<p>
</p>
<p>In case you didn’t notice, the recent shootings occurred in public places, so that would be something to be ready for.</p>
<p>poetgrl-People who carry concealed firearms hide the fact that they have a weapon, anyone who flaunts it is a fool, and a target.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is. But it’s so strange, this rush, to me. And yet, over Christmas so many guns were sold it actually changed the economic number for the season and made it difficult for economists to figure out what is going on.</p>
<p>At a place where I own a second home on the atlantic, my husband was fishing this weekend, and he said the sporting shop is completely sold out of ammo and almost all semi automatic weapons.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t have the same kind of problem with concealed carry that I have with open carry. I think open carry is designed to make me, or whoever, feel intimidated and uncomfortable. Just that kind of menacing action makes me distrust the judgement of the person with the gun.</p>
<p>Sally,
It comes across as pretty elitist (do you live with kluge in the tower?) to insult people who are less educated than you, as though their feelings and needs are invalid.</p>
<p>bl4k360 - You’re making a good case that gun advocates don’t have good reasoning skills … that what they have is anger and contempt for any other point of view.</p>
<p>And God sent his angel Adam Lanza to Newtown with a message … what you guys need is more guns.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I could say the same thing about you, so that kind of baseless talk isn’t going to get you anywhere.</p>
<p>New hope,
Kluge objects to people defending their castles.</p>
<p>
Full auto:
Gun holds multiple rounds and one press of the trigger will fire and chamber (load the next bullet making it ready to fire) repeated bullets until the trigger is released or until the gun is out of ammo or it jams. One trigger aqueeze for multiple bullets being fired. Think “machine gun” or true military type of gun. </p>
<p>Semi auto:
Gun holds multiple rounds and a single bullet will fire and another bullet chambered with each press/release of the trigger until the gun is out of ammo or it jams. One bullet fired for each trigger squeeze.</p>
<p>Fully automatic guns are capable of firing a lot of bullets in a very short time but somewhat wildly. They’re also typically inaccurate since the gun ‘walks off’ the mark as the recoil of the rifle moves the gun. Because of the inaccuracy issue and the issue of running out of ammo fast (without being able to aim well) some of these guns have a selector the user can change to purposely limit how many bullets are fired with each trigger press.</p>
<p>bl4ke360, I didn’t realize you were a student. Sorry for calling you a Bozo. You should read the posts more carefully, though, and know a posters’ position before attacking them in the parents cafe.</p>
<p>Use your critical thinking skills.</p>
<p>I actually don’t object to people defending their castles. And when I’ve heard something like - a homeowner shot someone who was clearly trying to rob his house and / or hurt his family - I’m pretty darn sympathetic, to be honest. But walking around carrying a gun? Oh come on now. It’s pretty hard for me not to classify someone (who is not a police officer or security guard or military personnel) walking around Walmart or the grocery store with a gun as either a) a thug or b) a redneck. And why one would want to be either of those things, I just don’t get.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thankfully, even in America a mass shooting is still a sensational event. If mass shooters were being thwarted by armed citizens, it would be newsworthy. The story would get out.</p>
<p>From 1975-2005, the number of justifiable homicides by citizens averaged 296 per year. In contrast, from 1975-2005 the number of murders with firearms averaged 13,000 per year. All firearm crimes in the USA averaged 394,000 per year. More than 50% of suicides are committed with firearms (~17,000 in 2004). In addition, tens of thousands of non-fatal firearm injuries occur every year (~74,000 in 2010).</p>
<p>Justifiable homicides by citizens are extremely rare events (even though the country is both crime-ridden and awash in guns.) It appears that on average, nearly as many Americans get shot every single day as are killed in justifiable homicides in an entire year. Of course, deterring or thwarting a crime doesn’t necessarily involve killing the criminal. John Lott has claimed that concealed carry laws result in an average decline of 7.65% in murder rates (an estimated 1,414 reduction in the 18,469 murders in 1992, for example). Well, o.k. But compare that to the total number of gun homicides in countries with strict gun control. In 2010 in Australia, that number was 30. </p>
<p>Would you expect the FDA to approve a medication known to be hundreds of times more likely to hurt you than cure you, when other countries were using medications far more effective (and without the side effects)? </p>
<p>Sources:
[Bureau</a> of Justice Statistics Homicide Trends in the United States: Trends in the Percent of Homicides Cleared by Arrest Table](<a href=“http://www.bjs.gov/content/homicide/tables/justifyreasontab.cfm]Bureau”>http://www.bjs.gov/content/homicide/tables/justifyreasontab.cfm)
[Bureau</a> of Justice Statistics Key Facts at a Glance Estimated Firearm Crime](<a href=“http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/tables/guncrimetab.cfm]Bureau”>http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/tables/guncrimetab.cfm)
<a href=“http://johnrlott.tripod.com/Mustard.pdf[/url]”>http://johnrlott.tripod.com/Mustard.pdf</a>
[Guns</a> in Australia: Facts, Figures and Firearm Law](<a href=“http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia]Guns”>http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia)</p>
<p>And the reason one “needs” a fully automatic or a semi automatic would be, what, again? Don’t give me nonsense it’s about protecting myself from the bad guy who is in line with me at Walmart. It’s macho gun culture, pure and simple.</p>
<p>The constitution does provide protection from being deprived of life without due process. Your right to carry a gun does not trump my rights of due process. You may have guns but you do not have the right to determine who the “bad guy” is without due process. While you have the right to protect your home and property and your own life, you don’t have the right to make judgements about my life or death. The concept of “the way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun” stomps all over the concept of due process. </p>
<p>So do armed citizens have the right to look at a situation, decide to step into the middle and shoot someone who appears to be a “bad guy”?</p>
<p>The person who was leaning over Gabby Giffords, giving aid after she had been shot, was nearly shot by an armed citizen who misread the situation.</p>
<p>No, I know. I’ve thought about that, too, Eastcoastcrazy. If the shooting were in a mall or something, it’s not like people are wearing uniforms. If somebody gets out a gun to “save the day” how is swat to even know who the good guy is?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s not about the need, it’s about the right.
What do you need a car for that goes over twice the speed limit? Same type of logic.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Generally the altercation would be over by the time police arrived, thus making it obvious who the good guy is. It took 20 minutes for the police to get to sandy hook.</p>
<p>
If you’re shooting skeet or sporting clays or doubles trap or international trap, a semi-auto is nice because it loads the next round in the chamber making it ready to fire (with another trigger squeeze) rather than, for example, having to pump the gun to get the next shell chambered since the pumping action can throw the aim off. </p>
<p>A semi-auto would also be useful for hunters who want to be able to take multiple quick shots at the varmint or rabbit or bird, for example.</p>
<p>For self-defense, being able to have another round chambered and ready to fire quickly can be important and can make a difference in who comes out ahead if the other guy has a gun. This part isn’t nonsense (but I left off your part about using it on the guy standing in line at Walmart - I think chances are slim one would need any gun in that situation - good thing I don’t go to Walmart).</p>
<p>
Actually, Bay, I object to people who fantacize about defending their castles through their heroic use of guns when in fact they’re less likely to do so than to facilitate the death or injury of innocents.</p>
<p>The fact that you demonstrate an inability to parse a pretty straightforward articulation of that objection - and choose to “redefine” it to one which is less offensive to the fantasy doesn’t surprise me though. Remember what I wrote a page or two up about the emotion-based drive behind the pro-gun argument? </p>
<p>
That’s because you have to believe in media conspiracies to think that the latter represents a significant benefit of gun ownership. The insistence that the Clackamas good guy’s gun saved lives in that event is a good example of the desperate efforts of the gunners to fit a square peg into a round hole. </p>
<p>Events where bad things happen with guns owned by “good guys” are legion. Accidental deaths, suicides, heat of passion shootings - you name it. The number of bona fide instances where a crime was foiled by someone with a gun - who couldn’t have foiled it without a gun - are actually quite rare, as far as I can tell. I’ve stopped two felonies (well, my girlfriend really did the heavy lifting the first time) - with no gun. I don’t know anyone who has actually foiled a crime by use of a gun.</p>
<p>And no, I’m not “sympathising” with the burglars - the fact that you say so says much about your reading comprehension skills - just noting that the NorCal crime itself was prevented just by the homeowner’s presence. His use of a gun escalated the events into his death. No gun: no burglary. Gun: still no burglary, but a dead homeowner.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Don’t you just hate it when there’s no statistics to back up your straw-man claim?</p>
<p>Just heard the mother of one of the murdered children in Newtown say that she discovered, in an effort to adopt a kitten, that it is easier to get a gun than it is to get a kitten. </p>
<p>I’ll go ahead and beat some people to the stupid response I anticipate - owning a kitten is not a Constitutional right.</p>