More "Good Guys with Guns" not a Solution: Have Your Say

reply to post by MysteriousHusky


I personally don't concern myself with how others perceive me, or how they feel around me.

If they are fearful and/or worried, they should arm themselves.
If they are not, then don't be armed.


It is their choice.

I am not here on this earth to make sure others are okay being around me, that is their problem to deal with.

reply to post by MysteriousHusky


The book and results are from 2005.
Check results for something more recent.

As gun ownership goes up, crime has gone down.

www.nssfblog.com...

That still reflects numbers from numerous "non-biased" sources.

macman
reply to post by MysteriousHusky

 

The book and results are from 2005.
Check results for something more recent.

Not completely. Even so, still within 10-year timeline. You asking me to find something more recent is kinda ironic seeing how the right to bear arms has surely passed its shelf life.

Here is a Guardian piece from September 18

bigfatfurrytexan

You wrote all of that, and it is based on "could" and "might"?

Based on your last paragraph, I take it you are not an American. The laws will not be the same from state to state. Think of the US like the EU. Each state is its own country. Yes, the Civil War forced some level of federal supremacy over the states....but there are still some issues relating to states rights.

You wouldn't want Germany telling the English how to run their country, right? Same thing here: us down here in the less populated parts of the country don't want those New Englanders, who live thousands of miles away and know nothing about our culture, telling us how to live.

EU member nations are more separate from each other than US states, yet EU has more uniformed gun laws than US. There is a certain minimum of gun control level set, which every country has to follow. There exists gun database over Europe. There exists extensive all-over-Europe database and it is not simply about going to another nation with "soft laws" and stocking up there. This would lose the point of nearly all gun laws.

Germany can not directly tell UK how to run their country, although there is a certain minimum accepted level of gun control, which every member state has to follow. If Germany manages to push through tighter gun laws in EU parliament, UK has no other option than to accept it or leave EU.

Just like in US states, EU countries have open borders, which makes smuggling extremely easy. Look at the Netherlands situation for example. Their soft drug policies (which work well there) cause lots of problems for neighboring nations by flooding their territories with soft drugs. "Cannabis is illegal round here, ok lemme just jump over the border and get some from there, just a small trip". The other countries are spending lots of money to fight drugs and yet their citizens have legal access to getting some within couple of hours drive, what´s the point then? Black market gets their drugs legally...

If we do not want guns in the hands of criminals and mental nutsacks, the only way is setting a uniformed law, where every country requires strong background checks.Some might have tougher laws, some softer, at the end everybody has to pass the minimum. You can not take a gun with you to another member nation without getting a permission first. You have to pass through a complicated process in order to buy a firearm in another member country, same goes for home.

For example, if I want to get a firearm licence first I need to see some psychiatrist, who would give me a paper where they state I am mentally stable (psychatric evaluation has to be renewed every 3 years) . Then I have to go through a 8 month training on gun safety, get myself a gun locker, give a drug test (drugs=no go) . I have to consider that my family/friends might be questioned about my lifestyle (if neighbours complain too much about lots of parties, very irresponsible lifestyle, debt etc i might not get the permit, same goes for me having lots of friends who are known for some criminal activity). It might be a lot, although this is the reason why the yearly gun death ratio is near to zero and even police officers do not carry guns, as criminals do not have guns...

reply to post by MysteriousHusky


You want to get down to brass tacks, in the case of the Naval Yard shooting, the lack of opposing lethal force is what made that place ultimately unsafe for 12 people.

As far as a country being unsafe because of a proliferation of guns, the 2nd amendment is a personal right even if universal. I am in fact much safer in my home by being able to return lethal force and much safer with a german shepard patrolling the property at night. That's my personal right but I cant tell the guy next door what security measures he should take. He has the same rights if he would like to avail himself of them.

reply to post by tanda7

I wouldn't be so worried about a good guy "snapping" so much as a good guy mistaking another good guy for being the bad guy.

It may not sound entirely reasonable, but there is potential for this to happen, I saw it happen in the military and it isn't pretty.

I mean, how are you supposed to tell who is who at, say the mall?, or a fair?, what if the bad guy is on the run and you see a good guy with a gun giving chase?, a running guy with a weapon.

These are things to be considered, but disarming everyone guarantees the bad guy gets to choose all the targets he wants without consequence.

I think the world would just be so much nicer if people weren't such goddamned chickens, like the people standing behind the shooter just standing there while it's happening.

00.02

reply to post by MysteriousHusky


you are.

But keep in mind, my viewpoints (as indicated in my title) are "freedom fundamentalist". I live on the premise that you will never tell me what to do, and in return what I do will never cause you harm.

Seems like a fairly simple way to live. A whole lot easier than remember 600,000 some odd laws.

Summary

Thanks to everyone who voiced their opinion on this controversial right. In summary, here are some points I picked up (feel free to add more summary points in replies)

1. A right is a right even if you disagree with it.

2. The right to bear arms, while referenced as being outdated, is still close to heart as many Americans use keep personal firearms for protection while travelling etc.

3. More "good guys with guns" is one solution, but so is asking people on camera phones recording the incident to help the guy or girl getting beaten up and stop recording the incident.

4. Government may not have your best interests at heart as it takes on the role of a parent.

Thanks again to all who added to the lively discussion, all those who flagged thread, and all those who just like ATS.

reply to post by MysteriousHusky


The article is not nearly as deceptive as its title.
The article doesn't provide where the stats came from, only that it came from the AJoM, nor does it offer the stats in the raw form.
Further more, it is based upon a study comparing countries to one another.....apples to oranges.

The stats also always, within Progressive pitched arguments, include accidental deaths and suicide by firearms.

www.nssfblog.com...
Still provides raw data, sources and doesn't inject the "dramatic emotional" response that the Guardian offers.

reply to post by macman


Good observations. Data, like clay, can be moulded to suit the needs of the author. References may have wittingly or unwittingly been obscured if report will indeed be published in the future. It's harder to find neutral data that hasn't been utilized by a biased organization or biased reporting. Remember, even though the data you linked to may be accurate, the organization putting it forward is not acknowledging the data refuting their position*.

*Position:

MysteriousHusky
reply to post by macman

 

*Position:

This above organization is simply operating from an overflow of the right, the 2nd amendment, which is Americas ability to obstruct unauthorized tyrannical force. lol

reply to post by MysteriousHusky


I am well aware of how is presenting the info and what they do.

Again, are you refuting the facts presented, or just the presenter?

reply to post by macman


The presenter is the message. Or rather, I believe the quote was "the media is the message". Take the following situations:

Situation 1)
A man says to you "Kiss me"

Situation 2)
A woman says to you "Kiss me"

Same message different presenters.

reply to post by MysteriousHusky


Not really, as the man is saying kiss me, and the woman is saying get away from me, when comparing the 2 sources used.

macman
reply to post by MysteriousHusky

 

Not really, as the man is saying kiss me, and the woman is saying get away from me, when comparing the 2 sources used.

You can't cross-reference!

reply to post by MysteriousHusky


Although i believe that guns are so inherent in American culture to ever remove them.

Americans seem to not grasp the basic correlation between.....

Lots of lots of people having guns...

And lots and lots of people getting shot...

Quantum_Squirrel
reply to post by MysteriousHusky

 

Although i believe that guns are so inherent in American culture to ever remove them.

Americans seem to not grasp the basic correlation between.....

Lots of lots of people having guns...

And lots and lots of people getting shot...

So far (it seems the actual data and events show) that lots and lots of people in a "gun free zone" get shot. So, does that sound safer to you?

Krakatoa

Quantum_Squirrel
reply to post by MysteriousHusky

 

Although i believe that guns are so inherent in American culture to ever remove them.

Americans seem to not grasp the basic correlation between.....

Lots of lots of people having guns...

And lots and lots of people getting shot...

So far (it seems the actual data and events show) that lots and lots of people in a "gun free zone" get shot. So, does that sound safer to you?

Please let me browse your 'Data' and proof of this statement

Quantum_Squirrel
reply to post by MysteriousHusky

 

Although i believe that guns are so inherent in American culture to ever remove them.

Americans seem to not grasp the basic correlation between.....

Lots of lots of people having guns...

And lots and lots of people getting shot...

A gun is an instrument. It is all in how it is used.

In China they have stabbings and slashers. Because knives are the apex weapon there.

Everyone seems to think that telling me, a law abiding citizen, what to do is the best way to control folks who are law abiding.

The logic is mind boggling.

Not to mention, like I said...you city folks don't want to send money out here in the sticks. No, money is divided based on population, not square mileage. Thus, the part of the world I live in has been forsaken by the "authority" that claims it can protect us.

Yeah right. I already mentioned: only 30k people live here. In the last 4 days we have had 2 people shot and killed.

While that is unfortunate, it is the risk we take to live out here with a little more freedom than you city folks seem to want.

reply to post by MysteriousHusky

Yet another opportunity for the NRA (yes I am a former member and Army vet I joined to use their close by indoor range) to further its sales pitch, I worked on the Navy Yard and numerous other government installations, first of all we know that there is no snowballs chance in hell they will allow you to have your firearm on government property even if you have a permit.

They will staff up what armed guard force they have, oh by the way, didn't he realized that an armed guard was shot and killed, then his very own weapon used in the melee ?

More people with guns is not the answer, there are just as many people rolling around with guns illegally so all you would end up having is a shoot out and more than likely the thugs have something a little more powerful like an AK-47 or some banned weapon, there is a false perception that having a gun on your person is the best and only defense, the problem is that the odds of you ever having to use it or be in that situation is probably very, very, very small, and worse, regardless of being trained to use it does not make you a professional by any stretch, there are other factors which will need to be considered just because you have the gun and you are trained, this will not necessarily put you at an advantage in the situation it may even end up where you cannot tell friend or foe if it is a mass shooting.

I say keep John Wayne in the movies

Wrong person almost shot by armed bystander


Properly trained law enforcement and training are the answer, I am not really for everyone in my workplace to be armed and then hope that out of the ranks of the many armed, one of the amateurs does not kill an innocent in the process, thus defeating the whole purpose of personal protection and self defense.

The self defense delusion

I am certain there were numerous guards in the area that were armed and also military police, one would have to had the opportunity angle and advantage to have stopped this maniac obviously that did not happen even with trained armed security, luckily the police tracked him down where he was hiding in cubicles.