10% of America is depressed and you want to punish them for the acts of a mere handful of people who snapped?
Your sick yourself, please seek professional help.
Your sick yourself, please seek professional help.
umbrella39
Lifer
- Jun 11, 2004
- 13,819
- 1,126
- 126
I keep looking for these posts where people are claiming CCW holders are "running around committing tons of crime"? Not sure where you are seeing them, but you are not the first to make such claims so you are in good company. Who says this?
I can't comment on your second statement because tbh, I don't know what you are going on about people being scared of everyone around them. Again who said that?
I know the reason I carry one to and from work is because I have a healthy fear of the people crawling the streets of downtown Detroit after dark. Hell, even when the sun is up I don't trust anyone down there but to this day, I have never had to even show it thankfully.
JD50
Lifer
- Sep 4, 2005
- 11,640
- 2,034
- 126
Well you might want to go back and reread all of the threads about this that have the gun grabbers going all nuts. They seem to think that more people carrying concealed weapons would result in more crime and more shootings. Where is the evidence to back that up?
http://www.stategunlaws.org/viewstate.php?st=VA
There is nothing requiring check of state of mental health. This is a key factor in all killings like the VT incident. It is not a complex point, but no one has addressed it as of yet. I have made this point several times (oops, on a different thread). Criminal background checks are not enough as it seems that people with criminal records are not the people engaging in these VT type massacres. Also, I am not a gun-control nut, and don't care too much about this issue, but it seems that many people on this forum are so hell-bent on protecting their rights over protecting the lives of others. I posted before that guns should be allowed for protection against criminals, so i am not anti-gun.
JD50
Lifer
- Sep 4, 2005
- 11,640
- 2,034
- 126
I don't believe that a criminal background check would pick that up. From what I've heard on the radio, if he was forced into a facility by court order, he would not have been allowed to buy the gun. I'm not sure if thats 100 percent correct, I heard it on the radio this morning.
It is not Depression that is the problem. It is when someone is considered a danger to self or others.
Yeah, that is why they need a check to pick up on if the individual can be considered dangerous by mental health professionals
I agree, I was replying to someone who was claiming anyone taking anti-depressants should have their right to own a gun restricted.
umbrella39
Lifer
- Jun 11, 2004
- 13,819
- 1,126
- 126
I don't know the correct term for what you are doing, maybe a logical fallacy(sp), but you seem to be morphing people's fear of more people roaming the streets carrying guns into people saying current CCW holders are law breakers and should be the ones we should fear.
No one is talking about current holders INM, if they were, I, too would take offense. No one seems to be saying it the way you are receiving it imo. If we can guarantee the massive influx of new CCW holders some seem want to create will be calm, level headed gun owners like the vast majority of us are, then great. I don't think we can guarantee that and I think the prospect of increasing the loons to gun ratio might be what people are expressing concern over.
JD50
Lifer
- Sep 4, 2005
- 11,640
- 2,034
- 126
My point is that there are some people here that seem terrified at the thought of having more people legally owning and carrying handguns, but they have absolutely no rational for that fear. If there was a signifigant amount of crime committed by people that are currently owning and carrying handguns legally right now, then they might have a point. All they do is spout emotional nonsense about how dangerous it is to have an armed populace with people carrying (legally) concealed weapons when the facts show otherwise. When they are challenged for any facts to back up their irrational fear of weapons they completely dissappear from the thread.
Edit - basically, you should be allowed to carry a concealed weapon unless you have given the government a reason not to trust you with one.
umbrella39
Lifer
- Jun 11, 2004
- 13,819
- 1,126
- 126
I totally agree with being able to carry a concealed weapon, I am not so sure though that having "safe zones" is a bad idea. I don't know about you but I would be kind of freaked taking a 3 hour exam in a classroom of 50 people knowing they were all packing. IMO that would be a bigger accident waiting to happen than what we witnessed this week. Those happen one every few years or so, this one taking the cake in total numbers which is sickening. Perhaps we should pilot program it in one college for 4 years and see what happens. People that don't like it could simply go to school elsewhere.
Specop 007
Diamond Member
- Jan 31, 2005
- 9,454
- 0
- 0
This is the biggest failing point of the whole "Shouldnt be carrying" argument.
Your not required to carry a firearm. Your permitted to carry a firearm. Just because you CAN doesnt mean you HAVE to, and as such I assure you out of a class of 50 maybe....MAYBE.....3 would be carrying. Most likely less. I wouldnt be suprised if no one carried to be honest.
Cerb
Elite Member
- Aug 26, 2000
- 17,484
- 33
- 86
There won't be. I wouldn't feel bad at all in such a room with 2 folks packing, though, which is probably still on the high side.
I'd be worried if everyone carried, too. The only reason everyone would carry is if everyone felt sufficiently threatened. With up to maybe 5% of folks carrying concealed, I wouldn't bat an eye. Better to have and not need than need and not have.
But, down here, it's not uncommon for people to own and know how to use rifles and shotguns by the time their age ends in teen. I took awhile longer, and haven't touched my own weapon in years, but even as a very little kid I knew damn well not to mess with guns, and why. I would expect most folks that have guns in their cars, or carry them, know enough about carrying and using them to do so responsibly.
While incidents like this could have been prevented by certain measures, ultimately it's the parents and the professors and the roommates and girls he stalked. Cho was not prepared for the world he was thrust into, and not enough was done by those around him to help him or stop him.
People intent on causing harm either will do so or will get caught trying. This is a case where both tighter restrictions and looser ones might have helped: allowing people o have guns on campus, including concealed, and causing more things to pop up red flags in the check to see if he should have been allowed to buy one.
Just so you know about 1/2 -3/4 of those sources have been fully debunked, even by people on the side of gun control. Hell, Kellerman himself admitted his study and subsequent report were wholly unreliable and should be totally discounted, and has since gone on to publish PRO-GUN reports (well, at least moderately pro-gun).
Umm, yea because speech or writing gives me the power to kill a large number of innocent people in a short time. :roll: I love the illogical leaps you gun nuts like to take.
But it's not truly 'per capita' because people who own one gun most often own 3-7. The number of households with a gun in them are almost equal in both countries (about 33-39%).
AAjax
Diamond Member
- Feb 17, 2001
- 3,798
- 0
- 0
Lets not forget those self righteous Canadians, boy what a bunch of asshats.
Seriously though, Ben Franklin said it best
"He who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserves neither"
I wouldnt hold my breath for many Europeans (or Canadians) to understand that. The cream of that sad continent came over here years ago.
Lest we not forget that the second amendment was created largely because of Europeans and their ilk.
There
Not all schools prohibit lawful carry, there is no 'pilot program' needed. Before a decade or so ago you could carry on almost every campus in America. No incidents occurred. That's because people who carry concealed DO NOT CAUSE PROBLEMS!
AAjax
Diamond Member
- Feb 17, 2001
- 3,798
- 0
- 0
In 2002 when a gunman started killing people on a campus in VA, he was stopped by two armed students
Course, you didn't hear about that on the news, did you? Kinda makes you wonder what the corporate media's agenda is...
I feel the same way about you people and your irrational fear of terrorists.
Since terrorists murdered 3,000 Americans on 9/11, roughly 65,000 Americans have been murdered by their friends, family, neighbors and fellow Americans with firearms.
Not to say I support gun control (the cat is too far out of the bag) but lets be honest about the comparative dangers to Americans from terrorism (supposedly a very serious. critically dangerous problem) and murders with firearms (supposedly an acceptable price to pay for our 'freedoms').
Fearing a fellow American with a firearm is much, much more statistically reasonable than fearing Muslims with planes, suicide vests and/or 'dirty bombs'.
There was nothing tragic or scandalous about it, so it wouldn't garner much attention. The song Vicarious by Tool comes to mind.
I am no expert on the subject, however, the FBI statistic is quite likely to be accurate, and a few of the other (including the last one, which to me is the most stunning) are simple mathematical calculations.
Children 0-14 dead from firearm injuries is a number hard to be put in perspective. What could you argue about that? That they deserved it? Most of them die because they fire a weapon they found in their houses and started playing with. If the weapon had not been there they would not die.
Same applies to female murdered by their partner. It's a very common scheme, the guy comes back home drunk and start an argument. Because he has a gun he shoots the partner. If he hadn't the gun he would probably just slap or punch her like sons-of-a-bitch like him do in other parts of the world.
The point is, even if you do not believe some of those numbers, the difference between the US and other developed countries is so huge that cutting those numbers 50% usually doesn't change the situation.
Here's another research:
http://www.unicri.it/wwd/analysis/icvs/...rstanding_files/19_GUN%20OWNERSHIP.pdf
Country Murders per 1M Murders per 1M with firearm
USA 75.9 44.6
England 6.7 0.8
Netherlands 11.8 2.7
France 12.5 5.5
CSSR 13.5 2.6
Norway 12.1 3.0
Germany 12.1 2.0
The homicide table is even more dramatic... The correlation between gun-ownership and suicides using firearms is almost 1.
Yet I'm sure you'll find this data irrelevant. People who love their guns just don't want to consider the idea of not having them.
But again, I don't care about this that much. I live between Manhattan and Europe, and thanks god people in these places usually don't go around with a frigging gun in their pocket. So it's all good to me. As I said in my previous post, I just think some public debate on this data would healthy, even if you don't do anything about this. Maybe, for example, people could start keeping their weapons and ammunition in strictly separate places, something that would greatly affect the number of accidents involving children and kids.
Cerb
Elite Member
- Aug 26, 2000
- 17,484
- 33
- 86
...or they could teach the kids about the weapons. Assuming a child won't find it is folly. 0-4 years old, maybe even up to 6, there may not be much that can be done, and it is tragic. Somewhere around there, though, they can be taught about firearms. A child should know not to play with a gun just as much as they should know not to play with a skilsaw. It was not coincidence that I never played with guns when I was around them. By 6 or so, I knew of several guns within easy reach at my uncle's. But I also knew not to mess with them, The vast majority of the problem there is bad parenting.
As far as murders, I don't think gun availability has nothing to do with it (your spouse example being a good case for that), but look at the total number: with the firearm deaths not counted for the US, we have over four times the murders of England, and two and half times that of Germany, Norway, and the Netherlands. Our nation is, on the whole, sick. Firearms make some things a little easier, but trying to remove them would not make it all better. The causes need to be dealt with, not the tools.
Suicide: meh. IMO, it is a bad decision (well, usually), but you have every right to kill yourself. We make it easier than most countries.
As far as murders, I don't think gun availability has nothing to do with it (your spouse example being a good case for that), but look at the total number: with the firearm deaths not counted for the US, we have over four times the murders of England, and two and half times that of Germany, Norway, and the Netherlands. Our nation is, on the whole, sick. Firearms make some things a little easier, but trying to remove them would not make it all better. The causes need to be dealt with, not the tools.
Suicide: meh. IMO, it is a bad decision (well, usually), but you have every right to kill yourself. We make it easier than most countries.
I don't claim there isn't a violence problem in America, I merely keep the debates honest.
For instance, IF guns are THE SINGLE factor which dictates gun related crime/death then Switzerland should rate much worse in those areas since it has an almost equal number of homes with guns in them. Maybe if you narrow that down to 'handguns' you could get a better feel, but you can still find nations that have handguns but much lower crime and accidents. Even keeping it a domestic debate IF it were handguns that were the key factor you should see an EXTREMELY high rate of incident with persons who have a concealed permit since they have handguns and carry them frequently. Yet concealed weapon holders do not have accidents or incidents in any numbers...in fact as already pointed out they have fewer problems than law enforcement or regular citizens. That means that again, merely having a gun is in NO WAY an indicator of the likelihood of crime or accident. So it isn't the guns themselves, that means it's something else, or a combination.
Yes, kids have been killed by guns, but no where near the number killed by cars. How many other things can we find that injure and/or kill as many or more children than guns? Having identified those things why do we not debate about them? Why only guns? Also you should keep in mind that many pieces of research that refer to things such as 'kids being killed by guns' includes suicide, deaths while committing a crime, and so on. That means we have to examine the research numbers themselves very closely to accurately say rather it was an accidental death (finding a gun and playing with it), or a deserved death (trying to rob a store and getting shot in the process). You can try to argue that without the guns themselves the events wouldn't have happened but statistics from all other nations disprove that (Australia and the UK with very strict controls on guns still experience crime, and in fact their rates of crime are rising while ours in America are falling).
If drugs weren't around people wouldn't overdose, or commit crimes while under the influence. For that matter if alcohol weren't around people wouldn't drive under the influence. We tried prohibition and repealed it. We've made war against drugs for decades and they're absolutely everywhere. This means that the entire argument of 'if they weren't legal then they wouldn't be there and therefore bad things wouldn't happen because of them' is 100% TOTAL CRAP! Accept it.
Your suicide correlation claim is ridiculous in the extreme. If there was truly a two-way correlation of 1 then every house with a gun would have a suicide. Since there are 100 million homes in America with a gun, and not nearly that many suicides, we know that isn't so. Instead, it's a one-way correlation that also would apply to nearly every other form of suicide once controlled for in the statistical data. In other words, once you accept suicide as a given event then you merely look in the home to find the most expedient method. If there's a gun that's simple, so they use it. If there's meds that's simple, so they use them. And so on. The guns are irrelevant in that equation because the suicide attempt is a given with or without them.
There's nothing wrong with educating people about dangers. There's nothing wrong with implementing basic processes to obtain weapons (like we already have, or maybe even including a mental health component which many states already do). There's nothing wrong with encouraging safe treatment and storage. What's wrong is throwing the baby out with the bathwater because of bad information, poor reasoning, or emotional decisions. Just so you know my father kept our rifles locked in the gun cabinet and the key hidden, kept the bolts to the rifles hidden in a drawer in his room, and kept the ammunition in a locked container over our freezer in the basement. When I was very young I somehow managed to learn all this and while they were out one day I got all the parts and was in the process of putting them all together when he came home. Needless to say I suffered for my stupidity, and then entered a long time training with weapon responsibility and have not been unsafe since. What I'm driving at here is that separate storage doesn't solve anything - education and training does.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter