Gun Rights vs. Gun Control

Eternal said:
looking at the virginia tech thing... if students were allowed to have guns.. then fewer would have been dead i think.

the people who shouln't get the guns will probably get their hands on them anyway (at least thats how i see it)
Click to expand...

And that is a very logical deduction. Well done.
 
Werbung:
I don't think more students having guns would have helped.

Hypothetical:
Lets say you're in class and you hear gunshots outside. You reach into your backpack and pull out your handgun, as is permitted since safety is an issue and this was the answer through various legislation. You rush out into the hallway to discover that 6 other students from other classes have done the same. All 7 of you, standing out in the hall with guns; what do you think happened, who do you shoot? What are they thinking, who will they shoot?

This possible situation may be some sort of fallacy, but I don't see the logic in having more guns solving these issues.
If you were in the room when the shooter was shooting, I can see how having guns could possibly help, but otherwise I see mass confusion.

I agree that it is too easy to get guns, yet I don't think that more guns would solve much, nor do I think no guns at all would be a practical solution.

The gun situation in Switzerland is interesting, I find.
Every male has mandatory military service and is issued a Sig 550 assault rifle that they keep at home. The ammo is in a sealed container that is not to be opened unless they are alerted to join with their militia units. I don't know if that's the best solution with gun control, but I find it interesting.

Your thoughts?
 
MarkVI said:
I don't think more students having guns would have helped.
Click to expand...

Bottom line, if you're confronted by an armed criminal who is intent on murdering you, would you rather be unarmed, or have a gun of your own? In which case do you think you would have the greatest chance for survival?

Hypothetical:
Lets say you're in class and you hear gunshots outside. You reach into your backpack and pull out your handgun, as is permitted since safety is an issue and this was the answer through various legislation. You rush out into the hallway to discover that 6 other students from other classes have done the same. All 7 of you, standing out in the hall with guns; what do you think happened, who do you shoot? What are they thinking, who will they shoot?

This possible situation may be some sort of fallacy, but I don't see the logic in having more guns solving these issues.
Click to expand...

Let's take a look at a real life situation somewhat similar to what you're talking about:

True story:

The following mind-boggling attempt at a crime spree in Washington appeared to be the robber's first (and last), due to his lack of a previous record of violence, and his terminally stupid choices:

1. His target was H&J Leather & Firearms, a gun shop specializing in handguns.

2. The shop was full of customers - firearms customers.

3. To enter the shop, the robber had to step around a marked police car parked at the front door.

4. A uniformed officer was standing at the counter, having coffee before work.

Upon seeing the officer, the would-be robber announced a hold-up, and fired a few wild shots from a .38 pistol. The officer and a clerk promptly returned fire, the police officer with a 9mm semiautomatic pistol, the clerk with a 10mm semiautomatic pistol, assisted by several customers who also drew their guns, some of whom also fired.

The robber was pronounced dead at the scene by Paramedics. Crime scene investigators located 47 expended cartridge cases in the shop. The subsequent autopsy revealed 4 gunshot wounds.

No one else was hurt in the exchange of fire.

http://www.snopes.com/crime/dumdum/gunshop.asp
 
Here are some statistics that are hard to refute:

* In the United States during 1997, there were 15,289 murders. Of these, 10,369 were committed with firearms. (2)

(two-thirds with firearms - one third without. Obviously, guns aren't the sole issue...)

* In the United States during 1997, there were approximately 7,927,000 violent crimes. Of these, 691,000 were committed with firearms. (12)

(Now with overall violent crimes, we see that guns are a much smaller percentage - less than 10%)

* As of 1992, for every 14 violent crimes (murder, rape, etc…) committed in the United States, one person is sentenced to prison. (62)

(So, golly gee, Wally, you think not punishing people for committing violent crimes might be more of an incentive for them to commit them in the future????)

* As of 1992, average length of imprisonment for:

Murder 10.0 years
Rape 7.6 years
Aggravated Assault 3.4 years
(63)

(And so we see that the ones that do get sentenced aren't serving long sentences...)

* In the early/mid 1990's, criminals on parole or early release from prison committed about 5,000 murders, 17,000 rapes, and 200,000 robberies a year. (3)

(Proving the above assertion - the criminals being released early or unpunished are committing more violent crimes - well isn't that just shocking...)

* Americans use firearms to defend themselves from criminals at least 764,000 times a year. This figure is the lowest among a group of 9 nationwide surveys done by organizations including Gallup and the Los Angeles Times. (16b)

(So that's 764,000 people gun banners would rather see murdered or raped by criminals if they had their way. Yes, let's just all be defenseless victims and wait for the "justice system" who we've already seen isn't locking criminals up, protect us. ROTFL.)

* In 1982, a survey of imprisoned criminals found that 34% of them had been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim." (16c)

(So an armed populace is indeed a deterrance to crime)

* Washington D.C. enacted a virtual ban on handguns in 1976. Between 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.'s homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose 12%. (1)

(Gee, that gun ban didn't work so good, now did it?)

Here are some more stats from the same source:

* Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. Between 1987 and 1996, these changes occurred:
Florida United States
homicide rate -36% -0.4%
firearm homicide rate -37% +15%
handgun homicide rate -41% +24%
(3)

* 221,443 concealed carry licenses were issued in Florida between October of 1987 and April of 1994. During that time, Florida recorded 18 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. (15)

* As of 1998, nationwide, there has been 1 recorded incident in which a permit holder shot someone following a traffic accident. The permit holder was not charged, as the grand jury ruled the shooting was in self defense. (7)

* As of 1998, no permit holder has ever shot a police officer. There have been several cases in which a permit holder has protected an officer's life. (7)


These are from a source that admits they're politically conservative, however, the statistics are accurate. If anyone wants to prove them wrong, you'll have to demonstrate that their information is flawed, not that it came from a conservative source.

http://www.justfacts.com/gun_control.htm
 
Truth-Bringer said:
Bottom line, if you're confronted by an armed criminal who is intent on murdering you, would you rather be unarmed, or have a gun of your own? In which case do you think you would have the greatest chance for survival?
...
No one else was hurt in the exchange of fire.
...
Click to expand...

That's correct, I would rather be armed than not if confronting an armed criminal.

The gun shop is an interesting case, they were all gun owners and knew how to use them etc... I'm sure, currently, that not all college students are gun aficionados or would be as adept to use them properly.
In that shop they knew who the "bad guy" was, every case won't be the same. It's lucky that they were skilled enough to not hit anyone else, even if they missed.

That is still an amazing story!
 
MarkVI said:
That's correct, I would rather be armed than not if confronting an armed criminal.

The gun shop is an interesting case, they were all gun owners and knew how to use them etc... I'm sure, currently, that not all college students are gun aficionados or would be as adept to use them properly.
In that shop they knew who the "bad guy" was, every case won't be the same. It's lucky that they were skilled enough to not hit anyone else, even if they missed.

That is still an amazing story!
Click to expand...

I would support a mandatory training class for the issue of a conceal & carry permit. Maybe a week of night classes, just like they have for hunting licenses. I don't think that anyone here is making the case that simply owning a gun is the answer to all of our problems, but I would say that more responsible gun owners in this country would be a very good start.
 
Dave said:
I would support a mandatory training class for the issue of a conceal & carry permit. Maybe a week of night classes, just like they have for hunting licenses. I don't think that anyone here is making the case that simply owning a gun is the answer to all of our problems, but I would say that more responsible gun owners in this country would be a very good start.
Click to expand...

A psych evaluation would be a good idea too.
 
In the Va. Tech shooting, I doubt that many of the students are old enough to carry and I really don't have any problem with the 21 year age limit on the purchase of handguns. (I am also not crazy about 18 year olds goinig into combat in the military either) Having gone into combat as a young man under 21 years of age, I speak from experience and I had intensive weapons training before the first shot was ever fired at me.

It is easy to imagine how you, or anyone else will react when the shooting starts, whether it is an enemy force, or a single sniper (far more scary), but until it happens, you just don't know and some people would be more dangerous to those around them than the enemy.

A certain percentage of traiined and armed professors should be mandantory however. The school has certain responsibilities to the students and since it would be impossible to hire enough security to cover the entire school, professors should be required to be prepared to protect the students. If they don't like it, they are free to seek employment elsewhere.
 
Great article, Truth. Perfect evidence for gun rights. Who would even think about attacking someone in a city where you are required to have a gun?

It's much easier and less dangerous to attack so called "gun-free zones" like schools and post offices. They're fricken safe havens for those who are inclined to murder massive amounts of people without meeting any armed resistnace.
 
palerider said:
In the Va. Tech shooting, I doubt that many of the students are old enough to carry and I really don't have any problem with the 21 year age limit on the purchase of handguns. (I am also not crazy about 18 year olds goinig into combat in the military either) Having gone into combat as a young man under 21 years of age, I speak from experience and I had intensive weapons training before the first shot was ever fired at me.

It is easy to imagine how you, or anyone else will react when the shooting starts, whether it is an enemy force, or a single sniper (far more scary), but until it happens, you just don't know and some people would be more dangerous to those around them than the enemy.

A certain percentage of traiined and armed professors should be mandantory however. The school has certain responsibilities to the students and since it would be impossible to hire enough security to cover the entire school, professors should be required to be prepared to protect the students. If they don't like it, they are free to seek employment elsewhere.
Click to expand...

I was right there with you until the last paragraph. While I can certainly respect the idea, and can't think of a better way to safely police a college campus (campus security is a joke most anywhere), there are some problems with it.

Take my school for instance. I go to an art school in New Hampshire. Most of my professors are artists themselves. They're good at writing short stories and painting murals; none of them, to my knowledge, has ever had much, if any, experience with firearms. Quite frankly, the idea of most of them with guns is frightening because they'd probably just make bad situations worse with firearms.

Like I said, I respect the idea. I just think that making it work universally would be tough. Your thoughts?
 
palerider said:
It is easy to imagine how you, or anyone else will react when the shooting starts, whether it is an enemy force, or a single sniper (far more scary), but until it happens, you just don't know and some people would be more dangerous to those around them than the enemy.
Click to expand...

I understand your point, pale, but I would truly like to believe that had I been in that classroom, I would've taken some action that would alter the final outcome of the entire situation. When you assume that you would simply hide under your desk or wait for SWAT teams to bust in and save you, you are making cowardice the default response. I know one thing for damn sure, if I'm gonna go down, I am certainly not going down quietly.

A certain percentage of traiined and armed professors should be mandantory however. The school has certain responsibilities to the students and since it would be impossible to hire enough security to cover the entire school, professors should be required to be prepared to protect the students. If they don't like it, they are free to seek employment elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Again, I see where your coming from, but me personally who, like yourself, has extensive weaps training, would rather protect myself and have my life in my own hands then place it in someone elses.
 
USMC the Almighty said:
I understand your point, pale, but (edit)

When you assume that you would simply hide under your desk or wait for SWAT teams to bust in and save you, you are making cowardice the default response.
Click to expand...

That's because ultimately he is a coward - so you would expect him to react according to his nature. The more this guy talks, the more he exposes himself. He'd be under the desk crying.

What he and a lot of people don't realize is that the police don't have any obligation to protect anyone in this society. WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR OWN SELF-DEFENSE - hence the second amendment.

The police are used to punish criminals after the fact, they do not exist to protect citizens as the Supreme Court once affirmed:

'Castle Rock v. Gonzales - the Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to police protection, even in the presence of a restraining order.

By a vote of 7-to-2, the Supreme Court ruled that Gonzales has no right to sue her local police department for failing to protect her and her children from her estranged husband."

http://www.allsafedefense.com/news/CopsDontProtect.htm

South v. Maryland - found that law enforcement officers had no affirmative duty to provide protection to private individuals (1856)

Bowers v. DeVito - the Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit held, "...there is no Constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen." (1982)

Warren vs. D.C. explicitly affirmed that "a fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen."


I know one thing for damn sure, if I'm gonna go down, I am certainly not going down quietly.
Click to expand...

Bravo. And that's why you're a brave man.
 
USMC the Almighty said:
I understand your point, pale, but I would truly like to believe that had I been in that classroom, I would've taken some action that would alter the final outcome of the entire situation. When you assume that you would simply hide under your desk or wait for SWAT teams to bust in and save you, you are making cowardice the default response. I know one thing for damn sure, if I'm gonna go down, I am certainly not going down quietly.



Again, I see where your coming from, but me personally who, like yourself, has extensive weaps training, would rather protect myself and have my life in my own hands then place it in someone elses.
Click to expand...

There were a couple of statements here bothered me a little. Perhaps if you were there you would have "taken action" that would have altered the outcome of the day; from what I'm told though the shooting in the classroom happened very fast and there's a good chance that any attempt at heroics would have just gotten you shot first.

I think the thing that bugged me the most was the thing about how hiding under a desk and waiting for SWAT to arrive is cowardice. If you're unarmed (and if you have no training firearms like most college students today you have no business carrying a firearm) than trying to play here is just going to make a spectacle of yourself and, as I said above, get you killed quicker.

If you have a decent shot at affecting the outcome of the situation than by all means, go for it. Take a look here and you'll see what I mean:

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

The two students mentioned here had enough time to retrieve their firearms and get control of the situation. The unarmed students who finally subdued the shooter didn't act until they were reinforced by friends with guns.

It seems like a romantic notion, to "die fighting," to make sure that you die "with your life in your own hands." But then again, if your life was really in your own hands, do you suppose you'd be dead?
 
Werbung:
vyo476 said:
It seems like a romantic notion, to "die fighting," to make sure that you die "with your life in your own hands."
Click to expand...

Actually, there's nothing really romantic about it. It's pure logic. Who is responsible for your self-defense IF NOT YOU? We are all responsible for our own self-defense - BECAUSE IT'S OUR LIFE. If you abdicate that right to any one else, then bad things usually happen. If you don't carry a weapon with you, and you get confronted by a criminal with a weapon - who's fault is it that you weren't prepared?

All I'm saying is, when things like this happen, it's ridiculous to try and claim that banning guns is the answer. And now we see that there were laws on the books to prevent this sort of thing and those laws were not obeyed by the parties involved:

U.S. Rules Made Killer Ineligible to Purchase Gun

"Under federal law, the Virginia Tech gunman Seung-Hui Cho should have been prohibited from buying a gun after a Virginia court declared him to be a danger to himself in late 2005 and sent him for psychiatric treatment, a state official and several legal experts said Friday."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/21/us/21guns.html?_r=2&th&emc=th&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
 

Similar threads

K
Gun Control
2 3
Replies
33
Views
5K
Phoenix68
Phoenix68
Andy
More media bias (gun control)
Replies
2
Views
2K
Andy
Andy
TheJPRD
Gun-Law Strictness vs. Gun Murder Rates #1 of 3
2
Replies
29
Views
4K
TheJPRD
TheJPRD
The Scotsman
Candidates' gun control positions may figure in Pa. vote
Replies
1
Views
1K
pocketfullofshells
pocketfullofshells
K
Gun Control
Replies
1
Views
1K
Kelly
K
Back
Top