Quote

On February 15, 2001, Renee Rudenick, 53, was arrested for possessing a firearm on school grounds in King County, WA. Police confirmed that Rudenick has a permit for the weapon, but it is illegal for anyone, including CCW permit holders, to have a gun on school grounds. Rudenick's boyfriend said that he usually takes the gun with him when he drops her off at work but that he must have forgotten to take the gun out of her purse that morning. The incident was brought to the attention of school officials after Rudenick told a principal that she had misplaced her purse and thought her loaded .38-caliber revolver might be in it. She has been fired by the school district.

"Teacher said to have carried pistol into school by mistake," Eastside Journal, March 13, 2001.

Oh, good. One from the often-referenced state of Texas...

Quote

During the summer of 2000, Austin, TX, taxi driver Wayne Franklin Lambert Jr. shot and killed two unarmed men, both high-tech professionals, who had been his passengers. According to police, Lambert, a gun enthusiast with a Texas concealed-handgun license shot one of the men three times in the back. The other victim gave a deathbed statement, saying that the taxi driver became angry over something his friend had said and challenged him to a fight. Other cab drivers gave police sworn statements saying Lambert was "very short-tempered" and "always angry at just about everything." One cab driver claimed Lambert once said, "I would shoot someone over a dollar." According to state records, Lambert was charged with assault after beating, choking and threatening to kill another taxi driver in August 1994. Lambert was charged with capital murder, representing the second multiple murder case brought against a Texas concealed-gun licensee in the last three years

"Packing Heat," ABC News 20/20 Downtown, July 16, 2001.

Quote

On May 30, 2000, a fistfight turned into a gun battle outside the home of Dale Cramm, 44, of Everett, WA, resulting in the death of two teens. Cramm's son was later charged in the deaths, and Cramm himself was charged with witness tampering, tampering with physical evidence, and three drug-related felonies. Police also confiscated an arsenal of weapons, including five shotguns, three SKS assault rifles, 3 other rifles, bayonets and high-capacity magazines. Within days after the weapons were confiscated, Cramm, who was out on bail, allegedly went to a local gun show and purchased more firearms. According to police, Cramm used his CCW permit as identification to purchase guns at the gun show.

"The guns of Dale Cramm," Daily Herald, August 14, 2000.

How many more would you like?

So, Concealed Carry licenses work?

[kallend 1,625]

Quote

got any you don't have to register for? If it's just another example of an innocent person being killed by a gun though, don't bother. Then someone will just post two articles about someone being saved by one.

No, sorry, I don't. No, it isn't, and registration is free.

...

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

[PhillyKev 0]

Yeah...but then I'll get spam

[kallend 1,625]

Quote

Yeah...but then I'll get spam

The secret is to have an account that you never use except to give to these sites for registration. Then they send spam and you don't have to see it. I go into my "junk" account about once a month to delete everything (not even sure why I bother to do that, since I'm not a neat freak by any means).

...

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

[flyingferret 0]

Quote

On Jan. 24, 2002, a derringer belonging to Ronald T. Cox, 54, accidentally discharged at an Indianapolis restaurant, wounding another patron. Investigators say the gun was in the pocket of Cox's leather coat; it went off when he placed the coat on the back of a chair. Cox had a concealed-carry permit. Police also found marijuana in Cox's coat.

At least in Texas, a derringer is no way covered under concealed carry. He had weed, he busted, I dont have a problem with that.

Quote

On November 14, 2001, a gun carried by 32-year-old Cesar Solis accidentally went off in a Chester County, PA, tavern, injuring three people including himself – one seriously. Solis was charged with two counts of aggravated assault, two counts of recklessly endangering another person, and one count of discharging a weapon in a building. Police said Solis, who had a permit to carry the gun, was at the Birch Inn late Sunday night with his brother when Cesar Solis pulled the gun from his waistband. The gun discharged and hit his brother and Sandra Pierson, who was seated at a nearby table

It is illegal to have a CHL weapon in a venue which makes 50% more of its revenue off alchohol. He got busted, I don't have a problem with that.

Quote

On February 15, 2001, Renee Rudenick, 53, was arrested for possessing a firearm on school grounds in King County, WA. Police confirmed that Rudenick has a permit for the weapon, but it is illegal for anyone, including CCW permit holders, to have a gun on school grounds. Rudenick's boyfriend said that he usually takes the gun with him when he drops her off at work but that he must have forgotten to take the gun out of her purse that morning. The incident was brought to the attention of school officials after Rudenick told a principal that she had misplaced her purse and thought her loaded .38-caliber revolver might be in it. She has been fired by the school district.

Once again, it was illegal, busted, no problem here.

Quote

During the summer of 2000, Austin, TX, taxi driver Wayne Franklin Lambert Jr. shot and killed two unarmed men, both high-tech professionals, who had been his passengers. According to police, Lambert, a gun enthusiast with a Texas concealed-handgun license shot one of the men three times in the back. The other victim gave a deathbed statement, saying that the taxi driver became angry over something his friend had said and challenged him to a fight. Other cab drivers gave police sworn statements saying Lambert was "very short-tempered" and "always angry at just about everything." One cab driver claimed Lambert once said, "I would shoot someone over a dollar." According to state records, Lambert was charged with assault after beating, choking and threatening to kill another taxi driver in August 1994. Lambert was charged with capital murder, representing the second multiple murder case brought against a Texas concealed-gun licensee in the last three years

NOTE the last sentence

Quote

Lambert was charged with capital murder, representing the second multiple murder case brought against a Texas concealed-gun licensee in the last three years

The second in 3 years? And I know what the first one was, wrote a paper on it...acquitted. Out of how many CHL licenses? 221,792 http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/demographicsummary.PDF http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/demographics.htm

I KNOW you would find a lot more crimes stopped by them. I have done the research, but I am leaving work for a half day, and cannot get it all now.

Quote

On May 30, 2000, a fistfight turned into a gun battle outside the home of Dale Cramm, 44, of Everett, WA, resulting in the death of two teens. Cramm's son was later charged in the deaths, and Cramm himself was charged with witness tampering, tampering with physical evidence, and three drug-related felonies. Police also confiscated an arsenal of weapons, including five shotguns, three SKS assault rifles, 3 other rifles, bayonets and high-capacity magazines. Within days after the weapons were confiscated, Cramm, who was out on bail, allegedly went to a local gun show and purchased more firearms. According to police, Cramm used his CCW permit as identification to purchase guns at the gun show.

His CCW permit should have been revoked and confiscated. Any time a felony is charged, it should be (in Texas)

So you have a lot of cases of people breaking th elaw and being busted for it. I have no problem with that at all. In fact that is what people like PhillyKev and I are advocating--enforcing current laws rather than new ones. The laws are all there. Are you gonna have to enforce them? Yes. Will you occasionally get a person sane enough to get a CHL that later snaps? Probably.

So, Concealed Carry licenses work?

[kallend 1,625]

Your Chicago Law link doesn't work.

Interesting that you discount all cases where the perp did something illegal. Shooting people is generally illegal! You have "no problem" with people being injured?

Apparently these guys all had been issued permits by the state, and abused their privilege.

...

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

[flyingferret 0]

Fixed.

No my point is, what they did was against the law, the law was enforced, the system worked. Yes people got hurt, but how many in comparison? Crime rates are down. All I see is a handfuls of articles. We have already discussed that that media treats things with bias. I have concrete numbers saying that crime rates are down in direct correlation to the number of CHLs awarded. How can you argue with that?

Will there be incidents? Yes. Will we ever eradicate crime totally? NO!!! so you look at the big picture, and on that level, CHLs are doing excellent.

--
All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

[jfields 0]

Yes, the existing laws do need to be enforced. But that misses much of the point.

It is often thrown around how much above and beyond the training requirements CHL holders go, and how they are resonsible citizens that just want to defend themselves. None of these cases were self defense.

Quote

So you have a lot of cases of people breaking th elaw and being busted for it. I have no problem with that at all.

I got chastised for asking this in the forums before, but I'll do it again..

What about the innocent people that were wounded or killed?

Saying that the offenders should be punished is all well and fine, but it doesn't address the fact that these events all centered around people that a) lost their handgun b) accidently discharged it and hurt someone or c) used their convenient concealed weapon to hurt or kill someone.

If these people hadn't been carrying, chances are pretty good that all the victims would be alive and uninjured. We aren't talking about homicidal maniacs that would go and kill with anything available. We are talking about carelessness and crimes of opportunity.

Time after time, people demonstrate that they aren't up to the level of responsibility required to carry concealed handguns. I can dig up sites finding just the opposite of yours.

Since self-defense has been generally discredited, what justifications remain for the average citizen to carry a concealed handgun?