Get Rid of Gun Free Zones

[K-D-K-D-K]

Its time to get rid of Gun Free Zones so people can carry firearms and protect themselves like in the recent mall shootings. It the only way.


Teditorial: Gun Free Zones Strike Again
GUN FREE ZONE STRIKES AGAIN by Ted Nugent

Here we go again. Someone tell me why, with nearly 3000 articles written worldwide within 48 hours following the tragic slaughter at the Omaha, Nebraska Westroads Mall this week, that not a single one of them mentioned the most important fact of all. Thousands of "professional" writers converging on such an event, sharing their sleuthing in the world's most respected publications and electronic media, yet not a single one of them saw it meaningful in their "reporting" of the crime to mention all the "no guns allowed" signs throughout the mall? Got agenda? Sig heil!

Even though Nebraska recently got a small piece of their Second Amendment back by finally allowing law abiding citizens their "God given right" to keep and bear arms, it is truly anti-American and downright bizzarro that private property and business owners can deny (as in "infringe") this "inalienable" right bestowed upon free men by our Creator. This of course is the liberal dream known as "gun free zones." As in Columbine, VA Tech, Luby's cafeteria in Killeen, Texas, and at every other location where the wanton slaughter of unarmed, helpless victims is a virtual guarantee.

Except of course at the Salt Lake City mall last year where an armed off duty cop properly defied that mall's "gun free" policy, who, virtually indistinguishable for all practical purposes from an armed law abiding citizen, was able to thwart a mass shooting about to unfold, were it not for a good guy with a gun. How dense must someone be to hide from this information and fact? Denial runs deep in a growing population of "we the sheeple." For shame.

When did a nation of rugged individuals turn into helpless whiners, crying and running in fear from danger and evil? When did we abandon our natural instinct to counterpunch and attack evil, overpowering it and neutralizing it into submission? When were we forced to dial 9-1-1, losing and wasting precious, decisive time, instead of doing the right thing and stopping bad guys ourselves? When did we trade in independence for dependency? When did we decide that we can't handle tough situations ourselves, and we need to call big brother while we cower and hide like little, helpless children? Pathetic.

Everyday in this country, according to the Department of Justice and every study ever conducted, armed, law abiding citizens stop dangerous, violent confrontations from escalating into death and tragedy, simply by having a gun handy to provide real "equality" on the mean streets of America. Dedicated cops across America will be the first ones to tell you that they not only can't possibly be there to protect us, but that they also have no legal requirement to do so. By the time the police show up, many innocents will likely perish at the hands of evil while good people hang around hoping and praying. Does anyone still not know this reality? Is it possible to still hide from this life and death truth? If you have no soul, apparently so.

I would highly recommend that we finally learn from all these senseless tragedies. Get real. Get rid of politicians who support gunfree slaughter zones. Get rid of Gunfree zones. Get a gun, learn to use it, and do the right thing. Bad guys should be shot dead, not Christmas shoppers.

Communicate directly with Ted Nugent at tednugent.com.

[PatrickHenry]

Learn to use the quote function.

[Alonzo]

Guns for tots! Make Big Bird pack heat! Give Oscar a gun so kids can see what happens to thieves!

[micfranklin]

How come there is never a link to any of your sources KDKDK?

And if anyone gets a gun give one to Elmo.

[K-D-K-D-K]

How come there is never a link to any of your sources KDKDK?

And if anyone gets a gun give one to Elmo.
Here it is.




http://www.tednugent.com/hunting/news/2007/default.aspx?PostID=329040

[AnnEsthesia]

Oh yes. Ted Nugent, that bastion of impartial news...

[K-D-K-D-K]

Oh yes. Ted Nugent, that bastion of impartial news...
Ted is a true American Patriot who I take you dont approve of. Why? He is a staunch sopporter of The Right to Bear Arms and your right to defend yourself and your freedoms.

[micfranklin]

That source has bias and partisan written all over it.

[AnnEsthesia]

Ted Nugent is a whack job.

[K-D-K-D-K]

Ted Nugent is a whack job.
How? Give examples to what he has done. He was elected to sit on the board of Directors of the NRA and runs a multi milion dollar company.

[Alonzo]

How come there is never a link to any of your sources KDKDK?

And if anyone gets a gun give one to Elmo.


He already has one, that's why I left him out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGdaETZgQeM

[Alonzo]

Statement:

Ted Nugent is a whack job.

Question:
How?

Answer:
He was elected to sit on the board of Directors of the NRA.

[bobbylien]

How? Give examples to what he has done. He was elected to sit on the board of Directors of the NRA and runs a multi milion dollar company.

So what... he was elected to a sporting board by a bunch of rednecks and he owns a business? That makes him credible? I'm sorry but do you have any idea how many multi-million dollar companies there are out there?

[Wndrtch]

I just find it amazing, that when one creates a "gun-free zone", they expect that the bad-guys will honor it.

"HELLO,...McFly!!"

My Mom just won an award from the local police in her town. She attended a program they had, where she was the best shot out of her class. The purpose of the program, is to train civilians to use guns properly.

Go Mom!!

[lily]

I just find it amazing, that when one creates a "gun-free zone", they expect that the bad-guys will honor it.

I know......it works so well in schools, doesn't it?

KD........do you really think that getting rid of gun free zones is going to make a difference in crazies shooting at people?

[AnnEsthesia]

Yea, what a great idea to allow guns in courthouses. No emotions there and no one would ever try to shoot anyone.

Sorry, very dumb and dangerous idea.

[Mark L Hamburger]

It's up to the property owner to determine what they want to allow on their property, but if they choose to remove the ability to defend oneself then they need to provide an equal amount of protection.

Not allowing guns in courthouses is similar, I have no problem with it considering the amount of security they have in most compared to the size. The issue is with places like schools and universities where even the faculty aren't allowed to carry their legally owned firearms to protect themselves and their students. A single CCW holder could have prevented Columbine, VT and the like from getting anywhere past one or two victims.

Gun-free zones are victim-disarment zones, if you're not willing to provide the level of security a person is afforded by allowing them to carry their legally-owned firearm, you should be held liable for anything that happens.

[Alonzo]

e issue is with places like schools and universities where even the faculty aren't allowed to carry their legally owned firearms to protect themselves and their students. A single CCW holder could have prevented Columbine, VT and the like from getting anywhere past one or two victims.

I'm sorry hamburger, but one of the universities I previously attended was York University in Toronto, a campus which is very politically active. On multiple occasions they had to bring the police in to arrest people due to political arguments that became violent, or protests where people got too rowdy or, in the case of one pro-palestinian protest that had a counter pro-Israel protest, the protesters turned on each other.

If you have a campus like that and you put guns into that mix there would likely have been dead bodies on more than one occasion. It wasn't a dangerous campus at all other than for the tendency for political arguments to escalate into violence.

[Osborn F. Enready]

I disagree Alonzo.

People have a right to protect themselves, and its a matter of responsibility.

If people are restricted their right to keep and bear arms on property owned by someone else, that person should be held responsible if that person is injured or killed.

How can a person say "no firearms, or weapons" and then not take responsibility in all matters, of that persons safety?

[Alonzo]

You don't think people would have ended up shot? Or you don't think that matters?

If people are restricted their right to keep and bear arms on property owned by someone else, that person should be held responsible if that person is injured or killed.

So if you come into my store and you get shot you should be able to sue me? Why is that my fault? It should be yours, if you want to carry a gun and the storeowner doesn't allow you to then don't walk in. You made the choice to enter a gun free zone.

Honestly though, if I saw someone walking into a grocery store, or anywhere else, with a gun I'd walk right out and I'd probably call the police. I mean, seriously, who walks into a store with a grocery store with a gun? Who walks into a classroom with a gun?

I don't care what your ideological views are, you have to be able to see how a politically charged university, one where violence breaks out over political views, is the last place you want to have people carrying guns. Instead of fists they'd be using bullets.

[Mark L Hamburger]

Honestly though, if I saw someone walking into a grocery store, or anywhere else, with a gun I'd walk right out and I'd probably call the police. I mean, seriously, who walks into a store with a grocery store with a gun? Who walks into a classroom with a gun?



Ummm, I do, along with a great many other people, and you'd never know it considering the majority are CCW holders. If there's a no guns sign, I'll respect their policy, otherwise I'm armed pretty much everywhere I go.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Crime has gone down here in Ohio since they passed Concealed Carry, and more people started taking responsibility of their own safety.

If private businesses don't allow people to wear their legally owned, registered and permitted firearms into an establishment, they are putting that person at risk on behest of the owners request, and should bear some liability if that person is harmed on the property.

I respect private property rights, and the owner has the right to specify if firearms are allowed, but, it causes problems both ways, and the fact is people have a right to keep and bear arms, AND are responsible for their own safety and wellbeing as well as their actions.

By not allowing them their firearms, it puts their individual safety directly at risk.

If a business puts up a sign saying "no firearms", as Mark said, I can simply not enter. That is fine. But, I think there is more risk in these zones because armed thugs know they won't encounter any resistance should they decide that is the place to victimize. Thats why I don't go to those places unless absolutely necessary, even though I don't carry.

[Wndrtch]

I just find it amazing, that when one creates a "gun-free zone", they expect that the bad-guys will honor it.

I know......it works so well in schools, doesn't it?

KD........do you really think that getting rid of gun free zones is going to make a difference in crazies shooting at people?


Crazy is what crazy does...

However, one armed person, WILL limit the damage by said crazy, and will save on court costs.

[Alonzo]

the fact is people have a right to keep and bear arms

There's that pesky militia bit. Either way they also have a right to free speech, yet if you walked into someones private business, called the owner fucking watermelon eating niger, and got kicked out, you can't sue the owner for violating your right to free speech. If you want to say that you need to stay out of those places, just like if you want to carry a gun you need to stay out of places that don't allow it.

[Alonzo]

But, I think there is more risk in these zones because armed thugs know they won't encounter any resistance should they decide that is the place to victimize. Thats why I don't go to those places unless absolutely necessary, even though I don't carry.

As if pissed off people who are ready to fight wouldn't never use a gun.

[brien]

Oh yes. Ted Nugent, that bastion of impartial news...


Please cite some "bastions of impartial news sources." It seems to me that the issue of firearms ownership in the United States falls into two well defined camps; those who support the 2nd Amendment and individual ownership of firearms, and those who do not support the 2nd Amendment and seek to limit, or even abolish, the right of an individual in the US to own and carry firearms.

I would be interested in reading any "impartial news" sources on this very heated and divisive issue in the US.

Here are some sources for impartial judgement(s):

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndsup.html


Summary
The Supreme Court has heard only five cases directly related to the Second Amendment. They are: U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876), Presser v. Illinois (1886), Miller v. Texas (1894), U.S. v. Miller (1939), and Lewis v. U.S. (1980). One the Supreme Court refused to hear, Burton v. Sills (1968), and one concerning the meaning of the Fourth Amendment and "the people," U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990), are also discussed. (Links to the Supreme Court decisions are provided at the end of each section.)

U.S. v. Cruikshank involved members of the Ku Klux Klan depriving black victims of their basic rights such as freedom of assembly and to bear arms. The court decided that neither the First nor Second Amendments applied to the states, but were limitations on Congress. Thus the federal government had no power to correct these violations, rather the citizens had to rely on the police power of the states for their protection from private individuals.

This case is often misunderstood or quoted out of context by claiming Cruikshank held the Second Amendment does not grant a right to keep and bear arms. However, the court also said this about the First Amendment. The court explained that these rights weren't granted or created by the Constitution, they existed prior to the Constitution.
Presser v. Illinois ruled that the states had the right to strictly regulate private military groups and associations. It also reaffirmed the Cruikshank decision that the Second Amendment acts as a limitation upon the federal government and not the states. However Presser also stated that setting the Second Amendment aside, the states could not prohibit the "people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security..."
Of the Second Amendment cases, U.S. v. Miller is the most mis-cited (intentionally and otherwise) by the lower courts, not to mention the news media, textbooks and encyclopedias. Some courts have acknowledged the true holdings of Miller, but then simply disregarded them. Though referenced again below, please don't forget to read how some courts deliberately mis-cite Miller.

There's that pesky militia bit.

Perhaps not, depending what you hang your hat on here. Is it perhaps the Miller case? Also, Parker vs DC is much more recent and upholds the right of the individual to keep and carry firearms.

Here is a treatment on the Miller Case.

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmie.html


The following commentary is excepted from:

James J. Featherstone, Richard E. Gardiner, Robert Dowlut, "The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution Guarantees an Individual Right To Keep and Bear Arms", 97th Cong., 2d Sess. 83-109 (Comm. print 1982).



The heart of the Court's ruling is found at the beginning of the opinion; it states:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. (Emphasis added.) 307 U.S. at 178.
Two independent thoughts are expressed here: one, that for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be constitutionally protected, that firearm's possession or use must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation of a well regulated militia; and two, that in this case, the Court would not take judicial notice that a short-barrelled shotgun met such a test. It remanded the case to the trial court for the taking of evidence on that question. The Court's first point, that the right to keep and bear an arm is dependent on the firearm's military value, is faulty, however, because the Court failed to consider fully the common law, and misinterpreted cited authorities. Rather, the Court only briefly discussed the common law and, moreover, did not consider the history of the adoption of the Second Amendment, both of which support the proposition that the Second Amendment guarantees and protects a fundamental individual right. As to the misinterpretation of cited authorities, a result undoubtedly of the one-sided argument, one important example should suffice.

In support of its position that the Second Amendment's protection and guarantee was limited to "ordinary military equipment" or weapons whose use "could contribute to the common defense," the Court cited one case, Aymette v. State, 21 Tenn. 154 2 Humph. 154 (1840). In Aymette, however, the Tennessee Supreme Court was construing not the Second Amendment but the provision of Tennessee's constitution guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms, a provision which, unlike the Second Amendment, spoke of each citizen's right to keep and bear arms only as it related to the common defense. The Tennessee court thus reasoned that not all objects which could conceivably be used as weapons were protected by the Tennessee Constitution, but only those weapons "such as usually employed in civilized warfare." Id. at 158. This limitation is not, however, applicable to the Second Amendment since the First Congress, while debating what ultimately became the Second Amendment, emphatically rejected the " common defense" language upon which the Aymette decision turned. It is plain, therefore, that the interpretation of the Second Amendment in Miller is more limited than it should be and that the Second Amendment protects the keeping and bearing of all types of arms which could be carried by individuals. Moreover, the rejection of the "common defense" limitation signified the Framers' intention that the constitutional guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms was not inextricably tied to a militia nexus, but existed independently of it. Even accepting, however, that a militia or common defense nexus was necessary, Aymette went on to say that, " The citizens have an unqualified right to keep the weapon." Id. at 160.

One other comment should be made about Aymette. What Judge Green was discussing when he said that the legislature could pass laws concerning arms was that laws could be enacted which would punish the misuse of such arms. As an example, Judge Green noted that the legislature could punish a set of ruffians for entering a theatre or a church with drawn swords, guns, and fixed bayonets to the terror of the audience; he went on to observe, moreover, that "the citizens have an unqualified right to keep the weapon" and to bear it except to "terrify the people, or for purposes of private assassination." Id. at 160.



-------------------------------------------------------------------And for further impartial reading:-------------

Parker v. District of Columbia, 04-7041 (2007), [PDF]

Parker v. District of Columbia, 311 F.Supp.2d 103 (D.D.C. 2004). [PDF]

U.S. v. Parker, 03-4119 (10th Cir. 2004). [HTML]

Silveira v. Lockyer, 01-15098 (9th Cir. 2002). [PDF]

U.S. v. Emerson, 99-10331 (5th Cir. 2001). [HTML] 501k

U.S. v. Emerson, 46 F.Supp.2d 598 (N.D.Tex. 1999). [HTML] 73k

Hamilton v. Accu-Tek, 935 F.Supp. 1307 (E.D.N.Y. 1996). [HTML] 104k

Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir. 1996). [HTML] 24k

Love v. Pepersack, 47 F.3d 120 (4th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 64 (1995). [HTML] 14k

U.S. v. Friel, 1 F.3d 1231 (1st Cir. 1993) . [HTML]

U.S. v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016 (8th Cir. 1992). [HTML] 22k

U.S. v. Nelsen, 859 F.2d 1318 (8th Cir. 1988). [HTML]

U.S. v. Toner, 728 F.2d 115 (2nd Cir. 1984) . [PDF]

Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261 (7th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 863 (1983). [HTML] 88k

Thompson v. Dereta, 549 F.Supp. 297 (D. Utah 1982). [HTML]

Vietnamese Fishermen’s Association v. KKK, 543 F.Supp. 198 (S.D. Tex. 1982) . [HTML]

U.S. v. Kozerski 518 F.Supp. 1082 (D.N.H. 1981), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 842 (1984) . [HTML]

U.S. v. Oakes, 564 F.2d 384 (10th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 926 (1978). [HTML]

U.S. v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103 (6th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 948 (1976). [HTML] 22k

U.S. v. Swinton, 521 F.2d 1255 (10th Cir. 1975). [HTML]

U.S. v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548 (4th Cir. 1974) . [HTML]

U.S. v. Day, 476 F.2d 562 (6th Cir. 1973) . [HTML]

U.S. v. Cody, 460 F.2d 34 (8th Cir. 1972) . [HTML]

U.S. v. Kraase, 340 F.Supp. 147 (E.D. Wis. 1972). [HTML]

U.S. v. Decker, 446 F.2d 164 (8th Cir. 1971) . [HTML]

U.S. v. Synnes, 438 F.2d 764 (8th Cir. 1971), vacated on other grounds, 404 U.S. 1009 (1972). [HTML]

Stevens v. United States, 440 F.2d 144 (6th Cir. 1971) . [HTML]

U.S. v. Johnson Jr., 441 F.2d 1134 (5th Cir. 1971). [HTML]

U.S. v. Gross, 313 F.Supp. 1330 (S.D. Ind. 1970), affirmed on other grounds, 451 F.2d 1355 (7th Cir. 1971) . [HTML]

Cases v. U.S., 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942), cert. denied, 319 U.S. 770 (1943). [HTML] 34k

U.S. v. Tot, 131 F.2d 261 (3rd Cir. 1942), rev'd (on other grounds), 319 U.S. 463 (1943). [HTML] 47k

U.S. v. Miller, 26 F.Supp 1002 (W.D. Ark 1939), rev'd, 307 U.S. 174.. [HTML] 4k

Sonzinsky v. U.S., 86 F.2d 486 (7th Cir. 1936), aff'd, 300 U.S. 506 (1937). [HTML] 22k

U.S. v. Cruikshank, 25 F. Cas. 707 (1 Woods, 308) (C.C.D. La. 1874) (No. 14,897), aff'd, 92 U.S. 542 (1876). [HTML] 54k

U.S. v. Small, 27 F. Cas. 1128 (2 Curtis, 243) (C.C.D. Ma. 1855) (No. 16,314). [HTML] 7k

Point being here, excepting perhaps the article above on the Miller case, which is factually correct and seems impartial to me, most truly "impartial" judgements that matter on the Second Amendment come from the Courts, not from "news sources." We await, with much anticipation, the SCOTUS ruling on Parker vs DC in June.[hr]


I'm sorry hamburger, but one of the universities I previously attended was York University in Toronto, a campus which is very politically active. On multiple occasions they had to bring the police in to arrest people due to political arguments that became violent, or protests where people got too rowdy or, in the case of one pro-palestinian protest that had a counter pro-Israel protest, the protesters turned on each other.

If you have a campus like that and you put guns into that mix there would likely have been dead bodies on more than one occasion. It wasn't a dangerous campus at all other than for the tendency for political arguments to escalate into violence.


However, when a person carries a firearm anyway, and begins to turn the area into a shooting gallery, then who will protect the unprotected? Campus police? Hardly, it likely will be over before they are even aware of what is happening on campus.

It is encumbent upon citizens to protect themselves from violence when there are no other means for their self protection. Therefore, in so called "gun free zones", either there has to be a measure of "police presence" that borders upon a police state,(no thank you) or people must have the means of self protection when no other means are available to them.

People who arm themselves, and choose to take their protection into their own hands, should not be penalized and prevented from doing so by others who can't guarantee their personal protection and safety from random violence. I have no problem if one chooses not to arm themselves, that is their right, but they don't have the right, nor the obligation, to extend and force their personal decisons upon others who choose not to abdicate their right to self protection and personal safety.

The reality of the matter is, most likely the police will not be anywhere in the area when random violence occurs, so the individual who decides to protect himself / herself from violence when they are in imininent and unprotected danger, has the right to do so.

[potter]

KDK,

This point was also brought up by a writer in the opinion column of our local paper. the writer basically implied you're risking certain slaughter by even going to a mall without a gun. :fight:

It was pure fearmongering.

Now tell me, say someone brings a gun to a mall and starts shooting it off, are you safer with that one gun and security tracking it, or are you safer with that one gun, and a hundred civilians shooting (each other?) off in self defense all over the place not really sure who the bad guy is, and security tracking all those other guns not knowing who the initial shooter really is?

[ladyphoenix]

Two things I'd like to address here...

1) To suggest that a private property owner cannot set and enforce rules of conduct on his or her own porperty, or that doing so makes him or her liable in some way is absolutely wrong. I'm a private bank owner. I have every right to infringe upon the rights of anyone entering my bank (my property) if I so desire, for the safety of my staff and/or my property. At no point do you have a constitutionally protected right to bear arms on my property. And if you do something stupid on my property while you're there, with or without the aid of a firearm, I am not liable for said stupid act. Period. It's not my responsibility to protect every potential victim in this world from potential nutcases. To suggest so is to suggest that I am somehow responsible for the crackhead down the street who got pregnant and had a child addicted to crack. Or that the man driving down the road drunk killing a car full of people is some how my responsibility. This is simply not true. If we didn't have POLICE whose job it was to investigate crime, and the prosecutors and judges to enforce the law and punish those who have broken it, you might be able to make that argument. But as it is today, it doesn't fly.

2) The 2nd Amendment is meant to restrict the power of government against infringing upon the rights of the people. At no point does it pertain to how individuals (non-state entities) interact with one another. It guarantees that the government can't keep you from bearing arms, not that you can carry those arms onto my property without my consent.

What we need to discuss here then is a difference between the morality issue and the legal issue. I've been running acros this a lot lately on several different forums I frequent. There's a big difference between "should do" and "should be compelled to do by law (or some other means)." I want to be clear which we are arguing here.

[potter]

I personally don't care if you carry a gun or not and do believe that a well armed population is better off, however I also am uncomfortable with the paranoid people who feel thay must be armed to the teeth everywhere they go...they seem like loose cannons to me...too paranoid and too eager to pull that gun out and shoot.

[ladyphoenix]

Potter, the thing that amazes me is the lack of faith people who are "afraid" of an armed populace have in the value others place on their own lives. If I feared for my own life I would not hastily show aggression toward someone who could likely take that life from me. It's a totally logical and instictual thing. You're bigger than me, I doubt I could take you in a fist fight, I'm not going to try to provoke you. It's simple. And anyone who does is going to learn that lesson very quickly. If anything it would DECREASE the violence of people with guns because they would learn to expect an equal reaction their aggressive behavior. Those who don't learn the lesson quickly wouldn't be around long enough to matter, I don't think. That just goes to show you how little THEY value life, including their own.

[Mark L Hamburger]

Two things I'd like to address here...

1) To suggest that a private property owner cannot set and enforce rules of conduct on his or her own porperty, or that doing so makes him or her liable in some way is absolutely wrong. I'm a private bank owner. I have every right to infringe upon the rights of anyone entering my bank (my property) if I so desire, for the safety of my staff and/or my property. At no point do you have a constitutionally protected right to bear arms on my property. And if you do something stupid on my property while you're there, with or without the aid of a firearm, I am not liable for said stupid act. Period. It's not my responsibility to protect every potential victim in this world from potential nutcases. To suggest so is to suggest that I am somehow responsible for the crackhead down the street who got pregnant and had a child addicted to crack. Or that the man driving down the road drunk killing a car full of people is some how my responsibility. This is simply not true. If we didn't have POLICE whose job it was to investigate crime, and the prosecutors and judges to enforce the law and punish those who have broken it, you might be able to make that argument. But as it is today, it doesn't fly.


If someone gets hurt as a direct result of your policy, you should be held liable. THis is no different than someone falling on ice on your walkway because you failed to take care of it. If somebody comes into your place of business and starts shooting people, and I would have otherwise been able to protect myself and others, but had to leave my legally owned firearm at home or in the car as a result of your policies, it is your fault. Most banks can provide a decent level of security with a single gaurd, so I really don't have an issue with banks not allowing firearms.

As for the police, they are worthless in most situations. Police Have No Duty To Protect Individuals (http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html). The only person responsible for my safety is ME, and if you take away my ability to protect my safety, YOU are liable for anything that happens.

I completely respect property rights, I respect all rights, it is up to the property owner to decide what or what not to allow on their property, that does not, however, release them from any liability. I guess the best way to get rid of this liability is to post a notice that is something like a release of liability and EULA all rolled into one. Something along the lines of "This businness will not be held liable for anything that happens on this property. By entering the business, you agree to all terms."


2) The 2nd Amendment is meant to restrict the power of government against infringing upon the rights of the people. At no point does it pertain to how individuals (non-state entities) interact with one another. It guarantees that the government can't keep you from bearing arms, not that you can carry those arms onto my property without my consent.

What we need to discuss here then is a difference between the morality issue and the legal issue. I've been running acros this a lot lately on several different forums I frequent. There's a big difference between "should do" and "should be compelled to do by law (or some other means)." I want to be clear which we are arguing here.


Yes, I agree with that.

[ladyphoenix]

Mark, before I reply, I want to state that I meant liable in the civil sense, not the criminal sense. That makes a difference in what I'm about to say.

If someone gets hurt as a direct result of your policy, you should be held liable. THis is no different than someone falling on ice on your walkway because you failed to take care of it. If somebody comes into your place of business and starts shooting people, and I would have otherwise been able to protect myself and others, but had to leave my legally owned firearm at home or in the car as a result of your policies, it is your fault. Most banks can provide a decent level of security with a single gaurd, so I really don't have an issue with banks not allowing firearms.First, I can control whether or not there is ice on my walkway that could cause you to get injured. If I don't take care of that walkway and you are injured, I can certainly agree that I should make some kind of restitution for the injury my negligence has caused you.

I cannot, however, control with 100% accuracy the actions or inactions of any other single person, short of tying them up and keeping them drugged. Even then their actions aren't a guarantee. There is a distinct difference between negligence which I am responsible for, and expecting me to be able to forcibly control the behavior of patrons on my property. Taking the law out of the equation, whether or not my policy was sound and allowed for my patrons to be harmed while on my property would greatly affect the business people were willing to conduct on my property, don't you think? It gets around that someone was shot in my bank, and how many people do you think are going to want to go there? Not many. It is in my best interest to insure the safety of my patrons, at least in the sense that not doing so would hurt business.

As for the police, they are worthless in most situations. Police Have No Duty To Protect Individuals (http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html). The only person responsible for my safety is ME, and if you take away my ability to protect my safety, YOU are liable for anything that happens.Preaching to the choir here, babe. ;)

But consider this: If a property owner doesn't wish to allow you your arms while you're on their property, who are you to FORCE them to allow it? No one. You don't want me coming onto your property and dicatating to you how things must be done. That's a wholly authoritarian stand to take. You do, however, have EVERY right to not visit/patronize/whatever a property whose owner refuses to allow you to be armed. Pure and simple. This grocery store doesn't allow guns, fine, go to one that does. It's not that difficult. If the policy is bad, it will come out in the wash...

I completely respect property rights, I respect all rights, it is up to the property owner to decide what or what not to allow on their property, that does not, however, release them from any liability. I guess the best way to get rid of this liability is to post a notice that is something like a release of liability and EULA all rolled into one. Something along the lines of "This businness will not be held liable for anything that happens on this property. By entering the business, you agree to all terms."That would be a great way to go about it, actually. An explicit contract that states, "enter at your own risk." How lovely. At that point, I'd choose not to enter.

Also consider that liability is not always a legal term. You can hold someone liable for poor policy or negligent acts above and beyond and even outside of the law. In fact, those methods would likely be more effective than those that would be employed by the state as we know it.

[brien]

KDK,

It was pure fearmongering.

Now tell me, say someone brings a gun to a mall and starts shooting it off, are you safer with that one gun and security tracking it, or are you safer with that one gun, and a hundred civilians shooting (each other?) off in self defense all over the place not really sure who the bad guy is, and security tracking all those other guns not knowing who the initial shooter really is?


Fear mongering, hmmmmmmmm :ponder: Isn't that what is happening in the post above when the writer paints the absurd picture of "a hundred civilians shooting (each other?) off in self defense all over the place not really sure who the bad guy is,". This scene is quite unlikely.

At most there may be a few off duty officers, and perhaps a number of civillians who may have the permit to carry, and are actually carrying at that moment, otherwise, I fail to envision the "scary scene" as described above. Most firearms owners are very responsible citizens who know and respect the power of firearms.

This business of painting permit carrying citizens as "Dodge City" type gunslingers of the 21st century, acting like the Keystone Cops from yesteryear, seems to be a disingenuous attempt to scare other citizens who aren't familiar with firearms into perhaps thinking people who are armed are all dangerous. Nothing could be further from the truth. The silly imaginary scene described in the post above is probably nothing more than the product of an overactive imagination.:unreal:

[Alonzo]

THis is no different than someone falling on ice on your walkway because you failed to take care of it.

I think the issue at the center of this whole debate is whether or not people carrying guns makes others safer. That seems to be the assumption implicit in the liability argument. The problem is that it is not considered a given that denying people the ability to carry a gun wherever they want is detrimental to their safety in a court of law or in the minds of the majority of the public for that matter.

[Alonzo]

People who arm themselves, and choose to take their protection into their own hands, should not be penalized and prevented from doing so by others who can't guarantee their personal protection and safety from random violence. I have no problem if one chooses not to arm themselves, that is their right, but they don't have the right, nor the obligation, to extend and force their personal decisons upon others who choose not to abdicate their right to self protection and personal safety.

Who the hell is going to protect me from you? If you walk into my supermarket, my school, my bank or my clinic I'm worried about you going off and shooting me or someone else. An armed individual is a greater risk to those around them than an unarmed one, especially when someone unexpectedly gets into an argument.

My family used to run a small business, if someone came into the store with a gun I'd one of three things. First I'd try to call 911. If I did not feel I could do that without them seeing I'd either try to leave the store if the exit was free, and if not I would have have done nothing. They could have walked around and stolen thousands of dollars of merchandise and there ain't a damn thing I would have done or said because the guy has a gun and the last thing I want to do is confront a guy with a gun.

[ladyphoenix]

Who the hell is going to protect me from you? If you walk into my supermarket, my school, my bank or my clinic I'm worried about you going off and shooting me or someone else. An armed individual is a greater risk to those around them than an unarmed one, especially when someone unexpectedly gets into an argument.Really? You mean that a crazy person isn't going to find a way to kill you if he wants to with whatever's accessable? At least if I were armed, I'd be able to STOP him from killing you, eh? Armed with a firearm or not, people are still going to be dangerous. If the fear is of "potential" danger, you may as well end it all, because quite frankly, everything in this world is potentially dangerous, from breathing to eating to walking out your front door. Forget about cars and elevators, they're just WAY too scary.

[Alonzo]

Really? You mean that a crazy person isn't going to find a way to kill you if he wants to with whatever's accessable? At least if I were armed, I'd be able to STOP him from killing you, eh? Armed with a firearm or not, people are still going to be dangerous. If the fear is of "potential" danger, you may as well end it all, because quite frankly, everything in this world is potentially dangerous, from breathing to eating to walking out your front door. Forget about cars and elevators, they're just WAY too scary.

A gun is a huge upgrade over practically anything else they could have, especially if they weren't anticipating a confrontation and it only emerged after an incident takes place.

Besides, it's not a very common event to have people wandering around malls or stores with guns, and it's best to keep it that way. The 10 or 20 people who get hurt or killed in a shooting spree will be offset by the more frequent one or two people injured or killed in smaller incidents.

[ladyphoenix]

You fail to acknowledge the point I made in a previous post about people being less likely to take such an action when it will undoubtedly cost them their lives. Being an easy target makes you more likely to be victimized. If a would be attacker fears a reciprocal act, it's a lot less likely they'd commit the act of aggression in the first place.

[potter]

As I said before, I have no problem with guns or gun ownership, and I also know most people who own guns are responsible with them. I am however going to be leary of anyone who feels the need to carry a gun around all the time. To me it exhibits abnormal paranoia, after all, it's ain't the wild wild west any more, and IMO, people are pretty whacked out these days and who knows what will set someone off.

If I should decide to carry a gun my biggest worry would be having to use it. What if I hit a bystander and kill them? I could never live with myself. But I also know many people don't concern themselves with that type of stuff.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Well argued points Brien and Lady, and I must add to this.

Alonso said:
Who the hell is going to protect me from you? If you walk into my supermarket, my school, my bank or my clinic I'm worried about you going off and shooting me or someone else. An armed individual is a greater risk to those around them than an unarmed one, especially when someone unexpectedly gets into an argument.

You seem to think "responsible" gun owners, are going to pull their gun over an argument, and I have to ask what leads to this fallacious conclusion?

I have been a gun owner for over 20 years of my 35 years of age, and have NEVER, I repeat, NEVER had to use it. Does this mean it isn't needed? Certainly not. I own a firearm for when it is needed, and when it is needed, if you don't have it, you are often left with few or no choices, most of those choices being at the mercy of an aggressor with no respect for your rights, your safety, or your life.

Check this link to see documented FACTS of firearms being used to save innocent people from becoming a victim:

http://www.nraila.org/ArmedCitizen/Default.aspx[hr]Alonso, I notice you are observant enough to point this out:

Alonso said:
A gun is a huge upgrade over practically anything else they could have

The forefathers recognized this also, hence them putting in the BOR the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

So, you have the same right to keep and bear arms as any American Citizen, so you have the right to not be armed. If you fear the threat of armed criminals however, why not arm yourself, since you have already obviously noticed that arms are a great advantage to self defense.

Obtaining a firearm is only part of the equation to taking responsibility for your own defense, and the other part of the equation is training and practice.

Responsible gun owners take all aspects of this equation seriously.

[PatrickHenry]

This is my favorite gun rights org: http://www.jpfo.org/

[Alonzo]

You fail to acknowledge the point I made in a previous post about people being less likely to take such an action when it will undoubtedly cost them their lives. Being an easy target makes you more likely to be victimized. If a would be attacker fears a reciprocal act, it's a lot less likely they'd commit the act of aggression in the first place.


A few problems there. One, people are likely to think they have the advantage and since they pull their gun out first they would. Second, if I have a gun and you have one, I'm probably going to be more likely to pull it out if you start behaving in a threatening manner as that last thing I'd want is you to pull your gun on me when I'm unprepared. And even beyond that, if you try to fight me a gun is a better defense than my fists, which admittedly aren't much of a defense. Unfortunately though my defense could A. kill you or B. kill me if you pull out your gun and shoot me first. B is probably more likely as I've never held or used a gun.

Boston, MA -- Firearms are used to kill two out of every three homicide victims in America. In the first nationally representative study to examine the relationship between survey measures of household firearm ownership and state level rates of homicide, researchers at the Harvard Injury Control Research Center found that homicide rates among children, and among women and men of all ages, are higher in states where more households have guns. The study appears in the February 2007 issue of Social Science and Medicine.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2007-releases/press01112007.html

[Alonzo]

You seem to think "responsible" gun owners, are going to pull their gun over an argument, and I have to ask what leads to this fallacious conclusion?

Responsible and a brief episode of being extremely angry are different things. People can be very responsible and just lose it, look at road rage for instance. You can have excellent drivers but cut them off and they'll chase you for miles and try to run you off the road. That's not necessarily saying the person doesn't know how to use a car responsibly, the issue there is impulse control.

The forefathers recognized this also, hence them putting in the BOR the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

So, you have the same right to keep and bear arms as any American Citizen, so you have the right to not be armed. If you fear the threat of armed criminals however, why not arm yourself, since you have already obviously noticed that arms are a great advantage to self defense.

Because my having a gun makes the criminal more likely to use theirs. Most home invaders are more interested in property than violence.

[brien]

Who the hell is going to protect me from you? If you walk into my supermarket, my school, my bank or my clinic I'm worried about you going off and shooting me or someone else. An armed individual is a greater risk to those around them than an unarmed one, especially when someone unexpectedly gets into an argument.

My family used to run a small business, if someone came into the store with a gun I'd one of three things. First I'd try to call 911. If I did not feel I could do that without them seeing I'd either try to leave the store if the exit was free, and if not I would have have done nothing. They could have walked around and stolen thousands of dollars of merchandise and there ain't a damn thing I would have done or said because the guy has a gun and the last thing I want to do is confront a guy with a gun.


You don't require protection from me. How would you even know I carry. I am not out to get you. Are you really this paranoid?

You would be damn happy if you were in one of your imagined situations and I shot the guy dead who was taking aim at your head.:shock:

[Alonzo]

You don't require protection from me. How would you even know I carry. I am not out to get you. Are you really this paranoid?

I didn't mean you in particular, I meant protecting myself from peoples walking around with guns all the time. It's not just about protecting yourself but protecting others too. Besides, I don't think telling people to keep guns out of those places is a lot to ask. I think the abnormal think is taking guns into those places.


You would be damn happy if you were in one of your imagined situations and I shot the guy dead who was taking aim at your head.

Sure I would be. But I wouldn't be happy about the next guy who thinks its acceptable to live life with a gun attached to his body and gets a little too drunk or a little too pissed off one night and uses it in a situation that wouldn't have resulted in anyones death.

[brien]

As I said before, I have no problem with guns or gun ownership, and I also know most people who own guns are responsible with them. I am however going to be leary of anyone who feels the need to carry a gun around all the time. To me it exhibits abnormal paranoia, after all, it's ain't the wild wild west any more, and IMO, people are pretty whacked out these days and who knows what will set someone off.

If I should decide to carry a gun my biggest worry would be having to use it. What if I hit a bystander and kill them? I could never live with myself. But I also know many people don't concern themselves with that type of stuff.



Cops are required to carry their firearms 24 / 7 so does this statement below apply to them?? How did you frame it:

I am however going to be leary of anyone who feels the need to carry a gun around all the time. To me it exhibits abnormal paranoia, after all, it's ain't the wild wild west any more, and IMO, people are pretty whacked out these days and who knows what will set someone off.

So this argument really doesn't hold any water. Once again, this is probably a fear not really based in reality. I doubt there are many people in this nation who are abnormally paranoid who carry guns 24/7. There are perhaps some, and if they threaten other people, this is why others should carry, be they cops, on or off duty, or the responsible firearm owner. :thumbsup:

We all have preconceived notions that are shaped by our experiences. Trouble is, most people in the US only have experience with firearms from Hollywood, whom, I call Follywoood. TV and movie producers all use gun violence in their trade with no regard for the consequences, mostly which are to create a false impression with their viewers, as to the often terrible consequences of firearms used in the commisssion of a crime. People shot in Follywood movies don't bleed. Preposterous. Therefore viewers don't realilze the true consequences of gun violence. Furthermore, these same Hollywood types are often the same people who advocate more gun control. They should control themselves first and not worry about my firearms at all. Hypocrites, the lot of them.:sick:


If I should decide to carry a gun my biggest worry would be having to use it.

And this is as it should be. Anyone who doesn't have a concern when or how to use a firearm doesn't belong having one.

[potter]

"Cops are required to carry their firearms 24 / 7 so does this statement below apply to them??"

Actually even moreso....but that's another thread

[brien]

I didn't mean you in particular, I meant protecting myself from peoples walking around with guns all the time. It's not just about protecting yourself but protecting others too. Besides, I don't think telling people to keep guns out of those places is a lot to ask. I think the abnormal think is taking guns into those places.

Sure I would be. But I wouldn't be happy about the next guy who thinks its acceptable to live life with a gun attached to his body and gets a little too drunk or a little too pissed off one night and uses it in a situation that wouldn't have resulted in anyones death.



It's not just about protecting yourself but protecting others too. Besides, I don't think telling people to keep guns out of those places is a lot to ask. I think the abnormal think is taking guns into those places.

I am only in this to protect myself, please make no mistake about this. I don't pretend to be a hero for anyone else. If you happen to be there, and in my protecting myself also protects you, so be it, your lucky. Problem with "asking" people to not carry into a given situation doesn't work, except in places like courthouses or airports, where there is an abnormal police presence. If you want to have a police state so nobody carrys firearms, I would opt out, thank you.

But I wouldn't be happy about the next guy who thinks its acceptable to live life with a gun attached to his body and gets a little too drunk or a little too pissed off one night and uses it in a situation that wouldn't have resulted in anyones death.

This happens every night in the US with drunken drivers so are you advocating banning cars? Pissed off people will always find a way to harm others if that is what they desire. It is the calm and resolute person who can prevent the angry asshole from harming innocent people. This is not about the gun, the knife, the car etc, it is about people.

This has nothing to do with firearms and everything to do with the people who commit crimes with firearms. Deal with them and leave my firearm alone, please.[hr]
"Cops are required to carry their firearms 24 / 7 so does this statement below apply to them??"

Actually even moreso....but that's another thread


Are you seriously suggesting all cops are paranoid unstable people as you described? Please....:unreal:

[Alonzo]

I am only in this to protect myself, please make no mistake about this. I don't pretend to be a hero for anyone else. If you happen to be there, and in my protecting myself also protects you, so be it, your lucky.

And if someone is really pissed off or they get into a fight with someone, the potential for pulling that weapon in an otherwise non life threatening situation increases.

This happens every night in the US with drunken drivers so are you advocating banning cars?

Most likely your day to day life wouldn't be changed one bit if you left your gun at home, or simply didn't buy one in the first place.

Pissed off people will always find a way to harm others if that is what they desire. It is the calm and resolute person who can prevent the angry asshole from harming innocent people. This is not about the gun, the knife, the car etc, it is about people.

It's much harder to harm someone without a firearm though, at least severely. Besides, I don't see anyone proposing extensive psychological testing to weed out people who drink, have poor impulse control, violent tempers etc.

This has nothing to do with firearms and everything to do with the people who commit crimes with firearms. Deal with them and leave my firearm alone, please.

If they didn't have the firearm they couldn't commit a crime with it.

[Mark L Hamburger]

ladypheonix, I guess you're just misunderstanding my position. I don't want the government to restrict anyones rights, especially not property owners.I just don't think that a property owner that decides to restrict my rights on their property while not ensuring my safety up to a similar level of that if I were allowed to exercise my rights, shouldn't be immune to (civil, not criminal) liability.

Banks aren't a good example to me because they generally employ at least one armed guard to protect a small area. They are absolutely providing a similar level of protection to what could be achieved by being armed myself. Larger businesses, like malls, department stores, supermarkets, etc. can not do this. Thankfully, around here there are few businesses that have the no firearms policy posted, so concealed carry is legal in most stores. No one would know whether you were carrying or not.

[Alonzo]

Hamburger, is whether or not you can carry a handgun into a store seriously an issue? I just can't see people doing that, or thinking they should be able to. To move beyond an ideological level and to personally say that "I plan to carry a gun with me into shopping malls, schools and clinics" is just plain nutty to me.

[Mark L Hamburger]

If law-abiding citizens having the right to own firearms is a problem, then why is it that places with outright bans on firearms are where the most violent crimes are committed? Why is it that states where your right to keep and bear arms is respected are the ones with the lowest violent crime rates? Vermont has no restrictions on carry or concealed carry. Same with Alaska, with Texas and Colorado having ROTC laws and low violent crime rates, while DC, Chicago, Detroit all have extremely high rates.

Responsible gun-owning and carrying citizens don't cause the problems, it's the dipshit criminals that don't care whether it's legal to carry or not. Responsible people stop crime, they don't create it.[hr]
Hamburger, is whether or not you can carry a handgun into a store seriously an issue? I just can't see people doing that, or thinking they should be able to. To move beyond an ideological level and to personally say that "I plan to carry a gun with me into shopping malls, schools and clinics" is just plain nutty to me.


If it is a posted policy, I do not, otherwise I carry pretty much everywhere I go. In general, it's more of a statement than a real necessity. I care about my life and freedom, and the lives and freedom of my family. I'm willing to use whatever tools I have available tome to protect that. If that's "nutty" then I guess I really am.

[Alonzo]

Vermont has no restrictions on carry or concealed carry. Same with Alaska, with Texas and Colorado having ROTC laws and low violent crime rates, while DC, Chicago, Detroit all have extremely high rates.

Vermont and Alaska are rural for the most part. No real cities to speak of as Burlington and Anchorage don't hold a candle in population to even the suburbs of bigger cities. And comparing detroit or dc to colorado is like comparing denver to colorado, cities almost by their nature have more crime.

Though if you look here you find some interesting statistics. Violent crime rates per 100,000 people

Fla. 711.3
Tenn. 695.2
La. 638.7
Alaska 634.5
Tex. 540.5
Mass. 458.8
N.Y. 441.6
N.J. 355.7
Wash. 343.8
Ore. 298.3
R.I. 247.4
Vt. 112.0

Vermont seems different in their gun use. My father has a house there and, from what I've seen, guns up there are for hunting primarily. Guns in terms of defense don't seem to be the the issue as much as hunting is.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004912.html

[Mark L Hamburger]

States (and districts) with some of the most strict gun control:
DC 1,371.2
Md. 700.5
Ill.4 542.9

4. Limited data for 2004 were available for the state of Illinois.

Vs. states with some of the least:
Colo. 373.5
Ohio 341.8
Ind. 325.4
Utah 236.0
Vt. 112.0

And, in Colorado, Denver doesn't respect state laws and the state constitution, citing "home rule" as excluding them from any limitations from federal or state laws. Most of the violent crime here happens in Denver, compared to the other major cities.

The crime rate in Florida has more to do with the black market of drug trafficking than the availability of guns. From 1987, when they passed their RTC laws, through '96, the crime rate has fallen significantly:

Florida vs. National crime rates:
homicide rate
Florida -36%
United States -0.4%

firearm homicide rate
Florida -37%
United States +15%

handgun homicide rate
Florida -41%
United States +24%

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

[Alonzo]

DC doesn't really count as you're comparing a major city with full scale states and all their different areas.

Though if it's just guns why do states such as MA, RI and CT score so much lower than TX, Tenn, LA? Also, when you try to compare places like Maryland with Colorado, you're comparing largely rural states with heavily urbanized ones, which is problematic. If the rural state is more dangerous that is surprising, but the other way around is to be expected.

The crime rate in Florida has more to do with the black market of drug trafficking than the availability of guns. From 1987, when they passed their RTC laws, through '96, the crime rate has fallen significantly:

What else did they do? Violence has been dropping throughout the U.S. Bostons crime rate also dropped significantly in the 90's and the area known as "the war zone" was all but elminated. It's gone up again in recent years but that's more police issues as cities that border it, such as the famously (or infamously) liberal cambridge, have not.

[Mark L Hamburger]

DC count's because the statistics count it as a "state" and Illinois is far more rural than you seem to think.

It's not just guns, it's far more complex than that. MA, RI, and CT score low because the majority of the population is well off white people. You drop a bunch of people with different backgrounds and cultures into an area, the crime rate goes up. Multi-cultural areas have a higher crime rate because people clash, violence happens. My point is that taking guns away from law-abiding citizens is not the answer.

[Alonzo]

DC count's because the statistics count it as a "state" and Illinois is far more rural than you seem to think.


It adds absolutely nothing to the debate because D.C. is a city. To compare it to anything other than cities such as N.Y., Boston, Houston etc. is favoring the technicality over what, for all intents and purposes, it actually is.

It's not just guns, it's far more complex than that. MA, RI, and CT score low because the majority of the population is well off white people. You drop a bunch of people with different backgrounds and cultures into an area, the crime rate goes up. Multi-cultural areas have a higher crime rate because people clash, violence happens. My point is that taking guns away from law-abiding citizens is not the answer.

I agree that it's more complex, by the suggestion that simply adding more diversity into a place will cause crime to shoot up is a little ridiculous.

The two most multicultural cities in the world are Miami and Toronto. Miami if you simply mean largest foreign born population (though its claim to multiculturalism is problematic due to it only coming from a few places), but Toronto (over 50% foreign born and just under 50% visible minority) if you mean actual amount of multiculturalism and diversity of where its inhabitants come from. Miami is a dangerous city, but Toronto is one of the safest, if not the safest, major cities in North America. The homicide rate there, in about 50% of the years, is lower than the homicide rate of vermont (have the statistics if you want)!

You can't just say multiculturalism breeds violence when that's simply not true. Multiculturalism with a segregated population is a contributing factor, but true, integrated multiculturalism (as in Toronto) does not.

[Mark L Hamburger]

It adds absolutely nothing to the debate because D.C. is a city. To compare it to anything other than cities such as N.Y., Boston, Houston etc. is favoring the technicality over what, for all intents and purposes, it actually is.

DC isn't a city, it's a federal district, Washington is a city, within the District of Columbia. But that's just splitting hairs, I mentioned it because it's a prime example of federal gun bans gone wrong.

And, no, it isn't as simple as culture either, it's far more complex than even that, but it can be a significant factor. Either way, it has been proven that disarming law-abiding citizens does NOT reduce crime, and can significantly increase violent crime rates.

see: Gun Control's Twisted Outcome (http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html)

[Shintao]

Thanks for the informative idea, which is right on. People need the ability to defend themselves on the "mean streets of America." The gun didn't mke the people in our society, the gun is only an end to frustration or whatever drives a insane person to kill others with it.

The point in the article is, how can a corporation in America subject to American law, deny you the right to pack a gun for personal protection?? Thus infringing on your right keep & bare arms if you are licensed to pack in public.

I am sure the armored car drivers pack guns into the malls. So at the least, it is discriminating against licenced gun owners to do the same.

[Alonzo]

Might want to lay off the op-eds when claiming something is "proven". May also want to post said "proof", not just a correlation seen in a particular place.

Has the u.k. crime rate increased? Yes. Does that prove that's the primary or only factor? No. Does that prove that doing so anywhere has the same result? No. Does that prove gun control as a whole has that result? No.

The point in the article is, how can a corporation in America subject to American law, deny you the right to pack a gun for personal protection?? Thus infringing on your right keep & bare arms if you are licensed to pack in public.

Again, try suing a black man for kicking you out of his store after you called him a "watermelon eating niger" on the grounds that he violated your right to free speech.

[Shintao]

Hamburger, is whether or not you can carry a handgun into a store seriously an issue? I just can't see people doing that, or thinking they should be able to. To move beyond an ideological level and to personally say that "I plan to carry a gun with me into shopping malls, schools and clinics" is just plain nutty to me.


It is nutty, until my niece is assualted by Patrick Purdy on a school ground, or confronted with a gun totter robbing her store, or taken hostage while working at a college that two robbers are stealing cash from, or confronting an insane man with a knife trying to beat down your front door with your young children inside with you. That seems absurd, but all that happened to my niece who doesn't pack, and could have defended herself. She continues to have psychological problems from criminals abuse.

I make my lady pack guns outside my properties, :fight: because I want to know she can handle an attacker. I have seen to many women psychologically destroyed by rape forever.

We just had an article on increased violence in police likely brought on by increased violence in our society from mass hysteria. People need to pack to protect themselves, even if they have no license. I would rather pay a fine for concealed weapon than have a crook threaten my life with a gun and know I could have stopped him.

When the people pack guns, crimes go down, and there is evidence backing that up.

[preservanation]

I say all in favor put a BIG sign on their house reading "Gun Free Zone" Then get back to me on how safe they feel.
My guess is that no one will do it.
I wonder why?

[Mark L Hamburger]

Might want to lay off the op-eds when claiming something is "proven". May also want to post said "proof", not just a correlation seen in a particular place.


How about this:
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=2445

Or this study:
http://www.saf.org/JFPP14ch5.htm
Gun laws may not reduce violent crime, but crime causes gun laws. The loser in this drama is individual freedom. The winner is bureaucracy. Since it is a truism that only law abiding citizens obey gun laws, or any other kind of law for that matter, it is an illusion that further tinkering with the law will protect the public. No law, no matter how restrictive it is, can protect us from people who decide to commit violent crimes. There have always been criminals, and there have always been deranged people. Murder has been illegal for hundreds if not thousands of years. The truth is we live in a dangerous world, and the government can't completely protect us.

This brief review of gun laws in the British Commonwealth suggests that English-style gun laws have failed to reduce violent crime. However, more research needs to be done before we can draw this conclusion with much confidence. All I've been able to do so far is to examine simple two-way analyses. Before we can have any confidence in our conclusions, we need to conduct econometric studies in order to disentangle the complex events that occurred at the same time that new firearm laws were introduced.

Nevertheless, we can say that disarming the public has not reduced criminal violence in any country we've examined here: not Great Britain, not Canada, and not Australia. Only the United States has witnessed a dramatic drop in criminal violence. One of the important reasons is that many states in the past two decades have encouraged responsible citizens to carry concealed handguns. Perhaps it is time criminologists encouraged more individual self-reliance.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/blackstock6.html

The ban has had no discernible effect on gun crime, which has continued a steady rise dating back more than 25 years and which accounted for some 4,000 injuries in the UK last year [2006]. Immediately after the ban, the number of shootings actually went up and has stayed up, though the homicide rate, which is relatively low, has been almost unaffected. In Scotland, for instance, the rate of about eight killings a year by guns has remained the same despite the Dunblane ban.

[Alonzo]

Ummm....... NRA? A site dedicated to the second amendment and rockwell? Those are unbiased sources?

Though even that points out that gun bans didn't increase homicides in the u.k.

but crime causes gun laws

There, we agree on something. I don't think we're going to get much further than that.

[Mark L Hamburger]

I say all in favor put a BIG sign on their house reading "Gun Free Zone" Then get back to me on how safe they feel.
My guess is that no one will do it.
I wonder why?


Like so?

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_doors.jpg

[AnnEsthesia]

I would. But since there are no home invasions here, it would be a moot point.

[Mark L Hamburger]

I would. But since there are no home invasions here, it would be a moot point.


It'll work the same for burglary, or pretty much any other violent crime.

[preservanation]

States which honer the 2nd amend are avoided by violent criminals. They don't want trouble, they want easy prey. Washington DC is a prime example.
In those states you don't have to own a gun to benefit, the point is that you might have a gun.
Criminals are chickens, they will go somewhere where they proudly advertise "We Have No Guns"! rather than where it reads "We Support The Right For Citizens To Own Guns"! Why take an unnecessary chance?

[Osborn F. Enready]

Mark said:
Like so?

Thats a GREAT picture Mark, I had to chuckle. :clapper: :madlaugh:[hr]I also want to point out something that doesn't get talked about very often, regarding Ohio and its CCW situation.


Ohio has been in severe economic decline for the last several years, mainly due to job off-shoring and labor shift. Its at times like this that crime and violent crime usually go up, as people who were previously stable income earners are dealt a hard hand, and some wrongly turn to crime to make ends meet until they find an answer.

In Ohio, this didn't happen, and I really think, though I can't prove, that CCW and the passing of the Castle Doctrine really played a part in this unusual lowering of crime while the economic situation actually worsened.

I really would like to see more information regarding this connection, if anyone has any.

[Saigio]

It's very amusing to see the fear mongering that come with those that are so terrified of losing their automatic rifles.

As for the ban of gun-free zones, I'm not gonna feel very safe if people can bring a gun into a hospitol without suspicion andwalk around freely. I'm just not gonna be comfortable with it. Not only that, it will make easier for people to start shooting up malls, schools, and other areas that were first safe(r). I think that we should keep guns out of the hands of those that are mentally unstable as best we can. People that sell guns should be required to do a mental health background check on anyone wanting to buy a gun.

[Mark L Hamburger]

It's very amusing to see the fear mongering that come with those that are so terrified of losing their automatic rifles.


No one is talking about losing automatic rifles. Automatic rifles aren't used in crime, as the prices are prohibitive to criminals. Add the $200 BATF tax and large amount of documentation required on them and it doesn't happen.


As for the ban of gun-free zones, I'm not gonna feel very safe if people can bring a gun into a hospitol without suspicion andwalk around freely. I'm just not gonna be comfortable with it. Not only that, it will make easier for people to start shooting up malls, schools, and other areas that were first safe(r). I think that we should keep guns out of the hands of those that are mentally unstable as best we can. People that sell guns should be required to do a mental health background check on anyone wanting to buy a gun.


They already to background checks, and mental health is already a determining factor on purchasing a gun.

At VT, 32 died needlessly. A single armed student or teacher could have stopped the killer, but all died following the rules. 30 people died AFTER the cops showed up. Excuse the hell out of me for valuing my life and the lives of victims of these masacres over your "comfort"

[Osborn F. Enready]

Saigio said:
It's very amusing to see the fear mongering that come with those that are so terrified of losing their automatic rifles.

First of all, what fear-mongering?
Secondly, do you know what an "automatic rifle" is? Do you mean semi-automatic, or are you simply a victim of anti-gun media disinformation?

Saigio said:
As for the ban of gun-free zones, I'm not gonna feel very safe if people can bring a gun into a hospitol without suspicion andwalk around freely. I'm just not gonna be comfortable with it.

You don't have a right to be comfortable everywhere you are, or you go.

I do have an explicit right to keep and bear arms for competent defense against all enemies foreign and domestic.

Saigio said:
Not only that, it will make easier for people to start shooting up malls, schools, and other areas that were first safe®.

Why would it make it easier? Are you making the claim that legal guns are the source of the problems, if so, please provide evidence of how to remove the world of guns, and I mean REMOVE them, since militaries, police and other "security" still rely on the best proven method of defense, the firearm and its legal use.

Saigio said:
I think that we should keep guns out of the hands of those that are mentally unstable as best we can.

Define mentally unstable?
How do YOU think this should be done?
Do you deny people with mental issues all of their rights, or just their right to defense?

Saigio said:
People that sell guns should be required to do a mental health background check on anyone wanting to buy a gun.

So you think private individual businesses should be creating and using their own test, or is this a job for "big gubbmint" in your opinion?




Also, do you feel the government should be financially liable to anyone whom they fail to protect?

[Shintao]

People who arm themselves, and choose to take their protection into their own hands, should not be penalized and prevented from doing so by others who can't guarantee their personal protection and safety from random violence. I have no problem if one chooses not to arm themselves, that is their right, but they don't have the right, nor the obligation, to extend and force their personal decisons upon others who choose not to abdicate their right to self protection and personal safety.

The reality of the matter is, most likely the police will not be anywhere in the area when random violence occurs, so the individual who decides to protect himself / herself from violence when they are in imininent and unprotected danger, has the right to do so.


Here! Here! :clapper::clapper::clapper:

The man deserves extra Kudos & cream puffs for that eloquent, direct to the point, fully comprehendible, right on the mark statement. Thank you Thank you!!!!! :clapper: :clapper:

As to schools, there is plently of evidence that had teachers been packing, students would be alive today. Every teacher should be sent through a fire arms course and required to pack for the safety of our children.

[AnnEsthesia]

I would. But since there are no home invasions here, it would be a moot point.


It'll work the same for burglary, or pretty much any other violent crime.


Don't have any of those either. The only murder here in the last 15 years was by someone who knew the victim. However, I would bet my security system and my 80# dog would deter said criminal anyway.

[Mark L Hamburger]

I would. But since there are no home invasions here, it would be a moot point.


It'll work the same for burglary, or pretty much any other violent crime.


Don't have any of those either. The only murder here in the last 15 years was by someone who knew the victim. However, I would bet my security system and my 80# dog would deter said criminal anyway.


Well good for you for living in such a nice place. The rest of us may not be so lucky.

If a criminal really want's to do you harm, a dog and a security system won't do much. You've got an average 30 minute response time for police, and a dog is fairly easy to take out of the equation. What then? Lay back and take whatever abuse the criminal intends? In 30 minutes you could be dead and the criminal long gone well before any police ever show up. Police arrive in time to draw chalk outlines, I prefer that I'm not the one to be outlined.

Dogs aren't protection, dogs are pets. I have a 70 lb Staffordshire Terrier (Pit Bull) and a 50 lb Husky, but there's no way I'm going to put my life or my families lives in danger by relying on them. Same with the security system.

[Saigio]

As for the ban of gun-free zones, I'm not gonna feel very safe if people can bring a gun into a hospitol without suspicion andwalk around freely. I'm just not gonna be comfortable with it. Not only that, it will make easier for people to start shooting up malls, schools, and other areas that were first safe(r). I think that we should keep guns out of the hands of those that are mentally unstable as best we can. People that sell guns should be required to do a mental health background check on anyone wanting to buy a gun.


They already to background checks, and mental health is already a determining factor on purchasing a gun.

At VT, 32 died needlessly. A single armed student or teacher could have stopped the killer, but all died following the rules. 30 people died AFTER the cops showed up. Excuse the hell out of me for valuing my life and the lives of victims of these masacres over your "comfort"


An armed person could have stopped him. If they were there at the time, they had happened to have a gun and brought it with them, happened to have it loaded, happened to not be shot first, etc.
What you are suggesting, that having no gun free zones will make the world safer, is absurd. People will be able to walk around with a gun without suspiscion, amking it easier to shoot up places.

Sorry that I would rather be safer in my schools and in stores and hosptals. I see now that I was very wrong to expect any form of safety anywhere. Every Tom, Dick, and Harry should have a gun and carry it, no matter where they are. That is what would make you happy, isn't it?

[Mark L Hamburger]

An armed person could have stopped him. If they were there at the time, they had happened to have a gun and brought it with them, happened to have it loaded, happened to not be shot first, etc.
What you are suggesting, that having no gun free zones will make the world safer, is absurd. People will be able to walk around with a gun without suspiscion, amking it easier to shoot up places.

Sorry that I would rather be safer in my schools and in stores and hosptals. I see now that I was very wrong to expect any form of safety anywhere. Every Tom, Dick, and Harry should have a gun and carry it, no matter where they are. That is what would make you happy, isn't it?


Yeah, you'd be safer, just like the kids at Columbine, or the VT students, or the Nebraska mall victims, or the Amish school victims, or Kent State victims, or the jews of Europe, or the people living under Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot...


http://www.olegvolk.net/gallery/d/19024-6/feelsafe.jpg

[Saigio]

An armed person could have stopped him. If they were there at the time, they had happened to have a gun and brought it with them, happened to have it loaded, happened to not be shot first, etc.
What you are suggesting, that having no gun free zones will make the world safer, is absurd. People will be able to walk around with a gun without suspiscion, amking it easier to shoot up places.

Sorry that I would rather be safer in my schools and in stores and hosptals. I see now that I was very wrong to expect any form of safety anywhere. Every Tom, Dick, and Harry should have a gun and carry it, no matter where they are. That is what would make you happy, isn't it?


Yeah, you'd be safer, just like the kids at Columbine, or the VT students, or the Nebraska mall victims, or the Amish school victims, or Kent State victims, or the jews of Europe, or the people living under Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot...



What does the holocaust have to do with making hospitals and schools as safe as possible? What does Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot have to do with it either?

If everyone around me has a gun when I'm in a mall, what is stopping them from turning it into the OK corral, and shooting up everything?
You want high school students to be allowed to walk around with guns? What happens when a fight breaks out? It escalates untill it is stopped. So what will happen if the kids in the fight have guns? Death.
All that will happen by getting rid of gun-free zones is that there will be more and more shootings. Is that what you want? Sacrifice lives so you can show off your shiny chunks of cold steel?

[AnnEsthesia]

I would. But since there are no home invasions here, it would be a moot point.


It'll work the same for burglary, or pretty much any other violent crime.


Don't have any of those either. The only murder here in the last 15 years was by someone who knew the victim. However, I would bet my security system and my 80# dog would deter said criminal anyway.


Well good for you for living in such a nice place. The rest of us may not be so lucky.

If a criminal really want's to do you harm, a dog and a security system won't do much. You've got an average 30 minute response time for police, and a dog is fairly easy to take out of the equation. What then? Lay back and take whatever abuse the criminal intends? In 30 minutes you could be dead and the criminal long gone well before any police ever show up. Police arrive in time to draw chalk outlines, I prefer that I'm not the one to be outlined.

Dogs aren't protection, dogs are pets. I have a 70 lb Staffordshire Terrier (Pit Bull) and a 50 lb Husky, but there's no way I'm going to put my life or my families lives in danger by relying on them. Same with the security system.


Did you miss the part where I support anyone defending themselves if someone breaks into THEIR OWN HOME? If you are in imminent danger or someone around you is being harmed, you have every right to react and use force if necessary. The part I disagree with is placing YOURSELF into the position of being in danger and then using that as an excuse to play rambo. You cannot jump in front of a car and then complain when someone almost hits you.

[Mark L Hamburger]

What does the holocaust have to do with making hospitals and schools as safe as possible? What does Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot have to do with it either?


The holocaust, because they were victims of gun control, the dictators because they disarmed their citizens and left them defenseless before killing MILLIONS. it's all related.


If everyone around me has a gun when I'm in a mall, what is stopping them from turning it into the OK corral, and shooting up everything?


Yeah, they use the same argument to try to prevent RTC and castle doctrine legislation from becoming law. You know what? They're always wrong. More guns=less crime. You obviously have little faith in the human race.


You want high school students to be allowed to walk around with guns? What happens when a fight breaks out? It escalates untill it is stopped. So what will happen if the kids in the fight have guns? Death.


No, I don't want high-school students armed at school, they are under-age, but I do want the faculty to be able to be. In Israel, all teachers are armed with full-automatic weapons to protect the children. Do our kids not deserve the same level of protection?


All that will happen by getting rid of gun-free zones is that there will be more and more shootings. Is that what you want? Sacrifice lives so you can show off your shiny chunks of cold steel?


There are a lot more places where you can carry legally than gun-free zones, and there are no "Wild-West Shootouts." The malls around here are not gun-free zones, and we have RTC, as well as the "Make My Day" law and there hasn't been a single "Wild West Shootout". There have, however, been a lot of guns used in self defense, you know, saving lives.[hr]
[Did you miss the part where I support anyone defending themselves if someone breaks into THEIR OWN HOME? If you are in imminent danger or someone around you is being harmed, you have every right to react and use force if necessary. The part I disagree with is placing YOURSELF into the position of being in danger and then using that as an excuse to play rambo. You cannot jump in front of a car and then complain when someone almost hits you.


I don't remember anyone advocating putting oneself in harms way and advocating "going Rambo."

Self-defense trainers teach avoidance and de-escalation. Lawful gun owners use force reluctantly and only when their lives are in immediate danger.

Responsible armed people function as the peacekeeper of society. Unlike police, they will never give you a speeding ticket or ask for tax money to pay for their guns.

So, while I respect your belief that the only place I have a right to defend myself is in my home, I have to disagree.

[preservanation]

It's very amusing to see the fear mongering that come with those that are so terrified of losing their automatic rifles.

As for the ban of gun-free zones, I'm not gonna feel very safe if people can bring a gun into a hospitol without suspicion andwalk around freely. I'm just not gonna be comfortable with it. Not only that, it will make easier for people to start shooting up malls, schools, and other areas that were first safe(r). I think that we should keep guns out of the hands of those that are mentally unstable as best we can. People that sell guns should be required to do a mental health background check on anyone wanting to buy a gun.
Thank you for that.
Watch for more attacks on hospitals.
Mark my words.

[Keith Hamburger]

It's very amusing to see the fear mongering that come with those that are so terrified of losing their automatic rifles.

As for the ban of gun-free zones, I'm not gonna feel very safe if people can bring a gun into a hospitol without suspicion andwalk around freely. I'm just not gonna be comfortable with it. Not only that, it will make easier for people to start shooting up malls, schools, and other areas that were first safe(r). I think that we should keep guns out of the hands of those that are mentally unstable as best we can. People that sell guns should be required to do a mental health background check on anyone wanting to buy a gun.


I took my wife to the hospital on Monday for some tests. There was a sign on the door restricting carrying of guns. Something along the lines of "No Open Carry of Firearms Allowed".

In Colorado Springs, at least, it is perfectly legal to carry concealed, with a proper and easy to obtain permit, in hospitals and most government buildings. The courthouse and jail are exceptions, of course, but most government buildings have a sign similar to the above.

Keith

(And, Alonzo, maybe you should switch from making statements to "Hamburger". It could get confusing. First names might work better.)

[moses2792796]

Last time one of these shootings happened in Australia there was a major crackdown on gun ownership, this hasn't happened in the last 10 years now, simply because it's damn near impossible to get a gun. It makes more sense to eliminate the cause rather than react to the effect, KDKDK's idea is fighting fire with fire, won't work. It's not like civilians actually need guns anyway.

[Mark L Hamburger]

Australia Gun Control - Big Failure (http://ecclesia.org/truth/australia.html)

Because of the changes made to the gun control laws in 1997, gun owners in Australia were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed, a program costing the government more than $500 million dollars. And now the results are in. After 12 months of banning firearms:

- Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent;
- Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent;

- Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent).

- Hot Burglaries are up 300% (where the intruders come in while you are home and knows that you are home).

- In the state of Victoria, homicides with firearms are up 300 percent.

Figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms (but increased drastically in the past 12 months). There has been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly. Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain how no improvement in "safety" has been served after such monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in "ridding society of guns." Their response has been to "wait longer".

Their suggestion to citizens has been to build a fortified room in their house, so that when a burglar enters their home, the homeowners may lock themselves in that room while the burglar takes what he wants from their house.

At the time of the ban, the Prime Minister said, "self-defense is not a reason for owning a firearm."


Yeah, that worked just great :unreal:

[moses2792796]

What you forgot to mention is that only an extremely small number of those crimes involve guns. The reasons for the increase may have nothing to do with the ban.

Also we don't have an annual mass shooting which seems to be becoming the case in America. Fortunately those type of crimes can't be committed with knives.

[preservanation]

Here in America it would be a daunting task to wrestle our guns away from the citizens.
I don't think the Gov wants to go there.
Not only would it be blatantly unconstitutional and the courts would be flooded with winnable law suits but the hospitals would be flooded with the blood of those who would want to take on that dangerous task of disarming law abiding citizens.
We take tyranny and the threat of the gov very serious here. We understand that the removal of firearms from the public, like Hitler did, is a real harbinger of fascism.
Little is known or appreciated about what is bubbling beneath the surface of America.
Unlike the popular international notions...we care about our freedom and liberty more than we do Britney Spears.

[brien]

And if someone is really pissed off or they get into a fight with someone, the potential for pulling that weapon in an otherwise non life threatening situation increases.

Most likely your day to day life wouldn't be changed one bit if you left your gun at home, or simply didn't buy one in the first place.

It's much harder to harm someone without a firearm though, at least severely. Besides, I don't see anyone proposing extensive psychological testing to weed out people who drink, have poor impulse control, violent tempers etc.

If they didn't have the firearm they couldn't commit a crime with it.


If they didn't have the firearm they couldn't commit a crime with it.

So. This could happen with a knife, are you suggesting we also have knife free zones? Or a car, so we should ban cars. Or a bomb, so we should have bomb free zones? See how ridiculous this can get now?

Most likely your day to day life wouldn't be changed one bit if you left your gun at home, or simply didn't buy one in the first place.

You can't be serious here. I don't always carry so I do leave my firearm at home much of the time. However, if I am to travel somewhere dangerous, or I think my travel has the potential for danger, I have the option to carry, and I do.

As far as not buying firearms in the first instance, in a perfect world, yes, but since we don't live in "perfect", I will exercise my right under the 2nd Amendment.

It's much harder to harm someone without a firearm though, at least severely. Besides, I don't see anyone proposing extensive psychological testing to weed out people who drink, have poor impulse control, violent tempers etc.

Once again this is a false premise. I recall a pissed off guy who got in his SUV and ran over around a dozen people last year. So what would you do, ban cars? A pissed off guy entered the market place yesterday in Iraq and blew himself up along with about 2 dozen other people, so they should just ban bombs, right?? I yi yi

You are singling out firearms probably because these are the cases that are senationalized by the media. I can find instances where deranged people hurt others just as easily without using guns.

If they didn't have the firearm they couldn't commit a crime with it.
[/quote

Now we have entered the silly zone. :madlaugh: When you take away the firearms from citizens, then the criminals will be the only ones armed and they will have a field day. You can enact a ton of laws, but criminals scoff and pay no attention to them anyway, so what good have you accomplished by a gun ban? You disarm the good guys and the bad guys will only be more emboldened to use guns.

Try severely punishing the criminal who uses a firearm during the commission of a crime. Right now there are more people in prisons for non violent drug crimes than there are for violent offenses. See anything wrong with this?

Try punishing the violent offender who uses a firearm in the commission of a crime by:

1st offense: 10 years, no parole

2nd offense: 15-20 years, no parole

3rd offense: 25- 30 years, no parole

There is my plan to deal with the misuse of firearms. Now, just for fun, why don't you lay out your plan for completely removing all firearms from society so no one, not any citizen, is guaranteed to NOT have a firearm. :ponder:.[hr]
I would. But since there are no home invasions here, it would be a moot point.




Where is here? No home invasions, hmmmmmmm.:unreal:

I am certain many wouuld like to know where "here" is. My sister lived in Taipei where it is supposedly a "gun free" zone and her home was invaded, and she and her children were held hostage for hours while the invaders ransacked the house and threatened their lives. Point being, even in the most "gun free" societies, this stuff happens.

Example, in relatively safe Chesire, Connecticut, last summer, there was a home invasion where a mother and her two daughters were murdered by the perps who were earlier released by the CT Department of Corrections when they should have remained behind bars. It is because the bureacrats made a mistake that this Dr lost his two children and his wife. Not because of guns, not because of knives, not because of bombs, but because of idiot bureacrats and dangerous criminals. The same bureaucrats you want to trust to protect YOU. As in last years VIT shootings, the bureaucrats prove time and again, they can't protect you, not even in your own home, as in the Chesire example, yet you are willing to turn over your complete trust in your personal safety to people who prove time and again, they can't do it. Well you can make that decision for yourself, but you aren't going to force it upon me. Sorry.

This issue of criminals using firearms during the commission of a crime is all about the actions of people and not about firearms. Punish the criminals who use firearms during the commission of a crime and leave your hands off my firearms.:grrrr:

[brien]

Fortunately those type of crimes can't be committed with knives.

They can be with bombs and it happens quite frequently in the ME. It happens in Israel. In fact, it happened in Iraq on 12-20-07, after prayers at a mosque. Killed 2 dozen people. Where is the outrage?

Last year a guy got in his SUV and ran over several people killing them. Where is the outrage against SUV's.

This selective outrage against "mass killings" in America by gunmen is merely the agenda of some in the media who happen to support elimination of the 2nd Amendment in the US. Therefore, they sensationize every crime where a perp uses a firearm. They don't understand the real issue. It doesn't matter how a psycho wants to kill people, it only matters that he/she does it. It is people who kill people, not guns, cars or bombs.

[AnnEsthesia]

And yet, sadly, the Dr. in CT was awoken by a man holding a gun to him. Do you think he would have had a chance to get his gun out in that instance? There will NEVER, not ever, be a time when these horrible things do not happen. Even if every single person from age 3 on up carried a gun, people would still be murdered, home invasions would still happen.

But please continue to use these scare tactics to press your case...

[Osborn F. Enready]

Having a firearm provides an OPTION to armed self-defense if the opprotunity arises.

Since when is "too many options" a problem AnnEsthesia?

Yes, people will always have to deal with the evil of other people, and the evil of over-reaching government, but without firearms, you have no chance of winning against either should the OPPROTUNITY provide itself, and the NECESSITY become obvious.

[AnnEsthesia]

Again, I have no problem if people have guns and keep them safely secured in their own homes. My issue is with people who would step out their front door and start shooting.

[ladyphoenix]

You know, it amazes me that people like me who do carry concealed weapons (licensed, mind you) are accused of being "paranoid." Is it not just as paranoid to assume that every person who owns a gun (legally) is going to walk out their door and "start shooting?"

[AnnEsthesia]

The problem is that not everyone who is licensed to carry a weapon is someone who should be trusted with said weapon. If we could give psychological testing and make sure that the people actually carrying were not disturbed or likely to be careful, then it would not be an issue.

However, the pro-gun side always seems to talk about 'responsible' gun owners as if no gun owner ever does anything stupid or dangerous.

[ladyphoenix]

Not everyone with a license to operate a motor vehicle can be trusted with that responsibility either, and a hell of a lot more people die from car accidents in a year than from gun death. Shall we preemptively judge everyone who drives the same? As if it's not infinitely more complex that we actually have the right to bear arms guaranteed by the supreme law of this country, and we don't have such a right to drive cars... It would be EASIER to take away cars than guns, legally speaking, and much more logical considering how much more death is caused by them.

[AnnEsthesia]

Huh. And yet it is not car accidents that people us in fear mongering, it is the shadow of evil do-ers with their guns breaking into your house and gunning you down unless you can gun them down first...

And for the record, I think we should have stricter tests for driving and more people should be pulled off of the road for being unable to drive safely. So there! ;)

[ladyphoenix]

Personally, I like the idea of freedom tempered with personal responsibility. Sure, you you have a lot more choices, but when you make a mistake, you get to take responsibility for the consequences of that action. Seems a lot more logical and nurturing than, I don't know, a nanny state to hold my hand through life because I'm not capable of making my OWN decisions, heaven forbid.

[AnnEsthesia]

Thanks, but I would prefer to have the psychotics controlled by the state than to have them free to do what they want and figure I can pick them off with my gun if need be.

[Mark L Hamburger]

The problem is that not everyone who is licensed to carry a weapon is someone who should be trusted with said weapon. If we could give psychological testing and make sure that the people actually carrying were not disturbed or likely to be careful, then it would not be an issue.

However, the pro-gun side always seems to talk about 'responsible' gun owners as if no gun owner ever does anything stupid or dangerous.


All gun owners that apply for CCW permits go through a class and a background check. If they have a history of mental illness, they don't get it.

http://gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/4.2/GunFacts4-2-Screen.pdf
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.

Add to that, less than .1% of permits are revoked in every state that issues CCW permits, and most aren't even for violent crimes.

I would say that most legal gun owners are responsible. Maybe you should stop worrying about the average Joe that want's to protect himself and start worrying about real criminals...

[AnnEsthesia]

Really? So the kid that got a weapon and shot up a university was... what? Suddenly mentally ill?

And again, I am not worried about responsible people. But then you have people like Mr. Horn who are just waiting for a chance to step out of their house and reenact a movie.

[Mark L Hamburger]

Really? So the kid that got a weapon and shot up a university was... what? Suddenly mentally ill?


He wasn't a permit holder....


And again, I am not worried about responsible people. But then you have people like Mr. Horn who are just waiting for a chance to step out of their house and reenact a movie.


They're a very small percentage of gun owners. If he's found to be in the wrong, he should be punished.

[ladyphoenix]

Ann, your misconception is that the state controls anything. That's absurdity right there. Licensed to carry a weapon or not, I will find a firearm when I need/want one. Just because they might be banned, they won't disappear. Many MANY instances have proven that to be the case. For the same reason I can get coke, heroin, and meth within a mile of my home. Pot probably 500 feet in every direction. Drugs are not eliminated by any stretch of the imagination. What about alcohol during prohibition? You prohibit it, it'll just go underground. Crazies will still get what they want. Laws are not going to stop determined people. Those crazies aren't going to give you warning that they're going to go find a gun. People like... I don't know... The kid that shot up VT. Imagine that.

[moses2792796]

Here in America it would be a daunting task to wrestle our guns away from the citizens.
I don't think the Gov wants to go there.
Not only would it be blatantly unconstitutional and the courts would be flooded with winnable law suits but the hospitals would be flooded with the blood of those who would want to take on that dangerous task of disarming law abiding citizens.
We take tyranny and the threat of the gov very serious here. We understand that the removal of firearms from the public, like Hitler did, is a real harbinger of fascism.
Little is known or appreciated about what is bubbling beneath the surface of America.
Unlike the popular international notions...we care about our freedom and liberty more than we do Britney Spears.


I doubt it would happen like that, the constitution needs to be amended anyway. That section is outdated, citizens no longer need guns, simple fact.

[Keith Hamburger]

I doubt it would happen like that, the constitution needs to be amended anyway. That section is outdated, citizens no longer need guns, simple fact.

And, how would you go about taking my guns without sending someone else with guns to collect them?

Any societal goal that requires the initiation of violence to accomplish is inherently immoral. Removing arms from citizens who wish to own them requires the initiation of violence. Owning anything, in and of itself, possibly short of nuclear weapons and mass amounts of high explosives, does not constitute an initiation of force.

I outright reject your use of violence to accomplish your stated goals. And, will react to such an initiation of violence in an appropriate manner in order to defend myself and my property.

Keith

[AnnEsthesia]

And yet, if we have rules about it, when you are found with any of those things, we can then haul you in off the street and toss you in jail instead of saying 'oh well, she can have them'. You want a gun? Then you should have a psychological examination and you should have to take a police style training course. If you cannot pass either, but should never touch a weapon. And if you are found with one... buh bye... hope you like Bubba, cuz he likes you.

[Keith Hamburger]

And yet, if we have rules about it, when you are found with any of those things, we can then haul you in off the street and toss you in jail instead of saying 'oh well, she can have them'. You want a gun? Then you should have a psychological e