 |
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.
That's my point, most criminals don't care. If they cared they wouldn't commit crimes in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonador101
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonador101
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.
Tell that to the parents of the Va Tech victims! Tell that to the victims of the LIRR killer! Shall I go on?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonador101
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonador101
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonador101
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 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
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.Quote:
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.
This Heller decision is one of the rare great decisions by SCOTUS... rare indeed .
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottGem
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottGem
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)
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by magprob
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by progunr
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottGem
Au contrare... not only many studies but interviews with criminals say just the opposite. Seems your info is coming from flawed sources...Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottGem
Citations?Quote:
Originally Posted by WVHiflyer
Here is the Brady Campaign opinion on 'Heller'. Although they disagree with the decision they find a big positive in the ruling :
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun ViolenceQuote:
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.”
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottGem
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 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottGem
So control the flow of guns so criminals DON'T have easy access to them!Quote:
Originally Posted by progunr
Every American has the right to keep and bear arms, for the purpose of self defense, sporting, hunting, or even just collecting.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottGem
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
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by progunr
Quote:
Originally Posted by progunr
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
Comments on this postprogunr 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'.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:35 PM. |