Will eliminating:

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

Poll question: Will eliminating:

Gun free zones save lives?

Feel free to express your views. :popcorn:

[Tiggeroshii]

1. HELL no

[We_Have_A_Problem]

4. How do you figure?

Do you know of any that actually are? After all few if any "gun free zones" are actually "gun free"....criminals and cops can be and are still armed within them.

[Tiggeroshii]

5. I figure that the more killing machines that are carried, the more people will be killed.

Hence, limit the amount of killing machines, less people will die. I find it a common sense argument.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

6. Your figuring is wrong.

Hate to tell you but it is.

Case in point, in the US right now, gun ownership is at an all time high - and rising - yet our crime rate is dropping steadily and is currently at a 50 year low.

It would appear, based on that plain fact alone, your common sense argument doesn't seem to work.

[Riftaxe]

9. Are we talking about gun free zones

or people free zones?

[krispos42]

14. Per-capita gun ownership has remained steady...

...or gone up the past couple of decades.

49 states allow concealed-carry; 40 or so are shall-issue states.


Homicide rates, however, are at rates that haven't been this low since the 60's.

Try again.

[spin]

22. You are simply ignoring the fact that often an honest person who has a firearm ...

is often able to save his life when he is attacked by a violent person who hopes to severely injure or kill him.

And it does happen. Even the lowest estimates show that firearms are used frequently for self defense.

Gun violence in the United States

***snip***

Approximately 6,500 homicides were committed using handguns in 1999; since there were roughly 70 million handguns, the chance of any particular gun being used in a homicide is very low.<40>

***snip***

Self-protection

Between 1987 and 1990, David McDowall found that guns were used in defense during a crime incident 64,615 times annually.<62> This equates to two times out of 1,000 incidents (0.2%) that occurred in this time frame.<62> For violent crimes (assault, robbery, and rape), guns were used 0.83% of the time in self-defense.<62> Of the times that guns were used in self-defense, 71% of the crimes were committed by strangers, with the rest of the incidents evenly divided between offenders that were acquaintances or persons well-known to the victim.<62> Of all incidents where a gun was used for self-defense, victims shot at the offender 28% of the time.<62> In 20% of the self-defense incidents, the guns were used by police officers.<62> During this same time period, 1987 and 1990, there were 46,319 gun homicides,<63> and the National Crime Victimization Survey estimates that 2,628,532 nonfatal crimes involving guns occurred.<62>

The findings of the McDowall's study for the American Journal of Public Health contrast with the findings of a 1993 study by Gary Kleck, who finds that as many as 2.45 million crimes are thwarted each year in the United States, and in most cases, the potential victim never fires a shot in these cases where firearms are used constructively for self-protection.<64> The results of the Kleck studies have been cited many times in scholarly and popular media.<65><66><67><68><69><70><71>

McDowall cites methodological issues with the Kleck studies, stating that Kleck used a very small sample size and did not confine self-defense to attempted victimizations where physical attacks had already commenced.<62> The former criticism, however, is inaccurate — Kleck's survey with Marc Gertz in fact used the largest sample size of any survey that ever asked respondents about defensive gun use — 4,977 cases, far more than is typical in national surveys.<72> A study of gun use in the 1990s, by David Hemenway at the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, found that criminal use of guns is far more common than self-defense use of guns.<73> By the Kleck study, however, most successful preventions of victimizations are accomplished without a shot being fired, which are not counted as a self-defense firearm usage by either the Hemenway or McDowall studies.<62><64><73> Hemenway, however, also argues that the Kleck figure is inconsistent with other known statistics for crime, citing that Kleck's figures apparently show that guns are many times more often used for self-defense in burglaries, than there are incidents of bulgaries of properties containing gun owners with awake occupants.<74> Hemenway concludes that under reasonable assumptions of random errors in sampling, because of the rarity of the event, the 2.5 million figure should be considered only as the top end of a 0-2.5 million confidence interval, suggesting a highly unreliable result that is likely a great overestimate, with the true figure at least 10 times less.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

At one time people with commonsense felt the world was flat.

[Tiggeroshii]

23. Imagine how many gun deaths (and injuries) there would be if there were no guns...

I just have a sneaking suspicion they would be slightly lower than they are now still. :eyes:

[spin]

25. Surprisingly I agree ...

Obviously if there were no guns in the United States there would be no more gun crime or gun violence. Now your problem is how to confiscate 300,000,000 firearms from 80,000,000 gun owners.

While you are at it, why don't you solve the use of illegal drugs in the United States by simply getting rid of all illegal drugs. Then perhaps you can figure out a way to eliminate poverty in this nation and solve the jobs problem.

Fantasies are nice, warm and fuzzy but reality is cold, hard and brutal. People who own firearms in the United States will not willing turn them over even if a law passes that makes them illegal. Any attempt to confiscate all firearms would lead to far more death and violence than we have today and might not be successful. It could possibly lead to a revolution that would break the union apart.

I could also mention that most law enforcement officers would be reluctant to make confiscation of firearms from previously honest people a daily part of their job. Even the army would not want the task of blocking off neighborhoods and doing house to house searches for firearms. Would you volunteer for the job. If so, you have big balls and little brains or you have a subconscious death wish.

Maybe you could work on developing a magical spell that would make all firearms vanish. You say some incantation like Abracadabra , wave your wand and KaaZap all guns are instantly vaporized!

Even the idea of banning all handguns (which are the firearms most commonly used for crime) has far more opposition than support. The best opportunity for banning handguns was back in the 60s. Today it is a political impossibility.


source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/144887/continuing-record-low-support-stricter-gun-control.aspx

[Starboard Tack]

37. How about banning lethal ammo in guns carried in public?

[spin]

38. Even .22 short ammo can be lethal ...

if the round hits a vital area. In general a handgun is not all that lethal as compared to a rifle or a shotgun.

Let's imagine a scenario where an honest citizen who has a legally concealed handgun is attacked by an individual armed with a deadly weapon like a knife or a gun loaded with "lethal" ammo. Would you limit the honest person and require that he only can carry non lethal ammo such as rubber bullets in his weapon? If you did, you could almost guarantee that the innocent person would be seriously injured or killed by his attacker.

Of course, since criminals do not by definition obey laws, if the criminal was armed with a gun his weapon would have ammo quite capable of killing.

The idea of allowing an honest person to carry a firearm is to give him the chance to eliminate the disparity in size or force that the attacker presents. For example, suppose that I am attacked by a young buck who is much larger and in far better physical condition than I am and who intends to beat and stomp the shit out of me. I can have a fair chance in the fight despite the fact that I have a bad hip that needs replaced and degenerative disk disease and am 40 years older. If my attacker has a knife and intends to slash or stab me or if he has a gun and intends to shoot me, I can meet force with equal or superior force.

[Starboard Tack]

39. "Of course, since criminals do not by definition obey laws"

That's a very broad statement and I think somewhat disingenuous. Most people obey most laws most of the time. Most people break some laws some of the time. Life is not quite as black and white as you would paint it.
You're being very rigid and I'm suggesting a compromise. We aren't going anywhere.

[PavePusher]

44. Criminals break laws with intent to do so, in order to benefit themselves....

and cause deliberate harm to others.

Is that a clearer distinction?

[Starboard Tack]

46. I'll agree that criminals break laws

Sometimes they do so to benefit themselves and sometimes to deliberately cause harm to others.
Very few criminals intend physical harm to others. Very few humans are capable of intentionally causing physical harm to others. A few are criminals and a few are people who tote guns around. They both present the same dangers to the rest of society, like kids playing baseball in the street.
Maybe you should have your own park, like the kids, where you can all go play cops and robbers and shoot each other.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

48. And maybe....

...rather than expecting others to give up their rights to make you happy, you could simply leave the US and move somewhere more to your liking?

[Starboard Tack]

50. Oh nice. Where have I heard that before?

Do you really think this is about me being happy? I cannot imagine being happier than I am. I don't give a flying fuck about you keeping or giving up what you consider to be your rights. Doesn't affect me one way or another. I enjoy good conversation and like to point out foolish behavior when I see it. If you can't handle my right to do that, you can always move somewhere else.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

51. If you don't care about others keeping or giving up their rights...

...then why do you advocate for the restriction of firearms ownership?

[Starboard Tack]

54. I put it forward as an idea. I care about society and societal problems.

These are problems that trump the needs and desires of individuals like you and me. I would love to have a bunch of guns, including handguns and go play with them, but I realize the societal implications and potential consequences of that kind of behavior.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

55. As a nation...

...we place individual rights above what some may believe is best for the nation. That's what you keep missing. The rights of the individual are paramount.

[Starboard Tack]

56. That is where we disagree.

I tend to embrace more liberal/socialist values, while you seem to be more of a conservative libertarian.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

57. I'm just going by that whole Constitution thing...

...you know - the bit about how the government exists to protect individual rights?

We were never intended to be a socialist or communist nation which is what you espouse.

Liberal and Progressive are, in my opinion, opposite view points. A true classical liberal favors the individual about society. The progressive movement is communism by another name - favoring the state over the individual.

The 2nd Amendment, like most of the Bill of Rights, protects individual rights. The 10th Amendment of course is the exception. To believe our Constitution in any way supports putting the comfort of the majority over the rights of the individual requires a willful disregard for the plain language of the document.

[SteveM]

64. Eugene V. Debs was a strong supporter of the Second.

[gejohnston]

67. why only a conservative libertarian?

Historically, you are conservative. That is why libertarianism is often called "classical liberalism". At that time, conservatism was society and king above the individual.
why not a left wing libertarian?

politicalcompass.org

You have not demonstrated the harm to society.

[Starboard Tack]

69. The harm to society is tens of thousands of dead and injured annually.

What more demonstration do you need?

[petronius]

70. Our G.E. must be a remarkably violent fellow!

How does he have time to kill and injure all those people, and still post on DU? :shrug:

I don't know about you, but as a liberal I generally don't hold innocent people responsible for the misdeeds of others, and I don't agree that those other persons' crimes are a valid reason to limit the rights of those not responsible...

[Starboard Tack]

71. WTF are you talking about? Why would you say GE is violent?

He asked me a question, which I answered. There was nothing personal in our exchange.

[petronius]

72. Oh, I'm sure you can figure it out...

:eyes:

On edit: I apologize to G.E.; obviously my joke (the first half of the post) wasn't as clear as I thought. The rest of the post, I think, should need no explanation.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

74. Those are criminal actions

You're attacking the tool used, not the crime.

Do you really think that disarming the law-abiding is going to affect the criminals in any way?

[Starboard Tack]

75. Disarming everyone would. Why would you want to just disarm the law abiding?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

76. I wouldnt.

Laws which would prevent people from being armed would only disarm the law abiding, unless you somehow magically think that the criminals will obey a new law. After all, it has been illegal for a criminal to own firearms for a very long time and yet they somehow manage to still have them.

So, perhaps you can explain how you would actually disarm the lawless?

[Starboard Tack]

77. Hmm! Lemme think...by not making them available, maybe.

Only talking handguns here. You can arm up with your rifle and bow.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

79. And how do you plan to do that?

Serious question. How are you going to get the billion or so in existence out of private hands? How will you prevent people from making one? How are you going to take them from the criminals?

[Starboard Tack]

80. Easy. Make them illegal and the penalty not worth the risk.

They'll turn them in. You don't have to take them away unless people try to use them. Use it, you lose it and your liberty too.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

81. And when they DON'T turn them in?

Because quite frankly, ST, I can tell you in my personal case, if handguns became illegal, there is NO penalty you could implement which would motivate me to turn them in. Mine have all been lost in a tragic boating accident...

If you think I'm alone in that....think again.

Now, considering the criminal side of it, how would you get CRIMINALS to turn them in? You know - the people who you created the law to affect in the first place?

What's that? You wouldn't? You'd just simply rely upon the source drying up in a few hundred years?

Ah - so you DID intend to disarm the law abiding! Got it. Thanks for clearing that up.

[Starboard Tack]

84. Disarming people is your idea, not mine.

Making something illegal means exactly that. You keep it and get caught, you face the penalties. Quite simple. No need for roundups, lying, raids. Believe it or not, most people would happily give up something illegal, especially if it meant not going to prison for a long time.
I don't subscribe to registration, or big brotherism of any kind, but certain things are made illegal to possess or use because of public safety issues. Handgun, as we know them, could and probably should fall into that category.

[gravity556]

82. Indeed. Guns are icky.

And mine are all at the bottom of Lake Mead. Horrible boating accident.

Even registration wouldn't work, ST, because it violates the criminal's right against self incrimination. So, how many amendments are you going to wipe your ass with? Fuck due process, siezure without renumeration, you'd have to dump the 4th so you could go house to house, and the only way you're going to scare the bangers out of using guns is to bring back public hanging, drawing and quartering, so fuck that cruel and unusual punishment bit as well.

[Starboard Tack]

85. As I have said, I don't support registration, or confiscation and seizure.

Making handguns illegal with strong penalties for being caught in public using one will change minds quickly enough. I wouldn't contaminate my ass by wiping it with 2A.
Your emotionalism is way over the top. Why are you so paranoid?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

87. Ahem....

You've repeatedly stated you DO support registration confiscation and seizure. Which is it?

[Starboard Tack]

89. Nope. None of those.

Rendering something illegal does not mean mass confiscation and seizure. If you use something illegal, it is automatically seizable. Bu that is very different from your "house to house" fearmongering scenario. And registration doesn't work the way it is set up. It is discriminatory. There is no point in registration without accountability and liability, which is why you guys are eventually going to lose. What's the point of registering guns if you aren't accountable for their use when you lose them. People would think twice about buying a gun if they were held accountable for whatever injuries or deaths that gun caused.
You want responsible gun ownership. That would be the only way to achieve it. Otherwise, it's just more smoke and mirrors.

[Straw Man]

94. So you want the law without the enforcement?

Why? Don't you believe in the efficacy of what you're proposing?

Rendering something illegal does not mean mass confiscation and seizure. If you use something illegal, it is automatically seizable. Bu that is very different from your "house to house" fearmongering scenario.

The enforcement of any sort of prohibition is dependent on the vagaries of the political climate. There will be relatively lax periods and there will be periods of mass confiscation and seizure. See the Volstead Act and the War on Drugs. "Election time is coming up; let's go kick down some doors and confiscate some {insert banned subtance of choice}.

There is no point in registration without accountability and liability, which is why you guys are eventually going to lose. What's the point of registering guns if you aren't accountable for their use when you lose them. People would think twice about buying a gun if they were held accountable for whatever injuries or deaths that gun caused.

People already are accountable for the injuries or deaths a gun causes when it is in their control. Blaming the victim of a theft for what a thief might do with the stolen item is without legal precedent. It is ethically indefensible.

[Starboard Tack]

96. You think it's unethical to hold gun owners accountable?

You are accountable for your children and your pets. Why not your guns if you let them stray? It is ethically indefensible to be irresponsible with a killing tool. If your gun is used to commit a crime, the onus should be on you to prove you did all possible to prevent that from happening. That's why registration is virtually useless without accountability.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

97. It is unethical to hold the owner of an item...

...responsible for what another adult may do with that item. We're not talking about a pet or a child that can act on its own. We're talking about a tool which can be stolen and misused.

Why is there ANY onus upon the owner to prove he did everything he could to prevent someone from stealing it? The owner was already victimized by the theft and now you want him to be held hostage to whatever is done with his property?

Tell me - would you say Hertz should be responsible for what someone does with their cars? That it is somehow Hertz' fault if you rent a car, get drunk and run over a busload of kids?

The person responsible is the person who commits the crime. That's it. Not the previous owner. Not the seller. Not the manufacturer. Not the victim for being there.

[Starboard Tack]

102. So, the pharmacist who doesn't secure his drugs should not be held accountable

You want your cake and to eat it too. Wonderful attitude. I thought you toters were supposedly the best behaved kids on the block. Noblesse oblige!
Fortunately, not all toters have such an irresponsible attitude.

[gravity556]

98. So if a crook steals your car and gets drunk and kills a carload of people,

you think that the owner should be the one to face the legal consequences? Jumpin' Jesus on a fucking pogo stick, do you actually contemplate the idiotic ideas you propose time and again. How about we jail the parents of juvenile criminals as well as the miscreants themselves? Then maybe parents will start giving a fuck what "Baby G Loc" does at 2 am on a school night. I mean, hell, people are responsible for their dogs if they wander off leash and harm someone.

[Starboard Tack]

103. What a pathetic analogy.

A handgun is a tool designed to kill humans when used correctly. A truck is designed to safely transport humans. Their intended purposes could not be more different.
Parents of juvenile criminals may be held accountable, if they are found to have been negligent, as are dog owners.

[Straw Man]

106. False.

A handgun is a tool designed to kill humans when used correctly. A truck is designed to safely transport humans. Their intended purposes could not be more different.

There are handguns for target shooting, handguns for hunting, and handguns for defense against both animal and human predators. Handguns, like all guns, are designed to propel a projectile with force, causing damage to the target. This target may or may not be human, and the damage may or may not extend to fatality. But hey, if you want to believe that they are all "designed to kill," you go right ahead, because it's ultimately irrelevant. Assault is assault and murder is murder. The culpability is neither exacerbated nor mitigated by the "intended purpose" of the implement.

[Starboard Tack]

107. You are so right, and what are trucks designed for?

Thanks once again for making my point.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

108. What they are designed for is irrelevant.

You're talking about holding someone responsible for the actions of others. That, my friend, is wrong.

Consider this - someone reads a book you have written. In this book was information on how to make certain kinds of chemicals which could be quite hazardous to people if used improperly. Lets say he uses this information to cause death and mayhem. Are you responsible for his actions?

[Starboard Tack]

110. Yes, if the book is written with the intent of getting it's readers to hurt people.

(A) No person shall knowingly engage in conduct designed to urge or incite another to commit any offense of violence, when either of the following apply:

(1) The conduct takes place under circumstances that create a clear and present danger that any offense of violence will be committed;

(2) The conduct proximately results in the commission of any offense of violence.

(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of inciting to violence. If the offense of violence that the other person is being urged or incited to commit is a misdemeanor, inciting to violence is a misdemeanor of the first degree. If the offense of violence that the other person is being urged or incited to commit is a felony, inciting to violence is a felony of the third degree.
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2917.01

[We_Have_A_Problem]

112. Oooh - fail.

Even if it IS, the 1st amendment would protect you as the author. After all, the reader makes the choice to read the book.

Either way, the intent of the manufacturer of a firearm is NOT to get their customers to hurt people, so you failed twice in one post.

[Starboard Tack]

118. Are you in complete denial or just can't read?

Good luck with that. Your reasoning and lack of logic and comprehension make you a poster boy for gun control, which makes me suspect your true motives.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

119. I can read just fine.

I also comprehend what I am reading.

The author of a book is not held responsible for the actions of people who read it, regardless of the content. I forget the case but there is precedent.

ST, you seem to think all of us are as uninformed as you are.

[Starboard Tack]

123. I don't think all are as uninformed as you. Very few, in fact.

You are beyond being misinformed. You are dead wrong and should seek legal advice.
Maybe these guys could help straighten you out
http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/liability-for-violence-incited-by-a-movie-song-or-book.html

[We_Have_A_Problem]

130. Did you actually read your own link?

From your link:

How Can You Sue For Injuries Resulting From Violence Incited By a Movie, Book, or Song?

A person may be liable for violence incited by his/her work under two theories:

1. Negligence; or
2. Strict Liability.
Negligence

To prove that a person was negligent in producing his/her work, one must show the following:

1. There was a duty of care owed to the victim;
2. The person breached that duty of care; and
3. Injuries to the victim resulted from that breach.

However, it is usually very difficult to prove negligence in this type of a case because the courts have generally denied to impose a duty of care on producers, artists, publishers, and authors to the audience of their work.
Strict Liability

To prove a person is liable for violence incited by his/her work under strict liability theory, one must show the following:

1. There was a sale of a product;
2. The product was defective;
3. The victim suffered injures; and
4. The injures were caused by the defective product.

Most of the time, a movie, book, or song is deemed defective because there is no adequate warning about its potential to incite violence.

Similar to the negligence theory, it is not easy for a victim to recover under the strict liability theory because the courts have been hesitant to treat movies, books, and music as ¿products¿ for the purposes of this type of a claim.


In other words, sure, you can sue for it, but you've got little to no chance of winning even with the bar being much lower than legal liability.

There is no legal liability anyway.

People have been trying to blame other's actions on books, movies, TV, games, etc. forever and it always fails. You haven't a leg to stand on. You're simply trying to use someone elses inaccurate beliefs to bolster yours.

Newsflash, ST: Even if you get 10 million people to agree with you that 2+2=5, you're all still wrong.

[Straw Man]

113. I think you missed this part.

The culpability is neither exacerbated nor mitigated by the "intended purpose" of the implement.

Am I still right?

[Starboard Tack]

115. No. Of course it is exacerbated. Common sense.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

116. No, it isnt.

If someone steals my car and runs someone over with it, I am no more or less responsible than if he stole one of my guns and used it to kill someone. Either way - the criminal action was totally out of my control and I carry no moral, legal or ethical responsibility - at least not here on Planet Earth. I don't know how things work wherever you're front.

[Starboard Tack]

121. Wrong again!

The criminal action does not affect your responsibilities. You should seek legal advice, my friend.

With rights comes responsibility. Who will be "responsible" for the epidemic of gun violence unique to the United States? Should those who exercise their "right" to bear arms, from manufacturers to dealers to owners, pay for the consequences of their conduct? Or should we limit responsibility to the criminal who pulls the trigger? After all, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." While the shooter may be held criminally accountable, or even have a civil judgment rendered against him, he will seldom account financially for his actions. Instead, we the people will pay for the cost of his incarceration, the care of his victim, or both. But someone makes and sells and possesses the millions of guns in this country that people use to kill people. And it is certainly foreseeable that people kill people with guns-the National Rifle Association's trite slogan admits as much. Gun violence is no longer just foreseeable, it is now a fact of life, and death for all too many Americans. We live in a society that is rearming itself out of fear. We are returning to the law of the Wild West, or lack thereof, but with much more firepower. At the behest of the NRA a majority of the states have passed concealed carry legislation that allows people to carry loaded guns into public places and private homes. The NRA recently has sponsored legislation in many states designed to preempt the right of municipalities to litigate the issue of responsibility for gun violence, having already eliminated their right to regulate firearms locally in many states. And with each perceived threat to the Second Amendment "right to bear arms" gun sales shoot up. If not for these scare tactics, dealers' firearm sales and manufacturer's profits, particularly from handguns, would have backfired. The "firearms community", from manufacturers to dealers to owners, represented by the NRA is using their Second Amendment "right" to profit from our fear. But with rights comes responsibility.
http://www.mmmpalaw.com/CM/Articles/articles17.asp

[We_Have_A_Problem]

127. That isnt legality you have quoted

You've merely offered someone's opinion. Not quite the same thing.

I have no legal responsibility for someone else's criminal actions. Simple as that.

[Straw Man]

125. Common nonsense.

If you assault someone with a baseball bat, that is considered "assault with a deadly weapon." Tell the DA that your chosen implement was designed to win the World Series, and see if your charges get reduced.

[Starboard Tack]

134. Are you serious?

Of course, if you assault someone with object, it is assault with a deadly weapon. If you leave your baseball bat in a public place and someone picks it up and assaults another with it, you are not liable. Do the same with a gun and see how it works out for you.

[Straw Man]

142. Nice attempted change-up...

...but we were talking about the intended purpose of the implement, remember?

Let me refresh your memory. I said this:

Assault is assault and murder is murder. The culpability is neither exacerbated nor mitigated by the "intended purpose" of the implement.

And you said this:

No. Of course it is exacerbated. Common sense.

Of course a handgun is inherently more dangerous than a baseball bat. That's why we don't leave them lying around. Nor do we leave high explosives lying around, even though their intended purpose isn't to kill but to blow big holes in the ground so we can build stuff. Intended purpose is a red herring in these discussions. Always has been, always will be.

[Starboard Tack]

145. " Of course a handgun is inherently more dangerous than a baseball bat."

Thank you. Now let's move on.

[Straw Man]

99. Hold someone accountable for someone else's actions? Not acceptable.

I'm already accountable and responsible for my own actions. We're talking about inanimate objects, not children or pets. What kind of review would you establish to determine if the victim of a theft "did all possible to prevent that from happening"? You make it sound as if gun owners just leave their guns lying around for thieves to help themselves to. How secure is your flare gun? If someone steals it and burns down a children's hospital, are you legally and morally responsible for those deaths?

[Starboard Tack]

104. Holding someone accountable for their own actions or inactions. Very acceptable.

Many, obviously do leave their guns lying around. Flare guns are designed to shoot emergency/warning flares and are kept securely aboard a vessel. Your arsonist would find it easier to use a match.
Is that really all you could come up with?
Someone lets your killer pitbull loose and it kills a baby, guess who is responsible. You decide to own something that is designed or trained to be lethal, you are held to a higher standard. Ask Mike Tyson.

[Straw Man]

105. That's what I said. Not for the actions of others.

Many, obviously do leave their guns lying around.

Really? How many? Unsecured guns in unlocked homes? Doesn't conform to my experience -- relatively rare, as a matter of fact.

Flare guns are designed to shoot emergency/warning flares and are kept securely aboard a vessel. Your arsonist would find it easier to use a match.

It doesn't matter what they're designed for; they're dangerous. If someone breaks into your boat and steals one, should you be held liable for what is done with it? How secure is your flare gun storage? Matches can't start a fire from a distance; flare guns can.

Someone lets your killer pitbull loose and it kills a baby, guess who is responsible.

Lets it loose? Or steals it? What if the dog is locked in my home and someone breaks in and releases it? The laws vary from state to state. If you're talking about civil liability, it's a toss-up. The circumstances will be hashed out in court and a determination will be made. The same is true of firearms.

Do you have a specific policy recommendation? What do you propose as reasonable precautions, and what penalties would you attach to failure to comply?

[Starboard Tack]

109. Penalties would be up to a court to decide, if you were found liable through negligence.

Having your gun safe stolen or broken into is very different to having your gun taken from your person. If you carry and someone takes you weapon and kills someone, you could be charged as an accessory. Let the court decide your culpability.
Your flare gun analogy is asinine and you know it. You are liable for your dog if you trained it to kill, no matter who let it loose.

[Straw Man]

111. Big "if."

Having your gun safe stolen or broken into is very different to having your gun taken from your person. If you carry and someone takes you weapon and kills someone, you could be charged as an accessory.

Your former example is theft through burglary; the latter is robbery, a crime of violence. So in your estimation, I am more culpable as a victim of a violent crime than I am as a victim of a non-violent crime? Do you believe that the gun owner is culpable every second that the gun is out of the safe? Talk about back-door gun control... Do you have legal precedent to cite here, or is this all part of your wish list?

Your flare gun analogy is asinine and you know it.

Ah, but I disagree, and I notice that you have neglected to answer the question: How secure is your flare gun?

You are liable for your dog if you trained it to kill, no matter who let it loose.

Again, legal precedent or wish list?

[Starboard Tack]

117. Why robbery?

Picking pockets or holsters is not robbery. Robbery necessitates violence or threats of violence. If you keep and bear arms, the onus is on you to keep them safe. Maybe you drop it or misplace it.
A flare gun is not considered an arm, except possibly in New Jersey. You are grasping at straws, Straw Man. But, I would be liable if I left a loaded flare gun lying around. I don't think you know much about liability laws and how exposed you are.

And about that dog thing. You don't have to have trained it to kill, just owning it is enough.
In Texas, as of September 1, 2007, `Lillian's Law' has taken effect, whereby the owner of a dog that causes death or serious bodily injury may be charged with a second or third degree felony when the attack takes place outside the dog's normal place of confinement (Texas Health & Safety Code Chapter 882).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_attack#Legal_issues

Strict Liability Rule: Under this rule, the owner of a dog is liable for any injuries caused if his dog bites anyone, irrespective of whether it was the first bite or not. In states where the strict liability rule applies, just the fact that you are the owner of the dog that bit someone is enough to hold you responsible for the dog bite.

Even if you took all the necessary precautions, did not violate any other dog laws, had no idea that your dog was dangerous, or were not negligent in any manner, you are still liable for your dog bite, because the basic premise of the strict liability rule is that of simple ownership of the dog. In other words, if it’s your dog that bit someone, you are legally responsible for the dog bite.

However, the strict liability rule also offers some protection to dog owners. A dog owner cannot be held responsible if his dog bites someone, if any of the following conditions exist:

The person who the dog bit was a trespasser. The law states that if any person was on the property of another without permission, express or implied, then such a person is a trespasser. If a dog bites a trespasser, the owner is not held liable under the strict liability rule.
If the dog bites the vet who is treating him, the owner is not held liable for the dog bite.
If a dog bites someone who provoked the dog, then the owner may not be held liable for the dog bite. In many cases where a dog owner has told people to stay away from his dog, but the person has still advanced towards the dog and got bitten, the dog owner is not usually held responsible because it is deemed that the victim unnecessarily provoked the dog in spite of being told not to.
If a dog has bitten someone while helping the police or during a military operation, the owner will not be held responsible.http://www.lawcore.com/animal-and-dog-bite/owner-liability.html

[We_Have_A_Problem]

120. If someone picks my pocket...

...or holster and steals my gun, I am not in any way responsible for how he misuses that gun.

If i leave it lying around in public and someone takes it and shoots someone with it, I am STILL not responsible for the murder. I'm a fucking idiot, but not legally liable.

If I drop it from my pocket and someone picks it up and misuses it, I am not responsible.

If you disagree with any of that, by all means, show proof that I am incorrect. You can assert that it is the law, but unless you actually provide proof of that, then quite simply you're wrong.

No, the onus is not upon me to prove it isn't illegal, because simply put, that which isn't forbidden is permitted and it is logically impossible to prove a negative.

[Starboard Tack]

122. I think you might find this helpful

www.saf.org/journal/14/Lock,StockandBarrel.pdf

You definitely need to learn about tort liability because you're flying blind right now.

[Straw Man]

126. You're preaching to the choir on safe storage.

Where you lose your case is with this nonsense about picking pockets. In your formulation, simply carrying a gun is a negligent act.

[Starboard Tack]

129. I didn't and say carrying a gun was a negligent act.

It is an act that raises the level of responsibility of a gun owner even higher. That's all.
People can be foolish without being negligent. Poor judgment may result in civil liability, but negligence may result in criminal liability, hence CAP laws.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

131. Safe storage laws

are rare and exist in only a few areas.

I agree that one must exercise reasonable judgement and have in fact said so all along.

However, you are saying that because a gun owner may become a victim of criminal behavior he should be held responsible for what the criminal does with the gun after the fact. That, my friend, is simply insane.

[Starboard Tack]

132. You are twisting my words again.

I never said a gun owner should be responsible for what the criminal does with his stolen gun. I said the gun owner has a responsibility not to be negligent. Big difference. That negligence could result in your own death or prosecution,
Don't be so cavalier about your gun ownership.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

138. No i'm not

I'm pointing out the glaring failure in your arguments.

You have said a gun owner is responsible for what a criminal does with a stolen gun.

You really need to study up on what you've said and what constitutes negligence from a legal perspective, as well as what level of culpability the owner has after it is illegally taken from him.

[Starboard Tack]

139. Bullshit.

You are responsible for what you do or don't do with your gun and if you are negligent, expect to pay the price. You leave it lying around and someone picks it up and shoots you, you share the blame.

[Straw Man]

144. Refreshing your memory again.

I didn't and say carrying a gun was a negligent act.

It is an act that raises the level of responsibility of a gun owner even higher. That's all.

Do you recall saying this?

If you carry and someone takes you weapon and kills someone, you could be charged as an accessory.

Not "if you carry negligently" but "if you carry." We're not talking about leaving guns lying around here. Your statement is plain: you believe that any carrier who has a gun stolen is culpable for any crime committed with the gun. It's hard to escape the conclusion that you see carrying itself as a negligent act.

No one is arguing in favor of negligence: that's your straw man. What they are arguing against is your vision of the extreme and unique culpability of gun owners.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

128. You definitely need to learn about

the concepts of fact and opinion.

Fact is, I have no legal, moral or ethical responsibility for what a criminal may choose to do with something he has stolen from me, be it a gun, a car or a chainsaw.

Opinion is what that paper to which you linked contains.

The fact that the source is the Second Amendment Foundation is irrelevant.

It is nothing more than the author's opinions and does not change the legal landscape one bit.

Care to try again? I'm falling asleep here. Your "arguments" are easy pitches.

[Starboard Tack]

133. You appear to have some major problems with comprehension.

Obviously not your strong suit. Nobody said you have a legal, moral or ethical responsibility for what a criminal may choose to do with something he has stolen from you. Your responsibility and accountability is based on what you do or what you neglect to do. You seem to think that legally carrying a gun relieves you of all other liabilities and responsibilities, when in fact, it does the opposite.
I sincerely hope you don't have to find this out the hard way, but from your attitude, I suspect the contrary. Good luck.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

136. Actually you have said exactly that

You have stated that I am responsible for what someone may do with a gun he steals from me.

Even when repeatedly pointed out to you that you don't have a legal leg to stand on, you persist in saying you do.

I do not believe in ANY way that carrying a firearm relieves me of ANY liabilities or responsibility. I am fully and completely responsible legally, morally and ethically for what I do with it. I and I alone. If it is stolen from me, I am not responsible for actions by the thief.

[Starboard Tack]

140. "I am not responsible for actions by the thief. "

Unless you were negligent, but being the perfect human that you are, how could that happen?
BTW there is nothing ethical about toting a gun, no matter what you may believe.

[Straw Man]

124. Why robbery? Because "picking a holster" is virtually impossible.

As soon as the owner of the property becomes aware of the theft attempt and tries to resist, the crime escalates to robbery. You obviously don't know much about holsters and carrying in general. Even holsters without active retention devices provide some measure of retention through friction alone. Simply put, it just isn't that easy to get a gun out of a holster. To do it against someone's will necessarily involves some degree of violence. And of course, the best "retention device" is concealment. The most secure gun is the one that no one knows is there.

As for dogs, you cite one statute, in one state, and it mentions nothing about theft of the dog. If my dog is stolen, am I liable for that dog's actions for the rest of its natural life? Somehow I doubt it. If so, please post the part of the statute that applies.

So you admit that you would be liable if you left a loaded flare gun lying around. As would I if I left a loaded firearm lying around. Neither one of us does that. That about clears it up, I think.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

114. Uh - no you cannot.

If you're legally carrying a firearm and someone illegally takes it and then uses it to kill someone, you are not in any way an accessory. Any DA who attempted to charge you with that would be roundly castigated by the judge and likely face some kind of disciplinary procedure, and most assuredly face a serious civil suit.

[Starboard Tack]

135. All depends how careless you are. The onus is on you.

Study your CAP laws

[We_Have_A_Problem]

137. Don't have to

Texas doesn't have any.

If a firearm is in my home, whether in a safe or laying on the table, it is secure. Period. You take it from my home and use it to commit a crime, I have no responsibility for your actions.

Keep moving those goalposts though. You may get lucky...

[Starboard Tack]

141. A word of advice. Be careful who you invite to your home.

Play with fire, don't be surprised when you get burnt.

[Straw Man]

143. All out of arguments are we?

Dropping back to the "dire mutterings" strategy? You're lapsing into incoherence, perhaps as a result of all the acrobatics and back-pedaling. Goes to one's head, don't you know.

[Starboard Tack]

146. Not really, but you and WHAP are quite a tag team

It even gets to my head sometimes, but I'll leave when I'm ready. Many of my ilk come to visit these parts from time to time, but most move on rather quickly. Probably because the air gets thick and caustic and they didn't realize what they were getting themselves into. But I enjoy our discussions. You guys keep me on my toes, though you may disagree on that. I never took well to bullying or rigid ideas, but you guys are slick, I'll give you that. You have most of your talking points down and here in the gungeon you are definitely the hardcore regulars, but your arguments are hackneyed and brittle. So, in between my dire mutterings and my growing incoherence, I'll keep chipping away at your walls.

[rl6214]

88. And again, you say you aren't anti-gun and don't want to ban guns

Then you post this:

"Disarming everyone would. Why would you want to just disarm the law abiding?"

[searchingfortruth]

149. You might consider changing your values.

Just in case anyone is unaware, the United States is defined as a Republic under the Constitution for the United States. Socialism and Republicanism are incompatible due to the nature of Socialism. Socialism is one of the many forms of a larger group called COLLECTIVISM, which includes Communism, Fabianism, Fascism, Nazism, and Democracy. Yes, I said DEMOCRACY! Collectivism is any philosophic, political, economic or social outlook that emphasizes the interdependence of every human in some collective group and the priority of group goals over individual goals.

Most of us grow up being taught collectivism (in the form of DEMOCRACY) and believing it to be the ideal. It sounds very good in theory. Let the group decide what is best for everyone. If we vote on it, we are bound to get the correct answer!!! WRONG!!! Adolf Hitler was voted into power, Vladamir Lenin's Communist government was voted into power. Most tyrannical regimes throughout history have been brought into power through democracy. History shows us that the group does not know best. DEMOCRACY is the worst form of government, as it only leads to oligarchies through the engineering of public opinion.

Republicanism (and I'm not talking about the Republican party) was developed to protect people from the terrors of DEMOCRACY. The founders of this country knew that DEMOCRACY only ends in war, oppression, and genocide. The developed a document called The Constitution for the United States of America to protect the rights of the INDIVIDUAL from the mob of democracy. The Republic falls in between collectivism and individualism, as it allows for the collective group to make decisions as long as those decisions to not violate the rights granted to the individual.

One of these rights is detailed in the Second Amendment. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This amendment was NOT established for self-defense against criminals trying to invade your home, nor did they take in account or does it matter how many people die from the criminal use of guns. That is all irrelevant. This amendment was established because the founders knew that there would come a time when citizens of this Republic would again have to defend itself against tyranny. Even if 100,000 people died from homicide each year it would still be worth having the right to "keep and bear arms". Better for a few free people die from the misuse of guns than have power fall into the hands of those who would kill millions under slavery.

Most people think that the Revolutionary War secured our freedoms. They are incorrect. That was just the first battle. Fighting tyranny is a never-ending war, but one that must be fought.

Most people think that the fight is between liberals and conservatives or Democrats and Republicans. We are too busy fighting each other to realize that the real fight is between the Individualism and Collectivism. Please educate yourself. Take the Red Pill.

Even if you do not agree with me now, at least take the time to research what I have stated. Everyone has an opinion; facts are what really matter.

[SteveM]

153. I'm on the left, but that has little to do with individual rights,...

the foundation of our constitutional protections. Social policy CAN "promote the general welfare" within the powers of the Constitution. But those proposals cannot trample on the rights of the individual, as enunciated in the Bill of Rights.

[Straw Man]

68. Interesting.

I would love to have a bunch of guns, including handguns and go play with them, but I realize the societal implications and potential consequences of that kind of behavior.

You seem to believe that you would somehow become a threat to society if you possessed guns. I have a bunch of guns, including handguns, and I "play" with them frequently. I have yet to see any dire "societal implications and potential consequences." Perhaps you can point out something I'm overlooking.

[Starboard Tack]

86. 50,000+ deaths and injuries a year and billions of tax payer dollars.

I don't want to be part of those stats. So I'll find my fun in healthier pursuits. It's all about choices. There are lots of ways to get your rocks off.

[Straw Man]

90. I am not one of those stats.

Not as a victim and not as a perpetrator. My choices are perfectly healthy.

Did you have a point?

[Starboard Tack]

91. We are all potentially a victim. Unless you were born on the planet Krypton, that includes you

If you carry, that means you are also a potential perpetrator.

[oneshooter]

92. You own a knife, that makes you a potential killer also. n/t

[Straw Man]

93. You have hands. Does that make you a potential strangler?

By your logic, it would have to, wouldn't it? And your flare gun makes you a potential arsonist. We could play this "potential" game all day long. It means nothing.

Of course everyone is a potential victim. The question is whether my carrying makes my victimhood any more likely. I submit that it makes it somewhat less likely.

As for the perpetrator business, I live in one of the strictest of the fifty states with regard to carry permits. The powers-that-be saw fit to grant me a permit. They think I'm a pretty safe bet. Whether or not you agree is irrelevant. It isn't your decision to make.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

95. Im a potential victim or perpetrator simply by being alive

The choices I make will largely determine if i become either.

Using your logic, every man is a potential rapist and every woman a potential whore.

Ya hear that ladies? ST just called you all whores.

[one-eyed fat man]

148. Are you a member of NOW?

Assuming you don't squat to piss, you are a potential rapist. If you do squat, then you are a potential prostitute.

What keeps you from stealing? Or molesting your neighbor's children?

It's NOT a lack of potential. Is it a lack of opportunity or inclination?

Fear of punishment?

Maybe you subscribe to some quaint notions of right and wrong. You might even view stealing, robbery, rape, murder, or molesting children as "malum in se."

How is the gun carried legally by a law abiding citizen for self-defense as big a risk as a gun carried by a thug, with a twenty-three page rap sheet and a history of armed robbery and murder, standing behind you at the ATM at 2AM?

If the inclination to bad behavior is irrelevant, why is the rate of assault, murder and rape inside a prison higher than in the general population?

[SteveM]

63. Uh-oh. He's getting all nonchalant about his own "compromise."

You know, you've done this before. How can anyone take you seriously when you essentially crack wind loudly in a serious meeting, even as you suggest a "compromise?" Your notion of "good conversation" is completely self-serving (no surprise), but you probably realize that folks on a losing end of a debate have to "play around;" won't do you much good to get all serious and committed, ya know?

[Atypical Liberal]

49. Those are the ones we are talking about with gun laws, though.

A few are criminals and a few are people who tote guns around.

And these are the people that anti-gun laws are aimed at, and these are the people that completely ignore them.

[PavePusher]

52. "Very few humans are capable of intentionally causing physical harm to others."

History proves otherwise.

[PavePusher]

53. And yet you keep claiming to want serious discussion...... heh. n/t

[SteveM]

65. Peculiar, isn't it? But this approach has been used before over the years...

First, propose a "serious" discussion or "compromise," then immediately disown such by claiming some over-used worldly approach which intellectually detaches oneself from the argument. I can see the frustration in some, which causes heavy use of the sarcasm icon, or the tired throw-together of straw men. But I think in this case, Starboard really doesn't much care; like he said, he is interested in good argument or something. Seen that before, too.

[jmg257]

73. Wow - you consider 1.3 million serious violent crimes a year "very few"?

Are these just simple mistakes by good-natured, well-meaning criminals (who never had any intention of hurting anyone)?

[spin]

47. Your idea of a compromise by banning lethal ammo in the firearms of honest citizens ...

Reminds me of a quote from Winston Churchill.

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile -- hoping it will eat him last.

You might as well require honest citizens to carry unloaded weapons and yell, "Bang, bang" when attacked.

If you shot an attacker with rubber bullets, after he said, "Ouch" he would probably disarm you and stick your gun up your ass.

[SteveM]

61. Most homicides are comitted by criminals with a numerous crimes...

such a record of crimes means the "broad statement" is correct. Of course, you may wish to engage in sophistry and say that anyone who has ever broken a law like P.I. or whizzing in a creek bed makes them a "criminal," but that would be "black and white."

When you get through your own rigidity, please suggest the technical requirements of your "proposal."

[SteveM]

152. "Most people" are not criminals. Most criminals don't give a rip about laws. nt

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

66. Maybe...

...I'm missing something here. You can carry in public but not with ammo??? Is that it? Are you proposing that people be allowed to carry but only unloaded? Would they be allowed to carry ammo separately but then load the weapon one it is needed?

Or... are you suggesting that, somehow, some effective non-lethal ammo could be developed for a Glock 19 or Ruger 22/45?


What exactly is your point here?

[gejohnston]

26. not so sure

unless you are saying that guns were uninvented. But that has nothing to do with the number of people murdered or seriously wounded. Russia has very few gun deaths, but their murder rate is five times ours. Ours is five times Japan's (which is not likely to be quite accurate given the different ways we count murder/suicides.)If you are saying that we would have fewer if we had a UK, Jamaica, Mexico, Russia style gun laws; history shows that would not be the case. That said, how many violent crimes would be completed because the victims did not have access? The DoJ estimates about 100K.

To explain, if dad kills wife and two kids before himself, we count one suicide, three murders. Japan counts four suicides, different terms to distinguish but still suicides.

[Tiggeroshii]

31. Either way Japan's gun deaths are close to non-existent

...given that guns are nearly entirely banned in the country. Thus: Number of guns legally allowed to be carried+successful enforcement of said laws=Number of gun related injury and deaths that are physically capable of occurring.

[gejohnston]

33. so in other words,

the number of deaths does not matter as long as they are not committed with guns? The same is true of Russia, but their murder rate makes us look like Japan, but their murder rate is five times worse than ours. Two thirds of Canada's murders are unimportant because they are not committed with guns. That is what you are saying whether you realize it or not. One thing about Japanese culture:

]Thus: Number of guns legally allowed to be carried+successful enforcement of said laws=Number of gun related injury and deaths that are physically capable of occurring.
has nothing to do with it. It has to do with their culture. If they were repeal their gun laws and become like Vermont and Arizona, nothing would change. Guns, like individuality, has never been part of their culture. What do you know about the Japanese criminal justice system? I lived there. It is democratic, but it is also a police state.

[ObamaFTW2012]

36. Japan is

a society, a very homogenous one at that, where the availability of guns (really, the lack thereof) has had no impact on violent crime or suicide. People still get shot by criminals, though not as frequently, but attacks with knives, swords, etc. are much higher than here. Suicide is a raging epidemic in Japan, and has not been hampered one bit by the lack of guns.

[slackmaster]

42. Japan's overall death rate is exactly the same as the death rate everywhere else

It approaches unity.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

43. There are many other factors at play there...

Japan is a very law-abiding nation to begin with. Throw in the near homogenous population and a cultural aversion to even being different, let alone a criminal, and its pretty easy to see why there are very few crimes of any kind, not just those involving firearms.

[gravity556]

83. Pure genius!

Because people are less dead when they've been hacked apart with machetes! Beautiful. Plus you leave the law abiding folks unarmed and easy pickings for malefactors who don't give a flying fuck that it's illegal to rape, murder and pillage. Brilliant!

[Simo 1939_1940]

27. Sorry - but empirical evidence trumps your "sneaking suspicion."

Even a pair of pro-restrictionists (Philip Cook/Jens Ludwig) confirmed Gary Kleck's survey results which discovered high numbers of defensive gun uses. You can see for yourself - Ludwig & Cook admitted to using methodology very similar to Kleck's, and their survey result was within the margin of error to the Kleck/Gertz survey. (NSDS) The relevant pages are 8 & 9:

http://www.tscm.com/165476.pdf

As their study didn't yield the results they were after, Cook and Ludwig weren't content with just moving the goalposts - they dismantled them and took them off the field! Funny how they didn't realize that they were engaged in a fools errand in their attempt to measure defensive gun uses before they expended the large amount of effort and money to conduct their survey. The following link represents Kleck's rebuttal to C & L's dishonesty - scroll to page 83 and continue reading through page 88: (Kleck deals with Cook early in his treatise as well.)

http://www.secondamendmentlibrary.com/11/kleck1999.pdf

To date, I know of no response from Cook and/or Ludwig to Kleck's rebuttal - and I imagine you'll never find one. Their political purposes were served the moment they published the NSPOF, as they are fully aware that the media is biased heavily in favor of pro-restriction. So getting back to your sneaking suspicion - sorry, but the best current empirical evidence suggests that defensive gun use offsets criminal offensive gun use, producing an overall null effect w/regard to gun-related injury and death.

Edited for punctuation

[ObamaFTW2012]

35. Easy there John Lennon

Imagining is fun and all, but reality has a funny way of stomping on fantasies like yours. You can't undo it now.

[slackmaster]

41. Obviously the number would be zero, but the MURDER rate was far higher before guns were invented...

...than it has been since then.

[PavePusher]

45. Are you assuming that by eliminating gun deaths, the over-all murder rate would be lower?

Do you think people would adapt to using other tools? Do yo know what murder rates were prior to the common use of firearms? Do you know what societies were like back then?

[SteveM]

60. Why imagine? Once we had no liquor in the U.S. Yep. that's right. uh-huh.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

62. Well that's pretty freakin obvious

However, you'd have just as many deaths and injuries from other things.

Even if you could uninvent the firearm, weapons would still exist - and there would still be people who would kill and harm others.

The problem is not the tool, but the person using it. I'm sorry you're incapable of understanding that.

[SteveM]

151. "Imagine" was a wonderful song, but not good public policy....

I also can "imagine" a world free of tobacco, alcohol, AIDS, bad T.V. shows, and body odor. But each (as a matter of public policy) are unachievable. You CAN set up a prohibitionist scheme (Americans are addicted to that sort of thing), but it won't prohibit much; can even increase "use."

If you agree with this, then you should not advocate such schemes. To continue to do this means you might have something else in mind.

Please note that ink-and-paper signs are not effective public policy, either. In fact, they could encourage the rare by highly-visible spittle-flying fuck-up to wade in where fish can be shot in a barrel.

Please note also that Russia's murder rate is quite high, I believe higher than ours. Gun "prohibition" is very much in effect, there. But other weapons are not so regulated.

So what is your goal? Lowering crime, or enacting another moralistic prohibitionist scheme?

[one-eyed fat man]

32. How did people kill each other before guns?

Do you think murder was less prevalent in the 15th century? Maybe "muri-shinju" doesn't really occur in Japan at a higher rate than in Europe or the Americas.

In its strict traditional meaning, the term "ikka-shinju" does not mean the same thing as "muri-shinju". While "ikka-shinju" does mean the suicide of an entire family, what it implies is that they all chose to commit suicide. When the lives of young children are taken by their parents, there is absolutely no sense of choice in the matter. Hence "muri-shinju" is a better term as "muri" in this instance means by force/against one's will.

[ObamaFTW2012]

34. So you are OK

with limiting firearm possession in "gun free zones" to only criminals, who are most likely to use them for nefarious purposes, and the occasional LEO, while leaving the lawful majority defenseless? What kind of warped social justice is that? Why would you support empowering criminals to victimize women, children, the elderly...anyone not carrying a badge?

I find absolutely no common sense in your argument. Your position does not reduce deaths; it only assures that the majority of those who die do so without the dignity of being able to effectively fight for their lives.

A century ago (and a little further back in some places), people who supported disarming others in public - as you do - fought for the passage of Jim Crow gun control laws to make sure people like me couldn't fight back when you circled my house in the middle of the night with rifles and torches. Today, you try to take away my rights under the guise of public safety.

What's next? Will you advocate against my right to free speech in public, so as to keep me safe from the Tea Party? Am I not man enough to take care of myself?

[slackmaster]

40. "Figuring" makes a poor substitute for actual measurement

You should try facts some time.

[SteveM]

59. More people are "carrying" now, yet murder rates are down. Why? nt

[ManiacJoe]

2. save lives: some yes, some no.

Unfortunately, all the victims cannot be saved.

[spin]

3. Yes. However, I have no problem with gun free zones that have adequate armed security ...

Firearms can be a deterrent to someone who suffers from a mental issue and is planning a massacre and hopes to get a high score. The lack of firearms in a crowded area can attract such people.

[jmg257]

7. Better chance of saving mine then not...so eliminate away.

Realizing that a 'gun free zone' is anything but for anyone intent on shooting up a place.

[DWC]

8. Gun free zones

Where criminals and crazies are armed and law abiding citizens are not. Sounds like gun Free Zones are places designed for "shooting fish in a barrel" to me.

Semper Fi,

[Katya Mullethov]

10. First they must be created

And they would have to be pretty tight , something like the drug free environment Cameron Douglas has been enjoying as of late .

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

12. What must be created?

We currently have areas where guns are prohibited.

The question was whether it would save lives if those prohibitions were eliminated.

[gravity556]

100. I know, right.

Gun free zones would be totally inviolate. Just like prisons and drugs. There's no way to get ahold of street drugs in a prison, no siree bob! There aren't ever any weapons in prisons either. They're weapon and drug free zones-a veritable utopia, except for all the drug use, prisoner on prisoner stabbings and prisoner on staff stabbings. Because making something illegal stops shitbag crooks in their tracks.

"OK, we got the rope, duct tape, masks and getaway vehicle. We're all set to knock over that bank!"
"Aw, dammit, homie, they got a no guns sign on the door and that means it's illegal to take a gun in there!"
"Curses, foiled again! I'm willing to break 15 laws, but I draw the line at 16..."

And that, folks, is how advocates for criminal safety and the anti-rights movement believe gun free zones and other gun control laws work. "Special" ideas from "special" people with "special" minds.

No thanks, I'll continue to look after my own personal safety.

[Glassunion]

11. Gun free zone = no such thing exists

[Simo 1939_1940]

24. Gun free zone = target rich environment with low

probability of someone firing back. Just the environment predators love.

one-eared short man

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

13. A gun free zone...

...is an area that is posted as such. It is clear that signs don't stop crimes since only the good guys obey the signs.

Do you think it would save lives to eliminate declaring areas as gun free/guns prohibited/no guns allowed?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

15. zones?

like banks? courthouses? drugstores?

I would guess that if one could create such a thing with full garantee
that NO ONE has a gun then perhaps no one will killed, not by a gun anyway


:shrug:

in reality, I would think that perhaps maybe victims would instead shoot the criminal instead of the criminal shooting many victims.

[Katya Mullethov]

16. MRI units

Ruthlessly enforced by the immutable laws of nature .

[Tuesday Afternoon]

17. I had an MRI on my stomach a couple of months ago.

[gravity556]

101. Yes, genital piercings and concealed firearms should not go into the MRI room...

[Simo 1939_1940]

18. The Students for Concealed Carry do an outstanding job

of countering the "arguments" of those who have been impaired by the Gun Control Reality Distortion Field:

In response to the argument that guns on campus would lead to as escalation of violent crime:

Answer: Since the fall semester of 2006, state law has allowed licensed individuals to carry concealed handguns on the campuses of the nine degree-offering public colleges (20 campuses) and one public technical college (10 campuses) in Utah. Concealed carry has been allowed at Colorado State University (Fort Collins, CO) since 2003 and at Blue Ridge Community College (Weyers Cave, VA) since 1995. After allowing concealed carry on campus for a combined total of one hundred semesters, none of these twelve schools has seen a single resulting incident of gun violence (including threats and suicides), a single gun accident, or a single gun theft. Likewise, none of the forty ‘right-to-carry’ states has seen a resulting increase in gun violence since legalizing concealed carry, despite the fact that licensed citizens in those states regularly carry concealed handguns in places like office buildings, movie theaters, grocery stores, shopping malls, restaurants, churches, banks, etc. Numerous studies*, including studies by University of Maryland senior research scientist John Lott, University of Georgia professor David Mustard, engineering statistician William Sturdevant, and various state agencies, show that concealed handgun license holders are five times less likely than non-license holders to commit violent crimes.

More rebuttals to emotion-based arguments here:

http://concealedcampus.org/common_arguments.php

[Simo 1939_1940]

19. Didn't address the question in previous post, so.......

I vote yes based on the available evidence. Don't recall where I read it, but 100% of school shooting have occurred in "gun free zones", while 0% have occurred on campuses which allow for concealed carry.

I'm sure it's just a coincidence.

[petronius]

20. I suspect it would neither cost nor save lives in any statistically meaningful sense,

but on balance the removal of such limitations would at least give individuals the chance to protect themselves in rare circumstances.

Many, but not all, mass shootings occur in legal no-guns zones, but it doesn't seem (or at least, I've never seen any evidence) that shooters choose these places for that reason. Rather, they have a pre-existing relationship with the place, or they simply go where the targets are. No-gun rules do little if anything to deter people bent on massacre. On the other hand, many mass shootings in guns-allowed zones are equally successful, suggesting that the life-saving potential of removing the restrictions is minimal.

The only arguments I can see in favor of no-gun zones are that allowing guns gives cover to an approaching shooter - the gun won't look out of place until the crime - but since firearms are easily hidden that's moot. Second, there's the risk that a legal carrier may have an accident - rare to the point of irrelevance. And, also rarer than rare even in guns-allowed zones, a legal carrier may 'snap'.

So, my take is that no-gun zones provide trivial if any benefit, but removing them wouldn't make the world any safer. Since it's a wash either way, I side with reducing limitations on personal liberty and giving those that want it the choice to defend themselves anywhere. I.e, no no-gun zones (unless some other entity is going to take responsibility for everyone's safety)...

[DWC]

21. I voted "no" in error.

Eliminating Gun Free Zones will absolutely save lives.

Semper Fi,

[Simo 1939_1940]

28. self-delete

[Simo 1939_1940]

29. Liberal criminologists James Wright & Peter Rossi (RIP)

seem/seemed to think so. Disregard the info. provided via the link due to source if you will, but I own and have read both of Wright & Rossi's books - and the information is accurate. Both men are/were liberal, non gun owning and pro-restriction until empirical evidence changed their minds:

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=117

[Simo 1939_1940]

30. More on James Wright and Peter Rossi:

http://www.amazon.com/Armed-Considered-Dangerous-Peter-Rossi/dp/0202362426/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1319354875&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Under-Gun-Weapons-Violence-America/dp/0202303063/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1319354954&sr=1-1

The reviews of these books are illuminating.

[SteveM]

58. Can't say. Dependa on crim/thug perceptions...

If after several years of no "gun-free zone" signs, and a drop in schoolyard and mall spectaculars which cannot be attributed to other phenomena, perhaps one could argue that removing the signs would save lives.

I certainly would not post them; the chance of drawing in some punk-ass chump is too great when it isn't necessary.

[Spoonman]

78. I'll answer your question with a question

Did gun free zone save any lives?

If you answer yes, there are five Amish schools that would disagree with you if they were alive!

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

147. Personally...

...I don't believe they do.

[SteveM]

150. Don't know. But whoever is carrying might save his/her life. nt