guns

[bbsam]

1: Alcohol causes far more deaths than guns yet it is freely available at any corner store with no background checks, registrations, waiting periods, fingerprinting or other nanny-state restrictions.

2: What you perceive as being a "wild west" society is simply law-abiding people like myself demanding the right to have some level of parity with the armed criminal. Unilateral disarmament of the law-abiding...which is the Holy Grail of the gun- ban crowd...simply is NOT a viable crime-prevention strategy. You dont make our streets safer by legally granting criminals a monopoly on the availability of lethal weapons.

So if we make guns as easily accessible as alcohol, maybe even sell them next to the Jack Daniels in the corner store, without background checks, registrations, waiting periods, fingerpringing or other nanny-state restrictions, alcohol would still cause more deaths than guns?

In such a society where criminals and law-abiding citizens have no delineation, would law-abiding citizens remain that way and would they really be safer? A law abiding citizen who mistakenly shoots a petty thief in a department store is no longer a law abiding citizen. That's why cops have to be trained over and over in when deadly force is acceptable.

 

[bbsam]

I didnt say that.

You are looking for some combination of laws or enforcement of laws that will, in your words, "prevent the easy massacres".

All I said...was that there probably isntany realistic way to prevent a determined lunatic with premeditated intent from perpetrating such a massacre.

As a society, we tend to want quick and easy feel- good solutions to our problems. In this case...there arent any.

You didn't say it, but when you call gun laws "nanny-state" I assume that is derogatory. And yes, a determined lunatic is going to find a way and in some cases like Holmes we may not know he's a lunatic. There is no quick and easy solution. There may be no acceptable solution. But that shouldn't end the dialogue and contemplation.

 

[soberups]

It is worth pointing out in this case that the shooter wore body armour for a reason, and it obviously wasnt because he intended to get into a firefight with the police. I would speculate that he wore armour because he was well aware of the fact that Colorado is a "shall issue" state for carry permits, hence there was a strong possibility that one or more of the theater-goers he intended to kill was also armed and able to fight back.

Food for thought....

 

[bbsam]

It is worth pointing out in this case that the shooter wore body armour for a reason, and it obviously wasnt because he intended to get into a firefight with the police. I would speculate that he wore armour because he was well aware of the fact that Colorado is a "shall issue" state for carry permits, hence there was a strong possibility that one or more of the theater-goers he intended to kill was also armed and able to fight back.

Food for thought....

Do you think his body armor had any damage to it?

 

[brett636]

With the USA having more guns than population, it should be the safetest country on earth, with the least murder and crime rate, right ?
But, it's actually quite the opposite !

I know this has been many bottles of liquor ago, but I debated you on this very point earlier in this thread. The result being you admitting defeat by claiming that you didn't care what the facts were. I guess you just never learn.

And you believe that if you allow everybody to own and carry whatever weapon they want in, say, downtown Chicago, all would be well? Crime would go down? Is that what the statistics really show the facts to be?

You would be correct. If Chicago was a shall issue area that allowed concealed carry permits their crime rate would plummet.

 

[klein]

Brett and soberups :

How many murders do we hear of in airplanes and cruise ships ?
Those are gun free zones.
But alcohol is served (and much of it, too) !

Do you think a totally gun free zone would have less crime and murders or more ?

There are many very large airports and large cruise ships around the world that are a size of a small US city.
Please compare those murder rates !

Or should the US allow guns in those places now, to make them "safer" ?

 

[soberups]

Brett and soberups :

How many murders do we hear of in airplanes and cruise ships ?
Those are gun free zones.
But alcohol is served (and much of it, too) !

Do you think a totally gun free zone would have less crime and murders or more ?

There are many very large airports and large cruise ships around the world that are a size of a small US city.
Please compare those murder rates !

Or should the US allow guns in those places now, to make them "safer" ?

The theater where the massacre took place was a posted "gun free " zone, as have been the schools where similar tragedies took place. Unfortunately, criminals intent on mass murder tend to ignore such signs.

Aircraft and airports enforce their ghn free zones with security and metal detectors. I do not advocate allowing weapons of any kind on an aircraft.

 

[cachsux]

Brett and soberups :

How many murders do we hear of in airplanes and cruise ships ?
Those are gun free zones.
But alcohol is served (and much of it, too) !

Do you think a totally gun free zone would have less crime and murders or more ?

There are many very large airports and large cruise ships around the world that are a size of a small US city.
Please compare those murder rates !

Or should the US allow guns in those places now, to make them "safer" ?

As usual you are talking out your bum with hypotheticals.

 

[cachsux]

And you believe that if you allow everybody to own and carry whatever weapon they want in, say, downtown Chicago, all would be well? Crime would go down? Is that what the statistics really show the facts to be?

The people who carry guns in Chicago are thugs who give two flips about the laws in place. If there was a conceal and carry law the crimes by those thugs would go down as they would lose their upper hand over the general populace. They would still commit crime but it would be more centrally located within their gang zones.

 

[soberups]

The statistics prove that more guns equals less crime. Its not about being naive, its about being aware of the facts.

And you believe that if you allow everybody to own and carry whatever weapon they want in, say, downtown Chicago, all would be well? Crime would go down? Is that what the statistics really show the facts to be?

The violent crime rate in Florida dropped once the state enacted "shall issue" concealed carry permits in 1987. Other states have experienced similar decreases. Chicago and Los Angeles...where permits are impossible to obtain...have far higher violent crime rates than cities where concealed carry permits are issued.

 

[bbsam]

Then you would think, would you not, that police chiefs of such cities would lobby for such liberal distribution of these permits, correct?

 

[bbsam]

I did a little checking, Sober, and what you say is true...kinda. Florida's violent crime rate went down after the "stand your ground" law went into effect. Problem is, it had been going steadily downward for five yearrs prior to it's enactment. In fact, the nation as a whole has seen a decrease in violent crime with no clear reasons why. More people with guns? Maybe. Tougher laws and penalties? Maybe.

 

[bbsam]

Checking further, Chicago's crime rate has also dropped year over year. March of 2011 showed 26 months straight of violent crime on the decrease.

 

[bbsam]

March of 2011 showed violent crime in Los Angeles 4 times lower than in 1992. Again, nobody really knows why.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

March of 2011 showed violent crime in Los Angeles 4 times lower than in 1992. Again, nobody really knows why.

1992 was the race riots, wasn't it?

 

[soberups]

Checking further, Chicago's crime rate has also dropped year over year. March of 2011 showed 26 months straight of violent crime on the decrease.

It is still far higher than the crine rate in states with shall issue laws.

Bottom line: unilateral disarmament of of the law abiding does not make a safer society.

 

[bbsam]

It is still far higher than the crine rate in states with shall issue laws.

Bottom line: unilateral disarmament of of the law abiding does not make a safer society.

Nowhere have you ever seen me suggest unilateral disarmament of anyone. You have jumped to the supposition that gun control mean "coming to take your guns away". That is no more fair than for me to suggest that there are no responsible gun owners and all of them are a fifth of Jack away from killing their wife and kids. Both ideas are ridiculous and you know it.

 

[bbsam]

1992 was the race riots, wasn't it?

Sounds right.

 

[bbsam]

It is still far higher than the crine rate in states with shall issue laws.

Bottom line: unilateral disarmament of of the law abiding does not make a safer society.

But it is the delta value that is the determinate factor. The change in value of the rate drop, if significantly different, would give a clue as to the more effective social policy in the reduction of violent crime.

 

[The Other Side]

It is still far higher than the crine rate in states with shall issue laws.

Bottom line: unilateral disarmament of of the law abiding does not make a safer society.

You keep making your argument about fighting crime, but that isnt what the majority of gun crimes are about. They are not burgulars, or robbers or even car jackers, they are domestic disputes. the majority of gun deaths in this country on deaths caused by a legal gun owner on his/her family or self.

In this case, this wasnt a robbery, or a burgulary, it was just a mass killiing. He chose weapons that had the most serious impacts on human beings. He went out of his way to buy enough rounds to stop an army.

The gun is nothing more than a weapon to kill human beings.

The colorado shooter wanted nothing for his actions, he was satisfied just killing innocent persons.

If you were in that threatre SOBER, with your gun, you would have made ZERO difference in the outcome. You would have only brought attention to yourself while you shot at him, and then he would have "trained" his weapon on you and shot at you until he was empty. At that point, you would have gotten everyone around you killed.

HOORAY.... people that may have not been killed are now killed because you took out your firearm.

Sounds like a great plan.

What strikes me as really odd, is the fact that you live in a remote area ( according to you) away from big city crime, and yet, you feel you need a gun for protection. Could it be your fear allows you to exaggerate the level of fear in your area just to satisfy your insecurity?

I mean, I live in southern california, bank robberies, car jackings, burgularies, rapes, stabbings, beatings and such, and I dont have the same desire as you do to own a gun.

What frightens you about your area?

I dont hear about all the CRIMES committed in the hills of Oregon. Is there some rampant crime wave happening in the hills that the media is avoiding?

peace

TOS