Guns Save Lives

[Little-Acorn]

Stossel nails it.

How long will it be before legislators realize that their laws to "control guns" work about as well as their laws to "control illegal drugs"?

--------------------------------------

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/J...uns_save_lives

Guns Save Lives

By John Stossel
Wednesday, February 27, 2008

It's all too predictable. A day after a gunman killed six people and wounded 18 others at Northern Illinois University, The New York Times criticized the U.S. Interior Department for preparing to rethink its ban on guns in national parks.

The editorial board wants "the 51 senators who like the thought of guns in the parks -- and everywhere else, it seems -- to realize that the innocence of Americans is better protected by carefully controlling guns than it is by arming everyone to the teeth."

As usual, the Times editors seem unaware of how silly their argument is. To them, the choice is between "carefully controlling guns" and "arming everyone to the teeth." But no one favors "arming everyone to the teeth" (whatever that means). Instead, gun advocates favor freedom, choice and self-responsibility. If someone wishes to be prepared to defend himself, he should be free to do so. No one has the right to deprive others of the means of effective self-defense, like a handgun.

As for the first option, "carefully controlling guns," how many shootings at schools or malls will it take before we understand that people who intend to kill are not deterred by gun laws? Last I checked, murder is against the law everywhere. No one intent on murder will be stopped by the prospect of committing a lesser crime like illegal possession of a firearm. The intellectuals and politicians who make pious declarations about controlling guns should explain how their gunless utopia is to be realized.

While they search for -- excuse me -- their magic bullet, innocent people are dying defenseless.

That's because laws that make it difficult or impossible to carry a concealed handgun do deter one group of people: law-abiding citizens who might have used a gun to stop crime. Gun laws are laws against self-defense.

[Hagbard Celine]

I think you've become a fundie on this issue. You should take a step back and look at this from a more realistic pov because arming everybody isn't the answer to the problem of gun violence. That's like saying if a person were attacked by a hive of bees, the answer would be to send in more bees. (shrug) Arming everybody would be like a post-apocalyptic nightmare scenario where gun battles break out willy-nilly over petty bullsh*t and any psychopath who wanted to would be able to launch massacre-esque attacks on innocent people any time they wanted to. It's the vision of a crazy person. Are you a crazy person?

[Hobbit]

I think you've become a fundie on this issue. You should take a step back and look at this from a more realistic pov because arming everybody isn't the answer to the problem of gun violence. That's like saying if a person were attacked by a hive of bees, the answer would be to send in more bees. (shrug) Arming everybody would be like a post-apocalyptic nightmare scenario where gun battles break out willy-nilly over petty bullsh*t and any psychopath who wanted to would be able to launch massacre-esque attacks on innocent people any time they wanted to. It's the vision of a crazy person. Are you a crazy person?

Is that what you really think? Seriously, if everybody has a gun, how many sane people are actually going to use one without provocation? Look at NRA shows. Bad things don't happen there because everyone's armed. Look at the ACTUAL history of the 'wild' west, and you'll find that gun battles were a rarity because of the fact that starting one was a death sentence. If everyone is allowed to have a gun wherever, there won't be mass shootings, because anybody who tries will get shot before the body count breaks double digits. Also, look where the violence is now. It's in places where guns aren't allowed, because only lawbreakers have guns there.

If this whole shootout-a-minute thing is even remotely true, explain to me why places where there are lots of guns allowed (outside military battle zones), places like NRA conventions, the Kentucky machine gun shoot, and military bases, NEVER have mass shootings and, in fact, have little to no violent crime at all whereas 'gun free' zones are the ONLY places mass shootings occur.

[Gadget (fmr Marine)]

.....because arming everybody isn't the answer to the problem of gun violence.

No one is advocating arming EVERYONE....you don't get the point.

Having the freedom of choice, and knowing the responsibility of owning a handgun (or any weapon), and the consequences should be allowed by anyone who meets the legal criteria for ownership.

You may meet the criteria, but you are afraid of guns, and you shouldn't own one...it is simple.....those of us who have trained to carry, and practice using them, as well as following all the laws pertaining to gun ownership should not be denied the right to "bear arms."

[Little-Acorn]

I think you've become a fundie on this issue.

Attacking the messenger as usual... (yawn)

arming everybody isn't the answer

Didn't even read the article, did you....

That's like saying if a person were attacked by a hive of bees, the answer would be to send in more bees.

The tired "victims are no different from the criminals who attack them" dodge has been debunked here many times. You seem to be hoping people have forgotten by now.

a post-apocalyptic nightmare scenario where gun battles break out willy-nilly over petty bullsh*t

Same comment. Repeating the same hysterical claptrap in the face of solid evidence disproving it, doesn't constitute "debate". Just more hysterical claptrap.

any psychopath who wanted to would be able to launch massacre-esque attacks on innocent people any time they wanted to.

In other words, the situation wouldn't change from what it is now.

Except that fewer would want to, knowing they'd probably be stopped before they could kill more than one or two. So a number of them would give up and not try at all - a vast improvement over the way it is today, where nutcases who want to kill people know they can seek out a so-called "gun free zone" where he'll be able to kill dozens without fear of being stopped by his victims, until the cops finally arrive and kill him after he's made his tally.

So you agree that It's the vision of a crazy person.

No, I said your vision was hysterical claptrap, as it has been every time you've presented it and gotten shot down (no pun intended) in the past. But you're close.

[Hagbard Celine]

Is that what you really think? Seriously, if everybody has a gun, how many sane people are actually going to use one without provocation? Look at NRA shows. Bad things don't happen there because everyone's armed. Look at the ACTUAL history of the 'wild' west, and you'll find that gun battles were a rarity because of the fact that starting one was a death sentence. If everyone is allowed to have a gun wherever, there won't be mass shootings, because anybody who tries will get shot before the body count breaks double digits. Also, look where the violence is now. It's in places where guns aren't allowed, because only lawbreakers have guns there.

If this whole shootout-a-minute thing is even remotely true, explain to me why places where there are lots of guns allowed (outside military battle zones), places like NRA conventions, the Kentucky machine gun shoot, and military bases, NEVER have mass shootings and, in fact, have little to no violent crime at all whereas 'gun free' zones are the ONLY places mass shootings occur.

The reason is that criminals and people who don't know how to use guns don't go to NRA meetings and the Kentucky machine gun shoot. Gun afficionados and gun enthusiasts, people who know guns and have considered all of the points we're discussing here today are the people attending the events you have mentioned. Psychopath loners don't go to crowded events. Criminals don't broadcast the fact that they own and use guns, they conceal it. It's not rocket science. Not to mention the fact that alcohol, drugs, crime, spousal anger and other real-world variables aren't a part of the equation at controlled firing ranges and conventions with rigid itineraries. Be realistic here. Do you really believe that if everyone were allowed to have and carry guns around willy-nilly that everyone would be noble and responsible with them? It's beyond naive. It's just like the "abstinence only education" issue. It's an idealistic vision of how things should be, but it doesn't work in real world scenarios. In the real world, if someone gets mad and there's a gun on their waist, they use it. In the real world, if there are an average of five guns per household (one per person) toddlers find them and blow their heads off with them. It's a simple statistics problem. More guns equals more gun violence. Period. You want to know why gun violence only happens in places that are gun free? Because psychos target them genius! The answer is to screen people who buy guns for criminal and/or abnormal-psychiatric backgrounds, require them to apply for a license to carry it as well as a waiting period to root-out passion criminals.

[hjmick]

I think you've become a fundie on this issue. You should take a step back and look at this from a more realistic pov because arming everybody isn't the answer to the problem of gun violence. That's like saying if a person were attacked by a hive of bees, the answer would be to send in more bees. (shrug) Arming everybody would be like a post-apocalyptic nightmare scenario where gun battles break out willy-nilly over petty bullsh*t and any psychopath who wanted to would be able to launch massacre-esque attacks on innocent people any time they wanted to. It's the vision of a crazy person. Are you a crazy person?

Interesting, but I think it is your own feelings on the issue that prevent you from seeing the big picture. No one is advocating that everyone go about packing heat, no one is saying that everyone must own guns. No one is suggesting that crazy people be allowed to legally own a gun. The thrust of Stossel's article is simply that gun control laws do nothing to control guns when it comes to those who carry out criminal acts. Those of us who own guns and are responsible, law abiding owners are the ones penalized by the laws that make it almost impossible in some areas to acquire a permit to carry a concealed weapon. I am no more likely to start shooting over a petty argument than I am to go home, remove my gun from the safe, return to the scene of the argument and then start shooting and I do not believe that any responsible gun owner would be either.

The truth of the issue is this: If they want it bad enough, no gun control law is going to prevent the bad guys from getting guns. They have no interest in heading down the local gun shop, picking out a gun, taking the safety test, paying the money for a background check, waiting ten days, picking up the gun, then going out to commit their crime. They find that buying guns from their homies is much faster. As for the few lone gunmen who go on these shooting sprees, this study essentially concludes "that the only policy factor to influence multiple victim public shootings is the passage of concealed handgun laws." Basically they determined that the threat of having their shooting spree cut short and not being able to achieve their notoriety acts as a deterrent.

As for their ability to purchase the guns to begin with, unless and until people are willing to have their medical and psychological records made available in a nation wide database, essentially sacrificing their right to privacy, there will be a few nuts who slip through the system. Now, do we relinquish a Constitutional right for statistical anomaly? Or do we continue to do our best to prevent criminals and crazies from gaining access to guns and continue to enjoy the freedoms spelled out by our Founding Fathers?

Remeber, gun rights advocates don't want to force everyone to own a gun. We have no desire to impose our views on the entire populace. That has never been the agenda. Unfortunately, the same can not be said of gun control advocates.

[Little-Acorn]

Psychopath loners don't go to crowded events.

Megachurch meetings in Arvada and Colorado Springs aren't "crowded events"???

The opening of a shopping mall in Omaha or wherever it was, isn't a "crowded event"???

Virginia Tech wasn't "crowded"? Northern Illinois Univ wasn't "crowded"?

Where do you imagine these shooters DO go, to find the huge numbers of unarmed victims they intend to massacre??

Little haggy, do you think at all before you type this astounding bullshit? You might be that stupid, but why do you think the rest of us are?

It's hilarious to see how little haggy goes off into his own region of outer space farther and farther, to try to defend his long-discredited "ideas".

This is more fun than a barrel of monkies.

[Abbey Marie]

...
That's like saying if a person were attacked by a hive of bees, the answer would be to send in more bees.
...

If the new bees can help defend us from further attack by the original bees, it makes perfect sense.

[Hagbard Celine]

Megachurch meetings in Arvada and Colorado Springs aren't "crowded events"???

The opening of a shopping mall in Omaha or wherever it was, isn't a "crowded event"???

Virginia Tech wasn't "crowded"? Northern Illinois Univ wasn't "crowded"?

Where do you imagine these shooters DO go, to find the huge numbers of unarmed victims they intend to massacre??

Little haggy, do you think at all before you type this astounding bullshit? You might be that stupid, but why do you think the rest of us are?

It's hilarious to see how little haggy goes off into his own region of outer space farther and farther, to try to defend his long-discredited "ideas".

This is more fun than a barrel of monkies.

They don't "attend" crowded events. Unless of course they're there to shoot them up. They're not lining up to join glee club or to attend gun seminars populated by skoal-dipping walking cowboy hats. It's not unreasonable to require background checks, waiting periods and a degree of proof of competence (i.e. a license) if people are going to own and use deadly weapons. You act as if these three safety requirements are some unbearable burden on your "freedom" when in reality you're just a fundie who likes to pretend he's a cowboy when he goes out into public wearing his cowboy hat and his pistola on his waist and you're resentful that society would dare impose requirements upon you first before allowing you to do so. BOOHOO

[theHawk]

The answer is to screen people who buy guns for criminal and/or abnormal-psychiatric backgrounds, require them to apply for a license to carry it as well as a waiting period to root-out passion criminals.

And what happens when people who can pass your requirements decide to sell or give them to someone who doesn't? Nothing is going to stop the "wackos" from aquiring the weapons on the black market. Its as stupid an idea as prohibition of alcohol was. Actually, its even worse since your proposing the majority of the population would be able to legally buy the arms, and only a small portion not be able to.

[Mr. P]

One of the more disturbing arguments used by anti-gun groups is that normal, law-abiding citizens should not be allowed to own firearms because they might just snap one day and go on a homicidal rampage. This contention has become part of the gun ban philosophy in countries throughout the world and here in the U.S. One must ask, is there any truth to this argument or is it just another example of a gun control fallacy?.....

Over a dozen studies have been carried out by various pro-gun, anti-gun, neutral, and even Department of Justice investigators to determine the value of civilian gun ownership in how many times citizens use their firearms for self defense. The numbers have varied from a low of around 100,000 crimes prevented every year by armed citizens to a high of over six million crimes per year. ......

This issue has also been a crucial topic when concealed carry laws have been proposed in various states. Currently, 31 states allow law-abiding citizens the right to carry a concealed firearm through various licensing procedures. Another dozen states allow some form of concealed carry, although such licenses are hard to obtain by honest citizens because of the discretionary nature of the law. One state, Vermont that also happens to have the lowest crime and violence levels of any U.S. state, allows all respectable citizens the right to carry a concealed firearm. Only seven states, which interestingly happen to have some of the highest rates of crime and violence, currently prohibit all forms of concealed carry by peaceable citizens. Inevitably when concealed carry is discussed, the anti-gun side states that such laws will lead to Wild West shootouts and blood on our streets over minor disputes. Yet, in the 31 states that allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms none of the fears raised by the anti-gun side have become reality. Instead, the opposite has occurred, and the results were lower crime and violence.

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/newsa...&articleid=836

[theHawk]

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/newsa...&articleid=836

Mr.P, the reality of what happens in states with concealed carry laws flies in the face of anti-gun libs. Why aren't the "wild west" gunfights happening in these states? Well, I doubt our token libs can answer....

[hjmick]

It's not unreasonable to require background checks, waiting periods and a degree of proof of competence (i.e. a license) if people are going to own and use deadly weapons.

These things are not an issue for me personally. Sadly, however, there are many who would have us relinquish our right to own guns and they work endlessly to achieve this goal.

[Monkeybone]

They don't "attend" crowded events. Unless of course they're there to shoot them up. They're not lining up to join glee club or to attend gun seminars populated by skoal-dipping walking cowboy hats. It's not unreasonable to require background checks, waiting periods and a degree of proof of competence (i.e. a license) if people are going to own and use deadly weapons. You act as if these three safety requirements are some unbearable burden on your "freedom" when in reality you're just a fundie who likes to pretend he's a cowboy when he goes out into public wearing his cowboy hat and his pistola on his waist and you're resentful that society would dare impose requirements upon you first before allowing you to do so. BOOHOO

these are already in place. in fact some states make you take classes and then prove your compentency (sp? sorry, i suck) with said hand gun and safeties. but what are we to do when there are already checks in place and a shooting happens? there is almost nothing you can do about it armed or not armed, especially since the shooting at crowded places seems to be the "cool" thing to do now.

i do agree with the more extensive background one for mental health and such to go as far as a national database.

Remeber, gun rights advocates don't want to force everyone to own a gun. We have no desire to impose our views on the entire populace. That has never been the agenda. Unfortunately, the same can not be said of gun control advocates.

and i love this. awesome way to put it.