The gun thing - a question from a European

[meltzerboy]

Excuse me but you sure you want to use this as an example?

It looks like she’s using the weapon to keep the kids in line.

LOL Or if she’s even the teacher? (A little levity to break the gravity of the situation.)

 

[JerryZ]

Maybe - but I bet they don’t have the ammo, do they. Because that’s at the depot/armoury.

Nope contrary to what has been posted elsewhere they keep the ammo at the same location, at least the amount deemed as normal for the purposes of defending the country if an emergency arises.
Think about it it would be totally useless and stupid to keep the rifle and no ammo.
The depos have the purpose of keeping “bulk” ammo and heavier gear that would be kind of hard to park in your driveway, like a 25mm Howitzer or a tank.

In perspective is like the guy William Tell with the Ballesta could not keep arrows!

Now it is obvious that if a person has some kind of illness that would preclude him the use of weapons he should not be allowed to own them.
That is I think is “common sense” something that apparently our “modern society” totally forgot what’s used for.

 

[neophyte]

But we’re talking about bystanders. Who do not always know who is who. And him would be the majority of armed people.

No, we’re talking about the effectiveness of anti-gun laws in reducing violent crime. They do not do so, in fact they increase it.

One should consider, however, that Israel is a country fighting for its very survival. And despite all its military superiority and might beyond gun power, it cannot achieve a lasting peace through force. Are we, the United States, already in that situation, or do we want to become a country similar to Israel?

The question is: does gun ownership by private citizens result in more crime or less? More specifically, would more children be murdered in schools if teachers and parents were armed, or less? The unarguable experience in Israel is less.

The people in the Newton school most certainly were fighting for their survival. At least, they could have done so had they not been disarmed.

 

[LilyM]

No, we’re talking about the effectiveness of anti-gun laws in reducing violent crime. They do not do so, in fact they increase it.

The question is: does gun ownership by private citizens result in more crime or less? More specifically, would more children be murdered in schools if teachers and parents were armed, or less? The unarguable experience in Israel is less.

The people in the Newton school most certainly were fighting for their survival. At least, they could have done so had they not been disarmed.

Well, if anti-gun laws had prevented Adam Lanza’s mother from possessing the guns which he used against her and his other victims then they would probably have prevented those 22 people from being killed for starters

 

[Zooey]

You could start with the work by John Lott (e.g., law.uchicago.edu/files/files/41.lott_.final_.pdf , or the full version at kc3.com/pdf/lott.pdf) or John Kleck (saf.org/lawreviews/kleckandgertz1.htm). Also, a book entitled The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy (David Kopel, 1992) is very well researched; you can get it at abebooks.com for just a few bucks.

As a native Floridian who was there when they eased concealed-carry, it certainly resulted in a significant reduction in crime rates. I can’t lay my hands on the data at the moment, but it was funny how suddenly most of the carjackings were happening to people who’d just arrived at the airport. When the perps got busted, to a man they said they were casing flyers because they were the only people they were sure had no guns. It drove the gun control advocates nuts, because it proved them wrong.

I might also direct your attention to the countless cases of private citizens needing to defend themselves from looters and rioters during, for example, the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles, the aftermath of hurricane David in South Florida, or any number of similar events. I imagine that you might have had one or two in the Balkans at some time.

Perhaps where you live the government has a legal obligation to protect every individual from crime, can be sued for not doing so, and in fact effectively prevent the commission of all violent crime. It’s not like that here. In the United States, the government has no obligation to protect anyone and cannot be held liable if they don’t show up in response to a call for help. The bottom line is that it’s the responsibility of the police to clean up the mess after a crime’s been committed, and until they get there a victim is completely on his own.

And in fact, the two most recent mass-murders in the US both happened in places where guns were not allowed. Not only that, the gunman in the Colorado “Batman movie massacre” could have gone to five other theaters that were closer than the one he chose, which happened to be the one located where no guns were allowed in theaters.

Gun control is based in the absurd notions that criminals will obey the law, that crazy people can regulate their own behavior, and that most people are one or the other. It’s rubbish… if the teachers in the Newtown school had been armed then a lot of kids wouldn’t have been killed there. Just ask the teachers in Israel: in 1974, terrorists broke into a school and murdered 31 people. In response, they armed their teachers and parent chaperones, and since then not a single child has been murdered in a school.

More guns = less crime.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-DJ-KA2Whh...-12-22+at++Saturday,+December+22,+9.26+PM.png

A guy being robbed knows exactly who the robber is. A woman being raped knows *exactly *who the rapist is.

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/483434_502642763087963_431840464_n.jpg

 

[ProVobis]

The people in the Newton school most certainly were fighting for their survival. At least, they could have done so had they not been disarmed.

Maybe no need to fight had the mother of the killer (or anyone in the town, for that matter) not had any guns. Just saying.

 

[neophyte]

Well, if anti-gun laws had prevented Adam Lanza’s mother from possessing the guns which he used against her and his other victims then they would probably have prevented those 22 people from being killed for starters

The thousands of people whose lives are saved every year because they own guns, would be lost. And Adam Lanza would have made a bomb out of stuff you can get at a hardware store, and killed even more people than he did.

You’re quite simply ignoring facts and common sense. More guns = less crime.

 

[Zooey]

Well, if anti-gun laws had prevented Adam Lanza’s mother from possessing the guns which he used against her and his other victims then they would probably have prevented those 22 people from being killed for starters

Nope. They would still be dead. And Adam Lanza would have robbed & killed somebody else for weapons. Like, say, the makings of a homemade bomb, which would have killed everybody in the school when it blew.
A crazy vilolent person is a crazy vilolent person.
What would have helped would have been if somebody along the way had shot Adam Lanza before he got into a room full of small children. That would be the armed citizen who is legally carrying a gun to use to defend him/herslef as well as others.
That would be the armed school principal, the armed teacher, the armed parent, the armed security guard. Who is NOT a security guard unless he is armed. Otherwise he’s just another person for the guy with the** stolen** weapons to shoot & kill.
Yes, there are a lot of sick people out there. The people carrying concealed are NOT the people who voted to ban security guards from being armed & able to defend the schools. I would submit that the logical outcome of all this is that** all** schools should require** all** security guards to be armed & trained in the use of those arms.

And as I pointed out earlier in this thread, we didn’t vote to let the Adam Lanzas of this world wander around stealing guns & shooting people. We were yelling at the top of our lungs, “Lock him up & medicate him, by force if necessary, but don’t let violent people run around with the rest of the world”.
The anti-gun lobby is also the“let the Adam Lanzas among us free to roam our streets” lobby.

 

[ProVobis]

The thousands of people whose lives are saved every year because they own guns, would be lost. And Adam Lanza would have made a bomb out of stuff you can get at a hardware store, and killed even more people than he did.

If he had a bomb, he would not have needed to come into the school at all.

By the way did the school have any bomb shelters? Perhaps we should fix that.

 

[ricmat]

I think the bigger question is “How could the United States allow the murder of 20 innocent children by the use of firearms?” Clearly, it is against the law to do that. My answer is “I don’t know.”

And my follow up question is “How could the United States allow the murder of 60 million innocent children through legalized abortion since 1973?” That was all done legally.

I think there’s a connection there, but I’m not smart enough to elucidate it.

 

[ProVobis]

Nope. They would still be dead. And Adam Lanza would have robbed & killed somebody else for weapons.

But he’d have to do much more work to get them. The fewer guns the more work.

The easiest way was to use what his mother had.

 

[ConstantineTG]

You need guns to overthrow an oppressive government? We Filipinos live in a third world country and since 1986 have overthrown a dictator who has imposed Martial Law on the country, and an abusive, corrupt, thief of a president, all without one person firing one bullet.

Thats 2 presidents in a span of 15 years (1986 and 2001).

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

Where there is a will, there is a way. Don’t get me wrong, I’m for background checks and everything; however, does anyone here think banning guns will keep people from using them? Stricter gun laws will simply take more guns away from responsible gun owners, rather than irresponsible ones.

Although, we Americans are all cattywampus. This is why our President mourns the loss of children while at the same time, approving of abortion.

 

[jeannetherese]

Nope. They would still be dead. And Adam Lanza would have robbed & killed somebody else for weapons.
(

I would like to respectfully suggest that we cannot know exactly what Mr. Lanza would do had he not had access to his mothers’ weapons. Perhaps he would have committed suicide, perhaps he would have found a different outlet for violent inclinations, perhaps he might have lived to find help for the challenges to which he succumbed-we really do not know.
Perhaps the first line of defense against such tragedies, might be to work on creating environments in which people laboring under the challenges which destroyed Mr. Lanza and so many members of this community, might be given assistance. It would be wonderful to live in a world where fewer people felt the need to harm others and more people felt safe from harm.

 

[liturgyluver]

You could start with the work by John Lott (e.g., law.uchicago.edu/files/files/41.lott_.final_.pdf , or the full version at kc3.com/pdf/lott.pdf) or John Kleck (saf.org/lawreviews/kleckandgertz1.htm). Also, a book entitled The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy (David Kopel, 1992) is very well researched; you can get it at abebooks.com for just a few bucks.

As a native Floridian who was there when they eased concealed-carry, it certainly resulted in a significant reduction in crime rates. I can’t lay my hands on the data at the moment, but it was funny how suddenly most of the carjackings were happening to people who’d just arrived at the airport. When the perps got busted, to a man they said they were casing flyers because they were the only people they were sure had no guns. It drove the gun control advocates nuts, because it proved them wrong.

I might also direct your attention to the countless cases of private citizens needing to defend themselves from looters and rioters during, for example, the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles, the aftermath of hurricane David in South Florida, or any number of similar events. I imagine that you might have had one or two in the Balkans at some time.

Perhaps where you live the government has a legal obligation to protect every individual from crime, can be sued for not doing so, and in fact effectively prevent the commission of all violent crime. It’s not like that here. In the United States, the government has no obligation to protect anyone and cannot be held liable if they don’t show up in response to a call for help. The bottom line is that it’s the responsibility of the police to clean up the mess after a crime’s been committed, and until they get there a victim is completely on his own.

More guns = less crime.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-DJ-KA2Whh...-12-22+at++Saturday,+December+22,+9.26+PM.png

I am afraid your analogy is useless since your own graph shows that the homicide rate in the UK - with the severe gun ban still in place - has fallen back to a lower level than it was before. But before that people in the UK did not anyway possess guns in the way that Americans do.

Frankly, there is no comparison between the USA and Europe because people in Europe do not carry guns, (and neither do criminals). The key point is that there is no general access to guns and even those countries with relatively high gun ownership (Switzerland, Norway, etc) have restrictions in place (eg on ammunition) which mean that guns cannot be used like they are in the US. The attitude is different too: That surely explains why the gun homicide rate in the USA is the highest in the industrialised world, and on average three times higher than Europe, and that you are forty times more likely to be shot in the US compared with Europe. And as for gun suicide levels…that’s another story.

 

[Litcrit]

The anti-gun lobby is also the“let the Adam Lanzas among us free to roam our streets” lobby.

No. At least not me.

In my country, anyone who’s a proven threat to themselves or others can be institutionalized free of charge.

Perhaps the first line of defense against such tragedies, might be to work on creating environments in which people laboring under the challenges which destroyed Mr. Lanza and so many members of this community, might be given assistance. It would be wonderful to live in a world where fewer people felt the need to harm others and more people felt safe from harm.

Yes.

 

[neophyte]

I am afraid your analogy is useless since your own graph shows that the homicide rate in the UK - with the severe gun ban still in place - has fallen back to a lower level than it was before.

Note the time scale. When the law was enacte, law-abiding citizens turned in their guns and crime rose because the criminals were the only ones armed… Six years later the rates begin to drop because of other factors, not because of the ban on handguns, and it looks like rates are stabilizing at at the level they were prior to the ban. You call that success?

The claim of gun control advocates is that restrictions on guns will reduce crime; if that were true then the trend immediately after enacting such laws would be the opposite of what is actually seen. And in fact the experience in the US is that every time anti-gun laws are enacted, violent crime increases, and every time citizens carry more guns, violent crime is reduced.

More guns = less crime. It works every time it’s tried.

The key point is that there is no general access to guns and even those countries with relatively high gun ownership (Switzerland, Norway, etc) have restrictions in place (eg on ammunition) which mean that guns cannot be used like they are in the US.

Access to guns in Switzerland is much greater than in the US. There (or at least was, the last time I checked was about 15 years ago). At that time, a friend of mine who is a Swiss native confirmed to me that this article by David Kopel is an accurate summary: From age 21 to 32, a Swiss man serves as a “frontline” troop in the Auszug, and devotes three weeks a year (in eight of the 12 years) to continued training. From age 33 to 42, he serves in the Landwehr (like America’s National Guard); every few years, he reports for two-week training periods. Finally, from ages 43, to 50, he serves in the Landsturm; in this period, he only spends 13 days total in “home guard courses.”
Over a soldier’s career he also spends scattered days on mandatory equipment inspections and required target practice. Thus, in a 30-year mandatory military career, a Swiss man only spends about one year in direct military service. Following discharge from the regular army, men serve on reserve status until age 50 (55 for officers).
By the Federal Constitution of 1874, military servicemen are given their first equipment, clothing and arms. After the first training period, conscripts must keep gun, ammunition and equipment an ihrem Wohnort (“in their homes”) until the end of their term of service.
Today, enlisted men are issued M57 automatic assault rifles and officers are given pistol, Each reservist is issued 24 rounds of ammunition in sealed packs for emergency use. (Contrary to Handgun Control’s claim that “all ammunition must be accounted for,” the emergency ammunition is the only ammo that requires accounting.)
After discharge from service, the man is given a bolt rifle free from registration or obligation. Starting in the 1994, the government will give ex-reservists assault rifles. Officers carry pistols rather than rifles and are given their pistols the end of their service.
When the government adopts a new infantry rifle, it sells the old ones to the public.
Reservists are encouraged to buy military ammunition (7.5 and 5.6mm-5.56 mm in other countries-for rifles and 9 and 7.65 mm Luger for pistols, which is sold at cost by the government, for target practice Non-military ammunition for long-gun hunting and .22 Long Rifle (LR) ammo are not subsidised, but are subiect to no sales controls. Non-military non-hunting ammunition more powerful than .22 LR (such as .38 Spl.) is registered at the time of sale.
Swiss military ammo must be registered if bought at a private store, but need not be registered if bought at a range The nation’s 3,000 shooting ranges sell the overwhelming majority of ammunition. Technically, ammunition bought at the range must be used at the range, but the rule is barely known and almost never obeyed.
The army sells a variety of machine guns, submachine guns, anti-tank weapons, anti-aircraft guns, howitzers and cannons. Purchasers of these weapons require an easily obtained cantonal license, and the weapons are registered, In a nation of six million people, there are at least two million guns, including 600,00 fully automatic assault rifles, half a million pistols, and numerous machine guns. Virtually every home has a gun.
Besides subsidised military surplus, the Swiss can buy other firearms easily too. While long guns require no special purchase procedures, handguns are sold only to those with a Waffenerwerbsschien (purchase certificate) issued by a cantonal authority. A certificate is issued to every applicant over 18 who is not a criminal or mentally infirm.
There are no restrictions on the carrying of long guns. About half the cantons have strict permit procedures for carrying handguns, and the other half have no rules at all There is no discernible difference in the crime rate between the cantons as a result of the different policies.
Thanks to a lawsuit brought by the Swiss gun lobby, semi-automatic rifles require no purchase permit and are not registered by the government. Thus, the only long guns registered by the government are full automatics. (Three cantons do require collectors of more than 10 guns to register.)
Gun sales from one individual to another are regulated in five cantons and completely uncontrolled in all the rest.
Adding to the 20,000 gun laws we already have will not reduce crime, because criminals do not obey laws.

More guns = less crime.

 

[ProVobis]

Adding to the 20,000 gun laws we already have will not reduce crime, because criminals do not obey laws.

There cannot be any effective gun laws with the Second Amendment in effect.

 

[livingwordunity]

Uhmm I believe you are grossly mistaken, the NRA does not sell neither guns nor ammunition.

It is a CLUB that people that like guns for recreational (hunting, competition, etc) join.
The NRA represents gun owners like other associations represent their member’s interests with the US government legislative branches.

It’s ironic that people are scapegoating the NRA and acting as if the NRA gives guns away while ignoring the fact that the Obama admin recently gave away tons of automatic firearms to known drug dealers in Mexico which resulted in the deaths of innocent Mexican civilians as well as the death of a US border patrol agent.

 

[Cristiano]

There cannot be any effective gun laws with the Second Amendment in effect.

I think that here you are making a statement that could be either true or false, independently of that I think that very few people on either side of the fence are really willing to look at things in the manner that you are suggesting. Such analysis would open a major can of worms that nobody really wants to touch, and that is the elimination of the second amendment.

We are already jumping through a lot of loops by passing laws that go against the first amendment and look at the mess. Look at that iditic idea of abortion being a right to privacy. The problem is that the consitution is not and cannot be petfect and so we either change it from time to tome or we devide to live by it and accept the fact that sometime things will be painful. The constitution and the laws do not make a culture or drive cultural changes because the reverse is what is true.