<p>
</p>
<p>When you say “most” are you talking about square miles or are you talking about people? If you’re talking square miles - yes, vast swathes of the country are sparsely populated. But so what? The majority of the population of the US is in urbanized or suburban areas, not rural areas.</p>
<p>Except that the mass shootings that prompted this discussion haven’t taken place in urban settings. Newtown. Aurora. Columbine. Virginia Tech… Not urban.</p>
<p>
That depends on how you decide it’s ‘successful’. Most buybacks net a minuscule percentage of guns in the area - way less than 1%. Check the numbers for any of the buyback events. Don’t count on buybacks making a big difference.</p>
<p>
So how do you define the disparaging term ‘hicks’ - from a small town, has a farm/ranch, is uneducated, anyone who owns a gun? </p>
<p>Since many if not most of the shooters are not what some people would describe as ‘hicks’ or ‘cowboys’, etc., what’s the point of focusing on them? </p>
<p>
They’re not exactly out in the sticks. Aurora and Columbine are basically Denver - well populated adjacent suburbs.</p>
<p>And it’s illogical to think that those who advocate a sales ban of ‘assault weapons’ would end up stopping there and wouldn’t advocate banning all weapons. Even the advocates on this thread - would you really stop there? I know some have indicated they would but it doesn’t make any sense. If the assault weapons instantly disappeared then the next shooting will be with other types of guns - hunting rifles, shotguns, handguns. Once that occurred, and I doubt anyone can reasonably contest that it would occur, what would these people propose to solve the issue in reaction to it? Since they feel that a gun sales ban is the solution then of course they’d propose more gun sales bans - bans of additional types of guns until they’re all banned. And then when the sales are all banned yet the shootings still occur, then what? Since these people are focused on the implement rather than the person committing the crime, they’d likely propose a confiscation of existing guns. Why wouldn’t they? It’s a logical progression of how they think the issue should be addressed (by focusing on elimination of the implement even though the vast majority of owners of those implements don’t commit these crimes).</p>
<p>The thing I find distressing about these sorts of discussions is how much focus there is on theoretical discussions of “What woulda, coulda, shoulda happened if…” That sort of thinking underlies the premise of “Bad guys shoot good people; good guys will shoot the bad guys; the end result will be good.” Real life is rarely, if ever, that simple. Here’s an example of a not-untypical result of that sort of thinking (in a rural area, incidentally): ['I</a> was afraid ‘that we were all going to die’; defendant takes the stand in murder case - Times-Standard Online](<a href=“I-10 commute snarled by criminal probe east of Los Angeles – Times-Standard”>‘I was afraid ‘that we were all going to die’; defendant takes the stand in murder case – Times-Standard)
The story, in sum, is that a bunch of low-life burglars returned to an apparently empty house they had sloppily burgled the day before, to finish the job. But the owner had returned and was in the house with his 50 year old father - and they had guns. Now, there’s no question here: owner and Dad: good guys. Burglars: bad guys.</p>
<p>So what happened? Details don’t seem to be too clear, but basically, the homeowner and his Dad seem to have followed the NRA playbook. They confront the crooks, who try to flee when they hear them coming. But Dad shoots out the tires of their truck, then walks up and shoots into the cab of the truck through the windshield. Two of the four burglars are hit by shots fired by Dad and homeowner, and one of them pulls out a 9 mm and shoots back, through the door and window of the truck. </p>
<p>Dad is shot and dies. </p>
<p>An already-foiled burglary turns into a situation where a volunteer firefighter and solid citizen is dead. I don’t see that as a good outcome. Certainly not for Dad’s family. “Good guy shooting bad guy” escalates the situation to everyone’s loss. (This is not an isolated instance. I know of other events in my area where a homeowner started shooting at crooks and ended up being killed himself. People don’t seem to consider that turn of events when they buy guns “for protection.”)</p>
<p>So would a scenario play out in a school where providing a good guy with a gun results in good people being dead who wouldn’t otherwise? I don’t see any reason why not. Putting lethal firepower into more hands just makes more opportunities for normal miscalculations and errors in judgment to become fatal mistakes. “The implement” not only makes a difference in outcome, it affects the judgment of the people involved, whether they’re good guys, bad guys, and all the in-between shades of morality. The real world isn’t as neat and tidy as TV shows make it look.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How charming, lovely and sophisticated. You do realize this is nothing to brag about.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>most of the people I know in Danbury consider it a suburb of NYC and work in NYC. Aurora is a part of Denver. My daughter was almost at that theater that night. I woke up in the morning to a text from her from the night before. “Im fine. Call me when you wake up before you read the newspaper. I am fine and so are all my friends.” she lives in Denver. Columbine is a suburb of denver/boulder. I actually have no idea where Virginia Tech is… mea culpa.</p>
<p>Also, for the purpose of being specific, you might want to look to see what the Census labels as urban. When people talk about “most of the country” living in urban areas, a lot of what they are talking about are not places that I, from Chicago, would consider urban at all. But, for statistical purposes, they are. Just fwiw.</p>
<p>^ Blacksburg.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That really is a matter of personal opinion. I value ALL of my constitutional rights.</p>
<p>The mass shootings took place in urbanized areas. Aurora and Columbine are suburbs of a major city. Newtown is a suburb of a major city. They weren’t in rural areas of the gotta-have-my-gun-so-I-can-protect-against-bears variety.</p>
<p>Dragonflygarden, people have a constitutional right to shout disgusting, hateful racist rants at the top of their lungs on a street corner downtown, too. I wouldn’t brag if that was common in my hometown. Would you? Seems to me the constitution has nothing to do with it.</p>
<p>But I’m not sure why, in an area where there aren’t a lot of gun deaths, it should be considered the same as shouting racist, disgusting, rants, to carry your weapon. I mean, I know why I am uncomfortable with it. But, there are a lot of Americans who live differently than we do here in the urban centers, and acting as if what they do signals the same thing it would signal here is less tolerant than most people are of those who force women to wear Burkas. </p>
<p>It seems like we need to begin to understand each other in the U.S. There is more than one culture here.</p>
<p>ETA: Are there rules about taking your gun out of the holster in open carry situations?</p>
<p>Kluge- 'Seems to me the constitution has nothing to do with it."
I’m not sure what you mean by that^</p>
<p>Poetgrl- "ETA: Are there rules about taking your gun out of the holster in open carry situations? "
Are you referring to the act of brandishing or simply having your weapon outside of a holster?</p>
<p>I think they carry to prove their manhood or something.</p>
<p>Dragonfly-- So, if you and me are in the walmart together, and you unbuckle your holster and take the gun out, it would make me uncomfortable. So, are there rules about that?</p>
<p>First of all why would I do that? Secondly my holster does not buckle. Thirdly that would likely be considered brandishing- which is against the law.</p>
<p>I dont know why you would do that. I’m just trying to figure out how that works. that’s all.</p>
<p>ah.<br>
Definition of BRANDISH
1 : to shake or wave (as a weapon) menacingly
2 : to exhibit in an ostentatious or aggressive manner</p>
<p>I love this from wikipedia, and I think it’s absolutely how I (as a northerner who has always lived in urban / suburban areas) think:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>From the same article - here is the rate per 100,000 population for homicide by firearms.
Mexico - 10
US - 3.2
Switzerland - 0.52
Canada - 0.5
France - 0.23
Germany - 0.2<br>
Sweden - 0.19
Australia - 0.1
UK - 0.03
Japan - 0.01</p>
<p>But hey, as long as someone can feel like a real man by carrying his gun around Walmart or the grocery store, that’s pretty much all that counts. What’s a few dead high school students in CO / college students in VA / meet-your-congresswoman attendees in AZ / movie-goers in CO / dead children in CT compared to all that swagger? </p>
<p>And if that’s offensive, oh well. So be it. I’m offended by dead children, AND I’m offended by the complete lack of willingness to admit that the US has FAR more deaths per capita due to guns than comparably civilized countries.</p>
<p>Here is the article referenced by eastcoastcrazy, about requiring gun owners to carry liability insurance: [Requiring</a> insurance could help curb gun violence - Editorial - The Boston Globe](<a href=“http://bostonglobe.com/editorial/2013/01/11/requiring-insurance-could-help-curb-gun-violence/Vc21k0zzm1yD32gibqqVvK/story.html]Requiring”>http://bostonglobe.com/editorial/2013/01/11/requiring-insurance-could-help-curb-gun-violence/Vc21k0zzm1yD32gibqqVvK/story.html)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Unfortunately, the article is very thin; it does not include any information about whether insurance companies would actually be willing to provide such insurance or how much it would cost, or how the requirement would impact our Constitutional rights, especially of the poor. It presents the idea, and that is about it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, then, what’s the point of having a gun if you can’t take it out of the holster and show how tough you are? Or is it just … you want people to see it hanging from your belt and know that you are a Guy Not to Be Messed With?</p>
<p>And if gun laws don’t stop The Bad Guys from having guns, then how could gun laws stop The Good Guys from brandishing their weapons at the Walmart?</p>
<p>(And why do I have a sudden hankerin’ to go down to the local saloon? LOL)</p>