yep a real shame!

since our laws are 100% effective we should abandon them...

geeez

The point again is too many guns are present in US to prevent gun violence. Passing anti-gun laws will not result in confiscation of all 300 million guns. The law breakers by definition do not obey laws. They will not surrender their guns.

you just said what i said you said,,,,,,,,,,,

Would be killed by another "good guy with a gun" who mistook him for another shooter...

My memories of such events have it usually ending with the shooter killing himself, or running out of ammo. John Hinckley emptied his revolver while trying to shoot Reagan, all while lots of armed good guys stood within 20 feet.

I don't have data on earlier years in front of me, can I get back to you?

The average US citizen without a CCW permit does own guns as well, you know.

...were responsible for 100% of all gunshot wounds (fatal and non-fatal).

Some smaller portion of them were shot by CCW holders.

Also, orangutan pee tastes better than cat pee. Look it up, it's true.

You should send a Hallmark card with that graphic on it to the parents of the Sandy Hook dead... it may help them feel better.

Your point, part deaux?

It is undisputed that the number of mass shootings in the US has doubled since the Assault Weapons Ban expired in 2004. http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/17/everything-you-need-to-know-about-banning-assault-weapons-in-one-post/




A law enforcement official told CBS news the shooter was found with an AR-15 assault rifle. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57603061/washington-navy-yard-shooting-leaves-at-least-12-dead-plus-gunman-aaron-alexis/

As in Sandy Hook, as in Aurora, people were mowed down with a spray of bullets from an AR-15. No civilian has any legitimate need to own an assault rifle. Any civilian who would want to own one is mentally unbalanced IMO.

to kill 12 people. It was not an AR-15 assault weapon as reported earlier.

Last edited Tue Sep 17, 2013, 10:33 PM - Edit history (1)

I have not followed this story very closely. I heard today he did not have a AR-15. He had a shotgun.

There are conflicting reports now. The local police had reported an AR-15 and a handgun, but the FBI now say it was two semi-automatic handguns. Everyone agrees he had a shot gun, but that is not what he used on most of the victims. He came to the Navy Yard with a shot gun that he used to blast past security. He then took the guard's weapons. He used those weapons on the remaining victims. Witnesses reported gun shots in rapid succession, indicating a semi-automatic weapon, not a shot gun.

if only the bad guys were the only ones with guns, then that number would be zero

would work.

Being realistic is a good trait.

...History of gun ownership. Lots of sparsely populated areas. Sounds kind of similar in many respects to the US, except they got tired of this mass shooting shit and change their laws accordingly. It's worked out rather well so far.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/03/us-usa-guns-australia-idUSBRE9320C720130403

Next excuse? And yes, I'm a gun owner.

Bill!

Damn laws and all!

Just rhetorical, don't bother actually answering, because I don't think you know the truth. Or want to.

I'd also bet they shoot more people than they would have if they didn't have CC permits.

Guns are owned by a minority of the citizenry - gun owners do however own lots of guns so when they do decide to kill a fellow citizen - they have plenty of choices for caliber, muzzle velocity, rate of fire. No reason to let society interfere with your speed and efficiency when it's time to kill your neighbors or friends.

their weapons. Careless gun owners.

But shush, you...never interrupt a perfectly good rantfest thread with inconvenient facts.

to venture out. That Ole NRA meme was shooting down a long time ago.

It actually appears to be quite easy in this case.

After all, if initial reports are correct.....

He was black. There you go.

has become nearly impossible.... So, when the gunner echochamber show up to spew the "usual", I'll let their highly predictable comments speak for themselves.

How many murders are committed by people who do not hold CCWs?

In four years, 1996-2000, people without guns shot 0 people.

Realistically there is no way that at this time we can ban and confiscate all firearms in our nation.

So since we can't get rid of all firearms, we should try to insure that only honest, responsible and sane people can legally own them. That in itself will be a major challenge. Still if we try, we can do far better than we are today.

Firearms: 67.8%
Knives or other cutting instruments: 13.4%
Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.): 5.7%
Blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.): 3.9%
Other dangerous weapons: 9.2%

All other methods of murder combined account for half of the murders by firearms...

but if a person is determined to murder there are many ways to accomplish the goal.

I remember an incident that happened 30 years ago in Tampa.

This falls into the category of false equivalence. The fact that you can pull up a vast amount of detail about these rare incedences does not in any way add any weight to this spurious argument. Stop trying to rationalize in impossible position. The truth is people with guns are more than wide as likely to murder than those without guns.

I will admit that firearms are commonly used in these drug wars. Chicago is a prime example of what I am talking about. Still it is true that honest people do sometimes murder others with firearms. Often they suffer from serious psychological problems and have a history of waving red flags to try to get help.

Some here push the idea that all firearms should be banned and confiscated. This may happen in 50 or 100 years but one thing for sure is that it is not going to happen in the next two years. I don't even believe another assault weapons ban will pass in that time frame but time will tell.

My solution was expressed above in post #43.

The idea that it's most or even a significant fraction of homicides are gangs fighting over turf is simply false. And I would suggest that you take a hard look at whatever other "facts" you got from the website where you read that.

Add to that all the injuries caused by gang shootings.

Let's look at your 12% figure a little closer. Your link stated:

If there were no gang murders at all, we would still have the highest homicide levels of any wealthy nation by a significant factor.

in our nation?

(In passing I refuse to consider 12% insignificant and I feel that any two digit percentage is high. For example cancer causes 12.49% of deaths annually. Road traffic accidents cause 2.09% and violence 0.98%. Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_causes_of_death_by_rate)

Maybe something like NFA, which seems to work pretty well. I don't think guns should be banned, but I don't think anyone should just be able to go to a gun store on a whim and walk out with 15 handguns/AR15s.

firearms is impossible to pass at a national level at this time.

I feel that we might make some real headway at the national level on the gun control issue if the gun control advocates banned the use of two words. Those two words are "registration" and "ban."

Gun owners will oppose any form of registration as they fear it would eventually lead to confiscation. Nothing gun control advocates can say will change that view.

In my opinion the best approach that gun control advocates can use to to attempt to pass strong gun control laws at the state level.

In fact, while the GOP controls the house, basically nothing is going to get passed.

It's probably not a great idea politically to use the words like "single payer" or "living wage", but since I'm not a politician, I don't restrict myself to policies and terminology that the GOP base would approve of.

When you say "gun owners will oppose any form of registration", you are actually only talking about yourself and other gun owners that share your views. Polls have found that even among gun owners, a substantial portion (close to half) are in favor of registration. And here on DU, there are plenty of gun owners who are in favor of things like registration and assault weapons bans, etc.

Whenever a gun massacre occurs, you and others are quick to point out that not all gun owners are homicidal maniacs. Which is true. But not all gun owners are RKBA absolutists either.

I agree that talk of "registration" will anger and frighten a lot of people, but Dems and gun control advocates have already been pretty careful to avoid that word. Even Chuck Schumer went out of his way to point out that UBCs and registration were not the same thing.

That didn't seem to work so well.

As I watch politics, I find that the Dems are always using the strategy you highlight -- don't go too far left, and avoid ideas or words that will energize the GOP base. The GOP doesn't follow that advice -- they're out there openly talking about Ayn Rand and "Death Panels" and calling for things like flat taxes and drowning the federal government in a tub. The result has been that ideas that start out on the fringe get repeated so often that they become part of the mainstream dialogue. Remember, Obamacare used to be a sort of "out there on the right" free market plan that was proposed by the Heritage foundation during the 90s, but things have changed so much that now conservatives think of it as "socialism".

I think its time for gun control advocates to do the same thing. Come out and say that handguns and semi-autos should be registered. Yes, the right will protest, but if we keep saying it, then after a while it will be "on the table". And keep in mind that polls show significant support for this kind of policy.

We've already tried cowering and hiding from the GOP/NRA. I say we change tack and make some bolder moves.

of all firearms and most types of ammunition have become hard to obtain.

Much of the reason for this dramatic increase in sales has been the fear that many gun owners have that there will be another assault weapons ban and/or some form of gun registration at a national level.

The midterm elections are coming up shortly. It will be interesting to see if gun owners turn out at the polls to vote against politicians who favor strong gun legislation. What I fear is that they not only will vote out politicians who support strong gun control but will also vote out many good Democrats who did not favor the strong gun laws pushed by some.

Much of this will depend on the state. Some states already require gun registration and the voters in those states may see little problem with this requirement. Firearm legislation might prove a loser in some states like Florida. Florida already has a statute that forbids firearm registration.

After all, there are a lot of conservative Christians out there who care a lot about abortion. And, the same states that have been expanding gun rights have also been restricting abortion, and attacking unions, and so on. You talk as though gun owners are the only group of people involved in the electoral process, and you also assume that they all feel the same way you do. Neither of those is true.

Again, I think that, especially in the long run, Dems should be bolder, not meeker. And this is across the board, not just on gun control. Enough with the tiptoeing and being afraid of offending the conservative base.

Perhaps you are right and we should ignore the moderate and conservative base and go for broke.

I fear that approach could cause the big tent to shrink to a small tepee. Of course I might be wrong.

But since you pulled it out of thin air you probably don't either.

they aren't more law-abiding than folks who qualify for a permit, but are not so irrational as to carry a gun in public. That's the group they need to compare.

I take it, gunz are very important to you.

I haven't laid eyes on any of my guns for at least a year -- they are in my house. I have no need to carry a gun outside because I am not afraid of anyplace I go and I go out at night every night on foot to various places. Because of the application and background procedure to get a CCW I'm sure CCW holders are far more law abiding than the general population. And I am confident any police officer would say that also.

who don't carry, but could meet requirements if they were callous enough to strap a gun on before venturing out. I get you have difficulty accepting facts when it comes to your gunz.

It terms of facts you haven't given any in your posts so I guess I do have difficulty accepting things that don't exist.

than those of us rational enough not to tote, but could get a permit in any state if we felt gunz were necessary to live in our society.

Are you really that blind?

I have a CCW, and I DON'T carry. I have my guns (2), for one reason and one reason only. To stop someone dead (if need be) from harming my family, on my property. Which, whether most of you like it or not, is a reality we live in. Plain and simple. I see no need to carry a firearm in public.
I also see no need to defend my progressive views on any other subject. When it comes to guns, its touchy, I get it, but the reality is there are bad people with bad intentions, and I will not let anyone take my family, or the little bit of stuff I have earned, with tons of hard work, away from me.

I take huge offense that I am more likely to be a Zimmerman than anyone else because I have a CCW. That's a moronic statement, a moronic thought, and it offends me greatly.

By the way, the correct spelling is Guns. Guns is not spelled with a z, never has been and will not be in the future. Maybe the fact you can't even spell the word explains how shortsighted your assholish statement was. Go ahead, flag it. I couldn't care less.

I will answer them one by one.

I never implied, or said, my guns are the most important thing in my life. And having 2, not getting any more by the way, is not accumulating them.

I have a carry permit, because in my state there is no difference in permit for carrying or owning. I have never carried my gun in my car or on my person, anywhere. Never. And I never will. I don't have a wild west mentality.

Finally, if there were a person, or persons on my property imposing a threat to my families safety, you can most certainly bet I would drop them. I would not shoot a person running down the street with my television. But most likely would catch them and subdue them, to be honest

Don't pull on the heartstrings of everyone by using the word teen. It insults. There is much more likely to be an out of work grown up having the balls to come on to someones property and steal.

As far as "stand your ground". Well I find that to be quite a disgusting piece of legislature. Unfortunately I cannot prove that with posts because I absolutely refused to post on any Zimmerman threads, because I get too pissed off, and that was a very emotional time for everyone involved. I have hung up on my father multiple times, and countless other people, arguing over Zimmerman. I find Zimmerman to be a bully, abuser, hateful, racist, coward. I feel the same way the majority of DU does about Zimmerman.

Thats why it's so offending to me that you so simply say because I have a carry permit I could pull a Zimmerman. I am all for stricter gun legislature. All for it. Why can't you understand that having a gun doesn't make you a killer? I completely understand that gun accessibility is out of hand. I also agree with that assessment.

But your logic is no different than saying every Muslim is a terrorist, something that would get you chastised around here, so don't do it with this.

Whether you like it or not, the second amendment is in the constitution. And to be honest I am all for amending it to something a bit more current. But with that being said, you cant be mad about your 4th and 1st amendments being stomped, because they are, and just decide you don't like the second one because people die. I have never killed anyone, and most likely to the tune of 99.99 percent probably never will. And I own a gun. You accept that.

edited for punctuation.

Or is that a number that you just made up?

What makes you think that 85% of the population would not qualify for a CCW?

Is it the background check? Roughly 75% of the adult population has no criminal record and would not be disqualified on that count.

Or did you find the qualifying exam so difficult that you feel only 15% would be able to pass it? That certainly was not my experience with it.

Or did you just want to throw the same number out that the other poster used?

population. You have been offered the links to these statistics MANY times. You chose to ignore them and hope others will also.

Here's one you may not have seen.

I'm not sure how they would be obtained even if someone wished to do so.

Finding a control group of people with carry permits would not be all that challenging. To create a similar group of people who could get a concealed carry permit but chose not to, you would have to do a background check on those people also.

Who would finance the cost of these background checks.

Of course someone would have to monitor both groups for a period of time which is another expense.

One factor which you may not be considering is that many people who legally carry had to take a concealed weapons class before the license was issued. All the instructors of such classes that I have met have told their classes to avoid unnecessary confrontations and definitely not to start a fight. Most people who get carry permits follow this advise. Of course there are always a few exceptions like Zimmerman.

Carrying a concealed firearm involves tremendous responsibility. Let me assure you that I and most other people who legally carry realize that we are not cops or vigilantes. The only reason you would have to fear us is if you decide to attack a person with a carry permit with the intention to put him in the hospital or six feet under. That might prove very foolish. Still it is rare for shots to be fired in a defensive gun use by a concealed permit holder. Usually the attacker runs when he realizes his victim is armed.

You have a very active imagination. The simple reality is that concealed weapons programs have proved to be very successful in many states and so far no state has repealed their program. If your fears were justified, concealed carry laws would have never spread across our nation since Florida passed "shall issue" concealed carry in October of 1987. And surely by now some states who passed this law would have repealed it.

Perhaps the reason that the law hasn't been repealed in Florida is that in the 26 years since "shall issue" concealed carry passed only 168 carry permits have been revoked because of a crime involving the use of a firearm after the license was issued. Over 1,000,000 resident Floridians have a valid concealed weapons permit. (ref: http://www.freshfromflorida.com/content/download/7499/118851/cw_monthly.pdf)

a firearm. It most states it is simply against the law. Criminals illegally carry firearms and other weapons and often use them to rob or attack honest citizens.

I, and over 1,000,000 residents of the state of Florida, currently have a valid concealed weapons permit. Rarely one of us does misuse a firearm to commit a crime. Since 1987, 168 people have lost their concealed weapons permit for a crime they committed while using a firearm after the license was issued.

Overall the concealed weapons permit program has proven to be a success and has allowed many Floridians to successfully stop an attack from a person who intended to seriously injure or kill them. Often no shots were fired. The attacker wisely decided to run once he knew his victim was armed.

My decision to carry a firearm is based on my life experiences. I have found it is wise to be prepared even for unlikely events. I see no reason to defend my decision as it is legal in the state where I live.

I also have no problem with your decision to not carry in public. That is and should be your decision.

Some peer reviewed report? Perhaps a paper issued by a noted criminologist? Or perhaps a report from the US Government?
What is the source of this information?

Not cherrypicked numbers...rates.

Here's your homework:

1. How many CCW holders are there?
2. How many have killed?
3. How does that compare to murder rates for non-CCW holders?

...absolutely no one without a gun shot anyone.

Cool, why didn't you just say so? There are only like 300 million of them, after all. Should be a piece of cake.

Why I bet there are several bridges near you, in need of repair. People don't get shot, bridged don't fall down. Lives saved all around.

Didn't think so.

Actually, that's not quite right because the dead ones can't really thank anyone. But I'm sure they would if they could.

For you, however, it has built a bomb shelter.

You have no data.

while the "arglebargle they're coming to take my 30 round magazines!!!" is looked upon as reasonable discourse?

"100% of the people shot at the Navy yard today can thank a Texan."

"100% of the people shot at the Navy yard today can thank a male."

"100% of the people shot at the Navy yard today can thank a person who eats meat."

"100% of the people shot at the Navy yard today can thank a person who drives a car."

See how easy that works?

Shouldn't we wait to find out if he was a vegetarian?

Texan male carnivore who drives a car didn't have a gun, they'd be alive.

Really. Very silly argument.

Approximately 0% of people without guns shot other people, that includes non-fatal shootings.

you could find a few people killed by arrows or bolts from crossbows.

that we need strict gun control, and stop with this nonsense.

It's your hobby. People are dead. Again.

....you ain't got a dog in this fight. I do own firearms for hunting, so I do have a dog in this scrap and have no problem whatsoever with much tougher gun restrictions.

The article says he had a criminal record in Texas. I guess it doesn't take much to get a CCW permit.

He fired a gun (accidentally, he claims) through the ceiling of his apartment. I guess that's not enough evidence in Texas that you shouldn't be walking around with a gun.

He told police he could not remember firing his gun at the man's car until an hour after the incident. That episode was in Seattle, according to ABCNews.com. Not clear if he was convicted for that, but just the fact that he admits he gets angry enough to black out and start shooting suggests not only that he should not have a CCW permit, but should not have any sort of weapon at all. Unfuckingbelievable.

He *just happened* to be *cleaning* his gun *while cooking* no less, and it went off in her direction...

Yeah, I'm gonna buy that right after you pay me for the Brooklyn Bridge...

not making much sense here.

To mow down 12 people you need a CCW, duh! I would never think about hurting the ittle wittle delicate flowers feelings and making them actually BE responsible instead of using it as a slogan.

I think I see the problem here.

Don't forget the "law abiding citizen" canard....

He was a 'law abiding citizen, until he was not'...PRAISE GUNS...his gun didn't kill anyone, it was his mental bullets of outrage that did. Obviously, guns have never killed anyone! Not a single person has ever died from a gun! PRAISE THEM!

nt.

What we need is bullet control.
Anybody can run from an unloaded gun.