Finally!

A just decision by the Supreme Court.

The right to keep and bear arms, is an individual right, without regard to any type of membership in any militia.

What say you gun grabbers now?

Amen :)

Now if they would just loosen the concealed carry laws things would be better yet ;)

No response from anyone opposed to this decision huh?

Your silence is deafening, I guess everyone agrees that this was a monumental decision, and that it was decided correctly.

It was about time this issue was finally settled.

I only did start reading the decision (it is 150+pages so it will take time . I did read all of the capital punishment case yesterday so my mind is kind of SCOTUSed out ). On the surface it appears that Scalia did leave wiggle room for the regulation of guns so the 2nd Amendment is not quite absolute. DC can't ban guns in the home . But they can make licensing them a nightmare.

However this is victory . The good people of Washington DC do not have to be compelled into victim status. Rick is right that conceal and carry laws need to be loosened .

Obviously, the folks who want our entire society disarmed, will never stop trying to find a way to do so.

Just the fact that they decided that this was an individual right, has put a huge wrench in the gun grabbers fan.

You are right, they will continue, in fact, they are already trying to work on specific attacks on ammunition, I'm sure that these type back door efforts will increase now that this decision has been made.

Yes, I am only saddened they did not get more specific at what limits can be put.

What this ruling finally did was put to rest this phony argument that the 2nd is not for individuals but to arm "well regulated militias".

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. " James Madison

Progun

I think your name scared the gun grabbers away. I totally agree with the decision that we have the right to have our guns to defend our homes... now we need the right to defend ourselves when we are not home..

Work on that with them will you? I spend a lot of time in remote mountain ranges... would like to have my weapon in my ATV (without being arrested for doing so if caught).

Shirley

I am fairly active in the support of our second amendment rights.

As to concealed carry, there is much to be done in that regard as well.

I don't understand the mentality that can't comprehend that it is a good thing, for the criminal to have to worry about his victim being armed, and not just the other way around.

Wouldn't you be allowed to have your firearm with you in those mountain regions just as long as you don't have it concealed?

Unless it is designated as a State or Federal Park that is.

You know, were it not for the two Justices appointed by George Bush, we would no longer have any second amendment rights?

"Wiping the sweat off my forehead" That was a very close call, was it not?

Gee, I wonder what type of Justices Obama might appoint should he be elected?

I don't know about Obama, I really don't like anyone running for president at all. Can I vote none of the above on my vote?

I am in National Forest land and no I cannot carry a gun there , I might be mistaken for Claude Dallas (who by the way got a bad deal in my books).

I do, however, carry a small hand axe with a bungie within hand reach. I carry it in case I need to clear limbs out of the way of my ATV as a safety measure and I have a tire Iron in case I need to change my tire if it goes flat, also a safety measure and a small fire extinguisher in case I spot a fire.

Shirley

Yeah, National Forest, no guns there, for the law abiding that is.

I'm sure that any criminal, or, anyone with criminal intent, checks their firearms with the Park Ranger just as they arrive there, right?

Be Safe!

I really don't see how this affects me at all. I don't own a single registered firearm. I also make ammunition purchases in cash at locations and quantities that ID's aren't necessary. Everyone should have the capability to load their own ammunition too, just in case.

You don't see how this effected you?

My friend, this effected every citizen in this Great Nation!

Had this decision gone the other way, as it would have, without the Justices appointed by Bush, we would no longer have a second amendment right to possess firearms at all.

How could this decision NOT effect you, and everyone else in America?

Perhaps you were not aware that the Libs/Dems wanted to eliminate the Second Amendment from our Constitution COMPLETELY?

And if that failed, wanted at the very least, to get a ruling that it only applied to members of a militia, and not to every individual law abiding citizen in the USA.

This was a HUGE decision, with long term benefits to EVERY citizen.

http://bp1.blogger.com/_Xn_O-mM2sFk/SGPOYpkmn0I/AAAAAAAABmQ/H5ng2RaRt78/s400/HESTONColddead-fp.jpg

Page 61 of the decision :




It is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon. There are many reasons that a citizen may prefer a handgun for home defense: It is easier to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency; It cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by an attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upperbody strength to lift and aim a long gun; it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police. Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.

It's sad that it had to be fought out in court in the first place. It's sad that there are pricks on this planet that want to control other people lives and limit their rights. I don't celebrate the outcome of the case. Either way, I'm keeping my guns whether they like it or not.

Hello again, Prog:

OMG, THAT'S what Progunr means?? If'in I knew that, I'd be calling you gundude. Now, we're going to have to get reintroduced.

Progundude, I'm excon, a supporter of our great Constitution. That includes ALL the Amendments - even the ones you don't like. Yes, they finally DID get it right.

I really never could figure out what prog meant anyway. I'm not good at scrabble.

excon

Hello again, Prog:

OMG, THAT'S what Progunr means??? If'in I knew that, I'd be calling you gundude. Now, we're gonna have to get reintroduced.

Progundude, I'm excon, a supporter of our great Constitution. That includes ALL the Amendments - even the ones you don't like. Yes, they finally DID get it right.

I really never could figure out what prog meant anyway. I'm not good at scrabble.

excon

I really don't have any issues with any of the amendments, so we are on the same page in that regard.

Yeah, it is the spelling error that throws folks off, it is left over from an old personal license plate, that was limited to only 7 letters.

Have to admit, I was holding my breath as the decision was being read.

You know if everyone hada gun, criminals would know that if they tried to shoot they'd get shot, thus lowering crime! No duh. Now I do think we should have background checks, so we make sure we don't hand out a gun to someone criminally insane, or someone who has a record. But yeah we should be allowed to have guns, I mean our police force isn't always going to be there before some lunitic kills someone, I mean if we had guns we could stop him. All right all right there, finally I have told the world how I feel about guns. Whew I feel better.

oh wow I just thought progunr was some random letters strung together, I had noideait meant pro gun,OK now I feel silly.

Obviously, the folks who want our entire society disarmed, will never stop trying to find a way to do so.

While I do not deny that there are extreme elements in our society that want everyone "disarmed", they are no worse or prevalent then the opposite extreme that wants a wild west scenario with everyone totin' iron.

I believe that most people fall into the middle. I am not a gun owner, nor would I ever consider owning one. But I do believe that law abiding citizens should have the right to own firearms for protection or sport if they choose to. Without reading the full decision, my belief is that the intent of the court was to affirm an individual's right own a weapon for protection of their property. But that doesn't mean that such possession can't be subject to licensing and registration. Nor does the decision allow people to walk around armed.

The real importance of the decision was that it affirmed the individual right and removed qualification of a militia.

There appears to be a paranoia on the part of many gun enthusiasts that the gun control advocates want to take their guns away completely. This paranoia causes them to fight any reasonable attempts to regulate gun ownership. The result is incidents like Va Tech.

It is my belief that if the gun lobby got behind REASONABLE attempts to prevent guns from getting into the hands of people like the Va Tech shooter, then they would be helping people who want guns get them and they would be forestalling more onerous attempts at gun control.

Sorry but the argument that a gun totin populace would put the fear into criminals is totally ridiculous. Carrying a gun gives the carrier a false sense of security and bravado be they law abiding citizen or criminal. The real result of the wild west syndrome would be the death or injury of loads of innocent people who would get caught in the crossfire.

The criminals and the bad people that want to hurt other people will get guns even if they are regulated, controlled, taken away, what ever is done.:(

Not getting my guns period! :mad:

I believe it is my right to have it and I believe that those that shouldn't have a gun will have them anyway.:rolleyes:

I do think those that have guns should take the time to learn how to use them.. take a course on gun safety, go out and practice. I spent a lot of time practicing before my late husband let me have a gun of my own. Now I have mine and his and I am keeping them all.

Shirley

Most of what you say, I agree with.

Are you aware that the left has actually tried to get legislation passed that would have
Completely eliminated the Second Amendment?

There are fanatics on both sides, and both sides tend to get carried away at times.

The real truth here is yes, it is an individual right, decided correctly.

Just one more bad Justice appointment could have changed the entire story, so I feel the people in favor of the second amendment can never just sit back, we must remain constantly vigilant to the threat the left has on this right.

They will never stop trying to take it away from us. Ever.

Fear the government, that fears your guns.

Edited for additional comment: This was for ScottGem, got a lot of busy posts while I was typing this one.

Sorry but the argument that a gun totin populace would put the fear into criminals is totally ridiculous. Carrying a gun gives the carrier a false sense of security and bravado be they law abiding citizen or criminal. The real result of the wild west syndrome would be the death or injury of loads of innocent people who would get caught in the crossfire.

One only has to look at the drop in violent crime, in areas that have adopted a more liberal concealed carry policy.

While in some areas, the drop seems insignificant, there is a drop, and the thing they never include in the statistics is how many crimes were thwarted by just the fact that the intended victim had a firearm, and was able to diffuse the situation without anyone being shot, and that crime having never been reported.

Let the criminals worry about weather I have a gun or not, for a change!

The more honest, law abiding citizens, that carry a concealed weapon, the better off our country will be.

I carry one every day.

One only has to look at the drop in violent crime, in areas that have adopted a more liberal concealed carry policy.


And where is that? And how many people have been killed or injured in the crossfilre? Sorry, but I don't think there is any convincing statistical correlation. If you want statistics, I believe you will find that countries with more stringent gun control laws then the US has enjoy a much lower crime rate. I believe that more people have been killed or hurt by the criminal side of a gun battle than vice versa.

I know I personally would feel a lot less safe and a lot less comfortable, knowing that more and more citiznes were carrying concealed firearms.

And where is that? And how many people have been killed or injured in the crossfilre? Sorry, but I don't think there is any convincing statistical correlation. If you want statistics, I believe you will find that countires with more stringent gun control laws then the US has enjoy a much lower crime rate. I beleive that more people have been killed or hurt by the criminal side of a gun battle than vice versa.

I know I personally would feel a lot less safe and a lot less comfortable, knowing that more and more citiznes were carrying concealed firearms.

We certainly hold an opposing view on this issue.

If I were in a shopping mall, and some idiot decided that he was going to go out in a blaze of glory, shooting random victims, just so he can have is photo in the news the next day, I would PRAY TO GOD, that if I was not armed, someone there would be, and that the situation would be ended in 2 minutes, rather than the 20 to 30 it would take for the police to even enter the crime scene to start removing the dead.

As to the counties that have lower crime, they also have real justice, kill someone, you get killed, tomorrow, not 30 years from now. Not to mention, they have in most cases had anti gun laws long enough that the entire criminal element there is not armed to the hilt, while the law abiding public has nothing to defend themselves with.

If you are sane, and have not broken any serious laws, I WANT you to be armed!

Progun... well said.. I totally agree with your last post.

I would feel much safer if I knew the criminals though more people were carrying guns they would think twice about assulting someone as they would not know who had guns and since they are all cowards anyway they would not want to take the chance.

If I were a criminal and everyone was carrying a gun I would think twice.

At least if I have a gun I have a 50/50 chance against a criminal with one, if I don't and he does.. I am toast.

Shirley

yes! Because people won't be like the mall shooter shooting randomly they'll be shooting at ONE person, and maybe you could hurt someone in cross fire, but in the end less people will die.
and criminals don't careif its illegal to buy a gun (that why they are called criminals) they'll get in anyway, and the black market will make a killing selling illegal guns. Thus more criminals have guns, less civillians can defend themselves, ultimatly MORE DEATHS.

I would feel much safer if I knew the criminals though more people were carrying guns they would think twice about assulting someone as they would not know who had guns and since they are all cowards anyway they would not want to take the chance.

If I were a criminal and everyone was carrying a gun I would think twice.


That would be great if it really happened. The fact is it don't happen. You obvious don't have much experience with the criminal mentality. Sure YOU would think twice, but most criminals wouldn't. If they did they wouldn't become criminals.

There was a case on LI yesterday of a bunch of teens who decided to emulate the GTA game and went on a rampage. They beat up one man, attempted to car jack a woman and caused other damage. Do you really think they would have been deterred by the thought that they might attack someone carrying a gun? If they weren't deterred by winding up in jail for several years, why would they even think about encountering someone with a gun?

No, there is just no credible or convincing evidence that a gun toting populace would serve as a deterrant.

and criminals don't careif its illegal to buy a gun (that why they are called criminals) they'll get in anyway, and the black market will make a killing selling illegal guns.

Exactly, criminals don't care about the law and they don't think they will get caught. Otherwise they wouldn't be criminals.



thus more criminals have guns, less civillians can defend themselves, ultimatly MORE DEATHS.

Sorry but your logic is faulty. Gun battles result in more deaths, not less. And more innocent deaths. I remember seeing a study that showed more homeowners were killed when they tried using a gun to defend themseleves than in homes where they didn't have a gun.

It's a pipe dream to think that criminals would be deterred by an armed populace.

Look scottgem,
OK maybe they wouldn't care if people had a gun, BUT they would be stopped before ethey got away. Plus most of them will think twice cause they just want to have fun, but its not fun if you get caught.
Yes admittedly the crazy ones will still do it and won't care but like I said before we civillians can stop them, and I do believe that those car jackers would stop if a gun was ponited at there head. Thus it would deteer the outcome.

OK say you were a ciminal, if you knew no one had anyguns and you want to like I don't know, preform armed robbery, you'd do it cause you knew youi wouldn't get caught, and no one could hurt you.
IF you knew there was a high probablility that they were armed would you stll do it? Because you could probably get killed, or hurt, and thrown jail.

For ScottGem,

I didn't have any statistics immediately available, I was not ignoring that request.

Here is some stuff for you to look at, if you want. Given enough time, I could produce more information on this topic, than most of us could read in one day.

Myth: Concealed carry laws increase crime
Fact: Forty states1, comprising the majority of the American population, are "right-to-carry"
States. Statistics show that in these states the crime rate fell
(or did not rise) after the right-to carry
Law became active (as of July, 2006). Nine states deny or restrict the right to carry.
Fact: Crime rates involving gun owners with carry permits have consistently been about 0.02%
Of all carry permit holders since Florida's right-to-carry law started in 1988.
Fact: After passing their concealed carry law, Florida's homicide rate fell from 36% above the
National average to 4% below, and remains it below the national average (as of the last reporting
Period, 2005).
Fact: The serious crime rate in Texas fell 50% faster than the national average after Texas
Passed a concealed carry law in 1995.
Fact: When citizens are allowed to carry concealed weapons:
• Murder rates drop 8%
• Rape rates fall 5%
• Aggravated assaults drop 7%
Fact: More to the point, crime is significantly higher in states without right-to-carry laws
Fact: States that disallow concealed carry have violent crime rates 11% higher than national
Averages.
Fact: Deaths and injuries from mass
Public shootings fall dramatically after
Right-to-carry concealed handgun laws
Are enacted. Between 1977 and 1995, the
Average death rate from mass shootings
Plummeted by up to 91% after such laws
Went into effect, and injuries dropped by
Over 80%.

Myth: People with concealed weapons permits will commit
Crimes
Fact: The results for the first
30 states that passed “shallissue”
Laws for concealed carry
Permits are similar. Here are
Some specific cases:
Fact: People with concealed
Carry permits are:
• 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for violent offenses than the general public
• 13.5 times less likely to be arrested for non-violent offenses than the general public
Fact: In Texas, citizens with concealed carry permits are 14 times less likely to commit a crime.
They are also five times less likely to commit a violent crime.
Fact: Even gun control organizations agree it is a non-problem, as in Texas – “because there
Haven't been Wild West shootouts in the streets”.
Fact: Of 14,000 CCW licensees in Oregon, only 4 (0.03%) were convicted of the criminal (not
Necessarily violent) use or possession of a firearm.
Fact: In Florida, a state that has allowed concealed carry since late 1987, you are twice as likely
To be attacked by an alligator as by a person with a concealed carry permit.
Myth: CCWs will lead to mass public shootings
Fact: Multiple victim public
Shootings drop in states that
Pass shall-issue CCW
Legislation.
Myth: People do
Not need
Concealable
Weapons
Fact: In 80% of gun
Defenses, the defender used a
Concealable handgun. A
Quarter of the gun defenses
Occurred in places away from
The defender's home.18
Fact: 77% of all violent crime occurs in public places.19 This makes concealed carry necessary
For almost all self-defense needs. But due to onerous laws forbidding concealed carry, only
26.8% of defensive gun uses occurred away from home.20
Fact: Often, small weapons that are capable of being concealed are the only ones usable by
People of small stature or with physical disabilities.
Fact: The average citizen doesn't need a Sport Utility Vehicle, but driving one is arguably safer
Than driving other vehicles. Similarly, carrying a concealable gun makes the owner – and his or
Her community – safer by providing protection not otherwise available.
Myth: Police are against concealed carrying by citizens
Fact: 66% of police chiefs believe that citizens carrying concealed firearms reduce rates of
violent crime.
Fact: “All the horror stories I thought would come to pass didn't happen... I think it's worked
Out well, and that says good things about the citizens who have permits. I'm a convert.”
Fact: “I... [felt] that such legislation present[ed] a clear and present danger to law-abiding
Citizens by placing more handguns on our streets. Boy was I wrong. Our experience in Harris
County, and indeed statewide, has proven my fears absolutely groundless”.
Fact: Explain this to the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, Second Amendment Police
Department, and Law Enforcement for the Preservation of the Second Amendment, all of whom
Support shall-issue concealed carry laws.

* 4 months ago

Source(s):
http://www.gunfacts.info/pd...

Hello Scott:

I actually think criminals DO care if they get shot.

Let's say there was a block of houses that had no signs in their yards. In the next block over, they had signs saying they have burglar alarms installed. The next block has signs saying they have firearms in their homes.

Which ones do you think will get broken into more often?

excon

First to Progunr,
I couldn't get to that link, but it appears to be a pro-gun site so I suspect their viewpoint and statisitics are slightly skewed. I find the "myths" it cites show this since I never even considered most them.

I notice no statisitcs about how many innocents are hurt in these situations.

To sonador (and excon)
People commit crimes for three reasons:
1) Desperation
2) The rush (high) of committing a crime
3) Opportunity/temptation

A person who is desperate is really not going to consider the dangers of what they are doing. If they did they wouldn't be that desperate.

Someone committing a crime because of the rush or high it gives them is also not going to worry about the dangers. Just the opposite, the danger is part of what makes them commit crimes.

And the person who commits a crime of opportunity just doesn't think, they act on impulse.

So it just not logical to think the possibility of getting into a gun battle is going deter a real criminal.

The fact is that there is high probability that, if you commit a crime you will be caught, whether because of a gun toting civilan or police action. Yet that doesn't seem to deter people bent on committing crimes. You are thinking like an honest person and criminals don't think that way.

most people are not trained to deal with a gun battle. In fact the criminal is often more trained then the civilian. So the greater likelihood is that the civilian or an innocent bystander gets hurt.

I get a big laugh out of gun owners who suddenly feel they are protected by having guns in their home. Very few actually have ever used a gun to kill someone with and very few even use guns for hunting. It's kind of like owning a pit bull as a means to tell everyone how macho they are. Certainly we do not need guns to protect us from invasion or social unrest. I mean how many in this country are actually affected by the riots in LA or Chicago. Oh the gang bangers have guns but should they ? Heck, even gun enthusiasts such as Cheney can't handle them safely. I don't keep any registered firearms, and am quite comfortable with the weapons I have to defend me from any outside threat. The scariest person I have ever encountered here, was a frightened young pint sized cop making his very first traffic stop. I was afraid I might need to disarm him to keep him from hurting someone by accident.

I don't believe that the military could ever get a consensus of troops that would take over this country by force. For every radical group, there is one just as radical that opposes their views. In order to combat crime, we must either require EVERY person to be armed at all times, or take guns away from people who have no business with them. It's coming time to grow up in this country and start acting like the civilized nation we purport ourselves to be.

OK scott,
Look yeah SOME criminals won't care. But they'll hurt people, and the fact that they don't care makes them that more dangerous. And wheather or not they care doesn't matter, when a crazy person is trying to kill you or someone else I want to be able to defend myself, and when I get a gun I will learn how to use it responibly, and I will get training in it. In my opinion when there's someone shooting I don't want to wait for the police to come, while he kills more innocent people. We want to stop them BEFORE they hurt ANYONE, but calling the police takes time, and it takes time for them to come. The time the criminal needs to get away. And most most criminals care, some do it for a high, but seriouly who cares? I want to stop them, to keep them from hurting people. I want to defend myself, go look up the statistics, go do whatever. But the fact is we have the right. The right our forefathers gave us, and it would be disrespectful to take it away,that's telling them they made a mistake, when in truth they put it there so it couldn't be taken away, and it shouldn't.

Well I will say that it has been showned time and time again those with carrry permits do not do crimes with their guns and have not had any problems with their proper use. And the issue about young police officer I would say is sort of hard to believe since first a police officer goes though months of training, a lot of it with their weapon and a lot of practice in when and how to use it. Also they will spend several months with a training officer in the field before they are ever on their own.

And as a former police officer the most dangerous thing most police officers do is a traffic stop, Most officers who are hurt in the line of duty are done so doing a traffic stop. Two of my best friends who I went though the GA state academy with have been killed in the past 7 years doing traffic stops and I have already been to two other funerals from officers doing traffic stops. During one traffic stop I had my car rammed by the other car and 4 men with guns decide they did not agree with the traffic stop.

I have shot at a person before, and have pulled my weapon numerous times and have to point it in making several felony arrests.

I want to live here.

YouTube - WESTWORLD TRAILER YUL BRYNNER (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3vBdh2e4Lo&feature=related)

I carried, slept with, cleaned, ate with, bathed with, and yes used many weapons for a period. I was fortunate in acquiring insight that I cannot explain that told me when danger was near. Unfortunately, small people tend to have less mettle than large ones. Nervous people with weapons make me very agitated. Police do shoot people here in Las Vegas and many police officers do become involved in confrontations. Recently a woman was killed by a Henderson Officer under questionable circumstances. He was the only one of several officers present that did fire. As I stated before, even those who are supposedly expert mishandle weapons routinely. I am much more comfortable when the guns are on the ground, and I've personally cleared them. In training we were told that it's not the bullet that has your name on it that you worry about. It's the one marked "To whom it may concern".

Last year, a rookie officer of Las Vegas Metro, went wiggy and started shooting at passing people, he was killed by other police officers. All the training in the world doesn't mean the guy with the gun is sane or normal. In fact, I believe people that want to carry a gun are a bit "off" in the first place.

I think there should be strict tests and training when getting a gun. I think we should not allow people who are diagnosed with depression to own guns, and people who have committed crimes to have guns. I am all for strict rules to make sure some wacko doesn't go on a shooting spree. But all in all ithink we should be allowed to have guns.

There are rules, those with mental illness and those that have committed felonies can not purchase guns.

Well then their doing at least one thing right!

First I want to say I have been very impressed by you. You display a great deal of maturity beyond your years. However, you are off here.


and most most criminals care,

That's my point, most criminals don't care. If they cared they wouldn't commit crimes in the first place.


but the fact is we have the right. the right our forefathers gave us, and it would be disrespectful to take it away,thats telling them they made a mistake, when in truth they put it there so it couldn't be taken away, and it shouldn't.

Here, again you are wrong. The Court decision was specifric here. It affirned the right of an individual to own a gun to protect their homes. It did NOT affirm any right to carry a gun around.

That's my point, most criminals don't care. If they cared they wouldn't commit crimes in the first place.
from scott gem


You know criminals they commit the crime cause they think they won't get caught. Andcriminals aren't all sad people who really don't care. Even the ones who do it for a high they don't want to get caught. And really if they are committing a crime. Look I think youi should look up criminal psychology, cause I am pretty sure some of them care if they get caught or not.
Even if they didn't care, that doesn't change the fact that they are committing a crime, and we have the right to defend ourselves.
And crimes DO go down when more civillians have guns. That is a fact.

There are rules, those with mental illness and those that have committed felonies can not purchase guns.

Tell that to the parents of the Va Tech victims! Tell that to the victims of the LIRR killer! Shall I go on?


well then their doing at least one thing right!

Obviously they are not doing something right. This is a point I tried to make in my first response here. The gun lobby has fought tooth and nail against ANY attempt to regulate gun ownership. The result is that people like the LIRR killer can stay for 2 weeks in a motel near LA and qualify to buy a gun. Or a student who was diagnosed with mental disorders could buy a gun.

I am not against honest, responsible citizens owning guns. But if such people want a gun, I don't see why it's a big deal for them to have to undergo a THOROUGH background check and to show that they have undergone some training in the use of the weapon. After all, you can't get a driver's license without showing some training and cars kill more people than guns.

Look that was a tragic inncident, and I sympethaize this why I feel so strongly about having it be very hard to get a gun. I don't know exactly how he got a gun. But we shouldn't abolish guns, just cause of that.
Look people will make mistakes and no system is perfect but we have to weigh the pros and the cons.

I actually think it would not have mattered either way. Guns are so commonplace today, it would be easier to deport all the illegal aliens than confiscate the guns. There are many other weapons available anyway. It's been proved in Iraq that IED's are as or more effective against an armed force than guns. Zip guns are made with tubing(car antenna, clothespin and tape) The discussion made several valid well presented points. I think the close decision in favor of gun ownership was inevitable. I am saddened by the ease guns are obtained and most guns people have are only meant for killing people. For several reasons, I no longer support the taking of human life as I once did. And hoped that we might be rising above that at some point in time.

look i think youi should look up criminal psychology, cause i am pretty sure some of them care if they get caught or not.
.

I think YOU need to bone up on criminal psychology because I already have. That's why I've posted what I've posted. While, it may be true that, in some places where carry regs are more relaxed, that crime has gone down. I'm not sure there is a direct correlation. There may be other factors that have contributed to the decline.

Look I am ALL for through background checks. And training that is required to be retaken every five or so years. I think it should be really hard to get a gun. I am on the same page with you on that.
And as for the criminal pyc stuff, lets agree to disargree. I mean who really knows what's going through these guys heads anyway.
And I think there is a direct cooralation. It makes sense crimes would go down if everyone has a gun. Not to suggest everyone should have a gun, I mean that's your choice but youi should have the right to.

and as for the criminal pyc stuff, lets agree to disargree. i mean who really knows whats going through these guys heads anyway.

Sorry, but this isn't a matter of disagreeing. When you have done some studying and reading about the criminal psyche, then maybe we can discuss it further. Right now you really don't know what you are talking about.

Obviouly, look I'll read some stuff. I guess I shouldn't say stuff without reading up on it first. OK so maybe I don't know what I am talking about, but I don't know, I get this feeling that I am at least a little right. But maybe that's just me. Well this disscussion was fun. Man I don't get to voice my oppinions very often. Well, I still believe what I believe. And I'll just keep doing that.

[QUOTE=progunr]Unless it is designated as a State or Federal Park that is.[QUOTE]

Fed Parks and Fish & Game are considering easing the rules so that if you're allowed to carry in the state where the Park/refuge is, you're allowed to carry in the Park. They're taking public comments on this now (I think deadline is June 30). Go to redirect (http://www.regulations.gov) and under proposals for comment, type RIN 1024-AD70 in search box. That will take you to the page so you can put your 2 cents in. (Just realized there's no 'cents' symbol on the keyboard <G>) (link is for regulations.gov)

One of my probs w/ those who thought it was for militia is that Jeferson, for one, didn't like peace-time standing armies, and that's what the militia is now. At one time there were State militias but they were jobbed off to the Fed in late 40s-early 50s (I used to play with Dad's SM helmet).

If you want an organization that fights to keep the 2nd as written but don't want the NRA, try the Second Amendment Sisters. I got one of my fav Ts from them:
Firearms: the ultimate in feminine protection.

I was listening to an interview of a spokesperson for the 'Brady Coalition' who argued that the decision by SCOTUS was a good thing because it did clarify some important issues. I cannot find transcripts of it but basically his argument mirrors what Mark Kleiman ,a liberal professor writes in his blog 'The Reality-Based Community'.
The Reality-Based Community (http://www.samefacts.com/)


With any luck, taking the "gun confiscation" card out of the political pack might actually reduce the fervor of the opposition the NRA can whip up to sensible measures such as requiring background checks for gun sales by private individuals (the current rule that requires them only for purchases from gun dealers), computerizing data on which dealers are selling the guns that get used in crimes, and developing and deploying technology that would allow police to identify, from a bullet or a shell casing found at a crime scene, when, to whom, and by whom the gun that produced that metal was lawfully transferred.


Scalia made it clear in his ruling that like the 1st Amerndment the 2nd Amendment is not absolute(and all the Amendments for that matter... word to the Court that just blew the habeas rights to terrorists captured on the battlefield ).This ruling clearly removes indiscrimnate confiscation and also confirms that law enforcement agencies need serious tools with which to track and identify guns used to commit crimes.

This Heller decision is one of the rare great decisions by SCOTUS... rare indeed .

Sorry, but this isn't a matter of disagreeing. When you have done some studying and reading about the criminal psyche, then maybe we can discuss it further. Right now you really don't know what you are talking about.

Oh Scott, chill out on the poor soul with your smarter than thou routine. There are many reasons people commit crimes. From the most brazen sociopath to the average guy that kills in heated passion. Now, coming from a retired Prison guard with 20+ years working in every aspect and with every discipline related to, tell me I don't know what I'm talking about Scott.

Tell that to the parents of the Va Tech victims!

Better yet, tell them that all it would have taken, to very possibly save their son or daughters life, was for one person in that room to have been armed and able to put a stop to this mad mans rampage, if not before he even got a single shot off, at least before he fired the second, and third, and fourth, and... you get the idea.

Anyone is capable of becoming a criminal, under the right circumstances, they are not always mentally ill.

I will stand by my opinion that anyone intent on committing a crime with a gun, will avoid any victim who could possibly be armed, and will target the victim who is the least likely to be in possession of a firearm themselves.

For every statistic presented, the opposing side will always be able to find someone, or some study or form of data to show conflicting views, so again, the ability to prove beyond any doubt that either side is correct in their beliefs will never be possible.

I respect everyone's opinion on this issue, but of course, I believe that I am on the correct side of the debate.

Hello:

At the risk of redundancy, I say again, an armed society, is a polite society.

excon

Although it's a good move to follow the Constitution, they will come up with so many regulations it will confuse the issue. Because thieves take guns from homes to the streets, there will probably be laws as to the size of the weapon as well as a clearance test for the home owner and occupants. Nothing is that simple when it comes to guns. (or anything else by the government)

Oh Scott, chill out on the poor soul with your smarter than thou routine. There are many reasons people commit crimes. From the most brazen sociopath to the average guy that kills in heated passion. Now, comming from a retired Prison gaurd with 20+ years working in every aspect and with every discipline related to, tell me I don't know what I'm talking about Scott.

It has nothing to do with being smarter. Just more knowledgeable and better informed. If you notice, I said there are many reasons people commit crimes. That is undeniable. But that doesn't mean that someone committing a crime is going to be deterred by the possibility that his victim or someone nearby is armed. Yes some might, but most would not, especially if they are armed themselves.

Better yet, tell them that all it would have taken, to very possibly save their son or daughters life, was for one person in that room to have been armed and able to put a stop to this mad mans rampage, if not before he even got a single shot off, at least before he fired the second, and third, and fourth, and..........you get the idea.I will stand by my opinion that anyone intent on committing a crime with a gun, will avoid any victim who could possibly be armed, and will target the victim who is the least likely to be in possession of a firearm themselves.

Maybe, but more likely it would have just contributed to the bloodbath. Remember most of the victims were young students, not likely to be well trained in using firearms. At least that's my opinion.

And yes, criminals are well known to take the path of least resistance. If presented with two houses, one alarmed and one not alarmed which do you think they will break into?

As to arming everyone, sorry I don't want to live in fear of someone over reacting or getting caught in a crossfire.

It has nothing to do with being smarter. Just more knowledgeable and better informed. If you notice, I said there are many reasons people commit crimes. That is undeniable. But that doesn't mean that someone committing a crime is going to be deterred by the possibility that his victim or someone nearby is armed. Yes some might, but most would not, especially if they are armed themselves.

They usually try to escape from the cops before confronting them. They know the cops ain't messed up about putting a bullit in their butt. The minute you pull a gun on an armed criminal, the game changes completely.

It has nothing to do with being smarter. Just more knowledgeable and better informed. ... But that doesn't mean that someone committing a crime is going to be deterred by the possibility that his victim or someone nearby is armed.

Au contrare... not only many studies but interviews with criminals say just the opposite. Seems your info is coming from flawed sources...

Au contrare... not only many studies but interviews with criminals say just the opposite. Seems your info is coming from flawed sources....

Citations?

Here is the Brady Campaign opinion on 'Heller'. Although they disagree with the decision they find a big positive in the ruling :


Because of this Court decision, proposals such as Brady background checks on all gun sales, limiting bulk sales of handguns, restricting access to military-style assault weapons, and strengthening the power of law enforcement to shut down corrupt gun dealers can now be debated on their merits without them being seen as a “first step on the road to gun confiscation.”
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (http://www.bradycampaign.org/blog/)

Idaho is getting it right... this is how we feel about gun ownership in Idaho...

Gun Control in Greenleaf, Idaho
17 January, 2007 (11:26) | News No Responses

From: The New York Times

Last month, Greenleaf adopted Ordinance 208, calling for its citizens to own guns and keep them ready in their homes in case of emergency. This is exactly the kind of “Gun Control” legislation that is needed across America! Sure, these ordinances and statutes are largely symbolic, those that do not want to own a gun are not fined or otherwise punished. But it does send a strong message throughout the community. Criminal activity is not tolerated here and we are ready to protect ourselves and the community.

Greenleaf is following in the footsteps of Kennesaw, Ga. which in 1982 passed a mandatory gun ownership law in response to a handgun ban passed in Morton Grove, Ill. Kennesaw's crime dropped sharply, while Morton Grove's did not.

I hope to see more Idaho towns adopt measures like this. It costs the local government nothing to implement, and there is no real enforcement necessary. But the message that is sent by such laws is priceless. If the crime rate in Kennesaw, GA dropped after their “mandatory” ownership law, it is a safe bet that it will work anywhere it is implemented. Looks like it is time to make some phone calls and write a few letters…

Shirley

Hello W:

I think it's fine for gun enthusiasts to own guns. That's what the Constitution is all about. I think it's NUTS to require people to have guns who DON'T want them - absolutely, incontrovertibly, NUTS.

excon

Citations?


Here's one... and you can pull it up and check his references.

Guns and Violence: A Summary of the Field
This article is copyrighted. It was provided by the author, criminologist Gary Kleck, and is distributed with the permission of the author. It can be uploaded to other BBSs as long as it is not altered, and it may be cited as long as credit is given.

Gary Kleck
School of Criminology and Criminal Justice
Florida State University
Tallahassee, Florida 32312
Prepared for delivery at the 1991 Annual
Meeting of the American Political Science
Association, The Washington Hilton, August 29
Through September 1, 1991. Copyright by the
American Political Science Association.


The fact that armed victims can effectively disrupt crimes suggests that widespread civilian gun ownership might also deter some criminals from attempting crimes in the first place. There probably will never be definitive evidence on this deterrence question, since it revolves around the issue of how many crimes do not occur because of victim gun ownership. However, scattered evidence is consistent with a deterrence hypothesis. In prison surveys criminals report that they have refrained from committing crimes because they thought a victim might have a gun. "Natural experiments" indicate that rates of "gun deterrable" crimes have declined after various highly publicized incidents related to victim gun use, including gun training programs, incidents of defensive gun use, and passage of a law which required household gun ownership. Widespread gun ownership may also deter burglars from entering occupied homes, reducing confrontations with residents, and thereby reducing deaths and injuries. U.S. burglars are far less likely to enter occupied premises than burglars in nations with lower gun ownership.

... Victim gun use is associated with lower rates of assault or robbery victim injury and lower rates of robbery completion than any other defensive action or doing nothing to resist. Serious predatory criminals perceive a risk from victim gun use which is roughly comparable to that of criminal justice system actions, and this perception may influence their criminal behavior in socially desirable ways.

Rates of commercial robbery, residential burglary injury, and rape might be still higher than their already high levels were it not for the dangerousness of the prospective victim population. Gun ownership among prospective victims may well have as large a crime-inhibiting effect as any crime-generating effects of gun possession among prospective criminals. This could account for the failure of researchers to find a significant net relationship between rates of crime like homicide and robbery, and measures of general gun ownership - the two effects may roughly cancel each other out.

... If gun possession among prospective victims tends to reduce violence, then reducing such gun possession is not, in and of itself, a social good.

----

BTW - I must have missed the posts with your citations. What's the #s?

And I quote: "There probably will never be definitive evidence on this deterrence question".

This suggests that my sources are not flawed, but rather that there are different schools of thought on the issue.

What I find most interesting about Kleck's article is how vague and nebulous it is. He tries very hard to create an impression that gun ownership is a deterrant, while admitting it really can't be proven. This leads me to wonder what his bias may be.

But I will clarify my position a bit. I said in an earlier post that criminals will generally take the path of least resistance. If they suspect one victim is armed and another isn't, its clear who they will go after. And of course that's supported by prison surveys.

But what we are talking about here is a generally armed populace. Where the likelihood of everyone or at least a large percentage of citizens are armed. In that case there is no path of least resistance. The playing field has been leveled. In such an instance, the deterrance factor is now removed because the criminal has only the choice of commit the crime or not. And if they were not deterred by the other dangers of committing crimes, the probablity of coming up against an armed victim is not going to deter them either.

I'm still scared sh*tless of the violence in the US. I restrict my travel there to certain safe-ish areas.

I don't think deterence is a big factor here. It is the fundamental right of people to defend themselves from creeps who will prey on them or governments who would .

As to arming everyone, sorry I don't want to live in fear of someone over reacting or getting caught in a crossfire.

As to limiting the number, of honest law abiding citizens, who may own and use a weapon in self defense, I don't want to live in fear of only the criminals having easy access to a weapon.

As to limiting the number, of honest law abiding citizens, who may own and use a weapon in self defense, I don't want to live in fear of only the criminals having easy access to a weapon.

So control the flow of guns so criminals DON'T have easy access to them!

So control the flow of guns so criminals DON'T have easy access to them!

Every American has the right to keep and bear arms, for the purpose of self defense, sporting, hunting, or even just collecting.

Without infringing on this right, how would you control criminals access to them?

I already know the answer, you can't.

So, in knowing that there is no possible way to keep the criminals from obtaining and using guns to commit crimes, the obvious and most practical solution is to keep the law abiding citizens armed and able to defend themselves and their loved ones.

I think this site has some credible stats, and you shouldn't have any problem with this one, if you want, take a look.

GOA Fact Sheet-- 2004 Gun Control Facts (http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm)

I took a look and the site has a clear agenda, so its pretty skewed.

Obviously, there is a problem in keeping weapons from the hands of criminals, but I believe its doable with more stringent controls. I do not believe the answer in arming everyone. There are just too many instances of people being killed solely because they had access to a gun or got caught in the crossfire. Even if those instances do represent the minority, its still too many.

There was a recent case on LI of a home invasion where one of the residents had a shotgun, but had it knocked out of his hands and it went unnoticed. The result was no one was hurt. I doubt if that would have ended the same way had he tried to use it. Sure one of the robbers might have been hurt, but there were multiple robbers and one arned resident. The result is more likely to have been tragic.

No, I don't believe the wild west mentality is going to increase safety.

Well of course there is an agenda, you mean to say that if I find information against gun ownership, that there won't be any agenda on behalf of that source as well?

You know what, I really hope that you or your family is never put in the position to rely on 911, or the mercy of an armed criminal for your safety, or your lives. That is a risk that you can choose to take.

I'm not willing to gamble with mine.

Well of course there is an agenda, you mean to say that if I find information against gun ownership, that there won't be any agenda on behalf of that source as well?

I don't know, its certainly possible for facts to be presented dispassionately with a balanced viewpoint. But any presentation of facts that has a clear agenda is going to be biased.


You know what, I really hope that you or your family is never put in the position to rely on 911, or the mercy of an armed criminal for your safety, or your lives. That is a risk that you can choose to take.

I'm not willing to gamble with mine.


I really hope that as well. But that is a position I have chosen to take.

I also hope I am never in a situation where I'm caught in the middle between some vigilante and a criminal, where the choice is taken away from me because of the bravado of some gun toting wannabe hero.

Let me also say this. This is an issue where we basically just have to agree to disagree. I understand and respect your position. There are good arguments for your position, just as there are good arguments for mine. I don't believe there is a compelling set of facts for either side. So we both need to decide how we feel based on what we feel individually is right.

Regulation of guns is permitted according to the decision. It is a complete ban of hand guns that was struck down.


“The right to self-defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine the right within the narrowest limits possible.Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. ”
Amendment II: St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries 1:App. 300 (http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendIIs7.html)

Comments on this postprogunr (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/members/progunr.html) agrees: True enough, we will have no meeting of our minds on this one. I too respect your position, but have a difficult time in understanding it.

Well maybe if I relate an incident you might understand it a little bit better. I was driving my wife home from a doctor's vist about a month before she was due to give birth. Some idiot made a right hand turn from the left lane right in front of me. I managed to avoid hitting him just barely, but I was pissed and I followed him. He stopped and we both got out of the car and we were yelling at each other. The next thing I remember was coming to on the ground. The @#$&*@#%$ had cold cocked me with a roll of quarters.

So I understand how such incidents can get out of hand. And how allowing people to tote guns can make for more tragedies.

Look at the case on LI that was just wound up a couple of months back. Where a father was allegedly protecting his home and killed one of the attackers. But, while they were angered, they were not armed and it was not a crime situation. Had he just left his gun in the house or, better yet, stayed in the house. No one would have been hurt.

I've heard of too many similar situations to support a gun toting populace. That doesn't mean I believe in not allowing people to own guns. But I do believe ownership needs to be regulated and tracked. And I don't believe in an citizenry walking around armed.

A little road rage huh, yeah, I see that stuff happen a lot where I live too.

Last year, there was an incident right in front of one of the stores I work for.

A woman had apparently cut some guy off up the street. The line of traffic came to a stop at a red light, with the lady, and the very angry man, directly in front of me.

I watched the guy yell with his head out the window at the woman in front of him, cussing, name calling, but he seemed unable to provoke any response from her, even with his middle finger flying high.

Unsatisfied with her ignoring him, he exited his truck, fists clenched, veins popping from his head, foul language running rampant at full volume as he almost ran up to the drivers side of her car, drew his fist back, and "POP", a small caliber hand gun goes off.

He grabs his hand, starts screaming like a little girl, running into the moving lanes of traffic screaming "she shot me, she shot me"!!

The woman pulled away when the light turned green, and as far as I know, was never identified, or caught.

I believe to this day, that this bully will NEVER approach another vehicle in such a way.

I also believe that without that little pistol, this woman would have been seriously hurt, there is no doubt in my mind, and there was no doubt in hers either. She was virtually trapped, inside her vehicle, couldn't back up cause this was behind her, and she was too close to the car in front to pull away.

To quote excon, "an armed society, is a polite society".

The night manager at this same store, two years ago this coming December, while sitting at his desk, looks up to see 4 large men, walking in the door, two of them with shotguns.

It is about 50 yards from the door, to his desk, plenty of distance to react if he was armed.

He was not.

He spent 20 minutes, on the floor, with a shotgun poking him in the back of his head, while they cleaned out all the electronics, including his own personal laptop, cell phone, blackberry, and his wallet.

I carry concealed, without a permit, because it is almost impossible to get one here.

People cut me off in traffic all the time, I laugh at them, and keep my finger where it belongs, even though I know I have the upper hand, it is not worth the trouble.

I would not have been on the floor, with a shotgun to my head, and at least the 2 with a shotgun in their hands, would not be worried about going to jail either.

Knowing that I have a firearm, does not make me act stupidly, in fact, it does just the opposite. Without the gun, I believe that I would be more inclined to "start" something with the that cuts me off, but knowing that I am armed, I go out of my way to avoid any situation where the use of that firearm could become necessary.

As a responsible gun owner, I don't think I'm alone in this way of thinking.

And you really think that woman was justified in shooting? That's just the type of incident that shows gun toting should not happen. This man approached the woman unarmed. All she had to do is roll up her windows and lock the doors. When the light changed she was free to go. Granted she felt threatened, but there were other ways to deal with. What if she had mortally wounded him? Would that have been justified? Sorry, but you just helped prove my point.



Four guys, two with shotguns walk into the store. You really think, even a highly trained shooter would have been able to draw his weapon and kill the two and maybe all 4 before one of them was able to get off a shot killing him? Which do you think was a better outcome, living through the incident and losing his things or losing his life?

Again, you do more to prove my point then disprove it.

I'm sure you are a responsible gun owner, but there are too many irresponsible people out there to feel comfortable thinking they might be walking around totin'.

I am sorry, someone coming up to my car, I have no idea if they are armed or not armed, and after finding out you were wrong they are armed is not the time to say, oh, wish I had my gun with me.

Gerogia has just passed,and it goes into effect July 1st, that we can now carry our weapons on the mass transit, bus, subway and into state parks. Not that I had not carried mine all the time anyway, but at least now they are allowing them into some of the places where they know there is often no fast escape and where crime is more likely to happen.

What this ruling finally did was put to rest this phony argument that the 2nd is not for individuals but to arm "well regulated militias".

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. " James Madison

Arrghhh. That phony argument Elliot used to use against me all the time in gun debates. Oh I wish he was here to see his number one off-sider disagreeing with him! :)

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/politics/if-you-were-president-had-control-over-billions-spending-142251-2.html#post675348

There are lots of statistics in the above thread that will diasgree with the notion that an armed society is a polite one.

I think there are even more threads above that will agree with that notion.
;)


There are lots of statistics in the above thread that will diasgree with the notion that an armed society is a polite one.

Skell perhaps in Aussie there are no individual rights to own guns but our founders thought it important enough to make it the 2nd amendment in our Bill of Rights next to free speech. I suspect it is the historical difference between the two countries where the USA had to fight for it's independence ;compared to the debate I've read about there where you still have significant numbers of people who embrace the crown.

However it looks like the debate has been renewed as more and more Aussies join in the call to create a republic free of the shackles of the Queen .

“The time has come for Australia to become a republic. The old way of governing has long been creaking and groaning.''
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd , from speech at 2020 Summit, April 2008

I am sorry, someone comming up to my car, I have no idea if they are armed or not armed, and after finding out you were wrong they are armed is not the time to say, oh, wish I had my gun with me.
.

So you would be willing to kill someone on the suspicion that they were armed?

Thanks again for proving my point. This shoot first and ask questions later attitude is precisely the reason why arming the general population is a dangerous thing to do.

We have a large influx of gang members and an extremely bad drug problem with Meth and Cocaine in our area along with other things.

The citizens here are totally fed up with it and we are starting to stand up for ourselves. We have had axe murders, home invasions, people being attacked and murdered just going for a walk on our greenbelt, rapes, kidnapping, people being killed in our national forest campgrounds and the list goes on. The crimes are very violent, very horrible in nature and we can't just stand by like lambs and hope it goes away! It is not going away.

I have lived in this area most of my life, I was here first, these people coming into our area and bringing violence with them can just go back where they came from or somewhere where the people that don't believe in guns for protection live.

Our policemen are doing their best, but it is a huge area and much of it is rural and they just can't be everywhere. It is different here than in some larger cities where everyone is all in the same area. We have even had policemen shot and killed.

It is hard for us that have lived here a long time, grew up and went to school here. We used to have 30,000 people, now we are closer to 90,000 people and it is getting very scary. The axe murder was 3 houses down and a block over in my subdivision. A cop was shot 3 blocks down the other direction.

Sorry, but I really feel like my gun needs to be loaded and accessible at all times. If someone breaks into my home I am not going down without a fight! There is a very large percentage of the population in the Pacific Northwest that feel the same way and we just refuse to allow the criminals to walk on us and to take over everything we have worked to own. You can't have our neighborhood and you can't have our guns.

I hope the Supreme Court keeps on protecting the freedom's of the average citizen because someone has to.

Shirley

Skell perhaps in Aussie there are no individual rights to own guns but our founders thought it important enough to make it the 2nd amendment in our Bill of Rights next to free speech. I suspect it is the historical difference between the two countries where the USA had to fight for it's independence ;compared to the debate I've read about there where you still have significant numbers of people who embrace the crown.

However it looks like the debate has been renewed as more and more Aussies join in the call to create a republic free of the shackles of the Queen .

“The time has come for Australia to become a republic. The old way of governing has long been creaking and groaning.’’
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd , from speech at 2020 Summit, April 2008

I agree with you Tom. Your gun culture is definitely ingrained in your psyche seemingly for historical reasons first and foremost.

For the record I'm one of those people who can't wait for the day Australia becomes a republic. Most people do. Not that the Queen really plays any part whatsoever in our governance.

I agree with you Tom. Your gun culture is definitely ingrained in your psyche seemingly for historical reasons first and foremost.


"Gun culture"? What a loaded term used almost only by those who don't understand the idea of maintaining the ability to protect oneself, not to mention the challenge of sport shooting (that's targets). The police not only can't be everywhere, they don't even have a duty to protect you (no matter what many display as 'mottos') - the Supreme Court acknowledged that. So self defense is againing ground as the natural right it is. More states are passing Castle Defense laws all the time which overrule those nonsense laws that said your first duty is to run away because if you injure your attacker you might be charged or he might sue you.

Our so-called gun culture is based on individual liberty and self reliance that historically came with settling this nation. (Tho we do owe an apology to the 'original founding fathers', the Native Americans):o

[QUOTE=ScottGem]And you really think that woman was justified in shooting? /QUOTE]

Yep! I do.

She was under attack, by an outraged idiot, two to three times her size, obviously intending to do her bodily harm. Totally justified in defending herself.

[QUOTE=ScottGem]All she had to do is roll up her windows and lock the doors./QUOTE]

If you had seen the size of this guy, how angry he was, and how aggressive his behavior was, I can guarantee you that YOU would have had no false belief that your window was going to protect you from him, in even the slightest way.

I guess by your reply, you would have sat there and gotten knocked out again, or worse, again, those are your rights, to make those decisions regarding your own safety.

I, along with many others, choose not to be a willing victim of any criminal attack.

[QUOTE=ScottGem]What if she had mortally wounded him? Would that have been justified?/QUOTE]

Another YEP!

He would have gotten exactly what he was asking for, and no one else would ever have to worry about being attacked again by this uncontrolled maniac.

[QUOTE=ScottGem]You really think, even a highly trained shooter would have been able to draw his weapon and kill the two and maybe all 4 before one of them was able to get off a shot killing him?/QUOTE]

Actually, yes, I know that I easily could have disposed of the two armed assailants. Fact is, one clean shot, in most cases, would be enough to send the others running for their lives, since they already have the mind set that what they are doing is WRONG! Sadly, if they didn't run, the body count could be higher, and yes, there is always the possibility that I could be one of them.

The night manager, had no way of knowing, if he would live or die, for the entire 20 minutes he lay on the floor, totally helpless. You know some criminals don't leave witnesses to identify them, if they are captured later.

I would rather die, fighting for my life, or the lives of those I love and care about, than to die as a coward, allowing the criminal element to have their way with no resistance.

I refuse to be a willing victim, period.

It all comes down to choice.

"Gun culture"? What a loaded term used almost only by those who don't understand the idea of maintaining the ability to protect oneselfI guess the scary part to us outsiders is the shear number of people you have to protect yourself from in the US.

Hmmm lets see in Canada Firearms account for 2.4 per cent of all victims of violence . Clubs and other blunt objects accounted for 3 per cent, while knives account for another 6.2 per cent.

The solution to me is clear . All knives in Canada should be registered or banned .

That's the logic that makes you 'special'. :)

Here's an interesting tidbit.

Levittown man shoots himself at pistol inspection -- Newsday.com (http://www.newsday.com/news/printedition/longisland/ny-lishot025749050jul02,0,4533662.story)

Should this man have his guns returned?

I got another one for you then

Per capita the gun ownership in Canada and Switzerland is greater than in the US . And yet the gun violence is less . That would make one think that if perhaps more Americans were armed that the rate of gun violence would also drop eh ?

Should this man have his guns returned?

Scott How many people on LI are admitted weekly to the emergency room with finger wounds from their lawn mowers or cutting their bagels Sunday morning ?

The Darwin Awards are loaded with stories like that .

I got another one for you then

Per capita the gun ownership in Canada and Switzerland is greater than in the US . And yet the gun violence is less . That would make one think that if perhaps more Americans were armed that the rate of gun violence would also drop eh ?I answered that question when you first posted it here: https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/vote-mcbush-vote-iran-war-232768-3.html#post1127516


I find that stat very hard to believe. But if canadians do have more guns they are shotguns for hunting. The lesser gun violence stat represents that fact that they are far less desperate people in these countries than in the US, or maybe they prize life to a higher degree (i.e. the taking of a life is not as glorified as it is in the US).

Scott How many people on LI are admitted weekly to the emergency room with finger wounds from their lawn mowers or cutting their bagels Sunday morning ?

The Darwin Awards are loaded with stories like that .

That's dodging the issue.

Perhaps it is a dodge but so is posting isolated stories of gun accidents due to careless handling . I can buy your argument that there is ample reason for regulation . But from a statistical point of view there is a correlation with loosening of the regulations and a correlating drop in gun violence. Conversely the highest rates of gun violence are found in cities with the tightest regulations . Perhaps it is not a coincidence.

Over in Canada they spend a fortune on the gun registry . Yet the trend is increases in gun violence. It is coming in the wake of other social factors there that I will leave everyone else to ponder .What NK is not saying is that gun violence was a pretty significant issue in their 2006 elections .

They of course tried to blame America for their gun "problem " and now the mayor of Toronto has pledged to fight gun violence by going after law abiding owners who practice in "gun clubs" . Delusional .

What NK is not saying is that gun violence was a pretty significant issue in their 2006 elections .I didn't say that because it was never an issue... EVER! Making up stuff is a poor way to try to make your point.

perhaps it is a dodge but so is posting isolated stories of gun accidents due to careless handling . I can buy your argument that there is ample reason for regulation . But from a statistical point of view there is a correlation with loosening of the regulations and a correlating drop in gun violence. Conversely the highest rates of gun violence are found in cities with the tightest regulations . Perhaps it is not a coincidence.

It is no coincidence.

Take a look at the homicide rates for Washington DC, where handgun ownership was banned for over 30 years.

It has consistently been the highest of any metropolitan area in the US.

Find the most restrictive gun laws or policies, and you will find the highest levels of violent crime.

Why?

Because criminals are dumb, but not stupid, they will always choose the path of least resistance.

Guns and Gun Violence - Canada 2006 Election Issue - Federal Parties on Guns and Gun Violence (http://canadaonline.about.com/od/federalparties/a/eliguns.htm)

Worldandnation: Canada's Liberals feel election heat over gun violence (http://www.sptimes.com/2006/01/16/Worldandnation/Canada_s_Liberals_fee.shtml)

BBC NEWS | Americas | Shooting rekindles Canada gun debate (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4636102.stm)

Find the most restrictive gun laws or policies, and you will find the highest levels of violent crime.I'm not certain of your causation relationship there. A possible cause of violence is a culture that glorifies violence paired with a good percentage of disadvantaged/desperate people. What do you think?

perhaps it is a dodge but so is posting isolated stories of gun accidents due to careless handling .

But I was asking a specific question. In this instance should the weapons be returned to this person after he has shown such a careless disregard for gun safety?

No, the guns should be suspended for a temporary time (depending on theincident)

Guns and Gun Violence - Canada 2006 Election Issue - Federal Parties on Guns and Gun Violence (http://canadaonline.about.com/od/federalparties/a/eliguns.htm)
Worldandnation: Canada's Liberals feel election heat over gun violence (http://www.sptimes.com/2006/01/16/Worldandnation/Canada_s_Liberals_fee.shtml)
BBC NEWS | Americas | Shooting rekindles Canada gun debate (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4636102.stm)Those were Toronto specific issues that were not issues to Canadians outside of there.

Here, let me help you out: Canadian federal election, 2006 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_2006#Issues)

Several issues—some long-standing (notably fiscal imbalance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_fiscal_imbalance_in_Canada), the gun registry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_gun_registry), abortion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Canada), and Quebec sovereigntism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_sovereignty_movement)), others recently brought forth by media coverage or court decisions (the sponsorship scandal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sponsorship_scandal), same-sex marriages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Canada), income trusts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_trust), or Canada-United States relations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.-Canada_relations))—have taken the fore in debate among the parties and also influenced aspects of the parties’ electoral platforms.

What was your position on the gun registry ? That appears to have been very contentuous with the Conservative block thinking the money better spent elsewhere .

Scott to answer your specific question . I consider gun ownership at the same level as car ownership. Rules apply to their proper usage.

I'm not certain of your causation relationship there. A possible cause of violence is a culture that glorifies violence paired with a good percentage of disadvantaged/desperate people. What do you think?

Your statement could contribute to violence in general, no doubt about it.

The fact is, those disadvantaged/desperate people had, or have, choices to make, just like every other American.

If they choose to take a path of crime and violence, rather than a path of good education, and hard work, they are also free to choose in which areas of the country they can apply their chosen occupation.

Having chosen crime and violence, they also choose the place that the victim is least likely to be armed and prepared to fight back.

Wouldn't a large metropolitan area, with a strict ban on handgun, or gun ownership in general, be the perfect place to apply such a trade?

Or do you think that they would choose the county where it is a law that EVERY citizen MUST have a gun in the home?

Is that such a difficult concept to understand?

I hinted at other factors . That was one of them.

The fact is, those disadvantaged/desperate people had, or have, choices to make, just like every other American.

If they choose to take a path of crime and violence,I wasn't aware that every violent criminal in the US had great opportunity but passed it up to choose a life of crime. Poor fellas.

That sounds like a statement I would expect to hear from someone who holds a socialistic point of view.

No personal responsibility, everything is someone, or something else's fault, it has noting to do with personal choices, they are not really criminals, they are all actually just victims, right?

Makes me want to gag.

But they do . Are you saying that the poor person in the US has no choice but the grab a gun and start blasting away ? Why is that not true elsewhere... only because of gun availability?Why do not they then grab whatever weapon is handy and commit the crime ?

Not necessarily a 'great' opportunity ;it certainly is a rough road . But most American families did not start living in McMansions . It often was generational struggles .But they made it without resorting to crime.

Yes, those in the US have a lot of opportunity if they wish to take advantage of it. But in many cultures doing poor in school is even expected and those that do good would be considered outcasts among their peers, in a society like that it is hard for some to do better.

Young people find preference in selling drugs to their own fellow students and drinking parties are preferred over study. There is really no true excuss for any young person in the US to go to college if they really want to.

But yes, most make a valid choice to do their crimes over working and earning a honest living. Having worked in the system and worked the streets of Atlanta with the street people, the ones given choices will prefer the street over a shelter with job training almost all the time.

I'll relate a personal story along these lines.

At the age of 18, from a lower middle class family, all of my friends were into a criminal lifestyle.

I was right in there with them, doing drugs, stealing, no job, no ambition.

A tight group of about 5 of us, did most everything together, legal or illegal.

The other 4, decided that we were going to get into stealing motorcycles. One of the 4 had an older brother with some serious connections to some high level criminals and guaranteed that we could make a fortune with this older brother disposing of the stolen bikes for us.

I went home that night, and did some serious soul searching. While some of the crap we did bothered me a little, this was a huge step up in the level of our crimes.

The next day, I went down and joined the Army.

Yep, right in the middle of the last few years of Viet Nam, I made a personal choice, to not continue a life of crime, and to do something better with my life.

While I was in basic training in Fort Campbell Missouri, I got a letter from my friends. Started the usual stuff, how am I? What is the Army like? Then, in mid sentence, the writing stopped, and in HUGE letters, across the bottom of the page, was written the words

WE'RE BUSTED!!

The door had been kicked in, they all were arrested, and 3 of the four ended up in prison.

The next day, I got a newspaper clipping from my Father, with the names highlighted, and one sentence.

Aren't you glad, you weren't here?

Personal Responsibility.

I'm sure glad I found mine.

Fr_Chuck made a excellent point. In Las Vegas, actually everywhere in the US, the public school systems focus on education is sorely lacking. Teachers are given cookie cutter text plans they have to abide by, but as we know not all children learn the same way. And he's right it's not just the peer pressure of past decades either, it's hoodlum pressure. Children attending public schools now-in-days are fighting the odds. If a parent cannot afford private schooling, or qualify the child for a magnet school, or does not have the ability and time for home schooling... the kid is at a real disadvantage.

That sounds like a statement I would expect to hear from someone who holds a socialistic point of view.But all I did was echo what you wrote here (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/politics/our-lame-supreme-court-finally-got-one-right-230971-11.html#post1128071). Does that mean that you are a *gasp* evil socialist? You throw around this 'personal responsibility' statement when no one ever brings up the opposite viewpoint, who the hell doesn't believe in personal responsibility? You set up strawman argument for the lack of a better argument.

BTW I never chose a life of crime, ever. I'll celebrate that more that your choices anyday.

Progunr- Good story. Thanks for sharing. I think askmehelpdesk could open a firearm forum for avid hunters, conceal carry, and weekend plinkers and then perhaps a discussion board for those that want to debate gun ownership pro or con. I like reading this guy's articles here: GunOwnersAlliance.com - Ask the Rabbi is BACK! By Rabbi R. Mermelstein (http://www.gunownersalliance.com/) and reviewing firearms here: www.gundirectory.com. When I lived in Texas growing up I had a 308, 7.65 Argentina muaser, 6mm and .22 rifles, 12, 20, and 410 gauge shotguns, handgun 38 snub and .22. My brother has a 357 magnum and will retire out of the military in about 3 years. Currently he is a recruiter in Katy, Texas after multiple trips to Iraq. I've been in Vegas for 12 years plus now and have a 9mm short (.380) handy in the home office and am looking at a small Kel-Tec 9mm for conceal carry or one of the new Khar compact 45's or 40's, or maybe just another 38 snub. I also plan on getting a Ruger .22 rifle probably later this year or next , and .223 either standard rifle or AR-15. I've made a few enemies in the Casino business over the years, but Vegas is so high in crime that at least once a week you'll hear pops sounding off from the neighborhoods. I heard two pops yesterday and was just hoping it came from a car backfiring. Speaking of cars, some hoodlums tried stealing my upstairs neighbor's sports car a few day ago. Of course, my primary concern is for my family's safety and that's why I'm gun owner advocate.

But all I did was echo what you wrote here (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/politics/our-lame-supreme-court-finally-got-one-right-230971-11.html#post1128071). Does that mean that you are a *gasp* evil socialist? You throw around this 'personal responsibility' statement when no one ever brings up the opposite viewpoint, who the hell doesn't believe in personal responsibility? You set up strawman argument for the lack of a better argument.

BTW I never chose a life of crime, ever. I'll celebrate that more that your choices anyday.

If that is what you call an echo, you obviously don't know the meaning of the term.

You insinuate that just because an individual is disadvantaged/desperate along with a culture that glorifies violence, is an excuse for the personal decisions that these criminals make.

And then you try to claim that your statement in no way attempted to excuse the fact that every criminal gets to decide to commit the crime or not, regardless of a culture that glorifies violence or regardless of the fact that they may be disadvantaged or desperate.

Then you top it off by sounding insulted that I would bring up personal responsibility, and try to insult me with your last statement regarding celebrating your choices?

Surely, even you could do better than that.

You insinuate that just because an individual is disadvantaged/desperate along with a culture that glorifies violence, is an excuse for the personal decisions that these criminals make.I didn't say it was an excuse, you said that. I said it was possible causation. Why else would their immediate next choice be a life of violent crime?

I didn't say it was an excuse, you said that. I said it was possible causation. Why else would their immediate next choice be a life of violent crime?
That argument won't wash. There are plenty of criminals involved in various kind of crimes who were NOT disadvantaged.