For those who are opposed to firearms in restautants...

[spin]

Luby's massacre

The Luby's massacre was an incident of mass murder that took place on October 16, 1991 in Killeen, Texas, United States when George Jo Hennard drove his pickup truck into a Luby's Cafeteria and shot 23 people to death while wounding another 20, subsequently committing suicide by shooting himself. It was the deadliest shooting rampage in American history until the Virginia Tech massacre.

On October 16, 1991, Hennard drove his 1987 Ford Ranger pickup truck through the front window of a Luby's Cafeteria at 1705 East Central Texas Expressway in Killeen, yelled "This is what Bell County has done to me!", then opened fire on the restaurant's patrons and staff with a Glock 17 pistol and later a Ruger P89. He stalked, shot, and killed 23 people while wounding another 20 before committing suicide. About 80 people were in the restaurant at the time. The first victim was local veterinarian Dr. Michael Griffith, who ran up to the driver's side of the pickup truck to offer assistance after the truck came through the window. During the shooting, Hennard approached Suzanna Gratia Hupp and her parents. Hupp had actually brought a handgun to the Luby's Cafeteria that day but had left it in her vehicle because laws in force at the time forbade citizens from carrying firearms. According to her later testimony in favor of Missouri's HB-1720 bill and in general, after she realized that her firearm was not in her purse but "a hundred feet away in car," her father charged at Hennard in an attempt to subdue him but was gunned down; a short time later, Hupp's mother was also shot and killed. Hupp later expressed regret for abiding by the law in question by leaving her firearm in her car rather than keeping it on her person. One patron, Tommy Vaughn, threw himself through a plate-glass window to allow others to escape. Hennard allowed a mother and her four-year-old child to leave. He reloaded several times and still had ammunition remaining when he committed suicide by shooting himself in the head after being cornered and wounded by police. emphasis added
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby%27s_massacre

Suzanna Hupp later testified in front of Congress. I recommend you watch this video of the testimony. It's heartbreaking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLRr02YrW6o&feature=related

[wtmusic]

1. Everyone should be armed everywhere.

That would definitely cut down on gun violence. :silly:

[spin]

3. Firearms are not for everybody...

but those who can legally chose to own them and are willing to take the time and effort to learn firearm safety and become proficient with their weapons should not be denied the right to have firearms in their home and after obtaining a CCW, on their person.

[wtmusic]

5. Unfortunately in many states it doesn't matter if you're willing

to take the time and effort - training not required.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

9. Correction: "few states". Vermont and Alaska. n/t

[wtmusic]

13. No, those are the states where no permit at all is required.

Now, can you tell me which states require training to get a permit?

[oneshooter]

22. Texas is one

10hr course that includes the CHL law and violence prevention. There is a written test, to pass you must grade a 70% or better. Also there is a weapons proficiency test (live fire) that consists of 50 rds fired from 7yds to 20yds. Again a 70% or better is required to pass.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[X_Digger]

24. 10 don't.. so one in five, roughly. n/t

[PavePusher]

44. And in those states...

Are gun crime rates higher or lower than the National average?

Are they higher or lower than states with more onerous requirements?

Hint: Vermont is a pretty peaceful place, overall. So is New Hampshire, which requires only a background check for a permit. The remainder is left as an exercise for the student.

[Tim01]

23. Not everybody wants to carry a gun. nt

[wtmusic]

30. If everyone had a gun, there wouldn't be any crime nt

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

35. Wrong.

Your on a roll there!

[farmout rightarm]

138. You could actually be right...but we won't ever know, will we?

:eyes:

[paulsby]

59. arm everyone canard

first post no less!

[cognoscere]

76. In the incident that was cited in the OP,

it definitely would have.

[MichaelHarris]

2. Hell man

that's all you got, a 19 year old news story? You might as well cited this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_Bill_Hickok#Death

On August 2, 1876, Hickok was playing poker at Nuttal & Mann's Saloon No. 10 in Deadwood, in the Black Hills, Dakota Territory. On this fateful day Wild Bill violated one of his own cardinal rules and was sitting with his back to a door. Twice he asked Rich to change seats with him and on both occasions Rich refused.

Wild Bill was having a run of bad luck that day and was forced to borrow a poker stake from the bartender. That run of bad luck worsened when an ex-buffalo hunter called John (“Broken Nose Jack”) McCall walked in unnoticed. Jack McCall walked to within a few feet of Wild Bill and then suddenly drew a pistol and shouted, “Take that!” before firing.

Oh yeah, everyone in the bar was armed and it still didn't stop old Wild Bill from being shot. I'm going with epic fail on your sensationalism attempt of a post.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

8. Being armed is no guarantee of safety. It's just another option to have should you need it.

It also helps to be aware instead of having your back turned on the door playing poker.

I'm going with epic fail on your sensationalist straw man.

[spin]

12. So you are saying that the fact that Hupp could have stopped the

second most deadly shooting massacre in American history is irrelevant because it happen 18 years ago?

I guess therefore that the WWII is irrelevant because it happened 60 years ago.

And as far as the incident involving Wild Bill, I would point out that lessons can be learned from this event. Don't sit with your back toward a door.

The two situations are not comparable. John McCall intended to shoot only only person, not the entire room full. Had he attempted that he would have been shot after his first few victims.

I believe Hupp could have easily ended the incident at Luby's with far less fatalities had she had her weapon in her purse. Still, there would have been victims, just not as many and her father and mother would have survived.

[PavePusher]

46. In addition to the Hickock incident...

Wild Bill had gone out of his way to make any number of enemies. Oops.

Hupp and the shooter had no personal relationship. Oops.

[MichaelHarris]

75. What?

I didn't find anything intelligent in your post.

[AtheistCrusader]

97. The hupp incident was a mad dog on a rampage

Wild Bill was taken out by a very specific enemy with a grudge, and he didn't see the attack coming.

So, apples, lug nuts.

However, you have a fair point on the age of the article. How about the 4 police officers gunned down in Tacoma, Wa? There were two other people in the cafe, not in the direct line of fire. Neither were able to do anything about the shooting, because they were not armed. If they had been, perhaps at least one of the officers might have been saved?

Hard to say, when we're thinking about who might or might not have been saved, because you really never can know.

[MichaelHarris]

99. the officers

were armed and unable to defend themselves, just like Wild Bill. How many guns were needed in that coffee shop in order to stop one person?

[AtheistCrusader]

103. One did.

The 'mad dog' walked out with a bullet in his belly too. But you don't seem to grasp initiative/surprise. Four officers sitting around a table, none with a gun in their hands, hostile walks in, kills the first with his first shot. The remaining 3 are sitting directly in the attacker's field of vision and fire.

Do you not see the tactical disadvantage for anyone sitting at that table? Or the advantage of sitting at a different table in the room outside the attacker's field of fire?

Or hell, even the painfully obvious friend/foe identification of 4 uniformed officers, versus some dude off the street?

[MichaelHarris]

104. i see the tactical disadvantage

most armed people have with a criminal who approaches with a gun in hand, do you?

[AtheistCrusader]

106. Yes.

And if it happened to me, I sure as hell hope someone else in the room has a gun, and the mindset to try and do something about it, because diving for cover sort of precludes a clean draw.

[PavePusher]

126. They were not paying attention.

Just like you, come to think of it.

Why do you seem to be insisting that four people, focused on computers and conversation, being killed, equals 'civilians won't be able to protect themselves'? Especially when they seem to do so with encouraging regularity?

[katandmoon]

4. Unrec

[SteveM]

112. Rec.

[donheld]

141. Unrec

[Xela]

145. Rec

[rfranklin]

6. Here's a more recent example...

Lakewood Police shooting kills four Washington police officers
November 29, 2:24 PMSpokane Headlines ExaminerRyan Gamble

The Lakewood Police Department has become the victim of a deadly shooting. Four Lakewood Police officers were killed in a shooting early Sunday morning, and the search is on for suspect or suspects related to the murders. Four officers doing work for the Lakewood Police Department were enjoying coffee at the Cafe Forza coffee house in Spanaway when a gunman entered the coffee shop and opened fire on the officers. The murders are being called "execution style", and it is being reported that the Lakewood police officers were targeted in the event.

The four Lakewood police officers (three males and one female) were at the Parkland Forza Coffee Shop at 8:15 A.M. when a man described as a black male in his mid 20's to mid 30's entered the coffee shop and opened fire on the four police officers. He is further described as standing 5'7" to 5'10" with a medium build and a scruffy face, and was wearing blue jeans with a black coat. Though it hasn't been proclaimed, this is definitely a man that can be considered armed and dangerous and it is important that anyone with any information on this case immediately contact the Lakewood Police Department.

I guess they didn't have "situational awareness."

[wtmusic]

10. If only Suzanna Gratia Hupp was there

she would have saved them all.

[MichaelHarris]

11. or

Billy The Kid

[Towlie]

7. That's got to be the stupidest argumentative fallacy I've heard in a month.

Don't we get enough of that kind of thing from the Republicans?

[spin]

14. It was a good enough argument to get Texas to pass "shall issue"...

concealed carry in 1995.

It also greatly influenced other states to pass similar laws.

By the way many Democrats have concealed firearms permits. One prominent Democrat who does is Bill Richardson, the currentvGovernor of New Mexico.

In 2003, Richardson backed and signed legislation creating a permit system for New Mexicans to carry concealed handguns. He applied for and received a concealed weapons permit, though by his own admission he seldom carries a gun.<28>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Richardson#Governor_of_New_Mexico

[MichaelHarris]

15. in 20 years

how many restaurant massacres were stopped by someone with a carry permit? Not bars or pubs but restaurants?

[spin]

20. Restaurant shootings were replaced by school shootings...

because everybody knows that schools are "gun-free" zones.

But this article the OP was directed at people who were afraid of concealed firearms in restaurants. How many restaurant shootings in the last 20 years have been caused by people with carry permits?

Many states allow licensed citizens to carry concealed in Restaurants. Texas and Florida are two examples.

[MichaelHarris]

71. did you

have an answer to my question or just more spin?

[spin]

119. Ok, that's fair...a list of restaurant shootings since 1984...

Restaurant Shootings

1984 July 18th - USA, California, San Ysidro: James Huberty, born in 1942
in Ohio, walked into a McDonald's restaurant around 4pm. Armed with a
Browning P-35 Hi-Power 9mm pistol, a Winchester 1200 pump-action 12-gauge
shotgun, and an Israeli Military Industrial 9-mm Model A carbine (U2), he
ordered everybody on the ground. Then he started indiscriminately
shooting at children and adults. At 5:10pm, police officers were able to
shoot the assailant. 22 people (including the attacker) died and 19
others were injured.

1991 October 16th - USA, Texas, Killeen, Luby's Restaurant: George
Hennard drove his light Ford pickup truck through the front window of the
cafeteria, got out of the vehicle, and started shooting people execution
style. He was armed with two pistols, a Glock 17 semiautomatic and a
Ruger P89. After being shot and wounded by a police officer, the
assailant shot himself to death. 24 people (including the attacker) died and 20 others were injured.

1996 April 28th - Australia, Island of Tasmania, Port Arthur Historic
Site, Broad Arrow Café: Around 1:30, 28-year-old Martin Bryant started a
shooting spree. Using two military weapons, a self-loading AR-15 rifle
and a SKS assault rifle, he killed twenty people and injured 15 others
inside the café. Outside he continued the rampage including shooting at
little children at point-blank range. In the end, 35 people were dead
and 18 others were wounded.

2000 March 1st. - USA, Pennsylvania, Wilkinsburg: an attacker went on a racially motivated shooting rampage targeting at his apartment building and two nearby fast food restaurants; 3 people died and 2 others were injured.

The attacker surrendered after a standoff at an office building. Police later found anti-white and anti-Jewish writings in his apartment. All the shooting victims were white. In April a judge ruled that the assailant was incompetent to stand trial and ordered him to be placed in a state hospital for treatment of paranoid schizophrenia. In August the attacker was found competent to stand trial as long as he keeps taking his medication.
http://www.emergency-management.net/rest_shoot.htm

I can find no examples of a person with a CCW permit that went wild and shot up a restaurant.

The fact that mass murders in restaurants is rare could also be said about mass murders in other locations. These are not common everyday events. I don't carry a firearm because I expect I will have to ever use it to stop a mass murderer or even an simple attacker. Most people with concealed carry permit feel the same as I do.

But I don't have a magical crystal ball that predicts the future. I wake up in the morning with the intention of going somewhere and I slip my 38 cal snub nosed revolver into my front pocket and I'm off. It's so light that you can forget that you are carrying it. If I stop at Walmart, I carry it into the store. If I stop at a gas station it's in my pocket as I fill up my tank. I don't feel any need to remove my weapon from my pocket when I walk into a restaurant. If anything, taking my firearm out of my pocket as I exited my car and putting it back in as I left could cause some witness heartburn. There are occasions where I do leave my firearm in the car such as when I enter the courthouse.

But if I leave my firearm in my car when I eat at a restaurant it is exposed to theft. Someone might notice that I had removed it when I got out of my car and decide to pull a smash and grab. Now the weapon is in the hands of some fool much more dangerous than I am.

Part of the reason that I carry is what the range master, a retired cop, told me at the gun range I used to shoot at.

He said, "Florida gave you the right to carry a concealed weapon because the state believed armed citizens could help deter crime. You passed all the requirements and you got your license. You are familiar with your handgun and you are a good shot. Now dammit, carry the fucking gun. Use it only if absolutely have to."

"All you silly bastards get carry permits and leave the guns behind. What good does that do? You'll look like a damn fool one day when you realize that you were just a witness when you could have stopped a tragedy. That's if you are lucky enough not to get shot."

I thought about it and what he said made sense. So I carry.

[MichaelHarris]

149. you really chose an appropriate

screen name. Go back and read my question "spin" LOL. Your response didn't answer anything. I'll ask again, how many restaurant shootings have been stopped by a CCW holder?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

37. One cannot answer that question - there's no way to tell if criminals were deterred.

It's like dividing by zero.

How many kids are save from dangerous drugs due to the WOD?
(Who the hell knows... they are events that never happened)

[MichaelHarris]

70. so there are

no news stories or police records available that said someone with a concealed weapon took out a shooter in a restaurant? You really going to use that excuse?

[oneshooter]

19. Not signing the CHL bill

cost Ann Richards her job. As Governor of Texas. George Bush signed the law.

A costly learning process that many here have failed to learn.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[MichaelHarris]

84. and the single-minded

one track mind of the gun owner gave us George Bush on a national stage, thank you so much Texas Democrats.

[beevul]

110. The responsibility lies elsewhere.

"the single-minded one track mind of the gun owner gave us George Bush on a national stage"

Uh no.

The responsibility for that lies at the feet of those that provoked them. Gun owners, left alone, vote on many other issues than guns. That is default.


When under attack, or as in this case, when having been under attack for over a decade, the attackers CAUSED a change from the default (how they vote when left alone) in the priority of the issues that gun owners vote based upon.

Realisticly, those that threaten gun owners rights, real or percieved, are responsible.

To believe the alternative - that gun owners first priority when voting is guns, even when gun owners don't feel threatened on the issue - is sheer lunacy.

But your free to attempt to convince us all, if you believe that.

On edit: If not, you'll be taking those that threaten the rights of gun owners - essentially forcing them to vote on that issue - to task, and laying * at thier feet...right?

[SteveM]

114. And Florida which really got Concealed-carry going, went for Obama.

Not everyone is as single-minded as you.

[spin]

120. McCain was no friend of gun owners and for years got a C rating from the NRA...

Gun owners are as sick of the stupidity that goes on in Washington as everybody else. Obama promised change. Many people, including Democrats are still waiting. Hopefully, Obama will wake up and take back leadership from Reid and Pelosi.

McCain was merely a shadow of the man he was in previous elections. There is no fire left in his belly. He was and is just an old worn out politician who should retire and leave the playing field. Why would anyone vote for him especially after he picked Palin as a running mate.

I often think he really didn't want the job.

[SteveM]

123. The Nov. issue of Field & Stream wasn't impressed by McCain, either...

The editors interviewed Obama and McGain both. They didn't like Obama's prohibitionist stands, but liked his attitude toward open spaces and recreation. They were not impressed with McCain's views on both the outdoors and the AWB.

Your right about the "fire" down below. I saw that in a number of candidates who seem to think they are ordained or even expected to win something; quite different than questing for something.

[Name removed]

144. Deleted message

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

[SteveM]

113. OH, you mean the Brady Center?

[sharesunited]

16. This is a guns-as-solution-to-guns viewpoint.

Better to ask the question why Hennard had his gun.

Because it was his right to have one?

A pretend right, perpetuated by gun love.

[Pavulon]

18. Because it was there. Better to have a choice.

the pretend constitution is a problem for you. The people who banned alcohol actually changed it. That fuckup pretty much assures your position is untenable.

[sharesunited]

21. Alcohol must be consumed. Bullets are inserted into you without consent.

[Pavulon]

25. Alcohol is an addictive chemical, like opiates.

firearms are not.

[sharesunited]

28. The episode of Hoarders last night on A&E showed the story of one worshipper

who had fifty handguns and dozens of rifles, among the other crap in his house.

That guy had problems on SEVERAL levels.

[Pavulon]

31. I have guns in a safe.

not that many. All legal, no harm to anyone.

[sharesunited]

33. Will they be around after you are gone? What do you suppose will become of them?

[Pavulon]

43. Like the ones I inherited, someone else will

enjoy them.

[sharesunited]

54. Ugh. Did you have to say "enjoy?" Now I feel the need to shower.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

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

[sharesunited]

64. Yes, simply fascinating to imagine who it executed at close range.

Quite the lucky talisman.

[Pavulon]

79. Considering the person who brought it back was shot with it

and killed its previous owner with an M1 garand also in my possession makes it a fascinating thing. The garand it a great shooting rifle. Never fired the mauser.

[Pavulon]

92. Do you know german for shower? (nt)

[SteveM]

115. Ahh, the persed lips and gleaming eyes of a true prohi'. What did you get on you?

[spin]

121. Target shooting is a great sport...

but it is a good idea to wash your hands and face and shower and change clothes when you get home, especially if you shoot at an indoor range.

Otherwise you might end up with a high lead level in your system.

You actually accidentally made an almost intelligent statement.

[DonP]

127. Wash with cold water too

I was taught that you should always use cold water to clean up after a session at the range.

Warm or hot water opens your pores and allows the lead to be absorbed more easily, cold water keeps them more closed. At the outdoor range I usually bring along some baby wipes for post shooting clean up.

[spin]

147. I should have mentioned that, also blow your nose. (n/t)

[wtmusic]

34. Those would have come in handy at Luby's

Locked in your safe, and all.

[Pavulon]

42. I CCW daily. Any weapon not on my person is secured.

I dont see the logic of leaving thousands of dollars of weapons loose when I am not home.

[wtmusic]

52. Why are you so afraid? nt

[Pavulon]

55. Two types of people, ones who carry jumper cables and a tow rope

and those who rely on those who do. A weapon is a tool, no more, no less. It provides an option in a situation, thats all. Dont confuse fear with preparedness.

The wife, a surgical attending at a large hospital in RTP, carries as well. No one ever knows because it never comes up.

Pretty simple.

[wtmusic]

65. What kind of helmet do you wear while you're driving

because statistically that will serve you much better than the gun in your pocket.

Or is it the feeling of helplessness you're trying to overcome? Just curious.

[Pavulon]

82. Arai GP5K, with HANS device.

in a spec miata. Full roll cage installed with fire suppression and a NOMEX suit. Fuck burning to death. Though driving to the track on the roads (even in a large truck and trailer) is far more dangerous than racing. Car accidents are much more of a threat to me than guns.

[wtmusic]

86. You wear your helmet while driving the truck then, too?

That would be prudent.

[Pavulon]

90. No, that interferes with line of sight. multi point restraints

also interfere. Everyone is not going the same direction on the road, unlike a road course. No intersections on race track. Plus I would probably get pulled over for suspicion of DWI if i did that.

[AtheistCrusader]

100. True story, I was once pulled over for the 'Click it or Ticket' seat belt campaign

only for the officer to discover I was wearing a 4 point harness. Sent me on my way, nary a ticket.

Not sure if I really consider it a restriction on visibility.. With a horseshoe or a HANS sure, but just a 4 or 5 point harness still allows enough 'look around' space.

[PavePusher]

56. Why are you? n/t

[paulsby]

60. fear canard

take one

[wtmusic]

77. Since you tuck the word "canard" into bed each night with a kiss

I thought I might point out that you don't know what it means. Sorry.

[paulsby]

78. i know it's not really a precise match

but i've become enamored with it, so i keep it.

regardless, it's very popular.

the fear canard.

deal with it.

[wtmusic]

83. The best way to deal with imprecision is to ignore it. nt

[paulsby]

87. or fix it. or deal with it and accept that the underlying point is valid

hth

[SteveM]

116. You're not serious about guns. You like culture war. For YOUR amusement...

and to the benefit of no person or party.

[GreenStormCloud]

135. So What? If they were legal, what is the problem? N/T

[X_Digger]

26. Unless you're driving down the road when the drunk driver plows into you.

Double fail.

[sharesunited]

29. Cars and booze don't mix just like guns and ammo don't mix.

[Pavulon]

32. I cant make a car in my basement.

pretty easy to make firearms.

[X_Digger]

36. Moving the goalposts again?

You said: "Alcohol must be consumed. Bullets are inserted into you without consent." -- as though one must choose to consume alcohol in order to be harmed by it. When in fact, there were 13,846 alcohol related fatalities in 2008, with 5,539 victims of drunk driving, other than the drunk driver. So no, one does not have to consume alcohol to be harmed by it.

Here's another example:

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

[sharesunited]

39. Oh yep. I guess I did. The person harmed in drunk driving did not necessarily consume.

So then, cars are for transporting and booze is for inebriating.

But guns are for killing.

[X_Digger]

45. I notice you studiously ignored this thread..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x292384

Care to explain why the 'for' of any object is relevant?

[sharesunited]

51. I completely missed seeing that thread. But since you asked...

It is the underpinning of our criminal law:

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

The intention of the designer, the machinist, and the end user are all perfectly congruent.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

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

[sharesunited]

69. You're comparing your claimed 80 million gun owners to skilled surgeons.

Say, you ARE generous.

[X_Digger]

81. I'm separating the intent of a nebulous designer from the actual use, good and bad..

Now.. care to answer my question? If the intent of the 'designer, machinist, user' is so important to you, what would you do in my hypothetical? Or will you concede the point that it's not the intent of the designer, but the actual usage by the user that's important?

[sharesunited]

89. It's only access and availability which really matter. That's the public policy of it.

Make guns and ammo scarce, and intention regarding their design and use becomes moot.

Whether anyone meant well or ill can then be pondered in safety from gunshot.

[X_Digger]

95. Shall I consider that a concession?

You seem to have dodged again.

[sharesunited]

96. Well, devoid of the moral judgment whether the resulting death is good or bad...

the designer did intend that his work be used to kill.

That makes him different from a car designer.

It seems key to the distinction as to why guns are different from cars when responding to the popular refrain You Can Use A Car To Kill.

[X_Digger]

105. And this molecule of oxygen is different than that molecule of oxygen..

.. you've yet to provide a cogent reason why design intent matters when speaking about usage.

(And another non-answer to the hypothetical.)

[beevul]

117. Devoid of the moral judgment whether the resulting death is good or bad...

Devoid of the moral judgment whether the resulting death is good or bad, what you have left is legality. Use - lawful or unlawful.

The designer did intend that his work be used LEGALLY.

That makes him different from a car designer how? Chevrolet builds a 638 horsepower corvette...do you assert that by its design that its meant and designed for unlawful use? And by extension its designer INTENDED it FOR unlawful use?

"It seems key to the distinction as to why guns are different from cars when responding to the popular refrain You Can Use A Car To Kill."

No. It "seemed"...

[AtheistCrusader]

101. None of my firearms were designed with murder in mind.

Killing maybe, depending on the weapon. But murder, no. Not unless you consider going to war against facists to be 'murder'.

[GreenStormCloud]

136. But guns are not for killing ONLY.

Guns are for killing, AND for other purposes too.

Nor is killing always wrong, as you seem to imply.

[cowman]

131. Oh I

know guns and ammo mix very well like my AR-15 and 5.56 mm ammo are a match made for each other, hey Shares, when are you going to learn that every time you open your mouth you get slammed, you really must enjoy it

[wtmusic]

27. That, or George Hennard had too many choices that day. nt

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

38. Guns as a solution to gun... yes.

You often hear the "Guns as a solution to guns?!?" snark put forth by people that want to decrease the number of firearms out there. It's an interesting observation and, at face value, does not pass the logic test - how can more guns possibly be a solution? But upon further observation it makes sense with a few qualifiers.

Lets look at antineoplastics for a moment. Antineoplastics are poisons designed to kill. Used improperly, carelessly, or maliciously they can severely injure or kill people. Used correctly, they present a decent chance at curing people from cancer - chemotherapy. Antineoplastics are nothing more than a tool to fight cancer when used properly... a deadly agent used to combat another deadly agent with steep associated risks.

Firearms, used improperly, carelessly, or maliciously can severely injure or kill people. Used correctly, they present a decent chance at preventing grievous bodily injury or death - self defense. Firearms, in the hands of trained law-abiding people, are nothing more than a tool to fight crime. They are tool to equalize the force between an assailant and a victim. Guns, in the hands of qualified citizens, have positive externalities on safety and security.

The problem with attacking gun violence using legislation against the tool is that the law will disproportionately change the actions of those willing to obey the law. The tool is not the problem... the intent (the criminals) are the problem. Said otherwise, anti-gun legislation will handcuff the positive externalities of firearms in the hopes that the negative externalities can be mitigated. That is not sound logic which is further backed up by failed prohibition of illicit items in America and failed gun control around the globe. Legislation efforts to attack criminal possession of firearms - without infringing on the rights of the other 96%+ of the gun-owning population is perfectly acceptable.

"Guns (in the hands of qualified citizens) as a solution to guns (in the hands of criminals)" does make sense.

[wtmusic]

49. Fail.

Your argument assumes that "trained, law-abiding people" never lose their temper. Or that "trained, law-abiding people" never have mental problems. Or that those willing to obey the law may become unwilling to obey the law (think they would turn their guns in?) Or or or...

Or the obvious, naive myth that you can divide up society into criminals/law-abiding people into two nice segments. Guess what? Criminals don't consider themselves criminals.

Lax gun laws result in more crime and injury. Proven again, and again, and again, and again. Don't know why I bother, but for the record:

MYTH: Keeping guns in the home increases personal protection.
TRUTH: Obviously, self defense is not a good argument against gun control since those who own firearms are actually more likely to be victims of homicide. Two studies published in The New England Journal of Medicine revealed that keeping a gun in the home increases the risk of both suicide and homicide. Keeping a gun in the home makes it 2.7 times more likely that someone will be a victim of homicide in your home (in almost all cases the victim is either related to or intimately acquainted with the murderer) (source) and 4.8 times more likely that someone will commit suicide (source). Guns make it more likely that a suicide attempt will be successful than if other means were used such as sleeping pills.

MYTH:"Guns don't kill, people kill people" is a good argument against gun control.
TRUTH: This pro-gun argument makes about as much sense as claiming that "glasses don't see, eyes see" is a good argument against wearing glasses. Glasses are a tool which help people to see just as guns are a tool that help people to kill and injure others. Empirical research indicates that firearms increase the chances that a crime will turn deadly. A study done by the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence reported that a victim is about five times more likely to survive if an attacker is armed with a knife rather than a gun (source). Furthermore, The International Crime Victim Survey concluded that there is a correlation between gun ownership and an increase in both homicide and suicide. "The present study, based on a sample of eighteen countries, confirms the result of previous work based on the 14 countries surveyed during the first International Crime Survey. Substantial correlations were found between gun ownership and gun-related as well as total homicide and suicide rates. Widespread gun ownership has not been found to reduce the likelihood of fatal events committed with other means. Thus, people do not turn to knives and other potententially lethal weapons less often when more guns are available, but more guns usually means more victims of homicide and suicide." (source- PDF File).

MYTH: Guns are used defensively 2.5 million times each year in the US.
TRUTH: Gary Kleck conducted a survey which concluded that 2.5 million people in the US each year use guns to defend themselves. One percent of the US population is between 2 and 3 million. So if only one percent of the survey respondents had answered the survey dishonestly that would make the results of the survey inaccurate by millions. According to the NCVS (National Crime Victim Survey) guns are used defensively less than 100,000 times each year (source). The NCVS surveyed over 90,000 people. In contrast, Kleck only surveyed about 5,000 people. Thus it would be reasonable to conclude that the NCVS provides a more reliable estimate of the number of defensive gun uses in the US. An article published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (Northwestern)87 (1997): 1430 revealed that using methods similiar to Kleck's, it could be concluded that nearly 20 million Americans have seen aircraft from another planet and that one million Americans have had contact with aliens.

http://www.guninformation.org/

[X_Digger]

53. Ahh, Gunz as disease again..

Rather than say it all again, Euromutt did a much better job the last time this came up.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=290313#292405

[wtmusic]

61. Ooh, lots of words.

Which argument of Euromutt's do you find most convincing? (Bet: you didn't even read the fucking thing).

I provided international statistics and you provide public health research, into what? A Polish study concerning MMR vaccine and autism?

:rofl:

Thanks, you made my day.

[X_Digger]

68. Fine, I'll quote myself..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=221485

And hey, nice dodge. Please, do continue to treat a social problem like a disease- as though guns were attracted to one another like pieces of shit in the presence of a flocculant at a water treatment plant.

[wtmusic]

72. Small picture.

Guns in the home, guns in the workplace. CCW. All irrelevant in the big picture.

Societies with stricter gun control laws have less crime, period. It is indisputable.

[X_Digger]

91. Small picture? It's the basis of the handful of circular- and self-referential..

.. articles listed as the source for many of the 'myths' in the page you linked.

Kellerman cites Hemenway who cites Hemenway who cites Kellerman.. on top of the holes in methodology and application identified by both me and Euromutt (among many many many here.)

Societies with stricter gun control laws have less crime, period. It is indisputable.

Societies with stricter gun control, who never had much civilian gun ownership to begin with frequently have less crime than the united states.

Of course, our non-gun crime still outstrips the total crime of many of those countries.

In order for your supposition to have merit, find me a graph or list of figures that show crime rates before and after implementation of strict gun control, and let's analyze. See if it was already on a downward trend, and see if there's an acceleration of the trend downward, or if the rate remained stable, or even moved up.

Not just gun crime, total crime, since that's the assertion you made ("have less crime, period.")

[GreenStormCloud]

140. Really? Have you taken a look at Mexico? N/T

[X_Digger]

74. Oh and by the way?

Had you actually clicked on those little blue "source" words in the body of the page you quoted? You'd be taken to places like this..

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/329/15/1084
"Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home"
Arthur L. Kellermann, Frederick P. Rivara, Norman B. Rushforth, Joyce G. Banton, Donald T. Reay, Jerry T. Francisco, Ana B. Locci, Janice Prodzinski, Bela B. Hackman, and Grant Somes

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/327/7/467
"Suicide in the home in relation to gun ownership"
L Kellermann, FP Rivara, G Somes, DT Reay, J Francisco, JG Banton, J Prodzinski, C Fligner, and BB Hackman

Or.. Hey, a Duke Law Student's homepage.. http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~zj5j-gttl/index.htm

Or David Hemenway's screed.. http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Hemenway1.htm

[wtmusic]

80. You found them, finally.

By the time you found Kellermann I had already read it. Euromutt's objections are spurious and non-specific.

If you want to take up specific points be my guest. I will not disappoint.

[X_Digger]

85. Lol, I caught it the _first_ time around..

.. hence my link to Euromutt's post trashing the 'gunz as disease' methodology.

I think you need to catch up.

[wtmusic]

88. No, you need to catch up.

What specifically about Euromutt's analysis do you find most convincing? *drums fingers on desk*

[X_Digger]

94. I find compelling in his analysis the same things I found in mine..

Correlation does not equal causation being one that both of us highlighted.

Euromutt-
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=290313#292405
"Most commonly, when conclusions aren't supported by the research, it takes the form of establishing a correlation, and then insinuating that there is therefore a casual relationship. In logic, this is known as a post hoc ergo propter hoc ("after this, therefore because of this") fallacy; in statistics, any first-year social science student can tell you that "correlation does not imply causation." An entire vocabulary has developed in medical and public health research (possibly in other fields as well) in an effort to side-step this fact, featuring such weasel words as "linked to," "risk factor" and "associated with." And again, the public health research on firearms is entirely retrospective, a form of study that due its nature cannot establish controls in advance for possible confounding factors, and that consequently tends to produce associations that are later proven spurious. So not only do the found correlations not actually mean there's a casual link, the correlations themselves may be non-existent."

while I posited-
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=221485
"Thirdly, correlation doesn't equate to causation. They state in one place, "keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide". "Associated with", not "causally related to". The possibility of why a gun was kept in the home was not explored nor accounted for- so a person who lives in a high crime neighborhood who may _already_ be at higher risk of homicide death was treated the same as a person shot in a "nice" neighborhood."

[friendly_iconoclast]

107. Also note, the sources cited are all pre-2003 and would be moot even *if* they were accurate...

...given the recent surge in gun ownership and decline in violent crime in the United States.

Yeah, if I were promoting gun control, I'd elide post 2004 events too if I could get away with it.

Reality seems to have an anti-statist bias.

[AtheistCrusader]

108. I think your wording was better than Euromutt's.

Not that his is wrong, it's just yours is more accessible.

Additional factors:

A battered, estranged spouse obtaining a firearm for protection, but getting murdered anyway. Did the gun she owned make her more or less likely for her to die, regardless of the actual outcome?

The study is directly suggesting that owning a firearm makes you more likely to be killed, without establishing whether ownership is in any way linked to the actual deaths recorded.

[X_Digger]

129. *nod* that's why the public health 'studies' of guns are hinky..

Sometimes, they treat guns like gas molecules that expand to fill a given volume evenly, at other times they treat them like pieces of waste being attracted to each other at a water treatment plant. Little, if any, thought is given to motivations or other human factors- after all, bacteria and virii can't think, so those kinds of considerations are beyond the norm of epidemiologists.

[SteveM]

You should hire out to the NRA. Really. They pay for your stuff.nt

[beevul]

118. Wow...

An anti-gun cite that belongs in 1994.

It contains lots of discredited studies, and non-current information.


Yep. Belongs in 1994.

[GreenStormCloud]

139. That site has misinformed you.

It is a myth that normal law-abiding people with no history of violence will suddenly lose control and kill in anger if a gun is present. It is extremely rare for a homicide to be a person's first criminal offense. Studies by criminologists show that almost always a murderer has a history of violent behavior.

Yes, society can be divided into criminal/law-abiding. There is such a think as a prior conviction record, and a person's police record. If a person has a prior felony conviction, that person has a criminal past. If a person is engaged in an illegal enterprise, such as drug dealing, he is a criminal, regardless of what he thinks of himself. While criminals may not think of themselves as criminals, they damn sure know that drug dealing, robbing, burgling, mugging, mayhem, assault, extortion, murder and such are against the law. Why do you think they try to avoid getting caught by the police, if they don't know that what they are doing is against the law? People with clean police records almost never commit gun crimes.

In the past twenty years there has been tremendous loosening of the gun laws in this country. Forty states now have shall-issue concealed carry, with too of those allowing any citizen to carry concealed. Yet the crime rate is dropping. The murder rate in DC has dropped after the Heller decision.

The study by NEJM is deeply flawed. It assumes that all homes that have guns are identical, and makes no attempt to sort out the different types. A home that includes a violent felon who has a gun is much more likely the suffer gun violence than a home such as mine. (Two loving senior citizens who have never had any police record.)

but more guns usually means more victims of homicide and suicide. Perhaps you should notice that guns sales for the past 15 years have been strongly up, and crime has dropped dramatically during that same time. If that site's statement were true, then crime should have gone up instead of down.

Suicide. There are other industrial countries with higher suicide rates than the US. Further, many suicide attempts with pills are phony attempts. They are like the jumper who stands on a ledge until the police talk him back to safety. It wasn't a true attempt, but a desperate plea for help. Such attempts are NOT to be taken lightly, but the person didn't really intend to die either. If a person really wants to kill themselves, there are many ways that will work just as surely as a gun - in fact some are even more certain. A gun does not cast a magic spell that says, "Use me to off yourself."

There are no good solid studies on defensive gun uses. All attempts to measure them have problems. And the number itself is a moving target as the number of people with guns increases and as the number of criminals goes down. (Crime rate is decreasing.) So the number of DGUs has both an upward and a downward pressure. I do know that my wife has used her gun to save her life once. That is enough for me. And I do personally know others who have had DGUs.

[spin]

148. Nothing causes a person to be pro- gun more than a DGU ...

especially if it involves a close family member.

And to be fair, there is probably nothing that causes a person to be anti-gun more than an incident in which a family member is injured or killed because of the misuse of a firearm.

[jgraz]

146. All it takes is one black president

and those "trained, law-abiding people" start thinking about turning their guns on whomever Glenn Beck tells them to.

[PavePusher]

151. Really?!? Where? n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

98. I'm sure driving his truck in through the front of the building was totally harmless.

[proteus_lives]

109. Pretend right?

Wow. Civility rules prevent from calling you what you really are.

:puke:

[GreenStormCloud]

128. Self-defense is a natural right. Guns are the most effective self-defense tool. N/T

[quickesst]

17. Why even try?

Many here, out of ignorance, would rather sacrifice their husband, wife, or child for their ideology. A normal person would have to be lying to believe that. Put into a situation where a gunman/woman/men/women were aiming their weapon at said ignoramuses or loved ones, they would wish their was a person near who would have the courage and presence of mind to take said gunmen/women out before their wife/children/husband were gunned down for no logical reason. That means they're dead for those who cannot fathom what it would be like to lose a loved one in such a useless way. They can spout all the ideological bullshit they want, and do it until the cows come home, but in the end, they would regret their was noone near to prevent their own personal tragedy. Bullshit talks, reality walks. I won't sacrifice my family for ideology, and neither will anyone else, no matter their affiliation. To do so is arrogance to the nth degree, and a clear message to their loved ones that they are dispensable if it comes to going against one's ideological convictions. I don't buy it for a second. Thanks.

quickesst

On edit: If there were no bad people who are willing to kill the innocent, I would agree with a ban on guns except for competition, and responsible hunting. I participate in neither, but respect, and support those that do.

[beevul]

111. Or worse.

"Many here, out of ignorance, would rather sacrifice their husband, wife, or child for their ideology."

Or worse - someone elses.

[X_Digger]

40. I love the shrill screeching..

When shown something like this, some folks have to puff up and screech to try to drown out the point- namely that you can't expect the police to be there and save your ass when the shit hits the fan.

[wtmusic]

41. Kinda like the idea that anyone can make the shit hit the fan

It's all about firepower, baby

[PavePusher]

47. Silly nonsense is still nonsense. Yawn. n/t

[X_Digger]

48. "The beatings will continue until morale improves.."

You can lay back and enjoy it, or you can do something about it.

Some of us care to take responsibility for ourselves, not blame the police when they don't respond fast enough, or blame tools that the criminals use, or blame some other nebulous concept.

Some of us work to eliminate poverty and prejudice, some of us work to decrease social inequality, and some of us work with underprivileged kids to give them role models. All in an effort to create a better society that will breed fewer criminals to begin with. And while those efforts continue, we'll look after ourselves in the clutch.

You? Keep up the shrill squeal, I think it's driving the mosquitoes away.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

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

[PavePusher]

57. Oooo, another strawman.

Put'im in the far cornor, we're runnin' out'o'space 'round 'ere, mate.


Seriously, this place is starting to become a real fire hazard.

[wtmusic]

63. No doubt you can explain why it's a straw man.

Or you can't. Hell, I would settle for you even being able to define what constitutes a "straw man". :eyes:

[PavePusher]

93. Odd, your post has been deleted.

And it was such a strong argument... for... something...

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html

[SteveM]

124. It's that cellulose kinda thingy that flips up to your canard. nt

[cowman]

132. well

your right about that, it's all about my firepower being greater than a criminals firepower

[paulsby]

62. we do our best (or at least i do), but ultimately individuals are

responsible for their own safety and/or their friends/familes.

[X_Digger]

67. *nod* Not a knock on LEO's AT ALL!

[paulsby]

73. i appreciate that

even if some of us weren't being lazy, eating cheezy poofs and doing crossword puzzles in the car, there are only so many officers per capita, and often quite long response times.

simply as a matter of physics, we can't be two places at once, and there are often rural areas etc with long response times, etc.

the VAST majority of cops i know support concealed carry.

[spin]

122. It's just my opinion...

but I think cops are more underpaid than school teachers and are far better at their job.

[paulsby]

125. man, on this site, that's gonna get you flamed or ignored :)

but i'm all warm and fuzzy now

[cowman]

133. Boy

that's a fact. As a LVFD I make more than a Metro cop. I once told a cop I wouldn't want tneir job for any amount and he told me he thought I was crazy because I would eagarly run into a burning building while everyone else was running out

[jeepnstein]

134. "Crazy" is kind of a relative term, isn't it?

[cowman]

137. Let's

just say he thought I had a screw loose somewhere. Most street cops I know also support the right of law abiding citizens to carry concealed

[paulsby]

152. i've seen both worlds

used to be a firefighter (can we still say "fireman"? :) )

now am a cop.

liked firefighting. my main problem was how rarely i did fight fires. mostly medical these days. back in the day before modern fire safety, sprinkler systems, etc. fires were MUCH MUCH more common. obviously, i am not saying i want more fires. but my point was i wasn't fighting fire very often. medical stuff is ok, but i can do that to an extent as a cop, plus i get lots of other stuff.

i may lateral to fire when i get a bit older though.

[jeepnstein]

130. What's wrong with some cheezy poofs once in a while?

You just have to keep the crumbs off you gear. I often would eat in my cruiser when working the road. It was easier than trying to find somewhere for lunch where you didn't have to have your time monopolized by someone thinking they needed to tell you all their personal problems. I was actually assigned a detail once where I was ordered to go stationary and read my Ohio Revised Code and wait for a particular call. There was a quiz at the end of the shift to make sure I didn't slip a copy of Guns and Ammo into the car.

Some times just sitting in one place is the best plan. I can't tell you how many miles I wasted doing "patrol" only to wind up on the wrong end of my territory when a call comes in. On the other hand, I remember one of my training officers blowing a shift sitting on someone's front porch engaging in a watermelon seed spitting contest. So there are some real losers out there. They don't last long. Far too often people confuse lazy with someone catching up on paperwork and making some follow up phone calls.

None of that matters, really, because when the seconds count the police are only minutes away.

[Dappleganger]

102. The parking lots are my greatest concern...

which is pretty much par for the course here in Jacksonville.

[GreenStormCloud]

142. I am armed when in a restaurant, but I am not really worried about crime IN the place.

But I have go get from home to restaurant, with my wonderful loving wife (She also carries.), and from the restaurant to wherever we are going next, (Maybe a movie) and eventually back to the car in a darkened parking lot. Those are the places where I want the gun handy, just in case. Having it in the restaurant does not harm anyone, so what is the big deal?

[GreenStormCloud]

143. Self-delete. Posted in wrong place. N/T

[MichaelHarris]

150. do you use the gun

for undercooked meat then?