Another Shooting...Another Death: At CNN Headquarters

Vikingod

As I mentioned in the above post, the right to bare arms implies "legal" gun ownership. Most deaths by firearms are committed with illegal guns, most of them handguns, and in poverty stricken areas.

As far as deaths go, honestly guys, gun related fatalities are pretty minimal. 4,000 total deaths a year sounds like a lot, but it really is not. There are 15 times that amount in automobile fatalities annually. The amount of money and time it would take to institute a ban (that most likely wouldn't solve the problems anyway) would far out-weight the benefit. People think its a big deal because when something happens with one, its national news, which give people the assumption that is a rampant problem. There really are bigger fish to fry than this issue such as consumption of fossil fuel with contributes to global warming, but I digress

Maddogg6

Sorry - Sandok - it wasn't *completely* aimed at you.. (there *are* others contributing to this thread - right?)

I read/comprehend posts, unlike some people, who admit NOT to .

And YES - the Russia example is proof - that gun controls are NOT a guarantee of lower per capita murder rates.

If theres an exception - then its NOT a rule.
Los Angeles is another 'exception' - that demonstrates gun controls are ineffective. People are still murdered in LA - with Guns.

The problem is - this is impossible in a free society. And Id rather NOT loose freedom becuase:
1) gun bans have proven to be ineffective.
2) A lot of people died to give us our freedom to bear arms.
3) I don't like the idea of 100% relying on others to protect me (military, law enforcement) knowing its human nature to 'play favorites' at some level (aka politics). In other words - life aint fair - so anything that levels the playing field is FAIREST for everyone.

Maddogg6

if there are less guns DOES NOT guarantee lower MURDER RATES - LA and Russia are the evidence.

How does a store owner carry their bank deposit carry AND a shot gun? A handgun is what the police use - and is for the same reasons why I want a hand gun.

Maddogg6

Hmm a site called 'guncontrol.com' - you don't think that may be biased... come on man - your smarter than that... ??

exactly - seems too many people wont think past what they read/hear about in the media... and its obvious the medias business is not in 'truth' but *is* in 'sensationalism'.

Vikingod

I'd imagine the rate of murders-by-retailers is pretty limited. Store owners aren't the issue (and honestly, any store owner that has a large enough deposit that requires two hands and armed support should be hiring transport, its really quite cheap). The issue commonly addressed, and being addressed here is people that conceal weapons, get into a bar fight and end up shooting someone over scuffed shoes, or children shooting each other over playground spats, or crazy ex-lovers who can't let go.

Maddogg6

edit: just hit me - murder-by-retailer - doh! - of course not - they are most likely honest and have a tracable weapon. - I got your point now...
/edit
your right - plus the fact a crook knows a store owner MAY BE carrying a weapon is most likely the deterrent there. Thus, why is gonna be a lower statistic.
But if a store owner is forced to a carry a (larger) shot gun, is less likely to carry it - and a crook would KNOW for certain they are not protected.
Right now - no gun visible <> un-armed/easy target.

ps. - Its not all in dollar bills - there are coins to carry - for $1-2K - well - I know plenty who don't hire armed transport in this situation.

Kids with guns - thats stupid parenting (no locks on guns left in their homes with kids) in most those cases - and bar fights turned to gun battle - theres booze involved too - and also pretty rare compared to drunk driving fatalities.

Look at how many people are killed from drunk driving, medical problems from alcohol etc etc - but the past alcohol ban proved to be ineffective as well.
edit: Not only that MORE people died from 'rock gut' - aka wood alcohol
/edit
(and is yet another example of how 'bans' AND current 'controls' are ineffective ) Why would gun bans/controls be any different?

BlueMak

That's strange, because there are plenty of statistics over here:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...ers-per-capita


#56 Switzerland: 0.00921351 per 1,000 people
#58 Greece: 0.0075928 per 1,000 people


As you can see Greece is indeed lower than Switzerland. How do you explain it?

Sandok

Duh, there is no such thing as an absolute garantee but it does offer a FAR FAR FAR better probability. If I was to do a distribution of the probility of gun attacks with 0 guns, you'd see a very narrow graph that would suggest that no guns means almost no choice of gun crime. And please note, I said ALMOST.

And honestly, a gun ban isn't required, just more strigent regulation. Switzerland has enough guns (27% to your 41%, in other words, a third extra) and yet, we have 14 times less gun crime thanks to our stricter rules...

Tinkerhell

Though the point has been made with Greece. Please stop pointing out Switzerland as an example. We've already discussed how much of a deterant it is knowing that every single male national has been in military service and is trained with a gun. Regardless of how low the % of people that pass tests or whatever and can take em home. Criminals have no idea of which person is the one that passed that test & which isn't. Put on your criminal hat for a second and pretend you have the choice of robbing someone in Switzerland where you know the man in the house has had some military training (regardless of the quality) and that there could be a gun the home, or you could rob someone in Washington D.C. where it's illegal for anyone to own a gun so you KNOW that you can't be shot by someone defending their home & possessions against you. Which do you choose. It really is as simple as that folks.

Lots of other issues are coming into this thread now - who has a hand gun, if you are competent with it, if you are sane, what your economic background is what the historical social values of a country/region are etc etc etc. And in particular how guns relate to crime. That's been debated by tons of people far more knowledgable in the subject than any of us and there is still no conclusive answer. For every poll or chart an anti-gun person can dig up a pro-gun person can dig up one to conter it.

The original post I made was in response to the idea that banning guns would resolve violent crimes which is simply not true. Study after study after study has concluded that criminals don't really care about gun laws. Big shocker a criminal doesn't care about committing a crime. If you can't comprehend that fact then there is no hope for you. Rather if more responsible law abiding citizens carried firearms the potential to avoid situations like what happened in the CNN builiding would increase. That also is an in-argueable fact. There were people that saw this happen, saw the guy dragging the woman away and had they been armed, moderately trained & practiced, they may have been able to prevent this guy from killing the woman. Maybe someone could have simply branished a weapon & that would have been enough of a deterent to have convinced the guy to calm down & not hurt the woman. Maybe not, but upon seeing that maybe someone could have shot & killed the guy before he killed the woman. I would have to guess that everyone here would agree that given the choice between the two we would all rather have seen the BG dead rather than the innocent woman.

This also has nothing to do with access (how to buy) guns. That starts getting into freedom & discussion of what a government needs to know & what it doesn't & privacy issues. All sorts of polictical arguements there. The bottom line is that when you disarm a people the are no longer citizens. They become subjects. (if that is your bag then there is no point in having this discussion) Nearly ever "evil" regimes (call that any totalitarian dictatorship) that have existed removed guns from the people at some point so that the government can control that people without question. If a body of people has access to most of the weapons of the day then they can join and be an effective force against any standing army that an oppressive government might control. That means if the military can have full auto then every individual should be able to have them also. Not to hunt, not to drive a home invader out but to overthrow an oppressive government should the vast majority of people decide it needs to be overthrown. Anyone that disagrees would likely say that we Yanks went about the American Revolution in the wrong way. Does that open the door for some loon (let us define loon as a mentally unstable person) to either have owned a gun (lets say an AK-47, we all know what those are) prior to going nutz and then going out & killing some people with it? Yes. Am I willing to accept that as a possibility to insure the freedom of my country. Hell yes.

That's the bottom line for me why guns should never be banned. Now you may laugh at this & say well how could that possibly happen.
To this I say go look at a few history books.
Do I believe this is likely to happen. No, of course not. Am I willing to give up that Right (and yes, self defense is a fundamental and inalienable human right and firearms are an important tool in the exercising of this right in the modern world) because the odds are against it happening? Absolutely not.

As far as having a gun on me 24/7 where I legally can - because I am a law abiding responsible person. Yes I do.
Does that make me obsessed or paranoid? No.

I hope that I never ever have to draw that weapon.
I try to stay out of places where Bad Guys are likely to be at. If you have ever taken any martial arts classes one of the first things most will tell you is that the best thing you can do to win a fight is to not let it happen. You do that by not letting yourself get in a situation where a fight can occur. You don't go through dark alley at 3am in the middle of crack town. I say this because I hope that my chances of ever needing to draw a gun are like a million to one and I do what I can to make that chance as low as possible. But I have news for you all folks. I bet you that the poor woman that died in the CNN center felt the same way - it could never happen to her. Those folks in that nice upscale mall up in (crap I forget where but it happened recently here in the US) where the Muslim guy came in & started randomly shooting people most likely didn't get up in the morning and say "hey, lets go to the mall and see if someone shoots at us today!!" But guess what? It happened to all of them. Guns are a part of our lives. I want to be able to have the option of taking care of myself & others if that 1 in a million chance decides to pick on me. I do not intend to be some sacrifical lamb for the "crazy kill the infedels" guy, I don't want to be the accident from the crack head that got scared & squeezed the trigger by mistake. And you will never ever ever convince me that you can make all the guns go away so until you do...

I'll be packing.

Maddogg6

Let me complete that sentance for you....
'... that only crooks will have the guns.'

please explain how controls will ensure criminals will obey the controls with the GUNS THAT ALREADY EXIST?

That just needed to be re-said....

Sandok

Well it all comes down to how safe you feel... To be honest, in the US, I wouldn't mind having a gun on me and I lived in a relativly safe state. It's true, in the US you don't have that same feeling of security as in other countries... Guess all that freedom does have some negative points.

Anyways, I think I've said enough too in this thread, nobody cares anymore

Maddogg6

Oh I care alright...
Make a point that makes sense...of course with EVERYTHING there are pros and cons - what you are failing to realize is the CONS out weigh the PROS with any bans - and controls ONLY prevent honest uses MORE than criminal use/innovativeness. (in other words - murder still happens with or with out guns. alwasy has - always will)

And - I feel perfectly safe where I live - as long as I have a gun - but there are STILL areas I would NOT goto - because they are un-safe - these places ARE ALL poverty stricken - destitute areas.

Sandok

Okay last thing then I shut up

I feel perfectly safe everywhere without a gun

Maddogg6

well -
1) Given crimes/murders still exist in your country - Id say you are NOT 100% honest with that statement. Or you haven't seen all of your country and avoid areas of higher crime rates. In other words - I don't believe Switzerland is without areas of poverty. But I suppose I could be wrong - statistically is WAY unlikely.

2) You visited here once and think you have it all figured out
edit: I doubt you visited the 'worse' of the US as well.
Poverty is NOT about crimes - its about economy.
Crimes are higher in poversh areas
Murders are higher in higher crime areas.

Tinkerhell

Enjoyed the discussion guys!

Sandok

Damn, you won't let me stop...

Switzerland doesn't have ghettos, doesn't have uber poor regions, making it mostly a safe country. Hell I go clubbing and used to take the bus at 4am and not a worry in mind. In the US, I was scared to go out for a walk anywhere in NY after 9pm...

And I didn't visit the US "once". I lived there for a good part of my childhood and visit it every two years or so. I've been in 30 of the 50 states and seen a good deal of the US and I'd like to beleive I have a general idea of what it's like...

BlueMak

Perhaps you are just scared easily then.

cozumel

I don't think it's fair to include countries such as Russia as they have internal with corrution, law & order since the fall of communism. Hell, you can even by enriched uranium on the black market!!! We can only include the rich, developed nations of the world in this comparison, which again shows a massive problem in the US. Please explain to me why are the rate of deaths caused by guns in the US is double that of any other comparable developed nation.


I feel less safe and more at risk of random gun crime in the US than any other developed country.

Maddogg6