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

reply to post by MysteriousHusky


" 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."


The Laws of Probabillity Refute that Idea of being " Likely Possible " compared to the Real Threat it is intended to Counteract .

Good guys (and girls) with guns stop the bad ones if they have the opportunity.

This is about 9 minutes long. It says everything. After this, Texas started it's CCL program.

I carry. I will never be cowering behind a table, wondering when me or a member of my family will be shot point blank in cold blood. Because I can defend them and myself.

www.youtube.com...

MysteriousHusky

_BoneZ_

Private property is different than public property.

Okay, let's take streets for example.

Streets bordering a park > Most of us would say public.

What about streets that are extensions of businesses? Surely all streets are public, but we increasingly live in a world dominated by private interests. Hence some folks may have trouble selling Lemonade if they live in the city but don't have a backyard for example.

Point is, at what point does private interest become public interest?

If public opinion shifted so that 60% were to advocate a similar policy as Starbucks would public streets reflect the will of the public? Food for thought.

America was founded as a constitutional republic as a means to prevent mob rule from creating laws. Thus, by the nature of our system, your final "food for thought" question seems somewhat irrelevant. It does not matter what the majority wants. What the majority wants is the same as what the mob wants. Meanwhile, the rights of the individual must be protected.

Thus, I argue that streets (being public area) cannot be regulated in the manner you describe. Why does a street being next to a park make any difference? If someone wants to shoot your children, they will shoot your children. "Gun free zones" don't work. Ask those poor movie goers in Colorado

I can not get why many people believe more guns would prevent crimes...

Based on such belief, Europe would be crime-infested criminal paradise, yet the fact that every European country has far lower amount of firearms in the hands of citizens only leads to far lower crime, especially gun-related violence rates. How is it possible?

Many like to bring up the argument about being able to stop mentally ill psychos from mass-murders. When somebody snaps, at least he gets shot fast, so he does not have time to make lots of damage a´la lower kill rate.

Although there is one large problem there. People still die. The criminal, possibly couple of bystanders, but not as many as would have before. But every death counts. It does not matter, whether he killed one or ten people. Nobody should die. Violence only creates violence.

If everybody had a firearm, when a person snaps, it would nearly always lead at least a couple of deaths, which is unacceptable. Even the criminals themselves do not deserve death. Looking from a psychological perspective, their behaviour is nearly uncontrollable and what is worst, such thing could happen to any of us.
Mental breakdowns lead to on-the-spot decisions, which might have strong consequences.

The more people have firearms, the higher the chance that somebody might lose their nerve and easy access to firearms might lead to at least a few deaths.

If somebody has an obsession, they usually get what they want after long-term preparation. It is nearly impossible to stop Breivik-style mass-murderers, although worse access to firearms would prevent the on-the-spot decision takers, who have lost their nerve. Even currently there are more than plenty of situations, where a guy finds his wife in bed with her mistress and shoots them both, a situation where there is a friction in the bar and some guy loses it, - at the end there are countless situation which might lead to such blind rage. These are anger issues and on-the-spot decisions : if these people had more time to think, they would not kill, but as the gun is in their pocket, they make a fast decision in blind rage.

Too many firearms would also create lots of murders by the trigger-happy "good" guys. There would be too many people killed because they seemed suspicious or the killer "felt" threatened. This is simply absurd...


I agree that currently the US gun policies do not work very well, although it is not because such laws do not work at all, but because they are implemented seriously incorrectly and I would not be surprised if actually there lied a conspiracy behind such implementation run by the arms companies lobby in order to "prove" their points. At the end they are the ones earning the most from the mass-murders and showing the "statistics" about the wrongly implemented policies to prove their point... What this leads to - sales and stocks skyrocket.

What US needs is a nation-wide gun policy, where access to guns would be the same in every state. Also the overall policies must be made stricter, not the access itself, but the requirements of people getting the firearms, which must definetely cover mental health issues further from only being institutionalised ( if only such condition exists, a person actually needing mental health treatment would avoid treatment in order to own a gun) - in many countries a mental health worker has to provide the person a paper stating that he/she is mentally stable enough to own a firearm. Also the requirement of safety training should definetely be added. These alone would reduce the gun violence significantly, while every mentally stable person still has access to firearms if they want to.

tanda7

In Williams it's also legal to have a fist fight in public, it's customary to call the police and once the police arrive, they witness the combat to insure no weapons are allowed and no one is to drunk to defend themselves.

I love that a fist fight is legal - sometimes you gotta take it behind the woodshed. That's great. I wish more dept's would adopt this policy. Guys are so locked into this unisex 90s sensitive male crap that they have forgotten to act on their inner male instincts to protect and defend and sometimes conquer.

Gonna get flamed for that one but its worth it to state my mind.

Cabin
I can not get why many people believe more guns would prevent crimes...

Based on such belief, Europe would be crime-infested criminal paradise, yet the fact that every European country has far lower amount of firearms in the hands of citizens only leads to far lower crime, especially gun-related violence rates. How is it possible?

Many like to bring up the argument about being able to stop mentally ill psychos from mass-murders. When somebody snaps, at least he gets shot fast, so he does not have time to make lots of damage a´la lower kill rate.

Although there is one large problem there. People still die. The criminal, possibly couple of bystanders, but not as many as would have before. But every death counts. It does not matter, whether he killed one or ten people. Nobody should die. Violence only creates violence.

If everybody had a firearm, when a person snaps, it would nearly always lead at least a couple of deaths, which is unacceptable. Even the criminals themselves do not deserve death. Looking from a psychological perspective, their behaviour is nearly uncontrollable and what is worst, such thing could happen to any of us.
Mental breakdowns lead to on-the-spot decisions, which might have strong consequences.

The more people have firearms, the higher the chance that somebody might lose their nerve and easy access to firearms might lead to at least a few deaths.

If somebody has an obsession, they usually get what they want after long-term preparation. It is nearly impossible to stop Breivik-style mass-murderers, although worse access to firearms would prevent the on-the-spot decision takers, who have lost their nerve. Even currently there are more than plenty of situations, where a guy finds his wife in bed with her mistress and shoots them both, a situation where there is a friction in the bar and some guy loses it, - at the end there are countless situation which might lead to such blind rage. These are anger issues and on-the-spot decisions : if these people had more time to think, they would not kill, but as the gun is in their pocket, they make a fast decision in blind rage.

Too many firearms would also create lots of murders by the trigger-happy "good" guys. There would be too many people killed because they seemed suspicious or the killer "felt" threatened. This is simply absurd...


I agree that currently the US gun policies do not work very well, although it is not because such laws do not work at all, but because they are implemented seriously incorrectly and I would not be surprised if actually there lied a conspiracy behind such implementation run by the arms companies lobby in order to "prove" their points. At the end they are the ones earning the most from the mass-murders and showing the "statistics" about the wrongly implemented policies to prove their point... What this leads to - sales and stocks skyrocket.

What US needs is a nation-wide gun policy, where access to guns would be the same in every state. Also the overall policies must be made stricter, not the access itself, but the requirements of people getting the firearms, which must definetely cover mental health issues further from only being institutionalised ( if only such condition exists, a person actually needing mental health treatment would avoid treatment in order to own a gun) - in many countries a mental health worker has to provide the person a paper stating that he/she is mentally stable enough to own a firearm. Also the requirement of safety training should definetely be added. These alone would reduce the gun violence significantly, while every mentally stable person still has access to firearms if they want to.

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.

reply to post by MysteriousHusky


More Anti-Gun Rights drivel from a Canadian.

www.nssfblog.com...

Seems that you have failed to be around here over the last couple of months.

This whole BS mantra of banning guns will produce a safer environment is just that, BS.

reply to post by MysteriousHusky


If Starbucks wants their locations to be gun free that's their business and it should be respected. Its not any sort of infringement on the 2nd or any sort of commentary on it really. With Starbucks is a clientele thing anyway.

WWJFKD

tanda7

In Williams it's also legal to have a fist fight in public, it's customary to call the police and once the police arrive, they witness the combat to insure no weapons are allowed and no one is to drunk to defend themselves.

I love that a fist fight is legal - sometimes you gotta take it behind the woodshed. That's great. I wish more dept's would adopt this policy. Guys are so locked into this unisex 90s sensitive male crap that they have forgotten to act on their inner male instincts to protect and defend and sometimes conquer.

Gonna get flamed for that one but its worth it to state my mind.

edit on 23-9-2013 by WWJFKD because: (no reason given)

Starbucks simply understands that like alcohol a caffeine and sugar overload doesn't mix well with guns.

reply to post by Logarock

Starbuck's statement was mainly about not wanting people to open carry in their locations. it is not a statement of no guns allowed.

macman
reply to post by MysteriousHusky

 

More Anti-Gun Rights drivel from a Canadian.
www.nssfblog.com...
Seems that you have failed to be around here over the last couple of months.
This whole BS mantra of banning guns will produce a safer environment is just that, BS.

I think it is you who "have failed" to maintain a valid argument. You attack me personally for being a Canadian? Quote "More Anti-Gun Rights drivel from a Canadian." Personal attacks are the best defense for those who have none. Your source, while appreciated, is very biased (see below). Perhaps we are both on BS mountain, perhaps just one of us. Let the people decide!

NSSF Blog:

macman
reply to post by Logarock

 

Starbuck's statement was mainly about not wanting people to open carry in their locations. it is not a statement of no guns allowed.

I think it is more about them letting politics seep through into their business. Of course, the clientele thing is likely true....but the primary point being that a company based in Washington state is likely to show the traits of the people that make it up. Such as the "liberal" mindset of that region.

For right or wrong.

Since Keurig exists, I see little reason to visit Starbucks. Sure they have great coffee. So does the HEB store brand "Cafe Ole". For half the price. And I can carry a gun into HEB (although state law requires conceal carry in Texas).

reply to post by MysteriousHusky


There is something very wrong with the way certain look at the 2nd amendment as the source, the allowance, that makes criminal gun activity a product of the 2nd amendment rather than a product of the criminal or insane mind. Not so much expressed directly toward the constitution but the same direction cloaked behind pejoratives like "gun culture", "hick gun owners", "clinging to guns and the bible" and host of others.

And the president made this comment in public about gun and bible clingers but then wants to send arms to gun and Koran clingers. This contradiction can be used as a valid demonstration of several things but most notably a clear manifestation of sympathies. One has to ask if the president holds the constitutional right in the same light he holds Assad? Its the same vain, which he is familiar with, that is now rewriting history to show that the 2nd amendment and the right of states to form ad hock militias, was a southern pro slavery idea against the federal governments efforts to insure civil rights.

reply to post by MysteriousHusky


I am curious about this statement:

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.

Why?

Why should "choosing" to exercise your right be a reason to single you out? That kind of seems counterintuitive to what rights are to begin with?

What if it was more like, "If you choose to exercise your right to not have soldiers quartered in your house, we will keep your name in a database"? Isn't the very notion just a bit morose?

Logarock
reply to post by MysteriousHusky

 

There is something very wrong with the way certain look at the 2nd amendment as the source, the allowance, that makes criminal gun activity a product of the 2nd amendment rather than a product of the criminal or insane mind. Not so much expressed directly toward the constitution but the same direction cloaked behind pejoratives like "gun culture", "hick gun owners", "clinging to guns and the bible" and host of others.

And the president made this comment in public about gun and bible clingers but then wants to send arms to gun and Koran clingers. This contradiction can be used as a valid demonstration of several things but most notably a clear manifestation of sympathies. One has to ask if the president holds the constitutional right in the same light he holds Assad? Its the same vain, which he is familiar with, that is now rewriting history to show that the 2nd amendment and the right of states to form ad hock militias, was a southern pro slavery idea against the federal governments efforts to insure civil rights.

We are supporting a revolution over there so we don't have to do it over here.


Oh....wait.....

reply to post by MysteriousHusky


Attack??? Not really, as it was YOU, being a NON US citizen that is attacking US rights.

As for biased?? I guess no more biased that the crap you peddled as truth from NBC.


So, here is the question. What are you refuting in the source I provided? Are the stats incorrect?

I would love to hear your response to that.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


I tell you why it singles you, or said person, out. It singles said person out because exercising that right is antiquated. It was meant for an era far different from our present day collection of metropolises. That is why it can be seen as odd for someone to hold on to a relic of a right. Now I know rights are things you are born with. They cannot be removed. Yet, the Framers were not Gods. They were humans like you or I and surely would have amended the Constitution several times over to better serve each subsequent generation.

Peace out.

reply to post by MysteriousHusky


So, the way to go about changing the rights guaranteed to US citizens is defined very clearly.

Regardless what you FEEL about firearms, US citizens are granted the right to own and bear them.

reply to post by macman



You are right, as a non US citizen perhaps I should mind my own business. Yet, everyone is entitled to an opinion. But by that logic, would the U.S. have continued a policy of isolationism from Europe during World War I and World War II, minding its own business? When something is going down some place else, it is a universal trait we human beings have to investigate and find out what is going on. I am merely presenting a side of the argument that is rather unpopular - hence the lack of stars

macman
reply to post by MysteriousHusky

 

So, the way to go about changing the rights guaranteed to US citizens is defined very clearly.

Regardless what you FEEL about firearms, US citizens are granted the right to own and bear them.

Amen. You are 100% right there. You can't change the present setup but through dialogue perhaps we should reconsider the future of the 2nd Amendment. Out of curiosity do you believe it should have an expiry date? Or perhaps it should always remain as it is - one of those clauses that gives you the right to something most take for granted.