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

reply to post by phinubian


Thanks for your contribution and for your service to your country. Both are appreciated, even by a Canadian.

reply to post by Cabin


I'm sorry but I believe that you are wrong. What you are doing is describing the difference between a privilege and a right. Here owning a gun is a right not a privilege. As Thomas Jefferson said "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms." So take the hoops and toss them out the windows because I won't jump through them anymore.

peace

Quantum_Squirrel

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

If you read it I said "it seems", and if you believe the MSM, which many gun-control advocates do, all the big stories and coverage of mass shootings have been in, you guessed it, gun-free zones (schools, movie theaters, and now a U.S. Naval Yard). I have yet to see a mass shooting story taking place at a firing range, in a police station, or anywhere that have well trained and armed people.

Am I missing something?????

I think I understand some of the disconnect here between a Canadian citizen and a United States citizen. In reviewing the Canadian Constitution.

It states:

All of these rights are subject to the limitations clause (section 1) and some of these rights are subject to the notwithstanding clause (section 33). The limitations clause in section 1 allows governments to justify certain infringements of Charter rights.

Source for Canadian Constitution

I guess this is a fundamental difference where "rights" are concerned. In the U.S. system, there are no explicit limitations clauses stated in our Constitution for allowing "infringements" to exists. They are absolutes. Also, there is a legal way to alter, repeal, or otherwise change amendments. However, that legal route has NOT been followed with regard to our 2nd Amendment, which clearly states, "shall not be infringed".

reply to post by Quantum_Squirrel


Oh, so people don't get shot in the UK?
That is nice.

macman
reply to post by Quantum_Squirrel

 

Oh, so people don't get shot in the UK?
That is nice.

Yeah, and the IRA didn't terrorize the English population, ever.
And, England does not have a southern border with hordes of illegals crossing and rampant drug lord violence shooting and decapitating people. It's a wonderland, with fluffy clouds and pixie dust in the air....

reply to post by phinubian


More Govt trained bodies, with no lawful requirement to place themselves in harms way in order to protect the citizen?
The same people, whom have numerous incidents shown here daily, that violate people's rights.

Yeah, no thanks. I trust the average person more then the Govt.


And, I am an Ex-Cop, Military vet and own a business that deals with LE as well.

mwood
reply to post by MysteriousHusky

 

Sometimes having a good guy with a gun around is the only way to stop a crazy person with a gun.

That's not really the answer to me though.

I am not sure what the answer is to be blunt. I feel I know what the problem is maybe.

When did people become so non-caring?
When did human life become so cheap?
When did we decide that killing for a couple dollars was ok, or because someone said something you didn't like, or someone was walking somewhere you felt they shouldn't?

People will kill someone for the most minor reason and feel absolutely zero remorse.

Guns are not the problem, for whatever reason people have become the problem.

I have owned guns since I was 9 years old, hunted since I was 12 years old and own more than 25 firearms today.

I have gotten so mad, disgusted, hurt, disrespected and pissed off at times in my life I couldn't see straight
or think clearly and sometimes made some bad choices....But I NEVER once thought about taking a gun and ending someones life over it....never!

I am not religious but I have some morals and it is just wrong to kill someone except in self defense.

Is it because of violent video games? Do Violent movies teach us it's ok? Does the lack of religion and the fear of a god make it easier? I don't know, maybe a little of all the above.

Although I am not religious I can look back when people were more religious and most of them had more moral fiber than we do today. Even though I don't believe the Bible, It did give a lot of people guidance.

I think we should leave the guns alone and maybe Ban people...

Maybe license your reproductive organs and you have to show you are responsible before you turn out a bunch of kids.

Maybe get people and kids off all the crazy drugs they put everybody on now days.....

Maybe when somebody shows signs of being unstable.....have them checked out.

People that commit violent crimes should be removed from society permanently, no repeat offenders!

Maybe work on keeping families together so kids have 2 parents...

Maybe quit paying people to stay home, not work and pump out 10 kids with no fathers..


I really just don't know..........

wow I have never ever Owned a GUN, but I am 100% behind you ( Guns are illegal here as Weed ) But it shall only be in Self-defense I also would take a life, but I have learned some tricks to break a Arm or Leg, and wait too the police arrive. So I have never Killed any one. I don't see the Point of taking some ones life. Only one would be my owned life. but not now

MysteriousHusky
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.

Very well stated. Especially about the camera phones.

If your first thought is, "Hey, i should record this for the internet", you suck as a person.

reply to post by Krakatoa


For what its worth, I am on the southern border. I will take a band of marauding mexicans any day over the average joe. They are my people....even if they still call me gringo. Yes, the mafioso's cause consternation. But for the most part, here in the states anyway, unless you have dealings with them you will never run cross with them. At least, I have never heard of it.

Now yahoo's like the Latin Kings and the Banditos? Yeah, they are the real issue. The drug trade, when performed by families instead of gangs (as is the norm in this area) is a stable economy that has little impact on the community. But when you get gangs like the banditos and latin kings....you get turf wars. As the latin kings found out, the "families" are pretty formidable. But all that aside....if anyone wants to write more laws, write some that get rid of gang trash.

At least, that is the view of one (sober) West Texan.

MysteriousHusky


—unless they are authorized law enforcement personnel. [Starbucks]

Yeah so some real crazy can grab their gun and then shoot unarmed innocent people? Ha. Why does law enforcement get to carry in places where others can't? Too much of a PITA to leave em in the car? Semi-smartass but also semi-serious question.

Krakatoa

macman
reply to post by Quantum_Squirrel

 

Oh, so people don't get shot in the UK?
That is nice.

Yeah, and the IRA didn't terrorize the English population, ever.
And, England does not have a southern border with hordes of illegals crossing and rampant drug lord violence shooting and decapitating people. It's a wonderland, with fluffy clouds and pixie dust in the air....

I'm sorry you are correct , these things have happened to us

I mistakenly thought this thread was a discussion on the merits of gun control, i humbly apologize for not taking into account someone got their head hacked off with a massive knife.. its so relevant

macman
reply to post by Quantum_Squirrel

 

Oh, so people don't get shot in the UK?
That is nice.

yeah people do get shot in the UK

In 2007 1000 people were shot in the UK

In the same year (2007) 100,000 people got shot in the U.S.A

U.K population 63 million

U.S.A population 313 million

100 times more people got shot in the U.S.A than the UK, but the population differential is not 100 to 1.

I wonder what the deciding factor is ? yet again the failure to collate lots of people owning guns, and lots of people getting shot speaks volumes

reply to post by Quantum_Squirrel


But you also seem to ignore that the culture on this side of the planet is wholly different than on your side of the planet.

My grandfather was still shooting at indians when he was a kid. I know one of Pancho Villa's girlfriends from way back in the day (or did know, she died last year).

This is not all that far removed from the wild frontier. Most of America is similar, with the east and west coasts being exceptions.

Besides, the whole "don't tread on me" mindset. I have a flag flying outside my house, and 1 hanging behind me at my desk at work. Its just the fabric I am stitched from.

bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Quantum_Squirrel

 

But you also seem to ignore that the culture on this side of the planet is wholly different than on your side of the planet.

My grandfather was still shooting at indians when he was a kid. I know one of Pancho Villa's girlfriends from way back in the day (or did know, she died last year).

This is not all that far removed from the wild frontier. Most of America is similar, with the east and west coasts being exceptions.

Besides, the whole "don't tread on me" mindset. I have a flag flying outside my house, and 1 hanging behind me at my desk at work. Its just the fabric I am stitched from.

If you read my first post i say that i believe guns are too ingrained in american culture to ever abandon them so i totally see your point.

reply to post by MysteriousHusky


The example of Kennesaw Georgia needs to be used as an teaching tools that their experience since the 1970's where they pasted a city ordinance that "every household within the city will purchase and own a gun and several members of each household with attend a "safe gun class of instruction" to insure home protection and the impact on crimes of all types was almost totally wiped out..
Criminals are cowards and case potential target to insure minimal danger of reprisal and defense, soft targets.
Newt Gingrich, Ex Speaker of U.S. House of Representatives was a Teacher in Kennesaw College, Georgia and can attest to the effectiveness of the ordinance.
NOT AN OPINION, FACT.
Never issue an opinion as some valid information when there recorded evidence and facts that backup a "statement of fact". TRUTH WILL ALWAYS WIN AND SET YOU FREE.

reply to post by Cabin


A psychiatrist is not an effective precrime measure, it would take 1 activist (and we ALL know the progs have the halls of academia under their thumb) to totally screw over people for their political opinion.
Not to mention the price of seeing one is prohibitive.
But at issue IS mental health,we just have to find a fair line on "crazy" and stop SSRIs

www.dailymail.co.uk... well i posted this in the main kenya thread,but ill post it here evidently there was an armed off duty SAS member who is being credited with saving 100's of lives during the kenya mall shooting so id put this in the win column for good guys with guns making not just a difference but a hell of a one

An off-duty member of the SAS emerged as a hero of the Nairobi siege yesterday, after he was credited with saving up to 100 lives. The soldier was having coffee at the Westgate mall when it was attacked by Islamists on Saturday. With a gun tucked into his waistband, he was pictured helping two women from the complex. Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk... Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

He is said to have returned to the building on a dozen occasions, despite intense gunfire. A friend in Nairobi said: ‘What he did was so heroic. He was having coffee with friends when it happened. ‘He went back in 12 times and saved 100 people. Imagine going back in when you knew what was going on inside.’ Sources said the soldier was with the Special Air Service, or SAS. He cannot be named for security reasons. The British Special Forces regularly train and operate out of Kenya, and have been involved in tracking UK citizens involved with hardline Islamists in Somalia and Yemen. Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk... Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

so there is this incident to point out that yes armed citizens or in this case off duty military (good guys with guns) can make a huge impact in these kind of things at least for the people they saved

reply to post by MysteriousHusky


Its worth noting "license to carry" almost exclusively as it pertains to civilians refers to "Concealed Carry". This is another related argument altogether in which the physical, visible presence of a firearm is a crime deterrent. Open carry "typically" turns the carrier and his immediate surroundings into a "Hard target".

As I stated the argument for CC (concealed Carry) and OC (open carry) is a primary factor to consider when it comes to more guns lowering violent crime.

Laymens terms - a bad guy would much rather take advantage of a person he believes to be unarmed as opposed to one openly exhibiting a means to protect his or herself. And keep in mind there are no absolutes. There are always exceptions...

MysteriousHusky

Source: NBC article

National Rifle Association leader Wayne LaPierre argued on NBC’s Meet the Press that “there weren’t enough good guys with guns" to confront the shooter responsible for last week's Washington Navy Yard rampage and he insisted that "when the good guys with guns got there, it stopped.”

However, more "good guys with guns" is potentially counter-productive as increases the likelihood of these tragedies when one of the "good guys" goes through a phase and snaps.

So we're going to use extreme hypotheticals that may happen to .0001% of the legal gun owning population as a means to fearmonger gun control into people's conscience? Is that what you're doing really?? Stop making up stupid statements.. ( When good people snap.. ) Are you suggesting more good people snap and kill people than there are good people that use their guns to prevent crime and death? I think you should rethink your ridiculous ideas..

Additionally, more "good guys with guns" would create the atmosphere of a military state and likely increase corruption.

Tell that to the mall full of people in South Africa where terrorists spent DAYS on a rampage killing people. Do you really think if half of the good citizens in that mall had guns the terrorists would have gotten away with so much death and mayhem?? You're living in a fantasy liberal utopian nonsense..

Let me ask you something. If you owned 100+ acres in the mountains surrounded by mountain lions, bears, coyotes, and you have young children, don't you think a gun is a good way to keep the family safe? In your utopian society I would call 9/11 and wait 20 minutes for the police to show up so they can scrape the dead carcases of myself and my two young kids off the backyard grass. No thanks, take your gun control and shove it where the sun don't shine.

In his appearance on Meet the Press last December LaPierre warned that, “We have a mental health system in this country that has completely and totally collapsed. We have no national database of these lunatics.”

In many cases it's the prescription drugs that are turning them into lunatics. That's a proven fact that the media ignores.

Heightened database record-keeping brings the U.S. closer to a security state where everyone is under surveillance. Perhaps only those who choose to exercise their Constitutional right to bear arms should be in a database ensuring the privacy of those who opt out of getting a firearm.

That would be a good way to hunt down anyone who was for gun control. If you didn't make the list when revolution comes I feel sorry for you. The safest society is a well armed society.