The Gun Control Debate Thread

[Larry]

I have no problem keeping an open mind about the effect of concealed carry.  I'd like to see more honest studies about it.

Oh, I certainly think they can have an impact on society. (And I think it's a good law, at least as first enacted. Not really fond of the way the carry places keep getting expanded, and the requirements seem to keep getting reduced. But I liked the classic version.).

For one example, I'll point out that, back when Florida became the first state to enact it, almost immediately there was a rash of people getting robbed, as they came out of airports. The obvious conclusion being that robbers had altered their behavior, to target people who they knew would be unarmed.

(There were other effects. Prior to that time, rental cars in Florida had license plates that began with "R". They had to change that, because people were staging fender benders with rental cars, and then robbing the driver. Again, in what sure looks like a targeting of unarmed people).

Now, did those laws result, long term, in a REDUCTION in robberies? I can't say for sure. (And I suspect that proving it would be tough). But I don't find it hard to believe.

[abdcskins]

So I'm seeing that the mother of Harper-Mercer was a huge gun fanatic.  Not surprising.  Just like Lanza's mom.  And like Lanza, the Oregon shooter had a developmental disorder.

 

At some point you have to use common sense - don't teach your mentally ill son about guns.  Don't surround him with weapons.

[brandymac27]

Eh, you know what they say. Can't make a freedom omelette without breaking some freedom eggs. Or murdered children. But its worth it.

To who and by who? And the bigger question ... why?

[twa]

If its a choice between getting the hell out of there and helping others get the hell out, and pulling out my glock and firing at a moving target in the middle of a bunch of other moving people while jacked up with adrenaline and confusion, then the former is a far better option. I'm far more likely to do more harm than good with the latter. Much more likely to kill extra innocent people than the shooter unless you can somehow get up close to him before getting shot yourself.

Eh, you know what they say. Can't make a freedom omelette without breaking some freedom eggs. Or murdered children. But its worth it.

 

 

I'm good with holding the good Samaritan responsible for his actions.

 

seems like murder happens w/o anyone trying to prevent it.

 

and rape

 

 

and assault

 

and theft

 

 

and.....

 

 

sit it out if ya desire...or roll the dice

[TradeTheBeal!]

Twa isn't really defending the gun here. He's defending the dollar. Wealth via the gun...

[twa]

Twa isn't really defending the gun here. He's defending the dollar. Wealth via the gun...

 

I will defend my dollars with the same sweat and blood I earn them with.

 

I will also give them away when I desire.

 

nothing lower than a thief except a murderer.

[mistertim]

I'm good with holding the good Samaritan responsible for his actions.

 

seems like murder happens w/o anyone trying to prevent it.

 

and rape

 

 

and assault

 

and theft

 

 

and.....

 

 

sit it out if ya desire...or roll the dice

Is the good samaritan still a good samaritan if he ends up killing two extra innocent people while trying to get the shooter?

 

The point isn't to just "sit it out" when it comes to all the things you mentioned. But you have to at least be able to think a little bit rationally. Situation dictates response. If I have a clear line of sight or I know I can get up close to the person without them being the wiser then that is different than just opening fire in a panicked crowd. Unfortunately most people (understandably) can't really make rational decisions in those situations due to a variety of factors.That's why I think in a mass shooter situation its probably far more productive to help people run and get out of there yourself as well than to pull out your pistol and start firing away.

[twa]

Is the good samaritan still a good samaritan if he ends up killing two extra innocent people while trying to get the shooter?

 

The point isn't to just "sit it out" when it comes to all the things you mentioned. But you have to at least be able to think a little bit rationally. Situation dictates response. If I have a clear line of sight or I know I can get up close to the person without them being the wiser then that is different than just opening fire in a panicked crowd. Unfortunately most people (understandably) can't really make rational decisions in those situations due to a variety of factors.That's why I think in a mass shooter situation its probably far more productive to help people run and get out of there yourself as well than to pull out your pistol and start firing away.

 

care to tell how you determine extra? (especially in a mass shooter event)

 

I do agree rational and controlled actions are best...and it is certainly safer to flee if possible(for the survivors)

 

the police used to have the contain and try to negotiate at least till the specialists arrived....they learned playing it safe costs many lives when facing the irrational

[justice98]

The 2nd amendment has been completely ****ized, misunderstood, and misinterpreted. It doesn't mean what pro-gun people think it means.

[twa]

The 2nd amendment has been completely ****ized, misunderstood, and misinterpreted. It doesn't mean what pro-gun people think it means.

 

Nor the 1st or the 4th....or the 14th....or.

[Popeman38]

The 2nd amendment has been completely ****ized, misunderstood, and misinterpreted. It doesn't mean what pro-gun people think it means.

I love posts like this. justice98, the interpreter of the Constitution. Just take his word for it, cause he says so.

[Larry]

The 2nd amendment has been completely ****ized, misunderstood, and misinterpreted. It doesn't mean what pro-gun people think it means.

 

Actually, just a personal opinion, but I think the gun nuts are pretty spot on with their interpretation. 

 

Does the Second give Joe Citizen the right to keep and bear firearms?  Absolutely. 

 

(Now, does it give them the right to do so, without any regulation at all?  Of course not.  Any more than any other constitutional right.) 

[Busch1724]

OK, I'm not trying to take this conversation off the rails. I have found this discussion to be very interesting from both sides. Certainly there needs to be more reliable data to reveal the true effect of concealed weapon permits. Each side of the aisle enters the research with a preconceived notion that allows one to twist data for or against the position.

 

A continuous thought I've had in my mind while reading this topic. Let me preface this by saying I'm not trolling or trying to be ignorant in any way. This thought is hard to put into words, but here it goes:

 

The 2nd amendment discussion seems to me to be an issue that allows politicians to raise money for campaigns as it fires up the party base. I say that because it would appear by arguments from both sides that we are concerned about reducing the deaths from these violent acts, understandably so. However, when you look at gun deaths and look at say automobile deaths, there are more automobile deaths per ca-pita than gun deaths. So if the conversation is about saving lives, would a discussion about lowering speed limits, who drives vehicles, etc. be more effective? (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm).%C2'>

 

I know it's a separate discussion altogether, but the ranting and raving by pro and anti gun people becomes very partisan and not effective. Both sides agree mental health issues need to be addressed, but it seems both republicans and democrats only care about mental health whenever a mass shooting occurs (probably not the reality, but it sure seems that way).

[PeterMP]

I wonder if the eight murdered the other day would take that as a + ?

 

This statement completely misses his point.  It is based on the assumption that those 8 people wouldn't have been dead because the person with gun would have done something productive, and while I don't know for sure in this case that somebody wouldn't have (well, I'll actually address that point below), it is also clear that in many cases they don't (as indicated in the link).

 

You're assuming that the person with the gun would have shot the shooter, but there's plenty of history (again the link that was provided) that they don't in many cases.  They shoot and miss (and hit somebody else many times).  At that point in time, the shooter returns fire.  A GOOD case might actually turn into the shooter hits and kills the other person and then goes about his other business.  It isn't hard to imagine that in BAD case the shooter misses (hitting another by stander) and now they are both shooting at each other, and you have bullets being sprayed around the room/hall way and EVEN more people end up dead/injured.

 

Now, in this case there was actually a vet on campus with a conceal permit.  He was on the scene.  He has military experience.  HIS decision was not to go towards the situation because he didn't know law enforcements response time frame and didn't want to create a situation where he was being mixed up with the shooter (and there are actually several examples of that happening too).

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/03/1427420/-Armed-Vet-proves-NRA-wrong-and-explains-why-he-didn-t-confront-Oregon-Killer-with-Good-Guy-Gun#

 

(Note at the link there are also other examples of people carrying guns confronting other people carrying guns and shooting an innocent person, including a young man that ended up accidently shooting a kid at a movie theater.)

 

Oregon actually allows people with conceal carry permits to carry guns on campuses.  There was an armed vet in the area, and he decided the best course of action was not to charge into the situation.

Edited October 7, 2015 by PeterMP

[twa]

there was also a vet that helped get people out then went after the shooter....unarmed.

 

the one you speak of (on campus,not on scene) made the safe choice......the police used to think that way as well till the body counts rose

 

The college clearly forbids guns despite the state law btw

[PeterMP]

So if the conversation is about saving lives, would a discussion about lowering speed limits, who drives vehicles, etc. be more effective? (

 

I don't think lowering speed limits is a solution.  I think at some level that just makes thing worse because you end up with a larger gap between speeds people are going which just makes the situation more dangerous.  Better enforcement yes.

 

But even beyond speeding, I think just reckless/poor driving, and realistically that's something police in most cases don't act in a manner to prevent/identify.

 

The cop sitting on the side of the road looking for speeders or the cop that is hiding at the intersection where there is a stop sign at a time of day when there is little traffic looking to pull over the person that comes to a rolling stop. isn't going to see the person that's weaving in out of traffic where this is minimal space in between cars without using turn indicators.

 

Going 65 in the left lane in a 55 zone when there isn't much traffic or coming to a rolling stop might not be the best thing or be the safest thing, but I suspect they very rarely result in accidents/deaths.  It's the trying to go 65 when none of the other traffic around is even going 55 that I suspect is the bigger issue. 

[tshile]

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/03/1427420/-Armed-Vet-proves-NRA-wrong-and-explains-why-he-didn-t-confront-Oregon-Killer-with-Good-Guy-Gun#

 

It's just hard to take an article written that way seriously. They couldn't help but throw in an "... even though he's white" comment.

 

Also note - the vet says he would have acted to protect the people he was with. Funny how that part just gets glossed over.

 

I can't help but notice how the pro-gun control crowd spends their time characterizing someone who carriers a gun as a wannabe-hero, mocking them about how they are just waiting for a situation where they can duck and roll and take out a terrorist or a mass shooter.

 

Then when one doesn't do that, for the stated reasons, and simply says - If he came where I was I'd act, otherwise I don't want to make a bad situation worse - said group of people now goes SEE! More guns don't work!

 

What's ridiculous is how many otherwise intelligent people fall for this trick.

[PeterMP]

there was also a vet that helped get people out then went after the shooter....unarmed.

 

the one you speak of (on campus,not on scene) made the safe choice......the police used to think that way as well till the body counts rose

 

The college clearly forbids guns despite the state law btw

 

That's true, but your still assuming that if had a gun and shoot, he would have actually hit the shooter.

 

I don't think that's true (read the link).

 

The college has a policy that says no guns on campus unless especially exempt by University policy or law.  Well, the Oregon concealed permit law allows for carrying a guns on state campuses so by law if you have a conceal carry permit you are exempt.

[mistertim]

there was also a vet that helped get people out then went after the shooter....unarmed.

 

the one you speak of (on campus,not on scene) made the safe choice......the police used to think that way as well till the body counts rose

 

The college clearly forbids guns despite the state law btw

And the police can and should take action. But again, the difference there is that the police (or more likely SWAT personnel) will do so in a controlled and thought out manner with many operators coordinating their attack together. That is completely different than some civilian deciding he is Rambo and pulling out his pistol and firing in the direction of the gunman in the middle of a panicked crowd.

[tshile]

And the police can and should take action. But again, the difference there is that the police (or more likely SWAT personnel) will do so in a controlled and thought out manner with many operators coordinating their attack together. That is completely different than some civilian deciding he is Rambo and pulling out his pistol and firing in the direction of the gunman in the middle of a panicked crowd.

 

The obvious difference is one is there when the shooting is happening/starts, the other comes later.

 

Here we are again, the pro gun control group characterizing anyone who carries a gun as a wannabe Rambo

 

It doesn't matter that someone with a gun, near/on the scene, didn't in anyway act like that. All that matters is that it helps our agenda.

Edited October 7, 2015 by tshile

[PeterMP]

It's just hard to take an article written that way seriously. They couldn't help but throw in an "... even though he's white" comment.

 

Also note - the vet says he would have acted to protect the people he was with. Funny how that part just gets glossed over.

 

I can't help but notice how the pro-gun control crowd spends their time characterizing someone who carriers a gun as a wannabe-hero, mocking them about how they are just waiting for a situation where they can duck and roll and take out a terrorist or a mass shooter.

 

Then when one doesn't do that, for the stated reasons, and simply says - If he came where I was I'd act, otherwise I don't want to make a bad situation worse - said group of people now goes SEE! More guns don't work!

 

What's ridiculous is how many otherwise intelligent people fall for this trick.

 

The two things aren't necessarily opposed to one another:

 

We see a lot of people act like wannabe heroes and actually make situations worse, and then we see situations where the gun being in the area doesn't make a difference.

 

That's the point.  It is actually very difficult to be on the scene with a gun to make a difference.  The vet in this case likely made the right decision.  He didn't know what the situation is.  He didn't know how many gun men there were.  He didn't know if their might be another citizen there with a gun, and he didn't know when law enforcement would come.

 

For concealed permits to make any real significant difference, you have to start to imagine that people with real good training are just by luck going to end up in the right place at the right time (which isn't likely), or you are going to have lot's of people with real good training to make a difference and carrying their guns (which at this point in time isn't happening and isn't being required in many states).

 

Otherwise, you tend to get one of two situations:

 

1.  A trained person that makes good decisions and doesn't actually help (this case).

2.  Or a wannabe hero that actually makes the situation worse in many cases.

 

The fact that this guy didn't run in and probably did the right thing doesn't mean that there aren't a lot of wannabe heroes out there and that they don't frequently make the situation worse.

Edited October 7, 2015 by PeterMP

[twa]

And the police can and should take action. But again, the difference there is that the police (or more likely SWAT personnel) will do so in a controlled and thought out manner with many operators coordinating their attack together. That is completely different than some civilian deciding he is Rambo and pulling out his pistol and firing in the direction of the gunman in the middle of a panicked crowd.

 

It is also completely different than a armed citizen using good judgement and training.

 

 

I certainly agree if you are unsure ,then refrain.

 

while you wait for the police (8 minutes that shooting) , or they wait until he runs out of bodies or ammo

[TradeTheBeal!]

http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/oakland/2015/10/06/cpl-holder-opens-fire-shoplifter-home-depot/73468588/

Concealed Carry superhero opens fire at a shoplifter at Home Depot. This makes me feel so very safe.

[tshile]

For concealed permits to make any real significant difference, you have to start to imagine that people with real good training are just by luck going to end up in the right place at the right time (which isn't likely), or you are going to have lot's of people with real good training to make a difference and carrying their guns (which at this point in time isn't happening and isn't being required in many states).

 

Otherwise, you tend to get one of two situations:

 

1.  A trained person that makes good decisions and doesn't actually help (this case).

2.  Or a wannabe hero that actually makes the situation worse in many cases.

 

No, those aren't the only possibilities. Though I definitely understand why painting those as the only possibilities makes your argument easier.

 

My larger point is just how the pro gun control group is misleading in their arguments.

 

We have a vet, with training, with a gun, who didn't decide to be a hero, and the knock is that he wasn't close enough to the shooter to take action. Therefore he shouldn't have had a gun because he's worthless. It's such a bogus mindset on the situation, yet so many people subscribe to it.

 

The fact that he was in a room full of people that he could have helped protect if needed is just completely discarded. All that matters was that he wasn't next to the shooter, and that he didn't try to be a hero.

 

Oh wait that last part doesn't matter, it only matters when we're speaking generally about how awful it is for someone ot carry a gun. Remember those are all rambo-wannabes that will shoot the wrong people and make things worse.

[Larry]

Peter,

Granted, I'm just speculating, but I think a lot of those laws say that people are allowed to concealed carry in places X, Y, and Z, unless said place has a policy of not allowing them.  Is there anything that says Oregon allows concealed carry on campuses, even if said campus has a policy against them? 
 
twa,
 
I know that SOP is to claim that the problem is "gun free zones".  But in this case, it wasn't a gun free zone.  There was a "good guy with a gun" there.  (Whether it was allowed or not.)  And it didn't stop the shooter.  Arguing about whether said gun was allowed or not really doesn't change that fact. 

---

 

Here we are again, the pro gun control group characterizing anyone who carries a gun as a wannabe Rambo

No, he didn't.

He referred to one, imaginary, person with a gun who decides to wade into a gun fight, in the hopes of shooting the armed bad guy, thus saving countless lives, as a wannabe Rambo.
 

Edited October 7, 2015 by Larry