This is why we all need carry permits

[cgrindley]

This sort of thing wouldn't have been as tragic if more people carried.

[AndyA]

1. Wrong. Try again. n/m

[Irreverend IX]

3. Care to back that up?

The passage of laws allowing concealed carry has always coincided with a drop in violent crime.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Deep13]

19. So disagreement = idiot?

Bill O'Reilly might have a job for you.

[xchrom]

4. people are crazy -- i do not want to live around people with guns.

[Deep13]

20. You probably already do.

Just saying.

[xchrom]

95. where i live -- in my small conduminium -- we're all anti-gun.

that's one of the nice things about this place.

[hydrashok75]

99. Why don't you put a sign on the front lawn that says so...

...and tell all the burglars, robbers, and rapists out there who they should target.

[xchrom]

107. bwahahaha -- nutty people have the cutest opinions.

:rofl: :woohoo: :rofl:

[hydrashok75]

112. What's nutty about that?

Why not do that?

You don't because you know you profit from the bad guys having to wonder if you're armed or not.

BTW--calling me nutty is against the rules here.

[xchrom]

116. -- what a vivid imagination you have!!!

:rofl: :silly: :rofl:

[hydrashok75]

117. Nothing imaginary about the fact...

...that felons interviewed in prison say that they fear armed citizens more than cops.

Sammy the Bull Gravano said he loved gun control; he said gun control was great for people like him, as he'd always have a gun, and he rather fancied the idea that his victims wouldn't.

Not hard to imagine why.

Wanna call me some more names or something?

[xchrom]

119. those are opinions not facts.

silly opinions but not facts.

and it was law enforcement that landed those lads in prison -- not you -- not any gun owner.

[hydrashok75]

120. What's silly about it?

Bad guys would prefer you to be unarmed. Nothing silly about that.

In any event, your last point is risible nonsense--I'm not suggesting that gun owners put people in prison. It's not their job. But millions of Americans have defended themselves lawfully with firearms, no thanks to people like you.

[frazzled]

Surely you are being sarcastic

Worst ... idea ... ever.

[BattyDem]

5. So the answer to gun violence is more guns?

:eyes:

[HALO141]

73. Strange as it may seem,

Sort of, yeah.

[hydrashok75]

76. It certainly isn't taking them all away....

...attempts to do that mean the bad guys will have them and we won't.

[BattyDem]

81. I know that, but ...

a multi-person shootout doesn't sound like the right answer either. I honestly don't know what is. :shrug:


edited: typo :blush:

[hydrashok75]

82. What would you have happen then?

Would you have the cops not shoot the bad guy?

If no...then what, have him keep shooting?

If yes...that's great, but the cops can't be everywhere at once. Why not have a trained armed citizen intervene? They're doing the same thing the cops would do.

CCW permit holders are to cops what EMTs and Paramedics are to the emergency room.

[BattyDem]

89. But not everyone is a rational, responsible person

Anyone can be trained to use a gun, but that doesn't mean they should have one. Some people have very shorts fuses. Some people have a "cowboy" mentality and would love the opportunity to shoot something. I don't want those people carrying guns just because they might be able to stop another gunman at some point in time. Even the cops don't always get it right. I live in the NYC area and we've seen cases where police officers, who are trained in the use of firearms and trained to handle the stress of a situation, have shot people who weren't even armed!

I've already admitted that I don't know what the answer is, but I honestly don't think that arming every citizen is the best way to go. There's got to be a better solution to the problem. JMHO

[hydrashok75]

93. That's what background checks are for.

Anyone can be trained to use a gun, but that doesn't mean they should have one.
No disagreement. Some people shouldn't have guns. Violent felons, drunks, mentally ill, and domestically abusive people shouldn't have them.

Some people have a "cowboy" mentality and would love the opportunity to shoot something.

You know this how?

There are 40+ states that allow CCW permits. In every one of them that's studied the issue, CCW permit holders are less likely to commit crimes than the general public.

You're not being logical--if you're of the mindset to be criminal, you're not going to give the state your fingerprints, get training, pay for the permit, get a background check...etc.

I've already admitted that I don't know what the answer is, but I honestly don't think that arming every citizen is the best way to go

Who said arm every citizen? I certainly didn't.

But one thing that DEFINITELY isn't the answer is telling me I can't carry.

[BattyDem]

94. Let's just agree to disagree on this one.

:-)

[hydrashok75]

97. Well...

...ok. I really don't think you'd argue that a trained, competent, law abiding citizen like me shouldn't get to carry...and I'd never argue that John Hinkley or Mark David Chapman should be allowed to carry.

The problem folks in your spot have is where you draw the line. The whole "I don't want Joe Average to carry" thing is A) undemocratic, B) elitist rightwing style snobbery, and C) not good policy.

[BattyDem]

111. "The problem folks in your spot have is where you draw the line."

Exactly. I already admitted that I don't know what the answer is. We might not be as far apart in our views as we thought we were. I'm not trying to take your gun away. You have a permit, you're a law-abiding citizen - there's no reason to take it away. But the OP said "we all need carry permits" and I don't agree with that because there are too many people who shouldn't carry guns. I personally know several people that are great, but I would NEVER want them to carry a weapon, LOL! :-)

[hydrashok75]

113. You know who DEFINITELY shouldn't carry?

People on the fence or unsure about it--it's definitely not for everyone. I wouldn't want my mom carrying a gun...she couldn't harm a fly, not even someone trying to hurt her. It'd be used against her...

Yup, it's not for everyone.

[BattyDem]

115. I agree with you.

I've known people with permits and guns; a couple of them offered to take me to the firing range, get a permit, etc. But ... I never really felt comfortable with the idea, so I thought it best not to do it.

[TX-RAT]

157. trained, competent, law abiding citizen like me shouldn't get to carry

Other than boasting, what actual credentials do you have to back that up.

[jgraz]

137. Not exactly

ER Doc's don't have to make split decisions on whether they have to kill EMTs. But Cops do when they show up to a situation with multiple armed individuals.

And, btw, how many of your trained citizens are out on the street fighting crime as opposed to killing their girlfriend during an argument or sitting in their basement with the barrel in their mouth.

Follow it state-by-state. More guns, more gun deaths. Fewer guns, fewer gun deaths. It's a very simple correlation.

[TX-RAT]

151. CCW permit holders are to cops what EMTs and Paramedics are to the emergency room.

Horse shit!

8 hrs in a class room, if that much
1 hr and 40 rounds on a range.

What a ridiculous comparison to trained medical professionals.

[bowens43]

6. Wow. Talk about wrong....

How about this...if the nut job who did this wasn't able to get a gun or ammunition this wouldn't have happened.

[murloc]

163. He could have killed just as many, maybe more

by modifying his tactics only slightly.

He already chained the doors shut.

If he had used a 5 gallon can of gas and a lighter, he proably would have killed even more, perhaps most in the building.

The imagination and determination of evil people who are determined to kill should not be underestimated.

that said, he shouldnt have been allowed access to a gun.

[Old and In the Way]

7. I can only imagine how 2000 armed college students would react.

(1) Shooter starts shooting
(2) Everyone draws and starts shooting at whoever has a drawn gun
(3) Complete anarchy ensues.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hydrashok75]

84. Whereas...

...gun controllers are the epitome of logic and rationality :eyes:

[Irreverend IX]

34. Have any examples of this?

Most states now issue concealed-carry permits, but there's been a surprising lack of incidents where dozens of people "blazed away" at an aggressor and wounded others in the crossfire. Try to educate yourself about gun laws and their effects before spouting off like this.

[Old and In the Way]

40. Just following the OP's suggestion. Lets try a social experiement.

Lets arm all the kids on our college campuses with concealed weapons. They'll need to all be carrying semi-automatics...we can't give any an unfair advantage.

Let's see how many gun deaths we have in the next year and compare that to the average over, say, the past 30 years. Do you think we'll have more or less deaths?

[hydrashok75]

85. Why always the presumption...

...that CCW laws equal "arm everyone"? It's total bullshit.

VA already has a permissive CCW law, and EVERYONE doesn't have a gun.

It's kinda like saying that legal abortion means every woman has an abortion.

[Old and In the Way]

90. Did you have a problem reading the OP?

"This is why we ALL need carry permits"

I'm just pointing out why that would be an extremely stupid idea. I'm glad you agree with me.

[hydrashok75]

98. hmph

Fair enough. I think what he should have said (and probably meant) is that law abiding, trained, competent, sane citizens should get the choice to carry or not.

[Old and In the Way]

101. Trouble is

"law abiding, trained, competent, sane citizens" can break the law and become insane...and still use their training to competently shoot and kill people. Lets see how this person's history evolves. There's just as good a chance that he had no violent history until...he did.

[hydrashok75]

102. Trouble is...

...you don't deny people rights and freedoms based on what they MIGHT do.

There are 80mil+ law abiding gun owners in the US. Only a small fraction are ever involved in shootings at all. Of that small fraction, only a teeny tiny fraction are guilty of criminal acts with their guns.

You don't deny freedom and self protection to millions of people because a few idiots. You don't deny everyone the ability to drive down the highway because some people drive drunk.

You're conveniently ignoring the fact that CCW permit holders have been shown to be more law abiding than the general public.

[Old and In the Way]

108. Every tragedy like today is an opportunity to sell more guns, right?

You own stock in Smith and Wesson?

I wonder how you'd feel if it was your son or daughter was killed today? Or what your threshold is for gun killing in our society is. 250,000/year? 2,500,000? 25,000,000/year? When would you decide that maybe more guns isn't the answer. Because the more guns there are, the more gun killings there are. One follows the other.

I'll bet you won't be happy until everyone owns a gun and we can all walk around in abject paranoia as to what the intentions of every stranger on the street is. I really don't and won't live in your world.

[hydrashok75]

114. Sigh...

...what silliness.

You own stock in Smith and Wesson?

Nope, they sold us out years ago.

I wonder how you'd feel if it was your son or daughter was killed today?

I'd want their killer punished to the fullest extent of the law (if I didn't take care of business myself). But I'd feel better if they weren't dead because they had the means to protect themselves and knew how to use them.

When would you decide that maybe more guns isn't the answer

Well, we've seen that banning guns isn't the answer. Guns are banned in DC, Baltimore...but violence is out of control. The places with the strictest gun control laws have the worst violence problems.

It's not more guns or fewer guns--it's whether the law abiding folks have guns or not versus the criminals. How does taking my gun away make me safer?

I'll bet you won't be happy until everyone owns a gun

Surefire sign of an antigunner who knows his argument is bunk--hyperbole and distortion. I've made it pretty fuckin clear I don't think EVERYONE should have a gun.

[SteveM]

128. I viewed your argument: just more culture war. I'm curious though...

If you had a gun at Virginia Tech and saw some guy shooting people in your classroom, would you use the gun?

[Old and In the Way]

136. Honestly? I have no idea.

I really have no interest in guns. Yes, I grew up with guns, had a .22 and hunted with my dad. But I really didn't much like hunting and lost my fascination for them a long time ago.

I suppose I should get a concealed weapon and hope I'm in the position someday to find out. I mean, logically, shouldn't we know all carry concealed weapons to cover for this contingency?

[TnDem]

132. Exactly...

Kinda like arresting every woman because they have the necessary equipment to practice prostitution..

:crazy:

[Irreverend IX]

100. Well, the OP's proposition is an extreme strawman.

No one has ever advocated issuing guns to every single person as a solution to crime. What RKBA supporters have been saying is that people who want to carry concealed, have a clean background and are able to pass the requisite safety tests should be able to do so without arbitrarily being disarmed in "gun free zones" that won't do anything to stop a criminal bent on violence.

[jgraz]

138. It's been done, and continuing still

Right now, states with more gun permits have more gun deaths. States with fewer guns have fewer gun deaths. When you think about it, it makes sense in a strange, completely obvious and straightforward kind of way.

Apparently, the instances of Bruce Willis wannabe's Die-Harding their way into a hostage situation are far outpaced by the instances of domestic arguments turning into gunbattles and suicidal thoughts turning into brains on the basement carpet.

[DonP]

121. Here's the alternative

1. Shooter starts shooting

2. Everyone is unarmed waits patiently for the killer to get to them and puts a bullet in the back of their head

3. Police SWAT team eventually arrives and kills the shooter

4. You don't know that though, because the shooter got to you and a dozen or so other students before the police got to him

5. Thankfully though there was no "anarchy" of civilian gunfire aimed in his general direction to distract the shooter from executing people.

[MessiahRp]

8. Yeah that sounds wonderful

I can't wait until a permit having college guy gets plastered at a Frat Kegger and gets into an drunken nonsensical argument in which he draws the aforementioned weapon.

Sounds really fucking great to me.

My intrepretation on the right to bear arms: Having the right to defend your home from the British. Absent the British, defending your home from intruders. I do not intrepret that as the right to carry and fire at will whenever you feel threatened.

Rp

[Tempest]

9. When the U.S. is the world leader in the export of violence

You can't be surprised when some of it ends up back on our own shores.

[RufusTFirefly]

21. Exactly! Thank you.

These massacres shouldn't come as a shock. That's how we solve problems in Murica.

[Sapere aude]

10. Imagine a bunch of armed students all firing at the shooter. I think more people would be killed by

the stray bullets.

[Old and In the Way]

28. Very quickly, the shooter becomes anyone doing the shooting.

No one is going to stop and ask questions when the bullets are flying. It becomes every man (and women) for himself.

[Tempest]

The cops are lousy shots and they're highly trained

Just imagine the bloodbath of a campus full of gun toting Rambos.

[HALO141]

74. For the most part,

they are NOT "highly trained" in shooting. There are notable exceptions, of course, but the rank and file police officer is not proficient with his/her weapon.

[hydrashok75]

77. Cops generally are NOT

...highly trained. They actually don't get to practice much. That's a myth.

[Tempest]

83. Law enforcement personnel have to qualify every 3 months

If you don't get proficient after a few qualifiers, you don't deserve to carry a gun.

[hydrashok75]

86. If it's so easy...

...then why object to letting citizens carry? If a few qualifiers is all it takes to be proficient, it's not hard to get the average CCW permit holder to a proficiency level comparable to what the police have.

Cops here in Baltimore qual once per year and get two boxes of ammo to practice with.

I shoot more in a month than they shoot in a year.

[Selatius]

11. You should get NO CARRY PERMIT if you FAIL to MEET QUALIFICATIONS.

If you can't pass a mental exam, a criminal background check, and prove you've gone through a certified gun safety education course teaching one how to properly handle and store guns, then YOU SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO OBTAIN A CWP.

[Deep13]

30. That's how it is in Ohio.

I shoot a lot, but don't have a CCW permit because there is no place to use such a permit practically. Any property owner is allowed to post a sign that says "except here" that negates the permit. Naturally, all of the businesses have such signs. Unless one is out and not going any place in particular, it is a pretty useless right. I might get one anyway just for the safety course.

[Hobarticus]

12. Bullshit.

If this kind of thing happened in my local supermarket, the last thing I want are some of my local dumbfucks blazing away, making a bad situation that much worse.

I only want trained law enforcement armed in a crisis, not my neighbor or anyone else who doesn't know what the hell they're doing. And shooting at the local range doesn't mean shit.

If you need a gun on your person at all times to feel safe, then bunker yourself down in your basement. The rest of us want to live normal lives.

[hydrashok75]

79. See above...

...law enforcement can't be everywhere and they're not necessarily well trained. How do you know that shooting at the range isn't good? You ever shot a gun at all? Since when are you a firearms expert?

If you think taking my gun away makes you safer, you're not being realistic.

[Hobarticus]

143. How do I know that YOU"RE well-trained?

Because you say you are?

RIIIIIIIGHT......

Since when are you an expert? Becasue you say you are?

RIIIIIIGHT.....

And you packing heat will make me safer?

RIIIIIIGHT.....

I own several guns, I'm safe with them, I would never ever want to carry a concealed, and I don't want to be around people who do.

[TX-RAT]

152. Excellent response.

[HALO141]

158. Some things you don't get to know.

And if you're in a state that allows it, you're probably around concealed carriers several times a week and don't even know it.


For my part, I really don't care what the average person around me is comfortable with. I mind my own business and I expect them to do the same.

[Midlodemocrat]

13. Yippee!!!!

I'm going to send this to all my friends with kids at Tech!! And next year, when TeenMidlo goes, I'll get YOU to recommend the gun she should carry.

Never mind that she can't often find her cell phone. Fuck that!!! She'll be packing and safe!!!



:sarcasm:

[damntexdem]

14. No thank you! I prefer to risk one nutcase at a time.

Not a whole flock of them.

[Deep13]

31. The student body are nutcases?

:shrug:

[Tempest]

59. More than just a few of them

Depression, stress, alcohol and drug use and relationship failures all contribute to gun crimes, and each of those are prevalent on campuses.

The only reason there isn't more gun violence on campuses is because guns are not freely available and are prohibited at universities and colleges.

[Deep13]

66. That's quite a claim.

I'm not going to ask for your evidence because I have already seem what passes for proof in such social matters.

[Tempest]

87. The evidence is overwhelming

DRAMATIC INCREASES SEEN IN COLLEGE STUDENTS' MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEMS OVER LAST 13-YEARS
University Counseling Center Study Shows More Students Seeking Help for Depression, Thoughts of Suicide and Sexual Assault

http://www.apa.org/releases/student_problems.html


Someone else posted a link how suicide rates are higher when there's a gun in the household.

[SteveM]

131. Think we should ban 'em? (nt)

[dchill]

15. Why wouldn't it mean...

that there would just be MORE people shooting each other?

Seriously.

[Taverner]

16. Doubtful.

I'm all for gun rights, even rolling back gun laws...but guns would have made the situation worse, with crossfire killing as many as the shooters.

I said it once, I'll say it again: guns don't make you safer, and taking away guns won't make you safer either.

[Hangingon]

17. Sorry, in the Texas universities,

guns are prohibited on capmus. Even for concealed carry permit holders. Sometimes, we are just defenseless.

[HALO141]

159. I think you need to re-read

the definition of "premises" as pertains to that section of the code.

[Hangingon]

161. I worked at UT. No weapons on campus.

They passed on "props" used in a play.

[ThomCat]

18. Wow. Can I have some of whatever you're drinking?

:eyes:

Right, if more people had guns, and more people were firing at anyone else who had a gun drawn, fewer people would have died. Right.
x(

[RufusTFirefly]

24. The Archie Bunker solution

I still remember an "All in the Family" episode where Archie suggested the solution to airline hijackings was to "arm all yer passengers." Back then, it got a good laugh.

Satire is dead.

[Alcibiades]

22. I can see

that you might make a case that it might not happen because an armed person could prevent it (somehow--although is means that the armed person has to be in the right place at the right time, armed, and not the first victim, etc.), but to argue that it would be somehow less tragic? That's just silly.

I highly recommend the book Gun Show Nation, which traces the historical development of the gun industry's propaganda. The idea that we are safer when more guns are carried is just BS. Look at Iraq or Afghanistan. Lots of folks toting AK's there, but it does not seem to deter anyone from killing other people. In fact, it seems to make it easier....

[mzteris]

23. really?

". . .Virginia Tech is in Blacksburg, in a scenic Blue Ridge valley in southwestern Virginia, in an area where gun ownership is common. . .

Virginia has lenient gun-ownership laws. Ownership requires only passing criminal background checks, which can be bypassed by buying from an unlicensed dealer. And unlicensed dealers can sell their wares at gun shows without requiring criminal checks. Guns need not be registered unless the owner wants to carry a concealed weapon."

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/16/news/virginia.php

[BOSSHOG]

25. Of course. That was James Madison's intent..

That every student in college carry concealed heat. If they didn't like a grade just kill the motherfucking teacher. If you hear gunshots, join in the fray. If the music is too loud in the next dorm, take care of it. If the food at the cafeteria sucks on wednesday take out the cooks. Its exactly what the founding fathers had in mind when they penned the second amendment.

[Deep13]

35. "If they didn't like a grade just kill the motherfucking teacher."

Huh? Has anyone here suggested that?

[BOSSHOG]

42. The suggestion is

that we all need to be armed. Was that the founding fathers intent?

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. - Verbatim per constitution.

So to ensure the security of the state, college students should be packing concealed weapons on their way to Biology class???

As an old boss of mine in the Navy said several years ago "What's the fucking book say?"

[Deep13]

47. "Was that the founding fathers intent?"

Depends which one you ask. Jefferson would probably want that, at least among white, male freeholders. Hamilton might not. I frankly think the 2nd Am. is deliberately vague because they could not reach a concensus on the issue. I heard Penn Jellette (sp?) argue that the directive of the second clause is intended to counteract the necessary evil of the first. In other words the fact that we must have militias means that the people need to be armed to protect themselves from that militia. That's a pretty novel reading of the 2nd Am. to say the least. It does, however, underscore the inherent ambiguity of the provision.

[BOSSHOG]

53. I don't find it ambiguous

Maybe there is a faction who wants to promote that idea for some purpose.

To ensure the security of our free state we can have weapons.

Was the shooter today ensuring the security of the nation? If other students were armed would they have armed themselves for the purpose of ensuring the security of the nation?

I'll keep that "the law is ambiguous" line handy in case I get in a bind.

[Deep13]

64. Most opinionated individuals don't.

Nevertheless, a bunch of such people don't usually agree.

I didn't say the law was ambiguous. I said the 2nd. Amendment is. State law is usually pretty clear.

[BOSSHOG]

68. To clarify

I'll say the second amendment is ambiguous. Or If I don't like how another amendment is written, I'll just say its ambiguous. Hell before long I'll be sending money to the NRA. My contribution will most definitely be ambiguous.

[Old and In the Way]

49. IIRC, Bosshog...those militia's also had stockades were they

guns and bullets and powder were kept. The idea being the militia was for the common defense of the society. I doubt our forefathers envisioned the day that we'd have semi-automatic handguns that could kill dozens of people within a few minutes.

[Irreverend IX]

110. When the Constitution was written...

Private citizens owned cannons that could destroy buildings. John Hancock owned a fully-equipped warship. And look up "Puckle Gun" if you want to learn about a primitive machinegun from that period.

[virginia mountainman]

27. Well, all of you that think the poster is WRONG...

Name ONE GUN LAW THAT WORKED????????

Schools are already "gun FREE zones"

Killing is a crime... and Who knows what else law was broken.

Only a fool keeps trying along the same track, when it is PROVEN NOT TO WORK...

[Virginia Dare]

33. Let's wait until all the facts come in V.M....

I'll be very interested to see where, how and why this kid got his guns and ammo.

[HALO141]

160. Not that I have much faith in the media, but..

From what I've seen reported, the serial numbers on the shooter's guns had been filed off. It's safe to assume they were not obtained from a retail establishment.

We DO know a few things:

1) The shooter showed flagrant, contemptuous disregard for any and all laws governing his actions.

2) None of his victims were able to defend themselves.

3) The police responded about as quickly as they're ever going to.


Obviously, if you're going to rely on someone else for your personal protection your trust is misplaced.

[Hobarticus]

37. Any law is effective only when enforced...

Isn't that the issue, that existing laws aren't enforced? We've got some great gun laws on the books, if they were enforced.

Other nations have some of the most effective gun control laws in the world. They all work, becasue they have teeth.

And as for this:

"Only a fool keeps trying along the same track, when it is PROVEN NOT TO WORK..."

That could easily be used advocating gun control. Apparently people can't be trusted to obey gun laws, and stop killing each other with guns, so they should be restricted.

I want to see the current laws enforced. But drastic measures like arming everyone who wants to carry a piece is not the answer.

[Deep13]

43. "Other nations have some of the most effective gun control laws ..."

They're effective at restricting gun ownership. I doubt they are very effective at controlling violence or other forms of victimization.

[Hobarticus]

50. Sorry, but that makes no sense.

You're saying that restricting guns is not effective at reducing violence?

A national survey commissioned by the Canadian Firearms Centre in 2000 found an estimated 2.3 million firearm owners.

More than 1,000 Canadians die every year from gunshot wounds, most of them by their own hand. In 1996 the total firearm deaths amounted to 1,131, of which 815 were suicides, 45 were accidents and 156 were homicides.

The violent crime rate has been steadily declining in Canada over the last two decades, and progressively fewer crimes are being committed with firearms. In 1978, Canada recorded 661 homicides, a rate of 2.76 per 100,000. Of these, 250, or 37.8%, were committed with guns. In 1998, Canada had 555 homicides, a rate of 1.83 per 100,000. Guns were involved in 151 of the homicides, 27% of the total, the lowest proportion since statistics were first collected in 1961. Robberies using firearms accounted for 18% of all such crimes in 1998, down from 25% in 1988 and 37% in 1978.

http://www.canadianembassy.org/government/guncontrol-en.asp

The current US murder rate is 2.5 times that of Canada per capita, down from about four times as high during the 1980s. Approximately 70% of the total murders in the US are committed with firearms, vs. about 30% in Canada.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Canada

[Deep13]

63. Correlation is not cause and effect.

The fact is that the US cities with the worse rates of violent crime have the most restrictive gun control. One does not cause the other. Rather those places have reacted to the violence by dumping on everyones rights. (Kind of like what Bush did to civil rights in the name of safety.) America's violent crime rate has been declining for decades too. America is a more violent society than Canada and always has been. There are many, many reasons for this and gun ownership is just one of them if it is a reason at all. It may be the effect and not the cause.

"...most of them by their own hand."

So you're including suicide in this? I hardly think that is fair.

[Hobarticus]

69. Yes, it is cause and effect.

They have the most restrictive gun control laws because of the historically high gun violence rates. It's not a matter of which came first, the chicken or the egg; The local authorities are reacting by restricting guns. They didn't restrict guns first, THEN the crime came along. That's flawed logic.

And yes, it is fair to mention suicides. If I'm comparing gun violence stats with you, and quote a stat of say, 250 gun deaths in my city, then add that 240 were by suicide, that certainly affects the actual crime rate in my city, does it not?

[northzax]

41. define 'worked' please

I mean how can you prove a negative? maybe a gun law like, say, DC's, prevented 10,000 homicides over the years. who knows? you can't prove a prophylactic effect without a control.

and it seems to me that the 'deterrence' value of guns is highly overrated. In, say, the District of Columbia, the great majority of firearm homicides are at least targeted against people that the individual doing the shooting would have a reasonable suspicion are also in possession of a firearm. if you are in a place where you feel compelled to carry a firearm, seems like you would reasonably conclude that someone else is as well (otherwise why would you need one?) in a gang war, does the presence of firearms deter other violence?

the number of homicide victims randomly targeted on the street or in their homes, in a way in which a firearm would have helped them, is miniscule. given the accidental discharge death rates, you can almost guarantee that the number of randomly targeted homicides prevented by having a gun will be lower than the number of people killed by legal firearms, either accidentaly or intentionally. is that really a tradeoff you are willing to make? the citizens of DC (myself among them) don't seem to think so.

on edit II:

four people were killed in the DC area by drunk drivers this weekend. Therefore, drunk driving laws don't work. right?

[BOSSHOG]

46. I do not know what the solution is

except strict enforcement of laws. They have to be broken before enforcement can occur. It sounds that's irrelevent in VATECH's case cause the gunman is dead. But I do see entities in this country playing fast and loose with the founding fathers intent. Arrest and punish criminals but did they want to preserve someone's right to shoot up a campus, therefore they penned the second amendment?

[NRaleighLiberal]

29. WTF??? nt

[Hepburn]

32. Hello?

More gun shots would mean LESS death?

[Deep13]

38. I think the point is that the assailant would be dead and, therefore, ...

...most of the victims would survive. I'm not saying that is true. I really don't know the facts well enough to say so. If it was a sniper shooting from a distance with a rifle, then all the pocket-sized pistols in the world would not have mattered. I'm just pointing out that it is at least logical.

[Hobarticus]

44. Just pulling a trigger doesn't mean you'll hit your target...

I'd be interested to see how many rounds are fired by trained policemen or military personnel, and how many actually hit their intended target, in a firefight.

Panic and adrenaline can make trained shooters miss their targets, a dozen feet away.

What's worse....one shooter run amok, or a half-dozen others unloading in his general direction?

[Deep13]

57. "...how many rounds are fired by trained policemen or military personnel..."

I can't speak for soldiers. I see cops at the pistol range practicing for their recertification sometimes. The truth is they can't hit shit. They will have a 3x5 foot sillouette target at a distance of 15 or 20 ft. with kill zones a few inches wide in the chest and head. After and hour of shooting their service pistols, the 3x5 card will be covered with a uniform distribution of holes. By comparison, when I shoot centerfire pistol, I can usually keep the holes inside a 5" circle at 50 feet. At 30 ft., I can usually hit a 2" target with a 0.22 pistol. And since I'm bragging, at the 100 yard rifle range I can usually hit a silver-dollar sized target with my 0.22 rifle.

Following the rules of shooting would prevent a panic situation. One of those rules is to identify the target and know what is beyond it.

[Hobarticus]

61. But that's my point...

If cops trained in firearms can't hit shit, then you expect citizens to do any better?

You don't have someone shooting at you when you're at the range, or have a half-second to make a decision to fire before you're fired upon, do you? Range shooting has nothing in common with live-fire.

And sorry, merely stating that "I can shoot better than a cop" doesn't count.

[Deep13]

70. Two points.

1. You are right about range time vs. real world. 99% of the time, drawing a pistol is not a solution and will only make a bad situation worse. I read one proponent of ceal and carry say he always keeps a weighted $20 bill in his shirt pocket to thow down to distract potential assailants so he can escape without drawing his gun. The remaining 1% of the time is when an assailant really is out to kill you or there is reason to believe it. Unfortunately, that distinction also applies to cops, most of whom go though their whole careers without firing a shot in anger.

2. In this state, the competency requirement for citizens carrying pistols is actually stricter than it is for cops. Citizens have to be able to hit a sheet of typing paper five times at 21 feet. Cops have to hit a 3x5 foot target somewhere on the paper.

[Hobarticus]

72. Again, that doesn't reflect real-world situations...

I don't care if Joe Sixpack has to hit that sheet all doo-long day without missing.

He won't be shooting at a stationary piece of paper. He'll be trying to shoot a moving target mixed into a panicked crowd, maybe not knowing exactly who has the gun. His heart's going a mile a minute, knowing that whoever sees him with that gun will see him as a threat....including any other concealed-carry folks or cops who just happen to be nearby. And no matter how cool he thinks he is, he's still about to fire on another human being, maybe not deservedly so. There had better be no reasonable doubt as to what he's about to do, and sure as shit know 110% who he's shooting at; otherwise, he's going away for a long time.

The ideal situation for a concealed-carry is you and your possible assailant, one-on-one, face-to-face, on a deserted street. How likely is that scenario?

[Deep13]

78. I agree.

Perhaps I don't share your moral outrage about killing another person if confronted in that kind of a way, but I agree with your factual assessment.

[hydrashok75]

129. Pretty likely

It happens all the time. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have used their CCWs to defend themselves lawfully.

People like today's shooter have been stopped in the past.

And the problems you cite for Joe Sixpack will exist for the cops as well, most of whom aren't magic super dooper shooters.

[Hobarticus]

145. So, if cops can't shoot, and that's what they do for a living...

Why would I want any Joe Sixpack, with who knows how much weapons training, to start opening up?

And hundreds have also been shot, needlessly, by people believing they were defending their homes against kids walking across their yards.

[TX-RAT]

153. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have used their CCWs to defend themselves lawfully.

Then that means there are hundreds of thousands of incident reports filed " Right?"

[SteveM]

133. If you had a gun at VT, would you have used it on the killer? (nt)

[Hobarticus]

146. No, because I wouldn't carry a gun on a college campus, at all.

That's my point. I'm on a campus. Why would I need a firearm? Why would ANYONE besides law enforcement need a gun?

I guess that's the question I want answered: why do people feel the need to have a gun on their person at all times? For one-in-a-million situations like this?

And if people really are that irrationally afraid, should they be armed? Who knows what they perceive as threats?

[TX-RAT]

154. why do people feel the need to have a gun on their person at all times?

Where was this need before CCW's?

[Old and In the Way]

45. That's an assumption with no basis in reality.

Look, this guy draws his gun and shoots. OK, some people know exactly who the shooter is and returns fire, killing him. Others don't know who the 1st shooter is and sees others returning fire, so he/she shoots them. Others pull their guns and start shooting at this shooter. Others see these people shooting and assume they are the original shooter and/or part of his gang...can't you see how quickly this could spiral into complete anarchy?

[Deep13]

48. I said I didn't know the specific facts. nt

[Hobarticus]

52. Zactly. You've got an instant free-fire zone...

The last thing you want is everyone in the immediate vicinity opening up.

[Irreverend IX]

109. Your example situation isn't remotely realistic.

If I was CCWing and a nutcase opened fire on people in the general area, my first impulse would be to run like a bat out of hell and get away from the threat. It's not my job to take down the shooter, so I wouldn't want to get into a firefight with him if I could help it. But if the shooter has somehow blocked my route of escape my goal would change to dropping him as quickly as possible before I came to harm.

CCW licensees get it pounded into their heads that they should only shoot if they are in grave and unavoidable danger. I've never seen a report of a "chain reaction" shooting by CCWers, so it seems to me that permit holders are smart and disciplined enough to shoot only if they truly believe it's necessary. The students in that classroom were certainly in a level of danger that would justify a shooting. Using a gun in self-defense, even if it's completely justified, will put someone through hell with the justice system, so no one would ever do it casually.

[Xela]

155. Good points

Thanks for bringing this up Nabeshin.

Xela

[mike_c]

36. expressing such a sentiment should be grounds for automatic refusal...

...of a permit to carry a weapon. You think a gunfight is the solution to violence?

[Deep13]

39. That's offensive.

You think a person should be legally discriminated against because of a political opinion? Apparently, you don't like the 1st Amendment either.

In point of fact the gunfight had already started, but only one side was shooting.

[mike_c]

51. so you think more shooting is the answer...?

You're offended by my comment that when someone suggests that the solution to random violence is more people should have the capacity to inflict harm, they should be among the first whose ability to do so should be limited?

Do you really think the shooter at VT purchased his first weapon with a mass killing spree in mind? I don't. I think he more likely purchased it for the precise reason expressed in the OP. For "self defense."

[virginia mountainman]

55. Yea, Only the BAD guy was shooting..

because the law abiding where DISARMED in the name of "safety"

[Hobarticus]

60. Quick...

You're in a large room, with your face turned to the wall.

You hear a shot. You whirl around, pull your concealed-carry, and look for the shooter.

You are face-to-face with a dozen other people, all facing the center of the room, all with guns drawn. The original shooter is not obvious.

You have a half-second, with one shot, before the original shooter fires on you.

Go.

[Old and In the Way]

62. Well, you make sure you have a 9mm with a 15 shot magazine.....

you shoot everyone and ask questions later. That seems to be the logical argument for those that need guns for self-protection.

[Hobarticus]

65. Darn straight, podner!!!

The last five minutes of "Reservior Dogs" comes immediately to mind...

[Xela]

105. "You whirl around, pull your concealed-carry, and look for the shooter."

Nonsense.

One must assess the threat before the presentation.

Xela

[hydrashok75]

106. Wow, you mean an anti was making an anti gun argument...

...without knowing anything about guns? Amazing! Whodathunkit!

[Hobarticus]

140. Actually, I know a great deal about firearms, and have several myself...

You shouldn't assume you know so much.

It doesn't need to boggle the mind that a gun owner doesn't endorse concealed-carry.

[Hobarticus]

141. LOL! So you mean to tell me...

That every single concealed-carrier would not pull his sidearm before properly assessing the threat? You can guarantee that? You have a line on human nature?

Okay, so I'll play along. You don't pull your weapon. But the other eleven do, and one fires in a panic. Another. Then another. What the? I didn't even present, you say...

Concealed-carry advocates paint themselves as somehow immune to the effects of confusion, shock, panic, and adrenaline. Always good for a laugh.

[Xela]

147. You'll play along?

Excuse me?

You started this scenario. Own up to your actions.

It is clear to me you are not up to a serious discussion on concealed carry.

I'll let my state's stats do the talking:
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/convrates.htm

Xela

[Hobarticus]

148. I've owned up to my scenario...

Just because you don't agree with it, that you believe you somehow superecede human nature and you're a stone-cold killer because you shoot at some paper targets, ain't my problem.

Texas? Nuff said...if you're crime rates are so under control by pistol packin' citizens, why do you have the highest execution rate in the country?

[Xela]

150. You did not...but nevermind...

You clearly stated that "you'll play along", hence insinuating I had initiated this highly improbable scenario. But let's move on.

And nevermind that now you proceed to insult me.

And that you jump from the ccw issue to the death penalty issue. Of which all I have to say is that I'm not proud of it, as I oppose the death penalty.

Let's get back on track...

"You're in a large room, with your face turned to the wall.
You hear a shot. You whirl around, pull your concealed-carry, and look for the shooter.
You are face-to-face with a dozen other people, all facing the center of the room, all with guns drawn. The original shooter is not obvious.
You have a half-second, with one shot, before the original shooter fires on you.
Go."

-I hear a shot and I take cover, or crouch, or drop down on the floor.
-My adrenalin is rushing and I am afraid for my life and those of others
-I attempt to assess the situation as best as I can: I hear, I see, I communicate with others...
-I yell to the group if someone fired a shot, was it an accident
-If someone did we admonish him/her
-If we all agree that the shot did not come from inside the room
-Then we all agree the threat is outside the room and proceed to act in a safe and secure way
-If the shot came from inside this group in a threatening way, once the shooter realizes that he/she is not the only person armed they would most probably start shooting their way out (here identifying himself/herself as the original threat) in which case some of us will become fatalities and others will be able to neutralize him/her...probably saving more lives outside the room.

There are many holes in your scenario, but that's how I would break it down for now.

Xela

[scrinmaster]

144. I live in Florida, the Gunshine state.

Five percent tops, of the population has CCW permits, and a smaller number than that actually carry daily. The chances of that many people carrying in the same room are very low.

[Deep13]

58. I didn't say that.

You were not responding to the argument, but to the poster who is somehow crazy for having an opinion different than yours.

I have no idea what the shooter was thinking and neither do you.

[hydrashok75]

88. Teddy Kennedy probably didn't buy his car thinking "let's drive drunk!"

Duh.

So what would you have us do? Not allow the purchase of guns because of things we *might* do?

[Old and In the Way]

103. And he lost 2 brothers to guns.

Nice analogy...real classy.

[hydrashok75]

104. Whereas advocating taking guns away from everyone...

...because of criminal actions is classy. Riiiiight. What does the fact that RFK and JFK died from assassination have to do with it?

BTW--JFK was a big advocate of the Second Amendment as an individual right. Ooops! Hate to break it to ya.

The analogy is apt. Get over it.

[Wickerman]

134. A point could be made that typically one would expect, on a Dem

board, for a fellow Dem to point to one of a billion hypocritical Republican moments rather than pick on Ted. For the support we get from fellow Dems here in the Gungeon we don't actually need an opposition party, we kill and skin our own. :eyes:

[hydrashok75]

135. Save it

Nothing about being a Dem requires me to protect or sell my soul for each and every one of them. I have no problem picking Rethug hypocrites...but TK happens to be one of the main antigun forces in the Senate. He's actually quite the approprite target.

TK is a Dem...and a scourge on our party. I suggest you come to terms with it.

[Wickerman]

139. Kennedy a scourge to our party?

He has contributed so much to Democratic causes over the years.

I have no problem picking Rethug hypocrites...

you've managed to keep that practice well hidden for this entire run on DU. :shrug:

[Hobarticus]

149. He doesn't swoon over the gun lobby...

So apparently, in spite of everything he's done for this country and the party, he's no good.

I can't argue with such a reasoned, balanced, and logical position.

[SteveM]

130. Didn't Senator JFK sponsor protectionist legislation for gun-makers in Mass?

[Hobarticus]

56. "I need to carry a concealed gun" is NOT a political opinion...

It can be protected speech, sure, but that doesn't mean he gets what he wants.

[Deep13]

67. True, but we enlightened liberals do not denigrate people for opinions. nt

[Hobarticus]

71. "I want a concealed gun" isn't any sort of opinion, at all...

It's a statement of perceived need. Not a necessity, like food and water.

One doesn't have to be a liberal to question why anyone would feel the need to pack heat going to the supermarket.

[hydrashok75]

126. Need? Try right!

You have an inalienable right to self protection. Why you'd belittle someone for expressing the belief in that right is odd.

One doesn't have to be a conservative to believe that disaster can strike anywhere--the supermarket included--and that you're better off being prepared than unprepared.

[Hobarticus]

142. I'm not belittling anyone...

But I will belittle someone for not reading for comprhension, like yourself.

The Op stated that wanting to carry a weapon is an opinion.

I say it isn't. Go back and read.

Yes, it is a right to own a gun, but it is not a right to carry one anywhere you damn well please.

No, but one would be somewhat paranoid to think that you could get involved in a gunfight at the Piggly Wiggly. It happens....once in a billion trips to the market, maybe.

[sharp_stick]

54. Bullshit n/t

[liliysdad]

75. A cop's opinion

As a police officer, here is my point of view on this scenario.

An armed citizen most likley would have made a huge difference in the VA shooting, much as it would in most public rampages. As a rule, a very small percentage obtain permits, and only a percentage of those who get them even carry a firearm. The "hail of bullets" theory is bogus, and simply would not happen. The fact is that a person, legally carrying a wepon, could have ended this whole mess as soon as it began.

As to the person who questioned those who feel the need to carry a weapon to the supermarket, I carry a gun everywhere. Tragedy can occur at any time, just ask one of these student's families.

[hydrashok75]

80. Thanks!

Your honest candor in the face of all this bluster is much appreciated.

[cgrindley]

92. Yeah, thanks

I'm a middle aged guy, well educated, middle class. I go to my local range every Sunday in lieu of church, and practice first with a few hundred rounds of 22lr and then with a hundred or so rounds of .45 acp and sometimes 9 mm (although I really don't like 9 mm). I'm the last person in the world anyone has to be afraid of. I believe in the 2nd and think that the more people who were trained and who legally carried weapons, the safer this country would be. My kids go shooting every Friday with their 10/22 and their MK II. I see nothing wrong with it.

[Xela]

96. Thanks for your support.

lilliysdad,

Good to hear your perspective.

Regards,

Xela

[Xela]

91. If this is a serious propositition...

...then I wholeheartedly agree.

Carry permits in Texas require classroom time (including non-violent dispute resolution), background check, range time...

Our most vulnerable areas are already at risk (schools, churches, hospitals), we should consider permiting CCW in these places.

Xela

(edited)

[cgrindley]

118. Same thing here in CT

school teachers and profs should be able to carry on campus.

[TX-RAT]

156. Texas require classroom time (including non-violent dispute resolution), background check, range tim

And all can be completed in 2 days. That's not saying much.

[Xela]

162. Texas stats

Those requirements and these stats together say it all:
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/convrates.htm

CCW's in Texas have a good track record, period.

Xela

[Deep13]

122. I apologize for defending gun rights while this was going on.

I had no idea the extent of the massacre. I had no idea that it was still unresolved while we were arguing. I reacted when I saw emotional challenges to individual RKBA. I feel like any time someone commits a violent crime in this country RKBA sympathizers need to brace ourselves for an onslaught. I write this just to explain my perspective. While I may disagree, I should have just let people vent and express their outrage without interjecting my own views. Obviously, we are all shocked by this pointless waste of life.

You don't need to respond.

[cgrindley]

123. Look what "venting" over 9/11 got us

it got us the patriot act and a couple of mindless wars.

No, we should remain rational when serious events occur.

[hydrashok75]

124. What cgrindley said

We don't honor the victims today by losing all semblance of rationality and reason.

[Deep13]

125. Yeah,but it is not like this thread will become an act of Congress.

People have to grieve. I just think we could have waited until the dust cleared.

[virginia mountainman]

127. Problem is...

When ever a heinous crime happens...Politicians love to pass laws, that effect EVERYONE that did NOT DO IT.

I am waiting for the repuke mouth peace Sara Brady, VPC, and the MMM to get started..