Do Firearms Cause Murder...

[Cryozombie]

I give up.

Robert could break into my house with a gun, and I could shoot him in self defense and he would still argue it never happened.

I'm out.

 

[Seig]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Can you actually name anybody who has "defended themselves," with a gun, who was not a cop? Anybody you personally know, whose impressions you trust? What EXACTLY was the situation?

Sure. Me.
I had an incident occur about 6 months ago when Tess and I moved into our current house. The house had been vacant for over a year before we moved in. We had been there about 4 days, I was leaving for work. There was a drug deal going on right in front if my house, directly under my bedroom window. The people involved, all 4 of them, were not talking quietly or even attempting to disguise what they were doing. I told them, "Fellas, how about taking out from under my window." They resonded with an obscenity an a threat. I told them, "I'm not asking." The one closest to me then told me to "take [my] white *** back in the f'ing house before I died." He then reached into his pants and started to turn around towards me. I unholstered my 1911 .45 ACP from my shoulder rig and pointed it at them. I quite calmly told the speaker that if he completed the turn, he was dead. Fortunatley, I did not have to fire my weapon, but if I had to, I would have. I am not a police officer. I live in a questionable neighborhood and have lived in far worse, I am originally from SouthEast DC. My parents left the city when I was young and moved me to an area where the Clan was active. I also live in an area where a great many people carry firearms. The police encourage people to get the CCW because they are at 30% strength!!! You must be able to defend yourself, the police will not always be able to get there in time. I have a good many friends that are police, they feel that I am more competent with a weapon than many of there co-workers. Not only have I demonstrated my ability and willingness to use a weapon, but I have also demonstrated the responsibilty not to. I have trained my wife to use firearms, do I think she should be a gun fighter? No. Do I leave the house at night feeling better that she has a shot gun and a pistol within arms reach? Yes.

 

[Seig]

Originally posted by Rich Parsons
Ceicei,

Not is all states, does a Restraining Order automatically prohibit a person to own a gun or to use a gun for hunting or for thier job if it is required.

Yet, there has to be a normal reason to have the firearm in the first place.

Glad everyone survived
:asian:

I do not know the exact wording but, here's a little edification. According to federal law. If you have been charged with domestic violence, you are suspended from being allowed to own/carrya firearm until disposition of the case. If you are convicted, you loose all firearms rights. This also applies to Police Officers. Several lost their jobs when the law was passed three years ago.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Again, I'm afraid that some of you folks need to read what you're arguing against. If you will do that, you will find that a) I have said absolutely nothing against legitimate uses of guns, b) I advocated keeping a shotgun in the house if you feel it absolutely necessary (said this repeatedly, by the way), c) I merely asked for facts and personal anecdotes, d) I not only noted that a friend or two had used the damn things, I several times mentioned cops. Oh yeah, e) I discussed growing up around guns. How this means blindness, I can't imagine--well, actually I can; it's conditioned reflex.

I also note that one of the "uses," mentioned above involved a husbaand waving a rifle around--I don't exactly think of that as legit. I also think that after some thirty years of having the country flooded with guns, well, there are very likely to be more creeps out there with guns.

And, I stand behind the statement that there are a lot of people out there, unfortunately, for whom, "the right to bear arms," means the right to behave irresponsibly.

Again I note an interesting contradiction: some of the folks arguing for unlimited gun rights and squaking about the Constitution are the very folks who are arguing AGAINST an equally-important right, the right to free speech, on the grounds of some war or threat or "need to support the President," or some such.

Your argument seems to be that rights have to be balanced against other rights--fair enough, and exactly my point. Why in this case? Because to quote another poster,

"A few will actually use them responsibly."

And one other thing I stand behind: a saner society would fund the cops adequately, offer better education and health care and neighborhoods, and quit flooding kids' little heads with the promise of easy cash and quick power--if not out of the goodness of its heart, ceratinly as a rational means of self-defense.

Because, folks--in the end, you will NEVER be able to pile up enough weaponry to make yourselves safe. It's a losing proposition--more and more guns, more and more armed people, and none of you feel any safer, do you? Nor will you want to live in the society that results.

 

[Makalakumu]

Robert is right. More guns will only result in more death. Social justice is the best way to make our society safer.

 

[MisterMike]

I know plenty of people who think that more guns in society would make them feel safer. Actually about 4 million NRA members feel this way.

If the bad guys knew that the good guys were carrying, they'd think twice.

If the guns were gone, it's open season.

 

[lvwhitebir]

Originally posted by MisterMike
If the bad guys knew that the good guys were carrying, they'd think twice.

I think it would make them smarter and quicker so that they have you before you have the opportunity to use your gun. They would be more careful to jump you and more likely to shoot if they thought you were reaching for your weapon.

Are guns needed? In some cases, but generally they 1) aren't loaded for immediate use (for safety) or 2) aren't available for quick enough access when needed (in a purse or closet).

I'd be interested in comparing the use of guns for self defense with the accidents that have happened with them. I hear media stories all the time about how someone shot their son when he came home at 3:00am trying to not wake up his parents or the 5 year old who shot his sibling playing cops and robbers.

I care that people carry guns because of the deadly violence that *might* ensue. People attack each other now for stupid reasons like stealing parking spaces. Their victims typically walk away with bruises and scrapes. If they had guns handy, one of them probably wouldn't walk away at all.

To me they sound like a good idea, protecting the weak and all, but it's not usually the weak that get them. Too many people get them to support their self-esteem, showing them off like they're puffing up their chest; they have "the power." That's the kind of person I'm nervous about.

WhiteBirch

 

[OULobo]

Originally posted by lvwhitebir
I think it would make them smarter and quicker so that they have you before you have the opportunity to use your gun. They would be more careful to jump you and more likely to shoot if they thought you were reaching for your weapon.

Are guns needed? In some cases, but generally they 1) aren't loaded for immediate use (for safety) or 2) aren't available for quick enough access when needed (in a purse or closet).

I'd be interested in comparing the use of guns for self defense with the accidents that have happened with them. I hear media stories all the time about how someone shot their son when he came home at 3:00am trying to not wake up his parents or the 5 year old who shot his sibling playing cops and robbers.

I care that people carry guns because of the deadly violence that *might* ensue. People attack each other now for stupid reasons like stealing parking spaces. Their victims typically walk away with bruises and scrapes. If they had guns handy, one of them probably wouldn't walk away at all.

To me they sound like a good idea, protecting the weak and all, but it's not usually the weak that get them. Too many people get them to support their self-esteem, showing them off like they're puffing up their chest; they have "the power." That's the kind of person I'm nervous about.

WhiteBirch

Not to attack Mr. Birch here, but these seem like classic media ploys to scare the public into complacency.

While some organized criminals will become quicker and more shrewd in their attacks, the average thug or mugger will most likely not have the motivation to step up their attacks. The average violent criminal is lazy and opportunistic. They are not looking for a fight or resistance, they are looking for quick and easy. CCWs take away many quick and easy targets.

The cases of inaccessability of firearms when they are needed (locked up or unloded) are examples of people who aren't using common sense in terms of protecting their home.

The media stories of children getting guns or of accidental shootings are often outdated, sensationalized, exaggerated and among some of the rarest of occurances.

Examples of confromtations where guns are used and there is no call for lethal force boarder on urban legend. I have yet to see a police report or news report from any state that can be cited. That is not to say they don't exist, just that they are rare and if a blatant example did occur, you can be sure the anti-gun groups would've gotten a hold of it and sensationalized it just as much as the child accidents.

I do agree with the idea that the majority of the people who attain firearms do it for the machismo factor, but again there are brandishing laws in many CCW states that stop any behavior of these people that could have an effect on the average unarmed citizen.

You will have to excuse my pro-CCW stance, but my state is currently enacting CCW laws and it has brought many opinions to the forfront and caused a polarization of beliefs.

 

[Ceicei]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
And one other thing I stand behind: a saner society would fund the cops adequately, offer better education and health care and neighborhoods, and quit flooding kids' little heads with the promise of easy cash and quick power--if not out of the goodness of its heart, ceratinly as a rational means of self-defense.

Because, folks--in the end, you will NEVER be able to pile up enough weaponry to make yourselves safe. It's a losing proposition--more and more guns, more and more armed people, and none of you feel any safer, do you? Nor will you want to live in the society that results.

Even with enough cops out there (or with more hired), they will certainly not be there BEFORE crime happens (unless we have a way to predict where and when). If we're lucky, they may get there WHILE it happens. Most of the time, the police arrives AFTER the crime occurs. Who do we rely on for protection if it is not the police? They are not everywhere.

Better education, better health care, better neighborhoods? Gangs and drugs exist even in affluent places. Better social programs? Sure, we need them; however, these programs will never be able to take care of every person who is in need. There will always be someone who is overlooked or has "slipped through the cracks".

There will always be someone who decides not to take advantage of education, someone who cannot afford health care, someone who cannot move out from where they live to a better place, or someone who rejects the needed help of social programs. There will always be someone who will violently take action against another and cause harm.

To believe a utopian society can happen without any crime is just a dream and not reality, although it is a goal all of us can strive for. It is possible to have crime-free locations; reality is these areas eventually will have some sort of crime happen.

Criminals have become more bold. They usually seek for "easy pickings" where they are not likely to be challenged or hurt during their crime. Even then, they sometimes are willing to take risks--but it is a known fact that if criminals think there is a possibility of getting hurt, they usually take their activity elsewhere.

I'm not going to set aside my gun just because "it's not necessary" in today's society. I'm not setting it aside because "the cops are there to help" as they may not make it on time. I'm not putting the gun away in the hope that a criminal will not be armed. I would be a fool if I, as a lawful citizen, put away my gun when criminals out there do not put away their weapons.

You ask for less guns? I ask, whose guns? When ALL criminals agree to never ever pick up a weapon again and never attack anyone, that will be the day when I will put down my weapons too and will no longer need martial arts for self defense.

I will make sure that I am prepared. Is that paranoia? I don't sit around fearfully thinking I'm going to be attacked, but I will face the challenge if this happens. I believe in self defense. That's why I take martial arts and own a gun. I make sure I am legally certified to have/own weapons, do my firearms training on a consistent basis, keep updated with local laws, and drill into my mind the responsibility of when and when not to use them.

I don't have a gun just to "make me feel better." I have a gun to even the odds and insure that I am alive and able to care for my family. I've already had my home broken into and had a rape attempt against me before I learned martial arts and owned a gun.

Whether or not any other law abiding citizen chooses to have weapons or any form of self defense does not matter to me. That's their perogative. What matters to me is that criminals out there do, and these are the people I prepare myself and my family with defense.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Again, I must ask that you re-read. Neither I--nor anyone else on this thread--has argued for the abolition of all guns. Neither I--nor anyone else on this thread--has argued that the cops would solve all problems. And neither I--nor anyone else on this thread--has argued for some pie-in-the-sky, "utopian," society. You're making up arguments that are easy to counter, then countering them.

What I'm arguing for is a saner society. That certainly won't solve every problem there is--but in addition to the minor moral considerations, it will considerably lessen the risk. That's all you can do, after all--lessen the risk. Nothing will maake you perfectly safe--guns won't no matter how much you pile 'em up, and martial arts won't. They can only lessen the risk.

 

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by MisterMike
I know plenty of people who think that more guns in society would make them feel safer. Actually about 4 million NRA members feel this way.

If the bad guys knew that the good guys were carrying, they'd think twice.

If the guns were gone, it's open season.

I just wanted to quickly comment that I believe that it is absurd to think that if every man or woman over 18 carry a firearm, that the world would be a safer place. I think that everyone from time to time executes poor judgement; and I think that too many people execute poor judgement far too often. I believe that if everyone carried, we might have some major problems on our hands. Luckily most people don't carry.

Plus, to say that everyone carrying a gun would deter criminals is false. Not only is there no evidence to back up this claim, but it doesn't corroborate with the evidence that we do have. Evidence and statistics have shown us that "consequence" does not deter crime. This means that criminals are not being detered by jail time, death penalty, or the idea of getting SHOT by their victims for that matter. Criminals can be ruthless, are also not as dumb as we take them for, and can be very determined to commit their crimes, regardless of the odds. So, if we made it a law for every man woman and child to be a trained firearm user, and took guns away from all criminals, guess what? Criminals would find smarter and more ruthless ways of committing their crimes.

having said all of that, I am more to the "right" of center on this issue in that I think that people whould have the right to own and carry whatever they want. I believe that our right to bear arms is an important right that we have as americans. Yet, I still don't buy the arguement that the streets would be safer if everyone carried guns.

:2pistols: :mp5: :bazook:

 

[Ceicei]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
What I'm arguing for is a saner society. That certainly won't solve every problem there is--but in addition to the minor moral considerations, it will considerably lessen the risk. That's all you can do, after all--lessen the risk. Nothing will maake you perfectly safe--guns won't no matter how much you pile 'em up, and martial arts won't. They can only lessen the risk.

As long as we both understand that risks exist, absolute safety is impossible and cannot be guaranteed, and that it is prudent to determine our own self-defense, then I am in agreement with you.

- Ceicei

 

[Mr.Rooster]

Guns do not kill people. People kill people.
Outlaw people, or maybe at least perhaps Liberals.

 

[Lisa]

Guns do not kill people. People kill people.
Outlaw people, or maybe at least perhaps Liberals.

Why?:idunno:

I know many Liberals who believe in the right to carry.

 

[Mr.Rooster]

True enough, not all Liberals are anti-gun just as not all conservatives are pro-gun/carry. The majorities though seem to be obvious enough, to me anyway.

 

[shesulsa]

I think it's a mistake to align gun control with being anti-gun, though I understand why people do so.

I don't think it's unreasonable keeping the legal sale of firearms under restrictions which would keep ex-cons, mental patients and disabled persons from purchasing them. Will they be procured on the street? Sure. Is that an excuse for letting them be sold legally? No.

Believing in these restrictions is not the same as being anti-gun.

 

[Flatlander]

Guns do not kill people. People kill people.
Outlaw people, or maybe at least perhaps Liberals.

Seems to me that criminals would be a greater threat than Liberals in this discussion. Aside from that, as you've acknowledged, pro/anti gun doesn't necessarily follow party lines. So, rather than make it a right/left discussion, how about we carry on talking about the issue itself?

My feelings on this come down to a couple of points. I'll preface by reminding everyone that, where I come from, the only ones carrying guns right now are the cops and the crooks.

1. Only people qualified to carry should be allowed to carry. These qualification standards should be rigorous, and the bar set quite high. We need to keep public safety the primary consideration.

2. In a society where the only ones carrying are cops and bad guys, we rely on the cops to keep us safe from the bad guys. The problem with this is that public safety (from firearms) is then a function of how many dollars are allocated to policing. I can see the argument that this is an unreasonable standard for personal protection. For example, in this thread about use of force, it's clear that people are afforded the right to use whatever force is reasonable and necessary in order to protect themselves. I can't think of any other equalizer to the gun of a bad guy than the gun of a good guy (wielded responsibly).

3. Greater effort in reducing illegal weapons on the street needs to go hand in hand with allowing the public to carry. People need to remember that being allowed to carry in public is premised on granting good guys an equalizing force to that of the bad guys. Reduce the need, and the public interest is best served.

So, in summary, I think that having members of the public able to carry is a good thing for society as long as there are bad guys out there with guns, as long as it is well regulated.

 

[Cruentus]

Since this thread has revived, I just wanted to point out that I was basically wrong in some of my previous statements I made a couple of years ago (wow...old thread). Statistics do show that crime rates rise in societies where firearms are banned, which would imply that having the right to legally carry is a crime deterrent. It is not so much that every law abiding adult in society must be issued a firearm, it is more that by having the right to self-protection and the right to carry potential criminals have to think twice about taking advantage of people.

I will say, though, that from my perspective it is exciting to me to be able to update my opinion when more research is made evident to me. To look back at something I said 2 years prior and know that my views have evolved says to me that I am learning. I take the same approach with training, which keeps me on the cutting edge of effective methodology. But I digress...

Just thought I would point that out because this is an old thread with new eyes, and opinions should tend to evolve if we are doing the right thing...

Paul

 

[Xue Sheng]

I talked to a guy from Fairbanks Alaska, a few years back, about guns and violence, since just about in Fairbanks carries a gun and there is a lot of drinking there as well. And there did not appear to be a whole lot of gun violence there.

He said that no matter how much you drink you always know the other guy can shoot back.

I am neither saying I am for or against gun control, I just thought it was an interesting perspective

 

[Cryozombie]

I think it's a mistake to align gun control with being anti-gun, though I understand why people do so.

I don't disagree with that in theory, but I'm of the opinion that in practice, many people support gun control issues that border on anti-gun, or are close to it.