Gun Control Tramples On The Certain Virtues Of A Heavily Armed Citizenry

[FiredMotorCompany]

I bet some here are squirming in their pj's after hearing that their concept of gun control by limiting firearms for the public but reserving firearms for the police and military only, has backfired.

 

Now there's a "cop", recently fired, assassinating other cops. So how smart is it to leave your personal protection to "cops"? They are human too. And they face higher stress on an ongoing daily basis. You think a regular disgruntled employee was a danger. Now you have to face the fact that even cops are vulnerable to the same criminal behavior and blood lust.

 

Imagine the off-duty cops were banned from carrying their guns? Could an armed public citizen have ended the murders? Or were they discouraged and dis-illusioned about their responsibility to their fellow man to offer aide and assistance to protect those officers?

 

Remember, when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Too true. Too simple for most to understand.

[cal50]

Where does common sense enter into this? Why should a mentally ill person be allowed to go to gun show and buy a semi automatic assault rifle with extended clip with no background check? And then go to crowded mall and start firing lethal lead into crowd? And why should cop be put on line where many times he or she is going to be up against superior firepower that puts innocent citizens at even greater risk? So then we need to send SWAT teams into many more situations so that America resembles some kind of third world violent country that it is becoming. No wonder so many retirees are heading to other countries to live out the rest of their lives. In the name of freedon, this country is turning into armed camp. Not that it hasns't been, but it's getting worse, not better. Hard to relax going into bank, movie theater, mall, or wherever without looking for escape routes and noticing suspicious characters in American life. These tragic incidences happen far too often. Too many suicidal people want to take innocents with them. And American society makes it too easy for them to accomplish their evil, monsterous acts. There are many reasons why police departments throughout America want stricter gun control laws. The average citizen shouldn't have to worry about some errant bullet striking them, especially fiendish bullets that do maximum damage if they hit you. It's getting where the only out we have is to leave this country for a more civilized one without all this mayhem.

 

 

So incorrect on many levels but you are entitled to believe what you want.

[grbeck]

FordBuyer: No wonder so many retirees are heading to other countries to live out the rest of their lives.

 

 

Proof, please.

 

Most retirees leave this country because their money buys more in low-cost areas. My friend from India told me that $50,000 American dollars in India is like $500,000 here.

 

Many retirees were leaving for Mexico, and, as anyone paying attention to the news stories and checking the crime statistics knows, Mexico is NOT safer than the United States. Anyone who moves to Mexico because of crime in the United States is in for a rude awakening.

 

 

FordBuyer: There are many reasons why police departments throughout America want stricter gun control laws.

 

 

Events of the last two days in southern California have rendered this statement quite ironic. It gets even better when one reads the officer's rambling "manifesto" that, among other things, calls for strict gun control and demonizes that awful NRA.

 

After all, only police officers should have firearms, which would prevent shooting sprees from ever happening, right?

 

Oops!

Edited February 8, 2013 by grbeck

[FordBuyer]

Proof, please.

 

Most retirees leave this country because their money buys more in low-cost areas. My friend from India told me that $50,000 American dollars in India is like $500,000 here.

 

Many retirees were leaving for Mexico, and, as anyone paying attention to the news stories and checking the crime statistics knows, Mexico is NOT safer than the United States. Anyone who moves to Mexico because of crime in the United States is in for a rude awakening.

 

 

 

 

Events of the last two days in southern California have rendered this statement quite ironic. It gets even better when one reads the officer's rambling "manifesto" that, among other things, calls for strict gun control and demonizes that awful NRA.

 

After all, only police officers should have firearms, which would prevent shooting sprees from ever happening, right?

 

Oops!

 

Again, no one is arguing against gun ownership after background check including me. But that doesn't mean it should be legal for a mentally ill person and/or one with criminal past to walk into gun show and buy whatever he/she wants including military grade weapons. Where do we draw the line? I should be able to walk into public place and not have to worry about some crazy spraying area with semi automatic assault weapon fire fight style who bought the weapon last week at gun show. Gun fanatic defenders fantasies don't square with real world tragedies that are not rare in America, but commonplace so that we become numb to this mayhem...human life has been cheapened by this senseless violence:

 

Click here: Leonard Pitts Jr.: Gun defender fantasies vs. real world tragedies | Commentary | Detroit Free Press | freep.com

[grbeck]

Again, no one is arguing against gun ownership after background check including me. But that doesn't mean it should be legal for a mentally ill person and/or one with criminal past to walk into gun show and buy whatever he/she wants including military grade weapons. Where do we draw the line? I should be able to walk into public place and not have to worry about some crazy spraying area with semi automatic assault weapon fire fight style who bought the weapon last week at gun show. Gun fanatic defenders fantasies don't square with real world tragedies that are not rare in America, but commonplace so that we become numb to this mayhem...human life has been cheapened by this senseless violence:

 

Click here: Leonard Pitts Jr.: Gun defender fantasies vs. real world tragedies | Commentary | Detroit Free Press | freep.com

 

I'm waiting for an answer to my question as to the proof that retirees are leaving the United States over fears of violent crime, as opposed to leaving for a lower cost of living.

 

As for Mr. Pitts's editorial - he needs to read this site if he believes that the idea people use a firearm to defend themselves is some sort of NRA fantasy:

 

http://www.thearmedcitizen.com/

 

Incidentally, as I've noted in another thread, rates of violent crime in this country have gone DOWN dramatically since 1991, and the number of mass shootings peaked in 1929. The idea that America is becoming one big gun range, with open season on helpless civilians, is false.

Edited February 8, 2013 by grbeck

[FordBuyer]

You didn't answer my question as to where is the proof that retirees are leaving the United States over fears of violent crime, as opposed to leaving for a lower cost of living.

 

As for Mr. Pitts - he needs to read this site if he believes that the idea people use a firearm to defend themselves is some sort of NRA fantasy:

 

http://www.thearmedcitizen.com/

 

So you think the escalating violence in the big cities, suburbs, small towns, and rural areas has no affect on retirees who are deciding whether to stay here or not? I know it does me and my gf that is a practicing psychotherapist. We both like to travel to other countries when we get the time and visit other cultures that are less violent than ours. And we meet many other couples that feel the same way. They are looking to take their social security and pension checks and spend it elsewhere where death/injury by gun is less common. When you feel that you must be armed with assault rifle to protect yourself, it's time to start looking elsewhere.

 

And you do realize that if the gun fanatics keep on with this giving no quarter no matter how much merit or common sense it has like restricing semi automatic assault weapons and requiriing background checks on gun show sales, then the gun lobby is going have tougher and tougher time keeping more gun restriction off books as these tragedies keep on happening. The pressure will only grow against the NRA as they stick their heels in deeper after every mass killing by gun, and fight even common sense restrictions. That is a tragedy by itself.

[TomServo92]

Again, no one is arguing against gun ownership after background check including me. But that doesn't mean it should be legal for a mentally ill person and/or one with criminal past to walk into gun show and buy whatever he/she wants including military grade weapons. Where do we draw the line? I should be able to walk into public place and not have to worry about some crazy spraying area with semi automatic assault weapon fire fight style who bought the weapon last week at gun show. Gun fanatic defenders fantasies don't square with real world tragedies that are not rare in America, but commonplace so that we become numb to this mayhem...human life has been cheapened by this senseless violence:

 

Click here: Leonard Pitts Jr.: Gun defender fantasies vs. real world tragedies | Commentary | Detroit Free Press | freep.com

The only way you don't have background checks at a gun show is if you find another attendee with a firearm willing to sell it to you on the spot (which actually has nothing to do with gun shows since it can happen anywhere). Anybody with a booth selling guns has an FFL and is doing background checks. The "no background checks at gun shows" is a myth cooked up by the gun grabbers.

[grbeck]

So you think the escalating violence in the big cities, suburbs, small towns, and rural areas has no affect on retirees who are deciding whether to stay here or not? I know it does me and my gf that is a practicing psychotherapist. We both like to travel to other countries when we get the time and visit other cultures that are less violent than ours. And we meet many other couples that feel the same way. They are looking to take their social security and pension checks and spend it elsewhere where death/injury by gun is less common. When you feel that you must be armed with assault rifle to protect yourself, it's time to start looking elsewhere.

 

And you do realize that if the gun fanatics keep on with this giving no quarter no matter how much merit or common sense it has like restricing semi automatic assault weapons and requiriing background checks on gun show sales, then the gun lobby is going have tougher and tougher time keeping more gun restriction off books as these tragedies keep on happening. The pressure will only grow against the NRA as they stick their heels in deeper after every mass killing by gun, and fight even common sense restrictions. That is a tragedy by itself.

 

As I've explained in other posts, crime rates are DECLINING in this country. This is a fact. Crime is not "escalating," and you are incorrect in asserting that it is. Crime in this country has been declining since 1991. This includes murder and other violent crimes. There is no debate about this.

 

Why are U.S. retirees moving to foreign countries? Here is the answer:

 

The precise number of people retired overseas is hard to come by. About 350,000 American retirees receive Social Security benefits in countries other than the U.S., according to the Social Security Administration's annual statistical supplement. The majority of those people live in Europe, Canada and Mexico. Anecdotal evidence suggests that this number will rise: As many as 3.3 million American baby boomers are planning to retire abroad, according to figures from Travel Market Report, the industry publication. Three years ago, the paid subscription base of International Living, a magazine for retirees who live overseas or plan to, was 39,000; today, it's 80,000. (emphasis added)

 

Note that one of the top three destinations for American retirees is Mexico. I hope that they are not moving to Mexico to escape gun violence, given recent headlines from that country.

 

What's driving them abroad? Money -- or lack of it. Americans' confidence in their ability to afford a comfortable retirement is at historically low levels, according to this year's Retirement Confidence Survey, conducted by the Employee Benefit Research Institute. Only 14% of workers said they were "very confident" they would have enough money to live comfortably in retirement, according to the survey. (emphasis added)

 

If you live in the Detroit area, it is understandable that your perception of the direction of crime rates is being skewed. But the last time I checked, the city of Detroit is not being governed by NRA-lovin' Libertarians or conservative Republicans. Far from it.

 

Incidentally, Connecticut has the fifth-toughest gun control laws in the country, yet they didn't prevent the recent Sandy Hook massacre. Chicago and Washington, D.C., had laws so strict that they prevented everyone from legally keeping a handgun in their home, let alone a rifle. Yet both cities have had very high rates of crime and murder - higher than cities with looser restrictions. The idea that more gun restrictions will lead to lower crime rates has not been proven by past experience.

Edited February 11, 2013 by grbeck

[akirby]

You guys will have more luck arguing with a brick wall. FordBuyer can't comprehend facts that disagree with his perceptions.

[Ron W.]

Readers Digest version

Gun laws only affect those that obey the law, criminals don't obey the law.

Edited February 9, 2013 by Ron W.

[fmccap]

You guys will have more luck arguing with a brick wall. FordBuyer can't comprehend facts that disagree with his perceptions.

[RangerM]

You guys will have more luck arguing with a brick wall. FordBuyer can't comprehend facts that disagree with his perceptions.

It's easier to blame the guns, than the culture one lives in.

 

All you have to do is deny the guns were there before the culture.

[TomServo92]

It's easier to blame the guns, than the culture one lives in.

 

All you have to do is deny the guns were there before the culture.

 

In the past it was far easier to get guns than it is now. Semi-automatic rifles (in calibers larger than the AR-15) have been available for over 100 years. Mass shootings are relatively new development. The big elephant in the room is the question of why did the killer do it. Taking away the guns only takes away one tool the killer can use but it doesn't take away the cause. Someone who is emotionally disturbed WILL find a way to express the rage with or without guns.

[fmccap]

So you think the escalating violence in the big cities, suburbs, small towns, and rural areas has no affect on retirees who are deciding whether to stay here or not? I know it does me and my gf that is a practicing psychotherapist. We both like to travel to other countries when we get the time and visit other cultures that are less violent than ours. And we meet many other couples that feel the same way. They are looking to take their social security and pension checks and spend it elsewhere where death/injury by gun is less common. When you feel that you must be armed with assault rifle to protect yourself, it's time to start looking elsewhere.

 

And you do realize that if the gun fanatics keep on with this giving no quarter no matter how much merit or common sense it has like restricing semi automatic assault weapons and requiriing background checks on gun show sales, then the gun lobby is going have tougher and tougher time keeping more gun restriction off books as these tragedies keep on happening. The pressure will only grow against the NRA as they stick their heels in deeper after every mass killing by gun, and fight even common sense restrictions. That is a tragedy by itself.

2 things for you.

 

and........

[FiredMotorCompany]

Now Biden suggests we only need a shotgun to defend ourselves because it's easier to aim.

 

Really. Dumbing down personal defense is the answer. There's no need to take advanced firearms and personal safety training. Shotguns are the Walmart of self defense.

 

How stupid.

[TomServo92]

Now Biden suggests we only need a shotgun to defend ourselves because it's easier to aim.

 

Really. Dumbing down personal defense is the answer. There's no need to take advanced firearms and personal safety training. Shotguns are the Walmart of self defense.

 

How stupid.

If read what he said, it was only to fire off a couple of shots to scare intruders. He doesn't think you should actually use it to defend yourself.

 

Another recent fav of mine is the Colorado Dem assemblyman who said women shouldn't carry guns because they'll get paranoid that a rapist is following them and start shooting wildly. I guess he thinks women are only capable of hysterics and not critical thinking.

[FiredMotorCompany]

He suggested his wife, Jill, step out on the balcony and fire both barrels to "scare away" intruders. How many housewives would have the presence of mind to carry two more shells if the threat was not effective?

[FiredMotorCompany]

Dredging up an old, yet mostly appropriate thread from page 5....

 

Police shoot and kill a 13 year old carrying a TOY gun, in Santa Rosa, CA.

 

Have the anti-gun nuts succeeded in programming cops to react instinctively that anyone CARRYING a firearm is a threat and the use of deadly force automatically applies?

 

 

I say it may not be intentional, but we know what happens with some "good intentions".

 

 

California Sheriff's Deputies Shoot, Kill 13-Year-Old

 

Northern California sheriff's officials and family members say deputies shot and killed a 13-year-old boy who was carrying a replica assault weapon.

Two Sonoma County deputies saw the boy walking with the replica weapon around 3 p.m. Tuesday in Santa Rosa. Lt. Dennis O'Leary says they repeatedly ordered him to drop what appeared to be a rifle before firing several rounds.

The boy fell to the ground. Deputies handcuffed him and began administering first aid, but he was pronounced dead at the scene. O'Leary says deputies also found a plastic handgun in his waistband.

 

Note: the names of the officers have NOT been released. Unlike Zimmerman, there will be no charges of racial profiling, since the boy's father, Rodrigo Lopez, may NOT be a white-Hispanic, I predict. And we would only hear of the racial ethnicity of the officers only if they are white or Hispanic. If they are black....African-Americans, there could never be a charge of a hate-crime.

[the_spaniard]

I have certainly softened my stance on gun control over the years, but for different reasons.

 

My bias against assult weapons has certainly waned, largely because of the owners I meet at the local gun range. Not that they are model gun-owners, actually quite the opposite. Nearly all of the assault weapon owners I have met at ranges in TX, NC, SC, and MD were "spray and pray" idiots that could not shoot if their lives depended on it (literally). Military folks being the exception, of course. Thankfully most responsible locals that I have met consider them the same running joke I do. I don't dismiss the guns, but I do openly dismiss the owners when they deserve it.

 

The NRA has done some good in gun education, no doubt. The NRA is also backed by the gun manufacturers, and (like the tobacco industry) wouldn't care if any of us died this instant, aside from the fact it would prevent future sales. If the NRA was such a positive force in the industry, they would be doing a little better than 8% financial support among gun owners in this country. Some people recognize snake-oil when they see it.

 

I'm not a person always afraid of something. I don't buy the government is coming to get me, and I don't believe that my .45 single-action will do much against a drone 2 miles away if they were. I also havn't bought 12 new rifles and 250000 rounds of ammunition in the last two years because the current president is "coming ta' git me." I can identify who benefits from all of this paranoia, though. It's not hard. There are gun owners, and there are gun nuts. Any type of extremist is a bad thing in my book.

 

The mental health issue is a tough one. 1 in 10 Americans are diagnosed with depression. More remain undiagnosed. Most diagnostic psychological tests rely on self-report, which do miss a portion of the population. I have good friends that are veterans of Iraq/Afghanistan conflicts that have bought weapons since they have gotten home that are also collecting disability for post-traumatic stress. I would be the first to say these guys should not have access to firearms as they suffer from moderate to severe depression and ridiculous levels of anxiety. That being said they *may* be perfectly fine.

 

I would be fine with legislation being passed on how the weapons are stored though. If you can afford a Sig Sauer P220 or tricked out .308 AR10 you can afford a biometric gun case (or the like) to secure it. It should be mandatory. Can't afford that? Save your pennies, or go buy a shotgun, which despite negative comments here has proven to be a highly effective home-defense solution for many, many years.

 

I also think that negligent parents that "let" their children get them should face prosecution for unsecured weapons with a stiff mandatory minimum sentence. Yes like anything else if a person wants to get it they will get it, but it would likely provide deterrence in some cases.

Edited October 23, 2013 by the_spaniard

[Langston Hughes]

Dredging up an old, yet mostly appropriate thread from page 5....

 

Police shoot and kill a 13 year old carrying a TOY gun, in Santa Rosa, CA.

 

Have the anti-gun nuts succeeded in programming cops to react instinctively that anyone CARRYING a firearm is a threat and the use of deadly force automatically applies?

 

 

I say it may not be intentional, but we know what happens with some "good intentions".

 

 

California Sheriff's Deputies Shoot, Kill 13-Year-Old

Note: the names of the officers have NOT been released. Unlike Zimmerman, there will be no charges of racial profiling, since the boy's father, Rodrigo Lopez, may NOT be a white-Hispanic, I predict. And we would only hear of the racial ethnicity of the officers only if they are white or Hispanic. If they are black....African-Americans, there could never be a charge of a hate-crime.

 

You do realize that cops have been shooting kids with toy guns for many years, that's one of the reasons that toy guns have a orange tip. Yet to you it is liberals programming the police to do this. What a joke!

[cal50]

 

Have the anti-gun nuts succeeded in programming cops to react instinctively that anyone CARRYING a firearm is a threat and the use of deadly force automatically applies?

 

 

 

 

 

In some cases I would say "yes".

 

Look at how tactics and response has changed over the years for armed or deemed armed persons. Several years ago a person carrying a gun was handled by a couple cars responding, today its gets a SWAT team and crisis management response. A person thinks they find a standard hand grenade ( 6~8 meters kill radius). Years back it was a lower turnout , today its evacuate a city block or more and you have most of the police force and the bomb and SWAT teams rolling in. Years back peace officers were allowed to carry while flying commercial flights without many if any reported issues, just try that today unless you are a air or US marshal. These are examples from my close friends in federal and state law enforcement.

 

Back in 1988 there was a public quarry that was a local shooting hole and place to go 4 wheeling. Lots of people went there and safely fired handguns, rifles and some people ( myself included) would take a legal registered machine gun to shoot. One nice day we had 5 people shooting and the Sheriff rolled up ( 5 deputies) that asked about automatic weapon fire. I told him "Yea, its us and we have automatic weapons". No issues as to it being legal to shoot but someone called them about machine gun fire. We provided our various permits and then let the deputies run a few magazines through the various guns and they had a blast, thanked up and left with a smile.

 

If that happened today I would almost guarantee it would be a multi department response and the SWAT team would be along as well.

 

Effectively dealing with problems has changed into escalation of force and limited common sense.

The mere presence of a firearm is not an emergency situation, its where its aimed, being deployed and how the person is presenting it.

 

Katrina was one example of "securing" peoples personal firearms for public safety. Texas has enjoyed armed civilians assisting law enforcement (at times) with a "thank you".

Thank the retarded liberal mindset for most of the problems from any firearm is bad to suspending a kid for chewing his pop tart into the shape of a handgun then suspended.

[FiredMotorCompany]

 

You do realize that cops have been shooting kids with toy guns for many years, that's one of the reasons that toy guns have a orange tip. Yet to you it is liberals programming the police to do this. What a joke!

Is it not a reasonable extrapolation that, intentional or not, the ongoing anti-gun movement has permeated law enforcement to the point that ANYONE carrying a gun is a threat to be met with deadly force.....unless proven otherwise?

 

It's the rarity of gun carrying that biases the perceptions. If a larger percentage of the population carried weapons for personal defense and other legal reasons, the police would be desensitized to a degree. What happens is they ASSUME a person with a weapon is a threat and a person without one is not. Should citizens not react the same way to armed police? That THEY may be a threat. Ask the 89 year old woman who opened fire on undercover cops who broke into her house while she was in bed, because they relied on a paid informants information........supplied to maintain his income from the cops!!!!!!!!!!!! They shot her 40+ times!!!!!!! Happened in Atlanta a few years ago.

Edited October 23, 2013 by FiredMotorCompany

[FiredMotorCompany]

 

You do realize that cops have been shooting kids with toy guns for many years, that's one of the reasons that toy guns have a orange tip. Yet to you it is liberals programming the police to do this. What a joke!

What about this as an example of the risk of "trusting" police to have guns, but not citizens? Or allowing police to carry firearms on schools grounds, but banning teachers and parents from the same authority. And the reasoning was what?

It seems we may need to consider re-thinking THAT idea.

 

3 Calif. kids hurt when gun on cop's motorcycle fires

Three California elementary school students suffered minor injuries Wednesday when a gun mounted on a police motorcycle discharged during a safety demonstration at an anti-drug event.

The students were not hit by gunfire in the "accidental misfire" at Newman Elementary School about 11:15 a.m. PT, said Chino Police Department spokeswoman Tamrin Olden. Two were treated at a hospital for cuts and one was treated cuts and scrapes at the school, said a fire district spokeswoman.

"The weapon was mounted to a police motorcycle on display during Red Ribbon Week activities," a nationwide drug-prevention campaign for students, Olden said in a statement that did not explain how the gun discharged or why a loaded weapon was brought into the school. Police and school officials are investigating.

"We're still sorting out the extent of the injuries and how it happened," Olden told the Los Angeles Times.

"It's kind of strange that a gun would have been accessible, or not cleared, prior to doing the demonstration," parent Tim Everman told KTLA-TV when he came to get his son.

 

[the_spaniard]

Cops are human, and want to make it home at the end of the night. It has nothing to do with the so-called anti-gun movement, that is just silly (and overemphasizing the impact of the message).

 

Cops often (in some neighborhoods routinely) encounter people that are carrying firearms that are not legal in any way shape or form. In the first crucial seconds, how these people obtained these weapons doesn't matter to the badge on the street. Their job first and foremost is to secure the weapon so they can improve the odds they will make it home at the end of the night.

 

Believe it or not, many, many cops do not want armed citizens everywhere, and I tend to agree with them. With no standards for training and no real required training (outside of a concealed carry class which is pretty much a joke - it's all about revenue). You are assuming that any "armed citizen" knows what they are doing - and the state of education in this country says otherwise.

 

I have no problem with a trained, well educated person of solid mental standing legally carrying a concealed weapon. It's the poorly trained, poorly educated yahoos out there that have no business with a pocket knife, much less a gun I worry about. When a cop meets someone on the street, how does he know the difference on sight?

 

Don't elevate a legally armed citizen to that of responsible, non-reactionary, level-headed, cool under pressure saint that will always save the day. I don't want a completely armed populace when said populace has an eighth-grade reading level on average...which would be similar to arming a population of 13-year olds.

 

I don't have a problem with teachers being armed though - provided they complete an entire (POST) police academy successfully.

Edited October 24, 2013 by the_spaniard

[Langston Hughes]

Is it not a reasonable extrapolation that, intentional or not, the ongoing anti-gun movement has permeated law enforcement to the point that ANYONE carrying a gun is a threat to be met with deadly force.....unless proven otherwise?

 

It's the rarity of gun carrying that biases the perceptions. If a larger percentage of the population carried weapons for personal defense and other legal reasons, the police would be desensitized to a degree. What happens is they ASSUME a person with a weapon is a threat and a person without one is not. Should citizens not react the same way to armed police? That THEY may be a threat. Ask the 89 year old woman who opened fire on undercover cops who broke into her house while she was in bed, because they relied on a paid informants information........supplied to maintain his income from the cops!!!!!!!!!!!! They shot her 40+ times!!!!!!! Happened in Atlanta a few years ago.

 

 

No, it is not a reasonable extrapolation! Cops don't shoot people because liberals want gun control. That's just bullshit.

 

More people than ever carry nowadays and cops are still shooting people with toy guns. How can that be happening as the number of open carry and concealed carry has grown in the past ten years in most states?