The gun thing - a question from a European

[ProVobis]

Why would any govt need them? I don’t have any guns, but I also don’t want the govtment saying I shouldn’t be allowed to have them because someone else is a psycho. We have a right to possess fire arms because our relationship to the govt isn’t one of slave to master. Saying they should ban guns essentially says the govt is there’s to keep us in check, as if we are unruly children who can’t take care of ourselves.

Would you feel the same about drugs instead of guns or fire arms?

 

[TimeEntrance]

Sorry but you continue to try to foist strawmen into the mix. Please read my post. I did not say the shooter KNEW there would not be anyone with a gun in a posted ‘gun free’ zone. But as you said, play the odds. Or as one psychiatrist noted, these people are crazy but they are not stupid.

Yes, that is what you implied. You go back to my post #153 were I quoted you.

And I don’t think I created any strawmen arguments.

Also you pointed out the obvious, that the shooters target people and places that have some association to them. The Batman killer was obviously mentally ill and had a Batman obsession. It was not simply chance that he picked a Batman movie in which to spring out like a would be Joker and murder a bunch of strangers. Apparently the Newtown shooter had attended the Sandy Hook School and his mother had volunteered there. So no, they didn’t pick targets JUST because they were gun free zones but clearly they picked targets where it was unlikely at best that they would be faced with someone packing heat.

The point being that designating places ‘gun free zones’ is if anything counterproductive to protecting innocent victims. One of the original mass shooting venues was the post office…why? Because postal employees are nuts? No, because post offices were among the first ‘gun free zones’ and former employees knew about that policy. You don’t see the same type of behavior in disgruntled former cops do you? Coincidence? I don’t think so. Further no gun restrictions or other laws have proven to be effective.

The Fort Hood Shooting would contradict your basic assumptions.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting

The Fort Hood shooting was a shooting that took place on November 5, 2009 at Fort Hood, the most populous U.S. military installation in the world, located just outside Killeen, Texas.[1] In the course of the shooting, a single gunman killed 13 people and wounded 29 others.[1] It is the worst shooting ever to take place on an American military base.[2]

The sole suspect is Nidal Malik Hasan, a U.S. Army Major serving as a psychiatrist. He was shot and taken into custody by Department of the Army Civilian Police officers,[3] and is now paralyzed from the waist down.[4] Hasan has been charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted murder under the Uniform Code of Military Justice; he may face additional charges at court-martial. If he is convicted, he could be given the death penalty.[5][6]

Your Marine example is not applicable to the discussion of mass shootings of strangers which is the issue that generated the thread. Obviously the Marine wanted to kill his wife, not simply shoot people.

But he did shoot other people. I would argue he wanted to shoot other people too. It’s not to difficult to walk up to your wife - or a stranger - and shoot them in the head and calmly walk out.

Case in point, a Latin King member was ordered to execute a specific person, at the time sitting in a barber chair receiving a hair cut in a busy barbershop, he is said to have calmly walked up, shot the guy in the head, and calmly walked out. Which is almost certainly what this fiction book written by a former homicide detective in Milwaukee was depicting.

As a former homicide detective, several scenes from The Cozen Protocol ring a familiar bell, particularly the murder of a young man on the steps of a Catholic Church and the execution style slaying of a rival gang member inside a barbershop.

The Cozen Protocol’s barbershop homicide is ripped right from the headlines of the 1997 slaying of Latin King Frank Garza. Jordan Mueller, a 21-year-old former honor student, was given instructions to whack Garza, who had a falling out with the hierarchy of his own gang. “I walked to where Frank was getting his hair cut,” testified Mueller, who wore a ski mask as he entered the barbershop. “I put a gun to his head and fired.”

sleuthwiththeproof.blogspot.com/2009/10/pyramid-of-death.html

So what’s your point here?

That at least part of your assumptions are not entirely correct.

 

[LisaA]

Yes, that is what you implied. You go back to my post #153 were I quoted you.

And I don’t think I created any strawmen arguments.

The Fort Hood Shooting would contradict your basic assumptions.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting

But he did shoot other people. I would argue he wanted to shoot other people too. It’s not to difficult to walk up to your wife - or a stranger - and shoot them in the head and calmly walk out.

Case in point, a Latin King member was ordered to execute a specific person, at the time sitting in a barber chair receiving a hair cut in a busy barbershop, he is said to have calmly walked up, shot the guy in the head, and calmly walked out. Which is almost certainly what this fiction book written by a former homicide detective in Milwaukee was depicting.

sleuthwiththeproof.blogspot.com/2009/10/pyramid-of-death.html

That at least part of your assumptions are not entirely correct.

This is silly, I said it was less likely someone would have a gun in a “gun free zone” not that it was a 100% surety.

Ft Hood is completely different but realize that on post the troops are UNARMED. Hassan knew that he could go into the area and until the MPs arrived, shoot without being stopped. Were you aware that the troops do not have their weapons on them unless at the shooting range or during exercises? I’ve BEEN to Ft Hood, stayed on post, spent significant time with military families there. Guns are NOT allowed to be carried unless you are an MP or during designated exercises.

Further Ft Hood was a terrorist attack by an Islamic radical. Unlike many of the other mass shooters, he had a particular agenda.

Again what is your point? Demonstrating an ability to split hairs and quote Wikipedia? The thread is on the American attitude toward gun ownership. Do you have anything to say on that subject?

Lisa

 

[Brendan]

The Fort Hood Shooting would contradict your basic assumptions.

In reality, it offers no contradiction. At US military bases within the Continental US, the carrying of arms with live ammunition is generally prohibited.

I was an Army officer, the only time I could sign out live ammo was for a schedule range trip. After that I make sure that all ammo is accounted for after the range and returned to locked storage.

Live ammo was not allowed off of the range.

 

[George_Stegmeir]

I second the previous statement. I was a career Naval Officer and I can positively state that loaded firearm are taboo aboard Navy ships and stations around the world. When in port, only the Officer of the Deck, who stands his watch on the Quarterdeck near the gangway will be armed with a pistol. However in all my years in the navy, I never knew the pistol to be loaded!
As for the bow sentries, they are armed with rifles. However, only in the most hostile war zone ports will these sentries have ammunition.
The reason for this is that in past years, when sentries were armed there were several civilians killed which cause nasty anti-american international incidents.

 

[PeaceInChrist]

Valid points to think about.

If his points are valid, then what of the studies posted that show no decrease in crime after a weapons ban in the UK? What of the stats that show non-firearm homicides outnumber firearm homicides by quite a bit in the US?

I, and all those I know, own firearms in order to assault little yellow pieces of paper, and for keeping in the house and occasionally taking to the wilderness. Why should legislation aimed at psychotic people strip me of a freedom that has not been declared an intrinsic.evil by the Church, while the very same political party aims to give wider availability to intrinsic evils?

Even in cultures where gun ownership is legal, the US has still a higher rate of violence. It was not so in the early 1900s, when tommy guns could be purchased at Sears. Why is this so? Perhaps an analysis of the software is in order, and not the hardware…

Either way, I will be obedient, but I sure do enjoy the right at the moment, and I’d not appreciate it being taken away, especially with other dangers causing more death (smoking, abortion, drunk driving, ect).

 

[ProVobis]

If his points are valid, then what of the studies posted that show no decrease in crime after a weapons ban in the UK? What of the stats that show non-firearm homicides outnumber firearm homicides by quite a bit in the US?

Do you have studies which show what the crime rates would have been had not the ban been in effect? If not the studies aren’t very meaningful.

Why should legislation aimed at psychotic people strip me of a freedom that has not been declared an intrinsic.evil by the Church, while the very same political party aims to give wider availability to intrinsic evils?

Look at it this way. If I want the right to keep anything, guns or knives or dangerous chemicals (which most have in their homes, by the way), I certainly would do whatever it takes to ensure that they don’t intimidate or put any lives in danger, either at my home, my community, church, etc. Screaming at the politicians that they shouldn’t ban any of them probably won’t do much good because they act AFTER the fact to those who have been injured by them, directly or indirectly.

But these the poster’s main points IMO. Perhaps you’ll want to direct your questions to him.

 

[1inICXC]

It’s hard for me to imagine how anyone can feel safe or free when they NEED a gun.

Freedom and safety are when you do NOT need them. I couldn’t live a day in a place knowing that anyone, at any time, could pull a gun on me.
And should your government try martial law on you, the millions of guns in your avg joe’s hands will NOT solve anything, it will cause more chaos, more death.

I praise God I live in a place where crimes involving fire-arms occur once/decade and are limited to feuding individuals not unsuspecting citizens.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Do you have studies which show what the crime rates would have been had not the ban been in effect? If not the studies aren’t very meaningful.

That’s only if you ignore the historical trend of the crime rates. One can infer the impact of the ban (here assuming that there is a strong cause and effect linkage between the ban and the crime rate and all other factors are accounted for) by observing the trend in the crime rate prior to, during, and after the ban. If this trend shows a deviation for the “during” time period from the “prior to” and “after” periods or a marked change from “prior to” to “after” than one can infer the impact of the ban (once again assuming the cause/effect linkage etc). The studies in question would only be meaningless if the assumed cause/effect linkage didn’t exist and or they didn’t account for other factors which may have influenced the change in the crime rate.

 

[Zooey]

In reality, it offers no contradiction. At US military bases within the Continental US, the carrying of arms with live ammunition is generally prohibited.

I was an Army officer, the only time I could sign out live ammo was for a schedule range trip. After that I make sure that all ammo is accounted for after the range and returned to locked storage.

Live ammo was not allowed off of the range.

I second the previous statement. I was a career Naval Officer and I can positively state that loaded firearm are taboo aboard Navy ships and stations around the world. When in port, only the Officer of the Deck, who stands his watch on the Quarterdeck near the gangway will be armed with a pistol. However in all my years in the navy, I never knew the pistol to be loaded!
As for the bow sentries, they are armed with rifles. However, only in the most hostile war zone ports will these sentries have ammunition.
The reason for this is that in past years, when sentries were armed there were several civilians killed which cause nasty anti-american international incidents.

 

[TimeEntrance]

In reality, it offers no contradiction. At US military bases within the Continental US, the carrying of arms with live ammunition is generally prohibited.

I was an Army officer, the only time I could sign out live ammo was for a schedule range trip. After that I make sure that all ammo is accounted for after the range and returned to locked storage.

Live ammo was not allowed off of the range.

I would submit to you that it is a contradiction. U.S. Military bases are not gun free zones.

But then that is a matter of logic. Kind of like U.S. military bases are not flag free zones or areas absent of humans.

I would also submit to you that logic is closely related to mathematics and in that sense “emotionally autistic.” So, one might find any logic proposition “obtuse.”

Political rhetoric is another matter.

 

[TimeEntrance]

I second the previous statement. I was a career Naval Officer and I can positively state that loaded firearm are taboo aboard Navy ships and stations around the world. When in port, only the Officer of the Deck, who stands his watch on the Quarterdeck near the gangway will be armed with a pistol. However in all my years in the navy, I never knew the pistol to be loaded!
As for the bow sentries, they are armed with rifles. However, only in the most hostile war zone ports will these sentries have ammunition.
The reason for this is that in past years, when sentries were armed there were several civilians killed which cause nasty anti-american international incidents.

Excepted, at least, USMC Security Forces.

I carried a loaded 9mm with two additional magazines on me as I patrolled a U.S. Battleship.

The Marines also manned .50 caliber machine guns loaded. And upon order fired the weapon on big orange balloon-like things placed out in the water.

 

[TimeEntrance]

This is silly, I said it was less likely someone would have a gun in a “gun free zone” not that it was a 100% surety.

Ft Hood is completely different but realize that on post the troops are UNARMED. Hassan knew that he could go into the area and until the MPs arrived, shoot without being stopped. Were you aware that the troops do not have their weapons on them unless at the shooting range or during exercises? I’ve BEEN to Ft Hood, stayed on post, spent significant time with military families there. Guns are NOT allowed to be carried unless you are an MP or during designated exercises.

Further Ft Hood was a terrorist attack by an Islamic radical. Unlike many of the other mass shooters, he had a particular agenda.

Again what is your point? Demonstrating an ability to split hairs and quote Wikipedia? The thread is on the American attitude toward gun ownership. Do you have anything to say on that subject?

Lisa

I did 4 years in Marine Corps. Contrary to many peoples perceptions everything from rapes, robberies, and drive-by shootings occur on military bases. People carry concealed against the rules as well. I did. I was not the only Marine that kept a loaded pistol in his locker. And I was not the only one walking around carrying a concealed pistol on him.

The proposition U.S. military bases are unarmed is akin to the proposition the whole of the streets of the United States of America are unarmed. Neither are true.

I know it is human nature to protect ones hypothesis no matter the evidence to the contrary. This is regularly done in the sciences. People will then construct ad hocs to make their proposition irrefutable.

However, I will cede you are correct that day-to-day operations do not usually have most military personnel armed. I would summit to you that it is no different in civilian life - even in your non-gun free zones. How many banks and restaurants or places of business do you walk in seeing people armed to the teeth? Outside of police stations few to none.

 

[LisaA]

However, I will cede you are correct that day-to-day operations do not usually have most military personnel armed. I would summit to you that it is no different in civilian life - even in your non-gun free zones. How many banks and restaurants or places of business do you walk in seeing people armed to the teeth? Outside of police stations few to none.

The theory was that the Ft Hood shooter was not like the other mass shooters in finding location where he was unlikely to encounter anyone shooting back long enough to “make his point.” But in fact he was. This shooter was aware of the protocol at Ft Hood and the area where he made the attack was particularly vulnerable. Other military mass shootings have occurred in the DFACs or other places that you have large groups of people who are not armed. It’s not as if the Ft Hood shooter walked into the MPs office or started shooting at the front gate. He knew what he was doing.

As to your second point, in general most public areas are relatively gun free. The point was those areas posted with this designation seemed to be counterintuitive since they were a draw for these mass shooters, most of whom have seemingly chosen either gun free zones or areas where they do not expect anyone to shoot back.

So what’s your point? That mass shooters simply randomly select locations and would be as likely to start firing in the middle of a police precinct as an elementary school? Surely you jest.

Lisa

 

[cmcgrath22]

Many governments around the world can and do. Democratic ones too, at that.

Are individuals here seriously suggesting that American people will and should start an armed rebellion against the US government at some point if they find it oppressive?

The US government still has nuclear weapons, military aircraft, tanks, that sort of thing. They’ll win anyway. Or should every individual be allowed to have these as well, to ensure the government doesn’t become oppressive?

One thing worth remembering is that the oath of our military is to the constitution not the government in and of itself. Should this hypothetical ever come to be (it won’t) the military is your friend not foe.

 

[LisaA]

One thing worth remembering is that the oath of our military is to the constitution not the government in and of itself. Should this hypothetical ever come to be (it won’t) the military is your friend not foe.

Comforting words given what’s in the White House and Congress these days. I’m not sure most of them have read the Constitution they swear to uphold. The military is a different story.
Lisa

 

[Brendan]

I would submit to you that it is a contradiction. U.S. Military bases are not gun free zones. .

You are correct. Guns abound on a US Military base. But if you read my statement and George’s, you will note that the AMMO is restricted. Even as an Officer, I could not regualry carry a loaded pistol.

Even when I brought my Troops tanks through the base to the range, we had no ammo. That was issued at the range and returned at the range.

There could have been a whole battalion of M1A1 Abrahms in the parking lot outside of shooting, and they could have done nothing other than provide a secure place to for the people to hide around.

 

[neophyte]

Maybe because it’s not objective evidence.

You obviously haven’t bothered to study it.

And one can construct statistics to prove whatever hypothesis they want…

As someone with formal training in statistical analysis, and who makes his living using statistical methods of analysis, I can confidently say that that’s absolute, utter and complete hogwash.

What you describe is the abandonment of statistical methods.

 

[neophyte]

Addendum to post #159.

This is a famous case covered to this very day in law enforcement and military security fields. I recall a class in Security Forces school in the USMC covering this incident briefly.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_FBI_Miami_shootout

                                             The 1986 FBI Miami shootout was a gun battle that occurred on April  11, 1986 in an unincorporated region of Miami-Dade County in south  Florida between eight FBI agents and two serial bank robbers. During the  firefight, FBI Special Agents Jerry L. Dove and Benjamin P. Grogan were  killed, while five other agents were wounded. The two robbery suspects,  William Russell Matix and Michael Lee Platt, were also killed.

You think that Matix and Platt were looking to get into it with the Feds? That’s preposterous, you’re quite simply ignorant of the events. I’m from Miami, was living there at the time, and a close friend was literally the fourth house down on 122nd Street (there were bullet holes in some of the trees in her yard).

There had been a robbery and shooting at a rockpit (a popular place to target practice, I’ve been there many times); the victim survived and contacted police. The victim’s car was used in a robbery at the Barnett Bank in Pinecrest a week later, and the Feds were looking for the vehicle. When they saw it, they began to follow.

After the shootout it was discovered that Matix and Platt were responsible for a series of robberies, and a murder that had happened previously at the rockpit.

This is readily available and easily understood information, and you got it wrong. This had nothing to do with wanting to challenge the police in gun battle, and the fact that you characterize it as such reflects poorly on your grasp of the issues in general.

 

[neophyte]

Law abiding citizens in the UK do not carry guns and never have. Even before additional restrictions were put in place. I call 39 gun homicides a year a great success and crime is now at its lowest level for 30 years. It is disingenious of the US gun lobby to use UK stats over a limited period to support its aims. Bottom line is in Europe gun homicides low, in USA gun homicides, (and general homicides) high -simple as that.

So then non-gun homicides are better than gun homicides, so you can ignore them? And you lump homicides together without caring about the distinction between criminal homicide and legitimate self-defense? You think it’s disingenuous to look at the actual results of gun laws? You think that the test of success is a single raw number, with no reference to changes over time or even to other variables?

Yours is the kind of muddle-headed thinking that results in the passage of laws that make things worse.

Your facts on Switzerland are out of date. I spoke to a Swiss guy tonight and he said “Don’t you dare compare us to those crazy Americans.”

So he didn’t actually say that my facts were out of date, then.