Two questions for gun control people

[chickened]

Someone hanging around in a schools with a concealed gun is sure to get a shooter before he gets the students? Dream on.

Are you saying that you want students to carry guns in school? Surely not.

If trained soldiers and police fail to shoot accurately or at all, what chance a civilian?

Hippies are to blame for the massacres today?

You really need a gun that can fire 100 rounds in one minute to hunt wild animals? What did the pioneers use when they actually needed to hunt for food?

Show me some evidence that Al Qaeda plans massacre in the US, apart from their or some government's propaganda. If there is an attack or a threat thereof, don't you have legitimate forces to deal with it? Do you think that terrorists could not overwhelm an armed guard? Do you think they will use guns or are they more likely to use bombs and other devices? It's paranoia and you need to consider who gains from such propaganda.

The desperate logic of intransigent people on the defensive is becoming farcical. Why not consider the possibility that people might walk the streets in safety one day and work on how to achieve that?

The most advanced weapon available.

 

[duckluck]

In the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, the principal had ordered a new security system to be installed. According to Connecticut's Governor, the new system was fully activated and required a visual identity check by appropriate school staff and that the person be buzzed in. The doors automatically locked at 0930 Hours. The assailant literally shot his way in to the building using one or more of the guns. Although he carried a Bushmaster AR-15, a Glock handgun and a Sig-Sauer handgun, ironically, the shotgun is the preferred and primary firearm used in door breaches due to it's extremely large diameter rounds and power force.




And in reference to police not being required to provide the protection of an individual, refer to the following cases:
- Riss v. New York: The court cited policy consideration when it held that the protection afforded citizens is a general one, and it was not within the purview of the court to require police protection of the public.
- Wuethrich v. Delia: Municipalities are expressly immunized from tort liability for the failure to provide police protection or the failure to provide sufficient police protection.
- Calogrides v. City of Mobile: The rule is that, independent of sovereign immunity, a municipality is not liable for failure to supply general police ... protection.
- Davidson v. City of Westminster: Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service.
- Warren v. District of Columbia: Holds that police do not have a duty to provide police services to individuals, even if a dispatcher promises help to be on the way, except when police develop a special duty to particular individuals.

Yeah, and if you're in a rural area, call and just wait and see how long it takes police to arrive.

 

[duckluck]

The most advanced weapon available.

My husband went to a parochial high school here in Chicago and most of the students were packing...and, the teachers all knew it. One day a guy broke in to the school with the intention of holding up one of the priest/teachers for the bingo money taken in the previous night...he drew his gun on the priest and all the students in the clasroom behind him drew theirs on the robber. Needless to say, the robber did not get to yell "Bingo!" Loses a bit in my telling it...much better to hear it told from someone who was there and actually participated, but oh well.

 

[hemet dennis]

And England's what, the size of one of our states?

I said the violent crime rate. That means for every 100,000 people England had about 2000 violent crimes and the U.S. had about 400. So size has nothing to do with the rate.

 

[cupman]

To be fair, hemet dennis, you are arguing about gun control while citing statistics that aren't focused solely on guns. I would be curious to find out what exactly the UK considers to be a violent crime. If you look at gun homicide per 100,000 citizens you have the UK at 0.21 and the United States at 2.97. I don't even believe in gun control and I'm not going to get long winded arguing about it but lets keep things in perspective.

 

[hemet dennis]

To be fair, hemet dennis, you are arguing about gun control while citing statistics that aren't focused solely on guns. I would be curious to find out what exactly the UK considers to be a violent crime. If you look at gun homicide per 100,000 citizens you have the UK at 0.21 and the United States at 2.97. I don't even believe in gun control and I'm not going to get long winded arguing about it but lets keep things in perspective.

Before England took all the peoples guns away their violent crime rate was about the same as ours. The same thing happened down under.

 

[cupman]

It's a tricky subject, I guess. A .22 bullet can kill the same as any other bullet assault rifle or not. 9mms can hold 17 rounds so limiting the size of a magazine wouldn't be the solution for all guns. I think something should change but for the life of me I don't have a solution. It's tricky.

 

[rebelcowboysnb]

To be fair, hemet dennis, you are arguing about gun control while citing statistics that aren't focused solely on guns. I would be curious to find out what exactly the UK considers to be a violent crime. If you look at gun homicide per 100,000 citizens you have the UK at 0.21 and the United States at 2.97. I don't even believe in gun control and I'm not going to get long winded arguing about it but lets keep things in perspective.

By filtering for the word gun anything you are filtering to stack the deck. Homicide is homicide.

Also it is on public record that after the gun ban the crime rate in England went up so high they changed the way they counted crimes to fix the public outcry. If 5 houses were broken in to on the same street over a few weeks it was counted as one crime. Same with homicide. In essence they stopped counting every crime an started counting them as groups of 1 crime.

 

[ChickensRDinos]

If I am understanding the definition, in most countries a violent crime is any crime in which violence occurs or is threatened. Meaning that in many places, violence does not actually have to take place for it to be considered a violent crime. I would be interested in knowing what categorie of violent crime increased.

It also seems like each country and each violent crime report seems to categorize what a violent crime is slightly differently. Are these stats comparing violent crimes in different countries looking at how each country reports their own violent crimes or are they comparing true apples to apple with same crimes vs same crimes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_crime

 

[hemet dennis]

It's a tricky subject, I guess. A .22 bullet can kill the same as any other bullet assault rifle or not. 9mms can hold 17 rounds so limiting the size of a magazine wouldn't be the solution for all guns. I think something should change but for the life of me I don't have a solution. It's tricky.

Obama wants to change the gun laws and he said "if it saves one child's life it's the right thing to do". Well aren't more kids killed in car accidents then by guns ? How fast do cars go ? Why don't we pass a law that no cars can be made to go faster then 30 MPH ? Wont that save 1,000's of lives ? And if we wanted to save more we could make it 20 MPH. Wont that save a lot more kids then limiting the peoples choice of weapons and amount of ammo ?