<p>They just enacted such a law in Florida. So far, no gun fights in the streets, despite dire warnings from the anti-gun people.</p>
<p>It’s called the Castle Doctrine: <a href=“Castle doctrine - Wikipedia”>Castle doctrine - Wikipedia;
<p>^ Or with their recently enacted CCW laws - the antis predicted that there would be blood running in the streets. But guess what? It didn’t. In fact, crime dropped. An interesting side effect was that crime increased on tourists, whom criminals could reasonably assume were not armed, unlike citizens of Florida.</p>
<p>Its interesting - I just had a very lengthy discussion with my roommates about gun control a few hours ago. One is a complete hoplophobe, and both don’t want anything to do with guns. Thats fine, I can respect that, but I can’t respect that they want to disarm everyone else. When I gave them statistics and rational arguments for why an armed citizenry is a good thing, they said that they would prefer the feeling of safety they would get from knowing that no one could legally own firearms to the actual safety that results from armed citizens. It really is a solely emotional appeal from the anti-gun movement, which is so disappointing to me. Why would people willingly give up their rights (even if they chose not to exercise them) for some amount of perceived safety?</p>
<p>^^ Yep. I want the right to protect myself and those dear to me. It’s a matter of looking for a helping hand at the end of one’s own arm. If someone is breaking into your house in the middle of the night, or robbing your business establishment, the 911 call is already too late.</p>
<p>latetoschool: </p>
<p>I’m sorry, I’ll just never agree with you or anyone else who feels that the solution to gun violence in this country is MORE guns. </p>
<p>The simple problem is that there are too many guns. </p>
<p>Yes, there are lunatics amongst us. There always have been. But the fact that they can readily obtain a gun that will shoot 200 rounds of ammo in a matter of minutes is insanity… The fact that every little “diss” in my city is settled by shooting someone… The fact that people wait to speak out until they themselves are personally victimized by this gun obsession…</p>
<p>It’s an obscene mark on our society that we can not reign in the gun bullies.</p>
<p>But then, shouldn’t we be looking to address the matter of the “lunatics”, rather than restricting or eliminating the gun ownership rights of innocent, law abiding people? Meaning, let’s get our arms around addressing the issue of the required care for the Chos among us?</p>
<p>One could also argue that the simple problem is that there are possibly too FEW guns.</p>
<p>“Now, if he had had to walk home first and find something else to kill himself with he might have cooled down. (And discovered the truth: his parents could forgive the truck accident!)”</p>
<p>So would you be in favor of a parental notification and a waiting period before an abortion could be performed? Her “parents could forgive”.</p>
<p>I heard a discussion with several police officers, army guys, etc on the radio</p>
<p>So, say you had 5 armed students on campus who decide to go after the shooter, the cops turn the corner and see one of them, how in the world does the cop know that student is not the shooter, and in fact the cop needs to assume he is…please tell me how the police officer is to determine the good guys from the bad when both have guns wandering a hallway in a building where a shooting occurred</p>
<p>“I hope no one takes it offensively: I simply consider the guns’ control debate a cyclical cause-and-effect, even nears to an infinite regress.”</p>
<p>I can’t see why; I see the evidence as very clear. Nations without widespread gun ownership have much, much lower rates of gun-related deaths. What’s so hard to understand? In our culture, we have (thus far) decided to accept those higher rates of death on the basis of principle. So we can debate about the principle (it’s a “free” country), and some folks like to appeal to the Founding Fathers who wanted to prevent the establishment of a standing army as evidence that folks should be free to walk into pawnshops, purchase automatic weapons with the serial numbers rubbed off, and as much ammunition as they like.</p>
<p>The debate is a about principle, not evidence.</p>
<p>latetoschool: </p>
<p>Well, the fact is that most gun violence is NOT committed by “certifiable” lunatics in mass shootings… That’s just the kind that middle/upper class white folks are worried about.</p>
<p>Even among the “certifiable” what diagnosis tools do you believe are available to predict this sort of behavoir? (The fact is that the vast majority of the mentally ill are MUCH more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators.)</p>
<p>I really think white middle/upper class America would view this problem a whole lot differently if they were the more-often victims of gun violence. </p>
<p>But it is the weakest, least empowered among us who live with the problem of gun violence day-in, day-out. Abused wives/girlfriends shot by their husbands/partners, poor people living in drug infested neighborhoods, old people who watch TV in their bathroom in their bad city apartments because they’re so frightened of stray bullets, children accidently shot while playing with daddy’s gun.</p>
<p>It’s all just an abstract concept to us newspaper readers in the 'burbs. But if you’d been to the funeral of the youth minister here who was shot for $10 while dropping off some kids that he had brought to see “The Lion Kid,” well, you might see the real people who are affected by this horrible violence.</p>
<p>According to the U.S Dept. of Justice , in 2005 there were 500,000 non-fatal victims of gun crime. Did not make the big splashy headlines. No outraged parents there.</p>
<p>By comparison to other rates of death, death by firearms is extremely low. If we exclude “gang” shootings (a large part of all shooting in the US) the rate is even lower.</p>
<p>For example, in Florida we just had “Bike Week” in Daytona, FL where all sorts of motorcycle enthusiasts come and mingle. Typically, about 10 or so of these folks die with every annual Bike Week. In fact, the recent news here was that Bike Week was remarkably less lethal because only 8 people died.</p>
<p>I saw no outraged postings on the CC about banning motorcycles, despite the fact more die on them every year than by firearms. By comparison, every year at Camp Perry, OH there is an annual shooting competition that draws thousands of shooters. I have yet to hear of a death at Camp Perry.</p>
<p>No specific right to motorcycles is articulated in the Bill of Rights. Why no outrage here?</p>
<p>Weenie you’re still addressing symptoms, not the base problems. Instead of taking away MY right to own a gun, why not instead focus more intently on the problems of (1) teaching women, wives to not permit abuse, and not CHOOSE abusive relationships in the first place, and strengthening the laws that relate to domestic abuse; (2) tougher drug laws (which has roots in corrupt politicians btw), and stronger, earlier education for young people; (3) crack the code on elderly issues so that so many elderly are not living in so-called “bad” city apartments; (4) educating parents AND children about guns so that they’re not “playing with daddy’s gun”…and so on…</p>
<p>Expressed differently, at least the way it is right now, elderly persons in “bad city apartments” at least have the right to arm and defend themselves, IF they choose to do so. Take away that right, and, we’ll still have elderly persons in “bad city apartments”, and, the criminals will still have plenty of guns, and the elderly will be in even more peril and disadvantaged than they are today.</p>
<p>parent2:
I suspect that depends on what demographic you belong to. But no one especially cares about the people who are the most affected - they are not the empowered ones. </p>
<p>latetoschool: It is the proliferation of guns that IS the problem. You might legally own a hand gun. Fine. But guess what they steal when they break into your house? Guess where your formerly-legal gun ends up? I feel like your argument puts the blame on the victims. Since I’ve known some of these victims, I just don’t see it that way.</p>
<p>What I do get from the tragic VT situation is that there needs to be linkage between being found (by a judge or magistrate) to be a threat to self and others and the criminal history that is run which allows the purchase of a firearm. If this had existed, this sorry fellow would not have been able to buy firearms.</p>
<p>weenie - don’t gang members elect to be at high risk? If they don’t then why aren’t all such people in gangs?</p>
<p>Also, to Weenie - criminals will always be able to get guns, even if they don’t steal legally-owned ones from their victims. Again, the argument comes down to the idea that you would disarm the law-abiding and deprive them of a means of self-defense while still doing nothing about the ability of criminals to get guns (which, to be blunt, we can do very little about - consider that prohibition and current drug laws did nothing to stop alcohol and drugs on the black market - guns will be no different)</p>
<p>Weenie, I actually do not now own, nor have I ever owned a gun. I’m too hopelessly disorganized, plus, I cannot even operate a simple toaster without catching the kitchen on fire, ruining all the bread, causing problems, etc. I know I’m like this and, furthermore, my daughter is something of the same way (except she can actually use kitchen appliances competently thank goodness), and, her little friends are sweet and cute, but hopelessly goofy, therefore, no guns in our household.</p>
<p>Having said that, circumstances may change, if some threat emerges, for example. I do want and fully expect to have the right to change my mind and buy a gun, should something happen to justify it, and should I commit to the education, planning, household organization and sort of responsibility that is necessary/advisable for gun ownership. </p>
<p>As far as blaming the victims, on some level (and certainly with the exception of the VT victims)I suppose that’s true. People often choose to be victims, or their personal presence is such that they make themselves easy targets of criminal behavior. The Mary Winkler case is a perfect example - the gun isn’t, wasn’t ever the problem. Mary Winkler is the problem, and her husband WAS the problem, until she killed him. Her testimony was that her husband began abusing her on their honeymoon. If true, she stayed in the relationship and had three children by this man because WHY??? What’s wrong with this woman? Why didn’t she leave that very day? Her feet still worked - she could have walked right out the front door. Let the lawyers do their work, and move on. We need to work on educating young girls AND boys so that they do not grow up to allow themselves to be abused, or choose to be willing participants in abusive relationships. As to Mary’s husband, why did he let this obviously unbalanced person to gain physical control of a gun? And as to the 419 scheme, if true, that’s Mary choosing to be a victim yet again. What a surprise. Oh well, she’ll be able to remain a victim, in her confort zone, perpetually if the jury decides to send her to prison. </p>
<p>So yes, I do believe people are accountable for the choices they make, and I believe we are each in whatever circumstances we’re in because of the decisions we made and the actions we took or failed to take along the way.</p>
<p>“Also, to Weenie - criminals will always be able to get guns, even if they don’t steal legally-owned ones from their victims.”</p>
<p>It’s not a very good argument, unless you want to argue that Americans are just much more likely to be criminally minded than their European or Indian or Japanese counterparts. </p>
<p>(I happen to believe that is likely to be true, and underscores the question as to why Americans would want to have firearms to begin with. Certainly it is not wild settler culture - there are lots of cultures - Canadian, Australian, Latin American, African - that had this same type of new settler culture without the glamorization of fire arms.)</p>
<p>And to be clear, guns don’t kill people: bullets do.</p>
<p>Mini, you fail to account for the fact that many countries which currently have laws banning guns…had extremely low gun usage to begin with. It’s not like the implimentation of these laws stopped people from owning/using guns…it’s just that they never owned/used them to begin with.</p>
<p>Canada? Australia? South Africa? Latin America? All of these “frontier” societies had very, very high rates of gun ownership and usage. In some of them - Australian being the best example - the heavy regulation/banning of guns is a very recent thing (i.e. within the past decade; in Australia, following the Port Arthur Massacre of 1996, in which 35 people, more than in Blacksburg, were gunned down with automatic weapons). And…it worked, if worked means very many fewer gun-related deaths.</p>
<p>Maybe someone discussed this, but the founding fathers were dealing with flint guns, do you think they imagined automatice weapons in the hands of people to shoot bunnies?</p>