Texas shootout (CCW involved)

[Columbia]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/02/25/tx.town.square.shootings.ap/index.html

Courthouse shootout leaves three dead

Friday, February 25, 2005 Posted: 8:05 AM EST (1305 GMT)

TYLER, Texas (AP) -- A man angry about being sued for unpaid child support opened fire with an AK-47 assault rifle outside a courthouse, killing his ex-wife and a man trying to help the couple's adult son.
...
The other victim, Mark Alan Wilson, 52, was credited by authorities with saving the life of David Hernandez Arroyo Jr., who was listed in fair condition at a hospital with leg wounds. A sheriff's deputy, Sherman Dollison, 28, was in critical condition after being shot in the liver, lungs and legs; a sheriff's lieutenant and a Tyler police detective were treated and released.
...
Wilson, a gun enthusiast who once owned a shooting range, intervened after Arroyo killed his ex-wife, witnesses said. Swindle, the police chief, said Wilson shot at Arroyo several times but his rounds weren't penetrating the armor.

"They traded shots, missing each other, and then the gunman hit Wilson and Wilson went down," Tyler Morning Telegraph publisher Nelson Clyde III said in Friday's editions of the newspaper. Clyde watched the shooting from a nearby restaurant.

"The gunman walked up to Wilson and shot him while he was on the ground," Clyde said. "I couldn't believe what I was seeing. It was sickening."

<more>

[Dolomite]

1. CCW saves lives.

Nothing new there.

[iverglas]

2. oh! oh!

Forgive me, but I'm sure one of our colleagues who is fond of citing the National Academies report, at least, would not agree.

http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/0309091241?OpenDocument

-- There is no credible evidence that "right-to-carry" laws, which allow qualified adults to carry concealed handguns, either decrease or increase violent crime.

[sir pball]

5. so there's no good reason NOT to carry?

If CCWs have a neutral effect, why shouldn't they be issued? They don't affect public safety, so where's the harm in letting lawful citizens carry if they want to?

I haven't been able to pick up your personal opinion on CCWs from reading your recent posts, so I'm asking in a general sense, not as an issue of personal debate.

[iverglas]

6. hark! who said that?

so there's no good reason NOT to carry?

You asking me? Like, you think I said that, or that something I said leads logically ("so ...") to the conclusion that I think that?

Sorry. I didn't say it, and nothing I said leads logically to the conclusion that I think it.

If CCWs have a neutral effect, why shouldn't they be issued?

That's a mighty big "if" you got yerself there, eh?

They don't affect public safety ...

And your proof of that statement is ... where, again?

I haven't been able to pick up your personal opinion on CCWs from reading your recent posts, so I'm asking in a general sense, not as an issue of personal debate.

I am totally and unalterably opposed to permitting, where I'm at, the carrying of any firearms in public by anyone who has not demonstrated that s/he is a position that makes him/her especially vulnerable to attempts on his/her life, and been issued a permit based on that demonstration. And that is the law where I'm at.

I would also suggest that it is unwise in most other places to permit such acts, but what happens there is of course up to the people who live there.

[goju]

7. Burden of proof

For lack of a better phrase, where should the burden of proof be to determine the public safety costs/benefits of CCW? On those who want to permit CCW, or those who want to prohibit it?

[iverglas]

9. ah, "proof"

http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/ConstitutionalChallenge.html

While the Alberta Government claims that there is no "proof" that gun control works, the standard of "proof" it is demanding goes far beyond what is required for justice reforms. Dr. Neil Boyd, Criminology professor at Simon Fraser University argued that the detailed evaluation of the 1977 legislation provides stronger evidence of the effectiveness of gun control than is available to support on most other reforms. Dr. Martin Killias, criminologist, University of Lausanne, has suggested that demands for conclusive "proof" are often a strategy for delay.

What proof might you have that laws against homicide reduce the number of homicides committed? Let alone that the death penalty does ...

Me, of course, I wasn't making a claim. I was the one asking that someone who did make a claim substantiate it.

[Columbia]

39. And yet...

You are quite happy for justice reforms such as shall-issue CCW to be delayed on the same basis.

[iverglas]

97. and still

I ain't seeing no responses to what I really said.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=100427&mesg_id=100929&page=

You are quite happy for justice reforms such as shall-issue CCW to be delayed on the same basis.

I'm quite happy for moronic policies like permitting everybody and its dog to parade around in public festooned in firearms, and its frequent-companion equally-moronic policies like allowing anyone and its dog to get their hands on whatever firearms they like and then leave 'em lying around for anyone else or its dog to get hold of, to be delayed until doomsday, on the basis that a society is entitled to refrain from adopting policies that make no fucking sense and to adopt policies that are eminently rational, and that impair any right that might be at issue so minimally as to be not worth thinking about, while oh-so-obviously protecting the interest of the public and its members in not being subjected to the multiple harms that would be the oh-so-obvious result of the proliferation of firearms in their midst.

So glad we agree. Sorry that your society doesn't.

[Columbia]

99. Good run-on sentence

But a lotta words just say you don't like guns.

Shoulda just said so.

[iverglas]

100. thak you, thak you very much

I try. Of course, as someone once pointed out here, that wasn't a real run-on sentence, just a nicely long sentence. (That there was arguably a run-on sentence, fyi.)

But a lotta words just say you don't like guns.

I imagine a lotta words do indeed say that. You evidently know a lotta the words in question intimately, and have no compunctions about tossing them around with wild abandon. I'm sure yourself is enjoying your performance. (Oh look! Perhaps I have finally met that elusive "self" of jody's! If only I'd known it was so easily found, eh?)

[Columbia]

101. Quite welcome

[iverglas]

87. very well then

For lack of a better phrase, where should the burden of proof be to determine the public safety costs/benefits of CCW? On those who want to permit CCW, or those who want to prohibit it?

Would you like a course in constitutional law perhaps?

A number of factors are considered by courts when they are asked to determine whether a limitation on the exercise of a right or freedom that is protected by the constitution is justified. That is true in both Canada and the US.

No government is ever required to PROVE that its legislative initiative will accomplish any particular end. Such "proof" is, of course, not possible to make, and demanding it in any particular instance would simply be evidence of bad faith.

Governments are required to prove things like (I say "like", because these are not precisely the way the process is framed in the US):

- their objective is a valid one (like, enhancing public safety, e.g. by reducing firearms crime, death and injury)

- the interest they assert is "compelling" or some degree thereof, or their objective "pressing and substantial", or however it may be phrased in the instance in question

- the means they are proposing for pursuing the objective is rationally connected to the objective (like, that limiting access to handguns, or prohibiting the carrying of handguns in public, is rationally connected to reducing handgun homicides or other crimes) -- this does not involve proving that one will do the other, it involves proving a rational connection

- the means they are proposing involve the least possible impairment of the right or freedom in question

- the impairment of the right or freedom is not out of all proportion to the objective

To some, it seems self-evident that prohibiting the carrying of concealed handguns in public meets those tests. Some claim that it doesn't seem so to them. Everybody's got an opinion, eh? and some statements of opinion are even sincere and genuine.

The formal burden of proof comes into existence in a court when it considers whatever limitation a government has enacted on the exercise of some right or freedom. (Of course, it is to be hoped that governments will carefully consider that question and not enact laws willy-nilly that on their face are unjustified interferences in exercises of rights and freedoms. In Canada, all legislation and regulations are scrutinized by the Justice Dept for Charter compliance before they go forward for legislative or administrative consideration.)

In public discourse, the informal burden of proof is of course on those who propose such interferences. For instance, people who oppose same-sex marriage have a responsibility, in a liberal democracy, to offer justification for denying rights and freedoms to a minority, and not simply to appeal to the public's prejudices. People who propose laws to prohibit dishonesty in the advertising of cures for diseases have a responsibility to offer justification for such a limitation on freedom of speech.

And yes, people who propose laws to prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms in public have a responsibility to offer justification for that limitation on people's complete freedom to do whatever the hell they want, just as people who propose laws to prohibit the walking of tigers at shopping malls do.

Speaking of which, Ontario this week banned the possession of pit bulls, finally.
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1109717416460&call_pageid=970599119419

But there is simply no need for "proof" that this legislative measure, any more than any other, will accomplish any particular objective.

Happy now?

[iverglas]

88. well then?

I offer the briefing in constitutional law that so many apparently so desperately wanted ... and ... nada ...

[Scout]

102. I read it....

and it got me reminiscing about Criminal Law class in college. How our professor told us the first day that we were to be so fortunate as to cover the same material as at the University of Michigan Law School. We felt "lucky" only for a minute, as we realized that UM was on 16 week semester system, while we at Michigan State (at the time) were on the 10 week quarter system. Oh, the good old days of 350 pages of cases to read and brief for each class.

Actually, I very much enjoyed the class, and my Constitutional Law class ... I just had trouble with the quantity of reading/briefing in addition to other classes and working part time. A couple of times, I was reading one case ahead of the professor's lecture and questions in class. I became a master at leaning slightly one way or the other, so as to always keep the student in front of me directly in the prof's line of sight as he moved across the room.

[sir pball]

10. *sigh*

I'm not going to get into one of the long-running debates over trivial grammatical points...I should have put the two paragraphs in my previous post backwards, opening with asking you your CCW positions, and I should have backed up my comments.

So here ya go: both my statements, on neutral effect and public safety, come directly from your quote from the National Acadamies report: "There is no credible evidence that "right-to-carry" laws, which allow qualified adults to carry concealed handguns, either decrease or increase violent crime." That certainly sounds like a neutral effect on violent crime to me. As well as having no effect on public safety.

Really just three ways of saying the same thing..."neither decrease or increase violent crime" = "neutral effect" = "not affecting public safety".

[iverglas]

12. you must be new

Otherwise, you would have seen and recalled the multiple other times this has been discussed, and not be asserting that the report in question said something that it did not say. The concept may be unfamiliar, so I'll help you out.

"There is no credible evidence that 'right-to-carry' laws ... either decrease or increase violent crime" most definitely DOES NOT MEAN that said laws have "a neutral effect on violent crime".

It means what it says, which is that there is NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE either way. It means that NOBODY KNOWS what, if any, effect said laws may have.

ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE is not EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE, as the saying goes.

You might want to read some of the actual report. The reason for the absence of evidence is basically that nobody's collecting it. There are facts, it's just that nobody knows what they are, so nobody can study them to determine whether they provide evidence to confirm or deny any particular hypothesis.

So no ... you don't get to take the statement:

There is no credible evidence that "right-to-carry" laws ... either decrease or increase violent crime.

and say that it is just another way of saying that right-to carry laws "neither decrease or increase violent crime". 'Cause that is NOT what it is.

[sir pball]

14. OK...

Hah, I am new here, but not to the debate in generel. You are absolutely right about absence of evidence - so let me rephrase...in the absence of any conclusive evidence pro or con, can you make a specific, concrete argument against the issue of CCW permits?

[alwynsw]

24. OMG! A brand new person!

We're all perfectly aware that it's utterly impossible for you to have had any relevant life experiences or for you to have formed any valid opinions or theories prior to registering on this board. Life begins upon registration. It's a natural fact.

All that being said, welcome to DU.

[MrSandman]

43. OMG, I'm only 18 mo. old...

Precociuos?

[alwynsw]

50. Since I'm exactly 1 month, two weeks older than you in DU years,

I guess that means my shit don't stink when compared to yours! :silly:

[RoeBear]

77. Since you dind't get a response

I'll reply to your question.

Because I don't like guns, that's why!

[davepc]

79. and some people dont like abortion

and think its a tool of murderers! So hey, lets ban that too!

[sir pball]

80. well

That's fine that you don't like guns - I certainly don't propose to force people to carry them or shoot them if they don't want to. Any good reason why OTHER (law-abiding) people shouldn't be allowed to have them?

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrSandman]

34. With lack of credible evidence...

You wish to exercise prior restraint over individual liberty?

Then let's gin up some speech codes to prevent possible incitement.

And we are talking about US, not Alberta.

[sir pball]

35. Remember...

...many "progressive/liberal" (compared to the US) societies with strict gun control laws also regulate speech. And think it's foolish and backwards to allow distasteful ideas like race-hate to be openly spoken.

[MrSandman]

44. We (US) are so barbaric...nt

[MrSandman]

47. Sometimes here...

Even so, police say the nature of the story makes it a felony. "Anytime you make any threat or possess matter involving a school or function it's a felony in the state of Kentucky," said Winchester Police detective Steven Caudill.

http://www.lex18.com/Global/story.asp?S=2989614&nav=EQlpWjof

[alwynsw]

51. Too true here in KY

I just checked it with my wife, the fairly recently retired teacher.

[iverglas]

71. and don't forget!

... those "free speech zones".

C that CW anyplace you like ... just don't criticize King George, oh ye subjects ...

http://www.aclu.org/Files/OpenFile.cfm?id=17234

This tactic has become so commonplace that the ACLU asked a federal court for a nation-wide injunction against the use of "protest zones" at presidential appearances. William Neel, a retired steelworker, experienced this treatment after trying to join a crowd of Bush supporters along a presidential motorcade route in Pittsburgh. The sign he carried stood out from the rest. "The Bushes must surely love the poor; they have made so many of us!" it said. Secret Service agents attempted to remove him to a "free speech" zone in a ball field behind a six-foot fence, where he and his sign would be hidden from view. When he refused, he was handcuffed, charged with "disorderly conduct" and taken to a firehouse where he was detained for the remainder of the president's visit. The request for an injunction was rejected because the Secret Service denied any policy of discriminating against protestors.

Only one place I know of that pretends to be "free" where this stuff happens.

[MrSandman]

73. We finally agree...nt

[iverglas]

69. got one in mind?

many "progressive/liberal" (compared to the US) societies with strict gun control laws also regulate speech. And think it's foolish and backwards to allow distasteful ideas like race-hate to be openly spoken.

One that might be relevant to something?

Or maybe just engaging in some out-the-bum-talking? That's legal everywhere I know of ... distasteful as it might be ...

[sir pball]

81. 2 places off the top of my head

Germany and France both have some pretty strong anti-Nazi laws. I'll reference them later, dinner's almost done.

[alwynsw]

37. Just can't stand it, can ya?

A man, legally carrying a concealed weapon, uses the weapon to save a life (according to officers on the scene), sacrificing his own life in the process, thereby proving (in this instance at least) that all CCW holders are not itching for an opportunity to misuse their firearms; and you're all torn up about it.

Golly! He didn't shoot up a bar. He didn't take an opportunity to blow away a fleeing purse snatcher. He did use his weapon to save a life.

Yup. It was a very bad thing that a legal CCW holder was nearby and willing to take action to preserve a life other than his own.

I cannot help but wonder what your position would be had you been the son whose life was saved. I know what you'll say, but I wonder what is really in you heart of hearts.

[Columbia]

46. Make that two CCW holders

See Post 40

[Columbia]

38. You forgot rich people

I am totally and unalterably opposed to permitting, where I'm at, the carrying of any firearms in public by anyone who has not demonstrated that s/he is a position that makes him/her especially vulnerable to attempts on his/her life, and been issued a permit based on that demonstration. And that is the law where I'm at.

Remember?

"Quite seriously, as long as rich people were the ones getting concealed firearms permits (which really is not the case where *I* am at), I wouldn't be too likely to encounter a legally concealed firearm-toter, so I wouldn't really care."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=47843#48058

[iverglas]

72. and you seem to have forgotten

your, um, civil discourse handbook.

Ah yes, rich people don't get any dispensation from the rules regarding the carrying of firearms where I'm at (and I've never seen anything but the usual unsubstantiated "liberal élite" allegations regarding any such thing where you're at), and I've repeatedly said that I support the existing rules where I'm at ... and so my sarcastic assertion that I wouldn't give a shit if it did happen, in a discussion of why I do object to a law that would permit anybody who felt like it to carry a firearm onto my property unless I posted a notice prohibiting it, or onto any property where I was likely to be, rich people being unlikely to be in any places where I commonly am ... yes, that's some kind of evidence that I'm all for rich people toting guns around. Yes indeed. In the universe where there are no civil discourse handbooks.

You've got the copy and paste function down real well. Now you might get yourself a copy of the handbook and read the bit about misrepresenting by omitting context:

I'm not much for that old Aesop trick of looking at the grapes that the fox revlected in the water has, and dropping the ones I've got for the illusion of something better. The fact that some boring idle rich people may have something I don't have wouldn't actually make me want it, or imagine that the world would be better if everybody had it. Just think if we all drove monster luxury SUVs everywhere we went, what the world would be like.

Me, I'd be more likely to be agitating for the boring idle rich people *not* to drive around in monster luxury SUVs with concealed firearms, that being *my* idea of what would be a nicer world for everyone, than demanding that everybody get to have 'em.

If you don't want rich people to be toting guns around, say so and do something about it. If you want to pretend that that's something I want, well, I'm sure you have a receptive audience here, but then so does FoxNews when it plays your game.

[Columbia]

78. No amount of "context" can save you from your words

Nor any amount of typing convince anyone other than you otherwise.

Nice try though.

[iverglas]

84. if I need to be saved from my words

I'll let you know.

The only thing I might ever have needed saving from, in my time hereabouts, is people who are either too dim to understand my words or sufficiently disingenuous to pretend not to understand them.

I say as a general comment only, of course. In this particular instance, well, who knows what the problem might be?

[Columbia]

86. Funny funny

Clever girl.

You ever going to get around to answering the question about your stance on CCW that has been asked by 3 separate people now?

Or have you not thought up some witty yet entirely unrelated analogy to hide the hypocrisy yet?

[Krinkov]

89. christ allmighty

If CCWs have a neutral effect, why shouldn't they be issued?

That's a mighty big "if" you got yerself there, eh?

Did i miss something? You just posted that link to imply CCW's don't increase public safety, as another poster claimed -- though your source simply states an absence of evidence. Now you are abandoning the very material you presented when someone uses makes an identical implication, that the absence of evidence that it increases crime can be used to defend CCW. You blasted someone for using the same sort of assumption you did.
Why waste our time posting the link in the first place if the data is inconclusive and cannot be used to make either argument? Is this how you perform in the courtroom?

And you believe people have to prove they are at significant risk before being able to protect themselves. What victim expected a rape, mugging, etc. to happen to them? Even more, what evidence could they have presented, even if they did somehow know they would be attacked in future?

No one expects to be a victim, and everyone can potentially be a victim. Therefore, wouldn't everyone fall into the category of posessing the need to protect themselves?

[iverglas]

95. did you miss something?

Apparently.

You just posted that link to imply CCW's don't increase public safety, as another poster claimed ...

Neither I nor the source I linked to implied any such thing. Why would you say something like this? Why would you impute a motive to me that you have no evidence for?

-- though your source simply states an absence of evidence.

I have no evidence that you exist. May I now conclude, or maybe imply, that you do not exist? More to the point, would you now like to conclude, or imply, or insinuate, that I have said you do not exist?

Are you understanding this? The fact that nobody is counting something does not mean that there is nothing there to be counted. And the fact that I have pointed this out does not mean that I have asserted that anything is the case, or that proof of it being the case exists or does not exist.

And I posted the link, and the quotation, to make the point that the counting is not being done, and so neither statement -- such laws do/don't increase public safety (or "save lives", if you will) -- is supported by "proof".

You blasted someone for using the same sort of assumption you did.

What are you talking about?

My initial statement was a quotation from the source in question:

There is no credible evidence that "right-to-carry" laws, which allow qualified adults to carry concealed handguns, either decrease or increase violent crime.

Where's the "assumption" you're seeing?

Why waste our time posting the link in the first place if the data is inconclusive and cannot be used to make either argument?

I'm sorry you had such a hard time following such a short exchange.

Poster said: CCW saves lives. Nothing new there.

I said: Forgive me, but I'm sure one of our colleagues who is fond of citing the National Academies report, at least, would not agree.

I was referring to the "nothing new there" statement, which I interpreted as a reference to some well-known fact that "CCW saves lives", such well-known fact not being an established fact at all. Certainly, at least, interpreted in a meaningful way, i.e. "CCW saves lives more than it causes harm". I mean, Thalidomide saves lives, too, but that's no particular reason to make it available to everyone who wants it. If "CCW" is said to be saving lives, I'm assuming that it's said to be doing so on balance.

Is this how you perform in the courtroom?

Goodness gracious, have we met? Did someone somewhere mislead you into thinking that I perform in courtrooms?

Now, were I currently appearing in such venues, I would of course be saying exactly what I've said here, as would any intelligent and competent counsel. For instance: an absence of evidence that my client was not at home asleep when the offence occurred is not evidence that my client was not at home asleep when the offence occurred. You see?

And you believe people have to prove they are at significant risk before being able to protect themselves.

This appears to be some sort of statement of fact, the fact being what I believe. I'd have to say, me being the highest and best authority on what I believe, that your statement is false.

I mean, what I'd really say is that it doesn't make a stitch of sense. How the hell could one require people to do anything before "being able" to do something? And do let's not forget that the issue is not about "protecting" anything, it is about defending. The two are actually different.

What I think, and agree with my elected legislative bodies about, is that people should have to prove that they are at extraordinary risk of potentially fatal assaults, against which the public, through the police, cannot protect them, in order to be permitted to carry firearms about in public.

I hope you folks really aren't labouring under some delusion that those rich folks routinely get permits to carry concealed firearms in public in Canada.

http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/pol-leg/res-eval/publications/reports/1997/reports/selfdef_rpt_e.asp

... in 1995 there were fewer than 50 people in all of Canada who were issued permits to carry handguns for self-protection (R.C.M.P., 1995; personal discussions with Chief Firearms Officer). Such permits are only granted in Canada when an individual faces an imminent threat to his/her life and where police protection is insufficient in counteracting that threat.

This appears to be a reproduction of the minutes of proceedings of a House of Commons Committee in 1995, too long ago to be available on the net from the original source:
http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Gov/Commons.C68/jula153.txt
(speaking: Mr. McLellan, Parliamentary Secretary to the Liberal Minister of Justice, i.e. a Member of Parliament who was the legislative second-in-command to the Minister, also an MP)

I said yesterday that I thought there were 100 people who were authorized to carry handguns in Canada. There are in fact 33.

That would be a little over 1 in 1,000,000 Canadians, at the time. Oh good, we don't need to rely on the icky secondary source; here's the original:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/committees/jula/evidence/153_95-05-31/jula153_blk101.html
And I'm not expecting that the situation has changed a whole lot in 10 years, during which firearms control measures were strengthened overall.

For the next one, all I find is a secondary source, for which I'm sure someone will be willing to shoot me; at least it ain't medicalmarihuana.ca, eh? In this case, the original source itself is about as icky as the secondary source, but the report of the actual facts seems to be pretty reliable.

http://www.nfa.ca/newswire/2002/10-16-02.html

There's little chance the Edmonton gun shop owner who was wounded during a botched robbery -- or any other gun shop worker -- could get a licence to carry a concealed weapon, a spokesman for Edmonton'sCanadian Firearms Officer said Tuesday.

... "Chances are he won't get the permit," said Don LaBelle, spokesman for the local firearms officer who would issue the document.

Concealed weapons permits, La Belle said, are issued only if three conditions prevail: a person's life must be in imminent danger, the firearm must be able to protect the person from death or grievous harm, and police protection must be insufficient.

Those guidelines allow some tree planters and prospectors in British Columbia's grizzly territory to carry handguns, but they generally do not apply to city residents, LaBelle said.

Within urban areas, it's always assumed police protection is sufficient, LaBelle said. The exceptions are for people such as Brinks armoured car staff.

And damned if this isn't a smart gun shop owner:

Paul Torkoly, of Midtown Exchange and Loan, has taken a different tack. Several years ago, Torkoly decided he would buy and sell rifles and shotguns, but not handguns. Handguns involve too much paperwork, and they attract robbers bent on violence, Torkoly said.

No one expects to be a victim, and everyone can potentially be a victim. Therefore, wouldn't everyone fall into the category of posessing the need to protect themselves?

I've never actually pondered this concept of "possessing a need". I'll have to think on't.

So no. Not everyone has a need to protect him/herself. Of course, again, the actual need that we're talking about is the need to defend one's self. And any given ordinary person might "possess" that particular need a couple of times in a lifetime, and not likely be possessing a need to (be able to) kill someone much of ever. Can said ordinary person demonstrate a need to tote a firearm around in public? Nope.

What victim expected a rape, mugging, etc. to happen to them? Even more, what evidence could they have presented, even if they did somehow know they would be attacked in future?

Even better: what evidence could they have presented, even ex post facto, to demonstrate that their having (or having had) a firearm would have done a damned thing to prevent it happening, and would not have resulted, either at the time in question or at some other time, in some equally unpleasant thing occurring?

Silliness, all of it. And I'm quite comfortable addressing and dismissing it as such. Just as I would dismiss any paranoid / disingenous statement of a "need" to surround one's property in razor wire, and booby-trap one's front yard with landmines and one's backyard pool with crocodiles or chemicals, to avert the danger from all the bogeymen lurking about and ready to bust in and slit one's throat in one's sleep.

As I've said before: anybody so paranoid that s/he feels unsafe when wandering abroad on the streets without a firearm on his/her person is welcome to stay home. The public just, really, does get a say about what people do in public.

But hey, if your publics like people wandering around festooned in firearms, that's up to them, eh? Anybody interested in my opinion is welcome to listen to it. (I mean, that's what these internet discussion board thingies are for, right?) Anybody who isn't can click on by, and anybody who doesn't like it can lump it. Ain't it a grand world?

[Factoid]

42. Well, in *THIS* case,

law Enforcement has credited the CCW holder with saving a life.

[camaro3232]

49. oh no

Person A i walking down the road, person B attempts to slash him and rob him. Person A shoots person B.

Thats enough evidence right there. I you carried how would that not reduce the chance of violent crime being commited against you? What about the other day when a CCW hold save the crazy mans son that was shooting everyone. There is also no credible evidence that gun control works either. Its your right. you can chose to carry or not.

[DoNotRefill]

85. If there's no evidence it causes an increase in crime....

" -- There is no credible evidence that "right-to-carry" laws, which allow qualified adults to carry concealed handguns, either decrease or increase violent crime."

Then what's the problem with CCW?

[iverglas]

96. ever and anon

I be disappointed.

-- There is no credible evidence that "right-to-carry" laws, which allow qualified adults to carry concealed handguns, either decrease or increase violent crime.
Then what's the problem with CCW?

There's no credible evidence that "right to stock the moat around your house with crocodiles laws" either decrease or increase animal bites.

So what's the problem with crocodile filled moats?

I mind the day when there was no credible evidence that smoking caused disease ... so I guess smoking didn't cause disease. And second-hand smoke in particular certainly didn't cause disease ... until somebody found the credible evidence that it did.

Of course, some might say that there were still other good reasons to make rules limiting smoking in public places, even if there was no credible evidence that the smoke caused third-party disease. But I suppose all those rules were just unconstitutional.

[Jack_DeLeon]

21. Definately, and one of the deputies on the scene agrees...

"One of the deputies at the scene said if it hadn't been for Mr. Wilson," said Sheriff J.B. Smith, "the son would be dead."

From what I've heard from other news reports, it took a while for the police to get organized to face the threat, as it usually does in most all similar situations.

So the 1st person on the scene able to respond to this threat was a private citizen carrying a concealed weapon. Unfortunately for him he was not armed with rounds capable of penetrating body armor, but by his quick action he was able to tie up the criminal for long enough for the police to respond.

He gave his life, but he saved others.

[iverglas]

3. funny thing

Another bit worth noting:

Police estimated that Arroyo, who had a history of spousal abuse and weapons violations, shot 50 rounds in the historic town square. He was wearing a military flak jacket and a bulletproof vest.

With some decent firearms control measures in place, he actually might not have got his hands on the firearm with which he killed three people.

Nobody's "CCW" seems to have stopped those killings. Nobody's "CCW" could have stopped those killings, unless somebody had shot the guy in the body armour with the AK-47, say in the head, BEFORE he started shooting.

Funny how I'm seeing a tragedy that would not have occurred absent firearms, while others presumably see something to celebrate.

[sir pball]

4. maybe, maybe not

Well, the CNN article doesn't say how he came to own the gun - he might have had it prior to his descent into into felony, and even though a felony conviction down here does mean you have to surrender any firearms you own, I'm sure it's a relatively trivial matter to keep them well hidden. I'm certainly not trying to say that proper enforcement of existing laws wouldn't have prevented this, but I'm witholding final judgement in light of insufficient information.

Of course, since this was a targeted shooting (ex-wife and son, over unpaid child support), he could have knifed them, come after them with a sword, used a baseball bat...the creative/dedicated mind has no shortage of ways to cause mayhem. That and the body armor point to this being a planned, calculated attack, not just some random nutjob with a gun ala Charles Whitman - a situation like that is likely going to turn grisly with or without firearms, though I'll freely admit the weapons significantly add to the collateral damage.

(Incidentally, this is why my "trunk gun" is equipped with APM2...)

[iverglas]

8. hmmm ...

Well, the CNN article doesn't say how he came to own the gun - he might have had it prior to his descent into into felony, and even though a felony conviction down here does mean you have to surrender any firearms you own, I'm sure it's a relatively trivial matter to keep them well hidden.

Indeed.

But if there had been the kind of reasonable firearms control measures in place that I'm talking about, his legally-owned firearm would have been registered and he would have had a licence to possess it -- and once he became ineligible to possess it, his failure to surrender it would have been no trivial matter at all, since it would have got him arrested.


Of course, since this was a targeted shooting (ex-wife and son, over unpaid child support), he could have knifed them, come after them with a sword, used a baseball bat...the creative/dedicated mind has no shortage of ways to cause mayhem.

And yet ... he didn't! And so few people do tuck a knife in their pocket or a baseball bat under their arm when they set out to kill someone in a public place and are intent on not getting hurt themselves (as someone who wears body armour apparently is ... and as someone who carries an AK-47 rather than a baseball bat is rather more likely to succeed at). Amazing, isn't it?


That and the body armor point to this being a planned, calculated attack, not just some random nutjob with a gun ala Charles Whitman - a situation like that is likely going to turn grisly with or without firearms, ...

Ya think? Easy to kill someone from a distance with a knife, is it? Easy to kill a few more people before being put out of commission, when you're wielding a baseball bat? Lots of reports on CNN about multiple baseball-bat homicides these days?

... though I'll freely admit the weapons significantly add to the collateral damage.

Ah, "collateral damage". Where have we heard that before?

You say "collateral damage", I say "dead people". Must be my Canadian accent, I guess.

[benEzra]

11. From initial reports, it appears that the firearm...

may have been an illegal NFA Class III machine gun, rather than a mere civilian AK lookalike. Mere possession of an automatic weapon without proper authorization is a serious federal felony. (We're talking BATFE-kicking-in-your-door serious here.)

If that were indeed the case, the next question would be how did he obtain a machine gun? Is he a skilled machinist, or did he obtain the putative machine gun illegally from someone else? Is it a real military AK, an AK parts kit married to a homemade NFA Class III receiver, or a civilian AK lookalike with the receiver altered or replaced by a skilled machinist?

There are a lot of questions here currently, for which one hopes we can get some answers. It appears that the body armor was the key to the scenario, though (since he reportedly took multiple torso hits from the armed civilian).

[sir pball]

15. whoof

If this really was an NFA-regulated gun, this is the kind of thing that likely no laws could have prevented - an illegal MG is, as you say, deep black market; and as I've pointed out, somebody who's so intent on killing another that they're going to get an automatic weapon and wear body armor is going to find some way to do the deed, guns or no.

On a tangent, I thought calling a firearm a "Class III" implies that it's registered and legal to own, while simply "NFA prohibited" says that it was illegally built? I'm not terribly familiar with those legal intricacies, maybe somebody can answer that for me?

[sir pball]

16. Link?

Didn't think to mention that beforehand...interested to see these reports.

[benEzra]

17. From a thread on the High Road...

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=127187&page=1&pp=25

I just watched the AM coverage on CBS...

They also included some video footage from inside a courtroom during the shooting and from the audio it was clear that the rifle was in fact fully automatic and it sounded like an AK to me. From the short clip I heard what sounded to me like a longish burst of 5-8 rounds followed closely by a shorter burst of maybe 3-4 rounds (thats a guess though). But, it was definatly a machinegun and so the media calling it an "Assault Weapon/Rifle" is actually technically correct (unfortunatly).

I am very interested to see how he obtained the rifle and wether or not it was converted post-sale or if he accquired it that way.

So this is literally "hearsay" (pun intended), but an automatic weapon and a semiauto being fired as rapidly as possible sound quite different.

I'd wait for more authoritative reports before banking on this, though. (I'll look around the 'net a bit and see if I can find anything else.)

[sir pball]

18. probably illegal conversion

If it was long bursts of fire, I'd be willing to bet it was an illegally converted gun - AFAIK most legally available AKs have the 3rd package, no?

[benEzra]

25. You mean legally available Class III's?

If you do, I've never seen one, as they seem to be particularly rare. (Probably because we weren't on particularly good terms with the Warsaw Pact nations prior to 1986, when the NFA Class III automatic weapons registry was closed to new civilian autos.)

[sir pball]

27. Yeah

I do mean Class III AKs...but you seem to be right, they're extremely scarce. Haven't found much info on them, but there are apparently 3-round trigger packs available for Class IIIs. Not 100% sure how they come stock, but I want to say they do have the burst feature.

[davepc]

29. Stock Class III AK's...

Are Semi-auto and full-auto only.

Those 3-round kits add a burst function to the rifle.

The selector switch itself is said to be the worst part of the original design.

[sir pball]

36. thanks

ty for clearing that up...i'm not terribly into AKs, i'm HK trash myself :)

[slackmaster]

53. Big Surprise, initial reports were completely WRONG

It turns out the rifle was a semiautomatic Chinese SKS that had been modified into a sporting or "non-assault-style" configuration. It could have been sold legally even during the defunct 10-year federal "assault weapons" ban assuming the buyer was legally qualified to have a firearm, which Mr. Arroyo was clearly not. A similar rifle could probably be sold legally even here in California (as can an unmodified standard SKS).

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/nation/10995968.htm?1c

Would someone who thinks an additional gun control law could have prevented Arroyo from obtaining that rifle please volunteer to propose such a law? And please be realistic. Describe a law that would actually be politically possible and not violate the limits on powers granted to the federal or state governments by the Constitution

[sir pball]

13. ok, your turn now

his failure to surrender it would have been no trivial matter at all, since it would have got him arrested.
Ok, fine logic...and what if he refuses to surrender the weapon? Keep him locked up until he does? I personally wouldn't, but I know some people who would rather stay jailed for life than hand over their firearms (and probably raise a huge fuss over excessive punishment while they were at it).

And yet ... he didn't! And so few people do tuck a knife in their pocket or a baseball bat under their arm when they set out to kill someone in a public place and are intent on not getting hurt themselves (as someone who wears body armour apparently is ... and as someone who carries an AK-47 rather than a baseball bat is rather more likely to succeed at). Amazing, isn't it?
Not really amazing; if I were going to do something like this, I'd probably choose a firearm - but if it were impossible to get one, totally inconceivable, there are still quite a few ways that it would be possible to easily kill an unsuspecting couple of people. And you can be intent as you want on avoiding harm, but one would have to be truly mentally incompetent to think that you could walk up to a courthouse with an AK, start shooting, and walk away unharmed. Not. Gonna. Happen.

Easy to kill someone from a distance with a knife, is it? Easy to kill a few more people before being put out of commission, when you're wielding a baseball bat?
Blah. As I already said, this looks to be a targeted killing, an assassination if you will - yes, it IS easier to kill from a distance with a gun, and if you want to commit a mass murder, of course a gun would be ideal - but from what I can tell in this case, he killed his ex-wife, shot his son, then went after the guy who shot at him, and the police. Yes, if he hadn't had a gun, he probably only would have gotten his ex and maybe the kid - but again, he was hardly a Charles Whitman picking off people at random.

You say "collateral damage", I say "dead people". Must be my Canadian accent, I guess.
Dead people by firearms - from what I've seen on my trips up there, you folks aren't any better drivers than us Americans, and the slaughter on the roads makes gun-related deaths look almost insignificant. Why not put all this energy into pushing "Drive Right" reforms a la Germany, and reducing the accidental death rate far more significantly?
*hands in gun nut card for making gun-car comparison*

[iverglas]

98. and by the bye

... from what I've seen on my trips up there, you folks aren't any better drivers than us Americans, and the slaughter on the roads makes gun-related deaths look almost insignificant. Why not put all this energy into pushing "Drive Right" reforms a la Germany, and reducing the accidental death rate far more significantly?

http://www.itscanada.ca/english/statistics.htm

Collisions and casualties increased about five per cent in 2002 over the previous year. There was also a three per cent increase in injuries over 2001.

Although road fatalities still represent over 90 per cent of all transportation-related fatalities, Canada's road safety record has steadily improved over the years. Since 1982, road traffic deaths have declined by almost 50 per cent. Following the Government of Canada's introduction of Road Safety Vision 2010 in 1996, the number of road users killed has decreased by 10 per cent, and the number of people seriously injured has fallen by 16 per cent.

The statistics, collected by Transport Canada in cooperation with the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators, show that in the year 2002, there were 2,596 fatal collisions leading to 2,936 deaths. Motor vehicle occupants accounted for 77.5 per cent of all road user fatalities, with 1,546 drivers and 730 passengers killed. In addition, 370 pedestrians, 172 motorcyclists and 64 bicyclists were also killed on the road.

That works out to about 2714 in 2000.


http://www.drugwarfacts.org/causes.htm

Comparable US stats: 43,000 motor vehicle fatalities in 2000.

Using the 9:1 ratio, the US would have had about 24,400 traffic fatalities if its traffic fatality rate had been the same as Canada's in 2000.

There are different values for lots of factors. I'd bet that a higher proportion of the US population owns and drives motor vehicles, and that they drive more per year on average. (Canada's population is considerably more concentrated in large urban centres, and public transit is considerably better and used more in Canadian cities.) But heck, if you want to reduce traffic fatalities, reducing the amount of driving would sure be one way to do it.


Oh look: http://wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/prevguid/m0023655/M0023655.asp

Injury is the leading cause of death for persons aged 1-44 years in the United States. More than half (55%) of all injury-related deaths are caused by motor vehicles and firearms. Although the number of deaths from motor-vehicle crashes has exceeded those from firearms, since 1968, differences in the number of deaths have declined: from 1968 through 1991, motor-vehicle- related deaths decreased by 21% (from 54,862 to 43,536) while firearm-related deaths increased by 60% (from 23,875 to 38,317). Based on these trends, by the year 2003, the number of firearm-related deaths will surpass the number of motor-vehicle crashes, and firearms will become the leading cause of injury-related death.

(I'd have to do more work to find out how accurate that prediction was, and I don't have time just now.)

On the comparison, we do have this:

http://www.paho.org/english/dd/ais/be_v25n1-acctransito.htm



The pot-kettle situation seems pretty clear, I'd say.

And I'll continue to be happier driving most anywhere here, except maybe the QEW into Toronto, where there is, for some reason, an excess of fast-lane-hogging idiots, than most anywhere in the USofA, except maybe that highway between Las Vegas and Nevada, where there wasn't anybody except me.

Nobody's ever actually tried to run me off the road up here, either intentionally or unintentionally. Can't say the same for Oklahoma, even assuming that the second time was unintentional ...

[anonymous44]

26. exactly

why wasn't this guy in jail?

the court system is too soft

[Krinkov]

90. if the ccw had been carrying an AK, it would have pierced the vest

Refresh my memory, would that have been lawful, if wilson was carrying one too? If so, such a law clearly didnt stop the murderer.

Not to mention steel core 'cop killer' ammo, which would have gone through that vest.

[sir pball]

103. Or if the police had been *properly* armed

I think it's ridiculous that the police are pretty much limited to a 9mm handgun and possibly a 12ga shotgun. It's not like it would be that expensive or space-consuming to give them all enhanced, armor-penetrating firepower with, say, G36Cs (apparently getting pretty popular with LE as SWAT/tactical weapons already, so widespread adoption shouldn't be too difficult) or P90s/FN handguns loaded with SS190 AP. Hell, give them FNs as carry guns and G36s for the car; they'll be able to handle just about anything modern criminals can throw at them. Incidentally, whilst on vacation in Prague and Geneva last year, I noticed the police over there seem to be much better armed than their US counterparts - perhaps that has something to do with the lower crime rates across the pond? Lord knows if I vere a criminal, I'd be much more afraid of an MP5 or G3-toting officer...

And no, I think in most states carrying a rifle slung over your shoulder is "brandishing" at the least. Now, if you have a CCW, carrying a long gun in your trunk is legal in most places (unless your employer decides they don't want those nasty ol' guns in their parking lot, har har) and, given this situation, might not be a bad idea. I do (keep a rifle in the trunk), but that's more for if I get the random desire to go to the range after work or something, more than the thought of a massive shootout with a heavily armed baddie. Even though it is a scary EBR.

[Pert_UK]

19. Anybody know whether the attacker's weapon was legally held?

Just wondering......

Just for the record, my unsurprising position is that if nobody had had guns then there wouldn't have been a shooting.

In this instance, a bad guy and a good guy had guns and there were several deaths, including the good guy who couldn't defend himself even with a gun.

What's the answer?

(Bigger guns with armour piercing?......or less guns?.......)

"But eventually Kodos, they'll build a plank with a nail in it so huge it will destroy the whole world!!!"

[jody]

20. From an earlier thread on the same topic. Shooter probably was not

authorized to possess firearm.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1263436&mesg_id=1264919&page=

[sir pball]

22. blatant nutter reply

Bigger guns with armour piercing?

In a nutshell...yes. If anybody on scene had a comparable or superior weapon, the shooter would have been killed on the spot - I'm assuming he didn't have III/IV hard plates on, so a vanilla hunting rifle or slug shotgun would have done the job (contrary to Ted Kennedy's opinion, plain rifle ammo is "armor piercing" - it will chew up soft vests extremely well). I'm surprised the police didn't have that level of fire available in their trunks; most of the cops around here carry shotguns. Dunno what they're loaded with, though.

<gunnut>And again, this is why I have a "trunk gun" - even those hopped-up LA spree shooters would have a hard time arguing with sixty APM2 rounds.</gunnut>

[davepc]

28. He was a felon, by all accounts. He has no legal right to possess a gun

but he conveniently ignored the law.

Oh, I'm pretty sure the vest was illegal to posses and wear in Texas as well, but he ignored that law too.

Oh yeah, murdering people is illegal too, another law he ignored.

My position is that if nobody ignored the law then there wouldn't have been a shooting.

But I guess dis-arming people who follow the law is good alternative.

Oh, seems the shooter (the guy with the AK) positioned himself between the courthouse and where the police park their cruisers (and where they have their AR-15 rifles in the trunk.) Since the shooter was ignoring the law by wearing the vest, both the good Samaritan CCW and the police were unable to take him down with their sidearms. Maybe if they had a FN 5-7 with "cop killer" bullets they would of been effective against him.

[iverglas]

31. awards day

But I guess dis-arming people who follow the law is good alternative.

It's

time!

No, there just couldn't possibly have been any other way that the tragedy in question could have been averted ...

Yup, "disarming people who follow the law" is the ... well heck, you know, I've realized that what you said was such a mess of scrambled eggs that I can't even figure out what "disarming people who follow the law" is supposedly an alternative to, so I guess I'll give up while I'm not yet too dizzy to stand.

[Factoid]

33. Isn't that what you just stated above?

------
Another bit worth noting:



Police estimated that Arroyo, who had a history of spousal abuse and weapons violations, shot 50 rounds in the historic town square. He was wearing a military flak jacket and a bulletproof vest.

With some decent firearms control measures in place, he actually might not have got his hands on the firearm with which he killed three people.

Nobody's "CCW" seems to have stopped those killings. Nobody's "CCW" could have stopped those killings, unless somebody had shot the guy in the body armour with the AK-47, say in the head, BEFORE he started shooting.

Funny how I'm seeing a tragedy that would not have occurred absent firearms, while others presumably see something to celebrate.
-------

If not, then what exactly, was your point?

[Romulus]

30. "no guns = no gun deaths"

Pert, how does your formula account for the two high-profile shootings in the Netherlands? (#1- that anti-immigrant politician a few years back, and #2- that filmmaker just last fall)?

[iverglas]

32. oh dear

I seem to have to say it yet again.

"no guns = no gun deaths"
Pert, how does your formula account for the two high-profile shootings in the Netherlands?

Uh ... maybe the fact that they were shot means that there were not "no guns", and since that side of the equation was false, the other side of the equation was unsurprisingly false too?

I mean ... forgive me ... fuckin duh.

[Pert_UK]

75. Holy shit! That's the most ridiculous question ever!

Well done mate!

How does my "formula" account for these "two high-profile shootings"?

I am utterly struck by the ridiculous nature of your point...

You have highlighted an occasion where somebody got shot with a gun to attack my suggestion that people don't get shot when there are no guns.........How the FUCK does that work?

Me: "If nobody had a gun in that specific situation nobody would have been shot."
Romulus: "How does your comment explain this situation, where somebody had a gun and shot somebody with it?"
Me: "Errrr.........what?"

Talk about a non-sequitur. My comment is the tautologous point that you can't get shot if there isn't a gun. Your point seems to be that you can get shot if there is one. That's hardly an attack on my position, now is it?

Unless you can find somewhere where I've claimed that there are no guns in the Netherlands then you seem to be suggesting that somebody got shot by a gun that wasn't there......

[Romulus]

83. take it easy, mate

UNfortunately, your time in the company of graduates from the CAN school of internet discourse incivility is rubbing off on you.

However, I am happy to clarify my Q:

Pert, you have repeatedly stated here on DU how you support the UK's post-Dunblane "no guns" policy of banning & confiscating all handguns and semi-auto firearms. You said that you thought the policy was for the best because it eliminated the chance of firearms owners taking their legally-owned firearms and going on a rampage.

Here you lead post #19 with the title "Anybody know whether the attacker's weapon was legally held?" The next substantive line states: "Just for the record, my unsurprising position is that if nobody had had guns then there wouldn't have been a shooting."

Now, when I read your post #19, in light of your past comments on the reasoning for the post-Dunblane laws, this is how/what I read into it:

"Just for the record, my unsurprising position is that if nobody (in Texas) had had guns (like as is the case now in post-Dunblane UK - "no guns") then there wouldn't have been a (high-profile) shooting."

MY understanding is that the Netherlands has the third or fourth most restrictive set of firearms laws in the EU (behind #1 UK, #2 IRE, and maybe in #3 place Greece). It makes FR and GE look like VA and TX. Even with those restrictive laws, the Netherlands has seen the two high-profile shootings take place.

My question was how the severe restrictions on self-defense firearms can be justified when there are still high-profile shootings taking place.

But your clarification in post #75 shows that I was reading too much into post #19. All's well that ends well. Pubs are open 24 hrs.

Glad to help.

[Factoid]

23. He didn't miss- the shooter was wearing a vest.

According to CNN.




Sarah Brady would like to take this moment to remind you that there's no reason for anyone to carry a pistol that could penetrate a vest, such as an FN Five-seveN.

As for myself, I'm going to pick up a CZ-52 this weekend.


And hat's off to the CCW holder, from what I've read and from reports of people who were there, he saved that boy's life.

[Columbia]

40. New info

From CNN:

Ron Martell, another CCW holder, tailed the assailant and tipped police to chase him which eventually ended the spree.

Also they did a lengthly piece on Mark Wilson and how many consider him a hero.

[Columbia]

41. More on Mark Wilson

http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/nation/10994229.htm

Factory worker killed saving a man in Texas town square firefight

BY MAX B. BAKER AND BILL HANNA

TYLER, Texas - (KRT) - Mark Wilson, the good Samaritan credited with saving another man's life by jumping into the middle of a fierce firefight on Tyler's downtown square, was known for taking life "head-on."

Friends weren't surprised to hear that the 52-year-old manufacturing plant employee sacrificed his own life by confronting a gunman firing an AK-47 assault rifle.
...
"Based on what we can tell, Mr. Wilson may have saved the younger Arroyo's life," Tyler Police Chief Gary Swindle said.

"Arroyo was shot by his father, and we believe around that point in time is maybe when Mr. Wilson came up and confronted the suspect with his AK-47," Swindle said.
...
George said Wilson was a lifelong bachelor and Navy veteran who moved to Tyler more than a decade ago.

"He is one of the nicest, sweetest guys I've ever known," George said.
<more>

[MrSandman]

45. Who had a terrible day...

First, he finds himself facing a full auto rifle with a handgun, then overcomes the disadvantage to be foiled by body armor.

Always had a soft spot for swabbies.

[Krinkov]

92. interesting how that's carefully worded

to veil the fact that he 'confronted' the guy using a gun of his own.

[camaro3232]

48. "no guns = no gun deaths" BS

"no guns = no gun deaths" is wrong.  Even if somehow
magically all the guns in the world disappeared there would
still be shootings. Criminals would make their own weapons and
traffic them into the US. Same goes for banning all guns in
the US. You would never be able to get them all. And the
people that would do the shooting are the people that wouldn't
turn them in. If you really believe that "no guns = no
gun deaths" you don't know how the world works and are
narrow minded. You can compare it to a equation. Thats not the
way the world works (ok well maybe if magically all guns
disappeared and could never be made then there would be no gun
deaths, but thats impossible).   Weed is illegal yet has
anyone ever had a problem buying it? Same goes for guns, its
easier to buy a pistol on the street in NY then it is to in
the store. Gun control is aimed at the wrong group or people.
The gun nuts then get made because the anti's are trying to
ban their guns. Gun control will not work by just by passing
laws. Drugs are related to many shootings. A bill that gave
more money to law enforcement agencies to form special units
to hunt down illegal weapons and get them off the streets
would stop more crime in a year that a ban on "assault
rifles" would do in a 100. You cant have people make laws
about guns that know nothing about them. The US needs to make
some real laws that would stop gun crime, there are many major
factors that cause it. Just a note doctors kill more people
per year than guns. And there are alot more guns than doctors
in the US. Drugs come into the country everyday and along with
them come the guns. If more is done to stop illegal drug
traffic , gun crime will also take a hit. Cut down on gangs
and organized crime, gun crime will take a hit. As far a crazy
men running around shooting people, cant stop it. You cant
stop someone thats determined to kill people. Maybe warnings
signs but if he cant buy a gun in the store hell go buy one
illegally. If not hell start hacking people with a sword or
make a bomb. That kind shit just happens. Kills and violent
crime will always happen, its the people not the guns. They
use what ever they can as a weapon.  Make some real laws that
would stop gun crime, there are many major factors that cause
it. Just a note doctors kill more people per year than guns.
And there are alot more guns than doctors in the US.

[Paladin]

52. A Couple Of Thoughts

1. It's obvious that you gun radicals are perfectly fine with tragic incidents like this slaughter in Texas the other day. To you, this bloodletting---and countless others like it---constitute an acceptable tradeoff for your ability to have easy access to firearms.

2. The fact that AK-47's and other assault-style weapons are used in killings such as this make such guns just that much more attractive to you. Anyone who doubts this has never seen a full-throttle, spittle-flecked assault weapon admiration thread here in the Gun Dungeon. Pretty ugly stuff. You guys don't even try to hide the kind of twisted little fantasies which these guns cause......

[benEzra]

54. Too early to tell if it was an "assault weapon" or not...

by the 1994 definition, and there are some indications that it may have been an illegal NFA Class III machine gun, and other indications that it wasn't even an AK lookalike at all, but a very politically correct 10-round SKS. It's really too early to tell, as most reporters apparently can't tell a Saiga from an SKS, a Ruger mini-30, a SAR-1, or a Winchester Model 94.

Anyone who doubts this has never seen a full-throttle, spittle-flecked assault weapon admiration thread here in the Gun Dungeon. Pretty ugly stuff. You guys don't even try to hide the kind of twisted little fantasies which these guns cause......

Most of the spittle I've seen here, on Common Ground Common Sense, and on the John Kerry forums was generated by those who rage against guns with modern-looking stocks...

I suspect that if you went over to the Honda Civic forums and said that people who own Civics with wings and levitation lights are "spittle flecked" and full of "twisted little fantasies which these cars cause"--because, after all, Civics with wings are "race cars that out-run police and run down children" and "serve no legitimate transportation purpose," you'd get a bit more emotional reaction than I've seen on this board...

[Retired AF Dem]

55. The only fantasy I see

is your fantasy on what we fantasize about.

[Factoid]

56. The fantasy is that the attacker was "Allowed" to own weapons..

He wasnt - He had his weapons Illegally. More proof that, Oh hay! Criminals don't care about laws!

As for what's twisted and ugly, is your attempt to use a tragedy and a heroic act by a CCW holder as a way to further your own private political agenda.

Disgusting.

[Retired AF Dem]

57. A thought I have

It is agreed here that gun control does not affect the criminal element. Never has, never will. I consider anybody that would take my right away to be at least equal with the criminal element when it comes to force a bigger threat than the criminal element itself. The thing I despise more than criminals is sheep that try to make everybody into a lamb.

[camaro3232]

58. Why does the weapon matter so much?

This guy decided to do this based on other issues, upset about the custody battle, had a few screws loose in the head. He just happend to have a AK so he decided to use it. It was the gun that made him do this. He made up his mind that he wanted to kill people, why does it matter so much what weapon he used? They even stated there was warning signs and that he made threats the week before he did this. Of course its very upsetting but the weapon he used does not matter that much as everyone is making out to be.

[oldfogey]

63. When I see an incident like this

in the news I always think about what a horrible thing has just occurred. Once I get past that initial shock I start asking questions and looking for details. In this case, if he had a legally obtained firearm then maybe something should have been done about that sooner given the warning signs. If it was illegally obtained under the radar then we know for a fact that the authorities could not have known about it. That is why I like to know what kind of firearm was used.

Remember this, the actual firearm had no control over him. He used it. It did not make him do anything. He had other problems that may have led him to do this anyway had he not had access to the rifle. He could have broken into their home and slit their throats with a knife almost as easily and he probably would have been faced with less resistance. The fact is he was determined to do it and no matter what tools he had he most likely would have still tried to accomplish his goal.

[camaro3232]

65. that is what I fear many people cannot understand

more can be done to prevent things like this, than banning firearms.

[oldfogey]

76. I absolutely hate it when

someone complains about crime rates and guns in the same discussion. Guns do not inspire crime. Poverty, hunger, envy, domestic issues, mental instability, and greed are most times the root of the problem.

It is impossible to tell when someone will snap or at what point they will choose a life of crime, but focusing on bettering our society will get us further than banning a means of defense. That means seeing police as an essential element rather than expendable in the times of insufficient funding. It means educating our citizens better on a variety of subjects and getting them to watch out for each other. It means providing a better quality of living. There are too many other options to name. What we need to do is focus on achieving a well protected and content society. At that point there would be less desire to commit crime.

[camaro3232]

59. ?

1.Why would you think someone that is into target shooting would be ok with these type of events? And the rest of what you said how does that make anysense? A gun nut would not want these events to happend because they will ban whatever gun the criminal used.


2. Pistols are used in most killings, and rifle is not an ideal weapon for a criminal. And no one wants to see other people killed. Even the most crazy gun nut.

[MrSandman]

60. Makes me want to go out and buy an AK clone...

2. The fact that AK-47's and other assault-style weapons are used in killings such as this make such guns just that much more attractive to you. Anyone who doubts this has never seen a full-throttle, spittle-flecked assault weapon admiration thread here in the Gun Dungeon. Pretty ugly stuff. You guys don't even try to hide the kind of twisted little fantasies which these guns cause......

Whatever you have to believe to justify your agenda.

[camaro3232]

61. Why is an assault rifle more deadly than a regular rifle?

Why is a so called assault rifle more deadly then a regular rifle?

[oldfogey]

62. Honestly,

they're not. Both can be used to kill people. While some will say that higher capacity magazines and semi-automatic actions allow assault rifles to be killing machines, others would say that hunting rifles are often more accurate, sometimes more powerful, and someone who is proficient with one could do just as much harm. They are all dangerous when misused.

[camaro3232]

64. true

true, you can also get higher capacity magazines for hunting rifles. But it takes 2 seconds to change a magazine so it shouldnt be that big of an issue. But technically an assault rifle is a select fire weapon, no civillian can own one. Only the army has them.

[jody]

66. "assault rifle is a select fire weapon, no civillian can own one". Sorry,

but qualified civilians can own one under the National Firearms Act enacted in 1934, see
TITLE 26, Subtitle E, CHAPTER 53, CHAPTER 53—MACHINE GUNS, DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES, AND CERTAIN OTHER FIREARMS

[benEzra]

67. You just have to be fairly wealthy...

since I suspect NFA Class III M16's, real AK's, real Galils, and such probably run more than $10,000, and that's after you've jumped through the bureaucratic hoops.

Some NFA Class III items are within the reach of the average gun owner if he/she chooses to go through the process to own them (short-barreled rifles and shotguns would be the least expensive, and sound suppressors aren't more than $500 to $1000, right?) but an actual select-fire infantry rifle would command quite a high price.

Does anyone know the monetary value of a real, transferable NFA Class III AK-47?

[jody]

68. I did not do an extensive search but one is listed at $15K

http://www.gunsamerica.com/guns/976512779.htm

[camaro3232]

70. yea thats a real "assault rifle"

but no one is going to spend 15k on that to commit a crime. I dont think a regular person can get a class III, must be a LEO. A regular person can buy assault rifles and machine gun only if they are transferable under the NFA, I dont know the exact laws but there still around 15,000 for assault rifles and upwards of 50,000 for machine guns

[MrSandman]

74. Sarah said so...nt

[camaro3232]

91. Whoa!!! This man was using a SKS? Why all the talk of a AK,?

Was he using a SKS?
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=11649512&BRD=1994&PAG=461&dept_id=341384&rfi=6
I know to a person not into firearms they may look similar but if he did have a SKS why did 95% of the media say a AK?

[Krinkov]

93. it makes the crime relevant

and that sells papers..

the ak is the posterboy of the 'assault weapon' and the 'ban' against them.

The media salivates over the possibility of an AW involved because it makes the story hot. So they take what little information they have and fill in the blanks.

[slackmaster]

94. That's something they often get wrong and NEVER correct

Once the term "AK-47" gets connected to a story the propagandists ignore any evidence to the contrary.