Second Amendment Rights and You

[Loffter]

Oh, I'm quite open to hearing your suggestions, but so far they've been mistaken and self-contradictory. If you have some more specific, more researched ideas, please share.

Im more than willing to admit you know more about the individual guns that I do, and unfortunately I do not have the knowledge or capacity to come up with an actual plan that would be politically safe and totally logical. I just want something done, and something big. The more I get into social and world politics, the more angry I get. I've never said I knew how to fix it. Honestly? Yeah, if I could just destroy every gun in the world I would, instantly. But obviously that's not an option. I'm just tired. I see everything, and I just get tired. It's exhausting caring about EVERYTHING, but that's who I have become.

And dont take this as an apology, because I dont feel I owe one.. but I will give an explaination. I Get mad. That's how I deal with things. It helps me think, and keeps me motivated. so when I am in a debate like this, I let my passion take over and say whatever is on my mind. More than once I've called people idiots to their face, because I call them like I see them. This includes my sister and my dad. So when I have seen multiple gun related deaths in America this last week, including but not limited to 20 children, you are gonna see me in high heat. That's just who I am.

[Jakk]

Im more than willing to admit you know more about the individual guns that I do, and unfortunately I do not have the knowledge or capacity to come up with an actual plan that would be politically safe and totally logical. I just want something done, and something big. The more I get into social and world politics, the more angry I get. I've never said I knew how to fix it. Honestly? Yeah, if I could just destroy every gun in the world I would, instantly. But obviously that's not an option. I'm just tired. I see everything, and I just get tired. It's exhausting caring about EVERYTHING, but that's who I have become.

Then there is a lot that you and I agree on.

And dont take this as an apology, because I dont feel I owe one.. but I will give an explaination. I Get mad. That's how I deal with things. It helps me think, and keeps me motivated. so when I am in a debate like this, I let my passion take over and say whatever is on my mind. More than once I've called people idiots to their face, because I call them like I see them. This includes my sister and my dad. So when I have seen multiple gun related deaths in America this last week, including but not limited to 20 children, you are gonna see me in high heat. That's just who I am.

I know the feeling. But keeping a cool head is how you keep a conversation in the realm of productive discussion and out of the realm of a name-calling contest. Further, it forces your bias and prevents you from viewing the matter objectively.

[Blah]

I have to agree with Lofter on the semi auto ban. I also think Jakk you purposely reinterpreted what was said about needing guns. I don't think Lofter meant society doesn't need any guns, military, police and security do, but Joe Civilian doesn't need guns. Especially not anything that has a capacity of more then about 10 shots, I'll grant you sometimes you miss the coyote and need to shoot again, but if you ever need to shoot more then 10 bullets as a civilian, you're probably the cause of the next massacre. Self defense isn't likely to turn into a prolonged shootout.

Also, can I get some clarification on something. In the US if you have the license you can carry a concealed weapon right? But if you shoot someone wouldn't you have broken the law? So does that mean that the gun is only a deterrent?

Another question, while I remember it for you Jakk, do you feel safe walking down the street of a decent sized US city? Or more to the point, in a not so well patrolled part of said city. Because the stats you said earlier that said Aus has higher non gun related violence made me think. I've never felt unsafe even in the worst suburbs here, the worst I'd expect is maybe to get some verbal abuse, but do you feel safe walking the streets knowing your country has more guns then people and a higher gun crime rate then most 3rd world countries?

[Jakk]

I have to agree with Lofter on the semi auto ban. I also think Jakk you purposely reinterpreted what was said about needing guns. I don't think Lofter meant society doesn't need any guns, military, police and security do, but Joe Civilian doesn't need guns. Especially not anything that has a capacity of more then about 10 shots, I'll grant you sometimes you miss the coyote and need to shoot again, but if you ever need to shoot more then 10 bullets as a civilian, you're probably the cause of the next massacre. Self defense isn't likely to turn into a prolonged shootout.

As I've said before, Americans on principle believe that if a right is going to be taken away from people, the benefits of doing so should be proven first. We don't ask people to prove why they deserve rights. There is not sufficient evidence to prove that removing guns from civilians' hands provides a greater benefit than leaving them in the hands of responsible citizens. In essence, you're right, nobody NEEDS guns. They also don't need alcohol, tobacco, fast food, or a number of other conveniences. Though I would actually argue that firearms are more of a necessity than alcohol or tobacco, because firearms carry the potential to save your life. I've spent most of my life constantly thinking about what I would do or how I would react if someone wanted to kill me on any given day. Sounds paranoid to you, I'm sure, and I bet two weeks ago any faculty member at Sandy Hook would have said it sounded paranoid too. If someone is going to attack you, the police or military cannot and will not realistically respond in time to save you. Running and hiding will not suffice, and when it's time to fight back, I would rather be equipped with the right tool for the job.

Also, can I get some clarification on something. In the US if you have the license you can carry a concealed weapon right? But if you shoot someone wouldn't you have broken the law? So does that mean that the gun is only a deterrent?

It varies depending on state law, but in general you can shoot someone in self-defense or defense of another. It is an absolute last resort when death is imminent, and must be proven as such in most cases (except in states like Florida where the law supports that you shoot first any time you feel your life is threatened, which is what leads to tragedies like Trayvon Martin). In a public mass shooting situation, the instruction even if you have a CCW is to run the fuck away or help other people, you are never supposed to run TOWARD the fire and attempt to engage the shooter unless left with no alternative. So, primarily, concealed carry is a deterrent, yes. But there have been a significant number of cases when people found need to use a concealed firearm in self-defense, and when the court finds these cases justified then the shooter is not charged with a crime.

Another question, while I remember it for you Jakk, do you feel safe walking down the street of a decent sized US city? Or more to the point, in a not so well patrolled part of said city. Because the stats you said earlier that said Aus has higher non gun related violence made me think. I've never felt unsafe even in the worst suburbs here, the worst I'd expect is maybe to get some verbal abuse, but do you feel safe walking the streets knowing your country has more guns then people and a higher gun crime rate then most 3rd world countries?

I work as an unarmed security guard. By policy I am not permitted to carry a firearm to or at work. If someone attacks me, my instructions are to run away. My patrols take me through some of the richest condos and the most expensive office buildings, as well as through the seediest neighborhoods and through the darkest alleys. Every night I ride through a district where a guy threatened me with a taser, and I blow through every red light doing it and don't make eye contact with anybody because fuck that shit. But generally, yeah, I feel pretty safe. I am not exactly everybody's favorite target. Most people don't go looking for a fight, so when they see a fairly in-shape ethnic minority sporting a military haircut with a scar on the bridge of his nose, their first instinct isn't to take me as a victim. Generally I don't get the feeling that I'm going to get shot. I prepare for it, in case I do, and I always have a plan for what to do if the need arises, but yes, I feel perfectly safe.

Also you're completely wrong about the US having more guns than people. We have about 89 per 100, if you round up, and our rate of gun-related homicides is at 3.7 per 100,000 as opposed to 10 per 100k in Mexico, 18.1 per 100k in Brazil, and 27.1 per 100k in Colombia, just to name a few. El Salvador is over 50 gun related deaths per 100k, but that's not split up into homicides, suicides, and accidentals, so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. The US owes most of its gun-related deaths to suicides.

[agentX]

Where I live currently (South Korea) gun crimes are exceedingly rare. There are many sociological reasons for this, but one thing I'd like to point out is that firearms are heavily regulated (not banned) and are stored at the police station. You wanna go hunting? You pick up your gun at the station. The weapons involved with hunting are single shot rifles and shotguns, not AR-15 Bushmasters and drum clips.
http://askakorean.blogspot.kr/2011/0...-in-korea.html

This system works very well. Notice I said "VERY WELL" not perfectly. Mistakes do occur. This year some guy got fired at work, went to the station and checked out his shotgun, lied about what he was hunting (and the idiot cops believed him), went back to work and shot 3 people, then started a high speed police chase. http://koreajoongangdaily.joinsmsn.c...5/2948555.html
So this system is NOT perfect, but it seems to work pretty well.

[Blah]

As I've said before, Americans on principle believe that if a right is going to be taken away from people, the benefits of doing so should be proven first. We don't ask people to prove why they deserve rights. There is not sufficient evidence to prove that removing guns from civilians' hands provides a greater benefit than leaving them in the hands of responsible citizens. In essence, you're right, nobody NEEDS guns. They also don't need alcohol, tobacco, fast food, or a number of other conveniences.

Note I'm not saying no guns, I'm saying nobody needs a gun that can fire more then 10 rounds quickly without reloading. Yes we don't need alcohol, tobacco. fast food or a number of other things, but apart from tobacco killing you slowly, none of those things are designed to kill, so there's not so much harm having them.

I'm actually fine with people having guns, as long as they are well regulated. In Aus, you need to prove you need it, and then store it in a gun safe when it's not in use, keeping the key some place only you know of or better yet in a combination safe only you know the code to. The latest massacre was with legal guns owned by his mother which he found and shot her with before he started. If they had been stored securely, it would've made it alot harder for the guy to achieve his goals.

As for illegal weapons being a reason being a reason why everyone needs legal weapons to defend themselves. I personally feel if the police didn't have to deal with so many idiots misusing legal guns, they'd have more time to try and get the illegal ones off the streets.

[Jakk]

Note I'm not saying no guns, I'm saying nobody needs a gun that can fire more then 10 rounds quickly without reloading.

You're right, nobody needs more than ten rounds. More specifically, Cho didn't need more than ten rounds without reload at Virginia Tech to rack up the highest body count of any school shooting. He just needed a backpack full of magazines.

Yes we don't need alcohol, tobacco. fast food or a number of other things, but apart from tobacco killing you slowly, none of those things are designed to kill, so there's not so much harm having them.

Not designed to kill, no, but to say that there's "not so much harm" from having them is ridiculous. Do we really need to bring up the annual body count of drunk driving, lung cancer, and colon cancer, then compare it to shootings?

then store it in a gun safe when it's not in use, keeping the key some place only you know of or better yet in a combination safe only you know the code to. The latest massacre was with legal guns owned by his mother which he found and shot her with before he started. If they had been stored securely, it would've made it alot harder for the guy to achieve his goals.

This we can agree on.

As for illegal weapons being a reason being a reason why everyone needs legal weapons to defend themselves. I personally feel if the police didn't have to deal with so many idiots misusing legal guns, they'd have more time to try and get the illegal ones off the streets.

In terms of things police have to waste their time on that keep them from focusing on eliminating illegal firearms, misuse of legal firearms isn't terribly high up there.

[Blah]

Not designed to kill, no, but to say that there's "not so much harm" from having them is ridiculous. Do we really need to bring up the annual body count of drunk driving, lung cancer, and colon cancer, then compare it to shootings?

No we don't have to bring them up. I find smoking ridiculous to start with so wouldn't care if that was banned too. As for drink driving, you can be irresponsible with alcohol and not hurt anyone, considering drink driving is already illegal, I wouldn't use that as a comparison as drinkings main reason isn't to get behind the wheel, I'd use the stats on how many die from liver disease and other such things. And you need a life time of bad eating for fast food to really kill you, but one mistake with a gun you can be dead, doesn't take a life time. Gun's main use it to wound or kill, it's not a shield and it's effect as a deterrent relies completely on the mindset of the guy with the other gun. The more guns you have out there, the more people get shot, whether they're the good people or the bad

[Jakk]

No we don't have to bring them up. I find smoking ridiculous to start with so wouldn't care if that was banned too. As for drink driving, you can be irresponsible with alcohol and not hurt anyone, considering drink driving is already illegal, I wouldn't use that as a comparison as drinkings main reason isn't to get behind the wheel, I'd use the stats on how many die from liver disease and other such things. And you need a life time of bad eating for fast food to really kill you, but one mistake with a gun you can be dead, doesn't take a life time.

See, earlier you asserted that these things harmful. Should I take this to mean that you only consider something harmful based on the amount of time it takes to kill you, rather than its statistical likelihood of killing you?

Gun's main use it to wound or kill, it's not a shield

An apt comparison, given that a shield is useless in ending a fight (and in any fight, ending it ASAP should be your main objective).

The more guns you have out there, the more people get shot, whether they're the good people or the bad

This is statistically untrue, going from Switzerland and Israel.

[Blah]

There's a world of difference between US and Switzerland, for one thing there still isn't that many guns in switzerland per capita compared to the US despite their more relaxed gun policy

In 2005 over 10% of households contained handguns, compared to 18% of U.S. households that contained handguns. In 2005 almost 29% of households in Switzerland contained firearms of some kind, compared to almost 43% in the USA

Then you have the fact that they don't have an army, they have a standing militia, so all 20-30 year olds are given military training and have guns at home (without spare ammo, just enough to get them to the army barracks incase of attack) meaning even though alot of people do have guns, they're all fully trained in their use and the country as a whole has a good gun culture, so there is very little misuse.

I'm saying statistically, in the US with the gun culture and laws you have, that it's a logical assumption that more people will get shot if there are more guns to shoot with. It's very hard to shoot someone if you don't have a gun to start with.

An apt comparison, given that a shield is useless in ending a fight (and in any fight, ending it ASAP should be your main objective).

And as pointed out before in this topic, a gun can escalate the situation rather then ending it, it all depends on the situation.

See, earlier you asserted that these things harmful. Should I take this to mean that you only consider something harmful based on the amount of time it takes to kill you, rather than its statistical likelihood of killing you?

yes. because the other things being harmful over time you can take steps to stop it killing you and the choice is yours at any time to stop, a bullet in your chest is a little more immediate and you don't really have an option of quitting the bullet tearing your organs apart.

Also you don't really need a gun in daily life, it's not like you get mugged at gunpoint every day, the majority of people never will. You WANT a gun in case something happens, but we've pointed out before, pulling a gun on a person with a gun is as likely to get you killed as save you. Most muggings the guy just wants your valuables, he doesn't want to be hunted by the police for your murder, or he'd shoot you to start with instead of asking. Bring a gun into it and you've made him fear for his life, he may panic and run, or he may shoot you given he already has his gun pointed at you and you're trying to pull yours out, but either way, you've gone from a situation where he wasn't going to pull the trigger, to one where you or he feels the need to to save themselves.

[Jakk]

Then you have the fact that they don't have an army, they have a standing militia, so all 20-30 year olds are given military training and have guns at home (without spare ammo, just enough to get them to the army barracks incase of attack) meaning even though alot of people do have guns, they're all fully trained in their use and the country as a whole has a good gun culture, so there is very little misuse.

So essentially you're saying that gun violence can be reduced by proper training and education? That much we can agree on. Fear-mongering and sensationalizing are pretty counter-productive to that end.

And as pointed out before in this topic, a gun can escalate the situation rather then ending it, it all depends on the situation.

...

but we've pointed out before, pulling a gun on a person with a gun is as likely to get you killed as save you.

Uh, YOU asserted these things, based on your loose interpretation of one sentence in a wikipedia article which misquoted the source it cited. The claim was proven baseless in a post you never bothered to respond to.

Also you don't really need a gun in daily life, it's not like you get mugged at gunpoint every day, the majority of people never will.

Most people will also never be shot in a massacre. The point isn't the likelihood of the event, but the severity of it. If you didn't agree with that, you wouldn't be claiming that saving lives through outlawing firearms is more important than saving lives through outlawing alcohol or tobacco.

It's true that in the grand scheme of things, there are few problems that can only be solved by shooting someone. The mass murder/mass shooting situation is one of those, and you can either hide in the corner (AKA sit and wait to die, which is the current plan in place in most schools and what leads to so many students dying before the police show up), or put a stop to the threat. Without the means to stop the shooter, you are a sitting duck. Doors and hiding places don't cut it. Waiting for the police obviously doesn't cut it. In our recent Clackamas mall shooting, police didn't find the shooter until well after he was done. If he'd actually set out to kill as many people as possible, the body count would have been a lot higher (even taking into account the CCW holder who was on site but couldn't bring himself to shoot). In my state, as well as many other areas of the US, the police are horribly under-staffed and losing budget every day. The Lane County Sheriff's department has lost so much funding that they've outright released violent criminals back into the population due to not being able to support a jail. Criminals from all over the region are now pouring into the county because they know they won't go to jail there.

A police response is NOT adequate protection when lives are at stake, not in our country. You can argue all you want that guns make it easier for someone to kill 20 first graders, but I could kill 20 first graders with my bare hands if all they're going to do is sit and wait for someone else to save them. The point of the second amendment is less about the right to firearms specifically, and more about the right to do what's necessary to stand up for yourself and save your own life.

[Babydoll]

The idea that someone needs to carry a gun, or is able to carry a gun around on a day to day basis is so alien to me I find it hard to form any opinion about another country. In England even our police officers mostly do not carry guns. So honestly, I couldn't say either way. I suppose that if guns were not available as readily in the US, if someone wanted to commit a crime, there would be other methods, however I haven't seen the stats in relation to being legally able to have weapons and the correlation between crimes committed with them.

[Blah]

Uh, YOU asserted these things, based on your loose interpretation of one sentence in a wikipedia article which misquoted the source it cited. The claim was proven baseless in a post you never bothered to respond to.

Someone else in this topic or the other one linked to shootings that happened because the person being attacked tried to pull a gun. I wasn't saying it will ALWAYS get you killed, just that it doesn't always save you either, are you trying to claim that having a gun on you for self defense will always save you? God I hope you're not that naive.

As to armed people on campus, if you do that, the gunman knows exactly who to shoot first before he reacts. They've also had armed people on campus before, they had them on site at Columbine, didn't help. Personally I'd just install strong lockable doors with bullet proof glass. There's nothing wrong with the idea of sitting and waiting for the police, as long as you can do so securely, which is why it's irresponsible of schools without securable rooms to tell everyone in an emergency to stay in them.

On another note, there was a expose done this week on gun deaths in the US, in the week since the massacre there has been 100 more gun deaths in the US and most of them were done with legal guns. Seems to me after you keep telling us about all the illegal weapons in the US, that it's strange that they're very rarely the guns used to kill anyone.

[Jakk]

Someone else in this topic or the other one linked to shootings that happened because the person being attacked tried to pull a gun.

Can you link me?

I wasn't saying it will ALWAYS get you killed, just that it doesn't always save you either,

And that's why firearms owners are responsible for determining when it would be helpful or harmful to try and use one. Again, proper training and education are far more beneficial than fear-mongering and bans.

As to armed people on campus, if you do that, the gunman knows exactly who to shoot first before he reacts.

Is this why Israel's policy of arming people has been so effective? If a shooter has only one school resource officer to target first, then yes, this argument makes sense. If there are even a small handful, that's several that have to be dropped at the same time. Simply arming people won't prevent shootings from ever happening, no, but it certainly makes it less appealing to try, and can prevent a situation from escalating or continuing far longer than it should.

They've also had armed people on campus before, they had them on site at Columbine, didn't help.

Where are you finding this information? The most I can find is a sheriff's deputy arriving on scene, exchanging fire, and being unable to pursue alone.

Personally I'd just install strong lockable doors with bullet proof glass. There's nothing wrong with the idea of sitting and waiting for the police, as long as you can do so securely, which is why it's irresponsible of schools without securable rooms to tell everyone in an emergency to stay in them.

I can agree that improving the security in this manner is an excellent idea, and not doing so is the most irresponsible oversight Americans have made in the aftermath of these shootings. You say there's nothing wrong with just sitting and waiting for the police, I disagree. No lock is perfect, no wall is impassable with time and determination. I don't care how strong the door is between me and a shooter, if I can't fight back I'm as good as dead.

On another note, there was a expose done this week on gun deaths in the US, in the week since the massacre there has been 100 more gun deaths in the US and most of them were done with legal guns. Seems to me after you keep telling us about all the illegal weapons in the US, that it's strange that they're very rarely the guns used to kill anyone.

Where is your source on this?

[Blah]

Can you link me?

It was in the mass killings topic but wasn't what I thought it was, just one of the articles saying that on more then one occasion someone pulling a gun to try and stop a massacre failed, in one case he was killed. Problem is in quite a few of these massacres, they're wearing body armour, so pulling a gun on them is likely to make them shoot on you and your handgun wont do shit to them. As for trying to find articles about people being shot trying to pull guns on armed men, Google is being a bitch about it and linking me to shit I didn't ask for. I need to get the wording right or it keeps giving me police killing armed robbers.

And that's why firearms owners are responsible for determining when it would be helpful or harmful to try and use one. Again, proper training and education are far more beneficial than fear-mongering and bans.

If everyone was fully trained and educated, I'd be a lot happier, but we both know they're not as witnessed by how many legal guns are responsible for killings, they're not all deranged gunmen.

Is this why Israel's policy of arming people has been so effective? If a shooter has only one school resource officer to target first, then yes, this argument makes sense. If there are even a small handful, that's several that have to be dropped at the same time. Simply arming people won't prevent shootings from ever happening, no, but it certainly makes it less appealing to try, and can prevent a situation from escalating or continuing far longer than it should.

Yet again, big difference between Israel and US gun culture, it goes back to the above point about being trained and educated, most Israelis do armed service and are fully trained. In the US most teachers never expected to have to fire a gun in their jobs, or possibly kill someone. It's ok for Police officers (since you made that comparison earlier) They choose a career knowing they may need to kill someone. They also spend years training and being conditioned around guns. If you went to teach and arm the teachers now, they'd have a very short training and be left in a situation they never signed up for. Not to mention teachers snap alot, it's a very stressful job, and not having a gun has probably saved children's lives in the past.

Where are you finding this information? The most I can find is a sheriff's deputy arriving on scene, exchanging fire, and being unable to pursue alone.

yeah sorry again, other thread someone said it was security, got to stop believing everyone around here has done their research.

I can agree that improving the security in this manner is an excellent idea, and not doing so is the most irresponsible oversight Americans have made in the aftermath of these shootings. You say there's nothing wrong with just sitting and waiting for the police, I disagree. No lock is perfect, no wall is impassable with time and determination. I don't care how strong the door is between me and a shooter, if I can't fight back I'm as good as dead.

determination they may have, but they don't have a lot of time, most of these things only last a matter of minutes and unless he's going to pump a few hundred rounds into a wall with an assault rifle, he's not likely to blow a hole in a wall in time, and if he can, your schools walls aren't up to scratch. And if you'd been armed and in the class of the latest massacre, You'd have to have been an amazing shot, he was wearing a vest and mask, you'd have to have aimed for arms or legs. Even worse in the Aurora shootings, he was decked out head to toe in armour.

Where is your source on this?

http://www.news.com.au/world/obama-v...-1226542151230 this isn't the expose itself, just a news article saying little bits about it, then long winded crap about the NRA and Obama.
Also this http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...-shootings-map tells us more then 3/4 of the guns used were legally obtained.
I'll also post this one as interesting reading http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...united-states/

I'm seeming to be having trouble finding any kind of statistics about legal gun use vs illegal gun use in gun deaths, seems the US just doesn't keep those stats, yet I saw them quoted in half a dozen articles as being about 3/4 of all deaths were using legal guns, unfortunately none of the articles said where they got the numbers.