Question for people Pro-guns....

[Hjalmar Fryklund]

not only would we need to increase response time but we would have to change how the police function and make them required to protect us which they currently don't have to the police here in the united states are there to enforce the law not stop crime they are retribution not prevention

Which tells me that something in the police´s M.O. need to change.

But first, I think you need to elaborate your comment a bit.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

First off tell those 2% of people that guns are a good thing. I'm pretty sure if civilians had no guns that number would be around zero. The police wouldn't have to shoot if they weren't chasing down some idiot with a gun.

Sure, that 2% would survive, but that would mean that 98% of the time civilians would not be able to defend themselves from assailants. That's a pretty hefty trade-off.

Wouldn't you feel safer knowing the guy mugging you doesn't have a gun. I'd rather lose my wallet then risk getting shot for trying to shoot them.

How could I possibly know my mugger doesn't have a gun? Because it's illegal?

Mugging people is illegal, isn't it?

If guns were hard enough to get then someone who's biggest crime is mugging people is not likely to have one. This is of course guessing but I don't feel many people who could get a gun in a place with strict gun laws would spend there time mugging people.

Chicago and DC beg to differ: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-03-04/news/ct-oped-0304-chapman-20100304-column_1_legal-handguns-gun-violence-ban

Guns would not have been at all hard to get in that situation. If guns are already everywhere in the country its too late.

 

[Erttheking]

Is there any particular reason that this isn't in R&P? Because I'm pretty sure this is political.

 

[gufftroad]

Which tells me that something in the police´s M.O. need to change.

But first, I think you need to elaborate your comment a bit.

all you have to do is look at a few supreme court cases like Riss V New York were it was ruled
the government is not liable even for a grossly negligent failure to protect a crime victim. In the Riss case, a young woman telephoned the police and begged for help because her ex-boyfriend had repeatedly threatened "If I can't have you, not one else will have you, and when I get through with you, no one else will want you." The day after she had pleaded for police protection, the ex-boyfriend threw lye in her face, blinding her in one eye, severely damaging the other, and permanently scarring her features. "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand", wrote a dissenting opinion, "is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York which now denies all responsibility to her."

there are many other cases like this one that ruled the same way
Hartzler v. City of San Jose
Warren v. District of Columbia
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services
Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department
the list goes on and on

 

[senordesol]

First off tell those 2% of people that guns are a good thing. I'm pretty sure if civilians had no guns that number would be around zero. The police wouldn't have to shoot if they weren't chasing down some idiot with a gun.

Sure, that 2% would survive, but that would mean that 98% of the time civilians would not be able to defend themselves from assailants. That's a pretty hefty trade-off.

Wouldn't you feel safer knowing the guy mugging you doesn't have a gun. I'd rather lose my wallet then risk getting shot for trying to shoot them.

How could I possibly know my mugger doesn't have a gun? Because it's illegal?

Mugging people is illegal, isn't it?

If guns were hard enough to get then someone who's biggest crime is mugging people is not likely to have one. This is of course guessing but I don't feel many people who could get a gun in a place with strict gun laws would spend there time mugging people.

Chicago and DC beg to differ: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-03-04/news/ct-oped-0304-chapman-20100304-column_1_legal-handguns-gun-violence-ban

Guns would not have been at all hard to get in that situation. If guns are already everywhere in the country its too late.

Thank you! Finally, you've got it.

Guns. Are. EVERYWHERE in the US. There are HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of them, nearly one for every man, woman, and child (and those are just the ones we know about).

So to say a gun ban even on a national scale would be effective is hilariously naive, because that would mean there would be MILLIONS of illegal weapons flooding the market. In short: Christmas for the bad guys.

Where at first, a law-abiding might have stood a chance against an armed thug due to being legally armed himself, now the weapons are ONLY in the hands of the thugs.

 

[Miroku2235]

Because when you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them.

 

[Hjalmar Fryklund]

Which tells me that something in the police´s M.O. need to change.

But first, I think you need to elaborate your comment a bit.

all you have to do is look at a few supreme court cases like Riss V New York were it was ruled
the government is not liable even for a grossly negligent failure to protect a crime victim. In the Riss case, a young woman telephoned the police and begged for help because her ex-boyfriend had repeatedly threatened "If I can't have you, not one else will have you, and when I get through with you, no one else will want you." The day after she had pleaded for police protection, the ex-boyfriend threw lye in her face, blinding her in one eye, severely damaging the other, and permanently scarring her features. "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand", wrote a dissenting opinion, "is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York which now denies all responsibility to her."

there are namy other cases like this one that ruled the same way

By the sound of your comment it seems some legislation that would hold the government liable for this sort of rather alarming lapse of security is in order. Unless it already exists, but isn't properly enforced.

See, I did some quick reading up on Riss vs. New York and found this little extract:

Synopsis of Rule of Law. The court refused to hold the government liable, in the absence of legislation, or to carve out an area of tort liability for police protection to members of the public.

The case was held in 1995. Do you know if there has been made any legal progress here since then?

Source: http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/torts/torts-keyed-to-dobbs/governmental-entities-and-officers/riss-v-new-york/

 

[gufftroad]

Which tells me that something in the police´s M.O. need to change.

But first, I think you need to elaborate your comment a bit.

all you have to do is look at a few supreme court cases like Riss V New York were it was ruled
the government is not liable even for a grossly negligent failure to protect a crime victim. In the Riss case, a young woman telephoned the police and begged for help because her ex-boyfriend had repeatedly threatened "If I can't have you, not one else will have you, and when I get through with you, no one else will want you." The day after she had pleaded for police protection, the ex-boyfriend threw lye in her face, blinding her in one eye, severely damaging the other, and permanently scarring her features. "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand", wrote a dissenting opinion, "is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York which now denies all responsibility to her."

there are namy other cases like this one that ruled the same way

By the sound of your comment it seems some legislation that would hold the government liable for this sort of rather alarming lapse of security is in order. Unless it already exists, but isn't properly enforced.

See, I did some quick reading up on Riss vs. New York and found this little extract:

Synopsis of Rule of Law. The court refused to hold the government liable, in the absence of legislation, or to carve out an area of tort liability for police protection to members of the public.

The case was held in 1995. Do you know if there has been made any legal progress here since then?

Source: http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/torts/torts-keyed-to-dobbs/governmental-entities-and-officers/riss-v-new-york/

as far as i can tell no and it probably wont happen thanks to Zinermon v. Burch which happened a few years before Riss changing the law would open them up to law suits that would quickly bankrupt local governments

other laws like California?s Government Code, Sections 821, 845, and 846 which state, in part: ?Neither a public entity or a public employee [may be sued] for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes and failure to apprehend criminals." meaning the police only have to protect criminals or those in custody citizens have to fend for themselves

 

[easternflame]

Now, to the question, criminal would get their guns either way if they were ilegal, but citizens, wouldn't be able. ALTHOUGH, I do think AK-47's or the AR that Mr. Holmes used should be ilegal (those type of assault weapons) because people don't buy those to defend their homes.

Most people who buy those types of weapons do so with the intent to never hit anything except paper targets placed downrange in a safe shooting environment. Or just because they're marvels of technology with historic importance and people want to collect that sort of thing with no intent to ever fire off a single round.

Unfortunately for those people, these things do happen every once in a while and I do not believe that lives should be at stake for the sake of collecting something.

Then we should probably ban any sort of knife or sword collection as well.

You can't bust open a door in the theater and kill 14 people and injure 38 with a sword.

 

[C.S.Strowbridge]

If this is true, there is something fundamentally different in the US as far as the population goes.

While there are countries where it is nearly as easy to get guns, the United States has more guns per capita than anywhere else. In the United States, guns are more than a tool to hunt with or a weapon to defend yourself with. They are worshiped.

Interestingly, the states with stricter gun control laws have lower rates gun violence. So gun control laws do help.

lets look at Chicago shall we a city that outright BANNED pistols yet gun violence rose

Yes. Let's concentrate on one data point that agrees with you while ignoring all data that doesn't. That's how we will arrive as a smart solution.

 

[C.S.Strowbridge]

But, that's not really the issue, because he probably could have gotten it regardless on the black-market.

Or he could have been caught trying to buy the illegal gun, thus saving a dozen lives and nearly 60 injuries.

you seem to forget the 30+ bombs he had in his house made out of common materials.if he didnt have the gun he would have used a bomb. a bomb may not have injured as many people but it would have killed more

Really? You know for a fact that he would have been able to carry those bombs into a crowded theatre? Home-made bombs tend not be very stable and transporting them is dangerous.

 

[C.S.Strowbridge]

But, that's not really the issue, because he probably could have gotten it regardless on the black-market.

Or he could have been caught trying to buy the illegal gun, thus saving a dozen lives and nearly 60 injuries.

you seem to forget the 30+ bombs he had in his house made out of common materials.if he didnt have the gun he would have used a bomb. a bomb may not have injured as many people but it would have killed more

Not just bombs, but chemical devices as well! The fact is that tragic mass-murders can, and will happen ergardless of guns laws. Firearms are not the only tools that can be used to commit crime. I find it odd that people tend to forget that.

I would also argue that homemade bombs/grenades/chemical weapons could in fact be more devastating than a few hundred poorly-aimed shots. They tend to take out swaths of innocents (indescriminately) in less than a second. The worst part is that there is no way to regulate those!

If that's true, why can't honest law-abiding citizens buy military bombs / grenades / chemical weapons. After all, if you outlaw sarin gas, only outlaws will have sarin gas.

Not being able to 100% stop something negative from happening doesn't mean you should not at least try to reduce the chances of it from happening.

 

[KnightDragul]

The only reason for thinking guns are needed, as far as I can tell, is if you think you need to kill somebody for some reason with them.

Captcha: hunky-dory

I <3 Captcha's irony.

That's kinda WHY we have the 2nd Amendment. An Armed population exists to protect against the threat of military or governmental take over of the country (Keep in mind that, its really not uncommon for a military to take over a country that had recently gone through a revolution. Just look at Egypt)

What a lot of non-U.S. posters don't understand is that we cannot make firearms illegal. It is almost impossible for us to do so. We have a federal amendment in the bill of rights (2nd Amendment:Right to bear arms) and for those of you who don't know what the bill of rights is, its essentially the first ten amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The Bill of Rights was created because anti-federalists (Those who opposed the drafting of the Constitution because they felt it gave the Federal Government too much power) pretty much demanded it before they would vote and pass the whole constitution (Which included the Branches of government and how the process would work.) We cannot repeal amendments. We can only add in another Amendment that repeals the previous one (For example, the 21st Amendment repealed 18th Amendment) and it requires a CRAZY AMOUNT of support to pass. It would be impossible to get all the support needed to stop the 2nd Amendment, let alone one attached to such an early document of the US. So for those of you preaching for making gun ownership in the US illegal, just stop. Its not gonna happen with the way the US government works right now and if it does happen, its gonna be because we decided to stop using the Constitution, and given how many people cling to that thing likes its their mother's tit, its not gonna happen for several generations.

So can we stop beating the dead horse?

I'm not being rude just stating an idea of history as I see it. Americans always say its our Constitutional right to bear arms but two little things bother me which alot of people never really give an answer to.

1) This.... Document was written in a time when all weapons were muskets and flintlock pistols? Has anyone considered not removing/repeal just revise it? i.e. Simply saying people don't have the right to a gun that can dispense 300 round a minute....or whatever.

2) The Document in question has a great gag line in it (no offence).
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

At the time the definition of 'all men' didn't include so dubbed Negros, Orientals or Injuns. Only white man had a creator pretty much in the eyes of the major populace back then all the others evolved like beasts and merely mimicked white settlers apparently.


Once again Americans read this document as if it was written with this centuries capabilities and morals but in truth it came from a simpler time, and by continuing to try and run our now complex societies off a document from such a time it will continue to lead to needless bloodshed.

Though I do agree that it won't change anytime soon. Small minds form the largest most violent mobs.

 

[Hjalmar Fryklund]

as far as i can tell no and it probably wont happen thanks to Zinermon v. Burch which happened a few years before Riss changing the law would open them up to law suits that would quickly bankrupt local governments

other laws like California?s Government Code, Sections 821, 845, and 846 which state, in part: ?Neither a public entity or a public employee [may be sued] for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes and failure to apprehend criminals." meaning the police only have to protect criminals or those in custody citizens have to fend for themselves

Couldn't one just circumvent that risk by including a clause in the legislation that any case that was closed before the hypothetical new law becomes active are not able be sued for it?

 

[gufftroad]

The only reason for thinking guns are needed, as far as I can tell, is if you think you need to kill somebody for some reason with them.

Captcha: hunky-dory

I <3 Captcha's irony.

That's kinda WHY we have the 2nd Amendment. An Armed population exists to protect against the threat of military or governmental take over of the country (Keep in mind that, its really not uncommon for a military to take over a country that had recently gone through a revolution. Just look at Egypt)

What a lot of non-U.S. posters don't understand is that we cannot make firearms illegal. It is almost impossible for us to do so. We have a federal amendment in the bill of rights (2nd Amendment:Right to bear arms) and for those of you who don't know what the bill of rights is, its essentially the first ten amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The Bill of Rights was created because anti-federalists (Those who opposed the drafting of the Constitution because they felt it gave the Federal Government too much power) pretty much demanded it before they would vote and pass the whole constitution (Which included the Branches of government and how the process would work.) We cannot repeal amendments. We can only add in another Amendment that repeals the previous one (For example, the 21st Amendment repealed 18th Amendment) and it requires a CRAZY AMOUNT of support to pass. It would be impossible to get all the support needed to stop the 2nd Amendment, let alone one attached to such an early document of the US. So for those of you preaching for making gun ownership in the US illegal, just stop. Its not gonna happen with the way the US government works right now and if it does happen, its gonna be because we decided to stop using the Constitution, and given how many people cling to that thing likes its their mother's tit, its not gonna happen for several generations.

So can we stop beating the dead horse?

I'm not being rude just stating an idea of history as I see it. Americans always say its our Constitutional right to bear arms but two little things bother me which alot of people never really give an answer to.

1) This.... Document was written in a time when all weapons were muskets and flintlock pistols? Has anyone considered not removing/repeal just revise it? i.e. Simply saying people don't have the right to a gun that can dispense 300 round a minute....or whatever.

2) The Document in question has a great gag line in it (no offence).
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

At the time the definition of 'all men' didn't include so dubbed Negros, Orientals or Injuns. Only white man had a creator pretty much in the eyes of the major populace back then all the others evolved like beasts and merely mimicked white settlers apparently.


Once again Americans read this document as if it was written with this centuries capabilities and morals but in truth it came from a simpler time, and by continuing to try and run our now complex societies off a document from such a time it will continue to lead to needless bloodshed.

Though I do agree that it won't change anytime soon. Small minds form the largest most violent mobs.

in the times of our founding fathers people were allowed to own CANNONS they had the puckle gun people had privately owned warships

whats also forgotten about the second amendment is that it was intended to allow citizens to me well armed enough to overthrow the government should it overstep its boundaries

 

[WanderingFool]

Also, how does making guns illegal stop CRIMINALS from getting them? Really, I'm dying to know.

Also, also, whom to trust with my life: myself, who knows how to operate a firearm safely and responsibly; or an incompetent police force? I don't think the decision is a hard one.

Thats the one thing Im curious about. Just because you make it illegal for law-abiding citizens to own firearms, criminals will still have them.

 

[Raesvelg]

Interestingly, the states with stricter gun control laws have lower rates gun violence. So gun control laws do help.

If you're gonna start quoting Richard Florida's work, you'd be be prepared to defend it.

Because, in my opinion, it fails on a variety of levels.

First off, he didn't chart gun crime, per se. He counted firearms-related deaths. That included accidental deaths, suicides, and people who shot their assailants in self-defense.

Secondly, while he purports a positive correlation between stricter gun controls and fewer gun deaths, he failed to address several of the outstanding problems in that assertion. One of which was the District of Columbia, which at the time of his analysis, had some fairly strict gun laws in place... and yet was pretty much at the top of the list in firearms deaths even with the data he was using, and well over the top in terms of actual murders.

Thirdly, while he purports a lack of correlation between a variety of factors typically associated between gun crime and actual gun deaths, the choice to include all varieties of gun deaths will have a definite skewing effect on that analysis.

And finally, when you actually plot a map of murders committed against his chart of firearms deaths, the numbers skew drastically. Alaska, for example, rapidly shifts from "worst in the nation", to "par for the course", dropping from 20.9 per 100,000 in Florida's analysis, to 4.4 per 100,000. Why? Well, Alaska has a suicide rate of about 20 per 100,000... and most men tend to use a gun to commit suicide. You could, I suppose, argue that taking guns away from everyone (bear in mind that pretty much nobody needs more than a single-shot weapon to do the deed, so you'd have to ban ALL firearms) might reduce that, but quite a few studies show that people who want to kill themselves, much like people who want to kill others, will find a way regardless of what roadblocks you throw in their path.

Needless to say, Florida was a classic example of someone working with an agenda and the intent to manipulate the data in whatever means necessary in order to "prove" his bias. Given that the suicide rate is almost three times the murder rate, Florida's study, oft-cited by gun control proponents, is effectively reduced to an indictment of the method people choose to end their own lives.

 

[tsb247]

But, that's not really the issue, because he probably could have gotten it regardless on the black-market.

Or he could have been caught trying to buy the illegal gun, thus saving a dozen lives and nearly 60 injuries.

you seem to forget the 30+ bombs he had in his house made out of common materials.if he didnt have the gun he would have used a bomb. a bomb may not have injured as many people but it would have killed more

Not just bombs, but chemical devices as well! The fact is that tragic mass-murders can, and will happen ergardless of guns laws. Firearms are not the only tools that can be used to commit crime. I find it odd that people tend to forget that.

I would also argue that homemade bombs/grenades/chemical weapons could in fact be more devastating than a few hundred poorly-aimed shots. They tend to take out swaths of innocents (indescriminately) in less than a second. The worst part is that there is no way to regulate those!

If that's true, why can't honest law-abiding citizens buy military bombs / grenades / chemical weapons. After all, if you outlaw sarin gas, only outlaws will have sarin gas.

Not being able to 100% stop something negative from happening doesn't mean you should not at least try to reduce the chances of it from happening.

That is very much a slippery slope kind of argument. You will find precious few (if any) people arguing for the legality of grenades, bombs, and sarin gas. There is a limit to those freedoms, and it generally stops at firearms - up to full-auto.

Destructive devices are already impractical as they require expensive liscencing and are EXTREMELY (I can't stress this enough) cost-prohibitive.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

Just so you know, police officers shoot innocent civilians 11% of the time. Civilians with firearms, when acting in self defense, shoot an innocent person only 2% of the time. Also, considering that most of the 70 or 80 million gun owners shoot their firearms several times a year, and there are between 700 and 800 accidental deaths from firearms, that means that even by accident it is less than 1/1,000 of half of a percent. Far less.

First off tell those 2% of people that guns are a good thing. I'm pretty sure if civilians had no guns that number would be around zero. The police wouldn't have to shoot if they weren't chasing down some idiot with a gun.

That's like saying if there were no guns there would be no gun crime. I don't think anyone would deny that. And police officers shoot plenty of people who aren't carrying guns. I think spartan was just trying to say accidental shootings aren't very common, and the perceived stupidity of the general populace doesn't seem to contribute much to it. The presumably well-trained police (oxymoron lol) don't fair any better.

First off tell those 2% of people that guns are a good thing. I'm pretty sure if civilians had no guns that number would be around zero. The police wouldn't have to shoot if they weren't chasing down some idiot with a gun.

Sure, that 2% would survive, but that would mean that 98% of the time civilians would not be able to defend themselves from assailants. That's a pretty hefty trade-off.

What about less than lethal weaponry? There's ways to defend yourself without instantly resorting to what is probably going to be a lethal method.

That's definitely something to keep in mind, but even a well placed gunshot in center-mass is not guaranteed to save you from an assailant. Non-lethal defenses like pepper spray and tasers give you even less of a chance. I am not saying they aren't a good choice for self-defense, I'm only saying there are reasons the Navy Seals don't use pepper spray. Most shooting victims survive, but that's not a point I want to argue. If you shoot, you shoot to kill. That's not a pleasant thought but it's the law and it should be. 'Shoot to stop' is more accurate, but I don't like to pussyfoot around the implications here.

In the United States you are only permitted to use lethal force to prevent the imminent threat of death or serious injury. In most states, you are also obligated to exhaust other options (attempt to escape). The rules for specific circumstances can vary between states. I'm just saying if the laws are observed it's not something that is going to be treated lightly.

You can't ignore a real bullet to the heart or brain though.

If you shoot an assailant in the head you're doing it wrong.

It's kinda funny, how every time a story about some gun-involving massacre comes out from the US everyone's doing the whole "we need guns so that criminals are scared to shoot someone" routine. Somehow the possibility of "ANYONE in his immediate area and beyond packing" never stopped all those people.

It stops tons of people. But when crimes are prevented or thwarted they don't make headlines.

Head over to R&P Moth_Monk, all will be revealed.

But in short: What works in the UK won't work in the US. We Americans (Most of us, anyway) know this, which is why we are so adamant in our defense of the individual right to own firearms.

yes, "your right to bear arms, as part of an organised militia", as the full statement is made.

Personally I don't think gun control is the answer. I shoot and I live in the UK, I have shot rifles, shotguns and pistols prior to the ban following the Hungerford tragedy. I have never once pointed a gun at a person (outside of my military service). I believe proper education and training is the key to proper and correct firearm use. Would help if you had to be a 25 or so before you could OWn your own gun though. at least by then you might have matured enough to know not to shoot people with it.

I'm sorry if this is not relevant to your post, but you have reminded me of a pet peeve lol. I don't know if this was your intention, but you have paraphrased the second amendment in a way that may muddy it's meaning and even put it in quotes as if that was the original text. I only mention it because we get a lot of people over here trying misconstrue it's meaning or pretend we don't know for certain what it was intended to mean. Obviously, we do know what it was intended to mean because the people who authored it wrote volumes on the subject lol. It means, in a nutshell, that the federal government cannot prevent individuals from arming themselves. If the Second Amendment was intended only to grant the states the ability to arm a militia at its discretion, or any such thing, it's nothing anybody ever heard of until the late twentieth century. It certainly would come as a shock to the author himself.

Now whether it's a good law or not is another question. If it's not, there are a few ways we can go about ratifying a new Amendment. Let's just be sure our facts are straight. We can't get in the habit of interpreting the Bill of Rights to mean the opposite of what it says.

What's alarming is that in the shooter's state, gun sales have balooned. Either people want to buy guns before potential gun control appears, or they think they're Charles Bronson, and plan to protect theatres from crazed gunmen. That latter one gets on my goat especially.

This happens frequently after events like this, or just anything that makes headlines. It's not as big a deal as some would like to believe. Everyone who has been meaning to get their concealed weapon permit for the past fifteen years just got it. Or they said "Shit. 'Bout time for my bi-annual ammo-nition run". No cause for alarm.

 

[Aurora Firestorm]

I'll just echo everyone on "criminals will have guns anyway."

Also, I shoot rifles for sport. It's a hobby. I'd rather the cops not walk in and take my hobby away because some jackasses want to shoot people instead of clay pigeons or whatever.