Letters to the Editor

Infuriating guns

February 15, 2008

Advertisement

To the editor:

Guns, guns, guns. Everybody needs guns? American television has desensitized young and old with violent entertainment, mayhem, no longer gut-wrenching but accepted viewing for all. Mindless stupidity. When did so many feel the need of being on guard, gun toting?

As a child, I grew up with guns owned by a father/sportsman. Beautiful engraved barrels on shotguns for trap and skeet, and he was good. I watched him break 99 out of 100 clay pigeons almost every time. A great sportsman, great marksmanship. He attended the Grand American National Handicap at Vandalia, Ohio, to compete. Clark Gable, actor, was there, a great shot. Mother played in a bridge tournament there while Dad did his thing. And this in the mid-1930s, during the Depression.

Mother said money for his sports kept him well; he worked long hours, on call day and night. She set friends straight when chiding her for his spending. His shooting, rod and reel fishing kept him well all his long life.

Instead of sportsmanship, now gun ownership's run amok, concealed carry, kids with guns, public places not immune. Every Tom, Dick and Harry swaggers, feeling tall, invincible, super-smart with his own rod, a page out of the Old West movies. The movies and newspapers testify to the insanity, crimes by those misguided, unstable dimwits. A sad testament on our country, not so scary as absolutely infuriating.

Sue Hess,

Lawrence

Comments

kansas778 10 years, 3 months ago

This comes down to ignorance and mistrust. People like Sue here think gun owners (excluding her daddy) are nutjobs who can't be trusted with weapons. After all, they're just a bunch of insane, misguided, unstable dimwits right? We must keep the guns out of the hands of the dangerous weirdos and swaggering dimwits! Of course, with all these weirdos and dimwits out there, how is one supposed to protect oneself? Apparantly they won't exist without guns.

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson

Michael Capra 10 years, 3 months ago

sue I am have CCL and your saying were nut jobs,,Get a Life oh I forgot you dont have one

Flap Doodle 10 years, 3 months ago

Look at all the Wild West shootouts between CCL holders in Lawrence since concealed carry became legal a couple of years ago. Oh, wait, that didn't happen.

jonas 10 years, 3 months ago

"Every Tom, Dick and Harry swaggers, feeling tall, invincible, super-smart with his own rod, a page out of the Old West movies."

You're making this up, Ms. Hess.

jonas 10 years, 3 months ago

blue: Whatever you do, don't learn the a$$hole's name. If you know it already, then forget it.

stuckinthemiddle 10 years, 3 months ago

I have to admit that when someone believes that they need to carry a gun I have at least some concern about their mental health...

not that I'm opposed to people carrying guns...

drake 10 years, 3 months ago

Sue,

The murder rate in 1935 was 9.6 per 100,000.

The murder rate in 1996 was 7.4 per 100,000.

What is your point?

Boston_Charley 10 years, 3 months ago

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics website, and based on data from the National Center for Vital Statistics, the homicide rate per 100,000 in the US in 1935 was 8.3, down from 9.7 in 1933 and 9.5 in 1934. The rate in 1996 was 7.9, not a huge difference from 8.3. And, these are rates for all homicides, not death by gun.

kansas778 10 years, 3 months ago

stuckinthemiddle (Anonymous) says:

I have to admit that when someone believes that they need to carry a gun I have at least some concern about their mental health:


Wow, so the entire country's police officers are lacking in mental health. What hope do we have?

OnlyTheOne 10 years, 3 months ago

And last night on the TV news, 5 if I remember correctly, I see an elderly (70 or so) man in Texas pulled out his Derringer type pistol and shot one of two attackers, stopping them beating him and possibly saving his life.

Where's Charles Bronson when we need him?

stuckinthemiddle 10 years, 3 months ago

kansas778 lacking in mental health? I don't know about that but I am indeed concerned about the mental health of all police officers...

ksfbcoach "By the way:drunk drivers kill more people every year than guns by far. Is it time for everyone to start walking?"

my point, exactly... and we don't see a bunch of people driving around wearing crash helmets... if someone was to wear a crash helmet to protect themselves from drunk drivers we might be concerned about their mental health...

gogoplata 10 years, 3 months ago

The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed. Alexander Hamilton

The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun. Patrick Henry

The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it. Thomas Jefferson

Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence... From the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable... The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference they deserve a place of honor with all that's good. George Washington

gogoplata 10 years, 3 months ago

The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms; history shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own fall." Adolph Hitler

BigAl 10 years, 3 months ago

right_thinker (Anonymous) says:

Don't know what to tell you Sue. You also nowadays have Democracy Now!, Air America, Dailykos, moveon, mediamatters etc etc etc. These nuts are on the air, swaggering, feeling tall, invincible, super-smart::.


Same can be said for nuts like Hannity, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Coulter and others.

beatrice 10 years, 3 months ago

Where in the above letter does the writer call for taking people's guns away? Where does she call to abolish the Sacred 2nd? Where does she shout for prying a musket from Charlton Heston's cold, dead hands, if that is what is needed?

She doesn't. So why the over reaction to the letter?

As I read it, what Ms. Hess is claiming is that our society is desensitized to violence. With CSI as the #1 show, who could convincingly argue that point? We see graphic violence on television and don't even flinch these days. That is bad, especially when children start to mimic the behavior they see. I don't see how anyone can argue against that.

The letter is addressing specifically the gun owners who act like criminals, "those misguided, unstable dimwits." They appear to be the ones she is pointing to as those walking with a swagger, those willing to use a gun to prove a point in a situation when a gun isn't necessary. The only way I can imagine people reacting against such a statement is if that person identifies with the dimwits.

Whether you love or hate guns, a statement of being upset about "unstable dimwits" isn't a debatable statement. This is like being upset about dimwits who drink, drive and kill people, which is a likely feeling whether you own a car yourself or not.

Sue is correct. The gun deaths, and society being desensitized to violence in general, are "A sad testament on our country, not so scary as absolutely infuriating." Just the way another drunk driver is "infuriating."

I don't doubt that virtually all gun owners are also disturbed when they hear of yet another shooting and senseless killings taking place in a public place, as we witnessed again yesterday. Certainly, it is infuriating. I think we can all agree that it is sad and infuriating when, once again, we have to pry a school book from the cold dead hand of yet another student killed by a lunatic with a gun.

monkeywrench1969 10 years, 3 months ago

England has very harsh gun laws, destroyed guns turned in by honest legal gun owners and censored movies with edged weapons fights and attack yet they are in one of the most violent time periods of gun and knife violence in the past ten years.

monkeywrench1969 10 years, 3 months ago

By the way, the English have been trying to introduce legislation with the same aguments typically made in the US for banning guns toward knives and martial arts weapons, including the length of kitchen knives a person can own for the past ten years. This is because many of their mass killings have been by lunatics with samurai swords and martial arts swords.

Bryan Moore 10 years, 3 months ago

gogoplata-nice quotes but they don't really apply to the situation. The quotes were made at a time when the guns were needed for the defense of the country. The nation had nearly no standing army and little money to arm the one they had so militias of armed citizens were a major part of it's battle plan. The quotes refer to a time when 1000 men with muskets and a few cannon could take on an English army equiped with similar weapons. They we're not quotes about citizens defending themselfs against other citizens. At a time when a gun took a fair amount of time to reload I don't think Patrick, Alex, Thomas and George were concerned about mass killings by a single person. In addition, If you think your sidearm will defend this country today (which an old roomate of mine always asserted) let me introduce you to the mini gun, the A1 Abrams, and the cluster bomb. It's a different world today get new quotes.

Stuckinthemiddle- you do see people defending themselfs against drunk drivers everyday. They don't do it with helmets they do with Hummers, Excursions and F-350 dualies. That said, I do not get on an airplane with a parachute because a crash could happen any day or wear a life vest on the ferry across the river because it may hit a rock and sink.

I live in a city of 5 million and have never felt worried enough to carry a weapon. The shooter yesterday, by reports, entered, fired quickly and killed himself in a matter of seconds maybe a minute. I dare say that in a lecture hall with students running in all directions that anyone could have gotten out thier weapon and gotten a clear shot before he did himself in. Not to mention with students running, jumping seats and diving for cover that a CCL would probably be as likely to accidently hit a fellow student as the shooter. Here's my paraphrased quote, "Paranoia stikes deep, into your life it will creep, it starts when your always afraid, step out of line the man come and take you (or your gun) away" -Steven Stills

fu7il3 10 years, 3 months ago

"American television has desensitized young and old with violent entertainment"

I always hate these comments. It isn't only American television. If you want to see some really violent stuff, look overseas. Try the continent of Asia.

Besides, people need to stop blaming television and start taking responsibility for themselves. Our society places blame on faceless corporations with money that we can sue, rather than call a spade a spade and blame the idiots doing the violence.

RedwoodCoast 10 years, 3 months ago

Man, I find it hard to believe that the staunch heat-packers can say that guns are no big deal when we have people shooting up classrooms with guns they just purchased. It's sad that people don't see a problem with that. I grew up with guns, and I don't think it is wrong to own them. The problem I have is 1) when people think, for some reason, that they need to go around wearing them under their clothes in public like it's some sort of clothing accessory. 2) When people think that anyone and everyone, despite their mental or criminal history, should have the option of owning and carrying guns. This isn't 1870.

Flap Doodle 10 years, 3 months ago

"2) When people think that anyone and everyone, despite their mental or criminal history, should have the option of owning and carrying guns."

Other than you, who has said that on this, or any other, LJW thread?

staff04 10 years, 3 months ago

"Exactly, what people think that anyone and everyone, regardless of their criminal and mental history should be able to own and carry a gun?"

Ron Paul, for starters, believes that there should be no background checks for gun purchases. None whatsoever. Members of the Gun Owners of America, as well. Many many other extreme conservatives and libertarians also believe this. Do we have to do all of your research for you?

Eye_Poker 10 years, 3 months ago

anxiousatheist I ask you this question: What is easier, stopping a violent rampage with a gun? or stopping a violent rampage without a gun?

Easy answer, but hard to admit for you HCI types:

I personally have carried a gun for 7 years and have stopped 4 robberies and a rape without firing a shot or hurting anyone.

I have trained over 3,000 people in CCW and have yet to receive a call about a shot fired.

Frederic Gutknecht IV 10 years, 3 months ago

Dang it! I thought that Hampton Court was a bottle-free zone! They should throw the book at that bottle wielding criminal...unless it's a book-free zone.

Oops. Wrong thread.

kneejerkreaction 10 years, 3 months ago

The answer may very well be more guns. Lawrence should pass a resolution requiring all residents to own a firearm.

The crime rate stats would be interesting to see after a year.

Flap Doodle 10 years, 3 months ago

"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute and attribute that position to the opponent. Often, the straw man is set up to deliberately overstate the opponent's position. A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man Also see earier post by RedwoodCoast

Lance Cheney 10 years, 3 months ago

In response to arizonajh: We gun owners aren't trying to "defend our country" with our guns, we're defending ourselves and our families. And if a burglar or murderer does show up at my house with an A1 Abrams or a cluster bomb, well I guess I'm in trouble then aren't I? Fortunately, I haven't heard of too many reports on the news recently of criminals using military tanks or bombs to do their misdeeds. Maybe I'm just watching the wrong channel, I guess.

"To model our political system upon speculations of lasting tranquility, is to calculate on the weaker springs of the human character." -Alexander Hamilton An "outdated" quote, yet it couldn't be more relevant in this day and age.

kneejerkreaction 10 years, 3 months ago

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says:

This question assumes that such a thing is possible at all.

Tell me, when was the last time a violent rampage (not common criminal activity) was stopped by anyone other than the authorities or the rampager himself?


logic. get a copy of the NRA's magazine. Read the section titled "Back Blast". it's about citizens successfully defending themselves, with firearms, against criminals. Every issue there are new articles. You can probably find it online.

One issue carried an article from Topeka, Ks, right after the Concealed Carry law was passed.

Bryan Moore 10 years, 3 months ago

"What get's me steamed about liberals (again) is they simply can not stand it unless they are imposing their will on the whole of the populace. Arrogance in it's most pure and unadulterated form."

Hello Kettle! This is the Pot, you're black!

Seems to me the right want's to impose it's will on the left just as much as the other way around.

Abortion - left says it's up to the woman - right says make it illegal for everyone.

Religion - left says - practice (or not) it's up to you - Right says - If your not christian you're not a true American because this is a Christian country

Gay Marriage - left say's - let them marry if they want the headache - right says - ban it because I have an old book that say's it's wrong.

Now who wants to force thier will on who? Delusion in it's most pure and unadulterated form.

Bryan Moore 10 years, 3 months ago

lcjayhawk I was refering to the quotes the previous poster used to justify his position. I never said anything about criminals using tanks and made statements to clarify that! They were (as your Hamilton quote is) taken out of context. Hamiltons quote was refering to tranquility of the nation not domestic crime. If you want to quote a police commisioner or FBI director and their support of an armed citizenry then find that quote and post it. If you can find a law enforcement official who thinks everyone carring a gun is a good idea I'd like to hear it and would consider it's arguement. If you want to bring up 200+ year old quotes to support a postion that the quote was not refering to then I will disregard it as a missunderstanding of historical context. It seems funny to me that people say we must change the laws on wire taping because the world has changed in the last 20 years but want to missinterpet 18th century statements to support their disires for something that has changed drastically this the 200+ years since it was made.

Sigmund 10 years, 3 months ago

Yet another mass killing of students in a "gun free zone" by psycho who did NOT have a conceal carry permit and the LJW liberal sock puppets are still debating if law abiding students should have the right to defend themselves and their classmates from a suicidal clinically depressed grad student who was off his meds.

Simply astonishing.

beatrice 10 years, 3 months ago

EP: "I personally have carried a gun for 7 years and have stopped 4 robberies and a rape without firing a shot or hurting anyone."

Where the hell do you live, and boy am I glad I don't live there.

kj: "Lawrence should pass a resolution requiring all residents to own a firearm." And what are you going to do to those who refuse? I can hear the protester claiming that the only way he will carry a gun is if you stuff it into his cold dead hands.

rt, "What get's me steamed about liberals (again) is they simply can not stand it unless they are imposing their will on the whole of the populace. Arrogance in it's most pure and unadulterated form."

Isn't having guns everywhere imposing YOUR will on the whole populace, when the majority of Americans don't own a gun? Kj suggested that all people should be required to own guns. Why aren't you lashing out at him for his desire to impose his will?

One need not be a liberal to hate all of the gun deaths in this country, although it probably does help.

gogoplata 10 years, 3 months ago

arizona, guns in the hands of law abiding citizens has everything to do with defending individual liberty. Criminals violate personal liberty to take what does not belong to them. Having a gun makes it harder for the criminal to do that.

kneejerkreaction 10 years, 3 months ago

beatrice (Anonymous) says: kj: "Lawrence should pass a resolution requiring all residents to own a firearm." And what are you going to do to those who refuse? I can hear the protester claiming that the only way he will carry a gun is if you stuff it into his cold dead hands.


Of course no one would be forced, literally, but the press on this would perhaps be a deterrant. Criminals generally migrate to easy pickens and an armed community isn't.

Writing this, I'm thinking that this wouldn't do much for the image of Kansas, but most of the country thinks we're hicks anyway. So who cares?

monkeywrench1969 10 years, 3 months ago

What no comments about England and its strict gun lawsnot stopping the problem and them wanting to limit kitchen knives? THis is a fact of gun control.

I was told once during a presentation about the Russian response to the threat of box cutters on airplanes after 9/11...they gave every passenger a boxcutter when they got on and then took them back at the end of the flight. No take overs.

Does anyone have stats on crime in Switzerland a country that requires military service and weapons in the homes of everyone?

Bryan Moore 10 years, 3 months ago

"arizona, guns in the hands of law abiding citizens has everything to do with defending individual liberty."

And still I say the qoutes that you spout (and that's what I was addressing) are not about "personal" liberty but the liberty of the NATION and it's freedom from forgien domination, i.e. we need the citizens to have guns in case the Redcoats land in Baltimore and the army is a two day march away in New Jersey. Please find a quote about personal liberty and carrying a gun! I'm just saying use quotes that pertain to the subject not something that sounds similar to but is not the same, unless the distinction is something you are unable to grasp.

drake 10 years, 3 months ago

logic,

Since most of the rampages occur in schools or malls that are posted as no-carry there will of course be very few instances of a legal CCW holders stopping them. That's the problem with your line of thinking. Most if not all CCW holders are law abiding and the criminal knows this.

However, here are two recent ones that were stopped- the second one was stopped by an off duty cop that ignored the ban, technically breaking the law......

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/10/colorado.shootings/index.html

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/2007/02/proof-that-trolley-square-mall-in-utah.html

1029 10 years, 3 months ago

gun owners get so defensive so quick. i bet their anger makes their faces turn as red as their necks as they furiously "defend the constitution" (the most outdated of any developed country)

guns are cool. it makes a person feel powerful to hold one. the die hard movies were cool. gun fights in any action movie are cool. kids play and shoot each other with fake guns and aspire to be police officers.

however, while some people have the ability to mature mentally to a point where they realize that guns do more harm than good within society, others have more isolated mindsets and get their information from the nra and magazines that warn that banning unnecessary assault weapons will lead to bans on their beloved hunting weapons and the handguns that ease their ever everpresent fear of the world around them.

1029 10 years, 3 months ago

GUNS ARE SO COOL! I FEEL LIKE SUCH A BADASS WHEN I CARRY ONE! Because I'm a backwards redneck, I have really low self esteem. Guns help boost my self esteem while making me less scared of the scary world around me. I LOVE GUNS!!!!!!!!!

kneejerkreaction 10 years, 3 months ago

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says: Did you see anything in my original post that might lead you to believe that I wasn't talking about common criminal activity, but rather rampages such as Va Tech, NIU, Omaha Mall, etc.?


logic, How you do go on. What are you a 14-year-old hormonal girl?

So sorry.

And can you tell me one of the above venues you cite that didn't have a NO handguns sign or where firearms are expressly outlawed? There are none, there's your answer.

So to even ask this question is stupid. (Remember logic., there's no such thing as a stupid question, just stupid people.)

Therefore, there can be no possibly of stopping a violent rampage, 'cause the legal carriers don't carry where they ain't supposed to.

The only examples you will find of CC working is in personal self defense, which frankly is what it is supposed to do.

drake 10 years, 3 months ago

1029,

I see that your home from middle school. From the exact point that you declare our constitution outdated everything else you say is irrelevant to any discussion.

logic,

The first link was not an officer, however she was trained in law enforcement and was simply a volunteer.
I seriously doubt that any CCH holder wishes that they personally were present at one of those shootings, but you cannot seriously believe if one were that the outcome couldn't have ended better for all involved.

gogoplata 10 years, 3 months ago

arizona, there is no such thing as national liberty. Our republic was set up to be a government that protects personal or individual liberty. The 2nd ammendment is set up to allow individual citizens the right to protect their own life and liberty as well as that of this republic that was established to protect individuals.

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.

All of the 1st eight ammendments in the Bill of Rights have to do with individual liberty.

Even with the large numbers of law enforcement officers we have in this country common sense should tell you that the police will most likely not be there to help you in the event of an assault. Guns can be a great method of protection should the police not be there when you need them. So the gun can protect your life and liberty when the government cannot. A better name for gun control is victim disarmament.

gogoplata 10 years, 3 months ago

I do have an issue with people that say "such and such a tragedy could have been prevented with a private citizen wielding a gun" when the bottom line is that your average CCH class isn't going to equip a gun owner with the skills necessary to defuse a situation like the ones at VTech, NIU, Omaha, etc.

I think that these tragedys could have been prevented with a private citizen wielding a gun. It is really that simple.

Corey Williams 10 years, 3 months ago

That's kind of funny since they started with a private citizen wielding a gun.

Corey Williams 10 years, 3 months ago

right_thinker "Knock yourself out Corey::I'm not surprised there is a nest of gay necrophiliacs in Lawrence."

Vicious comeback. Just what I expected from someone like you. I tried to take it down to your level, but it left me feeling nauseus.

Sorry. I was out tonight, didn't get a chance to reply to your less than intelligent comment. Maybe when you learn a little bit about the world, then you can carry on a real conversation.

Frederic Gutknecht IV 10 years, 3 months ago

It's SO confusing! I can't decide which side is the most scared?~)

Is it the side that's afraid that every nut job will be carrying guns if you allow law abiding citizens to carry guns and who are generally afraid of guns and are more concerned with friendly fire than with criminals and insane people carrying weapons and who are also exceptionally wary of anyone who would feel the need or desire to carry protection...or is it the side that thinks law abiding citizens should be able to defend themselves and who are more respectful than afraid of guns?

Hmmm...

I figured since we're all in broad brush mode, that I'd do a little painting!~)

gogoplata 10 years, 3 months ago

I am neither arrogant or ignorant on this subject. There is a difference between simple and easy. It is simple because all it would have taken would have been one person with a gun to shoot the bad guy. Good guy shoots bad guy = Very bad situation over. I won't argue with you on the fact that it would not be an easy thing to do. But just because it would be difficult does not mean we should just throw our hands up and turn the responsibility of protecting ourselves over to the police who usually get there when it is too late to save lives. It's better to have a gun and not need one then to need one and not have one.

Corey Williams 10 years, 3 months ago

Yeah, but keep your fingers out of this. I respect guns. They can be useful to put food on a table or overthrow a government. But why does everyone need to carry one? Are you that worried about where you live/work/etc that you think a gun is the only way you'll make it out alive?

Corey Williams 10 years, 3 months ago

And of course, all these card carrying gun owners know that in a pinch, they'll be able to shoot the bad guy without any problem and be the hero. Is that it? I guess we'll know when it comes up.

Flap Doodle 10 years, 3 months ago

"But why does everyone need to carry one? " Everybody doesn't need to carry one. Some of us choose to legally do so.

Bryan Moore 10 years, 3 months ago

I think this is what they (Hamilton, Payne et al) mean when they speak of liberty,

... but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the LIBERTIES of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights ... speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, HAVING NO DISTINCT GOVERNMENT IN EACH, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair., Federalist No. 29

They are not speaking of your individual liberty (to take the law into your own hands) or defense of your personal property, but the defense of the country from threats domestic or forgein. I'm not saying you can't have a gun. I own guns. If there is an attack on the midwest by an invading army and the US Marines are not there to protect you, me and my gun will show up to help you beat back the Russians, the French or the Alphacentorians or whoever thinks they are going to tread on us. If you want to play policeman though join the dept. because we have a "distinct government" it has not been usurped. I still ask you to show me a polce dept or federal law enforcement agency that thinks citizens carrying guns is a good idea.

gogoplata 10 years, 3 months ago

You are right about what the Federalists were thinking. It was the Anti Federalists that gave us the Bill of Rights which include the 2nd ammendment. And I could care less about what police officers think about me having a gun to protect myself. They are not responsible for my safe keeping.

kneejerkreaction 10 years, 3 months ago

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says: Well then, I guess you shouldn't have even responded, because I have already admitted that personal defense seems to be an acceptable reason to carry.

What was that about stupid people?


Oh, logic, that was about stupid people making up stupid situational questions like...logic says..."Tell me, when was the last time a violent rampage (not common criminal activity) was stopped by anyone other than the authorities or the rampager himself?"...

Your point can't happen as long as people follow no firearm rules that prevent the carrying of firearms at all of the places where these shootings have taken place. So why would you even ask that question, Mary?

Corey Williams 10 years, 3 months ago

"...the constant foul smell wafting from the left..." As soon as you people can prove that you're blessed by god, then you can say that. Until then, take a good sniff of yourself and your own self righteous stench.

Bryan Moore 10 years, 3 months ago

"It is simple because all it would have taken would have been one person with a gun to shoot the bad guy. Good guy shoots bad guy = Very bad situation over."

Granted, that is one out come of the equation but how about these

Good guy shoots student who in a panic jumped into his line of fire = Very bad situation worse

Good guy shoots at bad guy, misses, bad guy decides more students need to pay for his percieved injustices and kills five more before killing himself = Bad situation worse

Good guy shoots bad guy, second good guy rushes in the room see's first good guy shoot bad guy, shoots first good guy because he thinks good guy is bad guy = bad situation worse (multiply by number of CCL's)

Change a variable, get a different outcome. Lets add in police arriving during this, which student is good, which is bad? They both are firing guns. No simple solutions just simple minds. Why not ask for more police or more armed guards at schools? I fear it is because you want to be the hero, you want to be the big man with the gun, you want that spot on the six o'clock news to show all those people who picked on you in junior high what a tough guy you are. " ah shucks, I just did what any red blooded Christian American would do, I put my trust in the lord and Smith and Wesson and the world is now safe from muggers, rappers and liberals!" Now back Jim at the news desk....

Corey Williams 10 years, 3 months ago

A hero is one idea. I think they would rather be packing, because in their pants, they're not.

Am I down at your level yet, r_t? Do I need to revive the stench of Reagan's decaying corpse?

kneejerkreaction 10 years, 3 months ago

arizonajh....how about meteor falls out of sky, crashes through building and kills bad guy as he's sitting on his toilet the morning of planned killing ramgape.

Rampant outpouring of grief from fellow universitarians and comments about "a bright future cut short".

How ironic.

One scenario you left out? Bad guy opens fire and fire is returned by 7 armed students. Students are posing for pictures with one foot on dead bad guy when the cops show up and haul his sorry ass corpse away.

How's that one?

workinghard 10 years, 3 months ago

We need to close the loophole that allows mental patients, even ones committed to a mental hospital by a judge,to buy guns. What some people don't realize is that if a state has a law sealing mental patients records, it overrides the federal law banning them from having guns. All the mental patient as to do is lie on the form. The federal government cannot check if he has been committed, so the background check is usless. This was the case 15 years ago in Kansas and may still be. Believe me, I know, I found out the hard way when I tried to get guns taken away from a violent man who had been committed 3 times. I think we can all agree we don't want guns in the hands of people who have no idea what is real and what is not and feel they can solve their problems with a gun. For the record I own guns, and I don't feel a person mental records should be public knowledge EXCEPT when they want to own a gun.

kneejerkreaction 10 years, 3 months ago

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says: A more accurate description would include having to approach the bad guy without being shot, having to train your weapon on him (without being shot), having to actually hit him, having to hit him in a way that he is incapacitated, avoid hitting innocent bystanders, and avoid the possibility of being shot at by a law enforcement officer who enters and doesn't know who the rampager is, all while under immense pressure.


Remember everyone, when confronted by a bad armed person, just give up. Just Give Up. 'Cause yore a goner. You pansy.

Bryan Moore 10 years, 3 months ago

gogoplata (Anonymous) says:

You are right about what the Federalists were thinking. It was the Anti Federalists that gave us the Bill of Rights which include the 2nd ammendment. And I could care less about what police officers think about me having a gun to protect myself. They are not responsible for my safe keeping.

2nd Admendment - 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.

What part of the second admendment makes you think you are a "well regulated militia" or that "well regulated militias are any longer nessasry to the security of a free state when we have the army, navy, air force, marines, national guard, FBI, CIA, NSA, Border Patrol, Coast Guard, US Marshalls, State police, county sheriffs, local police and the omnipotent Dept of Homeland Security? None of which existed when the Bill of Rights was written. If your personal rights can not be "infringed" then you would feel that a mini gun mounted on your SUV is a protected right (in case a drunk driver is weaving towards you). How about a RPG for that cat that won't stay of of your sandbox (destruction of private property), maybe a flame thrower for that guy down the street that keeps cutting across your lawn to get home (he's a tresspasser you know). "My right's may not be infringed!" I'd be willing to bet that your one of these people that bought a giant SUV to make sure that if your in an accident you'll crush anbody or anything you hit but your precious family will be safe.

Flap Doodle 10 years, 3 months ago

snap writes:

still

having

a

wonderful

internet

life

.

jonas 10 years, 3 months ago

"From the exact point that you declare our constitution outdated everything else you say is irrelevant to any discussion."

Why? Is our constitution going to remain the perfect governing document for perpetuity? The founding fathers, when they wrote it, clearly disagreed, as they immediately amended it multiple times, and our leaders have, again, multiple times since its inception. (Hell, its one of those changes that you're carping on about anyway) Lots of things have happened since its creation, some of which have changed the world completely from the one the framers of the constitution had, and which influenced them in creating it. To suggest that the passage of time would leave this one document alone as continuously and wholly relevant seems to me to be deifying the framers and their creation to a dangerous extent. In other words, its not a sacred document, even if it is a very good, well thought out one.

Lance Cheney 10 years, 3 months ago

"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them." -Thomas Jefferson Criticize that quote all you want, but I think it's pretty self-explanatory. Just because we own guns doesn't mean we want to have to use them. It's just nice knowing that, if need be, we have a method of protecting ourselves. And for the people who are terrified of guns and don't want to own them: that's fine. Don't own one; that's your choice. I'm perfectly fine with that. It's probably better (safer) that way. But don't try to take them away from those of us that were raised around them and have a respect for them. We know they're not toys, and we don't feel "tougher" or "cooler" or "smarter" because we have them. We do feel safer though. Unfortunately, this is a debate that will rage on until the end of time.

And 1029, I have no idea what the hell you're talking about. If I were a gun-control advocate, I would be embarrassed to have you supporting my cause. You're just spouting idiocy and not even trying to make a valid point. You sound like us right-wing, retarded, backwoods, cousin-humpin' rednecks.

beatrice 10 years, 3 months ago

kj: "how about meteor falls out of sky ..." Honestly made me laugh. Very funny.

By the way, some towns have tried to make gun ownership mandatory: http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200109/CUL20010911b.html

Who knows, maybe it would work.

OlCoach 10 years, 3 months ago

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says:

"What is easier, stopping a violent rampage with a gun? or stopping a violent rampage without a gun?"

"This question assumes that such a thing is possible at all.

"Tell me, when was the last time a violent rampage (not common criminal activity) was stopped by anyone other than the authorities or the rampager himself?"

You make a very good point...for me; that being, when was the last time a violent rampage was NOT committed in a "gun-free" zone???....for all but the one on the rampage, that is!!

OlCoach 10 years, 3 months ago

Jonas wrote: "...Lots of things have happened since its creation, some of which have changed the world completely from the one the framers of the constitution had, and which influenced them in creating it."

Are you suggesting that the natural right of a person to defend his family, home, self, no longer exists, due to our wonderful advancing world? We have "outgrown" the natural right to self defense which has always existed and which our Constitution guarantees?

beatrice 10 years, 3 months ago

olcoach, compared to the U.S., how many gun rampages happen in countries that have stiff gun controls?

Sigmund 10 years, 3 months ago

If the US Constitution, as currently a drafted and construed, does NOT allow law abiding private citizens to protect themselves by buying and carrying handguns, then it needs to be amended so it is clear to everyone that it is a fundamental right of every citizen.

I can think of no more important human right nor moral imperative than the ability and the duty to resist illegal violent acts of others. Handguns give the physically weaker the means to oppose the violence of the more powerful.

After another mass killing of students in a "gun free zone" by psycho who did NOT have a conceal carry permit and the theoretical debate should be closed on whether law abiding students and professors should have the right to defend themselves and their classmates from a suicidal clinically depressed grad student who was off his meds. The people who were shot outside the Last Call were in a "gun free bar zone" and the shooter(s) could rightly have concluded there would be no one would be able to resist.

Self defense is a fundamental human right. With guns so widely available to the criminals who cause the violence, denying them to the law abiding will only force those wishing to defend themselves to also break the law.

OlCoach 10 years, 3 months ago

beatrice...

Weeeell, lemme see...Germany, Japan, Russia, China, Sumatra...need I go on?

Oh, but those shouldn't count...that was AFTER they disarmed the citizens!...everything was a "gun-free zone!"

OlCoach 10 years, 3 months ago

..cont'd:

Darfur, Rwanda, Cambodia, Sierra Leone

Jim Phillips 10 years, 3 months ago

It boils down to this, there are three types people in the world when gun ownership is dicussed. There are sheep, sheepdogs, and wolves. We choose which category we want to be in. Throughout history, the sheepdogs (weapons owners) have protected the sheep (non-weapon owning pacifists) from the wolves (predators). I don't see that changing anytime soon..

w00dc4ip 10 years, 3 months ago

beatrice: To answer your question for OlCoach, the violent crime rates in England and Australia have risen dramatically since their gun bans were enacted. The crime statistics are easy to find on the internet. Check out the free ebook gunfacts, and if you don't believe that book, check it's cited sources for the stats.

The question is simple. Put yourself in the situation of the women in the Tinley Park store last week. A man with a gun has walked in and announced a robbery, he's caught the store manager making a phone call to 911, and is ordering everyone into the back of the store. Would you rather: A. Have a firearm and know you at least have a chance of defending yourself? B. Have no choice but to do what the man says.

Would you be angry at someone else in the store who had a firearm and shot the robber before he could execute you? Would you still say they had no right to carry a gun for self defense?

Gun laws don't stop criminals from using guns to commit violent crimes. Concealed carry laws give citizens the choice to exercise their constitutionally protected right to defend their own lives. People who disagree with concealed carry shouldn't carry concealed weapons for self defense. However, they shouldn't be able to dictate if I want the right to defend my life, and possibly theirs, if the situations arises.

At the church in Colorado, If any of the 100 or so people in that church disagreed completely with the idea of concealed carry, do you think they were happy or unhappy when the women who did carry a concealed gun stopped the shooter from entering the church to open fire? Do you think they now would argue she has no right to carry a concealed weapon?

How about the shooting at the mall in Omaha, where concealed carry is legal but the mall is a "gun free zone" so concealed carry holders there left their guns in their cars. How many people in that mall do you think would say now that they should have disobeyed the rules?

For those of us willing to take the training, do all the paperwork, go through the background checks, and accept the responsibility of carrying a concealed weapon for our own defense and the defense of others, there is no other option. Concealed carry is the only possibility of evening the odds. When seconds matter in tragedies like the one at Lane Bryant in Tinley Park, NIU, Westroads Mall in Omaha, etc., etc., etc., the police are minutes away. The first responders need to be the people trying to defend their own lives.

jonas 10 years, 3 months ago

"Are you suggesting that the natural right of a person to defend his family, home, sel', no longer exists, due to our wonderful advancing world?"

Funny, but no, I wasn't suggesting that at all. All I was suggesting, as what I wrote, is that we shouldn't look to the founders and their writing as the by-all-end-all of any debate on the issue, and we certainly shouldn't look at our own country's document as straight from the mouth of heaven, either. The reason that it works so well is that it was well constructed, by normal but intelligent men, to have real practical effect in its society. Our concern now, rather than dogmatically following the written words of the founders or their creation, should be practical solutions to the social problems that exist in OUR time, not an 18th century agrarian world. Is there practical reason, then, to allow for a person to defend themselves? Of course there is. Is this due to the sanctity of the second amendment? No, of course not. So why sanctify the amendment itself, or the document that it belongs to? You should be able to show the practical effect of such things, instead of referring to a document written by normal men as the ultimate justification of your argument.

kneejerkreaction 10 years, 3 months ago

Beatrice, I had heard about the GA town who required residents to have firearms. The Swiss used to require every household to have a firearm and ammunition.

Pretty odd for a neutral country, but no one wanted to invade them 'cause they knew the consequence.

Personally, I think it would work. Most thieves just want the goods and easy pickens, they don't necessarily want to risk their lives for a TV set.

beatrice 10 years, 3 months ago

kj: No one wanted to invade the Swiss because they needed their out-of-country-no-questions-asked banking system. And I believe citizens were required to be armed to protect against bears.

I could be wrong on that last point.

w00d and olcoach: you are correct that gun rampages have and do occur in other countries. Including wartorn regions, however, is not what we are discussing here. That would be like comparing American gun deaths today with those during the Civil War, and then claiming things are far safer now than in the 19th century.

If you look at developed countries with gun control laws, like England, Japan or Germany, there simply are fewer gun death tragedies like we seem to have every couple of months. This isn't the case in other countries that have strict gun restrictions.

Yes, violent crimes have risen in England over the years, and we could argue the reasons for this, but I think we would all rather face an unarmed violent criminal (as is true in almost all cases of violent crimes in England) than an armed violent criminal. A single person simply will have a much slimmer chance of walking into a classroom and killing as many people if they are unarmed. Not that it can't happen, but they would have a slimmer chance.

The questions as I see them, is if the trade off of citizens being armed for self protection is worth the greater number of crazy people having access, and can something be done to prevent the criminals and crazy people from getting access?

That said, please know that I am not making the claim that we strip Americans of their right to own, or their right to conceal and carry. While I have no interest to own a gun myself, I am actually in favor of the conceal and carry laws for the very reasons that you detail -- training, registration, extra time, etc. That shows a level of seriousness and commitment on the part of the gun owner. I just don't understand why those shouldn't be the rules for all interested in owning a gun. I feel these are the types of steps that need to be considered for the good of the nation, and not just dismissed out of hand because an NRA lobbyist wants to scare people with claims that "liberals" in the government will pry the guns from your cold dead hands if they have to.

beatrice 10 years, 3 months ago

Two other points -- that "lady" in the church in Colorado was a trained security guard, not just your average Jane with a derringer in her purse. Lets not get carried away on that story. In fact, it could be used as an example of why we should only allow trained security professionals to carry.

Finally, for every example of someone protecting themselves or protecting others because they were armed, I could provide an example of a gun being used in a tragic event that killed a family member or friend.

The American gun issue simply isn't one of good or bad, yes or no. The continued repetition of tragedies, however, proves to me at least that the system as it is now isn't working something needs to be done about it.

The least we can do, in my opinion, is have the conceal and carry requirements placed on all gun owners. Why shouldn't people who carry a gun in a holster have the same training as the person who carries it in a zippered bag?

beatrice 10 years, 3 months ago

Sweetie? Please, you can insult better than that.

Seriously, Marion, you are right that guns have been used effectively to stop crimes on many, many occassions. Of course they have. That is why the police carry them.

So 2.5 million, or 700,000 -- that sure is a lot of crimes being committed by gun toting criminals and prevented by gun toting citizens. Wow, who knew that the gun proliferation problem in our society would be this bad? Sure looks like a reason why we might want to do something about that.

Of course, I was addressing specifically the topic at hand, where a crazy and armed person intent on killing a bunch of people was stopped by another armed person (someone other than a security or police officer). How many times has something like this been stopped? In this instance, which is what I referred to earlier, I am sure that there have been far more accidents in homes with guns.

Just wanted to make that clear, as the intent was not to be a "liar." I really am trying to have a serious discussion with folks on this one.

beatrice 10 years, 3 months ago

The major point I would like to hear opinions on is the idea of requiring the same standards for all gun owners as we do for conceal and carry gun owners. Yes, it would be a bit of a hassle and there would be a cost involved. I understand those to be drawbacks. But what is the cost to society if we do nothing? Why would requiring gun owners to show they are capable of safely owning a gun a bad idea?

The benefit for gun owners, as I see it, would be that all gun owners would then be granted the right to conceal and carry. Isn't this what is desired by the gun owners?

I really think it would help in the long run. That, and much, much harsher penalties for those in violation of these laws -- meaning criminals.

uncleandyt 10 years, 3 months ago

Chris Rock says bullets should be more expensive. I agree. $500 bullets? $1000? Crazy folks and cousin-hunchers are difficult to control. We shouldn't wait for them to admit they have a problem. We must start with some oversight of the weapons makers and dealers. They're making a killing off of all the killing. In this world, there are people who care about what happens to strangers, and right-wing hard-asses who don't give a damn. There are too many guns and too many gun-toting buttholes. If the plug fits, wear it.

beatrice 10 years, 3 months ago

beobachter, I don't think you need to qualify your opening statement by using the word "gun."

Marion, as I already responded, I was referring specifically to the number of instances in which a citizen with a gun, not a police or security officer, stopped an armed person attempting to randomly kill several people. I was writing about the type of instance at hand, not just any crime in general. I already admitted that I was unclear on what I meant, but it was not an attempt to lie.

But in support of even this obvious fact, go look up the number of accidental deaths of children each year by guns found in the home for yourself.

Speaking of being a liar, why don't you tell us all about Nick Danger and the internet spam business.

been_there 10 years, 3 months ago

Have they also included how many single parent families are headed by women and how many are headed by men. Might account for the figures. If there were more single men raising kids than women the figures might change. Just a thought.

Jim Phillips 10 years, 3 months ago

beobachter,

I am proudly one of those self-proclaimed NRA card holding gun nuts. For this, I apologize to no one. I also teach concealed carry. I invite you to go back and read my previous post about sheep, sheep dogs, and wolves. If you choose to be a sheep, that is your right and one I respect. I however, choose not to become a victim and will defend my family and myself. Hopefully, I will never have to do that, but I have the knowledge, the skill, the technology, and as long as I do my part appropriately, the law on my side.

Having said that, I will ask you a question. Suppose you are awakened at 2am by a noise in your 9 year old daughter's bedroom. You walk in and see a 6'00" tall, 240 pound, wild-eyed intruder in the bedroom. He is holding a very large knife. I hand you a .357 magnum. What will you do with it?

I rally don't expect you to answer the question to me, iI do ask you answer truthfully to yourself.

OlCoach 10 years, 3 months ago

Beatrice:

With all due respect, I would request that you use facts, not what, "I believe."

You wrote: " I believe citizens were required to be armed to protect against bears." "I could be wrong on that last point."

"Could be:?" You KNOW you are! That's a novel approach, even for an anti-rights person. What I believe is, most of your anti-rights friends must be crying right now for you having made such an ignorant statement! Tell that one to the Swiss!

You wrote: ":you are correct that gun rampages have and do occur in other countries. Including wartorn regions, however, is not what we are discussing here."

  1. You left out that these rampages were committed by the governments in control, against citizens they had disarmed!
  2. It is exactly what we are discussing here:GUN CONTROL!

In a post following the above misinformation, you wrote:

"In this instance, which is what I referred to earlier, I am sure that there have been far more accidents in homes with guns."

Again, we have another of your, "I believe"s.

Contrary to what you may believe, from the National Safety Council, 2004 Report:: http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm

Deaths due to Unintentional (Accidental) Injuries:::.112,012 1 year Odds .............:::::..1:2,622

Due to motor vehicle accident.......44,933 1 yr odds::::::..................1:6,535

Deaths due to falls:::::: 18,807 1 yr odds::::::::::. 1:15,614

PEDESTRIAN deaths by motor vehicle accident::5,976 1 year odds :::::::::.1:49,139

Other accidental deaths due to loss of breathing:::::5,891 (596 of those are accidental suffocation while lying in bed) 1 yr odds:::::::::::1:49,848

Accidental death by drowning or submersion::::::.3,308 1 yr odds:::::::.1:88,772

Exposure to smoke, fire and flames::3,229 1 yr odds:::::::::::::1:90.944

Exposure to forces of nature (lightening, etc.):1,102 1 yr odds::::::::::::::1:266,476

Deaths due to accidental firearm discharge...649 1 yr odds::::::::::::::::1:452,476

"I am sure"?????? If you want to argue with thoae facts, argue with the National Safety Council!

StrangerCreek 10 years, 3 months ago

To Guardian: Excellent post and I agree completly.

To the Thugs: You break into my house, threaten my family and you won't see me standing in the hall with a golf club, I'll be holding my gun. And you can count on not going back to your house when it all said and done.

I'm no lamb. And I know when the radical extremist element finally comes over to our land to force their religion on us, you that are lambs will be thanking people like Guardian and myself for saving your butt.

There's an East vs. West war coming to our homes and you better be ready. It won't be "Red Dawn" but perhaps close. You better be prepared. If not, you'll either be dead or wearing a turban and disrespecting your women.

beatrice 10 years, 3 months ago

Olcoach, I was joking about the bears. Geez. Do gun owners have no sense of humor? I can expect Marion to respond to every post with his panties in a wad while on the verge of blowing an O-ring, but I don't expect it from all gun owners. Lighten up.

However, regarding your long list of numbers, here are some more to add: From the National Safety Council: "In 1999, 3,385 kids ages 0-19 years were killed with a gun." In 1997, "30,225 young people aged 15-24 sustained nonfatal firearm injuries."

Now I ask you, can you please show me the evidence that at least 3,385 people on a killing rampage were stopped by a gun wielding citizen in any single year? If not that, then how about the 649 you mention?

Guardian: You teach lessons that allow people to handle a gun as safely as possible in a conceal and carry situation. Good for you. I am all for that type of training. Honest.

I suspect that you have seen several people come into your classes acting like they know everything there is to know about a gun, only to learn a thing or three. Maybe I'm wrong, and that what you teach people is a big fat waste of time because every gun owner already knows how to perfectly handle a gun in all situations. If that is the case, however, I feel sorry for you. It must be sad to teach something to people who already know everything.

Or, people really could use some training. Please tell us which it is, people benefit from gun training or they do not, since you are in a better position than most to speak on the subject.

My point is that all gun owners should be required to have such training. And I choose not to have a gun in the home. That is it in a nutshell.

Okay Marion, time for another hissy fit. And, since you are calling me a "liar" can you also tell us about the lies told by one "Nick Danger" and his spam-internet business.

OlCoach 10 years, 3 months ago

Beatrice... "Olcoach, I was joking about the bears. Geez. Do gun owners have no sense of humor?"

Definitely not...not when unsuspecting readers can be convinced with all this misinformation you insist on putting out, such as:

"From the National Safety Council: "In 1999, 3,385 kids ages 0-19 years were killed with a gun." In 1997, "30,225 young people aged 15-24 sustained nonfatal firearm injuries."

Golly, Beatrice, I sure am glad you brought that up, cause here are some facts for you from the 2003 FBI Unified Crime Report:

Murder victims by firearms Total...................14,408 under 1 yr old.....10 1-4......................32 5-8......................24 9-12....................32 13-16..................236 17-19..................1,037 20-24..................2,340

Like statistics apply to your claim of firearms related injuries, which would include those accidental injuries already discussed!

I would remind you to compare the figures of the 0-12 yr olds, with the previously posted figures of accidental deaths. Even combined, the deaths by firearms figures, both accidental and homicide, don't compare with other accidental causes.

Now, take a really educated guess as to why the figures, beginning with age13-15, start to climb! Ever heard of "gang-bangers,etc.? Are you aware of what happens in areas such as Chicago/Cook County in Illinois when rival gangs fight for control? Ever heard of "drive-by" shootings?

Most of the deaths you cite occurred in the areas of Washington D.C., New York City, Chicago, Detroit, and other notorious gun ban cities, all of which rank in the top 5 yearly for homocides by firearms.

Do you honestly believe that further gun control would prevent such deaths? If it hasn't so far, why would you think more would be better? Those that commmit such acts are going to suddenly say, "Oh-oh! Another gun control law. I'm gonna run right down there and turn in my gun and never get another one!"

You'll have to do better than that, Beatrice!

Flap Doodle 10 years, 3 months ago

Please don't think that Marioni's views on women represent the opinions of other supporters of Second Amendment rights. He's in a world all his own.

BTW,

still

having

a

wonderful

internet

life

.

OlCoach 10 years, 3 months ago

Anyone quoting statistics from such sources as the Violence Policy Committee, CDC, etc., should realize that those studies are genreally funded by the Joyce Foudation, based in Chicago, IL (naturally!) who annually funds virtually every gun control, anti-rights organization in the United States!

You expect unbiased reports? Some of those organizations are not only funded by Joyce, they were created by Joyce!

Don't believe me?

Check here: http://www.joycefdn.org/GrantList/Default.aspx At the "Select a program category" button, scroll down to "Gun Violence"!

The meeting in 2007 of the "International Chiefs of Police Association" and its resultant recommedations was not only funded by the Joyce Foudation, its President chaired the meeting!

Wake up, Beatrice.

beatrice 10 years, 3 months ago

Golly, olcoach, "I sure am glad you brought that up, cause here are some facts for you from the 2003 FBI Unified Crime Report:

Murder victims by firearms Total::::::.14,408"

Sometimes, the person I am arguing with can make my case even clearer than I can. 14,408 firearm murders in a single year!!! That is roughly 39.5 each and every day!!!!

And you don't think something should be done about this?!?!?

Now, would you (rather than the irrational spammer Nick Danger) please explain to me why it would be a bad thing to require all gun owners to have the equivalent of the conceal and carry training? How would such training harm the country? If you believe in conceal and carry, then wouldn't the training that allowed all gun owners to be able to conceal and carry be a good thing?

OlCoach 10 years, 3 months ago

Beatric, Beatrice!

No one denies the fact of firearms deaths. What is objected to, is the fact that such as you twist the facts!

You posted only the total figure. Typical. Maybe someone who didn't read my post, will read yours!

How 'bout the figures that totally annhilate your claim?

Where were those homocides committed, and by whom?
I ask again, do you really believe firarm ownership can be regulated in such a fashion that those of us (wouldn't include you for the world) who chose to defend our families on equal terms will not lose our natural right to do so, regardless of where we are?

You could reply, "Sure...maybe with a rattail comb, or a car key," as the Illinois State Police suggest, (go to http://www.isp.state.il.us/crime/saconfronted.cfm )or you might even suggest vomitting (if he allows you to stick your finger down your throat) , as the ISP also suggest! Hmmm...rattail comb vs gun, or knife, or just superior strength...wonder who might win that one?

Lions do it...elephants do it, chimanzees do it, spawning fish do it...but we shouldn't?? ' (Talkin' self-defense, not "the other!")

beatrice 10 years, 3 months ago

olcoach, you accuse me of posting only the total figure, but I copied that number directly from your post! Sorry that the actual number of handgun murders in a year bothers you so much.

Guess what? It bothers me too.

To answer your question, no, I can't prove that regulations on guns won't take your right to own away. At the same time, you can't actually prove that further regulations WILL take your right to own away. Proving a negative is an impossibility.

Now, to set aside all numbers and "facts" and scewed statistics and stories of elephants doing it with lions and the Swiss defending themselves against armed bears, can you honestly tell me that you think requiring all gun owners to go through the training presently required of conceal and carry owners would be a bad thing? Guardian, please feel free to jump in on this.

It would give gun owners training (good thing in my opinion) and give all hand-gun owners the right to conceal and carry (good thing in gun owners' opinions).

If those who support conceal and carry feel that crime rates go down because the criminals don't know who might be packin' heat, wouldn't that be even truer if ALL gun owners might demonstrate that "natural" right?

Beyond the obvious added expense of the training (sorry about that, but I don't see how that can be avoided) how would this be a bad thing? Should someone who is incapable of demonstrating the ability to operate a gun safely still be allowed access an arsenal limited only by their pocketbook? Should the blind really be able to purchase a handgun?

It is not a "natural" thing to know how to safely handle a gun (or a toaster, for that matter, but there aren't 14K homocides by toaster a year, so I am sticking with guns here). Requiring training seems to be a perfectly natural response.

How does requiring training take away your rights?

OlCoach 10 years, 3 months ago

Beatrice wrote: "...It would give gun owners training (good thing in my opinion) and give all hand-gun owners the right to conceal and carry (good thing in gun owners' opinions)" I already have that right! It's just being denied to me by rediculous pro gun control laws!

Think criminals would take said training? The burden is on you to explain how "training" would have prevented the Tinley Park shooting or the NIU atrocity!

You wrote, "At the same time, you can't actually prove that further regulations WILL take your right to own away. Proving a negative is an impossibility." Don't need to prove it. Remember the previous post, re: Germany, etc.?

Once it happens, it's a bit late, isn't it?

OlCoach 10 years, 3 months ago

Beatrice, here's the thing:

I only have reponded to your posts because I get upset reading such rediculous statements as you have made,with no facts to back them up, and your propensity to treat such statements as "a joke" when you are called on them!

I firmly believe in my 2nd Amendment rights. You, obvioulsy are not concerned with MY 2nd Amendment Rights...you would have no problem if they didn't exist; therefore, I am out of this discussion!

beatrice 10 years, 3 months ago

Olcoach. You win. I'm convinced. We shouldn't have any requirements to train gun owners. None. No limits. If you wan't to own an arsenal, why, you should have that right. There should be no limits. If a child wishes to purchase a gun, and they have saved up enough of their allowance, so be it. The blind? You bet. Retarded. Why not. Mentally ill? You would have to be to not want to own a gun, or 400.

What was I thinking?

In the meantime:

Murder rate (per 100,000 people) for major industrialized nations

United States 8.40 Canada 5.45 Denmark 5.17 France 4.60 Portugal 4.50 Australia 4.48 Germany 4.20 Belgium 2.80 Spain 2.28 Switzerland 2.25 Italy 2.18 Norway 1.99 United Kingdom 1.97 Austria 1.80 Greece 1.76 Sweden 1.73 Japan 1.20 Ireland 0.96 Finland 0.70

Yep, no reason to even think about it. How sad.

And I still support the right of Marion to own a gun with which he might accidentally blow his brains out.

beatrice 10 years, 3 months ago

Would you prefer I didn't support your right to own? Make up your mind, Nick.

Too bad nobody could come up with a convincing argument on why training is a bad thing, beyond a non-existant and generalized fear that training will somehow lead to an all out ban.

Janet Lowther 10 years, 3 months ago

In reality it is mostly the Marys, Marthas, and Sues of this world who need guns.

How else is a typical 5'4", 110 pound woman to defend herself against an assailant who is often twice or more her weight?

Guns aren't for macho men. Guns are for women and the little guys.

Nonsense like this letter will only make it harder for those who most need guns to defend themselves to do so.

A gun in the purse or concealed elsewhere about her person should be considered a necessity for any responsible woman.

beatrice 10 years, 3 months ago

jrlii, learning to protect yourself without relying on a gun is far more important for women and men. What are you going to do when someone grabs you, and you don't have the gun in your hand ready to go? Do you really think an attacker will state his purpose to do you harm, then stand back and allow you the time it takes to rifle through your purse, locate your gun from behind the car keys and beneath the compact, pull the gun from the purse, turn the safety off, and then take aim? Not likely.

If someone grabs you, you should know basic self-defense techniques to defend yourself, which will then provide you the time necessary to get away! That is the key, stun and run. Get away!

The only instance where I might agree with you, however, is when you know in advance that someone has been making threats and is seeking to do you harm. It is the back-up on a protection order, if you will. Then, and god forbid I mention it again because the gun fans don't want to agree, but you would be wise to have professional training on how best to use your gun.

But for everyday life against an unknown attacker, rely on yourself. The gun will only provide you a false sense of security.

For anyone who thinks I'm the enemy since I support the right to own and the right to conceal and carry, but think such a right should come with the responsibility of being trained, check these guys out -- they are your "enemy": http://www.gunguys.com/?m=200802

jonas 10 years, 3 months ago

You know, I can't help but think that I've seen a number of these voices, the ones crying out about the destruction of the sacred second amendment, etc, promoting a much different stance in issues that concern that other sticky amendment: the fourth one.

I'm thinking of those many "if you don't have anything to hide, what are you afraid of?" comments.

Jim Phillips 10 years, 3 months ago

Beatrice,

I accept your invitation to jump in. I agree with your point that anyone who decides to carry a firearm should be properly trained. It is the responsible thing to do. Carrying a concealed firearm brings with it a tremendous responsibility and a very heavy civil liability if the license holder screws up. As much as I hate to admit it, there are those who feel like John Wayne when they carry a gun. This attitude will get the license holder or someone else killed. I not only give my students a brief course on how to use a gun (there are only 8 hours to teach the CCH course), but when to use a gun. They are taught how to interact with the police if they have to use their weapon in defense of themselves or others. The students are also required to become familiar with a vast number of state statutes and pass a proficiency test. Again, it is the responsible thing to do.

Having said that, I disagree, in principle, with mandatory training for firearms owners. Call it paranoid if you choose, I care not, but mandatory training is a kissing cousin to firearms registration, which I am strongly opposed to. Just for the record, while there is no firearms registration by that name, anytime someone buys a new gun from a firearms dealer, there is a record of that transaction that is kept in the dealers files----which the BATF can access anytime they choose.

This may not be exactly what you wanted to hear Beatrice, but that's my opinion.

Jim Phillips 10 years, 3 months ago

Also, the above quoted homicide statistics are misleading. I don't doubt the numbers, but some clarification is needed. My CCH students are taught that if they do shoot someone in self-defence and that person dies, the licensee will be the subject of a homicide investigation. The case may be ruled justifiable, but it will still be investigated as a homicide.

The above statistic includes all homicides. It does not differentiate between justifiable homicide or murder. The difference being that homicide is the intentional killing of another while murder is the intentional and malicious killing of another.

beatrice 10 years, 3 months ago

Thanks for the response, Guardian, and keep up the good work. Also, thanks for being honest and admitting that it is a paranoid fear of further gun regulations that are keeping us from requiring that all gun owners be trained. I still believe that it is the NRA lobbiests who fuel this paranoia, more so than actual restrictions.

If we can get past this paranoia on the part of the gun owners as well as the paranoia on the side of the anti-gun folks that all guns are bad in and of themselves, then perhaps we can start to solve some of the problems in our society that result from a liberal distribution of guns.

Owning a gun, like operating a motor vehicle, is a serious responsibility, and training seems in order. We won't know until we do this if it will lower the homocide numbers by handguns, be they justified or not. To me, it seems like a reasonable step without infringing on your right to own.

Now, is that really so awful?

beatrice 10 years, 3 months ago

Marion, who here said that guns have never been used to stop a crime? What is next, are you going to claim that guns have never effectively been used to committ a crime? That guns have never been used to kill innocent people?

Time to take the foil helmet off and look at what is being discussed here.

Perhaps we should add one more requirement for gun ownership -- a mental evaluation. Clearly there are some here who wouldn't pass that test.

beatrice 10 years, 3 months ago

Guardian, Please tell me this isn't you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSbOMz...

He is one tough hombre, however.

kansas778 10 years, 3 months ago

beatrice (Anonymous) says:

Owning a gun, like operating a motor vehicle, is a serious responsibility, and training seems in order. We won't know until we do this if it will lower the homocide numbers by handguns, be they justified or not. To me, it seems like a reasonable step without infringing on your right to own.


Operating a motor vehicle, unlike owning a gun, is not a right guaranteed in the constitution. The right to self-preservation is a fundamental right, a Law of Nature that is recognized throughout our courts in the common law. And how exactly is training supposed to lower the homocide numbers by handguns?

jonas 10 years, 3 months ago

"Operating a motor vehicle, unlike owning a gun, is not a right guaranteed in the constitution."

That's hardly fair. Only one was even invented by the time the constitution was written, so we have no way of knowing what the founding fathers' views were on the inalienable right to drive.

Jim Phillips 10 years, 3 months ago

Beatrice,

No, that's not me. But I have used that video in training to show what happens when you violate the basic firearms rules. 1. Treat every gun as if it's loaded. 2. Keep your finger off the trigger until you're ready to fire. 3. Always point the muzzle in a safe direction. 4. Be sure of your target and what lies beyond.

I sometimes use a 5th one, although it is not generally recognized as a firearm safety issue: One has to be 2% smarter than the equipment one is working with.

gogoplata 10 years, 3 months ago

Every individual has the right to protect their own life and a gun is a great way to protect yourself. It is really the opposite of being a tough guy. Having a gun to protect yourself is saying that there are people out there who I would be unable to protect myself from without a gun. A gun is an equalizer. My 85 year old grandma can protect herself from one of the american gladiators if she's got her .38 in hand. The Carr brothers case in Wichita is what cemented this issue in my mind. If just one of the victims would have been armed it could have changed the whole situation.

Also for the people who are constantly telling us how well trained a person needs to be to react well in a difficult situation you should check out Marions post from 11:45 2-18. That lady must have been training for years to react the way she did.

OlCoach 10 years, 3 months ago

Guardian...

Beatrice claims you stated this: "...thanks for being honest and admitting that it is a paranoid fear of further gun regulations that are keeping us from requiring that all gun owners be trained."

Is that what you stated?

Maybe I misread it. I thought you said you didn't agree with required training for ALL gun owners, as that was the same as registration.

If I am correct with what I think I read in your post, I agree with you 100%. I believe all law-abiding firearms owners would agree that those who want the responsibility of carrying concealed should receive training, etc. I've had 2 classes, including one at the Sig Academy.

You're right... Mandatory training = owner registration, possibly firearm registration, depending upon the wording.

jonas 10 years, 3 months ago

Gogoplata: I think that's less training than blind luck. She's a very fortunate lady to not be dead, gun or not. Good for her, but what would the nature of the discussion be, suppose, had the bullet not barely missed, and the headline read: "Woman shot dead while trying to defend herself during robbery"?

gogoplata 10 years, 3 months ago

I was just kidding about the lady having any training. The point I am making is that it does not take much skill or training to use a gun to defend yourself. Most cases where a person uses a gun to defend themself happen at close range. Many times just pulling a gun is enough to change the attackers mind.

As for the alternate ending "Woman shot dead while trying to defend herself during robbery" I'd just say that we need to remember that a gun is not a magical device that will protect you from all harm. When I took my concealed carry class the teacher was kind of arrogant on his skills with a gun. He was telling us all of the bad things that would go along with being in a gunfight. He told us about all of the legal considerations, the prospect of living with having killed another human being, etc. When he finished he asked if we could think of any other negatives that could accompany a gunfight. I said, you could lose, to which he responded, no way. To me that is a stupid thing to say for anyone, no matter how good they are with a gun. A bad guy with a gun who wants to hurt you, is dangerous. Guns are an important tool for law abiding citizens to simply give them a better chance to survive an assault.

jonas 10 years, 3 months ago

Gogo: I agree with most of that, but think that the idea of losing should most certainly enter your minds when entering a gunfight. Just my opinion, though.

Ronda Miller 10 years, 3 months ago

marion, I have been looking for you all day! I am surprised to see you are here with this group discussing the pros and cons of guns, licensing and responsiblity, and ownership requirements. And you have used some rather unkind exclamations! Shame on you!!! Naughty, naughty boy.

With all of the discussion of how many, or how few, people are killed yearly by guns let us not forget the amount of people who die by suicide each and every year - guess what the most common way for them to kill themselves is?

Almost twice the amount of people die by suicide over homicide each year. Think about it. How are guns protecting those people from themselves? How many more chances would they have been able to have if they resorted to taking meds., using a knife, a hanging, etc. Not to say people don't succeed in those methods, but they also are often able to be saved.

Now, back to your discussion gang, but I expect some nice words out of you, Marion. :D I know you have a softer side.

gogoplata 10 years, 3 months ago

Yea, that is what I was saying to him. I agree with what you said that you should factor in the chance of losing a gunfight before you say you are willing to get in one. That is why I would only pull the gun if there were no better choice.

jonas 10 years, 3 months ago

But that's really why I believe we should have mandated classes, not particularly as a means to decrease gun violence on the streets, but as a means of, perhaps, subtly influencing those that are going to go through the legitimate methods of purchasing guns to think in terms they might not have thought in before.

At any rate, I just don't think a few restrictions can be considered infringing upon the right to own guns. It's certainly still possible to legitimately own a weapon.

gogoplata 10 years, 3 months ago

I understand your point. I like the idea of the classes. I just think it should be voluntary. I think, The less government interference the better.

Charles L. Bloss, Jr. 10 years, 3 months ago

" An armed society, is a polite society. " Robert A. Heinlein. Thank you, Lynn

jonas 10 years, 3 months ago

Ri: Sure, tack it on! Except that I kinda would want it to work.

gogoplata: Less is good. But rather than simply saying that less is better, it's better to think in terms of practical effects versus practical benefits. In terms of the ability to protect yourself, a 5 day waiting period or a mandatory training class are not going to detrimentally effect your ability to do so. If you find yourself in an immediate situation you'll either have gone through the loops already and have a gun, or you're screwed. The thief in your house or store won't let you go buy a gun, 5 day waiting period or not. The only way it could be said to positively make a difference would be for an incident to happen within that time frame, and I think that for most legitimate citizens not engaging in dangerous or illegal activity anyway, that would not be very statistically likely.

Jim Phillips 10 years, 3 months ago

OlCoach,

You sir, are correct in your assessment. I'm not quite sure how Beatrice read into that, but her interpretation was not what I intended.

beatrice 10 years, 3 months ago

gogo, be careful about joking. Some people won't get it (I still can't believe anyone took me seriously on the Swiss arming themselves because of bears. Geez).

Lynn, you just quoted a science fiction author. What is next, science fiction characters? What does Spock have to say about gun safety?

justbegin, to be fair, if people weren't committing suicide with handguns how do you know they wouldn't do so by another means?

olcoach: I'm not attempting to put words in others' posts. From guardian's post at 9:26pm on the 17th: "Call it paranoid if you choose, I care not, but mandatory training is a kissing cousin to firearms registration, which I am strongly opposed to."

That is admitting that the fear of one thing leading to another is what drives him to push against the first thing, which is mandatory training. To be fair, I do readily agree that much of the anti-2nd folks are irrational in their reactions, too.

I still think training is important and I am not convinced that it wouldn't help protect all of us. Then again, I'm not opposed to registration either. It does scare me, however, when I think of all the irrational types who own guns. Not all gun owners are mere hobbyists or self-preservationists, unfortunately. Speaking of which ...

Marion, I see you still have the aluminum foil hat on, ranting away about liberals being as bad for America as al Qaeda and such. What an irrationally laughable figure you make. Laughable, that is, if it wasn't so weird, strange, and sad.

beatrice 10 years, 3 months ago

guardian, didn't intend to suggest you are irrational, "too." Sorry, that wasn't what I meant there. I was just saying one thing need not lead to the other.

Jim Phillips 10 years, 3 months ago

Beatrice, Didn't take it that way. No need to apologize. Just to clarify though, mandatory firearms training is, as I said, a kissing cousin to firearms registration in that paper trails are involved. Find out who took the training-find out who has the guns. Just remember, a government that fears an armed populace probably has reason to. Therefore, it is the Pelosis, Boxers, Feinsteins, Kennedys, Schumers, etc of the world that truly are the paranoids.

jonas 10 years, 3 months ago

R-I: That was. . . . pretty interesting. I had not seen that.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.

loading...