More on the Church shooting

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Louis XVII
I missed the part which states to what extent gun carriage has been reduced since designated areas became "gun free zones". Oh wait, it's not there. That would explain why I missed it.

Do you think it's possible to get anywhere near an accurate count on who is carrying their gun in violation of the law? Like I said, there will be exactly 0 law abiding ccw carriers in "gun free zones". The stats they do have indicate that CCW citizens on average are more law abiding than non CCW citizens. Will that one work for ya?

[Bronk]

Originally posted by Maverick
Yep beetle is definitely back.

He has 2 shades going , just so you know.

[Yeager]

I carry a legally concealed pistol any time I'm in a public place.  In my State, I would guess every one out of twenty people is legally packing heat in crowded public places.  However, it just goes without saying that gun free zones are the best places to commit mass murder/suicide with a gun...... go figure

[WWM]

Originally posted by Louis XVII
How many church shootings have occurred in England/Wales in the last 10 years, in light of the fact that the church congregations there cannot be armed?

    I spent time in a variety of countries while serving in the military.   I don't feel it is credible to compare our populous to that of another county. The populous will act according to how they were raised in their culture (usually).  When I was in Honduras we had people coming to base for medical attention that had been hacked with a machete while being robbed.  Guns too expensive and machete works fine.    When I was in Germany they left churches unlocked where insides were decorated with gold plating. People actually respected their country and didn't destroy steal or vandalize them.  I have been in the business of protecting communities and teaching people how to protect themselves for a number of years.    Anyone that has stood in innocent blood and witnessed what another human being can do another human being will probably feel a need to learn some type of defense.  Others may feel compelled to go a step further and take a position where they can defend other if needed.  

  Respectfully,
Warren M

[Louis XVII]

Warren - interesting post. My point was that some people here are giving full credit to a few armed citizens as the reason for preventing church shootings. All hail to the mighty gun. All I'm saying is that in other countries, where the whole damn country is a "gun free zone", there are no church shootings. The absence of these church shootings does not result from an armed congregation, because none of them is armed.

[WWM]

I understand your point.  We are a "drug free nation" though and I could go to the city next door where they don't know me and buy crack in about an hour because it is smuggled into our country. This is a breakdown in our PC nation. Most of the criminals I've seen caught with guns did not obtain those guns through a legal source.  If criminals, who will do unspeakable things to other innocent human beings, will have a gun..I want those I love to be able to defend themselves from that threat.  What is the answer in your opinion?

[FrodeMk3]

Originally posted by Louis XVII
Warren - interesting post. My point was that some people here are giving full credit to a few armed citizens as the reason for preventing church shootings. All hail to the mighty gun. All I'm saying is that in other countries, where the whole damn country is a "gun free zone", there are no church shootings. The absence of these church shootings does not result from an armed congregation, because none of them is armed.

Louis, I'd go with what Warren said-I mean, lots' of third-world countries have shootings in churches, sometimes on a regular basis. Think places like Rhodesia in the late seventies, Central America in the Early '80's, North Ireland during the period of '69 on. How many of those countries had a ban on firearms?

Granted, almost all of those countries listed had active conflicts going on.

At this point, It would be impossible to disarm the U.S. citizenry to the point that countries' like Germany and England have. And even those countries' still have some numbers' of weapons.

We need to be realistic. We should not wish for a situation we do not have. If, in order to provide true safety, Some should go armed if capable and willing, then so it should be. As I and many in a previous thread have stated, Having a Policeman there at exactly the right time and place is extremely rare, and a practical impossibility, to say the least.

[Louis XVII]

Warren - thank you for your reply.

Like you, I have been to various foreign countries including those in Europe, the Middle East and the Far East. In the Middle East - places like Dubai/UAE and Muscat/Oman, they don't have churches but they sure as hell have shopping malls. And yet in these unarmed societies or "gun free zones" where the whole country is a gun free zone, shopping mall shootings are unheard of.

The problem in America is three-fold. [list=1]

• Ingrained gun culture, and the tendency for whackjobs to adopt "copycat" behavior to make their presence felt, viz. the Nebraska shooter who wanted to "go out in style".
• A ready supply of deadly weapons that is made available to everyone, including people like this.
• A judicial system that adjudges the shooter to be a "law abiding citizen" right up until the time he starts committing crimes with his gun(s) because he has no previous history of gun crime.

The problem with point 3 is that instead of preventing these people from getting guns in the first place, they're allowed to exercise their 2nd amendment rights, with disastrous consequences, as seen in the Nebraska shopping mall. And this pattern is and will  forever more be repeated time after time after time. And nothing will ever stop it as long as the 2nd amendment guarantees the right to bear arms because there's no way of knowing who will own them responsibly, and who will do a Nebraska shopping mall job.

And that's why ~10,000 people will be murdered with a firearm in 2008 in the US.

Other countries are proactive, and don't allow guns in the first place. It seems to work for them.

As for America, I don't know what the answer is. Arming yourselves is a reasonable response, but is certainly not a watertight solution.

[Louis XVII]

Originally posted by FrodeMk3
Louis, I'd go with what Warren said-I mean, lots' of third-world countries have shootings in churches, sometimes on a regular basis. Think places like Rhodesia in the late seventies, Central America in the Early '80's, North Ireland during the period of '69 on. How many of those countries had a ban on firearms?

Granted, almost all of those countries listed had active conflicts going on.

Frode!

I think it would be quite incorrect to consider a country like Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) to be "third world". The whites there enjoyed a very high standard of living, with homes on 3-acre plots, pavilions, swimming pools and servants. There, it certainly was possibly to own a firearm legally.

As for Northern Ireland, by no stretch of the imagination can it be considered third world. It is part of the UK, currently the fifth largest economy in the world, and largest donor in solving the current world banking crisis! The conflict in Ulster (Northern Ireland) was instigated by the IRA, an illegal, paramilitary organization which acquired most of its weaponry from the USA.

[lazs2]

louis..  are you seriously saying that in the schools and the malls that are "gun free zones" that there were citizens there that ignored the laws and carried their guns anyway... that they never pulled out the guns?

that is a very interesting theory..  It would mean that the citizens were willing to break the law and face loss of their permit and their freedom but not willing to use the gun that they had snuck in.   It would mean that a random search in schools would turn up lots of guns carried on adults.  This is of course... nonsense and wishful thinking on your part..  the penalty is too high for a law abiding citizen.. the only ones who break the law are the ones that don't care.. they don't plan on coming out alive anyway.

Too many guns?  that would mean that the presence of guns was a problem.. shootings at gun clubs and hunting lodges and shooting ranges and wilderness plinking ranges would be ten times more likely.. maybe hundreds of times more since the per capita gun carrying would be 100 or more times as much.

If guns don't work.. then why did the sky marshal program work... concealed carry was all it was...  

If it doesn't work.. then why in your country, england... are more than half the burglaries commited while the homeowner cowers under his bed shaking while here..  the worst criminals in the world fear a homeowner more than a cop?

None of your "feelings" on the matter make sense in the cold light of day.   If you could turn us all into subjects of the queen and sheeple.. maybe.. too late for that.   we ended that hundreds of years ago and don't want to go back.

lazs

[SIG220]

Originally posted by Louis XVII

The problem in America is three-fold. [list=1]

• Ingrained gun culture, and the tendency for whackjobs to adopt "copycat" behavior to make their presence felt, viz. the Nebraska shooter who wanted to "go out in style".
• A ready supply of deadly weapons that is made available to everyone, including people like this.
• A judicial system that adjudges the shooter to be a "law abiding citizen" right up until the time he starts committing crimes with his gun(s) because he has no previous history of gun crime.

The problem with point 3 is that instead of preventing these people from getting guns in the first place, they're allowed to exercise their 2nd amendment rights, with disastrous consequences, as seen in the Nebraska shopping mall.

I'm afraid that you have your facts extremely wrong regarding this Nebraska case.  

This young man STOLE the firearms he used just before the incident happened.   He did not legally own them.  That AK-47 belonged to the man who was his stepdad.   The teenager knew where he kept it, and broke into the house to get it.

No law would have prevented him from owning a gun, as he already broke the law to get his hands on these weapons.

This was one seriously messed up kid.  His parents divorced when he was very young, so he never had a chance to grow up with his actual parents together.  Both parents had thrown him out, and he could not live with either of them anymore.   Even this family that took him in for the past year, had just told him that he had to leave.   So he was facing being homeless again, as well as being out of work, facing minor criminal charges, and being left by his girlfriend.   And he had no mother or father that he could turn to.

He wrote hateful messages online about this mother mistreating and abusing him while he grew up, yet in his suicide note he professed his love for both her, and also his father.   And this was despite being estranged from both of them.

There are much bigger problems in our society here, that brought about this terrible tragedy.  

A number of adults did make very bad choices in this incident.  The mother of the family that he lived with actually saw the assault rifle in his room the day before the shooting, yet thought nothing of it, despite the boy's many problems.   And for the Step dad to not have had the gun locked up in a safe was also most irresponsible.  The police came and confiscated the rest of his gun collection, as part of their investigation.

SIG 220

[lazs2]

no matter how he had the guns stored the police would have come and confiscated em all for the "investigation".

If someone steals your car and kills someone..  no big deal.   They don't come and confiscate the rest of your cars for the "investigation".

lazs

[WWM]

It simply boils down to the old saying, "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."    As long as outlaws have guns then don't take them away from me and my friends.  Yes, there are going to be mistakes, accidents, poor decisions, people that used to be sane do insance acts etc...  

IF we were going outlaw guns there are several other "holes" that need mending first.  I suppose you play this game so I will make an analogy.   It would be like trying to capture a Vehicle base without taking out the vehicle hanger and the other side putting up a strong defence.  No matter how many GV's you make disappear, they just keep coming out.  
           We simply will not do what it would take to stop illigal items from coming across the borders.  If we did then we would see an end to a big quantity of the drugs.  Instead there are literally TONS being smuggled over on a regular basis.