Gun Advocates, What Say You?? (Page 2)

As a Canadian observer, I find the gun debate very interesting.  I agree with LB that, with the amount of guns in circulation in the US, taking guns away really won't work.

But why the resistance to increased controls on access to guns?  The standard response from the NRA is that "guns don't kill people, people kill people".

Well if people kill people, then what not put tighter controls on the "people" who can get their hands on a gun?  

It seems to me that any proposed legislation to increase wait times or background checks doesn't stand a chance of being passed.

John Oliver's quote puts it into perspective - "One failed attempt at a shoe bomb, and we have to take our shoes off at the airport. Thirty-one school shootings since Columbine and no change in the regulation of guns." 

the number of civilians able to defend themselves with a weapon during the commission of a crime is incredibly small, especially compared to the number of accidental and intentional gun related crimes in our country

I bolded the problem with your statement.  You seem to believe that the legal gun owners are the ones causing the Gun Violence problems.  Or did you mean to put that in pink.  That is the problem with most liberal solutions of "take the guns away".  It is not the legal gun owners that cause the majority of violent gun crime.  

NEWSFLASH, CRIMINALS THE ONES COMMITTING CRIMES. READ ALL ABOUT IT. STOP THE PRESSES

luckily, your "god" doesn't make the rules. 

Dmiller - seriously......I see what you do with the abortion argument and the :menace" thing.......so how do you get around the number of people killed by alcohol.  How can you use the agruments you use for some cases but not ALL cases?  Just curious.

Yep.....and one of the problems we are running into is that many of the people who are arrested for violent gun crimes (street murders, robberies, and other shootings) are out on bond, pre-trial release, or probation from other violent gun crimes.  It's nuts. 

Look, we have plenty of gun laws on the books to deal with violent people, and we have plenty of room in our prison system for violent people if we release non-violent offenders.... just  make room for them and enforce our current laws.......with a vengeance.

That $500,000 fine and loss of voting rights that Tech Geezer advocated will work just fine for non-violent, white collar criminals.  Violent offenders would absolutely laugh in your face if you told them they were being fined and losing their voting rights....or shoot you.

Free up prison space and lock up people who use guns in crimes....that's step one. Legalize drugs and stop the "turf wars"....it worked when we got rid of prohibition...that's step two. Identify and institutionalize people who have serious mental health problems...that's step three.  It would take a few years, but if you get those people off the street your gun crimes will drop dramatically. 

Taking guns from people who don't commit crimes is not only dumb, it's impossible, so get it out of the equation and quit spending time thinking that it's some sort of solution......it's actually not dumb......it's ridiculous.

Alcohol is only a real killer when people get in cars, at least killer of others.  We have strict rules against that and they are enforced.... to be honest the gun issue is more important to me right now, and I think alcohol is way down the list of social issues that aren't being properly addressed.

The best way to deal with alcohol and drunk driving is social stigma, much like we've reduced cigarette smoking.

OK, but the fact is that nearly the same amount of people are killed by drunk drivers then by shootings. (in 2013 it was 11,208 by shooting and 10,076 by DWI) And the fact is, many of the people who kill someone when they are driving drunk don't do a day of prison time, and if they do any time at all it is VERY short.  Just about everyone who murders someone with a gun goes to prison.  So I'm asking where the outrage is on the Drunk Driving issue?  I'm asking why gun deaths are looked at so much more vehemently than DWI deaths.  Why do we need to get rid of guns but not alcohol?

Originally posted by mdg2003 Good points LB. I think we need to make any violent crime a felony. Then, let's make gun crimes a strike three offense. Yup, life in prison for your first gun crime. No probation, no parole, no appeals. Done, your life, just as the life of your victim is forever changed for the worse. Of course we would need to reverse the current trend of neutering our Police forces across the country if we did that. Because we'd probably see a spike in officer related shootings, since facing life in prison, a guy isn't probably going to just drop his gun and peacefully go to prison. That would begin to drop once the widely accepted gun crime culture changes. Just an idea. Make criminals pay for gun crimes, not their victims and regular citizens. I see a lot of gun crime stats put forth with every push to repeal 2A rights. I never question them, because they are most likely accurate. What chaps me is that it takes an insane act of mass murder to re-open the discussion of rampant gun crime. I'm pretty sure at least nine people were killed in gun crimes this past weekend. I'll go out on a limb and suggest they occurred in cities with tight gun control and the perpetrators of these crimes didn't legally procure his/her firearm. They didn't use a 'black gun' or assault rifle, the gun show loophole wasn't in play and no more than 2-3 shots were fired ( high cap magazine irrelevant ). Just criminals killing criminals and nobody bats an eye. Yet we have a tragedy like the one in Oregon and suddenly we NEED those crime stats to make our gun control argument. Suddenly that peckerwood that got murdered in his meth lab last week counts! Gangbanger shot last month defending his corner? By golly the whole situation has brought dear Hillary to tears. We need you, now your life matters because we need to close the gun shop loop hole. We need more regulations, we need to repeal or amend 2A. Blah blah blah… I say give it to them. Close the gunshow loophole because it is a valid argument. Do more extensive background checks and put in a nationwide two week wait period. It might tick off some at first, but it won’t be an issue for law abiding citizens. I’d suggest building a national mental illness database, but that’s one super slippery slope and I have no idea how to determine who gets put on the list. The guy who sits on a bench chatting with his imaginary friend is a no brainer, but where do we draw the line in cases such as depression? My opinion is that more regulation alone will not fix the problem. What drives me to believe this is the lack of stats put forth by anyone showing that legal gun owners are the ones committing most of the gun violence in this country. Lets make American gun crime laws the strictest in the world. If you use one, steal one or get caught with one that isn't yours…you go away forever. Let’s stop and look at some new gun regulation ideas being proposed. Close the gunshow loophole. Private sales could be easily regulated and recorded. Open carry is BS and nobody needs it. Wear codpiece if you feel the need to open carry.

I know what gun crimes you're referring to, but you have to be careful with statements such as "life in prison for any gun crime".  I have a conceal carry permit and if I mistakenly walk into a building that has a "no conceal carry" sign posted I have committed a "gun crime".  I don't think you would advocate life in prison for that type of gun crime.

As for making this or that illegal it's really nonsense in the grand scheme of things because an individual who is willing to commit a violent felony with a firearm is not going to be deterred by any law.  zero, none, nada.  Murder is already a life in prison or even death offense depending on where you live, but criminals still do it.  Making it "more illegal" for him to shoot at somebody or carry a gun does nothing because in most cases they're already a felon that's not allowed to have a gun.

Back to the OP, what is the solution?  A big step in the right direction is to get rid of "gun free zones" (aka shooting ranges) because they're just stupid.  No law abiding citizen legally carrying is going to shoot up a college, only a deranged lunatic such as the idiot in Oregon is going to do that and he obviously didn't care about it being illegal to carry a gun on campus.  If it were legal to carry on campus there likely would have been dozens, if not hundreds of people near by that could take action to defend the people around them.  The Army vet who charged the shooter and took 7 bullets would have had a much better chance at saving many lives had he been allowed to legally carry in the classroom.

Similar to LB I carry every day and every where that I'm legally allowed to.  I'm not paranoid at all, but I darn sure like to have options if I need them.  I've been military trained and have spent many years learning how to handle a firearm safely and effectively.  I'd feel horrible if I were with my family and a deadly force situation arose and I had nothing other than my hands to defend myself.
I live in the nice part of Omaha, NE which is a very safe place to live, but there are crazy people here too.  We had a mall shooting several years ago at a mall where I'd eat lunch every week or so.  We had a school shooting three or four years ago and the shooter fled the school and killed himself in the parking lot in front of my office.  He was seriously 100 feet away from me and could have easily continued his rampage in my office building, but chose to punch out.

I have no problem with anyone choosing to not carry or have options because we live in American and we all have the rights to do what we want (inside the bounds of the law).  I do have a problem with people trying to take away my options, and will most certainly fight for my rights and my families.  Any legislation to change the 2nd Amendment or remove guns from society are laughable because only law abiding citizens will do it, not the criminals.  Law abiding citizens were obeying the law at the Oregon University because none of the students had guns.

On our way to hunt down an armed robbery suspect we just identified....17 years old.  This will be the 4th Robbery 1st arrest for this kid in 10 months.  Hasn't even been to trial on any of the other charges and he's out robbing other folks. (but he is on probation for his first charge on a plea deal....but no revocation due to the other arrests)  This is a non-stop occurence for us.  Virtually everybody we are looking for with regard to gun crimes are persons with prior arrests/convictions. 

We figure the general public and people wanting to get rid of guns are either ignorant of this or just clueless about how big the problem is.

Maybe for fun when we get this kid I'll tell him that I am going to see if I can get his voting rights taken away when he is 18.  LMAO

Don't forget about the $500,000 fine.

LOL  If we can get our mitts on this guy I'll see if I can subpoena his bank accounts. 

Years ago I owned a few rental houses in the poor part of town and it amazed me that everyone paid in cash.  With 12 units I didn't have a single tenant with a bank account and they all paid their rent in cash.  Nothing wrong with it, but having bank accounts is one of many things we suburbanites take for granted culturally.

Originally posted by mdg2003 I dunno Tony, we have murderers released all the time after just 8-12 years in prison. I mean life in prison, as in you leave with a toe tag on. The idea of spending up to 8 years in prison isn't reallly a deterrent any more. I honestly believe that if it meant dying in prison, people would start to rethink things. it would take a while for it to sink in, but I imagine it would eventually change things. Doing a seven year stint and getting a bitchin' teardrop tat gives you street cred. Dying in prison takes away a bit of the appeal IMO. I get your gun free zone argument and you'd certainly need to take that into consideration, but... being a proponent of CHL you obey all the laws right? I'd be curious to know how many people at that school had a CHL but were not carrying because of it being a gun free zone. Was there someone there with CHL that could have stopped this a**hole had they been allowed to carry? I wonder if anyone present at any of these mass killings were CHL people that weren't carrying because of the gun free status.

I'm not sure of the murder release stats, but I remember reading a while back that murder has the lowest recidivism rate of any violent crime for the simple fact that most offenders never get out of prison.  No question that some do, but they're likely lower degrees of murder (murder 2nd degree, manslaughter, etc.)  I've actually got a friend at church who was pardoned after 15 years for 1st degree murder.  He did rehabilitate and started the largest prison church in the nation, so he was the exception for sure.

I've often wondered about the CHL numbers who don't have their firearms with them.  Obviously we will likely never know and would have to guesstimate based on percentage of population that has a permit.  However, even then it's not accurate because many people with permits don't carry even where it is legal.
I do know that whenever I visit either of my sons at University of Nebraska or Iowa State University I lock my gun in a safe in my car when I'm on campus because it's the state law.  So, I walk around campus with an empty holster concealed under my shirt (it's a pain to take off and put back on).  Same thing when I'm at church every Sunday because in our state you can't carry at a place of worship either.  In all cases (if it were legal) I would absolutely carry in those situations.
Many people do push the limit as well because our state law says a business has to "conspicuously post" a no guns allowed sign in order for it to be illegal.  Many businesses simply put a small text on one of their 5 entrances.  They know that it would never hold up in court and make certain to go in a door with no markings to be legally safe.  I try to always be above board personally, but it would be so much easier if we were simply allowed to carry wherever we wanted.
If I'm going to shoot a place up I'm going to shoot a place up, it doesn't really matter if I'm legally allowed to carry there or not.  /facepalm

I read a story yesterday in which a student at that school was interviewed.  According to the story the guy had a CHL and was carrying when the shooting started.  His professor asked if anyone had a weapon and he raised his hand.  He stayed on lock down with the rest of his classmates and the professor, but let everyone know that he would use his handgun in defense if the shooter came through the door.  He did exactly what I would hope someone in that situation would - (1) not go running across campus to engage the shooter, (2) let those around him know he was armed, and (3) stay on lock down in a defensive mode.  Texas has had concealed carry for years and recently adopted open carry and campus carry - all of which requires training and a CHL.  Now that guns are allowed on campus, I hope there is training on how to properly act in such a situation.  University of Texas Chancellor William McRaven, former 4 Star Admiral and commander of the Navy Seals, sent a letter to the Texas Legislature when the campus carry bill was being considered.  In the letter, McRaven noted that campus will be "less safe" with the presence of guns - noting his belief that accidental discharge and self-inflicted injuries would likely rise.  He's probably right.  Once the bill became law, McRaven's focus shifted to making the campus as safe as possible with guns present.

Here's a decent response to the safety aspect of allowing conceal carry on campus.  http://concealedcampus.org/common-arguments/#8

It’s possible a gun might go off by accident.

Among the more than 150 college campuses that currently allow concealed carry, there have been three accidental/negligent discharges—two by faculty/staff and one by a student. Two of the negligent discharges were the result of the license holder carrying the gun in a pants pocket without a holster (both of these incidents resulted in non-life-threatening injuries to the license holder’s leg), and one was the result of the license holder showing a new gun—a gun with which she was not yet familiar—to her coworkers (this incident resulted in only minor abrasions that did not require medical attention). All three of these incidents could have been avoided through proper training and/or the implementation of appropriate policies (e.g., allowing colleges to require that licensed students, faculty, and staff keep handguns holstered or cased at all times) that do not restrict the ability of license holders to carry concealed handguns for personal protection.

A quick glance at CDC data from 2007 (the last year for which records are available) reveals that individuals between the ages of 21 and 24, the age group most likely to carry concealed handguns on a college campus, accounted for fewer than 70 fatal gun accidents that year, nationwide. And based on consistent trends, it’s fair to assume that most (approximately 80%) of those were either hunting accidents or incidents of someone mishandling a firearm in the home. It’s highly doubtful that even one of those incidents was related to licensed concealed carry.

From 1996-2007, the State of Texas had 1,754 convictions for ‘discharge of a firearm.’ Only three of those convictions were of license holders, and it’s not certain if any of those three convictions were related to concealed carry.

Because the trigger of a properly holstered firearm is not exposed, because modern firearms are designed not to discharge if dropped, and because an applicant for a CHL must (in most states) pass a training course covering firearm safety, accidental discharges among concealed handgun license holder are extremely rare and represent, at worst, a statistically negligible risk. SCC feels that it is wrong to deny citizens a right simply because that right is accompanied by a minor risk.