Gun Control, who's for it?

Stoirmeil, I am sorry about this incident in your city. I don't think the taking life of someone is just simply a mistake. I was saying there will be human error.

Sometimes I wonder if those (not directed to you in particular) who oppose guns, view those who don't as people who value human life less. I find it to be the exact opposite. You have to really realize what is going to happen when and if you do use the gun.

Don't we trust the judgement of the public through juries? True it is generally not a life or death situation, unless you are on trial for murder depending on the state. Daily we put our lives in the hands of jurors. Aren't we saying the majority of people have relatively good judgement until proven differently? Does not earning a permit prove you have relatively good judgement?

Flora

Well, no actually. It's an oversimplification to say so, and you and Patch are both talking about ideal performance. I've noticed that Patch always comes back to his own experience and abilities eventually, in this persuasive discussions. What that means is if the $#&% hits the fan, I sure do want Patch around, assuming he is accurate in his self assessment, but I don't for a minute think he is typical.

I actually kind of like the idea of rifles in a setting where hunting is a way of life, and children are taught from very young how to use the things and how to respect them. That, to me, is not much different from having a car: necessary, a convenience, and since it's potentially lethal you have to know what you're doing and people generally just do. And if they use it in a hazardous fashion, everyone around will let them know it.

But in urban settings, with high population density, hand weapons (some of them semi-automatic) and the whole issue of concealment, I think the picture is very different. Whether it's a deterrant or an intentionally offensive tool, it's human on human lethal risk and that is the extent of it. The question then is: what does it take to tip someone over into the category of offensive intentions, assuming there is a chronic defensive need to justify having it in the first place? And again -- in the home, fine. Any of you coming here to visit me would be scratching your heads wondering why I don't have one in my home, if you saw where I live, and I would not give you much of an argument.

May I ask how long you have lived there? Would there ever be a point that you felt you should have a gun? Seeing people gunned down one by one, what would you do?

I have called the sheriff's office several times to our area, and watched them drive by then stop and have a personal conversation with each other. Yes, I overheard the conversation and it was not police related. I felt they weren't doing their job nor would they be able to respond in a quick enough time to be able to prevent me from harm. It is about a person's life in drastic physical danger. Most people that have permits are aware of the how and when you can legally use a gun and it really boils down to life endangerment.

Flora

You state that very well.

I support peoples belief not to own firearms. I fear though that in many instances, safety has not been given proper consideration. Even in small communities with little traffic congestion, police fire and EMS response time is poor. Fifteen or twenty min. can be a long time to keep yourself alive if you are waiting for help. I have been to NY myself and see no reason to return. My niece liked the pace, entertainment and food but she and her fiancee, a doctor, left because of crime.

With the economy causing govt. to loose revenue, response time will only get worse.

A couple of weeks ago, there was a house fire 5 blocks south of me. Smoke cut visibility to "0" on the highway (street) I live on. Our local fire department called a small neighboring community for mutual aid when the call came in here. Their department was volunteer and had 9 miles to travel. They arrived first put out the fire and were clearing smoke from the house when my police/fire dept. arrived after travelling 12 or so blocks. We have a remote system that defaults all stop lights in town to red before the emergency vehicles leave the city building so traffic was not a problem.

Many states have passed a "castle doctrine" law which allows absolute protection in your residence. The law automatically assumes that if someone breaks into your home they intend to inflict bodily harm. Florida was one of the first to do so.

There are 4 more states working on that now. More states are reciprocating on carry permits all the time. The last I checked, My license was good in 14 states and when I make my South West trip, I will check again to get updates.

Though some do not, I believe that law abiding citizens always have more right to survival than criminals.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

The man who killed the doctor had a criminal record thus could not legally have owned a firearm or obtained a concealed carry license. This information just came in a very recent AP release.

Court records and Internet postings show that someone using the name Scott Roeder has a criminal past and has expressed anti-abortion opinions on sympathetic Web sites He was also booked into jail on a murder and two assault charges after the murder took place.

Witnesses stated that the shooting took place away from the parishioners and only one shot was fired. It sounded like a balloon breaking. There was no one else around to get hurt. The information certainly apopears to be changing!

I am certain more will follow.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

I read today that the justice department is going to provide security for all abortion clinics and workers. That will require 6 agents for full 24/7 coverage for each clinic and each worker. It will take a lot of agents. There will be few left for anything else.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

A woman was shot and injured during a weekend home invasion that left her husband and daughter dead. She shot back at intruders who thought they had killed her.

County Sheriff's officer Michael O'Connor said several men and a woman claimed to be law enforcement officers and broke into the family's rural home early Saturday.

All three family members were shot, and the intruders apparently believed all were dead.

At some point after being shot the wife/mother was able to retrieve a firearm and returned fire. There is a possibility that one of the suspects was shot.

The dead were identified as Raul Flores, 29, and the couple's daughter, Brisenia.

O'Connor said the woman was hospitalized. Her outlook is good and she is recovering.

The small community of Arivaca is about 60 miles south of Tucson and 10 miles north of the Mexican border. Largely rural, homes are widely spread across the desert.

It is possible that the crime is related to illegal immigration or could have been re; drugs being smuggled out of Mexico. Though details have not been released, it could be that the firearm in the home saved one life. Also, if one of the perp's was wounded, it may aid in solving the crime.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

25+ years in greater New York, 10 of them in Harlem where I am now. I came into this part of town when it was wilder, and I was more nearly a minority white than I am now. I might consider a gun in my home, as I said, but it seems unnecessary -- less so all the time. I made the statement to make a point: many of the people who argue for gun possession would look at this part of town I live in and wonder why I was not at least keeping a gun in the house. The answer is my safety here is in how I handle myself outside. I can also tell you I live on the first floor, street front, and my biggest problem is noise. I am not sure what you mean by "seeing people gunned down one by one." That's a scenario that I think would require a drastic cleanup action that would hardly be served by private armed citizens. How do you envision that happening?

As I have said many times, All can decide how they provide for their own safety. The biggest consideration is realizing that no one else can be relied upon to provide safety for us. I do not intend to "clean up" any mess, and our police will not do so either, but I do not intend to stand by and see friends, family and fellow citizens injured, killed or "violated" (raped) and NOT act to prevent same. I do not intend to prevent robberies, etc. as that is not why I have a license. That is left for the police though they are not very good at it.

We had an instance where a 25 year veteran "good old boy" swat officer killed a young black woman and severely injured her infant child during a drug raid. NO DRUGS WERE FOUND!. His partner behind him touched his leg ad he emptied his rifle clip on FULL AUTO as the lady was on the floor complying with his instructions. It was noted in the city safety service office that out of "fear" he lost control of his bodily functions. This was his third killing and the previous one involved a man locked in his room with an alleged pocket knife (which was somehow lost after the man who posed no threat was shot through a window) This TOTALLY unqualified individual is still on the force though there is pressure being exerted on the Justice department to have him tried on federal charges and a civil suit will soon be filed.

Do you want this man responsible fore YOUR safety. I do not want him responsible for mine as as HE is crazy and I can do a much better job myself! In my little town, our Swat (?) team executed a "depressed" man who was locked in his house alone and threatening suicide after a little over an hour's negotiation. They "PREVENTED" his suicide! That is a prime example of convoluted logic!!! I can give you a couple of more. Most attorney's will tell you today that we are quickly moving toward a POLICE STATE." Read the small town news papers and decide for yourself.

Unfortunately, in New York, you are not allowed to use "Mace" or high voltage stunners. It is easier to get a license to carry a concealed firearm. A squeeze bottle of Ammonia or a "blow gun dart" used to stick someone in the "tender bits" are about the best legal options you have. I rigged a "bic" lighter with pressurized ammonia for a lady who was visiting NY and afraid of the crime. It could be aimed and had a range of about 8 feet. She did not have to use it and she felt safer.

Again, do what you feel comfortable with and watch the news to see what is happening around you!

Slàinte,    

Patch    

You're right, because it's obvious that the foremost thought in the murderer's mind was obeying all laws. If only guns had been illegal, he certainly wouldn't have even considered picking one up. After all, if you look at his track record, it's clear that obeying the law was a very important value to this man. Outlawing guns would have eliminated this tragedy entirely.

Wait a minute. Maybe we should have had the forethought to make murder illegal, too. After all, if murder were illegal, this man would clearly not have done it.

I agree.

You seem fond of picking isolated news stories showing how guns saved someone's life or mitigated disaterous circumstances. Let me follow suit.

"It came to the attention of an otherwise complacent mind today that countless thousands of individuals have never been victimized by crimes and many who live in geographic areas of questionable repute remained victim free without the benefit of the personal possession of advanced weaponry. To date, experts estimate countless thousands of people including inncent children's lives were saved from accidental gun death and easy access to suicide methodologies by the absence of guns in their home. An undisclosed number of marital arguments did not escalate to murderous events, nor did drive by shootings occur according to experts. Should this distinctive cross section of the population continue with the aforesaid predilections, its projected that the same level of safety will continue well into the foreseeable future. Naturally since there's little in the way of the sensationalism inherent in a story of human behavioral scrupulousness such as this, which consequently precludes the aquisistion of copious media advertising revenues, the story has thus far averted media attention. We now return you to your regularly scheduled message board, already in progress."

Isolating incidents and cherry picking news stories which confirm your conclusions and opinions are non-events argumentively speaking. They prove nothing and are just as substantial as my paragraph above. Yeah yeah, they meant something to those that experienced them I know, but so does the above.

Also isolated stories about how the police screw up and fail at their job, as opposed to the times they perform well and avert or deter crime with no one ever knowing it.

Your point is well made -- non-events and prevention in general are a lot harder to make a statistical case for. I discovered this during a frustrating bit of career time researching links between child neglect/abuse and certain forms of adult mental maladaptation. You can talk about suggestive correlations at best, but when something doesn't happen because it has been prevented, you can't point to these plummy cases.

You seem fond of picking isolated news stories showing how guns saved someone's life or mitigated disaterous circumstances. Let me follow suit.

"It came to the attention of an otherwise complacent mind today that countless thousands of individuals have never been victimized by crimes and many who live in geographic areas of questionable repute remained victim free without the benefit of the personal possession of advanced weaponry. To date, experts estimate countless thousands of people including inncent children's lives were saved from accidental gun death and easy access to suicide methodologies by the absence of guns in their home. An undisclosed number of marital arguments did not escalate to murderous events, nor did drive by shootings occur according to experts. Should this distinctive cross section of the population continue with the aforesaid predilections, its projected that the same level of safety will continue well into the foreseeable future. Naturally since there's little in the way of the sensationalism inherent in a story of human behavioral scrupulousness such as this, which consequently precludes the aquisistion of copious media advertising revenues, the story has thus far averted media attention. We now return you to your regularly scheduled message board, already in progress."

Isolating incidents and cherry picking news stories which confirm your conclusions and opinions are non-events argumentively speaking. They prove nothing and are just as substantial as my paragraph above. Yeah yeah, they meant something to those that experienced them I know, but so does the above.

Unfortunately, you are the one who is cherry picking.I have been working successfully for the passage of responsible and Constitutional fire arms laws for nearly 20 years and I have volumes of instances supporting my claims. I know of no instance where anyones life has been saved by restricting firearms. (adult or child) If the life was "saved", you or I would be have no way of knowing. Responsible firearms "training" saves lives. Lack of same causes accidents. Suicides will happen no matter what methods are restricted. There are more ways to commit suicide than one can list. If people are bent on ending their lives, they WILL be successful! As a recent example, David Carradine was found hanged in his hotel room in Bancock Thailand, a country that imposes restrictions on firearms and bans ownership of same by non residents. However he managed to find a way.

Police "prevent virtually no crime. You would have to have an officer watching over you 24/7. They can sometimes though not always solve a crime committed against you after the fact. I prefer to be responsible for my own safety and the safety of my family, friends and those around me.

I could hire people to post instances 24/7 for a year where firearms saved lives or prevented injury. You would pay no attention to them if you are opposed to firearms. The US supreme court recently ruled that Washington DC's firearms law was unconstitutional and they also ruled that private ownership of firearms was a right "guaranteed" to individual American citizens by the second amendment to the Constitution. It is pretty hard to argue with those rulings.

If you do not want to own a firearm that is fine. Just remember, I have, and choose to exercise, that right myself as do about 90 million other Americans, maybe many more. I do not know how many of the over 300 million new applications to purchase firearms since last November are new gun owners. I have no doubt that the NRA and the GOA will soon have compiled the number of "new" gun owners. That is why firearms bills are languishing in the legislature now.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Or never happened at all, not prevented, simply did not happen. Prevention is a piss poor excuse for anything. YOU are responsible for your safety! On the job, at home, at ALL times. NO one else is looking out for you, and if they say they are, DUCK, COVER, and put your hand on your wallet!