Make USA a Gun-free zone?

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Dr.Zoidberg

As I had a vacation in USA some years ago, the people over there don´t give me the impression that they are hardened and I couldn´t see anyone with a weapon. And I´m sure I would have seen, somebody is having a gun, as a gun is to big to hide, especially if there is warm weather an you wear loose clothing.

It seems you have a misconception, ziodberg, that only a hardened criminal could carry a gun. But I've known sum very kind and caring people that own guns, including sweet little old ladies. The difference between these people and those is one of attitude and intent. It is because they are kind and caring that they own guns. Kind people willing to defend their own lives and the lives of their neighbors should be allowed to do so.

In a situation with extreme emotional stress, a human being mostly will act in another way as accustomed. Mostly, and this is much more probable than to stand eyball to eyball in front of the offender trying to shoot him, you will attempt to escape. And belive me, there is only a small number of heroes

If those heroes had guns, there would be a lot less dead people. All it takes is one bad guy with a gun to kill a lot of people - and that will happen no matter how many laws you have in place. And if all the innocent are following the law in a gun-free land, then there will be a lot more dead people. Incredibly, there are heroes in those kinds of situations. If Librescu had a gun, maybe he could have stopped the carnage instead of minimizing it. Or Kevin Granata, who had military training, might have been able to do more than confront the gunman unarmed. There were others, too, and it only takes one brave citizen with a gun and some training to stop a madman.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

It seems you have a misconception, ziodberg, that only a hardened criminal could carry a gun. But I've known sum very kind and caring people that own guns, including sweet little old ladies. The difference between these people and those is one of attitude and intent. It is because they are kind and caring that they own guns. Kind people willing to defend their own lives and the lives of their neighbors should be allowed to do so.

I wrote this again and again. You never can deny a criminal of getting a gun, no matter what you do. But do you really think that the most "good people", which own guns, take the guns with them everywhere they go to and at any time? My conjecture is, that usually this is not the case and only the bad guys do it. And don´t misunderstand me. As I wrote in former posts, I think it´s already to late to make USA a Gun-free zone, because there are to many weapons in circulation. So I never would have anything against a good guy carry weapons on one´s person. My point is to make it harder for people, which are ineligibly to do so. Therewith I wrote:

And you are right, laws don´t stop bad guys, but maybe it would be harder for depressive or (and) mentally disturbed persons to get weapons, if you will tighten the verification and the procedure of buying a weapon! For example, it must not be, that a person like Cho, which is known to the police and was noticable mentally disturbed, is able to buy weapons.

I don´t understand why some of you defend against tighten verification and procedure of buying weapons. I think there are other people (and American too), also on this board, which are against weapons for everyone or are for a sharpen of laws regarding background checks and licensing. But maybe most of this people on the Mavs board don´t want to write anything in this thread or they fear to be of the opinion which doesn´t conform the mainstream thinking.

[Usually Lurkin]

ok, zoid, I misunderstood your position. I figured with statements like this, "We are not in the wild wild west, are we? My opinion is that to be allowed possessing arms leads to more negative incidents than it will prevent from execute criminal acts with weapons." you were suggesting trying to ban guns completely.

Over the last 40 years or so, we in the US have been on trends of making guns harder to get, discouraging their use, and discouraging gun safety training (of course the criminal element continues bucking the first and second of those trends).

I agree that background checks should be done better, and people with criminal histories and histories of violent mental illness should not be allowed to own guns. The problem, though, is for the millions of people who are borderline (like Cho appeared to be) there are only accusations, and perhaps a court order to visit the psychiatrist, but if those accusations don't amount to much, and the psychiatrist clears them, then there's not much a gun seller can do. And even if all the background checks and waiting periods in the world did their job, there would still be a black market that would make it easy for someone to get a gun without the beauracracy. My opinion is that a better focus of our energy for increased general safety is more gun safety training, and allow at least some citizens in large public areas to carry guns (let it be an option for the professors, or for security guards, or someone, at least).

[Dr.Zoidberg]

I agree that background checks should be done better, and people with criminal histories and histories of violent mental illness should not be allowed to own guns. The problem, though, is for the millions of people who are borderline (like Cho appeared to be) there are only accusations, and perhaps a court order to visit the psychiatrist, but if those accusations don't amount to much, and the psychiatrist clears them, then there's not much a gun seller can do.

But maybe you will prevent some of this people from getting guns and that´s all what matters. Most certainly you don´t have to blame oneself for not doing everything to prevent.

My opinion is that a better focus of our energy for increased general safety is more gun safety training, and allow at least some citizens in large public areas to carry guns (let it be an option for the professors, or for security guards, or someone, at least).

Very good idea! I´m all for it.

[dalmations202]

The problem is...... in the US, if you have been convicted of a felony, it is against the law to own a gun. You must go through a FBI check to own a gun. You must register and go through a safety class to carry a sidearm. You cannot carry one where alcohol is served. You cannot carry one into government buildings, you cannot carry one on a public school or at a public school function.

These laws are already on the books.

It was hard for Cho to get a gun, and then the laws on the books didn't stop him.

The only way to stop him would have been for it to play out, and he kill others then himself, or someone put a stop to him. Unfortunately the law abiding citizens there didn't possess the weapons to end the situation themselves, and had to allow it to play out under his terms.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

The problem is...... in the US, if you have been convicted of a felony, it is against the law to own a gun. You must go through a FBI check to own a gun. You must register and go through a safety class to carry a sidearm. You cannot carry one where alcohol is served. You cannot carry one into government buildings, you cannot carry one on a public school or at a public school function.

These laws are already on the books.

It was hard for Cho to get a gun, and then the laws on the books didn't stop him.

The only way to stop him would have been for it to play out, and he kill others then himself, or someone put a stop to him. Unfortunately the law abiding citizens there didn't possess the weapons to end the situation themselves, and had to allow it to play out under his terms.

I agree completely, that there is no point to have a law against possession of firearms or to have laws which prohibit specifically to carry arms in special areas. The starting point has to be, to accomplish stricter background checks and licensing. That someone like Cho slides through those procedure is commiserable, but it can happen and it will happen again, like it matters how strictly the process of background checks and licensing is. Nevertheless, the stricter the process of getting a weapon is, the rarer (and harder) someone which is ineligibly to possess a weapon, will get one.

[Mavdog]

people who wish to own guns should continue to have that right, howver those who disqualify themselves by way of their behavior shouldn't.

it seems that according to fed rules cho shouldn't have. a consistent national policy would be a positive step.
------------------------------------------------------

U.S. Rules Made Killer Ineligible to Purchase Gun
By MICHAEL LUO
WASHINGTON, April 20 — Under federal law, the Virginia Tech gunman Seung-Hui Cho should have been prohibited from buying a gun after a Virginia court declared him to be a danger to himself in late 2005 and sent him for psychiatric treatment, a state official and several legal experts said Friday.

Federal law prohibits anyone who has been “adjudicated as a mental defective,” as well as those who have been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility, from buying a gun.

The special justice’s order in late 2005 that directed Mr. Cho to seek outpatient treatment and declared him to be mentally ill and an imminent danger to himself fits the federal criteria and should have immediately disqualified him, said Richard J. Bonnie, chairman of the Supreme Court of Virginia’s Commission on Mental Health Law Reform.

A spokesman for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives also said that if Mr. Cho had been found mentally defective by a court, he should have been denied the right to purchase a gun.

The federal law defines adjudication as a mental defective to include “determination by a court, board, commission or other lawful authority” that as a result of mental illness, the person is a “danger to himself or others.”

Mr. Cho’s ability to buy two guns despite his history has brought new attention to the adequacy of background checks that scrutinize potential gun buyers. And since federal gun laws depend on states for enforcement, the failure of Virginia to flag Mr. Cho highlights the often incomplete information provided by states to federal authorities.

Currently, only 22 states submit any mental health records to the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System, the Federal Bureau of Investigation said in a statement on Thursday. Virginia is the leading state in reporting disqualifications based on mental health criteria for the federal check system, the statement said.

Virginia state law on mental health disqualifications to firearms purchases, however, is worded slightly differently from the federal statute. So the form that Virginia courts use to notify state police about a mental health disqualification addresses only the state criteria, which list two potential categories that would warrant notification to the state police: someone who was “involuntarily committed” or ruled mentally “incapacitated.”

“It’s clear we have an imperfect connection between state law and the application of the federal prohibition,” Mr. Bonnie said. The commission he leads was created by the state last year to examine the state’s mental health laws.

Mr. Bonnie, the director of the University of Virginia Institute on Law, Psychiatry and Public Policy, said his panel would look into the matter. “We are going to fix this,” he said.

“I’m sure that the misfit exists in states across the country and the underreporting exists,” he said.

After two female Virginia Tech students complained about Mr. Cho’s behavior in 2005, he was sent to a psychiatric unit for evaluation and then ordered to undergo outpatient treatment, which would not qualify as an involuntary commitment under Virginia law, Mr. Bonnie said.

“What they did was use the terms that fit Virginia law,” he said. “They weren’t thinking about the federal. I suspect nobody even knew about these federal regulations.”

But Christopher Slobogin, a law professor at the University of Florida who is an expert on mental health, said that under his reading of Virginia law, outpatient treatment could qualify as involuntary commitment, meaning Virginia law should have barred Mr. Cho from buying a weapon as well. Mr. Bonnie said he and the state’s attorney general disagreed with that interpretation.

Mr. Slobogin added that the federal statute “on the plain face of the language, it would definitely apply to Cho.”

A spokesman for the Virginia attorney general’s office declined to comment on Friday, saying only that various agencies were “reviewing this situation.”

Richard Marianos, a spokesman for the federal firearms agency, said Friday that federal and state officials were looking into the question, studying the court proceedings and testimony.

But Mr. Marianos added, “If he was adjudicated as a mental defective by a court, he should have been disqualified.”

Dennis Henigan, legal director at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said the oversight on the federal law in Virginia had probably been occurring for some time.

“They may have been doing this for years, just basically assuming, if the guy’s not disqualified under state law, then we don’t have to send anything to the state police,” Mr. Henigan said. “It’s a failure to recognize the independent obligation to the federal law.”

Most states do not follow the letter of the federal law when it comes to the mental health provisions, said Ron Honberg, legal director for the National Alliance on Mental Illness, an advocacy group.

“I suspect if we look at all the requirements that exist for the states, there’s probably a whole lot of them that don’t implement them,” Mr. Honberg said, explaining that the gap often comes from a lack of resources but also because no one is enforcing the requirements.

“When something like this happens, then people start to pay attention to this,” he said.

Representative Carolyn McCarthy, Democrat of New York, has been pushing a bill to require states to automate their criminal history records so computer databases used to conduct background checks on gun buyers are more complete.

The bill would also require states to submit their mental health records to their background check systems and give them money to allow them to do so.

According to gun control advocates, the mental health information currently submitted to the national check system is often spotty and incomplete, something Ms. McCarthy’s bill is designed to address.

Representative John D. Dingell, Democrat of Michigan and a former member of the National Rifle Association’s board of directors, is co-sponsoring the bill, which has twice passed the House only to stall in the Senate. Congressional aides say Mr. Dingell is negotiating with pro-gun groups to come up with language acceptable to them.

“The N.R.A. doesn’t have objections,” Mr. Dingell said in an interview. “There are other gun organizations on this that are problems.”

A spokesman for the rifle association declined to comment Friday on the legislation, but Mr. Dingell said the measure could prevent future tragedies.

“It resolves some serious problems in terms of preventing the wrong people from getting firearms,” he said.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Thanks for this nice article Mavdog!

This article confirmed exactly what I try to explain you all the time.
In my last post before the post of Mavdog I wrote:

The starting point has to be, to accomplish stricter background checks and licensing. That someone like Cho slides through those procedure is commiserable, but it can happen and it will happen again, like it matters how strictly the process of background checks and licensing is. Nevertheless, the stricter the process of getting a weapon is, the rarer (and harder) someone which is ineligibly to possess a weapon, will get one.

So it can´t be that silly what I´m talking about.

It looks like that USA has a big problem in the coordination within the process of background checks and licensing at the moment and thank God, I´m not the only one which has noticed a problem in this process. If the process of background checks and licensing remains that holey, America never will gain control of the weapon-in-wrong-hands-problem.

[dalmations202]

All the background checks in the world don't stop John Doe from paying cash to John Smith for a firearm.

The stricter you make the laws, the bigger the black-market for them. Then only the law abiding citizens can't get them.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

All the background checks in the world don't stop John Doe from paying cash to John Smith for a firearm.

The stricter you make the laws, the bigger the black-market for them. Then only the law abiding citizens can't get them.

You can say that about ANY undesirable product...:


Herion
Slaves sold into prostitution
"Journey's Greatest Hits"
Uranium/Plutonium


THere are reasons to argue that a legal market for SOME guns should exist. Howver, I don't understand how the fact that people will continue to try to get 'em anyway is a compelling argument to make it easier to get 'em overall.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Totally agree! If you think this way, you never would have to enact a law or a legal prohibition.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

You can say that about ANY undesirable product...:


Herion
Slaves sold into prostitution
"Journey's Greatest Hits"
Uranium/Plutonium


THere are reasons to argue that a legal market for SOME guns should exist. Howver, I don't understand how the fact that people will continue to try to get 'em anyway is a compelling argument to make it easier to get 'em overall.

yeahbut,

it's not so big a deal when one bad guy gets ahold of one of any of those things in your list (except, of course for the Journey's Greatest Hits album, and we know that historically, MAD is the only deterrant for that weapon. No one will play a Journey album too loudly if they have a legitimate fear that their neighbor will play one right back)

And confronting someone else with heroin or running into someone else with a slave won't deterr a badguy from using his heroin, or selling the slave.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by come_on_now

Both sides of the argument are wrong.

A: Getting rid of guns won't solve our propensity to kill each other.
B: Everyone having a gun won't stop gun violence or slow it down.

Guns are not the problem. The gray matter in our skulls is the problem. There are tons of guns all over the world among industrialized, democratic nations, and yet somehow we're the only ones that run around shooting each other.

If you take the guns away people will just start making more bombs to get the job done.

And this fundamental right to bear arms is so dated and archaic. That was granted when we were in a position where you could fight against a tyranical government. Well, the tyranical government owns us now and there's not much we can do about it other than refusing to go to work, buy gas, etc like the French do. They get it done over there when their government starts screwing up. But then again they've been doing the democracy thing much longer than us and are just better at it.

Parents. We need more parents. It all starts with teaching young ones when they need to be taught. We refuse to do it though. We'd rather sit them in front of the X-Box so we don't have to deal with them as both parents work 60 hours a week because they have to, are never there, then we hope the government takes the guns away so they don't kill each other.

No music, gun, movie, or anything like that is responsible for your child's delinquency. You, the parent, are.

Very good post. You're to no small degree right about the archaic nature of the right to bear arms. See Waco, Mt. Carmel, for an example of the futility. All the same, I think a person has the right to defend themselves against more petty crimes and criminals. cheers

[FishForLunch]

People are trying to create an impression that murders are happening in the US, because of the silly 2nd amendment. Where as in Utopias like Germany, England and France people are more civilized and prefer to kill each other with blunt force trauma or with a Steak Knife.

Evil people will kill anyway. I feel if anyone who wants to own a gun to ensure that their family is safe, who are we to deny them the right to protect his or her family.

I don't own a gun or plan to get one (to chicken to shoot anyone), maybe if I was trained enough that feeling will change.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Originally Posted by FishForLunch

... I feel if anyone who wants to own a gun to ensure that their family is safe, who are we to deny them the right to protect his or her family. ...

I think nobody has any objections about this. The point is to make it as hard as possible for ineligibly persons to get a weapon, and as you can read in Mavdog´s posted article, USA seemingly is lacking in the necessary coordination between the states and the federal authorities within the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System. The most states not even participate at this process, so you don´t have to be surprised if again and again a mentally disturbed person will commit a crime with a gun. And why should a person, which is eligibly to possess a weapon, have any hindrance with a rectified Background Check process? I know that you will not prevent all possible shootings by mentally disturbed persons after that but it neither might hurt.

[dude1394]

http://freestudents.blogspot.com/200...esistance.html

When mass killers meet armed resistance.

It took place at a university in Virginia. A student with a grudge, an immigrant, pulled a gun and went on a shooting spree. It wasn’t Virginia Tech at all. It was the Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, not far away. You can easily drive from the one school to the other, just take a trip down Route 460 through Tazewell.

It was January 16, 2002 when Peter Odighizuwa came to campus. He had been suspended due to failing grades. Odighizuwa was angry and waving a gun calling on students to “come get me”. The students, seeing the gun, ran. A shooting spree started almost immediately. In seconds Odighizuwa had killed the school dean, a professor and one student. Three other students were shot as well, one in the chest, one in the stomach and one in the throat.

Many students heard the shots. Two who did were Mikael Gross and Tracy Bridges. Mikael was outside the school having just returned to campus from lunch when he heard the shots. Tracy was inside attending class. Both immediately ran to their cars. Each had a handgun locked in the vehicle.

Bridges pulled a .357 Magnum pistol and he later said he was prepared to shoot to kill if necessary. He and Gross both approached Odighizuwa at the same time from different directions. Both were pointing their weapons at him. Bridges yelled for Odighizuwa to drop his weapon. When the shooter realized they had the drop on him he threw his weapon down. A third student, unarmed, Ted Besen, approached the killer and was physically attacked.
But Odighizuwa was now disarmed. The three students were able to restrain him and held him for the police. Odighizuwa is now in prison for the murders he committed. His killing spree ended when he faced two students with weapons. There would be no further victims that day, thanks to armed resistance.

You wouldn’t know much about that though. Do you wonder why? The media, though it widely reported the attack left out the fact that Bridges and Gross were armed. Most simply reported that the gunman was jumped and subdued by other students. That two of those students were now armed didn’t get a mention.

James Eaves-Johnson wrote about this fact one week later in The Daily Iowan. He wrote: “A Lexus-Nexis search revealed 88 stories on the topic, of which only two mentioned that either Bridges or Gross was armed.” This 2002 article noted “This was a very public shooting with a lot of media coverage.” But the media left out information showing how two students with firearms ended the killing spree.

He also mentioned a second incident. And while I had read many articles on this shooting for an article I wrote about school bullying not a single one mentioned the role that a firearm played in stopping it. Until today I didn’t know the full story.

Luke Woodham was a troubled teen. He felt no one really liked him. In 1997 he murdered his mother and put on a trench coat. He filled the pockets with ammunition and took a handgun to the Pearl High School in Pearl, Mississippi. In rapid succession killed two students and wounded seven others.

He had the incident planned out. He would start shooting students and continue until he heard police sirens in the distance. That would allow him time to get in his car and leave campus. From there he intended to go to the nearby Pearl Junior High School and start shooting again. How it would end was not clear. Perhaps he would kill himself or perhaps the police would finally catch up with him and kill him. Either way a lot more people were going to get shot and die.

What Woodham hadn’t planned for was the actions of Assistant Principal Joel Myrick. Myrick heard the gun shots. He couldn’t have a handgun in the school. But he did keep one locked in his vehicle in the parking lot. He ran outside and retrieved the gun.

As Myrick headed back toward the school Woodham was in his vehicle headed for his next intended target. Myrick aimed his gun at the shooter. The teen crashed his car when he saw the gun. Myrick approached the car and held a gun to the killer who surrendered immediately. There would be no further victims that day, thanks to armed resistance.

So you didn’t know about that. Neither did I until today. Eaves-Johnson wrote that there were “687 articles on the school shooting in Pearl, Miss. Of those, only 19 mentioned that” Myrick had used a gun to stop Woodham “four-and-a-half minutes before police arrived.”

Many people probably forgot about the shooting in Edinboro, Pennsylvania. It was a school graduation dance that Andrew Wurst entered to take out his anger on the school. First he shot teacher John Gillette outside. He started shooting randomly inside the restaurant where the 240 students had gathered.

It was restaurant owner James Strand, armed with a shot gun, who captured the shooter and held him for police. There would be no further victims that day, thanks to armed resistance.

It was February 12th of this year that a young man entered the Trolley Square Shopping Mall, in Salt Lake City. The mall was a self-declared “gun free zone” forbidding patrons from carrying weapons. He wasn’t worried. In fact he appreciated knowing that his victims couldn’t defend themselves.

He opened fire even before he got inside killing his first victims immediately outside the front door. As he walked down the mall hallway he fired in all directions. Several more people were shot inside a card store immediately inside the mall. The shooter moved on to the Pottery Barns Kids store.

What he didn’t know is that one patron of the mall, Kenneth Hammond, had ignored the signs informing patrons they must be unarmed to enter. He was a police officer but he was not on duty and he was not a police officer for Salt Lake City. By all standards he was a civilian that day and probably should have left his firearm in his vehicle.

It’s a good thing he didn’t. He was sitting in the mall with his wife having dinner when he heard the shots. He told her to hide and to call 911 emergency services. He went to confront the gunman. The killer found himself under gun fire much sooner than he anticipated. From this point on all his effort was to protect himself from Hammond, he had no time to kill anyone else. Hammond was able to pin down the shooter until police finally arrived and one of them shot the man to death. There would be no further victims that day, thanks to armed resistance.

In each of these cases a killer is stopped the moment he faces armed resistance. It is clear that in three of these cases the shooter intended to continue his killing spree. In the fourth case, Andrew Wurst, it is not immediately apparent whether he intended to keep shooting or not since he was apprehended by the restaurant owner leaving the scene.

Three of these cases involved armed resistance by students, faculty or civilians. In one case the armed resistance was from an off-duty police officer in a city where he had no legal authority and where he was carrying his weapon in violation of the mall’s gun free policy.

What would have happened if these people waited for the police? In three cases the shooters were apprehended before the police arrived because of armed civilians. At Trolley Square the shooter was kept busy by Hammond until the police arrived. In all four cases the local police were the Johnny-come-latelys.

Consider the horrific events at Virginia Tech. Again an armed man enters a “gun free zone”. He kills two victims and walks away long before the police arrive. He spends two hours on campus, doing what is unknown. He then enters another building on campus and begins shooting. He never encounters a police officer during this. And all the students and faculty present had apparently complied with the “no gun” policy of the university. So no one stopped him. NO ONE STOPPED HIM! And when he finished his shooting spree 32 people were dead. It was the killer who ended the spree. He took his own life and when the police arrived all they dealt with were the dead.

There were many further victims that day. The shooter never met with armed resistance.

[Flacolaco]

It was restaurant owner James Strand, armed with a shot gun, who captured the shooter and held him for police. There would be no further victims that day, thanks to armed resistance

give him a mavs uniform

[mavsman]

I really have problems with the theory that stricter gun laws would automatically lead to only the bad guys being armed. The more guns are around, the easier it is for everyone - including the smalltime crooks, druggos and so on, people that wouldn't even get near a gun in a different environment - to get one.
Those heroic stories of the armed boys stopping the bad guy may be a good read, but they can't cloud the fact, that there have been 11.250 firearm homicides in the US in 2004, but only 526 (hard to find, under "taetlicher angriff") in the same year in Germany. Considering that there are roughly 3.7 times more US Americans than Germans, it means that the chance to be killed by a gun are about 6 times higher in the US than in Germany, or in countries with a similar strict gun law. The concept seems to have its flaws. But of course, as it is, the process is irreversible, all you can do now is trying to control the havoc.

[MavsX]

no way, i'm thinking about buying some heat soon.

[MFFL]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

Very good post. You're to no small degree right about the archaic nature of the right to bear arms.

* Second Amendment – Right to keep and bear arms.
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The second amendment is misunderstood by so many people. The US did not have a military back then so citizens would have to be called up as militia. And a militia needed guns. But this amendment became outdated when the US decided to form a standing military.

* Third Amendment – Protection from quartering of troops.
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

That third amendment is the one that should be addressed. Man - I can't tell you the number of times the military has tried to house troops at my home. It SUCKS.

[Usually Lurkin]

[Mavdog]

ul, nothing like a bit of sensationalism to lay the foundation for bridging the crevices between people's positions...

you know what would protect her health best? a good self defense instruction. that protection can't be taken and used against you.

[Male30Dan]

I have 7 guns. That will not change, (unless by change we refer to new guns being added to my gun safe), with or without any future laws prohibiting me from protecting myself.

[rabbitproof]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

Does the saying "the best defense is a good offense" apply here?

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Originally Posted by Male26Dan

I have 7 guns. That will not change, (unless by change we refer to new guns being added to my gun safe), with or without any future laws prohibiting me from protecting myself.

Originally Posted by Dr.Zoidberg

I think nobody has any objections about this. The point is to make it as hard as possible for ineligibly persons to get a weapon, and as you can read in Mavdog´s posted article, USA seemingly is lacking in the necessary coordination between the states and the federal authorities within the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System. The most states not even participate at this process, so you don´t have to be surprised if again and again a mentally disturbed person will commit a crime with a gun. And why should a person, which is eligibly to possess a weapon, have any hindrance with a rectified Background Check process? I know that you will not prevent all possible shootings by mentally disturbed persons after that but it neither might hurt.

Of course you will never balk a criminal from getting a gun, but this is not the target of more stricter laws or background checks in my opinion, as a criminal would never abide by regulations.

But as I also wrote before, I think it´s too late to get a grip on the weapon-abuse-problem, as there are already too many weapons in circulation and because of the mindset of the the most people about this topic.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

<snip>
you know what would protect her health best? a good self defense instruction. that protection can't be taken and used against you.

Huh? I have highly athletic daughters, I have been trained in the military, and have shown my daughters many self-defense things.

NONE of these will work against a gun. I have been in a fire-fight, and the baddest guy I have ever met (in Special Forces) would have been dead if not for his weapon. My daughters wouldn't be able to stop a man on drugs wielding a weapon -- unfortunately it just wouldn't happen unless they had an equalizer...ie a gun.

Life isn't like Remo Williams. You don't dodge bullets.

Daddy taught me long ago, you don't come to a knife fight unarmed, and you don't come to a gun fight with a knife, and if it is possible, you walk from the fight. Better to lose your pride, than for someone to die, but if you get cornered or have to fight, count the cost and don't lose.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

Life isn't like Remo Williams. You don't dodge bullets.

heh heh. Yeah. and what if your daughter moves like a pregnant yak?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

Huh? I have highly athletic daughters, I have been trained in the military, and have shown my daughters many self-defense things.

NONE of these will work against a gun. I have been in a fire-fight, and the baddest guy I have ever met (in Special Forces) would have been dead if not for his weapon. My daughters wouldn't be able to stop a man on drugs wielding a weapon -- unfortunately it just wouldn't happen unless they had an equalizer...ie a gun.

Life isn't like Remo Williams. You don't dodge bullets.

you believe that a "man on drugs wielding a weapon" is equatable to a fire fight battle with a professionally trained and coherent (read non-drug induced mental state) soldier?

huh? you have got to be kidding.

my money is on the unarmed person whose mind isn't clogged with a plethora of adverse chemicals and whose reflexes are not critically impaired from physically abusing their bodies.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

my money is on the unarmed person whose mind isn't clogged with a plethora of adverse chemicals and whose reflexes are not critically impaired from physically abusing their bodies.

mine would be on the armed person against the druggy with the weapon. After all, if the druggy can't beat an unarmed trained fighter, even with a weapon, then that druggy probably won't be able to take the gun away from the victim-to-be (especially considering the druggy already has a weapon). So why not stack the odds in favor of the innocent?

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

you believe that a "man on drugs wielding a weapon" is equatable to a fire fight battle with a professionally trained and coherent (read non-drug induced mental state) soldier?

huh? you have got to be kidding.

my money is on the unarmed person whose mind isn't clogged with a plethora of adverse chemicals and whose reflexes are not critically impaired from physically abusing their bodies.

I'll bet a 260lb 6'2" druggie who has worked weights in the pen and had to fight for his life there, will win 99.99999999999% of all battles against 120lb females if no weapons are involved. Trained or not trained. If he is hyped up and not feeling pain....she will be.

Where are you going to get the training needed to kill in this instance? Almost no defensive martial arts would be able to overcome this. She better hope she is in a place where someone else could save her, because she would be bruised and battered and not in shape to fight shortly after it started.

If she has a gun, I'd bet on her. Without one, or just him having one, I'd bet on him.

It comes down to whether or not she has that equalizer.

[MavsX]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

ul, nothing like a bit of sensationalism to lay the foundation for bridging the crevices between people's positions...

you know what would protect her health best? a good self defense instruction. that protection can't be taken and used against you.

self defense instruction? Thats hilarious. I woman can stomp on my toes, knee me in the nuts, hit me in my throat or under my nose and that won't phase me one bit. All i have to do is grab her throat or literally pick her up or one good punch. To knock her out. Give me a break!, a man is naturally bigger and stronger. The only deterrent is a gun or something like that.

self defense instruction. Sure, girls should take that class, yes.

But to say that a class is a good substitute and is directly equal as a gun for protection is so stupid, and not even a valid arguing point.

You know in fact, i want to buy a gun, to protect myself my woman and my house(when i get one)

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

mine would be on the armed person against the druggy with the weapon. After all, if the druggy can't beat an unarmed trained fighter, even with a weapon, then that druggy probably won't be able to take the gun away from the victim-to-be (especially considering the druggy already has a weapon). So why not stack the odds in favor of the innocent?

so what you are advocating is that our society revert to the old west days, a sort of "OK Corral" solution....

it will all come down to how fast you can pull out your weapon?

yikes.

I want to believe that we've progressed a lot more than that.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

so what you are advocating is that our society revert to the old west days, a sort of "OK Corral" solution....

it will all come down to how fast you can pull out your weapon?

yikes.

I want to believe that we've progressed a lot more than that.

I want true communism myself. The one where everyone busts their butts for the benefit of the whole, and everyone is equal. Everyone has exactly what everyone else has. Utopia.

Not gonna happen with man in charge, and the downside is some people are lazy, or crazy, or otherwise incapable. Some want this and some that.

Yes,we have progressed past wild west where guns are worn openly. Now they are concealed.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

I want true communism myself. The one where everyone busts their butts for the benefit of the whole, and everyone is equal. Everyone has exactly what everyone else has. Utopia.

I knew it! you're a closet trotskyite!

Not gonna happen with man in charge, and the downside is some people are lazy, or crazy, or otherwise incapable. Some want this and some that.

don't we all want "this and some that", but most of us understand it can't be other people's "this and...that"?

Yes,we have progressed past wild west where guns are worn openly. Now they are concealed.

talk about depressing, your position is the only progress our society has made in over 150 years is that we know to keep it in our pants....

[MFFL]

Originally Posted by MavsX

self defense instruction? Thats hilarious. I woman can stomp on my toes, knee me in the nuts, hit me in my throat or under my nose and that won't phase me one bit. All i have to do is grab her throat or literally pick her up or one good punch. To knock her out. Give me a break!, a man is naturally bigger and stronger. The only deterrent is a gun or something like that.

A man as tough as you make yourself out to be is unlikely to be killed instantly by shot from a handgun. If a woman was to shoot you (or someone else as tough as you), then you probably would simply TAKE the gun and kill her.

Look over this link from the FBI - here is ONE of the many stats that will blow you away. TEN percent of the deaths of TRAINED officers are with their own weapons.

"From 1993 to 2002, 636 officers were feloniously killed in the line of duty. Offenders used handguns, ranging from .22 to .50 caliber, to kill 443 of the officers. Forty-five of these victims were slain with their own weapons."

http://www.fbi.gov/publications/leb/...4/oct04leb.htm

[Male30Dan]

Originally Posted by MavsX

self defense instruction? Thats hilarious. I woman can stomp on my toes, knee me in the nuts, hit me in my throat or under my nose and that won't phase me one bit. All i have to do is grab her throat or literally pick her up or one good punch. To knock her out. Give me a break!, a man is naturally bigger and stronger. The only deterrent is a gun or something like that.

self defense instruction. Sure, girls should take that class, yes.

But to say that a class is a good substitute and is directly equal as a gun for protection is so stupid, and not even a valid arguing point.

You know in fact, i want to buy a gun, to protect myself my woman and my house(when i get one)

J-Lo would whoop dat ass!

[MavsX]

Originally Posted by MFFL

A man as tough as you make yourself out to be is unlikely to be killed instantly by shot from a handgun. If a woman was to shoot you (or someone else as tough as you), then you probably would simply TAKE the gun and kill her.

Look over this link from the FBI - here is ONE of the many stats that will blow you away. TEN percent of the deaths of TRAINED officers are with their own weapons.

"From 1993 to 2002, 636 officers were feloniously killed in the line of duty. Offenders used handguns, ranging from .22 to .50 caliber, to kill 443 of the officers. Forty-five of these victims were slain with their own weapons."

http://www.fbi.gov/publications/leb/...4/oct04leb.htm

wait wait wait, i', not arguing that i won't die from a handgun, big or small.

I am saying i don't think for a woman, a self defense class is a valid substitute for a weapon.

but thanks for playing.

[mcsluggo]

it basically comes down to the old prisoner's dilemna...

Clearly each individual is better off if none of the OTHER individuals has a handgun.

(then if you don't have one, you are not over-matched... and if you DO have one, you are basically superman)

BUT... since you are afraid the OTHERS (bad guys) might have one, you wan't to have one so that at worst you are not overmatched.


this is the very definition of a market failure, and a standard case for government intervention.

[MFFL]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

If she has a gun, I'd bet on her. Without one, or just him having one, I'd bet on him.

It comes down to whether or not she has that equalizer.

The FBI stats do not agree with you.

"In 1998, a woman was 101 times more likely to be murdered with a handgun than to use a handgun to justifiably kill an attacker"

http://www.vpc.org/studies/myth.htm

[MFFL]

Originally Posted by MavsX

wait wait wait, i', not arguing that i won't die from a handgun, big or small.

I am saying i don't think for a woman, a self defense class is a valid substitute for a weapon.

but thanks for playing.

What >I< am saying is that a handgun is not a valid deterrent.