Are we talking high school and below? Or are we talking college campuses?
Gun laws do they work (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Dick7Access
- Start date
Are we talking high school and below? Or are we talking college campuses?
Bladerunner
Registered User.
- Local time
- , 19:23
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2013
- Messages
- 1,799
Gun free zones are the problem. One of our best presidents once said:"Talk Softly but Carry a Big Stick". It is true a person intent o breaking the law will try to do so ayway. However, they will also try to take a less dangerous route. You take all the guns away, the criminal will have no need to fear anything.
In one case, my wife and I were riding our fourwheeler Mule through the woods. We pulled over to allow a pickup to pass. There were three drunks in the truck. They decided that they needed to beat the hell out of me and told me they were thinking about doing it. They also knew that I always carried a gun with me. In fact, one of they told me that he would simply take the gun away and bury me with it. This scared me since if something happened to me, three against my wife (she did not have her gun)--welll, I'd hate to think what would happen. I simply told the guy--There will be only one truth if you try it, You will be dead! all the while having my hand on the gun. Yes it was concealed. This stopped them because they could not see it and could not tell if I was bluffing. They decided to leave. I was not bluffing.
There have been numerous incidents documented where the good guy with the gun protected the inocent. In one case, a female shot the shooter. Yes, he had already shot two people but how many more would he have shot before the authorities arrived. Rem. Virgina University where the shooter, shot several people on the campus. By the time the police arrived, he was gone or so they tought. He had went into one of the buildings, chained the doors shut and using a 'HAND GUN' proceeded to shoot several more. How many would have been saved if someone or two or three or ? had a gun.
To round up all guns is a no brainer for me. "Out of my Cold Dead Fingers"
ps. Guns in Schools---a good read http://justifiedends.blogspot.com/
In one case, my wife and I were riding our fourwheeler Mule through the woods. We pulled over to allow a pickup to pass. There were three drunks in the truck. They decided that they needed to beat the hell out of me and told me they were thinking about doing it. They also knew that I always carried a gun with me. In fact, one of they told me that he would simply take the gun away and bury me with it. This scared me since if something happened to me, three against my wife (she did not have her gun)--welll, I'd hate to think what would happen. I simply told the guy--There will be only one truth if you try it, You will be dead! all the while having my hand on the gun. Yes it was concealed. This stopped them because they could not see it and could not tell if I was bluffing. They decided to leave. I was not bluffing.
There have been numerous incidents documented where the good guy with the gun protected the inocent. In one case, a female shot the shooter. Yes, he had already shot two people but how many more would he have shot before the authorities arrived. Rem. Virgina University where the shooter, shot several people on the campus. By the time the police arrived, he was gone or so they tought. He had went into one of the buildings, chained the doors shut and using a 'HAND GUN' proceeded to shoot several more. How many would have been saved if someone or two or three or ? had a gun.
To round up all guns is a no brainer for me. "Out of my Cold Dead Fingers"
ps. Guns in Schools---a good read http://justifiedends.blogspot.com/
Rx_
Nothing In Moderation
- Local time
- , 20:23
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2009
- Messages
- 2,803
Oh, so now Mr. Physiologist can predict the behavior of psychos to justify laws? Give us a break. 
It is more likely that sexist males don't like females who choose to protect themselves.
It makes sense that more women seek to be individually armed as they become increasingly independent, but the number of female shooters has skyrocketed within just the past decade and this trend is accelerating. It is a trend more common among working class single women.
There isn’t always polling data on the motivations behind the spike, but it is easy to believe current events are a factor. The foundering economy and proposed gun control legislation are referenced, in particular by many women buying guns.
In the past, it would be a few wives with their husbands, but now a lot of single women are buying guns and taking training. Like many things, this uptick occurred as the economy soured over the last few years. They are law abiding single females who want to take responsibility for themselves.
They are real people, not some would-be psycho described in fantasy situations. If a single woman feel threatened by a male psycho (or a gang of sexist males), a rational citizen can understand why a single female shouldn't have to put her life at risk. At risk just because some sexist males can't handle her being free to make this immediate decision on her own.
As for students with guns: The Swiss have students take guns to school for decades. Unlike soccer or swimming, scholastic target shooting has never resulted in a fatality. The anti-gun groups oppose the sensible step of allowing the schools to offer students the safest sport ever invented. That sport along with liberal gun ownership rights saved huge percentages of Swiss lives over the century from attempted foreign invasions.
It is more likely that sexist males don't like females who choose to protect themselves.
It makes sense that more women seek to be individually armed as they become increasingly independent, but the number of female shooters has skyrocketed within just the past decade and this trend is accelerating. It is a trend more common among working class single women.
There isn’t always polling data on the motivations behind the spike, but it is easy to believe current events are a factor. The foundering economy and proposed gun control legislation are referenced, in particular by many women buying guns.
In the past, it would be a few wives with their husbands, but now a lot of single women are buying guns and taking training. Like many things, this uptick occurred as the economy soured over the last few years. They are law abiding single females who want to take responsibility for themselves.
They are real people, not some would-be psycho described in fantasy situations. If a single woman feel threatened by a male psycho (or a gang of sexist males), a rational citizen can understand why a single female shouldn't have to put her life at risk. At risk just because some sexist males can't handle her being free to make this immediate decision on her own.
As for students with guns: The Swiss have students take guns to school for decades. Unlike soccer or swimming, scholastic target shooting has never resulted in a fatality. The anti-gun groups oppose the sensible step of allowing the schools to offer students the safest sport ever invented. That sport along with liberal gun ownership rights saved huge percentages of Swiss lives over the century from attempted foreign invasions.
Brianwarnock
Retired
- Local time
- Today, 02:23
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 12,701
O dear o dear! I haven't got time to pick this post apart as I'm about to go out walking, through empty fields and woods armed only with, we'll nothing, oh the joy of living in a civilised country.
Brian
Brian
KenHigg
Registered User
- Local time
- , 22:23
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2004
- Messages
- 13,327
Last edited:
Lightwave
Ad astra
- Local time
- Today, 02:23
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2004
- Messages
- 1,536
It is my impression that the lack of guns in the UK gives people here a lot of confidence and results in less general fear in the general public. A lot of the above comments seem to exhibit a general US fearfulness.
UK criminals tend to be low key and a bit amateur to tell you the truth more interested in getting money rather than actually hurting people. The amateurs are unlikely to get their hands on guns while the pros who might be able to get guns would only get guns to protect from other criminals hurting the public makes them the target for law enforcement which is absolutely not what they want.
The combination means that in the UK when approaching a crime scene there's a healthy number of the general populous willing to have a go cos they just don't expect guns to be present.
Have a go
Would we be so confident if we thought the robbers were armed.?.. probably not.
Everything is just a lot less critical when guns are not involved.
And Ken - New York is well known for its promotion of increased gun control and increased police prescence. Maybe it's working?
UK criminals tend to be low key and a bit amateur to tell you the truth more interested in getting money rather than actually hurting people. The amateurs are unlikely to get their hands on guns while the pros who might be able to get guns would only get guns to protect from other criminals hurting the public makes them the target for law enforcement which is absolutely not what they want.
The combination means that in the UK when approaching a crime scene there's a healthy number of the general populous willing to have a go cos they just don't expect guns to be present.
Have a go
Would we be so confident if we thought the robbers were armed.?.. probably not.
Everything is just a lot less critical when guns are not involved.
And Ken - New York is well known for its promotion of increased gun control and increased police prescence. Maybe it's working?
Last edited:
Lightwave
Ad astra
- Local time
- Today, 02:23
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2004
- Messages
- 1,536
A gun in a house also introduces new dangers and doesn't always guarantee safety.
Ask Reeva Steenkamp.
And if the Oscar Pistorius case turns out to be domestic violence which I gues you could say would have ended up the same way with or without a gun how about poor Rudi Visagie (tragic shooting of his own daughter when he mistook her for a thief)
Rudi Visagie
Brianwarnock
Retired
- Local time
- Today, 02:23
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 12,701
Ken do you like old stats, David Blunkett ceased to be Home Secretary in 2004.
Further more you were quoting stats for a major city, sure I would be careful wwhere I went at night in any city anywhere , but just riding through the woods in daylight like RX .?
Brian
Brianwarnock
Retired
- Local time
- Today, 02:23
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 12,701
The one thing I don't understand on here is that we keep getting stories about how because they have a gun they are able to fend off or otherwise prevent the actions of the unarmed drunk or thug menacing them, but as they are arguing for no gun control won't it increase the risk that said drunk/thug is armed?
Are American criminals too stupid to realise that in the society they live in they should shoot first and ask questions later?
Brian
Are American criminals too stupid to realise that in the society they live in they should shoot first and ask questions later?
Brian
boblarson
Smeghead
- Local time
- , 19:23
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2001
- Messages
- 32,059
Armed robbery still carries less jail time than murder/attempted murder. Criminals are not all stupid. They still can make the association between risking spending 5 to 10 years over spending 25 to life. So the shoot first and ask questions later crowd isn't going to be as large as it might seem. Now, if we were to set them all at 5 to 10, then yeah, what have they got to lose?
Some of them will do whatever it takes and eliminate witnesses anyway, even if their victims are not armed. There are evil people in the world. Fortunately the good (or not bad) people still outnumber them. But it would seem legislators seem intent on making sure that the criminal's rights are not violated even up to, and including, violating the rights of the victims.
Rx_
Nothing In Moderation
- Local time
- , 20:23
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2009
- Messages
- 2,803
Much of the so-called US debate was based on historical Kellerman's research.
Based on Kellerman’s largely debunked “research.” His numbers might be true of your family if you are a drunken convicted felon living with a drug dealer. Kopel and Kleck totally and publicly debunked Kellerman and his research published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
But for real people with real-world situations, Dr. Gary Kleck, an award winning criminologist at Florida State University found that Americans on average use a firearm for self defense over two million times a year. This did not result in two million shots fired, there were not a million people wounded, or any other such nonsense described in the hypothetical post.
Of course, none of the research, statistical or expertise will ever be considered by closed minded people. They prefer to create "what if", "and then", "this could-have been".
The US President sends his kids to a school that had something like 10 armed guards before his kids started there. A lot of elites in Washington send their kids to the same level of armed protected school. Rahm Emmanuel, the Mayor of Chicago, had at least one armed police officer every day at the school his child attends at taxpayer expense. So, it is OK for the wealthy and ruling class to use guns as a deterrent? Sure, the rest of us should be just as equal.
Based on Kellerman’s largely debunked “research.” His numbers might be true of your family if you are a drunken convicted felon living with a drug dealer. Kopel and Kleck totally and publicly debunked Kellerman and his research published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
But for real people with real-world situations, Dr. Gary Kleck, an award winning criminologist at Florida State University found that Americans on average use a firearm for self defense over two million times a year. This did not result in two million shots fired, there were not a million people wounded, or any other such nonsense described in the hypothetical post.
Of course, none of the research, statistical or expertise will ever be considered by closed minded people. They prefer to create "what if", "and then", "this could-have been".
The US President sends his kids to a school that had something like 10 armed guards before his kids started there. A lot of elites in Washington send their kids to the same level of armed protected school. Rahm Emmanuel, the Mayor of Chicago, had at least one armed police officer every day at the school his child attends at taxpayer expense. So, it is OK for the wealthy and ruling class to use guns as a deterrent? Sure, the rest of us should be just as equal.
Brianwarnock
Retired
- Local time
- Today, 02:23
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 12,701
Bob
I am we'll aware that an attempted murder or actual murder carries a higher penalty than mere robbery, however the attitude of the gun lobby on here, and else where, appears to be mess with me in anyway and I will shoot you. In this scenario the criminal has 2 choices
1 get shot by the intended victim
2 shoot the victim and hope that he doesn't get caught as there are now no witnesses
The latter seems to be the better choice.
Brian
I am we'll aware that an attempted murder or actual murder carries a higher penalty than mere robbery, however the attitude of the gun lobby on here, and else where, appears to be mess with me in anyway and I will shoot you. In this scenario the criminal has 2 choices
1 get shot by the intended victim
2 shoot the victim and hope that he doesn't get caught as there are now no witnesses
The latter seems to be the better choice.
Brian
Brianwarnock
Retired
- Local time
- Today, 02:23
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 12,701
BTW you do remember that in this thread I have argued for gun control, not the total abolishion of gun ownership.
Brian
Brian
Rx_
Nothing In Moderation
- Local time
- , 20:23
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2009
- Messages
- 2,803
Thanks for the update, it is easy to loose track of who and what.
Let me suggest the actually more commonplace choice #3. Give an indication (real or imagined) of being armed, and the aggressor retreats. Two-million times a year in the US.
Felons have repeat offences for owning firearms. They are soon turned loose and do it again, and again. Florida Department of Law Enforcement records show that statewide, there were 3,479 arrests of felons who illegally possessed guns or ammunition from Jan. 1 to Dec. 1 last year. That's an average of more than 10 arrests every day of people who obtained weapons despite serious criminal records. Most were not actually charged with the possession of a firearm, but charged for a different crime they committed. So, gun laws on the books now just don't work.
Bob makes a good point above. This is from an actual GPO.gov report:
Much of the problem of violent crime is a result of a relatively small group of chronic violent offenders who repeatedly cycle through our criminal justice system: they get arrested, sometimes convicted, occasionally sent to prison and then they are almost always released early after serving only a fraction of their sentences. Victims are frequently under the impression that a convicted offender will serve his or her sentence in full when in fact, violent criminals--those who murder, ra**, rob and assault--serve an average of 48 percent of their sentences.
EXACT Quote - Emphasis are mine
The gun laws for repeat offenders are on on the books, but rarely enforced. They don't work at all for criminals. Most the discussion is about laws for law-abiding citizens. What about enforcing the laws already out there for known criminals who repeat violent crimes?
I sincerely wish that we in the US had a system that citizens could trust.
If existing laws are not enforced for what we all know is the real problem - then the gun laws don't work.
Let me suggest the actually more commonplace choice #3. Give an indication (real or imagined) of being armed, and the aggressor retreats. Two-million times a year in the US.
Felons have repeat offences for owning firearms. They are soon turned loose and do it again, and again. Florida Department of Law Enforcement records show that statewide, there were 3,479 arrests of felons who illegally possessed guns or ammunition from Jan. 1 to Dec. 1 last year. That's an average of more than 10 arrests every day of people who obtained weapons despite serious criminal records. Most were not actually charged with the possession of a firearm, but charged for a different crime they committed. So, gun laws on the books now just don't work.
Bob makes a good point above. This is from an actual GPO.gov report:
Much of the problem of violent crime is a result of a relatively small group of chronic violent offenders who repeatedly cycle through our criminal justice system: they get arrested, sometimes convicted, occasionally sent to prison and then they are almost always released early after serving only a fraction of their sentences. Victims are frequently under the impression that a convicted offender will serve his or her sentence in full when in fact, violent criminals--those who murder, ra**, rob and assault--serve an average of 48 percent of their sentences.
EXACT Quote - Emphasis are mine
The gun laws for repeat offenders are on on the books, but rarely enforced. They don't work at all for criminals. Most the discussion is about laws for law-abiding citizens. What about enforcing the laws already out there for known criminals who repeat violent crimes?
I sincerely wish that we in the US had a system that citizens could trust.
If existing laws are not enforced for what we all know is the real problem - then the gun laws don't work.
The NRA and other opponents gun control object to background checks in those who want a buy a fire arm. Consequently a convicted felon can walk into a gun dealer and simply buy a gun despite it being illegal for them to do so.
Aside from that, felons get their hands on guns very easily because there are so many guns in the US.
Aside from that, felons get their hands on guns very easily because there are so many guns in the US.
Rx_
Nothing In Moderation
- Local time
- , 20:23
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2009
- Messages
- 2,803
Good to realize you seem OK with violent multiple offenders caught with a gun not being held responsible at all for the existing gun laws. It is an object such as a gun, not a violent person that is responsible. OK, some people actually believe that way.
The felons might just might have got hands on any weapon because they are out in public again and again and again. Felons in prison actually don't get their hands on guns no matter how many guns there are in the country.
B.T.W. - these criminals rarely do anything that would resemble buying a firearm anywhere like a gun shop. So, as you indicate despite it being illegal for them to do so - existing guns laws don't work. I totally agree with that. Consequently, why would not enforcing new gun laws make any difference at all?
The felons might just might have got hands on any weapon because they are out in public again and again and again. Felons in prison actually don't get their hands on guns no matter how many guns there are in the country.
B.T.W. - these criminals rarely do anything that would resemble buying a firearm anywhere like a gun shop. So, as you indicate despite it being illegal for them to do so - existing guns laws don't work. I totally agree with that. Consequently, why would not enforcing new gun laws make any difference at all?
