Guns protect average people.

[Tim01]

I think there are some people who don't really understand how criminals work. If that is because they have never been a victim of crime, good I hope they never are.
Some folks think that if the guns went away the violent crime would go away. It simply doesn't work that way. We are a free society. So the criminals are free too. Free to be anilmalistic toward good people.
Criminals hurt and kill normal people for financial gain, and for fun. Here is a video of about 6 young men attacking 1 person. It is an average street with other people walking around who do nothing. The guy tries to run away. They chase him and catch him. They beat him until he can't stand then they stomp on him and rob him. It is obvious lots of the beating is for fun. He probably had broken bones from this, maybe life long injuries. The criminals simply out numbered him, no weapons. Maybe he will be permanently disabled from this.
My point this video shows it that criminals do not want a fair fight. They do not want to get themselves hurt. That is why it is normal for them out number their victim. It keeps them safer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oH4hH6_WbVc&feature=related
If the victim had a gun he could have got away. Maybe things would have gone worse. But really what usually happens is when the gun comes out the criminals realize they are in danger and they run away. This is recreational violence, they don't want to get hurt themselves.

In this next video the 22 year old mugger mugs an old man in a parking lot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjBkGxeuNF8&feature=related
The old man walks with a cane. He approaches the old man, gets close, and pins him in place while he hits the old man full force 16 times with both hands.
Next is a very old woman with a walker in a stairwell. He punches her in the face until she hits the floor.
In the next attack he walks into a store and smashes a full bottle of liquor over the clerks head. No guns or knives in any of these attacks. Just huge disparity of force and no danger of being hurt to the criminal who enjoys beating senior citizens.
The only way these people could have protected themselves is with a gun.

In this video the mugger swings a baseball bat full force over and over beating a man who is already on the ground and not resisting. Critically injured.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxvYMJnHwDY

The violent people are not going away. Taking the guns away from them will not make them less violent. Disarming normal people just makes them unable to defend themselves.

Criminals do not fight fair.
A gun gives an average citizen a chance to survive.

[baldguy]

1. All the people who died in Binghamton yesterday were average people.

[Tim01]

2. He would have killed more with some gasoline.

Preventing him from getting a gun would not have fixed him. HE is the problem.

[baldguy]

12. Gasoline isn't prepackaged in a handy little device designed to kill people.

American society doesn't idolize mythic heroes who randomly dowse people with gasoline and set them on fire. Oil companies don't spend billions of dollars trying to maintain that myth. Hobbyists who enjoy throwing Molotov cocktails aren't under the delusion that their avocation somehow protects the nation from being invaded by the godless hordes just beyond the horizon - or even the untermenchen next door.

[rrneck]

38. Molotov cocktail

[Old and In the Way]

18. I'll bet he wasn't the problem until yesterday.

Chances are he hadn't committed any gun related crimes prior to this. Heck, he could have been a poster here advocating for his right to bear arms and carry a concealed weapon. The point is, there's no way of knowing who are the bad guys until after they use their guns to murder innocent people. It's too late then.

Your point about gasoline is silly.

[X_Digger]

22. Therefore... (logical conclusion?)

Therefore remove all weapons from all hands on the minuscule chance that someone will go off?

How'd that work with other rights? Sew up all mouths because a person might shout FIRE in a crowded theater and cause a stampede that kills people?

The cost of a free society is that some aberrant individual will abuse that freedom. The answer is not to remove the freedom, the answer is to address the causes of aberrance.

[safeinOhio]

3. I agree Tim

Sane, licensed, law abiding people should be able to carry. I just don't see a 50 cal snipper rifle doing any thing for the victims above, or an assault weapon. I think I must be the only one that sees a middle ground on gun control.

[Tim01]

4. Did you know a .50 has never been used to commit a crime in the U.S.?

Not ever.
You want to ban something that does nothing wrong?

[safeinOhio]

7. Sure,

Only rich people can own and shoot a 50cal. I can't afford $10.00 a round. Any how you were talking about self defense. My guess is no one in this country has ever defended them self from a crime with a sniper rifle. Those are offensive weapons not defensive. Perhaps no one has ever committed a crime with one. However, I'm old enough to remember the crazy guy in Texas on a college campus shooting everyone he saw from a bell tower. I remember a sniper shooting a President. My guess, though not proven, is a crazy could bring down a plane with one. You and cops have no defense against one either.

[X_Digger]

16. Cripes, not the plane thing again..

Geese have a better chance of taking down a plane than a super-dooper-sniper with a .50cal.

Serious question, though- what would you do when they ban .50 cal rifles and the next great rifle is .499 cal? Neverending progression of bans down to...?

[Furyataurus]

17. Yup

its always just "one more" with the anti's.......

[rrneck]

39. Not much way to do that.

Considering the logistical problems regarding where to place the shooter, the window of opportunity to put a round in a vulnerable spot on the aircraft, and the need for the shooter to leave the scene undetected makes the chance of bringing down an aircraft with a .50 almost impossible.

To use a military sniper rifle effectively, you would need a military sniper to operate it, and a military to put him where he needs to be to do the job.

[Tim01]

49. A .50 could be used for bad stuff.

There is already a very long list of things people don't need, but they like, which hurt people. They already hurt people. Are you willing to ban the things that actually hurt people? Or do you just want to ban guns? If it is only .50s then you are not consistent.
Sports cars that exceed the speed limit.
Alcohol
Cigarettes
High speed motor cycles
Jet skis
Speed boats
Very very long list.

[tularetom]

5. Let's arm a bunch of half blind scared senior citizens

What could possibly go wrong.

By the time our mother reached 80 we had to lock up the guns where she couldn't get at them. She was so afraid of thugs and goons and her eyesight so poor she would have shot our dad or one of us. Or anyone who looked to her like a mugger.

And this was a woman who was an avid hunter in her younger days. And knew how to use a handgun.

This is not necessarily a good idea.

[safeinOhio]

10. That is a good reason to

license CCW holders. I wouldn't want a blind crazy person walking around armed either. That doesn't mean there aren't capable seniors who can carry.

[spin]

23. In most states CCW holders are licensed already...

and I think that's the reason they are the group of gun owners with the lowest rate involving the misuse of firearms.

[rl6214]

42. I had to take a class

And show proficiency with my handgun before I was even allowed to apply for my CCL. That was just the start of the process.

[Tim01]

11. Guns are like cars.

In my state you can buy all the guns and cars you want and keep them at your house. If you want to drive a car in public or carry a gun in public you have to pass a proficiency test, and a background check and finger printing for the gun.
That should address your argument. Is that right?

[tularetom]

15. It sure as hell was not the case 50 years ago when my mom bought those guns

And I doubt if a frightened 80 or 90 year old who lives alone is going to worry about a concealed carry permit.

[baldguy]

20. Register every gun, license every gun owner.

Toss out the 2nd Amendment.

[guardian]

26. Well let's all just do what YOU want

>>>Toss out the 2nd Amendment.

So which Amendment will you toss out next? Perhaps the 13th Amendment? Then we really start shaping the country to fit your world view.

If you want to CHANGE the Constitution there is a defined process for this. But I don't think the definition of "ratification" is whatever baldguy says.

Give me a fucking break.

[baldguy]

30. I think the Constitution sis a living document which should be reexamined from time to time

Which is what the Founders intended us to do. It should be adjusted to fit our society AS IT IS & today's society shouldn't be forced to conform to 18th century sensibilities.

Or do you want to bring back slavery & make females 2nd class citizens again?


Give me a fucking break.

[X_Digger]

31. Then get back to us when you've repealed the 2nd. n/t

[guardian]

33. Something needs to be "re-examined"

But is sure as fuck ISN'T the Constitution

[baldguy]

35. Sure, God carved the Constitution is stone & handed it to Thomas Jefferson

Who carried it down from the mountain to present to the Israelites - er, I mean the Philadelphians.


So, how many slaves do you own?

[rrneck]

60. I think the Constitution sis a living document which should be reexamined from time to time

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

[poboyross]

69. You lost me at "Give me a fucking break"

Not that you'll care, but just dropping the F bomb to indicate your disagreement doesn't do your position any justice. The founding fathers knew that they would have to make concessions that weren't agreeable to achieve their ends of getting documents signed and ratified, so slavery and several other problems remained. Being as smart as they were, they slipped in the phrase "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all mean are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights". So why those who wanted slavery thought they were referring to their particular brand of social politics, the authors were really setting all of those aspects up for a big downfall after the fact. To say that all of the document that followed, the Constitution, should have all aspects rendered open season for change, just doesn't make sense. The Bill of Rights is not a fluid part of the Constitution as all of them are interwoven and represent aspects that they wish they had included within it's body. The fact that amendments have been used for outrageous things like prohibition and then subsequently repealed, only opened up the idea of it's absolute fluidity. By that standard, how many people have been allowed to remain free, only to commit more heinous crimes, when so many just *knew* that these people had done/would continue to do these things but lacked proper paperwork or a judge who would let them do a search......purely because we respect the 4th and 5th amendments. Maybe we could just abolish those, too?

[rrneck]

40. I don't think

anybody has advocated arming senior citizens have they?

[MrPerson]

6. The 4 cops shot in Pittsburgh had guns.

[villager]

8. Guns seem not to have protected the Pittsburg cops wounded *today* after yesterday's mass shooting

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x209467

You gun fanboys just can't give up your objects of desire, can you?

[rl6214]

43. Give up your computer

We don't need the 1st amendment.

[villager]

57. If you can think past the NRA talking points....

...America has a history of communities deciding -- including in the "Old West" -- when the prevalence of certain weapons made those communities less safe...

The NRA industry lobbyists -- whose word you apparently view as holy writ -- don't care about communities, or anything other than "pushing product."

And the gun-droids give their full cooperation.

And tellingly, you have zero words of empathy for the victims, or their families.

[aikoaiko]

47. and you conveniently ignore that a gun was used to subdue this particular shooter

Of course guns are not magical protection -- they only give the user a better fighting chance.

Are the police gun fanboys too?

[villager]

58. The question is -- do you believe in any reasonable resriction on any weapon

...or does the community have an interest (the rhetoric of NRA industry lobbyists/product-pushers aside) in restricting their flow for public safety?

Or do we all need to be as armed and bullet-proof'd as the average cop?

[aikoaiko]

66. Ok, you ask three good questions.

You asked:
Do you believe in any reasonable resriction on any weapon?

My answer:
Yes, I do. I think it is reasonable to restrict firearms to non-prohibited folks.

You asked:
Does the community have an interest (the rhetoric of NRA industry lobbyists/product-pushers aside) in restricting their flow for public safety?

My answer:
I'm not sure what you mean by restricting their flow, but I do think the community has an interst in gun laws with public safety in mind. If you mean gun bans or gun limits, then no, I disagree with you. If you mean keeping guns out of the hands of crimnals and other prohibited folks, then yes, but not at the expense of law abiding folks.

You asked:
Do we all need to be as armed and bullet-proof'd as the average cop?

My answer:
We do not all need to be as armed and bullet-proof as police, but a lawful civilian should be able to if he or she wants or thinks he or she needs to because of situational or general dangers. Here is how I justify this: if police think they need pistols with hi-cap magazines and ar15s in their car trunks, its because they think they are useful when confronting civilian criminals who are engaging in or threatening grave bodily harm. I think most people agree that police need to be able to adequately defend themselves and others. But you see, those criminals, by and large, are not attacking the police directly. Criminals are engaging civilian victims. Those civilian victims of criminals are entitled to the same tools for self-defense as the police, as far as I am concerned.

[HereSince1628]

9. So, if we are going to generalize, let me suggest this...

People who feel they MUST carry a gun for personal safety don't actually understand this about their own beliefs...

They think they are correct to believe

1. the places they move through are mortally dangerous
2. police/law enforcement cannot adequately protect them from these mortal dangers present in the localities and social interactions they are likely to encounter.
3. that the dangers they percieve have nothing to do with their personal behaviors and that they are not paranoid but that they are realists.
4. that more often than not a crime victim could have 'gotten the drop' on the bad guy(s).
5. that personal dangers they percieve to be in their community are best offset by reliance on a personal firearm and their personal delivery of deadly force.


Unfortunately, the numbers for America suggest that more people are robbed and have their lives compromized by their insurance agents, bankers, and public officials than bandits.

[safeinOhio]

13. good point

until you talk to a violent crime victim. When you call 911, the cops are only hours away.
I personally think having a small percentage of the population armed makes violent offenders less likely to offend.
Most people that have been saved from a violent act because they are armed, never fire a shot.

Before going off on me, I think there is a middle way. I'm not in favor of every weapon being legal or every person able to carry. I'm also more swayed in my opinion by actual statistics than a news article about an incident that took place. I respect the Constitution and also think it is a living document. So, I get to argue with just about every one.

[baldguy]

14. Owning and carrying firearms is a hobby.

Their hobby isn't more important than the safety & security of my family, home & neighborhood.

[X_Digger]

19. Nice try to marginalize the second amendment

Some keep guns as a hobby, some for hunting, some for personal protection, some just because they can.

Unless and until you repeal the second amendment, you don't get to decide why I should or should not keep a gun.

[baldguy]

21. #11 Guns are like cars.

The OP disagrees with you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=209459&mesg_id=209473

[X_Digger]

24. I was adressing you, not the OP, but..

Let's examine that..

Cars can be used as a hobby. Cars can be used for protection. Cars can be used for hunting. Cars kill more people than guns.

Your point?

[baldguy]

27. The 2nd Amendment no longer reflects the realities of our society

And causes many more problems than it solves. It does not meet the needs of individual & community protection & national defense, which are addressed more effectively and efficiently by having a civilian police force and a standing army.

The ONLY purpose for owning & carrying firearms is as a hobby.

[jeepnstein]

28. Perhaps you wish to share...

your version of the realities of society with the rest of us? Who's going to protect you if, in the very unlikely event, you are threatened by a criminal attack? It sure isn't the police because that's not their job.

The Constitution is every bit as relevant in today's society as it was the day it was written. I prefer to retain all my rights, how about you?

[baldguy]

32. Its not the job of the police to protect the public?

Um, maybe you want to rephrase that?

[X_Digger]

34. Talk to the SCOTUS

According to multiple actions brought before the supreme court, police have no legal obligation to protect a person unless they are in police custody.

[jeepnstein]

63. That's right.

The police protect society in general, but not any one individually. Unless you are in custody you are not guaranteed any level of protection by the police. You're on your own. Surprised?

[Tim01]

67. They enforce laws and arrest criminals.

They are not required to protect people. You are on your own to keep yourself protected.

[X_Digger]

68. *crickets* n/t

[guardian]

36. I think you are asking for a lot

when you ask for "our version of the realities of society." I think his version of reality is Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds.

[rrneck]

41. A civillian police force

cannot hope to respond to an assault quickly enough to stop it most of the time. That's why they still happen.

[rl6214]

46. No, my reason for owning firearms

Is to help provide food for my family and protection for my family.

[Iktomiwicasa]

50. "The 2nd Amendment no longer reflects the realities of our society"

mmmm....yes it does. The 2nd amendment is a check on government power over the citizens. If we have a utopia where we can fully trust our government to never , ever, EVER trample on the rights of citizens, then maybe it would be time to reconsider the 2nd. Until then......

[baldguy]

61. If society devolves to a point where armed revolt is a reasonable response to overreaching govt powe...

A handgun won't help you.

[jeepnstein]

64. It'll help more than you.

[baldguy]

65. If you believe that, you're delusional and will be among the first to be killed.

Rugged individualists don't win battles against an organized military force.

[Tim01]

52. A car can't protect you if you are walking down an alley.

They can't protect you if somebody breaks into your house. They have other uses.

They are not protected by the constitution any more than horses were.

[safeinOhio]

25. The Second Amendment is

open to some interpretation with the "well regulated militia". So, being well regulated some one gets to inspect and hold your arms?
Hey, this goes on and on. I am a CCW holder and a hunter. I still think the whole fricking thing is not black and white. Like abortion and gay marriage, there are those that won't budge an inch on both sides. That kind of makes them both a little crazy.

[X_Digger]

29. I'd suggest some contemporary reading..

We may interpret it differently today based on today's language, but at that time, it was pretty doggone clear. For other sources similar, see the state constitutions of PA and VT, as well as Washington and Jefferson's letters (http://memory.loc.gov).

'well regulated' at the time meant well equipped, well running, capable- much like the 'regulator clock'. It had nothing to do with being 'regulated' like we use it to mean constricted by many laws or subject to control by authority. Because our language changes, that doesn't mean older document's intent changes.

[rl6214]

45. And you don't get to determine

whether I get to carry a firearm for the safety and security of my family, home and neighborhood.

[aikoaiko]

48. facepalm.

[poboyross]

70. My responsible (and legal) carrying might *be* important to your family's safety.

I grew up respecting guns, for hunting/self defense/hobby. I have always followed the law, and that included getting my concealed carry permit after going through the mandatory training course by sheriff's deputies and passing multiple tests. Since that day, I have protected myself and friends 3 times since I turned 21 (now 29). I am thankful that I never had to pull the trigger, too. Having the training to know how to use it and when it's legal to use it meant all the difference. I have had to brandish it twice to muggers who simply turned and ran. The third time, my college roommate's fiance was being chased down the road by gangbangers trying to run her off of the road with guns drawn for what they said was "cutting them off". The were screaming the were going to kill her. As freaked out as she was, she didn't call the police but rather my roommate. She was so close to home that he told her to come there and we would be ready. This was occurring over the span of just a few minutes, mind you. I grabbed my AR-15, with the then legal 30 round mag, and ran outside. Just as we got out there, she tore onto our street with the gangbangers right behind her. As I saw her pulling in, I quickly made my way toward her car with my rifle visible/safety off but not pointed at them to indicate that they might want to rethink their plan. Once they saw what I had, they tore on out of there in a hurry. We told the police what happened and how it happened, and they had no beef with how we handled ourselves. They mentioned how it was good to see someone who puts a better face on people who own "assault weapons". Obviously, Savannah's precincts think a little differently :)

Cliche, but true "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."

[Tim01]

53. All you did is say we are wrong. That doesn't make sense.

Show me that we are wrong on ANY of those ideas. You listed 5. At least offer a reason for saying you are right and we are wrong.


I don't say guns should be used to prevent theft. I say guns should be used to protect life. Bankers and all those guys are not using violence. You are fixing the wrong problem.


You are saying
1) There are not dangerous places.
2) Police are always close enough to protect everybody
3) All dangerous people can be avoided
4) A gun doesn't help a save a victim.
5) There are more effective ways to prevent violence than personal reliance.

Offer an argument for your points. Some reason to believe these are true.Something, anything.

[villager]

59. Kind of apples and oranges. But your point about mega-thieves

-- like insurance companies and bankers -- actually brings us back to the point about gun paranoia: Your being massively armed will do nada/zilch/nothing to keep the banks from ripping you off. And when you flip (I use the editorial "you," based on the headlines of the past few days), you will take more than a few people with you...

...with that paranoia-fueled arsenal of yours...

[depakid]

37. This post very good example of the dysfunctional nature of fear and obsession

It makes the case quite well.

[Tim01]

51. The fear of guns is irrational and emotional.

Being afraid of guns doesn't change bad guys. Ignoring reality is counter productive. It is not guns that make criminals dangerous.

If you think you would be safe if there were not guns, PROVE IT.

[depakid]

54. "If you think you would be safe if there were not guns, PROVE IT"

If you get a chance to travel a bit, you can see it for your own self in many places around the world.

Me, I happened to fall for a Welsh, and later an Aussie girl.

As to the latter, there are plenty of things one can be afraid of on the continent. Sharks, snakes, spiders, -even http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2001/02/08/243639.htm">trees.

One thing we don't worry with- and outside of members of bikie gangs, almost nobody worries with- are irrational, paranoid people with guns.

[Tim01]

55. You have offered no evidence to support your point of view. None.

I have been around the world. I saw my friend taken to the emergency room after 4 locals beat his face with volcano rock until he was not recognizable.

Since you are not going to support your claims, except with your own emotions, I am not going to continue this particular argument.

[depakid]

56. "I am not going to continue this particular argument. "

That's perhaps the smartest (e.g. most rational) thing you've said to date.

[poboyross]

71. That's because America has a monopoly on crazy folks....period.

:P

[rrneck]

44. There y'go.

Criminals do not fight fair.
A gun gives an average citizen a chance to survive.

Exactly right. We need to seek a balance between civil authority, personal freedom, and tactical advantage. Too much in any direction distorts society to the detriment of all.

[Tim01]

62. 3 teens rob and then beat a man to death in chicago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFEBPzixJZI

No outrage over another recreational killing, huh? Nah.
What if the 3 teens had "assault rifles"? Oh, sure, THAT would have been upsetting.

How about if 3 "assault rifles" attacked him?

How many people figure it is better he was beaten to death as opposed to shooting the murdering bastards who were killing him?