Firearms yes or no

[U-533]

Originally Posted by Skybird

With waterpistols this wouldn't have happened.

But what if the water pistols were filled with poision or some Biowarfare stuff ...UMMMmmm?

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by micky1up

crap we are talking percentages here dusent matter how many people you have ythat point has been proven the have a lesser percentage mind you there culture isnt as violent as the US so theres another factor

Its a numbers game. Canada will see less than 10% that the US will. No other way to look at it. Stress of the society also plays a role I'm sure - hence the need to protect ones self in a high stress / threat society.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by U-533

But what if the water pistols were filled with poision or some Biowarfare stuff ...UMMMmmm?

You better built more purification plants then, or replace those old water pipes in your house.

[Sailor Steve]

On October 16, 1991 a man drove a truck through the front window of Luby's Restaurant in Killeen, Texas, then opened fire on the patrons, killing 23 and wounding another 20. He then shot himself.

Two interesting results came about:

1) The Texas legislature passed a law allowing Texans to get a concealed-carry permit. This bill was created by Suzanna Gratia Hupp, whose parents were both killed at Luby's.
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/2006/09/...impact-15.html

2) America's Most Wanted, hosted by John Walsh, had an episode recreating the incident and interviewing many of the survivors of the shooting. When Walsh asked them what they thought could have changed the outcome, every one of them said "I wish I'd been armed at the time. That would have stopped him." I have no link for that, but I did see the episode myself.

Now I have to get personal. Mickey, saying what you think should be done is nice, but if you really think we should give up our simplest freedom on your say-so, all I can say is, you're welcome to come try.

[JetSnake]

+ eleventy-billion Sailor Steve.

I watched the senate panel interviewing the gal whose parents were killed in that Luby's restaraunt. Ironically she was a CCW holder, but do to the restaraunts asinine policies of not allowing firearms, she left her piece in the car. Meanwhile, the criminal who does not obey any laws is free to walk in and once again, a gun -free zone is a killing field.

[SUBMAN1]

Amazing how the places these whackos wig out are the same places people put firearm restrictions on. Isn't this the very place you would probably need your firearm in the first place to protect yourself? A bit of a catch 22 again.

Maybe the solution - ignore the no carry rules in places you consider dangerous?

-S

[Heibges]

In Vermont you don't need any kind of permit to carry concealed weapons.

But a bunch of untrained folks handling weapons may not be the answer either. There are folks I refuse to go hunting with because I don't feel safe with them holding firearms. I have friends I feel nervous around even going shooting with because they are so unsafe.

There are hundreds of accidental shootings each year anyway. I know that even some of my friends are real idiots when it comes to handling guns.

Maybe, only veterans should have the right to carry weapons.

Or the government needs to be much more supportive of Hunter's Safety classes. The NRA gives many of these for free.

[Yahoshua]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

I don't think it's the gun culture, per se. I do, however, think it's the violence culture. That's far from limited to guns. Cause: massive breakdown in the moral fabric of society.

BTW, irony. I personally am neither for or against gun control, since I have yet to hear a totally convincing argument in either direction.

You know why the terrorists started using Homicide Bombings instead of drive-by-shootings? It's because every time they tried to do a drive-by shooting every Israeli that was carrying concealed reacted to the threat and stopped the terrorists. That seems quite convincing to me.

A couple of books to read up on the issue are:

-The Bias against guns by John R. Lott
-More Guns: Less Crime by John R. Lott

He details his studies very well in regards to the statistics of gun control and guns (as far as I understand he doesn't own any firearms himself at the time of printing).

However, he also points out that the laws passed further allowing firearms to be owned and sold don't actually deter crime, neither did laws that banned firearms encourage crime. Yet it was the actual number of firearms owned by law-abiding citizens that deterred crime since criminals were afraid of being shot in the act of a crime. Whereas laws that made punishments against criminals more lenient encouraged crime.


A quick question to Mickey: What makes you think the criminals are going to obey the law? The law-biding citizen may surrender their firearms (if they choose to do so), but the criminal will NEVER willingly give up their firearms thay've come to posess. So how does disarming the law-abiding make me safer? It doesn't.

[Yahoshua]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Maybe the solution - ignore the no carry rules in places you consider dangerous?

-S

My life is more important than a silly sign on a storefront (which is constitutionally illegal btw). If a store or organization doesn't want to support my rights, then I don't have to shop there. Likewise, nobody needs to know if I'm carrying concealed. As long as I'm law-abiding then there's no problem with me carrying.

[micky1up]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

I think you are still way too emotional. It has been stated at least 2 times (probably more) that guns are not allowed on campus. Period. So there were no guns to take this guy down. Period.

Another thing - Most employers do not allow guns either.

Other schools do not allow guns either - no guns are allowed on public school property.

Begining to see the big picture yet? Everywhere these big rampages happen are places that the rampager has thought out before hand that he won't have any return fire. The few places I can think that would have allowed guns, and the victims were indivduals that think like you - easy targets.

-S

PS. You can put a cop on every corner (not gonna happen), and they still could not control something like this.

so you rattified my arguement guns cant control guns im waiting to find out who this guy was i still wager he had no criminal record

[Skybird]

"The lightsabre of your father: not as clumsy or random as a blaster. An elegant weapon - for a more civilised age." (Kenobi, SW4)

[P_Funk]

Originally Posted by Yahoshua

A quick question to Mickey: What makes you think the criminals are going to obey the law? The law-biding citizen may surrender their firearms (if they choose to do so), but the criminal will NEVER willingly give up their firearms thay've come to posess. So how does disarming the law-abiding make me safer? It doesn't.

Its not about the criminals surrendering weapons. Its about making it so that you can't have one to begin with. If you heavily regulate something its alot harder to get one.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the people that do these insane killing rampages for no reason usually aren't part of the Bonanno family. They're guys with registered weapons that they bought legally. Saying that the solution is to let everyone carry a concealed weapon is reactionary. Its saying that we won't prevent it, we'll just kill him first. Saying that we need to let people have guns with them at all times to protect themselves from other guys cause we let them have guns all the time is just... silly. It doesn't fix anything. The only ones that should be in a shootout are cops.

And using Israel as an example isn't apt. Its a different social environment.

[Yahoshua]

Absolutely correct mickey: Guns cannot control other guns. This is because guns don't walk around on their own and shoot people. Guns CAN and DO control people. A hammer in the hand of an honest worker can be just as deadly when placed in the hands of a man bent on proceeding with a murderous rampage.

And banning firearms will NOT stop the massacres. If a criminal wants to kill people they will find ways to do it.

http://english.people.com.cn/english...608_72155.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre

Firearms do NOT espouse crime, and as AL pointed out: It is the disintegration of the moral fabric of society and the "mercy for all" liberals who refuse to punish these criminals accordingly.

How many massacres have ocurred in Switzerland? One as I recall back in 2001 (the Zug Massacre), and the necessary steps to increase security followed. What security has been accounted for at our universities or school campuses?

Have you ever taken the time to investigate WHERE all these massacres take place? Schools are the primary place for massacres, and they are "Gun-Free Zones." One may as well put a bulls-eye on their chest to assist the next criminal gunman who comes along.


*EDIT*

Just saw your post P funk.

Please explain to me how Israel is an inappropriate example. In my book Terrorists = criminals, and Law Abiding Citizens = Concealed Carry Holders. It has been shown that the number of concealed carry permits in the nation have directly affected the terrorists: There are no drive-by shooting anymore.

And banning firearms hasn't exactly helped Britain much now has it? Criminal enterprises still purchase firearms and smuggle them into the country.......from Ireland.

http://www.hk94.com/hk/9-years-after...sh-t22394.html

Another thing to keep in mind is that the people that do these insane killing rampages for no reason usually aren't part of the Bonanno family. They're guys with registered weapons that they bought legally.

I beg to differ.

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st176/s176h.html

Saying that the solution is to let everyone carry a concealed weapon is reactionary. Its saying that we won't prevent it, we'll just kill him first.

So how exactly do you propose to "prevent" such occurences?

Saying that we need to let people have guns with them at all times to protect themselves from other guys cause we let them have guns all the time is just... silly. It doesn't fix anything.

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/...erimentRev.pdf

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared...sNav=nr&id=570

http://www.gunlaws.com/NewYorkTimesAndGuns.htm

http://www.jpfo.org/deathchartlg.gif


The only ones that should be in a shootout are cops.

Let me make this clear: I don't trust other people with my own personal safety. The average citizen cannot afford a personal body-guard. And contrary to what popular belief may be, most Law-Enforcement Officers (henceforth known as LEOs') rarely train with their sidearm on a regular basis. And there are times when I question their training (this is strictly on a case-by-case basis). Don't take this to mean that I'm a cop-hater, but I certainly have no confidence in a department that would allow itself to be so permeated by a corrupt beaureaucracy.

Examples would be:

-The shootout in New York where more than 50 rounds (all of the pistol magazines of the officers on scene were emptied) were poured into an SUV.

http://thepoliticalrant.com/?p=493

-The shootout involving Winston Hayes, who was irresponsibly teasing officers by slowing down adn then driving around the block, did so continuosly until run off the road. He then nearly backed into an officer which touched off the shooting of 120 expended rounds.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...7/ai_n15665676

And then there's the type of cop that irritates me to no end: Commando Cops.

http://www.hk94.com/hk/Proper-Proced...ry-t22890.html


*EDIT*

And another incident just cropped up......LEOs' need to train more often, problem is that departments don't want or don't have the money for it.

http://www.nwitimes.com/articles/2007/04/13/news/top_news/doced47038d8bdcc308862572bc00083b4c.txt

Its not about the criminals surrendering weapons. Its about making it so that you can't have one to begin with. If you heavily regulate something its alot harder to get one.

Prohibition, the Volstead Act proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt. The 'war on drugs' shows the same problem. More violence, not less.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the people that do these insane killing rampages for no reason usually aren't part of the Bonanno family. They're guys with registered weapons that they bought legally.

I'd like to see some facts on that. As an example here in Littleton. The students were underage and their buying the weapons was illegal. No "registered weapons" (whatever those are)there.

[Heibges]

Originally Posted by waste gate

Prohibition, the Volstead Act proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt. The 'war on drugs' shows the same problem. More violence, not less.

I'd like to see some facts on that. As an example here in Littleton. The students were underage and their buying the weapons was illegal. No "registered weapons" (whatever those are)there.

Actually, if I remember correctly, an 18 year old friend bought the weapons and ammunition for them.