20/20 on Gun Control

[bthest]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6113060654050920304&q=20%2F20+Gun+control&total=24&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2

And also:


This past Tuesday the governor of Virginia announced he would close the loophole that allowed Seung-Hui Cho to buy the guns he used to kill 32 people -- and himself -- on the Virginia Tech campus. OK, it's a good idea to keep guns out of the hands of people who are mentally unstable. But be careful about how far the calls for gun control go, because the idea that gun control laws lower gun crime is a myth.

After the 1997 shooting of 16 kids in Dunblane, England, the United Kingdom passed one of the strictest gun-control laws in the world, banning its citizens from owning almost all types of handguns. Britain seemed to get safer by the minute, as 162,000 newly-illegal firearms were forked over to British officials by law-abiding citizens.

But this didn't decrease the amount of gun-related crime in the U.K. In fact, gun-related crime has nearly doubled in the U.K. since the ban was enacted.

Might stricter gun laws result in more gun crime? It seems counterintuitive but makes sense if we consider one simple fact: Criminals don't obey the law. Strict gun laws, like the ban in Britain, probably only affect the actions of people who wouldn't commit crimes in the first place.

England's ban didn't magically cause all British handguns to disappear. Officials estimate that more than 250,000 illegal weapons are still in circulation in the country. Without the fear of retaliation from victims who might be packing heat, criminals in possession of these weapons now have a much easier job, and the incidence of gun-related crime has risen. As the saying goes, "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

It's true that if gun control laws had been stricter in Virginia, Seung-Hui Cho would have had a more difficult time getting ahold of the weapons he used to gun down innocent students and teachers. But it's foolish to assume that stricter gun laws will prevent maniacs like Cho from committing heinous crimes. A deranged criminal will find a way to get his hands on a gun. Or a bomb.

The sad truth is that if gun laws had been less strict in Virginia, there is a possibility that the tragedy at Virginia Tech could have claimed fewer lives.

In January 2006, a bill was proposed in the Virginia State Assembly that would have forced Virginia Tech to change its current policy and allow students and faculty members to legally carry weapons on campus. Teenage college students carrying guns makes me nervous, but shouldn't adults be able to decide if they want to arm themselves -- just in case? When the bill was defeated, a Virginia Tech spokesman cheered the action, saying, "This will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."

However, one gun rights advocate lamented the bill's failure with chilling accuracy: "You never know when evil will pop up."

Back in 2002, evil arrived at Virginia's Appalachian School of Law. A disgruntled student opened fire on the school's campus, killing three and wounding more. The law school also prohibited guns on campus, but fortunately two students happened to have firearms in their cars. When the pair heard gunshots, they retrieved their weapons and trained them on the killer, helping restrain him until authorities arrived.

There's no way to know whether Seung-Hui Cho's murderous rampage could have been stopped in a similar way, but what's certain is that strict gun control laws do not always have the effect that legislators intend. More guns (in the right hands) can stop crime, and fewer guns (in the wrong hands) can make for more crime. Gun control isn't crime control.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3083618

So much truth in such a short space.

[ElectricBadger]

Aye, those believing that gun control eliminates threats to society should consider how different the Virginia Tech shooting would have been if a couple of those 32 victims had been armed.

[TomOfSweden]

But as Finland showed. Once guns have been made illegal, it takes almost 50 years before we see the full effect. People as a rule don't hand in their guns, and we have to patiently wait for them to break. Just looking at a couple of years right after a gun banning just doesn't make any sense.

Austria's extremely liberal gun laws and very low occurrence of gun crime leads us to believe that it's a complicated issue. We can't just point to the guns alone and say, without them problem solved. Post war Finland also had extreme low levels of gun crime even though every home had at least a rifle.

We can debate why the number of gun related murders in specifically USA and not Austria is out of proportion. It seems to be obvious that it's out of control in USA. The reason why USA as a culture can't handle liberal gun laws, and how it can be solved without removing them is another debate all together.

edit: We know they can't handle gun laws as they have it now simply by reading statistics.

[bthest]

But as Finland showed. Once guns have been made illegal, it takes almost 50 years before we see the full effect. People as a rule don't hand in their guns, and we have to patiently wait for them to break. Just looking at a couple of years right after a gun banning just doesn't make any sense.

In Britain citizens had until a certain date to hand in the guns or give them to a gun club. Then the government personally confiscated all the banned guns which weren't turned in by the owners.

We could probably wait another 50 years and Britain's gun crime won't change much. Mostly because problems didn't come from legally owned guns but from guns smuggled into the country by the gangs.


We know [Americans] can't handle gun laws as they have it now simply by reading statistics.

Because the gun/weapon laws here are useless and we're better off without 98% of them.

[Stone]

Well most criminals will use whatever to commit violent crimes. Let's say gun are banned and by some miracle all the guns are turned in.Well now the criminals are using knives,hmmm ban thise too? ok banned now they are using pitch forks and garden tools ban those now? The only thing banning guns does is take guns out of law abiding citizens hands and makes them easy prey for criminals.

[nia25]

Let me start by saying if I offend anyone I apologize now. I am an American citizen, and I personally think gun control laws are rediculous! They only people who will obey by them are law abiding citizens. If they are law abiding citizens, they are not going to go shoot up a school or go on a killing spree. I learned to shoot a gun at twelve years old and until I was 18 I entered in many shooting sport events through 4-H (an agriculture group for kids.) Many opposed, and probably still do, the fact that kids were allowed to be around guns. However I have NEVER heard of a 4-H kid, who learned how to shoot at a young age, shooting at anything that they should not have or going on a killing spree. They should teach gun EDUCATION... not ban anything that will carry more than ten bullets or is a semi-automatic. All it does is make law abiding citizens suffer. Especially those of us who enjoy collecting guns and use them as a sport... not violence! Guns do not kills people... if they did I would be dead LOL. People kill people!!!!

[Euryleia]

Good thread, everyone.

At the most basic level, guns are only tools. They are as ripe for misuse as any other. Of course, a person with a bat on a rampage is much less likely to wreak the kind of havoc than an individual with a full clip can. But if you’re facing a home invader or a rapist, I’m sure you’d rather be armed with a 9mm than a Louisville slugger.

Crime statistics show us that women are very likely to be the victims of violence. Most of the perpetrators will be physically bigger and stronger than us. A weapon helps to even the odds. You might argue that guns have a tendency to be turned back on their owners. I’d reply that it’s far more likely that the weapon was taken because the owner wasn’t committed to self-defense.

It is vital that we recognize that we have the right to defend our beliefs and ourselves. I would go further to say that it’s critically important that those of us on the Left be as prepared to defend our ideals as our brethren on the other side of the political spectrum. The Right seems inherently aware than an unarmed populace is completely at the mercy of those with the power.

I used to have a bumper sticker that read: "Not all lesbians own cats. Some of own guns." I wonder sometimes how many hate crimes we would see if the homophobes and sexual predators knew that we might be carrying more than tampons in our purses.

ER

[ElectricBadger]

we have the right to defend our beliefs and ourselves

Best phrasing I've ever heard, thank you for posting!

[John56{vg}]

I am on the left as well. But I do own guns. I believe in gun control but alos believe we have the right to own guns. May be contradictory but it works for me, LOL.

[Euryleia]

Works for me, too. I have to admit that sometimes it gets lonely at the NRA meetings over in the lesbian feminist corner, tho. ;)

I've always been a fan of the phrase 'gun control means hitting what you're aiming at.'

[nk_lion]

I'm on the fence about gun control. I don't own one, nor am I planning to buy one any time soon. In Canada, there wasn't an issue with gun violence until just recently, and it's mostly gangs killing each other (which to me is more like public service by saving the police from arresting them, charging them, prosecuting them, then jailing them).

But as of recent, there seems to be a trend that a lot of border towns and cities are being affected by gun being smuggled over, which is simply creating a nuicance. So for gun laws in Canada, I think we need to secure our borders more.

Now in US, the main arguement that I've heard for the legality of owning a gun is an ammendment that is more then 200 years old. And even when they quote that ammendment, they leave out more then half of it. I believe the entire thing is more like this:-
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So back in the 18th century, if people still remember their history, the colonies of 'America' were trying to break away from England. After independance, the United States of America was in no way the powerhouse that it is today, so if my knowledge of history is correct, this ammendment was added simply to ensure that all Americans had a right to own a gun incase the English or Native Americans had to be fought with.

Now, this is were my logic about this ammendment differs a bit from a few pro-gun folks. If there is no threat to the US, in terms of an invasion, it would make the necessity the right to bear arms invalid, right?

Plus, if people are so worried about the constituion, and sticking to the letter, then the Patriot Act wouldn't have come into effect in 2001.

Anyhow, the saying that guns don't kill people, people kill people is completely true. Just as true as saying alchohol do not cause drunk driving accidents, people cause that. It's completely true, it's your method of perspective. And actually, in writing this post, I think I lean against owning guns completely. While I agree with Electric Badger that if one of those students in Virgina Tech had own a gun, they could shoot that killer, what about cases when a guy get's drunk, and someone shoves him the wrong way? Personally, I don't drink, but I have seen some completely nice people transform when they're drunk, and I wouldn't even trust them with a pocket knife let alone a gun.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

[nia25]

What you say is true, however personally I look at guns as I do a baseball bat. It's a tool to use for a sport. I don't go around hunting or anything like that, and I certainly would not shoot someone unless I absolutely had to for self defense... even then I don't know if I could do it. I feel that we should be able to own guns... why not? I also feel that ANYONE wanting to own a gun could benefit from a gun safety course. But the stupidity over the gun control is certain ones are illegal that are pretty much no different than the legal ones. Except maybe how many bullets they hold. It is rediculous!!!

[bthest]

If there is no threat to the US, in terms of an invasion, it would make the necessity the right to bear arms invalid, right?

Plus, if people are so worried about the constituion, and sticking to the letter, then the Patriot Act wouldn't have come into effect in 2001.

Many consider the patriot act to be a threat to the US and many, many people are worried about it. The Patriot Act was passed by congress and not a national referendum so we Americans didn't have much to say the in the matter.:mad:

The 2nd Amendment and militia doesn't apply solely to foreign threats. See Hurricane Katrina (http://www.oxfordpress.com/news/content/shared/news/nation/stories/09/10KATRINA_ALGIERS.html) for instance.

Also there have been recent court rulings in the past few years that 2nd amendment doesn't protect militias but individuals.

So the 2nd Amendment is still valid and useful in my opinion as recent events and court rulings have shown.

[Guest 91108]

bthest , I agree with the whole of your post.

the second is all about defense of self, then successively local and state and federal.
It is the individuals who join together to protect the successive levels of community that become militia. So if the population is not in possession of the firearms or whatever is available to them due to technical increase.. then how are they to defend against? smiles.. there is where many of people begin to have problems. kinda means we should stop expending into military technology and keep it low level doesn't it.. Grins even more.
Anyways... That is how it started and is coming back around to it .. as the law abiding citizen has a right to self defense..
The courts have said that there is no emphasis on the LEO community to act to defend. It is to act to enforce and catch the criminal. That is evident in why they rush to a crime afterwards and often are too late during the commission of it ... As they can not prevent but end up cleaning up basically.

Since I am a CCW and was an instructor until earlier this year .. I see a huge increase in those whom seek legal carry because of the crime increase.
And in states that have CCW .. the criminal populations knows it.. and crime statistically drops and drops every year. That is not put into the pc/media/news.
Wonder why ? could it because that doesn't promote their anti-gun agenda ?

[Uncle_Ed]

As a UK citizen, I am dismayed at the increasing level of gun-related crime here. I see it as a result of a failure within our society rather than as a result of any legislation-for or against guns.

As a child I owned an air rifle and belonged to the National Small Bore Rifle Association. I learnt how to shoot and handle a weapon. I also knew that I could never shoot a living being after seeing what even a .22 could do...

As long as there are people who take the attitude that they can disregard others-there will be problems. And, I'm sorry to say-that is the prevalent attitude in society at the moment.

I will say that I now worry when I confront gangs of youths who I need to "shoo away" at work. One of these days, one of them will pull a knife or gun on me-and I shall be obliged to hurt them. I don't want to do that...

[nia25]

Understandbly Ed. I did many speeches and reports in high school on gun control and, as that was seven years ago, if I remember correctly one out of every five homes in america own at least one gun. That is why you have never heard of other countries invading the US lol.... ya never know when your gonna get the wrong house. hehehe... it is out of control though. Maybe if kids these days were made to take gun safety courses they wouldn't feel the need to shoot up a school? I could be wrong...

[Midnite]

For me gun-control means.

Being able to hit my target.

[DungeonMaster6]

Like some of you, I also have mixed feelings when it comes to gun control. As a homeowner I have a right to defend myself from anyone breaking into my residence. That's why I believe the Supreme Court should strike down The District of Columbia's ridiculous ban on citizens owning guns. If someone breaks into my home, they will encounter an alarm system that alerts the police. But if I hear someone trying to burglurize my home, and they get in before the cops arrive, they will face my gun.

However, I don't think citizens should be allowed to carry guns in public. Yes I know that if the folks on VA. Tech campus had been armed, lives could've been saved. But do we really want faculty and students on a college campus carrying loaded guns? Imagine if a professor gives a student a failing grade, would you want to see a gun battle in a classroom? Or two people get involved in a car accident, and one of them pulls out a piece? Or someone cuts someone off in a car, and one of them pulls out a rod? Road rage is a dangerous situation enough without adding guns to the mix. In a civilized society do we want to return to having gun battles in the streets? This is not the wild, wild west.

Yes I know guns don't cause crime, people do. To sum it up, yes I think people have a right to protect themselves and property from break-ins, but carrying guns in public, no!

[sassycat4him]

My husband is considered a "felon' b/c of something he did 20+ years ago and b/c of that, he of course, can't have a firearm in our home. He is older now, an adult with a family. How can anyone tell him or even me for that matter, who has never committed a crime, that we can not protect our family from invaders? It isn't right. I have a hand gun put away in a secure locked box. I will do what it takes to protect my family.

[moral-man]

The fact of the matter is that there is not a single good reason why any person that does not work in the armed forces or the police should possess a lethal weapon. In terms of self defense there are methods just as effective as guns, including pepper sprays, tasers or even riot guns.

All you get from keeping a gun in your house is that kids find them and accidentally blow their brains out, given that their parents haven't already shot them at night because you thought they were burglars (both things that routinely seem to happen in the USA).

And even in the case that you had an armed robber in your house, you'd probably still be better off without a gun. That's simply because, the robber would be more inclined to use his gun if he saw you armed. and since he has less prohibitions to kill a person, he'd probably be the first to shoot.

well, maybe I'm beeing little too assumptious here. let me know

[ThisYouWillDo]

No, Moral-man, you are quite right. The ONLY reason to own a hand-gun is to kill. And the only thing a hand gun is good for is killing people: it's not a sports gun. So if anyone has a gun for protection in this day and age, it's because they contemplate killing an intruder who is probably after no more than a few dollars. That's not "necessary force" in my opinion. I know money's important in a material world, but a burglar isn't there to threaten your life, he's there to steal your credit cards. You can phone the bank afterwards to cancel the cards without loss of anyone's life.

So, if it's not "necessary force" and it's contemplated beforehand, doesn't that count as premeditated murder?

-o0O0o-

People have no reason to own a hand gun and should hand them in before they (or their kids) do something they'll regret forever after.

People who own target pistols and the like should leave them at their shooting club.

Hunters (what an unspeakable passtime: killing for amusement! They then drive home with the poor beast strapped to the front of their truck so that like-minded morons can think "What a great guy!") need hunting rifles I suppose. They should be licenced. They should pass a weapons handling test and pass an exam on the gun laws. They should also notify the police at least 24 hours ahead of any hunting expedition so they can be aware of where shooting is likely to take place.


-o0O0o-


After Dunblane happened, we were horrified at how anyone could get hold of weapons so easily. But at least kids can't buy them at ASDA (our version of WalMart). There was a short amnesty before all guns above .22 (I think) were banned. As has been noted above. The effect was to get old guns and collecters' item handed in. Criminals kept their sawn-off shotguns and other weapons. So nowadays the only people with weapons in UK are criminals, members of the armed forces and CIA agents.

As for our criminals, they tend to carry their guns as a threat rather then use them. Drug dealers tend to carry the really dangerous weapons, and they will use them - but mostly against each other. So, although gun crimes are on the increase, the victims tend to be criminals too. And by "carry" I mean, they give them to kids to look after. Sometimes the kids do silly things ... and recently an eleven year-old kid was killed for no evident reason at all.


The rest of us are relatively law abiding and we still have the luxury of police who don't routinely carry guns, although we do have Armed Response Units and armed police at airports (a fairly recent phenomenon). The first time I saw a real gun in my life was when I was 18, on holiday, in Italy. Somehow that makes me feel good. No, not good - superior.

I have no time, and utter contempt for people who think there is a single valid reason why an ordinary citizen should have a gun. They are intending killers, even if they never actually fulfil that intention.

And, as far as my understanding of American law goes, the constitutional right to bear arms is restricted to people actively taking part in a militia to protect themselves against the British or the Indians. How much of a threat is either group now?

[Thorne]

No, Moral-man, you are quite right. The ONLY reason to own a hand-gun is to kill. And the only thing a hand gun is good for is killing people: it's not a sports gun. So if anyone has a gun for protection in this day and age, it's because they contemplate killing an intruder who is probably after no more than a few dollars. That's not "necessary force" in my opinion. I know money's important in a material world, but a burglar isn't there to threaten your life, he's there to steal your credit cards. You can phone the bank afterwards to cancel the cards without loss of anyone's life.

So, if it's not "necessary force" and it's contemplated beforehand, doesn't that count as premeditated murder?
Nope! That counts as defending one's property. In the US, at least, a disproportionate amount of break-ins and home invasions are committed by drug users looking for their next fix. Many will do ANYTHING to get what they need, including killing people. With the current rate of such crimes planning to kill an intruder isn't "premeditated murder," it's a planned defense.


Hunters (what an unspeakable passtime: killing for amusement! They then drive home with the poor beast strapped to the front of their truck so that like-minded morons can think "What a great guy!") need hunting rifles I suppose. They should be licenced. They should pass a weapons handling test and pass an exam on the gun laws. They should also notify the police at least 24 hours ahead of any hunting expedition so they can be aware of where shooting is likely to take place.
I agree in part: hunting for trophies is unspeakable and should be banned except where necessary to control the animals' population to prevent them from exhausting their food supply and starving. Hunting for food, on the other hand, is more understandable, though mostly unnecessary in this day and age except for those with low incomes. I agree regarding the licensing and weapons handling tests, which should be applied to ALL weapons, including hunting weapons, hand guns, even bows and arrows. In the US, at least, the vast majority of hunting takes place outside of city limits and therefore beyond the jurisdiction of the local police. Game wardens, county and state police are aware of the legal hunting areas and monitor them. At least theoretically.


And, as far as my understanding of American law goes, the constitutional right to bear arms is restricted to people actively taking part in a militia to protect themselves against the British or the Indians. How much of a threat is either group now?
A militia doesn't necessarily have to fight against foreign invaders. They can also fight to defend against insurgents, criminals and terrorists. However, it is my opinion that any citizen who wants to own a weapon should be required to obtain a license, submit fingerprint and DNA samples to the national databases, attend a strict and comprehensive training program with annual reviews, and be held fully responsible for any incidents involving their weapons, weather they were using them or not.

If criminals knew that a significant percentage of a population were trained and licensed to carry arms they would have to think twice about threatening anyone. Providing the licensing procedure was sufficiently comprehensive and included some form of psychological profile the chances of unstable persons getting hold of legal weapons would be minimal. The costs of all of this should be covered by the weapon manufacturers and those selling and purchasing the weapons.

I don't own any weapons myself, nor do I feel the need to do so. I do, however, believe in the rights of my fellow citizens to own them, providing they can meet such stringent requirements. The gun control laws in this country right now are a farce. They definitely need revamping. But banning all civilian owned weapons is, in my opinion, a bad idea.

[Midnite]

The fact of the matter is that there is not a single good reason why any person that does not work in the armed forces or the police should possess a lethal weapon. In terms of self defense there are methods just as effective as guns, including pepper sprays, tasers or even riot guns.

All you get from keeping a gun in your house is that kids find them and accidentally blow their brains out, given that their parents haven't already shot them at night because you thought they were burglars (both things that routinely seem to happen in the USA).

And even in the case that you had an armed robber in your house, you'd probably still be better off without a gun. That's simply because, the robber would be more inclined to use his gun if he saw you armed. and since he has less prohibitions to kill a person, he'd probably be the first to shoot.

well, maybe I'm beeing little too assumptious here. let me know

I don't know, I can't think of a least one instance where the sound of a slide being pulled back on a pump shotgun scared a crook intent on doing bodily harm to a friend of mine to simply turn around and leave, whoops I mean rapidly leave. I really can imagine that the sound of taking the Off on a can of mace would scare somebody.

and when the crazies that are out there today, it doesn't make you need to rescue some of them whether or not you cooperate, they're going to kill you anyway. I would much rather die with a gun in my hand, then with my hands in the air, at least I have a chance!

[moral-man]

I don't know, I can't think of a least one instance where the sound of a slide being pulled back on a pump shotgun scared a crook intent on doing bodily harm to a friend of mine to simply turn around and leave, whoops I mean rapidly leave.

true, but I think that you shooting the crook with rubber projectiles from your riot gun would have the same effect, plus the satisfaction of having infliced a great amount of pain on him

as for all the other points that were raised, I dont live in the states so I cant really tell how scrupulous the average burglar would be. In any case, guns are not the solution. If there actually are people breaking into houses and killing for drugs, this would only show the deficiency in the social structure of your country.

effectively what needs to be done is putting more effort and money into the rehabilitation of drug addicts and criminals as well as into the education system, so that those sort of people don't develop in the first place.

[mkemse]

My understanding, is That sometime in 2008, The Unites staes Supremem Court will be making a decsion based on THEIR understanding of what the Amendents to the constituions means regarding the right to bear arms I will be intrestedso see what they say
This law is being revieiwed, because Washinigton DC 9How ironic) has a law that allows those with hand liscences to carry them concealed, a teacher there for her protection carried a gunto work with her, she is a teacher, she was fired from here job for violating the schools zerotolerance rule on gun posession in schools,
The teacher said she carried it for protection against I believe it was her ex husband, the school board told her law or no law, we have a law for schoolss that say no gund period
The Supremem Court agreed to hear her Case to determine whether she can legaly carry a consealed weapon legaly, or if she can not based on the school districts policy

[ThisYouWillDo]

Apart from dedicated huntsmen and sportsmen, anyone who owns a gun contemplates killing someone, and has taken steps to bring that thought about. This is nothing to do with self-defence in a civilised society.

You argue that you have a right to defend your property. Yes I agree that all common-law countries put a greater value on property than on human life, but the law can be an ass sometimes. Frankly, even if you have the law on your side, if you believe you have a right to kill a burglar first and ask questions later, you are no better than a primitive ape-man, and probably far worse.

Besides, you have NO CHANCE if you are faced with a murderous intruder, to go to the safe place where you keep your weapon stored, unlock it and take out the box you keep it in, remove it and then find the ammunition you need, load the gun, and point the weapon at your adversary, before he fires his gun at you. So as a means of defence, it sucks.

Frankly, midnite scares me even without a gun and at 3,000 miles distance. You can sense the self-glorification as he brags that he had a gun - like a throbbing penis - and he couldn't wait to shoot his load. Yes I think that, considering the words he used, he was mentally masturbating with the gun. What on EARTH is the justification for having a pump-action shotgun if it isn't to kill. I mean, if you need to shoot foxes and other vermin, an ordinary single-barrelled shotgun that requires to be broken and reloaded after each shot is perfectly adequate.

Midnite, it seems to me that in the incident described, you were already two onto one. If I were the other guy, I'd be looking for a way out, even without a gun. The gun was not necessary. Thus you weren't saving your friend, you were primarily restating your desire to become a killer some time. I bet you laughed afterwards!

Crazies? Yeah, right!

Thorne says: A militia doesn't necessarily have to fight against foreign invaders. They can also fight to defend against insurgents, criminals and terrorists.

That is true. But your lawmakers were contemplating foreign invaders at the time, not thieves and robbers. Nklion was better able to state what the constitution says than I was, so I repeat what he said: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." That does not include criminals, and I haven't heard that US citizens have formed an anti-terrorist militia in any town, city or state. So that's not why they are holding guns, is it?

I would add that individuals who "enforce the law their own way" like Charles Bronson copycats are as bad as the people they go after. Vigilantes do not protect law and order, they ignore it because it does not match up to their personal expectations; and a group of vigilantes is a lynch mob. That was not what the consitution was advocating.

TYWD

[Midnite]

Frankly, midnite scares me even without a gun and at 3,000 miles distance. You can sense the self-glorification as he brags that he had a gun - like a throbbing penis - and he couldn't wait to shoot his load. Yes I think that, considering the words he used, he was mentally masturbating with the gun. What on EARTH is the justification for having a pump-action shotgun if it isn't to kill. I mean, if you need to shoot foxes and other vermin, an ordinary single-barrelled shotgun that requires to be broken and reloaded after each shot is perfectly adequate.

Midnite, it seems to me that in the incident described, you were already two onto one. If I were the other guy, I'd be looking for a way out, even without a gun. The gun was not necessary. Thus you weren't saving your friend, you were primarily restating your desire to become a killer some time. I bet you laughed afterwards!



Thorne says: A militia doesn't necessarily have to fight against foreign invaders. They can also fight to defend against insurgents, criminals and terrorists.

That is true. But your lawmakers were contemplating foreign invaders at the time, not thieves and robbers. Nklion was better able to state what the constitution says than I was, so I repeat what he said: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." That does not include criminals, and I haven't heard that US citizens have formed an anti-terrorist militia in any town, city or state. So that's not why they are holding guns, is it?


TYWD


Just why I almost didn't join into this discussion, it never fails and you start talking about politics some freaking yo-yo has always got to insult somebody else, I'm going to prove who is the most intelligent of the two and not insult ThisYouWillDo, I will say this, you don't know me, and it's probably to my advantage.

Just to let you know I've spent two years in law enforcement, and there were a few times that I had to make the decision on whether or not to shoot someone, I chose not to, but rest assured if I would've pulled the trigger they would have been dead, no ifs, ands, or buts about it, if someone breaks into my house and steals my TV set, more power to them, if all they are after its property, let them have it, but let them threaten my life or try to do bodily harm to me, fuck em, I will do everything in my power to make sure that they never walk out of the door of my house, if you don't understand what I am saying, I will kill them with no hesitation, and lots of regrets.

As far as the militia part of this discussion goes, it was not only to protect ourselves from foreign invaders, but to also protect ourselves from our own government that this was written in to the Constitution. If you want to continue this discussion without insulting somebody that I will be glad to join in, but insult me again

[newby]

i am a small biz owner, primarily cash. i am a woman, here by myself. i open before daylight & i close after dark. This type biz is robbed about once a week this time of year. i used my silent alarm once & it took the cops 7 minutes to get here. SEVEN MINUTES!!! i'm a dead woman if i have to wait 7minutes for someone to protect & serve. So yes, i carry a gun. Will i shoot somebody to protect a few hundred bucks. Hell no. It's money, big deal. But when someone has a gun pointed in my face, you better believe i will defend myself.

Why do i carry a gun? 'Cause i cant carry a cop. And when seconds count, cops show up in minutes.

[ThisYouWillDo]

This freaking yo-yo makes no apologies for what he has said above, and withdraws nothing. Nor does he feel his intelligence has been at all impugned by what you say. This freaking yo-yo calls things the way he sees them, and you certainly give the impression described ... "gun-control means being able to hit my target" indeed! Ha!

But thank-you for refraining from returning my insults. I take it, then, that there is nothing derogatory about the term freaking yo-yo in the sense you used it.

OK - so the Right to Bear Arms amendment to the Constitution includes the right to organise militias against threats by the US government too. I'm loathe to say anything nice about politicians, but they are not the kind of muggers and robbers that walk up to you, point a gun or a knife at you and ask you to empty your pockets, or who break into your shop to rifle your till. A tyrannical US government would be every bit as bad as government by Britain and would deserve to be shot; but that has nothing to do with individual criminals trying to steal from you. So I still say that you are probably asserting a right you don't lawfully have.

And where are the "organised militias" that all these gun-toting citizens are supposed to have formed? The only militias I am aware of certainly aren't there to protect everybody's rights and freedoms. They belong to the armed right wing - hate groups and fundamentalist Christian movements, to mention a couple by genre. They are more likely to be vigilantes or illegal armies than organised militias created to protect the free state.

You've spent two years in law enforcement, and I have to respect that. You say you have been in several situations where you have had to choose whether or not to use your weapon, and you chose not to. That too demands respect. So I am cautious about what I say next.

The only time you should have been contemplating the use of your fire-arm is in a kill-or-be-killed situation which cannot be defused. As a responsible law enforcement agent, I am sure that you assessed the situation and, realising it could be defused, you let that happen. If you had used your gun in a situation which was capable of being defused, you would have been acting wrongly. So, really, you didn't have a choice.

I acknowledge that it takes skillful assessment of the situation and nerves of steel to act the way you did. True professionalism. (I am not against the police being armed, by the way, although I prefer them not to carry guns routinely.)

Otherwise, as neither you nor the other person was shot, it was not a kill-or-be-killed situation and it did not require you to consider the use of your gun at all.

If your life is threatened, or even your safety, I have no problem with you killing someone in self-defence with whatever comes to hand (Newby, this is for you too). If there happens to be a conveniently placed gun within reach, then shoot the bugger if you can! But if you kill to protect property, I question your moral values and your judgement. Are you any better than the man you shot, and does it matter which of you survives?

Normal defences against intrusion are locks on doors and windows, maybe high walls and barbed wire. Electronic alarms. A big dog, perhaps. Definitely not man-traps. And if not man-traps why guns? People who know their life is at risk (not just fear their life might be at risk, but know it), such as leading politicians for example, might be able to justify carrying a gun at all times about their person. But people who have a gun "just in case" an intruder breaks in are acting out of proportion to the risks they face - and in all probability will kill an unarmed person, possibly an innocent caller, because they were too busy shitting their pants with fear, and creating a life-or-death situation out of nothing. Over here we are constantly hearing of situations where unarmed people have been shot by over-excited paranoids with guns, or by trained armed policemen. Rarely do we hear of fire fights between the armed police and a gang of criminals. That was a rarity even in Northern Ireland during the Troubles.

So, I'd give you good odds, Midnite and Newby, that if someone shoved a gun in your face, and you co-operated with what he told you to do, you'd survive, whereas if you tried to pull a gun on him, he'd shoot you first. (I'd give better odds to Newby, of course, as Midnite clearly has handled guns professionally.)

[nia25]

To post or not to post.... I am responding to this thread carefully... and thoughtfully. I do not see how owning a hand gun can be contemplating murder. I grew up around guns, participated in many competition shootings, and used handguns as well as rifles. I like shooting guns. If I want to own one, that is my perogative. I will not kill anyone or anything with it, so what do you care? It is my right. I bought my guns with my money, and followed all of the retarded gun laws in getting it. You are not going to see it my way, and I am not going to see it yours. Why insult each other and get upset over something you virtually have no control over? By the way, I have never contemplated killing anyone with my gun.

[Thorne]

One of TYWD's main arguments is against killing for property. That's all well and good. If someone breaks into my home, unarmed and non-violent, I promise not to kill him. I'll sure try to beat the shit out of him, though! But if the criminal is armed, how can you know that he is only interested in theft? Even if that's all he started out seeking, once he gains control who's to say he won't escalate things simply because he views himself in the rare situation of having some form of control? It happens, all the time! These people are criminals with virtually no moral character to start with. By breaking into my home they are automatically threatening me and my family. I can not, WILL not, sit back and wait to make sure that all he's interested in is simple burglary. I will take every opportunity to attack, with whatever weapons are available, and if I have the chance I WILL KILL THE BASTARD!

Maybe in your eyes that makes me an evil person. So be it! I have the same respect for human life as you do, I believe. But I also believe that there are those who have lost the right to be considered human. Anyone who thinks he (or she) can take whatever he wants just because he wants it, whether it's property or someone else's life, doesn't deserve to be treated humanely.

Yes, I think guns are dangerous. I would love to see some REAL gun control in this country. Make certain that those who want to own guns have the knowledge and the training to use them responsibly. Make even more certain that the criminals have much tougher access to weapons. Control from the top, by limiting the ability of the manufacturers to make their weapons and limiting the ability of the retailers to sell their weapons.

[ThisYouWillDo]

Nia is right: we're never going to agree: the gun advocates are too pig-headed to realise how wrong they are, and I'm too full of my own ideas to think there can possibly be another point of view with any merit. And I really do believe the gun lobby's case is wholly without merit. That doesn't stop us airing our views, and, who knows, I might just go out and buy a gun afterwards*!

Thorne also is right: I do think it is wrong to kill to protect property. In my mind, life is paramount. It is, after all, the most important thing you have, and if you lose it, you never get it back. So if you're going to take someone's life away, you need to have a very good reason, and so far, the only convincing reason I have come across is to preserve someone else's life. One human life to save another is a balanced equation. And if the survivor is the hero rather than the villain, so much the better.

What if I only believe someone is going to kill me? Is it right to shoot first and ask questions later? Well, yes, if I truly and reasonably believe that if I don't shoot now, and shoot straight, I will die, then it is right to kill another man - even if he turns out to be an unarmed passer-by who called on me to post a pamphlet inviting me to a church bazaar. (It would be hard to show that the belief was reasonable in that instance though!)

A life to protect my wife or daughter from rape? That's a hard one, and I think, despite what I say here, my instincts would be to try to save my wife or daughter. Call me a hypocrite! I would be acting criminally. I could and should expect 30 years' gaol, or execution where the death penalty applies. What would my wife or daughter think then? Maybe my lawyer could get the charge reduced to manslaughter. But the killing would still have been wrong and I should deserve to be imprisoned for a very long time.

A life to stop someone stealing my property? Utterly wrong! Again, I should face severe penalties.

I believe that most people will not kill unless they are provoked. And that those who kill without provocation are few and far between - even in the Southern States, or in the ganglands of Washington DC. Maybe they will be provoked by very little - perhaps because of their culture, or perhaps because they are in a situation where they are as scared as their potential victim. Even so, co-operation rarely amounts to provocation, and my advice is, do as you're told, and both of you will live. But if you try to kill him, remember, he's already got his gun out, loaded and ready to fire, the bastard. And where's your gun? I hope you keep it where the kids won't find it and accidentally shoot the neighbours! But that means it won't be available when you need it.

Thorne says he considers housebreaking to be sufficient provocation because he believes a forced entry into his property amounts to a serious threat to his life and safety. I think he is wrong. I imagine it is far more likey that, if he had no other escape route and he didn't attack the burglars, he and his family would be herded into one room while the rest of the house was ransacked, and, when the intruders had taken everything of value, they'd go, leaving Thorne and his family poorer but alive. But there's no point in arguing this any further.

An animal's life for the sake of a huntsman's sport? Again, totally wrong. Just as wrong as the use of the word "sport" in this context. But I've already said that, if hunting is allowed, then guns must also be permitted for hunting purposes. I've also said that it is legitimate to use guns for shooting competitions, but the guns should be kept locked safely away in the shooting club's armory.

Thorne advocates stronger gun control in USA, and I concur. But I would point out that nowhere (I think) is gun control tighter than in UK. And it doesn't work here because it's ineffecively enforced. I believe that anyone manufacturing, importing, owning or handling an unauthorised weapon should face the same penalties as for unlawful killing, because that's why they hold the guns: to kill someone. I believe authorisation should never be available as of right or on demand. You must prove you need a gun before you can have one, and you must give it up if and when that need passes. The only outlets where you can buy a gun (or ammunition) should be government controlled; and people coming into this country from any othe country where the gun laws are more lenient must expect a full body and baggage search before being allowed in.

Notwithstanding the ineffectiveness of our gun contol laws, there is no-one - ABSOLUTELY NO-ONE - calling for the right to keep arms at home or to carry them in public. We cannot see that would help at all.

Finally, a comment on the quips and slogans being used: guns don't kill - people do ... isn't that the same as keys don't lock doors, people do. In fact, keys do lock doors. That's what they are made for. And guns do kill. That's what guns are made for. Guns prevent crime ... threatening to kill a person (even just by meaningfully showing the butt of the gun to that person) is a crime itself - carrying a lethal weapon with intent, or something like that. So in those situations, crime doesn't fall, it changes. People should be trained to handle guns ... making them trained killers I don't intend to kill anyone with my gun ... that's fine if you are a hunter or a shooting hobbyist, if not, what on Earth did you buy it for?


On re-reading the above, I note an apparent inconsistency: I appear to say that anyone who acquires a gun must intend to kill, but an armed criminal is unlikely to do so unless you provoke him (making the outcome your fault). First, I do not think all gun-owners intend to kill (despite what I said earlier for emphasis and effect), but they are clearly prepared to accept the possibility. And secondly, I have to allow that an armed criminal is likely to be even more willing to kill than his innocent victim. But he is not committed to killing and I believe he will not kill if he doesn't think he has to. So, in the first instance, he creates the situation and is wholly responsible for whatever happens. But if you try to take control then you must expect him to retaliate, and the outcome then could well be your responsibility

Having said all of this, I've probably upset everyone here. I don't apologise, I feel quite strongly about this. But I shall refrain from any further posts on this board. If anyone feels it is necessary to give me a piece of their mind, that's fine. If you post here, I shan't answer. If you want me to reply, then PM me.


______________________________
* Probably to shoot myself with!

[Guest 91108]

hrm.. if i lived in the Uk where noone is supposed to die from a violent crime. * snerks * then i would probably be a pacifist and be herded like sheep into a room.
but here. if i hear someone trying to break into my home.. they will be stopped before they get inside. If die before they accepted that risk when they chose to invade my space.
hrm on property.. I would say if they are outside they are most likely still in deep trouble.. where i live. I am far from anyone else.
They would have to be intentionally here with intentions to cause harm.
even theft is harm in the laws here.
As i instruct in CCW I am very well aware of the law and know that I would be acting within the letter of the law here. That is what is important.
being in a foreign state or country one can not judge another local .
We are not yet advanced enough to be under a one world government with no countries. I don't think we will be for several more generations. and humans are for the most part predatory beasts.

[Moonraker]

I'm new to this thread since as a Brit I thought I wouldn't have much to contribute. But would like to make a few comments.

I agree largely with ThisYouWillDo, taking a life can only be to defend yourself or thers when life is at risk. Not over a few bucks from the till or a TV set.

Of course taking away guns from law abiding citizens will not prevent crime by the baddies who carry guns. But it will prevent/reduce other gun casualties like domestic incidents and events like Virginia Tech. The interesting question would be how many honest citizens have actually saved themselves because they had a gun. I don't know, but imagine proportionally few.

The fact that UK has strict gun controls yet gun crime is increasing is misleading. Perhaps it would be even higher without controls. What sort of crime, lets see the breakdown. My guess is its gang related not really burglary and shooting the home owners.

Personally I cannot see any long term solution coming from everybody having or carrying a gun. True perhaps if honest citizens are unarmed and only criminals haev guns it may ger worse before it gets better. But what's the alternative long term.

Lastly, that americans look to the constitution as justification I find strange. America today is not quite the same. No maruauding Indians (you killed them all) or other risks that the right was intended to protect citizens against. So whatever the case for or against, the consitution certainly needs updating.

Just my two cents worth.

[Thorne]

I don't intend to get into a name-calling contest here. Everyone has a right to their own opinions and a right to freely express those opinions. Whether or not I agree with them or they agree with me is irrelevant.

That being said, it is incomprehensible to me how anyone can seriously put the life of a violent, dangerous criminal above the well-being of their own family. It shouldn't even be necessary to think about it! If someone attacks me or mine, I will defend them and myself. I would rather die in the attempt than to sit back and watch helplessly as my wife and daughter are raped! Even if the perpetrators did not kill them (and me) I would not be able to live with myself if I didn't do everything physically possible to protect them. The physical and emotional price they would have to pay as a result of such a crime would be far more expensive than the worthless life of the rapist.

Yes, that's right, worthless! Whether you like it or not, there are some people in this world who should not be allowed to live. Rapists, in my opinion, are at or near the top of the list. Probably one step below pedophiles. There are those who, through their own actions, have demonstrated a complete lack of moral character. They think only of themselves, will perpetrate any atrocity, commit any crime, just for their own self-satisfaction. The best thing a civilized culture can do is either exile them or kill them. They are too dangerous to be allowed to remain in society.

I am curious, TYWD. Where do you draw the line? Let us assume that someone has broken into your home and threatened you and your family. You say to just cooperate and he'll probably lock you in a room while he goes about his business. How can you know before hand what his intentions are? How can you assume he will behave "honorably" and not go farther than he'd intended? Can you honestly say that you could sit still and listen to your daughters screams as she is raped and comfort yourself with the knowledge that you didn't kill the guy? If that's the case, if the pain, suffering and emotional trauma your daughter and wife will suffer is worth less to you than the life of that perpetrator, then you are so completely alien (to me) in your thinking that I doubt we could ever come to any form of agreement. And if that scumbag goes ahead and kills you all to keep you from turning him over to the police, my sympathies would go out to your family. But I would have to think that you got what you deserved.

[Midnite]

I don't intend to get into a name-calling contest here. Everyone has a right to their own opinions and a right to freely express those opinions. Whether or not I agree with them or they agree with me is irrelevant.

That being said, it is incomprehensible to me how anyone can seriously put the life of a violent, dangerous criminal above the well-being of their own family. It shouldn't even be necessary to think about it! If someone attacks me or mine, I will defend them and myself. I would rather die in the attempt than to sit back and watch helplessly as my wife and daughter are raped! Even if the perpetrators did not kill them (and me) I would not be able to live with myself if I didn't do everything physically possible to protect them. The physical and emotional price they would have to pay as a result of such a crime would be far more expensive than the worthless life of the rapist.

Yes, that's right, worthless! Whether you like it or not, there are some people in this world who should not be allowed to live. Rapists, in my opinion, are at or near the top of the list. Probably one step below pedophiles. There are those who, through their own actions, have demonstrated a complete lack of moral character. They think only of themselves, will perpetrate any atrocity, commit any crime, just for their own self-satisfaction. The best thing a civilized culture can do is either exile them or kill them. They are too dangerous to be allowed to remain in society.

I am curious, TYWD. Where do you draw the line? Let us assume that someone has broken into your home and threatened you and your family. You say to just cooperate and he'll probably lock you in a room while he goes about his business. How can you know before hand what his intentions are? How can you assume he will behave "honorably" and not go farther than he'd intended? Can you honestly say that you could sit still and listen to your daughters screams as she is raped and comfort yourself with the knowledge that you didn't kill the guy? If that's the case, if the pain, suffering and emotional trauma your daughter and wife will suffer is worth less to you than the life of that perpetrator, then you are so completely alien (to me) in your thinking that I doubt we could ever come to any form of agreement. And if that scumbag goes ahead and kills you all to keep you from turning him over to the police, my sympathies would go out to your family. But I would have to think that you got what you deserved.

Thorne, I feel sorry for you, apparently you just don't understand what it is to be a liberal, don't you know it's society's fault that all of those poor people out there are addicted to drugs, and most of them don't know but their father is, you should suck it up just like the rest of us liberals, and accept the fact that we had to pay for other people's mistakes. :) in case you didn't figure it out I am just kidding

[newby]

Amen Thorne & Midnite. While i have no desire to kill anyone, if the choice is him or me, i wont go down quietly. If i do maim or kill someone, will i hate it? You bet! Will i feel remorse? Of course! But i have no doubt that i would rather die defending myself or my family than die do nothing at all.

And while i wont get into a pissing match w/ TYWD, it is an unfair assumption he makes:



So, I'd give you good odds, Midnite and Newby, that if someone shoved a gun in your face, and you co-operated with what he told you to do, you'd survive, whereas if you tried to pull a gun on him, he'd shoot you first. (I'd give better odds to Newby, of course, as Midnite clearly has handled guns professionally.)

Since you dont know how many thousands of rounds i've shot, or how many hundreds of hours i've trained in open hand & weapons self defense, dont count this girl out.

[Thorne]

Thorne, I feel sorry for you, apparently you just don't understand what it is to be a liberal, don't you know it's society's fault that all of those poor people out there are addicted to drugs, and most of them don't know but their father is, you should suck it up just like the rest of us liberals, and accept the fact that we had to pay for other people's mistakes. :) in case you didn't figure it out I am just kidding

I'll tell you what, midnite. It's going to be a bitch getting that tongue our of your cheek!

Unfortunately, your simplified rendering of the liberal agenda is sadly all too accurate. Equally unfortunately, the right wing conservative view is just as frightening. And trying to walk the middle of the road makes you a target for the trucks rolling in both directions.

[Thorne]

Amen Thorne & Midnite. While i have no desire to kill anyone, if the choice is him or me, i wont go down quietly. If i do maim or kill someone, will i hate it? You bet! Will i feel remorse? Of course! But i have no doubt that i would rather die defending myself or my family than die do nothing at all.

And while i wont get into a pissing match w/ TYWD, it is an unfair assumption he makes:

Since you dont know how many thousands of rounds i've shot, or how many hundreds of hours i've trained in open hand & weapons self defense, dont count this girl out.

I grew up in the Newark - New York City suburbs many years ago. I know that if you try to cooperate with someone who has a gun to your head there's a 50/50 chance that he'll kill you anyway. You have a 60% chance of surviving if you can dislocate his knee with your foot, and a 90% chance if you can drive his nasal bones up into his brain. If you get the chance you'd better take it.

[nia25]

How sad this debate has to be degrated to name calling! Can't there be a friendly debate without it? Anyway, I have heard of instances where people's homes are broken into and they where killed; not with a gun in their hand! I think a lot of it has to do with how you are raised. I was raised that shooting is a sport. Sure a gun can defend you if you need it. That's a perk, and so can a baseball bat! But are those illegal? I was raised around guns, and many people are not. Many of them are the ones who do not understand guns in thier entirity.

[Thorne]

How sad this debate has to be degrated to name calling! Can't there be a friendly debate without it? Anyway, I have heard of instances where people's homes are broken into and they where killed; not with a gun in their hand! I think a lot of it has to do with how you are raised. I was raised that shooting is a sport. Sure a gun can defend you if you need it. That's a perk, and so can a baseball bat! But are those illegal? I was raised around guns, and many people are not. Many of them are the ones who do not understand guns in thier entirity.

Yes, I agree. Too much name calling, not enough friendliness. Everyone does not have to agree on everything. What a boring world that would be.

Unlike you, I was not raised around guns. I have fired some, many years ago. I didn't feel the need to run out and get some, though. Just not for me. But I still feel people should have the right to own guns. And baseball bats.

[DungeonMaster6]

Adding to what I said before, I'm not in the NRA or any gun club. I'm not denigrating hunters or gun collectors. What we're talking about here is the right of homeowners to defend themselves, their family and their property. This is not premeditated murder; that's absurd. It's simply self defense. Burglury is the number one felony committed in the U.S. Just in my county alone, break-ins of businesses and residences are listed in the newpaper every week. Can you be sure all they want is your credit cards or money? Shooting someone is not something I would relish, but like I said before, if someone somehow gets through the security alarm system before the cops show up, they will face my gun, and I know how to use it.

[Mad Lews]

Getting this back on track:)
I think the easiest answer to the debate is to look at violent crime statistics in the US.
You will quickly note that crime rates are invariably higher in areas that have the strictest gun control laws.
The question then becomes are the strict laws the result of high crime rates, or are the high crime rates the result of a disarmed populous?

As for the right to defend property, that is a cornerstone of our civilization. It is what “the pursuit of happiness” refers to in the declaration of Independence.
Wealth that you generate through labor is your property and cannot be taken from you by law. (OK ignore taxes) Your property is your own and the state should defend your right to it, but if it fails to do so you still have the right to defend it.
Common sense must apply of course, (such an uncommon phenomenon in this day and age) You can’t shot unarmed six year olds for stealing lollypops. An armed assailant attempting to steal by use of force however is an entirely different matter.

A point of agreement seems to be that most here would allow you to use force to defend your life or that of others. It’s heartening to see some agreement in such a diverse gathering.

Yours
Mad Lews

[Thorne]

A point of agreement seems to be that most here would allow you to use force to defend your life or that of others. It’s heartening to see some agreement in such a diverse gathering.

It is heartening. Perhaps not surprising, though. I find it hard to think that anyone would advocate sacrificing your own life just to keep from hurting or killing an armed attacker.

What frightens me are those who want you to submit to an armed attacker, in order to "keep him from killing you." In my mind, if you are confronted by an armed attacker it's a coin toss as to whether he will kill you, regardless of any actions you do or don't take. Certainly, the opportunity to do something may not occur, but if it does you should be prepared to take it. And when you take it, be prepared to kill. An armed attacker must never be considered out of action unless he's either unconscious or dead.

[ThisYouWillDo]

US MASS SHOOTINGS IN 2007

Dec: Robert Hawkins, 19, killed six workers at the Von Maur department store and two customers in Omaha.

Oct: Asa H Coon, 14, shoots four people, injuring them, at his school in Cleveland, Ohio, before killing himself.

April: Cho Seung-hui , 23, shoots 32 people dead on campus of Virginia Tech university, Virginia, then kills himself.

Feb: Sulejman Talovic, 18, shoots dead five people and injures four at a mall in Salt Lake City, Utah, before being killed by police.

These people presumably obtained their weapons for so-called "legitimate" purposes.

The Omaha incident is said to have reignited the debate in the US about gun ownership. I wonder how many people must die in USA before it is realised that, whether it is guns or people that kill, together they are a dangerous mix.

[TomOfSweden]

Getting this back on track:)
I think the easiest answer to the debate is to look at violent crime statistics in the US.
You will quickly note that crime rates are invariably higher in areas that have the strictest gun control laws.
The question then becomes are the strict laws the result of high crime rates, or are the high crime rates the result of a disarmed populous?



...and taking a look internationally tells us that it's a more complicated issue than that. There's a strong link between violent crime and poverty. Guns don't seem to have an impact on the likelihood of crime taking place. All guns seem to do is indicate what kinds of wounds victims and perpetrators of violent crime are likely to have once the deeds been done.

There's a strong statistical correlation between the more devoutly religious people in an area are, the more likely they are to murder each other. In spite of these statistics, I don't believe for a second there's a link.

There's a difference between correlation, link and causality.

I think it's better to take it down on a more philosophical level. What is a gun, and what can a gun do? I think that a down and out person with nothing to lose isn't likely to be deterred by guns....or anything. If they would get a job they could stop being desperate losers on the bottom rungs of society. Which is hard to do if a bullet in your spine put you in a wheel chair.

Just speculating here....

[Guest 91108]

The Omaha incident is said to have reignited the debate in the US about gun ownership. I wonder how many people must die in USA before it is realised that, whether it is guns or people that kill, together they are a dangerous mix.

The only people it has re-ignited are those who seek reasons to push it in the first place.
there's no reason to pass new legistlation when they can't enforce the old.
Until they can enforce the old there will be gun crimes by those who can have criminal intentions.
The problem isnt the guns or the poverty level.. it's the fact that people as a whole lack compassion for their fellow man. And once they get to that point are no longer a part of society. When they turn criminal for whatever reason, and yes Tom I know this has been discussed... they take their chances. That is how it is. To be shot by copy hours days later .. or by the one who should have shot them .. the victim. I will always vote to remain victimless.
To not be a victim in the first place.
Some people will never understand that thinking .. it's always going to be a BS discussion as it's tiring.
no matter what people are in it. accept it.

[mkemse]

With the over all debate on gun contro, the right for an individual to bear arm,s protect their family and themselves
I have nener owned a gun, I feel no need to, that is what the Policeare for,
However, as I read al these stories bout School Shooting, Mall shooting ect each incident or almost all of these incidents seem to invovle either semi automatic assault rifles or fully automatic assault rifles
I have no issue with those who wish to own guns, for hunting, and the like, but our fore father, who established the Constitution never had these type arms to deal with, semi assault or fully automatic assualt rifles to the best of my knowledge did NOT exist at that time
What I do have an issuewith is those who say "Owing an semi auntomatic Assault Rifle or Fully Automatic Assault Rifle is my righit, it is guaranteed in the Constitution" How, they did not exsist at the time the Document was created.
I see no reason, unlerss it is owned by a colector and the rifle has been disengaed, meaning it si a show piece only, it does not work, then eed for anyone to own any semi or fully automatic rifle or hand gun, I do not buy th argument, "I use it for hunting" why?? I have neverseem a Deer, Rabbit ectfre back, why do they need to use a semi or fully automatic assault rifle??
The weapon used in the Mall Shooting and VT last year if I am not mistakedn were noth semi or fully automatic rifles, what need is the need for ownership on the,e they are designed soley for the purposes of killing they were not desgined for hunting, If i ever go hunting, I do not need a rifle or gun that fires 30 rounda minute, to hunt Deer, or Rabbits or Birds
Aside from collectors and where they no longer work, I see no reason be it practical or not for anyond to own or their "Need to Own" an AK47, an Uzi,
would someone please explain to me then eed for someone to ow one ofthese that work that could be used, why do you need to own an operting semi or fully automatic rifle or hand gun that fires 30 round per mniute?? please enlighten me on the need fr ownership on these, and please offerm e something beyond "It is my right" becausethese did not exist when the Constitution was written so I do notr believethses type weapond were what our Fore Father had in mind when they wrote the Constitution, i firmly believe they had rifles in mind single shot or double barrel, but certainly not Uzi's AK47 or the lot

[Guest 91108]

our Forefathers had the same rifles our military had.. and even used them in the service there of.
That is why any escalation of weapons by military should also be in the hands of the civilians as else where in the document.. there may be need time and place that the people may have to rise up and reassert their control.
That is sufficent reason for me to own any firearm that is "military or not".
think about it. George Washington nowadays would have owned a M4 with all technical accoutrements.
Ya'll need to wake up.
lack of vision.

[mkemse]

our Forefathers had the same rifles our military had.. and even used them in the service there of.
That is why any escalation of weapons by military should also be in the hands of the civilians as else where in the document.. there may be need time and place that the people may have to rise up and reassert their control.
That is sufficent reason for me to own any firearm that is "military or not".
think about it. George Washington nowadays would have owned a M4 with all technical accoutrements.
Ya'll need to wake up.
lack of vision.


I was not aware our Forefather had access to Uzi's, AK47 and the like

[Guest 91108]

in your idea of interpretation everything that is old does not apply.
might as well burn the bibles. they are thousands of years old.
hrm how far back should we go.. 4 decades and burn the literature?

Our forefathers were equipped just like the civilians they were.
They had to fight before they could be the forefathers.
study up. Those who fought had the same rifles that later made up the militia that fought the revolution of that time.
so..
as I said in earlier post.. if .gov decides military needs to upgrade then so does the civilian. if you do not like the escalation then have them stop it and put the one country's ruler against the other ala gladiators. win is thus right
otherwise.. find yourself a topic that you can understand.

[Thorne]

I noted that, in the latest shooting incident in Colorado, the gunman was taken out by an armed security guard who worked for the church. Even the police had to admit that the man probably saved many lives by reacting as he did and shooting the gunman.

It has to make one wonder how many other such massacres could have been minimized of even prevented if there were more people with weapons, who knew how to use them and were willing to kill to protect others. In that incident at VT, how many would have been saved if there were even one person there who was able to shoot back?

I'm certain that security officer in Colorado feels badly that he had to kill someone. I can't believe any sane person would want to kill another human being. But I hope he will feel better knowing that he may have saved many, many people, including children. Well done!

[mkemse]

I noted that, in the latest shooting incident in Colorado, the gunman was taken out by an armed security guard who worked for the church. Even the police had to admit that the man probably saved many lives by reacting as he did and shooting the gunman.

It has to make one wonder how many other such massacres could have been minimized of even prevented if there were more people with weapons, who knew how to use them and were willing to kill to protect others. In that incident at VT, how many would have been saved if there were even one person there who was able to shoot back?

I'm certain that security officer in Colorado feels badly that he had to kill someone. I can't believe any sane person would want to kill another human being. But I hope he will feel better knowing that he may have saved many, many people, including children. Well done!

True byt he was a liscenced gun holder used the gun for security work, I wonder if he uses a semi automatyic rifle or assault weapon to hunt with??

My issue is NOT owing a gun, i just see no logical reason to own to use an Uzi, AK47 or an assault rifle, they are for killing only and shoudd be used in war, not for duck or deer hunting

[Guest 91108]

Hrm.. man is not above killing his own kind for whatever reason..
I'd push it further... if technology had not given us firearms for offense defense they would not be an issue.. a bit too late now.
and "an Uzi, AK47 or an assault rifle " is actually a bit outdated anymore as there are for better technological firearms out there nowadays.
ever our own .gov won't release of the fallible AR15 base that it knows has been flawed from the start.
grins wickedly wonder why... KNows but isn't saying in this forum.

[newby]

I noted that, in the latest shooting incident in Colorado, the gunman was taken out by an armed security guard who worked for the church. Even the police had to admit that the man probably saved many lives by reacting as he did and shooting the gunman.

It has to make one wonder how many other such massacres could have been minimized of even prevented if there were more people with weapons, who knew how to use them and were willing to kill to protect others. In that incident at VT, how many would have been saved if there were even one person there who was able to shoot back?

I'm certain that security officer in Colorado feels badly that he had to kill someone. I can't believe any sane person would want to kill another human being. But I hope he will feel better knowing that he may have saved many, many people, including children. Well done!

Amen! Whether it's an armed security guard or an armed citizen, somebody needs to stop a crazed shooter. How can one blame the actions of a mad man on the right to own guns?

[Guest 91108]

I'm still having thoughts of why the church had a lone security armed security guard when they could promote the sheeple defending themselves and probably only the criminal would ahve gotten shot.. just a what if but hey enough what ifs and you get action.

If findit odd also that he hit both the christains places... agenda was?
they have not said.. yet....
still not really nothing to do with gun laws..... anyways. he got them legit.
you buy a car legit.
it's still a weapon when a DUI driver gets behind the wheel and can be a dangerous weapon charge for the car. think about it.
More die by motor vehicle with or without DUI in a year than firearms in this country a fact not many like who oppose ownership.

And another thing that is winning in courts across the country is the idea of those law abiding citizens who have been denied the right to gun ownership are fighting back - calling themselves second rate citizens of less importance.. and they are starting to win increasingly rates in court proceedings.
food for thought.

[ThisYouWillDo]

I don't know if it's true that there's a link between gun-owning and poverty, but I can easily believe it. As for the link between killing and religious fervour, you only have to look at Palestine, Bagdad or Northern Ireland to see that's true. Basically, guns are needed to force your views on others ... or else!

It is suggested that this debate has not been reignited by the latest killings, but by people with an agenda [to impose stricter gun laws]. Nonsense! Of course the killings started it all over again. But it probably was the anti-gun lobby that started it. Why would people who support the right to have guns want to? The time for the gun lobby to start trumpeting about the right to bear arms isn't after a mass killing, it's when a little old lady chases away unarmed burglars with a shotgun. That, they would say, proves the right to have a gun is necessary. (Over here, little old ladies have chased intruders away with broomsticks. Isn't that much better?)

It is said that any new controls laws are doomed to failure because the existing laws don't work. Does that apply to all legislation: if a law doesn't work, then it's too bad, you can't try to improve it? That sounds like BS to me!

It has also been asserted that the problem is neither the guns nor poverty, but the fact that people as a whole lack compassion for their fellow man and have ceased to be part of society. What a searing indictment of society - American society, that is. And it's probably why Americans display so much paranoia; why shopkeepers keep guns under the counter; why people are scared to walk along the streets; why they carry concealed weapons, so that if someone does pull a gun on them, they have a 50:50 chance or less of surviving. They would rather someone die than lose $10 or a credit card. It's probably why they think it's so important to be able to defend their property against intruders, even by taking life without bothering to find out if the intruder is armed. That way, every situation is turned into a kill-or-be-killed incident and the intruder has little choice but to arm himself beforehand.

(Here's a tip for those of you who care whether you kill an unarmed man or not: if he has a gun in his hand, he's armed; if his hands are empty, or just full of swag, then he isn't.)

I admit that I'm never going to understand why it's important to have the right to carry guns. I'm perfectly happy to be prevented from owning one, and I feel safer too. I do run the risk of being mugged still, or of being involved in an armed robbery, but I am confident that I will survive unless I do something stupid, like trying to shove the man's nasal bones back into his brain. I've never been trained to kill, with weapons or without them, so I'd get it wrong if I tried. Over here we try to defuse tense situations, not inflame them. We have fewer deaths as a result.

As Mkemse says, there is no valid reason for an ordinary citizen to own automatic or semi automatic weapons. None at all. They are not for target shooting, because you spray the weapons as you fire them (killing any unfortunate person in the way, innocent or guilty - guns do not discriminate). They are not for hunting, unless you like your meat minced "on the bone". They have no other purpose than killing people, and, normally, a citizen in a civilised society has no reason to kill another person, or to expect to have to kill one.

But there are some who think anyone should be able to have any weapon they want. Why? Who are they afraid of? Are the burglars in USA all soldiers? One wonders whether this right extends to the right to have a nuclear bomb? If not, why not? And I just do not buy the argument that, by owning a gun, the government is prevented from usurping the rights and freedoms of citizens. It's drivel!

George Washington has been mentioned as someone who would carry an automatic weapon now. Remember, at first George Washington was a traitor and a rebel. Maybe what grew out of his actions was a good thing, but he needed to be armed because of the dangerous path he chose to go down. And he caused a lot of men to die. Not for freedom: Americans are no freer than Britons. They died to take power away from the existing government and give it to him.

I didn't mention the Colorado shooting in my list above ... I wonder who this shooter was defending himself from. It was right that the shooter was killed to prevent further deaths and fortunate that someone was around who was able to do so. But a private security man? That's an armed civilian! Where were the police? If they are policing a land where every other person seems to be "packing heat" the police should be everywhere so that they don't lose control. Mind you - you'd have to pay for it in your taxes.

I don't want to go near the fact that the armed security man was employed by a religious group. I'm horrified!

Is a car a weapon? No more than a pencil is. Both can kill, but neither is designed for killing. They have useful functions that are peaceful. A driver who is drunk may be dangerous, but he won't want to kill everyone in a shopping mall or a school; in fact he won't want to kill anyone. So the comparison is fatuous.

A gun is designed for killing. That's it's real function and purpose, although I suppose you could use it as a paperweight too. But if you allow it into the hands of a lunatic, you are asking for trouble. And you're likely to get it sooner or later. Maybe five or six time a year. Dozens of innocent lives lost - but - hey - it's OK for anyone to own guns, just in case George Bush goes off his head.

Talk about burying your head in the sand ...

TYWD

[TomOfSweden]

The conflict here doesn't seem to hinge on whether or not popular ownership of guns make the world safer, but if we can trust our state to protect us. I'd say it's a moot point because guns are only a tiny part of what warfare is about.

[Thorne]

And it's probably why Americans display so much paranoia; why shopkeepers keep guns under the counter; why people are scared to walk along the streets;
No, they keep guns under the counter because, after the third or fifth or tenth time they've been robbed they get sick of working their asses off all day every day only to have some asshole drug addict with a pistol steal every cent they've got. They're tired of reporting robberies to the police only to have the case go cold after a week or two. What do you suggest they do? They can't get insurance anymore because they've been robbed too many times; the police are helpless; they're struggling to keep their families secure. Why let some shithead with a habit have everything. Or maybe the shopkeepers should just give up and take up robbing other people's stores?

You rattle on about risking one's life for $10 or a credit card, yet that is exactly what the criminals are doing! I say give them what they really want. Shoot them first. And shoot to kill. Save the government the cost of a trial and, assuming the criminal doesn't get off on a stupid technicality, the cost of keeping him in prison.

You say you can't tolerate the idea of killing someone over a little money. Fine. Why don't you hand out your address and let the criminals come and rob you? They won't even need to bring a weapon. Just shout out, "This is a robbery! Give me all your money!" Then they will be happy, since they have your money. You will be happy because nobody got hurt. And you can go find another job to make enough money to make your ******** payment next month.

Sheesh!

[ThisYouWillDo]

No, they keep guns under the counter because, after the third or fifth or tenth time they've been robbed they get sick of working their asses off all day every day only to have some asshole drug addict with a pistol steal every cent they've got.

So ... they didn't get killed the first ten times? That kinda blows a hole in your earlier arguments, doesn't it?

They're tired of reporting robberies to the police only to have the case go cold after a week or two. What do you suggest they do?

I believe the top police jobs are political appointments in USA. Either vote the incompetents out or make it a professional job where people are more interested in crime prevention than political power. Anyway, you should be creating Merry Hell if your police can't be arsed to respond to armed robberies.

However, if you're telling me that American society is not, in fact, a civilised society, then I admit that the law of the jungle prevails and one savage is entitled to kill another for any reason he likes, and therefore he may keep whatever weapons he choses. I have been arguing on the assumption that most Americans were law-abiding people and had a high moral code and valued the sanctity of life. Alas, it seems killing's just a way of life over there. (I've cancelled by booking to Vegas; I'll visit Canada instead.)

They can't get insurance anymore because they've been robbed too many times; the police are helpless; they're struggling to keep their families secure. Why let some shithead with a habit have everything. Or maybe the shopkeepers should just give up and take up robbing other people's stores?

If I were a shopkeeper facing that kind of problem, and got no support from the police, and couldn't get insurance, I'd seriously consider whether I should keep my store open, or if I should relocate it to a safer area. Perhaps change my job. I've done that before, even when my life wasn't at risk. To my way of thinking, no job is worth risking your life for, at least, no civilian job is. And no amount of cash in the till is worth dying for either.

OK - so that isn't the macho response you seem to admire, but it's the sensible one. Because, even if you do have a gun under the counter, the chances are you won't be able to use it. The intruder will already have realised the possibility you'll have one stashed away somewhere and will be watching for any sudden movement. Your own statistics indicate you have only a small chance of surviving if you do go for it.

You rattle on about risking one's life for $10 or a credit card, yet that is exactly what the criminals are doing! I say give them what they really want. Shoot them first. And shoot to kill. Save the government the cost of a trial and, assuming the criminal doesn't get off on a stupid technicality, the cost of keeping him in prison.

Criminals are desperate. and the ones you're talking about - the junkies - are beyond caring who lives or dies. Just because they have nothing to lose doesn't mean you haven't either.

Over here, in a more civilised society than yours appears to be, if you kill a person without justification, you're guilty of murder. And rightly so. Robbery is no justification for killing. Not even armed robbery if you believe the weapon is being used to intimidate rather than as a serious threat. And it's not enough to say the person you killed had a scary demeanour and you didn't really check to see if he had a gun or not, you have got to really believe your life is in danger and that the only way to avert it is to kill your attacker.

You say you can't tolerate the idea of killing someone over a little money.

Not my words exactly, but never mind.

Fine. Why don't you hand out your address and let the criminals come and rob you? They won't even need to bring a weapon. Just shout out, "This is a robbery! Give me all your money!"

Now you're just being bloody stupid. I'd expect that from some of the posters here, but not from you.

And the majority of robberies in Britain are commited without guns

Then they will be happy, since they have your money. You will be happy because nobody got hurt. And you can go find another job to make enough money to make your ******** payment next month.

My what payment? But at least I'll be alive to do that.

Sheesh!

Whatever!




The conflict here doesn't seem to hinge on whether or not popular ownership of guns make the world safer, but if we can trust our state to protect us. I'd say it's a moot point because guns are only a tiny part of what warfare is about.

And that's exactly what we're doing: mooting.

My position is that a state that allows its citizens unfettered freedom to carry guns for no other reason than (ultimately) to kill another citizen on a whim or a fanciful notion that they are about to be killed themselves is derelict in its duty to ensure all citizens can live freely and peacefully. Everyone else seems to favour raw carnage. I blame their parents for allowing them to stay up late and watch X-rated films on telly.

[TomOfSweden]

And that's exactly what we're doing: mooting.

I'm great at mooting. Moot moot.



My position is that a state that allows its citizens unfettered freedom to carry guns for no other reason than (ultimately) to kill another citizen on a whim or a fanciful notion that they are about to be killed themselves is derelict in its duty to ensure all citizens can live freely and peacefully. Everyone else seems to favour raw carnage. I blame their parents for allowing them to stay up late and watch X-rated films on telly.

What about computer games? Or computer gaymes?

[ThisYouWillDo]

Call me ageist: I was thinking of my own childhood.